Marriage and Domestic Partnership Law

Nicholas Lund-Molfese, “Salvifici Doloris (The Christian Meaning of Human Suffering).” Catholic Social Thought, Social Science and Social Policy, Eds. Joseph Varacalli, Stephen Krason, and Richard Myers. (Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow Press, 2007).

On February 11, 1984, on the memorial of Our Lady of Lourdes, in the sixth year of his pontificate, John Paul II issued the apostolic letter, Salvifici Doloris, in which he reflected on the meaning and nature of suffering. Suffering is not only “inseparable from man’s earthly existence,” (§3) it is somehow “essential to the nature of man” and “belongs to man’s transcendence.” (§2) As man’s earthly life is always “on the long path of suffering,” and as the Church was “born of the mystery of Redemption in the cross of Christ,” suffering is a privileged meeting place between man and the Church so that man-in-his-suffering “becomes the way for the Church.” (§3) In Christ, “God has confirmed his desire to act especially through suffering.” (§23) In fact, the work of salvation is a labor of suffering. (§16) “It is suffering, more than anything else, which clears the way for the grace which transforms human souls. Suffering, more than anything else, makes present in the history of humanity the powers of the Redemption.” (§27)

Salvifici Doloris, called by the respected Protestant philosopher Alvin Plantinga, “one of the finest documents (outside the Bible) ever written on this topic,” is of great importance for social scientists. While the subject of “suffering” may seem to be more appropriately treated by the disciplines of theology and philosophy, cultural attitudes towards suffering determine, perhaps more than any other single factor, a given society’s support for what John Paul II calls “the culture of death.” As combating such a culture and building a “culture of life” is a grave duty, the scholarly and practical application by Catholic social scientists of this apostolic letter is of the greatest importance.

Abortion, euthanasia and various biomedical procedures (in vitro fertilization, stem cell harvesting, embryo research, etc.), which commonly result in the death of human persons in the embryonic stage of their development, are among the leading elements of the culture of death. Each of these practices enjoys substantial popular support, at least in so-called “hard cases.” Such cases are not “hard” because the application of the relevant exceptionless moral norm – one may never intentionally kill an innocent human person – is unclear, but because the application requires the acceptance of suffering on the part of oneself or others.

Motivated by the desire to avoid suffering by any means, persons use, and believe it is a fundamental right to use, medical technologies which violate the dignity of the human person or destroy human life. For example, supporting the prohibition of abortion in cases of rape requires accepting the foreseeable, but unintended, consequence that a woman who conceives by rape may suffer as a result of carrying her child to term. Finding that suffering unacceptable, American public opinion widely supports the legality of abortion in cases of rape. Prohibiting in vitro fertilization (because the procedure routinely results in the destruction of embryonic persons) requires accepting that some couples, who might otherwise have recourse to this technique, will suffer from being unable to have a biological child of their own. Thus, the fact that IVF has resulted in over 200,000 frozen embryos in storage in America alone, the vast majority headed for destruction, has not resulted in any substantial opposition to IVF. Prohibiting stem cell and embryo research (which also involves the destruction of embryonic human beings) means accepting the possibility that a treatment for Parkinson’s disease or spinal cord injuries could be delayed. Voicing an opinion held by many Americans, and giving evidence that a false understanding of suffering is among the main elements supporting the cultural of death, one newspaper columnist commented, “Opposition to stem cell research is the reduction ad absurdum of the right-to-life argument…. opponents of stem-cell research would allow real people, who can suffer, to do so in service of the abstract principle that embryos are people too.”

In this context, John Paul II’s effort to remind our post-Christian culture of the true meaning of suffering is of enormous social consequence. The Catholic faith stands in sharp contrast to our culture’s perception that suffering is evil in itself and to be avoided by any means, even the killing of the innocent. Rather, the Pope teaches that while suffering entered the world due to human sin, it has a new meaning in light of the redemptive work of Christ. Suffering “is present in the world in order to release love” and “in order to transform the whole of human civilization into a “civilization of love.” (§30) Every person is called to participate in that suffering through which our redemption was accomplished and through which all suffering was redeemed. “In bringing about the Redemption through suffering, Christ has also raised human suffering to the level of the Redemption. Thus each man in his suffering can also become a sharer in the redemptive suffering of Christ.” (§19) Christ, who took on all human suffering, participates in every individual’s suffering and that suffering is “capable of being infused with the same power of God manifested in Christ’s Cross.” (§23)

One could not imagine a greater contrast between our culture’s understanding of suffering and the teaching of the Magisterium. The task of Catholic social scientists is clear; we must infuse the teaching of Salvifici Doloris into popular culture and into the popular mind. Such work is necessary for the development of a culture of life. Only when suffering is understood in the context of Christ will there be sufficient public support to provide legal protection for human life in the “hard cases” already discussed. Only in such a culture will there be sufficient support for persons to choose life, even in the face of great current or future suffering.

Lund-Molfese, “The Gift of Suffering vs. Euthanasia,” Social Justice Review, (Vol. 90: No. 11-12, November/December 1999).

Lund-Molfese, “Salvifici Doloris: A Challenge to Catholic Social Scientists,” Social Justice Review, (Vol. 91: No. 7-8, July/August, 2000).

Plantinga, Alvin, “Philosophers respond to Pope John Paul II’s encyclical letter, Fides et Ratio,” Books & Culture, (Vol. 5: No. 4, July/August 1999).