A Teaching On the Duty to Preserve Life

To answer the question on whether in Christianity one is morally obligated to preserve one’s life and health specifically with a
transplant, and the moral limits governing such responsibility, I will give a brief background of the teaching on the duty to preserve
life.

Traditionally, Christian moral discussions on the responsibility for health and the preservation of life are discussed within the context
of violations to human life such as suicide, euthanasia and homicide. Saint Thomas Aquinas, whose teaching in this regard was most
influential on theologians after the thirteenth century, set the basic parameters for theological reflections on the moral responsibility
and proper limits for the sustenance of life.

According to St. Thomas Aquinas, life is a gift from God to be loved, nurtured and lived in proper charity. The human being, as a
respectful steward of this gift, does not possess absolute dominion over it. Absolute dominion over life belongs only to God (Summa
Theologica, II. II. Q 64 Art. 5.). Consequently, any willful destruction of one’s own life or the lives of others, especially of the
innocent, is always considered a serious objective evil because it violates the natural law of self-preservation and charity toward the
self and others (Summa Theologica II. II. Q65, Art. 1). Such acts reject the proper limits of stewardship and the sovereignty of God
over life and death. This means that suicide and homicide are sins against oneself, against community, and against God (Summa
Theologica, II. II. Q 64 Art. 5.).

This view of St. Thomas on the responsible stewardship of God’s gift of life has been consistently upheld by theologians and the
church’s teachings. The Roman Catholic Church issued a statement in 1980, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the
Faith’s Declaration on Euthanasia, reaffirming this traditional view of human life, its meaning, purpose and the responsibilities for this
gift.

If human stewardship of life implies negatively that one has no moral authority whatsoever to commit suicide or willful neglect, the
positive implication is that one is morally responsible for nurturing and sustaining the gift of one’s life. But the preservation of life and
health is not an absolute moral duty. For St. Thomas, God is the ultimate meaning and purpose of every human life. Human life is only
a temporal reality. If the act of preserving life helps a person toward God as his or her final end, then there is a moral obligation to
take the necessary means conducive for the preservation of life. But if preserving life hinders one’s ultimate union with the Creator,
then it would be an objective sinful act since it frustrates the ultimate meaning of one’s life. St. Thomas writes:

Every man [sic] has it instilled in him by nature to love his own life and whatever is directed thereto; and to do so in
due measure, that is, to love these things not as placing his end therein, but as things to be used for the sake of his
last end. Hence it is contrary to the natural inclination, and therefore a sin, to fall short of loving them in due
measure. Nevertheless, one never lapses entirely from this love: since what is natural cannot be wholly lost: for
which reason the Apostle says: "No man ever hated his own flesh." Wherefore even those that slay themselves do so
from love of their own flesh, which they desire to free from present stress. Hence it may happen that a man fears
death and other temporal evils less than he ought, for the reason that he loves them less than he ought. . . Temporal
goods are to be despised as hindering us from loving and serving God, and on the same score they are not to be
feared; wherefore it is written: "He that feareth the Lord shall tremble at nothing." But temporal goods are not to be
despised, in so far as they are helping us instrumentally to attain those things that pertain to Divine fear and love.
(Summa Theologica II. II. Q 126, Art 1.)

It is clear that for St. Thomas, the pursuit of health and life as a good should be done only in accordance with whether such pursuit
aids the person toward the goal of final union with God. A person is morally obliged to take care of one’s own health and to prolong
life in so far as it is in accordance with that end. Just as it is possible for one to sin against responsible stewardship of life through
culpable negligence, it is also possible for one to sin against responsible stewardship through an inordinate love of life by making its
preservation as one’s ultimate end.

people.bu.edu/wwildman/courses/thth/projects/thth_projects_2003_lewis/Aquinas.htm

SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: Murder (Secunda Secundae Partis, Q. 64) (newadvent.org)

What Is An Intrinsic Evil? | Catholic Parents OnLine

FROM: What Is An Intrinsic Evil? | Catholic Parents OnLine

On the principle of self-defense they can be justifiable. Yes but they are not always justifiable. That is true but they are not always
UNjustifiable also – that’s why they are NOT considered intrinsic evils.

Well the common good requires peace. The Catechism says so.

CCC 1909 Finally, the common good requires peace, that is, the stability and security of a just order. It presupposes that authority
should ensure by morally acceptable means the security of society and its members. It is the basis of the right to legitimate
personal and collective defense.

The common good DOES require peace but that doesn’t mean you cannot protect yourself, your family, or your country against
an aggressor. CCC 1910 says to “defend” the common good is one of the purposes of a political community. Armed resistance to
oppression IS reasonable IS appropriate and IS even a duty, but only under certain conditions. What are those conditions? CCC
2242 tells us (see also CCC 2307-2317):

CCC 2243 Armed resistance to oppression by political authority is not legitimate, unless all the following conditions are met: 1)
there is certain, grave, and prolonged violation of fundamental rights; 2) all other means of redress have been exhausted; 3) such
resistance will not provoke worse disorders; 4) there is well-founded hope of success; and 5) it is impossible reasonably to foresee
any better solution.

Well let’s discuss certain wars here to see which ones are legitimate and not legitimate.

No. The purpose here isn’t to debate, which conditions have or have not been met for a given war or wars. The purpose of this
discussion is to show that armed resistance to oppression (war) is not considered by the Church to be an intrinsic evil! That is the
purpose of this discussion here today. Not only is it NOT an intrinsic evil, but also sometimes it may be a “grave duty”!

CCC 2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies (emphasis mine) is not an exception to the prohibition against the
murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of
one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor . . . . The one is intended, the other is not.”65

CCC 2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s
own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:
(emphasis mine) If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with
moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to
avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.66

CCC 2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The
defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who
legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their
responsibility (all emphasis mine).