Editors’ note: The following appeared in our Spring, 2012 issue, in the Symposium, “Truth-Telling in the Public Square.” We are pleased to reprint it here in tribute to Cardinal Timothy Dolan, our Great Defender of Life honoree, 2026. His words resonate as much today as they did then.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

The question of how best to frame arguments defending the sanctity of human life in the public square is not merely a matter of preparing for a debating contest. It goes to the very essence of what it means to be human and how we are to live with one another.

Indeed, the value and dignity of human life is not a sectarian issue only for Catholics or Christians, nor is it just a question of pragmatic politics. While these are areas of particular interest and expertise for the Church, it is vital for a healthy society that all participate robustly in the debate.

Even in this secularized age, most people welcome the contribution of religious organizations in the public square. But sadly, more and more, we hear people say that religion is inherently divisive, or that a faith-based perspective is not even rational. They believe that only neutral secular principles can provide a valid basis for public policy, and that appeals to transcendent values—such as religion—cannot be legitimately part of the debate. Participants in public discourse are expected to set aside their religious convictions, as a condition of joining the discussion.

We reject these arbitrary limitations on our ability to participate in the marketplace of ideas. There is no conflict between faith and reason, and our theology is just as rigorous and rational a body of thought as any field of secular learning. Interestingly, these limits never seem to be imposed on any other philosophical or value-based point of view—just imagine even suggesting that those who believe in modern gender theory must be excluded from an important public debate, because their position is a transcendent value and thus the secular equivalent of religious belief.

This anti-religious assumption has dire consequences. It betrays who we are. It asks us to deny our very identity as believing persons, and pretend that we are atheists. But we cannot divide ourselves—we cannot act in private as a religious person, but as a secularist in public. How can we truly engage others on a human level, if we must deny who we are, and who they are?

The contribution of religious voices and religious values is essential if we are to have a discussion worthy of the human person and a truly human society. We are not mere creatures of reason or appetite or interest. Science alone cannot speak the full truth about human nature. We are necessarily spiritual beings, concerned about transcendent values. Our culture is currently under-going a crisis, in which the sense of God has been eclipsed and people have lost the understanding that they have a responsibility to something higher than themselves. This is a spiritual crisis that demands a spiritual response. Indeed, all great reform movements in American history—the Revolution, abolition, temperance, progressivism, civil rights, and the pro-life movement—have been religiously inspired.

The public discussion must therefore engage these ultimate values, even when there is profound disagreement about them. The only way to genuinely respect divergences of opinion, and to express true tolerance and understanding for those with whom we differ, is to be open to a discussion of the ultimate questions of the purpose and meaning of human life. Religion cannot be excluded from that conversation, if we are to live together in a fully human way.

As a practical matter, the exclusion of religious content from the public debate will inevitably lead to the dominion of ethical relativism, in which no human rights can be guaranteed with certainty. Without an understanding of the relationship between law and ultimate truth, lawmakers will inevitably base their decisions on power politics, or the whims of raw utilitarian and consequentialist calculations. By denying the transcendent, this positivist approach to law “diminishes man, indeed it threatens his humanity” (Pope Benedict XVI, Address to the Bundestag, 2011). Nobody will be safe, and society will be a dangerous place, as we can see by looking around us at the modern world and recent history—genocide, terrorism, warfare, euthanasia and suicide, human trafficking, and abortion, just to name a few.

As a result, when the Church steps into the public square, we cannot do so as if we were just another secular institution or association—a social service agency, a school system, a network of hospitals, or even a collection of voters. It is certainly true that we are all of those things, and they give us broad experience and a particular perspective in the debate, particularly when it comes to issues involving the poorest and most vulnerable.

But the Church is more than this. We always and primarily are evangelists, with a mission to proclaim the Gospel and to call people to a conversion of heart. To do this, we must address the issues—and our audience—on several different levels, each of which involves an appeal to the truth about human life and the human person.

The first approach involves the moral norms written in the human heart, which can be discerned by reason through reflection upon human nature. This is the natural law, which is the best point of departure for civil dis-course and forms the necessary foundation for all just civil laws. Its principles are universal, binding upon all, and independent of any particular cultural or historical traditions.

The exceptional nature of humanity, and the dignity and inviolability of every human life are bedrock principles of the natural law. We understand that each human being is unique and irreplaceable, that human life begins at the moment of conception, and that human beings are qualitatively different from other animals. This is confirmed by both biology and philosophy. We understand that there are universal qualities that make us human, but also that our human nature and dignity are not lost in the event of a temporary or accidental loss of function or qualities. Contrary to some of the dark eugenic impulses in modern society, one never stops being human, merely because one is disabled, old, or in the womb.

The natural law is the common moral lexicon of Western civilization. It al-lows us to engage in a fruitful discussion, for instance, about the appalling fact that over 40% of all pregnancies in New York City end in abortion. It enables us to join with philosophers and bioethicists in considering the meaning and potential consequences of human cloning and embryonic stem-cell research. It permits us to defend the unborn and disabled against those who would dismiss their humanity or rights because of their condition of dependency or a “quality of life” deemed “unworthy.”

The next, deeper level of our argument stems from the fundamental core of our religious faith itself—that every human being has been made in the image and likeness of God, that we have been placed in a special position of responsible stewardship over the rest of creation, that we have been redeemed by Jesus Christ who was both true God and true man, and that we are all called to a vocation of love through the service of others.

We should thus have no qualms about making the argument that human beings are unique in creation, that all human beings are brothers and sisters under God, and are members of a common family that transcends all superficial differences of race, sex, age, and so on. A great number of people in our society share these beliefs, and we can—we must—appeal to this consensus. This approach was followed by many leading Christian social crusaders, like Rev. Martin Luther King and Dorothy Day. We should be proud to follow their example.

There are many who may not accept our religious beliefs, but who nevertheless see them as valuable contributions to the public debate. After all, the teachings of our Church are reflected in many ways in the beliefs of other faith traditions, and we can appeal to this common ground. St. Paul would be familiar with this situation, since it is similar to his appeal in Athens to the philosophers’ openness to hearing about “an unknown god” (Acts 17:16). Our final contribution to the public debate must always be directed to the innate human vocation to love. Our mission is ultimately not just about convincing, but it is always about converting. In Pope John Paul’s great encyclical letter, Evangelium vitae, he said that our aim is “a general mobilization of con-sciences and a united ethical effort to activate a great campaign in support of life.” The goal is not just the enactment of good laws that protect human life, but the transformation of hearts so that threats to life are simply unimaginable. Love is essential to this conversion.

This is made explicit when we call others to compassion for those who are most vulnerable to the various threats to life and dignity. Within the heart of every person is an understanding of the ties that bind us, and that differentiate us from the animal kingdom. An appeal to this innate solidarity of all people was a common feature of all the great reform movements—one need only recall the famous “slavery medallions” of the British abolitionist movement, which depicted a man in chains asking the poignant question, “Am I not a man and a brother?” We have the tools for this at hand—modern science has opened a window to the womb so that we may see our unborn brethren, and we have so many examples of the beautiful dignity in the lives of our elderly and handicapped friends. This is an emotional appeal to basic human empathy, and we should never hesitate to make it.

But we also make this argument by the way that we serve others in love. Here is where the Church truly comes into her own. As Pope Benedict notes in his encyclical, Deus caritas est, “The entire activity of the Church is an expression of a love that seeks the integral good of man . . . Love is therefore the service that the Church carries out in order to attend constantly to man’s sufferings and his needs, including material needs.”

Every act of love and charity reflects the luminous beauty and uniqueness of human dignity, both in the actor and in the one who is served. This is an indispensable part of our argument—without it, no other appeal, however powerfully reasoned, can possibly succeed.

In the end, then, the most effective way to frame our arguments on behalf of human life is by reaching out with reason, faith, love, and empathy. That is also the only way to build a truly human society.

______________________________________________

Original Bio:

Cardinal Timothy Michael Dolan is Archbishop Emeritus of New York, having served as Archbishop from 2009 to 2025. He was made a Cardinal by Pope Benedict XVI in 2012. On February 10, 2026, Dolan was appointed co-chief chaplain of the New York City Police Department.