Pontifical Academy for Life, February 28th, 2020

The Pontifical Academy for Life, Microsoft, IBM, FAO, the Italia Government, today signed as first the “Call for an AI Ethics”, a document developed to support an ethical approach to Artificial Intelligence and promote a sense of responsibility among organizations, governments and institutions with the aim to create a future in which digital innovation and technological progress serve human genius and creativity and not their gradual replacement.

The sponsors of the call express their desire to work together, in this context and at a national and international level, to promote “algor-ethics”, namely the ethical use of AI as defined by the following principles: 1) Transparency: in principle, AI systems must be explainable; 2) Inclusion: the needs of all human beings must be taken into consideration so that everyone can benefit and all individuals can be offered the best possible conditions to express themselves and develop; 3) Responsibility: those who design and deploy the use of AI must proceed with responsibility and transparency; 4) Impartiality: do not create or act according to bias, thus safeguarding fairness and human dignity; 5) Reliability: AI systems must be able to work reliably; 6) Security and privacy: AI systems must work securely and respect the privacy of users. These principles are fundamental elements of good innovation.

First signatories: Msgr. Vincenzo Paglia, President of the Pontifical Academy for Life (sponsor of the initiative); Mr. Brad Smith, President of Microsoft; Mr. John Kelly III, Executive Vice President of IBM, Mr. Dongyu Qu, General Director FAO; Mrs. Paola Pisano, Italian Government. To the cerimony has participated Mr. David Sassoli, President of the European Parliament.

During the morning Abp. Paglia has read the speech prepared by Pope Francis.

Msgr. Paglia said: “The Call’s intention is to create a movement that will widen and involve other players: public institutions, NGOs, industries and groups to set a course for developing and using technologies derived from AI. From this point of view, we can say that the first signing of this call is not a culmination, but a starting point for a commitment that appears even more urgent and important than ever before. Joining this initiative implies for the industries that sign it an engagement that also has a relevance in terms of costs and industrial contribution to developing and distributing their products. If the Academy feels called to intensify its efforts to facilitate the knowledge and signature of other international actors, none the less the Call is a first step which is a prelude to others. The Call’s text is also characterized by being a first attempt to formulate a set of ethical criteria with common reference points and values, offering a contribution to the development of a common language to interpret what is human”.

“Microsoft is proud to be a signatory of the Rome Call for AI Ethics, which is an important step in promoting a thoughtful, respectful, and inclusive conversation on the intersection of digital technology and humanity. I am inspired by his Holiness’ commitment and contributions to this important dialogue, and thank him, the Pontifical Academy for Life and the other representatives of the Holy See for today’s announcement.” – Brad Smith, President, Microsoft.

Mr. John Kelly III, Vice President of IBM has said: “AI is incredibly promising technology that can help us make the world smarter, healthier and more prosperous, but only if it is shaped at the outset by human interests and values. The Rome Call for AI Ethics reminds us that we have to choose carefully whom AI will benefit and we must make significant concurrent investments in people and skills. Society will have more trust in AI when people see it being built on a foundation of ethics, and that the companies behind AI are directly addressing questions of trust and responsibility.”

On October 28, 2019 in the Casina Pio IV (Pontifical Academy for Sciences, Vatican City), Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, President of the Pontifical Academy for Life, and other Representatives, have signed the Position Paper Of The Abrahamic Monotheistic Religions On Matters Concerning The End-Of-Life.

The Position Paper was prepared by the Pontifical Academy for Life under the mandate of Pope Francis. On October 28th Pope Francis has received the main signers, the deputies of the Patriarchate of Costantinoples, of the Patriarchate of Moscow and others from the Islam world, and the Jewish world, between the Chief Rabbi of Rome.

Excerpts from the Position Paper:
“We encourage and support validated and professional palliative care everywhere and for everyone. Even when efforts to continue staving off death seems unreasonably burdensome, we are morally and religiously duty-bound to provide comfort, effective pain and symptoms relief, companionship, care and spiritual assistance to the dying patient and to her/his family.

We commend laws and policies that protect the rights and the dignity of the dying patient, in order to avoid euthanasia and promote palliative care.

We call upon all policy-makers and health-care providers to familiarize themselves with this wide-ranging Abrahamic monotheistic perspective and teaching in order to provide the best care to dying patients and to their families who adhere to the religious norms and guidance of their respective religious traditions.

We are committed to involving the other religions and all people of goodwill“.

.

De heer Vincent Lambert is overleden. Als verantwoordelijken voor de verschillende religies in de stad Reims bidden we voor onze stadgenoot. We doen dat al jaren, met veel van onze landgenoten die diep getroffen zijn door zijn lot. De bevelen hem aan bij de levende en barmhartige God, bij Hem die de mensen vanuit de dood tot het leven roept. We bidden voor de vrouw en de dochter van de heer Vincent Lambert, voor zijn ouders, zijn broers en zusters en voor al de zijnen. Dat zij door hun verdriet heen troost en hoop mogen vinden. Wij spreken tegenover hen ons broederlijk medegevoel uit.

We denken vandaag intens aan hen die de zorg voor de heer Lambert hadden: de artsen en de afdelingsmedewerkers van het ziekenhuis van Reims, en ook de advocaten en rechters die tot taak hadden helderheid te brengen in de situatie van de heer Lambert.

De situatie van de heer Lambert was eenmalig. De besluiten, die met betrekking tot hem genomen zijn, kunnen dus niet als zodanig worden overgenomen voor gevallen die schijnbaar gelijkaardig zijn. Gezien de debatten die hebben plaatsgevonden menen wij dat het nuttig is om de volgende punten naar voren te brengen in het licht van ons geloof in een God die schepper is en het leven geeft:

1. We erkennen zonder terughoudendheid dat het eigen is aan de waardigheid van ieder menselijk wezen om af te zien van een behandeling die geacht wordt nutteloos, of niet geproportioneerd te zijn of die het risico inhoudt dat zij een toestand van nog meer lijden kan veroorzaken, zolang als een dergelijk besluit het leven van niemand anders in gevaar brengt;
2. Wij menen dat het voor mensen mogelijk is elkaar te ondersteunen, elkaar te helpen, elkaar te begeleiden tijdens de meest pijnlijke momenten van het leven, zodat geen enkele burger in de verleiding komt om van de maatschappij te eisen dat zij zijn dood
   veroorzaakt;
3. Wij zouden onze medeburgers eraan willen herinneren dat het feit dat iemand van anderen afhankelijk wordt voor verzorging of voor de handelingen van het gewone dagelijkse leven niet betekent dat deze persoon zijn waardigheid verliest; we willen ons ervoor inzetten om bij te dragen tot een opwekking tot toewijding, edelmoedigheid en solidariteit voor personen die afhankelijk zijn, op grond van welke oorzaak dan ook en ook bij hun naasten die de verantwoordelijkheid voor de zorg dragen, hen die men tegenwoordig de ’mantelzorgers’ noemt;
4. We willen allen danken die hebben bijgedragen aan  het nadenken over de situatie van het levenseinde en over de uitzonderlijke situatie van mensen die zich in een toestand van zeer geringe communicatiemogelijkheid bevinden, die noch helemaal vallen in de categorie van zieken, noch geheel in die van de mensen met een handicap.  Zonder twijfel
   is nog medisch en filosofisch onderzoek nodig om hen op de beste manier te begeleiden. Een overweging aangaande de de praktijk van de reanimatie lijkt ons eveneens noodzakelijk. Het lijkt ons van groot belang dat verstandige en diepgaande discussies over deze medische en ethische kwesties worden voortgezet.
5. Wij geven uitdrukking aan ons vertrouwen in de artsen van ons land. Ons gemeenschappelijk vertrouwen in hun wetenschappelijke en menselijke capaciteiten is noodzakelijk opdat zij kunnen voortgaan met het nemen van de beste en meest wijze beslissingen, door in waarheid met de personen, die aan het einde van hun leven staan, in gesprek te gaan of met de  naasten van hen die niet meer in staat zijn tot communiceren.
6. Omdat wij in het eeuwige leven geloven, verklaren we dat het leven van de mens veel meer is dan het lichamelijke leven, maar zich nu eenmaal wel afspeelt in de lichamelijke situatie. Wij willen onze diepe verbondenheid uitdrukken met al diegenen die hun naasten in beproeving bijstaan met fijngevoeligheid, edelmoedigheid, zonder iets terug te verwachten, in vreugde over hun lichamelijke aanwezigheid. We willen nogmaals onze dankbaarheid uitspreken aan het medische en
   verpleegkundige personeel van onze ziekenhuizen.

Ons land heeft zich tot nu toe moeite gegeven om een juiste weg te vinden om mensen aan het einde van hun leven en zij, die gedeeltelijk of geheel verstoken zijn van het vermogen tot communiceren, te begeleiden in de sterk technologische context waarin we leven.

We wensen dat ons land  steeds meer een zorg zal weten te ontwikkelen die in staat is de therapeutische vooruitgang, de palliatieve zorg, een echte relationele beschikbaarheid van het verplegend personeel en een samenwerking met mantelzorgers en vrijwilligers tot een geheel te maken alsook een maatschappelijke zorg die in staat is om uitgesloten en verlaten personen op te nemen, opdat voor allen een samenleving in solidariteit en broederschap kan worden zeker gesteld.

Ondertekenaars:
Rabbijn Amar, Reims
Aomar Bendaoud, imam van de Grote Moskee van Reims
Dominee Xavier Langlois, van de Verenigde Protestantse Kerk te Reims
Dominee Pasca Geoffroy, van de Verenigde Protestantse Kerk te Reims
+ Eric de Moulins-Beaufort, aartsbisschop van Reims
+ Bruno Feillet, hulpbisschop van Reims

Vertaling uit het Frans: dr. J.A. Raymakers

Décès de Vincent Lambert – Déclaration commune des responsables religieux de Reims
Diocese de Reims, 11 juli 2019

Déclaration commune des responsables religieux rémois, à propos de la mort de M. Vincent Lambert

M. Vincent Lambert est mort. Responsables des différents cultes dans la ville de Reims, nous prions pour notre concitoyen. Nous le faisons depuis des années, avec beaucoup de nos compatriotes profondément affectés par son sort. Nous le recommandons au Dieu vivant et miséricordieux, à celui qui appelle les êtres humains de la mort à la vie. Nous prions pour la femme et pour la fille de M. Vincent Lambert, pour ses parents, ses frères et ses sœurs, pour tous les siens. Qu’ils puissent trouver consolation et espérance par-delà leur chagrin. Nous leur exprimons notre fraternelle compassion.
Nous pensons fortement en ce jour à ceux qui ont eu à s’occuper de M. Lambert : les médecins et les équipes de l’hôpital de Reims, et aussi les avocats et les magistrats qui ont eu la responsabilité d’éclairer la situation de M. Lambert.

La situation de M. Lambert était singulière. Les décisions prises à son sujet ne peuvent donc être transposées telles quelles à des cas apparemment analogues. Au vu des débats qui ont eu lieu, nous pensons utile, dans la lumière de notre foi en Dieu qui crée et qui donne la vie, de rappeler les points suivants :

1. Nous reconnaissons sans réserve qu’il appartient à la dignité de tout être humain de renoncer à un traitement jugé inutile, disproportionné ou risquant de provoquer un état de souffrance supplémentaire, du moment qu’une telle décision ne met en danger la vie d’aucun autre ;
2. Nous croyons qu’il est possible aux êtres humains de se soutenir, de s’entraider, de s’accompagner dans les moments les plus douloureux de la vie, de sorte qu’aucun citoyen ne soit tenté d’exiger de la société qu’elle provoque sa mort ;
3. Nous voudrions rappeler à nos concitoyens que devenir dépendant des autres pour des soins ou pour les actes de la vie ordinaire ne signifie pas perdre sa dignité ; nous voulons œuvrer pour contribuer à susciter les dévouements, les générosités et les solidarités nécessaires auprès des personnes dépendantes, à quelque titre qu’elles le soient, et auprès de leurs proches qui en portent la responsabilité, ceux que l’on appelle aujourd’hui « les aidants » ;
4. Nous voulons remercier tous ceux qui ont contribué à la réflexion sur la situation de la fin de vie et sur la situation singulière des personnes en état pauci-relationnel, qui n’entrent ni tout à fait dans la catégorie des personnes malades ni tout à fait dans celle des personnes handicapées. Des recherches médicales et philosophiques sont sans doute encore nécessaires pour les accompagner au mieux. Une réflexion sur la pratique de la réanimation nous paraît également nécessaire. Poursuivre des débats prudents et approfondis sur ces questions médicales et éthiques nous paraît important.
5. Nous exprimons notre confiance aux médecins de notre pays. Notre confiance collective dans leurs capacités scientifiques et humaines est nécessaire pour qu’ils puissent continuer à prendre les décisions médicales les meilleures et les plus sages en dialoguant en vérité avec les personnes en fin de vie ou les proches des personnes devenues incapables de communiquer ;
6. Croyants en la vie éternelle, nous affirmons que la vie humaine est bien plus que la vie corporelle mais se joue pourtant dans la condition corporelle. Nous exprimons notre profonde union à tous ceux qui entourent leurs proches dans l’épreuve avec délicatesse, avec générosité, sans attendre de retour, en se réjouissant de leur présence corporelle. Nous redisons notre gratitude pour le personnel médical et soignant de nos hôpitaux.

Notre pays s’est efforcé jusqu’ici de trouver une voie juste pour accompagner au mieux, dans le contexte de haute technicité dans lequel nous vivons, les personnes en fin de vie et celles qui sont privées partiellement ou totalement de capacités de communication.

Nous souhaitons que notre pays développe toujours davantage aussi bien le soin médical capable d’intégrer les progrès thérapeutiques, les soins palliatifs, une véritable disponibilité relationnelle des soignants et une collaboration des aidants et des bénévoles, que le soin social capable d’intégrer les exclus et les délaissés, afin de garantir à tous une vie commune dans la solidarité et la fraternité.

Signataires :
Rabbin Amar, de Reims
Aomar Bendaoud, imam de la Grande Mosquée de Reims
Pasteur Xavier Langlois, de l’Eglise Protestante Unie de France à Reims
Pasteur Pascal Geoffroy, de l’Eglise Protestante Unie de France à Reims
+ Eric de Moulins-Beaufort, archevêque de Reims
+ Bruno Feillet, évêque auxiliaire de Reims

Engelse vertaling op ZENIT

“Male and female he created them”. Towards a path of dialogue on the question of gender theory in education

Congregation for Catholic Education (for Educational Institutions)
Vatican City, June 10, 2019

Introduction

1. It is becoming increasingly clear that we are now facing with what might accurately be called an educational crisis, especially in the field of affectivity and sexuality. In many places, curricula are being planned and implemented which “allegedly convey a neutral conception of the person and of life, yet in fact reflect an anthropology opposed to faith and to right reason”. The disorientation regarding anthropology which is a widespread feature of our cultural landscape has undoubtedly helped to destabilize the family as an institution, bringing with it a tendency to cancel out the differences between men and women, presenting them instead as merely the product of historical and cultural conditioning.

2. The context in which the mission of education is carried out is characterized by challenges emerging from varying forms of an ideology that is given the general name ‘gender theory’, which “denies the difference and reciprocity in nature of a man and a woman and envisages a society without sexual differences, thereby eliminating the anthropological basis of the family. This ideology leads to educational programs and legislative enactments that promote a personal identity and emotional intimacy radically separated from the biological difference between male and female. Consequently, human identity becomes the choice of the individual, one which can also change over time”.

3. It seems clear that this issue should not be looked at in isolation from the broader question of education in the call to love, which should offer, as the Second Vatican Council noted, “a positive and prudent education in sexuality” within the context of the inalienable right of all to receive “an education that is in keeping with their ultimate goal, their ability, their sex, and the culture and tradition of their country, and also in harmony with their fraternal association with other peoples in the fostering of true unity and peace on earth”. The Congregation for Catholic Education has already offered some reflections on this theme in the document ‘Educational Guidance in Human Love: Outlines for Sex Education’.

4. The Christian vision of anthropology sees sexuality as a fundamental component of one’s personhood. It is one of its mode of being, of manifesting itself, communicating with others, and of feeling, expressing and living human love. Therefore, our sexuality plays an integral part in the development of our personality and in the process of its education: “In fact, it is from [their] sex that the human person receives the characteristics which, on the biological, psychological and spiritual levels, make that person a man or a woman, and thereby largely condition his or her progress towards maturity and insertion into society”. As each person grows, “such diversity, linked to the complementarity of the two sexes, allows a thorough response to the design of God according to the vocation to which each one is called”. In the light of this, “affective-sex education must consider the totality of the person and insist therefore on the integration of the biological, psycho-affective, social and spiritual elements”.

5. The Congregation for Catholic Education, as part of its remit, wishes to offer in this document some reflections which, it is hoped, can guide and support those who work in the education of young people, so as to help them address in a methodical way (and in the light of the universal vocation to love of the human person) the most debated questions around human sexuality. The methodology in mind is based on three guiding principles seen as best-suited to meet the needs of both individuals and communities: to listen, to reason and to propose. In fact, listening carefully to the needs of the other, combined with an understanding of the true diversity of conditions, can lead to a shared set of rational elements in an argument, and can prepare one for a Christian education rooted in faith that “throws a new light on everything, manifests God’s design for man’s total vocation, and thus directs the mind to solutions which are fully human”.

6. If we wish to take an approach to the question of gender theory that is based on the path of dialogue, it is vital to bear in mind the distinction between the ideology of gender on the one hand, and the whole field of research on gender that the human sciences have undertaken, on the other. While the ideologies of gender claim to respond, as Pope Francis has indicated, “to what are at times understandable aspirations”, they also seek “to assert themselves as absolute and unquestionable, even dictating how children should be raised”, and thus preclude dialogue. However, other work on gender has been carried out which tries instead to achieve a deeper understanding of the ways in which sexual difference between men and women is lived out in a variety of cultures. It is in relation to this type of research that we should be open to listen, to reason and to propose.

7. Against this background, the Congregation for Catholic Education has seen fit to offer this text to all who have a special interest in education, and to those whose work is touched by the question of gender It is intended for the educational community involved in Catholic schools, and for all who, animated by the Christian vision of life, work in other types of school. The document is offered for use by parents, students, school leaders and personnel, bishops, priests, religious, ecclesial movements, associations of the lay faithful, and other relevant bodies.

Listening

Brief Overview

8. The primary outlook needed for anyone who wishes to take part in dialogue is listening. It is necessary, above all, to listen carefully to and understand cultural events of recent decades. The 20th century brought new anthropological theories and with them the beginnings of gender theory. These were based on a reading of sexual differentiation that was strictly sociological, relying on a strong emphasis on the freedom of the individual. In fact, around the middle of the last century, a whole series of studies were published which accentuated time and again the role of external conditioning, including its influence on determining personality. When such studies were applied to human sexuality, they often did so with a view to demonstrating that sexuality identity was more a social construct than a given natural or biological fact.

9. These schools of thought were united in denying the existence of any original given element in the individual, which would precede and at the same time constitute our personal identity, forming the necessary basis of everything we do. According to such theories, the only thing that matters in personal relationships is the affection between the individuals involved, irrespective of sexual difference or procreation which would be seen as irrelevant in the formation of families. Thus, the institutional model of the family (where a structure and finality exist independent of the subjective preferences of the spouses) is bypassed, in favor of a vision of family that is purely contractual and voluntary.

10. Over the course of time, gender theory has expanded its field of application. At the beginning of the 1990s, its focus was upon the possibility of the individual determining his or her own sexual tendencies without having to take account of the reciprocity and complementarity of male-female relationships, nor of the procreative end of sexuality. Furthermore, it was suggested that one could uphold the theory of a radical separation between gender and sex, with the former having priority over the latter. Such a goal was seen as an important stage in the evolution of humanity, in which “a society without sexual differences” could be envisaged.

11. In this cultural context, it is clear that sex and gender are no longer synonyms or interchangeable concepts since they are used to describe two different realities. Sex is seen as defining which of the two biological categories (deriving from the original feminine-masculine dyad) one belonged Gender, on the other hand, would be the way in which the differences between the sexes are lived in each culture. The problem here does not lie in the distinction between the two terms, which can be interpreted correctly, but in the separation of sex from gender. This separation is at the root of the distinctions proposed between various “sexual orientations” which are no longer defined by the sexual difference between male and female, and can then assume other forms, determined solely by the individual, who is seen as radically autonomous. Further, the concept of gender is seen as dependent upon the subjective mindset of each person, who can choose a gender not corresponding to his or her biological sex, and therefore with the way others see that person (transgenderism).

12. In a growing contraposition between nature and culture, the propositions of gender theory converge in the concept of ‘queer’, which refers to dimensions of sexuality that are extremely fluid, flexible, and as it were, This culminates in the assertion of the complete emancipation of the individual from any a priori given sexual definition, and the disappearance of classifications seen as overly rigid. This would create a new range of nuances that vary in degree and intensity according to both sexual orientation and the gender one has identified oneself with.

13. The duality in male-female couples is furthermore seen as in conflict with the idea of “polyamory”, that is relationships involving more than two. Because of this, it is claimed that the duration of relationships, as well as their binding nature, should be flexible, depending on the shifting desires of the individuals concerned. Naturally, this has consequences for the sharing of the responsibilities and obligations inherent in maternity and paternity. This new range of relationships become ‘kinship’. These are: based upon desire or affection, often marked by a limited time span that is determined, ethically flexible, or even (sometimes by explicit mutual consent) without any hope of long-term meaning. What counts is the absolutely free self-determination of each individual and the choices he or she makes according to the circumstances of each relationship of affectivity.

14. This has led to calls for public recognition of the right to choose one’s gender, and of a plurality of new types of unions, in direct contradiction of the model of marriage as being between one man and one woman, which is portrayed as a vestige of patriarchal societies. The ideal presented is that the individual should be able to choose his or her own status, and that society should limit itself to guaranteeing this right, and even providing material support, since the minorities involved would otherwise suffer negative social discrimination. The claim to such rights has become a regular part of political debate and has been included in documents at an international level, and in certain pieces of national legislation.

Points of Agreement

15. From the whole field of writing on gender theory, there have however emerged some positions that could provide points of agreement, with a potential to yield growth in mutual understanding. For instance, educational programs on this area often share a laudable desire to combat all expressions of unjust discrimination, a requirement that can be shared by all sides. Such pedagogical material acknowledges that there have been delays and failings in this regard. Indeed, it cannot be denied that through the centuries forms of unjust discrimination have been a sad fact of history and have also had an influence within the Church. This has brought a certain rigid status quo, delaying the necessary and progressive inculturation of the truth of Jesus’ proclamation of the equal dignity of men and women, and has provoked accusations of a sort of masculinist mentality, veiled to a greater or lesser degree by religious motives.

16. Another position held in common is the need to educate children and young people to respect every person in their particularity and difference so that no one should suffer bullying, violence, insults or unjust discrimination based on their specific characteristics (such as special needs, race, religion, sexual tendencies, etc.). Essentially, this involves educating for active and responsible citizenship, which is marked by the ability to welcome all legitimate expressions of human personhood with respect.

17. A further positive development in anthropological understanding also present in writing on gender has centered on the values of femininity. For example, women’s ‘capacity for the other’ favours a more realistic and mature reading of evolving situations, so that “a sense and a respect for what is concrete develop in her, opposed to abstractions which are so often fatal for the existence of individuals and society”. This is a contribution that enriches human relationships and spiritual values “beginning with daily relationships between people”. Because of this, society owes a significant debt to the many women “who are involved in the various areas of education extending well beyond the family: nurseries, schools, universities, social service agencies, parishes, associations and movements”.

18. Women have a unique understanding of reality. They possess a capacity to endure adversity and “to keep life going even in extreme situations” and hold on “tenaciously to the future”. This helps explain why “wherever the work of education is called for, we can note that women are ever ready and willing to give themselves generously to others, especially in serving the weakest and most defenseless. In this work, they exhibit a kind of affective, cultural and spiritual motherhood which has inestimable value for the development of individuals and the future of society. At this point, how can I fail to mention the witness of so many Catholic women and Religious Congregations of women from every continent who have made education, particularly the education of boys and girls, their principal apostolate?”.

Critique

19. Nonetheless, real-life situations present gender theory with some valid points of criticism. Gender theory (especially in its most radical forms) speaks of a gradual process of denaturalization, that is a move away from nature and towards an absolute option for the decision of the feelings of the human subject. In this understanding of things, the view of both sexuality identity and the family become subject to the same ‘liquidity’ and ‘fluidity’ that characterize other aspects of post-modern culture, often founded on nothing more than a confused concept of freedom in the realm of feelings and wants, or momentary desires provoked by emotional impulses and the will of the individual, as opposed to anything based on the truths of existence.

20. The underlying presuppositions of these theories can be traced back to a dualistic anthropology, separating body (reduced to the status of inert matter) from human will, which itself becomes an absolute that can manipulate the body as it pleases. This combination of physicalism and voluntarism gives rise to relativism, in which everything that exists is of equal value and at the same time undifferentiated, without any real order or purpose. In all such theories, from the most moderate to the most radical, there is agreement that one’s gender ends up being viewed as more important than being of male or female sex. The effect of this move is chiefly to create a cultural and ideological revolution driven by relativism, and secondarily a juridical revolution, since such beliefs claim specific rights for the individual and across society.

21. In practice, the advocacy for the different identities often presents them as being of completely equal value compared to each other. This, however, actually negates the relevance of each one. This has particular importance for the question of sexual difference. In fact, the generic concept of “non-discrimination” often hides an ideology that denies the difference as well as natural reciprocity that exists between men and women. “Instead of combatting wrongful interpretations of sexual difference that would diminish the fundamental importance of that difference for human dignity, such a proposal would simply eliminate it by proposing procedures and practices that make it irrelevant for a person’s development and for human relationships. But the utopia of the ‘neuter’ eliminates both human dignity in sexual distinctiveness and the personal nature of the generation of new life”. The anthropological basis of the concept of family is thus emptied of meaning.

22. This ideology inspires educational programmes and legislative trends that promote ideas of personal identity and affective intimacy that make a radical break with the actual biological difference between male and female. Human identity is consigned to the individual’s choice, which can also change in time. These ideas are the expression of a widespread way of thinking and acting in today’s culture that confuses “genuine freedom with the idea that each individual can act arbitrarily as if there were no truths, values, and principles to provide guidance, and everything were possible and permissible”.

23. The Second Vatican Council, wishing to express the Church’s view of the human person, stated that “though made of body and soul, man is one. Through his bodily composition, he gathers to himself the elements of the material world; thus they reach their crown through him, and through him raise their voice in free praise of the Creator”. Because of this dignity, “man is not wrong when he regards himself as superior to bodily concerns, and as more than a speck of nature or a nameless constituent of the city of man”. Therefore, “the expressions ’the order of nature’ and ’the order of biology’ must not be confused or regarded as identical, the ‘biological order’ does indeed mean the same as the order of nature but only in so far as this is accessible to methods of empirical and descriptive natural science, and not as a specific order of existence, with an obvious relationship to the First Cause, to God the Creator God”.

Reasoning

Rational Arguments

24. Taking into account our historical overview, together with certain points of agreement identified, and the critique that has been made of gender theory, we can now move to some considerations on the issue based on the light of reason. In fact, there are rational arguments to support the centrality of the body as an integrating element of personal identity and family relationships. The body is subjectivity that communicates identity of being. In the light of this reality, we can understand why the data of biological and medical science shows that ‘sexual dimorphism’ (that is, the sexual difference between men and women) can be demonstrated scientifically by such fields as genetics, endocrinology, and neurology. From the point of view of genetics, male cells (which contain XY chromosomes) differ, from the very moment of conception, from female cells (with their XX chromosomes). That said, in cases where a person’s sex is not clearly defined, it is medical professionals who can make a therapeutic intervention. In such situations, parents cannot make an arbitrary choice on the issue, let alone society. Instead, medical science should act with purely therapeutic ends, and intervene in the least invasive fashion, on the basis of objective parameters and with a view to establishing the person’s constitutive identity.

25. The process of identifying sexual identity is made more difficult by the fictitious construct known as “gender neuter” or “third gender”, which has the effect of obscuring the fact that a person’s sex is a structural determinant of male or female identity. Efforts to go beyond the constitutive male-female sexual difference, such as the ideas of “intersex” or “transgender”, lead to a masculinity or feminity that is ambiguous, even though (in a self-contradictory way), these concepts themselves actually presuppose the very sexual difference that they propose to negate or supersede. This oscillation between male and female becomes, at the end of the day, only a ‘provocative’ display against so-called ’traditional frameworks’, and one which, in fact, ignores the suffering of those who have to live situations of sexual indeterminacy. Similar theories aim to annihilate the concept of ‘nature’, (that is, everything we have been given as a pre-existing foundation of our being and action in the world), while at the same time implicitly reaffirming its existence.

26 Philosophical analysis also demonstrates that sexual difference between male and female is constitutive of human identity. Greek and Roman thinkers posit essence as the aspect of being that transcends, brings together and harmonizes male-female difference within the unity of the human person. Within the tradition of hermeneutical and phenomenological philosophy, both sexual distinction and complementarity are interpreted in symbolic and metaphorical terms. Sexual difference in relationships is seen as constitutive of personal identity, whether this be at the level of the horizontal (in the dyad “man-woman”) or vertical (in the triad “man-woman-God”). This applies equally to interpersonal “I-You” male-female relationships and to family relationships (You-I-We).

27. The formation of one’s identity is itself based on the principle of otherness since it is precisely the direct encounter between another “you” who is not me that enables me to recognize the essence of the “I” who is me. Difference, in fact, is a condition of all cognition, including cognition of one’s. In the family, knowledge of one’s mother and father allows the child to construct his or her own sexual identity and difference. Psychoanalytic theory demonstrates the tri-polar value of child-parent relationships, showing that sexual identity can only fully emerge in the light of the synergetic comparison that sexual differentiation creates.

28. The physiological complementarity of male-female sexual difference assures the necessary conditions for procreation. In contrast, only recourse to reproductive technology can allow one of the partners in a relationship of two persons of the same sex to generate offspring, using ‘in vitro’ fertilization and a surrogate mother. However, the use of such technology is not a replacement for natural conception, since it involves the manipulation of human embryos, the fragmentation of parenthood, the instrumentalization and/or commercialization of the human body as well as the reduction of a baby to an object in the hands of science and technology.

29. In so far as this issue relates to the world of education, it is clear that by its very nature, education can help lay the foundations for peaceful dialogue and facilitate a fruitful meeting together of peoples and a meeting of minds. Further, it would seem that the prospect of a broadening of reason to include the dimension of the transcendent is not of secondary importance. The dialogue between Faith and Reason, “if it does not want to be reduced to a sterile intellectual exercise, it must begin from the present concrete situation of humanity and upon this develop a reflection that draws from the ontological-metaphysical truth”. The evangelizing mission of the Church to men and women is carried out within this horizon.

Proposing

Christian Anthropology

30. The Church, mother and teacher, does more than simply listen. Remaining rooted in her original mission, and at the same time always open to the contribution of reason, she puts herself at the service of the community of peoples, offering it a way of living. It is clear that if we are to provide well-structured educational programmes that are coherent with the true nature of human persons (with a view to guiding them towards a full actualisation of their sexual identity within the context of the vocation of self-giving), it is not possible to achieve this without a clear and convincing anthropology that gives a meaningful foundation to sexuality and affectivity. The first step in this process of throwing light on anthropology consists in recognising that “man too has a nature that he must respect and that he cannot manipulate at will”. This is the fulcrum on which to support a human ecology that moves from the “respect for our dignity as human beings” and from the necessary relationship of our life to “moral law, which is inscribed into our nature”.

31. Christian anthropology has its roots in the narrative of human origins that appears in the Book of Genesis, where we read that “God created man in his own image […] male and female he created them.” (Gen. 1,27) These words capture not only the essence of the story of creation but also that of the life-giving relationship between men and women, which brings them into intimate union with God. The self is completed by the one who is other than the self, according to the specific identity of each person, and both have a point of encounter forming a dynamic of reciprocity which is derived from and sustained by the Creator.

32. The Holy Scripture reveals the wisdom of the Creator’s design, which “has assigned as a task to man his body, his masculinity and femininity; and that in masculinity and femininity he, in a way, assigned to him as a task his humanity, the dignity of the person, and also the clear sign of the interpersonal communion in which man fulfils himself through the authentic gift of himself “. Thus, human nature must be understood on the basis of the unity of body and soul, far removed from any sort of physicalism or naturalism, since “in the unity of his spiritual and biological inclinations and of all the other specific characteristics necessary for the pursuit of his end”.

33. This “unified totality” integrates the vertical dimension (human communion with God) with the horizontal dimension constituted by the interpersonal communion that men and woman are called to live. One’s identity as a human person comes to authentic maturity to the extent that one opens up to others, for the very reason that “in the configuration of our own mode of being, whether as male or female, is not simply the result of biological or genetic factors, but of multiple elements having to do with temperament, family history, culture, experience, education, the influence of friends, family members and respected persons, as well as other formative situations”. In reality, “the essential fact is that the human person becomes himself only with the other. The ‘I’ becomes itself only from the ’thou’ and from the ‘you’. It is created for dialogue, for synchronic and diachronic communion. It is only the encounter with the ‘you’ and with the ‘we’ that the ‘I’ opens to itself “.

34. There is a need to reaffirm the metaphysical roots of sexual difference, as an anthropological refutation of attempts to negate the male-female duality of human nature, from which the family is generated. The denial of this duality not only erases the vision of human beings as the fruit of an act of creation but creates the idea of the human person as a sort of abstraction who “chooses for himself what his nature is to be. Man and woman in their created state as complementary versions of what it means to be human are disputed. But if there is no pre-ordained duality of man and woman in creation, then neither is the family any longer a reality established by creation. Likewise, the child has lost the place he had occupied hitherto and the dignity pertaining to him”.

35. Seen from this perspective, education on sexuality and affectivity must involve each person in a process of learning “with perseverance and consistency, the meaning of his or her body” in the full original truth of masculinity and femininity. It means “learning to accept our body, to care for it and to respect its fullest meaning […] Also, valuing one’s own body in its femininity or masculinity is necessary if I am going to be able to recognise myself in an encounter with someone who is different […] and find mutual enrichment”. Therefore, in the light of a fully human and integral ecology, women and men will understand the real meaning of sexuality and genitality in terms of the intrinsically relational and communicative intentionality that both informs their bodily nature and moves each one towards the other mutually.

The Family

36. The family is the natural place for the relationship of reciprocity and communion between man and woman to find its fullest realisation. For it is in the family that man and woman, united by a free and fully conscious pact of conjugal love, can live out “a totality in which all the elements of the person enter – appeal of the body and instinct, power of feeling and affectivity, aspiration of the spirit and of will”. The family is “an anthropological fact, and consequently a social, cultural fact”. On the other hand, to “qualify it with ideological concepts which are compelling at only one moment in history, and then decline” would mean a betrayal of its true significance. The family, seen as a natural social unit which favours the maximum realisation of the reciprocity and complementarity between men and women, precedes even the socio-political order of the State whose legislative freedom must take it into account and give it proper recognition.

37. Reason tells us that two fundamental rights, which stem from the very nature of the family, must always be guaranteed and protected. Firstly, the family’s right to be recognised as the primary pedagogical environment for the educational formation of children. This “primary right” finds its most concrete expression in the “most grave duty” of parents to take responsibility for the “well-rounded personal and social education of their children”, including their sexual and affective education, “within the broader framework of an education for love, for mutual self-giving” . This is at once an educational right and responsibility that is “essential, since it is connected with the transmission of human life; it is original and primary with regard to the educational role of others, on account of the uniqueness of the loving relationship between parents and children; and it is irreplaceable and inalienable, and therefore incapable of being entirely delegated to others or usurped by others”.

38. Children enjoy another right which is of equal importance: to “grow up in a family with a father and a mother capable of creating a suitable environment for the child’s development and emotional maturity” and “continuing to grow up and mature in a correct relationship represented by the masculinity and femininity of a father and a mother and thus preparing for affective maturity”. It is precisely within the nucleus of the family unit that children can learn how to recognise the value and the beauty of the differences between the two sexes, along with their equal dignity, and their reciprocity at a biological, functional, psychological and social level. “Faced with a culture that largely reduces human sexuality to the level of something common place, since it interprets and lives it in a reductive and impoverished way by linking it solely with the body and with selfish pleasure, the educational service of parents must aim firmly at a training in the area of sex that is truly and fully personal: for sexuality is an enrichment of the whole person – body, emotions and soul – and it manifests its inmost meaning in leading the person to the gift of self in love”. Of course, such rights exist hand in hand with all the other fundamental rights of the human person, especially those concerning freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Wherever such things are held in common, those involved in education can find room for collaboration that is fruitful for all.

The School

39. The primacy of the family in educating children is supplemented by the subsidiary role of schools. Strengthened by its roots in the Gospel, “The Catholic school sets out to be a school for the human person and of human persons. ‘The person of each individual human being, in his or her material and spiritual needs, is at the heart of Christ’s teaching: this is why the promotion of the human person is the goal of the Catholic school’. This affirmation, stressing man’s vital relationship with Christ, reminds us that it is in His person that the fullness of the truth concerning man is to be found. For this reason the Catholic school, in committing itself to the development of the whole man, does so in obedience to the solicitude of the Church, in the awareness that all human values find their fulfilment and unity in Christ. This awareness expresses the centrality of the human person in the educational project of the Catholic school”.

40. The Catholic school should be an educating community in which the human person can express themself and grow in his or her humanity, in a process of relational dialogue, interacting in a constructive way, exercising tolerance, understanding different points of view and creating trust in an atmosphere of authentic harmony. Such a school is truly an “educating community, a place of differences living together in harmony. The school community is a place for encounter and promoting participation. It dialogues with the family, which is the primary community to which the students that attend school belong. The school must respect the family’s culture. It must listen carefully to the needs that it finds and the expectations that are directed towards it”. In this way, girls and boys are accompanied by a community that teaches them “to overcome their individualism and discover, in the light of faith, their specific vocation to live responsibly in a community with others”.

41. Christians who live out their vocation to educate in schools which are not Catholic can also offer witness to, serve, and promote the truth about the human person. In fact, “the integral formation of the human person, which is the purpose of education, includes the development of all the human faculties of the students, together with preparation for professional life, formation of ethical and social awareness, becoming aware of the transcendental, and religious education”. Personal witness, when joined with professionalism, contributes greatly to the achievement of these objectives.

42. Education in affectivity requires language that is appropriate as well as measured. It must above all take into account that, while children and young people have not yet reached full maturity, they are preparing with great interest to experience all aspects of life. Therefore, it is necessary to help students “to develop a critical sense in dealing with the onslaught of new ideas and suggestions, the flood of pornography and the overload of stimuli that can deform sexuality”. In the face of a continuous bombardment of messages that are ambiguous and unclear, and which end up creating emotional disorientation as well as impeding psycho-relational maturity, young people “should be helped to recognise and seek out positive influences, while shunning the things that cripple their capacity for love”.

Society

43. An overall perspective on the situation of contemporary society must form a part of the educational process. The transformation of social and interpersonal relationships “has often waved ’the flag of freedom’, but it has, in reality, brought spiritual and material devastation to countless human beings, especially the poorest and most vulnerable. It is ever more evident that the decline of the culture of marriage is associated with increased poverty and a host of other social ills that disproportionately affect women, children and the elderly. It is always they who suffer the most in this crisis”.

44. In the light of all of this, the family must not be left to face the challenges of educating the young on its own. The Church, for its part, continues to support families and young people within communities that are open and welcoming. Schools and local communities are called, in particular, to carry out an important mission here, although they do not substitute the role of parents but complement it. The notable urgency of the challenges faced by the work of human formation should act as stimulus towards reconstructing the educational alliance between family, school and society.

45. It is widely acknowledged that this educational alliance has entered into crisis. There is an urgent need to promote a new alliance that is genuine and not simply at the level of bureaucracy, a shared project that can offer a “positive and prudent sexual education” that can harmonise the primary responsibility of parents with the work of teachers. We must create the right conditions for a constructive encounter between the various actors involved, making for an atmosphere of transparency where all parties constantly keep others informed of what each is doing, facilitating maximum involvement and thus avoiding the unnecessary tensions that arise through misunderstandings caused by lack of clarity, information or competency.

46. Across this educational alliance, pedagogical activity should be informed by the principle of subsidiarity: “All other participants in the process of education are only able to carry out their responsibilities in the name of the parents, with their consent and, to a certain degree, with their authorization“. If they succeed in working together, family, school and the broader society can produce educational programmes on affectivity and sexuality that respect each person’s own stage of maturity regarding these areas and at the same time promote respect for the body of the other person. They would also take into account the physiological and psychological specificity of young people, as well as the phase of neurocognitive growth and maturity of each one, and thus be able to accompany them in their development in a healthy and responsible way.

Forming Formators

47. All who work in human formation are called to exercise great responsibility in the work of effectively implementing the pedagogical projects in which they are involved. If they are people of personal maturity and balance who are well-prepared, this can have a strongly positive influence on students. Therefore, it is important that their own formation includes not only professional qualifications but also cultural and spiritual preparedness. The education of the human person, especially developmentally, requires great care and ongoing formation. Simply repeating the standard points of a discipline is not enough. Today’s educators are expected to be able “to accompany their students towards lofty and challenging goals, cherish high expectations for them, involve and connect students to each other and the world”.

48. School managers, teaching staff and personnel all share the responsibility of both guaranteeing delivery of a high-quality service coherent with the Christian principles that lie at the heart of their educational project, as well as interpreting the challenges of their time while giving the daily witness of their understanding, objectivity and prudence. It is a commonly-accepted fact that “modern man listens more willingly to witnesses than to teachers, and if he does listen to teachers, it is because they are witnesses”. The authority of an educator is therefore built upon the concrete combination “of a general formation, founded on a positive and professional constructive concept of life, and of constant effort in realising it. Such a formation goes beyond the purely necessary professional training and addresses the more intimate aspects of the personality, including the religious and the spiritual”.

49. When the ‘formation of formators’ is undertaken on the basis of the Christian principles, it has as its objective not only the formation of individual teachers but the building up and consolidation of an entire educational community through a fruitful exchange between all involved, one that has both didactic and emotional dimensions. Thus, dynamic relationships grow between educators, and professional development is enriched by well-rounded personal growth, so that the work of teaching is carried out at the service of humanization. Therefore, Catholic educators need to be sufficiently prepared regarding the intricacies of the various questions that gender theory brings up and be fully informed about both current and proposed legislation in their respective jurisdictions, aided by persons who are qualified in this area, in a way that is balanced and dialogue-orientated. In addition, university-level institutes and centres of research are called to offer their own specific contribution here, so that adequate, up-to-date and life-long learning on this topic is always made available to educators.

50. Regarding the specific task of education in human love, undertaken “with the aid of the latest advances in psychology and the arts and science of teaching”, formators need to have “a suitable and serious psycho-pedagogic training which allows the seizing of particular situations which require a special solicitude”. As a consequence, “a clear vision of the situation is required because the method adopted not only gradually conditions the success of this delicate education, but also conditions cooperation between the various people in responsibility”.

51. The autonomy and freedom of teaching is recognised today in many legal systems. In such a context, schools can collaborate with Catholic institutes of higher education to develop a deepened understanding of the various aspects of education in sexuality, with the further aim of creating new teaching materials, pedagogic reference works and teaching manuals that are based on the “Christian vision of man and women”. To this end, pedagogues, those who work in teacher-training and experts on literature for children and adolescents alike can all contribute to the creation of a body of innovative and creative tools that, in the face of other visions that are partial or distorted, offer a solid and integrated education of the human person from infancy onwards. Against the background of the renewal of the education alliance, collaboration at local, national and international level between all parties involved must not limit itself to sharing of ideas or useful swapping of best practice but should be made available as a key means of permanent formation of educators themselves.

Conclusions

52. In conclusion, the path of dialogue, which involves listening, reasoning and proposing, appears the most effective way towards a positive transformation of concerns and misunderstandings, as well as a resource that in itself can help develop a network of relationships that is both more open and more human. In contrast, although ideologically-driven approaches to the delicate questions around gender proclaim their respect for diversity, they actually run the risk of viewing such difference as static realities and end up leaving them isolated and disconnected from each other.

53. The Christian educational proposal fosters deeper dialogue, true to its objective “to promote the realisation of man and woman through the development of all their being, incarnate spirits, and of the gifts of nature and of grace by which they are enriched by God”. This requires a sincere effort to draw closer to the other and it can be a natural antidote to the “throw-away” and isolation culture. In this way, we restate that “the original dignity of every man and woman is therefore inalienable and inaccessible to any power or ideology”.

54. Catholic educators are called to go beyond all ideological reductionism or homologizing relativism by remaining faithful to their own gospel-based identity, in order to transform positively the challenges of their times into opportunities by following the path of listening, reasoning and proposing the Christian vision, while giving witness by their very presence, and by the consistency of their words and deeds . Formators have the attractive educational mission to “teach them sensitivity to different expressions of love, mutual concern and care, loving respect and deeply meaningful communication. All of these prepare them for an integral and generous gift of self that will be expressed, following a public commitment, in the gift of their bodies. Sexual union in marriage will thus appear as a sign of an all-inclusive commitment, enriched by everything that has preceded it”.

55. The culture of dialogue does not in any way contradict the legitimate aspirations of Catholic schools to maintain their own vision of human sexuality, in keeping with the right of families to freely base the education of their children upon an integral anthropology, capable of harmonizing the human person’s physical, psychic and spiritual identity. In fact, a democratic state cannot reduce the range of education on offer to a single school of thought, all the more so in relation to this extremely delicate subject, which is concerned on the one hand with the fundamentals of human nature, and on the other with natural rights of parents to freely choose any educational model that accords with the dignity of the human person. Therefore, every educational institute should provide itself with organizational structures and didactic programmes that ensure these parental rights are fully and concretely respected. If this is the case, the Christian pedagogy on offer will be able to provide a solid response to anthropologies characterized by fragmentation and provisionality.

56. The programmes dealing with formation in affectivity and sexuality offered by Catholic centres of education must take into consideration the age-group of the students being taught and treat each person with the maximum of respect. This can be achieved through a way of accompanying that is discrete and confidential, capable of reaching out to those who are experiencing complex and painful situations. Every school should therefore make sure it is an environment of trust, calmness and openness, particularly where there are cases that require time and careful discernment. It is essential that the right conditions are created to provide a patient and understanding ear, far removed from any unjust discrimination.

57. The Congregation for Catholic Education is well aware of the daily effort and unstinting care shown by those who work in schools and in the whole range of formal and informal pedagogic endeavour. The Congregation wishes to encourage them in their pursuit of the work of forming young people, especially those among them who are affected by any form of poverty, and those in need of the love shown them by their educators, so that, in the words of St. John Bosco, young people are not only loved, but know they are loved. This Dicastery would also like to express its warmest gratitude to all Christians who teach in Catholic schools or other types of school, and, in the words of Pope Francis, encourages them “to stimulate in the pupils the openness to the other as a face, as a person, as a brother and sister to know and respect, with his or her history, merits and defects, riches and limits. The challenge is to cooperate to train young people to be open and interested in the reality that surrounds them, capable of care and tenderness”.

Vatican City, 2 February 2019, Feast of the Presentation of the Lord.

Giuseppe Cardinal Versaldi, Prefect
Archbishop Angelo Vincenzo Zani, Secretary

Statement of H.E. Archbishop Bernardito Auza, Apostolic Nuncio, Permanent Observer of the Holy See

Fifty-Second Session of the Commission on Population and Development, Agenda Item 3(b): Review and appraisal of the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development and its contribution to the follow-up and review of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development

New York, 3 April 2019

Mr. Chair,

As we call to mind the 25th anniversary of the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) in Cairo and consider the follow-up to its Program of Action in the context of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, my Delegation is aware of the many challenges that the international community still faces to achieve the goal of greater, integral human development.

The ICPD was an important milestone in the world’s understanding of the interrelationship between population and development, indeed considering the linkage between these two for the first time. All forms of coercion in the implementation of population policies were rejected. The family, based on marriage, was recognized as the fundamental unit of society, and as entitled to comprehensive support and protection. Strong impetus was given to the improvement of the status of women throughout the world, particularly with regard to their health, and their full and equal participation in development. The expanding phenomenon of migration was considered along with its impact on development.

Since then, development has been and remains the proper context for the international community’s consideration of population issues.Within such discussions there naturally arise questions relating to the transmission and nurturing of human life. To formulate and position population issues, however, in terms of individual “sexual and reproductive rights” is to change the focus from that which should be the proper concern of governments and international agencies. Suggesting that reproductive health includes a right to abortion explicitly violates the language of the ICPD, defies moral and legal standards within domestic legislations and divides efforts to address the real needs of mothers and children, especially those yet unborn.

Moreover, questions involving the transmission of life and its subsequent nurturing cannot be adequately dealt with except in relation to the good of the family, which the Universal Declaration of Human Rights defines as “the natural and fundamental group unit of society.”[1]

Governments and society ought to promote social policies that have the family as their principal object, assisting it by providing adequate resources and efficient means of support, both for bringing up children and looking after the elderly, to strengthen relations between generations and avoid distancing the elderly from the family unit.

Mr. Chair,

Another landmark of the ICPD was the link between migration and development. Ever since, there has been increased sensitivity, research, cooperation and effective policies in this field, leading to the adoption of the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration. Migration is a global phenomenon; one which is linked to development and poverty, as well as to financial and health security. In particular, migrants are now seen as proactive agents of development. Nonetheless, negative stereotypes of migrants are, at times, exploited to promote policies detrimental to their rights and dignity, and migrants, especially children and women, are often victims of trafficking. These are issues that demand our attention when tackling problems concerning population and development.

This topic also has strong environmental implications. While population growth is often blamed for environmental problems, we know that the matter is much more complex. Wasteful patterns of consumption, growing inequalities, the unsustainable exploitation of natural resources, the absence of restrictions or safeguards in industries, all endanger the natural environment. Research across several decades shows, with insignificant variations, that inequalities in consumption are stark. Globally, the 20% of the world’s highest-income people account for 86% of total consumption, while the poorest 20% a mere 1.3%. Confronted with these and other data that demonstrate drastic inequalities, Pope Francis exhorts us to an “ecological conversion,”[2] which calls for a change to a more modest lifestyle and responsible consumption, and for a greater awareness of the universal destination of the world’s resources.

Mr. Chair,

The Holy See is fully aware of the complexity of the issues involved in the review and appraisal of the ICPD Programme of Action. This very complexity requires that we carefully weigh the consequences for present and future generations of the strategies and recommendations to be proposed. Fundamental questions like the transmission of life, the family, and the material and moral development of society, need very serious consideration. The Holy See stands ready to make its contribution toward finding ways to building a world of genuine equality, fraternity and peace.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Notes

1. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 16.3.
2. Pope Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si’, 216.

Social Protections For Women, Girls And All Those With Down Syndrome

Statement by H.E. Archbishop Bernardito Auza, Apostolic Nuncio, Permanent Observer of the Holy See
At the Side Event entitled “Social Protections for Women, Girls and All Those with Down Syndrome” United Nations, New York, 21 March 2019

Your Excellencies, Distinguished Panelists, Dear Friends,

I am very happy to welcome you to this morning’s event on social protections for women, girls and all those with Down Syndrome, which the Holy See is pleased to be sponsoring, on this International Down Syndrome Awareness Day, with the Center for Family and Human Rights.

During the 63rd Session of the Commission on the Status of Women that has been taking place over the last ten days, we have been focused on the theme of social protections, access to public services and sustainable infrastructure to achieve gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls. We have considered the gaps in these protections and the various vulnerabilities to which women and girls are exposed. We have examined the situation of access in places across the globe to services like education, work, health care, and infrastructure like housing, energy, water and sanitation, and have looked at the discrimination that is often at the root of why people are deprived of them.

But what is a situation of concern for all women across the globe is particularly acute for women and girls with Down Syndrome, as well as parents of Down Syndrome children. And if there is one area in which there does not seem to be much of a variance between girls and boys it is with regard to what happens when parents receive a diagnosis of Down Syndrome. In many countries that diagnosis is sadly tantamount to a death sentence. Despite the assurances of the 2006 Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to “promote, protect and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities,” including “those who have long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments,” and to “promote respect for their inherent dignity,” there are really no social protections for those diagnosed in the womb with a third 21st chromosome. For children born with Down Syndrome, in many places access to public services — to education, work, adequate health care — is inadequate or non existent. And in places with lagging infrastructure, the difficulties for those with Down Syndrome and their families can be exacerbated. Their special needs are often largely overlooked, including by an international community that is committed to leaving no one behind and ensuring the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights of persons with disabilities.

Back in 2011, the UN General Assembly made a commitment to ensure that those with Down Syndrome would not be left behind. With Resolution 66/149, it declared March 21 as World Down Syndrome Day and invited all Member States, relevant organizations of the United Nations system, other international organizations, and civil society to observe it annually in order to raise public awareness throughout society, including at the family level, regarding persons with Down Syndrome. March 21 (or in numerals 3-21 for Trisomy-21) had previously been marked from 2006 as World Down Syndrome Day by advocacy and research groups.

On the first observance of World Down Syndrome Day at the United Nations seven years ago today, then Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon said, “Let us reaffirm that persons with Down syndrome are entitled to the full and effective enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms. Let us each do our part to enable children and persons with Down Syndrome to participate fully in the development and life of their societies on an equal basis with others. Let us build an inclusive society for all.”

But it’s a struggle to build that inclusive society. In 2017, a major US television network reported that one country was on the verge of eliminating Down Syndrome, but what it really meant was that it was eliminating those with Down Syndrome, because practically 100 percent of parents of babies who receive a prenatal diagnosis of Down Syndrome were choosing to end the life of their son or daughter. Several other countries have similar statistics, to such a degree that many defenders of the rights of those with Down Syndrome, and other objective observers, call what is happening to children diagnosed with Trisomy 21 in the womb a “genocide.”

Even some within the UN System, despite the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, despite the stated commitment of the UN General Assembly, are abetting that genocide. In November 2017, one of the members of the United Nations Human Rights Committee, based in Geneva, stated during an official meeting, “If you tell a woman, ‘Your child has … Down Syndrome … or that he may have a handicap forever, for the rest of his life,’ … it should be possible for her to resort to abortion to avoid the handicap as a preventive measure.” Defending those with disabilities, he said, “does not mean that we have to accept to let a disabled fetus live.” Such a position is baldly inconsistent with the UN’s concern to leave no one behind and to defend the rights of those with disabilities. As Dr. Jerome Lejeune, who discovered the cause of Down Syndrome in 1958, once said, after what he had discovered was being against rather than in favor of those with Down Syndrome, “Medicine becomes mad science when it attacks the patient instead of fighting the disease.” He underlined, rather, that “we must always be on the patient’s side,” and that the practice of medicine must always be to “hate the disease [and] love the patient.”

Pope Francis said in 2017 that the response to the eugenic trend of ending the lives of the unborn who show some form of imperfection is, in short, love. “The answer,” he said, “is love: not that false, saccharine and sanctimonious love, but that which is true, concrete and respectful. To the extent that one is accepted and loved, included in the community and supported in looking to the future with confidence, the true path of life evolves and one experiences enduring happiness.”

And the happiness of those with Down Syndrome, and the happiness they bring to others, cannot be denied. A 2011 Study published in the American Journal of Medical Genetics by Harvard University Researchers associated with Boston Children’s Hospital showed that 99 percent of those with Down Syndrome say they are happy with their lives, 97 percent like who they are, 96 percent like how they look, 99 percent of them love their families, 97 percent like their siblings and 86 percent said they make friends easily. It also showed that 99 percent of their parents said they love their child with Down Syndrome, and 79 percent said that their outlook on life is more positive because of their child. And among siblings 12 and older, the survey indicated that 94 percent said they are proud to have a brother or sister with Down Syndrome, and 88 percent said they are better people because of him or her.

I cannot think of any other situation that would show such high numbers among children with a particular condition or no condition at all, and among their parents, and siblings. We could even say that Down Children and their families are simply among the happiest groups of people alive — and the world is happier because of them.

We’ll have a chance today to hear from our panel — Karen Gaffney, Michelle Sie Whitten, Deanna Smith and Rick Smith — where this infectious happiness comes from.

I thank you for your attendance today and for your interest in providing social protections and access to public services — indeed full and effective enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms — for all those with Down Syndrome, and for working not only to build a society that includes them, but cherishes them, and benefits from their presence and many gifts.

Serving the dignity of man, and called to life

Address of His Excellency, the Most Reverend Vincenzo Paglia, president of the Pontifical Academy for Life

Moscow – February 12, 2019

Your Eminences, Most Reverend Prelates, Dear Professors,

I am pleased and honored to have this opportunity to speak on such an important occasion whose purpose is to bring about deeper understanding and fuller cooperation between the Catholic Church and the Patriarchate of Moscow and of the entire Russian Orthodox Church. During their meeting in Cuba three years ago, Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill emphasized the importance of the Gospel and of the Christian faith in the construction of a more just and peaceful society, one that promotes “respect for the dignity of man, called to life.” It is important that we recognize this responsibility and take it on as a shared commitment.

I interpret as a providential sign the fact that I just returned from a stay in Cuba, where I attended the fourth International Conference for World Balance in Havana. It dealt with the question of a more human and more fair coexistence in our now globalized planet. I spoke to the participants about the meeting in Cuba between Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill, as well as about this conference, which takes its inspiration from the Joint Declaration that the Pope and the Patriarch signed.

We find ourselves now at a moment in history that requires greater unity among Christians because globalization without Christian inspiration is lacking in love and is prey to conflict. And unfortunately, that is what we often see today. The moment in history that we are passing through is characterized by people retreating into their own closed circles. We see everywhere an increased danger of an individualism that weakens both society and religions themselves. It is urgent for ChristiansCin a globalized worldCto offer everyone that vision of the unity of humanity that permeates the Gospel.

 

The collapse of “us”

In fact, at the beginning of the 21st century, society is characterized by some of the negative results produced by modern Western culture and imposed by it on the rest of the world. These results are now centered on a contradiction that undermines the hopes for Christian humanism. While on the one hand, recent centuries have seen increased attention to the person, and the person’s irreplaceable and priceless uniqueness and desire for a well-lived life, on the other hand we see an explosion of individualism that leads to loneliness, self-referentiality, and embitterment against society. Some philosophers such as, for example, Gilles Lipovetsky, speak of a “second individualist revolution” marked by the worship of hedonism and of psychology, by the privatization of life and by the triumph of autonomy over collective institutions. Zygmunt Bauman, one of the most careful students of social phenomena, spoke recently of a “fluid society,” a society with no fixed values.

Contemporary man, obsessively concerned with his personal destiny, is at risk of such an overwhelming narcissism that he is insensitive to those around him and no longer has the inner strength to commit himself to building a shared human community. The passion for humanity’s condition and “common destiny,” which nourishes an aspiration for “universal brotherhood,” has weakened and became uncertain. We could speak of what I call “the collapse of ‘us,’” that is, the loss of a common dream, of common vision.

The men and women of today are more connected, but not for that are they more brothers and sisters. If on the one hand technology and the economy have more or less bureaucratically unified societies, they have on the other hand disrupted them emotionally: pressure for functional efficiency kills relationships. We are looking at plan for the cultural and social “creation” of the individual as an end in himself, disconnected from any individual uniqueness and any possible separate “empowerment.” In the search for autonomy, the contemporary individual removes, day after day, the memory of the roots and bonds that generated and constructed him as a human person. Some speak of a new religion, “egolatry,” the cult of the ego, on whose altar the most sacred affections are sacrificed. The deterioration of social bonds, in all their aspects – family, work, culture, politics – is one of the most critical effects of the global diffusion of this individualism that has no others and no history.

 

Humana Communitas

Pope Francis, on the recent celebration of the 25th Anniversary of the creation of the Pontifical Academy for Life, wrote us a letter entitled Humana Communitas. We have translated it into Russian and want to give it to Patriarch Kirill and to all of you. In the letter, the Holy Father asks questions about the life of man and points out the (theological) roots that can serve as reference points when addressing the questions and difficulties that confront life itself. He explicitly and clearly points to the human community as the most complete and genuine locus for the free and conscious development of every man and woman. This is what the Pope writes: The human community is God’s dream even from before the creation of the world (cf. Eph 1:3-14). In it, the eternal Son begotten of God the Father has taken flesh and blood, heart and emotions. Through the mystery of giving life, the great family of humanity is enabled to discover its true meaning. (HC1). This dream …is what Jesus has entrusted to the Church and has placed in the heart of every person: the whole human family has a common origin and a common destiny. In a globalized world, the unity of the human family is the horizon that must involve all peoples. It is crucial to rediscover brotherhood, which unfortunately has not yet been achieved. Life is not an abstract universal; life is each person from his conception until the moment of death. Life is the whole human family all over the world. This is life, an historical reality.

And further on the Pope says: Indeed, the many extraordinary resources made available to human beings by scientific and technological research could overshadow the joy of fraternal sharing and the beauty of common undertakings, unless they find their meaning in advancing that joy and beauty. We should keep in mind that fraternity remains the unkept promise of modernity. The universal spirit of fraternity that grows by mutual trust B within modern civil society and between peoples and nations B appears much weakened. (HC13)

In the web of relationships that are part of the life of contemporary individuals, the fundamental questions that fill their hearts, their minds, even their bodies, and that are otherwise incapable of being answered exhaustively, must be included. Even the pressing question of rights, in order that it not become simply a declaration of intent, needs to be raised, justified, communicated and implemented, not with reference to an unconnected “I” but rather with broader reference to a human “us.” Without a harmonious correlation, without shared rights and duties, the proper protection of the person and his inherent dignity is not guaranteed, and the life of the community is not more human. One example: too often we witness the reduction of the great theme of humanity’s aspiration to happiness to the search for psycho-physical gratification, which becomes the sole criterion for and measure of everyday “quality of life.” In fact, to think about it, true well-being is what wells up from mutual love, from being well-loved, that is, loved and able to love, welcomed and welcoming, mercied” (as Pope Francis likes to say) and merciful.

The challenge that the lives of the more than seven billion people alive today offers us is that of the “us”: that is, rethinking ourselves within a web of relationships that certainly marks, limits, and imposes itself, but precisely for this reason does not abandon the other, that continues to reproduce, remains in solidarity, and hopes for a salvation that can reconcile us, all together, in shared and hopeful life.

There are two initiatives that I believe are fundamental in this area. The first deals with relocating the questions that must be asked about human life into the broader global perspective that is obligatory today. It is objectively illogical and unproductive to deal with the analysis of individual questions without first placing them into a framework within which, as far as possible, the complexity of the current situation can be taken into account. Today, in respect for, in defense of, and in the promotion of human life, everything is under consideration: local symptoms cannot be treated if global causes are not taken into account. Global bioethics is the current vehicle for examining the human quality of the choices intended to protect and reaffirm the ultimate destiny of life: resistance to addressing the radical understanding of this activity would be a serious misunderstanding of the responsibility that faith has today.

The second initiative is instead an extension of that theme. In recent decades, quite rightly, attention has been given to conditions on our planet and to the consequences of human activity on the environment. Today, it is time to widen this attention, to turn from a consideration of our common home to concern for its inhabitants. Precisely because the habitability of the planet is put into crisis by the reckless and selfish actions of its inhabitants, the time has come to concern ourselves seriously with this behavior. We are called to rediscover the connection between the relationships among us on the one hand and our relationships with the places in which we live on the other.

Accompany in the passage of death

In the context of our discussions, a unifying social understanding of death is particularly important. What troubles me deeply about the demand for approval of the various modalities of euthanasia is not simply the fact that there is a desire to pervert the practice of medicine, which should be entirely dedicated to the patient’s life and not to his death, but rather the fact that a person who, at a particularly serious and difficult time in life, asks to die.

The task of accompanying those who approach the sensitive passage from earthly life to a definitive encounter with Heavenly Father has an importance that is not limited to those immediately involved, but rather has much broader implications. It is the expression of a caring that finds the proper balance between the use of available medical resources and the search for the integral good of the person, in his familial and social context. In fact, the progress of science in the biomedical field risks making healing almost the main, if not the exclusive, purpose of contemporary clinical practice. This evolution brings with it the risk of focusing on the fight against disease and neglecting (or eliminating) the patient. At that point, we forget that the deepest meaning of therapeutic efforts (curing) is found in a relationship centered on taking care of the patient (caring). The tendency, especially in strongly technological contexts, is to look at the elimination of disease as the only objective to be pursued.

This attitude, in its turn, has two consequences. First, there is the risk of being unreasonable in the use of medical treatments, in order to obtain a healing that “must” be achieved at all costs, because in any failure to heal is seen as a defeat for medicine. Doing this, however, opens the way to the stubbornly unreasonable adoption of excessive measures. We can end up inflicting suffering on the patient by using means that are invasive and losing sight of the integral good of the person. Doing everything possible (if this is understood as always using all available means) can mean doing too much (that is, an excess that damages the patient).

The second risk is abandonment of the patient when a cure is no longer possible. Once that happens, the relationship between the doctor and the patient ends, and medicine (society) no longer has anything to do for him. This is an unacceptable course of action. If we cannot heal, we can still relieve pain and suffering and continue to take care of that person. The incurable patient is never to be left uncared for. This total commitment to care springs from a conviction that every person is endowed with absolute dignity at every stage of his life. We cannot speak seriously about the humanization of medicine unless we have an effective understanding of the dignity of every unique human person, even when seriously ill or near death. The risk that the incurable patient runs today is the risk of abandonment due to the idea that “Oh well, there is nothing left to do” or that “It’s not worth the effort.” Another risk that is the other side of the coin is euthanasia, based on the idea that if there is nothing that can be done, we might as well “get it over with.”

The firm refusal to adopt such courses of action finds a strong ally in palliative care. Recently, the international scientific community has approved (and the Academy for Life has been among the supporters of this development) a new definition of palliative care. It begins by stating that: “Palliative care is the active holistic care of individuals across all ages with serious health-related suffering due to severe illnesses, and especially of those near the end of life. It aims to improve the quality of life of patients, their families and their caregivers.”

Two aspects of this definition seem particularly significant: the first is the holistic approach that palliative care offers, which is the exact opposite of a medical reduction in care. We don’t have patients, we have people, with all their physical, psychological, cultural and spiritual baggage. It is only within a framework that takes into account the whole of the human person, that technology, which is particularly efficient today, finds its true effectiveness, expresses its true strength.

The second aspect presented by the new definition of palliative care is that it recognizes, not only the person being treated but also family members and healthcare professionals, with the interesting proviso that they are not simply agents in the treatment of the person who is ill, they themselves are recipients of specific and caring attention. This formulation is crucial precisely because it keeps the suffering person, even one who is approaching death, within the circle of his fundamental family and social relationships. It is unthinkable to die alone! Experience has shown that the request for euthanasia or assisted suicide is in almost all cases the result of the patient being abandoned by society or the medical profession. To the contrary, once a true multi- disciplinary treatment protocol has been put in place and a network of affective and professional relationships created, it is very rare to encounter a death request.

Medicine must recognize the value of its fundamental vocation to “take care” and breathe new life into that vocation. We need to overcome the misunderstanding that equates “palliative” with “useless” or ineffective. This confusion explains some of the resistance that hinders the practice and acceptance of palliative care, even when its importance is recognized in principle.

Among the different levels and participants involved in a “taking care” that is reintroduced in a specific case, thanks in some way to palliative care, special attention is to be given to spiritual and religious questions and the persons (chaplains, spiritual counselors) who deal with them. For the believer, death always takes the form of a radical surrender to the mystery of God who does not abandon His children to the grave; moreover, the last days of the earthly life of every human person are a precious and irreplaceable opportunity to take stock of their existence and speak words of reconciliation and forgiveness. To assist and accompany a dying person (and that person’s family!) in this twofold transition is a precious gesture that gives added value to even the final moments of a person’s life.

Dear friends, following the Lord Jesus, healer of bodies and souls, confers on us the responsibility for the lives of men and women of today, especially the youngest and poorest, and of future generations. This is a great challenge because the world we live in is complex and its horizons are vast. This responsibility cannot be reduced to a simple technological process, but I can assure you that Christianity can really, in our time and within a humanistic and spiritual framework that is essential and inescapable, help the whole of humanity to answer the challenges of life. And this is one or the reasons we are here today. Together.

Thank you.

COMECE, 4 februari 2019

The quick development of new technologies based on Artificial Intelligence (AI) is leading COMECE to publish the reflection “Robotisation of Life – Ethics in view of new challenges”. The document reaffirms the primacy of the human person and promotes a right-based and person-centred approach in reviewing the main principles that define the relationship between human persons and robots.

Produced by an ad-hoc working group on robotisation established by COMECE, the reflection comes in a moment of intense discussion about the importance of Artificial intelligence at the EU level.

This ongoing debate – in the context of which a statement on “Artificial Intelligence, Robotics and Autonomous Systems” was issued by the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies, and the first draft of “Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI” was published by the recently established High – Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence – reveals the increasing number of urgent and complex moral questions in this domain. It also highlights the need for defining an ethical and legal framework for the design, production, use and governance of Artificial Intelligence.

Led by Prof. Antonio Autiero and enriched by diverse contributions of experts in theology, philosophy, law and engineering, the COMECE ad-hoc working group analysed the impacts of robotisation on the human person and on society as a whole and elaborated its reflection as an ethical step which can shape community life in our complex and globalised society in which actors are increasingly interconnected.

Acknowledging the necessity of clear guidance for the future of the next generations, and convinced that no unconditional or emphatic acceptance of Artificial Intelligence is possible, this COMECE reflection encourages a review of the current principles, reaffirming the primacy of the human, on the basis of the recognition of the human dignity of each person.

Message from the Prefect of the Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development for the 66th World Leprosy Day (27 January 2019)

To the Presidents of the Episcopal Conferences,
To the Bishops responsible for Health Pastoral Care,
To Men and Women Religious,
To social, healthcare and pastoral workers,
To volunteers and all persons of good will,

“Ending discrimination, stigma, and prejudice”

The medical community and society have seen great advances in the care of persons with Leprosy or Hansen’s disease in recent years. Diagnosis has improved and various treatments are more accessible than before, yet “this illness still continues to strike, especially the neediest and poorest of persons.”^[1] Over 200,000 new cases of Hansen’s disease are reported each year, with 94% representing 13 different countries.^[2] “It is important,” Pope Francis has stated, “to keep solidarity alive with these brothers and sisters, disabled as a result of this disease.”^[3]Jesus has given us a model for this care; what moved Christ deeply in the encounter with Leprosy must now motivate us in the Church and in society.

Multidrug therapy and skilled clinical service centres have proven effective in addressing this illness, but “no institution can by itself replace the human heart or human compassion when it is a matter of encountering the suffering of another.”^[4] The theme for this year’s World Leprosy Day, “Ending discrimination, stigma, and prejudice,” teaches us clearly that one of the most critical needs in the lives of those experiencing this devastating disease is love.

Pope Francis, reflecting on Jesus’ healing of the person with leprosy in St. Mark’s Gospel (Mk 1:40-45), indicates God’s power and effectiveness in meeting our deepest desire to be loved and cared for. “God’s mercy,” he reminds us, “overcomes every barrier and Jesus’ hand touches” the person with leprosy. The Divine Physician wastes no time diagnosing the diseases that afflict us, and He desires nothing more than to treat them by drawing near to us. “He does not stand at a safe distance,” Francis continues, “and does not act by delegating, but places himself in direct contact with our contagion.”^[5]

This year marks the 10^th anniversary of the canonization of St. Damien de Veuster. Born in Tremelo, Belgium in 1840, he was ordained a priest for the Congregation of the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary. His missionary zeal led him to serve the isolated community of persons suffering from leprosy on the Hawaiian Island of Molokai. Attentive to the inspirations of his own heart and the requests of the sick persons he served, Damien chose to remain on the island and later contracted the disease himself. To a community that was used to being addressed from a distance, he preached the Gospel of mercy, indicating the nearness of God to “We lepers.” He died on the Island of Molokai in 1889, after 16 years of compassionate care that revealed the face of Christ to those he served.

In Evangelii Gaudium, Pope Francis addresses the human tendency to embrace “an unruly activism” when it comes to serving the poor and those in need. What God calls each of us to, he explains, is “an attentiveness which considers the other ‘in a certain sense as one with ourselves.’”^[6] What we need today is “the grace to build a culture of encounter, of this fruitful encounter, this encounter that returns to each person their dignity as children of God, the dignity of living.”^[7] St. Francis of Assisi’s profound conversion included a grace-filled encounter with a person suffering from leprosy. In the end, he cared for that person—the leper who was a figure of Christ crucified—helped him, and kissed him. Every true encounter has the power to restore life and hope.

On a practical level, there are several ways that this encounter with those suffering from leprosy can be facilitated. Our health institutions and local health care systems, cooperating with government agencies and NGOs, can help form partnerships that will have a lasting effect on those afflicted with this illness. It will not be an individual effort that will bring about the necessary transformation of those struggling with leprosy, but a shared work of communion and solidarity.

Building awareness, particularly in those countries where leprosy is endemic, is also a necessary step on the road to progress. Here the power of education and the contribution of the academy of sciences can do much to assist those diagnosed with leprosy to find a way forward and to help our communities to extend a welcoming, healing hand. God always blesses such cooperation and the benefits for the sick are tangible.

Finally, communities themselves must continually strive to eliminate “discrimination, stigma, and prejudice,” by working towards the complete integration of the person in all of his or her bodily and spiritual dimensions. When addressing the great need for development on a global scale, St. Paul VI spoke of the development “of the whole man and of everyman.”^[8] When persons with leprosy find the clinical care they deserve being matched by the receptivity of a fraternal glance of love, and therefore social acceptance in accord with their spiritual dignity, then will integral human development find its purest expression in authentic healing.

I express my deepest gratitude to all who work so tirelessly to assist persons afflicted by leprosy and who provide such effective relief in their care for the sick. The financial support of many, along with the various contributions of science and research have also brought hope and assistance for countless persons afflicted with this illness. May the powerful intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Health of the Sick, continue to be with us as we seek to eliminate Hansen’s disease, as well as stigma, discrimination and prejudice in all its forms.

Cardinal Peter Kodwo Appiah Turkson
Prefect

________________________

^[1] Pope Francis, Angelus, 28 January 2018.
^[2] World Health Organization, “Global Leprosy Strategy 2016-2020,” 3.
^[3] Pope Francis, Angelus, 31 January 2016.
^[4] Pontifical Council for Pastoral Assistance for Health Care Workers, “New Charter for Health Care Workers,” 3.
^[5] Pope Francis, Angelus, 15 February 2015.
^[6] Pope Francis, Evangelii Gaudium, 199.
^[7] Pope Francis, “Morning Meditation in the Chapel of the Casa Santa Marta,” 13 September 2016.
^[8] Pope Paul VI, Populorum Progressio, 42.

Address of mgr. Vincenzo Paglia to the conference “Muslim and Christian Perspectives on Palliative Care and End of Life”,  organized by the Pontifical Academy for Life and Georgetown University in Qatar Doha

January 22-23, 2019

I would like to join in the greeting offered by Dean Dallal and welcome you, both for myself and on behalf of the Pontifical Academy for Life, to our Conference dealing with “Muslim and Christian Perspectives on Palliative Care and the End of Life.” This conference is part of the Academy’s wider PAL-LIFE project that is dedicated to the increased acceptance and full implementation of palliative care around the world. I first of all thank Georgetown University in Washington DC, represented here by Doctor John Borelli, then Georgetown University in Qatar, represented by Dean Ahmad Dallal, and I thank Sultana Afdhal, Chief Executive Officer of the World Innovation Summit for Health (WISH) Community sponsored Qatar Foundation. Their contributions to the scientific and organizational aspects of this event have been invaluable. It is an honor to collaborate with such prestigious and culturally committed institutions.

Historically, the palliative care movement was born at the middle of the last century to give specific medical and social attention to incurable cancer patients and relieve the complex of symptoms that accompany the most advanced stages of the disease until death.

From the beginning, palliative care includes not only the management of symptoms and care for the needs of the patient, but also preparation for death, in the realization that it is not only inevitable for all, but that it must be dealt with in particular ways when a disease is incurable and the progression to death is unstoppable. Palliative care also includes the patient’s family, or those others who are closest, as beneficiaries of accompaniment.

We are aware of the importance that palliative care can assume, inside and outside medicine, in times like ours where we witness marginalization, discrimination, and the elimination of the weakest of human beings, such as those suffering from a serious, disabling or incurable disease. We want to oppose the “throw-away culture”— and we know how pervasive it is in most of contemporary society— by promoting a “palliative care culture,” that overcomes the attraction of euthanasia and assisted suicide, and that leads to the greatest possible acceptance of a culture of care that enables us to accompany the dying with love until the end.

To accomplishing this, I think we must reflect as deeply as possible about the great anthropological questions and enormous ethical challenges we face in dealing with the end of earthly life. For this reason, our efforts in this Conference will be directed to exploring what palliative care can offer to those human needs that arise from the power of the human spirit. We will take consider not only clinical experience, but also the contributions that science and the deathless truths that religions preach about mystery of humanity.

Today the palliative care scientific community recognizes the important role that religions play in advancing this form of accompaniment of the sick or dying, given the ability of religions to reach the peripheries of humanity, those who in every community are in some way most in need. While this is certainly true, religions are and do much more. Religions are not only able to facilitate a greater presence of palliative care where it is needed, but they are one of the true component forces of palliative care itself. Total attention to the person is made much more difficult by economic hegemonies that colonize contemporary cultures and societies. The result of this situation can be only a culture, or rather anti-culture, of wastefulness. An understanding of human existence and of reality that values religious experience allows us to see and affirm a good that surpasses and is not limited by economic calculus. Recognition of the integral openness of the person to transcendence makes it possible to state that in human life, even when it is fragile and seems to be defeated by illness, there is inalienable value. Palliative care represents a vision of man that is preached and protected by the great religious traditions. In terms of motivation and inspiration, this is the most profound and trenchant contribution palliative care can receive.

Palliative care today represents for all of us a concrete initiative within a climate of vanishing love for humanity and a crisis of social ties that beginning with a generic disengagement is now reaching a real social disintegration that involves all social structures, beginning with the family. Societas as a communion of persons, no matter what form it takes, is necessary for self-realization of the individual. While the individual is not the servant of society, society is not merely an instrument for the self-realization of the individual. It is rather a condition that allows for the such realization. It is difficult to make what is human develop in a society where relationships are mummified. The ego, as it is more and more conceived of by postmodernity, becomes an force for dissolution, not for bonding; exclusion, not inclusion; fluidity, not consolidation. It is therefore essential to foster not only problem-solving, which can be superficial, but also the lasting dream of a new humanism for all, and of universal brotherhood. Reinventing a new brotherhood is the anthropological and social challenge of our day and is the specific charge that Pope Francis gave to the Pontifical Academy for Life on the occasion of the twenty-fifth anniversary of its creation, which will be celebrated on February eleventh. The text of the Holy Father’s letter is in your folders. Here too, religions have a very special word to say.

Dependency—a human condition that is a focus of religions and palliative care—is indeed human and should be appreciated, when freely chosen, as an inalienable human value. The ego finds its fulfillment in relationship, in the “we.” The “we” is no less innate in us than the “I.” It is clear that our existence is marked by a permanent movement from the “I” to the “we.” Humanism must necessarily be marked by solidarity. The task of “caring for” the other, and for creation, is very different from the false, predatory and destructive attitude so often adopted by man—not only towards nature and the earth, but also against brothers, especially when they are perceived as obstacles or no longer useful. The palliative care community bears witness to a new way of living that focuses on the person and his good, to which not only the individual but the whole community tends. In this community the good of each person is pursued as a good that benefits everyone. Palliative care is a human right, and various international programs are working to implement it; but the basic human right is to continue to be recognized and accepted as a member of society, as part of a community.

The Conference which we are about to begin will open with the signing, by me and Sultana Afdhal, of a Joint Declaration on the End of Life and Palliative Care, issued by WISH and the Pontifical Academy for Life, two institutions of different faiths, but sharing the task of study, scientific advancement and cultural development; two academic institutions that specifically in palliative care find a fruitful ground for encounter and cooperation in order to reach a new humanism for the benefit of all persons and all peoples. In this context I would like to express my appreciation for the scientific and cultural contribution that WISH has offered to the international community through its activities, not least for the work of the group on “Islamic Ethics and Palliative Care” led by Dr. Mohammed Ghaly, who presented its results during the Summit celebrated here in Doha last November. This was a valuable starting point for our work.

I hope that these two days can make an effective contribution to making palliative care—which is called on every day to face great challenges in accompanying the dying—more well-known and fully accepted by public opinion, and can give rise to a fruitful new humanism for the benefit of all. I am sure that we can work together effectively and learn much from each other. I wish everyone a very profitable two days.