The next General Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life will be held from 20 to 22 February 2023, at the Augustinianum Institute, in Via Paolo VI, 25 (facing the Basilica, left side of St. Peter’s Square). The session on February 20th and Tuesday 21st, will be open for everybody and have as a theme: “Converging on the person: emerging technologies for the common good”.

Further information

Jaarlijkse bijeenkomst van de Pauselijke Academie voor het Leven, deels toegankelijk voor iedereen, deels alleen voor leden.

Katholiek Nieuwsblad, 1 september 2020

Katholieke politici zouden geen enkele pro-abortuswetgeving moeten onderschrijven of bevorderen. Dat zei de voorzitter van de Pauselijke Academie voor het Leven zaterdag. Aartsbisschop Vincenzo Paglia riep daarnaast alle katholieken op om het ‘Evangelie van het Leven’ te promoten.

‘De Kerk is erg helder’

“De Kerk is in dit opzicht erg helder. Het is een antwoord van de Catechismus. Het is een grote fout om abortus- en euthanasiewetgeving te bevorderen”, aldus Paglia.

25 jaar Evangelium Vitae

Hij sprak voor een bijeenkomst van CELAM, de organisatie van Zuid-Amerikaanse bisschoppen, over de encycliek Evangelium Vitae (‘Het Evangelie van het Leven’) van paus Johannes Paulus II. Dit jaar is het 25 jaar geleden dat dat document verscheen.

‘Alle levens beschermen en helpen’

Katholieke politici “moeten ophouden” wetten te promoten die gericht zijn tegen het leven van ongeboren kinderen. “Daarover bestaat geen twijfel.”

Politieke leiders moeten volgens Paglia proberen om “slechte en zondige wetgeving” te verbeteren. Christelijke en niet-christelijke politici “moeten de validiteit horen van het beschermen en helpen van alle levens, in het bijzonder die van de meest kwetsbaren”. Ook over die verplichting “bestaat geen twijfel”.

Kerkelijke maatregelen?

Paglia werd gevraagd naar eventuele kerkelijke maatregelen tegen katholieke politici die abortuswetgeving steunen.

Hoewel niet naar Amerika werd verwezen, is dat een discussie die daar voortdurend oplaait, zeker in jaren waarin presidentsverkiezingen worden gehouden.

De redding van de zondaar

Paglia antwoordde dat deze politici “zeker dwalen”. Maar hoewel de Kerk de zonde wil veroordelen, moet zij vooral gericht zijn op de “redding van de zondaar”.

“Wij zijn geïnteresseerd in de helderheid van het veroordelen van de fout, maar we moeten alles doen om degene die dwaalt te bekeren, om te helpen hem te redden.”

‘Bekering tot het Evangelie van het leven’

“De Kerk heeft een grote verantwoordelijkheid zodat haar leden zich allereerst bekeren tot het Evangelie van het leven, tot de schoonheid van het leven. Het is belangrijk dat we het vuile werk van de dood vermijden en het schitterende werk van het leven verrichten.”

Behalve in de Verenigde Staten woedt ook in verschillende Latijns-Amerikaanse landen momenteel een debat over het al dan niet liberaliseren van abortuswetten.

Overgenomen met toestemming van Katholiek Nieuwsblad.

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“.

Position Paper Abrahamic Monotheistic Religions on EuthanasiaDownload

.

Pauselijke Academie voor het Leven, aankondiging
Further details in coming months.

The Workshop 2020, open to the public, is being held in the context of the Pontifical Academy for Life General Assembly on Artificial Intelligence . The 2020 Workshop is also following on from the 2019 gathering on Roboethics.

The fields of robotics and artificial intelligence are distinct, but closely related. They both contain so much information and so many anthropological and ethical questions in themselves that we are dedicating two assemblies to these subjects. We hope that, by having two different assemblies dedicated to two different aspects of the larger field of robotic technologies in general, we can address the opportunities and challenges of these inter-connected technologies in greater depth.

The President of the Pontifical Academy for Life, Abp. Vincenzo Paglia, notes that “in these last number of years the Academy has shown a specific interest in new technologies, dedicating the two-year period 2019-2020 to robo-ethics and to ethical-anthropological questions connected to the so-called artificial intelligences. The Academy is working in relation to what was requested by the Pope, who urged the Academy to enter the territories of science and technology and to follow them with courage and discernment”

Cardinal Sgreccia to the House of the Father

The Pontifical Academy for Life, together with President Mons. Vincenzo Paglia, Chancellor Mons. Renzo Pegoraro, and the entire office staff announces with sadness the passing of his Eminence Cardinal Elio Sgreccia to the Home of his Heavenly Father earlier today.

Since the establishment of the Pontificial Academy on February 11 1994, Cardinal Sgreccia has been the protagonist and courageous, wise heart of our institution, supporting and promoting the study, promotion and protection of human life amidst many challenges posed by recent progress in technology and medicine.

The Pontifical Academy for Life is grateful for the positive and valuable work carried out by Cardinal Sgreccia and for his important contribution to scientific discussions and academia on behalf of the Church’s Magisterium. Cardinal Sgreccia has always continued to follow the activities of the Pontificial Academy, remaining constantly informed about its current activities and initiatives. With discretion and sensitivity, he has accompanied the work of the Pontifical Academy, participating in its important assemblies and in its meetings with the Holy Father.

The Pontifical Academy for Life continues with great fervor along the path begun by Cardinal Sgreccia, and with his same zeal in grasping the signs of the times and providing answers to the meaningful questions of contemporary humanity.

Cardinal Sgreccia was born on June 6, 1928 and was ordained a priest in 1952. In 1974, he began serving as the Chaplain of the Faculty of Medicine and Surgery at the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart. In 1984, he became the first teacher of Bioethics at this same University, and he became a tenured professor in 1990. He was the founder and director of the Bioethics magazine “Medicina e Morale”. From 1992-2000 he was also the director of the Institute of Bioethics. Pope John Paul II appointed him bishop on November 5, 1992. He served as the President of the Pontifical Academy for Life from Jannuary 3, 2005 to June 17, 2008, and has remained President Emeritus to this day. Pope Benedict XVI appointed him a
cardinal in 2010.

In his last days, after receiving care at Policlinico Gemelli Hospital, Cardinal Sgreccia expressed a desire to return to his home, where he died peacefully on Wednesday June 5, 2019 at 12:15pm.

His niece, Prof. Palma Sgreccia, who remained close to him throughout his life and death, remembered Cardinal Sgreccia as “a man of faith, characterized by a great temperance in lifestyle, who always tried to promote the good of all. He was guided by the light of faith and the strength of reason in his every choice and decision.”

Vatican City, June 5, 2019

Tot de deelnemers aan de 25^ste Algemene vergadering van de Pauselijke Academie voor het Leven: Robotethiek – Mensen, machines en gezondheid

Paus Franciscus
25 februari 2019

Beste broeders en zusters,

Ik groet u van harte bij gelegenheid van uw algemene vergadering en ik dank Mgr. Paglia voor zijn vriendelijke woorden. Deze ontmoeting vindt plaats ter gelegenheid van het eerste jubileum van de Academie voor het leven: op 25 jaar na haar ontstaan. Bij deze belangrijke gebeurtenis heb ik  de vorige maand een brie aan de president geschreven met de titel: Humana communitas. Het was vooral de wens om alle presidenten die elkaar hebben opgevolgd aan het hoofd van de Academie en alle leden te bedanken  voor hun competente dienstwerk en hun edelmoedige inzet  voor de bescherming en de bevordering van het menselijke leven gedurende deze werkzame 25 jaar.

We kennen de moeilijkheden waarmee onze wereld de strijd aanbindt. Het weefsel van de betrekkingen in gezin en maatschappij lijkt steeds meer te verslijten en er verspreidt zich een neiging om in zichzelf en zijn persoonlijke belangen opgesloten te raken, met ernstige gevolgen voor de “grote en beslissende kwestie van de eenheid in de mensenfamilie en haar toekomst” (brief Humana communitas, nr. 2). Er tekent zich een dramatische paradox af. Juist nu de mensheid de wetenschappelijke mogelijkheden bezit om te komen tot een eerlijk verdeeld welzijn volgens het gebod van God, zien we daarentegen een versterking van de conflicten en een toename van de ongelijkheid. De mythe van de vooruitgang volgens de filosofie van de Verlichting neemt in betekenis af en de opeenstapeling van de mogelijkheden die wetenschap en techniek ons hebben verschaft leidt niet altijd tot de resultaten waarop gehoopt werd. Inderdaad, aan de ene kant hebben de technische ontwikkelingen het ons mogelijk gemaakt problemen op te lossen die enkele jaren geleden nog onoverkomelijk waren en we zijn de onderzoekers die dergelijke resultaten mogelijk gemaakt hebben dankbaar; aan de andere kan zijn er moeilijkheden en dreigingen  die soms sluipender zijn dan die van voorheen aan het licht gekomen. Het “kunnen doen” brengt het gevaar mee dat niet meer gezien wordt wie het doet en voor wie men het doet. Het technocratische systeem dat gebaseerd is op het criterium van de doeltreffendheid beantwoordt niet aan de diepste vragen die de mens zichzelf stelt. En al is het dan aan de ene kant onmogelijk om het zonder de hulpbronnen te stellen, aan de andere kant legt dit systeem zijn logica op aan hen die ze gebruiken. Toch is de techniek een kenmerk van het menselijke wezen. Men moet haar niet zien als een kracht die de mens vreemd en vijandig is, maar als een voortbrengsel van zijn vindingrijkheid, waardoor hij kan voorzien in de eisen die het leven stelt, voor zichzelf en voor de anderen. Het is dus een typisch menselijke manier om de wereld te bewonen. Maar de huidige ontwikkeling van de technische mogelijkheden brengt een gevaarlijke betovering met zich mee: in plaats van voor het menselijke leven de hulpmiddelen te leveren die de zorg ervoor verbeteren, lopen we het gevaar dat we het leven overlaten aan de logica van de voorzieningen die beslissen over de waarde ervan. Die omkering mondt uit in kwalijke resultaten: de machine blijft er niet bij om geheel alleen zichzelf  te besturen, maar gaat uiteindelijk de mens besturen. Zo wordt de menselijke rede teruggebracht tot een redelijkheid die is losgemaakt van haar effecten en die niet meer als menswaardig gezien mag worden.

We zien helaas de ernstige schade die aan de planeet, ons gemeenschappelijke huis, wordt toegebracht door het zonder onderscheid toepassen van technische middelen. Daarom is de wereld-bio-ethiek een belangrijke zaak om zich voor in te zetten. Zij laat zien dat men zich bewust is van de diepgaande invloed die de milieufactoren en maatschappelijke factoren op de gezondheid en het leven hebben. Dat is een aanpak die geheel in overeenstemming is met de integrale ecologie, zoals die beschreven en aanbevolen werd in de encycliek Laudato si. Het is bovendien op zijn plaats dat wij in de huidige wereld, die gekenmerkt wordt door een nauw contact tussen verschillende culturen, als gelovigen onze specifieke bijdrage leveren in het zoeken naar operationele criteria die met allen gedeeld kunnen worden en die gemeenschappelijke uitgangspunten zijn voor het maken van keuzes door het die de grote verantwoordelijkheid hebben om op nationaal en internationaal niveau beslissingen te nemen. Dat betekent ook dat men zich engageert in de dialoog over de mensenrechten, waarbij ook de plichten die ermee gepaard gaan duidelijk belicht worden. Zij vormen inderdaad het onderzoeksgebied voor een universele ethiek en we zien dat belangrijke vragen daarover door de traditie behandeld zijn door te putten uit het erfgoed van de natuurwet.

De brief Humana communitas verwijst expliciet naar het thema van  “opkomende en met elkaar samenwerkende technologieën”. De mogelijkheid om op de levende materie in te grijpen op een niveau met een steeds kleinere schaal, om steeds grotere massa’s informatie te verwerken, om de hersenprocessen die te maken hebben met de activiteit van het kennen en het denken te volgen – en te beïnvloeden – heeft onmetelijke consequenties: dit raakt de eigenlijke drempel van de biologische specificiteit van de mens en wat hem in geestelijke zin verschillend maakt. Ik bevestig hierbij dat “wat het menselijke leven verschillend maakt een absoluut goed is” (nr. 4).

Het is belangrijk dit nog eens te herhalen: “kunstmatige intelligentie, robotica en andere technologische vernieuwingen moeten gebruikt worden om bij te dragen aan de dienst aan de mensheid en aan de bescherming van ons gemeenschappelijke huis en niet aan precies het tegenovergestelde daarvan, zoals helaas sommige schattingen voorzien.” (Boodschap aan het World Economic Forum te Davos 12 januari 2019). De waardigheid die elk menselijk wezen eigen is moet met vasthoudendheid geplaatst worden in het centrum van ons denken en handelen.

In dit kader is het op zijn plaats op te merken dat de benaming “kunstmatige intelligentie” het gevaar loopt bedrieglijk te zijn ook al kan ze zeker doeltreffend zijn. De termen verhullen het feit dat die functionele automatismen in hun kwaliteiten ver verwijderd blijven van die van het kennen en handelen die een menselijk privilege zijn – ook al zijn ze nuttig in het vervullen van slaafse taken (dat is de oorspronkelijke betekenis van de term “robot”). En juist daarom kunnen ze een maatschappelijk gevaar vormen. Er is trouwens al een risico dat de mens vertechnologiseerd wordt, in plaats van dat de techniek vermenselijkt wordt: men schrijft al te snel aan zogenaamde “intelligente machines” vermogens toe die echt menselijk zijn.

We dienen beter te begrijpen wat in deze context  de betekenis is van intelligentie, bewustzijn, gevoelsleven, gevoelsmatige gerichtheid en de autonomie van het moreel handelen. De kunstmatige voorzieningen die menselijke vermogens nabootsen bezitten in werkelijkheid geen enkele menselijke hoedanigheid. Daarmee moet rekening gehouden worden om de regeling van hun gebruik en het onderzoek zelf te oriënteren op een constructieve en billijke interactie tussen de mensen en de meeste recente versies van die machines. Deze verspreiden zich immers in onze wereld en wijzigen het scenario van ons bestaan radicaal. Als we in staat zijn deze overwegingen te doen gelden in wat er gebeurt, dan zullen de buitengewone mogelijkheden van de nieuwe ontdekkingen hun zegeningen kunnen doen stralen over iedereen en over de hele mensheid.

De discussie tussen de specialisten zelf laat de ernstige problemen aangaande de bestuurbaarheid van de algoritmen die met enorme hoeveelheden data omgaan al zien. Evenzo stellen de technieken waarmee het genetisch erfgoed en de hersenfuncties gemanipuleerd kunnen worden ons voor ernstige ethische vraagstukken. De poging om het geheel van het gedachteleven, het gevoelsleven en de menselijke psyché te verklaren op grond van de functionele som van de samenstellende fysieke en organische onderdelen houdt in ieder geval geen rekening met wat er aan het licht komt aan verschijnselen van de ervaring en het bewustzijn. Het verschijnsel mens is meer dan het resultaat van een optelling en samenstelling van elk van zijn elementen. Ook op dit terrein krijgt het axioma dat zegt dat het geheel meer is dan de som van de delen een nieuwe diepgang en een nieuwe betekenis.

Aan de andere kant leren we nu juist in deze lijn van de complexiteit in de synergie tussen psyché en technè dat, hetgeen we te weten komen over de hersenactiviteit  nieuwe aanwijzingen levert voor de wijze waarop we het bewustzijn (van onszelf en van de wereld) en het menselijk lichaam zelf moeten zien: het is niet mogelijk om geen rekening te houden met het in elkaar grijpen van allerlei betrekkingen als we willen geraken tot een dieper begrip van de integrale menselijke dimensie.

Zeker, we kunnen geen metafysische gevolgtrekkingen maken uit de gegevens van de empirische wetenschappen. Maar we kunnen er wel aanwijzingen aan ontlenen die richting geven aan ons antropologische denken, zelf op theologisch gebied, zoals dat trouwens in de geschiedenis altijd is gebeurd. Het zou immers tegen onze toch authentieke traditie ingaan  als we nu zouden vasthouden aan een anachronistisch begrippenapparaat. We zouden dan niet in staat zijn op passende manier om te gaan met de veranderingen in de begrippen natuur en kunst, omstandigheden en vrijheid, middel en doel die is opgeroepen door de nieuwe cultuur van handelen die typisch is voor het tijdperk van de technologie. We worden opgeroepen de weg in te slaan die op beslissende wijze is gekozen door het Tweede Vaticaans Concilie. Dat roept op tot een vernieuwing van de theologische wetenschappen en een kritisch nadenken over de betrekking tussen Christelijk geloof en moreel handelen (vgl. Optatam totius, 16).

In onze deelname in de ethische samenwerking ten gunst van het leven zal onze inzet – zowel op intellectueel als op specialistisch gebied – een erezaak zijn. In een situatie waarin technologische voorzieningen die steeds vernuftiger zijn rechtstreeks ingrijpen op menselijke eigenschappen van lichaam en geest wordt het nu een dringende zaak om dit met alle mannen en vrouwen die zich inzetten voor wetenschappelijk onderzoek en de praktijk van de zorg. Dat is zeker een zware taak, gezien het snelle tempo waarin de vernieuwingen plaatsvinden. We worden hierin aangemoedigd en gesteund door het voorbeeld van leermeesters uit de gelovige intelligentsia, die met wijsheid en moed de processen van hun eigen tijd hebben benaderd met het oog op een begrijpen van het geloofsgoed op een verstandelijk niveau dat de mens waardig is.

Ik wens u toe dat u uw studie en onderzoek kunt voortzetten zodat het werk voor de bevordering en de bescherming van het leven steeds doeltreffender en vruchtbaarder zal worden. Moge de Maagd Maria u bijstaan en moge mijn zegen u begeleiden. En vergeet alstublieft niet voor mij te bidden. Dank u.

Vertaling: dr. J.A. Raymakers

To the participants of the 25^th General Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life “Robo Ethics – Humans, Machines and Health”

Pope Francis
25 February 2019

Dear brothers and sisters,

I cordially greet you on the occasion of your General Assembly, and I thank Archbishop Paglia for his kind words. This meeting takes place in the first Jubilee of the Academy for Life: twenty-five years after its birth. On this important anniversary, last month I sent the president a letter entitled Humana communitas. I was moved to write this message first of all by the wish to thank all the presidents who have guided the Academy, and all the Members for their competent service and generous commitment to protecting and promoting human life during these twenty-five years of activity.

We know the difficulties with which our world struggles. The fabric of family and social relations seems increasingly to wear away, and there is a tendency to become wrapped up in oneself and one’s own individual interests, with serious consequences for the “the decisive global issue of the unity of the human family and its future” (Letter Humana communitas, 2). A dramatic paradox is thus outlined: just when humanity possesses the scientific and technical capacities to achieve a justly distributed well-being, in accordance with how it was delivered by God, we observe instead an exacerbation of conflicts and an increase in inequality. The enlightenment myth of progress is declining and the accumulation of the potentialities that science and technology have provided us does not always attain the desired results. Indeed, on the one hand, technological development has allowed us to solve problems that were insurmountable until a few years ago, and we are grateful to the researchers who have achieved these results; yet on the other hand, difficulties and threats, sometimes more insidious than the previous ones, have emerged. The possibility of doing something risks obscuring both the person who does, and the person doing it. The technocratic system based on the criterion of efficiency does not respond to the most profound questions that man poses; and if on the one hand it is not possible to do without its resources, on the other it imposes its logic on those who use them. Yet technology is characteristic of the human being. It should not be understood as a force that is alien to and hostile to it, but as a product of its ingenuity through which it provides for the needs of living for oneself and for others. It is therefore a specifically human mode of inhabiting the world. However, today’s evolution of technical capacity casts a dangerous spell: instead of delivering the tools that improve their care to human life, there is the risk of giving life to the logic of the devices that decide its value. This reversal is destined to produce nefarious outcomes: the machine is not limited to driving alone, but ends up guiding man. Human reason is thus reduced to rationality alienated from effects, which cannot be considered worthy of mankind.

We see, unfortunately, the serious damage caused to the planet, our common home, from the indiscriminate use of technical means. This is why global bioethics is an important front on which to engage. It expresses awareness of the profound impact of environmental and social factors on health and life. This approach is very in tune with the integral ecology described and promoted in the Encyclical Laudato si’. Moreover, in today’s world, in which there is close interaction between different cultures, we need to bring our specific contribution as believers to the search for universally shared operational criteria, so that they may be common points of reference for the choices of those who have the serious responsibility for taking decisions on national and international levels. This also means engaging in dialogue regarding human rights, clearly highlighting their corresponding duties. Indeed these constitute the ground for the common search for universal ethics, on which we find many questions that tradition has dealt with by drawing on the patrimony of natural law.

The Lettera Humana communitas explicitly recalls the theme of “emerging and converging technologies”. The possibility of intervening on living material to orders of ever smaller size, to process ever greater volumes of information, to monitor – and manipulate – the cerebral processes of cognitive and deliberative activity, has enormous implications: it touches the very threshold of the biological specificity and spiritual difference of the human being. In this sense, I affirmed that “The distinctiveness of human life is an absolute good” (4).

It is important to reiterate: “Artificial intelligence, robotics and other technological innovations must be so employed that they contribute to the service of humanity and to the protection of our common home, rather than to the contrary, as some assessments unfortunately foresee” (Message to the World Economic Forum in Davos, 12 January 2018). The inherent dignity of every human being must be firmly placed at the centre of our reflection and action. In this regard, it should be noted that the designation of “artificial intelligence”, although certainly effective, may risk being misleading. The terms conceal the fact that – in spite of the useful fulfilment of servile tasks (this is the original meaning of the term “robot”), functional automatisms remain qualitatively distant from the human prerogatives of knowledge and action. And therefore they can become socially dangerous. Moreover, the risk of man being “technologized”, rather than technology humanized, is already real: so-called “intelligent machines” are hastily attributed capacities that are properly human.

We need to understand better what intelligence, conscience, emotionality, affective intentionality and autonomy of moral action mean in this context. Indeed, artificial devices that simulate human capabilities are devoid of human quality. This must be taken into account to guide the regulation of their use, and research itself, towards a constructive and equitable interaction between human beings and the latest versions of machines. Indeed these spread throughout our world and radically transform the scenario of our existence. If we can also make these references bear weight also in action, the extraordinary potential of the new discoveries may radiate their benefits on every person and on the whole of humanity.

The ongoing debate among specialists themselves already shows the serious problems of governability of algorithms that process huge amounts of data. Likewise, the technologies for the manipulation of genetic makeup and brain functions also pose serious ethical questions. In any case, the attempt to explain the whole of human thought, sensitivity, and psychism on the basis of the functional sum of its physical and organic parts, does not account for the emergence of the phenomena of experience and consciousness. The human phenomenon exceeds the result of the calculable assemblage of the individual elements. Also in this context, the axiom according to which the whole is superior to the parts takes on new depth and meaningfulness (see Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii gaudium, 234-237).

Precisely in this area of the complexity of the synergy of psyche and techne, on the other hand, what we are learning about cerebral activity provides new clues about the way of understanding the conscience (of self and of the world) and the human body itself: it is not it is possible to disregard the interweaving of multiple relationships for a deeper understanding of the integral human dimension.

Of course, we cannot make metaphysical deductions from the data provided by empirical sciences. We can, however, draw from them indications that instruct anthropological reflection, in theology too, as has always happened in its history. It would indeed be decidedly contrary to our more genuine tradition to become set on an anachronistic conceptual apparatus, incapable of adequately interacting with the transformations of the concept of nature and of artifice, conditioning and freedom, means and ends, induced by the new culture of acting, typical of the technological era. We are called to place ourselves on the path undertaken decisively by Vatican Council II, which calls for the renewal of theological disciplines and a critical reflection on the relationship between Christian faith and moral action (cf. Optatam totius, 16).

Our commitment – also intellectual and specialist – will be a point of honour for our participation in the ethical alliance in favour of human life. A project which, in a context in which increasingly sophisticated technological devices directly involve the human qualities of the body and the psyche, it becomes urgent to share with all men and women engaged in scientific research and care work. It is a difficult task, certainly, given the fast pace of innovation. The example of the teachers of the Christian intelligence, who entered with wisdom and audacity in the processes of their contemporary world, with a view to an understanding of the patrimony of the faith at the level of reason worthy of man, must encourage and sustain us.

I hope you will continue your study and research so that the work of the promotion and defence of life may be increasingly effective and fruitful. May the Virgin Mother assist you and my blessing accompany you. And please, do not forget to pray for me. Thank you.

Abp. Paglia in Moscow talks about end of life and Palliative Care

Pauselijke Academie voor het Leven, 12 februari 2019

“A globalization devoid of Christian inspiration is poor in love and prey to conflicts; and the task of the Christian world is to re-center relations between people: Care means taking care of others, as the Gospel teaches. The parable of the Good Samaritan takes on a new dimension in the technological and hyper connected society whose implications are people “increasingly withdrawn into their own enclosures,” reiterated Abp. Vincenzo Paglia, President of the Pontifical Academy for Life.

Abp. Paglia was speaking in Moscow on Tuesday 12 February, as part of the annual “Colloquium” between the Catholic Church and the Patriarchate of Moscow to commemorate the Cuba meeting between Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill, which took place in 2016. This year the Colloquium was dedicated to “end of life”.

Addressing the theme “At the service of human dignity, called to life” in light of Humana Communitas, the Holy Father’s Letter to the Pontifical Academy for Life, Abp. Paglia stressed that in “taking care”, “we must take care of human life in the sense of the human quality of the choices that guard and reaffirm the ultimate destiny of life” while at the same time caring for the environment. “We are called to rediscover tour connection to and relationship with the places that host our lives”.

After having framed the challenges posed by the specific theme of the “end of life”, Abp. Paglia focused on how the Pontifical Academy has inserted as one of the qualifying points of its commitment as Palliative Care.

Palliative Care accompanies people in the transition to death. It does not abandon the sick person, as is sometimes the case when it is deemed that there “is nothing left to do neither is it directed towards a “therapeutic obstinacy”.

Palliative Care teaches us that “we have no patients; we have people, with all their physical, psychological, cultural and spiritual baggage”. It recognizes “the presence of family members and of those who work for their health” alongside the sick.

Palliative Care “re-locates the suffering person, even those preparing for the passage of death, within his or her fundamental, familial and social relational dynamic. You cannot die alone! Experience has shown that the demand for euthanasia or assisted suicide is in almost all cases the result of the social and therapeutic abandonment of the patient. On the contrary, once a valid multidisciplinary acceptance of the patient has been put in place and the network of affective and professional relationships is positively involved, it is very rare to find a request for death “.

“Dear friends – concluded Msgr. Paglia – our discipleship of the Lord Jesus, healer of bodies and souls, entrusts us with responsibility for the lives of men and women, especially the youngest and poorest, of today and of future generations. It is a great challenge, due to the complexity of the world in which we live and the vastness of its horizon. Of course it cannot be reduced to a simple technological question. In this age of ours, Christianity can truly help the whole of humanity to grasp the challenges of life in an essential and elemental humanistic and spiritual dimension “.

Finally, Msgr. Paglia gifted the Moscow Patriarchate and the local Catholic Church a Russian translation of the Letter Humana Communitas.

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.

Monsignor Paglia’s Address at a Conference in Qatar

“Palliative care is a human right,” affirmed Monsignor Vincenzo Paglia, President of the Pontifical Academy for Life. “Different international programs are implementing it, but the true human right is to continue to be recognized and welcomed as a member of society, being part of a community,” he stressed.

Monsignor Paglia made these comments on opening the works of the Conference entitled “Muslim and Christian Perspectives on Palliative Care and the End of Life,” which began on January 22, 2019, at Doha, in Qatar, reported “Vatican News” in Italian. The two days of study, organized by Georgetown University and the WISH program of the Qatar Foundation, began with the signing at Qatar of a Joint Declaration on the End of Life and Palliative Care, by the World Innovation Summit for Health (WISH) and the Pontifical Academy for Life.

Palliative care is a reaction to the “throw-away culture,” which renders normal euthanasia and indifference to others, said Monsignor Paglia, stressing its importance today when one witnesses “the marginalization, discrimination and elimination of the most fragile human beings, such as those that suffer serious, disabling or incurable illnesses.”

“I consider it urgent to intensify the reflection to address more solidly the great anthropological questions and the immense ethical challenges that present themselves to us with the questions that concern the end of life,” continued Monsignor Paglia.

Recalling the contribution of religions ”to give concrete impulse to this was the form of accompaniment of sick or dying persons,” Monsignor Paglia stressed  “the capacity of religions themselves to reach humanity’s peripheries,” but also the essence itself of religions, described as being part of “veritable forces of palliative care.”

“Palliative care embodies a vision of man of which their great religious traditions are the guardians and promoters: that is the most profound and incisive contribution that they can make in terms of motivation and inspiration,” added Monsignor Paglia.

The President of the Pontifical Academy for Life recalled “the specific mandate that Pope Francis gave to the Pontifical Academy for Life on the occasion of the 25^thanniversary of its institution. “ The Holy Father called to “reinvent a new fraternity,” he said, “such is the anthropological and social challenge of our time.”

By way of conclusion, Monsignor Paglia said that the palliative care community witnesses in a new way a living together that puts the person and his good at the center. In this community, the good of each is pursued as being a good for all.