Labels

President of the Pontifical Academy for Life thinks legalisation of euthanasia may serve the common good

Updated 24/4 to take into account Archbishop Paglia's statement.

As part of the Festival of Journalism in Perugia, Monsignor Vincenzo Paglia, President of the Pontifical Academy for Life, participated in the debate on 'The last journey (towards the end of life)'. Below is the full text of Msgr. Vincenzo Paglia's speech.

With the man who gave him the job

First of all I would like to clarify that the Catholic Church does not have a ready-made, pre-packaged package of truths, as if it were a distributor of truth pills. Theological thought evolves in history, in dialogue with the Magisterium and the experience of the people of God (sensus fidei fidelium), in a dynamic of mutual enrichment. The Church's intervention and testimony, insofar as it also participates in the public, intellectual, political and legal debate, is placed on the plane of culture and dialogue between consciences. The contribution of Christians is made within the different cultures, neither above - as if they possessed an a priori given truth - nor below - as if believers were the bearers of a respectable opinion, but detached from history, 'dogmatic' in fact, therefore unacceptable -. Between believers and non-believers there is a relationship of mutual learning.

Let us think, for example, of what happened on the issue of the death penalty: due to the change in cultural and social conditions, due to the maturing of reflection on rights, the Pope changed the catechism. Whereas before it was not excluded that there were circumstances under which it could be legitimised, today we no longer consider it permissible, under any circumstances. As believers, we therefore ask ourselves the same questions that concern everyone, in the knowledge that we are in a pluralistic democratic society. In this case, regarding the end of (earthly) life, we find ourselves, like everyone else, faced with a common question: how can we reach (together) the best way to articulate the good (ethical level) and the just (juridical level), for each person and for society?

To answer this question, a first fundamental point is how we understand freedom. Theological reflection has matured a conception of the person that starts from a datum that is recognisable to all, that is, that we are from the very beginning inserted in a context of relationships that make us in solidarity with one another. Our personal identity is structurally relational. We realised this with almost brutal evidence during the pandemic: everyone's behaviour has (had) repercussions on others. We are all interdependent, linked to one another.

Even human life, which each of us (as generated) receives from others, is therefore not reducible only to the object of a decision that is limited to the private and individual sphere: we are responsible to others, on whom our choices have an impact (and vice versa). Human freedom, in order to exercise itself correctly, must take into account the conditions that have allowed it to emerge and assume them in its work: insofar as it is preceded by others, it is responsible to them. This is why self-determination is fundamental, but at the same time it is not absolute, but always relative (to others). With regard to decisions on dying, this does not mean reverting to the old medical paternalism, but rather emphasising an interpretation of relational and responsible autonomy.

Abstractly emphasising self-determination leads to underestimating the reciprocal influence that takes place through shared culture and concrete circumstances: apparently free requests are actually the result of social injunction [often driven by economic expediency]. As can be seen from the experience of countries in which 'medically assisted (medical) death' is permitted, the number of people admitted tends to expand: competent adult patients are joined by patients whose decision-making capacity is impaired, sometimes severely [psychiatric patients, children, the elderly with cognitive impairment]. Cases of involuntary euthanasia and deep palliative sedation without consent have thus increased. The overall result is that we are witnessing a contradictory outcome: in the name of self-determination, the actual exercise of freedom is being squeezed, especially for those who are most vulnerable; the space of autonomy is gradually being eroded.

At a time when death is approaching, I believe that the main response is that of accompaniment. And the first step to accompaniment is to listen to the questions, often very uncomfortable ones, that arise in this very delicate phase. We must admit that we are not prepared to die, indeed perhaps we could say that a certain superficiality in the way we face the fundamental questions of meaning of existence also makes us unprepared to live. However, remaining close (becoming a neighbour) leads one to question oneself. Those who accompany are invested by the same questions experienced by those who are accompanied: the meaning of life and suffering, dignity, loneliness and the fear of being abandoned.

It is certainly a matter of relieving pain and promoting the culture of palliative medicine, which renounces healing and continues to care for the sick person, with all his or her needs, and his or her family. We know that in this way in many cases the demand for euthanasia disappears; but not always. And it is a question with many implications, in which various factors play regarding guilt, shame, pain, control, powerlessness. The game of projections between the sick person and the carer is very intricate: to distinguish between 'he suffers too much' and 'I suffer too much to see him like this' is not at all easy, just as it is very demanding to take seriously the request for a relationship that helps to live the radical loneliness of dying. Accompaniment in this context therefore requires a great deal of work on oneself, not only on a personal level, but also on a social and cultural level, on one's own being in solidarity in the limit, in separation, and in the passage of death.

In this context, it is not to be ruled out that a legal mediation is feasible in our society that would allow assistance to suicide under the conditions specified by Constitutional Court Sentence 242/2019: the person must be 'kept alive by life-support treatment and affected by an irreversible pathology, a source of physical or psychological suffering that she considers intolerable, but fully capable of making free and conscious decisions'. The bill passed by the Chamber of Deputies (but not by the Senate) was basically along these lines. Personally, I would not practice suicide assistance, but I understand that legal mediation may be the greatest common good concretely possible in the conditions in which we find ourselves.

Mgr Vincenzo Paglia

Source

Update 24/04/23 The Academy for Life issued a clarification.  Just to be clear, this is not a case of his statement being misinterpreted, the Cardinal was forced to attempt to further obscure the issue.




The Cardinal is an equivocator by profession.  Here is his statement on the tragic case of Alfie Evans.




In fact, it was German doctor who distinguished himself far more than the Cardinal in the fight for the life of Alfie.  See Top German paediatrician finds outcome of Alfie Evans case completely incomprehensible

The Archbishop has a very strange moral sense.  He also has a painting by the disgraced Father Rupnik as his twitter feed.   He has the whole of Catholic art over centuries to choose from and he chooses that.   He is mocking his readers.


 

This is the disturbing record of Archbishop Paglia 

Email Post
Labels:

Comments

Farmer Carolyn said…
This is the biggest bunch of word salad garbage I’ve ever read! The only correct fear any of us should have is the fear of being permanently and forever separated from our Lord. Euthanasia, no matter how you try to dress it is killing yourself, and you run the very real risk of being permanently separated from our Lord if you not only participate in it in any way but if you a proponent for it as well.
5:01 AM
Post a Comment