Bishop Paglia claims his absolute opposition to euthanasia and assisted suicide

The president of the Pontifical Academy for Life (PAV), Mons. Vincenzo Paglia, recalls that “the Church reiterates its absolute opposition to any form of euthanasia and assisted suicide” and adds: “It is also my conviction, although some want to make me say the opposite.”

To the position contrary to practices that actively threaten human life in their end, Bishop Paglia added, in statements to Vatican Newsthat “the Church also invites us to reflect on the fact that unreasonable obstinacy (therapeutic obstinacy) is not an expression of medicine and care that is truly tailored to and in favor of the sick person.”

In this sense, he added that, although “we should never shorten the duration of life”, we should also “not strive to obstruct its course in any way”

These statements are made after this Thursday Bishop Paglia met with Pope Francis to present the glossary Small lexicon of the end of life published by the PAV last July.

In recent weeks, some analyzes of the text suggested that the text contained “openings” regarding the essential position of protection of human life defended by Catholic Christian humanism.

Regarding these criticisms, Bishop Paglia recalled that “already in 1956, Pius Lexicon– affirmed the legality of suspending ventilation if certain serious conditions were present” and that, in 2007, the then Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, recognized that some medical practices “can be lawfully interrupted (or not started) when they involve ‘heaviness excessive or significant physical discomfort.

In his opinion, “these are two criteria that are part of the definition of disproportionate treatment, that is, treatment that must be interrupted. This is an evaluation that always requires, to the extent possible, the participation of the patient.”

“He Lexicon “It should be read in its entirety,” he urged.

Asked about the opinion Pope Francis expressed during their meeting, Bishop Paglia stated: “Pope Francis reiterated his appreciation for the work carried out by the Pontifical Academy for Life. Certainly the issue of the end of life is complex and the Church has a rich Magisterium on its side, from Pius XII in 1957 until today. Life must be defended throughout all of existence, not just in some particular moments. Above all, we must defend the right to life, and in particular the life of weak people, to counteract that “throwaway culture” that hides behind the pretension of self-sufficiency and autonomy of today’s women and men.”

This is not the first time that some controversy has been generated around statements by Bishop Paglia regarding euthanasia or assisted suicide.

In April 2023, the PAV had to issue a statement in response to what he described as “incorrect interpretations of Bishop Paglia’s thoughts” on the assisted suicide law approved in Italy.

On that occasion he explained that “we must not rule out that in our society legal mediation is practicable that allows assistance to suicide under the conditions specified by the Sentence 242/2019 of the Constitutional Court: the person must ‘be kept alive through life-sustaining treatment and affected by an irreversible pathology, a source of physical or psychological suffering that he or she finds intolerable, but fully capable of making free and conscious decisions.’”

“Personally I would not practice assisted suicide, but I understand that legal mediation can constitute the greatest common good concretely possible in the conditions in which we find ourselves,” added the president of the PAV.

In this regard, the PAV stated that “In this precise and specific context, Bishop Paglia explained that, in his opinion, a ‘legal mediation’ (certainly not moral) is possible in the direction indicated by the Sentence, maintaining the crime and the conditions under which it is decriminalized, since the Constitutional Court itself has asked Parliament to legislate.”

Vatican News has also asked Bishop Paglia about these “legal mediations”, to which he responded that “There are no ‘acceptable mediations’ a priori. Certainly, in the fundamental and very delicate issues of the end of life, it is desirable that the greatest possible common consensus be reached and, therefore, that it be maintained in a respectful manner in the face of different sensitivities and religious beliefs. This is the task of politics. The Church can collaborate, with a view to the common good of an entire society. It is up to her to form consciences, rather than to make laws.”