The Pontifical Academy for Life has been at the center of controversy in recent weeks as ethicists and moral theologians criticize a newly published text on moral issues surrounding end-of-life healthcare.
According to officials from the Pontifical Academy for Life, the “Little Dictionary of End-of-Life,” published in Italian last month, aims to clarify terminology and concepts related to ethical choices for people suffering from an incurable illness or persistent brain damage or disability.
Such conditions are referred to by the Academy as “vegetative states”—but while that term appears to still be popular in the Academy, it has fallen out of favor with most medical professionals, especially since new research shows that some of these people have the ability to think.
In any case, one suggestion in the Small Encyclopedia has caused more controversy than clarity. It is the Small Encyclopedia’s argument that providing food and water to people in such conditions could be considered “aggressive” or “extraordinary” treatment and therefore be denied.
Catholic theologians oppose the text because it contradicts the teachings of the Church.
But in addition to the content, there are also procedural questions about the creation of the “Small Lexicon” – and what exactly has become of the Pontifical Academy for Life.
—
The Pontifical Academy for Life was founded by Pope John Paul II as a sort of Vatican-sponsored center focused on spreading Catholic teaching on the dignity of human life, bringing together theologians, ethicists and other experts to study and provide “information and education” on social issues related to the “promotion and defense of life.”
Founded under the leadership of French pro-life scholar Dr. Jerome Lejeune, the Academy functioned in its early years as a kind of think tank for the pro-life movement, organizing conferences, publishing guidelines on moral issues, and seeing its members use the platform granted to them by the Pope to give lectures and seminars on Catholic doctrine and biomedical topics.
But in 2016, Pope Francis overhauled the organization, calling for a much broader mission aimed at “a vision of an authentic ‘human ecology’ that can help restore the original balance of creation between the human person and the entire universe.”
At the same time, Pope Francis abolished the life-long term of office of members, removed the requirement that members commit to protecting life in accordance with Catholic teaching, and appointed Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia as president of the Pontifical Academy.
Since then, the organization has been involved in numerous controversies concerning publications and statements by some members that appear to question Catholic teaching on sexuality and bioethics.
Notable among these controversies is a 2022 dispute over an Academy book titled “Theological Ethics of Life,” which critics said challenged the Church’s doctrine on contraception and in vitro fertilization while, according to Paglia, aiming to bring about “a paradigm shift” in the Church’s theological discussion of sex and contraception.
When this book sparked controversy, a member of the Pontifical Academy for Life argued – in an interview with the Academy’s press officer – that the Church’s teaching in Humane life is “reformable”, and at the same time calls on the Church to change its criteria for the moral evaluation of the use of artificial contraceptives.
In light of such publications and statements, the perception of the Pontifical Academy among many Catholics has changed dramatically in recent years. Whereas it once seemed to be the face of Pope John Paul II’s efforts to promote a “culture of life,” the Academy now appears to many Catholics as an embarrassing bastion of warmed-over and heterodox ethical arguments.
But some members of the Pontifical Academy for Life say The pillar that’s not their fault.
And Vatican sources have said The pillar that many members of the Academy, appointed by Pope Francis in 2016, were never consulted or even kept informed about the Academy’s activities and publications during their membership.
According to sources, the actual members of the body – who are mostly academics from around the world – are in practice not consulted on the documents and statements published by headquarters, including the now controversial “Small Encyclopedia”.
Instead of working with members, the claim goes, Academy officials have taken to appointing “study groups” to work on specific documents, leaving many members virtually uninvolved – and uninformed – about the Academy’s publications.
According to sources, the headquarters also plans to hold meetings of the Academy, which often focus on artificial intelligence, robots or other technological issues. At the same time, however, some members are pushing for the annual meetings to also discuss bioethical issues related to abortion, euthanasia, embryo research, surrogacy and similar direct threats to human life and dignity.
“The topics of the meetings are irrelevant,” said a source The pillarboth in terms of the Academy’s mission and the new bioethical challenges facing Catholic researchers, hospitals and even parish priests.
“So who are they helping?” asked a source close to the academy. “How does all this serve the church?”
Because the Academy’s members are seemingly insulated from its agenda and activities, some sources have said that the Academy actually functions as a sort of think tank. nullius – has the structure of a collegiate body, even if the headquarters staff – most of whom are selected by Paglia – actually set the direction of the organisation.
Some sources pointed out that Father Andrea Ciucci, a priest from Milan and the organization’s coordinating secretary, was largely responsible for coordinating problematic texts and promoting meetings and resources to discuss AI and similar technologies rather than other bioethical issues.
Ciucci, the author of several cookbooks, is “the leading man on Paglia’s team,” according to a source close to the academy.
The priest is “not an intellectual,” said a source close to the academy, “but an ideologically driven man with leadership qualities and Paglia’s full trust.”
Alongside Ciucci is Msgr. Pierangelo Sequiri, who since 2016 has been dean of the revamped John Paul II Pontifical Theological Institute for Marriage and Family Sciences in Rome, which once focused on the theology of the body of John Paul II and now places an emphasis on sociology, although enrollment has dropped dramatically in recent years.
According to sources, Ciucci and Sequiri, with the support of Paglia, are considered the key decision-makers of the Pontifical Academy for Life.
According to a Vatican source, this makes it less of an academy – a faculty of scholars – and more of a platform where they can present their ideas under the Vatican flag.
According to several sources, Paglia is largely tolerant of this group’s efforts and often shows little interest in the details.
Of course, in recent years the Academy has rejected criticism that it does not provide sufficient advice. For example, Director of Communications Fabrizio Mastrofini has taken an unusual and aggressive stance on social media against critics of the Academy. In some cases, Mastrofini’s Twitter polemics seem to influence PAV policy – and the public perception of the Academy – as much as anything else.
But amid this resistance, the latest controversy is sure to spark a new round of questions about the academy. Among them is this: Is the Pontifical Academy for Life even a global Catholic think tank, or is the “academy” now just three guys in Vatican trench coats?
