Since Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia was named President of the Pontifical Academy for Life, it seems to have become impossible for the Academy to shed light on any particular threat to life in our world. One need look no further to establish the Academy’s vacuity than its amorphous, secularized observations on the Coronavirus back in July (Humana Communitas in the Age of Pandemic: Untimely Meditations on Life’s Rebirth). Now, in an interview with Crux, Archbishop Paglia has further poisoned the teeming pool of life by arguing, in effect, that the politicization of life issues must always be avoided as seriously harmful.
The interview was deliberately framed partly against the backdrop of the American Presidential campaign, so it is fair to read Paglia’s comments in that context. In truth, though, his comments are extremely disorienting in any context at all. In fact, Paglia essentially resorts to the “seamless garment” tactic, which takes the truth that all problems adversely affecting the human person are issues of “human life”, and then emphasizes that very marginal insight to the point where it becomes immoral to prioritize these issues. Thus is our moral energy dissipated, preventing us from producing any positive effect at all.
Seamless Garment
While Paglia does not use the term “seamless garment”, he clearly articulates that ineffective theme. To quote the Crux story:
[Paglia] said Christian churches in the U.S. ought to feel “a universal responsibility” toward life, and called for greater engagement on the life issue “in all its dimensions… That is, a perspective of global bioethics, one that engages all the major topics that touch on life, of the individual and of the human family.”
This is a tall order indeed—an order so tall that, in practical terms, it can accomplish absolutely nothing beyond a pallid approval of whatever the dominant culture is emphasizing as good at the moment. When we are taught that everything demands our attention all of the time, we become inert, taking credit for floating along on the winds of change.
Thus, as recounted with quotations by Crux, Paglia magnanimously warned against:
turning the pro-life cause into an ideological weapon, saying making the protection of life a political football risks doing “great harm”… [and] … “It would do great harm,” he said, “if some topic of bioethics is extracted from its general context and put toward ideological strategies. It would do great harm.”
This can only be interpreted as a dismissal of pro-life political commitment as “ideology”, and it is an enormous misdirection. For what can this warning against “ideological strategies” possibly mean in the context of the need to seek just governance and laws that restrict the scope of evil and promote the common good—which is precisely the purpose of politics?…
The above comes from an Aug. 28 story on CatholicCulture.org
Perfect cover for the Democrats and an almost direct endorsement of Biden.
Archbishop Paglia thinks it’s fine for a priest to be at the bedside of a person committing the mortal sin of assisted suicide. Though he did condemn assisted suicide, that’s like saying abortion is wrong but he will drive you to the clinic anyway. This man has turned the Pontifical Academy for Life from a stalwart Catholic institution defending life in all it’s stages to a left leaning political think tank clothed in Catholic garb.
Again, wrong is Kristin. There is absolutely nothing wrong, in fact it is a great act of mercy, for a priest, who has been called to the bedside of a person dying from an apparent assisted suicide, to respond and at least be present. Paglia has specifically said that doing so is not “lending support for the practice” of assisted suicide. And people, this is NOT the same as driving a mother to an abortion clinic. Such a gross and false comparison. Worse still, such mercilessness as Kristin is espousing, characterize some people of this age whose Christian charity has grown cold. She would rather that the mortal sin of suicide be compounded by the Church’s non-response to a call from someone who is about to die from that same sin. Detestable.
The detestable thing is that an Archbishop not steeped in pro-life sensibilities has been placed in a position he does not honor in word or deed. As a staunch proponent of the properly debunked “seamless garment theory,” Paglia has brought to the Academy a panoply of pro-abortion and pro-contraception doctors, philosophers, and a euthanasia-supporting cleric. This is mercilessness, a Christianity void of charity and an absolute shame.
Shockingly and scandalously, jon has bought into “bless me father for I have sinned, hang out with me until that sin is completed”. That is not priestly compassion and Catholics must not be misled in to believing it is. Mortal sin cannot be accommodated by clergy or laity and jon must accept this for the sake of his immortal soul.
Kristin has expressed not only a standpoint that is wanting in mercy and love, but also one that is wanting in faith in the power of Almighty God. Just look at the scenario she’s painted: “hang on until that sin is completed.” Only those steeped in this secular and godless age will recognize that as the only scenario that may happen. Does she not know that even in a person’s dying moments God’s grace can bestow contrition and sorrow for what one has just done?! Plus, who knows what a caring and merciful priest can say to such a soul that may elicit contrition precisely at that moment, words supplied by the Holy Spirit? People, have faith that God’s mercy is more powerful than even the gravest of sins. Catholics must not be misled into being stingy in their compassion and love. Paglia is correct in this case.
There is an ongoing discussion concerning whether it is “possible to ‘accompany’ someone ending their life while at the same time, remaining a faithful witness to the sanctity of life, the Christian meaning of suffering, and the hope of resurrection” (Catholic World Report, December 16, 2019).
Presumably jon would not call out that publication as secular and godless.
How is it mercy and love when you allow the sinner to lose his soul? I believe you have a warped sense of mercy and love. Charity demands rejecting sin not embracing it or else the soul of that person is lost forever. That is not love or mercy but leading the poor soul into Hell. God have mercy on this confused sense of what’s right and wrong.
Reminds me of a woman who I counseled outside an abortion clinic and she told me don’t worry she’ll go to confession and confess that she allowed someone to kill her child with her permission of course.
People, from Catholic World Report’s article on Dec. 16, 2019 featuring Cardinal Eijk’s words on euthanasia and assisted suicide, there is nothing that contradicts Archbishop Paglia’s words. Nothing. In fact, the article even states clearly: “The Cardinal did not deny the possibility of spiritual accompaniment.” People, the Cardinal’s point is that the Church must be clear in condemning euthanasia and assisted suicide. Paglia continues to be clear in that respect. Paglia says a priest may be present at the bedside of one who is dying; he did not say that a priest be present while the act is being performed, which would oblige any priest or any faithful Catholic to voice an objection. Who knows what a priest can say to such a dying soul to induce that person to repent, at the last moment? It’s a great act mercy to be given that kind of access at such a moment. People, do not let this secular age that believes there is no God make you mercilessly think that such a thing is not possible.
I read it too and she is right about it being an ongoing discussion. You should have said that.
Charity can also grow cold through a pride that leads to holier than thou living.
Indeed, the “holier-than-thou” position here is the one expressed by those who think they are “holier”, “more pastoral”, and “more correct” than someone like Paglia who is actually ordained to minister to God’s people. With respect to how to minister to God’s people, I’d rather listen to how it’s done from someone actually ordained, like an archbishop, rather than some lay people commenting in a blog thinking falsely that they know better.
Then look to Denver Archbishop Samuel Aquila who just said that “Catholic public persons and every Catholic has the responsibility to be faithful to the Gospel of Life”. Important to select your teachers wisely.
Then you should include among those teachers Paglia as well who said as recently as August 29 at the CELAM meeting of Latin American bishops: “The Church is very clear in this regard. It is a response from the Catechism. It is a great mistake to promote legislation on abortion and euthanasia.” There is a lot about Jeffrey Mirus’ article here that leaves room for improvement; Mirus paints with a very unfair brush Paglia’s words. Beware.
No thanks, you can have Paglia. Peace Out!
Jon says Kristen and Ronnie are without faith or mercy, then he says do not judge. Neither said somebody committing suicide couldn’t have a last minute change of mind and ask for mercy and get it. If a priest is there for suicide isn’t a settled thing so they aren’t wrong to say no.
Exactly, holier than thou are those who advocate for sin based on the premise that at the last minute I can repent. Sort of like they know the mind of God which they were probably taught in their liberal watered-down Catholicism classes. However, many references are made to those who weren’t ready and were warned that they could not enter the Kingdom of Heaven if they weren’t prepared.
Ronnie and Kristin are both wrong. One can never know how God’s graces can be at work especially when a person is close to death. This reminds me of the story of a woman who went to the saintly Father John Vianney, the Curé of Ars, in France, and said, “My husband has not been to the sacraments or to Mass for years. He has been unfaithful, wicked, and unjust. He has just fallen from a bridge and was drowned —a double death of body and soul.” The Saint said to him: “Madam, there is a distance between the bridge and the water, and it is that distance which forbids you to judge.” So, people, especially Ronnie and Kristin there, I repeat to you the words of the Saint: “you are forbidden to judge.” I will add, it is not right to refuse anyone, especially a dying person who asks for him, the presence of a priest. How seemingly lacking in faith and mercy these two are. It’s breathtaking.
Persuading someone not to sin and being there at the end is different than having already committed the sin and the person is unwilling to stop it. Of course someone can repent on the way out but should we assist them in their sin and say “ok, I’ll be with you while you commit the sin of suicide or abortion and you can confess it and everything will be ok.
Ronnie, who said that we should omit “persuading someone not to sin”? Who said that the priest can say “I’ll be with you while you commit the sin and confess later”? Cardinal Eijk is clear that no priest can do that.
According to Jon’s logic I guess we can go into the abortion clinics with the women and stand there and watch the baby being dismembered to death which would be considered mercy and love. Or how about injecting the person with the drugs for assisted suicide as long as this is considered mercy and being there for that person.
A priest cannot be present when the mortal sin is being performed. I referred above to Cardinal Eijk who said the same thing from the article from Catholic World Report. Neither did Archbishop Paglia say that a priest can be present in such an event.
But just to reiterate Paglia’s point: A priest may be present at the bedside of someone dying from already having committed assisted suicide. It is only the most charitable and pastoral thing to do.
Again people, this is Vatican II, 50 years ago Catholics could not have imagined what the Holy Mass would have turned into with: giant puppets, altar girls, female and male lay lectors, Eucharistic so called ministers, communion on the hand while standing, hand holding, kiss of peace, clapping of the hands, females and effeminate males in leotards prancing around the dinner table, guitars, drums, piano, Life Teen Mass, shorts, sandals, rock, mariachi, folk music, none of this would have been recognizable to any Roman Catholic 50 years ago.
The founding of the Pontifical Academy for Life was good, important and post-Vatican II. Only in recent years has it abandoned its Catholic vision.
And, 50 years ago, in 1970, Masses were much crazier than now. The Second Vatican Council is not the cause of all the Church’s problems.
” The Second Vatican Council is not the cause of all the Church’s problems.” but it is a major cause
None of the things you listed, Romulus, have anything to do with the Catholic faith. They all have to do with cultural behavior and norms. Faith is about our relationship with God. We can adore Christ in our shorts and golf shorts if we want, even if I think it is not a good way to go to church. Receiving communion in the hand doesn’t mean i don’t believe. It means I take communion differently from how you think it should be done. It doesn’t mean I a bad person. Faith and cultural behavior are sometimes different.
Romulus Augustus, once again you said it all. Vatican II and the evil it has spawned is the root of all the rot wit are dealing with today.
This is tragic! Who’s making the protection of life a political football?! We either protect it or we don’t. Politicians views on abortion should be made widely known, so that Christians and all persons of good will can vote for life and against the evil of killing babies and violating their mothers by abortion. The Pontifical Academy for Life has betrayed its founding purpose and vision. Maybe they should rename it the Pontifical Academy for Vagueness and Opaqueness or, to use a phrase from Pope(-Emeritus) Benedict,” studied ambiguity.”
And, what’s with the homoerotic art in his cathedral?!
Maybe he’s trying “a perspective of global bioethics, one that engages all the major topics that touch on life, of the individual and of the human family.”
So, putting up a windmill or driving a Tesla is as important as saving the life of a baby and mother?!
Romulus Augustus is unfair to lay blame on the Second Vatican Council for some of things he objects to that has occurred at Mass. The reality is more complex that just saying, “Vatican II, bad!” “Pre-Vatican II, good!”
it is complex but for a quick web post, Romulus Augustus has given an accurate thumbnail sketch of liturgical abuses 50 years later.
The church in the US is especially disturbing to the Vatican as Rome tries to diminish the focus on protection of the life of the unborn. Similar fierce faith is active in Spain, Italy, Poland and other countries but without the visibility that English allows. Faggioli has taken up residence in the US as an undercover “nuncio,” constantly reporting back to base. I am afraid that they are readying new deviations this Fall and resent the glare of light shining on darkness. We are the last fortress of the katekhon.
Would it have been wise for the Bishops to have said “Making the protection of Jews and other minorities a political football risks doing “great harm”?
I can only repeat what a great american general said in response to this AB aid here and that is “Nuts.”
The smoke of Satan has entered the church!
It’s easy to paraphrase the American politician, Ilhan Omar, “It’s just some Jesuits doing something.”
I wonder who would suffer “great harm” by our clear teaching on life? That is Archbishop Paglia’s point, I think. But the harm is already done toward that myriad of babies that have been snuffed out on the altar of convenience, and we are to say nothing in case it might offend someone?
One more Bishop/Archbishop heretic. Just continues to confirm why I no longer donate any funds to the Vatican nor my local Diocese. Let’s face the fact that more than 80% of US Bishops/Archbishops devote more time to left wing politics and other so-called social just causes, as well as are either homosexuals themselves or supporters of homosexual behavior. Continuing on, we have the very serious matter of neglecting abortions as well as living the grand life style with fine residences, fine dining, fine vacations and lots of alcohol. Lastly, many simply are heretics.
One more Bishop/Archbishop heretic. Just continues to confirm why I no longer donate any funds to the Vatican nor my local Diocese. Let’s face the fact that more than 80% of US Bishops/Archbishops devote more time to left wing politics and other so-called social just causes, as well as are either homosexuals themselves or supporters of homosexual behavior. Continuing on, we have the very serious matter of neglecting abortions as well as living the grand life style with fine residences, fine dining, fine vacations and lots of alcohol. Lastly, many simply are heretics.
To Archbishop Paglia:
Please. Stop. Talking!!
Holy gum-drops. I‘m so confused. I thought abortions were wrong and against church law. I guess I was wrong and it’s okay to vote for Democrats now.
Egad !!!
Translation: As long as you vote socialist, you can let the babies die in silence.
Nowhere in the interview does Paglia say that people should not speak up for the unborn. All that the Archbishop is saying is not to use any one pro-life cause in isolation from the Church’s overall message on the Gospel of Life. Doing so causes a “great harm” on the overall message of the Church. And I must say I agree with what the Archbishop is saying. For example, why can’t some Catholics see the connection between the Church’s pro-life message against abortion or euthanasia and the Church’s call to end the death penalty?
The death penalty is different because one victim is innocent and the other is not. Justice goes with mercy. Justice can help the person repent also. And even though I oppose the death penalty, abortion has resulted in exactly what we are witnessing in our society today. The violence everywhere is directly linked to the 60 million in the US and how many around the world every year? Billions or trillions. You don’t think this mass murder isn’t responsible for the carnage we are witnessing today? It’s not the death penalty that is at fault, it is the killing of the innocents and the destruction of millions of lives through this violence.
Ronnie’s point needs to be clarified further. The difference between abortion and the death penalty is that support for the former is a mortal sin, and support of the latter–though not a mortal sin–is nonetheless dissent and is still sinful. Ronnie bewails the violence and carnage out there; well, Ronnie, capital punishment adds to all of that carnage. Not only that but it is also state-sponsored, therefore done in my name and yours, and with our tax money. Listen to Paglia: “In this sense, everything that doesn’t respect the human person…is a sin against the Gospel of life.” Listen to the living Magisterium. Respect life!
The death penalty does not add to the carnage. Justice remember? Without justice you have mercy without consequences. Thus they probably add to the carnage not contribute to it.
Paglia’s comments “can only be interpreted as a dismissal of pro-life political commitment as “ideology”, and it is an enormous misdirection. For what can this warning against “ideological strategies” possibly mean in the context of the need to seek just governance and laws that restrict the scope of evil and promote the common good—which is precisely the purpose of politics?…”
Correction: the omission of responsibility for the crime leads to more violence and carnage.
Ronnie is very wrong. He writes that the death penalty does not add to human carnage (ie, the violence done against human dignity) because it is “justice.” Wrong. The death penalty does not render justice. Firstly, St. John Paul II in “Evangelium Vitae” does not point to capital punishment as lending justice. Secondly, Pope Francis advances St. John Paul II’s teaching by saying that capital punishment is an offence “against the inviolability of life and the dignity of the human person, which contradicts God’s plan for man and society” and “does not render justice to the victims, but rather fosters vengeance.”
People, it is better to read the Crux article itself about Paglia’s interview rather than Mirus’ poorly written article here. For example, Ronnie’s quote up there from Mirus’ article totally misconstrues what Paglia’s real point is.
Crux puts a liberal spin on Catholic issues, do not be deceived because they say they’re Catholic.
With respect to Paglia’s interview, Elise Ann Allen’s article in Crux (I am suppose she interviewed Paglia herself) is far more objective than what Jeff Mirus has written about it. I know. I’ve read them both. Mirus’ prose is convoluted and puts a negative slant on what Paglia had said. Whereas Allen merely quotes the Archbishop without embellishing it with her own interpretation.
By deflecting the subject of the article, abortion, to capital punishment you are trying to put them on the same moral level. They are not. The bishops reiterated in their fall 2019 gathering that opposition to abortion is the preeminent priority because it directly attacks life itself, takes place within the sanctuary of the family, and in numbers, overwhelms capital executions. That’s the Crux of the matter.
No one is deflecting anything. We’re trying to unpack Paglia’s words at the interview; and his words mentions the Church’s overall Gospel of Life, which necessarily includes the call to end the death penalty. In fact, if you look at one of the earlier comments above, you’d find a poster erroneously attacking Paglia on his words about assisted suicide, which necessitated my having to clarify what Paglia actually meant. Now, her mentioning assisted suicide is, to me, a more accurate instance of deflection.
Moreover, Anonymous, Paglia’s entire point in the interview is not only about abortion, but about the Church’s overarching message on the Gospel of Life, which includes the call to end abortion and about assisted suicide. No one is deflecting anything.
Jon doesn’t seem to get it. Where did it get us to put abortion on the same moral plain as Anonymous mentioned, as other issues? Never trusted Crux, although they try to pretend to be a traditional Catholic publication they are not. Allen has many times revealed his liberal bias. Don’t trust him and anything they pretend to believe in. Apparently many have been fooled sort of like trusting the “fake news”!
So, Ronnie’s concern it seems is not really about the valid arguments Paglia is making in the interview, but about his antipathy for Crux and its writers. Interesting. People, let me explain the implications of Paglia’s words here: if the Church is weak in its vigilance for human dignity with respect to getting rid of capital punishment, this may weaken her (the Church’s) voice/witness concerning the evil of abortion. That is the “great harm” that Paglia is talking about. Listen to the living Magisterium. Respect life.
Just to clarify further: my above words concerning the death penalty is merely one example. There are other examples that may apply, such as assisted suicide, euthanasia, etc. If the voice of the Church is not strong with respect to these other issues that touch on human dignity (such as euthanasia, capital punishment, etc), this will cause “great harm” to the authenticity of the Church’s witness and voice concerning the evil of abortion. Paglia says: “In this sense, everything that doesn’t respect the human person…is a sin against the Gospel of life.” Listen to the living Magisterium. Respect life!
Jon is so clueless about the difference between the death penalty and abortion. It’s useless to go on with someone who can’t distinguish between guilty and taking responsibility for a life taken and taking an innocent life without a judge jury or trial. When you link all the other issues with abortion it makes abortion seem like one of many issues but it is not. It’s takes priority because at this very moment another little girl/boy is being executed as in the death penalty it takes years and years if it even happens. Like I said I oppose the death penalty but it is not urgent like abortion. And let’s not forget there are two, maybe three, or many people affected by this one issue. like the mother, father, grandparents, friends, etc. It affects so many people who could lose their souls if not prioritized.
People: Archbishop Paglia makes a very valid point. Let me surmise it for you and for Ronnie again: If the Church is weak in its call to end the death penalty, or euthanasia, or assisted suicide, it will harm its witness against the evil of abortion. Note that the priority there is abortion. But people, and especially Ronnie: if the Church is going to be pro-life, it must be consistently pro-life. I know Catholics who are uber anti-abortion; but who’d ignore the Church’s message to end the death penalty. Such an attitude weakens, harms, the Church’s pro-life message especially on abortion. If Ronnie is going to call anyone “clueless,” it’s those people. Listen to the living Magisterium. Respect life!
Most pro-lifers I know are opposed to the death penalty but even if they weren’t one point remains: the innocent and the guilty big difference. Mercy without justice is meaningless. As is justice without mercy. But not prioritizing the immediate killing of children in the womb undermines the seriousness of the issue. End of conversation.
Who said anything about not prioritizing abortion? Paglia didn’t say that; and I certainly didn’t.
However, there are many pro-lifers who pay mere lip-service by saying “I oppose the death penalty” but doing nothing about it. One case in point: the last time the death penalty was on the ballot in California, it did not pass. The same Catholics who paid lip service to supporting the Church’s message on the Gospel of Life, did not vote to end the death penalty.
Folks, that right there tells me that Paglia’s words are sorely needed. Listen to the living Magisterium. Respect life.
The Culture of Life or the Culture of Death.
Euthanasia or Doctor Assisted Suicide in California, Infanticide in Virginia, partial birth abortion in New York are followed by the silence of the Pope. Ahh, Global Warming and the Paris Climate Accord, that´s the real Catholic deal.
any relation to Camille Paglia?