Isn’t dialogue supposed to be in defense of the truths expressed in the natural law, revealed in Scripture and Tradition and taught by the magisterium?Here’s What I’d Like to Ask Archbishop Paglia of the Pontifical Academy for Life| National Catholic Register
Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, the president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, has defended his decision to appoint, on the grounds of dialogue, new members who support the “choice” to kill babies, and has stressed that his latest decision was made in consultation with others after much consideration.
This raises some questions:
What is dialogue? Why is there dialogue? When does one engage in dialogue? On what grounds is dialogue justified? On what topic does one dialogue? How does one dialogue? What is the purpose or end of the dialogue? Who engages in the dialogue? What are the possible topics of the dialogue?
Isn’t dialogue supposed to be in defense of the truths expressed in the natural law, revealed in Scripture and Tradition and taught by the magisterium? Are we treating opposition to abortion as a trifling part of the Catholic tradition and failing to deepen our understanding of it? What is it about the killing of babies that needs to be deepened? What permanent truths are latent in this that we have missed?
The Pontifical Academy for Life has shown that it is becoming a too-silent partner with groups like the World Economic Forum (WEF), its supporters in business and alumni from its Young Global Leaders forum.
The appointment of Mariana Mazzucato, who is “closely linked to the World Economic Forum” and “admired by Bill Gates,” is especially scandalous because it involves the Pontifical Academy for Life, which was founded in 1994 specifically to study, and provide information and formation on, “the principal problems of biomedicine and of law, relative to the promotion and defense of life, above all in the direct relation that they have with Christian morality and the directives of the Church’s magisterium.”
Might such appointments (see here and here) bolster critics’ claims that the academy views such moves as a way for the Church to downplay the protection of babies to embrace a “seamless garment” of life issues, such as life and climate change, life and new food systems (e.g., insects), life and COVID-19 (see here and here), or life and business (here)? Or is this an example of the new dogma of “inclusivity” that pushes acceptance of sinful alternative lifestyles?
Or might this simply be another example of promoting U.N. Agenda 2030’s sustainable development goals, such as pushing sexual rights under the guise of health (see here, here, and here)? Has the president of the Pontifical Academy for Life forgotten the Holy See’s own Note in response to U.N. Agenda 2030? This Note, addressed to the general secretary of the U.N., was unambiguous:
“Since the right to health is a corollary to the right to life, it can never be used as a way to end the life of a person, who is such from conception until natural death.” (21.b)
Yes, we need to support dialogue, but those who engage in it as members of the Pontifical Academy for Life must do so according to the academy’s own statutes — by “faithful service in the defense and promotion of the right to life of every human person,” a principle consistent with the eternal truths entrusted to the Church.