By Carol Glatz, OSV
Monsignor Pegoraro, 66, is a bioethicist who earned a medical degree before entering the seminary and served as chancellor of the academy since 2011 before succeeding Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia as president in late May.
He graduated in Medicine from the University of Padua, Italy, in 1985, before obtaining a degree in Moral Theology at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome. He was ordained a priest in 1989.
He obtained a higher degree in bioethics at the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart in Italy and has taught bioethics at the Faculty of Theology of Northern Italy. In addition, he was secretary general of the Lanza Foundation of Padua, a center for studies in ethics, bioethics and environmental ethics. He taught nursing ethics at the Vatican-owned Bambino Gesù Pediatric Hospital in Rome and was president of the European Association of Medical Ethics Centers from 2010 to 2013.
Did Pope Leo XIV give you any indication or perspective on the priorities that the academy can play?
- The recommendations are to continue the work of debate and dialogue with experts from various disciplines on the challenges facing humanity on the issue of life and quality of life in different contexts. Not forgetting issues related to the beginning and end of life, as well as environmental sustainability, equity in health systems, the right to care, health and essential services.
We live in a difficult landscape, marked by advancing technologies, but also by conflicts, and human life on the planet is truly challenged. The Church possesses a wealth of wisdom and a vision to serve all to make the world a better and more livable place.
How will academia continue to explore and address issues such as abortion, IVF, contraception and end of life?
- The reflection of our academics continues. We follow closely the ongoing debates in different countries, as well as in Italy, where there is a law in parliamentary procedure. The Pontifical Academy for Life supports and promotes palliative care, always and especially in the final and fragile stages of life, always asking for attention and respect for the protection and dignity of fragile persons.
How can the Church best communicate its bioethical and life teachings where there is much debate or polarization?
- This is a very important topic. We strive to offer in-depth and articulated reflections. For example, our general assembly of scholars, which includes an international conference, will address the sustainability of health systems in February 2026, with examples from five continents and detailed studies. We work in this way: to offer a contribution; our desire is to maximize collaboration with all those who are truly interested in the common good, believers and non-believers, in a spirit of mutual learning.
Will they continue to promote a transdisciplinary approach to dialogue with experts outside the Catholic Church, similar to the functioning of the Pontifical Academies for the Sciences and Social Sciences?
- The Pontifical Academy for Life, from its beginnings, has been a space for study, dialogue, debate and reflection among experts from different disciplines. And it has continued its work at the service of the Church, analyzing scientific and technological advances related to human life and always understanding how to defend the dignity of the human person. In this sense, the Church, in continuity, is always up to date, as the Second Vatican Council expressed so well.
Are you the first PAL president to be a physician? How do you balance what you have seen and learned in the field-your clinical experience-with your ethical reasoning? For example, respecting patient autonomy and Church teachings on assisted suicide or refusing aggressive treatments.
- I remember that the first president, the late Dr. Jerome Lejeune, was a physician, a first-rate scientist, deserving of a Nobel Prize for his studies. And later, Monsignor Ignacio Carrasco de Paula, who was president from 2010 to 2016, is a psychiatrist physician and priest, a leading expert in bioethics.
Having experience in the medical field is helpful in more accurately understanding the findings and the challenges that arise on an ethical level. But there is more to it than that, as you point out in your question. Today, in addition to scientific knowledge, you need an ethical perspective and an understanding of the questions that arise from patients, from those who are sick. The Church can respond.
For example, on the question of the end of life, the Church says "no" to aggressive medical treatment - therapeutic obstinacy - and "yes" to the use of palliative care to manage and reduce pain and suffering.
The studies and discoveries we have made in recent years are equally important in areas such as stem cells and biotechnology, neonatal screening, organ transplantation and innovations in digital medicine and healthcare technology. These are all efforts to better understand scientific advances and put them at the service of people.
Could you elaborate on whether there have been any changes or new recommendations to avoid aggressive treatments and the requirement to provide food and hydration to people in a vegetative state? Where does the Church draw the line between legitimate medical care and overreach?
- The issue is very complex. We need to understand how to interpret treatments so that they support and care for sick people. Each situation must be assessed individually so that they support the sick person and do not cause further suffering. That is why there are no ready-made solutions; instead, a constant dialogue between physician, patient and relatives should be encouraged.
How do you ensure that the proposed ethical frameworks are not only "Western", but also include all realities of the world? Much attention is given to first world issues such as IVF or assisted suicide, yet many people in the world die for lack of nutrition, clean water and basic medical care.
- This will be the theme of our international congress in February, as part of the general assembly of members of the academy. We want to conclude with a strong call to understand that health and health systems must provide life-centered responses in all contexts, in all social and political settings. In many countries, lack of basic care, lack of water and lack of food pose numerous problems. Added to this are conflicts, which cause even more suffering. That is why we say "no" to war, because today we need resources for people to live, not to manufacture weapons and finance conflicts.
Your predecessor (Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia) helped push forward the "Rome Call for AI Ethics." How will the academy work from this, especially with regard to AI in medicine?
- Together with Catholic Doctors Worldwide (FIAMC), we organized an international conference in Rome from November 10 to 12 on "....AI and Medicine: The Challenge of Human Dignity".precisely to address the changes introduced by AI. It is a way to strengthen the "Rome Call for AI Ethics", signed in 2020, a document that lays the groundwork for an ethical use of AI, impacting all areas: medicine, science, society and legislation.
How do the benefits of robotics combine with ethical concerns about human connection and dignity?
- Progress is extraordinary. We must never forget that the needs of the sick person in need of help are the priority. That is what technology must serve: it must not become an end in itself, nor must we fall into a "technocracy". We want to put the person and his or her inherent dignity at the center.
How can young people learn to make ethical decisions about technology that has such a huge impact on their mental health and relationships?
- The change has already occurred, both because these tools, such as smartphones, are already within the reach of the youngest children and because of their impact on cognitive function. There is a need for a debate on the use of technology that involves all sectors of society. For example, families need to be helped with children and their relationship with technology. And schools have a key role to play in education.
In reality, everything can be addressed if the whole of society-political leaders, governments, the Church, various organizations-prioritizes the use of technology. Let us also recall the recent contribution of the document "Antiqua et nova" by the Dicasteries for the Doctrine of the Faith, Culture and Education, for an anthropological reflection that offers criteria for discernment on these issues. A continuous, constant and high-level public debate is needed. The media also play a fundamental role in the dissemination of information and themes on this topic.
What is the most pressing bioethical issue you would like to address and the biggest problem with AI?
- The issue of data management, its use and storage, the objectives of the so-called "Large Enterprises" are crucial.
Today we speak of global bioethics: the issue of human life must be approached considering all the dimensions of its development, the different social and political contexts, its connection with respect for the environment and analyzing how technologies help us to live more fully and better or harm us by providing us with disastrous tools of control and manipulation. That is why the issue of data is key. Today, the wealth of major industries lies in the data that we ourselves publish on the Internet.
We need a public debate on a global scale, a large coalition aimed at respecting data. The European Union has addressed the issue and it is also being discussed at the United Nations. But it is not enough. A global debate is needed. The framework is clear and Pope Francis gave it to us with "Fratelli Tutti," expanding on Vatican II: we are one human family, and the issues of development and life affect us all.
