Former head of JPII Institute challenges Abp. Paglia’s defense of Francis-era ‘reforms’
Father Livio Melina linked these theological disagreements over natural law directly to the decision to suppress the original John Paul II Institute.
Archbishop Vicenzo
Paglia, at a press conference February 12, 2024Michael Haynes
- 8
Mon Jun 22, 2026 - 12:05 pm EDT
Listen to this article
7 min
ROME (LifeSiteNews) — A leading Italian theologian has publicly responded to Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia’s defence of the suppression of the original John Paul II Institute, disputing both his description of the institute’s work and the theological basis of the reforms.
On June 20, Father Livio Melina, who served as president of the Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family from 2006 to 2016, issued a detailed response to Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia’s recent defence of the restructuring of that institute and the Pontifical Academy for Life.
Writing in La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana, Melina challenged claims made by Paglia in a May 21 interview with Settimana News, in which the Archbishop described the reforms as both necessary and part of a deliberate doctrinal and theological shift encouraged by Pope Francis.
— Article continues below Petition —
Tell Vatican to Withdraw Pro-LGBT Synod Report
Show Petition Text
4685 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 5000!
Add your signature:
Haut du formulaire
Country...USACanadaAaland IslandsAfghanistanAlbaniaAlgeriaAmerican SamoaAndorraAngolaAnguillaAntarcticaAntigua and BarbudaArgentinaArmeniaArubaAustraliaAustriaAzerbaijanBahamasBahrainBangladeshBarbadosBelarusBelgiumBelizeBeninBermudaBhutanBoliviaBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswanaBouvet IslandBrazilBritish Indian Ocean TerritoryBrunei DarussalamBulgariaBurkina FasoBurundiCambodiaCameroonCape VerdeCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChadChileChinaChristmas IslandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombiaComorosCongoCook IslandsCosta RicaCote D'IvoireCroatiaCubaCuracaoCyprusCzech RepublicDemocratic Republic of the CongoDenmarkDjiboutiDominicaDominican RepublicEcuadorEgyptEl SalvadorEquatorial GuineaEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFalkland IslandsFaroe IslandsFijiFinlandFranceFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabonGambiaGeorgiaGermanyGhanaGibraltarGreeceGreenlandGrenadaGuadeloupeGuamGuatemalaGuernseyGuineaGuinea-BissauGuyanaHaitiHeard and McDonald IslandsHondurasHong KongHungaryIcelandIndiaIndonesiaIranIraqIrelandIsle of ManIsraelItalyJamaicaJapanJerseyJordanKazakhstanKenyaKiribatiKuwaitKyrgyzstanLao People's Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanonLesothoLiberiaLibyaLiechtensteinLithuaniaLuxembourgMacauMacedoniaMadagascarMalawiMalaysiaMaldivesMaliMaltaMarshall IslandsMartiniqueMauritaniaMauritiusMayotteMexicoMicronesiaMoldovaMonacoMongoliaMontenegroMontserratMoroccoMozambiqueMyanmarNamibiaNauruNepalNetherlandsNetherlands AntillesNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaraguaNigerNigeriaNiueNorfolk IslandNorth KoreaNorthern Mariana IslandsNorwayOmanPakistanPalauPalestinePanamaPapua New GuineaParaguayPeruPhilippinesPitcairnPolandPortugalPuerto RicoQatarRepublic of KosovoReunionRomaniaRussiaRwandaSaint BarthelemySaint HelenaSaint Kitts and NevisSaint LuciaSaint MartinSaint Pierre and MiquelonSaint Vincent and the GrenadinesSamoaSan MarinoSao Tome and PrincipeSaudi ArabiaSenegalSerbiaSeychellesSierra LeoneSingaporeSint MaartenSlovakiaSloveniaSolomon IslandsSomaliaSouth AfricaSouth Georgia and the South Sandwich IslandsSouth KoreaSouth SudanSpainSri LankaSudanSurinameSvalbard and Jan Mayen IslandsSwazilandSwedenSwitzerlandSyriaTaiwanTajikistanTanzaniaThailandTimor-LesteTogoTokelauTongaTrinidad and TobagoTunisiaTurkeyTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUgandaUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited KingdomUnited States Minor Outlying IslandsUruguayUzbekistanVanuatuVatican CityVenezuelaVietnamVirgin Islands (British)Virgin Islands (U.S.)Wallis and Futuna IslandsWestern SaharaYemenZambiaZimbabweProvince...AlbertaBritish ColumbiaManitobaNew BrunswickNewfoundland and LabradorNorthwest TerritoriesNova ScotiaNunavutOntarioPrince Edward IslandQuebecSaskatchewanYukon
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
Sign this Petition
Bas du formulaire
Paglia intimated that, before the reforms, the institute was obsolete and too detached from real life. He alleged that he and his team had changed it for the better, even moving beyond the abstract concept of natural law.
In his response, Melina said Paglia’s criticism does not accurately reflect either the mission or the academic work of the original John Paul II Institute.
He maintained that under his leadership the scholars of the Institute were not desk-bound theologians but had maintained constant exchanges with universities and secular scientists. However, they still defended the concept of natural law according to John Paul II’s personalist principles.
RELATED: Pope Leo XIV removes controversial Archbishop Paglia as head of John Paul II Institute
According to Melina, the institute was established by St. John Paul II to study marriage and family life through an interdisciplinary framework rooted in theological anthropology and moral theology. He argued that its research sought to move beyond both legalistic approaches to morality and forms of personalism detached from human nature.
Melina devoted a significant portion of his article to describing the institute’s academic activity during its 36 years of existence. He pointed to research projects, conferences, publications and international collaborations as evidence that the institute engaged extensively with contemporary questions concerning family life, culture, psychology, sociology, and pastoral practice.
He also cited partnerships with institutions such as the University of Bologna, the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart in Milan, Bar-Ilan University in Israel, and the Zitouna Islamic University in Tunisia.
Addressing Paglia’s claim that the former institute relied on an abstract or “desk theology,” Melina argued that its work focused on the lived experience of human love, marriage, and family life. He maintained that the institute developed a theological vision centred on the vocation to self-giving love, the role of the family in society, and the formation of the moral subject through virtue and Christian discipleship.
Melina also criticized the theological principles that Paglia identified as guiding the reforms. The new approach places particular emphasis on historical interpretation and individual conscience, but these principles may lead to a reassessment of established moral teachings, including questions related to marriage, sexuality and access to the sacraments.
Furthermore, Melina examined the concept of natural law as presented in St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor (1993). He argued that the late pope sought to articulate a personalist understanding of natural law while preserving the existence of objective moral norms.
“[John Paul II] soon realized that the resistance and objections to Paul VI’s encyclical [Humanae Vitae] were no longer partial or occasional, but had developed into a global and systematic challenge to the Church’s sound moral doctrine,” Molina writes.
“Thus, in the encyclical Veritatis Splendor, [John Paul II] was able to indicate the path toward a personalist re‑semanticization of the natural law. Natural law is understood starting from the language of self‑gift that the Creator has inscribed in the human body — a language we can discover through the light of reason and the support of virtue.”
“Natural law arises from reason’s ability to grasp, in light of the dignity of the person, the specific moral value of certain goods toward which the person is naturally inclined. In this way, the goods of the person, which are the object of natural inclinations, become morally significant within the perspective of the good of the person as such,” the article states.
Melina linked these theological disagreements directly to the decision to suppress the original institute. He stated that the reform was not motivated by deficiencies in the institute’s academic work but by opposition to its theological orientation. According to Melina, the institute had attempted to present Catholic teaching on marriage and family in a manner faithful to Tradition while also engaging contemporary culture.
In his May 21 interview, Archbishop Paglia said that Pope Francis had entrusted him with reorganizing both the John Paul II Institute and the Pontifical Academy for Life after the publication of Amoris Laetitia (2016). He described the reform as “necessary” to move beyond what he characterised as a static and excessively “moralistic” framework. Paglia also stated that critics of the changes were “correct” in recognising that a “very profound reform” was taking place. According to Paglia, the original institute had concentrated too heavily on conjugal morality and sexual ethics.
The origins of the dispute between Melina and Paglia stretch back to the pontificate of St. John Paul II. The original institute was established in 1981 following the Synod on the Family and received its definitive juridical structure through the 1982 apostolic constitution Magnum Matrimonii Sacramentum. In 2017, Pope Francis published Summa Familiae Cura and replaced John Paul’s institution with a new one, with a different academic mandate. Since then, the reform has remained one of the most debated developments in the Catholic Church.
READ: A heartfelt plea to Pope Leo XIV to make the Pontifical Academy for Life Catholic again
TOPICS
TAGGED AS
- Amoris Laetitia
- Archbishop Vicenzo Paglia
- john paul ii institute for marriage and family
- Livio Melina
- Magnum Matrimonii Sacramentum
- Natural Law
- Personalism
- Veritatis Splendor
