Tânia Rêgo/ABr/Agência Brasil/Wikimedia Commons

Charlie Gard has become a household name in the past few weeks. Diagnosed with mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome, Charlie was given a virtual death sentence well before his first birthday.

But it was the healthcare system in the United Kingdom that sealed his fate — along with a European judge who stood with the NHS in its decision to bar Charlie's parents from traveling to the United States for an experimental treatment, despite the fact that they had raised money for that sole purpose.

Following the NHS's decision, the Vatican released a statement:

The matter of the English baby Charlie Gard and his parents has meant both pain and hope for all of us.  We feel close to him, to his mother, his father, and all those who have cared for him and struggled together with him until now.  For them, and for those who are called to decide their future, we raise to the Lord of Life our prayers, knowing that “in the Lord our labor will not be in vain.” (1 Cor. 15:58)

The Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales issued a statement today that recognizes above all the complexity of the situation, the heartrending pain of the parents, and the efforts of so many to determine what is best for Charlie.  The Bishops’ statement also reaffirms that “we should never act with the deliberate intention to end a human life, including the removal of nutrition and hydration, so that death might be achieved” but that “we do, sometimes, however, have to recognize the limitations of what can be done, while always acting humanely in the service of the sick person until the time of natural death occurs.”

The proper question to be raised in this and in any other unfortunately similar case is this:  what are the best interests of the patient?  We must do what advances the health of the patient, but we must also accept the limits of medicine and, as stated in paragraph 65 of the Encyclical Evangelium Vitae, avoid aggressive medical procedures that are disproportionate to any expected results or excessively burdensome to the patient or the family.  Likewise, the wishes of parents must heard and respected, but they too must be helped to understand the unique difficulty of their situation and not be left to face their painful decisions alone.  If the relationship between doctor and patient (or parents as in Charlie’s case) is interfered with, everything becomes more difficult and legal action becomes a last resort, with the accompanying risk of ideological or political manipulation, which is always to be avoided, or of media sensationalism, which can be sadly superficial.

Dear Charlie, dear parents Chris Gard and Connie Yates, we are praying for you and with you.

Essentially, the Vatican said that it was not the business of the Church to step between doctor and patient (or, in this case, between doctor and parent) and muddy the waters.

Of course, the point the Vatican failed to address was that the NHS had already stepped between patient and doctor, taking the case to a European Human Rights Court. That court decided that Charlie's right to “die with dignity” superseded his parents' right to try to save him.

But considering the Catholic Church's official position on life, many felt that the Vatican's statement fell a bit short of the mark:

But what really started the eyebrows raising was the following tweet from Pope Francis himself:

People noticed that it didn't exactly align with the Vatican's statement:

It was such a departure that some were forced to ask whether His Holiness was even aware of the statement:

View Comments(10 comments)
David Knox(6 likes)What has flown right over Kruta's head is that the Pope is an adherent of Liberation Theology, Marxism with a religious twist.  In other words he fully supports the idea of the state being sacrosanct, that the parents are in inconvenient means of reproducing workers of the world.  Whatever the socialist state says, shall never be questioned, so the Pope believes.
@Razzberries(4 likes)Good example of what a national health care system can do. Rule against your personal choices. Legally prohibit you from seeking help for your child. Deciding death is the only answer, and mandating the parents to accept that decision. 
Nancy Henson(3 likes)Everyone needs to understand, fully understand, what this affliction is and what it was doing to Charlie. He couldn't see, he couldn't hear, he couldn't move, he couldn't breathe on his own, nor could he eat on his own. He was having seizures. The increasing lack of mitochondrial DNA in his brain was basically destroying his brain. The older he became, the worse be became. Were it not for the breathing machine and feeding tube, Charlie would've already died. Pope Francis isn't the evil one here. It was the inherited disease that afflicted Charlie. While I can absolutely understand the parents wanting to do everything humanly possible to keep from losing their baby son, as an nurse, I also understand there comes a time when the medical profession needs to gently guide the parent to the inevitable acceptance that what they want isn't what's ultimately going to happen.