Professor Benedetto Rocchi, Associate Professor in the Department of Economics and Business Science at the University of Florence and president of the permanent observatory on abortion, expressed his astonishment about the fight against assisted suicide in Italy in an article published in La Verità on September 7, 2025. He asked, “[W]hy is Avvenire, the Italian bishops’ newspaper, conducting a public opinion campaign in favor of a bill that would make it legal in Italy to help a person commit suicide?” He elaborated:

The newspaper has featured numerous contributions in favor of approving a law that implements the Constitutional Court’s ruling 242/2019 that decriminalizes assisted suicide. As early as August 10, 2024, Giuseppe Anzani, citing the Pontifical Academy for Life’s Short Lexicon on the End of Life, spoke of “mediation achievable in ‘imperfect laws.'” More recently, a series of contributions supported the approval of the bill authored by Pierantonio Zanettin and Ignazio Zullo, promoted in the Senate by the majority: Menorello on July 9, Pegoraro on July 24, Marazziti, Binetti, and Santolini on July 26. Avvenire‘s line seems consistent with what Cardinal Matteo Zuppi declared when, referring to the issue of “end of life” during a meeting with students at the University of Florence, he called for the approval of a law, stating that “it doesn’t make much sense for regional solutions to exist; there needs to be a national indication” (Toscana oggi, 21 May 2025).

Professor Rocchi, even more astonished, continued:

But what should the bishops’ newspaper do at a time when the debate in the Chamber hasn’t even begun and the political game is still up for grabs? The answer lies in the part of point 73 of EV (Evangelium Vitae, ed.) that is never cited: “In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as one permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is never permissible […] to participate in an opinion campaign in favor of such a law.” But what Avvenire is conducting, unfortunately, is precisely an opinion campaign in favor of a law that decriminalizes, that is, authorizes, assisted suicide.

Rocchi then concluded:

Avvenire‘s position should fully reflect what was written in Evangelium vitae. It should insistently emphasize that assisting someone to commit suicide is immoral and a grave sin. It should forcefully denounce the unfairness of the Constitutional Court’s ruling. It should courageously fight against any law that would legitimize assisting someone to commit suicide. It should incite Catholic and secular pro-life parliamentarians to fight hard against laws that would incorporate the unjust ruling into Italian law, using all the political opportunities and parliamentary tactics at their disposal. And if, after they had attempted every way to amend it to make it less permissive, despite all their efforts, a law legalizing assisted suicide were to be approved, Avvenire could only encourage pro-life parliamentarians to vote against it in the final vote.

But none of this happened. Avvenire, the newspaper of the Italian Catholic bishops, continued to maintain an open, almost deferential stance in discussions about a national law on assisted suicide that would decriminalize assisted suicide when the four well-known conditions set by the Court were met: incurable disease, unbearable suffering, dependence on life support, and full capacity to understand and decide. This is a law that is not felt to be necessary, and that Parliament is not obliged to draft at the request of the Constitutional Court.

Most striking, however, was the reference to the alleged support of Cardinal Zuppi, President of the Italian Episcopal Conference, for the development of a national law on assisted suicide. His words from May 2025 surprised many (“It doesn’t make much sense for regional solutions; there needs to be a national directive”), but they were in stark contrast to what the cardinal himself had stated a year earlier, in February 2024, in the aftermath of Emilia-Romagna’s approval of a resolution granting the sick person the right to take leave of life within 42 days. Without explicitly mentioning that regional provision, he had said:

Legal systems that establish the right to die are deceptive and of questionable validity… The issue is less religious than secular. The humanism on which our society is based leads us to conclude that there will always be a right to care. After all, suffering is addressed by eliminating pain, not by extinguishing life. Life must be protected with appropriate care that provides dignity until the end and is not reduced to mere medical services. We need to rebuild that therapeutic alliance between doctors, family members, and the disease, which is essential so that no one is left alone or feels alone.

It is not known what prompted Cardinal Zuppi to change his mind or to be less clear-cut, and with it, to give authoritative encouragement to Catholics, intellectuals, and center-right politicians to propose, support, and approve a national law on assisted suicide.

It was also striking that one of the vice-presidents of the Movimento della Vita (sic!), a former parliamentarian, Domenico Menorello, actively promoted the proposed law in question, with the aim of regulating the issue with a national law, according to the lesser evil principle.

Within the Pro-Life Movement (MpV), however, there was a strong feeling of unease among some of its members, which was publicly expressed in a beautiful interview with the president of the MpV, Marina Casin (speaking, curiously, in her personal capacity and not as MpV President) who reiterated the firm points of the Church’s doctrine.

On this blog, we have covered this topic in numerous articles (see here), including one of particular interest and depth, written by three university professors, Daniele Trabucco (constitutional law), Aldo Rocco Vitale (philosophy of law), and Giulia Bovassi (bioethicist), who analyzed and challenged a lengthy article by Professor Don Alberto Frigerio that appeared in Il Foglio on July 28, 2025.

The three professors, among other things, eloquently wrote:

In this sense, throughout the entire endo-Catholic debate on the topic of end-of-life care, the principle of non-contradiction appears to be the most neglected and violated by those who, directly or indirectly, have entered the aforementioned debate to support the legitimacy of Catholic support for the legalization of end-of-life care.

Unfortunately, and to our great regret, this flaw is not overlooked even in the considerations condensed by Frigerio, who, instead of presenting himself as an authentic critic of the current ethical and theoretical confusion that reigns in the Catholic world, has preferred to position himself alongside all those who, for weeks now, have been creating confusion on the issue of end-of-life within the Catholic laity.

Meanwhile, the position of bishops in other countries was clear, very clear.

On Sunday, November 23, 2025, Slovenia said no to euthanasia. With 53% of voters against and 46% in favor, Slovenians rejected the law that would have allowed terminally ill patients to receive assistance in ending their lives.

The Slovenian Catholic Church has been a protagonist in this battle. The Bishop of Novo Mesto, Andrej Saje, president of the Bishops’ Conference, said that the result means “we have chosen respect for human dignity and the path of protecting life in all its stages, up to and including natural death. The referendum campaign has united us. It has awakened our communities and individuals.”

Pope Leo XIV’s intervention was clear

On January 9, Pope Leo XIV, in a speech to the diplomatic corps, said these exact words:

It is also the duty of civil society and states to respond concretely to situations of fragility, offering solutions to human suffering, such as palliative care, and promoting policies of authentic solidarity, rather than encouraging forms of illusory compassion such as euthanasia.

As can be seen, these are just a few clear words that, although addressed to the diplomatic corps representing various nations, appear to be a signal to Italian Catholics, both lay and prelate, to put an end to the internal turmoil within the Catholic world and to take a clear stand in favor of life, without confusion over the “lesser evil” strategy. We are certain that these words have had and will have their influence on the change or self-silencing of some Catholics, laypeople and prelates, on the matter of assisted suicide.

France rejects assisted suicide law

Unexpected news also came from France: On January 21, France did not legalize assisted suicide. The Senate rejected the proposal, and it remains banned for now (as it was before 2025). This has been described as a “failure” or a “theatrical coup” in the French and Italian media.

Meloni against assisted suicide

Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, during the end-of-year press conference at the Chamber of Deputies on January 9, 2026, said:

I believe the state’s role isn’t to promote suicide options, but rather to try to minimize the loneliness and hardship of those with serious illnesses and their families […]. I think our role is to combat the loneliness and abandonment that make assisted suicide seem like an option. We defer to Parliament for decisions.

Excellent words, it’s a shame that members of your majority, Ignazio Zullo (Brothers of Italy) and Pierantonio Zanettin (Forza Italia), have gone out of their way to propose a law regulating assisted suicide instead of abstaining and rejecting the opposition’s proposals.

Finally, the Italian Bishops Conference arrives with clear words

Finally, the words contained in the Introduction of Cardinal Matteo Zuppi, Archbishop of Bologna and President of the CEI, to the work of the Permanent Episcopal Council (Rome, 26-28 January 2026) which, on the theme of the end of life, read as follows:

We once again express deep concern regarding the end-of-life debate: we reiterate, as we have done on several occasions, that human dignity is not measured by its efficiency or its usefulness. Life always has value, despite illness, frailty, and limitations. The answer to suffering is not to offer death but to guarantee forms of social support, continuous healthcare and home health care, so that the patient does not feel alone and families can be supported and accompanied. Legislation that legitimizes assisted suicide and euthanasia risks weakening public commitment to the most fragile and vulnerable, often invisible, who could become convinced that they have become a burden to their families and to society as a whole, deciding to step aside prematurely and leave the situation. We therefore reiterate that, within the current legal and regulatory framework, we must choose and strengthen, at the national level, interventions that best protect life, promote support and care during illness, and support families in times of suffering. We also feel a strong duty to remind everyone that choosing an early death, even because one feels there is no alternative, is not an individual act, but profoundly impacts the fabric of relationships that constitutes the community, undermining the cohesion and solidarity on which civil coexistence is founded.

These clear words encourage Catholics, both lay and cleric, to stop actively pushing for a law on assisted suicide and return to fighting clearly and unambiguously for the protection of life. We do not trust the Episcopate’s newspaper, at least for now, to put an end to its false editorial neutrality on assisted suicide, which sows so much confusion among readers, or to remember that it is the press organ of the Italian Episcopal Conference, that is, of the Italian Church.

As the end-of-life debate approaches its return to Parliament — with Bill 104, “Provisions on Medically Assisted Death,” scheduled to begin on February 17 — we hope that both international events (Slovenia and France) and the words of the Pope, Prime Minister Meloni, and now the Bishops’ Conference will lead to a rejection of the assisted suicide law, as happened in France.