Italy once had so-called “adult Catholics,” a term coined to describe a more liberal approach by some Catholics to ethical and social issues like abortion, aimed at distinguishing themselves from the “rigid” line of the Catholic Church. The expression “adult Catholics” was used by then-Prime Minister Romano Prodi in 2006, during a speech in Bologna, to define those Catholics who, while rooted in the faith, believe they must act according to their own conscience without slavishly following the directions of the ecclesiastical hierarchy. Prodi declared, “I am an adult Catholic, who seeks to reconcile faith and reason in public life.”

Their counterpart in the United States are so-called “pro-choice” Catholics like Joe Biden. They promote the right to abortion based on “Catholic” principles such as freedom of conscience, social justice, and religious pluralism. Jamie Manson, president of Catholics for Choice, maintains that “Catholic tradition supports the right to follow one’s conscience, even if it conflicts with Church teaching.”

Fortunately, the American Church has always maintained that Catholics for Choice does not represent Catholic doctrine. Nancy Pelosi is another example of these Catholics: the former Speaker of the House, denied Communion by her Archbishop for her support for abortion but then given Communion shortly thereafter in the Vatican under the reign of Pope Francis. Biden befell a similar fate; denied Communion for the same reasons by a young priest, he shrugged his shoulders, publicly stating that Pope Francis would give him Communion anyway.

Today, a new variation on a theme has arrived: “Catholics of the Lesser Evil,” supporters of a bill in the Italian parliament on assisted suicide. These too, like the previous ones, in my opinion contradict the teachings of the Church, even though, curiously, and unlike the former, they claim to support a law that proposes a moral evil—suicide—precisely by virtue of Church doctrine, one not in conflict but justified by it. The strange thing about the latter is that they don’t realize that, like the former, a law that openly supports a moral evil can only lead to a proliferation of deaths. Indeed, just as “adult Catholics” in Italy or “pro-choice” Catholics in the United States helped open the doors to an anti-life culture that over time generated a wave of legalized abortions, assisted reproduction, and the growth of the barbaric culture of surrogate motherhood, the legalizing of assisted suicide will fuel a culture of life considered useless or a burden to society. All of this can only increase the number of assisted suicides.

In this regard, it’s enough to consider the case of the Netherlands. In that country, assisted suicide (including euthanasia) is regulated by the 2002 law (Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Suicide Act). Below is a summary of annual statistics on cases of euthanasia and assisted suicide, based on data available through 2025:

2000 : 2,123 cases of euthanasia and assisted suicide (see here)
2003 : 1,774 cases (1,626 euthanasia, 148 assisted suicides; here)
2010 : 3,136 cases (2,910 euthanasia, 182 assisted suicides, 44 combined; here)
2011 : 3,695 cases, of which 13 for psychiatric reasons (here)
2012 : 4,188 cases, of which 14 for psychiatric reasons (here)
2013 : 4,829 cases, of which 42 for psychiatric reasons (here)
2014 : 5,033 cases, of which 16 for psychiatric reasons (here)
2016 : 6,091 cases (here)
2017 : 6,585 cases (here)
2019 : 6,361 cases (here)
2022 : 8,720 cases, of which 115 due to psychological distress (here and here)
2023 : 9,068 cases (5.4% of all deaths), of which 138 due to psychological distress and 328 due to dementia (here and here)
2024 : 9,958 cases, of which 219 were for psychiatric reasons (here)

It goes without saying that the number of cases has risen steadily from 1.9% of deaths in 1990 to 5.4% in 2023 (here and here). Worthy of note, however, is the case of euthanasia for psychiatric reasons, which was initially rare but is now on the rise (from 2 cases in 2010 to 219 in 2024; here).

This increase is certainly explained by the prophetic words of Pope Benedict XVI:

There is reason to fear that one day, undeclared or even explicit pressure may be exerted on seriously ill or elderly people to seek death or to kill themselves. The appropriate response to suffering at the end of life is loving care and accompaniment toward death—particularly with the help of palliative care—and not “active assistance in dying.” (Speech during meeting with the Authorities and the Diplomatic Corps in the Hofburg Hall in Vienna, Austria, 7 September 2007)

Or:

“A society incapable of accepting those who suffer and incapable of contributing, through compassion, to sharing and bearing their suffering internally is a cruel and inhuman society” (encyclical Spe Salvi). In a complex society, strongly influenced by the dynamics of productivity and the demands of the economy, vulnerable individuals and the poorest families risk being overwhelmed in times of economic hardship and/or illness. In large cities, an increasing number of elderly and lonely people are found, even in times of serious illness and near death. In such situations, the pressure to euthanize becomes pressing, especially when a utilitarian vision of the person creeps in. In this regard, I take this opportunity to reiterate, once again, the firm and constant ethical condemnation of all forms of direct euthanasia, in accordance with the centuries-old teaching of the Church. (Address to participants in the General Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life, 25 February 2008)

The most curious aspect of the discussion is that these Catholic supporters of the assisted suicide bill justify their action by claiming doctrine is on their side because they are fighting for the “lesser evil.” In this regard, they cite Evangelium Vitae , no. 73, by Pope St. John Paul II.

It seems to me, however, that these Catholics are forgetting the general framework within which the aforementioned no. 73 of Evangelium Vitae should be placed, namely that Catholics express their faith by serving life, not “cheating death” (here). These “Lesser Evil Catholics” also seem to ignore the warning that Pope Benedict XVI expressed in Caritas in Veritate , no. 75, when he said that the social question has radically become an anthropological question, and, continuing, wrote:

…a euthanasia mindset is gaining ground , an equally abusive manifestation of domination over life, which under certain conditions is considered no longer worth living. Behind these scenarios lie cultural positions that deny human dignity. These practices, in turn, are destined to fuel a materialistic and mechanistic conception of human life. Who can measure the negative effects of such a mentality on development? How can we be surprised by the indifference to human situations of degradation, if indifference even characterizes our attitude toward what is human and what is not? The arbitrary selectivity of what is proposed today as worthy of respect is astonishing. Quick to be scandalized by marginal things, many seem to tolerate unheard-of injustices.

Elsewhere he remarked,

On several occasions, my venerable predecessor John Paul II, who especially during his illness offered an exemplary witness of faith and courage, urged scientists and doctors to engage in research to prevent and cure diseases related to aging, without ever giving in to the temptation to resort to practices that shorten the lives of the elderly and sick, practices that would be de facto forms of euthanasia. (Address to participants in the International Conference promoted by the Pontifical Council for Health Care Workers on the theme: “Pastoral care in the care of the sick elderly”, 17 November 2007)

After hearing these moving and clear words, the most surprising aspect of this whole affair is the “illness” that has struck most of the Church’s pastors, since they appear to suffer from aphasia regarding this specific topic. Aphasia is the loss of linguistic ability due to brain damage. In this case, we will speak of a “brain damage” of a cultural nature.

Indeed, how can we not be appalled by a Church made up of pastors who, for the most part, remain silent on this grave issue? Pastors who fail to raise a cry of alarm and pain? Who seem to proceed in their Sunday homilies unconcerned by the dramatic reality surrounding us, which demands testimony and the expression of judgment? We are then astonished by statements from high-ranking prelates who, on the subject of assisted suicide, seem to speak without actually saying anything; uttering statements based solely on sentiment, ignoring reason; champions of “dialogue” for its own sake; inclined to the necessary, blessed, and holy “mediation,” because we now live in a diverse society. Prelates in the guise of politically correct “social workers,” experts in formally ambiguous language, but who, in essence, seem to be giving their green light to the bill on assisted suicide. A “pass” that encourages Catholic politicians and supporters of the bill on assisted suicide to move forward because it would supposedly represent the “lesser evil.”

But these shepherds have forgotten that Someone said: “You have heard that it was said to the ancients, ‘You shall not kill; and whoever kills will be liable to judgment.’ And “Let your communication be, ‘Yes, yes,’ or ‘No, no,’ for anything more than these comes from the evil one.”

All this brings to mind a reader’s comment on one of my Facebook posts which read:

The first thing that seems dead in this civilization in crisis is the sense of the sacred, of that which by definition admits no exceptions. The sacred is a dam; if you open a crack, everything falls apart. It happened with divorce; it was supposed to be only for select cases, and it became a widespread practice, resulting in the destruction of the family. Abortion, once a homicide, has become a woman’s right (and the father isn’t even mentioned, as if it didn’t concern him). It’s easy to imagine what will happen to euthanasia. But certain cardinals, to please the world (which is by definition anti-Christian), remain silent, or at most whisper.

The confusion that generates obvious contradictions

Confusion reigns supreme in these times of cultural fluidity. A prime example of this trend is the Movimento per la Vita (MpV) and one of its vice-presidents, Domenico Menorello, a former parliamentarian. How is it possible that a vice-president of the MpV is promoting the bill on assisted suicide? Does the Movimento per la Vita identify with the promotion of a death law by one of its vice-presidents?

If the answer to the question were yes, then one would wonder how that is possible for the Pro-Life Movement, which has an esteemed 50-year history of promoting and supporting life and the culture of life—a movement that, if I’m not mistaken, opened the first Pro-Life Help Center in Florence way back on May 22, 1975. The goal of the Center is to support pregnant women facing economic, psychological, or social difficulties by offering concrete assistance (diapers, clothing, etc.) in order to prevent recourse to abortion—is now no longer serving the culture of life but the “culture of death”? Has the Pro-Life Movement perhaps changed its skin, nature, and purpose? Has it perhaps adapted to today’s nihilism, betraying its respected history? Wasn’t the Pro-Life Movement the expression of the “people of life” spoken of in Evangelium Vitae? I don’t know the answer to these questions, but it’s up to the MpV leadership to clarify matters and provide a definitive, public, and clear response, if only out of respect for the many Catholics who belong to or support the Pro-Life Movement and remain deeply perplexed and incredulous about this matter.

Tormenting questions

Why are some Catholics in the parliamentary majority eager to promote or support a death law? What interest do they have, what drives them? Why not leave the situation as it is, with the door open to assisted suicide by the Constitutional Court, which, with ruling 242/2019, effectively decriminalized (art. 580 of the Criminal Code) certain cases, which are regularly occurring, when they meet the famous four conditions? Why make people believe that this is being done solely to fill a legislative vacuum following the Constitutional Court’s ruling 242/2019, when in fact such a vacuum is completely nonexistent? Why are these Catholics pushing for the assumption and sharing of a moral responsibility that, for now, only the Constitutional Court has assumed? Why propose a death law that regulates requests for assisted suicide when the situation is already effectively regulated by the Constitutional Court’s ruling? Why open the door with a law to a flood of assisted suicide cases?

The Catholic promoters of the assisted suicide bill respond by saying that other forces in the parliamentary minority will push a more permissive law. This remains to be seen. If a minority proposes, the majority decides. And even in the worst case scenario, let’s leave it to the parliamentarians in favor, and not ourselves, to act as proponents of death. If anything, at the right time, it will be our responsibility and care to intervene with political action to stem and limit the damage of a death law that others propose and approve (Evangelium Vitae, 73). So the question returns: Why are some Catholics moving in this direction? And here some advance various answers, which, however, ultimately boil down to “recklessness,” “political opportunism,” “Catholic progressivism,” “adult Catholicism,” “interest,” “power,” “visibility.” Which of these motivations is/are the real ones, I cannot answer.

Words of truth

We live in times of de-Christianization, nihilism, and the culture of death. In these times, we Catholic Christians are required to bear witness, even when we are and will be in the extreme minority. For this reason, it is worth recalling the passage given by Joseph Ratzinger in 1969 during a radio lecture for Hessian Rundfunk, taken from his speech on the future of the Church, later published in the volume Glaube und Zukunft (1970, Kösel-Verlag):

We are at a major turning point in the evolution of the human race. A moment compared to which the transition from the Middle Ages to modern times seems almost insignificant. […] From today’s crisis, a Church will emerge that will have lost much. It will become small and will have to start again more or less from the beginning. It will no longer be able to inhabit the buildings it built in times of prosperity. As its faithful dwindle, it will also lose many of its social privileges. In contrast to an earlier period, it will be seen much more as a voluntary society, entered only by free choice. […] It will be a more spiritual Church, one that will not arrogate to itself a political mandate by flirting now with the Left and now with the Right. It will be poor and will become the Church of the destitute. […] But when all the turmoil is over, great power will emerge from a more spiritual and simplified Church.

[Sabino Paciolla is an Italian blogger who writes on Catholic topics at sabinopaciolla.com. His August 3 essay focuses on the Italian parliamentary debate over enacting, under pressure from the Constitutional Tribunal, an assisted suicide law and the role of some prominent, high-level Catholic clerics in pushing the project as the “lesser of two evils.” This edited version was translated by John Grondelski.]