ROME (LifeSiteNews) — The president of the Italian bishops warned against the legalization of euthanasia as Parliament prepares to resume debate on a medically assisted death bill.
On January 26, during the opening address of the Italian Bishops’ Conference (CEI) Permanent Council meeting held in Rome, Cardinal Matteo Zuppi expressed firm opposition to any legal framework legitimizing assisted suicide, as Italy’s Parliament is set to resume consideration of a draft law concerning euthanasia on February 17.
“Laws that legitimize assisted suicide and euthanasia risk weakening public commitment to the most fragile and vulnerable,” Zuppi said, adding that “the response to suffering is not to offer death, but to guarantee social support, healthcare and continuous home-based assistance.”
In his address to the Permanent Council, Zuppi reiterated that human dignity “is not measured by efficiency or usefulness” and that life “always has value, despite illness, fragility or limitation.” He warned that legal recognition of assisted suicide could lead vulnerable individuals to feel they have become a burden on their families and society and to consider ending their lives prematurely.
The CEI president called instead for the strengthening of national policies that protect life, ensure accompaniment and care during illness, and provide concrete support for families facing situations of suffering. He stressed that choosing an anticipated death is not merely an individual act, because it affects “the fabric of relationships that constitutes the community, undermining social cohesion and solidarity.”
Zuppi’s recent statements represent an abrupt shift from the position previously taken by Avvenire, the official newspaper of the Italian Bishops’ Conference. During the past summer, Avvenire published an article expressing support for the draft law on assisted suicide. The author described it as a policy of the lesser evil and even went so far as to cite Humanae Vitae by Pope John Paul II to justify his position.
READ: Australian man chooses assisted suicide because he cannot get disability care
According to Italian journalist Tommaso Scandroglio, this contrast raises the question of why Zuppi has now explicitly condemned any norm that legitimizes assisted suicide, after earlier positions associated with both the CEI president and its official newspaper appeared different.
Scandroglio offers several possible explanations. First, he argues that Zuppi’s recent intervention may be formally compatible with earlier official positions. He notes that Zuppi, like Avvenire, condemns the legitimation of assisted suicide understood as the “recognition of a right to be helped to die, but does not oppose its decriminalization.”
As a second explanation, Scandroglio suggests a deliberate strategy of maintaining contradictory positions. He describes this approach as a way of affirming one position and then its opposite, allowing different audiences to draw support for opposing conclusions. This was also the typical communicative strategy of Pope Francis.
Finally, Scandroglio points to recent statements by Pope Leo XIV as a further possible reason for Zuppi’s change of tone. He recalls the Pope’s comments on December 23, 2025, regarding the legalization of assisted suicide in Illinois, in which the Pope expressed “disappointment” and reaffirmed the need to respect the sanctity of life from beginning to end.
Furthermore, on January 9, speaking to members of the diplomatic corps accredited to the Holy See, Pope Leo called on states to respond to situations of vulnerability through “palliative care, and promoting policies of authentic solidarity, rather than encouraging deceptive forms of compassion such as euthanasia.”
In light of these papal interventions, it is plausible that Cardinal Zuppi decided, or was compelled, to adjust his public stance accordingly.
A significant portion of Zuppi’s remarks focused on palliative care, which he described as “a true antidote” to approaches that present assisted suicide as viable options. According to the cardinal, the presence or absence of such care can become “the dividing line between the choice of life and the request for death.”