Last week, France’s National Assembly—the lower house of Parliament—voted 305-199 in favor of legalizing what they are calling “assisted dying.” The legislation now moves on to the Senate, where the proposal will probably become law unless the country’s Catholics and their allies take extraordinary steps to block it in the country that once held the title of “the Eldest Daughter of the Catholic Church.”
Today, France is well-known for its militant secularism. The most recent data reveals that self-declared “convinced atheists” represent almost 30 percent of the French population, and another 34 percent claim to be “not religious.” France has long been known to be among the top five most atheist countries in the world, behind only Japan, China, and the Czech Republic. The French government has encouraged this secularism through a policy known as “laicite,” which keeps religion out of all public affairs and plays a central role in its education system and public institutions.
In 2004, for example, France passed a law prohibiting students in public primary and secondary schools from wearing religious symbols—including crosses and medals of the saints.
Still, there are French lawmakers with a Catholic conscience. But will they have the kind of courage needed to mobilize against the suicide bill? The Guardian reports that France’s Prime Minister, Francois Bayrou, a devout Catholic, had said he had “questions” and “would abstain if I were an MP.”
Bayrou would have support from a growing number of Catholic constituents, as there is a “Catholic Renaissance” emerging in France. Figures released recently by the Bishops’ Conference of France announced that 10,384 adults received the sacrament of baptism at the 2025 Easter Vigil. This is an increase of 45 percent over the 7,135 adults who were baptized in 2024 and a 90 percent increase over the 5,463 adults who were baptized in 2023.
According to Eglise Catholique en France, in the past ten years, catechumens in France have increased from 3,900 in 2015 to 10,392 in 2025. This is an increase of more than 160 percent. Among the new adult catechumens, the 18–25-year-old cohort accounts for more than 42 percent of the catechumens and is surpassing the 26–40 age group. This is a dramatic change considering that in 2020, the number of 26 to 40-year-old catechumens was double the number of 18 to 25-year-olds.
Prior to the vote, the Catholic bishops held a Vigil for Life at the newly restored Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris, which featured a series of testimonies from individuals who offered their thoughts on the ethical and human dimensions of end-of-life care. In his homily that called on all Catholics to mobilize to defeat this growing culture of death in France, Archbishop Laurent Ulrich of Paris denounced the “illusion” of a “soft, chosen death.”
Archbishop Ulrich knows that the suicide advocates have attempted to take the high moral ground in promising a “death with dignity.” Even Emmanuel Macron, the current President of France, who was raised in a non-religious home but asked to be baptized into the Catholic Church at age 12, now appears to support the suicide legislation, saying that “there are situations you cannot humanely accept.”
Macron echoes the exaggerated claims of the “death with dignity” advocates who warn of the intractable, painful deaths that we all will face unless we accept the “kinder, gentler death” they promise. In the opening pages of their most recent publication—The Inescapable Truth—the Dignity in Dying advocates warn readers in hyperbolic terms:
Seventeen people a day will suffer when they die…people are being forced to endure unbelievable suffering at the end of life. Some will retch at the stench of their own body rotting. Some will vomit their own feces. Some will suffocate, slowly, inexorably, over several days, their last moments of life disfigured by terror.
Warnings like this characterize the marketing techniques of the pro-assisted suicide advocates. It is difficult to read about such horrors, even though we know that there is no need for such suffering in an advanced society with a plethora of ways to manage pain and provide end-of-life comfort care. No one, including those on the pro-life side who warn of the abuses of the “death with dignity” movement, would wish such suffering on anyone. But fear of the loss of control that accompanies dying has caused increasing numbers of European countries to embrace assisted suicide.
Assisted suicide has been legal in Switzerland since the 1940s. But Europe stood firmly against “aid in dying” for decades—even as the United States first began to embrace it in states including Oregon, Washington, and Vermont (eleven states have so far legalized assisted suicide). In Europe, the Netherlands and Belgium were the first to legalize both “active euthanasia” (when a caregiver induces death at the request of the patient) and assisted suicide, where doctors provide the patient with the means to end their lives themselves. The floodgates then opened as Spain allowed euthanasia and assisted suicide in 2021, and Austria legalized assisted suicide in 2022. Portugal decriminalized euthanasia in 2023, but it has not come into force because of tremendous opposition.
Last November, the UK Parliament voted for assisted suicide. The UK’s lower house provided a provision that would allow medical personnel to opt out of assisting in the suicide. It is uncertain whether that will remain. In France, there is a conscience clause for medical personnel to “opt out” of participating in assisted suicide, but the proposed legislation includes a penalty of two years in prison for anyone who attempts to block an act of assisted suicide.
Conscience protections only go so far once the death industry gains power. Like the pro-life crisis pregnancy laws in some states (which require the pro-life centers to refer women to abortion facilities), even if physicians in Canada refuse to participate in assisted suicide, they are required by law to refer their suicidally motivated patients to someone who will help them die. For Catholics, that is formal cooperation in sinful behavior.
Still, even with the fear-mongering and promises of a peaceful death, suicide remains a “hard sell.” And although progressive politicians here and abroad fill their campaign coffers with donations from the assisted suicide industry, these kinds of issues have a way of eventually making us aware of the very real consequences of assisted suicide on everyone it touches.
After he assisted in the suicide of his mother, Andrew Solomon wrote in a 1996 New Yorker article entitled “A Death of One’s Own”, that “the comfort of control that his mother exerted gave her solace” but he continued, “the fact is that a suicide is a suicide—over determined, sad and somewhat toxic to everyone it touches.” In his best-selling book, The Noonday Demon, Solomon details the ways in which his family fell apart in the aftermath of the suicide. Solomon writes that he rarely spoke with his father or his brother anymore and details the futile effort to treat his depression through a regimen of sometimes more than a dozen pills each day. Having participated in his mother’s death, Solomon admits that he, too, has viewed suicide as an option to escape his psychic pain.
Catholic theologians warn about a “culture of death,” and sociologists have long known that suicide begets suicide as a form of social contagion. But Nietzsche understood the dark pull of nothingness when he warned that “if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.” We shall see if and how France responds to the gaze of this abyss.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
There ya’ go, another problem solved by legislation; what mistakes could possibly be made?
Inevitably, “Marianne” will be euthanized. It won’t be long now!
Assisted suicide, assisted dying, medical aid in dying (Canada), euthanasia, death with dignity.
Euphemism gone riot.
While France hurtles toward a universal secular humanist morality our Church is on the razor’s edge of related moral decision making. Msgr Renzo Pegoraro newly appointed president Pontifical Academy for Life has expressed favor for medically assisted suicide as a detriment to voluntary euthanasia.
His rationale is that the person asking for help must be conscious and able to express it freely, have an irreversible illness, experience unbearable suffering and depend on life-sustaining treatment such as a respirator. Withdrawal of life sustaining treatment for the terminally ill has long been an acceptable option reaching back to 1957 and Pius XII in his address to anesthesiologists citing excessive burden and the primacy of spiritual ends. Removal of the respirator in such conditions has since been in practice, whereas medical assisted suicide is understood as the active application of a death dealing agent.
This position said to be favored by Pegoraro was condemned by Cardinal Willem Eijk, a member of the Academy and also, like Renzo Pegoraro a physician by training, who reiterated that there is no significant moral difference between medically assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia, as both bear the same moral responsibility in carrying out termination of life.
Cardinal Eijk’s position is more consistent with previous Catholic moral understanding of the difference between medical care and killing. Pope Leo XIV will have a momentous decision to make if Dicastery President Pegoraro’s perspective goes forward.
Please note: In my comment I give Msgr Pegoraro’s 4 preconditions for justifying medical assisted suicide: 1 The patient must be conscious and freely willing to request suicide 2 He must have an irreversible illness 3 Experiences unbearable suffering 4 Is dependent on life sustaining treatment such as the respirator. Pegoraro’s comparison of removing the respirator as comparable to suicide is a manifest falsehood. He knows full well the withholding of life saving treatment can be justified. But the act of introducing a death dealing procedure on the patient is murder.
A personal judgment some may disagree with: That’s why I’m appalled that he was selected as President of the Pontifical Academy for Life.
Thanks for this info. Can you give a source so we can learn more?
Having written my Master’s thesis on Leon Kass—former chairman of the U.S. President’s Council on Bioethics—I’d like to offer a few reflections drawn from his work, which I believe are especially pertinent as France moves toward legalising euthanasia. Kass’s thought is rooted in a deep understanding of medicine, moral anthropology, and the sacredness of human life.
1. Medicine is for healing, not killing
Kass insists: “The doctor is a healer, not a merchant of death.” The Hippocratic oath, which forbids the administration of deadly drugs, expresses the deeper moral orientation of medicine: to be unequivocally life-affirming and non-violent.
As Pope Francis recently echoed: “It is true, sometimes this humanity is betrayed. For example, every time freedom is invoked not to give life, but to take it away.”
Legalising assisted suicide corrupts the therapeutic relationship and undermines public trust in physicians.
2. The slippery slope is not a myth
Kass warns of the “logical and cultural progression” from voluntary to involuntary euthanasia. We’ve already seen this happen in Belgium and the Netherlands, where even children and the mentally ill have been euthanised.
“Once the line is crossed, who will draw the line—and on what basis?”
The most vulnerable—the elderly, the disabled, the socially isolated—will increasingly feel the pressure to justify their existence.
3. Dignity is not reducible to autonomy
Kass strongly defends a vision of human dignity rooted in being, not merely in choosing. Suffering and dependence do not negate our dignity—they reveal it.
“The dignity of life does not depend on usefulness or the absence of pain.”
4. The idol of autonomy
Kass critiques the absolutisation of autonomy. True freedom must be exercised within the moral order and in the context of human interdependence.
Are people really free when they “choose” death under the weight of depression, fear, or loneliness?
5. Cultural consequences: from solidarity to disposability
A society that legalises euthanasia changes not only laws but souls. Kass warns that we risk becoming a culture where suffering is seen as useless and burdensome—where compassion means killing, not caring.
“A society that allows assisted suicide teaches the lesson that some lives are not worth living.”
6. Suffering as human and meaningful
For Kass, suffering is not a technical problem to be eliminated, but a human mystery to be shared.
“We must learn to suffer together—not simply eliminate the sufferer.”
He often draws on classical and religious traditions to remind us that suffering, though painful, can reveal the depth of love, dependence, and moral duty.
France is experiencing a spiritual awakening in baptisms and conversions—even as it flirts with legalised death. This is no coincidence. The hunger for meaning grows sharpest when a society forgets where life comes from, and what it is for.
Postscript for accuracy and courtesy:
In my earlier comment, I mistakenly attributed the quotation to Pope Francis. The correct attribution is to Pope Leo XIV, spoken during his homily at the Jubilee of Families, Children, Grandparents and the Elderly (Sunday, 1 June 2025):
“It is true, sometimes this humanity is betrayed: for example, every time freedom is invoked not to give life, but to take it away; not to help, but to offend.”
My thanks as always to the editors of this magazine, who patiently host my (too often lengthy) comments. I apologise to the moderators for the extra reading and to readers for stealing more time than I ought. Your charity in bearing with me is not unnoticed.
Paolo. My short feelings of despair, and my salvation.
Because of the terrible decision to choose euthanasia, and the pain and suffering our family would endure, we have chosen DNR to relieve that suffering. Does the church acknowledge DNR? As usual, they evade hard issues with confusion. You say: “A society that allows assisted suicide teaches the lesson that some lives are not worth living.”
EWTN: The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops explicitly affirms that a person or, if the person is incompetent, his proxy health care decision-maker can rightly refuse treatments that do not offer a reasonable hope of benefit or entail an excessive burden, or impose excessive expense on the family or the community. Note the words…
“incompetent and expensive burden”. How do you sell this stuff?
Dear Morgan,
Thank you for your heartfelt and painful words. I read them more as a cry than an argument — and I would be remiss not to take it seriously.
Let me try to answer, not to debate, but to accompany. Because what you raise is not a theoretical issue. It is about love, suffering, and what it means to remain human — even when everything seems to fall apart.
1. On Euthanasia and Mastery of Life
Euthanasia is often described as “a gentle death.” But it is still the deliberate suppression of life — of a life that is no longer productive, no longer autonomous, no longer able to defend itself.
One might ask: “But aren’t we free to choose this for ourselves or our loved ones?”
Only if we are masters of our own existence. But we’re not. If we truly owned our life, we could guarantee our survival indefinitely — and we can’t. Our life was given, and is still given, moment by moment.
This is why the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” protects not only others, but also ourselves. As the Lord says in Deuteronomy: “It is I who bring death and give life” (Dt 32:39).
2. “But what kind of life is that?”
It’s a question many ask in anguish: what kind of life is left when the body fails — when we are paralyzed, or in a coma, or unresponsive?
But even then, a person remains a person. Whether fully alert or seemingly distant, each human being retains their dignity, and deserves our love.
A society that starts to measure the value of life by utility or productivity — is a society that will discard not only the dying, but soon the poor, the disabled, the elderly, and the lonely.
And yet, how many times have the terminally ill, even the silent ones, drawn out our tenderness, our patience, our generosity? How many have inspired conversions just by suffering — silently, nobly?
In those aching limbs, Christ suffers again, and in caring for them, we become Simon of Cyrene, helping Him carry the Cross of the world.
3. “The right to die”?
You also raise the modern claim that every person has a “right to die” — just as they have a right to live.
But rights apply to goods — and death is not a good. It is a deprivation, a rupture, the end of all earthly goods. No one can claim a right to cancer or a right to blindness — and likewise, there is no inherent “right” to death.
And beyond that: life is not our possession, but a gift. It unfolds through birth, growth, old age — and yes, even death. But it is to be received, not interrupted.
Jesus said: “Unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit” (Jn 12:24). Even dying, when received with trust, can become fruitful — for us and for those who love us.
4. The Church Speaks
St. John Paul II, in Evangelium vitae, was clear and loving:
“Euthanasia is a grave violation of God’s law… It is the deliberate and morally unacceptable killing of a human person. This doctrine is founded on the natural law and on the Word of God, and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Church… Such a practice involves, depending on the circumstances, the malice of suicide or murder.” (EV 65)
This is not spoken to condemn. It is spoken to defend those most vulnerable — and to remind us that compassion never kills.
Dear Morgan, I don’t know your story in full, and I do not judge it. I only hope these thoughts may help a little. If they feel too hard now, forgive me. But I offer them in prayer, for you and your family.
With respect and gratitude,
Paolo Giosuè
Mr Morgan, I’ve been there and done that dealing with hospitals, hospice, and a terminally ill loved one. The difficulty I found was to ensure that a life wasn’t taken away too soon. Not life extended unreasonably or painfully.
It’s in the interest of insurance companies to reduce care at the close of life. Not to treat and extend it. You can end up fighting for Christian care and compassion.
The American Medical Association code of ethics opinion on medical assisted suicide speaks for itself.
AMA Code of Medical Ethics 2025
Physician Assisted Suicide 5.7
Physician-assisted suicide occurs when a physician facilitates a patient’s death by providing the necessary means and/or information to enable the patient to perform the life-ending act (e.g., the physician provides sleeping pills and information about the lethal dose, while aware that the patient may commit suicide).
It is understandable, though tragic, that some patients in extreme duress—such as those suffering from a terminal, painful, debilitating illness—may come to decide that death is preferable to life. However, permitting physicians to engage in assisted suicide would ultimately cause more harm than good. Physician-assisted suicide is fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as healer,
Please note: In my comment I give Msgr Pegoraro’s 4 preconditions for justifying medical assisted suicide: 1 The patient must be conscious and freely willing to request suicide 2 He must have an irreversible illness 3 Experiences unbearable suffering 4 Is dependent on life sustaining treatment such as the respirator. Pegoraro’s comparison of removing the respirator as comparable to suicide is misleading.
The withholding of life saving treatment is widely known as capable of being justified. But the act of applying a death dealing procedure is not an acceptable procedure in Catholic [as well as AMA] medical ethics.
Plainly speaking, Medical assisted suicide is a violation of the 6th commandment, Thou Shall not Kill.
Euthanasia is made possible because the structure of family life has broken down irreparably. Where family ties are lovingly present, there would be no thought of killing grandma or grandpa. And now we have to ask the million dollar question: “Why have family ties/structure broken down irreparably?”
Paolo Giosue above – Thanks for your very lucid and very necessary explications, especially the six points based on Kass.
Assuming Pegoraro is a Leo XIV assignment, that bodes evil.
Down the slippery slope we go. In Canada “mature adolescents” now qualify to die. They are the ones who put their socks in the hamper instead of rolling them in a ball and throwing em.
It’s sad how western society thinks denying marriage to “mature” adolescents is progressive but guarding them from suicide/euthanasia is not.
In some places a young expectant mother of 17 can’t legally marry the father of her child but she’s free to take its life or hers with the assistance of the state.
Financing state pensions has long been a political problem in France, where there are increasingly more pensioners than contributors. (Of course, events like Covid prove there is plenty of money to be spent except on pensions).
That problem is set to change, as France prepares its final solution to the state pension crisis: reduce the number of pensioners.
It is a solution straight out of Darwinism, like the anti-Catholic French Republic’s eugenism in the 1930s. Then, as now, an evil projet straight out the Luciferian-Freemasonic lodges: Macron went so far as to publicly thank them.
French eugenics spread to Germany and Hitler ensued. Where are we heading this time round?