What Does the Church Say About Euthanasia?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church summarizes the doctrine in two statements that can be quoted directly:

“Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable.” — Catechism of the Catholic Church, § 2277^[1]

It immediately specifies what constitutes the act:

“Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator.” — Catechism of the Catholic Church, § 2277^[2]

Two conditions must therefore be present at the same time for euthanasia in the proper sense: the intention — death is willed either as an end or as a means of eliminating suffering — and the means — an action or deliberate omission that causes death.^[3] This double condition is essential. It distinguishes euthanasia from situations that may look similar but are radically different, such as refusing a treatment that has become disproportionate, in which the patient dies from the illness rather than from an act inflicted upon them.

The Church adds a clarification about responsibility: “an error of judgment into which one may have fallen in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded.”^[4] In other words, sincerity of motive never changes the objective moral nature of the act.

The doctrine is not an improvised response to recent laws. It has been articulated, developed, and reaffirmed through a coherent series of magisterial texts spanning nearly seventy years. Knowing these texts allows one to answer precisely when asked, “Where does the Church say that?”

Pius XII and the first principles in 1957

Long before contemporary debates, Pius XII had established the fundamental distinctions in two 1957 addresses to physicians. On 24 February 1957, answering questions about analgesia, he declared that powerful painkillers could licitly be used to relieve a dying person, even at the risk of shortening life, provided death was neither intended nor sought. This was the first clear magisterial formulation of the principle of double effect as applied to end-of-life care.^[5] On 24 November 1957, responding to Dr Bruno Haid, head of the anesthesiology section at the university surgical clinic of Innsbruck, he taught that one is not obliged to use every available therapy in all circumstances: forgoing “extraordinary” and disproportionate means is licit and is not euthanasia.^[6] These two principles — double effect and the distinction between means — still structure the entire doctrine today.

The declaration Iura et Bona (1980)

The reference text remains the declaration Iura et Bona, published on 5 May 1980 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, signed by its prefect Cardinal Franjo Šeper, and approved by John Paul II.^[7] It gives the definition repeated in every later text:

“By euthanasia is understood an action or an omission which of itself or by intention causes death, in order that all suffering may in this way be eliminated.” — Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, declaration Iura et Bona, 5 May 1980^[8]

It then states the principle that nothing can overturn:

“Nothing and no one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent human being, whether a fetus or an embryo, an infant or an adult, an old person, or one suffering from an incurable disease, or a person who is dying.” — Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, declaration Iura et Bona, 5 May 1980^[9]

Iura et Bona also reformulated the older distinction between “ordinary” and “extraordinary” means in terms of proportion. A treatment is evaluated by “studying the type of treatment to be used, its degree of complexity or risk, its cost and the possibilities of using it, and comparing these elements with the result that can be expected, taking into account the state of the sick person and his or her physical and moral resources.”^[10] This vocabulary — proportionate and disproportionate means — would pass into the Catechism and Evangelium Vitae.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992)

Promulgated by John Paul II in 1992, the Catechism condenses the doctrine into four paragraphs (§§ 2276–2279) intended for the whole Church. It begins from a positive principle that is often forgotten:

“Those whose lives are diminished or weakened deserve special respect. Sick or handicapped persons should be helped to lead lives as normal as possible.” — Catechism of the Catholic Church, § 2276^[11]

From this follow the condemnation of euthanasia (§ 2277), the legitimacy of refusing overzealous treatment (§ 2278), and the commendation of palliative care (§ 2279), which are explained below. The Catechism's strength lies in the way it orders these teachings: refusing to kill and having a duty to relieve suffering are not opposites; each calls for the other.

Evangelium Vitae (1995): the solemn declaration

The encyclical Evangelium Vitae, promulgated on 25 March 1995, is the high point of this teaching. In paragraph 65, after repeating the definition from Iura et Bona, John Paul II makes a declaration of exceptional solemnity, modeled on the declaration against abortion three paragraphs earlier:

“In harmony with the Magisterium of my Predecessors and in communion with the Bishops of the Catholic Church, I confirm that euthanasia is a grave violation of the law of God, since it is the deliberate and morally unacceptable killing of a human person. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written word of God, is transmitted by the Church's Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.” — Saint John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, 25 March 1995, § 65^[12]

Every part of this sentence is deliberate: harmony with his predecessors and communion with the worldwide episcopate, the four converging sources — natural law, Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium — and above all the reference to the ordinary and universal Magisterium, a technical formula never used lightly and whose significance is considered below.

Samaritanus Bonus (2020): reaffirmation amid legalization

Twenty-five years later, amid a wave of legalization in Belgium, the Netherlands, Canada, and elsewhere, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published on 22 September 2020 the letter Samaritanus Bonus, approved by Pope Francis on 25 June 2020, dated 14 July 2020 and signed by Cardinal Luis Ladaria.^[13] The text changes nothing in the doctrine; it reaffirms it in the strongest terms:

“Euthanasia is a crime against human life because, by this act, man chooses to cause directly the death of another innocent human being. […] Euthanasia, therefore, is an intrinsically evil act, in every situation or circumstance.” — Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, letter Samaritanus Bonus, dated 14 July 2020^[14]

The expression “intrinsically evil act” (intrinsece malum) is decisive: no circumstance, good intention, or request by the patient can make the act licit. Samaritanus Bonus also develops at length the accompaniment of the sick and access to the sacraments, subjects addressed below.

Pope Francis

Pope Francis has confirmed this teaching many times, connecting it with his denunciation of the “throwaway culture.” In his address to the Italian Catholic Physicians' Association on 15 November 2014, he denounced “this hidden euthanasia” and called euthanasia a sin “against God the Creator.”^[15] In 2024, in his message to the international interfaith symposium on palliative care in Toronto, he wrote that euthanasia “is never a source of hope nor a genuine concern for the sick and the dying,” but “a failure of love,” and presented palliative care as “a true form of compassion.”^[16] Magisterial continuity is therefore complete, from Pius XII to Francis.

This is the point most often overlooked by the general public, yet it lies at the heart of the question, “What does the Church say?” Not every Church teaching carries the same weight: some matters concern changeable discipline, while others are definitive doctrine. The condemnation of euthanasia belongs to the highest category.

A definitive doctrine, not a revisable opinion

When John Paul II writes that the prohibition of euthanasia is “taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium,” he is not using decorative language. According to the Second Vatican Council's dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium, when the bishops throughout the world, in communion with the pope, agree that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held definitively, their teaching is infallible, even without a solemn ex cathedra definition.^[17] The condemnation of euthanasia meets this condition: it has been taught unanimously from the beginning.

In plain terms, one cannot expect the Church to “evolve” on this point as it may on disciplinary questions. This is not a regulation but a moral truth that the Church recognizes a duty to preserve, not a power to change. A theologian may discuss the application to a borderline case, but cannot maintain that direct euthanasia is sometimes good without breaking with Catholic faith.

Distinguishing the principle from its application

This firmness does not eliminate every nuance. One must distinguish the principle, which is definitive, from concrete applications, which require prudent discernment. The following table clarifies what is absolute and what must be evaluated case by case.

The dividing line is clear: the refusal to kill is absolute; the concrete manner of treating, relieving, and accompanying involves an informed conscience, medical science, and prudence.

Euthanasia by action and by omission

The Church condemns both active euthanasia — a direct act, typically the injection of a lethal substance — and passive euthanasia in the proper sense, namely the deliberate omission of life-sustaining care in order to cause death. This point is often misunderstood: it does not mean stopping every intervention, but intentionally depriving a stable patient of what sustains life so that the patient will die.^[18] The boundary with the legitimate refusal of overzealous treatment does not lie in the external act of stopping a treatment, but in the intention: is death intended, or is one merely accepting not to fight it further with disproportionate means?

Assisted suicide

For the Church, physician-assisted suicide — supplying a lethal substance that the patient will administer personally — is another name for the same evil. Evangelium Vitae states this without ambiguity:

“To concur with the intention of another person to commit suicide and to help in carrying it out through so-called ‘assisted suicide’ means to cooperate in, and at times to be the actual perpetrator of, an injustice which can never be excused, even if it is requested.” — Saint John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, § 66^[19]

The foundation: no one owns innocent life

Why this condemnation? The Church grounds it in two converging sources. First, the word of God: the commandment “You shall not kill” (Ex 20:13); the affirmation that “God did not make death, and he does not delight in the death of the living” (Wis 1:13); and divine sovereignty over life — “I kill and I make alive” (Deut 32:39). Second, natural law: innocent human life is a good over which no one, not even the person living it, has unlimited power of disposal or self-destruction.

Saint John Paul II invokes an argument by Saint Augustine that remains strikingly relevant and answers the appeal to consent in advance:

“It is never licit — writes Saint Augustine with surprising relevance — to kill another, even if he wished it, and even more if he requested it because, suspended between life and death, he begs to be helped in freeing his soul, which struggles against the bonds of the body and longs to be released; even if the sick person were no longer able to live, this is not licit.” — Saint John Paul II quoting Saint Augustine, Evangelium Vitae, § 66^[20]

The complete rational argument — concerning autonomy, compassion, and dignity — is developed in Why Does the Church Reject Euthanasia?. Here the foundation is enough: causing the death of an innocent person remains murder, whatever the motive.

This is the least understood side of the teaching and the most important for dispelling the caricature of a Church that would impose suffering or insist on treatment at all costs. The Church carefully distinguishes the refusal to kill from the refusal to care: it forbids the former and condemns the latter. Four approaches are not merely permitted but recommended.

Refusing overzealous treatment

This is the decisive distinction. Refusing a treatment that has become useless, burdensome, or disproportionate is not euthanasia. The Catechism states it with definitive clarity:

“Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of ‘over-zealous’ treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one's inability to impede it is merely accepted.” — Catechism of the Catholic Church, § 2278^[21]

In this case, the patient dies from the disease, not from an act inflicted upon them; one simply ceases to resist the inevitable with means that have become unreasonable. Evangelium Vitae explains that “to forego extraordinary or disproportionate means is not the equivalent of suicide or euthanasia; it rather expresses acceptance of the human condition in the face of death.”^[22]

Relieving pain, even at the risk of shortening life

The Church expressly permits the use of powerful pain medication to relieve a dying person, even if it risks shortening life. This is the principle of double effect already stated by Pius XII:

“The use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity if death is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable.” — Catechism of the Catholic Church, § 2279^[23]

Everything depends here on intention and proportion: the goal is to relieve pain, death is not sought, and the dose used is necessary for relief rather than designed to kill. The difference from euthanasia is not material — the same substance might be involved — but moral.

Proportionate sedation

In cases of refractory suffering, sedation — including deep and continuous sedation in the terminal phase — is permitted by Samaritanus Bonus (part V, section 7, “Analgesic therapies and the suppression of consciousness”) under the strict condition that it aims to relieve pain, not to cause death — “any administration that directly and intentionally causes death is a euthanasic practice” — and, where possible, with the informed consent of the patient.^[24] Sedation diverted from this purpose and used as a disguised means of causing death would once again become euthanasia.

Palliative care: “a special form of disinterested charity”

Far from imposing suffering, the Church presents palliative care as a duty and a summit of charity. The Catechism concludes:

“Palliative care is a special form of disinterested charity. As such it should be encouraged.” — Catechism of the Catholic Church, § 2279^[25]

This is why the recent Magisterium insists so strongly on the development of palliative care: where it is unavailable, euthanasia is falsely presented as the only option. Truly caring for people at the end of life removes the supposed need for euthanasia.

The teaching is not merely a rule: it requires a specific pastoral response toward the sick person, the family, and healthcare professionals. Here the Church answers the real distress hidden behind a request for euthanasia.

Dignity is never lost

The Church rejects the idea that a life can become “unworthy of being lived.” A person's dignity does not depend on autonomy, health, or usefulness, but on the person's very being as someone created and loved by God. It remains intact through dependence, illness, and agony. Depending on others is not degradation; it is the ordinary human condition made visible.

The Christian meaning of suffering

The Church does not glorify pain — it works to relieve it — but refuses to declare it meaningless. In the apostolic letter Salvifici Doloris, John Paul II teaches that suffering united to Christ's suffering can become fruitful and meaningful, while never ceasing to call for relief and the presence of others.^[26] Precisely because suffering can have meaning, one may not answer it by eliminating the person who suffers.

Accompaniment, not abandonment

Samaritanus Bonus places its entire teaching under the parable of the Good Samaritan: bending over the suffering person, remaining beside them, and caring for them. The Church's answer to “I want to die” is neither “all right” nor “be quiet and suffer,” but “you are not alone.” A request for euthanasia is often a plea for help, presence, and relief; it frequently subsides when pain is treated and isolation is overcome.

The sacraments and a person requesting euthanasia

Samaritanus Bonus addresses the difficult case of a sick person who has formally requested euthanasia or registered to receive it. A minister cannot give absolution or the Anointing of the Sick while that decision persists, because it shows that the required disposition is absent:

“Such a penitent can receive these sacraments when the minister can conclude that the penitent has taken concrete steps that indicate he or she has modified the decision.” — Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, letter Samaritanus Bonus, dated 14 July 2020, part V, section 11^[27]

This is neither abandonment nor condemnation of the person, but the refusal of any gesture that “could be interpreted as approval of euthanasia.”^[28] Spiritual accompaniment never ceases: its purpose is precisely to reopen the way to hope and enable the sick person to return to the sacraments.

It would be false to think that the Church has “hardened” in the modern era. Its position continues an unbroken tradition. Greek medicine itself, in the Hippocratic Oath (fourth century BC), already forbade a physician to “give a deadly drug to anyone if asked.”^[29] The first Christians, in a world that practiced the exposure of newborn children and tolerated suicide, immediately affirmed the sacred character of every human life. In the fifth century, Saint Augustine had already formulated the argument that Evangelium Vitae would repeat fifteen centuries later.

The coherence is complete: what the Church says today about euthanasia is what it has held from its beginnings, in continuity with ancient medical wisdom and biblical faith. Faced with new technologies and laws, the contemporary Magisterium has only clarified and reaffirmed a truth that does not belong to it and that it has no power to alter.

• What Should We Think About Euthanasia? — the full dossier: definitions, arguments, experience in countries that legalized it, and the debate in France.
• Why Does the Church Reject Euthanasia? — a detailed response to arguments based on compassion, autonomy, and dignity.
• What Does the Church Say About the Death Penalty? — Church teaching on the authority to cause death.
• May a Catholic Donate Organs? — end of life, death, and self-gift.
• Why Does the Church Reject Abortion? — the other great defense of innocent life in Evangelium Vitae.