France votes on assisted dying: Archbishop Ulrich calls for renunciation, the Church prepares its resistance

Context

We had followed step by step the progress of this text: the parliamentary maneuvers, the all-out Catholic mobilization, the solemn appeal of Cardinal Sarah and the episcopate, the votes in joint committees, the setbacks and advances. June 30, 2026, marks the date feared by those who refuse to confuse death given with death assisted: the National Assembly adopted the text establishing a "right to assisted dying" for the third and final time. The law is now adopted.

The Facts

The solemn vote took place on June 30, 2026. Yaël Braun-Pivet, President of the Assembly, hailed the "culmination" of the debates. The text establishes a right to assisted dying for adults suffering from a serious and incurable illness, in an advanced or terminal phase, causing refractory suffering. The individual conscience clause is maintained—but healthcare institutions cannot collectively oppose it. Archbishop Laurent Ulrich of Paris responded by solemnly calling to "renounce this path." Généthique reports that medical voices continue to assert that "palliative care and euthanasia are incompatible and irreconcilable"—a distinction the law methodically erases.

Doctrinal Analysis

The Church has not wavered. Evangelium Vitae (John Paul II, 1995, n. 65) is explicit: "Euthanasia is a grave violation of the law of God, inasmuch as it is the deliberate and morally unacceptable killing of a human person." The Catechism of the Catholic Church reaffirms that "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" (CCC 2277). The notion of "refractory suffering" as a criterion for access to induced death constitutes a door that no one can guarantee will remain narrow. Belgian and Dutch history demonstrates this with distressing regularity.

Stakes for the Church and the Faithful

The individual conscience clause is a partial victory. But the impossibility for a Catholic healthcare institution to collectively refuse the act constitutes a serious infringement on the Church's institutional freedom. This is the next front. Catholic institutions—FEHAP, Petites Sœurs des Pauvres, denominational retirement homes—will have to define their canonical and legal line of resistance. Catholic caregivers, for their part, face professional pressure that will only grow.

Critical Reading and Blind Spots

That the President of the Assembly hails the "culmination" of the debates reveals a vision of politics that confuses the irreversible with the definitive. A law can be repealed. What is less reversible is the habituation of consciences. This is the real danger: not the law itself, but the progressive normalization that will follow. Archbishop Ulrich's appeal is just—but it will be judged by the actions that follow. Episcopal words must now translate into concrete support for caregivers, families, and institutions.

To Reflect and Act