The ‘gattopardesca’ (ir) reformability of religious law in matters of end of life

The declaration on the end of life of Pope Francis, which preceded by a few months the entry into force of the first italian law concerning advanced healthcare directive (AHD), has been received with great interest by the italian press, so much that some newspaper titles have given it a revolutionary turning point value. The enthusiasm reported by journalists, found its justification in the fact that the Pope's intervention had come during a standstill in the process of approval of the then draft law on the subject of AHD, which in those days was blocked in the Senate. The pontiff's appeal sounded like a warning to the Parliament to dissolve the Gordian knot that had formed in the debate on the regulation of the self-determination for applicable health treatments. At the same time, the intent contained in the Message was interpreted as a good omen by the opponents of the clerical right-wing, suggesting the opening of a liberal passage in the communication between the Church and the requests coming from civil society. Suddenly - in hindsight - it was believed that the opening of the Same was implored in the direction of the acceptance of individual choices related to the end of life. On the other hand, however, the facts have denied this type of orientation, at least if we want to interpret it as an expression of the Magisterium of the Church. The sympathy that Pope Francis inspires to the Catholic progressive circles has led to the belief that even on the end of life there could be a reforming wind, such as the one perceived - but in reality never realized - on issues related to the environment, LGBTQ issues, poverty, immigration, the female priesthood, pedophilia, the celibacy of the ministers of worship, the restructuring of the curia and the change of management of the Ior. Rather, the opportunity was seized, offered by the echo raised by the pontifical allocution, to reaffirm concepts already present in the doctrine of the Church, contained in the sources used by Francis himself: Pius XII, Doctrine of the Faith and Catechism. How to say: nihil sub sole novum. But what are the passages written by the pontiff that have created so much confusion? What is the orientation of the Magisterium in matters of end of life and what has been its evolution? Can we assume that it was just another re-proposition of concepts repeated and repeated, or can we talk about the reformability of the Church's thinking on the end of life and an inversion of tendency with respect to the closure of the past? These are the questions that this article will try to answer.