You nailed the issue. Not every Catholic is in lockstep agreement with the Pope. His opinion carries great weight, but I do not think it could be used as actual evidence of her beliefs on a particular issue.
Please read my reply in post 16. Terri was a devout Catholic before her collapse. To presume that she would prefer to be euthanized without having given informed consent of what that would mean is equally irresponsible of the court. There's no way Terri could have given informed consent on this issue, because she "collapsed" before the law was written to include food and water as life-support (9 years to be specific).
If what her husband said is true, that she never wanted to be hooked up to tubes, it still does not mean that Terri would want to die without food and water. I honestly don't believe that Michael and Terri ever had a serious discussion about this topic, because he never mentioned that Terri wouldn't want to live hooked up to tubes at the malpractice trial in 1992. In fact, if he truly believed that which he did not claim in public until 1998, then he wouldn't have allowed Terri to be put on a feeding tube in the first place. He would have continued to give her rehabilitative therapy, instead of ordering the doctors to not resuscitate her once the big bucks came in (1993). He plead for those big bucks knowing that Terri had an expected life-span of 51 more years. Everything I'm saying I've seen in court documentation.