Cardinal Sarah and the Crisis in Bioethics
Sister Renée Mirkes, OSF on Friday, September 4, 2026
Listen to this article
7 min
Cardinal Robert Sarah’s address this summer to the European Parliamentidentifies a foundational problem in contemporary bioethical discourse: the widening gap between language and reality. Words that once conveyed stable meanings – “healthcare,” “rights,” “dignity” – are increasingly deployed with ideological elasticity.
Sarah warns this linguistic instability constitutes a “crisis of the logos or of reason,” a breakdown in the relationship between words and the realities they signify. Language ceases to correspond to reality; reason loses its footing, and moral judgment becomes vulnerable to sentiment, ideology or political coercion.
Sarah’s thesis rests on three philosophical principles deeply rooted in the Catholic intellectual tradition.
First, language must correspond to reality. For Sarah, language is not a neutral tool but an instrument of truth. Words are meant to reveal reality, not obscure it. Once medical discourse employs euphemisms or ambiguous terminology, it becomes difficult to identify the moral nature of medical actions. When terms such as “healthcare,” “choice,” or “medical aid in dying” conceal the underlying reality of direct killing or murder, the loss of linguistic clarity spawns a loss of moral clarity.
Second, reason is the basis of ethical judgment. Sarah’s critique presupposes a classical and Christian understanding of reason as the faculty capable of discerning truth. In turn, ethical judgment is directly dependent on reason’s ability to apprehend the nature of the human person and the goods proper to human flourishing. Rather than rational inquiry into human goods, many bioethical debates today become mere contests of sentiment or political power.
Third, human dignity is objective and intrinsic. Sarah insists human dignity does not depend on “autonomy,” utility, or political consensus. It flows from the nature of the human person as an imago Dei, a being created in God’s image.
The consequences of ignoring these principles are particularly acute in bioethics, where, as Sarah argues, the stakes involve human life, embodiment, and dignity.
For this reason, Sarah’s lectio evaluates coherently four major bioethical issues: abortion, in vitro fertilization, transgender ideology, and physician-assisted suicide. In each case, he demonstrates how linguistic distortion functions as a precondition for moral confusion and policy error.
Referring to abortion as “health,” for example, is a linguistic manipulation that conceals the elimination of life. Sarah cites American, European, and international policy documents where “sexual and reproductive health” is routinely used to include abortion. He argues this egregious “reversal of the logos” reframes the deliberate termination of a human life as a form of healthcare, conditions human dignity on maternal choice, and treats the unborn baby as an object whose existence depends on external approval.
Sarah insists the linguistic distortion of “health,” “choice,” and “rights” normalizes abortion by embedding it within the language of medicine and the Constitution.
But if abortion is described as “healthcare,” the unborn child becomes a pathology, the moral reality of direct killing is obscured, and reason is subordinate to political expediency. Within this conceptual framework, warns Sarah, it becomes difficult – if not impossible – to recognize the gravity of the act of abortion.
Cardinal Robert Sarah
blesses the Incarnation Movement’s Marian grotto, 2024 [Source: Creative
Commons]
Sarah also contends that the language of “reproductive rights” justifies in vitrofertilization, embryo cryopreservation, selective reduction, and embryo disposal. While the term “rights” is employed to frame the baby and its laboratory production as entitlements, it clandestinely obscures the moral implications of creating and destroying human beings at their embryonic stage.
And when IVF is framed as a “right,” the child becomes a product of technique rather than the fruit of a unitive act of marital love. The genesis of a new human being is relocated from the interpersonal unitive love of parents to the technical expertise of embryologists and endocrinologists.
With such verbal artifices, reason is displaced by technological positivism, while the logic of laboratory reproduction replaces the logic of the gift.
Transgender ideology, in Sarah’s valuation, detaches “identity” from the body. With deceptive linguistic moves – something the Cardinal argues is foundational to transgender ideology – terms such as “gender identity,” “assigned at birth,” and “affirming care” divorce gender identity from biological sex and altogether obscure the reality of embodiment.
As Sarah warns, once identity is detached from the body, reason loses its ability to discern the meaning of embodiment. One’s body is no longer revelatory; it’s arbitrary. Rather than a gift that reveals personal identity, the body is treated as a canvas for self-expression.
And born of this sort of verbal artifice, ethical judgment on transgender ideology in general and “transitioning to the opposite sex” in particular relies entirely on subjective feeling or thinking rather than on a rational reflection of human nature.
Sarah demonstrates how verbal subterfuges – terms like “medical aid in dying,” “death with dignity,” and “compassionate choice” – conceal the reality of intentionally killing a patient. This linguistic shift reframes the murder of a human being as “care.”
As Sarah points out, if direct killing can be redefined as compassion, then compassion loses meaning. If suicide can be redefined as healthcare, then healthcare loses meaning.
In all of this “crisis of the logos,” Sarah shows how reason is deprived of the conceptual tools necessary to distinguish healing from harm. The sick person becomes a burden to be eliminated rather than a neighbor to be cared for. Human dignity becomes contingent on functionality, and the entire medical vocation is distorted as the physician’s role morphs from healer into executioner.
Sarah’s thesis weds the future of bioethics to the future of language. When we lose the ability to speak truthfully about the human person, we lose the ability to defend the human person and human life, bios.
The crisis of the logos or reason is, in Sarah’s estimate, the crisis of our whole civilization.
Only the restoration of reason will restore human dignity. And only the restoration of human dignity will restore hope in our future and the future of bioethics.
