Bishop Robert Barron and Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone addressed legal challenges faced by pro-life Catholics in health care during a Religious Liberty Commission hearing. Archbishop Cordileone referenced the ongoing legal dispute involving the Little Sisters of the Poor concerning the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive mandate. The Little Sisters of the Poor have been engaged in litigation since 2011 over the requirement to provide cost-free coverage for contraceptives and related services. A federal court ruled against the Little Sisters in August 2025 regarding contraceptive mandate exemptions, leading to a December 2025 appeal. Cordileone also cited lawsuits filed by the California Attorney General against Catholic hospitals for refusing to perform abortions and gender transition-related hysterectomies.
about 8 hours ago
Bishop Robert Barron and Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone testified at the U.S. Religious Liberty Commission's hearing on March 16, 2026, at the Museum of the Bible in Washington, D.C., addressing pressures on pro-life Catholics in health care.1 2
The commission, established by President Trump in 2025, examines threats to religious freedom, including conscience protections for faith-based providers.1 2
Cordileone praised the Little Sisters of the Poor for their multiyear litigation against federal contraceptive mandates under the Affordable Care Act, originating in 2011.1
Despite a 2020 Supreme Court win, a 2025 federal court ruling against them prompted an appeal, highlighting ongoing burdens on religious communities.1
Cordileone cited California AG Rob Bonta's lawsuits against Providence St. Joseph Hospital for refusing abortions and another Catholic hospital for declining a gender-transition hysterectomy.1 2
He warned that adverse rulings could threaten all Catholic hospitals in California, amid state bills expanding coverage for abortion, IVF, and gender-affirming care with narrow religious exemptions.1
Witness Dr. Kenneth Prager, a pulmonologist, raised religious freedom issues with MAiD laws in expanding states, noting variations in physician opt-outs, referrals, and institutional provisions.2
As an observant Jew, Prager opposed intentionally hastening death, emphasizing inconsistencies that pressure providers.2
Abby Sinnett of Bella Health and Wellness described her Colorado clinic's lawsuit against a state ban on progesterone for abortion pill reversal.2
A federal judge blocked enforcement, citing religious burdens; Barron called the state's position "insanity."1 2
Christian counselor Kaley Chiles testified on Colorado's ban on conversion therapy for minors, arguing it censors compassionate counseling for youth with gender dysphoria or same-sex attraction.2
Her case, Chiles v. Salazar, awaits a Supreme Court ruling, with hopes it protects client-driven conversations.2
Barron stated faith groups face expulsion from health care and education, urging public articulation of the human good rooted in love.1
Cordileone warned losing these fights endangers charitable witness and the nation's soul, as secular policies redefine religion.1 2
How does the Catholic Church define limits on medical services?
The Catholic Church teaches that medical services must respect human dignity, the sanctity of life, and the limits of human intervention in the face of inevitable death. Limits are defined by distinguishing between ordinary (proportionate, beneficial) and extraordinary (burdensome, disproportionate) means of care, prohibiting direct killing through euthanasia or assisted suicide, regulating research and experiments, and ensuring Catholic health institutions avoid immoral practices.
The Church permits refusing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome, as this is not willing death but accepting its inevitability.
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.
Even when death is imminent, ordinary care—such as basic hydration, nutrition, and pain relief—cannot be legitimately interrupted. Painkillers are permissible if they alleviate suffering without intending death as an end or means.
Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. 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.
Decisions rest with the competent patient or their legitimate representatives, respecting their reasonable will. Palliative care is encouraged as a form of charity.
Any act or omission directly intending to cause death to eliminate suffering—euthanasia or assisted suicide—is intrinsically evil, a grave violation of God's law, and never permissible, regardless of circumstances, patient consent, or legalization.
Euthanasia is a crime against human life because, in this act, one chooses directly to cause the death of another innocent human being. The correct definition of euthanasia depends, not on a consideration of the goods or values at stake, but on the moral object properly specified by the choice of “an action or an omission which of itself or by intention causes death, in order that all pain may in this way be eliminated”.
Protocols like Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) orders or Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) must not enable euthanasia; they aim to avoid aggressive treatment but raise concerns when abused. Health workers must never participate, even passively.
Scientific, medical, or psychological experiments on humans are acceptable if they contribute to healing and public health, but must respect moral principles. Animal experimentation is legitimate within reasonable limits for human benefit.
Catholic institutions promote research adhering to these principles and stewardship of resources. Prohibited acts include non-therapeutic amputations, mutilations, or sterilizations on innocents.
Direct sterilization of either men or women, whether permanent or temporary, is not permitted in a Catholic health care institution.
Institutions must not affiliate with entities performing immoral procedures (e.g., euthanasia, sterilization) nor provide facilities, referrals, or revenue benefits from them. Advance directives conflicting with Catholic teaching are not honored, with explanations provided. Competent patients' judgments on life-sustaining procedures are respected unless contrary to moral teaching.
Before affiliating with a health care entity that permits immoral procedures, a Catholic institution must ensure that neither its administrators nor its employees will manage, carry out, assist in carrying out, make its facilities available for, make referrals for, or benefit from the revenue generated by immoral procedures.
Care continues holistically—physical, psychological, social, familial, religious—until natural death: "to cure if possible, always to care." Therapeutic obstinacy is avoided, favoring proportionate therapies and palliation.
In summary, Catholic limits prioritize life's dignity, rejecting "therapeutic obstinacy" or direct harm while mandating compassionate ordinary care. These teachings, rooted in natural law and Tradition, counter the "culture of death" by affirming every life’s value.