Ten Catholic bishops publicly rebuked the decision. Cardinal Blase Cupich watched two of his scheduled pro-life meetings get “postponed indefinitely.” And in the end, Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois quietly declined a lifetime achievement award from the Archdiocese of Chicago rather than face the growing firestorm over his decades-long support for abortion.
The September 30 announcement marked the end of a controversy that exposed deep fractures within American Catholicism over how the Church should engage with politicians who champion policies that directly contradict core Catholic teachings.
Cupich had planned to honor Durbin at a “Keep Hope Alive” benefit dinner, recognizing what the cardinal called the senator’s “singular contribution to immigration reform and his unwavering support of immigrants.” But the decision triggered immediate pushback from Catholic leaders nationwide who questioned why the Church would celebrate a politician with a decades-long record of supporting abortion access.
Bishop Thomas Paprocki of Springfield, Illinois, delivered perhaps the sharpest criticism, calling Cupich’s decision “gravely mistaken” and “absurd.” Paprocki pointed out the painful irony in the award’s timing and title.
“The planned honor is titled a ‘lifetime achievement award’ and the event where Durbin is to receive it is called the ‘Keep Hope Alive’ benefit,” Paprocki wrote. “This is darkly ironic because the slaughter of the innocents in utero is nihilistic and always without hope, and the policies Durbin has supported have denied a lifetime to countless unborn children.”
The Springfield bishop went further, arguing that Durbin “has spent his time in office denying the human dignity of the unborn and undermining solidarity with the weakest and most vulnerable among us.”
In defending his decision, Cupich made an argument that many Catholic theologians found troubling. The Chicago cardinal attempted to place abortion on equal moral footing with other political issues, stating that “the child in the womb, the sick and elderly, the migrant and refugee, the death row inmate, those already suffering from climate change and generational poverty will continue to be at risk if we, as Catholics, do not start talking to each other respectfully and work together.”
This equivalency directly contradicts established Catholic teaching. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who later became Pope Benedict XVI, addressed this exact issue in his influential 2004 memo on Communion and pro-abortion politicians.
“Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia,” Ratzinger wrote. “There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not, however, with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”
The memo established clear theological ground that Catholic leaders have referenced for two decades when addressing politicians who support abortion while claiming to uphold other aspects of Catholic social teaching.
Cupich defended his approach by arguing that “total condemnation is not the way forward, for it shuts down discussion.” He suggested that political divisions among American Catholics on issues like abortion and immigration “significantly hamper the church’s efforts to promote human dignity across the full range of issues.”
But critics argued that the cardinal was creating false equivalencies between issues where Catholics can legitimately disagree and those where Church teaching is definitive. Immigration policy involves complex prudential judgments about border security, refugee processing, and economic impacts where faithful Catholics can reach different conclusions while sharing concern for human dignity.
Abortion, by contrast, involves what the Church teaches is the direct killing of innocent human life. The Catechism of the Catholic Church calls it “gravely contrary to the moral law” and states that “formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense.”
Everyday Catholics criticized Cdl. Cupich’s position as well pointing out that half of Gen Z never got born due to pro-abort positions like Durbin’s.
The controversy had immediate practical consequences for Cupich’s leadership. According to the National Catholic Register’s Jonathan Liedl, two meetings between the cardinal and pro-life Catholic groups were “postponed indefinitely” following the Durbin announcement, suggesting that the decision damaged working relationships with key Catholic organizations in his archdiocese.
The ten bishops who publicly criticized the award represent dioceses across the country, indicating that opposition extended far beyond local Illinois politics. Their unified response demonstrated how Cupich’s decision resonated as a national issue rather than a regional disagreement.
For Durbin, the situation presented a political calculation. The 79-year-old senator, first elected to Congress in 1982, has built his career partly on appealing to Catholic voters in Illinois while maintaining strong support for abortion access. His decision to decline the award suggests he recognized that accepting it would have generated ongoing controversy that could overshadow both his legislative agenda and the Church’s humanitarian work.
The episode reflects broader tensions within American Catholicism as bishops grapple with how to engage politicians who selectively embrace Catholic social teaching. Some Church leaders advocate for a more inclusive approach that emphasizes dialogue and finds common ground on issues like poverty and immigration. Others argue that the Church compromises its moral authority when it honors politicians who actively oppose fundamental Catholic teachings about human life.
Moving forward, the episode may influence how other Catholic leaders approach similar situations. The swift and widespread criticism Cupich received suggests that attempts to honor pro-abortion politicians, even for their work on other issues, will continue to generate significant opposition from Catholics who prioritize the Church’s teachings on the sanctity of human life.
