Cafeteria Catholics eat from either end of the buffet

On September 30, Senator Dick Durbin announced that he is declining a “Lifetime Achievement Award” offered to him by the Archdiocese of Chicago. The heated controversy surrounding the episode illustrates two related crises in American Catholic public life.

The first is that so-called cafeteria Catholics can be found at either end of the spectrum of moral doctrines. The second is that our moral lives and positions are more likely to be formed by American political commitments than by the entirety of Catholic moral theology.

Even though Senator Durbin has declined the award, the incident forces us Catholics to ask the uncomfortable question, “What is the real source of our moral convictions and policy preferences?”

The phrase “cafeteria Catholic” is usually an epithet hurled from the “right” end of the Catholic spectrum toward those on the “left.” I use quotation marks around these polarizing terms because I am not comfortable with them. But they are familiar shorthand for the respective emphases and advocacy by most U.S. Catholics. On the “right” are those who focus primarily (if not nearly solely) on personal moral issues, such as sexuality, contraception, and abortion. They downplay social doctrines, if not even deny their binding authority. On the “left” are professed Catholics who primarily (if not nearly solely) advocate for the poor and the immigrant, while downplaying personal moral issues, or even advocating policies that are contrary to binding Catholic doctrine.

But the Durbin controversy illustrates that a large percentage—if not a significant majority—of us Catholics are “cafeteria Catholics,” as likely to be found on one side as the other. The issue is not whether we pick and choose, but rather from which end of the doctrinal buffet we exclusively eat.

Put another way, Catholics on the “right” are no less selective in the moral doctrines they advocate and downplay than Catholics on the “left.” This is because we Catholics are far more likely to have our moral positions formed by our more fundamental commitments to the two major political parties than by the fullness of Catholic moral doctrine. “One issue Catholics” are as likely to eat from the left end of the buffet as from the right.

I am not suggesting that abortion and immigration are equivalent moral issues. Clearly, they are not. As the American bishops have repeatedly noted, abortion is the “preeminent” social issue of our time. But that does not excuse us from submitting to the entirety of Catholic moral teaching, from those doctrines that admit of no exception to those that require prudential judgment.

In his September 30 statement reacting to Senator Durbin’s decision to decline the award, Cardinal Archbishop Blase J. Cupich acutely observed that “when it comes to public policies Catholics themselves remain divided along partisan lines, much like all Americans. This impasse has become more entrenched over the years and our divisions undermine our calling to witness to the Gospel.” The Cardinal is correct. He is also correct to note that “there are essentially no Catholic public officials who consistently pursue the essential elements of Catholic social teaching because our party system will not permit them to do so.” This declaration succinctly articulates why I wrote my recent book, Citizens Yet Strangers: Living Authentically Catholic in a Divided America. 

But the Cardinal’s statement also illustrates why Senator Durbin should not have been offered the award in the first place.

The reason Durbin should not have been offered the award is not merely that he is an advocate for abortion. (That is a sufficient reason, but not the only one.) Rather, he should not have been offered the award because his moral vision does not seem to be formed by Catholic faith at all. His abortion advocacy is strong evidence that his moral commitments are formed by the left wing of his political party rather than the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Thus, even his purported support for immigrants is not based on Catholic moral teaching, but rather the Democratic Party platform. Put another way, even his advocacy for the immigrant does not reflect adherence to Catholic doctrine, but rather fealty to his party’s extreme positions even on the issue of immigration. Durbin is not advancing Catholic social doctrine, but rather Democratic party politics. Ironically, Cardinal Cupich implicitly acknowledges this in his statement, as quoted above.

In his September 30 statement, Cardinal Cupich also said, “Both groups are Catholics, regardless of where they fall on this spectrum, and they all need to remember that we are not a one issue church. Ideological isolation all too easily leads to interpersonal isolation, which only undermines Christ’s wish for our unity.” His Eminence is correct.

But it cuts against his decision to offer the award to Senator Durbin, not for it. If Senator Durbin can be described as a Catholic at all, he is the exemplar of “one issue” advocacy. Durbin’s “ideological isolation” is contrary to Catholic moral doctrine, according to Cardinal Cupich’s own words.