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.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
I enjoyed the buffet at Pizza Hut with a friend yesterday. The buffet selections keep shrinking but at least Pizza Hut still offers that option.
I love buffets and cafeterias but what I’m seeing currently are Catholics being pressured to join a team that requires check off every box on a list of issues to be a member.
I’m a Catholic, I’m not a member of a political tribe or a sports team . And I’m not checking off every single box unless those involve Church teaching.
I’m with you here, sister! I’m not a “box checker” either.
That’s good to know Br. Jacques. Thank you.
The premise here is contrived at best. You cannot square things by spreading guilt around. There is no such thing as a “right” and “left” when it comes to Truth in religion. A belief or practice is either True or not. These matters cannot be partially true. The problem with our Catholic Church today is that some Catholics view their religion through the lenses of political life. The Truth of the Catholic Church can only be found in the perennial Teaching of the Catholic Church. You cannot arrive at the Truth by declaring: “A pox on both your houses.” Abortion is a stand-alone violation of Truth, a stand-alone violation of Church Teaching, a stand-alone violation of simple human decency. I think it’s a sneaky, deceptive, low-form tactic when abortion is brought up as a gravely damnable moral violation to then bring up: “but, but, but what about immigration, or feeding the poor, and capital punishment.” No, restrain yourselves and assign full culpability to those who: procure an abortion, assist in its practice, give verbal support for and those government officials who vote for legislation legalizing the murder of innocent babies. I, for one, am sick and tired of hearing from those in the Church who confuse the laity with gobbledygook morality.
Excellent post Deacon Ed, and I will only mention a few other thoughts.
The repeated equivalency of “sexuality (fornication, sodomy ,etc.), contraception, and abortion” with not “advocating for the poor and the immigrant” is worse than misleading – it is false. The first category contains mortal sins, sins that unrepented can cause you to lose salvation, and the second category consists of issues where there can be a variety of opinions as to how to address them. I think that the author would be hard pressed to find someone on the “right ” who opposes the poor or opposes legal immigration.
The author says these are not equivalent but goes on in the article to indicate that they are.
We could probably use a good article on Cafeteria Catholicism, but this is not it. It seems to be another in a line of similar articles lately that can be briefly described as, “On the one hand this, but on the other hand that.”
Excellent analysis.
Decon and Crusader,
Well put. After reading the article I was disturbed. Once again there is a lack of differentiation between the intrinsically sinful (murder by abortion) and issues that deal with prudential judgement (Immigration). Compassion toward those displaced because their lives were threatened is necessary. But the whole world can not be accommodated in the USA. Additionally, I don’t recall a vote where the choice was between unconstrained immigration vs something else. Illegal aliens are a cost. Bearing that cost has no spiritual merit if you had no choice.
Pope Leo has strongly come out against the wars that rage in all parts of the globe. And rightfully so. But he seems to very glibly avoid acknowledging that all war begins with one common occurrence: the the killing of innocent human life in the mother’s womb by abortion.
Cupich wanted to honor a Catholic politician who spent his entire career supporting abortion. And Leo didn’t miss a heartbeat coming out to support Cupich. That’s a disgrace.
Let’s cut to the chase….all catholic s should be formed by their faith and pay no allegiance to either party….I myself am a registered independent and will vote for no candidate that doesn,t represent my catholic teachings…if you have to leave the top of the ticket blank then do so….I voted for the constitutional party candidate, randall terry last election and felt perfect peace from our Lord for doing it….let’s put our actions to match our rhetoric
..I am not judging your vote but God will judge our hearts to be sure…..you can bet on that….
I do not understand Catholic doctrine as it relates to immigration. As a Catholic, am I to support uncontrolled immigration to our country in blatant disregard of existing law? And further, to endorse government economic support for those that have come here illegally?
It seems we are conflating national policy with personal responsibility. We are personally called to welcome immigrants, but is there any discernment to be exercised regarding their following existing laws to enter? Shouldn’t the welcome be a personal work of charity rather than a government program?
Keith. Yes. I believe whatever the Church teaches. But her immigration precepts are unclear to me too.
Does the Church teach that every immigrant should be admitted to every country they want to enter without any screening process? Is it morally permissible for Catholics to violate the immigration policies of every nation? Or only some nations?
If the church’s teaching is unclear, we then fall back on principles of law and justice. If immigrants are here illegally in violation of the federal law, they need to be deported immediately. Additionally, it is an economic injustice to funnel taxpayer funds to provide for illegals. Those billions are more appropriately directed to funding benefits for citizens.
Good article. Immigration has its nuances – but certain things do not. It is scandalous to see ‘pro-life’ Catholics defend nuclear strikes (Hiroshima/Nagasaki or even future nuclear strikes) and/or Israel’s treatment of Gaza where the cynicism or credulity of so many Americans helps fuel unending war crimes.
Admittedly, there’s a lot of factual misinformation on Gaza – but that also applies to abortion (with claims the fetus is not really a live human being etc). In both cases, we will know enough if we take the trouble to inform ourselves. And in both cases, one thing we shouldn’t do is blindly trust our political party, or social milieu or favorite news feed. We should trust Church teaching, and we should do our own research.
On conflict, a good place to start – though retaining a critical mind – might be antiwar.com which unites left and right in its opposition to militarism (as opposed to all war). Just as an example, it links today to an eye-opening open letter to the President from US healthcare workers who volunteered in Gaza https://news.antiwar.com/2025/10/01/over-150-american-healthcare-workers-who-volunteered-on-gaza-calls-on-trump-to-end-military-support-for-israel/.
I think you’ve provided us an example of team joining. Hamas vs Israel.
Who mentioned Hamas? Read the testimony of the US healthcare volunteers and what they saw with their own eyes. This cruelty benefits no-one: we will all have to pay one day for what we did. What Hamas did on October 7 2023 and what Israel has being doing ever since to the entire population of Gaza and what the US and others have done to enable that.
If Durbin owned slaves, would the Pope still support Cupich’s awarding him a “Lifetime Service Award?” One has to only wonder.
Deacon: Also assign full culpability to those who violate the practice of Catholic Social Doctrine. Believe me, it’s being done and many Catholics are doing it. The author, Kenneth Craycraft is right on target and gives no evidence of being a “liberal” and don’t try to label his as such from what he has said in this article. I realize that you haven’t yet, but it is implied that he is out of line with the Republican narrative (contrived premise).
James Connor: As usual, you speak nonsense.
Yes, the liberal lecturing people about labeling them as liberal 🙄. You can’t make this stuff up.
The more we get Popes like Franciscus and Leo crying out for the climate while essentially ignoring the death penalty for millions of innocent children seeking to immigrate from the womb to live as our neighbor – the more other leaders will fill that void, whether we like them or not.
Abortion is divisive by design, like slavery. Illinois had a slavery debate between Douglas and Lincoln. Lincoln won and was murdered. Sound familiar? What were our Bishops talking about before the Civil War? The Jesuits were causing war by owning slaves. When will we learn?
Slavery was something the states originally had in common. Like feticide today it was abolished state by state in the North.
Close, but still something more? Is Craycraft fully accurate to contrast those who defend personal moral doctrines (the right) versus those who defend social doctrines (the left)?
Three questions:
FIRST, what if the times are sufficiently fallen that Leo XIII and his dealings with the moral issues embedded in the Industrial Revolution cannot be simply extended into the next generation of issues thrown at us by a history—imagined to be surely advancing, but with a few bumps? What if this underlying premise of ideological Modernity is simply false (even the periodization of history and from Ancient to Modern)? And what if the drift toward a world shaped even by natural reason, alone, is insufficient? Instead and increasingly, a false parallel universe leading into a box canyon?
SECOND, might we be reminded of Thomas More’s “Utopia” (literally no-place): “…a state guided by the unaided reason [the imaginary situation of ‘pure nature,’ the long shadow of the Enlightenment?]… and what the results might be of reason divorced from revelation [!] [….] [for instance] the marriage of priests, divorce for ‘intolerable offensiveness of disposition.’ Euthanasia for the aged, and inciting the assassination of an enemy king. Not one of these is admissible by a Catholic, yet Thomas More includes them in his Utopia” (E.E. Reynolds, “Thomas More,” 1957).
THIRD, so much for the politics of “left” and “right”? Is it possible, any more, to parse Catholic Social Teaching (CST) into new situations without—first— preaching the dependence of even the Natural Law on Divine Law—and the incarnational Self-disclosure (“revelation”) of the Triune God into a world that remains forever more fallen than progressive? The core of CST is the “transcendent (!) dignity of the human person.”
SUMMARY: These are once again Apostolic times, and the pre-modern St. Augustine might be worth consulting: More-or-maybe-less “synodally.”
Can you please extrapolate on what you mean by Catholics on the “right” having moral positions formed by conservative platforms or party commitments?
I wholeheartedly disagree: this is a rash judgment that may apply to some, but definitely not all or even most orthodox Catholics.
I believe it is exactly the opposite. For many I know, they arrive at a conservative political position strictly because of their moral convictions, founded on a conscience grounded in Catholic dogma and objective moral truth.
Unless we find another Blessed Karl of Austria, which is doubtful, we are stuck with a glorious republic and a two-party system. The great division amongst Catholics in this two-party system has to do with 70+ years of bad catechesis and the respective nearly universal acceptance of grave sin by clerics and laity alike.
There is a reason why more than a dozen ecumenical councils anathematized heresies and excommunicated heretics. These salves of mercy brought the wayward back and prevented many from falling off the cliff of moral or doctrinal error.
Unity is only found in Truth. There is no right or left end of the cafeteria table. One either submits to dogmatic and moral Truth or one does not. If one does not, he is an heretic or
Apostate.
Let us all pray for good prelates who are willing to admonish the wayward sheep out of charity and clarity.
Ave Maria
I have been pro-life all of my life, including while I was Evangelical Protestant before converting to Catholicism. But I am also pro-immigration not only because it is humane, but for practical reasons. The fact that the United States did not provide open sanctuary for the persecuted Jews during the diabolical reign of Adolf Hitler is a blot on our national conscience, and now we have a chance to attempt make up for that sin.
In the U.S., mainly because of the smaller sizes of most families (the majority of Americans either limit their family to one or two children, and of course, abortion kills a huge percentage of our population), we are currently facing dire shortages in many professions and trades (e.g., welding!). Some couples actually make a decision to remain childless for various reasons (which many regret when they grow older).
At age 65, after over 40 years of work in hospital laboratories (mainly in Microbiology), I retired–and for months afterwards, I received calls from my hospital asking if I would be interested in returning to work part-time because of the horrendous short-staffing in the laboratory, especially after the COVID pandemic. (I wasn’t interested in returning to work.) I still receive letters and emails attempting to recruit me back to work in area hospitals!
It’s not just the lab–it’s nursing, X-ray, Respiratory, and pretty much every other department in hospitals! There’s even a shortage of doctors, as it takes many years of post-high school education and a lot of expense to become a doctor, as well as high intelligence and compassion for fellow human beings! And those who do become doctors (or other health care professionals, including lab) often “burn out” because of the heavy workload that allows little time for a family or personal life. (And those idiotic medical shows on TV don’t help at all!)
This is terrifying! We are not a “healthy” nation by any means, and although we have managed to wage successful battles against various cancers, there are still many people who receive a cancer diagnosis and require extensive care and treatment–and not necessarily enough staff to provide that care and treatment to everyone who needs it! And judging from all the ads on TV, there are plenty of other “ailments” that require medical treatment and prescription meds!
Think of the last time you tried to schedule a routine wellness (you hope!) check-up–sometimes you will wait weeks!
The skilled trades–welding, HVAC/plumbing, carpenters, machinists, etc. are also facing a severe shortage. My brother, a welder, has been retired for two years–and he still gets calls from his company asking if he would like to return to work (he wouldn’t, although he has volunteered to help out independent welders who have more work than they can handle–and he gets paid well for it!).
There are other skilled trades, including carpentry, machinists, automotive repair, etc. that are short-staffed. And these trades provide a great wage that is more than adequate to support an individual or family!
This is why I continue to argue AGAINST legal abortion and in favor of legal immigration–we have killed many of the replacements through abortion or turned away at the borders the replacements for health care workers and skilled tradespeople. Many of the people who are attempting to immigrate to the U.S.A. wish to become law-abiding American citizens, get educations in schools and in work internships, and they WANT to work in hospitals and in workplaces that employ skilled tradespeople and earn a good salary to support their families and children, which they will train to have the same work ethic!
Many of the immigrants that I have known actually work in several jobs because they want to succeed and pay for a home, an education for their children, a car, and become full-fledged Americans with a decent lifestyle and in a safe neighborhood!
I don’t see that the two issues are in conflict with each other at all. Obviously, illegal immigrants must be deported, although if they are petitioning for sanctuary and have no criminal intent, I think that they should be admitted to this country and welcomed. And obviously, there need to be viable alternatives for women who find themselves pregnant and are unable to keep a child–and there are already plenty of people who are willing and eager to adopt and currently on a years-long waiting list!
I think that a willingness to work with and befriend immigrants who want to be American citizens, and a willingness to work with and befriend/support women and girls who find themselves in an unexpected pregnancy is something that all Christians need to cultivate in their parishes and churches, and in their own lives. It’s hard work and takes a lot of time–but when we have the time, shouldn’t we invest it in doing these good works, or if we have the money, shouldn’t we invest it in supporting those individuals and organizations who do these good works?
These long apocalyptic posts are inappropriate and inaccurate. I had open heart surgery this year. Everything went smoothly from start to finish. No drama, no waiting, no staff shortages. Stop creating drama. It’s unbecoming.
Most Catholics I know are pro-immigration also. They just want it to be a safe & legal process for the immigrants. Not run by organized crime.
“Catholics on the ‘right’ are no less selective in the moral doctrines they advocate and downplay than Catholics on the ‘left.’” When the author can provide one clear, irrefutable example in support of this gratuitous declaration, it might bolster his article. As it is, this piece is nothing but gaslighting and moral preening. And no, an imprecise reference to “Catholic social teaching” (which the “right” supposedly downplays) is NOT such an example. There is not one single Democrat Party position that is consonant with Catholic teaching on a rightly and justly ordered society. The Republican Party is far from perfect, but its policies are least sane and generally in accord with human nature, natural law, individual rights, family order, and so on. The Democrat Party is demonic, nothing less.
One thing is for certain…at their funeral, a priest will declare them righteous and everyone will know that all you have to do to get to heaven is say you are a Catholic or a good person even though Scriptures say otherwise.
Thanks for clarifying that for us fundamentalist Brian!
It’s sounds like we’ve been to the same sort of Catholic funerals Mr. brian.
🙂
Actually it doesn’t work that way in Catholic teaching but you’d never know it from some funerals.
Thus, even his purported support for immigrants is not based on Catholic moral teaching, but rather the Democrat [meant to say Democrat] Party platform (Craycraft). A good critique except that the Church of late has reconstrued Leo XIII to accommodate the Democrats. America’s USCCB has adapted itself to a secular socialist ideology with other 1st world nations.
Several commenters take issue with Craycraft’s assertion that Catholics on the Right, “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”.
Where is this large swath of Catholic majority voters who are entirely unfamiliar with the meaning of justice and are unaware of the policies that Marxist rather than Catholic?
For one example, ranchers I’ve known in upstate NY as well as NM actually read. Books. The problem with the L R cafeteria analogy is that it has become the 3 star Michelin rated restaurant. There are myriad, complex choices with Catholics on Right and Left capable of discerning complex differences.
This is how the papacy of the Catholic Church has degenerated in the year of Our Lord 2025: The Pope has blessed a block of ice. Let that sink in.
I think most Catholics on the right would agree that immigration and the treatment of immigrants, in principle, is are important moral issues. What they disagree with is the idea that the United States government is violating moral principles by its current actions. They fear, rightly, that the bishops have fallen prey to false information from the same dubious sources they regularly listen to. Until the conversation on this issue from the bishops gets *very* specific, no one’s mind is going to be changed.
As many have already noted, the article was disingenuous and dishonest and shallow.
The controversy surrounding Senator Dick Durbin’s declined award reveals a glaring truth that extremist right-wing “pro-life” Catholics are often no less “cafeteria Catholic” than those they criticize. While they claim moral superiority through unwavering opposition to abortion, many ignore the broader demands of Catholic Social Teaching, demands that stretch far beyond the womb. This faux “pro-life” (in reality “pro-birth” or “anti-abortion” only!) stance distorts the Gospel’s call to protect all human life from conception to natural death, from womb to tomb. These Catholics often weaponize the unborn while turning a blind eye to the plight of the born: immigrants, the poor, the uninsured, the homeless, or those condemned to die, lives equally sacred in Biblical and Catholic teaching (see Matthew 25).
By this standard, their moral convictions are not shaped by a consistent ethic of life, but by partisan allegiance. Both left and right often use the Church as a tool to baptize their politics rather than allowing Catholic doctrine to shape their conscience. True fidelity requires embracing the fullness of Church teaching, not reducing it to a single issue for political gain. Until this hypocrisy is confronted on both ends Catholic witness in public life will remain fractured, and the seamless garment of life will stay torn, sacrificed at the altar of American political identity.