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.
Seems like the Pope does not do in his own domain what he wants others to do in their own countries. What is the name of this type of contradiction…? See this:
Vatican Promises Stiff Penalties for Illegal Aliens Crossing its Border
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2025/01/16/vatican-promises-stiff-penalties-for-illegal-aliens-crossing-its-border/
Your comment as well as the deacon’s proves the article’s point. No where in the article did the author say that immigration and abortion are morally equivalent, and he pointed out that the bishops have said abortion is the preeminent issue. The problem is when Catholics treat abortion as the ONLY issue to care about, which is not what the bishops have said, nor is that good Catholic morality and understanding. Otherwise you might as well say that the Church is wasting Her time speaking on issues such as education, immigration, death penalty, economics, health care; but the Church can’t. Every issue is important, but the key is to understand that some issues are more important than others.
Additionally, prudential judgment doesn’t give Catholics excuses to believe whatever they want on so-called “prudential judgment” issues. Catholics on the Right use the prudential judgment or “reasonable disagreements” argument as an excuse to believe whatever they want, which is not what Catholicism is (as if Church teaching on “prudential judgment” issues are unimportant). To rectify this, actually read the documents by bishops and the Church on those prudential judgment issues, read good books on the subject, then see what is said on CNN or Fox News or Newsmax or MSNBC or whatever news outlet. Both conservatism and liberalism are ideologies, they both will never have the fullness of Catholic thinking, but it’s our duty as Catholics to discern what is true and good in both ideologies.
Kasonia writes: “The problem is when Catholics treat abortion as the ONLY issue to care about, which is not what the bishops have said, nor is that good Catholic morality and understanding…”
Now, I’d like you to cite even one Catholic – even just one – for whom abortion is the ONLY issue they care about. See, you can’t. Your comment is typical of smug, know-it-all, virtue-signaling Catholics who have plagued the Church since the late 60’s. We’re having none of it.
Kasonia, bishops saying abortion is a “preeminent issue,” with a lot of bishops dissenting, is evil in itself. Abortion is not an “issue” up for politicking. Rights are divine endowments, not political inventions. And moral truth is a universal imperative from God. Hope this “right wing” and Catholic principle is not too “right wing” for you.
The Catholic social doctrine and conservative principle of subsidiarity, that actually guides prudential judgments, does not allow for ignoring the individual rapes, murders, drug smuggling, and human trafficking, specific crimes committed by what non-prudential sophistry prefers to call “immigrants.” Don’t misread. I do not label all border transgressors criminals. Do you think Jesus said the poor will always be with us because of a lack of distributionist economics?
Prudential judgement means just that, whether one approaches it from the Left or the Right. Prudence doesn’t infer a moral free for all but a legitimate space to handle issues in differing practical ways.
Agree with this assessment. Those who believe in all Catholic teachings are generally those who lean rightward politically if they are interested in politics. They are mischaracterized as not for the poor and marginalized but they are in fact for all of this. There is no debate that abortion is evil. There can be debate by those of rightly formed Catholic consciences about how our government and society should care for the poor and illegal and marginalized. I don’t agree with premise of this article.
Joseph C. Palmer
I never saw this kind of thread before now. But I see I’m getting in on the action kind of late in the state of play on this line. Which still doesn’t make it any clearer to me; however, so far everyone seems fine with it.
I think this makes a good compensating solid contribution by me your truly as far as combox input will go! Bless.
https://onepeterfive.com/for-our-poor-brothers-sisters-4-bishops-make-reparation-for-vatican-desecration/
https://www.ncregister.com/news/cardinals-burke-and-sarah-first-saturdays
We should be allowed to debate about what is going on in Palestine, in our freedom of press, in the freedom to run private schools of higher learning, in out treatment of immigrants who have lived here and work here and have no police records, we should be concerned about how sports teams and entertainers are being bullied into submission, how public housing programs are being defunded, how the executive branch is going around congress either a plethora of “Executive Orders “, how the sovereignty of foreign nations is being threatened, how judicial rulings are being threatened to be overturned. All these things and more need to be addressed and scrutinized. Party loyalty is not greater than having open dialogue seeking objective truth. Pro life is not negotiable, but all of these things ARE. And negotiate we must. There are major environmental issues that must be dealt with. We were given , by God, the stewardship keepers of the Earth, and we will be called to answer for our handling of such.
You nailed it Mr Crusader (and the good Deacon).
Thank you for this clear and true response to the above article.
I have nothing to add. You said it all. Thank you and God have mercy on us all.
Agree
Agree Ed.
Couldn’t agree more with your comments Deacon. But I think our battle for God’s truth needs more focus on why those who are supposed to live a Catholic mind, especially high prelates, do not.
We too often see at the highest levels of the Church the modernist mindset that assumes evilness in the human condition is the result of a lack of social engineering or management rather than humble submission to the immutable truth placed in our souls by God. They are lacking for a Catholic mind because they have a personal need to downplay an understanding of God as the author of truth either from denying their own concessions to evil or a prideful desire to accommodate others in denial of their sins, both of which require silly levels of sophistry.
Sir — your anger is stoutly expressed, richly deserved and strongly supported. Than you!
Sir — your anger is stoutly expressed, richly deserved and strongly supported. Thank you!
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….
It is not just a disgrace, it is apostasy, because in denying that God, The Most Holy Blessed Trinity, Is The Author Of Love, Of Life, And Of Marriage, they deny The Divinity Of God, Father, Son, And Holy Ghost.
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.
Throwing away your vote only allows the bad guys to win. There is no point in doing that. Who the bad guys are could not be clearer to anyone who has not been brainwashed by the left. Failing to act when you can see the truth is no accomplishment.
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.
Hamas is a terrorist organization that enacted a pogrom against Israel on Oct. 7th. They purposely hide their operations & munitions within schools, hospitals, & residences. They have created all kinds of false propaganda to influence global opinion on the war. Their stated goal is to exterminate Israel.
Israel is defending its very right to exist.
So yes, it is about Hamas. Hamas started it & all they need to do to end this war & the civilian deaths is to surrender & release the captives. It’s that simple.
Hamas has certainly committed acts of terrorism, above all on October 7. So has the Israeli government – in spades. Several Israeli human rights organisations are calling its actions genocide as are genocide scholars throughout the world.
Israel has repeatedly broken ceasefires and scuppered peace negotiations, by changing the goalposts or even bombing the negotiators. America needs to show some backbone and stop the endless flow of weapons to Netanyahu, who is using the assault on Gaza to distract from his own political problems and please his extreme nationalist allies.
As regards terrorists operating from hospitals, this story is forever rolled out by Israel as an excuse for bombing hospitals but is actually false. The letter I linked to above contains testimony to that effect by 152 American health care professionals who have volunteered there, at risk to their own lives, and who have no reason to lie. Read the whole letter if you can as it is very revealing (for example, they have seen their medical colleagues killed or imprisoned in unspeakable conditions, simply for doing their job).
Bravo. Agree. Totally true. Jewish temple attacked in England today. Disgusting that people get away with this antisemitism and violence. Hamas started the issue in Israel. Barbarism on a grand scale. You reap what you sow. Cry me a river.
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.
You still don’t get the point that there can be a middle ground and you can be liberal on some issues and conservative on others. I don’t walk lock step with either party or consider myself part of either. Neither party holds the whole truth or can be trusted; but both have a few men and women of character and integrity.
Nice try, but centrists don’t embrace the “Trump is Hitler” lie, as you have done here on multiple occasions. Just calling a spade a spade.
I hear what you are saying Mr James. As Catholics we can’t be middle of the road on non negotiable moral issues but on others there can be differing legitimate viewpoints on how to deal with them. Immigration being an obvious one I think.
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.
In the diocese where I was ordained (Charleston SC), Catholic bishops owned slaves. “Unsurprisingly, antebellum Catholic bishops in the Deep South generally supported slavery, though usually as a domestic reality rather than an international inevitability. Among them was Bishop John England of Charleston, who claimed to hate slavery but facilitated its endurance. His successors, Ignatius Reynolds and Patrick Lynch, continued the practice and enslaved people directly.”
Slavery was no less a grave moral evil as abortion. Yet, Cupich want to give an award to an abortion supporter. If it weren’t illegal today, would he give the same award to a slave owner? And the American-born Pope has now supported Cupich in this “L’Affaire d’Aborte”. Would Pope Leo have lent his words of support to Cupich if the awardee was a slave-owner (assuming the heinous practice of slavery was still legal)?
Where we live, Catholic slaves who were freed went on to own their own slaves and they sat in different sections of the church at Mass.
It was complicated.
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.
Maybe that’s just you Thomas. Or, even though there are some who get service, there are many more who don’t get service or can’t afford it.
And – apocalyptic? Haha funny! Come now be serious.
This retired professional is showing you what’s going on “on the ground” and how little attention is paid to it even though it is crying out for action.
Could be the “cafeteria Catholic” idea is oversold; you have Catholics of all sorts who should not just be standing back “because they need to tend their perimeter”.
You have Christians of all sorts living single-minded for “their perimeter”. It’s not Catholics only. All of them are addressed on this in VATICAN II.
These types of neglects are said by the faith to rank among the worst sins and above them too.
Deacon Peitler’s accounts about works in Guatemala and Columbia (see below October 2, 2025 at 1:39 pm) illustrate to me what has to be built up in local Archdioceses.
In the area of politics they are problems up and down Federal and State levels.
On the Federal level once they get into Congress they lose courage and maybe maturity too and leave it to a few others like Marjorie T. Greene to do all the heavy lifting.
Then the States have their own issues.
‘ Greene’s latest criticism focused more on her home state than the national party, but it echoed similar themes and concerns raised in other conversations.
“The good ole boy Republicans have been in control of Georgia for over 20 years,” Greene wrote on X. “While there are things I appreciate there are others that are unacceptable. It’s appalling our education is ranked 30 or above in the nation. And our taxes are insane. High taxes like we are governed by Democrats. Republicans never govern like they campaign.”
In the comments under her post, user @DalePlemons wrote that many Republicans are “RINOs” (Republicans In Name Only) who were “switching parties to stay in office” and that “here in Georgia it’s like, meet the new boss same as the old boss.”
Greene replied to him, simply writing, “That’s right Dale!” ‘
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/marjorie-taylor-greene-ramps-up-attacks-on-republicans/ar-AA1NRL35?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=68e17eeed77a41229501d7fd0fff8b57&ei=90
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.
mrscracker: You knocked it outta da park with this one! Kudos.
“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.
So all Democrats are demonic? Really? So Medicaid is not consistent with Catholic teaching? Some rather curious reasoning.
Handing out Medicare to illegal immigrants, and thereby pushing it closer to bankruptcy, is the equivalent of theft, something the Democrats specialize in. Expanding their own power by buying votes is their only interest, not compassion for the poor.
Illegal immigrants do not get Medicaid. That is another Trump lie, at which he excels. Do you actually believe this?
This has actually already been confirmed. 59% of households run by illegals are getting some type of government aid. Of course, you won’t hear that on NPR.
The absolutely DO receive Medicare, which the latest budget was an attempt to excise. If you paid more attention, you would know that the Democrats blocking of a continuing funding resolution is precisely based on this this objection. Page 57 of the Democrats proposal SPECIFICALLY calls for restoration of Medicare funding for illegal immigrants.
You mean Medicaid, but your point is valid and well-taken. Although, with the fraud that is rampant throughout the welfare state, illegals are surely scamming Medicare as well.
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.
mrscracker: We should not wonder why there is virtually no Sacrament of Penance going on in some quarters of tge Catholic Church. After all, why go to Confession when everyone will be going to heaven as we’ve all had to sit and listen to at Catholic funerals?
Absolutely, Deacon Edward.
I wonder why we bother with a Rosary prayed at wakes for the deceased when we know they already in Heaven.
I’ve told my children to get the scariest priest they know for my funeral. No feel good “eulogy “, no celebration of life nonsense. I want people to worry about the hereafter and pray for me. Not make assumptions.
mrscracker: We should not wonder why there is virtually no Sacrament of Penance going on in some quarters of the Catholic Church. After all, why go to Confession when everyone will be going to heaven as we’ve all had to sit and listen to at Catholic 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.
Is Medicaid “Marxist?” Is helping the poor Marxist? You seem to espouse Social Darwinism.
Deacon Peitler I saw that impossible sight of a Roman Pontiff blessing a chunk of ice [Is this a form of Buddhism? A possible idolatry?], presumably representing a glacier and global warming messaging. Pure poppycock religion. Expect more to come, perhaps worse.
To address this article more succinctly, the premise of cafeteria Catholics is Catholics who pick and choose what they wish to believe. That cancels out traditional Catholics. Catholics who follow Apostolic tradition. As such the “Right”, as author Craycraft alludes encompasses or means traditional Catholics. Fortunately for sake of truth that is a false premise. Those who pick and choose are in error and not traditional.
As some have suggested, Craycraft needs to demonstrate where and how, even who, if warranted. For clarity on valid and non valid refusal of teaching not all that is taught is strictly binding. For example the change to the Catechism on the death penalty. Was there really a need? Unless someone can demonstrate that ‘inadmissible’ [if something is inadmissible the word implies there are conditions when it is admissible] is essentially different from the narrowed position of John Paul II.
As to perceiving a form of idolatry unfortunately I wasn’t alone:
“Multiple people have spoken out against Pope Leo blessing a block of ice during a global church summit on climate change, with one calling it part of a ‘weird pagan Earth-worshipping hippy ritual.’
Leo carried out the blessing while he presided over the 10th anniversary celebration of immediate predecessor Pope Francis’s landmark ecological encyclical Laudato Si. Pope Leo was presiding over the Raising Hope for Climate Justice’ International Conference at Castel Gandolfo, just south of Rome, in front of more than 1,000 people, according to the National Catholic Reporter”(Newsweek).
Why would you presume I’m against Medicaid or helping the poor? Have you read my comments elsewhere? Or do you imagine I’ve said such? Take hold of your non rational, emotive comments. I know you can do better.
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.
On the bright side Deacon, he blessed a block of ice and not a homosexual couple.
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.
Agree.
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.
There’s the matter of prudential judgement. We can legitimately differ on how to carry out the Corporal Works of Mercy. We can’t differ on feticide.
Bingo.
Thanks deacon…you make some good points but I disagree with your assumption that those on the “right” do not emphasize the social teachings of the church….give us names, associations, leaders…..you won.t find any….it’s all an assumption…the bogey man over there on the right….talking points from the “left”….
Deacon Dom – Examples please of Catholics in general who are only pro-life or anti abortion.
There is no seamless garment. There are things that are sins and things that are not. There are things that are serious sins and sins that are not. There are definitely seams in the garment.
Is there some sort of strawman argument requirement for heterodox Catholics?
I think there’s a bit of pick and choose with the death penalty & contraception. I don’t like “Right” vs “Left” though. We’re Catholics. Christianity can be about orthodoxy vs heterodoxy, but not politics.
Some imbecilic Catholic ideologue might insist that I occupy the (nonexistent) Catholic Right. If they did, I’d inform them that as Director of my diocese’s Catholic Charities, I initiated many programs to assist the poor (and we did it WITHOUT any funding from government). I’ll just mention two.
#1 I organized medical professionals including doctors, nurses, translators, lab techs, dentists etc to participate in medical missions to Guatemala. In my tenure, we took 17 trips – with the most number of participants on one trip being 47. We built a medical clinic at the parish and provided dental care. One doctor, because of his excellent diagnostic skills, diagnosed a life-threatening heart condition on an eight year old girl. We arranged for and paid for her cardiac surgery in the capital city. Through a sponsorship program, we also provided in four years $500,000 to the religious sisters who ran the parish school.
2. Another initiative I started was providing hot showers and free laundry for homeless men and women who lived on the streets of the capital city – Columbia.
So, I only mention this to correct any impression given by prelates in the Catholic Church and any others that its the (non-existent) Catholic Left that have a corner on compassion, social justice and the rest of the gaslighting they try to get away with.
Thank you Deacon Edward and God bless you for that.
In this long thread we have learned about the breadth of Catholic Social teaching, and fetal homicide and slavery in the United States, and even a reference to a “middle ground” of some sort. Yours truly turns to the simplifying insight of that great American theologian, Mark Twain…
About a middle ground (?) and natural law, Mark Twain’s runaway slave, Jim, understood what was still self-evident in the Old Testament dispute set before Solomon: “De’ spute warn’t ’bout a half a chile, de ’spute was ’bout a whole chile; en de man dat think he kin settle a ’spute bout a whole chile wid a half a chile, doan’ know enough to come in out’n de rain” (The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, 1884 ).
What an excellent article! A very accurate insight of what often, even unconsciously, affects someone’s view of the Catholic faith. There really are two opposed groups, one more Democrat than Catholic, the other more Republican than Catholic. In medio stat virtus.
No, Father. Religion is one thing; politics another. Religion proposes matters of faith that are either true or they are not. The Catholic Church proposes a faith that is the fullness of truth. Politics on the other hand proposes ideas about how we ought to govern ourselves. It’s not a matter of wht is true or not. It’s a preference for the type of government we want.
Tell us, Father, what is the “middle ground” on infanticide, child sex mutilation, child sex trafficking, the fentanyl poisoning of hundreds of thousands, the stripping of all parental rights, the promotion of sodomitical “marriage,” the impoverishment of socialism and the stripping of private property, the use of government to suppress free speech, the freedom of assembly and the freedom of religion… If you can name ONE SINGLE virtuous position of the Democratic Party, I would love to hear it.
Excellent point, Timothy J. Williams!
The Democratic Party is a death cult. Whether you’re talking about wall-to-wall abortion, or euthanasia, or the legalization of drugs, or the sterilization of children, the Democrats are always lining up on the side of death.
While there are very good points in this article, it seems to muddy Catholic doctrine as it relates to immigration. I adopted two boys from another country when they were teens and I support helping refugees and the poor but I don’t support uncontrolled and illegal immigration that disregards our laws. It is tragic that so many people from other countries were used as pawns in a political game. Is it unchristian to enforce laws? Should taxpayers pay to support illegal immigration? At the core, as you say, is that on the right life issues such as abortion are the first priority. Without life, nothing else matters. To hold that above all else and to also want a generous country for refugees and immigration but not open borders does not make one a cafeteria Catholic.
I think people far removed from the border fail to understand the kinds of damage we do to Latin America when we cooperate with the cartels. Every extorted soul they deliver to the border or smuggle across pays a great deal of money to organized crime. That strengthens the cartels creating power struggles, turf wars, increased violence, & a higher recruitment of young people into the gangs. It’s a never ending cycle.
We do our southern neighbors no favor by “open” borders.
What we decide to do about the migrants already here & who have contributed to their communities is another thing.
Well said. Agree.
I have an adopted sister from Mexico, and three daughters-in-law who are all first-generation immigrants. In addition to my nine children, I also have three foster children in Uganda and the Dominican Republic who depend on us for all their food, clothing and school tuition. But according to this author, all of us “conservative” Catholics are the “cafeteria” variety who do not understand Church “social teaching.”
I read somewhere years ago that those who identify themselves as conservatives donate a higher percentage of their income to charitable works than those who say they’re liberal or progressive do.
I’m not sure if the statistics have changed since then but in my own experience I have encountered many extremely generous conservatives.
Catholic Morality is and should be informed by this first and foremost question: What is the Final End for Catholics? Knowing the Final End will give the Catholics the overall roadmap to live morally. The Final End is God (the Trinity). The roadmap is already indicated by the Great Commandment: to love God + to love the neighbor who is the Imago Dei (ID). Since one is also the ID, the great Commandment means (i) to love God for the sake of God, (ii) to love oneself for the sake of God, and (iii) to love the neighbor for the sake of God. It follows, therefore, that the moral life, insofar as the love of neighbor is concerned, must include issues/themes that regard both oneself and other persons; and those two categories of issues/themes must be grounded in the Truth (since both are for the sake of God). Therefore, the moral life of an authentic Catholic includes both dimensions, spanning from human sexuality issues to social doctrine issues. However, since one cannot “give” what one does not have lest one becomes pharisaic, one must ensure that one’s moral life (in particular, in terms of human sexuality) is in order before one goes out in the public square advocating social injustice. Catholic means “both … and,” not “either … or.”
Deacon Dom, I’d like to give your views some respect due to your apparent office, but the “glaring truth” you profess to see about pro-life Catholics is completely false. Pro-life Catholics turn a blind eye to the poor, immigrants and downtrodden? You supply no evidence of that, and it is completely contrary to my experience. Your claim also flies in the face of studies showing that conservatives generally give more to the poor than liberals. With respect, I trust that you will get yourself to confession ASAP for making stuff up like that one.
In the usages to which I am accustomed, ‘cafeteria catholic’ was typified by the people who crowded into church on Christmas and Easter and were noteworthily absent the other 50+ Sundays & Holydays. Political stances were largely irrelevant and often unknown. The author seems to be making them paramount, even where such stances are debatable and dependent upon one’s situation. If deporting illegal immigrants is immoral, what is immigrating into a country illegally? Accepting free housing, free food, free healthcare after doing so? Enriching/hiring criminal cartels? Committing crimes to repay the fees? Accepting these things in order to send remittance money home [ie forcing taxpayers to subsidize your family overseas? Traditionally the church has held that your obligations begin in your proximity and expand from there based upon ability, ie don’t starve or impoverish your family to support another in comfort. That would be true in ANY political system unless your daily life circumstances make doctrinal purity possible. In any event, given the rate at which Illinois politicians end up in prison, giving an award to any of them risks potential future embarrassment. Making awards far more specific would be wiser.
Put another way, Catholics on the “right” are no less selective in the moral doctrines they advocate and downplay than Catholics on the “left.”
Care to cite a few examples?
He will not because he cannot.
There are problems with both parties. On the Republican side their wishy, washy approach to abortion is one issue of concern. They appear to be afraid, from a political standpoint, to openly condemn abortion. However, Democrat policies are of considerable concern from a Catholic viewpoint. Their very open support, and promotion of abortion, gay relationships, gay marriage, and transgenderism, including children, will destroy the Christian family as we know it. Catholics are being persecuted as hate mongers because they support marriage, as defined by scripture, as a union between a man and a woman. Gay marriage is an abomination before God. Their open border policy was a disaster. If they get back in power without a serious change in policies, they will destroy this country.
Immigration needs open discussion between both parties to arrive at a policy that helps the most needy, and is limited to a number we can accommodate without creating chaos.
James Whitney writes: “Immigration needs open discussion between both parties to arrive at a policy that helps the most needy, and is limited to a number we can accommodate without creating chaos.”
Indeed! It’s called following the procedures of LEGAL IMMIGRATION. This has been going on since the early days of the grounding of the Republic. Americans have NEVER been fond of foreign invasions.
Reply
We haven’t been fond of foreign invasions but we conducted a few of our own.
🙂
I was visiting Canada recently and they have some history with us about that.
Shall we refrain from self-defense because we’ve done wrong things before?
We thought we were doing the right thing back then. Canada disagreed.
🙂
The ones that are “cafeteria” Catholics are heretics Senator Durbin, Cardinal Cupich and Pope Leo XIV. Pope Francis with his heresies that confused and led people into serious error is now at the Mercy of God.
The Pontiff Francis rejected the Catholic moral teaching that the death penalty was sometimes needed to protect citizens and maintain justice.
The Pontiff Francis did not dare to say the death penalty was immoral, because he has no grounds to do do, so he consulted his Jez-uit double-talk handbook, and whimpered that the death penalty has now been discovered to be “inadmissible,” on the basis of his progressive political ideology that his generation knows better than all previous generations.
As to the Church establishment in Rome and Europe and the USA, including the new spokesman the Pontiff Leo, and their corporate bleating about their new theme of the “preferential option for illegal immigration,” I suggest this scorecard to be used to “discern” them: Every single time one of them “virtue signals” in favor of illegal immigration, they are trued in the court of public opinion, and when found to have violated the Vatican State’s newly announced policy against illegal migration into Vatican City, they are thrown in “the jail of public opinion,” where they serve consecutive terms if imprisonment for every hypocritical statement they make in favor of illegal immigration in every country but their own.
I believe the term of imprisonment they announced was about 5 years? That puts the Pontiff Leo in the stocks for his first hypocritical statement.
In connection to my previous post on the Church Establishment’s hypocrisy about their newfound “preferential option for illegal immigration,” the Vatican’s newly announced penalty for illegal immigration into Vatican City is 1-4 years in prison, as stated in the link below.
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/261557/vatican-cracks-down-on-illegal-entry-into-its-territory
That puts the Pontiff Leo in “the jail of public opinion for 1-4 years.” Since he ought to know better, and in his position, “much is expected,” in my judgment he deserves a trrm of 4 years.