In his statement commenting on Senator Richard Durbin’s decision to decline a Lifetime Achievement Award from the Archdiocese of Chicago, Cardinal Blase Cupich admonished U.S. Catholics to reflect on a homily that Pope John Paul II gave in the Archdiocese of Newark in 1995:
Thirty years ago, St. John Paul II preached a homily in our nation in which he vigorously defended the rights of the unborn, the elderly, and disabled people, and cited the poem inscribed on the base of the Statue of Liberty. He asked, “Is present-day America becoming less sensitive, less caring towards the poor, the weak, the stranger, the needy? It must not! Today, as before, the United States is called to be a hospitable society, a welcoming culture. If America were to turn in on itself, would this not be the beginning of the end of what constitutes the very essence of the ‘American experience’?” We need to listen to these prophetic words in this moment of our nation’s life.
Indeed, we do need to listen to those words–as we ought to do at every moment in our national life.
We should also listen to John Paul II’s words in the very next paragraph of that homily, which the cardinal did not cite:
To a great extent, the story of America has been the story of long and difficult struggles to overcome the prejudices which excluded certain categories of people from a full share in the country’s life: first, the struggle against religious intolerance, then the struggle against racial discrimination and in favor of civil rights for everyone. Sadly, today a new class of people is being excluded. When the unborn child – the “stranger in the womb” – is declared to be beyond the protection of society, not only are America’s deepest traditions radically undermined and endangered, but a moral blight is brought upon society. I am also thinking of threats to the elderly, the severely handicapped and all those who do not seem to have any social usefulness. When innocent human beings are declared inconvenient or burdensome, and thus unworthy of legal and social protection, grievous damage is done to the moral foundations of the democratic community. The right to life is the first of all rights. It is the foundation of democratic liberties and the keystone of the edifice of civil society. Both as Americans and as followers of Christ, American Catholics must be committed to the defense of life in all its stages and in every condition.
In other words, the inalienable right to life from conception until natural death is not one concern amid a broad menu of Catholic concerns about public policy. It is, to repeat, “the first of all rights,” “the foundation of democratic liberties,” and “the keystone of the edifice of civil society.” To fail to grasp this–as Senator Durbin has done ever since he abandoned his early pro-life position for what can only be understood as reasons of political convenience–is to do “grievous damage” to “the moral foundations of the democratic community.”
Moreover, years after John Paul II issued that warning in Newark, Senator Durbin went far beyond casting the pro-“choice” votes that got him a NARAL Pro-Choice America’s 100% rating. He did everything in his power to see to the defeat of Illinois Representative Dan Lipinski, one of the few remaining pro-life Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Which is to say, Durbin not only cast morally dubious votes against the “first of all rights” for decades; he contributed to the brutal purge that has now made it virtually impossible for a pro-life Democrat willing to shore up “the keystone to the edifice of civil society” to function in national politics.
Cardinal Cupich reiterated the Archdiocese of Chicago’s commitment to the pro-life cause, stating that the “right to life needs to be defended without compromise.” That commitment is entirely welcome. But if it is linked, as the cardinal seemed to do, to the suggestion that the set-in-concrete Democratic orthodoxy demanding “choice” at any moment in a pregnancy is the result of a lack of dialogue, that is not-quite-right.
And a prime example is Senator Durbin.
As I noted in my recent article in this space, Cardinal Cupich’s distinguished predecessor, Cardinal Francis E. George, OMI, tried to persuade Senator Durbin of the manifest justice of the pro-life cause and the imperative of supporting it in legislation. In his time, Cardinal George was, arguably, the most intellectually accomplished bishop in the history of the American hierarchy. He was also a sensitive pastor and a man of calm demeanor.
If that combination of irrefutable arguments and a heartfelt appeal to decency could not convince Dick Durbin to become a pro-life leader–or, at the very least, to cease being in thrall to the most radical pro-“choice” forces in American public life–it was not for want of a lack of political sophistication, dialogue, or compassion on Cardinal George’s part.
Cardinal Cupich is surely right that shutting down discussion is not the way out of our present impasses, on the life issues and other matters. But it ought to be obvious that it takes two to dialogue. And at the moment, it is not easy to see how a more mature, rational conversation on the life issues can be engaged when, in the matter of abortion at least, there are no dialogue partners to be found in the party that once prided itself on being the champion of human rights.
Perhaps, as his retirement looms ever closer on the horizon, the archbishop of Chicago could dedicate his remaining years to addressing that grave problem, one convert at a time.
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.
And just today, Pope Leo comes down on the side of … Sen. Durbin! More seamless garment rot and decay from the Chair of Peter.
Leo (and most all of the USCCB) essentially backed up Cupich. Their fake unity jeopardized the credibility of the entire Catholic Church on the “preeminent” issue of abortion. Unlike Christ, Who is actually united to the murdered unborn.
The heteropraxy of this pontificate is more scandalous than that of Franciscus. How so? Not even Franciscus would say that the work of a “hitman” was the equivalent to that of a hangman.
Like an unwanted pregnancy, Leo threw away the “preeminent” issue of abortion into the dustbin of the Church. What he did was horribly wrong.
Why? (That a Fool needs to answer this instead of the Christ’s Vicar is outrageous!)
First, a loving person should know that abortion is the death penalty for a child.
And since Leo asked the question: No, the mistreatment of immigrants is not equivalent to the mass murder of children.
Why did Leo agree to be Pope if he cannot even teach that ending the abortion genocide is the preeminent priority of Catholics?
Durbin declined a local lifetime achievement award from Cupich, only to receive worldwide papal support for his perfect 40 year NARAL voting record: https://reproductivefreedomforall.org/lawmaker/dick-durbin/
Every politician knows that this is a major victory for pro-choice. In all humility, Durbin never saw this papal defense coming, as if he was President Biden…
The headline from The Hill says it all: Durbin ‘overwhelmed’ by Pope Leo support on abortion rights
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5535325-pope-leo-xiv-abortion-stance/
Agreed!
Amen!
Well, he also blessed a chunk of ice for climate change.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Can we find a better example of modern hubris? A Cardinal who’s been trained to believe he can do anything he wants. And a Senator who believes he can whitewash everything he’s done.
I lived in Illinois most of my life, except for 10 years in Raleigh, North Carolina, and now 3 years in St. Louis, MO near my children (after my husband passed away of COVID in 2020 and I retired in 2022).
Sorry to wet-blanket our hopes, but I think it will be virtually impossible for any pro-life candidate, including pro-life Democrats (the few that exist in Illinois) to win any major election in Illinois, as all the counties combined cannot equal, let alone surpass, the votes of liberal Chicago and the corrupt political “machine” (which no doubt includes the votes of many voters who have passed away), and many of the liberal-leaning suburbs, combined with the votes of Champaign-Urbana, which includes 40,000 college students who haven’t figured out life yet and vote liberal (or even communist), along with their even more liberal professors.
Much of Illinois is rural, with small towns which have populations under a hundred souls–if everyone in those towns voted “pro-life”, it still wouldn’t be enough. In addition, the smaller cities (Peoria, Rockford, Bloomington, etc.) also have colleges which mainly consist of very liberal students who are of age to vote–and the majority of the students vote pro-choice because of the brainwashing that they receive on campus and online sites and social media (which many of them spend much of their lives on). So these smaller cities, even with a pro-life presence among both Protestants and Catholics, cannot total enough votes to overcome the pro-abortion juggernaut launched by the voters in Chicago and Champaign-Urbana. Watch the election maps during the next election–almost solid blue, with only a few red patches, on the Illinois election return map. So sad.
Even the huge Christian and pro-life (??) megachurches, e.g., Willowcreek in the Western Chicago suburbs, cannot make a dent in the pro-choice vote in Chicago, especially as those churches emphasize “praise and worship” over solid Christian teaching (IMO).
I think the only hope for Illinois is God’s intervention–(revival? a huge crisis that causes people to turn to God for help? another Billy Graham and his evangelistic crusades? the Catholic churches in Illinois embarking upon major evangelistic campaigns? LOTS of PRAYER for mercy! etc.)
I grieve for my beautiful home state of Illinois.
Yet the only Cardinal in the state need not bow down to this ethos. Pastor Bonhoeffer didn’t.
I fail to see how leaving the nation’s borders open for the drug cartels and the human traffickers is just as important as stopping the slaughter of innocent children.
How are both positions “pro-life”?
Would somebody please ask Cupich and Leo what I’m missing?
Watch the Godfather movies, and then let’s talk.
Of course Cardinal Cupich did not cite the next paragraph of Pope John Paul II’s homily because it didn’t suit his selective wrong argument to award Senator Dick Durbin what would have been scandalous. The protection of the unborn is the number 1 issue in America and the world today. Jesus said “What you do for the least of my children you do unto me.” With all due respect to Cardinal Cupich and his ilk, the unborn are the least of the children in the whole world.
Agree. Great article
Cardinal Cupich…one of many mini-Popes.
Yes brineyman a country without borders is no longer a nation. Of course Cupich didn’t mention the second paragraph of Pope John Paul II’s homily because it did not suit his very selective motives of wrongly giving Senator Dick Durbin an award he simply was not worthy or qualified. The abortion of the unborn is the number one issue facing America and the whole world. Jesus says, “What you do to the least of my children you do unto me.” With all due respect to Cardinal Cupich, the unborn are the least of God’s children in the world. And as Pope John Paul said, “The right to life is the first of all rights.”
“He vigorously defended the rights of the unborn.”
What part of that statement is unclear?
The Democratic Party has lost all moral and ethics in their un-equivocal support for a culture of death.
The gospel parable of the rich man and the poor man Lazarus was told last Sunday. It ends with this word of prophecy about the brothers of the rich man, when Abraham tells him: “If they will not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced if a man should rise from the dead.”
“Neither will they be convinced if a man should rise from the dead.”
This is a parable fit for the “sophisticates” of our contemporary Church establishment, from Pontiffs to Cardinals to Bishops to clergy to pew-sitters, all schooled by, and holding and teaching “sophisticated theology”
“Neither will they be convinced if a man should rise from the dead.”
Our “sophisticated” Church establishment is a great “respecter of persons,” hence the assumptions about the “excellence” and “eminence” of our selected clergy as they ascend in their pilgrimage of progress.
So many of them have attained to the summit of “sophistication,” like unto “Eminence Cupich” and “Eminence McCarrick,” who we have all seen in their photo-op when Cupich gave McCarrick the [coveted] “Spirit of Francis” trophy. Francis being the late Pontiff Francis, aka “Eminence” Bergoglio.
Among the things held in common by these “sophisticated” and “eminent” men, is their mutual esteem for their fellow-sophisticate and peer, “Eminence” Kasper, who wrote their what we are free to call their “Apostates’ Creed,” which includes (inter alia) their RENUNCIATION of the resurrection of Jesus, to wit: “…was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried, and OBTRUDED IN THE SPIRIT on the third day….” (The capitalized text being from Kasper’s book “Jesus the Christ,” 1974 and 2011.)
All of the eminent men named above held or hold “Eminence” Kasper in great esteem, because they are great respecters of men. Indeed, McCarrick and Kasper were charter members of what they themselves called “The Saint Galen Mafia.” And “Eminence” Cupich and the late Pontiff Francis both lauded Kasper for his “Apostates’ Creed.” Cupich publicly recommended Kasper’s book for students in seminary and college.
“Neither will they be convinced if a man should rise from the dead.”
In conclusion, as we behold the wake of destruction left behind the careers of “sophisticated” Apostate clergy and Bishops and Cardinals and Pontiffs, we recall to mind the prophetic words of St. Paul:
“If for this life only we have believed in Jesus, we are if all men most to be pitied.”
The RCAC faithful had better get used to eating vegetable soup because that is all they are going to get during this present time.
Perfect response to the justification put forth by Cardinal Cupich to honor a man who had diligently work in opposition to protecting the most vulnerable among us.
This conversation is very similar to the Emperor’s new clothes, with the Bishops the Kings court and the parishioners his subjects. No one has asked why a leader in the Catholic Church is giving anyone, much less a politician, a “lifetime Achievement Award and acting as if we, the followers of Catholicism are merely a music award audience? If both he and the Bishop are worthy, the lifetime award will be handed out by God himself. Not many for performing deeds that are questionable even in man’s eyes.
Excellent point. Enough with the awards, and the functions, and the galas.
You are absolutely right, of course.
But what is going on here–and elsewhere–with awards being given to certain personages and not others is simply part of the constant political maneuvering to validate certain perspectives and put others in the shade. Is anybody taken in by these machinations? Too many most likely. But we can only hope there are more people like you out there, rb, than the other kind.
The right to life is not restricted to the unborn. Defending them, without upholding the right to support the lives of all others is a bit like purporting to love God but not my neighbour.
Appreciate this explains the motivations of both Eminence Cupich and his Lordship Sen. Durbin:
They are justifiably refusing to defend the right of unborn people to live, in retribution for the failure of citizens who oppose their political policies to overwhelm the country with born people who just so happen to be impoverished illegal migrants.
Surely Jesus would understand?
Dear Dileep Athaide, please find a course on basic logic (e.g. at your local primary school) and get your brain rationalised!
Well put, George. We must be very aware that no one is being declared to be “ beyond the protection of society” as stated by St. John Paul II.
As expected George Weigel narrowly frames the “pro-life”issue through the lens of abortion, critically targeting Senator Durbin’s record and dismissing broader Catholic Social Teaching. This approach reveals the fake “pro-life” stance just exposed by Pope Leo XIV (in reality “pro-birth” or “anti-abortion” only!) but indifferent to the immigrant, poor, homeless, terminally ill, or those on death row, ignoring the fullness of the Gospel’s consistent ethic of life as emphasized by Catholic teaching and Pope John Paul II himself. Genuine “pro-life” demands standing, caring, and voting for life from womb to tomb, from conception to natural death, including the vulnerable born, not just the unborn, yet the article weaponizes abortion politics while overlooking these wider moral imperatives (see Matthew 25).
Moreover, Weigel’s critique of dialogue on life issues, portraying Senator Durbin as an irrevocable adversary, undercuts any possibility of genuine engagement, suggesting a rigid absolutist posture that is the very obstruction to mature conversation the article decries. The politicization of “pro-life” identity reduces Catholic doctrine to a single issue, fueling division and hypocrisy across the spectrum. Catholic teaching calls for a seamless garment approach, embracing all life issues holistically rather than partisan battles.
These bishops who publicly oppossed Cardinal Cupich’s award to Durbin demonstrate a similar truncated vision. They: Thomas J. Paprocki, Salvatore J. Cordileone, James D. Conley, James S. Wall, David Ricken, Michael F. Olson, Carl A. Kemme, James V. Johnston Jr., Joseph F. Naumann (ret.), and Joseph Strickland, were rightly schooled and put in their place by Pope Leo XIV in that now-famous interview. They must be held accountable for promoting a false pro-life identity limited to abortion. Their attempts to shame Cupich obscure their neglect of consistent life ethics, reducing the Church’s witness to political scorekeeping rather than authentic Gospel witness.
This hypocrisy on both sides fractures Catholic moral witness, weakening the Church’s voice in society. Until all Catholic leaders embrace the broader demands of Catholic Social Teaching and the seamless ethic of life, the Church’s prophetic mission risks being compromised by partisan allegiance and incomplete moral vision.
“As expected George Weigel narrowly frames…”
And there you go again. A bit of self-awareness would be helpful.
Sure, Durbin is happy to support the abortions of immigrants, the poor, etc., but if they manage to escape execution in the womb, he welcomes their political support. Got it.
Touche
Oh look, more Weigel-vision: “Pro-life” means nothing but clutching womb scorecards, while ignoring Scripture (see especially Matthew 25 which includes immigrants!), Catholic Social Teaching, and the Pope. Durbin was being awarded in recognition for his stand and advocacy for immigrants (real, living people!) not just for talking points waved at fundraisers. Congrats on mastering the absolutist “pro-birth, anti-everyone-else” routine, but if your “pro-life” can’t make it past the delivery room, maybe learn from and take heed of Pope Leo XIV’s recent schooling of Catholics like you, Weigel, and the ten bishops who opposed Cardinal Cupich: if you rage against abortion but cheer for Trump’s cruelty to immigrants, don’t call yourself “pro-life” just say “pro-double standard.”
““Pro-life” means nothing but clutching womb scorecards, while ignoring Scripture.”
That’s interesting. I’ll have to share that with all of my children–all of whom we adopted amid very difficult (drugs, crime, mental illness) situations.
” if you rage against abortion but cheer for Trump’s cruelty to immigrants,”
You’re sad.
“I’ll have to share that with all of my children–all of whom we adopted amid very difficult (drugs, crime, mental illness) situations.”
God bless you! My daughter and her husband have adopted six children born to drug addicted mothers.
Pro-lifers are some of the most charitable and generous people on the planet.
Bless you! Our extended family is like the UN. 12 of the grandchildren are homemade, but 6 are adopted from crisis pregnancies and impoverished foreign countries.
To be fair, after Leo sacrificed preeminent, he blessed an ice cube. So there is that:
https://www.instagram.com/p/DPW8660jxgp/
I may have said this before, but I sincerely hope your “Deacon” title is merely a self-anointed fantasy. The idea that someone of your low moral character and impoverished reasoning could possibly be employed by the Church is appalling. And if you are in fact a deacon, that would point to your fundamental dishonesty, as you accept a salary from a Church whose teachings you mock and despise.
I read Deacon Dom during Lent since we are supposed to do penance. I don’t know why I read him today.
As expected George Weigel narrowly frames the “pro-abolition”issue through the lens of slavery, critically targeting Senator Durbin’s record and dismissing broader Catholic Social Teaching. This approach reveals the fake “pro-abolition” stance just exposed by Pope Leo XIV (in reality “pro-freedom” or “anti-slavery” only!) but indifferent to the immigrant, poor, homeless, terminally ill, or those on death row, ignoring the fullness of the Gospel’s consistent ethic of life as emphasized by Catholic teaching and Pope John Paul II himself. Genuine “pro-abolition” demands standing, caring, and voting for freedom from womb to tomb, from conception to natural death, including the vulnerable born, not just the slave, yet the article weaponizes slavery politics while overlooking these wider moral imperatives (see Matthew 25).
Moreover, Weigel’s critique of dialogue on slavery issues, portraying Senator Durbin as an irrevocable adversary, undercuts any possibility of genuine engagement, suggesting a rigid absolutist posture that is the very obstruction to mature conversation the article decries. The politicization of “pro-abolition” identity reduces Catholic doctrine to a single issue, fueling division and hypocrisy across the spectrum. Catholic teaching calls for a seamless garment approach, embracing all freedom issues holistically rather than partisan battles.
These bishops who publicly oppossed Cardinal Cupich’s award to Durbin demonstrate a similar truncated vision. They: Thomas J. Paprocki, Salvatore J. Cordileone, James D. Conley, James S. Wall, David Ricken, Michael F. Olson, Carl A. Kemme, James V. Johnston Jr., Joseph F. Naumann (ret.), and Joseph Strickland, were rightly schooled and put in their place by Pope Leo XIV in that now-famous interview. They must be held accountable for promoting a false pro-abolition identity limited to slavery. Their attempts to shame Cupich obscure their neglect of consistent slavery ethics, reducing the Church’s witness to political scorekeeping rather than authentic Gospel witness.
This hypocrisy on both sides fractures Catholic moral witness, weakening the Church’s voice in society. Until all Catholic leaders embrace the broader demands of Catholic Social Teaching and the seamless ethic of freedom, the Church’s prophetic mission risks being compromised by partisan allegiance and incomplete moral vision.
Dear GF, this sweeping but shallow and distorted critique is not up to your usual high standard of Catholic knowledge and reason.
You would do well to compare, for example, the insightful magisterial treatmnt of capital punishment in #2267 of the ‘Catechism of the Catholic Church’, with the powerful condmnation of abortion & child murder in #2268 – #2275.
Since every need that calls out for Catholic compassion & help is unique, each merits its own tailored response, taking into account the seriousness of each matter, cultural contexts, & various alternative possibilities.
I accept the instructions of Saint John Paul II and Saint Benedict XVI teaching us that murdering the unborn & new-born is exceptionally evil; a mortal, sin as is any form of support or tolerance of it.
It’s naive & the root of endless conflicts to propose that a single ‘seamless’ ethic applies. Love is a diverse & many splendoured reality. To propose that ‘one-size-fits-all’ demeans the nature of love itself.
Ever in the love of King Jesus Christ; blessings from marty
Dear Dr. MJR,
You are, as ever, correct and right to correct. Forgive this Fool for following the logic of the apostate Deacon Dom. Consider me throughly shriven.
Happy Feast of St. Francis! (Accept no substitutes for the Real Francis!)
Many thanks for your generous & truth-cultivating reply, dear GF.
Praise GOD for all the wonderful Saints & Martyrs – this ‘great cloud of witnesses’ – always struggling to keep this poor sheep on track!
What is false is the notion that “pro-life” advocates are articulating “a false pro-life identity limited to abortion.” It is a matter of focus, first and last. Abortion is simply the most obvious and violent act of aggression against innocent life. It is not, of course, the only one.
But it is no argument at all, not even a valid point in one, to suggest that a particular focus on it is the only concern of those who respect and honor human life in general.
Amen!
The Dem party has slowly become the pro abortion party or as I often refer as the baby killing party. Any award by a priest, bishop or Cardinal to a Dem politician should never be made.
I had such high hopes for Pope Leo XIV. Those hopes have been destroyed.
The Scriptures clearly teach that the state has the authority to impose the death penalty upon evil doers. That is why the traditional teaching of the Church has been just that. For an excellent summary of legitimacy of the death penalty see:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=j406TbFudjs&pp=ygUUVGF5bG9yIG1hcnNoYWxsIGxlbyA%3D
While it is certainly possible for a state to unjustly or unnecessarily administer capital punishment, and in that case the Church would be obliged to object to its unjust or unnecessary administration, but it must do so without declaring at the same time that there is no such thing as a legitimate death penalty. To go that far is to blatantly contradict Scripture and Tradition, the Author of both of which is the Holy Spirit. This is why Pope Saint JP II made known his objections to the application of the death penalty, but he never went so far as to declare it evil in all circumstances.
Catholics in good standing can disagree on when the death penalty is just and appropriate. When Catholics disagree on whether the state has the authority to “legalize” the murder of innocent humanity, those who insist that the state has such authority aren’t genuine Catholics at all.
Pope Leo XIV has severely disappointed countless serious Catholics and has misled countless more.
I am extremely disappointed in Pope Leo XIV. Why resort to theatrical stunts and bless an ice cube? Perhaps he should bless the victims of school shootings? Or families of the hostages in Gaza? To excuse abortion or cow tow to a political agenda he has nothing to do with is truly despicable. My husbands family and my grandparents were immigrants. LEGAL immigrants. My inlaws were survivors of Nazi labor camps. After the Americans liberated them in Germany it took another 10+ years to get their papers to come to America. They came with the clothes on their backs and were given nothing free. Why are we supposed to allow others to break our laws?
I thought the “Seamless Garment” unravelled years ago. Is the Pope trying to re-weave it? Did I miss something while distracted by making a living?
Sadly, the shameless garment of Chicago is back in fashion. Leo put it on like a Democrat to politically defend Durbin and Cupich.
Against all his predecessors (except perhaps Franciscus in practice), Leo attempted to undermine conscientious Catholics that vote abortion as the preeminent pro-life issue.
No wonder Durbin was “overwhelmed” by Leo’s comments. He went from declining a local honor from a local award from a Cardinal on his way out to receiving a public shameless garment defense from a newly minted Pope! Not even Biden got that from Franciscus. Poor Pelosi must be beside herself with jealousy.
In an otherwise excellent article about the completely “contra Fidem Catholicam” machinations of His Royal Highness, Cardinal Madcap Tyrant, Archbishop pro-tempore of Chicago (he turned 75 on 19 March 2024 – the Feast-Day of St. Joseph), George Weigel, who is apparently not completely in tune with Illinois politics and politicians, included this whopping falsehood about Senator Durbin:
“He did everything in his power to see to the defeat of Illinois Representative Dan Lipinski, one of the few remaining pro-life Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives.”
The falsehood is not in Senator Durbin’s role in helping to secure for Marie Newman the Democrat Party’s nomination for U.S. Representative of Illinois’ 3rd Congressional District in the March 2020 state primary election – Durbin did, indeed, collude with other “clout”-heavy Democrats in the state to ensure that outcome – but in his characterization of Dan Lipinski as “pro-life.”
Dan Lipinski was, indeed, anti-abortion and anti-pornography – but he was also pro-contraception and pro-sexual perversion. Not a word from him in opposition to the other inextricably interwoven strands of the very REAL “seamless garment” proffered by the culture of hedonism and the culture of death in the U.S. (in addition to contraception and abortion) – namely, euthanasia, elective sterilization, forced sterilization, embryonic stem-cell research, and in-vitro fertilization.
In a taped interview with WBBM-AM reporter Craig Dellimore, which aired on the radio just days before the 2020 Democrat primary, Congressman Lipinski seemed most eager to spend all of his time touting his opposition to then-President Trump, while downplaying his anti-abortion stance. But the gambit didn’t work – Lipinski lost by less than 3 percentage points to pro-culture of hedonism, pro-culture of death, pro-sexual perversion stooge Marie Newman, who then went on to beat Will County Supervisor Mike Fricilone in the general election in November 2020. (She served only one term in Congress; because of Illinois’ 2021 re-drawing of Congressional district boundaries, she wound up being re-districted into the 6th District – and lost to incumbent Rep. Sean Casten in the 2022 Democrat primary.)
Now, Dan Lipinski’s father, Rep. William Lipinski (D – 5th (1982-1992); 3rd (1992-2004)), WAS, indeed, a strong and outspoken pro-lifer in Congress for a little more than 2 decades.
I am so disgusted with cardinals and bishops like Cupich. They have no judgment or backbone. You don’t sacrifice one vulnerable group for another group. Durbin himself had the good sense to turn down the “honor.”
The seamless garment might be seamless but its moth-eaten and with so many holes that all it’s good for now is tossing it into the dustbin of history. And yet there are the woke in the Church who insist on hanging on to its loose threads for that is all they have going for them.