By Randall Smith
So Cardinal Cupich has decided to honor pro-abortion Senator Dick Durbin. The chancery says they honor him for things other than his support for abortion, but that’s like honoring Bill Cosby for the wonderful things he did aside from his abuse of women. No one would accept that. The obvious conclusion would be that you simply don’t care about the abuse of women—or at least not as much as you should.
But there shouldn’t be any mystery about what the cardinal has done. It’s like the dishonest steward in Luke 16 who, realizing that he will soon be out of a job, does favors for his master’s debtors to gain their favor after his dismissal. You still want to be invited to the good parties and surround yourself with people with money and influence. And it’s another good example of “synodality.” You don’t need to talk to anyone else; you don’t consult or even listen to others, not even your brother bishops; you simply order what you, the imperious cleric, desire.
But all this is too obvious. What makes it possible is a broader cultural problem.
I recently heard that the pro-choice governor of New Mexico went to a Catholic campus where she proudly announced that she is a “pro-choice Catholic.” This is not unknown or entirely unusual. There are dozens of politicians who proudly call themselves “pro-choice Catholics.”
So, although that announcement didn’t surprise me, it did make me wonder. What if she had gone to a Catholic campus and proudly announced: “I am a pro-segregation Catholic” or “I am an anti-racial-integration Catholic”? What would the organizers have done?
Would they have ignored the comment? Would they have taken smiling photos with her and posted them on the Internet? Or would there have been objections? Do you think anyone might have said something like: “Yeah, you know, what you’re saying to be. That doesn’t exist”?
Our self-proclaimed “pro-segregation Catholic” would likely be offended and say: “How dare you judge me and my Catholic faith?” But we wouldn’t be judging that person’s soul or faith. We would simply be pointing out that you can’t be a “pro-choice Catholic” any more than you can be a “non-Trinitarian Catholic” or a “pro-Arian Catholic.”
If we allowed the term “Catholic” to be used in this way, the term would mean nothing. All categories “define” a group that includes certain things and excludes others—or the category is absurd.
If we were still living in 1960, and if it were a university in the South of the U.S., calling oneself a “pro-segregation Catholic” might have been acceptable. But it’s unlikely that it would be allowed today without being questioned. And if we had a record that it was tolerated at a Catholic university in 1960, it would be a cause for shame now, not pride in having let people “say what they thought” and “follow their own conscience.”
I’m not saying that such a person shouldn’t be invited to speak at a Catholic university. I just wonder if, if someone announced “I am a pro-segregation Catholic,” we wouldn’t feel a serious obligation to correct the record, to make it clear that that stance does not agree with basic Catholic teaching.
Catholics can have a wide variety of opinions on different moral and political issues. A Catholic might say: “I am in favor of raising taxes” and another “I am against it.” But what if someone says: “I am a pro-slavery Catholic”?
There were many Catholics who made that claim in the early 19th century, but now we look at it with shame, wishing that ecclesiastical authorities and the laity had done more to counter the idea that one could be a “Catholic” in good standing and at the same time “pro-slavery.” Or that one could be a “Catholic” in good standing and at the same time think that black people have less dignity than white people.
We are proud that Archbishop Rummel excommunicated several Catholics in 1962 who publicly opposed his racial desegregation of parochial schools in the Archdiocese of New Orleans.
So I wonder how, in twenty or thirty years, Catholic institutions that refused to challenge the claim that one could be a “pro-choice, pro-abortion Catholic” will be viewed. Will they feel the same shame that we now feel for the people who proclaimed themselves “pro-slavery Catholics”?
There would be even more reasons to find the claim of being a “pro-choice Catholic” absurd than there would have been in 1850 if someone had said they were a “pro-slavery Catholic” or a “pro-let-each-state-decide-on-slavery Catholic.”
Although there were some very clear condemnations, the Church’s teaching on slavery, sadly, was not as clear and consistent as one would have wished (since slavery was almost universal before modern times). And it certainly was not applied or even taught by many bishops in the United States.
But there can be no such lack of clarity in the case of abortion. The Church’s teaching has been clear and consistent—for centuries—from the early Church. Vatican II proclaimed with total clarity that, “from the moment of its conception, life must be guarded with the greatest care, while abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.”
Was that unclear? All popes since then have reiterated this teaching. Saying that one is a “pro-choice Catholic” makes no more sense than saying that one is a “pro-genocide Catholic,” especially since Vatican II condemns both together.
So you can say that you are pro-choice or pro-abortion. It’s a free country. People can have their own opinions. Just don’t call yourself a “pro-choice Catholic.” It makes as much sense as saying “I am a pro-woman-abuse feminist,” or, for that matter, as saying “I am a pro-woman-abuse Catholic.” You simply can’t be. Sorry, but claiming one by definition excludes the other.
About the author
Randall B. Smith is a professor of Theology at the University of St. Thomas in Houston, Texas. His most recent book is From Here to Eternity: Reflections on Death, Immortality, and the Resurrection of the Body.