The controversy surrounding the Archdiocese of Chicago’s plan to honor Senator Dick Durbin has rapidly escalated from a local dispute into a revealing test of the internal dynamics of the U.S. hierarchy. The news that Durbin would receive the archdiocese’s “Keep Hope Alive” lifetime achievement award in recognition of his long record of advocacy for immigrants and refugees set off a wave of criticism. Several US bishops took direct aim at Chicago’s archbishop, Cardinal Blase Cupich, arguing that Durbin’s support for abortion rights made him an unsuitable honoree.

Among Cardinal Cupich’s most vocal critics was Springfield Bishop Thomas Paprocki, who published a strongly worded essay in First Things warning that honoring Senator Durbin would be a “grave mistake” that risked “enormous scandal” given Durbin’s record of support for legal abortion. Bishop Paprocki insisted that granting such recognition would contradict the Church’s public witness, and he reminded readers that Durbin remains barred from receiving the Eucharist in the Springfield diocese. San Francisco’s Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone quickly added his support with a post on X, publicly aligning himself with Bishop Paprocki’s concerns and urging Cardinal Cupich to reconsider the award.

Soon, there was a wave of episcopal condemnations. Around ten bishops have spoken out publicly against the award, including Lincoln’s Bishop James Conley, Gallup’s Bishop James Wall, Green Bay’s Bishop David Ricken, Fort Worth’s Bishop Michael Olson, Wichita’s Bishop Carl Kemme, Kansas City–St. Joseph’s Bishop James Johnston, and the retired Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City, Kansas. The unusually large number of prelates protesting a decision of a brother bishop in his diocese touched off an unprecedented national debate. The controversy exposed serious fractures in the hierarchy and polarization in the wider US Church over culture war issues.

The controversy set off a wave of commentary across Catholic media. Former US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) employee Jayd Henricks wrote an article for Catholic World Report painting Cardinal Cupich as Pope Francis’s designated “disrupter” among US bishops. Henricks noted that Cardinal Cupich “did not hold any significant leadership positions” within the conference, claiming that the cardinal “could not get elected due to how unpopular he was (and remains).”

Outlets such as Catholic News Agency and the National Catholic Register focused on backlash from pro-life advocates and bishops. In a column I published last week at Where Peter Is, I argued that Cardinal Cupich made “an error in judgment,” arguing that “when Church leaders make decisions that can easily be interpreted as partisan gestures, they unintentionally reinforce the very divisions they want to heal.” But I also pointed out that many of the bishops accusing Cardinal Cupich were themselves guilty of partisan behavior, including Bishop Paprocki and Archbishop Cordileone, both of whom were appointed by President Donald Trump to serve on an advisory committee. And unlike Cardinal Cupich, who was one of the most reliable supporters of Pope Francis’s pontificate and teachings, most of the bishops condemning Cardinal Cupich often found themselves at odds with the late pope’s teachings and initiatives.

Pope Leo Responds

On Tuesday evening, Pope Leo XIV was asked directly about the controversy. Rather than condemning Cardinal Cupich or commenting on the award itself, he emphasized moral coherence across life issues. “I am not terribly familiar with the particular case,” he said, “I think it’s important to look at the overall work that a senator has done during, if I’m not mistaken, in 40 years of service in the United States Senate.” He continued: “Someone who says I’m against abortion but is in favor of the death penalty is not really pro-life. Someone who says I’m against abortion but I’m in agreement with the inhuman treatment of immigrants in the United States, I don’t know if that’s pro-life.” Leo added, “The Church teaching on each one of those issues is very clear.”

Conservative Catholic reaction was fast and intense. Catholic Culture columnist Phil Lawler wrote that the pope’s answer was “certainly disappointing” and “largely irrelevant.” Lawler lamented that Leo’s statement “will probably ensure that timid bishops—of whom there are many—will maintain that silence.” Author and death penalty apologist Edward Feser wrote on X, “With due respect to the pope, the remark is manifestly false.” Rorate Caeli accused the pope of justifying scandal and argued that papal interviews should cease altogether. Newsweek’s coverage quoted a post by conservative commentator Matt Walsh, who reacted to the pope’s remarks by writing on X: “Awful stuff from the Pope. Truly horrendous on about five different levels.”

Of course, Pope Leo’s embrace of a consistent ethic of life is well-known. In a 2023 speech at an event celebrating the 25th anniversary of the Universidad Católica Santo Toribio de Mogrovejo in Chiclayo, Peru, then-Cardinal Prevost praised the “seamless garment” teaching of the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin of Chicago. He said,

“Bernardin’s vision suggested understanding the Church’s moral teachings as responding holistically to the many challenges affecting human life, as if they were threads woven into a single garment. This perspective outlines a path for the Church, one which remains relevant today. For instance, a Catholic cannot truly claim to be ‘pro-life’ by maintaining a stance against abortion while simultaneously advocating in favor of the death penalty. Such a position would lack coherence with Catholic social teaching. Our thinking and teaching must manifest coherence, consistently defending the value of human life from its beginning to its natural end.”

The future Pope Leo XIV added, “I propose that we again embrace Cardinal Bernardin’s proposal—perhaps now more urgently than ever.”

In the same speech, then-Cardinal Prevost also praised Cardinal Cupich’s call for “reclaiming and further developing the concept of the consistent ethic of life, expanding it into what he calls a new, integral ethic of solidarity.” Many have contrasted the “consistent ethic” approach with the USCCB’s longstanding position that abortion is the “preeminent priority” in political life. Although advocates for a consistent ethic of life have argued that their vision does not diminish their concern for the unborn, some critics argue that it is used to justify voting for pro-choice politicians. Those who oppose the consistent ethic, meanwhile, often reject the Church’s teachings on life issues other than abortion, euthanasia, and assisted suicide. For example, many conservative Catholics openly support the death penalty, mass deportation, and harsh immigration policies.

By Wednesday, Durbin told Cardinal Cupich that he would decline the award. The next day, Cardinal Cupich issued a formal statement, explaining that the award was intended “specifically in recognition of his singular contribution to immigration reform and his unwavering support of immigrants,” and not as an endorsement of his record on other issues. He warned that the intensity of the scandal “these past days points to the depth and danger of such an impasse.” Cardinal Cupich, who recently celebrated the golden anniversary of his ordination to the priesthood, lamented, “As I look back on my 50 years as a priest and 27 years as a bishop, I have seen the divisions within the Catholic community dangerously deepen. These divisions harm the unity of the church and undermine our witness to the Gospel.”

He issued a challenge to his fellow prelates, writing, “Bishops cannot simply ignore this situation because we have a duty to promote unity and assist all Catholics to embrace the teachings of the church as a consistent whole.”

A coordinated attack

As the public debate intensified in recent days, discussions within the USCCB had apparently already begun to escalate. The Pillar reported that “that some conference leaders were confidentially preparing a statement on the subject, which they expected to issue in coming days, presumably from the president’s office, or from the conference’s administrative committee,” and had notified the apostolic nunciature. Their reporting indicated that a statement was being drafted and could emerge in the coming days, and that some bishops believed the conference needed to restate its guidance that Catholic institutions should not honor public figures who support grave moral evils.

Independent reporting by Where Peter Is has now revealed more detailed accounts of those internal deliberations. According to conference sources, the Pro-Life Activities committee — led by its chairman, Bishop Daniel E. Thomas of Toledo — convened an emergency meeting specifically in reaction to Cardinal Cupich’s decision. According to these sources, a draft statement was prepared accusing the cardinal of violating Catholics in Political Life, a 2004 conference document that rejects giving “awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions” to political figures “who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles.”

Sources said that Archbishop Paul Coakley of Oklahoma City played a role in advancing the effort against Cardinal Cupich as well, but thus far he has avoided attaching his name publicly to a statement against Cardinal Cupich. Commentators including Michael Sean Winters of the National Catholic Reporter have suggested that there is a strong push among right-leaning bishops to elect Archbishop Coakley — who currently serves as conference secretary — as the next USCCB president at November’s General Assembly meeting in Baltimore. Sources also said that Archbishop Timothy Broglio, the current conference president, supported the initiative and simultaneously maintained communication with Cardinal Cupich. In response, Cardinal Cupich proposed an alternative — namely, a conference statement affirming the principle that national bodies do not interfere in the governance of diocesan bishops.

According to sources familiar with the situation, officials in the Dicastery for Bishops in Rome were alarmed by the intensity of the response. Pressure on Archbishop Broglio to release a statement has reportedly continued even after Durbin withdrew. One source suggested that donor-aligned networks associated with the Napa Institute played a background role in encouraging the push to make an example of Cardinal Cupich. The Napa Institute, founded by wealthy Catholic businessman Tim Busch, is best known for its conferences that gather affluent donors and conservative churchmen. Critics say the Napa Institute promotes a narrow, culture-war vision of Catholicism, and many of the bishops criticizing Cupich are closely tied to it. Archbishop Coakley serves as the organization’s Ecclesiastical Advisor, and Bishop Paprocki, Archbishop Cordileone, and Archbishop Broglio are on its Ecclesiastical Advisory Board.

An unprecedented rebuke

For the leadership of the USCCB to formally and publicly censure a sitting cardinal —especially on a matter of archdiocesan governance — would be without precedent. Its near-emergence suggests that even under a Leonine papacy, the divisions within the conference continue to grow and that the disconnect between Rome and conference leadership has not healed.

In addition to the novelty of the plan to rebuke Cardinal Cupich is that it seems to overstep his authority as a diocesan ordinary. Canon law gives a diocesan bishop “all ordinary, proper, and immediate power” in his own diocese, and an episcopal conference cannot override that authority unless the Holy See explicitly empowers it and grants recognitio to its decrees. Bishops otherwise have the authority to reject conference statements and documents within their dioceses.

Some bishops have rejected USCCB documents vehemently. For example, in 2008, Bishop Joseph Martino of Scranton forcefully rejected the 2007 edition of the USCCB’s voting guide, Faithful Citizenship, believing that it should have explicitly condemned voting for candidates who support abortion rights. He declared at a parish forum, “No USCCB document is relevant in this diocese.” He added, “The USCCB doesn’t speak for me … The only relevant document … is my letter.” He then asserted, “There is one teacher in this diocese, and these points are not debatable.”

Diocesan bishops are not even required to accept conference guidelines for safeguarding and abuse prevention. Over two decades ago, the Diocese of Lincoln under Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz refused to participate in the compliance audits for the Dallas Charter on clergy sexual abuse.

According to the National Review Board’s 2004 annual report, Lincoln’s vicar general sent them a letter saying that Bishop Bruskewitz “does not recognize any jurisdiction claimed over him or his pastoral activity by the ‘National Review Board'” and that he “is prepared to take any appropriate and suitable measures necessary, including legal action, were that Board, your institution, or the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops to attempt to coerce him by adverse publicity, the threat of such, or other similar actions.”  (Lincoln finally began to participate years later under Bishop James Conley.)

In a September 22 statement, Cardinal Cupich pointed out that the CDF’s 2004 guidance on Catholics in public life placed responsibility for dealing with Catholic politicians squarely in the hands of the local bishop, and that his decision to honor Durbin was therefore a diocesan matter, and not within the jurisdiction of the USCCB.

But that is not the only reason why the planned statement is unusual. Former USCCB communications staffer Don Clemmer noted the novelty of bishops and archbishops censuring a cardinal. He explained, “Tradition holds that, among the hierarchy, only the pope can publicly denounce a cardinal. This is highly irregular and not great for the unity of the church.”

The planned statement would also be the first of its kind. Steven P. Millies, a public theology professor at the Catholic Theological Union in Chicago, pointed to several cases of bishops engaged in bad behavior that did not result in rebukes from USCCB leadership, noting, “It would be unprecedented for the conference to single out any bishop for public censure. The conference never censured Bishop Robert Finn when he was convicted for failing to report allegations of abuse by a priest, it never censured Bishop Michael Bransfield when he was found misusing funds, it never censured Bishop Joseph Strickland for his offenses to unity, which were so great that Pope Francis removed him. Only apparently, recognizing Dick Durbin’s work to help immigrants rises to this level, and that is madness.”

Indeed, it seems that in the entire history of the conference, despite numerous scandals and crimes involving bishops, USCCB leadership has never publicly issued a public condemnation against one of their own. Such action was not taken against Cardinal Bernard Law, who became notorious when his attempts to cover up clergy sexual abuse in Boston were exposed in 2002. Nor did the conference issue a rebuke of former Phoenix Bishop Thomas J. O’Brien, who killed a pedestrian in a 2003 hit-and-run accident — just two weeks after narrowly escaping prosecution for concealing cases of child sexual abuse by priests in the diocese. The USCCB never censured former Los Angeles Auxiliary Bishop Gambino Zavala, who stepped down in 2012 after disclosing that he was the father of two teenage children. Many other bishops in past decades have stepped down in disgrace or were later exposed for immoral and illegal activity, and none has ever been singled out by the conference for admonition.

It is unclear whether, in light of Pope Leo’s comments and Senator Durbin’s decision to decline the award, the bishops will proceed with their plan to censure Cardinal Cupich. Regardless of what conference leadership decides to do, this episode has brought to light a serious rupture in the US Church. Collegiality and fraternity have given way to hostility and open conflict. On one side of the division are the most influential of the US bishops, the so-called “conservatives,” supported by well-financed and politically motivated benefactors and Catholic media outlets. On the other side are the minority of bishops who are aligned with the synodal vision of the Church envisioned by Popes Francis and Leo. That certain bishops would consider censuring a cardinal over an award while remaining silent on decades of scandal speaks volumes about where the true crisis of credibility lies.

For his part, rather than lash out at the bishops who have attacked him, Cardinal Cupich suggested a way forward. In his statement, which was featured on the Vatican News website, he wrote, “I believe it would be worthwhile to schedule some synodal gatherings for members of the faithful to experience listening to each other with respect on these issues, all the while remaining open to maturing more fully in their common identity as Catholics.”

Reflecting on the cardinal’s statement, Don Clemmer said, “I admire Cardinal Cupich for shifting the conversation here on what is within bounds for the Church to do. His letter to his people is a model.” Whether or not the bishops choose the path of rebuke, Cardinal Cupich’s call for synodal dialogue offers a reminder that the way to Church unity will not be found in ideological conflict and partisanship, but through listening, humility, and fidelity to the Gospel.

---

Image: Cupich speaks at USCCB General Assembly meeting in Baltimore. YouTube Screenshot.