Lipinski was faithful to the Gospel, and Durbin wasn’t.

Kathryn Lopez ably summarized the controversy surrounding the Archbishop of Chicago, Cardinal Blaise Cupich, and his deeply troubling decision to honor Senator Richard Durbin for his alleged contributions to Catholic social teaching in the areas of immigration, peace, care for the poor, and the environment. As she and others have pointed out, the award bypasses how Durbin has trampled on Catholic social teaching and fundamental justice in the areas of abortion and marriage.

Kathryn mentioned in her post how Democrats have ousted pro-life officials from their party, such as former member of the House of Representatives Daniel Lipinski, who is currently doing wonderful work on behalf of Aid for Women, an excellent Chicago-area pro-life organization. Lipinski himself has entered into the debates regarding Cupich’s decision to honor Durbin with an insightful piece at First Things, which I heartily recommend.

I think Lipinski was too modest to write about this, but his character and career stand in stark contrast to Durbin’s. Comparing these two men and their respective trajectories in Democratic politics provides a sobering reminder of the cost of Christian discipleship and highlights how shameful Cupich’s award to Durbin truly is.

Both Durbin and Lipinski started their careers as conservative, pro-life, Illinois Democrats. Both were clearly ambitious men who wanted to achieve great things in public life. They both faced a fork in the road of their careers around the issue of abortion. They took two very different paths.

Durbin is, today, one of the most powerful Democrats in Congress. He jumped up from the House to the Senate in 1997, and he is now a mainstay of Senate Democratic leadership: Minority (formerly Majority) Whip, Ranking Member, and former Chair of the Judiciary Committee. Lipinski, on the other hand, served for 15 years as a Democratic House back-bencher, and he was ultimately primaried out of office by a more liberal Democrat in 2020.

Lipinski’s downfall and Durbin’s rise are easy to explain. Lipinski was faithful to the Gospel, and Durbin wasn’t. Lipinski refused to abandon his pro-life views and tried to carve out a more moderate position on gay marriage (though I think his later positions on that score can be critiqued). These views made him anathema within his party. Despite voting with Democrats on the vast majority of matters, his refusal to betray his convictions resulted in Democrats marginalizing and ultimately ousting him.

Durbin, on the other hand, changed his views over the years to fit ever more conveniently within broader Democratic politics. He abandoned his early pro-life views for a “personally pro-life” position, and in 2023 he tweeted out, “Abortion is a “fundamental right.” Today, Durbin is indistinguishable from the rest of his party on abortion, gay marriage, and transgenderism. There is no way Durbin would have achieved his current, lofty perch without abandoning his former views.

Cupich appealed to a “consistent ethic of life” to justify his award to Durbin, which the cardinal describes as “the recognition that Catholic teaching on life and dignity cannot be reduced to a single issue, even an issue as important as abortion.” The argument is all the more ridiculous when the senator is contrasted with Lipinski. Cupich’s use of the concept seems to be an attitude of resignation, whose logic proceeds as follows: Republicans are wrong on immigration and the environment, and Democrats are wrong on abortion, so nobody is perfect. Since everybody is falling short of the Gospel’s mandates, it’s fine to honor somebody who only tramples on some-but-not-all principles of justice.

This is a horrifically impoverished conception of the witness to justice, in all its facets, that Christians ought to uphold. If a “consistent ethic of life” means anything, it means that we should not set aside someone’s grievous violations of justice in one area just because they do good things in another. Cupich seems to draw the exactly incorrect conclusion from his “consistent ethic” argument.

Between Lipinski and Durbin, it is clear which of these two men contributed more to Catholic social teaching, which of the two more fully embodied a “consistent ethic of life.” It’s the guy who sacrificed his career to stay faithful, not the guy who sacrificed his faith for his career.