My dear brothers and sisters in Christ,

October is Respect Life Month, which began this year with the announcement that Sen. Richard “Dick” Durbin (D-Illinois) had decided to decline a lifetime achievement award that the Archdiocese of Chicago had planned to give him on Nov. 3. When the award was announced, I issued a statement on Sept. 19^th saying, “I was shocked to learn that the Archdiocese of Chicago plans to honor Sen. Richard Durbin with a Lifetime Achievement Award through its Office of Human Dignity and Solidarity Immigration. Given Sen. Durbin’s long and consistent record of supporting legal abortion — including opposing legislation to protect children who survive failed abortions — this decision risks causing grave scandal, confusing the faithful about the Church’s unequivocal teaching on the sanctity of human life. Honoring a public figure who has actively worked to expand and entrench the right to end innocent human life in the womb undermines the very concept of human dignity and solidarity that the award purports to uphold.”

When it was announced that Sen. Durbin was not accepting the award, I issued a statement on Oct. 1^st saying, “I am grateful Sen. Durbin has declined this Lifetime Achievement Award. As we begin Respect Life Month, I ask that all Catholics continue to pray for our Church, our country, and for the human dignity of all people to be respected in all stages of life including the unborn and immigrants.”

In the arguments advanced in favor of the lifetime achievement award for Durbin, some areas of confusion became apparent that need clarification. One is the distinction between intrinsic evils like abortion and prudential judgments about how to deal with social issues such as immigration.

The Second Vatican Council said that “abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes” (Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, n. 51). Pope John Paul II wrote that the “moral gravity of procured abortion is apparent in all its truth if we recognize that we are dealing with murder,” calling abortion “intrinsically illicit” (Evangelium Vitae, nn. 58 and 62). Pope Francis frequently compared abortion to hiring a mafia hitman.

On the other hand, as clearly and accurately described by Father Christopher Trummer elsewhere on these pages, policy decisions on how best to help immigrants are prudential judgments. Deportation is not intrinsically evil (i.e., morally wrong in all circumstances) and civil governments have the right — and at times the duty — to enforce immigration laws.

At the same time, Sacred Scripture and Catholic teaching uphold the dignity of every human being and urge compassion for those find it necessary to migrate when necessary to protect their life, dignity, or livelihood, as the Holy Family did when Jesus, Mary, and Joseph had to flee to Egypt when their lives were endangered by King Herod (see Matthew 2:13-15).

I spent a good deal of my years as a priest helping immigrants. In my first assignment as a priest, we had about 1,000 people attending the Spanish Mass every Sunday. When I was pastor of a large parish with many recent immigrants from Poland, we had about 3,000 people attending our Masses in Polish every Sunday. As a priest with a civil law degree, I co-founded the Chicago Legal Clinic to help provide legal services for the poor. My primary focus was immigration law, helping people to obtain legal status as lawful immigrants and citizens. When migrants are undocumented, they are vulnerable to unscrupulous employers who pay them below minimum way, threatening to call immigration authorities if they complain. The best way for immigrants to thrive in our country is to come here legally. Our immigration laws are in need of reform to address current realities more adequately.

A second area of confusion is the contradiction inherent in the statements of politicians who say, “I am personally opposed to abortion but do not want to impose my personal views on others.” The phoniness of that argument is apparent in that it is never invoked with regard to any other subject. You never hear a politician say, for example, “I am personally opposed to racism, but I do not want to impose my personal views on others.” Politicians run on campaign platforms that reflect their views, promising to promote those values legislatively if elected.

Shortly after his election as Supreme Pontiff, Pope Leo XIV said to the Vatican Diplomatic Corps on May 16 that “no one is exempted from striving to ensure respect for the dignity of every person, especially the most frail and vulnerable, from the unborn to the elderly, from the sick to the unemployed, citizens and immigrants alike.”     

The third area of confusion is the misunderstanding and misuse of the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin’s consistent ethic of life. For example, Steven P. Millies, professor of public theology at Catholic Theological Union in Chicago, published an article in the Sept. 26, 2025 issue of the National Catholic Reporter bearing the title, “We can’t limit politicians’ worth — or the consistent life ethic — to abortion alone.” In it, he writes, “It simply strains believability that a consistent ethic of life nurtured in a pastoral letter of the U.S. bishops addressing nuclear war would insist that we focus on abortion to the exclusion of other threats to life.” But no one who truly understands the consistent ethic of life is insisting that we focus on abortion to the exclusion of other threats to life. However, it is an inconsistent ethic of life to exclude concern for one key threat to life like abortion while promoting concern for other threats to life. Cardinal Bernardin said so himself in his 1983 Gannon Lecture at Fordham University in which he said, “The principle which structures both cases, war and abortion, needs to be upheld in both places. It cannot be successfully sustained on one count and simultaneously eroded in a similar situation. … I contend the viability of the principle depends upon the consistency of its application.” In an interview with the National Catholic Register in 1988, Cardinal Bernardin was asked if Catholic voters should disqualify candidates who don’t support a human life amendment. “Well, certainly,” he said. “That’s what the consistent life ethic is all about.” 

As we continue our observance of Respect Life Month, let us pray for a clear and correct understanding of what it means to have a consistent ethic of life across the broad spectrum of life issues that we are called to respect.

May God give us this grace. Amen.