by Randall Smith.

So, Cardinal Cupich has decided to honor pro-abortion Senator Dick Durbin. The chancery office says that they are honoring him for things other than his support for abortion, but that's like honoring Bill Cosby for the wonderful things he did other than his mistreatment of women. No one would accept that. The obvious conclusion would be that you just don't care about the mistreatment of women - or at least not as much as you should.

But there should be no real mystery about what the Cardinal has done. He is like the unfaithful steward in Luke 16 who, realizing that he is soon to be out of a job, does some favors for his master's debtors to gain their favor after his dismissal. You still want to be invited to the good parties and hang with the people with money and influence. And it's another good example of "synodality." You don't really need to talk to anyone else; you don't consult or even listen to anyone else, even your fellow bishops; you just command what you, the imperious cleric, desire.

But this is all too obvious. What makes it possible is a broader cultural problem.

I heard recently that the pro-choice governor of New Mexico went to a Catholic campus where she proudly announced herself as a "pro-choice Catholic." This isn't something unknown or entirely unusual. There are dozens of politicians who proudly call themselves "pro-choice Catholics."

So, although I wasn't startled by this announcement, it did make me wonder. What if she had shown up on 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 smilingly had their pictures taken next to her and posted on the Internet? Or would there have been some objections? Do you suppose someone might have said something like: "Yeah, you know, that thing you say you are. That doesn't exist."

It is, of course, likely that our self-proclaimed "pro-segregation Catholic" would be offended by this and say: "How dare you judge me and my Catholic faith." But we wouldn't be judging this person's soul or her faith. We would merely be pointing out that you can no more be a "pro-choice Catholic" than you can be a "non-Trinitarian Catholic" or a "pro-Arian Catholic."

If we were to allow the term "Catholic" to be used this way, the term would mean nothing. All categories "define" a group that includes certain things and excludes others - or the category is meaningless.

If we were still living in 1960, and if it was a university in the South, calling oneself a "pro-segregation Catholic" might have passed muster. But it is unlikely it would be allowed to go unchallenged now. But if we had a record of it going unchallenged at a Catholic university in 1960, it would be an occasion for embarrassment now, not a matter for pride that we let people "speak their minds" and "follow their own consciences."

I'm not claiming that such a person should not be allowed to speak at a Catholic university. I am simply asking whether, 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 this position isn't in accord with basic Catholic teaching.

Catholics can have a vast array of opinions on different moral and political questions. One Catholic could say, "I'm in favor of raising taxes" and another "I'm opposed." But what if someone says, "I'm a pro-slavery Catholic"?

There were plenty of Catholics who made that claim in the early nineteenth century, but we look back upon that with embarrassment, wishing that the Church authorities and laity had done more to counteract the notion that one could be a "Catholic" in good standing and " pro-slavery" at the same time. Or that one could be a "Catholic" in good standing and at the same time think black people have lesser dignity than whites.

We are proud that Archbishop Rummel excommunicated several Cat...