The following comes from an August 11 Motley Monk blog post:

A little over one week ago, the archbishop of Chicago, the Most Reverend Blase Cupich, denounced abortion after the recently released undercover Planned Parenthood videos. But, Archbishop Cupich went further in his Chicago Tribune op ed, writing that the videos should remind Catholics (and, The Motley Monk would add, all people of good will) of their obligation to fight social ills from joblessness to a broken immigration system.

Cupich noted:
While commerce in the remains of defenseless children is particularly repulsive, we should be no less appalled by the indifference toward the thousands of people who die daily for lack of decent medical care; who are denied rights by a broken immigration system and by racism; who suffer in hunger, joblessness and want; who pay the price of violence in gun-saturated neighborhoods; or who are executed by the state in the name of justice.

Resurrecting his predecessor’s “seamless garment” argument, Cupich indicates there’s a moral equivaluence between aborition and other moral issues.


None other than Philadelphia’s archbishop, the Most Reverend Charles J. Chaput has fired back.

Archbishop Chaput wrote in his August 10 editorial for Catholic Philly:

Here’s a simple exercise in basic reasoning. On a spectrum of bad things to do, theft is bad, assault is worse and murder is worst. There’s a similar texture of ill will connecting all three crimes, but only a very confused conscience would equate thieving and homicide. Both are serious matters. But there is no equivalence.

A case is sometimes made that abortion is mainly a cultural and moral issue, and politics is a poor solution to the problem. The curious thing is that some of the same voices that argue against political action on the abortion issue seem quite comfortable urging vigorous political engagement on issues like health care, homelessness and the environment.

When it comes to moral issues, basic reasoning oftentimes proves more valuable than nuance, as the former introduces greater clarity into the discussion by exposing good and evil for what they are. The latter obfuscates and confuses, as it blurs the distinctions and degrees separating good from evil, leaving people wondering what’s good and what’s evil.