Pro-life group protests Cardinal Cupich’s award to philanthropist, Planned Parenthood donor
The Archdiocese of Chicago plans to give philanthropist Michael Sacks the Nostra Aetate Award at its Oct. 29 banquet, which raises money for seminarians. Sacks’s foundation has donated $500,000 to Planned Parenthood of Illinois and $600,000 to the Prairie State Access Fund, which supports abortion access and other reproductive-health services. Cardinal Blase Cupich said the award recognizes Sacks’s contributions and Jewish faith, not every position he holds, and can foster dialogue across differences. Illinois Right to Life has gathered nearly 4,000 petition signatures calling for Cupich to withdraw the award and planned to protest outside the banquet, citing concern that the honor scandalizes the faithful.
pred 3 urami
Cardinal Blase Cupich plans to give Chicago philanthropist Michael Sacks the Archdiocese of Chicago’s Nostra Aetate Award, prompting Illinois Right to Life to organize a protest over Sacks’ donations to abortion-access organizations. Cupich says the honor recognizes Sacks’ contributions and supports dialogue, not endorsement of every position he holds. 1
The archdiocese announced that Sacks would receive the award at its Oct. 29 Rerum Novarum Banquet, whose primary purpose is to raise money for seminarians. Sacks is CEO of investment firm GCM Grosvenor, president of the Sacks Family Foundation, and a board member of the Obama Foundation. 1
According to the article, Sacks’ foundation donated $500,000 to Planned Parenthood of Illinois from 2020 to 2022 and $600,000 in 2026 to the Prairie State Access Fund. The fund was established to support Illinois’ “reproductive health ecosystem” and counter federal restrictions on abortion and gender-affirming care. 1
Cupich described Sacks as a respected Chicago and Jewish community leader, and said the award recognizes his leadership, generosity, and talent. He said it honors a person’s dignity and community role “without implying an endorsement of every statement or stance” that person holds. 1
Cupich framed the award in the context of Nostra Aetate, the Second Vatican Council document intended to foster relations between the Catholic Church and non-Christian religions, including Judaism. He said respectful engagement should not depend on complete agreement on Church doctrine or political policy, and warned that excluding Jews because of religious or political differences could echo antisemitic patterns. 1
Illinois Right to Life launched a petition calling on Cupich to withdraw the award; it had gathered nearly 4,000 signatures by the day of the banquet. The group said it would protest outside the event venue, with its president, Mary Kate Zander, citing concern about “the scandal that it creates.” 1
The group argues that honoring Sacks conflicts with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ guidance that Catholic institutions should not give awards or platforms to people who act against fundamental moral principles. It also points to Sacks’ support for same-sex marriage, including his role in organizing business leaders behind a 2013 letter and his receipt of an Equality Illinois business leadership award in 2015. 1
Zander said the group’s criticism concerns Sacks’ public positions, not his Jewish faith or ethnicity. She argued that Cupich’s focus on antisemitism could confuse the issue, while Cupich’s statement did not identify the critics he was addressing; the archdiocese had not responded to the article’s request for clarification. 1
The article notes that Illinois Right to Life mounted a similar campaign last year over Cupich’s decision to honor Sen. Dick Durbin, a Catholic Democrat who has consistently voted in favor of abortion access. Durbin declined that award after the backlash, which included criticism from other bishops. 1*
Catholic recognition of benefactors amid conflicts with moral teaching
Catholic recognition of a benefactor is not automatically an endorsement of everything that person believes, funds, or does. But a public honor can communicate more than gratitude: it can appear to approve, normalize, or lend Catholic prestige to conduct contrary to Church teaching. The question is therefore not simply whether a donor has given generously, but what the institution is honoring, what the donor’s public record makes the honor signify, and whether the likely effects include confusion or scandal.
Accepting a donation can be an act of gratitude for a particular good. Bestowing an award is a separate institutional choice: it identifies someone as worthy of public recognition and associates the institution with that person. The two acts may carry different moral and communicative meanings. A Catholic institution could reasonably acknowledge a specific charitable contribution without implying agreement with every aspect of the donor’s life; nevertheless, a prominent award may be understood by the public as broader approval.
That distinction matters in the reported Chicago situation, where an award is planned for a philanthropist whose foundation has reportedly donated to Planned Parenthood. The available Catholic texts do not establish all the facts about the donor’s intentions, the foundation’s relationship to the organization, or the award’s precise rationale. Those details matter. But Catholic teaching does give principles for judging the concern: respect for human life is a fundamental value, and the Church says it is not negotiable.
If a donation supports activities that conflict with the Church’s defense of human life, it raises a substantive moral question—not merely a question of public relations. Benedict XVI says that Catholic public witness must be consistent with the Eucharist and that those in positions of influence have a particular responsibility regarding the protection of life from conception to natural death.
At the same time, the Church’s assessment of an individual act should not be reduced to an inference from a headline or an association. Benedict XVI cautions that moral evaluation must attend both to an act’s objective features and to the person’s real intentions and circumstances, and that cases should be considered individually. This does not make objectively serious conduct unimportant. It means that claims about a person’s culpability or motives should not be made without adequate knowledge.
For institutional leaders, however, the question includes not only the donor’s personal culpability but also the public meaning of the institution’s choice. An award may be intended to thank someone for philanthropy, yet still be interpreted as approval of a wider record. Good intentions do not by themselves settle whether that public signal is prudent.
In Catholic usage, scandal means conduct that can lead others into moral error or weaken their understanding of what the Church teaches; it does not simply mean that people are upset. John Paul II warned that public positions contrary to Church teaching can create confusion and scandal, and called for clear defense of authentic doctrine.
That concern is especially relevant when a Catholic institution gives someone a high-profile honor. The danger is not that every observer will assume complete agreement, but that some may reasonably conclude the Church regards the conflict as unimportant—or that Catholic teaching on the relevant issue is negotiable. Benedict XVI specifically identifies respect for human life as a value that cannot be treated as negotiable.
The Church’s instruction regarding groups that claim Catholic identity while promoting positions contrary to the Magisterium offers a related, though not identical, caution: church leaders should be wary of ambiguity that misleads the faithful about the authority of Catholic teaching. That text concerns organizations, not donors or awards, so it should not be applied as though it directly decides this case. Its relevance is the broader need to avoid a public presentation that obscures a real conflict with Church teaching.
A responsible decision would examine at least four questions:
These are prudential questions: they require applying moral principles to facts and likely consequences. They do not make the underlying teaching a matter of discretion. Benedict XVI’s discussion of difficult decisions in a very different setting recognizes the need for local judgment, careful attention to circumstances, and efforts to avoid scandal while forming consciences.
When a Church-supported charitable agency no longer operates in conformity with Church teaching, Benedict XVI says the diocesan bishop must, if necessary, inform the faithful and prevent the agency from using the name “Catholic.” That rule concerns an agency’s identity and conduct; it does not automatically determine whether a private benefactor may receive an award. But it underscores that Catholic institutions have a responsibility to make sure their public identity and actions remain intelligible in light of Church teaching.
So neither extreme is adequate: “The donor gave money, therefore the award is unquestionably appropriate,” or “The donor’s foundation supported a contested organization, therefore every act of gratitude is immoral.” The Catholic judgment should distinguish the gift from the honor, assess the relevant facts and intentions, and take seriously the award’s public meaning. Where the honor could appear to endorse opposition to a non-negotiable moral teaching, Catholic leaders have a strong reason to clarify, modify, or withhold the recognition rather than leave the faithful with an ambiguous signal.