I read with interest the article,"Question of Conscience"
and found it very intelligent until the author addressed
the issue of pro-choice politicians. Appleby's assertion that
such a politician is respecting the priority and inviolability
of conscience and that somehow that justifies his voting for laws
that allow the taking of human life is really very disingenuous.
The only way the inviolability of conscience could be given a
higher priority than the protection of the unborn is if such politician
really did not believe that before birth human beings are entitled
to full human rights. Such a position is in direct contradiction
to the teachings of the Catholic Church and could only be explained
as being the result of poor catechesis or faulty conscience formation
on the part of said individual.
I might also add it shows a profound ignorance of or disregard
for basic human biology. Catholic politicians who oppose laws
that offer protection for the unborn cannot honestly claim that
it is their intention to defend the weak and the and vulnerable.
To do so represents glaring hypocrisy of the part of Catholic
politicians. I am surprised that Appleby did not recognize such
a gaping hole in the integrity of what was otherwise such a well-reasoned
argument.
Rosemary Bogdan
Ann Arbor, Michigan
Regarding "Questions of Conscience" by Scott Appleby,
my response is WAKE UP SCOTT! There is a real world out there
to discuss. My question to you is: Has the Notre Dame Joan B.
Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies ever done anything
to end the war on terror?
Sure we want to address the "root causes of terrorism." but in
the meantime we must defeat terrorism now or our grandchildren
will not live in a society suitable for living.
Catholics believe in the concept of a "just war," Catholics also
believe that abortion is intrinsically evil, not "safe, legal,
and rare." Catholics believe that there are non-negotiable issues
like abortion and fetal stem cell research.
To win the war on terror, first lead with massive force, then
gain control, and then allow freedom to flourish. Any other way
will lead to unimaginable disaster Mr. Appleby.
To answer your question, NO, I would not vote for Senator Church!
I won't vote for ex-altar boy John Kerry either.
Bob Armstrong '60
Farmington Hills, Michigan
After reading Scott Appleby's "Questions of Conscience"
in the Autumn 2004 issue of Notre Dame Magazine I felt as if my
four years at Notre Dame had once again come into focus. I recalled
that my conscience, indeed the direction to my life had taken
shape in those fondly remembered years. Due largely to that experience
I chose the Peace Corps over acceptance to law school and found
myself in another formative experience.
I now find myself at what I consider another "threshold experience"
-- voting for president of the United States, a vote I now consider
my most important. In my 11th presidential election I recall a
quote from St. Louis native and poet T.S. Eliot. "We shall not
cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring will be
to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time."
Appleby put all that I experienced at Notre Dame and in the Peace
Corps into a world view I recognize. I "know the place for the
first time." It is about respect for human life, indeed all life
and the cornerstone is integrity.
It is, however, about respect for life in its broadest terms
not in its narrowest, one issue sense. The candidate who takes
this fundamental principle and applies it to the direction in
which he hopes to take the country has my vote.
My angst over my vote on November 2nd has been largely dispelled
because I feel I have found the candidate who has the broadest
grasp of the issue of "right to life." He knows that America can
only lead if we demonstrate an understanding of human rights in
all its manifestations.
Integrity is the cornerstone of my president's leadership. As
Appleby says, "The dignity and inviolability of (all) human life
is the cornerstone for sound domestic as well as foreign policy."
To focus and ruminate on pro-life or pro-choice fails to focus
on the much broader picture of our role in the world. To fail
to recognize and act upon man's inhumanity to man and nature is
the greatest "sin."
Once again, thank you Notre Dame and thanks Scott Appleby for
putting the presidential election in perspective. I'm no longer
"on the fence."
Stephen Michael Murray '61
Saint Louis, Missouri
Having served 10 years in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives,
I would like to share some insight from the point of view of real
legislators.
I went along with most of Appleby's article, "Questions of Conscience"
until I got to the part on abortion. Isn't protection of life
a primary tenant of the Catholic faith?
How then, can a Catholic politician vote to allow the taking
of life? By doing so he/she becomes complicit with the acts that
are allowed. It is a violation of the moral integrity of that
individual.
Rationalization that it is a woman's right to decide might work
for others but not for someone professing to be Catholic. I have
known many such legislators who have used that rationale to calm
their conscience.
The primary reason a Catholic politician would take that position
is because they fear losing an election and it is an easy way
out.
It takes moral courage to stand up for your beliefs and vote
as you must in the face of angry voters and supporters. Too many
do not feel the issue important enough to take that risk and are
carried along with the wave of popular culture.
One reason for that is they do not really believe the teaching
of the Church.
Various polls have shown that a large percentage of Catholics
do not support the Church's position on abortion. This is sad.
Some of the responsibility for this rests with Church leaders
who have also shied away from controversy and have not impressed
their congregations with the importance of the issue
For example, in 1992 our own University gave the Laetare Medal
to Daniel Moynihan, an active pro-abortion U.S. senator. Now,
Sen. Moynihan did many fine things in his life, but recognizing
him as the outstanding Catholic layman is certainly a mixed message.
Is it any wonder that we have Catholics all over the map when
it comes to basic beliefs? How do you think the Lady on the Dome
feels about all this?
Lee Taddonio '62
Murrysville, Pennsylvania
Thank you to Scott Applepby for so clearly explicating
the wrong-headed logic of so many liberal Catholic politicians.
Let me get this straight -- it is wrong for a Catholic politician
to advocate a change in the law that permits the murder of the
innocent unborn, but OK to use the coercive power of the law through
confiscatory taxation to redress social ills? Talk about having
your priorities backward. It is especially ironic that he cites
the Declaration of Independence -- that document that declares
the right to "LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
Mary Blonigen '80
Hilliard, Ohio
Kerry, Kennedy, Daschle, Leahy, Biden, Harkin, Dodd,
Collins, Reed, Murray, Landrieu, Mikulski, along with the likes
of McBrien, Greeley, and Curran are proof that saying you are
a Catholic doesn't mean a thing. Their god is freedom to choose.
The University of Notre Dame can also say it is Catholic and it
doesn't mean a thing. Their god is academic freedom. Hopefully
the bishops will soon bring some meaning to being Catholic. The
pope has already made it clear. You are only free to choose what
is right and only the Truth shall set you free.
Tom Wich '63
Clarendon Hills, Illinois
The article was very thought-provoking. However,
unlike a typical candidates interview it contained no "sound bites"
that could be played over and over.
The suggestion of a Marshall Plan for the Middle East indicates
a lack of familiarity with the original -- a great deal of wealth
resides in the Middle East, petro-dollars, and the failure is
on the part of those governments to use them properly. The United
States no longer has the wealth to solve all the problems of the
world.
James J. Mikulski
Deerfield, Illinois
It is unfortunate that Notre Dame Magazine chose
to publish Professor R. Scott Appleby's essay, "Questions
of Conscience" just before the general election, considering some
of its potentially misleading content. Under the guise of a fictitious
politician, Appleby repackages the argument advanced in 1984 by
New York's then-Governor Mario Cuomo in a speech given at Notre
Dame. In that speech, Cuomo aggressively argued that as an individual
Catholic he is obliged to adhere to Church teaching, but as a
public official he is under no such obligation to act in accordance
with the Church. Like Cuomo, Appleby argues, for example, that
a Catholic politician can think as he wishes about abortion privately,
but that his public actions regarding abortion should be guided
by respect for the primacy of individual consciences. The consequence
of this self-serving argument is that not only can one use it
to undermine Church teaching on abortion, but it can be invoked
any time a Catholic politician finds his public actions at odds
with the Church. Sadly, Cuomo''s argument -- echoed in Appleby's
essay -- has become the intellectual benchmark that Catholic politicians,
including Senator Kerry, still use today to defy the Church sinfully,
repeatedly, and very publicly while piously (complete with folded
hands and a bow) claiming he is still a Catholic at heart.
To Cuomo and Appleby (I suspect), theological debate within the
Church as well as the long lead times required for authoritative
definition of Church doctrine is not viewed as evidence of the
Holy Spirit working in history to reveal truth, rather it is taken
as evidence that the Church is a fallible human institution whose
teachings one can accept or not, each according to his conscience.
As Catholics, we believe that while all men are created equal,
all consciences are not subsequently formed equally. An adult
Catholic has the affirmative duty properly to inform and form
his conscience; part of the formation of that conscience involves
the acceptance of and obedience to the clearly and consistently
expressed tenets of the Church, which is the divinely ordained
organ for the teaching of its Founder, Jesus Christ. Nevertheless,
I believe Appleby, as did Cuomo, would argue that serving the
people of a pluralistic democracy in which church and state are
separate justifies -- even demands -- a Catholic politician act
against the Church if, in his estimation, it serves the common
good. If not, as Appleby observes ruefully, "The cost of integrity
can be high." Therefore, the real problem for a Catholic politician
is not so much a question of conscience as much as it is a question
of which master to serve.
The damage caused -- especially by pro-abortion -- Catholic politicians
acting in accordance with the rationale promulgated in Appleby's
essay is real both in terms of lives lost and the widespread scandal
to the faithful. I remain hopeful that once this election cycle
is over, the Church, in Her wisdom, will speak definitively on
how She expects Catholic politicians to conduct themselves in
the future.
Vincent C. Muscarello, M.D., '79
Burr Ridge, Illinois
