What makes a person a member of a society?

There is a synopsis between three areas of study this semester: Pauline Epistles and Theology, Ecclesiology (the study of the Church) and Canon Law (the well-ordering of the earthly side of the institution that bridges between heaven and earth, which is called the Church). This corresponds will with my strong interest in Social Philosophy, the basic question being what makes a society.

The first observation: When we look at any society, whether it be the most basic and natural society of a marriage and family, or a more derived society like a Church, the classical polis, or a nation, our language will naturally refer to it as one.

First question: What makes it a unity?

Lady Thatcher, making history as the first female Prime Minister of the U.K., and helping to end the Cold War, yet some what lacking in a proper understanding of social ontology.

At first this may seem like an overly basic question -- we all now that well a club like the Lions are one club because the individual members are all in the same club. Well may be it is not so clear after all. It is this obscurity that I think underlies the following statement of Lady* Margaret Thatcher, former Prime Minister of the U.K., "There are no societies, just individuals." Well at first this seems like a solution to the obscurity, upon further reflection, it just does not sit well -- it is a reality that when we refer to a society of people we are referring to something that is above and beyond the individuals. Their is a real unity to the Lions club.

So then a reality of the club must surely be able to be explained by how we describe a crowd or a queue. There seems to be a unity there. Not so fast -- this is also an unsatisfactory answer. There is nothing uniting the crowd or queue besides the incidental qualities of being in the same place at the same time, while there is more to the unity of a club or society than the incidental qualities. I person is still a member of a club, a society, a marriage, a family, a nation, even if they are separated from these societies by incidental factors. When a man stays home while his wife is on a business trip, they do not stop being husband and wife because of the geographical separation. If marriage, and all types of societies were like a crowd or a queue, than just like when you leave a crowd you stop being a member of a that crowd, the geographical separation of spouses would dissolve that marriage. This is clearly an absurd conclusion.

Waiting in the line at the D.M.V., so de-humanizing that these people have grown rabbit ears!

In addition there is a difference in dignity between the members of a crowd and the members of a society. This is not meant by any means to refer objective dignity that each man, woman, child, and fetus has, but to the feeling of being dignified or non-dignified. Imagine waiting in line at the D.M.V., there is something de-humanizing about that. To recover that momentary and relatively insignificant loss of dignity a person would seek out a society, usually the society of friendship.

While this is a very nice pile of sand, clearly this falls very short of what is meant by a society. There are more than individuals, if this was not the case than a nation would be nothing more than a pile of people.

So the reality of the unity of a society is not explicit, in the same way that a person is naturally referred to as one, nor is it an aggregation like a crowd, a queue or a pile of sand. There is more to the unity of a society, the unity of a marriage, and the unity of a nation than the unity of a pile of sand.

There is a third option. This is proposing again the classical and hence timeless concept of a unity of order. There is no tangible object of a society that one can point to and say there is that society, rather to determine a society we look at what are the principles of order that make that cohesive -- united.

Saint Paul preaching in Athens, the wisdom of Aristotle is meeting the knowledge of the faith of Paul.

In his Epistles, Paul writes about this when he writes, "the body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body" (1 Corinthians 12:12). Just like the parts or members of a society are diverse, so the parts of a body are diverse (I am not all arms or all legs, but I have arms and legs and many other parts), the body though only functions when their parts have some sort of order between them. When this order is seriously disrupted by injury or disease the whole body suffers. This is an analogy that Paul uses to describe the society of the Church, that she is rich because of the diversity of her members, but she can only function because of the order that they all share in. Reflecting on successful marriages, families, clubs, etc., it becomes evident that these societies are successful because while respecting the dignity of the diverse members there are principles of order that allow these diverse members to be and to act cohesively. If you do not like the word "order," the idea of a strong sense of cooperation can suffice some-what.

Members of these societies must cooperate with these principles of order, as these are the only principles that hold a society together. These principles of order become enshrined in many different ways. In a nation a system of laws, values, and even culture institution develop as buttresses to these underlying principles of order. In the Church these are often discussed in terms of the "four C's": Creed, Cult, and Code. In other words, the principles of order for the Church are the beliefs of the Church, the worship of the Church, and the Canons or laws of the Church. In a family, the routine of a family often enshrines this order. Remember when you were a kid and for no apparent reason everyone always sat at the same spot at the kitchen table? By doing that, sub-consciously the individual members were re-enforcing the strength of the family by honoring the order of it.

Far from being oppressive, upon reflection, it is found that these principles of order actually serve to elevate individuals. I am a better man because of the family I come from. I am a better believer through the order provided by the Church. I am a better citizen, because of the order provided by politics (hence the duty to respect our leaders, as outlined by Paul in Romans 13:3). If I wanted to improve my ability at the piano or singing, I would do well to join a piano club or an orchestra.

Aristotle, philosopher and scientist extraordinare

If the glory of God is man fully alive, I can say that I am fully alive because I am immersed in a matrix of different types of societies. This is why Aristotle writes that man is essentially a social creature. An individual cannot even approach his full potential and glory if he remains just an individual. To be draw up into greatness he must enter into an order of cooperation, a society.

*I do not mean this in any sort of sexist term, in the sense of "her there little lady...", but rather a recognition of the title she bears granted to her by her Queen, H.R.H. Elizabeth II (or if you prefer: E. Alexandra Windsor-Montbatten).

Statement of Cardinal Egan, Archbishop of New York

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: August 26, 2008

STATEMENT OF HIS EMINENCE, EDWARD CARDINAL EGAN CONCERNING REMARKS MADE BY THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Like many other citizens of this nation, I was shocked to learn that the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States of America would make the kind of statements that were made to Mr. Tom Brokaw of NBC-TV on Sunday, August 24, 2008. What the Speaker had to say about theologians and their positions regarding abortion was not only misinformed; it was also, and especially, utterly incredible in this day and age.

We are blessed in the 21st century with crystal-clear photographs and action films of the living realities within their pregnant mothers. No one with the slightest measure of integrity or honor could fail to know what these marvelous beings manifestly, clearly, and obviously are, as they smile and wave into the world outside the womb. In simplest terms, they are human beings with an inalienable right to live, a right that the Speaker of the House of Representatives is bound to defend at all costs for the most basic of ethical reasons. They are not parts of their mothers, and what they are depends not at all upon the opinions of theologians of any faith. Anyone who dares to defend that they may be legitimately killed because another human being “chooses” to do so or for any other equally ridiculous reason should not be providing leadership in a civilized democracy worthy of the name.

Edward Cardinal Egan

Archbishop of New York

August 26, 2008

Clearly contemporary man needs heroes. But why not choose a genuine one?

Some excerpts from a letter that a friend gave me, one that he received from another friend:

Bishop John Dewane from Venice, Wisconsin hometown hereo

Clearly contemporary man needs heroes. But why not choose a genuine one, why not look a little deeper and work a little harder to find a man of courage and principle, and if it helps in the historical healing process, why not a very different kind of black man, say a person like Alan Keyes, a scholar, former ambassador, experienced in different levels of government, and (it might be added) an African American married to a woman from India. Moreover, he is a devout Catholic who believes in moral absolutes and has amply proved that he will stand firm to defend them regardless of the cost to his own career. He knows that kings and presidents cannot usurp the natural law, the moral order of the universe, without bringing down judgment upon their nations. But it need not be Keyes. It might be any number of other men and women of clear thought and clear principle. Surely there are "Ten Just Men" [my note, an allusion to Abram's appeal to God to spare the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah] still out there some where in America. So why Obama? And why doe he rise and rise as his mouth smiles and smiles exuding sincerity as he speaks lies and death?

And why, most horribly, most shamefully, are so many Christian of malformed or unformed conscience supporting him?

Archbishop Charles Chaput from Denver, National hereo

Lies compounding on lies, and it all floats on an ocean of spilled innocent blood [obviously a reference to the Holocaust genocide of legalized abortion]. Who can gaze upon that ocean without coming to a radical choice: One either turns away into a deeper state of denial, or one turns heart and mind toward the Splendor of Truth, and changes one's life accordingly [basic choice placed before the first Christians in the Didache, written in 80 A.D.]. Alan Keyes, prospective hereo?

B. Hussein Obama, false hereo, false prophet.

...
There is an erosion of truth in the education systems, combined with the gradual confusion and weakening of conscience through our addiction to the "soma" drugs supplied by the entertainment industry. Other factors may be the war in Iraq, or Republican economics, or the Bush administration, or the structure of capitalism itself, or any number of prudential question in the sociopolitical order, all of which are presently tangled nests of moral dilemma. But why do they [us Catholics] not see that these question are secondary to the fundamental issue of life itself? Why would they replace one reigning oligarchy with another oligarchy moreover one that would kill vast numbers of its own citizens?

I call on heaven and earth today to witness against you: I have set before you life or death, blessing or curse. Choose life, so that you and your descendents may live... Deuteronomy 30:19

Copyright: Michael O'Brien, 2008, given for public use.

San Lorenzo in Piscibus

Benedict XVI celebrating Mass at San Lorenzo in Piscibus, does the guy on the far right look familar?

This is our second visit on this blog to the little church of San Lorenzo in Piscibus (literally, Saint Lawerance in the Fishmarket) near Saint Peter's. It is the tiny old brick church almost completely surronded by the building containing Ancora bookshop and a half-dozen Cardinals' apartments.

There is nothing that outwardly would impress a passing observer. In fact Pius XII wanted to have it torn down during the contruction of Via della Conciliazione. The Christian historian would note it is one of the oldest churches in Rome, serving as the fish market chapel for a number of centuries. Eventually the fish market left the neighborhood, and this little church became obsolete in the city filled with churches.

Benedict XVI leaving the International Youth Center at San Lorenzo in Piscibus, he looks revived doesn't he?

John Paul II established the Vatican's International Youth Center here over twenty-five years ago. And the youth come to gather there everyday. It is their own place in Rome to pray, to be free to pray. At first it seems odd that it is hidden away, but it is exactly this that makes it what it is. Here young people can pray and be nourished, hidden like an arrow in a quiver (see Isaiah, chapter 54 I think, but don't quote me). They come to be nourished by the water that wells up from within quenching all thirst, for the bread given by Moses in a forgotten time, but given in this moment by our Father in heaven. Strengthen they can face the battles they face as soliders of the "culture of life."

The Cross of San Damiano. It is through this cross that Christ spoke to Saint Francis, which started his Christ-centered revival of the Church.

Is this the renewal the Church needs? It is part of it. What makes this retreat so succesful is that in the center it there is Christ. The tabernacle and the giant Francisican crucifix that hangs above it form the visual axis of the church, letting all know that Christ is the center here in this place. This is the secret of every renewal movement that the Church experienced, it was Christo-centric. There was no agenda placed in the center -- be it women's ordination, married clergy, or lobbies for loosing Church roles about all sorts of things from inter-communion, to sexual morality, to abortion. Just the same there was no agenda about restoring a replacing the liturgy with the "mass of the ages," are returning the Church to a bygone golden age (that very well may only exist in the imagination). No -- all this is set aside -- Christ is put in the center -- and He is the center of all renewal and revival.

This was true of the great Apostle we celebrate this year – Saint Paul, who always preached Christ, and Christ crucified. This was true of Saint Francis, who was so Christo-centric he shared the very same wounds as Christ. And this was also true of John Paul II, who in his final days pointed to the crucified Christ instead of himself. And so it is true of us.

So let us for a moment of prayer put aside our agendas, what ever they happen to be. Let Christ stand central in that moment. Let him quench your thirst for goodness, let him satisfy the hunger for holiness. This is what will renew and revive our hope, our love for one another, and our faith in him, who only wishes to bless us.

A good ole Wisconsin boy speaks up...

H.E. Frank J. Dewane

2nd bishop of Venice in Florida

A photocopy of the letter, for your own prooftexting.

transcription:

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

As you are all aware next week our country will conduct its political elections in so doing, choose its public officials. Many of you have spoke and written to me on this matter sometimes requestion that I endorse a political party or candidate: that is something I cannot do.

However, as Bishop, it is my responsibility to instruct the faithful regarding the Church's teaching on moral issues, the most important being the right to life and dignity of every person, from conception till natural death. There issues are fundamental to the healthy of any society and should therefore, be carefully considered when voting for a particular candidate. After all, in voting we are making moral choices [my emphasis].

The Second Vatican Council has taught that the laity are not to reliquish their participation in 'public life,' but instead fulfill their proper task of infusing the temporal order with Christian values. This teaching would apply for instance, to the act of voting for a political candidate or public official [my emphasis], which I encourage you to do.

In assisting you in properly forming your conscience before voting, I would recomment that you consult the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Compendium fo the Social Doctrine of the Church. There two works highlight the Church's teaching on our moral responsibility to promote the common good [my emphasis, see note 1].

As Catholics, we are called upon to respect and protect the rights of all, especially, the unborn child [his emphasis], the weakest and most vulnerable among us. At the same time the family [his emphasis], the basic unit of society [my emphasis], must be safeguarded, promoted, and protected based on monogamous marriage between a man and a woman [my emphasis].

In affirming these right of natural law [my emphasis, see note 2], it is often argued that Catholics are promoting their own "personal values" which do not apply to other citizens. This accuation is false inasmuch as rights, such as the right to life and dignity of ever person are common to all people [my emphais - common to all people, not just Catholics, and Catholic is always pro-life for all], regardless of their personal belief. These fundamental rights cannot be denied by any individual or group as they are intrinsic God-given rights which we must affirm [my emphasis, see note 3], and above all protect.

As you discern your choices of public official, be assured of my prayers for you and your families.

Sincerely yours in Christ,

+Frank J. Dewane

Bishop of Venice in Florida

Notes:

(1): This term, common good, is very much misunderstood. Often people think of what society, most specifically government can provide for them in a material and fiscal sense. This is not the common good, but rather an exercise in distrubative justice. The common good actual is not material, it is the benefit that a person receives from being a member of that society in and of itself. This is seen by looking at a marriage: When a man and woman marry, we say that they enter into a marriage. If unfortunetly they divorce, as they stand before the family court judge they cannot ask for "half-the-marriage" in the final settlement. Each of them benefited from being part of this marriage, but neither of them would be able to point out what this benefit was materially. So the interest of the common good actually means to promote what makes the nation better.

(2): Natural law are the moral norms that any healthy and sound person (and many unhealthy and unsound people for that matter) can arrive at through the exercise of reason. It is objective true for all, since human nature is the same for all. While often used in various systems of ethics developed by various religious systems, natural law is not dependent on any religious doctrine. It can be used just as easily in the secular sphere, as in the religious sphere.

(3): From the Declaration of Independance: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men" (paragraph 2). In its founding documents the state, and in Her teachings the Church, agree that human rights are not created by man, but for man, and are given to him by God. As such it is also a common teaching of both state and Church, that the state cannot create new rights. Any attempt to do so is a violation of the concept of rights in general. These "new rights" are necessarily "false rights," and hence will ultimately conflict with each and every genuine right.

I mean this last sentence as a prophetic utterance, unless false rights, such as the "right for two men or two women to marry each other," the "right to abortion," the "right to redistribution of property," etc. are not absolutely opposed, all other rights will in practice be eroded. There will be limits on freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of the free exercise of religion (this is not just the running of parishes, congregations, and dioceses, but also the running of schools, hospitals, and other social outreaches, which are intrinsic to the mission and character of the Christian religion), the freedom of parents to educate their own children as they see fit, etc. will be severly limited.

A short treatise on Sarah Palin's ability to swim.

Benedict XVI, noticably very happy to have his hat returned to him.

Sarah Palin was invited to meet with the Pope while both were vacationing in Venice. The liberal press reluctantly watched the semi-private audience, hoping they will be able to allot minimal coverage, if any. The Pope asks Governor Palin to join him on a Gondola ride through the canals of Venice. They're admiring the sights and agreeing on moral issues when, all of a sudden, the Pope's hat blows off his head and out into the water. The gondolier starts to reach for the Pontiff's hat with his pole, but this move threatens to overturn the floating craft. Sarah waves the tour guide off, saying, 'Wait, wait. I'll take care of this. Don't worry.' She steps off the gondola onto the surface of the water and walks out to the Pope's hat, bends over and picks it up. She walks back across the water to the gondola and steps aboard. She hands the hat to the Pope amid stunned silence. The next morning the topic of conversation among Democrats in Congress, CBS News, NBC News, ABC News, PBS, CNN, the New York Times, MSNBC, Hollywood celebrities, and most of the people in France and Germany is:

'Palin Can't Swim.'

With special credit to Some Have Hats

REVIEW: Seminarian Summer Update

Market Square in Krakow, picture courtsey of Michael Nowak.

Peace and blessings to all of you. I hope that the summer season has found each of you as well as it has found me. My summer was divided between three main activities: Tertio Millennio Seminar on the Free Society at Krakow in Poland, parish internship at Lancaster in England, and an orientation team member back at Rome for the men just starting out at the North American College. Each offered its own rewards and challenges, but God graces worked through it all.

At the Tertio Millennio Seminar I learned about Catholic Social Teaching, especially as envisioned by Pope John Paul II. This area of Catholic teaching is very dynamic at this time. It offers a truly Gospel challenge to a world that seems to turn away from the Gospel more and more each day. It explores the place and voice of the Church in the world and in politics. It looks at the Churches role in addressing poverty and other injustices. It included the study of the “just war theory,” also is the place of public moral reasoning – so it looks at issues like the “culture of life” vs. the “culture of death,” the death penalty, and other current issues like embryonic stem cell research. It as the question: What should the response of the Church be to each of these issues? How does the Church bring about a more just society?

It was particularly interesting studying it in Poland, since it was the principles of the Church’s social doctrine that inspired the revolution of 1989, which overthrew communism in Poland and the rest of Easter Europe. This was dramatic and a significant victory for the Gospel – but it is not an event that can remain in the past. The mission to justice and charity lays always before us, it needs to be constantly maintained, and constantly informed by the Gospel. Since the Gospel ultimately stands for justice, truth (which is true for all people), and above all Love, having the Gospel inform decisions such as voting and public policy is never an injustice and never a violation of religious freedom.

View of Lancaster from Saint Mary's Priory (unfortunately a Church property stolen by the Anglicans, but never returned and Castle Hill overlooking the town of Lancaster. The steeple is of the Cathedral where I did my apostlate, and the bell tower is the town hall, paid for by a Catholic family which remained faithful to Mother Church during the "penal days" when Catholicism was illegal in England.

Peace and blessings to all of you. I hope that the summer season has found each of you as well as it has found me. My summer was divided between three main activities: Tertio Millennio Seminar on the Free Society at Krakow in Poland, parish internship at Lancaster in England, and an orientation team member back at Rome for the men just starting out at the North American College. Each offered its own rewards and challenges, but God graces worked through it all.

At the Tertio Millennio Seminar I learned about Catholic Social Teaching, especially as envisioned by Pope John Paul II. This area of Catholic teaching is very dynamic at this time. It offers a truly Gospel challenge to a world that seems to turn away from the Gospel more and more each day. It explores the place and voice of the Church in the world and in politics. It looks at the Churches role in addressing poverty and other injustices. It included the study of the “just war theory,” also is the place of public moral reasoning – so it looks at issues like the “culture of life” vs. the “culture of death,” the death penalty, and other current issues like embryonic stem cell research. It as the question: What should the response of the Church be to each of these issues? How does the Church bring about a more just society?

It was particularly interesting studying it in Poland, since it was the principles of the Church’s social doctrine that inspired the revolution of 1989, which overthrew communism in Poland and the rest of Easter Europe. This was dramatic and a significant victory for the Gospel – but it is not an event that can remain in the past. The mission to justice and charity lays always before us, it needs to be constantly maintained, and constantly informed by the Gospel. Since the Gospel ultimately stands for justice, truth (which is true for all people), and above all Love, having the Gospel inform decisions such as voting and public policy is never an injustice and never a violation of religious freedom.

The parish experience, along with the silent retreat at the end of the summer, served as a great stimulus to my vocation. Just as Jesus instructed the woman at the well to draw deeply of the waters of eternal life, he instructed me to do the same. As I was feed by the daily experiences of serving at Mass and visiting the homebound, by desire to be a priest – one who lays down his life in sacrifice for others -- has grown. I know though that I cannot be a good pastor without drinking of these waters, and a vital reconnection was made between the Lord and myself during the retreat. Perhaps the married couples reading this update can relate to this experience. Ever get so busy in your married life and family life, that you forget to spend time with your spouse and your family? Well it can happen to a seminarian and to a priest too! So this retreat was greatly appreciated – and I hope to spend more time with the Lord this summer.

Finally some really great news – the Pontifical North American College has welcomed sixty-one “new men” this year. These are over sixty men who in four years will be raised to the order of priesthood in four years to lay down their lives for you as your pastors and teachers. This is part of a greater trend throughout the United States of more and more men saying “yes” to the Lord and the awesome call to be a priest. As many parish communities in our diocese continue to face the difficulties of not having a pastor to be with us, we must listen to the Lord when he say, “pray to the Father, that he may send harvesters…” Please pray for more men to answer the call. Encourage your sons, nephews, brothers, cousins, and friends – if they have a call to priesthood, God will provide all that they need to be happy, healthy and holy.

Lastly pray for me that I may be a happy, healthy, and holy priest.

Summer Part I: Tertio Millenio Seminar in Krakow in Poland

As is customary for American seminarians that study in Rome, I did not return to the States this summer. Instead I spent the summer learning more about the social doctrine of the Church at the Tertio Millennio Seminar at Krakow in Poland and gaining valuable pastoral experience at the cathedral parish of Lancaster in Northern England.

Tomb of Saint Hyacinth, who brought the Domicans to Poland. Centuries later they became a center for resistence to the Third Reich, and later the communists, using their cloister as one of the few spheres of freedom in Communist Krakow.

Krakow is the beautiful old royal capital of Poland and the home diocese of John Paul II. This was my second visit to this holy city. It provides an interesting context to study the social doctrine of the Church, because the ancient market squares and onion-spired churches of this city have witnessed so much social change. At first were the foreign occupations of Poland by Austria, Russia, and Prussia. They divided the Polish land among themselves, but the Polish nation did not die. It lived on in its language and culture, above all support by the Roman Catholic faith of the people. It was the vigor of this culture that allowed a new Polish state to rise up after the World War One. Although the occupation of the Third Reich and than the imposition of communist rule soon came in an attempt to once again extinguish the Polish nation.

Inside of the Dominican Church, which is dedicated to the Most Holy Trinity. This was also a bit of national propaganda as the statues of the Father and of the Son resemble two great Polish kings, and the Holy Spirit is not so much a dove, but the Polish eagle.

These were the years that John Paul II was a priest and bishop in Krakow. He saw the oppression that these foreign powers had over the Polish people. This was his school on the social doctrine of the Church. It was the lived experience of living under repressive regimes. This is important to keep in mind, since it shows that when the Church teaches on social issues they are not proclaiming “pie-in-the-sky” ideas, but explaining what we have learned through practical experience. The communist regime fell. It was truly a revolution, but unlike most revolutions this was truly peaceful. There was barely any bloodshed, almost no violence, and little if any vengeance. In his social encyclical, Centisimus Annus, John Paul II presents this revolution in light of the teachings of the Church. From a historical perspective this makes sense, and in the two decades since the revolution even secular scholars acknowledge the great role that the Church has played in bringing about the collapse of communism in Europe due to her moral and intellectual authority.

Walking inside the Domincan cloister, which also oddly enough doubles as their cemetrary (do you think this lady knows she is walking over the corpses of literally thousands of Dominicans?).

There are however questions about the future of Poland now that it has developed its free-market economy. The nation identity that allowed Poland to reemerge after World War One and resist the nation crushing policies of the Nazis and communists was dependent on a strong Catholic identity. Will Poland remain Catholic as it becomes more prosperous and more integrated with the European Union, which is very often hostile to the legitimate insight that all Christians, and especially Catholics have to offer? If they do not remain Catholic, will the Polish nation erode and what would the consequences be for society? These are not just questions to ponder about some country far away, and seemingly insignificant, but also questions that as Americans we must answer. Historically we cannot deny the role Christianity has played in the formation of our own country. This is clear in the Declaration of Independence, which grounds all our cherished rights in the gifts of the Creator-God, but also in fairly modern times with the essential role that Christians and Catholics played in the civil rights movements. Who after all can forget that Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Protestant minister or the images of nuns and priests walking arm in arm with African Americans during the many peaceful protests of those years that brought about necessary social changes? Can America maintain her commitments to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness if she does not remain faithful to the Christian conscience that gave rise to them?

John Paul II, when he was still Karol Cardinal Wojtyla

To ponder this question I return to Krakow, to the brick-gothic Church of the Dominicans on a Sunday evening for the university students’ Mass. As the time approaches for Mass to begin the students come in. Soon the pews are filled, next the choir stalls and folding chairs, and soon there is only standing room left. Even this is taken up as students find their places for Mass in side-chapels and even empty confessionals. This is the sign of hope for the Polish nation, as these students see that the best way to be good citizens of the world is to be first be good Poles, and the only way to do this is to be good Catholics. They come to the Church because this is where they are truly feed more than what the world can offer, and catch a glimpse of the greatness that is promised to them by a God that loves them. The Church here and now offers the same to each of us, if we can allow ourselves to be feed and to be awed.

Why one cannot be privately pro-life, but publicly pro-choice:

I came across this following quote from Archbishop Naumann of Kansas City: When you talk about protecting innocent human life, this is something that we need to do as human beings. And the fact that the Church has a voice on this issue and a position on this issue, doesn’t mean it’s an imposing of our beliefs or values, anymore than the effort to break down segregation by the Church was an effort to impose some kind of religious doctrine on the culture or society, but it was us standing up for a fundamental human right.

Nancy Pelosi, D., Speaker of the United States House of Representitives.

The origin of this quote depends on to distinctions involving doctrine and morals, and also the seperation of Church and state.

Seperation of Church and State: This principle that the civil laws of a land should not impose the religious beliefs of any group of people on the whole of civil society. This principle is enshrined in both the United States Constitution and in the the Social Doctrine of the Church (see Centisimus Annus). A Catholic politician cannot by either the principles of our constitution, nor by the principles of our own religion pass laws that require the assent of civil society to such doctrinal beliefs such as revelation through scripture and tradition, the infallibility of the Pope on matters of faith and morals, etc.

Based on this distinction many a Catholic politicans, like the above pictured Nancy Pelosi, attempt to be "privately pro-life, but publicly pro-choice," since in their view imposing the moral teachings of the Church is also imposing the doctrinal principles of the Church on civil law violates the seperation of Church and state.

Doctrine and Morals: The teaching on pro-life though is not exclusively a doctrinal issue, but also (and more importantly) a moral issue. As such for a politican to be a proponent of civil laws that correspond to Catholic moral principles is not a violation of the seperation of Church and state.

The basis of this can be found very recently in Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life) of John Paul II, of blessed memory. It is the same principle that is found in Church teachings down through the ages, from Scriptures through the Fathers to the present day. While the moral teachings of the Church correspond to the teaching of the Lord in the Gospel, and is founded on that Gospel, they are also written in the human heart. This is the principle of natural law. So the moral teachings of the Church are binding on all, Catholics and non-Catholics alike. This is not an imposition of the Church beyond its borders, but a reflection that these moral teachings can be discerned by all who seek the truth with an honest and open heart.

This may seem like a very nice Pollyannish sentiment, but the pro-life movement provides a clear example that this is true. While Fr. Richard John Neuhaus is right to indicate that the pro-life movement started as primarily a Catholic movement, it has expanded greatly in the three decades since Roe vs. Wade. It now includes Christians of all stripes, Jews, Muslims, and others including agnostics and atheists. The March for Life in Washington, D.C. each spring has become perhaps the largest annual ecumenical and inter-religious gathering. The reason for this great diversity within the the pro-life movement is that the principle that the moral teachings of the Church are available to all men of good-will in an honest search for the truth, is true. It is more than a nice sentiment of the Church.

For this reason all politicians are responsible for supporting the common moral heritage. This is especial true of Catholic politicians since they benefit from the teaching office of the Church.

As a final thought I leave you with a comment from Francis Cardinal George of Chicago: The unborn child, who is alive and is a member of the human family, cannot defend himself or herself. Good law defends the defenseless. Our present laws permit unborn children to be privately killed. Laws that place unborn children outside the protection of law destroy both the children killed and the common good, which is the controlling principle of Catholic social teaching. One cannot favor the legal status quo on abortion and also be working for the common good.

Praise be God, through His Mother Mary: She has not died, but gone to Heaven!

Zenale, Bernardino. L'Assunta. (Church of Saint Charles on the Corso: Milan, Italy).

This day the holy and animated Ark of the living God, which had held within herself her own Maker, is borne to rest in that Temple of the Lord, which is not made with hands. – St. John Damascus

Most Catholics probably do not know the significance of the great Mystery celebrated this day. It is clear of course that the Church places great importance in this Mystery. It assigns it the greatest solemnity, makes it a holy day of obligation, and in many Catholic countries this Great Feast is even celebrated as a public holiday.

This feast is not a new feast invented by Pope Pius XII in his declaration of November 1, 1950, Munificentissumus Deus. The common perception of this teaching is also not one of doubt, but one of apathy. Why does it matter that the Holy Mother of God has been taken up to heaven body and soul?

It matters – it matters deeply not only within our souls, but with in our bodies – our bones, our muscles, and our flesh. This great grace of Mary’s Assumption is the fulfilment of the promise of the God the Father to redeem us and call us back to him (cf. Ps. 16). At the beginning of time there was no need of redemption, since God walked in the Garden of Eden with the first Adam and the first Eve. As Pope John Paul II put it Adam and Eve were “naked without shame.” After the Fall, this was lost. For they realized they were naked, and became ashamed. They hide themselves from God (cf. Genesis 3:9-15).

Heaven was lost to Adam and Eve, and since we are their children, we have also lost heaven. For through the first Adam death entered the world. The death we all face is the unavoidable witness to this fall. Death, strong though it may be, is not stronger than the love of God. God’s love for us took on a body like our body – with bones, muscles, and flesh – he became incarnate in Jesus Christ. He came to redeem us – which means literally he came to buy us back. God wants us to be with him in heaven. So the promise of our own resurrection is shown forth in the resurrection of Christ (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:20-6).

Saint Ireneaus of Lyon tells us how this was first shown worth with the Blessed Virgin Mary. By his own death, Christ – the “second Adam” – undid what the first Adam did. Christ reverses death. So Mary – the “second Eve” – in her obedient words, be it done unto me according to your Word (Luke 1:37), reverses the disobedience of the first Eve. Thus God’s promise is fulfilled in her, and her body does not even come to know the decay of death. This is important for us to reflect on. The redemption of our body is a gift that we have not earned. We cannot earn it. But God nonetheless respects what He has created – and respects the freedom that He has created us with. He will not force the resurrection of our bodies on us, just like He did not force more to become the Mother of God. He offers us the resurrection in the promise that took on flesh in His Son, and as all the angles and the rest of creation waited on the words of Mary – so all the angles and the rest of creation waits for us to say, be it done unto me according to you Word.

This Great Feast in fact is the great invitation to join Mary in heaven. To accept the gift that God so graciously lays before us. This now is the moment to make our own FIAT. To fulfil the promises of our baptism as a response to the great gift that God offers us. This is so great that the Church has always celebrated it. The first Christian bishops preached about the Assumption of Mary. This Tradition was handed on, as is testified to by countless homilies through all the ages down to the present. We see this in art – all of the famous painters have always painted at least one image of the Assumption. We hear this in music – as some of the most beautiful music was composed to commemorate the Assumption. It has always been believed by the Church, so that is the reason why Pope Pius XII, defined the Assumption in 1950. He was not proposing something new, but in his words drawing together almost two thousand years of Tradition to glorify Jesus through His mother, Mary.

Mary Mother of God, Assumed into Heaven, Pray for us.

Pius XII, of Blessed Memory, Pray for us.

For there is not greater love...

Today is the Feast of Maximilian Kolbe, martyr.

The great book of martyrs is not finished. It started with Saint Stephan, the proto-martyr and continues through the Romans, the Barbarians, the Wars of Religion, the Wars with Islam, the foundation of the Church in the Americas, Africa, and Asia. It continues even recently to be added to, especially in the previous century.

It was this century, that saw the rise and fall of totalitarian regimes, two world wars, a number of genocides, and a great many dictators that saw the making of many martyrs. In fact there were more martyrs between the open guns of the First World War to the fall of Communism in 1989 than any other period in the Church.

These witnesses of the faith teach us today by their example. This is what a martyr is, one who witnesses. They witness that Christian love is much more powerful than secular hate. They witness that the dignity of every human being is so great that no regime can arbitrarily snuff out anybody, no matter how weak, how “useless,” they have value since they are a child of God. He has knit each person together in his mother’s womb. And like Maximilian Kolbe, they bear witness that even in the darkest moments of the human experience that God is present, that God gives strength, and that God cares.

Maximilian Kolbe was a Polish-Conventual Franciscan priest. He was arrested on February 17, 1941 for his activity in the Polish resistance of the Third Reich. His activities included give over 2000 Jews refugee in his friary and providing the radio support for the resistance movement. He was sent to Auschwitz as a slave labourer. In July of that year a man went missing from the barracks where Maximilian Kolbe lived. Keeping with the principle of “corporate punishment,” the whole barracks had to be punished for this escape.

A sketch of Maximilian Kolbe handing over his life, "my life is not taken from me, but I hand it over." This sketch is from a series of sketchs done by a survivor of Auschwitz.

Ten men were selected at random to be starved to death in the basement cells of the work camp prison. Recalling the words of Jesus, that there is no greater love then to lay down your life for a friend, Fr. Maximilian Kolbe volunteered to take the place of one of the men, because that man had a wife and family outside the camp.

With his companions, Maximilian was locked in a cell with limited air, no water, no light, no food, and no sanitation. The SS commander’s dogs had much better accommodations than these cells. Usually with priests the goal of the SS was not to kill them, but break them, to cause them to loss the faith through intense suffering. Most men died in these starvation cells within three days. Maximilian did not lose faith, he gained even more faith.

In remembering the law of the gift, this was passed on to his companions, for it is remembered that hymns of joy could be heard radiating from that starvation cell. He not only survived three days, but three weeks. All the while offering encouragement and most likely last Confession to prisoners as new ones rotated in to replace those who had died.

The patience of the SS guards grew thin. Even though this priest was so close to being called home as a result of his maltreatment, they removed his body that by this point must have been no more than a sack of bones. They took a needle, inserted in his arm and injected highly concentrated carbolic acid into his veins. Maximilian Kolbe died on August 14, 1941. He survived over twenty days in the starvation cell. He survived 179 days in Auschwitz.

The starvation cell of Maximilian Kolbe. In the heart of the darkest place from the century of blood, this has become a place of prayer, and even hope for those who suffer injustice.

He won his crown of glory. On October 10, 1982 he was declared a Saint by his countryman, Pope John Paul II.

The man who Maximilian Kolbe traded places with, was at the canonization with his children and grandchildren.

Maximilian Kolbe, Pray for us.

Part II: The dangers of being "non-biased," or Don't be so open headed that your brain falls out

A prisoner of the War in the Vendée

Part II: The dangers of being "non-biased," or Don't be so open headed that your brain falls out

Even if it were possible to achieve a truly “non-biased point of view,” would it truly be desirable? The very fabric of humanity is tied up in this "messy knot" of cultural, social, spiritual factors. The demand to neutralize these human factors when make decisions in the public square is in fact a demand for every citizen to deny his own humanity. The resulting decisions will not reflect the solutions that a human society requires to function. The world that results from these "non-biased" decisions is slowly becoming less and less friendly to the human person. We see this being played out in art, which is at this point utterly void of any meaning. It is also played out in the extreme environmental and animal right movements, which demand an end to so called "anthropologic-centricism." It is played out legally, which is especially vivid in Spain and her recent debate on the legal status of high primates (and I am not talking about bishops and cardinals, but rather apes and gorillas).

The Enlightenment strove to be the great “Age of Reason.” It was the first modern attempt of Western society to divorce itself from God. It has been a messy divorce so far. In the late 1700’s the European and American intellectuals looked back on the previous two century and so much blood, much violence, much suffering, and much evil. There were wars of religion from one end of Europe to the other. There were dynastic disputes that pulled whole constellations of countries in war. The feudal system of society was rapidly falling apart. This led to much social and political turmoil. In their reflection on these events the thinkers of the Enlightenment, called the “philosophes,” proposed a diagnosis of what went wrong. They placed the cause of all this suffering in what they thought was an irrational belief in god and an unreasonable oppression of human reason from organized religion. There basic program was neutralize the religious and cultural bias by organizing society around the dictates of human reason. They were very much impressed with the achievements of the natural sciences in their use of reason, and wanted to extend this to politics and morals.

We are the heirs of the Enlightenment project – does it seem like we are living in the age of reason? Are all rights truly protected? Both history and current events show that this is not the case. At the very beginning of the secular experiment -- the French revolution there is already a strong counter-example in the Vendée genocide. Vendée wished to remain faithful to the Church, and rebelled against the revolutionary regime. They were poor, untrained, and underequipped farmers. The response of the revolutionary regime was not a tolerant respect of the rights of the people of the Vendée -- but a resposne of violence. The armies of the revolution marched up and down the Vendée gathering the priest, religious brothers and sister, nuns, and all those who aided them. They stripped them of their clothes, tied them together on a boat, and would sink the boat. This was the first modern genocide. In a particular twist of cruelty they would tie a naked priest and a naked nun together before drowning them, calling this a "Marriage of the Vendee."

Here is a historic quote in regards to this genocide: There is no more Vendée, Republican citizens. It died beneath our free sword, with its women and its children. I have just buried it in the swamps and the woods of Savenay. Following the orders that you gave to me, I crushed the children beneath the horses' hooves, massacred the women who, those at least, will bear no more brigands. I do not have a single prisoner to reproach myself with. I have exterminated them all... Francis Joseph Westerman, the slaughter of the Vendée

The revolution that put atheistic humanism into practice was born in violence, and became a regime of violence. This continued through the 19th century, as colonialism was a direct result of the Enligtenment, into the 20th century with the two world wars and the Holocaust. The previous two and a half centuries have been exceedily bloody. They have also been the most god-less epochs of human history.

As the War in the Vendée progressed the killing became even more arbitrary. Eventually just wearing a Sacred Heart Badge like the one pictured here would be enough of a reason for a person -- man, woman, or child -- to be killed. There was no trial, and there was not mercy.

If religion is the cause of violence as many hold now, it would stand to reason that the abolition of religion and the exhile of God from the public sphere would result in a great dimishment of violence. This abolition and exhile has been attempted for the last two centuries, and interesting enough the last to centuries have not been less violent than what went before it, but more violent. It is not religion that causes violence, but men. When these men are formed by religion history demonstrates that they are less violent. Yes there was violence before the Enligtenment, but these were men that dis regared Christian principles, as we can see in how they burned Churches and raped nuns. The sum total though was that there was much less violence, and it effected a much smaller portion of the civilian population, especially in comparison to the total war carnage of the London Blitz or the Dresden Bombing. What is particularly true of Christianity, is that it holds that all human life is sacred and hence must be honored as such. This always held back the violence to an extent. When religion was abolished in the European mindset in the French revolution, this safe-guard disappreared, and total carnage resulted.

Poland and the impossible (the summer episode one)

In front of the priory with some of the other TMS friends

This is my first summer since leaving for Rome. As part of the tradition of many years I have not returned home, but instead spent it in Europe. The first part was a return trip to Poland. I had previously been in Poland for the days around New Years. This visit was much different -- instead of cold and snow; it was warm and sunny -- instead of only a few days staying in an infamous and semi-moral youth hostel; this stay was three weeks in the comfortable and beautiful Dominican priory in the heart of the old town of Krakow.

Basilica of the Most Holy Trinity (the Domincan Priory Church), Krakow in Poland

This was not a vaction though, but a seminar. It was more academic than I thought it would be, but I has really been a cause of much reflection over the past few weeks. It was called the Tertio Millennio Seminar on the Free Society. The main topic was the encyclical letter of John Paul II, Centesimu Annus. This was a three-week discussion on the Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church. This was not just a series of lectures, but an encounter. The participants are all young people -- graduate students and young professionals -- half are from America and the other half are from the former communist countries of Eastern Europe. This brings a very different perspective on many of the topics we were talking about -- family, Church-state relations, human rights, the Christian reflection on the economy and political change.

One of the many fine dinners out: Center is Lorraine Kroll (always full of giggles) and right is Dr. Hittinger -- philosopher of law extra-ordinaire

There are two aspects of the Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church that I realized during this seminar that were unexpected. The first was how robust and central the teachings are. This is not a filmsy after though of Catholic theology -- but really a growing and solid core of many of the issues that the Church has is addressing at this moment as She exercises Her Prophetic Office. Do you want to know what the Church teaches on gay marriage and why? This is a question that the helps to answer. Do you want to know how Catholic thought on the dignity of life and the commitment to a culture of life informs your political decisions? The social doctrine helps Catholic of good will discern this. Do you want to know why the Church instists on the autonomy of Her schools -- and way it is much more than just a "Catholic issue," but one that directly effects the freedom of every citizen -- not just the Catholic citizens? The social doctrine helps to make sense out of this.

It has value not just for Catholics, but presents a robust reflection on society that benefits all of society. This is why the social encyclical of John Paul II, Centesimus Annus, is addressed "to all men and women of good-will." This doctrine is a synthesis of the classical thought, such as Aristotle and modern thought, all in the light of the Gospel. So it can speak to all men and women, even if they are not Catholic, even if they are not Christian.

The cloister was filled with beautiful Italo-Polish works of art, such as these Dominicans

This leads into the second aspect -- and that is the "Christian amensia" of Western, especially European society. George Weigel in the book, The Cube and the Cathedral, places much significance on how the European constitution ignores the Christian heritage of Europe and its contribution to the current Western World (which includes us). As it currently states -- the two main contributions have been the classical thought and the Enlightenment. This is problematic since it skips 1.200 years of European history -- as if nothing happened. But something did happen. It was during this period that the very concept of A PERSON developed, and also the concept of HUMAN DIGNITY. These two concepts are the foundation of further political thought on HUMAN RIGHTS and also for DEMOCRACY. So the question develops -- Can Europe (and hence the U.S.) maintain its commitments to human dignity and human rights if it ignores the contributions of Christian thought, and the voice of the Catholic Church today? Looking at the steady erosion of religious rights, and even the freedom of speech in Europe today -- the answer seems to be NO. Looking at how Christian clergy can be between in the streets of London, and there is not serious follow-up by the secular authorities -- the answer seems to be NO. Looking at how ecclesial communities are being told that they must comply with policies and partices to go directly against their religious convictions or they must shut down their missions -- the answer seems to be NO.

This is the Marian heart of Poland, the Black Madonna of Jaz Gora

I was very ignorant of what the Social Doctrine of the Church before the Tertio Millennio Seminar. I think this is the case of with most Catholics, most Christians, and most everyone else. If they have any exposure to it, it is probably under the loose and much abused term "social justice." This is a shame. It is this body of thought where the Church shows that it is not remote to the world, but cares very deeply for the world. It is here where many of our moral convictions that seems arbitrary or even discraminatory -- it is here that they come to light as a compelling, pastoral, and ultimately loving response to the hurting world.

Our fearless leader and seminar director, George Weigel, leading us on his JPII "death-march"

There can be no doubt that European and American societies are facing immediate and drastic problems. I can see this very clearly walking through any European city -- they are not reproducing themselves. In thirty years the processes of nature -- namely death -- will reduce Europe to a mere shadow of her self. The structures of family, civic society, and public moral reasoning are falling apart. For example in Italy most children do not know the world for brother, sister, cousin, aunt, uncle -- from first hand experience. This is shocking in a country once known for its large families. Has the "secular experiement" that violently broke out on July 14, 1789 failed? It looks like it has. This was the conclusion of Henri de Lubac in his analysis of the crisis of the two World Wars in The Drama of Atheistic Humanism. The Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church provides a viable -- not just viable, but life-giving, alternative to the modern creed of secular-humanism. In fact secularity is not a real humanism at all, since it requires a person to deny a variety of spectrums of the human experience -- the spiritual, moral, religious, and transcendental dimensions of human life. Is a world that has been pruned of these aspects a world worth living in?

One of the best parts of Poland is the food -- such as this well-hidden but very good lunch place

The time in Poland was not all studying though. There was plenty of time for a lot of fun. Krakov is a great city. It is a student's city -- due to the the large Jagiellonia University. So it offers that young optimistic ambience. It is also a very Catholic city. The communists refered to Krakov as the "black city" since at one time almost a third of its population consisted of priests, nuns, monks, friars, or other consecrated persons. It is the heart of Catholicism in the most Catholic country in the world.

It is still a living faith -- it has not become a museum piece as the Faith has become in the rest of Europe. Look at the university Mass at the Dominican basilica. Even though lectures are not in session at about 6:45 PM on Sunday you will see a young man setting up some microphones to the side of the altar, as he is doing this the students start trickling in. By the time Mass has started at 7:00 PM there are over 3.500 students filling the Church. The pews are full, so they are in the choir stalls, sitting on the confessionals, filling the side chapels, and I have been told when lectures are in session it spills out into the street. Why do they come? They come because they are feed here. Their devotion bears witness to a deep faith that their parents have passed on to them. They are attentive to the Word and open to the Mystery. They are committed. This was my most appreciated sight.

In addition is the delicious Polish food. Perogi and golki -- two of my favorite things.

Rafting in the mountains -- "the heavens are telling the glory of God..."

Pope Quote of the Day:

I would like to do a quick "man-on-the-street" survey: True or False, the Catholic Church is always oppressive to women, and ignores their unique and neccesary contribution to understanding the Christian mysteries?

Our Lady of Humility, Prayer for Us!

Most people I think would say, "absolutely true." I think how ever they would be wrong. Let's look at this following quote from our currently reigning Pontiff:
It is theologically and anthropologically important for woman to be at the center of Christianity. Through Mary, and the other holy women, the feminine element stand at the heart of the Christian religion.

Father Josef Ratzinger on his ordination day

FACT: The Church by worshipping Christ, a man born of a woman, the Church has always seen women as centrally important in the human project. The first Saint is a woman, Holy Mother Mary, and this has continued through the present day. From Mary through Catherine of Siena through Therese of the Infant Jesus (the Little Flower) and Edith Stein, among many more.

The Myth of being "non-biased"

(Part I: Yes I am biased, because it is impossible to be otherwise and still remain human)

In a recent note I have been accused of being biased. To the person that accused me of such I have one thing to say -- "Thank you."

What does this mean?Does it mean that I discriminate based on race, gender, ethnic group, political affiliation, etc.? NO.

Does it mean that I do not examine issues and causes before forming a conviction of my conscience? NO.

What it does mean is that I have come to examine the factors that have contributed to my current make-up. What are the psychological, sociological political, social, environmental, and cultural experiences that shapes the paradigm through which I see the world and assess it? I must recognize that all of these factors, and many more, contribute to the rich tapestry of who I am. Each person also possesses his own rich tapestry of "person-hood." In asking how these factors serve as the lens through which I see the world, I am also recognizing that I see the world from a particular point of view, namely mine. This is my bias. Guess what -- we all have a bias.

It seems like one of the "ultimate values" of the current cultural-social matrix of the west since political-cultural-social revolutions of the twentieth century has been above all things to be unbiased. Where does this come from? Much ink has spilt over this. Some ground it in the scientific revolution, some in the enlightenment, some in the great massacre of all values and morals during the two world wars. It is not my objective to spill more ink on this. So know we stand at a point that the only voice that "can be trusted" in the public square is the voice of the "non-biased person." At first look is very attractive. The society that all of us live in is very diverse. It is not just a plurality, but a number of systems of belief and values existing side -by-side, some of them incompatible among each other. In the true and good intention then to not infringe upon anyone system of beliefs, it is thought best to always make decisions concerning the public square from a non-biased point of view.

Yes -- this is a good and holy desire. It follows from the true dignity of each human person that a majority ought not snuff out the belief of the minority. The problem though is obtaining this non-biased point of view. Can a person really be removed from all the rich tapestry that forms them, so that he can stand separate from them and make a non-biased decision? I think this is very difficult, if not outright impossible. There simply is not such thing as "a view from no-where." This is affirmed in the modern philosophy of science, and holds true from this physical level onto the metaphysical level.

My religious, cultural, social, familial background neccesarily contributes to who I am. Human dignity and the values that modern democracy stands on says that who I am, and what I say has value, that it matters. This is true of myself, but also true of ever person. In the determination to be "non-biased," there is a strong demand to neutralize how my religious, spiritual, cultural, social and familial background colors my decisions, opinions, and values. It is a demand to deny myself -- my own humanity, and as much as there is a strong push for every person to be "non-biased," this demand is for every person to deny his own humanity. Not only "non-biased" view point an impossible objective to reach, it is inhumane, since it necessarily follows that in order to be non-biased a person has to deny the very fabric of his own humanity.
I typed in "a view from nowhere" into Google image search, and this is the first item that came up. It is confused and hazy, just like the current public moral reasoning. It just needs the right lens and everything will be pulled into focus.