The Blessed Virgin, Part II: Anticipated Objections

 "We do not say that she did not owe her salvation to the death of her Son. Just the contrary, we say that she, of all mere children of Adam, is in the truest sense the fruit and purchase of His Passion. He has done for her more than for anyone else. To others He gives grace and regeneration at a point in their earthly existence; to her, from the very beginning." (Bl. Cardinal John Henry Newman)

Before attempting to offer a defense of the Catholic doctrines concerning the Blessed Virgin Mary it is essential to anticipate a few objections which are regularly raised to them from the Protestant side. Since these objections, if valid, would refute much of the core beliefs of the Catholic Church concerning Mary, we must consider them before we move on. If there is no answer to them, then we must be prepared to accept our teachings as being in error, and repudiate our Marian dogmas.

The most obvious, and the most essential, of these objections concerns the sinlessness of Mary. First, we must understand that there are two distinct types of sins-- original and personal. Original sin is not so much a sin, or a it is a disease, as it is a deprivation, or an estate, which we inherited from our first parents. We are born, not as the Calvinists would have us believe, in a state of total depravity, but certainly separated from our Creator, with darkened intellects, weakened wills, and a penchant towards concupiscence. Personal sins are those actual, intentional sins which we commit after our birth, and after we have reached the age of reason.

The Catholic Church teaches that God, by a special Grace and privilege, preserved Mary from contracting  original sin, and then preserved her from committing any actual sins thereafter. Thus we believe that Mary was immaculate in her conception, in her life, and in her death.

I already noted in the first post that this doctrine is often considered by Protestants as idolatrous, that if Mary was sinless, she must be equal to God. This is unreasonable in light of the fact that two-thirds of the angels are sinless, and they are in no way equal to God. And if God created Adam and Eve in a state of sinlessness, is He not capable of preserving Mary from original sin in her conception? Perhaps it is seen as too "works-based", since we also believe that Mary remained free from sin her entire life. But again, we must look at our first parents. Was it essential that they fell? Certainly not. Such an idea would greatly dishonor our Creator. Had their free wills cooperated with the Grace of God, they might well have never sinned. But such a possibility would still have been utterly contingent and dependent upon God and His Grace. I suspect that the real reason that this doctrine is so objectionable to Protestants is because it indicates to them that Mary was not in need of a Savior. This, however, is most emphatically not true, as we will see a little later on.

There are a handful of passages found in Sacred Scripture which seem to the Protestant to utterly refute the Catholic doctrine of the sinlessness of the Blessed Virgin. So straightforward and perspicuous do these passages appear, that it would seem that they admit of no denial nor any alternative interpretation. Unlike many other doctrines and passages in which the straightforward interpretation is firmly on the Catholic side, I will here readily admit the force of the Protestant argument. These verses do, indeed, seem clear and obvious, and the Protestant understanding of them seems more than reasonable. However, I believe that with a little study we will see that these verses are not quite so obvious, nor so iron-clad as they first appear.

Let us begin with the first and most obvious of these passages. In Romans 3:23 St. Paul writes that "all have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God." On the surface this is one of those verses which appear to be as plain as the nose on one's face. And indeed, what could be clearer? "All" is a universal, and like all universals it contains every particular under its category. Mary is a particular member of the human race, therefore it would seem irrefutable that she, too, sinned and was deprived of God's glory.

Is this so? Is this the correct interpretation of this passage? We must here consider two things: first, if we know of any exceptions to this universal "all", and secondly, if there are any other passages which would contradict or offer an alternative interpretation to this word.

As for the first consideration, we must note the context of this verse. In the verses preceding this one, St. Paul quotes from various Old Testament passages,s in which the evil deeds which sinners do are listed. Thus we may assume the Apostle is treating here specifically with actual sin, not with original sin. Do we know of any exceptions? Are there any human beings who have not committed personal, or actual sin? Yes! First of all, Jesus. Although fully God, He was also fully human, and a flesh and blood member of the human race, endowed with a human soul. He was related to us all through Adam, the one through whom original sin came, and He was a member of the Davidic line. Yet, He had no sin. "Tested at all points like unto us, yet without sin." Thus, we may exclude Jesus from Paul's universal statement. Are there more? Again, yes. Since we are dealing with personal sin here, it becomes obvious that any unborn baby who dies or is aborted in the womb cannot be included in Paul's statement. Nor can infants and children below the age of reason. This exempts a very large number of human persons from the category of actual sinners. And still we can go further. Any person born, and reaching adulthood, with a mental handicap so severe as to cripple his freedom of will, cannot sin. Thus we may see that St. Paul's use of word "all" cannot be taken to mean literally every human being who has ever lived. More likely, it is a generalization to describe the great mass of humanity.

Furthermore, the entire context of this chapter, leading up to this particular verse, involves the idea of condemnation to those who are under the law, and those who are not, namely, Jews and Greeks (or Pagans). Thus, by the time the Blessed Apostle reaches the verse "...all have sinned", another possible interpretation appears. It seems to me quite plausible that St. Paul means "all" in the sense of "all groups". In other words "...all (i.e. Jews and Greeks) have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God."

We may also note that the passages which St. Paul quotes in vs.10-18 seems clearly hyperbolic in nature.

 "There is no one just, not one, there is no one who understands, there is no one who seeks God. 

All have gone astray; all alike are worthless; there is not one who does good, [there is not] even one. 

Their throats are open graves; the venom of asps is on their lips; their mouths are full of bitter cursing. 

Their feet are quick to shed blood; ruin and misery are in their ways, and the way of peace they know not. There is no  fear of God before their eyes."

 Was every single person literally "quick to shed blood", etc.? Then is it a stretch to think that Paul's equally universal statement a few verses on may also be slightly hyperbolic?

Next, we must also consider if there are any other passages from Sacred Scripture which would a cast a different light on this verse. If we look a little further in this same book of Romans, we will encounter a most illuminating passage. In Ro. 5:12-14 St. Paul writes "Therefore, just as through one person sin entered the world, and through sin, death, and thus death came to all, inasmuch as all sinned- for up to the time of the law, sin was in the world, though sin is not accounted when there is no law. But death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who did not sin after the pattern of the trespass of Adam, who is the type of the one who was to come."

Here we see once again the concept of all having sinned, but unfortunately for the Protestant position it is inextricably tied to the clause "and thus death came to all". Both Catholics and Protestants know that Enoch did not die, he was translated from this earth in some other fashion. Nor did the prophet Elijah die, he ascended to heaven in a fiery chariot. Thus doubt falls again on the absoluteness of Paul's use of the word "all". Interestingly enough, the rest of the passage after vs. 14 goes on to speak of "the many" who are under sin, and "the many" to whom death came, and then "the many" to whom the justification of Christ comes. We know that not "all" are justified.

Clearly, there is plenty of room for prayer, reflection, debate, and interpretation of these passages. However, I think that it is abundantly clear from what has been written above that we cannot easily assume from St. Paul's statement that "all have sinned" that we must absolutely include the Blessed Virgin within that category.

Let us now move on to the next commonly used text. In the beginning of Mary's beautiful hymn of praise, the Magnificat, the Virgin herself says, "My spirit rejoices in God my savior." (Lu. 1:47) To the Protestant this is incontestable evidence that Mary herself recognized her sinfulness, since she declares God to be her "savior", and only a sinner would require a "savior".

Now this verse is far less difficult than the preceding one, and is rather more easily explained. It should first be noted that the Catholic Church has never stated that the Mother of Christ did not need a savior. But we can understand salvation in to ways, salvation after a fall, and salvation from a fall. The great medieval theologian, Blessed Duns Scotus (whom, despite his unfortunate association with dunces and dunce caps was no fool at all), offered a simple illustration to understand this point. I will recreated it loosely here in my own words. Suppose a man were walking down a road in the middle of the night, and fell directly into a deep pit in the center of the road, which he had been unable to see due to the darkness. His cries for help are heard by his friend who is nearby. His friend lowers a rope, and pulls him to safety. The man rightly thanks his friend for "saving" him. Suppose, however, that his friend had noticed the pit a moment sooner, and called out a warning to him right when he was about to stumble over the edge. Although in this scenario the man does not fall, he is still grateful, and still rightly thanks his friend for "saving" him.

This illustration is very applicable to this situation (which was, in fact, precisely the doctrine that Scotus was defending). The Church is very clear indeed that Mary's sinlessness was the result of God's Grace and salvific work. Like the man in the story, Mary was naturally doomed to fall into the pit. As a daughter of Adam, she would automatically have been conceived in a state of original sin. It is through the saving Sacrifice of her Son alone, that she was granted the Grace to preserved from such a state. Thus God is absolutely her Savior. Make no mistake about it, the honors which we as Catholics bestow upon Mary ought only to reflect to praise to her Maker. Every gift she received, every Grace she was given, every honor and position bestowed upon her, was due to the gracious work of God. Mary was saved by, and as utterly dependent upon the Blessed Trinity as you or I. There is nothing of idolatry in such a doctrine at all.

The third verse to consider today is Lu.2:24. Mary and Joseph have taken the infant Jesus to the temple to "present him to the Lord" and "...to offer the sacrifice of 'a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons,' in accordance with the dictate in the law of the Lord." Since this particular offering was a sin offering, a standard objection to the Catholic position is that Mary must have been a sinner. If this line of argument seems reasonable, I would ask the reader to consider the alternative. Would the Virgin Mary, if she had been as truly pure, humble, and holy as the Church teaches, have gone before the priest and said, "I am sinless, therefore I will not offer the sacrifice prescribed in the law of God"? Such an idea is untenable. We need only remember that Jesus Himself allowed Himself to be baptized at the hands of John the Baptist "to fulfill all righteousness", although He Himself had no need of baptism whatsoever. Jesus and Mary certainly fulfilled the law, and behaved as good Jews. It would be unreasonable to expect that Mary would have done anything other than present the standard sacrifice. The law also seems to be very much associated with ritual uncleanness after birth. We can, however, learn something interesting from this passage. The law referred to is found in Lv. 12:2-8. In this passage we discover that the sacrifice was supposed to be one turtledove, and one yearling lamb. The options of two turtledoves was presented to those who could not afford to offer a lamb. Thus we see evidence here for the tradition that Jesus' family was quite poor, since they offered the pauper's sacrifice of two turtledoves. I also wonder if the absence of the yearling lamb may also be because of the presence of the young Jesus, the Lamb of God, the true Sacrifice.

At the end of these consideration I would stress again the action of God. As Catholics we hold that God prepared the Virgin for the honor of His Son. We believe that the Father desired that the Holy One be nurtured in a pure, spotless womb. The graces granted to Mary are for the sake of her Son. Her dependence upon God is absolute. When she herself is praised (as by Elizabeth) she reflects the praise back to God, "The Almighty has done great things for me." The honor of Mary should have no other end than the honor of her Child. There is no idolatry, no blasphemy, no polytheism in these doctrines of the Catholic Church.

Now there are many passages in Scripture, such as Jesus' injunction to eat His Body and drink His Blood, and St. Peter's statement that baptism saves us, which seem on the surface just as plain to the Catholic as the verses we have just considered seem to the Protestant. In these cases the burden of proof rests upon the Protestant side, not upon the Catholic. Such is not the case here, however. Little is said of Mary in the Scriptures, and what is said is very deep, indeed. The burden of proof for the Marian dogmas rests entirely upon our shoulders here. Nothing that I have written here as yet attempts to demonstrate that Mary actually was without sin. The onus is still upon the Catholic case. In the essays to come it is my hope to be able, by the Grace of God, to offer the necessary evidence. For now, it is enough to say that, at the very least, the passages mentioned above in no way preclude the possibility that the Blessed Virgin may have been kept free from sin by the supreme decree of her true Father.

The Blessed Virgin, Part 1: Preliminary Statements

As I reflect on a time, many years ago now, when I first approached the Catholic Church, when I first sought to cross the Tiber, I remember clearly the enthusiasm I felt then to explain the teachings of the Church, and to lead others to the great Faith which I had found. I also remember a certain naivete in which I imagined the ease with which such a task might be accomplished. I will not say that the enthusiasm is gone now, but the naivete has almost utterly disappeared. Indeed, with each passing year there are times when the divide between the Protestant and Catholic milieus seems to grow ever wider, days in which the differences between the two appear more insurmountable than they ever have. At the same time I am aware of great tides and currents, moving across the great divide, for the Spirit ever works for unity. Perhaps we are further off than we imagined, perhaps we are closer than we think.

St. Paul teaches us that Christ is not divided, and such a statement should cause each and every one of us to strive for unity within Christianity. Such a goal cannot be accomplished without the Grace of God through the mighty workings of the Holy Spirit. And such a goal requires three elements if it is to become possible at all. These three elements are charity, truth, and understanding.

Without true agape to make us put aside our selfishness, to make us yearn for the other, and to make us willing to do all for the glory of God and the good of His creatures, we might as well abandon our mission before it is begun. Without love, to recall again the words of St. Paul, we are nothing, and our works are empty.

Nor can we do without truth. Unity based upon abandonment of truth and principles is a false unity. To deny our faith in order to achieve brotherhood is a mockery of the One Who made us all brothers and sisters, and Who remained steadfast unto torture and to death. Let us find what unity we can in love, but do not let us break our consciences or lightly abandon our beliefs.

Finally, understanding is also crucial. With charity in our hearts, and truth in our minds, we must truly strive to understand what the other is saying, what the other means, and what motives are in the other's heart. We must be willing, as far as possible, to comprehend the other's terms, to accept their explanations of their own teachings and positions, and not argue fruitlessly in ignorance and blind prejudice.

On this last point there is much work to be done on both sides. We, as Catholics, must be very careful to rid ourselves of prejudice and misunderstanding when we approach our Protestant brethren. Yet, if I may be allowed to sound a little less than ecumenical for a moment, it seems to me that in our country, so infused with anti-Catholicism since its inception, and so colored by Fundamentalist thought and tone, that the Protestant has a little more work to do in this regard. The regular accusations (found primarily in more Fundamentalist expressions of Protestantism) of idolatry, superstition, blasphemy, and so forth; boldly stated, in spite of the strong denials and explanations of the Catholic Church, have no place in our work for unity. Idolatry, superstition, and blasphemy are grave accusations, and if we make them wrongly we may be guilty of slander of a high degree. One is reminded here of the words of Bob Jones, Sr., some half a decade ago, upon the death of Pope Paul VI, in which he referred to the late Pontiff (in public writing) as "the archpriest of Satan", and said that he "like Judas, has gone unto his own place." If we are to seek a meaningful dialogue between Catholics and Protestants such language must be stricken from our speech, or we will be no nearer to our goal of unity than when we tortured and killed one another.

Of all those specifically Catholic doctrines, such as the Sacraments, Purgatory, and the Papacy, which cause the Protestant confusion and consternation, perhaps none are as problematic as the doctrines concerning Mary, the mother of Christ.

In a recent conversation with a close relative, the topic of the perpetual virginity as Mary was opened and briefly discussed. It occurred to me afterwards, although I have not written much on specifically Catholic-Protestant topics, to offer a series of articles in which to express, as clearly as God enables me, what the Church teaches and means concerning the Blessed Virgin, and to attempt to lay out a defense of those doctrines. It is my sincere prayer that, at the very least, these articles will foster a clearer understanding of our Faith, and open the way to fruitful and honest dialogue.

Here, again, we must keep before us these three elements of charity, truth, and understanding. The Catholic must be careful here. Too often he sees the Protestant denials of the various Marian dogmas of the Church as a form of insult, or defamation, to his Blessed Lady. He may see the "lowering" of Mary even as a dishonor to her Creator. He must strive to realize that the Protestant only attempts to put Mary "in her place" out of a sincere desire that Christ be adored above everything. Even if we disagree with the Protestant's theology, we must be ready to see that his heart is in the right place.

The Protestant, too, must treat these matters with the greatest care. How often he hears the Catholic declare that Mary was sinless, and then accuses the Catholic of putting her on a par with God Himself. As if sinlessness and Divinity were synonymous! Were not Adam and Eve created sinless? Do not two-thirds of the angels remain sinless to this day? Are such doctrines idolatrous? I think no true Protestant would dare to affirm that they were. Or again, how often is the Catholic's respect for, and honor shown towards Mary seen as worship, a worship which ought only be granted to the Blessed Trinity? Is praise for an artist's painting the same as praise for the artist himself?

Where then do we stand, as Catholics and Protestants, on this matter of the Virgin Mary? I am afraid that the divide here is very great, indeed.

The Catholic sees Mary as the Theotokos, the God-bearer, the one who contained within her womb the One Whom all the universe could not contain. The Catholic recognizes her as more involved, and more essential, to the story of redemption than any other creature, for it was through her that our Redeemer entered the world. We believe that God made this chosen vessel pure and spotless for the sake of His Son, Who was born of her, and that He bestowed upon her graces, positions, and privileges greater than the greatest angel or the greatest saint. We believe, at the same time, that she is merely a creature, infinitely less than her Creator, utterly dependent upon God for her purity and her graces, in as great a need of a Savior as any of us. In fine, compared with God Himself, she is as nothing. Everything she has was given to her  by God. Her virtues are the handiwork of God. Her very existence is absolutely dependent upon the life-bestowing Trinity. The fact that she is, as Wordsworth phrased it, "our tainted nature's solitary boast", is completely to the glory of our God.

The Protestant sees things a little differently. No doubt she was greatly blessed, for she was privileged to bring Christ into the world, but surely she was a mere sinful mortal like the rest of us. The Protestant does not imagine Mary to be immaculate, nor even ever-virgin. To him, she was a normal married woman (most likely a good one), but one that made mistakes, was confused concerning her Son, was ignored by Him on at least one very public occasion, and was rather insultingly referred to by Him as "Woman" on several occasions. She was not particularly essential to the plans of God, nor was she raised to any great positions or granted any remarkable graces. It may be a subconscious attempt to avoid the presumed "excesses" of Catholic devotion, but the Protestant almost never even speaks of Mary except when debating Catholics. Think for a moment, if you will, of all the sermons you have heard in your life. Surely you have heard Daniel preached about, and the great faith of Abraham. Sarah, Ruth, Jacob, St. Paul, and others Scriptural heroes and heroines are all part of traditional Protestant sermons. How many have you heard on the Blessed Virgin Mary? If we may assume anything from silence, we may perhaps assume that the Protestant not only does not consider the Blessed Virgin to be as great as the Catholic considers her, but perhaps actually rather insignificant among the roster of the saints.

Such then, in a few brief and poor words, is a general description of the differences which lie between the Catholic and Protestant on the subject of Christ's mother, not only in doctrine, but in attitude as well.

Let us now, in prayer and honesty, with charity, truth, and understanding, commence our dialogue concerning the one who held God in her own arms, and who raised Him as her Child.

A Reg Flag Rises, Part X: Means and Ends

The idea that the end justifies the means is by no means a new idea, neither is it confined to Communist thought alone. Nor is it presently lacking adherents. Indeed, the ethical question itself is complicated and will probably be debated as long as philosophers continue to think. There is a certain sort of seemingly common sense morality that tells most of us, almost as a gut instinct, that the idea that the end justifies the means is a very immoral sort of idea, and one that is likely to lead to the destruction of law and order as we know it. But when we consider questions such as, "Should I lie to save my friend's life," or, "Is it acceptable to torture terrorists for the sake of national security", we will see, at the very least, that these are not always easy or simple questions.

In today's installment in this series on Communist thought we will briefly explore the connection between this particular ethical idea and Marxist philosophy.

The fact that Communism adopted this particular idea is not accidental or coincidental. Indeed, the idea arises naturally from other aspects of the philosophies which lie at the root of Marxist thought.

We have already, in the course of these essays, briefly examined the influence of Hegel and Feuerbach on Marx. It must be noted that the dialectical reading of history, formed first by Hegel, alters the traditional concepts of morality entirely. The process of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis leads us into a system in which the nature of the acting agents changes too drastically to admit of any absolute moral structure. Imagine for a moment some sudden evolutionary leap in which ants evolved almost overnight into dogs. Obviously, traditional "ant morality" concerning duties toward the queen, or the necessity of communal work, would be meaningless when applied to a dog. The nature of a creature must remain consistent if any consistent moral code is to be assigned to it.

Marx, as was mentioned in an earlier post, held to the view that man qua man was a definition not yet attained. Man was merely a non-being in a state of becoming, he had not yet arrived. To any such being, progressing through antithetical dialectical changes, morality cannot be an absolute. The man-of-the-future has no need of the same morality as this present non-being in a state of becoming.

Absolute morality being done away with, we are left only with moral relativism; good and evil differ according to one's state, or place in history. Within the framework of moral relativism, no action can be good or evil in itself. Their moral value is determined strictly by their relationship towards some end, or goal.

Now, it is one of the great ironies of Hegelian dialectic, a system of thought so opposed to absolutes, that all three of these philosophers (Hegel, Feuerbach, and Marx), believed in a final and absolute culmination of the dialectical journey, a final synthesis for which there is no antithesis. It is not clear why these men suddenly became historical absolutists when it pleased them, for no apparent logical reason, yet all three did. For Hegel the culmination was pure, god-like spirit, all-knowing intellect. For the materialist, anti-Idealist Feuerbach it was humanity set free from the enslaving illusion of god. For Marx it was a future Utopian classless society.

If, as we have just noted, moral relativism posits moral value for any action based only upon its relationship towards some end, thus denying moral value for any action considered in itself; and if the final end, or goal, of Marxist thought is a classless society, then it follows that the Communist valuation of any action as either good or evil is based strictly on that action's ability to facilitate the Communist goal. Thus, Communist morality may well be described as a morality of efficiency. The end justifies the means.

While it should be abundantly clear that this theory arises automatically from Marx's understanding and use of Hegelian dialectic, we have been unfortunate enough to witness the horrors it has spawned in practice. Abortion, divorce, patricide and matricide, mass murders, torture, sexual perversions, brainwashing-- these are all the results of a philosophy which holds as morally acceptable any action which appears to further its own interests and goals.

When imbued with unlimited political power, it is difficult to imagine a philosophy with greater potential toward evil and destruction.

A Red Flag Rises, Part IX: Materialism and the Death of the Soul

"God is dead," Nietzsche famously declared, and then went on to consider himself among the executioners, adding, "We have killed him."

While it is not strictly true that materialism always follows from atheism, the two philosophies are clearly closely related. With the denial of a spirit-creator there usually comes a denial of the spiritual dimension itself. It is certainly true that our world has never witnessed so great a wave of materialism as that which followed from the tide of the death-of-god philosophers during the last century and a half. There have been, throughout much of history, the occasional materialists (even as far back as the Roman philosopher Lucretius),  but never before have they been found in such great numbers, and never before have their ideas had so much impact upon society as now.

This sixth element of Marxist Socialism, materialism, is the subject of this present essay. It is not my purpose here to attempt an in-depth examination of materialism per se,  but only to offer some thoughts on several aspects and effects of materialism. This is, by no means, designed  to be an exhaustive list, but simply a brief examination of a few interesting points.

1. Biological determinism. Since strict materialism automatically assumes the denial of God, or gods, we must consider the effect of this philosophy upon our understanding of the nature and origins of man. Without the notion of a creator we are forced entirely upon the position of unaided evolution to explain the origins of our species. I say "unaided", for I am not attempting to discuss evolution here, pro or con. It may be possible to square the idea of evolution with the idea of a creating God, Who guides the process, and set it in motion. The materialist must accept evolution in toto, blind, unaided, and irresistible, as the sole cause of our existence. The only other possibility would be the eternal, unchanging existence of our species, which is clearly illogical. Those areas of our lives which involve something higher than matter, and which were traditionally ascribed to the action of God, such as conscience, moral and natural laws, kindness, etc., must now be seen purely as a construct of blind matter, the by-product of unguided evolution. Thus, even altruism, self-sacrifice, monogamy, parental love, and proscriptions against murder, are merely accidentally developed traits which have been beneficial to the survival of the species. There was a time when they did not exist, there may come a time when they no longer need to. Morals are not absolutes within such a system. Also, free will is here denied. I do not choose my behavior, nature has chosen it for me. If I am faithful to my spouse, that is because I have been programmed with traits which benefit the development of my species. If I am a philanderer, it is simply because I am following my innate programming to produce offspring. I am not free, I am not a "person". I am the grovelling prisoner of biological determinism, a piece of matter, the offspring of chance. My very emotions are evolutionary constructs. Love, free will, hope, the yearning for the eternal, the desire to create, friendship, pleasure--  to the true materialist all of these are illusions writ upon our beings by the hands of environment and history.

2. Destruction of artistic creativity. It should be clear from what I have written above, that a society which is defined by true materialism, which understands and accepts it, will become impoverished in the creative arts. The denial of the spiritual, of the afterlife, of free will, of the reality of love, of hatred, compassion, good and evil, is a denial of all those aspects of humanity which have been the wellspring of great art throughout the centuries. Artistry and creativity there may still be, but it will be shallow, confined to the material. Thus its focus will be increasingly upon sensuality, violence, and absurdity. Since the focus of these essays has been on Communism, it is worth noting here the remarkable bankruptcy of artistic creativity in Communist countries. Artistry of performance there has certainly been. Russia, China, and other Communist nations have shown us throughout the decades, through strict discipline and  the zeal to impress, phenomenal performances of opera, ballet, symphony, gymnastics, and other art forms. But the performance of preexisting works is not the same thing as creating new works of art. Consider Russia for a moment. Holy Mother Russia has produced a virtual pantheon of some of the finest composers and literary geniuses in history. In the field of classical music names such Tchaikovsky, Rimsky-Korsakov, Rachmaninov, and others come to mind. The roster of Russian writers may exceed even that of Russian composers. Chekov, Gogol, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Nobokov, et al,created some of the most remarkable literary masterpieces of their generations. All these names either precede the Bolshevist revolution of 1917, or were separate from Communism . We have not seen their like in the long years of Communism. It is as though the greatness of Russian creativity vanished overnight, or was obscured from our sight in some Red fog. It may be argued here that the reason for this has been not so much materialism as from government censoring, the totalitarian crushing of free thought and speech. While there is certainly weight to such an argument, I do not believe that it can explain everything. Were there no happy materialists in Russia? Was no writer pleased with Communism? Surely some Red author, one who saw no reason to write anything displeasing to the Party, could have created some stirring drama of love and devotion, action and adventure, treason and faithfulness, hopes and dreams, despair and joy, brotherhood and suffering. But no, the human mind and spirit always seeks to go beyond and above itself. The human person longs for the infinite, seeks the joys of the spirit, and yearns for eternity. It is from this that great art springs. If even free will and the emotions are denied their validity (as mentioned above) in the materialist construct, and if eternity and the spirit are simply illusions, then the genius of the creative arts will no longer walk the land. Biologically determined animals with no freedom, no afterlife, no meaning, and no purpose have little need for art.

3. Greed. It occurs to me that Marx was often rather conveniently oblivious to the corruption inherent in human nature. I mentioned this briefly in the last post, in which we saw Marx's seemingly naive confidence in the realization of his future classless utopia. Of course the Church could have informed Marx about something called Original Sin, which means that his idea could never have been achieved without Grace, but atheists traditionally care little for the wisdom of the Church. Here again Marx's apparent naivete returns. He is a complete materialist, and expects that the Communist class will automatically dissolve itself after its successful revolution, in order to bring about a truly equal and classless society (see The Communist Manifesto). It does not require a philosopher or an economist to tell one that such an idea completely overlooks the very real possibility of the ancient vice of greed raising its ugly head. Greed for money, greed for power-- any philosopher not taking these aspects of human nature into account is doomed to create a failed philosophy. Certainly the possibility of greed destroying a society is always with us, yet a fully materialist society offers comparatively little with which to combat this vice besides sheer force. Even this force, be it police or military, offers no defense against the corruption of those who control it. With nothing to live for past this life, with no heaven or hell, no everlasting reward, what is there to restrain a man from greed, from enjoying the benefits of this life to the full? Certainly Communism has never yet entered its prophesied state of equality, brotherhood, and classlessness, but remains instead a society of inferiors and slaves, a society of "have-nots" ruled unrelentingly by the iron hand of the "haves", who have no desire towards sacrifice or brotherhood.

4. Despair and Hedonism. The idea of materialism, if well understood and truly lived out, seems to result in two distinct attitudes and modes of living: despair and hedonism. To understand that one's life has no real purpose, to understand that one is not responsible for his or her actions, and to understand that there is no life past the one which we live here, is to understand the stark idea of futility within one's own self. Such a realization makes it virtually impossible to live a "normal" life. In a person of morbid tendencies, or in one who is in a state of great suffering, this idea of futility may lead to despair, even to suicide. In another it will lead to hedonism, to the adopting of the philosophy of "eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die".

 Needless to say, neither of these two traits, nor the other issues listed above, are precisely conducive for a healthy society.

A Red Flag Rises, Part VIII: Collectivism

The aspect of collectivism is also crucial to communism, but Marx's thought requires a more nuanced understanding than it is often given.

 In Marx's dialectical reading of history, he saw a sort of primeval, or pre-historic collectivism which had helped the human species to survive in its infancy. This could be described as the thesis. Then comes the historical period of individuality, or the antithesis. While Marx does not approve of this state, he views it as a period of growth in human history. In Marx's futuristic view of the perfect, classless society, the synthesis is a state of perfect individuality expressed in a perfectly collective environment.

Thus Marx must not be understood as seeking to destroy individuality, but rather he sees it as a stumbling block to human development if it be promoted outside the collective.

Nonetheless, the collectivism of communism has done more than almost any other philosophy to crush individuality and destroy the dignity of the human spirit. Marx's ideal of individuality, flourishing in the environment of collectivism, has an Achilles' heel; and, like the heel of Achilles, it proves fatal.

We must always bear in mind that Communist philosophy has an eschatalogical aspect, one which requires as much faith as Christian eschatology.  While Christianity sees a hopeful future in which each individual's personality will be perfected, yet in the harmony of perfect brotherhood, free from sin and the necessity of law; Christianity always keeps in mind the reality of original sin and the necessity of Divine assistance. While the non-Christian may view the believer's hope as an illusion, the Church's understanding of the human condition is clearly rooted in reality. The Communist hope, the assumption that broken humanity can and will achieve this utopian estate without Divine assistance, is truly illusory, and nothing more than wishful thinking at best.

This two-fold flaw in Marx's dream, the denial of original sin and the denial of God, turns collectivism into a nightmare of inhuman abuse. Mankind will not naturally attain to such a state, and instead of achieving it through the inward conversion of grace, is forced to try to achieve it through the power of the socialist state. Communism is not concerned with converting hearts, but with changing society by force. The future utopia in which the individual finds freedom vanishes like the mirage it is, and is replaced by the present grim reality of the utter subjugation of the individual to the state, the abolition of free will, and the utter destruction of the dignity of the human person.

There is no other way for the Communist state. It has no channels of grace with which to change fallen humanity, it has no God upon which to call for aid in its efforts to change society. Without these helps, confronted with the harsh reality of sin and evil, with the human penchant for greed, selfishness, corruption, and violence, the Communist state always resorts to power and violence (both physical and psychological), in its efforts to create its illusory paradise on earth.

The common good is something which all of us must consider, for no man is an island, as John Donne reminds us, and we all have a certain duty towards our fellow men. In Communism, however, the common good becomes an idol, a harsh and evil pagan idol, to which the individual must mercilessly be sacrificed. The Christian recognizes in his brothers and sisters the Divine Image, the mark of brotherhood springing from common Fatherhood, and considers each individual as more precious than all the universe. Communism, having no God, sees no Divine Image, no inherent, eternal value in the individual. Its materialism robs man of his spirit, his individuality, and his destiny. The collectivism of Communism, shrouded under the language of the common good, swallows up each member of which it is composed, and consigns them to the materialistic oblivion of its atheistic humanism.

For all the rosy hopes of Marx, Communism remains a religion with no heaven, an iron law with no purpose, crushing its people in the wine press of its totalitarian collectivism, bringing forth no wine, but only streams of blood.

A Red Flag Rises, Part VII: The Philosophy of Revolution

"The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only  by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Working men of all countries, unite!" The Communist Manifesto

Today we look at item number four on our list, the inherent tendency towards revolution. While we know that Communism has often found success through revolution, it may be assumed that this is merely accidental, a result of varying factors of time, place, and personality. Through examining the underlying philosophical aspects of Communism we will be able to see that the revolutionary tendency is not accidental at all, but is rather an intrinsic aspect of Communist thought.

Since all of these posts have considered the impact of Hegel and Feuerbach on Marx, it is worth briefly comparing these three again on this point as well.

It should first of all be noted that the revolutionary tendency first appears in strength in Karl Marx, and then full-blown by the time of Lenin. Hegel and Feuerbach do not exhibit the revolutionary philosophy, at least in the material, militaristic sense. However, I think it is evident that the very nature of Hegelian dialectic is imbued with the spirit of revolution at its very center. Georg Hegel himself may not have been a revolutionary in the sense that Karl Marx was, simply because he was an idealist. His revolutions were struggles of the mind; his battlefield was the human spirit, not the body; and his goal was intellect, not a kingdom or society. Nor did Feuerbach, materialist though he was, intrude his dialectic upon the field of politics and economics, or infuse his sense of struggle with the elements of force and arms. It was left to Marx and his followers to do so.

Nonetheless, I repeat, the revolutionary tendency is in the philosophy of Hegel, in the very nature of his dialectic, patiently waiting till the followers of Marx would bring it into its own, and ravage the world with it. Even in the intellectual sense, no advancement, no good, can come in Hegelian dialectic without revolution. Let us consider for a moment the ideas of thesis and antithesis, in this light.

In Socratic dialectic we also will see the juxtaposition of contrary ideas. We can also call the first one the thesis, and its opposite the antithesis. We are also prepared to see a struggle between the two ideas, with the antithesis acting the revolutionary to the thesis' traditionalism. Yet the result is different, and it is in the difference between the results that we will see the necessity, or lack thereof, of the revolutionary force in the two different forms of dialectic.

In the Socratic dialogue, we discover that one idea or the other was right all along. When the smoke clears the victor that appears is no unfamiliar character. Thus we see that the struggle was not essential, the truth was already there all along, and would have remained even had it never been opposed. It is certainly true that the struggle may have sharpened or refined the idea, explored and probed its depths in some way, but this is only an indictment of the confusion and darkness of our own minds, or of some carelessness on the part of the one who first presented the idea. Simply put, truth stands on its own. It needs no struggle, opposition, or revolution, in order to be. It simply is, eternal and unchanging.

Not so with Hegelian dialectic. Here, in this relativistic construct, there is no absolute. Neither thesis nor antithesis represent actual truth. The only improvement, advancement, or actual good in the system comes in the form of the synthesis, an idea altogether new. The synthesis is the product, or offspring if you will, of the thesis and antithesis. Thus, in Hegelian dialectic, the struggle, the opposition, the revolution, is essential. If you recall Marx's idea of man as becoming, mentioned in the post on relativism, you will see how the struggle is even necessary for man to become. 

In Hegel, of course, this revolutionary element existed in the mind. But it is not difficult to see, once applied to the concrete world of politics and economics, how this dialectical reading of history almost automatically inspires revolution. Thus the revolutionary tendency of Marxism is, as stated above, integral to the system.

It should also be noted here, that the full blossoming of the violent revolutionary tendencies came even later than Marx, with Lenin under the inspiration of the oft-forgotten Sergey Nechayev, one of the most single-minded, virile, and hate-filled revolutionary minds in history. As the Canadian author, poet, and journalist Max Eastman wrote, "...the confluence of these two streams of thought (Nechayev and Marx) is one of the greatest disasters that ever befell mankind."

Communism is not revolutionary by accident. It will use whatever tools it must, but its heart is always towards violence to accomplish its ends. Its very language is the language of the revolutionary, it is conceived in anger, and born in blood.

A Red Flag Rises, Part VI: Blind Faith

Today we will look at a third aspect of Marxist thought: a blind faith in evolutionary social advancement.

We have already spent a great deal of time noting the influence of Hegel and Feuerbach on Marx, and here we will see yet another similarity between these three thinkers. All three of them hold to a dialectical viewpoint of history, with its steady evolution of synthesis. It seems to be ingrained in their theories that this dialectic will turn out well, indeed that it must turn out well. Mankind will continue to advance to some state of perfection. In Hegel we see the final advancement of man in the god-like knowledge of pure spirit; in Feuerbach (renouncing the idealism and individualism of Hegel) we see the perfection of abstract humanity reaching a final self-fulfillment; in Marx, the future perfection of the classless society of Communism.

What made three such brilliant atheists take such a rosy view of the future is still strange to me. As a Catholic, I believe in a hopeful end to history as well, yet it requires the thought of Divine intervention to hold to such a hope with any conviction. What, in all the long annals of human history, would lead us to assume that things will just keep getting better and better, without some miraculous assistance, I simply cannot imagine. Perhaps I will be accused of being pessimistic about human nature or the nature of the universe, but I would think that Hegel, Feuerbach and Marx would have had every bit as much reason (if not more) to be pessimistic as well.

At any rate, personal considerations aside, these three German philosophers did imagine that things were going to work out well in the end, that mankind would achieve some enduring state of perfection, that heaven would appear on earth.

The idea of heaven is cause for two common criticisms against Christianity and other religions that believe in the possibility of an a happy afterlife. The first criticism is the devotee focused upon heaven will be a person remarkably unconcerned with the problems of this present life and world. He or she will be expected to do nothing about the evils and sorrows which afflict our fellow men, or do anything to leave a better world for future generations. It is even possible to do remarkably evil things here (jihad comes to mind) because of one's belief the next life. All eyes on the afterlife, none here. The second criticism is that the idea of heaven is nothing more than a sort of sacred bribery, a promise of something nice in the future if we behave well now. It seems a little less than noble, a little "not-quite-manly". Instead of pursuing truth and justice for its own sake, we are all just striving for a slice of that pie-in-the-sky, which is probably not really there anyway.

Now, there is something to be said for both of these criticisms. It is quite true that certain people focus on heaven in such a way as to completely ignore the needs of this world. This habit is probably even worse among certain Christians who are convinced that the world is ending in the very near future. Why plant trees? We won't be around to see them. Why worry about pollution? The world won't escape the Apocalypse another twenty years anyway. Why bother about hunger and malnutrition in third world countries? Just give 'em the Gospel-- suffering makes you a better Christian anyway. And on we could go. And as for the bribery issue, well yes, I think that there is something to be said about that as well. I am afraid that many, perhaps most of us, haven't really gotten the Gospel into our hearts, so most of our behavior is based on alternating fear and bribery, not on a real desire to do good.

This is not the place to respond to such criticisms in detail, except to note that one would be hard pressed to find an institution in the last two millenia  that has been more concerned with the problems of life on this earth, than the Hell-and-Heaven-preaching Catholic Church. The roster of the names of saints who spent their entire lives helping the poor, the handicapped, and the sick, would fill pages. The reasons behind this apparently contradictory phenomenon will be left for a different post and a different day.

The really interesting thing about the materialistic and atheistic philosophies which we have been discussing is that they create a certain faith in heaven here on earth, yet few, if any, human institutions have done more damage to people here on earth than the utopian institution of Communism. Here is a contradictory phenomenon worth noting as well!

However, leaving these ramblings aside, I would simply like to point out three criticisms of this idea as found in Marx:

1. To view the advancement of mankind from past history is, at least, a rational idea. To assume that our species will automatically continue to advance, or even survive, is wishful thinking, and opposed to the basic principles of evolution which underlie the idea itself. In other words, to use biological evolution as an analogy, if we can demonstrate that some aspect of evolution actually happened, against astronomical odds, well and good. To be certain that this aspect of evolution will continue in the same manner against the same astronomical odds, is blind fortune telling. 

2. To assume that change is always improvement is a dangerous and somewhat naive viewpoint. In the atheistic constructs of the philosophies we have examined, with no Divine Power guiding our destiny, it seems to me that the idea that the syntheses of Hegelian-Fichtean dialectic should always represent unending improvement is a blindly optimistic view of the universe.

3. The idea that this future utopian state will be permanent seems to directly disagree with the basic premises of Hegelian dialectic. This was mentioned in the last post, so there is no need to go back over here. Suffice it to say that that the synthesis of utopia ought to have its own antithesis.

Finally, I would like to add that this blindly optimistic viewpoint of man's future is still very much with us today. There seems to be a feeling of man-come-of-age, man-controlling-his-destiny, man-as-the-summit-and-intention-of-evolution, that breeds a certain dangerous hubris, especially in matters of science and sociology.

At least the Christian's certainty of some heavenly place or state is founded upon the idea of an omnipotent Divine Being Who controls the odds, and is thus, ironically, a far more rational form of optimism.

A Red FLag Rises, Part V: Relativism

We therefore reject every attempt to impose on us any moral dogma whatsoever as eternal, ultimate and forever immutable ethical law on the pretext that the moral world, too, has its permanent principles which stand above history and the differences between nations. ~Friedrich Engels~ 

Today we will look at the second philosophical seed of Communism, and that is relativism.

Relativism can be considered as one of the great curses of modern thought. It adversely affects both reason and morals. It is, at root, the denial of the absolute. Relativism is not confined to realm of philosophy and the atmosphere of universities. It has (as philosophies in universities are wont to do) trickled down and become a commonplace with the common man. On any given day one is quite likely to hear among his or her neighbors, families, friends, or co-workers, the opinion that truth is individualistic, that there is no absolute, that whatever one believes is all that really matters, and a host of other ideas and phrases all exhibiting the philosophy of relativism. The commonness of this phenomenon has taken relativism from the realm of being an occasional scholarly disease to being an intellectual plague of epidemic proportions.

Their are several different forms of relativism, but we are concerned principally with two for the present: moral relativism, and historical relativism.

Communism is woven from top to bottom with moral and historical relativism, and it is not hard to find their source. The name of this source is Georg Hegel, the German philosopher with whom we have become increasingly familiar in these posts. Ironically, Hegel's philosophy shows strong absolutist tendencies, though his dialectic is fundamentally relativistic. It is, in fact, precisely upon this inconsistency that many scholars have criticized Hegel's work. Hegel's dialectic is rather automatically relativistic. Unlike Socratic dialectic, in which either the thesis or antithesis must be wrong, an idea clearly rooted in traditional absolutism, Hegelian dialectic leads to the creation of the synthesis, something new and different. This synthesis will have its own antithesis, and so forth, thus leading to a structure in which there is no right or wrong answer, but only helical change. It is worth noting here, for purposes of visualization, that the philosophies of Fichte, Hegel, etc., were neither cyclical nor linear, but helical. The visual of a helix clearly represents the idea of relativism--a progressive spiral of change with no absolute points.

Given, even hypothetically, infinite sources of energy and an infinite number of opposing forces, this dialectic should continue is course infinitely without ever arriving at an absolute conclusion. It is here, however, that Hegel reveals his absolutist side, by arriving at a clear stopping point, a final synthesis. Hegel believed that the process of historical dialectic would lead at last to a moment when man achieves, in pure spirit or mind, the god-like perfection of  perfect knowledge. Hegel considers no antithesis to this final synthesis. Thus his dialectic ends with an absolute. Again, Hegel has been criticized several times by later philosophers upon this very contradiction. Yet the same problem may be seen in both Feuerbach and Marx as well, and I think that we would find that many people who hold to the idea of relativism have certain absolutist goals, hopes, or ideals as well.

Marx certainly hoped for a perfect classless society in the future, itself an absolutist ideal. Like Hegel, he seems to have ended his dialectic with a final absolute. However, the rest of his view of history is very relativistic, and his moral viewpoint is defined by relativism as well.

In Marx's dialectical reading of history man cannot be said to be man; through his revolutions and dialectical struggles man is becoming man. The novelty of the synthesis makes relation to an absolute impossible. A thing is said to be improving as it approaches the perfection of its species. The perfection of thing is an absolute. Powerful is in relation to the perfection of absolute power. Prettier is in relation to the perfection of absolute beauty. And so forth. In the historical relativism of Hegelian dialectic, however, change is so radical that it bears no relation to an absolute. A person, thing, or idea does not become better (i.e. nearer to the perfection of its species), it becomes something altogether different-- a synthesis of opposing forces. Man, to Marx, is not becoming better, while remaining intrinsically human, but is radically changing, simply becoming. The god-like future man of Hegel is not merely a better man than you and I, it is a radically different man. Imagine for a moment a dialectical struggle between good and evil. The result of this struggle is not the victory of either good or evil, but rather the creation of something new, with which we have hitherto had no acquaintance. This new synthesis will also have its struggle with a new antithesis, and so on. Good and evil can no longer be understood in even hypothetically absolute terms, but merely as passing evolutionary rungs on a dialectical step ladder. Viewing history through this dialectical lens we are allowed no permanence, no absolutes; we are left only with change. History devoid of absolutes becomes relativistic.

It is no great leap from here to understand that everything absolute in our concepts also suffers from the helical pattern of Hegelian dialectic. Moral relativism is only an obvious consequence of these doctrines, and one that we shall examine more closely in a related post in the future.

A Red Flag Rises, Part IV: Atheism

Criticism of religion is the beginning of all criticism. ~Karl Marx~

Prometheus is the first saint and martyr on the calendar of philosopy. ~Karl Marx~

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. ~Karl Marx~

Now that we have looked a little at the philosophies that inspired and defined Marxist Socialism, let us return to the second post in this series, in which I listed seven principles that underlie the philosophy of Communism. In the next seven posts I would like to briefly examine these principles, and offer some salient quotes from Marx, Feuerbach, and later Communist leaders, to demonstrate the use and evolution of these principles within Communist history.

Today we will begin with the first point, which is atheism.

Atheism is certainly not new. In the sense of practical atheism (living as though God does not exist), it has cleary been around since Fall of our first parents. There is no historical record that can give us a date for the first appearance of intellectual atheism, the actual belief that God does not exist. However, there are certainly enough records of individual atheists to indicate that there have been atheists here and there throughout much of known history. At no point prior to modern times, however, did atheism define a culture, or achieve any real political or social prominence. Atheists were typically isolated individuals, and their beliefs do not seem to have been in keeping with the beliefs of the majority of their fellow countrymen. It is possible, of course, as some modern atheists would have us believe, that there were many more atheists who were afraid to voice their opinions, and those few who did so were lonely heroes. There is certainly no real evidence for such an idea, and even if the number of atheists of earlier times was far higher than we might imagine, the very idea that they kept their beliefs to themselves out of fear or social sensitivities would still seem to indicate that they were very much the minority. One thing is perfectly clear, however. Never, in all the long annals of history, until modern times, do we ever encounter an atheistic government, country, or society. Atheism was always the exception, never the rule.

Beginning with the Enlightenment (that infamous misnomer!) atheism appears on a larger scale, exhibiting great numbers and commanding more political power. Even this, however, was largely confined originally to France, and could be seen as more anticlerical than anti-theistic.

It is in Communist ideology, and in the Communist countries that we first really find an attempt to create an entirely atheistic government, country, and people. The atheism of this Communism stems directly from Communism's German roots, and it is worth while spending a few short paragraphs to examine its distinctive features.

It has already been noted in the previous posts in this series, that Hegel and Feuerbach represent two of the greatest philosophical influences on Marx and his thought. Hegel was an Idealist who promoted the idea of dialectically evolving Spirit. The evolution of this spirit would eventually culminate in a god-like perfection. Hegel, as mentioned in the first post, worded his beliefs carefully to hide his atheism, allowing his readers to fall into the trap of assuming that he really still did believe in some kind of Deity. He did this presumably to remain hire-able as a professor in a still nominally Christian Germany. It seems quite clear now, however, that he was really an atheist, merely making man into god through a sort of dialectical apotheosis.

Feuerbach split with Hegel's Idealism, preferring a stark materialism. His atheism was clearer, and he was hailed by his peers as having destroyed the notion of God. Like his master, he also apotheosized man, but only in the sense of humanity, not individual persons. He believed that humanity as a collective whole, dialectically advancing through history, would eventually repudiate the idea of God, and accept is own personal greatness, realizing that the attributes wrongly ascribed to God throughout history were really the glorious attributes of humanity itself.

Like Feuerbach, Marx was a devout materialist, who also believed that humanity contained its own greatness, the greatness for so long mistakenly attributed to God.

There are many forms of atheism, but Marxist atheism has a few particular qualities that are worth understanding.  From what we have seen of Hegel, Feuerbach, and Marx, we may observe four crucial aspects to Marxist atheism.

1. It is anti-theistic. Atheism takes many forms, and throughout history there have been many polite and well-mannered atheists who had come to a personal belief that God did not exist. They were not God-haters or God-destroyers. Often there beliefs remained personal, and they were quite willing to accept the religious convictions of their fellowmen. Feuerbach and Marx bear no resemblance to such personalities, and would best be described, not as atheistic, but as anti-theistic. Since they held that the attributes commonly ascribed to God were actually the attributes of mankind itself, they believed that faith in God robbed man of his own greatness. Belief in a deity crippled man, making him a servant to an imaginary tyrant. Thus faith was not an amoral issue, rather faith in God represented to these men an actual evil. Man must take back what had been robbed from him; must repudiate God and accept his own "divinity"; must leave the illusion of heaven and conquer earth; must renounce his own slavery and become master of the world.

2. It is evangelistic. It follows from what has been said above that Marxist atheism must take on an evangelical, almost messianic character. It is essential to it, for the liberation of mankind, that the very notion of God be removed from the minds of men, obliterated from the records of our memories. Thus is creates its own "gospel", the good new of materialistic humanism, and sends out its missionaries to convert the world. It becomes almost a religion in its own right, filled with evangelical zeal, striving to utterly destroy the last vestige of God in the minds of all men. It will not be satisfied until it has accomplished that very goal.

3. It apotheosizes humanity. This has already been mentioned above, but it should be noticed that Hegel, Feuerbach, and Marx all share the idea of man-as-god. Feuerbach and Marx are particularly clear in noting that every goodness ascribed to God is really a projection of man himself, who in the alienation of his unhappy conscience seeks to create a perfect being outside himself and untainted by his own failures. To both these men, however, mankind really contains all the goodness and greatness of God within itself. Communism thus divinizes mankind, placing the image of man as the idol of worship in its humanist temple.

4. Its apotheosis is collectivist. Feuerbach, in breaking with Hegel's Idealism, also broke from the individualistic tendencies of Hegel. Marx, however was also critical of the vagueness of Feuerbach's abstract humanity, and sought a more concrete, historical understanding of man. It is important to understand Marx's thought here correctly, which due to its complexity will be reserved for another post. Marx was, in a certain sense of the word, both an individualist and a collectivist. Nonetheless, Marx believed that the perfection of man-as-god was not to be looked for in individuals, but rather in Communist society as a whole. In other words, the true freedom and perfection of the individual can only occur within the collectivist society of Marxist Socialism. Thus the collectivist aspect of Communism is present in the philosophies that inspire it, and its subjugation of the individual to the state is merely the political outworking of its philosophical root.

In his doctoral thesis Karl Marx glorifies the character of Prometheus from Greek mythology, who stole fire from Zeus and gave it man to use. For this deed Prometheus was condemned to everlasting torment in Hades, chained to a rock. Marx admires Prometheus because he rebelled against the gods, stole their greatness and gave it man, made man godlike, and preferred to torture to serving Zeus.

Thus we can describe the atheism of Marxist thought as collective, universal struggle, forging ahead with evangelical fervor, to eventually rid all the world of religion and the idea of God, thus enabling man, the new Prometheus, to take back by revolt his own great gifts and goodness which were stolen from him by the gods; until, at last, he sets up a humanistic, materialistic paradise of man in Communist society that will cover one end of the earth to the other.

Such is the picture of Marxist atheism, and it is at the very heart and soul of Communism.

A Red Flag Rises Part III: Karl Marx and Man as an Economic Factor

In these previous two posts we have looked at the philosophical roots of Marxist Socialism as found in Hegelian Dialectic, and the Dialectical Materialism of Feuerbach. At the end of the last post I listed seven key aspects of these philosophies which directly influenced Communism, and each one of which will be discussed in its own future post. However, we must first examine the "finishing touches" placed on Hegelian/Feuerbachian thought by Marx himself.

Karl Marx did not merely imitate or assent to the ideas of those who went before him, nor did he borrow from them carte blanche. While Hegel and Feuerbach were his inspiration, he did not agree with them at every point, and had several crucially important ideas of his own, which fashioned their thought into the "scientific socialism" of the next generation. In the words of Fr. Vincent Miceli, S. J., in his magnificent work The Gods of Atheism, "Karl Marx received the keys to his Communist kingdom from his German masters, Hegel and Feuerbach. Hegel gave him the keys of the unhappy conscience and the dialectical method of analyzing history....Ludwig Feuerbach, with the publication of his The Essence of Christianity, supplied Marx with the key of a humanist, materialistic humanism....A genius in his own right, Marx minted a few keys to his own kingdom."

Without entering the hallowed grounds of the philosophers, whose fine points and language I will not profess to understand, I believe that we may use a few straightforward adjectives to help understand the fundamentally Marxian aspect of Communist thought, and they are concrete, political, economic.

Like Feuerbach, Marx was highly critical of the Idealism of Hegel, yet he felt the materialistic humanism of Feuerbach was also too vague and abstract. Much of Marx's thought centers on striving to turn from the abstract to the concrete. He sought to understand man and human history in concrete terms, viewing the history of our species as purely political and economic, a great dialectical struggle of oppressor and oppressed, master and slave, bourgeois and proletariat, one class pitted against another.

To Marx's atheistic, materialistic mind man has no future but this earth, no purpose but work, no goal but to work for utopia here on earth. The worker is not just a man towards whom Marx had sympathy, rather to him the worker is man. Within this perspective, the economic aspect of Communism takes on a larger and deeper meaning.

Make no mistake about it, Marx was not merely some sympathetic social justice advocate. He was seeking for paradise on earth. Man as a worker, in community (for Marx was a collectivist, man has no real value as an individual), having finished the dialectical struggle of the ages through revolution, will live and work on this earth in a classless utopia. This is the vision of Communism. It was not meant to be confined to a country or a time. It was meant to free all mankind through its revolution from bourgeois oppression, from the confines of individualism and petty nationalism, from the illusion of the idea of god and the futile hope of an after life, from the divisions of class, from any moral absolutism except its own. It was evangelical, inspired with an almost messianic zeal, and it was meant to cover all the earth with its society. Man, through his struggles, was seeking "becoming", and could only be or become in the perfect society of worldwide Communism.

It may be objected here, in light of comments in the earlier two posts, that Marxism is really an economic idea after all, since its political and economic aspect is tied with Marx's whole view of humanity, and is central to his philosophy. I have written before that Marxism cannot be understood as a merely economic principle apart from its underlying philosophies. But, it may be asked, is it not clear now that Marxism is precisely economic?

It would, perhaps, be better to view Marxist Socialism as a weapon. Its spearhead is its political and economic aspect, its concrete point in which it enters and pierces modern history. Its material shaft is Feuerbach. Its energy, or driving force, is the dialectic of Hegel.

Marxism is economic-focused, yes. But its economic and political ideas cannot be understood apart from its philosophies, and indeed could not have existed apart from them. Thus, the economic aspect of Communism arises from its root philosophies, not they from it. Sans atheism, Feuerbachian materialistic humanism is not possible, and the idea of an earthly paradise is made less likely. Sans dialectic, the Marxian view of history disappears. Sans collectivism, the subjugation of the individual to the state becomes unthinkable. Sans evolutionary thinking, the certainty of earthly utopia vanishes. And this list can go on.

Regardless of what some may think, Communism cannot really be separated from atheism, materialism, moral relativism, etc. Once again, let me state: Communism cannot be understood merely as an economic idea or principle. It cannot be divorced from its roots in nineteenth century German philosophy. It cannot be separated from its underlying Hegelain/Feuerbachian principles, nor can we fully appreciate its evil or its dangers apart from its principles.

A Red Flag Rises: Part II

In the last post we considered Hegelian Dialectic and its influence upon Feuerbach, who in turn influenced the philosophy of Marx. I listed there five elements of Hegelian Dialectic which we will see reappear in Communist thought. Before going further, I would like to pause and consider two more element which came from Feuerbach, not from Hegel, and which were, in fact, part of his criticisms of his famous teacher.

Feuerbach certainly accepted much that was central to Hegelian dialectic-- indeed Hegel was his inspiration, but he came to radically differ from him on several key points. Some say that he differed from him in his atheism, but this is a matter of appearance. Hegel strove throughout his life to remain employable, so he kept his atheism closely guarded, wording his books and papers in such a way that he could readily be imagined to believe in some form of god. Certainly Feuerbach, an outspoken atheist, was at odds with the seeming Deism of Hegel. All this was appearance, however, as most evidence indicates almost incontrovertibly that Hegel was a complete atheist. Nonetheless, Feuerbach did make clear that he considered the idea of god something which must be eradicated in order to free mankind from its slavery to a chimera, and this "evangelical atheism" was essential to his philosophy and worldview. In this he does seem to have differed with his master.

It should also be noted that Feuerbach, in critiquing Hegel's Idealism, agreed with Strauss that the "Idea" could not be confined to an individual, such as Christ, as Hegel had proposed in his thought that Christianity was the ultimate religion. Thus Feuerbach's break with Hegel sets the stage for a collectivist humanism, in which the idea of god/perfection is to be found in collective humanity, and turns away from the individualism inherent in Hegel's idealism.

A second aspect of Feuerbach's critique of Idealism is the fact that Feuerbach's philosophy is materialistic. He no longer viewed the universe as something involving spirit or idea, but rather as something purely material. Thus we are able to expand upon the five points listed in the first post, and list what I consider to be the seven seeds from which the evil of Marxist Socialism arose. They are:

1. Atheism
2. Relativism
3. Blind belief in social evolution
4. An intrinsic tendency towards revolution
5. Collectivism
6. Materialism
7. The justification of any means in light of the end.

Next we have to consider the effect these philosophies had on Karl Marx, and whether or not he espoused them. Then each of these seven points will be examined in future posts. Until then, it is enough to note that these ideas underlie all of Communism, and that Communism cannot be explained or understood as merely an economic theory or ideal. It is far more, far deeper, and far worse than that.

Until next time.

A Red Flag Rises

In all the long history of the human race, I doubt that a more inherently evil political and social system than Communism has ever been created by the mind of man, if indeed it was created by the mind of man, and not by something rather more diabolic. It seems strange to me that so many people today consider Communism to be something of the past, and also assume that the great evils which it has perpetrated upon millions are merely corruptions of its original design, accidental to its benign and purely economic intentions.

To these two great errors I reply with the following two facts:

1. Communism is still very much at large in the world, both under its own name, and in other guises.
2. The seed from which Communism sprang was rotten to the center from the beginning.

I will attempt to support these statements presently, and in doing so I shall also attempt to demonstrate why I consider knowledge of Communism as something still pertinent to our own times and circumstances.

Let us begin with that seed from which Communism grew. It is not enough to start with The Communist Manifesto, or Das Kapital. The economic ideas of Marx, Engels, and their contemporaries are not the true root of Communist ideology. If we view Communism purely as an economic theory we will utterly miss its real character and intention. Marx was influential, and he had his own influences as well, and his personal philosophical ideas were fairly mature before Proudhon suggested at a dinner party that he apply them to economics. In other words, the economic side of Communism is merely the aspect of  human experience to which Marx applied his philosophical theories, and we can never truly understand Communism until we understand those theories. So let us review a little history and philosophy.

We start our review with a journey back in time to the very early nineteenth century, to Germany and to a philosopher by the name of Georg Hegel. Like so many other philosophers who spend their lives dealing in esoteric thoughts and complicated polysyllabic words, Hegel actually had an immense impact on the everyday thoughts and lives of everyday people. There are a variety of aspects to Hegel's thought but we will focus only upon one great cornerstone of it which has become deeply entrenched in modern thought, and that is the concept of Hegelian Dialectic. To offer a quick and simple explanation of Hegelian Dialectic, we may use the three terms thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. In Hegel's thought every thesis (word, idea, force, action, etc.) will find itself opposed by its opposite, or antithesis. The ensuing struggle between these two ideas results, not in the traditional concepts of victory and defeat, but rather in the creation of something new and different-- a synthesis. Each synthesis is evolutionary, an improvement upon what had preceded it. Applied to thought and understanding the dialectic process should eventually leads humanity to a god-like state, when man realizes that he is actually god.

Five aspects of Hegelian Dialectic should be noted here, as they will continue to be important.

1. It is always revolutionary. Antithesis, opposition, antagonism, or revolt against the existing order is always essential to advancement.

2. It is evolutionary. It assumes that the synthesis is an improvement upon the thesis and antithesis, an expanding of horizons, a deepening of knowledge. It is unclear to me where this process ever ends, for the final perfect synthesis should also have its antithesis, but it is quite clear that it leads to a disparagement of past thought.

3. It is relativistic. Absolute truth either does not exist in such a Hegelian construct, or else is presently unknowable to humans, since every certainty which we hold will be opposed by its antithesis, both of which will prove to be untrue or imperfect in light of the synthesis. It breaks with the traditional current of Western thought which has been in place since the Greek philosophers, expressed in the logical dictum "If one of two opposites be infinite, the other must be entirely destroyed".

4. It destroys all traditional concepts of God and origins, and tends toward either atheism or some form of human or natural apotheosis.

5. It subjugates the means to the end. Both thesis and antithesis are to some degree inconsequential in light the synthesis, and the inherent relativism of the structure.

So much for Hegel. The philosopher's greatest student was another German, a young man named Ludwig Feuerbach. His ideas did not precisely mesh with those of his teacher (Feuerbach was an outspoken atheist and a materialist, while Hegel was not a materialist, and was a covert atheist), but must be noted that all of his thought was rooted in Hegel's system of dialectic. Like Hegel, Feuerbach understood history in terms of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, but all viewed through a purely atheistic and materialistic lens.  Feuerbach believed that man, seeing in himself both good and evil, objectifies and apotheosizes the good, giving to it the name of god-- that something perfect towards which we aspire in our imperfections. Taking this good and placing it outside himself, man robs himself of his own potential. He writes, "Man...objectifies his being and then again makes himself an object to the objectivized image of himself thus converted into a subject...." (The Essence of Christianity 1841). However, to Feuerbach this objectification of our being is not only an error, but an evil. By attributing our own attributes to an imaginary god, we remain forever subjects to that imaginary god, incapable of taking back what is ours, and advancing towards a perfection of humanity. Thus atheism was not optional to the mind of Feuerbach, rather it was essential. Feuerbach was not a private atheist, but rather an evangelist of atheism, teaching that the notion of God must be destroyed in order to free mankind from its self-imposed slavery. In addition to the five points listed above concerning Hegelian Dialectic, we may add from Feuerbach's thought this aggressive ant-theism, this need to utterly destroy the very notion of god from the human consciousness in order to liberate mankind for greatness.

Feuerbach's influence as the leader of the Left Hegelians was immense, and his influence was strongly felt by none others than Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Marx, in fact wrote his doctoral thesis on Feuerbach, and though it was a criticism, Marx remained firmly entrenched in Hegelian Dialectic, and the atheistic materialism of Feuerbach. We must not underestimate this influence. It is here that we must look to truly understand Communism. Communism is a social, political, and economic system, yes. But it is first and foremost a worldview rooted in atheism, materialism, and Hegelian Dialectic. How this is so and what it means will be examined in ensuing posts.





 

On the Feast of The Holy Trinity

Of all those great phrases and expressions, so powerful and pregnant with meaning, which, through much repetition become mere banalities, there are few in the English language so rich and magnificent as the expression "of hearth and home". This simple phrase, as simple and commonplace as the thing which it expresses, has all the power and beauty of such fundamental things, like roots and stone. It captures at once the tenderness and depth of familial love, and the majesty and strength of fire. To those who were blessed to be raised in good and loving families, such an expression carries the gift of inexpressible memories, memories burgeoning with such deeply felt, but unspoken, ideas as growth, life, foundations, and home. To those whose childhood memories are scarred with memories of brokenness, bitterness, separation, and solitude, this expression may stir that deeply hidden longing for stability, comfort, warmth, and family. And these are among the most deeply engraved longings in the human heart.

When one hears the expression "of hearth and home" it is easy to conjure up images of curly-headed toddlers playing in the firelight, of the chiaroscuro of the shadows framing the glowing figure of the woman robed in all the grace and majesty of motherhood, and of the deeply etched lines and shining eyes of the father marvelling to play such a part in all of this.

But what of the firelight? Why the hearth? Is it not simpler and more profound to merely utter that monumental word "home" and leave it as it is? Or why not candlelight, or sunlight, or even darkness flecked with stars? And yet, for some reason, the hearth seems essential, almost as if the subconscious of those who first spoke the phrase demanded that home and family and fire all go together. I, for one, feel quite certain that they do go together. One might almost say that the secret of the family is the fire.

I suspect that God, knowing full well the temptation to power and strength that brought down Satan and so many others, often chooses to hide majesty and power in the fragile and the simple things of life, where only humility and love can find them. What if we, like Prometheus of old, should rebel against the gods and bring down fire from heaven? Would we not soon end the world in some apocalyptic conflagration? But in the love, humility, understanding, and devotion of a Christian family there burns a fire that does not destroy, but may transform all the earth. And perhaps the family itself hides this power because it was patterned upon the Image of God Himself.

And this brings us to the point of theses scattered thoughts. The Trinity. That great and inexplicable mystery of the Christian Faith, is it not the very foundation and fountainhead of all of our Theology? How the Doctors and Theologians discoursed, and debated, and warred upon this central dogma! They wrestled with fine points of doctrine, and "et filioque" clauses, and reminders that we must believe in this single three-Person God never "confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance." And the saints and the mystics marvelled at the Trinity, and dwelt and adored in its Life as if they were swimming in some vast ocean of Love.

There is something terribly exciting about having a secret. It may be a bad secret, like some delightful bit of gossip, which one burns to tell. Or it may be a good secret, which one must hold until the time that it is ready to be revealed, when all may rejoice in it. A person with such a secret will find it very hard indeed to hold his tongue. His very attitude will be one pf knowing, and he is likely to bubble over with excitement and drop veiled hints here and there. It is something very like that with the history of the revelation of the great mystery of the Trinity. Like some Divine secret it is hinted at in various places in past ages. Three angels come to visit Abraham. God says "Let us make man in Our image." The Spirit moves the Prophets, and a Son is mentioned. But there is nothing particularly clear in all of this, and world had to wait until the great Revealer came.

It is Christ Who finally made known to us the monumental secret of the Personal Life of God. It was He, whose death rent the temple veil, who unveiled the very heavens. And the sons of Adam gaped up in astonishment at what they saw, and they have gone on rejoicing in it from that day to this.

When the veil of the heavens was rent, and the remnants of it swept aside, the great secret of Eternity was revealed. And that secret was not that the heavens were empty, nor that Yaweh dwelt in some Olympian solitude as we might expect. The staggering, joyous secret was that the heart of Eternity was Love, that God Himself was a Family. And it is here that the sane and healthy, the wounded and the scarred, all find their Hearth and their Home.

The Equality Fallacy Part V: What Then is Marriage?

"I have been requested to write something about Marriage and the Modern Mind. It would perhaps be more appropriate to write about Marriage and the Modern Absence of Mind." (G.K. Chesterton, Sidelights, 1932)

"...while I have known thousands of people arguing about marriage, sometimes furiously against it, sometime rather feebly in favor of it, I have never known any one of the disputants to begin by defining what marriage is." (G. K. Chesterton, Sidelights, 1932)

An incomplete definition is really no definition at all. A definition is intended to clarify, while an incomplete definition causes confusion.  To be complete, a definition must cover every essential aspect of the thing being defined. If, for example, one were to try to define "man" (in the sense of homo sapiens, not in the sense of "male") as a being with a rational soul, such an incomplete definition would do little to illuminate the nature of man. After all, angels are rational. Aliens, if they exist, may very well have rational souls. Some even hold that animals have rational souls. Or again, if one defined "man" as a creature with a body, the same confusion persists. Perhaps man is a mere animal, even a fish or a possum. Accidental details are irrelevant; it is of no concern if a man has black hair, or a birthmark. Only the essentials must be covered, but all of them must be covered, or the attempt at definition has failed.

In the first of this series of posts on homosexuality and gay marriage I proposed that most of the arguments commonly used to support gay marriage were emotional rather than logical. Later I listed a number of popular canards, dealing with issues such as homophobia, the narrow-mindedness of the religious right, bigotry, and the like. All of these were examples of arguments or persuasions that  missed the central issue. Once again, the central issue may be stated as follows: "What is marriage, and within the framework of the proper definition of that word, can homosexual unions accurately be described as marriages? And, furthermore, if they cannot be so described, what is likely to be the resulting effect upon society if we redefine the word marriage to include such unions?"

While I am inclined to agree with the second quote from Mr. Chesterton at the beginning of this post, I will also say that there are times in this present debate when attempts at defining marriage are made. They are not always explicitly stated, more often they are held subconsciously and expressed as a vague assumption. However, I believe that even these rare attempts at defining marriage are incomplete, as I will attempt to demonstrate today, and therefore they result in grave confusion and error. For those who become rather understandably impatient with certain philosophers and theologians throughout history who have been willing to write lengthy books or wage bitter wars over the proper definition of some esoteric word or phrase, the present topic affords us with an excellent example of the immense importance of a correct definition. An apparently slight difference in the definition of the simple word "marriage" can lead to almost diametrically opposed concepts of society, politics, and family. I, for one, find that to be something important enough to argue about.

What, then, is marriage?

Since a definition must not only be accurate in each of its aspects, but must also be complete, I would like to begin by determining what marriage is not. Each of the following items are not necessarily wrong--they are generally all part of marriage--but not one of them taken by itself can constitute an accurate definition of marriage. It will then become imperative to determine if all them taken together are sufficient to create that definition.

Love, commitment, and sex. These are, in most people's minds, the essential aspects of a complete definition of marriage. Of course, it is quite clear that not any one of these three aspects is sufficient for that task, taken on its own. Love and commitment are both ideas that may exist completely apart from marriage, and both may be entirely platonic. Friends, roommates, family members, and business partners may all practice and experience varying degrees of love and commitment, but in ways that clearly have nothing to do with any definition of marriage.

Is sex then the answer? Again, taken on its own, sex is also a clearly insufficient definition, or  else every sexual act would constitute a marriage. And why, with any of three ideas, is it necessary to assume that only two person be involved? After all, cannot love, sex, and commitment occur in polygamous relations as well, provided all parties involved are satisfied with the arrangement? Certainly the advocates of polygamy would argue that they can

If the correct definition of marriage is none of these three aspects taken individually, perhaps it is all three of them taken in conjunction. Perhaps marriage can be described as a loving, committed relationship between two persons who are sexually attracted to one another. However, a little analysis will demonstrate that even this definition falls apart under closer scrutiny. After all, love can die without the marriage being dissolved. Sex can also come to an end. Age, disease, impotency, and physical handicap can all render a marriage devoid of sexual relationship. Nonetheless, no one would imagine that these situation make the marriage nonexistent.  And even infidelity, which is a grievous offense against commitment, does not in itself dissolve the marriage. In our present culture, an act of infidelity allows to injured party to pursue a legal means of dissolution, but no one would consider that an act of infidelity automatically transforms a marriage into a non-marriage. After all, countless couples work through infidelity, finding forgiveness and healing, without ever for a moment considering themselves unmarried. Even if answers could be found to all these  objection, none of this explains the legal and political interest in marriage. If marriage were nothing more than a public promise to faithfully love someone "until death do us part", why the tax  breaks, why the social benefits, why the legal complexities and political machinations? Does it really make sense that the government would be so deeply interested in supporting and benefiting two person who merely intend to have sex together for a rather long time?

What then is marriage?

I would propose a fourth essential aspect to marriage, and that is family. I say essential, although it is clear that many valid marriages do not result in children. To explain what I mean, allow me to argue backwards, in a sense, in order to arrive finally at our point of departure.

Now it is self-evident that the continued existence of the human species can only be assured by means of procreation. We are not immortal, so it is necessary that our numbers be constantly replenished by new generations. In a word, it is imperative that our species give birth to children. Since we have not yet determined the success or possibility of human cloning, the birth of children is presently our only recourse to replenishing the population. This much is clear and certain.

Secondly, there is only one way (barring the miraculous) in which a child can be formed, and that is through the fertilization of the female ovum by the male sperm. This, too, is undeniable. Now, there are only two ways in which this fertilization can occur: sexual intercourse and  artificial fertilization. Artificial fertilization has its own moral and psychological problems, which will be examined in a forthcoming post, and is far the less common, or natural, of the two options. By and large the standard mean for fertilization is that of sexual intercourse. Physiologically and biologically, procreative sexual intercourse is only possible between a man and a woman. Barring artificial insemination (again, more on that soon), two men or two women are absolutely incapable of producing children.

This producing of children is  a thing of unspeakable wonder and majesty, with which we modern people have grown too accustomed, even bored or frustrated. There is something that longs to create (Catholics might call it the Imago Dei) written into the very fabric of the human person. Yet, try as we might, it is here alone, in the act of conception, that we get to be almost as gods, and work with God Himself in the creation of something entirely new-- a human person, endowed with freedom and a soul. No other natural human act of creation comes close to rising to such a level.

Bearing children is not only a wonderful thing, but (as stated above) it is also essential to the survival of our species. Thus it has both a personal and a general aspect. But it has a sociopolitical aspect as well. Reproduction is also essential to the State. Any country which slips too far or too long below the replacement rate (excepting the possibility of a great influx of immigrants), is destined for internal and external weakness, and eventual collapse. The State has a reason to be concerned with the continuation of procreation (though modern states primarily seem to be concerned with halting procreation).  But this concern focuses not only on quantity, but quality as well. It is not enough to have large numbers of children, the State also hopes that the majority of such children are well-raised, intelligent, successful, and otherwise destined to be good citizens. It is for this reason that the State interests itself with the environment in which these children will be raised.

It is here that the cultural and societal importance of marriage becomes more evident. Children could be produced by any teenage couple copulating in the back seat of a car, or any one night stand in a Motel 6. However, such an arrangement is far less than ideal. Children have certain needs, physically and psychologically, that must be met for their good and the good of society. It has long been evident to countless generations and cultures, even our own to some extent, that these need are best met through the institution of marriage. There are three principal reasons for this.

1. Every child is to some extent the biological product of its mother and father. Not only its actual life, but its genetic code, and aspects of its personality, are taken from both of its parents. Scientifically we may consider X and Y chromosomes, sexually we recognize that every child takes from both the feminine and the masculine. Not only is that its origin, but the child will eventually enter society, a society comprised of males and females, and will find it important to be able to participate with both sexes. For this reason, a child needs both a male and a female influence in its raising, from its earliest years. And since its genetic make-up, and much of its personality is taken from its biological parents, a child also ideally needs to be raised by its biological parents. Normatively speaking, provided that they are reasonably decent people and good parents, a child is best raised by its immediate blood relatives. There are countless scholarly studies and statistics that have demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that children raised by two parents generally suffer far less from psychological illness, drug use, etc., than those raised by single parents. There is also sufficient evidence that these two parents should represent each gender-- one male, one female. Ideally, it is obvious that, generally speaking, a child should be raised by its biological parents. I recognize that this is not always possible, and that there are always exceptions to such rules, but we will examine that in a moment.

2. Personal Attention. A married couple also represents the ideal model for raising children, because of love and personal attention. For all of their many benefits, schools, day cares, and government institutions can never provide the detailed, loving, personal attention that every child really needs for healthy maturation. Rarely can workers in should fields, no matter how kind and loving they may be, ever equal the love that biological parents feel for the child that sprang from their very bodies. It is one of the great errors of our modern cultures that the raising of children has been so institutionalized. In business, in government, in every other field, we recognize that the more important a subject is the greater the need for a small, specialized organization to treat it becomes. And since the raising of children is of far greater importance, is it not self-evident that that small, attentive, healthy, personal, organic unit called the family is best fitted to raise a child?

3.  Commitment. Not only do children need parents and family, but they also need fidelity. Not only do their parents need to demonstrate faithfulness toward their children, but also towards each other. Every child learns by example, and the closest example that he/she has is the example of his/her immediate family, especially those often inadequate role models call Mommy and Daddy. Fidelity between the spouses is thus essential to healthy development of a child. Statistical evidence for this abounds as well. Children from divorced families are significantly more likely to experience divorce, separation, or commitment issues in their own adult lives. Psychological issues become more prevalent here, too. Again, there are exception here as well, but generally speaking a child needs a marriage, even more than a marriage needs a child.

Let us pause to recapitulate.

The raising of children should ideally be managed by two parents. These parents should be one male and one female. Again, ideally, they should be the child's biological parents. And these parents should live in a committed, faithful relationship. I am quite sure that all this sounds like an institution with which we are all familiar, an institution called marriage.

And so, starting from the beginning again, where have we gotten? The birth of children is essential to the survival of the human species. It is also essential to the health, structure, and continuance of society. Children are biologically derived from the sexual intercourse of a man and a woman. The ideal environment for their raising is in the family of their biological parents. Since the biological parents must be male and female, it becomes evident that marriage, with its societal and cultural implications, must automatically be heterosexual.

 We could stop here, but there are too many objection, too many questions, too much ground left uncovered.

First of all, let us remember that the State supports marriage in a positive way, but it does not guard it in a negative way. Let me explain. It will no doubt be argued that not every heterosexual marriage leads to children, whether due to choice or nature. To those persons who, like myself, prefer the idea of a small and limited government, it will be clear that it is not up to the State to ask every couple whether they intend to have children (nor is it possible, the couple has only to lie), nor may she interfere medically and determine a couple unfit for marriage due to impotency, age, etc. Such a negative approach would be unbearably totalitarian and repugnant to the modern mind. However, the State blesses and benefits marriage in a positive way, thus recognizing it as the ideal way of producing children, and thus acknowledging it as the core of the family, as family is the core of society. Thus marriage is honored for what it alone (in a natural sense) can produce and provide, not that it always does produce and provide in every situation. Yet no other natural institution can provide what marriage does. Marriages which, whether through nature or choice, do not detract from that fact, since they are accidental to the state of heterosexual marriage, not intrinsic to it. But barrenness is intrinsic to homosexual unions. There is no natural means of child production in gay partnerships. Children can only be procured by means of adoption or artificial insemination, and, as was made clear above, neither of these are ideal circumstances. This unnaturalness of child-bearing and child-raising is essential to gay unions, not accidental.

Let me be quite clear: the matter of children and family is the reason why the state supports (or, as in Communist Russia, opposes) the institution of marriage. For good or evil, her interest in marriage is for that reason, and that alone. The State does not bless a couple for having sex. She does not offer them benefits for liking one another. She is  not deeply concerned about the welfare of the nation if two people choose to live together. No, she is concerned with the family, the producer of future generations, and the upholder of the structure of society. In such a definition, only heterosexual couples may be considered for marriage. Gay unions or partnerships are just that, unions and partnerships. We cannot legalize gay marriage, because gay marriage does not exist. It is not a thing. It has no definition. It is not an illegal marriage, it is simply not a marriage at all, whatever the law may say.

What then is marriage? Marriage is the seed of the family, its beginning and its home. It is, ideally, the only truly safe and healthy place for family. It is here that children are brought forth biologically in accordance with nature, and in an environment of love and fidelity. It is here that they are raised by their biological parents. It is here that populations are replenished. It is here that civilization is nurtured, and cultured preserved. It is here that our future is established.

We live in a pluralistic society. In such a society, homosexual relationships are not condemned, per se. Those of us who object to homosexuality on moral grounds must retain the right to speak out on this subject, to demonstrate our concern for the souls of those who are homosexual. But such a pluralistic society does not create laws to forbid the practice of homosexuality between two consenting adults. They may love one another. They may be committed to one another. They may have sexual relationships with one another. But however much we may tolerate such unions, whatever we may call such unions, let us not call them marriage, for this they can never be.

I, for one, think that definitions are important. And when we redefine marriage, we redefine the foundation of our society. And when we strike the foundation, the structure crumbles.

Take heed.