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.