It has been my experience that the resort to ad hominem – that is: to attack the person making an argument rather than counter the argument being made – is often the first (and only) resort of those who find themselves with no ability to construct a meaningful rebuttal of a differing opinion. For an example, consider Doris Wrench Eisler’s most recent reply to me in these pages.
Because while she’s certainly quick to accuse me of sophistry, and certainly able to unleash a torrent of vitriol upon the West, upon religion, and upon capitalism, she also completely failed to reply to what I was saying in my last letter.
In that letter, I was talking about explicitly secular regimes, not about communist regimes. That there’s significant overlap between the two is beside the point; my focus was on the overt atheism of these brutal and murderous governments. The argument had been previously made that secular governance was an unalloyed good; I was pointing out both that there were limits to this good, and that the best in secular governance is nevertheless built upon a Judeo-Christian philosophical foundation. Radically secular governments which reject such a basis have unfailingly turned on their own people to the tune of millions of lives.
While it’s generally considered beyond the pale to deny the atrocities of the Holocaust, it appears to still be somewhat socially acceptable to deny, pace Walter Duranty, that communism or its practitioners have caused such misery on an even more massive scale. True, it’s difficult to find an exact figure; estimates range from around 38 million to upwards of 148 million dead, and much debate rages about whether these figures should only include targeted acts of democide, or whether they should include indirect killings such as the Holodomor. Still, even the low estimate is a horrific figure, and speaks volumes about the legacy of suffering that radical secularist governance has inflicted upon the world.
Which is why it doesn't matter if Pol Pot was a simpleton or if none of these governments practised authentic communism. Observing as much is simply a distraction, an attempt to sidestep the uncomfortable truth that, for as much as religious human beings and human-led religious regimes have failed to be moral or to follow the will of God, the bloodshed and suffering that has resulted from these has been minimal compared to the scale of the carnage and horror that has been wrought by human beings acting out of a utilitarian and materialist contempt for human life.
Mrs. Eisler may reject the idea of love, or of a salvific God ... but ample evidence exists that if there is to be any salvation for humankind, it will not come from human beings; we are far more adept at – and adapted to – killing each other and everything around us; thus is our nature. Salvation will come from the supernatural, or not at all.
Finally, Mrs. Eisler evidently did miss that I did answer the question of what was/is moral: what is moral is what effects the good of the other. To keep to the example of abortion, Catholicism prohibits both it and artificial contraception (various NFP methods are permitted) because the most good is effected by keeping the sexual act open to both its unitive and procreative aspects. Sex both strengthens the bond between a couple and allows them to co-participate in the divine act of creation itself.
And note that this explanation of morality goes beyond the dictum of “eye for an eye,” beyond even the Golden Rule. The unique moral innovation introduced by Jesus wasn’t the Golden Rule, but rather the injunction to love one’s enemies, to pray for and do good to those that harm or hate one. This is a radical notion that the world still struggles to do well even a fraction of the time.
To will the good of the other (even an enemy) and do what is needed to bring it about; that is what morality is. That people often fail to live up to this ideal is not evidence of its falsehood or failing.
Kenneth Kully, St. Albert
