Doris Wrench Eisler again demonstrates that she didn’t actually read the entirety of my letter to her, in her most recent reply to me (Gazette, Aug. 25). This becomes apparent when she attempts to discredit the numbers I cited when discussing the human cost of attempts at implementing communism at a state level. (Let’s leave aside the whole discussion of honorifics; this is just another attempt to distract from the topic.)
Eisler’s knowledge of history is also somewhat lacking. To point out just a few examples: her assertion that communism was not permitted to develop (which is odd, since the Soviet Union endured for more than 70 years, and various nations continue to implement variants of Marxist philosophy to this day), her citation of 30 million as the human toll of the Holodomor (the commonly cited figure is about seven million, which is still horrible), and her assertion that “that country” (presumably Russian) was attacked in 1918 by a consortium of capitalist nations (no such effort was mounted against the Russians, especially not immediately after the end of the Great War).
But let us not dwell on these errors, and let us move back to the topic of love. Eisler claims to “entirely believe in love, the real thing and not a sentimental substitute”; I would ask how she would define “real” love, as she understands it. Recall that I’ve already supplied a definition: love is to will the good of the other. It falls to Eisler to explain how this is an ingenuine explanation of love, and how it is mere sentiment.
Eisler is repulsed by my observations about the human capacity for violence and evil, despite having remarked upon same in these pages many times before. She asks what God could even be bothered to save such beings as this, and yet the answer is obvious: the God who is Being itself ... the God who is love itself. Because real, genuine love is gratuitous; it is given without being deserved, and with no expectation of reciprocity or mutuality (this would appear to be one of several critical oversights the anarcho-communist Kropotkin made in his analysis).
On other points, Eisler and I actually agree, to a certain extent. I’m aware of the horrible toll of starvation in the world today, though I question whether blame for this can be entirely appointed to modern neoliberalism and capitalism; many of the countries in the world where the worst starvation happens are neither particularly liberal, nor capitalist. Moreover, since the advent of capitalism and neoliberalism, global poverty rates have plummeted; there is a lower percentage of people in extreme poverty today, worldwide, than at any prior point in history. Similarly, I would agree with Eisler that it is profoundly immoral to aid those who oppress and kill; for this reason, I am opposed to both communism and abortion, and also to many other things.
I would even agree that Augustine's writings on sex and marriage were a bit off, as were his views on predestination. It is perhaps fortunate, then, that the church does not draw heavily upon Augustine to form its views on love and marriage. If Eisler (or anyone) is looking for more up-to-date reading on what the church's actual teachings on that matter are, I might suggest reading Pope John Paul II’s collection of writings on the Theology of the Body.
I’ll conclude with a note regarding “unwanted” children who suffer abuse. I agree that the abuse, at least, is a profound tragedy. That being said, having known many “unwanted” children who grew up to be quite decent people, and having known more than a few abuse survivors as well, I reject the idea that wantedness or the potential for a hard life are valid reasons to abort a baby.
Eisler may see no point in discussing divine purpose when faced with the stark realities of such matters, but this is to miss the point entirely. Because it is precisely this fact – that we are loved into existence for a purpose by God – that affirms the humanity and potential of even those born into poverty and abuse, and for many I have known has been the foundation of the hope that ultimately allowed them to rise above such ignoble beginnings.
Kenneth Kully, St. Albert
