LIBERALISM IS A SIN

Englished and Adapted from the Spanish of Roman Catholic Priest, Dr. Don eli! Sarda " Sal#an$ B$ Conde B. Pallen, Ph.D., LL.D.

Catholic Monarch %&een Isa'ella of Spain (lorio&s Promoter of the In)&isition

IN*R+D,C*I+N
e- errors ha#e so firml$ entrenched themsel#es for so long a time as has the Error of Li'eralism. e- sins ha#e 'een so mis&nderstood as has 'een the Sin of Li'eralism. In reprinting this timel$ 'oo., first printed in English in /011, -e hope to enlighten Catholics as to the ca&ses and effect of and remedies for Li'eralism. 2e dedicate this reprint to the 3irgin Mother, Destro$er of all heresies.

PRE ACE
In /004 there appeared in Spain a little -or. &nder the title El Li'eralismo es Pecado5 6Li'eralism Is A Sin,6 '$ Don eli! Sarda $ Sal#an$, a priest of Barcelona and editor of a 7o&rnal called La Re#ista Pop&lar. *he 'oo. e!cited considera'le commotion. It -as #igoro&sl$ assailed '$ the Li'erals. A Spanish Bishop, of a Li'eral t&rn, instigated an ans-er to Dr. Sarda8s -or. '$ another Spanish priest. Both 'oo.s -ere sent to Rome pra$ing the Sacred Congregation of the Inde! to p&t Dr. Sarda8s -or. &nder the 'an. *he follo-ing letter, &nder date 9an&ar$ /:, /00;, from the Sacred Congregation itself, e!plains the res&lt of its consideration of the t-o #ol&mes5 Most E!cellent Sir5 *he Sacred Congregation of the Inde! has recei#ed the den&nciation of the little -or. 'earing the title 6El Li'eralismo es Pecado6 '$ Don eli! Sarda $ Sal#an$, a priest of $o&r diocese< the den&nciation =pg. iii> -as accompanied at the same time '$ another little -or. entitled 6El Proceso del Integrismo,6 that is 6a ref&tation of the errors contained in the little -or. El Li'eralismo es Pecado.6 *he a&thor of the second -or. is D. de Pa?os, a canon of the diocese of 3ich. 2herefore the Sacred Congregation has caref&ll$ e!amined 'oth -or.s, and decided as follo-s5 In the first not onl$ is nothing fo&nd contrar$ to so&nd doctrine, '&t its a&thor, D. eli! Sarda merits great praise for his e!position and defence of the so&nd doctrine therein set forth -ith solidit$, order and l&cidit$, and -itho&t personal offense to an$one. *he same 7&dgement, ho-e#er, cannot 'e passed on the other -or. '$ D. de Pa?os, for in matter it needs corrections. Moreo#er his in7&rio&s manner of spea.ing cannot 'e appro#ed, for he in#eighs rather against the person of D. Sarda, than against the latter8s s&pposed errors. *herefore the Sacred Congregation has commanded D. de Pa?os, admonished '$ his o-n Bishop, to -ithdra- his 'oo., as far as he can, from circ&lation, and in f&t&re, if an$ disc&ssion of the s&'7ect sho&ld arise, to a'stain from all e!pressions personall$ in7&rio&s, according to the precept of tr&e Christian charit$< and this all the more =i#> since +&r @ol$ ather Leo AIII., -hile he &rgentl$ recommends castigation of error, neither desires nor appro#es e!pressions personall$ in7&rio&s, especiall$ -hen directed against those -ho are eminent for their doctrine and their piet$. In comm&nicating to $o& this order of the Sacred Congregation of the Inde!, that $o& ma$ 'e a'le to ma.e it .no-n to the ill&strio&s priest of $o&r diocese,

D. Sarda, for his peace of mind, I pra$ (od to grant $o& all happiness and prosperit$ and s&'scri'e m$self -ith great respect, "o&r most o'edient ser#ant, r. 9erome Scheri, +.P. Secretar$ of the Sacred Congregation of the Inde!. *o the Most Re#. 9aco'o Catala et Al'oso, Bishop of Barcelona. *he follo-ing short chapters on Li'eralism are mainl$ and s&'stantiall$ Dr. Sarda8s 'oo., p&t into English, and adapted to o&r American conditions. *heir need and their &se -ill 'e 'est &nderstood and appreciated '$ their per&sal. =#> Note5 N&m'ers in parenthesis thro&gho&t the te!t are the page n&m'ers of the original reprint in /14B. *he press has gro-n so omnipresent no-ada$s that there is no escape from it. It is therefore important to .no- e!actl$ ho- to steer o&r co&rse amidst the man$ perils that 'eset Catholics on this score. @o- then are -e to disting&ish 'et-een 7o&rnals that merit or do not merit o&r confidenceC +r rather, -hat .ind of 7o&rnals o&ght to inspire &s -ith #er$ little and -hat -ith no confidenceC In the first place it is clear that s&ch 7o&rnals as 'oast of their li'eralism ha#e no claim to o&r confidence in matters that Li'eralism to&ches on. *hese are precisel$ the enemies against -hom -e ha#e constantl$ to 'e on g&ard, against -hom -e ha#e to -age perpet&al -ar. *his point then is o&tside of o&r present consideration. All those -ho, in o&r times claim the title of Li'eralism, in the specific sense in -hich -e al-a$s &se the term, 'ecome o&r declared enemies and the enemies of the Ch&rch of (od. B&t there is another class of 7o&rnals less prompt to &nmas. and proclaim themsel#es, -ho lo#e to li#e amidst am'ig&ities =/D/> in an &ndefined and indefinite region of compromise. *he$ declare themsel#es Catholic and sa#er their detestation and a'horrence of Li'eralism, at least if -e credit their -ords. *hese 7o&rnals are generall$ .no-n as Li'eral Catholic. *his is the class -hich -e sho&ld especiall$ mistr&st and not permit o&rsel#es to 'e d&ped '$ its pretended piet$. 2hen -e find 7o&rnals Catholic in name and in profession strongl$ leaning to the side of compromise and see.ing to placate the enem$ '$ concessions, -e ma$ rest ass&red that the$ are 'eing dra-n do-n the Li'eral c&rrent, -hich is al-a$s too strong for s&ch -ea. s-immers. @e -ho places himself in the #orte! of a maelstrom is s&re in the end to 'e eng&lfed in it. *he logic of the sit&ation 'rings the ine#ita'le concl&sion. *he Li'eral c&rrent is easier to follo-. It is largel$ made &p of prosel$tes, and

readil$ attracts the selfElo#e of the -ea.. *he Catholic c&rrent is apparentl$ more diffic&lt, it has fe-er partisans and friends, and re)&ires &s to constantl$ ro- against the stream, to stem the tide of per#erse ideas and corr&pt passions. 2ith the &ncertain, the #acillating and the &n-ar$ the Li'eral c&rrent easil$ pre#ails and s-eeps them a-a$ in its fatal em'race. *here is no room, therefore, for confidence in the =/DF> Li'eral Catholic press, especiall$ in cases -here it is diffic&lt to form a 7&dgement. Moreo#er in s&ch cases its polic$ of compromise and conciliation hamper it from forming an$ decisi#e or a'sol&te 7&dgement, for the simple reason that its 7&dgement has nothing decisi#e or radical in it< on the contrar$ it is al-a$s o#er-eighed -ith a preponderating inclination to-ards the e!pedient. +pport&nism is the g&iding star. *he tr&l$ Catholic press is altogether Catholic, that is to sa$, it defends Catholic doctrine in all its principles and applications, it opposes all false teaching .no-n as s&ch al-a$s and entirel$, opposita per diametr&m, as St. Ignati&s sa$s in that golden 'oo. of his e!ercises. It places itself on the frontier arra$ed -ith &nceasing #igilance against error, al-a$s face to face -ith the enem$. It ne#er 'i#o&acs -ith the hostile forces, as the compromising press lo#es to do. Its opposition is definite and determined, it is not simpl$ opposed to certain &ndenia'le manoe&#res of the foe, letting others escape its #igilance, '&t -atches, g&ards, and resists at e#er$ point. It presents an &n'ro.en front to e#il e#er$-here, for e#il is e#il in e#er$thing, e#en in the good, -hich, '$ chance, ma$ accompan$ it. Let &s here ma.e an o'ser#ation to e!plain =/DB> this last phrase, -hich ma$ appear startling to some, and at the same time e!plain a diffic&lt$, entertained '$ not a fe-.

Note5 N&m'ers in parenthesis thro&gho&t the te!t are the page n&m'ers of the original reprint in /14B.

C+N*EN*S
I. 2hat Begets Li'eralism 1 II. 2hat Li'eralism Is /4 III. Li'eralism A Sin FF I3. *he (ra#it$ +f *he Sin +f Li'eralism F; 3. *he Degrees +f Li'eralism B/ 3I. Catholic Li'eralism +r Li'eral Catholicism B4 3II. Intrinsic Ca&ses +f Li'eral Catholicism G: 3III. Shado- And Pen&m'ra G4 IA. *-o Hinds +f Li'eralism D: A. Li'eralism +f All Shades Condemned B$ *he Ch&rch DB AI. *he Solemn Condemnation +f Li'eralism B$ *he S$lla'&s 4: AII. Li.e Li'eralism B&t Not Li'eralism, Li'eralism '&t not Li.e It 4G AIII. *he Name Li'eralism 41 AI3. Li'eralism And reeEtho&ght ;4 A3. Can A Li'eral Be In (ood aith 0: =#ii> A3I. *he S$mptoms +f Li'eralism 04 A3II. Christian Pr&dence And Li'eralism 1F A3III. Li'eralism And Literat&re 1; AIA. Charit$ And Li'eralism /:B AA. Polemical Charit$ And Li'eralism /:; AAI. Personal Polemics And Li'eralism //D AAII. A Li'eral +'7ection *o ,ltramontane Methods //1 AAIII. *he 6Ci#ilita Cattolica8s6 Charit$ *o Li'erals /FB AAI3. A Li'eral Sophism And *he Ch&rch8s Diplomac$ /F0 AA3. @o- Catholics all Into Li'eralism /BB AA3I. Permanent Ca&ses of Li'eralism /B; AA3II. @o- *o A#oid Li'eralism /G/ AA3III. @o- *o Disting&ish Catholic rom Li'eral 2or.s /G4 AA3I3. Li'eralism And 9o&rnalism /D/ AAA. Can Catholics And Li'erals E#er ,nite /DD AAAI. An Ill&sion +f Li'eral Catholics /4: AAAII. Li'eralism And A&thorit$ In Partic&lar Cases /4G AAAIII. Li'eralism As It Is In *his Co&ntr$ /;: =#iii>

C@AP*ER / 2@A* BE(E*S LIBERALISM

Ph$sical science tells &s that floating thro&gh the atmosphere are inn&mera'le disease germs see.ing a s&ita'le nid&s to settle and propagate< that -e are constantl$ 'reathing these germs into the l&ngs< if the s$stem 'e depleted or -ea.ened the dangero&s micro'e ta.es &p its a'ode -ith &s, and, propagating its o-n .ind -ith astonishing rapidit$, &ndermines and ra#ages o&r health. *he onl$ safeg&ard against the encroachments of this insidio&s enem$, -hich -e cannot escape, is a #igoro&s and health$ 'od$ -ith ade)&ate po-ers of resistance to repel the in#ader. It is e)&all$ tr&e that -e are s&'7ect to li.e infectio&s attac.s in the spirit&al order. S-arming into the atmosphere of o&r spirit&al li#es are inn&mera'le deadl$ germs e#er read$ to fasten &pon the depleted and -ea.ened so&l, and, propagating its lepro&s =1> contagion thro&gh e#er$ fac&lt$, destro$ the spirit&al life. Against the menace of this e#erEthreatening danger, -hose ad#ances -e cannot a#oid in o&r present circ&mstances, the e#erEhealth$ so&l alone can 'e prepared. *o escape the contagion the po-er of resistance m&st 'e e)&al to the emergencies of the attac., and that po-er -ill 'e in proportion to o&r spirit&al health. *o 'e prepared is to 'e armed< '&t to 'e prepared is not s&fficient< -e m&st posses the interior strength to thro- off the germ. *here m&st 'e no condition in the so&l to ma.e a s&ita'le nid&s for an enem$ so insidio&s and so efficacio&s as to need onl$ the slightest point of contact -hence to spread its deadl$ contagion. It is not onl$ thro&gh the a#en&es of disordered passions that this spirit&al disease ma$ gain an entrance< it ma$ ma.e its inroad thro&gh the intellect, and this &nder a disg&ise often calc&lated to decei#e the &n-ar$ and inca&tio&s. *he *ro7ans admitted the enem$ into their -alls &nder the impression that the$ -ere act&all$ sec&ring a #al&a'le ac)&isition to their safet$, and toda$ their fatal e!perience has come do-n to &s in the pro#er'5 6Be-are of the (ree.s -hen the$ 'ring gifts.6 Intellect&al torpidit$, ine!perience, ignorance, indifference, complaisance, or e#en #irt&es =/:> s&ch as 'ene#olence, generosit$, and pit$ ma$ 'e the &ns&specting -a$ open the foe, and loI 2e are s&rprised to find him in possession of the citadel. *hat -e ma$ .no- o&r danger -e m&st appreciate the possi'le shapes in -hich it ma$ come. @ere is 7&st the diffic&lt$< the &niform of the enem$ is so #ario&s, changea'le, sometimes e#en of o&r o-n colo&rs, that if -e rel$ &pon the o&t-ard sem'lance alone -e shall 'e more often decei#ed than certain of

his identit$. B&t 'efore la$ing do-n an$ test '$ -hich -e ma$ disting&ish friend from foe in a -arfare so s&'tl$ fo&ght -ithin the precincts of o&r o-n so&ls, let &s first reconnoitre the respecti#e positions of either camp, and to 'est do this, -e -ill consider the origin and so&rces of the danger -hich s&rro&nds &s, for -e ma$ 'e as.ed5 2here is this foe descri'ed as so intangi'le as scarcel$ to 'e apprehended '$ ordinar$ mortalsC +r it ma$ 'e &rged5 Is the danger as pro!imate, as fre)&ent, and fearf&l as $o& allegeC 2hence is it an$ho-C Point it o&tI If -e .no- from -hat direction the enem$ comes, -e ma$ 'etter appreciate the peril. As -e are addressing o&rsel#es to those -ho li#e amidst the pec&liar circ&mstances of o&r American life, and as the spirit&al and moral conditions -hich o'tain in this =//> co&ntr$, ma.e &p the moral and spirit&al atmosphere in -hich -e ha#e o&r 'eing, it is in the relation of o&r s&rro&ndings to o&rsel#es as -ell as o&rsel#es to o&r s&rro&ndings, that -e shall find the ans-er to o&r )&estion. Let &s then consider these s&rro&nds in a general -a$ for the moment. irst as to some patent facts. *he pop&lation of this co&ntr$ is at present something o#er si!t$ three millions =/01: cens&s>. +f these ten millions are Catholics, and according to their claim, t-ent$ millions Protestants, lea#ing a pop&lation of thirt$Ethree millions or more -ho do not profess an$ form of Christianit$ at all. Amongst the t-ent$ million Protestants e#er$ shade and #ariet$ of 'elief in the Christian dispensation finds eas$ lodgement, from the 'elief in the Incarnation and Cons&'stantiation to the re7ection of the Di#init$ of Christ altogether in the #ac&o&s creed of ,nitarianism. In this scale of heres$ the ad7&stments of creeds are loose and eas$. Lac. of an$ decisi#e a&thorit$ renders an$ e!act standard of 'elief impossi'le. A Protestant ma$ freel$ range from one end of the scale to the other and still 'e considered orthodo! according to Protestant estimates. A lose, indefinite 'elief in Christ, either as (od redeeming the -orld =/F> or e#en as a great ethical teacher, not (od @imself tho&gh sent '$ (od, s&ffices to place the Protestant -ithin the compass of his o-n standard of orthodo!$. An$ specific e!pression of dogma or of partic&lar tr&ths, 'o&nd &p in the acceptance of '$ an$ one sect or denomination, can find no a&thoritati#e e!action, for the differences 'et-een the sects, in the last resort, 'ecome mere differences of pri#ate opinion, dependent &pon nothing '&t the caprice or choice of the indi#id&al. +&tside of these #ario&s 'odies of loosel$ professed Christians, stands a still larger mass of o&r pop&lation -ho are either a'sol&tel$ indifferent to Christianit$ as a creed or positi#el$ re7ect it. In practice the distinction is of little moment -hether the$ hold themsel#es merel$ indifferent or positi#el$

hostile. In other -ords -e ha#e here to rec.on -ith a 'od$, to all practical p&rposes, infidel. *his mass comprises o#er half of o&r pop&lation, holding itself aloof from Christianit$, and in some instances #ir&lentl$ antagoni?ing it. In distinctl$ religio&s opposition to this mass of infidelit$ and to Protestantism, Catholics find themsel#es sharpl$ and radicall$ opposed. @eres$ and infidelit$ are irreconcila'le -ith Catholicit$. 62ho is not -ith me is =/B> against me are the -ords of +&r Lord @imself, for denial of Catholic tr&th is the radical and common element of 'oth heres$ and infidelit$. *he difference 'et-een them is merel$ a matter of degree. +ne denies less, the other more. Protestantism -ith its sliding scale of creeds is simpl$ an inclined plane into the a'$ss of positi#e &n'elief. It is al-a$s #irt&al infidelit$, its final o&tcome open infidelit$, as the thirt$Ethree millions of &n'elie#ers in this co&ntr$ stand -itness. 2e li#e in the midst of this religio&s anarch$. ift$Ethree millions of o&r pop&lation is antiECatholic. rom this mass, heretical and infidel, e!hales an atmosphere filled -ith germs poisono&s and fatal to Catholic life, if permitted to ta.e root in the Catholic heart. *he mere force of gra#itation, -hich the larger mass e#er e!ercises &pon the smaller, is a po-er -hich the most energetic #igo&r alone can resist. A deadl$ inertia &nder this dangero&s infl&ence is apt to creep o#er the so&ls of the inca&tio&s and is onl$ to 'e o#ercome '$ the li#eliest e!ercise of Catholic faith. *o li#e amidst an heretical and infidel pop&lation -itho&t ener#ation re)&ires a ro'&st religio&s constit&tion. And to this danger -e are dail$ e!posed, e#er coming into contact in a tho&sand -a$s, in almost e#er$ =/G> relation of life, -ith antiECatholic tho&ght and c&stoms. B&t o&tside of this spirit&al inertia, a danger rather passi#e than acti#e in its infl&ence, o&r nonECatholic s&rro&ndings 'eget a still greater menace. It is nat&ral that Protestantism and infidelit$ sho&ld find p&'lic e!pression. 2hat o&r si!t$ million nonECatholic pop&lation thin. in these matters nat&rall$ see.s and finds open e!pression. *he$ ha#e their organs and their literat&re, -here -e find their c&rrent opinions p&'licl$ &ttered. *heir #ie-s &pon religion, moralit$, politics, the constit&tion of societ$ are perpet&all$ marshalled 'efore &s. In the p&lpit and the press the$ are reiterated da$ after da$. In maga?ine and ne-spaper the$ constantl$ spea. from e#er$ line. +&r literat&re is permeated and sat&rated -ith nonECatholic dogmatism. +n all sides do -e find this opposing spirit. 2e cannot escape from it. It enfolds and em'races &s. Its 'reath is perpet&all$ in o&r faces. It enters in '$ e$e and ear. It ens-athes &s in its offensi#e garments from 'irth to death. It no- soothes and flatters< no- hates and c&rses, no- threatens and no- praises. B&t it is most dangero&s -hen it comes to &s &nder the form of 6li'eralit$.6 It is especiall$

po-erf&l for sed&ction in this g&ise. It is &nder this aspect -e -ish =/D> to consider it. or it is as Li'eralism that Protestantism and Infidelit$ ma.e their most de#astating inroads &pon the domain of the aith. +&t of these &nECatholic and antiECatholic conditions, th&s predominating amongst &s, springs this monster of o&r times, Li'eralism.

C@AP*ER F 2@A* LIBERALISM IS

Protestantism nat&rall$ 'egets toleration of error. Re7ecting the principle of a&thorit$ in religion, it has neither criterion nor definition of faith. +n the principle that e#er$ indi#id&al or sect ma$ interpret the deposit of re#elation according to the dictates of pri#ate 7&dgement, it gi#es 'irth to endless differences and contradictions. Impelled '$ the la- of its o-n impotence, thro&gh lac. of an$ decisi#e #oice of a&thorit$ in matters of faith, it is forced to recogni?e as #alid and orthodo! an$ 'elief that springs from the e!ercise of pri#ate 7&dgement. *herefore does it finall$ arri#e, '$ force of its o-n premises, at the concl&sion that one creed is as good as another< it then see.s to =/4> shelter its inconsistenc$ &nder the false plea of li'ert$ of conscience. Belief is not imposed '$ a legitimatel$ and di#inel$ constit&ted a&thorit$, '&t springs directl$ and freel$ from the &nrestricted e!ercise of the indi#id&al8s reason or caprice &pon the s&'7ect matter of re#elation. *he indi#id&al or sect interprets as it pleases, re7ecting or accepting -hat it chooses. *his is pop&larl$ called li'ert$ of conscience. Accepting this principle, Infidelit$ on the same plea re7ects all re#elation, and Protestantism, -hich handed o#er the premise, is po-erless to protest against the concl&sion< for it is clear that one, -ho &nder the plea of rational li'ert$ has the right to rep&diate an$ part of re#elation that ma$ displease him, can not logicall$ )&arrel -ith one, -ho on the same gro&nd rep&diates the -hole. If one creed is as good as another on the plea of rational li'ert$, on the same plea no creed is as good as an$. *a.ing the field -ith this fatal -eapon of Rationalism, Infidelit$ has stormed and ta.en the #er$ citadel of Protestantism helpless against the foe of its o-n ma.ing. 2e find as a res&lt amongst the people of this co&ntr$ =e!cepting Catholics of co&rse> that a&thoritati#e and positi#e religion has met -ith &tter disaster, and religio&s 'eliefs or &n'elief8s ha#e come to 'e =/;> mere matters of opinion, -herein there are al-a$s essential differences, each one free to ma.e or &nma.e his o-n creed or no creed. S&ch is the mainspring of the heres$ constantl$ dinned into o&r ears, flooding o&r c&rrent literat&re and o&r press. It is against this that -e ha#e to 'e perpet&all$ #igilant. *he more so as it insidio&sl$ attac.s &s on the gro&nds of a false charit$ and in the name of a false li'ert$. Nor does it appeal onl$ to &s on the gro&nd of religio&s toleration. *he principle ramifies in man$ directions, stri.ing root into o&r domestic, ci#il,

and political life, -hose #igo&r and health depend &pon the no&rishing and s&staining po-er of religion. or religion is the 'ond -hich &nites &s to (od, the so&rce and end of all good, and Infidelit$, -hether #irt&al as in Protestantism or e!plicit as in Agnosticism, se#ers the 'ond -hich 'inds men to (od, and see.s to '&ild h&man societ$ on fo&ndations of man8s a'sol&te independence. @ence -e find Li'eralism la$ing do-n as the 'asis of its propaganda the follo-ing principles5 AAAIII. *he a'sol&te so#ereignt$ of the indi#id&al in his entire independence of (od and (od8s a&thorit$. AAAI3. *he a'sol&te so#ereignt$ of societ$ in its entire independence of e#er$thing -hich does not proceed from itself. =/0> AAA3. A'sol&te ci#il so#ereignt$ in the implied right of the people to ma.e their o-n la-s in entire independence and &tter disregard of an$ other criterion than the pop&lar -ill e!pressed at the polls and in parliamentar$ ma7orities. AAA3I. A'sol&te freedom of tho&ght in politics, morals, or in religion. *he &nrestrained li'ert$ of the press. S&ch are the radical principles of Li'eralism. In the ass&mption of the a'sol&te so#ereignt$ of the indi#id&al, that is, his entire independence of (od, -e find the common so&rce of all the others. *o e!press them all in one term in the order of ideas, the$ are RA*I+NALISM or the doctrine of the a'sol&te so#ereignt$ of h&man reason. @ere h&man reason is made the meas&re and s&m of tr&th. @ence -e ha#e indi#id&al, social and political Rationalism, the corr&pt fo&ntain head of li'eral principles5 a'sol&te freedom of -orship, the s&premac$ of the State, sec&lar ed&cation rep&diating an$ connection -ith religion, marriage sanctioned and legitimatised '$ the State alone, etc.< in one -ord, -hich s$nthesi?es all, SEC,LARIJA*I+N, -hich denies religion an$ acti#e inter#ention in the concerns of p&'lic and of pri#ate life =/1> -hether it orate or assassinate< -hether it call itself Li'ert$ or (o#ernment or the State or @&manit$ or Reason, or -hat not, its f&ndamental characteristic is an &ncompromising opposition to the Ch&rch. Li'eralism is a -orld complete in itself< it has its ma!ims, its fashions, its art, its literat&re, its diplomac$, its la-s, its conspiracies, its am'&scades. It is the -orld of L&cifer, disg&ised in o&r times &nder the name of Li'eralism, in radical opposition and in perpet&al -arfare against that societ$ composed of the Children of (od, the Ch&rch of 9es&s Christ.

C@AP*ER B LIBERALISM IS A SIN

Li'eralism, -hether in the doctrinal or practical order, is a sin. In the doctrinal order, it is heres$, and conse)&entl$ a mortal sin against faith. In the practical order it is a sin against the commandments of (od and of the Ch&rch, for it #irt&all$ transgresses all commandments. *o 'e more precise5 in the doctrinal order Li'eralism stri.es at the #er$ fo&ndations of faith< it is heres$ radical and &ni#ersal, 'eca&se =FF> -ithin it are comprehended all heresies. In the practical order it is a radical and &ni#ersal infraction of the di#ine la-, since it sanctions and a&thori?es all infractions of that la-. Li'eralism is a heres$ in the doctrinal order, 'eca&se heres$ is the formal and o'stinate denial of all Christian dogmas in general. It rep&diates dogma altogether and s&'stit&tes opinion, -hether that opinion 'e doctrinal or the negation of doctrine. Conse)&entl$ it denies e#er$ doctrine in partic&lar. If -e -ere to e!amine in detail all the doctrines or dogmas -hich, -ithin the range of Li'eralism, ha#e 'een denied, -e -o&ld find e#er$ Christian dogma in one -a$ or the other re7ected, from the dogma of the Incarnation to that of Infalli'ilit$. None the less is Li'eralism in itself dogmatic< and it is in the declaration of its o-n f&ndamental dogma, the a'sol&te independence of the indi#id&al and the social reason, that it denies all Christian dogmas in general. Catholic dogma is the a&thoritati#e declaration of re#ealed tr&th, or a tr&th conse)&ent &pon re#elation, '$ its infalli'l$ constit&ted e!ponent. *his logicall$ implies the o'edient acceptance of the dogma on the part of the indi#id&al and of societ$. Li'eralism ref&ses to ac.no-ledge this rational o'edience and denies the a&thorit$. =FB> It asserts the so#ereignt$ of the indi#id&al and the social reason, and enthrones Rationalism in the seat of A&thorit$. It .no-s no dogma e!cept the dogma of selfEassertion. @ence is it heres$ f&ndamental and radical, the re'ellion of the h&man intellect against (od. It follo-s, therefore, that Li'eralism denies the a'sol&te 7&risdiction of 9es&s Christ, -ho is (od, o#er indi#id&als and o#er societ$, and, '$ conse)&ence, rep&diates the 7&risdiction -hich (od has delegated to the #isi'le head of the Ch&rch o#er each and all of the faithf&l, -hate#er their condition or ran. in life. It moreo#er denies the necessit$ of di#ine re#elation and o'ligation of e#er$ one to accept that re#elation &nder pain of eternal perdition. It denies the formal moti#e for faith, #i?., the a&thorit$ of (od re#ealing, and admits onl$ as m&ch of re#ealed doctrine as it chooses or comprehends -ithin its o-n narrocapacit$. It denies the infalli'le magistrac$ of the Ch&rch and of the Pope, and

conse)&entl$ all the doctrines defined and ta&ght '$ this di#ine a&thorit$. In short it sets itself &p as the meas&re and r&le of faith, and so reall$ sh&ts o&t re#elation altogether. It denies e#er$thing -hich it itself does not proclaim. It negates e#er$thing -hich it itself does not FG> affirm. B&t not 'eing a'le to affirm an$ tr&th 'e$ond its o-n reach, it denies the possi'ilit$ of an$ tr&th -hich it does not comprehend. *he re#elation of tr&th a'o#e h&man reason it, therefore, de'ars at the o&tset. *he di#init$ of 9es&s Christ is 'e$ond its horoscope. *he Ch&rch is o&tside its comprehension. *he s&'mission of h&man reason to the 2ord of Christ or its di#inel$ constit&ted e!ponent is to it intolera'le. It is, therefore, the radical and &ni#ersal denial of all di#ine tr&th and Christian dogma, the primal t$pe of all heres$, and the s&preme re'ellion against the a&thorit$ of (od and @is Ch&rch. 2ith L&cifer its ma!im is5 6I -ill not ser#e.6 S&ch is the general negation &ttered '$ Li'eralism. rom this radical denial of re#ealed tr&th in general, nat&rall$ follo-s the denial of partic&lar dogmas in -hole or in part, as circ&mstances present them in opposition to its rationalistic 7&dgement. *h&s, for instance, it denies the #alidit$ of faith '$ 'aptism, -hen it admits or s&pposes the e)&alit$ of an$ or all religio&s c&lts< it denies the sanctit$ of marriage, -hen it sanctions soEcalled ci#il marriages< it denies the infalli'ilit$ of the Roman Pontiff, -hen it ref&ses to accept as la-s his official commands and teachings, and =FD> s&'7ects them to the scr&tin$ of its o-n intellect, not to ass&re itself of their a&thenticit$, as is legitimate, '&t to sit in defiant 7&dgement &pon their contents. 2hen -e come to the practical order, Li'eralism is radical immoralit$. Moralit$ re)&ires a standard and a g&ide to rational action< it post&lates a hierarch$ of ends, and, therefore, order, -ithin -hose series there is a s&'ordination of means to the attainment of an &ltimate p&rpose. It therefore re)&ires a principle or f&ndamental r&le of all action, '$ -hich the s&'7ect of moral acts, the rational creat&re, determines his co&rse and g&ides himself to the attainment of his end. In the moral order the Eternal Reason alone can 'e that principle or f&ndamental r&le of action, and this Eternal Reason is (od. In the moral order the created reason, -ith po-er to determine its co&rse, m&st g&ide itself '$ the light of the ,ncreated Reason, -ho is the 'eginning and end of all things. *he la-, therefore, imposed '$ the Eternal Reason &pon the creat&re, m&st 'e the principle or r&le of moralit$. @ence o'edience and s&'mission in the moral order is an a'sol&te re)&isite of moralit$. B&t Li'eralism has proclaimed the a's&rd principle of the a'sol&te so#ereignt$ of h&man reason< it denies an$ reason 'e$ond itself and asserts its =F4> independence in the order of .no-ledge, and hence in the order of action or

moralit$. @ere -e ha#e moralit$ -itho&t la-, -itho&t order, freedom to do -hat one pleases, or -hat comes to the same thing, moralit$ -hich is not moralit$, for moralit$ implies the idea not onl$ of direction, '&t also essentiall$ demands that of restraint and limitation &nder the control of la-. Li'eralism in the order of action is license, recogni?ing no principle or r&le 'e$ond itself. 2e ma$ then sa$ of Li'eralism5 in the order of ideas it is a'sol&te error< in the order of facts it is a'sol&te disorder. It is therefore, in 'oth cases a #er$ grie#o&s and deadl$ sin, for sin is re'ellion against (od in tho&ght or in deed, the enthronement of the creat&re in the place of the Creator.

C@AP*ER G *@E (RA3I*" + *@E SIN + LIBERALISM

Li'eralism is a mortal sin. B&t Catholic theolog$ teaches &s that all sins are not e)&all$ gra#e, that there is e#en a distinction of degree in #enial sins. *here are also degrees in the categor$ of mortal sin, =F;> 7&st as there are in the categor$ of meritorio&s -or.s. *he gra#it$ of sin is determined '$ the o'7ect at -hich it stri.es. Blasphem$, for instance, -hich directl$ attac.s (od @imself, is a sin of m&ch gra#er character than theft, -hich directl$ attac.s man. 2ith the e!ception of formal hate against (od, -hich constit&tes the deadliest of all sins and of -hich the creat&re is rarel$ c&lpa'le &nless he 'e in @ell, the gra#est of all sins are those against faith. *he reason is e#ident. aith is the fo&ndation of the s&pernat&ral order, and sin is sin in so far as it attac.s this s&pernat&ral order at this or the other point< hence that is the greatest sin -hich attac.s this order at its #er$ fo&ndations. *o destro$ the fo&ndations is to destro$ the entire s&perstr&ct&re. *o c&t off the 'ranch of a tree -ill not .ill it< '&t to la$ the a!e to the tr&n. or the roots is fatal to its life. @enceforth it 'ears neither 'lossom nor fr&it. St. A&g&stine, Cited '$ St. *homas, characteri?es sin against faith in these -ords5 @oc est peccat&m )&o tenent&r c&ncta peccata. 6*his the sin -hich comprehends all other sins.6 *he Angel of the Schools e!presses himself -ith his &s&al clearness on this point5 6*he gra#it$ of sin is determined '$ the inter#al -hich it places 'et-een man and =F0> (od< no- sin against faith, di#ides man from (od as far as possi'le, since it depri#es him of the tr&e .no-ledge of (od< it therefore follo-s that sin against faith is the greatest of all sins.6 2hen sin against faith is simpl$ a c&lpa'le pri#ation of the .no-ledge of (od, it has not the same gra#it$ as a direct and formal attac. &pon dogmas e!pressl$ defined '$ re#elation. In this latter case sin against faith, so gra#e in itself, ac)&ires that degree of gra#it$ -hich constit&tes heres$. It then contains all the malice of infidelit$, and 'ecomes an e!press protestation against the teachings of faith or an e!press adhesion to a teaching -hich is condemned as false and erroneo&s '$ the faith itself. Besides the deadl$ sin against faith itself, it is accompanied '$ hardness of heart, o'stinac$, and the pro&d preference for one8s o-n reason o#er the reason of (od @imself. @ence heretical doctrines, and -or.s inspired '$ them, constit&te the greatest of all sins -ith the e!ception of the formal hate against (od, of -hich onl$ the demons in hell and the damned are capa'le. Li'eralism then, -hich is heres$, and all the -or.s of Li'eralism, -hich are heretical -or.s, are the gra#est sins

.no-n in the code of the Christian la-. =F1> Li'eralism is, therefore, a greater sin than 'lasphem$, theft, ad&lter$, homicide, or an$ other #iolation of the la- of (od, sa#e in s&ch case as -here one acts in good faith, in ignorance, or tho&ghtlessl$. It is tr&e that modern nat&ralism does not so regard or &nderstand the case. B&t the la- of the Ch&rch in matters of morals and doctrine is &nchangea'le< it ordains toda$ as it did $esterda$, and heres$ is al-a$s heres$ no matter -hat the shape it ta.es. Appearances ma$ 'e fair, and the de#il ma$ present himself as an Angel of light. *he danger is the greater as the o&t-ard sho- is more sed&cti#e. @eres$ has ne#er 'een so insidio&s as &nder its present form of Li'eralism. Its range is so -ide that it to&ches &pon e#er$ note in the scale, and finds an eas$ disg&ise in its protean facilities. B&t its most fatal shaft is in its plea for 6li'ert$ of mind.6 *his in its o-n e$es is its cardinal #irt&e. 6Intellect&al freedom from dogmatism6 is its 'oast, a 'oast in realit$ the mas. of ignorance and pride. *o meet s&ch an enem$ re)&ires no ordinar$ co&rage g&arded '$ a sleepless #igilance. 2hen enco&ntered it is o'ligator$ &pon the Catholic conscience to resist it -ith all the po-ers of the so&l. @eres$ and all its -or.s are sins< Li'eralism is the root of heres$, the tree of e#il in -hose 'ranches =B/> all the harpies of infidelit$ find ample shelter< it is toda$ the e#il of all e#ils.

C@AP*ER D *@E DE(REES + LIBERALISM

As a s$stem of doctrines Li'eralism ma$ 'e called a school< if -e regard it as an organi?ation of adepts for the p&rpose of spreading and propagating its doctrines, it ma$ 'e called a sect< inasm&ch as it is a gro&p of men see.ing the political enforcement of its doctrines, it ma$ 'e called a part$. B&t in -hate#er aspect -e consider it, -hether as a school or sect or part$, it presents itself in #ario&s degrees or shades< $et none the less li'eralism 'eca&se #ariant< for -ith specific and logical &nit$ there ma$ 'e a m&ltit&dino&s #ariet$. No- the &nit$ of Li'eralism is not positi#e '&t negati#e< it has no &nit$ of its o-n< it is '$ #irt&e of its opposition to tr&th, -hich is essentiall$ one, that Li'eralism 'ecomes accidentall$ one. As the #is a #is of tr&th it possesses the &nit$ of opposition. *he different degrees of its denial -ill constit&te the degrees of its opposition, and so gi#e &s the #arieties in =B/> the negati#e &nit$ of its denial. Denial is its &nit$ in general, and this ranges thro&gh the entire realm of negation, the degree of denial 'eing determined '$ the degree of tr&th denied. If men -ere a'sol&tel$ logical and follo-ed the premises -hich the$ la$ do-n, to their &ltimate concl&sions, the$ -o&ld 'ecome angels or de#ils in -or.ing o&t the conse)&ences according to the goodness or 'adness of their first principles. B&t men are not al-a$s logical< the$ often stop short of the conse)&ences logicall$ flo-ing from the premises preceding. 2e, therefore, as a r&le, see the good onl$ half good and the 'ad not altogether 'ad. @ence -e find fe- o&tEandEo&t Li'erals. Not man$ go the f&ll length of their principles. *he$ are ne#ertheless tr&e Li'erals, that is, #erita'le disciples, partisans or follo-ers of Li'eralism, ranging themsel#es &nder the 'anner either as a school, sect, or part$. *here are Li'erals -ho accept its principles, '&t re7ect the conse)&ences, at least those most rep&gnant or e!treme. or instance, there are men -ho 'elie#e that the Catholic Ch&rch is the great enem$ of modern progress, the one great o'7ect in the -a$ of the tri&mph of their principles. 2h$ not then openl$ persec&te the Ch&rch, and endea#o&r to -ipe her from off the face of =BF> the earth as Nero or a Domitian so&ght to doC No< the$ -o&ld not go to this e!treme, altho&gh it is the practical conse)&ence of their premise. +r again, if the$ shrin. from the terrors of 'loodshed and the horrors of assassination, -h$ do the$ not close o&r Catholic Schools, the n&rseries of the faithC *o permit the e!istence of these schools is to allo- the acti#e and rapid propagation of the faith. If Catholicit$ 'e the e#il the$ affirm it to 'e, -o&ld the$ not 'e perfectl$ logical in nipping it in the '&d, that is, in the school

roomC B&t no, the$ -o&ld not go so far. "et the s&ppression of the Catholic parochial school is the s&rest means to strangle the faith in o&r midst. 2h$ sho&ld there 'e an$ comp&nction in rooting o&t the greatest e#il, in their estimation, -hich afflicts o&r age, the one great di.e against the flood of h&man 6li'erties6, no- rising almost to the le#el of the opposing 'arrierC It is 'eca&se these Li'erals are inconse)&ential< the$ shrin. from the logic of concl&sions. Again, there are Li'erals -ho accept s&ch and s&ch concl&sions or their application, '&t scr&p&lo&sl$ rep&diate the principles -hence the$ flo-. *he$ 'elie#e, for instance, in a'sol&tel$ sec&lari?ing ed&cation, and $et re7ect the doctrine of atheism, -hich is the onl$ soil congenial to its =BB> gro-th. *he$ appla&d the res&lt, -hile the$ rep&diate the ca&se. Some -o&ld appl$ Li'eralism onl$ to ed&cation< others onl$ to the ci#il order, and others still, onl$ to political life. It is the most ad#anced alone -ho see. to appl$ it to e#er$thing and for e#er$ thing. *he atten&ations and m&tilations of the li'eral Credo are as man$ as the interests ad#anced or 'al.ed '$ its application. It is generall$ s&pposed that men thin. -ith their heads< '&t their intelligence often has less to do -ith it than their hearts, and not infre)&entl$ their stomachs determine their concl&sions. Li'eralism is th&s often meas&red o&t '$ the dose according to the taste of the cons&mer, as li)&ors are to drin.ers according to the appetite of each. *his one, in comparison to his more ad#anced neigh'o&r, -ho appears to him a 'r&tal demagog&e, is no Li'eral at all, -hile his less ad#anced neigh'o&r is, in his e$es, an o&tEandEo&t reactionar$, rooted in a stagnant past. It is simpl$ a )&estion of degree, -hose grades slide #ario&sl$ along the li'eral scale, some nearer some farther from the a'$ss. rom the Baptised or e#en s&rpliced Li'eral, -ho 'oasts his 'readth of mind in his eas$ toleration of error, to the a#o-ed atheist -ho h&rls his open defiance against (od, the difference is onl$ one of =BG> degree. +ne simpl$ stands on a higher r&ng of the same ladder than the other. +'ser#e -hen p&shed to the -all, ho- all ali.e claim the same denomination of li'eral. *he$ ma$ e#en regard each other -ith a#ersion, '&t all in#o.e the same appellation as finall$ descripti#e of each. *heir common criterion is 6li'eralit$6 and 6independence of mind<6 the degree of application -ill 'e meas&red '$ the indi#id&al disposition, the more or less in the matter depending &pon the #ariet$ of elements in the ma.eE&p of the indi#id&al and his s&rro&ndings< selfEinterest -ith one, temperament -ith another, ed&cation -ith a third impeding a too rapid gait on the road to a'sol&te Li'eralism< h&man respect ma$ moderate another, ser#ing as a

'alance -eight to his rashness< famil$ or school or '&siness relations ma$ clog the footsteps of a fo&rth. A tho&sand and one things ma$ ser#e as a 'rea. to a too accelerated descent, not to mention that satanic pr&dence -hich co&nsels a conser#ati#e ad#ance in order not to alarm the timid. *his last fashion of proced&re often ser#es as a mas. to the most ad#anced Li'erals, -ho hide their designs &nder the appearance of a fran. demagog&er$. Sometimes Li'eralism stal.s along in the careless trappings of an eas$going good nat&re, or a =BD> simplicit$ of character -hich in#ites o&r affection and alla$s o&r s&spicion. Its #er$ cando&r in this g&ise is an aggression diffic&lt to resist. It does not appear responsi'le and e!cites o&r compassion 'efore it has a-a.ened o&r a#ersion. 2e seem to forgi#e it 'efore -e acc&se it. B&t all the greater is the danger -hen it appears least possi'le. S&ch are the #ario&s fashions of Li'eralism. Its disg&ises are man$, its degrees #ario&s. 2ithal, ho-e#er, it is the same e#il, tho&gh motle$ 'e its trappings. Li'eralism is one, -hile Li'erals, li.e 'ad -ine, differ in colo&r and taste.

C@AP*ER 4 CA*@+LIC LIBERALISM +R LIBERAL CA*@+LICISM

Peace in -ar is an incongr&it$. oes in the midst of 'attle cannot -ell 'e friends. 2here the press&re of conflicting forces is intensest there is little opport&nit$ of reconciliation. "et this a's&rdit$ and contradiction -e find in the odio&s and rep&lsi#e attempt to &nite Li'eralism -ith Catholicism. *he monstrosit$ res&lting is -hat is .no-n as the Li'eral Catholic or the =B4> Catholic Li'eral. Strange as it ma$ seem, Catholics -ith good intentions ha#e paid tri'&te to this a's&rdit$ and ind&lged the #ain hope of peace -ith the eternal enem$. *his fatal error has its so&rce in the #ain and e!aggerated desire of reconciling and harmoni?ing in peace doctrines &tterl$ incompati'le and hostile '$ their #er$ nat&re. Li'eralism is the dogmatic affirmation of the a'sol&te independence of the indi#id&al and of the social reason. Catholicit$ is the dogma of the a'sol&te s&'7ection of the indi#id&al and of the social order to the re#ealed la- of (od. +ne doctrine is the e!act antithesis of the other. *he$ are opposites in direct conflict. @o- is it possi'le to reconcile themC +pposition here necessaril$ means conflict, and the t-o can no more harmoni?e than the s)&are can 'e made one -ith the circle. *o the promoters of Catholic Li'eralism the thing appears eas$ eno&gh. 6It is admira'le,6 the$ sa$, 6for the indi#id&al reason to 'e s&'7ect to the la- of (od if it so -ishes, '&t -e m&st disting&ish 'et-een the p&'lic and the pri#ate reason, especiall$ in an age li.e o&rs. *he modern State does not recogni?e (od or the Ch&rch. In the conflict of different religio&s creeds the p&'lic reason m&st stand ne&tral and impartial. @ence the necessar$ independence =B;> of the p&'lic reason. *he State as State can ha#e no religion. Let the simple citi?en if he -ishes, s&'mit to the re#elation of 9es&s Christ, '&t the statesman and the man in p&'lic life m&st comport himself as if no re#elation e!isted.6 Noall this means ci#il or social atheism. It means that societ$ is independent of (od, its A&thor< that -hile indi#id&als ma$ recogni?e their dependence on the di#ine la-, ci#il societ$ sho&ld not< a distinction -hose sophism is fo&nded on an intolera'le contradiction. It is clear that if the indi#id&al reason is o'liged to s&'mit to the la- of (od, the p&'lic and the social reason cannot logicall$ escape the same d&t$ -itho&t falling into an e!tra#agant d&alism, '$ #irt&e of -hich men -o&ld 'e forced to s&'mit to the la- of t-o contrar$ and opposed consciences. Pri#atel$ men

-o&ld ha#e to 'e Christian, p&'licl$ men -o&ld ha#e to 'e free to 'e atheistic. &rthermore the road is open to an odio&s t$rann$< for if the p&'lic conscience -ere independent of the Christian la- and ignored it, there -o&ld 'e no p&'lic recognition of the o'ligation to protect the Ch&rch '$ the ci#il arm in the e!ercise of her rights. Na$, more< the ci#il po-er -o&ld readil$ 'ecome the means of persec&tion, the r&lers hostile to the Ch&rch, condemning di#ine la-, co&ld act&all$, &nder =B0> co#er of a&thorit$, legislate against Christianit$. Nor is this a fancif&l pict&re, for rance and Ital$, legislating toda$ on the 'asis of the so#ereign independence of the social and p&'lic reason ha#e enacted odio&s la-s -hich hold the Ch&rch in those co&ntries in distressf&l legal 'ondage. And the @ol$ ather himself is no- a prisoner -ithin the -alls of the 3atican on acco&nt of the #iolent &s&rpation of his domains '$ an atheist go#ernment. B&t the res&lts of the fatal distinction does not stop -ith the f&nctions of legislation and administration s&'7ecting the Ch&rch to social and ci#il persec&tion< in modern times it has gone f&rther still and e!tends its 'anef&l infl&ence to the school room, propagating itself '$ placing the ed&cation of $o&th &nder its dominating infl&ence. It forms the conscience of $o&th not according to the di#ine la- -hich ac.no-ledges the -ill of (od, '&t &pon a premeditated and caref&l ignorance of that la-. It is as sec&lar ed&cation that it sei?es &pon the f&t&re and 'reeds atheism in the hearts of the coming generations. *he Catholic Li'eralist or the Li'eral Catholic admitting the fatal distinction 'et-een the pri#ate and the p&'lic reason, th&s thro-s open the gates to the enemies of the faith, and, posing as a man of =B1> intellect -ith genero&s and li'eral #ie-s, st&ltifies reason '$ his gross offence against the principle of contradiction. @e is th&s 'oth a traitor and a fool. See.ing to please the enemies of the faith he has 'etra$ed his tr&st, the faith itself< imagining he is &pholding the rights of reason, he s&rrenders it in the most a'7ect -a$ to the spirit of denial, the spirit of &ntr&th. @e has not the co&rage to -ithstand the derision of his c&nning foe. *o 'e called intolerant, illi'eral, narro-, ,ltramontane, reactionist, is gall and -orm-ood to his little so&l. ,nder this epithetical fire he gi#es -a$ and s&rrenders his 'irthright of faith and reason for a mess of Li'eral pottage.

C@AP*ER ; IN*RINSIC CA,SES + LIBERAL CA*@+LICISM

Strange as ma$ seem that anomal$ called Li'eral Catholicism, its reason is not far to see.. It ta.es its root in a false conception of the nat&re of the act of faith. *he Li'eral Catholic ass&mes as the formal moti#e of the act of faith, not the infalli'le a&thorit$ of (od re#ealing s&pernat&ral tr&th, '&t his o-n reason deigning to accept =G:> as tr&e -hat appears rational to him according to the appreciation and meas&re of his o-n indi#id&al 7&dgement. @e s&'7ects (od8s a&thorit$ to the scr&tin$ of his reason, and not his reason to (od8s a&thorit$. @e accepts re#elation not on acco&nt of the infalli'le re#ealer, '&t 'eca&se of the 6infalli'le6 recei#er. 2ith him the indi#id&al 7&dgement is the r&le of faith. @e 'elie#es in the independence of reason. It is tr&e he accepts the magisteri&m of the Ch&rch, $et he does not accept it as the sole a&thori?ed e!po&nder of di#ine tr&th. @e reser#es, as a coefficient factor in the determination of that tr&th, his o-n pri#ate 7&dgement. *he tr&e sense of re#ealed doctrine is not al-a$s certain, and h&man reason has something to sa$ in the matter, as for instance, the limits of the Ch&rch8s infalli'ilit$ ma$ 'e determined '$ h&man science. 2ithin lines th&s prescri'ed the declarations of the Ch&rch are infalli'le, '&t these limits are not to 'e determined '$ herself. Science -ill do that for her. She is of co&rse infalli'le, the$ sa$, '&t -e -ill determine -hen and in -hat she shall spea. infalli'ilit$. S&ch is the a's&rdit$ -hich the Li'eral Catholic falls into '$ placing the formal moti#e of faith in h&man reason. *he Li'eral Catholic calls himself a =G/> Catholic 'eca&se he firml$ 'elie#es Catholicit$ to 'e the #erita'le re#elation of the Son of (od< he calls himself a Li'eral Catholic 'eca&se he 'elie#es that no one can impose &pon him an$ 'elief -hich his indi#id&al 7&dgement does not meas&re as perfectl$ rational. 2hat is not rational he re7ects. @e is intellect&all$ free to accept or re7ect. 2hat appears good he assents to, '&t he is intellect&all$ 'o&nd to no one. *h&s &n-ittingl$ he falls an eas$ #ictim to the snare set '$ the De#il for the intellect&all$ pro&d. @e has s&'stit&ted the nat&ralistic principle of free e!amination for the s&pernat&ral principle of faith. As a conse)&ence he is reall$ not Christian, '&t pagan. @e has no real s&pernat&ral faith, '&t onl$ a simple h&man con#iction. In the acceptance of the principle that the indi#id&al reason is th&s free to 'elie#e or not to 'elie#e, Li'eral Catholics are del&ded into the notion that incred&lit$ is a #irt&e rather than a #ice. *he$ fail to see in it an infirmit$ of the &nderstanding, a #ol&ntar$ 'lindness of the heart, and a conse)&ent -ea.ness of -ill. +n the other hand the$ loo. &pon the s.eptical

attit&de as a legitimate condition -herein intellect&al freedom is preser#ed, the s.eptic remaining master of himself to 'elie#e or den$. *he$ ha#e a horror of an$ coerci#e element in matters of =GF> faith< an$ chastisement of error shoc.s their tender s&scepti'ilities, and the$ detest an$ Catholic legislation in the direction of -hat the$ are pleased to call intolerance. *he S$lla'&s of Pi&s IA is a nightmare to them, a most inopport&ne, dominating, harsh and peremptor$ doc&ment, calc&lated to offend the sensi'ilities of the Protestant and modern -orld< it need not 'e accepted as an infalli'le &tterance, and if accepted, m&st 'e ta.en in a #er$ modified sense. *he ,ltramontane interpretation is #iolent and e!treme, and does m&ch more harm than good '$ dri#ing 'ac. the -ell disposed at s&ch a sho- of illi'eralit$. Close &pon this s)&eamishness in regard to the prono&ncement of Catholic doctrine, follo-s an a'horrence to antagoni?e the con#ictions of others, no matter ho- directl$ opposed to re#ealed tr&th, for -ith Li'eral Catholics the most erroneo&s are as sacred as the tr&est con#ictions, 'eing e)&all$ fo&nded &pon the principle of intellect&al li'ert$. *h&s the$ erect into a dogma -hat is called the principle of toleration. *he differences of 'elief are, after all, the$ complacentl$ arg&e, d&e to differences of temperament, ed&cation, etc.< -e -ill not e!actl$ appro#e them, '&t -e sho&ld at least condone them. *he first conception of faith 'eing =GB> nat&ralistic, in the de#elopment and application of that conception either to the indi#id&al or to societ$, the same nat&ralistic element e#ol#es itself. @ence it follo-s that the Li'eral Catholic8s appreciation of the Ch&rch has no fo&ndation in its s&pernat&ral character. *he Ch&rch does not address herself to his s$mpathies as a s&pernat&ral societ$ -hose first and s&pernat&ral end is the glor$ of (od and the sal#ation of so&ls. It is on her social and h&man side that he regards her -ith affection. It is as the great ci#ili?ing, and h&mani?ing po-er -hich has lifted so man$ people from a state of 'ar'arism, the g&ardian of the ancient arts and letters, the promoter of learning that she -ins his appla&se and appro'ation. She is first, not 'eca&se she is first in herself '$ di#ine right, '&t first in #irt&e of the appro#al of his o-n great intellect. ,nder this false conception apologies ha#e 'een -ritten in o&r times, and -ith strange inconsistenc$ the Ch&rch is often la&ded as the great promoter and preser#er of ci#ili?ation in the past, -hile her regressi#e tendencies are deplored in the present< as if an instit&tion, -hich alone '$ di#ine constit&tion has the perennial force of progress, co&ld e#er -ea.en or fail in her mission of h&man regeneration. ,nder the glamo&r of an ad#ance to-ards the =GG> mirage of a false happiness in the desert of this life, o&r Li'eral Catholics are proclaiming the shado- -hile re7ecting the s&'stance. *r&e progress, -hich can onl$ 'e thro&gh an ad#ance to (od, can ne#er 'e

effected sa#e thro&gh that agenc$ di#inel$ appointed to lead &s to (od. *his the Ch&rch of 9es&s Christ alone can do, for she, &nder @is instit&tion, is as @e @imself, the -a$, the tr&th, and the life. orgetting the di#ine and s&pernat&ral character of the Ch&rch, and she is nothing if not di#ine and s&pernat&ral, Li'eral Catholics tal. and -rite a'o&t her as a simple h&man de#elopment, accepting in the 'lindness of their false conception the nat&ralistic definition of faith. *he$ th&s e#iscerate the Ch&rch, ma.ing her the mere h&s. of -hat she reall$ is. Piet$ itself does not escape the action of this pernicio&s nat&ralistic principle< it con#erts it into pietism that is to sa$, into a parod$ of tr&e piet$, as is painf&ll$ seen in the pio&s practices of so man$ people -ho see. in their de#otions onl$ the sentimental emotions of -hich the$ themsel#es are a'le to 'e the so&rce. *he$ are de#o&t o#er themsel#es, -orshipping their o-n little sentiments and offering incense to idols gra#en after their o-n image. *his is simpl$ spirit&al sens&alism, and nothing else. =GD> *h&s -e see in o&r da$ in so man$ so&ls the degeneration of Christian asceticism, -hich is the p&rification of the heart '$ the repression of the appetites, and the falsification of Christian m$sticism, -hich is neither emotion, nor interior consolation, nor an$ other Epic&rean foi'le of h&man sentiment, '&t &nion -ith (od thro&gh a s&pernat&ral lo#e for @im and thro&gh a'sol&te s&'mission to @is hol$ -ill. *herefore is it that the Catholicit$ of a great n&m'er of people in o&r times is a Li'eral Catholicit$, or, rather, a false Catholicit$. It is reall$ not Catholicit$, '&t mere nat&ralism, a p&re rationalism< it is in a -ord paganism disg&ised in Catholic forms and &sing Catholic lang&age.

C@AP*ER 0 S@AD+2 AND PEN,MBRA

2hen -e retrospect the field of histor$ in the #ast stretch of time from the 'eginning of Christianit$ to o&r o-n da$, the #ario&s heresies that ha#e from time to time appeared, seem clearl$ and distinctl$ mar.ed off from the en#ironment of the orthodo! faith. 2e seem to 'e a'le to =G4> dra- a geometrical line aro&nd a'o&t their respecti#e areas, sharpl$ di#iding the camp of tr&th from that of error, separating the light from the dar.ness. B&t in this -e are decei#ed< it is an ill&sion ca&sed '$ distance. *he distinction appears so clear, so definite onl$ 'eca&se -e stand on the eminence of the present, from -hose #antage gro&nd -e see, in large o&tline, the massed mo#ements of peoples in the #ast panorama of the past. A closer st&d$, placing &s in intellect&al contact -ith these epochs, ena'les &s to o'ser#e that ne#er, in an$ period of histor$, -ere the di#iding lines 'et-een tr&th and error defined -ith s&ch geometrical e!actness< not that tr&th in realit$ -as not clearl$ and distinctl$ form&lated in the definitions of the Ch&rch, '&t 'eca&se in its acceptation and its e!terior profession '$ the generations interested in these definitions, more or less conf&sion and looseness characteri?ed their manner of ta.ing them. Error in societ$ is li.e a stain &pon some precio&s tiss&e. It is easil$ disting&ished, '&t it is #er$ diffic&lt to define its limits. *hese limits are as indefinite as the t-ilight -hich merges the departing da$ into the coming night or the da-n -hich 'lends the shado-s of the spent dar.ness -ith the ne-'orn light. So do the limits 'et-een =G;> error and tr&th in the act&al affairs of men mingle in shado-$ conf&sion. Error is a som're night< its limits fringe a-a$ from it li.e a h&ge pen&m'ra, -hich is sometimes ta.en for the shado- itself, faintl$ 'rightened '$ some reflections of the d$ing light, or rather '$ the l&minar$ $et en#eloped and o'sc&red '$ the first shades of e#ening. So all error clearl$ form&lated in Christian societ$ is, as it -ere, s&rro&nded '$ an atmosphere of the same error, '&t less dense, more rarefied and tempered. Arianism had its SemiEArianism, Pelagianism its SemiEPelagianism, L&theranism has its SemiEL&theranism, -hich is nothing else than Catholic Li'eralism. *his is -hat the S$lla'&s terms modern Li'eralism, that is, Li'eralism -itho&t the 'oldness of its &n#arnished first principles and stripped of the horrors of its last conse)&ences< it is the Li'eralism of those -ho are still &n-illing not to appear to 'e Catholics or at least not to 'elie#e themsel#es Catholics. Li'eralism is the 'anef&l t-ilight of the tr&th 'eginning to 'e o'sc&red in their intelligence, or

heres$ -hich has not $et ta.en complete possession. +n the other hand -e sho&ld not fail to =G0> note that there are those -ho are 7&st emerging from the dar.ness of error into the t-ilight of tr&th. *his class has not f&ll$ penetrated into the domain of tr&th. *hat the$ -ill e#er enter the cit$ of light depends &pon their o-n sincerit$ and honest$. If the$ earnestl$ desire to .no- the tr&th in its f&llness and see. it -ith sincere p&rpose, (od8s grace -ill not fail them. B&t the$ are in a dangero&s position. +n the 'order land 'et-een the realms of light and dar.ness the De#il is most acti#e and ingenio&s in detaining those -ho seem a'o&t to escape his snares, and spares nothing to retain in his ser#ice a great n&m'er of people -ho -o&ld tr&l$ detest his infernal machinations if the$ onl$ percei#ed them. @is method in the instance of persons infected -ith Li'eralism is to s&ffer them to place one foot -ithin the domain of tr&th pro#ided the$ .eep the other inside the camp of error. In this -a$ the$ stand the #ictim of the De#il8s deceit and their o-n foll$. In this -a$ those -hose consciences are not $et entirel$ hardened, escape the sal&tar$ horrors of remorse< so the p&sillanimo&s and the #acillating, -ho comprise the greater n&m'er of Li'erals, a#oid compromising themsel#es '$ prono&ncing themsel#es openl$ and s)&arel$< so the shre-d, calc&lating according to the meas&re of =G1> e!pedienc$ ho- m&ch time the$ -ill spend in each camp, manage to sho- themsel#es the friends and allies of 'oth< so a man is ena'led to administer an official and recogni?ed palliati#e to his failings, his -ea.nesses, and his 'l&nders. It is the o'sc&rit$ that rises from the indefiniteness of clearl$ defined principles of tr&th and error in the Li'eralist8s mind that ma.es him the eas$ #ictim of Satan. @is 'oasted strength is the #er$ so&rce of his -ea.ness. It is 'eca&se he has no real solid .no-ledge of the principles of tr&th and error that he is so easil$ del&ded into the 'elief of his o-n intellect&al s&periorit$. @e and pride, c&nningl$ pla$ed &pon '$ Satan, are in#aria'l$ dra-ing him.

C@AP*ER 1 *2+ HINDS + LIBERALISM

Philosoph$ and theolog$ teach that there are t-o .inds of atheism, doctrinal or spec&lati#e, and practical. *he first consists in an open and direct denial of the e!istence of (od< the second consists in acting and li#ing -itho&t den$ing the e!istence of =D:> (od, '&t $et as if @e did not reall$ e!ist. *hose -ho profess the first are called theoretical or doctrinal atheists< those -ho li#e according to the second, practical atheists5 the latter are the more n&mero&s. It is the same -ith Li'eralism and Li'erals. *here are theoretical and practical Li'erals. *he first are the dogmati?ers of the sect philosophers, the professors, the contro#ersialists, the 7o&rnalists. *he$ teach Li'eralism in 'oo.s, in disco&rses, in articles, '$ arg&ment or '$ a&thorit$, in conformit$ -ith a rationalistic criterion in disg&ised or open opposition to the criterion of the di#ine and s&pernat&ral re#elation of 9es&s Christ. Practical Li'eralists are '$ far in the greater ma7orit$. Li.e a floc. of sheep, -ith closed e$es, the$ follo- their leaders. *he$ .no- nothing in tr&th of principles and s$stems, and, did the$ percei#e the per#ersit$ of their instr&ctors, -o&ld perhaps detest them. B&t, decei#ed '$ a false cr$ or shi''oleth, the$ troop docilel$ after their false g&ides. *he$ are none the less the hands that act, -hile the theorists are the heads that direct. 2itho&t them, Li'eralism -o&ld ne#er pass 'e$ond the narro- 'o&nds of spec&lation. It is the practical Li'eralists that gi#e it life and e!terior mo#ement. *he$ constit&te the first =D/> matter of Li'eralism, disposed to ta.e an$ form, read$ for an$ foll$ or a's&rdit$ proposed '$ the leaders. Amongst Catholic Li'erals man$ of them go to Mass, e#en ma.e no#enas, and $et -hen the$ come in contact -ith the -orld lead the li#es of practical Li'erals. *he$ ma.e it a r&le 6to li#e &p to the times,6 as the$ call it. *he Ch&rch the$ 'elie#e to 'e some-hat o&tEofEdate, an old foge$< that she is held 'ac. '$ a certain set of reactionaries, ,ltramontane< '&t the$ ha#e hopes that she -ill in the co&rse of time catch &p -ith the modern spirit of progress, of -hich the$ are the #an. *he 'arnacles of medie#alism still enc&m'er the 'ar. of Peter, '&t time, the$ 'elie#e, -ill remed$ this. *he stra- of medie#al philosoph$ and theolog$ the$ hope 'efore long to thrash o&t '$ the introd&ction of the modern spirit into her schools. *hen -ill a ne- theolog$ 'e de#eloped more in conformit$ -ith the needs of the times, more in harmon$ -ith the modern spirit -hich ma.es s&ch large demands &pon o&r 6intellect&al li'ert$.6 So the$ 'elie#e =or imagine the$ 'elie#e> that all is -ell. Is their

responsi'ilit$ 'efore (od, therefore, lessenedC Ass&redl$ not. *he$ sin directl$ in the light of faith. *he$ are less e!c&sa'le than those Li'erals -ho ha#e ne#er 'een -ithin the pale of the Ch&rch. In short the$ sin -ith their e$es open. Amongst Li'erals -e m&st not forget to incl&de those -ho manage to e#ade an$ direct e!position or e!pression of the Li'eral theor$, '&t -ho ne#er the less o'li)&el$ s&stain it in their dail$ practice '$ -riting and orating after the Li'eral method, '&t recommending Li'eral 'oo.s and men, meas&ring and appreciating e#er$thing according to the Li'eral criterion, and manifesting on e#er$ occasion that offers, an intense hatred for an$thing that tends to discredit or -ea.en their 'elo#ed Li'eralism. S&ch is the cond&ct of those pr&dent 7o&rnalists, -hom it is diffic&lt to apprehend in the flagrant ad#ocac$ of an$ proposition concretel$ Li'eral, '&t -ho ne#ertheless in -hat the$ sa$ and in -hat the$ do not sa$, ne#er cease to la'o&r for the propagation of this c&nning heres$. +f all Li'eral reptiles, these are the most #enomo&s.

C@AP*ER /: LIBERALISM + ALL S@ADES C+NDEMNED B" *@E C@,RC@

Li'eralism of e#er$ degree and all forms has 'een formall$ condemned< so m&ch so =DB> that o&tside of the moti#es of its intrinsic malice, it stands &nder the formal 'an of the Ch&rch, -hich is s&fficient for all faithf&l Catholics. It -o&ld 'e impossi'le for an error so -idespread and so radical to escape condemnation. ,pon its appearance in rance at the time of the Re#ol&tion, the famo&s Declaration of the Rights of Man, -hich contains in germ all the follies of Li'eralism, -as condemned '$ Pi&s 3I. Later the 'anef&l doctrine infected all the co&ntries of E&rope. In Spain it first too. the name of Li'eralism, &nder -hich it has since 'een .no-n e#er$-here. ,pon the occasion of the appearance of the first errors of De Lammenais, (regor$ A3I., in his Enc$clical Mirari 3os e!plicitl$ condemned Li'eralism, as it -as then &nderstood, ta&ght, and practised '$ the constit&tional go#ernments of E&rope. Later on, -hen the f&ll tide of the deplora'le del&ge had s&'merged all E&rope, carr$ing all 'efore it, (od raised &p to @is Ch&rch Pi&s IA., -ho has 7&stl$ passed into histor$ as the Sco&rge of Li'eralism. Li'eral error &nder all its forms, shapes, and shades has 'een &nmas.ed '$ this Pope. *hat his -ords might carr$, as it -ere, more a&thorit$ on this )&estion, Pro#idence has -illed that these reiterated condemnations =DG> of Li'eralism sho&ld fall from the lips of a Pontiff -ho, at the 'eginning of his pontificate, -as hailed '$ Li'eralists as their o-n. B&t he left no ref&ge to -hich their error might ha#e resort. *he n&mero&s Briefs and Alloc&tions of Pi&s IA ha#e clearl$ sho-n to Christian peoples -hat this 'anef&l heres$ is, and *he S$lla'&s has p&t on the final seal of condemnation. Let &s see the principal contents of some of the Pontifical doc&ments. Amongst all that -e might place 'efore o&r readers, -e -ill cite onl$ a fe-. +n the /0th of 9&ne, /0;/, responding to a dep&tation of rench Catholics Pi&s IA spo.e th&s5 6Atheism in legislation, indifference in matters of religion and the pernicio&s ma!ims -hich go &nder the name of Li'eral Catholicism are the tr&e ca&ses of the destr&ction of the States< the$ ha#e 'een the r&in of rance. Belie#e me5 the e#il I deno&nce is more terri'le than the Re#ol&tion, more terri'le e#en than *he Comm&ne. I ha#e al-a$s condemned Li'eral Catholicism and I -ill condemn it again fort$ times o#er if it 'e necessar$.6 In a Brief, 4th of March, /0;B, addressed to the Circle of St. Am'rose of Milan,

the So#ereign Pontiff th&s e!presses himself5 6People are not -anting -ho pretend to =DD> form an alliance 'et-een light and dar.ness, and to associate 7&stice -ith ini)&it$ in fa#o&r of those doctrines called Li'eral Catholicism, -hich 'ased on the most pernicio&s principles, sho- themsel#es fa#o&ra'le to the intr&sion of sec&lar po-er &pon the domain of spirit&als< the$ lead their partisans to esteem, or, at least, to tolerate ini)&ito&s la-s, as if it -ere not -ritten that no one can ser#e t-o masters. *hose -ho th&s cond&ct themsel#es, are more dangero&s and more 'anef&l than declared enemies, not onl$ 'eca&se, -itho&t 'eing -arned of it, perhaps e#en -itho&t 'eing conscio&s of it, the$ second the pro7ects of -ic.ed men, '&t also 'eca&se, .eeping -ithin certain limits, the$ sho- themsel#es -ith some appearance of pro'it$ and so&nd doctrine. *he$ th&s decei#e the indiscreet friends of conciliation and sed&ce honest people, -ho -o&ld other-ise ha#e stren&o&sl$ com'ated a declared error.6 In the Brief of the 0th of Ma$ of the same $ear spea.ing to the Confederation of the Catholic Circle of Belgi&m, the same @ol$ ather said5 62hat -e praise a'o#e all in $o&r religio&s enterprise is the a'sol&te a#ersion -hich, as -e are informed, $o& sho- to-ards the principles of Li'eral Catholicism and $o&r intrepid determination to root them =D4> o&t as soon as possi'le. In tr&th $o& -ill e!tirpate the fatal root of discord and $o& -ill efficacio&sl$ contri'&te to &nite and strengthen the minds of all in so com'ating this insidio&s error, m&ch more dangero&s than an open enem$ 'eca&se it hides itself &nder the specio&s #eil of ?eal and of charit$, and in so endea#o&ring to protect the people in general from its contaminating infl&ence. S&rel$ $o& -ho adhere -ith s&ch complete s&'mission to all decisions of this Apostolic Seat and -ho .no- its fre)&ent repro'ations of Li'eral principles, ha#e no need of these -arnings.6 In the Brief to the La Croi!, a Belgi&m 7o&rnal, on the FGth of Ma$, /0;G, the Pope th&s e!presses himself5 62e cannot do less than to praise the design e!pressed in this letter, -hich -e .no- $o&r 7o&rnal -ill satisfactoril$ f&lfil, the design to p&'lish, to spread, to comment on and inc&lcate in all minds all that the @ol$ See teaches against the per#erse or at least false doctrines professed in so man$ )&arters, and partic&larl$ against Li'eral Catholicism, 'itterl$ stri#ing to conciliate light -ith dar.ness and tr&th -ith error.6 +n the 1th of 9&ne, /0;B, Pi&s IA -rote to the president of the Co&ncil of the Catholic Association of +rleans, and -itho&t =D;> mentioning its name, depicts

pietistic and moderated Li'eralism in the follo-ing terms5 6Altho&gh $o& ha#e not, strictl$ spea.ing, to com'at impiet$, are $o& not perhaps menaced on this side '$ as great dangers as those of the gro&p of friends decei#ed '$ that am'ig&o&s doctrine, -hich, -hile re7ecting the last conse)&ence of error, o'stinatel$ retains the germs, and -hich, not -illing to em'race the tr&th in its f&llness, and not daring to a'andon it entirel$, e!ha&sts itself in interpreting the traditions and teachings of the Ch&rch '$ r&nning them thro&gh the mold of its o-n pri#ate opinions.6 In an address to the Bishop of %&imper, and spea.ing in reference to the general assem'l$ of the Catholic Association of that diocese, the Pope said5 6Ass&redl$ these associations are not -anting in the o'edience d&e to the Ch&rch, neither on acco&nt of the -ritings nor the actions of those -ho p&rs&e them -ith in#ecti#es and a'&se< '&t the$ might 'e p&shed into the slipper$ path of error '$ the force of those opinions called Li'eral< opinions accepted '$ man$ Catholics -ho are other-ise honest and pio&s, and -ho, e#en '$ the #er$ infl&ence -hich gi#es them their piet$, are easil$ capti#ated and ind&ced =D0> to profess the most pernicio&s ma!ims. Inc&lcate, therefore, 3enera'le Brother, in the minds of this Catholic assem'l$ that, -hen -e ha#e so often re'&.ed the sectaries of these Li'eral opinions, -e ha#e not had in #ie- the declared enemies of the Ch&rch, -hom it -o&ld ha#e 'een idle to deno&nce, '&t rather that those, of -hom -e are spea.ing, are s&ch as secretl$ g&ard the #ir&s of Li'eral Principles -hich the$ ha#e im'i'ed -ith their mother8s mil.. *he$ 'oldl$ inoc&late this #ir&s into the people8s minds, as if it -ere not impregnated -ith a manifest malice, and as if it -ere as harmless to religion as the$ thin.. *he$ th&s propagate the seed of those tro&'les -hich ha#e held the -orld in re#ol&tion so long. Let them a#oid these am'&scades. Let them endea#o&r to direct their 'lo-s against this perfidio&s enem$, and certainl$ the$ -ill merit m&ch from their religion and their co&ntr$.6 2ith these &tterances from the mo&th of the 3icar of 9es&s Christ o&r friends as -ell as o&r enemies m&st see that the Pope has said in di#ers 'riefs, and partic&larl$ in the last citation, in a general -a$ all that can 'e said on this )&estion, -hich -e are st&d$ing in its details. =D1>

C@AP*ER // *@E S+LEMN C+NDEMNA*I+N + LIBERALISM B" *@E S"LLAB,S

Li'eralism has 'een condemned '$ the Pope in man$ and #ario&s doc&ments. rom these let &s select a fe- epithets -hich stigmati?e it -ith &nsparing emphasis. *he$ -ill 'ring o&t in stri.ing relief the perfidio&s character of this c&nning heres$. In his 'rief to Mgr. De Seg&r in regard to the latter8s -ell .no-n -or. 6@ommage A&! Catholi)&es Li'era&!6 the Pope calls it a perfidio&s enem$< in his alloc&tion to the Bishop of Ne#ers, the present real calamit$< in his letter to the Catholic circle of St. Am'rose of Milan, a compact 'et-een in7&stice and ini)&it$< in the same doc&ment he spea.s of it as more fatal and dangero&s than a declared enem$< in his letter to the Bishop of %&imper, a hidden poison< in the 'rief to the Belgians, a craft$ and insidio&s error< in another 'rief to Mgr. (a&me, a most pernicio&s pest. All these doc&ments from -hich -e )&ote ma$ 'e fo&nd in f&ll in Mgr. Seg&r8s 'oo. 6@ommage, etc.6 B&t Li'eralism is al-a$s strategicall$ c&nning. It re7ected these #er$ plain condemnations =4:> on the gro&nd that the$ had all 'een made to pri#ate persons< that the$ -ere, therefore, of an entirel$ pri#ate character, '$ no means e! cathedra, and, of co&rse, not 'inding. @eres$ is al-a$s sophisticall$ o'stinate< it clings to the least prete!t, see.s e#er$ e!c&se to escape condemnation. Barricading itself 'ehind these technical defences, Li'eralism practicall$ defied the a&thorit$ of the Ch&rch. Its perfid$ -as shortEli#ed. A solemn official p&'lic doc&ment of a general character and &ni#ersall$ prom&lgated -o&ld s-eep a-a$ the co'-e's -ith -hich Li'eral Catholics had endea#o&red to 'ind the a&thorit$ of the So#ereign Pontiff. *he Ch&rch co&ld not ref&se a formal and decisi#e -ord to relie#e the an!iet$ of her children. *hat -ord -as spo.en< it -as the S$lla'&s of Decem'er 0, /04G. All faithf&l Catholics hailed it -ith an enth&siasm onl$ e)&alled in intensit$ '$ the paro!$sm of f&r$ -ith -hich the Li'erals recei#ed it. Li'eral Catholics tho&ght it more pr&dent to stri.e at it co#ertl$ '$ o#er-helming it -ith artificial interpretations. *he Li'erals deno&nced it -ith &nsparing 'itterness< the Li'eral Catholics -hittled it a-a$ '$ all manner of emasc&lating e!planations. It -as a doc&ment fatal to 'oth< the$ had reason to fear it, =4/> the one e!ecrating it, the other see.ing -ith desperate s&'tlet$ to parr$ the 'lo-, for the S$lla'&s is an official catalog&e of the principal errors of the da$ in the form of concrete propositions placed &nder the formal 'an of the

Ch&rch. In it -ill 'e fo&nd, s&ccinctl$ form&lated, the #ario&s errors -hich are met -ith in the c&rrent literat&re of the times. *he S$lla'&s cr$stalli?es all these errors and stamps them -ith the seal of the e!plicit and formal condemnation of the Ch&rch. @ere -e ha#e in detail all the Li'eral dogmas. Altho&gh Li'eralism ma$ not 'e e!pressl$ named in an$ one of the propositions, most of its errors are there placed in pillor$. rom the condemnation of each of the Li'eral errors res&lts a condemnation of the -hole s$stem. Let &s 'riefl$ en&merate them. Condemnation of li'ert$ of -orship =propositions /D, ;;, and ;0>< of the placet of go#ernments =propositions F: and F0>< of the a'sol&te s&premac$ of the State =proposition B0>< of the sec&lari?ation of p&'lic ed&cation =proposition GD, G: and G0>< of the a'sol&te separation of Ch&rch and State =proposition /D>< of the a'sol&te right to legislate -itho&t regard to (od =proposition D4>< of the principle of nonEinter#ention =proposition 4F>< of the right of ins&rrection =proposition 4B>< of ci#il =pg. 4F> marriage =proposition ;B and others>< of the li'ert$ =license> of the press =proposition ;1>< of &ni#ersal s&ffrage as the so&rce of a&thorit$ =proposition 4:>< of e#en the name of Li'eralism =proposition 00>. *here ha#e 'een 'oo.s, pamphlets, and articles inn&mera'le -ritten on the proper interpretation of the propositions of the s$lla'&s. B&t the most a&thoritati#e interpretation o&ght to 'e that of its radical enemies, not of co&rse in the a's&rdities of their mis&nderstandings or per#ersions, li.e Mr. (ladstone8s &nfort&nate attempt to distort some of its propositions into a sanction of ci#il dislo$alt$, a position from -hich he has since -ithdra-n, -e are glad to 'e a'le to sa$. B&t o&tside of s&ch patent misconstr&ctions -e ma$ rel$ &pon the interpretation gi#en '$ Li'erals of all shades, especiall$ in those points -herein -e see them -ince &nder its &ncompromising phraseolog$. 2hen Li'erals regard it as their most detesta'le enem$, as the complete s$m'ol of -hat the$ term Clericalism, ,ltramontanism and Reaction, -e ma$ rest ass&red that it has 'een -ell interpreted in that )&arter. Satan, 'ad as he is, is not a fool, and sees clearl$ eno&gh -here the 'lo- falls -ith most effect. *h&s he has set the a&thorit$ of his seal, -hich after god8s is most relia'le, on this great -or., =4B> the seal of his ine!ting&isha'le hate. @ere is an instance in -hich -e can 'elie#e the father of lies. 2hat he most a'hors and defames possesses an &nimpeacha'le g&arant$ of its tr&th.

C@AP*ER /F LIHE LIBERALISM B,* N+* LIBERALISM, LIBERALISM B,* N+* LIHE I*
*o effect a conf&sion of ideas is an old scheme of the De#il. Not to &nderstand clearl$ and precisel$ is generall$ the so&rce of intellect&al error. In time of schism and heres$, to clo&d and distort the proper sense of -ords is a fr&itf&l artifice of Satan, and it is as eas$ to la$ snares for the intellect&all$ pro&d as for the innocent. E#er$ heres$ in the Ch&rch 'ears testimon$ to Satan8s s&ccess in decei#ing the h&man intellect '$ o'sc&ring and per#erting the meaning of -ords. Arianism -as a 'attle of -ords and o-ed its longEcontin&ed s&ccess to its #er'al chicaner$. Pelagianism and 9ansenism sho-ed the same characteristic, and toda$ Li'eralism is as c&nning and o'sc&re as an$ of its heretical predecessors. =4G> or some, Li'eralism consists in certain political forms< for others, in a certain tolerant and genero&s spirit opposed to despotism and t$rann$< for others again it means simpl$ ci#il e)&alit$< for man$ it 'ecomes a #ag&e and &ncertain sentiment -hich shapes itself into opposition to all ar'itrar$ go#ernment. Altho&gh alread$ defined it -ill not 'e amiss to define Li'eralism again. In the first place no political form of an$ .ind -hatsoe#er, -hether democratic or pop&lar, is of itself =e! se> Li'eralism. orms are mere forms and nothing more. orms of go#ernment do not constit&te their essence. *heir forms are '&t their accidents. *heir essence consists in the ci#il a&thorit$ '$ #irt&e of -hich the$ go#ern, -hether that a&thorit$ 'e in form rep&'lican, democratic, aristocratic, monarchical< it ma$ 'e an electi#e, hereditar$, mi!ed or a'sol&te monarch. *hese #ario&s forms of themsel#es ha#e nothing to do -ith Li'eralism. An$ one of the ma$ 'e perfectl$ and integrall$ Catholic. If the$ accept 'e$ond their o-n so#ereignt$ the so#ereignt$ of (od, if the$ confess that the$ deri#e their a&thorit$ from @im, if the$ s&'mit themsel#es to the in#iola'le r&le of the Christian la-< if the$ hold for indisp&ta'le in their parliaments all that is defined '$ this la-< if the$ ac.no-ledge as the =4D> 'asis of p&'lic right the s&preme moralit$ of the Ch&rch and her a'sol&te right in all things -ithin her o-n competenc$, the$ are tr&l$ Catholic go#ernments, -hate#er 'e their form< and the most e!acting ,ltramontanism cannot reproach them. @istor$ offers the repeated e!ample of rep&'lican po-ers -hich ha#e 'een fer#entl$ Catholic. S&ch -as the aristocratic rep&'lic of 3enice, s&ch the merchant rep&'lic of (enoa, s&ch in o&r da$ are certain S-iss Cantons< as

e!amples of mi!ed monarchies tr&l$ Catholic, that of Catalonia and Aragon, the most democratic and at the same time the most Catholic of the Middle Ages< the ancient monarch$ of Castile &p to the ad#ent of the @o&se of A&stria< the electi#e monarch$ of Poland &p to the time of the ini)&ito&s dismem'erment of that most religio&s realm. *o 'elie#e that monarchies are of themsel#es =e! se> more religio&s than rep&'lics is an ignorant pre7&dice. *he most scandalo&s e!ample of persec&tion against Catholicit$ in modern time, ha#e 'een gi#en '$ monarchies, for instance '$ R&ssia and '$ Pr&ssia. A (o#ernment, -hate#er 'e its form, is Catholic, if its constit&tion, its legislation and its politics, are 'ased on Catholic principles< it is Li'eral if it 'ases its constit&tion, its legislation and its politics on =44> rationalistic principles. It is not the act of legislation '$ the .ing in a monarch$, '$ the people in a rep&'lic or '$ 'oth in a mi!ed form of go#ernment, -hich constit&tes the essential nat&re of its legislation or of its constit&tion. 2hat constit&tes this is -hether it does or does not carr$ -ith it the imm&ta'le seal of the aith, and -hether it 'e or 'e not conforma'le -ith -hat the Christian la- imposes &pon States as -ell as indi#id&als. 9&st as amongst indi#id&als, a .ing in his p&rple, a no'le -ith his esc&tcheon or a -or.man in his o#eralls can 'e tr&l$ Catholic, so States can 'e Catholic, -hate#er 'e the place assigned them in the scale of go#ernmental forms. In conse)&ence the fact of 'eing Li'eral or antiEli'eral has nothing -hate#er to do -ith the horror -hich e#er$ one o&ght to entertain for despotism and t$rann$, nor -ith the desire of ci#il e)&alit$ 'et-een all citi?ens< m&ch less -ith the spirit of toleration and of generosit$, -hich, in their proper acceptation, are Christian #irt&es. And $et all this in the lang&age of certain people and certain 7o&rnals is called Li'eralism. @ere -e ha#e an instance of a thing -hich has the appearance of Li'eralism and -hich in realit$ is not Li'eralism at all. +n the other hand there e!ists a thing -hich is reall$ Li'eralism, and $et has not =4;> the appearance of Li'eralism. Let &s s&ppose an a'sol&te monarch$ li.e that of R&ssia, or of *&r.e$, or 'etter still one of the conser#ati#e go#ernments of o&r times, the most conser#ati#e imagina'le< let &s s&ppose that the constit&tion and the legislation of this monarch$ or of this go#ernment is 'ased &pon the principle of the a'sol&te and free -ill of the .ing or &pon the e)&all$ &nrestricted -ill of the conser#ati#e ma7orit$, in place of 'eing 'ased on the principles of Catholic right, on the indestr&cti'ilit$ of the aith, or &pon a rigoro&s regard of the rights of the Ch&rch< then this monarch$ and this conser#ati#e go#ernment -o&ld 'e thoro&ghl$ Li'eral and antiE Catholic. 2hether the freethin.er 'e a monarch -ith his responsi'le ministr$, or a responsi'le minister -ith his legislati#e corps, as far as conse)&ences are

concerned, it is a'sol&tel$ the same thing. In 'oth cases their political cond&ct is in the direction of freeEtho&ght and therefore it is Li'eral. 2hether or not it 'e the polic$ of s&ch a go#ernment to place restraints &pon the freedom of the press< -hether, no matter &nder -hat prete!t, it grinds its s&'7ects, and r&les -ith a rod of iron, a co&ntr$ so go#erned tho&gh it -ill not 'e free, -ill -itho&t do&'t 'e li'eral. S&ch -ere the ancient Asiatic monarchies, s&ch are man$ of o&r modern monarchies, s&ch -as the go#ernment of Bismarc. in (erman$< s&ch is the monarch$ of Spain, -hose constit&tion declares the .ing in#iola'le '&t not (od. @ere then -e ha#e something -hich -itho&t seeming to resem'le Li'eralism is reall$ Li'eralism, the more s&'tle and dangero&s precisel$ 'eca&se it has not the appearance of the e#il it is. 2e see then -hat care m&st 'e &sed in treating )&estions of this .ind. It is of great importance a'o#e all that the terms of the disc&ssion 'e caref&ll$ defined and that e)&i#ocations 'e st&dio&sl$ a#oided -hich -o&ld fa#o&r error more than the tr&th.

C@AP*ER /B *@E NAME LIBERALISM

Ma$ a good Catholic ta.e the term Li'eralism in good part and ma$ he regard it credita'le to 'e a Li'eralC 2hat harm, it ma$ 'e &rged, is there in the &sage of these terms as long as there is no act&al acceptance of the Li'eral creed. 2h$ sho&ld not Catholics &se the terms -ith a =41> good sense in7ected into themC Let &s see if there 'e #alidit$ in this claim. It is certain that the -ord Li'eralism signifies in the present age something not entirel$ in accord -ith tr&e Catholicit$. It cannot 'e said that -e descri'e the sit&ation in e!aggerated terms. It m&st 'e admitted that in the c&rrent acceptation of the -ord, Li'eralism and Catholic Li'eralism ha#e 'een e!plicitl$ condemned '$ Pi&s IA. Lea#ing aside for the moment those -ho pretend to profess a certain Li'eralism -itho&t -ishing it to 'e .no-n as s&ch, there is no do&'t that the Li'eralist c&rrent in E&rope and America is antiE Catholic and rationalistic. Pass the -orld in re#ie-< -hat is meant '$ the Li'eral part$ in Belgi&m, in rance, in (erman$, in @olland, in A&stria, in Ital$, in the So&th American Rep&'licsC Are the$ not anticlerical, antiECatholicC 2hat is meant '$ their c&rrent lang&age -hen the$ spea. of the Li'eral criterion5 a Li'eral atmosphere, Li'eral tho&ght, etc.C Loo. at the leaders of these parties 'oth in E&rope and America< do not ninet$Enine per cent of them &nderstand '$ Li'eralism the application of a p&re and mild rationalism, at least to social scienceC Do the$ not regard as their sole and most potent enem$ -hat the$ contempt&o&sl$ term Clericalism, ,ltramontanism, and =;:> descri'e the Ch&rch as medie#al, reactionar$, the opponent of progress and the n&rse of s&perstitionC 2hen then the term is so intimatel$ associated -ith a Rationalism so radicall$ opposed to the Ch&rch, ho- ma$ Catholics &se it -ith an$ hope of separating it from its c&rrent meaningC In #ain ma$ some half do?en people imagine that the$ ha#e gi#en a different signification to a thing c&rrentl$ &nderstood to 'ear the &nmista.a'le stamp of antiECatholicit$. Be$ond all disp&te, common &sage, the ar'iter and 7&dge of lang&age, persists in regarding Li'eralism as the implaca'le foe of Catholicit$. In spite then of a tho&sand distinctions, e!ceptions and s&'tleties $o& cannot fashion for $o&rself alone a Li'eralism -hich has nothing contrar$ to the aith in the opinion of most people, nor can $o& call $o&rself Li'eral in an$ sense -itho&t 'eing classed -ith all the other Li'erals of that great famil$ of Li'eralism s&ch as the -orld &nderstands it. *he 7o&rnal that see.s to 'e Catholic and at the same time has the name or rep&tation of Li'eral 'ecomes in the general opinion an all$ of those -ho, &nder the Li'eral 'anner, com'at

the Ch&rch in front and rear. 3ainl$ -ill the editor of s&ch a 7o&rnal e!plain himself< his e!c&ses and his e!planations gro- -earisome. *o profess =;/> to 'e Catholic and $et s&'scri'e himself Li'eral is not the -a$ to con#ince people of the sincerit$ of his profession. *he editor of a 7o&rnal p&rporting to 'e Catholic m&st 'e Catholic not onl$ in the profession he ma.es, '&t in spirit and in tr&th. *o ass&me to 'e Li'eral and then to endea#o&r to appear Catholic is to 'elie his faith< and altho&gh in his o-n heart he ma$ imagine that he is as Catholic as the Pope =as se#eral Li'erals #a&nt themsel#es>, there is not the least do&'t that his infl&ence on c&rrent ideas and the march of e#ents is thro-n in fa#o&r of the enem$< and, in spite of himself, he 'ecomes a satellite forced to mo#e in the general or'it descri'ed '$ Li'eralism. And all this comes of a foolish desire to 'e estimated Li'eral. Insane ill&sionI *he &sage of the -ord Li'eral ma.es the Catholic, -ho accepts it as his o-n, one -ith all that finds shelter in its omino&s shado-. Rationalism is the toadstool that flo&rishes in its dar. shades, and -ith Rationalism does s&ch a 7o&rnalist identif$ himself, th&s placing himself in the ran.s of the enemies of 9es&s ChristI Moreo#er there is little do&'t that the readers of s&ch 7o&rnals are little prepared to disting&ish the s&'tle limitations dra-n '$ editors of this character 'et-een Li'eralism =;B> and Li'eralism. Most readers .no- the -ord in its common &sage and class all things Li'eral in a l&mp. 2hen the$ see an ostensi'l$ Catholic 7o&rnal practicall$ ma.ing common ca&se -ith the Li'eral creed '$ sanctioning its name, the$ are easil$ led into the dangero&s 'elief that Li'eralism has some affinit$ -ith their faith, and, this once engrafted in their minds, the$ 'ecome read$ adepts of Rationalism. Let &s ill&strate. *here is in o&r da$ a sect -hich calls itself 6*he +ld Catholics.6 S&ppose that -e -ho are in the tr&e sense of the -ord an old Catholic, for o&r Catholicit$ dates from Cal#ar$ and the Cenacle of 9er&salem, -hich are proofs of its anti)&it$, s&ppose -e sho&ld esta'lish a 7o&rnal -ith the e)&i#alent title5 Re#ie- of the +ld Catholics Co&ld it 'e said that this title is a lieC No< for -e are old Catholics in the 'est sense of the -ords. B&t co&ld it not 'e properl$ o'7ected that this is a false so&nding title, in as m&ch as it is in o&r da$ the c&nning de#ice of a schismatical sectC Certainl$ it -o&ld gi#e occasion to -ell informed Catholics to 'elie#e that -e -ere a schismatic and to the schismatics, -ho st$le themsel#es +ld Catholics, occasion to -elcome &s as a ne- comrade in their re'ellion against the Ch&rch. 2h$ th&s scandali?e the faithf&lC B&t -e &se the =;B> -ord in a good sense so 'e it< '&t -o&ld it not 'e m&ch 'etter to altogether a#oid the &se of a term in so important a matter, -hich, &nder e!isting circ&mstances, is readil$ interpreted in a 'ad senseC

No- this is e!actl$ the sit&ation -ith those -ho consider the term Li'eral, repro'ated '$ the Pope, inoffensi#e. 2h$ sho&ld the$ ta.e partic&lar pains to emplo$ a term re)&iring conf&sing e!planations, and -hich cannot '&t e!cite s&spicion and ca&se scandalC 2h$ ran. themsel#es, for the sa.e of a term, -ith the enem$, and carr$ his de#ice if, at 'ottom, the$ are CatholicC B&t it ma$ 'e said that -ords are of little importance -h$ )&i''le in this -a$ of the meaning of a termC 2e protest< -ords are of paramo&nt importance, especiall$ in o&r o-n da$, -hen intellect&al conf&sion so o'sc&res f&ndamental tr&ths in the modern mind. 2ords represent ideas. *hat is their #al&e and their &se. Modern error largel$ o-es its s&ccess to its &se of terms of an am'ig&o&s character, or, rather, '$ in7ecting a meaning into its -ords -hich hitherto carried a different signification. Agnosticism and Positi#ism ha#e th&s retained a Christian phraseolog$ -itho&t the Christian meaning. *he$ spea. of (od and sanctit$ and holiness and d&t$ and freedom, '&t the$ ha#e e#iscerated the Christian =;G> meaning. Still these terms pass c&rrent in the p&'lic mind -ith their former meaning, and so halfEdisg&ise the fatalism and paganism of the agnostic and positi#ist schools. Socialism has adopted the terms li'ert$, e)&alit$, and fraternit$, as its -atch-ords, -here in realit$ the$ mean re#ol&tion, destr&ction, and despotism. "et it decei#es the simple '$ th&s disg&ising its real intent. So has it al-a$s 'een. All heresies ha#e 'eg&n in #er'al disp&tes and ended in sang&inar$ conflicts of ideas. St. Pa&l e!horts *imoth$ to 'e on his g&ard not onl$ against false science =oppositiones falsi nominis scientie> '&t also against profane no#elties of -ords =profanas #oc&m no#itates>. 2hat -o&ld the great apostle of the nations sa$ if, toda$, he sa- Catholics decorating themsel#es -ith the title of Li'eral, -hen that term stands in s&ch #iolent and open antithesis to all that is CatholicC It is not merel$ a )&estion of -ords, '&t of -hat -ords represent. It is a )&estion of tr&th and sal#ation. No< $o& cannot 'e a Li'eral Catholic< incompati'les cannot 'e reconciled. "o& cannot ass&me this repro'ated name altho&gh $o& ma$ 'e a'le '$ s&'tle sophisms to disco#er some secret -a$ of reconciling it -ith $o&r faith. Christian charit$ -ill not defend $o&, =;D> altho&gh $o& ma$ repeatedl$ in#o.e it and -o&ld ma.e it s$non$mo&s -ith the toleration of error. *he first condition of charit$ is not to #iolate the tr&th, and charit$ cannot 'e the snare to s&rprise faith into the s&pport of error. 2hile -e ma$ admit the sincerit$ of those -ho are not Catholic, their error m&st al-a$s 'e held &p to repro'ation. 2e ma$ pit$ them in their dar.ness, '&t -e can ne#er a'et their error '$ ignoring it or tolerating it. Be$ond disp&te no Catholic can 'e consistentl$ called Li'eral. Most, ho-e#er, to 'e feared is not he -ho openl$ 'oasts his Li'eralism, '&t

-ho esche-s the name and, #ehementl$ den$ing it, is $et steeped to the lips in it and contin&all$ spea.s and acts &nder its inspiration. And if s&ch a man 'e a Catholic '$ profession all the more dangero&s is he to the faith of others, for he is the hidden enem$ so-ing tares amidst the -heat.

C@AP*ER /G LIBERALISM AND REE*@+,(@*

In o&r da$ the Catholic -orld, -ith as m&ch 7&stice as reason, attri'&tes impiet$ to the )&alit$ of freeEtho&ght, -hether in a person, a 7o&rnal or an instit&tion. reethin.er is an odio&s epithet -hich fe- are -illing to accept, '&t -hich man$ 7&stl$ 'ear in spite of their protestations. *he$ chafe &nder the appellation of the -ord, '&t find no incon#enience in 'eing all that it implies. Persons, societies, 'oo.s, go#ernments -hich re7ect, in matters of faith and morals, the onl$ and e!cl&si#e criterion of the Catholic Ch&rch are Li'erals. *he$ ac.no-ledge themsel#es to 'e Li'erals, the$ feel hono&red to 'e so recogni?ed, and ne#er dream of scandali?ing an$'od$ e!cept &s terri'le irreconcila'les. No- change the e!pression< instead of Li'erals call them freethin.ers the$ resent the epithet as a cal&mn$ and gro- indignant at the ins&lt, as the$ term it. B&t -h$ this e!cr&ciating tenderness, this delicate sensiti#eness o#er the #ariations of a simple termC @a#e $o& not, dear friends, 'anished from $o&r conscience, $o&r 'oo.s, $o&r 7o&rnal and $o&r societ$ all recognition of the s&preme a&thorit$ of the Ch&rchC @a#e $o& not raised &p as sole and f&ndamental criterion of $o&r cond&ct and $o&r tho&ght $o&r o-n &ntrammelled reasonC 3er$ properl$ then do $o& sa$ that $o& are Li'eral and no one -ill disp&te the title -ith $o&. B&t $o& sho&ld remem'er that =;;> the #er$ principle, -hich ma.es $o& Li'eral, constit&tes $o& freethin.ers. E#er$ Li'eral, no matter of -hat degree or shade, is ipso facto a freethin.er, and e#er$ freethin.er, as odio&s as the title ma$ seem according to social con#entionalities, is onl$ a logical Li'eral. @e is simpl$ a Li'eral follo-ing his premises to their concl&sions. *his doctrine is as precise and as e!act as a mathematical proposition. It is 'ased on the la-s of the strictest logic. It is a simple s$llogism, -hose premise is Li'eralism and -hose concl&sion freeEtho&ght. Let &s ill&strate. "o& are a Catholic more or less open to false all&rements and as a p&nishment for $o&r sins, $o& 'elong to a Li'eral societ$, sa$, of a literar$ character. Consider a moment and as. $o&rself the follo-ing )&estion5 2o&ld I contin&e to 'elong to this Athenae&m, if tomorro- it sho&ld proclaim itself p&'licl$ and 'oldl$ a societ$ of free tho&ghtC 2hat response -o&ld $o&r conscience and $o&r shame dictateC 2o&ld $o& not at once -ithdra- from its mem'ershipC As a Catholic $o& co&ld ta.e no part in its proceedings. Again< $o& s&'scri'e for a 7o&rnal, read it -itho&t scr&ple, altho&gh it 'ears a

Li'eral title and spea.s and reasons accordingl$. 2o&ld $o& contin&e $o&r s&'scription =;0> if all of a s&dden it sho&ld place &pon its title page the follo-ing heading5 9o&rnal of ree *ho&ght. 2ell, this moderate or #iolent Li'eral 7o&rnal has 'een for $ears nothing more nor less than a free thin.er, and $o& ha#e 'een im'i'ing its poison &nder the del&sion of a -ord. AhI +f ho- man$ pre7&dices -o&ld -e rid o&rsel#es if -e onl$ reflected a little on the meaning of -ordsI E#er$ societ$, -hether scientific, literar$ or philanthropic, constit&ted on Li'eral lines, is freethin.ing. E#er$ go#ernment Li'erall$ organi?ed is freethin.ing. *o re7ect -ith disg&st the name and not the s&'stance is 'lindness. An$ instit&tion, no matter -hat 'e its character, esta'lished in complete independence of the magisteri&m of the aith, is freethin.ing. Catholics cannot consistentl$ 'elong to them. Mem'ership there means re'ellion against the Ch&rch. In all s&ch instit&tions Li'eralism reigns and, in conse)&ence, freeEtho&ght. No Catholic can remain a Catholic and affiliate -ith them. 2e are Catholics all in all or not at all. 2e cannot d-ell in an atmosphere -here (od is not. *here is no tr&e spirit&al life -here 9es&s Christ is not, and @e has gi#en @is promise to 'e -ith @is Ch&rch fore#er. 2ho a'ides not in @im, li#es in the o&ter dar.ness. =;1> @o- m&ch do per#erse Catholics ser#e the De#il '$ o'stinatel$ clinging to s&ch associations and participating in their -or.sI In the foll$ of their ignorance, -hich the$ assert against the -isdom of the Ch&rch, the$ harden their consciences to the practical g&idance of the @ol$ See and 'lindl$ enlist in the ser#ice of an enem$ -hose c&nning del&des them into the sla#er$ of @ell &nder the disg&ise of freedomI *he$ forget that the tr&th alone ma.es them free. *o .no- and ser#e (od is the onl$ freedom, and Li'eralism completel$ se#ers the 'ond -hich lin.s man to (od. 2ith a 7&st and rational horror does a good Catholic regard Li'eralism. ,ltramontanism -ill ne#er ca&se $o& to lose $o&r so&l< Li'eralism is a 'road road to the infernal a'$ss.

C@AP*ER /D CAN A LIBERAL BE IN (++D AI*@C

Is there s&ch a thing in rer&m nat&ra as a Li'eral in good faithC In o&r da$ it seems almost impossi'le to reconcile Li'eralism -ith good faith, -hich is the onl$ thing that can gi#e it the shado- of e!c&se. It cannot, ho-e#er, 'e denied that, a'sol&tel$ spea.ing, there ma$ e!ist &nder pec&liar =0:> circ&mstances an e!ceptional case, '&t this -ill indeed 'e &ni)&e. In the histor$ of heres$ -e fre)&entl$ find some indi#id&als e#en man$ -ho in spite of themsel#es, are dragged into the torrent of error for no other reason than their s&preme ignorance. B&t it m&st 'e admitted that, if e#er an error has 'een depri#ed of an$ e!c&se on this score, that error is Li'eralism as it e!ists toda$. Most heresies, -hich ha#e rent the 'osom of the Ch&rch, ha#e attempted to disg&ise their errors &nder an e!terior of affected piet$. 9ansenism, perhaps the most s&'tle of all heresies, -on o#er a great n&m'er of adherents '$ its c&nning sim&lation of sanctit$. Its morals -ere rigid to the e!treme< its dogmas formida'le< the e!terior cond&ct of its promoters ascetic and apparentl$ enlightened. It -ore the #isage of a saint, -hile at heart it ree.ed -ith the corr&ption of pride. *he ma7orit$ of ancient heresies t&rned &pon e#er$ s&'tle points of doctrine, -hich onl$ the s.illed theologian co&ld discern, and &pon -hich the ignorant m&ltit&de co&ld gi#e no 7&dgement sa#e s&ch as the$ recei#ed in confidence from their leaders. B$ a #er$ nat&ral conse)&ence, -hen the hierarch$ of a diocese fell into error, most of his s&'ordinates, clerics and lait$, f&ll of confidence in their pastor, fell -ith =0/> him. *his -as all the easier o-ing to the diffic&lt$ of comm&nication -ith Rome in ancient times, -hen the infalli'le #oice of the ,ni#ersal Pastor co&ld not readil$ reach the floc. in parts remote from the Chair of Peter. *he diff&sion of man$ ancient heresies, -hich -ere mostl$ p&rel$ theological, -as nearl$ al-a$s d&e to this ca&se. @ence -e find St. 9erome cr$ing o&t in the fo&rth cent&r$5 Ingem&it &ni#ers&s or'is se esse Arian&m5 6*he -hole -orld groaned to find itself Arian.6 *his also e!plains ho- in the midst of great schisms and great heresies, s&ch as the (ree. schisms and Anglican heresies, there ma$ 'e n&m'ers of so&ls in -hom the roots of the tr&e faith are not dead, altho&gh in its e!terior profession this faith ma$ appear deformed and #icio&s. S&ch -as the case in England for man$ $ears after the re'ellion of @enr$ 3III., and s&ch in some instances is the case in o&r o-n times< for the read$ acceptance of the tr&e faith '$ man$ English con#erts, of recent $ears, 'ears ample -itness to the #italit$ of the faith in so&ls so grossl$ 'etra$ed into heres$ '$ apostate g&ides three cent&ries ago. S&ch so&ls &nited to the

m$stical 'od$ of the Ch&rch '$ Baptism, to its so&l '$ interior sanctif$ing grace, are a'le to gain eternal sal#ation -ith o&rsel#es. =0F> Can the same 'e said of Li'eralismC Li'eralism first presented itself &nder a political mas.< '&t since its dK'&t, this mas. has 'ecome so transparent that 'lind indeed m&st 'e he, -ho cannot di#ine the per#ersit$ of s&ch a misera'le tra#est$. *he #eil of h$pocris$ and pietism -hich some of its paneg$rists first thre- aro&nd it has 'een stripped off. *he halo in -hich it -as first depicted has sho-n itself to 'e not the soft light of hea#en '&t the l&rid glare of hell. It has gathered &nder its 'anner all the dregs of societ$, -here#er corr&ption -as its prec&rsor and promoter. *he ne- doctrines, -hich it preached and -hich it -ished to s&'stit&te for ancient tr&th, had nothing a'stract nor metaph$sical< it re7ected e#er$thing '&t 'r&tal facts, -hich 'etra$ed it as the offspring of Satan and the enem$ of man.ind. *he terrors of the rench Re#ol&tion -ere the e#idence of its origin as spr&ng from the corr&ptions of a societ$ that had a'andoned (od and 'attened on the 'estial res&lts of 3oltairian s.epticism. No -onder it a#oided the a'stract and the metaph$sical to re#el in the atrocio&s deeds of a 'lood$ re#ol&tion -hich proclaimed the a'sol&te so#ereignt$ of man against his Creator and the Ch&rch. If s&ch -ere the horrors of the 'irth of Li'eralism -hat m&st 'e said of its odio&s =0B> de#elopment in o&r o-n da$, -hen its infernal principles 'as. in the f&ll light of the -orld8s appro'ationC Ne#er has an error 'een more se#erel$ castigated '$ the condemnation of the Ch&rch, ne#er more acc&ratel$ ha#e those condemnations 'een 'orne o&t '$ the testimon$ of e!perience and histor$. 2hen Protestantism is fast loosing its po-er, sin.ing into the a'$ss o&t of sheer impotence, Li'eralism, e#en more formida'le and more dangero&s, fills the ran.s of the deca$ing heres$ -ith enemies still more reso&rcef&l, implaca'le and o'stinate. Protestantism is no- a dead dog< Li'eralism a li#ing lion going a'o&t see.ing -hom he ma$ de#o&r. Its dreadf&l doctrine is permeating societ$ to the core< it has 'ecome the modern political creed and threatens &s -ith a second re#ol&tion to t&rn the -orld once again o#er to paganism. Are there an$ good Catholics -ho do not 'elie#e thisC Let them '&t read the signs of the times, not -ith the e$es of the -orld, '&t '$ the light of the faith, -hich 9es&s Christ ga#e to them. 6I am the -a$, the tr&th and the life,6 said o&r Di#ine Lord, 6-ho follo-s me shall not -al. in dar.ness.6 2ho follo-s the Ch&rch follo-s @im, for @e @imself said to the Apostles and their s&ccessors, 62ho hears $o&, hears me.6 =0G> 2hat then is the attit&de of the Ch&rch to-ards Li'eralismC Is not its entire

hierarch$ considered hostile to Li'eralismC Does not Li'eralism itself 'ear -itness to thisC 2hat does the -ord Clericalism, -ith -hich the Li'erals ha#e hono&red those most energeticall$ opposed to their doctrine, pro#e, if not that the$ regard the Ch&rch as their most implaca'le ad#ersar$C @o- do the$ loo. &pon the Pope, &pon the 'ishops, priests, religio&s of all .inds, on pio&s people and practical CatholicsC Clericals, clericals al-a$s, that is, antiELi'erals. @othen can -e e!pect to find good faith on the part of a Li'eral Catholic -hen orthodo!$ is so distinctl$ and completel$ opposed to Li'eralismC *hose -ho are capa'le of comprehending the principles of the )&estion can readil$ satisf$ themsel#es on its merits '$ its intrinsic reasons< those -ho cannot so comprehend ha#e an e!trinsic a&thorit$ more than s&fficient to form an acc&rate 7&dgement for them, s&ch as it sho&ld 'e in e#er$ good Christian in matters to&ching the faith. Light is not -anting< those -ho -ill, can see -ell eno&gh< '&t alasI Ins&'ordination, illegitimate interests and the desire to ta.e and ma.e things eas$ are a'&ndantl$ at hand to pre7&dice and to 'lind. *he sed&ction of Li'eralism is not of the .ind that 'linds '$ a false light, '&t =0D> rather the sed&ction, -hich, in s&ll$ing the heart, o'sc&res the &nderstanding. 2e ma$ therefore 7&stl$ 'elie#e, e!cept perhaps -ith #er$ rare e!ception, that it re)&ires a #er$ #igoro&s effort of charit$ to admit in o&r da$, in accordance -ith tr&e moral principles, the e!c&se of good faith in a Catholic -ho entertains Li'eral principles.

C@AP*ER /4 *@E S"MP*+MS + LIBERALISM

2hat are the signs or s$mptoms '$ -hich -e ma$ disting&ish -hat is and -hat is not Li'eralism in a person, 7o&rnal, 'oo. or instit&tionC 2e are s&rro&nded '$ Li'eralism in all its shapes and #arieties, and it 'eho#es &s to 'e on o&r g&ard against its s&'tle dangers. *o la$ do-n special r&les '$ -hich -e ma$ detect it in its shadings and min&tiae is neither practical nor necessar$. B&t some general directions ma$ 'e gi#en. *heir application m&st 'e left to each one8s proper discretion. *o facilitate the matter -e -ill di#ide Li'erals, -hether persons or -ritings, into three classes5 /. E!treme Li'erals< F. Moderate Li'erals< B. %&asi Li'erals or those onl$ tainted -ith Li'eralism. 2e -ill essa$ a description of each of these t$pes. *he st&d$ of their ph$siognom$ -ill not 'e -itho&t interest and profit< for in the t$pes -e shall find a r&le for o&r g&idance in disting&ishing Li'eralism in its practical details. *he E!treme Li'eral is easil$ recogni?ed< he does not attempt to den$ or conceal his per#ersit$. @e is the declared enem$ of the Pope, of priests, of e#er$thing ecclesiastical< a thing has onl$ to 'e sacred to ro&se his implaca'le -rath< priestEcraft is his fa#o&rite shi''oleth. @e s&'scri'es for all the most #iolent and incendiar$ 7o&rnals, the more impio&s and 'lasphemo&s the 'etter to his li.ing. @e is read$ to go to the f&rthermost concl&sions of his 'anef&l s$stem. @is premise of destr&ction once laid do-n, his concl&sion of nihilism is a mere matter of logic. @e -o&ld p&t into practical e!ec&tion -ith pleas&re and e!&ltation if circ&mstances permitted. @e is a re#ol&tionist, socialist, anarchist. @e glories in li#ing a life de#oid of all religion. @e 'elongs to secret societies, died in their em'race, and is '&ried '$ their rit&al. @e has al-a$s defied religion and dies in his defiance. *he moderate Li'eral is 7&st as 'ad as his e!treme confrLre< '&t he ta.es good care not to appear so. Social con#entionalities and =0;> good manners are e#er$ thing to him< the rest is of little importance. Pro#ided his ini)&it$ is .idE glo#ed, it finds read$ e!ten&ation in his o-n mind. *he niceties of polite societ$ preser#ed, his li'eralism .no-s no 'o&nds. @e -o&ld not '&rn a con#ent that -o&ld appear too 'r&tal< '&t the con#ent once '&rned he has no scr&ple in sei?ing &pon the o&traged propert$. *he cheap impiet$ of a penn$ paper grates on his -ellE'red ner#es< the #&lgar 'lasphem$ of Ingersoll he deprecates< '&t let the same impiet$ and the same 'lasphem$ appear in the col&mns of a soEcalled rep&ta'le 7o&rnal or 'e co&ched in the sil.en

phraseolog$ of a @&!le$ in the name of science, and he appla&ds the polished sin. It is -ith him a )&estion of manner not matter. At the mere mention of the name of a nihilistic or socialistic cl&' he is thro-n into a cold s-eat, for there, he declares, the masses are sed&ced into principles -hich lead to the destr&ction of the fo&ndations of societ$< $et, according to him, there is no danger, no incon#enience in a free l$ce&m -here the same principles are elegantl$ de'ated and s$mpatheticall$ appla&ded< for -ho co&ld dare to condemn the scientific disc&ssion of social pro'lemsC *he moderate Li'eral does not detest the Pope< he ma$ e#en e!press admiration for =00> his sagacit$< he onl$ 'lames certain pretensions of the Roman C&ria and certain e!aggerations of ,ltramontanism, -hich do not fall in -ith the trend of modern tho&ght. @e ma$ e#en li.e priests, a'o#e all those -ho are enlightened, that is, s&ch as ha#e ca&ght the t-ang of modern progress< as for fanatics and reactionaries he simpl$ a#oids or pities them. @e ma$ e#en go to Ch&rch and, stranger still, sometimes approach the sacraments< '&t his ma!im is, in the Ch&rch to li#e as the -orld li#es, according to the times in -hich one is 'orn and not o'stinatel$ s-im against the stream. @e dies -ith the priest on one side, his infidel literat&re on the other and imagines that his Creator -ill appla&d his 'readth of mind. *he Catholic simpl$ tainted -ith Li'eralism is generall$ a good man and sincerel$ pio&s< he e!hales ne#ertheless an odo&r of Li'eralism in e#er$thing he sa$s, -rites or ta.es &p. Li.e Madam de Se#igne he can sa$, 6I am not the rose, '&t standing '$ it, I ha#e ca&ght some of its perf&me.6 *his co&rageo&s man reasons, spea.s, and acts as a Li'eral -itho&t .no-ing it. @is strong point is charit$< he is charit$ itself. 2hat horror fills his so&l at the e!aggerations of the ,ltramontane pressI *o treat as a liar =01> the man -ho propagates false ideas, is, in the e$es of this sing&lar theologian, to sin against the @ol$ Spirit.. *o him the falsifier is simpl$ misg&ided< it is not the poor fello-8s fa&lt< he has, simple so&l, 'een misled. 2e o&ght neither to resist nor com'at him< -e m&st stri#e to attract him '$ soft -ords and prett$ compliments. @o- the De#il m&st ch&c.le o#er the m&sh$ charit$ held o&t as a 'ait to a'et his o-n ca&seI *o smother e#il &nder an a'&ndance of good is the tainted Catholic8s fa#o&rite ma!im, read one da$ '$ chance in Balmes, and the onl$ thing he has e#er retained of the great Spanish philosopher. rom the (ospel he is caref&l to cite onl$ those te!ts fla#o&red -ith hone$ and mil.. *he terri'le in#ecti#es of o&r Lord against Pharisaism astonish and confo&nd him< the$ seem to 'e an e!cess of lang&age on the part of o&r Di#ine Sa#io&rI @e reser#es these den&nciator$ te!ts to &se against those pro#o.ing ,ltramontanes, -ho e#er$ da$ compromise, '$ their e!aggerated and harsh lang&age, the ca&se of a religion

all peace and lo#e. Against them his Li'eralism, ordinaril$ so s-eet and gentle, gro-s 'itter and #iolent. Against them his ?eal flames &p, his polemics grosharp and his charit$ aggressi#e. In a cele'rated disco&rse deli#ered apropos certain acc&sations =1:> against Lo&is 3e&illot, Pere eli! once cried o&t, 6(entlemen, let &s lo#e and respect e#en o&r friends.6 B&t no, o&r Catholic tainted -ith Li'eralism -ill do nothing of the .ind. @e sa#es the treas&res of his tolerance and his charit$ for the s-orn enemies of the faithI 2hat more nat&ralC Does not the poor man -ant to attract themC +n the other hand for the most heroic defenders of the faith he has onl$ sarcasm and in#ecti#e. In short the tainted Catholic cannot comprehend that direct opposition, per diametr&m, of -hich St. Ignati&s spea.s in his Spirit&al E!ercises. @e does not .no- ho- to gi#e a direct 'lo-. @e .no-s no other tactics than to attac. on the flan., tactics -hich, in religion, ma$ perhaps 'e con#enient, '&t are ne#er decisi#e. @e -ants to con)&er, '&t on the condition of not -o&nding the enem$, of ne#er dist&r'ing his ease or his rest. *he mere mention of -ar painf&ll$ agitates his ner#es and ro&ses all his pacific dispositions. 2ith the enem$ in f&ll assa&lt, -ith the implaca'le hatred and c&nning of falsehood almost s-eeping o#er him he -o&ld -ithstand the hostile charge and stem the o#er-helming tide -ith the paper 'arriers of an ill&si#e peace. In a -ord -e ma$ recogni?e the e!treme =1/> and the moderate Li'eral '$ his 'itter fr&its< the tainted Catholic ma$ 'e recogni?ed '$ his distorted affection for Li'eralism and its -or.s. *he e!treme Li'eral roars his Li'eralism, the moderate Li'eral mo&ths it, the tainted Catholic -hispers and sighs it. All are 'ad eno&gh and ser#e the De#il -ell. Ne#ertheless the e!treme Li'eral o#erreaches himself '$ his #iolence, the fec&ndit$ of the tainted Catholic is partiall$ sterili?ed '$ his h$'rid nat&re, '&t the moderate is the real satanic t$pe< his is the mas.ed e#il, -hich in o&r times is the chief ca&se of the ra#ages of Li'eralism.

C@AP*ER /; C@RIS*IAN PR,DENCE AND LIBERALISM

+-ing to their circ&mstances Catholics in this co&ntr$ li#e in the #er$ midst of Li'eralism< -e are s&rro&nded '$ and come in dail$ contact -ith e!treme and moderate Li'erals as -ell as Catholics tainted -ith its all per#ading poison. So did Catholics in the fo&rth cent&r$ li#e among Arians, those of the fifth among Pelagians, and those of the se#enteenth =1F> amongst 9ansenists. It is impossi'le not to s&stain some relations -ith the Li'erals -ho s&rro&nd &s< -e meet them e#er$-here, in o&r social dealings, in o&r '&siness affairs, in o&r am&sements and pleas&res, e#en in Ch&rch and in the famil$. @o- then shall -e comport o&rsel#es in o&r &na#oida'le interco&rse -ith those -ho are th&s spirit&all$ diseasedC @o- ma$ -e a#oid contagion or at least diminish the ris. to a minim&mC *o la$ do-n a precise r&le for e#er$ case is a diffic&lt$ 'e$ond h&man capacit$< '&t some general r&les of g&idance ma$ 'e gi#en< their application m&st 'e left to the pr&dence of those -ho are indi#id&all$ concerned according to their circ&mstances and special o'ligations. It -ill 'e -ell first to disting&ish, in a general -a$, three possi'le relations 'et-een a Catholic and Li'eralism or rather 'et-een a Catholic and Li'erals5 /. Necessar$ relations< F. ,sef&l relations< B. Relations of p&re affection or pleas&re. Necessar$ relations are imposed &pon e#er$ one '$ his station in life and his partic&lar position< the$ cannot 'e a#oided. S&ch are the famil$ relations, the relations of inferior and s&perior, etc. It is e#ident that a son -ho has the misfort&ne to ha#e a Li'eral father cannot on =1B> this acco&nt a'andon him, nor the -ife the h&s'and, the 'rother the sister, or the parent the child, e!cept in the case -here their Li'eralism e!acts from an$ of their respecti#e inferiors acts essentiall$ opposed to religion so as to cond&ce a formal apostas$. B&t it -ill not s&ffice, on the part of a Catholic, for the ta.ing of s&ch a step that mere restraint is p&t &pon his li'ert$ in the performance of the precepts of the Ch&rch. or -e m&st remem'er that the Ch&rch places no o'ligation in s&ch matters on a person -ho co&ld onl$ perform them &nder gra#e incon#enience =s&' gra#i incommodo>. *he Catholic &nfort&nate eno&gh to 'e so placed m&st 'ear -ith Christian patience his painf&l sit&ation and s&rro&nd himself, as far as lies in his po-er -ith e#er$ preca&tion to a#oid the contagion of 'ad e!ample in -ord or deed. Pra$er sho&ld 'e his chief reco&rse, pra$er for himself and the #ictims of error.

@e sho&ld a#oid as far as possi'le, all con#ersations on this topic, '&t -hen he finds that a contro#ers$ is thr&st &pon him, let him accept it in the f&ll confidence of the tr&th and armed -ith effecti#e -eapons of defence and offence. A pr&dent spirit&al director sho&ld 'e cons&lted in the selection of his arsenal. As an antidote to m&ch association -ith Li'erals, =1G> let him fre)&ent the compan$ of other persons of science and a&thorit$ -ho are in the constant possession of so&nd doctrine. +'edience to a s&perior in all that is not directl$ or indirectl$ against faith and morals is his 'o&nded d&t$, '&t it is e)&all$ his d&t$ to ref&se o'edience to an$thing directl$ or indirectl$ in opposition to the integrit$ of his faith. Co&rage he can dra- onl$ from s&pernat&ral so&rces< (od -ho sees the str&ggle -ill not ref&se all the assistance needed. *here are other relations -hich -e ha#e -ith Li'erals, not a'sol&tel$, '&t morall$ indispensa'le, and -itho&t -hich social life, -hich consists in a m&t&al e!change of ser#ices, is impossi'le. S&ch are the relations of commerce, trade, la'o&r, the professions, etc. B&t that strict s&'7ection, -hich holds &nder the necessar$ relations of -hich -e ha#e 7&st 'een spea.ing, does not e!ist here, and in conse)&ence one can e!ercise more independence. *he f&ndamental r&le in these cases is not to enter into &nnecessar$ interco&rse< -hat the gearing of the social machine demands, and no more, is s&fficient. If $o& are a merchant '&$ and sell -ith Li'erals in accordance -ith the needs of $o&r '&siness< more than this a#oid< if $o& are a domestic limit $o&r interco&rse to the necessities of $o&r ser#ice< =1D> if $o& are a la'o&rer, to gi#e and recei#ing -hat is d&e on either part. (&ided '$ these r&les one co&ld li#e -itho&t in7&r$ to his faith amidst a pop&lation of 9e-s. At the same time, it sho&ld ne#er 'e forgotten that an$ manifestation of -ea.ness or compromise is ne#er needed. E#en Li'erals cannot ref&se respect to the man -ho stands firml$ and &nflinchingl$ on his con#ictions, and -hen the faith is in )&estion, despica'le in all men8s e$es does he 'ecome -ho -o&ld sell his 'irthright for a mess of pottage. Relations of p&re friendship, pleas&re or affection, -hich -e enter into as mere matters of taste or inclination, sho&ld 'e esche-ed and, if once contracted, o&ght to 'e #ol&ntaril$ 'ro.en off. S&ch relations are certain danger to o&r faith. +&r Lord sa$s that he -ho lo#es danger shall perish in it. It is diffic&lt to se#er s&ch connectionsC 2hat if it is< -e m&st '&rst the 'onds that place &s in peril. Reflect for a moment. If $o&r Li'eral companion, -ith -hom $o& are constantl$ associating, -ere s&'7ect to some contagio&s disease, -o&ld $o& then co&rt himC If $o&r relations -ith him compromised $o&r rep&tation, -o&ld $o& contin&e themC If he -ere to asperse $o&r famil$ -o&ld $o& cling to him stillC 2ell, the hono&r of (od and $o&r o-n spirit&al safet$ is at sta.e in

this matter< =14> -hat h&man pr&dence -o&ld co&nsel $o& to do for $o&r -orldl$ interest and h&man hono&r, s&rel$ that m&ch at least $o&r spirit&al interests re)&ire from $o&. *here is '&t one condition &pon -hich intimac$ -ith a Li'eral is 7&stifia'le at all, and that is, for the p&rpose of con#erting him< for this t-o dispositions are necessar$5 $o&r Li'eral friend8s -illingness and $o&r capacit$ to lead him to the light. E#en here danger is not lac.ing. +ne m&st 'e #er$ s&re of his gro&nd 'efore he attempts the tas.. A'o#e all ha#e a horror of heres$, and Li'eralism toda$ is the most malignant of all heresies. Its face is set against religio&s faith a'sol&tel$. *he first thing to do in an infected co&ntr$ is to isolate oneself, and if this is not possi'le ta.e all sanitar$ preca&tions against the deadl$ germ. Spirit&al health is al-a$s endangered -hene#er -e come in contact -ith Li'eralism, and infection is almost certain if -e are in a mental ha?e, a fog -hich hides from himts.

C@AP*ER /0 LIBERALISM AND LI*ERA*,RE

Li'eralism is a s$stem, as Catholicism is, altho&gh in a contrar$ sense. It has its =1;> arts, its science, its literat&re, its economics, its ethics, that is, it has an organism all its o-n, animated '$ its o-n spirit and disting&isha'le '$ its o-n ph$siognom$. *he most po-erf&l heresies, for instance, Arianism in ancient times and 9ansenism in o&r o-n da$s, resented li.e pec&liarities. Not onl$ are there Li'eral 7o&rnals '&t there e!ists a literat&re in all the shades and degrees of Li'eralism< it is a'&ndant and prolific. *he present generation dra-s its main intellect&al no&rishment from it. +&r modern literat&re is sat&rated -ith its sentiments, and for this reason sho&ld -e ta.e e#er$ preca&tion to g&ard against its infection, of -hich so man$ are the misera'le #ictims. @o- is it to 'e a#oidedC *he r&les of g&idance in this case are analogo&s or almost identical -ith the r&les -hich sho&ld go#ern a Catholic in his personal relations -ith Li'erals, for 'oo.s are after all '&t the representati#es of their a&thors, con#e$ing '$ the printed, instead of the spo.en -ord, -hat men thin., feel and sa$. Appl$ to 'oo.s those r&les of cond&ct -hich sho&ld reg&late o&r interco&rse -ith persons and -e ha#e a safeg&ard in reading the literat&re of the da$. B&t in this instance the control of the relation is practicall$ in o&r o-n po-er, for it depends entirel$ on o&rsel#es -hether -e see. or =10> tolerate the reading of Li'eral 'oo.s. *he$ are not apt to see. &s o&t, and if the$ are thr&st &pon &s, o&r consent to their per&sal is practicall$ all o&r o-n doing. 2e ha#e none '&t o&rsel#es to 'lame if the$ pro#e to 'e o&r o-n &ndoing. *here is one point, ho-e#er, -orth$ of o&r close consideration. It sho&ld 'e a f&ndamental r&le in a Catholic8s intellect&al life< it is this5 Spare $o&r praises of Li'eral 'oo.s, -hate#er 'e their scientific or literar$ merit, or at least praise -ith great reser#e, ne#er forgetting the repro'ation rightl$ d&e to a 'oo. of Li'eral spirit or tendenc$. *his is an important point. It merits the strictest attention. Man$ Catholics, '$ far too naM#e =e#en some engaged in Catholic 7o&rnalism> are perpet&all$ see.ing to pose as impartial , and are perpet&all$ da&'ing themsel#es -ith a #eneer of flatter$. *he$ l&stil$ 'eat the 'assEdr&m and 'lo- all the tr&mpets of their #oca'&lar$ in praise of no mater -hat -or., literar$ or scientific, that comes from the Li'eral camp. *he$ are fearf&l of 'eing considered narro- minded and partial if the$ don8t gi#e e#en the De#il his d&e. In the f&lsomeness of their flatter$ the$ hope to sho- that it costs a Catholic nothing to recogni?e merit -here#er it ma$ 'e fo&nd< the$ imagine

this to 'e a po-erf&l means of attracting =11> the enem$. AlasI *he foll$ of the -ea.lings< the$ pla$ a losing game, it is the$ -ho are insensi'l$ attracted, not the enem$. *he$ simpl$ fl$ at the 'ait held o&t '$ the c&nning fisher, -ho Satanicall$ g&ides the destinies of Li'eralism. Let &s ill&strate. 2hen Arnold8s Light of Asia appeared not a fe- Catholics 7oined in the chor&s of f&lsome praise -hich greeted it. @o- charming, ho'ea&tif&l, ho- tender, ho- pathetic, ho- h&mane< -hat loft$ moralit$, -hat e!)&isite sentimentI No- -hat -as the real p&rport of the 'oo. and -hat -as its essenceC *o lift &p (a&tama, the fo&nder of B&ddhism, at the e!pense of 9es&s Christ, the o&nder of Christianit$I *he intention -as to sho- that (a&tama -as e)&all$ a di#ine teacher -ith as high an aspiration, as great a mission, as loft$ a moralit$ as o&r Di#ine Lord @imself. *his -as the o'7ect of the 'oo.< -hat -as its essenceC A falsification of histor$ '$ -ea#ing a series of poetical legends aro&nd a character, a'o&t -hose act&al life practicall$ nothing is .no-n< '&t not onl$ this< the character -as '&ilt &pon the model of +&r Lord, -hich the a&thor had in his o-n mind as the precio&s heirloom of Christianit$, and his (a&tama, -hom he intended to standEo&t as at least the di#ine e)&al of the o&nder of Christianit$, =/::> 'ecame in his hands in realit$ a mere echo of Christ, the image of Christ, made to ri#al the 2ord made fleshI B&ddhism in the 'orro-ed garments of Christianit$ -as th&s made to appeal to the ideals of Christian peoples, and gaining a footing in their admiration and affections, to &s&rp the throne in the Christian sanct&ar$. @ere -as a -or. of literar$ merit, altho&gh it has 'een greatl$ e!aggerated in this respect, praised e!tra#agantl$ '$ some Catholics, -ho in their e!cessi#e desire to appear impartial failed or ref&sed to see in Ed-in Arnold8s Light of Asia a most #icio&s antiEChristian 'oo.I 2hat difference does it ma.e -hether a 'oo. 'e e!cellent in a literar$ sense or not, if its effect 'e the loss of so&ls and not their sal#ationC 2hat if the -eapon in the hands of the assassin 'e 'right or not, if it 'e fatalC *ho&gh spirit&al assassination 'e 'rilliant it is none the less deadl$. @eres$ &nder a charming disg&ise is a tho&sand times more dangero&s than heres$ e!posed to the harsh and arid gar' of the scholastic s$llogism, thro&gh -hich the death8s s.&ll grins in &nadorned hideo&sness. Arianism had its poets to propagate its errors in pop&lar #erse. L&theranism had its h&manists amongst -hom the elegant Erasm&s shone as a 'rilliant -riter. =/:/> Arna&ld, Nicole, Pascal threthe glamo&r of their 'elles lettres o#er the serpentine do&'lings of 9ansenism. 3oltaire8s -retched infidelit$ -on its frightf&l pop&larit$ from the grace of his st$le and the flash of his -it. Shall -e, against -hom the$ aimed the .eenest and deadliest shafts, contri'&te to their name and their reno-nI Shall -e

assist them in fascinating and corr&pting $o&thI Shall -e cro-n these condemners of o&r faith -ith the la&rels of o&r praises, and la&d them for the #er$ )&alities -hich alone ma.e them dangero&sI And for -hat p&rposeC *hat -e ma$ appear impartialC No< impartialit$ is not permissi'le -hen it is distorted to the offence of tr&th, -hose rights are imprescripti'le. A -oman of 'ad life is infamo&s, 'e she e#er so 'ea&tif&l, and the more 'ea&tif&l, the more dangero&s. Shall -e praise Li'eral 'oo.s o&t of gratit&deC ollo- the Li'erals themsel#es in this, far more pr&dent than -e< the$ do not recommend and praise o&r 'oo.s -hate#er the$ 'e. *he$, -ith the instinct of e#il, f&ll$ appreciate -here the danger lies. *he$ either see. to discredit &s or pass &s '$ in silence. Si )&is non amat Domin&m Nostr&m 9es&m Christ&m sit anathema, sa$s St. Pa&l. Li'eral literat&re is the -ritten =/:F> hatred of o&r Lord and his Ch&rch. If its 'lasphem$ -ere open, direct, no Catholic -o&ld tolerate it for an instant< is it an$ more tolera'le 'eca&se, li.e a co&rtesan, it see.s to disg&ise its sordid feat&res '$ the artifice of paint and po-derC

C@AP*ER /1 C@ARI*" AND LIBERALISM

Narro-I IntolerantI ,ncompromisingI *hese are the epithets of odi&m, h&rled '$ Li'eral #otaries of all degrees at ,ltramontanes. Are not Li'erals o&r neigh'o&rs li.e other menC Do -e not o-e to them the same charit$ -e appl$ to othersC Are not $o&r #igoro&s den&nciations, it is &rged against &s, harsh and &ncharita'le, in the #er$ teeth of the teaching of Christianit$ -hich is essentiall$ a religion of lo#eC S&ch is the acc&sation contin&all$ fl&ng in o&r face. Let &s see -hat its #al&e is. Let &s see all that the -ord charit$ signifies. *he catechism, that pop&lar and most a&thoritati#e epitome of Catholic theolog$, gi#es &s the most complete and s&ccinct definition of charit$< it is f&ll of -isdom =/:B> and philosoph$. Charit$ is a s&pernat&ral #irt&e -hich ind&ces &s to lo#e (od a'o#e all things and o&r neigh'o&rs as o&rsel#es for the lo#e of (od. *h&s after (od, -e o&ght to lo#e o&r neigh'o&r as o&rsel#es, and this not in an$ -a$, '&t for the lo#e of (od and in o'edience to @is la-. And no- -hat is to lo#eC Amare est #elle 'on&m, replies the philosopher5 6*o lo#e is to -ish good to him -hom -e lo#e.6 *o -hom does charit$ command &s to -ish goodC *o o&r neigh'o&r, that is to sa$, not to this or that man onl$ '&t to e#er$one. 2hat is that good -hich tr&e lo#e -ishesC irst of all s&pernat&ral good< then goods of the nat&ral order, -hich are not incompati'le -ith it. All this is incl&ded in the phrase 6for the lo#e of (od.6 It follo-s, therefore, that -e can lo#e o&r neigh'o&r, -hen displeasing him, -hen opposing him, -hen ca&sing him some material in7&r$ and e#en, on certain occasions, -hen depri#ing him of life. All is red&ced to this in short5 2hether in the instance -here -e displease, oppose or h&miliate him, it is or is not for his o-n good, or for the good of someone -hose rights are s&perior to his, or simpl$ for the greater ser#ice of (od. If it is sho-n, that in displeasing or offending o&r neigh'o&r, -e act for his =/:G> good, it is e#ident that -e lo#e him e#en -hen opposing or crossing him. *he ph$sician ca&teri?ing his patient or c&tting off his gangrened lim' ma$ none the less lo#e him. 2hen -e correct the -ic.ed '$ restraining or '$ p&nishing them none the less do -e lo#e them. *his is charit$ and perfect charit$. It is often necessar$ to displease or offend one person, not for his o-n good, '&t to deli#er another from the e#il he is inflicting. It is then an o'ligation of charit$ to repel the &n7&st #iolence of the aggressor< one ma$ inflict as m&ch in7&r$ on the aggressor as is necessar$ for the defence. S&ch -o&ld 'e the case sho&ld one see a high-a$man attac.ing a tra#eller. In this

instance, to .ill, -o&nd, or at least ta.e s&ch meas&res as to render the aggressor impotent, -o&ld 'e an act of tr&e charit$. *he good of all good is the di#ine good, 7&st as (od is for all men the neigh'o&r of all neigh'o&rs. In conse)&ence the lo#e d&e to a man inasm&ch as he is o&r neigh'o&r o&ght al-a$s to 'e s&'ordinated to that -hich is d&e to o&r common Lord. or @is lo#e and in @is ser#ice -e m&st not hesitate to offend men. *he degree of o&r offence to-ards men can onl$ 'e meas&red '$ the degree of o&r o'ligation =/:D> to him. Charit$ is primaril$ the lo#e of (od, secondaril$ the lo#e of o&r neigh'o&r for (od8s sa.e. *o sacrifice the first is to a'andon the latter. *herefore to offend o&r neigh'o&r for the lo#e of (od is a tr&e act of charit$. Not to offend o&r neigh'o&r for the lo#e of (od is a sin. Modern Li'eralism re#erses this order. It imposes a false notion of charit$< o&r neigh'o&r first, and, if at all, (od after-ards. B$ its reiterated and trite acc&sations of intolerance, it has s&cceeded in disconcerting e#en some sta&nch Catholics. B&t o&r r&le is too plain and to concrete to admit of misconception. It is5 So#ereign Catholic infle!i'ilit$ is so#ereign Catholic charit$. *his charit$ is practised in relation to o&r neigh'o&r -hen in his o-n interest, he is crossed, h&miliated and chastised. it is practised in relation to a third part$, -hen he is defended from the &n7&st aggression of another, as -hen he is protected from the contagion of error '$ &nmas.ing its a&thors and a'ettors and sho-ing them in their tr&e light as ini)&ito&s and per#ert, '$ holding them &p to the contempt, horror and e!ecration of all. It is practised in relation to (od -hen, for @is glor$ and in @is ser#ice, it 'ecomes necessar$ to silence all h&man considerations, to trample &nder foot all h&man =/:4> respect, to sacrifice all h&man interests, and e#en life itself to attain this highest of all ends. All this is Catholic infle!i'ilit$ and infle!i'le Catholicit$ in the practice of that p&re lo#e -hich constit&tes so#ereign charit$. *he saints are the t$pes of this &ns-er#ing and so#ereign fidelit$ to (od, the heroes of charit$ and religion. Beca&se in o&r times there are so fe- tr&e infle!i'les in the lo#e of (od, so also are there fe- &ncompromisers in the order of charit$. Li'eral charit$ is condescending, affectionate, e#en tender in appearance, '&t at 'ottom it is an essential contempt for the tr&e good of men, of the s&preme interests of tr&th and of (od. It is h&man selfElo#e &s&rping the throne of he Most @igh and demanding that -orship -hich 'elongs to (od alone.

C@AP*ER F: P+LEMICAL C@ARI*" AND LIBERALISM

Li'eralism ne#er gi#es 'attle on solid gro&nd< it .no-s too -ell that in a disc&ssion of principles it m&st meet -ith irretrie#a'le defeat. It prefers tactics of recrimination, and &nder the sting of a 7&st flagellation -hiningl$ acc&ses Catholics of =/:;> lac. of charit$ in their polemics. *his is also the gro&nd -hich certain Catholics, tainted -ith Li'eralism, are in the ha'it of ta.ing. Let &s see -hat is to 'e said on this score. 2e Catholics, on this point as on all others, ha#e reason on o&r side, -hilst Li'erals ha#e onl$ its shado-. In the first place a Catholic can handle his Li'eral ad#ersar$ openl$, if s&ch he 'e in tr&th< no one can do&'t this. If an a&thor or a 7o&rnalist ma.es open profession of Li'eralism and does not conceal his Li'eral predilections -hat in7&r$ can 'e done him in calling him a Li'eralC Si palman res est, repetitio in7&ria non est5 6to sa$ -hat e#er$'od$ .no-s is no in7&r$.6 2ith m&ch stronger reason to sa$ of o&r neigh'o&r -hat he e#er$ instant sa$s of himself cannot 7&stl$ offend. And $et ho- man$ Li'erals, especiall$ those of the eas$going and moderate t$pe, regard the e!pressions 6Li'eral6 and 6friend of Li'erals,6 -hich Catholic ad#ersaries appl$ to them as offensi#e and &ncharita'leI (ranting that Li'eralism is a 'ad thing, to call the p&'lic defenders and professors of Li'eralism 'ad is no -ant of charit$. *he la- of 7&stice, potent in all ages, can 'e applied in this case. *he Catholics of toda$ are no inno#ators in this respect. =/:0> 2e are simpl$ holding to the constant practice of anti)&it$. *he propagators and a'ettors of heres$ ha#e at all times 'een called heretics as -ell as its a&thors. As the Ch&rch has al-a$s considered heres$ a #er$ gra#e e#il, so has she al-a$s called its adherents 'ad and per#ert. R&n o#er the list of ecclesiastical -riters $o& -ill then see ho- the Apostles treated the first heretics, ho- the athers, and modern contro#ersialists and the Ch&rch herself in her official lang&age has p&rs&ed them. *here is then no sin against charit$ in calling e#il e#il, its a&thors, a'ettors and disciples 'ad< all its acts, -ords and -ritings ini)&ito&s, -ic.ed, malicio&s. In short the -olf has done to the floc. and shepherd. If the propagation of good and the necessit$ of com'ating e#il re)&ire the emplo$ment of terms some-hat harsh against error and its s&pporters, this &sage is certainl$ not against charit$. *his is a corollar$ or conse)&ence of the principle -e ha#e 7&st demonstrated. 2e m&st render e#il odio&s and detesta'le. 2e cannot attain this res&lt -itho&t pointing o&t the dangers of e#il, -itho&t sho-ing ho- and -h$ it is odio&s, detesta'le and contempti'le.

Christian orator$ of all ages has =/:1> e#er emplo$ed the most #igoro&s and emphatic rhetoric in the arsenal of h&man speech against impiet$. In the -ritings of the great athletes of Christianit$ the &sage of iron$, imprecation, e!ecration and of the most cr&shing epithets is contin&al. @ence the onl$ la- is the opport&nit$ and the tr&th. B&t there is another 7&stification for s&ch an &sage. Pop&lar propagation and apologetics cannot preser#e elegant and constrained academic forms. In order to con#ince the people -e m&st spea. to their heart and their imagination -hich can onl$ 'e to&ched '$ ardent, 'rilliant, and impassioned lang&age. *o 'e impassioned is not to 'e reprehensi'le, -hen o&r heat is the hol$ ardo&r of tr&th. *he s&pposed #iolence of modern ,ltramontane 7o&rnalism not onl$ falls short of Li'eral 7o&rnalism, '&t is ampl$ 7&stified '$ e#er$ page of the -or.s of o&r great Catholic polemicists of other epochs. *his is easil$ #erified. St. 9ohn the Baptist calls the Pharisees 6race of #ipers,6 9es&s Christ, o&r Di#ine Sa#io&r, h&rls at them the epithets 6h$pocrites, -hitened sep&lchres, a per#erse and ad&ltero&s generation6 -itho&t thin.ing for this reason that @e s&llies the sanctit$ of @is 'ene#olent speech. St. Pa&l critici?es the schismatic Cretins =//:> as 6al-a$s liars, e#il 'easts, slothf&l 'ellies.6 *he same apostle calls El$mas the magician 6sed&cer, f&ll of g&ile and deceit, child of the De#il, enem$ of all 7&stice.6 If -e open the athers -e find the same #igoro&s castigation of heres$ and heretics. St. 9erome arg&ing against 3igilanti&s casts in his face his former occ&pation of saloonE.eeper5 6 rom $o&r infanc$,6 he sa$s to him, 6$o& ha#e learned other things than theolog$ and 'eta.en $o&rself to other p&rs&its. *o #erif$ at the same time the #al&e of $o&r mone$ acco&nts and the #al&e of Script&ral te!ts, to sample -ines and grasp the meaning of the prophets and apostles are certainl$ not occ&pations -hich the same man can accomplish -ith credit.6 +n another occasion attac.ing the same 3igilanti&s, -ho denied the e!cellence of #irginit$ and of fasting, St. 9erome, -ith his &s&al sprightliness, as.s him if he spo.e th&s 6in order not to diminish the receipts of his saloonC6 @ea#ensI 2hat an o&tcr$ -o&ld 'e raised if one of o&r ,ltramontane contro#ersialists -ere to -rite against a Li'eral critic or heretic of o&r o-n da$ in this fashionI 2hat shall -e sa$ of St. 9ohn Chr$sostomC @is famo&s in#ecti#e against E&tropi&s is not compara'le, in its personal =///> and aggressi#e character, to the cr&el in#ecti#es of Cicero against Catiline and against 3erresI *he gentle St. Bernard did not hone$ his -ords -hen he attac.ed the enemies of the faith.

Addressing Arnold of Brescia, the great Li'eral agitator of his times, he calls him in all his letters 6sed&cer, #ase of in7&ries, scorpion, cr&el -olf.6 *he pacific St. *homas of A)&inas forgets the calm of his cold s$llogisms -hen he h&rls his #iolent apostrophe against 2illiam of St. Amo&r and his disciples5 6Enemies of (od,6 he cries o&t, 6ministers of the De#il, mem'ers of Antichrist, ignorami, per#erts, repro'atesI6 Ne#er did the ill&strio&s Lo&is 3e&illot spea. so 'oldl$. *he seraphic St. Bona#ent&re, so f&ll of s-eetness, o#er-helms his ad#ersar$ (erard -ith s&ch epithets as 6imp&dent, cal&mniator, spirit of malice, impio&s, shameless, ignorant, impostor, malefactor, perfidio&s, ingrateI6 Did St. rancis de Sales, so delicatel$ e!)&isite and tender, e#er p&rr softl$ o#er the heretics of his age and co&ntr$C @e pardoned their in7&ries, heaped 'enefits on them e#en to the point of sa#ing the li#es of those -ho so&ght to ta.e his, '&t -ith the enemies of the faith he preser#ed neither moderation nor consideration. As.ed '$ a Catholic, -ho =//F> desired to .noif it -ere permissi'le to spea. e#il of a heretic -ho propagated false doctrines, he replied5 6"es, $o& can, on the condition that $o& adhere to the e!act tr&th, to -hat $o& .no- of his 'ad cond&ct, presenting that -hich is do&'tf&l as do&'tf&l according to the degree of do&'t -hich $o& ma$ ha#e in this regard.6 In his 6Introd&ction to a De#o&t Life,6 that precio&s and pop&lar -or., he e!presses himself again5 6If the declared enemies of (od and of the Ch&rch o&ght to 'e 'lamed and cens&red -ith all possi'le #igo&r, charit$ o'liges &s to cr$ -olf8 -hen the -olf slips into the midst of the floc., and in e#er$ -a$ and place -e ma$ meet him.6 B&t eno&gh. 2hat the greatest Catholic polemicists and saints ha#e done is ass&redl$ a fair e!ample for e#en the h&m'lest defenders of the faith. Modern ,ltramontanism has ne#er $et s&rpassed the #igor of their castigation of heres$ and heretics. Charit$ for'ids &s to do &nto another -hat -e -o&ld not reasona'l$ ha#e them to do &nto o&rsel#es. Mar. the ad#er' reasona'l$< it incl&des the entire s&'stance of the )&estion. *he essential difference 'et-een o&rsel#es and the Li'erals on this s&'7ect consists in this, that the$ loo. &pon the =//B> apostles of error as free citi?ens, simpl$ e!ercising their f&ll right to thin. as the$ please on matters of religion. 2e, on the contrar$, see in them the declared enemies of the faith -hich -e are o'ligated to defend. 2e do not see in their errors simpl$ free opinions '&t c&lpa'le and formal heresies, as the la- of (od teaches &s the$ are. B$ #irt&e of the ass&med freedom of their o-n opinions the Li'erals are 'o&nd not onl$ to tolerate '&t e#en respect o&rs< for since freedom of opinion is in their e$es the most cardinal of #irt&es, no matter -hat the opinion 'e, the$ are 'o&nd to

respect it as the e!pression of man8s rational freedom. It is not -hat is tho&ght, '&t the mere thin.ing that constit&tes the standard of e!cellence -ith them. *o ac.no-ledge (od or den$ @im is e)&all$ rational '$ the standard of Li'eralism, and Li'eralism is grossl$ inconsistent -ith itself -hen it see.s to com'at Catholic tr&ths, in the holding of -hich there is as m&ch e!ercise of rational freedom, in the Li'eral sense, as in re7ecting them. B&t o&r Catholic standpoint is a'sol&te< there is '&t one tr&th, in -hich there is no room for opposition or contradiction. *o den$ that tr&th is &nreasona'le< it is to p&t falsehood on the le#el -ith tr&th. *his is the foll$ and sin of Li'eralism. *o deno&nce this sin and =//G> foll$ is a d&t$ and a #irt&e. 2ith reason therefore does a great Catholic historian sa$ to the enemies of Catholicit$5 6"o& ma.e $o&rsel#es infamo&s '$ $o&r actions and I -ill endea#o&r to co#er $o& -ith that infam$ '$ m$ -ritings.6 In this same -a$ the la- of the *-el#e *a'les ordained to the #irile generations of earl$ Rome5 Ad#ers&s hostem aeterna a&ctoritas esto, -hich ma$ 'e rendered5 6*o the enem$ no )&arter.6

C@AP*ER F/ PERS+NAL P+LEMICS AND LIBERALISM

6It is all -ell eno&gh to ma.e -ar on a'stract doctrines,6 some ma$ sa$, 6'&t in com'ating error, 'e it e#er so e#ident, is it so proper to ma.e an attac. &pon the persons of those -ho &phold it6C 2e repl$ that #er$ often it is, and not onl$ proper '&t at times e#en indispensa'le and meritorio&s 'efore (od and men. *he acc&sation of ind&lging in personalities is not spared to Catholic apologists, and -hen Li'erals and those tainted -ith Li'eralism ha#e h&rled it at o&r heads the$ imagine that -e are o#er-helmed '$ the charge. B&t the$ decei#e themsel#es. =//D> 2e are not so easil$ thr&st in the 'ac. gro&nd. 2e ha#e reason and s&'stantial reason on o&r side. In order to com'at and discredit false ideas, -e m&st inspire contempt and horror in the hearts of the m&ltit&de for those -ho see. to sed&ce and de'a&ch them. A disease is insepara'le from the persons of the diseased. *he cholera threatening a co&ntr$ comes in the persons of the infected. If -e -ish to e!cl&de it -e m&st e!cl&de them. No- ideas do not in an$ case go a'o&t in the a'stract< the$ neither spread nor propagate from themsel#es. Left to themsel#es, if it 'e possi'le to imagine them apart from those -ho concei#e them, the$ -o&ld ne#er prod&ce all the e#il from -hich societ$ s&ffers. It is onl$ in the concrete that the$ are effecti#e< -hen the$ are the personal prod&ct of those -ho concei#e them. *he$ are li.e the arro-s and the 'alls -hich -o&ld h&rt no one if the$ -ere not shot from the 'o- or the g&n. It is the archer and the g&nner to -hom -e sho&ld gi#e o&r first attention< sa#e for them the fire -o&ld not 'e m&rdero&s. An$ other method of -arfare might 'e Li'eral, if $o& please, '&t it -o&ld not 'e commonEsense. *he a&thors and propagators of heretical doctrines are soldiers -ith poisoned -eapons in their hands. *heir arms are the 'oo., =//4> the 7o&rnal, the lect&re, their personal infl&ence. Is it s&fficient to dodge their 'lo-sC Not at all< the first thing necessar$ is to demolish the com'atant himself. 2hen he is hors de com'at, he can do no more mischief. It is therefore perfectl$ proper not onl$ to discredit an$ 'oo., 7o&rnal or disco&rse of the enem$, '&t it is also proper, in certain cases, to e#en discredit his person< for in -arfare, 'e$ond )&estion, the principal element is the person engaged, as the g&nner is the principal factor in an artiller$ fight and not the cannon, the po-der and the 'om'. It is th&s la-f&l, in certain cases, to e!pose the infam$ of a Li'eral opponent, to 'ring his ha'its into contempt, and drag

his name in the mire. "es, this is permissi'le, permissi'le in prose, in #erse, in caricat&re, in a serio&s #ein or in 'adinage, '$ e#er$ means and <method -ithin reach. *he onl$ restriction is not to emplo$ a lie in the ser#ice of 7&stice. *his ne#er. ,nder no prete!t ma$ -e s&ll$ the tr&th, e#en to the dotting of an i. As a rench -riter sa$s5 6*r&th is the onl$ charit$ allo-ed in histor$,6 and, -e ma$ add, in the defence of religion and societ$. *he athers of the Ch&rch s&pport this thesis. *he #er$ title of their -or.s clearl$ sho- that, in their contests -ith heres$, =//;> their first 'lo- -as at the heresiarchs. *he -or.s of St. A&g&stine almost al-a$s 'ear the name of the a&thor of the heres$ against -hich the$ are -ritten5 Contra ort&nat&m Manichoe&m< Ad#ers&s Adamanct&m< Contra elicem< Contra Sec&ndin&m< %&is f&erit Petiam&s< De gestis Pelagii< %&is f&erit 9&lian&s, etc. *h&s the greater part of the polemics of this great doctor -as personal, aggressi#e, 'iographical, as -ell as doctrinal, a handEtoEhand str&ggle -ith heretics as -ell as -ith heres$. 2hat -e here sa$ of St. A&g&stine -e can sa$ of the other athers. 2hence do the Li'erals deri#e their po-er to impose &pon &s the neo'ligation of fighting error onl$ in the a'stract and of la#ishing smiles and flatter$ &pon themC 2e, the ,ltramontanes, -ill fight o&r 'attles according to Christian tradition, and defend the faith as it has al-a$s 'een defended in the Ch&rch of (od. 2hen it stri.es let the s-ord of the Catholic polemicist -o&nd, and -hen it -o&nds, -o&nd mortall$. *his is the onl$ real and efficacio&s means of -aging -ar.

C@AP*ER FF A LIBERAL +B9EC*I+N *+ ,L*RAM+N*ANE ME*@+DS

*he Li'erals tell &s that o&r #iolent methods of -arfare against them are not in conformit$ -ith the Pope8s co&nsels to moderation and charit$. @as he not e!horted Catholic -riters to a lo#e of peace and &nion< to a#oid harsh, aggressi#e and personal polemicsC @o- then can -e ,ltramontanes reconcile the @ol$ ather8s -ishes -ith o&r fierce methodsC Let &s consider the force of the Li'erals8 o'7ection. *o -hom does the @ol$ ather address these repeated admonitionsC Al-a$s to the Catholic press, to Catholic 7o&rnalists, to those -ho are s&pposed to 'e -orth$ of the name. *hese co&nsels to moderation and charit$, therefore, are al-a$s addressed to Catholics, disc&ssing -ith other Catholics free )&estions, i.e., not in#ol#ing esta'lished principles of faith and moralit$, and do not in an$ sense appl$ to Catholics -aging a mortal com'at -ith the declared enemies of the faith. *here is no do&'t that the Pope here ma.es no all&sion to the incessant 'attles 'et-een Catholics and Li'erals, for the simple reason that Catholicit$ is tr&th and =//1> Li'eralism heres$, 'et-een -hich there can 'e no peace, '&t -ear to the death. It is certain '$ conse)&ence, therefore, that the Pope intends his co&nsels to appl$ to o&r famil$ )&arrels, &nhappil$ m&ch too fre)&ent< and that '$ no means does he see. to for'id &s from -aging an &nrelenting stiff -ith the eternal enemies of the Ch&rch, -hose hands, filled -ith deadl$ -eapons, are e#er lifted against the faith and its defenders. *herefore there can 'e no contradiction 'et-een the doctrine -e e!po&nd and that of the Briefs and Alloc&tions of the @ol$ ather on the s&'7ect, pro#ided that logicall$ 'oth appl$ to the same matter &nder the same respect, -hich holds perfectl$ in this instance. or ho- can -e interpret the -ords of the @ol$ ather in an$ other -a$C It is a r&le of so&nd e!egesis that an$ passage in @ol$ Script&re sho&ld al-a$s 'e interpreted according to the letter, &nless s&ch meaning 'e in opposition to the conte!t< -e can onl$ ha#e reco&rse to a free or fig&rati#e interpretation, -hen this opposition is o'#io&s. *his r&le applies also to the interpretation of pontifical doc&ments. @o- can -e s&ppose the Pope in contradiction -ith all Catholic tradition from 9es&s Christ to o&r o-n timesC Is it for a =/F:> moment admissi'le that the st$le and method of most of the cele'rated Catholic polemicists and apologists from St. Pa&l to St rancis de Sales sho&ld 'e condemned '$ a stro.e of the penC Clearl$ not< for if -e -ere to &nderstand the Pope8s co&nsels to moderation and calm, in the sense in -hich the Li'eral concl&sion -o&ld constr&e them, -e sho&ld ha#e to ans-er e#identl$ $es. Conse)&entl$ -e m&st concl&de that

the @ol$ ather8s -ords are not addressed to Catholics 'attling -ith the enemies of Catholicit$, '&t onl$ to Catholics contro#erting on free )&estions amongst themsel#es. Common sense itself sho-s this. Imagine a general in the midst of a raging 'attle iss&ing an order to his soldiers not to in7&re the enem$ too se#erel$I 6Be caref&lI Don8t h&rt the enem$I Attention thereI Don8t aim at the heartI6 2hat more 'e saidI Pi&s IA has gi#en &s an an e!planation of the proper meaning of his -ords. +n a memora'le occasion he calls the sectaries of the Comm&ne demons, and -orse than demons the sectaries of Li'eralism. 2ho then need fear to th&nder'olt s&ch an enem$ -ith epithets too harsh and se#ereC =/F/> In #ain do the Li'erals cite the -ords of Leo AIII in the Enc$clical C&m M&lta, e!horting Catholics to a#oid #iolence in the disc&ssion of the sacred rights of the Ch&rch, and to rel$ rather &pon the -eight of reason to gain #ictor$< for the -ords ha#e reference to polemics 'et-een Catholics disc&ssing the 'est means to preser#e their common ca&se, and '$ no means appl$ as a r&le to go#ern polemics -ith the sectaries of Li'eralism. *he intrinsic e#idence of the enc$clical pro#es this 'e$ond ca#il. *he Pope concl&des '$ e!horting all associations and indi#id&al Catholics to a still closer and more intimate &nion, and, after pointing o&t the inestima'le ad#antages of s&ch a &nion, he instances, as the means of preser#ing it, that moderation of lang&age and charit$ of -hich -e are spea.ing. *he arg&ment is plain5 the Pope recommends moderation and charit$ to Catholic -riters, as a means of preser#ing peace and m&t&al &nion. Clearl$ this peace and &nion is 'et-een Catholics and not 'et-een Catholics and their enemies. *herefore the moderation and charit$ recommended '$ the Pope to Catholic -riters applies onl$ to Catholic polemics 'et-een Catholics on free )&estions. 2o&ld it not 'e a's&rd to imagine that there co&ld 'e an$ &nion 'et-een tr&th and error, therefore 'et-een =/FF> the ad#ocates of tr&th on the one side and error on the otherC Irreconcila'le opposites ne#er &nite. +ne or the other m&st disappear.

C@AP*ER FB *@E 6CI3ILI*A CA**+LICA8S6 C@ARI*" *+ LIBERALS

Charit$ in contro#ers$ -ith Li'erals -o&ld 'e li.e ta.ing a serpent to one8s 'osom. It -o&ld 'e as if one em'raced some loathsome contagio&s disease -ith the foolish notion that to co&rt it -o&ld sec&re imm&nit$ from its fearf&l ra#ages. Not-ithstanding the plain common sense of the sit&ation, and the memora'le -arning of o&r Lord that he -ho lo#es the fire shall perish in it, some foolish Catholics 7oin -ith the Li'erals in their cr$ for a magnanimo&s displa$ of charit$ on o&r part -hen -e -age -ar against them. Lest o&r competence to 7&dge in so important a matter 'e called in )&estion -e -ill cite as a&thorit$ on this s&'7ect the foremost religio&s 7o&rnal of the -orld, the Ci#ilita Cattolica, fo&nded '$ Pi&s IA himself and confided '$ him to the cond&ct of the athers of the Societ$ of 9es&s. *he Ci#ilita, ne#er s&ffering an instant of =/FB> repose to Italian Li'eralism, has 'een often reproached for its -ant of charit$ to-ards the Li'erals. Repl$ing to these Pharisaical homilies on the meas&re of charit$ d&e them, the Ci#ilita p&'lished a delightf&ll$ h&moro&s, and at the same time solidl$ philosophical article, some passages of -hich -e here transcri'e for the consolation of o&r Li'erals and those tainted Catholics -ho ma.e common ca&se -ith them in decr$ing ,ltramontane methods5 6De Maistre said that the Ch&rch and the pope ha#e ne#er as.ed an$thing '&t tr&th and 7&stice for their ca&se. +n the other hand the Li'erals, no do&'t on acco&nt of the horror the$ nat&rall$ entertain for tr&th and a'o#e all for 7&stice, are al-a$s demanding, charit$. 6 or more than a do?en $ears ha#e -e, on o&r part, 'een -itness to this c&rio&s spectacle gi#en &s '$ Italian Li'erals. *he$ ne#er cease imploring -ith tears in their e$es o&r charit$. *heir import&nities ha#e at last 'ecome ins&pporta'le< the$ ha#e lost all sense of shame< s&pplicatingl$, in press, in #erse, in their 'roch&res, in their 7o&rnals, in p&'lic and pri#ate letters, anon$mo&s and pse&don$mo&s, directl$ or indirectl$, the$ 'eg &s for the lo#e of (od to sho- them some charit$. *he$ 'eseech &s not to gi#e them o#er to the =/FG> ridic&le of their neigh'o&rs, not to e!pose to an inspection so detailed, so min&te, their s&'lime -ritings5 not to 'e so o'stinate in s&'7ecting their glorio&s e!ploits to s&ch a strong searchlight< to close o&r e$es and o&r ears to their 'l&nders, their solecisms, their lies, their cal&mnies, their o'sc&rities< in a -ord to let them li#e in peace. 6*he Li'erals ha#e imitated, '$ this edif$ing con#ersion to the lo#e of

mendicanc$, another not less cele'rated and not less edif$ing con#ersion, that of a rich miser to the #irt&e of almsEgi#ing, -as so to&ched '$ the sermon that on going o&t of the Ch&rch he e!claimed5 6It -o&ld 'e impossi'le for an$ good Christian, -ho has heard this disco&rse, henceforth not to gi#e from time to time something in charit$.6 And so it is -ith o&r Li'erals. After ha#ing sho-n =according to the meas&re of their means> '$ their acts and their -ritings that the$ ha#e a lo#e for charit$ e)&al to the De#il8s for hol$ -ater, -hen the$ hear it spo.en of, the$ s&ddenl$ remem'er that there e!ists in the -orld a thing called charit$, -hich might on certain occasions =/FD> pro#e #er$ profita'le to them. So the$ sho- themsel#es distractedl$ enamo&red -ith it, and #ocifero&sl$ demand it from Pope, 'ishop, and clerg$, religio&s, 7o&rnalists, and e#er$'od$, e#en from the editors of the Ci#ilita. It is c&rio&s to follo- all the e!cellent reasons the$ offer in their o-n fa#o&rI 6*o 'elie#e them, it is not in their o-n interest at all that the$ hold s&ch lang&ageI @ea#ens, noI 2hen the$ spea. th&s, it is entirel$ in the interest of o&r hol$ religion, -hich the$ cherish in their heart8s core and -hich s&ffers so m&ch from o&r #er$ &ncharita'le manner of defending itI *he$ e#en spea. in the interest of the reactionaries themsel#es, and especiall$ =-ho -o&ld 'elie#e itI> in the interest of the editors of the Ci#ilita CattolicaI 62hat o'liges $o& to enter into these )&arrelsC *he$ confidentiall$ sa$ to &s. @a#e $o& not eno&gh enemies alread$C Be tolerant and $o&r ad#ersaries -ill 'e so -ith $o&. 2hat do $o& gain '$ follo-ing this -retched occ&pation li.e a dog spending his life 'ar.ing at ro''ersC If in the end $o& are 'eaten, str&c. do-n, to -hom do $o& o-e it, if not to $o&rsel#es and that indomita'le animosit$ of $o&rs, -hich is e#er see.ing the lashC 62hat sage and disinterested reasoning, =/F4> -hose onl$ defect is that it sing&larl$ resem'les that -hich the police officer &rged &pon Ren?o *ramaglino, in the romance of *he Betrothed, -hen he essa$ed to cond&ct him to prison '$ pers&asion, fearing that if he &sed force the $o&ng man -o&ld offer resistance. *he onl$ res&lt of these e!hortations -as to confirm Ren?o in his design to p&rs&e a co&rse 7&st opposite to that -hich the officer ad#ised. 6*his design, to spea. properl$, -e are strongl$ tempted also to form< for, in tr&th, -e cannot pers&ade o&rsel#es that the in7&r$, great or small, -hich -e ca&se religion, matters m&ch or little to the Li'erals, nor that the$ -o&ld gi#e themsel#es so m&ch tro&'le for o&r sa.es. 2e are pers&aded, on the contrar$, that if the Li'erals reall$ 'elie#ed that o&r manner of acting -ere h&rtf&l to religion or o&rsel#es, the$ -o&ld caref&ll$ refrain from ad#ertising it, '&t rather enco&rage &s in it '$ their appla&se. 2e e#en concl&de that the ?eal -hich

the$ sho- in o&r regard and their reiterated pra$ers to modif$ o&r st$le, are the s&rest signs that religion s&ffers nothing from o&r methods, and, moreo#er, that o&r -ritings ha#e some readers, -hich is al-a$s some slight consolation to the -riter. 6B&t as man$ of them =the Li'erals> contin&e =/F;> to 'eg, and as the$ ha#e recentl$ p&'lished a little 'oo. at Per&gia entitled5 2hat does the Catholic Part$ sa$C 2hich the$ de#ote entirel$ to a demand &pon the Ci#ilita Cattolica for charit$, it -ill 'e &sef&l, in 'eginning this fifteenth series of o&r Re#ie-, to conf&te once more the old o'7ections -ith the old ans-ers. It -ill 'e in fact a great charit$, not s&ch indeed as the Li'erals 'eg of &s, '&t one tr&l$ #er$ meritorio&s< the charit$ of listening to them -ith patience for the h&ndredth time.6

C@AP*ER FG A LIBERAL S+P@ISM AND *@E C@,RC@8S DIPL+MAC"

Li'erals often &rge as an o'7ection to ,ltramontane #igo&r the fact that the Ch&rch herself enters into amica'le relations -ith Li'eral go#ernments and personages, or, -hat comes to the same thing, -ith Li'eralism itself. If the Ch&rch can ta.e s&ch a position, s&rel$ ,ltramontanes, -ho are loo.ed &pon as the #ang&ard of the Ch&rch, ma$ find an e!ample in this, her polic$, -orth$ of imitationC 2e repl$. 2e are to consider these =/F0> relations as official amities, and nothing more. *he$ '$ no means s&ppose an$ partic&lar affection for the persons -ho are their o'7ect, m&ch less appro'ation of their actions, and infinitel$ less an$ adhesion to their doctrines or the appro#al of them. In the first place -e m&st remem'er that there are t-o ministrations in the Ch&rch of (od< one -hich -e ma$ call apostolic, relati#e to the propagation of the faith and the sal#ation of so&ls< the other, -hich -e ma$ #er$ properl$ term diplomatic, ha#ing for its s&'7ect h&man relations -ith the po-ers of the -orld. *he first is the most no'le< properl$ spea.ing it is the principal and essential ministration. *he second is inferior and s&'ordinate to the first, of -hich it is onl$ the a&!iliar$. In the first the Ch&rch is intolerant and &ncompromising< in this she goes straight to her end, and 'rea.s rather than 'ends5 frangi non flecti. 2itness in this respect the persec&tions she has s&ffered. 2hen it is a )&estion of di#ine rights and di#ine d&ties, neither atten&ation nor compromise is possi'le. In the second ministration the Ch&rch is condescending, 'ene#olent and f&ll of patience. She disc&sses, she solicits, she negotiates< she praises that she ma$ soften the hard< she is silent sometimes that she ma$ 'etter =/F1> s&cceed, seems to retreat that she ma$ 'etter ad#ance and soon attain a 'etter #antage. In this order of relations her motto might 'e5 flecti non frangi. 2hen it is a )&estion of mere h&man relations, she comports herself -ith a certain fle!i'ilit$ and admits the &sage of special reso&rces. In this domain, e#er$thing that is not declared 'ad and prohi'ited '$ the lacommon to the ordinar$ relations of men is la-f&l and proper. More e!plicitl$< the Ch&rch deems that she ma$ properl$ ma.e &se of all the reso&rces of an honest diplomac$. 2ho -o&ld dare reproach her for accrediting am'assadors to 'ad and e#en

infidel go#ernments, and on the other hand in accepting am'assadors from them< for hono&ring their no'le and disting&ished families '$ her co&rtesies and enhancing their p&'lic festi#ities '$ the presence of her legatesC 6B&t -h$,6 interr&pt the Li'erals, 6sho&ld $o& manifest s&ch detestation for Li'eralism and so #ehementl$ com'at Li'eral go#ernments, -hen the Pope th&s negotiates -ith them, recogni?es them, and e#en confers distinctions on themC6 2e can 'est ans-er this foolish thr&st '$ a comparison . "o&, -e -ill s&ppose, are the father of a famil$. "o& ha#e fi#e or si! da&ghters, -hom $o& ha#e 'ro&ght &p in the most scr&p&lo&s and rigoro&s #irt&e. +pposite to $o&r ho&se, or perhaps ne!t door, -e -ill imagine, d-ell some neigh'o&rs of 'lemished rep&tations. "o& command $o&r da&ghters, -itho&t cessation, &nder no circ&mstances to ha#e a&ght to do -ith these people. *he$ o'e$ $o& strictl$. B&t s&ppose no- that some matter sho&ld arise relati#e to 'oth $o& and $o&r neigh'o&rNs interest in common, s&ch as the pa#ing of a street, the la$ing of a -ater main, etc. *his o'liges $o& to cons&lt and ad#ise -ith $o&r neigh'o&rs as to this common interest. In $o&r interco&rse -ith them $o& treat them -ith the &s&al co&rtesies of societ$, and see. to concl&de the '&siness on hand in a harmonio&s -a$. 2o&ld $o&r da&ghters, therefore, 'e 7&stified in declaring that, as $o&, their father, had entered into certain relations -ith these neigh'o&rs and e!tended to them the &s&al co&rtesies of societ$, so sho&ld the$ 'e allo-ed to associate -ith them< as long as $o& their father had th&s entered into relation -ith them, so the$ had a right to concl&de that the$ -ere people of good moralsC *he Ch&rch is the home of good people =or -ho o&ght to 'e and desire to 'e>< '&t she is s&rro&nded '$ go#ernments more or =/B/> less per#erted or e#en entirel$ per#erted. She sa$s to her children5 6Detest the ma!ims of these go#ernments< com'at these ma!ims< their doctrine is error< their la-s are ini)&ito&s.6 At the same time, in )&estions, -hen her o-n and sometimes their interests are in#ol#ed, she finds herself &nder the necessit$ of treating -ith the heads or the representati#es of these go#ernments, and in fact she does treat -ith them, accepts their compliments, and emplo$s in their regard the form&la of the polished diplomac$ in &sage in all co&ntries, negotiates -ith them in relation to matters of common interest, see.ing to ma.e the 'est of the sit&ation in the midst of s&ch neigh'o&rs. In th&s acting does she do an$thing -rongC B$ no means. Is it not ridic&lo&s then for a Catholic, a#ailing himself of this e!ample, to hold it &p as a sanction of doctrines, -hich the Ch&rch has ne#er ceased to condemn, and as the appro'ation of a line of cond&ct, -hich she has e#er com'atedC

Does the Ch&rch sanction the Horan, -hen she enters into negotiations, po-er to po-er, -ith the sectaries of the HoranC Does she appro#e of pol$gam$ 'eca&se she recei#es the presents and em'assies of the (rand *&r.C 2ell, it is in this -a$ that the Ch&rch appro#es of Li'eralism, -hen she =/BF> decorates its .ings or its ministers, -hen she sends her 'enedictions, simple form&lae of Christian co&rtes$ -hich the Pope e!tends e#en to Protestants. It is a sophism to pretend that the Ch&rch a&thori?es '$ s&ch acts -hat she has al-a$s condemned '$ other acts. @er diplomatic can ne#er fr&strate her apostolic ministration, and it is in this latter that -e m&st see. the seeming contradictions of her diplomatic career.

C@AP*ER FD @+2 CA*@+LICS ALL IN*+ LIBERALISM

3ario&s are the -a$s in -hich a faithf&l Christian is dra-n into the error of Li'eralism. 3er$ often corr&ption of heart is a conse)&ence of errors of the intellect< '&t more fre)&entl$ still errors of the intellect follo- the corr&ption of the heart. *he histor$ of heresies #er$ clearl$ sho-s this fact. *heir 'eginnings nearl$ al-a$s present the same character, either -o&nded selfElo#e, or a grie#ance to 'e a#enged< either it is a -oman that ma.es the heresiarch lose his head and so&l, or a 'ag of gold for -hich he sells his conscience. =/BB> Error nearl$ al-a$s has its origin, not in profo&nd and la'orio&s st&dies, '&t in the tripleEheaded monster -hich St. 9ohn descri'es and calls5 Conc&pisentia carnis, conc&piscentia oc&lor&m, s&per'ia #itae< 6Conc&piscence of the flesh, conc&piscence of the e$es, the pride of life.6 @ere are the so&rces of all error, here are the roads to Li'eralism. Let &s d-ell on them for a moment. /. Men 'ecome Li'eral on acco&nt of a nat&ral desire of independence and an eas$ life. Li'eralism is necessaril$ s$mpathetic -ith the depra#ed nat&re of man, 7&st as Catholicit$ is essentiall$ opposed to it. Li'eralism is emancipation from restraint, Catholicit$ the c&r' of the passions. No-, fallen man, '$ a #er$ nat&ral tendenc$ lo#es a s$stem -hich legitimatises and sanctifies his pride of intellect and the license of passion. @ence, *ert&llian sa$s5 6*he so&l, in its no'le aspirations, is nat&rall$ Christian.6 Li.e-ise ma$ it 'e said that man, '$ the taint of his origin, is 'orn nat&rall$ Li'eral. Logicall$ then, -hen he disco#ers that Li'eralism offers a protection for his caprices and an e!c&se for his ind&lgences, does he declare himself a Li'eral in d&e form. F. B$ the desire of ad#ancement in life. =/BG> Li'eralism is toda$ the dominating idea< it reigns e#er$-here and especiall$ in the sphere of p&'lic life. It is therefore a s&re recommendation to p&'lic fa#o&r. +n starting o&t in life the $o&ng man loo.s aro&nd &pon the #ario&s paths that lead to fort&ne, to fame, to glor$, and sees that an almost indispensa'le condition of reaching the desired goal is, at least in o&r times, to 'ecome Li'eral. Not to 'e Li'eral is to place in his -a$, at the o&tset, -hat appears to 'e an ins&rmo&nta'le o'stacle. @e m&st 'e heroic to resist the tempter, -ho sho-s him, as he did 9es&s Christ in the desert, a splendid f&t&re, sa$ing5 @aec omnia ti'i da'o si cadens adora#eris me5 6All this -ill I gi#e thee, if falling

do-n tho& -ilt adore me.6 @eroes are rare, and it is nat&ral that most $o&ng men 'eginning their career sho&ld affiliate -ith Li'eralism. It promises them the assistance of a po-erf&l press, the recommendation of po-erf&l protectors, the potent infl&ence of secret societies, the patronage of disting&ished men. *he poor ,ltramontane re)&ires a tho&sand times more merit to ma.e himself .no-n and to ac)&ire a name< and $o&th is ordinaril$ little scr&p&lo&s. Li'eralism, moreo#er, is essentiall$ fa#o&ra'le to that p&'lic life, -hich this age so ardentl$ p&rs&es. It =/BD> holds o&t as tempting 'aits p&'lic offices, commissions, fat positions, etc., -hich constit&te the organism of the official machine. It seems an a'sol&te condition for political preferment. *o meet an am'itio&s $o&ng man -ho despises and detests the perfidio&s corr&pter is a mar#el of (od8s grace. B. A#arice or the lo#e of mone$. *o get along in the -orld, to s&cceed in '&siness is al-a$s a standing temptation of Li'eralism. It meets the $o&ng man at e#er$ t&rn. Aro&nd him in a tho&sand -a$s does he feel the secret or open hostilit$ of the enemies of his faith. In mercantile life or in the professions he is passed '$, o#erloo.ed, ignored. Let him rela! a little in his faith, 7oin a for'idden secret societ$, and loI *he 'olts and 'ars are dra-n< he possesses the open sesame to s&ccess. *hen the in#idio&s discrimination against him melts in the fraternal em'race of the enem$, -ho re-ards his perfid$ '$ ad#ancing him in a tho&sand -a$s. S&ch a temptation is diffic&lt for the am'itio&s to -ithstand. Be Li'eral, admit that there is no great difference 'et-een men8s creeds, that at 'ottom the$ are reall$ the same after all. Proclaim $o&r 'readth of mind '$ admitting that other religio&s 'eliefs are 7&st as good for other people as $o&r faith is for $o&< the$ are, as far as the$ .no-, =/B4> 7&st as right as $o& are< it is largel$ a )&estion of ed&cation and temperament -hat a man 'elie#es, and ho- )&ic.l$ $o& are patted on the 'ac. as a 6'roadEga&ged6 man, -ho has escaped the narro- limitations of his creed. "o& -ill 'e e!tensi#el$ patroni?ed, for Li'eralism is #er$ genero&s to a con#ert. alling do-n adore me and I -ill gi#e $o& all these things, sa$s Satan still to 9es&s Christ in the desert. S&ch are the ordinar$ ca&ses of per#ersions to Li'eralism< from these all others flo-. 2hoe#er has an$ e!perience of the -orld and the h&man heart can easil$ trace the others.

C@AP*ER F4 PERMANEN* CA,SES + LIBERALISM

Li'eralism is spread aro&nd &s li.e a net-or.. Its -e' is 'eing constantl$ sp&n aro&nd a'o&t &s, as spiders -ea#e their meshes for insects. 2here one is 'r&shed a-a$ t-o are m&ltiplied. 2hat is the reason of thisC Philosoph$ teaches &s that the same so&rces -hich prod&ce, preser#e and increase things. Per )&ae gignit&r, per eadem et ser#at&r et a&get&r. 2hat then are the permanent ca&ses of Li'eralismC /. Corr&ption of morals. *he theatre, literat&re, p&'lic and pri#ate morals are sat&rated -ith o'scenit$ and imp&rit$. *he res&lt is ine#ita'le< a corr&pt generation necessaril$ 'egets a re#ol&tionar$ generation. Li'eralism is the program of nat&ralism. reeEtho&ght 'egets free morals or immoralit$. Restraint is thro-n off, and a free rein gi#en to the passions. 2ho thin.s -hat he pleases -ill do -hat he pleases. Li'eralism in the intellect&al order is license in the moral order. Disorder in the intellect 'egets disorder in the heart, and #ice #ersa. *h&s does Li'eralism propagate immoralit$, and immoralit$ Li'eralism. F. 9o&rnalism. *he infl&ence e!ercised -itho&t ceasing '$ the n&mero&s p&'lications -hich Li'eralism spreads 'roadcast is incalc&la'le. In spite of themsel#es, '$ the &'i)&it$ of the press, people are forced to li#e in a Li'eral atmosphere. Commerce, the arts, literat&re, science, politics, domestic and foreign ne-s, all reach &s in some -a$ thro&gh Li'eral channels, and come clothed in a Li'eral dress. ,nless one is on his g&ard he finds himself thin.ing, spea.ing and acting as a Li'eral. S&ch is the tainted character of the empoisoned air -e 'reatheI Poor people, '$ #er$ reason of their simple good faith, =/B0> more easil$ a'sor' the poison than an$one else< the$ a'sor' it in prose, in #erse, in pict&res, in p&'lic, in pri#ate, in the cit$, in the co&ntr$, e#er$-here. Li'eral doctrines e#er p&rs&e them, and li.e leeches fasten on them ne#er to rela! their hold. Its -or. is rendered m&ch more harmf&l '$ the partic&lar condition of the disciple, as -e shall see in o&r third co&nt5 B. (eneral ignorance in matters of religion. In -ea#ing its meshes aro&nd the people, Li'eralism has applied itself to the tas. of c&tting them off from all comm&nication -ith that alone -hich is a'le to la$ 'are its impost&re the Ch&rch. or the past h&ndred $ears Li'eralism has stri#en to paral$?e the action of the Ch&rch, to render her m&te, and especiall$ in the old -orld to lea#e her merel$ an official character, so as to se#er her connections -ith the people. *he Li'erals themsel#es ha#e a#o-ed this to 'e their aim. *o destro$

the religio&s life, to place e#er$ hindrance possi'le in the -a$ of Catholic teaching, to ridic&le the clerg$ and to depri#e them of their prestige. In Ital$ and rance toda$ see the tho&sand and one artificial arrangements thro-n aro&nd her to hinder and hamper her actions, to render her opposition to the flood of Li'eralism ineffect&al. *he Concordats, s&ch as are o'ser#ed =/B1> at the present time, are so man$ iron collars -hich Li'eralism has placed aro&nd her nec. to stifle her. reemasonr$ in E&rope and So&th America are constantl$ see.ing to 'ind her hand and foot that she ma$ 'e p&t at its satanic merc$. B$ open and secret means this organi?ation has so&ght to &ndermine her discipline in e#er$ co&ntr$ -here it has o'tained a footing. Bet-een her and the people it see.s to dig a deeper and deeper a'$ss of hate, pre7&dice, and cal&mn$. Nat&ralism, the denial of the s&pernat&ral, it inc&lcates e#er$-here. *o di#orce the entire life of the people from her infl&ence '$ the instit&tion of ci#il marriage, ci#il '&rial, and di#orce< to teach the insidio&s doctrine that societ$, as s&ch, has no religio&s relations or o'ligations< that man as a social and ci#il 'eing is a'sol&tel$ independent of (od and @is Ch&rch, that religion is a mere pri#ate opinion to 'e entertained or not entertained as one pleases, s&ch is the program, s&ch is the effect, and s&ch in t&rn is the ca&se of Li'eralism. B&t the most pernicio&s, 'eca&se the most s&ccessf&l and lasting, propagator of Li'eralism is5 G. Sec&lar ed&cation. *o gain the child is to sec&re the man. *o ed&cate a generation apart from (od and the Ch&rch is to feed the fires of Li'eralism to repletion. =/G:> 2hen religion is di#orced from the school Li'eralism 'ecomes its paramo&r. Sec&larism is nat&ralism, the denial of the s&pernat&ral. 2hen that denial is instilled into the so&l of the child the soil of the s&pernat&ral 'ecomes sterili?ed. Li'eralism has reali?ed the terrific po-er of ed&cation, and -ith satanic energ$ is no- stri#ing the -orld o#er for the possession of the child. 2ith -hat s&ccess -e ha#e onl$ to loo. aro&nd &s to reali?e. In its effort to sla$ Christ it decrees the sla&ghter of the innocents. 6Snatch the so&l of the child from the 'reast of its mother the Ch&rch,6 sa$s Li'eralism, 6and I -ill con)&er the -orld.6 @ere is the real 'attle gro&nd 'et-een faith and infidelit$. 2ho is #ictor here is #ictor e#er$-here.

C@AP*ER F; @+2 *+ A3+ID LIBERALISM

@o- ma$ Catholics, -ho are perpet&all$ s&rro&nded '$ the snares of Li'eralism, g&ard themsel#es sec&rel$ against its dangersC /. B$ the organi?ation of all good Catholics, 'e their n&m'er great or small. *he$ sho&ld 'ecome .no-n to each other, =/G/> meet each other, &nite together, in e#er$ localit$, e#er$ cit$, to-n or #illage, sho&ld ha#e a n&cle&s of Catholic men of action. S&ch an organi?ation -ill attract the &ndecided, gi#e co&rage to the hesitating, co&nteract the infl&ence of hostile or indifferent s&rro&ndings. If $o& n&m'er onl$ a do?en men of spirit, no matter. o&nd societies, especiall$ of $o&ng men. P&t $o&rsel#es in correspondence -ith older societies in $o&r neigh'o&rhood, or e#en at a distance. Lin. $o&r associations together, association -ith association, as the Roman legions &sed to form the militar$ tortoise '$ &niting shield -ith shield o#er their heads. *h&s &nited, 'e $o&r n&m'er e#er so small, lift on high the 'anner of a so&nd, p&re and &ncompromising doctrine, -itho&t disg&ise, -itho&t atten&ation, $ielding not an inch to the enem$. ,ncompromising co&rage is al-a$s no'le, commands s$mpath$ and -ins o#er the chi#alric. *o see a man 'attered '$ the floods $et standing firm as a roc., &pright, immo#a'le, is an inspiring sightI A'o#e all good e!ample, good e!ample al-a$s. 2hat $o& preach do. "o& -ill soon see ho- easil$ $o& force people to respect $o&< -hen $o& ha#e gained their admiration, their s$mpath$ -ill soon follo-. Prosel$tes -ill 'e forthcoming. If Catholics onl$ &nderstood -hat =/GF> a 'rilliant sec&lar apostolate the$ co&ld e!ercise '$ 'eing open, straightfor-ard, &ncompromising practical Catholics in -ord and deed, Li'eralism and heres$ -o&ld die a )&ic. death. F. (ood 7o&rnals. Choose among good 7o&rnals that -hich is 'est, the one 'est adapted to the needs and the intelligence of the people -ho s&rro&nd $o&. Read it< '&t not content -ith that, gi#e it to others to read< e!plain it, comment on it, let it 'e $o&r 'asis of operations. B&s$ $o&rself in sec&ring s&'scriptions for it. Enco&rage the rel&ctant to ta.e it< ma.e it eas$ for those, to -hom it seems tro&'lesome to send in their s&'scriptions. Place it in the hands of $o&ng people -ho are 'eginning their career. Impress on them the necessit$ of reading it, sho- them its merits and its #al&e. *he$ -ill 'egin '$ tasting the sa&ce and at last eat the fish. *his is the -a$ the ad#ocates of Li'eralism and impiet$ -or. for their 7o&rnals< so then o&ght -e -or. for o&rs. A good Catholic 7o&rnal is a peremptor$ necessit$ in o&r da$. 2hate#er 'e its defects or incon#eniences, its ad#antages and its 'enefits -ill a tho&sand fold

o&t-eigh them. *he @ol$ ather has said that 6a Catholic paper is a perpet&al mission in e#er$ parish.6 It is e#er an antidote to the =/GB> false 7o&rnalism that meets $o& on e#er$ side. In general do all in $o&r po-er to f&rther the circ&lation of Catholic literat&re, sermon or pastoral letter. *he -eapon of the cr&sader of o&r times is the printed -ord. B. *he Catholic school. S&pport the Catholic school -ith all $o&r po-er in deed and in -ord, -ith $o&r -hole heart and $o&r -hole so&l. *he Catholic school has 'ecome in this age the onl$ sec&re 'ridge of the faith from generation to generation. In o&r o-n co&ntr$ -e ha#e 'een compelled to esta'lish o&r o-n schools &naided and alone. *he pre7&dice and intolerance of Li'eralism has ref&sed &s common 7&stice. 2hile -e protest against the -rong and ne#er cease demanding o&r clear and peremptor$ d&t$ is to pro#ide the 'est possi'le schools of o&r o-n, -here o&r children ma$ 'e ed&cated in the f&ll and onl$ tr&e sense of the -ord. 2here Catholic schools are needed, '&ild them, '&ild them, '&ild them. Ne#er tire in this a'sol&tel$ necessar$ -or.. Bend e#er$ energ$ to it. Arch'ishop @&ghes said 6not &ntil I ha#e '&ilt m$ school, shall one stone of m$ Cathedral 'e laid &pon another.6 *his great prelate f&ll$ reali?ed -hat e#er$ Catholic sho&ld ma.e his motto =/GG> toda$, 6the fo&ndation of the parish ch&rch is the schoolho&se.6 Be the s&pport of the school a '&rden, 'e it '&ilt and perpet&ated at a great sacrifice, its #al&e is 'e$ond estimation, the '&rden and the sacrifice are feather -eights in comparison to the good that arises from the Catholic school. *he spirit&al life of a parish -itho&t a school is tepid, neither hot nor cold. Let the school 'e the 'est possi'le. *oo m&ch time or too m&ch care cannot 'e gi#en to it, for Catholic ed&cation amidst the del&ge of Li'eralism, -hich has o#er-helmed the -orld, is the ar. of sal#ation. Spea. o&t fearlessl$ on this matter of ed&cation. Sa$ s)&arel$ and fran.l$ that irreligio&s ed&cation leads to the De#il. An irreligio&s school is the school of Satin. Danton, a cele'rated rench re#ol&tionist, contin&all$ cried, 6BoldnessI6 Let o&r constant cr$ 'e 6 ran.nessI ran.nessI LightI LightI6 Nothing -ill more )&ic.l$ p&t to flight the legions of hell, -ho sed&ce onl$ &nder the shelter of dar.ness.

C@AP*ER F0 @+2 *+ DIS*IN(,IS@ CA*@+LIC R+M LIBERAL 2+RHS

6Neglect those preca&tions -hich pr&dence s&ggest does e#il hates the light,6 said o&r Di#ine Lord. Ini)&it$ -or.s in o'sc&rit$. It is not diffic&lt to disco#er an enem$, -ho comes to meet &s in the 'road da$light, not to recogni?e as Li'erals those -ho fran.l$ declare themsel#es to 'e s&ch. B&t this sort of fran.ness is not ordinar$ to the Li'eral sect. +n the contrar$ it is &s&all$ #er$ cle#er and ca&tio&s in concealing its real meaning in #ario&s disg&ises. 2e ma$ add that often the e$e that o&ght to disco#er the impost&re is not the e$e of a l$n!. *here sho&ld therefore, 'e some eas$ and pop&lar criterion to disting&ish, at e#er$ instant, the Catholic cr$ from the infernal 'irdEcall of Li'eralism. It often happens that some pro7ect or enterprise is p&t on foot, some sort of a -or. is &nderta.en, -hose 'earings Catholics cannot promptl$ or easil$ apprehend. It ma$ appear indifferent or e#en innocent eno&gh, and $et it ma$ ha#e its roots in error, and 'e a mere artifice of the enem$ fl$ing o&r colo&rs to all&re &s into an am'&scade. It ma$ spea. the lang&age of charit$, appealing to &s from the tenderest =/G4> side, and as. &s to associate o&rsel#es -ith it in the name of a common h&manit$. 6Sin. all differences of creed and let &s fraterni?e on the 'roader plane of 'rotherl$ lo#e,6 is often its most insidio&s appeal. S&ch instances are arising e#er$ da$ of o&r li#es. 6Cons&lt the Ch&rch,6 some ma$ sa$, 6its -ord is infalli'le and -ill dissipate all &ncertaint$.6 3er$ tr&e, '&t the a&thorit$ of the Ch&rch cannot 'e cons&lted at e#er$ moment and in e#er$ partic&lar case. *he Ch&rch has -isel$ laid do-n certain general principles for o&r g&idance, '&t has left to the 7&dgement and pr&dence of each of &s the special application of these principles to the tho&sand and one concrete cases -hich -e ha#e to face e#er$ da$. No- a case of this .ind presents itself to 'e determined according to o&r o-n 7&dgement and discretion. 2e are as.ed to gi#e a contri'&tion to s&ch and s&ch an &nderta.ing, to 7oin s&ch and s&ch a societ$, to ta.e part in s&ch and s&ch an enterprise, to s&'scri'e to s&ch and s&ch a 7o&rnal, and all this ma$ 'e for (od or for the De#il, or -hat is -orse, it ma$ 'e e#il cloa.ed in the gar' of hol$ things. @o- shall -e g&ide o&rsel#es in s&ch a la'$rinthC @ere are t-o #er$ practical r&les, of read$ ser#ice to a Catholic -ho is -al.ing on slipper$ gro&nd. =/G;> /. +'ser#e caref&ll$ -hat class of people are the pro7ectors of the affair. S&ch is the first r&le of pr&dence and common sense. It is 'ased on that ma!im of

o&r Lord5 A 'ad tree cannot 'ring forth good fr&it. Li'eralism is nat&rall$ 'o&nd to prod&ce -ritings, -or.s and deeds impregnated -ith the spirit of Li'eralism, or at least tainted -ith it. *herefore m&st -e caref&ll$ scr&tini?e the antecedents of the person or persons -ho organi?e or ina&g&rate the -or. in )&estion. If the$ are s&ch that $o& cannot ha#e entire confidence in their doctrines, 'e on $o&r g&ard against their enterprises. Do not disappro#e immediatel$, for it is an a!iom of theolog$ that not all the -or.s of infidels are sinf&l, and this a!iom can 'e applied to the -or.s of Li'erals. B&t 'e caref&l not to ta.e them immediatel$ for good, mistr&st them, s&'mit them to e!amination, a-ait their res&lts. F. +'ser#e the .ind of people -ho praise the -or. in )&estion. *his is e#en a s&rer r&le than the preceding. *here are in the -orld t-o perfectl$ distinct c&rrents< the Catholic c&rrent and the Li'eral c&rrent. *he first is reflected for the most part '$ the Catholic press< the second is reflected '$ the Li'eral press. Is a ne- 'oo. anno&ncedC Are the 'eginnings of a ne- =/G0> pro7ect p&'lishedC See if the Li'eral c&rrent appro#es, recommends and acco&nts them its o-n. If $es, the 'oo. and the pro7ect are 7&dged5 the$ 'elong to Li'eralism. It is e#ident that Li'eralism has inspired them, disting&ishing immediatel$ -hat is in7&rio&s or &sef&l to it, for it is ne#er s&ch a fool as not to &nderstand -hat is opposed to it or to 'e opposed to that -hich is fa#o&ra'le to it. *he sects, religio&s or infidel, ha#e an instinct, a partic&lar int&ition =olfact&s mentis>, as philosophers sa$, -hich re#eals to them a priori -hat is good or -hat is 'ad for them. Rep&diate then -hate#er Li'erals praise or #a&nt. It is e#ident that the$ ha#e recogni?ed '$ its nat&re or its origin, or as a means or as an end, something in the o'7ect so praised fa#o&ra'le to Li'eralism. *he clair#o$ant instinct of the sect cannot decei#e them. Certain scr&ples of Charit$ and their ha'it of thin.ing -ell of o&r neigh'o&r sometimes 'lind good people to s&ch an e!tent as to lead them to attri'&te good intentions, -here &nhappil$ the$ do not e!ist. *his is not the case -ith falsifiers. *he$ al-a$s send their shot right to the centre, the$ ne#er credit good intentions -here there are none, or e#en -here there are. *he$ al-a$s 'eat the 'assEdr&m in fa#o&r of all that =/G1> ad#ances in an$ -a$ their o-n nefario&s propaganda. Discredit therefore -hat $o& see $o&r .no-n enemies proclaiming -ith hallel&7ahs. It seems to &s that these t-o r&les of common sense, -hich -e can call r&les of good Christian sense, s&ffice, if not to ena'le &s to 7&dge definiti#el$ e#er$ )&estion, at least, to .eep &s from perpet&all$ st&m'ling o#er the ro&ghness of the &ne#en soil -hich -e dail$ tread and -here the com'at is al-a$s ta.ing place. *he Catholic of the age sho&ld al-a$s 'ear in mind that the gro&nd on -hich he -al.s is &ndermined in e#er$

direction '$ secret societies< that it is these -ho gi#e the .e$note to antiE Catholic polemics< that &nconscio&sl$ and #er$ often these secret societies are ser#ed e#en '$ those -ho detest their infernal -or.. *he act&al strife is principall$ &ndergro&nd and against an in#isi'le enem$, -ho rarel$ presents himself &nder his real de#ice. @e is to 'e scented rather than seen, to 'e di#ined '$ instinct rather than pointed o&t -ith the finger. A good scent and practical sense are more necessar$ here than s&'tle reasoning or la'o&red theories. =/D:>

C@AP*ER F1 LIBERALISM AND 9+,RNALISM

*he press has gro-n so omnipresent no-ada$s that there is no escape from it. It is therefore important to .no- e!actl$ ho- to steer o&r co&rse amidst the man$ perils that 'eset Catholics on this score. @o- then are -e to disting&ish 'et-een 7o&rnals that merit or do not merit o&r confidenceC +r rather, -hat .ind of 7o&rnals o&ght to inspire &s -ith #er$ little and -hat -ith no confidenceC In the first place it is clear that s&ch 7o&rnals as 'oast of their li'eralism ha#e no claim to o&r confidence in matters that Li'eralism to&ches on. *hese are precisel$ the enemies against -hom -e ha#e constantl$ to 'e on g&ard, against -hom -e ha#e to -age perpet&al -ar. *his point then is o&tside of o&r present consideration. All those -ho, in o&r times claim the title of Li'eralism, in the specific sense in -hich -e al-a$s &se the term, 'ecome o&r declared enemies and the enemies of the Ch&rch of (od. B&t there is another class of 7o&rnals less prompt to &nmas. and proclaim themsel#es, -ho lo#e to li#e amidst am'ig&ities =/D/> in an &ndefined and indefinite region of compromise. *he$ declare themsel#es Catholic and sa#er their detestation and a'horrence of Li'eralism, at least if -e credit their -ords. *hese 7o&rnals are generall$ .no-n as Li'eral Catholic. *his is the class -hich -e sho&ld especiall$ mistr&st and not permit o&rsel#es to 'e d&ped '$ its pretended piet$. 2hen -e find 7o&rnals Catholic in name and in profession strongl$ leaning to the side of compromise and see.ing to placate the enem$ '$ concessions, -e ma$ rest ass&red that the$ are 'eing dra-n do-n the Li'eral c&rrent, -hich is al-a$s too strong for s&ch -ea. s-immers. @e -ho places himself in the #orte! of a maelstrom is s&re in the end to 'e eng&lfed in it. *he logic of the sit&ation 'rings the ine#ita'le concl&sion. *he Li'eral c&rrent is easier to follo-. It is largel$ made &p of prosel$tes, and readil$ attracts the selfElo#e of the -ea.. *he Catholic c&rrent is apparentl$ more diffic&lt, it has fe-er partisans and friends, and re)&ires &s to constantl$ ro- against the stream, to stem the tide of per#erse ideas and corr&pt passions. 2ith the &ncertain, the #acillating and the &n-ar$ the Li'eral c&rrent easil$ pre#ails and s-eeps them a-a$ in its fatal em'race. *here is no room, therefore, for confidence in the =/DF> Li'eral Catholic press, especiall$ in cases -here it is diffic&lt to form a 7&dgement. Moreo#er in s&ch cases its polic$ of compromise and conciliation hamper it from forming an$ decisi#e or a'sol&te 7&dgement, for the simple reason that its 7&dgement has nothing decisi#e or radical in it< on the contrar$ it is al-a$s o#erE-eighed -ith a preponderating inclination to-ards the e!pedient. +pport&nism is the g&iding star.

*he tr&l$ Catholic press is altogether Catholic, that is to sa$, it defends Catholic doctrine in all its principles and applications, it opposes all false teaching .no-n as s&ch al-a$s and entirel$, opposita per diametr&m, as St. Ignati&s sa$s in that golden 'oo. of his e!ercises. It places itself on the frontier arra$ed -ith &nceasing #igilance against error, al-a$s face to face -ith the enem$. It ne#er 'i#o&acs -ith the hostile forces, as the compromising press lo#es to do. Its opposition is definite and determined, it is not simpl$ opposed to certain &ndenia'le manoe&#res of the foe, letting others escape its #igilance, '&t -atches, g&ards, and resists at e#er$ point. It presents an &n'ro.en front to e#il e#er$-here, for e#il is e#il in e#er$thing, e#en in the good, -hich, '$ chance, ma$ accompan$ it. Let &s here ma.e an o'ser#ation to e!plain =/DB> this last phrase, -hich ma$ appear startling to some, and at the same time e!plain a diffic&lt$, entertained '$ not a fe-. B$ 7o&rnals, =-e incl&de doctrinall$ &nso&nd 7o&rnals &nder this head> sometimes contain something good. 2hat are -e to thin. of the good th&s em'edded -ith the 'ad in themC 2e m&st thin. that the good in them does not pre#ent them from 'eing 'ad, if their doctrine or their character is intrinsicall$ 'ad. In most cases this good is a mere artifice to recommend or at least disg&ise -hat in itself is essentiall$ 'ad. Some accidentall$ good )&alities do not ta.e a-a$ the 'ad character of a 'ad man. An assassin and a thief are not good 'eca&se the$ sometimes sa$ a pra$er or gi#e alms to a 'eggar. *he$ are 'ad in spite of their good -or.s, 'eca&se the general character of their acts is 'ad as -ell as their ha'it&al tendencies, and if the$ sometimes do good, in order to cloa. their malice, the$ are e#en -orse than 'efore. +n the other hand it sometimes happens that a good 7o&rnal falls into s&ch or s&ch an error, or into an e!cess of passion in a good ca&se, and so sa$s something -hich -e cannot altogether appro#e. M&st -e for this reason call it 'adC Not at all< and for a re#erse reason, altho&gh analogo&s. 2ith it the e#il is onl$ accidental< =/DG> the good constit&tes its s&'stance and is its ordinar$ condition. +ne or se#eral sins do not ma.e a man 'ad, a'o#e all if he repent of them and ma.e amends. *hat alone is 'ad, -hich is 'ad -ith f&ll .no-ledge, ha'it&all$ and persistentl$. Catholic 7o&rnalists are not angels, far from it< the$ are fragile men and sinners. *o -ish to condemn them for s&ch or s&ch a failing, for this or that e!cess, is to entertain a Pharisaical or 9ansenistic opinion of #irt&e, not in accord -ith so&nd moralit$I *o concl&de5 there are good and 'ad 7o&rnals< among the latter are to 'e ran.ed those -hose doctrine is am'ig&o&s or illEdefined. *hose that are 'ad

are not to 'e acco&nted good 'eca&se the$ happen to slip into something good< and those that are good are not to 'e acco&nted 'ad on acco&nt of some accidental failings. (ood Catholics -ho 7&dge and act lo$all$ according to these principles, -ill rarel$ 'e decei#ed.

C@AP*ER B: CAN CA*@+LICS AND LIBERALS E3ER ,NI*EC

A )&estion #er$ pertinent to o&r times and o&r s&rro&ndings is, sho&ld Catholics =/DD> com'ine -ith the more moderate Li'erals for the common end of resisting the ad#ance of the re#ol&tionists or e!treme Li'eralsC 2ith some this is a golden dream, -ith others a perfidio&s snare '$ means of -hich the$ see. to paral$se o&r po-ers and di#ide &s. 2hat sho&ld -e thin. of these -o&ldE'e &nionists, -e -ho -ish, a'o#e all things, the -ellE'eing of o&r hol$ religionC In general -e sho&ld thin. s&ch &nions are neither good nor commenda'le. Li'eralism, let its form 'e as moderated, as -heedling as possi'le, is '$ its #er$ essence in direct and radical opposition to Catholicit$. Li'erals are 'orn enemies of Catholics, and it is onl$ accidentall$ that 'oth can ha#e interests tr&l$ common. It is possi'le, ho-e#er, in #er$ rare cases that &nion on the part of Catholics -ith a Li'eral gro&p against the Radicals ma$ pro#e &sef&l &nder gi#en conditions. 2here s&ch a &nion is reall$ opport&ne, it m&st 'e esta'lished on the follo-ing 'asis5 /. *he 'ond of &nion sho&ld ne#er 'e ne&tralit$ or the conciliation of interests and principles essentiall$ opposed, s&ch as are the interests and principles of Catholics and Li'erals. *his ne&tralit$ or conciliation has 'een condemned '$ the S$lla'&s, =/D4> and is, conse)&entl$, a false 'asis. S&ch a &nion -o&ld 'e a 'etra$al, an a'andonment of the Catholic camp '$ those -ho are 'o&nd to defend it. An instance -o&ld 'e to compromise Catholic ed&cation -ith Sec&larism '$ 'anishing religio&s instr&ction and infl&ences from the school room. *he 'asis of s&ch conciliation is false, as it necessaril$ sacrifices Catholic interests and principles. It concedes to Sec&larism -hat is essential to the integrit$ of Catholic ed&cation, #i?., the formation of the Catholic character in children, and admits the #alidit$ of the principle of ne&tralit$. It can ne#er 'e said, 6Let &s a'stract from o&r differences of doctrine, etc.6 S&ch a loose a'dication of principle can ne#er o'tain in the Catholic estimation. It -o&ld 'e the same as to sa$5 6In spite of the radical and essential opposition of principles 'et-een &s, -e can after all agree in the practical application of these principles.6 *his is simpl$ an intolera'le contradiction. F. M&ch less co&ld -e accord to the Li'eral gro&p, -ith -hom a temporar$ and accidental alliance is formed, the hono&r of enrolling o&rsel#es &nder its 'anner. Let each part$ .eep distinct its o-n proper de#ice, or let the Li'erals in )&estion range themsel#es &nder o&r ensign, if the$ -ish =/D;> to fight -ith &s

against a common enem$. 2e can ne#er ass&me their em'lem &nder an$ circ&mstances. In other -ords let them &nite themsel#es to &s< -e can ne#er &nite o&rsel#es to them. Acc&stomed as the$ are to a #ar$ing and motle$ ensign, it cannot 'e diffic&lt for them to accept o&r colo&rs. or &s there can 'e '&t one flag, the one em'lem of the one &n#ar$ing faith -hich -e e#er profess. B. 2e m&st ne#er consider this alliance constant and normal. It can ne#er 'e an$ thing else than a fort&ito&s and transient condition, passing a-a$ the moment the immediate e!igenc$ of its e!istence ceases. *here can 'e no constant and normal &nion e!cept 'et-een homogeneo&s elements. or people of con#ictions radicall$ opposed to harmoni?e for an$ length of time -o&ld re)&ire contin&al acts of heroic #irt&e on the part of 'oth sides. Noheroism is no ordinar$ thing nor of dail$ e!ercise. S&ch radical incompati'ilit$ -o&ld simpl$ 'e to e!pose the &nderta.ing to lamenta'le fail&re, and to '&ild &pon contradictor$ opinions, -hose onl$ accord is accidental. or a transitor$ act of common defence or attac., s&ch an attempt at a coalition of forces is permissi'le, and e#en praise-orth$ and e!tremel$ &sef&l, pro#ided, ho-e#er, that -e ne#er forget the =/D0> conditions or r&les -e ha#e alread$ laid do-n as go#erning the e!ceptional circ&mstances o'taining in a gi#en case< these r&les are an imprescripti'le necessit$. +&tside of these conditions, not onl$ sho&ld -e hold that s&ch &nion -ith an$ gro&p for an$ enterprise -hate#er, -o&ld 'e &nfa#o&ra'le to Catholics, '&t act&all$ detrimental. Instead of a&gmenting o&r forces, as -o&ld 'e the case in the &nion of homogeneo&s elements, it -o&ld paral$se and n&llif$ the #igo&r of those, -ho -o&ld 'e a'le , if alone, to do something for the defence of the tr&th. 2itho&t do&'t, as the pro#er' r&ns, 6,nhapp$ the one -ho -al.s alone.6 B&t there is another pro#er' e)&all$ tr&e -hich sa$s5 6Better see. solit&de than 'ad compan$.6 It -as St. *homas, -e 'elie#e, -ho said5 Bona est &nio sed potior est &nitas5 6,nion is good, '&t &nit$ is 'etter.6 If -e ha#e to sacrifice tr&e &nit$ for the sa.e of an artificial and forced &nion not onl$ is nothing gained, '&t m&ch is lost. E!perience has al-a$s sho-n that the res&lt of s&ch &nions, o&tside of the conditions 7&st laid do-n, is 'arren. *heir res&lts al-a$s renders the strife e#en more 'itter and rancoro&s. *here is not a single e!ample of s&ch a coalition -hich ser#ed either to edif$ or consolidate. =/D1>

C@AP*ER B/ AN ILL,SI+N + LIBERAL CA*@+LICS

Amongst the ill&sions entertained '$ a certain class of Catholics, there is none more pitia'le than the notion that the tr&th re)&ires a great n&m'er of defenders and friends. *o these people n&m'er seems a s$non$m for force. *he$ imagine that to m&ltipl$ heterogeneo&s )&antities is to m&ltipl$ po-er. No-, tr&e force, real po-er in the ph$sical as in the moral order, consists in intensit$ rather than in e!tension. A greater #ol&me of matter e)&all$ intense e#identl$ prod&ces a greater effect, not '$ reason of the increased #ol&me, '&t '$ #irt&e of the a&gmented intensities contained in it. It is therefore a r&le of so&nd mechanics to see. to increase the e!tension and n&m'er of forces, '&t al-a$s on the condition that the final res&lt 'e a real a&gmentation of their intensities. *o 'e content -ith an increase -itho&t consideration of the #al&e of the increment is not onl$ to acc&m&late fictitio&s force, '&t to e!pose the po-ers, -ith one does possess, to 'e paral$sed '$ the congestion of an &n-ield$ mass. *he millions of Aero!es constit&ted force of tremendo&s e!tension, '&t the$ -ere of no a#ail against the #igoro&s intensit$ of the (ree. three h&ndred at *hermop$lae. aith possesses a po-er of its o-n -hich it comm&nicates to its friends and defenders. It is not the$ -ho gi#e the tr&th po-er, '&t tr&th -hich charges them -ith its o-n #igo&r. *his on the condition that the$ &se that po-er in its defence. If the defender, &nder the prete!t of 'etter defending the tr&th, 'egins to m&tilate it, minimi?e it, to atten&ate it, then he is no longer defending the tr&th. @e is simpl$ defending his o-n in#ention, a mere h&man creation more or less 'ea&tif&l in appearance, '&t ha#ing no relation to tr&th, the da&ghter of @ea#en. S&ch is the del&sion of -hich man$ of o&r 'rethren are the &nconscio&s #ictims thro&gh a detesta'le contact -ith Li'eralism. *he$ imagine, -ith 'linded good faith, that the$ are defending and propagating Catholicit$. B&t '$ dint of accommodating it to their o-n narro#ie-s and fee'le co&rage, in order to ma.e it, the$ sa$, more accepta'le to the enem$, -hom the$ -ish to o#ercome, the$ do not percei#e that the$ are no longer defending Catholicit$ '&t a thing of their o-n man&fact&re -hich the$ nai#el$ call Catholicit$, '&t -hich =/4/> the$ o&ght to call '$ another name. Poor #ictims of selfEdeception, -ho at the 'eginning of the 'attle, in order to -in o#er the enem$ -et their o-n po-der and 'l&nt the edge and the point of

their s-ordsI *he$ do not stop to reflect that an edgeless and pointless s-ord is no longer a -eapon '&t a &seless piece of old iron, and that -et po-der cannot 'e fired. *heir 7o&rnals, their 'oo.s, their disco&rses, #eneered -ith Catholicit$ '&t 'ereft of its spirit and its life, ha#e no more #al&e in the ca&se of the faith than the to$ s-ords and pistols of the n&rser$. *o an arm$ of this .ind, 'e it ten times as n&mero&s as the m&ltit&dino&s hosts of Aer!es, a single platoon of -ellEarmed soldiers, .no-ing -hat the$ are defending, against -hom the$ are contending, and -ith -hat arms the$ fight, in order to defend the tr&th, is prefera'le a tho&sand times o#er. *his is the .ind of soldiers -e need. *his is the .ind -ho ha#e al-a$s and -ill $et do something more for the glor$ of @is Name. *he$ go into the deadl$, imminent 'reach and ne#er flinch. No compromising, no minimi?ing -ith them. *he$ plant their 'anner on the topmost height and form a solid, in#inci'le phalan! aro&nd it, that not all the legions of earth and hell com'ined can '&dge a =/4F> single inch. *he$ ma.e no alliance, no compromise -ith a foe, -hose single aim, disg&ised or open, is the destr&ction of the tr&th. *he$ .no- the enem$ is '$ nat&re implaca'le, and his flag of tr&ce '&t a c&nning de#ice of treacher$. +f this -e -ill 'ecome more and more con#inced, if -e consider that an alliance of this .ind -ith a false a&!iliar$ is not onl$ &seless to the good Christian in the midst of the com'at, '&t moreo#er it is most of the time an act&al em'arrassment to him and fa#o&ra'le to the enem$. Catholic associations hampered in their on-ard march '$ s&ch an alliance, -ill find themsel#es so impeded that free action 'ecomes impossi'le. *he$ -ill end '$ ha#ing all their energies cr&shed &nder a deadl$ inertia. *o 'ring an enem$ into the camp is to 'etra$ the citadel. It -as not &ntil the *ro7ans admitted the fatal -ooden horse -ithin the cit$ -alls that Ili&m fell. *his com'ination of the 'ad -ith the good cannot '&t end in e#il res&lts. It 'rings disorder, conf&sion, s&spicion, &ncertaint$ to distract and di#ide Catholics, and all this to the 'enefit of the enem$ and o&r disaster. Against s&ch a co&rse la Ci#ilita Cattolica, in some remar.a'le articles, has emphaticall$ declared. 2itho&t the proper =/4B> preca&tion, it sa$s, 6associations of this .ind =Catholic> r&n the certain danger, not onl$ of 'ecoming a camp of scandalo&s discord, '&t also of -andering a-a$ from their tr&e principles to their o-n r&in and the great in7&r$ of religion.6 And this same re#ie-, -hose a&thorit$ is of the greatest possi'le -eight, in regard to the same s&'7ect sa$s5 62ith a pr&dent &nderstanding, Catholic associations o&ght chiefl$ to ta.e care to e!cl&de from amongst themsel#es, not onl$ those -ho

openl$ profess the principles of Li'eralism, '&t also those -ho ha#e decei#ed themsel#es into 'elie#ing that a conciliation 'et-een Li'eralism and Catholicism is possi'le, and -ho are .no-n as Li'eral Catholics.6

C@AP*ER BF LIBERALISM AND A,*@+RI*" IN PAR*IC,LAR CASES

@o- is one to tell on his o-n a&thorit$ -ho or -hat is Li'eral, -itho&t ha#ing reco&rse to a definiti#e decision of the teaching Ch&rchC 2hen a good Catholic acc&ses an$one of Li'eralism or attac.s and &nmas.s Li'eral sophisms, the acc&sed =/4G> immediatel$ see.s ref&ge in a challenge of the acc&ser8s a&thorit$5 6And pra$ -ho are $o&, to charge me and m$ 7o&rnal -ith Li'eralismC 2ho made $o& a Master in Israel to declare -ho is or -ho is not a good CatholicC And is it from $o& that I m&st ta.e o&t a patent of Catholicit$C6 S&ch is the last resort of the tainted Catholic on finding himself p&shed to the -all. @o- then are -e to ans-er this oppositionC Is the theolog$ of Li'eral Catholics so&nd &pon this pointC *hat -e ma$ acc&se an$ person or -riting of Li'eralism, is it necessar$ to ha#e reco&rse to a special 7&dgement of the ch&rch &pon this partic&lar person or this partic&lar -ritingC B$ no means. If this Li'eral parado! -ere tr&e, it -o&ld f&rnish Li'erals -ith a #er$ efficacio&s -eapon -ith -hich to practicall$ ann&l all the Ch&rch8s condemnations of Li'eralism. *he Ch&rch alone possesses s&preme doctrinal magister$ in fact and in right, 7&ris et facti< her so#ereign a&thorit$ is personified in the Pope. *o him alone 'elongs the right of prono&ncing the final, decisi#e and solemn sentence. B&t this does not e!cl&de other 7&dgements, less a&thoritati#e '&t #er$ -eight$, -hich cannot 'e despised and e#en o&ght to 'ind the Christian conscience. +f this .ind are5 =/4D> /. 9&dgements of the Bishops in their respecti#e dioceses. F. 9&dgements of pastors in their parishes. B. 9&dgements of directors of consciences. G. 9&dgements of theologians cons&lted '$ the la$ faithf&l. *hese 7&dgements are of co&rse not infalli'le, '&t the$ are entitled to great consideration and o&ght to 'e 'inding in proportion to the a&thorit$ of those -ho gi#e them, in the gradation -e ha#e mentioned. B&t it is not against 7&dgements of this character that Li'erals h&rl the peremptor$ challenge -e -ish partic&larl$ to consider. *here is another factor in this matter entitled to respect and that is5 D. *he 7&dgement of simple h&man reason d&l$ enlightened. "es, h&man reason, to spea. after the manner of theologians, has a theological place in matters of religion. aith dominates reason, -hich o&ght to 'e s&'ordinated to faith in e#er$thing. B&t it is altogether false to pretend that

reason can do nothing, that it has no f&nction at all in matters of faith< it is false to pretend that the inferior light, ill&minated '$ (od in the h&man &nderstanding, cannot shine at all, 'eca&se it does not shine as po-erf&ll$ or as clearl$ as the s&perior light. "es the faithf&l are permitted and e#en =/44> commanded to gi#e a reason for their faith, to dra- o&t its conse)&ences, to ma.e applications of it, to ded&ce parallels and analogies from it. It is th&s '$ &se of their reason that the faithf&l are ena'led to s&spect and meas&re the orthodo!$ of an$ ne- doctrine, presented to them, '$ comparing it -ith a doctrine alread$ defined. If it 'e not in accord, the$ can com'at it as 'ad and 7&stl$ stigmati?e as 'ad the 'oo. or 7o&rnal -hich s&stains it. *he$ cannot of co&rse define it e! cathedra, '&t the$ can la-f&ll$ hold it as per#erse and declare it s&ch, -arn others against it, raise the cr$ of alarm and stri.e the first 'lo- against it. *he faithf&l la$man can do all this, and has done it at all times -ith the appla&se of the Ch&rch. Nor in so doing does he ma.e himself the pastor of the floc., nor e#en its h&m'lest attendant< he simpl$ ser#es it as a -atchdog -ho gi#es the alarm. +portet allatrare canes. 6It 'eho#es -atchdogs to 'ar.6 #er$ opport&nel$ said a great Spanish Bishop in reference to s&ch occasions. Is not perchance the part pla$ed '$ h&man reason so &nderstood '$ those ?ealo&s prelates, -ho on a tho&sand occasions e!hort the faithf&l to refrain from the reading of 'ad 7o&rnals and -or.s -itho&t speciall$ pointing them o&tC *h&s do the$ =/4;> sho- their con#iction that this nat&ral criterion, ill&minated '$ faith, is s&fficient to ena'le the faithf&l to appl$ -ell .no-n doctrines to s&ch matters. Does the Inde! itself gi#e the title of e#er$ for'idden 'oo.C Do -e not find &nder the r&'ric of (eneral R&les of the Inde! certain principles according to -hich good Catholics sho&ld g&ide themsel#es in forming their 7&dgement &pon 'oo.s not mentioned in the Inde!, '&t -hich each reader is e!pected to appl$ at his o-n discretionC +f -hat &se -o&ld 'e the r&le of faith and morals, if in e#er$ partic&lar case the faithf&l cannot of themsel#es ma.e the immediate application< if the$ -ere constantl$ o'liged to cons&lt the Pope or the diocesan pastorC 9&st as the general r&le of moralit$ is the la-, in accordance -ith -hich each one s)&ares his o-n conscience, dictamen practic&m, in ma.ing partic&lar applications of this general r&le, s&'7ect to correction if erroneo&s< so the general r&le of faith, -hich is the infalli'le a&thorit$ of the Ch&rch, is and o&ght to 'e in consonance -ith e#er$ partic&lar 7&dgement formed in ma.ing concrete applications, s&'7ect of co&rse to correction and retraction in the e#ent of mista.e in so appl$ing it. It -o&ld 'e rendering the s&perior r&le of faith &seless, a's&rd and impossi'le to re)&ire

=/40> the s&preme a&thorit$ of the Ch&rch to ma.e its special and immediate application in e#er$ case &pon e#er$ occasion, -hich calls it forth. *his -o&ld 'e a species of 'r&tal and satanic 9ansenism li.e that of the follo-ers of the &nhapp$ Bishop of "pres, -hen the$ e!acted, for the reception of the sacraments, s&ch dispositions as -o&ld ma.e it impossi'le for men to profit '$ that -hich -as plainl$ intended and instit&ted for them '$ 9es&s Christ @imself. *he legal rigo&rism in#o.ed '$ the Li'eralists, in matters pertaining to faith, is as a's&rd as the ascetic rigo&rism once preached at Port Ro$al< it -o&ld res&lt e#en more disastro&sl$. If $o& do&'t this loo. aro&nd $o&. *he greatest rigo&rists on this point are the most hardened sectaries of the Li'eral school. B&t ho- e!plain this apparent contradictionC It is easil$ e!plained, if -e onl$ reflect that nothing co&ld 'e more con#enient for Li'eralism than to p&t this legal m&??le &pon the lips and the pens of their most determined ad#ersaries. It -o&ld 'e in tr&th a great tri&mph for them, &nder the prete!t that no one e!cept the Pope and the Bishops co&ld spea. -ith the least a&thorit$, to this impose silence &pon the la$ champions of the faith, s&ch as -ere DeMaistre, =/41> Cortes, 3e&illot, 2ard, L&cas, McMaster, -ho once 'ore, and others, -ho no- 'ear, the 'anner of the faith so 'oldl$ and &nflinchingl$ against its most insidio&s foes. Li'eralism -o&ld li.e to see s&ch cr&saders disarmed, and -o&ld prefer, a'o#e all, if the$ co&ld s&cceed in getting the Ch&rch herself to do the disarming.

C@AP*ER BB LIBERALISM AS I* IS IN *@IS C+,N*R"

Li'eralism, -hile essentiall$ one and the same e#er$-here, presents #ario&s aspects in different co&ntries. In its essence it is the denial of the s&pernat&ral in -hole or in part, '&t that denial ta.es a local colo&ring from place or circ&mstances. *he traditions, c&stoms, pre7&dices, idios$ncrasies of a people reflect it at #ario&s angles. It is protean in its presentations thro&gho&t the -orld, and to the cas&al o'ser#er, -ho fails to pro'e 'elo- the appearances of things, it ma$ not seem to manifest itself at all -here it in realit$ e!ists in its s&'tlest and therefore most dangero&s form. In America it -o&ld scarcel$ seem to e!ist at all, so ingrained is it in o&r social conditions, so nat&ral is it to the pre#ailing modes of tho&ght, so congenital is it -ith the dominant religio&s notions a'o&t &s, so congenial a ha'itat to the Protestant sects. Indeed it is a #er$ constit&ent of the pse&doEreligio&s and pse&doEmoral atmosphere -e dail$ 'reathe. 2e can hope to escape its taint onl$ '$ copio&s and fre)&ent dra&ghts of orthodo! doctrine, '$ the strictest intellect&al #igilance, fortified '$ s&pernat&ral grace. Its aspect in this co&ntr$ is pec&liar, and fra&ght -ith especial danger to the negligent either in faith or morals. Its chief manifestation in the ,nited States is in the form of -hat is pop&larl$ called nonEsectarianism. It is a c&rrent fallac$, laid do-n as a f&ndamental tr&th, that one religion is as good as another, that e#er$one has the right to 'elie#e -hat he pleases< that differences in creed are after all '&t differences in forms of e!pression< that e#er$one ma$ select his o-n creed or sect according to his taste, or e#en altogether rep&diate religio&s 'eliefs, and finall$, that religion is a thing entirel$ apart from ci#ic and social life. *his of co&rse is sec&larism in its #ario&s degrees, denial of the s&pernat&ral. In practice this principle ingratiates itself into social and ci#ic life directl$ or indirectl$ -or.ing o&t to the pre7&dice of =/;/> religion and moralit$. Ci#il marriage and di#orce, mi!ed marriages and the conse)&ent degeneration of famil$ life, '&siness standards, moralit$ in general pitched on a lo- .e$, #icio&s literat&re, a materialistic 7o&rnalism, catering to la! thin.ing and la! li#ing, religion p&'licl$ moc.ed, scoffed, denied or held indifferentl$< all this coldl$ regarded as a matter of co&rse, a necessar$ e!pedienc$ condoned and appla&ded on the gro&nd that it is the fr&it of li'ert$. B&t the most #ir&lent effect crops o&t in the pre#ailing ed&cational theor$. @ere Li'eralism manifests itself in its most diref&l and f&llest effects, for it denies to religion the #er$ sphere -here it has the strongest right and the f&llest reason to &se its -idest and most lasting infl&ence, #i?., in the mind of childhood. Sec&larism -ith the

instinct of a foe, has here most positi#el$ and tri&mphantl$ asserted its claim and, &nder the disg&ise of strict impartialit$ and e#en patriotism, has 'anished religion from the school room. *hat Catholics sho&ld not feel the effects of this rela!ing atmosphere is scarcel$ to 'e e!pected. 2ith the air so strongl$ impregnated -ith poison it -o&ld 'e diffic&lt indeed to .eep the 'lood health$. In not a fe- instances the$ ha#e fallen #ictims to the plag&e, and if not al-a$s o&t and o&t =/;F> corr&pted the$ 'ecome not a little tainted. @ence -e find amongst, if not a large, at least no small n&m'er an eas$ disposition to compromise or minimi?e their faith in points of doctrine or practice. *he nat&ral tendenc$ in h&man nat&re to escape friction and a#oid antagonism is &nhappil$ in most instances a read$ factor in the direction of concession. *o apologi?e, e!c&se, e!ten&ate, soften, e!plain a-a$ this or that point of faith, practice or discipline easil$ follo-s from a ha'it of tho&ght contracted from perpet&al contact -ith Li'eralists, -ith -hom e#er$thing ta.es precedence of faith and s&pernat&ralism. *his especiall$ -here Li'eralism esche-s aggressi#e action and -ith a c&nning, either satanic or -orldl$ -ise, 'ases its treachero&s tolerance &pon a s&pposed generosit$ of mind or 'readth of #ie-. 2hen the s&pernat&ral is #ag&el$ identified -ith the s&perstitio&s, faith -ith cred&lit$, firmness -ith fanaticism, the &ncompromising -ith the intolerant, consistenc$ -ith narro-ness, for s&ch is the c&rrent attit&de of sec&larism aro&nd &s in these ad7&ncts it re)&ires co&rage, fortit&de and the consolation of the ass&red possession of tr&th to resist the insidio&s press&re of a false p&'lic opinion. ,nless s&pernat&rall$ fortified and enlightened, h&man =/;B> nat&re &nder this moral oppression soon gi#es -a$ to 6h&man respect.6 S&ch are o&r Li'eral s&rro&ndings in this co&ntr$. 2e cannot escape them. B&t -e are in d&t$ 'o&nd to resist their fatal contagion -ith all the po-ers of o&r so&l. If -e hope to preser#e o&r faith intact, to .eep it p&re and 'right in o&r so&ls, to sa#e o&rsel#es from the malign infl&ence of a deadl$ heres$, -hich is dail$ leading tho&sands to perdition, -e m&st 'e g&arded and #igilant in its presence. Amidst a host of s-arming foes o&r armo&r sho&ld 'e -itho&t flafrom grea#e to helmet, o&r -eapons -ellEtempered, .een and '&rnished, not onl$ to -ard off the hostile 'lo-, '&t read$ to deal a telling stro.e home -here#er the enem$8s -ea.ness e!poses him. It is 'eca&se -e li#e in the midst of s&ch perple!ities, -here the -a$s are de#io&s, -here snares are laid for e#er$ footstep to entrap &s &na-ares, that -e re)&ire to 'e on o&r g&ard in a t-ofold -a$< first, '$ means of a life of grace< second, '$ means of an enlightened reason, -hich ma$ shine o&t o#er

o&r path as a g&ide to o&rsel#es and a 'eacon to others. In an especial manner is this a need in o&r co&ntr$, -here Li'eralism pretends to 'e the champion and g&ardian of nat&ral reason la$ing its snares to entrap the &n-ar$ and the ignorant. =/;G> Not in #iolence '&t in a treachero&s friendliness on the part of Li'eralism does the danger lie. A -ell instr&cted Catholic, -ho thoro&ghl$ comprehends the rational gro&nds of his faith and &nderstands the character of Li'eral tactics &nder o&r national conditions, can alone s&ccessf&ll$ cope -ith the enem$ front to front. ,ltramontanism is the onl$ con)&ering legion in this sort of -arfare. It is the #ang&ard of the arm$ to s&rprise the enem$ at his o-n am'&scade, to mine against his mine and e!pose him 'efore he has '&rro-ed &nder o&r o-n camp. ,ltramontanism is Catholicit$ intact, armed and capa'le. It is Catholicit$ consistent in all its parts, the logical concatenation of Catholic principles to their f&llest concl&sions in doctrine and practice. @ence the fierce and &nhol$ opposition -ith -hich it is constantl$ assailed. *he foe -ell .no-s that to ro&t the #ang&ard is to demorali?e the entire arm$. @ence their rage and f&r$ against the in#inci'le phalan! -hich al-a$s stands f&ll$ armed, sleeplessl$ #igilant and eternall$ &ncompromising. In this, a'o#e all other co&ntries, do Catholics need to 'e -atchf&l, constant and &nsha.en in their faith, for the disease of Li'eralism is #ir&lentl$ endemic. Its assa&lt is perpet&al, its -eapons in#isi'le, =/;D> sa#e to the enlightened e$e of a resol&te and &nda&nted faith. In E&rope, at least on the continent, Li'eralism is #iolent, aggressi#e, openl$ 'reathing its hatred and opposition. *here the -ar is open, here it is concealed< there the 'attlefield is the p&'lic arena in ci#ic and political life< here the contest is -ithin the social, '&siness and e#en domestic circle< there it is declared foe against declared foe, here it is friend against friend, e#en 'rother against 'rother and all the more dangero&s in res&lts 'eca&se friendl$, social or domestic relations end&re -itho&t in7&r$ amidst the str&ggle< dangero&s to the Catholic 'eca&se these #ario&s ties are so man$ em'arrassments to his free action, so man$ 'onds of affection or interest to enchain him. *herefore m&st he 'e all #igilant, therefore sho&ld his co&rage 'e great, his attit&de firm and his stand 'old< for -hile his circ&mstances ma.e him friendl$ to his foe, he m&st -age a deadl$ 'attle for his faith. @is tas. is do&'l$ diffic&lt, he m&st con)&er an enem$ -ho appears his dearest friend.