“From the Church, therefore, the State must receive the supreme moral rule, and consequently accept this Church and recognize it not as it pleases to conceive of it, but as God constituted it, respecting within it the rights and prerogatives that its divine Founder wished to bestow upon it. All this is perfectly self-evident and logical for anyone who acknowledges God.”
Fish Do Not Realize They Are Wet — Nor Do Most American Catholics Realize They Are Liberal
There’s an old saying that goes something like “a fish does not realize he is wet”. This metaphor has aptly been used to explain the relationship between American Catholics and Liberalism. It is true. How else to explain the enormous difficulty of telling a man that his whole culture, education and environment is saturated with a poisonous ideology that does not readily announce itself. In America, keep in mind, the paradigm is ostensibly split between “Liberals” and “Conservatives”,1 and “Democrats” and “Republicans”, yet all of whom share the same, fundamental principles: namely the skepticism of authority, the primacy of the individual good over the common good, the exaltation of human liberty beyond its proper limits, the denial of the supremacy of the natural law and finally, the decoupling of society from the Church and revealed religion.
As in the example of the fish, who has no frame of reference for being “dry”, the American Catholic often has little — or perhaps none — experience with sound (read orthodox) political philosophy, which is intrinsically anti-Liberal. The remedy, of course, is to introduce our good-willed Americans to the stark opposition between Catholic doctrine and liberal principles, which has only been made worse by the ongoing crisis in the Church caused by the Second Vatican Council.
In light of this, we can think of no better mind than that of Father Matteo Liberatore, whose writing against Liberalism and its conception of society will be the focus of this piece. As will hopefully become clear to the reader, in distinguishing between the systems of “Absolute Liberalism”, “Moderate Liberalism” and so-called “Catholic Liberalism”, the Jesuit philosopher reveals that the errors of each system differ really only in degree (all having denied the normative and Divine order that is the harmonious union of Church and State, the latter subordinated to the former) not kind — as many seem to think.
Father Liberatore’s Biography
Father Mattero Liberatore, S.J. (1810-1892) was a prominent Jesuit theologian, philosopher and co-founder of the storied publication, La Civiltà Cattolica “Catholic Civilization”.2 He was born in Salerno, Italy on the fourteenth of August, 1810. After progressing in his early studies, at the age of sixteen he would formally enter the Society of Jesus. Eleven years later, having completed his scholastic training, Father Liberatore would find himself appointed as a chair of philosophy, later holding a position teaching theology.
After the revolutionary upheavals in the middle of the nineteenth century, Liberatore was confronted with the dissemination of error and rationalistic thinking within circles of the Church. Undeterred, he committed himself to the principles of St. Thomas and began work on his own philosophical course as the only remedy to the problem. Fittingly, once Leo XIII had ascended to the papal throne years later, he would give recognition to Father Liberatore for playing a leading role in the much-needed scholastic reforms ushered in by the same Pope.
In 1850, along with Frs. Taparelli, Bresciani and Curci, Liberatore would found La Civiltà Cattolica, established at the behest of Pope Pius IX. For forty years he would contribute to its journal, considered a semi-official publication of the Holy See. In addition to prolific writing activity, of which he authored countless articles and published books, Father Liberatore committed himself to the care of many souls and performed his duties well. He recounted ministering to the sick as one of his greatest pleasures. At the end of his life, Father Liberatore gave a wonderful example of humility when, upon hearing a fellow priest observe his days were numbered, he responded by saying “Yes, and perhaps I shall have to remain in purgatory until the end of the world”. At the age of eighty-two, he died and went to receive his eternal reward, having previously received an Apostolic Benediction from Pope Leo XIII who held the Jesuit in high regard.
Key Insights
There are two ways of understanding this emancipation [of Church and State], depending on whether it is supported by absolute liberalism or moderate liberalism; to the latter are joined many who are Catholic at heart, if not in spirit, and who take the name of liberal Catholics. The first of these two liberalisms wants the aforementioned emancipation through supremacy on the part of the State; the second, through full independence from the Church; for liberal Catholics, they support mutual separation, not as a speculative truth, but as a practical method.
Circumstances forbid it, they [liberal Catholics] continue. That is another matter. If that is truly the consideration that motivates your actions, then adhere to it. Distinguish, as has been aptly stated, thesis from hypothesis. State clearly that the alliance of the State with the Church, and consequently harmony between the two powers, is necessary in itself and imposed by God’s plan, but that unfortunately the present world wants nothing to do with it. Praise, therefore, the alliance and deplore the blindness and malice of the world. But that is not what you are doing. On the contrary, you are advising the Church to sever, on its own initiative, all ties with the State, to claim no right to interfere in its affairs, to return to the bounds of the purely spiritual order; and you offer as your reason that the Church will be more advantageous for it!
The division of minds, it will be said, is also found in governments that are not liberal. This is true, but at least it does not erupt outwardly to spread its contagion to others, and in any case, it does not arise by virtue of the governmental system itself, but only as a result of human frailty. In liberal governments, nothing prevents it from spreading, and it arises from the system itself, which is, as we have seen, the inevitable consequence of the separation from the Church.
Now, without further ado, The Journal of American Reform is pleased to present the very first3 English translation of Father Matteo Liberatore’s expose of the Liberal conception of society, along with its radical inconsistencies and disastrous consequences.
CHAPTER I — THE LIBERAL CONCEPT
§ I. THE THREE FORMS OF THIS CONCEPT.
Emancipating the State from the Church is the watchword of contemporary liberalism.
There are two ways of understanding this emancipation, depending on whether it is supported by absolute liberalism or moderate liberalism; to the latter are joined many who are Catholic at heart, if not in spirit, and who take the name of liberal Catholics. The first of these two liberalisms wants the aforementioned emancipation through supremacy on the part of the State; the second, through full independence from the Church; for liberal Catholics, they support mutual separation, not as a speculative truth, but as a practical method.
Absolute liberalism conceives of the State as the highest point to which humanity rises in its social progress.
For him, the State has absolute power; no power is superior to it, none even equal to it or subject to it. It is the sovereign and universal power; nothing can resist it and everything must obey it. It is the law par excellence, the source of all other rights and supreme regulator of all human relations. In its presence, there is no inviolable right, individual or domestic, and certainly no sacred right of which any other society can boast. All rights are encompassed by public law; and of this, the State alone is promulgator and judge. Other, lesser rights derive from it by virtue of the law it sanctions, so that the laws of the State are the ultimate rule of human actions. And because society is not static but progressive, it follows that not a law, not a right, and not an institution is immutable, but that everything depends on the social will, which obeys progress; now, this will manifests itself through the public opinion of those in whom humanity progresses and becomes law through the representatives of the people in Parliaments.
On closer examination, this theory constitutes the spirit that more or less animates the constitutions of modern Europe, based on the famous principles of 1789. Faced with such a theory, the Church not only loses all its preeminence in relation to the State, but disappears entirely as a perfect and independent society. It remains at best a simple college like any other inferior civil association, subject to the State, deriving its moral existence from the State. And since it is the State that, at its discretion, grants the Church the enjoyment of public life, so too it is the State that determines and measures its rights, reserving control over them for itself. This is, for the Church, a condition in some respect inferior to that in which it was under the pagan emperors when they ceased their bloody persecutions.
Moderate liberals do not go to this extreme. They defend, not the supremacy, but the autonomy and full independence of the State, whether they want it as a compromise, or, to put it more accurately, whether they wish it as a transition. For them, the Church and the State form two completely free and separate societies, each with its own sphere. This they express with the formula: a free Church in a free State.
The end of the State, in their opinion, is in no way ordered to the end of the Church, and therefore the power of the one is in no way subordinate to the power of the other. Such subordination would lead to confusion. The State is entirely sui juris, master of its own actions, without any relation to the religious interests of its subjects. It is the State that makes its laws, without concern for anything else, and that demands their observance, whatever conflict there may be between them and canon law. What guides it in its decisions is solely political interest and the temporal prosperity of the people. At most, in the spirit of concord, the State may come to an understanding with the Church on certain points, concluding free pacts and agreements, dealing with it as an equal. These agreements and pacts cease to have effect with the changing times and circumstances, of which the State is the judge. The Church has no public rights properly speaking, and by itself it does not extend to the material order. As a spiritual society, it is restricted to the sole domain of inner conscience; externally, it can only enjoy the individual right of common liberty. Moreover, the duty of the State is to broaden the boundaries of this liberty as much as possible, for the benefit of all, making it full and complete in matters concerning worship, conscience, the press, education, associations — in short, all of human thought and action — provided, however, that public peace is not disturbed.
As we have said, a number of Catholics, even those with good hearts but misguided minds, are drawn to this system. They avoid discussing the reasons, but sticking to the concrete facts, they believe it is wiser and more beneficial for the Church to be completely separated from the State. They recall the damage it has suffered due to the servitude in which the princes of bygone eras attempted to hold it under the pretext of protection. They advise it to break this disastrous union and, relying solely on its moral strength, to neither request nor expect any assistance from civil power, nor to claim any further influence over any part of the political government. As for the liberties mentioned above, the Church, they say, can and should accept them without great concern. For they can only be beneficial, since nothing is more in accordance with human nature than the enjoyment of full political and religious freedom, having been shaken off the yoke of all servitude and constraint. Moreover, this is the universal tendency of modern society. To go against it is the act of a fool, and can only result in further alienating people from religion, to the great and irreparable detriment not only of civil society, but also of the Church. Thus speak these valiant apologists; and with a simplicity that delights us, they believe themselves to be the true seers, the true connoisseurs of the world, the most prudent, the true zealots of Catholic interests; and they unleash their fury upon those who contradict them, while nevertheless offering the obligatory panegyric of charity and moderation.
§ II. ABSURDITY OF ABSOLUTE LIBERALISM.
It is easy to see that absolute liberalism does not recognize the divinity of the Church; otherwise, how could it disregard in her the rights that her divine Founder was pleased to bestow upon her? It denies the supernatural order, it denies Christ by confining itself within the limits of pure rationalism. From this it follows that it condemns itself by his own unbelief and that it belongs to that reprobate world which the Redeemer excluded from the prayer he offered to his divine Father.4 Therefore, and without further discussion, it is not simply anti-Catholic, it is anti-Christian; impossible for any faithful person to profess it or adhere to it in any way. The question with regard to it is settled: qui non credit, jam judicatus est.5
Nevertheless, to make the ugliness of such a system understood even in the purely rational order, let us observe that it also denies the spirituality and immortality of the soul. And indeed, would it be possible for him to conceive of the State as a sovereign association if he did not limit the destiny of man to the sphere of purely organic and material life? Every society is defined by its end, and that which relates to the supreme end is the supreme society. Supposing, then, that man’s fate is not finished here below, but that immortal destinies are reserved for him beyond the grave, it is clear, even by the sole light of reason, that there can be no other supreme association than the religious association, that is to say, the one that leads and guides man to his ultimate and imperishable good. To maintain the contrary, one must make man the product of pure matter, destined to be resolved into matter. Only then can the State judge that the end of temporal prosperity, which it oversees, is the greatest of all human goods, and that nothing surpasses the limits of its sphere. And that is why the absolute liberal system is applauded not only by rationalists, but also by materialists. Moreover, in this system, the radical error, the source of all others, is precisely the negation of God. This explains why atheists and pantheists are its greatest promoters. If God is excluded or (which amounts to the same thing) if he is not distinguished from the world, it becomes perfectly clear that the highest power in the universe is man, but man enlarged within society, I mean man who develops within multiplicity, who is governed within the community. Such a man, according to atheism, is the ultimate perfection to which un-produced matter reaches. Consequently, he will be absolutely master of himself and will dictate to himself, as to those who depend on him, the rules of what he sees fit to call good or evil, just or unjust. On the contrary, once God is acknowledged, God alone will be the absolute Lord and absolute lawgiver of the universe, as He is its creator. Consequently, humanity, society, and power will see themselves only as creatures of God, who thereby receive from Him the end and the rule of all honest activity. It will therefore not be the State, nor public opinion, nor the whims of progress, but rather the immutable principles of morality and justice dictated by God and engraved by Him in the minds of His creatures that will be the supreme measure of human actions in both private and public life. The State will understand that it is a subordinate sovereignty, that it fulfills the role of minister to a higher sovereignty, and that it must guide the people according to the will of God, to whom it is itself subject.
Listen to me, kings, and hear; judges of the earth, learn. Give me your ear, you who rule the multitudes and who delight to see nations subjugated to your empire! It is the Lord who has given you power, and your strength comes from the Most High, who will examine your works and search your thoughts. As ministers of his kingdom, you have not judged with rectitude, and you have not kept the laws of justice, and you have not walked according to the will of God. You will soon see it, and in a terrible way, there will be a very harsh judgment executed against those who command. For the weak will be shown mercy, but the powerful will be mightily tormented.6
Such, according to the Holy Scriptures, is the idea of power. It is quite different from a prince, the first and last source of law! These divine words show us in the government a mere minister applying a law it receives; and if it deviates from it, what is due to it is not the obedience of its subjects, but on the contrary, a terrible punishment that will come to it from its Lord. And since God, the free orderer of things, is not bound to make His will known to us solely through the natural means of reason, but can also manifest it to us, which He has indeed done, through the supernatural means of positive revelation, the State is obliged to conform to the latter as well in the governance of peoples and to seek it precisely there where God has placed it. Now, God has placed it in His Church. From the Church, therefore, the State must receive the supreme moral rule, and consequently accept this Church and recognize it not as it pleases to conceive of it, but as God constituted it, respecting within it the rights and prerogatives that its divine Founder wished to bestow upon it. All this is perfectly self-evident and logical for anyone who acknowledges God. Absolute liberalism cannot therefore deny it without relying on the negation of God. But this is precisely what condemns it irrevocably in the eyes of Catholics as well as all those who have not yet completely lost their reason.
§ III. ABSURDITY OF MODERATE LIBERALISM.
Moderate liberalism, at least according to its interpretation, does not seek the supremacy of the State, but its complete independence from the Church. It does not deny the supernatural order; it merely abstracts from it and excludes it from the political governance of societies. Nevertheless, although less repellent, it is just as absurd as absolute liberalism, for while the latter is founded on atheism, the former is founded on dualism. It does not deny the existence of God, but it denies His unity. And this was very aptly noted by Pope Boniface VIII in his famous bull Unam Sanctam, where he reproaches the proponents of the absolute autonomy of the State for supposing that there are two first principles in the world. Thus, liberals of this class could very well be called new Manicheans.
Assuredly, if one is the creator of the Church and another the creator of the State, if man is ordered to civil life by one principle and to religious life by another principle, it is perfectly natural that the two ends should be separate, just as the two powers that lead to them are also separate. However, since in such a hypothesis the subject subjected to both directions is identical, one could, to avoid the conflict of two opposing impulses that would paralyze the movement, introduce a freely concluded agreement between the two driving forces, by way of reciprocal concessions, much like in Manichaeism where, according to some, the good principle and the evil principle came to a kind of treaty so that the effects of one would not be entirely destroyed by those of the other. On the contrary, if all creation has only one principle, as reason and faith teach us, unus est altissimus Creator omnipotens,7 the liberal system, however moderate one might wish, cannot stand. Yes. God is one, one is the order of the universe, one is the ultimate end of creation. This end, in relation to the One who orders things, must be the most sublime and the most advantageous for the things that are ordered, which can only be the glorification of God and the eternal beatitude of rational beings. Now, this is precisely the end toward which the Church leads. The Church is therefore not simply a perfect society (how could a society that leads to the most perfect good not be perfect?), but it is also a supreme society above all others, its end being supreme. And every other lower end must be subordinated to this end, if it is true that secondary goods, in relation to the supreme good, have the nature of means, and that means are subordinate to the end. It follows from this with irresistible clarity that every society must submit to the Church and to receive from her both rule and direction. So, however much one may exalt the State and exaggerate its perfection, there is one thing that cannot be denied: its subordination to the Church, unless, of course, one wishes to transform the State itself into the Church and the prince into a Pontiff. But then one would have to adhere to the flawed doctrine of Anglicanism or the Russian schism and prove that it was not to Peter, but to Tiberius, that Christ spoke these words of the Gospel: Feed my sheep, I establish you as the foundation of my Church.
And it is useless to invoke the diversity of the two orders, one temporal and the other spiritual. This diversity entails for the State a relative independence, but by no means an absolute one. This is all it can do: that in matters which, in themselves and directly, relate exclusively to the well-being of present life, such as finance, the army, commerce, public peace, and international relations, the State may act of its own volition and as supreme power. But in no way can it prevent the State, in matters which, in themselves and directly, concern piety, justice, and morals, from conforming to the precepts of the Church; and that, moreover, in matters which are, as we have said, within its competence, it has the negative duty of doing nothing that would be detrimental to the morality of his subjects and to the worship due to God.
Should the opposite occur, it is evident that the Church has the right to correct and annul all unjust and immoral provisions that may have been made in the temporal order itself, this being absolutely required for there to be harmony between the two orders in the movement they impart to the one and identical moral body, to the identical and one society subject to both.
This dependence, it is said, produces confusion; it is the phantom brandished by the adversaries. But to demonstrate its puerility, no lengthy reasoning is needed. Is there a confusion between domestic society and civil society because the former, autonomous and independent as it is within its sphere, is subordinate to the latter? And yet the two ends are much closer to one another, since they are both contained within the natural order. There is confusion between two different terms only when one loses its nature to take on that of the other. Just as for there to be confusion between the soul and the body, it is necessary either to materialize the former or to spiritualize the latter. It follows from this that there would be a confusion between Church and State if the Church were subordinate to the State, this being impossible without causing the Church to lose its supernatural character and without reducing its purpose to the mere interests of this present life. But no confusion arises from the subordination of the State to the Church. The reason is that such subordination does not distort either term; it merely links them together by virtue of a relationship that is in its proper order. Let us again use the example of the soul and the body. Does the body become one with the soul because it is subordinate to it? This would be the case if, through such subordination, the body were transformed into a faculty of the soul. Similarly, the State would become one with the Church if, renouncing all earthly goods, civil society became a religious convent, and if all that remained for political power was to execute the Bishop’s orders.
But is this what we are defending? Is it even a feasible hypothesis? Aside from the sanctity of the Church and its position in the world — a sanctity and position that are a guarantee against such a reversal of ideas and such an usurpation of rights — human nature itself presents an insurmountable obstacle. Whatever one might say to make this life serve the acquisition of the afterlife, it will never happen that society (far from sinning excessively in this respect) is generally speaking in its normal state, so great is the tendency of our corrupt nature toward sensible goods. Imagine if it were to be feared that all men would become hermits! Political power, for its part, is so naturally invasive that it is a miracle to be able to prevent it from usurping the rights of others, so far is it from allowing itself to be deprived of its own. Moreover, the danger of abuse is never a good argument for excluding custom, especially when custom is imposed by nature, and without it it is impossible for the individual to perform even the acts proper to them.
And this is precisely our case. Separated from the Church, the State can no longer, as it should, achieve the very end of civil society. It is forced to grant the freedoms we discussed earlier, and these freedoms are greatly at odds with the idea of society and government. The State, by itself, is not the judge of matters concerning religion. Therefore, separated from the Church, which, through Christ, is the infallible promulgator of truth, it cannot dispense with granting freedom of worship. The State is not even a good judge of morality. Therefore, if it is not assisted by the Church, it must grant freedom of conscience and the right to follow any doctrine that does not, at first glance, contradict the teaching of the first principles of reason. And on what grounds would the State rely to further restrict this freedom? On science and natural philosophy? But philosophers, with a greater right than princes, could teach both. Shall we then consult the philosophers? But, besides the fact that philosophers themselves often disagree, who would give them the right to impose their own ideas on all other minds? That God can command the minds of his creatures is an indisputable thing. That He should exercise this right through a visible authority that He Himself established and to which He promised his support so that it would never fail — there is nothing in this that is not reasonable and perfectly in accordance with the needs of humanity. But that this same right should be devolved to a man simply because he is, or believes himself to be, more learned than others — this is something no one will accept, especially those who, rightly or wrongly, are convinced they can rival him. The separation of Church and State being accepted, every citizen must be free to say and do whatever he pleases, up to the point beyond which he would violate the first principles of reason and the first precepts of synderesis.
But then, does the idea of human society and of a political leader still exist? Anyone who is led by the delusions of modern rationalism will answer no. But indeed, the social state is given to the individual as an aid to achieving their earthly destiny, and the principal and essential element of this destiny is, without a doubt, moral integrity: Virtuosa vita est congregationis humanæ finis, says Saint Thomas.8 And he gives as his reason that the same judgment must be made on the end of the multitude as on the end of the individual, the multitude being nothing but the individual enlarged by their union with others. Idem judicium oportet esse de fine totius multitudinis et unius.9 If, therefore, virtue is the end of the individual, the principal end of the associated multitude can only be virtue. But in what way does the prince achieve this end, if, except in the fundamental principles of truth and honesty, he gives free rein to all moral disorders in everything else? And this flaw grows even greater if one fully accepts the liberal system in which it is established as a principle that the prince has no business concerning himself with moral order and that only one thing falls to him: the concern for material order. According to this system, the one who governs must no longer remember that he is a man and that he has a society of men to lead, since it is impossible to separate in man the material order from his relationship to the moral order, just as it is impossible to separate in him, as long as he remains a man, the body from the soul.
The same must be said of the idea of society. It entails a union of efforts to achieve the common end. Now, just as the external act is performed under the sway of free will, so too is free will moved by the good that intelligence proposes to it. Consequently, the union of men is not human if, along with the union of bodies, there is not also that of intellects, and if unity of action is not accompanied by unity of will and feeling. But how is this unity possible when the very system tends toward the division of thoughts and affections, through the freedom it grants to profess and inculcate any doctrine, to follow and endorse any tendency? And experience demonstrates this with undeniable fact; in full view of everyone, in states that enjoy a liberal constitution, disagreements, dissensions, parties, and hatreds divide the same nation, the same people, so thoroughly that one can truly say of them that:
And those enclosed within a single wall and moat are gnawing on each other.10
It suffices to look at a Parliament where the cream of liberalism resides to see the concord that this theory is capable of producing. And while in Parliaments the manifestation of this disagreement hardly goes beyond verbal violence, in the masses raised according to liberal principles it escalates to far more deplorable acts that sometimes have to be repressed with bloodshed. Is this peace, the principal end of the institution of civil society?
The division of minds, it will be said, is also found in governments that are not liberal. This is true, but at least it does not erupt outwardly to spread its contagion to others, and in any case, it does not arise by virtue of the governmental system itself, but only as a result of human frailty. In liberal governments, nothing prevents it from spreading, and it arises from the system itself, which is, as we have seen, the inevitable consequence of the separation from the Church.
§ IV. ABSURDITY OF THE LIBERAL CATHOLIC SYSTEM.
The radical vice of liberal Catholics is inconsistency. This is clear from what has been said so far, for if liberalism itself, understood in a moderate sense, is a heterodox doctrine, there is an obvious and solemn contradiction in wanting to adhere to it and at the same time profess orthodoxy. Liberal Catholics reject Manichaeism in principle, but they approve of it in practice; they exclude it from the cause, but they introduce it into the effect. This will not hurt to clarify a little further.
And first of all, their inconsistency appears in that they want to abstract from the principles they insultingly call abstract principles.
But are these principles true, yes or no? They cannot deny that they are, unless they renounce Catholicism, since in the final analysis these principles reduce to truths of faith, such as these: the natural order must be subordinate to the supernatural order, nature to grace, the present life to the future life. And since these truths are true not only for the individual, but for humankind in whatever state it may be, one can easily see the consequence that follows with regard to the social order. Catholic liberals (at least the majority) admit this consequence in itself, only they do not want it applied.
But good heavens! Are these not practical truths, that is to say, intended to regulate our actions? And can one, without inconsistency, admit a truth intended to regulate our actions, and not want it to actually regulate them?
Circumstances forbid it, they continue. That is another matter. If that is truly the consideration that motivates your actions, then adhere to it. Distinguish, as has been aptly stated, thesis from hypothesis. State clearly that the alliance of the State with the Church, and consequently harmony between the two powers, is necessary in itself and imposed by God’s plan, but that unfortunately the present world wants nothing to do with it. Praise, therefore, the alliance and deplore the blindness and malice of the world. But that is not what you are doing. On the contrary, you are advising the Church to sever, on its own initiative, all ties with the State, to claim no right to interfere in its affairs, to return to the bounds of the purely spiritual order; and you offer as your reason that the Church will be more advantageous for it!
Here we see a new contradiction. How, indeed, can it be more advantageous to do the opposite of what is in the divine plan? Or must we deny that the agreement between Church and State is God’s will (and then we are back to the negation of principles), or it must be argued that it is more advantageous for Church and State to carry out the divine plan, and that not being able to do so in given circumstances is an evil that can be deplored, but should never be praised and much less advised.
But how many evils the Church has had to suffer at the hands of the princes who made themselves its protectors! Let us recall its struggles with the emperors of Byzantium, the Caesars of Germany, the kings of France, Spain, and others! Very well; such is the commonplace that one never tires of invoking. But what does it prove? Only one thing: the efforts of depraved man to corrupt the work of God. But because man tries to corrupt the work of God, must we therefore disregard it or abandon it? First, the objection raised is flawed by incomplete enumeration; indeed, it only considers the evil and does not see the good; it only reports the evils mixed with the good, and does not speak of the considerable goods that remained and covered the evil. If sometimes the protection of princes degenerated into oppression, most often it was a aid and support for the Church. Then the objection errs by lack of comparison. For if it were a matter of weighing the evils that princes inflicted upon the Church and those that liberals are currently inflicting upon it, we do not know which way the scales would tip. Let us not speak of Italy where the political system is absolute liberalism; do we not have some other country where the liberalism implanted by a Catholic majority appears to have all those temperaments, all those prudent reservations that are supposed to ensure its alleged benefit, and where despite this the Church receives such grave wounds that one does not know where they will lead in the more or less near future? Finally, the argument errs by false consequence. Indeed, from the fact that abuses are introduced into a system which is necessary in itself and prescribed by God, it follows only that we must do everything to separate good from evil, but by no means that we must reject both in order to turn to another system which is criminal in itself and contrary to the divine plan.
This last point, they finally argue, while desirable, is no longer possible; the world is averse to it, and persisting in supporting it would only serve to inflame passions and increase aversion to the Church. It would be wiser, as the saying goes, to make the best of a necessity, and, by accepting a state of affairs we cannot eliminate, to prevent total ruin. Such is the central argument of the opponents. However, in this way, liberal Catholics, in our view, fall into unparalleled inconsistency, since they completely miss the point. The question here is not whether, given the world’s ill will, we should be patient and try to make the best of it, but whether it is appropriate to approve of such a social condition and to support it with our efforts. In the first three centuries, too, the persecuted Church had to live as best it could, but was that a state of affairs to be glorified, and should we strive to make it permanent? We know full well that the world is sick and is rushing headlong toward its destruction. But that is precisely why it must be cured, and through persuasion and action, brought to reflection. To favor its desires in such a case, to flatter its foolish aims, is to betray it. What would you say of a doctor who, so as not to irritate his patient, allowed his wounds to fester? You would accuse him of cruel and misguided pity. And if this doctor were to further maintain that this regimen, fatal according to the rules of medicine, is nevertheless beneficial in practice, given the patient’s wishes, would you not think he had lost his mind?
END.
CONSIDER SUPPORTING THE JOURNAL OF AMERICAN REFORM!
As I intend to devote more and more time to this political project, I want to continue to provide free, educational material, whether visual (graphics) or written (essays, translations and a forthcoming book) content. If you have benefited from my work in any way, kindly consider supporting The Journal financially. On a personal note, I am married and duty-bound to provide for my family, so any help, big or small, is appreciated. Subscribe or make a one-time donation.
Regardless, the production of free material will continue, hopefully with ever-increasing quality, and I will keep all my subscribers notified of my plans.
In addition to Substack, the home of The Journal, my work, graphics and commentary can be found on the following platforms:
X: @AmericanReform_
Telegram: @American_Reform
In question here is “Conservative” understood as an ideology (i.e. the American system of philosophy which is a more moderate expression of European or continental liberalism) which is distinct from the legitimate disposition of a “conservative” man.
The principal facts of this biography are taken from a 1892 article (vol. 7, July - December) in the American Ecclesiastical Review, which is based in turn on an article (serie. 15, vol. 4) from La Civiltà Cattolica of the same year.
To our knowledge, this is the very first time this text has been translated into English from the 1877 French edition.
Non pro mundo rogo. — John, XVII, 9.
John III, 18.
Andite ergo, reges, et intelligite ; discite, judices finium terrœ. Prœbete aures, vos, qui continetis multitudines et placetis vobis in turbis nationum. Quoniam data est a Domino potestas vobis, et virtus ab Altissimo; qui interrogabit opéra vestra, et cogitationes scrutabitur. Quoniam cum essetis ministri regni illius, non recte judicastis, nec custodistis legem justitiœ , neque secundum voluntatem Dei ambulastis. Horrende et cito apparebit vobis, quoniam judicium durissimum his quiprœsunt, fiet. Exiguo enim conceditur miser icordia; potentes autem potenter tormenta patientur. — Wisdom of Solomon, VI, 2-8.
Ecclesiastes, I, 8.
St. Thomas, De Regimine Principum, XIV.
Ibid., l. c.
Dante, Purgatorio, VI.
Excellent translation work on Liberatore's distinciton between absolute and moderate liberalism. The Manichaean comparison is sharp, how modern political theory assumes two autonomous spheres with no hierarchical ordering. Back when I studied political philosphy, few people grasped how this presumed dualism creates practical incoherence. Liberatore nails it in showing that separate spheres lead inevitably to state supremacy anyway.