On Indifferentism and Liberalism, and the Opposite Doctrine of the Church — Garrigou-Lagrange, 1926
Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., masterfully dissects the diverse principles of indifferentism and liberalism, contrasting them with true philosophy and Catholic doctrine
“Liberalism […] defends the civil liberty of every cult, as a condition of society not in itself disordered, but conforming to reason and the spirit of the Gospel, and as most useful. For although liberal Catholics admit that the Catholic Church was divinely instituted, they teach that full liberty must be granted to it, but that nothing more is owed to it.”
Editors’ Introduction
For those interested in the great renewal of scholasticism, ushered in the with the pontificate of Pope Leo XIII in Aeterni Patris, few names are as recognizable in the 20th century as Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange. He was a French Dominican theologian and philosopher, who taught at the Pontifical University of St. Thomas for fifty years, instructing from the years 1909-1959. In an attempt to make his writing more known, particularly to an English speaking audience, we are publishing a translated section of his manual on Divine Revelation. The third edition, which can be viewed below, was published in Latin in 1926. As for theological and philosophical manuals more broadly, as modern Catholics ought to realize, they are the antidote, in many ways, to the present crisis in the Church.
While others have focused on the spiritual and theological excellence of Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, which should not be overlooked, we would like to highlight something else, namely his political intuitions. Chief among them, understanding the importance of combating liberalism in the practical order. Doubtless, this was simply the application of Catholic orthodoxy to the complex circumstances of the 20th century, meaning Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange found himself on the side of the illiberal and anti-democratic powers.
The best example of this was his strong support of Marshal Philippe Pétain who, in cooperation with the German National Socialists, had overcome political liberalism in France. A force which had nearly destroyed both French and German life. With the success of the Vichy regime, the ideas of family, tradition and the fatherland had supplanted the revolutionary principles of liberty, fraternity and equality, much to the disdain of the enemies of the Church. As for the Church, she was liberated as the anti-Catholic laws of the French Third Republic were abolished under Pétain. Understanding these healthy developments, along with the importance of cooperation with Germany, Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange famously had a falling out with his friend Jacques Maritain, over the latter’s support of the “Free France” resistance movement. In an letter to Maritain, he would state that choosing to support its leader, Charles de Gaulle, was mortally sinful.1
In his day, Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange made all the right theological enemies as well, including the proponents of the Nouvelle théologie “New Theology”. This group, whose ideas and departure from submission to the ecclesiastical magisterium were reproved in Pope Pius XII’s 1950 encyclical letter, Humani Generis, were identified as heterodox or tending in that direction fourteen years prior in his landmark “Where is the New Theology Leading Us?”.
Now, without further ado, The Journal of American Reform is pleased to present this important text from Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange.
ART. I. — ON INDIFFERENTISM AND LIBERALISM AND THE OPPOSITE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH.
I. On absolute Indifferentism, and Secularism, which denies the necessity of any religion, even natural.
II. On mitigated indifferentism or latitudinarianism, according to which all religions, or at least all forms of Christianity, are good and provide the way to salvation.
III. On Liberalism, which defends the civil freedom of any cult whatsoever as much as it is convenient to reason and the Christian spirit.
§ I. On Absolute indifferentism.
— This doctrine denies the necessity of any religion, even natural. It is expressed in the 3rd condemned proposition of the Syllabus of Pius IX: “Human reason, without any reference whatsoever to God, is the sole arbiter of truth and falsehood, and of good and evil; it is law to itself, and suffices, by its natural force, to secure the welfare of men and of nations”. Denz., 1703.
This absolute indifferentism proceeds either from atheism, or from pantheism, or from agnosticism. For if God does not exist, or is not distinguished from the world, or if nothing certain can be known about Him, there can be no duties towards Him. But those who, like many Deists, admit the existence of God, but deny that divine Providence extends to singulars, contend that God cares not at all for our duties, and consequently neglect religion as an indifferent and useless thing.
What then is religion for these people? It is, like art, something proceeding rather from the imagination of men than from reason; therefore, even if it was once necessary, and is always useful for some as a stimulus to action, it is opposed to the progress of the sciences, unless it is subordinated to Science itself, as a symbolic conception of the Absolute, which cannot prove its truth. For many, religion, which they identify with mysticism, is an ornament (a luxury) for some souls, like poetic art.
This is how absolute evolutionists generally feel, although they explain this general notion in different ways, depending on whether they are materialists like Haeckel or idealists like Hegel.2
Agnostics offer a similar explanation of religion, whether in an empirical form, like the positivists,3 or in an idealistic form, like Kant. Kant indeed said: the existence of God and the future life must be believed with moral faith; but he denied special duties towards God and the necessity of worship. According to him, man should only fulfill all moral duties towards himself and other men religiously.4 For God, as he says, did not create us for His own glory, this would be divine egoism. This last proposition, admitted by Hermes and Gunther, was condemned in the Vatican Council, Denz., 1805, 1783.5
Modern secularism establishes the practical application of these principles, indeed it establishes the religion of irreligion as obligatory for society and the state. The fundamental principle of secularism is the absolute autonomy of human reason and will; “human reason is so independent that faith cannot be imposed on it by God”,6 as Kant7 said and secularists profess today, e.g. Ferd. Buisson in his book: La foi laïque.8
Cf. what we said above 1. I, sect. II, ch. VII, VIII, IX on the foundation, spirit and consequences of naturalism; on evolutionism, on agnosticism.
§ II. Mitigated indifferentism or latitudinarianism.
— This form of indifferentism admits certain duties towards God and the necessity of at least some internal worship; but it holds that everyone is free to profess whatever positive religion they please. There is great variety in this category.
1° Some, even though they admit the necessity of natural religion, diminish its essential functions: they deny the usefulness and efficacy of prayer, since it is neither fitting for God nor for man;9 or they reject the necessity of external and public worship, because God wishes to be worshipped in spirit and truth. Likewise, they reject positive religions.
2° According to others, positive religions can be admitted, but among them, e.g. between Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, everyone is allowed to choose the worship he pleases. (Thus Rousseau, Emile: Profession of faith of the Savoyard vicar).
This doctrine is formulated as follows in the Syllabus of Pius IX (Denz., 1715-1716): “Every person is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he considers to be true. — In the worship of any religion, people can find the path to eternal salvation and achieve eternal salvation”.
Editor’s Note, compare this moderated form of indifferentism with the official teachings of John Paul II in Redemptor Hominis (no. 17) and Benedict XVI in Ecclesia in Medio Oriente (para. 26), respectively:
— “These rights are rightly reckoned to include the right to religious freedom together with the right to freedom of conscience. The Second Vatican Council considered especially necessary the preparation of a fairly long declaration on this subject… Certainly the curtailment of the religious freedom of individuals and communities is not only a painful experience but it is above all an attack on man’s very dignity, independently of the religion professed or of the concept of the world which these individuals and communities have.”
— “Religious freedom is the pinnacle of all other freedoms. It is a sacred and inalienable right. It includes on the individual and collective levels the freedom to follow one’s conscience in religious matters and, at the same time, freedom of worship. It includes the freedom to choose the religion which one judges to be true and to manifest one’s beliefs in public. [citation for Dignitatis Humanæ nos. 6-8, along with other conciliar documents]. It must be possible to profess and freely manifest one’s religion and its symbols without endangering one’s life and personal freedom.”
A fuller examination, in light of Catholic doctrine, on religious freedom as formulated at the Second Vatican Council can be seen here: Vatican II’s Dignitatis Humanæ, Substantial Continuity or Rupture?
Lamennais arrived at this indifferentism:10 “any profession of faith can bring eternal salvation to the soul, if morals are required according to the norm of right and honesty”, cf. Denz., 1613, 1617. (See the examination of the system of F. de Lamennais by P. Lacordaire).11
More recently, modernists, who place religion in a religious sense, more or less assert that all religions are true, for the natural religious sense is at least substantially the same everywhere (Denz., 2082).
3° Others finally say: it is sufficient to embrace Christianity, without professing Catholicism. Cf. Syllabus of Pius IX (Denz., 1717-1718), “At least we should hope well for the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. —Protestantism is nothing other than a different form of the same true Christian religion, in which it is given to please God just as in the Catholic Church”. Cf. also (Denz., 1642... 1677).
§ III. Liberalism.
As distinguished from the indifferentism explained above, liberalism, which was accepted by liberal Catholics, the disciples of F. de Lamennais, defends the civil liberty of every cult, as a condition of society not in itself disordered, but conforming to reason and the spirit of the Gospel, and as most useful. For although liberal Catholics admit that the Catholic Church was divinely instituted, they teach that full liberty must be granted to it, but that nothing more is owed to it. “For true religion, as they say, will be propagated and flourished by persuasion alone; let many embrace it, and indeed with the greater liberty, and therefore with the greater trust and love, the less coercion there will be, since truth always prevails over error.”
The Church says: “But what worse death for the soul than freedom to error?... As human nature, inclined towards evil, is already falling headlong...”, Denz., 1614. For not all, nor even most, men are worshippers of truth and virtue. And if the freedom to teach errors, which flatter lusts or pride, is granted, a large part of men will not be able to find the saving truth without great difficulty.12
Here liberalism can be defined: the doctrine according to which civil and social authority is not bound to accept a sufficiently proposed divine revelation, but can remain neutral between true and false religions, without submission to divine positive laws revealed supernaturally. It is a form of social naturalism: temporal society is not bound to subordinate its proximate end to a supernatural end.13
The history of liberalism and its condemnations is divided into three periods.14
First Period. — Félicité de Lamennais and his students founded the journal L’Avenir in 1830, in defense of the rights of the Church. He proposed the separation of the Church from the state, as the most useful for the liberation of the Church, and defended civil liberty of any cult as an opportune means of reconciling science with faith.
Gregory XVI in his Encyclical Mirari vos, 15 Aug. 1832 (Denz., 1613-6), condemned this doctrine as preparing the way for indifferentism: “To this most pestilent error, indeed, the way is paved by that full and immoderate freedom of opinions, which widely infringes upon sacred and civil matters, while some, with the utmost impudence, declare that something of that benefit flows into religion. But what worse death of the soul than freedom of error? asked Augustine (Ep., 166). For when every bridle is taken away, by which men are kept in the paths of truth..., we truly say that the well of the abyss is opened... It is the proud, or rather foolish, man to examine the mysteries of faith, which surpass all sense, with human weights and to trust to the reason of our mind, which is weak and feeble by the condition of human nature”.
The disciples of F. Lamennais submitted themselves with perfect faith.15 Lamennais first subjected himself to condemnation, but later he sharply attacked the Church, teaching freedom of conscience in every way in the book Words of a Believer.16 He was condemned again in 1834 (Denz., 1617). He died in Paris, without any sign of retraction, on 27 Feb. 1854.
Second Period. — This begins after the revolution of 1848. Many liberal Catholics, in order to protect the freedom of the Church, deviated from the direction of the Encyclical “Mirari vos”. Theology professor Godard, in his book “The Principles of ‘89 and Catholic Doctrine” (1861), intended to reconcile these principles with Catholicism, but was condemned by the Sacred Congregation of the Index. And after the speech of the Count de Montalembert at the congress of Mechliniae in 1863, Pius IX condemned liberalism again, 8 Dec. 1864, in the Encyclical Quanta cura (Denz., 1689). He rejects, as an application of naturalism, the doctrine of those who hold: “the best public society and civil progress require absolutely that human society be constituted and governed without any habit of respecting religion, as if it did not exist, or at least without any fact of true discrimination between false religions”. And, adds Pius IX, they do not hesitate to assert, contrary to the teaching of the sacred Scriptures, the Church and the holy Fathers, that “the best condition of society is one in which the government does not recognize the duty of punishing violators of the Catholic religion with sanctioned punishments, unless public peace requires it. From which completely false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion... namely that “freedom of conscience and worship is the proper right of every man, which must be proclaimed and asserted by law...”. While, indeed, concludes Pius IX, they rashly affirm, do not think and consider, that they preach freedom of perdition” (Denz., 1690).
Editor’s Note, compare with Diginitas Humanæ (nos. 2 & 4):
— “Therefore the right to religious freedom has its foundation not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature. In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed.”
— “Provided the just demands of public order are observed, religious communities rightfully claim freedom in order that they may govern themselves according to their own norms, honor the Supreme Being in public worship, assist their members in the practice of the religious life, strengthen them by instruction, and promote institutions in which they may join together for the purpose of ordering their own lives in accordance with their religious principles… Religious communities also have the right not to be hindered in their public teaching and witness to their faith, whether by the spoken or by the written word.”
Simultaneously with this Encyclical, the Syllabus of Pius IX, or collection of modern errors, was published, which contains several liberal propositions (cf. Denz., 1724, 1755, 1777-1780): “In this age it is no longer expedient to have the Catholic religion as the only state religion, excluding all other cults. Indeed, it is false that the civil liberty of any cult... leads to the easier corruption of the morals and spirits of the people and the propagation of the pestilence of indifference”17.
Third Period. — After the Encyclical “Quanta cura”, for several years Liberalism no longer seems to exist as a doctrine, but remains as a tendency. Therefore Leo XIII, in the Encyclical Immortale Dei 1st Nov. 1885, confirms and cites the Encyclicals “Mirari vos” and “Quanta cura” and the Syllabus (Denz., 1867...) and at the same time explains what legitimate freedom is, and how false religions can be tolerated to avoid a greater evil: “Indeed, if the Church judges that the various types of divine worship are not permitted by the same right as true religion, she does not for that reason condemn those administrators of public affairs who, for the sake of achieving some great good or preventing some evil, patiently tolerate them in their manners and practice, so that each one has a place in the city. — And the Church is also accustomed to be very careful that no one is forced to embrace the Catholic faith against his will, because, as Augustine wisely warns: a man cannot believe unless he wants to... Regarding those things which are called liberties, which have been sought in recent times, the Apostolic See must stand in judgment, and what it has decided, each person must decide the same. We must be careful not to be deceived by the honest appearance of them... It is already sufficiently known by experience what effects they have in the commonwealth” (Denz., 1874-1880). For in liberalism there is a deceptive appearance of charity towards unbelievers. But adulteration of the greatest virtue is always something grave in itself and in its countless consequences, for it constitutes a false spirit.
Likewise, Leo XIII, in his Encyclical Libertas 20 Jun. 1888 (Denz., 1932), insists again: “From what has been said, it follows that it is by no means permissible to demand, defend, or grant freedom of thought, writing, teaching, and also a promiscuous freedom of religion, as if it were so many rights that nature has given to man. For if nature had truly given it, the government of God would have been a right to be rejected, nor could human freedom be tempered by any law”. — The entire Encyclical should be read carefully, as regards this question, in which it is said: “In fact, what the Naturalists or Rationalists regard in philosophy, the supporters of Liberalism regard in moral and civil matters, who apply the principles laid down by the Naturalists to the morals and actions of life… :18 in public affairs it is permissible to depart from the commands of God, nor to look to them in any way in the making of laws”.19 Against which Leo XIII said: “Civil society, because it is a society, must necessarily acknowledge God as its parent and author, and fear and worship His power and authority. Therefore, justice forbids, and reason itself forbids, the State to be atheistic; or to adopt a line of action which would end in godlessness — namely, to treat the various religions alike, and to bestow upon them promiscuously equal rights and privileges.…20 And in such a display of tolerance, it is very often the case that supporters of Liberalism are restricted from being tenacious in the Catholic cause.21 Leo XIII opposes this doctrine to the saying of Jesus Christ: “You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”22
Finally, liberalism reappeared among Catholics as a doctrine among the modernists, and was condemned again by Pius X in the Encyclical Pascendi (Denz., 2093), in letters about the social errors of the association called “Le Sillon” 25 Aug. 1910, and previously also in the Encyclical “Vehementer nos” (Denz., 1995).
This doctrine of liberalism is therefore reduced to this: Civil and social authority in passing laws or decrees is not bound to observe conformity to divine laws supernaturally revealed; nor is civil liberty inordinate for any true or false worship. This principle of liberalism is found in the famous French Declaration of the Rights of Man.23
The condemnation of liberalism is nothing other than, according to the Church, the application of the first principles of reason or faith, since freedom for error cannot be something right or ordered, but is freedom from perdition, as St. Augustine said.24 This has always been taught by the Supreme Pontiffs, e.g. Boniface VIII, in the bull “Unam sanctam” (Denz., 469), Martin V, in the condemnation of the errors of John Hus and Wycliffe (Denz., 640-682). Likewise, Leo X, condemning “ex cathedra” the errors of Martin Luther, among which is the 33rd: “Heretics are burned against the will of the Spirit”25 (Denz., 773).
From these various condemnations the judgment of the Church is made manifest. Indifferentism (which is also often called liberalism) is a heresy against the dogma (that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church) (Denz., 468, 714, 1646). —Liberalism, however, as it was admitted by liberal Catholics, as distinct from indifferentism, if it is not a heresy, is a theological error,26 and is listed by Pius IX among the doctrines which, as he himself says, “we wish and command to be absolutely rejected, proscribed and condemned by all the sons of the Catholic Church” (Denz., 1699). For it is against the necessary and certain application of the principles of faith, and indeed of reason.
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
Peddicord, Richard, The Sacred Monster of Thomism, (2004), pg. 99.
Cf. above, 1. I, c. VIII, on pantheistic evolution, as to religious philosophy. Spinoza held that religion is a fiction of the imagination, according to which God is conceived as a person distinct from the world, as Provident and Rewarder. Fichte, equally rejecting the existence of a personal God, said: religion should be nothing else than rational faith in the existence of a moral world, which we should piously and freely prefer to the sensible order. For Hegel, religion is a symbolic or imaginative conception of the Absolute, which paves the way for a philosophical conception. Schopenhauer and Hartmann treat of religion in the chapter on illusions.
Cf. above, 1. I, c. IX, on empirical or idealistic Agnosticism in relation to religious philosophy. Positivists are divided among themselves secondarily: Among them, sociologists hold that religion arises from a certain sense of dependence on collectivity, which is conceived by the uneducated as a certain higher Being to be worshipped religiously. Thus do the neo-communists. But because society is an insufficient basis for moral obligation, other agnostics, namely psychologists, think that religious feeling arises from the subconscious in certain circumstances, and that it is first a certain religious emotion, from which symbolic representations and religious concepts gradually proceed (Thus W. James). Therefore, those who consider religion as useful can embrace it, but it is not an obligation.
Cf. KANT, Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals. Introduction by V. Delbos pg. 62: “Religion consists in regarding moral laws as if they were divine commandments; by its essential affirmations, it must claim to increase, not our knowledge of God or of things, but only the effectiveness of duty as a motive: it is enclosed within the postulates of practical reason”. Cf. also Kant: Religion within the Limits of Reason.
Cf. VACANT, Studies on the Vatican Council, vol. I, pgs. 270, 580, 608.
According to this formula, that principle is condemned, in Conc. Vat. DENZ., 1810.
KANT, Religion within the Limits of Reason, Part IV, ch. V and VI. And Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, Section II, ed. Delbos, pgs. 170-178, The autonomy of the will as the supreme principle of morality.
F. BUISSON, La foi laïque, pg. 193: “The human person must be free: this commandment is addressed first and foremost to the human person. She herself can no more annihilate her freedom than allow it to be annihilated by others. All servitude is a crime against humanity, without excepting servitude that believes itself to be voluntary”. The secular spirit or free thought “requires that its adherents have expressly rejected, not only any imposed belief, but any authority claiming to impose its beliefs”, ibid. pg. 198. — “Faith in God is not one of the obligations that society can inscribe in its laws. Our laws, our institutions are no longer based on the Rights of God, but rather on the Rights of Man... they no longer act and speak in the name of God, or by the grace of God, but in the name of the nation and with a purely human authority”. ibid. pg. 206. — “Secularism is the corollary of popular sovereignty”. “Is it possible to be a freethinker without being a republican, to be a republican without being a socialist?” ibid., p. 196.
And F. Buisson adds: “We have no intention of waging war on the religious idea, much less of suppressing religious freedom”. ibid. p. 159. Elsewhere he praises liberal Protestants of “the attempted effort to free from traditional and ecclesiastical Christianity what one could call eternal Christianity, a sort of gospel made from the model of the old gospel, a secular religion of the moral ideal, without dogmas, without miracles, without priests”. Kant had already said this explicitly, loc. cit.
Item JAURÈS, Speech to the Chamber of Deputies, February 11, 1895: “The greatest thing in the world is the sovereign freedom of the mind..., is that any truth that does not come from us is a lie..., is that, if the very ideal of God were made visible, if God himself stood before the multitudes in a palpable form, the first duty of man would be to refuse obedience and to consider him as the equal with whom one discusses, not as the master to whom one submits.”
Cf. about this matter Apologetic Dictionary of the Catholic Faith, 4th ed., art. “Secularism”, col. 1772: The Apostle says: Argue, plead, rebuke, urge, opportunely, importunately. There are those who would like to make the Church less restless, less passionate, serene and even somewhat indifferent, like a school of philosophy. By adopting this attitude the Church would be lying to itself, to its mission, to the interests it has in its care. Its priests are not professors of wisdom; they are ministers, who have to manage the things of God. They have to uphold his name... to promulgate his commandments. They have to uphold the blood of the Man-God, shed for the salvation of the world. They have to lead the souls of their brothers to eternal life”.
JULES SIMON, Natural Religion, IV part., c. I.
LAMENNAIS, Essays on Indifference, vol. II, c. 20. The Words of a Believer.
P. LACORDAIRE, Complete Works, vol. VII, ed. in 12, Considerations on the Philosophical System of M. de La Mennais. Ch. X. This system is useless in the defense of Christianity. Ch. XI. It contains the broadest Protestantism that has yet appeared. Ch. XII. Conclusion: “M. de La Mennais’ error consists in not having wanted evidence to discern authority, in having reduced all the elements of certainty to authority, and all authorities to a single one, the human race, of which the Catholic Church would itself be only the development”, p. 154. — “We can see the abyss involuntarily dug by M. de La Mennais under the edifice of Christianity. As he declared mankind infallible in philosophical and religious matters, we will have the right to say to him: Let us go no further, we have certainty, truth, faith, that is enough... Each man remains free, by a Protestant interpretation, to turn the human race against the Church, to invoke against the authority of the Church the infallible authority of the human race... Do we know where the Saint-Simonians believe they read the prophecy of their dreams? In humanity, which they proclaim infallible, in the past of man, in the present hope of the human race... That these are crazy assessments of things... I certainly believe it, just as I believe that Protestants explain Holy Scripture poorly; but it is no less true that the infallibility of the human race is today the logical foundation of one of the most formidable errors that has yet appeared in the world”. рgs. 145-148.
LEO XIII, Acta, vol. VIII, ann. 1888, pg. 233: “The vast majority of citizens are either unable to avoid deceptions and dialectical tricks, especially those that flatter their desires, or they cannot do so without great difficulty. For to whom is permitted an unlimited license to speak and write, nothing is sacred and inviolable... All the more so because the authority of teachers is of great value among their listeners, and whether what is handed down by the teacher is true, the student himself can rarely judge for himself”. Encycl. Libertas.
Liberal apologists do not sufficiently consider man’s inclination to evil, as if man were born good, as Rousseau said, without original sin: Pascal in his apologetics exaggerated the consequences of original sin, on the contrary. St. Thomas, following the correct path of Tradition, had avoided these opposite extremes, as appears from C. Gentes, 1. IV, c. 52 and Ia IIae, q. 81-85. According to him, original sin does not completely take away the good of nature but diminishes it (Ia IIae, 85). And the Holy Doctor notes several times: “In men alone evil seems to exist as in many, because the good of man according to the sense of the body is not the good of man insofar as he is a man, but according to reason. But many follow sense rather than reason”, Ia, q. 49 a. 3, ad 5. Likewise de Malo l, q. 1, a. 3, ad 17; a. 5, ad 16.
Likewise, the Fathers of the Church generally, in the explanation of the first chapters of the Epistle to the Romans, “All have turned aside; together they have become useless; there is none who does good, not even one”, ch. III, 12; — in the words of St. John: “All that is in the world is the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life,” 1 John, II, 16; —“The whole world lies in evil,” 1 John, V. 19; “The beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord,” Ps. 110, 10.
Cf. LEO XIII Encycl. Libertas, ibid., pg. 228... pg. 231. Leo XIII notes that this doctrine leads to social atheism. Cf. also Apologetic Dictionary of the Catholic Faith, art. “Liberalism”, by G. DE PASCAL: “It seems that we could define this liberalism, a system of political and social life, according to which the civil and social element only pertains to the human order and perhaps — some more daring would go so far as to say — must arise and act without any obligatory relationship of dependence on the supernatural order”.
Cf. ibid.
On this occasion Lacordaire wrote to Comte de Montalembert, Oct. 1833: “Conscience, which is everything in the ordinary course of life, is nothing when it is in opposition to authority. The greatest crimes have been committed with a distorted conscience. Even if yours were spotless, in this matter, you should not listen to it, but rather to the voice of the Church, which has already risen, and which will rise later with an empire that will overthrow all pride”.
LACORDAIRE, in the year 1834, published on the Lamennais books. The Words of a Believer, written in his work, Considerations on the Philosophical System of M. de La Mennais, Conclusion: “It is enough for me... if I help some of my brothers to emerge from a state of perplexity, the pain of which I have well known; if I have warned the Church that a war is being prepared and is already being waged against it in the name of humanity, it is enough... It is not for me to give advice; but one can always say without pride that one has been mistaken and give glory to God, who ‘calls from darkness to his admirable light’”.
“After ten years of efforts to understand the true role of philosophy in the Church... where have I arrived? At the same thoughts that were possessed without concern by those who had relied more on the spirit of the Church than on their own... How I felt with admiration the superiority of the Church, this ineffable instinct that drives her, this divine discernment that removes from her the shadow of an illusion!... Unlike human things, which at first have an appearance of grandeur, and soon become small, the Church grows with the centuries, and she never needs, to be justified, anything but to wait”.
“I made another reflection. I asked myself how a philosophy whose vice I see so clearly today, could have held my reason in suspense for so long; and I understood that, struggling against an intelligence superior to mine, and wanting to fight alone against it, it was impossible that I should not be defeated. For truth is not always a sufficient auxiliary to reestablish the balance of forces; otherwise, error would never triumph over truth. It is therefore necessary that there be in the world a power, which supports weak intelligences against strong intelligences, and which delivers them from the most terrible oppression, that of the spirit. This power, in fact, came to my aid; it was not I who delivered myself, it was it. Arriving in Rome, at the tomb of the apostles Peter and Paul, I knelt down, I said to God: Lord, I begin to feel my weakness; my sight is clouded; error and truth escape me equally...; listen to the prayer of the poor. I know neither the day nor the hour; but I saw what I did not see, I left Rome free and victorious. I learned from my own experience that the Church is the liberator of the human spirit; and since all other freedoms necessarily flow from the freedom of the intellect, I saw in their true light the questions that divide the world today”.
“Yes, the world seeks peace and freedom; but it seeks them on the road to trouble and servitude. The Church alone was their source for the human race... This is why the priest will not mix himself up in the bloody and sterile quarrels of his century; he will pray for the present and for the future; he will embalm the world’s sorrows with charity, as much as he can; he will predict without hesitation to contemporary generations that neither peace nor freedom is possible outside the truth”.
The Syllabus of Pius IX condemns, according to logical order, 1° the absolute autonomy of reason (prop. 1 from which 2, 3, 4 follow), 2° the absolute autonomy of civil society (prop. 39), 3° the absolute autonomy of ethics (props. 56-61).
Acta LEO XIII, ann. 1888, pg. 224.
Ibid., pg. 228.
Ibid., pg. 231.
Ibid., pg. 241.
Ibid., pg. 236.
Declaration of the Rights of Man “The Representatives of the French People, constituted as a National Assembly, considering that ignorance, forgetfulness or contempt for the rights of man are the sole causes of public misfortunes and the corruption of Governments, have resolved to set forth, in a solemn Declaration, the natural, inalienable and sacred rights of man, etc.…” — According to Catholic doctrine, it would have been said: ignorance, forgetfulness or contempt for the rights of God and the duties of man are the causes of public misfortunes…” But leaving aside the rights of God, it is not surprising that the rights of man become sacred: “the sacred rights of man.”
A society founded on the Gospel is replaced by a society founded on man.
Art. 3. The principle of all sovereignty resides essentially in the Nation; no body, no individual may exercise authority that does not expressly emanate from it”. What then will be the authority of the Church?
Art. 4. “Freedom consists in being able to do what does not harm others...”. Thus, the freedom to teach atheism is not excluded.
Art. 6. “The law is the expression of the general will”, not the expression of human reason in conformity with divine law.”
Art. 10. “No one shall be disturbed for their opinions, even religious ones, provided that their manifestation does not trouble the public order established by law.” In other words: civil liberty of any kind of worship, true or false, is ordained and a sacred right of man.
Against these principles of the new law, see LEO XIII’s Encycl. Immortale Dei.
BENEDICT XV wrote about this Declaration on March 7, 1917 (cf. Acta Apost. Sed., p. 172): “After those three centuries, which overflowed with the blood of Christians, the Church could never be said to have been in such a crisis as it began to be at the end of the eighteenth century. Indeed, through the work of insane Philosophy, which proceeded from the heresy and betrayal of the Innovators, and from the minds of the common people, that great change of things broke out, which concerned, namely, not only in France, but gradually throughout all nations, the foundations of Christian society were shaken. For the authority of the Church having been publicly rejected, since Religion had ceased to be the guardian and champion of law, office and order in the city, it was now decided that power should arise from the people, not from God; men are all equal among themselves, as by nature, so by law: which to whomsoever he pleased, this was permitted, unless the law forbade it; to have no force of law, which the multitude had not commanded; liberties especially of opinion about religion, or of preaching whatever anyone wanted, should not be restrained by any limits, so long as it did no harm to anyone. These are generally the principles on which, from that time, the discipline of states is based: indeed, how pernicious they can be to human society, where blind ambitions and partisan interests have armed the multitude, never appeared more clearly than when they were first declared. - 1S. AUGUSTINE, ep. 105 (166), c. 2, no. 9 (M. L. 33, 399). Also ep., 155 (M. L. 33, 669). Against Cresconium III, LI, 57 (M. L. 43, 527), ep. 135 (M. L. 33, 801), De Civitate Dei, V, XXIV (M. L. 41, 171).
S. AUGUSTINE, ep. 105 (166), c. 2, no. 9 (M. L. 33, 399). Also ep., 155 (M. L. 33, 669). Contra Cresconium III, LI, 57 (M. L. 43, 527), ep. 135 (M. L. 33, 801), De Civitate Dei, V, XXIV (M. L. 41, 171).
From the condemnation of this statement, it follows at least that the Catholic State, paying attention to the manners and circumstances of a certain age, can legitimately impose this penalty of death for the crime of heresy, after the judgment of the Church on guilt and stubbornness.
Cf. Dictionnaire Apologique, art. Liberalism, col. 1840.
This is excellent. I first found Garrigou-Lagrange 20 years ago and secured a copy of his 2-volume "The Three Ages of the Interior Life," which transformed my faith. But it wasn't till this last year that I had even heard that religious freedom was condemned by the Church. "How un-American!" 🤔 Lots to learn.
Thanks for posting this. We seem to be emerging from the spell that the council cast under power of the general rule of obedience for all Catholics. This discipline is of course necessary to valid authority, or under valid authority commanding what is lawful.
All you have to do is read a few old books to realize the liberal morass that emerged from V2 ran contrary to the rule of the Apostolic Church, and its protectors up to the decade prior to the council.
And obedience as obedience is not a good when it comes to the breach of eternal truths. It is still difficult to break with enthroned authority, as it seems to undermine the solidity of the Church. Yet, these men running things now, reject this sense of authority from the past, and only invoke it to chasten those who still believe in it. Quite the clever trick the devil pulled. But as I said, this spell is breaking, it's not just established Sedevacantist communities who are denying the legitimacy of the council and recent papal claimants. Though the question as to what to do about it remains unanswered.