HOW LIBERALIS LIBERALISM?

JOHN COURTNEY MURRAY, S.J.

EVERY NOW AND AGAIN some enterprising journalistdigs up a Spanish catechism and finds that "Liberalism" islisted in it as one of tbe social errors condemned by theCatholic Church. Thereupon ensues some little to-do in thepress. For instance, in 1938 there appeared a pamphlet, TheSpanish Church and Politics, in wbich great use was madeof the condemnation of Liberalism contained in tbe cate-chism written by Fatber Angel Maria de Arcos, S.J. AMERICA

(Feb. S, 1938) commented on it at tbe time, in a doubtlessvain endeavor to calm tbe borror witb wbicb tbe AmericanFriends of Spanish Democracy, wbo released tbe pampblet,bad greeted this proof of tbe Cburch's reactionary opposi-tion to modern ideas. Several weeks ago, another Spanishcatechism turned up—tbis time, a re-edition of Ripalda, doneby another Jesuit. In it Liberalism is put down, with so-cialism and communism, as a social evil; whereas no mentionis made of nazism and fascism. This discovery was publi-cized in tbe press as an example of tbe awful tbings tbat arebeing said in Spain—and to little children, too.

DOCTRINAIRE LIBERALISM

Tbe discovery was calculated to impress the Americanpublic. Few Americans have any very clear idea of what theLiberalism wbich tbe Cburcb condemned actually meant.Insofar as the word stands for anything to the averageAmerican, it stands for the sum total of all the things tbatenlightened modern men consider wortb wbile. The fact,bowever, is tbat nineteenth-century Liberalism stood for onechief thing wbicb modern men, furtber enligbtened by tbeexperience of tbe last tbirty years, consider particularly dis-astrous—a militant secularism, a systematic denial of tberelevance of religion to social life.

Actually, tbe Churcb was rarely more splendidly liberaltban when she condemned Liberalism. In her century-longbattle with tbe Liberal theory and spirit, many complexissues were raised. Not all of tbem were of equal importance;and the tactics of tbe battle were not always happily devised.Nevertheless, the Churcb was luminously clear about onecentral tbing—tbat tbose who deny tbe sovereignty of Godover human society are tbe most dangerous enemies of bu-man liberty. Today, even tbose who do not accept the fullposition of the Church must recognize that the cause forwhicb tbe Cburch fougbt against Liberalism is, in one cen-tral aspect, the cause of all men of good will.

It is curious tbat publicists should make so much of theChurch's condemnation of Liberalism, as found in Spanisbcatecbisms. Actually, it can be found in any ordinary text-book of etbics, current in any country. However, theselatter migbt not serve tbe publicists' purpose; for normally(I looked in several to verify the fact) they are careful tospeak of "Continental," or "European," or "philosophical"Liberalism as the object of tbe Church's reprobation. Forinstance, Catbrein's classic manual prefaces its descriptionand refutation of Liberalism witb tbis remark: "What isbere said is not to be understood of every individual wbo callsbimself a 'liberal,' or of tbe 'liberal' parties in all countries,but of tbe system itself, as it is commonly held in most oftbe states of Europe." In otber words, tbe Liberalism con-demned by tbe Churcb is rightly written witb a capital L.

It was not (as in most American mind») just a senti-mental mood, an inherited persuasion of very vague content.

but a highly doctrinaire social theory, resting on premisesas dogmatic as any ecclesiastical belief. It was elaboratedlargely in France; tbat fact explains its character. It basbeen well said tbat tbe Englisb (and tbe Americans) re-treat before an absolute, but tbe French advance. For tbisreason Liberalism, in England and America, remained a wayof life, large and loose and unpreoccupied with first prin-ciples, and therefore bas been able somebow to survive be-cause its very lack of logic left it open to vitalizing influ-ences. But in France, Liberalism became a body of doctrine,tightly organized, and consciously related to clearly definedfirst principles. The first principles were false, and thereforeFrench Liberalism was condemned to death, not only by theanathema of the Churcb but by the empirical verdict ofhistory.

The Church's condemnation is, of course, contained insubstance in tbe Syllabus of Errors. That strange, rougbdocument, unique among ecclesiastical utterances, containsihe Cburch's indictment of tbe intellectual foundations andthe political and social applications of Continental Liberal-ism. The indictment is drawn up witbout eloquence orargument. This is tbe Cburcb's custom, as wben Pius XI,in a few curt propositions, condemned nazi racist tbeory.However, tbe Syllabus is pbrased in such a way as to leave itpeculiarly open to misconstruction, if read by itself; for in itPius ÏX merely summed up tbe errors with which be baddealt at length in thirty-two pronouncements over a periodof twenty years. Put in its context in these documents, eachproposition of the Syllabus is quite clear.

It was once the fashion to view the Syllabus as the lastdying curse spoken by an outworn ecclesiastical systemagainst the new world wbich had no place for it. It wasregarded as the definitive proof that the Catholic Churchwould no longer be a factor in world civilization, since ithad broken witb all tbe forces that were to make the civil-ization of tbe future. Today tbere is a disposition to revisejudgment. Tbougbtful people are coming to discover tbat theSyllabus of Errors contained a few truths. Acknowledgmentof tbe fact is sometimes made balf-apologetically, as whenWilliam Aylott Orton, in bis valuable book, The LiberalTradition, remarks in tbe course of bis rather sympatheticdiscussion of the Syllabus: "If it seem paradoxical to dis-cover a few truths in the Syllabus of Errors, the remedy isCO read it in tbe light of tbe full sequel."

FRUITS OF DOCTRINAIRE LIBERALISM

The full sequel to nineteenth-century Continental Liberal-ism is, of course, tbe twentietb century, witb its two WorldWars, tbat bave left bumanity sbivering in tbe vestibule oftbe atomic age and, perhaps, of the hell of the Last WorldWar. In the light of tbis full sequel, as Orton sees it,

tbe underlying tbesis [of tbe Syllabus] had substance;and wben Pius hurls bis final anntbema at any wbo sug-gest that "the Roman Pontifí can and sbould reconcilehimself to, and come to terms witb, progress. Liberalismand modern civilization," we can hardly avoid tbe re-fiection that modem civilization, 1944 style, is indeedpretty difficult for Christian men to come to termswith.

My point is tbat tbe two essential tbings witb wbicb theRoman Pontiff refused to come to terms in 1864 are thesame two things witb wbich no Christian man can come toterms in 1946. The first is tbe pbilosopbical principle of tbeabsolute autonomy of tbe individual reason; the second isthe political principle of the juridical omnipotence of tbestate. Botb principles were of tbe essence of Liberalism, andthey were the basic reasons for its condemnation.

AMERICA APRIL 6, 1946

Proposition 3 of the Syllabus reads; "Human reason, hav-ing no regard of God, is the sole arbiter of truth and falsity,right and wrong; it is a law unto itself, and of its own nat-ural resources it is adequate to secure the good of men andpeoples." This proposition is condemned as it stands; for thisis absolute rationalism, the theory of man's complete eman-cipation, in the intellectual order, from all manner ofauthority external to himself—whether it be God, the nat-ural law, the Bible, the Church, or even antiquity with itshereditary lessons. Moreover, since there is no such thing asabstract reason, but only reason as it exists in men, thisrationalism leads to the destruction of the distinction be-tween right and wrong, truth and falsity. It becomes theprerogative of every man to think what he likes, and to behimself the judge of its truth. Above all, as the famousFrenchwoman said: "Everyone makes his own little religion."

It was on this premise that the men of the Revolutionproclaimed freedom of religion as the first of the great mod-ern liberties—the right of the individual to worship God ashe pleases, if he pleases. And it was this freedom of religion,based on this premise, that Gregory XVI had in mind whenhe called it a ileliramentum—an absurdity, a piece of non-sense (how often that famous word has been mistranslatedthrough a series of Protestant books). That is precisely whatit is. It is an absurdity because it contradicts the first prin-ciple of ethical reason—the sovereignty of God over thehuman conscience. Be it noted that Liberalism, in definingfreedom of religion, went much farther than the assertion ofthe right of every man, as against the state, to worship Godaccording to his conscience. This, I take it, is the first of theFour Freedoms proclaimed by the late President Roosevelt.And this is no nonsense, but sound ethical doctrine, whichthe Catholic Church has always taught.

LIBERAL TYRANNY

Paradoxically enough, freedom of religion in this sensewas regarded as particularly pernicious nonsense by theFrench Republic, which, as any impartial historian will ad-mit, was not "neutral," not simply anti-clerical, or evenanti-Catholic, but downright anti-religious. Few who havewritten on the topic have ever advocated state coercion ofconscience more strongly than Rousseau, the first greatphilosopher of the Liberal society. And where ContinentalLiberalism guided political policy and practice (as once inItaly, Spain, Mexico, and some of the early and present Latin-American republics), it was always the first of the FourFreedoms that suffered the greatest repression. The fact isthat when individualistic Liberalism gave every man the"freedom" to make his own little religion, it also let theLeviathan State move in to make the real, big religion—social secularism. Every man could privately be as religiousas he pleased, if indeed he pleased. But let him not attemptto make his religion a force in shaping the structure, theinstitutions, the spirit and tendency of society. Blockingsuch an attempt was the mighty power of the only divinemajesty which Liberalism acknowledged—the state.

Proposition 39 of the Syllabus reads: "The republicanstate, as the origin and source of all rights, possesses a juri-dical competence that is circumscribed by no limits." Theproposition has a familiar sound; we seem to have heard itrecently enunciated in German, Italian and in Russian. Andthis fact may mitigate the scandal taken at Spanish cate-chisms which omit a condemnation of nazism and fascism,while condemning Liberalism. For part of the essence of theLiberalism which the Church condemned was its totalitarianconcept of the state.

It would be easy, but too long, to show how the Liberal

theory of the atomic individual, with its rationalistic prem-ises, logically led to state socialism, based on the theory thatall rights are state-granted and state-controlled—the theoryof the "general will," as cast up by the Liberal philosophersand perfected in practice by Liberal politicians. What is hereimportant is the fact that the full fury of the Church'sattack on LiberaUsm fell on the Liberal assertion that thereis no sovereignty higher than that of the national state, andon the corresponding Liberal denial of the relevance of re-ligion to society. The state, said the Liberals, is not subjectto an order of justice, established by the law of God andcontaining certain imprescriptible human rights; on the con-trary, the state itself establishes the order of justice, and is alaw unto itself. On this assertion of absolute state sovereign-ty the Liberals based their drive for separation of Church andState. But this was only an intermediate objective; what theyreally wanted to achieve was a completely secularized society,in which religion would be denied any vital influence on thepolitical, social, economic or educational life.

Pius IX saw this clearly. And there is a certain pathos feltnow on reading what he wrote in Quanta Cura, the encycli-cal which accompanied the Syllabus: "When religion is «epa-rated from civil society, and the teaching and authority ofDivine revelation are repudiated, even the very notion ofjustice and human rights is clouded in darkness, and lost;and in the place of true justice and right based on law issubstituted material force." Seventy-five years after thosewords were written, the United Nations were waging atitanic war, supposedly for justice and human rights, againstthe threat of a new order that would be imposed by materialforce on a darkened world. And in the midst of the war,men of good will—Catholics, Protestants and Jews—unitedin writing a Pattern for Peace, whose first point asserted thesovereignty of God and of the moral law over nations andstates and international society. This, in substance, was theassertion of the Syllabus. But in 1864 it went unheeded.

Pius IX further wrote in Quanta Cura:Who can fail to see and intimately realize that whenhuman society is loosed from the bonds of religion andtrue justice, it can have no other aim than the acquisi-tion and accumulation of riches, and can follow noother law in its actions than an unconquerable innerlust to serve its own pleasures and interests?

At the time, men and nations did not see this, that whenreligious principles cease to govern society, society loses itsmoral purpose, nations pursue solely material aims, and theresult is war. Seventy-five years later, another Pius had toissue a call to all men of good will to enlist in a crusade to"lead the nations back from the muddy cisterns of materialand selfish interests to the living fountain of divine law,which alone is powerful to create that enduring moralgrandeur of which the nations and humanity, to their ownserious loss, have for too long a time felt the absence and theneed."

Men of good will have begun to understand the crusade ofPius XII. They may now begin to understand that Pius IXfirst proclaimed it when he condemned Liberalism. It is acrusade to set a higher sovereignty over the reason of manand over the authority and action of the state. This is whatthe Church was fighting for, in fighting against Liberalism.To the Liberal concept of abstract liberty, she opposed theconcrete Christian concept of responsibility—the idea thatmen and nations are sovereign indeed, and free, but subjectin their thought and purpose and action to God, His thought.His purpose. His action. The cause for which the Church—alone and without allies—fought in tbe nineteenth centuryhas become today the cause of all men of good will.

AMERICA APRIL 6, 1946

© America Press Inc. 1946. All rights reserved. www.americamagazine.org