There was a small controversy that occurred in Spain in 1886 around a
book which was written to expose the errors of Liberalism. Naturally, such
a book caused a stir among those who believed those errors. The book was
finally approved and even praised by the Sacred Congregation of the Index
in Rome saying there was only "sound doctrine therein set forth with
solidity, order and lucidity, and without personal offense to anyone."
"If anyone says: it may happen that to doctrines put forward by the Church,
sometimes, as knowledge advances, a meaning should be given different from
what the Church has understood and understands, let him be anathema."
BACKGROUND OF CONTROVERSY AND EXCERPTS OF BOOK
In 1886 there appeared in Spain a little work under the title
"Liberalism Is A Sin" (El Liberalismo es Pecado) by Fr. Felix Sarda y
Salvany, a priest of Barcelona and editor of a journal called "La Revista
Popular". The book excited considerable commotion. It was vigorously
assailed by the Liberals. A Spanish Bishop of Barcelona, of a Liberal turn,
instigated an answer to Fr. Sarda's work by another Spanish priest. Both
priest's books were then sent to Rome begging the Sacred Congregation of
the Index to put Fr. Sarda's work under the ban. The following letter, of
January 10, 1887, from the Sacred Congregation itself, explains the result
of its consideration of the two books:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Most Excellent Sir:
The Sacred Congregation of the Index has received the denunciation of the
little work bearing the title "El Liberalismo es Pecade" by Don Felix Sarda
y Salvany, a priest of your diocese; the denunciation was accompanied at
the same time by another little work entitled "El Proceso del Integrismo,"
that is "a refutation of the errors contained in the little work El
Liberalismo es Pecado." The author of the second work is Fr. de Pazos, a
canon of the diocese of Vich.
Whereupon, the Sacred Congregation has carefully examined both works, and
decided as follows: In the first not only is nothing found contrary to
sound doctrine, but its author, Fr. Felix Sarda merits great praise for his
exposition and defense of the sound doctrine therein set forth with
solidity, order and lucidity, and without personal offense to anyone.
The same judgement, however, cannot be passed on the other work by Fr. de
Pazos, for in matter it needs corrections. Moreover his injurious manner of
speaking cannot be approved, for he inveighs rather against the person of
Fr. Sarda, than against the latter's supposed errors.
Therefore, the Sacred Congregation has commanded Fr. de Pazos, admonished
by his own Bishop, to withdraw his book, as far as he can, from
circulation, and in future, if any discussion of the subject should arise,
to abstain from all expressions personally injurious, according to the
precept of true Christian charity; and this all the more since Our Holy
Father Leo XIII., while he urgently recommends castigation of error,
neither desires nor approves expressions personally injurious, especially
when directed against those who are eminent for their doctrine and their
piety.
Your most obedient servant,
CONTENTS OF ORIGINAL BOOK BY CHAPTER
1 What Begets Liberalism
Chapter 19: Charity And Liberalism.
Narrow! Intolerant! Uncompromising! These are the epithets of odium, hurled
by Liberal votaries of all degrees at Ultramontanes. Are not Liberals our
neighbors like other men? Do we not owe to them the same charity we apply
to others? Are not your vigorous denunciations, it is urged against us,
harsh and uncharitable, in the very teeth of the teaching of Christianity
which is essentially a religion of love? Such is the accusation continually
flung in our face. Let us see what its value is. Let us see all that the
word charity signifies.
The catechism, that popular and most authoritative epitome of Catholic
theology, gives us the most complete and succinct definition of charity; it
is full of wisdom and philosophy. Charity is a supernatural virtue which
induces us to love God above all things and our neighbors as ourselves for
the love of God. Thus after God, we ought to love our neighbor as
ourselves, and this not in any way, but for the love of God and in
obedience to His law. And now what is to love? Amare est velle bonum,
replies the philosopher: "To love is to wish good to him whom we love." To
whom does charity command us to wish good? To our neighbor, that is to say,
not to this or that man only but to everyone. What is that good which true
love wishes? First of all supernatural good; then goods of the natural
order, which are not incompatible with it. All this is included in the
phrase "for the love of God."
It follows, therefore, that we can love our neighbor, when displeasing him,
when opposing him, when causing him some material injury and even, on
certain occasions, when depriving him of life. All is reduced to this in
short: Whether in the instance where we displease, oppose or humiliate him,
it is or is not for his own good, or for the good of someone whose rights
are superior to his, or simply for the greater service of God.
If it is shown, that in displeasing or offending our neighbor, we act for
his good, it is evident that we love him even when opposing or crossing
him. The physician cauterizing his patient or cutting off his gangrened
limb may none the less love him. When we correct the wicked by restraining
or by punishing them none the less do we love them. This is charity and
perfect charity. It is often necessary to displease or offend one person,
not for his own good, but to deliver another from the evil he is
inflicting. It is then an obligation of charity to repel the unjust
violence of the aggressor; one may inflict as much injury on the aggressor
as is necessary for the defense. Such would be the case should one see a
highwayman attacking a traveler. In this instance, to kill, wound, or at
least take such measures as to render the aggressor impotent, would be an
act of true charity.
Modern Liberalism reverses this order. It imposes a false notion of
charity; our neighbor first, and, if at all, God afterwards. By its
reiterated and trite accusations of intolerance, it has succeeded in
disconcerting even some staunch Catholics. But our rule is too plain and to
concrete to admit of misconception. It is: Sovereign Catholic inflexibility
is sovereign Catholic charity. This charity is practiced in relation to our
neighbor when in his own interest, he is crossed, humiliated and chastised.
it is practiced in relation to a third party, when he is defended from the
unjust aggression of another, as when he is protected from the contagion of
error by unmasking its authors and abettors and showing them in their true
light as iniquitous and pervert, by holding them up to the contempt, horror
and execration of all. It is practiced in relation to God when, for His
glory and in His service, it becomes necessary to silence all human
considerations, to trample under foot all human respect, to sacrifice all
human interests, and even life itself to attain this highest of all ends.
All this is Catholic inflexibility and inflexible Catholicity in the
practice of that pure love which constitutes sovereign charity. The saints
are the types of this unswerving and sovereign fidelity to God, the heroes
of charity and religion. Because in our times there are so few true
inflexibles in the love of God, so also are there few uncompromisers in the
order of charity. Liberal charity is condescending, affectionate, even
tender in appearance, but at bottom it is an essential contempt for the
true good of men, of the supreme interests of truth and of God. It is human
selflove usurping the throne of he Most High and demanding that worship
which belongs to God alone.
Chapter 20: Polemical Charity And Liberalism.
Liberalism never gives battle on solid ground; it knows too well that in a
discussion of principles it must meet with irretrievable defeat. It prefers
tactics of recrimination, and under the sting of a just flagellation
whiningly accuses Catholics of lack of charity in their polemics. This is
also the ground which certain Catholics, tainted with Liberalism, are in
the habit of taking.
Let us see what is to be said on this score. We Catholics, on this point as
on all others, have reason on our side, whilst Liberals have only its
shadow. In the first place a Catholic can handle his Liberal adversary
openly, if such he be in truth; no one can doubt this. If an author or a
journalist makes open profession of Liberalism and does not conceal his
Liberal predilections what injury can be done him in calling him a Liberal?
Si palman res est, repetitio injuria non est: "to say what everybody knows
is no injury." With much stronger reason to say of our neighbor what he
every instant says of himself cannot justly offend. And yet how many
Liberals, especially those of the easygoing and moderate type, regard the
expressions "Liberal" and "friend of Liberals," which Catholic adversaries
apply to them as offensive and uncharitable!
Granting that Liberalism is a bad thing, to call the public defenders and
professors of Liberalism bad is no want of charity.
The law of justice, potent in all ages, can be applied in this case. The
Catholics of today are no innovators in this respect. We are simply holding
to the constant practice of antiquity. The propagators and abettors of
heresy have at all times been called heretics as well as its authors. As
the Church has always considered heresy a very grave evil, so has she
always called its adherents bad and pervert. Run over the list of
ecclesiastical writers you will then see how the Apostles treated the first
heretics, how the Fathers, and modern controversialists and the Church
herself in her official language has pursued them. There is then no sin
against charity in calling evil evil, its authors, abettors and disciples
bad; all its acts, words and writings iniquitous, wicked, malicious. In
short the wolf has done to the flock and shepherd.
If the propagation of good and the necessity of combating evil require the
employment of terms somewhat harsh against error and its supporters, this
usage is certainly not against charity. This is a corollary or consequence
of the principle we have just demonstrated. We must render evil odious and
detestable. We cannot attain this result without pointing out the dangers
of evil, without showing how and why it is odious, detestable and
contemptible. Christian oratory of all ages has ever employed the most
vigorous and emphatic rhetoric in the arsenal of human speech against
impiety. In the writings of the great athletes of Christianity the usage of
irony, imprecation, execration and of the most crushing epithets is
continual. Hence the only law is the opportunity and the truth.
But there is another justification for such an usage. Popular propagation
and apologetics cannot preserve elegant and constrained academic forms. In
order to convince the people we must speak to their heart and their
imagination which can only be touched by ardent, brilliant, and impassioned
language. To be impassioned is not to be reprehensible, when our heat is
the holy ardor of truth.
The supposed violence of modern Ultramontane journalism not only falls
short of Liberal journalism, but is amply justified by every page of the
works of our great Catholic polemicists of other epochs. This is easily
verified. St. John the Baptist calls the Pharisees "race of vipers," Jesus
Christ, our Divine Savior, hurls at them the epithets "hypocrites, whitened
sepulchers, a perverse and adulterous generation" without thinking for this
reason that He sullies the sanctity of His benevolent speech. St. Paul
criticizes the schismatic Cretins as "always liars, evil beasts, slothful
bellies." The same apostle calls Elymas the magician "seducer, full of
guile and deceit, child of the Devil, enemy of all justice."
If we open the Fathers we find the same vigorous castigation of heresy and
heretics. St. Jerome arguing against Vigilantius casts in his face his
former occupation of saloonkeeper: "From your infancy," he says to him,
"you have learned other things than theology and betaken yourself to other
pursuits. To verify at the same time the value of your money accounts and
the value of Scriptural texts, to sample wines and grasp the meaning of the
prophets and apostles are certainly not occupations which the same man can
accomplish with credit." On another occasion attacking the same
Vigilantius, who denied the excellence of virginity and of fasting, St.
Jerome, with his usual sprightliness, asks him if he spoke thus "in order
not to diminish the receipts of his saloon?" Heavens! What an outcry would
be raised if one of our Ultramontane controversialists were to write
against a Liberal critic or heretic of our own day in this fashion!
What shall we say of St. John Chrysostom? His famous invective against
Eutropius is not comparable, in its personal and aggressive character, to
the cruel invectives of Cicero against Catiline and against Verres! The
gentle St. Bernard did not honey his words when he attacked the enemies of
the faith. Addressing Arnold of Brescia, the great Liberal agitator of his
times, he calls him in all his letters "seducer, vase of injuries,
scorpion, cruel wolf."
The pacific St. Thomas of Acquinas forgets the calm of his cold syllogisms
when he hurls his violent apostrophe against William of St. Amour and his
disciples: "Enemies of God," he cries out, "ministers of the Devil, members
of AntiChrist, ignorami, perverts, reprobates!" Never did the illustrious
Louis Veuillot speak so boldly. The seraphic St. Bonaventure, so full of
sweetness, overwhelms his adversary Gerard with such epithets as "impudent,
calumniator, spirit of malice, impious, shameless, ignorant, impostor,
malefactor, perfidious, ingrate!" Did St. Francis de Sales, so delicately
exquisite and tender, ever purr softly over the heretics of his age and
country? He pardoned their injuries, heaped benefits on them even to the
point of saving the lives of those who sought to take his, but with the
enemies of the faith he preserved neither moderation nor consideration.
Asked by a Catholic, who desired to know if it were permissible to speak
evil of a heretic who propagated false doctrines, he replied: "Yes, you
can, on the condition that you adhere to the exact truth, to what you know
of his bad conduct, presenting that which is doubtful as doubtful according
to the degree of doubt which you may have in this regard." In his
"Introduction to a Devout Life," that precious and popular work, he
expresses himself again: "If the declared enemies of God and of the Church
ought to be blamed and censured with all possible vigor, charity obliges us
to cry wolf' when the wolf slips into the midst of the flock, and in every
way and place we may meet him."
But enough. What the greatest Catholic polemists and saints have done is
assuredly a fair example for even the humblest defenders of the faith.
Modern Ultramontanism has never yet surpassed the vigor of their
castigation of heresy and heretics. Charity forbids us to do unto another
what we would not reasonably have them to do unto ourselves. Mark the
adverb reasonably; it includes the entire substance of the question.
The essential difference between ourselves and the Liberals on this subject
consists in this, that they look upon the apostles of error as free
citizens, simply exercising their full right to think as they please on
matters of religion. We, on the contrary, see in them the declared enemies
of the faith which we are obligated to defend. We do not see in their
errors simply free opinions but culpable and formal heresies, as the law of
God teaches us they are. By virtue of the assumed freedom of their own
opinions the Liberals are bound not only to tolerate but even respect ours;
for since freedom of opinion is in their eyes the most cardinal of virtues,
no matter what the opinion be, they are bound to respect it as the
expression of man's rational freedom. It is not what is thought, but the
mere thinking that constitutes the standard of excellence with them. To
acknowledge God or deny Him is equally rational by the standard of
Liberalism, and Liberalism is grossly inconsistent with itself when it
seeks to combat Catholic truths, in the holding of which there is as much
exercise of rational freedom, in the Liberal sense, as in rejecting them.
But our Catholic standpoint is absolute; there is but one truth, in which
there is no room for opposition or contradiction. To deny that truth is
unreasonable; it is to put falsehood on the level with truth. This is the
folly and sin of Liberalism. To denounce this sin and folly is a duty and a
virtue. With reason therefore does a great Catholic historian say to the
enemies of Catholicity: "You make yourselves infamous by your actions and I
will endeavor to cover you with that infamy by my writings." In this same
way the law of the Twelve Tables ordained to the virile generations of
early Rome: Adversus hostem aeterna auctoritas esto, which may be rendered:
"To the enemy no quarter."
Chapter 21: Personal Polemics And Liberalism.
"It is all well enough to make war on abstract doctrines," some may say,
"but in combating error, be it ever so evident, is it so proper to make an
attack upon the persons of those who uphold it"? We reply that very often
it is, and not only proper but at times even indispensable and meritorious
before God and men.
The accusation of indulging in personalities is not spared to Catholic
apologists, and when Liberals and those tainted with Liberalism have hurled
it at our heads they imagine that we are overwhelmed by the charge. But
they deceive themselves. We are not so easily thrust in the back ground. We
have reason and substantial reason on our side. In order to combat and
discredit false ideas, we must inspire contempt and horror in the hearts of
the multitude for those who seek to seduce and debauch them. A disease is
inseparable from the persons of the diseased. The cholera threatening a
country comes in the persons of the infected. If we wish to exclude it we
must exclude them. Now ideas do not in any case go about in the abstract;
they neither spread nor propagate from themselves. Left to themselves, if
it be possible to imagine them apart from those who conceive them, they
would never produce all the evil from which society suffers. It is only in
the concrete that they are effective; when they are the personal product of
those who conceive them. They are like the arrows and the balls which would
hurt no one if they were not shot from the bow or the gun. It is the archer
and the gunner to whom we should give our first attention; save for them
the fire would not be murderous. Any other method of warfare might be
Liberal, if you please, but it would ;not be commonsense.
The authors and propagators of heretical doctrines are soldiers with
poisoned weapons in their hands. Their arms are the book, the journal, the
lecture, their personal influence. Is it sufficient to dodge their blows?
Not at all; the first thing necessary is to demolish the combatant himself.
When he is hors de combat, he can do no more mischief.
It is therefore perfectly proper not only to discredit any book, journal or
discourse of the enemy, but it is also proper, in certain cases, to even
discredit his person; for in warfare, beyond question, the principal
element is the person engaged, as the gunner is the principal factor in an
artillery fight and not the cannon, the powder and the bomb. It is thus
lawful, in certain cases, to expose the infamy of a Liberal opponent, to
bring his habits into contempt, and drag his name in the mire. Yes, this is
permissible, permissible in prose, in verse, in caricature, in a serious
vein or in badinage, by every means and ;method within reach. The only
restriction is not to employ a lie in the service of justice. This never.
Under no pretext may we sully the truth, even to the dotting of an i. As a
French writer says: "Truth is the only charity allowed in history," and, we
may add, in the defense of religion and society.
The Fathers of the Church support this thesis. The very title of their
works clearly show that, in their contests with heresy, their first blow
was at the heresiarchs. The works of St. Augustine almost always bear the
name of the author of the heresy against which they are written: Contra
Fortunatum Manichoeum; Adversus Adamanctum; Contra Felicem; Contra
Secundinum; Quis fuerit Petiamus; De gestis Pelagii; Quis fuerit Julianus,
etc. Thus the greater part of the polemics of this great doctor was
personal, aggressive, biographical, as well as doctrinal, a handtohand
struggle with heretics as well as with heresy. What we here say of St.
Augustine we can say of the other Fathers. Whence do the Liberals derive
their power to impose upon us the new obligation of fighting error only in
the abstract and of lavishing smiles and flattery upon them? We, the
Ultramontanes, will fight our battles according to Christian tradition, and
defend the faith as it has always been defended in the Church of God. When
it strikes let the sword of the Catholic polemist wound, and when it
wounds, wound mortally. This is the only real and efficacious means of
waging war.
Chapter 22
A Liberal Objection To Ultramontane Methods.
The Liberals tell us that our violent methods of warfare against them are
not in conformity with the Pope's counsels to moderation and charity. Has
he not exhorted Catholic writers to a love of peace and union; to avoid
harsh, aggressive and personal polemics? How then can we Ultramontanes
reconcile the Holy Father's wishes with our fierce methods? Let us consider
the force of the Liberals' objection. To whom does the Holy Father address
these repeated admonitions? Always to the Catholic press, to Catholic
journalists, to those who are supposed to be worthy of the name. These
counsels to moderation and charity, therefore, are always addressed to
Catholics, discussing with other Catholics free questions, i.e., not
involving established principles of faith and morality, and do not in any
sense apply to Catholics waging a mortal combat with the declared enemies
of the faith.
There is no doubt that the Pope here makes no allusion to the incessant
battles between Catholics and Liberals, for the simple reason that
Catholicity is truth and Liberalism heresy, between which there can be no
peace, but wear to the death. It is certain by consequence, therefore, that
the Pope intends his counsels to apply to our family quarrels, unhappily
much too frequent; and that by no means does he seek to forbid us from
waging an unrelenting stiff with the eternal enemies of the Church, whose
hands, filled with deadly weapons, are ever lifted against the faith and
its defenders.
etc.,.....
As many times as the errors of liberalism have been condemned by the
Church in the last century, they have now become so prevalent that many
Catholics have come to accept much of this false mentality as being true.
One of the baneful results of this mentality actually has people hold an
opposite view of charity - condemning that which is really charitable,
beneficial and loving!
This mentality is everywhere in society and not just in the Church. The
book is reprinted today (will be available on our website soon) and is
highly recommended reading for all Catholics. The false mentality is so
wide-spread today that one should be not be too surprised to find, when
reading parts of this book, that some of their present views are in error
on some points. We must keep in mind always the infallible Church teaching
contained in the condemnation made by the Council of the Vatican in 1870 in
regard to the immutabilility of truth:
To The Most Rev. Jacobo Catala et Alboso,
Bishop of Barcelona
In communicating to you this order of the Sacred Congregation of the Index,
that you may be able to make it known to the illustrious priest of your
diocese, Fr. Sarda, for his peace of mind, I pray God to grant you all
happiness and prosperity and subscribe myself with great respect,
Fr. Jerome Scheri, O.P.
Secretary of the Sacred Congregation of the Index.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
2 What Liberalism Is
3 Liberalism A Sin
4 The Gravity Of The Sin Of Liberalism
5 The Degrees Of Liberalism
6 Catholic Liberalism Or Liberal Catholicism
7 Intrinsic Causes Of Liberal Catholicism
8 Shadow And Penumbra
9 Two Kinds Of Liberalism
10 Liberalism Of All Shades Condemned By The Church
11 The Solemn Condemnation Of Liberalism By The Syllabus
12 Like Liberalism But Not Liberalism, Liberalism but not Like It
13 The Name Liberalism
14 Liberalism And FreeThought
15 Can A Liberal Be In Good Faith
16 The Symptoms Of Liberalism
17 Christian Prudence And Liberalism
18 Liberalism And Literature
19 Charity And Liberalism
20 Polemical Charity And Liberalism
21 Personal Polemics And Liberalism
22 A Liberal Objection To Ultramontane Methods
23 The "Civilta Cattolica's" Charity To Liberals
24 A Liberal Sophism And The Church's Diplomacy
25 How Catholics Fall Into Liberalism
26 Permanent Causes of Liberalism
27 How To Avoid Liberalism
28 How To Distinguish Catholic From Liberal Works
29 Liberalism And Journalism
30 Can Catholics And Liberals Ever Unite
31 An Illusion Of Liberal Catholics
32 Liberalism And Authority In Particular Cases
33 Liberalism As It Is In This Country
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The good of all good is the divine good, just as God is for all men the
neighbor of all neighbors. In consequence the love due to a man inasmuch as
he is our neighbor ought always to be subordinated to that which is due to
our common Lord. For His love and in His service we must not hesitate to
offend men. The degree of our offense towards men can only be measured by
the degree of our obligation to him. Charity is primarily the love of God,
secondarily the love of our neighbor for God's sake. To sacrifice the first
is to abandon the latter. Therefore to offend our neighbor for the love of
God is a true act of charity. Not to offend our neighbor for the love of
God is a sin.
