Are you a Liberal?

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Liberalism first emerged around the time of the French Revolution. Liberalism is the exact contrary of Catholicism, and as was condemned many times by the Popes.

What is Liberalism: Liberalism is extremely crafty, but the essence of this error was rightly defined by Fr. Salvany in the late 1800’s as follows:

“Liberalism is the dogmatic affirmation of the absolute independence of the individual and of the social reason. Catholicity is the dogma of the absolute subjection of the individual and of the social order to the revealed law of God. One doctrine is the exact contrary of the other. They are opposites in direct conflict” (Liberalism is a Sin).

Liberalism promotes the “liberty” of man and society from the law of God. Many are the tactics used in this “fight against God”.

Overtime, two camps emerged in society. These are known as “liberal” and “conservative”. The conservative are those who attempt to conserve what liberalism seeks to destroy.

The Liberal is the one who is left of center, while the conservative is right of center. However, with each passing year, the center moves gradually to the left, so that the liberal idea of yesteryear becomes mainstream, and eventually “conservative”.

We are now swimming in a sea of liberalism. It is the sound we hear, and the air we breath. As such, none of us can expect to be completely untainted by the evil. Even a “radical Traditionalists” by today’s standards cannot be completely confident that he has not been at least somewhat tainted.

Since Liberalism and conservatism both move to the left with each passing year, it is good for us to read writings that discuss Liberalism when it was still young.

That is the purpose of this thread. My intent is to post excerpts from the book Liberalism is a Sin, by the above mentioned Priest. This book was published during the late 1800’s, and was highly recommended by the Holy Office.

When the book was first published, the Liberals of the day reacted strongly against it and sent a copy to the Holy Office in an attempt to have it condemned and placed on the index of forbidden books. They also sent a book written by a Liberal to counter it. The Holy Office responded with the highest praise for Liberalism is a Sin, and commanded the Liberal to withdraw his book from circulation. This is what the Holy Office said:

The Holy Office:

Most Excellent Sir:

The Sacred Congregation of the Index has received the denunciation of the little work bearing the title “El Liberalismo es Pecado” (Liberalism is a Sin) by Don Felix Sarda y Salvany, a priest of your diocese; the denunciation (pg. iii) 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 D. de Pazos, a canon of the diocese of Vich.

Wherefore 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, D. 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 D. 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 D. Sarda, than against the latter’s supposed errors.

Therefore the Sacred Congregation has commanded D. 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 (iv) 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.

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, D. Sarda, for his peace of mind, I pray God to grant you all happiness and prosperity and subscribe myself with great respect,

Your most obedient servant,

Fr. Jerome Scheri, O.P.
Secretary of the Sacred Congregation of the Index.

So, in addition to the usual Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, Liberalism is a Sin was examined by the Holy Office and received a glowing endorsement.

I’ll begin the next post by quoting from the first few chapters of the book.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

CHAPTER 1: WHAT BEGETS LIBERALISM

*"Physical science tells us that floating through the atmosphere are innumerable disease germs seeking a suitable nidus to settle and propagate; that we are constantly breathing these germs into the lungs; if the system be depleted or weakened the dangerous microbe takes up its abode with us, and, propagating its own kind with astonishing rapidity, undermines and ravages our health. The only safeguard against the encroachments of this insidious enemy, which we cannot escape, is a vigorous and healthy body with adequate powers of resistance to repel the invader.

"It is equally true that we are subject to like infectious attacks in the spiritual order. Swarming into the atmosphere of our spiritual lives are innumerable deadly germs ever ready to fasten upon the depleted and weakened soul, and, propagating its leprous (9) contagion through every faculty, destroy the spiritual life. Against the menace of this ever-threatening danger, whose advances we cannot avoid in our present circumstances, the ever-healthy soul alone can be prepared. To escape the contagion the power of resistance must be equal to the emergencies of the attack, and that power will be in proportion to our spiritual health. To be prepared is to be armed; but to be prepared is not sufficient; we must posses the interior strength to throw off the germ. There must be no condition in the soul to make a suitable nidus for an enemy so insidious and so efficacious as to need only the slightest point of contact whence to spread its deadly contagion.

"It is not only through the avenues of disordered passions that this spiritual disease may gain an entrance; it may make its inroad through the intellect, and this under a disguise often calculated to deceive the unwary and incautious. The Trojans admitted the enemy into their walls under the impression that they were actually securing a valuable acquisition to their safety, and today their fatal experience has come down to us in the proverb: “Beware of the Greeks when they bring gifts.”** Intellectual torpidity, inexperience, ignorance, indifference, complaisance, or even virtues **(10) such as benevolence, generosity, and pity may be the unsuspecting way open the foe, and lo! We are surprised to find him in possession of the citadel.

"That we may know our danger we must appreciate the possible shapes in which it may come. Here is just the difficulty; the uniform of the enemy is so various, changeable, sometimes even of our own colors, that if we rely upon the outward semblance alone we shall be more often deceived than certain of his identity…

"Heresy and infidelity are irreconcilable with Catholicity. "Who is not with me is (13) against me are the words of Our Lord Himself, for denial of Catholic truth is the radical and common element of both heresy and infidelity. The difference between them is merely a matter of degree. One denies less, the other more. Protestantism with its sliding scale of creeds is simply an inclined plane into the abyss of positive unbelief. It is always virtual infidelity, its final outcome open infidelity, as the thirty-three millions of unbelievers in this country stand witness.
We live in the midst of this religious anarchy. Fifty-three millions of our population is anti-Catholic. From this mass, heretical and infidel, exhales an atmosphere filled with germs poisonous and fatal to Catholic life, if permitted to take root in the Catholic heart. The mere force of gravitation, which the larger mass ever exercises upon the smaller, is a power which the most energetic vigor alone can resist. A deadly inertia under this dangerous influence is apt to creep over the souls of the incautious and is only to be overcome by the liveliest exercise of Catholic faith. To live amidst an heretical and infidel population without enervation requires a robust religious constitution…

"It is natural that Protestantism and infidelity should find public expression. What our sixty million non-Catholic population think in these matters naturally seeks and finds open expression. They have their organs and their literature, where we find their current opinions publicly uttered. Their views upon religion, morality, politics, the constitution of society are perpetually marshaled before us. In the pulpit and the press they are reiterated day after day. In magazine and newspaper they constantly speak from every line. Our literature is permeated and saturated with non-Catholic dogmatism. On all sides do we find this opposing spirit. We cannot escape from it. It enfolds and embraces us. Its breath is perpetually in our faces. It enters in by eye and ear. It enswathes us in its offensive garments from birth to death. It now soothes and flatters; now hates and curses, now threatens and now praises. But it is most dangerous when it comes to us under the form of “liberality.” It is especially powerful for seduction in this guise. It is under this aspect we wish (15) to consider it. For it is as Liberalism that Protestantism and Infidelity make their most devastating inroads upon the domain of the Faith…*

Chapter II: *"Protestantism naturally begets toleration of error. Rejecting the principle of authority in religion, it has neither criterion nor definition of faith…

"We find as a result amongst the people of this country (excepting Catholics of course) that authoritative and positive religion has met with utter disaster, and religious beliefs or unbelief’s have come to be (17) mere matters of opinion, wherein there are always essential differences, each one free to make or unmake his own creed or no creed.

"Such is the mainspring of the heresy constantly dinned into our ears, flooding our current literature and our press. It is against this that we have to be perpetually vigilant. The more so as it insidiously attacks us on the grounds of a false charity and in the name of a false liberty. Nor does it appeal only to us on the ground of religious toleration.

"The principle ramifies in many directions, striking root into our domestic, civil, and political life, whose vigor and health depend upon the nourishing and sustaining power of religion. For religion is the bond which unites us to God, the source and end of all good, and Infidelity, whether virtual as in Protestantism or explicit as in Agnosticism, severs the bond which binds men to God, and seeks to build human society on foundations of man’s absolute independence. Hence we find Liberalism laying down as the basis of its propaganda the following principles:

1. The absolute sovereignty of the individual in his entire independence of God and God’s authority.
2. The absolute sovereignty of society in its entire independence of everything which does not proceed from itself. (18)
3. Absolute civil sovereignty in the implied right of the people to make their own laws in entire independence and utter disregard of any other criterion than the popular will expressed at the polls and in parliamentary majorities.
4. Absolute freedom of thought in politics, morals, or in religion. The unrestrained liberty of the press.

"Such are the radical principles of Liberalism. In the assumption of the absolute sovereignty of the individual, that is, his entire independence of God, we find the common source of all the others. To express them all in one term in the order of ideas, they are RATIONALISM or the doctrine of the absolute sovereignty of human reason. Here human reason is made the measure and sum of truth. Hence we have individual, social and political Rationalism, the corrupt fountain head of liberal principles: absolute freedom of worship, the supremacy of the State, secular education repudiating any connection with religion, marriage sanctioned and legitimatized by the State alone, etc.; in one word, which synthesizes all,…

"**Liberalism… will always be fond of stigmatizing the most ardent defenders of the Faith as reactionaries, clericals, Ultramontanes, etc. ** Whereever found, whatever its uniform, Liberalism in its practical action is ever a systematic warfare upon the Church

Liberalism is a world complete in itself; it has its maxims, its fashions, its art, its literature, its diplomacy, its laws, its conspiracies, its ambuscades. It is the world of Lucifer, disguised in our times under the name of Liberalism, in radical opposition and in perpetual warfare against that society composed of the Children of God, the Church of Jesus Christ". END OF CHAPTER II*

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Chapter III:

Liberalism, whether in the doctrinal or practical order, is a sin. In the doctrinal order, it is heresy, and consequently a mortal sin against faith. In the practical order it is a sin against the commandments of God and of the Church, for it virtually transgresses all commandments. To be more precise: in the doctrinal order Liberalism strikes at the very foundations of faith; it is heresy radical and universal, because (22) within it are comprehended all heresies. In the practical order it is a radical and universal infraction of the divine law, since it sanctions and authorizes all infractions of that law.

"Liberalism is a heresy in the doctrinal order, because heresy is the formal and obstinate denial of all Christian dogmas in general. It repudiates dogma altogether and substitutes opinion, whether that opinion be doctrinal or the negation of doctrine. Consequently it denies every doctrine in particular. If we were to examine in detail all the doctrines or dogmas which, within the range of Liberalism, have been denied, we would find every Christian dogma in one way or the other rejected, from the dogma of the Incarnation to that of Infallibility. None the less is Liberalism in itself dogmatic; and it is in the declaration of its own fundamental dogma, the absolute independence of the individual and the social reason, that it denies all Christian dogmas in general. Catholic dogma is the authoritative declaration of revealed truth, or a truth consequent upon revelation, by its infallibly constituted exponent. This logically implies the obedient acceptance of the dogma on the part of the individual and of society. Liberalism refuses to acknowledge this rational obedience and denies the authority. (23) **It asserts the sovereignty of the individual and the social reason, and enthrones Rationalism in the seat of Authority. **It knows no dogma except the dogma of selfassertion. Hence is it heresy fundamental and radical, the rebellion of the human intellect against God.

"It follows, therefore, that Liberalism denies the absolute jurisdiction of Jesus Christ, who is God, over individuals and over society,… **It moreover denies the necessity of divine revelation and obligation of every one to accept that revelation under pain of eternal perdition. It denies the formal motive for faith, viz., the authority of God revealing, and admits only as much of revealed doctrine as it chooses or comprehends within its own narrow capacity. … It negates everything which it itself does not affirm. But not being able to affirm any truth beyond its own reach, it denies the possibility of any truth which it does not comprehend. **The revelation of truth above human reason it, therefore, debars at the outset. The divinity of Jesus Christ is beyond its horoscope. The Church is outside its comprehension. The submission of human reason to the Word of Christ or its divinely constituted exponent is to it intolerable. It is, therefore, the radical and universal denial of all divine truth and Christian dogma, the primal type of all heresy, and the supreme rebellion against the authority of God and His Church. With Lucifer its maxim is: “I will not serve.”

"Such is the general negation uttered by Liberalism. From this radical denial of revealed truth in general, naturally follows the denial of particular dogmas in whole or in part, as circumstances present them in opposition to its rationalistic judgement…

When we come to the practical order, Liberalism is radical immorality. Morality requires a standard and a guide to rational action;… It therefore requires a principle or fundamental rule of all action, by which the subject of moral acts, the rational creature, determines his course and guides himself to the attainment of his end. **In the moral order the Eternal Reason alone can be that principle or fundamental rule of action, and this Eternal Reason is God. In the moral order the created reason, with power to determine its course, must guide itself by the light of the Uncreated Reason, who is the beginning and end of all things. The law, therefore, imposed by the Eternal Reason upon the creature, must be the principle or rule of morality. Hence obedience and submission in the moral order is an absolute requisite of morality. ** But Liberalism has proclaimed the absurd principle of the absolute sovereignty of human reason; it denies any reason beyond itself and asserts its independence in the order of knowledge, and hence in the order of action or morality. Here we have morality without law, without order, freedom to do what one pleases, or what comes to the same thing, morality which is not morality, for morality implies the idea not only of direction, but also essentially demands that of restraint and limitation under the control of law. Liberalism in the order of action is license, recognizing no principle or rule beyond itself.

"We may then say of Liberalism: in the order of ideas it is absolute error; in the order of facts it is absolute disorder. It is therefore, in both cases a very grievous and deadly sin, for sin is rebellion against God in thought or in deed, the enthronement of the creature in the place of the Creator. (END CH. III

 

[ethelzguy]

What I find interesting, is that (according to this thread) it is a sin to be “liberal”.

Yet, from a socio-economical standpoint, Jesus Christ was the quintissential “liberal”.

Even in his religious teachings, he could have been considered a “liberal”…(Let the one among you without sin…)

Go Figure.

 

[KingAlfred]

I’d like to believe I’m a moderate, doctrinally speaking, but a conservative, culturally speaking. Actually, I’m a bit confused on this issue. I want the Catholic Church preserved and strengthened against its enemies, while at the same time forgiving of its sinners within. For example, on one level, I’m pro-ecumenism, but on another, I don’t trust evangelical fundamentalists, given their apparent hatred of Catholicism. I guess in the end, I’m a defender of the faith, with moderate doctrinal views, if that makes any sense.

 

[CapIV]

“Classical Liberalism” and modern liberalism are two completely different things. As is libertarianism.

Politically, liberalism cannot be a heresy since it deals only with the state. Put simply, classical liberals believe that the state ought not meddle in the affairs of its citizens.

This is greatly different from a modern liberal, who believes in a high level of government intervention. (national healthcare, welfare, etc.)

Liberalism is only a heresy when treated as a sort of John Stuart Mills morality. (everyone leaves everyone to his own morality). Here it is clearly a heresy and practical relativism.

And none of these definitions of liberal has anything to do with “open–mindedness”. (which is another definition of liberal.)

I suggest all of you start defining your terms a bit better. Especially when it comes to centuries old language. (for example, Gothic means “light of God”, yet Gothic today means something entirely different".) You shouldn’t go about proclaiming everyone sinful when you yourselves misunderstand terms. No one is going to hell because they think that the government should provide healthcare or anything like that.

 

[pnewton]

No, but I have been called a liberal and modernist in this venue. This is something laughable among the people who know me.

 

[ethelzguy]

No, but I have been called a liberal and modernist in this venue. This is something laughable among the people who know me.

Equally interesting was to read here that Benedict XVI is a tradtionalist and a modernist, by the same person in the same post!

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

“Classical Liberalism” and modern liberalism are two completely different things. As is libertarianism.

I thought someone would say this. The only difference between the two is the degree. Today’s liberalism is much more pronounced than it was previously, but the fundamentals are identical.

Politically, liberalism cannot be a heresy since it deals only with the state.

It is still based on heretical ideas. The ideas are mentioned in the few chapters I quoted. The errors of today’s political liberalism is the independence of the State from God. In other words, the State does not believe it is jusbject to the law of God. It subsututes the Uncreated Eternal Reason (God), to the created reason of man. This is why laws are now based on “the will of the people” rather than the will of God. So, if 51% of the people decide that abortion is OK, that become law, regardless of what God says.

The fundamental idea behind this is Liberalism - the independence of the social reason (society) from the law of God.

The truth, however, is that all men, and society as a whole, are bound to obey God’s law. Liberalism denies that in theory and in practice. This is the fundamental error of Liberalsim - the desire to “liberate” man from his duties to God.

Put simply, classical liberals believe that the state ought not meddle in the affairs of its citizens. This is greatly different from a modern liberal, who believes in a high level of government intervention. (national healthcare, welfare, etc.)

You’ve hit on an interesting point here. Liberalism is, in reality, a means to an end. The end is the total control of the Godless State over every aspect of man’s life.

Jesus said that we are either for Him, or against Him. Liberalism destroys the “for Him”, and as such, the State natural becomes “against Him” (and His followers). That is where Liberalism is now taking us - to the banning of Christianity as a hate crime.

Liberalism is only a heresy when treated as a sort of John Stuart Mills morality.

It is a heresy at its source, since it promotes the idea that man is not bound to obey the law of God.

I suggest all of you start defining your terms a bit better. Especially when it comes to centuries old language. .

The fundamentals are identical. Today’s Liberalism deceives many because it is presented under the appearance of good. It pretdends to promote social good, when it seeks to gain control through an ever increasing, and ever powerful Atheistic government.

 

[Cajetan]

The classical liberal “idea,” as defined by Fr. Salvany, goes back at least as far as ancient Greece, and around the time of the French Revolution intellectuals were re-reading the Greek and Latin classics with vigor. The onset of “Humanism” was in many ways the direct result of Europeans putting aside theology and rediscovering Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Virgil, Livy, Seneca, etc. – pre-Chrstian “secular” literature. They were inspired by what they read.

As for contemporary liberalism, it is more rooted in Marxist thought.

 

[Spiller]

What I find interesting, is that (according to this thread) it is a sin to be “liberal”.

Yet, from a socio-economical standpoint, Jesus Christ was the quintissential “liberal”.

Even in his religious teachings, he could have been considered a “liberal”…(Let the one among you without sin…)

Go Figure.

So true. I couldn’t even read the whole thing. Actually I could read more than the first couple of sentences.

Some of these self-proclaimed “traditionalists” had better come to the realization one day that “liberals” are not the only thing damaging the Church – not by a long shot. And that not all liberalism is negative from a Catholic viewpoint.

While I appreciate the more extreme views on these forums represent far less than 1% of the Catholic populous in the USA, they do nothing but underscore a very important truth: extreme liberalism equates to extreme conservatism and vice versa.

 

[Spiller]

The classical liberal “idea,” as defined by Fr. Salvany, goes back at least as far as ancient Greece, and around the time of the French Revolution intellectuals were re-reading the Greek and Latin classics with vigor. The onset of “Humanism” was in many ways the direct result of Europeans putting aside theology and rediscovering Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Virgil, Livy, Seneca, etc. – pre-Chrstian “secular” literature. They were inspired by what they read.

As for contemporary liberalism, it is more rooted in Marxist thought.

Thanks for the correction…

French Revolution?

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

What I find interesting, is that (according to this thread) it is a sin to be “liberal”.

Yet, from a socio-economical standpoint, Jesus Christ was the quintissential “liberal”.

One quick point before leaving for Church: Like the Communists, the Liberals cloak their errors in the window dressing of a pretended concern for the poor or needy. They deceive under the appearance of good, and as such attract doctrinally unsound “Chritians”.

In spite of their pretended care for the poor, the fundamental errors remain the same.

 

[moderate_trad]

So true. I couldn’t even read the whole thing. Actually I could read more than the first couple of sentences.

Some of these self-proclaimed “traditionalists” had better come to the realization one day that “liberals” are not the only thing damaging the Church – not by a long shot. And that not all liberalism is negative from a Catholic viewpoint.

While I appreciate the more extreme views on these forums represent far less than 1% of the Catholic populous in the USA, they do nothing but underscore a very important truth: extreme liberalism equates to extreme conservatism and vice versa.

Can you or Ethelzguy ever make a post on this forum without cruel, over-generalized, negative statements about traditionalists?

 

[ethelzguy]

Can you or Ethelzguy ever make a post on this forum without cruel, over-generalized, negative statements about traditionalists?

*What I find interesting, is that (according to this thread) it is a sin to be “liberal”.

Yet, from a socio-economical standpoint, Jesus Christ was the quintissential “liberal”.

Even in his religious teachings, he could have been considered a “liberal”…(Let the one among you without sin…)

Go Figure.*

Where in this post did I make a cruel, over generalized, negative statement about traditionalists?

 

[moderate_trad]

*What I find interesting, is that (according to this thread) it is a sin to be “liberal”.

Yet, from a socio-economical standpoint, Jesus Christ was the quintissential “liberal”.

Even in his religious teachings, he could have been considered a “liberal”…(Let the one among you without sin…)

Go Figure.*

Where in this post did I make a cruel, over generalized, negative statement about traditionalists?

I admit, it wasn’t this thread. But it angers me to see the way that certain posters – it wasn’t fair of me to target you and Spiller by name, especially as there are others – take it upon themselves to repeatedly bait and attack traditionalists. Again, I apologize that I mentioned names and don’t want to lead people further from the topic of this thread.

 

[ethelzguy]

I admit, it wasn’t this thread. But it angers me to see the way that certain posters – it wasn’t fair of me to target you and Spiller by name, especially as there are others – take it upon themselves to repeatedly bait and attack traditionalists. Again, I apologize that I mentioned names and don’t want to lead people further from the topic of this thread.

no biggie…and the beat goes on…

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Actually, I don’t know of an instance where Christ endorsed anything political.

Before anyone throws up the following verse, I’d like to explain my position on it.

Mat 22:21 They say to him: Caesar’s. Then he saith to them: Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God, the things that are God’s.

Caesar and what was Caesar’s was of this world. Christ said this, not only to foul up a plan to persecute Him but also, to demonstrate the difference of worldly things and spiritual things.

Most of the posts I’ve seen discussing “liberals” or “conservatives” are no more than ad hominen attacks on those who have different political views and spirituality is used as a “big stick”. This is not rendering to Caesar that which is Caesar’s and to God, the things that are God’s, in my opinion. It seems to be more of an attempt to mix the two.

I think to choose either is going too far, in one direction or the other. Proper positioning seems to be moderate, or centered if it makes more sense.

Just my :twocents:

May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1

 

[pnewton]

Can you or Ethelzguy ever make a post on this forum without cruel, over-generalized, negative statements about traditionalists?

Yes, over-generalizations are always a danger. I noticed your join date was two days ago. How are you aware of all the posts they have made? Are you a previously banned poster returning?

 

[SanJudas]

*What I find interesting, is that (according to this thread) it is a sin to be “liberal”.

Yet, from a socio-economical standpoint, Jesus Christ was the quintissential “liberal”.

Even in his religious teachings, he could have been considered a “liberal”…(Let the one among you without sin…)

Go Figure.*

With no disrespect, ethelz, I believe you have the philosophical concept of Liberalism confused with the virtue of Charity. Liberalism is based on the humanistic notion that man and woman, independent from God, have the sufficient ability to make moral laws for themselves, instead of obeying the ones Our Lord has handed down to us. It is also based on the idea that the workings of the economy should not be regulated or even directed in any way by the government, again because each person is “empowered” to make his or her own decisions regarding these matters.
A food stamp program for the truly needy, for example, could fall under the definition of charity, but it is an un-liberal program in that it redistributes income. These concepts are understood much better in other countries than in our own, where political parties have perverted the definitions of “liberal” and “conservative” for their own ends. I lived in Latin America for twelve years and was surprised at first to hear left-wingers condemn “neo-liberalism,” and conservatives embracing it.
For example, conservatives in Europe (and once upon a time here in the USA also) oppose foreign intervention in other countries’ affairs. “Spreading freedom and democracy” and “the joys of the free market” around the world are originally liberal concepts, which stem from the Enlightenment. In modern-day USA, however, that attitude is now identified with conservatives.
Relief for the poor was practiced since Old Testament times; hardly a bunch of “liberals” those Old Testament Hebrews! The original liberals condemned the practice because it interfered with the functioning of the market.
In fine, Liberalism is sinful because it rejects God’s commandments and replaces them with man’s preferences and opinions. Today, both our majority current political trends are Liberal. Neither the liberals, with their acceptance of abortion, gay marriage, and extramarital sex, nor the conservatives, with their worship of money, the stock market, and US military power, act in accordance with the commands of God.