Liberalism is a sin? or the morality of liberalism

[Bennie_P]

I just got this book I ordered from Ave Maria Radio (then I found it on the web where you can read it free!) titled “Liberalism Is A Sin,” by Don Felix Sarda y Salvany, The book was orginally written 1887, yet it is like reading straight out of today’s world. The book has been edited to reflect some of todya’s realities. But it is still amazing, if not prophetic in nature.

Here is couple of paragraphs

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.

Is liberalism a sin? Having once been a self-described liberal and socialist I would now have to say yes.

But after reading this book I would also have to say many of those that claim to be conservative, promoting overt self-reliance over God, that is the so-called protestant work ethic are more liberal then thier conservative claim. Maybe in reality here in America we have been liberal from the start, never Catholic friendly or Christian, even in appearances.

Link to the book
liberalismisasin.com/index.htm

And an intersting article about the fall of mainline Protestant Church in America
The Death of Protestant America: A Political Theory of the Protestant Mainline by Joseph Bottum

**Copyright (c) 2008 First Things (August/September 2008). **

The ideas presented in the book and the article seem to be a window to the problem of Liberalism.

So is Liberalism a sin?

 

[Starwynd]

Partisan hacks have no credibility in my eyes, and the title alone reeks of it.

I am so sick of partisan junk from both sides it’s not even funny.

 

[rpp]

Partisan hacks have no credibility in my eyes, and the title alone reeks of it.

I am so sick of partisan junk from both sides it’s not even funny.

The book is not a political partisan hack.

I have read it and it refers to the approach, originating in America, of how to interpret Catholic Doctrine. Using a more broad approach, according to the author found in more “liberal” movements is at odds, with Christ’s, “narrow gate” teaching.

Just because it is an election year does not mean that everything is politicized. (Despite the fact that it seems that way.)

 

[puzzleannie]

since no definition of liberalism is offered in the citation or by OP or further posters, not possible to answer intelligently.

 

[Bennie_P]

since no definition of liberalism is offered in the citation or by OP or further posters, not possible to answer intelligently.

Read before you attack. The liberalism that is discussed in the book are ideas that oppose Church teaching.

What is your idea of liberalism.

At least go read the intro…

 

[Biggie]

How could it not be so? Adherence to tradition is the foundation of our faith. Chesterton says tradition gives the Church in heaven a voice in the affairs of the Church militant.

 

[Isambard]

Read before you attack. The liberalism that is discussed in the book are ideas that oppose Church teaching.

What is your idea of liberalism.

At least go read the intro…

So he’s redefining liberalism to use it as synonym for “evil”. Very cute on his part

 

[Starwynd]

The book is not a political partisan hack.

Baloney.

Here’s the first sign of partisan hackery:

The other side is evil and my side is good. Yes, this is something of a general statement and can even apply to religion, but in this context it is not about religion but politics of conservatives and/or Republicans versus liberals and/or Democrats.

And calling liberalism evil while saying conservatism is good is sheer partisan hackery. Period. And yes i’d call baloney with preferably much stronger words than I am allowed to say on this site when librals pull this **** too. And have done so many hundreds if not thousands of times.

And no, I am not interested in further semantic debate on this issue either. nAnybody who uses partidsan hackery has no credibility in my eyes and is not worth talking to.

And I have nothing further to say.

 

[Bennie_P]

Baloney.

Here’s the first sign of partisan hackery:

The other side is evil and my side is good. Yes, this is something of a general statement and can even apply to religion, but in this context it is not about religion but politics of conservatives and/or Republicans versus liberals and/or Democrats.

And calling liberalism evil while saying conservatism is good is sheer partisan hackery. Period. And yes i’d call baloney with preferably much stronger words than I am allowed to say on this site when librals pull this **** too. And have done so many hundreds if not thousands of times.

And no, I am not interested in further semantic debate on this issue either. nAnybody who uses partidsan hackery has no credibility in my eyes and is not worth talking to.

And I have nothing further to say.

The book was published in the 19th century, in Spain, read before you attack and the article is about the downfall of the mainline protestant Church in America. This thread has nothing to do with with what you accuse. If you would take time to read my post you will notice that I accused so-called conservatives of being “liberal” too by the definitions in the book. What agenda are you on?

By the way there is a good and an evil the only thing is in this country just maybe both sides have taint of evil, what do you think? Read the book and the article before you attack.

 

[Bennie_P]

Here is better link for the book. The book has a proper Imprimatur and is written by a Catholic. Not a politcal hack.

ewtn.com/library/theology/libsin.htm

LIBERALISM IS A SIN****Dr. Don Felix Sarda Y Salvany

Nihil Obstat: F. G. Holweck
Censor Librorum
St. Louis, June 26th, 1899
Imprimatur: John J. Kain
Archbishop of St. Louis
St. Louis, Missouri June 30, 1899

Chapter 30 Can Catholics and Liberals Ever Unite?
A question very pertinent to our times and our surroundings is, “Should Catholics combine with the more moderate Liberals for the common end of resisting the advance of the revolutionists or extreme Liberals?” With some, this is a golden dream; with others, a perfidious snare by which they seek to paralyze our powers and divide us.
What should we think of these would-be unionists, we who wish above all things the wellbeing of our Holy Religion? In general, we should think such unions are neither good nor commendable. Liberalism, let its form be as moderated or as wheedling as possible, is by its very essence in direct and radical opposition to Catholicity. Liberals are the born enemies of Catholics, and it is only accidentally that both can have interests that are truly common.

 

[UndertheRadar]

I would like to thank the OP for bringing up this book. I have been wanting to find some literature on this subject.

 

[Caesar517]

Why are people so eager to jump into politics and perceive an attack on their beliefs?

I read the first three chapters and I am hooked; this is excellent. I’ll make sure I have time to finish this. http://www.council-of-elrond.com/forums/images/smilies/reading.gif

 

[Starwynd]

This is nothing more than a blatant attack on people’s beliefs, period, not percieved. Whenever you call anybody’s beliefs evil it is an attack.

Let’s put it this way, how do you feel about protestants who claim that the Catholic Church is actually a Satanic organization for having practices that can not be supported by the Bible? Such as say the crucifix is a vioolation of the commandment “Thou shalt not have any graven images of thy Lord?”

And there’s far worse.

Could you not take it personal and as an attack on yourself for somebody saying “being a Catholic is pure evil and sinful because they are not true Christians?”

Or atre you going to just sit back and either dismiss it out of hand or give a real objective look at the claim.

Sorry, but the title alone is a pure attack driven by aprtisan interests and therefore the entire book has no credibility.

 

[Caesar517]

Have you even read the first three chapters, Starwynd?

 

[Starwynd]

I refuse to even touch the book for the title alone. It is a piece of partisan junk.

And yes I would say the exact same thing if things were reversed.

This is a book that should not be read, period. It in itself is a sin.

Partisan hackery has absolutely no credibility. All it does is cause harm and tears people and countries apart through its continuing demonization of people.

I see this kind of damned thing on political boards all the time.

But hey, if you want to go and wallow in sinful hate and pride go right ahead, I can’t stop you. Go ahead and read the awful book.

And you didn’t answer the question i posted to you. When people call your beliefs evil, do you not take it personally as an attack?

 

[Caesar517]

I don’t think you have any idea what that book is about. It is not referring to politics, if you are under that impression.

It’s time for lunch, I’ll have to read more later.

 

[UndertheRadar]

I refuse to even touch the book for the title alone. It is a piece of partisan junk.

And yes I would say the exact same thing if things were reversed.

This is a book that should not be read, period. It in itself is a sin.

Partisan hackery has absolutely no credibility. All it does is cause harm and tears people and countries apart through its continuing demonization of people.

I see this kind of damned thing on political boards all the time.

But hey, if you want to go and wallow in sinful hate and pride go right ahead, I can’t stop you. Go ahead and read the awful book.

And you didn’t answer the question i posted to you. When people call your beliefs evil, do you not take it personally as an attack?

There will always be those who reject this book because it does not promote their way of life. If you would read the history of this book you would find out that the local bishop rejected it too. He had it sent to Rome where it was highly praised.

You have tried to devalue the book by making it out to be a book of hatred. I find your distaste to be ironic because you seem to be asserting the fact that we are not allowed to say that something is wrong on the face of it, the same ideals of liberals.

“Moral conscience, present at the heart of the person, enjoins him at the appropriate moment to do good and to avoid evil.** It also judges particular choices, approving those that are good and denouncing those that are evil.**…When he listens to his conscience, the prudent man can hear God speaking.” (CCC, n. 1777)

 

[rpp]

I refuse to even touch the book for the title alone. It is a piece of partisan junk.

You cannot know this because you, by your own admission, are uninformed as to the content of this book, originally written in Spanish.

I am certain you have heard the truism, “You cannot judge a book by it’s cover.” That certainly applies here.

You are judging a book by it’s cover, and quite incorrectly, as I and other have indeed pointed out.

Since you do not have the slightest clue about what you are talking about, perhaps you should follow-through on an earlier promise you made on this thread.

And I have nothing further to say.

I will also add that some of the things some people believe are most certainly evil. Pointing out the evil in a person’s is something that all Christians are morally obligated to do.

Starwynd, you are the person decrying the politicization of various things, yet you are the only one who is politicizing this. Do you practice what you preach? Are you so hypertensive to the term “liberal”, that you recoil in horror whenever you see it in print? If that is case, you should probably not read the directions for hand lotion or wound ointment as they say to apply the lotion or ointment “liberally”. The use of the word there is as political as it is in this book.

 

[Bennie_P]

I refuse to even touch the book for the title alone. It is a piece of partisan junk.

And yes I would say the exact same thing if things were reversed.

This is a book that should not be read, period. It in itself is a sin.

Partisan hackery has absolutely no credibility. All it does is cause harm and tears people and countries apart through its continuing demonization of people.

I see this kind of damned thing on political boards all the time.

But hey, if you want to go and wallow in sinful hate and pride go right ahead, I can’t stop you. Go ahead and read the awful book.

And you didn’t answer the question i posted to you. When people call your beliefs evil, do you not take it personally as an attack?

You don’t get the point at all do you?

The book was written in the 19th century in a country a generation before a civil war broke out between two liberal groups, one facist and the other Marxist. Caught in between the two groups was the Catholic Church in which the more liberal of the groups murdered hundreds of priest, nuns and devout Catholics. Both groups were tainted with evil and both groups were liberal in thought and action.

The book presents the ideas of what is wrong with liberalism as it compares with the teaching the Church, just as people didn’t pay attention to the conflict that exist between the two then the fail to do so today.

By the way I presented the idea that many conservatives of our time, by the context of the book, could be called liberals also. But you choose to wave your own politcal banner/bias instead of discussing the ideas presented by the book.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[rwoehmke]

Liberalism is one of those “fighting” words that carries so much baggage and has shifted back and forth in meaning over the past three or four hundred years. One really need to specify what particular tenet of liberalism that is to be debated or we will go around in circles like a pair of tomcats hissing and spitting at one another.

Changing certain traditions (small T) has nothing to do with liberalism. It is the Traditional Teaching (Big T) of the Apostles and early Church that is important.

I would expect that any book on Liberalism written in 19th century Spain, post reformation, post inquisition (It lasted into the 19th century} is going to “gig” more than a few things characteristic of multicultural, multifaith democracies. Spain was far from a democratic form of government at the time.

So in my opinion, and I have read portions of the book, some things still apply, some do not. Just don’t dream that democratic forms of government are going to meet all of your expectations or change because they are too “liberal” for your tastes.