You seem to have missed the supposition in it I addressed.
OK, then please spell it out for me in as clear and explicit a manner as you can, so that I may see what you see without engaging in any unproductive eisegesis on my mission to find the most charitable version of your supposed argument.
In reading your post it makes a lot of sense, and as a whole, I agree with it. But it also leads me to wonder and question the good or evil that could come about from the opposite taken to the extreme.
And when I clicked on the first link I took exception pretty quickly, the first paragrah I think. Now, granted, maybe I am misunderstanding but:
“Free-thought begets free morals, or immorality. Restraint is thrown off and a free rein given to the passions. Whoever thinks what he pleases will do what he pleases. Liberalism in the intellectual order is license in the moral order. Disorder in the intellect begets disorder in the heart, and vice-versa. Thus does Liberalism propagate immorality, and immorality Liberalism.”
I am not a liberal or liberal leaning in any way. But I do have strong libertarian views. And I do not believe that free thought begets free morals, or immorality. I greatly value my ability to be a free thinker and believe that there are far too many sheep among the population in the usa. As a free thinker I believe that I have the ability to look outside the box if you will, outside the box that is presented via news media, etc… presented as popular opinion, or arguments against popular opinion, and have the ability through the use of logic and reason to determine for myself and to draw my own conclusions about a number of different issues where I think that many/most of my fellow citizens are limited in this way.
This does not lead me in any way to the abscense of morality or the abscence of restraint. I have not lost my common sense by becoming a free thinker. I also believe that one can potentially entertain fantasy without acting on it (although I do acknowledge that since recently rediscovering my faith and investing myself into relationships with God and Jesus Christ once again afte many years of drifting away from the Church, that a lot of fantasy in and of itself is sinful, even if one were not to act on it and I have since actively been avoiding sinful fantasy or fantasy thinking that is not healthy for me even if not sinful.
And I do not agree that libertarian thinking/beliefs (not to be confused with liberal) leads to disorder in the heart.
Now maybe I am confusing the link in presupposing that liberalism is meant to mean libertarianism, if so, disregard my post.
If not, I am quite confident that by being a free thinker (one who is able to make up one’s own mind about issues after examining evidence/idea’s from all sorts of different perspectives I am in a better state of being than those who do not have the ability to think freely, to use logic and reason, and follow dogma as if it were logic and can not distinguish between the 2. And I have seen this from both ends of the political spectrum.
I stopped reading at that point as I wanted to get feedback on what I have taken from that which I have read thus far, as well as my comments on same.
I think your concerns, which mostly just refer to a link in my signature that was brought-up off-topic earlier, might be resolved if you read
Chapter 2: What Is Liberalism?. It shouldn’t take very long, as that’s a particularly short chapter. Also, you both might want to consider the letter below, which was issued by a high Church authority after a Liberal Bishop complained to Rome.
*To The Most Rev. Jacobo Catala Et Alboso,
Bishop of Barcelona
Most Excellent Sir:
The Sacred Congregation of the Index has received the denunciation of the little work bearing the title El Liberalismo es Pecado 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 D. 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, 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 judgment, however, cannot be passed on the other work, that 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 the 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, whereas 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 Secheri, O.P.
Secretary of the Sacred Congregation Of the Index.*
