(LifeSiteNews) — This is the fifth part of a series on the true nature of human freedom. 

The first part discussed man’s natural liberty, by which he is free to choose how he will act. The second part examined moral liberty, by which man freely acts in accordance with his own nature. The third part explored the ways in which God assists us, so that we might attain moral liberty. The fourth part explained how laws made by the state can help man to attain true liberty. 

The subject of this instalment is the ideology of liberalism, and its incompatibility with true freedom. 

The law of reason makes us free 

In the previous instalments we have seen that to be truly free, man must act in accordance with his own nature, that is, in accordance with reason. He does this by observing the natural law, which is written on his heart, and which is made known to him by the judgments of his conscience. The natural law is internal to man.   

However, the same moral principles are taught by the Catholic Church, to which they were made known by divine revelation. This divine law is external to man. 

There is no conflict between these two laws, because both have their origin in God. By following them, and by cooperating with divine grace, man attains moral liberty.  

Finally, man is assisted by the just laws of the state in which he lives. These human laws are derived from the natural law, and regulate certain actions more precisely, for the common good. They encourage morality, and help secure human freedom, by deterring wrongdoing by means of punishment.   

The natural law, the divine law, and the human law are all derived from the eternal law of God which directs the whole universe to its final end. Conforming himself to this law, man acts always in accordance with his true nature, and thus attains his final end of happiness. Following the eternal law of God makes man more free, not less free.  

Tragically, human beings, in our fallen state, often associate rebellion against law, rather than conformity to law, as the path to liberty. Men who fall into this error may then accuse the state and the Church, and ultimately God Himself, of limiting their freedom, rather than advancing it.   

In his encyclical letter “On Human Liberty,” Pope Leo XIII lamented this evil: 

If when men discuss the question of liberty they were careful to grasp its true and legitimate meaning, such as reason and reasoning have just explained, they would never venture to affix such a calumny on the Church as to assert that she is the foe of individual and public liberty. But many there are who follow in the footsteps of Lucifer, and adopt as their own his rebellious cry, “I will not serve”; and consequently substitute for true liberty what is sheer and most foolish license. Such, for instance, are the men belonging to that widely spread and powerful organization, who, usurping the name of liberty, style themselves liberals.^[1] 

Liberals, according the Roman Pontiff, are the enemies of true liberty.  

What is liberalism?   

Liberalism is a political ideology, which has its roots in the false philosophies of rationalism and naturalism. 

Pope Leo XIII explains that: 

The fundamental doctrine of rationalism is the supremacy of the human reason, which, refusing due submission to the divine and eternal reason, proclaims its own independence, and constitutes itself the supreme principle and source and judge of truth.^[2]  

And of naturalism he writes: 

Now, the fundamental doctrine of the naturalists, which they sufficiently make known by their very name, is that human nature and human reason ought in all things to be mistress and guide. Laying this down, they care little for duties to God, or pervert them by erroneous and vague opinions.   

For they deny that anything has been taught by God; they allow no dogma of religion or truth which cannot be understood by the human intelligence, nor any teacher who ought to be believed by reason of his authority.  

And since it is the special and exclusive duty of the Catholic Church fully to set forth in words truths divinely received, to teach, besides other divine helps to salvation, the authority of its office, and to defend the same with perfect purity, it is against the Church that the rage and attack of the enemies are principally directed.^[3] 

Liberalism is the application of rationalism and naturalism “in the domain of morality and politics.”^[4] 

And the moral and political consequences of this ideology are profound:  

[T]hese followers of liberalism deny the existence of any divine authority to which obedience is due, and proclaim that every man is the law to himself; from which arises that ethical system which they style independent morality, and which, under the guise of liberty, exonerates man from any obedience to the commands of God, and substitutes a boundless license.^[5]   

Liberalism is the belief that human action is independent of any objective order external to the human person. Consequently, there is no objective reason why man shouldn’t be free to think, believe, write, say, or do whatever he himself judges to be right. Now, it is clear to all, that the consequence of such a position, if taken to its limits, would be complete anarchy. Thus, the liberal generally holds that man’s freedom of action is in fact limited, but only when it infringes upon the rights of another human being.  

The liberal approach to morality and the Catholic approach to morality, therefore, differ completely. For the liberal, an action is morally wrong because it infringes on the rights of another person. For the Catholic, an action is morally wrong because it is contrary to the order of reason, which has been ordained by God.  

The liberal regards man as the measure of all things. Human action can only be limited by the rights of another man. The Catholic regards God and His eternal reason as the measure of all things. Human action must conform to the order of divine reason.  

Liberalism and Catholicism are irreconcilable   

The transgender ideology provides a good example of where liberalism has taken us. The proponents of this ideology regard themselves as emancipated from any “submission” to “the eternal reason.” Even though the maleness, or femaleness, of a person is encoded in every cell in the body, and is clearly recognizable to all, they nonetheless proclaim their “independence,” and regard themselves as “the supreme principle and source and judge of truth.” Only by this means do we arrive at the absurdity of being able to proclaim that a man is a woman, and that a woman is a man.

From this intellectual and moral liberalism, political consequences also follow. Once the liberal has asserted the principle that people have a “right” to their own “gender identity,” it follows logically that they will argue that no-one is justified in infringing the exercise of this right. Indeed, those who seek to do so will be violating liberalism’s fundamental moral principle and must be regarded as immoral.  

As the liberal does not accept that there is an external rational order to which human beings must conform, the arguments of their opponents – which necessarily are based on rational argument – must be identified as “oppressive” or “bigoted.” 

The ideology of transgenderism is a clear example of the absurdity to which liberalism has led us. But many other conclusions of liberalism have become generally accepted in our society, including – tragically – by good and sincere people who wish to be faithful Catholics.   

Yet beyond all doubt, liberalism is one of the major causes of the evils afflicting the modern world. Its defeat is necessary for the restoration of Christian civilization and the attainment of true freedom, and in order to be defeated it must first be understood.  

Liberalism first arose in the aftermath of the Protestant Reformation, when the principle of private judgement was introduced into religious matters. While in theory Protestants recognized the existence of a divine revelation and a divine law to which man must conform, in practice, the principle of sola scriptura forced the intellectually engaged Protestant to form his own understanding of the meaning of scripture, and to assert his independence from any human authority that attempted to compel him to accept a particular set of doctrines.   

Furthermore, the division caused by the fracturing of Christendom, and the associated persecutions and wars, led many men to argue for tolerating individual judgment in religious matters. But toleration as a practice, in order to secure social peace, soon developed into the assertion of a fundamental right to believe whatever one wished in religious matters.  

The origin of liberalism lies in the assertion of man’s independence from the claims of any external religious authority. 

Religious liberalism 

The effects of liberal principles, when applied to religion, were very clearly enunciated by John Henry Newman in a speech given on the occasion of his elevation to the College of Cardinals in Rome in 1878. He used the opportunity to warn of the growing danger of “liberalism in religion.” He said: 

For thirty, forty, fifty years I have resisted to the best of my powers the spirit of liberalism in religion. Never did Holy Church need champions against it more sorely than now, when, alas! it is an error overspreading, as a snare, the whole earth; and on this great occasion, when it is natural for one who is in my place to look out upon the world, and upon Holy Church as in it, and upon her future, it will not, I hope, be considered out of place, if I renew the protest against it which I have made so often.^[6]

He then described the nature of this liberalism in more depth: 

Liberalism in religion is the doctrine that there is no positive truth in religion, but that one creed is as good as another, and this is the teaching which is gaining substance and force daily. It is inconsistent with any recognition of any religion, as true. It teaches that all are to be tolerated, for all are matters of opinion. Revealed religion is not a truth, but a sentiment and a taste; not an objective fact, not miraculous; and it is the right of each individual to make it say just what strikes his fancy. Devotion is not necessarily founded on faith.^[7] 

The liberal regards his intellect as being independent from external authority. He therefore regards himself – and his neighbor – as free to choose and practice any religion he chooses. This is in sharp contrast to the approach of the Catholic – or any other genuine seeker of religious truth – who wants to know which religion has truly been revealed by God, so that he can conform his intellect to its doctrine.  

The espousal of liberal religious principles has very real, practical consequences. Newman continues:  

Men may go to Protestant Churches and to Catholic, may get good from both and belong to neither. They may fraternise together in spiritual thoughts and feelings, without having any views at all of doctrine in common, or seeing the need of them. Since, then, religion is so personal a peculiarity and so private a possession, we must of necessity ignore it in the intercourse of man with man. If a man puts on a new religion every morning, what is that to you? It is as impertinent to think about a man’s religion as about his sources of income or his manage. Religion is in no sense the bond of society.^[8]

The consequence of religious liberalism is secularism. As Newman so aptly puts it, when liberalism is dominant, “religion is in no sense the bond of society.” Religion ceases to be a public rule of life which unites the members of a society together with each other and with God. Instead, religion becomes a merely private matter and God is excluded from the life of the state. The laws of the state will henceforth be regarded as liberated from any necessary conformity to the laws of God.  

By this means religious liberalism leads to political liberalism.  

Political liberalism 

Liberalism, as seen above, denies “the existence of any divine authority to which obedience is due.”^[9]

If there be no divine authority to which man must conform, there is no longer any divinely ordained rule by which states should be governed. And as Pope Leo XIII warned:  

The end of all this it is not difficult to foresee, especially when society is in question. For, when once man is firmly persuaded that he is subject to no one, it follows that the efficient cause of the unity of civil society is not to be sought in any principle external to man, or superior to him, but simply in the free will of individuals; that the authority in the State comes from the people only; and that, just as every man’s individual reason is his only rule of life, so the collective reason of the community should be the supreme guide in the management of all public affairs. Hence the doctrine of the supremacy of the greater number, and that all right and all duty reside in the majority.^[10]

Under liberalism, government becomes about following the wishes of the people – often the wealthiest, most influential, or most ruthless people – rather than pursuing the course of action which is most objectively for the good of the people. This is, as Leo XIII, says a “contradiction to reason,”^[11] because what is reasonable in any given situation is not determined by what the majority, or the wealthy, or the powerful think, but by whether it conforms to the order of reason established by God.  

A good government does what is right, even if it is against the wishes of the majority of the population.   

Pope Leo XIII continues by describing the consequences of the breaking of the bonds that holds men in union with each other, and with God.  

He teaches: 

To refuse any bond of union between man and civil society, on the one hand, and God the Creator and consequently the supreme Law-giver, on the other, is plainly repugnant to the nature, not only of man, but of all created things; for, of necessity, all effects must in some proper way be connected with their cause; and it belongs to the perfection of every nature to contain itself within that sphere and grade which the order of nature has assigned to it, namely, that the lower should be subject and obedient to the higher.^[12] 

As human beings we are by nature creatures of God, and it is only by being united to Him that we can achieve the perfection proper to our nature. Liberalism breaks this bond by positing that men, both individually and collectively, do not need to conform to the order established by God.  

The Supreme Pontiff teaches that “a doctrine of such character is most hurtful both to individuals and to the State.”^[13] For, he continues: 

[O]nce ascribe to human reason the only authority to decide what is true and what is good, and the real distinction between good and evil is destroyed; honor and dishonor differ not in their nature, but in the opinion and judgment of each one; pleasure is the measure of what is lawful; and, given a code of morality which can have little or no power to restrain or quiet the unruly propensities of man, a way is naturally opened to universal corruption.^[14] 

Fallen human nature, unrestrained by any external rule, will not be able to resist the allurements of sin, and what is true of individuals will be also be true when we come together as a collective:    

With reference also to public affairs: authority is severed from the true and natural principle whence it derives all its efficacy for the common good; and the law determining what it is right to do and avoid doing is at the mercy of a majority. Now, this is simply a road leading straight to tyranny.^[15] 

With no obligation of obeying God recognized, “it follows that religion, as a public institution, can have no claim to exist, and that everything that belongs to religion will be treated with complete indifference.”^[16]  

The absence of religion as the bond uniting society to God and serving as the foundation of human laws, will ensure that “tumult and sedition will be common amongst the people; and when duty and conscience cease to appeal to them, there will be nothing to hold them back but force, which of itself alone is powerless to keep their covetousness in check.”^[17]

Thus Leo XIII warned that liberalism would lead to revolution: 

Of this we have almost daily evidence in the conflict with socialists and members of other seditious societies, who labor unceasingly to bring about revolution. It is for those, then, who are capable of forming a just estimate of things to decide whether such doctrines promote that true liberty which alone is worthy of man, or rather, pervert and destroy it.^[18] 

These statements of Leo XIII should not be thought incompatible with the doctrine that man possesses an internal rule of reason – the natural law – which guides his moral judgments.  

Indeed, Leo XIII was well aware that some liberals thought that the natural order of reason would prove to be sufficient for securing human happiness. He wrote: 

There are, indeed, some adherents of liberalism who do not subscribe to these opinions, which we have seen to be fearful in their enormity, openly opposed to the truth, and the cause of most terrible evils. Indeed, very many amongst them, compelled by the force of truth, do not hesitate to admit that such liberty is vicious, nay, is simple license, whenever intemperate in its claims, to the neglect of truth and justice; and therefore they would have liberty ruled and directed by right reason, and consequently subject to the natural law and to the divine eternal law. But here they think they may stop, holding that man as a free being is bound by no law of God except such as He makes known to us through our natural reason.^[19] 

It should be clear from the previous instalments of this series why the natural law itself is not in practice sufficient for man to attain moral liberty. In the articles on the divine law and the human law I explained that man in his fallen state needs the support of an external rule if he is consistently act in accordance with right reason. I also explained that the natural law only directs us towards natural happiness. But man’s ultimate goal is supernatural happiness, and this can only be attained by obeying to the divine law. Finally, it is impossible for fallen man to consistently avoid sin without the assistance of divine grace.  

Man’s need for external support and divine help is not the only reason why the liberal position outlined above is untenable. For once man accepts that God exists, and that he has written a law into our nature, it becomes inconsistent to reject the law of God which he makes known by revelation.  

Leo XIII teaches: 

For if – as they must admit, and no one can rightly deny – the will of the Divine Law-giver is to be obeyed, because every man is under the power of God, and tends toward Him as his end, it follows that no one can assign limits to His legislative authority without failing in the obedience which is due.^[20] 

The liberal who accepts the existence of God and of the natural law is bound to accept, as all men are bound to accept, the divine law which God has revealed to the Catholic Church and which she teaches to the nations:  

Indeed, if the human mind be so presumptuous as to define the nature and extent of God’s rights and its own duties, reverence for the divine law will be apparent rather than real, and arbitrary judgment will prevail over the authority and providence of God. Man must, therefore, take his standard of a loyal and religious life from the eternal law; and from all and every one of those laws which God, in His infinite wisdom and power, has been pleased to enact, and to make known to us by such clear and unmistakable signs as to leave no room for doubt.^[21]  

To admit the natural law and yet refuse the divine law taught by the Church is “plainly inconsistent’: 

And the more so because laws of this kind have the same origin, the same author, as the eternal law, are absolutely in accordance with right reason, and perfect the natural law. These laws it is that embody the government of God, who graciously guides and directs the intellect and the will of man lest these fall into error.^[22] 

Man is guided by his natural reason, by the voice of his conscience which judges according to the natural law written on his heart, but, due to the effects of the fall, man cannot repudiate the external rule – divine and human law – without falling into error and sin. 

A man may retain a perception of the moral order in certain areas of life, but act in an unrestrained manner in others. A man may act kindly to his family, while exploiting his workforce; he may be opposed to murder, while living unchastely. As fallen human beings we need external support to live in a morally upright way, we will not be able to do so by our natural powers alone. 

There is, however, another type of liberal, who accepts both the natural law and man’s obligation to obey the revealed divine law, but who sees this as a personal matter between man and God, which ought not to involve the state. 

Tragically, this error has become very common, even among those who sincerely wish to be faithful to the Catholic Church. 

Therefore, in the next instalment we will turn to look in more detail at what Pope Leo XIII called “the fatal theory of the need of separation between Church and State.”^[23]