Liberalism

Question 1. To what extent does one sin who professes Liberalism, that is, the politico-religious system which teaches the full independence of the State from the Church?

Response 1. One who plainly professes Liberalism is a heretic, because revelation teaches at least some dependence of the State upon the Church.¹ The same, as is clear, must be said of one who adheres to a particular doctrine which is opposed to faith.

Response 2. One who admits a particular doctrine, not indeed reproved by the Church as heretical, but nevertheless definitively reproved, sins gravely. Of this sort is, for example, proposition 48 of the Syllabus of Pius IX: "That manner of instructing youth which is separated from the Catholic faith and from the power of the Church, and which looks only, or at least primarily, to the science of merely natural things and to the ends of earthly social life, can be approved by Catholic men."²

Response 3. One who gives his name to a group, for example an electoral group, of Liberals sins gravely, according to what is to be said in n. 509.

¹ Bull of Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, November 18, 1302; Encyclical of Pius IX, Quanta cura, December 8, 1864; Encyclical Libertas, June 20, 1888.

² Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1748; cf. Encyclical of Pius XI Divini illius Magistri, December 31, 1929.

VI. Associations to be reproved. "The faithful are worthy of praise if they give their names to associations erected or at least commended by the Church; but let them beware of secret, condemned, seditious, suspected associations, or associations which strive to withdraw themselves from the legitimate vigilance of the Church" (can. 684).

Corollary I. It is illicit to give one's name to anti-Catholic associations, whether religious or social, of which sort are, for example:

Masonic societies;¹ Carbonari;² Fenians;³ Anarchists;⁴ Communists, Nihilists, Internationalists, and Socialists;⁵ theosophical societies;⁶ biblical societies;⁷ clerico-liberal societies;⁸ a society erected for procuring the unity of Christianity;⁹ workers' societies which are called Odd Fellows, Sons of Temperance, Knights of Pythias;¹⁰ the Independent Order of Good Templars (Guttempler-Orden);¹¹ and societies which promote the cremation of human corpses.¹²

Corollary II. Per se it is also illicit to give one's name to social associations, whether indeed Christian but not specifically Catholic, or neutral. The reason is that social questions too must be solved with dependence on the Catholic Church, and not, as happens in the aforesaid associations, independently of her (n. 117). There is added that dangers to faith and morals are not so rarely attached to societies of this sort.

Corollary III. By reason of dangers, other associations or parties also can be prohibited by ecclesiastical authority, as, for example, Action Française.¹³

Corollary IV. As regards the gravity of the sin committed by one who gives his name to an association to be reproved, it must be said as follows:

1. One who, as is commonly done by those of whom we are speaking, internally admits some proposition reproved by the Church sins gravely.

2. One who internally does not admit any doctrine definitively proscribed by the Church nevertheless sins gravely:

a) If he gives his name to an anti-Catholic association, whether religious or social; both because at least externally he professes errors rejected by the Church, and because there are added cooperation, scandal, and often danger to faith, arising from the fact that he has given his name to a party which professes evil principles, pursues evil ends, and uses evil means.

b) If he gives his name to an association or party named and truly prohibited by ecclesiastical authority, because a prohibition of this sort is judged to have been made under grave obligation.

c) It is not clear that the same must per se be said of one who gives his name to a social association, whether Christian but not specifically Catholic, or neutral, but nevertheless not positively prohibited. In the case, a grave cause can excuse, unless scandal to be avoided because of the circumstances stands in the way.

¹ Can. 2335.

² Cf. Constitution of Pius VII Ecclesiam, September 25, 1821, and Leo XII, Quo graviora, March 13, 1825; cited canon.

³ Cf. Holy Office, January 12, 1870; cited canon.

⁴ Cited canon.

⁵ Encyclical of Leo XIII Quod apostolici muneris, December 28, 1878; Encyclical of Pius XI Quadragesimo anno, May 15, 1931.

⁶ Cf. Holy Office, July 18, 1919 (Acta Apostolicae Sedis 1919, p. 317).

⁷ Constitution of Pius IX Qui pluribus, 1846.

⁸ Syllabus, § 178; Encyclical of Pius IX Quanta cura, December 8, 1864; Encyclical of Leo XIII Libertas, June 20, 1888.

⁹ Cf. Holy Office, September 16, 1864, November 8, 1865 (Collectanea de Propaganda Fide, nn. 1262, 1276).

¹⁰ Holy Office, August 20, 1894.

¹¹ Holy Office, August 9, 1893 (Collectanea, n. 1845).

¹² Holy Office, May 19, 1886 (Acta Sanctae Sedis, t. 19, p. 46).

¹³ Cf. Acta Apostolicae Sedis 1926, pp. 382, 517, 529; 1927, pp. 5, 157.

Who make laws in Civil Society? - The Prince or the people or both together, according to the varied form of government, make laws. In monarchical Governments, Princes who enjoy supreme power in civil society make laws. In representative Governments the power of making laws resides in the King, or in the President of the republic, and in the legislative Body constituted from Deputies, or also from Senators. Indeed secular Princes are true superiors in civil society, and that power is necessary for the right governance of civil society. Therefore there is no doubt that their laws can also oblige in conscience. L. 104; S. Th. 1. 2. q. 105. a. 1; E. M.

"Gloom is an alien and an enemy in Christian hearts," writes Charles Stanton Devas. "If Christianity is the religion of sorrow, it is also, and pre-eminently, the religion of joy; the solution of this antinomy being that Christianity is the religion of love, and that in this world love and sorrow are linked by a mysterious partnership. Now Christian asceticism is no superstitious pain-worship, no offering to some pain-loving deity, some evil principle opposed to the good, as though life and health were not God's good gifts; nor again has it ought in common, except sometimes the outward show, with the proud self-righteousness of the Hindu ascetic or Moslem dervish. Much rather Christian asceticism is a form of love; and love being the root of joy, it follows that Christian joyfulness is not in spite of asceticism, but its consequence. We are taught as an elementary truth that man is on earth for the one end of perfecting himself in the love of God. This is his purpose and probation. But only through labor, pain and suffering is love perfected. Christianity, then, has no mission to eliminate labor, pain, and suffering from this world (pati et perpeti humanum est, wrote Leo XIII), but to transmute them. They can be the means whereby we can obtain the subjection of the lower selfish life and of greedy individualism; the suppression of false self-assertion and of blind nature before the law of reason and of God. Christianity is frankly 'the religion of suffering, of mortification, of self-sacrifice, of consuming love, of self-forgetting zeal, of self-crucifying union,... the religion of the cross and the Crucified.' ³⁸ Joyous abandonment, generous self-sacrifice, these are the watchwords, and to become living images of the Divine Model of whom it is written that He pleased not himself."³⁹

³⁸ Cfr. St. Augustine, Contra Duas Epistolas Pelag., l. III, c. 8, n. 24: "These are the clouds [of the Pelagians] concerning praise of creation, praise of marriage, praise of free choice, and praise of the saints—as though any one of us disparaged these things and did not rather proclaim them all with the praises due to the honor of the Creator and Savior. But creation does not wish to be praised in such a way that it does not wish to be healed. And the more marriage is to be praised, the less the shameful concupiscence of the flesh, which is not from the Father but is from the world (1 John II, 16), is to be imputed to it. Marriage certainly found this concupiscence in human beings; it did not cause it, since concupiscence exists in very many without marriage, and marriage, if no one had sinned, could have existed without concupiscence." (Migne, P. L., XLIV, 606). —St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 28, art. 1-4; Contra Gent., l. III, c. 112, n. 6. —J. Mausbach, Catholic Moral Teaching and its Antagonists Viewed in the Light of Principle and of Contemporaneous History, (tr. by A. M. Buchanan), New York, 1914, pp. 131 sqq.

³⁹ C. S. Devas, The Key to the World's Progress, pp. 121 sq., London, 1906.

77. In this our age it is no longer expedient that the Catholic Religion be held as the only religion of the State, all other forms of worship whatever being excluded.

Alloc. Nemo vestrum, July 26, 1855.

78. Hence, laudably in certain regions of Catholic name, provision has been made by law that it be permitted to men immigrating there to have the public exercise of each one's own worship.

Alloc. Acerbissimum, September 27, 1852.

79. Indeed it is false that civil liberty of every form of worship, and likewise the full power attributed to all of openly and publicly manifesting any opinions and thoughts whatsoever, conduces to corrupting more easily the morals and minds of peoples, and to propagating the pest of indifferentism.

Alloc. Nunquam fore, December 15, 1856.

80. The Roman Pontiff can and ought to reconcile and compose himself with progress, with liberalism, and with recent civilization.

Alloc. Jamdudum cernimus, March 18, 1861.

II. Of how much importance it is to meet Liberalism and Socialism. - Not rarely does it happen that certain Catholics are imbued with the spirit of liberalism and adhere in some measure to its theories; similarly, to those of socialism. Therefore it is necessary that the confessor know those errors, and be able to bring forth a prudent judgment concerning the stain of liberalism or socialism by which perhaps penitents are infected, and to set before himself the right mode of acting with penitents of this kind.

For the matter is full of dangers. Ordinarily, indeed, someone does not become a complete liberal or socialist immediately from the beginning. He begins to read newspapers or other writings of liberals or socialists; he associates with their societies, perhaps without an evil intention, or gives them his vote in political elections. Nor for this reason does he necessarily become impious or indifferent in the matter of religion; but ordinarily his faith grows cold and religious practice is gradually diminished. In the sons of men of this kind religious indifference is wont to grow; and their sons are still baptized, make first Communion, enter marriage before the Church, and call a priest at the end of life, but besides these things there is almost no practice of religion. In the third generation there will already be complete indifference, or even hostility toward religion, so that in practical life paganism as it were prevails.

Against these dangers priests must seriously admonish and fortify the faithful, both publicly and also privately in confession.

In present times, indeed, the matter perhaps becomes less practical in our regions, because many liberals no longer frequent the church or the sacraments, nor is the struggle against them so sharp as formerly; nevertheless the principles always hold, and new circumstances could occur in which they would again serve more in practice. Indeed, because of the absence of struggle the dangers are perhaps greater, since the faithful do not so easily perceive the imminence of danger and the greatness of the evil. Hence one must never desist from opportune admonition.

III. Notions concerning Liberalism.² - In general, all those are called liberals who confuse the physical liberty of choosing with independence from God and from those sharing divine authority, which moderns call moral liberty; hence, under the false name of liberty, they pursue a certain absurd and most deadly license or independence.

² Concerning Liberalism, cf. Pius IX, const. Quanta Cura, 8 Dec. 1864, and the Syllabus; Leo XIII, const. Immortale Dei, 1 Nov. 1885, and enc. Libertas, 20 June 1888; Moulart, L'Eglise et l'Etat; Daris, L'Eglise et l'Etat; Villada, Casus Conscientiae; Aertnijs, Th. P., nn. 94-101; Bouquillon, Theologia Moralis Fundamentalis, n. 246 sq.; Ballerini, Opus Morale, II, tr. 4, n. 164 sq.; Theologia Mechliniensis, de Fide, nn. 44-46. Certain things are also found in Genicot, Th. M., I, n. 205, and in Lehmkuhl and Ferreres, in their respective work: Casus Conscientiae.

A. One kind is doctrinal or philosophical liberalism, which applies in the moral and civil matter the principles of rationalism or even naturalism, which place the principate of human reason, private or public, individual or universal, as the highest principle and judge of truth.

And indeed in such a way that it denies every divine power and law and follows a morality fully independent; or at least denies every revelation and positive and supernatural divine law, but admits a merely natural morality. This is not treated here, because it pertains to those who are not faithful and therefore do not confess.

B. Another kind is merely economic, which denies divine and moral law in economic matters and in the production of riches.

This is not considered in the present matter, because it is opposed more to justice than to faith and religion or to the first precept of the Decalogue.

C. Another kind is merely political, which admits divine law, even supernatural law, for private persons, but not for civil society and its laws; hence it defends liberty of conscience, of cults, of the press, of doctrine, and of association.

Namely, it proclaims the separation of the State and the Catholic Church, and the State's indifference concerning various religious confessions. But by the name of separation from the Church, they understand and signify an absolute divorce between the two powers, all mutual concord and all mutual help being taken away, so that the Church, despoiled of every influence, of all goods, and of all external prerogatives, lives in hiding, while the State governs all things as if the Church did not exist. Hence it professes the separation of marriage from the Church, and its subjection under the civil power; the separation of the school from the Church and its subordination under the direction of civil authority; the abrogation of the immunity of clerics from the burden of undergoing and exercising military service, etc. In one word: it is a political system which professes the full independence of the State from the Church or from religion.³

³ Cf. encyclical of Leo XIII, Libertas, 20 June 1888.

In this form of liberalism a threefold grade can be distinguished:

1. Radical liberalism, which so exaggerates this independence that it wishes the Church to be subject to the State. Its watchword is: the Church in the State, that is, the Church subject to the State.

2. Moderate liberalism, which professes the simple separation of the State from the Church and from every religion, using this formula: a free Church in a free State.

3. So-called Catholic liberalism, which professes that from the nature of the thing religion is not to be separated from civil society, but that each power ought to govern the human race by a concordant effort; yet in the general hypothesis of the present age, attention being paid to progress and the condition of men, that it is no longer expedient to desire and defend that conjunction, but that simple separation is to be approved and sought, together with the modern liberties flowing from it, especially those of cults and of the press. Let the words be noted well: in the general hypothesis, to be sought, to be approved; because it is not liberal but truly Catholic to profess that in special circumstances these liberties are to be tolerated in order to avoid greater evils or to obtain greater goods.

Now the errors of liberalism in every grade have been condemned by the authority of the Church;⁴ hence those who knowingly profess such errors sin gravely.

⁴ Cf. the encyclical of Pius IX, Quanta Cura, and the Syllabus; likewise the encyclical of Leo XIII, Libertas.

The word liberal is of itself equivocal; hence if in certain regions it is taken in an entirely different sense, or designates a merely political party which in no way defends condemned principles, those things which we have said would not hold concerning such liberalism. Nor do we intend to speak of it, but we speak in the theologically received sense.

IV. Whether there is invincible ignorance of liberalism. - The answer is:

1. As regards the radical form of liberalism, ordinarily this must be denied, because its errors are so open, and so opposed to the fundamental principles of morality, that even the more unlearned cannot fail to recognize its falsity and impiety.

2. As regards the other milder forms, if the unlearned are excepted, most who call themselves liberals are not in good faith, and therefore are to be treated as such by the confessor.

The reason is that the documents of the Holy See condemning Liberalism are publicly known, and have been so propagated that invincible ignorance among most people seems morally impossible: this holds especially and generally concerning those who by reason of office are bound to know the falsity and condemnation of liberalism, such as kings, ministers and counselors of the kingdom, senators, deputies, prefects of provinces and cities, judges, advocates, and similar officials who have a part in making laws or putting them into execution; and also editors of political newspapers.

3. Nevertheless, more unlearned persons and, exceptionally, certain educated persons are found who profess milder Liberalism in good faith.

This happens both because, having been preoccupied by the doctrine of their parents, teachers, and companions, they judge liberalism of this kind harmless, and because they do not know how to distinguish between thesis and hypothesis, and confuse the liberty of evil which is owed by right with the toleration of evil which is done for the sake of avoiding a greater evil or increasing or preserving good.

V. Is the confessor bound to question penitents concerning the sin of liberalism? - The answer is: Affirmatively, as concerning other sins. And indeed, if liberals everywhere are admitted to the sacraments without question or admonition, and confessors in the sacred tribunal keep deep silence concerning this matter, the faithful will think the matter is not of great importance and will not sufficiently perceive the depravity of liberalism. Hence, although the matter, as we have noted, has become less practical because of circumstances, nevertheless it is not to be consigned wholly to oblivion: otherwise concerning the evil doctrine and dangers of Liberalism the same will happen as concerning bad readings, which are no longer sufficiently held as evil, because priests have omitted sufficiently to admonish concerning their depravity. Therefore:

1. A penitent is to be questioned, whoever he may be, whether unlearned or learned, whether poor or prince, who is silent about the sin of liberalism of which he is certainly known to be guilty, for example from the confessor's own knowledge or from public knowledge. And if, when questioned, the penitent denies it and appears formally to lie, he can in no way be absolved.

2. Likewise he is to be questioned who is probably thought to be a liberal or a favorer of liberalism, for example if he is held as such by many grave men, or if he belongs to a liberal assembly or party which is opposed to religion or the Church, or if ordinarily he reads truly liberal newspapers without just cause. If a penitent of this kind seriously denies that he is a liberal, ordinarily he is to be believed: unless, because of special circumstances, a grave doubt remains, in which case the principles are to be applied which govern those doubtfully disposed, and he is to be absolved only under condition if a grave cause is present, or absolution is to be deferred if this is not feared to be harmful to the penitent.

3. Nevertheless not all penitents are to be questioned: for a mere suspicion of sin does not suffice, even from rumors of the crowd or from a reputation arising from no certain source, but true and solid probability, or a prudent and grave doubt, is required.

As to the manner of questioning, let the confessor proceed cautiously, beginning by asking generally, for example whether he feels any troublesome temptations against faith or against declarations of the Supreme Pontiffs or bishops or the doctrine of the Church; if the penitent denies this, let him ask further, for example, thus: do you not have relations with enemies of the Church, or sympathy for those who attack her? do you not frequent adversaries of the Church? are you therefore not a follower of liberalism?... From the response it will be clear what sort he is; then, if there is need, let him ask whether he reads liberal newspapers, frequents or supports an assembly of liberals; likewise concerning speaking against the doctrine, ministers, and precepts of the Church and concerning transgression of these.

VI. Must the confessor admonish penitents who seem to be in good faith concerning the malice of liberalism? - The answer is: Affirmatively, of itself, that is, unless at some time greater harm would follow from the admonition. Given opportunity, he is bound to admonish them, especially if the penitents are persons who, because of office, learning, or honor, exercise great influence upon others. The reason is both because they are rarely in invincible ignorance, and because the errors of liberalism are very harmful to the liberals themselves as to faith, to their family for the education of children, and to the common good because of public scandal and the depraved influence which they exercise upon others.⁵

⁵ Nor ought it create business for the confessor that such penitents will be deterred from the sacraments in the future; for by admonition precisely this is intended, that either they abstain from the sacraments, by the reception of which they provide scandal to the faithful, or they abandon the sin of liberalism now known to them.

But if, after the admonition has been made, someone refuses to obey and pertinaciously adheres to Liberalism, he is unworthy of absolution, and to grant it would be a great scandal for him and for other faithful.

We said: of itself, for:

1. it can happen that this penitent, not solidly pious, would be turned away more from the Church and inflict great harm upon her because of his influence: in which case it will be more prudent to abstain;

2. penitents lightly infected with liberalism can be in good faith, and, if no fruit is hoped for from admonition, be left in good faith. Then nevertheless the confessor should generally inculcate the necessity of believing the doctrine of the Church and of obeying all her precepts.

VII. Cooperation toward liberalism. - Just as liberalism itself is evil, so cooperation toward it is evil of itself and is to be avoided. This can be furnished in several ways:

1. through bad liberal newspapers, not only by writing, collaborating, printing, supporting, spreading, and selling them without a grave cause proportioned to the evil, but also by reading them; and this will be gravely evil if one very bad article is read, or if someone habitually reads them, or even rarely but with grave danger or grave scandal;

2. through patronage or subsidy of liberal works (for example schools) given without a grave cause;

3. through the election of liberal deputies, which will also be gravely evil if it is done from conviction; or even without conviction, if the outcome of the election appears doubtful and probably can depend on the vote;

4. a fortiori through the office of the deputies themselves, namely by effectively giving a vote to laws infected with liberalism.

VIII. Case concerning a dying liberal. - It is asked what is to be done by a confessor called to a dying man who is counted among the leading liberals. The answer is:

1. if the dying man, destitute of his senses, sought a priest or gave signs of a desire for confession, absolution and Extreme Unction are to be conferred absolutely; but under condition if he gave no signs, provided that he did not expressly refuse the confessor immediately or almost immediately before he was deprived of his senses;

From our whole exposition of socialism it is evident that only a very superficial observer could possibly consider it the invention of some designing trickster or the artificial product of political adventurers. We have pointed repeatedly to the remoter origin and deeper sources of socialism. Yet it will be worth our while to review the actual causes of the socialist movement and to present them here arranged in proper order. We are the more willing to undertake this duty, since it will give us the opportunity to shed more light, not only upon the real significance of socialism, but also upon its intimate connection with liberalism.

Socialists themselves acknowledge that they have only drawn the logical conclusions from principles set up by liberals; and liberalism is accused by Catholics generally of having given birth to socialism. The liberals, on their part, with horror and indignation disclaim all connection with socialism. Liberalism does not profess, so say its defenders, to abolish private property: it only makes ownership free. Nor does it profess to advocate a servile industrial organization: it only advocates unrestricted freedom for all.

Notwithstanding all the protestations of the liberals, we cannot but consider socialism as the lineal descendant of liberalism, however much the parent may try to disown its offspring. The question is this, whether the principles set up and defended by liberals logically lead to socialism or not; and this question we believe must be answered in the affirmative.¹

¹ On Feb. 23, 1890, Bebel said in the Reichstag: “You know as well as we that the more faith in a life to come disappears from among the people, the more the people will clamor for having their heaven on earth.” This thought is not quite original with Bebel. Heine had said the same fifty years before. Remarking on the subversive influence of German philosophy on religion he continues: “The overthrow of the old beliefs has also uprooted the former morality. . . . The destruction of a belief in heaven is of consequence not only in morals but also in politics. The common people chafe at their earthly misery and yearn for happiness on earth. Communism is the natural outcome of these changed views, and it is spreading all over Germany. (Heine’s Works, vol. III. Hamburg, 1876, pp. 113-115.)

1. The deepest roots of socialism are atheism and materialism. If it is once admitted that all ends with this life, that man has no higher destiny than the lower animals which wallow in the mud, who, then, can require of the poor and oppressed, whose life is a continued struggle for existence, that they bear their hard lot with patience and resignation, and look on with indifference while their neighbors are clad in purple and fine linen, and daily revel at sumptuous banquets?

Is not the inextinguishable yearning for perfect happiness implanted also in the breast of the workingman? If you despoil him of every hope of a better life to come, what right have you to prevent him from striving to obtain happiness on earth as best he can, and therefore to make imperative demands for his share of earthly goods? Is he not a man as well as his employer, who thrives on the laborer’s exertions? Who can prove to workingmen from the standpoint of atheism that it is meet and just that one should pine in poverty and want, while another enjoys abundance of all things, since all have the same nature, and no reason can be given on atheistic grounds why the goods of this world should belong to one rather than to another? If the atheistic and materialistic theory is true, the demands of socialism are certainly just—that all the goods and enjoyments of this life should be equally divided among all; that it is, therefore, unjust that one should live in a magnificent palace and enjoy all pleasures without labor, while another is living in a squalid cellar or cold garret, and cannot, even with the greatest effort, obtain enough bread to appease his hunger.

Already in 1847, in a speech before the Prussian Diet, BISMARCK expressed this same idea in the following words: “I do not understand how in those states (which are not based on religion) the ideas of the communists, for instance, concerning the immorality of private ownership and the high moral value of theft as of an attempt to restore the inborn rights of men, can rightfully be prevented from asserting themselves if they have the power to do so. For, also these ideas are looked upon by their originators as very humanistic, yea, as the prime flower of humanism. Therefore, gentlemen, let us not curtail the Christian sentiments of our people.”¹

¹ Cf. Busch, Bismarck und seine Leute während des Krieges mit Frankreich, vol. I, p. 210.

Now, who is it that has preached and propagated atheism in all its forms? Who has sought by all ways and means to restrict the influence of Christianity in the school and in public life? Who is it that proclaimed extreme Darwinism as a dogma and popularized it for the ignorant masses? Who is it that even in our own day, in speech and in writing, in the chairs of universities and in public assemblies, preaches the grossest atheism? It is the representatives of liberalism, beginning with the French Encyclopedists down to our own university professors, who combat and decry the faith in God and in Christ the Saviour as stupidity and superstition. More especially Hegel and Feuerbach are the intellectual progenitors of the socialist heroes Marx and Engels (cf. above, p. 37 sqq.). Hence Marx himself utters the sarcastic taunt against the liberals, that atheism seems to them a venial fault compared with the crime of criticising the traditional conditions of property.¹ Wherein they have sinned therein they are punished.

¹ Capital, Introduction, p. ix. Virchow, one of the chief luminaries of liberalism, publicly maintained in the Prussian Diet, May 8, 1891, that he could not understand how a reasonable man could imagine that men are on earth in order to prepare for heaven.

It is especially by its baneful influence on the schools that liberalism has disseminated unbelief in the great mass of the people. For the last century already the universities have been hotbeds of infidelity. A pitifully small minority of university professors still make open profession of Christianity. By far the greater number is indifferent if not hostile to the Christian religion, or at most professes some milk-and-water kind of Christianity.

From the universities the streamlets of infidelity are trickling farther and farther. Wherever liberalism dares to show its true nature it endeavors to banish religious influences from the elementary schools, and, as it is called, to secularize them. And in doing so liberalism is but consistent with its principles.

Lately a liberal university professor—Dodel-Port— published a book which permits us to look behind the scenes perhaps more than is agreeable to some of the professor’s associates. His work is entitled, “ Moses and Darwin.” What, the author asks, is taught at our universities? Darwin and always Darwin. The doctrines of creation, of paradise, of the fall of the first man, the narration of miracles, he tells us, have been cast aside by modern science and relegated into the realm of fables. The representative “scientists” teach that there is no personal God, that man was developed from animality, that there is no immortal soul and no free will, and that in the history of mankind everything is determined by mechanical laws as in the rest of nature, etc. This is the teaching of the universities.

But what is taught in the (German) elementary schools? The very reverse. There the children are imbued with a belief in Moses, in the existence of God, the creation of the world, the fall of man, miracles, etc.

Is this contradiction to go on forever? No, is the verdict of our author. Off with the customary mask of hypocrisy! Let us show our true colors. Eject Moses and his miracles from the elementary school, that not every student of the higher branches may be forced to fight out the hard struggle between two systems which are diametrically opposed.

From the liberal point of view this demand is perfectly justified; but from it we can also perceive to whom is due that infidelity which is infecting all classes of the population and has blessed us with modern socialism and its revolutionary ideas.¹

¹ In the session of the Reichstag of May 23, 1878, Dr. Jörg remarked very aptly: "The most urgent necessity is the regeneration of the school. Personally I fear less the socialism of the present than the socialism of the future which is growing up among our young people. Owing to mistaken political calculations the schools have more and more been withdrawn from religious influences and thereby their doors have unwittingly been opened to socialism. Modern pedagogy, or, I might say, the modern schoolcraze, has become a seminary of socialism. Willy nilly, the effect is to raise the children above their level and thus to sow dissatisfaction broadcast among the people. Thus I wish to be understood, if I tell you openly that a wretched, burdened laborer who does not pray, who has forgotten or never learned it, will fall an easy prey to socialism as soon as it comes to fetch him.” If this be true of German elementary schools, what shall we say of our American public schools with their fads and pretensions?

Socialists are fully aware that their atheism is based on modern infidel science. Engels terms “the German labor movement the inheritor of classical German philosophy.” Bebel has repeatedly acknowledged his indebtedness to modern scientists. On September 16, 1878, he said in the Reichstag: “Gentlemen, you attack our views on religion because they are atheistic and materialistic. I acknowledge the correctness of the impeachment. ... I am firmly convinced that socialism finally leads to atheism. But who has established the scientific and philosophical foundations of those atheistic doctrines which cause you so much anxiety and displeasure? Was that done by socialists? Edgar and Bruno Bauer, Feuerbach, David Strauss, Ernest Renan—were they socialists? They were men of science... . We have adopted our atheistic tenets in accordance with our scientific convictions, and we feel obliged in conscience to spread them among the masses. Why should that be forbidden to one party which is allowed to the other?” The spokesmen of modern science will be at a loss to find a suitable reply; for, even if they do not make open profession of infidelity, they are, at least for the most part, infected with the principles of Strauss and Renan.

2. The second great principle of the revolutionary party is equality. Here again socialism takes the same stand as liberalism, and draws the last consequence from its principles. Who invented the watchword liberty, equality, and fraternity, and thus gave an appearance of right and even of duty to the bloody French Revolution? It was the representatives of liberalism. The worthies of the Revolution—the Jacobins and Girondists—were the true forefathers of the modern liberals, who delight in their principles and phraseology, and continually spout liberty and equality. In virtue of this liberty and equality the ancient order of things was subverted; the privileges of the nobility and the prerogatives of the Church were abolished; every memory of ancient institutions was effaced; the people were declared sovereign; and, finally, the “citizen Capet” was brought to the scaffold. True, when the liberal bourgeoisie had once taken hold of the reins of government, they were eager to put a stop to the further development of their principles. After the Church had been persecuted and, as far as this was possible to human power, suppressed, the heroes of the Revolution— Robespierre at their head—were eager to introduce the worship of a Supreme Being in order to check the masses. After the property of the Church and of the nobility had been seized upon, and individuals had enriched themselves from the wealth of the nation, it was declared in the constitution that private property was sacred and inviolable. After the aristocracy had been removed and the hierarchy of the Church had been suppressed, they determined to establish an aristocracy of genius and wealth. Was such a step consistent? Had they any right to demand of the people to be satisfied with that equality which conferred upon it a semblance of freedom, but left it totally bereft of protection, and finally surrendered it to the power of the capitalists? Was the people not entitled to require that they should redeem their promises, and finally establish perfect equality in real earnest? We consider that demand as logical and just, according to the principles of liberalism.

3. The close relation of socialism to liberalism may be still more clearly shown in reference to the adopted theory of value. He who accepts this modern socialistic theory of value—that the exchange-value of all productions is only the result of labor, or accumulated labor—cannot possibly consider as just the conditions of modern production in which the laborer is always at a disadvantage, but must logically come to the principles of socialism. But who first established the socialistic theory of value? Is this theory the invention of socialism? By no means; it is the traditional doctrine of liberalism. Adam Smith, Ricardo, Say, and all the so-called classical political economists belong to the liberal school; and they have almost without exception laid down the principle that all value is to be credited to labor. Lassalle, as we have already shown, in establishing his theory of value could point to a stately line of liberal social economists. In recent times this theory, however, is either wholly abandoned, or at least essentially modified by liberals. They soon discovered what a dangerous weapon they put into the hands of socialism. But it was too late. The fact cannot be concealed from the world that liberalism forged the most dangerous weapon which socialism is using for the subversion of the existing social order.

4. Not only theoretically, but also practically, did liberalism pave the way for socialism. The way was smoothed chiefly by the introduction and enforcement of unlimited industrial competition, with all the liberties and privileges which it brings in its train. All protecting organizations which, in the course of time, had arisen to counteract unlimited competition, whether in theory or in practice, were, in the name of freedom, violently suppressed. Even the laws against usury were abolished in the interest of freedom. Thus society was disintegrated, the weaker industries were isolated and, owing to unlimited competition, fell victims to the superior power of capital. Moreover, since modern discoveries were made to serve merely the interests of a few capitalists, the solid middle class, which formed the strongest support of the existing social order, began more and more to: disappear, and society was divided into two hostile classes—-the wealthier bourgeoisie, on the one hand, with their inveterate hatred of the Church and the nobility, with their insatiable avarice and reckless oppression of the laborers as of an inferior race; on the other hand, the huge masses of the poor, particularly laborers in factories, filled with hatred and revenge against their capitalist oppressors. Thus a fertile soil was prepared for social democracy. It needed only agitators to make the “disinherited” acquainted with the results of agnostic science, and to fling the firebrand of rebellion into the masses of the laborers—and there stood social democracy fullfledged.

5. Moreover, liberalism endeavored to bring about a centralization in all departments of social economy, not only by utilizing modern discoveries in the field of industry, but still more by its control of education, and even of science, religion, and politics. Now, socialism, according to its very nature, aims at the greatest possible centralization. The means of production, the organization of labor, the distribution of produce, education, instruction—all is to be controlled by the state. The state takes upon itself the duties of the separate community, of the family, and of the individual. Hence Schäffle¹ logically concludes that “all centralization of the liberal state advances the cause of socialism and harmonizes with its principle.”

¹ Quintessence of Socialism. English version edited by B. Bosanquet, London, p. 52.

But who has employed all means to centralize education, Church government, marriage discipline, the care of the poor? Who has abolished the independence of municipalities, churches, and religious orders, and given all into the hands of the state? This is the work of liberalism. Socialism is, therefore, nothing else than the logical development of the liberal idea of the state. The state is the source of all right, say the liberals; to this principle socialism can rightfully appeal against liberalism and in favor of its own entire programme.

Thus it is beyond a doubt that liberalism and socialism are closely related to each other, and that there is, therefore, no possibility of an efficient stand against socialism from the side of liberalism. Liberalism has but one means against socialism—the police. As soon as it tries other remedies its inconsistency and inefficiency against socialism become lamentably evident.