"LIBERALISM IS A SIN"

Has anyone read this book by Fr. Felix Sarda Y Salvany and published by TAN? I borrowed a copy from my new summer parish. It was written originally published in the mid-1800s I think.

It seems pretty dense. I was wondering if anyone has read it and whether it is a worthwhile read. Any thoughts?

From the title, I am only mildly interested in actually reading it, although I’m modestly curious to hear a very brief overview.

Even though I am conservative Republican, I think Jesus showed the ultimate in liberalism when He refused to condemn the adultress. She got caught of a crime, there was a clear penalty specified, and Jesus arranged for her to get off scott free without having to incur the penalty.

Politically, liberalism is just trying to get the government to do what the churches should be doing.

Alan

Some of the book (with modern commentary) is here:

ourladyswarriors.org/dissent/libissin.htm

Rome approved of the work and condemned a book attacking it.

[quote=AlanFromWichita]From the title, I am only mildly interested in actually reading it, although I’m modestly curious to hear a very brief overview.

Even though I am conservative Republican, I think Jesus showed the ultimate in liberalism when He refused to condemn the adultress. She got caught of a crime, there was a clear penalty specified, and Jesus arranged for her to get off scott free without having to incur the penalty.

Politically, liberalism is just trying to get the government to do what the churches should be doing.

Alan
[/quote]

I don’t think it means that kind of liberalism. It seems to be concerned more along the line with relativism and indifferentism.

I think you are getting the wrong impression here.
The Forgiver was standing right there!! What would a loving Father do for His children? Did not He tell her to go and sin no more? If you were liberal once, go and sin no more!

This definition of liberalism encompasses the poisonous fruits of the Enlightenment: Jacobinism, Marxism, Nihilism, socialism and communism:

Pope Pius XI, QUADRAGESIMO ANNO, 1931

“Let all remember that Liberalism is the father of this Socialism that is pervading morality and culture and that Bolshevism will be its heir.”

Pope Leo XIII, QUOD APOSTOLICI MUNERIS, 1878:

“We speak of that sect of men who, under various and almost barbarous names, are called socialists, communists, or nihilists, and who, spread over all the world, and bound together by the closest ties in a wicked confederacy, no longer seek the shelter of secret meetings, but, openly and boldly marching forth in the light of day, strive to bring to a head what they have long been planning—the overthrow of all civil society whatsoever . . .”

“They leave nothing untouched or whole which by both human and divine laws has been wisely decreed for the health and beauty of life. They refuse obedience to the higher powers, to whom, according to the admonition of the Apostle, every soul ought to be subject, and who derive the right of governing from God; and they proclaim the absolute equality of all men in rights and duties. They debase the natural union of man and woman, which is held sacred even among barbarous peoples . . .”

Hello Genesis I have missed you where in the world have you been:) I have some reading to add to this thread I find quite good;) :smiley:

saint-mike.org/library/Liberalism/Liberalism/Liberalism_TOC.html
Tell me what you guys think:)This will help support what you are trying to get across;)

[quote=Lisa4Catholics]Hello Genesis I have missed you where in the world have you been:) I have some reading to add to this thread I find quite good;) :smiley:

saint-mike.org/library/Liberalism/Liberalism/Liberalism_TOC.html
Tell me what you guys think:)This will help support what you are trying to get across;)
[/quote]

Hey, that’s the book. It seems to be online in it’s entirety on a few sites. I just read the preface and forward in the hard copy (paperback) that I borrowed. Seems interesting.

Stonewall Jackson’s Chief of Staff warns his fellow Presbyterians that if they don’t stop the Jacobinism, “license, insubordination, communism, and anarchy” of American “bastard democratic” Protestantism which had " bred worms, and stank", rational men will be inclined to convert to Catholicism:

Rev Robert L. Dabney D.D: The Attractions of Popery

[quote=David_Paul]Stonewall Jackson’s Chief of Staff warns his fellow Presbyterians that if they don’t stop the Jacobinism, “license, insubordination, communism, and anarchy” of American “bastard democratic” Protestantism which had " bred worms, and stank", rational men will be inclined to convert to Catholicism:

Rev Robert L. Dabney D.D: The Attractions of Popery
[/quote]

I think we can see that with the increase in conversion to Catholicism from Episcopalianism for example.

Genesis315 . . .Yes. Imagine what Rev Dabney would think of the Protestant faith over 100 years after he wrote the above.

[quote=Genesis315]I don’t think it means that kind of liberalism. It seems to be concerned more along the line with relativism and indifferentism.
[/quote]

Yeah, I read a little bit of a book and I don’t even think they’re talking about what I’d call “relativism,” but simply amoral and nonreligious.

It doesn’t sound very interesting.

Alan

[quote=Lovez4God]I think you are getting the wrong impression here.
The Forgiver was standing right there!! What would a loving Father do for His children? Did not He tell her to go and sin no more? If you were liberal once, go and sin no more!
[/quote]

My point is that the law clearly stated a penalty and Jesus got the woman off with an admonition “sin no more.” In modern political terms, liberals are accused by conservatives of being soft on crime, the idea being that if enforcement were weak, then there may as well not be any rules.

Now I see from ready the book that the “liberalism” as they are talking about is really just plain atheism, without any regard for social order.

:yawn:

Alan

I believe that without the historical background as to why the Syllabus of Errors was published, and how the definition of the term Liberalism has shifted back and forth over time, one who calls liberalism a sin must first of all define exactly what he believes the term means. It has a lot more definitions than just a desire to preach and live the Social Doctrines of the Catholic Church and freedom of Religion. By the definition used in England in the 19th Century for a Liberal, today’s so called conservative Republicans would be called liberals. Pius X called those who believed the doctrines of the French enlightenment liberals. He also applied that term to means those Italian politicians who had deprived the Papacy of the Papal States when they formed the Italian Republic.That included those who believed in Democracy and the separation of Church and State, a situation that posed a dilemna for the American Bishops. They chose to ignore that portion of the Syllabus. To say Liberalism is a Sin without fully defining Liberal is spitting in the wind.

Another site that carries the full text of Liberalism Is a Sin, which was written by a priest and endorsed by the Vatican:

www.liberalismisasin.com

I think you are confusing charity and mercy (lower case “l” liberalism) with the capital “L” Liberalism that is condemned in Fr. Felix Sarda’s writings. The type of Liberalism that Fr. Sarda was condemning was the kind that was prevalent among his contemporaries in Spain which is that of Karl Marx, Communists, Socialists, Secular Humanists, Agnostics, Atheists, and Relativists of today. Those that seek to relegate religion to the private sphere and exclude all reference to Christianity, God, and morality in general. Reducing ethics and laws to mere usefulness according to the misguided demands of the local populace (e.g. Utilitarianism, Moral Relativism) and giving science and the State dictatorial power over almost every aspect of life including human reproduction, industry, charity, etc. This heretical Liberalism is infecting many well-meaning Christians and Catholics today.

Now, in my opinion, I think you are also misinterpreting that part in the gospel about the woman caught in adultery. You have to remember and reflect on precisely what Jesus said: “He who is without sin cast the first stone,” and also how he asked the woman “Who has condemned you?” and she answered that no one has, and then Jesus told her that he did not either and she should go on her way sinning no more. It is clear from this that the pharisees themselves who brought her to him have committed adultery themselves and were being hypocritical. Also, see how he asked her if someone had accused her or condemned her, and she said no. This seems to me to indicate that either A) she was falsely accused or B) the pharisees themselves were the ones who committed adultery with her, or C) the man she committed adultery with and even her own husband did not report the sin to the pharisees, the pharisees took it upon themselves to accuse her. Note also how the Elders were the first to leave when Jesus said “He who is without sin cast the first stone.” This seems to be a direct parallel with another incident in the Old Testament Scriptures in which the lustful Elders blackmailed a woman into having sex with them and when she refused then they falsely accused her of committing adultery. A prophet came along and examined each Elder’s testimony individually in front of the community, then their lies were exposed and they were stoned and the woman was saved. I forget which passage in the Old Testament it is, but it is used as the first Reading whenever this Gospel is used in the Mass. So, therefore, it cannot be said that Jesus was condemning the punishment against Adultery. He was merely condemning how in the Jewish culture of his time there was a double standard in which the adulterous women were stoned and the adulterous men went off scott free. He also condemned the hypocrisy of the Pharisees and their Elders in how they go around policing people and condemning them harshly while they themselves were guilty of the same sins. He was also showing how the husband and the adulterous man out of mercy and compassion for the woman did not report the crime in order to save her from such harsh punishment, if such men were so merciful, then God would be even more merciful when one repents.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.