Long are the bills of harm, large is the aversion. It is not without foundation that liberals accuse the Church of losing a moral compass to political connections, inability to improvement institutions, a greed for lucrative agreements with secular power, at most a half will to explain and yet destruct sexual injustices hitting the helpless. Christians, on the another hand... in liberals, view people who do not care about the real and final aftermath of their reforms, curious only in legislative overturning their possibly and beautifully sounding ideals, but who do not have side effects.
In general view of the relation between liberalism and Christian faith, their antagonism usually comes to the fore. This is not only a snapshot of the 19th century, erstwhile the Catholic brochure by Fr Felix Sardy y Salvany, entitled "Liberism is simply a Sin", was in circulation, but in many episodes of Spanish political unrest supporters of the liberal and constitutional model of the state's systemic state treated the clergy as their enemies, sometimes hanging them on trees and demolishing churches. It is besides the very contemporary Polish realities, in which the archbishops' favourite vacation activity is to give anti-liberal homilys, many parish priests are active in political support of the anti-liberal right hand, while liberal environments quote with excitement subsequent social studies proving the demolition of churches and the disappearance of religiousness among the youngest generation of Poles and Poles.
Long are the bills of harm, large is the aversion. It is not without foundation that liberals accuse the Church of losing a moral compass to political connections, inability to improvement institutions, a greed for lucrative agreements with secular power, at most a half will to explain and yet destruct sexual injustices hitting the helpless. Christians, in turn, believe and fear that the full implementation of the liberal imagination of social order will consequence in the failure of moral brakes, the distribution of social ties, the degradation of many environments and cultural regressions. In liberals, they view people who do not care about the real and final aftermath of their reforms, curious only in legislative pushing their possibly and beautifully sounding ideals, which, however, do not happen without side effects.
At first there was faith
However, 1 of the historically first foundations of liberal thought, which is clear from reading John Locke’s writings (Tolerance Letter), was a concern for Christianity and the rights of believers. Liberalism was born in a planet of spiritual wars between various Christian divisions. The thought of an individual who deserves to be free to choose his own way of life was born from observing these sufferings of 1 another. and the thought of the request to accept a pluralistic society in which people with different attitudes and views will live, but we will let them to live, and they will let us to live in return. If present we say and compose that a man has the right to choose whether he eats meat or not, whether he drives to work by car or by bicycle, whether he has a permanent relation or many partners, whether he gives birth or breaks his pregnancy, whether he goes buying on Sundays, to church or to the park – we propose this due to the fact that we have been shaped by Locke's idea, which has announced to the planet that a man has the right to be a Lutheran, Methodist, Quaker or Anglican, and no sanctions can meet him for this choice. Liberalism was born to defend the right of people in the 17th century to glorify God in the way they considered the most appropriate, most honest, or most devout. Liberalism is the creation of a Christian planet – it could not have arisen in any other.
The past of liberalism in the following centuries shows that where he was able to bond with Christian passion, there is frequently a reformatory “magic”. Where enmity won, there was many disasters. Glorious past includes, for example, a close interplay of alleged nonconformist communities and churches with the British Liberal organization in the 19th century. By moving Bible rhetoric and drawing from early Christianity, liberal leaders were able to turn their goals into moral crusades that aroused the support of the social masses and made liberal improvement inevitable, contrary to the interests of the privileged groups. John Bright and Richard Cobden's fight for free trade, and in peculiar the abolition of duties on imported grain, will be the most outstanding example, which allowed the price of bread to be reduced and saved many people from starvation in the mediate of the century. Bright and Cobden's economical and freedom demands were reasonable and rational. However, public support provided them with a presentation of the substance as a conflict for the lives of their fellowmen. The past of joining forces by liberals and many Churches is besides well known, including, above all, the "black Churches" in the US, which drove the abolitionist movement as a moral crusade and then fought against various manifestations of racial segregation. Even better known is the French Revolution, which in the vapors of hysterical anti-Christianism and in the realities insulting the intelligence of attempts to build the spiritual cult of the alleged Reason, in a twelve months has abandoned all remnants of liberal ideals and focused on murdering anyone, becoming 1 of the top moral disasters of man in history.
The examples cited above, British and American, lead to proposals for a hypothesis that, despite many possible conflicts, despite a completely different philosophical orientation (Christianity for eternal life, and liberalism only for temporal life), liberalism and Christianity in the depths of their moral foundations are united by the imagination of humanity. They come down here, they meet here, it ties them together.
Inviolable
Perhaps this thought has been better formulated elsewhere, but its most concise presentation can be found in the first conviction of Article 1 of the Constitution of the national Republic of Germany, passed in 1949, so at a time erstwhile the German people had just begun to emergence from their most terrible moral decline. Well, “human dignity is inviolable.” This conviction is both Christian and liberal and in both cases highly radical. It hates and won't take the slightest objection. Here there is no right being any "but" – after this conviction itself "but" already sounds like a crime, no substance what words might have followed. No objections, no references to insignificant print, no doubts. It fundamentally contains all liberalism and the full social discipline of the Church, due to the fact that their individual values and elements can be derived straight from it. It is besides a criterion, due to the fact that erstwhile Churches and liberal movements are going towards violating this sentence, they are going astray from dismemberment with Christianity and liberalism respectively.
The human person, the individual and his dignity are the meaning of the existence of Christianity, and in liberalism the superior subjective value. Liberals fight for freedom, equality before the law, material well-being, pluralistic society, controlled government and global peace not due to the fact that they are goals in themselves, and due to the fact that drastic deprivation of any of these things constitutes harm to the human being and causes a violation of its dignity. Christianity promotes religion in God, salvation, and everlasting life to aid people avoid the hazard of harming themselves or others. Thus, they share opposition to human and human violence. It combines opposition to ideology proclaiming concepts of the existence of better and worse people, which carry totalitarianism, harm and crime. It combines the ethos of a hard life, but thus a valuable, affirmative perception of working for others, building a relation of trust and social tissue through marketplace exchange, as the primal other of human relationships moving towards violence.
It combines the thought of freedom of conscience, besides frequently under-emphasized in any churches today, but which is the foundation of Christianity. Liberalism postulates, after John Stuart Mill, the widest freedom of man, for whom the boundary should be to violate the freedom of another man (and hence his dignity!). Man chooses the way of life in a free way, and then reaps the fruitage or the responsibility. possibly he'll succeed, possibly he'll stay with debts, possibly he'll entertain his grandchildren, possibly he'll die alone, possibly he'll get credit for others, possibly he'll be discredited. A reward or punishment. Christianity is precisely the same thought that gives the possible of eternal life. due to the fact that man is free and has the right to sin. In the end, he will be rewarded or punished by the Heavenly Father, but in his decisions he must hold autonomy and independence; life's choices must be authentically his, not imposed by any authority or law.
But, already very modernizing, liberalism and Christianity besides combines an approach to neighbor. erstwhile Donald Trump's administration began a mass “catch” and a program of forced deportations towards immigrants in the United States, its vice president J.D. Vance decided to justify this, utilizing the Christian concept ordo caritatis, that is to say, a "order of love" based on which an American Christian has the right to love more fellow citizens, a small little with a "green card", and even little with "illegal" immigrants. The love of neighbour towards the second is then expressed only by the fact that the deporting aircraft will actually put them on land, alternatively of e.g. throwing them into the sea. This knowing ordo caritatis Pope Francis objected, indicating that it was not Christian. For a Christian should work constantly to grow the ellipse of people who are covered by his mercy, empathy, understanding, and brotherhood. Narrowing, or reverse, is not an option in Christendom.
It so happens that the full thought of liberal improvement from the very beginning (when it was about Catholics and Lutherans not killing each other) to this day (when it comes to many different things, but, among another things, to guarantee that non-binarians are not condemned, embarrassed and pushed beyond the margin of society) is simply a communicative of gradual expansion of the circles of people whom we embrace with our care and whose good (worthiness) we want to take care of by establishing liberal laws. We look at different places sometimes, but the liberals and the Christians of the Francis sign realize the same thing. ordo caritatis. J.D. Vance is on the other side.
One crisis
In the end, liberalism and Christianity connects another key phenomenon, beyond the values themselves. They are in a deepening crisis today. So far, the crisis of liberal democracy and the depopulation of churches have been treated as separate phenomena. Progressive groups worried about the first, but enjoyed the second, while the national right reacted the opposite. However, time may ask: is the crisis of Christianity and the crisis of liberalism not 1 and the same crisis? Or at least they're not precisely intertwined crises? Don't they drive each other? Isn't this just a crisis of Western values? Or more specifically: the crisis of European and American humanism, the erosion of decency, the atrophy of reason, moderation and prudence, the failure of human sympathy and the desire to communicate or interact with another, the fear of work for his own life, the contempt for the legacy of Western civilization?
Especially this last question requires stopping for a moment. The series of liberal reforms of the last 200 years has made societies and states of the Christian West—in a way beyond any discussion—the best place to live for man in the sense that his dignity here is most protected from violation, both from another people, from outside enemies, and from his own government. They're pluralist societies that modus vivendi It is based on the tolerance of the existence of Another, where in power there is simply a rotation through democracy, where freedom is protected and for preaching views you do not go to prison, and God can be praised in all existing way and in all framework proposed by people and communities believing in their access to Revelation.
Unfortunately, this order was under political force and became the mark of a massed hatred action. Pressure comes from the anti-liberal right, which, interestingly enough, in more and more countries ceases to simulate having roots planted in Christianity. Neither Weidel, nor Le Pen, nor Wilders, nor Farage, not even Meloni – no of them actually mention to Christianity anymore, have become the right-wing secular. Donald Trump's links to religiousism, if you combine them with George W. Bush's religion, do not even require comment. This right is simply a declared enemy of liberalism, but it is besides veiled by the enemy of Christianity, which exposed Francis' dispute with Vance. It is "post-Christian" and wants to change the system, which makes the dignity of many people a large question. He feeds on the alleged "moral depravity" which, in their – omitting aspect of human dignity – have led to liberal reforms of the last 50-60 years.
However, the West was under pressure, alternatively hateful than political, besides from the another side of the ideological spectrum. A progressive divided of liberal movements, which clearly separates from liberalism in its classical sense, has small chance to gain political power, but a crucial influence on culture, primarily popular. This road directs an incredible attack on the legacy of Western civilization, completely negating its value and applying pushy ahistory. This is how we hear that liberal civilization should be destroyed due to its (unquestionably true) deviation from the colonial era or the continuing racism. In this regard, liberal reforms, the ideas of dignity, individual freedom or, in particular, equality with the law, are evil and an obstacle to retaliatory justice. Proponents of the thought of woke, critical explanation of race, a fresh wave of feminism and intersecration are against equality – they recognise that groups with disabilities in the past should have privileges and more rights. They are against freedom of speech, recognizing that the right to talk or compose has only people from certain ethnic, spiritual groups, people with only certain sexes, sexual orientations or combinations of these. Constantly and unmercifully disgust the existing model of liberal society, they are convinced that liberal institutions will easy rebuild the “post-liberal” reality, which is an astounding naivety and failure to do past lessons. Needless to say, Christians are among the many social groups that they request discrimination. The attack on the foundations of the West is besides an attack on liberalism and on Christianity.
Mutual criticism, common correction
Of course, everything said above does not invalidate the legitimacy of liberal criticism regarding organized forms of Christianity, i.e. Churches, and in Polish realities actually the Catholic Church. A layer of human activities and a layer of ideas, values or philosophical assumptions sometimes disagree importantly from each other, which is now an crucial link to the crisis of the institutions of the Church. Liberal voices, fundamentally from the very beginning of liberalism to today, criticise the engagement of clergymen in various deals with people representing political power. From the standpoint of proclaiming the Good News, conliging with a circumstantial government squad or political current constitutes a hazard of diminishing the belief in God itself, as a origin of the political arrangement, alternatively of the overarching intent of the existence of church institutions. Of course, clericalism, as defined by the Church's participation in the exercise of temporal power, risks corruption, abuse, and above all, the writing of laws of the state to favour 1 Church and its faithful at the expense of faithful another Churches or non-believers. This, in turn, threatens to return straight to the point of origin of these common struggles with liberalism, or the era of spiritual wars.
Another point of liberal criticism of the Churches is the cultivation by the clergy and (more importantly) the faithful of what in the fresh Testament has been accurately outlined and called "Phariseism." The overgrowth of the form over content, and above all the experience of religion as a pose, for show and for applause, in order only to “give a witness”, directing your spiritual behaviour more towards the public than toward God. It is hypocritical religiousness, which is frequently the link of antagonizing others, diminishing them or exalting themselves, inflaming social unrest and manipulating the spiritual feelings of alleged average people. Clearly, lifting “better Christians” above “worse ones” violates human dignity. It can be argued that both those humiliated and those demeaning who put their religion on the altar of mediocre representation. Liberals stay delicate to situations of manipulating Christian content when, in place of unconditional love, the Pharisees of different ages introduce social divisions. The inclusive, open and above all merciful church is an ally of liberalism. The ruling and antagonizing church will not be.
On a philosophical level, however, there is simply a dispute where freedom of conscience descends into Christian teaching. Then there is simply a dispute over freedom. In liberal order, the antithesis of human freedom is state law and government control space. However, the law can be reformed and the powers of the government limited, divided between different, mutually controlled institutions or subject to overriding constitutional rules on the freedom of the citizen. In Christian order, the antithesis of freedom of conscience is God’s commandments, which cannot be changed. Yes, teaching speaks of freedom of conscience and individual reckoning for sins, from which liberals gladly derive a close concept of broad individual freedom associated with work for the unfortunate choices of life (the temporal equivalent of sins). In this sense, the only difference is the minute of reckoning, which in a Christian approach follows death.
However, in the teaching of the Church there is besides a subject of "a decently formed conscience". It would warrant that a man – keeping his freedom – would avoid sin and always choose good. This is besides to be reconciled with the liberal approach, where the importance of education and cognition is stressed, as a condition for making the right choices in life, and it is besides suggested that individual self-limitation of individual freedom, given the awareness of the risks behind certain choices. However, the discord of this year of reasoning comes at the point of designation by teaching Christian situations of choosing the sinful way as “non-freedom”. There is simply a proposition here that actual freedom is to live in accordance with the commandments of the Church, and sin is to "false liberty." But since freedom only involves obedience to the commandments, free choice disappears due to the fact that there is only 1 option. specified reasoning is no longer liberal.
The social processes of the last fewer years, especially in Anglo-Saxon countries, show, however, that Christian criticism of liberalism can besides be unfounded. American, Canadian and somewhat little likely British liberalism slept through the minute erstwhile a stream of social reforms, oriented on protection, guaranteeing and extending the freedom and rights of groups previously discriminated against, reached and... unfortunately passed the mark point, passing further. Warnings about the hazard of social disorder, which is 1 of the hard to avoid consequences of these reforms, have not hit a susceptible place in our environment. Liberalisation of drug policy, which adopts the rule of knowing it, not as part of criminal policy, but as a substance of principle, wellness policy, is right. But large American cities have not avoided the drastic expansion of the scale of social disorder to sizes unknown since the late 1980s. In the 20th century and today, groups of sometimes aggressive homeless people under the influence of drugs make life hard for average people. This is simply a failure of progressive politics. A consensus around the eradication of racism has not been built based on a liberal concept of “blindness to the colour of the skin” and full equality of people regardless of the race that would then become irrelevant in public life. Instead, the critical explanation of race emphasizes racial and cultural origin, bases on it the full identity of man and demands a different scope of rights for people depending on racial criteria, which is just a fresh kind of racism. The only difference between old white racism and old white racism is that it besides creates anxiety on a racial background. Liberalism has besides failed to keep the fight for equal rights for LGBT people in a political conflict for equal rights, that is, matrimony for all. Despite achieving this goal in Anglo-Saxon countries, conflicts around sexual orientation proceed to increase, and this is not due to backlashu Conservatives moving towards the removal of these rights, and as a consequence of the progressive activities of environments that decided to preserve the sexuality of man in the centre of the public sphere of life, alternatively of allowing, after achieving a liberal reform, her return to the private sphere. This led to the creation of a fresh morality model, in which people experience their sexuality practically in an open space, which does not serve, among others, the processes of educating young people.
In fact, we live in a planet in which an actress, who clearly deserves an Oscar due to playing the best function of the year, does not get it due to writing respective racist tweets many years ago. And the debate about "burning" her candidacy does not concern the perfection of her performance, or whether her racism can be forgiven for being transgender. For this kind of madness liberalism bears a large part of the responsibility, even if direct blame falls on progressive environments that have escaped from its "wash" in the erstwhile decade.
Joint defense?
If the crises of liberalism (liberal democracy) and Christianity are indeed 1 Western crisis, it is worth asking whether we should start defending each another alternatively of wiping our hands? These antagonisms and points of disagreement are actually charitable attempts by liberalism and Christianity to correct 1 another. Everyone makes mistakes, and liberalism has surely made quite a few mistakes in those 400 years. At the same time, it is besides an thought which has an immanent ability to self-criticize and repair these errors, which conservatives and socialists can only envy liberals. The list of errors of the Church is naturally not much shorter, especially since it has accumulated them for more than 400 years. Criticism of liberalism reduces Christian fariseism, while criticism of Christianity reduces liberal blindness of irrational progressiveism.
It is worth listening to 1 another, and people who are both liberals and Christians have a large function to play. I think it can be agreed that social governance with liberal achievements on equality of all number groups, extending the circles of people covered by our empathy and constant sensitivity to fresh injustices requiring fresh improvement efforts would be better than the continuing racial and another sentiments of social governance dominated by the concept of shaping communities' lives as clashes of identity. Or that the Church focused on proclaiming the love of neighbour and Good News would be better than the government-bound institution overseeing the morality of the people of the country.
Christianity is the most liberal religion that mankind has come to know. It cannot be otherwise, since liberal societies and systems were created almost exclusively in Christian countries, not in opposition to faith, but in its moral vision. At the same time, which may surprise, liberalism seems present – against the turn of the right to positions ordo caritatis in the U.S. Vice President's edition – the most Christian of all political thoughts. It's a common achievement. Let's not waste it.
Hallelujah and forward!
