The name of the philosophical enemies of freedom is filled with any of the most powerful minds of his era. Regardless of their reluctance to the thought of autonomy and the right to choose an individual, regardless of the frequently fatal political consequences of their treaties, most enemies of freedom cannot be denied large intellectual potential. This has always been the danger they created. They wrote from the tallness of the “catedra” and from their ivory towers dictated subjection and submission to the people, justifying this in a complicated manner and deliberately misunderstood for this people. Against this background, there is simply a modest Spanish Catholic priest who, at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, built something around him that was comparable to “the household of Radio Maryja” and in writing published over long decades.”La Revista Popular), and in many pamphlets, pamphlets, leaflets and transcripts of speeches, he communicated to average people that their dreams of liberty and individual rights were sins, and that the only way of life is not so much the way of religion in Christ as the full submission to the clergy of the Church in all matters of temporal life.
Quite predictable, Fr. Félix Sardà y Salvany attacked ruthlessly masonry and laity politicians, and besides tainted himself with a publication of 9 volumes, rapidly anti-Semitic subscription. However, his – let's say, due to the fact that in the sense of publicity was specified – the “most clear” minute came with the publication of a tiny book entitled “Liberism is simply a Sin” which originally appeared in 1884, but was revived respective times (e.g. in Poznań in 1995). This work is simply a compendium of cognition about the philosophical causes of the aggressive attitude of Catholic integrism of those times against any manifestations of human freedom and defending its liberalism.
The starting point of Sarda's reflections is the problem of authority, and he fundamentally remains key throughout the journey after its rise. The self-reliance of man’s judgment, first in matters of religion and then all political and social dilemmas, is the origin of Satan’s evil. The authority must always hold the Church and its dignitaries. Man cannot, under any circumstances, even think of having the right to self-interpret "the Deposit of Revelation," this leads to a transformation of religion and world-view into a cafeteria of individual choice, relativization of all sacred faith, throwing it between different religions or atheisms, and yet to the demolition of a bond with God, and thus to the eventual tragedy of man. Its source, therefore, becomes a rationalism--the reliance on the possible of human reason and its recognition, which would seem to be able to replace God as "the measurement and the sum of truth."
The crime is to build a society on the foundation of the independency of a human individual. Man cannot have independency from God, society/state cannot have independency from the orders of religion in the provision of his rights, freedom of choice in politics, morality and freedom of speech and the press are unacceptable. The Church must continually hold the right of active interference in all spaces of public and private life. Secularism and liberalism build the “world of Lucifer” instead.
Liberalism acts on Sarda like a bull pad. According to him, he is “in a doctrinal plane of heresy and consequently mortal sin against faith.” Moreover, its radicalism and universalism make it "all the heresies contained", meaning that we are dealing with the most serious of all sins. This is no joke. The author clearly clarifies that having liberal views is simply a greater sin than specified blasphemy than stealing or adultery (this should delight the president of the United States), but even heavier than... murder. This declaration defuses, but not so much as Sarda's later remark that in the case of a neighbour in sin as severe as liberalism, killing him by a Catholic may be a manifestation of genuine... neighbor's love. So we are dealing with a complete confusion of moral compasses by the author, who writes blinded by ideological hatred and undoubtedly comes to himself, after which he crosses the limits of dangerous heresy. Against this background, grotesque and even comical are the rhetorical questions of the author who cannot realize why liberals do not want to kill Catholics erstwhile they consider them the top evil to root out? Sarda is seemingly incapable to comprehend that the people of the world-view recognized by him as the final abyss of hell are in fact morally better prepared to bear witness to the Christian attitude than he himself.
As a “rebellion of the human intellect against God”, liberalism persistently rejects all Christian dogmas. He rejects the pope's judicial authority over all believer, though God gave it to him. He rejects the infallibility of the Magisterium of the Church, and thus all the teachings preached by divine authority. He rejects the individual infallibility of the Bishop of Rome and dares to subject his orders and teachings to investigation on the part of the human intellect. Scandal, right? On 1 side, Sarda states that “the Catholic dogma is an authoritative declaration of fact (...) by an infallible expressor,” so that “obedient acceptance of the dogma on the part of the human individual and of society” is apparent to state on the next page the charge that “(...) rejects everything that he himself does not preach; negates everything he does not claim.” Astonishingly, this charge is made by the author... to liberalism, not, of course, to Catholic dogma, although it is his action in precisely this way, as authoritative, that he described 1 paragraph above. specified a charge against liberalism, on the another hand, is pointless, as liberalism remains a meta-doctrine in moral matters, which does not reject and denies anything in rule and admits without any problems Sard’s ability to live in harmony with his views and persuade another people to do so. It is the Sard of these rights that refuses, not liberalism. (At the same time, for the sake of fairness, it should be admitted that during the times of the author's life, “liberals” referred to themselves, especially in Spain, frequently politicians rather authoritatively and brutally wishing to lead secularism and reaction Sardy on their methods may be to any degree understood. From them liberalism, as a consistent thought of freedom, must surely distance itself).
The sovereignty of human reason is simply a preposterous principle. A man who carries desires and desires cannot establish his conduct sufficiently tight with his own mind, whose judgments are changeable to his will. Morality requires external standards and guidance, a hierarchy of objectives. Only “Eternal Reason” which is God can supply them. At the same time, Sarda immediately states that the detailed moral norms of the Eternal Reason derive from the Church, and this obedience and submission to it are fundamentally the only condition of morality, the establishment of righteous laws, and the establishment of righteous orders.
Sarda naturally detests the model of the separation of the Church from the state and the secular state. If man plus his head cannot be left alone against any ethical dilemma, then a neutral state is illogical. Public reason and social reason are subject to the same obligations towards the Church; otherwise, there is simply a “strange dualism” in which confused believers would be subjected to 2 different consciences in different areas of life (private Catholics are forced to be public atheists). The state has a work to be an armed, secular arm, surrounding the Church's protection, and, of course, to strengthen its rights by the power of its codes, enforced by force of the apparatus of coercion. Liberals are horrified by “any component of compulsion in matters of faith”. In the meantime, coercion is natural to impose reprehensible errors and to limit and control the activities of the planet of media and science. The second has no right to specify the limits of the infallibility of the Church. This can only be done by the Church itself. Only a spiritual state can be an environment for this.
And it only seems to be an effective asylum! Sarda has no illusions about the power of liberalism. Encouraging liberalism is tempting with pride of reason and individuality, it's tempting with the trinkets of the present world, it's tempting with political and social influence, it's tempting with career prospects and quite a few money. Many Catholics succumb to these temptations. Hope is to avoid contact with liberals, to be almost completely isolated from them in everyday life. Any voluntary relationship, including friendships or acquaintances, must be broken up. In professional or commercial relations, limit yourself to the meritum of these and avoid developing them for individual gain. Avoid worldview talks at all costs, as any specified conversation with the Liberal opens up the anticipation of contamination. The biggest tragedy is having liberals in the family. Then we must draw on Christian patience, avoid our own contamination, pray for contaminated loved ones, and avoid dangerous conversation.
Ultimately, liberalism will gotta go to war. Sarda is hopeful, as he sees liberals' attachment to tolerance for their large weakness – they must, due to their own convictions – let Catholics to cultivate faith, life according to the Church's orders, must let the Church to carry out its moral mission among people. But "our Catholic position is ruthless; there is only 1 truth, leaving no area for opposition and contradiction." Catholics, therefore, may and must brutally exposure the folly and sin of liberalism, "raise in people's hearts contempt and disgust" towards liberals, may and must harm them, exclude and destruct them.
Félix Sardà y Salvany was the emanation of his time, an expression of the Panic fear of the Church, which just realized that his full dominance over the sphere of human morality gradually progressed to history. The reaction to this was violent, aggressive, reckless and intellectually besides weak. Worse still, she was non-Christian. Ultimately, it may not have been liberalism that proved to be the key link to undermining the position of the Church, but the self-discussion of his remembered ideologists, specified as Sarda, as people who put the fight for influence, power and control above the morality of neighbor's love. Ultimately, the Spanish priest in his antiliberal work does not request to defend any fact of faith, no holiness, no right to worship against liberal attack. There are no specified attacks. In liberalism, no “bolshevik” enters the church, does not plunder the Tabernacle, does not break the crucifix, does not beat the priest, does not expel the believers, does not shoot the figure of Our Lady. In liberalism, police defend the safety and comfort of the faithful who desire to praise the Lord, and reasonable people respect religion as such. Thus, Sarda can only in empty rhetorical figures propose a threat to these spiritual possessions, but erstwhile he goes to specifics, each time his conflict comes down to protecting the authority of the clergy and to his right to dictate the railroads of life to men to turn them into humble subjects and to refuse the right to vote. It's a weak doctrine that shoots itself in the knee.
