LZBIRALI8M
213
XJBSRALISM
neverthelesB it was from France, that it spread over
the rest of the world, as did its different representa-
tive types. These developed in closest connexion
with the different Revolutions in Europe since 1789.
The principal types are: —
(A) — AnHrecdesiaatical Liberalism. — (1) The old Liberalism, first advocated by Mme de Sta^l and Con- stant. It may be described as the drawing-room Liberalism of the free-thinking educated classes, who, however, did not condescend to become practical politicians or statesmen; they were superior ooservers, infallible critics, standing above all parties. In later days some few of these old Liberals, animated by a truly liberal chivalry, stood up for the rights of sup- pressed minorities against Jacobin majorities, for instance, Littr^ and Laboulaye in France (1879- 1880). (2) Closely connected with this old Lil)eral- ism of Mme de Sta^l is doctrinaire Liberalism which originated in the lecture -hall of Rover -Collard and in the salon of the Due de Broglie (1814-1830). It was the Liberalism of the practical politicians and statesmen, who intended to re-est^iblish, maintain, and develop, in the different states, the constitutional form of government based upon the principles of 1789. The most prominent representatives of this bo<ly were, besides de Broglie, Royer-Collard, Guizot in Fnince, Gavour in Italy, von Kotteck and his partisans in Germany.
(3) BDurseois Liberalism, was the natural out- growth of doctrinaire Liberalism. It adapted itself more to the interests of the propertied ana moneyed classes; for the cleigy and nobility having been dis- possessed of their political power, these were the only classes which could make use of the new institutions, the people not being sufficiently instructed and organ- iiea to do so. The rich industrial classes, therefore, were from the very beginning and in all countries the mainstay of Liberalism, and Liberalism for its part was forced to further their interests. This kind of bourgeois Liberalism enjoyed its highest favour in France during the time of the citizen-king, Jjouis- Philippe (1830-40), who openly avowed his dei)end- enoe upon it. It flourisned in Germany, as '^na- tHmal Liberalism", in Austria, as political Libor- alism in generar', in France, as the Liberalism of
Gambettas Opportunist party. Its characteristic
traits are materialistic, sordid ideals, which care only
for unrestrained enjoyment of life, egoism in ex-
{doiting the economically weak by means of tariffs
which are for the interests of the classes, a systematic
persecution of Christianity and especially of the
Catholic Church and her institutions, a frivolous dis-
regpard and even a mocking contempt of the Divine
moral order, a cynical indifference in the choice and
use of means — slander, corruption, fraud, ete. — in
fighting one's opponents and in acquiring an absolute
mastery and control of everything.
(4) The Liberal "parties of progress" are in oppo- sition to the Conservatives and the Liberals of the bourgeois classes, in so far as these, when once in power, usually care little or nothing for further im- provements according to their liiberal principles, whereas the former lay more stress on the fundamental tenets of Liberalism themselves and fight against a <nniical one-sided policy of self-interest; for this reason Ukey appear to an outsider more fair-minded. (5) Lil>cral Radicals are atUierents of progressive modern ideas, which they try to realize without consideration for the existing order or for other people's rights, ideas, and feelings. Such was the first Liberal polit- ical party, the Spanish Jacobinos in 1810. This is the Radicalism, which imder the mask of liberty is now annihilating the rights of Catholics in France. (6) The Liberal Democrats want to make the masses of the common people the deciding factor in public af- fairs. They rely especially on the middle classes, ^ibose interests they pretend to have at heart. (7)
Socialism is th^ Liberalism of self-interest nurtured by
all classes of Liberals described above, and espoused
by the members of the fourth estate and the proleta-
riat. It is at the same time nothing but the natural
reaction against a one-sided policy of self-interest.
It^ main branches are: (a) Communism, which tries to
reorganize the social conditions by alx)lishing all
i/rivate ownership; (b) Radical Social Democracy of
Marx (founded 1848), common in Germany and Aus-
tria; (c) Moderate Socialism (Democratic Socialistic
Federation in England, Possibilists in France, etc.);
(d) Anarchist parties foimded by Bakunin, Most, and
Krapotkin, after 1868, for some periods allied to So-
cial Democracy. Anarchism as a system is relatively
the most logical and radical development of the Lil>-
eral principles.
(B) — Ecclesiastical Liberalism (Liberal Catholicism), — (1) The prevailing political form of modern Liberal Catholicism, is that which would regulate the relations of the Church to the State and modern society in ac- cordance with the Liberal principles as expounded by Benjamin Constant. It had its predecessors and pat- terns in Gallicanism, Febronianism, and Josephinism. Founded 1828 by Lamennais, the system was later de- fended in some respects by Lacordaire, Montalembert, Parisis, Dupanloup, and Falloux. (2) The more theo- logical and religious form of Liberal Cathohcism had its predecessors in Jansenism and Josephinism; it aims at certain reforms in ecclesiastical doctrine and disci- pline in accordance with the anti-ecclesiastical hberal Protestant theory and atheistical "science and en- lightehment " prevailing at the time. The newest phases of this Liberalism were condemned by Pius A as Modernism. In general it advocates latitude in interpreting dogma, oversight or disregard of the disciplinary and doctrinal decrees of the Roman Con- gregations, sympathy with the State even in its enact- ments against the liberty of the Church, in the action of her bishojw, clcrjpr, religioas orders and congrega- tions, and a disposition to regard as clericalism the ef- forts of the Church to protect the rights of the family and of individuals to the free exercise of religion.
III. Condemn ATioN of Liberalism by the Church. — By proclaiming man's absolute autonomy in the intellectual, moral and social order, Liberalism denies, at least practically, God and supematural re- ligion. If carried out k>gically, it leads even to a theo- retical denial of (iwl, by putting deified mankind in place of God. It has been censured in the condemna- tions of Rationalism and Naturalism. The most sol- emn condemnation of Naturalism and Rationalism was contained in the Constitution "De Fide'* of the Vatican Council (1870); the most explicit and detailed condemnation, however, was administered to modern Liberalism by Pius IX in the Encyclical "Quanta cura" of 8 December, 1864 and the attached Syllabus. Pius X condemned it again in his allocution of 17 April, 1907, and in the Decree of the Congregation of the Inquisition of 3 July, 1907, in which the principal errors of Modernism were rejected and censured in sixty-five propositions. The older and principally po- litical form of false Liberal Catholicism had been con- demned by the Encyclical of Gregory XVI, "Mirari Vos", of 15 August, 18:^2 and by many briefs of Pius IX (see S^gur, '* nommagc aux Catholiques Lib^raux ", Paris, 1875). The definition of the papal infallibility by the Vatican council was virtually a condemnation of Liberalism. Besides this many recent decisions concern the principal errors of Liberalism. Of great importance in this respect are the allocutions and en- cvclicals of Pius IX, Leo XIII, and Pius X. (Cf., Recueil des allocutions consistorales encycliques . . . cit^ dans le Svllabus", Paris, 1865) and* the encycli- cals of I.eo XIII of 20 Januar\', 1888, **0n Human Liberty"; of 21 April, 1878, **0n the Evils of Modern Society*'; of 28 December, 1878. '*0n the Sects of the Socialists, Commimists, and Ninilists"; of 4 August,
