Lucifer, The First Liberal

The Wanderer ^ | March 6, 2002 | Dr. Arthur M. Hippler

[Forgiven_Sinner]

In his encyclical on The Nature of True Liberty (Libertas Praestantissimum), Leo XIII makes the remarkable claim that liberalism is diabolic in its origins. "But many there are who follow in the footsteps of Lucifer, and adopt as their own his rebellious cry, I will not serve; and consequently substitute for true liberty what is sheer and most foolish license. Such, for instance, are the men belonging to that widely spread and powerful organization, who, usurping the name of liberty, style themselves liberals" (Libertas Praestantissimum, n.14). Although the Holy Father’s comparison may seem hyperbolic, nonetheless the principles of liberalism mirror the Devil’s original revolt.

While many political opinions and projects are lumped together under the name of liberalism, we should remind ourselves of its most fundamental basis. As Leo XIII explains, liberalism begins with the rejection of both natural and divine law; the "followers of liberalism deny the existence of any divine authority to which obedience is due, and proclaim that every man is the law to himself; from which arises that ethical system which they style independent morality" (LP, n.15). Morality comes neither from God nor human nature.

For the liberal, morality is created by the free choice of society. Whether one studies Hobbes or Rousseau, one finds no law higher than the human law. In the words of Pope Leo, "just as every man’s individual reason is his only rule of life, so the collective reason of the community should be the supreme guide in the management of all public affairs" (ibid.). This divorce of the moral law from politics affects our understanding of democracy up to the present day, as Pope John Paul notes in Evangelium Vitae (n. 70).

This rejection of God’s rule through the moral law is the sin of Lucifer. As St. Thomas explains, the Devil rejected the law of God for a disordered form of freedom: "The end of the Devil is the aversion of the rational creature from God; hence from the beginning he has endeavored to lead man from obeying the divine precept. But aversion from God has the nature of an end, inasmuch as it is sought for under the appearance of liberty, according to Jer. 2:20: ‘Of old time thou hast broken my yoke, thou hast burst my bands, and thou saidst, I will not serve’" (IIIa, Q.8, art.7).

This rebellion was imitated by our first parents, when they decided to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of God and Evil, and "be like God." While sharing in the divine image and likeness is part of our perfection, St. Thomas teaches that man desired this divine likeness in a disordered way by eating of the forbidden fruit: "The first man sinned chiefly by coveting God’s likeness as regards knowledge of good and evil, according to the serpent’s instigation, namely that by his own natural power he might decide what was good, and what was evil for him to do" (IIaIIae, Q.163, a.2). Here is the liberal principle in its first expression: Man alone should decide good and evil apart from God.

While many understand liberalism as a freedom for certain political equality and civil rights, more fundamentally liberalism is a freedom from the moral law and the teaching authority of the Church. One cannot speak of "Catholic liberals" without contradiction, or at the very least, equivocation. Liberalism, like socialism and Communism, has been condemned by Pope after Pope in the social encyclicals. If we are tempted to minimize the evils of this error, we would do well to remind ourselves that Pope Leo XIII presents Lucifer to us as the original liberal.

+ + +

(Dr. Arthur M. Hippler is the director of the Office of Justice and Peace in the Diocese of La Crosse, Wis.)

[DWPittelli]

You would have a point if only we would all agree on which is God's True Church, what are His teachings, and who is to be the Pope of said Church. Unfortunately, unanimous agreement on theological questions is not to be found, except at the point of a sword.

[Just mythoughts]

"Jesus was anticipating", said He foretold all things.

"Jesus cares at all about taxes on dividends? "HAVE YOU NOT READ?

Christ taught parables in front of the masses and privately to disciples, not given for masses to understand. (FREE WILL acknowledged)

Most certainly you have free will, would not even attempt to take away what "God" gave you.

Don't believe that I said what Christ told Peter would happen world wide, what Peter was to do and those who believe. Our Heavenly Father never needed a majority to be "RIGHT", so what will be is what He intends not what I intend or you.

"Free country" comes at a very high price for some and you can believe anything your heart desires.

[Theyknow]

Jesus gave us the New Testament. He taught us to love even the despised, to forgive infinitely, never to judge and to have faith. How does that Creator blame women for not electing Dole? Your vengeful and hateful God is not the Jesus who loves me and who every day I pray will bring me closer to His likeness.

[RAT Patrol]

Yes, that's right. But remeber (this is what liberals don't get because they hate religion so much), free expression of religion is not equal to establishing a state religion. They are not the same thing at all. The Founders saw the value in religion as well as the evil in mandating one religion. There are TWO SIDES to it. Liberals break the free expression side all the time. That is JUST as evil as evil as the mandating side.

[Theyknow]

Please give examples of laws which prohibit the free expression of religion.

[DannyTN]

"You would have a point if only we would all agree on which is God's True Church, what are His teachings, and who is to be the Pope of said Church. Unfortunately, unanimous agreement on theological questions is not to be found, except at the point of a sword. "

My point is valid regardless of whether we agree or not. To continue the analogy. Supposed we all owed Dodge Caravans, but 1/3 of us insisted that their Caravan was made by Ford and 1/3 insisted theirs was made by Chevy, and 1/3 knew ours was made by Chrysler/Dodge.

The Ford and Chevy adherrents may construct a service manual for a Caravan purporting to be from Ford and Chery. And it may even have reasonable service guidelines that often may mirror the service guidlines from Dodge.

If they ever go to Ford or Chevy and insist they honor a warranty on a Caravan, they will be in for a rude awakening. There is only one manufacturer that honors warranties on Caravans, that's Dodge.

In the same way, adherents of false religions are going to someday find out that they've been following the wrong instructions and the warranty they thought they had through these false religions is of no value.

[MissAmericanPie]

When morality is decided by man and not God it becomes a rubber band of relativity. They are free to charge Gen. Tommy Franks with crimes against humanity, while naming Castro to the Human Rights Commission and appoint Iraq to the Arms Control Commission. France accuses America of holding onto primitive notions of morality. That primitive notion being that morality is determined by God and not by "enlightened", elite individuals, whom of course, only have OUR best interests at heart.

When many men subscribe to these liberal notions and definitions, democracy becomes the most valuable tool of authoritarian government because the individual can be boxed in, subjugated, and oppressed, by both the will of the majority, and the will of the minority, which ever tool is most handy to use against individual freedoms, as we see happening in America and world wide today.

The biggest job of the oppressor is to disarm the individual, and that is, despite defeats at the polls, their most determined agenda.

[okiesap]

My observation about women and Dole were tongue-in-cheek. I certainly didn't say the Creator blamed women for not electing Dole and I don't disagree with your assessments. Even atheists should read the Bible. Its an amazing read.

I do enjoy some lively debate now and again, but find discussions about religion are taboo with most friends and relatives. People sometimes associate the asking of questions with Devil's Advocacy. People I've encountered seem threatened when their beliefs are questioned. OTOH, I've seen REAL preachers, thumping and shouting on college campuses, threatended with violence by people calling themselves Christians. Why? Because these so-called Christians were being confronted with God's own words regarding their sins of choice.

Here's another interpretation: The story of the Tower of Babyl is the best Biblical reference to the United States.

[CDHart]

"Where the Spirit of the LORD is, there is liberty."

Yours is a reasonable and eloquent reply.

Carolyn

[RAT Patrol]

I'm not a lawyer so I'll just give examples that have been in the news:

No prayer at football games or graduation. No expressions of faith at memorials for the Columbine killings. (How is that not hindering the free exercise of religion?) A kid cannot give a book report on a book about faith. Revisionist history writers remove references to faith from history books. A community cannot display a nativity at Christmas if they want to. Liberals claim that vouchers cannot allow families to CHOOSE religious schools. Liberals demand that religious groups be discriminated against in social services contracts (or anything else). Liberals in the California legislature want to force Bible bookstores to hire cross-dressers. Etc...

According to liberals, any (Republican) politician that expresses his faith is trying to establish a national religion. Bush is constantly bashed by the leftist media for expressing his faith. That's NOT what the Founders had in mind.

According to liberals, the words "Under God" or "In God We Trust" establishes a religion. And they sue at the drop of a hat. They are HOSTILE to all things relgious. I am sure they find the Declaration of Independence a violation of the Constitution.

According to liberals, a persons faith is an issue in their fitness for a judicial bench (see debates on current Bush nominees).

According to liberals, using one's faith as a moral guide in office is an establishment of religion. That's PRECISELY what the Founders WANTED to happen. It is NOT establishing a religion. (Under that theory, morality is religion so we can no law on the basis of morality.)

Regarding schools, the Bible was issued as a textbook for the first public schools. It clearly was not perceived as a violation of the First Amendment. The best solution is vouchers. That way parents and students can choose the school that fits. As it is, atheism, secularism, and humanism are mandated in the public schools.

[okiesap]

Though seperation of church and state does serve a purpose, notably the prevention of a theocracy, your examples demonstrate how the extreme is becoming the norm. I'm not optimistic about the future but will do my small part by continuing to vote Republican, if only to slow the inevitable.

[B-Chan]

Thank you for the kind words.

[Theyknow]

If the Hindus, Jews, Satanists, Wiccas, Buddhists, Moslems and others each demanded that their prayers were heard in all of the places would you consider that to be and encroachment into your faith? What if they used their moment to attempt to convert? Who should decide which prayers should be heard? Would you want your children praying to a God you don’t worship before school? How do you suggest the minority rights be protected? If you believe that the majority opinion should be the only one considered would you agree that in a prominently Hindu community the Christian children be required to pray as the majority does? If there were an atheist community, would you want them to promote that view in public gatherings? There is no law that prevents individuals to worship as they believe outside of public gatherings. If it is a religious gathering in a public place worship is permitted. The issue is whether religion should be included in nonreligious public events, and far from prohibiting religion the fact that it is not required gives individuals freedom from the imposition of a faith which is not theirs.

I am not in a position to defend liberals and their positions on the issues. I will say that what they think is not the law in many cases at least. In God we Trust is still on the dollar and will be there forever. There is a far cry between a wacko law suit and the change in the law.

As for vouchers would you be willing to send your child to a school which taught him a view that was repugnant in every way to you if it were the only school around? You tax dollars would support that school. Extremist Moslem schools indoctrinate the children to hate the evil Satan USA from the earliest moments, would you agree that your tax dollars should be used in the form of vouchers to support such an institution? If not, who would regulate what religious schools should be government supporte and which shouldn’t. Some government bureaucrat?

[RAT Patrol]

There is a difference in "demanding their prayers are heard" and not allowing them to be said. Big FAT difference. Additionally, the prayers in question are very generic. They endorse no religion. They are the expression of one person. An "opinion" if you will. It's against the constitution to inhibit it.

If the Constition allows the free expression of religion, how can it also mean freedom from hearing it expressed?

[Theyknow]

So you would agree that someone who worships Satan should be allowed to "say" his prayer before the high school football game. As I understand your thesis, the audience need not listen. How about before school, should the kids just be told not to listen if it is not their faith?

And just what do we do when the atheists want to stand up and "say" that the whole God thing is a bunch of malarkey as their thought of the day.

Who do you want to make these determinations? The government?

[Theyknow]

“If the Constition allows the free expression of religion, how can it also mean freedom from hearing it expressed?”

Not one of our freedoms is unlimited. Free speech stops at slander, liabel or yelling fire in a crowded theater. Your right to worship is similarly limited when in interferes with my right to worship. There is not a single law restricting how you worship at church or at home. If you want to have a prayer service at a public park, get the necessary permit (for crowd control, not speech content) and have your prayer service.

[x]

The American Revolution was built on ideas of contract and consent that were quite radical in their day. To be sure, they didn't go as far as modern liberalism and there was also a strong religious tendency among the revolutionaries, but there were strains in Jefferson, Paine, and others that we can still see today. It's nice to say now that we can wholly separate ideas of individual rights, freedom and representative government from the secular trend of the Englightenment, but those who agreed with Hippler's belief in obedience to established authority may not have gone along with the revolution.

I don't say Hippler's concern about the decline of religious faith is wrongheaded or misplaced. It certainly is something that should concern us. Piety and respect for tradition are certainly important, especially now. But our country has mixed religious and traditional beliefs with more radical individualist views for over two centuries, and we can't untangle the two now. Atheism may not be particularly "American," but the existence of many Protestantisms between Catholicism and atheism complicates the picture. The effort to achieve some ground of peace and comity between various competing religious groups inevitably led to greater secularization, and it's hard to see how this trend could be reversed without causing greater problems.

[RAT Patrol]

Does the constitution read "inhibiting the free exercise in private?"

I don't care tremendously about the sporting event prayers, but some people do. No law should force the issue ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. It should be a local, community decision. Some communities will choose to allow it, some will not. It may vary from school to school. (Again, vouchers is the answer, where true choice can exist for all.) When the Supreme Court rules that prayer cannot happen, they have inhibited the free exercise of religion. Making no law includes making no law by judicial fiat.

[Theyknow]

So you You would support the use of tax dollars to support a school which teaches the US is the Great Satan?

[RAT Patrol]

Who do you want to make these determinations? The government?

The local community. The people directly involved should decide it on their own, together.

If some satanist kid is selected to speak at a ballgame, go for it. I would be disgusted, but it is his right to do it. Satanism, with it's core beliefs being very evil and criminal, is a bad example. If a Muslim were chosen, I'd feel the same way. (A call to jihad against America would fall into the criminal category.) Let him speak his mind and everyone can draw their own conclusions from it. But before we get too off track, let's remember that these are very brief, generic things. I am not going to get a bunch of Muslim theology by allowing a Muslim to stand up and say something about Allah. Mohammad Ali did it all the time and I used to watch his fights anyway. What is the big deal?

Regarding prayer led by a teacher: the fact that many people are offended by this (I don't know why) should matter. That does not mean that I think it violates the constitution. I also think vouchers could solve this issue by giving families a choice. But, in the current communist-style education system where everyone must march to the same drum, it probably shouldn't happen. I do not think our Founders ever envisioned a federal government controlled education system. That has zapped a lot of freedom that only school choice can restore.