The Problem of Liberty
Part II
We present here the second and final part of a previously unpublished conference given by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre to a group of Parisian students on May 2, 1965. The first part appeared in the January 2009 issue of The Angelus.
The missionary bishop, who was still at that time Superior General of the Holy Ghost Fathers, discussed the topic of religious liberty only a few months before the session of the Second Vatican Council which was to promulgate the Declaration Dignitatis Humanae (December 7, 1965). He affirmed before his audience:
Does not the dignity of man consist in his final end, in those laws of which I have spoken, in that universal order which is given to us by the Church, which is taught to us by our Lord who speaks through the Church? Then (today) there is no longer any order possible. We no longer know what is the true order, what is not the true order. I believe that there is still going to be some very lively discussion on this subject at the Council.
With his characteristic firm serenity, Archbishop Lefebvre recalled the traditional teaching of the Church on freedom which he had received in Rome during his studies in the Holy City and to which he remained indefectibly attached his whole life through.
A Few Applications of Freedom
You may also have seen that in the Encyclical Libertas Praestantissimum, Pope Leo XIII likewise speaks of this decrease in our freedom caused by the application of authority. He insists above all on the fact of our weakness, of the weakness in our faculties which we have as a consequence of Original Sin, to be more precise.
St. Thomas speaks of the four wounds inflicted on our nature by the loss of the supernatural order: ignorance in the intellect, malice in the will, weakness, and concupiscence. Those are the four wounds which are inflicted on our nature by the fact that we lose the supernatural order. Our nature is therefore no longer perfect. St. Thomas insists on these same weaknesses of nature as affecting our freedom indirectly, diminishing it, when he explains why authority is necessary.
I would like to correct one fairly common error on this subject, which is thinking that authority is only given to us for that reason–that authority here below, all authorities, are given to us byGod only on account of Original Sin. This would obviously be an error. Authority is a perfection. It will always exist. The authority of God over us will always exist. Consequently, if authority were only given on account of our weakness, our defects, authority would only last as long as human existence here below. Normally, after this life, in heaven and in paradise, authority would no longer exist. That is not the case. Moreover, the word itself seems to be an indication: authority means author; the authority is therefore the author of life, it should continue to watch over that life, protect that life, continue to give that life. Thus authority is a source of life both by the laws it gives and by the very execution of those laws.
Obviously some people are going to say: “There is a constraint,” but constraint is sometimes necessary, precisely on account of our weakness. And that is why those who hold authority possess an executive power, a legislative power, and a judiciary power. The legislative power consists precisely in making laws, in making more specific those laws which already exist in nature. Authority formulates them, promulgates them, and sees to their execution. Next, judiciary power consists in punishing delinquents, those who do not want to submit to the laws. Such is the very power of authority, which is made for the good.
Certainly, if those laws are unjust laws, illegitimate laws, laws which are not in conformity with the natural order nor in conformity with the positive law of God, then those laws have no force. A law can only have force if it is in conformity with the law of nature, with the positive divine law, and the positive human laws which are, for example, the laws of the Church, the commandments of the Church–which are human laws, ecclesiastical laws, but they correspond to the divine law.
So you see that authority plays a very important role in our concept of freedom.
Pope Leo XIII explicitly stated that the power to do evil is obviously not an essential part of freedom.
Otherwise God would no longer be free, because He cannot do evil. And I think that God is supremely free, isn’t He? The elect who are in heaven can no longer do evil, either, and yet they adhere freely and infallibly to the good which they conceive in their intellect because this time the good presents itself to them in its entirety, directly to their intellect. They cannot not see it, and they cannot not rejoice in it, they cannot, in their will, not desire that good which they perceive in a perfect manner–it is inconceivable. They move toward it with all their heart, with all their soul, because it is impossible for them not to see this good which is their good, their own good, their own final end, directly presented to them in the beatific vision. They cannot not cling to it, and they cling to it freely, infallibly. Therefore, saying that freedom is also the power to do evil would amount to saying that neither the elect are free, nor God Himself.
The power to do evil is a defect in our freedom. Why do we have this defect? Because the goods which present themselves to us are not necessary goods. There is a necessary good which is our final end, happiness, and that which every soul desires. But between that final end toward which we are tending and what we are now, there is an infinity of goods which present themselves to us and among them there are real goods and false goods. There are apparent goods to which we are in danger of adhering if we are not careful; we can sometimes attach ourselves to them without a bad conscience, but we can also attach ourselves to them with a bad conscience. We can attach ourselves to false goods, just as we can attach ourselves to apparent truths, which in reality are errors. The reason is that now, in our present state, we do not possess the total good of our intellect and of our will.
Now then, if we are free in our choices, it is clear that God could not prevent us–given the state of pilgrims in which He has established us, and confronted as we are with many crossroads and many choices to make–He could not prevent us from ever making bad choices. Otherwise we would no longer have a human freedom, which attaches itself to particular goods, to contingent goods, which we can choose. This is where we can make mistakes, because our minds are not perfect, because our wills are not perfect either and all the more so since we are affected by original sin. As I was telling you earlier, ignorance and malice are unfortunately among the defects which are even more deeply rooted in us than in our first parents.
Religious Liberty
Here is another truth which it is important to know and to affirm: it is one thing to be able to do evil and another thing to have the right to do evil.
I am now coming to a conclusion which you can already guess, and to a subject which is still going to give us many concerns and many difficulties at the next session of the Council–that of religious liberty. Is it possible, as some are saying and have said, that man, on account of his human dignity, is morally free to adhere to and publicly put into practice the religion which he conceives in his conscience?
To be frank, that is more or less the statement that a certain number of Council Fathers would like us to adopt. Man is free and consequently has the right–you see why it is so serious–has the right, I do not say the power (that is another question: unfortunately, we do have the power to sin), but the right to sin. Man would thereby have the right, in virtue of his human dignity–explain it as you like–to adhere to and publicly practice the religion which he conceives in his conscience!
It is a terrifying affirmation, terrifying in its consequences! It is horrendous; I suppose those who formulate principles of this kind do not see the consequences to which they could lead. “But really,” they object, “you cannot prevent the Protestants from publicly manifesting their faith!” Obviously, it would appear extreme to say the contrary. But a faith not in conformity with the Faith taught by Our Lord is one thing; the consequences of that faith are another.
If error were only in the domain of dogma it would be bad enough. Let us suppose that in a Catholic family, for example, one were regularly to invite a person who professes a different faith and one were to say: “The children have to be aware of everything, we have to be open to the world, we have to be open to ideas.” They would let that person present his faith and show the children the faith he professes; that would already be extremely grave. For if it is not the true Faith, it is an error. It would amount to exposing errors in front of the children who are more or less capable of defending themselves against those errors. It is always grave to accept the scandal of error.
Logically then, we come around to the question of morals. We cannot separate dogma from morals. They may say: “Ah! That’s different, we are not talking about morals. It is only a question of the public practice of religion, for example religious services.” I answer: You cannot say, “We authorize other religions to practice their religious services” and not authorize them also to practice their moral laws and, ultimately, ask States and governments to put those moral laws into legislation. Religion and morals are inseparable ; dogma and morals are inseparable. We therefore have to be completely logical. Logically, we would have to conclude that all States should henceforth accept birth-control and divorce and that there should no longer be any State which does not accept divorce. It is logical; it is a right. And if they have the right, it must be because God gives it. Therefore, out of consideration for human dignity, God gives the right to practice publicly the religion in conformity to a man’s conscience and to practice the morality which flows from it.
Those are principles absolutely contrary to all of the papal encyclicals up to the present; it is clear. That is why the liberals conclude that States and governments are not capable of knowing the true religion. That is where their thinking has to go for them next to put all religions on the same footing: all forms of worship and all moral systems are on the same footing. You logically have to conclude that, since States are not capable of knowing which is the true religion, they are obliged to admit the freedom of any religion which may present itself. The only limitation would be the so-called public order. But how can we define public order? Public order has to be defined. One could say, for example, that polygamy is the public order for Moslems. They are going to come, too, with their worship; they are going to come, too, with their morals. And why not? Once you start there is no escape.
Let us say: “We tolerate; we accept; prudence demands that we allow...”; let there be a certain tolerance on the part of Catholic States, for example of the practice of religious services, of a certain religious liberty–exactly how much is left up to the judgment of the heads of State who ought to be conscious of their duties and their responsibilities. For example, to avoid a greater evil which would be violent oppositions between citizens, to avoid grave difficulties, one may tolerate the opening of places of worship by different religions.
From there to saying that those who ask States for such a freedom are asking for it in virtue of a right...No! Never that! Now God gives men the right to adhere to falsehood? Now God gives men the right to do evil? The right–because that is what it would be. And there is where the whole difficulty lies: the jus habent of the dignity of man. Does not the dignity of man consist in his final end, in those laws of which I have spoken, in that universal order which is given to us by the Church, which is taught to us by our Lord who speaks through the Church? Then today there is no longer any order possible. We no longer know what the true order is or is not. I believe that there is still going to be some very lively discussion on this subject at the Council.
You wonder how we even reached the point of being able to say such things. That those who explicitly profess liberalism or modernism would have this type of idea, granted, it is perhaps normal for them; but that theologians would be so bold: that is truly grave, very grave. I guarantee that you are going to see the consequences.
Once again, if we admit that all men have the right to practice publicly the religion which they conceive in their conscience, they also have a right to their moral system. We cannot say: “You only have a right to religious services; you do not have a right to the morals.” It is an absolutely inevitable consequence. Moreover, those who want this freedom of worship–some of them at least–also want freedom of morals, driven by what mindset I do not know. The bottom line is that they want it also because, sad to say, there are no doubt certain thinkers who are absolutely discontent and unhappy, at the thought that there could still be States or governments capable of outlawing divorce. It seems to them unimaginable.
So you see to what extent this notion of freedom is misunderstood, and even completely misunderstood. As if you could separate freedom from what makes up man as a whole. You cannot separate freedom from man any more than you can separate the intellect from man and define the intellect outside of man as a whole, outside of his ultimate end; no more than you could define the will of man without considering the ultimate end of the total man, could you define freedom independently of man. You must therefore define it in view of the final end of man. That is the reason freedom is given to us. All of our faculties are given to us so that we might attain our end. And that final end is inscribed in a law indicated by authority. It is not really very complicated. But there is such an obsession with the danger of having our freedom be the slightest bit limited, that they want to apply freedom independently of any consideration of finality. Man is free, absolutely free. He can do whatever he wants; it is a matter of conscience. His conscience is the final criterion, the definitive criterion of all that man can do. Every man can make a law for himself, every man can make an ultimate end for himself.
But did God create us as beings who would each be a world unto itself? All of us would be beings of a different order, each one with a different finality! You wonder how it is possible to imagine such a thing.
That is what I wanted to express to you. I am sorry if I have not been clear. I so wish that you would be aware of the importance of a clear definition of freedom, in our being and in our life, because it has consequences not only for ourselves but for all life in society. And you know that all the responsibility, the laws, authority, justice–in a word, everything that ultimately makes up a human life, a life of society, are constructed upon freedom, upon a good freedom. Because without that proper understanding of freedom, what is the use of courtrooms, judges, or the justice system? If we are free to do what we like, the consequences are unthinkable. On a speculative level, they tell us: “You are free to do what you like.” Then, all of a sudden, a policeman comes to get us and puts us in prison, saying to us: ‘You did wrong.’” “Did wrong? I do what my conscience tells me! It is none of your business! I do as I like. I am free!” What can we do? There is no longer any such thing as sin, there is no longer such a thing as evil, there are no more courtrooms, there is no more justice. Every one makes up his own law and there you go. There is no way of ending it. Would you say: “There is a limit”? What limit?
When you begin with the principles, you have to be logical right up to the end. If you apply this idea of total freedom independently of any final end, independently of the laws that God gives us, there is no longer any possibility of justifying a judicial action, and there is no more responsibility, no more sin, no more evil.
There is also the source of all the false freedoms decried by Pope Leo XIII: freedom of the press, freedom of conscience–all of those modern errors which today seem normal. But they tell us, “You are an old stick in the mud, speaking of freedom of the press. As if the press were not free! After all, the men of today are not the men of 1888! Men are certainly capable now of judging what is good and what is bad! Why do you want to limit the freedom of the press? Every man is free to do and to publish what he wants!” Therefore it is a freedom to scandalize: the scandal of error, the scandal of morals.
There is no way out. Once you mean to say that there must be freedom, then there must be freedom of the press, there must be freedom of morals, there must be freedom of everything. There is no longer any limit possible. That there should be a certain tolerance–fine. But you are not going to tell me that the press does not have a considerable influence. The press, television, the radio, and movies have an enormous influence in the conditioning of human minds. We are going toward a standard mind. They are going to standardize our minds by bringing them under the yoke of absolutely inadequate visions of humanity: materialistic visions, sensual, whatever they choose. It is horrifying, the conditioning that is possible with the radio and the press! So I think that States like Portugal, Spain, and others are perfectly right to discipline the press and all the means of information.
Freedom of the press, freedom of teaching, freedom of conscience: so many freedoms decried by Pope Leo XIII. I cannot urge you too strongly to read the Encyclical Libertas Praestantissimum, which is truly the most beautiful thing that can be written on freedom as well as on the application of principles to the “modern errors” which are still the order of the day.
Conclusion
I would like to end with a little passage from the Encyclical Sapientiae Christianae of Pope Leo XIII. He asks precisely for the union of souls:
18. To bring about such a union of minds and uniformity of action–not without reason so greatly feared by the enemies of Catholicism–the main point is that a perfect harmony of opinion should prevail; in which intent we find Paul the Apostle exhorting the Corinthians with earnest zeal and solemn weight of words: “Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you: but that you be perfectly in the same mind, and in the same judgment.”
19. The wisdom of this precept is readily apprehended. In truth, thought is the principle of action, and hence there cannot exist agreement of will, or similarity of action, if people all think differently one from the other.
20. In the case of those who profess to take reason as their sole guide, there would hardly be found, if, indeed, there ever could be found, unity of doctrine. Indeed, the art of knowing things as they really are is exceedingly difficult; moreover, the mind of man is by nature feeble and drawn this way and that by a variety of opinions, and not seldom led astray by impressions coming from without; and, furthermore, the influence of the passions oftentimes takes away, or certainly at least diminishes, the capacity for grasping the truth. On this account, in controlling State affairs, means are often used to keep those together by force who cannot agree in their way of thinking.
21. It happens far otherwise with Christians; they receive their rule of faith from the Church, by whose authority and under whose guidance they are conscious that they have beyond question attained to truth. Consequently, as the Church is one, because Jesus Christ is one, so throughout the whole Christian world there is, and ought to be, but one doctrine: “One Lord, one faith”; “but having the same spirit of faith,” they possess the saving principle whence proceed spontaneously one and the same will in all, and one and the same tenor of action.
22. Now, as the Apostle Paul urges, this unanimity ought to be perfect. Christian faith reposes not on human but on divine authority, for what God has revealed “we believe not on account of the intrinsic evidence of the truth perceived by the natural light of our reason, but on account of the authority of God revealing, who cannot be deceived nor Himself deceive.” It follows as a consequence that whatever things are manifestly revealed by God we must receive with a similar and equal assent. To refuse to believe any one of them is equivalent to rejecting them all, for those at once destroy the very groundwork of faith who deny that God has spoken to men, or who bring into doubt His infinite truth and wisdom. To determine, however, which are the doctrines divinely revealed belongs to the teaching Church, to whom God has entrusted the safekeeping and interpretation of His utterances. But the supreme teacher in the Church is the Roman Pontiff. Union of minds, therefore, requires, together with a perfect accord in the one faith, complete submission and obedience of will to the Church and to the Roman Pontiff, as to God Himself.
It is very important precisely because at the present time people speak a great deal about unity. Those who do not want to conform themselves to the opinions of others, to public opinion, are accused of being divisive. “You people are always discontent, you are never satisfied. You cause divisions…”
I think we have here that which ought to guide us and unite us: the doctrine of the Church taught by the popes. Study the teaching of the popes!
Piety, Study, Action
You know those mottoes they sometimes have in certain Catholic Action movements and which in themselves are perfectly elementary principles: “See, judge, act”?
Well! See, judge, act: you also have to judge according to the Truth, you also have to act according to the Truth. “See, judge, act”–anybody can do that; the communists do that. Every man does that. We see, we judge, we act, but one may see, judge, and act unreasonably. So you have to see and study. I find that the marching orders of Pope St. Pius X on the subject were much more accurate: “Piety, Study, Action.” Those were the marching orders given by Pope St. Pius X to the members of Catholic Action; “Piety, Study, Action” is much more realistic. There at least you have principles which you can hold to. Piety: pray first, and so unite yourself to God; then study: study the Truth. Then you will act with success. And even if there is no apparent success, you at least have the hope of a success to come.
I also congratulate you sincerely for coming together as you do, in small groups, to study the Truth. Especially at your age, in the conditions where you find yourselves, in your social surroundings, given the general atmosphere, it is absolutely necessary that you study the principles in order to have a clear vision, a mind which truly attaches itself to the Truth. Then you will act in all the circumstances of your life in a way which will be truly in conformity with the laws of God, with the order of the universe. You will be in order. And order produces justice; justice produces peace.
Those are fundamental principles on which one should never compromise: there is an order in the world and God has ordered us toward an end. If we step out of that order, that is the end of it: we are in disorder. If it is a moral disorder, we are in sin. If it is a political or economic disorder, if we step outside the order which is inscribed in the laws of nature, we are heading toward catastrophes for society.
God knows we have been seeing it now for several years. All of these wars which we deplore are the fruit of disorder, of moral disorder, of philosophical disorder and of the disorder which is reigning in minds. You first have to set minds in order. Then comes order in action and in every domain. For you must not exclude the political sphere. It would be another one of the errors which they are now trying too inculcate in people’s minds, Catholic minds, Christian minds, that we must not seek Catholic legislation or a Catholic government for States. Today, it is forbidden! But it was good for the time of the Crusades! Now it is no longer a question of wanting to put a Catholic government back at the head of a State, or Catholics at the head of a government! Whereas it ought to be one of the essential goals presenting itself to every Catholic citizen.
We are living in a climate of absolute insanity. The first desire of any Catholic ought to be that his community be Catholic, that his region be Catholic, that the State become Catholic. This is for the good of his family, the good of his fellow citizens, and that the kingdom of our Lord come on earth as it is in heaven.
Current Issue
