DR MORAN ON "THE BANKRUPTCY OP LIBERALISM."

Evening Star, Issue 3799, 28 April 1875, Page 2

DR MORAN ON "THE BANKRUPTCY OP LIBERALISM."

■The Right Reverend Dr Moran delivered a lecture on the above subject last evening in he Temperance Hall, in aid of th funds of the Roman Catholic Church at Fort Chalmers. On the platform were the Rev. W, Coleman, V.G., and other Catholic clergymen, and the general attendance was very large. His Lordship premised by stating that the a’m of h’s lecture was to prove that Liberalism had failed in all its professions. The many shades into which Liberalism, as popularly understood, was cast, made it difficult to give k definition of it, but he thought it •eight be thus defined:—That doctrine which maintains the perfect independence of human liberty. Its charter may be considered to be the Declaration of Rights by the French Assembly of 17f-9, in which three principles were laid down in three several articles : first, that man depended upon his reason alom, and was not responsible to any superior power; secondly, that every man has the right to reject Christianity, and endeavor to cause otheis to reject io; and thirdly, that Christianity in the eyes of the tate was no more than any other opinion, and was placed upon a footing of equality wjrh all opinions and errors. There were three divisions of Libeials—Radicals, Moderate!, and Catholics. Radical Liberalism was that which was straightforward and strictly logical—which avowed its principles, and did not recoil before auvone of their legitimate, logical consequences. In the. intellectual order it was free thought 1 1ms it declared that human reason depended upon itself alone : that a man was responsible only to reason, and not responsible for his acts to any higher power. In the religious order it was pure individualism—the negation of all dogmatic teaching and of all priesthood. In' he political order it was demagogy—the right of the masses to change or destroy at their will and pleasure political institutions. And in the religious - political order it was the subjugation of . religious society—or the Church-—to the State in everything. Moderate Liberalism which undertook to hold a middle place between pure Radicalism and pure Catholicism, but rejected both equally, recognised side by side with free thought an anthprity which it called eternal reason, and it would not refuse to c ill this, if demanded of > r , the reason of God, but, at the same time, a God who reigned, but did not rule. It constiruled nimbi the position of a Constitutional Sovereign, and gave Him a ministry which was responsible, not to him, but to humanity. In the religious order, it admitted of wo -ship, but left to every man the right to select the form for himself. He w«s to be at liberty to worship God, not in the manner God has appointed, hut in the manner that reermmended itself to his own judgment and reason. In the political order it recognised the necessity of authority to rule the masses, but handed oyer the exercise of that authority to the enlightened classes, and taught that this authority was to be exercised by means of Pailianu nts. But it was not satisfied with teaching that Parlia ments had the power to regulate liberty and exercise all authority, but placed Parliaments over authority itself. In the religious political order it would abstain from openly persecuting the Church—it would even favor the Chmdh and endow it but only on condition that the Church would admit its superiority, even ■in things purely spiritual, or relating merely to the soul itself. Catholic Liberalism did not deny any doctrine defined by the Church, or any clearly-taught, doctrine of Christianity ; but it considered that these principles were applicable to human affairs, at least hj the present day. It professed a wonderful respectjfor the principl s of Christianity—so great a respect that it thought they ought to be kept under lock and key—they ought'not to be permitted to be sullied by the preface Jjreatb "f the world or of human affairs —that they ought to be respected and cherished, but ought not to be brought out to interfere with the course of human tilings. Liberalism, at the outset of its career, promised Liberty, Equality,'and Fraternity ; the universal spread of education and the promotion of the material interests of man ; universal charity; the fraternisation of nations, ajid an end to wars. Instead of this glorious prospeet, Liberalism during the past eighty yeirs, as any attentive student of it could not help admitting, :had led an the intellectual order to the systematic brutalising of reason, to the degradation of science, to the_ decadence of literature and art, to the mutilation of the soul, and the destruction of liberty of thought; and, in the social and political order, had been the death of liberty. From the first, Liberalism rejected all mystery in reference to religion, and taught that man was nothing more than a : nvelldeveloped monkey, and that reason was nothing m-ire than a well-developed instin t of the beast. The Positivists, calling themselves Liberal professors, succeeded in vrtthdrawing philosophy from the guidance "of faith and Christianity, and so it.ceased to be considered a science. Fur half a century science had had its own way, yet in 1871 a committee of the French Institute, presided over by Guizot, proved, that Liberalism bad been the ruin of science, and that to the progress and influence of Liberalism must be attributed the downfall of France and its present lamentable conditiqq. There were other testimonies—the unification of Germany, the destruction of the Provinces of Austria, the tyranny over the Catholic 2 CS *J t 1 il 1 .1 .

Cantoris m Switzerland, the dethronement oi Princes of Italy, and the robberies of the Church. The Liberals had been applauders of centralism every where, gijd jt was strictly right to attribute this degradation <jf science to Liberalism, since it owed its origin to that creation of Liberalism—the French University. For the decadence of literature and art they had such authorities as Lacordaire, Montelamberti and the present condition of France. Liberalism had led to the mutilation of soul by establishing and patronising an education that taught a division between the soul and the individual; whilst cultivating the latter’s least important powers entirely ignored the higher and more important. Its education was purely secular. It attained—at ail events, it professed to do so—to the development of the intellect; the heart arid feelings were left without culture under it. It was from the State that the schoolmaster was sent forth to teach, but this wrs illogical— unphilosophic. How could a man teach wljep he bad no doctrine? Teaching and doctrine w§re correlatives, snd the State having no doctrine could not teachThe State had_ nothing but an opinion, and placed all opinions on a footing of equality. It knew nothing for certain, and how could it become a teacher? Again, Liberalism in the State destroys all respect and love of truth. How was this ? Liberalism placed truth and falsehood upon a perfect footing of equality; placed in its educational establishments men of all faiths and of all opinions or of no opinions, and placed them all on a footing of equality. What were the pupils brought up in such an institution to think ? L'ould they have any respect for truth? He thought not. Their teachers had none, and the teaching could have none. A priori, therefore, it was evident that this system ot Liberalism could do nothing but destroy love of truth and a respect for it; and they knew, as a matter of fact, that that had been the result, for those brought up in such schools: — and he still kept to France—were notorious for their want of steadiness in any case, and for the levity of their character in every sense. Accordingly, Liberalism had destroyed liberty of thought. Ninety-nine in every hundred men who professed Liberalism were perfectly incapable themselves of pronouncing any opinion on social and religious matters, without mentioning purely scientific subjects. Would the Liberal be content to pronounce no opinion ? Certainly not—ho would not forego his right. Would ha be content to take his opinions from the Church? No; to do that would be to abandon his liberty. Therefore he would pronounce his opinion, and as he could not pronounce one for himself he had to take the opinion of his newspaper. But that was only the opinion of his newspaper, or more properly he could not pronounce an opinion at all. It is therefore by means of Sirnalism that Liberalism has destroyed erty of thought. The. Liberal professed * l ' ee * bought, but none, or. very little, actually existed among Liberals. This was also the opinion of Liberal papers of mgh standing. For instance, the ‘ Saturday Review ’ admitted that the reading of newspapers was really the destruction of freedom of thought. The reading of newspapers corrupted the judgment and destroyed the powep,

and that evett this effect was produced, though not |o Jj«#ano extent as among thd-inafcMk'%iul Bai^raata man who read nothing &!&< t%cnewßjb|i»er thought no'more than the- xnanwho putting on his clothe. had been the destruction" oTliberty it attacked liberty on every ride. Ittodfckwav from it conscience, comprising the vfe&lilta A du»y. It de»t>°yed authority WhichwaT itself what use was a maaV libe.ty were not bound to abstain :from .xerciseof it? Libe.aUam tial protection from this : its easentiarcondition ceased the moment Liberalism was «ta“ Wished, because Liberalism repudiated the intervention of God. and by doing ao it took away that essentiaf condition! and destroyed th& br s:s of rigLt~and nutv hor how could duty bind the hutr.au will unless there be a will in man’s will which had. a right to impose upon it an ob’igation and to punish disobedience f But if a man be under, reason alone, and not responsible to any higher authority- man then became a legislator to himself and, like every other legislator, he might dis- - pense with his own laws - with the laws he im«' posed on himself. What guarantee was them to coerce him, for example; to respect the liber-" ties of other men, when that liberty interferes with the exercise of his own? The policeman. But the policeman was not-always present, therefore the very essential guarantee—the ,de * of duty-was withdrawn by LibenUism fr .in political and social liberty. Not only that but it destroyed authority, which wa/reaUy Js® °n'y protection thatiibertyhJd, . the promised fraternisation of nations and attend to wars, what was Europe s'condition * Why an enormous camp ; armies more numerons tW SLIT BecUn l y tot “‘r ; despotism "established everywhere. A century ago anUiofa of from 20,000 to 30,000 men were large enough*' now the armies comprised over a million memL a nation was a Standing army, and people were oppressed bv taxation -all this the great futitttf outcome of Liberalism. Let the .Ghristfcm principle be established of a superior power—of. a duty that we owe to an authority emanating' not from man or reason, but from ft higher power-let that principle be recognised byihe nations and acted upon, and then they would. m P a .9 e °f "hat they now deplored, sometmte similar to what might be witnessed now S VfV'ohc cantons of Switzerlandiand the Nort iof .Spain. There it was only necessary to rivseapdeasan emblem of authority, and itwaaefficacums to keep the peace and proteotlife and .^ hy . ? .Because the people are imbued with the principle that they are responsible to a higher power, a»d that each of them is not a sovereign m himself. He thought he had said sufficient to justify himself in entitling Ms lecture Ihe Bankruptcy of Liberalism.” B Ha had what it is—what it promised j and he had tried to show that jt bad faUedln wAr h j!u mo , tion o£ Mr J * ScA »hAK, n hearty lecturer WaS HCCorded the right rev.