Rachel Dolezal Is Just Another Person Driven Insane By Liberalism

By Matt Walsh on The Blaze

242

Liberalism is a force of hopeless insanity.

It’s important to understand this upfront. Progressives have been waging a brutal, endless war against Truth, and this is where it leads. To Bruce Jenner. To Rachel Dolezal. To much worse things than these, like the destruction of unborn life and the annihilation of marriage and the family. This is liberalism. Why are you shocked by any absurdity or atrocity it creates when this same force has been eating our culture alive for decades?

Did you just now notice?

I don’t mean to write another thinkpiece on Rachel Dolezal. Everything that can be said about that pitiful woman has been said, and then some. The only thing I will offer in her defense is that it is quite unfair to call her an embarrassment to the NAACP. I mean, come on, this is the NAACP we’re talking about here. It’s been doing a superb job of embarrassing itself for a while now. If it could collectively feel any ounce of shame, it would have died from it years ago. Perhaps right around the time when it honored R.Kelly with an Image Award.

[…]

Liberals insist that biology, genetics, anatomy, and chemistry have nothing to do with gender, and that an individual can choose to defy all of these factors if their feelings run contrary to their physical reality. Therefore, why can’t a person identify as another race if that’s how they feel? Indeed, race is already a murky subject, and every person on Earth is some combination of various ethnicities. My whiteness is far less hardwired and far more difficult to define than my maleness, so if the latter is negotiable, certainly the former must be as well.

Further, if our “inner identity” can be mysteriously mismatched with our physical exterior — as if the self is not a synthesis of body and soul but a soul contained in, and divorced from, the body — who’s to put limits on the extent and form of this incongruity? If I can be a male inside a female body, then why not a black man inside a white man’s body? Or even a black woman inside a white man’s body? As many have observed, what disqualifies or disproves anyone’s contention that they are, beyond transgender or transracial, even transpecies? Maybe I feel like a flying squirrel or an Amazonian toad or a hydrangea bush. Maybe I feel like an Asian eunuch inside a black woman inside a white man inside a white woman inside a potato. If we have claimed the authority to be something other than the thing God (or “nature”) constructed us to be, there are no boundaries.

[…]

Modern liberalism, so called, is nothing more and nothing less than the categorical rejection of truth. It is not scared or slowed or dissuaded by any form of untruth, because it is inherently, down to its very essence, in every fiber of its hideous being, a lie. It is an enemy of truth and an ally of anything that undermines it. I recently made the argument that the liberal transgender superstition completed the final step into total, full blown anti-truth lunacy. Once they have perverted the very definition of being, there is nowhere else to go. This is it. Whatever faint glimmer of reality still shone from its dying core has now been extinguished. That was my theory, and it took less than two weeks to be proven correct.

But as I said, none of this is shocking. Certainly there’s something unique about the outright renunciation of biology by a scientifically advanced civilization, but it all stems from the rejection of Truth and the idolatry of the self, which is not only an old evil, but the oldest.

Liberalism is not some quirky new invention that came along in sincerity, with good ideas and bad ideas, to try and help our society progress. No, it is not new, it is not concerned with progress, and it has no good ideas at all. It is the worst and most ancient of ideas, now slightly updated and with hashtags.

Liberalism — which is really just a political label for the religious belief in the supremacy of the self — was born before time, with Satan’s rebellion against God. Non serviam, as the tradition goes. Satan refused to worship God, who is the only Truth, and chose instead to serve himself. He turned his gaze away from the light of what is Real and into the darkness of his own selfishness.

We all do this at various points of our lives, probably on a daily basis. It’s called sin. Whenever we serve something or someone other than God, we sin. This is a struggle for all of us; obviously liberals are not the only sinners in the world. But liberalism has made all of these various rebellions into a religion of their own. Yes, we all battle temptations, but liberalism has systematically declared these temptations righteous. Whereas any human fights against the urge to treat himself as if he is greater than God, liberalism professes that the self actually is greater than God. Hence, the individual can alter his biological makeup if it will fulfill his desires, or redefine the purpose of marriage if it will make him happy, or strip the humanity from a child in the womb if it will make sex more fun and convenient.

This is, literally, satanism.

These days, most self-identified Satanists would be the first to tell you that they do not explicitly worship a theological entity known as “Satan.” They simply practice the Satanic motto coined by Aleister Crowley 100 years ago: “Do what thou wilt.”

That’s the whole of the Satanic law, and the sum of progressive philosophy as well. Of course there are exceptions — do what thou wilt, unless what thou wilt promotes or advances moral absolutes — but aside from those caveats, go for it.

Serve yourself. That is all that matters. Self-love is not only the highest but the only form of love. This is how liberals and Satanists can claim that horrors like abortion are acts of love. It is death and murder in service to the self, therefore it must be good. Likewise, when a “transgender” mutilates himself, he does it in service to himself, therefore it must be good. If it’ll satisfy your urges, it’s good. Period.

What we’ve discovered is that, when it comes down to it, our society has two options: the Truth or the Lie. God or ourselves. Heaven or Hell. Liberalism has rejected the former in its entirety, and every day we are treated to another example of how dark and confused a culture becomes when it casts aside the Truth.

Is it any wonder that Rachel Dolezal thinks she can become another race just by “identifying” as one? This is the lunatic creed of progressivism. The self is god. I can do what I want because it is what I want, and there is no force greater or more important than my own desire.

That was Dolezal’s thought process, and it’s completely consistent with mainstream liberal philosophy.

Really, she’s no worse than any other liberal.

Read the whole article here.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

65 Responses to Rachel Dolezal Is Just Another Person Driven Insane By Liberalism

  1. toadspittle says:

    “Maybe I feel like a flying squirrel or an Amazonian toad or a hydrangea bush.”
    Watch it, Matt.
    ….I resent the implication that I feel like a hydrangea bush.

  2. toadspittle says:

    The piece is frothing, gibbering, tripe, and damaging to sensible Catholics and to the image of Catholicism. But it is, at least, clear and categorical in its lunacy. Liberals are the moral equivalent of child molesters. And the priests that fall into that category are liberals for sure. As is Satan. As were Stalin and Lenin
    I’d like to see this article broadcast universally, so that everyone could get a chance to read it, and decide what to make of it, and its author.

    “Liberals insist that biology, genetics, anatomy, and chemistry have nothing to do with gender, “Oh, really? Why don’t I insist that, then? Find me a liberal who insists anatomy has nothing to do with gender. And I’ll find you a nut.

    Yes, there are degrees of liberalism. There are probably Traditionalist liberals, and Modernist liberals, for all I know. Utterly unlike Catholicism, do I hear you say?

  3. GC says:

    Sounds like the Toadinator Toad could have been a bit of an old Culture Warrior himself back there in Toledo, Ohio.

    This article was as entertaining as reading Ann Coulter and the rest of the gang at Town Hall dot com.

    From Moral Relativism to Reality Relativism

    NARAL Confused that the Head of the Catholic Church Doesn’t Support Abortion

  4. “When people are afraid of owning their emotions, they wear a mask. And if a person denies his feelings, he acts them out.” (“The Freedom to Love” by Fr. Emmerich Vogt, O.P.)
    The apparent lack of curiosity about her own reasons for this bizarre pretense struck me (she literally wears a mask) and the above quote seemed to be relevant. My theory, for what it’s worth (I have studied psychology but many years ago),is that this woman dislikes black people but cannot admit it, especially to herself, and some sort of ego-phobia and ‘acting out’ has resulted.

    It is demanded of people attracted to their own sex, but who are unhappy with that situation, that the only route to happiness is to accept themselves for ‘what they are’. Anyone who tries to help them to ‘make the change’ will be pilloried, if not expelled from their profession. However the very opposite advice is given to those feel ‘trapped’ in genders (or maybe now even races) that they find in some way ‘unsatisfactory’. Liberalism is nothing if not contrary.

  5. Tom Fisher says:

    I don’t mean to write another thinkpiece

    Success!

  6. Tom Fisher says:

    Modern liberalism, so called, is nothing more and nothing less than the categorical rejection of truth

    Liberalism is a multifaceted political tradition with its roots in the 17th Century. It is the tradition in which the United States was founded, in which modern democratic politics subsists, and is the pre-condition for modern civil society. Fascism and Marxism have been the only two significant attempts to break entirely with the Liberal tradition since the 18th Century. Can Matt Walsh seriously claim that John Locke, Adam Smith, and Thomas Jefferson had no other aim than the rejection of truth? Walsh seems to be rightly suspicious of certain fads in “identity politics”, but conflating that with Liberalism is ignorant and stupid

  7. toadspittle says:

    Nicely put, Tom.
    These are the current American-style, Fox- News type ravings – that “anyone who doesn’t share my opinion is mad, and evil.”
    Taking the Jenner case which I strongly suspect most liberals (including me) think has nothing to do with liberal thought – my personal feeling is I’m rather sorry for him/her, who clearly has a lot of problems. He/she thinks surgery can solve them.
    I doubt he/she thinks it involves God. But I don’t know.
    ‘Liberal” is a very slippery term. Means what each of us thinks it means, I’d suggest. Rather like “Catholic,” in that respect.

    “Really, (Rachael’s) no worse than any other liberal.”
    I’d agree with that. Likely not much better, either.

  8. kathleen says:

    ‘Liberal” is a very slippery term. Means what each of us thinks it means, I’d suggest. Rather like “Catholic,” in that respect.”

    First part of this is more or less correct I’d say; it can be stretched to include various meanings. Second part is totally off target.

    My on-line dictionary quotes as the first interpretation of ‘liberal’ being: “open to new behaviour or opinions and willing to discard traditional values”.
    Sounds familiar, eh Toad?

    ‘Catholic’, on the other hand, when used with a little ‘c’ means ‘universal’, or ‘in all parts’ (which is true of the Catholic Church nowadays of course, thanks to the evangelisation of the Apostles and their followers; we too should continue in this mission.)
    The real meaning of ‘Catholic’ (and in the way you are using it here) is someone who is a member of the Catholic Church – the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church – and no one can be a true ‘Catholic’ without accepting all the Catholic Church teaches as revealed Truth.

    Here is the ‘Act of Faith’…. just in case you’ve forgotten it😉 :

    O MY GOD, I firmly believe that Thou art one God in Three Divine Persons, Father, Son and Holy Ghost. I believe that Thy Divine Son became Man, and died for our sins, and that He will come to judge the living and the dead. I believe these and all the truths which the Holy Catholic Church teaches, because Thou hast revealed them, Who canst neither deceive nor be deceived.

  9. toadspittle says:

    “…open to new behaviour or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.”
    Perfectly reasonable diagnosis, Kathleen. And you would have been among the first to discard the traditional ban on women voting, I dare say.

  10. toadspittle says:

    …it also strikes me that another Grand Old Tradition is, or at least was, assuming the Monarch was appointed by God – and so was subject to no worldly restrictions and restraints. The Divine Right of Kings.* Then Henry Vlll bent that tradition seriously out of shape. What do you think?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_right_of_kings

    “I believe these and all the truths which the Holy Catholic Church teaches, because Thou hast revealed them, Who canst neither deceive nor be deceived.”
    ….Teeny bit of a “circular,” argument, I suggest.

    And, logically, why can’t God deceive if He feels like it? It’s His train set, isn’t it?
    And He’s omnipotent.
    …And what about Abraham and Isaac?

  11. Tom Fisher says:

    Rachel Dolezal seems to be a liar. I wish her well, but she seems to have been extravagantly, and consistently dishonest. I’m sure that she is feeling profoundly humiliated right now. Let us hope that she is ok, and that she gets through this, and that she will redeem herself.

    I think that there is a clear moral distinction to draw between the Jenner and the Dolezal case.

  12. kathleen says:

    “…open to new behaviour or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.”
    Perfectly reasonable diagnosis, Kathleen. And you would have been among the first to discard the traditional ban on women voting, I dare say.

    Oh you silly Toad! Who, except you, would call such a thing as the ban on women voting a “traditional value“?🙄

    It was a secular law, a political manoeuvre to keep women ‘firmly in their place’, as some saw it!
    There might have been a few members of the hierarchy at the time who frowned upon the women’s suffrage movement, but the Catholic Church Herself has made no doctrinal pronouncement on this particular matter. However, it has from the beginning vindicated the dignity of womanhood and declared that in spiritual matters man and woman are equal, according to the words of St. Paul: “There is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28).

  13. GC says:

    Umm, the writer did say “modern liberalism”, not the 18th century stuff.

    A prominent 19th century religious anti-liberal was, of course, Cardinal Newman:

    What is the world’s religion now? It has taken the brighter side of the Gospel, – its tidings of comfort, its precepts of love; all darker, deeper views of man’s condition and prospects being comparatively forgotten. This is the religion natural to a civilised age, and well has Satan dressed and completed it into an idol of the Truth …

    Religion is pleasant and easy; benevolence is the chief virtue; intolerance, bigotry, excess of zeal, are the first of sins … it includes no true fear of God, no fervent zeal for His honour, no deep hatred of sin, no horror at the sight of sinners, no indignation and compassion at the blasphemies of heretics, no jealous adherence to doctrinal truth … and therefore is neither hot nor cold, but (in Scripture language) lukewarm … I will not shrink from uttering my firm conviction, that it would be a gain to this country, were it vastly more superstitious, more bigoted, more gloomy, more fierce in its religion, than at present it shows itself to be.

  14. Tom Fisher says:

    Umm, the writer did say “modern liberalism”, not the 18th century stuff

    Liberalism is a modern approach to politics, and human affairs generally. There is nothing to be gained by the kind of cultural amnesia that would imagine the 17th Century to be anything other than modern.

  15. GC says:

    Oh come on. He is obviously referring specifically to the current scene in America, not that in the 18th century.

  16. Tom Fisher says:

    He is obviously referring specifically to the current scene in America, not that in the 18th century.

    G.C, I think we can probably agree that Rachel Dolezal is a liar and a fool; a month from now we will hardly remember her name. I know you think I’m pursuing a distinction that doesn’t matter. But Matt Walsh doesn’t get to redefine Liberalism to mean “political correctness”, and the current fashion in the U.S for conflating “Liberalism” with nonsensical politically correct identity politics is not acceptable. I’m a Catholic Liberal, and I resent seeing the term debased by the ignorant.

  17. GC says:

    I think we can probably agree that Rachel Dolezal is a liar and a fool

    Yes, and most probably a liberal.

    http://www.readbookonline.net/read/44980/93763/

    (I’m sure you noticed the Blessed’s reference also to Revelation 3:16 – the “lukewarm” bit – in relation to religious liberals, Mr Fisher?)

  18. Michael says:

    logically, why can’t God deceive if He feels like it? It’s His train set, isn’t it?
    And He’s omnipotent.

    Because He is Truth itself. Asking why He cannot lie is like asking if it is possible to draw a square circle.

  19. Michael says:

    I think that there is a clear moral distinction to draw between the Jenner and the Dolezal case.

    Yes, but I don’t think the article was actually making a comparison between the morality of the respective cases. The parallel drawn was in terms of identity and the question of whether or not we can simply rewrite reality in accordance with our own desires.

  20. Michael says:

    Matt Walsh doesn’t get to redefine Liberalism to mean “political correctness”

    If he had made it clear from the outset what he meant by Liberalism, would you still have any major quarrel with the points of the article (putting to one side what you might think of its tone)? Also, do you not think it a reasonable contention that, broadly speaking, the madness of contemporary identity politics, political correctness and relativism across the board are themselves products of classical Liberal principles?

  21. Michael says:

    Liberals are the moral equivalent of child molesters.

    I think I must have missed the bit in the article where liberals are themselves written off as ‘bad people’. I thought it was a condemnation of contemporary liberal ideas, not people holding to those ideas.

  22. GC says:

    I seem to think too, kathleen, that the “divine right of kings”, if taken to mean that the king was above the law, is not Catholic either. That kings also are under under divine law and natural law, would be Catholic teaching surely. I’m not at all sure where the Toadinator Toad gets his basic info from.

    Perhaps our old friend, HRM, will tell us of the Hapsburg “scenario” in this respect.

  23. toadspittle says:

    Nobody is suggesting that The Church was ever against women voting, Kathleen. I selected it merely an example of a tradition which is now rightly regarded as pernicious rubbish.
    There are several.
    Same as the tradition of slavery. for many centuries, in many countries.
    Well thought of in the Bible, I gather, at least unquestioned..
    And yes, slavery is still regarded today as a venerable tradition by backward and loathsome countries. No, not Christian ones.

    “Oh you silly Toad! Who, except you, would call such a thing as the ban on women voting a “traditional value“? “
    Anyone else agree with Silly Toad? I don’t need support, but – blimey.

    Regarding “traditions,” Churchill was once told that a reforming idea of his was, “…against the traditions of The Royal Navy.”
    “The traditions of The Royal Navy, Sir, “ he replied, “…are rum, sodomy and the lash.”

    …Then there is (or was, let’s hope) ” Droit de Seigneur, ” but I will leave it to Kathleen to explain and justify that splendid old tradition.

  24. toadspittle says:

    You are surely not suggesting that every Catholic is in full agreement on what constitutes “Catholicism,” Kathleen?
    Tell that to Pope Francis and Cardinal Pell, in that case.

  25. toadspittle says:

    Was God lying to Abraham about killing Isaac, Michael?
    Yes or No?

  26. Tom Fisher says:

    The traditions of The Royal Navy, Sir, “ he replied, “…are rum, sodomy and the lash

    Mr Churchill is not well thought of in the Antipodes (google it HRM) but that really was a fine retort

  27. toadspittle says:

    “I’m not at all sure where the Toadinator Toad gets his basic info from..”
    He makes most of it up, GC.
    He used to be a journalist.

  28. GC says:

    A relative on my mother’s side, long since gone to his creator, served in the Australian navy in the Pacific War against the Japanese. He said in the navy it wasn’t “wine, women and song” but “rum, b*m and cracked gramophone records”.

  29. GC says:

    He makes most of it up, GC. He used to be a journalist

    Say, shouldn’t that be a “reporter”?

    Anyway, this along with your Dominican background, just like Farver Tim – very much a religious liberal – is beginning to make your admitted “making things up” bent more and more understandable

  30. toadspittle says:

    “Bum,” i.e. sodomy – is the word escaping you there, GC.
    Never mind, a tradition is a tradition, for all that.
    And, if Kathleen is to be believed all traditions are good. I think otherwise .
    That’s the liberal tradition.
    According to Toad – the cracked gramophone record par excellence.

  31. GC says:

    It’s probably always best to leave at least a little something to the imagination, Toad.

    Anyway, I think you’ll be confusing our many beloved North American readers there, won’t you?

  32. toadspittle says:

    The Hell with our many beloved North American readers, GC.
    Lot of nuts with guns.
    “The American people, taken one with another, constitute the most timorous, snivelling, poltroonish,
    ignominous mob of serfs and goose-steppers ever gathered under one flag in Christendom since the end of the Middle Ages.”

    – Mencken, 1922

  33. Tom Fisher says:

    Dear GC, and Toad; I’m in Sydney airport right now (basically it’s Dante’s Inferno + Sydney) I’m far too tired to contribute anything worthwhile — “Life, especially in South-East Asia, is meaningless” — Discuss, or not. Farewell.

  34. GC says:

    If you’re at Sydney Airport then you’re literally on the shores of Botany Bay, like Toad’s English criminal classes.

    Farewell to your bricks and mortar . . .

  35. toadspittle says:

    “It’s probably always best to leave at least a little something to the imagination, Toad.”
    Well, it might be proposed that religion – any religion – leaves everything to the imagination, GC.
    Of course, I’d never dream of saying that myself.

  36. GC says:

    Well, it might be proposed that religion – any religion – leaves everything to the imagination, GC.

    Well, sort of, just like its close relatives – art, music, drama, literature, poetry. Even science often enough too or so I’ve heard.

    Splendid, isn’t it.

    You’re coming along nicely, Toad.

  37. johnhenrycn says:

    Personally, I think Rachel is a more authentic negro than Jenner is a ‘woman’. I mean, ultimately, we’re all ‘Out of Africa’, ain’t we? Sure, Rachel hasn’t had a full negroplasty yet, but Bruce is still hanging on to his special bits for the time being, too; so let’s cut Wraitchel some slack, eh?Speaking of Bruce, I’d like to wish him and all other Dads out there a ‘Happy Father’s Day’. Just wish there was an OT forum around where I could do so.

  38. johnhenrycn says:

    Americans are “goose-steppers” are they? Takes one to know one. Here’s HLM holding forth:

    “The Jews could be put down very plausibly as the most unpleasant race ever heard of. As commonly encountered, they lack many of the qualities that mark the civilized man: courage, dignity, incorruptibility, ease, confidence. They have vanity without pride, voluptuousness without taste, and learning without wisdom. Their fortitude, such as it is, is wasted upon puerile objects, and their charity is mainly a form of display.”

    Treatise on the Gods, Knopf (New York, 1930), pp. 345–46.
    Mencken, the ‘Sage of Baltimore’ was/is one of the most overrated pundits in all history. A loud-mouth with an ugly puss and bad breath (RIP).

  39. toadspittle says:

    “A loud-mouth with an ugly puss and bad breath (RIP).”
    Made in the image of God, though.

  40. GC says:

    Still, it all helped the then men of commerce and industry to sell more beer and shampoo, eh.

    On this point I am firm.

  41. toadspittle says:

    “You’re coming along nicely, Toad.”

    Why, thank you, GC. And I owe it all to CP&S.
    Yes, imagination is a wonderful thing.
    I imagine.
    Where would we be without it?

  42. Michael says:

    I don’t recall God saying that He would kill Isaac, so no. What the text actually says is:

    ‘He said “take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Mori’ah, and offer him there as a burnt offering upon one of the mountains of which I shall tell you.”‘ (Genesis 22:2).

    No promise that He would kill Isaac was made.

  43. Michael says:

    And, if Kathleen is to be believed all traditions are good.

    ??!!!

  44. Having just written a post on this very subject, I consider myself qualified to reply to this Toadl. Henry VIII did indeed bend that Tradition out of shape- by illegitimately declaring himself Emperor (1533 Act in Restraint of Appeals) and claiming not only not to be subject to the Traditional worldly restrictions, but even the Spiritual ones! It all goes back to William of Ockham.

  45. kathleen says:

    I’m sure you’ve got all that ^^ right, GC (re kings also being “under the law, the natural law”, and that this “would be Catholic teaching”). St. Louis IX of France is a prime example of obedience to God’s law first and foremost.

    ‘Twould be nice, yes, to see “our old friend, HRM” around these parts once more; he would definitely agree with you too.🙂

  46. I’ve been reading a few of the comments, but when I post one myself I use the new designation The Hapsburg Restorationist, but I used to post as HRM.

  47. The new name coincided with my launch of my new website.

  48. toadspittle says:

    I’m relieved to hear it. I was worried.

  49. toadspittle says:

    Never done a day’s reporting in my life, GC. Too idle. Let others doorstep. I’ll deal with it.

  50. kathleen says:

    ‘Kathleen” never said that, silly Toad. You are making things up – just like you admitted you used to do in your days working as a hack.

    You were calling the ban on women voting a “traditional VALUE”. I said it could never be called that. Get it now??

  51. toadspittle says:

    I thought God told Abraham to take his beloved only son up a mountain, and then kill him up there.
    It seems I’m wrong, then. Oh, well. Sorry, God and Michael.
    It does seem an utterly obscene and insane command, so, I’m sure God couldn’t possibly have made it. The quote above from you must have been misinterpreted by me, somehow.
    Because God’s very nice, really. So they say.

    (Michael, you are weaseling like mad here. Fie! Shame on the illustrious name of Kenny! )

    Uncle Anthony will be miffed. …Nah. He won’t give a damn.

  52. toadspittle says:

    “Having just written a post on this very subject, I consider myself qualified to reply to this Toadl. “
    Indisputable logic, Hapbsburg Sofa Restuffer. Having written one load of tripe on the subject, uniquely qualifies you to write another.
    Basic principle of journalism.

  53. kathleen says:

    This is interesting. The paragraphs below come from the Catholic book by Conde B. Pallen, Ph.D., LL.D., “Liberalism is a Sin” (Ch.III), published in 1899, and is right on topic:

    “Liberalism, whether in the doctrinal or practical order, is a sin. In the doctrinal order, it is heresy, and consequently a mortal sin against faith. In the practical order it is a sin against the commandments of God and of the Church, for it virtually transgresses all commandments. To be more precise: in the doctrinal order Liberalism strikes at the very foundations of faith; it is heresy radical and universal, because (22) within it are comprehended all heresies. In the practical order it is a radical and universal infraction of the divine law, since it sanctions and authorizes all infractions of that law.

    “Liberalism is a heresy in the doctrinal order, because heresy is the formal and obstinate denial of all Christian dogmas in general. It repudiates dogma altogether and substitutes opinion, whether that opinion be doctrinal or the negation of doctrine. Consequently it denies every doctrine in particular. If we were to examine in detail all the doctrines or dogmas which, within the range of Liberalism, have been denied, we would find every Christian dogma in one way or the other rejected, from the dogma of the Incarnation to that of Infallibility. None the less is Liberalism in itself dogmatic; and it is in the declaration of its own fundamental dogma, the absolute independence of the individual and the social reason, that it denies all Christian dogmas in general. Catholic dogma is the authoritative declaration of revealed truth, or a truth consequent upon revelation, by its infallibly constituted exponent. This logically implies the obedient acceptance of the dogma on the part of the individual and of society. Liberalism refuses to acknowledge this rational obedience and denies the authority. (23) It asserts the sovereignty of the individual and the social reason, and enthrones Rationalism in the seat of Authority. It knows no dogma except the dogma of selfassertion. Hence is it heresy fundamental and radical, the rebellion of the human intellect against God.

    “It follows, therefore, that Liberalism denies the absolute jurisdiction of Jesus Christ, who is God, over individuals and over society, and, by consequence, repudiates the jurisdiction which God has delegated to the visible head of the Church over each and all of the faithful, whatever their condition or rank in life. It moreover denies the necessity of divine revelation and obligation of every one to accept that revelation under pain of eternal perdition. It denies the formal motive for faith, viz., the authority of God revealing, and admits only as much of revealed doctrine as it chooses or comprehends within its own narrow capacity. It denies the infallible magistracy of the Church and of the Pope, and consequently all the doctrines defined and taught by this divine authority. In short it sets itself up as the measure and rule of faith, and so really shuts out revelation altogether. It denies everything which it itself does not proclaim. It negates everything which it itself does not 24) affirm. But not being able to affirm any truth beyond its own reach, it denies the possibility of any truth which it does not comprehend. The revelation of truth above human reason it, therefore, debars at the outset. The divinity of Jesus Christ is beyond its horoscope. The Church is outside its comprehension. The submission of human reason to the Word of Christ or its divinely constituted exponent is to it intolerable. It is, therefore, the radical and universal denial of all divine truth and Christian dogma, the primal type of all heresy, and the supreme rebellion against the authority of God and His Church. With Lucifer its maxim is: “I will not serve.””

  54. dfxc says:

    Yes. And this is speaking of Liberalism in its proper, philosophically rigorous, 19th Century sense, i.e., equality under individualism, which deified man and, as Nietzsche accurately diagnosed, killed God. The problem with this post is not its critique of Liberalism in this sense [which is indeed fundamentally Lutheran and inherently opposed to Catholicism] but, rather, that it conflates this with only the left wing of contemporary American politics. The fact of the matter is, both major parties are equally Liberal (insofar as they focus on individual liberty at the expense of interdependent responsibility [check your catechism, kids]). The only difference is emphasis.
    The current vogue topics of contemporary American “liberals” are not the disease, they are just the most recent symptom.
    Arguing over whether “Red” is better than “Blue” (or vice versa) is like arguing Leukemia vs. Lymphoma; and shouting doesn’t cure cancer.

  55. toadspittle says:

    Sums it up pretty well, except, I suggest, a little too dogmatically. Liberals do not necessarily reject everything metaphysical, but they do question it, and then either accept or reject it. (At least, they ought to.)

    “The revelation of truth above human reason it, therefore, debars at the outset.”
    Yes, because that concept is incomprehensible to anybody, I’d have thought.
    If I didn’t know better.

  56. toadspittle says:

    “..in spiritual matters man and woman are equal, according to the words of St. Paul: “There is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28).”
    There is neither male nor female – except where being a priest is concerned, which is “a spiritual matter,” if anything is. Men are in and women are out. Quite right, too. Got to have some standards.

    Amusingly, that text by Paul might lend comfort to “Caitlin” Jenner.

  57. toadspittle says:

    “Hence (liberalism) is heresy fundamental and radical, the rebellion of the human intellect against God.”
    Would we think it heresy to rebel against the Muslim idea of God? Muslims would, of course.
    Is it heresy to rebel against C.S. Lewis’s Protestant notion of God? He would presumably think so.
    It all depends, on what idea of God (among millions) we are opposing, dunnit?
    Liberals question certain concepts concerning the idea of God – not God Himself. Not an easy concept, I agree. Of course, the basic concept here is whether or not He exists.
    This is a very crucial discussion area, I suggest.

  58. Michael says:

    Michael, you are weaseling like mad here. Fie!
    🙂 I’m sure it seems like that to you, but I was just answering the question as straightforwardly as possible. You said God lied in what He said to Abraham, and I was pointing out that what He actually did was direct Abraham to go up the mountain and make ready to sacrifice Isaac. He made no promise that He would Himself do anything to the boy, so cannot said to have lied in not doing it.

    It could also be said that in v.8 of the same chapter there is a suggestion that Abraham had an inkling there was more to God’s initial command, when he says to Isaac ‘God will provide himself the lamb for a burnt offering my son’. This statement, in its immediate context, should also be read as Abraham’s attempt to reassure Isaac, but given that the story is all about the strength of Abraham’s faith, I think it very possible that he is also revealing his confidence that there is more to the initial command. Anyway, no lie there on God’s part as far as I can tell.

  59. Michael says:

    Liberals do not necessarily reject everything metaphysical, but they do question it, and then either accept or reject it.

    I think a very key point in this excerpt is when it says ‘None the less is Liberalism in itself dogmatic; and it is in the declaration of its own fundamental dogma, the absolute independence of the individual and the social reason’. The impression given by those who view everything through a liberal framework, and summarised well by yourself in the part of your comment I have quoted above, is that they adhere to no dogma themselves.

    But the truth is that the decision to question everything and not submit one’s reason to a higher authority is itself a dogmatic position, and if one really questioned everything according to one’s lights, then there would never be any sort of foundation to rest in and from which to critique other positions. This is why, in an earlier reply to Tom I asked whether, despite the fact that the article is perhaps using the term Liberalism ahistorically, it is not correct to say that the classical Liberal position, when taken to its logical conclusions, does indeed lead to much of the madness we see in contemporary debate.

    The fundamental scepticism built into classical Liberalism does eventually lead to relativism, and for someone who holds to these principles to be sceptical of some things or reject some authorities, but accept others, seems inconsistent and arbitrary.

  60. Michael says:

    Liberals question certain concepts concerning the idea of God – not God Himself.

    Why stop there? Do we even exist? Etc, etc… Scepticism is, as I think John Henry wrote here a while ago, a tool, not an end in itself. It is good to question things, but we do so only in order to arrive at a conclusion. To never reach an end, and to treat scepticism as an end in itself, leads to madness. Thankfully, most sceptics are pretty inconsistent and don’t follow their principles through to their logical conclusions.

  61. toadspittle says:

    “Why stop there? Do we even exist? “
    Descartes, as you know – asked that. It’s a legitimate question – of sorts. But if anyone was to answer “no,” we’d never know it, would we?
    Because we’d hear no more from that source.
    Personally, I’m pretty sure I exist. Suppose I might be wrong – though that seems unlikely.
    Nor do I think I’m all that sceptical. But I do reserve judgement on a good few things involving the “supernatural,” for what seems to me considerable lack of convincing evidence. You will disagree. That’s OK
    “It is good to question things, but we do so only in order to arrive at a conclusion. “
    possibly should read;
    “It is good to question things, but we do so only in order to attempt to arrive at a conclusion.
    …which is what I’d like to think I’m trying to do.
    Not always possible.

  62. toadspittle says:

    Good job, Michael. I’m unconvinced, but impressed. I presume you are a defence lawyer, and a highly successful one, at that.
    …But you can see why someone with a mind less subtle than yours, (Toad, say) might well come to the conclusion that God told Abraham a big, fat, porky – can you not?

  63. Michael says:

    It’s a legitimate question – of sorts. But if anyone was to answer “no,” we’d never know it, would we? Because we’d hear no more from that source.
    Personally, I’m pretty sure I exist. Suppose I might be wrong…

    Exactly – you are perfectly right to suppose you exist, and the sort of scepticism that questions such suppositions is a bridge too far, to put it mildly. The upshot of this is that there are many things (such as the existence of ourselves and other beings) that, whilst it may be possible to disprove on a purely rationalistic basis, we accept as properly basic to our understanding of the world, and wouldn’t be able to think clearly about anything if we didn’t so accept them.

    On your readjustment of my summary of what role scepticism has in our discovery of truth (i.e.; ‘…we do so only in order to attempt to arrive at a conclusion’) is itself a very good example of what I’m talking about. It presupposes that the search for truth is always, as it were, laced with doubt at every step of the way, and whatever conclusions we may reach will always be uncertain. I agree that we can never have exhaustive knowledge of a great many ‘ultimate’ things, but I think the presumption of essential uncertainty all the way unwarranted, and that it begs the question slightly.

  64. Michael says:

    But you can see why someone…might well come to the conclusion that God told Abraham a big, fat, porky – can you not?

    Yes I can see how someone might come to that conclusion indeed, and I would even admit that, as someone with a prior commitment to the integrity and inspiration of the biblical text, I am making more of an effort to read the passage beyond what, on the surface, might seem misleading. Nevertheless, my having to go a step further in this regard (i.e.; not just being satisfied with apparent difficulties and striving to show that such difficulties are not actually as problematic as they seem) is still a legitimate interpretation, and I think doing so brings one into a richer understanding of narrative literature in general (as well as Scripture itself, obviously). Unfortunately though, I am not a lawyer of any kind – unfortunate in the sense that I would make a lot more money if I were; I don’t actually fancy ‘lawyering’ on balance🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s