Louis Veuillot: The Liberal Illusion [1866]

[Stone]

The Liberal Illusion

Chapter XXXIII

To what do such designations as the “principles” or the “conquests” or the “ideas” of the French Revolution refer? These are three different names already giving expression to as many shades of opinion, or better still, to as many different doctrines on the subject, and there are quite a few others besides. Such and such a Catholic liberal is at pains to draw a distinction between the principles and the conquests, another accepts both the conquests and the principles, a third rejects the conquests and principles alike, and admits only the ideas.

As for the pure liberals, that is to say, liberals without any admixture of Christianity, they detest these distinctions, which they invidiously brand as “Jesuitical.” Ideas, principles, conquests, all are articles of faith, dogmas, and lumped together they constitute a creed. But nobody ever recites this creed, and if anyone has written it out whole and entire for his private edification, one may safely defy him to reformulate it their conflict with the Ephraimites, had overcome the latter, they conspired to let no fugitive of Ephraim escape. And the Galaadites secured the fords of the Jordan. And when one of the number of Ephraim came thither in flight, and said: I beseech you, let me pass: the Galaadites said to him: Art thou not an Ephraimite? If he said, I am not: they asked him: Say then, Shibboleth, which is interpreted, an ear of corn. But he answered: Sibboleth, not being able to express an ear of corn by the same letter. Then presently they took and killed him in the very passage of the Jordan.’

And thus, too, it happens at the gate of entrance to the camp of Liberalism. To those who desire to enter it is said: Say then, Shibboleth, which is interpreted the secularization of society. It is all-important, however, whether their pronunciation is good or bad. Now, liberal Catholics suffer from a defect of the tongue in this respect, and they are unable to enunciate the sacramental word in the proper manner. Hence, they are not admitted, and they have merit neither with God nor with men because they verily in themselves the dualism whereof the Scripture speaks: ‘One building up and one pulling down, what profit hath he but labor? One praying and one cursing, whose voice will God hear?’ (Ecclesiasticus, 34:28-29).” (From the appendix of Cardinal Billot’s De Ecclesia.) without making any alteration, above all one is safe in defying him to find a single one of his brethren in 1789 that did not propose certain suppressions and additions.

Nothing could be more tiresome or fruitless than a voyage of exploration into the principles of the French Revolution. One finds there an abundance of empty verbiage, of banalities and meaningless phrases. M. Cousin, who undertook the task of throwing light on the mysteries bearing the redoubtable and hallowed name of the principles of the French Revolution, reduces them to three: “National sovereignty — the emancipation of the individual, or justice — the progressive diminution of ignorance, misery and vice, or civil charity.” Tocqueville does not contradict M. Cousin; he merely proceeds to demonstrate, without the slightest trouble, that the Revolution did not originate any of these nor any other good or acceptable thing conventionally credited to it. All of it existed better, in a mature form, in the old French constitution, and the development thereof would have been more general and solid, had the Revolution not put its hand, or rather its knife, to the task.

Before 1789, France believed herself to be a sovereign nation, and, long before that, one catches glimpses of equality before the law as the natural consequence of the still more ancient practice of equality before God. Charity gave proof of its existence in the enormous number of charitable institutions and congregations; public education was more liberal, sound and widespread than it is today.41 It is certain, too, that the Catholic religion has never had the name of being an enemy of courts of law, of hospitals, or of colleges. When we fought against the monopolistic university, it was in order to open schools and to found universities; when we fought for the liberty of doing works of religious zeal, it was in order that no unfortunate might be left to suffer; we never asked that any right be violated, nor that a single crime should go unpunished out of consideration for the criminal’s rank.

If, then, the principles of the Revolution are what M. Cousin says they are, wherein do they clash with the Catholic faith? Liberal and non-liberal Catholics alike have consistently practiced and defended them.


41. Report of M. de Salvandy, Minister of Public Instruction. (Note of L. Veuillot.)