The morning star and Catholic messenger. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1868-1881, 1871-12-10
Civil and Religious Liberty.

u.s. SsaA~~ AsSA@0AVsAS .AASA
The Prss6ytsrian has another infallibility
article, in which IL ventures to express =
positive opinion, relinQuishing for osce ito
negative tactics Of mere opposition. Il
gives its definition Of Civil and Religious
Liberty ae follows: -"
liberty to do what il neither right nor wrong;
it is the liberty to do right, according to the
judgment Of reason and to the convictions OF
conscience.
In our opinion it would be more accurate
to say, speaking in the most general
sense, that Religious Liberty is the liberty
to do what is morally right unimpeded by
thecivil authorities, and Civil Liberty is that
of doing what is morally Indifferent, nm
controlled by the spiritual authority
To this the Presbyterian objects that
there can be nothing which is purely indif-
ferent in . moral sense-no single action
which is neither right nor wrong in the
moral point of view. 1t says:
What things in State policy are not right,
are certainly wrong. What things in the con
his convictions Of right are also wrong
whether he follows Clay or Calhoun, end We
cannot respect man who does not bring his
conscience into his politics.
Then either Calhoun was morally wrong
in his policy or Clay was. The tariff man
was sinner by the mere fact or else the
free-trade man was the reprobate. If free
trade twas not right it was certainly
wrong" according to the Presbyterian, and
that not as . matter of policy, but in a
moral point of view, because our liberal
neighbor expressly repudiates the idea that
any action can be merely question of
policy or advantage.
In the same way q man is not at liberty
to make fence without putting it on
moral grounds. He may not say it shall be
q picket fcnce, or a worm fence, or . stone
wall, or a ditch and hedge according as
one or the other may seem most profitable
to him. No, he must consult the Bible
about it and make a, moral fence. So in
betting on horse race, for instance, unless
he bets on the winning horse he is certain
~ not right" and is necessarily wrong
morally. Whatever is not right is wrong,
according to our.;neighbor.' In the same
way, therefore, woe be to the man who
bets on the losing horse or neglects to re-
turn his partners lead at whist.
In vain will our neighbor protest that it
refers only to q mans convictions of
right and wrong" that Mr.. Clay and Mr..
Calhoun may have each been fully con-
vinced that he was right. Very true, but
still one or tho other was wrong, though he
was a moral one if the question itself was
moral question. 1t is evident from such
reasoning that either Mr.. Clay and his
whole party or Mr.. Calhoun and his whole
party held doctrine morally wrong, if q
moral question was involved in the politi-
cal one on which they divided. 1t is true
that there may be sometimes no sin in a
moral wrong when the perpetrator is in
| vincibly ignorant of the fact, but such an
| excuse in the case supposed would be
! equally distasteful to either side.
If the Presbyterian means simply that q
man is morally bound in politics and other
| Indifferent matters to act according to the
best of his judgment and to take that
course which wisdom appears to point out
! to him, then we are in accord for once. Nc
doubt there is a moral element in every
question of life, namely, that a man il
bound to do what appears advisable in hit
judgment, and to omit what appears in
furious, but as to the question itself o.
what is advantageous or injurious it il
generally one of mere calculation and
within the exclusive province of the intel.
ligence.
But supposing the Presbyterian's defni.
milton of Civil Liberty to be the correct
one, what dreadful state of things would
follow an attempt to make it practical
I" 1t is the liberty to do right according te
the judgment of reason" etc. Every in
dividual's reason must therefore be respect
ed. One would find it unreasonable to at.
tend court as witness; great many.
even here in this city, would find it utterly
unreasonable, and very correctly, too, to
pay licenses some would sec no reason to
go to war with q foreign nation and others
would consider it the height of absurdity