The Catholic bulletin. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1911-1995, 1911-03-04
FERRER THE MARTYR"
NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE
CLAIM.
DR.. John A. Ryan of st. Paul Seminary
Refutes MIR. Archer's Statements
Regarding Ferrer, the Spanish
Anarchist.


Was Ferrer "a martyr of progress"
on account of his teaching on indus
trial and social reform? The Ameri
can Federation of Labor seems to have
thought so, when it's annual convention
of 1909 passed resolutions of sympathy
with him. Like most other persons
who depended upon the secular press,
it's members were misled by the first
accounts of the man and his trial. A
few weeks later John Mitchell admit
ted that the convention had acted un-
der misapprehension of the facts.
While Ferrer sympathized with the
working classes, his program of indus
trial reconstruction was undoubtedly
some form of anarchistic communism.
He would have neither policemen nor
private property. Now this scheme of
voluntary, independent, and commun-
istic associations of production and dis
tribution, without either legal author
ity or legal restraints, does not strike
sober-miDded persons as practicable or
desirable 1t would either quickly go
to pieces or reduce the majority to a
condition of industrial slavery under
minority composed of the most power
full and the most cunning. This condi-
ton and this mastership would be
worse than anything that we have in
the present system. Moreover, there
is abundant evidence to show that
Ferrer would, if expedient, have had
his new economic order introduced by
wholesale confiscation. We cannot
call this program nor this method pro-
gress.
It is not improbable, however, that
Mr.. Archer would accept our condem-
nation of Ferrer's educational activity,
and political and industrial teaching.
In that case, we must conclude that ne
calls Ferrer "a victim of obscurantism,
a martyr of progress" simply because
in his opinion the punishment of man
for any, even the worst, sort of teach
ing, is contrary to free speech, and
therefore contrary to progress. Now,
the theory that man ought to be per-
mitted by law to speak or write what
ever he pleases is not only false, but
never has been consistently adopted
by any civilized nation. Why should
lip freedom or pen freedom be less re-
stricted than arm freedom Or gun free
dom? Why should man be permit
ted to say what he pleases, and not to
do what he pleases? The propagation
of opinion is carried on only with a
view to giving it external reality and
permanence in deeds and institutions.
If the latter, say, destruction of prop
erty, anarchy, and adultery, may prop
erly be restrained and punished by
law, may they not quite as properly
and more effectively be repressed in
their causes, the pestiferous teaching ?
We protect the ignorant, which means
the great majority, against adulterated
food is it less important or less reas-
enable to protect the average man
against that poisonous doctrine which
generally results in pernicious actions
and conditions?
Moreover unlimited freedom OF
speech has never been permitted by
any civilized state. In his Letter to
the Duke of Norfolk" Cardinal New
man so clearly pointed out the disas'
trous consequence of this so-called
right as advocated by Mr.. Gladstone
that the latter petulantly exclaimed:
What bishop knows of a state which
by law allows a perfectly free course
to blasphemy, filthiness, and sedition?'
Even in America, man may not with
legal impunity libel his neighbor, mol
propagate immoral literature, through
the mails or through the book trade
We hanged the Chicago anarchists
mainly because of their speeches and
their writings, and, since the assassin
alton of President Mckinley, we dc
not permit anarchists, even of the
"philosophical'' brand, to come into the
country. There are only two grounds
upon which the freedom to spread
false doctrine can plausibly be defend
ed. The first is that we do not know
or cannot agree whether the doctrine
is false or true. The second is tina
federation is often more conducive tt
social welfare than prohibition. Thi'
is practical problem which every ma
ton must solve for itself; but ther'
are certain doctrines which men II
civilized societies are practically unan
imous in condemning Among then
are Ferrer's teachings on the family
government, and property. Even if tn
Spanish military court had sentences
Ferrer to death because of his opir
ions and propaganda, it would no
have been wrong in principle, nor pur
ished him too severely, nor impede
genuine progress.
Education, political liberty, socia
reform, freedom of speech, are al
causes so sacred and so vital that the
must not be outraged and discredite
through association with the pernit
ious and reprobated teachings of Fel
rer. That men can so ignore or misil