The word “liberal” is funny these days, since two very different teams want to claim it. I very much approve of a Liberal Arts education: one which teaches how to think, rather than merely how to work. Liberality in giving alms is a good thing, and especially encouraged during Lent. For a long time, Catholics in Canada allied themselves with the Liberal party (I think because of its liberality in giving, but I can’t be certain – political history stays with me the way snow stays with a fireplace.) Liberty is a fundamental right of every person. How, then, can we reconcile all these undoubtedly good things with the common meaning of the word “liberal” today, not to mention religious liberalism?

I think the key is realizing that freedom can be taken in two very different ways: freedom from determination and freedom for action. Freedom from impediments is the prerequisite of freedom for anything, but unless one moves on, this first freedom is meaningless. For instance, I could be the most talented person in the world – there may be no limits to what I could create – but until I make something, my talents have no purpose.

Paradoxically, using one’s freedom for action reduces one’s choices. For example, a man may be to poor to marry. Once he is freed from poverty, he is free to marry. However, should he exercise this freedom, he will no longer be free to marry anyone else, or free to live a single life. (Someone points this out, but at the moment I can’t remember who, besides my philosophy professor.) Some people try to maintain their freedom from everything, especially responsibility, thinking that this will give them the most choices and potential; sadly, they will never do anything. To make a choice means to rule out the alternatives.
In Christianity, this is exactly what we do: by following moral law, we rule out adultery, murder and many other choices. We turn away from these choices in order to gain freedom to love God. In another analogy (borrowed from St. Paul), an athlete rules out many choices in his life – no more sleeping in, over-eating or lazing around – to become free to use his ability to the best of his potential. He wouldn’t be free to use his ability if he wasn’t free from obesity and laziness. Similarly, we are not free to love God as we should while we are distracted and enslaved by our senses. Catholics do not try to keep as many options open as possible; rather, we try to excel in one area, the love of God.

The same idea comes into play with “academic freedom.” The truth binds a person; once someone is convinced, they are no longer free to believe whatever they like. For this reason, ignorance is freedom – agnosticism and relativism have more potential than realism; they give people more choices, allowing them to rationalize their decisions. They do not, however, have the truth, and thus fail to fulfill the purpose of knowledge.

Liberalism, in the moral sphere, can be seen as the embracing of freedom from everything: no one is told what to do. Freedom from determination is necessary, but until one denies many options in order to be free for something, one’s freedom is pointless. Liberal arts? One is freed from servility in order to be free to think. Liberality? One’s freedom is used to give generously. Liberty? One is free to determine one’s life, rather than have it determined – and rather than living indeterminately.