Assessing a Half-Truth: Was Pope Pius IX a Liberal Before His Election?

Setting the record straight…

Assessing a Half-Truth:
Was Pope Pius IX a Liberal Before His Election?

His Holiness, Pope Pius IX (r. 1846-1878)

History may not repeat itself, but it certainly does rhyme.

This observation, commonly attributed to Mark Twain, is being confirmed in our day when, after 12 frightful years of ‘Pope Francis’ (Jorge Bergoglio), the Vatican II Sect has once again chosen a new head: ‘Cardinal’ Robert Prevost of Chicago, now known as ‘Pope Leo XIV’.

Unlike his Argentinian predecessor, the current American occupant comes across in his external dealings with men as genuinely benign, kind, humble, thoughtful, and serene. With regard to doctrine, however — apart from curbing a few excesses perhaps — Leo seems entirely committed to advancing the Bergoglian agenda. In a recent blog post, former Remnant contributor Chris Jackson hit the nail on the head when he wrote: “Leo XIV is not correcting Francis. He is perfecting him.”

Going back all the way to March of 2013, just after Bergoglio had been elected as Francis, can prove insightful: We find the expert pundits of their day saying more or less the same as those of today, twelve years later: We need to “wait and see”, “hope for the best”, and keep in mind that he’s got the “grace of office”, so “we can’t use what he did before his election as an indicator of how he will be as Pope.”

Some like to appeal to the example of Pope Pius IX (Giovanni Maria Mastai-Ferretti) as historical precedent for such an idea. After all, isn’t it common knowledge that Pius IX was a ‘liberal’ before his election, and even into the beginning of his pontificate? Nonetheless, he turned out to be an extremely conservative Pope in the long run, who gave us the encyclical Quanta Cura, issued the Syllabus of Errors, proclaimed the dogmatic definition of the Immaculate Conception, and ratified the First Vatican Council with its dogma of papal infallibility.

Is this true?

The answer is both yes and no, and the reason for that is found in equivocation. If by ‘liberal’ is meant a theological progressivist who advocates for such doctrines as the Vatican II clerics do in our day, then the answer is absolutely not.

In any case, the notion that the papal office could turn a Modernist into a Catholic is not just unheard-of, it is absurd. By definition, a Modernist is not a Catholic, and a non-Catholic cannot validly be elected Pope in the first place: “Of course, the election of a heretic, schismatic, or female would be null and void”, the old Catholic Encyclopedia (1911) assures us.

In what sense, then, was Pius IX a liberal at first? Let’s turn to some reliable sources to help us understand:

In 1831 when 4000 Italian revolutionists fled before the Austrian army and threatened to throw themselves upon Spoleto, the archbishop [Mastai-Ferretti] persuaded them to lay down their arms and disband, induced the Austrian commander to pardon them for their treason, and gave them sufficient money to reach their homes…. His great charity and amiability had made him beloved by the people, while his friendship with some of the revolutionists had gained for him the name of liberal.

(Catholic Encyclopedia, s.v. “Pope Pius IX”)

[There were] three different currents of thought. 1) The ‘Austrian’ party, which favored the extension of Austrian rule over all the Legations. 2) The ‘papal’ or ‘sanfedist’ party (which defended the pope and the ‘holy faith’), which not only sought to preserve the pope’s temporal authority in these territories, but also favored the domination of the clergy in social and political areas. 3) The ‘liberal’ party, which wanted to see the end of the pope’s temporal power or, at least, wide reforms in all areas. At that time the term ‘liberal’ included a great diversity of political doctrines and programs…. Msgr. Mastai did not support any of these three parties, in spite of what has been said by some of his contemporaries who, when he was elected to the Sovereign Pontificate, presented him as a ‘liberal.’ Some months after he arrived in Imola, in a letter to his friend and neighbor Cardinal Falconieri, Archbishop of Ravenna, he gave a very description of his ‘golden mean’ approach: ‘I detest and abominate, in the very marrow of my bones, the liberals’ ideas and actions; but I have no sympathy, either, for the fanaticism of the so-called ‘papalist’ party. The golden mean, the Christian golden mean — and not the diabolical golden mean which is fashionable today — is the path I would like to follow, with the Lord’s help. But shall I succeed in this?’ [Letter of June 3, 1833].

(Yves Chiron, Pope Pius IX: The Man and the Myth [Kansas City, MO: Angelus Press, 2005], pp. 58-59)

As a good administrator he was at pains to show no partisan preference for any of the factions which were striving to influence public opinion in Imola [his diocese]. He had regular meetings with Imola’s ecclesiastics and prominent citizens to study ‘the best ways of promoting the city’s material well-being.’ It was in circumstances such as these that he was led to make the acquaintance of liberals, notably Count Pasolini…. [The] attempt to find the ‘Christian golden mean’ led, in the summer of 1834, to his being accused of liberalism… During the summer Msgr. Mastai wrote several letters to Cardinal Polidori and Cardinal Bernetti refuting these accusations [of liberalism]. The letters are very frank and straightforward, showing that, faced with lies and errors (from whatever quarter), Msgr. Mastai would not compromise…. While the accusation of ‘liberalism’ pursued Msgr. Mastai for a long time, even up to the first years of his pontificate, the progress of his career shows that [Pope] Gregory XVI never attached any credence to it.”

(Yves Chiron, Pope Pius IX: The Man and the Myth [Kansas City, MO: Angelus Press, 2005], pp. 65-66)

Along with the above, the talk ‘The Liberalism of Pope Pius IX’ by Dr. John Rao (who is not a sedevacantist but a recognize-and-resist traditionalist) provides a lot of detail clarifying the facts regarding Giovanni Mastai-Ferretti (direct YouTube link here):

.
In addition to the half-truth about Pius IX’s ‘liberalism’ there is also an unequivocal calumny that is occasionally hurled against this saintly Pope, sometimes even by people who consider themselves traditional Catholics: It is alleged that Pius IX was a Freemason.

Unlike in the present, where false popes like Francis have actually spewed Masonic ideas galore (regardless of whether they were official members of the Lodge), there is nothing in Pius IX’s reign that would indicate an approval of Freemasonic doctrine, much less did he advance it as Pope.

To refute that shameful lie against the Holy Father, we are making available an article by the Jesuit Fr. Herbert Thurston that was published in 1930 as Chapter IV of his book No Popery: Anti-Papal Prejudice (pp. 55-71), which is now in the public domain. Please note that the title is tongue-in-cheek:

• “The Pope who was a Freemason” [PDF], by Rev. Herbert Thurston, S.J.

Regarding the accusation that Pope Pius IX was a Freemason, here is additional material refuting the claim:

• Were Popes Benedict XIV and Pius IX Freemasons? (2020)
• ‘Tradition in Action’ uses Masonic Source to implicate Pope Pius IX in Freemasonry (2016)
• Pope Pius IX and Freemasonry: Second Rebuttal to ‘Tradition in Action’ (2016)

We can only hope and pray that the above will help put an end to the argument that a Modernist ‘Pope’ could turn into a Catholic if only we give him a chance.

Image source: Wikimedia Commons (cropped)
License: public domain