English Translations Soften Their Originals [Liberalism is a Sin]

[Stone]

English Translations Soften Their Originals

TIA | June 19, 2026

An inconvenient topic that I have not seen raised is that American translations of many Catholic works soften the original militancy in the text. There are many instances I could cite, but here I willl present the case of Fr. Sardá y Salvany’s Liberalism is a Sin.

Recently, I was reading the English edition of this work translated by Conde B. Pallen, an American, and published by TAN Books. I remembered that in the Spanish edition Fr. Salvany affirmed that Catholics can ridicule the enemies of the Church and make personal attacks against them. Reading the English, I had a strong suspicion that the text was softened. So, I went to the original Spanish text and found that actually that change had been made – and other large discrepancies.

I decided to compare the two texts: the published English translation and the original Spanish. The results were appalling.

Above, the intransigent Spanish anti-Liberal Felix Sardá y Salvany; below, translator Conde B. Pallen, a product of Georgetown Un. and American Liberalism

Examples of the softening & censorship

I compared the 1884 edition of El Liberalismo es Pecado to the 1899 English translation by Pallen, which by the way, is NOT titled Liberalism Is a Sin, which would be the literal translation. The new title of the American edition is simply What Is Liberalism? The difference speaks for itself. ...

Then, the entire Introduction was absent from the English translation. In that Introduction Fr. Salvany began with this radical challenge (my English translation from his Spanish original):

“Do not be alarmed, pious reader, or begin by casting a sour look upon this little book right from the very start. …

"I know … that you are not the only one who feels an invincible repulsion to and horror for such matters [condemning Liberalism]. I am all too well aware that this has become something of a mania, or an ailment that is all but universal.” [bold emphasis added throughout analysis]

Pallen’s translation skipped the Introduction, as well as Chapter I, and the first half of Chapter II of Fr. Salvany's book. He also made no mention in his text or footnotes of his subtractions and additions. Instead, Pallen simply inserted his own Chapter I, which he wrote and has nothing to do with Fr. Salvany’s original words. The actual translation of the book did not begin until page 18!

Is it not dishonest to present the work as authored by Fr. Salvany when its translation has so many blatant subtractions and additions?


Comparing translations

Now, I will present some texts comparing Pallen’s censored translation to the right of my own translation from the original Spanish. The sections that were softened are in red; the sections added by Pallen are in green; the sections of Fr. Salvany’s original text omitted by Pallen are in blue.

In Chapter 23 (Spanish here; Chapter 21 in the English here), Fr. Salvany refuted the liberal accusation that ultramontanes – the counter-revolutionaries of the 19th century – were offending charity in their polemics against the liberals. Below is a comparison of the two translations:

We can clearly see above that the translation by Pallen was much softer than the original Spanish.

Further, Pallen’s translation (on p. 117) of what Fr. Salvany actually said (on p. 90) about ridiculing the opponent is particularly striking. In one instance he omitted a paragraph of Fr. Salvany in which he qualified as scruples to consider lack of charity fight against the liberals:

In Chapter 15, Fr. Salvany strongly insinuated that there are very few – if any – well-intentioned liberals, which he called a "charitable softening of their ugly name." In Pallen's corresponding Chapter 14, that section was omitted, not surprisingly. Pallen also removed what Fr. Salvany said about the horror caused by the word "freethinker," omitted the words "intransigence" and "ultramontane," and added his own writing that again has nothing to do with the original text. The second time the term intransigent appeared, he changed it to irreconcilable. Below is the section in question:

Further on, Fr. Salvany titled his Chapter 21 “On Sound Catholic Intransigence in Opposition to False Liberal Charity,” while Pallen titled the corresponding Chapter 19 “Charity & Liberalism.” Pallen omitted two basic concepts: healthy intransigence, and false charity.

Fr. Salvany started this chapter with: “Intransigent! Intransigence!” Pallen’s version, however, replaced these words with three different words – “Narrow!” “Intolerant!” and “Uncompromising!” In fact, Pallen avoided using the word intransigence throughout his translation. Indeed, a word search for “intransigence” in Pallen’s translation rendered zero results; and yet, Fr. Salvany in the original Spanish used intransigencia 11 times and intransigente(s) four times, for a total of 15 times.

Why on earth, in a translation of a book about Liberalism, was the word intransigence omitted, when the author used the term 15 times? We cannot avoid thinking that Pallen wanted to soften Salvany’s message.

Pallen not only omitted the important word intransigence, but also omitted a section on just war – a weighty Catholic doctrine and a natural consequence of the principle of intransigence. This omission inevitably creates a more pacifist ambience in the text. Incidentally, Progressivism – which hates intransigence against error and evil – has always expressed its hatred of war.

Pallen omitted this radical section on just war, made his own softened summary, and pretended that was sufficient. He also conveniently removed Fr. Salvany’s statement that liberals are “cleverly using charity as a barricade against the truth.” See below:

In Fr. Salvany's Chapter 24, when refuting the liberal accusation that the Pope condemned Catholics who make personal attacks on the enemies of the Church, Pallen omitted this section. In the corresponding Chapter 22 he changed the words of Fr. Salvany, leaving out the section defending the legitimacy of using personal attacks to fight enemies of the Church.

Pallen’s translation of the first part of the phrase was so different from the original that it can no longer be considered a translation, Pallen's words were his own, not those of the Spanish author.

Further, Fr. Salvany’s explanation that the liberals “for their own personal convenience” left out important criterion for understanding the Pope’s words was also omitted by Pallen, and when Salvany insisted there is only one admissible conclusion, Pallen decided to leave that out too:

The last example I wanted to point out is the most shocking. After making an analogy about a captain in war who tells his soldiers not to hurt the enemy too much, Fr. Salvany concluded that this captain could be accused of being a traitor. Pallen omitted this radical statement, and others as well.

Fr. Salvany went on to quote anti-liberal statements by Pope Pius IX, and concluded that his statements “were etched on the brow of Liberalism like a stigma of eternal execration.” Again, this last phrase with the word execration was omitted by Pallen. Below, the comparison:

Reasons for the softening & censorship

Why would Pallen and his publisher make such blatant mistranslations, omissions and additions? My suspicion is that this was done to cater to a vice deeply ingrained in the United States, which is Liberalism or the hatred of militancy.

Protestantism and the errors of the French Revolution have always had a strong Influence in our country. The false principles of free-examination, tolerance toward moral evil, religious indifferentism and freedom of speech seems to have instilled a bad tendency in American Catholics. This tendency is to believe that deep down everyone is good, that error and evil are only caused by misunderstandings, and that therefore we should hate any kind of militancy against error and evil.

This mindset has inspired many American Catholic books, writings and talks that I regularly come across in my study and research. The word “charity” is always used to defend this position. Militancy against error and evil inevitably bursts the bubble of this optimistic ambience since Liberalism walks hand in hand with Progressivism in its insistence on tolerance.

So then, it is ironic that the principal book against Liberalism in the United States was translated by a person deeply influenced by Liberalism.


Posted June 19, 2026