Thoughts on this quote from Bl. Pius IX?

Can anyone offer a substantive critique and/or refutation of this quote from Bl. Pius IX that doesn't resort to question begging secularism and liberalism?
"For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of “naturalism,” as they call it, dare to teach that “the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones.” And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that “that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require.” From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an “insanity,”2 viz., that “liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way.” But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching “liberty of perdition;”3 and that “if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling.”4
4. And, since where religion has been removed from civil society, and the doctrine and authority of divine revelation repudiated, the genuine notion itself of justice and human right is darkened and lost, and the place of true justice and legitimate right is supplied by material force, thence it appears why it is that some, utterly neglecting and disregarding the surest principles of sound reason, dare to proclaim that “the people’s will, manifested by what is called public opinion or in some other way, constitutes a supreme law, free from all divine and human control; and that in the political order accomplished facts, from the very circumstance that they are accomplished, have the force of right.” But who, does not see and clearly perceive that human society, when set loose from the bonds of religion and true justice, can have, in truth, no other end than the purpose of obtaining and amassing wealth, and that (society under such circumstances) follows no other law in its actions, except the unchastened desire of ministering to its own pleasure and interests?"

Defenition of begging the question (per the rational wiki):
"Circular reasoning (also known as circular logic or begging the question) is a logical fallacy that occurs when the conclusion of an argument is used as a premise of that same argument; i.e., the premises would not work if the conclusion weren't already assumed to be true."
In this case, begging the question would take the form of assuming secularism and liberalism are the ideal frameworks for society before responding, and then incorperating that assumption into a response.

The question is unfalsifiable because it forbids the very frameworks that could falsify it. By excluding secular and liberal reasoning, it ensures that only a theologically compliant answer can count as ‘substantive,’ which makes critique impossible by definition. It’s a closed system masquerading as an open inquiry.

You realize you could be a secular liberal who accepts this argument, right?

Because stripped of the explicitly Christian language, he is making the point that secularism and liberalism have certain consequences. You could accept this as a secular liberal, in fact you could be fine with it as many are.

While I appreciate the intellectual rigor of your framing, the argument appears to rest on a false dilemma and a mischaracterization of what secularism and liberalism entail. Your position implicitly assumes that once religion — specifically Catholicism — ceases to serve as society’s normative foundation, moral reasoning collapses into mere utilitarian pursuit of wealth or pleasure. This assumption deserves to be challenged on its own terms.
First, the claim that removing religious authority necessarily “darkens and loses” the genuine notion of justice and right overlooks centuries of philosophical development independent of ecclesiastical control. Thinkers from Aristotle to Kant to Rawls have articulated robust moral frameworks grounded in human rationality and reciprocity rather than divine revelation. Liberal constitutionalism, for instance, rests not on moral void but on principles of human dignity, equal liberty, and procedural fairness — standards that demonstrably constrain power and secure rights.
Second, the assertion that “public opinion” is treated as an unconstrained supreme law in secular states is historically inaccurate. Modern liberal orders are precisely built to limit majoritarian excess through constitutions, separation of powers, independent judiciaries, and inalienable rights. These constraints are not religious in origin but have proven capable of sustaining justice and stability without recourse to ecclesiastical sanction.
Third, the depiction of “liberty of conscience” as “liberty of perdition” assumes, rather than proves, that moral error is worse than state coercion of belief. Empirically, societies that protect free conscience have not devolved into chaos but have produced high levels of social trust, cooperation, and flourishing across plural worldviews. Liberty does not entail moral relativism; it recognizes that the state’s role is not to impose orthodoxy but to safeguard space for individual and collective moral reasoning.
Finally, the demand for critique “without resorting to secularism and liberalism” effectively forecloses genuine falsification — as you yourself note in (2/5). An argument cannot immunize itself from external examination and remain intellectually serious. If truth is universal, it should withstand engagement from frameworks other than its own.
Thus, one can reject the premise that secular and liberal societies are inherently self-destructive while acknowledging that they pose challenges to traditional religious authority. Those challenges, however, do not equate to moral collapse; they signal the emergence of alternative, reason-based ethics that have repeatedly shown capacity for justice, order, and human dignity.

Out of curiosity, do you subscribe to liberal morality?

sure

I thought so. You gave it away by smuggling liberal assumptions into your response. I'm sure you're going to follow up by asking for examples, so here's a couple.
1. You said that, "Liberty does not entail moral relativism; it recognizes that the state’s role is not to impose orthodoxy but to safeguard space for individual and collective moral reasoning."
You assert here that the liberal conception of the state is the correct view.
2. You said, "These constraints are not religious in origin but have proven capable of sustaining justice and stability without recourse to ecclesiastical sanction."
Here you conflate the liberal conception of justice with justice proper. You repeat this in the last line of your response but take it a step further. You say, "Thus, one can reject the premise that secular and liberal societies are inherently self-destructive while acknowledging that they pose challenges to traditional religious authority. Those challenges, however, do not equate to moral collapse; they signal the emergence of alternative, reason-based ethics that have repeatedly shown capacity for justice, order, and human dignity."
Here you grant yourself the liberal definition of justice again, then grant yourself the liberal definitions of order and human dignity on top of that. Your doing the exact thing I asked everyone to refrain from at the outset, namely, to critique the quote by begging the question.
I find this incredibly ironic since yourself and at least one other person have accused me of question begging. It has been argued twice now that by (allegedly) excluding secular and liberal critiques from consideration I am engaging in circular reasoning myself. This is a misrepresentation of what I'm actually asking for. I am not wholesale excluding secular critiques from consideration, I am asking for people to set aside their own liberal assumptions before critiquing the quote. And if you cannot, if you must critique from a secular liberal perspective, you need to actually prove your worldview is true. You cannot simply grant yourself your definitions of rights, justice, or the role of the state and call it a day.
One more thing I'd like to add. Even if I did decide to exclude secular and liberal critiques wholesale I would still not be engaging in circular reasoning. Secular liberalism is not the only framework capable of refuting this quote. You can critique from a protestant perspective, from a purely secular (illiberal) perspective, and even, believe it or not, from Catholic theology itself. The fact that you guys seem to view secular liberalism as (A) the only framework with the ability to answer, and therefore, (B) the only one with any moral legitimacy at all, is very telling.