Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

Catholicism and modern civilization stand apart as the representatives of two distinct epochs in the world's history; not only are they unlike, they are absolutely antagonistic and irreconcilable; what is life to one is death to the

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

*

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

*

"To allow each denomination to teach its own peculiar doctrines, and to receive its share of the public money is converted into an act of inequality and unfairness to all other Christian denominations by the fact that the Roman Pontiff claims as belonging to the Church of Rome, and subject to its teaching and discipline, all persons whomsoever who have been baptized no matter by whom the ceremony was performed.

#

"Then comes the serious objection that the eminent cardinals and prelates of the Roman Catholic Church, who make this proposition to tax the people for the support of the parochial schools, do not represent the great body of Roman Catholic laymen in this country."

#

*

Symposium in Public Opinion.—In a symposium, Public Opinion, July 13, 1889, Cardinal Gibbons furnishes his address delivered before the National Educational Association, already cited. Thomas Hill, D.D., LL. D., ex-president of Harvard University, insists that "religious instruction is, as the State of Massachusetts declares it to be, the first and most important end to be aimed at by all teachers of youth, whether in public or private schools. Some men seem to have been dazed by claims of the Catholic Church upon the one side and of agnosticism on the other. It is not required by justice to yield to these claims." Minot J. Savage, D. D., says: "The public may be divided into two classes. First, there are those who sincerely believe that the eternal welfare of their children's souls depends on the teaching and acceptance of their particular kind of religion. Secondly, there are those who do not believe this. Now, in the case of those who do believe that the salvation of their children is at stake, there can not possibly be a more odious tyranny than that of compelling them to submit to a teaching that to their minds entails such unspeakably horrible consequences. Taxation without representation' is a trivial grievance compared with it. So far as this goes, therefore, my sympathies are entirely with the Romanist as against the teaching of any form of Protestantism in the schools. If a Calvinistic father wants to teach

#

#

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

his boy Calvinism, nobody questions his right to do it. But most certainly he has no right to take money out of my pocket (by a tax or in any other way) to do it with. And the same holds true of the Romanist, or the Jew, or the agnostic."

William T. Harris, LL. D., says: "It seems to me that religious instruction in the public schools is inexpedient on the ground that these schools are for all citizens, whatever their religious belief, or no belief, just as the public market, the public library, the municipal government, and the States are for all alike, whatever their creeds. The question is not in regard to boarding schools or asylumns or reformatories. In those institutions the school takes up the functions of the family and should provide religious instruction, in my opinion. But in the case of the public school, which receives a child for only a few hours daily, the family and the church are left sufficient time for religion."

Illinois State Teachers' Association.-In December, 1890, a joint discussion occurred between Right Rev. J. L. Spalding (Catholic), bishop of Peoria, and George P. Brown, editor of the Public School Journal, before the Illinois State Teachers' Association. Bishop Spalding's address is not at hand, but his views can be seen in his books, especially in Means and Ends of Education, containing a chapter on the Scope of Public School Education, where he says:

*

"All true belief, when we come to the last analysis, is belief in God, and the teacher of religion must keep this fact always in view. Public school education, to be education at all in any true sense, must be a training, discipline, development, and instruction of man's whole being, physical, intellectual, and moral.

"All these thinkers [Herbert Spencer, Montayne, Comenius, Milton, Locke, Herbart, Kant, Fichte] agree that the supreme end of education is spiritual or ethical.

#

[ocr errors]

"The scope of public school education is to cooperate with the physical, social, and religious environment to form good and wise men and women. Unless we bear in mind that the school is but one of several educational agencies, we shall not form a right estimate of its office. It depends almost wholly for its success upon the kind of material furnished it by the home, the state, and the church; hence the teacher's attitude toward the child should be that of sympathy with him in his love for his parents, his country, and his religion. The fountain heads of his purest and noblest feelings are precisely his parents, his country, and his religion, and to tamper with them is to poison the wells whence he draws the water of life.

*

"What the teacher is, not what he utters and inculcates, is the important thing. The life he lives, and whatever reveals that life to his pupils, his unconscious behavior, even, above all what in his inmost soul he hopes, believes, and loves, have far deeper and more potent influence than mere lessons can ever have.

#

*

"The purpose of the public school is, or should be, not to form a mechanic or a specialist of any kind, but to form a true man or woman. Hence the number of things we teach the child is of small moment. Those schools, in fact, in which the greatest number of things are taught give, as a rule, the least education.

"I am willing to assume and accept as a fact that our theological differences make it impossible to introduce the teaching of any religious creed into the public school.

*

*

*

"The fact that religious instruction is excluded makes it all the more necessary that harmonizing and ethical aims should be kept constantly in view.

*

"The Catholic view of the school question is as clearly defined as it is well known. It rests upon the general ground that man is created for a supernatural end and that the church is the divinely-appointed agency to help him attain his supreme destiny. If education is a training for completeness of life, its primary element is the religious, for complete life is life in God.

#

"The atmosphere of religion is the natural medium for the development of character. If the thinkers, from Plato and Aristotle to Kant and Pestalozzi, who have dealt with the problems of education, have held that virtue is its chief aim and end, shall we thrust from the school the one ideal character who, for nearly nineteen hundred years, has been the chief inspiration to righteousness and heroism? Current American opinion assigns to them [the family and the church] the business of moral and religious education. But this implies that conduct and character are of secondary importance; it supposes that the child may be subject to opposite influences at home and in the school, and not thereby have his finer sense of truth and goodness deadened.

"If the chief end of education is virtue; if conduct is three-fourths of life; if character is indispensable, while knowledge is only useful, then it follows that religion, which more than any other vital influence has power to create virtue, to inspire conduct, and to mold character, should enter into all the processes of education. We have done what it was easiest to do, not what it was best to do; and in this, as in other instances, churchmen have been willing to sacrifice the interest of the nation to the whims of a narrow and jealous temper. The denominational system of popular education is the right system. The secular system is a wrong system. The practical difficulties to be overcome that religious instruction may be given in the schools are relatively unimportant, and would be set aside if the people were thoroughly persuaded of its necessity."

The following is Mr. Brown's summary of his position:

"The doctrine of this paper is:

"(1) That the separation of the church from the state in the fundamental law of the land forbids the teaching of any theory and practice of religion in the State schools by order of the State.

"(2) That the teaching of religion in State schools will tend to work an injustice to individuals, for the reason that the church is divided into numerous churches because of differences among the people in respect to the theory of religion.

"(3) That it is better for both science and religion that they be taught by different teachers and in different places. The church furnishes the best environment for the teaching of religion. The theory of religion can not be understood by children, and the atmosphere of scientific teaching is unfavorable to the successful teaching of religious dogma.

66

"(4) The school is made no more godless by this exclusion of religious instruction than are nature and the secular institutions of man. And these are held to be not

godless but god-full by any rational interpretation of Christianity.

"(5) The ultimate solution of this and all other school problems will be found in a more permanent, more devoted, more scholarly, and freer body of teachers, and in a more Catholic clergy, who shall join hands in working for both the temporal and the eternal welfare of the children, and shall see that nothing can be helpful to the one that is harmful to the other."

Minnesota. In the closing months of 1889 a dispassionate correspondence occurred between Hon. D. L. Kiehle, LL. D., then superintendent of public instruction for the State of Minnesota, and Right Rev. James McGolrick (Catholic), bishop of Duluth. There were two letters by each, forming a pamphlet―The Public Schools and the Catholic Clergy.

The essential points of the correspondence were the following:
Hon. D. L. Kiehle wrote November 27:

"MY DEAR SIR: I feel bound to avail myself of your late patriotic utterance and expression of good will toward the public schools of Minnesota, and to ask that you express yourself with definiteness respecting the attitude of the priests of the Catholic Church toward the common schools of the State. * * In discharging

the duties of my office, devising ways and means for the improvement of common school education among the people, I have met obstacles of ignorance and prejudice in extended neighborhoods of our foreign population, which to this time show few or no signs of yielding. In these neighborhoods prevails not only a foreign language, but often an illiteracy, habits of intemperance, and lack of culture that disgrace our civilization. In our efforts to penetrate this obscurity, and to encourage good schools, we have frequently been opposed by the authority of priests, who, by reason of the circumstance that these people were in some cases Catholics, have seriously retarded their progress toward intelligence, and what else belongs to American citizenship. It is, therefore, with a view to a better information, and to secure all reasonable cooperation from yourself and those over whom you have authority, that I respectfully ask the following:

"First. Do you recognize it as the duty of American citizens of the Catholic faith to support the public school system in that spirit of loyalty with which they support other departments and institutions of the Government?

"Second. Have American citizens of the Catholic faith the right to exercise their independent judgment, and to send their children to the public school, when they are satisfied that it is in the best interest of their children?

"Third. Is it the position of the priests of the Catholic Church that American citizens of the Catholic faith sending their children to the public school without permission of the priests commit sin and forfeit their right to the sacraments of the church?"

Bishop McGolrick wrote November 30: "MY DEAR SIR:

*

*

[ocr errors]

I am well aware that in dealing with our foreign-born population you have met with many disagreeable and foolish objections; but it is well to remember that they often come from countries where, both openly and under disguise, education was made the means of proselytism and an engine for the destruction of the faith. A great and powerful state church built up an edifice into

which they hoped to drive an unwilling people, and actually used the whole force of the state by fines, imprisonment, banishment, and even death, in the effort to turn poor, uneducated Catholics into enlightened Protestants. These faithful people were made to support a religion in which they did not believe, and every power in schools and colleges was directed to the undermining of their faith.

*

*

"If you ask me, 'Ought Catholics to support a system of common free schools?' I would say without hesitation they ought to support and should be in favor of such free schools; but when you ask, 'Ought they support the present public school system?' I answer that there are certain obstacles in the way of conscientious Catholics availing themselves of these schools as at present constituted, and I trust you will give them kindly consideration.

[ocr errors]

* *

"It is the duty of the state to foster and encourage education; but the parent is by divine right the natural educator. To the family belongs this highest mission, and the parent must not be ousted from this right, but assisted in his efforts to educate, that Government being best which interferes least. Of course, the state could take due action in case of the criminal neglect of parents in the education of their children; it is the right and duty of the state to see that such education is given, but to form the good citizen this is the work of parent, religion, and school.

*

*

"Then, the public school system under its present rules can not teach Christianity, for the Jewish children would be offended, and could justly protest. Neither can it teach morality, for morality must be founded on religion, and the state can not teach religion. There are those interested in the workings of the schools who propose a hybrid system of morals. Such slipshod methods will not teach the child

the controlling of strong passions.

There

"To this [second] I answer, certainly; they can do so when they are satisfied it is for the best interest of their children. But 'interest' is a doubtful term. are worldly interests and interests' of an eternal importance. With the explanation given above, as faithful children of the Catholic Church, they would not sacrifice the eternal interests of their children for any worldly interest, and so would not endanger willingly the faith of those so dear to them.

*

"Answer [third]. The lips of the priest shall keep knowledge and they shall seek the law at his mouth.' The priest is the guardian of the sacraments, and if there be for his flock any proximate danger of sin they are bound to warn them and prevent, if possible, the danger. But it must be remembered that the priest is a member of a living church and that he can not, according to his whims and fancies, make laws; his business is to act according to the laws made by the church, and interpret and condemn as she interprets and condemns.

"From all this you can readily understand that while we rejoice at the spread of education, Catholics maintain that an additional element is wanting to complete the great work of forming good and true citizens, and this must somehow be supplied. In Canada, perhaps soon to be an integral portion of our great Republic, the difficulty is admirably solved.

"Notwithstanding the bitter opposition to the position of the Catholics, I have entire trust that this will pass away, and so fair-minded a people as the Americans in our liberty-loving Republic will find some way by which all can share in the common benefits of a thorough education under the fostering care of the state."

The establishment of parochial schools by Catholics engrossed attention so fully that it sometimes seemed as if they alone had an interest in controlling the religious training of their children. The occasional expression of Presbyterian authorities of the desirability of such schools passed unheeded, the rare establishment of parochial schools by a Protestant Episcopal Church was hardly recognized, and the people of the country at large scarcely knew that other bodies of Christian people not less in earnest than the Catholics were maintaining schools for the especial purpose of impressing their religious faith upon their children.

THE SO-CALLED BENNETT LAW.

The most striking incidents connected with recent popular attention to parochial schools occurred in Wisconsin. They were closely parallel in Illinois, and there was an eagerly expectant attitude in adjacent States.

The Catholics had strong parochial schools, and whatever the framers of new legislation might have intended, the popular support which their effort received was largely the continuation of the current feeling against a possible Catholic domination. To many people it came in the nature of a surprise that the law which they had indorsed bore heavily upon large bodies of most earnest Protestants.

It occurred in 1889 that a suit was instituted against a school board (City of Edgerton, No. 8) of Wisconsin to cause the discontinuance of Bible reading in its schools. The lower court refused the mandamus asked for, and the case at this stage was cited in national discussions as establishing the use of the Bible in the public schools of the country. When the case reached the supreme court the decision of the lower court was reversed, and the reading of the Bible was decided to be unlawful on the ground that it was a sectarian book. The Catholics, part of them using the German language, and the Lutherans and Evangelicals, partly German in tongue, partly Norwegian and Swedish in speech, were busily teaching their religious convictions in schools of their own. At the time of the decision that King James's version of the Bible was a sectarian book, a zealous campaign was in progress to bring all children under English instruction in the common schools. A law was enacted known as the Bennett law, the essential provisions of which were as follows:

"The people of the State of Wisconsin, represented in senate and assembly, do enact as follows:

"SECTION 1. Every parent or other person having under his control a child between the ages of seven and fourteen years shall annually cause such child to attend some public or private day school in the city, town, or district in which he resides, for a period not less than twelve weeks in each year, which number of weeks shall be fixed prior to the first day of September in each year by the board of education or board of directors of the city, town, or district, and for a portion or portions thereof, to be so fixed by such boards, the attendance shall be consecutive, and such boards shall, at least ten days prior to the beginning of such period, publish the time or times of attendance in such manner as such boards shall direct; provided, that such boards shall not fix such compulsory period at more than twenty-four weeks in each year. "SEC. 2. For every neglect of such duty the person having such control and so offending shall forfeit to the use of the public schools of such city, town, or district a sum not less three dollars nor more than twenty dollars, and failure for each week or portion of a week on the part of any such person to comply with the provisions of this act shall constitute a distinct offense; provided, that any such child shall be excused from attendance at school required by this act, by the board of education or school directors of the city, town, or district in which such child resides, upon its being shown to their satisfaction that the person so neglecting is not able to send such child to school, or that instruction has otherwise been given for a like period of time to such child in the elementary branches commonly taught in the public schools, or that such child has already acquired such elementary branches of learning, or that his physical or mental condition is such as to render attendance inexpedient or impracticable, and in all cases where such child shall be so excused the penalty herein provided shall not be incurred.

"SEC. 3. Any person having control of a child, who, with intent to evade the provisions of this act, shall make a wilful false statement concerning the age of such child or the time such child has attended school, shall for such offense forfeit a sum of not less than three dollars nor more than twenty dollars for the use of the public schools of such city, town, or district."

For instance, John Jay before National Educational Association, elsewhere herein cited.

« AnteriorContinuar »