2. Opposition of Roman Catholicism to the Adopted System and its Foundations. The Fundamental Distinction Between the Systems of Protestantism and Roman Catholicism. Education According to the Catholic View. The Roman Catholic Church’s Efforts to Isolate the Catholic Population From the Influence of Protestantism. Conflict With the State and Struggle Against It

The opposition of Roman Catholicism to the adopted system of public education is a natural and logical consequence of the general system of the Roman Catholic church, which it has pursued in all spheres of life. In its relations with the diverse peoples within its composition, there has long been observed a tendency to subject them to its authority not only in the realm of religion but also in political life. To this end it has constantly striven to seize public education into its own hands, so as to impress upon peoples from childhood the sanctity of its authority and to educate them in the spirit of its principles. This tendency has become evident with particular clarity in recent times in Germany and in France, where it has acquired such practical significance that the state proved helpless against it in matters of principle and had recourse to crude violent measures to suppress further influence of Roman Catholic education. The German culture struggle and French persecution of the Jesuits are two variations on one theme—the state’s recognition of its powerlessness to resist the Roman Catholic principles being introduced into the people’s consciousness through public education seized by the Roman Catholic church. In the New World, the Roman Catholic church naturally preserves the same tendency.

In contrast to Protestantism, which by virtue of its fundamental principle—justification by faith alone—naturally and logically comes to the secularization of the school, the separation of church from state, practical life from religious principles, Roman Catholicism has an internal tendency to subject all practical life to its ecclesiastical principles. It not only does not permit secularization, but rather strives to introduce its ecclesiastical principles wherever secular or extra-ecclesiastical influences still prevail; its ideal is the theocratic principle, rigorously applied in all spheres of life—political, social, and domestic. Therefore, the secularized school, that institution through which Roman Catholicism considers itself most able to carry its principles into practice, is an impossible thing for it, and its acceptance would be equivalent to self-denial. If according to Christian worldview education must necessarily have religion as its foundation, then Roman Catholicism conducts this theory with unwavering consistency. “We esteem education and learning,” says a Catholic organ, but we do not recognize education separated from religion and religious culture. Religion is the supreme law, and everything in personal or social life, civil or political, must be subordinated to it and regarded only as a means to achieve the eternal goal for which man was created and exists. Religious education is of supreme importance, and we desire that our children, from the first awakening of reason, grow accustomed to regard all things as having direct bearing on their religious life or obligation before God. We are convinced that education of both reason and heart, or of both together, separated from faith and religious discipline, is dangerous both for the individual and for society. All education must be religious and aimed at developing in the child consciousness of eternal objectives[1].

In carrying out its theory, Roman Catholicism goes further and not only intends to base upbringing in its strict sense on religious principles, but to make learning itself religious, to subject reason to faith, to place science not as an end in itself, not as the achievement of independent scientific truths, but as a means for introducing those same religious principles into consciousness. “It is said,” the organ remarks, “that simple secular education, such as the study of geology, geometry, history, natural philosophy, botany, astronomy, and the like, taught in our schools, provides no occasion for moral or religious instruction. Nothing could be more false. A properly directed anatomy, even of the smallest insect, equal to the contemplation of the boundless firmament with its countless planets and stars, can become a silent and involuntary prayer to the Creator of all things. There is no physical or artificial force revealed to the attention of the young mind that could not contain some indication of the invisible Power ruling the universe, and the teacher who neglects the opportunity to draw moral instruction from these symbols of the Almighty’s omnipotence does only half his work, and the less elevated half at that”[2]. “The elementary principles of reading and writing, arithmetic and elements of pure mathematics can still be taught independently of religion; but when instruction reaches higher domains of knowledge, the religious question emerges again. Take, for example, geology, that most interesting science, the abuse of which has led to worse atheism than all the sophistries of Voltaire. As it is taught in our schools, without proper explanation or direction, it cannot but be destructive to faith, and consequently to morals, in the minds of curious and not yet firmly established young intellects”[3].

Roman Catholicism, therefore, is dissatisfied with the public school due to the secularization of instruction in it, because of the separation of scientific knowledge from religious influence. In this regard it is certainly right, insofar as by religious influence it understands not the extreme ultramontane principle that excludes freedom of scientific inquiry, but only the higher ideal of human destiny, toward the achievement of which every science ought to serve. The best Protestant thinkers also consider it abnormal and even harmful to completely separate instruction from religious influence[4], but they are reconciled to the “common Christianity” introduced into the school. Catholicism, however, cannot in any way reconcile itself to such an arrangement of religious instruction. It represents a strict system in which a long history has developed a complex organization, stable in all its parts and details, so that each part or detail has an organic connection with the entire system, and the removal of any one feature disturbs the equilibrium of the whole organism. Therefore, “common Christianity,” representing an impersonal and, as it were, detached from life doctrine, is unthinkable for Roman Catholicism, constitutes its negation, and cannot in any way be accepted by it without essential harm to the entire system. “The distinction between Protestantism and Catholicism,” says a Catholic organ, “is not merely a difference in details or particulars, but a difference in principle. Catholicism must be taught in its entirety, in its unity or wholeness, or otherwise it will not be taught at all. It must be everywhere whole, or it is nothing. It is not simply a theory of truth or a collection of doctrines; it is an organism, a living body, living and acting by virtue of its own central life, and therefore necessarily one and indivisible, and can have nothing in common with any other body. To exclude from schools all that is distinctive or peculiar to Catholicism is simply to exclude Catholicism itself and make the schools either purely Protestant or purely secular and therefore hostile to our religion, one which it is forbidden us by conscience to support”[5]. Because of this, Roman Catholicism can naturally be satisfied only with schools in which unrestricted religious-Catholic influence would predominate, namely, parish schools, under the direct supervision of the clergy. And indeed, from the very beginning of the history of Roman Catholicism in the United States, we see constant efforts by church leadership to establish parish schools. Even before the Declaration of Independence, Catholics had several of their own schools, and the first American Catholic bishop, John Carroll, in a pastoral letter to his flock, devotes a considerable section to the question of specifically Catholic education[6], and subsequently Catholic bishops at local and general councils consistently express concern for the organization of parish schools. The first provincial council in Baltimore, held in 1829, expressed the wish that schools be established everywhere in which children could be instructed in the principles of faith and morality along with the acquisition of human learning[7]. The prelates of the second full Baltimore Council in 1866 made remarkable decrees on this matter, which clearly characterize the views of representatives of the Catholic church on the importance of the school question for its success in the United States. The ninth section of these decrees is devoted to the question of “the education of youth and the planting of piety.” It states among other things: “Since it has become evident that schools for public education in most of these provinces are so constituted as to serve heresies, and the souls of Catholic children in them are constantly and imperceptibly saturated with the false teachings of sects, we exhort pastors to strive with all their strength to give Catholic children Christian and Catholic education, and to observe carefully that they neither use the Protestant translation of the Bible nor sing the prayers and hymns of these sects. They must see to it that books or exercises of this kind are not introduced into public schools with danger to faith and piety. We urge bishops and, in view of the gravest evils which commonly issue from youth improperly disposed and educated, we implore them by the bowels of the divine mercy to take care that schools be founded at each church in their dioceses; and, if necessary and circumstances permit, to hire at the expense of the church with which the school is connected suitable teachers for it. But inasmuch as, owing to poverty, exclusively Catholic schools cannot yet be maintained in all parishes and there is no place for daily and necessary instruction except in public schools, great precautions must be taken so that Catholic youth suffer from them as little harm as possible. For this purpose let schools of catechesis and Christian instruction be established. Let pastors gather boys and girls in their own churches on Sundays and other holy days, and sometimes even more frequently, for careful and diligent instruction of them in the elements of Christian knowledge. Let the pastor in every possible way impress upon parents their participation in this work. Let him spur them on with approval, threaten them with warnings, move them with entreaties to send their children to church at the time appointed for catechesis. And the latter let him attract with small gifts and rewards—for more willing attendance at school and instruction. For if this is done daily by teachers of heresy to draw Catholic children to their own schools, saturate them with the poison of error, and bring them to sacrifice to eternal misery; should not the minister of God and His most holy religion with care and diligence do the same thing to save those who belong to him, and not lose even one of those whom the Father has given to His Christ? Let pastors of souls carefully endeavor that parents under their spiritual guidance bring their children, when they reach the proper age, prepared to receive the sacraments of holy Eucharist and confirmation; and for achieving this purpose let them frequently during the course of the year, especially when Easter approaches, publicly in the churches exhort the people to this most important obligation, the failure to fulfill which subjects parents to the greatest danger—the loss of salvation, and therefore they should be deprived of the sacraments until they repent and make satisfaction for this obligation”[8].

The decrees of the second full Baltimore Council, juridically binding for Catholics of the country, were at the same time, according to the expression of a Catholic historian, “only an expression of the universal feeling of Catholics throughout the world, that religious education is the very life and essence of the church, a necessary condition for the preservation of true faith and its development in the order of providence, for the welfare of society and the salvation of souls. Perhaps,” the historian continues, “there is no country in which these considerations have had greater importance than in the United States of America. The general intermingling of Catholics in the public and political life with those erring in every way, marital ties with sectarians, the gigantic efforts made by the state to support schools in which religion is ignored and which by the fullness of their external organization present an enticement for the poorest classes of the people, are serious obstacles with which Catholicism must contend. As a result, nothing so occupied the attention of the first bishop of Baltimore as the establishment of a Catholic institution for the religious education of youth, and his successors, with their colleagues in the episcopal office, have always shown the same solicitude”[9]. Motives for the establishment of Catholic parish schools came from the head of the Catholic world itself—the pope—and during, for instance, Archbishop Marechal’s tenure, the curia with particular insistence impressed upon him the obligation to establish such schools to counteract the efforts and influence of non-Catholic churches. Cardinal Somaglia, in his circular of August 5, 1820, pointing out the efforts of sects to lead the people into error, says: “You see therefore how earnest and active the pastors of the church must be to guard their flocks from the attacks of wolves coming to them in sheep’s clothing. If the shepherds sleep, the enemy will come, and soon tares will grow up among the wheat. Therefore it is necessary in every way to strive to remove children from these sectarian schools and to impress upon their parents their duty in this regard. The most effective means for this purpose would be the establishment of schools in which the poorest class could obtain proper instruction. Would there not be sufficient means for this? A useful lesson in this respect can be drawn from the heretics themselves; they, as we know, support their schools by a small collection from all members. Why should not Catholics do the same? We therefore exhort you and by the mercies of our Lord Jesus Christ beseech you to adopt the most effective measures possible for protecting your flock from the attacks of those who would lead it astray, and remembering the words of the apostle: ‘And there shall be false teachers, who shall bring in sects of perdition,’ apply all efforts to prevent false seduction of Catholic youth”[10]. “The only means of counteracting the evil influences noted above and others leading to the same result,” according to the historian’s observation, “can be the more general establishment of parish schools, in which Catholic youth will be educated in the knowledge and observance of their religion, and more serious attention to sacred learning in our higher educational institutions, through which faith will acquire a firmer and more influential character”[11].