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. (Cont.)

Thus, both the general principle of Roman Catholicism and the council decrees and public opinion expressing it clearly define the Roman Catholic church’s view of school and education. It considers them the chief instruments through which its members can be kept within its fold and protected from the harmful influences of other faiths. As a result, it strives above all to isolate its school from any contact with Protestantism, to make it exclusively Catholic, under the direct supervision of Catholic clergy. But in achieving this goal, it inevitably encounters serious obstacles posed by the country’s constitution and general governmental provisions concerning public education. The constitution, by making religion free, thereby abstains from any support for any denomination, and governmental provisions concerning the exclusion of all sectarian differences from school thereby do not permit the possibility for Catholicism to introduce into the school its entire system, the slightest curtailment or depersonalization of which is equivalent to denial of Catholicism itself. In view of this, it has only one way out—to completely abandon the general public school maintained by the state and organize an independent system of Catholic parish schools. To this it strives; but in achieving this goal it encounters a new difficulty. The public school is in essence a compulsory institution for citizens. Having become fully a state institution, it is maintained by state funds, collected from the entire population without distinction through the levying of certain fees and direct taxes. Catholics are not exempt from these, and therefore they are involuntarily obliged to use this school. Otherwise, to maintain their own schools, they must bear a double tax—on a school which they do not use, and on a school which they alone consider beneficial. Here it is evident that the Catholic church comes into collision with the state, and this collision is provoked not only by moral but also by financial motives. The state, having undertaken the matter of public education, to maintain it levies taxes from the entire population; Catholics also bear this tax, but moral motives forbid them from using the state school. The inevitable consequence of such an order of things was the struggle of Catholicism with the state on the question of public education, and it continuously makes itself felt at all significant events in school life.

The struggle of Roman Catholicism against the adopted system of public education began almost from its very inception; but it began to assert itself with particular force from the time when the state’s tendency to make the school a state institution became fully clear. The chief goal which Catholics always set for themselves in this was to secure from the funds collected by general taxes for the public school a proportional part corresponding to the number of pupils in their own parish schools. This tendency asserted itself with particular persistence in 1840. In that year, trustees of several Roman Catholic schools in the city of New York, in connection with certain influential members of the Catholic church, submitted a petition that they be given equal participation in the distribution of public money collected by the state for educational purposes with the “Society of Public Schools,”[1] which at that time served as the chief organ of the state in matters of public education. The petitioners expressed dissatisfaction with the organization and management of that society, which “monopolizes public education and conducts it entirely independently of the wishes and views of taxpayers and without regard to the demands of conscience and religious convictions of a large part of the citizens; that although the society does not belong specially to any denomination and does not attempt openly and directly to teach the distinctive creed of any particular sect, nevertheless its schools are in practice sectarian; the books and general tone of instruction are so strongly redolent of Protestantism that nearly eight thousand children who are under the care of the petitioners and with whose secular instruction the latter wish to unite daily instruction in the principles of their own faith, cannot, by dictate of conscience, participate in the benefits offered by the society, although the petitioners and all their fellow believers bear heavy taxes for its support”[2]. The society for its part replied that it was far from monopolizing public education, gave free instruction to all comers, avoided any partisan sectarianism, and that on the contrary, by virtue of the constitution of the religious community to which the petitioners belong and whose special views they represent, the distinctive doctrine of Roman Catholicism will inevitably enter their system of instruction, coming into contradiction with the general educational system of the state[3]. A bitter dispute ensued, which passed into the press and to the church pulpit. On the side of the Catholics, a strong fighter emerged—Bishop Hughes, later archbishop of New York. The matter was brought before the Common Council, which rejected the petitioners’ claims and referred to the resolutions of 1824 and 1832, by which “the state’s school fund has a purely civil character, is intended for civil purposes, and therefore to entrust it to religious or ecclesiastical societies would be a violation of an elementary principle”[4].

Catholics naturally were not satisfied with such a decision and transferred their cause to the state legislature, repeating the same request. There, at first, fortune seemed to incline in their favor, and State Secretary Spencer in his annual report as superintendent of public schools found it possible to state the following: “At each of seven Roman Catholic churches there are free schools in which more than five thousand children are taught six hours each day. Although founded by a separate denomination, they are open to all children without distinction, and are in fact attended by children of various denominations. They are maintained at the expense of voluntary contributions from pious and charitable founders. They do not participate in the distribution of the school fund.” Meanwhile, “it would be fair that all those who directly or indirectly make contributions to this fund, and especially those who pay their share of taxes, should benefit from it.” In accordance with such reasoning, he proposed a bill whereby local authorities would have the right to distribute the fund among schools in proportion to the number of pupils attending them[5]. In the 1841 session, the question was brought before the senate. Both the petition and the responsive statements were submitted for consideration to the same Secretary Spencer, who this time presented a detailed report on the state of affairs, examining it from a general governmental perspective. This report is so important in characterizing the state’s relation to school and the religious question in it that we consider it necessary to set forth here its substantial features, concerning principally the subject under discussion.

Having defined the general state of public education, its needs and significance for the state, the author of the report says: “Some of the petitioners complain that the tendency of instruction in state schools is unfavorable, if not hostile, to those principles of faith which they hold dearer than life itself; and they declare that, by virtue of their views on religious obligation toward children, they cannot send their children to these schools. On the other hand, those who oppose any change in the present system express their concern that with the admission of free and equal participation in public funds for all schools, public funds will be indirectly, if not directly, used for the inculcation of religious teachings of every kind, and some particularly fear the possibility of spreading such teachings which they consider false and harmful. Thus the question of sectarian influences is raised from two opposite sides, with its usual complications. According to the principles of our institutions, no one has the power to determine whether the religious teachings or feelings of any class of our citizens are true or false. The Constitution and public opinion stand beyond the religious faith and confessions of all our citizens. The sole purpose which our fellow citizens can have is the education of all the republic’s children in literature, morality, and virtue. It is true that the state has undertaken only the mental education of children, and has entrusted their moral and religious education to the home hearth, places of public prayer, and those institutions which the piety of private individuals may establish for this purpose. But it is believed that in a country where the vast majority of citizens recognize the fundamental truths of Christianity, public opinion would be shocked by an attempt to exclude all religious instruction from public schools, and that any plan or system of instruction in which there was no reference to the moral principles founded on these truths would be abandoned by all. Furthermore, it is believed that such an attempt would be quite impractical. It is impossible to find books or select lessons for reading which would not contain, in greater or lesser degree, some principles of religious faith, either directly preached or indirectly admitted. Religion and literature are inseparably intertwined, and the purification of religious feeling from the works of orators, essayists, and poets would make them extremely empty of substance. Viewing the subject thus practically, in all systems of education designed for the youth of this country, it can be considered a positive axiom that it must necessarily contain a considerable share of religious instruction. The trustees of the schools of the “Society of Public Education” allow it in their schools perhaps not more than is unavoidable. Meanwhile, while they declare, and undoubtedly sincerely, their readiness to omit all that can be considered controversial, they at the same time assert, and quite correctly, that education cannot be perfect without the inculcation of moral and religious principles; and therefore they permit the reading of Holy Scripture or parts of it, and inculcate the fundamental principles of Christianity. But it cannot be understood how it is possible to teach these principles usefully without at the same time inculcating what is recognized by some denominations and denied by others. Even the reading of the text of our accepted translation of Holy Scripture is rejected by many on the basis of its presumed inaccuracy and imperfection; others meanwhile consider its use by children without explanation positively harmful. Even the moderate degree of religious instruction permitted by the “society” is inevitably sectarian, i.e., it favors one class of opinions and opposes another; and this will always be so, whatever method of instruction human wisdom could suggest. If these views are true, then such a dilemma arises: while a certain degree of religious instruction is necessary and will at all events inevitably enter into the system of education, it at the same time cannot be introduced without adopting, to a certain extent, a sectarian character and giving offense to those whose opinions will stand in contradiction to this character. But fortunately there is one way to escape this difficulty. This way will be found in a return to the fundamental principles set forth in our Constitution, by which no law can be introduced “respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” and by which “the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship shall forever hereafter be allowed to all mankind,” those in whose hands our government has hitherto been have found that practical effect could be given to these principles only by careful abstention from all legislation regarding those matters which are comprehended or have any bearing on religious faith, profession, or religious instruction; and in this course of action they have found such a safeguard against oppression, such a guarantee against discord and hostile intolerance and fanaticism, and such a pledge of peace and agreement, that it has constantly and under all circumstances found unanimous approval. On the basis of this principle, which may be called absolute non-interference, all apparent difficulties surrounding the subject under consideration can be removed”[6]

But in what sense is this “absolute non-interference” to be understood? In the sense of complete removal of religious instruction from school as a state institution, or in providing all sects and denominations equal participation in religious instruction? The first part of the alternative, in the secretary’s opinion, would not eliminate the difficulty. “To suppose,” he says, “that the absence of all religious instruction, even if it were achievable, could serve as a means to avoid sectarianism, is entirely mistaken. On the contrary, it would be itself sectarian, since it would accord with the views of one particular class and contradict the opinions of other classes. Such a system would favor those who reject religious beliefs and oppose all efforts to impress them upon young minds before they reach the maturity of judgment that would give them the ability to form their own opinions. But there are people who hold completely opposite views and insist on protecting youth against the influence of their own passions and contamination by vice through the planting in their souls and hearts of those elements of faith which in this class’s opinion serve as necessary foundations of moral principles. This class of people considers neutrality and indifference the most dangerous form of hostility[7]. Thus it is wrong to suppose, in the state secretary’s view, that sectarianism in school can be avoided by eliminating all religious instruction. There remains, consequently, only one way out of the difficulty—the second part of the alternative—complete and free provision to all sects and denominations of the right to teach their doctrines in schools. To accomplish this, in his opinion, is possible by providing complete self-government to individual school districts, so that the population could easily group itself according to its denominational distinctions and therefore could easily in its separate schools teach its own doctrine[8].

So the state secretary, proceeding from the Constitution’s fundamental principles in his reasoning, came in principle, if not in form, to the very conclusion that the Catholics were seeking, namely, the establishment of such an order of school affairs by which all denominations would have full opportunity to teach their doctrines in their separate schools. For Catholics, such a solution meant a complete concession to their demands, and according to its terms they could classify all their parish schools as district schools and thus make them by form public schools having a right to a proportional share of the school fund. But the “Society of Public Schools” noted the disadvantage of this conclusion and, on the basis of the Constitution itself, gave the following answer:

“In adopting a system of public education at public expense, the state intended to provide young people with such education as would make them capable of performing civil duties in this life, leaving it to their natural and ecclesiastical guides to prepare them, through paternal and spiritual instruction, for giving an account in the other world. It was necessary, and is, to have some common ground on which all children, destined to act as citizens of one and the same republic, could receive a common education. All children have a right to this common education; but the determination of its details and conditions belongs to society, not to parents. The fact that the fund was collected by taxation of all for universal education does not give the sectarian taxpayer the right to demand that a part of it be set apart for the purpose of spreading his separate sect. The tax was imposed on him as a citizen, not as a member of a church. Its purpose was exclusively civil, not to open a path to a particular place of worship. The establishment of a church (parish) school shows a sectarian purpose. It has an exclusive system and special rules in governance, is under the supervision of trustees and teachers of a particular faith, and religious agreement is a necessary condition for participation in its governance, which cannot be achieved through the civil qualification acquired by the citizen. It essentially constitutes a part of a church institution, and a member of another faith may justly feel that his privileges are equally violated, whether a tax is taken from him for the support of teachers of a strange religion on the school platform, or for the support of them on the church platform. This the state has never claimed the power to levy taxes on its people for church purposes; and if its sovereignty includes such power, then the rights of conscience require that religion of the taxpayer be entered on the tax roll and his money used to support his own church”[9].