3. Difficulty of Applying in School Practice the Principle of Religious Equality. The Protestant Character of the State School. The Inevitability of Such a Fact. The Disadvantageous Position of Catholics and Their Efforts to Escape From it. (Cont.)

However persistent such demands were, however much the Catholic press agitated for them, not overlooking a single opportunity to use as a pretext for agitation, Catholics have not achieved their goal even now, and as fifty years ago it remains for them merely a pious desire. All their attempts to achieve their wish on legal grounds invariably failed. Their cries about the oppression of Catholic conscience were in vain, their bitter reproaches to the free state, which contrary to the Constitution supported one confession—Protestant—and oppressed the other—Catholic. All was in vain. The state was either deaf to all demands from Catholics or directly refused to satisfy them. Then Catholics began to seek another way out of the difficulty. Having no hope of achieving their goal by legal means, at least in the near future, they found roundabout ways to the same goal, and these proved more accessible to them. The history of these roundabout attempts presents already a different aspect of the policy of Roman Catholicism—its aggressive movement against Protestantism and the Protestant state.

Besides the realm of public education there necessarily exists in the state another related realm—that of charitable activity. But if education already stands in close relation to religion and their separation is caused only by the necessary conditions of public organization, then charitable activity is by its very nature completely inseparable from the church. And indeed, in this respect the state has renounced all claims and has entrusted charitable activity to private societies, chiefly religious ones. Considering, however, this activity to be of great public importance, the state could not refuse to help them and therefore makes annual monetary subsidies to charitable societies. Catholics hastened to take advantage of this arrangement of affairs for their main goal. Among the various charitable institutions they established orphan asylums in which homeless orphans are gathered for residence and care. By their very character these institutions are not merely charitable but also educational—they represent something in the nature of charitable schools. Taking advantage of their charitable character, Catholics presented a demand to the state for a subsidy for the maintenance of these orphan asylums, and indeed succeeded in achieving, by an ordinance of 1825, the recognition of orphan asylums as having the right to a certain portion of the public school fund[1]. Since instruction in these asylums was conducted exclusively by Catholics and all these institutions were generally under the direction of the Roman Catholic Church and under the guidance of Roman Catholic Sisters of Mercy, it is clear that the Catholics’ maneuver was entirely successful—they achieved their goal, obtaining the right to a share of public funds for their special, exclusively Roman Catholic schools. This success encouraged Catholics so much that in 1840 they submitted a petition demanding the allocation to them from the public fund of sums for all their Catholic schools, even those having no charitable character. Although the petition, as we have seen above, was rejected, this did not discourage the Catholics. In 1853 they repeated the petition with such persistence that they succeeded in expanding their claims on the public fund, especially in the city of New York itself. From 1860 onwards regular subsidies began to be issued for the maintenance of Roman Catholic orphan asylums, the name of which Catholics managed to extend to some simple schools as well, and the amount of these subsidies grew in rapid progression. In 1861 Catholics received $18,791; in 1863 $78,000; in 1868 $124,424[2]; from 1869 to 1871 about $2,000,000, and from 1872 to 1876 $300,000 per year[3]. In a tax bill for the city presented to the legislative assembly of 1869 there was included such a paragraph: “Annually a sum equal to 20 percent of the entire income received in the city by an officer specially appointed by the Department of Public Education in said city shall be allocated for the maintenance of schools which provide free instruction to children in said city.” Under the meaning of this paragraph, the city treasury was to allocate annually $250,000 for the support of parish schools; and since 4/5 of them belonged to Catholics, it is clear that this paragraph, in its somewhat ambiguous form, legalized exactly what Catholics were seeking. The paragraph passed in that session of the legislative assembly, and Catholics exulted. But as soon as the true meaning of the paragraph became apparent, a terrible storm was raised against it; in the next session a petition was presented for the annulment of the paragraph bearing the signatures of 100,000 voters, and indeed on April 24, 1870 the Catholic paragraph was annulled[4].

In some states, owing to the balance of forces between Protestants and Catholics, the question of religious instruction did not receive a categorical solution. Catholics did not fail to use this for their own purpose. According to the statute of Connecticut neither reading of the Bible and prayers in schools nor other religious exercises are required or forbidden. All this is left to be determined by the visitors of the school or the population of various towns and school districts. Such an arrangement proved favorable to Catholics and they quickly managed to extract all possible advantages from it, taking under their control several schools even in the state capital of New Haven. The capture was carried out in a perfectly legal manner outwardly—through elections which gave them a majority in the “Board of Education.” With their members on this board, Catholics could naturally freely dispose of public funds for their schools, and now some schools maintained at public expense have a purely Catholic character. Thus the public school called “Hamilton,” is entirely in the hands of Catholics: all the teachers in it are Roman Catholic Sisters of Mercy and are, together with all the pupils, under the spiritual direction and control of the Roman Catholic bishop, who acts through the pastor of the church within whose boundaries the school is located, and, taking advantage of the opportunity to introduce religious instruction into the school outside the usual class hours, directs it in an exclusively Catholic spirit[5]. In a similar manner public funds have been applied to Roman Catholic schools in many other places. In the city of New Britain in the same state, a Roman Catholic school was accepted by the entire city in 1862 and has since been known as the “City School.” It is maintained at city expense, to which it receives more than $3,000 annually, and yet remains an exclusively Catholic school. It has one teacher and six teachers—all Roman Catholics, selected by Roman Catholic authorities[6]. Thus, gradually, Catholics not only managed to evade in many places the private law forbidding the use of public funds for the support of denominational schools, but also the general provision of the Constitution by which religion and its institutions are placed outside the jurisdiction of the state. They not only appropriated for themselves the right to public funds for maintaining their schools, but also managed to make their exclusively Catholic schools public schools, thereby making their confession, in a sense, the dominant and state religion, replacing the “Common Christianity” by means of which the state supposed to avoid religious difficulty.

The means by which Catholics achieve their goals have every appearance of being perfectly legal. They consist, as is already evident from the examples given, in Catholics striving first and foremost to fill public offices supervising schools with their own members, and through these officials they easily gain control of the schools. This was revealed with particular clarity in recent times in New York. The Roman Catholic element in this city is very strong. Politically the city belongs to the Democratic party, which consists predominantly of Irish, loyal Catholics. The leader of the most powerful “faction” of the Democratic party in the city (Tammany Hall), John Kelly, a devout Catholic (a relation by marriage to Cardinal McClokey), and in administrative respects until recently he was the real dictator, controlling the entire administration of the city. Already through his influence Roman Catholicism was able to make its strength felt in the city, but this strength could only manifest itself through unofficial channels, was a public, not a governmental force. And society, long viewing with horror the developing omnipotence of Roman Catholicism, could console and reassure itself only by the fact that the official head of the city—the mayor—was not a Catholic, and zealously watched to ensure that Catholicism did not seize this supreme office in the national metropolis. At the slightest movement of Catholics toward occupying the office of mayor, the press usually raised terrible alarm, threatening the city with all sorts of horrors being prepared by Catholics.

In November 1880 there were elections for a new city mayor, and the Democratic leader nominated as a candidate for this office Grace, an avowed and devoted Catholic. As soon as the news of such a nomination spread, the press raised desperate alarm, and from Protestant church pulpits preachers thundered with one voice against Catholicism, which allegedly sought the “head of the republic” for beheading, in order to surrender the country to the power of the pope. In vain did Grace assure that he would never bring religion into politics and would faithfully fulfill republican laws; his assurances were futile, and at massive rallies orators one after another predicted the ruin of republican institutions as soon as the mayoralty would be in the hands of Catholics. The main concerns were expressed about the existing system of public education, which politicians consider the best guarantee for the preservation and prosperity of the republic and against which Catholics agitate most of all. To calm public opinion, the candidate addressed the public with a special letter regarding his future policy concerning schools, in which among other things it was stated: “If elected, my goal will be to preserve the system of public schools in its complete integrity, a system so long established and which the American people regard with such pride. In all appointments which I will have to make in connection with school administration, I will not fail to give full and proper recognition to the prevailing American feeling in this matter. I believe that public schools, founded by the people and held by them as their richest heritage, should be preserved without any violation, and I will work for generous appropriations for their support”[7]. This letter was designed to calm the aroused public opinion, but given the inflamed passions it could not achieve its purpose. At a large anti-Catholic rally one of the speakers responded to this letter as follows: “Grace says in his letter that he will maintain the system of public education in New York in its integrity. But examine the letter carefully; how artfully it is written. Does it not show the work worthy of Talleyrand or a Jesuit? Is there anything in it that can be understood as opposing the use of public funds for sectarian purposes? Not at all. In that case the matter is decided by a general principle: Grace is a Roman Catholic. He either is a good Catholic or not. If he is a good Roman Catholic, then he is subject to the commands of his spiritual and church superior—the Pope, whose commands are expressed through cardinals, bishops, priests, and down to the confessor. This supreme high priest is the sworn enemy of all governments and systems of education not under the control of the Roman Church. He said that any system of education outside church control is godless—I quote his own words from his encyclical letter. Thus, if Grace is a good Catholic, he must, insofar as depends on him, bring the city’s school system into conformity with the Pope’s commands. If he is a good Catholic, he will be obliged to act in this manner, because the Catholic Church demands of a person obedience first to the Church and then to his state. And if he is not a good Catholic, then he is unworthy to be mayor of New York”[8].

Despite all its vehemence, the anti-Catholic party did not hold out, and Grace was elected mayor of New York. How justified the fears concerning the bad consequences of this election for the existing school system are, one cannot say positively even now. One can only say with confidence that Catholics will not fail to extract all possible advantages in favor of the realization of their views on education from their temporary position as the dominant party in the state’s metropolis[9].