Part 5. Conflict of Roman Catholicism With the State in the Sphere of Public Education (Cont.) (2)

The struggle of Roman Catholicism against the adopted system of public education began almost from its establishment; but it manifested itself with particular force from the time when the state’s tendency to make the school a state institution became fully clear. The main objective pursued by Catholics was always to have a proportional part of the money fund collected by general taxes for public schools allocated to them corresponding to the number of students in their own parish schools. This tendency manifested itself with particular insistence in 1840. In that year the trustees of several Roman Catholic schools in the city of New York, in connection with 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 for the Promotion of the Public Schools,”[1] which at that time served as the main organ of the state in the matter of public education. The petitioners expressed dissatisfaction with the organization and management of the said society, which “monopolized public education and conducts it completely independently of the wishes and views of taxpayers and without regard to the demands of conscience and religious beliefs of a large part of the citizens; that although the society does not belong specifically to any creed and does not attempt openly and directly to teach the distinctive articles of faith of any particular sect; nevertheless its schools are in practice sectarian, the books and general tone of instruction are so strongly reminiscent of Protestantism that nearly eight thousand children who are under the guardianship of the petitioners and with whose secular instruction the latter wish to combine daily instruction in the principles of their own faith cannot, by the dictates of conscience, participate in the benefits presented by the society, although the petitioners and all their like-minded people bear heavy taxes for its support.”[2] The Society, for its part, replied that it was far from monopolizing public education, provides free instruction to all who come, avoids any partiality to sectarianism, and on the contrary, by virtue of the constitution of that religious community to which the petitioners belong and whose specific views they represent, the distinctive teachings of Roman Catholicism will inevitably enter into 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 from the church pulpit. On the side of the Catholics, a strong fighter came forward in the person of Bishop Hughes, who later became archbishop of New York. The case was brought to the Common Council, which rejected the petitioners’ claims and referred to the resolutions of 1824 and 1832, according to which “the school fund of the state has a purely civil character, is intended for civil purposes, and therefore entrusting it to religious or church societies would be a violation of an elementary principle.”[4]

The Catholics naturally were not satisfied with this decision and brought their case before the legislative assembly, repeating the same petition. At first fortune seemed to smile on them, and State Secretary Spencer in his annual report as superintendent of public schools found it possible to state the following: “Each of the seven Roman Catholic churches has free schools in which more than five thousand children receive instruction six hours every day. Although established by a separate denomination, they are open to all children without distinction, and in fact are attended by children of various denominations. They are supported by voluntary contributions of pious and charitable founders. They do not participate in the distribution of the school fund.” Meanwhile “it would be just if all those who directly or indirectly make contributions to this fund, and especially those who pay their share of taxes, should benefit from it.” Accordingly, he proposed a bill by which local authorities would have the right to distribute the fund among schools in proportion to the number of students attending them.[5] In the 1841 session the question was brought before the senate. Both the petitions and the written responses were referred for examination to the same Secretary Spencer, who this time presented a detailed report on the state of the matter, considering it from the perspective of the whole state. This report was so important in characterizing the state’s relationship to schools and the religious question within them that we consider it necessary to present here the essential features of it, concerning principally the subject under our examination.

Having determined the general state of public education, its needs, and its importance for the state, the author of the report says: “Some of the petitioners complain that the tendency of education in public schools is unfavorable, if not hostile, to those principles of faith which they hold dearer than life itself; and they declare that, in accordance with their views on religious duty toward children, they cannot send their children to these schools. On the other hand, those who resist any change to the present system express their fear that, with the allowance of free and equal participation in public monies for those schools, public funds will be indirectly, if not directly, used for the promotion of religious doctrines of all kinds; and some particularly fear the possibility of promoting such doctrines as they consider false and harmful. Thus the question of sectarian influence is raised from two opposing sides, with its usual complications. According to the principles of our institutions, no one has the power to determine whether the religious doctrines or sentiments of any class of our citizens are true or false. The Constitution and public opinion stand beyond the religious faith and profession of all our citizens. The sole aim that our fellow citizens can have is the education of all children of the republic in literature, morality, and virtue. It is true that the state has undertaken only the intellectual education of children, while their moral and religious education has been left to the home, places of public prayer, and those institutions that the piety of private individuals may establish for this purpose. Yet it is thought that in a country where the vast majority of citizens acknowledge the fundamental truths of Christianity, public sentiment would be outraged by any attempt to exclude all religious teaching from public schools, and that any plan or system of instruction in which there was no relation to moral principles based on these truths would be universally rejected. Furthermore, it is thought that such an attempt would be altogether impractical. It is impossible to find books or to select reading lessons that do not contain, to a greater or lesser degree, certain principles of religious faith, either directly preached or indirectly admitted. Religion and literature are inseparably interwoven, and purging the works of orators, publicists, and poets of religious sentiment would make them extremely empty. Examining the subject in this practical way, in all systems of education designed for the youth of this country, it may be considered a positive axiom that some considerable portion of religious instruction must necessarily be included. The trustees of the “society for public education” admit it in their schools perhaps no more than is unavoidable. While they declare, and undoubtedly sincerely, their readiness to omit anything that might be considered controversial, they at the same time affirm—and quite rightly—that education cannot be perfect without the inculcation of moral and religious principles; and therefore they permit reading of Holy Scripture or parts of it, and inculcate the fundamental principles of Christianity. Yet it is impossible to understand how it is possible to teach these principles with benefit without at the same time impressing what is accepted by some denominations and rejected by others. Even the reading of the text of our commonly accepted translation of Holy Scripture is rejected by many on the ground of its supposed errors and imperfections; others meanwhile consider its use by children without explanation positively harmful. Even the moderate degree of religious instruction admitted by the “society” is inevitably sectarian; that is, it favors one class of opinions and opposes another; and so it will always be, with any method of instruction that human wisdom can devise. – If these views are correct, then there arises such a dilemma: while a certain degree of religious instruction is necessary and will inevitably enter into the system of education under all circumstances, it cannot at the same time be introduced without adopting, to a certain degree, a sectarian character and causing offense to those whose opinions stand in contradiction to this character. But happily, there is one way out of this difficulty. This way will be found in recourse to the fundamental principles set forth in our Constitution, by which no law can be passed “respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” and by which “the free exercise and enjoyment of religious worship shall forever be allowed to all mankind.” Those in whose hands our government has hitherto rested found that practical effect could be given to these principles only through careful abstention from any legislation concerning those matters which involved or had any relation to religious faith, profession, or religious instruction; and in this course of action they found such a safeguard against oppression, such a guarantee against discord and hostile intolerance and fanaticism, and such a pledge of peace and harmony that it has constantly and in all circumstances received their unanimous approval. On the basis of this principle, which might be called absolute non-interference, all the apparent difficulties surrounding the subject under examination can be removed.”[6]

But in what sense should this “absolute non-interference” be understood? In the sense of the complete exclusion of religious instruction from schools as a state institution, or in the provision of equal participation in religious instruction to all sects and denominations? The first part of the alternative, in the Secretary’s view, would not eliminate the difficulty. “To suppose,” he says, “that the absence of all religious instruction, even if it were possible to achieve it, could serve as a means to avoid sectarianism, is entirely erroneous. On the contrary, it would itself be sectarian, as 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 instill them in 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 corruption through the implanting in their souls and hearts of those elements of faith which, in the opinion of this class, serve as necessary foundations of moral principles. This class of people considers neutrality and indifference to be the most dangerous form of hostility.”[7] Thus it is erroneous, in the view of the state secretary, to suppose that sectarianism could be avoided in schools by the elimination of all religious instruction. There remains therefore 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 achieve this, in his opinion, is possible through the provision of complete self-government to individual school districts, so that the population could easily be grouped in them according to their denominational distinctions and thus could easily teach its own doctrine in its separate schools.[8]

Thus the state secretary, proceeding in his reasoning from the fundamental principles of the Constitution, arrived in principle, if not in form, at the very conclusion sought by the Catholics: the establishment of such a school system in which all denominations would have a full opportunity to teach their doctrines in their separate schools. For the Catholics such a decision meant complete accession to their demands, and by its terms they could subsume all their parochial schools under the category of district schools and thus make them in form public schools entitled to a proportional share of the school fund. But the “Society for Public Education” perceived the disadvantage of this conclusion and, on the basis of the same Constitution, made the following response:

“In adopting the system of public education at public expense, the state had in view to give youth such an education as would make them capable of discharging the duties of citizens in this life, leaving to their natural and ecclesiastical guides to prepare them, through paternal and spiritual instruction, to render an account in another world. It was necessary, and is necessary, to have some common foundation upon which all children, destined to act as citizens of the same republic, could receive a common education. To this common education all children have a right; but the determination of its particulars and conditions belongs to society, not to parents. The fact that the fund was raised through taxation of all for universal education does not give the taxpayer-sectarian the right to demand that a portion of it be devoted to the propagation of his own separate sect. The tax was laid upon him as a citizen, not as a member of a church. Its sole object was a purely civil purpose, not to pave the way to a particular place of worship. The establishment of a church (parochial) school shows a sectarian aim. It has an exclusive system and peculiar rules of management, is under the direction of trustees and teachers of a particular faith, and religious accord is a necessary condition for participation in its management, which cannot be achieved through civil qualification acquired by a citizen. It is in essence a part of a church institution, and a sectarian of another denomination may justly feel that his rights are equally violated whether a tax is collected from him to support foreign religious teachers on the school platform or to support them on the church platform. The state has never yet claimed the power to levy taxes from its people for church purposes; and if its sovereignty includes such a power, then the rights of conscience require that the religion of the taxpayer be entered on the tax roll and his money be used to support his own church.”[9]

The dispute was finally settled by a law of April 11, 1842, in which the paragraph concerning the religious question proper was formulated as follows: “No school shall have the right to receive any portion of the school fund if therein are taught, inculcated, or professed the religious doctrines or teachings of any particular Christian or other religious sect, or if books are used containing writings favorable or hostile to the particular doctrines or teachings of any Christian or other religious sect. But nothing contained in this provision shall authorize the ‘board of education’ to exclude Holy Scripture, without notes or interpretations, or selections from it, from any of the schools coming under this provision.”[10]

The effect of this law retains its full force to the present time. But it obviously did not settle the disputed question; it merely evaded it, and naturally it did not satisfy the principal contending party—the Roman Catholics. The dispute has since not ceased until the present, becoming less acute only at times, only to burst forth again with renewed force. The Catholics constantly sought arguments to begin agitation against the school education system. So in 1853 the Roman Catholic pastor Keigley brought a complaint to the school superintendent in which he says that in many public schools the religion and faith of Catholic children are offended by forcing them to participate in prayers and to read and memorize portions of a Bible translation that the Catholic Church does not recognize; that once a teacher ordered one of her pupils, a twelve-year-old boy, to read and study the “Protestant Bible,” and when he declined to obey such an order, on the grounds of his unwillingness to violate the instructions of his parents and the rules of his religion, she punished him severely and shamefully expelled him from school.[11] This complaint naturally led to new discussions and new examinations of the question concerning a way out of the difficulty, but again without success.