Convent Inspection by C. M. S.

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Aug 26, 1915

Convent Inspection

By C. M. S.

DURING the past few years efforts have been made in several State legislatures to pass bills requiring the official inspection of convents and such institutions as the House of the Good Shepherd. Wherever such bills have been proposed, the strongest possible objections have been raised; and these bills have been defeated in each case, we believe, except in Arkansas. Concerning the Arkansas law and its workings we quote from the Sunday Visitor (Catholic) of August 15:—

Texas with its tragedy and Arkansas with its Posey Bill may well sympathize with each other in the result of religious prejudices. Texas wisely profited by the shame of Arkansas, and did not pass a law of inspection.

Along with tested cattle and other red-taped objects, Mena [Ark.] takes front rank with the first officially inspected convent. The inspection took place recently; the result was most favorable to the academy. As far as St. Joseph’s Academy was concerned, all the opposition which resulted in the Posey Bill, was just a waste of time, energy, and money, except to bring greater glory to the school—exactly the opposite of the effect intended by the instigators of the bill.

It is a unique way of advertising the quality of Catholic school institutions. Now that the bill is passed, the sooner the law is put into use all over the State, the sooner the cobwebs of ignorance and prejudice will be wiped off the State of Arkansas, and the State will go forward in progressiveness, to take its proper place among the best ones of the nation.

That being the case, what valid objection can there be to a law in each of the States which will do the same for the convents therein that is being done in Arkansas? The result was “most favorable” in Arkansas. It brought “greater glory” to the school. It advertised “the quality of Catholic school institutions,” and is expected to result in wiping “the cobwebs of ignorance and prejudice” “off the State of Arkansas,” so that “the State will go forward in progressiveness, to take its proper place among the best ones of the nation.” Surely such beneficial results ought not to be overlooked in planning for the future welfare of the church in this country. If that be a true statement of the results flowing from the Arkansas convent inspection law, the Catholic Church in America ought to encourage the enactment of such laws. Is she doing it?—No. Would the writer of the above article vote for such a law?—No; for he says: “Texas wisely profited by the shame of Arkansas, and did not pass a law of inspection.” Such statements are very difficult to harmonize. They partake of the same characteristics as the statements of the liquor dealers who denounce prohibition because it “does not prohibit,” and then do all they can against prohibitory legislation lest it should prohibit. In the mind of the writer above quoted, it is a shame for the State of Arkansas to compel the Catholic Church to do that which is to its greater glory and advantage. We must be excused if we fail to see either logic or sincerity in the position taken and the statements made by the Roman Church upon this question. C. M. S.