Romanism and the Public Schools.
By Editor
SUNDAY, August 11, 1889, in Oakland, California, there was dedicated a new Roman Catholic institution called St. Mary's College. It is four stories high above the basement, shaped something like the letter E, with a center and northern and southern wings. The frontage is 180 feet, north wing 150 feet, and southern wing 140 feet. It is estimated that nearly ten thousand people were present at the ceremonies. The Catholic Father Gleeson delivered the dedicatory address. He inveighed so heavily against the public school system of the United States, that his speech excited much attention. Urgent requests have come to us from friends of the SENTINEL to print it so that they can have it for future reference. We have consented to do so. We are satisfied that we are doing our subscribers good service in laying it before them. In view of the urgent demand now being made by Protestants for an amendment to the national Constitution establishing religious instruction in the public schools, ostensibly as a defense against Romanism, it is important to know just what the Romish position is; and it becomes doubly important when it is seen that the Protestant demand is in principle identical with the Romish. From Mr. Gleeson's speech it will be clearly seen that if the Protestant demand be acceded to and religious instruction be established in the public schools, it will be a direct play into the hands of the Romish system. We print the whole of the matter in the one number, as we think the reader would rather have it so, than to have it divided up through several numbers, as the whole speech can thus be had for reference at any time. Such comments as we are allowed at this time hurriedly to make, we have interspersed through the speech in brackets. After a few introductory remarks Mr. Gleeson said:— But what, it may be inquired, will be the character of the instruction that will be imparted in this college? Will it be of a kind and of a standard that will meet the approval and satisfy the requirements of the people of our time? I answer unhesitatingly in the affirmative, and I say—“Yes.” It is proposed, as far as I understand the scope of the work to be done, to turn out from these walls of learning accomplished, well-trained scholars—youths capable of taking their places creditably in all the honorable departments of life in the community. It is proposed to prepare and qualify young men here for engaging in all the useful and profitable pursuits of human industry in the community; it is proposed to train them for entering upon the various learned professions. In short, within these walls is to be imparted a thorough and high standard of education which will embrace a commercial, mathematical, classic, and English course. But is that all that is aimed at by the projectors of this work? By no means. Were that to be the extent of the labors of the men who are now entering upon the duties of this college, not a brick would have been laid in these walls. The object in view is not merely to turn out capable commercial, scientific, and classic graduates. It is not merely to furnish the learned professions with young men of trained and disciplined habits and cultured minds. But, if I rightly understand what is intended, and I think I do, it is to do much more than this. What is that more? It is to give to the community young men whose training, acquirements, and principles will render them ornaments to society and guardians and defenders of the interests of the people. The country is at present becoming alarmed at the crimes, the excesses, and dishonesty of many of its public servants. Men are beginning to see and to understand that something additional is needed for a competent public official than merely technical qualification for office. They are beginning to see that neither bonds, nor prisons, nor public opinion, nor social ostracism are of themselves enough to restrain the average man from the commission of crime when the temptations to unfaithfulness are numerous and strong. In a word the records of the number and magnitude of the public defalcations which have occurred and are constantly occurring in this land is beginning to open the eyes of the more thoughtful and reflective in the community to the usefulness and even necessity of the inculcation of ethical principles in connection with the education of youths, and this, if I mistake not258very much, is why institutions of this kind are growing steadily in favor and popularity with the best and most conservative men of our times. [Nor are these crimes, excesses, defalcations, and this dishonesty carried on outside of all the membership of the Roman Catholic Church. Let anyone notice the names of the boodlers, the jury bribers, the embezzlers, and election defrauders, and he will see that this is so. It is well known that the great majority of the Roman Catholic people of the United States are of the Irish race, and that the great majority of the children of these are educated and trained in the Roman Catholic schools; whereas, the educating or training of an American child in the Catholic school is the exception, these, on the contrary, are taught in the public schools. Yet, in the City of New York the department of charities and corrections was called upon to care for only 63,178 Americans in the four years from 1871 to 1875, while in the same time, it had to care for 98,737 Irish. The number of Americans was only one per cent. of the American population of that city while the number of Irish was three and a half per cent. of the Irish population. Which shows that children sent forth from Roman Catholic schools stand three and a half times the chance of becoming paupers that they do when sent forth from the public schools.
Next, as to crimes. In fifteen years and four months in New York City, ending with 1875, there were arrested, 571,497 Irish and but 387,154 Americans. The number of Irish was 3.28 per cent. of the Irish population while the number of Americans was but one per cent. of the American population; which plainly shows that a child trained in the Roman Catholic school stands three and a quarter times the chances of getting into jail that the child does who is trained in the public school. In other words, there is more than three and a quarter times the probability that a child taught in the Roman Catholic schools will commit crime than there is that a child taught in the public schools will do so. This evidence might be extended over other lines to the length of a separate article in itself, and it would show the same results or worse. Then let the Roman Catholic system show anywhere near such results as the public school system shows, before Roman Catholic priests repeat such charges against the public schools.] The work, then, that this college proposes to do will be of a dual character, that is to say, it will be of an intellectual and moral kind. It will develop the intellectual faculty and cultivate the moral instincts. By the former it will provide the community with capable officers, and by the latter with faithful servants. Thus it will become an agent for general good and a powerful factor in promoting and guarding the common interests, for from this institution will go forth in all human probability, as time rolls by, several, if not very many, of those gifted youths who, as they come to take their place in society, will become the leaders, the guides, and representatives of the people—men who will occupy some of the highest offices within the gift of the community—who will be amongst the administrators of justice, the expounders of law, and the defenders of the interests of the populace,—men, in a word, whose voice will be heard at the bar, on the bench, and in the senate. And how important is it not, to have men of this class, in positions of trust, for what greater blessing can a community enjoy than an incorruptible judiciary—an enlightened and unpurchasable legislature, and faithful, conscientious civil authorities. I will not insist for a moment on the inculcation of so elementary a truth, for it must be clear to the minds of all. But the work that this institution has cut out for itself does not stop even here. It has a still higher and nobler mission to accomplish, that is to prepare for eternity those of our faith who will be intrusted to its care—to prepare for the attainment of that noble and magnificent destiny for which God called us all into existence those Catholic youths who shall enter under its roof. This is the special, the principal, object for which this college has been erected. And this now leads us very naturally to inquire how far a Christian combined with a secular education, is superior to a merely secular one. As you are aware there are two contradictory opinions entertained by the people of this country hereon. The one advocates and insists on the exclusion of all ethical principles from the region of the school-room, while the other equally as strongly calls for and demands their introduction. The upholders of the former, unfortunately for us, as well as for those who share our convictions, being entirely in the majority, and having the power in their hands enforce without scruple or regard for the interests of the minority, their ideas and will in this matter. Now, this seems to me to be a very illiberal, not to say illogical, position for any party in the community to assume. It is illiberal and unfair, because it forces a system of instruction on the unwilling acceptance of millions, regardless of their rights and interests, and it is illogical and inconsistent inasmuch as it is in conflict with the history, the traditions, and profession of this country as a Christian Nation. [This is not a Christian Nation. It is a civil Nation. There never was a Christian nation, and there never will be while this world lasts. Christ said the wheat and the tares, the good and the bad, should grow together until the harvest—that is, the end of the world—and bad men are not Christians. The tares are the children of the wicked one.] If the advocates of the present system of public instruction in this country were to abjure the Christian religion—if they were to proclaim themselves to the world as unbelievers in Christian teaching, their position would be consistent and intelligible. But as long as they bear the Christian name, as long as they are pleased to be known as the followers of the Redeemer of mankind, I see nothing but inconsistency and contradictions in their efforts to prevent the youth of the Nation being educated in a Christian way. The present system of non-Christian education, now prevailing in this land might be and doubtless would be admirably adapted as far as principles are concerned, for a non-Christian country. [A non-Christian country is just what this is. Therefore by Mr. Gleeson's own words it is proved that the present system is admirably adapted for this country.] It would be quite in place as far as Christian teaching is concerned, in the dominions of his royal majesty, the Sultan of Turkey, or in those of his royal brother, the Shah of Persia. But for this country which is Christian in religion, Christian in traditions, Christian in government and sentiment, the present system is simply an anachronism. It is out of time and place. Do those who uphold it really wish that this country should remain what it is, a believing nation? [A believing nation indeed! when not one in a half-dozen is an actual believer in Jesus Christ!] If they do, then let them explain the paradox of wishing a country to believe without teaching it to believe. Of course I know the puerile answer that many would readily return to this. It would be the old stereotyped one, that religion is for the church and not for the schools, and that a nation can be Christian without being taught to believe in connection with secular instruction. Unfortunately for those who advance this reason it has to be acknowledged that one-half of this country never enter an ecclesiastical edifice of any denomination whatever. [If it be so that one-half the people of this country never enter an ecclesiastical edifice, then, at the very best, how can this be more than one-half of a Christian Nation?] How, then, I ask are the youth of the country to be made Christian. [If it is a Christian country already, then why do the youth need to be made Christian? Do Christians need to be made Christians?] Perhaps some one may say by means of the Sunday-school, but the half of them don't go to the Sunday-school, and if they did it would amount to but little. For what can a youth learn in an hour on the Sunday. The Sunday-school I regard as little better than a sham, a delusion, and a mockery. Under such circumstances it surely is not to be wondered at that millions are ceasing to be Christians in this land. The fact is, the country is becoming to a large extent non-Christian. Statistics have been published in San Francisco, showing that 30,000,000 of the inhabitants of this Republic have never been baptized. What does that mean? It establishes, I think, very clearly the fact that to a large extent we are Christian only in name. [True, and a Christian only in name is no Christian at all. Therefore this being a non-Christian nation the present public school system is “admirably adapted to its needs in this respect.”] Perhaps this is the reason why the present system of education is so earnestly upheld by so many. If so let its abettors avow their belief, and their advocacy and position will be consistent and intelligible. But if they will not, at least the God-fearing, right-minded, conscientious men of all denominations in the land ought not to allow themselves to be deluded any longer, and they should ask themselves the question, how far the present system of education in this country is responsible for the lack of belief that prevails in this land. I know, of course, that there are many well-meaning, honorable, high-minded Christian men in the community who are zealous upholders of the present system of public instruction. But have these ever examined the system attentively; have they considered its tendencies and marked its results? I think not. On the contrary, they take it for granted that it is a good, an excellent, aye, a most perfect system. They are strongly prejudiced in its favor; and so when anyone raises his voice against it, or attempts to point out its defects, they become irritated and excited, and like the silversmith of Ephesus they raise a mighty commotion against us. The fact is, the present system of education in this land is to the people of this country what that ugly, ill-shaped aerolite which was worshiped in the temple of Ephesus as a goddess in the days of St. Paul, was to the people of Asia Minor. That is, it is the great Diana of the Ephesians, and woe to the man who dares to attack it rudely. But like the Ephesian deity, it is worshiped because it is not understood, for when stripped of its tinsel and gaudy surroundings, it is anything but the lovable object that people take it to be; nay, it is a mighty, monstrous, insatiable Moloch to which the spiritual existence of millions of our little ones is being constantly sacrificed.
Having now directed your attention to the inconsistency of this non-Christian system259of education in a Christian land, I will next ask you to consider the dangers and alarmingly deplorable consequences that are certain to result herefrom if persevered in for any considerable time. And when I speak of dangers and deplorable consequences I do not wish to be understood as employing these terms in the religious, but rather in a temporal—national sense. Later on I will show how religion is affected by this system, but for the present I desire you to view it in connection with national interests and national prosperity. In formulating the statement then that the present mode of instruction in use in this country is dangerous and hostile to the dearest and best interests of the republic, there are many, I am sure, who can readily imagine that I am attempting too much, for there are those, and indeed I suppose they are in the majority in this land, who actually believe that the prosperity of this country is dependent on the present system of education. They really, I believe, look upon it as the very basis of the social order—the pillars of the republic and the panoply and palladium of our national greatness. Now to disabuse such persons of this most erroneous idea, I would ask them if they have ever considered on what national greatness and national prosperity must necessarily rest in order to be permanent. What is the basis of public order—how is a nation's security to be attained? Very likely such persons will tell me, by education—by enlightening the masses. True, but not by education in the pagan or non-Christian sense, for instruction to be a guarantee of permanency to the State must be of a religious character, inasmuch as the Christian republic reposes on moral principles, which, if withdrawn or ignored, the entire superstructure must necessarily come down with a crash. [Mr. Gleeson makes the same mistake that the National Reformers and all other national religionists do, that is that this is a “Christian Nation,” a “Christian republic,” etc. Then, assuming what he ought to prove, he builds up his whole false system upon his assumption, and then, like the heathen of old, he exclaims, Behold this great Babylon that I have built by the might of my power, and for the honor of my majesty.] Enlightenment alone is not sufficient to secure permanency to a nation. The history of the world is an evidence of this. Babylon and Egypt and Greece and Rome were enlightened and highly cultured in the pagan sense, but where are they now. They fell because the basis on which they reposed was of a perishable character; it was not immortal, for there is no immortal basis on which nations can repose save that furnished by Christ Jesus in the divine, imperishable principles of the Christian religion. We have with us in this matter of the necessity of combining religious with secular instruction in the training of youth, some of the greatest statesmen that have ever lived. The greatest and wisest statesmen that ever lived have acknowledged this. With your permission I will quote some extracts from their writings, showing their views on this matter. And I will begin with this country, and with one whose name is revered by every loyal American, I mean George Washington. In his farewell address, that illustrious man speaks of the religious and moral dispositions of the people as intimately connected with national prosperity, as being the very props and pillars on which human greatness necessarily rests. These are his words: “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with public and private felicity. Let it be simply asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligations desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in the courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of a peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles.” How important, then, according to the opinion of this illustrious man, is not the inculcation of moral principles into the minds of the young. [True; but he did not say that this should be done by the State. Mr. Gleeson again assumes the very thing that he should prove. The controversy is not whether religion and morality should be taught or not; it is not whether these are essential or not. This is all allowed. The question is, Shall the State teach religion and morality? The answer is, The State cannot do it. The State has neither the power nor the credentials for it. These are committed to the church. And the church in doing it, is not to do it by the power of the State, but by the power of God.] And again, the same great authority, as if in anticipation of the efforts that later on were to be made by his countrymen in essaying to teach moral obligations without the aid of religion, says: “Beware of the man who attempts to inculcate morality without religion.” Yet, in the face of this, I may say dying declaration, of this country's greatest champion, we have men calling themselves patriots—men calling themselves lovers of their country's well-being doing all in their power, working with might and main to support a system of education that rigidly excludes from the school-room the presence of religion. Have such persons ever attentively read and carefully weighed the meaning of Washington's words, “of all the dispositions and habits that lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports?” If we turn now to the great statesmen of Europe we will find the same expression of sentiment uttered by them in regard to the importance and necessity of the inculcation of ethical principles in the case of the young. Thus, that eminent Protestant minister, Portalis, who discharged the office of public instructor under Napoleon I, said: “There is no instruction without education, and no proper education without morality and dogma. We must take religion as the basis of education; and if we compare what the instruction of the present day is with what it ought to be, we cannot help deploring the lot which awaits and threatens the present and future generations.” This was thoughtful language; it was written, as one whose name I cannot recall has well remarked, by the lurid glare of the torch that had set all France in a blaze; it was written in the presence of the hecatombs of victims that had fallen before the popular fury, that had been sacrificed to the wild passions of the mob; it was written, in fine, by a man who was deploring the civil disasters that had befallen his country, and who was ready to trace them to their genuine source—the want of proper religious instruction. Another even more eminent Protestant statesman and minister of public instruction under Louis Philippe—I mean Francois Guizot—asserted the same only in different words. “In order to make popular education (said this eminent man) truly good and socially useful (mark that) it must be fundamentally religious. I do not simply mean by this that religious instruction should hold its place in popular education and that the practice of religion should enter into it; for a nation is not religiously educated by such petty mechanical devices. It is necessary that national education (I wish you would mark this) should be given and received in the midst of a religious atmosphere, and that religious impressions and religious observances should penetrate into all its parts.” No Catholic layman or Catholic clergyman could speak stronger than that. And what France's ablest statesmen have said in this regard has been echoed by England's foremost men. “Religion is not [says Lord Derby] a thing apart from education, but is interwoven into its whole system. It is a principle which controls and regulates the whole mind and happiness of the people. Public education should be considered as inseparable from religion.” “Religion [said Lord John Russell] should regulate the entire system of discipline. . . . To omit any inculcation of the duties of religion—to omit instructing the children in the principles of the love of God and the love of their neighbor, would be a grave, a serious and irreparable fault.” Now listen to what that very eminent statesman, Sir Robert Peel, said on this matter. “I am [said he] for a religious as opposed to a secular education. I believe that such an education is only half an education, but with the most important half neglected.” [These statements from Europeans were, granting that they mean all that Mr. Gleeson intends them to mean, are not pertinent to this discussion in the United States; because they were all but parts of the Church and State systems of the nations in which they lived. The United States is away ahead of all that. Mr. Gleeson and all those who would put religion into the public schools are only trying to sway this Nation back into the evil tide with those.] So say all Catholics, and so say also a large number of non-Catholics in this country, and though the majority be against us now, yet we hopefully look forward to the day when they will be on our side, and as ardent supporters as we are of religious combined with secular instruction. I will not trespass on your patience any further in this matter of quotation only while I put before you the sentiments of two more eminent statesmen, the one a German and the other an Englishman, but both non-Catholic. In 1879 Herr Von Puttkamer, then minister of public instruction, said: “I am convinced that on the day on which we cease to make the saving teachings of the gospel the basis of education, the fall of our national civilized life will be inevitable.” I would earnestly recommend the serious consideration of that statement to the men of this country who are wholly in favor of secular as opposed to secular combined with religious instruction. And I would also recommend to the same the opinion of that great and noble-hearted Englishman, Mr. W. E. Gladstone, the “Grand Old Man,” as he is called. “Every system,” says Mr. Gladstone, “which places religious education in the background is pernicious.” Mind you, Mr. Gladstone does not merely say that the purely secular system is defective, but he says it is pernicious. The present system of education then, in this country, stands condemned in the light of the utterances of some of the greatest statesmen the world has ever produced. It is a system that rests upon a popular fallacy, that is, that you can have a people moral and virtuous without being taught to be such in the schools. Nowhere in the world can an instance of this nature be pointed to as an example. On the contrary, unbelief is the natural consequence of such a system, and the very moment that Christian principles are discarded by the masses, that moment the country is in danger, for, as the immortal Washington has well remarked, religion and morality are the indispensable supports of the nation. Who are260the men, I will ask, from whom national danger may be most reasonably expected? Is it from the God-fearing, law-abiding, morally-instructed section of the community? Is it not rather from the socialists, the anarchists and bomb-throwers of the country, and are not such persons uniformly recruited from the ranks of the infidels and agnostics of this land? [Most decidedly they are not. They are almost without exception from the nations of Europe, in every one of which there is a State religion; and in which religion is an essential part of the public education.] The history of these worthies, especially in the city of Chicago, informs us of what they are capable of attempting, and what might be expected if their principles were generally accepted. On purely utilitarian principles, then, I hold that it is a duty that the people of this country owe to themselves to see that the present system of common school education prevailing in these United States be reformed, for if there be anything of value to be attached to the opinions of the eminent statesmen from whom I have quoted, it is certain that this system contains the germs of public disorder and of national calamity. The full extent of the evil may not now be easily forecast, but if the system be continued the day will come—it is bound to come—when, as unbelieving, socialistic principles will take the place of Christian ethics, a storm of popular fury will sweep this land from the Atlantic to the Pacific, leaving nothing but ruin and desolation in its track. I now turn to another aspect of this educational question. Up to this I have endeavored to point out to you its shortcomings, its unsuitableness as a system of education in a Christian land, and its dangers in regard to society. I will now advance a step farther and will ask you to consider with me its unfairness to the Catholics of this Republic. Unfortunately for us Catholics we are not properly understood in this matter. For one reason or another the general public accredits us with a most intense and insensate hatred of the system in all its parts and forms. It is thought that we see nothing but evil in everything connected with it. Now this is not exactly our position. It is true that we declaim against the system and mainly on account of its want of moral principles, but we are willing to acknowledge that there are things in the public school system of education, such as reading, writing, and arithmetic, that are admirable and which if we were in a position to-morrow we would not alter, but can the same be said of everything else? No indeed. Take for instance the department of history. Is this taught in a way that Catholics can approve of, or that leaves them without a reasonable ground of complaint. Is there nothing deficient in this branch of instruction? I wish indeed I were able to answer in the negative and to say no. But unhappily I am not, for as now taught the most important points of Christian history are kept carefully out of sight; they are wholly ignored, not being so much as alluded to, and so the system in this respect remains lamentably deficient, sadly imperfect and consequently entirely below the standard that we have a right to expect. The youth of our times and of our faith are accordingly kept in the profoundest ignorance of what they ought to know. Thus it is a historic fact that all the civilization of the world is Christian and has been created by the Catholic Church. [If this be so, why is not Mexico equal to the United States?] Who were the men who went forth as the apostles of religious and intellectual enlightenment while the nations of Europe were still in a condition of barbarism? Who lifted woman from her lowly condition as man's reputed inferior, and placed her on a level with her lord and master? Who espoused the cause of the degraded slave and succeeded to a great extent in striking the fetters from his weary limbs? Who, I ask, but the Church Catholic and her heroic children? And are these things and others of a similar nature taught to the youth of our time in the public schools of this land? Nothing of the kind, they are kept studiously from the minds of the pupils. Again, whence has civil liberty been obtained, in what does it consist, and what are its advantages? Civil liberty, as you are aware, is one of the greatest blessings a man can enjoy. It may be defined, the protection by law of the life and property of the citizen. It consists in the provisions, no representation, no taxation, no trial, no condemnation, no crime, no punishment. These are the bases of the liberties of the people of this land and of all enlightened countries to-day in the world, and whence, I ask, have they been derived? Is it from a pagan or non-Catholic source? Nothing of the kind. They have come down to us from the old Catholic times; they are as ancient as the days of Alfred the Great; and when, for a time, they were forfeited to the people by the exactions of an arbitrary monarch, was it not by a Catholic people led by an illustrious Catholic archbishop that they were restored to their place in the government of the Nation, on the ever memorable and historic plains of Runnymede. [Yes, it was. Mr. Gleeson refers here to Archbishop Langton and Magna Charta. And that “Catholic people” and “illustrious archbishop” were condemned for it all by Pope Innocent III., as conspirators against their lord, for “audacious wickedness committed in contempt of the apostolic See.” Not only was the Catholic archbishop and the people thus condemned, but the great charter itself was condemned in these words: “We therefore, with the advice of our brethren, altogether reprove and condemn this charter, prohibiting the king, under pain of anathema, from observing it, the barons from exacting its observation; we declare the said charter, with all its obligations and guarantees, absolutely null and void.” The appointment of the archbishop was annulled, and another substituted for him. Yes, Mr. Gleeson's statement is true, and with truth it has been observed that among the miracles of that age the greatest miracle of all was that a Catholic archbishop should be more of a patriot than he was a priest. Undoubtedly the only righteous miracle that ever appeared in the history of the Catholic Church, and, consistently enough, the Pope condemned it.] Whence, too, I may ask, have the principles of the common law of this and other civilized nations been derived? Most assuredly from the Canon or the ecclesiastical law of our ancient church; for our common law, which is the basis of our entire system of jurisprudence, is nothing but the development or the application of the Canon law to civil cases. [That is also true, and the doctrine is worthy of its origin. We shall pay our respects to the common law doctrine at another time. We have not space here.] And now I ask once more, are such things as these ever taught our Catholic youth in the public schools of this land? Indeed they are not. They are not even hinted at, and so our young people are kept in the profoundest ignorance of what they ought to have a right to know. May I not fairly ask, then is that a just—an equitable—system that will keep our people in shameful ignorance of what they ought to know. And as it is in these instances which I have now mentioned, so it is in every other where the honor and the glory of the Catholic Church is concerned. In other words everything that can in any way tell for the credit of our holy religion is either kept out of view, or if mentioned at all, is set forth in so meager and half-hearted a way as to convey only a mere moiety of the truth. Hence it is not surprising that there are constantly leaving the schools of this country Catholic youths who are in the profoundest ignorance of many of the grandest truths of Christian history, as if these had never been written. They leave these schools without the remotest idea, without the slightest suspicion of what the Catholic Church has done for the interest of science and the diffusion of general knowledge. Nay, it is even more likely that they go forth with the impression that the Catholic Church has been an impediment, a stumbling-block in the way of learning. And, so, if you ask them who have been the greatest patrons of learning in the world, who have done most to bring knowledge within the reach of the masses, the last names that will occur to their minds will be those of the Popes of Rome. If you ask them who have been the founders of the great Universities of the world—who pushed forward the landmarks of discovery in the various departments of knowledge—to whom are we indebted for the inductive or experimental method of study by which such magnificent results have been obtained in the natural and physical sciences—if you ask them who were the men who gave the greatest impetus to astronomical study while that department of learning was still in its infancy—who led the way in mathematical discovery, in all probability the youths of whom I speak will reply by saying that they are matters to which their attention was never directed. And then if you tell them that the greatest names on the roll of science—the Descartes, the Bacons, the Albertus Magnuses, the Gerberts, the Brahes, the Copernicuses, the De Vincis, and a host of others hardly less celebrated, were all, all Catholics; if you tell them that to an Egyptian monk we are indebted for the first correct ideas that were ever had regarding the geography of the globe, that to a Roman monk is to be attributed the honor of having introduced into Europe the first system of chronology, that to the famous abbot Gassendi belongs the glory of being the first to observe the transit of Mercury over the disc of the sun; that to Piazzi, a Theatine monk is to be accorded the praise of having discovered the first of the asteroids; that Orioli, a Catholic priest, was the first to determine the orbit of the planet Uranus; that it was a Catholic, Leverrier, who discovered Neptune, the most distant planet in the solar system; if you tell them these and a thousand like things equally creditable to our holy religion, all this will come upon them like a revelation from heaven, and they will acknowledge with shame and chagrin that they have never been properly taught. [Every pupil in the public schools of the country is taught all this, except that these men were Roman Catholics. But what legitimate part of the teachings could that be? Every pupil is taught for instance that Leverrier discovered Neptune; but what is it to the pupil whether Leverrier was a Protestant or a Jew or a Roman Catholic or a Mohammedan. That is no essential part of either public or private instruction.] And now may I not fairly ask once more, is this a system that we Catholics can heartily endorse, with which we can expect to be contented? But it is not merely that this system of public school education in this country is defective in leaving out what it ought to teach, and thereby keeping the youth in our times in shameful ignorance of what they ought to know, but I furthermore charge it as being a vehicle of gross un-261truth. Don't imagine that I have come here to-day to make a statement of this nature without being able to substantiate it. Well, many of you may have heard of the commotion that was raised in Boston a couple of years ago by the introduction into the public schools of that city, of a book in which it was stated that the doctrine of indulgences was a pardon for sins, and that as such the Catholic Church commended their sale. [It was not so stated. It was said that they “were remissions of the penances imposed upon persons whose sins had brought scandal on the community.” Then it was said that “in process of time they were represented as actual pardons of guilt, and the purchaser was said to be delivered from all his sins.” All of which we at the time proved to be true by the evidence of Catholic history and Catholic Archbishops.] Now, I need not go so far as Boston to find something of a like nature to this. The general history used in the higher grades in the public schools on the Coast, up to very recently, and as far as I know may even yet, in some instances, has been Barnes's, and at page 438 of that work the author thus expresses himself on the subject of indulgences: “In 1517, there came into Saxony, one Tetzel, a Dominican Friar (mark the discourteous language, one Tetzel), selling indulgences. The wickedness and impudence of this man, who was better fitted to receive than dispense pardon for sin, aroused general indignation.” Now, if this means anything at all, it means that indulgences are a pardon from sin, and that as such they were sold by the Catholic Church. Again, at page 321, the same writer tells his young readers that it was only in the sixth century that the Pope of Rome became the head of the Catholic Church. When speaking of the conversion of the Lombards to Christianity, he says: “The people, who until the overthrow of the emperor had been accustomed to depend upon Rome for political guidance, naturally continued to look thither for spiritual counsel and (now mark you) the Bishop of Rome insensibly became head of the Catholic Church.” That is, it was by political circumstances that the Bishop or Pope of Rome became the head of our holy church. [And that is the literal truth. It was altogether by religio-political circumstances that the Bishop of Rome became the head of the Catholic Church. The difficulty with the papal system is that it is diametrically opposed to everything that is true, and it would be impossible to teach any truth in the history of Europe in the Christian era that would suit that system.] What a monstrous, what a shameful and bare-faced untruth! Mr. Barnes may be, in social and domestic life, an excellent man; of that I have no knowledge; but one thing I do know, and that is that he is not qualified to write a general history for the Catholic youth of this Coast. Still again, at page 265 of the same work, the same writer complacently tells us that Julian the apostate, the greatest enemy the Christian cause ever had on earth, not even excepting the cruel Nero or the bloody Diocletian, was an excellent man. And that is the history that the Catholics of our public schools are required to learn, that is the history that Catholic parents are required to purchase and put into the hands of their sons and daughters to learn. This I indignantly declare, is an insult to our reason and an indignity to our faith. It is an evil that should not be tolerated to exist for a day in our midst. [In point of disposition and character it is certain that Julian was a better man than either Constantine or Theodosius or Justinian; and a much better man than many of the Popes.] And now, what is the remedy for such a condition of things as this? What is it that we Catholics have a just right to demand under the circumstances? It is beyond all manner of contradiction a change, a reformation of the entire system, and such a reformation as will bring back the system to its original condition, to its first principles. For it must be remembered that when first started the public school system of this country was not what it is now. Then, it was Christian, now it is anti-Christian. Then it was religious, now it is secular. Then, in a word, the persons having it in charge proceeded on the lines of making virtuous citizens by the dual process of moral combined with secular instruction, while now the same is attempted by purely secular means. Again, the Catholics claim and call for a reformation of this matter for the reason that, as now administered, it is in direct conflict with the spirit and letter of the Constitutional law of this Republic, which secures to each of us, independent of creed or persuasion, an absolute freedom from all religious intolerance, while here we have forced on us by the will of the majority a system of instruction which we are ready to show has been and is robbing our little ones by the thousand and by the million of what is dearer to them than their very existence—the faith of their fathers. Who gave the State the absolute dominion over the finances of the whole country for such an ignoble purpose as this? Was it the object for which the public school system of this country was established, to destroy the faith of the Catholic people? [No, neither to destroy it nor to build it up. Nor was it either to destroy or build up the faith of any other people.] It is a principle laid down in that magnificent document, the Declaration of Independence, drawn up in 1776, that there shall be no taxation without representation. It had been the violation of this principle on the part of the King of England, that led to the achievement of the liberties of this country. For, be it understood, that it was not the taxation of the colonies, but the taxation without representation that led to the war of Independence. When, then, you support or endorse a system of this nature, you strike at the very root of constitutional liberty—you sap the very foundations on which our national greatness as a great liberal nation repose, and so, sooner or later, the evil consequences of such a proceeding are certain to be felt—sooner or later the bitter fruits of such a policy are certain to be tasted. What then is the duty of the loyal, God-fearing Christian men of this land. It is to make common cause against this common enemy. It is to check by every means in their power the onward march of the hosts of unbelief and infidelity that are now solidly marching forward with such giant strides through the length and breadth of this great Nation, and for the existence of which the common school system is mainly responsible. Do not imagine that I am alone in entertaining this idea of the spread of unbelief and the cause to which it should be attributed. It has been publicly avowed and frankly acknowledged by the very mouthpiece of the apostle of infidelity in this land, for has not that hater of everything Christian, Col. R. Ingersoll, openly declared that he regarded the public school buildings of this country as the future cathedrals of the Nation. [We are not infidels, nor are we haters of anything Christian, but we must confess that Mr. Ingersoll's statement is, we fear, not far wrong, in view of the attacks of both the Catholic hierarchy and the would-be Protestant hierarchy, upon the public school.] The duty of all loyal, God-fearing Christian men, then, I repeat it, is to make common cause against this common foe. We should be one and all ready to sink our differences, to put aside our prejudices, and so stand shoulder to shoulder in our efforts to keep this land Christian. If the men of other denominations are wise they will join with us in this struggle for reform, for if they do not the loss will be greater for them than for us. For while we, with the efforts we are making, will keep a very large proportion of our people, they will be completely abandoned by their own. Do not imagine that I am alone in entertaining this opinion. It has been acknowledged by some of the ablest and farthest seeing men of the Protestant community. And not to go beyond the city of San Francisco for instance, the Rev. Dr. Platt of Grace Church used the following remarkable words twelve years ago in connection with this affair. Extract from Dr. Platt's sermon:—
“As Protestants we should Christianize our education, because, first, if our secular schools were intended exclusively to build up Protestantism, they are a great blunder, for they are breaking it down. . . . Secular schools in the interest of Protestantism are a fatal blunder. . . . Secularism saves nothing, not even itself. As to Protestantism it is only a question of time when our present system of public schools will render it a dead factor. The issue is by these schools, narrowing the controversy down to Romanism on the one hand and infidelity on the other. . . . As American citizens we should Christianize our education. When religion fails all fails. True liberty and immorality are strangers, but immorality and despotism are allies.” These are remarkable words and deserve to be laid to heart and carefully studied by the entire Protestant community. [That is true, and it is so of every other such utterance by professed Protestants; for they are not Protestants, but Catholics. And such a system favored by any Protestant is a direct play into the hands of the Roman Catholic enemy of the American public school.] In fine then, we Catholics call for a reformation of the public school system of education, because it is dangerous to the well-being of the community, because it is the parent of infidelity, an abridgement of our constitutional rights, and destructive of parental authority.