Untitled article by E. E. Parlin

Pacific Press Publishing Company · New York · June 7, 1894

The Policy of Rome.

By E. E. Parlin

It is a somewhat suggestive fact that in nearly all the large Catholic gatherings of late the burden of the discourses delivered have been reiterations of intense patriotism and loyalty to American institutions. It almost leads to the conclusion that, after all, there is just ground for believing the truth of the assertions that the papacy is at variance with the principles of this Government. These noisy and oft-repeated declarations are almost too unanimous, and would indicate that an organized effort was really being made to subvert the principles of this Government, and that these multiplied assurances were given to cover an ulterior purpose which is carefully sought to be concealed. The invidious hints with regard to errors in the public school system, division of creeds, frequency of divorce, the so-called higher criticism, and the growing infidelity of the age, which are all boldly attributed to Protestantism, are pointed out as the natural outcome of the work of the Reformation. In contrast with this, Roman Catholicism is heralded and championed as the defender of temperance, of morality, of the marriage contract, of religious liberty, of the Bible, of the Word of God, and the supreme exponent and teacher of Christian truth. The Catholic Church alone, if we are to believe her own statements, is society’s only safeguard, and has the exclusive power to bring order and happiness out of the condition of anarchy and chaos which is everywhere undermining the foundations of law and order. In these various ways a deep and carefully prepared scheme is being wrought out by which Rome is seeking to establish the fulfillment of the vision of Archbishop Hennessey

referred to in a sermon delivered by him at Chicago. In a burst of oratory, while the audience sat spellbound under his words, he dramatically exclaimed:—

I can see in a vision the future of America and the Catholic Church, wherein she will be again called the Great Ireland of the West. I can see bishops, priests, monasteries, schools and colleges, all yielding their wisdom for the benefit of their host of students, who are coming to this new Ireland as immigrants to Christ. I can see the nations of Europe and Africa all bowing in reverence before the Church of God. I would fain hope for this condition, and love to think of it.

This growing conviction of the existence of a deep and carefully prepared plan to undermine the principles of civil and religious liberty, which has been enjoyed to such a pre-eminent degree in this country, finds ample corroboration in the events which have transpired within a few short years. Realizing that the success of social or political revolutions depends largely upon public sentiment, Rome has for years been seeking to turn the minds of the young to her communion. The efforts that she has made to secure State aid to her parochial schools, or to place Catholic educators in the public schools of this country, have been long and patiently persevered in. The methods of procedure have not always been the same, but no sooner has she suffered defeat in one direction, than she has industriously applied herself in another. While the character of Romanism never changes, she becomes all things to all men, till she can accomplish her purpose. Underneath an affectation of liberality and freedom, she is secretly laying her snares and planning her devices with consummate wisdom and subtlety.

The recent agitation in regard to securing a division of the school funds in the States of New York, Maryland and elsewhere, has led to a more careful study and a better understanding of the position of the papacy upon the school question. The present attack, however, which is being made upon the public school system, is so radically different from that which met its defeat a few years ago in Maryland, that one is apt to lose sight of the fact that both received their inspiration from the same source. A reference to the main points involved in that case will at once enable us to discover that the same masterly spirit which led the attack in that conflict, is prompting the present movement.

THE MARYLAND CASE.

The Maryland case (45, Maryland Reports, 310), briefly, was as follows:—

By city ordinance, approved June 12, 1875, the city of Baltimore appropriated certain sums of money to various enterprises, including four Roman Catholic institutions: St. Mary’s Industrial School for Boys, the Maryland Industrial School for Girls, the St. Vincent’s Infant Asylum of the city of Baltimore, and the Maryland Institute for the Promotion of the Mechanic Arts.

On June 28, following, George S. Brown, William G. Harrison and others, at the instance of the Protestant clergy of Baltimore, secured a temporary injunction from the Circuit Court of Baltimore City prohibiting the mayor and city council of Baltimore from paying, and these four institutions from demanding, the money which had been appropriated for them.

On the 18th of February, 1876, this temporary injunction was ordered continued until the final hearing or further order.

From this order of the Circuit Court appeals were taken to the supreme court of the State. An abstract of the decision of the supreme court, which was handed down June 22, of the same year, is as follows:—

These appellants were among a number of other institutions to which appropriations were made by the city ordinance, approved on the 12th of June, 1875, making general appropriations for that year. The appropriations to these Roman Catholic institutions were classed under the head of “City Poor,” and were of specific sums of money, without reference to, or mention of, any relation or agency between the city and those institutions.

It was contended by Brown, Harrison, and others, representing the Protestant portion of the community, that the four Roman Catholic institutions above-mentioned were organized for the administration of private charities, mostly under the control of churches or religious denominations, and that they were in no sense public institutions; that they were not under the control or supervision of the city or of the State, but that they were, on the contrary, organized, composed and managed by private citizens.

The representatives of these Catholic institutions claimed that their work had been such as properly pertained to the municipal government, and that they were charitable and benevolent institutions. It was contended that the St. Mary’s Industrial School for Boys, the Maryland Industrial School for Girls, and the St. Vincent’s Infant Asylum of the city of Baltimore, had been organized for the purpose of fostering, reforming, and educating the poorer children of the city, thus relieving the city of an expense which it would otherwise have to meet. In the case of the Maryland Institute for the Promotion of the Mechanic Arts, they maintained it to be simply an important adjunct to the public school system of the city. The Catholics denied that they were private corporations, but claimed, on the contrary, to be public institutions, managed for public purposes, and therefore entitled to the appropriations made for them as of right.

In substantiation of the claim that they were public institutions, and therefore entitled to be supported from the public treasury, attention was called to the fact that, in the case of St. Mary’s Industrial School for Boys, the governor of the State and the mayor of the city of Baltimore each appointed, every two years, three persons to represent the State and city in the board of trustees. In the Maryland Industrial School for Girls, the governor of the State was empowered to appoint ten, and the mayor of the city of Baltimore, five, of the thirty trustees composing the board of that institution.

The court, in passing upon this feature of the controversy, stated that the object, manifestly, in providing such representation in those institutions was for the purpose of removing an objection made by some portions of the community, that they were private corporations, and consequently not entitled to receive appropriations from the public treasury. That such trustees and directors did not, in fact, control the institutions, nor were they clothed with any State or municipal authority, but they were directed, controlled and limited in the exercise of powers and duties solely by the charters and by-laws of the institutions.

It was further contended by the representatives of the Catholic institutions that they had been performing functions and duties that rightfully pertained and belonged to the city government; that it was the duty of the municipal authorities to establish and maintain institutions of like character to those which they had established; and inasmuch as no such institutions had been provided by the city, therefore it was competent for the city to provide by taxation for their support.

After a careful consideration of all the facts the court stated that it utterly failed to discover any express power, or any fair implication, by which the appropriations to these four Roman Catholic institutions, in the manner in which they had been made, could be sustained. That they were made without terms or conditions, and the institutions could receive the money thus appropriated, and the day after, in the exercise of the powers completely in their control, discharge every inmate received from the city. That the city council, in making these appropriations, entirely abdicated all discretion over the subject of their application. They became, therefore, mere donations. That the city council had no power to make appropriations to these institutions simply as such, nor because merely of the very humane and laudable objects and purposes for which they were created by their founders and promoters. The same principle, it was declared, that would sustain these appropriations, would equally sustain appropriations to every private school and private charity in the city. And once concede the power to make them, and it would be in vain to invoke the courts to exercise discretion as to any limit in the amount or extent of them.

It was stated that the fact that the institutions were under denominational or religious control, could in no manner affect their qualification for assuming such relation to the city, or for the full and faithful discharge of the duties they might be expected to perform. It could, therefore, be no objection, in itself, that the institutions were under the control and influence of those belonging to any particular church or denomination.

Finding no warrant or authority to justify the appropriations to these various institutions, the court declared it had no alternative but to declare them void, and the decree continuing the injunction was confirmed and perpetuated.

The importance of this case can hardly be overestimated. In several States this decision has been referred to and commented upon as establishing the correct doctrine with regard to sectarian appropriations of public moneys. What might have been the result had the court before whom these cases were reviewed been predisposed to sympathize with the movement to maintain sectarian institutions at public expense, is something which dawns upon us with appalling suddenness. America would have presented to the world the spectacle of a nation, blessed as no other on earth has ever been, stricken with a paralysis as deadly and fatal to her vitality and growth as ever struck down the strong man in the prime of life. Had Rome been successful in that movement, its multitude of priests, monks, nuns, and sisters, would have established Catholic schools and so-called benevolent institutions without number, and a system as burdensome to the people as was ever created, would have been inaugurated in this country. The way would have been prepared for such an onslaught, not only

upon the treasuries of municipal corporations, but also upon the treasuries of the various States and of the Federal Government itself, as would have proved as great a drain upon the people of America as the maintenance of standing armies is to the nations of Europe.

Is the present attitude of Rome in regard to our public school system any more favorable to the interests of America? Less than twenty years ago she met with crushing defeat along the old lines, and to-day we are brought face to face with a no less dangerous policy, which seeks, merely by other means, to commit this Government to a union of Church and State, and the support of sectarian institutions. Under the plea of justice, or of right, or as a favor, as may best serve her purpose, while at the same time, in every possible way, depreciating the work of the Reformation and progress, Rome, true to her nature, is again artfully intriguing for the accomplishment of the same ends. Whether she will succeed in her purpose is the question which the people of this country will have to answer within a few short years. Which will it be?

E. E. PARLIN.