LCin 
 
LC 111 
 .V7 
 
 ^°Py ^ PRICE TEN CENTS. 
 
 V 
 
 A VOICE FROM THE ROMAN CATHOLIC LAITY. 
 
 The Parochial School Question 
 
 AN OPEN LETTER 
 
 To Bishop Keane, Rector of the New Catholic 
 University, at Washington, D.C, 
 
 IRISH CATHOLIC LAYMAN. 
 
 AN APPEAL TO ALL CLASSES, BUT ESPECIALLY TO OUR 
 ROMAN CATHOLIC FELLOW-CITIZENS, TO MAKE COM- 
 MON CAUSE FOR THE PRESERVATION INTACT 
 OF OUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS AS AGAINST 
 ALL FOREIGN INTERMEDDLING, 
 
 
 3>»iC 
 
 BOSTON, MASS.: 
 
 ARNOLD PUBLISHING ASSOCIATION. 
 
 I 890. 
 
TO THE PUBLIC. ^ \ J' 
 
 // has been dear from the hour when the question 
 of Parochial versus Public ScJjools was forced upon 
 tJje American people and the Roman Catholic Church 
 by an Italian ecclesiastic and ins counsellors, timt a 
 'd^e minority, if not an actual majority, of our 
 Caiijolic fellow- citizens were one with tJje American 
 public in opposition to tlie wioole scioeme. 
 
 Tins pampJAet and '" TIm Two Sides of tlje School 
 Oil est ion" place witinn every ones reach tJje' means of 
 seeing t/je questions involved, as viewed by Americans, 
 as voiced by the higijest Roman Catijolic ecclesiastics, 
 and as looiied upon by intelligent CatJjolic laymen 
 wJjose success in life Jjas grown so largely out of our 
 beneficent system of Free Common ScJjools. 
 
 We ask editors, educators, legislators, and public- 
 spirited citizens to aid us in scattering t/jese pamphlets 
 as a Ijelp to tlje formation of an intelligent and un- 
 eiubittered (because both sides iMve been as fairly as 
 possible considered) public sentiment, wijere CatJjolics 
 and Protestants sliall unite as Americans to main- 
 tain and perpefuate for all generations our Public 
 Scijool System. 
 
 ARNOLD PUBLISHING ASSOC! ATIOM. 
 
 Boston, Mass., 1890 
 
 Copyright, 1890,:^)/ Arnold Piiblisiiing Association, 
 
AN OPEN LETTER 
 
 PAROCHIAL SCHOOL QUESTION 
 
 BV AN IRISH-CATHOLIC LAYMAN> 
 
 To the Right Rev. Bishop Keane, Rector of the Catholic 
 University at WasJiingtoJi. 
 
 Sir, — As a Catholic American citizen, I have some criti- 
 cism to offer to the public upon several points of the lecture 
 which you recently delivered in various cities in New England 
 on the school question, and later at Baltimore, and which it 
 is presumably your intention to deliver at other places in the 
 future. 
 
 The Church must put up with Free Speech. 
 
 It will no doubt strike you as very singular that a member 
 of the Catholic laity should have any opinion to express on 
 the question of education contrary to those formulated by his 
 clerical superiors, and as more than singular that he should 
 have the audacity to express it in public print. Such things, 
 however, are possible, even in the most strictly governed 
 churches. This is true, at least, in free-spoken America. Here 
 the recent encyclical dictum, that " The actions of superiors 
 ought not to be struck at by the sword of speech, even when 
 they appear to merit a censure," will be apt to remind even 
 
 ^ The name of the author of this Open Letter is withheld for obvious reasons. 
 He is well and widely known in his own special lines, is an honest, earnest Roman 
 Catholic, and is vouched for by professional and public men, and business houses 
 whose names would be recognized anywhere in the United States. — Ed. 
 
the Catholic reader, who gives it any thought, of its more 
 venerable cousin-german, that other obsolete precept of cleri- 
 cal teaching, that a man should not aspire to rise out of *' the 
 condition in which God had placed him," which so long did 
 service as a justification for the oppression of the masses and 
 slavery. In this age every man that is a man tries to rise, 
 — wants to improve *his condition, — that venerable clerical 
 doctrine to the contrary notwithstanding, just as a priest 
 might strive to become a bishop and a bishop an archbishop, 
 and so on upward to the papacy itself. Sons and daughters of 
 Irish laborers, in America, struggle bravely upward into the 
 professions, and America leads the world in freedom of speech. 
 Free speech, sir, makes free men ; free men will have free 
 speech. Only the enslaved and the gagged are silent. The 
 intelligence that would be free and grow has for its goal free 
 speech, the guide of progress and censor of the world's wrong- 
 doing. Perfect free speech will be the journeyman stage of 
 civilization. The Church's dictum, " Censure not the actions 
 of your superiors, even when they appear to merit censure," 
 would land us back in the very first stage of modern civiliza- 
 tion's apprenticeship, such as the Dark Ages knew. To-day 
 the theory obtains that the wrong-doer is the more censurable 
 for being a superior. Since mediaeval times the light of 
 intelligence has spread far and wide, illumining dark places, 
 restraining and thwarting oppression, dethroning humbug and 
 false pretence, pressing backward the wolves of humankind 
 from their human prey, — and free speech has been its fore- 
 runner and herald. Mankind knows well its power for good, 
 the oppressed and oppressor alike. Every friend of freedom 
 is its champion, every enemy its adversary. The Russians 
 strive for it ; the Irish have suffered for it ; Americans account 
 it the very breath of their life. Submission and silence have 
 ever been the desire of the tyrant, and of all who would make 
 mankind the instrument of their own ends. The Czar applies 
 the gag in Russia, but the Church cannot do it in America. 
 " Actions, when they appear to merit a censure," will be cen- 
 sured, even those of ecclesiastical superiors, especially when. 
 
as in this school question, which the ecclesiastics have forced 
 upon us, the interests not only of the Irish race here, but of 
 the whole American people, are involved and put in jeopardy. 
 
 The Question should be discussed on its Merits 
 
 Alone. 
 
 This trouble about the schools has not been of the making 
 of the Catholic laity ; it has been thrust upon them by their 
 ecclesiastical superiors. Yet, sharp though my words may 
 sometimes be, what I have to say in censure of the parochial 
 system I would say without respect or disrespect of persons. 
 I would use the " sword of speech " upon the idea, not upon 
 the man. The man in so weighty a discussion is of really 
 very little account : the mechanism of the electric-light is of 
 small consequence compared with the illumination which it 
 gives. The illumination — the idea — is the main thing. 
 It makes no difference in this discussion who you are or who 
 I am, in our proper person, so long as our relationship to the 
 subject is known. You are a bishop, I am a layman ; you 
 present the Catholic Church's Roman view, I the Catholic 
 American citizen's. The idea is the meat of the egg, the 
 disputant the shell, whose color (the breed of the bird being 
 known) is given hardly a passing thought. But if the meat 
 be " off color," that is of prime importance. (The American 
 people, for example, consider your school scheme " off color," 
 and refuse to swallow it.) In a word, in this discussion I 
 would be as impersonal toward you, sir, and your fellow- 
 promoters of the parochial scheme as I should be if I were 
 engaged in debate with just so many phonographs into which 
 you had spoken. I feel superior to any wish to offend any 
 of you personally. I would pray the bishop for this occasion 
 to lay aside his robes and mitre and step down in plain 
 clothes (just as he was before he had ever worn any other) 
 to the level of the mere layman, where we may talk pro and 
 con with entire equality of station and freedom from re- 
 straint, as equal American citizens should. And if you will 
 
not, I would ask you to look far and away behind me to that 
 great "silent majority" of Catholic laity in whose interest I 
 primarily speak, and to reflect for a moment, if, in a hemi- 
 sphere where the best of Catholic emperors is dethroned and 
 exiled in one and the same day to make way for government 
 by the people, the enlightened Catholic laity of the United 
 States may not be a quantity whose temporal interests are 
 worthy of consideration in a matter which concerns them 
 and theirs so deeply as does this momentous question of 
 schools. 
 
 Let us mark this point well, sir : While the Catholic clergy 
 in America might fare as well as ever they did, no matter 
 how embittered this school agitation should grow to be, the 
 laity could not fail to suffer great injury, in various ways, 
 some of which they have experienced already, as you must 
 know. I will go into this point quite fully as we proceed. 
 
 Authorship of the Lecture, and the Scheme 
 proposed. 
 
 I believe I make no mistake in accepting the opinion, 
 which your position and utterance warrant, that you are 
 the appointed spokesman of the Congregatio de Propaganda 
 Fide, at Rome, on this question in the United States. You 
 are a bishop of the Church, and rector of the Catholic Uni- 
 versity at Washington ; and your lecture, I think it may 
 fairly be assumed, has been dictated or revised, in substance, 
 if not literally and in form, by those superiors at Rome who 
 prepared the policy which you proclaim ; that, in short, your 
 utterance was the official message of the Catholic Church 
 upon the school question to all the people and creeds in the 
 United States. 
 
 I purpose in this letter to examine this school scheme, and 
 its many present and probable effects upon Catholics and the 
 country, in detail, conforming throughout to your declaration 
 that in discussing this question we are not debarred from 
 having " a clear and strong conviction concerning it." The 
 
5 
 
 subject, sir, is too important for any intelligent, sincere man, 
 especially if he be patriotic, not to feel strongly upon it. 
 
 Your proposition, as I interpret your very diplomatically 
 phrased lecture, is this, that every denomination educate its 
 own children in separate schools, at the expense of the State, 
 " the churches to attend to the religious training of the chil- 
 dren in the schools . . . zvithout atiy additional expense ; " 
 the State "to have control so far as the secular education or 
 all that concerns civil rights is concerned." This, of course, 
 means the total extinction of the common schools, and the 
 division of the school fund, or taxes raised for school purposes 
 (if not also the then existing common school property) pro 
 rata among the churches. 
 
 What Catholics suffer from Parochial Schools. 
 
 Let us now consider for a moment, the many temporal 
 evils which are now, and promise to be in the future, only in 
 greater degree, inflicted upon the Catholics of America by 
 the establishment of parochial schools, (i) It taxes them 
 doubly, and unnecessarily, for education ; (2) it creates ill- 
 will for them among their non-Catholic fellow-citizens, whom 
 it causes to look upon them somewhat in the light of public 
 enemies, yet with whom they would gladly live in peace and 
 good-will ; (3) it shuts Catholics out of public office to a very 
 great extent, except in the few small spots, generally a 
 ward or two of a city, where the voters of their own church 
 are in the majority ; (4) it tends to drive away Protestant 
 patronage from the Catholic engaged in business or the pro- 
 fessions ; (5) it, quite naturally also, works against the ad- 
 vancement of the Catholic skilled or unskilled laborer, giving 
 the Protestant employe the preference, the mass of employers 
 being Protestants ; (6) and, in general, it isolates the Catho- 
 lics from the rest of the community, carrying forward the 
 foreign nationality of the Catholic immigrant with its many 
 attendant disadvantages, into the succeeding generations of 
 his descendants, tending to fasten them for an indefinite 
 
period in the grasp of the inferior position and regard in 
 which he was held in the beginning. Thus, while Protestant 
 immigrants, or, at the farthest, their American-born children, 
 become known as Americans, possessing all the " coigns of 
 vantage " in the body politic which that appellation carries 
 with it, the American-born Catholics are in a fair — and 
 "when fair most foul" — way of being through all their 
 generations designated by the nationality of their immigrant 
 ancestors — as "foreigners." We already see this thing in 
 operation to a- serious extent in Massachusetts ; serious, not 
 only as regards the Catholic citizens, toward whom it is 
 unjust, but also for the continued peace and welfare of the 
 State, since its tendency is to develop within the State a 
 sort of hnperium in iinperio — a large semi-foreign body per- 
 petuating its foreign ideas, and finally embittered against 
 the State by the sense of deprivation of equality of rights at 
 the hands of the majority, who monopolize the name of 
 Americans ; a condition of affairs which, when this subject 
 element should themselves become the majority, could only 
 result in counter persecutions, and perhaps civil war. Spread 
 out thus, the situation is not a pretty picture for the patriot 
 or the humanitarian to contemplate. The cause to-day is 
 traceable to the ordinary sectarianism, greatly aggravated 
 during the past few years by the presence of the parochial 
 schools, which qan grow only more obnoxious the more they 
 increase in number, rendering the situation in each year more 
 intolerable than in the year preceding. It has reached such 
 a pass now that patriotic men, taking warning of the baneful 
 effects — the mutually destructive effects, as regards the par- 
 ticipants — of similar bigotries in older countries, as Ireland 
 for instance, and in contemporary Canada, must wish to see 
 this thing go no further, and the sores that have been opened 
 enter upon their period of healing, and Massachusetts (and 
 equally the country as a whole) resume her proper task of 
 assimilating all her elements of population into one grand 
 and harmonious nationality. 
 
 Thus, to return to the point of view of the Catholic lay- 
 
man, the parochial school system exerts upon the Catholic 
 American, at every stage of his existence, a damaging influ- 
 ence from which, while its cause lasts, he cannot possibly 
 escape ; presenting itself before him at every turn, as if he 
 were haunted by the angry spirit of that American national- 
 ity into which he was adopted or was born, and which, by 
 his apparent allegiance to an un-American system, he had 
 seemed to scorn and discard. The country is interested to 
 see whether the Catholic American will continue to allow 
 himself to be fixed in this false position, or whether, reason- 
 ably mindful of himself and his posterity, and of the opin- 
 ions of mankind, he will release himself from it in the simple 
 way which lies open to him, and return to the only system of 
 education that is in harmony with the genius of the civiliza- 
 tion of his age and country, — that of the unsectarian com- 
 mon school, freed from sectarian topics and influences, as an 
 ideal workshop might be where youthful apprentices were 
 taught the useful trades, and relegating the religious educa- 
 tion of the children to its proper precincts, those of the 
 Church and the home. 
 
 Natural Effects of Separate Schools for Different 
 Creeds, in Europe and America. 
 
 You say, very truly, that " this country is moulding to- 
 gether the most heterogeneous people the sun shines upon." 
 Here, by implication, and, farther on in your lecture, by an 
 indirect expression, you intimate that you would do nothing 
 to " break up and destroy the homogeneity of the American 
 people." But, sir, is not your church-school scheme the very 
 thing, of all others, to bring about this destruction ? I firmly 
 believe it is. How can the blending of this republic's popu- 
 lation into one people be promoted by the keeping separate 
 the various elements which compose it.-* How advance union 
 by secession ? The parochial school movement is a secession 
 from the public schools, which stand for union. The adop- 
 tion of the complete scheme advocated in your lecture would 
 
lead to still further disintegration. It would make every 
 sect a secessionist. It would impede the assimilation of 
 the American people as nothing else could do, while they 
 remained under one flag. The principle of the scheme is 
 akin to that of the old exploded states-rights idea — the 
 claim of the right of each State to secede from the Union at 
 will. This cannot well hope to flourish in a soil where that 
 decayed. That was far, far stronger at the start than yours 
 is now, or can ever hope to be. Millions of patriotic Ameri- 
 cans had grown up inheriting the belief that the states^ 
 rights idea was native, indigenous, to the soil ; not one 
 American thinks that the parochial school is such. It is 
 wholly foreign, in repute as well as in fact. As an agency 
 obstructive to the amalgamation of the American people, the 
 adoption of the scheme of a parochial school for every sect 
 would be much more efficient than successful Southern se- 
 cession, which would divide the population into only two 
 parts, while the church-school system would separate it into 
 many. The one would give us union "on the half-shell," the 
 other would "smash it into smithereens." The establish- 
 ment of the Confederacy would have sundered the country 
 into two large islands ; the church-school system would cut 
 it up into a Polynesia, the brackish waters of sectarian 
 hatreds lying between them, ever growing wider and bitterer, 
 ever more impassable to the young or the old, till men would 
 look on the political map of the world for the free America 
 of to-day as vainly as for the lost Atlantis that lies buried in 
 the ocean. 
 
 It is this tremendous power for mischief latent in the paro- 
 chial school system, and already seen to be at work, which • 
 forms in the minds of Protestant Americans not only, but 
 also of Catholics themselves, the first great objection to its 
 existence. The Catholic schools are but a partial application 
 of it, the scheme in its entirety taking in all of the denomina- 
 tions, if they would but have it. But this partial trial is 
 enough (if any evidence had been needed) to show that the 
 tendency of the pai^ochial school in general is to arouse relig- 
 
ious antipathies, set citizen against citizen, promote injustice, 
 and eventually to endanger public order. As a first effect, 
 those now in existence separate the school-children of the 
 community into two classes, Catholic and non-Catholic, which 
 in this case will mean anti-Catholic, engendering prejudices 
 which tend to keep them, though citizens and mostly natives 
 of a common country, separated through life. These prej- 
 udices give rise to opprobrious epithets, nicknames, and the 
 like, always more or less active in thought, and only too fre- 
 quently heard in acrimonious expression. I have had expe- 
 rience in this, having been in early youth a pupil at a school 
 conducted by a Catholic Church in England. We Catholic 
 children grew to cordially dislike the children who attended 
 the Protestant schools, to the extent of seeking them out 
 and throwing stones at them, particularly on the anniversary 
 of the patron saint of Irish Catholics, and frequently upon 
 other occasions ; while the Protestant boys retaliated with 
 stones and offensive epithets, principally the latter, which 
 were used to make life miserable for us throughout the year. 
 To the Protestant lads we were always " Paddies " and 
 "Papists." We Catholics, on our side, believed them to be 
 thoroughly bad, fit only to be drubbed in this life, and damned 
 in the next, because they were not Catholics ; i.e., according 
 to our text-books, believers in the only true religion. The 
 Protestant boys, in their turn, in all probability, were equally 
 certain that it was we Catholics who were heterodox, and 
 deserving the fate here and hereafter which we had so freely 
 yet conscientiously assigned to them. And, as " men are 
 but children of a larger growth," we may be sure that, on 
 both sides, with rare exceptions, these antipathies were car- 
 ried with more or less virulence into maturer age. Now, in 
 what way have those religious ill-feelings, — for they are all 
 religious rather than racial, the Protestant Irish ranking with 
 the English as brethren, — in what way, I ask, have the 
 Catholic Irish in England gained by them ? On the con- 
 trary, in what way have they not lost by these prejudices } 
 Being the weaker element, both in wealth and numbers, in 
 
lO 
 
 the community, have not the Irish Catholics in Great Britain 
 had to take an inferior position, and stay in that inferior posi- 
 tion, or emigrate, largely on account of the prejudices fostered 
 by the prevailing system of separate schools for the various 
 creeds, such as you advocate for America ? Has it not been 
 a principal means of keeping many of them out of the higher 
 employments, both public and private, while Irishmen who 
 were not Catholics were helped by it ? But how could the 
 effects of that prejudice-fostering, bigotry-breeding school 
 system be different ? Is not such a state of things only the 
 natural, inevitable result of Catholic isolation in any country 
 where Catholics are in the minority ? Look at the Protestant 
 provinces of Canada, where like results exist from like causes. 
 And in the Catholic provinces of that country are not the 
 Protestant minority sufferers from similar prejudices also ? 
 How much, pray, is morality or the good of the country pro- 
 moted in either instance ? In what way has it added to the 
 reputation of Canada abroad, or the happiness of her people 
 at home? Catholic bigotry is no more promotive of good 
 things than is the Protestant article. But our point is, that 
 the isolation of any one class in a community must lead inev- 
 itably to estrangement from all other classes ; and this is the 
 cataract toward which Catholics in America are drifting in 
 consequence of the demand of their clergy for separate 
 schools. In England the estrangement of the creeds, espe- 
 cially as relates to Catholics, is bad enough. Heaven knows ; 
 but there the idea of the free {i.e., fee-less) common school 
 is even yet untried, and attendance at separate schools has 
 been for centuries, and is now to a considerable extent, a 
 matter of greater convenience or of necessity, while in 
 America the contrary has been the case, and hence the con^ 
 ditions in this country are conducive to an estrangement 
 deeper, wider, more bitter, more irreconcilable, since here 
 the isolation of the Catholics is seen — -yes, proclaimed even, 
 by their clerical rulers — to be an entirely voluntary act, and 
 is also one which is interpreted by the rest of the community 
 as beins: inimical to the common welfare. 
 
1 1 
 
 Right reverend sir, one might think that the Catholics of 
 America, coming here so poorly equipped in wealth and edu- 
 cation, and with many ancient prejudices to face, had enough 
 adverse circumstances to contend against already, without 
 their clergy going to the trouble of digging a moat, deep, 
 wide, and impassable, between them and all the other ele- 
 ments of this country's population, and erecting within the 
 enclosure the red flag of creed distinction, so hateful to 
 Americans and the spirit of American institutions. The 
 avowed object of this isolation is "the saving of Catholic 
 souls " ; but I doubt very much, sir, if the next generation 
 of Catholics will thank the clergy for "saving" them so 
 effectually, and they may feel, rather, that what they most 
 need is to be saved from the antiquated arrogance and inter- 
 meddling of the clergy. The next generation, I incline to 
 think, will prefer to be allowed to be more American, even 
 at the risk of being a little less devout. Rather than be 
 herded together as "foreigners," they will be willing to con- 
 fide their hopes of salvation to the means afforded by the 
 church services, the home, and the Sunday-school, as their 
 fathers have had to do until within a year or two, with very 
 good results so far as heard from. I know that a very large 
 proportion of the present generation tolerate your labors in 
 the parochial-school direction with decided dissatisfaction. 
 
 Parochial Schools not started i;v the Laity. 
 
 Throughout your lecture, sir, you talk as if the parochial 
 schools had been established at the wish of the laity, but I 
 will here state the actual facts on that point in language as 
 plain as it is possible for me to make it. 
 
 The parochial school movement did not originate with the 
 Catholic laity; they were not consulted at its inception ; they 
 have not since been afforded an opportunity to say whether 
 they approved of it or not. From the beginning until to-day 
 the Catholic laity of America have been treated in this im- 
 portant matter on the explicit understanding, on the part of 
 
12 
 
 the clergy, that it is a thing about which they are not entitled 
 to have an opinion, except such as are dealt out ready-made 
 to them by the clergy, who claim to be the only competent 
 or rightful judges regarding the education of the laity — a 
 not unusual claim with the priesthoods of religions even prior 
 to the advent of Christianity, and based, no doubt, on similar 
 good motives. In short, the laity have been treated all 
 along as they were during those dark ages when education 
 was confined to the clergy — as a pack of ignoramuses; as 
 if no Catholic yet knew anything, except the comparatively 
 small number of individuals educated for the Church ! And 
 where a few among the Catholic laymen have ventured to 
 openly entertain any contrary opinion, its expression has been 
 greeted by the clergy with indignant censure or pitying scorn. 
 (I know this, for I have experienced it.) Quite a different 
 state of things from the one pictured forth in your statement 
 that " in proof of t/ieir convictions they [the laity] support 
 schools at their private expense." You must, sir, have meant 
 to have said "the Pope's" or "the clergy's" convictions. 
 And as to the laity being at the expense of supporting these 
 schools, what intelligent layman would say it was a thing 
 that in more than ten cases in a hundred is wholly voluntary .'* 
 Is it not, instead, the simple fact that, as a rule, the priest 
 goes ahead and erects the school building, after (perhaps) 
 announcing to the congregation his intention, without taking 
 any sort of vote or expression as to whether they favor the 
 project or not, proceeding on credit or the temporary use of 
 other of the Church funds (of all of which he is sole collector 
 and custodian), and finally, collecting the cost from his pa- 
 rishioners by begging or bull-dozing.'* And to speak the 
 truth for the priest, this is in every instance, perhaps, the 
 only way of proceeding left open to him, since the highest 
 Church authorities have commanded him to establish such a 
 school in his parish, and his people are not over and above 
 wishful to go to the expense, which is large and quite unnec- 
 essary, the State having already provided excellent schools 
 and teachers and school-books free of charge. The poor 
 
13 
 
 man's lot, especially if he be friendly to the public schools, 
 is not an enviable one ; he knows, like the gentleman in the 
 verse, that, between the Pope and public opinion, he will be 
 "damned if he does, and damned if he don't." But the 
 Pope, his supreme ruler, is the stronger influence, and he 
 goes on with the erection of the school. In due time he tells 
 the people what nice, pious teachers he has secured for the 
 children (Catholic sisters or brothers of some religious order), 
 and that their coming is a great favor to this particular par- 
 ish — few parishes could hope to be so exceptionally favored. 
 And the reputation for piety and devotedness of the teach- 
 ers helps soften the congregation toward the new school, 
 although the hard-headed ones. still insist that the school was 
 not needed, and grumble at the life-long burden of support- 
 ing it. 
 
 There are many priests, of course, who go into this matter 
 with the zeal and arrogarce of fanatics, employing as aids all 
 the influences available to their position to make their parish- 
 ioners co-operative and obedient ; but the processes of raising 
 the money needed, and the monopoly of initiative and man- 
 agement by the priest, are in all cases the same. Except as 
 objects of taxation and instruction the laity are of no account. 
 
 The laity in the long run pay all the bills ; but there their 
 participation in the planning and erection and management 
 of the parochial school begins and ends. The priest orders 
 in the music and does the dancing, so to speak, and the lay- 
 men look on and pay the piper. Then, taking the lecture 
 which we have under consideration as an illustration, the 
 good Bishop comes to town and declares to the known world 
 in general, and to the parish itself in particular, that the lay- 
 men liked the dancing very much, believing it to be a health- 
 ful exercise from which they would derive a great deal of 
 benefit, and "m proof of their convictiojis''' they supported a 
 whole colony of pipers at private expense ! 
 
 But the worthy Bishop, let us say, sir, was mistaken. The 
 laymen still declare they had nothing to do with the enter- 
 tainment, beyond watching the sport and paying the bills. 
 
14 
 
 And, moreover, it appears to be the fact that the music was 
 selected at the command of a number of gentlemen residing 
 in Italy, mostly natives thereof, and was operated not so 
 much by a bellows as by a crank, so that persons on the out- 
 side knew it was Italian the moment they heard it. It was 
 not Irish music, nor German, nor French. And a New York 
 gentleman who has exceptional means of knowing, informs 
 me that even the Italian laymen in this country, themselves, 
 do not all prefer these costly school airs imported from the 
 Tiber, when the superior American article can be had right 
 at hand for the asking. 
 
 Why Some Catholic Parents send, and Some do not 
 SEND, their Children to Parochial Schools. 
 
 Let us pass on to the membership of the parochial schools. 
 Some Catholic parents send their children to them, but why ? 
 P'or various reasons. The more devout, because they were 
 told by the priests that these schools were necessary for mak- 
 ing "good Catholics " of their children (as if the church, and 
 the Sunday-school, and the confessional, and the many church 
 societies, and the numerous holy-day services, and the Catho- 
 lic home influences — not to mention the blessings of the 
 Pope and the prayers of the clergy — were not enough, or 
 had been tried in this country and found wanting : a confes- 
 sion which, if persisted in, might seem to say that the more 
 free and intelligent Catholics became, the more the Church 
 felt the need of looking after her fences — an implication 
 which, of course, every good Catholic is expected to utterly 
 deny). Then, again, other parents send their children to 
 these schools because the priests, or their semi-clerical repre- 
 sentatives (Christian brothers and nuns), insisted that as 
 "good Catholics " it was their duty to send them ; still others, 
 because the location was convenient ; quite a large number, 
 because the parents concluded to "grin and bear it" rather 
 than enter upon bad terms with their pastors ; others, be- 
 cause the priests told them they must send them, or by their 
 
15 
 
 failure become guilty of "a sin against God " ; and yet others, 
 because the priests threatened to deprive them of the Church 
 sacraments until they did — a menace calculated to harass 
 the more timorous souls with visions of possible eternal per- 
 dition, and all classes of Catholics in greater or less degree 
 with the losses and annoyances attendant upon religious 
 ostracism. 
 
 On the other hand, many Catholic parents have openly 
 resisted the expressed wishes of the elegy and teachers in 
 this matter ; one, among the number of which I have personal 
 knowledge, being the father of a family of youths, of both 
 sexes, and whose eldest son had lately been ordained for the 
 priesthood. That American-born young priest, who had re- 
 ceived his earlier education in the public schools, took the 
 side of his father against the pastor, believing the public 
 schools to be good enough for his younger brothers and sis- 
 ters (better, indeed, for the purposes of education, he said, 
 than the parochial school) ; and in his argument, he might 
 have stated, as he probably did, that the public schools had 
 afforded an excellent education to many other Catholic boys 
 and girls, both American and Irish-born, who had since be- 
 come Catholic sisters or clergymen, including many priests, 
 not a few bishops, and at least one archbishop, the brilliancy 
 of whose learning is only paralleled by the devoutness of his 
 piety ; not to speak of the thousands of Catholic girls who 
 had graduated from being pupils of public schools into becom- 
 ing their teachers, and reflect credit alike on the race that 
 produced them, the Church to which they belong, and the 
 country which afforded to them and their Irish-Catholic par- 
 ents the splendid opportunities which culminated in their 
 education. In addition to these, the arch of triumph is fur- 
 ther extended and emblazoned by the long line of Irish-born 
 boys, and American boys of Irish descent, the sons of poor 
 immigrants, resplendent and numerous as "an army with 
 banners," who have passed from the so-called "godless" pub- 
 lic schools out into the paths of commerce, and the learned 
 professions, and the halls of highest legislation, contributing 
 
i6 
 
 by their character and talents and success to lift up the credit 
 of their race, not only in this country, but, by the medium of 
 reputation, throughout the realms of civilization, and proving 
 to the acceptance of a hitherto doubting world the claim of 
 their fatherland to the right of self-government. Without 
 the beneficent aid of the free "godless" public schools of 
 America, how many to-day (how few, rather !) would be the 
 lawyers, doctors, business men, and school teachers — yea, 
 and priests — of the Irish-Catholic element in America, who 
 to-day are numbered by thousands ? Without the Irish- 
 Catholic fruits of the "godless" public schools of America, 
 and their brains and money and influence, where to-day would 
 be cause of home-rule in Ireland ? — back where it was in 
 the days of the law-made famine, — poor, prostrate, and de- 
 spised, — before the Irish crossed the ocean in great numbers 
 to avail themselves of America's hospitality and the boundless 
 blessings of America's "godless" public schools. Shall we 
 not, sir, "judge the tree by its fruit " ? Yet all these things 
 were done — all these laurels were won — prior to the coming 
 of the parochial school scheme from Italy to check the mate- 
 rial progress of our people, and inject into the politics of this 
 nation the wretched old-world bitterness of sectarian animos- 
 ities. Why then, sir, was not this splendid "well enough" 
 let alone ? Wherein could the Church suffer from it ? Where- 
 in, will you confess, did she suffer from it ? In what respect 
 has it harmed the Catholics of America, or the American 
 population as a whole ? You teach us that the Church ex- 
 pounds only the truth, and when has truth suffered from the 
 enlightenment of her worshippers .-* 
 
 Are Catholics coerced in this Matter ? 
 
 A great deal has been said lately, sir, by yourself and 
 other officers of the Church, about the sacredness of the right 
 of the parent to select the school which his child shall attend, 
 the object of the argument being to hold up the State in the 
 character of a tyrant for having undertaken the managem.ent 
 
17 
 
 of the schools. But, sir, the State in America is only a great 
 association of the people for self-government, where all are 
 equal members, and in which nothing is done except by vote 
 and in accordance with the will of the majority of the tax- 
 payers. Can you say as much for the management of the 
 parochial schools ? Is it not the fact, on the contrary, that 
 the Catholic parent, though he pays the taxes for the erec- 
 tion and support of the parochial schools, is not allowed to 
 have a voice in their origin or management, the whole matter 
 being dictated to him by a small assemblage of foreign gentle- 
 men residing in Italy, perhaps not one of whom ever set foot 
 in this country ? Which, then, in the name of common de- 
 cency, is the tyrant ? The Church, which allows no lay voice 
 to be heard and rules from abroad, or the State which is the 
 expressed will of all the people of this country, both lay and 
 clerical ? And, let me ask, sir, do you think that those 
 gentlemen gain anything in dignity or reputation, for either 
 themselves or their Church, who stand forth and try to per- 
 suade an intelligent people to believe the very opposite of 
 facts so self-evident ? In preceding pages I have given a 
 pretty complete exposition of the facts in the case, and yet 
 I find your lecture — presumably the authorized official utter- 
 ance on the subject — authorized by those very same foreign 
 gentlemen, our Italian dicta tors, saying as regards the Catho- 
 lics sending their children to the parochial schools, that in 
 doing so they " exercise full freedom of conscience," and 
 that " they have not their conscience made for them, as 
 many suppose." Why, sir, observation and inquiry fully 
 warrant me in saying, that as regards Massachusetts, not 
 more than one case in twenty of Catholic parents taking 
 their children from the public schools and sending them to 
 the parochial has been wholly voluntary, and that if a secret 
 ballot of the laity had been taken on the question at the out- 
 set, not one parochial school now in this State would ever 
 have been established. I believe, furthermore, that if such 
 a ballot were taken to-day, and the option left to the laity, 
 free from coercion, there is hardly one parish in Massachu- 
 
setts that would not vote them out of existence. The major- 
 ity of the CathoHc people of America have never wanted 
 these schools and do not want them to-day. 
 
 Again, farther along in your lecture you say : " It is 
 charged that the Catholic Church is tyrannizing over her 
 people in this matter of education. This is a serious charge, 
 and devoid of truth." I am a little shocked at your saying 
 this, sir, as any poor layman might be, who knew that before 
 you said it you had commended a Catholic book published by 
 a Catholic firm in Baltimore, " whose pages," as its Catholic 
 author says in his preface, " contain the conciliar or single rul- 
 ings of no less than 380 [three hundred and eighty] of the 
 high and highest Church dignitaries " on the duty of Catholic 
 parents to send their children to the parochial schools, under 
 penalty of committing sin, or being refused admission to the 
 sacraments. That book, which you, sir, and several other 
 bishops commended (Monsignor Preston writing of it "a 
 compilation of unquestionable authorities ") contains a 
 whole cargo of evidence that " the Catholic Church is tyran- 
 nizing over the consciences of her people in this matter of 
 education" — and you seem to have forgotten it! But per- 
 haps you would now argue that as the Church has made it a 
 law that her children shall be educated in parochial schools, 
 her compelling obedience to this law cannot be tyranny, since 
 her power to make such laws is derived from God, whose 
 infallible representative she is upon earth — and that there- 
 fore your denial was theoretically correct. But this was not 
 what you meant in your lecture, in which you tried to make 
 the American public believe that the Catholic laity "exer- 
 cise full freedom " of choice in the matter of sending their 
 children to the parochial schools. And, sir, in passing I 
 would take leave to inform you that the Catholic por- 
 tion of one of your audiences were painfully surprised at the 
 rashness of your statement. In your lecture you were 
 speaking, not of theory, but of substantial facts, which, not- 
 withstanding your stunning denial, are none the less felt to 
 be tyranny by those who suffer from them, and by many 
 
19 
 
 other good people in this country whom they do not directly 
 affect. England passes laws for the "good government" of 
 the Irish, and compels obedience to them at the point of the 
 bayonet, then characterizes the charge that she is " tyran- 
 nizing over" the Irish as "devoid of truth," or words of like 
 effect. She is only governing them "for their good," you 
 know, and (if we would believe her) is governing them bet- 
 ter than they could govern themselves, or than anybody else 
 could govern them — just for all the world what the Church 
 claims in this matter of schools ! It seems to be a way that 
 governments have (whether clerical or secular) when dealing 
 with peoples to whom they acknowledge no indebtedness for 
 their right to govern them. England, as you may have 
 heard, sir, also repudiates the milder term "coercion." Eng- 
 land, one might think, is enabled to make such claim in con- 
 formity with theoretical truth on the same grounds that the 
 Catholic Church probably stands upon in this school question. 
 The crown of England rules Ireland by " divine right," as the 
 Church does Catholics, and England and the Church have 
 each many written statutes, but also an unwritten constitu- 
 tion, which is in each case very elastic, and unequalled in 
 handiness for the purposes of whatever those who execute it 
 may believe (or pretend to believe) to be good government. 
 
 But as to the coercion ejnployed to secure pupils for the 
 parochial schools, I have known of it for a long time. So 
 have, with like feelings of revulsion, many other Catholic 
 laymen. I could cite numerous instances of it, all concealed 
 from the public gaze. But it is not necessary to have seen 
 these; it is the inevitable inference from the well-known fac- 
 tors of the case. These are, (i) that the Church authorities 
 have decreed the establishment of parochial schools ; (2) they 
 have declared the public schools to be " unchristian " and 
 "godless"; — does all this imply any choice left to the 
 members of this Church as to which school their children 
 shall attend, once the parochial school is opened ? Not in 
 the slightest. There is no room for it. The idea of allow- 
 ing such a free choice to the laity was never for a moment 
 
20 
 
 thought of. It is not the Church's way of doing business. 
 The clergyman who should so far have forgotten the polity 
 of his church as to suggest it in the Baltimore council, 
 would have been immediately unfrocked as a dangerous inno- 
 vator, if not excommunicated for a heretic. What intelligent 
 man does not know this ? And yet, sir, here is the assur- 
 ance officially given to the American public that the Catholic 
 laity are allowed to "exercise full freedom" in this matter, 
 and that as to coercion, the Church never thought of such a 
 thing ! If this were intended for strategy, it has failed 
 already of its purpose. It has not disarmed, nor even dimin- 
 ished, non-Catholic criticism of the parochial schools. 
 
 In addition to the foregoing simple deductions and the 
 "compilation of unquestionable authorities," — three hundred 
 and eighty in number, — actions continue to speak louder 
 than words. The recent action of a priest at Newark, N.J., 
 threatening his parishioners with refusal of the sacraments 
 unless they sent their children to the parochial school, and 
 similar instances that have got ilito the newspapers elsewhere 
 during the past few years, are popularly taken as truer crite- 
 rions of the situation than official professions of non-inter- 
 ference. No one has yet heard that these priests have been 
 reprimanded, or their actions repudiated, by their superiors. 
 These facts confirm in the public mind the inference that the 
 authority in question was a part of the system which it was 
 in these instances employed to enforce. That all parish 
 priests have not exercised this authority to its fullest extent 
 is evidence that the clergy are permitted to vary the method 
 and amount of its application according to the requirements 
 of the circumstances in which they find themselves placed. 
 They may "put on the screws" as hard as they think their 
 people will stand it. (Therefore, to apply the logic of the 
 priests' own conduct in this matter, if the people did not 
 stand it at all, the "screws" would not be put on at all, and 
 there would be no parochial schools. There is a hint here 
 for the people's future attitude on this question.) But, as 
 Bishop McQuaid of Rochester plainly says, " It is not left 
 
21 
 
 with bishops to choose in this matter. They receive com- 
 mands from a higher authority than their own." And if 
 Bishop Keane may not choose, how can he assert that the 
 laity may, and that it is not meant that there should be any 
 coercion ? The priests, too, of course, must obey this " au- 
 thority which is higher than " the bishops'. So that it is 
 plain that, though the coercion may in spots be applied grad- 
 ually and in piecemeal, it is only a question of time until it 
 is applied in every parish to its fullest extent, until all the 
 Catholic children in America are herded by themselves in 
 parochial schools, or Catholic parents who refuse to" be 
 coerced in this matter are subjected to religious ostracism 
 and priestly persecution for daring to stand up for that right 
 of parents to decide as to which school their children shall 
 attend, which the Church (in its attacks upon the State 
 schools) so frequently declares to be " sacred," but is all the 
 time determined Catholic parents shall not exercise. 
 
 If the Catholics of America would not humbly submit to 
 live under this clerical coercion, but would, on the contrary, 
 show themselves fit to be free citizens of a free country, they 
 should adopt the definition of their right as thus proclaimed 
 by the Church authorities from cardinals down, and resolve 
 to be as determined in maintaining that right as the inventors 
 of this parochial-school scheme at Rome are in trampling 
 upon it. The maxim that "those who would be free, them- 
 selves must strike the blow," was never truer than it is in 
 this case ; for no one can help the Catholic laity settle the 
 school question more effectually, or with so little trouble, as 
 they can themselves. All they have to do is to send their 
 children to the public schools. The parochial-school build- 
 ings, where they already exist, would do excellently as places 
 to hold Sunday-schools in and meetings of the societies con- 
 nected with the church, also meetings of the Catholic organ- 
 izations in the parish in general, whose members now, beside 
 being taxed by the clergy individually to support the parochial 
 school, have collectively to pay rent for halls at perhaps less 
 convenient distances from their homes. 
 
22 
 
 The Prevailing Protestant Distrust. 
 
 Protestants, as you, sir, must well know, have, both in Eng- 
 land and America, as a body, long had a lurking distrust of 
 all large movements of a public or semi-public character insti- 
 tuted by the Catholics, more especially if, as in this case, 
 the movement originates with, and is conducted by, • the 
 clergy. It were, perhaps, profitless to discuss how well or 
 ill founded this distrust may be, or why it exists here ; we 
 know for a certainity that it does exist here. We may 
 feel a reasonable assurance, too, that no lecture delivered by 
 an ofificer of the Church, no matter how high or able he may 
 be, or how diplomatically it may be worded, will have the 
 least perceptible effect toward its removal. Your lecture, 
 sir, merits eminent rank in all of these qualities, yet the dis- 
 trust of which I speak exists in New England as strongly to- 
 day as it did the day before you started on your recent tour 
 in this section. It is no less fixed than it is uncompromising. 
 Much of it, no doubt, is an importation from Great Britain 
 and Ireland, where the system of separate schools for the 
 various creeds helped to create and foster it ; while a large 
 part of it may fairly be ascribed to the dislike which Ameri- 
 cans entertain on general principles for any sort of foreign 
 allegiance, such as Catholics are popularly supposed to ac- 
 knowledge to the Pope of Rome. Do you think that this dis- 
 trust is going to be removed or diminished by the Catholic 
 clerical movement for the overthrow of the common schools 
 and the substitution of church schools } Must not this 
 movement rather arouse and intensify this distrust } Has it 
 not already done so, to the extent of making this question, 
 when Catholics are up for office, the dominating issue in 
 Massachusetts municipal elections, to the serious detriment 
 of Catholic citizens .? And, as matters had assumed this 
 aggravated form previous to the delivery of your lecture, 
 when the parochial-school movement had gone no farther 
 than the withdrawal of a small proportion of the Catholic 
 pupils from the public schools, is this distrust not likely to 
 
23 
 
 increase in intensity since your lecture was delivered, which, 
 by broad implication at least, showed that the Catholic scheme 
 in its entirety included the extinction of the common schools 
 and a division of the school fund for the support of schools 
 conducted by the churches ; the latter a proposition which, 
 though hitherto unexpressed, but not unexpected, has long 
 been notoriously obnoxious to non-Catholics in America in 
 general ? Surely, sir, the way to diminish a popular distrust 
 is not by enlarging its cause. 
 
 But, sir, it may be that the clerical promoters of the church- 
 school scheme do not care for this non-Catholic distrust, and 
 are prepared to openly set it at defiance, or at least to go on 
 with their programme regardless of it. This would be a 
 serious phase of the question, indeed. As if, for instance, 
 the promoters had reasoned somewhat in this fashion : " We 
 want this thing done. We must expect, of course, that it 
 will arouse antagonism among non-Catholics, loud, bitter, and 
 universal ; and in all probability, it will prove unwelcome even 
 to our own laity. But the laity must at least begin by tol- 
 erating the new system, and finally, when they find they have 
 got to take it, and to pay for it, conclude to make use of it, 
 and say nothing about it, unless to swear that they like it. 
 From our intrenched position behind these we need have no 
 fear of the non-Catholics. We shall not only be safe, but 
 the situation of necessity fixing the laity in an exposed posi- 
 tion, where they will be compelled to take all the brunt of 
 the assaults, through the medium of their temporal interests, 
 the happy effect must be the gradual conversion of the laity 
 into vengeful enemies of our assailants, thus in the end, by 
 the pure force of circumstances, placing ready to our hand a 
 willing host to lead forward to the realization of our hopes. 
 Not because they have grown to love our scheme more, but 
 their assailants less. But the end is the same. Let us begin 
 the good work at once." If, sir, this were the reasoning used 
 at the birth of this project, the promoters deserve to be com- 
 plimented, I regret to observe, inasmuch as the movement 
 since has well corresponded with its conclusions. For a 
 
/ 
 
 24 
 
 parallel case, I can think only of the plan considered by the 
 late Confederacy of sending black regiments to the front to 
 do battle against their would-be emancipators and in support 
 of their own enslavement. If other reasoning were employed, 
 it does not appear on the face of the facts. So I must con- 
 clude that the supposition above stated is substantially cor- 
 rect. If so, then it is high time for the Catholic laity of this 
 country to take counsel of their interests, which are so deeply 
 involved in this question, and which this question puts so 
 much in jeopardy. It is partly with this belief, and for the 
 purpose of arousing Catholic thought on this serious subject, 
 that I write this letter. For justice's sake also, I want to 
 make known to the country at large the position, very dif- 
 ferent from the popularly imagined one, which the Catholic 
 laity really occupy in this matter, the Irish Catholics at least. 
 I believe the more intelligent portion of the French Canadians 
 here take a similar attitude. We Irish Catholics are in this 
 country to stay. We desire to make it our country in the 
 fullest and most proper sense, as the best native Protestant 
 might. We are loyal citizens, and want to reap all the bene- 
 fits of the fact of our loyalty and our common American 
 citizenship. But we cannot reap these benefits, to which we 
 are lawfully entitled, if a movement be set on foot in our 
 name which is hateful to five-sixths of our fellow-citizens. 
 ,The Catholics of all nationalities in this country are at most 
 ten millions in a population of sixty-five millions. ^ 
 
 But for this parochial-school movement the Protestant dis- 
 trust of Catholics would have remained dormant, if not have 
 
 ^ Perhaps our Roman Catholic friends will better understand our distrust on a 
 large scale, when it is remembered, laying aside all history except what is known 
 to the present generation, that in an allocution of July 22, 1855, Pius IX. declared 
 to be absolutely null and void the acts of the government of Piedmont, which he 
 held to be prejudicial to the rights of the Church. In the same year he did the 
 like with the laws of Sardinia and Spain; in 1856, with Mexico; in 1862, with 
 Austria; and in 1863, New Granada; and in every case the laws which he pfo- 
 nounced null are integral parts of the Constitution of the United States and of 
 our common law. What can we think when the right to do this is seriously 
 re-affirmed at Baltimore, in November, 1890, in the resolutions of the late Catholic 
 Congress? — Ed. 
 
25 
 
 gradually died away, as it had been doing, and as all sensible 
 and patriotic citizens, Protestants as well as Catholics, would 
 wish that it might continue to do ; whereas now, in conse- 
 quence of this movement, that distrust is fast coming to be 
 more widespread, and also more bitter, than in the worst days 
 of the Knownothing agitation, so much condemned by pub- 
 lic men and editors, and by none so much as by the Catholics 
 themselves, who had been the sufferers from it, and who must 
 be the sufferers from it at any time that it may exist. Chief 
 among these stalwart denouncers of Knownothingism, past 
 and present, are those selfsame Catholic newspapers that 
 now lend themselves so subserviently to the denunciation of 
 the public schools, and are thus furnishing grounds for the 
 revival of those very antipathies which they at the same time 
 so loudly condemn. It were devoutly to be wished that these 
 Catholic press-writers might acquire a little of the modern, 
 manly, American spirit of their late contemporary. Dr. 
 Brownson — and come out into the bright sunlight of the 
 close of the nineteenth century, not go groping back among 
 the refuse ideas of the eighteenth, and of which the printing- 
 press which they misuse is the natural enemy — instead of 
 yielding their pens so readily upon a question which does 
 not belong to an international system of religion, but to the 
 worldly, bread-and-butter affairs of each country. 
 
 The Catholics of America, I am well assured, do not want 
 their religion either pushed or dragged into politics ; and they 
 have a very decided aversion to seeing the Church authori- 
 ties, whether priest or Pope, saying or doing anything to 
 contribute to an end so distasteful to them. Nothing would 
 please them better than to see the Pope and the priests leave 
 politics alone, and stick to their religion, leaving politics en- 
 tirely to the laymen. The clergy, as they commonly say, 
 "never meddle with politics but they put their foot in it." 
 Such meddling lessens the spiritual influence and dignity of 
 the clergy — a fact which the laity generally recognize, and 
 as generally deplore. The clergy never meddle in politics, 
 moreover, but they put a handicap upon the laity in the race 
 
 l/ 
 
26 
 
 for power and riches, tending to keep them forever in the 
 lowest places. This handicap is now become so heavy (and 
 promises to be heavier) as to be unbearable. Hence arises 
 the remark so common among the more thoughtful of them, 
 "no wonder the Irish are poor!" All are agreed that re- 
 ligion is not improved by linking it with politics. I should 
 hope that I am doing a kindness to the Church authorities in 
 giving this feeling such a frank expression, as well as help- 
 ing to abate somewhat (as I also hope) the Protestant dis- 
 trust in so far as it relates to the laity. 
 
 The Reason Rome gives for the Change. 
 
 You say, sir, this country " has wonderfully developed the 
 intellectual side of education, but the moral side is the more 
 important, because it is much more important what a man's 
 character is than what he knows." And you make this 
 opinion the principal argument which you offer for a change 
 of schools. But at what point in the intellectual develop- 
 ment would you draw the line of restriction ? And, applied 
 to children, how would you, or how could you, keep it from 
 advancing beyond that point after the children had passed 
 out of your school .'' By destroying all literature except your 
 text-books .-' By shutting the graduated pupil in an iron safe 
 of which you alone hold the key ? The first of these methods 
 might have stood a better chance of success in those "dark 
 ages " antedating the printing-press, when so large a part of 
 the literature extant was confined to manuscripts in the pos- 
 session of the clergy. In our day, we know it is generally 
 accepted that crime is the offspring or foster-child of igno- 
 rance, while good morals increase with the education of the 
 intellect. And this belief is in this country so deeply rooted, 
 that, while the spectacle of an eminent teacher of morals 
 deprecating our " wonderful development of the intellectual 
 side of education " as prejudicial to moral development may 
 excite surprise, I do not think it capable of convincing any 
 great number of this intelligent people that a change to a 
 
27 
 
 school system intended to restrict intellectual development, 
 is at any time desirable. No large portion of the American 
 people, it seems to me, will ever rebel against the public 
 schools on the ground that their children are being taught 
 too much in the knowledge of the subjects necessary to 
 success in secular affairs, and not enough prayers, or complain 
 that such teaching is obstructive of their proper training in 
 morals. It is at least certain that, among a people so intelli- 
 gent, should such change of opinion ever occur, it will not 
 be without the presentation of a great deal better evidence 
 than a Platonic ipse dixit — the mere say-so of any man or 
 set of men, however eminent or personally worthy of respect. 
 "The truth before Plato," is a maxim as popular in America 
 as with Aristotle. 
 
 Your theory and plan are not native to America, and have 
 little prospect of ever becoming naturalized. And, sir, let 
 me here tell you that it is a question which sticks hard in 
 the minds of most men as to whether the reason publicly 
 assigned by the Church for the proposed change is the 
 true one. Many men consider this reason insufficient and 
 invalid. One higher in the Church recently said: "The 
 little child that is familiar with the Christian catechism, has 
 mastered the great problem of life." The catechism is a sub- 
 ject for the Sunday-school. If a church cannot teach this 
 sufficiently well without going into the secular schools to do 
 it, the fault would seem to be with that church, rather than 
 with the schools where it was not taught. The churches ought 
 to be able to teach religion without intruding into the secular 
 schools, and breaking in upon the study of the three R's. 
 When they claim that they cannot, they belittle their useful- 
 ness ; and as churchmen were never prone to confess ineffi- 
 ciency, the claim that they need the schools in which to pros- 
 ecute their work only suggests an ulterior object which they 
 are anxious to keep concealed. A Buddhist or a Mohamme- 
 dan might conclude that the real purpose of the ecclesiastics 
 was to secure the greatest possible control over the minds 
 of the laity, with the view to eventually dominating Christen- 
 
28 
 
 dom, or, as a Yankee would say it, that the Pope and the 
 clergy wanted to "run the earth" again as they did in the 
 Middle Ages. 
 
 All American Priests not Opponents of the Public 
 
 Schools. 
 
 There are quite a number of Catholic priests in this coun- 
 try, as we know, who are not unfriendly to the public schools, 
 and who so little approve of parochial schools as to receive 
 the command for their erection with anything but satisfaction. 
 They believe their people are taxed enough already. This 
 progressive minority (perhaps, for all a layman can know, it 
 might be shown they were really in the majority, if a secret 
 ballot were taken) share in the laymen's view that these 
 schools are mischievous and unnecessary. I have known one 
 priest to speak of them (privately, of course) as "un-Ameri- 
 can." TJieir opinion was not consulted in preparing this 
 scheme, we may be sure, no more than that of the laity ; and 
 they are treated with like indifference in regard to their 
 approval now. The idea was started, and the scheme ma- 
 tured, above and beyond these gentlemen. And more is the 
 pity that their views on this question could not have been 
 heard and have prevailed. The result would have been far 
 more satisfactory to the Catholics of the United States, whose 
 temporal interests would have been saved from the burden 
 of a powerful public opprobrium, now, perhaps, long to be 
 borne, without at the same time impeding their spiritual 
 training. Still, the situation is not hopeless, if the Catholic 
 laity, together with the more American-minded of the clergy, 
 would but display the courage of their convictions and the 
 sound common sense of their cause. Then, sir, this intelli- 
 gent generation might hope to see, by the simplest possible 
 means available to any reform, that of quiet neglect, that 
 mischief-making anachronism, the church-managed school, 
 speedily relegated to the obscurity which its unsuitableness 
 to this age and country deserves, and which the interests of an 
 
29 
 
 enlightened and progressive civilization demand. The effect 
 would be an immediate rise of Catholic Americans in the 
 respect of their fellow-citizens, with its many attendant ad- 
 vantages, instead of that decline in esteem which will follow 
 want of a timely assertion of independence in the matter of 
 education. And this independence, you, sir, admit they are 
 entitled to, when in your lecture you say, " Every Catholic 
 knows that the Church has no authority to decree anything 
 contrary to his conscience." 
 
 O'Connell's Declaration about Politics and Rome. 
 
 The Irish Catholics of America have not forgotten O'Con- 
 nell's declaration, made half a century ago, that Irishmen 
 would not take their politics from Rome. O'Connell at that 
 time was the approved champion (" the white-haired boy ") 
 of the Church, being the author of " Catholic Emancipation." 
 Beginning at Rome, the school question has to-day been 
 interjected into the politics of the United States, to the 
 great detriment of people of the same race and religion as 
 O'Connell. The time, therefore, would seem to be ripe for 
 another Catholic emancipation to take place in this country, 
 not this time from obnoxious English laws, but Roman. The 
 re-statement of O'Connell's dictum is the necessary first step 
 toward this end. And we may be sure that the Irishmen of 
 America to-day are not going to be less courageous than 
 O'Connell and his contemporaries were in Ireland fifty years 
 ago in the asserting of their rights, nor less resolute in 
 maintaining them. 
 
 Shall the State apply the Remedy ? 
 
 Then, too, sir, there is the State's interest in this matter. 
 The State witnessing, as time rolls on, the widening of the 
 estrangement between the two great classes of her citizens, 
 such as I have sketched, cannot but take cognizance of its 
 cause, and decide upon a remedy. And if that time shall 
 
30 
 
 come, what, think you, will that remedy be ? To my mind, 
 there is none possible but the adoption of legislation, either 
 by constitutional amendment or by statute, extending the 
 principle of compulsory education so as to require that every 
 child of school age residing within the State shall attend the 
 common schools established by the State, and none other, 
 unless for sound exceptional reasons clearly defined by law. 
 
 Since the State can say when a child shall attend school, 
 why could it not also say where? In doing the latter, it 
 would only be following the example which the Church is 
 trying so hard to set. 
 
 Such a step by the State, as things look to-day, cannot be 
 long postponed. It would be gladly welcomed by many 
 Catholics as affording relief from a situation which they have 
 never liked, and which grows every day more distasteful. 
 Things in this country move quickly. The secret ballot 
 would leave the parochial scheme in a very small minority. 
 
 God Bless our Public Schools. 
 
 And now, right reverend sir, for a parting word and a sen- 
 timent (not saying that I may not address you again should 
 occasion call for it). If there were nothing more to the credit 
 of our public schools than the inestimable benefits which they 
 have conferred upon the Catholics of America, — which, while 
 great boons in themselves, constitute but a very small portion, 
 of the good that these schools have done for this nation and 
 mankind, — the American Catholic might well say : " If this 
 Catholic product alone comprised the whole fruitage of the 
 public schools of America, let the public schools of America 
 go on, and God bless them ! And God bless America for 
 establishing and maintaining them, and make her ever watch- 
 ful and wise and strong in their defence ! " 
 
" EVEni'BODT OUGHT TO READ IT." -VOX I'OI'll.I. 
 
 The Two Sides of the School Question, 
 
 As set forth at the Annual Meeting of the National Educational Association, held 
 
 at Nashville, Tenn., July, 1889, by CABDINAL GIBBONS and BISHOP 
 
 KEANE on the one hand, and EDWIN D. MEAD and Hon. JOHN 
 
 JAY on the other, with a Supplement entitled 
 
 THE LATEST PAPAL UTTERANCE, 
 
 Being Extracts from the Encyclical of Leo XIII,, issued Jan. 10, 1890. 
 
 Sent a)iywhe7-e for a Silver Dime, and a izuo-cent stamp for postage. 
 
 8o PAGES, BOUND IN PAPER. 
 
 From over one hundred commendatory testimonials received from all over the 
 country, in less than tliree weeks from its first issue, we select the following as 
 most comprehensive : — 
 
 Burling'ton Hawkeye: Roman Catholics, Protestants, and all other citizens 
 concerned in the maintenance of American institutions will read this eighty-page 
 pamphlet with avidity. It presents a thorough canvass of the subject of " religion and 
 schools " from both the Romanist and American standpoints by specialists of national 
 reputation, and should be in the hands of every voter on the continent. The question 
 is one of vital importance that ought to be fully comprehended in all its several bearings 
 by every one who wields the ballot. Spread the light ! 
 
 Inter-Ocean : The Arnold Publishing Company of Boston has undertaken a 
 work which, even in the smallest degree accomplished, cannot fail of good results. 
 Should its accomplishment extend all but universally, the good resulting would be 
 incalculable. The result would be, as we take it, the instant and final cessation of all 
 attacks upon our free-school system proceeding from any priest, prelate, or pope of the 
 Roman Catholic Church. . . . The Romish case, of course, could be advocated no 
 more powerfully than by Cardinal Gibbons and Bishop Keane. The Cardinal opens 
 the debate, Bishop Keane follows. Messrs. Mead and Jay respond in defence of the 
 American system, Bishop Keane replies to them ; and the publishers leave the verdict 
 to a jury of the whole country. Every Catholic in America should read these debates, 
 and judge for himself what kind of a case his most learned and eloquent bishops and 
 cardinals can present against the free schools of this country, and what kind of defence 
 can be made for them. 
 
 New Bedford Standard : This subject, if the claims of the papacy are to be 
 asserted, is to be, if it is not at present, one of momentous importance in this country; 
 and the perusal of this pamphlet will enable all, who desire, to form an intelligent 
 opinion on the subject. 
 
 Illustrated Christian Weekly : This possibly is as fair and able a presenta- 
 tion of the school question from the side of the Roman Catholic Church, and from the 
 side of the republic and the Protestant Church, as we are likely to see. We very 
 heartily commend this pamphlet for reading to all whose opinions on the subject are 
 not yet formed, or who are interested in its discussion. 
 
 Fort Worth Gazette : There are also valuable appendices that are brimful of 
 information on the question, and contain the opinions of some of the best men and 
 clearest minds of this and other countries. The pamphlet is indeed non-sectarian and 
 non-sectional, a national treatment of a national subject, worthy of careful weighing by 
 every parent, guardian, and instructor of youth. 
 
 Newark Evening News : Both sides of the case of " The Roman Catholic 
 Church vs. the Public Schools," which is now being so persistently brought before the 
 great court of public opinion, are treated in a pamphlet issued by the Arnold Publishing 
 Company of Boston. The papers are all marked by ability and researqh, and the 
 pamphlet is calculated to be of marked interest and value to those who desire 
 acquaintance with the strongest arguments on both sides of this big dispute. 
 
 Cincinnati Enquirer : It presents the Romanist and the American thought, as 
 set forth by specialists of national reputation, and is invaluable for reference. 
 
 The Interior : Persons interested in the problem of public versus parochial 
 schools will find this pamphlet very instructive reading. 
 
 Address ARNOLD PUBLISHING ASSOCIATION, 
 
 BOSTON, MASS. 
 
Over Five Thousand Copies sold in Less Than Three Mouths. 
 
 ROMANISM AND THE REPUBLIC. 
 
 A Discussion of the Purposes, Assumptions, Principles, and Methods of the Roman 
 Catholic Hierarchy. 
 
 By Rev. I. J. LANSING, M.A. 
 
 448 pages. Printed on excellent paper, in clear type, and handsomely bound in 
 cloth. A book suitable alike for your parlor table and study. 
 
 In cloth, 50 cents ; Postpaid, 61 cents. 
 In paper, 25 cents ; Postpaid, 34 cents. 
 
 South-Western Christian Advocate : The work is a masterpiece of its kind. 
 It should have a place in the library of every Protestant and fair-minded Romanist. It 
 deals with stern and stubborn facts upon one of the most important subjects demand- 
 ing the attention of the American people. A gentleman well known in business circles 
 has thought it so important that this volume should be widely scattered that he enables 
 the publishers to make the following offer : for fifty cents and eleven cents postage, they 
 will send, until the present edition is exhausted, one copy of this volume, bound in 
 cloth ; and for twenty-five cents and nine cents postage, in paper. 
 
 The American Standard : From beginning to end the reader's attention is 
 closely held by the clear and forcible manner in which the subject is handled by the 
 well-informed and earnest author. Every point is carefully and unquestionably authen- 
 ticated. The author's statements are free from all exaggeration, and every argument 
 drives straight home. Every parent, every public school-teacher, every minister, every 
 statesman should read this timely book. 
 
 The Presbyterian [Philadelphia] : These sermons excited much interest at the 
 time of their delivery, and in answer to repeated requests for their publication in per- 
 manent form are given to the public. The facts adduced are startling, provocative of 
 inquiry and reifection, and marshalled with force, vigor, and directness. Authorities 
 are quoted, and thoroughness and fairness mark the discussion. Dr. Vernon, who 
 writes the introduction, and who was for eighteen years a resident of Rome, gives the 
 book his hearty indorsement. But it speaks for itself, and deserves a wide circulation 
 as an antidote to that Jesuitism which has been so blighting wherever it has gained a 
 foothold, and which is a menace to our own republic. 
 
 Pittsburgh Advocate : The question of the relation of the papacy to the insti- 
 tutions of this country is being forced on public attention at this time as it has not been 
 before for many years. This is partly due to the aggressiveness of the Romish Church, 
 and partly to the clearer understanding in the minds of some of the people of the 
 principles and policy of this Church. But whatever the cause, the fact remains ; and 
 this book is a timely contribution to the important subject. 
 
 The Morning' Star : The author is well informed upon the subject, having made 
 use of the most noted Roman Catholic text-books and histories, freely quoting from 
 them during the delivery of the lectures. Mr. Lansing did not deliver these lectures 
 vyith the purpose of inciting religious animosity. " The various branches of the Chris- 
 tian Church should cultivate amity, peace, and brotherhood." 
 
 Universalist Quarterly : They are a contribution to the controversy of American 
 Protestantism with the papacy, growing out of, or chieflv incited by, the attitude of the 
 latter towards our public school system. Mr. Lansing devotes a large portion of his 
 book to the consideration of the attitude of Rome towards our free schools, and also 
 gives attention to the organization known as Jesuits and their object ; the antagonism 
 of Rome to civil and religious liberty; and to the Romish confessional. His motive in 
 all springs from his conviction that the papacy is bent on working injury to our country. 
 
 Address 
 
 ARNOLD PUBLISHING ASSOCIATION, 
 
 BOSTON, MASS. 
 
Q Uli r IB Lie A TIOISS : 
 
 Romanism and the Republic. 
 
 446 Pages. In Cloth, 50 cents; Postpaid, 61 cents. In Paper, 
 25 cents ; Postpaid, 34 cents. 
 
 This is without question the leading book on the relations of Ro- 
 manism to American public life. Testimonials to this effect might 
 be adduced by hundreds from all parts of the land and all classes 
 of readers. Over five thousand copies sold in the last_ three months. 
 
 The Two Sides of the School Question. 
 
 80 Pages. In Paper, 10 cents; Postpaid, 12 cents. 
 
 This is a reprint of the addresses of Cardinal Gibbons and Bishop 
 Keane for Romanists, and Edwin Mead and Hon. John Jay for 
 Americans, before the National Educational Teachers' Association, 
 at Nashville, Tenn., in July, 1889, with invaluable appendices, and a 
 supplement entitled "The Latest Papal Utterance," being citations 
 from the Encyclical Letter of Leo XIII., issued at Rome, January, 
 1890. Every voter in the land should see these. This reprint is 
 non-sectarian, non-sectional, and in the broadest sense national. It 
 has received universal commendation. 
 
 The Parochial School Question. 
 
 AiY OPEN LETTER TO BISHOP KEANE BY AN IRISH- 
 CATHOLIC LAYMAN. 
 
 Price, 10 cents, Postpaid. 
 This pamphlet is as outspoken as McGlynn, and is a living picture 
 of Catholic sentiment among the more intelligent classes. Every one 
 should read it. 
 
 Later in the year we shall publish in pamphlet form, at 10 cents 
 each, by specialists, 
 
 Romanism in History, 
 
 The Last One Hundred Years of Romanism, 
 Romanism as a Form of Christianity, and 
 The Future o'f Romanism. 
 
 . If any person desires to see either of these, and will send us his 
 name, we will send a postal card notifying him when they are in print. 
 
 ARNOLD PUBLISHING ASSOCIATION, 
 
 BOSTON, MASS. 
 
 ]8@° Cash should accompany all orders, and pitnhasers will confer a favor by 
 sending as few stavips as possible. Silver dimes, carefully larapped, come by inai' 
 as safely as stamps. 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 008 946 726 3 
 
 Announcement 
 
 The Arnold Publishing Assocl4.tion, formed to awaken interest 
 and disseminate information on vital issues in our national life, exists 
 and will continue to exist, only as it represents the solicitude of 
 thoughtful men and women for the perpetuity of our cherished 
 institutions ; and as it is dependent upon them for its moral support, 
 it is no less so for its material. As the missionary spirit should 
 belong to all' Christians^ though all are not called to be missionaries, 
 so is it not incumbent upon all in the measure of their abilities to 
 sustain earnest effort in any line that belongs to the common weal? 
 
 To reach the widely scattered localities where danger lurks and 
 light is needed, great outlay must be made from some central points, 
 and the co-operation of all persons is sought in the effort we are 
 making here. 
 
 If you see no way to scatter our publications yourself with true, 
 unselfish missionary zeal, we solicit your contributions, small and 
 large, to enable us to act for you. Any aid will be wisely employed 
 to this most important end. 
 
 Arnold Publishing Association, 
 
 Boston, Mass.