PERILS. — FtELIGlON AND THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS. 93 



It holds that religious and secular education cannot be 

 safely separated. Inasmuch, therefore, as the State will 

 not teach Roman Catholic doctrine in the public schools, 

 parochial schools become necessary. 



It is held that the public schools are in fact Protes- 

 tant, and that Catholics are taxed to support them while 

 they carry the burden of their own parochial schools. 

 They complain that this is an injustice which can be 

 removed only by the division of the school fund, and 

 that to divide this fund between the " Protestant " and 

 Catholic schools pro rata would be only equitable. To 

 secure such division is their avowed policy. 



This position is to be regretted but not to be wondered 

 at. It was inevitable that the parochial school should be 

 opened and attendance upon it made obligatory. The 

 hierarchy could not otherwise be true to the spirit and 

 genius of their church. The conflict between the paro- 

 chial and the public schools goes far deeper than the 

 question of religious instruction. It involves the whole 

 subject of education, its aim and methods. The object of 

 the public school is to make good citizens. The object 

 of the parochial school is to make good Catholics. The 

 pubhc school seeks to give both knowledge and disci- 

 pline, not only truth but the power to find truth. The 

 parochial school aims to lead, rather than to train the 

 mind ; to produce a spirit of submission rather than of 

 independence. The one system is calculated to arouse, 

 the other to repress, the spirit of inquiry. The one aims 

 at self-control, the other at control by superiors. The 

 one seeks to secure intelligent obedience to rightful 

 authority; the other unquestioning obedience to arbi- 

 trary authority. In a trial held in one of the courts of 

 New York City, November, 1888, Monsignor Preston, 

 vicar-general of New York, was asked on the witness 

 stand if Roman Catholics must obey their bishops, 

 whether right or wrong. He replied, " Yes! " and, when 

 the question was repeated, answered, "They must obey, 

 right or wrong." (Notes of hearing before the Commit- 

 tee on Education and Labor, United States Senate, page 



