Newspaper Page Text
12
THE BULLETIN OF THE CATHOLIC LAYMEN'S ASSOCIATION OF GEORGIA
CATHOLICS AND EDUCATION; A
DEBATE.
(Continued From Page Seven)
thoughtful, plain, to the point, and free of any of
that foolish talk which has been too common in late
years about Catholics being opposed to enlighten
ment and the Church being an enemy of education.
The good temper in which you treat the attitude of
Catholics as you see it, towards education, and the
excellent high-tone you infuse into your article, indi
cating at once serious consideration and broad Chris
tian feeling on your part, prompt me to think that an
equally serious and considerate treatment of the Cath
olic attitude written by a Catholic, will not be unwel
come to you.
It is not my mind to engage you in controversy.
It is not my object to oppose anything you have
said. It is not my wish to change your thought, or
to influence the thought of your readers against the
bill pending in congress which you discuss. I merely
desire, with your permission, to outline in a general
way, the Catholic attitude toward education as such,
toward our public school system as such, and toward
the so-called Smith-Towner bill which looks to the
creation of a secretary of education as a separate
department of our national government, treating each
separately and briefly.
It may assist us if we reverse the order above and
dispose of the Smith-Towner bill. The Catholic Hier
archy of America has twice met in formal session
since this legislation was first proposed in congress,
without expressing opposition to the bill. The first
Sunday in Lent this year, in all the Catholic Churches
of the country, a Pastoral Letter, the joint expression
of the Bishops and Archbishops of the whole United
States, was published. It dealt with various matters,
including the attitude of Catholics towards education,
which it treated at length; but the proposal incorpo
rated in the Smith-Towner bill was not mentioned.
You have possibly read this Pastoral Letter; if not,
I shall be glad to present you or any reader of The
Index requesting it, a complete copy.
A number of Catholic papers frankly oppose the
Smith-Towner bill. Other Catholic papers take a
different attitude. Some organizations of Catholics
also have by resolution expressed earnest opposition.
Others are silent. Some of the most loyal and de
voted Catholics I know favor the bill. Others favor
the principle, but feel that in the present unsettled
conditions its passage would give an impetus toward
centralization in government that might prove harm
ful. Still others oppose the principle, but not on
religious grounds. It may not be said, therefore,
that Catholics as a body are opposed to the bill. Nor
can it be said that those among Catholics who are
opposed to it, are opposed on religious grounds. Their
opposition, for the most part, and where it exists,
rests on the same ground that Dr. Charles Eliot, the
Honorable Champ Clark, Mr. Herbert Hoover, Sen
ators Calder, Frelinghuysen, McComber, Williams,
Thomas, Kane, Chamberlain and others, none of
whom is a Catholic, rest their opposition.
In more quarters than one, throughout the nation,
there exists a genuine fear, not particular to any class,
party or denomination, of the government going any
further in the way of centralization. Without saying
that the steps taken in this direction during the war
were unnecessary, or any more than necessary, there
is a strong feeling that it is time for a sharp intake
of that line. The Smith-Towner bill as originally in
troduced, was so plainly susceptible of a construction
that would give to the federal department proposed
an undue power over State educational systems, that
the author himself amended the measure with an eye
to preventing that. Whether or not that amendment
is quite efficacious, I would not presume to say. It
has not entirely set at rest the opposition, if it has
quieted it at all. Laws are not always construed by
public officials, or by the courts, strictly in accord
ance with the intention of the men who draw them
up. The opposition to the Smith-Towner proposal
may be mistaken; it may not be regarded as unen
lightened, unpatriotic, or altogether without reason.
In 1872, when Bismarck was pressing the cele
brated May Laws upon the German people there was
considerable opposition shown to those provisions
looking to the centralization of the schools of the
German States under the control of the Empire.
Among the leaders of the opposition was Bishop Ket-
teler, a Catholic, although the opposition was not
confined to Catholics. In a pamphlet entitled “The
New Prussian Bills,” issued during the controversy,
Bishop Ketteler warned the German people of the
danger such a measure invited, pointing out how its
provisions would “overthrow, one after another, the
safeguards of the freedom of the people, and trans
plant the super-State systems of the pagans to Ger
man soil.” The warning was not heeded. Germany
built up the most thorough-going, best manned, best
equipped, richest funded systems of schools, perhaps
ever known; but with disastrous consequences, be
cause her education was not free, and where education
is not free the taint of servility spreads and sinks in
more and more with each generation. If Catholics
seem to be more sensitive than others to such a dan
ger, it is only the way of minorities, who suffer first,
and are the greatest sufferers from any transgression
of the liberties of the people.
So much for the Smith-Towner bill, with its pro
posal to put in the hands of one person the patronage
and power incident to the annual distribution as a free
gift a hundred millions of dollars. As to that part of
the Democratic platform which declares that “Co
operative federal assistance to the States is immedi
ately required for the removal of illiteracy, for the
increase of teachers salaries and instruction in citi
zenship for both native and foreign-born,” it is not
open to the objections urged against the creation of
a federal department with enormous power. Direct
appropriations to the States for the purposes men
tioned, with authority to State-elected officials cover
ing its distribution (which in some form is the only
alternative to the centralization plan that both Demo-
carts and Republicans refused to indorse), would re
pose deserved confidence in our State governments