On the Fourth Precept of the Decalogue

“The domestic society or entire family borrows the whole reason of its existence from civil law alone; and therefore all the rights of parents over their children, but especially the right of providing for their instruction and education, emanate and depend upon civil authority alone.” Proposition condemned by Pius IX in the Encyclical Quanta cura.

“45. The entire government of public schools in which the youth of any Christian commonwealth is instructed—with episcopal seminaries alone excepted in some manner—can and ought to be attributed to the civil authority, and indeed so attributed that no right of interfering in the discipline of the schools, in the government of studies, in the conferring of degrees, or in the selection or approval of teachers is acknowledged in any other authority whatsoever. — 46. Indeed, even in seminaries of clerics the method of studies to be employed is subjected to the civil authority. — 47. The best ordering of civil society requires that popular schools, which are open to all boys of every class of the people, and public institutions generally, which are destined for imparting letters and the more rigorous disciplines and for providing for the education of youth, be exempted from every authority, governing power, and interference of the Church, and be subjected to the full judgment of the civil and political authority, according to the pleasure of rulers and according to the exact measure of the common opinions of the age. — 48. That manner of instructing youth which is separated from the Catholic faith and from the power of the Church, and which regards only, or at least primarily, the knowledge of natural things and the ends of earthly social life, can be approved by Catholic men.” Propositions condemned by Pius IX in the Syllabus; A. S. S., vol. 21, p. 691.

“The clergy, as being enemies of true and useful knowledge and of the progress of civilization, are to be removed from every care and office of instructing and educating youth.” Proposition condemned by Pius IX in the Encyclical Quanta cura.

“29. Universities, studies, colleges, graduations, and masterships in them were introduced by vain paganism; they profit the Church as much as the devil.” Proposition of John Wycliffe condemned at the Council of Constance.

“…Moreover, the very manner of instructing youth proper and peculiar to schools of this kind—non-Catholic schools—had first to come under deliberation. This appeared to the Sacred Congregation to be full of danger even of itself and exceedingly adverse to the Catholic cause. For pupils of such schools, since their proper manner excludes every doctrine of religion, will neither learn the rudiments of the faith nor be instructed in the precepts of the Church, and thus they will lack the knowledge most necessary to man, without which one does not live as a Christian…. In the aforesaid schools … teachers from every sect without distinction are employed, so that they are free to infuse errors and seeds of vice into tender minds. A certain corruption also threatens from this additional fact: that in the same schools, or at least in many of them, young people of both sexes are brought together in the same room to hear lessons, and males are ordered to sit upon the same bench beside females. All these things bring it about that youth is wretchedly exposed to harm concerning the faith and that morals are endangered. — But unless this danger of perversion is rendered remote from proximity, such schools cannot be attended with a safe conscience. The natural and divine law itself proclaims this…. And these things, as founded upon natural and divine law, state a certain general principle, possess universal force, and pertain to all those regions where this most pernicious manner of instructing youth has unhappily been introduced….

“Nevertheless, the Sacred Congregation is not ignorant that the circumstances of affairs are sometimes such that Catholic parents can in conscience commit their children to public schools. But they cannot do this unless they have a sufficient cause for acting thus; and whether such a sufficient cause is present or absent in some particular case will have to be left to the conscience and judgment of the Bishops. According to the things reported, it will then generally be present when either no Catholic school is available or the one available is poorly suited to instructing young people in a manner fitting and congruent with their condition. But then, so that public schools can be approached in conscience, the danger of perversion, which by their proper nature is always more or less connected with them, must by opportune remedies and precautions be rendered remote from proximity. Therefore it must first be seen whether, in the school concerning the attendance of which there is question, the danger of perversion is of such a kind that it plainly cannot be rendered remote, as often as certain things opposed to Catholic doctrine or good morals are either taught or done there, things which can neither be heard nor performed without harm to the soul. Indeed, as is evident of itself, such a danger is to be avoided at the cost of any temporal harm whatsoever, even of life.

“Moreover, in order that youth can in conscience be committed to public schools, it must duly and diligently receive the necessary Christian instruction and education, at least outside school time. Therefore, let pastors and missionaries … diligently devote themselves to catecheses…. Let the parents themselves, or those who are in their place, keep solicitous watch over their children…. From Catholic moral doctrine it is manifest that however many parents neglect to impart this necessary Christian instruction and education to their children; or allow them to attend such schools in which ruin to souls cannot be avoided; or, finally, although a suitable Catholic school, properly instructed and prepared, is present in the same place, or although they have the faculty of educating their children as Catholics in another region, nevertheless commit them to public schools without sufficient cause and without the necessary precautions by which the danger of perversion is rendered remote from proximity—such persons, if they have been contumacious, cannot be absolved in the sacrament of Penance.” Instruction of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, On Public Schools, to the Most Reverend Bishops in the United States of North America, 30 June 1875; C. 481.

“By letters given on 3 Feb. 1865 to the Most Reverend Fathers and Lords, the sacred Prelates of England, the Sacred Council commonly called the Propagation of the Faith signified that it had most willingly confirmed the opinion unanimously proposed by the praised Bishops at the recent London meeting: that colleges were not to be erected in connection with the English Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and that Catholic parents were opportunely to be persuaded not to send their sons to those Universities, because, namely, the same Sacred Council had seen that the opinion of the Bishops was wholly consonant with the principles handed down by it according to the mind of the Supreme Pontiff whenever it had been consulted concerning the dangers of mixed schools…. “But since not all passed the same judgment concerning the avoidance of non-Catholic Universities, and there were even some who judged that it could be tolerated that Catholic youth attend the aforesaid Institutions, whether on account of the temporal emoluments acquired in them or because, in their opinion, no certain law appears by which access to them is absolutely prohibited, I judge it worthwhile that Your Amplitude clearly explain in a pastoral letter the doctrine concerning the avoidance of proximate occasions of sinning gravely, to which no one can expose himself without mortal sin unless a grave and proportionate necessity urges, and unless such precautions are employed by which the proximate danger of sinning is rendered remote. Now, in the matter concerning which there is question, in which, according to the declaration of the Supreme Pontiff, there inheres an intrinsic and most grave danger not only for uprightness of morals but especially for the faith, which is altogether necessary for salvation, who does not see that there can scarcely, or not even scarcely, be circumstances in which non-Catholic Universities can be attended without sin? The lightness of mind and instability of young people, the errors which are drawn in as if with the air in the said Institutions without the antidote of more solid doctrine, and the very great force which human respect and the mockeries of companions exercise upon the young introduce so present and so proximate a danger of falling for young people that generally no sufficient reason can be conceived on account of which they may be committed to non-Catholic Universities….” Instruction of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 6 Aug. 1867; C. 478.

“1. Is it lawful for parents to commit their children to schools of this kind—mixed schools—to be instructed? — Resp. Generally speaking, it is not lawful; but in particular cases it is to be left to the judgment and conscience of the Ordinary. It will, however, be his duty to take diligent care that opportune remedies be employed not only by himself and by the pastors, but also by each parent, by which the danger of perversion may be removed from the pupils; and at the same time to press upon the magistrates and governors that violence not be inflicted upon the conscience of Catholics by employing books hostile to the Catholic religion; and finally, constantly and insistently to admonish and exhort all, and especially those who have the ability, to send their children into other regions where they may be educated as Catholics.

“2. Is it lawful for a priest to teach the doctrines of the Christian faith in the aforesaid schools or to discharge the office of chaplain? — Resp. In the affirmative, and according to the intention. The intention is that care is to be taken that, insofar as possible, priests or upright laymen of proven religion be placed over as many schools as possible, not only for teaching the Christian faith but also the other disciplines. But in order that every fear of scandal may cease, the people are to be admonished that this is done so that the evils which flow from schools of this kind may, insofar as possible, be averted; and that it therefore ought to be an excuse for no one not to send his children to purely Catholic schools, in which their faith and morals are in no manner endangered.

“3. Even if those mixed schools can in some manner be tolerated, is it lawful for the Catholics of the Jura to renounce their right, resting upon public treaties, by force of which it is unlawful for anyone who does not profess the Catholic religion to discharge the office of teaching in their public schools?” Resp. In the negative, whether there is question of an express cession or even of a tacit cession arising from silence and culpable toleration. Therefore, although care must be taken lest anything be done imprudently by which the ferocity of adversaries is aroused to inflict graver evils, nevertheless nothing is to be relaxed of diligence and constancy, so that the legitimate means which are in the power of Catholics may be employed for recovering the aforesaid right, together with the sanctity of the treaty and the immunity of the Catholic religion.” Instruction of the Holy Office to the Bishops of Switzerland, 26 March 1866; A. S. S., vol. 25, p. 132 ff.; vol. 33, p. 222 ff.; C. 477.

“By a most recent decree the Catholic catechism is expelled from the schools of the Municipality. The decree, worthy of reproach, removes an obstacle from raging heresy and unbelief…. But while, in the name of religion, we raise our voice to defend its sacred rights, we also wish it to become known to everyone how much a senseless design of this kind is opposed to the good of society…. For it is not lawful to renew Solomon’s judgment upon a child, and irrationally and inhumanly to divide him in half with respect to his intelligence and his will: because, while the former is cultivated, the latter must be directed toward acquiring virtuous habits and pursuing the last end…. And the matter shines with such splendor that it was held to be true, even at the price of contradiction, by those very persons who desire that religious instruction be cast out of the schools; for they do not direct their efforts to the intellect alone, but also to the will, endeavoring that the ethics which they call civil and natural be taught in the schools, and taking care that youth be directed toward the acquisition of civil and social virtues. But a moral philosophy of this kind is not only unable to lead man to the higher end established by the divine goodness in the beatific vision of God, but also proves unequal to this: that the soul of the child be instructed in true virtue and be able to remain constant upon the right path…. And rightly have we used the word expel: since the method devised of offering religious instruction only to those children whose parents have expressly requested it is altogether a mockery. For it is not easy to comprehend how the authors of this impious design failed to consider with what evil feeling a child would be affected who perceived that he was receiving religious instruction in a manner altogether different from others…. But if, driven either by depravity of mind, or ignorance, or sloth, there are parents—as is not difficult—who do not request for their children the benefit of religious instruction, a great part of the young would be deprived of the most salutary teachings, with the greatest danger not only to the souls of those innocent children, but also to civil society itself…. When benefits even of less importance were expected, elementary instruction was rendered obligatory by law, compelling parents by fines to send their children to school; who now will dare to take religious instruction away from Catholic youth, when it presents itself as the more prudent protection for leading life uprightly? Is it not cruel to demand that children of this kind grow up without any knowledge of religion…?” Letter of Leo XIII to the Most Eminent Cardinal Vicar, Tot inter, 26 June 1878.

“The Church, guardian and vindicator of the integrity of the faith, which, by the authority committed to her by God her Founder, ought to call all nations to Christian wisdom and likewise carefully to see by what precepts and institutions the youth placed under her power is cultivated, has always openly condemned schools which are called mixed or neutral, repeatedly admonishing fathers of families to turn their attention, in a matter of such importance, to taking precautions.” Encyclical Letter of Leo XIII, Nobilissima Galliarum, to the Bishops of France, 8 February 1884.

Cf. no. 367.

“10. No one without revelation would reasonably assert of himself or of another that he was the head of a particular Church, nor is the Roman Pontiff the head of the particular Roman Church. — 11. It is not necessary to believe that this man, whoever is the Roman Pontiff, is the head of any particular holy Church, unless God has predestined him.” Propositions of John Hus condemned by the Council of Constance.

“15. No one is a civil lord, no one is a Prelate, no one is a Bishop, while he is in mortal sin.” Proposition of John Wycliffe and John Hus condemned by the Council of Constance.

“63. It is lawful to refuse obedience to legitimate Princes, and even to rebel.” Proposition condemned by Pius IX in the Syllabus. Cf. no. 870.

“1. Is it lawful for a priest to open a vein or to practice certain other things of the medical art? — 2. What is to be called the best manner of providing for the support of ministers here in these new regions? — 3. What obligation rests upon the laity to pay this due? — 4. Is it lawful to deny spiritual ministry to those persons, or to persons belonging to their family—for example, the Sacrament of Baptism to infants—if they refuse to submit to this due? — Resp. To 1. In the negative, unless a dispensation has been obtained and in a case of true necessity. — To 2. Provision is to be made from the revenues of the churches and the voluntary offerings of the faithful. — To 3. The faithful are bound in conscience to the sufficient support of the Ministers of the Church. — To 4. The question of denying sacred things, and Baptism itself, to those who refuse to submit to the due of offerings is unworthy of an ecclesiastical man and deserving of censure.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 13 May 1816.

“…But if we descend from abstractions to the consideration of facts, care must diligently be taken lest the principles established thus far be denied. These indeed remain immovable; nevertheless, when facts arise, they bear the character of something contingent and variable in use, which is determined by those very facts, whence the application made of those principles follows. Or, in other words: although each form of civil government is good in itself and can be adapted to the supreme government of peoples, nevertheless in reality among every people civil power is found only in its one unique form; each people certainly possesses its own proper form. This form arose from a complex of historical or national circumstances, which nevertheless always pertain to men; these circumstances in each nation gave origin to its laws, which were to be transmitted to posterity and held as a foundation; and through these circumstances this or that particular form of civil government is found to be defined, namely, this foundation for transmitting every supreme power to posterity.

“We deem it useless to admonish here that individual citizens are bound to submit to governments thus constituted, and that nothing is to be attempted in order to overthrow them or to change their form. Hence it came about that the Church, which alone upon earth guards as a deposit, most of all, the true and sublime notion of civil power, because she teaches that all power is derived from God, has continually condemned rebellious men who refuse obedience to legitimate authority. And this even at the very time when Kings and Princes were abusing the power entrusted to them, thereby depriving themselves of the strongest of all safeguards granted them for sustaining their authority, and of the most efficacious of all aids for obtaining from peoples observance of the laws of government…. Nevertheless, it must here be diligently noted that, whatever may be the form of civil government in any nation, it is by no means to be regarded as so definitive that it ought to remain immutable forever, even if perhaps this was the intention and will of those who determined it at the beginning. The Church of Jesus Christ alone has been able to preserve until now the form of her government…. But as regards merely human societies, it is a fact confirmed by six hundred historical documents that time, that remarkable transformer of earthly things, repeatedly effects most grave changes in their civil institutions. Sometimes indeed it changes the form of government only to some extent; but at other times it advances so far that, after the former forms have been abolished, it substitutes new and altogether different ones; indeed, sometimes it even changes the very manner of transmitting supreme power to successors.

“But how do these changes of which we speak happen to the commonwealth? They sometimes follow violent crises of a nation, all too frequently bloody; in the heat of these the preceding governments vanish; then behold anarchy, which now holds sway there; immediately the public order of the state is overturned from its lowest foundations. Then a certain social necessity is imposed upon the nation; it is compelled to provide for itself without delay.

“Why, I ask, will it not have the right, or rather the duty, to withdraw itself from such a state of affairs, which disturbs it so gravely, and to restore public peace to its former tranquility of order? Now this social necessity proves the constitution and existence of a new government to be just, whatever form at length it assumes; because, in the hypothesis in which we are situated, these new governments are meanwhile necessarily required for restoring public order, since no public order can subsist without some civil government.

“Hence it follows that the whole novelty of the matter, in events of this kind, is confined to the political form of civil government to be established, or to the changed manner of transmitting that government to successors, but in no way touches the government itself considered in itself. This indeed continues immovable and worthy of observance; for, if it is inspected more intimately in its very nature, it is established and imposed for the sake of providing for the common good, which is the supreme reason from which human society takes its origin. In other words: in every hypothesis civil power, considered as such, is from God, and always and everywhere from God alone. For there is no power, writes the Apostle, but from God (Rom. 13:1).

“Therefore, when new governments which represent this immutable power have in fact been constituted, citizens are not only not forbidden voluntarily to submit to them; they are, rather, altogether commanded to do so because of the necessity of the common good, for the sake of which those governments arose and continue to exist. This is especially so since the rebellion of peoples can sharpen hatred among citizens, excite civil wars, and cast the nation itself down into the chaos of anarchy. But this great duty of observance and submission will continue so long as the necessity of the common good shall demand it; for this public good is the first and last law before God and in human society.” Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter Inter gravissimas, 16 February 1892, to the Bishops of France; A. S. S., vol. 24, p. 534 ff.

“An unbelieving king lays snares for the Christians subject to him, or wishes here and now to destroy them and to abolish the Christian name in his kingdom. While he is contemplating and preparing these things, other wicked men, by conspiring against him and defeating him, attempt to cast him out of his kingdom. It is asked: — 1. Whether the Christians are bound positively to defend him, namely, the tyrant who wishes here and now to slaughter them; or whether they can rather conduct themselves negatively, neither fighting against him nor assisting him. — 2. Insofar as the response to the first part is affirmative: after he has been cast out of his kingdom, whether the Christians are bound to recall him to his kingdom, if they can; or whether they can rather admit and defend his successor, even, in the given case, against the former king, especially if the successor tolerates or favors religion. — Resp. To 1. As the matter is stated, in the negative to the first part; in the affirmative to the second part. — To 2. Provided for in 1.” Holy Office, 27 January 1892.