Case 5. Catholics at Non-catholic Secondary Schools

Caius, a Catholic merchant in a certain large city of England, sends his son daily to a neighboring non-Catholic school. There is indeed a Catholic school almost equally near, in which an almost equally good education in letters and sciences can be had, as successful results in public examinations attest; nevertheless Caius, although asked by Julius, the parish priest, does not wish to send his son to it, because the non-Catholic school is more distinguished in fame and name, and also more celebrated for the number and condition of its pupils. In these circumstances Julius doubts whether he ought to keep Caius from the sacraments of the Church. Hence it is asked:

1. What are the obligations of parents toward their children?

2. What power does the Church have concerning the education of the faithful, and whence does she have it?

3. What does the Church teach concerning education in non-Catholic or mixed or neutral schools?

4. What is to be said of the case?

1. See answer to this question in “Manual of Moral Theology,” vol. i, p. 274.

2. See this question answered above, p. 212.

3. What does the Church teach about education in non-

Catholic or neutral schools?

The Church teaches that such education is in the highest degree dangerous to faith and morals; that, as a rule, it is gravely sinful to send a child to such schools for education, and that only necessity can make it lawful, provided always that the dangers be made remote and the defective religious training otherwise supplied. The declaration of the English bishops, Sept. 17, 1905, was given above, p. 213. In answer to a question put by Cardinal Vaughan concerning secondary non-Catholic schools in England, the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda, Jan. 23, 1899, wrote: “The frequentation of public schools of this kind can not be without a grave danger to faith and morals, or be held consistent with the use of those means which the Church properly prescribes for the sanctification of souls; and that therefore an obligation is incumbent on Catholic parents, not to expose their sons to this grave danger.” See “Tablet,” June 22, 1901, p. 991. Other declarations of the Holy See and of the bishops are given in Fourth Council of Westminster, decree 17, and in the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, pp. 99, 279.

4. The case. Caius, a Catholic merchant of a large city in England, sent his son to a non-Catholic day school, though there was an equally good Catholic school as near. Julius, his parish priest, asked him why he did not send his son to the Catholic school. Caius answered that the non-Catholic school had a better reputation and that the number and standing of the boys were higher. These reasons do not justify Caius in his action, all the less because it may give scandal to others. But as was said above (p. 214) Julius should not deny him the sacraments without consulting the bishop.