Evil Schools

298. Declarations. 1. Non-Catholic schools are of diverse kinds: a. positively non-Catholic, in which heresy or impiety is openly taught; b. neutral, which in instruction and education wholly prescind from positive religion. These are also called mixed schools, because they admit pupils belonging to any sect whatever.

2. Pupils of schools of this sort are exposed to proximate danger of perversion both as to faith and as to morals. This danger chiefly flows from a threefold cause: from teachers, from books, and from fellow pupils. Nor do neutral schools lack this danger; for by the very fact that pupils are neither instructed in the faith nor educated to live in a Christian manner, indifferentism is fostered and the way is prepared for atheism. Moreover, it can scarcely happen that instruction wholly prescind from religion; but what is said about religion in schools of this sort is usually contrary to the Catholic religion.

3. What is said here about non-Catholic schools is valid not only of elementary and middle schools but also of higher schools: for in all, even the highest, which are not truly Catholic, grave dangers in faith and morals threaten the pupils.

¹ Instruction of the Holy Office, 24 Nov. 1875, to the bishops of North America. Cf. I. Aertnys, Fasciculus theol. moral.^4 (Tornaci: Castermann, 1888), tract. 1, n. 38 ss.; Genicot, I, n. 352.

299. Assertions. 1. Never, not even for avoiding the gravest damage, is it licit for parents to send children to non-Catholic schools in which the proximate danger of perversion can in no way be removed; nor is it ever licit for the children themselves to frequent schools of this sort, even if parents force them to this, because it is never licit to expose oneself to a proximate danger of sinning which cannot be removed.

Schools of this sort are those in which those things are taught or done which cannot be heard or performed without grave spiritual detriment, as if openly evil doctrines are proposed, if pupils are forced to recite heretical prayers, to be present at false rites, if fellow pupils are so evil that scarcely anyone can be preserved from contagion.

2. Although of itself it is always illicit to send children to non-Catholic schools, nevertheless from a just cause it is licit to send them to those schools in which the proximate danger of perversion can be made remote. The reason for the first is that parents do not satisfy their obligation if they procure for children an education which is only not openly opposed to the true religion, unless it is also truly Christian and Catholic. The reason for the second is that from a just cause it is licit to expose oneself to a remote danger of perversion.

a. A sufficient cause on account of which a non-Catholic school can be approached is present if no Catholic school is had, or if the Catholic school which is available does not suffice for the condition of the children, while the parents lack the resources by which they can send the children into another region to a Catholic school. Moreover, the excusing cause must be greater in proportion as the danger of perversion is greater. But judgment both concerning the quality of the school and concerning the sufficiency of the cause belongs to the ordinary.

b. The means by which the proximate danger must be removed are these: alpha. to instruct and educate the children suitably outside school in those things which are necessary for believing and living in a Christian manner; beta. to teach and confirm them suitably in those things which are usually chiefly attacked in schools of this sort; gamma. to watch diligently lest children suffer damage in faith and morals either from bad books or from evil companions.

c. The Holy See itself declared that it could now be tolerated, what had previously been prohibited, that Catholic youths approach the universities of Oxford and Cambridge, because a Catholic university was lacking in England; and at the same time it determined what cautions had to be employed for removing the dangers arising from it.¹

Note. From these things the following are now inferred for practice:

a. Parents cannot be absolved: alpha. if they send children to non-Catholic schools because they approve their principles and prefer them to Catholic schools; beta. if they commit children to be instructed in positively non-Catholic schools; gamma. if they hand over children to a non-Catholic school and do not take care that the danger of perversion be removed.

b. To parents who without sufficient cause send children to a non-Catholic school, but take care that the dangers of perversion be removed by a good education of the children, absolution cannot be denied, unless by reason of scandal or cooperation in promoting bad schools they sin gravely; because they do not expose them to proximate danger of perversion, and they are not bound under grave obligation to avoid a remote danger.

c. That priests teach Christian doctrine in mixed schools and Catholic men teach other disciplines in the same schools, the Holy See not only permits, but greatly commends. Yet at the same time it wills that the people be warned that this is done so that the evils which flow from schools of this sort may be turned away as far as can be done, and that parents are not for this reason excused from sending their children to merely Catholic schools, in which their faith and morals are in no way endangered.²

¹ Holy Office, 26 Mar. 1895. S. C. de Prop. Fide, 17 Apr. 1895, to the Archbishop of Westminster.

² Holy Office, 26 Mar. 1866, to the bishops of Switzerland.

I. Among non-Catholic schools:

1. Some are so harmful that the danger to faith or morals cannot, morally speaking, become remote, for example if children would continually hear bad doctrine or would be compelled to be present at prohibited rites, or if the students were so perverse that scarcely anyone could keep himself unharmed.¹

2. Others are less, but nevertheless positively, harmful, either on account of doctrines to be handed on or on account of association with bad companions, which threatens in them.

3. Others are only negatively harmful, namely neutral schools, or such as merely exclude religion.

II. It is clear that the schools under 1 and 2 are to be condemned; but even neutral schools are to be disapproved. This is clear first from ecclesiastical documents. Thus Pius IX condemned proposition 48: "This method of educating youth can be approved by Catholic men, 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 merely natural things and the ends of earthly social life."² And Pius XI declares that "through schools which they call neutral, the whole foundation of Christian education is thrown down and overturned, since religion is wholly removed from them; these schools, moreover, will in no way be neutral except in appearance, since in reality they are or will be fully hostile to religion."³ And can. 1373: in every elementary school, religious instruction is to be handed on to children according to their age (§ 1). Youth which attends middle or higher schools is to be cultivated by a fuller doctrine of religion, and Ordinaries of places are to see to it that this be done through priests outstanding in zeal and doctrine (§ 2). Next, that neutral schools are to be rejected is clear from the fact that - as the cited documents already declare - in practice they will cease to be truly neutral, because they are separated from the authority of the Church, whereby it easily happens that the teachers to be put in charge and the books to be used harm the children; all the more because scientific instruction, for example of history, can scarcely be handed on without its being plain which religion the teacher supports.⁴

III. As to attendance at non-Catholic schools, can. 1374 establishes: Catholic children are not to attend non-Catholic, neutral, mixed schools, namely those which are open also to non-Catholics. But it belongs to the local Ordinary alone to decide, according to the norm of the instructions of the Apostolic See, in what circumstances of things and with what precautions applied, so that the danger of perversion may be avoided, it can be tolerated that those schools be attended. With these things noted, I say:

1. It is never lawful to send children to schools about which we spoke under I, 1.

2. It is also of itself gravely unlawful to send children to a less, but nevertheless positively, harmful school. By accident, or on account of a grave cause, this is lawful, provided remedies are applied by which the danger becomes remote. As to children who attend universities (especially non-Catholic ones), let parents take the greatest care that before the children are sent to them, they be cultivated by solid education and knowledge of religion; that they enroll in a Catholic society of students; that they be able to approach a learned and upright man who by his counsel may remove dangers and doubts; that they choose a religious friend, which association may draw them back from illicit companionships.

3. To send children to a neutral school, as it is called, that is, to a school only negatively harmful or such as merely excludes religion:

a) It is a grave sin: a) if it is done from a gravely bad motive, for example because one approves neutrality or spurns the authority of the Church; b) if it is done with grave scandal; this can be present if in that place there is a Catholic school equally suitable.

b) Otherwise it is of itself a light sin, provided religious instruction is cared for in another way. But parents are excused if no Catholic school is at hand, or if the one available is little suited for instructing adolescents suitably according to their condition; if otherwise grave harm threatens the parents, for example from the side of magistrates.⁵

4. What has just been said is almost also valid concerning schools about which Pius XI speaks thus: nor can that school be tolerated (especially if it is the "only" one and all children are bound to attend it), in which, although the precepts of sacred doctrine are handed on separately to Catholics, nevertheless the teachers are not Catholic who instruct Catholic and non-Catholic children together in letters and arts.⁶

Finally, it must be seen whether the local Ordinary has prescribed anything concerning the aforesaid matters.

Corollary I. Unworthy of absolution are parents who "neglect to impart necessary Christian education and instruction to their children, or who permit them to attend such schools in which ruin of souls cannot be avoided; or finally who, although there is a Catholic school in the same place, suitable and aptly equipped and prepared, or although they have the ability to educate their offspring in a Catholic manner in another region, nevertheless entrust them to public (neutral) schools without sufficient cause and without the necessary precautions, by which the danger of perversion may be removed from being proximate."⁷

Corollary II. It is lawful for someone, on account of a grave cause, to assume the office of teacher in neutral schools, provided he is not compelled to use bad books. Likewise it is permitted to hold the office of inspector: 1. if a grave cause is present and the schools to be inspected are not positively harmful; 2. if the schools are indeed positively harmful but there is hope that they will be rendered notably less harmful. Yet it must be considered to what extent public scandal perhaps prohibits the aforesaid things.

¹ Instruction of the Holy Office, November 24, 1875 (Collectanea de Propaganda Fide, n. 1449).

² Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1748.

³ Encyclical Divini illius magistri, December 31, 1929; cf. Pius IX, letter Quum non sine, July 14, 1864; Leo XIII, allocution Summi Pontificatus, August 20, 1880; encyclical letter Nobilissima, February 8, 1884; encyclical letter Quod multum, August 22, 1886; letter Officio sanctissimo, December 22, 1887; encyclical letter Caritatis, March 19, 1894, etc.

⁴ Instruction of the Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide, November 24, 1875 (Collectanea, n. 1449).

⁵ Cf. encyclical of Pius XI, Divini illius magistri.

⁶ Cited encyclical.

⁷ Instruction of the Holy Office, November 24, 1875 (Collectanea, n. 1449).

These matters were treated at length in volume I, n. 714 sq.

Dangerous Schools.—With reference to their danger to faith, schools are of three kinds:

(a) sectarian schools, in which heresy or infidelity is prescribed as part of the curriculum, and assistance at non-Catholic rites is required. Examples are colleges and universities supported by Protestant denominations, sectarian Sunday schools, Bible classes;

(b) neutral schools (i.e., schools in which all religious teaching is forbidden and no recognition given to any denomination) whose spirit and teaching in secular branches is anti-religious or anti-Catholic. Examples are non-sectarian colleges or universities in which materialism is incidentally taught, or in which the faculty are freethinkers or bigots;

(c) neutral schools in which no positive offense is given to religion or the Church. Examples are public schools in which only the profane sciences are taught, and care is exercised that neither the text-books nor the teachers shall be irreligious or interfere with the religious beliefs of others. Reducible to this category are mixed schools, that is, those which are open also to non-Catholics (Canon 1374).

The danger of the foregoing kinds of schools to the faith of pupils is as follows:

(a) in the sectarian schools there is danger of heresy or infidelity, since the pupils are obliged to hear the defense of false doctrine and to join in the services of a false religion;

(b) in the neutral schools of an anti-religious spirit the danger is the same, for the pupils must attend courses in which the interpretations given to history, science, philosophy, letters, etc., are unfriendly to the faith;

(c) in the neutral schools whose spirit is not anti-religious, there is a danger of Indifferentism that arises from the system itself; for the very fact that religion is slighted tends to impress the students with the idea that it is unimportant or unrelated to other matters of life, and this prepares the way for doubt and scepticism. Moreover, since example teaches more effectively than the printed or spoken word, the neglect or contempt of religion by professors and fellow-pupils in mixed schools is a danger to faith.

The lawfulness or unlawfulness of attending or patronizing schools dangerous to faith must be decided according to the principles given above on the occasions of sin (see 263 sqq.).

(a) If the danger to faith is voluntary, the use of such schools is not lawful, for those who are able are bound to seek or provide religious education both in elementary and higher schooling (see Canon 1373). Example: In the town of X there are good parochial and Catholic high schools. Sempronius could easily send his children to these schools, but he thinks that certain select schools offer greater social and financial advantages, and so he chooses them. His conduct is not lawful.

(b) If the danger to faith is necessary, the use of such schools is lawful, provided the needed precautions are duly observed. Example: In the country district of Y there is no school except the public school, and therefore Balbus sends his children to that school. His conduct is lawful, but he must see that his children receive religious instruction outside of school.

The danger to faith is necessary when there is no Catholic school, or none that is sufficient for the needs of individual students, and their parents are unable to send them elsewhere. In such a case it is lawful to attend a school that is neutral, but means must be used to make the proximate danger remote. Such means are the following: (a) religious instruction must be taken outside of school, as in special week-day classes, Sunday school, home study, etc.; (b) special attention must be given to the strengthening of faith on those points that are attacked or slighted in the neutral school; (c) parents, guardians, or others responsible must see that the reading and the associates of their wards in the neutral schools are good, and that they are faithful to their religious duties.

Is attendance at non-Catholic schools sometimes unlawful, even when there are serious reasons in its favor?

(a) It is unlawful, if the schools are sectarian, and then no excuse can justify such attendance; for, in addition to scandal and cooperation in false worship, there is present a proximate danger to faith that is not made remote. Parents or guardians who knowingly send their children to schools for education in a non-Catholic religion are suspected of heresy and incur excommunication ipso facto, reserved to the Ordinary (see Canon 2319). Example: Titus sends his daughter to a sectarian academy because it is nearer and cheaper than the Catholic academy. He claims that she is old enough not to lose her religion, that opposition will make her faith stronger, etc. Titus’ arguments are fallacious and his conduct gravely sinful.

(b) Attendance at non-Catholic schools is unlawful, if the schools are neutral in theory, but so dangerous in practice that loss of faith is practically certain if one attends. Example: Balbus sends his son to an undenominational university which is regarded as a hotbed of atheism, and whose students practically to a man lose all religion.

Absolution should be denied in some cases to those who send their children to non-Catholic schools, if they refuse to change.

(a) Absolution should be denied on account of lack of faith in the parents themselves, if they send their children to non-Catholic schools on account of their own ideas that are contrary to the teachings of the Church. Example: Sempronius refuses to send his children to parochial schools, because he thinks each one should judge about religion for himself, and not receive it from instructors.

(b) Absolution should be denied on account of the danger caused to the faith of the children, when the children are sent to sectarian schools, or when they are sent to neutral schools and sufficient efforts are not used to counteract the evil influence there felt.

(c) Absolution should be refused on account of scandal or cooperation in evil, if, while the parents themselves are sound in faith and prevent all danger of perversion of their children, they send them to non-Catholic schools without sufficient reason, to the grave disedification of others, or the great assistance of unchristian education.

Absolution should not be denied in the following cases: (a) when the parents have a sufficient reason for sending their children to non-Catholic schools (i.e., a reason approved by the local Ordinary as sufficient). It belongs only to the Ordinary to decide in what circumstances and with what precautions attendance at such schools is allowable (Canon 1374; for application to the United States, see Holy Office, 24 Nov., 1875; Council of Baltimore, III, n. 199, in regard to elementary and high schools. As to colleges and universities, see S.C.Prop.Fid., 7 Apr., 1860; Fontes, n. 4649, Vol VII, p. 381; n.4868, Vol. VII, p.405; also S.C.Prop.Fid., 6 Aug., 1867); (b) when the parents have no sufficient reason, but there is no lack of faith on their part, no danger of perversion of the children, no grave scandal or sinful co-operation in evil.

The presence of Catholics as teachers in non-Catholic schools is beneficial, since it lessens to some extent the evil influence of such schools; but there is also the danger that it may cause scandal or create the impression that attendance at Catholic schools is not necessary. Hence, it has been permitted by the Church in certain cases but only when danger of scandal or wrong impression is absent. (a) The secular sciences may be taught by laymen in non-Catholic schools of higher or lower education, if there is no scandal, no unlawful cooperation, and no immediate danger of perversion. (b) Christian doctrine may be taught by priests to Catholic students of neutral schools, either in the school building or elsewhere (as in a church), and certain priests may be appointed as chaplains for this work (Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office to Bishops of Switzerland, March 26, 1866).

Concerning this question, on June 30 (Wednesday) in the year 1875, there was given by the Supreme Congregation of the Universal Inquisition an Instruction to the Most Reverend Bishops of the United States, which Our Most Holy Lord Pope Pius IX, on November 24 (Wednesday) of the same year, deigned to approve and confirm. Indeed I have found nothing in this Instruction by which those things which I taught on this matter in the first and second edition of this Compendium, and in the little work cited at the bottom of this page, are weakened. Yet since those things which proceed from the Roman See have that authority against which it is forbidden to resist, in this edition also of my work I have judged that extracts from this Instruction should be exhibited to readers (p. 471 (b) of this Volume), with certain notes added, by which beginners, confessors, and pastors of souls may be helped to understand it rightly and apply it prudently. - But in this place we resolve the following cases, sufficiently obvious in this region.

435. • Case I. Parents cannot be absolved who hand over children to public schools to be instructed, in which they are compelled to use a Protestant version of the Bible, or to recite hymns or prayers of sects. For faith is not only exposed to danger in schools of this sort, but the precept of confessing the same faith is also violated, or certainly is judged to be violated, through a certain communion in sacred things. Cf. Conc. Plen. Balt. I.³

Case II. Generally parents cannot be absolved who commit children to public schools to be instructed in which, either because of teachers, or because of books, or because of fellow students, their faith or morals are exposed to proximate danger. For they are of the number of those schools which the Holy See, in letters of July 14, 1864, to the Archbishop of Freiburg in Breisgau, declared cannot in conscience be frequented anywhere.

I say: generally they cannot be absolved, because of the exception concerning which we shall treat below.

Case III. Universally parents cannot be absolved who entrust children to public schools concerning which it is unknown whether they are of the number of those about which we spoke in Case II. For it is established that public schools nowadays among us commonly constitute proximate danger because of some one of the three positive causes indicated in Case II; therefore a presumption militates against them; and this presumption yields only to truth, that is, to certainty that this or that public school can be tolerated as not positively harmful. For in moral matters judgment must be made according to what commonly happens.

436. • Case IV. Unless otherwise they sufficiently provide for the Catholic instruction of their children, parents cannot be absolved who hand them over to public schools to be instructed, even if certainly not proximately dangerous, in those places and adjuncts in which they can commit them to some Catholic school. For the precept of instructing offspring as Catholics is not only negative, or prohibiting lest they be committed to proximately dangerous schools, but also affirmative, namely prescribing that some means, and an apt one, be employed by which Catholic instruction of this sort may be obtained. But parents of whom there is question in the case are supposed to neglect or not to employ a means of this sort. Therefore they cannot be absolved.

I said: 1) Unless otherwise they sufficiently provide for the Catholic instruction of children. For a Catholic school, although it is the best and ordinary means for obtaining this end, nevertheless is not the only one; therefore parents cannot be compelled under denial of absolution to employ precisely this means, supposing that on one side the public school is not proximately dangerous, and on the other that the children are sufficiently instructed in Christian doctrine either by the parents themselves or by others. But whether that instruction can be judged sufficient which is handed on once in the week in Sunday schools, or by the priest in church, will have to be judged from the adjuncts. For less suffices for an intelligent and diligent child, especially if he has parents by whom he is duly stimulated and helped in learning, so that he may arrive at a congruent knowledge of Christian doctrine, than for one undiligent and left to himself alone. Yet generally, and according as the condition of things is in most places, this single instruction in the week must be called insufficient.

I said: 2) In those places and adjuncts in which they can commit them to some Catholic school. For there is no obligation of impossible things. But in the matter of which we are treating, not only that which cannot be done physically is called impossible, but also that which cannot be done morally, or without grave difficulty. You have a case of the former, or of physical impossibility, in places in which, or in whose near vicinity, no Catholic school is had; or, if there is question of poor parents, in places in which Catholic schools either are not free, or are absent, or are not present in sufficient number. An example of the latter, or of moral impossibility, occurs in parents for whom that which they earn by daily labor scarcely or hardly at all suffices for bearing those double expenses which civil power exacts for public schools, and the Church for Catholic ones.

437. • Case V. Parents cannot be absolved who, without a proportionately grave cause, commit children to some public school, although not proximately dangerous, in those adjuncts in which this cannot be done without grave scandal. Suppose, for example, a Catholic man conspicuous among his fellow citizens by wealth, authority, or any other cause, in whose parish a Catholic school coexists with some public school. This man, if by his example, and especially if, as is customary for such persons, by praises also directed to the public school, he would induce others either to desert the Catholic school or not to approach it, would certainly be guilty of grave scandal, and consequently not to be absolved.

Yet I said: who without a proportionately grave cause would commit children to a public school, although not proximately dangerous, and this because of the exception concerning which we shall treat below.

Case VI. It can be doubted whether parents can be absolved who commit children to schools in which a Catholic teacher, from some Protestant version of the Bible (which nevertheless the children do not use), reads aloud only those things which are conformable to the Catholic version. And indeed the reason for doubting is that he who uses a Protestant version seems both to acknowledge its authority - since he is judged to read it aloud as the Word of God - and to propose it to children as a norm. Yet if either the children are unaware that he uses a Protestant version, or from the explicit protestation of the teacher, or from the adjuncts, it is sufficiently clear that he does not acknowledge its authority and acts in this way compelled by hard necessity, I would deny absolution neither to the teacher nor to the parents; for then the reason for doubting brought forward will no longer subsist. Yet I suppose that the school is not to be avoided for other causes, and I assume that the benign mind of Mother Church is not to wish to urge the prohibition of Protestant Bibles in such a way that in those adjuncts also in which her law would become harmful it would not be licit even materially to hold them in the hands, so that those things which are conformable to Catholic Bibles may be read aloud from them.

438. • Case VII. What if children are compelled to recite hymns or prayers of sects, but only such as contain nothing heretical, for example the formula of the Lord's Prayer with the addition: "for thine is the kingdom," etc.?

Parents who hand over children to be instructed in schools of this kind cannot be absolved, if hymns and prayers of this kind are employed as the object of a religious act, and not, as hymns often are, as the object of recreation or of natural doctrine. Yet attendance of a school of that sort could be permitted to children who would abstain from every cooperation in these prayers and songs; for by acting thus they would protest against them. But who would expect this from children?

Case VIII. What if children, in places where there is no supply of a Catholic school, could not even learn the art of reading or writing unless they are sent to some public school? I answer by distinguishing. If the children are taught in some school which is not proximately dangerous, absolution cannot be denied to the parents. But if, because of one of the causes indicated above in Case II, it is proximately dangerous, it will again have to be distinguished and the case resolved according to the principles of a necessary proximate occasion. Namely, either the danger which threatens the faith or morals of the children can be rendered remote from proximate, and in reality is rendered remote, or not. If the former, they will be able to be absolved; if the latter, they will not be able. Yet in children that danger can only with greatest difficulty be rendered remote from proximate, since that tender age is almost always imbued with the principles and morals of those whose teachings they constantly hear, or whose familiarity they use. I confess indeed that it seems rather harsh that children be deprived of the opportunity of learning the art of reading and writing; for this is of greatest moment to them, especially today, not only in any social condition which they will sometime obtain, but it can also be very useful to their faith and piety. But if that art cannot be learned without damage to faith or morals, the words of Christ the Lord in Matthew¹ hold good: "What doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul?" St. Alphonsus² resolves an analogous case in the same way, treating of girls who would be taught the art of reading and writing (privately, of course) by men. "Nor should the confessor indulge these girls," he says, "that they be taught to read by men, and much less to write. How many simple girls, who learned to read, have bewailed the ruin of the soul!" Therefore he teaches that neither are mothers to be absolved who would permit this.

439. • Case IX. What if children cannot learn in some Catholic school those things the knowledge of which they will sometime need in their social condition, for instance some language, commercial accounting, mechanics, chemistry, medicine, jurisprudence, and other things of this kind? The case occurs either because no Catholic school is present in which children are taught these things, or because that school cannot be approached except with expenses to which the parents are not equal.

The response given to the preceding case holds entire for the present case. Yet judgment concerning the lesser or greater possibility of removing danger will necessarily be various according to the various adjuncts. Thus in adolescents who are going to devote themselves to higher disciplines in some non-Catholic school, there must be considered not only a stronger or weaker character, and a mind protected more firmly or less firmly by the principles of Religion, and also childhood passed honorably or less honorably, but also the lesser or greater care, vigilance, and authority of parents; and likewise the distance of the place in which he applies himself to studies from the paternal home. For the farther the son's residence is distant from the dwelling of the parents, the more difficult it will be for them to watch over him and to exercise authority and influence upon him. Attention must also be given to the condition of the school itself and of the place, since this renders the danger more or less proximate, or increases or diminishes the difficulty of removing it. Finally, the greater or lesser gravity of the cause by which parents are impelled to hand over children to schools of this sort for instruction must be kept before the eyes; and, with all these things weighed, confessors will have to be either stricter or more benign with parents of this sort. In a word, the solicitude of Holy Mother Church concerning mixed marriages is to be held as the norm by confessors. For just as she never permits those marriages unless precautions have been employed by which the Catholic instruction of the offspring to be born from them is secure, so also confessors should in no case permit children to be committed to schools where the proximate danger of perversion is not removed; and just as absolution is to be denied to the Catholic party who is at fault that offspring is not instructed as Catholic, so also it is to be denied to parents who by their own fault either expose or leave exposed offspring in schools of which we are treating to danger as to faith or morals. Those things which we have said are consonant with what the distinguished Craisson writes in the periodical Revue des sciences ecclesiastiques,¹ and likewise with the Statutes of the Synod of Columbus, 1873.

Case X. If, the non-Catholic father compelling it, a child is committed to a public school to be instructed, the Catholic mother will be able to be absolved even in the case in which the school would be proximately dangerous, provided: 1) she yielded only to violence; 2) she opposes according to her powers the depraved influence of the school; 3) she has care, according to her ability, for the Catholic instruction of the child. Thus almost the praised Synod of Columbus.

440. • Those things which we have said concerning absolution to be denied or not to parents who commit offspring to public schools hold also, proportion observed: 1) concerning Catholic teachers teaching in them; 2) concerning those who are being instructed for the office of teacher sometime to be undertaken in public schools; 3) concerning all who have care of souls and are not solicitous, according to their power, concerning the Catholic instruction of youth; 4) concerning Catholic curators of public schools (members of the school-board). It is helpful to note a few things concerning each.

1° Teachers cannot be absolved who in school use, or read aloud to children from, books which are dangerous to faith or morals, or recite with children hymns or prayers of sects, or order children to recite them. There are some who secretly substitute a Catholic Bible for the Protestant version of the Bible, or certain Catholic sheets, or in books which they are compelled to use and which are not expressly opposed to Religion, amend depraved passages either by opportune explanation or omit them; and these, with those things observed as to Bibles which I said above n. 437, do not seem to be disturbed.

2° Resolve the same concerning those who are being instructed for the office of teacher sometime to be undertaken in public schools, unless they firmly propose, in undertaking it, to abstain from those things from which we just said a Catholic teacher ought to abstain. But if they do not seem likely to be tenacious of this purpose, they are earnestly and prudently to be exhorted that they should rather give themselves to another office or art.

3° Those who have care of souls ought diligently to weigh these words of the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore:

"The Fathers of this Plenary Council cannot but voluntarily acknowledge and openly profess that the care to be spent on forming the more tender age and adolescence in Christian morals is to be counted among the principal parts of Pastoral solicitude; and this the more, in proportion as the present enemies of our Religion strive to bring all their arts together, that they may deprave the minds of the young even from their first age."¹

Wherefore pastors are admonished:

a) "That with every zeal by which they are able, they provide for the Christian and Catholic education of Catholic children, and diligently watch lest they use a Protestant version of the Bible, or recite hymns or prayers of sects. Therefore it will have to be watched lest books or exercises of this sort be introduced into public schools, with danger to faith and piety. But everywhere constant and moderate resistance must be made to these efforts of the sects, with the aid of those who have authority to apply an opportune remedy implored."¹

b) That, since this seems to remain "the best, indeed the only" remedy "by which the gravest evils and inconveniences" which are accustomed to exist from public schools "may be met," "in each diocese, near almost every church, schools be erected in which Catholic youth may be imbued both with letters and liberal arts, and with Religion and upright morals,² ... and if there shall be need, and the adjuncts of things allow it, let pastors provide" that from the revenues of the church to which the school is annexed, suitable teachers be had in it.³

c) Let them also "seriously admonish parents" "that they watch more and more over their offspring, and diligently consult and labor earnestly for its right instruction; that they piously conspire with their Pastors, and generously pour out their resources, so that Catholic Parochial Schools may be erected and sustained as quickly as possible."⁴

d) "But since in all parishes exclusively Catholic Schools cannot yet be had because of narrow circumstances, ... Catecheses and Schools of Christian doctrine should be instituted. Let Pastors call boys and girls into their own church on Sundays and other feast days, and sometimes even more often, so that they may studiously and diligently teach them the elements of Christian doctrine."⁵ "Nor should he" (the pastor) "execute this office through others, as the more negligent are accustomed to do, but by himself. For the burden of instructing children in the rudiments of Christian faith is so joined with the pastoral office that he who from sloth or idleness is unwilling to bear it, or casts it back upon others, can in no way avoid the penalties of violated office. This is recalled to memory in express words for all to whom it pertains by the Fathers of the preceding Plenary Council."⁶

And these things indeed, as is plain of itself, are of such a kind that if any one of those who have care of souls should neglect, or be unwilling to furnish, even one of these things - may it be absent! - he would have to be held unworthy of absolution. For what parents are bound under grave sin to furnish from the office of piety, this certainly pastors of souls are bound to furnish from justice. Nor indeed can it be conceived why it would be licit for a confessor to be more benign with a pastor of souls than with parents. For the rest, in many cases it will be difficult for the confessor to judge what a pastor of souls can or cannot do in the special adjuncts in which he is placed, and the penitent will have to be left to his own conscience. Yet woe to this man if, as to this his most grave office, he shall have deceived himself!

4° Unless a founded hope is present that by their influence they will render them notably less damaging, Catholic curators of public schools which are proximately dangerous cannot be absolved; but of the rest, they cannot of themselves be called unworthy of absolution, indeed they are worthy of praise if they accept or retain the office for this end, that books and teachers which are dangerous to the faith or morals of Catholic children may be kept far from the school. For the rest, this class of men in some places causes pastors much work, and generally brings no little detriment to the Church.

When the so-called public schools must be deserted as proximate occasions was said n. 435. The cases to be treated here pertain chiefly to Catholic colleges, schools, etc.

1460. - The dangers of schools can be reduced to two principal classes. For some are found within the schools themselves; others while boys approach them, or return home from the same. Concerning these latter dangers it must only be said that depraved companions are to be avoided by young persons, and that a grave obligation can fall upon parents of procuring that under the custody of some upright man the children approach school and be led back home from it; for there can be a very great danger lest the children be wholly perverted, if on that occasion they are left without custody.

1461. - Dangers of the former kind - some have place because the teachers themselves furnish scandal to the disciples, or at least are touched by no care concerning the morals of the disciples; - but others, although the teachers are upright and satisfy their own duty.

In the former hypothesis, the gravity of the danger standing, ordinarily there is one remedy only, namely either to desert the school, or, if there is question of a Catholic school, to open the matter by oneself or through the parents to the Pastor; or, if of a public [school], and a remedy is hoped for thence, to some one of the school Trustees, or to another who can provide.

In the latter hypothesis, as if, e.g., a boy is tempted by some companion sitting at his side, recourse must be had to the teacher for a remedy.

1462. - This obligation is much more present if the author of seduction were bringing scandal to several other fellow-disciples, unknown to the teacher; for then there would be question of public scandal, which can be so damaging that it must be impeded even with grave inconvenience. - This rule is valid not only for schools, but also (and much more) for colleges, seminaries, etc., and St. Alphonsus openly adheres to it.

1463. - Query. Is a disciple who is in no way tempted by a fellow-disciple, but himself from his own frailty tempts the fellow-disciple, and, other means having been tried in vain, is placed in continual danger of sinning, nor can contain himself because that fellow-disciple sits at his side, held to reveal his own frailty to the teacher, so that he may change the place for the aforesaid fellow-disciple?

Note. The resolution to be given is valid also for similar cases perhaps occurring in colleges and seminaries, as, e.g., if a collegian or seminarian from his own weakness is placed in danger on account of another collegian or seminarian remaining in the same room. Say the same of a young man or girl who cannot withdraw himself or herself from grave danger unless by revealing his or her own frailty to the father or mother, etc. These things having been noted:

Resp. Before all things the confessor must weigh whether it is to be presumed that the Superior can and wishes to apply that remedy; and in the affirmative case it must also be weighed whether the remedy can be applied so cautiously that the penitent is not going to suffer public infamy. For if public infamy of this kind were going to arise for a penitent enjoying a good name, he could not be compelled to undergo such infamy, because in such a case there would be question of a necessary occasion. But if the whole inconvenience consists only in revealing one's own frailty to the Superior, then the confessor must weigh whether such a revelation constitutes a grave or light inconvenience. Without doubt there are cases in which a revelation of this kind cannot be made by the penitent without the greatest and extreme difficulty, as if, e.g., he enjoys great esteem with the Superior, or is very timid and ashamed; for shame can be so great that some would choose rather to be damned than to manifest their own sin to such a person, as St. Thomas wrote: whence it is no wonder if several are going to have a most grave difficulty in manifesting a shameful sin to the Superior, and much more to father or mother, with whom they must converse daily. But while this great difficulty stands, the penitent is not to be obliged to undergo so great a burden, because then there would be question of a necessary occasion. Sometimes, on the contrary, he would have to be obliged to this revelation, because sometimes cases are given in which a revelation of this kind can be done sufficiently easily, e.g. if other sins of the same kind of the penitent are already known to the Superior; if the penitent has an open temperament and one easy for manifesting sins; if it is easy for him by letters or through a third person to render the Superior more certain concerning that matter, etc. Nevertheless the confessor, as much as possible, will avoid taking upon himself the burden of denunciation of this kind.

In our times the school is a most fertile field both for good morals and sound religious doctrine and for the corruption of all morality and religion. All the enemies of the Church, plainly recognizing this most powerful efficacy of the school, with united forces strive that the Catholic faith and religion be rooted out from the minds of adolescents. Hence it is plainly evident what vehement dangers arise for adolescents from attendance at bad schools.

Non-Catholic schools are of diverse kinds: 1. positively non-Catholic and harmful, in which heresy or infidelity is openly and deliberately taught. Such are the so-called confessional schools of Protestants and unbelievers; 2. neutral (simultaneous, parity, mixed), which in instruction abstract from every positive religion and provide only profane instruction.⁷⁴

⁷⁴ Proposition (48) of the Syllabus, condemned by Pius IX, must be attended to: "To Catholic men that plan of educating youth can be approved which is separated from the Catholic faith and from the power of the Church, and which regards only the knowledge of natural things and the ends of earthly social life alone, or at least primarily" (Denz. n. 1748).

528. Principle. It is never licit to attend schools in which the proximate danger of perversion cannot be removed.⁷⁵

The reason is obvious; for it is not licit to expose oneself to the proximate danger of perversion. - Almost always positively non-Catholic schools introduce such proximate danger of perversion, because in them heresy is deliberately defended, pupils are compelled to recite heretical prayers and to be present at false rites. Hence it is not licit except in great necessity to attend such non-Catholic schools, and indeed with necessary cautions having been posited.

Nor are neutral schools always free from proximate danger of perverting adolescents. For in those schools almost necessarily indifferentism is fostered in the hearts of the pupils, who see teachers and fellow-pupils not caring much about religion or even openly attacking it. Besides, the dignity of religion is diminished in the minds of adolescents if they see it, as lacking public honor, relegated within domestic walls. Then not rarely also the good morals of the pupils are placed in great danger, since it is most difficult without the help of religion to restrain disordered passions so vehement in youth. From this it is clear that even in neutral schools proximate danger of perversion is often present, and therefore attendance at them is evil. Hence deservedly the Plenary Council of Latin America, celebrated in the year 1899, decreed:⁷⁶ "Therefore Catholic parents and guardians of pupils, with every authority by which we have power, we not only exhort but command, to keep away the offspring committed to them from schools in which the authority of the Church and the salutary influence of our religion are excluded, unless perhaps the circumstances are such that, for a sufficient cause approved by the bishop and with opportune cautions and remedies, attendance at schools of this kind in particular cases and for a time can be tolerated." Similar things the Roman Curia established on repeated occasions.⁷⁷ - From these things it is clear that judgment concerning the quality of a school and concerning the sufficiency of causes pertains to the Ordinary of the place, and not to anyone else. Thus also the Code of Canon Law, c. 1374, expressly decreed.

It can scarcely be said in which neutral schools the dangers of perversion are greater: whether in primary and secondary schools, or in Academies and Universities. Nevertheless, since today there are few Catholic Academies and Universities, more easily because of dire necessity are young men excused who attend neutral Universities and Academies. Parents who without sufficient reason send their children into neutral schools sin gravely and are not worthy of absolution. The reason is that they expose their children without sufficient reason to danger of perversion.

The means by which the proximate danger of perversion can be removed are: a) diligently to watch lest Catholic pupils suffer harm from bad books, bad fellow-pupils, irreligious teachers; b) to instruct Catholic pupils sufficiently from elsewhere in religion and good morals; c) to induce Catholic pupils to frequent reception of the sacraments and to a pious life.

⁷⁵ In almost the same words the Instruction of the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide to the bishops of the United States of North America, November 24, 1875, approved by Pius IX, speaks about this matter: "But unless this danger of perversion is made remotely proximate, such schools cannot be attended with a safe conscience. This even the natural and divine law itself proclaims."

⁷⁶ n. 667.

⁷⁷ The cited Instruction of the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide; Instruction of the Holy Office to the bishops of Switzerland, March 21, 1866; Cod. iur. can. c. 1374.

529. Offices in non-Catholic schools. Here the question arises whether a Catholic can licitly undertake the office of teacher or inspector in schools of this kind, non-Catholic or neutral. - In every case a proportionately grave cause is required so that a Catholic can cooperate in those schools so dangerous. In higher schools and in Academies and Universities today in mixed regions a sufficient cause can quite easily be present for a Catholic to assume the office of teacher. Hence in Germany, England, Switzerland, Holland, America, etc., we see distinguished Catholic men as teachers in neutral Gymnasia and Universities. But in Catholic regions, if scandal arises from undertaking such a function, it is not licit for a Catholic to be a teacher in schools of this kind. But in positively non-Catholic schools and in neutral primary schools a Catholic very rarely and not except from a very grave cause can licitly assume the office of teacher, since he is accustomed to cause grave scandal, to furnish cooperation to evil, and to cast himself into danger of his own perversion.

"Whether it is licit for a priest to hand down specially the documents of Christian faith to Catholic pupils of [neutral] schools, whether within their enclosures or elsewhere, as when they have been called together in a church for this, or to perform for them any function of chaplain (aumonier)?" The Holy Office on March 21, 1866, responded: "Affirmatively, and according to the mind: the mind is that care is to be taken that not only priests but also honest laymen of known religion, so far as this can be done, be placed over the schools for handing down Christian faith and also other disciplines; but so that every fear of scandal may cease, the people must be admonished that this is done so that the evils which flow from schools of this kind may be averted as far as can be done; and that this consequently ought not be an excuse to anyone for not sending their children to purely Catholic schools, in which their faith and morals are in no way endangered."⁷⁸

⁷⁸ Collect. de Prop. Fide n. 1286.

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.

Strange as it may seem, it is a certain undeniable fact that there is not, on the entire continent of Europe, or in the entire world, a single country, Protestant or Catholic, that upholds the Pagan system of education which has been adopted in this free country. In all of them Catholic and Protestant children receive religious instruction, during the school-hours, from their respective pastors. The present system of the Public Schools in the United States professes to exclude all religious exercises. We are often told that this is the American system, and that it is very impertinent for foreigners to wish to bring religion into schools against the American idea. Now the assertion that the exclusion of all religion from the schools is truly American, that it is an essential part of our national system, is utterly false. So far as any system of public schools can be said to have an American idea, the idea will be found to be "education based on religious instruction."

The first schools established in the Union were religious denominational schools. These schools were supported by the churches with which they were connected, and by their patrons. Religious exercises formed a part of the daily duties of the class-room. The early founders of this Republic were not able to understand how they could bring up their children in the knowledge, love, and service of God by banishing the Bible, prayer, and religious exercises of every kind from the school. Hence religion was reverenced, and its duties attended to in all institutions of learning in the country. The American system of education, in its incipiency, and for a long while, was one founded on Bible-teaching and religious exercises. The present system is un-American, anti-American.

Now how did it happen that the primitive Christian system of education became unchristian and anti-American? To make you understand more clearly the origin of the present system of the Public Schools, I must first show you how Secret Societies seek to spread Irreligious Education in Europe.

These societies profess the most irreligious and anti-social doctrines. Among the chief means employed by them for pushing forward their diabolical principles is Education without Religion. The "International," one of the most powerful of these organizations, has lately put forward a programme, in which the following points are laid down as most necessary to be insisted upon in the agitation conducted by the socialist democratic party in Switzerland:

"... Compulsory and gratuitous education up to the completion of the fourteenth year of each child's age.... Separation of the Church from the State, and also of the schools from the Church."

About three short years ago a pamphlet was published in which we find detailed the efforts made in France to spread irreligion by means of bad education. The letters of eighty of the Prelates of France are appended to the pamphlet. Alas! the sad forebodings of that noble episcopate have been too soon and too terribly fulfilled!

The following lengthy extracts are taken from the late Pastoral of the Bishops of Ireland on Christian Education:

"EFFORTS TO SPREAD IRRELIGIOUS EDUCATION IN FRANCE—DISASTROUS RESULTS IN FRANCE.

"'I see,' says the most reverend author, 'that for some time past the most extraordinary efforts are made in France to spread impiety, immorality, the most anti-social theories, under the pretext of spreading education. No longer as formerly, it is in newspapers and books that religion, morality, and the eternal principles of good order are attacked with the most deceitful and formidable weapon of a corrupt system of education. Under cover of an excellent object—and here is the great danger, for we are deluded by this pretext—under the pretext of spreading education and waging war against ignorance, infidelity is spread, war is waged against religion; and thus, whether we will or no, we rush on to the ruin of all order, moral and social. And we, the Bishops, who are as desirous as others, and perhaps more desirous than others, to see spread far and wide the blessings of education, the education of children, female education, the education of our whole people, for this is by excellence a Christian work, we are accused of being enemies of education, because we oppose anti-Christian and anti-social education.'"

The first fact mentioned by the learned writer is the existence of schools, which are called "professional schools for females," into which young girls are received at twelve years of age and upwards, for the purpose of continuing their education and learning a profession. These schools have been founded by women, free-thinkers, who formally and expressly declare it to be their object to train the youth of their own sex in rationalism and infidelity. The following incident shows the impious end for which these schools have been founded: One of the principal teachers died, and over her grave her husband pronounced these words,—"I will tell you, for it is my duty to tell you, that if this funeral is that of a free-thinker" [unaccompanied by any religious ceremony], "it is so not only by my wish, but also and chiefly because such was the desire of my dear wife." He adds that she had devoted herself to "the great work of spreading education and morality without religion, because she had no faith except in learning and in justice; she was of those who, having once seen and comprehended these truths, can have no other beacon to guide them in life, or at the hour of death." Round that grave, whose occupant had rejected religion and its ministrations in life and in death, stood three hundred girls, pupils of those "professional schools," holding bouquets in their hands, and throwing flowers on the coffin of their mistress. The schools are of a piece with the teachers. Ten hours are spent in them, but all religious instruction is strictly forbidden, under the pretext that they are free schools, "open to children of all persuasions, without religious distinction." The founders of these schools propose to give to the girls intrusted to them a moral education without ever speaking to them of religion! And this is the system of education which people are anxious to spread throughout France, and even in this country also. But, though we hope they will not succeed, can we feel fully confident that we shall escape the contagion, when we remember that this system is no other than the "mixed system," and when we bear in mind the untiring efforts which are made to develop and consolidate that system in Ireland in every branch of education, from the university, through the model-school, down to the humblest village-school? Read the description of the schools in France, of which we are speaking, and say, does it not apply to every school, even in Ireland, where the mixed principle is thoroughly carried out?

"The printed prospectus of these schools" [continues the most reverend writer] "clearly explains the advantages of professional education, while it hides the religious danger under vague expressions of an apparent liberality, such as the following: 'The school is open to children of all persuasions, without religious distinction.' The meaning of which words is no other than that in these schools, where children are kept from the twelfth to the eighteenth year of their age, and for ten hours every day (from eight a.m. to six p.m.), God and the Gospel shall be treated as if they never existed; not only religion shall never be mentioned, but these girls shall be taught morality independent of any dogmatic faith, any religion....

"The second engine used by the enemies of religion in France for the maintenance and spread of infidelity, is the Educational League. This League has been introduced from Belgium into France by the Freemasons and the 'Solidaires'—the members of an impious association, the avowed object of which is to prevent persons from receiving the sacraments, or any of the sacred rites of the Church, in life or in death. The Educational League, with a wonderful spirit of propagandism, has established throughout France libraries and courses of instruction for men and for women, and even for girls and young children. On their banner is inscribed 'Spread of Education'; but under this device is hidden the scheme of propagating irreligion. The founder of the 'League' in France^A was a Freemason, and both his declarations and those of the organs of Freemasonry leave no doubt of the Masonic origin of the scheme, and of the spirit which animates it. Now the third article of the statutes of the 'League' declares, when speaking of the education to be given by their association, that 'neither politics nor religion shall have any part in it.' And lest there should be any mistake as to the meaning of this article, one of the leading Masonic journals declares that religion is 'useless as an instrument for forming the minds of children, and that from a certain point of view it is capable of leading them to abandon all moral principles. It is incumbent on us, therefore,' concludes this journal, 'to exclude all religion. We will teach you its rights and duties in the name of liberty, of conscience, of reason, and, in fine, in the name of our society.'^B And again: 'Freemasons must give in their adhesion en masse to the excellent Educational League, and the lodges must in the peace of their temples seek out the best means of making it effectual. Their influence in this way will be most useful. The principles we profess are precisely in accord with those which inspired that project.'^C In April of the same year, the same organ of Freemasonry contained the following paragraph: 'We are happy to announce that the Educational League and the statue of our brother Voltaire meet with the greatest support in all the lodges. There could not be two subscription-lists more in harmony with each other: Voltaire, the representative of the destruction of prejudices and superstition; the Educational League, the engine for building up a new society based solely upon learning and instruction. Our brethren understood it so.' In fine, that there may not remain upon our minds the least doubt as to the identity of the principles of this League with those of Voltaire, we find its founder in France proposing, at a great Masonic dinner, a toast to the memory of that arch-infidel; while the newspaper from which we have quoted so largely, informs its readers that at one of the 'professional schools,' described above, the prize for good conduct (le prix de morale) was awarded to 'the daughters of a free-thinker, who have never attended any place of religious worship.'"

A Jean Macé.

B "La Solidarite." (Le Monde Maconnique, October, 5866 [1866], p. 472.)

C "La Solidarite." (Le Monde Maconnique, February, 5867 [1867].)

We cannot better conclude our remarks on the efforts made in France to destroy religion in the masses by means of education, than in the following words of warning, not less applicable to good and sincere Catholics in Ireland nowadays, than to those to whom they were specially addressed:

"Good and sincere Catholics (continues the author of the pamphlet already quoted), who, deceived by the motto of the association, have given their names to this Educational League, take part, without knowing it, in a Masonic institution, and in building up this new state of society, from which religion is to be banished. Well may the Bishop of Metz say: 'These persons forget that, like Proteus in the fable, Freemasonry knows how to multiply ad infinitum its transformations and its names. Yesterday it called itself 'Les Solidaires,' or 'morality independent of religion,' or 'freedom of thought'; to-day it takes the title of an 'Educational League'; to-morrow it will find some other name by which to deceive the simple."

The efforts to corrupt the youth of unhappy France by means of bad education in its higher branches, have been not less energetic and wide-spread. The lectures of the School of Medicine of Paris were inaugurated in 1865, amid shouts of "Materialism forever,"^D and on the thirtieth of December a candidate for degrees was permitted by the Medical Faculty to advance the following revolutionary doctrine, grounded on the materialistic principles he had been taught: "Who still speaks to us of free-will? As the stone which falls to the ground obeys the laws of weight, man obeys the laws which are proper to him.... Responsibility is the same for all, that is to say, none." And again: "Physicians must not be accomplices of the magistrates and judges, who punish men for acts for which they are not responsible"—pp. 32, 33. Here we have a sample of the teaching of the School of Medicine of Paris, not only the first medical school of France, but among the first schools of Europe. And this sample is, unfortunately, not a solitary one. The Medical Faculty of the University of Paris gave medals in 1866 for two dissertations, in one of which we find a denial of the act of creation and of God the Creator, and a rejection of every metaphysical idea, as useless and dangerous; while human thought is set down as produced by heat! In the other we read the following propositions: "Matter is eternal." "The action of a First Cause is useless and irrational—it is chimerical!" Again: "It is absolutely impossible to explain the existence of a creative power"; and "an immaterial being is not necessary for the production of life." And, "to attribute the phenomena of life to an immaterial soul, is to substitute a chimerical being for the hypothesis of machinists." "Materialists have done good service to physiology by eliminating metaphysical entities from this study. The idea of the soul, as an immaterial power, is a mere abstraction; in fact, nothing of the kind exists."

D Vive le Materialisme.

Unhappily these principles, subversive of all morality, are not advanced by the aspirants only to academical distinctions; most certainly the students would not advance these theories had they not learned them from their masters. Hence we find one of the Professors of the University of France, in Bordeaux, asserting, that "even among civilized nations moral ideas are so relative, contradictory, and dependent on exterior and individual relations, that it is impossible, and will always be impossible, to find an absolute definition of goodness."—p. 38, note. And the "Medical Review" published the discourse pronounced by one of the physicians of the Faculty of Paris, M. Verneuil, over the grave of a member of their learned body, Dr. Foucher, in which we find the following:

"'We are reproached with believing with the sages of old, that Fate is blind, and as such presides over our lot. And why should we not believe it?... Humbling and sad as is this admission, still we must make it: imperceptible elements of the great social organization appearing upon this earth as living beings, fragments of matter agitated by a spirit, we are born, we live, and we die, unconscious of our destiny, playing our part without any precise notion of the end, and in the midst of the darkness which covers our origin and our end, having only one consolation—the love of our fellow-man.

"'This simple philosophy alone,' M. Verneuil continues, 'assuages our grief and ends by drying our tears. By the side of the half-open tomb we ask, whether he whom it contains served the good cause without deceit.... If, by his intelligence or his kindness of heart, he labored in the great work, we say he has paid his part of the common debt, and whether he returns to his original nothing or not, whether he is destroyed or merely changes his form, whether he hears our words or not, we thank him in the name of the past and of the future.'"

Another distinguished Professor published, in 1866, Lectures on the Physiology of the Nervous System, in which we find the following passage:

"We admit,' he says, 'without any restriction, that intellectual phenomena in animals are of the same order as in man....' 'As for free-will, we comprehend a certain kind of free-will in the more intelligent animals; and, on the other hand, we may add, that perhaps man is not so free as he would fain persuade himself he is.' And 'as to feeling the distinction between good and evil, it is a grave question, which we must first study in man himself!'"

Let it not be supposed that these principles are merely announced as abstractions; conclusions are drawn from them which must fill every thinking mind with horror. Eighty students of the Normal School, the great training institution of teachers for the North of France, applauded such conclusions in a public letter. Several of the infidel Professors of the Faculty of Medicine received ovations from crowded class-rooms; millions of immoral and irreligious books were scattered throughout the country. Thus Freemasonry, under the pretext of combating ignorance, wages a deceitful and implacable war against religion. "We too," says the organ of Freemasons,^E "we too expect our Messiah, the true Messiah, of the mind and reason—universal education!"

E Le Monde Maconnique, June, 1866.

"It is scarcely necessary for us to remind you, dearly beloved brethren, that the seeds of irreligion and anarchy thus sown broadcast over the fair face of France, have already produced a too abundant harvest of evils, perhaps the most disastrous recorded on the page of history. All Europe has been horrified by the atrocities perpetrated within the last few months in the name of liberty in that city, which was looked on as the centre of the civilization of the world. National monuments have been destroyed, peaceable citizens robbed and murdered, the venerable Archbishop, many of the clergy, and leading members of the civil and military authorities, massacred in cold blood. In other cities of France, too, we have seen anarchy and irreligion proclaimed—miscreants in arms against the property, and liberty, and lives of their fellow-citizens, often of the helpless and unprotected; and all this at a moment when the country was invaded, and a part of it occupied, by its enemies. The storm had been sown, and in very truth unfortunate France has reaped the whirlwind.

"And unhappily, dearly beloved brethren, the spread of infidel principles by means of bad education is not confined to France. A few years ago a congress of students was held in Liège, in Belgium, where infidel and anti-social principles in their worst form were proclaimed amidst the plaudits of the assembly. In England irreligion and socialism are publicly taught. Even in our own country it is a matter of notoriety, that a Chair in one of the Queen's Colleges has been occupied since their foundation by a gentleman, who, in a published work, extolled the first French revolution, and, in another place of the same book, compared our Saviour, whose name be praised forever, to Luther and to Mahomet! Again: In Trinity College one of the Fellows denies the fundamental truth of Christianity respecting the eternity of the punishment of sin; and others call in question the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, or of portions of them, and impugn many truths which constitute the foundation of all revealed religion. In the same University, too, the doctrines of Positivism, a late form of infidel philosophy, have a large number of followers. The nature of that philosophy may be gathered from the following passages in the 'Catechism of Positivism, or Summary Exposition of the Universal Religion,' translated from the French of Auguste Comte. The preface begins thus:

"'In the name of the past and of the future, the servants of humanity—both its philosophical and practical servants—come forward to claim, as their due, the general direction of this world. Their object is to constitute at length a real Providence in all departments—moral, intellectual, and material. Consequently they exclude, once for all, from political supremacy, all the different servants of God—Catholic, Protestant, or Deist—as being at once behind-hand and a cause of disturbance.'

"The work consists of 'Thirteen Systematic Conversations between a Woman and a Priest of Humanity,' and the doctrines contained in it are epitomized in the following blasphemous lines:

"'In a word, Humanity definitely occupies the place of God, but she does not forget the services which the idea of God provisionally rendered.'

"Again, during the last two sessions of Parliament, a Select Committee of the House of Lords sat to inquire into the condition of the English Universities. The Marquis of Salisbury was the chairman. The evidence taken before that committee reveals the appalling fact that infidelity, or doubt as to the first principles of the Christian religion, nay, of belief in God, is wide-spread in the Universities of England, and especially among the most intellectual of the students; and that this sad result is due in a great measure to the teaching and examinations. In the first report for the session 1871, pp. 67, 69, and 70, in the evidence of the Rev. Professor Liddon, D.D., Canon of St. Paul's, London, and Professor of Exegesis in the University of Oxford, we find the following passages:

"Quest. 695. Chairman.—'Very strong evidence has been given to us upon the influence of the Final School' (the examination for degrees with honors) 'upon Oxford thought, as tending to produce at least momentary disbelief.'

"Witness.—'I have no doubt whatever it is one of the main causes of our present embarrassments.'

"696.—'That, I suppose, is a comparatively new phenomenon?'

"'Yes; it dates from the last great modification in the system pursued in the Honors School of literæ humaniores. It is mainly the one-sided system, as I should venture to call it, of modern philosophical writers.'

"697.—'Is there any special defect in the management which produces this state of things, or is it essential to the nature of the school?'

"'I fear it is to a great extent essential to the nature of the school, as its subjects are at present distributed.'

"Again, in answer to Question 706, the same witness says:

"'I ought to have stated to the noble Chairman just now that cases have come within my own experience of men who have come up from school as Christians, and have been earnest Christians up to the time of beginning to read philosophy for the Final School, but who, during the year and a half or two years employed in this study, have surrendered first their Christianity, and next their belief in God, and have left the University not believing in a Supreme Being.'"

Now what kind of a being is the infidel, or the man without religion? To have no religion is a crime, and to boast of having none is the height of folly. He that has no religion must necessarily lose the esteem and confidence of his friends. What confidence, I ask, can be placed in a man who has no religion, and, consequently, no knowledge of his duties? What confidence can you place in a man who never feels himself bound by any obligation of conscience, who has no higher motive to direct him than his self-love, his own interests? The pagan Roman, though enlightened only by reason, had yet virtue enough to say: "I live not for myself, but for the Republic"; but the infidel's motto is: "I live only for myself; I care for no one but myself." Oh, what a monster would such a man be in society were he really to think as he speaks, and to act as he thinks!

A man who has no religion, must first prove that he is honest before we can believe him to be so. It is said of kings and rulers, they must prove that they have a heart, and it may also be said of the man who has no religion, that he must prove that he has a conscience. And I fear he would not find it so easy a task.

A man without religion is a man without reason, a man without principle, a man sunk in the grossest ignorance of what religion is. He blasphemes what he does not understand. He rails at the doctrines of Christianity, without really knowing what these doctrines are. He sneers at the doctrines and practices of religion, because he cannot refute them. He speaks with the utmost gravity of the fine arts, the fashions, and even matters the most trivial, and he turns into ridicule the most sacred subjects. In the midst of his own circle of fops and silly women, he utters his shallow conceits with all the pompous assurance of a pedant.

The man without religion is a dishonest plagiarist, who copies from Christian writers all the objections made against the Church by the infidels of former and modern times; but he takes good care to omit all the excellent answers and complete refutations which are contained in these very same writings. His object is not to seek the truth, but to propagate falsehood.

The man without religion is a slave of the most degrading superstition. Instead of worshipping the true, free, living God, who governs all things by His Providence, he bows before the horrid phantom of blind chance or inexorable destiny. He is a man who obstinately refuses to believe the most solidly-established facts in favor of religion, and yet, with blind credulity, greedily swallows the most absurd falsehoods uttered against religion. He is a man whose reason has fled, and whose passions speak, object and decide in the name of reason.