Lynchburg Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1829-185?, 1849-05-10
A T

IL iiouSe Oh representatives OF MaSSachusou
by a vote OF III to 81, has refused TO grant W.
act OF incorporation for a Catholic College. oIraDl
dy IN existence at Worcester. We have rn.1
with attention the brief, but perspicuous, rcno,t
Of the debate to which this bill gave rixe 4, f"l
must say, that the arguments urged against III
little creditable 20 the age, to say NOTHING of A., T.
country, or of a State so enlightened as M,g ,I'
chusetts, The Bishop of the diocese and leaJ;n%
laymen petitloned for a charter that thew m;nSs
hold buildings and funds to the amount Of soG1n"'
600, for the purpose Of founding a COLLEGE, e.
the education Of Catholic youths. Thevv j. j.
claimed any wish or intention to ask leciJc,I !
assistance. Their petition was limited d D ,nne
pie charter, for the purpose of holding diracnn
property, now held by the corporation of A.,
Georgetown Catholic College in trust. Tb,o
state that the College is intended for the cdnc,J
ton ofthe youth of their own religion. and tka,
none will be admitted who are Protestants TL;,
exclusive character Of the institution il VA Hill.
which the opposition was based. We arc Gon
strained to think it was but a pretext. for III II
diligence OF bigotted and illiberal preiudicey-Gr
assuming a Catholic institution to be the danro.'
Gus thing it was supposed to be by some ot -,
members, is it not better that, by its charter p~'
testant youths should be prevented from ent,1
ing? 1t is a very common complaint. that I'll
teStant boys, attending Catholic COLLEGES I'LL
duced to become Catholics. In this CgUnro Vii III
chances Of such proselytism were ~foregon9e " II
III Difference to the prcjudices Of the peon,a ,
mong which it was eStablished-and VET ~,
very feature of eycluSiyeneSS, which micbt No
supposed to constitute a recommendation wa,
made the basis ofsucccsSful opposition. We WON'T
ture to predictthat if the petitioners modify thcir
memorial and place the College upon he FOOTING
u ~ Ana @4Izu ~. .4 1 Ir-1 G
mission OF students Of all persuaSions, that NV ,
vote OF the majority will be conciliated, while. II
all probability, SOM Of the members will opnose
1t on the ground that it will be a trap for unwary
Protestant youths. The opposition to it on the
ground Of its excluSivcness was not tenahle. 10
cause other institutions have been chartered WITH
a similar feature. Several denominations of
Christians have, within the Commonwealth Thc-
illogical Seminaries for The education II yorno
men for the ministry. Was it objected, when
applying for a charter for the Baptist school at
Newton, orthe Congregational School at Amherst
that the students in each should be limited 70
those who expressed their wish and intention to
enter the ministry Of these churches, respective
" The general funds were raised and scboI-
arships founded by the liberal, for the express
purpose OF an exclusive benefit. The fnnds II
the Amherst Theological School are not directed
to the training ofyoung men TO the ministry of
the Baptist church, nor does the school at New
ton care to educate Congregational ministers. Is
not this exclusiveness ? And vet no such exclu-
s~iveness was objected when they applied for char.
tiers. Why should not the same privilege be ex-
tended 70 the Catholics Ifthey received 4 por-
ton of the State funds, then it would Be a iug
subject of complaint that Protestant students were
not admitted. But they ask nothing and receive
nothing from the treasury ofthe State. Why thei
SHOULD money, raised by Catholics, be notinvcs.
ted for the education of their youth, exclusively:
The proceeding strikes us as violation ofrei.
gious liberty and strangely at variance with The
usual liberality Of Massachusetts, Next to burn.
ing down the College, or another Convent, moth
ing could be more useful to the Catholics.