New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1851-11-24


common or secular Schools. Why Is not
this distinction natural and justonc how
ran man so wise as the Archbishop speak
Of our Common School Sy stem as mot cal
'culated to meet the requirements "li'n
Catholic parents, at least, are bound 10
fulfill toward their Catholic offspring
Why, Rev. Sir! it never pretended to DO
any such thing. You might as well ooIec'
that il does not wash, dress and yacclna'e
them. You and your Clergy are expected
BY Catholic parents, and they think diVlheN
commissioned, TO teach their children re
ligion. Why should you find fault with the
Schools fer doing their own proper work
and not attempting yours ! How then can
YOU use such language as this.
at NAV sui, Other denominations to have ther
children brought up u1thou any ad'Hirftre ~ heus
s,rs teaching IN their Edcatioa, but II does ho' su"
us"
No. Sir it does not suit other denoml-
nations to have their children reared IN
ignorance of God and His laws, and you
ought not to intimate that does. Butthey
do not believe that their children must be
irrelieiously reared because they are not
taught Religious dogmas in the Common
Schools. They expect to teach them DI-
vine Truth in part themselves, and lookto
their Clergy and Sunday Schools to In
crease their Religious knowledge. They
no more believe that children must be reared
irrelipiouslv because Christian Doctrine Is
not taught in the Common Schools than that
they must grow up naked because their
clothes are not made there, or ignorant OF
Geography because it not taught them by
the same teacher who gives them lessons IN
Arithmetic.
"The People of New England" Tor some
of them) used to teach dogmatic Theology
in Common Schools while they were all of
one faith, when that ceased to be the case,
their catechisms were laid aside or fell into
disuse in the Schools. The Schools them
selves went on as before, conforming still
to the central principle of teaching what
ever the entire community agreed in DEEM
ing essential Truth and nothing more.
The Archbishop would seem 10 prefer
that
"the religious influences OF the least desirable sect
of protesting Christians IN the land should be put
in the Common Schools, than that all Christianity;
under the preience of excluding sectdraniSm, should
be eliminated
As we understand the matter, the Arch
bishops course has not been consistent with
this expression Of preference. Twelve or
fifteen years ago, our Common Schools were
vely nearly on the basis here suggested by
the Archbishop. The Bible (King James's
Version was regularly read in them, and
certain not very tangible but none the less
real religious influences" were prevalent
therein, which to our mind seemed those of
Orthodox Professionalism. Bishop Hughes
fed n formidable crusade against those . ia
fiuenccs," and we were among his follow
ers in the onset. We thought then, and
still think, that those " religious influences"
were unjust TO Catholics and to what are
termed Liberal Christians. as well as un-
believers in Revelation. We fought them
together until the Public School Monopoly
was overthrow, the Ward School system
established, whereof the basis (as we un'
derstoed and still understand) was the
nom inculcation Of any dOgmatic the
l.
taken in affirming that Bishop Hughes
saw the bill that was passed before
it was submitted TO the Legislature, and
that it received his approbation-not as the
measure he would choose to have, but as
decidedly preferred by him to the system it
was intended to supplant 1t certainly had
the support in both Houses of those who
deemed the Catholic grievances real and
were anxious t. remove them. And now
we understand the Archbishop to maintain
IN substance that the new or Ward School
system established by the act of 1912 is de-
cidedly more Objectionable ia his view than
that over which it triumphed If this be
the fact, we marvel that his influence was
rot thrown against the change when made
rather than in its favor. We are still will
ling to advocate any admissible change
which bids fair to secure fuller attendance
of Catholic children and heartier coopera-
ton of their Clergy, but our hopes of rem.
dering any practicable Common School sys-
TEN acceptable to the Archbishop are not
50 confident as they have been.
IX. We assure the Archbishop that,
however strongly We may be obliged to
dissent from some Of his opinions. we have