, 1875-07-21
THE G0DLEss-sCH00L" "QUEsTI0N.
Does nishop Purcell Approve or Con.
AeMnn

Does Htshop Purcell Approve or Con
| Aenan1
st. Loufs GIobe-Unnacrae,
In tho l4th Inst tho following short nrttc!
| appeared in tho editorial columns OF tho Qiobe
| ue1nocr-dt:
| Arsabishop ruraall. Of Cincinnati, does no. asr.
with Father wdal, Ut .ls city, IN. Ls estimate Of ii
fewdsys sincr, denounced tho pnl'ie.srhoo system
40 false and ataolsto. Moro recenuy GraduAto in
ostholie college IN uhIo did tbs same thing. III
~ am aoTy That tho Cannon schools havc been A.
public schools children Do not scq1ira sode.s eIu
cation: Nothing u taught there that Ia against God
ths poEt woaan, received their inip!eut education In
tbs common schoois. .Thsy can't ba called aolesa."
A. be@wesn Archbishop 1uFcelt anl FAtlsr Wa4h
Tent shosy q speat oe hs cahoa T. 1e chursa usS s''
blnce than correspondence has talon place bo.
tween Father Dohorty, OF tho Annuncatiou
Church of this city. and ArcAblslop pulcoll
Which xo aro permitted to publish. Tho follow
ing to Fathcr DQhcfty's letter to the Archbishop
ls7s:-Mosr KyeHIao Sin; hopo you wilt taitlun
my Freedom tn adirer1nB you. incloso sc1ap
sss a:ss s'pst ;s ;s: y; 4; ssi T Il:
woras you apxovs tbe paliia s.l,tvi SYSTEM ens
Ito csthoo opposition to il. DO not ssreo viii hn.
At his suggestion wtite you, and ho has proIae 10
% s. vi. ns shssss e2sis& 81 n ts @
Of that promise, snd to make his paper tue n,rans Ii
sprs*alnN our view, trust you w!lI he kind to
Democrat - he deserves. am Mast Reyexcatl alr,
sincerely yours In Christ, DAyln j. DouEnry.
And tho following Is Tho Archbislops letter in
reply:
c.sc:sxAT1, July la.-nzv. DE4a Sin. II would b.
oooteaA taak " undertake to i4oco every a1u!h Ut
newspspsss: do not hold .pssAf respausitls for
thetr scs4htlauRs. Thu scEap you nclose from
az do mt approve Tho public school syatom-uhich
70 not Apntoye; or thst oondemu ta Catholic ots-
Postt!an tolt; hsve IL 70 yon ITO salte thv ua1s-
J. u. ruacxLI1 4. c.
Father. pohesty IL miatakeu WREN ho SAYS to
sho Archhtahnp that afr. MeCullaah oonnLless
thst rsb1bon i9 the .o1ds .ttFiAatad e nm. The
sna esaSsus A' hs ppsp e.os EsAee o
poaitop tp It," The question WAS not QUO Vt
interpretation, but QUO OF {aek-uot what tho
Molda meapt, but whether tho words we're ut
tetad. I! On tho day Of tho appearance OF tho
q ne odics to inquire ~ to the authenticity of
tao extract purpostlng to give tho remarks Of
tlla AfeAhislqp. lle was tplu TINT it was clipped
from ono Of tho exchanges. llo doubtful its
G esn1MMhenee1, 1M wheraupon IL was suggested that
@ @isnnithoP, aad request III answor ~ to It's cor
feeotnaas. Tue promise wAs giyeI that tho Arch
gishqp's reply slonld hn printed xhathos it in-
o9!4ea or fopudiated the aeptimants iu question.
4, Me regret that tile Archbishop did not mret
tha l*sre fairly by saying tat ha did or did not
MHek tAa noFds sttzlbutad 70 him. Wlils Father
HNsn, IN 81, LoAts, waA danpunc1u9 our tMblio
school syatem ~ false aud Atheistic, we thought
u strange that tho Archbishop should have
2 deemed II hts duty to rcproye this particular
1llla 81 denunc'ation In smother quarter. Tho
Archbishop ssys ho does not hold Ainlsslf ro-
4lnps.nle y 1or newspaper scr,bblngs: but 10 LAS
not been asked to do that. Yo trust however,
that 10 ts Wiling to hold himself responsible for
hia oMu uttarsnceu,