The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1892-01-27

may IL prescribe minimum Of instruction.
DR.. BouQurLLoN considers that the latter
proposition IL logically involved In the
former: for what Is neglect on the part OF
parents but a failure to give their children
a minimum OF educationp law. therefore.
prescribing a minimum OF instruction
IL, In his opinion. nothing else than
the application OF n principle OF natural
law to the given circumstances OF partic-
ular country. In conceding. however. to
the State the power Of making obligatory
minimum OF instruction. DR.. BouoU1LLoN
docs not mean to grant the power OF pre-
scribing a purely arbitrary standard. The
minimum, he says. will naturally be de-
tcrmned by public opinion. and will every
where comprehend at least reading. writ
Ing, and the elements OF arithmetic. In
especially enlightened countries the mini
mum will have n wider range. 1t Is impor-
tant to notice another limitation to which
DIR. BouoUILLoN would subject his general
principle. While conceding to the State the
power to force father to give his child
minimum OF education. he would not grant
to the State the power to compel father TO
send the child TO certain designated school
If the father prefers TO gire the prescribed MIN
inum al home or IN any school OF his choice.
That Is to say. compulsory State schools
are not logically included under the as
serted power OF making education compul-
sorry. To recognize in the State power Is
not to attribute to 1t the moral right to
abuse tho power.
Such is DR.. BoUou1LLoN's position re-
gardng the relation Of the State to educa-
ton. His opponents base their dissent
from his conclusions on the Syllabus OF
P1us N. which expressly condemned the
proposition that Catholics might approve n
method of instructlhg youth which should
be disjoined from the Catholic faith. pro-
vided the method should regard exclu-
sively. or at least principally. knowledge OF
the natural order alone and the ends Of
social life on earth. 1t is asserted to be i'm
possible to reconcile the condemnation OF
this proposition with the acceptance of Dr.
BoUQUILLoN's doctrine. 1t should be
pointed out. however. thut some OF tho de-
tenders Of the right of the State to educate
deny an &c cathcdra authority to the Sylla-
bus from which we have quoted. But Dr.
BoUQULLON's opponents aver that. al
though the Syllabus may not have been the
immediate personal net OF PIUs IN. it was
compiled by his will and sent out by his
orders with the Encycical Quantu Cara.
Moreover. each Of the eighty errors named
in the document had been condemned by
the Pope at one time or another. and refer
ence is carefully made IN the Syllabus
to the name and date Of the specific Apos-
tolic letter in which the condemned propO-
sition was prescribed. Finally. the Syllabus
was addressed directly to the Bishops. and
the Interpretation Of it to the faithful
was left to them. The Fathers Of the Third
Pennry Council OF Baltimore interpreted
the proposition which We have quoted in
accordance with the views expressed by DR..
BoUQUILLoN's opponents. while. on tho
other hand. a work which undertook to
minimize the force OF the Syllabus. consid-
cred as body OF declarations binding on
Catholic thcologians. has been condemned
by the Holy See and placed upon the Inder.
How. then. it is demanded by his critics.
can DR.. BoUouILLoN reconcile his conces-
sion to the State OF the right to educate.
and. inferentially. of power Of supervision
over Catholic schools. with the authorita-
tive teachings Of tho Catholic Church 1?
We have tried to state clearly and fairly
the conflicting views OF DR.. BouoU1LLoN
and OF his opponents. Where doctors OF
theology disagree. We shall not undertake
to decide.