The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1892-05-23
schools the st. Paul Pioneer Press recently

| both pupils and teachers might be transferred
| to and from them without any reference to
their individual faiths. This being granted, 1t
would seem a small and uncomfortable matter
| that the privilege OF giving religious instruc-
| ton in such building outside of school hours
| should be conferred.
It seems to US that the pope has shown
| high craftsmanship in his liberation of an
| experiment that promises the better as
sanitation OF Catholicism to our repub-
| lican ideas and methods. The Catholic
| priest of Faribault who made this propo-
| sition to the village school board said
frankly that under it he did not apprehend
that the Catholic pupils would become
any less devout children of the church,
and he thought secular education with the
| other school children of the village was
| desirable to help make good Catholic a
an ardent American citizen, permeated
| with the spirit of patriotic nationality.
The consent of the pope was necessary.
| Under the encyclical letter of 1879, the
church is the last court of appeal; the alle-
| glance of citizens is primarily due to the
church; the church is supreme not only in
matters of private morals, but in all mat
| tiers Of civic, social and political action,
whenever the church chooses to assert and
exercise its supremacy. That is the phil
| osophy Of the Church of Rome. In g
| democracy the state is the last resort of
the citizen; the infallibility of the state
| can only be disputed by revolution, and
that would be its reconstruction. Mod
ern democracy is the outcome of the
Reformation, not because Luther meant 1t
! should be, but because he builded better
| than he knew or intended. but the
right of private Interpretation of the
| Scriptures as opposed to the doctrine of
spiritual authority is twin brother in
| spirit to the rejection of the doctrine Of
the divine right and political authority Of
| kings. Religious liberty in leading strings
| to personal authority and political liberty
| in leading strings to personal authority
| are inseparable and the Reformation that
| snapped the chains of the one was sure to
| be followed by the rupture of the other.
| Human life, liberty and property are more
sacred today than they once were because
| OF the present emancipation Of the world
| from the uncontrolled and undisputed
authority of both priests and kings, who
for centuries joined hands cruelty to con-
| fiscate and convert to their own selfish
enjoyment the lives, liberties and property
of the people whom their tyranny and
rapacity made to mourn.
Logically speaking, no rigid Catholic
can theoretically be in favor of purely
democratic form of government, whatever
may be his practical reconcilement of the
two hostile views of the supreme allegiance
of the citizen to the state and the citizen
to the church. The Catholic council of
Cincinnati several years ago took ground
| frankly against the fundamental doctrine
| of popular government. We quote:
1t is not Catholic doctrine that all power
| comes from the people, and that rulers do not
| exercise authority their own, but is intrusted
| to them by the people. As to the priest, the
| people are commanded to seek the law from his
| lips in all matters of civil life appertaining to
faith and morals; the priest has right to speak,
and the people are required to listen.
On the other hand our Declaration of
Independence asserts that governments
derive their just powers fri the consent
of the governed" and all our institutions
are founded on the theory that the people,
not the priesthood rule. Naturally enough
| the Catholic priesthood have not to date
| favored our public school system, and tho
Catholic bishops in America have gener-
ally warned the Catholic laity that for
them the educational question was not an
open one; that children of Catholic
parents must attend schools where the
Catholic religion is taught daily, and that
child to the public school. This DISPOSE
ton to forbid Catholic parents sending
their children to the public schools natur-
ally caused serious division OF opinion
among Roman Catholics. 1t was to abate
| this awkward situation that Archbishop
Ireland consented to the Faribault plan of
uniting the parochial and the public
school. The Catholic child, under this pl
does not violate the clerical mandate that
children of Catholic parents must attend
schools where the Catholic religion is
taught daily, for they get religious instruc-
ton daily; but they get it after the concu-
sion of the regular secular public school
~ Is gwen III VIC same
ing to Catholic children only, and the
privilege OF such instruction is not limited.
for any denomination that asked it could
get the same privilege of religious instruc
ton, after the public school was concluded,
to the children of their particular church.
1t would seem as if this Faribault plan
Of public schools. devised by Archbishop
Ireland and guardedly tolerated by the
pope, was likely to prove a practical sue
cess by bridging the gulf between public
and parochial schools. The state teaches
all the children purely secular instruction
and after school the Catholic children re-
main for religious instruction by their
religious teacher. If this plan should
prove capable of wide extension it would
prove relief to the Catholic taxpayer.
who is taxed for the support of the secu-
lar common school, while he has hitherto
been directed to send his children to the
parochial school, which be supports upon
the ground that the American public
schools are Goddess schools"