The Intermountain Catholic. (Salt Lake City [Utah] ;) 1899-1920, 1903-07-11

in which the parent chooses tc
bring up his child. l do not OBJ
ject to the principle on which ou1
common schol system is founded, MOI
do l reject the common schools be
cause they do not teach my religion
though l regret the divisions of the
community which make it necessary
to exclude Catholic instruction, in or
der to avoid greater evil. The fault
| find with them, is not that they
are not Catholic, but that in viola
ton of the law creating them, they
too often are sectarian, and teach
things repugnant to my religion. Per-
haps it would be better to have re-
llglous instruction given in the public
schools than to reserve it for caIhe-
chetical schools; but in our country.
system in which that can be done
in a manner satisfactory to Catholics
L regard as impracticable, and l go
no further than to insist on having
excluded all that is repugnant to the
catholic conscience. In those coun-
tries where the voluntary principle in
regard to religion is not adopted,
where the state does not leave reIig-
ion to itself. and where the popula-
ton is collected in towns and villages.
division of the public schools ac-
cording to religion is practicable. and
is very extensively adopted. An H.
lustrious American bishop, in Brown
sons Quarterly Review for last Janu-
airy, urges the adoption of the same
system in this country. But it could
be adopted here only in the town and
villages, and even there only par
TALLY, owing to the fact that our
Catholic families are not all congre-
gated in the same quarter and are
too dispersed. The fundamental con-
stttution of the American state. more
over, leaves religion to the voluntary
principle, and with us the state can
lawfully impose no tax for the direct
OF Indirect support of any religion
Catholic or Protestant. The |
religious education of children can |
no more be provided for at the public |
than the maintenance and
support of religious worship. We
could not, therefore, introduce the
system legally without a fundamental
change in the constitution, and civ
ng 1t in principle the right to estab-
ism state religion,-a change which
would be the last to adyo-
ate, for 1t would be a change from
which in the actual state of things
hey would be the principal sufferers.
men, again, however desirable the
ystem might be, the American peo-
lie cannot, while non-Catholic. be Der-
uaded to introduce it. The Catholic
will not willingly consent to
e taxed to support sectarian schools
nd the non-Catholic majority will by
o means consent to be taxed to SIM
ort Catholic schools, even for the
hlidren of Catholics. With all def ;
renee to the opinion of others who
re far better qualified to judge than
lyself, l confess 1 see nothing prac-
cable for us but to insist on the rigid
from the public schools of
Ferything simply repugnant to the
atholic conscience"
And suffer our Catholic children to /:
2 trained up without any moral or 5
'l1glous instruction" said O'Flana-
In. :
mat by no means follows" replied
ather John. There runs THROUGH
Early all the reasoning 1 have heard
the subject the assumption, that. =
our children are not taught their
llgion in the common schools thew
Ill not be taught it at all. This as.
mption is unfounded. After tba I
mmon school, there still remain tbe
mliy, the church, their religion, and
the common school be what if
~ IL is In these that are found