"Attendance at the parish school will be an absolutely necessary condition for the children who hope to make their First Holy Communion next spring."

    In some parishes the children of Catholic families who attend the public school are not permitted to receive their first Holy Communion on the same Sunday morning that the parochial school children receive theirs, but have to wait a week or two, although equally prepared. For the parochial school communicants special preparations are made in decorations, processions, music, etc. There are no special preparations made by the pastor for the public school communicants. The course pursued toward the public school children is with malice aforethought and is intended to so humiliate them (and their parents) that they will leave the public school.
    At the children's Mass on Sunday morning the parochial school pupils are given the better seats, while the public school scholars are crowded into the undesirable parts of the church.
    To show still further the pressure put by prelates upon Catholic parents to force them to send their children to parochial schools I quote from page 4 of The Catholic Telegraph (published in Cincinnati, Ohio, U. S. A.) of August 25, 1904, the following letter:

"To the Clergy and Laity of the Archdiocese of Cincinnati: 
Dearly Beloved:
    As the Catholic schools are about to open, We consider it opportune to address you on the important obligation of parents to provide for the Catholic education of their children. There are, We regret to be obliged to say, some fathers and mothers, who, either for the sake of fancied advantages, or through indifference, or on account of feeling against priest or teacher send their children to non-Catholic schools.
    It is undeniable, that as a rule, all Catholic teaching is excluded from non-Catholic schools and that in them there is usually present some kind of false religious influence. Now a system of education for the young, in which Catholic faith and the direction of the Church are excluded, can not be approved by any Catholic. The Church considers it vital to a child's faith, that the spirit of religion should animate every part of the scholar's task, and influence every hour of his time in school. The teachers should be good Catholics, well instructed in their faith, and be capable to thoroughly drill the children in religion. The Church, recognizing this necessity has always opposed the separation of education and religion, and hence has condemned those who advocate it. . . In the Encyclical of Leo XIII , "Nobilissima" of the 8th of February; 1884, occurred the following words: "The, Church has over and over again loudly condemned those schools which are called Mixed or Neutral, warning parents to be careful in a thing so momentous."
    These pronouncements of the Holy See are the law for all. The legislation of the III. Plenary Council of Baltimore is based upon them. It is evident, then, that the doctrine of the church, which it would be erroneous, scandalous and even savoring of heresy to contradict, is that to attend a non-Catholic school constitutes usually a grave and permanent danger to faith, and that, therefore, it is a mortal sin for any parents to send their children to such a school, except where there is no other suitable school, and unless such precautions are taken as to make the danger remote.
    In applying this teaching to practical life there are difficulties. We often meet with parents who object to sending their children to Catholic schools on account of certain features which they dislike or who prefer non-Catholic schools on account of certain advantages. They claim that, if they take due precaution to have their children properly instructed and brought up in piety, they can not justly be interfered with. But such a claim cannot be admitted. This is a religious question and is, therefore, within the sphere of the Church authority. In such questions it belongs to the Church not only to pronounce on the principle involved, but also on its application to particular cases and individual Catholics. It is the office of the Bishops, as the III. Plenary Council of Baltimore teaches, to judge both of the alleged necessity, and of the sufficiency of the precaution. This is a matter, then, which lies within the jurisdiction of the spiritual power, and it is far from the true Catholic spirit to decide such a grave question for oneself.
    Moreover, there is another aspect of the subject which shows still more clearly how necessary it is to abide by the judgment of the Church. It is almost impossible for a Catholic parent to send his child to a non-Catholic school anywhere in the country where there is a Catholic one without causing scandal. That is to say, such action suggests to other Catholic parents to do the same; it has the appearance of religious indifference; and it tends to break down the strictness and firmness of Catholic faith. It is, therefore, nearly always, a very grievous scandal especially when the parent in question is a person of some standing and influence. Now an action which involves scandal of this kind can only be justified by a very grave necessity. It is the duty of the parent, therefore, to take the judgment of the Church both upon the possible extent of the scandal and the reason for risking it. The foregoing principles justify us in laying down the following rules:
    I. In places where there is a Catholic school parents are obliged under the pain of mortal sin to send their children to it. This rule holds good, not only in case of children who have not yet made their first Communion, but also in case of those who have received it. Parents should send their children to the Catholic school as long as its standards and grades are as good as those of the non-Catholic school. And even if there is no school attached to the congregation of which parents are members, they would still be obliged to send their children to a parochial school, college or academy, if they can do so without great hardships either to themselves or to their children.
    2. It is the province of the Bishop to decide whether a parish should be exempted from having a parish school, and whether, in case there be a Catholic in the place, parents may send their children to a non-Catholic school. Each case must be submitted to Us, except when there is question of children living three, or more miles distant from a Catholic school. Such children can hardly be compelled to attend the Catholic school.
    3. As the obligation of sending a child to a Catholic school binds under the pain of mortal sin, it follows that the neglect to comply with it, is a matter of accusation, when going to confession. We fail to see how fathers and mothers who omit to accuse themselves of this fault can believe that they are making an entire confession of their sins.
    4. Confessors are hereby forbidden to give absolution to parents, who without permission of the Archbishop send their children to non-Catholic schools, unless such parents promise either to send them to the Catholic school, at the time to be fixed by the Confessor, or, at least agree, within two weeks from the day of confession, to refer the case to the Archbishop, and abide by his decision. If they refuse to do either one or the other, the Confessor can not give them absolution, and should he attempt to do so, such absolution would be null and void. Cases of this kind are hereby numbered among the reserved cases from September I, 1904.
    5. The loss of Catholic training which the children suffer by being sent to non-Catholic schools must as far as possible be counteracted. Wherefore, we strictly enjoin that Diocesan Statute No. 64, be adhered to: "We decree that those who are to be admitted to first holy Communion shall have spent at least two years in Catholic Schools. This rule is to be observed also by superiors of colleges and academies." This Statute was enacted in Our Synod in 1898, and we regret that it has not always been observed. The necessity of complying with it is evident. It is difficult to properly prepare for first Communion even the children who have always attended Catholic schools; and it is simply impossible to do so when the children are allowed to go to non-Catholic schools up to a few months before they are to make their first holy Communion. Pastors, superiors of academies and colleges are admonished to observe this regulation. No exception is to be made to it without Our permission. In places where there is no Catholic school, Pastors will confer with Us as to the provision, which should be made for the instruction for first Communion.
    6. Pastors seeking to prevent parents from taking their children too soon out of school have made regulations regarding the age of first Communion. As there has been some discrepancy in regard to this matter, some fixing one age, some a different one, and in consequence causing dissatisfaction among parents and children, We hereby direct that no child shall be admitted to first Communion, made publicly and solemnly, unless it has completed its thirteenth year on or before the day fixed for first Communion.
7. It is the Pastor's duty to decide whether the children of his parish have sufficient knowledge for making their first Communion. Hence, children attending a Catholic school other than the parish school, as well as those going to colleges and academies, must not be permitted to first Communion unless their Pastor has testified that they are sufficiently instructed for approaching the Holy Table. . . Pastors will read this letter to their Congregations on the last Sunday in August.
    May God bless all, and especially bless parents, their children and all engaged in the work of Catholic education.

Sincerely yours in Christ,

William Henry Elder,

Archbishop of Cincinnati.

Given at Cincinnati this 18th day of August."

    In the Archdiocese of Chicago, and elsewhere, there is no publicly proclaimed statute such as obtains in the Archdiocese of Cincinnati, but there is in reality a rule that Catholic children who attend the public schools may not (at the option of the pastor) receive instruction for first Communion. Several of the Chicago priests, during the past year, have told their congregations that owing to orders from "headquarters" they would be compelled to refuse instruction for first Communion and Confirmation to Catholic children who attended the public schools.
    On the Sunday preceding the opening of the public schools for the fall term, the studied attack of the priests upon the "godless" schools, from the altar or the pulpit, is appalling. The intelligent, independent parents, who persist in sending their children to the public schools, are pictured as finally arriving in hell, and their children as moral wrecks, the sons in penitentiaries, and the daughters in places of shame. At last there is a family reunion in the place of the damned, where the children curse their parents, and say, " We are here because you sent us to the godless public school."

A SPECIFIC CASE OF COERCION BY A SODOMITE.

In 1899, an imposing church dedication took place in the United States. The dedicatory sermon was preached by Archbishop Ireland of St. Paul, Minnesota. The occasion was graced with the presence of Archbishop Kain of St. Louis, Missouri; Bishop Scannell of Omaha, Nebraska; Bishop O'Gorman Of Sioux Falls, Iowa; Rev. Jeremiah J. Harty, pastor of St. Leo's Church, St. Louis, Missouri, and now Archbishop Of Manila, Philippine Islands; the Very Rev. William J. Kirby, Ph.D., Professor of Washington D.C., and many others. Letters of regret were sent from bishop Christie Of Portland, Oregon, Bishop Hogan of Kansas City, Missouril; Bishop Allen of Mobile, Alabama; and Bishop Gallagher of Galveston,Texas.
    Prior to the dedicatory sermon the pastor announced that the parochial school would open the following Wednesday, and in this connection he said:

"It will be expected that all of the children of this parish shall attend this school if they attend any. I have determined that I will not ask the Archbishop on behalf of anybody for permission to attend any school other than the parochial. Such requests must go directly from the persons desiring the permission, and not through me."

    In other words this pastor served notice upon the Catholic people of his parish that their children must go to the parochial school if any, and that Catholic parents would have to go to their Archbishop for permission to send them elsewhere. Just imagine plain, Catholic people making such a request of their Archbishop!!  That Archbishop was a Krupp gun against the public school.
    This pastor was later formally charged with sodomy and he was forced to leave his parish by enraged lay people, the ecclesiastical authorities ignoring (as usual) the charges. He is on terms of intimacy with princes of the Church, including American Papal Delegates, and he was instrumental at Rome in securing a Philippine Island See for one of his bosom American clerical chums. He is now himself a high dignitary of the Church in the Philippine Islands. I shall refer to him again in Chapter IV. of this book.

NOT FIVE PER CENT OF CATHOLIC MEN FAVOR THE PAROCHIAL SCHOOL.

    Catholic Public school opponents declare that at least one third of the American people favor their position. I deny it. I am morally certain that not five per cent of the Catholic men of America endorse at heart the parochial school. They may send their children to the parochial schools to keep peace in the family and to avoid an open rupture with the parish rector; they may be induced to pass resolutions of approval of the parochial school in their lodges and conventions; but if it ever becomes a matter of blood not one per cent of them will be found outside of the ranks of the defenders of the American public school.
    If a perfectly free ballot could be cast by the Catholic men of America for the perpetuity or suppression of the parochial school, it would be suppressed by an astounding majority.
    The plain Catholic laymen know that the public school is vastly superior to the parochial school in its methods, equipment and pedagogic talent. They know, too, that the public is the poor man's school. They know that the public school prepares, as no other can, their children for the keen struggle of American life and the stern duties of American citizenship.
   Prelates and priests work upon the fears and feelings of the women and children, and the fathers, to have peace in their families, yield, and send their children to the parochial school.

CATHOLIC  CLERICAL HOSTILITY TOWARD THE PUBLIC SCHOOL.

    There is and open, notorious and virulent hostility of priests and prelates, at home and abroad, toward the public school. Catholic publications are filled with articles and editorials which show most malignant hatred of the public school. Catholic clerical hostility toward the public school is a fact with which the American people will be forced to deal sooner or later — the sooner the better.

ANNIHILATION OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOL THE OBJECT.

    I assert that it is the set purpose of the great majority of the Roman Catholic Hierarchy in America to destroy, root and branch, the present system of American public schools.

    Bishop Spalding says (as I have quoted in the beginning of this chapter), "Fifty years ago there was a great difference of opinion amongst Catholics in this country about the religious (parochial) school." Unfortunately the clean prelates and priests of "fifty years ago " were whipped into line, and the unpatriotic and ruinous course of attacking the public schools prevailed.

    The contents of this book, I submit, amply support my contention under this heading.

DESTRUCTIVE CLERICAL TACTICS.

    The Catholic clerical scheme to utterly destroy the American public school has these, among other, phases:

    I. The bringing of the public school into contempt by characterizing it as " godless," " vicious," " a sink of corruption," etc., etc.

    2. The securing for the Catholic parochial school the largest possible share of the public school tax funds.

    3. The encouraging of other sects to start sectarian schools and to demand public moneys in payment for the secular education of the children.

    4. The securing of a Catholic majority on public school boards and on the teaching staff of the public schools in the hope of being able thereby to lower the tone of instruction and discipline in the public schools and thus bring the public schools into disfavor.

    5. Securing the employment of nuns and monks as public school teachers. 

    6. The prevention of normal school training of public school teachers.

    By these and other means Catholic ecclesiastics hope to destroy the public school system, and to make the parochial school supreme.

    I have had many conversations with members of the American Catholic Hierarchy during the past eighteen years about the public and parochial schools in America. The ecclesiastical champions of the latter have stated that the insistent demand of the Catholic hierarchy for a division of the public school money would eventually be granted; that the American people would grow weary of the school contention and to escape it would adopt the Catholic view; that then every effort would be made to secure the largest possible grants of public money; that the other sects would out of envy, demand similar grants for their various schools, and that they would be encouraged by the Catholic dignitaries to press their claim; that the consequence would be the disruption of the public school system by the competition and antagonism of such sectarian bodies; and that the ultimate result would be the supremacy of the Catholic Church in secular teaching by virtue of Her strong organization and great resources through Her various teaching orders.

THE STATE MUST NOT EDUCATE THE CHILD.

    Catholics have it dinned into their ears constantly that the "education of children belongs to the parents and is foreign  to the State," and that the parents cannot yield this right to the State. They are taught that the State is excluded from educating children.
    The logical effect of this assertion is to take the education of the children of the land wholly from the State and place it entirely in the control of the parents of the children. If the parents are religionists who believe that their church is the mouth-piece of God, then the education of their children comes  naturally under the control of their church. This doctrine would give to the Mormon church, for example, the exclusive training and educating of all Mormon children. And when the parents are not religionists but disciples of peculiar anti-social tenets this doctrine would insure the rearing of the children of those parents in those anti-social tenets. The right of the anarchist under this doctrine is as sacred as the right of the Mormon or of the Catholic.
    But I contend that the State has a vital interest in every child born within its borders. The State is in the child. Self protection and perpetuity indicate at least two of the paramount duties of the State, The State should endeavor to protect itself, and the State should try to insure its own perpetuity. Parents may be permitted to educate their children but it is always on the presumption that the education they impart will not vitiate the State and tend to produce its downfall.
    If parents teach their children to steal, the State must interfere. If parents insist upon rearing their children in ignorance, the State must enforce compulsory education. If' parents teach their children traitorous sentiments towards the Commonwealth by the direction of their church, or permit their church to teach such sentiments to their children in parochial schools, the State is recreant to its paramount duties if it does not intervene.
    The fact is that the Catholic ecclesiastical enemies of the public schools, in their anxiety to imbue the Catholic people with a belief in the exclusive right and duty of parents to educate their children, press the matter too far. They are serving the future, however, for their inimical attitude will eventually cause Americans to demand a full ascertainment of and a rigid insistence upon the rights of the State in the child, and when these are accomplished secular education outside of public schools will be abolished.

MINORITY RIGHTS.

    The plea is made by Catholic ecclesiastics that the minority has rights as well as the majority. But in reference to the public schools there is no minority. The public schools are open to all the children — none are excluded. It is silly for any set of people, who willfully keep their children from attending the public schools, to declare that they are a minority in the Commonwealth and that as such minority they have a right to impart to their children secular education in parochial schools at the expense of the State. The Mormons can make the "minority" plea with as good grace as Catholics. The State does its full duty when it provides and maintains a thorough system of secular education for the children of the Commonwealth, free to all the children alike. Any parent who wants something else seeks a superfluity or a luxury and should pay for it himself.