jffo Minus
i

Will i Clam fc

T^e. fiuLe.bWov'' °r

^00^56 1

The Question of State Aid

for Parochial Schools

By

REV. WILLIAM E. McMANUS

Assistant Director, Education Department

NATIONAL CATHOLIC WELFARE CONFERENCE

WASHINGTON 5, D. C.





uum

"STATE AID

FOR

PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS

Almost every issue of our Catholic papers

carries one or more stories on some phase of

the constant dispute over the use of tax funds

for parochial schools.

One week federal aid hits the headlines, an-

other week feature stories report the latest

developments in the New Mexico or North Da-
kota religious garb controversies. Another time

news will break on the school lunch program,

or released time religious instruction, or tax

exemption.

And, on the trail of the news are the inevi-

table public statements and topical sermons of

ecclesiastics, Catholic and non-Catholic, who

wish to take sides in the controversy.

* The following address was delivered by the

Rev. William E. McManus at the Catholic Press

Association’s national convention in Cleveland,

May 21, 1948. Father McManus is assistant di-
rector of the Education Department of the

National Catholic Welfare Conference and a

recognized authority on the question of state

aid for parochial schools.

3



Then there are the editorials and columns,

which repeatedly hammer home the idea that

Catholic schools should be given a fair share of

public funds, because Catholics, who, like other

citizens, pay taxes for education, should receive

some return on their money. So, they argue,

laws which bar aid to parochial schools are un-

just and discriminatory, and Catholics ought

to demand their repeal or amendment.

This barrage of news stories and editorials

has stunned the average Catholic lay person

who until recently had been under the impres-

sion that Catholic school authorities wanted no

part of public funds and would not accept

public support for fear of public control. The

present incessant plea for a share of public

money strikes a discordant note in the ear of

the Catholic lay person who for years has been

told in sermons that our Catholic schools are

independent institutions, financed entirely by

voluntary contributions and free completely

of any control or supervision by governmental

agencies.

In the opinion of most lay persons, the cur-

rent agitation to secure concessions from the

government betrays an unpardonable disre-

gard for the traditions of Catholic education

in this country, where Catholic schools have

acquired a status of academic independence

unmatched by Catholic schools in other lands,

and this independence has been won at the

high but well worth-while price of support-

ing our schools entirely by voluntary contri-

butions. As one Catholic lay person put it,

4



“Why is the Catholic Church working so vig-

orously for something it really doesn’t want?”

A Catholic lawyer put the same question
even more forcefully. “Why,” he asked, “is the

Catholic Church campaigning so militantly to

secure public funds for its parochial schools,

when (1) the constitutions of the States and

the United States forbid this practice, (2) the

acceptance of funds necessarily would involve

governmental control, (3) the campaign itself

boomerangs by arousing opposition against the

limited governmental aid which the parochial

schools now have, and (4) the campaign is

driving Protestants and other non-Catholics

further away from the Church?” In other

words, he asked, “Why should the Church en-
gage in a futile campaign for something in

itself undesirable, a campaign which will jeop-

ardize the Catholic schools’ present legal status,

and which will impede the Church’s essential

spiritual mission to win all souls for Christ.”

That is a hard question. I hope to propose

an answer to it here. But before taking up the

question, may I offer this observation: that this
question, and many more like it, are frequently

raised by Catholic lay persons (and by some

priests too) is in itself an indication that the

so-called Catholic school campaign for public

funds has not been properly interpreted to the

readers of the Catholic press.

And immediately to put the blame for this
situation where it belongs, I should say that

the specialists in educational politics and

church-state relations have not fully clarified

o



their owp. thinking on these intricate issues

with the result that the non-specialists are just

a shade more confused than the specialists

themselves. With the hope of making amends

for any personal negligence in this regard, I

should like to sketch in broad outline a ration-

ale for our maneuvers in what might be called

the field of educational politics.

* * *

Let us begin with facts. Are Catholic schools

in this country entitled to a share of public

funds? The answer to this question is clearly

set forth in Pope Pius XI’s Encyclical on the

“Christian Education of Youth”:

“And let no one say that in a nation where

there are different religious beliefs, it is impos-

sible to provide for public instruction otherwise

than by neutral or mixed schools. In such a

case it becomes the duty of the State, indeed

it is the easier and more reasonable method of

procedure, to leave free scope to the initiative

of the Church and the family, while giving

them such assistance as justice demands.

“That this can be done to the full satisfac-

tion of families, and to the advantage of edu-

cation and of public peace and tranquility, is

clear from the actual experience of some coun-

tries comprising different religious denomina-

tions. There the school legislation respects the

rights of the family, and Catholics are free to

follow their own system of teaching in schools

that are entirely Catholic. Nor is distributive

justice lost sight of, as is evidenced by the

6



financial aid granted by the State to the Sev-

eral schools demanded by the families.”

In another statement in the same Encycli-

cal, the Holy Father called attention to the

fact that in the United States Catholics openly

profess as their motto: Catholic education in

Catholic schools for all Catholic youth and then

said, “If such education is not aided from pub-

lic funds, as distributive justice requires, cer-

tainly it may not be opposed by any civil au-

thority ready to recognize the rights of the

family, and the irreducible claims of legitimate

liberty.”

Immediately after this statement the Holy

Father asked Catholics to promote the enact-

ment of laws that respect the norms of dis-

tributive justice. His instruction reads, “Where

this fundamental liberty is thwarted or inter-

fered with, Catholics will never feel, whatever

may have been the sacrifices already made,
that they have done enough, for the support

and defense of their schools and for the secur-

ing of laws that will do them justice.”

In summary, therefore, we know from the

Holy Father’s Encyclical that distributive jus-

tice obliges government to support parochial

schools.

Unfortunately, however, distributive justice

is one of those very intricate moral principles

about which academic moralists have said and

written very little. At least, however, they

have told us that distributive justice imposes an

obligation upon government to disburse its tax

revenues to all persons and institutions that

7



render a public service requested by the gov-

ernment. Hence, to the extent that parochial

schools do render a public service, they are

entitled to a share of public funds.

That Catholic schools actually do render a

public service is a fact beyond dispute, for, like

the public schools, they too prepare their stu-

dents for the responsibilities of American citi-

zenship. By approving Catholic schools as in-

stitutions to which parents may send their chil-

dren in compliance with compulsory education

laws, and by granting them tax exemption, the

State has acknowledged the parochial schools’

contribution to the general educational welfare

of the State.

The extent of the parochial schools’ service

to the public is as difficult to determine as its

correlative, the precise dollar and cents amount

of public funds which parochial schools may
claim in distributive justice.

Certainly it would be a gross oversimplifi-

cation to assume that public and parochial

schools should receive exactly the same amount

of public funds. This oversimplified assump-

tion would discount completely the very real

difference between commutative justice, which

obliges government to pay two postmen equal

pay for equal work, and distributive justice,

which is a very broad principle including many
factors that guide government when it spreads

out its available tax resources among its many
claimants upon them.

Therefore, in adjudicating the claims of edu-

cational institutions, government, mindful of

its duty of distributive justice, must take into

8



consideration the amount of tax funds avail-

able, the need for a coordinated school system

in the interest of national unity, the degree of

public supervision of privately-controlled

schools, and in all of its practical decisions it

must be governed by consideration of political

wisdom and prudence.

Accordingly, a local government may justifi-

ably grant a priority of public funds to public

schools which depend upon these funds for

their entire support, whereas private schools

have other sources of income.

On the other hand, a local community’s arbi-

trary refusal to give any financial aid to pri-

vate schools which are fully recognized as an

integral part of the community’s educational

system is a clear violation of distributive jus-

tice, and one which Catholics should endeavor

to correct.

* *

My explanation of distributive justice some-

what deflates the stock polemic that “because

Catholic taxpayers, and particularly Catholic

parents, pay school taxes, parochial schools

should be supported.” There is an apparent

non sequitur in that argument. Other taxpay-

ers besides Catholic also receive no direct return

from their school taxes. Moreover, regardless

of the amount of taxes paid by Catholics, pa-

rochial schools are entitled to tax support to

the extent that they serve the public interest.

9



Fortunately, in this nation, school taxes are

not earmarked according to the religious de-

nomination of the taxpayer. Rather, our Amer-

ican schools are regarded as community enter-

prises supported by all the people in the local-

ity. Accordingly, as good citizens Catholics like

their non-Catholic neighbors have a duty in

legal justice to pay taxes for all the schools

financed by the government. The taxpayer’s

return is the enlightened citizenry—needed for
the perpetuation of our democracy.

In short, Catholics protest government’s re-

fusal to support parochial schools, not as Cath-

olics, not as taxpayers, but as citizens inter-

ested in a fair and equitable distribution of

public funds.

The next fact: Is it futile for Catholics to

ask any branch of our government to allocate a

fair share of public funds to parochial schools?

Futility is about the same as hopelessness,

in the sense that both virtually deny the whole

idea of hope. For the Christian who believes in

the Providence of God, the case of justice is

never hopeless, and any effort to secure justice

cannot be regarded as futile.

I doubt, however, whether for some time the

majority of the American people will allow

their government to grant full support to

parochial schools, but I am confident that an
ever increasing number of our fellow Amer-

icans will give a sympathetic hearing to our

request for fringe benefits like bus rides and

textbooks.

The fact remains, however, that under exist-

10



ing laws, local and State tax funds may not be

used for the direct aid of parochial schools; in

some States indirect aid is allowed. Moreover,

the First Amendment, as interpreted by the

Supreme Court of the U. S. in the Everson

and McCollum decisions, now virtually forbids

any public aid to parochial schools.

* * *

Another fact: Would public support of non-

public schools subject them to public control?

I think it would, but I hasten to add that

public control of Catholic parochial schools is

not inherently vicious. Public control needs to

be defined. It may mean (1) governmental

management in the sense that an agency of

government operates the school, determines all

policies, selects the teachers, the textbooks, and

course of study. As we shall see later on, this

kind of control over either public or nonpublic

schools should not be granted to any branch of

our government; (2) Governmental supervi-

sion in the sense that a governmental agency

sets academic standards for accreditation; (3)

administrative control in the sense that a gov-

ernmental agency audits school expenditures to

determine whether public funds actually were

used for the purpose for which they were

appropriated.

I do not think that public support would

force parochial schools to submit to govern-

mental management; it might subject them to a

degree of governmental supervision, and it cer-

tainly would entail administrative control. Ad-

11



mitting the very real danger of governmental

management, need parochial schools fear super-

visory and administrative controls ? I think not.

Catholic schools have nothing to hide from

our government; their teachers, textbooks and

general academic standards are on the average

as satisfactory as those of the public schools.

Moreover, by deliberately exposing our

schools to public view we might disabuse a

large segment of our population of the very

inaccurate notion that parochial schools are

catechetical institutes where instruction in sec-

ular subjects frequently is set aside to allow

plenty of time for a narrow sectarian religious

indoctrination.

As for administrative control, Catholic

schools like any other reputable agency serving

the public need have no qualms about an audit

of their expenditures of public funds.

* * *

One final fact: Has the so-called Catholic

campaign for public funds antagonized our

Protestants and other non-Catholic neighbors?

In a way it has. After the Everson bus ride
decision, which supposedly was a great victory

for parochial school interests, a group of very

articulate opponents of public aid for denomi-

national schools established a new organization

with the ponderous title, Protestants and Other

Americans United for the Separation of Church

and State.

POAU's manifesto announced its determina-
tion to arouse public opinion against the Cath-

olic Hierarchy’s alleged maneuvers to capture

12



control of American public education. In its

manifesto, POAU also called upon all freedom-
loving Americans to resist any infringement

of the religious liberty by the Catholic Church

whose policies on church-state relations are, it

was said, incompatible with the American ideal

of religious freedom. Besides widely publiciz-

ing these manifesto broadsides, POAU has clev-
erly exploited a very unusual church-state prac-

tice in New Mexico, where a few school boards
employ nuns as public school teachers.

POAU’s agents, and publicity wise gentle-

men they are, are using the New Mexico dis-
pute as a cause celebre in an attempt to prove

to an unsuspecting American public that the

Bishops are out to seize control of all Ameri-

can public schools.

Unquestionably, POAU’s propaganda has had

considerable influence in non-Catholic circles,

and not a few Protestants probably do believe

that the Catholic Church is a serious threat to

religious liberty in our nation. Also, the propa-

ganda may have become a stumbling block for
persons on their way into the Church.

On the other hand, POAU’s flashy success

may be a blessing in disguise, for its success
has sounded an alarm in those Protestant or-

ganizations which now know that the real en-

emy of religion itself—not to mention religious
liberty—is not the Catholic Church but the
secularism that is gnawing away at the very

roots of religion.

And these anti-secularists, or moderate Prot-

estants, as they would like to be called, now
know that they too soon niust issue a mani-

13



festo calling upon the Protestant faithful to

take stock of secularism’s insidious inroads in

Protestant thought and action, and of its perni-

cious effect upon Protestantism’s influence as

a cultural force in American life.

One thing is certain—POAU may make a
lot of noise, but it does not speak for the ma-

jority of Protestants. And the sooner the mod-

erate Protestants let this fact be widely known,

the better will be their opportunity to combat

secularism.

For the present, however, there is no gain-

saying the fact that any attempt to secure pub-

lic funds for parochial schools will be met with

a sharp rebuff from POAU and its affiliates,
and the resultant scandalous wrangling among

religious groups may dissuade well disposed

persons from entering the Church.

There are the facts; what is their signifi-

cance for Catholic schools? The facts clearly

demonstrate that Catholic schools have a right

to funds which they probably will not receive,

and if they did, they would have to accept a

certain amount of public control. Moreover,

even asking for public funds stirs up a hornet’s

nest in Protestant circles, and souls remain out-

side the one true fold.
^

Shall Catholic school authorities fold their

tents and give up the fight; shall they declare

that parochial schools are absolutely independ-

ent institutions, accountable to nobody but the

Church, supported by nobody except their own

generous benefactors?

In my opinion, they should not give up the

14



fight for in pleading the cause of public aid

for parochial schools, they are upholding the

best interests of both public and parochial

schools. Obviously this whole controversy has

much more significant facets than a mere quar-

rel over the amount of public money which

might be given to parochial schools. This dis-

pute brings into sharp focus two fundamental

issues on which the proponents and opponents

of public aid for private schools are divided.

These two issues are : the relationship of

government to education, and the relationship

of church and state.

Thus, the proponents of public aid maintain

that service to the public, and not public con-

trol should be the criterion of a schooTs eligi-

bility to receive public funds. The opponents

insist that our government has a right to con-

trol every school it assists, and moreover that

it fully discharges its educational responsibili-

ties by providing public school opportunities

for all children.

On the church and state issue, the propo-

nents argue that the First Amendment simply

forbids the establishment of an official church

(an historical fact recently scuttled by the

United States Supreme Court) or at most it

forbids aid to religion as such, and not aid to

religious education or education provided under

church auspices; opponents of public subsi-

dies for parochial schools insist that no public

funds legally may be given to any institution
that is not completely and unquestionably

secular.

15



Certainly these issues must be of great con-

cern to all persons interested in the welfare of

our nation’s public and parochial schools. Con-

sider the basic questions raised by the dispute

on these issues. Are we tending toward a gov-

ernmental monopoly of education? Must all

educational, health and charitable institutions

submit to a process of secularization before

they dare ask for a State subsidy? If under a

democratic government parochial schools have

no right to public funds, what legal right have

they even to exist ? If parochial schools do not

serve the public good, do they deserve tax ex-

emption ? Is the parental prerogative in educa-

tion an inalienable right, or is it a privilege

granted by the State? (Incidentally, the pres-

ent-day emphasis on the “parental privilege”

to send one’s children to a parochial school

sounds an ominous note that makes one won-

der how securely the parental right is protected

by the Oregon decision.)

The importance of the first issue, the rela-

tionship of government to education, cannot be

stressed too much. This issue is a live one in

almost every nation of the world.

As an educator recently returned from Eu-

rope remarked:

“In almost every nation of the world there

is a struggle between democracy and totali-

tarianism. A major battleground is the school,
particularly the private school. Where democ-

racy prevails, private schools are encouraged,

and in some nations, they are supported by

public funds. In the totalitarian nations, pri-

vate schools are either suppressed or seriously

16



restricted in their academic activities. I would

judge that a nation’s most powerful safeguard

against totalitarianism is the maintenance of

variety, diversity and independence of school-

ing. The private school, embodying the national

tradition, but not subject to political control,

is a mighty bulwark against those forces which

would destroy both free schools and free

nations.”

In its May 7th issue, the Cleveland Universe

Bulletin headlined a story, “School Secularists

Peril Free Europe” and reported “The world-

wide political assault on the rights of parents

in the education of their children was threat-

ening today to disrupt the coalition govern-

ments of France and Belgium.

“In France, a cabinet crisis was temporarily

averted when the question of state seizure of

certain parish schools was postponed.

“In Belgium, attempts of the Socialist Party

to whittle away Christian education and force

Belgian children into irreligious schools without

regard to the desires of their parents was

threatening a cabinet crisis which might seri-

ously weaken Western European resistance to

Soviet aggression.”

* * *

How secure then is democracy in the United
States?

The Oregon decision guarantees every par-

ent a right to send his child to a parochial

school. But many parents cannot exercise this
right because they and others so minded cannot
raise enough money to finance a parochial
school. By denying tax funds to parochial

17



schools, our government has refused to help

parents exercise their rights. How secure is
our democracy? Not too secure.

A democratic government whose practice
negates one of the fundamental principles on

which it is supposed to operate is indulging in

a form of schizoid activity which is an open

invitation to totalitarianism. Recent history

has proved that the first step toward the sup-

pression of a right is the imposition of economic

pressure upon its free exercise.

The Oregon decision and public support of

parochial schools go together like the right to

vote and repeal of the poll tax, the right to

collective bargaining and the right to strike,

the right to a job and the FEPC, the right to

live where you want and the abolition of re-

strictive covenants, the right to a decent live-

lihood and the enactment of a minimum wage

law.

Therefore, even if a single penny of public

funds never reaches a parochial school, the

endeavor to secure public funds will not be

wasted effort, for only a persistent struggle

against any trend toward government monopoly

of education will at least forestall the threat to

democracy when the schools no longer would

use the government but the government would

be using them. In short, when Catholic school

administrators demand aid for parochial

schools, they are actually contributing to the

preservation of democracy by opposing a view

of the relationship of government to education

which is a threat not only to parochial but to

public schools as well.

18



The whole church-state issue is centered

mainly around the correct interpretation of the

Fh*st Amendment. Those who claim, as does

our United States Supreme Court, that the

First Amendment prohibits any form of direct

or indirect aid to religious organizations on a

non-discriminatory basis are preparing a way

for the establishment of a lay state similar to

the one in France after the Revolution. They

base their claim on the fallacy that it is im-

possible for government to be neutral towards

all religious groups as long as these groups

are among themselves unequal in number and

in prestige.

Carried to its logical conclusion, this inter-

pretation of the First Amendment would permit

government, step by step, to take away from

religious organizations the benefits which they

now have. If this interpretation of the First

Amendment is correct, there can be no sound

basis for granting tax exemption to religious

organizations.

A further consequences of this interpretation
of the First Amendment is its virtual endorse-

ment of secularism as a constitutional require-

ment of any institution eligible to receive pub-

lic assistance from the government. This, in

turn, would lead to the strengthening of secu-

larism as a dominant force in American life,

for it is already evident that proponents of this

interpretation of the First Amendment are in-

terpreting the American way of life in essen-
tially secularist terms. Not only do they ad-

vocate the complete secularization of public

schools, but now they seek to substitute a nat-
ural religion for revealed religion. They claim

19



that this natural religion provides all the spir-

itual values of revealed religion without the

element of sectarian divisiveness.

Those on the other hand who regard the

First Amendment in its true, historical mean-

ing, interpret it as a prohibition against the

establishment of any one church as the official

church in the United States. They hold to the

opinion that government may cooperate with

religious organizations on a non-discriminatory

basis. In supporting this interpretation, they

give expression to their belief that our Amer-

ican institutions are founded upon a Christian

interpretation of life.

Therefore, by maintaining that parochial

schools should receive public funds, Catholic

spokesmen may somewhat hold in check the

growing trend towards the complete secular-

ization of American institutions. They may

further promote a reform of public education

along lines which would permit at least a lim-

ited amount of religious instruction in the

public school curriculum. In so doing, they are

making a great contribution to the general

welfare of the American people.

In this paper I have endeavored to formulate

a rationale for our efforts to secure public

funds for private schools. The rationale is com-

plex, intricate and subtle. Its substance is the

issues underlying the whole controversy. Its

specific characteristic is its long-range defense

of the best interest of American education as

a whole.

Perhaps this rationale might be better un-

derstood by the public were it presented as one

20



phase of the Church’s comprehensive plan for

social justice. In other words, we ought to

stress the idea that the Catholic concern for

the worker, the Negro, the underprivileged,

stems from the very same principle as our

concern for the parochial school child. Let us

associate things that go together. For example,

let us respect all inalienable rights, a parent’s

right to select a parochial school, and a work-

er’s right to hold a job, regardless of his race,

color, or creed; let us oppose all discrimination,

the discrimination against parochial school pu-

pils who are ejected from a public school bus,

and the discrimination against Jews who are

ejected from a “Gentile Only” bathing beach.

We cannot expect the American public to give
a sympathetic hearing to our plea for public

funds unless this plea is integrated with the

Church’s distinguished defense of all human

rights and with her keen sense of justice and

good government.

I hope that the Catholic editors will do their

best to interpret this rationale to their readers.

Not until school authorities have the backing of

an enlightened Catholic laity may they even
hope for success in their task of educational

statesmanship, a task that involves bringing

about a harmonious partnership between the

different agencies concerned with the educa-

tion of youth, a task that in the end will en-

shrine the principle of divided authority as a

basic condition of freedom.

When full freedom of education prevails in
our nation, parochial schools will not be denied

the limited amount of public funds they now
request.

21



>

f

RANSDELL INC

Washington, D. C

22





Liberty and Justice!

The demand that Catholic paro-

chial schools share in public funds

is inspired by justice and legitimate

liberty. Furthermore, the Catholic

campaign in behalf of state aid for

parochial schools serves to check

the totalitarian and secularistic at-

tempts of those who seek to destroy

America’s traditions of education-

al freedom and bring all its schools

into a single state-controlled sys-

tem. For a clear understanding of

the state - aid - to - schools contro-

versy read this expert article by

Rev. Wm. E. McManus