¡ C u v r c u n , t d iAkosd 1/^hvJl V\oV . - - WHY NOT an AMBASSADOR to the VATICAN? b y F r a n c i s J . C u r r a n , S .J . THE QUEEN'S WORK 3115 South Grand Boulevard St. Louis 18, Missouri Imprimi potest: Daniel H. Conway, SJ . Praep. Prov. Missourianae Nihil obstat: Rt. Rev. Wm. Fischer, S.T.D. Censor IAbrorum Imprimatur: >j< Joseph E. Ritter Arckiepiscopus Sancti Ludovici Sancti Ludovici, die SI Novembris 1951 First printing, January 1952 A N Y FINANCIAL PROFIT made by the Central Office oj the Sodality of Our Lady will be used for the advancement of the Sodality Movement and the cause of Catholic Action. Copyright 1951 THE QUEEN'S WORK DeacWBfed Why Not an Ambassador to the Vatican? By F r a n c i s J . C u r r a n , S . J . GENERAL Mark W. Clark, commander of the U. S. Army Field Forces and liberator of Rome in World War II, has been nominated by President Truman to return to the Eternal City as "Ambassador Extra- ordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the State of Vatican City." Appointment to such a position, how- ever, requires approval by the U. S. Senate,. The nomination, together with the matter of its approval, has aroused a great deal of interest regarding diplomatic relations be- tween the United States and thqi Vatican. The official statement from the White House pointed out that the President considers the appointment of General Clark advisable since "it is in the national interest for the United States to maintain diplomatic representation at the Vatican." The statement continues: "The President feels that the purpose of diplomacy and humanitarianism will be served by this appointment." But perhaps the most significant statements in the White House announcement were these sentences: "It is well known that the Vatican is vigorously engaged in the struggle against Communism. Direct diplomatic relations will assist in coordinating the effort to combat the Communist menace." Time magazine remarked on the added light shed on President Truman's news release by his recent address delivered to leaders of the Protestant Church. "For some time," the President said, "I have been trying to bring a number of the great religious leaders of the world together in a common affirmation of faith and a common supplication to the one God that all profess. . . . It has not yet been possible to bring the religious faiths together for this purpose of bearing witness that God is the way of truth and peace. Even the Christian churches have not yet found them- selves able to say, with one voice, that Christ is their Master and Redeemer and the Bource of their strength against the hosts of irreligion and the danger of a world catastrophe." Elsewhere in the same address the President insisted on the need for cooperation among the different Christian churches. He said: "It is not just this church or that church which is in danger. It is not just this creed or that creed which is threatened. All churches, all creeds, are \menaced. The very juture of the word of God — the teaching that has come down to us from the days of the prophets and the life of Jesus — is at stake." Cooperation Protested But in spite of this imminent peril threaten- ing all Christian churches there is violent pro- test at President Truman's nomination of General Clark. The President endeavors to consolidate a Christian front against the vio- lent onslaught of Communism, and church — 4 — leaders attack the effort. Widespread and vigorous protest at "favoritism" and at the "violation of the principle of separation of church and state" is expressed to the President and echoed in the press. Cooperation Needed The Catholic view of the matter, however, was expressed by Pope Pius XII on September 8, some weeks before President Truman's ad- dress. The Pope said: "Against this united front [of God-haters] those who are signed with the sacred mark of Baptism and in duty bound to fight the good fight for Christ, can- not any longer remain divided." World-wide recognition of the need for co- operation between church and state is evident in the presence at the Vatican of representa- tives of forty-four nations. Pakistan has just established a legation there; and Turkey, also a Moslem nation, is expected to send a dele- gate in the near future. Yugoslavia and Eng- land are both represented, and the presence of such decidedly non-Catholic countries underlines the absurdity of the charges of favoritism latent in President Truman's ap- pointment of an ambassador to the Vatican. Do Pakistan and Turkey favor Catholicism? Is England partial to the Roman Catholic Church? Is Yugoslavia's Tito obedient to Rome?V It has become evident to the world that cooperation of God-fearing men of all nations and creeds is essential to human peace and happiness. More than that, nations differing as widely in culture and religion as Pakistan, Turkey, England, and Yugoslavia are actually cooperating with the Vatican in a coordinated effort to stem the tide of a common danger. Yet Christian church leaders in the United States protest cooperation of this country in any move toward such coordinated effort directed toward the defense of Christianity. U. S. Vatican Representation These objections to diplomatic representa- tion of the United States at the Vatican are made in spite of the fact that this country has actually had official envoys in the Eternal City for the greater part of United States history. The total span of time in which no such representation has existed is less than forty-five years. Consular representation of the United States at the Vatican began in 1797, and a consular, diplomatic, or other envoy of the United States has been present constantly since that time except for two periods. From 1895 to 1939, and from 1950 until the present are the only times in the course of 154 years when no representative of the United States has been present at the Vatican. Most recent among these envoys was Mr. Myron C. Taylor, Personal Representative of the late President Franklin D. Roosevelt and of President Truman to His Holiness, Pope Pius XII. And though Mr. Taylor's work was significant in the solving of difficult problems, in making possible the free flow of weighty information, and in the organizing of relief for victims of war, his presence in Rome was severely criticized. His appointment, like the appointment of General Clark, was said to be a violation of "the American principle of separation of church and state." Wall of Division Advocated Much has been said regarding the "Ameri- can doctrine of separation of church and state," but those who protest do not define its meaning. One interpretation becoming widely accepted is that there should be a division be- tween the state and religion. The state, as such, and prescinding from the religious belief of its members, should be of its nature atheistic, in no way acknowledging God or the natural law. Proponents of this view consider that the state has its deepest foundation in human reason alone. Consequently, they argue, it is free from moral law, independent of any religious considerations, and may impose its will on all. This view is extreme, but its influence is being felt in the whole field of relations be- tween church and state. The entire attitude of fostering division between religion and the state is closely related to this secularist men- tality. In addition to the question of issues involved in representation of the United States at the Vatican, recent tendencies regarding objection to various forms of state aid for students of private schools echo the attitude that the ideal relationship between church and state is one of division. Separation is interpreted as division. And this dividing wall is to be kept high and impregnable. Any aid whatsoever to any one religion or to all religions is prohibited by the First Amendment, these authorities declare. Conse- quently, if one boy goes to a Lutheran Bchool and his brother goes to a public school, the Lutheran school boy must walk although hia brother rides in a state-supported bus. And the student of the public school studies with books supplied by the state, though his brother must buy his own books. The boy attending the Lutheran school learns thoroughgoing Ameri- canism based on religious morality charac- teristic of our founding fathers, but his brother at the public school receives no such religious foundation for morality. Not only does the public school exclude religion from the cur- riculum, but it is not even permitted that free time may be given for religious teachers to come and teach on school property the reli- gious truths on which American freedom is built. The countries of Christendom are locked in a grim world-wide struggle with the forces of Communism pledged to wipe out Christianity and American freedom. And though the Vati- can, at once a state and the center of the world-wide moral, forces of the Catholic Church, leads the moral efforts of the free world in resistance to Communist Blavery, the United States should not send a diplo- matic representative to the Eternal Cityt This would give undue support to religion! But what of the tremendous help given to the state by the Church in her world-wide struggle with Communism 7 Absurdities Follow At what point does this idea of a dividing wall end? Are the various state-supported chapels for Protestants, Jews, and Catholics at West Point and Annapolis unconstitutional? Is the aid given to our soldiers in Korea by chaplains of all denominations illegal? If the Baptist Church catches fire, may the state- supported fire department extinguish the blaze? And if the minister be injured in the fire, may he ride in a state-supported am- bulance to the emergency hospital? Does he have any more right to ride from a church fire in a state-supported ambulance, than the school child has to ride to a church school in a state-supported bus? Consider the Constitution The absurdities evident in logical application of this dictum requiring a wall of. separation between church and state make it clear that a thorough reexamination of American law re- garding relations of church and state is im- perative. Consideration of our fundamental law is necessary, and views establishing the absurdities involved in division must yield to constitutional authority. Since this is a matter of basic Americanism, the primary document to consider is the Constitution of the United States. In the Constitution, and in its ordinary and accepted application to the life of the American people in the decades following its ratification, will be found the fundamental law together with its interpretation. These comprise the just basis for decision regarding modern problems arising from relations of church and state. The only mention of religion in the actual body of the Constitution prohibits religious tests for the holding of office in the Federal Government. Article six, section three reads in part as follows: ". . . no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." The First and Fourteenth Amendments re- fer to religion, but attention is to be focused on the First. It places restrictions on the Federal Government regarding religion, and the Fourteenth Amendment is interpreted as extending these same restrictions to the state governments. So a careful consideration of the First Amendment in the context of its for- mation and its application gives us correct understanding of genuine American thinking based on the fundamental law of the land. Sincere Americanism accepts the Constitution and its application during the first decades of American history as the basis for decision regarding fundamental American justice. So we quote the First Amendment in full. No Establishment of Religion "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the free- dom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to peti- — 10 — tion the Government for a redress of grievances." The conciseness and perfect precision of the Amendment are to be noted. It was discussed, debated, and drafted; then revised time and again by gifted statesmen. The Amendment was revised five times; it is the sixth version which appears in the Constitution. And the statesmen who drafted it succeeded in ex- pressing with perfect clarity the exact nature of the restrictions imposed on the Federal Government. But the passage of time and the different circumstances of American life today require present-day readers to weigh the phrase "an establishment of religion." Precisely what was "an establishment of religion" in 1789? Clear understanding of that phrase results in very deep penetration into the basic and official American viewpoint regarding relations of church and state. Brief consideration of the institutions exist- ing in the American colonies sheds clear light on the phrase. Before the Revolution ten colonies had. churches established, protected, and supported by law. In such a colony this one church was the official religion of the people of that colony. The church so estab- lished was given a religious monopoly pro- tected by law and custom. The degree of rigidity in the establishment of that monopoly, and the strictness with which it was enforced varied from place to place depending on the views dominant in each of the colonies. New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, North and South Carolina, and Georgia had — 11 — established the Church of England as the official church in each of these colonies. Massachusetts (including Maine), New Hampshire (including Vermont), and Connec- ticut gave similar rights of religious monopoly to the Congregationalist Church. No Wall of Division By the time the Constitutional Convention was held in 1787 five of these colonies had terminated the religious monopoly granted to their several churches. The other five con- tinued with their establishments of religion for some time thereafter. But all of the colonies had religious tests for office which, of course, varied considerably from place to place. Jews, Quakers, Unitarians, Catholics, and atheists found themselves barred from office in one or more of the colonies. And it is to be noted that the colonies had now become states; they were free of English rule and in process of federation. And so it is clear now that generally speaking, even in those states which had no established religion, Protestant churches of various denominations were given a position of preference by state law and custom. Where was the wall of separation be- tween church and state in 1789? No such division existed. On the contrary, there was decided support given to one sect which was maintained in a position of prefer- ence. And at the time of the Constitutional Convention five of the colonies still main- tained an established church. — 12 — "Establishment" Defined Now the meaning of "an establishment of religion" has become clear. These words, as used in the First Amendment, refer to a re- ligious monopoly granted to one specific church by the government. And the First Amendment forbids that the Federal Govern- ment should establish such a religious monopoly. James Madison was the dominant figure in the drafting of this Amendment, and some have sought to interpret his ideas regarding the Amendment in the light of his words relative to the establishment of the Church of England in Virginia. But it is clear that what Madison said in Virginia about the Con- stitution of the State of Virginia had reference only to the peculiar problems existing there in connection with Virginia's established church. But when Madison spoke in the Constitu- tional Convention, he spoke as a statesman considering national problems. He was a man of gifted intelligence with a splendid faculty for clear and precise expression of his ideas. When Madison spoke or wrote as a national statesman, his words must be taken in their obvious meaning, and he made that meaning very clear indeed. When he wrote, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . ." he stated exactly what he meant with perfect precision. Further, it was this Amendment hammered into perfect precision on the anvil of debate — 13 — which was accepted by the Constitutional Con- vention and ratified by the states. His ideas regarding Virginia and its established church were not so accepted and ratified. Consequently when we seek to understand the viewpoint of fundamental American Jaw regarding re- lations of church and state, we must accept the words of the Constitution in their obvious meaning. And these words simply exclude a national religious monopoly and prohibit in- terference with the practice of religion on the part of the Federal Government. And the provisions of the First Amendment restricted only the Federal Government. Such restriction was a matter of policy. Before ac- cepting the Constitution, the states demanded that a Bill of Rights be added to the docu- ment. In order to secure ratification of the Constitution, the statesmen who drafted it were required to guarantee explicitly that the Federal Government would not be allowed to interfere in matters which were reserved to state control. Consequently the states were free to continue to maintain an establishment of religion. But the Federal Government was not allowed to erect a national religious monopoly. And this restriction was a matter of policy necessary if the Constitution was to be ratified. Since the states clung tenaciously to several different churches, agreement on one church for national establishment was im- possible. The only union of mind on a national scale which could be reached was agreement that no individual church should be selected — 14 — by the Federal Government' for a national monopoly. States Maintain Religion But each individual state was allowed to erect or maintain: such an establishment of religion if it chofce to do so. And a number of the colonies did maintain an established church for quite some time after the ratification of the Constitution. The individual states con- tinued to have the constitutional right to maintain an established church, to require re- ligious tests for voting or officeholding, to put education entirely into the hands of ministers of religion, even to require all citizens to at- tend a specified church until the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. For eighty years then, from the time the Constitu- tion was ratified in 1788 until the acceptance of the Fourteenth Amendment, each individual state was free to maintain a religious monopoly or to give whatever preference it pleased tq the religion of its choice. Where was the wall of separation between church and state for these eighty years? And it is most important to observe that, relative to religion, the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 only extended to the state governments the restrictions which had been placed on the Federal Government by the First Amendment. After 1868 there should be no state law respecting an establish- ment of religion or prohibiting the free exer- cise thereof. — 15 — Monopoly Not Desired We do not argue in favor of monopoly of religion. Such monopoly is in conflict with fundamental freedom of conscience. Each in- dividual human being is obliged to worship God in the way in which he himself under- stands God to wish it. His worship must be in accord with God's wishes as he understands them. And upon this duty to God rests his right of freedom of conscience. No govern- ment has the right to require a man to worship in a manner contrary to his conscience. Archbishop John T. McNicholas of Cincin- nati, chairman of the Administrative Board of the National Catholic Welfare Conference, speaking in 1948 declared the Catholic view regarding union of church and state. Said the Archbishop: "No group in America is seeking union of church and state; and least of all are Catho- lics. We deny absolutely and without any qualification that the Catholic Bishops of the United States are seeking a union of church and state by any endeavors whatsoever, either proximate or remote. If tomorrow Catholics constituted a majority in our country, they would not seek a union of church and state. They would then, as now, uphold the Con- stitution and all its Amendments, recognizing the moral obligation imposed on all Catholics to observe and defend the Constitution and its Amendments." And Archbishop McNicholas is echoing the traditional view of the Catholic Church. The — 16 — same fundamental ideas expressed for another age and place were expressed by Pope St. Gelasius (d. 496) almost fifteen hundred years ago. In the preceding part of his message, the Pope had pointed out that in ancient times the same person was both king and priest and that when Christ came He, too, was both King and Priest. But when He left us, He did not wish that the two powers should be united any longer. Traditional Distinction "He divided the functions of each, assigning to each its proper task and dignity. . ." wrote St. Gelasius. "The spiritual power remains far removed from l ie temptations of the world; and, campaigning for God, does not mix into the affairs of the world; while on its side the secular power takes care not to undertake the direction of Divine things. By each one resting modestly in his place, each power avoids the pride of seizing absolute power, and thus holds a greater competence in the things that are his own." These ideas of distinction and cooperation are traditional Catholic teaching from the days of Pope St. Gelasius to the present. And it is to be hoped that sincere students of the problems will make a careful study of the encyclical letter of Pope Leo XIII, The Christian Constitution of States, which is available in the book, The Great Encyclical Letters of Leo XIII, edited by John J. Wynne. — 17 — Careful study of the Leonine letter makea clear the Catholic desire for distinction and cooperation between church and state. Washington's Recommendation Cooperation, then, between church and state is the aim not only of Catholic thought, but it was the practice of constitutional Americanism through a good many decades. Isn't there a great deal in common between these views of George Washington and Pope St. Gelasius? In his Farewell Address, Wash- ington tells us: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. . . . And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without re- ligion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular govern- ment. . . . Promote then, as an object of pri- mary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge." Where is the idea of a wall of separation between church and state in this thinking of George Washington? Far from being a pro- ponent of a dividing wall, Washington makes — 18 — quite clear that religion is the deepest part of the foundation of the structure of the state. Upon this foundation is built popular morality. And popular government in turn rests upon morality. Without religion the whole edifice crumbles. Such is the thinking of George Washington regarding the relations of church and state. And he is certainly a competent spokesman on the fundamentals of the American way of life. Continental Congress And the Northwest Ordinance, which was adopted by the Continental Congress in 1787, makes clear the position of religion in the schools. The Third Article reads: "Keligion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of man- kind, schools and the means of education shall be forever encouraged." Those who conduct education in our modern secular schools would do well to ponder not only Washington's views, but the perfect con- cordance of his views with those of the Con- gress expressed in this Ordinance. Washington and the Continental Congress insist on religion as the deepest foundation of the American way of life. And they stress that the founda- tion must be laid in the schools. The Consti- tution takes religious education for granted, Washington speaks of the necessity of religion — 19 — as the foundation of national morality, and the Continental Congress decrees that such religious education shall be forever encouraged. But the modern public school — or more ac- curately, secular school — excludes the teach- ing of religion from its curriculum. It even excludes instruction by religious teachers on the school premises during released time. Just how American, then, is the American secular school? Tradition Favors Cooperation Separation of church and state conceived as a dividing wall did not exist in the minds of Washington, the Continental Congress, and the Constitutional Convention. Consequently modern arguments pointing to a wall of division between Rome and Washington pre- cluding the appointment of General Clark as ambassador to the Vatican, cannot be built upon such a foundation. The foundation does not exist. We must look elsewhere for the true source of objection to the Vatican am- bassador. Genuine Americanism provides for cooperation between church and state. At the time of the Continental Congress, and for a good many decades thereafter, de- voted adherence to religion and substantial cooperation and support on the part of the states was taken for granted. One by one those of the original states which had estab- lished churches terminated the establishment. But they were slower to discontinue requiring religious tests for the holding of public office. The general conviction was that only men with deep religious convictions were fit for public office. The Massachusetts Constitution required that its higher officers in the executive and legislative branches of government be men believing in the Christian religion and per- suaded of its truth. The Constitution of Mary- land demanded that public officials make "a declaration of belief in the Christian religion." And the Constitutions of Georgia, New Hamp- shire, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Ver- mont required declaration of positive adher- ence to Protestant Christianity. Delaware, Pennsylvania, and Vermont insisted that their public officials express their belief that the , Old Testament and the New Testament are both divinely inspired. Counterfeit Americanism These were the religious tests in the various states at the time of the drafting of the United States Constitution. All of them now are erased from the statute books, but record of their existence remains. And the record makes abundantly clear that religion was vitally important in the various states. Our preceding survey has shown the position of religion in the view of the Federal Consti- tution and in national life considered precisely as national. Its existence was taken for granted and to be encouraged, but no religious monopoly was to be permitted. Religion was left to flourish and encouraged to prosper in the individual states. Neither in the Constitu- tion nor practice of the United States, nor in — 21 — the constitutions of the individual states was there any trace of a wall of division between church and state. Such a wall of separation is utterly foreign to the backgrounds of Ameri- can constitutional history. And since the foun- dations of Americanism are laid deep in the history of the country, it becomes clear that this idea of a divisive wall is counterfeit Americanism. It had no place in the American way of life in 1789 and it has no place in the American way of life today. This idea of separation is entirely contrary to the tra- ditional thought which has established Ameri- canism. The close cooperation between the states and religion was very pronounced in the actual course of everyday life in the earlier days of our history. The actual working out of daily events demonstrates a more vital concern with religion than is evident in the statutes. Con- stant encouragement and support of religion by the states was the normal course of affairs. Land was given and tax exemptions granted, appropriations in favor of the churches were made, legal privileges and exemptions were bestowed. And all these forms of assistance were-quite frequent and simply a part of the normal pattern of early American life. And ministers of. religion were men of im- portance in public affairs. They considered themselves the guardians of American tra- ditions, and they were accepted as leaders in — 22 — public life by the citizens of the day. The ministers recommended legislation they con- sidered desirable and were energetic in caus- ing their suggestions to be enacted into law. They were decidedly vocal in elections and in all legitimate forms of activity in public life. And this was expected of them. Since it was commonly recognized that religion and moral- ity are the foundations upon which honest pub- lic life must be built, the ministers of religion were esteemed as men contributing most sub- stantially to the welfare of the state. Modern Policy in Contrast This contribution of religion to the welfare of the state is most clearly seen in the various school systems maintained in the colonies. All of the educational institutions were church or private schools which stressed religion as the basis of morality. The contrast of these schools with our modern state-supported secular school is very sharp indeed. In the modern public school, as we have noted, religion is excluded from the curriculum, the Bible is not to be given classroom consideration, and no teaching of religion is to be done on the school premises even in released time. Is there any reason to wonder about the source of the present widespread corruption in public life? What else is to be expected when knowledge of God is excluded from public education? Religion is ignored in the secular school. And the attitude of public officials toward private religious schools is varied. The Federal Government in allotting its assistance to school children prescinds from religious matters and gives equal treatment to all. Educational as- sistance to veterans provided by the "GI . Bill of Rights" allows these men to select the school of their choice, then gives them the help needed for their education-. And that is as it should be. But the attitude of officials in various states is often far from just. Although they know that the private religious schools teach all of the subjects required for a completely well- rounded education, they consider that students of such schools are to receive no assistance whatsoever. Though books for the secular school student are paid for by the state, the child receiving an education which stresses the religious foundations of Americanism re- ceives no help. Though bus transportation is provided for the public school child, the bus is to pass by the parochial school child as he walks to school. In spite of the tremendous contribution made to the state by the deeply Christian outlook fostered in the citizens who are to bear the burdens of tomorrow's govern- ment, assistance to these students is to be re- fused. Although the Northwest Ordinance directed that, "Religion, morality, and knowl- edge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall be forever encour- — 24 — aged," students attending those schools which do foster religion, morality, and knowledge are to receive no help. I t is abundantly clear, nevertheless., that the general education given in the parochial school in all academic subjects — both re- ligious and nonreligious •— compares most favorably with the general education in non- religious matters given by the secular school. The parochial school meets educational standards which are determined by the state boards of education. And their general record is one of surpassing by far the minimum re- quirements. Yet the student of the secular school receives help, while the student attend- ing the parochial school in many states is excluded from aid. Isn't this discrimination against such a student precisely because of his exercise of re- ligion? And doesn't the First Amendment provide that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or pro- hibiting the free exercise thereof"1 The Su- preme Court has judged that the restrictions laid on the Federal Government by this First Amendment are extended to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. Advocates of the wall of division between church and state completely ignore the tre- mendous contribution made to the state by the church. The value of that deeply re- — 25 — ligious morality which is developed in the students of the private religious schools is simply incalculable. Washington considered it the deepest foundation of national life. And the material contribution to the state is tre- mendous. Monetary Savings In the elementary and secondary schools of the Catholic educational system alone, 3,190,- 752 pupils were enrolled in the year 1950. The U. S. Office of Education of the Federal Security Agency computed the cost of each elementary and secondary pupil in the public school system at $213 in the fiscal year 1950. Consequently the Catholic grade schools and high schools saved the taxpayers the tremen- dous sum of $679,630,176 in 1950. And this is an annual saving I Since these Catholic schools teach children whose education would otherwise be provided at state expense, the Catholic Church does the equivalent of giving the state an annual gift of more than $679 million. If the Church did not provide this education, the state would have to provide it. But in spite of this, the secularist attitude regarding education remains very active. An outrageous penalty on private religious edu- cation was long established by law in Cali- fornia, and a very vigorous effort to re-establish that penalty is now being exericesd there. — 26 — The parents of students attending private religious schools were required to pay three, separate prices for education. They had to pay their taxes to support the secular school system, and since the exclusion of God from the education of-their children is an offense against conscience, they maintain their own system of private religious schools. And in addition the State of California levied taxes on this private religious school property. The injustice of such taxation was recognized by Governor Earl Warren and the legislators of California and the law has been abolished. When the matter was voted upon in the State Legislature, all of the State Representatives and State Senators with the exception of three, cast their ballot to end such unjust taxation. But the secularists — with most ob- vious and very vigorous Freemason support — are now campaigning energetically to restore the burden of unjust taxation. And yet the Constitution prohibits any law prohibiting the free exercise of religion! Such is the modern secular view regarding relations of church and state in the field of education. The wall of division is to be kept high and impregnable. And this view has be- come very widespread. But the relations of church and state in the field of education in* colonial times and for generations after the colonies had become states were a matter of the closest cooperation. — 27 — Cooperation was supposed by the United States Constitution, often directed by state law, and was the universal practice in the ordinary routine of daily life. Colonial Church Schools All of the schools in the colonies were church or private schools. In those colonies in which the Church of England was estab- lished, the school system was maintained and directed by the established church. And the same situation existed in the states when the Church of England was no longer established but remained dominant. Other private schools also existed, but the school maintained by the Church of England was the ordinary means of education. In New York, New Jersey, Dela- ware, and Pennsylvania parish schools were maintained by Moravians, Lutherans, Presby- terians, Quakers, and the Dutch Reformed Church; and these were the ordinary means of education. And in New England the clergy ran the schools. Again we note that such religious monopoly is not desirable. But the extremely important position of religion in the educational system of early America is very evident. And it is certain that the vital influx of religion re- ceived in school days made a tremendous con- tribution to the integrity of private and public life characteristic of Americans during colonial times and for generations thereafter. — 28 — This maintenance of the schools by churches was taken for granted. There was no thought of state management of schools. Washington recommended tha t ' the government should "promote" such institutions, and the North- west Ordinance of the Continental Congress directed that such schools should be "forever encouraged." A totalitarian government must control the schools. A democracy considers that its function is to promote and encourage good education. And it was considered com- pletely in accord with American life to use public funds for the maintenance of church schools. After the Revolution the very close coopera- tion between the states and the religious schools continued. In general the schools were supported and directed by the churches which provided the teachers and determined the curriculum, and the states gave wholehearted support, both moral and material. At the beginning of the nineteenth century problems developed from the increasing di- versity of religious sects and the consequent difficulty in supporting the schools. The grow- ing population, too, made private support of the schools an increasing burden, and religion was becoming a less vigorous'force in Ameri- can life. Gradually the states began to take over the support of the schools. But even in 1820 and thereafter the teachers, curriculum, and textbooks remained un- — 29 — changed. Religious education remained in its position of primary importance — and it was to continue to hold that primacy for a good many years. Almost fifty years had passed since the ratification of the First Amendment — and where is the wall of separation dividing church and state? From time to time radical views had been expressed, but the whole tenor of American life in colonial days and for half a century thereafter was marked by the closest cooperation between church and state. American Heritage Cooperation between the two is the Ameri- can heritage. It is based on the most sacred American documents: the Constitution, the statutes of the Continental Congress, the con- stitutions of the individual states, Washing- ton's Farewell Address. Such cooperation is rooted in the life of the colonies and in the life of the several states. The common life of the pedple for some fifty years after the ratification of the Constitution assumed that close cooperation between church and state was/ a fundamental part of the American way of life. And they were correct. The verdict of our basic law, our greatest leaders, and the early American people determines that a wall of separation between church and state has no place in American life. — 30 — But there is distinction between the two. "The Almighty has divided the charge of the human race between two powers, the ec- clesiastical and the civil, the one being set over divine, the other over human things. Each in its kind is supreme, each haa fixed limits within which it is contained, limits which are defined by the nature and special object of the province of each, so that there is, we may say, an orbit traced out within which the action of each is brought into play by its own native right." So Pope Leo XIII describes the distinction between church and state in his great encyclical letter, The Christian Constitu- tion of States. Distinction, then, and cooperation are the formula whereby church and state will stand side by side in their common defense of Chris- tianity from enemies at home and abroad. Cooperation within the school system will stem the attack of the insidious forces of secularism which is uprooting religionN and morality from the hearts of the American people. And cooperation between the tremen- dous material might of the United States and the overwhelming spiritual vitality of the Roman Catholic Church will defeat the vicious attack of materialistic Communism which is endeavoring to destroy Christianity and the American way of life. This distinction, then, and cooperation between these tremendous — 31 — forces requires the presence in Rome of Gen- eral Mark W. Clark as Vatican Ambassador. NOTE A more full and completely documented study of much of the material contained in this pamphlet will be found in The first Freedom by Wilfrid Parsons, SJ., published by The Declan X. McMullen Co. Inc., New York. THE QUEEN'S WORK 3115 South Grand Boulevard St. Louis 18, Mo. Pr inted in U. S. A.