-*
50 Questions & Answers

'

on

Federal Aid to Education
.

and

Related Matters

RUSSELL SHAW
'



 



1) Let's ·get down to brass tacks. Everyone knows federal
aid to private schools-especially Catholic schools-is a

problem. But wouldn't the problem disappear if there were

no' such schools'?

For all practical purposes, yes.

2) Well, why should there be such schools? The free, public
schools are good enough for almost everyone elsie. Why not
for Catholics?

Because Catholics do not believe their children can get a

complete, education in the public schools, As a matter of fact,

they find, that the, very questions they consider most import­
ant-the nature of God and man, the purpose of human life,
Christ's mission, and the role of the Church He founded-are

passed, over in the public schools. In conscience, Catholics

cannot let, theic children grow up ignorant of the answers

to these questions.
.,

3) In other words,' Catholics want something from education

that public schools, don't provide. But was it always that

way? ;How did Ca�holics stand in relation to education back

in colonial times" for instance?

To begin with, let's remember that the Pilgrims didn't

bring public . schools along with them on the Mayflower.

During .eolonial times schools were run by religious sects,
and their main objective was to make good church members

out of their.pupils; Since the colonies were overwhelmingly
Protestant" the schools .were, too. Catholics were forbidden

in most places to have their own schools. They had to send
their children 'to militantly Protestant, anti-Catholic schools.

4) How--.;.and.why-did the public schools as we know them

come into existence?_

Historians -usually see two main factors at work in the de­

velopmènt of the' public schools. The first was the filing down

of theological rough points which' had caused the Protestant

churches to feud among themselves. This occurred during
the eighteenth century. The second factor was the general

realization that a, working democracy needs educated citi­

zens-i-whìoh means education for everyone. The two things

together made the 'growth of the public schools both possible
and necessary, ;



5) It's easy to see why Catholics didn't want to send their

children to schools run by other churches. But weren't the

religiously neutral public schools a solution to the problem?

Why did Catholics pull away from the public schools and set

up their parochial school system?

The answer is that the public schools weren't religiously
neutral. They no longer could be identified with specific
Protestant sects. But throughout the nineteenth century they

kept a definite Protestant tinge. The King James Bible was

used in the public schools, and other Protestant religious

practices were common there. Protestant leaders boasted of

the numerical losses Catholics were suffering by having to

send their children to public schools. One Methodist minister

estimated the figure at 1.9 million in twelve years. The courts

showed no sympathy to Catholic pleas for relief from sec­

tarian religious practices in the schools. And Catholic efforts

to win a share in the common education fund were rebuffed.

Under the circumstances Catholics had no choice but to set

up their own schools.

6) Well, supposing public schools weren't really neutral on

the subject of religion in the beginning-that was a long

time ago. Surely they are today?

If you mean are they free from a Protestant bias, the an­

swer is yes. But Protestant sectarianism has been replaced

by a new sectarianism-democratic humanism. In plain

language, this means that traditional religion has been re­

placed in the public schools by a secularist philisophy which,

by implication at least, denies the very existence of the

supernatural. Catholics are not the only ones who think this

way. For example, in 1946, Methodist Bishop Fred Pierce

Corson stated: "Today the public school is not only ceasing

to be a colleague in religious teaching and training, but by

its attitude of exclusion, as well as separation, and its re­

nunciation of responsibility, it is becoming an' obstacle in

the way of adequate religious education."

7) You have a lot to say about what's wrong with the public

schools. But don't you think there's something to be said for

having a "common school" for all children?

If by having a "common school" you mean establishing a

2



state monopoly of education, much could be said-all, unfa­
vorable. This may sound like strong language, but a "�om�,
mon school" which all children must attend would be a big'
step along the road to totalitarianism. Look at Nazi Ger­

many or the Soviet Union. The nation which establishes a

state monopoly of education is attacking Indìvidual liberties..

Today, when American democracy is under attack from out­

side, is no time to be talking about subverting it from within'

by setting up a school system modeled, on that of totalitarian
countries. Thanks to the wisdom of the vast majority o�;,
Americans, including public school officials, there is no im...

mediate danger of this happening. But it would be folly not
to realize that this is the logical conclusion of proposals for
a compulsory "common school" system. To say thisis not to
attack our public schools. Catholics fully agree with Arch�,

bishop Karl J. Alter of Cincinnati, who said in November..
1960, that Catholics feel that if the public schools didn't

exist, "we'd have to create them."

8) Getting' back to this question of religion 'in the 'publié
schools-isn't the character 'formation they o,frer enough?

.No, Catholics do not believe that' programs of- "eharaeter
'

formation" are any substitute for instruction, in the great
truths of their religion.

9) Well, whatabout released-time programaor.the program
of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine? Can't .Catholi�_�
children in public schools get enough religious training from
��?'

,

Such programs are immensely important,' and the people,
engaged in them cannot be praised too highly. But you
should. remember two things in this connection. First,' re­
leased-time is not available everywhere, since many school­
districts have -turned downparents' requests for it. Second;,
no such program isan adequate substitute for a lull Catholic.

education, which can be had only in a Catholic .sehool.

10) When you come right' down to it, though, isn't formal:

religious education the business of' the .family and the:
church?

- -

.

Certainly it is, but that doesn't mean ithas no place in th,e'
schools. All three should work together on behalf of re-'

3



ligious education. When one of them falls down on the job,
the effectiveness of the religious education of the child is

impaired.
-

11) How can you expect anyone to be sympathetìc to a­
school system which is competing with the public schools?
It has taken Americans a lot of time and effort to build

up their public schools, and you cannot expect them to be

happy about seeing them undermined.

All Americans, Catholics included, appreciate the great
work of the public schools, All Americans, Catholics in­

cluded, pay to support them and do so gladly. So to begin

with, there is no intention on the part of private school sup­

porters to "undermine" the public schools. As for the possi­

bility that this might be the result despite their best inten­

tions-it's pretty hard to believe that the public school struc­

ture is so fragile that the existence of private schools really
threatens it. And what is the alternative? Force all chil­

dren to attend public schools? Eliminating private schools

would be a blow to the public schools, too, by burdening
them with still more students, at a time when they are al­

ready crowded. And don't forget that making attendance at

public schools compulsory brings us face to face with totali­

tarianism again. Look at it from American Catholics' per­

spective, too. They have spent a lot of time and effort. in

buildirig up their schools, and they don't take a very sympa­

thetic attitude toward people who want to deny them their

right to educate their children as they see fit.

12) But isn't it true that Catholic schools are divisive-that

they are a threat to our national unity?

Our society is made up of a multitude of minorities. That's

what we mean when we call it pluralistic. If Catholic schools

are "divisive," then so, too, are our churches and synagogues,

our labor unions, our fraternal 'societies, and any group,

in fact, to which some people belong and others don't. Would

it· be desirable to outlaw all these institutions in order to im­

pose some sort of monolithic uniformity on all citizens'

When some supporters of public education insist that non­

public schools are divisive, it's a good idea to remember the

warning of Gov. William H. Seward of New York, who

.4



pointed out as far back as 1842 that it runs counter to

American democracy to hold that "society must conform

itself to the public schools, instead of the public schools

adapting themselves to ... society." In other words, the

question is what benefits society, not what benefits the pub­
lic schools. Besides, young people have plenty of opportuni­
ties to mingle socially outside the classroom. And the grad­
uates of Catholic schools fit into the community just as

easily and serve it just as well as their counterparts from

public schools. The principles of love of neighbor and the

dignity of the individual person-both essentials of Cath­

olic education-foster unity. In short, the facts just don't

give any basis for hand-wringing about the "divisiveness" of

Catholic schools. Quite the contrary.

13) You mean that Catholic schools are actually making
a contribution to American democracy?

Definitely. As citizens, Catholic school graduates perform
as well as anyone else. More basically, Catholic schools help

preserve the diversity which has enriched American de­

mocracy and made it strong. Let's not forget our national

motto: "E Pluribus Unum."

14) But do parochial schools do a real job of education?

Isn't so much time spent on religion that other subjects are

neglected?

The average parochial elementary school class spends

thirty minutes a day formally studying religion. Two-and­

one-half hours out of twenty-five class hours each week is

hardly too much. And let's be sophisticated enough to re­

member that "religion" includes a great deal of the cultural

heritage of the western world. Through its. study the stu­

dent learns much about the civilization in which he lives.

The absence of religion from the public school curriculum

leaves a cultural as well as a spiritual vacuum.

15) Isn't it a fact that Catholic educators believe Catholic

schools exist just to save souls?

Only in the same way Catholic hospital administrators be­

lieve that Catholic hospitals do. The spiritual goal is the re­

mote purpose. But the immediate and specific purpose of a

Catholic hospital is to care for sick people. And the imme-

5



diate and specific purpose of a Catholic school is to form ed­

ucated Catholic citizens.

16) Then the Catholic schools are just public schools plus
the' catechism?

Not at all. The Catholic philosophy of education is firmly
rooted in the Catholic faith. As Father Neil McCluskey, S.J.,
has written: "The Catholic belief that man is a creature of

God destined to share in the divine life answers the two

questions upon which every philosophy of education is built:

What is man Y What is his purpose t" In practice this gives
Catholic education a spiritual orientation which public edu­

cation doesn't have.

17) Wasn't the whole idea of the parochial school imported
into this country from Europe? It isn't really an American

institution, is it?

Everything American except the Indians was originally
an import. What of it t Historically, America's first schools

were church schools. Were the signers of the Declaration of

Independence un-Ameriean because they attended them 7

U.S. Catholic schools have as much right' to the title "Amer­

ican" as any other institution in this nation. Public schools

have ,no monopoly on. Americanism. Parents who exercise

their' freedom of choice in education certainly don't deserve

to be. tagged as subversives.
. .

18) You put a lot of emphasis on the right of parents to

educate their children as
.. they see fìt. But surely the rights of

the state come first in education?
.

Definitely not. The parents' rights come first. Any other

arrangement goes contrary to nature and is a serious menace

to the family. The child is a .member of the family before

he is a member of the state, and the family's right in regard
to his education has priority over the state's.

19) But isn't the purpose of a school first and foremost to

train children
..

to be good citizens?

Certainly that is one purpose. But it is not the primary
one. As for what is, this is what Pope Pius XI had to say in

the encyclical "The ·Christian Education of Youth": '''Since

education consists essentially in preparing man for what he

must be and for 'what hemust do here below, in order to ob-

6



tain the sublime end for which he was created, it is clear that

there can be no true education which is not wholly directed

to man's last 'end." Of course, this will make no sense to the

secular humanist for whom supernatural religion is out­

moded and irrelevant. But it stands squarely in the great
tradition of western culture, and from the point of view of

the Catholic, it holds the key to the purpose of education.

20) You say the state doesn't have the right to compel all

children to attend one kind of school exclusively. But doesn't

the Church say that all Catholic children must be in Cath­

olic schools?

Probably what you have in mind is the Church's canon

law on education. Here for the record is what Canon 1374

states: "Catholic children may not attend non-Catholic,

neutral, or mixed schools, that is, those which are open also

to non-Catholics. It pertains exclusively to the local, Bishop
to decide, in accordance with instructions of the Holy See,
under what circumstances and with what precautions

against the danger of perversion, attendance at such schools

may be tolerated." To understand this piece of legislation,
it is necessary to see it in its historical setting. It was de­

veloped at a time when non-Catholic educators in Europe
were often strongly anti-clerical-and at a time, too, as we

have already seen, when non-Catholic church leaders in the

United States were boasting of the losses Catholics were

suffering from having to send their children to public
schools. The situation has changed today, but not necessarily

for the better. Catholics know the secularist philosophy

which is so influential in public schools is hostile to their

religious, beliefs and a threat to the religious faith of their

children.

21) Well, isn't the Church engaging in compulsion by dis­

couraging attendance by Catholic children at non-Catholic

schools?

Catholics believe their Church was entrusted by Christ

with a mission to teach all men in all ages. Traditionally,

Protestants have stressed the rights of the individual. But

Catholics-while they cherish these rights-put equal em­

phasis on the rights of the Church. They believe the Church's

rights necessarily include rights in education, since it is

7



through education that spiritual values are developed-or
killed-in the child. Control over the education of children

belongs first of all to the parents. But for this very reason

parents have serious duties in regard to the education of
their children. It is clear to the Catholic that these duties

include providing for religious instruction according to the
'

directions of the divinely-instituted Catholic Church. And

the Catholic parent feels" moreover, that any deliberate at­

tempt to prevent him from doing so is an attack on his

freedom of conscience-which is the very cornerstone of the

U.S. Constitution. After all, the Constitution isn't meant to

protect just the freedom of the Protestant conscience or the

secularist conscience. The Catholic conscience is entitled to

just as much protection. And the Catholic conscience de­

mands Catholic education.

22) But how do you reconcile the Church's stand with your

argument that parents have the primary rights in education?

To repeat-parents have not only rights, but duties. And

one duty is to provide for the religious education of their

children. For Catholics, that means Catholic education, ac­

cording to the guidelines laid down by the Church. 'I'he

Catholic parent isn't aware of any conflict with his rights.
He knows he is exercising his right at the same time he ful­

fills his duty by sending his children to a Catholic school.

23) It's hard to believe the Church is really disinterested in

this matter. Education is just one more way for it to main­

tain its power, isn't it?

To understand the Church's position you have to realize

that the Church feels itself to have a God-given duty to pro­
vide for the instruction of its members. People hostile to the

Church speak as if it were an ecclesiastical dictatorship try­

ing to strengthen its position by invading the field of educa­

tion. This just isn't so. The Church regards its educational

activities as the fulfillment of a serious duty.

24) It's all v-ery well to talk theory. But what have our

American courts actually had to 'say on the subject? Has the

Supreme Court specifically upheld parents' rights in educa­

tion. and the right of private schools to exist?

The landmark ruling on this question is the court's deci-

8



sion in 1925 in the so-called Oregon School Case. This in-

_

volved a state law adopted in Oregon in 1922 requiring that
all children between eight and sixteen attend public schools.
The Supreme Court's reaction was forthright. It struck
down the law as unconstitutional and said in doing so: "The
fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments
in this Union repose excludes any general power of the

State to standardize its children by forcing them to accept
instruction from public teachers only. The child is not the

mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and di­

rect his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty,
to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations."

.

25) Grant,e,d Catholics can have theìr own schools and send

their children to them. That doesn't give them the right to

expect other people to help them support their schools, does

it?

Catholics look at it this way: Part of their tax money goes

into a common fund to be used for educational purposes. But

this money is spent exclusively to support schools-the pub­
lic schools-to which they cannot in conscience send their

children. They regard this as an injustice. Also, to their way
of thinking, it's a mistake to put the emphasis. in education

on the school instead of the child. The one who directly bene­

fits from tax money spent for education is-or should be-the

child. And so far as the individual child benefits, society

benefits, too. Catholics don't see why their tax money
shouldn't be used to benefit their children-no matter where

they go to school. They believe it is just as much in society's
interest that their children be educated to be mature, re­

sponsible adults as it is that other people's children be.

Catholics aren't asking anybody else to help them support
their schools, either. They just ask that when benefits-paid
for in part with their tax money-are being passed out,

their children be invited to share in them.

26) The Constitution demands absolute separation of

church and state. It sets up a wall of separation between

them. You can't deny that, can you?

Certainly. As a matter of fact, the Constitution in no

instance uses the word "separation" in regard to church-

9



state relations-to say nothing of a "waU. of separation."
The phrase appears in a letter of Thomas Jefferson's. 'As
for "absolute" separation of church and state, we've never
had it in the United States. All but a tiny handful of Amer­
icans would be unhappy if we did. "Absolute" separation
would commit the state to an anti-religious policy. In the­

ory-under the Constitution-and in practice, the American

relationship between church .and state has been one in which
each has retained its independence while at the same time

cooperating with the other.

27) You speak of cooperation between church and state.
Can you give some examples of how this works?

National policy statements, from the Declaration of In­

dependence on down, have often contained references to 'God
and, religion. Many public 'ceremonies-for example, the
oath of office taken by a President of the United States-in­
clude actions of religious significance. One of the .most

striking ways in which the state cooperates with the church
is by providing chaplains to minister to the religious needs
of citizens serving in its armed forces. This, incidentally,
is a clear illustration of the fact that the American tradition

is for the state to use its resources to make it easier for citi­

zens to exercise their religious liberty. The Supreme Court
itself has pointed out how absurd "absolute" separation of
church would be-and howIntolerable to almost all Amer­

icans. The state could not require churches to pay property
taxes. Cities could not give' churches police or fire protec-
tion. Sessions of Congress and the state legislatures could . 1
not begin with prayer. And the Supreme Court itself could

not open its sessions, as it traditionally does, with the solemn
\

J
p-hrase: "God save the United States and this Honorable

Court." Religious groups receive public funds for hospital
construction. They get special postal concessions. And, of

course, church-run educational and charitable institutions

have traditionally been tax-exempt.

28) But separation of church and state is something desir­

able in itself, isn't it?

Not really. It is a means to, an end, and the end is religious

liberty. That was the intention of the framers of the Con-

10



stitution, who stated that "Congress shall make no law re­

specting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof." When separation of church and state

impedes religious freedom-as "absolute" separation would
do by making the state in practice hostile to religion-then
it is "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion.

29) Let's go back to the courts" again. Hasn't the Supreme
Court said that it's unconstitutional for the state to aid

religion, even if all religions are aided equally?

Yes, in the 1947 Everson decision. In that ruling the court

upheld aNew Jersey law under which parochial school

pupils were given tax-paid transportation on public buses.

But at the same time, the Court observed that neither fed­
eral nor state governments can constitutionally enact laws
which "aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one reli­

gion over another." In 1948, the Court carried this line of

thinking one step further in the McCollum case, when it

held that a released-time religious instruction program in

Illinois conducted on public school property was unconsti­

tutional.

30) It sounds as if these decisions are pretty clear. The

court hasn't .changed its mind since then, has it?

It's not good policy to try to second-guess the court. Let's

let the facts speak for themselves. In 1952, in the Zorach

case, the court was asked to rule on a New York City re­

leased-time program which differed from the Illinois pro­

gram in one important detail-the religious instruction was

not given. on public school property. Justice William O.

Douglas, speaking for himself and five other members of

the court, held that such a program is constitutional. He also

said that separation of church and state does not mean the

state should be "hostile, suspicious and . . . unfriendly" to

religion. As a matter of fact, he said that "when the state

encourages religious instruction ... it follows the best of our

traditions." As for "absolute" separation of church and

state, Justice Douglas specified that it applies in only two

areas-the "free exercise of religion" and an "establish­

ment", of religion.

11



31) You mean that in the Zorach case, the court said sepa­
ration of church and state needn't be absolute in all areas?

Exactly. Justice Douglas declared that the First Amend­
ment-concerned as it is with religious freedom-"does not

say that in every and all respects there shall be a separation
of church and state. Rather, it studiously defines the man­

ner, the specific ways, in which there shall be no concert or
union or dependency one on the other. That is the common
sense of the matter."

32) Getting back to the schools-how has this "traditional"
doctrine of church-state relations been applied to them?

In various ways at various times. As for what's being
done now, here are a few statistics: in four states, private
school children receive physical examinations under super­
vision of the state education departments , in three states,
public officials are responsible for seeing that persons with
communicable tuberculosis are not employed in private
schools; three state departments of education supervise
private school fire drills; five states provide free textbooks
to private school pupils; and, of course, compulsory school
attendance laws apply to these children. The federal

government has also entered the picture. In twenty-seven
states it makes cash payments directly to private schools
for free milk and hot lunches given to students. On the
local level, innumerable communities have adopted zoning
regulations designed to protect private schools from physi­
cal dangers or unwholesome influences. Communities close
off streets at certain times during the day to form play space
for private school pupils. These youngsters also get pre­
ferred treatment when it comes to using public parks and

playgrounds for organized school activities.

33) You said earlier that separation of church and state is
a valid principle as long as it promotes religious liberty.
How would you apply that to the question of state aid for
church-run schools?

The state has enacted compulsory school attendance laws,
but-as the Supreme Court made clear in the Oregon School

Case- it must leave parents free to send their children to

the school of their choice. Yet parents who exercise their

12



religious freedom by sending their children to Catholic
schools are in effect penalized by being denied their share
of the common educational fund to which they contribute.

Thus, the state has established a religious test for sharing in

this education fund. By denying education benefits. to Cath­

olic. parents and children who patronize parochial schools,
the state is putting a price tag on the exercise of religious

liberty. An interpretation of the "separation" principle
which holds that no tax funds can go to aid Catholic educa­

tion, effectively hinders Catholics in the exercise of their

constitutionally guaranteed religious freedom. It is as if

the state were to say' to Catholics: "Certainly you have

religious liberty. But you'll have to pay double for your
children's education if you choose to exercise it."

34) Well, supposing Catholic parents do have to make extra

sacrifices to exercìse their freedom in this field. No one is

forcing them. Isn't that just the price they've freely chosen

to pay?

No American should have to pay a "price" for the rights

guaranteed him by the Constitution. They are every Amer­

ican's birthright. Why should it be any different for Cath­

olics?

35) Do Catholics feel they have a real grievance on this

point?

Of course they do. And perhaps they are disturbed most

of all by the blank wall of apathy or hostility which some

members of the non-Catholic community have raised against
them. There would be relief for Catholics simply in having
their arguments given a respectful and sympathetic hearing.

Certainly it should not be too much for their fellow Amer­

icans at least to acknowledge that Catholics must bear a

heavy financial burden in order to exercise their freedom of

choice and their religious liberty in the field of education.

Catholics are tired of being told that they really have no one

to blame but themselves, because they are free to send their

children to the public schools. The point is precisely that

Catholics cannot regard the education offered in public
schools as adequate to the spiritual needs of their children.

In conscience, they must maintain their own schools. And

13



they see very little justice in putting a price tag on the right
to act according to their consciences.

36) And this means that children in parochial schools should

get some form of governmental aid?

In many places, they already do get some form of govern­
mental aid-textbooks, transportation, free lunches; and

health programs, for instance. Catholics believe the child

welfare principle which governs -this sort of aid could well

be extended further.

37) You spoke of the "child welfare principle." What's
that?

Courts have repeatedly agreed that forms of aid which

primarily benefit the child-regardless of whether he at­

tends a parochial or a public school-are .eonstitutionàl.
Here is what the Supreme Court had to say in the Everson

case: "We must be careful, in protecting the citizens of New

Jersey against state-established churches, to be sure that we

do not inadvertently prohibit New Jersey from extending
its .general state law benefits to all its citizens without re­

gard to their religious belief." Justice Robert H. Jackson

dissented from that ruling, which upheld free bus rides for

Catholic school students. But he said later, in connection

with the McCollum decision, that if the aid involved in the

Everson case had been "for the protection of the safety,
health or morals of youngsters it would not merely have

been constitutional to grant it. It would have been unconsti­

tutional to refuse it to any child merely because he was a

Catholic."

38) But if the pupils are benefited, aren't the schools they
attend benefited, too-at least to some extent?

No more so than the churches are benefited by the military

chaplain programs. The primary benefit of having chaplains

goes to the individual citizen-soldiers whom they serve. And

the primary beneficiaries of aid to education are the indi­

viduals educated. This is obvious in regard to such things
as health programs or free textbooks. But it is no less true

of any governmental aid to education. The school acts sim­

ply as a sort of filter through which the aid passes on its way
to the student.

14



39) Is there any real limit to this child welfare principle?
Won't Catholics eventually be arguing that all educatìon
benefits the child and therefore their schools have a right to

complete state support?

There aretwo things to be said in this regard. In the first

place, no one is in a position to give an absolute guarantee
that Catholics will ask for just so much and no more. The

notion that this could be done is based on the old, slow­

dying stereotype of the "monolithic" Church, all of whose

members-think alike on all subjects at all times. As a matter
of fact, there is great diversity of opinion within the Church
on the question of aid to education, as-on all other questions.
Futhermore, Catholics feel under no obligation to ,give any'
guarantee on this point. And they object to being accused
of subversive pilfering of public funds whenever they ask to

share in education benefits for which they are paying. They
believe the issue to be one of civil rights-their civil rights.
They hope that eventually their fellow Americans will give
them a hearing.

40) _- Hasn't the Oatholìe hierarchy had anything to say O'D
this subject?

There are some 135 Catholic dioceses in the United States,
and what anyone Bishop says is binding only within

-

his

own diocese. Bishops have made various statements on the
issue. Francis Cardinal Spellman of New York; for' example,
said Catholics do not ask for or realistically expect public
funds to build or maintain parochial schools or pay teachers'
salaries. But on the other hand he noted that it is a differ­

ent question as far as such incidental, welfare items as

transportation, textbooks and 'health services are concerned.
This .same .diatinction-c-between basic, institutional support
and welfare benefits-has been stressed by 'the Administra­

tive Board of Bishops of the National Catholic Welfare Con­

ference. Many Catholic' spokesmen have been wary about

aid to Catholic schools, on the grounds that support would
lead to control. Richard Cardinal Cushing of Boston said in

1955 of government aid: "I would absolutely refuse the

offer, for I cannot see how any- government or state would

build schools, without expecting to control them in whole

1.5

I",



or in part, We are not looking to any government for any
assistance in building our system of education."

41) What about bus rides?

Probably no aid-to-education issue has stirred up more

controversy in recent years than the question of providing
tax-paid bus transportation for private school students.
Catholics find this hard to understand. For one thing, bus

transportation is clearly a welfare benefit which aids the

child directly and the school only very indirectly indeed.

For another, the Supreme Court itself, in the Everson case,
ruled that the practice does not violate the Federal Consti­

tution. Catholics wonder why so many Americans seem to

have trouble grasping the principle laid down in 1945 by the

Kentucky State Supreme Court when it said: "In this ad­

vanced and enlightened age, with all of the progress that

has been made in the field of humane and social legislation,
and with the hazards and dangers of the highway increased

a thousandfold from what they formerly were, and with our

compulsory school attendance laws applying to all children

and being rigidly enforced, as they are, it cannot be said

with any reason or consistency that tax legislation to pro­
vide our school children with safe transportation is not tax

legislation for a public purpose." Catholics also see a certain

inconsistency in the fact that the same people who raise a

hue and cry over the alleged "divisiveness" of parochial

schools, try to keep Catholic school pupils from mingling
with their public school friends on the school bus.

42) Are· Catholics now seeking direct, basic aid to their

schools?

If, by direct, basic aid is meant tax money for building
Catholic schools or paying faculty salaries, the answer is no.

Catholics are aware of the various constitutional limitations

in the way of such aid. They also fear that such aid might

bring with it intolerable government controls over their

schools. And they know that civic harmony would be shat­

tered by the controversy which would erupt over an all-out

campaign for aid of this sort.

43) What � Catholics want?

Most of all, a fair hearing from their fellow Americans

16



of good will. As for specifics, courts have upheld the .consti­

tutionality of several forms of welfare aid to Catholic

pupils which could be extended more widely to them. These
include bus transportation, textbooks, health services, test­

ing and guidance programs, and special education for handi­

capped and retarded children. Catholic parents would also

like to see more consideration given the various tax credit

plans.

44) Tax credit plans-what are they?

Basically, the idea is that parents be allowed to deduct

part of what they pay in school tuition from their income tax.

Bills for this purpose have been introduced in Congress.

They' would operate in various, ways, but all have the basic

purpose of giving tax relief to a parent who is bearing the

burden of tuition costs for a son or daughter in college, It

has been suggested that the same tax rebate be granted to

parents of grade and high school youngsters.

45) Is there! any other program in which the government
has given financial assistance to citizens in getting an

education?

There is. The federal government, through G. I. benefits,
has paid out millions of dollars for the education of ex­

servicemen. The money has gone to the institution of the

individual's choice, whether it be public or private.

46) Catholic schools benefit from the 1958 National Defense

Education Act. Isn't the aid provided there enough?

In some respects this act seems an example of the left

hand not knowing what the right was doing. While it has

many good points, it contains basic inconsistencies between

its professed purposes and its treatment of private schools.

It begins by declaring that national security requires the

fullest development of the mental abilities of the country's

youth and that no deserving student should be denied higher
education because of financial need. It would naturally fol­

low from this, that the benefits provided under 'the act should

go to an students in all institutions. But this is not the case.

For instance, a student who receives a government loan to

finance his college education' can be forgiven up to half the

amount if he teaches after graduation in a public school.

17



But the student who teaches in a parochial school will have
none of- his loan forgiven. The federal government makes
outright grants for science, mathematics and modern lan­

guage teaching equipment for public schools. Private schools
get only loans for the same purposes., Public school teachers'

attending counseling institutes receive $75 weekly for ex­
penses. Private school teachers receive nothing. These and
other provisions of the act seem discriminatory and incon­
sistent to Catholics. They feel that a program designed to

promote national security through education is dong only
a piecemeal job if it benefits just some students in some

schools.

47) If Catholic schools began getting government aid,
wouldn't every religious group 'set up its own schools and
demand the same? And wouldn't the end result be a waste­

ful multitude of sectarian schools, each one dip'ping into
the public till?

This "problem" is only a "bogey-man." Apparently, the

many other countries which
-

subsidize private education

(England,' Ireland, Scotland, ·,Belgium, Canada, India, Hol­

land) haven't found it absolutely impossible to work out
a solution.' Common sense dictates that the state should

establish ,reaso�able requirements for sharing in its aid;
only those private or church schools would qualify for assiat-.
ance which would guarantee a fairly large and continuing
number

.

of students, as well as a SOund administrative pro­
gram. In some countries, any tendency toward "splinter."
schools is checked by limiting governmental assistance to

only part of the total- cost of education.

48) Aren't Cathol�cs using the school question as a smoke
screen, for achieving something they've always wanted->

union, of church. and state in America?

This charge was freely circulated after the Everson de­

cision, in which the Supreme Court upheld New Jersey's.

right to provide bus trausportatioll
.

for ., Oatholie school

pupils. , It has been .repeated with monotonous frequency by
a noisy minority ever since.. U. S. Catholic spokesmen on

every level have repeatedly refuted these claims, And the

continued patriotic service ·0£ Catholics to their country has

been the most crushing refutation of all.. Probably the fa-

18

I



natics who regard every Catholic church and school as 8

center of sedition can never be persuaded. But Catholics
would like to see other, more reasonable Americans take at
face value the words of the late Archbishop John T. Mc­

Nicholas of Cincinnati, who as chairman of the Administra­
tive Board of the National Catholic Welfare Conference,
stated: "No group' in America is seeking union of church

and state; and least of all are Catholics. 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 Constitution and all its

amendments, recognizing the moral obligation imposed on all
Catholics to observe the Constitution and its amendments."

49) For years Catholics seemed happy with their parochial
school system just as it was. Why this sudden interest in

getting government aid'1

It's questionable just how "happy" Catholics have been.
Out of realism and a wish not to disturb community har­

mony, they have put up with the injustice according to which
their children are denied a share in educational benefits

paid for by their tax money. But the fact that they have

put up with injustice does not mean that they have ever

regarded it as anything but injustice. As for why Catholics

are now beginning to seek their rights more actively-the
answer is simply that internal pressures within the Catholic

school system have made action imperative. Statistics tell

the story. Since 1940 the number of youngsters in U. S.

private schools-most of them Catholic schools-has risen

118 per cent. Catholic elementary schools now enroll more

than four million children. Catholic high schools enroll

more than 850,000. In most parts of the country existing
Catholic schools are filled to capacity-and parents are still

clamoring to have their children admitted. Many dioceses

are engaged in virtual crash programs of school construe ..

tion, but with the almost certain knowledge that the planned
facilities won't be able to accommodate all Catholic ehil­

dreno Building and maintenance costs are skyrocketing, and

u

[



the number of salaried lay teachers in Catholic schools is

increasing to the point where observers confidently predict
they will fairly soon outnumber religious. And despite
truly Herculean efforts, the fact remains that half of the
nation's Catholic students, are not in Catholic schools, mainly
because there is not enough room for them. In view of these

facts, Catholics no longer feel they can afford the luxury
of tolerating the injustice done them for so long.

50) Do Catholics feel they've been getting a fair hearing
on this issue?

No, just the opposite. The propaganda mills. of the anti­

Catholics and the militant secularists have been grinding out

a steady line to the effect that Catholics are somehow being
un-American when they ask for their rights-or ask even

that their arguments be listened to. Probably more irksome

to Catholics than anything else is the barrage of name-calling

kept up constantly by some of those who differ, with them

on this issue. Catholics feel that as citizens of a democracy

presenting reasonable arguments on behalf of their basic

civil rights, they deserve at least the chance to speak with ..

out having their motives questioned and their patriotism im­

pugned. They feel that this is the real Americ�n tradition.

They believe that frank and full discussion in the democratic

forum will convince their fellow Americans of the justice
of their cause. And they know- their nation' will' be all the

stronger once they have been grante� their rights.

20



.�

��
f;

��

.��-, J