Public School Education

by Michael Müller

CHAPTER XV.

ZEAL OF THE PRIEST FOR THE CATHOLIC EDUCATION OF OUR CHILDREN.

It is a matter of fact that the Protestant movement was chiefly directed against the Papacy, and that it involved a hundred years of so-called religious wars. This movement gave the princes who took the side of the Church an opportunity, of which they were not slow to avail themselves, to extend and consolidate their power over their Catholic subjects, and to establish in their dominions monarchical absolutism, or what we may choose to call modern Cæsarism.

Under plea of serving religion, they extended their power over matters which had hitherto either been left free, or subject only to the jurisdiction of the spiritual authority. They were defenders of the faith against armed heretics; and they pretended that this excess of power was necessary, in order to succeed in their undertaking. A habit of depending on them as the external defenders of religion and her altars, of the freedom of conscience, and of the Catholic civilization itself, was generated; the king took the place in the thoughts and affections of the people that was due to the Soverign Pontiff, and by giving the direction to the schools and universities in all things not absolutely of faith, they gradually became the lords of men's minds as well as bodies. In France, Spain, Portugal, and a large part of Italy, all through the seventeenth century, the youth were trained in the maxim—the Prince is the State, and his pleasure is law. Bossuet, in his politics, did only faithfully express the political sentiments and convictions of his age, shared by the great body of Catholics as well as of non-Catholics. Rational liberty had few defenders, and they were excluded, like Fenelon, from the Court. The politics of Philip II. of Spain, of Richelieu, Mazarin, and Louis XIV. in France, which were the politics of Catholic Europe, scarcely opposed by any one, except by the Popes, through the greater part of the sixteenth and the whole of the seventeenth centuries, tended directly to enslave the people, and to restrict the freedom and influence of the Church.

Trained under despotic influences by the skilful hand of despotism, extending to all matters not absolutely of the sanctuary, and sometimes daring, with sacrilegious foot, to invade the sanctuary itself, the people were gradually formed interiorly, as well as exteriorly, to the purposes of the despot. They grew up with the habits and beliefs which Cæsarism, when not resisted, is sure to generate.

The clergy, sympathizing, as is the case with every national clergy, with the sentiments of their age and nation in all things not strictly of faith, had little disposition to labor to keep alive the spirit of freedom in the hearts of the people, and would not have been permitted to do it, even if they had been so disposed. Schools were sustained, but, affected by the prevailing despotism, education declined; free thought was prohibited; and it is hard to find a literature tamer, less original and living, than that of Catholic Europe all through the eighteenth century, down almost to our own times.

As the Catholic religion was professedly patronized by the sovereigns, the Church, in superficial minds, seemed to sanction the prevailing Cæsarism. The clergy, because they preached peace, and thought to fulfil their mission without disturbing the State, came, for the first time in history, to be regarded as the chief supporters of the despot.

They who retained some reminiscences of the liberties once enjoyed by Catholic Europe, and the noble principles of freedom, asserted in the Middle Ages by the monks in their cells, and the most eminent Doctors of the Church from their chairs, became alienated from Catholicity in proportion as they cherished the spirit of resistance, and, unhappily, imbibed the fatal conviction that to overthrow the despot's throne they must break down the altar. Rightly interpreted, the old French Revolution, although bitterly anti-Catholic and infidel, was not so much hatred of religion, and impatience of her salutary restraints, as the indignant uprising of a misgoverned people against a civil despotism that affected injuriously all orders, ranks and conditions of society. The sovereigns had taken good care that an attack on them should involve an attack on religion, and to have it deeply impressed on their subjects that resistance to them was rebellion against God. The priest, who should have labored publicly to correct the issue made up by the sovereigns in accord with unbelievers, would have promoted sedition, and done more harm than good; besides, he would have been at once reduced to silence, in some one of the many ways despotism has usually at its command.

The horrors of the French Revolution, the universal breaking up of society it involved, the persecution of the Church and of her clergy, and her religious, which it shamelessly introduced in the name of liberty, the ruthless war it waged upon religion, virtue, all that wise and good men hold sacred, not unnaturally, to say the least, tended to create in the minds of the clergy and the people, who remained firm in their faith, and justly regarded religion as the first want of man and society, a deeper distrust of the practicability of liberty, and a deeper horror of all movements attempted in its name. This, again, as naturally tended to alienate the party clamoring for political and social reform still more from Catholicity; which, in its turn, has reacted with new force on the Catholic party, and made them still more determined in their anti-liberal convictions and efforts. These tendencies, on both sides, have been aggravated by the European revolutions and repressions, till now almost everywhere the lines are well defined, and the so-called Liberals are, almost to a man, bitterly anti-Catholic, and the sovereigns seem to have succeeded in forcing the issue: The Church and Cæsarism, or Liberty and Infidelity.