it should ever be taught in the public schools on the pretext of helping to lessen crime among the youth of America. The fact of the matter is, that religion does not belong primarily in the school at all. It belongs in the home and church, and can only enter the school if the children bring it with them. The aim of the school is to educate, not to sanctify our children. It is the children who should sanctify the school, which they can do only if they come from homes and churches where true religious development is fostered. Mr. Chairman, I here offer for the record the answer of Dr. L. H. Lehmann to Dr. Mary Elizabeth Walsh, assistant professor of sociology at the Catholic University, who challenged the statement of Dr. Lehmann on Religious Education and Crime which I placed in the record of the hearings in April and May 1945 on S. 717, a bill which would have authorized Federal funds for the support of Roman Catholic parochial schools. In this connection I also offer for the record excerpts from an article in the New York Times of Thursday, March 13, 1947. In the language of Dr. Lehmann it is an— amazing admission of Bishop John F. Noll, of Fort Wayne, Ind., that "Nearly all the evils of society prevail most where we Catholics and not where Protestants live." Dr. Lehmann said: Criminologists and sociologists have not yet allowed themselves to consider religious teaching as anything but a deterrent against crime. They seem to have omitted from their calculations the possibility that certain religious teachings, far from helping to lessen crime in youths and adults, and among pations, may actually foster it. Entirely forgotten are the facts of history which prove that more crime has been committed in the name of religion and as a result of the teachings of certain religious systems than under any other pretext. In the nearly 2,000 years of Christianity itself, the most cruel wars, the brutal assassination and torture of millions of innocent people, the degradation and weakening of the moral fiber of countless millions of others, may be attributed directly to corrupt teachings that have been dogmatically taught as consistent with the teachings of Jesus Christ. Even Hitler used religion as excuse for his atrocities against the Jews. "In combatting the Jews," he piously wrote in Mein Kampf, "I am doing the work of the Lord." This has been recently called to our attention by an attempt of an assistant professor of sociology at Catholic University in Washington, D. C., to explain away our statistical and factual analysis of this important matter as contained in our pamphlet, Religious Education and Crime. This pamphlet of ours seeks to explain the fact, which no one can deny, that Roman Catholics proportionately exceed those of other religions in our jails and penitentiaries. We hold that this warrants serious consideration of the fact that not all religious teachings may be conducive to the moral health of human society. The mere suggestion of it, however, seems to have amazed this Catholic sociologist. The attempt to explain away the facts and figures contained in our pamphlet, Religious Education and Crime, was made by Dr. Mary E. Walsh, assistant professor of sociology at Catholic University, in a paper submitted to the Senate committee during its hearings in April and May 1945 on S. 717, a bill which would have authorized Federal funds for the support of Catholic parochial schools. Dr. Walsh's rebuttal, under the significant title, A Novel Theory of Crime. She says in part: "Mr. Lehmann's theory is, I must admit, one that is quite startling as well as original. The trend of his article is to the effect that religious education, specifically Catholic religious education, is the cause of crime. This theory is one that no doubt will cause consternation to many of his readers. For it is the generally held opinion among constituents of religious groups, whether Catholic, Protestant, or Jewish, that religious teaching is a powerful influence toward good citizenship and right acting * * *. "Certainly any right-minded citizen who is anxious to help his country in the matter of so disturbing a problem as crime would be willing to read Mr. Lehmann's theory in a spirit of fair-mind inquiry. For it may be that he has found an answer to the problem that has escaped the experts. Perhaps he has a solution which will be of great assistance to educators, administrators, and social thinkers." Hearings before the Committee on Education and Labor, United States Senate, Seventy-ninth Congress, United States Government Printing Office, 1945, part 2, pages 928-931: Although admitting that the facts and figures supplied by our pamphlet are all from official Catholic sources, and that these statistics show an excessively large proportion of Roman Catholics committed to prisons in all large States, Dr. Walsh naturally does not intend to admit by the above that our novel theory of crime has any value. She tries to explain away the official Catholic figures which we quote of this excessive proportion of Catholics in jails by stating that there is a much higher registration of church affiliation among prisoners than among the general population. But surely these Catholic prison chaplains who supplied the information on Catholic prisoners would have taken care not to make the number of Roman Catholics in prison appear greater than it really is. That they used their own estimates, rather than figures from statistics of prison registration, can be seen from the fact that the number of Roman Catholics listed in Government. reports is higher than that supplied by these Catholic prison chaplains. Entirely overlooked in Dr. Walsh's criticism of our pamphlet are the proofs we show that Catholic moral teaching may become an incentive to crime, especially theft and robbery. No attempt is made to explain away the answer, of which we supply a photostatic copy, from the official Catholic-school catechism, Manual of Christian Doctrine, that gives causes that excuse from theft. Nor is there any mention of official Catholic moral teaching that one may steal up to $40 at one time without committing a mortal sin. The world needs religious teaching today. Education of youth is incomplete without it. But any old religion won't do. It must be a religion that strengthens the moral fiber, that has power really to save, that truly sanctifies and consecrates the individual heart, and is a proper guide to conscience. Of more harm than good. is a religious moral code, like that of the Roman Catholic Church, that merely supplies reasons to enable people to break the Ten Commandments without committing grievous sin. One of the tests whether a religion is good or bad is its ability to support and propagate itself without an alliance with and special protection of the civil government. That the founding fathers of this great Republic knew and acted on this may be seen from the following declaration of Benjamin Franklin:" "When a religion is good I conceive that it will support itself, and when it cannot support itself and God does not take care to support it, so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, it is a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one." By George Eckel, special to the New York Times: 1 CHICAGO, March 12.-The national conference on tonight with a solemn and dramatic reaffirmation of the church doctrine on marriage and the family, in Holy Name Cathedral, heard chastening words today from a bishop of the hierarchy. The most Reverend John F. Noll of Fort Wayne, Ind., diocese, told a conference section that "nearly all the evils of society prevail most where we live and not where Protestants ive." He said that there were only 7,000,000 members of the Protestant churches in the 50 largest cities of the country, 20,000,000 Catholics. Eighty percent of the Protestants was rural, he declared. And it is in rural America where family life is most wholesome, and where the divorce rate is still low, Bishop Noil asserted. On the other hand, where the bulk of Catholics live, one-half of the marriages. end in divorce. * President Grant expressed the tradition and the philosophy of our free institutions in the following language, before the veterans of the Grand Army of the Republic at Des Moines, Iowa, in September 1875, when he said: "Let us all labor for the security of free thought, free speech, a free press, pure morals, unfettered religious sentiments, and of equal rights and privileges to all men, irrespective of nationality, color, or re ligion Leave the matter of religion to the family circle, the church, and private schools supported entirely by private contributions. Keep church and state forever separate." In conclusion, I quote the remarks of Mr. Elihu Root at the constitutional convention of New York in 1894. He expresses as well as anybody the reasons against giving aid to sectarian schools. Referring to the Pilgrim Fathers and other early settlers in this country he said: but, Mr. Chairman, there is one thing and one thing only, which these people, generous, broadminded and liberal, said, have always said, and say today, that never in this State of ours shall be that union of church and state, which drove your fathers and mine from their homes in the Old World. And that, sir, is the principle which we seek to embody in this constitution of ours by the declaration reported by the Committee on Education It is not a question of religion, or of creed, or of party; it is a question of declaring and maintaining the great American principle of eternal separation between church and state. * Mr. McCowEN. We now have 15 minutes for questioning-3 minutes each. Mr. Gwinn. Mr. GWINN. Mr. Rogers, on page 4 of your statement—— Mr. GWINN. Page 4 of what you have just read-that statement. I think you make a very strong point: and if we are going to have Federal aid, having in mind the child in each case, we have to pay for the education of that child where it is being educated; because it is perfectly obvious we are committed to two types of education in America-one private-school and one parochial-school education. And wherever those educational institutions are set up, if the Federal Government is going into it, to treat everybody alike, it will have to support the educational system that is being utilized. The people ought not to be forced further away from educating their children in the way they think best. Would that be your position? Mr. ROGERS. Yes; providing they are willing to pay for it in their own schools. The Oregon decision substantiates that position, and I think one other does. We can't very well oppose it, despite the fact that the predominant sectarian institution in this country is a foreign power working here in the United States, working toward one end, a world theocracy, and working toward the end, if you please, of wiping out the Bill of Rights. That is substantiated in statements I make here, with respect to statements from encyclicals of Pope Leo XIII. Mr. GWINN. Would your organization be in favor of the Federal Government subsidizing education if that subsidy were confined strictly to the public-school system? Mr. ROGERS. No, sir. The supreme council some years ago acted on that. Many of you remember some 25 or 26 years ago the supreme council favored a Department of Education with a Secretary in the President's Cabinet. Since then it has ceased to advocate such a Department, and has also ceased to advocate Federal aid for education of any kind, sir. Mr. GWINN. You treat the education as a local function? Mr. GWINN. A local taxing responsibility? Mr. ROGERS. Yes, sir. I don't want to say when, but it may be and I am not speaking for the supreme council but for my own opinion-and it may be that what with the continued increase of monopoly in industries of this country-chain stores and chain banks and everything else, headed up in the East and large centers there may come a time when the only taxing power being the Federal Government that can get money back into these areas will have to be used, but it is my opinion that the supreme council has not reached that opinion yet. Mr. GWINN. You would not be in favor of extending aid to the so-called very poor States as a missionary aid? Mr. ROGERS. I would state that the position of the Supreme Council is that each State should support its own schools. Mr. McCOWEN. Mr. Owens. Mr. OWENS. No questions. Mr. McCOWEN. Mr. Lesinski. Mr. LESINSKI. I believe you said here when Reverend McManus made the statement that he would advocate the Catholic schools or taxpayers pay more money so that those who were unable-the poorer States to attend schools, that they would ask for such aid. I don't quite agree with the gentleman's statement. Mr. ROGERS. I didn't get the last part, sir. Mr. LESINSKI. He would ask to aid the poorer States. Mr. LESINSKI. I don't agree with the gentleman's statement. I attended a parochial school. I have heard none of the things that the gentleman spoke about. I happened to serve in a seminary to a man who wrote the canon law for the United States, and I used to scrape the cylinders for him when I was a kid. I never heard of those things. I am going to say the gentleman made a misstatement. Mr. ROGERS. If I may say, Mr. Congressman, I will be very glad to submit to you Pope Leo's own statements with respect to that. It is my opinion that literally hundreds of thousands of our Catholics are not acquainted with that fact, and I dare say that you are not. Mr. LESINSKI. I am perfectly well acquainted, sir, with the religious end of the church. Of course there may be certain calls made by a bishop to get children to attend their own schools. That might be so. They have a perfect right to do that. But that has nothing to do with our Government or the rights of the individual. Mr. ROGERS. I am glad to have you, as a Catholic, have that opinion. But I think it is the opinion of many, many other Catholics, too, and I think that when they awaken to the fact that their pontiffs have attacked the bill of rights and principles upon which our liberties rest, there will be millions of you that will cease to be members of the church or there will be a new church organized in this country. Mr. LESINSKI. I disagree with you for this reason, that Michigan has about 140,000 children in private schools. We, in Detroit, have over 60,000. There is a Catholic church on one side and public school on the other side of the street and children attend both schools. tically all the Catholics in the territory do, and yet there is no police power up to now. Prac Mr. ROGERS. I may say to the able Member that my sister attended such a school for 4 years, and part of my legal education was at Georgetown Law School. Mr. KENNEDY. At page 4, about the middle of the page, could you tell me what those communities are where the parochial schools could be closed up and the public schools take on their pupils with no extra cost to them? Mr. ROGERS. I am not able to do it without going into some research in our office. Mr. KENNEDY. I come from Boston, where the parochial schools contain about half of the school children of the city. I do not see how the public schools could carry double the burden with surprisingly little additional expense, as you quote. I would like to see the cities that you refer to put in the record. Mr. McCOWEN. Would the gentleman furnish that information in due time for the record? Mr. ROGERS. As near as I possibly can. Mr. KENNEDY. I wanted to know where the communities are, to see if they are typical communities. Mr. ROGERS. I can possibly give you a couple of States. I am not able to give the matter in a general way. Mr. McCOWEN. You will have a few days to get it. Mr. ROGERS. All right, sir. WASHINGTON, D. C., May 13, 1947. The Honorable EDWARD O. McCOWEN, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: In my statement before your committee this morning, I stated that "in several communities, careful and accurate surveys have shown that the public school system could take over the education of the parochial school children with surprisingly little expense." This statement was challenged by the Honorable John F. Kennedy, and he asked proof of same. Accordingly, I have the pleasurable duty to submit the following from my writings on the subject, published in the New Age Magazine in 1935, when the question was before the Ohio Legislature at that time. The matter is as follows: "Subjects for college theses bear more and more on practical problems in society. Persons and institutions need beware these days in making statements that will not bear closest examination. "The world has long sought facts. Its dream has been an educated citizenry. Public education, with no interest but that of the people to conserve, is truly the backbone of that hope. "For a year or more certain parochial school interests have sought appropriations from public school funds in Ohio to maintain their schools. They declared that if they cast their pupils upon the State to educate, it would cost the taxpayers $18,000,000 annually. The assertion became a challenge. It was either true or false that thrusting 180,000 Roman Catholics into the Ohio public school system would cost $18,000,000, so a student of the Ohio State University wrote a thesis on the question for a master of arts degree. He made a careful survey of six counties. His findings showed that the total added annual cost to the six counties to educate all the parochial school pupils in those six counties would be $76,805, as against the figure of $297,801 given in the Roman Catholic Church report printed in Senate Journal of the State, August 15, 1933. "The State director of education claimed that the public school system of Ohio could absorb the entire 180,000 parochial pupils at a cost not to exceed $4,000,000. "The bill in the Ohio Legislature, carrying an appropriation of $3,000,000 'to save the parochial schools from collapsing' in that State, was defeated by a vote of 86 to 42 in the house, though it passed the senate. "The opposition to the bill argued that support to sectarian schools would be a decided step toward creation of a church-and-state status. In all countries where such a union exists, education is the bulwark of the existing government, which is usually monarchical, with an agreement with the papal state for the regulation of its ecclesiastical matters, including its educational program. |