legitimately according to the above teaching, provided he knows that the owner will not be thereby impoverished. The doctrine of secret compensation applies mostly to employees who consider they are being underpaid for their labor. A $20-a-week cashier in a side-street cafeteria may consider herself underpaid and apply this principle to justify her pilfering of odd dimes and quarters from the cash register whenever she can safely do so. Many a cashier in a large bank or commercial business corporation has done just this until he found himself in jail for large-scale embezzlement. A desperate man could also easily argue himself into thinking that he is justly entitled to some of the surplus money of a rich victim and will go after it with a gun. Likewise grafting politicians seize upon the argument implicit in this teaching to justify their conviction that they are worth much more to the community than their elected offices pay them. Such a one was "sewer-pipe Connolly" of the Borough of Queens, N. Y., whose self-appropriaticns left large areas of New York City without an adequate sewer system. This doctrine of "secret compensation" was, of course, unheard of in Christianity, even in the Catholic Church, prior to the Jesuit casuists of the seventeenth century. It was invented by them along with other unethical doctrines such as "mental reservation", "the end justifies the means", "the end sanctifies the means" etc., to make Catholicism popular with the masses. It also helped to thinly rationalize their own exploits. Thus Catholic textbooks of moral theology today makes no pretension of showing that these principles of conduct take their origin from the Ten Commandments or from Christian revelation. They merely propound them as accepted Catholic doctrine and trace them back to Gury, the Jesuit fountainhead. When Protestants uncover and attack this doctrine of secret compensation, the Jesuits have a stock argument ready to meet it. Their alibi sounds like this: "The Catholic doctrine of secret compensation is limited to cases of dire emergency; its application is strictly qualified and limited. No Catholic takes it in the sense of a free-for-all license to steal." The sophistry in this confusing of strict theory and loose practice is common to many other Catholic doctrines. It is found in the teaching about the worshipping of saints and their images. In theory the veneration of statutes and medals can be rationalized and stripped of all appearance of superstition and idolatry. But in practice among the common people this means nothing. The millions of ignorant Catholics, from the semifeudal peasantry of Europe to the Mexican peons and the superstitious-minded Latin Americans, attribute magical qualities to these images and feel that the Catholic church wholly approves of it. So with the doctrine of secret compensation. Finespun distinctions of theologians mean nothing to the masses, above all to children, even if you grant that nuns and other Catholic teachers know and take the pains to emphasize these scholastic subtleties. The blunt fact, confirmed by countless cases, is that many Catholics just get the one idea from this teaching, namely, that stealing is not essentially evil at all times, but, on the contrary, fair and reasonable if one needs something badly enough and the owner does not. How this conviction can be stretched to cover untold cases is easy to imagine. It is limited only by the envy and self-prejudice of the individual conscience-which vary immeasurably from person to person. All in all, it is most unfortunate that any religion is permitted to teach such a principle as part of the curriculum of American school education, much more if 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 place 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 Ft. Wayne, Ind., that 'Nearly all the evils of society prevail most where we (Catholics) and not where Protestants live." CRIME AND RELIGION Criminologists and sociologist 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 nations, may actually foster it. Entirely forgotton 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-minded 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."" 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 commited 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. 2 Hearings before the Committee on Education and Labor, U. S. Senate, 79th Cong., U. S. Government Printing Office. 1945, part 2. pp. 928-931. 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 fibre, 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 iself, 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 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 live." 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 Noll 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 religion. 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.' Signed: ELMER E. ROGERS. JOHN H. COWLES, SOVEREIGN GRAND COMMANDER, SUPREME COUNCIL, THIRTYTHIRD DEGREE ANCIENT AND ACCEPTED SCOTTISH RITE OF FREEMASONRY, SOUTHERN JURISDICTION, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND ELMER E. ROGERS, HIS ASSISTANT Brief of their points made in statements before the Senate Committee on education and Welfare, April 23, 1947, on proposals for Federal aid to education in Senate bills 81, 170, 199, and 472. 1. General opposition to Federal aid to education on all levels-elementary, secondary, and collegiate, both public and nonpublic. REASONS 2. The States are much more able to support their respective school systems than the Federal Government is to help maintain them: (a) Federal bonded debt is close to $262,000,000,000. (b) Total debts of States is around $2,300,000,000. (c) Total debts of municipalities is around $11,886,000,000. (d) Incomes of nearly all the States have increased during the past several years. Such incomes have for the most part exceeded expenditures. (e) Quite a number of States have raised their tax levels to increase their support to education. 3. Federal aid tends to place control under the National Government and weaken the morale of the States in their first responsibilities to educate their children. 4. Federal aid to nonpublic schools would be a bad policy: (a) It would tend to break down our public-school systems, the bulwark of our liberties. (b) Six-sevenths of the nonpublic schools are sectarian, aid to which from public funds is contrary to the first amendment. (c) Five-sixths of the nonpublic schools are institutions of the Vatican, a sovereign state whose pontiffs, prelates, priests, and press have repeatedly denounced our public schools as "godless" and "sinkholes of pollution," and the pontiffs and prelates are opposed to democracy as we know it based upon the principles of the Bill of Rights. (d) To aid the institutions of the Vatican would be to turn our face against the fundamental principles of our own sovereignty in the interest of an ultimate world theocracy as a sole universal government which is the aim of the Papacy. JOHN H. COWLES. THE SUPREME COUNCIL FAVORS 1. The American public school, nonpartisan, nonsectarian, efficient, democratic, for all of the children of all the people. 2. The inculcation of patriotism, respect for law and order, and undying loyalty to the Constitution of the United States of America. 3. The compulsory use of English as the language of instruction in the grammar grades of our public schools. 4. Adequate provision in the American public schools for the education of the alien populations in the principles of American institutions and ideals of citizenship. 5. The entire separation of church and state, and opposition to every attempt to appropriate public moneys-Federal, State, or local-directly or indirectly, for the support of sectarian or private institutions. Senator AIKEN. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Rogers. The committee will recess until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. We have kept on schedule so far. We hope we can continue to keep on schedule, and the Chair thinks we can. The witnesses tomorrow will represent the labor organizations, both the AFL and the CIO, and then Friday there will be seven witnesses representing different organizations. We will now recess. (Whereupon, at 12:30 p. m., the subcommittee adjourned until 10 a. m., Thursday, April 24, 1947.) FEDERAL AID TO EDUCATION THURSDAY, APRIL 24, 1947 UNITED STATES SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION of the COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE, Washington, D. C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 a. m., in room 357, Senate Office Building, Senator George D. Aiken, presiding. Present: Senators Aiken (presiding), Smith, Donnell, Thomas, and Ellender. Senator AIKEN. The committee will be in order. We will continue the hearings on the various educational bills which are now before this Senate committee. The first witness this morning is Miss Selma Borchardt, substituting for Matthew Woll. Really, Miss Borchardt is not a substitute for any body. Mr. Woll was slated and is not here and I understand that Miss Borchardt will testify for the American Federation of Labor. STATEMENT OF MISS SELMA BORCHARDT, APPEARING FOR MR. MATTHEW WOLL OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR Miss BORCHARDT. Mr. Woll is very, very sorry that the activities of the American Federation of Labor's committee meeting prevents his being here and I would ask permission, if I may, to submit Mr. Woll's statement for the record with such exhibits as are mentioned therein; and, if I may, Senator, to summarize the report there rather than read it. Senator AIKEN. You may do so, Miss Borchardt. The statement of Mr. Woll will be inserted in the record in full and then you may proceed to summarize. You may be seated. Miss BORCHARDT. We do not come before this committee at this time, Senator, to ask for charity. We come before this committee to plead for the American public school and for every child in the United States because we feel that you gentlemen are in sympathy with such a program as a basic right. Furthermore, we are not presenting victims of our social lack at this time for we feel that the members of this committee with the expert services at their command may get the statistics on the great need, and we think every member of this committee is convinced of the great need for Federal aid. We do beg for action now. We feel that the problem is simply this: We cannot keep teachers; we cannot get teachers unless we pay |