The Influence of Secularism in Education (1930)

[53] That there exists an antagonism between the spirit of the world and the spirit of Christ is proclaimed on nearly every page of Holy Writ. This spirit of the world, secularism, from the Latin saeculum, strives after the things of the earth as if the things beyond the earth had no real existence. Those imbued with this spirit sometimes pity, sometimes despise, and not infrequently hate those who are led by the spirit of Christ. The Book of Wisdom (V. 3) represents them as saying within themselves at seeing the reward of the just: "These are they whom we had sometime in derision, and for a parable of reproach; we fools esteemed their life madness and their end without honor."

At times this opposition breaks forth in deeds of violence, and we then have an era of persecution, an age of martyrs. At other times it works secretly, scarcely betraying its presence by outward signs; working as slow poison works in destroying life. But never will there be a cessation of hostilities as long as children of men inhabit this earth. Our present Holy Father in his encyclical on the Kingdom of Christ stresses anew the dangers of this bitter and unrelenting conflict.

What applies to the conflict between these two forces in general, is found particularly in the field of education. Here also we at times meet with open violence, as, for instance, in France and Mexico, and as attempted in Oregon and Michigan, to mention only recent instances. But more frequently it is a warfare hidden, but none the less dangerous, none the less bitter and determined, that is being waged: Secularism, under some disguise or other, is continually trying to dominate the educational field, and backed as it often is by the wealth and the power of the State, it would surely gain the victory were it not for the assistance of Christ, who promised that the gates of hell shall not prevail against His Church. Let me briefly call attention to some of the aspects of this struggle:

1. Secular education places paramount importance on the training of the intellect, not hesitating to state, with Socrates of old, that "ignorance is the only sin." Secular teachers (by this term I mean those that are influenced by the secular spirit) are calling continually for more and more book-learning; are continually on the lookout for a new "ology" of some kind or other to squeeze into their already over-crowded curriculum. They seem not to know that at the man who from things visible, from things created, can rise to the knowledge of his Creator, as man, far surpasses the product of pure secular education. They would look askance at the words of Dr. Cassidy (Cath. Educational Review) that "Education is the making of the man; is the development of the Christian." They rank the mountaineer of Kentucky very low in their educational standards because he does not know how to read man-made books; they disregard entirely the fact that the same mountaineer often knows how to read the far more important book of nature and finds [54] therein lessons of uprightness, honesty, loyalty, deep religious convictions, etc. I wonder if Dr. Johnson, of the Catholic University, would still condemn as unreservedly as he did in 1919 the following opinion of a well-known educator: "I would say to elementary teachers: 'Give me a boy of the age of eleven or twelve, who writes a good legible hand, who spells correctly, reads with expression, has an accurate knowledge of the Baltimore Catechism and of Bible History, who can do rapid and accurate work in arithmetic, who knows fractions and percentages, who can write a short letter in simple and plain English, whose habits of speech are correct, and not slangy, whose manners, if not gentle, show at least some thought of others besides himself, and whose life is virtuous—and I will say that this boy has received a good elementary education. With these results we need not care how much or how little information he has acquired, nor need we inquire about methods, nor ask how much the teacher knows about psychology'." 'Tis strange indeed, in the pulpit and on the platform, our Catholic spokesmen emphasize the need of a complete education of the child, as distinct from the mere training of the intellect; they would in this respect be willing to quote Dr. Butler, who says: "Mere learning is not enough. The educated man whose character is not sound, whose conscience is not rightly instructed, whose conduct is not governed by higher considerations than those resting on mere expediency is liable to become a detriment to society: selfishness is apt to rule the life of such a one." And yet what do we find? Are not those who have been intellectually first in mathematics, science, history, etc., called upon the stage to receive all honors? Is it hard to find herein the influence of secularism, which is able to make us follow in practice what in theory we all condemn? The true religious teacher ought to view things from God's standpoint: the sentire cum ecclesia must be a pronounced trait in his or her character. Does God reward the intellectual giants on account of their achievements? Does the Church reserve her honors for those who have been able to astound their fellowmen by their mental prowess? Why not reward those and those only who have sincerely tried to use whatever talent God has given them and have made earnest efforts to conform their conduct to God's holy rule?

2. Secularism likewise stands revealed in the modern educator's attitude towards classical training; modern education insists, beyond all measure, that education must be practical, that it must impart ability to the child to share in the world's power and riches: hence the insistence on a business or manual training. What shall we eat? what shall we drink? with what shall we be clothed?—seems adequately to express this whole outlook on life. Training for a certain condition or vocation cannot be reasonably condemned; but we cannot approve the a priori condemnation of classical learning as something impractical for modern times. The underlying principle of the advocates of this tendency is that the training of the child should enable it to gain the most of life's advantages in the shortest possible time. An editorial writer in one of the afternoon papers puts it thus: "In this industrial and commercial age the public mind is on money or the means whereby money may be obtained."

3. If we carefully look over the textbooks used in the modern schools we meet again and easily recognize the spirit of the world hostile to the spirit of God. How many of our histories unblushingly teach the progress of nations along the lines of evolution. The Bible tells us that the first man was gifted with preternatural powers of mind and body; that owing to sin his mind became darkened and his will weak; and hence the state of barbarism is the result of his own conduct; but pseudo history teaches that somehow or other, by his own efforts and fitness man has gradually reached the present pinnacle of perfection, after evolving from some lower type. How many geographies tell the child only of material [55] and commercial progress; as illustrations you will find pictures of mining operations, industrial sites, business activities, etc., but seldom, if ever is allusion made to monuments inspired by religion, to cathedrals, universities, works of art. Not a few textbooks give extracts from authors who are justly condemned on account of their immoral teaching, thus opening to the mind of the child a vast field of what is vile and debasing. Many other examples of the same type could be quoted, but these few will suffice to show in how many different ways, through textbooks, the spirit of the world tries to gain the heart of the child.

4. In that indefinable something which we call the atmosphere of the schoolroom the workings of secularism are oftentimes very apparent. In our public schools all religious instruction is barred; no teacher is allowed to speak of man's duties towards God;—duties towards fellowman, perhaps, and towards self, but not towards God. The pupil may be told to live his own life and to obey his own impulses, but not that God has a right to exact of him obedience and submission. During the day no allusions will be made to the supernatural; no religious pictures or sacred images, the silent yet powerful reminders of a world beyond, are allowed. Even in our own Catholic schools—especially such as have non-Catholic pupils—secularism now and then shows itself under this guise. For fear of offending the non-Catholic child, the Catholic child is deprived of his birthright; his religious education is confined to a half-hour daily; indeed, in some extreme cases strictly Catholic pictures and emblems are banished from the classroom. Do such teachers realize that religion is not merely a body of truth, but also a virtue, in fact the highest of the moral virtues; that to form this virtue in the child must be the supreme aim of the teacher; and that since virtue is formed and strengthened by repeated acts, the teacher, not only during the period of instruction in religion, but frequently during the day, must strive to arouse in the child acts of this virtue, and that religious pictures, statues, devotions, etc., are a great help to the teacher in this respect? Dr. Johnson, in Fundamentals of Education, very appropriately says: "It is not enough for the child to learn the truth; he must like- wise be schooled in living according to it. Opportunities must be afforded him for putting his ideas to work. . . . The whole atmosphere of the school, the personality of the teacher, the discipline, the spirit, the experience provided, should reflect the truths that are taught . . , [sic] so that while the pupil acquires the necessary ideas, he may develop the attitudes and the habits that are of the essence of Christian character." That Sister who, as quoted by the Rev. Felix Kirsch, O.M.Cap., said, "Since I am called to make saints of my pupils, I must be a saint myself," seems to understand this truth. The hostile government of Mexico is fully aware of the influence of a Catholic atmosphere on the mind of a child. How pitiful this cry of the superioress of a teaching community in Mexico: "We have pretended that in our schools only lay instruction is impartial. We have removed the sacred images from our parlors and reception rooms. We have taught the pupils to conceal the fact that they are being taught religion. We have, in short, taught our pupils to deny the truth, and if we go farther, we shall tear out by the roots from their tender hearts their Christian faith and manhood." How courageous and truly Christian: "We will refuse in every school we have in Mexico to accept these infernal rules. . . . We are prepared with all our Sisters to undertake the hardships of an effective and open fight." This trying to spare the susceptibilities of the non-Catholic by toning down Catholic teaching is known in Europe as "Americanism" and was condemned by the late Pope Leo XIII. A recent editorial in the Dearborn Independent said quite apropos: "This is the broad age of suave tolerance. The soft pedal threatens at times to become our national symbol. Tolerance is our shibboleth; intolerance our greatest [56] dread. We must not speak our minds lest we offend. . . . Be bland! is the new commandment." The title of the editorial was: The Great Hush-Hush.

5. "He that is not with me is against me." According to this principle of our Saviour [sic] we must consider most governments of the present day as on the side of secularism. Now we find that there is a growing interference on the part of the State in our educational system, and some of us even seem proud of State supervision and boast of State approbation. Do we not find academies and high schools glorying in the fact that they are affiliated with the State University, as if our Catholic schools should serve as feeders to these centers of learning so frequently condemned by pope and bishop! A certain State superintendent personally told me that he was asked by some religious to come and inspect their schools because they were anxious for the State's approval! Need we be surprised, then, if the State arrogates to itself the power to dictate as to the requirements of the religious teachers and their course of studies? King Ezechias, as is mentioned in Holy Writ, invited God's enemies to come and inspect his treasures; the punishment, foretold by Isaias [Isaiah], was not long delayed; the Babylonians came and carried away all the boasting king's possessions.

6. Secularism shows itself likewise in the treatment of religious instruction. Time is but grudgingly allowed for this subject, especially in our high schools and normal schools. When Bismarck, in 1872, tried to bring the Church under the complete control of the State, he wanted to allow two hours weekly for religious instruction; the German episcopate fought him and insisted on having six hours a week at least. How many of our high schools allow more than a half credit for religion, whereas a full credit is allowed for English, science, mathematics, etc. Even in our teachers' training schools religious instruction is considered more or less of secondary importance—but studies demanded by the State receive fullest consideration.

If the provisions of §203 of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore were carried out, we should perhaps not meet with religious teachers who do not know the principal parts of the Mass, or who would teach children that certain acts are mortal sins which are not sins at all, or would frighten with eternal hell fire the little child telling a lie. I have heard of instances where, during the year of the novitiate, which, according to canon 565, must be entirely devoted to the religious formation of the novice, some of the time is spent in preparing for examination in secular branches—because the State requires it! Need we be astonished if even some of our own teachers think that the principal difference between themselves and the public school teachers consists in their being somewhat more piously dressed? During their years of training they have not been made to realize the truth of Bishop McFaul's words: "That education, whose value ends with the few fleeting years of this earthly life, is of comparatively little importance, seeing that our future weal and woe depends upon the life we have led in this world. . . . Here is the object the religious teacher must unceasingly keep in mind—the Kingdom of God and His justice!  . . . It is well to be learned, polished, and cultured, yet it is far more necessary to be God-fearing, conscious of an approaching day of reckoning, when the acts of life will be weighed in the balance of divine justice."

7. Since this insistence for higher education has taken hold of our religious teaching communities, there has come along with it some of the worldling's love for titles, for an M.A., or a Ph.D., etc., and a certain superiority complex which fits in badly with the Christian spirit. The old teacher may not know all the new terms modern pedagogy finds necessary to coin; but neither does the old-fashioned mother know aught about calories, carbohydrates, vitamines [sic], balanced rations, etc., yet many a savory meal does she know how to prepare, and many a man finds a country dinner more nourishing than [57] a meal prepared by a domestic science expert. There is danger that the young teacher, in her anxiety to acquire the new knowledge, will forget some of the decorum, modesty, unselfishness, childlike faith and simplicity which a religious teacher must possess in an eminent degree. There is danger that the young teacher, disregarding the laws of the Church, will seek knowledge at secular schools where, as Archbishop Curley puts it, "in the school of history Catholic students are forced to listen to vitriolic diatribes against their Church, the papacy, and Catholic religious life in general; in the school of sociology the professor may give out a teaching which is fundamentally opposed to Christian doctrine." G. K. Chesterton is even more explicit: "The professor can teach any sectarian idea, not in the name of the sect, but in the name of science. The professor can preach the advantage of polygamy and call it a lesson in anthropology or history. The professor can insinuate any ideas about life, because biology is a study of life. The professor can suggest any views on the nature of man, because history is the story of man." (Illustrated London News, Aug., 1925.)

Not only is attendance at such schools fraught with danger for the student ("He who loves danger shall perish therein"), but it is often a source of scandal to others. Some time ago a priest told me how he had warned a mother against sending her girl to the University of Cincinnati and got the reply, "Why, Father, quite a few Sisters attend the lectures there." There is a secular university in the East attended, I am told, by a large number of Sisters, because it offers some courses not found elsewhere, and this reason is considered sufficient for disregarding the wishes of Holy Church. "Verily, He who hears you hears me, he who despiseth you despiseth me," must be considered a dead letter by these nuns.

The Gnostics of old certainly made a mistake when they grossly exaggerated the power of evil and made of it a vital principle equal in power to the good God. But are we not drifting to the opposite extreme by minimizing the potency for evil of him who still goes about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour ? In the garden of Eden he enticed our first parents by the promise of greater knowledge—"you shall be knowing good and evil"—to disregard God's commandment, and at the present day he still holds out the same lure to make men deaf to the Church's cry of alarm.

"East is East and West is West and ne'er the twain shall meet," says Kipling. This holds good, so it seems to me, as regards the public school system and the parochial school system. The one is of earth, earthy; the other must be from heaven, heavenly; the one's great object is to train good and useful citizens; the other's chief aim is to win adherents for the kingdom of God. The one teaches the values of the means leading to material prosperity; the other deals mainly in spiritual realities. The one is becoming daily more intensely national; the other is essentially Catholic, teaching that we all are children of one Father in Heaven, who loves all men without distinction of color or race. Though it would be blindness not to see the good accomplished by our public school teachers, yet we would be betraying a sacred trust and opening the doors of our schools to secularism, were we slavishly to imitate their methods and copy their curriculum.

Brann, of Iconoclast fame [William Cowper Brann (1855–1898), American journalist, owned and ran a newspaper out of Austin, Texas and later Waco, called the Iconoclast], said to an Episcopalian who asked him for his opinion as to the difference between the Episcopalian and the Catholic Church; "The Catholics are Papists and you people are Apists." Let us always be Papists and never Apists.

---

[Anonymous Editorial appended to the above essay:]

While we make a great fuss about education and boast how many millions we are spending as a people in educating everybody in this land of ours, it is rather amusing to read that the coach of a football team receives a larger salary than any of the professors who teach only such minor and unimportant studies at literature, logic, philosophy, mathematics, etc.

---

Source: Fr. Michael Leick, "The Influence of Secularism in Education," The Catholic Fortnightly Review 37, no. 3 (March 1930): 53–57.