Who Picks Up The Tab?

Published in the Braintree Observer Forum on February 15, 1970
Written by Donald W. Smith

Should public funds be used to aid parochial schools? This is the issue of our day and its resolution will speak clearly of the wisdom or folly of those who framed the First Amendment to the Constitution.

In approaching this question, a prior judgment is required. One must decide whether or not he wishes the laws of our nation and its many states to be based on the Constitution, as it now exists. If this decision is negative, then it is indicated that either the Constitution should be further amended, or one finds himself immersed in the sea of subjectivism in his effort to decide this issue. If the decision is affirmative with a desire to see the Constitution as basic in any final determination of the matter, then one is forced to discern the meaning and spirit of this document insofar as it deals with the relationship between the church and the state.

The Supreme Court is bound to proceed within the framework of the existing First Amendment to the Constitution with the explicit responsibility of interpreting its language. A great deal hinges on the meaning of a few words in one brief, concise clause: Article I in the Constitutional amendments says in part, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, …”

To determine whether or not public funds should be used to support parochial schools requires each person who accepts the validity of this Document to know, with his best mind, what its authors intended. The meaning of this prohibition is quite apparent. Congress is forbidden to legislate in any way which will tend to affirm, espouse or increase the influence of religion.
Clearly, to give financial support to schools in which the curricula are permeated with religious tenets is to be instrumental in establishing the effective promulgation of that religion. It is the judgment of this writer that the use of wealth derived through taxation from people of many faiths for the support of parochial sectarian schools is an obvious foreboding and violation of the Constitution of the United States.

There are many who sincerely advocate public support of parochial schools. Several arguments are advanced in defense of this position.

It is said that there is a distinction between secular and sectarian subjects which are taught in such schools. It is, therefore, insisted that public funds can be used, constitutionally, to underwrite the presentation of such secular subjects as algebra, physics, etc.

This, however, is based on a specious distinction between the secular and sectarian within the parochial school system. It is generally understood, for example, that according to the Catholic philosophy of education every facet of the learning process should be permeated with the underlying religious principles which characterize its intellectual and spiritual life. Distinctions cannot be made on this basis between religious and religious subject non-matter. To support the system and the institution is to “establish” a religion at least to the degree that some young minds are imbued with a specific religio-philosophical understanding of life.

Others base their desire for public aid to parochial schools upon an economic consideration. These contend that they are twice burdened. They must pay taxes and support the parochial school system.

It is apparent that this is a misrepresentation of the real situation. Taxes are required by law. Support of a parochial educational system is voluntary – a matter of free choice. It offers the alternative of sending one’s children to public school. This is unthinkable to some because of a strong desire to have their children benefit from the quality of private education.

If this quality is desired and public education repudiated, then one must assume the financial burden and not presume to place it upon others who disagree in principle with much content of the parochial system and who do not wish to see the state establishing a specific religion.

There are yet others who believe that the existence of parochial schools has relieved the financial burden on the general public. Now that a crisis is upon sectarian education, they feel it is reasonable to expect assistance from public funds. It must be borne in mind that such an educational system was not founded to relieve the public burden. It was founded, and justifiably so, to espouse a religious point of view. At this juncture we are forced back to the real issue, which is not an economic one. The real issue is the nature of a democracy and the meaning of the Constitution.

Many people with strong convictions stand on opposing sides of this issue. Such convictions give rise to a determination to accomplish one’s purpose. It is apparent that the parochial school system of the Catholic Church is at a critical road fork. It must have additional funds. In searching to meet this need and resolve the issue of the legal source of support a critical criterion must be reviewed. Does the end justify the means?

No matter how convinced one is of the educational, moral and ethical value of the parochial school system, the issue remains. If the Constitution is valid and it prohibits the establishing of religion, then can one accept its violation, distortion or its being superseded as a “justifiable” means to the desired end?

There is a final fact which ought to be borne in mind: with support goes control!! What a tragedy to the parochial school system if it became secularized by agnostic bureaucrats holding the purse strings. More than anyone, our Catholic friends should most sedulously avoid public aid to their valued school system. Perchance, the expedience of the “picking up the tab” would not be worth the ultimate price.