Awake!, October 8, 1960
Download: PDF — Awake!, October 8, 1960
OCTOBER 8, 1960
THE MISSION OF THIS JOURNAl
News sources that are able to keep you awake to the vital issues of our times must be unfettered by censorship and selfish interests. “Awake!” has no fetters, ft recognizes facts,'faces facts, is free to publish facts. It is not bound by political ambitions or obligations; it is unhampered by advertisers whose toes must not be trodden on; it is unprejudiced by traditional creeds. This journal keeps itself free that it may speak freely to you. But it does not abuse its freedom. It maintains integrity to truth.
“Awake!" uses the regular news channels, but is not dependent on them, 'its own correspondents are on oil continents, in scores of nations. From the four corners of the eorth their uncensored, on-the-scenes reports come to you through these columns. This journal's viewpoint is not narrow, but is international. It is read in many notions, in many languages, by persons of all ages. Through its pages mony fields of knowledge pass in review—government, commerce, religion, history, geography, science, social conditions, natural wonders—why, its coverage is as broad as the earth and as high as the heavens.
"Awake!" pledges itself to righteous principles, to exposing hidden faes and subtle dangers, to championing freedom for all, to comforting mourners and strengthening those disheartened by the failures of a delinquent world, reflecting sure hope for the establishment of o righteous New World.
Get acquainted with “Awake!" Keep awoke by reading "Awake!”
III^M — n«—Mtl
Published Simultaneously tn the United States by the WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF NEW YORK. INC. 117 Adams Street Brooklyn 1, New York, U.S.A.
and in England by watch tower BIBLE AND tract SOCIETY
Watch Tower House, The Ridgeway London N.W. 7, England
N. H. Knorh» President Grant Suiter, Secretary
Printing this hftue: 3,125,000
4d a copy (Australia, M)
"Awtkal” h psbUthed In the tolkwlna 22 lanpu^t: Miiliionthly—AtrUraana, Clnyanja, Danish, Dutch, Enj(-)isb. Finnlato, French, German, Greek, Iulian, Japanese, Norwegian, Portuguese, Spin lib, Swedish. Tagalot, Zulu. Motrthly—indonod&n, Kaftan. MbLubI&Q, Polish, Ukrain* Lan-
Yearly suhserlptliin rates
OflelS for semimonthly BdiUons
America, U.S., LIT Adams BL. Brooklyn 1, N.Y. $1 Australia, 11 Betwfwd Rd., BtftUifleld, N.8.W. &/-
Cinadi, 150 Bridgeland Ayo., Toronto 19, Ont. fl England, Watch Tower House,
The Ridgeway, London N.W. 7 7/-
Niw Zealand, 621 New North B<L, Auckland, S.W. 1 7/* South Afrltft, Private Bag, Elendafontda, Tvl. 7/-Monthly editions coat half the above rates.
RtmlttanMi for Aubwirlptlons should he sent to the office In your country. Otherwise send your remittance to London, Nbtico af explratlan is sent at least two ivues before subscription euLfes.
CHANGES OF ADDRESS shuld reach us thirty days before yoer moving date. Gin n year »Jd and new addrets (If possible, your old aidrws labs)). Witch Tower, Watch Tower Hone, The Ridgeway, London N.W. 7, Enoland.
Entered as eeconcbclto matter at Brooklyn, NX Printed In England
The Bible translation isad In “Awals!" Is the New World Translation of tha Hsly Scrlptma. When other translations ars wed the following symbol* will appear betitnd the citations:
ytfi - AmerU'an sundari Version AT- An American Translation AV — Authorized Version (1611) Pa - «l. N. Darby'a version
Ptf - Catholic Douay version The Emphatic Diaglott JR - Jewish Publication Hoe. L8 - Isaac Lexer's rarsloo
Mo- -lames Mnffatfe ver&lon ' JJo - J. B. EcLherhim's version - KwLmd Standard Version
Jfg - Robert Young's vardon
CONTENTS
Importance of Knowing the Truth 3 The Catholic Church and the Bible 5 The Catholic Bible and Church Fathers
on Catholic Doctrine
Hie Catholic Church and Freedom
The Catholic Church and the World Wars 13
The Catholic Church and Public Schools 17
The Catholic Church and Communism 21
The Catholic Church and Morals
Has the Catholic Church Failed
Her People?
What It Means to You
Watching the World
THERE is no reason to fear truth. Jesus • Christ himself stressed the importance of knowing the truth: “If you remain in my word, you are really my disciples, and you
esied about you, when he said: ‘This people honors me with their lips, yet their hearts are far removed from me. It is in vain that they keep paying respect to me, because
will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” Freedom and life itself depend on knowing the truth.—John 8:31, 32.
Truth can always withstand criticism. To speak truth, then, is not religious bigotry. Was it religious bigotry for Jesus Christ to speak truthfully concerning the Jewish clergy of his day? No! for the Son of God with the message of truth freed persons from burdensome traditions. Said Jesus of the religious leaders of his day: “They bind up heavy loads and put them upon the shoulders of mankind, but they themselves are not willing to budge them with their finger.”—Matt. 23:4.
These loads put upon the shoulders of mankind were oral traditions that burdened the common people. The Jewish clergy would not so much as lift one little regulation to make it easier for the people. But far more serious than merely burdening the people was thf fact that such oral traditions were in conflict with the Word of God, the Holy Bible. So Jesus told those religious leaders: “You have made the word of God invalid because of your tradition. You hypocrites, Isaiah aptly prophthey teach commands of men as doctrines.’”—Matt. 15:6-9.
How vitally important it is to know the truth! Our worship is vain in the eyes of God if we follow commands of men as doctrines, as Jesus showed. Without the truth we make the Word of God invalid, of no effect in our lives. Without truth we cannot really be free. If one fears criticism, he may never come to a knowledge of the truth. The late Justice Murphy of the United States Supreme Court, himself a Roman Catholic, once said: “If a religious belief has substance, it can survive criticism, heated and abusive though it may be, with the aid of truth and reason alone. By the same method those who follow false prophets are exposed.” Similarly, Dr. Albert Schweitzer has said; “The highest honor one can show to a system of thought is to test it ruthlessly with a view to discovering how much truth it contains, just as steel is assayed to try its strength.”
Noble-mindedness Needed
To find the truth that makes one free requires a willingness to test beliefs and utterances with the inspired Word of God. One must be noble-minded. Are you noble-minded?
Let us take a look at people who are not noble-minded and those who are. We read of both kinds of people in the Holy Bible, in the seventeenth chapter of Acts of the apostles. When Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, and his traveling companion visited Thessalonica, they preached truths from the Scriptures to the people. The Jews for the most part would not listen: “The Jews, getting jealous, took into their company certain wicked men of the marketplace idlers and formed a mob and proceeded to throw the city into an uproar.” The Jews stirred up such opposition against the apostle and his companion that they moved on to the city of Beroea.
How did the people in Beroea respond to the preaching of the apostle? The Bible says, at Acts 17:11: “Now the latter were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with the greatest readiness of mind, carefully examining the Scriptures daily as to whether these things were so.”
How different the Beroeans were! They listened to what the apostle had to say. They did not stir up a mob against the apostle because he preached new things. Note that the Beroeans “received the word with the greatest readiness of mind,” and they ‘carefully examined the Scriptures daily’ as to whether these new things they heard were the truth. The Bible tells us they were noble-minded.
If we are to possess the truth that makes men free and that puts one on the pathway to everlasting life in God’s new world, we must have this kind of noble-mindedness. The Beroeans took the wise course. They knew better than to rely on the word of man alone. They refused to rely on traditions and commands of men. They relied on the written, unchanging Word of God. The Jews in Thessalonica, however, clung tenaciously to their traditions and were never made free. Those Jews in Thessalonica were in a bad state of mind, a morbid one, for their minds gravitated to such low form of activity as persecuting the apostle of Christ who brought them the truth.
So Christians must be like the Beroeans, the Beroeans whose noble-mindedness showed they were in a good state of mind. The Beroeans wanted to make certain that this new message did not drive them away from God. They examined what Paul preached to see in which direction it was turning them. They tested Paul’s message, not by oral traditions and doctrines of men, but by the Word of God. They knew that the inspired Scriptures have the power for detecting truth from error. Yes, “all Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight.”—2 Tim. 3:16.
There is a human tendency not to be noble-minded, to be a little unreasonable, to be intolerant of new beliefs. As The Scientific Monthly of January, 1954, pointed out, we must reckon with “a curious tendency of human nature. It is the temptation to cling to, romanticize, and perpetuate the familiar, and to view with suspicion and disdain whatever is novel or different.” This human tendency can prevent us from learning the truth that Jesus said would make men free.
With noble-mindedness, then, read this journal. Some facts contained in the various articles may be nqw to you, shockingly new. But the noble-minded person can verify these facts by authorities available in public libraries. Above all, you can prove what is said as being the truth by testing it with the Holy Scriptures, as did the noble-minded Beroeans. Be noble-minded as those Beroeans were, and “you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”—John 8:32.
8% £at
thing of the past? What is the present attitude of the Catholic church toward the Bible? Does the Catholic church really encourage Bible reading?
Before examining some modern-day facts, it should be noted that history amply testifies to the church’s opposition to Catholics’ possessing the Bible in the common language of the people. In 1229, for example, the Council of Toulouse (France) said that it is forbidden for “the laity to have in their possession any copy of the books of the Old and New Testament, except the Psalter, and such portions of them as are contained in the Breviary, or the Hours of the Virgin; and most strictly forbids these works in the vulgar tongue.” And on June 13,1816, Pope Pius VII stated: “Experience has proved that, owing to the rashness of men, more harm than benefit arises from the Sacred Scriptures when published in the language of the common people.”
Encouraged or Discouraged Today?
In modern times there have been some Catholic pronouncements that would seem to Indicate Catholics are now encouraged to read the Bible. What are the facts? Note the following from Catholic publications: “The reading of the Holy Scripture in itself still remains optional for Catholics, and not necessary.”1 “To the Catholic the
urch
Bible is an inadequate and remote guide for Faith.”1 In a booklet published in Colombia a priest asks the question: "Is there obligation to read the Bible?” The answer: “Strictly speaking, there is no obligation to read the Bible.”®
It is not strange, then, that most Catholics know very little or nothing about the Bible. In lands where the Roman Catholic Church is the state religion most Catholics do not even have a Bible. In Latin-American countries house-to-house surveys show that it is a rare exception to find a Catholic with a Bible, rarer still to find a Catholic with knowledge of the Bible’s contents. French Catholics would be amazed at the claim heard in the United States that the Bible is a Catholic book. Though there are displays of Bibles in bookstores in Paris, the French people will tell you that their grandparents were told the Bible is a sorcerer’s book, used in witchcraft, something to be on guard against
If Catholics were really encouraged to read the Bible, there would not be admissions in the Catholic press such as the following one from a German Catholic publication: “How much do you know about the Bible? The Bible is still '(he most printed and most bought book in the world. Why do you not read it? You think you are acquainted with it, that it cannot tell you anything new. Do you know that the Sunday Bible readings in the Church only take in one one-hundredth of the New
Testament? You are acquainted with only one percent!”4 Indeed, far less of the whole Bible, since the Hebrew Scriptures, the so-called Old Testament, is part of the inspired Word of God!
“It IS not really enough,” admits another Catholic publication, “to refute the accusation that Catholics are not allowed to read the Bible with the retort that they are allowed and encouraged to do so. The refutation will only be effective when Catholics do read and love the Bible,”"
Actually,7 then, the Catholic church hands the Bible to its adherents in one hand, but with the other hand it is withdrawn. Such Catholic statements as "the Bible is an inadequate and remote guide” and Bible reading is “not necessary” can hardly inspire Catholics to study the Bible. The effect is one of discouragement. The Church itself , makes no serious effort to teach the Bible to its members. And in Catholic lands where hardly a Catholic has a Bible, what happens when Bible societies bring Bibles to the Catholic population?
Modern-Day Burning of the Bible
Yes, the Bibles are destroyed as quickly as possible—this in the twentieth century, not the Middle Ages when Bible readers were burned to death at the stake! Many are the examples of this outright hostility to the Bible! Take, for instance, what happened in Spain in 1940, when the British and Foreign Bible Society, of London, sent a shipment of Bibles to that country for distribution among the people, most of whom have never seen a Bible. The Roman Catholic government of Spain had the Bible shipment seized and destroyed. This was reported in the first edition of the New York Times of October 6, 1940, but, curiously, was deleted from other editions. One magazine commented;
“The Bible in Spain. Protestants everywhere, and particularly those who are becoming more and more careful lest by any semblance of protesting they hurt the feelings of their Roman Catholic friends, would do well to ponder the fate of 110,000 copies of the Bible, including Testaments, which the British and Foreign Bible Society sent to Spain recently for distribution.
“By order of the. Spanish Government, which is strongly Roman Catholic, the entire shipment was confiscated and pulped for cellulose! Spain, as everybody knows, has had an unenviable reputation for Bible destruction in years gone by, but this wholesale pulping of a hundred thousand copies js perhaps the most glaring example of open hostility to the Book that history records.”—Signs of the Times, January 21, .1941.
Let no one think that Bible burnings have ceased. They continue to this year, 1960. They occur with surprising frequency. Thus in May, 1960, came this report from Colombia: “Coello. On Sunday morning, May 1st, Father Gomez celebrated Mass In the patio of the public school of Llano de la Virgen. In front of the altar he made a pile of the Bibles and New Testaments and set fire to them. He took one Bible in his hands, tore out the pages, and threw them into the fire. He handed the binding to a parishioner, saying: ‘This is all that is worth anything.’ ”6
Also in May, 1960, eyewitness reports tell of Bible burning In Puerto Rico, in the town of Cayey, about thirty miles from San Juan. In the public plaza, right near the Catholic church, a pile of books was burned under the pretext that they were “pornographic.” When the charred remains of the books were inspected by eyewitnesses, what do you suppose they found among the destroyed books listed as “pornographic”? Yes, Bibles! This public burning of Bibles was mentioned in the Puerto Rican newspapers El Impartial of May 13, 1960, and El Mundo of May 28,1960. Such is the fate of the Bible in lands where the Roman Catholic Church is the predominant religion!
But why this burning of the Bible? Catholic publications justify this destruc-tlon of Bibles on the grounds that translations not published by or approved by the Catholic church are faulty and misleading. But scholars know this is not true. Indeed, when the Catholic church decided to improve its own English translation of the Bible the result was, as The Catholic Encyclopedia says concerning the English Challoner Douay Version: “To call it any longer the Douay or Rheimish version is an abuse of terms. It has been altered and modified until scarcely any verse remains as it was originally published.... In nearly every case Challoner’s changes took the form of approximating to the Authorized Version" So in improving the Catholic translation of the Bible, it becomes more and more like the Protestant King James Version! There must be some other reason for the Catholic church’s hostility to the Bible. There is.
Teachings Differ from Bible
Catholics are discouraged or prevented from reading the Bible for this basic reason: the thinking reader of the Bible soon realizes that many of the teachings of the Catholic church are not taught by the Bible, such as the use of images and the doctrine of purgatory. Indeed, aS Cardinal Wiseman stated it not many years ago in his lectures on “Principal Doctrines and Practices of the Catholic Church”:
“The history in every single case [of Catholics* leaving the Catholic church] is simply this: That the individual by some chance or other, possibly through the ministry of some pious person, became possessed of the word of God, of the Bible; that he perused the Book; that he could not find in it transubstantiation or, auricular confession; that he could not discover in it one word of purgatory or the worship of images.”7
Thus there is a powerful reason why the Catholic church discourages, by various actions, the reading of the Bible. Ponder, for example, the address delivered by the cardinals of the Roman court to Pope Julius DI immediately after his elevation to the papacy in 1550. It is contained in a historical document of Reformation times that is preserved in the National Library of Paris in Folio B, No. 1088, Vol. 2, pp. 641-650. It contains among other passages the following:
“Of all the advice that we can offer Your Holiness, we have kept the most necessary to the last. . . . Let the very little part of the Gospel suffice that is usually read in the Mass and let no one be permitted to read more. So long as the people will be content with that small amount, your interests will prosper, but as soon as the people want to read more your interests will begin to fail. The Bible is the book that, more than any other, has raised against us the tumults and tempests by which we have almost perished. In fact, if anyone examines closely and compares the teachings of the Bible with what takes place in our churches he will soon find discord, and will realize that our teaching is often different from the Bible and oftener still contrary to it”
No wonder to this day the Roman Catholic Church destroys Bibles and tells Catholics Bible reading is “not necessary"!
REFERENCES
i A Teorla de *A Biblia S&mente/ p* 35. Brazil, 1959. Publication of the National Secretariat In Defense of Fatth- Translated from. English The "Bibte-Onitf'1 Theory, by Fathers Kumble & Carty, St. Paul, Minn.
2 What fs the Bible* Francis P. Le Butte, Dublin, Ireland.
3 Leed La Blblia (Read the Bible), May, 1959, Batran-quilla, Colombia, Catholic priest Florencio Alvarez.
4 “Parish News for the Paderborn Deanery,” supplement to DER DOM (The Cathedral ), a Sunday paper for the Paderborn Archbishopric, Germany, February 7, 1960.
5 London, England, Oatholfc Herald, February 5, 1953, a Bulletin No, 62, May 31, 1960, p. 6, by Evangelical Confederation of Colombia.
t of Time*, September 12, 1944, p. 5.
THE CATHOLIC BIBLE AND CHURCH FATHERS
ON CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
ROMAN CATHOLICS in particular should be interested in what Catholic authorities and the Bible have to say about Catholic doctrine. Such knowledge cannot help but further enlighten them as to the value of their faith.
Protestants and Bible students will find such a study mentally and spiritually stimulating. No doubt, it will drive home to many the need of knowing the origins of religious doctrines and the joy there is in adhering closely to the Bible.
HOLY WATER, CANDLES, PROCESSIONS: Roman Catholic Cardinal John Henry Newman, in hl's "Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine," frankly admitted that "the use of temples, and those dedicated to particular saints, and ornamented on occasions with branches of trees; incense, lamps and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness; holy water; asylums, holydays and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields; sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant, and the Kyrie Eleison, are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by their adoption into the [Roman Catholic] Church." Such bold admission of paganism should be reason enough to want to investigate further Catholic doctrine.
CALLING PRIESTS “FATHER"; Roman Catholic priests insist that parishioners cal! them "father." In contrast, the Catholic Bible quotes Jesus os saying: "Coll none your father upon earth: for one is your father, who is in heaven."—Matt. 23:9, Dy.
PONTIFEX MAXIMUS; The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the pope in the office of Pontlfex Maximus is the high priest of the Christian church. The Catholic Encyclopedia (Vol. XII, p. 270) says: "As regards the title Pontifex Maximus, especially in its application to the pope, there was further a reminiscence of the dignity attached to that title in pagan Rome." Julius Caesar, not Jesus Christ, took the title Pontifex Maximus. The Catholic Bible shows that Jesus is a high priest that needs no successors: "Jesus is . . . made a high priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech,” and not the order of the pagan rulers of Rome.—Heb. 6:20, Dy.
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION;The Catholic church teaches that Peter was the first pope, that he was the rock upon which Christ founded the church and that he had successors. Yet early church fathers did not believe this. Wrote Johann Ignaz von Dollinger, called by The Encyclopaedia Britannica "one of the leading Roman Catholic historians of Germany": "Of a ri the Fathers who interpret these passages in the Gospels (Matt. xvi. 18, John xxi. 17), not a single one applies them to the Roman bishops as Peter's successors. Haw many Fathers have busied themselves with these texts, yet not one af them whose commentaries we possess,—Origen, Chrysostom, HUory, Augustine, Cyril, Theo-doret, and those whose interpretations are collected in catenas,—has dropped the faintest hint that the primacy of Rome is the consequence of the commission and promise to Peter! Not one of them has explained the rock or foundation on which Christ would build His Church as the office given to Peter to be transmitted to his successors, but they understood by it either Christ Himself, or Peter's confession of faith in Christ. Or else they thought Peter was the foundation equally with all the other Apostles, the
Twelve being together the foundation stones of the Church (Apoc. xxi. 14),"
The Catholic Douay Version Bible says at Apocalypse 21:14; “The wall of the city had twelve foundations: and in them, the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb," Again the Catholic Bible says: "Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone." (Eph, 2:20, Dy) Peter himself says very plainly: Jesus Christ is "the stone which the builders rejected, the same Is made the head of the corner." (1 Pet, 2:7, Dy) Concerning the "rock" [Greek, petra] of Matthew 16:18 upon which the church is built, the Catholic Bible says: "The rock [Greek, petra] was Christ." [1 Cor. 10:4, Dy) This "rock" or "chief corner stone," the Catholic Bible shows, hos no successors: "Of those other priests [In Israel] there was a succession, . . . whereas Jesus continues for ever, and his priestly office is unchanging.”—Heb. 7:23, 24, Knox.
TRINITY: The Catholic Encyclopedia soys: "The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion." The Bibliotheque Ecclesiostique by Dupin says: "The word triad, or trinity, was borrowed from the pagan schools of philosophy." Cardinal Hosius is quoted as having soid; "We believe the doctrine of a triune God, because we have received it by tradition, though not mentioned at all in Scripture." (Conf. Cathol. Fidei. Chapt, XXVI) And what does the Catholic Bible teach on this? “The Lord our God is one Lord," not three. (Deut. 6:4, Dy) Jesus said: “The Father is greater than I," not equal with me. (John 14:28, Dy) Of Jesus the Bible says: He “is the beginning of the creation of God,” therefore, not on an equality with the Father.—Apoc. 3:14, Dy.
COMMANDING CELIBACY; Did Christ command celibacy? “No,” says an officially approved Catholic pamphlet. "The law of celibacy is noi a divine command. It is on ecclesiastical ordinance imposed in view of the dignity and duties of the priesthood." The Catholic Bible says it is wrong to forbid marriage: "In the last times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error and doctrines of devils, ., , forbidding to marry."—1 Tim. 4:1-4, Dy.
USE OF IMAGES: Do Catholics use images as aids in worship? Yes. “We love and adore Christ alone; His Image is only on external aid to that end,” say Catholics. Du Bols, an eorly Roman Catholic missionary, admitted thot "the common people indubitably worship the image itself.” The Encyclopedia Cattolica (Vatican City edition, 1950) says: “From assistance to devotion, images soon become an object af devotion." God’s command is-. "Thou shalt not carve images, or fashion the likeness of anything ... to bow down and worship if.” (Ex, 20:4, 5, Knox) Paul stated: "Fly from the service of idols.” John declared: “Little children, ke$p yourselves from idols,"—I Cor. 10:14; 1 John 5:21, Dy.
IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL; The Romon Catholic Archbishop of Liverpool, John Heenan, said: "The soul cannot corrupt or fade or die." The Catholic Bible soys: "Mon became a living soul." “The soul that sinneth, the same shall die."—Gen. 2:7; Ezek. 18:4, Dy.
ADOPTING PAGANISM: Catholic authorities have admitted that their worship is of pagan origin, not Christian. Catholic authority Professor Karl Adam writes in "The Spirit of Catholicism": "We Catholics acknowledge readily . . . that Catholicism cannot be identified simply and wholly with primitive Christianity, nor even with the gospel of Christ." Says the Catholic Bible: "What Is there in common between light and darkness? What harmony between Christ and Belial? How can a believer throw in his lot with an infidel? How can the temple of God have any commerce with idols? . . . Come out, then, from among them, the Lord says to us, separate yourselves from them, and do not even touch what is unclean."—2 Cor. 6:14-18, Knox.
THE question frequently arises in the 1 minds of many Catholics as well as non-Catholics, What is the position of the Roman Catholic Church on the issue of freedom? How has the Church expressed itself concerning freedom of worship, freedom of speech and freedom of the press? Of these basic freedoms the United States Constitution deciares: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom pf speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble.’*
If we seek out non-Catholic authorities for their views on this matter, we may receive prejudiced answers. Obviously, this would not be the impartial thing to do. To illustrate: If you wanted to know what Jesus taught, would you have asked the Jewish Pharisees? No, because their views were prejudiced against Jesus. To be impartial you would have gone directly to Jesus or his disciples.
So, too, with any analysis of the Catholic church and freedom. To avoid prejudice it is only proper to present the views of Church spokesmen, such as the pope and other authorized Catholic officials.
Official Catholic Viewpoint
The Vatican Council in 1870 declared the popes to be infallible when defining doctrines of faith and morals. The Council added that such definitions “are irreform-able.” Of interest, then, are the official declarations of Pope Pius IX. In 1864, in his Syllabus of Errors, the pope condemned the following as incompatible with Catholic teaching:
1. "That every man is free to embrace and profess the religion he shall believe true, guided by the light of reason.”
2. “That the Church ought to be separated from the State and the State from the Church.”
.3. "That in the present day, it is no longer necessary that the Catholic religion be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other modes of worship.”
4. "That the Roman Pontiff can and ought to reconcile himself to, and agree with, progress, liberalism, and modern civilization,”
To believe in any of these points means that a Catholic could incur all the penalties attached to heresy! This official position has never been repudiated. As recently as 1953 Pope Pius XII, in a speech to file Association of Italian Jurists said: "What is not in accord with the truth [Roman Catholicism] has objectively no right to existence, propagation or action."
Corroborating this viewpoint are other official statements in recent years by prominent Church officials. Monsignor Ronald A. Knox, whose modern translation of the Bible has benefited many, said in The Belief of Catholics: “A body of Catholic patriots entrusted with government of a Catholic State will not shrink from repressive measures in order to perpetuate the secure domination of Catholic principles.”
The official world organ of the Jesuits, CivilitA Cattalica of Rome, in April, 1948, made this striking statement: “The Roman Catholic Church . . , must demand the right of freedom for herself alone, because such a right can only be possessed by truth, never by error. As to other religions ... they shall not be allowed to propagate false doctrine. Consequently, in a state where the majority of the people are Catholic, the Church will require that legal existence be denied to error,1’
Note too the article that appeared In the New York World Telegram of July 24, 1953: “Vatican sources said yesterday that an address of Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani advocating restriction of Protestant minorities applied to Italy as well as Spain. He stated: ‘So called tolerance must seem out of place in the eyes of true Catholics,’ ”
This desire for freedom for Roman Catholicism but not for other religions is substantiated in the book Apolog&tique, published under Catholic supervision in France, It states: “The ideal arrangement that the Church wishes is a regime in which the rulers would be inspired by her doctrine and would give her a privileged position, ensuring for the only true Church [Roman Catholic] the protection she is entitled to.”
The Vatican City newspaper, L'Osserva-tore Romano, on May 17, 1960, added: “The Catholic can never overlook the teaching and the instruction of the Church ___It is the duty of every Catholic to bow to those rulings and those opinions, even in the field of politics,”
Official Viewpoint in Practice
Some protest that these- views are not applied in practice, citing what appears to be a more tolerant attitude of the church in the United States. But there it is in the minority. As a result Civilitd Cattolica says: “In some countries, Catholics will be obliged to ask full religious freedom for all, resigned at being forced to cohabit where they alone should rightfully be allowed to live.” But where the church is in the majority, what then? The Portland Press Herald, January 11, 1960, said of one South American Catholic country: “Over two hundred Baptist ministers were either killed or driven out. Their churches were bombed or seized for public property or destroyed . . . Two million Protestants are not allowed to open schools for their children.” The paper adds: “Is this what we want in the United States?”
In Catholic Colombia, the Evangelical Confederation on May 19, 1959, reported this eleven-year toll of persecution: “115 Protestants martyred because of their faith, 66 Protestant churches and chapels destroyed, over 200 Protestant schools closed by the Colombian government.” The paper La Cruz of June 15, 1960, quoted a letter from the Legal Counselor of the Ministry of Government, which said: “In accord with the agreement with the Holy See, missions of other religions or sects can not operate for nationals, either publicly or privately .. . Such Mission Agreement prohibits establishment of nonCatholic schools.”
The church’s agreements with dictators who stifle freedom is an undisputed fact of history. In 1929 Pope Pius XI and Italian dictator Mussolini signed the Lateran Pact, a concordat making Catholicism the state church. The pope, on February 13, 1929, declared Mussolini to be “sent by Providence” and “a man free from the prejudices of the politicians of the liberal school.” In 1935 Cardinal Schuster of Milan stated: “The Italian flag is at this moment bringing in triumph the Cross of Christ to Ethiopia.” That year L’Osservatore Romano quoted this telegram sent to Mussolini by fifty-seven bishops and nineteen archbishops of Italy: “Catholic Italy thanked Jesus Christ for the renewed greatness of the country made stronger by Mussolini’s policy.”
Germany’s Kaiser Wilhelm related this in his memoirs: “It was of interest to me that the Pope said to me on this occasion that Germany must become the sword of the Catholic Church.” In 1933 the Church signed a concordat with Hitler’s Third Reich. In 1940, with France and most of Europe under Hitler’s heel, the New York Times reported that forty-five of Germany’s bishops drew up a pastoral letter which included “a solemn pledge of loyalty to Chancellor Hitler.”
The concordat of 1941 with Franco Spain reaffirmed a principle of the concordat of 1851, which reads: “The Roman Catholic religion, to the exclusion of any other, continues to be the sole religion of the Spanish nation.” An article of the Spanish charter declares: “External ceremonies or manifestations other than those of the Catholic religion will not be permitted”
The evidence is clear that wherever the alliance of the Roman Catholic Church and the State has taken place, freedom of worship, freedom of the press and freedom of speech have been throttled.
The Christian Course
Jesus said: “All things, therefore, that you want men to do to you, you also must likewise do to them,” (Matt. 7:12) Do you want freedom for yourself? ThenJjejjre^ pared to give it to others. Do you want the freedom to practice your religion? Then you must allow others to practice theirs. Do you want the freedom to read your own publications? Then you must allow others to read theirs. Do you want the freedom to speak as you wish? Then you
must: allow others to speak as they wish. These freedoms must be permitted as long as the rights of others are not interfered with. __
Jesus usecfpersuasidn) not force. H<rea-with people; He did not appeal tc Caesar for laws to restrict other religions Ile did.not demand freedom for himself, Tjutj^^ffW&E^^TBuFSier^wSelfifee mHsday~wtw did demand that force be used to crush freedom. Who were they’ Matthew 26:59 answers: “The chief priests and the entire Sanhedrin were looking for false witness against Jesus in order to put him to depth.”
Christian freedom allows for this: If you do not like a book, do not read it. If you do not like what is said over the radio, do not listen to it. If you do not like what you see in the movies or over television, do not look at it. But do not prohibit others from doing so if they wish!
Freedom in Jeopardy
The knowledge of religious truth, even if held by the majority, does not justify that religious truth to be enacted into law binding it on all others. Yet, where the Roman Catholic Church is Jn tfie maiorliy she has tried to impose her theology on all. She does not consider it intolerant or bigoted to hold that she is the one true faith, that her pronouncements on faith and morals are infallible, and that “error” has no rights. Yet, when one opposes such a position that would restrict freedom, the Church cries k^bigotry”'^
Truth has nothing to fear from error Error is insecure and is forced by fear"of exposure to persecute truth. ^Error and oppression.„ga.Jiand in hand. Truth and freedom welcome examination. They are God-given. Any system that^ denies this freedom works in oppositiMto^o^ ’
■ The CATHOLIC
» CHURCH and the ^>4
WITHOUT doubt, among the greatest catastrophes mankind has suffered in many a century were World Wars I and II. All those instigating and abetting them truly shoulder a terrible responsibility in the eyes of God. And especially would this be true of professed Christians. Why so?
Had Jesus and his apostles been on earth during these wars they would not have supported one side against the other. Jesus plainly told Pilate: “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my followers would have fought that I might not be delivered to the Jews.” And the apostle Paul wrote: “We do not make war according to the flesh; for the weapons of our warfare are not carnal.” “Our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against . . - spiritual forces of wickedness on high.”—John 18:36; 2 Cor. 10:3, 4; Eph. 6:12, Cath. Con frat.
The Roman Catholic Church claims to be founded on Jesus and his apostles. Did she, as did the faithful Christians of the first centuries, follow the precedent set by Jesus and his apostles by keeping herself free from mortal combat during World Wars I and II ? What does the record show?
World War /
The facts are that during World War I the Roman Catholic Church took the lead in urging the prosecution of the war, and that on both sides. Most revealing is the fact that in The Kaiser’s Memoirs, William II tells of the friendly, trusting relationship existing between him and the pope (Leo XHI) and how this pope once had said to him: “Germany must become the sword of the church.” “I remarked that the old Roman Empire of the German nation no longer existed, and that conditions had changed. But he stuck to his word.” The pope assured him that his Catholic subjects would stand by him with “absolute fidelity” m good times and bad.
And that they did. The Roman Catholic Church gave wholehearted support to the war, fully endorsing its ruthless methods and the ambitious aims of the Junker class. Its Center Party—so called because it happened to occupy the eenter section of the Reichstag—was the first to call for the capitulation of Germany to the military under General Ludendorf. In the strongest of terms Catholic prelates denounced the revolution that deposed the Kaiser and that set up a democratic form of government.'
On the Allied side also the Roman Catholic Church was in the forefront in prosecuting the war. Proudly United States Catholics published the book, War Addresses from Catholic Pulpit and Platform. Typical of these addresses is the one by Cardinal McConnell, in which, among other things, he said: “The great and historic Catholic church of Christ has been the leader and guide.” It has “pointed the way to the highest patriotic duties ... with the result that over a third of the forces in the field and on the seas are at the
same time her loyal children and America's defenders. .. . May your holy deeds sanctify a holy cause.”
As for the Vatican itself, it changed its policy with the fortunes of war: “Benedict XV ... was seriously handicapped by” the fact that “the Vatican had based its policy on the assumption that the Central Powers would win, and changed its course only in the last few months of the conflict.”’
This position of the Roman Catholic Church was in line with her policy. Thus the Homiletic and Pastoral Review of May, 1949, states: “All sorts of private individuals may feel that a given war is unjustifiable; but that is scarcely enough to justify them in refusing to fight and undergoing the consequences therefor.” Roman Catholics in the United States who have claimed conscientious objection have had their claims voided by the courts on the grounds that their church did not support their position? No wonder, then, that Abrams, author of Preachers Present Arms, said he was unable to locate a single priest who had scruples against World War I.
The Nazi Terror
That the major blame for World War II must be laid at the feet of totalitarianism, and especially of Nazism, is well known. But not equally well known is the fact that the Roman Catholic Church played the leading role in Nazifying Germany. This, however, should not seem singular in view of the success of dictators in Italy, Spain and the Dominican Republic, all of whom the Roman Catholic Church claims are 99 or more percent hers. The Nazi party was formed in Germany’s most Catholic state, Bavaria. The great majority of the Nazi Hierarchy were Roman Catholics, even though Germany at the time was only about one third Roman Catholic.
Adolf Hitler was a baptized Roman Catholic? so were Goebbels,5 “Kalten-brunner, Eichmann’s immediate superior officer, Heinrich Mueller, the Gestapo chief, and Rudolf Hoess, the Commandant of Auschwitz,”8 who states in his autobiography: VI personally arranged on orders from Himmler in May 1941, the gassing of two million persons between June-July 1941 and the end of 1943, during which time I iyas Commandant of Auschwitz.”1 Another was Walter Schultze, sentenced as recently as May 10, 1960, for his part in the murder of 380 mental patients. He did not feel that he had done anything wrong, because “at that time an order from the Fuehrer was law for us.”s Hitler’s vice-chancellor, who suspiciously escaped the death sentence at the Nuremberg trials, was made a Papal Secret Chamberlain of the Cape and Sword by Pius XI. Although Pius XII did not reconfirm this appointment, the present pope has done so, much to the consternation of the West German government and of German Roman Catholics,® but perhaps not of Adenauer, as he, when Lord Mayor of Cologne in 1929, sent his congratulations to Mussolini for signing the Lateran Treaty, telling him that his name will be written into the history book of the Roman Catholic Church in golden letters.1®
Further, it was a Roman Catholic priest, Staempfle, a man of great learning and a newspaper editor, who took Hitler’s manuscript of Mein ffampf, a hodge-podge of commonplaces, childish memories, personal animosities, anti-Semitism, and suchlike, and spent months in rewriting and editing it, so as to make it an effective instrument for Nazi propaganda.11
Particularly vital was the role the Roman Catholic Center party played in Hitler’s rise to power. Its chancellors, Dr. Bruening and Franz von Papen, together with its head, Msgr. Kaas, papal prelate
AWAKE! and Professor of Ecclesiastical Law at Bonn, paved the way, over a period of several years, for Hitler to take over.1 Says Dr. Edward T. Gargan, a Modern European history professor at the Roman Catholic Loyola University, Chicago, Illinois: ‘Only the socialists opposed Hitler’s rise to power. Collaboration of the Catholic Center Party helped Hitler in assuming complete control.’ He also said that in Fascist Italy a Catholic could not "in good conscience work against Mussolini’s Fascist government."1*
The Roman Catholic Church must therefore accept her full share of blame for that dark blotch on the pages of Germany’s history, the horrors of the concentration camps, as told in such books as The Theory and Practice of HeU, by Kogen; Forgive —But Do Not Forget, by Salvesen; Commandant of Auschwitz, by Hoess, to mention but a few. They tell of the slaughter of some seven million in concentration camps alone, the majority of whom were Jews; of doctors sadistically degrading their profession by performing all manner of diabolical experiments on human guinea pigs, of ever so mahy being beaten to death, cooked to death by steam, buried alive in trenches, torn to pieces by dogs, and so forth.
The Concordats
The concordats that the Vatican concluded with Mussolini on February 11, 1929, and with Hitler on July 20, 1933, played a vital role in the support Roman Catholics gave these dictators* The concordat with Mussolini was part of the Later-an Treaty, which treaty Included “The Reconciliation Treaty” and “The Financial Convention.” It was all made “In the name of the Most Holy Trinity.” It restored the pope to temporal power, gave the Vatican 1,750,000,000 lira, and recognized the Roman Catholic Church as the state church. In turn the Church made a number of concessions to Mussolini.18
The concordat concluded with Hitler was patterned after the one made with Mussolini. In it Hitler granted certain favors to the Roman Catholic Church, in exchange for which the Vatican made the following concessions;
Only German citizens may serve as priests. Before making public appointments of archbishops, bishops and suchlike, the Federal agent of the state must be advised secretly, who will rule on the acceptability of the cleric involved, (Article 14) Each bishop, before taking office, had to sign an oath of allegiance to the Nazi Reich. (Article 16) “In religious education, particular care shall be taken to develop the conscience with respect to duties toward the nation,” and so forth. (Article 21) The Military Bishop as well as all other clerics serving in the army must also be acceptable to the Nazi regime. (Article 27) “The designation of teachers of religion shall be governed by mutual agreement between the Bishops and the Government of the parti cub; r State.” (Article 22) “On Sundays and Holy Days, In the cathedrals as well as in the parish houses, missions and monasteries of the German Reich, there shall be recited at the conclusion of the principal religious service, in conformity with the prescriptions of sacred liturgy, a prayer for the prosperity of the Reich and the German people.” (Article 30) “By reason of present particular circumstances ... the Holy See shall enact dispensations excluding ecclesiastics [clerics] and [members of] religious [orders] from membership in political parties and from activity in this respect."14
Truly the effect of this concordat was to Nazify the Roman Catholic Church In Germany from top to bottom. How can such an agreement be harmonized with the claim of the Roman Catholic Church to be the apostolic church? There are to be no nationalistic distinctions in the Christian congregation. Scriptural principles solely are to govern the choice of overseers and their assistants, “bishops" and “deacons." Did not this concordat actually make the Hitler government the head of their church, since it had the final say as to who could be bishops, overseers and teachers? Was not this a selling of one’s birthright for a mess of pottage?—Gal. 3:28; Col. 3: 11; 1 Tim. 3:2-13; Heb. 12:16.
World War 11
These concordats gave Mussolini and Hitler great advantages. Each held the Roman Catholic Church to its side of the bargain although violating its terms whenever he saw fit to do so. Especially useful to the dictators were these concordats in World War II. Then history repeated itself, for the Roman Catholic Church again vigorously supported the war on both sides in violation of plain Scriptural principles and commands.
One who has spoken out on the responsibility of the Roman Catholic Church in regard to Hitier’s prosecution of the war Is Dr. Gordon Zahn, professor of sociology at Loyola University. Reporting on one of his speeches, the public press stated: “The nearly total support by German Catholics of Hitler’s wars, or the failure of the religious community to refuse such support was interpreted by Zahn as evidence,” among other things, of “the failure of the Catholic press to fulfill its function as an instructor and guide.” It “joined the controlled secular press in the crusade to create a total consensus in support of the national cause. . . . The papers published under Nazi terms may be criticized as repudiating the obligation to oppose what had to be opposed in keeping with the true marks of the Catholic press.”15
Books have been written, such as The, Vatican and the War, by C. Cianfarra, purporting to show that the Vatican during World War n was opposed to the Axls Powers, but hew vigorous was this opposition? “Pacelli [Pope Pius XII] merely expressed his deep sorrow over the fate of the Poles. In the spring of 1940, two telegrams were sent to the sovereigns of Belgium and Holland, when their countries were invaded. .. . But no solemn condemnation was forthcoming.”1’ “The word Germany was not mentioned and the condemnation was only implied."17 When Mussolini invaded Ethiopia, the Roman Catholic bishops, such as “Cardinal Schuster of Milan, gave their blessing and support to Italian arms, whilst the Pope now and again only mildly deplored the use of force."“
Limits of space prohibit the citing of more evidence. The foregoing, however, should be sufficient to show how much the Roman Catholic Church is responsible to God for the two world wars and the Nazi and Fascist terrors. Truly to her it can also be said: “There is blood on thy hands, the blood of friendless folk and innocent." —Jer. 2:34, Knox.
REFERENCES
i The Oose of Dr. Bnsening—Bernhard Mennes, pp. 15-79.
2 The Vatican and the War—Camille Cianfarra, p. 325. s The Christian Century, November 17, 1954.
4 Hitler—Konrad Heiden, p. 10.
a Wieabodener Tagblatt (Wiesbaden Daily), February 26, 1960, p. 2,
e Die Welt (The World), June 11, 1900, p. 17. t Commandant of Auschwitz, Rudolf Hoeaa, p. 17. a New York •Tiroes, May 11, 1960, p. 2.
e Minneapolis, Minnesota, Star, November 7, 1059. io Hamburger FremdblGtt (Hamburg Foreign Hews), February 12, 1929,
ii Hitler and I—Otto Strasser, pp. 56, 57.
12 Lewiston, Maine, Nieninp Journal, November 23, 195a
is Documents oa International Affairs, 1EC9, pp. 216241.
14 Documents on International Affairs, 1933, pp. 443452.
is Chicago, Illinois, Daily Tribune, September 3, 1959. is L’Express (Paris Weekly), October 9, 1958, P. 13. ir New York Times, May 12, 1940.
is The Pope in Politics—William Teellng.
AWAKE!
f’‘Aw'Lvl"
corresponds* * Z\N December 24,1959, "■ >’ V_z the French National
Y^.'rance Assembly approved, by votes to 71, a bill providing for state aid to Roman Catholic schools. A few days later the Senate passed the same bill by 173 votes to 99. The new law provides for aid over the next twelve years, starting at $60,000,000 a year and rising to as high as $200,000,000. In return for this use of public funds, the Catholic schools will merely have to submit to state supervision over the nonreligious part of their curriculum and accept nonCatholic pupils where necessary.
How is it that a country which for over half a century has enjoyed the benefits of a law separating church and state now adopts a bill whereby the state will provide money to enable thousands of nuns and priests to teach the Catholic faith? This amazing situation has been brought about as a result of what L»e Monde termed “negligence by the state” on the one hand, and Catholic foresight, patient waiting and maneuvering on the other. Here is the story.
Back to the "Good Old Days"
Still smarting under the law of 1905 separating the church from the republican state, Catholic historian Paul Deslandres wrote in his Histoire de VEglise Catholique en France (which was approved by the Hierarchy’s censors on September 22, 1913): “The Church’s situation is unfavorable since the Revolution. Under the old regime, she held a monopoly in the field of education, . . . Since 1789, the Church has been obliged to appeal for freedom In order to hold its position in secondary education.” (Italics ours.)
If the situation is unfavorable for the educational system of the Catholic church since the Revolution, may we ask how she discharged her responsibilities during the favorable “good old days” of monarchical and priest rule? When the church had a free hand to educate as she pleased, did she establish for herself a reputation that makes us envious to go back to those “good old days”?
Historians have not chosen the term “Dark Ages” without good reason, for dark they truly were! No school could be opened without permission of the local bishop or of a church official called the icol&tre, and education was limited to candidates for the priesthood and to children of the nobility.
Interestingly, this sad state of affairs is reflected in a linguistic oddity. The French equivalent of the expression “to play truant” is faire Z’dcote buissonni&re, literally “to go to hedge-school.” This curious expression dates from the “good old days” of the Catholic educational monopoly, when the unauthorized schools opened by the Huguenots were clandestine affairs often held in the open air, hidden behind a hedge. Later, the tolerant Edict of Nantes (1598) authorized Protestant schools.
As time went on,, the church herself made limited education available to the
common people. But the encyclopedia Larousse explains why this concession was made. It states, under the heading “Bootes chr&Aennes”: “In order to combat Protestantism, Father Barre, of the Minim Order, founded in 1678 a congregation comprising persons of both sexes for the free education of boys and girls.”
Even then, not content to compete with the Protestants in the field of education, the church persuaded Louis XIV to repeal the Edict of Nantes. This infamous Revocation (1685) banned all Protestant worship, ordered the destruction of Protestant churches and closed all the Protestant schools. Protestant children were forcibly baptized into the Catholic faith and sent to Catholic schools.
The Revolution of 1789 put an end to the church’s tithing rights and also to her control over education. But the church quickly licked her wounds and began to maneuver her comeback. She patiently chose her moments to win back her lost privileges. By 1833, she was again running parochial elementary schools. Seventeen years later the church not only had won back its secondary schools, but the Falloux Bill of 1850 even granted her state financial aid. Another twenty-five years sufficed for her to win back her own universities. Thus, within a century of the Revolution, the church was well on the way to regaining her lost privileges.
All this was done quite legally. The church merely maneuvered the political situation and took advantage of favorable circumstances to push her claims. Thus, both in 1850 and in 1875, the church used temporary right-wing majorities in the National Assembly to hurry through Education Bills favorable to her interests. But the reaction was bound to come.
The republican Left was incensed at the thought of public funds being used once again for Catholic schools. Men like Gam-betta and Ferry launched a counteroffensive, arid between 1880 and 1886 a series erf laws were passed that made the state responsible for the free education of the people. However, the republican state tolerantly allowed the church to retain her schools, but all financial aid was withdrawn. If people did not wish to take advantage of the free, neutral schooling provided by the State, they would have to pay for their own special schools.
Pope Leo XIII immediately condemned these laws and, ever since, the church has made no secret of her opposition to them. She has branded the state schools “godless schools” and even “anti-God schools.” Between the two world wars her campaign against the public school system and in favor of state aid to Catholic schools met with little or no success. The first government to yield to her demands was the Vichy regime of the Vatican’s faithful son Petain, during the Nazi occupation of France. This puppet government poured three and a half billion francs a year into the coffers of the Catholic church to help her maintain and extend her school system. The postwar republican government soon put an end to this subsidy.
Catholic Offensive Since the War
There is little doubt that the Catholic church hankers after the “good old days” when she alone was responsible for public education. This year the pope wrote to Cardinal Feltin, archbishop of Paris: “Be assured that We are following these problems [i.e., Catholic schools, etc.] particularly closely because of their gravity; undoubtedly, if we examine them with all due prudence and act with determination, we shall gradually solve them satisfactorily. . . . With regard to education in particular, We are sure that you and the other bishops—each according to his responsibilities—will see to it with all your strength that the Catholic establishments [schools] obtain justice and receive substantia] aid.” (Le Monde, March 5, 1960) The pope can rest assured. Hie hierarchy of the French Catholic church has done a fine job in creating a situation favorable to a return to state aid for Catholic schools.
No means were spared to keep the schools pot boiling. Catholics were constantly reminded of their obligation to withdraw their children from the state schools and to send them to the nearest Catholic ones. The clergy continually reminded them of Canon Law 1374, which states: “Catholic children must not attend non-Catholic, neutral or mixed schools, that is, such as are also open to nonCatholics.”
Pressure was put on the parents to comply with this requirement “In such predominantly Catholic regions as Normandy, Britanny and La Vendee, children who attend public schools and their parents are occasionally denied the sacraments. In one Vendee town the cure [Catholic priest] himself told his congregation: ‘You have a good Idique [lay] teacher, but even if she were a saint, you should not send your children to her.’ The teacher soon found that children would turn from her in the street, and that farmers refused to sell her butter and milk.”—Time, December 28, 1959.
This Catholic offensive among the people was accompanied by strong political pressure. In 1950, the bishop of Lucon and other bishops in western France publicly urged Catholics to refuse to pay their taxes until they received satisfaction over the question of state aid to Catholic schools. The republican outcry against this incitement to an illegal tax strike was such that the Catholic Hierarchy retracted, but the incident served as a warning to the succeeding governments of the Fourth Republic as to the lengths to which the church would go to press her demands.
In Paris, Catholics organized what they called the Parliamentary Association for Educational Freedom, but which was really a war horse for pushing the schools battle in the National Assembly. Tn return for Catholic support in the elections, candidates were required to pledge their votes in favor of any bill granting state aid to church schools. Deputies from predominantly Catholic constituencies could not afford to refuse to comply with the demands of this powerful association, even if they were personally in favor of the state’s neutral education.
Thus, by parliamentary strategy, this association scraped through the Barange Bill in 1951, which indirectly granted state aid to Catholic schools, and the Rural Education Bill in 1955, which was another indirect means of subsidizing Catholic teaching establishments.
This Catholic parliamentary association has really come into its heyday since the elections of 1958. As the New York Times put it: “[Catholic] pressure was particularly heavy last November during the legislative elections. Aspirants for the National Assembly all felt it, with the result that there is now believed to be a majority in Parliament ready to accede to Catholic demands.”
…