BOUQUILLON CONTROVERSY

An educational dispute precipitated in the U.S. in 1891 by the faribault plan, a compromise school arrangement effected by Abp. John Ireland with the public school boards of Faribault and Stillwater, Minn. Its name came from Rev. Thomas bouquillon, professor of moral theology at The Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C., whose theory granting the state a special and proper right to educate engendered contradictory reactions.

Cause. Concomitant with the rise of the public school system in the U.S. between 1820 and 1870 was a growing tendency to secularize tax-supported schools. The American hierarchy, urged by the Congregation of Propaganda Fide in 1875, passed laws at the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore in 1884 discouraging attendance at public schools and pressing the construction of parochial schools. The hierarchy, however, were not unanimous in the execution of the laws. In 1890 Archbishop Ireland of St. Paul, Minn., and other bishops pleaded poverty as an excuse from building and maintaining parochial schools, and proposed giving daily religious instructions to Catholic students in public schools outside class hours as an alternative solution. Abp. Michael A. Corrigan of New York and certain Jesuit writers championed parochial schools as envisioned by the decrees of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore.

In the midst of this practical debate over constructing parochial schools, Bouquillon published his pamphlet, Education: To Whom Does It Belong? Although he claimed that his tract was "a purely abstract exposition of principles independent of circumstances of time and country," the arguments presented so buttressed the position championed by Ireland and his party that Bouquillon was accused of knowingly offering the theoretical basis for Ireland's solution to the school question. The publication date, Nov. 18, 1891, ten days before the American hierarchy was to meet in St. Louis, Mo., to debate the issue, seemed to confirm that suspicion.

Bouquillon held that education "belongs to the individual, physical or moral, to the family, to the state, to the church; to none of these solely and exclusively, but to all four combined in harmonious working …." Byceding this right to an individual and equating the rights of the family, the State, and the Church, Bouquillon offered a new view for Catholics on the right to educate.

Regarding the State's power in this area, moreover, he maintained that "the state has been endowed by God with the right of founding schools that contribute to its welfare." Based on this prerogative, therefore, the State has the further right to pass compulsory education laws, determine the minimum of obligatory instruction, establish schools, appoint capable teachers, prescribe branches of knowledge, and inspect hygiene and public morality.

The Rejoinder. It was incumbent on Catholic educators favoring establishment of parochial schools to answer these arguments, especially the seeming equality of State and Church in conducting schools. René Holaind, SJ, Professor of Ethics at the Jesuit seminary, Woodstock College, Md., prepared an answer within a week of Bouquillon's publication and before the bishops' meeting. Holaind's main objections were: (1) teaching is essentially the duty of the Church and the parents; the State, which has no proper right to educate, enters the field of education at the bidding of the family and/or the Church;(2) the State enters the field of education only when it is entirely necessary and not merely when it is useful to contribute to the State's welfare; (3) the State has no right to control instruction in non-State schools since this would abrogate the rights and duties of parents and Church to open schools and control instruction.

Ecclesiastical Intervention. The two pamphlets generated such a heated public discussion in the religious and secular press that both sides appealed to Rome to settle the problem. In November 1892 Abp. Francesco Satolli, a special representative of Rome, presented to the assembled hierarchy "Fourteen Propositions Designed for the Settling of the School Question," which, since they were more practical than theoretical, left the basic issue unsolved. Rome, in fact, had intended that the hierarchy debate the propositions secretly among themselves, and then by majority vote, reach an agreement emanating from Catholic principles. The propositions, however, were leaked to the secular press and the controversy could not be solved in the heat of the ensuing public debate.

In view of this impasse, Leo XIII asked all the bishops to submit their views to Rome and permit the Holy See to settle the question. On May 31, 1893, Leo XIII addressed his answer to Cardinal James Gibbons for the American hierarchy, stating that the Holy See supported the propositions of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore and encouraged the construction of Catholic schools, but granted to the local ordinary the power to decide under what conditions Catholics might attend public schools. The meeting of the American hierarchy in September 1893 unanimously adopted a resolution declaring that the controversy over the "School Question" had ended. Privately both sides claimed victory, although the problem is still unsolved.

Bibliography: d. f. reilly, The School Controversy, 1891–1893 (Washington 1943). t. bouquillon, Education: To Whom Does It Belong? (Baltimore 1891); Education: To Whom Does It Belong? A Rejoinder to Critics (Baltimore 1892); Education: To Whom Does It Belong? A Rejoinder to the Civiltà Cattolica (Baltimore 1892). r. i. holaind, The Parent First (New York 1891). f. satolli, For the Settling of the School Question and the Giving of Religious Education (Baltimore 1892).

[e. g. ryan]