Those who fail to understand the pressing force of this viewpoint have in our opinion lost the sense and sacredness of religion.  They are astonished at the bitterness that characterizes at times the conflict.  Are not religious and racial issues so intimately united with the very conception of life that they hold to the most intimate fibres of the human heart?  For a Catholic, Religion is life itself in its most sacred aspect.

But, our opponents will argue, in a country like Canada, where “organized” religion—­to speak their language—­is so denominational, religion in school is an impossibility.  Is it because other denominations cannot agree as to their religious tenets that we, who count over one-third of the total population and who stand united in our faith, are to surrender what we consider most essential in education and—­lest we forget it—­most protective to the best interests of our Country?

What does the State give us to replace the “separate school”?  A neutral, undenominational, irreligious school.  This neutrality we claim, is erroneous in theory and impossible in practice.  The theory of the neutral school is erroneous because it is against the teaching of sound psychology and true pedagogy.

The soul of the child cannot be, as it were, divided into watertight compartments so as to segregate religious influence from its daily training.  As Cardinal O’Connell stated, “We Catholics believe that as character is by far the most important product of education, the training of the will, the moulding of the heart, the grounding of the intellect in clear notions of right and wrong, obligation and duty, should not be left to haphazard or squeezed as an afterthought into an hour on Sunday.  The moral and spiritual growth of the child ought normally to keep pace with his mental growth and the Church is convinced that taking human nature as it is, the result cannot be obtained effectively without including a judicious mixture of religious training with the daily routine of the school.”

In fact a neutral school is an impossibility.  We will simply ask our readers a few questions and rely on their fairmindedness to formulate the answers.  Can the teaching of history be neutral?  The Catholic Church and the Reformation are historical facts:  how are they to be judged?  How are ethics to be treated, without reference to God, to Jesus Christ, to an eternal sanction?  Can a teacher divest himself of his mental attitude in the teaching of these subjects and answering the questions of the pupils?

Were the teaching really neutral, the very atmosphere of the school-room is what counts.  This atmosphere is indefinable and yet everywhere felt.  It is made of trifles, but of trifles that count at that receptive age of childhood.  As a subtle perfume it impregnates the soul of the child with ideas and impressions which it will carry through life.  Therefore the atmosphere of the class-room, we claim,