Tell The World About The TLM. But Let's Keep Homeschooling Our Little Secret

 

I've always considered myself a more-or-less "evangelical Catholic." I was radically saved by grace, and I'm always quick to want to show other beggars where the bread is. Because I'm grateful. When you love something, you want others to know about it. We don't hide Christ under a bushel basket (Mt 5:15)

This has extended to my liturgical leanings with regards to Catholic Tradition and how the Latin Mass has buyoued our faith and the expression of it in worship. I tell people about it, I encourage people to explore it, I invite people to Mass with us the same way a family did for us years ago. As I see it, Tradition and Charity are a force for renewal in the Church. I know there are probably factions that want to keep it the best kept secret in the Church, but I don't think that's the way forward. This is a good thing that people need to know about, and then make their own choices about. From 1998 to just five years ago, I didn't even know it existed. I think that's starting to change.

Attending the Latin Mass and homeschooling have always seemed to me like two sides of the same coin. But I am not so evangelistic about homeschooling. It has been a huge blessing to us, and I feel blessed we were led to educate our children from home. They are well adjusted, VERY well socialized, and learning what they need to learn in an efficient manner that leaves plenty of room for play. I didn't always feel this way, and was pretty resistant to the idea at first. But the fruits have been apparent. 

I do not feel the need, however, to tell everyone about how great homeschooling is. If anything, I want to keep it on the DL. This is mostly because the more it gets on the government's radar, the more I worry about government interference. Just leave us alone and give us the liberty to educate our children. Many pioneer homeschoolers worked hard to ensure that laws were amenable to homeschooling when it was just a blip on the societal screen. Now that it is becoming more common and mainstream, I worry that the government will ruin it like all good things with over-regulation or controlling what we can and can't do as parents. 

I pay my school tax bill (which is substantial) and don't use any of the public school services. That's fine, whatever, just leave us alone and let us file our initial affidavit and yearly evaluation and stay out of our business. Our children are doing fine, great even. I can't imagine sending them to a government school at this point, and the meager fruits of Catholic education make that a non-starter for our family as well. 

I'll continue to advocate for the Latin Mass and Catholic Tradition, because it bears good fruit and should be normative, not some scorned leper within the "synodal" Church. But homeschooling? It is literally the best kept secret that I feel no need to shout from the rooftops about. I'm glad more people are discovering it, but just maybe be discerning in who you tell about it, huh? I'm sure the government and school districts have noticed by now, but no need to poke sleeping giants.

"If There Is Not A First Person, There Will Not Be Others"

*Edit: A reader sent me the following from Canon Law Made Easy which has given me pause and is worth pondering for those on the topic and background of the canonical status of the SSPX. Deo Gratias. It is worth reading, here. I also wrote a related post a few years ago here.

I remember starting a firestorm on Facebook once by commenting something to extent of "I thought the SSPX were schismatic?" It was an innocent comment, but fiery trads came out en force to correct me. Truth be told, I needed correcting. I knew nothing about the Society, their founder, or their history; all I had was a wariness and skepticism based on second-hand information. 

Since then I have learned a little more about the canoncial status of the Society of St. Pius X, it's founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, and have interacted (and am friends with) some folks who attend SSPX chapels. The more I learn, the more sympathetic I am and, if it's not too much of a stretch--I have a degree of gratitude as well.

For those not familiar with the background, I'll let Wikipedia do the heavy lifting for me in the interest of time:

Tensions between the society and the Holy See reached their height in 1988, when Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated four bishops without the Apostolic Mandate and against a personal warning by Pope John Paul II, known as the Écône consecrations, resulting in Rome declaring that the bishops who consecrated or were consecrated had incurred latae sententiae (automatic) excommunication. Though the priestly fraternity denied that the bishops incurred any penalty, claiming canon law in their defense, the declared excommunication of the surviving bishops was at their request removed in 2009 in the hope of speedily reaching "full reconciliation and complete communion".

The society has seen a growing recognition of its sacramental and pastoral activities by the Holy See, extending permanent canonical recognition to confessions heard by its priests and allowing local ordinaries to grant delegation to priests of the society for officially witnessing marriages. The significance of these recognitions is that, unique among the sacraments of the Catholic Church, both confession and marriage require canonical jurisdiction for their validity. Critics of the society contended that such confessions could not be heard or marriages witnessed by a Society priest, due to a defect of form as a consequence of lacking jurisdiction.In addition, the Holy See named Bishop Fellay judge in a canonical trial against one of the society's priests. Nevertheless the Society, citing canon law in its defense, contends on its part that it possessed supplied jurisdiction for confessions due to a state of necessity.

It can be argued that Lefebvre went too far in consecrating these bishops without the Apostolic Mandate, and acted in a spirit of disobedience. It can also be argued that, for better or worse, the traditional movement as we know it today may not have survived in the post-conciliar Church were it not for this act of fidelity to Tradition. After all, the FSSP were birthed as a counter-punch to the SSPX, and may not be in existence were it not for this period in history. 

I just watched a video of Jordan Peterson speaking on the subject of homeschooling. He admits he is less skeptical of it today than he was fifteen years ago, but isn't wholeheartedly supportive of it. I like some of the things Peterson talks about (though I think he's becoming a kind of Vigano-type pundit on every topic under the sun now), but I found myself shaking my head on this one. He admits public schools exist for the sake of indoctrinating children rather than educating them. But he speaks as one still skeptical of the claims that homeschoolers can excel and are somehow disadvantaged by having their parents (primarily, mothers) as the sole educator of their children. It's a tired argument ("What about socialization?" "What about Chemistry?" etc) purported in the way I made the comment about the SSPX. Homeschooling our own children, being surrounded by other homeschooler families--sure our experiences are anecdotal (though the data also supports the claims that homeschoolers can not only learn well at home, but excel in academics and critical thinking, among many other things), but I can honestly say I have not met one maladjusted child yet. Mr. Peterson strikes me as someone stuck in a pre-notion twenty years behind.

I don't blame him. Twenty five years ago, I knew one homeschooled kid, and he was in fact pretty weird and socially awkward. He was on our wrestling and track team (I went to public school) and really did well in those sports, but it was obvious his parents were conservative Christians who kept their kids pretty sheltered. This was my sole exposure to a homeschooled kid, which explains why I was so opposed to it for years when my wife gently brought up her desire to follow this way of schooling. 

We know families now (in their sixties) who homeschooled all their kids through high school when no one really did it, and when there was no internet. They were, essentially, pioneers. They attended conferences, had local meetings, and fought for rights and laws to be changed, which we now enjoy the luxury of as a mainstreamed-homeschooling family. Were it not for these families, homeschooling may never have become as relatively mainstream as it is today. For this, also, I owe some gratitude. 

I'm not a pioneer-type of person by nature. I'm usually behind the curve on quite a few things, but catch up quickly when the critical mass begins to build--not as a way to jump on a bandwagon, but because my preconceptions have often been proven wrong and misappropriated. In these two areas--Tradition and home education--we have built our lives on the shoulders of others.

With the talk of "what would you do if the Latin Mass was 'revoked' by the Pope?" circulating (as a friend had asked me this evening by way of text), my answer at this point is, "I don't know." But it has caused me to reflect on the limits of obedience, the fighting spirit, the willingness to go the distance when there is not an army behind you, and the experience of those who have gone before us and what we owe them, whether or not it was done in the way we imagine it 'should' have been done as Monday Morning Quarterbacks. Ignorance is based in fear concerning what we don't know or understand. I'll admit I have been ignorant on many fronts. But I'm always willing to at least pivot and reconsider my presuppositions as I acquire evidence to the contrary. I think this applies to these two related topics at hand.

Lin Zhao, a Christian and political prisoner in Mao's Communist China, wrote in 1957, “Mr. Lu Xun once said, a road is what people make by treading. If there is not a first person, there will not be others, and there will still be no road. The first one who sets his eyes on the light of the distant fire and walks on where there is no road until he falls–he who marks the road with his own blood for those coming after him–will always, always earn our respect.”

The Meager Fruit of Catholic Education

 

I've watched a number of episodes of EWTN's The Journey Home with Marcus Grodi. When it features reverts to the Faith, a consistent theme seems to appear--their parents all "did the best they could," which for many included being provided a Catholic education. Parents of that era (maybe 1980's-1990's) figured the "experts" would do a better job at teaching the faith and passing it on to their children than they would. These may have been families that attended Mass every Sunday and said grace before meals, but in which the imbibed spirit of faith and religion was not substantial in the home. 

My wife had this experience attending Catholic school K-12. Her immigrant parents didn't really teach the faith at home, since that was something to be learned almost as a subject in school. As a result, my wife went through twelve years of Catholic school with very little to show for it in terms of knowledge and love of the faith. No one she went to school with practices the faith as adults. I don't think it's unreasonable to judge a tree by its fruit in these instances.

I used to visit all the Catholic high schools as a college admissions recruiter. In the state we were living in at the time, the public schools were sub-par, so there was a number of Catholic school options in the area, many of them elite college-prep academies. No one sent their kids to these schools for the purpose of faith formation. They basically "weren't the public schools." Many had legacies, reputations, competitive sports teams, and favorable college placement. But they were largely indistinguishable from the public schools except maybe for the uniforms, the behavior, and the (sizable) tuition. The faith identity of the schools from what I could see were mostly "we do service." The vast majority of Catholic colleges (around here, and nationwide) stake their identity on the same unobjectionable, watered-down Catholic-lite humanism: "we do service." Well, even Atheists can "do service." So what is it, exactly, you are selling?

We are in our third year of homeschooling. I was an initial hardcore skeptic, but after seeing the fruit of being the primary educators of our children in faith and morals, as well as academics, I am a strong advocate and believer in homeschooling. Our son was the only one to attend one year of kindergarten at the local public school. His teacher was kind and a good educator, and there were no major red flags. None the less, the thought of handing over our kids to learn...well, we didn't really know what...with kids we didn't know, during his most formative years now--neither my wife nor I have any desire to do this. 

I have little faith in the large majority of Catholic schools either. Though we have a general policy of taking things "year by year, and kid by kid," our children seem to be thriving. Our 3rd grader is at a 5th grade level in reading comprehension and a 7th grade level in language arts. All we really do is read a lot to them at home, and use a general Catholic curriculum which is basic reading/writing/arithmetic. They are active in sports, theater, and co-curricular activities. Neither my wife nor I have a background in education. 

Needless to say, though, I'm very grateful we have the lawful opportunity to educate our children at home. If anyone asks me with earnest sincerity what they should do about the "school issue," I would say if at all possible (and you may have to make sacrifices to do so), homeschool. For the sake of the faith, their character, family relationships, flexibility, guarding the latency period, whatever it is, I can honestly say in the large majority of cases--you will see the fruit. And you have to, to be convinced (or reassured, if you're already in the thick of it). They are your children after all, and most parents want the best for them, but might not always know what that looks like. 

Not all children may necessarily thrive as homeschoolers. Every child is different, with different needs. But I would venture to say that many would, if given a chance. My wife left an almost six-figure salary and we made sacrifices and budget adjustments in order to homeschool our kids, with no regrets. On the flip side, though, we have no school tuition bills, no fundraisers, no constant shuttling. God has also blessed us with many unforeseen graces that confirmed this was the right choice for our family. Like I said, I hope and pray we will continue to be able to do so; if not, I may be forced into parental activism, taking to the streets with a pitchfork, given how strongly I feel about homeschooling after experiencing the benefits. 

For any parents thinking about it, I would say do whatever is necessary to at least give it a try for a least a year, and evaluate it yourself. Each family is different; but I couldn't in good conscience send my kids to the Catholic schools around here, as I feel their faith would be watered down and relegated to a corner of their lives, rather than permeating every aspect of it. With some exceptions, the large majority of them simply have not produced good fruit in terms of a legacy of retaining the faith. Which begs the question--what good is a Catholic school if it doesn't produce good Catholics?

Second Generation Catholicism

 My father in law is a first generation American. About ten years ago I read his life story in a self-published book written for the extended family in which he describes growing up dirt poor in the Philippines under the harsh tutelage of his father (his mother had died when he was young). He would gather snails and coconuts and prawns, but also managed to obtain a scholarship to attend UP to study medicine. He came to the United States with my mother in law in the early 1960's, where he began his residency in New York in the field of gastroenterology. They bought a house in the suburbs, and raised a family. His was a laudable but also relatively commonplace story of those immigrated for a better life and future. 

Like many immigrants, my in laws did not want their kids going through the same hardships they themselves experienced and provided admirably for their needs, including Catholic education K-12. Despite twelve years of Catholic schooling, my wife never really had an encounter with the living Christ until her thirties, right before her and I met. All the formal schooling and religion classes, in the end, only amounted to head knowledge. It was through a lifelong Protestant Christian friend's prayers and encouragement that she began to really have a "personal relationship with Jesus Christ," whom she encountered in prayer and reading the holy scriptures. In fact, just prior to us meeting, my wife was "dating Jesus" for a year after a long-term relationship ended. She did have a sense, however, that she wanted to remain Catholic rather then attend a non-denominational church. 

I think my wife and I really connected on our first date at a coffee shop because we had both had those "personal encounters" with the living God and recounted them to one another. It was alive and well in our collective memory, and we drew from those past encounters with the Holy Spirit; in essence, we knew God was real because we both had experienced Him.

Whereas my wife's parents sent her to Catholic school to more or less transmit the faith (it was never really talked about or taught at home), my faith generated from the latent roots of my infant baptism in a Episcopal church and by proxy to my father's attendance at the Divine Liturgy, but without teaching and without ever having been confirmed or having received the Eucharist. It was an authentic and real encounter in the wilderness at age sixteen that I recognized, by grace, the fundamentals of my condition--a sinner aware of his inability to save himself and his need for redemption and meaning. I was lost, and was found. I formally became a Catholic a couple years later at the age of eighteen.

As a convert not raised in the Faith, I feel like I am a "first generation" Catholic in practice. Like my father in law who knew the stakes and what it took to get to America for a better life despite the odds, I recognized that I was saved by grace but had to search out it's confirmation, learning the faith by my own volition and continuing to believe because I knew, empirically, that it was true.

The other night I was laying in bed talking with my son, who wanted to join me. He had been having doubts about God--how do I know He really exists? What if when we die there's 'nothing there?' My wife and I have been very intentional about teaching and passing on the faith to our kids, while recognizing they have not had those same adult experiences we have of coming to know the Truth first-hand. They are more or less taking our word for the fact that God exists and that we should live lives of virtue, that our citizenship is in Heaven, and that this life in the world is not our final home. Which, it occurred to me, is maybe why my son was struggling with doubt. Something I know innately, he only knows by way of word-of-mouth. His is a second-generation Catholicism.

Like the wise virgins with their oil, you want so badly to give your children the lived experience you have had so that they "know the truth that sets one free," but by it's very nature, it is not something that can be transferred. Like character, you can only live it out yourself, not transfer it to someone else to put on like a borrowed suit. 

We can and should pray fervently and often for our children, that they may receive that grace that was so lavishly poured upon us and which we know the Lord desires to give to all those who ask for it, and that they might have a real encounter with the Living God. We should desire the consistent "both/and" so fitting for our Catholic faith of a "personal relationship with Jesus Christ" as well as our religion with all its rich teaching and doctrine which allows us to live sacramentally and gives us a compass to navigate by.

It's difficult for me to navigate as a parent--if I put too much pressure on my son and panic at his reasonable doubts, there is the possibility of pushing him farther from faith. If I don't use it as a teaching moment and let him drift away on his own, who knows what kind of teaching he will find downstream in the culture. Knowing our children belong to God (and are consecrated to Mary and St. Joseph as well), I don't fear, but I don't always know how to direct things. As a first generation Catholic, I'm learning as I go! 

I also realize there are no guarantees that our children will persist in the faith. We pray and hope that they do and do everything we can to teach and prepare them while living it out ourselves with joy. But our children do not ultimately belong to us, but to God. We can only control them so much when they are younger, and they have free will of their own, the double-edged gift from God Himself, exercising it more and more as they get older. Life is not so easily controlled.

I do, however, pray they will encounter the Holy Spirit of God, which cut through me like a wind for the first time at a punk-rock show in a Church basement as a preacher prayed over the crowd on stage. It was an unlikely and unscripted place to have such a genuine and razing encounter. Maybe that's why the Holy Spirit is sometimes referred to as the "wild goose." I followed Him where He led, and He led me to the doors of the Church. I can only pray my own children encounter this God who saves in a real way, so that it's not just second-hand head knowledge we are passing down. I experienced every one of their births for the first time; but I hope to see them 'born again' in the Spirit so that they know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that He exists, that He is Truth, and that He is as real as the air we breathe.