Another Look at the Round Table

~ an independent report by Vivian Dudro

 

The following email was received by KIC on November 24, 1998 . It was sent by Julia Fogassy of Seattle,WA to a large list of Catholic homeschool support and network leaders, as well as Fr. Kris Stubna of Pittsburgh, PA. Let it be noted that Fr. Stubna's role as editor to the sex ed ("chastity") series Catholic Vision of Love and other sex ed programs is a cause of disagreement among homeschool networks, groups and individuals. The actual report is written by Vivian Dudro.

 

Report on Round Table 1998

 

By Vivian Dudro

 

My sixth grade teacher put our class through an exercise I will never forget. Upon the signal of dropping his pen, I threw my books down on my desk, burst into tears and marched out of the room. (This was in public school, mind you.) Other previously arranged things happened, and after everything was restored to normal, my classmates were asked to report what had happened. Now everyone in that room was an eyewitness of everything that went on, yet no two accounts were exactly the same.

 

Only one student was astute enough to realize that the dropping pen was the catalyst that set everything else into motion. It is with a little trepidation that I attempt to piece together a report on Round Table 1998, which met in Houston Nov. 6-8, not only because I recognize that my powers of observation and retention are finite, but also, and even more especially, because many homeschooling leaders already are suffering from misunderstandings and misjudgements, and I do not wish to add to their already heavy burden.

 

Nevertheless, the issues that were discussed are so important to homeschoolers now and in the future, that we must not back down from the difficult task of sorting things out. I am convinced that homeschoolers are doing a tremendous service to families everywhere in clarifying the inalienable duties and rights of parents. The family is under attack by our spiritual enemy, and as it crumbles, the state is encroaching upon it and aggrandizing itself in the process. We must realize that we homeschoolers represent a bulwark against the enemy and against the state, and of course we will suffer for it!

 

While other topics came up at Round Table and will be discussed later in this report, the two most important issues were, in my opinion, sex education and diocesan guidelines. These seem like two different topics, but in fact they intersect each other at that juncture where we define the duties and rights of parents. The reader might take notice that I prefer to list duties and rights in that order. That is because I wish to draw attention to the fact that one precedes the other. We have rights from God precisely because we have been given duties by Him. We have the primary rights with respect to the education of our children because we have been given the primary duty to raise them. This is a point of political philosophy about which every homeschooler must be clear.

 

Illustrating this point very nicely were the handouts provided to the Round Table by Julia Fogassy and Katherine Eames of Seattle. These two ladies had done their homework and had produced graphics, analysis and documentation.

 

At this point, I would like to mention that I missed the Sunday session about legislative initiatives. This issue ranks right up there with the aforementioned ones.

 

Ellen Kramer of Pennsylvania came prepared with up-to-date information on forthcoming bills, the merits of which can be judged according to the true definition of parental duties and rights. So you see, if we Catholic homeschoolers can get it straight with ourselves, our bishops and our pastors, the Church will become an even stronger advocate of the family in the battles that lie ahead.

 

Back to Julia and Katherine, if I can sum up their point about sex ed, it is this: While explicit and therefore age inappropriate content has been the attention grabber on this matter (And no one, perhaps, has done more to uncover how truly terrible these programs can be than has Mothers' Watch ), the real issue is that educators (in this case Catholic ones), however well intentioned some may be, are ursurping a responsibility that belongs to parents.

 

We must then shift the terms of the debate away from whether this program is good or that one bad and toward whether this subject matter should be taught to children in a fashion that bypasses their parents. "But what about all the children whose parents refuse to teach them?" many will ask.

 

To address this very real problem, the Church must resist the temptation to ursurp the parents' role and aim her educational efforts in this area at adults, and Heaven knows how needy American Catholics are of sound formation in this area. However, even then the Church must be careful not to let the secular world dictate the content. Her mission is to preach the Gospel, not dispense Planned Parenthood materials.

 

Dr. Mary Kay Clark, founder of Seton Home Study School, made the observation that simply reviewing modern sex education materials, even those produced by Catholic publishers, can have a corrupting effect on one's thoughts, which only underscores what happens to children in classrooms.

 

By turning what ought to be a private, discreet, and personal exchange of information between parent and child according to the child's own special needs into a public, indiscreet and impersonal discussion between teachers and mixed classes of boys and girls of various backgrounds and developmental stages undermines purity, modesty and self-control.

 

For this reason, the Round Table passed a resolution discouraging the marketing of explicit sex education materials designed for classroom use to homeschoolers. Diocesan guidelines for sacramental preparation was the next big topic.

 

Thanks to the attendance of Fr. James O'Connor of the St. Joseph's Foundation, the Round Table had an expert on hand to answer questions regarding canon law, a great assest indeed. The conversation on guidelines can be divided into two areas: 1) defining the respective responsibilities of parents and bishops, and 2) debating the moves made by national homeschool organizations to address this issue.

 

Enter again Fogassy and Eames. Once more they made the point that the primary question is not about the content of various guidelines but whether such guidelines, insofar as they are addressed to parents, are improper because they represent a ursurpation by the bishop of responsibilities that belong to the parents.

 

They argued that while the bishop may issue guidelines to his pastors regarding the time, manner and place of the sacraments, and while he may protect the authenticity of the Faith by forbidding the use of erroneous materials in his diocese, and while he also may guide pastors in their delicate task of ascertaining the proper disposition of a candidate for a sacrament, the bishop may not issue guidelines directed at parents regarding the ways and means of bringing up their children in the Faith.

 

They may not, for example, mandate that parents place their children in particular programs or use particular books. To back up their argument , Eames and Fogassy presented a 1988 letter from Edouard Cardinal Gagnon, president of the Pontifical Council for the Family, which states that parents are not obliged to accept the catechetical assistance offered by their pastor.

 

While Fr. O'Connor agreed that parents are not obligated to place their children in parish or diocesan programs, he said the Eames/Fogassy analysis limited the bishop too much. The roles of parent and bishop are mutual, he said. It is difficult to divide up the task into neat spheres of domain.

 

Though his remarks left me with more ambiguity than clarity on this point, he clearly stood on the side of parents who choose not to utilize Church programs and hinted that pastors and bishops are being less than generous when they withhold the sacraments from the children of such parents.

 

To avoid such a situation with Confirmation, he suggested that the candidate write the bishop himself requesting the sacrament and that the parents, sponsors and even godparents write letters of endorsement. These should be sent via certified mail. If the request is denied there are proper channels of appeal, but recourse to these should be taken only as a last resort, he said. The discussion grew animated when the topic shifted from the guidelines themselves to initiatives taken by national homeschool leaders on this front. Here some background is necessary.

 

Kimberly Hahn, known nationally for her book on homeschooling and her leadership role in the National Association of Catholic Home Educators (NACHE), helped the Diocese of Pittsburgh draft sacramental preparation guidelines for homeschooling parents. Hahn does not reside in the Diocese of Pittsburgh, and it has been alleged that the concerns of homeschoolers who do and who were not in favor of the guidelines were discounted.

 

The resulting guidelines are unnecessarily long, detailed and therefore burdensome to parents, in the opinion of this writer. The stress is upon the need for parents to cooperate with parishes rather than the other way round, which opens the door for the intimidation of parents by either pastors or CCD directors.

 

Needless to say, Hahn's actions and the resulting guidelines have drawn fire. It appeared that none of the Round Table attendees were happy about how things transpired in Pittsburgh.

 

In response to the situation in Pittsburgh, the Catholic Home School Network of America (CHSNA) has since produced an enlightening booklet titled "Responsibilities and Rights of Parents in Religious Education," which they mailed to every bishop in the country. The book provides 50 pages of sound Catholic teaching regarding parental duties and rights, with ample citations from canon law. All of the Round Table participants seemed grateful for those first 50 pages.

 

However, some (e.g. Eames and Fogassy) took exception to the last four pages which recommend both the Pittsburgh policy and that of the Diocese of Atlanta, which states that children educated in the Faith at home are exempt from requirements to attend catechetical programs, as models for other dioceses.

 

The booklet qualifies this recommendation with the assertion that no policy is the best policy and that any policy directed at the ways and means used by parents to teach their own children must be declared optional. Fogassy equated the actions of CHSNA with those of Hahn, in that both parties went directly to the bishops with recommendations, bypassing the homeschoolers in those dioceses.

 

Ken Clark, legal counsel for Seton Home Study School, defended the CHSNA booklet by saying that the push for guidelines is snowballing and that the bishops need to be informed by people other than their own educational experts, who in many cases will draft the guidelines. Better to provide the bishops with the most harmless examples of guidelines and do their work for them, than leave it up to their staff, he said.

 The good intentions of Hahn and CHSNA were not and should not be called into question. But whether or not principles of subsidiarity and representation are being violated unintentionally by either the guidelines themselves or the parties that have inserted themselves into the writing process was. In spite of some differences of opinion, the discussion exposed how differently one's actions can be interpreted by others and how unintended consequences are bound to result when people begin operating on behalf of others.

 

Another topic on the agenda was the use by Catholic homeschoolers of non-Catholic or even anti-Catholic materials. A resolution was passed that encourages the use of Catholic materials where available. (KIC NOTE INSERT: In other words, without mentioning our network by name, those attending the Round Table espoused the basic message promoted by Keep It Catholic!) The discussion of this subject aroused some thoughts and questions in the mind of this writer that were not able to be fully addressed by the Round Table. But they are, I think, worthy of further exploration.

 

Let me explain. Many Catholic homeschoolers use study schools, such as Seton and Our Lady of the Rosary, that provide Catholic textbooks in every possible subject. But many Catholic homeschoolers weave together their own curriculum combining Catholic and non-Catholic materials. Some use textbooks mostly to provide the scope and sequence of information; some select only those portions of textbooks that meet their objectives. Some use lessons that present a non-Catholic or even anti-Catholic point of view as a teaching tool in apologetics. Finally, some parents avoid textbooks as much as possible, preferring original sources and their own innovative exercises. In any case, it must be made clear that the parent, not the books, is the real curriculum.

 

 

Furthermore, Catholic parents should be exposing their children to "the good, the true and the beautiful", whether or not overtly Catholic materials are used. Of course, all are agreed that Catholic materials are necessary for teaching the Faith. While any responsible parent should welcome critical analyses of available materials, and while homeschooling leaders can provide a real service to parents in producing such analyses, the freedom of parents to choose their methods and materials must be respected. Otherwise we risk going against the very principle upon which homeschooling rests, that the parents are responsible for discerning what is best for their own children.

 

(KIC NOTE: We have to disagree with this last line on principle because we, as Catholics, must follow the Church's authentic teachings on Catholic education., while at the same time recognizing and respecting parental subsidiarity.)

 

Another subject that was discussed at the Round Table was the formation of associations of Catholic homeschoolers. NACHE is in the process of forming an association with the help of Cardinal Keeler of Baltimore.

 

Julia Fogassy and some friends are networking with homeschoolers in other countries and trying to discern what if any formal organization can be arranged for their mutual benefit. A lot of questions were left unanswered, but there seemed to be a consensus among the participants that this is an area that should be pursued with a great deal of prayer, caution and prudence.

 

No one wants the principle of subsidiarity violated by organizations directed by the clergy making pronouncements about what Catholic homeschoolers should and should not do. And no one wants the existence of organizations to produce insiders and outsiders within the homeschooling movement. However, we can expect more developments in this area, as those who are eager for more official contact with the heirarchy of the Church and those who desire greater unity and collaboration among homeschoolers continue on their respective courses.


 

LinkExchange
LinkExchange Member