Only the competent authorities, referred to in Canon 803 §3, can determine this. I would submit, however, that this is not what is going on canonically. Home-schooling parents are not determining whether a school is Catholic (they do not have the canonical right to do so), but rather they are determining what is the best means by which they believe their children can attain a Catholic education. In other words, they are not making an official determination about the school per se, but rather they are discerning whether or not their children would best receive a Catholic education through the means of a particular school. The determination concerns what is best for the children, not for the school. Under Canon 793 §1, we see that it is not only the parents' right, but their duty to make that determination.

Just as parents do not have the power to designate what is a Catholic school and what is not, pastors do not have the canonical right to decide which particular means are the best means for a particular child to receive a Catholic education. The duty and the right to determine which schools are Catholic schools lie with the competent authority, usually the bishop. (cf. cann. 802 §1 and 803 §1) The duty and the right to arrange everything so that the faithful can have a Catholic education belong to pastors of souls. (cf. can. 794 §2) But, the duty and the right to determine which means are the best means for a particular child to receive a Catholic education lie properly with the parents of that child. The idea that Catholic parents do not have the right to choose home schooling as a legitimate means for the Catholic education of their child seriously goes against the norms of Canons 793 §1 and 1136.

"When and where possible"

Opponents of the right of Catholic parents to home school sometimes cite Gravissimum Educationis 8 as (in the words of Father Stravinskas) an "eminently clear and unnuanced norm." Their implication is that if you are a Catholic parent, you may not do anything other than send your children to Catholic schools, wherever and whenever a Catholic school exists. However, a closer reading of Gravissimum Educationis 8 shows that the wording is not absolute; the section includes the phrase "quando et ubi possunt"--"when and where possible."

When would it not be "possible" for parents to send their children to a Catholic school? Logically speaking, parents might find it impossible either physically or morally.

When there is a physical impossibility, such as distance or geography, Catholic parents obviously do not act contrary to Gravissimum Educationis if they choose to home school. Catholic parents must examine carefully all the means of education available and make the appropriate choice for their children, keeping firmly in mind their duty to provide a Catholic education. Certainly, if no Catholic school is available, home schooling does not violate the Council's norm.

Similarly, where there is a moral impossibility, Catholic parents who choose to home school do not act contrary to Gravissimum Educationis. If Catholic parents--taking seriously and prayerfully their right and duty to provide the best means for the Catholic education of their child--honestly come to the conclusion that home schooling would be the best for their particular child, they would be acting contrary to their consciences to choose another means. Canon law not only allows but also requires that they make this prudential decision; to act otherwise would be a violation of their consciences and thus present a moral impossibility.

Another factor that Catholic parents must consider under moral impossibility is cost. They must determine whether the Catholic school is affordable for their family, and indeed whether it would be the best use of the resources available to provide for the Catholic education of this child. In this regard, the bishops, dioceses, parishes, and pastors who work diligently to make their Catholic schools affordable are to be commended. However, their efforts, even if they are successful, do not absolve Catholic parents from the important prudential decision that they must make.

Alternative schools

Furthermore, the view that Gravissimum Educationis absolutely requires parents to send their children to approved Catholic schools, regardless of the circumstances, overstates the case. Small academies, private schools, and schools directed by Catholic groups or movements would also be off limits, if they were not designated as official "Catholic schools" by the local ordinary. Under the Rogers-Stravinskas-Hettinger view, enrollment in such a school would also be forbidden by canon law, regardless of whether or not the school did in fact provide a Catholic education. The all-important factor under the Rogers-Stravinskas-Hettinger view is whether or not the school is designated by the bishop as a "Catholic" school. If it is, then Catholic parents must send their children to them, regardless of other considerations; if no, then they are forbidden to do so. However this is not the criterion employed by Canons 793 and 798. It is the reality of a Catholic education, not merely the reality of a Catholic designation, that is the controlling criterion for these two canons. It is clear from the text of Canon 803 §3 ("Even if it is in fact Catholic.") that canon law acknowledges the existence of schools that are in fact Catholic but not formally designated as such.

How then should we understand Gravissimum Educationis 8? Once again, the Code of Canon Law provides the proper understanding and juridical expression of this Vatican II principle. In Canon 798, which takes as its source Gravissimum Educationis 8, we find:

Parents are to entrust their children to those schools which provide a Catholic education. If they are unable to do this, they are obliged to take care that suitable Catholic education is provided for their children outside the schools.

At first glance, this canon seems to be making a blanket statement that Catholic parents must make use of Catholic schools only. However, once again a closer examination shows that this is not the case. It is not the "Catholic school" per se to which the parents are to entrust their children, but rather "schools which provide a Catholic education," whether they be designated "Catholic" or not. The focus is not on the Catholic school but on the Catholic education.

This is also emphasized two canons prior, in Canon 796 §1, where the Catholic school is explicitly referred to as "among" the means that foster education. The concern of Canon 798 is not that parents send their child to Catholic schools, but that parents must provide their children a Catholic schooling. Canon 798 goes on to say that the inability to do this, due to physical or moral impossibility, not only warrants the possibility that parents should provide for this Catholic education elsewhere (such as through home schooling) but creates an obligation for them to do so.

Of note also is the language of Canon 798. In the Latin (the only official language for the Code of Canon Law), it does not use the construction "parentes debent"--"parents must"--which would be the strongest obligatory language in canonical usage. Rather, it uses the subjunctive construction "parentes concredant"--"parents should entrust"--which carries a lighter shade of recommendation. Thus Canon 798 is an exhortation and not an absolute mandate.

It is important to note also that Canon 798, if it were interpreted as a mandate, would seriously limit the exercise of a parental right and thus must be subject to strict interpretation under the requirement of Canon 18. When one applies a strict interpretation to Canon 798, it is simply impossible to change an exhortation for parents to provide a Catholic education to their child into a mandate for parents to send their child to a Catholic school.

Any interpretation that sees Canon 798 as an absolute mandate would render Canon 793 §1, in particular, meaningless. Catholic parents--who are said in no uncertain terms to possess the duty and the right to determine the means of providing for the Catholic education of their child--would mysteriously lose this right. Why would the Church go to such great lengths continually to emphasize the right and duty of parents to determine the proper Christian education of their own children, only to legislate that the only way this can be done is through the neighborhood parish school? This would also put the Church in the hypocritical position of demanding from the state a true freedom for parents in the choice of means and schools, on the basis of natural-law argumentation, while absolutely denying this natural-law right when it comes to home schooling.

What Rome Thinks

What does Rome think on this issue? Does the Holy See think that parents are well within their canonical rights if they choose to home school their children? The question has been addressed by Rome since 1988.

In 1988, two Catholic families contacted the Holy See with a grave concern regarding the use of the Benzinger Family Life Program and the New Creation Series for Catholic education in human sexuality. The Pontifical Commission for the Family (PCF) responded, informing the families that the two programs in question were under investigation. It then, in clear terms, urged the parents that until the results of the examination are available:

.as parents, you [should] exercise your right, recognized by the magisterium of the Church, to teach your own children either by yourselves or by another person or persons of your choosing." (emphasis added)

Note that the PCF declares clearly that the right of the parents to decide to teach their own children personally is a right that is recognized by the magisterium of the Church.

Some may argue that this letter addresses only a particular situation where dubious texts were under investigation and thus does not legitimize the option to home school. Though this argument is stretching a bit, it might be credible had the PCF stopped with just this one letter. However, the same Council again addressed the issue in a response to another inquiry regarding the role of pastors in the education of children, and this second response clearly defined its view of home schooling. In this second letter, the PCF first reiterates the norm found in Familiaris Consortio: that the right and duty of parents to educate their children is essential, original and primary, irreplaceable and inalienable. Quoting Canon 226 §2, the letter underscores the principle that since parents have given life to their children, parents have the most serious obligation and enjoy the right to educate them. Then, giving the proper interpretation of these rights, the Council cites the canons on Catholic education, stating:

It is in the light of these canons [226 §1; 774 §2 and 793 §1] that the rights and duties of ecclesiastical persons are to be interpreted. These persons are to assist the parents in fulfilling their sacred obligation and in executing their sacred right, not to take them over. (emphasis in original)

Far from stopping at theoretical principles, the PCF goes on to apply the principles to the concrete question of home schooling. Nowhere does the PCF state that the Church requires parents to send their children to Catholic schools, whether in Canon 798 or Gravissimum Educationis 8 or anywhere else. On the contrary, it strongly and clearly states:

The role of the pastor, therefore, is to give a service of assistance by providing the parents with the means to form their child. The parents, however are not obliged to accept this assistance if they prefer to exercise exclusively their obligation and right to educate their own children. This is a natural right, and is not altered by the right of the Church. E.g., cc. 793, 914. (emphasis added)

There is no doubt that the PCF sees no canonical obligation for parents to make use of parish sacramental programs or even Catholic schools if, after a reasoned and prayerful consideration, parents decide to undertake the obligation of educating their children themselves. This right of parents is perfectly in line with canon law, and indeed is protected by canon law. Recall that Canon 796 §1 states that schools are the principal assistance to parents in fulfilling the function of education. As the Pontifical Council underscores, parents are under no obligation to accept this assistance.

The PCF leaves no ambiguity, directly addressing the relationship of this right and obligation of parents with regard to the Catholic school, and not just catechetical instruction:

In times past, parents were only too happy to be assisted by the Catholic school system in the formation of their children. Now, however, this is no longer the case in many a diocese where Catholic schools are permitted to use certain catechetical texts which, though bearing an imprimatur, are gravely deficient in following the magisterium.

Following the norm of Canon 226 §2, the PCF then reminds parents that should they elect to undertake their children's education personally, it should be done following the teaching which is handed on by the Church.

In the end, the claim that canon law forbids the option of home schooling under normal circumstances does violence to canon law itself by misreading some canons, dismissing other canons or rendering them meaningless. Home-schooling parents must remember that they are to hold schools in high esteem (cf. 796 §1) and to support the Catholic schools in whatever ways they can, proper to their situation. They also must keep in mind that they indeed do belong to a larger community of the Church as manifested in the parish and the diocese. However, these obligations in no way preclude the right of Catholic parents to choose home schooling. Neither Vatican II nor canon law forbids the right of parents to undertake personally the Catholic education of their children. On the contrary, the canonical laws of the Church protect this right.

Benedict T. Nguyen is the Chancellor of the Diocese of La Crosse, Wisconsin, where he also serves as Defender of the Bond before the diocesan tribunal.

This article originally appeared in the April 2004 issue of The Catholic World Report.

1 2