Parents’ Right to Educate Their Children Is ‘Inalienable’
With respect, I disagree with the conclusions regarding homeschooling drawn by Fr. Peter Stravinskas (“Will the Real Vatican II Please Stand Up?” July-August 2003 and “Letters,” September 2003).
My starting point, like Fr. Stravinskas, is Gravissimum Educationis, which states, “Catholic parents are reminded of their duty to send their children to Catholic schools wherever this is possible” (GE 8). That document, however, also states, “Parents . . . have a primary and inalienable duty and right in regard to the education of their children” (GE 6, emphasis added). At first blush, these two statements seem contradictory. If the mere existence of a Catholic school trumps the parents’ “inalienable” right to be the primary educators of their children, then that right is not inalienable at all.
But the Vatican Fathers also spoke to the “principle of subsidiarity” under which society should undertake the duty of education only “when the efforts of the parents and of other organizations are inadequate” (GE 3). Though this principle of subsidiarity is applied only to “society” in the Vatican II document, Pope John Paul II has applied the principle to the Church with respect to the education process in at least two encyclicals.
In his 1994 Letter to Families, the Pope stated, “Parents are the first and most important educators of their own children, and they also possess a fundamental competence in this area: they are educators because they are parents. They share their educational mission with other individuals or institutions, such as the Church and the state. But the mission of education must always be carried out in accordance with a proper application of the principle of subsidiarity. This implies the legitimacy and indeed the need of giving assistance to the parents, but it finds its intrinsic and absolute limit in their prevailing right and their actual capabilities. The principle of subsidiarity is thus at the service of parental love, meeting the good of the family unit” (Letter to Families 16, emphasis in original).
In Familiaris Consortio, the Pope restates this principle and again applies it to the Church: “The right of parents to choose an education in conformity with their religious faith must be absolutely guaranteed. The state and the Church have the obligation to give families all possible aid to enable them to perform their educational role properly. Therefore both the Church and the state must create and foster the institutions and activities that families justly demand and the aid must be in proportion to the families’ needs. However, those in society who are in charge of schools must never forget that the parents have been appointed by God himself as the first and principal educators of their children and that their right is completely inalienable (FC 40, all emphasis added).
And again, in paragraph 36: “The right and duty of parents to give education is essential . . . it is irreplaceable and inalienable, and therefore incapable of being entirely delegated to others or usurped by others” (emphasis in original).
The Catechism also affirms the proposition that “the right and duty of parents to educate their children are primordial and inalienable” (CCC 2221). While there is no mention in the Catechism of any obligation to send children to Catholic schools, the paragraph dealing with “choosing schools” states, “As far as possible parents have the duty of choosing schools that will best help them in their task as Christian educators” (CCC 2229).
This suggests what I believe is the proper and the only sensible way to reconcile the statement in Gravissimum Educationis about the duty to send children to Catholic schools where possible with the statements in that document and elsewhere in Church teaching that the parents’ right to educate their children is completely inalienable and that both the Church and the state must abide strictly to the principle of subsidiarity in providing assistance in education. That is, parents have a duty to send their children to a Catholic school where possible when they are themselves unable or unwilling to educate their children or when they otherwise decide to seek the assistance of a school in their education efforts. In other words, the issue arises only after the parents have decided to send their children to a school.
Understood thusly, all of the pieces fall neatly into place. Understood otherwise, a right that is “completely inalienable” becomes alienable and the key principle of subsidiarity is trampled upon.
Joseph D. Pollack
Twinsburg, Ohio
Editor’s reply: We concur with your understanding of these documents.
Scientists Qua Politicians
I liked the item “Epilepsy as Religious Experience” (“The Apologist’s Eye,” July-August 2003). Many modern “scholars/scientists” and organized institutes indeed try to rationalize and discredit the miraculous stories in the Bible. I wonder why this group of scholars does not scrutinize the miraculous events claimed by the Catholic Church almost every year, especially during the canonization process. One great way to discredit the Catholic Church is to prove her miraculous claims to be faults or lies.
Reaching negative scientific conclusions on these past events rather than on the current, similar events is unfair. It is mere speculation with an agenda. It is sad to see how some scientists degrade themselves into such insincere, dishonest politicians. I also wonder how honest the scientific world is regarding nature. I have not seen an official public schoolbook mentioning Lourdes, the dancing sun at Fatima as witnessed by tens of thousands, or our Lady’s picture at Guadalupe being visited by millions annually. It is as if these events never happened or do not exist. Do I have to remind the scientific world to be truthful, fact-finding, and honest without bias regarding nature? Are the qualities of truth, honor, fairness, and honesty still considered politically acceptable today?
Rich Ng
El Monte, California
Chain of Logic
I look forward to receiving This Rock and read every article. Each issue contains apologetic gems I hadn’t run across before. However, I’d like to offer a couple of enhancements to your “Step by Step” feature on the papacy (“Where Does the Bible Say Anything about the Papacy?” July-August 2003).
With regard to Matthew 16:18, the Protestant argument that Jesus wasn’t renaming Simon himself to “Rock” (Petros in Greek, Kepha in Aramaic) is devastated by other scriptural evidence. When Jesus first met Peter, he prophesied a name change: “So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas” (John 1:42). According to my Bible dictionary, cephas exists in Greek only as an equivalent of the Aramaic word kepha, which means “rock” or “crag.” Matthew 16:18 is obviously Jesus’ fulfillment of his earlier promise to rename Simon to “Rock.”
When I read Karl Keating’s book Catholicism and Fundamentalism, I was unable to take Karl’s leap from the Greek petros in Matthew 16:18 to his claim that Jesus actually spoke this in Aramaic using the word kepha. John 1:42 and the definition of cephas as kepha in my Bible dictionary were, for me, critical missing links in the chain of logic needed to prove the Catholic position on Matthew 16:18.
Protestants could also be asked why they refuse to acknowledge Peter as “Rock” when Paul’s epistles commonly call him Cephas. Paul was fluent in Greek, so he certainly knew that cephas means “rock.” The fact that the events described in Matthew 16:18 occurred at Caesarea Philippi, the site of a 200-by-500-foot rock, is also significant.
Deloris Gross
Turtle Lake, Wisconsin
Poor Justification for the Inquisition
I have to take issue with the article on the Inquisition (“Classic Apologetics,” July-August 2003). I wonder if others saw the parallel between the treatment of the heretics by the inquisitors and the treatment of Jesus. Jesus was tortured but not mutilated. He was handed over to civil authority by the Jewish church leaders. The times were arguably as violent as the Middle Ages. And the Jewish leaders rationalized their actions by accusing Jesus of heresy and of being a threat to the social order.
Mr. Sheed suggests that it is reasonable to attribute a motive of self-defense for the torture and execution of heretics. The implication is that the Church (leaders or lay people) can be excused of violating fundamental Church teachings because of the society and culture of the times. Perhaps there is more of a basis for the self-defense argument than was evident in the article, but it is just as easy to assume that the inquisitors were blinded by pride and the simple corruption of power.
This apologetic does a grave disservice to both the Catholics of medieval days who did not endorse the atrocities of the Inquisition as well as modern day Catholics who live in a world that may be more morally confused than in the days of Pope Gregory IX.
Guy O’Buck
Atlanta, Georgia
Common Sense
As an avid reader of your publications and a monthly supporter of your ministries, I thoroughly enjoyed your Grand Canyon article (“The Testimony of Rocky Halls,” July-August 2003). I’m also an avid Grand Canyon backpacker, having done twenty-three trips there since 1979. I too have referred “young earth proponents” to the geology in the Grand Canyon as evidence of the millions of years it has taken to produce such a sublime spectacle of nature. And I’ve referred these same individuals to Michael Collier’s classic An Introduction to Grand Canyon Geology for an in-depth study of the evidence. But I don’t think these “Ussherites” will change their minds until they hike down to the bottom of the Inner Gorge and touch the metamorphic/foliated Vishnu Schist, estimated to be 1.2–2 billion years old. At that point, common sense will hopefully kick in.
John Southrey
via the Internet
Speculation Ex Nihilo
All created things have length, width, and depth and thus have at least the appearance of age as soon as they are created. If I make a cutaway model of a tree, I might put in the rings to give it the appearance of being fifty years old even though I just made it. Certainly God could do the same with his creation. The earth could have been created as a homogeneous mass that gradually changed, or it could have been created with layers and uneven mixtures of various rocks and metals already in place. It could have been created as a smooth sphere, or it could have been created with mountains, valleys, and rivers already in place. It could even have been created with a combination of the ideas just expressed. The fun part is in the speculation.
It seems, that your conclusion of an old earth based on your Grand Canyon observations (“The Testimony of Rocky Halls,” July-August 2003) tends to channel God’s creativity along a specific mindset. In your particular example, the Colorado River would have had to start out being as wide as the span across the top of the canyon. As the river then carved the rock, it would have had to continue getting narrower to end up where it is today. That’s quite a versatile source of water, particularly considering the Arizona landscape. In any event, I do agree that the Grand Canyon is a spectacular sight and is truly one of God’s awe inspiring creations. Thanks for the pictures.
Leo Kowalyk
Highland, Michigan
Men of Science Have an Agenda
As a long time reader of This Rock, I was dismayed at the attitude you display in “The Testimony of Rocky Halls” (July-August 2003). In your denigration of young earth proponents and your enthusiastic support of the “old earth theory,” you demonstrate the degree to which your beliefs have been influenced by modern science.
Your acceptance of the current flavor of the week (or century) allowed you to be awed at the testimony before your eyes. Seeing may be believing, but are we to accept the evidence of our eyes over the inerrancy of Scripture? (And I believe it is the inerrancy of Scripture that is at stake in this debate.)
Contrary to your assertion that belief in a young earth is new, eccentric, and damaging to the Church, the literal interpretation of Genesis was held by the Church Fathers and has been taught by our faith for over 1,900 years. I still hold that belief even though the science of our day appears to have refuted it. Why? Because the men of science, from Darwin on down, have had an agenda. They needed to find an explanation for the world exclusive of God. So continues the atheistic search, not for truth but for justification of their beliefs.
Always believing that God’s truth will win out—with the right scientific men of faith to look—I am pleased to find that the evidence is being discovered. You agree that such men have poked holes in Darwin, but perhaps you missed the growing body of evidence that contradicts the current vogue of extreme age of the earth as well.
We have a lot more going for us than “evolution is false, so the earth must be young.” In fact, you have it backwards. Evolution would have required vast ages. Men of like mind in the geology field were only too happy to comply. Today we have been so inundated with this “science” that even most Catholics, you included, dare not question it lest they appear backward, ignorant, fundamentalist, or superstitious.
It is the old-age theory that is new, conveniently based upon assumptions that cannot be proven at this point in our understanding. This theory can, however, be questioned.
Catholic teaching bids we consider first a literal interpretation of Scripture, and in my mind there is no compelling reason not to do so with Genesis. Those who say otherwise make some pretty amazing linguistic imaginings in an attempt to make their theories and the “truth” in Scripture compatible.
Mary Schwartz
Jim Thorpe, Pennsylvania
Editor’s reply: It is within the parameters of Catholic belief to subscribe to either special or instantaneous creation (i.e., “young earth” theory) or developmental creation (also known as theistic evolution). What must believed is that “the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing” (Vatican II, Canons on God the Creator of All Things, canon 5). The Church does not have an official position on whether the earth and its various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.
As to the inerrancy of the book of Genesis, the Church also teaches that “the sacred writers, or more truly ‘the Spirit of God who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men such truths (as the inner structure of visible objects) which do not help anyone to salvation’; and that, for this reason, rather than trying to provide a scientific exposition of nature, they sometimes describe and treat these matters either in a somewhat figurative language or as the common manner of speech those times required” (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus 18).