ASK FATHER: It is mortal sin for parents to send their children to public schools?

From a reader…


With the recent dustups involving education curriculum in the United States I feel this is an important question to ask.

Some on social media have suggested that, with what’s going on public schools these days, it is mortal sin for parents to send their children to public schools.  Some have also pointed out that older examens have said that sending your children to a school where they receive an education dangerous to their faith is a sin to be confessed, and this would exclude all public schools.

So my question is, is it truly a sin to send your children to public schools?  Most parents unfortunately cannot afford Catholic school and don’t have the time to homeschool.

In an absolute sense, no, it is not a mortal sin to send you children to a public (in the USA sense) school.  However, each lived instance out there is different and a one size answer cannot possible fit all.

I know that there are readers out there who will be very interested in this topic.  I also know that some of them have dealt with this and who have found solutions.  Whether or not the solutions are perfect is a matter of debate.   We also must not fall into the trap of making the perfect the enemy of the good.

That said, you sort of have me boxed in.   You say that old examens say that it is a sin to put your child’s faith in danger.  I agree.  That might happen at a public school, especially these days, so that position of the examen seems even stronger.   And we have to admit that some Catholic schools are pretty dangerous to the faith of children.

Catholic schools can have a wide ranger of tuition options: some can be expensive, others less so.  Almost all of them have some sort of plan for parents whose incomes are lower, or have several children.   Therefore, you really have to go talk to the (probably) parish priest in charge of the school.   Find out your options.  Find out what homeschool groups there are in the area.

But, if you say you really can’t afford Catholic school, even having checked on things, and you really can’t homeschool, what am I supposed to say about public school as the last resort?

If I had been reading a lot of Dickens these days, instead of what I am reading (not Swift’s Modest Proposal), I would tell you to farm out your kids to a cobbler or blacksmith or an undertaker and have done with the whole thing.  Sad to see the last of them?  Sure, for a while.  But be assured of a sudden reappearance after a couple of decades and adventures.

It could be that readers here will have somewhat less Victorian solutions.




About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box. Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Boniface says:

    This is a very difficult question – and I don’t mean whether or not it’s a mortal sin according to older books. On that account, I would put that aside, since everything has changed since those comments about mortal were written (as in, an assumption that all Catholic schools could be relied upon to be solid).

    The vast majority of public schools are a nightmare of evil influences, and that (perhaps even mostly) includes the influences that come from one’s children’s classmates and their home backgrounds.

    Regarding Catholic schools, it’s probably still the case that the majority of those are staffed by liberal teachers who will teach a false Catholicism to the students that is more harmful than the full-blown Leftism of the public schools.

    Parents are appointed by God as the educators of their children. They cannot abdicate this responsibility. Parents need to be, themselves, well-catechized and informed, and aware of the so-called culture around them. Home school is a very good option, and other parents can be effective collaborators.

    So – put your kid into the cesspool of public education? Or maybe a diocesan school staffed by an intellectual lightweight who mindlessly passes on Wokeism while claiming it aligns perfectly with Catholicism?

  2. TonyO says:

    Fr. Z’s comments are (as usual) very balanced and sage advice.

    Education is a primary parental role (and right), and the obligation is grave (Canon Law 1136). A Catholic education (i.e. an education in the faith) is the primary aspect of that obligation, but that education can take place at home apart from hours in school – some of it happens organically anyway, not during formal instruction (at least, if the parents are being careful, it happens).

    The Church’s documents on education, such as “Militantis Ecclesia” and “Catholic Schools” make it clear that ANY truly proper and whole education will educate a person morally and spiritually as well intellectually, and that any such moral and spiritual education that does not direct the person to his ultimate end in union with God through the Church is a damaged education. Public schools are, for the most part, not attempting to educate a person morally and spiritually, and usually are actively educating against Jesus and the Catholic Church, so they are certainly not providing good education in the relevant sense. However, many Catholic schools are only minimally not as bad, (as witness the vast swathes of Catholic teens in Catholic schools who abandon their faith), so “putting your kid in a ‘Catholic’ school” does not, automatically, get them a Catholic education or a real education as defined above. Which means that parents can be left with trying to get the kids some kind of education at the best school around, and then supplement that at home with de-programming of the errors and supplying the Catholic truth.

    This can in theory be done if you have the kids in a public school, but – in my observation, at least – ONLY with vast amounts of after-school attention from the parents, amounting almost to an after-school schooling. (And vast amounts of grace helping, to boot, so lots of prayer should be in there.) It is very, VERY likely that homeschooling will not be MORE burdensome than that kind of additional after-school effort, though I am aware of difficulties in assessing that, and sensitive to parents’ many varied situations. As it happens, my wife consults for many homeschooling parents, some in very weird situations, who are still managing to make homeschool work – though there are a few who really can’t seem to make it work, for unusual reasons (such as individual health problems, etc). You can homeschool at strange hours of the day (8pm to midnight), on weekends, do intense studies for a week and then a week off, etc. You can farm out individual classes like Latin or chemistry. The options nowadays are so varied that it is impossible to mention them all.

    A generation ago I knew a couple who decided to go the route of putting their kids in public schools but doing just that extremely involved after-school stuff to guide the kids…and the kids still lost their faith by young adulthood. That’s just one example, of course, but it is instructive: it is difficult to overcome both the intentional secularism set on public education by secular overlords in state education bureaucracies, AND the unintentional but pervasive (im)moral and cultural environmental influence of all the other kids that your kid will be around for 8 hours a day. It is difficult indeed to enable your kid to see Catholic morals as normal and the near-brothel morals of most high schools as abnormal when they are stewed in it constantly.

    I have no definite prescription, but to pray earnestly and expect to put in a whale of a lot of effort educating your kids no matter which method you select, and to keep looking for improvements in your options. And read the Church’s documents on education, to get grounded on what the real goal is.

  3. Rob83 says:

    There is no one answer that will fit everyone’s circumstances. Parents do have responsibility to preserve their children’s faith and keep them from scandal, and these days, that’s going to require some sacrifices that may not have been foreseen when they were born but upon us now.

    The vocation of a parent is to do everything within their power to help save their children’s souls and help them become pious Catholics as adults. Having children who fail to become that, whether by one’s own fault or not, is one of the most painful things a parent can experience besides a child’s death. However hard it may seem now, do all that is within your power to avoid having your child one day be one of the broken victims of the (trans)sexual revolution and regretting that perhaps you could have done more.

    Understanding the danger to children from the modern world is the first step to being able to do something to prevent it. Pray for a solution, the answer might not be easy, but God will not make it impossible. In a large enough parish or community, there are going to be several parents homeschooling if the laws allow it. Reaching out to them would be a good first step – I know the homeschoolers pool resources around here, and the kids get plenty of socialization because those families do things together.

  4. rhig090v says:

    Heavily localized question. My local public schools in rural western Ohio operate essentially as Catholic schools because at one point they were and even had Precious Blood sisters as teachers and principles into the 70s and 80s. Today there’s release time for CCD, adoration and a designated school Mass.

  5. JamesM says:

    I attended a public school in England (which is a different thing to a public school in America). While the school was Protestant (Anglican) my Catholic faith was respected. There was a Catholic chaplain attached to the school and at times of communal prayer there those of us who were Catholic were taken away for our own Catholic led communal prayer. I never experienced anything that was harmful to my faith.

    I also spent time at a Catholic school in Ireland. This was very different. The Catholic faith was constantly undermined, especially by priests and religious.

    I can’t speak for America but in the UK or Ireland the worst place to send children is a Catholic school. Certainly with respect to these children leaving as Catholics.

    The big difference between a Catholic school and a non Catholic school is this. In a Catholic school children will have things presented to them as being Catholic. In a non Catholic school they won’t. You will, as an example, be just as likely to have children presented with “alphabet” propaganda at either school. You will only have it presented as Catholic at one of them.

  6. Not says:

    Here we go with the line many comedians have used.IN MY DAY. In my day Catholic schools where run and taught by religious and very affordable. VaticanII killed that! No more Nuns in their beautiful habits, respected and protected. No more religious Brothers and fewer Priest.
    Some of us have been lucky enough to have been involved with Traditional Religious Orders who do teach at affordable tuitions. Sadly, not every student who graduates has maintained their faith but the firm Dogma and Doctrine is there so there is hope. One thing that can’t be denied is the quality of the education.
    One thing I did with my children, when they were growing up was not to lock them away from the world, but to make them aware of it and its pitfalls. My wife and children all went to Catholic schools, I went to Public schools, but had great teaching from the Nuns at Sunday school which was on Wednesday. (haha). By the way, in my day the public schools let all of us Catholics out early on Wednesday to walk to Sunday school.

  7. In our experience, we made sacrifices and the Lord provided. We just graduated out of homeschooling with our youngest finishing high school. It was not perfect, believe me. We sacrificed much in the way of time and income to do it. But the sacrifice was for our children! What better cause on earth is there?

  8. Imrahil says:

    The answer is, obviously, no.

    Also, putting one’s child’s faith in danger is. The old examens were right about that.

    I think the question is based on the misunderstanding “and this would exclude all public schools”, which really rests on three assumptions:

    1. Public schools teach things contrary to the faith. This, you might say, is obvious. Okay.

    2. What public schools teach is dangerous to the faith. This is not an obvious consequence of no. 1. It may be the case, sure, but it is not obviously the case, and it certainly is no immediate consequence of no. 1 as so many pious people seem to infer.

    3. Public schools are places children are being sent to. Well, no they aren’t: school is a normal episode within a life, and public school is the normal way this episode looks like.
    For comparison, consider a country that has conscription. Is it putting oneself in danger of seeing lewd images and acquiesce in dirty jokes if you go to the military? No, it is not. Conscripts obviously will see lewd images and hear dirty jokes, and worse, and be in a lot of danger of acquiescing to that if they join the military; that’s a given; but with soldiering being a normal part of life in such a country, that’s not “putting oneself in danger” but just a danger that happens to happen, and where you must see best how to master it with God’s grace. – In fact, even in a country that doesn’t have conscription, it is still acceptable to become a soldier because it’s a thing worth while to defend one’s country, despite the profession obviously coming with these and other dangers.
    Now, back to schools. School is, as said, a normal part of a child’s life, and public schools are the normal sort of schools. So, a danger the child encounters there is a danger that happens, not a danger the child has been put it by his parents. They do have the chance to opt out, sure, and certainly will want to do what is best for their child (for which I do think it is counterproductive if they seriously fear to be damned for a mistake). But if they don’t opt out, what we are talking about is not putting the child in danger, but not removing a specific naturally occurring danger in a specific manner. And there is more room for prudence in that: all the difference between stealing bread from a starving man, and passing by a specific beggar without giving him money.

    (And those old examens probably meant sending someone to a specific antiCatholic school on purpose. They will have had, in all probability, that one would understand the question as referring to the local school district’s school.)

    So: I do not have children, but my advice would be: As the question apparently is: “I want to send my children to public school; I have thought about the matter and concluded that, but for my fear of committing a sin, this, precarious as it is, is, for us, the best choice under our circumstances; am I allowed?”, do send them there. (Other questions might have other answers to them.) But it’s be better to keep track of what they teach the children there, and talk about during dinner or so. (And they can’t learn soon enough anyway that adults, including teachers, can be in the wrong. In fact, this would even be the case if all were well.)

  9. Imrahil says:

    The sentence was meant to be “they will have not had in mind, in all probability, that one would understand the question as referring to the local school district’s school”. (Sorry.)

  10. RJT says:

    Msgr. Charles Pope weighed in on this subject some years ago of which I recently commented on:

  11. Lurker 59 says:

    The old examines that I have run across that address this issue directly (sending a child to a non-Catholic school independently of its quality) affirm that it is a mortal sin when one or both of the following are met.

    1.) Without sufficient reason.
    2.) Without approval of the local pastor/ your confessor.

    These examines also consider the reading of non-Catholic theology books the same way. From these, and other similar — 1.) right reason 2.) approval — considerations of the morality of the action, we can see the catechetical focus is on getting people not to make subjective sentimental moral judgments but rather seak after having the mind of Christ as found through the communal life of the Church.

    The real issue isn’t in the sending of the child to a public school, but rather the parent rashly doing so, thereby putting the child in graver spiritual danger. We send our children into harm’s way all the days of our lives — it is about whether could we have avoided sending them that way and, if not, have we prepared them adequately?

    The drawback to these examens, and this needs to be stated is that today’s Catholic education is often not actually Catholic and there for more dangerous than an outright anti-Catholic public education. So there is a catch-22 of approaching the local pastor who can get your child into a local Catholic school for free but that local Catholic school is just as garbage as the local public school.

    I’d flip the question around and ask “What are you doing to prepare your child to live in a post-Christian society that is often hostile anti-Catholic?” It seems to me that this needs to be addressed before addressing which lion’s den to send the child into.

  12. APX says:

    I don’t know much about home schooling laws, but after my niece and nephew had to do “home schooling” at my parents’ with them, is it an option for grandparents to homeschool? These kids probably learned more from a practical hands on experience (and still had to do their school work) than they seem to be learning in their classroom from incompetent young teachers who don’t know how to run a classroom. That being said, my parents are also semi-retired educators, so not everyone has the same experience.

  13. The Masked Chicken says:

    Dear Questioner,

    I assume that you are referring to a typical examen such as this, from 1942 (taken from:

    , number 15 under mortal sin)

    15. Have I, without the necessary permission or reason, sent my children to a non-Catholic school, or approved of other Catholics doing so? Or without serious reason approved by the diocesan authorities, to a non-Catholic high school or university? Or have I done these things without making any provision to safeguard the faith of my children?

    There are many things to say about this. First, some transparency: I am, currently, a professor in the science department at some college (of which I am particularly vague, because of current liberal anti-religious bias and dangers associated with the online world). I am an advocate of homeschooling. I have been a homeschool instructor (for pay). I have, also, taught in a conservative k-8 Catholic school (math). One of my siblings has received every teaching award possible from their university, two citations for education from the national science organization for their specialty, and the presidential medal of excellence in STEM education (awarded at the White House while Trump was president, if that matters – Trump did not give the award, his science advisors did). I have, also, been nominated for distinguished teacher awards.

    First off, one is no longer required to receive permission from a diocese to send one’s children to a non-Catholic high school. Times have changed and this law no longer binds. In fact, the examen is flawed to begin with, inasmuch as no parent has the moral authority to tell their adult child what college they can attend. They don’t today and not in 1942, either.

    As for younger children, ideally, one should send their children to a traditionally-oriented Catholic elementary and middle school. At this age level, children have not, with exceptions, developed the critical faculties to recognize dangers to the Faith.

    That being said, where one’s child goes to elementary and middle school really is a matter of prudential judgment. Certainly, when this examen was written, elementary education in public and Catholic schools were, essentially, the same, with an added religious component in the Catholic setting. Indeed, outside of a moment of silent prayer in the public school, the educational curricula were, essentially, the same. There was no essential difference in STEM subjects, as we would call them, today, and very little difference in English (except reading books, but in both schools they would be considered, by today’s standards as wholesome). There was health and hygiene in both, but in 1942 no sex Ed. The principal difference would have been in history and social studies. There was a noticeable bias in both schools. Catholic schools inordinately stressed Catholic contributions to history (I have taught from some of those texts and I am a graduate historian, as well as a scientist); public schools slightly favored the contributions of Protestants, although with less bias.

    Otherwise, outside of religion, which was never much discussed in public schools of the time, most of the subjects were taught the same. One reason for avoiding religion in public schools was because there is no such thing as a unified Protestantism and discussions of religion would have led to Protestant in-fighting, so schools avoided religion except to relate historical facts.

    When John Carroll set up the first Catholic school systems in the U. S. in the early 1800’s, there was a pronounced anti-Catholic bias and it could very well have been a mortal sin to send one’s child to a public school. By 1942, times had changed. This part of the examen is a hold-over from an earlier Catholic age in America. It had not changed to keep up with the facts on the ground. American public education underwent a revolution from about 1913 on, when “scientific” methods of education began to be promoted and Greek and Latin were no longer subjects to be mastered (Latin hung on into the 1960’s, but the changes in the Church and the U. S. Government’s obsession with STEM programs because of Sputnik, hurt its appeal). Especially after the baby boom of post WW I, public schools greatly expanded with Dewey progressivism in place.

    For all of this, in 1942, there was little danger to the Faith for a Catholic child of any age in public education (college being a separate matter and for adult children, who had their own moral responsibilities). Thus, this examen statement was a largely unmodified argument from bygone days, without taking into account the facts on the ground. It certainly would not have been a mortal sin at the time for a Catholic child to attend public school, at least in my opinion. I doubt the priest who wrote this examen has any actual experience of public education of the time.

    In other words, this examen is basically useless as a moral guide with regards to this topic without serious qualifications to take into account education as it actually exists in any particular age and place.

    That being said, the educational landscape has changed dramatically since 1942 and a strong argument can be made that for the humanities in particular, modern primary and secondary education is, again, a danger to the Faith. Even biology classes are battlegrounds, even more so than in 1925 when Princeton Theology brought you the Scopes Trial on evolution.

    The problem, sad to say, is that there is no unified vision of theology at play anymore. Prior to 1960’s, the U.S. shared a corporate unified view of at least the components of a “mere Christianity” as C. S. Lewis would say. This loss of a unified vision means that religion has splintered and fragmented into different groups in public school settings allowing for a relativism that has simultaneously discredited religion as an authoritative moral voice and has allowed quasi-scientific arguments, such as gender theory, especially in the humanities and social sciences, to run rampant.

    Some Catholic schools aren’t much better.

    Is it an objective mortal sin to send your child to a public school? All things bring equal, homeschooling is best (but see Germany for how homeschooling will get bracketed on the grounds of it bring, “indoctrination,” as if public school education weren’t). If you have to send your child to a current public school, it does not have to be a mortal sin if: 1) the parent teaches the Faith well to the student before they attend school and teaches them critical thinking skills so as to be able to evaluate what happens in school in the light of Faith, and 2) if the parent stays actively involved in the child’s school, talking to their child about what they are being taught and challenging school authorities, where appropriate(!)

    In other words, there are two sites for mortal sin to happen: on the parents part, due to negligence in performing their duty as the primary educator of their children, and 2) on the part of the student for not properly informing themselves of what the Church teaches and WHY on controversial topics.

    If this two occurrences are avoided, then public school education can be a useful preparation for the challenges to the Faith that the young person will encounter, anyways, when they are an adult.

    The Chicken

  14. daughteroflight says:

    1. Pod learning – tag team with local parents to teach the group of kids. This would allow some flexibility for work schedules.
    2. Bring the grandparents out of retirement.
    3. Homeschool at night after work. The reality is that kids before the age of 10 realistically don’t need more than 2 hours of actual instruction time to comprehend the 3 Rs, and after that they become a lot more independent.
    4. A single income is a sacrifice, but sometimes it might be the right thing to do.
    5. Some charter schools can be pretty good. Not the best, but better than public schools.
    6. If public school is the only option, get intimately involved so that you understand the dangers and can either begin conversations with your student or head the problems off entirely by complaining loudly.

  15. eamonob says:

    We have so far sent out kids to public school. We are going to check on tuition assistance at our parish school because we’d like to take the kids out of public school. However, we have 5 children and the tuition for the 4 school age ones would be about $32,000 per year and they no longer offer multiple child discounts. The archdiocese says no Catholic child will be denied based on financial need, but I still don’t know how much aid we can get. Even covering half would still be too much for us. In fact, our most expensive year based on current tuition (when we will have 2 in high school and 3 in k-8) would be about $55,000.

    Home school looks like it might end up the more likely outcome, though I’d prefer to do a good Catholic school.

  16. Rob83 says:

    I did not mention parochial schools, locally they have been in trouble for many years due to expense and declining enrollment. The high schools are still well-thought of and a number of trad kids go there still. A non-catholic co-worker sent her son to Catholic high school in the early 2010s, even then it was over $10k per year.

    The diocese cannot really backstop the schools due to poor finances and parishes and orders increasingly cannot either. As the schools close, the nearby school gets a 1-year boost in enrollment, then the decline continues. Investing in the schools has not been near as popular as investing in church renovations and social centers.

  17. Son of Saint Alphonsus says:

    Remember that some of what is in these examens is relevant to when they were written. The world is a very different place in 2022.

    For example, in the North East and Midwest, especially in cities, Catholic schools (like churches) were within walking distance. In places like NYC or Baltimore there could even be 2 different parochial schools on the same block, one belonging to the territorial parish, the other to a national parish. Further, they were often free or had minimal tuition. There really wasn’t a good reason not to send your children to Catholic schools. This is no longer the case. Most parishes no longer have schools. At best they may be regional. Tuition is expensive. Transportation time and expenses must also be considered. And many “Catholic” schools pose a greater danger to the Faith than public schools.

    Also, when this obligation was in effect, public schools in America were often virulently anti-Catholic and actively sought to lure children away from the Faith. (Nowadays religion of any kind can’t even be mentioned in public schools without the woke getting all twisted.)

    I don’t think that, unless there is a solid Catholic school within a reasonable distance that you can afford, that you are under any obligation to send your children to a Catholic school or conversely, not send them to public school.

    But, as then, so now, you are obliged under pain of sin to see that they are raised in the Faith, no matter what school they attend, and that happens mostly in the home.

    Just my 2¢.

  18. moon1234 says:

    I have many children, more than 10. Only three are adults as out of school. This last year I was pulled into the local Catholic school principals office based on a letter signed by the parish priest and the principal. The letter excoriated myself and my wife for tuition, not coming in person to meet with teachers and that we did not participate “in the community”. We attend the Latin Mass at a different parish.

    I had explained that most of school money comes from my second job farming and that money comes late in the fall. This was written in email form and provided to the parish priest and principal in the fall. My wife was also pregnant at the time and we have a child with a developmental disorder that has a lot of medical needs.

    We missed the Christmas Pagent at the school because we were at the hospital a state away at an appointment for our child with the disorder that we had to wait six months to get. The school knew this ahead of time, but it was still listed as a grevience.

    I was told that the tuition I was paying was a steal and I paid full price. I am NOT a rich man. I don’t own any farm land. My parents rent me land at a reduced rate.

    At the end of this “meeting” I was told to “seriously consider whether this school is the right place for my children next year.” The way I read this statement is “We don’t want you here. Send your kids somewhere else.”

    The school took in a lot of non-Catholic students from the public school during the COVID mask non-sense. I seriously doubt these parents were read the riot act for “not participating in the community.”

    Whether this is a money thing or the fact that we attend the TLM at a different parish (that parish does not have a school), it is clear we are not wanted at our local Catholic school. I am seriously considering sending the kids to the local public school. It is a heavy weight that bothers me almost every day. To feel abandoned by the church,

  19. TonyO says:

    moon1234: In your shoes, I would unfortunately have to wonder very seriously about whether these people (the priest and principal) are the kind of people to put my kids into their hands.

    Also, when this obligation was in effect, public schools in America were often virulently anti-Catholic and actively sought to lure children away from the Faith. (Nowadays religion of any kind can’t even be mentioned in public schools without the woke getting all twisted.)

    @Son of Saint A: while it is true that way back when, many public schools were OPENLY virulently anti-Catholic, now most public schools are anti-Catholic but are so hiddenly. They do this by pretending that their own virulently religious instruction – secular relativism – is not a religion but is (they assume) just the “level playing field” upon which religions can market their views. This is a false picture they paint about religion in general and their own religion. The woke nonsense of the past 8 years or so is just an outward manifestation of an inward rot: in what real world does it make sense for first grade teachers to be teaching about gays, lesbians, and forcing kids to “choose” their genders?

    It is possible for kids to come out of these schools whole, but ONLY by reason of (a) intense, constant repair-work by parents fixing the daily evils, and (b) huge amounts of actual graces working to make the parents’ efforts effective.

    In fact, the examen is flawed to begin with, inasmuch as no parent has the moral authority to tell their adult child what college they can attend. They don’t today and not in 1942, either.

    Masked Chicken, the parents cannot force their adult children to go to a certain college, but on the very same grounds they can certainly refuse to pay a dime if the kids insist on going to a college that will damage their minds or morals. This will affect most kids’ decision-making. But before they ever get to that FINAL decision, the parents should be laying the ground-work for a mutually satisfactory decision process that both find acceptable. The parents should be raising and training the kids to view their future college decision as one with very important moral and spiritual aspects, so that choosing a “party” school wouldn’t even be attractive, and choosing a secular college with virulently anti-traditional principles of morals or truth is equally undesirable. This might (in today’s environment it certainly would) leave precious few viable options, but frankly you DON’T NEED 200 viable options to get a good college education.

  20. sjoseph371 says:

    daughteroflight said
    “6. If public school is the only option, get intimately involved so that you understand the dangers and can either begin conversations with your student or head the problems off entirely by complaining loudly.”
    I knew of involved parents of kids in public schools who’s faith had almost no equal and parents of kids who couldn’t care less of what happened in their Catholic school and it showed. True, you may now have to worry as much in a Catholic school, but the key is PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT. If the COVID mess taught us nothing, it certainly opened MANY eyes of exactly what happened in public schools because the parents had no choice but to be involved.

  21. aam says:

    “I recommend that my relatives send their college-bound children to secular colleges where they will have to fight for their faith, rather than to Catholic colleges where it will be stolen from them.” – Bishop Fulton J. Sheen (as quoted in Crisis Magazine)

  22. Alice says:

    Ideally our kids would be educated K-12 in our parish schools. Unfortunately our parish school showed itself to be wishy-washy about alphabet soup issues and, while apparently, we’re inflexible haters for wanting Catholic morality there, they showed little flexibility or love when students lost loved ones or for people who had severe sickness in the family. They also showed no gratitude or understanding for the financial sacrifices our middle class family made to attend.

    After trying homeschooling and knowing that we’d have to move to even consider public school, we put our kids in Lutheran school. Our local Lutheran school respects parental authority and is very transparent about what they teach in religion class so we can (and daily do!) discuss it with our kids. They also show Christian compassion towards the bereaved and the ill and non-member tuition is cheaper for larger families than parishioner tuition is for the Catholic schools. Our Catholic high school is solid, so we look forward to the time that they’re back in Catholic school. I suspect that in 1940 I’d be denied Communion for this, but it’s not 1940 and the dangers to our children’s souls are different, as are the attitudes of conservative Protestants towards practicing Catholics.

Think, proof read, preview BEFORE posting!