Others here and elsewhere have more than sufficiently rebutted the SSPX's stance on the vaccination, its morality, and how it plays a pivotal role in the transformation of global governmental power, etc. I would just comment on the following part of the letter:
We have previously endorsed home schooling when there is a serious reason to do so, but naturally, the Church’s practice has been to encourage proper Catholic schools. Our venerable founder, Msgr Lefebvre, put this task of schooling in our statues just after seminaries, which were the most important work of the SSPX. [...]
There might be long-term consequences for a child’s education to be shifted out of a structured programme to home school, only later to be put back in the school environment having missed out on the curriculum that is followed in that school. That can disrupt a child’s educational progress significantly.
There are four significant problems here, so often seen among unthinking Society priests:
1) that the Church's teaching and tradition suggest that placement of children in a school takes precedence over home education in most circuмstances, otherwise a grave moral failure is committed by the parents;
2) that all traditional Catholic schools are "created equal";
3) that Msgr Lefebvre opposed home schooling;
4) that home education as a rule will have negative long-term consequences and be significantly disruptive of the child's education.
One of the foremost principles of Catholic philosophy of education is contained in the very purpose of matrimony: the procreation and education of offspring. This is the bedrock of education and society. The right and duty of procreation and education belong firstly to the parents, placed upon them by God both on the supernatural and natural orders.
Hence, flowing from this principle as a direct corollary, the traditional Catholic position towards "Catholic schools" is that schools supplement, but do not supplant, home education,
especially if the latter is hindered by uncontrollable circuмstances. Teachers stand in proxy for the parents;
all of their authority and right to teach is entirely derivative.
And even if children are placed in schools, this does not excuse parents from the duty of home education, from an active and close role in their children's upbringing and character formation.
In other words, the schools flow out of the insufficiency of the family as an imperfect society, but this specific arrangement of schools as we understand them is an artificial one and one suited for specific purposes, such as standardized education as we have come to understand it in the past 150 years. Indeed, we assume school as a normal part of modern society because this society places such severe strictures on the parents in what should be the normal execution of their duties!
Given the corruption of modern schools as well as the plethora of opportunities to educate children in many different and excellent ways that do not involve a "traditional" school, it seems careless to suggest that there is only one, proper "Church-endorsed" way to school our children
given the current situation, specifically the one legislated under Canon Law 100 years ago when circuмstances were quite different than today. That situation is a complex one, canonically, morally, and politically, which warrants a separate discussion, but my criticism here is that the SSPX glosses over all of these and acts as if nothing has changed in 100 years.
To default to such a position today would almost suggest that God Himself has built into marriage a modern situation that will almost inevitably lead to grave moral failure, that is, He has placed the duty of educating on parents who in most circuмstances cannot fulfill that duty without recourse to factors beyond their control! To be sure, there is a fine balancing act here since the family is an imperfect society that relies on a community to supplement its own lacks, but the parents first and foremost and as a rule have the best sense of what education each of their children will need based on their temperament, strengths, weaknesses, proclivities, etc. We forget that for most of the history of Christendom, most did not go to universities, nor did they need to, in order to become virtuous, to learn to do their duties well, and save their souls.
As Monsignor Edward Jordan, one of the leading Catholic philosophers of education, wrote 100 years ago exactly: "No other agency, neither school, nor state, nor even Church, except by a miracle of God’s grace, can supply for the neglect of religious training in the home."
He wrote this even when Canon Law required that parents support Catholic schools.
The second problem is that not all "Traditional Catholic" schools are created equal.
Parents must consider this when deciding how to educate their children. Just because a school calls itself "classical" does not mean it follows true principles of classical education, just as "Jesuit" schools would be rebuked with fire and brimstone if Saint Ignatius were alive today to see them. If a school calls itself "Traditional Catholic" does this excuse the community of due diligence?
Who designed the curriculum? How was its progress tracked both among the students and alumni? How is the school environment? What steps have been taken to ensure safety for the children and that staff are properly trained in procedures? What is the vetting process for new teachers? It is clear that many Society schools were started more at the urging of parents rather than a well-directed, central plan from the Society, as Fr Palko might suggest, and many such schools suffer for lack of proper staffing and planning. Is a traditional Catholic school so much better that a young boy of 5 comes home having learned the newest rap song and movie lines from his classmates? Or if a young woman learn a secular, feminist attitude from her peers, or forbid it, her own teachers, all under the "pretenses" of "Traditional Catholic Education"? How many parents have lamented how often their children were exposed to the foul language, the constant talk of video games and superheroes, the degenerate music, the scandalous attitudes, and outside school, the evil recreation, from their "traditional Catholic" school "friends"? Is not the development of moral character a principal aspect of education? Does not this aspect depend on a wholesome educational environment?
Thirdly, Fr Palko must forget that Msgr Lefebvre called for a return to the land whenever possible said, "Yes, you yourselves will make the school for your children!
If the schools should corrupt your children, what are you going to do? Deliver them to the corrupters? […] It is inconceivable!" Bishop de Mallerais in his biography of the Archbishop interpreted these words to mean home education! Another instance of the sons of Lefebvre going against their very founder's magnanimous spirit and vision.
Lastly, Fr Palko assumes as a rule that home education will lead to serious disruptions in the child's education and have long-term negative consequences. Unfortunately, Fr Palko must not be paying attention to the now-decades of evidence demonstrating unequivocally that home schooling students, as a rule, are superior to their public and private school counterparts in every metric.
Of course, we all have seen and known home school families that perhaps are stretched too thin, who should seek out additional help, or whose children may be "socially awkward" etc. But as the evidence shows, these are more the exception rather than the norm.
Unfortunately, it seems to me a form of gaslighting by the SSPX to turn around and suggest serious moral failures on the part of "fearful" parents for even thinking about withdrawing their children but then do nothing to stand up to the onslaught of secular, globalist power. Or rather worse, to aid these forces by silence, gaslighting, and producing moral guidance on the "Catholic position" regarding these vaccines that secular forces can use against Catholic employees when seeking an exemption (but who are then told by the SSPX to exercise "prudence"!)