| Author | |
Martha
Forum All-Star
Joined: Aug 25 2005
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2291
|
| Posted: Feb 27 2010 at 3:51pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I should note that "crossing over to the dark side" is a star wars joke around here that is said in laughter, not hurtfully.
__________________
Martha
mama to 7 boys & 4 girls
Yes, they're all ours!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
lapazfarm
Forum All-Star
Joined: July 21 2005
Location: Alaska
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6082
|
| Posted: Feb 27 2010 at 3:57pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Martha wrote:
Quote:
| I agree. And I also think that since this thread has as it's purpose to discuss, explore, and to examine closely the ways in which we can or cannot use Steiner-influenced materials and methods in a Catholic homeschool, it is unfair to suggest scrupulosity when we do so. |
|
|
Why? It is not intended to hurt or insult.
The point seems to be to discuss and to share.
One might say my having OM on the shelf to evaluate is too close to crossing over to the dark side for them - ok.
One saying that refusing to use beeswax materials or wet on wet paints is a bit too close to scrupulosity for them - ok. Or I guess not ok?
I have long admired and respected you here. I don't think insult or injury is implied or intended here.  |
|
|
Yea, I admire you too. And I think you and I are actually more in agreement than otherwise.
What I meant to say, and I suppose I was unclear is--discussion is good. It isn't "scrupulosity" to examine these things closely to determine if they are ok for each of us or not. So lets talk, because in the end, we are all going to draw that line for ourselves, and my bet is that we will all be drawing it in very different places.
__________________
Theresa
us-schooling in beautiful Fairbanks, Alaska.
LaPaz Home Learning
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Eleanor
Forum Pro
Joined: June 20 2007
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 326
|
| Posted: Feb 27 2010 at 4:00pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
The issue of authority (real or perceived) was mentioned several posts ago, and I think it's an important one. I can see how this is posing a challenge for the moderators.
I've just been reading a book about John Paul II's educational philosophy, and this passage seems relevant:
"Before 1978 (...), Wojtyla wrote predominantly as a philosopher, who was able to bring a certain amount of speculation into his thought, because of his rather obscure position on the world stage. After becoming pope, Wojtyla had to take on the role of the authoritative teacher in all of his writings. This prevented him from employing the same type of speculative thought which one had been accustomed to when examining his pre-papal work. Wojtyla's role as authoritative teacher has effectively ended his ability to continue to write as a philosopher."
Not that any of us has Church authority, but what with the Internet and sharing of self-created curriculum, we're very much on the "world stage." So on the one hand, we can be seen as "instant experts," but at the same time, we're just moms.
It makes things confusing all round. 
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Martha
Forum All-Star
Joined: Aug 25 2005
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2291
|
| Posted: Feb 27 2010 at 4:13pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Jennifer!
I don't know what Elizabeth thinks.
*I* think her blogs (which includes Serendipity) and her efforts are very good and very catholic.
Not that anyone, much less her, cares about my opinion. 
I love Wiley's blog too and many others. Not that I ever have enough time to read them all at the leisure I'd like.
I would be willing to discuss this on another board/blog if the mods here would prefer or flat out never want to discuss it here again. You can PM me if so.
It's almost as if we are wanting to punish honesty. If I had said we did all that stuff but didn't say I got it from OM - ok. Michelle was ok with the Foss blog, until the waldorf mention. (So if Foss hadn't put that there - ok?)
I find that.... Sad. To say the least.
Are we interested in appearances or reality?
Would removing that one word make the reality change?
__________________
Martha
mama to 7 boys & 4 girls
Yes, they're all ours!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
CrunchyMom
Forum Moderator
Joined: Sept 03 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6385
|
| Posted: Feb 27 2010 at 4:21pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Elizabeth's silence is to be expected since she decided some time ago to step away from the boards. While this discussion affects her since she has publicly labeled her curriculum as "Waldorf-inspired," it is not *about* her. The boards were founded to promote the ideas in her book, but they were never owned by her personally.
When I first read some of the things about Steiner, I was shocked and felt as if the rug had been pulled out from under me. Realizing something isn't what you thought it was is unnerving, and I felt really lost in my ability to accurately judge anything for a bit.
Then I got over it. I don't mean to be flippant, but I think that it is natural for an emotional reaction to register as immense doubt, and once the fog clears, we find ourselves better able to judge, more confident for having different tools to do it, and we regain our footing again.
Martha, I think the concern with using the name is the easy association. When you read some of the earlier posts in this thread, people brought Waldorf things unwittingly into their homes because they associated the name with the things they liked as presented by Elizabeth and others.
__________________
Lindsay
Five Boys(6/04) (6/06) (9/08)(3/11),(7/13), and 1 girl (5/16)
My Symphony
[URL=http://mysymphonygarden.blogspot.com/]Lost in the Cosmos[/UR
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
MicheleQ
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 23 2005
Location: Pennsylvania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2193
|
| Posted: Feb 27 2010 at 4:25pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Martha wrote:
Michelle was ok until the waldorf mention. (So if it hadn't been put there - ok?)
I find that.... Sad. To say the least.
|
|
|
I didn't say that Martha. I said I was assured that Waldorf wasn't mentioned but in fact it is. I do see other problems and I have said so publicly (and privately for that matter).
Martha wrote:
| Are we interested in appearances or reality? Would removing that one word make the reality change? |
|
|
Like it or not appearances are important. Even if the reality of something is different we must always be careful not to give scandal by what "appears" to be so.
We are, all of us, in public here. More so even than if we stood on our street corner and proclaimed something. The internet is so very far reaching and we must consider that all we say and do here can have far reaching effects. You never know who is reading, who is being influenced.
__________________
Michele Quigley
wife to my prince charming and mom of 10 in Lancaster County, PA USA
http://michelequigley.com
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Sarah M
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 06 2008
Location: Washington
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1423
|
| Posted: Feb 27 2010 at 4:27pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
There is a reason I have not commented on this thread. The noticeable absence of many many active members speaks volumes. It is worth knowing that several members have already left the forum because of the way this thread has unfolded.
Those who defend this thread as being "charitable" should really look twice at it. It is not a friendly, open discussion. It is one-sided, with only a couple brave souls willing to speak out for those of us who choose to be inspired in any way by waldorf methods/materials. I am offended by the things that have been said here. I'm offended on behalf of all who prudently use waldorf-inspired materials in their thorougly Catholic homes.
I'm ducking out of the forums, and I don't know if/when I'll be back.
We've asked hard questions on this forum before, but for the most part, conversations have been carried out in a spirit of love. This one has not.
It is page 10 of this thread, and what we have is a discussion of how to destroy anything remotely waldorf-inspired (or published by any company that also publishes waldorf materials).
I'm speechless.
I wasn't going to comment on this thread, but at this point I'm feeling the need to share why I've been silent.
Please be charitable. Please think twice before accusing another holy, Catholic woman of leading the masses into the darkness of the New Age.
Over and out.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Celeste
Forum Pro
Joined: April 03 2006
Location: Nebraska
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 263
|
| Posted: Feb 27 2010 at 4:29pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Wow, I stepped away to make pepper jelly and came back to a host of posts to reply to.
Martha, I think it's very cool that there is place in Scripture where Jesus speaks your name with so much love. But to your post. If you want to hurt my feelings, tell me I'm illogical. Just kidding. I don't think it's contradictory to quote snippets while cautioning against reading the work. In reading this discussion it's struck me that perhaps some members aren't aware of exactly how insidious Steiner is, and why some might caution, strongly, against him and against an educational philosophy that he designed to promote his ideas.
Marcia, if I were scrupulous I wouldn't keep bees. Beeswax is great stuff, and I'm looking forward to my bees making me lots of it. My point is that we examine our motivation. If we are using certain materials and colors because Waldorf says to, we need to know that the rationale for those choices is bad stuff.
Martha, art supplies aren't sinister. I knew my post would be misunderstood, because it is difficult to sift through all this, and that is why the Church says stay away from New Age, which Steiner is. I do not think, to reiterate what others have said above, that we are capable of sifting through this garbage and taking the good, because the evil philosophy is hidden in the good. The devil always hides his lies in partial truths. Best to seek the good from purer sources.
Jennifer, I'm sorry your feelings are hurt. We're only trying to seek the truth here. Sometimes it hurts my daughter's feelings when I have to tell her that she's made a mistake, but I wouldn't love her if I let her persist in error. I do hope that Waldorf home education isn't Elizabeth's life's work. Certainly no one is trying to tear her down. It's my sense that everyone here is trying to build up the kingdom of God. I know I muddle and meander about it, but that's what I want to do. I tend to do apologetics with a billy club, as Karl Keating says, but I mean well. I hope that counts for something.
For now we see in a glass, darkly. . . .
Celeste
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
CrunchyMom
Forum Moderator
Joined: Sept 03 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6385
|
| Posted: Feb 27 2010 at 4:41pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I have a question. Would it be charitable for those who see Waldorf as potentially dangerous to remain silent?
I don't see how that would be acting in love. I'm confused about what would have been perceived as truly charitable way to proceed. I think we are all bumbling in our own attempts, but I trust that everyone here is at least seeking to be motivated out of love.
__________________
Lindsay
Five Boys(6/04) (6/06) (9/08)(3/11),(7/13), and 1 girl (5/16)
My Symphony
[URL=http://mysymphonygarden.blogspot.com/]Lost in the Cosmos[/UR
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Celeste
Forum Pro
Joined: April 03 2006
Location: Nebraska
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 263
|
| Posted: Feb 27 2010 at 4:41pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Martha wrote:
| I should note that "crossing over to the dark side" is a star wars joke around here that is said in laughter, not hurtfully. |
|
|
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
JodieLyn
Forum Moderator
Joined: Sept 06 2006
Location: Oregon
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 12234
|
| Posted: Feb 27 2010 at 4:44pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
That is a sticking point Lindsay.
Once you know a truth, you can't go back to ignorance.
And do you in charity, avoid hurt feelings? or do you in charity speak the truth?
__________________
Jodie, wife to Dave
G-18, B-17, G-15, G-14, B-13, B-11, G-9, B-7, B-5, B-4
All men who have turned out worth anything have had the chief hand in their own education.
-Sir Walter Scott
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
lapazfarm
Forum All-Star
Joined: July 21 2005
Location: Alaska
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6082
|
| Posted: Feb 27 2010 at 4:51pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
And does charity mean we can never disagree here? Or that we can only post about positive things?
If those are the rules, then how is that a discussion?
ETA: I am not in any way implying that those ARE the rules here.
__________________
Theresa
us-schooling in beautiful Fairbanks, Alaska.
LaPaz Home Learning
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
LeeAnn
Forum Pro
Joined: May 25 2007
Location: Washington
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 470
|
| Posted: Feb 27 2010 at 5:04pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Lindsay, Jodie, Theresa, I think those are good points. However, I've seen moderators remind us in other threads to avoid controversy, as in this discussion of the CLAA:
------
http://4real.thenetsmith.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=33027&PN=1& get=last#383307
"Friends, thank you for sharing your differing experiences with CLAA and its founder. Consider it noted that legitimate concerns have been raised from a desire to help others. Because of our policy:
Quote:
Avoid detraction and controversy. Write kindly and respectfully about others, especially husbands, children, family members, priests, religious, the Church, and public figures.
and our limitations as moderators, as well as our ministry focus on designing and adapting our curriculum, we respectfully request that any further discussion on this topic be taken directly to CLAA. Feel free to PM me with any questions.
Love,
Angie Mc in AZ
-----
Would this not equally apply to Serendipity? And Elizabeth Foss is surely a public figure.
I have since looked up Elizabeth's blog to see if she has written anything about this mammoth discussion. She seems to have made it pretty clear from her blog post on prudential decision-making that she is not going to come over here and defend her decisions or Serendipity.
ETA: I wanted to say that, in the past, what probably made the 4Real Forums popular and successful in part is that Elizabeth and the moderators avoided controversial topics as much as possible and also put an end to threads that were contentious fairly quickly. (Skirt wearing, head covering, etc.) Also when Elizabeth was more present here the forums reflected more of her ideals; since she has stepped back from being closely involved in the forums sometimes the moderation has allowed for more controversy than in the past. This changes the scope and tone of the forum and I am not surprised that some long-time members are hesitant to post in the more contentious environment. I think the moderators should consider whether they want to keep a high level of moderation on the forums as in the past or not--or whether that is possible with the time and manpower available. Has the size of the forum and the volume of messages simply grown too large? Would it be better to prune it back in some way?
__________________
my four children are 17, 15, 11 & 8 - all now attend public school - we read many 4Real recommended books at home
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
St. Ann
Forum All-Star
Joined: Oct 20 2006
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2137
|
| Posted: Feb 27 2010 at 5:17pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
It is midnight here and before I go to bed I want to publicly thank the moderators especially and also all who put so much thought, research and concern in these 10 pages of posts.
I am overwhelmed.
This thread has initiated a conversation about Waldorf in my marraige, that has already shown fruits. I am thankful for being challenged and questioned(perhaps not personally, but even so).
Did I already say that I am overwhelmed?
I will keep you all in my prayers.
A blessed Sunday!
__________________
Stephanie
Wife and mother to Hannah '96, Maria '99, Dorothea '01, Helena '03
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
msclavel
Forum All-Star
Joined: July 26 2006
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 781
|
| Posted: Feb 27 2010 at 5:17pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
This thread is beyond horrible. I've tried so hard all day to figure out how to respond. I've thought maybe I should just let it go. I probably should.
How do we have a discussion when the framework is thus:
How does your family go about making the prudential decision about using Waldorf/Waldorf inspired materials in your home, BUT by the way, we are stating categorically, that we really already know it is wrong, evil, poisonous and you are leading your children to hell if you do.
Not.a.discussion.
It is clear that people have been scrutinizing what we've shared, seemingly looking for ways to trip us up so they could be right for at least 2 years.
Not.a.discussion.
People making judgments while admitting they've never even looked at the blog?
Not.a.discussion.
Detraction. Pure and simple.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
MicheleQ
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 23 2005
Location: Pennsylvania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2193
|
| Posted: Feb 27 2010 at 5:18pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
CrunchyMom wrote:
Would it be charitable for those who see Waldorf as potentially dangerous to remain silent?
I don't see how that would be acting in love. I'm confused about what would have been perceived as truly charitable way to proceed. I think we are all bumbling in our own attempts, but I trust that everyone here is at least seeking to be motivated out of love. |
|
|
Bear in mind that many of us have kept silent --for over two years now. But with heavy hearts and a burden of conscience. Speaking up on this IS charity. I realize it may not feel that way to many but I know for myself and many others that it is indeed in love that we speak.
The Catechism tells us that "charity demands beneficence and fraternal correction; it is benevolence; it fosters reciprocity and remains disinterested and generous; it is friendship and communion: Love is itself the fulfillment of all our works. There is the goal; that is why we run: we run toward it, and once we reach it, in it we shall find rest."
stefoodie wrote:
| I hope that in the future when we can all look at this thread with more objective eyes that we can all see that there was no intention here to attack anyone, certainly not Elizabeth, and certainly not anyone who has taken Waldorf and drawn inspiration from it. |
|
|
I certainly have no desire to upset anyone but I won't remain silent. I am sincerely concerned for people I love and care about. I don't think this is a small issue --I think it's big and serious and frankly I feel a bit like I am sticking my neck out here. I have nothing to gain by upsetting people though I certainly could have much to lose. But it doesn't matter. In the end we all have to answer for what we have and haven't done and I know I would not be able to live with being silent on this issue. We are family ladies like it or not and as such we are called to love one another and be honest with one another. That's what's happening here, not detraction, not calumny but sincere concern for those in our family who we feel are walking in a dangerous direction. NO ONE is suggesting it is intentional but it sure is troublesome.
__________________
Michele Quigley
wife to my prince charming and mom of 10 in Lancaster County, PA USA
http://michelequigley.com
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
JodieLyn
Forum Moderator
Joined: Sept 06 2006
Location: Oregon
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 12234
|
| Posted: Feb 27 2010 at 5:34pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
msclavel, you're hurt, you're upset, but you're also being insulting and claiming things of others that are not so.
I am a moderator, but I am also a mom, just like you. And since I am the one who has publically claimed no knowledge of Serendipity. It's rather obvious of whom you speak.
So simply to be clear, I made no judgement about Serendipity. I claimed no knowledge of it to be quite clear on that. All I claim knowledge of is the Church's teaching on Waldorf and my *personal* opinion that if a program claims it, I will not choose to doubt their word.
JodieLyn wrote:
I've posted my opinion clearly just a bit ago. If it claims Waldorf, then I won't choose to doubt it.
I have never looked at Serendipity at all to even know if it does claim Waldorf in any way or not.
And I don't doubt the good intentions of Catholics who choose to use something I see as questionable. I think there may still be a lot of confusion over the seriousness of the Church's documents that condemn Steiner and what that actually means. And because it's outside of the norm, we may all tend to revert to the more typical "take whats good and leave the rest.. because we can't wrap our brains around the difference or why that one might be worse than others.. because we can see how bad some things are.
But then maybe that's exactly why it's condemned because it is hard to see just how bad it is for most of us without serious theological training. |
|
|
__________________
Jodie, wife to Dave
G-18, B-17, G-15, G-14, B-13, B-11, G-9, B-7, B-5, B-4
All men who have turned out worth anything have had the chief hand in their own education.
-Sir Walter Scott
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
MaryM
Board Moderator
Joined: Feb 11 2005
Location: Colorado
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 13104
|
| Posted: Feb 27 2010 at 5:39pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Celeste wrote:
Martha wrote:
| I should note that "crossing over to the dark side" is a star wars joke around here that is said in laughter, not hurtfully. |
|
|
|
|
|
It is said with laughter here, too.
I have a hard time - I am slow to be able to articulate my thoughts before the conversation moves on. Some things that caught my attention - though I know conversation has again moved beyond.
Marcia wrote:
| We are all sinners....and this Lent is a good time for us to see it again. |
|
|
We are all sinners, we all struggle. I appreciate that reminder for myself, Marcia.
Becky Parker wrote:
I'm going to find some time to pray the rosary tonight or tomorrow with the specific intention that the truth be loud and clear in the hearts of everyone here. I know I have to do this often when I'm in a state of confusion. Mary never lets me down. It does take humility on my part though!
This discussion has been so informative for me, but I also hear words of those who have been hurt by it. I don't think anyone on this board intends to hurt anyone else. That's why I'm just hoping the Lord will bring peace and his light to what seems like such a lot of confusion.
|
|
|
This is profound and full of hope. Prayers for ourselves and for others are always beneficial and needed, especially in times of turmoil, confusion, frustration, or misunderstanding. Thank you
I don't think anyone intents to hurt anyone else, just as Becky mentioned. Also Natalia wrote and this spoke to me because it is what I think as well. I DO think we agree on these points.
Quote:
Everybody agrees that Steiner's writing or any other writing that is overtly New Age must be avoided.
Everybody agrees that we pay attention to the church and what she says.
Everybody agrees that each mother/parents here want what is best for their kids.
Everybody agrees that nobody here will willingly endangered their dc's souls. |
|
|
Stef just re-emphasized one of those points
Quote:
| We all want to follow what the Church teaches. |
|
|
And Theresa said
Quote:
| And does charity mean we can never disagree here? Or that we can only post about positive things? |
|
|
So much everyone agrees on if these can be assumed to be true - I believe they are. There are the essentials. But there are areas of disagreement in practices or opinions. To disagree does not mean or call upon a judgement on the person or people with whom we disagree. Where there is free will (that pesky gift we were given ) there will be disagreement. Disagreement offers different perspectives and veiwpoints to consider, opportunities for clarification, etc.
Looking at the discussion, I would point out that several individuals who have posted have self-identified as taking a conservative approach with topics like this. Others have shared their involvement in or with New Age/occult in the past and therefore have a unique perspective to offer from that. Others have shared a knowledge of theology and philosophy and bring that information. Others are sharing what has and hasn't worked for their family. Others are still just searching/wondering and asking questions. We all bring such different perspectives, experiences, and biases to the topic. We are each going to make choices because we were given free will. Learning, discerning, seeking guidance, praying are all tools we bring to our decisions. And decisions can and do change over time again hopefully with those tools to help.
stefoodie wrote:
| I cannot judge you and you cannot judge me, even if taking this teaching and interpreting it looks different in your home and in mine. I can worry about what other people think of what I do, but in the end, it's all just still between Him and me. |
|
|
But when it comes down to it, really, this side of heaven we aren't going to know with certainty the answers to many of our questions or the results of our choices.
__________________
Mary M. in Denver
Our Domestic Church
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Willa
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 28 2005
Location: California
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3881
|
| Posted: Feb 27 2010 at 5:52pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I couldn't really read earlier because I was dropping my mom off at the airport through a blizzard and then was so exhausted I dropped off to sleep.
I'm reading now, but I still haven't read every post, only enough to see the basics.
Over here in Philosophy of Education we don't discuss individuals simply because the risk of detraction and rash judgment and personal harm is so great. Philosophy of Education is for the general questions and when we are discussing these type of things we need to keep it general enough to deal with the question without getting involved in critiquing living individuals or their public work in any way.
This is because of the limitations of the board and its public nature. And you can see how fast a topic can get into personalities and division once this starts, and how that can rebound into someone's good name, which is a person's most precious private possession according to St Francis de Sales.
Also please remember that at this time people are expressing their personal views and how they make decisions in this question. We are not presenting a lockstep position here.
My "take" as a person not a moderator now, is that we aren't so much talking about Waldorf on this thread as about how we balance between the holy caution recommended by the Church and the tradition of freedom in "taking what is good". No one is denying that either of these things are part of what the Church teaches -- we are dealing with different emphases.
At this time our board is not able to decide conclusively how the process should go. Also, historically, our board has kept to the most cautious and minimalist interpretation of our public responsibilities, with the broadest allowance to freedom. The advantage of this is that we can learn from others -- the disadvantage of course is disagreement and some tougher topics.
Sorry if my tone is off here! I am in haste and still in a cloud of sleep. Speaking as a moderator again, no further mention of persons or their public work on this thread, please. We need to keep the topic to what we do and how we discern in our own homes and how we interpret Church teachings in this matter.
__________________
AMDG
Willa
hsing boys ages 11, 14, almost 18 (+ 4 homeschool grads ages 20 to 27)
Take Up and Read
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
LisaR
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 07 2005
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2226
|
| Posted: Feb 27 2010 at 5:55pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
JodieLyn wrote:
I think there may still be a lot of confusion over the seriousness of the Church's documents that condemn Steiner and what that actually means. And because it's outside of the norm, we may all tend to revert to the more typical "take whats good and leave the rest.. because we can't wrap our brains around the difference or why that one might be worse than others.. because we can see how bad some things are.
But then maybe that's exactly why it's condemned because it is hard to see just how bad it is for most of us without serious theological training.
(end quote)
************************************************
I'd like to respectfully say that when in doubt, again, unless it is a true need for your family,(and I can safely say Waldorf education is most likely not) it is always better to go with the Church's documents and teachings/warnings and not attempt to take "what is good and leave the rest"
yes, we all have free will and a conscience, but this line of thinking is why 97-98% of the Church contracepts/sterilizes, for example.
I was taught that if the Church cared enough to write about something, it was worth taking note of and try our very hardest to follow her lead.
She is our mother and is here for us so we don't have to go it/discern alone!!
with regards to scrupulosity, here I see only a sincere effort to follow what the Church already has to say about the issue, I do not get the sense anyone is trying to outdo or be more Catholic than the Church.
This topic to me is so much greater than and more meaningful than Serendipity or some women's contributions to blogs somewhere, and I do not mean this to sound flippant.
What is being discussed is part of my continuing education, to constantly strive to seek and live Truth in love and charity.
What is an authentic Catholic education? What is the Church asking of dh and myself as primary educators of our family?
I know that we as parents must continually question, learn, and seek truth in all things so as to be good emparters of this to our children.
We most certainly should and will change and grow along the way, and this is why Lissa's posts and a few others early on were so personally meaningful to me.
honestly, if we couldn't discuss Catholic Church teaching here with regards to learning, I would seriously be doubting the mission of the 4Real Learning boards.
Thank you all once again.
__________________
Lisa
dh Tim '92
Joseph 17
Paul 14
Thomas 11
Dominic 8
Maria Gianna 5
Isaac Vincent 9/21/10! and...
many little saints in heaven!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
|
|
4Real Forums : Philosophy of Education
Topic: Article on Waldorf elements (
Topic Closed)
