| Author | |
KayMS
Forum Rookie
Joined: July 14 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 10
|
| Posted: July 15 2005 at 5:15pm | IP Logged
|
 |
|
I was basing my comments on canon 827 on the statement someone made that Laura Berquist uses Mere Christianity to teach truths of the Faith to 8th graders. Canon 827 would obviously prohibit this if the book was THE textbook used to impart religious instructions for the precise reason that it lacks an imprimatur. If I was wrong and Berquist was only using it as a supplement, then the next section of the canon, which has far less weight, holds true:
Can. 827 ß3 It is recommended that books dealing with the subjects mentioned in ß2, even if not used as basic textbooks, and any writings which specially concern religion or good morals, be submitted to the judgment of the local Ordinary.
Somehow, this discussion got tracked over to using the CCM (Catholic Charlotte Mason) method. (I apologize for abbreviating without specifying what I meant.)
As I said before, home schoolers are not exempt from the section of canon law pertaining to publications by virtue of their parentage or matrimony. All the faithful are bound to the publication standards of the Church outlined in canon law - homeschoolers or not. As I mentioned before, the canon did not exempt particular kinds of instructors: teachers, parents, pastors, etc. All coorperate with God in imparting Catholic education to youth and all are bound to the authority of the Church. Parents ARE the primary educators but they are NOT the supreme educators since men and women must submit obedience to the Church.
To Ms. Foss, yes, it is entirely possible in today's world to print a book minus a required imprimatur because Catholics do not have to go to a competant Catholic publisher to print their materials. I am not saying your book lacks the required authorizations. It is also very likely the case that many Catholics are completely unaware of the canon law and self-publish in innocent ignorance of the requirements of the law. I can tell you that I have done so but I have removed all my publications from the market in order to reaccess and apply for the appropriate authorizations and judgements, where needed.
I know there are some people to whom I have not responded. Forgive me. I seemingly stand alone on my side and it is rather difficult to answer all these questions, comments, and rebuttals in a streamline way single-handedly.
Pax Domini Sit Semper Vobiscum,
K.M.S.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Elizabeth
Founder
Real Learning
Joined: Jan 20 2005
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5595
|
| Posted: July 15 2005 at 5:27pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
KayMS wrote:
Somehow, this discussion got tracked over to using the CCM (Catholic Charlotte Mason) method. (I apologize for abbreviating without specifying what I meant.)
|
|
|
I still don't know what you mean since I don't think there is one definition of "The Catholic Charlotte Mason Method." Mater Amabilis differs from Real Learning and there are many, many people who subscribe to neither but consider CM methods a very integral part of the Catholic education they provide their children at home.
By the way, you are welcome to call me Elizabeth or Mrs. Foss, if you prefer.I'm a board moderator here. I still don't know what to call you. This message board is a very tightly-knit community. We all know each other pretty well. Though we don't always agree with each other, there is always a sense of honest disclosure. At the top of every forum is a sticky asking new members to go to the Fireside Chat forum to introduce themselves. Please do that before posting again so that we know who you are--it's truly important to the integrity of our online support network.
__________________
Elizabeth Foss is no longer a member of this forum. Discussions now reflect the current management & are not necessarily expressions of her book, *Real Learning*, her current work, or her philosophy. (posted by E. Foss, Jan 2011)
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
KayMS
Forum Rookie
Joined: July 14 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 10
|
| Posted: July 15 2005 at 5:43pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Ms. Quigley,
Is there some particular reason you chose to address me in a name other than that which I submitted to this public forum?
I have graciously permitted the free discussion of my aritcles in all circles to be minus any personal skewering because they are unsigned and no one can address or attack me personally, but rather ONLY the content of those articles. I have opened myself on this forum to public dialogue to anyone who cared to address me. I have been charitable and mannerly as best is possible in a forum where I have no personal friends or support.
But, I will graciously bow out of this forum since you apparently feel I have nothing to offer this discussion and my diverging views are counterproductive to your friendly environment. I will periodically monitor your site to see if your curricular program ever gains ecclesiastical approbation.
I apologize to all others who were patiently awaiting a response from me.
Pax Domini Sit Semper Vobiscum,
K.M.S.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Elizabeth
Founder
Real Learning
Joined: Jan 20 2005
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5595
|
| Posted: July 15 2005 at 5:50pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Dear KMS,
Since you choose not to introduce yourself, please do bow out. It's disconcerting at best to have a conversation with a nameless, faceless entity, particularly when that person seems determined only to be contrary. I don't think it gracious or mannerly to refuse to introduce yourself. I'm quite certain that the women on this board can discuss the encyclical in question to their satisfaction in your absence.
__________________
Elizabeth Foss is no longer a member of this forum. Discussions now reflect the current management & are not necessarily expressions of her book, *Real Learning*, her current work, or her philosophy. (posted by E. Foss, Jan 2011)
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
MicheleQ
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 23 2005
Location: Pennsylvania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2193
|
| Posted: July 15 2005 at 6:11pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
KayMS wrote:
Ms. Quigley,
Is there some particular reason you chose to address me in a name other than that which I submitted to this public forum? |
|
|
I didn't realize it was a problem. But I am uneasy when people use a pseudo name instead of their real name, especially when such people have invested a great deal of time and effort in tearing someone else down. I just don't think you can have it both ways. Attack CM and then hide your identity because you fear being attacked in return. I'm sorry but that just doesn't seem right when so many women here and elsewhere have had the courage to be honest about who they are, while standing tall and taking the flack for what they write and promote.
Quote:
| I have graciously permitted the free discussion of my aritcles in all circles to be minus any personal skewering because they are unsigned and no one can address or attack me personally, but rather ONLY the content of those articles. I have opened myself on this forum to public dialogue to anyone who cared to address me. I have been charitable and mannerly as best is possible in a forum where I have no personal friends or support. |
|
|
I didn't realize permission was needed to discuss something that is freely posted on the internet. As for personal skewering you would know if you spent anytime here that such a thing is quite rare. I truly think the good people here sincerely want to understand where you are coming from and why it is you have invested so much time and effort into the "skewering" of Charlotte Mason.
Quote:
| But, I will graciously bow out of this forum since you apparently feel I have nothing to offer this discussion and my diverging views are counterproductive to your friendly environment. |
|
|
I am only a guest here myself but as many of my friends frequent this forum I did find the seeming deception troubling.
Quote:
| I will periodically monitor your site to see if your curricular program ever gains ecclesiastical approbation. |
|
|
Please do. 
God bless,
__________________
Michele Quigley
wife to my prince charming and mom of 10 in Lancaster County, PA USA
http://michelequigley.com
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
KMStrong
Forum Newbie
Joined: July 15 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2
|
| Posted: July 15 2005 at 7:34pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Michelle,
I re-registered under a new login as my old account was denied permission to post. I made a post in the Fireside Chat thread (though I unfortunately noticed not everyone has been required to do so). I did not want to retire from the forum with the above comments made to me left without response as though I left in a huff. I did not. I hold no malice toward anyone.
MicheleQ wrote:
| I am uneasy when people use a pseudo name instead of their real name |
|
|
On re-reading the forum specifications for registration, real names are optional and it does say that personal information should not be divulged. I gave explanation as to why I do not sign my articles within the scope of this thread but made mention that I have and continue to be entirely open to emails from the links on my site (Sedes Sapientiae: www.seekwisdom.org - for those that don't want to scroll backwards). It would not be greatly difficult to figure out who I am with a simple email.
Quote:
I did find the seeming deception troubling.
|
|
|
I did not deceive anyone in using moniker-initials. I divulged fully, short of my complete name, who I was in my first post, even as to my Catholicity, and made many mentions on how a person could contact me personally if they desired. I registered with my true site email address, as I have also just done so with my personal email address. I gave completely open explanation of my opinions.
Any clever person who wants to look back through these posts can figure out my real name/web nickname without much problem.
Pax Domini Sit Semper Vobiscum,
K.M.S.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Elizabeth
Founder
Real Learning
Joined: Jan 20 2005
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5595
|
| Posted: July 15 2005 at 7:39pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Occasionally, people have introduced themselves in other threads. Often, they are familiar faces and old friends from CCM or FCL or MA or all of the above. We do ask people to identify themselves and let their presence be known in order to keep people who join for the deliberate purpose of flaming from doing any damage to an otherwise friendly forum. And, as I noted after KMS' intorductory post, we ardently discourage people from joining for the purpose of opposing a Charlotte Mason-inpsired education. Honest inquiry is invited and welcomed, as is friendly debate. But no one here has the time or energy to defend her lifestyle to someone whose purpose is to criticize and condemn it.
__________________
Elizabeth Foss is no longer a member of this forum. Discussions now reflect the current management & are not necessarily expressions of her book, *Real Learning*, her current work, or her philosophy. (posted by E. Foss, Jan 2011)
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
KMStrong
Forum Newbie
Joined: July 15 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2
|
| Posted: July 15 2005 at 7:41pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Elizabeth wrote:
Dear KMS,
It's disconcerting at best to have a conversation with a nameless, faceless entity, particularly when that person seems determined only to be contrary. |
|
|
I apologize to you personally for misusing your forum. I re-registered licitly in your forum, gave enough information within my registration and previous post to identify myself and will now un-register.
Thank you for allowing me the time I spent here.
Pax Domini Sit Semper Vobiscum,
K.M.S.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
cathhomeschool
Board Moderator
Texas Bluebonnets
Joined: Jan 26 2005
Location: Texas
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7303
|
| Posted: July 15 2005 at 7:43pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
As moderator of this forum I would like to steer the conversation back to its original topic, discussion of the encyclical Divini Illius Magistri. This encyclical, and more recent ones like Gravissimum Educationis, have many wonderful things to say in support of homeschooling. Please, Richelle, post your thoughts and we'll chime in as you guide the study!
__________________
Janette (4 boys - 22, 21, 15, 14)
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
tovlo4801
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 28 2005
Location: Minnesota
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 386
|
| Posted: July 15 2005 at 8:25pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I'd love to discuss other encyclicals after we've tackled this one!
I'm still not very far in the encyclical. I'm hoping to spend some time moving through it this weekend. For now I'll just post some sections that especially jumped out.
11. Education is essentially a social and not a mere individual activity. Now there are three necessary societies, distinct from one another and yet harmoniously combined by God, into which man is born: two, namely the family and civil society, belong to the natural order; the third, the Church, to the supernatural order.
12. In the first place comes the family, instituted directly by God for its peculiar purpose, the generation and formation of offspring; for this reason it has priority of nature and therefore of rights over civil society. Nevertheless, the family is an imperfect society, since it has not in itself all the means for its own complete development; whereas civil society is a perfect society, having in itself all the means for its peculiar end, which is the temporal well-being of the community; and so, in this respect, that is, in view of the common good, it has pre-eminence over the family, which finds its own suitable temporal perfection precisely in civil society.
13. The third society, into which man is born when through Baptism he reaches the divine life of grace, is the Church; a society of the supernatural order and of universal extent; a perfect society, because it has in itself all the means required for its own end, which is the eternal salvation of mankind; hence it is supreme in its own domain.
The respect in the document for all three societies and the harmonious working together of them struck me first. The family works within the civil society and under the ultimate authority of the Church.
In the second quoted section I found it interesting that family is stated as having rights over civil society, but it is an imperfect society as opposed to civil society which is a perfect society. As I contemplated it though, it does seem exactly right. The family has rights over the generation and formation of offspring that the civil society should not trample. However, the family is an imperfect society and must look outside itself for means to its own complete development. One of the arguments against homeschooling is always that we are not qualified. I don't think many of us would argue that we are qualified in ourselves to accomplish this task. We look both to civil society and especially to the Church for help in completing the development we've been tasked.
I especially like what I saw as the wrap-up comment of these sections.
14. Consequently, education which is concerned with man as a whole, individually and socially, in the order of nature and in the order of grace, necessarily belongs to all these three societies, in due proportion, corresponding, according to the disposition of Divine Providence, to the co-ordination of their respecting ends.
It seems to sum up very nicely a respect for the rights and responsibilities of each of these societies and the proper order for each. That proper order seems to be again emphasized by the next section:
15. And first of all education belongs preeminently to the Church, by reason of a double title in the supernatural order, conferred exclusively upon her by God Himeself; absolutely superior therefore to any other title in the natural order.
These sections really seem to give proper acknowledgement to the two natural societies, family and civil society, while keeping the proper predominance of the Church. How do you guys see this playing out practically in your family, community and parish?
I know that sometimes I can begin to despair my inability to properly form my children when I get lost in the to-do lists and lose track of the proper end and that perfect society, the Church, that has a primary role to fill in my homeschool.
What are some specific ways that you turn to the Church to help you complete the formation of your children?
To what extent do you turn to civil society for aid in forming children for the temporal well-being of the community (or the common good)?
I find myself sometimes a little shy of turning too much to civil society for fear that my rights of family will be trampled. Yet I know that so much of what is in the community is valuable. Does anyone else find themselves a little worried about giving too much control to the civil society despite the truth that they do have a role to play in our children's formation?
I love to hear your thoughts. Keep in mind that I have not read the whole document yet and with proper context my perspective might change. 
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
MicheleQ
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 23 2005
Location: Pennsylvania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2193
|
| Posted: July 15 2005 at 8:37pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
KMStrong wrote:
I gave explanation as to why I do not sign my articles within the scope of this thread but made mention that I have and continue to be entirely open to emails from the links on my site (Sedes Sapientiae: www.seekwisdom.org - for those that don't want to scroll backwards). It would not be greatly difficult to figure out who I am with a simple email.
|
|
|
But even the e-mail on the site is generic. Perhaps that is why you haven't recieved any e-mails in regards to your articles. My experience is that people like to who they are speaking to BEFORE they send an e-mail. To have to "figure it out" can be a bit disconcerting.
Quote:
I did not deceive anyone in using moniker-initials. I divulged fully, short of my complete name, who I was in my first post, even as to my Catholicity, and made many mentions on how a person could contact me personally if they desired. I registered with my true site email address, as I have also just done so with my personal email address. I gave completely open explanation of my opinions.
Any clever person who wants to look back through these posts can figure out my real name/web nickname without much problem. |
|
|
And yet when I did figure it out it seemed to bother you. In any case I did not say that you intended to deceive but only that it somewhat seemed that way. Since you say that was not your intention I give you the benefit of the doubt.
God bless!
__________________
Michele Quigley
wife to my prince charming and mom of 10 in Lancaster County, PA USA
http://michelequigley.com
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
MicheleQ
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 23 2005
Location: Pennsylvania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2193
|
| Posted: July 15 2005 at 8:39pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
cathhomeschool wrote:
| As moderator of this forum I would like to steer the conversation back to its original topic, discussion of the encyclical Divini Illius Magistri. This encyclical, and more recent ones like Gravissimum Educationis, have many wonderful things to say in support of homeschooling. Please, Richelle, post your thoughts and we'll chime in as you guide the study! |
|
|
My apologies. I should have checked before posting. In any case it seems Ms. Strong has already left.
God bless,
__________________
Michele Quigley
wife to my prince charming and mom of 10 in Lancaster County, PA USA
http://michelequigley.com
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Kim F
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 03 2005
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 326
|
| Posted: July 15 2005 at 9:55pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I think the discussion has been successfully redirected but should someone read it through later on I wanted to clarify that Laura Berguist does not use Mere Christianity as a primary religion text. Faith and Life 8 is the primary text for that syllabus. This seems typical for all Catholic programs that have a CM flavor to them. Just didnt want someone without the syllabus in hand to be swayed by misinformation.
Kim
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
ALmom
Forum All-Star
Joined: May 18 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3299
|
| Posted: July 16 2005 at 4:27am | IP Logged
|
|
|
I have finally read through all the various posts on this thread and have a moment to jot down a few thoughts -
Richelle, I so identify with your concerns/ questions relating to the education of our children. I have been struggling with what the Church requires of me AND also what is the appropriate response on my part in areas where it is unclear to me exactly what is required and where I am uncomfortable with the direction I see taking place. I really agonize over criticisms of homeschooling or of particular styles of homeschooling when it comes from clergy. We have experienced concern with this in the past - no one ever opposed us persay, but we have seen articles from a priest we admire against homeschooling, our deacon published a letter in the diocesan newspaper directly criticizing homeschooling and there were a flurry of calls to determine if this was the official position of the diocese or the personal opinion of this individual. Fortunately it was the opinion of the individual, so we didn't have to deal with that can of worms - but the what if did trouble us.
When we began homeschooling, we were low key, but did inform our pastor and gladly had him interview our children before Sacrament time.
We agonized over what appeared to be a command to bow before receiving Holy Communion even though we had carefully taught our children the distinction of the bow which was used to show honor and respect (altar boy boying to priest, bowing to the altar of sacrifice in the abscence of the Blessed Sacrament, etc. and how the genuflection was generally reserved for the Real Prescence. We had informed them of the various forms the church had given in her instructions for veneration before Communion which was the communicants choice (bowing, kneeling, genuflection, sign of the cross). When the new instruction came out, we submitted with deep sadness and tears and felt that our credibility to our children had been damaged. We explained the instructions as best we understood them - knew the church had jurisdiction and authority over this matter and so explained the importance of obedience even when we do not understand.
Then we saw information on Vatican websites to the contrary, so we resumed genuflection (except for our oldest who began to feel like perhaps genuflection was drawing too much attention to ourselves and we respected her choice to continue bowing) but were viewed as disobedient. When a priest(acting totally in good faith) indicated in a formal way that the bishop had indicated that bowing was the veneration that the bishop commanded, we asked about the Vatican information and were told it depended what kind of response it was and from what office whether or not it would supercede. For a few days we ceased genuflecting thinking that we must act in obedience to our bishop - only to find out that the bishop had been misunderstood by most in our diocese, had never desired that we stop genuflecting and that the Vatican documents were clear. Our priest and pastor immediately rectified the situation in a written instruction in the bulletin. Now everyone in our family has resumed genuflection.
The diocese has required all Catholic schools to use a particular text for religous instruction (it is not my favorite but we try to borrow it at some point). It is unclear whether or not this applies to homeschoolers as initially we were not even asked to take the diocesan religion test. The text in use is not horrible - just disorganized and it does have pictures in the student text of all the children gathered around the altar in opposition to the instructions of the church - and does use sloppy language in its discussion of Holy Communion sometimes slipping into using bread and wine for the Body and Blood of Our Lord. Before this instruction came out, one of our homeschoolers had asked the bishop which text he felt was most in line with his own document on religious instruction. He told us "Faith and Life" which is what we use along with CHC and the Baltimore Catechism. Are we strictly required to use the newer textbook which would entail considerable expense for our family (having to order 6 texts and tm)and which we view as having some harmful influence on the children because of the photos and carelessness. It is also unfamiliar to me, difficult to use because of the disorderly way the doctrine is presented. Even if not strictly required to submit, what is the appropriate Catholic response? Our approach is to utilize the text in some way (usually I go through a borrowed TM and review and explain any differing vocabulary so that the child is familiar with both and read the stories of the Saints and use it as a general review of all that we have learned without the child seeing the student text. We also have our children take the diocesan religion test even though there are some questions we find inappropriate for the age (we do not go over these at home, nor do we study them). Are we disobedient? I sometimes resent the "wasted time" when there have been comments about how pleased the bishop and even the education staff are at the level of knowledge of the faith of the homeschoolers.
But the bishop is the bishop and he may have very good reasons (probably does)for requiring this - I am not privy to all the factors that went into his decision. It may not be particularly beneficial to our children - but by cooperating we may in some way be supporting the bishop in furthering his goal of assuring faithful transmission of the doctrine of the faith. What do we do if we are "required" to do something we believe is seriously harmful to our children? My first approach would be to seek the advice of a very knowledgeable and faithful theologian, but it seems best to submit to some inconvenience (not something truely harmful) for harmonies sake.
The deeper questions are related to authority, its legitimate exercise and the submission required to legitimately exercised authority(even children are not required to obey parents in matters of sin because God's law is above all else and is the source of all legitimate authority. Nor is a child required to obey another adult who has not been put in direct authority over them (ie a school teacher would have authority as the parents have de-facto delegated by sending the child to said school) but an adult (even known) would not be able to command a child to go to the store for them or get into the car with them as that is not within their authority. Somehow subsidiarity fits in here - all authority is under God, so his authority is first, then in different arenas, different authority is primary because of the more direct responsibility. The church is primary in the handing on and preserving of the content of faith as that is its mandate and it (not parents) are promised infallibility in determining questions of faith and morals - also in the liturgy. Parents would have primary responsibility for the teaching of children as they are the ones given the direct resoonsibility and grace to raise them. We are required to obey the legitimate authority of the state - but sometimes are obligated to "disobey" illegetimate and sinful orders. I believe that a more in - depth study would benefit us all as I see more and more signs of conflict (in disobedient churchmen and disobedient civil authority and disobedient individuals that is leading to chaos in church and society).
Somehow, in the discernment process, these are the factors that must be weighed. Is the authority legitimate, is it being exercised over areas for which it has responsibility? Somewhere in there is the idea of respect as well, even when strict submission may not be required.
I really believe this is one of the most difficult areas in our time because we have had a total breakdown of that understanding of authority and its legitimate exercise. The state wants to assume that parents don't know how to parent - are incapable of making decisions in the best interest of the children and expect to be allowed to totally take over. This is sometimes encountered (sort of unspoken but in the assumptions and fabric of life and with the best of intentions) when trying to work with doctors, dentists, DRE's, etc. It is helpful to re-read periodically the discussions of authority and subsidiarity in the Catechism and other documents of the church as quoted in some of the previous posts. We must somehow restore to ourselves and to society as a whole - a clear sense of the proper function and legitimate exercise of authority - none is absolute except God.
I do think that we must be careful that we don't become so independent that we do do exactly what we criticize out there - refuse to submit to the legitimate authority of the church. This submission is required even when we find it troubling, distasteful and we may even fear it is unwise. How many saints endured much suffering in submission to their legitimate superiors. I can immediately think of St. Margaret Mary and also St. Theresa of Avila. St John of the Cross was imprisoned in his attempt to reform the Carmelite order for men.
I found the quote "Every form of pedagogic naturalism which in any way excludes or weakens supernatural Christian formation in the teaching of youth, is false. Every method of education founded in whole or in part on the denial or forgetfulness of original sin and of grace and relying on the sole powers of human nature is unsound. Such are the modern systems bearing various names which appeal to self - government and unrestrained freedom on the part of the child and which diminish and even suppress the teachers authority and action, attribute to the child an exclusive primacy of initiation and and act independent of the law, natural and divine, in work of his education." a quote in need of deeper pondering as it does in fact give guidance and relate to the very exercise of choosing philosophies which will help us determine methodologies for teaching. I would be terribly imprudent at best to ignore this instruction.
It is somewhat interesting to speculate and would probably be helpful to know which particular methods were targeted at the time the document was written. This would give us clues as to some specifics that were recognized as threatening. However, that does not exempt methods not specifically targeted because someone hadn't dreamed them up yet. This is a statement, it seems, of general principle.
I took a Philosophy of Education course in college (which in no way makes me an expert - it simply exposed me to bookoodles of philosophies - some obviously crazy and some tweaking my warning bells and some very attractive personally) I wish I'd had that quote above, it would have given me a means of evaluating. I believe one of the philosophers that concerned the church was Dewey who is behind much of our current educational system and Pavlov. Some philosophers of education saw the sole purpose of education as being the forming of useful and productive members of the state. I read philosophers who established Free schools based on the idea that freedom was paramount and they threw together troubled kids and had them totally govern themselves and do whatever they wanted. The school was full of profanity by the authors own admission. Imo, this was nuts and I think clearly falls under what the church is condemning (even if it hadn't been dreamed up yet when the document was written).
In 1918, The Seven Cardinal Principles of Education were published by the National Education Association Commission on the Re organization of Secondary Education. (the committee formed in 1913). The principles published were as follows:
health - sounds pretty inocuous until you look at teacher training classes where high school teachers are told to investigate dietary needs of student, we now have sex ed classes, school based clinics, medical exams during school hours. Not only does it divert time, energy and money from what is supposed to be primary in the school, but it makes the teacher into a de-facto social worker and has the school taking over the role of parent in decisions about the child.
fundamental processes is about academics (minimum competency today but this was simply stated in the document without elaboration.
worthy home membership - suddenly skills that children were learning at home like home ec became subjects to be taught. While worthy skills, they were being transmitted very effectively mother to daughter until the school took over.
vocation - based on the assumption that students were incapable of academic work. One quote from the document struck me as particularly communistic in philosophy here - "to maintain the right relationship between fellow workers and society".
civics - again it sounds fairly innocuos but gave the NEA power to dilute content to make it more relevant. It also emphasized "collective learning" unblocked by regular learning. Again, that strikes me as somewhat communistic. It certainly has succeeded in "collective learning" in the intense peer pressure experienced in most schools.
worthy use of leisure - this one really spooked me because it emphasized evoking the right emotional response. Does reason disappear. Emotional response and Intellectual discipline don't exactly support one another. Is the state and state agencies suddenly becoming the controller of all that we do?
ethical character- again it sounds good but in the context of the whole document and in light of what has happened to public education, suddenly the NEA becomes the determiner and responsible agent in the development of ethical character (as opposed to church and parents) or is it by majority vote?
Based on the time spent on each of the items and lack of time spent discussing content, the focus in education shifted from content to the feelings of the student without any regard for truth or God.
I must admit, I am uneasy with philosophies that put no emphasis on content, the mentoring role of parents or tutors. These seem to be so misdirected as to destroy or hamper the child's ability to develop full reasoning capacity and does not take into account original sin. It makes the child vulnerable to suggestions contrary to truth that are phrased or sound good without a highly developed sense of reason. The temptor is ever active. I do not believe that children will choose only what is good for them - we don't let them choose their own diet until they are old enough, but guide them and sometimes require them to do what is good for them even when they don't seem to like it. This is part of the responsibility of parenthood. I also am uneasy if there is no emphasis on discipline (I don't mean having to sit in a traditional classroom with bookoodles of textbooks here, but I do mean a flighty sort of unplanned lets see what strikes our fancy today.) I do not claim that CCM is one of these, nor am I claiming that anyone on the board teaches this way. I have seen people who gave talks about not making their children go to church, etc and this was consistent with the unschooling philosophy they described. It does not take into account the movement of Grace in the child.
I personally don't know enough about CCM or unschooling to assess them. I'm looking forward to seeing this discussion as it develops as I do think many valid questions were raised, even by the woman who is no longer on the board.
I do not ascribe to the philosophy that the more facts you pound into a child's head the more educated he will be, but find the Ignatian method of learning something deeply and well without multiplying the busy work to be a great Catholic balance.
I do think that there is a legitimate point in the caution that we cannot be so sure of our own expertise that we baptise a whole philosophy that is contrary to the faith in any of its assumptions - these assumptions do underlie a structure and can be very hidden. These errors are often the most dangerous because they are the most hidden.
That being said, I do think that we can take a philosophy and implement it in unique ways. Ie, I do try to keep the Catholic Ignatian philosophy in mind and use it as a guiding principle. It does not strictly require a certain way of presenting material. I don't follow everything in a canned curriculum, nor am I required to. Philosophies of education are based on assumptions about man, how he learns and what he should learn. Ideas have profound effects on the world and can be extremely dangerous when they are in error. Look at the ideas leading to Communism, Nazism, the French Revolution. Some of these ideas insiduosly work their way into our own thinking without us recognizing them. Most of the ideas that have been very dangerous, are ones that observed and spoke just enough truth to dupe enough people while twisting this truth and drawing erroneous conclusions because of error woven in.
I also think it is important to distinguish between the What (content) and How (methodology). Philosophies of education will impact both. CHC looks very much like what you CCM describe and it is approved but obviously based on the Catholic understanding of the child. CHC, unlike some things I have seen, is extremely careful about presenting wholesome content especially in the younger grades because they do understand that responsibility of baptism to preserve the baptismal innocence of the child despite our fallen nature. I find it extremely troubling to see suggestions that we give our child mythology from K on to read. I believe this is based on an inaccurate failure to realize the dangers of exposing young children to a mixture of truth and untruth at early ages before they have developed more discernment. I am totally unfamiliar with FIAR or the Catholic version of it, but I do think it is good to assess what the philosophy is behind the books we select (do we recognize fallen nature even in a child, do we see the need to foster character development, etc. ) What is it we are trying to do with our children. They need to learn to read, of course, and it should be from good books. But whose philosophy decides what is a good book? It should be well - written and thought out, it should express some real truth, it should be beautiful - but is that enough? I really think the choices have to be guided by a real understanding of the child's nature and vulnerability and our promises as parents to make it our constant exercise to lead the child to full understanding of the faith, to preserve their baptismal innocence.
Then in looking at the methodology - does it acknowledge the parents responsibility to nurture and guide, or does it completely remove anyone but the child. Of course we should recognize the child as a person (CM seems to have said a lot about this, but so did Dr. Montessori (who was an Italian Catholic working initially with mentally retarded children). I do have some gut feeling (though not fully thought out and open to correction) that there is something to the caution to look at the wealth of Catholic methodologies and philosophies out there before taking on the arduous task of developing or Catholicizing someone else's approach. But it is not illegetimate to take what is true - including increased understandings about how children learn and formulate a new philosophy consistent with Catholic principles. This is how we move forward - but it must be done humbly with an awareness of our own weaknesses and prejudices and the very real awareness that we may in fact miss an important and insiduous error in the process. Real Catholic thinkers have not been afraid to forge new ways of doing things, but they have always been ready and willing and quick to remove anything contrary to the teachings of the church once this is brought to their attention. And they don't seek innovation just to have something new. I would be surprised if the attitude of those active in the Catholic homeschool movement is anything different than this. I have a great deal of respect for the honest efforts to search and do what is right by those on this board. I don't think it is a bad idea to look at what is Catholic and already out there.
It is late, and I may be rambling. I am in no way an expert on any of this - just throwing out a few ideas and ponderings while I have a moment. Hope I have not rambled too much - nor mispelled too many words.
Janet
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
momwise
Forum All-Star
Joined: March 28 2005
Location: Colorado
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1914
|
| Posted: July 16 2005 at 8:28am | IP Logged
|
|
|
tovlo4801 wrote:
| whereas civil society is a perfect society, having in itself all the means for its peculiar end, which is the temporal well-being of the community; and so, in this respect, that is, in view of the common good, it has pre-eminence over the family, which finds its own suitable temporal perfection precisely in civil society. |
|
|
Hi Richelle,
I have the document and have started reading it but will probably not be able to get to it until later tonight. I do have a couple of quick comments. Is "perfect" being used in the sense of "complete," in that it is made up of Christian families?
tovlo4801 wrote:
I find myself sometimes a little shy of turning too much to civil society for fear that my rights of family will be trampled. Yet I know that so much of what is in the community is valuable. Does anyone else find themselves a little worried about giving too much control to the civil society despite the truth that they do have a role to play in our children's formation?
I love to hear your thoughts. Keep in mind that I have not read the whole document yet and with proper context my perspective might change. |
|
|
As we noted in the previous discussion, so much of what is not explicity Catholic is still True and beautiful. What examples do we find in civil society? Volunteerism is one. The amount of time people put into their communities for no pay or recognition is staggering when one seeks out the examples.
Another example would be the ways so many people can teach us. My 15 yo dd is taking Vet Science classes from a wonderful volunteer 4H leader. I don't know if this is the type of value meant by the encyclical but there is also government, the courts, freedom of religion and speech, etc.
__________________
Gwen...wife for 30 years, mom of 7, grandma of 3.....
"If you want equal justice for all and true freedom and lasting peace, then America, defend life." JPII
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
momwise
Forum All-Star
Joined: March 28 2005
Location: Colorado
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1914
|
| Posted: July 16 2005 at 8:29am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Does anyone know if the Canon law posts show a preference for textbooks, if they are Catholic, over real books, if they are not specifically Catholic in a curriculum such as history or geography or do they apply to religious training only?
__________________
Gwen...wife for 30 years, mom of 7, grandma of 3.....
"If you want equal justice for all and true freedom and lasting peace, then America, defend life." JPII
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
tovlo4801
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 28 2005
Location: Minnesota
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 386
|
| Posted: July 16 2005 at 12:54pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Janet,
There is so much richness in what you wrote I don't know where to begin!
You addressed so many of my nagging concerns. The first being authority. Thank you for illustrating so well with your own examples the dilemma of discerning where obedience is called for and where it is not. You seem to have such a rich understanding of the faith - it obviously aids you extensively in that discernment.
I think I struggle even more with this because as a convert my depth of understanding is not nearly so rich. I desperately want to increase my understanding, but everytime I gain in understanding I seem to be made even more aware of what I'm lacking. Sometimes it just seems insurmountable.
Recognizing my own lack of understanding, I turn to those with more understanding to guide me in discernment. The problem with that is we get back to discernment of authority. Often I turn to others with more understanding to guide me, but they are not infallible and I'm left needing to discern somehow if their authority is legitimate and needs to be obeyed. It's just a circle I can't seem to escape. I don't trust my own discernment, but I can't turn to others for help without needing additional discernment!
I hope that I don't sound without faith here, but I'm being very honest in that I struggle with the ultimate authority - God. I don't really know how to hear what God wants. I know this is the only final authority, but I don't physically hear God talking. I can only try to discern what he is telling me and all too often that just feels like a guessing game.
I hope by studying documents like this I can gain more and more skill in discerning God's voice?
I also think you have some very interesting things to say about the document in terms of unschooling and CM. I have a lot of questions about whether unschooling crosses the line described in the document. I also share some musings about whether its possible there are difficult to detect insidious ideas in CM simply because she was not herself in the fullness of faith. I'm going to wait to comment on these things because I haven't gotten to those sections in the document yet. I'm curious what others think. I think there is potential for some really interesting discussion.
Thanks for your comments. There's a lot there for thought.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
tovlo4801
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 28 2005
Location: Minnesota
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 386
|
| Posted: July 16 2005 at 1:08pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
momwise wrote:
tovlo4801 wrote:
| whereas civil society is a perfect society, having in itself all the means for its peculiar end, which is the temporal well-being of the community; and so, in this respect, that is, in view of the common good, it has pre-eminence over the family, which finds its own suitable temporal perfection precisely in civil society. |
|
|
Is "perfect" being used in the sense of "complete," in that it is made up of Christian families?. |
|
|
Oh Gwen, I am so not an expert! My impression was that the document was using "perfect" in the sense that it had all it needed within itself to complete it's end. So civil society was considered perfect because it's end was temporal well-being or the common good and it has all it needs within itself to accomplish that end. I don't think the document was necessarily saying that the members of the civil society needed to be Christian to accomplish that end? The Church is a perfect society because it has all it needs within itself to accomplish it's end which is the eternal salvation of mankind. The family is incomplete because it's end is the generation and formation of offspring and the family needs to go outside itself for help (to the Church and to civil society) in order to accomplish this end.
momwise wrote:
| Another example would be the ways so many people can teach us. My 15 yo dd is taking Vet Science classes from a wonderful volunteer 4H leader. I don't know if this is the type of value meant by the encyclical but there is also government, the courts, freedom of religion and speech, etc. |
|
|
I was struggling to understand exactly what the value was of civil society, but I think you got it here. It is the social systems that we live within on earth. It is our responsibility to be active in that civil society to ensure that it works for the temporal well-being. So like you said, government, courts, and your daughter reminded me of medical services and things along those lines.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
tovlo4801
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 28 2005
Location: Minnesota
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 386
|
| Posted: July 16 2005 at 1:20pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I did manage to get almost halfway through the document last night. I'm hoping to have more time this weekend to finish it!
There's some really rich stuff later on, but I'm going to post some sections earlier on that struck me.
18. Hence it is that in this proper object of her mission, that is, "in faith and morals, God Himself has made the Church sharer in the divine magisterium and, by a special privilege, granted her immunity from error; hence she is the mistress of men, supreme and absolutely sure, and she has inherent in herself an inviolable right to freedom in teaching." By necessary consequence the Church is independent of any sort of earthly power as well in the origin as in the exercise of her mission as educator, not merely in regard to her poper end and object, but also in regard to the means necessary and suitable to attain that end. Hence with regard to every other kind of human learning and instruction, which is the common patrimony of individuals and society, the Church has an independent right to make use of it, and above all to decide what may help or harm Christian education. And this must be so, because the Church as a perfect society has an independent right to the means conducive to its end, and because every form of instruction, no less than every human action, has a necessary connection with man's last end, and therefore cannot be withdrawn from the dictates of the divine law, of which the Church is guardian, interpreter and infallible mistress.
This lays out the Church's proper right of supervision of ALL learning. "..because every form of instruction, no less than every human action, has a necessary connection with man's last end..." The Church "..being granted immunity from error..has inherent in herself an inviolable right to the freedom in teaching."
I think this sets up that the Church is ultimately over all instruction, but it doesn't really say yet how the Church will choose to exercise that right of supervision.
Any thoughts on this?
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
tovlo4801
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 28 2005
Location: Minnesota
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 386
|
| Posted: July 16 2005 at 1:23pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
momwise wrote:
| Does anyone know if the Canon law posts show a preference for textbooks, if they are Catholic, over real books, if they are not specifically Catholic in a curriculum such as history or geography or do they apply to religious training only? |
|
|
Gwen,
I didn't get any impression in my quick skim that they even addressed real books or a preference of textbooks over them. It almost seemed to assume that a text would be the primary teaching tool and then laid out the requirements for that. Just my impression.
Also I got the strong impression that they were aimed primarily at religious training, but in truth all subjects have a moral or religious component so that has to be taken into consideration.
HTH.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
|
|
4Real Forums : Living Learning
Topic: Divini Illius Magistri/real catholic educ
