| Author | |
Eleanor
Forum Pro
Joined: June 20 2007
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 326
|
| Posted: July 03 2007 at 12:56pm | IP Logged
|
 |
|
I hope not to offend anyone by this post. It's just sort of me thinking out loud about something that's been on my mind recently. 
With our little ones, we're planning to follow the full Montessori curriculum, supplemented with plenty of good literature. At some point, probably after age 6 (or earlier, if I burn out  ), we'll gradually start switching over to a more traditional, "book-centered" method. This is still a few years in the future, but we're already thinking about our options in the latter category. We've looked at TWTM, Latin-Centered Curriculum, CHC, MODG, Kolbe, Our Lady of Victory, Robinson, Calvert, and some others whose names escape me, as well as various "design your own" approaches along classical, Charlotte Mason, or eclectic lines.
While reading descriptions and reviews, I was very much attracted to the prepackaged Catholic curricula -- at least, as a starting point. After looking over the sample pages, though, I'm a bit perturbed by the way some of the programs seem to set out to insert the greatest possible amount of "Catholic talk" into every subject area. Again, I hope this doesn't offend anyone... it's just something I'm struggling with right now. We're traditional and orthodox in our faith, have many conversations about the spiritual aspects of everyday situations, and love to share religious books, music, and pictures with our children. I just don't see the need for the constant repetition ("Handwriting for Catholics," "Spelling with the Blessed Mother," "My Catholic Science Book"), and, in some cases, what seems to be a lack of subtlety in pointing out religious messages.
Am I missing something? Do young children -- or older ones, for that matter -- really benefit from this approach?
One thing I've noticed is that the older Catholic school texts (e.g., the reprints used by Our Lady of Victory) don't tend to have nearly as much of this "Catholic talk" as the newer ones (e.g. from Seton). In the older books, it seems as if it's just kind of understood. Maybe this is because the schools were teaching both Catholic and non-Catholic children? Perhaps the authors felt called to express the truth in a way that, as far as possible, was accessible to "all men of good will?"
Looking at this from another angle, I guess it also relates to the question of whether children should be given the space to make connections on their own, vs. having things spelled out for them. As I understand it, Montessori, Charlotte Mason, and unschooling would tend toward the former, while unit studies, Five in a Row, and some classical methods would tend toward the latter.
Thanks for letting me ramble... just trying to sort this out in my tired brain. Any responses would be appreciated. 
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Red Cardigan
Forum Pro
Joined: June 16 2007
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 470
|
| Posted: July 03 2007 at 1:46pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Eleanor, I don't think anyone should be offended--we all do this kind of thinking out loud, after all!
I use some of the Our Lady of Victory books in my eclectic curriculum, and I'd agree: the books are clearly Catholic, and the Voyages in English program for grammar, for example, is not only one of the most comprehensive programs out there, it's also filled with nice references to the Catholic faith in a way that seems quite natural.
I was using a new Catholic Spelling program, and after a short time I discarded it in favor of the secular MCP spelling books, not because the "Catholic Talk" got too intensive, but because the program's authors seemed more concerned about working Catholic words into every spelling lesson than they were about teaching logical principles of spelling! Let me give a "pretend example" (because after all this time I don't remember the details! ) if my then second grade child was using the MCP book, all the words would be 'grouped' around some basic spelling principle, such as the silent 'e' words (cake, cane, tape, etc.). But the Catholic speller would have some short vowel words, some long vowel words, some compound words all mixed up in the same lesson, and then four or five words that were really too hard for second graders: tabernacle, thurifer, incense, cathedral, papacy. I would say, Huh? and try to figure out just what spelling principle was being taught; I came to the conclusion that there really wasn't one!
My rule of thumb is to use Catholic materials for these subjects (besides religion of course!): History, Science (I use the OLV but supplement with some experiment books and the Internet; my DH just bought us a great new experiment book that mainly uses ordinary household supplies!) and Grammar (because I love Voyages in English!). I use secular materials for Spelling, Math, and Phonics (all MCP; I like their workbooks); and for Reading I use an assortment since after the beginning reader stages I move away from textbooks; my goal in teaching reading is to expose my children to as many different forms of literature as possible, and I've found an old set of Junior Classics to be great for our purposes.
One more thing (though I've gone on too long already!) is that with younger children I think you can get away with secular science books/materials; but as they get older too many of the textbooks really are written from an underlying philosophy of secularist/atheistic materialism, in which the universe just sort of 'happened' and all life is an accident; it might be possible to teach around that attitude, but I find it really annoying and would rather avoid it as much as possible.
Hope this helps!
__________________
http://www.redcardigan.blogspot.com
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Martha
Forum All-Star
Joined: Aug 25 2005
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2291
|
| Posted: July 03 2007 at 2:12pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I posted about my opinion on this previosuly in this thread,Catholic Centered Curriculum
I don't think it's contrived or badly done. I think it's beautiful and something I look for in materials claiming to be Catholic. I don't know that I agree about the older texts. You certainly know you are not looking at secular or protestant materials. to me they are clearly Catholic. Guess it depends on what you're looking at in the materials and what you tend to notice? As a convert, I tend to be highly critical with rather demanding expectations and more sensitive to things I've noticed cradle catholics don't seem to notice as quickly. (No offense intended to anyone in either of those situations, just my very personal experience.)
__________________
Martha
mama to 7 boys & 4 girls
Yes, they're all ours!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
JennGM
Forum Moderator
Joined: Feb 07 2005
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 17702
|
| Posted: July 03 2007 at 2:46pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I think it's a matter of opinion, really, no real wrong or right answer. I find some of the newer books a bit "contrived" in their Catholicism. I want my child exposed to all things of God, not only just specifically Catholic things. By that I mean things of His creation, especially in nature (fruit, plants, insects, animals). Those are naturally good. And I don't mind manmade objects as examples, either (houses, windows).
I'm not officially schooling yet, but I've looked over various Catholic homeschooling materials, and I found some of the Catholic examples in excess. I think of the old Faith and Freedom readers, the Catholicism is implied. Pictures have sisters in habit, crosses on the wall, mentioning Catholic life indirectly, not directly in most of the stories.
I agree with the observation of the older textbooks. I used Voyages of English and Progress in Arithmetic growing up, Catholic textbooks, but the Catholicism didn't seem so forced.
We are in a different generation, with different problems and persecutions, so that is probably the reason for the change in focus.
__________________
Jennifer G. Miller
Wife to  & ds1  '03 & ds2  '07
Family in Feast and Feria
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Devoted
Forum Newbie
Joined: June 27 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 42
|
| Posted: July 03 2007 at 3:51pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
You know . . . I just can't put my finger on how exactly but I feel the same way about some Catholic materials seeming "contrived;" somehow artificial (like artificial sweetener: it's sweet but it just isn't sugar and you can tell the dif!). I have the Catholic National Readers and just adore them. They are overtly Catholic and couldn't possibly be mistaken for anything else. But somehow they seem in all ways genuine and authentic. Some of the other materials I have used (last year's spelling program comes to mind), though, seem somehow . . . well, contrived. The CNRs definately fall into the older Catholic materials category.
I don't know what the difference is, though. It's some intangible quality that I just can't articulate.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
margot helene
Forum Pro
Joined: Feb 26 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 350
|
| Posted: July 03 2007 at 4:37pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I agree that it is hard to articulate. But perhaps it is that merely having Catholic words in the practice sentences doesn't make something Catholic; having Catholic word problems doesn't make math Catholic. For me, thinking like a Catholic is what is important. It doesn't make a difference to me if there are religious pictures on my children's Math papers. More important to me are conversations about Math being ordered and thereby a sign of the order of creation. Now there is nothing wrong with religious pictures in a Math program or religious word problems; I'm just not kidding myself that that is Catholic education.
Perhaps that is something of what you are feeling. For me it takes more than appearances to make a Catholic program. That is why I like programs like RC History so much.
Blessings
Margot
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
JennGM
Forum Moderator
Joined: Feb 07 2005
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 17702
|
| Posted: July 03 2007 at 5:34pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
margot helene wrote:
| I agree that it is hard to articulate. But perhaps it is that merely having Catholic words in the practice sentences doesn't make something Catholic; having Catholic word problems doesn't make math Catholic. |
|
|
YES! Well said, Margot.
__________________
Jennifer G. Miller
Wife to & ds1 '03 & ds2 '07
Family in Feast and Feria
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Eleanor
Forum Pro
Joined: June 20 2007
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 326
|
| Posted: July 03 2007 at 6:33pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I agree, it's hard to articulate the difference... but I don't think it's merely about whether or not the materials are really teaching the faith. In some cases, it seems to have more to do with how the course itself is ordered. For instance, as an example of something that seems "natural" to me, here's how the Kindergarten book, "Science and Living in God's World" (originally published in 1960) has structured the unit on Senses.
The first few pages introduce our senses in the context of the story of Creation (which was told in the previous chapter):
- God made us because He loves us. He gave us many gifts, including our five senses.
- Our eyes let us see many things God has made.
The rest of the section talks about all the things our senses can do, e.g.:
- seeing light, dark, and colors;
- feeling a furry kitten, wet rain, a hot candle, or cold ice cream;
- tasting sweet cake, sour lemons, bitter coffee, or salty chips;
- smelling flowers, a pie, or a skunk;
- hearing a drum, bird, or bell
On the other hand, as an example of something that seems "contrived" to me, the sample chapter from CHC's Science 2 for Little Folks begins by discussing exocrine glands and pheromones, then goes on to compare this invisible physical marking to the spiritual marking we receive during baptism. The part about baptism isn't just a passing mention; it gets a substantial paragraph, plus quotes from St. Augustine and the Bible, and it's the subject of the final question at the end of the section. In other words, it's presented as the culmination of the entire chapter.
Call me crazy, but we don't plan to include baptism as part of our science curriculum. If the connection comes up informally during teaching, that's great... but why put it in the textbook? Apart from any concerns about "overdoing it," there's also the confusion factor. Given the funny ways children have of retaining information, I can't help imagining a 6- or 7-year old getting muddled up about holy oil, and a cat's oil gland.
I've just talked this over with my husband, and I think what it comes down to is this: The first book is trying to teach science from a Catholic perspective. This includes explaining certain essential theological realities: that God made the world, that there are moral and immoral ways to use His creation, etc. But the emphasis is on learning to observe and investigate the natural world itself. This is what science is all about!
The second book is trying to teach both science and Catholic theology simultaneously. (CHC is quite explicit about this.) It does this by presenting facts about the natural world, and then using these as a springboard to present some more-or-less related theological concept. Even if all of the material is good and true in itself, as a method of teaching science, it just seems fundamentally disordered.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Martha
Forum All-Star
Joined: Aug 25 2005
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2291
|
| Posted: July 03 2007 at 6:40pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
margot helene wrote:
Now there is nothing wrong with religious pictures in a Math program or religious word problems; I'm just not kidding myself that that is Catholic education.
Perhaps that is something of what you are feeling. For me it takes more than appearances to make a Catholic program. That is why I like programs like RC History so much. |
|
|
Hmm. Well of course, it takes more than a token Catholic picture or "Catholic" or "Christ" tossed in to make something Catholic. They could nearly cover the page with those things and it wouldn't make the illogical or heretical suddenly in order with the Catholic faith. I do completely understand and agree with that.
However, the addition of Catholic pictures and "talk" does not detract from the logic of a well presented subject either, rather it can enhance and vividly illustrate that truth begins with faith, not the other way around. Seton's materials are a prime and excellent example of this and, even when I don't use them for other reasons, I think the quality of the texts are top grade. I liked if my kids were working on a comprehension book it wasn't just non related random sentences. It was an ongoing story about a saint or historical event. They still have to figure out verbs and such, but they also absorbed a LOT of faith knowledge along the way. In everything they worked on with the Seton Press label, they were always first and foremost presented with their faith to ponder in their hearts and minds.
I hear much "talk" about how all things true are Catholic, thus it's okay to over-look when the actual material is not as long as some bit of worth can be extracted from it. To a VERY limited degree, I'm okay with that.
However, those things are not the FULLNESS of truth found in the Catholic faith. For *me*, this is where I find many Catholic education sources lacking. Tossing in a few tips to make it more Catholic or a religion reference and calling it a Catholic education, doesn't make it so either.
For me, if they are going to put a picture - by all means let it be a Catholic one!
For me, if the kids need to write a poem - by all means let it be a Catholic one!
For me, if they have to count beads by 5, by all means let it be rosary beads!
Does this mean I don't let them find beauty in writing a poem about the beautiful outdoors, a english landscape, or use counting bears? Of course not! They do that too.
But it's mighty fine to have the beauty of our faith presented to them more vividly in their materials as well. 
I'm sure I botched how to express my sentiments on this matter. Truely I don't think catholic hs-ers who use different materials are bad catholics or anything. I just thingk the faith is precious and every opportunity to impart it in some way is a good thing. 
__________________
Martha
mama to 7 boys & 4 girls
Yes, they're all ours!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Martha
Forum All-Star
Joined: Aug 25 2005
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2291
|
| Posted: July 03 2007 at 6:55pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Eleanor wrote:
On the other hand, as an example of something that seems "contrived" to me, the sample chapter from CHC's Science 2 for Little Folks begins by discussing exocrine glands and pheromones, then goes on to compare this invisible physical marking to the spiritual marking we receive during baptism. The part about baptism isn't just a passing mention; it gets a substantial paragraph, plus quotes from St. Augustine and the Bible, and it's the subject of the final question at the end of the section. In other words, it's presented as the culmination of the entire chapter.
Call me crazy, but we don't plan to include baptism as part of our science curriculum.
|
|
|
ahhhh. Okay. There I completely agree with you and felt the same way about that book. It's a real leap of imagination isn't it? I gave it away.
Now the Seton Press science texts don't feel contrived like that at all to me. It's very natural and it makes sense, as in it's directly related to the topic at hand.
__________________
Martha
mama to 7 boys & 4 girls
Yes, they're all ours!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
JennGM
Forum Moderator
Joined: Feb 07 2005
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 17702
|
| Posted: July 03 2007 at 7:16pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Martha wrote:
For me, if they are going to put a picture - by all means let it be a Catholic one!
For me, if the kids need to write a poem - by all means let it be a Catholic one!
For me, if they have to count beads by 5, by all means let it be rosary beads!
Does this mean I don't let them find beauty in writing a poem about the beautiful outdoors, a english landscape, or use counting bears? Of course not! They do that too.
But it's mighty fine to have the beauty of our faith presented to them more vividly in their materials as well. |
|
|
I'm not offended by the Catholic pictures, poems, etc., but I want balance. There is wonderful classic poetry waiting to be used, masterpieces of art, beauty of nature that can all be used, too. There are two aims of educating my child: First and foremost, to help them get to heaven. But secondly I am trying to help him be a well-rounded person. I just don't think that inundating all subjects with specifically Catholic examples helps create the broad range education.
It sounds like I'm a radical. I'm not, really. My first choice in all things is my Faith. Every day I try to find ways to present our Faith in small ways in our daily living.
It's not a completely relevant thought, but when I think of these types of textbooks, I think of the debates of theologians in the past, trying to decide how many angels could fit on the head of a pin. I guess I use that example to make sure I'm not taking my interpretation of the Catholic Faith too far or being myopic in my vision.
__________________
Jennifer G. Miller
Wife to & ds1 '03 & ds2 '07
Family in Feast and Feria
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Eleanor
Forum Pro
Joined: June 20 2007
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 326
|
| Posted: July 03 2007 at 7:21pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Martha wrote:
| ahhhh. Okay. There I completely agree with you and felt the same way about that book. It's a real leap of imagination isn't it? I gave it away. |
|
|
My poor husband's head nearly exploded when I read it to him. Not to mention that he found it very strange that they were teaching second graders about pheromones and exocrine glands. He even suggested that it might be a deliberate attempt to create an opportunity to teach about baptism. Hmm.
We're not huge fans of Seton's science texts either, but for different reasons, which I won't get into here. As Jenn has said, it's a matter of opinion. And science is probably going to be a tough one for us to settle on. We're pretty picky. 
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
JennGM
Forum Moderator
Joined: Feb 07 2005
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 17702
|
| Posted: July 03 2007 at 7:36pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Eleanor wrote:
Martha wrote:
| ahhhh. Okay. There I completely agree with you and felt the same way about that book. It's a real leap of imagination isn't it? I gave it away. |
|
|
My poor husband's head nearly exploded when I read it to him. Not to mention that he found it very strange that they were teaching second graders about pheromones and exocrine glands. He even suggested that it might be a deliberate attempt to create an opportunity to teach about baptism. Hmm.
We're not huge fans of Seton's science texts either, but for different reasons, which I won't get into here. As Jenn has said, it's a matter of opinion. And science is probably going to be a tough one for us to settle on. We're pretty picky. |
|
|
The resident science gurus on this board regularly say that science textbooks aren't needed.
__________________
Jennifer G. Miller
Wife to & ds1 '03 & ds2 '07
Family in Feast and Feria
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Martha
Forum All-Star
Joined: Aug 25 2005
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2291
|
| Posted: July 03 2007 at 7:38pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
JennGM wrote:
Martha wrote:
Does this mean I don't let them find beauty in writing a poem about the beautiful outdoors, a english landscape, or use counting bears? Of course not! They do that too.
But it's mighty fine to have the beauty of our faith presented to them more vividly in their materials as well. |
|
|
There are two aims of educating my child: First and foremost, to help them get to heaven. But secondly I am trying to help him be a well-rounded person. I just don't think that inundating all subjects with specifically Catholic examples helps create the broad range education.
It sounds like I'm a radical. I'm not, really. My first choice in all things is my Faith. Every day I try to find ways to present our Faith in small ways in our daily living. |
|
|
I do agree with you to some degree there. As I mentioned previouisly. It's not like I'm refusing to let them see anything that isn't labeled and obviously Catholic as worthy of note and beautiful. To me, having the faith so clearly and regularly presented aids in finding all those small ways you mention. And I don't think you sound radical at all. In fact, there are times *I* feel like the radical for not agreeing whole-heartedly with you.
Much of this may be a different of opinion about the notion of a "well-rounded" or "broad range" education. I'm not a big fan of the notion. I grew up with far too many people who were so well-rounded and broad in their thoughts, that they had no direction upon adulthood. They spent years "finding themselves." Thus, I am not really concerned with being well-rounded. And I find it is a very small step to go from "broad-minded" to a relative mentality. (Not saying that towards anyone here personally!)
My goals is heaven when they die and a Godly purpose while they live. You don't have to be "well-rounded" to have a Godly purpose. They just need to find that one thing God is calling them forth for, that gift, that passion, that ability and desire to serve Him.
I do expose my children to many good things that aren't explicitly catholic, as you mention, but almost always the begining exposure is Catholic.
__________________
Martha
mama to 7 boys & 4 girls
Yes, they're all ours!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Martha
Forum All-Star
Joined: Aug 25 2005
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2291
|
| Posted: July 03 2007 at 7:39pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
JennGM wrote:
| The resident science gurus on this board regularly say that science textbooks aren't needed. |
|
|
I agree with that completely for the younger early grades!
__________________
Martha
mama to 7 boys & 4 girls
Yes, they're all ours!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Eleanor
Forum Pro
Joined: June 20 2007
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 326
|
| Posted: July 03 2007 at 8:04pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
JennGM wrote:
| The resident science gurus on this board regularly say that science textbooks aren't needed. |
|
|
Yes, it's looking like we'll skip the science textbooks altogether, although we'll probably continue with the Montessori science materials for as long as possible.
Just don't expect to find me putting pictures of angels in the corners of our nomenclature cards.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Red Cardigan
Forum Pro
Joined: June 16 2007
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 470
|
| Posted: July 03 2007 at 11:23pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
This thread has touched on something that I've had some strong feelings about for a long time.
I was homeschooled myself for the last two and a half years of high school. One of the first papers I wrote and sent into the school was about a Shakespeare play we'd read; we were supposed to discuss the play itself and write a few things about Shakespeare and his world.
I did get an "A" on the paper, but the comments written on the paper fell into two basic categories: one, Shakespeare was probably secretly Catholic (insert Sobran theory here if you like); and two, there was nothing good about Elizabethan England since priests were persecuted and killed, along with other Catholics.
Even to my high school self this seemed strange; we hadn't really studied the anti-Catholicism of Elizabeth at that point, the paper wasn't supposed to be a history paper anyway (we were just supposed to mention some contemporary influences on Shakespeare and his art), and there was this sense that Shakespeare had to be Catholic, because we "know" that non-Catholic literature is deeply flawed and barely worth reading.
I went on to be a literature major in college, and thankfully I never encountered that sort of thing at the collegiate level. I think what bothered me about it was a sort of reflexive triumphalism that took the stance that if something wasn't entirely Catholic then it really wasn't worth bothering with it at all; yet the scholarship of the Church shows quite clearly that this isn't the way the Church views things: from St. Thomas Aquinas and his blending of Greek philosophy and Catholic doctrine to the lovely pre-Christian art collected at the Vatican to the ability of the Church to see the good in writers like C.S. Lewis we can see that the Church has always been able to support what is universally true and good without insisting that Catholics have to be responsible for creating all of it.
And that may be why we smile approvingly at science texts that gracefully speak of God's hand in creation before going on to talk about the scientific aspects, and why we flinch at a science text that seems to view science as a tool for the teaching of catechetics, and ends up teaching neither.
Sorry this is so long; thanks for letting me vent!
__________________
http://www.redcardigan.blogspot.com
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
JennyMaine
Forum Pro
Joined: July 26 2005
Location: Maine
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 209
|
| Posted: July 04 2007 at 6:33am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Eleanor, I just wanted to comment on something you said at the start of this thread:
After looking over the sample pages, though, I'm a bit perturbed by the way some of the programs seem to set out to insert the greatest possible amount of "Catholic talk" into every subject area.
First, I try to remind myself that we're on a Charlotte Mason method message board! Naturally, you're going to encounter many people here who avoid textbooks as a method of education, and so specifically Catholic textbooks do not appeal. While I like the theories behind CM's ideas, I find much of it impractical in my homeschool. (I hang out here because this is an amazing group of ladies!) I have to confess I love using Catholic textbooks.
Second, when evaluating Catholic materials, we have to keep the goals of the publisher in mind. In days past, our nation had a strong Christian culture and a vibrant Catholic one. My mom's stories of the 40s and 50s are a wonderful testimony to the Catholic culture they were just steeped in. Some Catholic publishers step up the amount of Catholic examples and art, etc., in texts in order to help us create a Catholic atmosphere/culture in our homeschools. They do this not to irritate us, but to assist us in creating a Catholic culture for our homeschooled children. If you don't need that assistance, and aren't particularly fond of textbooks anyway. . .naturally, they aren't going to work for you.
That is the very reason why Catholic texts work so well for me. I simply don't have time to sprinkle in little bits of art, music, prayer throughout the day - I'm a single working mom. I depend on my Catholic curriculum to do some of this for me. And it works great! We have amazing discussions that spring from their texts - discussions we might not have if it were left to me to do the sprinkling of the seeds in a haphazard fashion. My children frequently tell me all the little ways that some story or example from a text has been called to mind and helped them through a situation. Whenever I've been tempted by other programs and gently suggested to the kids that they might like x, y, or z - they've balked! They, at ages 12 and 10, insist on a Catholic curriculum. I'm proud that they are growing up with a Catholic worldview.
__________________
--JennyMaine, Mom to Catherine (17) and Sam (15) "The countenance is a reflection of the soul. You should always have a calm and serene countenance." -- Therese of Lisieux
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Willa
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 28 2005
Location: California
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3881
|
| Posted: July 04 2007 at 9:03am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Red Cardigan wrote:
T yet the scholarship of the Church shows quite clearly that this isn't the way the Church views things: from St. Thomas Aquinas and his blending of Greek philosophy and Catholic doctrine to the lovely pre-Christian art collected at the Vatican to the ability of the Church to see the good in writers like C.S. Lewis we can see that the Church has always been able to support what is universally true and good without insisting that Catholics have to be responsible for creating all of it.
|
|
|
I think this is true; yesterday I was looking for some quote, along the lines of "All Truth is Catholic" (therefore, we don't have to put "Catholic" trappings on something that is integrally true, good and beautiful). To find the quote, I was skimming through and rereading lots of encyclicals on education and truth which said much the same thing as you say above.
I do see JennyMaine's point about having lost something of Catholic culture..... something that people used to take for granted, but that nowadays is a matter of digging for treasure.
I was a convert and had read LOTS about the faith before joining the Church ---- I knew enough to debunk my rather heterodox RCIA textbook, for instance -- but my first year homeschooling using Seton -- a whole new world opened up of Catholic custom, catechesis -- things that hadn't ever come my way though my kids had been in Catholic school for a few years.
We didn't use Seton after the first year -- not at all our "style" of education -- but I am grateful for that immersion in Catholic culture which opened my eyes to what was out there.
__________________
AMDG
Willa
hsing boys ages 11, 14, almost 18 (+ 4 homeschool grads ages 20 to 27)
Take Up and Read
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Martha
Forum All-Star
Joined: Aug 25 2005
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2291
|
| Posted: July 04 2007 at 9:21am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Red Cardigan wrote:
I did get an "A" on the paper, but the comments written on the paper fell into two basic categories: one, Shakespeare was probably secretly Catholic (insert Sobran theory here if you like); and two, there was nothing good about Elizabethan England since priests were persecuted and killed, along with other Catholics.
Even to my high school self this seemed strange; we hadn't really studied the anti-Catholicism of Elizabeth at that point, the paper wasn't supposed to be a history paper anyway (we were just supposed to mention some contemporary influences on Shakespeare and his art), and there was this sense that Shakespeare had to be Catholic, because we "know" that non-Catholic literature is deeply flawed and barely worth reading.
I went on to be a literature major in college, and thankfully I never encountered that sort of thing at the collegiate level. I think what bothered me about it was a sort of reflexive triumphalism that took the stance that if something wasn't entirely Catholic then it really wasn't worth bothering with it at all; yet the scholarship of the Church shows quite clearly that this isn't the way the Church views things: |
|
|
Okay, I think the flaw in the example you presented is studying literature out of context. I fail to understand how anyone could have a solid grasp of Shakespear if they don't have an equal grasp of the times he lived in. This was a failure on the part of the teacher/school.
But my experience was the opposite of yours. In college I had to submit a paper on Shakespear to a supposed cathlic instructor. I got a D because she said I gave undo influence to faith influence in his writing. Well pardon me, but shakespear most certainly did have a strong sense of right and wrong and I think it shows in his writings. He came very close many a time to political downfall with his themes of foolish kings and wicked politics and out-spoken 2nd class citizens.
For me, I think it's about honesty. Don't let the discussion of Catholic "talk" turn you away. Rather let dishonest "talk" turn you away. I'm okay with it as long as it's a fair and honest presentation. Catholic history for example isn't all rosey and pretty.
In your example, I think it was unfair for a teacher to grade what they hadn't taught. Ideally a student is always thinking from a Catholic perspective, but obviously do to the nautre of being a student, they have to be taught that Catholic perspective.
And, no, I don't think a genuinely Catholic perspective thinks everything not specificly catholic is unworthy of notice or value.
__________________
Martha
mama to 7 boys & 4 girls
Yes, they're all ours!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
|
|
4Real Forums : Living Learning
Topic: Can we have "too much Catholic talk?"
