Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Catholic Living in the Modern World => Topic started by: Matthew on March 10, 2011, 11:16:45 AM
-
It is well-known that a traditional Catholic school has a much harder time raising funds than, say, a Seminary.
Why is it that Catholics don't seem to appreciate the value of a good Catholic education, in the context of the "village" rather than the "home"?
Home school is not the ideal -- it's the best solution in many cases, but not the ideal.
The ideal is to send your children to a Church-run school, for a good education, centered on God (as it should be), with decent teachers and oversight.
Discuss.
-
Apparently, priests lament the ignorance of many traditional Catholics, who claim that Homeschooling is always the "1st choice" -- with quotes like "Our Lady homeschooled -- what's good enough for her is good enough for me."
I believe that in some cases, homeschooling leads to excessively isolated children, who end up becoming excessively worldly later on, once they "discover" the world.
-
It is well-known that a traditional Catholic school has a much harder time raising funds than, say, a Seminary.
Why is it that Catholics don't seem to appreciate the value of a good Catholic education, in the context of the "village" rather than the "home"?
Home school is not the ideal -- it's the best solution in many cases, but not the ideal.
The ideal is to send your children to a Church-run school, for a good education, centered on God (as it should be), with decent teachers and oversight.
Discuss.
When the Church teaches that the education of children is the responsibility of parents and not the state it makes it clear that the parents should be the judge of what is best. So long as a child is receiving proper catechism and religious instruction it seems to be a contradiction to say parents are doing wrong if they trust their own judgment more than the "chapel school."
I think it's quite clear - Catholic education failed in the 20th Century.
A lot of parents trusted these church schools and what happened to the kids who attended them? Particularly once Vatican II occurred?
Of course there should be good Catholic schools but in general there are not such schools available - and that includes most "chapel schools."
If the SSPX wants to have successful schools they should focus on pleasing parents rather than on insisting on the moral obligation of the parents to please them.
-
I believe that in some cases, homeschooling leads to excessively isolated children, who end up becoming excessively worldly later on, once they "discover" the world.
It can lead to children being excessively isolated and eventually to rebellion. But it's not right to say that "school" - particularly the typical SSPX school - has any relation to "the world" unless one is thinking of the special evils that are in some ways uniquely characteristic of schools.
-
Yes, there are few (if any) examples of successful trad schools around today -- many of them are dismal failures.
But does that change the principle that parents are responsible for the education of their children, and the best source for education SHOULD be outside the home, at a facility run under the aegis of the Catholic Church?
-
I have a question. There are no traditional Catholic schools in my area, and I am thinking of sending my (soon to be) 13 year old to Saint Mary's. However, she does not want to be far away from us. My father has been of ill health since I was 12 years old myself (and is miraculously still here). In the last few months, his health has gone downhill, but lately he seems to be getting a bit better. She would be very bitter if I sent her there, and something happened to her grandfather (who she is very close to) and she was away.
She needs structure. It is a battle day after day to get her to do what she needs to do. She's even brought up wanting to go to the local publik skool (to which she knows the answer will FOREVER AND ALWAYS will be NO). She wants "friends." I understand her wanting to engage with other children because she is very social, but I refuse to allow it at the expense of her soul.
My husband was one of the first students at Saint Mary's whilst Father Bolduc (the priest who purchased the property for Saint Mary's in the first place) was the headmaster. But see, he WANTED to go there, and my daughter adamantly does not.
What should I do? Send her anyway despite her combativeness towards the idea? Or just keep on doing what I'm doing and hope she doesn't resent me?
Thanks.
-
Well, it sounds like you have your work cut out for you.
She needs to be convinced of the value of her soul, the power of bad peers (and error being all around you, especially when it's taught as truth!), etc.
You need to give her a "choice" -- no complaining about lack of friends, or go to St. Mary's. That way, you let her pick her cross -- she can't really complain about it.
My wife does this to me all the time -- when there are two choices, each of which has a major downside, she lets me decide. Then I can't really complain about the downside, since it was my choice.
Tell her you understand her need for friends, even volunteer that man was created by God to be social, but tell her that eating poison is no solution for a starving man. Sometimes nothing is better than something harmful.
You do need to find some solution to this problem of "friends", or she will eventually ditch her Faith to get them. Find some friends online, at Church, or send her to a Catholic school like St. Mary's.
I wish I had a more perfect solution, but there are no neat, tidy, perfect solutions these days.
Matthew
-
Yes, there are few (if any) examples of successful trad schools around today -- many of them are dismal failures.
But does that change the principle that parents are responsible for the education of their children, and the best source for education SHOULD be outside the home, at a facility run under the aegis of the Catholic Church?
I don't think one can say it is part of Apostolic Faith that children should be educated outside the home in daily schools.
-
Yes, there are few (if any) examples of successful trad schools around today -- many of them are dismal failures.
But does that change the principle that parents are responsible for the education of their children, and the best source for education SHOULD be outside the home, at a facility run under the aegis of the Catholic Church?
I don't think one can say it is part of Apostolic Faith that children should be educated outside the home in daily schools.
Nevertheless, the custom of sending one's children outside the home for education is just as venerable as homeschooling can claim to be.
Homeschooling is a very difficult undertaking, even in the best of scenarios -- as any homeschooling parent will tell you. It's not easy.
Especially if you have more than 2 children. Many "mainstream" Americans are discovering homeschooling lately, but many of them are mainstream enough to only have 2 or 3 children -- and homeschooling is a different animal when you have a smaller (and/or more spaced-out) family.
Modern man pays money/hires people to do just about everything else -- why not hire men -- let's call them "teachers" -- to teach our children? And so it was. The Catholic Church normally undertook this task, until the French Revolution pounded the final nail in Christendom's coffin in the 18th century.
Since then, public schools have been atheistic and designed to PREVENT thought, and form good future factory workers.
Matthew
-
Homeschooling is another American phenomenon -- at least one that appeals greatly to Americans, as it is very individualistic.
Americans also like Independent chapels, Survivalism, becoming "self-sufficient", etc. Those things are barely heard of outside modern America.
Most cultures realize that a family can hardly become self-sufficient in ANYTHING, much less everything. Some kind of community is necessary. Most cultures older than 100 years old know this very well.
Even homeschoolers realize this -- there are hundreds of "homeschooling groups" to help with the daunting task.
As a man that has studied survivalism for several years, I can say that it's impossible to become self-sufficient. Unless you're willing to live like an animal, of course. Your concept of life would be a much more miserable one. For example, when you get a toothache, you'd have to pull it yourself. And when anything goes wrong with your body, you die.
Civilized man developed specialties, so each man excels at one (or two) tasks, and trades with others to get what he can't provide for himself. That's how God envisioned man's life. He created man with a social component -- a need to be with other men.
Matthew
-
It must be very hard for those with families to deal with educating their children, especially with paying high taxes to support public schools and then being unable to send your children to those schools. It makes the family have to pay two times for an education, once in taxes and once in fees for a traditional Catholic school, if they are lucky enough to live near an acceptable one. I greatly admire those who home-school their children, though, like Matthew, I don't see that as an ideal, just the best option for those with no access to a good traditional Catholic school.
-
You're talking to someone who plans on homeschooling his children.
But I am under no delusions about how easy it is, or what kind of "awesome education" we'll be able to give them. Maybe if we have a genius or gifted child and/or one who excels in self-directed learning, then we'll have some cases of stellar results.
But more often than not, homeschooling is putting the Faith before worldly learning.
I think that's what it comes down to. Homeschooling, for most families, will NOT result in a better-educated child than private (or even public?) school. But they will keep the Faith. If the Faith is what matters most, then there's no problem. But don't claim it's academically a great idea, because usually it isn't.
Heck, the famous St. Mary's, KS is a mediocre-to-lousy option, academically speaking. I've heard that from several who have attended the school.
Matthew
-
I have a couple of theses -- feel free to discuss.
1. Homeschooling is putting the Faith before worldly learning. Education quality is poor. The main -- if not only -- advantage of traditional Catholic homeschooling is the benefit to one's Faith.
2. The attractive aspects of "homeschooled children" come from their traditional Catholic upbringing and lifestyle, not being homeschooled per se. Giving children books instead of TV, giving them plenty of siblings to learn/play/deal with, helps them to be more mature, patient, balanced, down-to-earth, etc. Large families are better for children. More responsibility, better work ethic, etc. Good traditional Catholic families will not expose their children to evil influences (TV, media, cell phones, worldly magazines, etc.).
-
Homeschooling, for most families, will NOT result in a better-educated child than private (or even public?) school. But they will keep the Faith. If the Faith is what matters most, then there's no problem. But don't claim it's academically a great idea, because usually it isn't.
Uh, Sorry Matthew but you are wrong about this. Every single piece of real statistical data says otherwise. Homeschooled students are more successful in college, as well. And I can tell you why. Most people learn things on their own, either from reading instructions and following directions. We benefit mostly from reading, discussing, re-reading, writing, and thinking. Home school teaches these skills. By the time children get in the teenage years, learning is self directed.
These skills allow for greater creativity and variety. Young people are able to actually pursue their own interests with zeal.
Parents who are home schooling their children generally are not slackers. They have some sense about them and are often goal directed.
I've seen the difference with my own eyes. We took our children out of public school last year. They literally could not think for themselves. Our highschooler could not read a text and then ask questions about it. He wanted me to read it and type some notes for him to memorize so he could pass a test.
Now that he HAS to read, interpret, write, argue, and discuss, his whole world has opened up.
Education is not just about regurgitating facts.
While I think a traditional Catholic education might be the best option, I certainly don't think it necessarily makes for better educated children.
Homeschool students don't have to be isolated. But I'm not necessarily sure that spending time with friends is all that great for children anyway unless these friends share the same values as you do. Children are HIGHLY influenced by other children.
Here's a link with recent stats that might interest you.
http://offers.degreesearch.org/infographics/homeschooling-by-the-numbers/
-
Thank you for your post, CathMomof7.
Don't worry, I'm not going to take offense from anyone's post. I'm here for a good discussion. Homeschooling is an important topic -- one that's relevant for anyone with children.
The question I have is -- WHY are the homeschoolers doing better on tests, etc.? Is it because their parents are attentive to their duties? Is it the traditional Catholic (integrally Catholic) lifestyle?
And I brought up another good point (if I do say so myself!) and that is:
There are two kinds of homeschoolers: parents homeschooling less than 3 children, and those with 4 or more. Obviously more attention can be given by the parents to stimulate, guide, etc. in the former case.
Ultimately, education has to be about the individual learning and understanding for himself -- regurgitating facts clearly won't cut it. That's why most public school is "out", for academic as well as moral reasons.
Perhaps homeschool does a better job than most of teaching children to learn -- and love learning?
-
Parents who are home schooling their children generally are not slackers.
What about the sort of parent that simply isn't cut out for homeschooling, but keeps the kids at home nonetheless due to the problems of public schools? I won't go so far as to call him/her a slacker, but perhaps they have too many other obligations and don't have much time at all for adequately supervising education at home. Does such a person simply not exist?
It seems to me that when Catholics are forced into homeschooling that certainly there will be some parents who will excell at the task but also some who will do quite poorly.
-
I have mentioned that I attend basically NO church with a TLM celebrated by an FSSP priest. I have no problem with the NO Mass I attend on weekdays. Our pastor is orthodox, the sermons are solid, and the NO liturgy is rubrical. The school is not horrible. Nevertheless, I would think twice before sending my kids there. Many of the religion teachers are, if not overtly heretical, certainly tinged with liberalism. They are replaced by orthodox teachers as they leave. The situation when my kids were growing up was far worse. My wife and I decided that the best option was to send them to a public school, where their faith would not be overtly attacked, and manage their religious education ourselves. They did not attend CCD, or as the DRE called it, The Parish School of Religion. I was happy to explain to her why they did not. She was not happy to hear it.
All of my kids are practicing Catholics as adults, and one of them is a priest.
-
I have battled the "education" problem since I became a Traditional Catholic. I have tried homeschooling, had my older ones in NO schools, moved to Idaho for the Trad schools. I now have some in public school.
I've seen very few homeschool children "succeed " most of them seem extremely uneducated, and alot of them actually end up losing the faith for some reason.
Public school is not as bad for the faith in my humble opinion, because the evil is so easily recognizable.
If you teach catechism and pray together at home, then your children will see thru the BS at school and will have to face it and hopefully reject it. This is the world we live in. They will have to face it someday. With their parents help and prayer they will overcome.
A bad homeschool or Trad school will kill the faith of a child, more than a public school,from what I experienced.
Please do not lock your children in the house, not letting them have friends. They have to learn to make good decisions. How else than by falling down and with guidance from their family they learn to walk the narrow path??
-
Yes, there are few (if any) examples of successful trad schools around today -- many of them are dismal failures.
But does that change the principle that parents are responsible for the education of their children, and the best source for education SHOULD be outside the home, at a facility run under the aegis of the Catholic Church?
First, I agree with you that home-schooling....while it may be the best choice the parents have, is not the ideal. Kids need to interact with other children. They need to learn social skills,
I attended 12 yrs. of Catholic school, before Vatican II & I thank God every day for the good nuns who educated me well, in both the Faith & scholastically. HOWEVER, my small city went from 10 schools staffed entirly with traditional nuns (+ the priests that taught at my husband's high school) to ONE nun in the two years following Vat. II. The RSCJ nun that had been the principle at my high school, later told me that "she didn't leave her order, her order left HER.) I did attend a secular college & couldn't believe how much better the Catholic school kids were prepared.
However, from what I see of most Catholic schools since Vat. II......I wonder if it's a waste of money to send our children to them.
I am blessed that the school connected to our parish is very traditional, but it's the only one in the city that is. I believe that it is because we have a Traditional diocesan priest (very unusual, I know). He offers both the NO. Mass & the TLM. , but it's obvious he prefers the TLM.
We, in the heartland do have some new orders of Traditional teaching nuns. Thank You, God.
-
Sending your kids to a public school is no guarantee that they will learn social skills. If you do send them to a public school, you can bet money that they will not learn any history, economics, social studies etc. . There are many kids out there who are essentially "socially retarded" who attend or have graduated from the public school and dont know how to interact with people.
-
Sending your kids to a public school is no guarantee that they will learn social skills. If you do send them to a public school, you can bet money that they will not learn any history, economics, social studies etc. . There are many kids out there who are essentially "socially retarded" who attend or have graduated from the public school and dont know how to interact with people.
I don't know if this is directed toward me, but I am VERY concerned that some of my Grandchildren are attending public school. As I said in my first post......homeschooling is often the BEST choice one has, but I would never put it up against the education given in both the faith & scholastics obtained from the nuns & priests of yesteryear. My Father could send all 5 of his children through Catholic school as children.......but he couldn't afford to send all 5 of us through Catholic College. Therefore, 3 of usattended our state University......the other 2 attended a small local College. It was there that I realized how much we were scholastically ahead of public school teens. It was there that I realized that our parents & the religious who taught us had instilled us, not only with a love of the faith, but with virtues......self-discipline, character, a good work ethic. The Catholics from the St. Louis area were amazing, taught by clergy & religious, they too excelled.
However, I was speaking about Catholic Schools pre-Vat. II. Someone on this forum said that 20th Century Catholic schools failed. I disagree, as would my 4 siblings. Until the vast exodus of nuns & priests in the late '60's & early '70's, the Catholic School system was superior in most ways. I was taught by the Benedictine nuns & the Madames of the Sacred Heart. My Brothers.......by the Benedictines & the Jesuits, (before they imploded).
We were daily exposed to the Catholic faith, the saints, the Mass. On the first day of May, the month of Our Lady, we had no clases, but began our day with a procession to crown her statue & to follow that with a solemn high Mass said in her honor. In the afternoon, we made Spiritual Bouquest cards for our close relatives.
I think one of the best things about Catholic schools is the fact that most of us married Catholics. True, the girls & boys were sent to separate schools after elementary school, we were still encouraged to date each other. Every Sun. evening, we had a "Teen Town" at our Cathedral's gym, chaperoned by two priests. A girl from my high school was always chosen as homecoming queen for the football team at our "brother school".
Next month, my husband & I, both products of Catholic Schools will have been married 52 years. Most of those who graduated with us are celebrating the same anniversary this year.
One of our sons married a non-Catholic, who was.....of course...."going to join the Church after the wedding".......but didn't. It wasn't a good marriage & ended in divorce, with two of my Grandchildren being educated in the public school system, while my son is trying to homeschool them in the faith. They call themselves Baptoholics & that makes me want to cry. They can only attend Mass on the weekends that they are with my son, & he has to be careful about THAT.
I'm sorry that this post is so long, but I feel very strongly about this. Also, I realize that most of you are SSPX & I am sympathetic to your cause. I pray every day, though, that those of us who are traditional Latin Catholics, attending the tlm. exclusively & who realize that our Churches are in disarray right now, can reconcile our differences & come together as one Church.
-
I think one of the best things about Catholic schools is the fact that most of us married Catholics. True, the girls & boys were sent to separate schools after elementary school, we were still encouraged to date each other. Every Sun. evening, we had a "Teen Town" at our Cathedral's gym, chaperoned by two priests. A girl from my high school was always chosen as homecoming queen for the football team at our "brother school".
Were those high school boys planning to marry in the near future?
Were those high school girls planning to marry in the near future?
Weren't most of them planning to go to "college" to "get an education."
It seems to me like you're talking about "Americanism" and "50ism" The Muslim Qutb listened to the sort of songs played at a 40s Church dance and was scandalised by it - for good reason.
Yes the Catholic schools definitely failed. If they had succeeded the people would never have gone along with Vatican II. It's quite clear the laity could not understand what was wrong with Vatican II.
There is a problem with pharisaical ideas about courtship and marriage being taught in many churches.
Giving parents excessive authority (making them believe that a daughter must have their consent to marry or date a man) with no basis in Catholicism, binding girls not to speak to men that speak to them - even to say hello - after already being introduced. Modern ideas about what an acceptable age difference is - they are far more offended with an age difference than by disparity of cult or by young people dating who will not marry soon. In some of these cultish parishes if a family has an eye on a girl for their own son - they become hysterical and start a campaign against a rival - even going to the police without any justification whatsoever. And what is worst about the situation is that priests encourage these evils instead of trying to restrain them.
Their response to a man who wants to talk to a girl who showed him signs of interest:
1) Say that without the father's consent he'll be kicked out of Church if he tries to contact the girl
2) Say that he is imagining everything and is delusional
3) Tell all the other fathers of the girls that the man who only wants a chance to talk after mass with a girl is some sort of predator
4) Kick the man out of Church because he tells the truth in the face of lies.
-
Yes the Catholic schools definitely failed. If they had succeeded the people would never have gone along with Vatican II. It's quite clear the laity could not understand what was wrong with Vatican II.
I believe it was Hamish Fraser who said that the problem with pre-Vatican II Catholic schools is that they were schools for "Catholics", rather than Catholic schools.
-
1.Were those high school boys planning to marry in the near future?
Were those high school girls planning to marry in the near future?
2. Weren't most of them planning to go to "college" to "get an education."
3. It seems to me like you're talking about "Americanism" and "50ism" The Muslim Qutb listened to the sort of songs played at a 40s Church dance and was scandalised by it - for good reason.
4. Yes the Catholic schools definitely failed. If they had succeeded the people would never have gone along with Vatican II.
5.It's quite clear the laity could not understand what was wrong with Vatican II.
6. (ON DOWN) There is a problem with pharisaical ideas about courtship and marriage being taught in many churches.
Giving parents excessive authority (making them believe that a daughter must have their consent to marry or date a man) with no basis in Catholicism, binding girls not to speak to men that speak to them - even to say hello - after already being introduced. Modern ideas about what an acceptable age difference is - they are far more offended with an age difference than by disparity of cult or by young people dating who will not marry soon. In some of these cultish parishes if a family has an eye on a girl for their own son - they become hysterical and start a campaign against a rival - even going to the police without any justification whatsoever. And what is worst about the situation is that priests encourage these evils instead of trying to restrain them.
Their response to a man who wants to talk to a girl who showed him signs of interest:
1) Say that without the father's consent he'll be kicked out of Church if he tries to contact the girl
2) Say that he is imagining everything and is delusional
3) Tell all the other fathers of the girls that the man who only wants a chance to talk after mass with a girl is some sort of predator
4) Kick the man out of Church because he tells the truth in the face of lies.
[/quote]
___________________________________________________
I have tried to format your post, using quotes, codes.....even different colors..........so that I could answer you point by point. It isn't working so I'll just number the points you are inquiring about & number my answers accordingly.
1. Yes, most from the Catholic high schools in 1959......both the guys & the gals.........intended to be married within 2 years of graduation. Many of the boys enlisted for a 2 year stint, came home, got a job & got married. While the girls didn't enlist in the armed forces, the first thing they did upon graduating was look for a job.
2. That depended on the size of their families. Most Catholic parents at that time had big families. My husband's parents had 8 children, my own 5 of their children lived. In order to go to college, one needed scholarships of some kind & believe me those nuns & priests worked hard to find them. My husband went to college on a football scholarhip & held a part-time job during the school term & a full time job in the summer. I had a scholastic scholarship & did the same as he did. If anyone here is old enough to remember Woolworth stores, that's where I worked evenings during college. :geezer:
During the summer, I worked at my Father's business.....thus enabling him to pay me instead of someone else. BTW., he expected more from me than any other boss I've ever had & I'm glad that I learned my work ethic from him.
3. Yes, I love being an American & the 50's were good times. Actually, I couldn't care less what a Muslim thought about the music played at our Church dances. In fact, their idea of morality seems strange to me. Their women must veil their faces, while the men blow up buildings, killing over 3,000 people?? :rolleyes:
4. Perhaps you had a different experience when you attended pre-Vatican II Catholic schools. Please share that with us.
5. You assume you know how we felt & dealt with the disaster that was Vat.II? That is a whole 'nother thread. I will say this......we had only 2 choices: accept or leave. Neither of these were good options. You made yours & I made mine. I'm trying to respect your choice....that's why I'm posting here. I hope you will respect mine, for it was made after much mind searching & study.
6. (ON DOWN) seems to be a rant about "arranged marriage", however I'm not at all sure what you're talking about. My husband & I saw each other during college on holidays as home, spring break, Christmas recess, etc. Neither the Church nor our parents had anything to do with our decision to marry. After we both graduated, we married because we loved each other.....still do after 50 years. Shortlty after that he was drafted & sent to Vietnam. Thank God he returned.
It's almost too funny to believe. I was banned from CAF. for my "radical" views about the Novus Ordo Mass......."they were simply too conservative".
Here, I'm spoken to as if I'm a modernist. :sad:
-
3. Yes, I love being an American & the 50's were good times. Actually, I couldn't care less what a Muslim thought about the music played at our Church dances.
Muslims are capable of natural morality, and yes, the music that was popular at that time, and the dancing, would have been considered immoral in earlier ages of Catholicism, for good reason.
In fact, their idea of morality seems strange to me.
Because you were raised in the 50s. But I'm sure one could find nearly unanimous agreement among the writings of the saints that would have come to a similar conclusion as that Muslim man. How do you expect Muslims to come to the Faith if they see Christians permitting their children to behave badly?
Their women must veil their faces, while the men blow up buildings, killing over 3,000 people?? :rolleyes:
Do you really corporately blame Muslims for 9/11? Do you really think that most Muslim women cover their faces?
5. You assume you know how we felt & dealt with the disaster that was Vat.II? That is a whole 'nother thread. I will say this......we had only 2 choices: accept or leave.
And why was that? Why would only a small minority have resisted unless most acquiesced to or even supported the changes?
6. (ON DOWN) seems to be a rant about "arranged marriage", however I'm not at all sure what you're talking about.
No, you mentioned how boys and girls high school girls would date in the 50s. Now how much of that would have been approved by church authorities in earlier eras?
The reaction to that, by some traditional groups, is to try to impose in a cult-like manner unreasonable scruples and cult-like control over the girls - binding their consciences about even saying "hello."
It's almost too funny to believe. I was banned from CAF. for my "radical" views about the Novus Ordo Mass......."they were simply too conservative".
Here, I'm spoken to as if I'm a modernist. :sad:
No, no one is accusing you of being a modernist.
But you should think about whether or not the children at your school when you were young were really living Catholic lives, or whether they were leading typical American lives.
-
I can see how a person could get nostalgia for a time in which *most* things were far better than they are today. Many things were just as broken, but that isn't what you focus on.
I'm only in my 30's, but I could imagine getting misty-eyed for the "good old days" of the early 1990s, when Generation X was busy getting a high school education, before Social Media, texting, cell phones, and advanced video games hit the scene. Students were that much more capable of writing, reading, and being understood than equivalent students today.
However, I am realistic enough to admit that the music was still not in line with Catholic morality, the nation as a whole was still not Catholic, etc., etc.
Simply comparing the early 1990's with today, the 90's come out way ahead. But what does that mean, really? If it's just a relatively higher point on the slope we've traveled down?
I think the 50's are just an even HIGHER point on the slope -- but it's still a mid-point in the slope, not the "apex of Catholic civilization". That would be the 1300s.
Also, I believe that I, personally, would probably be *most* nostalgic for the 1990s, because that's when I remember coming of age. That's when I got my first computer, got my first car & drivers license, got my first job, moved into my first apartment, etc.
That's why a lot of people are nostalgic for the 50's -- things were better in many ways, and that's when they came of age, yet before they were burdened with the heavy duties of parenthood.
Matthew
-
Muslims are capable of natural morality, and yes, the music that was popular at that time, and the dancing, would have been considered immoral in earlier ages of Catholicism, for good reason.
___________________________________________________
However, Catholics must live Catholic lives during the time period that God chose for them to live & God's Law doesn't change. Why would you accuse myself & my friends of doing something that the Saints & Fathers would consider immoral?
__________________________________________________
Because you were raised in the 50s. But I'm sure one could find nearly unanimous agreement among the writings of the saints that would have come to a similar conclusion as that Muslim man. How do you expect Muslims to come to the Faith if they see Christians permitting their children to behave badly?[/quote]
___________________________________________________
Because I was raised in the 50's??!!! Whoops, you forgot something: I was a Catholic raised in the 50's. True Catholicism doesn't change. Modesty was as important in the 50's as it was in the 15th century. Moreso, according to some of the art from that era. Keeping oneself sɛҳuąƖly pure, obeying one's parents, working hard, developing self-discipline, etc. was just as important in the 50's as it was in the centuries before.
You are inferring that people you've never met, listening to music & dancing in front of two pre-Vat. II priests (who made sure that the "close dancing" was at arms length & the fast dancing did not involve suggestive moves are "children who are behaving badly". Who do you think you are??
And you're assuming that Catholic Saints view morality in the same way that a Muslim man does. UNBELIEVABLE!!!
My point was & is that Catholic schools AT ONE TIME were the best option for those who wanted their children to know both their faith & to excell scholastically. You are taking this thread totally off topic.
Matthew, I'm just glad that I am not raising my children today. It was bad enough during the 70's. If we hadn't checked their religious training, corrected mistakes that they were being taught in CATHOLIC SCHOOLS for heaven's sake, I don't know if they would still be Catholics today. One of the reasons that we sent them to parochial school, was the fact that I had taught CCD. at a parish before my last 2 children were born & before the first two were of school age. We had very few materials to "lean on" & much of it was the "just be nice to people & you'll be fine" type of stuff.
-
And you're assuming that Catholic Saints view morality in the same way that a Muslim man does. UNBELIEVABLE!!!
Unbelievable to think that Muslims believe in avoiding occasions of impurity before marriage?
However, Catholics must live Catholic lives during the time period that God chose for them to live & God's Law doesn't change. Why would you accuse myself & my friends of doing something that the Saints & Fathers would consider immoral?
I'm not accusing you and your friends of anything in particular. I'm saying the sort of dance you describe in the 1950s is probably something that Catholic saints would not have approved of. My father recounted going to dances put on in the masonic lodge of Bloomington, Ill. My mother recounted that her little town (a VERY Catholic town) had a kind of beauty contest where the girls would sit on the top of the back seats of convertibles.
http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Catholic_Morality/Kissing.htm
You see, I brought up the Muslims for a simple reason - on these matters they would agree with the saints in disapproving of such things, 1950s American Catholics generally would not have disapproved.
-
My mother tells me this beauty pageant was going on when she was a girl:
http://www.dyersvillecommercial.com/article.cfm?id=161727
That was when the town and the surrounding area was almost entirely Catholic.
The movie The Field of Dreams was filmed just 3 miles or so from my grandmother's house, and it is very interesting to me they chose that location to build a kind of shrine (many people drive to visit the field on the farm) to a movie that tells of a man who summons the dead by building a baseball field, and helps to bring the dead to heaven by means of baseball.
As a child I was not well catechized, didn't understand the way the film was subversive of Christian belief.
When we consider they chose a location very near a Catholic Basilica, in the most Catholic part of the country, we can start to understand better the insidious way in which Hollywood and Americanist propaganda tries to use nostalgia against the Faith.
-
I'm not accusing you and your friends of anything in particular. I'm saying the sort of dance you describe in the 1950s is probably something that Catholic saints would not have approved of.
Indeed. St.John Vianny was no fan of dances. I can only wonder what his reaction would have been to see a modern dance being hosted by a parish.
The music of the period is what really makes it bad. Personally, I wouldn't let any of my kids (if I had any) listen to trash from the 50's.
-
I suggest reading this (http://romancatholicbooks.wordpress.com/2011/03/14/schools-and-scholars-augusta-drane/)for anyone interested in the historical development of Catholic education. There are points in the book that I think would correct several misconceptions advanced by some in this thread.
-
You're talking to someone who plans on homeschooling his children.
But I am under no delusions about how easy it is, or what kind of "awesome education" we'll be able to give them. Maybe if we have a genius or gifted child and/or one who excels in self-directed learning, then we'll have some cases of stellar results.
But more often than not, homeschooling is putting the Faith before worldly learning.
I think that's what it comes down to. Homeschooling, for most families, will NOT result in a better-educated child than private (or even public?) school. But they will keep the Faith. If the Faith is what matters most, then there's no problem. But don't claim it's academically a great idea, because usually it isn't.
Heck, the famous St. Mary's, KS is a mediocre-to-lousy option, academically speaking. I've heard that from several who have attended the school.
Matthew
I had not heard that about St. Marys before I subscribed to this message forums. I'm beginning to understand more about the SSPX, since I'm a traditional Catholic & attend the TLM. exclusively, but am still in communion with the Pope maybe my opinion doesn't matter. However, there is another "St. Mary's" in Kansas & it's excellent scholastically:
Year # of Proficient or Above Total # of Scores % of Proficient or Above
2005 167 174 96%
2004 121 137 88.4%
2003 159 183 86.9%
2002 115 133 86.5%
2001 150 175 86%
Am I correct in assuming that you (generic you) would rather send your child to a government run school than a "Novus Ordo" school?
I realize that they are very lax about doctrine, however, the public schools in my area are filled with drugs, guns, etc.
If we are to raise TRUE Catholic leaders to replace those like Nancy Peℓσѕι, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, et al., they will definitely need to know their faith.....but they are also going to have to be very proficient scholastically.
-
I can see how a person could get nostalgia for a time in which *most* things were far better than they are today. Many things were just as broken, but that isn't what you focus on.
I'm only in my 30's, but I could imagine getting misty-eyed for the "good old days" of the early 1990s, when Generation X was busy getting a high school education, before Social Media, texting, cell phones, and advanced video games hit the scene. Students were that much more capable of writing, reading, and being understood than equivalent students today.
However, I am realistic enough to admit that the music was still not in line with Catholic morality, the nation as a whole was still not Catholic, etc., etc.
Simply comparing the early 1990's with today, the 90's come out way ahead. But what does that mean, really? If it's just a relatively higher point on the slope we've traveled down?
I think the 50's are just an even HIGHER point on the slope -- but it's still a mid-point in the slope, not the "apex of Catholic civilization". That would be the 1300s.
Also, I believe that I, personally, would probably be *most* nostalgic for the 1990s, because that's when I remember coming of age. That's when I got my first computer, got my first car & drivers license, got my first job, moved into my first apartment, etc.
That's why a lot of people are nostalgic for the 50's -- things were better in many ways, and that's when they came of age, yet before they were burdened with the heavy duties of parenthood.
Matthew
Matthew, I am nostalgic about many things of the 50's......REAL Ice Cream Sodas, children being able to walk to school without fear of some pervert attacking them & 5 cent Cokes that were a drink instead of something one "shoots up with".
However, when it comes to my faith....well, that's too important to credit to nostalgia. At least, it is to me. The reasons I came back to traditional Catholicism can't be summed up simply. I'll just say that the "Eucharistic MEAL", the blending of the laity & the ordained priesthood, the CITH & MANY other things that I consider abuses.....drove me back to studying & searching for the things that once worked. I am starting with the tlm., in a parish where there are specific times for Confession.
-
Am I correct in assuming that you (generic you) would rather send your child to a government run school than a "Novus Ordo" school?
I realize that they are very lax about doctrine, however, the public schools in my area are filled with drugs, guns, etc.
Where I come from, there is not difference. "Catholic" school is where you end up (at a monetary cost) after you get expelled from every other public school, that is if your not going straight to Juvey Hall. And that's the way it's been here for nearly half a century.
-
If we are to raise TRUE Catholic leaders to replace those like Nancy Peℓσѕι, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, et al., they will definitely need to know their faith.....but they are also going to have to be very proficient scholastically.
When God wanted to kick King Saul "out of office", he chose a simple shepherd boy out in the country to take his seat.
-
I suggest reading this (http://romancatholicbooks.wordpress.com/2011/03/14/schools-and-scholars-augusta-drane/)for anyone interested in the historical development of Catholic education. There are points in the book that I think would correct several misconceptions advanced by some in this thread.
And here's another one:
http://www.amazon.com/Sisters-Catholic-Nuns-Making-America/product-reviews/0312325967/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=
I believe that it was in this book that I read about the burning of the Ursuline Convent
In 1834, a few hundred locals descended on the convent. As the nuns and their young charges cowered, both the convent and school were ransacked and torched by the mob. A mausoleum was then opened, coffins overturned and the remains scattered. When the three nights of arson and mayhem was over, the Ursuline convent and the school it housed were in ruins.
Yet this order of nuns survived & grew. We have a proud history, we've just forgotten it, or buried it under hatred & false ecuмenicism.
The desolation of the Ursuline Convent in August 1834 is not one of the proud events that historic Boston touts to patriotic visitors. And it is hardly unique. America's past is littered with similar examples of intolerance, sectarian hatred and ultimately, religious violence. A decade after the attack on the Ursuline Convent, Philadelphia was torn apart by the anti-Catholic Bible Riots, in which dozens died and the homes of mostly Irish Catholic immigrants were destroyed along with two Catholic churches in an argument begun over which Bible to use in public school.
-
Where I come from, there is not difference. "Catholic" school is where you end up (at a monetary cost) after you get expelled from every other public school, that is if your not going straight to Juvey Hall. And that's the way it's been here for nearly half a century.[/quote]
That's not a new problem. Catholic schools have always been willing to give anyone a chance if they had the room. The "trouble makers" were usually non-Catholics sent there for "the nuns to straighten them out". In fact, they had a pretty good record of doing so. My husband's best friend was enrolled in Immaculate Conception (a school in our area) in the 6th grade. He was one of these kids. He became a Catholic in high school, the only one in his family. He is now a retired highway patrolmen, a Traditional Catholic & a Grandfather several times over.
I'm surprised at the problems in the Catholic Tx. schools. There are 10 diocese if I remember correctly & all have at least one, most 2-3 Latin Mass communities.
Ah well, Tx. is a country of it's own. It was in Dallas, on a business trip, that I saw my first store with a sign that read:
"LIQUOR, GUNS & AMMO sold here". :good-shot:
-
When God wanted to kick King Saul "out of office", he chose a simple shepherd boy out in the country to take his seat. [/quote]
True & I sure hope he sends us one. Until then, however, a good education & a solid faith is the only way that I can see that WE can do anything to displace these "pick & choose Catholic politicians".........that plus prayer, fasting, offering our pain & sufferings for a resurgence of Catholic politicians. Our Bishop refused to give the Eucharist to Nancy Peℓσѕι.
-
That's not a new problem. Catholic schools have always been willing to give anyone a chance if they had the room. The "trouble makers" were usually non-Catholics sent there for "the nuns to straighten them out". In fact, they had a pretty good record of doing so. My husband's best friend was enrolled in Immaculate Conception (a school in our area) in the 6th grade. He was one of these kids. He became a Catholic in high school, the only one in his family. He is now a retired highway patrolmen, a Traditional Catholic & a Grandfather several times over.
:facepalm:
This is not the 50's, and THAT is not the reason why Catholic schools are populated with delinquents (to use a soft term). The kids in Catholic school are absolutely NO different from those in a public school, and there is hardly any more religion in the former than there is in the later. At the last "Catholic" school I visited I had trouble telling which girl wasn't a hooker because they all dressed like hookers. As for the males, I cant tell which one isn't a gangster.
-
1. Homeschooling is putting the Faith before worldly learning. Education quality is poor. The main -- if not only -- advantage of traditional Catholic homeschooling is the benefit to one's Faith.
I would disagree in most cases with this statement. I was homeschooled for 90% of my education and I know quite a lot of homeschoolers who did very well for themselves. They managed well to become doctors, engineers, jounalists, teachers, etc...
Homeschoolers here in Australia have a good reputation for doing well academically. I personally know quite a few big 8-10 child families who homeschooled all their children successfully.
Like everything there has to be a balance so that children are not too isolated and sheltered and I believe this is the reason a lot of people are against it due to their bad experiences.
I believe the parents are the first and foremost educators of their children and it is up to them to educate themselves in the Faith so that they know what is good for their children.
If the parents are capable and willing to homeschool their children then I congratulate them as I know it takes a lot of work.
I think the schools 200 years ago that were run by teaching orders such as the Dominicans would have been far better than even Traditional schools today as SSPX is a Priestly society that was not originally formed primarily for the education of the young.
There are many problems with even Traditional Schools and I believe on of the main problems is that parents do not take their responsiblity of forming their children themselves seriously and so they send them to Traditional schools with the attitude that the school will do all the education for them including discipline and teaching them the Faith. Before the parents realise the children have lost the Faith and no longer go to Mass because the Parents have neglected their primary responsibilties of raising the children in the Faith.
-
I've seen very few homeschool children "succeed " most of them seem extremely uneducated, and alot of them actually end up losing the faith for some reason.
Well that might be the case in some circuмstances though definitely not the majority.
Public school is not as bad for the faith in my humble opinion, because the evil is so easily recognizable.
If you teach catechism and pray together at home, then your children will see thru the BS at school and will have to face it and hopefully reject it. This is the world we live in. They will have to face it someday. With their parents help and prayer they will overcome.
A bad homeschool or Trad school will kill the faith of a child, more than a public school,from what I experienced.
Please do not lock your children in the house, not letting them have friends. They have to learn to make good decisions. How else than by falling down and with guidance from their family they learn to walk the narrow path??
To me this seems quite irresponsible. When your children come home swearing at the age of 8, will you think the same then? When your children are exposed to bad company and make friends who are smoking weed and getting drunk and practicing what they learnt in sex education, will you be happy?
Even if you teach your children what is right and wrong, bad company can destroy them and it does not take long to slip. It is call peer pressure.
This is a little like the account of Our Lord's temptation when the devil told Him to throw Himself off the cliff and the Angels would hold Him up so that He would not dash His feet. We should not place ourselves in the occasions of sin or put God to the test.
No matter how well we know right from wrong,, bad company can be the ruin of us.
How can Homeschooling or a Trad school be more dangerous if we know that the company is far better than public schools?
That is a rediculous claim.
-
Im inclined to believe jmid is unfamiliar with the environment of public schools based on his post. He must have a wonderful public school in his area.