simplicity, Catholic homeschooling, Old World inspiration, Oriental dance, style & beauty

Friday, June 23, 2017

My Simplest Homeschool Schedule Ever!

A couple of days ago I got our homeschooling "approval" letter from the local school superintendent. The paperwork for our state is of course necessary, but the approval can't be denied as long as everything is in order. Still, it's nice to have the formalities completed and not to have any loose ends hanging over my head!

I've been doing a lot of journaling lately as part of my contemplative, devotional practice. I do believe that as I pray over our homeschool, the Holy Spirit guides me, especially by way of intuitive insights. One day a couple of weeks ago while I was writing, I made a list of subjects--handwriting, math, piano, reading, art, and Spanish. Can you imagine what Charlotte Mason would have thought about a mere six subjects?!  I fleshed this out to seven daily subjects/books, based upon the unit studies I have planned. (Notice, there are no loop schedules!) I'll enumerate them first, and then explain how the system will work. 

1. Bible History/Geography
    (sub in Religion and Songs of Songs)
2. Hamilton's Arithmetic (supplemented with Total Math)
3. Cursive Writing (Seton)
4. Learn Spanish with Grace!
5. Language of God (CHC grammar)
6. Art Project/Nature Study
    (sub in The Story of Painting/Prehistoric Art/The Feelings 
7. Piano Practice

The first unit I've created for the upcoming fall term is based on the Old Testament. Since Beezy already read an Old Testament historical novel this past spring term, King David and His Songs (Windeatt), Seton's Bible History: Old Testament will serve as her primary reading text. I will be reading aloud the relevant chapters from A Child's Geography of the World (Hillyer), for which Beezy will write narrations. So the first "subject" is actually History/Geography, alternating twice each in a four-day week. (Fridays Beezy will have Choir and Musical Theater classes with a homeschooling co-op.) 

We will finish the Geography chapters before the Bible History (which will cover King Solomon to the end of the book), so then Seton's Religion 6 for Young Catholics book will be subbed in (continued from this past school year), as well as passages from the Songs of Songs; incorporating copy work, dictation, and memory recitation. The Song of Songs is poetry, so you can see how more subjects are being worked in than initially meets the eye...

Art projects for this year will come from Draw and Write Through History, the first one being the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, one of the seven wonders of the ancient world. Art will alternate with Nature Study, for which we will be using Some Animals and Their Homes. When the art project is finished, we'll read the first section in The Story of Painting (Jansen, cave paintings), followed by Prehistoric Art (Hodges). From there we'll alternate between Some Animals and Their Homes and The Feelings Book from American Girl, which will be one of our Health topics. 

Obviously this is not a "true" unit study, because all subjects are not related to the central theme of the Old Testament. The next topic, Ancient Egypt, will be more comprehensive. I think that this approach is going to be rich and varied enough in subjects/books, while keeping to a more multum non multa, classical philosophy. We will go more deeply into subjects, and the course of study will be more unified. And all of the books for the unit can fit into Beezy's workbox, including her composition and nature notebooks! I'm hoping to keep each unit to about six weeks. 

In addition to the homeschooling co-op, Beezy will have weekly piano and horseback riding lessons, and tumbling classes. 

So what do you think of my new, pared down schedule for the 7th grade? I can't wait to try it out, but for now we are all about summer!

Wednesday, June 14, 2017

The Good of Charlotte Mason

It may seem to readers that I've been very hard on Charlotte Mason lately. I felt the need to really pinpoint what the issues might be for Catholics, to be very aware of what elements don't mesh with the Faith and the Church's educational tradition. I do not mean to completely reject CM. After all, the Catholic Church is not opposed to new ideas. She does not insist upon any particular pedagogical method. It's entirely possible and permissible to take the Truth, Goodness, and Beauty found in non-Catholic resources. We simply need to be discerning. 

I was reminded of the good of Charlotte Mason when I received a Stories of the Saints reading comprehension book that I had ordered from Catholic Heritage Curricula for the upcoming school year. For the first story, there are 12 vocabulary words to define and 10 comprehension questions. This seems like a lot to me. For Seton's Bible History chapters there are only about four, fill-in-the-blank questions to complete. I imagine that Beezy would blanch at the idea of doing so much more work!

However, she does need to be doing more writing, and answering all those questions with complete sentences would give her that opportunity. At the same time, because of CM, I know about alternative language arts methods. I can have Beezy do copy work and dictation lessons from the text. I could have her simply write a narration, and in fact the Stories of the Saints book suggests topics for essays. I could have her give me an oral narration after the story, and then she could answer only those questions that she did not already cover. With the vocabulary, she would only have to look up those words that she didn't already know. In the introduction, the author suggests several options for how the book might be used. In any case we are not locked in to only one way of doing things. That is the mentality I really want to get away from.

What I love about homeschooling is that we can try different things and do what works best. Even if I required Beezy to fill in every blank and answer every question, the work wouldn't have to be done all in one day. A number of different approaches and writing assignments can be used to encourage retention of the material and enhance thinking skills. 

I think I simply needed to branch out with some new teaching ideas for the upcoming school year, to keep things fresh for both myself and my child. I've assimilated what I needed from Charlotte Mason and will probably have the occasional opportunity to revisit her. But I think that now, for the most part, we are on to new challenges and experiences. And we're just going to enjoy being the unique Catholic homeschooling family that we are!

Thursday, June 8, 2017

Reason and the Catholic Mind

Those who...honestly accept the final effect of the Reformation will none the less face the fact, that it was the Schoolman (Thomas Aquinas) who was the Reformer; and that the later Reformers were by comparison reactionaries... For instance, they riveted the mind back to the literal sufficiency of the Hebrew Scriptures; when St. Thomas had already spoken of the Spirit giving grace to the Greek philosophies. He insisted on the social duty of works; they only on the spiritual duty of faith. It was the very life of the Thomist teaching that Reason can be trusted: it was the very life of Lutheran teaching that Reason is utterly untrustworthy."   --G.K. Chesterton  (emphasis mine)

In the words of a popular 1990s song, Woop, there it is!  I started reading Chesterton's St. Thomas Aquinas today, and already in the first chapter a fundamental difference between the Catholic and the Protestant (and modernist) mind is succinctly stated. And herein is further elucidation on the question of Charlotte Mason's appropriateness for Catholic educators.

Charlotte quite clearly did not trust in Reason, for the reason that the mind can logically defend any notion that it already believes to be true. In other words, we can easily fool ourselves. In this point I will agree. We can rationalize our way out of a nailed shut coffin. Today psychologists label rationalization as a defense mechanism used to justify bad behavior. It is a fallacy of reasoning, only superficially seeming to be logical. This is not a true use of the human faculty of Reason. But alas, Charlotte also disagreed with the training of the mind's faculties. She did not believe in the faculties of the mind at all.

This explains why CM discouraged Socratic questioning, why she wanted to leave the child free to come to his own conclusions. She seemed to believe that putting questions to the child's mind was encroaching upon his personality; and she argued that when given the ideas found in living books to feed his mind, he would not fail to come to the right conclusions on his own.

In the article recently discussed, "Thomas Aquinas and the Great Recognition," Art Middlekauff draws the distinction between Charlotte's educare, to nourish, and the classical educere, to draw out. Once again I must agree with Art--Charlotte was not a classical educator, in that her philosophy and method were not based upon the Greek and Latin studies of antiquity. He quotes her to prove his point:

Specialists, on the other hand, are apt to attach too much importance to the several exercise of the mental ‘faculties.’ We come across books on teaching, with lessons elaborately drawn up, in which certain work is assigned to the perceptive faculties, certain work to the imagination, to the judgment, and so on. Now this doctrine of the faculties, which rests on a false analogy between the mind and the body, is on its way to the limbo where the phrenologist’s ‘bumps’ now rest in peace. The mind would appear to be one and indivisible, and endowed with manifold powers; and this sort of doctoring of the material of knowledge is unnecessary for the healthy child, whose mind is capable of self-direction, and of applying itself to its proper work upon the parcel of knowledge delivered to it. Almost any subject which common sense points out as suitable for the instruction of children will afford exercise for all their powers, if properly presented.  (emphasis mine)

I do in fact agree with Charlotte to a certain extent. This is why I'm not truly "classical" either. As I argued in the last post, I don't believe that Latin is absolutely necessary for training the mind in the faculty of Reason. I don't think her science on the brain is quite right, however. We do know that injury to a certain area of the brain can affect a particular function, such as memory, and that certain kinds of exercises can strengthen such functions. She is right that the brain is more complex than originally imagined and works as a whole, but we now know that all brains are not created equal. The male brain is more compartmentalized; while the female brain is more complex, with a greater amount of connective tissue between the two hemispheres. No doubt we will continue to develop better understanding of the science of the brain as time progresses.

I agree with Charlotte's emphasis on nourishing the mind on living ideas, as opposed to merely teaching a child how to learn, which seems to be the classical emphasis. I think that what Charlotte achieved was a nice balance in this respect. For example, memory recitation was a part of her method, but the curriculum wasn't centered upon rote memorization. It wasn't limited to, or even focused upon, the trivium of antiquity. There is no reason that children should have to wait until high school and college to obtain knowledge in a variety of subject areas, to have intimate acquaintance with many ideas and things. Both are right, both are necessary--educare and educere. And this is the Catholic Way, isn't it, the "both/and" frame of mind? I would have to argue with Art on this point: the Catholic Way is not "classical" as defined by his terms. It's scholastic.

Thomas Aquinas reconciled Aristotle to the Catholic Faith. Faith and Reason could live together in harmony; in fact, could not really live apart. Now, you may be wondering, why wasn't this point obvious to me before, that Charlotte Mason was simply not Catholic, and that of course there would be areas of disagreement. The thing is, I'm only now coming to understand why that matters. It's not just "Bible only" Christianity vs. Scripture and Tradition. It's Charlotte's philosophical rejection of Reason against St. Thomas' validation of Reason. Charlotte placed too much faith in the self-direction of the mind of the child, perhaps to the point of magical thinking; and hers is a Bible-only, educare-only philosophy. Training the Reason is the proper antidote to rationalization. And in a proper Catholic curriculum, the marriage of Faith and Reason is inherent.

Clearly we must be guided to developing our powers of Reason and the ability to come to the Truth. Vatican II put a primacy on the informed conscience of the faithful in decision making. It wasn't until college that I realized how bad I was at making decisions. Being presented with the most trivial of decisions (ie., a restaurant menu) would fluster me. If the conscience has not been properly formed, then the faithful will likely make decisions in opposition to the teachings of the Church. Hence we have Catholics and other Christians who support abortion rights, who live together before marriage, who believe in homosexual "marriage", etc.

Vatican II presupposed that Catholics would be raised with the proper development of their faculties of Reason! That they would know both what they believed and why, and would be able to defend the Faith. That they would be, with grace, safeguarded against rationalization. We see the results of watered-down catechesis and the failure to develop critical thinking skills all around us.

Charlotte Mason got part of the picture right, and to the extent that she was right, we can emulate her. But we have to be very aware of the ways in which her philosophy is diametrically opposed to Catholicism, and we have to choose the Church first. I would go so far as to say that the truths she "discovered" were already inherent in Catholic philosophy; and the more that we understand the Church's teachings on education and everything else, the less we Catholics will need to depend upon her. 

Thursday, June 1, 2017

Project, Simply Catholic Homeschooling (and the Latin Question)

Happy June! What glorious weather we are having!! I am now the mother of a teenager, and we are about to host a big birthday slumber party. Our public pool will open next week, and it will be time to just relax and sink into summer. I have even already delivered my homeschooling paperwork to the local school superintendent's office!

I'm happy to say that my decluttering project, which I focused upon during Lent, is still in action. My terrible bedroom annex is finally presentable. It isn't finished yet, but it's no longer embarrassing. My daughter's bedroom is also slowly but surely being relieved of its burdens of stuff.

In addition to that project, and in relation to it, I'm going to apply the concept of schole, learning as leisure, to myself. I'm going to solve the mystery of what Catholic home education actually is! Here's the thing. When I first started homeschooling, I often came across the assurance that parents know their children better than anyone and are the most qualified people to teach them. And this, regardless of educational background. We could teach our children well without any type of certificate, training, or degree. I rarely see these sentiments being expressed anymore.

Instead, it's all about which is the best method or curriculum program, and whether or not you can--or must--do this or that as a Catholic (or an unschooler, or a classical or Charlotte Mason homeschooler, etc...). There is a potent sense of insecurity in the atmosphere. There is also much argument over what increasingly seems to me to be much ado about nothing. We have forgotten that we are not teaching curriculum programs--we're teaching children. Our children. Who we know better than anyone else. Remember?!

It seems to me that Catholic homeschoolers are, by and large, putting teaching methods and gurus before the Faith. Perhaps I'm wrong, and I hope that I am. The most pertinent question on our minds should be this: What does the Church teach us about education? What do the Bible, the popes, and the saints have to tell us? What particular guidance is being given us by the Holy Spirit? Do we even have the eyes to see and the ears to hear? Or are we too caught up in philosophical anxiety?

I'll tell you what. Let's get the Latin thing out of the way right now, and at least one problem will be solved. Yes, Latin plays a substantial role in the tradition of the Catholic Church. Yes, a curriculum centered around the Latin and Greek languages, literature, and history might be the most authentically classical one. And yes, studying inflected languages does help better one's understanding of English grammar; and yes, by all accounts Latin helps to develop critical thinking skills. But no, you don't have to study Latin to be a Catholic homeschooler. You don't have to re-create the Jesuit system of classical education in your home to be an authentically Catholic educator.

French and Spanish are both inflected languages, and there are others. You aren't obligated, however, to teach any foreign language to your child. He will need a certain number of years of foreign language study in high school if he's college bound. Before then, it doesn't have to be an issue. It's entirely up to you!

As far as critical thinking skills go, Latin is not the only way to get them. For me personally, Shakespeare was the ticket! Reading the Bard, forming a thesis, and proving it with the text at hand and within the historical context was the process that developed my ability to think for myself, and to back up my opinion with substantial evidence. This is what honed my writing skills in college. At any rate, I dare say that Jesus Christ excelled at critical thinking and rhetorical skills, without the benefit of Latin.

But is Latin worthy of studying? Of course it is! It can be a wonderful way of passing on the cultural heritage of Western civilization, and I have a library book all ready to teach me over the summer. We are raising our children to be lifelong learners, yes? If we do not get to Latin while they are under our roofs, they will have the opportunity to pursue it on their own at a later time. 

I feel like my critical thinking skills have been enhanced simply by becoming Catholic. The very process of learning the Catholic Faith itself has formed new pathways in my brain, to be sure! Along the journey, it occurred to me that Catholicism is very logical. As I've mentioned, a key figure in Catholic theology, philosophy, and education is St. Thomas Aquinas and his Scholastic Method of the 13th century, by which he successfully united faith with reason. It's becoming ever more clear why the Faith is at once both extremely rational and deeply mystical.

I finished reading Guide to Thomas Aquinas by Joseph Pieper and have a couple of other books going on the scholastics of the Middle Ages, which in fact include not only Christians, but Jewish and Muslim thinkers as well! I've printed off Pope Pius XI's encyclical, Divini Illius Magistri (On the Christian Education of Youth), and I've started reading Catholic Home Schooling by Mary Kay Clark.

I want to know what Catholic education is, pure and simple. And I do think it is much simpler than the mountains of methods that we've been forcing ourselves to climb.

Saturday, May 27, 2017

Charlotte Mason & the Catholic Conundrum, Part 3

What conclusions can I draw to wrap up this discussion? I'm not here to tell anyone either to embrace or refrain from using Charlotte Mason's method of education. I found CM before I was Catholic, and since coming to the Church, I've gone back and forth regarding whether or not her philosophy is in any contradiction with the Catholic Faith. I think the evident confusion that she creates holds a key.

There is wisdom in Charlotte Mason, but perhaps it's too difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff. St. Thomas reflected deeply upon Aristotle in order to reconcile him with Catholicism and the Bible. Catholics reflecting upon Charlotte Mason will likewise need to separate truth from error. But we are not St. Thomas. It seems better, in the case of mothers who have taken on the enormous task of teaching their children themselves, to rely upon the work that the Catholic Church has already accomplished.

I can't imagine that there is really anything particular to Charlotte Mason that can't be found in our own tradition, and with the use of common sense. And in that case, we are relieved from the burden of trying to "Catholicize" CM. My current exploration is toward an authentically traditional, Catholic education, derived from the Scholastic Method of St. Thomas and facilitated by history-based unit studies. This seems more open somehow than CM. Likewise, I'm studying Christopher Perrin's youtube talks on the 8 essential principles of classical pedagogy, which don't seem to place arbitrary limits on what one can and cannot do. The principles could be applied in any number of ways. I want an approach that doesn't force a "best" way of doing things. That freedom to simply be a Catholic homeschooler is calling me.

I was reflecting today on how Charlotte Mason helped me when I was struggling to teach my child to read. A phonetic approach just wasn't clicking. CM gave me the "permission" to try sight reading instead, and her advice on this matter in Home Education was very valuable. But then I considered that Beezy's reading finally took off when I had a light bulb moment about the set of Dick and Jane books we had sitting in a closet. I had learned to read with Dick and Jane! Charlotte would have surely considered it "twaddle", but in desperation I was willing to try anything.

Dick and Jane worked most likely as the result of the repetitive quality of the books, which fits in with the classical principle of repetitio mater memoriae! A google search led me to vintage Ginn readers for more advanced reading levels in the same sort of style, and they even produced a Catholic "Faith and Freedom" series. CM was surely a help, but the real solution came in the form of my motherly intuition, and probably divine inspiration.

What I'm getting at with this is that we all have our seasons in life. There is nothing wrong with having a Charlotte Mason season, from discerning what is true, good, and beautiful from her method and using those elements as a faithful Catholic. But I don't think that holding scrupulously to her entire philosophy is wise. I see a lot of Catholic homeschoolers on social media trying to make CM over in a Catholic image, to rationalize the very valid concerns that many of us have. And getting very defensive if anyone dares to question the appropriateness of the Charlotte Mason method for Catholics. Falling into scrupulosity over any method verges on idolatry. It takes our eyes off the focus of faith formation and the cultivation of virtue in our children. If it doesn't bring you peace, it isn't the right thing for you and your family.

Sarah Mackenzie is, after all, quite right. The goal with any method or curriculum is teaching from rest. The quest is unshakeable peace.

Friday, May 26, 2017

Charlotte Mason & the Catholic Conundrum, Part 2

The Triumph of Saint Thomas Aquinas

The fresco pictured here, "The Triumph of Saint Thomas Aquinas," is to be found in Florence, Italy, in the Spanish Chapel of the Basilica di Santa Maria Novella. Please see Art Middlekauff's article, "Thomas Aquinas and the Great Recognition," as our reference point for this discussion (

Art tells us, "Thought to be executed by Andrea di Bonaiuto in the fourteenth century, these frescos unabashedly delight in the great achievements of the Domincan order." 

"The Triumph of Saint Thomas Aquinas" is the fresco beloved by Charlotte Mason which I mentioned in Part 1, a copy of which she had in her House of Education and which she said formed her "educational creed."

Rather than paraphrase Art's entire article, I just want to sum up what I think are the issues in what he has brought out for the Catholic CM educator. First, Charlotte never once in all of her writings mentions the name of Thomas Aquinas. In chapter 25 of Parents and Children, she calls the fresco in question, "The Descent of the Holy Spirit." According to Art, she does at times call it Filosofica della Religione Cattolica (Philosophy of the Catholic Religion), but in chapter 25 there is no acknowledgement that this fresco has anything to do with St. Thomas, the Dominican order, or the Catholic Faith. This is despite the fact that Thomas is the central figure of the painting; that he is in fact larger than all of the other figures and is seated on a throne; and that it is intended to represent the supremacy of the teaching authority of the Catholic Church!

Further evidence of her intentional avoidance of St. Thomas is the way that CM discusses the Florentines, the "Florentine mind," and the Medieval scholastics in chapter 25. She attributes the ideas that she sees exemplified in the painting, which captures her notion of the "great recognition" in picture form, as seemingly flowering from the people of Florence in general, rather than from the tradition of the Catholic Church.  

And what is this great recognition? It's the idea that the parents/teachers of children must recognize that the Holy Spirit is the supreme educator in all things, religious and secular, and that we must cooperate with the Spirit in order to effectively teach. There seems to be nothing "off" in this part of CM's philosophy. Yet she goes so far in chapter 25 as to suggest that a particular educational method might either "invite" or "repel" the Holy Spirit. The logic goes that since the Spirit is the giver of life, he would not cooperate with a teaching approach which is dry as dust, which is not living. The implication is that it is her method which will best invite the Spirit. 

The Catholic Church adopted the educational philosophy and method of Thomas Aquinas, who is regarded as the Angelic Doctor of unparalleled esteem, not that of Charlotte Mason. The Holy Spirit does his work through Holy Mother Church. The education of our children is supposed to be based upon Catholic Faith Formation. Charlotte Mason interpreted the fresco to her own liking, but more problematic, she based her notion of the Holy Spirit's cooperation on her own interpretation of the Bible, and her philosophy follows suit. 

When Jesus said, "Let the children be, and do not hinder them from coming to me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven," Charlotte applied this directly to her method. She tells us that we hinder the child by getting too much between him and the ideas found in living books. Let's consider narration, for example, a key CM method, which in itself is a practical tool for assimilating and remembering what is read. We are discouraged from having any influence on how the child's mind conceives of what he has taken in. We are to allow him to come to his own conclusions. Furthermore, the personality of the teacher should not have any play upon the child in his education. Her "charm" should be concealed, not used to any advantage. While St. Thomas would agree that discovery on one's own is the best way to learn anything, he also recognized that some things simply could not be learned without the guidance of the teacher, and that most people would have neither the time nor the courage to do so.

St. Thomas' method was distinguished by its conversational approach, presenting the material in engaging ways and leading the mind of the student to right thinking (the marriage of faith with reason). If we allow the books to be the primary educators of our children, then we are not following the Church's declaration that it is the parents who are the primary educators of their children! Yes, we do this with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. But Charlotte's notion that a method of education itself will either invite or repel the Spirit isn't Catholic. We invite the Holy Spirit through prayer. We receive the graces of the Spirit through the sacraments and life of the Church. And teaching is an art that we need to do well. 

Charlotte's conception of the Spirit reminds me of the New Age "Universe," an impersonal energy that can be attracted (as in, the "law of attraction") and bent to one's will.

Some will say that none of this matters. That one can use CM's educational techniques, taking what one likes and leaving the rest. Homeschoolers subscribe to Charlotte's philosophy and method to greater and lesser degrees, so I certainly can't say whether a Catholic can use her approach in good conscience or not. As I've written before, there can't be anything inherently heretical with using methods like copy work, narration, dictation, short lessons, and observational nature study. 

At the same time, Charlotte herself insisted that simply using some of her teaching techniques was not enough, that we must indeed understand and apply the underlying philosophy. The method flows from the philosophy. If the philosophy is marked by serious error, then we do take a risk in employing the method. 

It's ridiculous to imagine that the Holy Spirit might be repelled by, say, the use of textbooks and workbooks. This gets back to the over-emphasis on methods. What I think we need to do is to read what the Church has written on the education of youth. Remember that we are the primary educators of our children, and act accordingly. Provide them with a curriculum which presents a unified, Catholic worldview--a curriculum with faith formation at its core, which will serve in the formation of the Catholic mind. 

You might take some aspects of the CM method to accomplish your goals. I think I have done this effectively in my own homeschool, but I also think that it could be done better, and without the potential baggage that CM might bring. Future posts will concentrate upon my findings.

Tuesday, May 23, 2017

Charlotte Mason & the Catholic Conundrum, Part 1

O Angelic Doctor St. Thomas, prince of theologians and model of philosophers, bright ornament of the Christian world and light of the Church; O heavenly patron of all Catholic schools, who didst learn wisdom without guile and dost communicate it without envy, intercede for us with the Son of God, Wisdom itself, that the spirit of wisdom may descend upon us, and enable us to understand clearly that which thou hast taught, and fulfill it by imitating thy deeds; to become partakers of that doctrine and virtue which caused thee to shine like the sun on earth; and at last to rejoice with thee forever in their most sweet fruits in heaven, together praising the Divine Wisdom for all eternity. Amen.

Here is today's question: What would happen if I simply dropped Charlotte Mason from my homeschooling philosophy? Why am I asking this question? I think it's the fault of St. Thomas Aquinas. After reading a couple of internet articles yesterday, I started wondering what had gotten me on the St. Thomas path in the first place. I could not remember. It just seemed as though his name kept mysteriously popping up. But then I realized the obvious reason. I had been praying ardently over my homeschooling vocation. Remember when I was saying that I just want to be a Catholic homeschooler and quit obsessing over methods? Evidently the answer is Thomas Aquinas.

Finding any information on what would constitute an Aquinas-based homeschooling method, however, is like looking for the proverbial needle in a haystack. The most one will typically find is the term "traditional," usually meaning having text/workbooks for every subject, with the Catholic Faith running through everything. It seems rather dull to many people, and to Charlotte Mason homeschoolers in particular, who contrast living books with the dry dust of textbooks. But from my studies so far, Aquinas was not at all about uninspiring textbooks which merely give summaries and facts, and copious fill-in-the-blank questions. He was a university professor whose teaching method focused upon sincere dialogue. His scholasticism of the 13th century reconciled the reason of Aristotle with the Catholic religion--no easy feat! If he had not accomplished this miracle, the Church would have experienced an extreme crisis, a massive loss of Christian faith, so popular were Aristotle's ideas taking hold.

What I fear I've discovered is that Charlotte Mason pitted herself philosophically against the teaching authority of the Catholic Church that St. Thomas so clearly represents. For right now I'm just going to present you with the trail of my reading yesterday, the articles which led me to see the Catholic conundrum in regard to CM more clearly. First I read "The Formation of the Catholic Mind" by Dr. Ronald P. McArthur, which clearly illustrates the primacy of Aquinas in Catholic philosophy, theology, and education ( As Catholic homeschoolers we are most certainly concerned with the formation of the Catholic mind in our children. That must be our first priority.

Then I found Art Middlekauff's article, "Thomas Aquinas and the Great Recognition" ( You may remember that I had suspected some connection between Charlotte Mason and the scholasticism of St. Thomas, wondering if she had indeed been inspired by it. Middlekauff has shown that there is a connection, but his conclusion is that CM intentionally chose to distance herself from Aquinas and the Catholic Church. He refers to chapter 25 in CM's Vol. 2, Parents and Children, which addresses a certain Dominican fresco and the "great recognition" that CM says is imperative for parent-teachers. My reading of this chapter confirmed Middlekauff's conclusions. (You can find a link to all CM's volumes on Ambleside Online's introduction page.)

Now, Middlekauff has argued against the idea that CM's method is "classical," in opposition to Karen Glass' linking of CM to the classical tradition of antiquity in her book Consider This. I've written about this before and decided that it didn't matter whether or not CM is "classical," that it didn't affect how I homeschooled my child one way or another. But it seems with this Thomas Aquinas article that his concern may be that putting CM in the Classical Christian category would necessarily associate her with the Catholic scholastics of the Middle Ages.

What I suggest is that you read the two articles I mentioned and then read chapter 25 in Parents and Children, and we can come back to discuss the details in Part 2.