topics


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 (http://charlottemasonpoetry.org/thomas-aquinas-and-the-great-recognition/).

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. 

Charlotte applied Jesus' saying, "Let the children be, and do not hinder them from coming to me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven," 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 in varying ways and to greater and lesser degrees, so I certainly can't decree 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.

6 comments:

  1. I always love your posts as usual. I think the reason it maybe so hard to rectify CM with Catholicism is because she was a Protestant like you said. I think she never mentioned St. Thomas because as a Protestant it is so hard to bring up Catholic thought or saints without all the other hang ups that Protestants have with Catholics. So rather than going there and causing controversy she perhaps wanted to be diplomatic and took St. Thomas Aquina’s ideas like from the Fresco and just didn’t give him the credit but the Holy Spirit. Because after all the Holy Spirit was working through St. Thomas. I think most Protestants believe that Catholics are our brothers and sisters in Christ, but they have a hard time with the theological differences like praying to Saints and that is why unfortunately so many Saints don’t get the recognition they deserve like St. Thomas Aquinas by Protestants. I look at them just like I look at John Wesley, Spurgeon or DL Moody, they were great teachers just like many Catholic saints were and they are worthy of the recogniztion. I’m not also an apologetic of Protestants. I think they have just as many problems as Catholics. We are all Christians though, and broken people in need of a Savior our Lord Jesus Christ. I just hope you don’t completely write off CM though for the admission of St.Thomas Aquinas.


    In Christ,

    Dana S.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for your lovely comments, Dana! I think you are right about Charlott's motives for discreetly keeping St. Thomas's name out of her writings. No, I haven't completely written her off, because there are many useful elements to her method, and I agree with a lot of her ideas. But I'm endeavoring to present a traditional liberal arts education to my teenage daughter now, that has it's roots in Catholic scholasticism. It is difficult sometimes to try to "blend" that with CM. I worked as a trained Montessori classroom teacher before I was a wife and mother. I think this summer I'll re-read some of her writings. Godspeed!

      Delete
  2. Thank you for presenting the Catholic perspective on this. I just read Art's article, too. The funny thing is, I am Reformed, and I have been realizing that I don't find her philosophy Biblical, even though I want to love her method! So it isn't just that she is Protestant. I find it fascinating that we are coming at it from different angles and both finding her reasoning problematic.

    My concern is her stance on the effects and scope of Adam's fall. Unless I misunderstand Aquinas' take, I believe she actually agrees with him on that point (forgive me and correct me if I'm wrong!). She does not seem to see reason nor will as corrupted by sin as Reformed thought, and although many try to explain that away, I can't shake my interpretation of what seems to be her clear intent. On that doctrine lies her entire system of "The Way of the Will" as well as the idea of a child being able to take from the broad feast exactly what they need.

    Don't get me wrong ~ I love the broad feast! But I am seeing some holes, or at least major friction points between her theology and mine. Regarding her statement that one ought to employ her entire philosophy and method, I have been considering that, too. With apologies, I have to quote Martin Luther, who said it best: "Unless I am convinced by sacred Scripture, or by evident reason, I cannot recant, for my conscience is held captive by the Word of God, and to act against conscience is neither right nor safe.”

    Blessings to you as you discern these things, and as you seek to teach your children in the best way, that they might "glorify God and enjoy Him forever," as is all of our chief end. Thanks again for your insights.

    Ashley

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Ashley, I really appreciate your thoughts! I'm not sure I can answer your question about CM's views on the scope of Adam's fall. I have heard others question what her views were on original sin, and that might be what you're getting at. The quote by Luther is interesting, because he mentions both Scripture and reason, which is a classically Catholic way of thinking. Of course, he rejected the teaching authority of the Catholic Church from which the Bible came to us. With Charlotte I understand her to mistrust the human faculty of reason. She is right in that the reason can justify wrong beliefs that a person already holds. In contrast, St. Thomas's scholasticism is a marriage of faith and reason, a reconciliation of Aristotle to the Bible. CM didn't seem to trust in human reason at all, and therefore her worldview is opposed to St. Thomas's. This is one of the areas of her pedagogy that I can't make fit with Catholicism. Thank you so much for your blessings, and Godspeed!!

      Delete
  3. thank you for this. I came across a few disturbing points in my readings, and found the keeping it catholic article, which was not clear at all to me. I need to get deeper into this. I can't wait to read what you have to say.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for the comment! I agree, the Keeping It Catholic article isn't clear. I got her book hoping it would elucidate matters, but it didn't. Mariana Bartold accuses Charlotte Mason of a whole host of heresies. I researched all of them that she mentioned and didn't find anything in CM's writings to prove those accusations. My issues with CM have more to do with differences in philosophy and worldview. I think the Keeping It Catholic folks think Protestants in general are heretics, so Mariana was accusing CM specifically of all the heresy's she finds inherent in Protestantism. Godspeed!

      Delete

Please keep comments brief and respectful. Personal attacks or any comments deemed inappropriate will not be published. Thank you!