Will "Better Science" Save Us? | Wisdom and the Fear of the Lord

The fear of the Lord is the crown of wisdom, making peace and perfect health to flourish. He saw her and apportioned her; he rained down knowledge and discerning comprehension, and he exalted the glory of those who held her fast. To fear the Lord is the root of wisdom, and her branches are long life.  ~ Sirach 1: 18-20 RSV-2CE

What does the fear of the Lord have to do with science? That's the topic we are exploring today. Let's begin with a meme I spotted on social media:

The problem I've repeatedly encountered with memes that attempt to make a profound argument is that the idea will seem to make logical sense at first glance; but upon deeper consideration, it becomes clear that it makes any number of errors in logic, including presenting a false dichotomy or a straw man argument, or it simply fails to reflect the complexity of an issue. I couldn't put my finger on what was off about this meme, but it kept coming back into my mind throughout the day. That evening, as I was reading a book of Marian devotion, I encountered the verses from Sirach posted at the beginning of this article, and the trouble was elucidated. The foundational problem with the meme is perhaps the failure to put first things first. 

Very often in our contemporary Western culture, science is pitted against religion. Yet this is a relatively recent phenomenon in human history. The fact is that Theology was regarded as the Queen of the Sciences and worked hand-in-hand with Philosophy, also a high science. You might say that Theology was the perfection of Philosophy. Western civilization was built upon the marriage of faith and reason, exemplified by the classical Christian thought of St. Thomas Aquinas and his masterpiece, Summa Theologica. 

The artificial division of subjects from one another and over-emphasis on specialization that we find today are earmarks of the dumbing down of education. The Catholic Church founded the institutions of the university and the hospital. The universities in our present era are, by and large, no longer the incubators of critical thought, originality, creativity, holistically integrated studies, pioneering research, and grand aspirations of the human soul. Rather, they are the breeding grounds for the hive mind and radical leftist, atheist ideologies. The very science that we have elevated to golden calf proportions has become an anemic system separated from every other art and science and bereft of a cohesive, life-giving worldview. 

How can we ever hope to rely on "better science" if it's separated from its ultimate source? 

In the Book of Wisdom, King Solomon prays for the gift of Wisdom, via the power of the Holy Spirit, to come to him, and in return he is granted, among other things, perfect scientific knowledge (Wisdom 7: 16-22). Wisdom here, as in other books of the Bible, is personified as a woman and is called sister, bride, and the mother of all good things. As we learned at the top, the fear of the Lord is the root and crown of divine Wisdom. But what is this mysterious "fear of the Lord"?

The fear of the Lord does not refer to the cowering of one who fears the wrath of God, who worries that our Creator will hurl lightning bolts as punishment for our mistakes. The fear of the Lord, which is a divine gift itself, refers to a reverential love of God and a filial desire to please him and avoid sin. The fear of the Lord is the awe and respect for true Religion, manifested in the teachings of the Judeo-Christian tradition, and fulfilled in the Trinitarian belief in one God in three divine persons--Father, Son, and Holy Spirit--and the Incarnation of the Son in the person of Jesus Christ, who is both True God and True Man. Without placing this first thing first, any scientific knowledge can only be partial at best, and will likely be riddled with error. We won't know the complete truth until we get to heaven; but as we read in Sacred Scripture, peace and perfect health themselves are bi-products of wisdom.

Jesus said, "But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you" (Matt. 6: 33 KJV). This statement comes at the end of Our Lord's admonition that we should not be anxious about what we will eat or wear or anything else. The first thing is to seek the heavenly kingdom and trust in God for all our needs. Both Solomon's desire for Wisdom, which reflects his fear of the Lord, and Jesus' setting of our priorities are directly applicable to our current coronavirus times. 

As we know from history, scientific knowledge is always in a state of flux. It's in a neverending state of change, revision, and interpretation. Science is not just a set of objective facts. New facts might refute a prior understanding of what were believed to be the facts, and the result might be better science. But if we think that science exists in a vacuum, apart from religion, politics, and human emotions and experience, we are dangerously naive. The scientists themselves form the hypotheses and conduct the experiments they do according to their own sets of preconceived beliefs, hunches, personal experiences, former observations, and any manner of outside influences, including the political, and internal motivations, such as greed and the desire for power. If the scientist is not a purely objective being, which, as a human, he is necessarily not, then it follows that the interpretations of the science will be to some extent subjectively colored. Hence we have what are called scientific opinions. 

As we all know, scientists of relatively equal education and experience in their field can have widely differing opinions. If you find out from a doctor that you have a serious medical condition, a doctor of good character will suggest that you have it confirmed by a second opinion before proceeding with treatment. What we find happening all over the news and social media right now is that any scientific opinion that differs from the WHO, the CDC, and Drs. Fauci and Birx is being categorically labeled as conspiracy theory and violently censored. If you don't think you have the right to any and all information that you might wish to consider when making your own decisions for your health and welfare, and that of others, you need to wake up. This is life and death stuff we are dealing with, and in this atmosphere of conflicting information and opinion, rife with political and emotional manipulation, the lay person needs something more than science upon which to make sound judgments. 

If the Holy Spirit could impart perfect wisdom and discernment, and even perfect scientific knowledge, upon a man who had no university education or medical experience, then he can likewise give anyone who puts the fear of the Lord ahead of all other considerations an awareness of when he is hearing the truth, and when he is being led astray. This guidance will sometimes come as a gut feeling, an intuition, or an "ah-ha" response to something a scientist, politition, or your great aunt Sophie says. Yes, it could indeed even come in the form of a YouTube video! And don't your own education, experiences, intelligence, and powers of observation and common sense count for something? Are we really so incapable of making informed decisions and thinking for ourselves that we must rely entirely on a myriad of expert opinions? Well, that's exactly what a certain atheistic, socialist agenda (viz. regime) would like you to believe. Have some self-respect, people! And in doing so, there is a better chance of being able to respect one another. 

Which scientists do you trust? To mask or not to mask? To glove or not to glove? To draw near one another, or to keep apart? When there are no easy answers, when there are many unknowns, when there is a cacophony of deafening voices and derision, it's all the more imperative that we go to God in prayer, with the fear of the Lord in our hearts, and beg for Wisdom. This is our only hope to be guided in the right direction. This is the better science. 

Doth not Wisdom cry aloud, and prudence put forth her voice? Standing in the top of the highest places by the way, in the midst of the paths, beside the gates of the city, in the very doors she speaketh, saying: O ye men, to you I call, and my voice is to the sons of men. O littles ones, understand subtilty and ye unwise, take notice. Hear, for I will speak of great things: and my lips shall be opened to preach right things. My mouth shall meditate truth, and my lips shall hate wickedness. All my words are just, there is nothing wicked nor perverse in them. They are right to them that understand, and just to them that find knowledge. Receive my instruction, and not money: choose knowledge rather than gold.

By me kings reign, and lawgivers decree just things... I love them that love me: and they that in the morning early watch for me, shall find me... He that shall find me, shall find life, and shall have salvation from the Lord: but he that shall sin against me, shall hurt his own soul. All that hate me love death. 

(Proverbs 8: 1-10, 15, 17, 35-36 DRV)

Multum Non Multa--Just Follow the Books

Today I'm thinking, once again, about that Latin phrase, multum non multa. This translates as "much not many" and embraces English maxims such as "quality over quantity" and "less is more." Multum non multa encourages us to choose depth over breadth and is aptly applied to education. I think that minimalist homeschooling is a reflection of this classical principle. We can think of it in terms of simplicity.

In my "Catholic Vintage & Minimalist Homeschoolers" Facebook group (https://www.facebook.com/groups/914254035384695/), a member surprised me with the comment that her homeschooling was going so much more smoothly simply as a result of using Catholic Heritage Curricula (CHC). To her, this was homeschooling minimalism. 

An open-and-go curriculum like CHC is often billed as good for newbies who need to have their hands held. Once one is a seasoned homeschooler, however, it's expected in many circles that you design your own curriculum and/or follow a more "real" method of learning, such as Charlotte Mason, unschooling, or classical. Traditional programs which use a text/workbook type format are considered school-at-home and are met with a derisive attitude. But let's take a closer look.

Are you necessarily doing school-at-home if you use a traditional program? 

First of all, a traditional Christian homeschool curriculum will not duplicate the type of content and methodology being utilized in the secular humanist U.S. public schools, with the cradle-to-grave indoctrination agenda known as Common Core. If you're using a Catholic program like Seton Home Study or CHC, the Faith, rather than a politically liberal, consumerist scheme, permeates the curriculum. Both of these educational providers emphasize personalizing the plan according to the needs of the individual child. You can use as many or as little of the resources as you would like. Even if you have a large family, you can provide ample one-on-one tutoring and small group lessons, which simply isn't possible in today's large classrooms. I think it's safe to assume that most of you are not standing at a chalkboard giving lectures. 

There are many more distinctions that we could make, but I think the point is clear that homeschooling, whatever the curricula and methods used, is a far cry from the typical school experience. Learning involves the totality of family and community life and is not limited to school books. Also, using a traditional program need not mean a cookie-cutter approach. 

Is a traditional curriculum less "real"? 

You will hear the argument from some homeschoolers that a traditional Catholic program is not really traditional; that it follows certain changes made away from the earlier classical model, which occurred in the public schools in response to the Industrial Revolution. Catholic schools then adopted the new progressive approach. I think there is a certain amount of truth to this position. Yet, it's also true that in providing an education to all people, not just the elites, and in accordance with changes in the societal structure and the growth of the middle class, there was wisdom in broadening the methods used to teach a more diverse body of students. We know as home educators that one way does not suit all. And if we reflect on Catholic schools in the 1950s, before the secularization that followed in subsequent decades, we see that the Faith permeated every subject, and that students were well-educated both in terms of religion and academics. 

Traditional programs such as CHC and Seton have retained the classical philosophy in a truly Catholic sense--following the scholasticism of St. Thomas Aquinas. Living books and hands-on activities are incorporated into such programs, along with classical features including memory work, copy work, dictation, classic literature, Latin and other foreign languages, journaling and essay writing. These curriculum providers and others like them also use reprints of vintage Catholic school books. I think of programs like these as presenting a classical-traditional, liberal arts education--what I like to call, Vintage Catholic Homeschooling. That's real to me!

So let's all let go of this argument, once and forever, over what is real, classical, traditional, etc., and be about the business of living our homeschooling lifestyle to the fullest, rather than dwelling on some perfectionistic ideal. Let's keep the focus on helping our children to become the unique persons that God has created them to be.

The multum non multa path I'm on right now is to simply follow the books.

I've spent way too much time trying to conform to a particular pedagogy and attempting to cover all-the-things. (I'm looking at you, Charlotte Mason!) I've discovered that as my child has entered the teen years, being a seasoned homeschooler is now about focusing on those areas that need the most attention before we hit high school (Mother of God, pray for us!) and going more deeply into them. I've chosen quality books from Seton and CHC, as well as other resources that reflect the Good, the True, and the Beautiful, and I'm trusting what they present. I'm doing things by the book, if you will, rather than trying to reinvent the wheel. 

That doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with designing your own curriculum. In fact, I still do! I simply rely more upon those resources that take the guess work out of the process; and which present the Catholic worldview along with the ideas and skills that make for a well-rounded education. I have pared down the books for each term, and I resist the temptation to supplement the curriculum. 

Let enough be enough. 

My plan is to set my schedule (see the previous post), sticking to it for the duration of the term, and let the books do most of the work. My job is to be diligent and to facilitate the learning process as my child becomes more independent. Choose good books and follow the course, just like Dorothy and her yellow brick road, and you will arrive right where you need to be.

Toward a Catholic Philosophy of Education

While doing some housekeeping chores today, I turned on Catholic Radio and happily encountered a discussion on Catholic education. Unfortunately I missed some of it, but I was able to tune into large portions of the show over the hour. I didn't catch the name of the man being interviewed, but he was someone in charge of the St. Augustine homeschooling enrichment program in the Toledo, Ohio area. 

He said something that amazed me: The Mass is the center of a Catholic liberal arts education. I'd never heard it put this way before. Homeschoolers who take their children to daily Mass are on the right track! 

This program guest discussed the need for Catholic schools to return to a classical method of education. In one sense, he said, the purpose of classical education is the cultivation of virtue, the idea of how to live fully as a human being. He listed philosophy, theology, history, literature, mathematics, and the sciences as traditional liberal arts subjects. I think foreign language study was also included. I may be leaving something out, but that's what I remember. What we are talking about is the pursuit of Truth, Goodness, and Beauty for their own sake.

He explained that some people think that Socratic dialogue is classical education; but what that really entailed was Socrates talking at great length and then his listeners either agreeing or disagreeing with him! A liberal arts education more accurately draws the learner out with questions on the material, and subsequent discussions develop from them.

I have mentioned this point in previous posts as being at odds with Charlotte Mason, who did not believe in putting questions to the child. To be sure, we do not want to take on a quizzing attitude, but I think we do need to incorporate a few well-chosen questions now and again, while focusing on the conversational aspect. This would be a very Thomas Aquinas style approach.

I personally prefer the term "liberal arts" to "classical", simply because it encompasses a broader definition than the exclusively Trivium-focused or Latin-centered styles in vogue today. And I believe that a liberal arts education can be achieved whether one uses a traditional curriculum package, such as Seton Home Study; a guide to books and lesson plans which implements classical teaching techniques, such as Mother of Divine Grace; or a self-designed course of study such as that outlined in Elizabeth Foss's Real Learning. Catholic Heritage Curricula incorporates both "traditional" and "classical" education methods and is Charlotte Mason friendly.

The fine arts were also mentioned in the radio program as those pursuits which bring the joy of being human into our lives.

I find it very telling regarding the dubious course of modern American education, that entire majors in the humanities, such as philosophy, are being removed from universities, and others, such as English, are being drastically reduced. This is most likely in response to the Common Core Curriculum standards which are dumbing down education in America's schools. While technological and trade skills are immensely advantageous in finding a good job, as Charlotte Mason stressed, a liberal arts education should be the foundation for making one the best person possible, no matter what field one enters. 

From what I've been able to discern from extensive reading on the subject over the summer, and what the radio show helped to click into place, an authentically Catholic education could be summed up with three basic principles: 

1. Parents are the primary and principle educators of their children. 

2. The Catholic Faith must permeate the entire curriculum via an organized, liberal arts framework, serving to educate the whole person. 

3. A broad and general sense of what we need to know as human beings is transferred in a shared body of knowledge and wisdom, both in terms of what we can understand via human reason and what we learn from divine revelation. 

These principles could be elaborated upon, but I think that is the crux of the matter. They explain what is meant by scholasticism, the marriage of faith and reason which characterizes a classic Catholic education. I have to agree with Charlotte Mason in that the course of study should not be directed by the child's interests, though plenty of time is left in the day to explore those. I think in this respect, CM's philosophy is perfectly in line with Catholic teaching. Naturally, as the Church teaches, children will be allowed a gradual increase in independence and decision-making as they mature.

Last night I was listening to a podcast on youtube featuring Dr. Mary Hood on the topic of relaxed homeschooling. She put the obtaining of knowledge at the bottom of her educational goals. This would not be in line with a liberal arts education, and Charlotte Mason would certainly disagree with Dr. Hood. Charlotte believed that a broad and generous curriculum of knowledge was the very thing children needed to feed their minds and souls. They should be educated on the ideas of the best minds, chiefly through living books, but also by way of direct experiences and observations. 

What Mary Hood and Miss Mason would likely agree upon is the necessity of cultivating communication skills. Dr. Hood stated these as reading, writing, listening, and speaking skills. All of these are fostered in a liberal arts education. 

Can textbooks fit into this liberal arts picture? I think a combination of classical methods, using original sources and living books, along with some judiciously chosen, traditional text/workbooks is ideal. It helps to have a framework around which to build the course of study, especially if one wishes to base it upon historical periods. As the historical worldview needs to be specifically Catholic according to the Church, a selection of Catholic history text/workbooks is exceedingly helpful to the busy homeschooling parent. However, each of us will find the best combination of resources for our homeschools. My idea is but one among many.

In the homeschool enrichment program that the man on the radio directs, children learn about four blocks of history in a four-year rotation; so children of different ages are learning through the same period of history, but at different levels. Children of multiple ages in the same family can then discuss the ideas and facts being learned together! This sounds a lot like the history-based unit studies approach I am implementing this year. 

While you might have to dig a little harder to get a firm grasp on an authentic Catholic pedagogy, as opposed to the proliferation of material on various other homeschooling methods, the Church does provide us with the only philosophy we really need in her catechism and papal encyclicals on education, parenting, and family life. We have the stories of the Bible and the saints to guide us in virtue. We can utilize a few classical techniques and choose from a number of Catholic curriculum providers (and the library!) to help us achieve our goals for our children. We can tailor the education to the individual child and to our unique family situations.

Most of all we need confidence as Catholic homeschoolers that we are doing the very best thing for our children, and Holy Mother Church gives this to us. The best thing we can do is to know our Faith well and to study the teachings of the Church on education. An excellent overview is given on these teachings in Catholic Home Schooling by Mary Kay Clark, founder of Seton Home Study School. 

What I'm hoping to accomplish with all this is to encourage Catholic home educators to let go of obsessing over philosophies and methods and to focus instead on being Catholic. "Liberal arts" does not have to become yet another label. If you are teaching and living the Faith with your children and providing them with a Catholic worldview in the curriculum, and giving them a broad and generous course of study oriented toward virtue, you can't really go wrong. And though it might seem counterintuitive, even a minimalist curriculum approach can thoroughly reflect the liberal and fine arts. But that's a topic for next time!!

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 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. For example, 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 brain science 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 believe 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. 

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.

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 all about uninspiring textbooks which merely give summaries and facts, and copious fill-in-the-blank questions. He did indeed write textbooks, but as a university professor, his 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 (https://thomasaquinas.edu/a-liberating-education/formation-catholic-mind). 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" (http://charlottemasonpoetry.org/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.

A Scholastic Charlotte Mason Education

The topics on this blog for the current Lenten season have been all about giving up distractions, and I've focused quite a bit on homeschooling methods and resources. But reducing our distractions does not mean that we stop learning and growing. One way of simplifying matters is to go more deeply into an idea to achieve a clearer focus.

I've been pulling together some ideas that I've been exploring this entire school year, along the lines of applying certain principles of classical education to Charlotte Mason, as well as incorporating traditional Catholic curricula to insure that the Faith permeates the curriculum. I stepped back from the CM label for awhile in order to focus on the particularly Catholic elements in our homeschooling, and to explore the Catholic educational tradition of "living books through eyes of faith." I think I've discovered a missing link to connect these various facets; that is, the philosophy of scholasticism. 

I'm only beginning to explore what scholasticism is and will continue with my research, but I'll lay out the basics as I understand them. First read this article from New World Encyclopedia: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Scholasticism. What I'm gathering is that scholasticism is the meeting of ancient classical philosophy (Greek and Latin) with Catholicism. It's the marriage of faith and reason. The Scholastic Method of education originated in the Middle Ages and is based upon the theology of St. Thomas Aquinas. In short, it's the Catholic interpretation of classical. This was the traditional method used in Catholic schools up until the burgeoning confusion and secularization following Vatican II. Seton Home Study employs the Scholastic Method, and I think Catholic Heritage Curricula incorporates it as well. Read the history of Seton and the use of the Scholastic Method here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seton_Home_Study_School.

I've discussed my opinion that Charlotte Mason is not a form of classical education as it's presented in the neoclassical movement (with the Trivium allegedly corresponding to stages of child development), despite the similarities that can be found between them. However, I have suggested that it may be edifying to explore how certain classical principles can be applied to CM, to provide one with a deeper formation and crystallizing of her unique philosophy and method. Or in other words, to explore how Charlotte Mason's interpretation of a liberal arts education is rooted in classical antiquity. I think we can do the same with scholasticism.

Charlotte was an Anglican Christian, and during her time there was a revival of medieval scholasticism, known as neo-scholasticism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Scholasticism). Though she was not Catholic, I am wondering if she took some inspiration from the neo-scholastic revival, considering her foundational idea, Education is the handmaid of Religion. While Protestant and disconnected from the papacy, the Anglican Church retains a strong degree of Tradition.

It has been argued that CM is clearly not classical, because it is specifically based upon the Bible, the current psychology of her era, and CM's personal observations of children (see Art Middlekauf's article at https://www.charlottemasoninstitute.org/reconsidering-charlotte-mason-and-the-classical-tradition-by-art-middlekauff/). Though clearly not scholastic either, there is that similar sensibility in CM of the marriage of faith and reason. The Scholastic Method is a form of classical learning. We might conclude that CM and scholasticism both have their roots in the classicism of antiquity, though they each represent a unique divergence.

While the Catholic CM homeschooler would not have to incorporate books from a scholastic provider such as Seton in order to make sure that the Faith permeates the curriculum, I think there is great appeal in connecting with our Catholic educational heritage in such a way. There is also the matter of convenience. Rather than gathering Catholic books from various sources as you would do with the Mater Amabilis curriculum, you can simply visit one website and find books that are solidly Catholic and that are designed to be used together. This may also benefit the parent who can use such books to increase a child's independent work, especially as he or she gets into the middle school years (6th through 8th grade). Also, if the parents want their child to receive a diploma from an accredited school, using a number of books from Seton would help facilitate the transition to high school.

So am I advocating a blending of the Scholastic Method with CM? I'm not entirely sure. I have advocated for choosing one method and sticking to it, and I would still say that we are substantially Charlotte Mason homeschoolers in my family. But considering that we are Catholic, that right there puts us into a niche that is not "pure CM." Charlotte Mason's writings do not give us a guide to providing a particularly Catholic education, and as Catholics faith formation must come first.

Where I'm at right now is in a process of thinking about the classical principles, as laid out by Christopher Perrin in his webinar videos on youtube, as informing our central Charlotte Mason method; and exploring how the Scholastic Method fits into the big picture as well. As I have done before, I'm using the model of the fleur-de-lis as a visual representation:

The base of the symbol is Catholic Faith Formation, and I think of the lower prongs as representing Jesus, Mary, and Joseph--the Holy Family. The central petal above the base represents Charlotte Mason as the primary method. The left and right petals represent Perrin's classical principles (and the idea of schole found in Sarah Mackenzie's book, Teaching from Rest), and the Scholastic Method of traditional Catholic education. The supporting petals are corollaries to the primary method.

Dr. Perrin describes how he thinks CM fits into the classical principle of multum non multa. Here's a link to his first youtube video introducing all 8 of his essential classical principles of pedagogy. There are separate videos focusing on each of the principles: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wi9UBSIu10M.

My idea is not about mashing together a hodgepodge of methods and just calling it "eclectic," but rather about creating a holistic approach to a Catholic education, putting together elements that though distinct, are intrinsically related. Another variation on the fleur-de-lis model could be to put the Scholastic Method in the center, using books from a traditional Catholic program as a "spine" on which to hang the classical principles and particulars of the CM method. It's all about what makes the best organizational sense to you, what will make your efforts all come together and bring you to the end goal. Whatever the methods we choose to put together, we want to be clear about our aim. What's needed is a synthesis, an integration that brings a sense of wholeness to our efforts.

What do you all think about the connections I've drawn between the Classical, Scholastic, and Charlotte Mason traditions? Does it make sense? Does anyone else use a similar approach? As always, I welcome a discussion!