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 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.

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.