Questionable Catholic Identity Of Seton Home Study School

[Cherie]

As someone who is about to enroll their oldest child in a homeschooling curriculum (likely Seton), this is of great interest to me.

 

It is my understanding that there are TWO science curricula to choose from; one is the more literal Creationist based, where the other is more based in modern science. That's what I was told by a mother who enrolled her young children there, though. I haven't contacted the school regarding that yet.

 

AnneLine, I'm curious to hear your critiques of Kolbe. I narrowed down my choices between Seton and Kolbe, and some days I still go back and forth.

 

We are a very science-oriented family. A 6 day literal interpretation of creation in Genesis will NOT cut it for my children.

[blazeingstar]

I think that to exclusively limit one's theological background to Baltimore Catechism would set one up to NOT be able to explain many nuances of the faith to others.   It is as good as it goes... but the Catechism of the Catholic Church was developed for a reason.

 

Now I am not 100% behind Kolbe, because like every school & program, I think it has some flaws, but I look at this HS Theo curriculum and it looks pretty solid to me.....   

 

http://www.kolbe.org/academics/curriculum-grade-level/high-school/theology-curriculum/

 

What do you think, after looking at it?

 

I've only heard that the younger grades are dry and simplistic, allowing parents to supplement a lot, but then BOOM grade 9 is a ton of reading and college level work.  From my understanding its less appealing as a "whole family" curriculum as its really for a certain type of student.  I think Seton has a much more "open" philosophy when it comes to learning...even though in their religion, science and often history they don't really practice what they preach as far as making learning accessible and opening up new topics.

 

I do think that their insistence on Baltimore Catechism based religion probably adds to the fundamentalism of some of the TLM crowd.  They truly believe they are justified keeping out the Ordinary Form and the post Vat 2 teachings.  They do not feel it is detrimental for children to learn the errors in Baltimore Cat (or the 6-day creationism model) because it's "safer" than them learning other error.  However, error is error, and I think it would be better for children to be exposed to more modern theology to be better equipped to deal with the world today.  They don't need to be learning historical error, scientific loonacy and the errors of religion that were corrected 50+ years ago.

 

This means they not only need to learn the correct teachings but also need to learn apologetics or even facts in a meaningful way in their older years.

 

I'm a big advocate for "right sized schooling"  I think that homeschooling is not for every child nor private and that even for a good Catholic SAHM family public school could be the right choice.  In some respects, if I'm going to supplement my children's schoolwork, I'd rather supplement liberal works with conservative material, rather than using materials that lend themselves to fundamentalism.

[blazeingstar]

As someone who is about to enroll their oldest child in a homeschooling curriculum (likely Seton), this is of great interest to me.

 

It is my understanding that there are TWO science curricula to choose from; one is the more literal Creationist based, where the other is more based in modern science. That's what I was told by a mother who enrolled her young children there, though. I haven't contacted the school regarding that yet.

 

AnneLine, I'm curious to hear your critiques of Kolbe. I narrowed down my choices between Seton and Kolbe, and some days I still go back and forth.

 

We are a very science-oriented family. A 6 day literal interpretation of creation in Genesis will NOT cut it for my children.

 

You may want to review Seton then.  Perhaps things will be better when your child reaches HS, but as of 3-5 years ago (when my mom was DRE and talking to a Setoner) they were far from good.  Their history is very sketchy at points, and even their "alternative" science has lots of loaded and misguided topics.

 

For a young child Seton may be better....although if your child is 5-7 and a boy you may be better off staying away from the curriculum for a while.  Seton's should be light enough for kindergarden/first that you can have more free time to play and learn through tactile senses rather than books.  In one of the nordic countries don't teach their kids to read until 7, but by age 9 they test as high or higher than most of the globe including the US.  They actually match the scores for some of the asian countries who push reading at 3 or 4.  However, the children report incredibly far less stress and anxiety at age 9 surrounding school despite being at the same academic level as their peers.

[Quid Est Veritas?]

Although I was homeschooled, my parents did not use Seton. Rather they used Calvert (the oldest homeschool program in the nation) and then later, Indiana University's online high-school. Neither is affiliated with any church.

However, much of my religious education as a child was based in the Baltimore Catechism and I have found as an adult that a solid background in rote learning can be very helpful from a moral standpoint as well as a basis of Church teaching from which to read deeper and more subtle discussions.
I am surprised that so many of the commenters seem willing to repudiate a Catechism curriculum that was heartily endorsed by so many clergy and used so widely with acceptable results.
Is there some other age-appropriate and doctrinally sound curriculum that you prefer, or that your bishop promulgates?

[NotreDame]

I'm really curious why the evolution/creationism aspect plays such a large role in these curriculum (or perhaps that is just my mistaken impression from this thread.)  To be prepared for college science classes you need math (preferably through calculus), a basic chemistry course and probably a basic biology course (cells, photosynthesis, etc.)  Physics wouldn't hurt, but the math is more important.

 

I was an engineering major and worked in hard-core engineering for a bit.  Thinking back to high school, I don't remember any talk about evolution or creationism.  Reflecting on what's necessary to pursue a college degree in the sciences, I don't see evolution/creationism as necessary in any way.

 

So how much time are these courses spending on the topic?

[4588686]

I'm really curious why the evolution/creationism aspect plays such a large role in these curriculum (or perhaps that is just my mistaken impression from this thread.)  To be prepared for college science classes you need math (preferably through calculus), a basic chemistry course and probably a basic biology course (cells, photosynthesis, etc.)  Physics wouldn't hurt, but the math is more important.

 

I was an engineering major and worked in hard-core engineering for a bit.  Thinking back to high school, I don't remember any talk about evolution or creationism.  Reflecting on what's necessary to pursue a college degree in the sciences, I don't see evolution/creationism as necessary in any way.

 

So how much time are these courses spending on the topic?

 

 

You cant have a basic biology course without including evolution.  

 

I also think hunk that our math curriculum is much too heavily weighted towards calculus.  It'd be a lot better to focus on symbolic logic and game theory for a general math curriculum and teach trig and calculus to the smaller subset of students who would actually find this useful for their intended major.  The truth is that students know their pre-calc and calc teacher is full of poo when they try to convince the students that what their learning will have the slightest impact on their lives once they graduate.  Game their and basic second order logic would actually be useful to all students and would have an obvious relevance to their lives.

[NotreDame]

Yeah, makes sense.  Outside of engineering and pure sciences, you don't really need calc or trig unless you are doing quant stuff in finance or econ, do you?

 

Getting a real solid basis in arithmetic and how to apply it with critical thinking does make more sense - or I'd at least consider it a prerequisite before spending so much time on trig/calc.

 

>>> You cant have a basic biology course without including evolution.

 

Yes, it's just that my impression reading these replies is that a huge portion of the science courses are centered around creationism, where i'd expect it to be a page or two, at least in high school.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

You cant have a basic biology course without including evolution. 

 

This is just more of your liberal nonsense.

[NotreDame]

This is just more of your catholic nonsense.

 

fixed.
 

Edited December 23, 2013 by NotreDame

[CatholicsAreKewl]

fixed.
 

 

I don't trust Wikipedia.

[Socrates]

Is anyone here familiar with the national Catholic home schooling group Seton Home Study School? I regret to say that I am a graduate. Academically, it is overall quite good (although I think they make some very poor choices in how they teach certain material-but that's another discussion). However, in some regards their high school curriculum reflects the opinions of the people who run the school rather than actual church teaching. For example:

 

1. Use of science textbooks printed by Abeka Books, printed by hardcore protestant fundamentalists. These state that evolution is a heresy and that all good Christians must believe in 6 day creationism. Furthermore, they are quite adamant that "theistic evolution" is unbiblical.

 

2. Use of economics and government textbooks printed by the same crazy people at Abeka. The economics textbook denies Catholic social teaching all over the place, and the lesson plans ignore the theological problems in it. The economics book has a libertarian outlook to it. The government text even has a big smiling picture of J. Strom Thurmond. 

 

3. Every single religion text was originally written prior to Vatican II. Purposefully ignoring a major church council should set off alarm bells. 

 

4. Several books expressly deny Vatican II's declaration on religious freedom. 

 

5. The religion text for senior year is written by someone without any formal theological training or credentials. 

 

I happen to know the Clark family (founders of Seton HS), as well as many of the people who work there, and even worked there for a few years.  I'm hardly an uncritical advocate of Seton and its curriculum - it's not perfect or infallible, but neither are most school programs.  

 

However, claiming that Seton has "questionable Catholic identity" is out of line and slanderous.  The people who run Seton are anything but un-Catholic, and I'd even say their "Catholic identity" and orthodoxy are a lot stronger than you'll find in the majority of Catholic school programs today.

 

1) I'm not a big fan of the A Beka books, which are not Catholic, though I believe the program has caveats about this, and they are trying to write explicitly Catholic texts to replace them (and those books are not used in all grades).  While I'm not a 6-day creationist, such a position has not in fact been condemned by the Church as heretical (as has the purely materialistic Darwinism taught in most textbooks), and I know many solidly orthodox Catholics (including my pastor, who is no heretic) who do not believe in evolution.  My point here isn't to jump into the whole "creation vs. evolution" debate, but merely to point out that "creationist" believe in themselves do make one a heretic or un-Catholic.

 

2) I'm not personally familiar with the economics books in question, but I'm afraid you'll have to give something more concrete to back up your claims that they "deny Catholic social teaching."  Plenty of good Catholics favor a free market economic system and limited over our corporatist welfare state (I'd suggest reading Thomas Woods, Jr. on the matter), and talk of a "libertarian outlook" (whatever that means exactly) does not prove the folks at Seton are "questionably" Catholic.

 

3)  The Clarks are not schismatics, nor do they deny the validity of Vatican II (though they are Eastern Rite Catholics, which is not in itself heretical).  You have not cited anything in the religion texts that is heretical or "questionably Catholic," so your accusation lacks merit.

 

4) Another vague accusation.  

 

5) I don't know the book or author in question, but "formal religious training or credentials" in itself does not guarantee orthodoxy, nor have you given evidence that the (unnamed) book is contrary to the Faith.  (And I'd guess from what I know that the author has at least an undergrad background in theology).

 

You don't have to like the Seton curriculum, or agree with everything in it (I don't), but accusing or insinuating that people you don't know are not really Catholic is a serious charge, and should never be made without a solid basis.  

[Socrates]

The Baltimore Catechism is a wonderful tool, when used thoughtfully.   There are some answers that are either blatantly wrong or (more often) are just really, really poorly worded. 

 

Example: 
 

 

 

This creates problems when you add Jesus to the mix, because Jesus certainly has a body, and Jesus is certainly a member of the Trinity, and is thus God.  IF they had just written God the Father, or left off "spirit" from question 8, it would have been fine.  As-is, there's some sloppy writing that leaves room for bad theology. Using an edition of the Baltimore Catechism published prior to Vatican II can be problematic if you don't account for theological developments that happened before and during Vatican II.  It's an ecumenical council, it's kind of a big deal. :)

 

The Baltimore Catechism is not some crazy rad-trad tract, but was basically the official Catholic Catechism for use in the United States for many, many years, written on the authority of a Plenary Council.

 

The Baltimore Catechism certainly does not deny the doctrine of the Incarnation - nor does anyone at Seton.  That much is very clear if you read the whole Catechism, rather than nit-picking a part out of context.

 

God as God is in fact pure Spirit, prior to the Incarnation, which is not denied in the Catechism.  

 

The passage you cited does not deny the Incarnation of Christ, and no one studying the whole Catechism without an ax to grind would get that impression.

It is simply explaining to a general audience what is meant by "pure spirit."

 

Vatican II did not make any changes in theological dogma, and I think it safe to say that the Baltimore Catechism contains much less "sloppy writing" and room for bad theology than your typical post-Vat. II high-school religion textbook.

 

Belief in the literal Incarnation of God as man in Jesus Christ is explicitly taught through the Seton curriculum, and you'd be hard-pressed to find traditional "conservative" Catholics who deny the Incarnation.  Denial of the literal truth of the Incarnation is in fact much more common among "liberal Christians."

Edited December 23, 2013 by Socrates

[Deus te Amat]

Please pardon my poor grammar, The belabored point I was trying to make was that the parents deserve respect in their choice of the school curriculum.

I am sorry for my rudeness. It was in poor taste.

[add]

I am sorry for my rudeness. It was in poor taste.

No reason to apologize
Actually i Appreciate your honesty, I should have proof read my words better

Gramer isn't my strong suit Edited December 24, 2013 by add

[add]

No reason to apologize
Actually i Appreciate your honesty, I should have proof read my words better

Grammar isn't my strong suit

Or spelling,