Questionable Catholic Identity Of Seton Home Study School

[blazeingstar]

I think Seton presents an incomplete view of human sexuality. I can recall one passage from the senior year religion book that says words to the effect of "sex is sacred, so we shouldn't ever talk about it." They definitely practice what they preach on that one, because the curriculum rarely addresses sexuality at all. I think Seton is weak on the concept the sex is good and something that is legitimate to desire. So, I think there are a few elements of puritanism in their presentation of this topic. 

 

Taking Christopher West's course through my college Catholic campus ministry was a revelation after my exposure to how Seton talks about sex/avoids the issue. He right away talks about how great sex is. 

 

HAHA YES!

 

I know Setoners post college with this idea...and enough to say it's no accident.  They really make it sound like you can't talk about sex until you get married.  Theology of the body isn't the best thing in the world, but it would be an improvement.  They just want it to be 1960 very, very badly when sex was not discussed openly and frankly.  However, when it comes to marriage someone who used Seton is vastly unprepared in that department as well as defending the church.

 

I don't think that alone makes them "anti" Catholic, but they do struggle with maintaining a modern Catholic identity and insted have chosen to appeal to the insular crowd who would go to Daily TLM.  The book my mom saw from Seton also seemed a bit harsh in it's encouragement of Daily mass...as if a mother with a large family was doing her family a disservice by not starting the day with Mass.  While I think that Daily Mass is great, I'm not sure that people should be told that behavioral, family and educational issues can be cured by it.  Can it be used as a meditative break?  Absolutely...it has many of the beneficial properties now ascribed to yoga without the self-centerness.  However the presentation was more like that of "your fault".  My friend makes her own curriculium and goes to daily mass but she was afraid that Seton would cause scrupliosity ain her children because it is emphasis on religion as the cure-all.  As little as 3 years ago they still discouraged testing for neurological problems like ADHD, aspbergers and dyslexia telling the parents instead that they would just send a modified curriculum. and that school was for the child and could be done at the child's pace.  Very bandaid.

[Quid Est Veritas?]

One name for all of those who think sex wasn't discussed frankly in the 1960s: Dr Kinsey.
(Not recommending him, just saying our grandparents weren't prudes.)

[tinytherese]

A homeschooling family could use the Faith and Life series or the Image of God series for a religion curriculum. There's also this family catechesis program. http://www.familyformation.net

For high school kids the Didache series or the Prove It! books by Amy Welborn. Theology of the Body for Teens is available for both middle school and high school students as well as other materials by Jason Evert.

[dells_of_bittersweet]

One name for all of those who think sex wasn't discussed frankly in the 1960s: Dr Kinsey.
(Not recommending him, just saying our grandparents weren't prudes.)

 

Well, there was a reason he was revolutionary. One of the few benefits of the sexual revolution is that sex can be openly discussed now. 

[dells_of_bittersweet]

HAHA YES!

 

I know Setoners post college with this idea...and enough to say it's no accident.  They really make it sound like you can't talk about sex until you get married.  Theology of the body isn't the best thing in the world, but it would be an improvement.  They just want it to be 1960 very, very badly when sex was not discussed openly and frankly.  However, when it comes to marriage someone who used Seton is vastly unprepared in that department as well as defending the church.

 

I don't think that alone makes them "anti" Catholic, but they do struggle with maintaining a modern Catholic identity and insted have chosen to appeal to the insular crowd who would go to Daily Traditional Latin Mass.  The book my mom saw from Seton also seemed a bit harsh in it's encouragement of Daily mass...as if a mother with a large family was doing her family a disservice by not starting the day with Mass.  While I think that Daily Mass is great, I'm not sure that people should be told that behavioral, family and educational issues can be cured by it.  Can it be used as a meditative break?  Absolutely...it has many of the beneficial properties now ascribed to yoga without the self-centerness.  However the presentation was more like that of "your fault".  My friend makes her own curriculium and goes to daily mass but she was afraid that Seton would cause scrupliosity ain her children because it is emphasis on religion as the cure-all.  As little as 3 years ago they still discouraged testing for neurological problems like ADHD, aspbergers and dyslexia telling the parents instead that they would just send a modified curriculum. and that school was for the child and could be done at the child's pace.  Very bandaid.

 

I agree that Seton isn't trying to ruin the Catholic Church, but I think their Catholic identity is severely compromised by intellectual commitments to various odd things, many of them simply being old ideas taken from pre-1950 American culture. Taking their courses was like being in a time machine. 

 

The are weak on the harmony between faith and reason. The 6 Day Creationism forces a low view of human reason and encourages Seton students to uncritically accept something that can not be logically defended. 

 

They are weak on human sexuality. Basically, their materials make you feel guilty for having a sex drive. 

 

They are weak on Catholic Social Teaching. I do not recall the Preferential Option for the Poor ever being brought up. 

 

They are weak on the correct understanding of the interplay of the Catholic Church and society. Their idea of a good church/state relationship is Franco's Spain. 

 

They are weak on the relationship between Catholics and non-Catholics. The existence of religious freedom is denied. The materials are better at making you anti-Protestant than at converting them. And, the apologetics stuff in 12th grade is so badly written that it would be of no use in talking with an actual Protostant. Thankfully, I've been exposed to modern apologetics such as the works of Dr. Scott Hahn. On a bit of a tangent, I can't believe a supposedly serious Catholic school doesn't use him. I mean, we watched his videos in Lifeteen so its not like he's over the head of a high schooler. 

 

For reasons I do not understand, it seems like they hate modern everything. The entire curriculum has a hit of an aggression towards modern society. Almost a Calvinistic binary view of Catholics being all good and society being all bad. 

[Cherie]

Thank you so much for weighing in, AnneLine! I really appreciate it! We are definitely planning on supplementing whatever curriculum we choose, but I don't feel comfortable (at ALL) creating my own curriculum. I need my child to be enrolled somewhere, at least for the first few years while I get the "hang" of homeschooling.

It's funny, the impressions you have from Kolbe are the same I tend to have about Seton! (with the big disclaimer that I don't personally know the families behind Kolbe or Seton, though I have a friend that knows the Clarks.) I want something well-rounded, intelligent, and orthodox Catholic without being prudish, fundamentalist (ie 6 day creationists), or leaning "rad trad." Is that so much to ask?!?!?!

I have a friend who is of my same mindset, and she just started Kolbe with her oldest and LOVES it, or did when I talked to her. There are just SO many options, and so many flaws within those options, that it can be so very overwhelming!!!

[Socrates]

I didn't mean to imply that the Baltimore Catechism is some crazy radtrad handbook, or that catechism-based learning or rote memorization is wrong or bad or ineffective.  All I meant was to point out that depending on what edition you're using, it'd be a good idea to supplement or rephrase what's written in parts of it.  

 

The truth is, you could make the same objection to any text, if you take a single line, isolated and pulled out of context.  For instance, this passage is found in the CCC:  "God is pure spirit in which there is no place for the difference between the sexes."  

 

However, just as with the Baltimore Catechism, no one who reads it in context would take this line to be a denial of the Incarnation, nor to mean that Jesus Christ did not in fact become an actual (male) man.

 

If you read the whole Baltimore Catechism, or even just the main parts of it (as I presume is included in the Seton curriculum), the doctrine of the Incarnation of Christ is made quite clear and explicit.

 

Your issue seems to me more like nit-picking than a serious objection.

 

The Baltimore Catechism was never intended to be the absolute end-all of theological study, but it provides a pretty solid foundation of basic Catholic doctrine.

 

Sadly, many modern Catholic religious education programs do not provide this solid basic foundation, instead providing little substance beyond "Jesus was nice, and wants us to be nice too."  (And that's the ones that don't contain blatant heresy.)  Thus, we have generations of Catholics growing up ignorant of the most basic Catholic theological and moral beliefs.

[Socrates]

I think Seton presents an incomplete view of human sexuality. I can recall one passage from the senior year religion book that says words to the effect of "sex is sacred, so we shouldn't ever talk about it." They definitely practice what they preach on that one, because the curriculum rarely addresses sexuality at all. I think Seton is weak on the concept the sex is good and something that is legitimate to desire. So, I think there are a few elements of puritanism in their presentation of this topic. 

 

Taking Christopher West's course through my college Catholic campus ministry was a revelation after my exposure to how Seton talks about sex/avoids the issue. He right away talks about how great sex is. 

 

Maybe you could provide a real quote, rather your own take on it.

 

Since most Seton grads I know (including the Clark boys) are happily married with lots and lots of kids, I don't think the whole sexual intercourse thing is a big issue.

 

But I hear you.  There's a serious dearth of talk about sex in today's world.  It's a major problem.

[Socrates]

 

The Baltimore Catechism seemed to me like a 164 step guide to staying out of Hell.

 

Quaint and uncool as it might sound to modern liberal ears, keeping people out of Hell (and its positive converse, getting people to Heaven) is in fact the primary mission of the Church.

[Basilisa Marie]

nvm 

 

Edited January 2, 2014 by Basilisa Marie

[fides' Jack]

I myself went through HS with Our Lady of Victory - which you won't want to use with your kids as they hold schismatic teachings.  Some of my brothers were with Seton for a while, and they had, in general, negative opinions of it.  

 

That doesn't really help the conversation though... :)

 

As for the Baltimore Catechism - there is nothing in there contrary to Church Teaching, as some have tried to imply.  There is 1 question that doesn't really apply anymore, due to changes made to the liturgical calendar (Which are the holydays of obligation in the United States?).  Catholic moral teaching (which is what the Baltimore Catechism is giving a basis of) does not change, has not changed, and will not change.  Having said that, the Baltimore Catechism will never be old in that respect.

 

Some might claim that the teaching style (as in rote memorization) is a bad thing, but I think that reflects more on our state of society and culture than on the books in question.  There are a couple big problems: naturally, you can't just do rote memorization - there must be some discussion, lecture, etc... giving guidance as to how we should understand the answers - also (and an even bigger problem), using the Baltimore Catechism requires the student to already have the gift of faith, which is largely gone now, even in Catholic families.  This is why not everyone responds well to it.  As far as I know, when the books were heavily used, neither of these things were a real problem, though some may remember it that way.  

 

It's actually over 400 steps for staying out of hell.

Edited January 2, 2014 by fides' Jack

[An Historian]

I wouldn't say anti-Catholic, but defiantly 100% backwards on modern science and about 50% on current theology.  Their high school science is inexcusable.  Fortunately, since my local schools carry the same accreditation, if I ever get to that point with seton my children will be transferring in the science classes from a public.  As much as I dislike the modern secularism and sexualization of high schoolers (even in Catholic schools) I'd rather them face that than be grossly misinformed.

 

Then you would be a grossly negligent parent and you would answer to Our Lord at your Judgement for placing the souls of your children in grave peril.  You would rather willfully place them in a situation where they could loose the faith or fall to all manner of hedonist sexual values... rather than have them believe the Earth was created in six days?  Wow.

 

While I love the rote memorization of learning your faith, I am deeply concerned about some of the incorrect theology displayed in even the most basic Baltimore Catechism that I do not want my future young children to learn.  Even those condemn unbaptized infants to "God's mercy" and deny them heaven, as well as pretty much deny that anyone who's not Catholic will not be admitted into Heaven unless they have a deathbed conversion.  A Setoner once told my mom (a DRE) that she just HAD to teach from the Baltimore Cat...and gave my mom Seton's materials...she was really disturbed by Seton's footnotes of this material, even to first-communion level children.

 

The ITC has stated that the teaching on un-baptised infants as found in such catechisms as the Baltimore catechism, "remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis."  Who are you to deem something as incorrect theology which itself is defended by the Church as a valid and legitimate theological opinion?  This remains so far in the realm of theological opinion.  You can put forth your arguments for why your own case is stronger than that which was held for centuries by Catholics.  By all means as long as you stay within the bounds of the Catholic faith.  But do not go around saying that a theological opinion that has been held by some of the greatest saints and theologians of the Church, is "incorrect theology".  Are you a mind to rival Garrigou-Lagrange?  Saint Jean Eudes?

 

On the matter of the salvation of non-Catholics, again the Church permits a "strict" interpretation of this dogma.  Hence why the majority of "Feenyite" communities are canonically regular and in full communion with the Church despite their stance.  Do not presume to speak when the Church herself has not.

 

Their history is a bit revisionist, which is sad, because 90% of the time they have really good points.  However, it's totally lost by some really silly and bogus claims....like denying the intricate tie of Catholicism to the patriarchy of the old European nations' governing style.  I know my dad read it through and was concerned about the justification for state-authorized murder over "treason" that really was only differences in religious opinions/practices.

 

Matter of policy, and good policy at that.

[mortify ii]

Then you would be a grossly negligent parent and you would answer to Our Lord at your Judgement for placing the souls of your children in grave peril.  You would rather willfully place them in a situation where they could loose the faith or fall to all manner of hedonist sexual values... rather than have them believe the Earth was created in six days?  Wow.

 

I'm not sure what your state in life is or whether you're even of the age where you are capable of generating children, but parenting is a huge responsibility. Feeding children misinformation is immoral and extremely harmful, it may even scandalize them into apostasy. That said, a creation duration of six 24hr blocks according to the earth's rotation is simply untenable. Christians would do themselves well to move away from such a position and Catholics ought to know better. Vainly holding on to philosophical or theological positions that contradict evidence discovered through the scientific method is very faulty, and in the end will only undermine the faith you are trying to save. The rediscovery of the works of Aristotle were a big shock to the medievals, many were of the opinion that they ought to be rejected and we should stick to the Bible, but St Thomas Aquinas championed a synthesis of the two with the premise that there is no contradiction between Faith and reason. A new summa is needed, one demonstrating there is no contradiction between Faith and scientific evidence.

[An Historian]

I'm not sure what your state in life is or whether you're even of the age where you are capable of generating children, but parenting is a huge responsibility. Feeding children misinformation is immoral and extremely harmful, it may even scandalize them into apostasy. That said, a creation duration of six 24hr blocks according to the earth's rotation is simply untenable. Christians would do themselves well to move away from such a position and Catholics ought to know better. Vainly holding on to philosophical or theological positions that contradict evidence discovered through the scientific method is very faulty, and in the end will only undermine the faith you are trying to save. The rediscovery of the works of Aristotle were a big shock to the medievals, many were of the opinion that they ought to be rejected and we should stick to the Bible, but St Thomas Aquinas championed a synthesis of the two with the premise that there is no contradiction between Faith and reason. A new summa is needed, one demonstrating there is no contradiction between Faith and scientific evidence.

 

My state in life currently is that of an engaged male, twenty-two years of age, and God willing biologically capable of procreation.

 

I completely understand that parenting is a massive responsibility.  That is why I was so shocked by the post I responded too.  I did not set up the false dichotomy between either teaching a child a literal 6 day creation or sending them into a Godless environment wherein they could lose their immortal souls.  Nor even is it preferable!  If the choice was between teaching a child something that is a common belief, which was held by centuries upon centuries of Catholic souls, which has substantial argument behind it, and sending them into the environment of the public schools... the choice is rather simple.

 

Again we face a problem.  People speaking where the Church herself has not spoken.  When Holy Mother Church authoritatively rules upon the matter than all tongues can fall silent.  Until then you would do well not to accuse parents that teach their children the literal interpretation of Genesis has being immoral and extremely harmful.

 

And I will state clearly now.  I do not believe in a literal understanding of Genesis.  I do not accept that Creation occurred within six 24 hour days.  I don't believe that the position is untenable.  I would not dare place limit upon the awesome capability of God, Who in had such power to create as He deemed fit.  I simply don't believe He did it that way.  I wont condemn anyone either way for holding their position.  As long as it is held that God Created and that every human being is descendant from the persons of Holy Adam and Eve, then we're good.

 

The original poster set up the false dichotomy.  Don't believe in a literal Genesis account?  Then when your kids reach it, tell them that it is the opinion of the authors, you believe it to be wrong, explain your reasoning and leave it at that.  Don't send them off to a heathen environment where their immortal souls may very well perish.

 

And an incidental aside...

 

You oversimplified that issue of Aristotle and the Church.  When Aristotle's works became widely available there were many in the schools that adopted him and thus perverted the Catholic faith.  It's not that some Churchman read over them and got all uppity and dem damn Greeks.  Aristotle was mostly presented in the schools by the heretical interpretations of the schoolmen which was rightly condemned.  Saint Thomas Aquinas didn't just reconcile Aristotle with Catholicism, he defended both from the abysmal philosophical and theological failures of his colleagues.

 

And furthermore your point isn't entirely valid.  Right now we're pretty much faced with two choices with our beliefs in Creationism.  The scholastics were not completely grounded on Aristotle.  The Sentences was still the major theological work of the time and Aristotle didn't replace them, Saint Thomas Aquinas replaced him.  But he was not alone.  The Scotists were a major school, Saint Bonaventure had his own spiritual descendants.  Plato rivaled Aristotle in the Church for centuries and it is still he that dominated the thought of the Early Fathers.

[blazeingstar]

Then you would be a grossly negligent parent and you would answer to Our Lord at your Judgement for placing the souls of your children in grave peril.  You would rather willfully place them in a situation where they could loose the faith or fall to all manner of hedonist sexual values... rather than have them believe the Earth was created in six days?  Wow.

 

 

 

Wow to you, too.  Yes, public schools have alot wrong with them, but they also have a lot GOING for them for some children.  Not every child is meant to be a homeschooler.  I do believe that teaching a child incorrect information is very, very dangerous and will lead them to eventually loose their faith entirely.  Better them be challenged and tested in public and then filled at home than to be given incorrect information and home and be "slaughtered" when they inevitably deal with those who don't share their beliefs.  Public school has a lack of values but does not give parents a pass in teaching religious education.  It is often the lack of parental involvement that causes a child to fall away from their faith, not solely being in public schools.

 

That and *gasp* Seton actually encourages parents to seek out public schools and have students take classes there, especially jr/sr high mathematics.  

 

Your comment is an affront to all parents who send their children to public schools.  There are many reasons I would send my child to school.  I am a strong believer in that the school should fit the child, not the other way around. There are simply some children who do better with the educational and social supports of a structured school day.  Not to mention children with some occupational/learning difference such as deafness, autism or severe retardation that need the day long therapies that are offered by them.

 

 

The ITC has stated that the teaching on un-baptised infants as found in such catechisms as the Baltimore catechism, "remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis."  Who are you to deem something as incorrect theology which itself is defended by the Church as a valid and legitimate theological opinion?  This remains so far in the realm of theological opinion.  You can put forth your arguments for why your own case is stronger than that which was held for centuries by Catholics.  By all means as long as you stay within the bounds of the Catholic faith.  But do not go around saying that a theological opinion that has been held by some of the greatest saints and theologians of the Church, is "incorrect theology".  Are you a mind to rival Garrigou-Lagrange?  Saint Jean Eudes?

 

On the matter of the salvation of non-Catholics, again the Church permits a "strict" interpretation of this dogma.  Hence why the majority of "Feenyite" communities are canonically regular and in full communion with the Church despite their stance.  Do not presume to speak when the Church herself has not.

 

 

The Baltimore Catecism did propogate limbo, which is no longer a propogated teaching of the church.  It also made much credence for the fact that we did not know and dwelt heavly on the fact that the unbaptized do not see God but "dwell in a natural state of happiness"

 

Matter of policy, and good policy at that.

 

Its good policy to twist history and pretend that certain events are not tied in with church teachings?  Its it good that we burned and beheaded people for not being Catholic simply because they were "traders to the state"?