Questionable Catholic Identity Of Seton Home Study School

[add]

we used seton homeschool for our 3 children, we did the best we could to raise our own.

 

the  Baltimore catechism was good enough for our mom and dads, it was good enough for us too. 

 

After all its only elementary education' the 4 r's     reading, righting, rithmtic and religion

 

 

 

forgive me

Edited January 6, 2014 by add

[fides' Jack]

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.

 

[...]

 

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"

 

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"?

 

Sigh...

 

I would 1000 times over rather teach my children probably incorrect science than to turn them over to the state and immoral society to lose their souls to hell.

 

I'm glad there are more options out there, though.  No single option is perfect, but for a Catholic, public school is no longer a moral option - despite all the "helps" they have for kids with extra needs.

 

I don't know of anyone who was burned and beheaded in all of history simply for trading with the state - that seems silly...  (In all seriousness - since I understand what you meant to say, it should be noted that while there have been grave mistakes made by some in the Catholic Church at many different points throughout history, in general the Catholic Church has been far less oppressive than most other groups, and far more giving in charity)

 

Finally, I don't know what you mean by "propogate", but Limbo remains a teaching of the Church, if you understand what it was actually meant to explain.  The idea behind this baby business came much later.  That aside, it's already been shown in this thread that, even though nobody seems to like the idea, Limbo remains a plausible explanation for that as well.  If you don't believe in Limbo, then tell me, before the time of Christ, what happened to the "souls of the just" who died, since the Church teaches that after the fall of Adam, nobody went to Heaven until Christ died on the cross?

[Basilisa Marie]

On Limbo: 

 

 

On April 22, 2007, the advisory body known as the International Theological Commission released a document, originally commissioned by Pope John Paul II, entitled "The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die without Being Baptized."^[8] After tracing the history of the various opinions that have been and are held on the eternal fate of unbaptized infants, including that connected with the theory of the Limbo of Infants, and after examining the theological arguments, the document stated its conclusion as follows:

Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered above give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptized infants who die will be saved and enjoy the beatific vision. We emphasize that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge. There is much that simply has not been revealed to us.^[30] We live by faith and hope in the God of mercy and love who has been revealed to us in Christ, and the Spirit moves us to pray in constant thankfulness and joy.^[31] What has been revealed to us is that the ordinary way of salvation is by the sacrament of baptism. None of the above considerations should be taken as qualifying the necessity of baptism or justifying delay in administering the sacrament. Rather, as we want to reaffirm in conclusion, they provide strong grounds for hope that God will save infants when we have not been able to do for them what we would have wished to do, namely, to baptize them into the faith and life of the Church.

Pope Benedict XVI authorized publication of this document, indicating that he considers it consistent with the Church's teaching, though it is not an official expression of that teaching.^[32] Media reports that by the document "the Pope closed Limbo"^[33] are thus without foundation. In fact, the document explicitly states that "the theory of limbo, understood as a state which includes the souls of infants who die subject to original sin and without baptism, and who, therefore, neither merit the beatific vision, nor yet are subjected to any punishment, because they are not guilty of any personal sin. This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium. Still, that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council. It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis" (second preliminary paragraph); and in paragraph 41 it repeats that the theory of Limbo "remains a possible theological opinion". The document thus allows the hypothesis of a limbo of infants to be held as one of the existing theories about the fate of children who die without being baptised, a question on which there is "no explicit answer" from Scripture or tradition.^[32] It ought also to be mentioned here that the traditional theological alternative to Limbo was not Heaven, but rather some degree of suffering in Hell. At any rate, these theories are not the official teaching of the Catholic Church, but are only opinions that the Church does not condemn, permitting them to be held by its members, just as is the theory of possible salvation for infants dying without baptism.

 

Limbo isn't a teaching, it's a theory. A theory that we're allowed to hold, but it was never something that was official Church teaching. 

[blazeingstar]

On Limbo: 

 

 

Limbo isn't a teaching, it's a theory. A theory that we're allowed to hold, but it was never something that was official Church teaching. 

 

 

Which is exactly it has no business in Catechism, especially that made for young children.  BC relies heavily on Limbo even post-resurection.

 

As far as public school no longer being the moral choice, it is very derogatory to say this is true in all cases.  Maybe in some towns, or cities, and even counties.  I'd go so far to say there are some states it is better off not going to public school in, namely California.  However, there are 49 other states that have varying degrees of "morality" in their schools, and would not automatically be untenable for Catholics to attend.

 

No one is suggesting that a child be "turned over to the state"  they are educated for 180 days out of 360 in a public school or about 1080 hours out of the 8,000 that a year has.  That's not "turing them over to the state".  Sure, if you do before and after care, YMCA break care, summer school that will add up.  However, I'm not speaking to the crowd that pops out a kid and forces them on the school.  I'm talking about good Catholic families who make the decision that it is best for their children to attend public school over homeschooling due to personality or for whatever reason (there is a severe shortage of Catholic schools beside it being unaffordable to most families).  Not every family has the luxury of stay at home parent, and those that do may decide that public school, with a good home life, is still better than homeschooling.  You really would tell those parents they are acting immorally?

 

Thing is, that casting such stringent moral judgment comes with it's own price.  I think that for some families what they gain by being in public school is more than they could by homeschool.  But it is truly up to the parents to do the work.  The parents who put in the time and effort into their children, regardless of education method, end up with the most moral children and those who tend to continue to follow their faith.

 

That, and you are completely ignoring the fact that many curriculums, such as Seton, highly encourage students to take a class at their local school especially after middle school, infact their accreditation is such that it readily allows many transfer credits from public schools.

 

I don't know of anyone who was burned and beheaded in all of history simply for trading with the state - that seems silly...  (In all seriousness - since I understand what you meant to say, it should be noted that while there have been grave mistakes made by some in the Catholic Church at many different points throughout history, in general the Catholic Church has been far less oppressive than most other groups, and far more giving in charity)

 

 

Try the middle ages.  The problem I have with the Seton history books is that they very much take the "well everyone was bad, but we were better" and really do at one point say that murder by state for sacrilage or heresy was treason and was justifiable at the time.  To me (and my dad) it seemed very much juvenile like I was wrong but the other person was wrong-er sort of childish thinking.

[KnightofChrist]

Limbus infantium, Limbo of the Infants, or Limbo is both a traditional and ordinary teaching of Church which is also a theological hypothesis. Pope Pius VI in Auctorum fidei, condemned the rejection of Limbo as false, rash, and scandalous to Catholic Schools (ps not holding the theological hypothesis of Limbo is not the same as rejecting it outright). Therefore striking it from Catechisms, especially ones made for young children, would be unwise, there would be too many holes left in the traditional and ordinary teaching of Church.

[Katholish]

It has been forever since I have posted on PhatMass, but as a Seton alumnus and graduate student in Theology, I thought it kind of important to speak up.

 

There has been a lot of talk about the Baltimore Catechism, and before making comments on that, I think people should be aware that Seton actually publishes their own "Religion for Young Catholics" series which is a robust and orthodox religion textbook series. They use the Baltimore Catechism along side their own textbooks. It isn't as if the BC is being used without context, and the main textbooks are not intended as "pre-Vatican II" books.

 

Is the Baltimore Catechism worth keeping around as a supplement as Seton uses it? Yes, absolutely! The language of the BC has amazing theological precision (even in the questions quoted about God as Supreme Being and Spirit, you have to recall that Christ has two natures, and the Divine Nature is pure spirit). I still remember the pictures used in the BC to illustrate otherwise complex theological topics. They are night and day when compared with the YouCat illustrations which sometimes don't even seem correct.

 

It was actually the detail and precision in the Baltimore Catechism which inspired me to major in theology and ultimately continue grad school studies.

 

As for History, I also happen to be a history major, while many of the elementary books have changed since I was a Seton student, I am familiar with the current books as well. You won't find a better Catholic history program. Anne Carroll, who wrote the high school texts was actually the wife of Warren Carroll, who will probably be remembered as the foremost Catholic historian of the latter 20th Century (and founder of Christendom College). The books certainly do not excuse forced conversions that occasionally happened in history (Charlemange and the Saxons is a good example), but the Carrolls do like the notion of a specifically Catholic state. Franco may not have been a saint, but he did help save the Church in Spain in her hour of crisis. Dr. Warren Carroll wrote an entire history on the Spanish Civil War.

 

I know that I would have lost the Faith by high school if it hadn't been for my Seton homeschool experience. (My scholarship money to college was pretty nice too from my excellent academic training).

[An Historian]

Try the middle ages.  The problem I have with the Seton history books is that they very much take the "well everyone was bad, but we were better" and really do at one point say that murder by state for sacrilage or heresy was treason and was justifiable at the time.  To me (and my dad) it seemed very much juvenile like I was wrong but the other person was wrong-er sort of childish thinking.

 

Many great saints and doctors of the Church have argued that it is permissible for a state which possess by natural law the right to capital punishment to execute heretics.  A heretic is an extraordinary dangerous individual.  A psychopath may kill a few people bodily.  A heretic will lead numberless souls into hell.  The heretic and the schismatic is a thousand degrees worse than even the most infamous of mass murderers or sexual predators.

 

The natural law allows it, prudence dictates its accomplishment.

[NotreDame]

You won't find a better Catholic history program. Anne Carroll, who wrote the high school texts was actually the wife of Warren Carroll, who will probably be remembered as the foremost Catholic historian of the latter 20th Century (and founder of Christendom College). The books certainly do not excuse forced conversions that occasionally happened in history (Charlemange and the Saxons is a good example), but the Carrolls do like the notion of a specifically Catholic state. Franco may not have been a saint, but he did help save the Church in Spain in her hour of crisis. Dr. Warren Carroll wrote an entire history on the Spanish Civil War.

 

Speaking of Dr. Carroll, Franco and the Spanish civil war, here is a great article on the latter two that I recently read.  It says at the end that it relies heavily on Dr. Carroll's work:

 

http://www.crisismagazine.com/2013/the-spanish-civil-war

 

Money quote:

 

The Spanish Civil War was nothing less than the gates of hell opened in Spain. 7000 priests and religious, including 13 Bishops, and thousands of laymen and women, whose number will likely never been known were brutally martyred, many as they prayed for their killers.  Nearly 1000 of these were beatified by Blessed John Paul II and by Benedict XVI, and Pope Francis will beatify another 522 next month.
 

Edited January 7, 2014 by NotreDame

[Socrates]

As for History, I also happen to be a history major, while many of the elementary books have changed since I was a Seton student, I am familiar with the current books as well. You won't find a better Catholic history program. Anne Carroll, who wrote the high school texts was actually the wife of Warren Carroll, who will probably be remembered as the foremost Catholic historian of the latter 20th Century (and founder of Christendom College). The books certainly do not excuse forced conversions that occasionally happened in history (Charlemange and the Saxons is a good example), but the Carrolls do like the notion of a specifically Catholic state. Franco may not have been a saint, but he did help save the Church in Spain in her hour of crisis. Dr. Warren Carroll wrote an entire history on the Spanish Civil War.

 

The late Dr. Carroll was a great man, as well as my mentor in college (I studied history under him during some of the last years he was still head of the History dept. at Christendom.

 

I think everyone should read his 6-volume History of Christendom.  (The final volume is somewhat incomplete, cobbled together by others after his death, but still worth reading).

 

Mrs. Carroll's writings on Franco in Spain seem to be the source of the most controversy.  Contrary to what some would have you think, the Carrolls do not endorse Franco's fascism as an ideal to which we should all aspire, but the truth is that Franco's Nationalists were the "good guys" in the Spanish Civil War from a Catholic perspective, fighting the militantly atheistic and anti-Catholic socialist Republican forces, who sought to destroy the Church in Spain.  (The Carrolls actually sympathize chiefly with the Carlists who allied with Franco in that conflict, but wanted to restore the old Spanish monarchy.)

 

Most Americans are woefully ignorant of the true facts of this war.  I also happen to share with Dr. Carroll the view (heretical to many on both the left and right), that 21st century American liberal democracy is not the absolute apogee of civilization, and standard against which all persons in all times and places must be judged.

 

Many of Dr. Carroll's (and his wife's) historical views are certainly politically-incorrect and unfashionable, but nothing could be farther from the truth than calling them "questionably Catholic."  Dr. Carroll (a convert to the Faith) has an unabashedly Catholic perspective on history.  

[Lilllabettt]

With regards to Mrs. Carroll, I read her book  "Christ the King, Lord of History."  Frankly speaking, it embarrassed me.

[dells_of_bittersweet]

It has been forever since I have posted on PhatMass, but as a Seton alumnus and graduate student in Theology, I thought it kind of important to speak up.

 

There has been a lot of talk about the Baltimore Catechism, and before making comments on that, I think people should be aware that Seton actually publishes their own "Religion for Young Catholics" series which is a robust and orthodox religion textbook series. They use the Baltimore Catechism along side their own textbooks. It isn't as if the BC is being used without context, and the main textbooks are not intended as "pre-Vatican II" books.

 

Is the Baltimore Catechism worth keeping around as a supplement as Seton uses it? Yes, absolutely! The language of the BC has amazing theological precision (even in the questions quoted about God as Supreme Being and Spirit, you have to recall that Christ has two natures, and the Divine Nature is pure spirit). I still remember the pictures used in the BC to illustrate otherwise complex theological topics. They are night and day when compared with the YouCat illustrations which sometimes don't even seem correct.

 

It was actually the detail and precision in the Baltimore Catechism which inspired me to major in theology and ultimately continue grad school studies.

 

As for History, I also happen to be a history major, while many of the elementary books have changed since I was a Seton student, I am familiar with the current books as well. You won't find a better Catholic history program. Anne Carroll, who wrote the high school texts was actually the wife of Warren Carroll, who will probably be remembered as the foremost Catholic historian of the latter 20th Century (and founder of Christendom College). The books certainly do not excuse forced conversions that occasionally happened in history (Charlemange and the Saxons is a good example), but the Carrolls do like the notion of a specifically Catholic state. Franco may not have been a saint, but he did help save the Church in Spain in her hour of crisis. Dr. Warren Carroll wrote an entire history on the Spanish Civil War.

 

I know that I would have lost the Faith by high school if it hadn't been for my Seton homeschool experience. (My scholarship money to college was pretty nice too from my excellent academic training).

 

I strongly feel that you've whitewashed the glaring weaknesses of Seton. For starters, while they may have some of their own books for the lower grades, the entire high school religion curriculum save one book was printed before Vatican II. Simply acting as if an ecumenical council didnt happen is in my opinion a form of dissent. I don't see how an objective observer would disagree that the Catholic identity of a school is compromised when it ignores such a major development. 

 

As for history, the books are written by ANN Carroll, not Warren Carroll, meaning that the author is completely unqualified to write history. The books are written by a rank amateur and it shows. Being married to someone competent does not make you competent. I was frankly insulted that Seton's view of my intelligence was so low as to expect me to accept the manifold mistakes, errors, and omissions in this book. Her books contain questionable Catholic theology, and play fast and loose with the facts to protect historical figures she likes (e.g. Thomas Torquemada). 

Edited January 8, 2014 by dells_of_bittersweet

[KnightofChrist]

I strongly feel that you've whitewashed the glaring weaknesses of Seton. For starters, while they may have some of their own books for the lower grades, the entire high school religion curriculum save one book was printed before Vatican II. Simply acting as if an ecumenical council didnt happen is in my opinion a form of dissent. I don't see how an objective observer would disagree that the Catholic identity of a school is compromised when it ignores such a major development. 

 

As for history, the books are written by ANN Carroll, not Warren Carroll, meaning that the author is completely unqualified to write history. The books are written by a rank amateur and it shows. Being married to someone competent does not make you competent. I was frankly insulted that Seton's view of my intelligence was so low as to expect me to accept the manifold mistakes, errors, and omissions in this book. Her books contain questionable Catholic theology, and play fast and loose with the facts to protect historical figures she likes (e.g. Thomas Torquemada). 

 

Have you written to Bishop Loverde and made him aware of your concerns?

[KnightofChrist]

If you are going to question the Catholic identity of groups or persons you should write the Bishop with your legitimate concerns, if they are in fact legitimate. I don't know much about Seton to know if they are or not. Some of your expressed concerns don't seem all that grave in actually. But rather seem to reflect a prejudice you seem to hold against traditional or traditionally minded Catholics, this after all is not the first thread you've called into question the Catholicisty of those types of Catholics. I don't believe you should be slineced, but I do believe if you were a traditional or traditionally minded Catholic and you were to question the Catholic identity of Catholic groups or persons this thread would have progressed in a much different manner. It's very likely a Phatmass poo storm would have rained down upon you.

Edited January 8, 2014 by KnightofChrist

[TheLordsSouljah]

Lol, and I love how the 7th grade Science textbooks were like one-third the thickness of 4th grade English.... argh..... 'please underline one billion nouns in these sentences....' :P

 

[Socrates]

With regards to Mrs. Carroll, I read her book  "Christ the King, Lord of History."  Frankly speaking, it embarrassed me.

 

I happen to think it quite good - certainly immensely better than the pc drivel that passes for most high school history texts.  (It's essentially a condensed version of Dr. Warren Carroll's works written for young readers.  Frankly speaking, most people's posts on phatmass embarrass me.

 

I strongly feel that you've whitewashed the glaring weaknesses of Seton. For starters, while they may have some of their own books for the lower grades, the entire high school religion curriculum save one book was printed before Vatican II. 

 

The Bible was also pre-Vatican II.  Guess we should ditch that as well.

 

 

As for history, the books are written by ANN Carroll, not Warren Carroll, meaning that the author is completely unqualified to write history. The books are written by a rank amateur and it shows. Being married to someone competent does not make you competent. I was frankly insulted that Seton's view of my intelligence was so low as to expect me to accept the manifold mistakes, errors, and omissions in this book. Her books contain questionable Catholic theology, and play fast and loose with the facts to protect historical figures she likes (e.g. Thomas Torquemada). 

 

 

And what qualifications do you have to pass this judgment?  ,

 

Dr. Anne Carroll happens to hold a PhD in history, and is the founder of Seton School in Manassas, VA, a highly-ranked, fully accredited Catholic high school, which is fully in accord with the Catholic Church.

As I've personally known both Dr. Warren and Anne Carroll, who have both dedicated their lives to Catholic education, and are fervent, faithful, and orthodox Catholics, I find these slanders and attacks on their integrity and Catholicity utterly disgusting and completely out of place on a supposedly Catholic forum.

 

 

 

Bottom line:

 

You not personally liking a school program =/= it being "questionably Catholic."

Edited January 10, 2014 by Socrates