College Education

[qfnol31]

UD!

[TheoGrad07]

[quote name='crazymaine catholic' date='Dec 23 2005, 01:26 PM']there are schools that have good catholic oriented psych programs? cause i really could use a good catholic school to got o for grad school, if i go that route. i've been stuck at a state university in maine that is quite liberal, and i'm aching for a good catholic school to take some classes at. i know being at a good catholic school would help me so much.
[right][snapback]834823[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


UD, by all means! I have a friend who's a psych major here, and she's planing to do the accelerated master's program (grad level classes senior year, master's in one year after graduation.)

[son_of_angels]

I am studying at a liberal arts Protestant-affiliated College. I would suggest that one go anyplace where they can experience good community and, above all, the leisure of attaining wisdom and knowledge. Anywhere, Catholic or otherwise, that treats the pursuit of truth as something secondary to career goals (as if the Word could be bought and sold) or detracts from the love of beauty is not worth it! Go where God calls you!

I really like where I am (by the way, about forty percent of the faculty is Catholic and we have a vibrant Catholic community on campus) and it is being here, in a different Christian environment that I found the path to conversion. The seminary library here is a treasure trove of spiritual knowledge which, of course, leads one right into the arms of our Blessed Mother.

In fact, I would almost suggest a place like this over many Catholic institutions, but not all, and a Catholic liberal arts college would definitely top the list of places to look.

[track2004]

I don't want to be a Catholic psychologist. I'll be Catholic and I'll be a psychologist, but they need to be somewhat independant of each other. Some things in psych don't agree with Church teachings and I need to be taught a relatively non-biased view of them.

Also I couldn't go to the Catholic universities you've named because they aren't as cheap as a state school. I live in Indiana where we have a highly respected Psych department at IU. I can't opt for the Catholic school over that just because it is Catholic.

[Socrates]

[quote name='track2004' date='Dec 23 2005, 07:22 PM']I don't want to be a Catholic psychologist.  I'll be Catholic and I'll be a psychologist, but they need to be somewhat independant of each other.  Some things in psych don't agree with Church teachings and I need to be taught a relatively non-biased view of them.
[right][snapback]835042[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Then you're saying you don't really want to be Catholic.
If one is a true Catholic, one's Faith will influence all areas of his life, and he will not willingly do things in his career or otherwise which are contrary to or violate the Catholic Faith. It something contradicts Church teachings, it must be rejected.
The Catholic Faith should inform one's entire life, not just be limited to Sunday mornings.

This is totally seperate from the issue of what school you attend, and applies to all careers, whether you are a psychologist, a teacher, a businessman, a cop, a politician, or a bus driver.

This is not to say, you must be ostentatiously "Catholic" or preachy all the time, but what one does in his or her career should [b]never[/b] be directly [b]contrary[/b] to the teachings of Christ's Church.

And, btw, there are plenty of good Catholic psychologists, who do not act or teach contrary to the Catholic Faith. I even know an orthodox Catholic psych grad program near D.C. If a brand of psychology is contrary to Catholic truth, it is false psychology!

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='track2004' date='Dec 23 2005, 09:22 PM']I don't want to be a Catholic psychologist.  I'll be Catholic and I'll be a psychologist, but they need to be somewhat independant of each other.  Some things in psych don't agree with Church teachings and I need to be taught a relatively non-biased view of them.

Also I couldn't go to the Catholic universities you've named because they aren't as cheap as a state school.  I live in Indiana where we have a highly respected Psych department at IU.  I can't opt for the Catholic school over that just because it is Catholic.
[right][snapback]835042[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
The idea of separating your spiritual life from your career is a bad one. If you can't find God in your work, then you're not looking hard enough. You're right, there are a lot of heinous psychological theories out there that run contrary to Catholic teaching, and Socrates is right that it is OK to be biased towards them. I want to be a journalist, and even I will claim that I'm not ashamed to be biased towards what I know (and what the Church teaches) to be right and true.

As a graduate of an abominably secular college, I will also say that you'll never recieve an "unbiased" view of [i]anything[/i] simply because that doesn't exist. If I had a choice as to whether to choose a view that is biased towards Kinsey and Freud and those other quacks, or Christ, I'll choose Christ. At a secular school it's harder to sort out the Truth from the lies, because lies are often presented to you as truths (or, rather, truths are twisted around and made into lies) and you have to be vigilant in your search for truth. It is possible and admirable to choose Christ at a secular school.

[photosynthesis]

also, about the money thing.

I got merit scholarships and need-based grants and in the end I paid far less than I'd pay if I went to a state school. Some private colleges (like the one I went to) have BIG endowments and like giving money to people that need/deserve it.

[track2004]

I find God is psych but I don't want my consul to be run by my faith. I can't. Also the "heinous" theories are thus far backed up by science, so I have to, as a scientist, accept them as the best solution. The Church isn't always right about the science stuffs....

Freud was nuts and Kinsey was a bit off the mark, but they were trying. All science fields have some missteps. Can we say blood letting for instance. No one really takes Freud seriously anymore and Kinsey's stuff is only really valuable because it opened up the study of sexual activity. Not all of psychology is based on "quacks".

Just because secular schools tell you lies as if they were truths doesn't mean Catholic schools wouldn't do the same thing. It isn't like my school is telling me things that are way off base, they just don't get all of it because they are leaving most of the Theological stuff out. It is a give and take.

Money wise, for me anyway, public education was cheaper and better.

[avemaria40]

I want to go to a Catholic College or University because they tend to have a rigorous academic curriculum and that's what I want, especially since I am looking at premed and want a rigorous education so that I know what I need to know for the entrance test you take for med school. I also want an enviornment where I can grow in my faith and help others do the same. I want to be able to practice my Catholic faith the best way that I can throughout life and I think a Catholic university would help me do that.

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='track2004' date='Dec 24 2005, 03:29 AM']Just because secular schools tell you lies as if they were truths doesn't mean Catholic schools wouldn't do the same thing.  It isn't like my school is telling me things that are way off base, they just don't get all of it because they are leaving most of the Theological stuff out.  It is a give and take.
[right][snapback]835275[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Not if it's a good Catholic school. A good Catholic college teaches the Truth at all times. Faith and science are not incompatible with one another... they work together to complement one another and so good science is always consistent with good Catholic doctrine. I'm not saying it's bad to go to a secular school (obviously I went to them all my life) but if there's anythign I learned there it is to be critical of what people are teaching you.

[track2004]

I learned the same thing in Catholic schools.

[son_of_angels]

I disagree with all of you. Truth is not a given set of facts about something. Truth is the REASON something exists not the Perceived Qualities about it. I can almost guarrantee you that a prolonged study of the Blessed Sacrament in a laboratory will only tell you about bread and water. The truth, however, to be found about it is found in the immeasurable Love of Almighty God.

Yet, for all the theology one might learn, this is also just a study of what we are able to perceive in the revelations of God. Hence, this is not even the fulness of the Truth, but a path towards the fullness of the Truth.

What I'm saying is this. If Catholic education is as it should be, it should lead you beyond the subjects themselves, religious or otherwise towards Truth, which even "true" facts can obscure. This means one studying psychology CAN be led to the Truth studying psychology, and deepen their religious experience doing so, but it must be done not for the facts themselves. Instead it must be done, first of all, out of a love for God, and as a service for the Church. It must be done with the object of increasing righteousness. Hence, you must desire to do it not because you are simply curious, but because, at the end of the day, you want to offer it to the service of the Mystical Body of Christ.

[photosynthesis]

I agree with you, however there are many layers to truth. what you just described is of course the highest and most sublime form of truth. However, there is also a more journalistic form of truth which is comprised of verifiable facts. Like...is it going to rain tomorrow? What is the capital of Myanmar? How many people live in St. Louis? You can learn practical truth in any good university, although sometimes the facts are presented in a way that is biased.

[son_of_angels]

Perhaps, but what I'm suggesting is that these verifiable facts are verifiable only through experience. They may be good or bad, depending on whether the person is good or bad. After all, if you wanted to know how many people live in St. Louis simply because you wanted to know, this does not make you a better person unless you study it for a purpose like evangelization. Purpose, and not the facts themselves, ought to be the thing which is always in question.

Take for example the intelligent design vs. evolution debate. Either way, its true, neither model helps anyone become better just by knowing the answer. The problem is that somehow certain people are so attached to their perception of the world rather than the world's substance (its reason for existence) that they base their faith on something which faith tells us will someday pass away or, perhaps, a process which none of us will ever see. Too often we get caught up in the principle that God created "things" and not that God created "me," i.e. my rationality, being in his image.

What I'm saying is that most science stems from an obsession for the things put into our life, and not from the joy that they give us as beings in the image of God. To study for the sake of a job is good, but only if that job is there to make us better. To want to heal people is good, but only if it is in service to the health of their soul. Anything else is a vanity of flesh.

Who cares if facts are skewed? Truth is found within, and can be discovered as easily (most of the saints, for example, lived in eras in which alchemy was just another attribute of science) in the flawed as in the regular.

[photosynthesis]

I wasn't talking about science at all. I was talking about practical, journalistic truth based on a discipline of verification. I don't really care about science, I care about reporting the events of the day in a way that is relevant and credible. For example, if some Raelian guy says that he cloned a human being, I would not report that he cloned a human being, rather I would say that he [i]claims[/i] to have cloned a human being, because his statements were unverifiable and the source was not credible. Journalistic methods of investigation are way different than scientific methods.

Facts are never good or bad. They're just facts, plain and simple. I wasn't talking about spiritual truth (i.e. the type of truth that surpasses sensory experience) but practical truth that is verifiable. For example, a scientist would be concerned with whether or not there is life on other planets. But a journalist would be concerned with WHO says there is life on other planets, WHEN they said it, HOW they know, etc. For me, it wouldn't be about whether there actually is life on other planets but getting the story straight.

As for what you said about finding the population of St. Louis, I don't think that knowing that ever makes you a better person, even if you knew that fact for the purposes of furthering the Kingdom of God. No person is ever better than one another regardless of their education. but rather than further hijack Socrates' thread, I will start my own to debate that.