Franciscan University Thread

[dairygirl4u2c]

that's about how i would have answered, except it's a lot more academic, including aquanis etc (and shows how my question, and especially teh answers, are nothing new

two points i would add just cause it's closely related.
one, is that people often try to justify suffering etc (usually moreso evil), by saying 'it's the lack of God', as if that makes it okay. this only answers kinda sorta how this lack of God can coincide in the infinite universe with an infinite God. cause the question still remains, why would God permit the 'lack of good"? this goes into the permissive will, he's allowing it, and while it's occurring, good is coming out of it, ie, our sanctification, and our ability to co-create with God in the palate/canvass that is planet Earth.

two, there's the question of why, in an ultimate sense (if you always ask why, then the above post and above paragraph only answer the first line of 'why'), is the world such that God allows suffering 'permissively', and why, even if it is or can be for our own good, there is suffering. the second line of why's would say, 'cause love involves pain, etc'. but of course, you'd ask why that's the case. and based on my occasional philosophical musings, i would answer it as love involves more than one being, like the trinity, so pain will be involved when they cannot be one, and things cannot be perfect, given they are two, and if you want to be an equal, then you have to let them be a cocreator. but then again you ask why. and, i think at an ultimate level, you have to just say that's the way it is. love and co-creation, if we want to be with God, this life is how we do it

Edited April 5, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Let me begin by saying that I intend to cite my source from earlier tomorrow. I don't have it with me, but had to come into the office and saw a couple posts that interested me.

[quote name='jksoren' post='1824020' date='Apr 3 2009, 10:12 PM']However, I wonder. Can any of you show me that you have what it takes to really answer the burning questions that lay within the minds of non-believers (or your thoughtful students)? Honestly, did you REALLY learn what you needed at Franciscan to handle challenges from educated interlocutors? Isn't it possible that in your arrogance concerning your own ability to teach the faith to anyone that you are libel to do more harm then good? If you all think that Franciscan taught you ALL that you need to know, and you were so rigorous as to even read beyond the material with all the free-time that you had while taking "graduate" classes, then surely you would easily be able to answer the following objections, intelligently. Can you do it?

Pretend that I am not a believer, I am an earnest truth seeker coming to you for guidance:

“Daniel Dennett wrote that Christians justify their belief in an invisible omnipotent God in a very inconsistent manner. He pointed out that when bad things happen, like hurricanes, that we tend NOT to attribute that event to God's providence because if we did we would have to admit that God was the cause of evil in the world. However, he says, then we do a "ridiculous about-face” and have the audacity to claim that when good things happen to us, like winning a prize, that such an event is directly attributable to God! He argues that this is just one example of how Christians fail to be consistent or rational when it comes to what we profess to believe in. I want to know the truth. Are we just conveniently dreaming up a God to fit our desires!? I want to believe, but if we are “inventing” God based on desire, how can I do so?

Essentially my problem is this, how do I reconcile these two views (to say that God doesn’t do evil and yet to also say that God is still somehow in control of his creation?) so that I can maintain my belief in God's present and loving providence? Am I simply arbitrarily ascribing "divinity" to those things that I subjectively find good? Does God cause hurricanes that kill thousands of people? If he does, why? And how is this compatible with my belief in a Christian God of life and love? Please help!”[/quote]

What astonishes me is the arrogance of your posts. As you've already been given a sufficient answer to the above, I won't bother, but it strikes me as extremely rude to come here and imply that FUS grads can't answer a simple question (one which is fairly cliched, by the way), then demand that they do so in order to prove their case (holding up yourself in the process as if everyone here is below you). Most of the FUS grads on this site are quite well-educated (most of the regular posters on this site are quite well-educated also).

Further, I find it quite inconsistent that you claim that DRE's and the like who have theology degrees are mooching off the Church and that it is not necessary to have such degrees for those fields, while at the same time you imply, quite strongly, I might add, that anyone with a theology degree should be able to answer X, Y, and Z questions, noting that these are questions which would be asked by non-believers, those same people that DRE's and other Church employees are often supposed to help. So it seems to me that you are well aware that Church employees are asked these sorts of questions, but simultaneously insist that the education required to answer them is unnecessary for Church employees. I see a couple possibilities: either you believe the Church shouldn't be in the business of answering such questions from non-believers (in which case, you need to re-examine your ecclesiology notes and the entire New Testament) or you believe that parishes should not have employees with theology degrees as professional resources for such questions (leaving those questions to the "elite" class of priests, a possibility which would leave mission dioceses in a bind; for instance, my pastor is too busy as the only priest in our parish of 1350 families to answer such questions and I'm the only person on staff with a degree in theology, including our two deacons). Face it, theology degrees aren't just for the clergy and the elite professors, they are increasingly desirable and necessary in parish ministry positions and I will not sit idly by watching someone insist that my job and all the work I accomplish are meaningless or that somehow what I do is less important (certainly not important enough for a full-time job) than what a professor does. In fact, I consider my work more important; a professor teaches those who already have an interest and (mostly) desire to learn, but I am charged with reaching out to those who have no interest or desire to learn.

[quote name='jksoren' post='1824239' date='Apr 4 2009, 01:24 AM']I am jksoren's wife and have been following this discussion. I just have a few things to say, and I hope I can do so graciously.

First, of course, a defense is in order.
1. He did not go to Thomas Aquinas College. He went to one of the nation's top 25 universities. I wonder where many of the posters here went to school for their BAs? It seems that if you have experienced a different (and better) university, you would have a more critical eye towards the obvious deficiencies of FUS.[/quote]

Yes, it stands to reason that if you have experienced a better university, you would have a more critical eye. That is only natural. However, let's consider that FUS has an astonishing rate of students transferring in. I myself attended two colleges before FUS, one a seminary and one a large (25,000 student) state university. FUS was much better than both. So it stands to reason that having experienced other (not as good) universities, one has to love FUS. The question also arises: why would one who has experienced such greatness go to a "lower" university or not switch schools once realizing the university was "lower"? Neither my wife (StColette) nor I can wrap our heads around the complaints. If someone went to FUS thinking it was paradise, they should have realized it would not be, but the top Catholic schools in the country are far less orthodox, and I would rather receive instruction I knew would be solid than get a good name-brand university on my degree (and pay more for it). As for not getting into a doctorate program, people have to realize that they are highly competitive. Just because a person gets an MA at FUS doesn't guarantee anything. Did that person take foreign/ancient languages? Is that person in a stable living situation? How are the person's grades? What do the person's current professors think of him? Is the person capable of dealing with the stress of a doctoral program? Do we like the person's personality? Are we impressed with the person's academic work and thesis? How are his references? The school has counselors who will tell you what is necessary for getting into doctoral programs. Any of the professors will discuss it with you, too. I have a friend who was a philosophy major at FUS and started working on his MA while still doing his BA. He's 23 and currently doing doctoral work (he was also asked to give a lecture to a room full of PhDs at a philosophy conference). This is a guy who went above and beyond the call of duty, impressed the admissions panel, and didn't just count on the name of his alma mater to get him through. He didn't have any idealisms about FUS, he knew that a doctoral program should be more interested in him and his work than his school, and he has a good attitude. He's doing extraordinarily well.

[quote]2. After school, he worked in business and made $60,000 a year starting off. We value living simply and never left his job for FUS with the idea of making more money in theology. We knew we were making a sacrifice; BUT, we also knew he needed to provide for a family and a professor's income was the security we needed to make the career change with confidence.[/quote]

See, what I don't understand is why y'all assumed you'd be getting a job as a professor soon enough to quit a job that provided plenty for family living. I mean, most professors don't make a fortune unless you go to really good universities, and most of those professors have been professors for years! I wouldn't have left a $60k/year job until I had finished my MA (through distance) and then I would have worked toward my doctorate, knowing that at least if that didn't go through, I could work in theology with an MA at a smaller university (I've already proven that MA's can teach theology in more places than Steubie) or as a catechist (as adverse as that apparently seems).

[quote]2. A master's degree SHOULD provide adequate preparation for further study in graduate school. After all, it should be at the graduate level ALREADY. Doctoral students at most universities study alongside terminal MA students. If FUS is not placing people who desire to apply to PhDs in good programs, then it is a fault of FUS. It is our fault for not looking into this, but that doesn't take away from the irrefutable deficiencies of FUS's MA program. Even if one were to take extra classes etc, having studied at FUS still presents an obstacle to future study because the program is ranked so low, if at all. To get into top PhD programs almost always requires that you come from a solid MA program, you know, one the admissions committee has heard of. "Steuben-- what?"[/quote]

Counting on an MA by itself is silly. That's only one side of who you are. Admissions boards want to see a degree from a good program (and by the way, I spoke to admissions at a number of schools recently getting info for some people and they'd all heard of FUS, including Notre Dame and CUA), but they also want to see a solid thesis, a good work ethic, a decent personality, language studies, etc. Want a good basis for getting into a doctoral program? Get an MA from FUS, work for a while for a diocese or private theological organization (Catholic Answers, Catholics United for the Faith, etc.), study a few languages, write some papers and submit them to journals, and then apply for a doctoral program once you've build yourself up. They're competitive. You've got to be competitive to get in.

[quote]3. The school charges $1,800 a class [in Steubenville, OH... a town so economically depressed that property values were actually falling long before the housing bubble burst!]. Where is the money going? I do not see it serving the student body in any capacity. The gym is worse than a high school gym (you have to see it to believe it, and even then you can't believe it). They have no track (even a middle school has a track). No swimming pool. No on-campus eateries besides a high school cafeteria and cellophane wrapped food. The library can hardly compete with a city library and it is a university. No graduate housing to speak of. No graduate funding at all. Their graduate degree in theology just reads "Master of Arts"!! (I have heard this complaint many times, even the degree is embarrassing and not worthy to hang in a bathroom, although we might just hang it there.) I guess we should be happy that at least some dollars go to salt the sidewalks. I wonder how the administration let even those slip through their pocketbooks.[/quote]

I think the gym is a fantastic facility, considering that the school really only has intramural and only within the past few years joined NCAA. Also, who wants to swim in that water? The library is about the same size of most city libraries I've seen, but yes, it is small (about 10x smaller than the library at my previous college). That's why they have a book exchange with every other university in Ohio. As for graduate housing, I agree. I really wish they hadn't bought up the projects. All the degrees there just read BA, MA, BS, MS, etc. None of them give the field, but I don't think that's a huge deal. Lastly, that ain't salt on the sidewalk, it's a different compound. I should know, I worked as a custodian at FUS.

Soren, I feel sorry for you and your experience, but I also feel that you're putting way too much blame on the university and blowing things way out of proportion. That hurts me as an alum and it bothers me that our experiences were so far apart.

[azaelia]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1825128' date='Apr 5 2009, 01:13 PM']Let me begin by saying that I intend to cite my source from earlier tomorrow. I don't have it with me, but had to come into the office and saw a couple posts that interested me.



What astonishes me is the arrogance of your posts. As you've already been given a sufficient answer to the above, I won't bother, but it strikes me as extremely rude to come here and imply that FUS grads can't answer a simple question (one which is fairly cliched, by the way), then demand that they do so in order to prove their case (holding up yourself in the process as if everyone here is below you). Most of the FUS grads on this site are quite well-educated (most of the regular posters on this site are quite well-educated also).

Further, I find it quite inconsistent that you claim that DRE's and the like who have theology degrees are mooching off the Church and that it is not necessary to have such degrees for those fields, while at the same time you imply, quite strongly, I might add, that anyone with a theology degree should be able to answer X, Y, and Z questions, noting that these are questions which would be asked by non-believers, those same people that DRE's and other Church employees are often supposed to help. So it seems to me that you are well aware that Church employees are asked these sorts of questions, but simultaneously insist that the education required to answer them is unnecessary for Church employees. I see a couple possibilities: either you believe the Church shouldn't be in the business of answering such questions from non-believers (in which case, you need to re-examine your ecclesiology notes and the entire New Testament) or you believe that parishes should not have employees with theology degrees as professional resources for such questions (leaving those questions to the "elite" class of priests, a possibility which would leave mission dioceses in a bind; for instance, my pastor is too busy as the only priest in our parish of 1350 families to answer such questions and I'm the only person on staff with a degree in theology, including our two deacons). Face it, theology degrees aren't just for the clergy and the elite professors, they are increasingly desirable and necessary in parish ministry positions and I will not sit idly by watching someone insist that my job and all the work I accomplish are meaningless or that somehow what I do is less important (certainly not important enough for a full-time job) than what a professor does. In fact, I consider my work more important; a professor teaches those who already have an interest and (mostly) desire to learn, but I am charged with reaching out to those who have no interest or desire to learn.



Yes, it stands to reason that if you have experienced a better university, you would have a more critical eye. That is only natural. However, let's consider that FUS has an astonishing rate of students transferring in. I myself attended two colleges before FUS, one a seminary and one a large (25,000 student) state university. FUS was much better than both. So it stands to reason that having experienced other (not as good) universities, one has to love FUS. The question also arises: why would one who has experienced such greatness go to a "lower" university or not switch schools once realizing the university was "lower"? Neither my wife (StColette) nor I can wrap our heads around the complaints. If someone went to FUS thinking it was paradise, they should have realized it would not be, but the top Catholic schools in the country are far less orthodox, and I would rather receive instruction I knew would be solid than get a good name-brand university on my degree (and pay more for it). As for not getting into a doctorate program, people have to realize that they are highly competitive. Just because a person gets an MA at FUS doesn't guarantee anything. Did that person take foreign/ancient languages? Is that person in a stable living situation? How are the person's grades? What do the person's current professors think of him? Is the person capable of dealing with the stress of a doctoral program? Do we like the person's personality? Are we impressed with the person's academic work and thesis? How are his references? The school has counselors who will tell you what is necessary for getting into doctoral programs. Any of the professors will discuss it with you, too. I have a friend who was a philosophy major at FUS and started working on his MA while still doing his BA. He's 23 and currently doing doctoral work (he was also asked to give a lecture to a room full of PhDs at a philosophy conference). This is a guy who went above and beyond the call of duty, impressed the admissions panel, and didn't just count on the name of his alma mater to get him through. He didn't have any idealisms about FUS, he knew that a doctoral program should be more interested in him and his work than his school, and he has a good attitude. He's doing extraordinarily well.



See, what I don't understand is why y'all assumed you'd be getting a job as a professor soon enough to quit a job that provided plenty for family living. I mean, most professors don't make a fortune unless you go to really good universities, and most of those professors have been professors for years! I wouldn't have left a $60k/year job until I had finished my MA (through distance) and then I would have worked toward my doctorate, knowing that at least if that didn't go through, I could work in theology with an MA at a smaller university (I've already proven that MA's can teach theology in more places than Steubie) or as a catechist (as adverse as that apparently seems).



Counting on an MA by itself is silly. That's only one side of who you are. Admissions boards want to see a degree from a good program (and by the way, I spoke to admissions at a number of schools recently getting info for some people and they'd all heard of FUS, including Notre Dame and CUA), but they also want to see a solid thesis, a good work ethic, a decent personality, language studies, etc. Want a good basis for getting into a doctoral program? Get an MA from FUS, work for a while for a diocese or private theological organization (Catholic Answers, Catholics United for the Faith, etc.), study a few languages, write some papers and submit them to journals, and then apply for a doctoral program once you've build yourself up. They're competitive. You've got to be competitive to get in.



I think the gym is a fantastic facility, considering that the school really only has intramural and only within the past few years joined NCAA. Also, who wants to swim in that water? The library is about the same size of most city libraries I've seen, but yes, it is small (about 10x smaller than the library at my previous college). That's why they have a book exchange with every other university in Ohio. As for graduate housing, I agree. I really wish they hadn't bought up the projects. All the degrees there just read BA, MA, BS, MS, etc. None of them give the field, but I don't think that's a huge deal. Lastly, that ain't salt on the sidewalk, it's a different compound. I should know, I worked as a custodian at FUS.

Soren, I feel sorry for you and your experience, but I also feel that you're putting way too much blame on the university and blowing things way out of proportion. That hurts me as an alum and it bothers me that our experiences were so far apart.[/quote]

What he said.

[tinytherese]

I agree with St. Colette, Raphael, and Bro Adam. I'd also like to add that FUS is not the only school where you can study orthdox theology such as...

Benedictine College (the one that I'm transfering to next year) has a decent theology program. (They also give better financial aid than FUS.) They even have 3 faith and reason courses and two church history courses.

Holy Apostles Seminary and College (which even includes a distance education program where you can get your M.A. in several different kinds of branches in Roman Catholic theology.)

Ave Maria University

University of Dallas

Catholic University of America

John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family Life

University of St. Thomas in Houston

[Brother Adam]

Those aren't the only ones either - this is a great guide for all of you high schoolers here:

[img]http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/5193TADBw2L._SS500_.jpg[/img]

[jksoren]

But you’re so wrong. You speak as if you know so much about these things and yet it is painfully obvious that you don’t have a clue.

For an undergrad, the answer was decent. But it was far from persuasive, he didn’t actually answer the question in fact. He did however show that he could find some sources to help. This is actually not an easy question to answer. It is not “cliched”. Perhaps the “problem of evil” is “cliched” to a certain extent but the question I posed was more complicated than that. I’m not sure you fully understand the question. The trick to it, and thing missed so far by everyone who has commented on it, is that there are errors within the way that the question is worded itself. That is, the question asserts assumptions about what the Church does/does not teach that are not true! If you look at it from that angle and examine it in light of the mystery of providence (what actually IS and IS NOT taught about it), then it is somewhat easier to reconcile the apparent contradiction. Though, ultimately it requires Grace and a submission of the will for your students to come around, being able to help them with these kinds of questions is essential.

However, as far as my being “rude” goes, the truth is that I am being honest. I know my fellow students and I love them. My wife and I have made many good friends here. But I don’t really know very many that would even claim to be able to answer a question like the one stated above, after-all, it isn’t even a question most of us have considered or studied...not at Franciscan anyway.

My point was actually to show that catechists, trained in what they are, are not prepared to handle these sorts of problems. They should be, they could be, but they aren’t. However there are plenty of lay people who are not in fact DREs, or who have never studied at Franciscan, who could in fact answer a question such as this. They would be better off pondering such things on their own, and their children would be much better off if they were the one’s to give them their religious education. I am not denying that the laity can and should study theology. I do however think that DREs/Catechists need better preparation than what they have and that many of the pedagogical assumptions that have been borrowed from the secular study of “education” (for catechetics) need to be thoroughly reexamined...among other things.
As far as our mistake, coming to Franciscan that is, I don’t think you understand our motives. They were essentially the same as yours, I am sure. We came here because we believed in what Franciscan presents itself to be and, like most Catholics, we erroneously thought that the only reason it was disparaged (ever) was because of religious persecution from secularists, etc. Why not? After all it is formally endorsed by EWTN, Dr. Hahn teaches here, Fr. Scanlon formally calls on us all to come to the school on “Franciscan Presents”, we knew people who came here, and so on. Of course we were going to believe in it, it’s presented as a beacon of light for a veritable movement of faithful Catholics in the US. We had every reason to believe that it was GREAT.

You say that Franciscan has an “astonishing rate” of students transferring in. I don’t know where you get the data to base that claim on, however, it is likely that based upon your own experience of transferring, and the people you know, that there really is in fact such a phenomenon. However, I can give my own anecdotal account that goes precisely contrary to your own. I know others who regret coming here and I know one specific individual who is doing everything in his power to transfer out of the MA program. I’m not the only person, among my peers, who is deeply dissatisfied with the school and the program...not by a long shot. I am however the only one, apparently, who has been this vocal about it. Perhaps it is true that your “state school” was inferior to Franciscan, but the two public universities that I attended were much better over all. One was a 4th tier school in Texas and the other a 1st tier school in California. I mean that my overall experience at either of these places was much better. Yet, we will never convince each other with anecdotal evidence!

But I hope I did answer your confusion as to why we’d sacrifice so much for a school we knew wasn’t “ranked”. It is because, like you still do, we believed in the school’s mission. I still believe in the mission, I just don’t think it’s actually being realized.

Your assumption that you would go to a “brand name” university and pay more money is so false that it hurts. I am literally pained by it, because you and so many other people have been robbed and you don’t even know it. At those “brand name” schools, typically, graduate students DON’T PAY for their education! They get TA-ships, tuition remissions, stipends, etc. For MA students there isn’t always this kind of aid, but at good schools who consistently place students in good programs, qualified students are always given such support. Also it isn’t true that Franciscan is a “deal”. My wife went to UCLA for free. She went to one of the best universities in the country and didn’t pay a dime. In fact this would have been true for her at most nationally ranked universities, considering her financial situation and extraordinary academic qualifications. Also the tuition at Franciscan is EXORBITANTLY high considering the fact that it is an unranked school in the Ohio steel valley. What on earth are they doing with all of those resources? After all, as you point out, it doesn’t seem to be going to the professors. It’s certainly not going to the students in any helpful way. Where does it all go?

You don’t seem to understand how admissions works for doctoral programs: Where you decided to get an MA from is very important. This is probably the reason why Dr. Hahn’s son went to another school (Notre Dame). The truth is, most students who pursue graduate studies DO NOT pursue an MA first. Rather, the typical approach is to apply for PhD programs right out of undergrad. MA graduates who apply to other universities to pursue a PhD are actually considered TRANSFER students. So you don’t always need not get a terminal MA, in fact, it is sometimes best that you do not when it comes into getting into the most competitive programs. Franciscan has a terrible record, in my personal experience, of placing students in any Phd programs, much less good ones (the kind that can actually get you a job afterwards...I wish I had the time to elaborate on this but I encourage you to look into it for yourself). This is likely the reason that Dr. Hahn’s son chose, wisely, to go to Notre Dame for a terminal masters. While I am sure that he would have been able to get an MA at Franciscan for free, he went to get a terminal masters at a ranked school so that he could have a fighting chance down the road. I bet you anything he studied theology as an undergrad, but the fact remains, having a degree from Franciscan is not going to persuade admissions committees. Thus I think he has made a good decision. By the way, I don’t think his faith will be marred by going there, but that’s another can of worms.

Also, while it is generally the case that good MA programs give financial support to students, it is ALWAYS the case that good PhD programs give significant financial support to students, they actually pay you to go there, not the other way around! So PhD programs don’t care if you have the money to pay for their PhD, because you don’t in fact pay for PhDs. Not at real universities.
Also, PhD programs don’t “read your thesis”. Like I said, they actually don’t expect that you to have ever written a thesis. At all of the PhD programs that I have applied to in the past you simply give them a short writing sample. Typically you just send a paper that you wrote in the field that you are applying to and usually they want it to be less than 15 pages. If you did a masters thesis, that’s great, but they don’t care to see it. Not unless you opt to send in a chapter of it as your writing sample that is.

The weird thing is that you list all of these requirements for getting into a PhD program as if you know what you’re saying, but you obviously don’t. Many of things you posit are simply not true. Even with the whole language requirement thing, many schools don’t even care if you don’t have the language requirement upon coming into their program! They do however expect that you will remedy the situation before you graduate. They will probably let you take language classes at their school (typically for free, you pay at Franciscan) in order to fulfill the requirement! Also, if you know so much, why on earth have you forgotten to mention the GRE?! It’s one of the most important aspects to this process and you didn’t mention it. I’ll just say, in case anyone is interested, that you basically want to get a GRE score over 1300 to be competitive for admissions into grad school. Take note of it and start studying for the test early. Franciscan doesn’t require the GRE for it’s incoming students, which is absurd, so you are almost certain to need to take it at some point.

Your advice about getting into PhD programs from Franciscan is ABSURD. You literally describe the worst things that I think that you could do if you were serious about getting into a PhD program. “Working in a diocese” has nothing to do with getting into a PhD program, “studying the languages” means nothing unless it’s on your transcript, and “writing papers or getting published” is a HUGE myth. It doesn’t help and admissions committees don’t care if you write or publish, or present a paper, etc. Doing such things is pretty much waste of time. This is what you SHOULD do instead: work on getting a better writing sample (since it actually is something that weighs heavily for or against you), raise your GRE scores, take languages, take extra classes in your intended field and/or a related field. Most importantly, don’t forget to get straight A’s. Lastly, APPLY TO AS MANY PROGRAMS AS YOU CAN. It’s a numbers game, most programs take as few as 2% of applicants and even if you are a good candidate you probably won’t get in anywhere if you don’t broaden your number of chances. If you don’t buy the tickets you can’t win the lottery. If you don’t get in, and still want it, then do these things and try again next year. That’s how you do it. Getting a job at a diocese is how you do something else. No theology department, not even the “orthodox” ones are going to care about doing such a thing.

I don’t see how you could ever describe the gym as “fantastic”. It’s ridiculously small, most of the equipment is too told, and the treadmills feel as if they were intended for “home use”. The hours are also terrible and they close it all the time. It’s actually a serious burden if you’re someone who values taking care of their physical health, as I am. The library is a joke and for grad students Ohio link is not sufficient. Not for those of us trying to really write good papers anyway. I can only order 10 books at a time! I can’t order more until I pick up the ones that I have already ordered! It’s a nightmare.

[Slappo]

[quote name='jksoren' post='1825661' date='Apr 5 2009, 06:04 PM']But you’re so wrong. You speak as if you know so much about these things and yet it is painfully obvious that you don’t have a clue.

For an undergrad, the answer was decent. But it was far from persuasive, he didn’t actually answer the question in fact. He did however show that he could find some sources to help. This is actually not an easy question to answer. It is not “cliched”. Perhaps the “problem of evil” is “cliched” to a certain extent but the question I posed was more complicated than that. I’m not sure you fully understand the question. [b]The trick to it, and thing missed so far by everyone who has commented on it, is that there are errors within the way that the question is worded itself. That is, the question asserts assumptions about what the Church does/does not teach that are not true![/b] If you look at it from that angle and examine it in light of the mystery of providence (what actually IS and IS NOT taught about it), then it is somewhat easier to reconcile the apparent contradiction. Though, ultimately it requires Grace and a submission of the will for your students to come around, being able to help them with these kinds of questions is essential.[/quote]

Emphasis in quotations added.

The direct results of my answer would refute any faulty assumptions that the questioner had. It would all be part of the answer process... Such as... explaining the meaning of evil and then how God plays a role in evil would negate any faulty assumptions once believed by the questioner on evil and God not having any relation to it.

It is ridiculous to even think that a high school student would not clear up misconceptions within the context of answering a persons question.


Edited to keep charity

Edited April 6, 2009 by Slappo

[jksoren]

[quote name='Slappo' post='1825676' date='Apr 5 2009, 09:28 PM']Emphasis in quotations added.

Wow... that's just lame. Next time I'll bold, highlight, underline, use all caps, and maybe even throw in larger font while I specifically answer the points of the question that are in error with Church teaching rather then assume that it would be understood that the assumptions were faulty based on the way the question was answered. I guess the faulty assumptions on Church teaching have to be specifically pointed out to be refuted otherwise a graduate student can't understand it.

The direct results of my answer would refute any faulty assumptions that the questioner had. It would all be part of the answer process... Such as... explaining the meaning of evil and then how God plays a role in evil would negate any faulty assumptions once believed by the questioner on evil and God not having any relation to it.

It is ridiculous to even think that a high school student would not clear up misconceptions within the context of answering a persons question.[/quote]

I still think you gave a good answer, considering that you yourself admitted you didn't have the time to write the full answer. You misunderstand me. I think you DO get it.

[Slappo]

[quote name='jksoren' post='1824020' date='Apr 3 2009, 07:12 PM']Pretend that I am not a believer, I am an earnest truth seeker coming to you for guidance:

“Daniel Dennett wrote that Christians justify their belief in an invisible omnipotent God in a very inconsistent manner. He pointed out that when bad things happen, like hurricanes, that we tend NOT to attribute that event to God's providence because if we did we would have to admit that God was the cause of evil in the world. However, he says, then we do a "ridiculous about-face” and have the audacity to claim that when good things happen to us, like winning a prize, that such an event is directly attributable to God! He argues that this is just one example of how Christians fail to be consistent or rational when it comes to what we profess to believe in. I want to know the truth. Are we just conveniently dreaming up a God to fit our desires!? I want to believe, but if we are “inventing” God based on desire, how can I do so?

Essentially my problem is this, how do I reconcile these two views (to say that God doesn’t do evil and yet to also say that God is still somehow in control of his creation?) so that I can maintain my belief in God's present and loving providence? Am I simply arbitrarily ascribing "divinity" to those things that I subjectively find good? Does God cause hurricanes that kill thousands of people? If he does, why? And how is this compatible with my belief in a Christian God of life and love? Please help!”[/quote]

1st point: Christians don't believe in an invisible God. This negates the Incarnation.
2nd point: God is the first cause of everything, including evil. It isn't admitting anything that Christians don't already believe to say that God is a cause of evil. He is just not the direct cause.
3rd point: (actually earlier on) Christians don't need to justify their belief in God.
4th point: God is the first cause of everything, including good. Yes God caused a new car to show up in your driveway because you won some prize... but not directly, it could actually be a ploy of Satan to get you to fall into materialism.
5th point: Christians don't fail to be consistent or rational. (Well... Protestants might... but you get the idea. I hope.)
6th point: God is in control of His creation? In what sense? He gave man free will and therefore doesn't control his creation, at least not in any strict sense of the word.

I'm sure there's more, but within an actual dialogue with a person those errors will rise up as the truth continues to be revealed.

Edited to keep charity.

Edited April 6, 2009 by Slappo

[Slappo]

I'd also add that a catechist working full-time in a parish would not be answering a question like this via internet and it would include dialogue between both parties. The best answer that can be given via internet would basically be some sort of apologetic answer. Apologetics hardly ever clear up every misconception an individual has, but seek to reveal the truth of a particular doctrine. If such a question was posted on Catholic Answers in the questions section, the answer would not include corrections to such things as an invisible God because it is not the primary focus.

An undergraduate even at top ranked schools does not have a keen enough eye to always catch hidden faults within questions or answers. This is not due to lack of knowledge, but to lack of use.

Ask a middle aged closet theologian, who only has his undergraduate degree, and he'll probably catch the errors much faster due to more extensive reading.

[tinytherese]

jksoren, seriously be careful what you say over the internet. You don't want to get sued by FUS for this.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='tinytherese' post='1825998' date='Apr 5 2009, 11:53 PM']jksoren, seriously be careful what you say over the internet. You don't want to get sued by FUS for this.[/quote]
Now wouldn't [b]that [/b]be ironic.

[Maggyie]

If FUS has the time or inclination to sue someone because of a visceral critique on an internet message board then it is not really a place anyone should want to be associated with. Most schools welcome criticism even if to some it seems unfair. My own alma mater asks for comments when they make their annual fundraising call, and even the diatribes are taken seriously because even if they seem offbase, the critique does reflect the lived experience of someone who went to OU. There is no motivation to lie or make stuff up unless one is mentally ill, so the problems raised need to be addressed.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='jksoren' post='1825661' date='Apr 5 2009, 09:04 PM']But you’re so wrong. You speak as if you know so much about these things and yet it is painfully obvious that you don’t have a clue.[/quote]

It's painfully obvious to whom? Many alum here have already shown that you provide no back-up for your claims and have provided their own stories of positive experiences at FUS, which far outnumber yours. I think you're just being dramatic, and that makes me laugh.

[quote]For an undergrad, the answer was decent. But it was far from persuasive, he didn’t actually answer the question in fact.[/quote]

Let me quote your response to him: "That's a great answer!"

Now, let's break down that response. "Great" means that you were either referring to the quality of his response or to the size. From the context, I think it's safe to assume you meant the quality. "Answer" meant the answer to your question. Now you say that it was a decent answer, but not really an answer at all. Again, I think you're being dramatic.

[quote]He did however show that he could find some sources to help. This is actually not an easy question to answer. It is not “cliched”. Perhaps the “problem of evil” is “cliched” to a certain extent but the question I posed was more complicated than that. I’m not sure you fully understand the question. The trick to it, and thing missed so far by everyone who has commented on it, is that there are errors within the way that the question is worded itself. That is, the question asserts assumptions about what the Church does/does not teach that are not true! If you look at it from that angle and examine it in light of the mystery of providence (what actually IS and IS NOT taught about it), then it is somewhat easier to reconcile the apparent contradiction. Though, ultimately it requires Grace and a submission of the will for your students to come around, being able to help them with these kinds of questions is essential.[/quote]

I'm well-aware that the question asked contained assumptions about the faith that were incorrect. Most questions about the faith that are critical (in the negative sense) contain false assumptions. Nor does the answer provided neglect that; it simply responds pastorally, correcting without making a huge issue of the error. It has nothing to do with intelligence or capability in answering.

[quote]However, as far as my being “rude” goes, the truth is that I am being honest. I know my fellow students and I love them. My wife and I have made many good friends here. But I don’t really know very many that would even claim to be able to answer a question like the one stated above, after-all, it isn’t even a question most of us have considered or studied...not at Franciscan anyway.[/quote]

I believe they had a whole course on the problem of evil a few years ago.

[quote]My point was actually to show that catechists, trained in what they are, are not prepared to handle these sorts of problems. They should be, they could be, but they aren’t. However there are plenty of lay people who are not in fact DREs, or who have never studied at Franciscan, who could in fact answer a question such as this. They would be better off pondering such things on their own, and their children would be much better off if they were the one’s to give them their religious education. I am not denying that the laity can and should study theology. I do however think that DREs/Catechists need better preparation than what they have and that many of the pedagogical assumptions that have been borrowed from the secular study of “education” (for catechetics) need to be thoroughly reexamined...among other things.[/quote]

The catechetics program at FUS takes its pedagogy straight from Church documents and the Salesian method. The Salesian method predates the current predominant educational model, so I don't know how you think FUS borrows from the secular study of education.

I'm not going to respond again until you start being consistent. You go on to tell me that doctoral programs don't care about your foreign languages all that much (after insisting earlier that one of the reasons FUS MA's aren't getting into PhD programs is that they aren't required to have foreign languages). You essentially go on to tell me that PhD programs consider none of your accomplishments. Then you tell me the're all free, at least the ones at "real" colleges. The problem is that you are holding up a subjective, idealistic view of what is a "real" college. Get over it. You're in the real world. FUS doesn't have the money to let their students get MA's for free. They're also not a research university, they're an active, getting the Gospel out into the world university. They have no reason to pay their MA students because their MA students aren't doing much research into new, undeveloped fields or making breakthroughs. Their MA students largely are studying for their own professional development. FUS uses theology almost as a technical field instead of an academic one, that is, they are trying to develop people who will go spread the Gospel, not people who will be doing high theology and translating texts from unknown ancient languages. You may have a problem with that, but the fact is that FUS makes no secret of it, and that makes your problem your own problem.

God bless,

Micah

[Maggyie]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1826187' date='Apr 6 2009, 11:14 AM']FUS uses theology [b]almost as a technical field instead of an academic one[/b], that is, they are trying to develop people who will go spread the Gospel, not people who will be doing high theology and translating texts from unknown ancient languages. You may have a problem with that, but the fact is that FUS makes no secret of it, and that makes your problem your own problem.[/quote]

I think you are right on the technical vs. academic approach, people say that FUS is "the ITT Tech of Catholic schools," in other words they pump out effective evangelists for the kingdom, but no serious scholarship.