Catholic perspective on the presentation of Reformation in SOTW 2?

[ELaurie]

As I have been reading SOTW 2 to my dc in the past few weeks, I am wondering what board members who are Catholic think about the way the events of hte Protestant Reformation are presented. (We are not Catholic, so this is something I am curious about.)

 

:bigear:

[clwcain]

:lurk5: No familiarity with SOTW, so I'm interested. Not sure if we'll use it, but this would be good to know.

 

Anyone?

[Michele B]

We did not like it. Henry IIIV was not "thrilled" to hear about Luther. Although Henry would eventually take a big leap, he recoiled from Luther. He wrote a treatise against Luther. So that is inaccurate. Also no mention was made on the "Pilgrimage or Grace," a large rising in the north of England against the Reformation. I highly recommend The Stripping of the Altars for insight in how, for instance chapter 2 "How the Plowman learned his Paternoster." The idea that Englishmen gladly embraced this new religion is just not true! Yes, with propaganda and persecution, it did become part of "being English," but it took longer than is convienient to remember. Also, back to SOTW 2, the Counter-Reformation is given short shrift. The Protestant Reformation figures largely in this book, but very little of reformations that occurred within the church. Catholics were persecuted horribly for believing what had always been believed. But that is brushed aside. Persecution of protestants is seen as THE great evil. Persecution is bad both ways of course. ;)

 

Remember, you asked!! :D

 

Michele

[clwcain]

Michele, as I understand it SOTW covers the standard pro-Reformation/anti-Catholic propaganda used in the Protestant West since at least the "Enlightenment". Would that be a correct summary of your assessment?

[Michele B]

Yes, I think so. It is difficult to balance "general knowledge" with what I think is the truth. I was a bit embarrassed when my child publicly refused to be a pilgrim at the Thanksgiving Feast at preschool two or three years ago. I was unaware my husband had given her a "catholic perspective" on the pilgrims and I was left holding the little pilgrim hat in front of my Baptist friends!!!!!!

 

We are doing SOTW 3 now. I like the "scope and sequence."

 

It almost feels "un -American" to me to burst my dd's bubble about the pilgrims and other "all-American" images. I try to just be reserved and show both sides. (emphasize TRY) Many of the groups coming to this country were NOT coming for religious freedom in the sense of "for all." They were coming to practice their forms of religion and they indeed persecuted others in the colonies who were different. So I am trying to figure out how to explain that to a 7-year old kid. I am learning as we go.

 

I think the kids do need to know and recognize the "standard" theories taught, and then modify it on the side?! I think I think that;)

 

Michele

[Michele B]

Don't get me started on the "Enlightenment!" To make themselves appear"enlightened" they had to smear what came before - promulgating that we - I mean - people in the Middle Ages believed the world was flat!!!! Come on!!!!:D

 

You know, I am writing in the best of humors and hope I am causing no offense!!

 

Michele:D:D:D:D:D:D

 

See? How can I offend when I put in all those smileys?

[Michele B]

I don't mean I think SOTW should teach a catholic worldview - there are other sources for that. But we can look critically at what we learned as children. Who is going to teach that G. Washington really did that bit with the cherry tree? Won't you teach it as part of folklore, but not history now that you know? The colonists did not all come here to be one big happy family, everyone doing their own thing. The English were not all happy and relieved about the Reformation. The "Good Queen Bess" thing bears looking into by older students. Englishmen look back with nostalgia at the golden age now, but what did it look like then? Was she really popular, or was she having the competition murdered and the complainers tortured?

[HollyDay]

Interesting post and I greatly appreciate it! I have struggled with history this year with SOTW 2 and MOH 2. THey both seem "opinionated" and even "heavy handed" at times. I felt that I was screening and rearranging lessons more than I thought I would be doing. For those who chose another curriculum due to these issues (as I am in the process of doing), I would love to hear what you chose!!

[8filltheheart]

I have enjoyed reading this thread. I have never used SOTW so I can't comment. I am very, very picky about what I use for history. I teach my kids everything from both perspectives......no white-washing in either direction.

[HRAAB]

I have enjoyed reading this thread. I have never used SOTW so I can't comment. I am very, very picky about what I use for history. I teach my kids everything from both perspectives......no white-washing in either direction.

 

Would you mind sharing what you've used for 5th/6th gr. for the Middle Ages. I'm getting ready to start SOTW 2 but am seriously considering supplementing it with The Old World and America or one of the Seton texts - can't recall the title right now - even though they're dreadfully dull. Perhaps Story of the Church for me?

 

Thanks,

Janet

[dangermom]

I have this problem with grammar-stage as well. We read something, and I say, "Well, it wasn't quite like that..." and the next thing I know I'm trying to explain 16th-century politics to a 7yo! :svengo:

[K&Rs Mom]

I have this problem with grammar-stage as well. We read something, and I say, "Well, it wasn't quite like that..." and the next thing I know I'm trying to explain 16th-century politics to a 7yo! :svengo:

 

I've tried to read ahead for just this reason, and make myself notes in the margins on sections I want to reword or skip. So far, it's been helpful!

 

As far as the Catholic perspective, there's a Catholic WTM Yahoo group that may be helpful too.

[Tiramisu]

If you haven't already, you may want to take a look at the Catholic Textbook Project's All Ye Lands: World History and Geography. It's scope is much broader than what you are looking for but you might be able to use certain chapters. The level would be a good match for children in 6th grade or so.

 

Anne Carroll's Christ the King Lord of History also includes coverage of the period. I know a homeschooling family that used certain sections as a read-aloud for her middle grade children to balance the view the were getting from a standard textbook. This book is also a lot cheaper than the one above and you could certainly find in used on cathswap.

 

RCHistory will eventually be coming out with something as well, but I don't know how far along they are on completing a 4 year cycle of history from a Catholic perspective.

 

All the best...

[Faithr]

A really wonderful living book to read aloud to kids is entitled Sun Slower, Sun Faster by Meriol Trevor. Bethlehem Books sells it. I read it to all my kids last summer and we LOVED it. I think it tells a balanced point of view but then again I'm Catholic. It's the side you never really hear from standard texts.

 

The book is set in England in the 1950's and it is about two young teens who stumble onto the ability to go back in time. For each adventure they go back further and further until . . . well I don't want to spoil it. The children are Catholic so they learn a great deal about what went on during the Elizabethan times with the priestholes and the martyred priests.

 

I just concluded a year long study of British history with a teen group and the book Sun Slower, Sun Faster is pretty darn accurate as far as I can tell and it is a great read aloud for kids. Even my 6 yo enjoyed it.

[8filltheheart]

.

 

Anne Carroll's Christ the King Lord of History also includes coverage of the period. I know a homeschooling family that used certain sections as a read-aloud for her middle grade children to balance the view the were getting from a standard textbook.

 

 

I know this is going to sound weird to many Catholics, but I personally can't recommend Anne Carroll's books. She does not present history in a way I am comfortable with. I want my kids to know the truth. The history of the Church is full of all kinds of very unpleasant details. Her presentation of history is the Catholic equivalent of the majority of Protestant materials' presentation of the Reformation (not quite reality ;) )

 

My all-time favorite Catholic history book is Didache's History of the Church. It is definitely a high school level book. However, I am reading it allowed to my 3rd, 6th, and 8th graders right now. We have some very interesting conversations (and wow.....it has done amazing things for their vocabulary.)

 

The Catholic Textbook project's texts are OK. They are pretty surface oriented. I really like to dig deep. We take history at a much slower pace.

 

Anyway, Janet, we have been doing the middle ages/ren this yr and if you email me on the link from my name, I can send you an excel spreadsheet that has all the titles I have used this yr. The books span the 3 different grade levels I'm teaching. My 6th grader isn't the strongest reader in the world, so the books I have down for him would be definitely appropriate for 5/6. My 8th grader is an extremely strong student and many of her titles are appropriate for high school.

 

This has been a great yr for us. I have loved the discussions and listening to my kids perspectives.

[Faithr]

Momof7 I don't care for Anne Carroll's books either. I agree totally about her books having such a strong bias. I think she commits the same sin as the Protestants do. And I think she equates being Republican with being Catholic which grates on my nerves (sorry, if I'm offending anyone! I'm independent and have problems with both parties though I tend to vote pro-life. Anyway . . . .)

 

My favorite book to use for the Middle Ages/Renaissance is the first book in the Land of Our Lady series. This series is really about American history but the first book is all the background so it goes from ancients up to explorers. I just read aloud the passages pertaining to the Middle Ages. This worked very well for us. The book's language isn't as dated as the other book often suggested, by Father Philip Furlong, I think it is. Can't remember the title.

 

I blended Land of our Lady (I think the first volume is entitled Founders of Freedom????? It is currently in storage or I'd go look!) with All Ye Lands because AYL has beautiful photos and maps that complemented the other book.

 

I have to get that Didache book. We got the first volume of that series Introduction to Catholicism and we found it drier than dust. But I keep hearing rave reviews of the Church History one. So I think I shall have to give it a try!

[Julie in MN]

Okay, I'm biased, but I LOVE the way MFW teaches using multiple sources. Instead of writing its own take on history, it guides me to correlating several different sources. MFW uses SOTW to cover the reformation, as well as several other books. No, there isn't anything specifically Catholic in MFW. But the general lesson is there -- history looks different from different perspectives.

 

I know some moms who are bothered by this at first -- why do the story details sometimes differ? But in the end, even the proverbial traffic accident is described differently by each witness. I love that my son is learning that in elementary school! I would really encourage everyone to teach from multiple sources so that this lesson is instilled early on!

 

Julie

[8filltheheart]

I am sorry, but MFW is biased. :)

[Julie in MN]

I am sorry, but MFW is biased. :)

 

Well, I think what I'm trying to say is that everyone is biased, but learning that there is more than one perspective is the best tool we can offer our kids.

[Tiramisu]

I don't think it is weird as a Catholic to be critical of Anne Carroll's books. A recent thread is on the Kolbe Forum which echoes your sentiments. It's not just parents who feel that way but also the Kolbe advisors. Starting out homeschooling for the first time last year, I read Christ the King, Lord of History last year to give myself some knowledge of the Catholic side of things, and it was an interesting read. It is something to think about that nearly all the Catholic curriculum providers use this text in high school, or junior high in Kolbe's case. It's good to know that an option exists in Didache's Story of the Church.

 

Dd used All Ye Lands this year at a coop, and it was a good introduction for a student who only seemed to study immigration for 5 years in social studies in public school. For those who have a better history background, I would agree that it may not be terribly deep.

 

My dd is planning to take a class next year which uses Christ and the Americas. I have mixed feelings about it because I don't know if dd is ready for it, etc. If anyone would like to clue me in on trouble points in that text, I'd welcome the heads-up.

[Kate CA]

The history of the Church is full of all kinds of very unpleasant details. Her presentation of history is the Catholic equivalent of the majority of Protestant materials' presentation of the Reformation (not quite reality ;) )

 

 

 

Stepping gently into the waters as a reformed protestant... :)

 

I just want to say that I appreciate that you do this. It is harder to do it when one disagrees with another perspective and I appreciate that you do it. I try to do it too. I am unabashedly reformed, but I too feel there were truly egregious sins done in the name of protestantism against the Catholics at that time (and afterwards too). There was tremendous ugliness on both sides, frankly.

 

I just finished reading two biographies on Henry VIII and Elizabeth I that were more informative than any history I have read thus far. It was very enlightening to read what they (at least according to this secular historian ;)) really seemed to believe--at least by the example of their lives. I learned about Henry's treatise against Luther and how he received the title "Defender of the Faith" as a reward from the Pope. It was really his desire for an heir that lead him to reject the authority of the Pope. He was not a herald for change within the Catholic Church. Mary followed and tried to undo her father's choices, but it had already gone "to far" in the minds of many--though you are right that for many many years, and several reigns, there were large groups of Englishmen who wanted to return to the Catholic faith and were prevented. Then Mary, of course, also went too far. She does not earn her moniker for nothing.

 

I also discovered that Elizabeth tried to walk a fine line trying to balance the demands of the Puritans and those who would return England to Catholicism. She was not keen on killing those of either faith it seemed to me. The books, The Six Wives of Henry VIII, and The Life of Elizabeth I, by Alison Weir, were more helpful in clarifying the start of the English Reformation than any I have read yet. It was as balanced a read as one is likely to get not having lived it. :)

 

I would like to say one more thing. There will always be things that devoted Catholics will not "get" with regards to the Reformation in the same way there will always be things that a reformed person (or protestant to use a general term) will not "get" about Catholicism or the counter Reformation. There will be things you feel are "not quite reality" that I believe are reality and vice versa. I think it is important to recognize that I would feel the same way about a Catholic version of our protestant Reformation that you feel about our protestant versions. There are going to be some things we will never agree upon.

 

I hope that comes across in the manner I meant it! I am in pure discussion voice here - as if we were sitting together chatting over coffee. :) I appreciate the opportunity to sit at your table. :)

[8filltheheart]

I am literally laughing as I type this.....so I want you to understand that I completely understand and accept the generous spirit in which you posted. :)

 

[Then Mary, of course, also went too far. She does not earn her moniker for nothing.

 

I also discovered that Elizabeth tried to walk a fine line trying to balance the demands of the Puritans and those who would return England to Catholicism. She was not keen on killing those of either faith it seemed to me.

 

Um.....it just struck me here that apparently Mary was keen on executions. I am unfamiliar with the titles that you posted, but Elizabeth was far from saintly and both were equally culpable.

 

I do disagree that history cannot be presented in a manner where opposing views are understood. Understanding and agreeing are not synonymous. Intellectually I can comprehend and analyze many positions that I ultimately disagree with.

 

Now, when it comes to understanding theological positions, I will agree with you. It has taken me 15 yrs of studying to come to the theological understanding I have of Catholicism. I have never attempted (nor care to) study any other religion's theological position that intensely. B/c of that, there is no way I can ever truly objectively understand that perspective.

[Kate CA]

I am literally laughing as I type this.....so I want you to understand that I completely understand and accept the generous spirit in which you posted. :)

 

Um.....it just struck me here that apparently Mary was keen on executions. I am unfamiliar with the titles that you posted, but Elizabeth was far from saintly and both were equally culpable..

 

Yes, I totally agree! I was not saying she didn't execute anyone, but she did actually try to avoid it when possible--at least from the reading I have done. It came across to me that she did not actually want to execute Mary, Queen of Scots, as she felt very strongly about divine right of rule given by God - even to Mary as ruler of Scotland - but eventually felt she had to. (Who knows if this is ultimately true, right?)

 

I was in *no* way saying Elizabeth was free of culpability, but I don't think history implies that she was quite so vigilant at persecuting those of opposing faiths as Mary was. She has her own sins to atone for though, certainly. After reading the books I had a keen sense of sorrow for Mary and I really understood her choices more. Her life, as well as her mother's, was quite horrible. I don't think though, that I will *ever* understand why *any* person of authority felt it was OK to kill another over a difference of faith (Catholic or protestant). That was a product of the time, but one I will honestly never understand.

 

I do disagree that history cannot be presented in a manner where opposing views are understood. Understanding and agreeing are not synonymous. Intellectually I can comprehend and analyze many positions that I ultimately disagree with.

 

I see what you mean here, but I think impartiality is not always realistic when we are dealing with human authors. Every author has a point or a view they take on something they write. I think that is why it is good to get varied viewpoints on historical events/persons. It is not going to be possible to get an impartial view of Luther from either a Catholic or a protestant source! ;)

 

Now, when it comes to understanding theological positions, I will agree with you. It has taken me 15 yrs of studying to come to the theological understanding I have of Catholicism. I have never attempted (nor care to) study any other religion's theological position that intensely. B/c of that, there is no way I can ever truly objectively understand that perspective.

 

Yep, I have to agree with you here. I will not truly objectively ever understand another's theological perspective - but I think this applies to much of history too. Much of history is tied to theology and it is mighty hard to separate them sometimes. :)

 

Thanks for the dialog! I am so glad you understood the way I meant it. :)

[HRAAB]

I have Christ the King, Lord of History, but it is not a book I care to use as I don't feel it is balanced. That reminded me that I also have The Founding of Christendom by Warren Carroll. I was under the impression that Anne Carroll used her husband's research and books when writing her history books which didn't do anything to encourage my reading of it. However, maybe I'll add it to my summer reading list. I have seen a couple of Land of Our Lady books but haven't read them. I've heard of Alison Weir's books and will check our library for them. I also have van Loon's book and will look at that.

 

Thank you for your offer, Momof7. I will contact you for the list of books. My dd is a fairly strong reader, however, history isn't her favorite subject so I try to keep her interest piqued with historical fiction. (She would rather do math which leaves me scratching my head in amazement. :001_huh:) I'm looking forward to the Middle Ages - it feels like we've been stuck in the Ancients forever.

 

Janet

[clwcain]

I have Christ the King, Lord of History, but it is not a book I care to use as I don't feel it is balanced. That reminded me that I also have The Founding of Christendom by Warren Carroll. I was under the impression that Anne Carroll used her husband's research and books when writing her history books which didn't do anything to encourage my reading of it. However, maybe I'll add it to my summer reading list.

 

I had heard this, too. But, having read some of The History of Christendom I can say it strikes me as a very balanced, truly scholarly work. I have no familiarity, aside from reputation, with Anne Carroll's textbooks but I've heard the same caveats from other Catholics, and quite a few Anglo-Catholics of my acquaintance.

 

But now we're way off of the original thread.

 

I suspect there isn't a good history of the period aimed at children. Maybe I should go write one... :eek:

[Kate in Arabia]

I suspect there isn't a good history of the period aimed at children. Maybe I should go write one...

 

I think in the end it isn't going to be possible to have a truly unbiased history book, esp for children. I know I do the same that others have mentioned here when I come to the Islamic history chapters in SOTW -- make notes in the margins, and a couple I just crossed out the whole thing and did our own thing.

 

I've been working on a history book for kids and I can really appreciate the difficulty in boiling all that info down into a manageable amount for kids, and really even just getting the gist of the story straight.. I don't know enough about the variance of Christian viewpoints, but at least from the Islamic one it seems like every other book you pick up has a different "take" on things...

 

Edited to add:

 

And I have always thought that other sections in SOTW on different countries/cultures must also have their different interpretations on their own history, but I'm at a loss how to go about discovering that in a simple manner..

[8filltheheart]

My point is that there is absolutely no balance to the Protestant perspective in MFW. It might bring that view from different perspectives, but essentially that is the only side you are seeing.

[ELaurie]

an informative and civilized discussion of this topic :)

[SkateLeft]

When we read SOTW 2, I utilized articles from Catholic Answers and from Catholic Education Resource Center to provide a Catholic perspective, and skimmed over those bits in SOTW. Both websites had articles that I was able to read to my kids in lieu of those parts of SOTW.

[Philothea]

I think SOTW is a very flexible tool that can be used in a variety of ways.

 

For one thing, the activities are really fun and there are a lot of helpful suggestions.

 

For Catholic home educators, a good background in Catholic history is a very worthy pursuit of your free time-- if you intend to teach from a Catholic worldview (As I do).

 

With SOTW, I feel like the book totally ignores the history of the Church and the heroes of our Faith, but I realize that it is not coming from our point of view as Catholics so I can take it for what it is and skip or alter the parts that do not fit in with our Catholic worldview.

 

However, I do find that I have to do the same with some of the "Catholic" texts published in the last 30-40 years-- most of them stink.

 

Another big issue for us is that we DO NOT read anything on the Index, ever. So some of the texts that some curriculums want older children to read are off limits.

 

I love the Story of the Church, published by TAN (though I have a copy from the first printing by Benziger Bros.)

 

(Can you tell I majored in History? I think I could really go on for hours)

[In The Great White North]

The Index? I thought that had been abrogated? Do you have a link? What WTM/Great books were on it?

[Philothea]

That's a very complex issue-- "the abrogation." I don't want to hijack the thread or whatever else and I'd really not like to discuss our position in public :)

 

Suffice to say that our family still follows it. I cannot locate the last updated list from the 1950's, but it is out there. DH isn't here for me to ask where it is.

[clwcain]

The Index? I thought that had been abrogated? Do you have a link? What WTM/Great books were on it?

 

It has no juridical weight under Canon Law today. But many still view it as an effective guide. Essentially, you're now free, as a Catholic, to read the works on the Index without committing sin.

 

PM me if you want more information, as a thorough discussion of this isn't germane to the original post.

[*anj*]

 

PS I'm Jewish not Catholic, but I don't teach the Reformation as presented in SOTW... I know that simplification is an essential part of presenting the story of history to elementary aged kids... and that simplification will, inevitably, lead to inaccuracies.

 

I have yet to see a children's history book that doesn't have inaccuracies... some I try to correct or balance out, others I probably don't even recognize, and others I really can't without introducing more inaccuracy....

I think SWB has done an amazing job distilling so much with as much accuracy as she has - it is the best I have ever seen. ... but, yes, there are some sections I cannot/will not teach as written, and this is one of them.

 

Eliana,

I am really intrigued by what you're saying (capsulized in the part that I bolded). I did teach the Reformation as it was presented in SOTW, and I even added more to it (but obviously that's my belief system.)

Anyway, I would love to know what you did with that section. Did you skip it altogether and move along to the next chapter, or did you use other sources written from a different perspective? None of the above?

 

You know how I am, a million questions! :001_smile:

[*anj*]

 

Suffice to say that our family still follows it. I cannot locate the last updated list from the 1950's, but it is out there. DH isn't here for me to ask where it is.

 

Hi there!

I was just wondering whether or not you include Sister/Saint Faustina Kowalska's writings. She was on the list, but then she was removed, but I thought that her removal from the list came after her canonization. Which version of the list do you hold to? :)

[Guest mporcellato]

I have had to be careful at times about using the SOTW because of inaccuracies or misunderstandings about the Catholic faith. One of the things I noticed was the reference to the Catholics holding their last "service" at the Hagia Sofia in Constantinople, instead of calling it the Holy Mass, for example.

 

I can recommend 2 books for history which are true to the Catholic faith and to history, and are available through Seton. They are "Before America" and "The Old World and America". These are best used, I think from grade 3 and grade 6 on, respectively. SOTW is presented better to those in grade 1 and 2. I haven't found a history book yet that has the modern times slant of SOTW.

 

Martin Luther was not the only one who struggled with issues of the Church at the time. So did Saint Theresa of Avila, but her humility and patience saw her through. As Saint (Mother) Theresa of Calcutta said, God expects us to be faithful, not successful.

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

My two cents on how perspectives are often dropped from history texts...

 

I think that history is typically written by the maxim of "to the victors go the spoils." Historically speaking the Protestant Reformation was successful and therefore will be presented with emphasis on the "positive outcomes." In this case, at an early level little information is given about the Catholic response to the Reformation.

 

Beginning to point fingers about who persecuted whom is ultimately a circular argument. They all persecuted each other until an overwhelming majority effectively silenced the minority. You can pick your country and time period but that is generally speaking the normal path. Occasionally the minority is able to continue in the shadows or underground until it prevails/gains acceptance or they may be able to live apart from the majority.

 

When discussing England and the Tudors in particular there is much that is too complicated for younger students. It is extremely difficult to separate faith from politics during this period. For those in power the two were anything but mutually exclusive. Henry VIII is full of contradictions-he began as an ardent Catholic and Defender of the Faith and ended as a transitory figure to what would eventually become the Church of England. England at that time was full of powerful people on both sides of the issue of Reformation. Such a split continued during the reigns of all three of his children. Both sides were in turn guilty of persecuting the other. This certainly extended to the various religious groups that settled in the US and again there were colonists on both sides of the reformation and plenty of Protestants who didn't agree with each other. Economics, war, and suburban sprawl ultimately forced them to find a way to work together.

 

Unfortunately this is a period in history that is difficult to distill into simple lessons for children. Thus, the often overlooked Catholic perspective on this period. This oversight can at best only be explained as an attempt to present what was new and different at the time and what was the agent of change rather than as a defense of protestantism.

 

The beginnings of Reformation in the British Isles are a complicated subject and follow many paths beyond just those of the Tudors and the COE. The fate of all the different faiths there, including the Catholics, is an interesting topic. Much as the fate of the Greeks are dismissed as we begin to study Rome, the position of the Catholic church during the Reformation is ignored in order to present what is new. This is a trend I have noticed in both secular and faith based texts. History in the 20th century and beyond tends to focus on the agents of change and what is new rather than on the established institutions.

 

However, if I may point out one point of religious contention. While discussions of this sort are certainly valuable and useful in the understanding of history. A reminder to tread gently, those who are Anglican may find the dismissal of their faith as simply Henry's desire for male heirs a bit hurtful. This is something I often notice in discussions of the Reformation in England and while other reformers are often accorded their due respect the English are often dismissed a bit more lightly and often a bit more rudely. I say this not to dismiss any historical events (which I'm sure I generally acknowledged above) but rather to gently remind about a point I frequently notice is overlooked.

 

As I present history of this period to the kids I have found that they are beginning to notice and question such issues and I try to present a balanced answer until their eyes glaze over and then I wait for the next opportunity. This is one of the beauties of a multi-year cycle, we will revisit this issues once or twice more when their capacity for understanding is greater each time.

[Scout]

Does anyone use Connecting with History? It is from a Catholic perspective and is being published little by little.

[Cranberry]

Does anyone use Connecting with History? It is from a Catholic perspective and is being published little by little.

 

I would love to hear thoughts on this as well from someone who has used it with their children. It's so new, though that my guess is that there aren't many out there who've had time to dig into it and review it.

[HRAAB]

I would love to hear thoughts on this as well from someone who has used it with their children. It's so new, though that my guess is that there aren't many out there who've had time to dig into it and review it.

 

I originally bought it when Sonya first came out with it some time ago. It took too much leg work on my part so I didn't stick with it. I think she has samples up at her website:

 

Connecting with History

 

There are several ladies over at 4 Real Message Board that use it.

 

I also think there is a yahoo group.

 

Janet

[camibami]

Wha-huh?

 

Anyone care to enlighten this Tiber-swimmer (as of 1993) what the "Index" is? I am guessing a list of banned books-? Why banned? By whom?WHy now unbanned? Again, by whom?

 

I swear, we reverts/converts are at *such* a disadvantage with all this cultural knowledge those cradle Catholics have! I wish they had a class for that stuff- not just RCIA. Like, what a Novena is, and a Scapular, and the "index", and a zillion other things I have been stumbling across for the last 15 years and feel like a moron for needing to ask about! I've done lots of reading, but there are *always* more things I don't know. I even read "Catholicism for Dummies".:glare:

[sagira]

Nice thread. I'll be using SOTW 1 and 2 in years one and two, then going through British history, then American History (I feel British History gives a really good understanding of American History right after), and only afterwards SOTW 3 and 4 (in grades/years 5 and 6). I feel the kids will be more mature to handle some of the content of modern history. Some time when the children are older we'll be reading A Young People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn. The other side of American History. I like to provide multiple perspectives.

 

Here's my projected History track:

 

Year One: Story of the World: Ancient Times

Year Two: Story of the World: Medieval Times

Year Three: An Island Story by H.E. Marshall

Year Four: This Country of Ours by H.E. Marshall

Year Five: Story of the World: The Renaissance

Year Six: Story of the World: Modern Times

Year Seven: Landmark Egypt, Story of the Greeks and Romans by H.A. Greuber – Ancient Western Civilizations

Year Eight: Story of the Middle Ages by Greuber, France and Story of Spain

Year Nine: History of Latin America and the Caribbean

Year Ten: 20th Century History, Technology and Current Events

Year Eleven: History of the American People (both sides), Government and Presidents

Year Twelve: Story of Mankind, From Confucius to Kant: Philosophy and Ideology through Humankind’s Journey

[Cranberry]

Wha-huh?

 

Anyone care to enlighten this Tiber-swimmer (as of 1993) what the "Index" is? I am guessing a list of banned books-? Why banned? By whom?WHy now unbanned? Again, by whom?

 

 

Well I'm a "cradle Catholic" who has also done lots of reading to re-educate myself as an adult and I have never heard of this index either! No worries!

[Plaid Dad]

Here's the Wikipedia entry, and here is the (1910) Catholic Encyclopedia entry on the Index. Publication of the Index ceased in 1966 - which is why many younger Catholics have never even heard of it - and Catholics are now free to read books that appeared on the list in the past. As other posters have said, some people continue to use it as a way of identifying books that contain ideas contrary to Catholic doctrine, either so that they can read with extra care or so that they can avoid those books entirely.

[camibami]

Ah...thank you! I guess I could of, you know, Googled it, but, what fun is that?

 

Glad I'm not the only Catholic who hasn't heard of it!

 

Lists of banned books always make me want to go read them.

[Shelly in IL]

"Christ in the Americas" by the Most Rev. Philip Furlong? It is by TAN and they also have a workbook to go along with "Christ in the Americas." I just wondered what your perspective was on these - I haven't used them yet, but have been told by my more enlightened Catholic friends that they are good. Thanks.

[camibami]

Upon perusing the list, it seems I have read some of the books, in high school or college, and most before becoming a Catholic. ;)

[HFClassicalAcademy]

I would love to hear thoughts on this as well from someone who has used it with their children. It's so new, though that my guess is that there aren't many out there who've had time to dig into it and review it.

 

I actually have Connecting with History planned into our first grade history. We are going to combine it with SOTW1. I don't think the program requires too much leg work. They outline the readings for each unit, so there is no extra work there. They also outline all extra (non-core books) in the curriculum so you know what pages in what book you will be using. They have a list of all books required at their website. This is the link for their K-3 book list...it is what we are using.

 

If you are interested, I just posted our history schedule (SOTW & CWH) with readings for each, on my blog.

 

I think CWH looks awesome and I'll be posting more about it as we get to do more with it. Hope I offered some insight!!

 

Liz in NC

[Shelly in IL]

Wow, I wish I had that 2 years ago, so I could have started my history rotation with it. I am using ToG, but am going to supplement and read aloud many of the great books that this history program recommends. Thanks for pointing it out.

[TracyR]

Wow. This is a nice program. I'm surprised more Catholic families who like to use a Classical approach aren't using this.