I've noticed an anti-Catholic prejudice in many Christian materials - wondering...

[Nicole M]

what's up with that? Does this go all the way back to the Reformation? How did this evolve?

 

I really, really (or as Colleen might say, "rilly. rilly.") am not trying to stir up a religious debate. Or a debate about curriculum materials. Truly, I'm just wondering about the history of this.

 

I'm a Protestant, married to a Catholic and I did my graduate studies in theology at a Jesuit university. Every main line Protestant denomination was represented there, along with, naturally, the Catholics, and know what? It was all about love, bottom line. Serious, rigorous academic inquiry of course, but love just oozed out of that place. I had no idea there was this, what? Prejudice thing.

 

I apologize if my question is naive. If it's a hot button-pusher topic, please direct me to reading materials that would illuminate this for me.

[sdWTMer]

You can edit your title. Once you hit the edit tab, go to the advanced one and then you can fix the title.

 

As for the rest of your post, since I'm not Catholic, I don't know.

[Plucky]

I've heard this but not seen it. The few Christian materials we use haven't done that or I am not sensitive enough to it. Can you share which materials?

 

Oh, I have heard it about BJU, but we don't use it.

[GSMP]

Much of it stems from the period of the Reformation and Inquisition. The reigns of the various monarchs from Elizabeth and Mary.

 

Most of that time period was fraught with religious persecution. The vast majority of the monarchy during the 1500-1600's were educated Catholic.

 

History showed the church was intolerant of anything that swayed from the church.

 

The Catholic church had actually come out and apologized for the persecution during the bloodiest part of the history.

 

That is, I believe, where most of it stems from......

[enigma]

A Beka Book is strongly anti-Catholic, because Beka Horton (the 'Beka' in A Beka Book) is strongly anti-Catholic. Around 1993 they released a new edition of their world history book that slammed the Catholics so hard, they had to recall the book and rerelease the previous edition. They didn't know they had so many Catholic customers until then. And really, that book was so offensive, even Protestants were writing angry letters. (I happened to be working in their returns dept at the time, and had to read the angry letters.)

[Alison in KY]

Can you share why they are anti-Catholic. I have a friend who homeschools and she is sooo upset at protestants for their anti-catholic opinions. I guess I'm missing what the big deal is. Someone insinuated to me that they thought it was because Catholics worshiped false idols...I still don't agree with it, so I'm really curious.

 

Alison in KY

[Nicole M]

I've heard this but not seen it. The few Christian materials we use haven't done that or I am not sensitive enough to it. Can you share which materials?

 

Oh, I have heard it about BJU, but we don't use it.

 

I'm not at home with my books right now, but I specifically remember one line in a R & S book. There are others as well, not coming to mind. I usually edit as I read aloud, however.

 

I can point you to a review on Amazon of Augustine the Farmers Boy of Tagaste and the review states:

 

The most blatant remark comes at the end. On page 93 the author states, "We are grateful to the Lord for giving the church a man like Augustine. It is regrettable that after his death the church was corrupted and became Roman Catholic."

 

I have not read that book myself (just found out about it yesterday on this board), but I have seen the title on many lists for homeschoolers. I could point you to other examples in texts, but, again, I'm not at home. And really, I was just curious about how our vision of the Catholic church has evolved to the point where many writers seem to be operating from the perspective that the Catholic Church is "bad". I mean, there's the obvious Reformation thing, but I have not witnessed outright prejudice in main line Protestent communities. Does that make sense, what I'm asking?

[clwcain]

Nicole, when and where you did your graduate studies makes all the difference.

 

The very nutshell summary is that between the outbreak of the Reformation and the advent of Vatican II Catholics and non-Catholic Christians relations swung back and forth between open hostility with real warfare and the kind of detente that the US & Soviet Union "enjoyed" in the 1960s and 1970s.

 

The Treaty of Westphalia put an end to some of the open warfare, but the combat was carried on, particularly in theological polemic.

 

With Vatican II and it's aftermath, although this impulse started after the Nazi devastation of Eurpoe in WW2, there was a move by all parties to tone down the rhetoric of the polemic, see where we agreed, and try to figure out how we were all going to get back together again.

 

The problem with the above impulse, no matter how noble it may sound, and the problem with the "All You Need Is Love" attitude conveyed by the Jebbies who provided your graduate education, is that it ignores some very essential facts about the nature of truth and heresy.

 

Some of the Evangelical reaction in the US has been to dig in, just as some Traditionalist Catholics have dug in, emphasizing the differences or incompatibilities in the various theological camps. Others have erred in the opposite direction, insisting that if we all just love one another, and agree to get along, we'll realize that our differences are the result of human pride and weakness.

 

I agree that they're the result of pride and weakness. That doesn't make them any less difficult or true.

 

Let me know if I'm being unclear, or if you'd like some examples.

[Nicole M]

You can edit your title. Once you hit the edit tab, go to the advanced one and then you can fix the title.

 

As for the rest of your post, since I'm not Catholic, I don't know.

 

Thanks! I did it.:001_smile:

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

I think the clue is in the word "protestant."

 

Historically, protestants, protested against the Catholic church. Protesting became part of who they were. Antipathy to Catholicism is part of the tradition and heritage of many denominations. Some may be trying to move away from it, but old habits die hard.

[C_l_e_0..Q_c]

As a Catholic, I've seen this bias often enough. On top of that I'm French speaking, and I'm also seeing a bias against French in many English books. I guess the 100 Years War isn't over yet... :001_huh:

 

Makes it hard to find anything suitable.

 

And as if that wasn't enough, there's also a bias in many Christian resources against evolutionists.

 

But there are no French resources at all. So we have to make do and discuss those issues with the kiddos.

[clwcain]

As a Catholic, I've seen this bias often enough. On top of that I'm French speaking, and I'm also seeing a bias against French in many English books. I guess the 100 Years War isn't over yet... :001_huh:

 

Makes it hard to find anything suitable.

 

And as if that wasn't enough, there's also a bias in many Christian resources against evolutionists.

 

But there are no French resources at all. So we have to make do and discuss those issues with the kiddos.

 

So we need to put together a French Catholic science text. :D

[Nicole M]

The problem with the above impulse, no matter how noble it may sound, and the problem with the "All You Need Is Love" attitude conveyed by the Jebbies who provided your graduate education, is that it ignores some very essential facts about the nature of truth and heresy.

 

 

Thank you. I would like to respond to this, but have an appointment. But briefly, let me stress that among individuals there was strong disagreement about many, many theological issues. But love and civility always won the day. The primary goal of this program was to educate ministers, not theologians, to give persons very strong pastoral helping skills. (Much needed, given the abuse among clergy of all flavors.) And the program did it's job very well on that front.

[Nicole M]

I think the clue is in the word "protestant."

 

Historically, protestants, protested against the Catholic church. Protesting became part of who they were. Antipathy to Catholicism is part of the tradition and heritage of many denominations. Some may be trying to move away from it, but old habits die hard.

 

My hunch is that there is a new flavor of prejudice held and perpetuated by the evangelicals, but really, I don't know that for sure. So I'm looking to you folks who know more about this than I do.

[PariSarah]

what's up with that? Does this go all the way back to the Reformation? How did this evolve?

 

. . . as well as how . . . uh, distinctive? the Jesuit perspective on Catholicism is.

 

Before Vatican II, the RCC did not admit that Protestants could be saved at all, and Protestants felt pretty much the same in return. Yes, that goes back to the Reformation, at which time the mutual excommunication approach was established. "You've left the One True Church!" "Yeah, well, you're idolators and legalists!"

 

The fact that you were educated in a manner that accepted Protestantism as at least partially Christian has everything to do with the changes that occurred at Vatican II, and since. Now, the RCC recognizes that Protestants can be saved, even if they maintain their firm stance that full communion with the RCC is the fullest Christian life. And Protestants are starting a slow thaw towards the RCC, especially (and astonishingly) in evangelical circles, where there is a great deal of respect for JPII's consistent pro-life ethic. They still reserve the right to tsk! tsk! over a few things, but they're starting to be willing to admit that RCCs are not all going to Hell.

 

It'll probably take a few more decades before curricula writers find anti-Catholic arguments to be less urgent and compelling than before, assuming that the present detente continues. Even though many churches have recognized some problems with the way things shook down in the Reformation and Counter-Reformation, their self-identity still depends, in part, on positioning themselves against each other. That need may diminish some after a few decades of relative warming.

[Laurie]

[

 

It was all about love, bottom line. Serious, rigorous academic inquiry of course, but love just oozed out of that place. I had no idea there was this, what? Prejudice thing.

 

.

 

Could you give an example? I'm not sure what you're objecting to in curriculum materials. I wouldn't call it prejudice if people are defending their beliefs and refusing to water down their curriculum so that they don't offend someone. I guess I just don't see how a Protestant-based curriculum could ooze love about the Catholic church, but I don't think that means they're Catholic-bashing either.

 

I used to teach in a Catholic school. I still get mad when I think of the woman who was checking out schools for her child. She wasn't Catholic and when she saw the books I had on display she had the nerve to start complaining to me about the religious ed. materials we were using because they were from a Catholic perspective! I told her that this a private Catholic school where we are free to teach the Catholic faith and not a comparative religion course.

 

I would feel the exact same way about a Catholic person going into a Protestant religious school and complaining about their religious ed. materials.

 

I just think we have to be careful about our expectations and also what we call "prejudice" so I'll be interested in hearing more!

 

**P.S. When I started typing there hadn't been any responses yet. I'm sure thinking about deleting this now that I've read the responses from the smart (and speedy) folks!

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

Much of it stems from the period of the Reformation and Inquisition. The reigns of the various monarchs from Elizabeth and Mary.

 

Most of that time period was fraught with religious persecution. The vast majority of the monarchy during the 1500-1600's were educated Catholic.

 

History showed the church was intolerant of anything that swayed from the church.

 

The Catholic church had actually come out and apologized for the persecution during the bloodiest part of the history.

 

That is, I believe, where most of it stems from......

 

Sorry, but I beg to differ. In this case I think the Brits are not central to the issue. I believe that most of the origins of the relevant protestant movements in the US lie in mainland Europe. There was certainly plenty of disagreement and persecution involved there as well.

 

I have noticed that many religious homeschool publishers have a particular religious bent that reflects a greater set of beliefs. Those beliefs involve a denial that several recognized branches of Christianity are actually Christians. Thus Catholics, Anglicans, and others are considered outside the flock. I can only assume that this is the publishers attempting to present a worldview in line with who they believe to be their consumer base. As to the exact origins of this I am unsure, hopefully someone else will have more information.

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

My hunch is that there is a new flavor of prejudice held and perpetuated by the evangelicals, but really, I don't know that for sure. So I'm looking to you folks who know more about this than I do.

 

Nah, I'm pretty sure it's the same old flavor. This country has a long history of anti-catholic sentiment. It's not something you see much of in mainstream history books.

 

The Ku Klux Klan didn't only persecute racial minorities, but religious as well. There was a big outcry in this country when Kennedy ran for president, because of his catholicism. There are other examples, but those came to mind first.

[enigma]

First, a disclaimer: what I'm about to explain does not in any way reflect my own belief. I'm merely reporting what I heard and saw there.

 

A Beka Book is owned and operated by Pensacola Christian College. PCC describes itself as non-denominational, fundamentalist, and "Baptistic" - not truly Baptist, but generally agreeing with fundamental Baptist doctrine. I heard the false idols opinion in church growing up, but I don't remember if PCC teaches that as well. They do, however, teach that Catholicism requires a "works salvation" - that you have to earn your way into heaven. Beka Horton defines this as legalism. By the way, Beka's husband, Arlin Horton, is the founder and president of Pensacola Christian College.

 

PCC is actually quite isolationist in their policies. They disaprove of any denomination, any teaching, and any Christian ministry that does not perfectly agree with itself on every point. They're also not thrilled about homeschooling. They think that education should only be conducted by trained Christian teachers. They refused to sell to homeschoolers for years, until they realized how much money they were losing to Bob Jones Press.

 

And for the record, I left my job there of my own accord, becuase my life was going a different direction. I'm not a disgruntled former employee being vengeful.

[Parrothead]

This is just my opinion so take it for what it is worth.

 

As for why some textbooks display a blatant anti-Catholic perspective IMHO it is because the textbook writers sincerely believe the teachings of the Church are wrong and want to convince even the youngest of their flock that they would do well to not only stay away from the Church, but learn how to denounce it as well.

 

And I'm pretty sure that works the other way as well. Not that I've seen any but I don't use too many Catholic texts. Yes, I'm a bad, bad Catholic school administrator.

[Erica in PA]

Could you give an example? I'm not sure what you're objecting to in curriculum materials. I wouldn't call it prejudice if people are defending their beliefs and refusing to water down their curriculum so that they don't offend someone.

I just think we have to be careful about our expectations and also what we call "prejudice" so I'll be interested in hearing more!

 

Yes, this is what I was thinking when I read the OP too. There is a big difference between thinking a religious group is off the mark theologically, and being hateful toward them. Sort of reminds me of the issue of homosexuality-- one can oppose homosexuality as being *wrong,* contrary to Scripture, while still being kind and loving toward those who practice it. But in today's society of multipluralism, even that would still be considered hateful, unless you are willing to say that we are all right in our own way.

 

I have heard many evangelicals speak out against the Catholic church, but I can't recall it ever turning hateful.

 

Erica

[C_l_e_0..Q_c]

I guess I just don't see how a Protestant-based curriculum could ooze love about the Catholic church, but I don't think that means they're Catholic-bashing either.

 

I'm not expecting *love* from my curricula choices :) But I do expect my beliefs won't be attacked viciously either, especially in a science book! Apologia General Science does that when it talks about Galileo. I don't have the text next to me but there were some editorial comments against the RCC that were not needed, nor were they welcome in my household. It's enough that we won't be continuing with Apologia in the later years.

[clwcain]

. . . as well as how . . . uh, distinctive? the Jesuit perspective on Catholicism is.

 

Before Vatican II, the RCC did not admit that Protestants could be saved at all,

 

Nonsense.

 

That they (Protestants) believed in heresy and supported schism didn't render them unsaved. They were still Christians. They were simply impaired in their access to grace through adherence to the particular heresy or schism in question. That makes achieving the work of salvation much harder.

 

This is still, even post V2, official doctrine.

 

What changed at V2 was the packaging and the attitude, not the teaching. Despite the best efforts of Jesuits and others to teach us otherwise.

[C_l_e_0..Q_c]

So we need to put together a French Catholic science text. :D

 

yeah pretty much! LOL!

 

If it's French, it's secular.

If it's Catholic, it's English. (maybe we should all go back to Latin? )

If it's Christian, it's English *and* anti-Catholic, and probably Young Earth although not necessarily..

 

I feel like an odd-ball at times! :lol:

[Michelle in MO]

It'll probably take a few more decades before curricula writers find anti-Catholic arguments to be less urgent and compelling than before, assuming that the present detente continues. Even though many churches have recognized some problems with the way things shook down in the Reformation and Counter-Reformation, their self-identity still depends, in part, on positioning themselves against each other. That need may diminish some after a few decades of relative warming.

 

We live in an area where quite a bit of anti-Catholic bias exists. Unfortunately, I know some people who still don't believe Catholics are Christians. It's funny; I'm a Protestant, but I find this attitude to be very disturbing and I take pains to correct some misconceptions, at least the ones I'm aware of, when the opportunity presents itself.

 

We won't be official homeschoolers next year, as I will be returning to grad. school. This change in our thinking started last fall after dh suffered some health problems and we realized I needed to return to school, just in case. After researching our school system, dh and I decided on a Catholic school which is a 30-min. drive from our house. We feel it's the best environment for the kids academically and otherwise. Some of my Protestant friends are praying for our souls! :Angel_anim:

[clwcain]

Thank you. I would like to respond to this, but have an appointment. But briefly, let me stress that among individuals there was strong disagreement about many, many theological issues. But love and civility always won the day. The primary goal of this program was to educate ministers, not theologians, to give persons very strong pastoral helping skills. (Much needed, given the abuse among clergy of all flavors.) And the program did it's job very well on that front.

 

The false dichotomy between pastoral application and good theology is one of the problems I see. The two are inseparable in a healthy, accurate, and complete Christian worldview.

[laylamcb]

They were simply impaired in their access to grace through adherence to the particular heresy or schism in question.

 

Hey! I resemble that remark. ;)

[clwcain]

yeah pretty much! LOL!

 

If it's French, it's secular.

If it's Catholic, it's English. (maybe we should all go back to Latin? )

If it's Christian, it's English *and* anti-Catholic, and probably Young Earth although not necessarily..

 

I feel like an odd-ball at times! :lol:

 

Oh, come now. I know a few French Catholics. They're all Traddy Restorationists, but there's nothing inherently secular about France, unless you accept that 1789 was a good thing. :D

 

Me, I don't.

[C_l_e_0..Q_c]

Oh, come now. I know a few French Catholics.

 

I'm talking curriculum here. Specifically homeschooling curriculum. I happen to know French Catholics too. We are French Catholics! LOL. So's my entire church! And some even homeschool. But put 1. homeschool, 2. Catholic, 3 French into the same bag, and you pretty much get an empty bag. Oh, and let's not forget evolutonists, old Earth approach to science too...

[Laurie]

I'm not expecting *love* from my curricula choices :) But I do expect my beliefs won't be attacked viciously either, especially in a science book! Apologia General Science does that when it talks about Galileo. I don't have the text next to me but there were some editorial comments against the RCC that were not needed, nor were they welcome in my household. It's enough that we won't be continuing with Apologia in the later years.

 

I just read the section about Galileo (page 22-23) because I'm truly interested in some examples of what people find inappropriate. I'm really not sure what editorial comments you're referring to that are anti-Catholic here, but I'm glad there are other choice available to you that you would be more comfortable using in your home.

[Gretchen in NJ]

Nah, I'm pretty sure it's the same old flavor. This country has a long history of anti-catholic sentiment. It's not something you see much of in mainstream history books.

 

The Ku Klux Klan didn't only persecute racial minorities, but religious as well. There was a big outcry in this country when Kennedy ran for president, because of his catholicism. There are other examples, but those came to mind first.

 

Yes, I have heard of this too. My great uncle used to talk about it any chance he could get.

I am shocked to say that I did not realize that this was still happenning here in the US. Only after that I have become a homeschooler was I exposed to this anti-Catholic bias.

[Kris]

Thanks to everyone who answered my question.

[Spy Car]

I find it very disturbing that publishers of "educational" materials would include material designed to fan the flames of sectarianism and religious hatred.

 

This saddens (and angers) me deeply.

 

Bill

[Renee in NC]

I just read the section about Galileo (page 22-23) because I'm truly interested in some examples of what people find inappropriate. I'm really not sure what editorial comments you're referring to that are anti-Catholic here, but I'm glad there are other choice available to you that you would be more comfortable using in your home.

 

I imagine that it is hard as a Protestant to see anti-Catholic bias because of how entrenched it is. (I am a fundamentalist Baptist convert TO Catholicism.) I think maybe the difference is in what we see as fact - is the information passed on here factual or rather a Protestant interpretation of the situation?

 

http://www.catholic.com/library/galileo_controversy.asp

 

Another place I see in Christian curriculums as being overlooked (moreso than anti-Catholic) is in the "first settlements of America." The Catholic settlement of St. Augustine was founded 42 years before Jamestown and 55 years before the Pilgrims, yet most Christian curriculums focus on the Pilgrims.

[clwcain]

I find it very disturbing that publishers of "educational" materials would include material designed to fan the flames of sectarianism and religious hatred.

 

This saddens (and angers) me deeply.

 

Bill

 

Bill,

 

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "fan the flames of sectarianism and religious hatred".

 

There are certainly publishers who do, but I doubt seriously it is out of malice.

 

For those of us who take these things seriously, and believe that what our church teaches is the Truth, there can be no compromise. Stating that clearly doesn't seem, to me, problematic. I agree that one can do so with inflammatory rhetoric, but I suspect (perhaps wrongly) that you're angered and saddened by more than the rhetoric.

 

If the Jews are right, all Christians are wrong.

If the Orthodox are right, all non-Orthodox Christians and all Jews are wrong.

If atheists are right, all theists are wrong.

 

Most world views are mutually exclusive. So what am I missing?

[clwcain]

I imagine that it is hard as a Protestant to see anti-Catholic bias because of how entrenched it is. (I am a fundamentalist Baptist convert TO Catholicism.) I think maybe the difference is in what we see as fact - is the information passed on here factual or rather a Protestant interpretation of the situation?

 

http://www.catholic.com/library/galileo_controversy.asp

 

Another place I see in Christian curriculums as being overlooked (moreso than anti-Catholic) is in the "first settlements of America." The Catholic settlement of St. Augustine was founded 42 years before Jamestown and 55 years before the Pilgrims, yet most Christian curriculums focus on the Pilgrims.

 

And the real First Thanksgiving had nothing to do with Pilgrims. It was the Holy Sacrifice celebrated in St. Aug.

[Nicole M]

The false dichotomy between pastoral application and good theology is one of the problems I see. The two are inseparable in a healthy, accurate, and complete Christian worldview.

 

There was no dichotomy at the Jesuit school I attended. Though I did see that very clearly at the United Methodist seminary where I started my studies (I transferred to Jebbie land). So I know what you're talking about with the dichotomy thing.

 

Are you opposed to the very idea that a healthy and vibrant, truly ecumenical educational comminity is possible? What? I sense a little bit of hostility, or maybe condescension, from you. Am I misreading?

[Renee in NC]

And the real First Thanksgiving had nothing to do with Pilgrims. It was the Holy Sacrifice celebrated in St. Aug.

 

AMEN. And I have been to the altar at the mission grounds and it is an amazing thing! Even just reading the tombstones in the cemetary is a history lesson.

[clwcain]

The only purpose of real oecumenical dialogue is reunion of our separated brethren under the Supreme Pontiff so that the Church may be unified.

 

Most of what passes for oecumenical dialogue is no different than the meetings I go to at work. In my experience, all parties are either talking past each other or working very hard to ignore real differences in favor of creating a false impression of unity.

 

ETA: I'm being honest in response to Nicole's question about my hostility towards oecumenical dialogue. If you find the foregoing needlessly inflammatory, please accept my apology and ignore this post.

[WTMCassandra]

I'm sorry you and Cleo have encountered this.

 

I just want to go on record that while there are certain areas where I disagree theologically with the Catholic Church, I am most emphatically NOT a Catholic basher. I have known some devout Catholics that I respect greatly whose lives clearly show their faith. I also enjoy going to Catholic retreat centers for individual retreats. I have learned to appreciate what the Catholic faith brings to the table in many ways over my adult life.

 

And when I hear Protestants Catholic-bashing, I tell them that I don't think the Catholic Church has a monopoly on unsaved people sitting in pews. I think there are many, many Protestants sitting in pews who are not really saved. ; ) This usually quiets them down.

[Nicole M]

Could you give an example? I'm not sure what you're objecting to in curriculum materials. I wouldn't call it prejudice if people are defending their beliefs and refusing to water down their curriculum so that they don't offend someone. I guess I just don't see how a Protestant-based curriculum could ooze love about the Catholic church, but I don't think that means they're Catholic-bashing either.

 

 

Oh, dear. I was not at all clear, since several of you read the same thing, which is not what I intended. I meant that the persons involved in the graduate program took seriously the loving your neighbor business. They were the ones who oozed love, not the curriculum.

[Nicole M]

The only purpose of real oecumenical dialogue is reunion of our separated brethren under the Supreme Pontiff so that the Church may be unified.

 

Most of what passes for oecumenical dialogue is no different than the meetings I go to at work. In my experience, all parties are either talking past each other or working very hard to ignore real differences in favor of creating a false impression of unity.

 

ETA: I'm being honest in response to Nicole's question about my hostility towards oecumenical dialogue. If you find the foregoing needlessly inflammatory, please accept my apology and ignore this post.

 

I see now. That has not been my experience.

 

That university was the only place I felt truly at home, and I miss being there, so I am sensitive about it. I'm sorry you have not experienced what that place had to offer. I was there only for a short time in the early 90s and the program has changed, so who knows?

[PariSarah]

The only purpose of real oecumenical dialogue is reunion of our separated brethren under the Supreme Pontiff so that the Church may be unified.

 

Most of what passes for oecumenical dialogue is no different than the meetings I go to at work. In my experience, all parties are either talking past each other or working very hard to ignore real differences in favor of creating a false impression of unity.

 

. . . and I think you're right to be suspicious of the poor substitute for dialogue that tends to go on these days. (I almost vomit every time I hear "Doctrine Divides, Service Unites!")

 

I think, though, that there are some very interesting convergences between Catholics and Protestants that have been worth pursuing.

 

Are you aware of the Taize community at all? I don't know how Benedict feels about it, but JPII held it in highest respect.

[clwcain]

Oh, dear. I was not at all clear, since several of you read the same thing, which is not what I intended. I meant that the persons involved in the graduate program took seriously the loving your neighbor business. They were the ones who oozed love, not the curriculum.

 

Nicole,

 

I, too, misunderstood your original post on the matter. And, upon reflection, I may have misunderstood what you meant by "oozing" "love".

 

FWIW, the curriculum I had as a child and youth in the post-V2 era really did ooze John Lennon's "Imagine" and "All You Need Is Love". And, yes, those were really played at Mass. I freely admit I'm still angry about the pot of message that was sold to me as my birthright. Nothing like singing, "Imagine no religion" at an obligatory religious function to turn a person into an angry, 9 year old atheist. But that's running down a rabbit hole.

 

But, if love is self-sacrificial, as Christ demonstrates by reigning from the Cross, getting along isn't loving. In fact, it can be a sign of despair. To love is to will the best for someone.

 

This is why I, unapologetically, will and pray that all become subject to the Roman Pontiff. I realize that may upset some people. I try not to be an @$$-hole about it (easier on some days than others). But if I love my neighbor, then I must desire what is best for them whether it makes them happy or not.

[clwcain]

Are you aware of the Taize community at all? I don't know how Benedict feels about it, but JPII held it in highest respect.

 

I am aware of them. I don't care for their music, but I know that Frere Roget was good friends with Pope Ratzinger, especially in before the latter's election and the former's untimely murder.

 

I don't really have an opinion on the community. Above my pay grade, so to say.

 

If it bears good fruit, and moves the members and affiliates towards union with God through His One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church then I applaud it.

 

But I'll freely concede that oecumenical dialogue is not something I'm called to by the Lord, so I tend to be blunt, direct, and (hopefully) brief.

 

The closest I've gotten to real oecumenical dialogue is some very fruitful discussions with a few very well educated Presbyterians and some similarly-educated American Anglo-Catholics. All involved have learned a great deal from each other, but there has also been no attempt to soft peddle the genuine differences in ecclesiology that underscore the theological chasm.

[Laura K (NC)]

When my oldest was in 8th grade I picked out the Rod & Staff American history book. I thought that was an innocuous program that would give just the facts. On the contrary, it presented French and Spanish missionaries in a terribly negative light, as if they were only there to exploit the natives.

 

To be fair, I wasn't entirely happy with a Catholic text I saw either, which would lead a student to believe that the missionaries and explorers were all sweetness and light who brought only good and God to the natives.

 

Both of these views are biased. I expect bias in history books and know very few texts that I don't have to also provide a supplement to give the other guys' perspective. I was surprised, though, that R&S was culpable, since we had loved their English so much and appreciated its decided lack of proselytizing. There is a bit of bad blood in the history between the Mennonites and the Catholics, and old disagreements are hard to set aside.

 

I have seen anti-Catholic bias, more or less subtle, in some historical fiction. I haven't used A Beka for history, but I love their science even at the high school level. Their math books (math books!) had some theology I didn't agree with even at the 4th grade level, but that wasn't anti-Catholic.

 

There are definitely anti-Catholic books and materials out there. I expect a Baptist or a Presbyterian or Mennonite publisher to promote their own theology, and even in history texts to have a bias about one theology being "good" and the historical opponent represented as "bad." When it starts getting personal, when the Pope is called Antichrist, and modern Rome still called the Babylon, then it isn't really history anymore, but baseless inherited polemic. As a Catholic I agree with PariSarah that before Vat II there was absolutely a sense that Catholics were saved and all others were not (quoting Unam Sanctam, though out of context). Finally Vat. II corrected the error. Even though it taught no new doctrine, it did clarify the Church's official teaching. What the local priests and parents taught their children about the Protestants in the 50's was definitely polemic, and it was not true. I don't think this excused the Protestants from feeling the same way; it was just the way things were. The initiative of Rome in the 60's to reach out to the whole world was desperately needed. The Holy Spirit knew what He was doing. :)

[Laura K (NC)]

Henri de Lubac and other significant Jesuit theologians were experts appointed to the pre-conciliar preparations. Of course, de Lubac was shocked at the misinterpretation of the Council in the 70's, unlike some of his Jesuit brethren who were some of the chief perpetrators of the mess.

 

It was a revelation to me this year to understand that the Jesuits do not speak with the same overmind, as was the design of their founder. The Jesuit creativity enables a wide variety of religious expression, some of it exquisite (Gerard Manley Hopkins) and some of it deplorable, like their acceptance and promotion of homosexuality and abortion.

 

A great blog that shows the Jesuits in a fairly balanced way is Good Jesuit, Bad Jesuit. I continue to be fascinated with them and their long history and their impact on the world's impression of the Catholic Church.

[clwcain]

As a Catholic I agree with PariSarah that before Vat II there was absolutely a sense that Catholics were saved and all else were ****ed (quoting Unam Sanctam, though out of context). Finally Vat. II corrected the error.

 

This is patently, demonstrably, untrue. Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is still valid doctrine. The Church, if she is who she claims to be is incapable of teaching error. It's not possible for there to be an error that V2 corrected, especially when V2, by it's own definition of itself, defined no doctrine.

 

Otherwise, I agree with your post, Laura K (NC).

 

The problem with textbooks is that in a postmodern world what we have are not scholar writing history but flaks writing propaganda. And the reason I rejected most of the Catholic versions of the "boxed" curriculum is that it was filled with pro-Catholic propaganda.

 

I can teach the truth of the Faith without some ninny telling me it was better, or worse, than it was.

 

Support the Faith, or oppose it. But don't sell me propaganda and call it history.

[Gretchen in NJ]

Support the Faith, or oppose it. But don't sell me propaganda and call it history.

 

Now, that is a statement worthy of being in a signature!:D

[Laura K (NC)]

This is patently, demonstrably, untrue. Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is still valid doctrine. The Church, if she is who she claims to be is incapable of teaching error. It's not possible for there to be an error that V2 corrected, especially when V2, by it's own definition of itself, defined no doctrine.[/i]

 

I didn't say the Church erred. It cannot. I said Catholics within the Church erred, which is more probable than not. :) Unam Sanctam is taken out of context when it is applied to a personal condemnation rather than a political condemnation. It was written in response to Philip the Fair's antics, not a bunch of renegade Protestants.

 

The definition of "Church" in the Vat. II documents is clear, and it is unclear. You can't be in the Church and then reject Her personally, or else you're in big trouble. But if you are born into schism, you still have a good chance of salvation outside what the Church claims as the "fullness of truth." This is where the Vat. II documents get hard to understand. Unitatis Redintegratio says the Church is "God's only flock," and that "through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help towards salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained." But then there is a problem when the Mystici Corpus Christi is considered, which allows for all baptised Christians to salvation and imperfect communion in the Church (para. 3) (and Lumen Gentium para. 49). And then there's the different "kinds" of baptism, including the "baptism of desire." The Church says that though God initiated the sacraments out of man's need for them, He isn't confined to the sacraments. Even those who have not heard of Christ or His Church (L.G. 16) can claim heaven. The Church is hard to define, even with the clarifications of Vat. II. It isn't so cut and dried. And even this radical ecumenism is a divisive point among modern Christians, who interpret LG especially as universalism, negating the salvific work of Christ. The Church is a sacrament, and thus it is by definition a mystery. We cannot say with certainty where Her limits are.