Bp W column, 7.4.09
(07-06-2009, 01:19 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote:
(07-06-2009, 12:49 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: So you think that what I quoted from Divini Illius Magistri is a matter of discipline and subject to change or abrogation?

You tell me. Most Catholic grade schools practiced coeducation even when my grandmother went to school. The genders were mixed when my mom went to Catholic school in the 30s and 40s, same with me when I went in the 60s. But we continue to have separate gym classes and most Catholic high schools do not mix boys and girls. Of course precautions should be taken regarding modesty and adolescents. The Pope's encyclical stems from the Church's teaching on the differences of the sexes and public modesty. But whether those values can be achieved with or without coeducation is subject to change. Yes.

- Lisa 

This sounds like an exposition of principle to me:

"Divini Illius Magistri" Wrote:"False also and harmful to Christian education is the so-called method of "coeducation." This too, by many of its supporters, is founded upon naturalism and the denial of original sin; but by all, upon a deplorable confusion of ideas that mistakes a leveling promiscuity and equality, for the legitimate association of the sexes. The Creator has ordained and disposed perfect union of the sexes only in matrimony, and, with varying degrees of contact, in the family and in society. Besides there is not in nature itself, which fashions the two quite different in organism, in temperament, in abilities, anything to suggest that there can be or ought to be promiscuity, and much less equality, in the training of the two sexes."

This does not mean that a school cannot have both male and female for a variety of practical reasons. It means it is not to be preferred or be the norm as it is based on false principles. Do you think that coeducation today is based on solely practical reasons?
Reply
(07-06-2009, 01:32 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(07-06-2009, 01:19 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote:
(07-06-2009, 12:49 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: So you think that what I quoted from Divini Illius Magistri is a matter of discipline and subject to change or abrogation?

You tell me. Most Catholic grade schools practiced coeducation even when my grandmother went to school. The genders were mixed when my mom went to Catholic school in the 30s and 40s, same with me when I went in the 60s. But we continue to have separate gym classes and most Catholic high schools do not mix boys and girls. Of course precautions should be taken regarding modesty and adolescents. The Pope's encyclical stems from the Church's teaching on the differences of the sexes and public modesty. But whether those values can be achieved with or without coeducation is subject to change. Yes.

- Lisa 

This sounds like an exposition of principle to me:

"Divini Illius Magistri" Wrote:"False also and harmful to Christian education is the so-called method of "coeducation." This too, by many of its supporters, is founded upon naturalism and the denial of original sin; but by all, upon a deplorable confusion of ideas that mistakes a leveling promiscuity and equality, for the legitimate association of the sexes. The Creator has ordained and disposed perfect union of the sexes only in matrimony, and, with varying degrees of contact, in the family and in society. Besides there is not in nature itself, which fashions the two quite different in organism, in temperament, in abilities, anything to suggest that there can be or ought to be promiscuity, and much less equality, in the training of the two sexes."

This does not mean that a school cannot have both male and female for a variety of practical reasons. It means it is not to be preferred or be the norm as it is based on false principles. Do you think that coeducation today is based on solely practical reasons?

Yes, mostly, but coeducation has always been done for practical reasons. What we’re facing in the modern world is the education of poor and working-class Catholics. Before the days of John Bosco and Elizabeth Ann Seton, the “unwashed masses” rarely received a formal education anyway. 

In my grandmother’s day they not only had boys and girls huddled together in one class, but kids of various ages and grade levels. There were only a few classrooms and the schoolhouse was small.

In my day, parochial schools were plenty and classrooms were bursting at the seams with approx. 40 students per class. The “ideal” might be a world where Catholics can afford private academies, one for boys, one for girls, catering to 10 pupils per class. But that will never be the reality for millions of Catholics.

- Lisa
Reply
(07-06-2009, 01:57 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote:
(07-06-2009, 01:32 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(07-06-2009, 01:19 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote:
(07-06-2009, 12:49 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: So you think that what I quoted from Divini Illius Magistri is a matter of discipline and subject to change or abrogation?

You tell me. Most Catholic grade schools practiced coeducation even when my grandmother went to school. The genders were mixed when my mom went to Catholic school in the 30s and 40s, same with me when I went in the 60s. But we continue to have separate gym classes and most Catholic high schools do not mix boys and girls. Of course precautions should be taken regarding modesty and adolescents. The Pope's encyclical stems from the Church's teaching on the differences of the sexes and public modesty. But whether those values can be achieved with or without coeducation is subject to change. Yes.

- Lisa 

This sounds like an exposition of principle to me:

"Divini Illius Magistri" Wrote:"False also and harmful to Christian education is the so-called method of "coeducation." This too, by many of its supporters, is founded upon naturalism and the denial of original sin; but by all, upon a deplorable confusion of ideas that mistakes a leveling promiscuity and equality, for the legitimate association of the sexes. The Creator has ordained and disposed perfect union of the sexes only in matrimony, and, with varying degrees of contact, in the family and in society. Besides there is not in nature itself, which fashions the two quite different in organism, in temperament, in abilities, anything to suggest that there can be or ought to be promiscuity, and much less equality, in the training of the two sexes."

This does not mean that a school cannot have both male and female for a variety of practical reasons. It means it is not to be preferred or be the norm as it is based on false principles. Do you think that coeducation today is based on solely practical reasons?

Yes, mostly, but coeducation has always been done for practical reasons. What we’re facing in the modern world is the education of poor and working-class Catholics. Before the days of John Bosco and Elizabeth Ann Seton, the “unwashed masses” rarely received a formal education anyway. 

In my grandmother’s day they not only had boys and girls huddled together in one class, but kids of various ages and grade levels. There were only a few classrooms and the schoolhouse was small.

In my day, parochial schools were plenty and classrooms were bursting at the seams with approx. 40 students per class. The “ideal” might be a world where Catholics can afford private academies, one for boys, one for girls, catering to 10 pupils per class. But that will never be the reality for millions of Catholics.

- Lisa

Today, these segregated schools have all but been completely eliminated. Do you believe that was done for practical reasons? Or was coeducation adopted as a principle?
Reply
deleted due to double posting.
Reply
(07-06-2009, 02:38 PM)orate Wrote:
(07-06-2009, 12:08 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: I'm all for modesty. I'm all for marriage and children, woman's highest calling (I'm a mother and grandmother myself). And for the record I hate athletics. And I'm not really a pom-pom-pro-warrior pagan. I just like to ruffle a few feathers from time to time.

And I am certainly a strict Catholic girl. I know the difference between dogma and discipline - between Tradition with a big "T" and tradition with a small "t". There are attitudes and norms in society, culture, liturgy, that are subject to change. And then there is Church dogma which never changes. And I don't confuse the two. So yes I'm strict in the strictest sense of the word.

Hear! Hear!  +1 Lisa


Again we are wasting 9 pages on the opinion of one man who happens to be a bishop.

I've always found +Williamson to be excellent in his knowledge of the Faith and quite a tremendous speaker when he sticks to the things of the Faith.

And even though it pains me to say this, I find myself agreeing with didi on this particular topic--which is not a dogma of the Faith.

+Williamson's opinion on this one is way out in left field.

As Bishop Fellay has said, these opinions are not what is important.  They only serve to obscure the true dogmas of the Faith,

and the restoration of the Catholic Church.
Reply
(07-06-2009, 02:29 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: Today, these segregated schools have all but been completely eliminated. Do you believe that was done for practical reasons? Or was coeducation adopted as a principle?

If by "practical reasons" you mean simply unaffordable – I would say yes. Many Catholics are having a hard enough time meeting the high cost of parochial schools these days much less private schools. Has coeducation been the standard? Yes. But I don’t think there’s a scheme to mingle the sexes in an attempt to undermine morals. 

- Lisa
Reply
(07-06-2009, 02:38 PM)orate Wrote:
(07-06-2009, 12:08 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: I'm all for modesty. I'm all for marriage and children, woman's highest calling (I'm a mother and grandmother myself). And for the record I hate athletics. And I'm not really a pom-pom-pro-warrior pagan. I just like to ruffle a few feathers from time to time.

And I am certainly a strict Catholic girl. I know the difference between dogma and discipline - between Tradition with a big "T" and tradition with a small "t". There are attitudes and norms in society, culture, liturgy, that are subject to change. And then there is Church dogma which never changes. And I don't confuse the two. So yes I'm strict in the strictest sense of the word.

Hear! Hear!  +1 Lisa


Again we are wasting 9 pages on the opinion of one man who happens to be a bishop.

I've always found +Williamson to be excellent in his knowledge of the Faith and quite a tremendous speaker when he sticks to the things of the Faith.

And even tough it pains me to say this, I find myself agreeing with didi on this particular topic--which is not a dogma of the Faith.

*Williamson's opinion on this one is way out in left field.

As Bishop Fellay has said, these opinions are not what is important.  They only serve to obscure the true dogmas of the Faith,

and the restoration of the Catholic Church.

Some of us were discussing what Pope Pius XI has said, not what  Bp. Williamson said. The Catholic Faith is not just a collection of de fide pronouncements.
Reply
(07-06-2009, 02:43 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote:
(07-06-2009, 02:29 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: Today, these segregated schools have all but been completely eliminated. Do you believe that was done for practical reasons? Or was coeducation adopted as a principle?

If by "practical reasons" you mean simply unaffordable – I would say yes. Many Catholics are having a hard enough time meeting the high cost of parochial schools these days much less private schools. Has coeducation been the standard? Yes. But I don’t think there’s a scheme to mingle the sexes in an attempt to undermine morals. 

- Lisa

One can adopt a false principle for reasons other than concocting "a scheme to mingle the sexes in an attempt to undermine morals".
Reply
(07-06-2009, 02:43 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: Some of us were discussing what Pope Pius XI has said, not what  Bp. Williamson said. The Catholic Faith is not just a collection of de fide pronouncements.

The topic of this thread is His Excellency's letter of 7-04-09.  I am not the one who is off topic.
Reply
(07-06-2009, 02:46 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(07-06-2009, 02:43 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote:
(07-06-2009, 02:29 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: Today, these segregated schools have all but been completely eliminated. Do you believe that was done for practical reasons? Or was coeducation adopted as a principle?

If by "practical reasons" you mean simply unaffordable – I would say yes. Many Catholics are having a hard enough time meeting the high cost of parochial schools these days much less private schools. Has coeducation been the standard? Yes. But I don’t think there’s a scheme to mingle the sexes in an attempt to undermine morals. 

- Lisa

One can adopt a false principle for reasons other than concocting "a scheme to mingle the sexes in an attempt to undermine morals".

What would those reasons be then?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)