In the meantime, I suppose I have found the answers I needed, but they are not to my satisfaction. See, I found NOTHING to support Ms. Bartold's claims against Montessori. I really want to know her sources for her information on what is acceptable by the Church and what is not. I can't find them myself and she does not seem to cite them anywhere. If anyone has any further information on her sources, please, please, please do respond via comments (all comments moderated for this reason) so I can make appropriate adjustments to this article.
Before I go on, I want to make it clear: I am not bashing Ms. Bartold in anyway - that is not my intention and I strive to keep that clear throughout this article. The intent of this article is take care in one place all the questions, concerns and issues raised over the course of the last 4 years of my life, from homeschooling parents and others. I have an intellectual disagreement with Ms. Bartold and intend to keep it there. Any comments directed to a personal bashing of Ms. Bartold will be immediately deleted, without editing, and without any further notification - and any valid ideas within that comment will need to be re-posted in a courteous, respectful fashion. Actually this policy applies to personal attacks of any kind: against anyone. Thank you!
Before I go on, I want to make it clear: I am not bashing Ms. Bartold in anyway - that is not my intention and I strive to keep that clear throughout this article. The intent of this article is take care in one place all the questions, concerns and issues raised over the course of the last 4 years of my life, from homeschooling parents and others. I have an intellectual disagreement with Ms. Bartold and intend to keep it there. Any comments directed to a personal bashing of Ms. Bartold will be immediately deleted, without editing, and without any further notification - and any valid ideas within that comment will need to be re-posted in a courteous, respectful fashion. Actually this policy applies to personal attacks of any kind: against anyone. Thank you!
There are many ways in which Marianna Bartold and I are alike - we are likely more alike than not, but in two areas of checking sources and of citing those sources, we part ways.
http://www.keepingitcatholic.org/blog/index.blog?entry_id=211982 is the source for all that I have quoted from her.
God bless!
Keeping It Catholic - with Marianna Bartold
January 31, 2004
Catholic Insights into Montessori Education
Still, there are Catholics who claim that, since Montessori was Catholic, what she taught regarding the rearing and education of children must be acceptable to Catholics. That would be true if we lived in a perfect world, but we don't. We all know that we live in a fallen world and that our own natures are wounded, that we are disinclined to abandon our own thoughts and ideas, and that - for the most part - we human beings do not easily bend our wills to God. (If we dare to say otherwise, we really are guilty of pride.) The truth of the matter is that we can easily make up all kinds of excuses to continue doing what we want to do, and we easily defend ourselves because we do not want to admit we were misled...it is so much easier to do those two things instead of obeying the Church's teachings.
It was through obeying the Church's teaching that I discovered Montessori and found it to be a seeming treasure-trove of educational opportunity for the reality of the whole, complete, real child - the child of God that each one of us is. But this is an entirely different story! Short story - I came to Montessori because of the Church's teaching on the dignity of each individual person, from every age until every age.
Regardless of the nay-sayers, please realize that no, despite her book, The Mass Explained Montessori's educational philosophy did not coincide with Catholic Church teaching. Most of the time she sounded like a rationalist/evolutionist (I'll explain why later.)
Maria Montessori's educational philosophy recognizes the validity of the human child as a full and complete person in the process of forming himself into his next stage of development. Christianity is one of the few world faiths that actually value the child (think child-sacrifice, the belief that children are empty molds rather than a distinct and individual child of God with a distinct name written in the Book of Life).
Montessori had some very strange ideas about child-raising and child education. And no, we are not talking about "hands-on" learning. Contrary to popular belief, "hands-on" is not what Montessori was about.
Yes, hands-on is a huge part of it. She sought to find ways to bring teaching to the child rather than force the child to adapt in unnatural ways, and understand abstract concepts without the assistance of something material to aid the child. As Catholics, we should have a full realization of the complete nature of the human being: body and soul. Jesus came to us in flesh, a material being, in order to bring us to eternal salvation - an eternity in which our bodies will be reunited with our souls.
This previous statement coincides with the above response as well - the educational philosophy correlates with Church teaching.
For example, Montessori did not allow fairy tales or folklore, although she did promote her own "mythological" story about the world's creation - certainly a contradiction! So fairy stories and folklore were forbidden, but her own "fantasies" were to be promoted to children everywhere. Yet how many Catholics are aware of even that one Red Flag?
Montessori spent years in careful observation - and shared with us what she saw - something that all of us will see if we only observe. The child before age 6 needs to be steeped in reality so that they have a strong foundation in reality. Most young children, when given free choice, would prefer to play house, bake mudpies, build with cardboard boxes, etc (all based on real events in their lives) rather than play imaginative games. Imaginative games come after the age of 6 (a bit younger for children who are truly steeped in reality their entire early childhoods). Before age 6, the child is exploring life around him, and finding his place in it - seeking to practice those skills immediately useful around him (see Montessori exercises of practical life, lack of "fantasy" stories, etc).
After age 6, the child's imagination now has a strong foundation on which to take off. They can think abstractly and can understand historical events in greater context than can the child who was encouraged to play fantasy pretend too young; they can truly believe the events of Jesus' life and all the events within the Bible because they have a solid foundation of trust in the adult regarding what is true and what is not. The children can study fairy tales (which are moral tales anyway and the child does not develop a proper moral sense until right around the age of reason (hmm. the Church has defined the age of reason at roughly 7 - sometimes a bit earlier, sometimes a bit later - Maria Montessori observed this very specific development and provided for it...)) and other imaginative stories with a much fuller enjoyment than those of us raised on cartoons in our pre-age-6 days - how much greater is the reading of Narnia when you can delve right in without fear of getting lost in it, and truly enjoy it - than the reading of such works wondering "Hm. I wonder if he (the author) knows something I don't know - maybe there is something more out there that the Church is not teaching me...." which leads to doubts. A child with a strong foundation of trust in and of reality can enjoy imaginative works to their greatest depths, without any crumbling of their faith and trust in the world around them.
There is no contradiction. Also, the children are told at the beginning of each of the Great Lessons: we weren't there, we can never really know all the details, but we can look at the evidence God has left for us, and we can wonder (a gift of the Holy Spirit: Awe and Wonder (aka Fear of the Lord)).
Incidentally (and as I point out in my book, Keeping It Catholic Home Education Guide, Volume I), there are similarities in Charlotte Mason's original educational philosophy, many of the latter which coincide with those of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the "father" of the "Enlightenment." The Enlightenment was that "rationalist" era of thought which led to the French Revolution, the invasion of liberalism throughout Europe and into the Church, and which has culminated today in the heresy of modernism.
Let's put some things (just a few because this article is already too long) into historical perspective.
1) If Montessori were doing her work now, she would be basing it on the work of Piaget and others of similar renown. Did I mention I have a degree in child development and it pretty much killed my love for working with children? Yes, and a lot of the "outcomes" and "suggestions for how to work with children" were based on Piaget and others. Now, I personally have issues with Piaget, but he is one of the founders for modern child developments. While Montessori observed things that brain research is only today revealing, she was not able to see into the future and base her methods off of anyone modern.
1a) While you will find some similarities to Charlotte Mason, those are the similarities that are present in all good, developmentally and spiritually appropriate methods of education. Charlotte Mason herself detested Montessori methods, but her arguments were not well-grounded either!
2) But she didn't live now; she lived then; and she had to start from somewhere. So she did. She started with those who had ideas about working with special needs children - Rousseau had distinct educational ideas and experiences - she utilized them, adapting most to the point of no/little recognition of the source now, and a very few remain the same. The fact is that pagans teach their children to read, and we do too -- and many of them use the same methods we use to teach those children how to read. So should we stop teaching our children to read in a manner that works for them just because pagans use the same Bob books or phonics system for example? I hope you all answer "No" to that question ;)
3) She used the sources available to her at the time; combined with an extreme knack for observation --- and now all current child development practices are based on the work that others have done since Montessori's time - all inspired or started by her own research. Brain research today is proving what she observed in children 100 years ago. These same tendencies have been present since the beginning of time - and recognized by the Faithful and non-faithful alike for centuries. Montessori opened the door to further research. She did not develop ideas in isolation and apply them; she carefully observed the patterns of development that God implanted in each of us.
4) Then there is the taking gold out of Egypt. My article is too long - hopefully we can google this phrase :)
Sidenote: Did you know that "child-size" anything originated with Montessori? At least as far as educational settings go - she cut down broom handles to make them child-size, cut down tables to lower them, etc. This is not to say she is the first one to think of it (our great-great-grandparents may have done it too) - but she did push the idea. And now we have these *real* small items available for children, and people of all sizes - a greater adaptation to meet the needs of all people.
While I understand that many Catholic homeschoolers might not appreciate hearing such things, I ask them to remember Church teaching on Catholic education and Catholic philosophy.
And the Church does not tell us HOW to teach or WHAT to teach - only dictating that the parent have responsibility (whether that means directly teaching the child in homeschooling or choosing to have tutors or a school do the teaching - the parent has final responsibility for all mistakes and successes).
I've studied at a devout Catholic college the area of philosophy. I'm still not seeing the red flags.
I strongly recommend that interested homeschooling parents read Montessori's own works for themselves - not just another author on Montessori - and judge according to Church teaching (not just personal opinion). Just to pique your curiosity, I will provide a few examples from Montessori's book, To Educate the Human Potential. Brief background: Maria Montessori told her "creation" story to children, and she wanted it to be told by others who employed her methods. But why? It was because Montessori desired that children should mull upon the evolutionary processes.
Two points here:
Perhaps Ms. Bartold should take a bit more of her own advice. This one book is entirely taken out of context. The children do NOT hear these exact words as each of the Great Lessons is adapted by the teacher giving it. The original stories, as told by Maria Montessori are largely unknown, except those written down by her son Mario and these are easy to modify, and do not match what is found below nor in To Educate the Human Potential.
Second point which ties into the first. At the time of her development of these stories, evolution was really making headway - and was a real possibility. Scientists all over were trying to combine the creation story of Genesis (or their particular faith's creation story) with the scientific evidence of creation/evolution. This blog post is NOT the place to get into the debate about how long creation took and its manner - all comments in this direction will be deleted. However, I will say this: The Catholic Church does not require we believe anything except that God had a guiding hand in the entire process. He started it, He keeps it going, He will bring it to its completion. The Catholic Church has no other official teaching on the matter. If you have any evidence to the contrary, please leave a post here (all posts are moderated anyway before posting) and I'll update this section of the post with the information you've provided.
Montessori's creation story begins with the oceans (not God, not the Word), and of the "Tribolites" which were "three-lobed creatures, with many legs and numerous other appendices for swimming...other proud ocean dwellers were Cephalopods- literally meaning with legs on their heads - of which Nautilus is most famous."
The creation story (God with No Hands) can be found in various places online. I have a version here on my site, that started with Montessori's original words (translated into English - she was Italian) and I have adapted it to avoid all usage of the passage of time. The first two pages have never been modified from their original form. You may read it for yourself. It begins with people. They are looking at the world around them and wondering about the great gifts they see. Who made all of this? they asked their wise men? God did.
The remainder of the stories emphasizes that God keeps all things in perfect harmony and order; that all creation obeys His will. This story ONLY includes inanimate creation. The Coming of Life is another matter altogether.
The Coming of Life: heavy on evolution, but possible to adapt while keeping the evolutionary concepts on the timeline so that the children can learn that there are some people in this world who believe in evolution. Let's give them this information so they are curious and want to explore the facts on their own. They may be the one to grow up and make the key discovery we all need!
A little later, Montessori wrote: "We can imagine a committee of Angels or Devas, according to the religion we profess, older sons of God who direct earth's natural forces, sending forth a call for volunteers, and interviewing those creatures who responded with an offer of service..." My questions: The angels interviewed the tribolites? How does this absurdity correspond with the inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures? Why did Montessori acknowledge another name for angels - i.e., devas? Why did she write "according to the religion we profess"? As a Catholic educator, it was her duty to promote the Catholic faith, not religious indifferentism (which the Church teaches is a sin). When and if necessary to acknowledge other "beliefs" (as opposed to truths), the opportunity to charitably clarify those truths should have been included.
These words can be found "To Educate the Human Potential" pg 24. Let's focus on the words "we can imagine" - it's an imaginative story. Like saying, "We can imagine that insects have a love for human blood" to describe a recent proliferation of insect bites - when, in reality, insects don't have a "love" (in the true sense of the word) for anything! They have a sensitivity, a need, an instinct - but not a love. Yet we say these things without becoming "bad Catholics."
It seems the Bible itself also uses other words for angels. I cannot find the information right now, but seeing as how the Bible was written in several languages, the original word for "angel" throughout the Scriptures would have been from more than one language. I would be interested in asking a Biblical scholar of Biblical languages his/her insight on this area, before passing judgment.
As for religious indifferentism, I will veer from the specific topic at hand here (the incorrect words of this story and her duty to promote the Catholic faith) please remember that for many years she and her son were interned in India. War (a pretty big one from what I hear - tongue in cheek) broke out while she was visiting for a 2 week course and being Italian (the enemy) she and Mario were placed under house arrest for the duration of the war (which, by the way, in that area of the world, lasted longer than our American textbooks list it - we were there a few years less than the evils that Europe and Asia were facing). Is it possible that, being under house arrest for several years, living through TWO WORLD WARS that took place in HER homeland, it was less about religious indifferentism than about maintaining one's own faith amidst all those atrocities? About having a deep respect for other people who were also hurting, in pain, losing their homes, their lives, their loved ones.
Do we have to present Catholicism at the end of an intellectual gun? Or can we be respectful yet inviting and evangelical?
Is it also possible that being Catholics, we have forgotten our Jewish heritage? This is a topic for another day, but definitely plays a role in the development of our faith. Check out Jewish Fairy Tales (if you're older than 6 ;) ) and Jewish folk tales and poetry. It wasn't ALL in the Hebrew Scriptures alone.
Montessori told children that beautiful plants evolved from algae, moss, etc: "The evolution of plants of earth is estimated to have taken about 300,000,000 years, from algae, mosses and lichens, through ferns to ever more complex forms of strength and beauty." And children were, and are, to believe this nonsense just because Montessori said so?
Another quote from only one source: To Educate the Human Potential. But not an accurate quote. Taken in context, Maria Montessori utilizes phrases about evolution in a variety of senses, including the sense that life "evolves" within a particular ecosystem as the ecosystem changes - different life is able to live there at different times. If you have a crop field and you water it well, there are still some seeds down below that will only sprout when you no longer water the field. This is not evolution which Ms. Bartold refers to, but many people would be correct in academically stating that the ecosystem of that crop field is evolving.
And no, they don't have to believe. This story too is a Great Lesson - an imaginative fantasy tale intended to inspire their curiosity, love for creation and desire to learn more. They are encouraged to find out for themselves.
By the way, the book, To Educate the Human Potential, is meant for the adults to read - not to read directly to a child. Only to share her imaginative insights based on the science as they understood it at the time.
Monetessori told children that birds evolved from monsters: "If evolution just meant growth, how could sweet birds have come from ferocious monsters, joint-heirs of their kingdom? Nature evolved by strengthening what had been a weak point in animal behavior, bestowing the new energy called Love. This was to be a powerful passion as long as it dominated, able to make a small bird forget fear and care for self. Significantly it goes with warmth of blood."
Let's continue this quote in its full context (and this quote is not accurately quoted - she was partly speaking tongue-in-cheek). Beforehand is emphasized that the monsters (dinosaurs) did not become birds and mammals, but that their lives gave way for the ruling of the mammals over the land. Afterward emphasizes that God brought love into the world: care for young.
God called new creatures into being. Bestowing them with gifts. Period. Now I have seen stories of the Coming of Life emphasizing the experimentation of life forms - but all directed by God. Again, evolution directed by a Divine Will (and if you keep the original stories, GOD is His name) - not contrary to our faith at all.
Montessori told children that the earth was beautiful - so beautiful that the monsters had to go: "The earth must have been truly beautiful, and monsters in their gross stupidity and ugliness were unfit for it. Some tried 'slimming,' shortened their legs and managed to survive, especially those who had the intelligence to turn themselves into snakes. Those who were too lazy to make the effort to adapt themselves had just to perish. Snakes were the lineal descendants of dragons and were not poisonous before the advent of man."
Again, all taken from one source which is only required reading at the elementary level for the adult - and only to understand Montessori's story style, how she integrated Faith with Science (faulty yes, but let's consider the time period), and provide insights into our own interactions with the children - NOT a book for the child.
But not everything here is bad science or anti-Faith - perhaps snakes weren't poisonous until Original Sin. There is also the theory that there was no rain before the Flood and another theory that everyone (including animals) were vegetarians before the Fall of Man - and even until after the Ark. Ok. These are ideas. They are not doctrinal Truths (doctrinal = defined by the Catholic Church as it must be believed by the faithful).
Are you also recognizing those waving Red Flags, dear Reader?
No, I can't. Well, yes I do. Someone waving a false red flag. Perhaps there is merit, but it is not in the evidence presented thus far.
Now for Montessori's story about the appearance of mankind: "The earth was trembling with expectancy and glad foreboding. Her heart moved in sympathy with creation's joy; tremors ran through her frame and emotional tears coursed through her in new streams...she was moved throughout her whole being to feel the near approach of man, her destined lord, and gifts were brought forth in new abundance for his use...all kinds of metal that the earth had been preparing in her laboratories were brought to the surface and deposited...of this largesse of mineral wealth, India received in rich measure, as the scene of earth's greatest emotion...Earth greeted her son with joy,but offered him toil, no enfeebling ease!" (My observation: In other words, mankind is the child of Mother Earth!)
Again, this is NOT part of the Coming of Life (at the end of which is the coming of Mankind - the same order as the first story of Creation in Genesis).
There are certainly Scriptural passages on the groaning of Creation...
Montessori told children her version of the purpose of man's existence, yet she made no mention of the Catholic Church's clear teachings that we were created "to know, love and serve God so that we might be happy with Him in heaven." Instead, Montessori wrote:
"Man, too, like all beings, has the two purposes, conscious and unconscious. He is conscious of his own intellectual and physical needs, and of the claims on him of society and civilisation. He believes in fighting for himself, his family and nation, but has yet to become conscious of his far deeper responsibilities to a cosmic task, his collaboration with others in work for his environment...Victory in self-fulfillment can only come to the All, and to secure it some are content to sacrifice their own progress towards perfection of form, remaining inferior and humble workers, like the corals, or static usefulness. Other species, having unconsciously reached their limit of usefulness and being unable to adapt themselves to conditions making new demands on them, disappear from the ranks of life in which only the obedient and disciplined will continue to march, to the joyful music of the Song of Life."
Cosmic task? The "All"? The Song of Life? What do these terms mean? They certainly are not Catholic terms. In light of their context, they are NOT intended to be Catholic.
Cosmic task refers to the Plan of God (Salvation History). God has had a plan in mind from the beginning and we can choose to cooperate or not. We are called to be stewards of this earth - and being good stewards means that we end up taking the gifts of the earth (that God provided) which are already complete and "perfect" in themselves (in that they are doing exactly as God as willed them, they perfectly obey God - better than us mankind!) - and we make something more - something higher. We can take the gold (a simple metal) of the earth and turn it into a vessel to Our Lord's Precious Blood, for example. We take the things of nature and make them more than they are - this is part of the stewardship that God has given us. I could write more, but I've written an entire essay on this topic, so I'll stop here :)
God will be All in All (2 Corinthian 15:28)
Now as to the quote, an excellent article to read would be Mario Montessori's essay on Cosmic Education, available through AMI. Let's go to the source to see what was really said, shall we?
Again, to consider the entire context of this one (rather small) publication in light of everything that has been written and developed by Montessori, shines an entirely different light.
There is more, and there are other Montessori books, but I trust the few excerpts above will inspire the prudent to further study Montessori - in her own words.~ MCB
Maria Montessori's educational philosophy recognizes the validity of the human child as a full and complete person in the process of forming himself into his next stage of development. Christianity is one of the few world faiths that actually value the child (think child-sacrifice, the belief that children are empty molds rather than a distinct and individual child of God with a distinct name written in the Book of Life).
Montessori had some very strange ideas about child-raising and child education. And no, we are not talking about "hands-on" learning. Contrary to popular belief, "hands-on" is not what Montessori was about.
Yes, hands-on is a huge part of it. She sought to find ways to bring teaching to the child rather than force the child to adapt in unnatural ways, and understand abstract concepts without the assistance of something material to aid the child. As Catholics, we should have a full realization of the complete nature of the human being: body and soul. Jesus came to us in flesh, a material being, in order to bring us to eternal salvation - an eternity in which our bodies will be reunited with our souls.
This previous statement coincides with the above response as well - the educational philosophy correlates with Church teaching.
For example, Montessori did not allow fairy tales or folklore, although she did promote her own "mythological" story about the world's creation - certainly a contradiction! So fairy stories and folklore were forbidden, but her own "fantasies" were to be promoted to children everywhere. Yet how many Catholics are aware of even that one Red Flag?
Montessori spent years in careful observation - and shared with us what she saw - something that all of us will see if we only observe. The child before age 6 needs to be steeped in reality so that they have a strong foundation in reality. Most young children, when given free choice, would prefer to play house, bake mudpies, build with cardboard boxes, etc (all based on real events in their lives) rather than play imaginative games. Imaginative games come after the age of 6 (a bit younger for children who are truly steeped in reality their entire early childhoods). Before age 6, the child is exploring life around him, and finding his place in it - seeking to practice those skills immediately useful around him (see Montessori exercises of practical life, lack of "fantasy" stories, etc).
After age 6, the child's imagination now has a strong foundation on which to take off. They can think abstractly and can understand historical events in greater context than can the child who was encouraged to play fantasy pretend too young; they can truly believe the events of Jesus' life and all the events within the Bible because they have a solid foundation of trust in the adult regarding what is true and what is not. The children can study fairy tales (which are moral tales anyway and the child does not develop a proper moral sense until right around the age of reason (hmm. the Church has defined the age of reason at roughly 7 - sometimes a bit earlier, sometimes a bit later - Maria Montessori observed this very specific development and provided for it...)) and other imaginative stories with a much fuller enjoyment than those of us raised on cartoons in our pre-age-6 days - how much greater is the reading of Narnia when you can delve right in without fear of getting lost in it, and truly enjoy it - than the reading of such works wondering "Hm. I wonder if he (the author) knows something I don't know - maybe there is something more out there that the Church is not teaching me...." which leads to doubts. A child with a strong foundation of trust in and of reality can enjoy imaginative works to their greatest depths, without any crumbling of their faith and trust in the world around them.
There is no contradiction. Also, the children are told at the beginning of each of the Great Lessons: we weren't there, we can never really know all the details, but we can look at the evidence God has left for us, and we can wonder (a gift of the Holy Spirit: Awe and Wonder (aka Fear of the Lord)).
Incidentally (and as I point out in my book, Keeping It Catholic Home Education Guide, Volume I), there are similarities in Charlotte Mason's original educational philosophy, many of the latter which coincide with those of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the "father" of the "Enlightenment." The Enlightenment was that "rationalist" era of thought which led to the French Revolution, the invasion of liberalism throughout Europe and into the Church, and which has culminated today in the heresy of modernism.
Let's put some things (just a few because this article is already too long) into historical perspective.
1) If Montessori were doing her work now, she would be basing it on the work of Piaget and others of similar renown. Did I mention I have a degree in child development and it pretty much killed my love for working with children? Yes, and a lot of the "outcomes" and "suggestions for how to work with children" were based on Piaget and others. Now, I personally have issues with Piaget, but he is one of the founders for modern child developments. While Montessori observed things that brain research is only today revealing, she was not able to see into the future and base her methods off of anyone modern.
1a) While you will find some similarities to Charlotte Mason, those are the similarities that are present in all good, developmentally and spiritually appropriate methods of education. Charlotte Mason herself detested Montessori methods, but her arguments were not well-grounded either!
2) But she didn't live now; she lived then; and she had to start from somewhere. So she did. She started with those who had ideas about working with special needs children - Rousseau had distinct educational ideas and experiences - she utilized them, adapting most to the point of no/little recognition of the source now, and a very few remain the same. The fact is that pagans teach their children to read, and we do too -- and many of them use the same methods we use to teach those children how to read. So should we stop teaching our children to read in a manner that works for them just because pagans use the same Bob books or phonics system for example? I hope you all answer "No" to that question ;)
3) She used the sources available to her at the time; combined with an extreme knack for observation --- and now all current child development practices are based on the work that others have done since Montessori's time - all inspired or started by her own research. Brain research today is proving what she observed in children 100 years ago. These same tendencies have been present since the beginning of time - and recognized by the Faithful and non-faithful alike for centuries. Montessori opened the door to further research. She did not develop ideas in isolation and apply them; she carefully observed the patterns of development that God implanted in each of us.
4) Then there is the taking gold out of Egypt. My article is too long - hopefully we can google this phrase :)
Sidenote: Did you know that "child-size" anything originated with Montessori? At least as far as educational settings go - she cut down broom handles to make them child-size, cut down tables to lower them, etc. This is not to say she is the first one to think of it (our great-great-grandparents may have done it too) - but she did push the idea. And now we have these *real* small items available for children, and people of all sizes - a greater adaptation to meet the needs of all people.
While I understand that many Catholic homeschoolers might not appreciate hearing such things, I ask them to remember Church teaching on Catholic education and Catholic philosophy.
And the Church does not tell us HOW to teach or WHAT to teach - only dictating that the parent have responsibility (whether that means directly teaching the child in homeschooling or choosing to have tutors or a school do the teaching - the parent has final responsibility for all mistakes and successes).
I've studied at a devout Catholic college the area of philosophy. I'm still not seeing the red flags.
I strongly recommend that interested homeschooling parents read Montessori's own works for themselves - not just another author on Montessori - and judge according to Church teaching (not just personal opinion). Just to pique your curiosity, I will provide a few examples from Montessori's book, To Educate the Human Potential. Brief background: Maria Montessori told her "creation" story to children, and she wanted it to be told by others who employed her methods. But why? It was because Montessori desired that children should mull upon the evolutionary processes.
Two points here:
Perhaps Ms. Bartold should take a bit more of her own advice. This one book is entirely taken out of context. The children do NOT hear these exact words as each of the Great Lessons is adapted by the teacher giving it. The original stories, as told by Maria Montessori are largely unknown, except those written down by her son Mario and these are easy to modify, and do not match what is found below nor in To Educate the Human Potential.
Second point which ties into the first. At the time of her development of these stories, evolution was really making headway - and was a real possibility. Scientists all over were trying to combine the creation story of Genesis (or their particular faith's creation story) with the scientific evidence of creation/evolution. This blog post is NOT the place to get into the debate about how long creation took and its manner - all comments in this direction will be deleted. However, I will say this: The Catholic Church does not require we believe anything except that God had a guiding hand in the entire process. He started it, He keeps it going, He will bring it to its completion. The Catholic Church has no other official teaching on the matter. If you have any evidence to the contrary, please leave a post here (all posts are moderated anyway before posting) and I'll update this section of the post with the information you've provided.
Montessori's creation story begins with the oceans (not God, not the Word), and of the "Tribolites" which were "three-lobed creatures, with many legs and numerous other appendices for swimming...other proud ocean dwellers were Cephalopods- literally meaning with legs on their heads - of which Nautilus is most famous."
The creation story (God with No Hands) can be found in various places online. I have a version here on my site, that started with Montessori's original words (translated into English - she was Italian) and I have adapted it to avoid all usage of the passage of time. The first two pages have never been modified from their original form. You may read it for yourself. It begins with people. They are looking at the world around them and wondering about the great gifts they see. Who made all of this? they asked their wise men? God did.
The remainder of the stories emphasizes that God keeps all things in perfect harmony and order; that all creation obeys His will. This story ONLY includes inanimate creation. The Coming of Life is another matter altogether.
The Coming of Life: heavy on evolution, but possible to adapt while keeping the evolutionary concepts on the timeline so that the children can learn that there are some people in this world who believe in evolution. Let's give them this information so they are curious and want to explore the facts on their own. They may be the one to grow up and make the key discovery we all need!
A little later, Montessori wrote: "We can imagine a committee of Angels or Devas, according to the religion we profess, older sons of God who direct earth's natural forces, sending forth a call for volunteers, and interviewing those creatures who responded with an offer of service..." My questions: The angels interviewed the tribolites? How does this absurdity correspond with the inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures? Why did Montessori acknowledge another name for angels - i.e., devas? Why did she write "according to the religion we profess"? As a Catholic educator, it was her duty to promote the Catholic faith, not religious indifferentism (which the Church teaches is a sin). When and if necessary to acknowledge other "beliefs" (as opposed to truths), the opportunity to charitably clarify those truths should have been included.
These words can be found "To Educate the Human Potential" pg 24. Let's focus on the words "we can imagine" - it's an imaginative story. Like saying, "We can imagine that insects have a love for human blood" to describe a recent proliferation of insect bites - when, in reality, insects don't have a "love" (in the true sense of the word) for anything! They have a sensitivity, a need, an instinct - but not a love. Yet we say these things without becoming "bad Catholics."
DEVAS The word deva is from the Sanskrit language, meaning "a being of brilliant light" and is used to indicate a non-physical being.
It seems the Bible itself also uses other words for angels. I cannot find the information right now, but seeing as how the Bible was written in several languages, the original word for "angel" throughout the Scriptures would have been from more than one language. I would be interested in asking a Biblical scholar of Biblical languages his/her insight on this area, before passing judgment.
As for religious indifferentism, I will veer from the specific topic at hand here (the incorrect words of this story and her duty to promote the Catholic faith) please remember that for many years she and her son were interned in India. War (a pretty big one from what I hear - tongue in cheek) broke out while she was visiting for a 2 week course and being Italian (the enemy) she and Mario were placed under house arrest for the duration of the war (which, by the way, in that area of the world, lasted longer than our American textbooks list it - we were there a few years less than the evils that Europe and Asia were facing). Is it possible that, being under house arrest for several years, living through TWO WORLD WARS that took place in HER homeland, it was less about religious indifferentism than about maintaining one's own faith amidst all those atrocities? About having a deep respect for other people who were also hurting, in pain, losing their homes, their lives, their loved ones.
Do we have to present Catholicism at the end of an intellectual gun? Or can we be respectful yet inviting and evangelical?
Is it also possible that being Catholics, we have forgotten our Jewish heritage? This is a topic for another day, but definitely plays a role in the development of our faith. Check out Jewish Fairy Tales (if you're older than 6 ;) ) and Jewish folk tales and poetry. It wasn't ALL in the Hebrew Scriptures alone.
Montessori told children that beautiful plants evolved from algae, moss, etc: "The evolution of plants of earth is estimated to have taken about 300,000,000 years, from algae, mosses and lichens, through ferns to ever more complex forms of strength and beauty." And children were, and are, to believe this nonsense just because Montessori said so?
Another quote from only one source: To Educate the Human Potential. But not an accurate quote. Taken in context, Maria Montessori utilizes phrases about evolution in a variety of senses, including the sense that life "evolves" within a particular ecosystem as the ecosystem changes - different life is able to live there at different times. If you have a crop field and you water it well, there are still some seeds down below that will only sprout when you no longer water the field. This is not evolution which Ms. Bartold refers to, but many people would be correct in academically stating that the ecosystem of that crop field is evolving.
And no, they don't have to believe. This story too is a Great Lesson - an imaginative fantasy tale intended to inspire their curiosity, love for creation and desire to learn more. They are encouraged to find out for themselves.
By the way, the book, To Educate the Human Potential, is meant for the adults to read - not to read directly to a child. Only to share her imaginative insights based on the science as they understood it at the time.
Monetessori told children that birds evolved from monsters: "If evolution just meant growth, how could sweet birds have come from ferocious monsters, joint-heirs of their kingdom? Nature evolved by strengthening what had been a weak point in animal behavior, bestowing the new energy called Love. This was to be a powerful passion as long as it dominated, able to make a small bird forget fear and care for self. Significantly it goes with warmth of blood."
Let's continue this quote in its full context (and this quote is not accurately quoted - she was partly speaking tongue-in-cheek). Beforehand is emphasized that the monsters (dinosaurs) did not become birds and mammals, but that their lives gave way for the ruling of the mammals over the land. Afterward emphasizes that God brought love into the world: care for young.
God called new creatures into being. Bestowing them with gifts. Period. Now I have seen stories of the Coming of Life emphasizing the experimentation of life forms - but all directed by God. Again, evolution directed by a Divine Will (and if you keep the original stories, GOD is His name) - not contrary to our faith at all.
Montessori told children that the earth was beautiful - so beautiful that the monsters had to go: "The earth must have been truly beautiful, and monsters in their gross stupidity and ugliness were unfit for it. Some tried 'slimming,' shortened their legs and managed to survive, especially those who had the intelligence to turn themselves into snakes. Those who were too lazy to make the effort to adapt themselves had just to perish. Snakes were the lineal descendants of dragons and were not poisonous before the advent of man."
Again, all taken from one source which is only required reading at the elementary level for the adult - and only to understand Montessori's story style, how she integrated Faith with Science (faulty yes, but let's consider the time period), and provide insights into our own interactions with the children - NOT a book for the child.
But not everything here is bad science or anti-Faith - perhaps snakes weren't poisonous until Original Sin. There is also the theory that there was no rain before the Flood and another theory that everyone (including animals) were vegetarians before the Fall of Man - and even until after the Ark. Ok. These are ideas. They are not doctrinal Truths (doctrinal = defined by the Catholic Church as it must be believed by the faithful).
Are you also recognizing those waving Red Flags, dear Reader?
No, I can't. Well, yes I do. Someone waving a false red flag. Perhaps there is merit, but it is not in the evidence presented thus far.
Now for Montessori's story about the appearance of mankind: "The earth was trembling with expectancy and glad foreboding. Her heart moved in sympathy with creation's joy; tremors ran through her frame and emotional tears coursed through her in new streams...she was moved throughout her whole being to feel the near approach of man, her destined lord, and gifts were brought forth in new abundance for his use...all kinds of metal that the earth had been preparing in her laboratories were brought to the surface and deposited...of this largesse of mineral wealth, India received in rich measure, as the scene of earth's greatest emotion...Earth greeted her son with joy,but offered him toil, no enfeebling ease!" (My observation: In other words, mankind is the child of Mother Earth!)
Again, this is NOT part of the Coming of Life (at the end of which is the coming of Mankind - the same order as the first story of Creation in Genesis).
There are certainly Scriptural passages on the groaning of Creation...
Montessori told children her version of the purpose of man's existence, yet she made no mention of the Catholic Church's clear teachings that we were created "to know, love and serve God so that we might be happy with Him in heaven." Instead, Montessori wrote:
"Man, too, like all beings, has the two purposes, conscious and unconscious. He is conscious of his own intellectual and physical needs, and of the claims on him of society and civilisation. He believes in fighting for himself, his family and nation, but has yet to become conscious of his far deeper responsibilities to a cosmic task, his collaboration with others in work for his environment...Victory in self-fulfillment can only come to the All, and to secure it some are content to sacrifice their own progress towards perfection of form, remaining inferior and humble workers, like the corals, or static usefulness. Other species, having unconsciously reached their limit of usefulness and being unable to adapt themselves to conditions making new demands on them, disappear from the ranks of life in which only the obedient and disciplined will continue to march, to the joyful music of the Song of Life."
Cosmic task? The "All"? The Song of Life? What do these terms mean? They certainly are not Catholic terms. In light of their context, they are NOT intended to be Catholic.
Cosmic task refers to the Plan of God (Salvation History). God has had a plan in mind from the beginning and we can choose to cooperate or not. We are called to be stewards of this earth - and being good stewards means that we end up taking the gifts of the earth (that God provided) which are already complete and "perfect" in themselves (in that they are doing exactly as God as willed them, they perfectly obey God - better than us mankind!) - and we make something more - something higher. We can take the gold (a simple metal) of the earth and turn it into a vessel to Our Lord's Precious Blood, for example. We take the things of nature and make them more than they are - this is part of the stewardship that God has given us. I could write more, but I've written an entire essay on this topic, so I'll stop here :)
God will be All in All (2 Corinthian 15:28)
Now as to the quote, an excellent article to read would be Mario Montessori's essay on Cosmic Education, available through AMI. Let's go to the source to see what was really said, shall we?
Again, to consider the entire context of this one (rather small) publication in light of everything that has been written and developed by Montessori, shines an entirely different light.
There is more, and there are other Montessori books, but I trust the few excerpts above will inspire the prudent to further study Montessori - in her own words.~ MCB
I have done exactly this - studied every single one of Maria Montessori's writings currently available (and some not currently available). I now have both primary (ages 2/3-6) and elementary (ages 6-12) AMI (Association Montessori Internationale) training - I have seen how certain trainers strive to strip all Catholicism from Montessori's work, all while giving us apologies for the Christianity that remains and while telling us to adapt the Great Lessons to our own words (then berating the trainee who keeps the Christianity firmly in place!).
And I still cannot come to the same conclusions as Ms. Bartold.
If there is any further information anyone can provide to back up Ms. Bartold's claims, please do let me know! I know that my arguments could have gone further, but to save the length of this article, I kept things as short as possible.
Thank you all and God bless!
