Catholic Hearts Domestic Church

What the children do after our Monday atrium – these photos are all of Legoboy from the last day of class. Bittersweet! I would have cried when saying goodbye to the children, but I was distracted by some physical pain. At least I was able to end the year on a note of fulfillment.

Please note – the photos may be redundant, but he is NOT intentionally making a silly face or hiding his face – he actually WANTED his photo taken – and I had to take the opportunity while I could!!!

This post is also being shared on Seeking the Plan of God - a blog I set up as a journal of our atrium experiences. It seems pertinent over here too

This is not specifically atrium – I am adding it here because my son has been in atrium with me for 8 years. This past year being is first in level 3 (a year early) – and he reads the Bible a bit different from your average child. I’m not bragging there He reads the Bible like a child has been in level 1 atrium almost continuously for 8 years (at least once a week; sometimes 4-6 times); in level 2 almost continuously for 7 years (at least once a week; sometimes 3-5); and level 3 for a year. Not to mention all the formation courses he has attended! and even assisted!

We have started a sequence of reading through the Bible in a year. At the time of writing this, we are still in Genesis.

Chapter 25 to be specific.

How many times I’ve read this passage and only THIS time did I really read it. And he picked up on it too.

We all know that Abraham had two sons: as Abram, he bore a son by his wife’s maid (Ishmael); then the covenant was completed, his name changed to Abraham and Sarah bore him a son in her old age: Isaac.

DID YOU KNOW?

After the death of Sarah, Isaac took solace in his wife Rebekkah (Genesis 24:67b).

After the death of Sarah, Abraham took solace in a new wife: Keturah.

This one seems accurate – 9 brothers;but what about their ages?

DID YOU KNOW? 

Ishmael had 12 sons to rule over 12 tribes.

Isaac grandfathered 11 boys; one boy had two sons to replace him; making what we know as the 12 tribes of Israel.

Side note: Joseph had two sons from whom 2 tribes received their names; Joseph did not have a tribe named after him. Benjamin being the younger brother, this means that only 9 brothers (at most because perhaps some were toddlers!) participated in any way in the selling of Joseph to the Egyptians.

(I wish those people who write children’s Bibles would at least get the stories ACCURATE.)

Keturah bore 6 sons to Abraham; their ultimate descendants as listed come to 13, so it doesn’t fit above; all 6 original sons were given grants and sent away from Isaac (probably because of what happened between Isaac and Ishmael).

DID YOU KNOW? 

Abraham, therefore, bore 8 sons. Not 1, not 2. EIGHT.

8. That’s an interesting number. 8th day of creation (Easter); 8 people on the Ark…..

Isaac and Ishmael were together at their father’s burial. Ishmael was a legitimate son, if not the “first-born” according to the birthright, because his mother was given in place of Sarah – not as a concubine, but as a replacement for Sarah’s own womb. When Sarah was then able to bear a child, Ishmael maintained his legitimacy as a child of the Abraham, but lost his birthright as first-born. The other boys were considered to be conceived by “concubinage” despite Sarah being deceased at the time.

Wow.

Just one chapter. And that’s not the whole thing!

That same chapter contains the birth of the twins: Esau and Jacob. Interesting that we usually consider Rebekkah to be something of a brat in her preference for the younger son. But indeed -while pregnant with the twins, she felt them wrestling and went to the Lord – the Lord told her that the older would serve the younger; indeed that he would “surpass” his older brother. Hence, she was simply favoring the one the Lord told her would rule.

Hm.

And there’s still so much more said in just a few words – the age of the parents involved; how many years would that have been praying for children? the selling of the birthright….

Your turn!

One day, I gathered all my notes to write something about Montessori and Catholicism – specifically Original Sin, since this seems to be a huge sticking point – if Montessori sees only the good in a child, what about Original Sin? And what about “breaking the will”? And how could we dare just “follow the child” because their errant ways will only lead to more errant ways if they have complete freedom!

Well, besides issues of the balance of freedom and responsibility which is inherent in all properly Montessori environments, and the fact that we follow the child only within a prepared environment full of only good choices, I might mention that Montessori emphasizes time and again that when once a negative action or behavior shows itself we nip in the bud – no warnings, no 1-2-3-Magic, no “reasoning” with the 3 year old. But no strict harsh punishments either – we simply stop the behavior and move on. Don’t LET those bad habits develop! As the child ages, more reasoning can occur, but by then, the child has been formed in many good habits and the negative things that come up can be dealt with as they happen. Anyone who says that a young child cannot then possibly reveal anything beautiful and holy to us adults, is not obeying the Lord’s words, “Let the little children come to me, for heaven belongs to such as them.” Hm. Original Sin. Yet heaven belongs to the children, not to adults.

But someone else has said all of this so much better than I could! In googling to find more information and supportive documentation, I found the following site (please visit to read the full article) and I LOVE this paragraph in particular:
http://www.catholic.net/index.php?option=dedestaca&id=3541

Montessori held and applied the Catholic teaching that man was not completely corrupt with the Fall. She said that “in spite of the moral disorder brought about by original sin, there still remains in human nature a great potentiality for goodness.” Montessori used the analogy of wheat in the field to make a point about the natural goodness latent in all children. (51) Inferior wheat plant can grow in the fields without cultivation. Destroying them does not guarantee a good harvest. If the good wheat is to grow it must be cultivated and if it is, the inferior wheat seed will not be able to grow. Montessori says: “The key to the problem is, therefore, not to destroy evil but to cultivate good.” (53) Thus allowing the roots of good to sprout in the child´s soul.

And there are all of her own writings – if you read them in full context, they explain themselves! Be sure to look for older publications as somewhere in the 60s, many of her books were re-printed with huge religious sections removed. So newer printings have been heavily secularized.

………………………………………………..
And then I found these:

http://www.nsmontessori.com/NSMCH2.htm

To ignore the child’s spiritual nature is to ignore the very essence and purpose of education.

It is important, in this light, to make Dr. Montessori’s understanding of the nature of the child clear.  She considered the child to be good, but broken.  The child is good in that he is created to be good, and broken in that he is subject to the effects of Original Sin – as St. Paul lamented in his own behavior – not doing the things he wants to do and doing the things he does not want to do.  Her method, she believed, removed many of the obstacles that result in frustration which causes children to lose focus on learning and therefore display ‘broken’ behavior.  By freeing the child from these frustrating obstacles, the child becomes able to develop naturally and normally as God had planned.  This process she called ‘normalization’.

“Experience has shown that normalization causes the disappearance of many childish traits, not only those which are considered to be defects but also others which are generally thought to be virtues…  The disappearance of these childish characteristics shows that the true nature of a child has hitherto not been understood.  The universality of this fact is striking, but not entirely new since from the earliest times a twofold nature has been recognized in man.  The first was given him at the time of his creation.  The second came as a consequence of his first sin, a violation of God’s law.  Because of the fall, man was deprived of the blessings of his earlier state and left to the mercy of his surroundings and the illusions of his own mind.  This doctrine of original sin can help us understand what happens to a child.”⁽³⁾

http://www2.talbot.edu/ce20/educators/view.cfm?n=maria_montessori

(an article about the development of her spirituality)

Montessori in 1948 is reported to have lectured in London where she stated:

I see it-this Original Sin-who would not see a thing so evident? In the depths of the human soul is the possibility of continuous decadence…In fact, there are innate tendencies in man’s soul which lead to maladies of the spirit sometimes even unknown to ourselves, just as the germs of disease may work silently, and unknown. This is the death of the spirit which brings insensibility with it. These tendencies come from the soul itself and not from the environment

Eastern Orthodox of as the True Vine. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Jesus said, “Remain in Me.” It said many times within one sitting (the Parable of the True Vine), but He also said it with His actions and other teachings.
He gave us many ways to remain in Him – the most obvious being in the Sacraments, the prime sacrament being the Eucharist and also in Reconciliation.

But how does it work? Really?

In the level 1 Catechesis of the Good Shepherd atrium, for the 3-6 year old children, we focus on the Parable of the Good Shepherd – the Good Shepherd who knows our names, loves us – we are in relationship with Him. That is enough. That is more than we need.

In level 2, we work with the True Vine parable, and the history of the Kingdom of God materials. The children come to realize there is a response to this relationship: Remain in Me. And they explore the ways that we simply remain with Christ.

In level 3 the children are coming to awareness of their place in the Kingdom, not just as a gift to enjoy, but as something for which they are responsible. NOW we start asking, “How shall you remain in Him? And how shall you fill your blank page (the part of the story of the Kingdom of the God that is only just now being written in our lives and in our world right NOW)?”
Then they enter into adolescence with the tools they need to make confident choices in their lives.

The Good Shepherd, c. 300, at the Pio Cristiano Museum, Rome (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Wow. I am still in shock.

As I reflect on the letter I received today (I am typing this on Friday afternoon), I thought I’d share some thoughts that answer some private questions I receive from time to time.

Basically, these questions center around the relationship between Catechesis of the Good Shepherd and Montessori education – for US. In OUR family.

Quote from the acceptance letter:

“With your great Montessori background, it’s easy to want to include many wonderful materials in the atrium, but especially in an atrium used for training, we need to be true to Sofia and Gianna’s understanding of the essential.”

I appreciate what is said here, but I have some concerns as well.

• I came to Montessori THROUGH Catechesis of the Good Shepherd. Yes, I found Montessori first, but I had levels 1 and 2 formation in CGS before I went to AMI primary Montessori training. The above statement makes it sound as if Montessori came first. Then level 3 CGS and elementary Montessori training overlapped.
• AMI is foundational. It does not participate in “fluff” and it too focuses on the essentials.
• I have full respect for Sofia and Gianna, and I have equal respect for Maria Montessori. All three ladies focused on the essential with the children, yet Sofia and Gianna’s work was founded on Maria Montessori’s work. This is getting a bit into the chicken/egg syndrome, so the main point is that we canNOT separate the Montessori method from CGS without losing KEY QUALITIES.
• Many of those foundational Montessori principles that are given in CGS formation courses (silence game, walking on the line) are losing their strength in the passing from one adult to the next. But when such exercises are fully present in the atrium, you find children who are centered (normalized), at peace, and working deeply.
• For me personally, CGS informs my application of the Montessori method in the academics far more than Montessori affects my CGS work in the realm of faith formation. I am not necessarily taking the above comment personally, but I do feel it is a blanket statement that reflects a division between the two rather than a recognition of CGS’s roots in Montessori – the condition of the roots reveals the condition of the potential flowering.

Some interesting tidbits on the relationship between CGS and academic Montessori – or how Montessori can and SHOULD apply to CGS:

• Walking on the line and the silence activity are being watered down in CGS and the fruits are not forthcoming. These are *essential* Montessori principles that CGS needs to hold onto tightly, or it will become simply a mental exercise in religious education, such as Godly Play has become.
• Evolution and Age of the Earth: The academic materials that inspired such level 2 works as the Fettuccia and Blue Unity and History of the Gifts – has NO MENTION of the specific number of years since the birth of the Earth.  Yet originally these CGS materials were made to represent a certain number of years and specifically TAUGHT evolution. I will not get into evolution versus creationism vs something in-between here. I will simply state that it is NOT the place of the atrium to get into this topic either. The atrium’s place is to emphasize that God created the world and provided these gifts without mention of length of time. Let the children’s imaginations, their schools and parents work it out. These modifications were finally made, but only after the Montessori community looked even further down on CGS for even trying to say that a rib on the grosgrain indicates 1,000 years – pure Montessori has no such material, neither should the atrium.
• I have had SO MANY children struggle with the concept of going from a globe to this flat map of Israel, with little to no connection to where we are now (other than on the globe). This is an area that CGS atriums should be introducing a brief preliminary geography material. Starting with the globe, then a round ball of clay, cutting the clay into two (hemispheres) and rolling them flat to show the two halves of the earth on a flat surface; then showing the puzzle map of the world, with Israel and the atrium’s locations marked.
• We have Exercises of Practical Life in the atrium, but so many catechists are NOT focused on the Montessori essentials and they introduce “fluff” into the EPL area, at the same time they ignore what is most essential. Yes, the children need EPL. It fulfills developmental needs that allows the catechist to then get into the theological presentations. HOWEVER, transferring puff balls from one bowl to another is not necessary in the atrium, unless you have the children using tongs to get fresh cotton balls for the polishing work.

The tray on the left should be glass or hard plastic; I was using it elsewhere the day this photo was taken.

• Polishing: I have personally streamlined my AMI album pages on glass, metal and wood polishing, so that ONE presentation can be given and the child now has all the polishing available to work on. The only differences are the actual polishes in the bottles, the type of tray, the ring and the dish for the polish and cotton ball – designed to indicate what that polish is to be used for.
• There are a few ways that the Exercises of Practical Life within the atrium can be freshened up, so as to focus on the essentials, while meeting children’s developmental needs, and leading more fully into the life of the atrium, the family and the church.
• Last EPL thought: consider how the children are to be responsible for the atrium and the church; provide those materials (polishing, flower arranging, cleaning, sweeping, folding cloths (ie for the altar)). Consider what preliminary work they need in order to accomplish those works (eyedropper transfer for polishing, introductory cloth folding, carrying trays and mats). If you need a few more preliminaries at the beginning of the year, fine! Then pull them out by the second month of atrium so the children are not matching colors or transferring puff balls all year when they have other work that more fully meets their developmental needs.
• Language: Some people add far more 3-part and 4-part cards than are entirely necessary. I fully agree with CGS’s current materials manuals in how much they provide, with one exception: it is nice to have the 3-part cards for the cities of Israel for the level 1 children. But I have seen some people go much, much further and label *everything*. It gets to be too much.
• Summary: So in many areas, the Montessori influence is not balanced. Too much or too little and both to the detriment of the potential of the album.