Revisionist Catholic history in 6th grade text book?

[St.Sebastian]

I was working with my son on his social studies assignment and came across the following “facts” about Catholicism in his book titled, Our World Today: People, Place and Issues, Boehm, et. Al, Glencoe/McGraw-Hill (2003). This is a public school text, but we live in a very conservative school district.

On page 241 in the section that reads, “The Rise of Christianity”, the text states:

It was during the Middle Ages that Christianity, in the form of the Roman Catholic Church, became a political power in western Europe. A leader called a bishop headed each major Christian community. By the A.D. 500s, the bishops of Rome, now known as popes, became the leaders of the Catholic Church . . .

This is followed up in the next paragraph with the statement that Eastern Orthodoxy (during the middle ages) was “not under the leadership of the popes in Rome, but rather the emperors in Constantinople.”

A question on one of his assignments really set me off because it asked the students to complete timelines for historical facts. One of the timeline facts was: Catholic Church makes the Pope the head of the church . . . the correct answer [according to teacher] was: 500s AD

Before I go off with my manifesto to the school district, am I off base to be so upset? Does anyone have any idea where and how this version of history even came about? Is this the common understanding of catholic history in the secular education?

 

[Jon_S]

I would be quite upset if I read that…and I would march down to the school in “apologist mode” and give the principal a good schooling on Catholicism…but I’m a hot-head like that!

 

[rpp]

Sounds like the real effort is to make Christianity and Islam seem to be about the same age.

Before you head down there, get some scholarly works as well as plenty of written documentation from sources other than the Catholic Church. Any Catholic sources maybe summarily rejected by these, um, people. But bringing a list of Pope from the Vatican website will be useful. A biogrwphy of Pope Gregory the Great or Pope Leo the First might be handy as well. Finally, a write up about the Emporer Constantine and the Edict of Milan would bve good. All these predate 500 AD.

 

[bengal_fan]

the problem is that it is a pretty widely believed argument among secular historians. even many protestant historians teach that the bishop of rome did not begin to claim supremacy until 500. it is also widely held that the eastern churches never put themselves under the authority of the bishop of rome but under ecumenical councils. also, there was a belief that when the capital of the empire shifted, so did the capital of Christianity. you can go argue with the principal if you want (and i’m not saying you wouldn’t have some evidence to prove your point), but it probably won’t do much good considering that is the prevelant view right now.

 

[rwoehmke]

You all are assuming the principal even knows it is in the book. Even if he does and is not a Catholic it lines up with many non-catholic versions of the history of Christianity and he would not see a problem. You might accomplish more by communicating with the publisher, but probably not. At least the Public Schools are not teaching from the KJV as they did before the mid twentieth century.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I can readily understand your disapprobation of the school text, and your natural wish to correct a misunderstanding that is perpetuated by such texts. However, I really believe that since this is a public school, it is actually wonderful that they are teaching some religious background. That in itself is a good thing, as opposed to the usual method of pretending religion just doesn’t exist. As for the error, I believe it is only natural for such a text to take sweeping, over-simplistic views of what would ordinarily be a very complex situation. In other words, making a huge protest out of some inaccuracy like this is PRECISELY the reason public schools are so reluctant to cover religion in any way whatsoever.

I’m not trying to make excuses for the school, but rather trying to redirect your honest and valuable dismay at such errors. It would be a great learning opportunity for your child if you would explain how this is exactly the kind of inaccuracy that can be expected by the world at large when it comes to religion. You (as the God-ordained instructor of your child) would not only be explaining to your child why there is much more to this question than can be covered in a simplistic worldly textbook, but you would further be teaching your child to come to YOU when questions about Catholicism come up, and not trust the pasteurized, watered down public school textbooks.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I was working with my son on his social studies assignment and came across the following “facts” about Catholicism in his book titled, Our World Today: People, Place and Issues, Boehm, et. Al, Glencoe/McGraw-Hill (2003). This is a public school text, but we live in a very conservative school district.

On page 241 in the section that reads, “The Rise of Christianity”, the text states:

This is followed up in the next paragraph with the statement that Eastern Orthodoxy (during the middle ages) was “not under the leadership of the popes in Rome, but rather the emperors in Constantinople.”

A question on one of his assignments really set me off because it asked the students to complete timelines for historical facts. One of the timeline facts was: Catholic Church makes the Pope the head of the church . . . the correct answer [according to teacher] was: 500s AD

Before I go off with my manifesto to the school district, am I off base to be so upset? Does anyone have any idea where and how this version of history even came about? Is this the common understanding of catholic history in the secular education?

I’m trying to see the problem… ​

 

[Zenas]

Ambrose has the right idea here. Although slightly revisionist, the text book at least gives the Church credit for leadership in the West during the Middle Ages. Text books will typically try to avoid all references to religion and this one did not. Also the statement is mostly right. A majority of protestant scholars would regard it as 100% correct. I agree this is a great teaching moment for you and your son.

BTW, Wikipedia says the first Bishop of Rome to have the title “Pope” was Siricius, who held the office from 384 to 399.

 

[love4mary]

What I did when this issue came up in my son’s Social Studies class was to have him answer the questions that pertained to the Catholic Church with the TRUTH of what the Church taught or the history of the Church,NOT what the text book said.

This was actually a fun time for me as well. I researched the assignment that dealt with the Church and printed off copies of documents and then I wrote a short explanation as to why what my son was being 'taught" in the text book was wrong, of course providing many references.

I did this, not so much in protest of the text books (which needs to be taken to the publisher and not the school teachers/principal) but because his teacher is very Anti-Catholic and believes everything that Jack Chick ever printed.

My son got a B on his assignment and I got an F:ehh: plus a letter telling me to let my son do his own work in the future. But I made my point with him.

Still would like to know why I got an F, cause it was a good paper. Assuming you leave out grammer, punctuation and spelling

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Ambrose has the right idea here. Although slightly revisionist, the text book at least gives the Church credit for leadership in the West during the Middle Ages. Text books will typically try to avoid all references to religion and this one did not. Also the statement is mostly right. A majority of protestant scholars would regard it as 100% correct. I agree this is a great teaching moment for you and your son.

BTW, Wikipedia says the first Bishop of Rome to have the title “Pope” was Siricius, who held the office from 384 to 399.

Thanks Zenas! Regarding Wikipedia: Most Bishops in the ancient Western church (2nd to 4th centuries) were referred to as Pappa (Pope) It gradually fell out that only the Bishop of Rome retained this name. So there is really no official first “pope” as Wikipedia suggests.

 

[Contarini]

I was working with my son on his social studies assignment and came across the following “facts” about Catholicism in his book titled, Our World Today: People, Place and Issues, Boehm, et. Al, Glencoe/McGraw-Hill (2003). This is a public school text, but we live in a very conservative school district.

On page 241 in the section that reads, “The Rise of Christianity”, the text states:

This is followed up in the next paragraph with the statement that Eastern Orthodoxy (during the middle ages) was “not under the leadership of the popes in Rome, but rather the emperors in Constantinople.”

A question on one of his assignments really set me off because it asked the students to complete timelines for historical facts. One of the timeline facts was: Catholic Church makes the Pope the head of the church . . . the correct answer [according to teacher] was: 500s AD

Before I go off with my manifesto to the school district, am I off base to be so upset? Does anyone have any idea where and how this version of history even came about? Is this the common understanding of catholic history in the secular education?

It’s a crude oversimplification based on the Protestant interpretation of history. You are right to object, but I think you need to phrase your objection carefully so it doesn’t come across as if you want history to be told only in a way favorable to your religious beliefs.

I would say something like this: of course it’s true that the role of the bishop of Rome develops throughout history, but church historians agree that the bishop of Rome had some kind of leadership role long before the sixth century. There was no one moment when the bishop of Rome “became” the leader of the Church. You can also legitimately point out that this singling out of the sixth century is historically part of Protestant propaganda. It’s not something historians of the period would say. You can if you like tell them that you have heard this from a church historian (Edwin Woodruff Tait, assistant professor of Bible and Religion at Huntington University) who is an Episcopalian and teaches at a Protestant college.

Edwin

 

[Zooey]

Before I go off with my manifesto to the school district, am I off base to be so upset?

Nope; in fact, if I could, I would join with you.
That is not just requiring Catholic students to respond contrary to their faith–which is bad enough–but it is also teaching all students to believe a theory of history which is specifically fundamentalist-protestant. And you know, public schools are really, really, not suppose to be teaching any religious views at all; much less requiring children to answer as though they were part of that religion.

Does anyone have any idea where and how this version of history even came about? Is this the common understanding of catholic history in the secular education?

Its a fundamentalist protestant version of history. It has no business being taught in public school.
Its also just plain bad (inaccurate) history.

 

[Zooey]

It’s a crude oversimplification based on the Protestant interpretation of history. You are right to object, but I think you need to phrase your objection carefully so it doesn’t come across as if you want history to be told only in a way favorable to your religious beliefs.

I would say something like this: of course it’s true that the role of the bishop of Rome develops throughout history, but church historians agree that the bishop of Rome had some kind of leadership role long before the sixth century. There was no one moment when the bishop of Rome “became” the leader of the Church. You can also legitimately point out that this singling out of the sixth century is historically part of Protestant propaganda. It’s not something historians of the period would say. You can if you like tell them that you have heard this from a church historian (Edwin Woodruff Tait, assistant professor of Bible and Religion at Huntington University) who is an Episcopalian and teaches at a Protestant college.

Edwin

And that “Protestant interpretation of history” that Edwin mentions, is the key. Because by using this text, and requiring students to assent to what it says in order to be “correct”, the school is forcing their students to adopt a view of history that is contrary to their right to freedom of religion.
And that’s not legal. The school district could conceivably lose its right to taxpayers’ funds, if it continues to insist that every student answer as directed by a textbook, on a matter of religion.
It’s not correct history.That is simply an opinion of an author, who is parroting a very narrow religious view, not teaching history at all.

It’s not, IMO, a question of you requesting that your religious views be required; it’s you saying, “look, this is promoting one religion over another, and the public schools in this country are not supposed to do that”.

Oh, I really do wish I were there!! My Mama taught school for so many years, she would have had a fit, if any textbook had pulled that kind of thing when she was around.

 

[savedsinner]

I don’t know why anyone would get upset.

They are only trying to teach history.

What they are teaching is a FACT!!!

Is this class before or after they teach evolution as a FACT???

 

[Jolly_Joe]

The textbook in question is coauthored by the National Geographic Society. It is definitely not a book with a Fundamentalist Protestant slant it, if anything, it would be rather hostile to a Fundamentalist Protestant viewpoint.

JJ

 

[Zooey]

I don’t know why anyone would get upset.

They are only trying to teach history.

“Trying” being the operative word here…They are “trying”. Unfortunately, they are trying and failing at teaching history, and succeeding in teaching someone’s mistaken opinion of what history actually is.

What they are teaching is a FACT!!!

No, what they are teaching is not a fact. What the book is doing is attempting to somehow undermine freedom of religion, which is, after all, guaranteed under the Constitution.
Savedsinner, look at it this way: Suppose your public school-educated child is required to write a book report for class on a biography of Martin Luther, and the teacher gives him an “F” because he says that Luther was a great man. Wouldn’t you head down there, & either (A) pull your child out of that school, or (B) raise Cain until the school started allowing your child the freedom to have an opinion about the character of Luther & his effect on world history??
Or would you just sit back, when a teacher, in a public school announced (rather as someone has done here at CAF–which is another sort of place altogether), that “In writing about Martin Luther, everyone must admit that he was evil”??? (And mark down your child for disagreeing!)

A lot always depends on just whose ox is being gored…

Is this class before or after they teach evolution as a FACT???

Nonsequitor.
This is** history** class.*Not *science class.
When the students get to biology class, that is a whole other subject…about which people on this site (as elsewhere) have a lot of different feelings, understandings, and opinions.

Let’s stick to the subject at hand… which is the history of the ancient & mediaeval world.

 

[Zooey]

The textbook in question is coauthored by the National Geographic Society. It is definitely not a book with a Fundamentalist Protestant slant it, if anything, it would be rather hostile to a Fundamentalist Protestant viewpoint.

JJ

If you google the title, and if you re-check the OP, you will find something interesting, though…
OP is writing from Texas. And, according to google, there are two versions of “Our World Today: People Places and Issues”, and “Our World Today: People, Places and Issues:Texas Edition”.
This is usually the case, when a particular special interest group has insisted on a rewrite of a text before they will buy it. (Or, in the case of a group outside the school system, before they will stop dragging school boards through the mud for buying it).
The first title is the original, as co-written by Nat’l Geographic. The second is a special re-write, done specifically for Texas schools, and only Texas schools…and that generally means that there has been a campaign against the original…
Textbook companies don’t re-write books for no reason. There is a long tradition of anti-Catholic, and pro-Fundamentalist agitation to affect the books used in Texas public schools. The textbook company often caves, & produces a book w/the same title, but which is for sale to schools in Texas–and some Protestant Christian schools across the country may often use the Texas books…
Check this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_and_Norma_Gabler
Yes, I know wikipedia is often not the best source, but it happens to be a fair condensation of the info contained in the “Results 1 - 10 of about 29,700 for norma & mel gabler. (0.23 seconds)” other articles that I found when I googled the names…

 

[Swan]

If you google the title, and if you re-check the OP, you will find something interesting, though…
OP is writing from Texas. And, according to google, there are two versions of “Our World Today: People Places and Issues”, and “Our World Today: People, Places and Issues:Texas Edition”.
This is usually the case, when a particular special interest group has insisted on a rewrite of a text before they will buy it. (Or, in the case of a group outside the school system, before they will stop dragging school boards through the mud for buying it).
The first title is the original, as co-written by Nat’l Geographic. The second is a special re-write, done specifically for Texas schools, and only Texas schools…and that generally means that there has been a campaign against the original…
Textbook companies don’t re-write books for no reason. There is a long tradition of anti-Catholic, and pro-Fundamentalist agitation to affect the books used in Texas public schools. The textbook company often caves, & produces a book w/the same title, but which is for sale to schools in Texas–and some Protestant Christian schools across the country may often use the Texas books…
Check this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_and_Norma_Gabler
Yes, I know wikipedia is often not the best source, but it happens to be a fair condensation of the info contained in the “Results 1 - 10 of about 29,700 for norma & mel gabler. (0.23 seconds)” other articles that I found when I googled the names…

As a social studies teacher I often lament the state of text books. On the other hand, when I think of the problems, such as the above, that publishers have to deal with I’m amazed the publishers don’t just throw up their hands and quit. Presenting the “facts” sounds simple enough, but as we know there can be quite a argument about what is actually a “fact”. As nice as it would be to have texts that we all approved of, I think such an ideal is an impossibilty. I would suggest informing your child of the truth and perhaps letting the text book selection committee (probably a district wide body) and publisher know on a FYI basis. The book, despite its errors, seems to have some strong points, which I would point out as well. I think we have to work together on this issue lest since there is so much pushing/pulling on all sides.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

As a social studies teacher I often lament the state of text books. On the other hand, when I think of the problems, such as the above, that publishers have to deal with I’m amazed the publishers don’t just throw up their hands and quit. Presenting the “facts” sounds simple enough, but as we know there can be quite a argument about what is actually a “fact”. As nice as it would be to have texts that we all approved of, I think such an ideal is an impossibilty. I would suggest informing your child of the truth and perhaps letting the text book selection committee (probably a district wide body) and publisher know on a FYI basis. The book, despite its errors, seems to have some strong points, which I would point out as well. I think we have to work together on this issue lest since there is so much pushing/pulling on all sides.

This is how I feel too. Religious opinions are a very slippery slope. The fact that the TEACHER was requiring a wrong answer to be the correct one is not necessarily the text books fault. Further, if Texas had them rewrite this book with a Protestant slant, as another poster suggested then this error is state wide.

This is far less trouble than what English Catholics endured for CENTURIES, under the dominance of the established Church. It is ALWAYS the parents responsibility to teach their children in God’s eyes, NOT THE SCHOOL systems. So a conscientious Catholic parent would first of all take this error in hand by discussing it with the child. Then, with much discretion, try to work with the teacher directly. But if the teacher is uninterested in other viewpoints, than what the text book teaches, I think that should end it. A parent could escalate this battle into some sort of crusade, but in the end, what would really be accomplished? Sometimes Catholics must live with injustice, prejudice and bigotry. This is not just something that happens to Catholics though.

 

[boppaid]

Does anyone have any idea where and how this version of history even came about? Is this the common understanding of catholic history in the secular education?

That is how I learned it in middle school as well. I think most everyone (besides Catholics) believe this timeline is accurate.