<p>Note that there is no option to fulfill this requirement with a course sequence that does not include Christian theology as a core topic, except for students in the PULSE service learning program. At most, you can fulfill the requirement with a sequence called “The Religious Quest,” which comes in various flavors comparing Christianity with Buddhism, Islam, etc.–but not in any flavors comparing two non-Christian religions.</p>
<p>
I agree, if by “understanding something about religion” you mean “understanding the impact of religious beliefs and institutions on human behavior, politics and culture.” But that does not seem to me what the BC theological requirement (or any other I have seen) is about. It seems to me that the point of these requirements is, if not to force religion on students, at least to force them to taste it, as parents might insist a child have at least a bite of spinach before they can proceed to dessert. And of course they are perfectly entitled to do this, just as prospective students are perfectly entitled to conclude that they want no part of it.</p>
<p>Nightchef, I think your link misses some courses…see my link in post #1380. Whatever the actual courses required, I’ve yet to hear from ANYbody who actually attended BC that the required theology courses or the school in general presented non-Christians with an atmosphere that was hostile or non-welcoming. If you’re going to be spooked by seeing a priest wearing a robe (I recall seeing exactly one priest wearing one robe the whole time I was there–an ancient retired Jesuit strolling around a garden), then yeah, it’s oppressive.</p>
<p>Look, I’m aware that Catholic colleges have different flavors. What I assumed was that people would do some research before visiting schools – it’s pretty clear that Catholic life at colleges tends to play a greater role at Catholic universities than the religious affiliations do at, say, Ivies. I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that the role of religion at Georgetown is not completely unknown even to those who haven’t been to campus. So in that sense, it still surprises me. It’s like going to Bob Jones and saying, “Oh, yeah, it was too Christian.” Granted, most Catholic universities are unfortunately nowhere near as devout, but the fact that there is a Catholic aspect at Georgetown should not be a surprise to anyone, and its level should also not be a surprise (given the vast amount of information available thereon).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>0.0 <em>cry</em></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s because if I’m interpreting you correctly, that’s a codified no-no. There’s no room for disagreement.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sorry, I just needed to clarify that for everyone. </p>
<p>Perhaps relevant is the fact that some Jesuit universities have been told that unless they make changes, their Catholic status gets yanked.</p>
<p>You’re right Nightchef… same courses, my bad. But you’re saying Theology 088, 090, & 161 (use link below to see details) look to you like subtle attempts to give the non-suspecting an enticing “taste” of Catholicism? Surely you jest (and sorry for calling you Shirley).</p>
<p>p.s. I hope you didn’t hurt yourself while stretching to complain that the comparative religion course is a deal-breaker on BC because while it allows you to compare the Judeo-Christian tradition with a variety of non-Western religions, it doesn’t allow you to compare two non-Western religions to each other.</p>
This just doesn’t follow. It’s like saying, “the fact that wine contains alcohol should not be a surprise to anyone, so the fact that it only took two glasses of Nightchef Cellars Zinfandel 2007 to make me extremely tipsy should also not be a surprise.” Some things you have to experience directly in order to understand the specific nature and degree of their effect on you.</p>
<p>You are correct – I had a logic fail. I made the appropriate change in my post.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, I still find it unbelievable that someone would know that Georgetown is Catholic but not have any idea about debates surrounding identity, etc. and still visit. That’s the inconsistency, from my vantage point.</p>
<p>nightchef, just fyi:
Loyola Chicago’s (a Jesuit institution) “Theological and Religious Studies” core requirement seems to pretty much be about “understanding the impact of religious beliefs and institutions on human behavior, politics and culture” rather than forcing students to “taste” religion. Also, it would be extremely easy to fulfill the requirement without a course that includes Christian theology as a core topic.</p>
<p>I am certainly not trying to argue that a Catholic school would be hostile or non-welcoming, just simply that if a student prefers a school with no religion influences, a Catholic school may not be the right fit.</p>
<p>And yes, I would agree with nightchef that, unless one does the community service option, any of the religion courses required by the BC core will provide a taste of Christianity.</p>
<p>I agree that there’s no particular evidence of a theological character to the description of 088 and 090–those are the ones I was saying were open only to students in that service learning program. (At least that’s what it says on the page I linked to.) </p>
<p>But 161 certainly sounds like a course in Christian theology–it’s just taught by a comparative, “conversational” method (a spoonful of sugar in the spinach, as it were).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why is that a stretch? It seems like a crucial distinction to me. If you can fulfill the requirement through courses on religions other than Christianity (as you apparently can at Loyola Chicago–thanks MomCat2), then while clearly the college thinks it important that you be exposed to religious ideas, you can’t make the case that they are insisting you be exposed to one specific set of religious ideas. I know that difference would matter to a lot of students. It mattered to my son (he was recruited by St. Michael’s in Vermont, and might very well have applied if their requirement had been as open-ended as Loyola Chicago’s).</p>
<p>Moving away from the catholic conversation - we eliminated University of Delaware after visiting. The central part of the campus was nice - but the perimeter of the campus was very busy streets - very gritty industrial type area - just didn’t work for us.</p>
<p>Would that very gritty industrial type area be the now-closed Chrysler auto plant? The one that UD purchased to tear down and add onto the campus? It’s opposite the athletic fields, arena and part of the Ag College, at the very southern end of town. Not much else even vaguely industrial within biking distance of campus :)</p>
Maybe because the students who would find such a subtly Christian atmosphere non-welcoming would never have considered BC in the first place? For those students, it’s not a matter of being pressured to convert–I agree, there’s probably zero pressure or push at a liberal Jesuit institution like BC. But some object for the same reason that some object to the phrase “under God” in the Pledge–because of an assumed norm that excludes them. I will most likely take religion courses in college, of my own volition as my college does not require theology or philosophy; I might even study the Bible somewhere along the line! But being required to study Christian theology tells me that this institution believes the study of Christianity to be a crucial aspect of liberal education. I simply do not agree with such a conception, and therefore I choose not to attend or apply.</p>
<p>
Thanks for pulling a perfect example for me. Why is the Judeo-Christian tradition inherently more important than non-Western religious traditions? Why does such a comparative limitation exist? Answer: because BC is a Catholic (and therefore Judeo-Christian) institution.</p>
<p>mathmom - Your post (#1350) made me chuckle. S is a SFS grad and I think part of being a SFS student (IMO) is learning/becoming comfortable with all types of people and all that they bring to the table, so to speak (religious/cultural/ethnic/economic), so if your S was not sure he could be comfortable with the Catholic part of G-town (and it is part of the Hoya culture), then it probably was a good thing he did not go there for SFS.</p>
<p>Baelor- post #1384- disagree with your evaluation of my phrases. Being Catholic in the Ecumenical era (post late 1960’s) with all sorts of changes was much more fun than being rigid- like I said, there are conservative and liberal Catholic dioceses. Activities and dress codes were church sanctioned, YOU don’t get to decide what is right and wrong. That sanctimonious (dictionary- “affecting rightousness”) behavior- only the appointed students get to distribute communion attitude/dress code- is wrong.</p>
<p>Sorry folks for continuing the theme, but that post needed a rebuttal.</p>
<p>Please keep the stories coming- interesting.</p>
<long low=“” whistle=“”> If anyone thinks American Catholics have a common worldview to any of the items on that list, they don’t know many American Catholics. There are American Catholics who have more in common with the ayatollahs of Iran than they do with me and the priests of my parish, for ex.</long></p>
<p>There are also orthodox and WRONG dioceses. That’s the division that’s better to follow. I really don’t care what happens so long that there is reverence in heart and spirit and a strict following of the GIRM and Magesterial teaching. Because those are required, period. Clown Masses = wrong on a factual basis. Making changes to Eucharistic Prayers = wrong on a factual basis. Women preachers = wrong on a factual basis. Applauding during Mass = wrong on a factual basis. These are not my rules.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re right, I don’t. Which is why I would never claim that something that is not objectively wrong is </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The dress code is to some degree codified. So please spare me your pathetic insults as I watch liturgical terrorism get a free pass. Again, if it’s not forbidden in the GIRM/Redemptionis Sacramentum etc., I really don’t have a problem with it.</p>
<p>I’m sad that you lapsed. Also, please do not misconstrue desire for orthodoxy with killjoy or judgment on people who are not in full communion with the Church. Remember, orthodoxy = adherence to the CODIFIED rules and doctrine. I don’t see how you could fault someone for that, really. I know it’s hard to imagine, but I actually am quite an accepting person.</p>
<p>TheDad, note that I suggested Catholics were raised or at least exposed to this worldview, not that they necessarily share it.</p>
<p>I’m not sure how you can be a Catholic and not at least know about the Pope and his role, have heard that certain actions are traditionally considered sinful in the Catholic church, be acquainted with people who celebrated their first communion, etc.</p>