‘I would say that normally it is the creative minorities that determine the future, and in this sense the Catholic Church must understand itself as a creative minority that has a heritage of values that are not things of the past, but a very living and relevant reality.’ Pope Benedict XVI
The question of what Catholicism should look like has for decades been the fundamental question underpinning the most heated debates within the Catholic community in England and Wales. On the one hand there are those who maintain the faith has to be in and of the culture in which it resides, to be at ease with the socio-cultural establishment of which it should seek to be part, to talk the language and live the life of those to whom it seeks to offer the Good News. On the other hand, there are those who maintain that the community is strongest when it remains faithful to the Magisterium, that its renewal comes most authentically through ressourcement, that the recusancy streak running through its very DNA continues to be its greatest and most enduring strength, not its fatal weakness.
It is into this melting pot that the Bishops continually seek to tread, endlessly courting adverse reaction from one side or the other. And into the ring has been thrown the Mitre of the Bishop of Lancaster Michael Campbell, who has issued a pastoral letter reflecting on the theme of the New Evangelisation, itself very much of the Holy Father’s oeuvre, whilst asking how the Church of today can best meet the challenge of this much needed renewal.
The letter is bold, and asks some genuinely courageous questions that will no doubt horrify some whilst delighting others. It has chosen to address, in a very direct way, that very kulturkampf outlined above, before asking what the response of the Diocese of Lancaster will be, both spiritually and constitutionally, to the goal of evangelisation.
On this note, one section in particular provoked special interest. After reflection on the nature of the faithful community in contemporary society, and what the response of the institutional Church should be to the changing social circumstances with which it is confronted, Bishop Campbell asks;
Is it right or sustainable to expect our Mass-going population of 21,000 to support our schools and colleges in which often the majority of pupils, and sometimes teachers, are not practising Catholics? Is it time for us to admit that we can no longer maintain schools that are Catholic in name only?
It is worth saying that, until relatively recently, this question would simply not have been asked, or at any rate not framed in such terms. Indeed, the very use of the words ‘Catholic in name only’ (or CINO in shorthand) is itself provocative for those who have not and do not necessarily see the role of Catholic schools as being ‘Catholic’ at all, at least not with a capital ‘C’. That the Church should compromise its generous access and influence within mainstream schools sector, and the (imagined?) political leverage that comes with it, was simply off the radar – better by far to bury the question with platitudes about Gospel values and the vital role Catholic schools play in some of the toughest communities (as they absolutely do, by the way). Questions of authenticity and mission, indeed of practice, were irrelevant; presence was the key.
This narrative has been challenged in the past, again most notably in the Diocese of Lancaster. Whilst still Bishop of Lancaster, Patrick O’Donoghue wrote an impressive piece on education entitled Fit For Mission? Schools (I’ve blogged on this before – see here) in which evangelisation was thrust into the debate as one of the central considerations when assessing the role of Catholic education in the formation of the young. The document, unfortunately, was better received in Rome than Eccleston Square, but for Bishop Michael the insight has clearly proven crucial, so much so that he has grabbed it and started asking searching questions in light of it: in short, what is a Catholic education all about?
For his part, he leaves us in little doubt;
The Church only exists to evangelise – that means buildings, churches, parishes, schools and colleges are only valuable insofar as they help the Church in that mission of salvation! How can we as parishes, schools and colleges – as the Diocese – support this sorely needed New Evangelisation?
Salvation! For many Catholic schools, caught in the vice-like grip of external secular pressures placed on the schools system as a whole, as well as the identity-amnesia that has gripped the Church more widely, evangelisation as warranting even a footnote on the mission statement is essentially alien. Understandably, schools have instead concentrated on the meat and drink of the education system – bums on seats and exam results. Holistic visions of a Catholic education, encompassing both organisational structure and pedagogy, are simply trumped by the reality and demands of the schools sector: the dilution of any distinctive ethos thereby brought about through a mixture of cultural change within and without the Church and simple, cold reaction to legislative demand. After all, with many schools no longer guaranteed the supply of Catholic children for which they were designed following the baby boom of the early sixties, so ‘the brand’ has had to adapt to new realities, which has included a new clientele for whom Catholicism is neither central nor necessarily relevant.
Now there are some important questions here requiring careful consideration – implicit in Bishop Campbell’s words is the suggestion that Catholic education should only be for active, worshipping Catholics. Clearly there are some in the Diocese of Westminster, for example, who might well take issue with that view, but politics aside the question is crucial: should Catholic education really be just for Catholics? Should it not welcome all and invite all to share in the community of faith? Or does open access make it more difficult for schools to cultivate a community of faith that people might be able to share in?
There are also technical questions – what should this new education look like (cue people dusting off their old copies of Newman from the bookshelf)? Inevitably it will be smaller, but in what manner? Will it exist within the mainstream, or the (charitable) private? Are there the legal and legislative options available for this to happen? Could the diocese fund such a re-ordering? How shall they be run? What happens to those schools likely to feel the sharp edge of such decisions? What happens to land/buildings held in trust?
Now there are those who characterise the debate over Catholic schools as being the battle between the CESEW who wish to abolish the ‘Catholic’ and certain Bishops who wish to abolish the ‘schools’. It seems clear to me that this is absolutely not what Bishop Michael is driving toward. Quite the opposite, in fact. He is asking, with rather more focus than which we have become accustomed: ‘just what is a Catholic school?’
For those who would embrace these words as evidence of a coming Revolution, one would advise caution. These remain questions put to the laity, and we should trust that the issue remains one for discussion and not the outline of a pre-determined plan whose features and priorities are already set out. For those who would dismiss this as next week’s fish-wrap, the remarkable boldness must surely make one think again.
In short, we don’t yet know.
Interesting times.
Education is inseparable from formation (that is clear in Catholic teaching and arises from our nature as reasoning beings) so education is very different from care homes, hospices etc. However, I don’t think it is necessarily implicit in the Bishop’s letter that Catholic education is only for active Catholics though I think the Bishop should have asked the question more clearly “what is it that makes a school Catholic?”. It is not the pupil mix but its ethos, leadership, availability of the sacraments, teaching and so on. The staff profile is more important than the pupil profile and what the school actually does and proclaims more important than the staff profile (though a certain staff profile is a pre-requisite). Those who are non-Catholic at the school should know exactly what they are getting and they should not attend the school if they do not wish to receive a Catholic education. However, a certain percentage of non-Catholics does not prevent a school being strongly Catholic. So, I wonder if the Bishop is emphasising the wrong issue in asking his question. Surely, he should be asking himself whether, given the resources available and the regulatory background, the diocese’s schools can be and are being properly Catholic. It may be that one wishes to serve the active Catholic population first if choices have to be made, but it is not the pupils who define the school. The school exists to provide education and formation, the pupils are the recipients of that. It is also important that canon law stresses that dioceses need not be the only (or, indeed, the main) provider of Catholic education – and it may be possible within the free schools programme for more non-diocesan Catholic schools to establish. All these are important questions but the first question for the diocese to ask is whether the schools controlled by the diocese are really providing first class Catholic formation and education: and, if not, why not and what should be done about it?
I largely agree, although the question of the current state of affairs, whatever they might be, cannot be separated from the question of what factors have produced them. It seems to me that, as is the nature of an open and honestly asked question, all options are on the table to be discussed and dismissed as the evidence demands, eventually whittling down to something approaching a coherent account of where we are and where we wish to be (and I do not assume for one moment there will be consensus on this issue). This includes consideration of both Catholic accounts of what we wish our education provision to look like but also, importantly, how well that vision can be accommodated within the current legal frameworks (your staffing issue being a case in point, I believe). I suppose that is the task that presents itself, and that Bishop Michael has put to the laity and the clerics in the Diocese of Lancaster – with time we’ll see where that leads us.
I agree with your comment – especially your last sentence. But who has the authority to make changes ? I know its of not much use to the present discussion , but as an example , twenty years ago I was worried about the education at secondary stage of my sons. There was no Catholic secondary school in our area – the nearest was ( and still is ) is forty miles away. I wrote to the bishop and on his visitation to our parish spoke to him. His response was that he was not able to do anything . He suggested that it was the parish priest’s job to sort out a solution ! Well , surely the leader of the flock ie the bishop is the guy who should be leading !
This is a good point and the problem is often looked at upside down (partly – perhaps largely – because of the legal framework in which the Bishops have operated: though they support that framework so strongly that they can hardly not be to blame at least to some extent). The situation in Canon law accords with common sense and what should really happen if the education system was less bureaucratised (by both Church and state). The primary duty to ensure a Catholic education is on the parent – this does not have to involve educating the child in a school designated as Catholic (though this may be helpful). Catholic schools can be founded by the laity, by orders, by the new movements and so on and really, this would be the ideal. Canon law says that the dioceses should provide schools where none of an appropriately Christian character currently exist. A big part of the problem is that dioceses have happily sat back when either parents cannot get a Catholic education because Catholic schools are over-subscribed (common in London) or because there are none in a given geographical area – they have neither provided more schools nor been interested in more Catholic schools being created outside the diocesan framework. Bishops have sat back and been happy to see a bureaucratised and rigid system develop. At the same time, it would have been better if we had not had a system where only the dioceses (in effect) were able to found schools (through the voluntary aided principle). Now, we have at least the prospect of some improvement. New Catholic free schools could be founded. It would be hugely helpful if the dioceses made clear to parents that they would give the laity, movments or orders founding such schools logistical support (because there are some difficult hurdles to jump) – but they do not need to provide money. The diocese can also choose when to give (or take away) the designation “Catholic”. This puts some of the responsibility back where it belongs (with parents, laity more generally and – especially at primary level – possibly with parishes) but still allows the Bishop to decide when schools are called “Catholic”. The dioceses could help here (or the CES could) but they seem unwilling to have their own “Catholic school monopoly” of voluntary aided schools disturbed (which is not really the spirit of either Catholic social teaching on education or Canon law).
My own thoughts:
If one looks at the notion of evangelisation as having different stages or levels – as does Evangelii Nuntiandi, I think – then Catholic schools, hospices, hospitals etc (or Catholic involvement therewith) all contribute to evangelisation, but at different stages.
The way in which schools contribute to evangelisation can then also be seen, yes as at times directly proclamation and catechesis, but also as evangelising culture. And in situations where the Catholic Church is running a school where most of the pupils are non-practising or non-Catholic, does this not potentially form part of its evangelising mission?
I suppose the obvious response would be that schools that have a majority population of non-Catholics have found the evangelisation bit tremendously easy to jettison, and for perfectly understandable reasons.
I wonder if the bishop also thinks the purpose of Catholic hospitals, hospices and aid agencies is to evangelise?
Seems to me that the purpose of Catholic schools is to educate. What one is educated in is a question of culture and morality and so I think it makes perfect sense to talk of a Catholic education. But education is not simply a means to a Catholic purpose, it is a good in itself. If Catholic schools have lost their way it is not because they have ceased to be Catholic (although it often seems like some have) but because they have ceased to educate. The two might seem correlated because valuing the virtues of the intellect is part of Catholic morality, but we shouldn’t assume that an intellectual problem is actually a spiritual problem. It might just as well be the case that the spiritual problem is actually an intellectual problem. It is dumbed-down Catholicism that is the result of dumbed-down schooling, not dumbed-down schooling that is a result of dumbed-down Catholicism.
No, the purpose of Catholic hospitals, hospices and aid agencies is to care.
The purpose of a Catholic School is to educate within the context of our Faith and to produce well balanced enquiring citizens who may well be qualified for further tertiary education but, in any event, are educated in the Catholic Faith and are able to defend it, if necessary and who are compassionate and caring young adults.
Of course the school will not be 100% successful in any event and I don’t believe that excluding the children of lapsed Catholics (What is a lapsed Catholic? Are there gradations of lapsed Catholic?) makes any sense as the school should be teaching them the aspects of the Faith that are missing at home and some of them will respond and become practising Catholics perhaps only when they are adult and have children of their own.
I certainly agree with the Bishop that we have to look at what Catholic Education is all about and it makes no sense to have a Catholic School that does not teach the Catholic Faith or is dominated by pupils of a completely different Faith.
“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” John 13.34-35
“Preach the gospel. Use words if necessary.” – St. Augustine.
Evangelisation is not just words. We evangelise by showing love and care.