What I hope for in the future for Catholic school Religious Education Promoting a 'narrative' for RE that is more meaningful and relevant for students and teachers What is proposed below, and throughout this section, is not really anything new. Rather, it simply puts a spotlight on what is considered best practice and realistic. It suggests a way of understanding and talking about Religious Education that is more affirming of the work religious educators are currently doing. And it makes RE more inviting, and less daunting, for teachers who are new to this role.

There is no specific audio file lecture for this part of the section. Please read through the text below. If you prefer to hear this webpage read for you, click the icon to play or download an mp3 audio reading of the text.

Some thoughts on revitalising the future trajectory for Australian Catholic school Religious Education -- Educating and resourcing young people's spirituality for life in a complex, challenging culture.

The first step is about changing how we understand and talk about Religious Education.

The changing emphasis -- away from education. And why this emphasis needs to be reversed.
In 1966, the bishops at the Second Vatican Council made a bold, expansive, ecumenical move in issuing their Declaration on Education. This appeared to be one example of what Pope John XXIII recommended in attending to the ‘signs of the times'. It was a brave move. The Catholic bishops did not ‘own' the word education – it was more a public domain word. It signified a readiness for dialogue with the world of education, and Christian education in particular. It was more of a catholic (small c) than a Catholic initiative. It was an ‘outwards' looking trajectory rather than being focused ‘inwards'. In other words, it seemed to be saying that the best Catholic thing to do was take a less exclusively-Catholic perspective.

As explained in chapter 9 of Life to the full and in some other study sections on this website, the retreat from this trajectory into more Catholic Church-centred, ecclesiastical language for talking about ministry (including religious education) was considered to be a backward step. And the themes of ‘re-asserting' Catholic identity and ‘forming' faith were also considered to be somewhat counterproductive for these times characterised by pervasive secularisation and widespread disinterest in what the Catholic Church had to offer for a meaningful life.

The diagnosis of both contemporary Westernised culture and Catholic school religious education in Life to the full led to the proposition that Catholic RE needs to return more towards the ‘outwards' orientation in Vatican II's declaration on Education. This could be more relevant and educationally productive for the young people in Catholic schools, and for Catholic educators, than a narrow preoccupation with Catholic identity and mission.

Catholic religious education needs to explain more clearly to the Australian community how it contributes to the spiritual, religious and moral education of young people in a secularised, multi-faith society. Hopefully, this will exercise a leadership role in Australian education, showing what might be entailed in a spiritual/moral dimension to the school curriculum. With by far the bulk of Australian educational resources invested in religious education, Catholic schools could possibly have a pivotal place in showing how an educational ‘resourcing' of the spirituality of young people in a complex confusing culture, whether they are religious or not, makes a valuable contribution to Australian schooling and thus to the lives of forthcoming generations of Australians.

In the document Catholic schools at a crossroads , the Catholic bishops of New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory (2007) expressed concern that despite the high level of resources invested in Catholic schools, they were not successful in inclining young Catholics to become regular church goers. Among their recommendations, they called for a ‘new' evangelisation (Pope John Paul II, 1990, Redemptoris Missio) that would help ‘reignite' young people's spirituality and improve their engagement with the Church. From the perspective of maintaining the continuing health of the Catholic Church, this response was understandable. But the issue runs more deeply than religiosity (measure of religious behaviour) – it involves fundamental changes in the landscape of spirituality (See the relevant study sections on this topic and Life to the full, chapters 3-7). This thinking underestimates the complexity of the spirituality of contemporary youth – and of adults as well. In addition, it seems to presume that the educational activity of a Catholic school can, by itself, change young people's spirituality significantly – proposing a simplistic solution to a complex problem.

What the Crossroads document sought was some formula that would reverse the substantial drift away from participation in the Church. The solution was labelled ‘new' evangelisation. Both the problem as the document's authors understood it, and the proposed solution, made sense within a particular framework of cultural-religious meanings. For those who shared this outlook, the problem is about how to stop the decline in religiosity and traditional spirituality. But many young people and adult Catholics have no identification with this framework – as if it no longer existed; or it has little influence on their thinking; or, because of their involvement in a Catholic school, they may acknowledge it respectfully, but, for them, it has low plausibility and little credibility. As one young teacher said “They're on a different mental planet from the one I live on” – suggesting a clerical naivety about how the links between religion and spirituality have changed significantly over the past 60 years.

If the majority of young people in Catholic schools are not very religious, then you have a problem of a curriculum that appears to be congruent with the outlook of less than 5% of those who are the recipients of religious education. And I would argue that it is not as relevant to these church-going young people as it could be. The focus on spirituality and on the idea of educating young people spiritually and morally tries to overcome this incongruity and it tries to make religious education more relevant to the clientele.

If Catholic schools are to offer an education in spirituality that is meaningful, then there is a need to understand and acknowledge the changed spiritual situation of young people in an un-prejudiced way. For many, but not all, it is relatively secular, eclectic, subjective, individualistic and self-reliant; there is a strong interest in achieving a desirable lifestyle but little interest in connection with the church. Bishops, clergy and some Catholic education authorities appear to underestimate both the magnitude and the depth of this change.

Religious education needs to focus more on resourcing the basic human spirituality of young people – helping them learn how to better negotiate the spiritual and moral complexities of modern life.
This should be offered unconditionally – whether or not they will ever participate in church life; and this will be helpful both for those who are involved in a parish and those who are not. Giving attention to religious traditions will always remain an important part of the religious educational process. But to focus relatively exclusively on such teaching is both too narrow and counterproductive – even if institutional maintenance were a principal purpose. It is considered that helping young people learn how to identify, interpret and evaluate contemporary spiritual/moral issues needs to become a more prominent part of religious education, especially in the senior years; and this has implications for both content and pedagogy. To do this is not ‘secularising' the process but it is trying to be faithful to the Catholic school's religious mission to contemporary youth.

If this proposed agenda is to be advanced, it will require some level of educational consensus that transcends the particular spiritualities of the educators themselves – whether this be ‘conservative' or ‘liberal' etc. In other words, those whose principal concern is promoting church participation as well as those who do not accord this aim the same priority, need to see that the landscape of spirituality has changed so much that a traditional religious education, linked with a religious spirituality, is no longer adequate in Catholic schools. For this reason, the material on this website and in Life to the full has given special attention to charting change in spirituality. It sought to develop an interpretation that would be more cogent in persuading Catholic education authorities and religion teachers to see the need for a different pattern of emphasis in religious education that needs to be more evident especially in the senior classes.

A relatively secular spirituality has become the norm for many Catholics, both young and old, and therefore it needs to be understood and addressed positively, and not negatively in terms of a deficit model that employs words like secular, un-churched, non-practising, non-traditional or non-religious. Rather than persist with a single unrealistic purpose of trying to re-establish a traditional Catholic religious spirituality and identity for all, Catholic school religious education needs to take a broader approach.

The new ‘mental planet', or the cultural meanings that affect contemporary spiritualities, needs a more systematic exploration. Such a project is a core task for religious educators. We should not presume that either the traditional or the new is right and the other wrong. All sets of cultural meanings have both healthy and unhealthy elements that need to be identified and evaluated; this is one of the roles of an education in spirituality and identity. Prominent changes in cultural meanings need to be taken into account in any relevant contemporary religious education.

Some key themes and recommendations for the future trajectory of Catholic school RE

I. Building up the critical dimension in the religious education curriculum: Trying to address the needs of contemporary young people to help them chart a constructive path through the maze of contemporary culture.

Firstly, this proposal does not question the important place of educating young people in their religious tradition.

But the complexities and ambiguities of culture today both promote human wellbeing as well as causing harm, leaving casualties in their wake. Religious education is well placed in the Catholic school curriculum to help young people look critically at the shaping influence of culture on people's beliefs and values. Also it can study the importance of religions in contemporary world affairs.

It is no longer adequate or relevant to spend practically all the senior school religious education curriculum time studying Catholicism. Adding elements of a critical approach, especially from Year 9 onwards, dealing with a selection of contemporary life issues (personal, social, political, environmental etc.) can help young people ‘interrogate' their cultural conditioning to discern both the healthy and unhealthy influences. A student-centred, research-oriented pedagogy can empower the students to develop critical skills in studying important issues in an academic way.

The principle of allowing content that is not specifically Catholic in the RE curriculum in Years 11-12 has been acceptable since the introduction of state-developed Religion Studies courses in the 1990s (and in some instances, before that), even though some may still be opposed to this. Currently, ATAR (Australian Tertiary Admission Rank) accredited programs such as Studies of Religion (NSW), Study of Religion (Qld), Religion and Society (Vic), and the non-ATAR accredited Religion and Ethics (Qld) are being taught in Australian Catholic schools. This broader approach is complementary to the mainly Catholic centred content in primary and junior secondary Catholic curricula. How Religion Studies programs harmonise with Catholic Religious Education is discussed in detail in chapter 22 of Reasons for living.

So, introducing more content on the contemporary search for meaning, and in researching some contemporary spiritual/moral issues should not be construed as 'replacing' Catholic content. It is complementary, as is the content of Religion Studies programs. I would argue that the content of the state developed Religion Studies courses also needs to be enhanced in this same way, as their current content in my opinion is 'too tame' and not as relevant to the lives of young Australians as it could be.

Such an evaluative approach can help resource and enhance their spirituality – whether they are formally religious or not. This approach needs more prominence in the secondary religious education curriculum, complementing the important need for young people to study their own religious tradition in an academic way – together with some reference to other religious traditions

II. Taking into account the relatively secular spirituality of young people as a starting point for religious education.

In addition to the importance of knowing how the landscape of spirituality has changed so much, religion teachers need to understand contemporary youth spirituality as the starting point that has to be taken into account when planning religious education. The relatively secular spirituality of most students in Catholic schools needs to be acknowledged and addressed in other than a deficit way (Click here for the summary table interpreting characteristics of contemporary youth spirituality).

III. Taking into account students' disposition towards Religious Education.

The majority of pupils in Australian Catholic schools are not very religious. Hence, there is an apparent discontinuity between the assumptions within Catholic school religious education (as if all students are or should be regular mass attenders) and the classroom reality. Catholic religious education documentation seems to have shown little acknowledgement that most Catholic students are not (or will not be) church-going. If many of the pupils are not going to reference their personal spirituality to regular church attendance, then this makes it more relevant to attend to the proposal above that increased attention be given to a critical evaluative approach. Whether students have a religious or a secular spirituality, the crucial thing for Catholic schools is whether they are well educated spiritually and religiously.

In tune with the general indifference to religion in secularised Western countries, most of the pupils in Catholic schools do not care much for religious education. They do not see it as a subject that ‘counts', and while not antagonistic, they do not engage in religious education in the same way they do in subjects like English, Maths and Science. There are no formulae that can change such perceptions significantly; but anything that increases the academic status, as well as perceived relevance, will help. (The problem of the 'subversion' of spiritual/moral subjects in the school curriculum is discussed in detail in chapter 14 of Reasons for living)

The inward-looking focus of asserting Catholic identity in religious education exacerbates the problem; it is like ‘Religious Education through a selfie ', where the constant reference to Catholic identity skews the perceptions. The emphasis should be more outward-looking – simply on developing the educational dimension. Having a rationale for religious education in words that explain how it helps educate young people is more likely to win the approval and moral support of students and parents, as well as teachers, than does a rationale that appears to be just about replicating Catholicism.

The more educational the language of religious education, the better it can be perceived as a curriculum area that is relevant to life. This approach is also important for gaining the support of the school staff – both those who teach religion and those who do not.

Some may not want to acknowledge the reality here, but the more the word Catholic is used with reference to religious education, the more the activity is perceived as irrelevant. This is a principal reason why I think that the current emphasis on Catholic identity in relation to religious education is counterproductive – it is not the label that religious education really needs. For example: There appears to be further decline in the academic status of Catholic school religious education as evident in the perceptions of Catholic Studies in some NSW secondary schools. It is a Board-endorsed study but does not ‘count' towards ATAR tertiary entrance scores like regular subjects including Studies of Religion. Catholic Studies is often chosen by students (when religion is compulsory but there are options) who prefer the course that makes the lowest demands on time and effort with the least interference in their secular studies. So it attracts both the academically very capable as well as the least capable students. In some instances, it has been taught with the public understanding that there are no assignments, assessment tasks or homework with a short open book examination at the end of the year, while the teachers may feel that they can do anything to keep the students reasonably occupied whether the syllabus is covered or not. There are plans to replace it with a course called Studies in Catholic Thought, which is based on a ‘liberal arts' approach to the study of Catholicism. It appears to be more academic in content than Catholic Studies. In the draft syllabus, the word Catholic appears 512 times while religion appears 7 times (including 3 references to the board developed course Studies of Religion). I find it difficult to see that this emphasis on Catholicism will be helpful or will make any difference as far as the students are concerned. It will be interesting to see whether this development results in making the option for the fully accredited Studies of Religion more attractive for both Catholic schools in NSW as well as for students.

IV. Simplifying the language of religious education and exercising leadership in Australian education.

It is proposed that the best trajectory for Catholic school religious education in the future is to articulate its purposes more in basic educational and psychological language. Confusing ecclesiastical terms like faith formation, faith development, Catholic identity, and new Evangelisation need to be avoided and only used where their meaning is clearly defined and when dealing with ecclesiastical expectations of religious education. In practice, they tend to carry ill-defined and unrealistic assumptions about religious starting points, goals and processes and this adds unwanted ambiguity and complications to the discussion of religious education. In my opinion, it would be more fruitful to redirect the discourse towards how best to educate young people theologically, in scripture, in personal identity development, and in critical interpretation and evaluation of the shaping influence of culture. In the long run I think this change of focus would also be more successful in disposing students towards the ecclesiastical hopes for Catholic schooling.

This change in focus and language is not only more meaningful and relevant for Catholics, it makes the religious education discourse more accessible to the Australian educational community; it also readily articulates with educational and psychological research. Otherwise, the discourse remains narrowly and idiosyncratically Catholic. If Catholic educators cannot explicate religious education in terms of how it makes a valuable contribution to young people's education, then they will have nothing meaningful to say to the Australian community about the distinctiveness of Catholic schooling. A focus on constructs like ‘Catholic identity' and ‘faith formation' tends to close off the possibility of any wider community dialogue about Catholic religious education.

In NSW recently, a significant review of the whole school curriculum has been undertaken. At such times, the educational significance of religious education needs to be publicly re-stated and clearly articulated in terms that are relevant to government reviews of education. The subject area religious education has traditionally been the most distinctively religious and Catholic element in Catholic schooling; this principle is in jeopardy if it religious education is projected and talked about as if it were an exclusively ecclesiastical activity, rather than as an important core element in the school curriculum.

In proposing the need to change the key word usage in the discourse of Catholic school religious education, I am not presuming that this is an easy task. This was particularly evident in what appeared at first sight to be a rather simple assessment task that was set for postgraduate religious education students. They were required to write two pages in a letter to parents explaining the nature and purposes of classroom religious education in a Catholic school. But they were not allowed to use any jargon or ecclesiastical words like catechesis, faith development, faith formation, Catholic identity, mission, witness etc. I consider that this task turned out to be the most challenging, at times irritating, but highly valued, much appreciated and rewarding piece of assessment that I have used in classes over a 25 year period teaching at this level. The student feedback and ongoing discussions with educators that it catalysed proved to be very fruitful. Many teachers found that they had become so accustomed to using the standard ecclesiastical terms when talking about religious education that it seemed to prevent them from thinking through carefully and articulating their own understanding of the activity. While many acknowledged the problem of ecclesiastical language when it was discussed in class, it was only when they had to explain RE in other than those ecclesiastical terms that they really appreciated what the problem was. One of the common issues the task identified was the immediate objectives of classroom religious education being framed in terms so different from those used in all other curriculum areas. For example: Instead of purposes like increasing “knowledge of Catholic theology and teachings” or “capacity to interpret Scripture” some teachers' objectives proposed “a deep personal relationship with Jesus”, “becoming more prayerful” and “becoming more committed to the Catholic church”. These latter purposes were really ‘long term hopes' and not ‘assessable teaching objectives'. Such a preoccupation with ‘over the horizon' hopes rather than on direct purposes and objectives tended to create unrealistic expectations of religious education to change the personal faith and religiosity of students. Such changes can only occur on a much larger stage of life than the classroom, and are influenced by many other factors, not the least being the individual's own personal freedom and disposition.

In 1978, when researching a review of religious education in schools for the Federal Department of Education (Curriculum Development Centre, Rossiter, 1981), I was interviewed by the Australian Catholic Bishops' lawyers as a potential ‘witness' to appear for the church in a High Court case. The constitutionality of state funding of Catholic schools was being challenged by the Council for the Defence Of Government Schools (commonly known as DOGS). I explained how school religious education was a distinctive educational feature of Catholic schooling that could be interpreted as making a valuable contribution to the education of young Australians. It was not an exclusively ‘ecclesiastical' activity but an educational one and therefore it did not contravene section 116 of the constitution about what might constitute the ‘establishment of a religion'. What I said then is basically the same as the argument proposed above. As it turned out, my testimony was not required. Finally, DOGS lost the case in 1981, even though the argument they proposed had been legally successful in the United States where ‘separating church and state' still remains the reason for excluding any form of religious education from public schooling; the real issue was not church vs state but the place of religion in education.

Looking back at that time, I think that what many Catholic schools were then saying publicly about religious education was more relevant and meaningful than what some are saying today. I wish to speak out in defence of the term religious education which I think needs restoration and revitalisation. I consider that a lot of the ecclesiastical constructs that have been used as ‘substitutes' in recent times have not really been helpful and it is time to focus more on religious education .

Catholic schools today would do well to further develop and publicise an educational rationale for religious education because it supports the justification of public funding for private religious schools. Similarly, I think that excessive attention to ecclesiastical constructs for explaining religious education (as well as damaging the activity itself) jeopardises the legitimacy of arguments supporting the public funding of Catholic schools, which are in effect, semi-state schools. Allied to this, is the need for accountability to the civic community; Catholic schools should be able to show how they are contributing to the common good.

Educating young people spiritually from within a base of their own religious tradition makes a valuable contribution to the education of young Australians. As signposted earlier, this exercises a leadership role in Australian education showing that a well-rounded schooling needs a subject area that deals directly with the spiritual and moral dimensions to life. In this way the distinctive contribution of Catholic schooling to Australian education can be explained and justified more meaningfully.

Some final words

If only a few words were to be used for summarising a proposed future trajectory for Catholic school RE, it would be the phrase explained earlier: Educationally resourcing the spirituality and identity of young people to help them pursue a more meaningful and fulfilling life.

Classroom education does not automatically bring about personal change in pupils there and then. But over the years, a good education builds up their knowledge and understanding, and it enhances their critical skills. And this applies especially to religious education which is one learning area in the curriculum that should deal with content specifically about life and its meaning. Hence a good religious education, in any sort of school, can resource young people's capacity for both self-understanding and a wiser interpretation of what is happening in the unfolding life that they experience. And this presumes the importance of a systematic education in their own religious tradition.

Very conscious of the way that individuality and freedom permeate young people's life expectations, Brian Hill would add to the above the complementary description of education as “resourcing the choosing self”. Nothing is going to stop young people today from choosing and constructing their own DIY values, identity and spirituality – even if this is not done consciously and reflectively. But education generally, and religious education in particular, may be able to enhance their knowledge and wisdom so that they will be more capable of wiser decisions.

No one could dissuade young people from feeling that the mantra “Life to the full” is a taken-for-granted, high priority hope for all. Religious education needs to aim at informing their quest to live that dream with more relevant information and decision-making skills.

It is proposed that this description of religious education is appropriate for Catholic schools today. It affirms the excellent work in religious education currently going on. It explains the nature and purposes of RE in a realistic, clear and unambiguous way -- avoiding the problems associated with a mainly ecclesiastical view. It offers a more focused interpretation of both contemporary spirituality and educational possibilities that can enhance the meaningfulness and relevance of religion teaching in Catholic schools. This proposed re-orientation implies a change of emphasis from the ecclesiastical to the educational. It does not exclude or minimise ecclesiastical concerns, but it puts them into perspective; in the long run, this is in the best interests of the Catholic Church and its mission. As explained in chapter 9 of Life to the full, what is needed is a return towards a constructive, creative tension between ecclesiastical and educational interests. This would be a vote of confidence in Australian Catholic religious educators. It would honour their long tradition of fidelity and commitment to both their students and the Catholic church.

Young people today are generally not much interested in formal religion. But they are interested in learning about life. If their religious education has something to say about life, in the way of engaging them in an informative study, they will be more inclined to value its purposes and practice. If not, then the low status of religious education and student disinterest will be likely to persist.

My proposal of a future trajectory for Catholic RE is not a naïve apologia for what is called ‘progress', brushing the study of traditions aside. Indeed, it is about calling much of what is labelled ‘progress' into question, and showing how such scrutiny might fruitfully be a principal task of contemporary religious education. But before this can happen, it needs to be a valued part in the personal education of the teachers first. On this point, the material here and in other study sections seeks to be congruent with, and draw teachers' attention to, the sorts of concerns voiced by some social researchers like Richard Eckersley. It is helpful here to note some of these in the introduction to Eckersley's website.

A central tenet of modern culture is the belief in progress, the idea that life should get better. Is this the case? If our answer is ‘yes', we can continue to assume that human history is on the right trajectory, and needs nothing more than periodic course corrections - the task of governments. If the answer is ‘no', then the most fundamental assumptions about our way of life - assumptions that have long been broadly agreed and taken for granted – must be re-assessed. The task we face goes far beyond the adjustment of policy levers by government; it demands an open and spirited debate about how we are to live and what matters in our lives.

A good religious education needs to inform and promote such a ‘spirited debate' about what people think ‘life to the full' really means and about what matters most in their lives. If Catholic school religious education does not include a strong component in the critical study of contemporary life, then it will appear to most young people as having nothing worthwhile to say.

As Pope Francis noted in his document Evangelii Gaudium #64.

We are living in an information-driven society which bombards us indiscriminately with data all treated as being of equal importance and which leads to remarkable superficiality in the area of moral discernment. In response, we need to provide an education which teaches critical thinking and encourages the development of mature moral values.

There are in effect many ‘voices' in the culture telling young people what they should aspire to do to have life to the full. A more relevant Catholic school religious education could help them learn how to interpret and evaluate this conversation in a wiser fashion. A good religious education cannot automatically make them wiser, but it can inspire them to try to be more wise. On this point, the 2018 National Catholic Education Commission (NCEC) document Framing Paper: Religious Education in Australian Catholic Schools proposed that:

Religious education needs to interpret the signs of the times and to “reread the memory of faith”, recontextualising so that students can engage in an open narrative and dialogue between the Catholic tradition and their personal experiences and contemporary cultural contexts.

It is understandable that religious educators have high hopes that what young people learn through the school religion curriculum will be important for their whole lives. Nevertheless, it is likely that many will not remember much of the content they have studied. However, if they have learned ‘how to learn about life' and if they remember the orientation of their school religious education – that the impact of culture needs to be scrutinised and evaluated – then this may well make a valuable contribution to their wisdom when pursuing life to the full. And I believe that this is the best that can be done in school religious education to dispose them more favourably towards active engagement with the Catholic Church and its two thousand year faith tradition.

References

Catholic Bishops of NSW & ACT. (2007) Catholic schools at a crossroads: Pastoral letter of the bishops of NSW and the ACT . Sydney: Catholic Education Office.
Eckersley, R. (2017) https://richardeckersley.com.au/ Accessed January 2018.
Hughes, P. (2017). Educating for Purposeful Living in a Post-Traditional Age . Melbourne: Christian Research Association.
NCEC, (2018). Framing Paper: Religious Education in Australian Catholic Schools . Sydney: NCEC.
Pope John Paul II, (1990). Redemptoris Missio . Vatican Website.
Rossiter, G. (1981). Religious Education in Australian Schools . Canberra: Curriculum Development Centre.

Click here to return to the closing part of the Section text