| An article from the journal of Religious Education, Word in Life, published in Sydney in 1981 | "STIFLING UNION " OR |
| The same article was published in Religious Education, the journal of the Religious Education Association of Canada and the United States. | By GRAHAM ROSSITIER Divorce mee,, 'untie. or breake that knot againe,, Take me to you,, imprison mee for I, Except you "enthrall mee, never shall be free, Nor ever chast, except you ravish mee. John Donne, from the Holy Sonnet |
| Introduction Religious education in Catholic schools has long been regarded as an education in faith or more intensively as catechesis. Consequently, the theory underpinning religious education in Catholic schools has been heavily dependent on catechetical theory, as if the school were a "natural habitat" for catechesis.' Religion teachers tended to use the words catechesis, catechetics and religious education interchangeably. The wealth of church and theoretical writings on catechesis were interpreted as if every word applied to Catholic schools. Although authors like Gerard Rummery made a significant distinction between catechesis and religious education, the thinking of most religion teachers implied an identification of the terms.' This suggested that the separate Identities and personalities" of the terms were merged and lost in the relationship. While the thinking of religion teachers about this relationship remains relatively unchanged, there has been a noticeable shift in focus and emphasis in catechetical theory away from the school towards pastoral ministry in the church with adults.' This development should enhance the theory and practice of pastoral ministry in the Catholic church. The shift in emphasis situates catechesis within the community of faith and, in Westerhoffs terms, liberates catechesis from an unhealthy dependence on a "school ing-instructional paradigm".' There may be, however, a natural resistance to this change wherever there is a well developed Catholic school system, because such a change might tend to decrease the perceived importance of the schools. In a country like Australia, where one fifth of the nation's schools are Catholic, there is a tendency to rely too much on them and to expect too much of them as a principal agency of evangelisation, even though they cater for little more than half the Australian Catholic schoolchildren. The January 1981 issue of the journal, New Catholic World, illustrates the point. Twenty-one key religious educators in the United States were invited to write on the theme "Religious Education in the 80's". Schools barely received a mention, while much attention was given to parish Directors of Religious Education and familycentred catechesis. If the same number of key Australian religious educators were to have written, the result would probably have shown an emphasis on religious education in schools. This is not to imply that this is a wrong emphasis, but simply to point up the breadth of the field of religious education. The nature of the catechests/religious education relationship is thus an inescapably important issue not only for what happens in religion classes in Catholic schools, but also for the rationale of Catholic schools and for the future of Catholic pastoral ministry outside schools. This article focuses on the first of these areas - classroom religious education. What problems will the new emphasis in catechesis create for the religion teacher? To mix the metaphors, and to put it briefly, it is as if catechesis has packed her bags and parted from the Catholic school in search of greener pastures. This separation tends to leave Catholic school-based religious education limping and insecure, with symptoms of identity confusion - with a feeling that the school is no longer a suitable place for catechesis. This feeling compounds an earlier anxiety that much of the evangelisation through religious education in the school might be ineffective. Perhaps it would be even more disconcerting for religion teachers to realise that the 1977 Synod of Bishops, in its consideration of catechesis, gave little attention to schools, not only because few countries have well developed Catholic school systems, but because of a "conviction that catechesis is not a scholastic process (and that) the limitations of syllabus, timetable, compulsion, and discipline are too great, and overwhelm it".' One way of addressing the problem is to revise critically the catechesis/religious education relationship in the Catholic school. Perhaps the current union of the two is stifling. The creativity in this significant relationship could be suffering because the identity of each partner is lost in the other. Perhaps, as Donne's sonnet might suggest, a mysterious tension as well as a strong bond between the separate identities are necessary for an enduring productive relationship. Perhaps the image of "creative divorce", popularised by the paperback with that title, might be appropriate.6 "Divorce proceedings" could be taken before the court of religious education theory, seeking to reconceptualise Catholic school-based religious education more along educational than catechetical lines. A clearer differentiation between religious education and catechesis could foster more authentic and creative development of both aspects. However, the "divorce" analogy is not perfectly appropriate. A revision of the foundations for religious education in Catholic schools would not want to exclude catechesis but would want to critically determine the possibilities and limitations for "faith-sharing" within the matrix of a more general educational role for religion in the school. Still, there is a need for sufficient space for critically reviewing and renegotiating the relationship between catechesis and religious education, with more independence and freedom for each of the partners. A creative tension or dialectic between faithoriented and educational concens is needed. It is ironic that a "creative divorce" might be the very thing needed to promote more catechesis, as well as more authentic cateches's, sponsored by the Catholic school, rather than an uncritical lumping of all activities together under the cover-all, "catechetics", which may not always be authentic catechesis or good education. It is not insignificant that the basis for general religious education (education in religion) taught by departmental teachers in government schools require differentiation from faith-sharing. In critically qualifying the scope for catechesis as a part of religious education in Catholic Schools, the theory of religious education in this setting could turn naturally towards conceptualising the activity more in educational terms - the same basis as for general religious education in government schools. Such a development would suggest a convergence in religious education in the two settings. That the field of general religious education could serve as an acceptable and useful resource for the theory and practice of religious education in Catholic schools is a challenging possibility. Catechesis and the Catholic School The concept "catechesis" has always been central to religious education in Catholic schools as well as to the rationale (and rhetoric) for the institutions themselves. The concept has always been used officially with a basic fidelity to its etymological roots (an echoing or dialogue of faith between believers") and thus with fidelity to its context in the early Christian church (systematic instruction and participation in experiences within a faith community directed towards formal initiation of adult believers9). However, at the practical level, religion teachers' use of the word, and the assumptions and expectations that go with it, are ambiguous. The tendency of official Catholic church documents to use catechesis and religious education interchangeably is understandable because the documents were written from the perspective of the faith community.10 From the point of view of socialisation into faith, religious education is instrumentally catechetical. However, lack of precision with the use of the words causes serious problems for religious education in schools. While his comment may be a good one for the church's pastoral ministry, one prediction made by the project director for the U.S. National Catechetical Directory spells trouble for religious education in Catholic schools - 1f Sharing the light of Faith has its expected impact, the words'religious education'will practically disappear to be replaced by catechetics and catechesis-.11 The precise scope for catechesis in the formal school religion curriculum is rarely defined. A body of faith-oriented theory, concerned mainly with a voluntary faith-community context, tends to be applied uncritically to a compulsory classroom setting. Developments in Catechetical theory The following list highlights recent emphases in the theory of catechesis: Nature of catechesis. Instructional dialogue between believers; sharing of faith insights; continued evangelisation of believers; gradual initiation into the faith tradition; religious socialisation and inculturation; celebration of faith in liturgy; broad range of faith-engaging experiences. Presumptions. Presumes an in itial awakening or conversion to faith; preceded by forms of precatechesis or pre-evangellsation; presumes a willingness to develop deeper understanding of and participation in the Christian faith tradition; presumes that all involved in catechising or in being catechised are believers. Framework. Basic framework is pastoral ministry rather than education. Orientation. Development of mature adult faith; preparation for formal adult initiation; critical evaluation of culture; human liberation, justice and peace. Context. Natural context a community of faith; main forms should be for adults; Rite of Christian initiation of Adults as the principal model; to be pursued in many contexts - parish, adult groups, family, young adults, youth ministry, children's groups, Catholic schools, public school children, the handicapped; occasional but lifelong; at special times, events or critical periods." The developments expressed in these emphases bring precision and depth of meaning to the church's understanding of its aim to develop a life of faith in its members. However, while a number of these emphases would have application to the interpersonal environment of Catholic schools, most of them could not be applied freely or without stringent qualification to classroom religious education. As the clarification of the concept catechesis situates the activity more clearly in a pastoral, voluntary, adult-oriented, faith-sharing context, the more tenuous becomes the claim that the compulsory classroom is a suitable or even desirable situation for catechesis. It can no longer be presumed that the Catholic school is 'an ideal structure for catechesis. Religion teachers can no longer claim (or pretend) that what happens in their classrooms is always an authentic catechesis. Reformulation of the catechesis- religious education relationship Clearly there is a need for reformulating a theory of religious education for Catholic schools which is more realistic about its limited scope for catechesis. To educate young people In religion, and specifically in the Catholic faith tradition, and to provide some complementary opportunities for pastoral catechesis is a more modest aim for a school, but nevertheless an important and noble one. Gerard Rummery claimed that a key point of tension for religion teachers in Catholic Schools was the lack of congruence between their aims for intensive catechesis and the experienced situation in the classroom, which was not acknowledged for its natural limited scope for faith-sharing. He suggested that more limited aims for school-based religious education would be appropriate, and he explained why religion teachers might find it necessary to go outside the classroom, even beyond the school, to engage in catechesis. The problem being addressed is not to do with the theory of catechesis. In fact, the developments in catechetical theory which have heightened its pastoral focus, have benefited catechesis by differentiating and liberating the activity from an earlier emphasised association with formal instruction and schooling." The problem with Catholic religious education in schools is that the school context, and classroom religion periods in particular, are not always an appropriate place for catechesis. This is not necessarily a negative reflection on the school. It may be wrong to evaluate the Catholic school purely by catechetical criteria; it may be wrong to justify the existence of these schools exclusively on catechetical grounds. Putting the religious education "house" in order, as far as Catholic schools are concerned, may be important for the future of Catholic Youth Ministry in Australia. As Michael Warren noted so challengingly, our youth ministry is too narrowly focused on young people who attend Catholic schools. It needs to be converted to the wider lives and interests of youth and needs to give attention to---the hidden youth -those in State schools, the early school-leavers, those being effectively ignored in the Church's pastoral strategies.16 Unrealistic catechetical expectations of the school are part of the problem. While it is unlikely, and perhaps undesirable, that Australian Catholics should lessen their interest in Catholic schools, an effort to understand that the school's education role (particularly in religious education) is not fundamental catechesis or evangelisation may help them understand that Catholic schools are not substitutes for youth ministry or pastoral catechesis. A coming to terms with the realistic function of Catholic schools may be necessary for an awakening of Australian Catholics to the real needs for pastoral ministry in the local church. Confusion of purposes in religious education in Catholic schools A number of the problems in religious education in Catholic schools are aggravated by a confusion of contexts and by a confusion of paradigms. For example, in his book that was well received by Catholic religion teachers in Australia, John Westerhoff claimed that the main problem with religious education was its dependence on a "school ing/instructional- paradigm", rather than on a "community of falth/inncu ltu ration" paradigm. He argued the importance of celebrative ritual as the primary means of communicating religious faith. Westerhoff`s interpretation of problems with voluntary Sunday school programmes (in Protestant churches in the United States) was applied uncritically to (Catholic) schools. Without questioning the appropriateness of Westerhoffs thesis for Sunday schools, a number of religion teachers in Australian Catholic schools misapplied theory and presuppositions for a voluntary, faithsharing, non-school situation to a compulsory, classroom setting. Neither the common ground nor the distinctions between the two contexts were explored ciritcally. The nature of the context is crucial! For example, the thrust of the argument in this article does not necessarily apply to Church Sunday schools or other pastoral groupings. Too often, what is written about religious education seems to presume equal application to schools as well as to alternative pastoral structures, without considering critically the problematic implications of such an identification. There is something incongruous about the way Catholic religion teachers subscribe so strongly to a paradigm of catechesis, which in its presuppositions, purposes and processes, is not fully applicable to a school, while at the same time they may oppose a school ing/instructional paradigm for religious education, the very paradigm which might be expected to have relevance to the classroom study of religion. This problem is not confined to Catholic schools in Australia. Referring to the English context, Kevin Nichols drew attention to the confusion of purposes that was a major cause of problems for religion teachers. "In (the United Kingdom), catechesis has taken almost exclusively an educational form. The responsibility for developing faith in children has devolved entirely on the classroom subject of religious education. I am convinced that it creates a deep confusion in the minds of many teachers. If they think of themselves as catechists they are pulled one way: if as professional teachers, another. In the eyes of most contemporaries, catechesis is a square peg in an educational round hole. So often, there develops a deep confusion about the role of the teacher of religion. Because of this, the teaching given often lacks direction and drive . . .I am sure that bits of all the doctrinal, devotional, Kerygmatic, ---faithresponseeliciting and experiential approaches are lying scattered around the world of Catholic religious education, often at odds with each other, rarely held together by the kind of unifying philosophy which makes for good teaching in the subject ... The present state of religious teaching in the Catholic sector is not good. "18 Writing about the changing understanding of catechesis in Catholic schools in France, Vincent Ayel reflected the same problem situation. He pointed out that the pupils could no longer be thought of as a homogeneous Christian group and that a catechesis which presumed faith was no longer possible. " In an effort to save face, religion teachers stumbled in a trial-and-error fashion through low-key discussions, 'deschoole' contexts, Rogerian non-directiveness, and focus on fashionable human problems in an often disconnected vague way which could include everyone. The pupils sensed the confusion of the teachers and recognised that they were being coaxed or subtly manipulated, so as to 'baptise' their human experience and interpersonal relationships."19 Refering to Catholic schools in the United States, Gabriel Moran claimed that a preoccupation with the community of faith/incu 1tu ration paradigm was partly responsible for the situation where: "The church has been more successful in providing community/incultu ration than in providing schools for studying religion. The church is badly in need of schooling . in which religion can be taught/studied, that is, critically examined and intellectually understood".20 Ironically, while the com m u nity/incu ltu ration process may have been successful to some degree in Australian Catholic schools, it is sometimes done poorly in parishes, the very place where one might expect this process to be most appropriate. At th same ti hat might be expected specifically ofthe Catholic school, an educat onal study of religi can be neglected. Because educators in Catholic schools seek a comprehensive role for religion in the curriculum, in the school's social life and in the personal development of pupils, there is a possibility of overestimating the school's potential religious influence. There is the possibility of a confusion of purposes for the religious education curriculum because it is a point of multiple focus for theological and pastoral (as well as educational and political) concerns. Religion as a subject in the curriculum Whether or not religion should be regarded as a subject is an issue that further exemplifies the confusion of purposes in religious education in Catholic schools. Some religion teachers seek to establish religion as a subject in the curriculum with a status similar to that of other subjects. An emphasis on content, study skills, written work, assignments and assessment suggests that the pedagogy in this approach should be similar to that of other subjects. Such an approach to religion classes consider that the religious education curriculum should concentrate on communicating knowledge and understanding of religion, while at the same time, not neglecting the affective dimension and not disregarding the importance of other aspects of religious education outside the formal curriculum (eg participation in liturgy, community building, retreats, pastoral activities). By way of contrast, other religion teachers oppose the above mentioned approach, considering that religion should not be presented as an academic subject. According to this way of thinking, pupils should perceive religion very differently from other subjects; there should be an emphasis on discussion and sharing of faith insights with no written work and assessment. This approach highlights the religion period as a more personal, pastoral alternative to the classwork in academic subjects where competition and examination orientation are sometimes believed to be problematic. In keeping with these ideas, some religion teachers also seek an alternative environment to the classroom for religion periods. Prayer rooms or discussion rooms may be used, while in some cases, religion class is separated completely from the school by having a few full "religion days" per term, when a seminar type approach is followed at a congenial site away from the school. (This move is not to be confused with retreats or religious camps which are also held away from the school.) The rationale for the above change may consider that the climate and conditions most favourable for sharing and developing faith insights do not sit comfortably with the usual expectations for school and classroom. There is a danger that an excessive emphasis on pastoral approaches to religious education in schools may lose sight of the possibility of serious study of religion. Such a loss would invite the criticism of Moran quoted earlier, which lamented the neglect of the study of religion in Catholic schools and which claimed that lhe academic side is one of the weakest elements in religious education" .2 1 The debate, whether religious education should be subject-oriented or not, involves uncertainty or confusion about which paradigm should underpin religious education in Catholic schools. It would appear that the com munity/incultu ration paradigm was given a primacy in the rationale for Catholic schools during the times when these schools were first opened. The position of this paradigm has not changed although the cultural significance of both school and religion have changed markedly. Given the primacy of the community/incu ltu ration paradigm, Catholic educators tended to expect (or coerce?) the classroom setting to fit this paradigm. For many religion teachers, the suitability of the fit was never questioned. However, those who invoked Westerhoff.'s thesis considered that the paradigm one might expect to be more "at home" in the school setting, a school ing/instructional paradigm, was inimical to community/incultu ration. This thinking would motivate attempts to change the school context radically as far as religious education was concerned (or to reject the school context in favour of some alternative). The example of an optional, free-wheeling, almost "encounter-group" approach to religion class described by Piveteau and Dillon and the earlier comments of Ayel illustrate this point well. While there would seem to be educational value in introducing personalised "non-school like" elements into a religious education curriculum at school, to specifically reject a school ing/instructional paradigm, as if it had minimal relevance for schoolbased religious education would seem to be an open invitation to the problems described by Ayel. "Groups (for exchanging) ... experiences (etc.) . . . give young people the idea of something lacking seriousness and rigour when they compare these ---meetings-with the kinds of teaching they otherwise receive. They make even wider the deadly gap between ordinary human culture and religious culture. There is a risk of letting it be understood that faith is a vague human morality, one opinion among others, or else a spineless fidelsm which is not worthy of serious Intellectual attention." To allow for innovative, personalised structures in religious education should not require wholesale rejection of any theory that highlights the school ing/instructional possibilities. Similarly, attention given to an intellectually challenging study of theology, scripture and religions should not exclude from religious education some low-key personalised discussions. There is a need to keep in mind the ways in which religious education in schools can respond to the humanistic/personal thrust in general education, which, despite a recent strong "back-to-basics" movement, is still influencing the shape and processes of school curricula. Congruence between theory and context A number of problems in religious education in Catholic schools stem from the lack of fit between the accepted dominant catechetical model and the given school ing/instructional context. Religion teachers appear to be working in one context while invoking theory from a significantly different context. While the thinking and practice of some religion teachers try to bend the school situation to fit the requirements of catechesis, an alternative way of responding to the problem may be a bending or qualification of expectations for catechesis to fit the school ing/instructional context. The following paragraph exemplifies the second alternative. In the compulsory classroom setting for secular subjects at school, pupils can become accustomed to open, critical education that may often raise value questions and challenge them personally, without requiring that they adopt particular values or make particular commitments. It is likely that they would feel uncomfortable in a religion class where this same openness was missing. If the atmosphere and orientation of a religion class were perceived as no different from those of a church service, pupils could be expected to react negatively. They would be unhappy with a religion lesson that was perceived as the continuation of a church sermon; they would be naturally unresponsible to a religion teacher whose role was perceived more as priest or pastor than as educator. To be innovative is one thing, but to be substantially out of tune with pupils` expectations for education is likely to be damaging and counterproductive. The style of teaching can aggravate the problem. For example, the psychological focus of "lifecentred" approaches to religious education, which attempt to concentrate on pupils' life experience, may be perceived by pupils as working to change their attitudes and values. Some religion teachers acknowledge that attitude change is one of their principal aims for religious education. 14 Nevertheless, the attempt to make religious education relevant to the lives of pupils can be experienced as an invasion of their psychological space, as the application of unwelcome psychological pressure to change their attitudes or to have them make a response indicating faith - in a word, pupils can be put off by an approach that seems to be "too close to the bone,". What might be a healthy sharing and commending of personal faith insights in a voluntary group setting could be perceived as presuming too much or applying moral pressure if attempted in the compulsory classroom context. While particular relgion classes can develop in such a way that a certain level of faith sharing may become natural and appropriate, to presume at the start that a religion class ought to be able to share freely at this level fails to give proper respect to the pupils' personal freedom regarding faith. Such a presumption also fails to appreciate the natural range of variation in faith commitments in pupils who are not necessarily in the religion class by choice. This problem could also be addressed from two other perspectives. Firstly, a consideration of the nature and development of religious faith highlights the importance of personal freedom. This thinking underlines the importance of the proposition - "*faith can be proposed but not imposed"; it shows the need for careful examination of the conditions, situations, presumptions and methods for inviting or commending faith; it recognises that the development of faith may require stages of searching and questioning and the differentiation of personal autonomy and responsibility. from the related perspective of pupils' personal development. For developing adolescents, the need to achieve some sense of personal identity and autonomy may require a period of differentiation from the main 1ife guidance" agencies of their earlier years - parents, church and school. Myths and images for freedom and individuality in the media and peer group culture can also strongly condition young people's life expectations. The net effect can be a marked unwillingness to co-operate with a religious education that seems to be marketing Christian attitudes and values, especially if these are perceived as restrictive. Religion teachers note that their retreats or camps are usually much more satisfying and successful than their classroom religion periods. The context of the retreat, often a voluntary one at a campsite away from the school, is more naturally attuned to personal reflection, sharing and praying than is the classroom. Rather than despa r of the inability of the classroom to measure up to th 1 S standard, religion teachers should seek a paradigm for religious education in the classroom that complements rather than imitates the more intensively catechetical paradigm for the retreat. Implications of a "Creative Divorce": a dialogue between Education in Faith and Education in Religion The analysis of problems in this article suggests the need for clearer differentiation of aims, contexts, processes, methods and expectations for religious education in Catholic schools. In particular, it suggests the need for more emphasis on an educational rather than on a faith-develop' ng paradigm for the classroom curriculum. This curricular emphasis need not detract from the use of a more faith-oriented paradigm for other aspects of religious education such as community building, liturgical life, retreats, voluntary youth groups and pupil-teacher relationships. A revision of the foundations for Catholic schoolbased religious education, while not devaluing or losing sight of the important place that cateches's can have in this context, should seek a more substantial educational basis for the activity to dialogue with its long standing catechetical counterpart. The theory and practice of education in religion in government schools in Australia and England, which of necessity required a foundation that is independent of catechetical concerns, could thus become a significant resource for such a development. Such a consideration of education in religion would involve much more than an uncritical ---baptism-and adoption of current approaches to religious education in public schools. This field itself is still evolving the needs continual critical evaluation in terms of its own principles. A differentiation and clarification of purposes for education in faith could open the way to more substantial dialogue between religious education in government and church-related schools. Education in religion could address specifically the need for a more educational reconceptualistion of classroom religious education in Catholic schools. Gerard Rummery pointed out that the decade of official "Catechetical" Directories during the 1970s has had a significant influence on the theory and practice o catechesis in the Catholic Church. The argument in this article would suggest that, for religious education in Catholic schools, there is a need for a complementary -Educational" Directory! Perhaps the extensive literature for education in religion could serve this function to some degree? A contrast between educational and faithoriented (catechetical) approaches to religious education is not new to the literature. In some Australian states, the legal provision for religious education in government schools in two forms -Special Religious Instruction and General Religious Teaching - dates from the Education Acts of the 1870s. A series of Australian State government reports on religious education in public schools in the 1970s developed a systematic modern rationale and theory for religious education which were quite independent of catechesi S.17 Leading theorists in countries like England, Germany, France and the United States have likewise distinguished a religious education separate from catechesis.18 In section 34 of Catechesi Tradendae, Pope John Paul 11 suggested that Catholics ought give attention to the "objective presentation of religions in the State schools. He considered that this form of religious education, while distinct from catechesis, was important and that it contributed to a better mutual understanding between different religions and the Christian denominations. The distinctive thrust of this article suggests that, even where the overall aim for a Christian school is education in faith, religious education ought to be more clearly differentiated into the relatively separate aspects, education in religion and catechesis.19 The controiling influence of language on the theory of religious education To open up an education in faith/education in religion dialogue would involve extending the 1anguage base," used for religious education in Catholic schools. This development would relate to the problem Cabriel Moran is concerned about -the controlling dominance of ecclesiastical language at the expense of educational language.10 Kieran Scott considered that catechetical language by itself was not capable of addressing the real issues. "The linguistic world of catechetics is decisively ecclesiastical and narrow in context. It is a selfenclosed religious world which utters a language that has no currency outside ecclesiastical circles. This intramural focus hinders its public viability. Its language form lacks communicative competence in the public forum. The linguistic nature of catechetics ... places obstacles in its path to conversation with other ... traditions. Its ability to probe the religious and educational questions of our time is severely curtailed by a parochial and introverted self interest." On the other hand, Michael Warren suggested that the language of catechesis added "an enriching category for religious education". However, Warren was addressing specifically the area of pastoral ministry as distinct from school-based religious education. It would seem valuable to retain the word catechesis to give precision to the idea of faith-oriented pastoral processes for both school and non-school contexts. However, as intimated earlier, a disappearance of the cover-all word "catechetics" would seem be no real loss. An interaction between education in faith and education in religion and its associated linguistic developments would contribute to the task Dwayne Huebner described as "To attempt the reformulation of religious education, which means to produce more useful language with which a variety of people might talk about religious education and to establish linguistic boundaries and definitions of the field.". Scott pointed out that the shift in emphasis in catechesis towards pastoral ministry with adults, while it expanded the paradigm, "has taken the enterprise outside an educational framework". 14 For religious education In schools, essentially rooted in an "educational framework", a responsive adjustment to this change is vital. Rather than deny the educational framework (the tendency dictated by the controlling influence of catechetical theory and language), the educational basis of the activity should be developed. The suggested education in faithileducation in religion dialectic would help to secure the activity to an educational moorage. This dial ectic/dialogue would serve the need described by Scott for "religion, and religious issues and concerns, to be placed in an interactive, educational framework of critical intelligence". This development would also respond to Moran's call for a reconstruction and redirection of Catholic religious education through "immersion in an educational context, sensitivity to the new (pluralist) ecumenical situation and the creation of a new church pattern"16 Analysing the potential religious influence of the Catholic school. To conclude this article, the possible fruits of an education in faith/education in religion dialogue will be considered for a significant problem area in religious education in Catholic schools -differentiation of the potential religious influence of the school. Since the notion of education in faith involves much more than a formal religion curriculum, there is a tendency not to differentiate the domain of formal curriculum from other concerns for communicating faith. The boundaries between the religion curriculum and other areas like pastoral care and sense of Christian community can become blurred and indistinct. On the other hand, the notion of education in religion is dependent on the educational contribution that religion can make to the formal curriculum. Thus, an analysis of religion education from the standpoint of education in religion highlights the formal curriculum and demarcates it from the religious influence that might be ascribed to the social environment of the school. An education in faith/education in religion dialectic addresses specifically the danger of overestimating the potential influence of the religious education curriculum in communicating and developing personal faith. A more subtle problem occurs where principles are accepted but applied mainly to the aspect where they are less appropriate and less effective. For example, excessive attention to the principle of thinking about the school as primarily a Christian community is problematic. If the potential religious influence of the formal religion curriculum is overstated, this happens at the expense of neglecting implications for the school's social life and organisational structures. At the same time, too much attention to the idea of Christian community building in the formal curriculum can distract teachers from giving critical attention to content and teaching in religious education. Problems can also occur where principles, that have Implications for both social environment and formal curriculum, are considered without spelling out the appropriate implications for each. A pertinent example here is the movement for justice and peace in the Catholic church. Where there is a tendency to think of responding to the justice and peace principles only in terms of adding new content to the formal religion curriculum, there is a danger that the distinctive implications beyond curriculum can be neglected. If teachers are accustomed to associating such principles or calls to action primarily with the formal religion curriculum, they can fall to take seriously the stirring challenge to the school's organisational structures and social life. A tendency to associate religious issues rather exclusively with the religion curriculum can inhibit recognition of their potential significance in other curriculum areas. To think that issues of justice and peace apply only to religious education can inhibit the possibility for serious consideration of justice issues that could be raised in areas like literature, economics, geography and science. To take up such issues in these contexts, rather than just In religious education, may have more significance for raising pupils' critical consciousness. Pupils may be better able to sense that the issues are not just narrowly "religious," concerns, not just the particular interests of the religion staff. Similarly, such a pan-curriculum approach has potential for involving many staff other than those who teach religion. Care to give appropriate attention to both curricular and non-curricular concerns in issues like human liberation, justice and peace also addresses the problem of lack of congruence between the values considered in religion periods and the values implicit in the ways people are treated in the school. As Patrick Rooney point out, "Many of the frustrations and obstacles of which religion teachers constantly speak can be traced back ultimately to a marked discrepancy between what teachers are saying concerning the nature of Christianity and what the students actually experience in the Catholic school milieu."' Another, often unrecognised aspect of this problem is a lack of appreciation of the catechetical potential of voluntary religious youth groups in Catholic schools and a consequent lack of support and staff involvement for such movements. The difficulty stems in part from an undifferentiated view of catechesis in relation to religious education - it may seem more convenient to try to "do it all" in the classroom! The voluntary participation of young people, the possibilities for shared reflection and social action, the opportunities for challenging and deepening their faith commitments, and the scope for leadership training make voluntary youth groups excellent settings for catechesis with favourable conditions that cannot be replicated in compulsory classroom religious education. Voluntary religious youth groups are rarely recognised as the primary and most effective agents for catechesis in Catholic schools. It is ironic that, while the notion of catechesis is highly prized in Catholic schools, the naturally most appropriate structure for catechesis in these schools is undervalued and underdeveloped. Teacher criticism of the social emphasis and cliques sometimes evident in such youth groups is often associated with minimal, ineffective or non-existent teacher involvement in the guidance of the groups. The subtitle of the book Creative Divorce was "a new opportunity for personal growth". This article has attempted to take up the call for a creative divorce between catechesis and religious education in Catholic schools which was implicit in the writing of Moran and Rummery, and to investigate some of the problems and creative possib 1 'ties that a consequent more independent growth in each aspect might involve. While there was not scope 1 n this article for elaborating on the theory and practice of education in religion in government schools, it was suggested that a dialogue with this field., as a way of highlighting an educational perspective, could be a significant resource In a reformulation of religious education for Catholic schools. NOTES AND REFERENCES
|
|