The "Problem" Of Catholic Education

As many of my Irish readers are aware the patronage of schools in Ireland is being discussed at the moment.  Ireland, unlike many other countries, has a very liberal approach to patronage of schools.  According to our Constitution parents are the first educators of their children and they are entitled to school their children according to their ethos and the State must support that.  In practice this means a group of parents who share a common ethos or religion can set up a school and as long as it adheres to the general curriculum and standards laid down by the Department of Education, the State must finance that school.  It is very liberal, tolerant and open; it allows Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims and yes, atheists, to have their own schools so their children can be educated in their chosen ethos.  It even acknowledges the rights of parents to homeschool, something which is coming under threat in some countries.

Here is the article in the Irish Constitution which acknowledges and guarantees this right:

42: The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.

42.2: Parents shall be free to provide this education in their homes or in private schools or in schools recognised or established by the State.

The State shall not oblige parents in violation of their conscience and lawful preference to send their children to schools established by the State, or to any particular type of school designated by the State.

The State shall, however, as guardian of the common good, require in view of actual conditions that the children receive a certain minimum education, moral, intellectual and social.

The State shall provide for free primary education and shall endeavour to supplement and give reasonable aid to private and corporate educational initiative, and, when the public good requires it, provide other educational facilities or institutions with due regard, however, for the rights of parents, especially in the matter of religious and moral formation.

However it seems this liberal approach to education is too much for our liberals – they want to impose a “one size fits all” model: secular state schools in which all the children of Ireland will be educated. Or at least that’s what I understand Senator Ivana Bacik and her friends are looking for.   For my non-Irish readers, Senator Bacik is a Labour senator and one of the most prominent members of the pro-abortion and radical secularist movements in Ireland. 

 

At the moment the vast majority of schools are under the patronage of the Catholic Church, simply reflecting the fact that, up until now, the vast majority of Irish citizens were Catholic and wanted a Catholic education for their children.   As religious affiliation is changing, naturally schools become an issue.  Atheist or secular parents now want an atheist or secular ethos in their children’s schools; that is fair enough and our Constitution supports them.  However, while some have formed new schools which the State is financing, in some parts of the country there are not enough of them, so they must send their children to Catholic schools.  Those schools accept the children, they are excused from religion classes and their parents wishes are respected.

For some, however, that is not acceptable.  Some atheist/secularist parents try to get the school to change its ethos, and on national level, many secularists want to get the Church out of schools altogether: instead of setting up their own they want to take the Catholic schools and make them secular and non-denominational.   In some cases that might be possible – where secular parents are a majority in a locality then I think the Church should relinquish the local school.  However, if the majority of parents in an area want a Catholic education, then under the Constitution they are perfectly entitled to have it and the State must support it.    Senator Bacik wants to see the end of the Church in education and wants to create system of schools with no religious ethos at all. If people want RE for their children, it can take place after school or on Saturdays or Sundays, she says.  There are a number of problems with this.  

First of all it is inadequate and narrow, not the diversity liberals talk about so much.  Indeed the proposition is illiberal and monolithic. 

Secondly it takes education out of the hands of parents and puts it into the hands of the State.  Unfortunately this is happening in practice in many areas of education, yet the Constitution sees education as the preserve of parents, the state is only there to support it.  This proposal seems to be another step in the State’s growing power over its citizens. 

Thirdly, it is naïve to think that a school will not have an ethos – every school has an ethos.  When these state schools are established an ethos will have to be chosen and there is little doubt that if there is no room for religion that ethos will be secular and perhaps even atheistic; and let’s call a spade a spade – secularism is not neutral as its defenders try to maintain, it is highly ideological.  Supporters of these schools say they will respect religion but not favour one, but we know from experience this approach becomes very judgemental of faith, and of one faith in particular (guess which one!).  This will of course contravene article 42.2  as it may violate the consciences of Catholic parents. 

Finally, the proposal is unconstitutional as it deprives parents of their constitutional right to educate their children in schools of their choice.

I support the provision of schools for the children of secular and atheist parents, as I support the provision of schools for Catholics, Protestants, Jews and Muslims.  Given the change in demographics the Church may well relinquish schools where there are not enough Catholics in an area.  If a parish had two Catholic schools and only one was required, then the second could well be relinquished.   This may also benefit Catholic schools and allow us, in this secular age, to deepen our ethos and our identity as Catholics.  Ironically, as we see in other countries, even when lots of secular schools are available, a Catholic education is in great demand and you even find that secularists are desperate to get their children into the Catholic schools.  That may well happen in Ireland, but if it does, the seculars should be directed to the state schools: Catholic schools will have to tighten up their admissions policy.

Of course the way the government can change the educational landscape is by a Constitutional referendum, but I think the parents of Ireland, once they understand the liberal nature of the Constitution on this issue, will not pass it: I think the government knows this and this is why, it seems to be, they are trying to slither their way around the Constitution and put a secular state schools system in place.  But if they try to make those schools the only ones permitted in the State surely that would be unconstitutional and open to challenge.

At the moment the Church is in dialogue with the government over this issue.  Great care must be taken by our negotiators, they must be aware of our constitutional rights and not sign them away no matter how sweet the agreement may seem.  Ultimately until the constitution is changed, the government’s hands are tied.  If we have to relinquish schools, we must negotiate a tightening of our constitutional rights and ensure government interference is kept to a minimum, particularly in the area of admissions policy and ethos.  Not exactly a time for horse trading, but the time to squeeze as much as we can out of the government in order to protect ourselves and our freedom.  The Lord's advice comes to mind: "as innocent as doves and as shrewd as serpents".  An important thing to remember is that we are no longer dealing with friends and not to presume we can trust them.

However, reflecting on what I am hearing from Senator Bacik and her friends it seems to me that here we may have another example of government trying to dilute the rights and freedom of its citizens at the behest of the secular liberal agenda.  And of course the illiberal intolerance of the liberals is once again exposed.

Our Brave New Ireland

Last year Britain faced one of its most serious challenges to public order in a generation (or two) when riots broke out all over England.  Supposedly the response to an alleged racist incident, it was quickly seen to be an anarchic melee where people took the opportunity to commit acts of vandalism, break into shops and steal whatever they could lay their hands on.  People died as human beings turned to brutes and savaged anyone who got in their way.

Last Saturday at a concert in the Phoenix Park in Dublin, young people ran amok high on drugs and alcohol, having sex in public and attacking each other.  Three people are dead, nine were stabbed, a number had bottles broken over their heads and numerous others had to be treated for a variety of injuries, including one young man who was so badly beaten he cannot now recall whether he was punched or kicked by a crowd of rowdies. A young woman is also missing.

In Britain, the political elite stood on their perches and scratched their heads, our lot here will do the same.  "What happened?" we'll hear concerned parties ask, the same people who helped create the very anarchy that broke out on the streets and in the park.  What happened?  Their permissive political, sexual and societal agenda with its emphasis on untrammeled individual freedom and attempts to distort the natural law and morality - the very "social revolution" that has been so dear to the hearts of the 60's generation and their ideological offspring - that's what happened.  A generation of naive, anti-Christian ideologues who ignored the reality of God and the existence of original sin, now have had the door swung back in their faces and they are clueless as to why it has happened.

Compare all this with an interview that took place on Pat Kenny's radio show this morning (Donum Vitae has a post with a link to the discussion).  The topic was gay marriage and Kenny had our friend David Quinn of the Iona Institute debating with Senator Ivana Bacik.  Bacik is perhaps one of our most liberal and anti-Christian public representatives.    Bacik, taking the cue from her party leader, Eamonn Gilmore who said that the issue of gay marriage was the civil rights issue of our time, was calling for gay marriage to become a reality in Ireland.  David Quinn was pointing out the damage such a measure would cause, not merely to society, but to the children of our country.  As always David quoted statistics as evidence to support his argument and, as always, Bacik ignored them and made her demands.

When asked by David and then Kenny, was it not the ideal that a child should grow up with their father and mother, Bacik's response just dismissed it - as long as children had "access" to adults of both sexes they would be fine.    Here is the very attitude which is leading to the collapse of our society - an ideological position which creates unstable relationships which benefit only adults in search of fulfilment and pleasure and says: "The kids will be OK". 

Well, the kids are not OK, the kids are miserable, unsocialised, looking for love and finding only confusion.  The kids see adults making gods of their individual freedom and desires and so they aim to do the same.  Accepting no responsibility, they do what they want to do and will not allow anyone stand in their way, after all isn't that what the adults to whom they have "access" teach them by their own behaviour?  Permissive secular individualism is a failure and it is creating a dangerous society.  What started with the coupling of free love of the sixties and the ideological ranting of the left, will end in the birth of a monster.

As serious students of history will tell you, history repeats itself, and those who do not learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past.  Civilisations rose and they fell.  Rome, once a great empire, politically and culturally, fell to the barbarian which overran it.  Decadent Rome was, by then, no match for the hordes when they came bashing their tree trucks at the city gates.  It is a lesson for every civilization.  In conversations with history buffs over the years I have asked, when this civilisation falls, who will be the conquering barbarian?  Some suggested it would be the Muslims: a new Islamic empire would rise where the West once had been.  I'm not so sure.  I think the barbarian is within - we saw them in the UK last August and in the park on Saturday.  Our decadent civilisation need not fear the hordes outside the West, they are being created from within by a dangerous social experiment.

And one might ask, where is the Church in all of this?  Well, as we see from history the Church converted the barbarian and this gave rise to a new flowering of civilisation symbolised most potently by Charlemagne.  Can the Church convert the new barbarian?  Well, we might have a chance.  After all these barbarians have had little or no exposure to Christianity - the last two generations have been badly catechised, and the ideology of these times tells them they don't need God or religion, but yet deep in their hearts they are starving for something - for meaning, for the spiritual.  That hunger will grow when drugs, alcohol and sex lose their effects, when they start asking questions and the adults they have access to will not be able to answer them.   If this civilisation ends in ruins, can the Church like Our Lord walk through the broken tombs and tame the demoniacs?

I think that is what Blessed John XXIII may have seen in his calling the Second Vatican Council, what Blessed John Paul II saw as he promulgated the New Evangelisation - what Pope Benedict XVI sees as he teaches from the Chair of Peter.  The Church must be ready and full of evangelical zeal, not to waste time on fighting with the ideologues, but to present the vision of Jesus Christ and the salvation he offers humanity - to present the vision of a restored humanity at one with God in the communion of the Church - the family of faith, to the generations that are coming.  

I'm not saying we don't challenge the establishment or resign our position in the public square: we do not, we should continue to be a thorn in the side of those who try to silence us.  But we need also to stand back, take stock, and begin to plan our campaign.  We have not heard it in a long time, but, pushing all the nonsense language to one side, the Church is in the business of saving souls, and that's what she should be planning to do.  This is not heaven down here, but we need to start rebuilding a civilisation of faith and love here and now - a place, a community to capture the attention and hearts of the barbarians.