Runnymede Trust on faith schools

On Friday (slow news day, so you can perhaps understand why the report was released for coverage on that day), the UK news media covered a report on faith schools by the Runnymede Trust. This trust has for a number of years researched and reported on issues relating to equalities. I have a report from a good few years ago on Islamophobia.

The BBC website coverage of their report can be found here. The Times report is here, headlined "Faith schools must give up religion as a basis for selecting pupils, says report".

My own trade union is of course very exercised on this, so there has been a comment on the e-mail network among branch secretaries and executive. My contribution is below:

Dear Colleagues

What I found interesting in the Times report (and I have perceived it in other media coverage of faith schools in recent months) was the way in which it included an unstated assumption - that schools with a religious designation are OK so long as they are not allowed to be religious. It seems a bit discriminatory to me ...

The assessment of schools solely on the basis of their contribution to a particular assumption about what makes for good sociology is flawed for any type of school - any school is about other things as well, and focussing on research that does not take account of that will anyway produce only a partial picture.

I was suitably amused by the DCSF spokesman quoted on the BBC news website: "The bottom line is that faith schools are successful, thriving, popular and here to stay".

St Paul the tent maker

I thought this was an interesting post, at Catholic Analysis. It is a reflection on St Paul's trade as a tent maker, comparing it to the Johannine phrase often translated as "He dwelt among us" but which more exactly translated from the Greek means "He pitched his tent among us".

How fitting then that the Apostle to the nations who would proclaim this Good News would be a tentmaker by trade, in effect a "tabernacle maker" bringing the presence of God to the Gentiles ...

UK Bishops Marriage and Family Life Project: leaflet on homosexuality (1)

I offer here a first thought on this leaflet. The text of the leaflet can be found here, and I am for once following a rule I have (but sometimes break) - respond to the original and not to the media coverage of it! The website suggests that the leaflet was first published in May 2007, so I am not sure what has now brought it to the attention of the media.

A reflection at Antagonistic Pots and Pans about recent reports of an increase in the number of children being born with Downs Syndrome is also relevant. Here is part of that post:

"But one of the biggest factors at play is people changing their attitudes. There is far more support, and advances in medicine mean that it is not uncommon for sufferers to live into their sixties."

This 'change in attitude' claim is what struck me. If attitudes change, then yes, we've still lost on many counts on the legislative level, but that legislation (to abort DS babies and all the other recent additional horrors) would lie there unused, as it would be abhorrent in society's view not to protect every life from conception to its natural end.

[But see John Smeaton's precautionary post here]

What I suspect, though, is that, if a parish community were to learn that a Mum-to-be in the parish was expecting a baby that had a high risk of being born with Downs Syndrome, they really would not have a properly developed response strategy. Considerable pastoral skill is needed to respond in a way that is both supportive of the Mum-to-be and her family and that is faithful to the teaching of the Church; a (dogmatic) restatement of the Church's teaching on abortion does not comprise such a strategy. I feel that there is an un-preparedness of Catholic parish communities, that is, of parish clergy in collaboration with their lay people, to respond to these sorts of situations. The causes of such un-preparedness lie in weaknesses in theological/catechetical formation and in the gift/grace of charity, a tendency to oppose these two at a practical level rather than to synthesise them.

So the idea of producing a leaflet about how parish communities should respond when Catholics with a homosexual inclination approach and wish to take part in the life of the parish seems to me to be a matter of very sound pastoral intent. Most parishes, including those with priests who are well formed, will simply have no real idea about how to make such a response; and it does take a considerable pastoral skill and thought beforehand.

The leaflet produced by the Bishop's Project for Marriage and Family Life is flawed. It does not represent the synthesis of Catholic teaching and charity that I suggest forms the structure of an effective pastoral response. Time permitting, I will look at this in more detail in a later post.

What would be a good idea would be to prepare an alternative leaflet that does not suffer the failures of the one just produced.

The Catholic Church and homosexuality

I was away from home over the weekend, so missed out on the furore over the leaflet on welcoming lesbians and homosexuals in Catholic parishes. See here and here (I think this latter is a cut and paste of Daily Mail coverage) for an idea of what was going on.

ZENIT is today carrying a report that offers a useful counter balance in terms of its approach to this question. It refers to activity of the Holy See at the United Nations, but sheds a useful light on what might have been said here in the UK.

I have a lot of sympathy with having to respond to a strategy by gay activists that puts together in the same document quite acceptable concerns about unfair discrimination with statements of moral approval of homosexual or lesbian behaviour. I think it is a tactic called "piggy backing", and it led to my resigning from the Executive of my trade union when they adopted an anti-discrimination statement with small print that I could not accept.

The UK Bishops Marriage and Family Life Project could perhaps have been rather more politically aware in preparing their leaflet. In the media response, one can quite definitely see the phenomenon of "piggy backing".

Being tagged ...

I have been tagged for the following meme by la mamma. She got it from Gem of the Ocean, who got it from ... I seem to remember doing it a while ago, but I have since re-organised my office, so will do it differently.

1. Take the nearest book.
2. Turn to page 56.
3. Copy out the 5th sentence, and then the next 2-5 lines after that.
4. Name the book (As Karen says, well, duh!)
5. Inflict this on 5 other victims.

1. The nearest books as I sit at the keyboard are a pile of Maryvale PGCE coursebooks.

3.The absolute moral norms taught by the Church ('Do not commit adultery' and so on) are ways of protecting the person.

And the next five lines or so.

Read VS 96-97 on this point. The idea of commandments is viewed with suspicion by many people, and they resist allowing the notion of God's commandments to have any significant place in morality. A fear of legalism may be at the base of this. As we have seen, a legalistic concept of morality makes the idea of law, or of rules, primary so that the person is subordinated to them. A Christian cannot take this approach, since God's fullest revelation of himself was not a book or a set of commandments or instructions, but was as a human being. Modern moral thinking is rightly 'personalist' ie it is based upon an understanding of the nature of the person and what kinds of actions accord with our true good and dignity.

4. The book is coursebook C5 Personal, Moral and Social Education including Every Child Matters and Citizenship 2008 Edition.

If you feel that you would like to participate, take yourself as being one of my five nominees!

Now, if I had been sitting in my living room you might have had Gerard Manley Hopkins, a Study Edition of the Lectionary for Mass, Louis Bouyer's Eucharist, Henri de Lubac's Corpus Mysticum... or the Officium Divinum ex decreto Sacronsancti Oeucumenici Concilii Vaticani II instuaratum acutoritate Pauli PP. VI promulgatum.

The Final Message of the Synod on the Word of God

For the season of Advent, I am preparing a series of four allocutios on the Final Message of the October Synod of Bishops for the Legion of Mary praesidium in the parish. Herewith, my notes for the first of these allocutios.

1. Introduction

Advent as “coming”: so we look forward to the coming of Jesus - forward (the second coming, so we are encouraged to be “awake”), backwards (the coming of Jesus as God-made-man at Bethlehem, that we will celebrate at Christmas).

“The Word of God” as advent: the phrase has a specific reference to the Scriptures, but this is not exclusive - it refers to Jesus Christ himself (typically in a phrase like “The Word made flesh”), and to any other way in which God speaks or communicates himself to mankind (perhaps typically in the word addressed to the prophets); it reaches back to creation (which can be seen as the first moment of God’s coming, advent).[1]

The Final Message of the Synod has sections devoted to Creation and Salvation History, the person of Jesus Christ, the Church, and (the longest section) the place of Scripture in the world today.

Methodology of the Final Message: rich in use of texts from the Scriptures to support a vision of the “Word of God” that is not limited to just the written word of the pages of the books of the Bible.

2. Vatican II: Dei Verbum

God, who through the Word creates all things (see John 1:3) and keeps them in existence, gives men an enduring witness to Himself in created realities (see Rom. 1:19-20). Planning to make known the way of heavenly salvation, He went further and from the start manifested Himself to our first parents. Then after their fall His promise of redemption aroused in them the hope of being saved (see Gen. 3:15) and from that time on He ceaselessly kept the human race in His care, to give eternal life to those who perseveringly do good in search of salvation (see Rom. 2:6-7). Then, at the time He had appointed He called Abraham in order to make of him a great nation (see Gen. 12:2). Through the patriarchs, and after them through Moses and the prophets, He taught this people to acknowledge Himself the one living and true God, provident father and just judge, and to wait for the Savior promised by Him, and in this manner prepared the way for the Gospel down through the centuries.

Then, after speaking in many and varied ways through the prophets, "now at last in these days God has spoken to us in His Son" (Heb. 1:1-2). For He sent His Son, the eternal Word, who enlightens all men, so that He might dwell among men and tell them of the innermost being of God (see John 1:1-18). Jesus Christ, therefore, the Word made flesh, was sent as "a man to men." (3) He "speaks the words of God" (John 3;34), and completes the work of salvation which His Father gave Him to do (see John 5:36; John 17:4). To see Jesus is to see His Father (John 14:9). For this reason Jesus perfected revelation by fulfilling it through his whole work of making Himself present and manifesting Himself: through His words and deeds, His signs and wonders, but especially through His death and glorious resurrection from the dead and final sending of the Spirit of truth. Moreover He confirmed with divine testimony what revelation proclaimed, that God is with us to free us from the darkness of sin and death, and to raise us up to life eternal.

3. The Final Message Section 1: “… our faith is not only centred on a book, but on a history of salvation ….”[2]

[In creation] a first "cosmic" revelation is found which makes creation similar to an immense page opened up before all of humanity, in which a message from the Creator can be read: "The heavens declare the glory of God, the vault of heaven proclaims his handiwork, day unto day makes known his message; night unto night hands on the knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their message goes out into all the earth" (Ps 19:2-5).[3]

The divine word is, however, also at the origin of human history. Man and woman, whom God created "in the image of himself" (Gn 1:27), and who bear within themselves the divine imprint, can enter into dialogue with their Creator or can wander far from him and reject him away by sinning. … The divine is therefore present in human events which, through the action of the Lord of history, are inserted in the greater plan of salvation for "everyone to be saved and reach full knowledge of the truth" (1 Tm 2:4).

Consequently, the effective, creative and salvific divine word is source of being and of history, of creation and redemption.[4]

The words of the Bible bear witness to the divine word, in a written form. So we are not surprised to see that the Bible gives an account of creation and the history of salvation, in the pages of what we know as the Old Testament.

POINTS TO NOTE:

1. How Catholics approach the Bible is very different than two other groups:

-evangelical Christians, who have less sense of philosophy and of the Church, restrict to a greater or lesser extent the understanding of the “Word of God” to the written words of the Bible

-Muslims would share an idea of creation as a manifestation of God, and so there is a preference for not representing created objects or persons in their religious art. Muslims view their Scriptures, the Koran, as the content of the revelation of God through the prophet Mohammed; they do not have a sense of it as a witness to an ongoing history of salvation.

2. We are unfolding the different ways in which the Bible, a written word, is a witness to a Living Word - and we have started by looking at it as witness to creation and to the history of salvation.

3. In proclaiming the Gospel, and then in catechesis, the idea of a history of salvation is important. We present to those we are evangelising a story - of God’s creation, and then of his intervention in that creation for the salvation of man, centred on the coming of Jesus Christ and his redemptive action.

[1] cf Final Message of the Synod n.3: “.. the word of God
precedes and goes beyond the Bible ..”
[2] Final Message of the Synod, n.3. Note that this is only a
partial citation. cf Vatican II Dei Verbum nn.3-4
[3] Final Message of the Synod, n.1.
[4] Final Message of the Synod, nn.2-3.

Nicodemus and PC Cogman

In the Gospel account, Nicodemus is the person who comes to Jesus in the night because of his fear of the Jews. I recall a few years ago, when Rocco Buttiglione was dropped as a European Commissioner because of this expression of a Catholic position on homosexuality, that he described himself as having been very Nicodemian. By this he meant that he had been as discreet as he could have been, but was placed in the position of being forced to answer a question that revealed his Catholic point of view. Rocco Buttiglione had not gone out of his way to be provocative in presenting his Catholic point of view.

My immediate reaction to the case of PC Cogman (reported here and here) was to wonder whether or not he has been sufficiently Nicodemian. As this post suggests, he would appear to have directly disobeyed an earlier direction from his employer. With my trade union experience, me thinks "not a good idea" and wonders if PC Cogman could have made his point in another way. Could he, for example, have asked for an equal treatment for a Christian point of view, say during Holy Week, with officers being encouraged to wear crosses for the week? And if permission was refused, could he have then pursued it through a grievance procedure for discrimination on grounds of religious belief?

But, in such a situation - and many of us are in professions that could give rise to our finding ourselves in a similar position to that in which PC Cogman found himself - what are the principles of proper and effective action?

1. The question of conscience: We might have to decline to take part in an activity which implies our support for actions we consider to be morally wrong. In PC Cogman's case, this would rule out the wearing of the pink ribbon, resisting any pressure applied to wear it. The not wearing the ribbon would probably communicate a message to colleagues without anything further needing to be said. The media coverage suggests to me that officers were not directed to wear the ribbon, only put under pressure to do so. A discreet non-compliance with the pressure appears to have been possible and, in my view, would have left a Christian conscience intact.

2. Taking up cudgels: I do not think this is always necessary in order to preserve the integrity of conscience. And I think there are ways of taking up cudgels that are discreet. And sometimes a tangential approach is useful. One could, for example, try to arrange for a Christian chaplain to be appointed to the police force - and cry foul on equalities grounds if it was refused. Or a way might be found for pursuing the matter as a complaint or grievance. Or it might be a case of a meeting with your line manager to explain that you find it very difficult being asked to do this, and would appreciate it if you were missed out from this request in some way.

3. Taking care: the bottom line might be that you have to risk disciplinary action - but I do think that there will in many situations be alternative courses of action. And it is certainly worth taking care about expressing your point of view un-invited to colleagues, or expressing it in the formal forms of letters or e-mails. That is something that can easily be seen as discourteous. I have in my own career had two situations where I have strongly disagreed with colleagues over questions relating to policy with regard to homosexuality - but did it in such a way that those on the other side of the argument were able to recognise a question of principle and not of prejudice on my part.

4. Showing Christian faith in the workplace: Yes, I do think one should be allowed to manifest Christian faith in the work place. But Nicodemus is a good example. If you push it into other people's faces, then (rightly) you could be considered discourteous, and cause problems quite unnecessarily. A certain discretion is required. I, for example, wear a wrist band with the Christian "fish" symbol. My thinking is that this is sufficiently discreet that, even when pupils notice it (eg in summer when I am wearing short sleeves), they will not feel that it is being pushed at them. And when pupils have asked about it, they have done so in a very pleasant and enquiring way. And then it is just accepted as being something I wear. The response of teaching colleagues is the same. In the Catholic Church, we do have a teaching on different stages in evangelisation, including an idea of "presence in charity", that may not be so well articulated by evangelical Christians.

Clearly, I do not know the full details of PC Cogman's actions, and can only comment on them as reported in the media. But I do wonder whether or not he has been sufficiently Nicodemian.