Irish Minister for Education Ruairí Quinn has asked that the Catholic
Church be divested of half of the 3,000 national schools in Ireland
over which it currently has patronage.
These “Catholic” schools make up about 90 percent of the state
provided national schools in the country.
The others are under the
patronage of either other religious denominations or are
non-denominational in character.
He has launched a Forum on Patronage and Pluralism in the Public
Sector, chaired by UCD Professor Emeritus of Education John Coolahan, to
hear views of concerned groups as well as the general public, as a
prelude to issuing specific recommendations to the minister by the end
of the year.
Archbishop Diarmuid Martin acknowledged that the increasing portion
of students in the Dublin Archdiocese who are either not Catholic and/or
not religiously affiliated would justify a substantial reduction in the
percentage of schools under the Church’s patronage.
The Catholic Council of Bishops, reflecting views more typical of
rural Ireland, would accept some reduction, but much smaller than what
Martin would accept, never mind Quinn’s more ambitious suggestion.
One can better understand the practice of church patronage by
examining the origins of the Irish national school system in the 1830s
by the British government, decades before doing so in England.
The
original aim was for non-denominational schools, with the students
attending separate classes along denominational lines for religious
instruction.
At first the Irish Catholic hierarchy was generally supportive, with
most of the opposition coming from the then established Church of
Ireland.
However, within a decade the goal had generally fallen by the
wayside, as less than 5 percent of the more than four thousands schools
were non-denominational.
That original aim was doomed from the start. Since many of the
schools were run religious orders, they were de facto denominational.
Also, public opinion, which intertwined religion with political
sentiment, whether nationalist or unionist, opposed non-denominational
schools.
It must be remembered, also, that the original scheme, did not call
for secular education. It had the same character as a current program in
Northern Ireland, where, admittedly in only a small minority of
schools, there is separate religious instruction and sacramental
preparation, while students attend all other classes, including ones in
religious history and comparative religion, together.
One suspects that Quinn’s ultimate agenda is much greater than
promoting interdenominational education.
He, as becomes his own
atheistic philosophical perspective, would prefer entirely secular
schooling and to leave religious instruction to parents or
denominational “Sunday Schools.”
Quinn is correct in calling for a root and branch re-examination of
Irish education that will ask questions other than giving more money to
schools and teachers.
His anxiety is appropriate in view of recent
international studies that lowered Irish ranking from former “world
class” to average or below average in literacy, science and math, and
which found one quarter of Irish teenagers to be functionally
illiterate.
This stands in stark contrast to the fact that the portion of the
Irish population in 30-to-34 age bracket with college education is the
highest in the European Union.
However, to imply that academic competence is weakened by the time
spent in the school day studying religion is unwarranted, especially
since the amount of time spent on religion has remained the same as it
was when Irish educational standards were being internationally
acclaimed.
Former Taoiseach John Bruton has argued that Quinn’s claim that too
much school time is wasted on religion could as easily be made about the
even greater amount of time spent teaching the national language that
very few ultimately use in their lives, or about the fewer schools days
per year in Ireland than elsewhere in Europe.
Quinn also doesn’t seem to have any objection to school time being
spent on other matters, even less academic than religion, such as
sports, health education, and civics.
As for the practicality of teaching religious instruction in the home
or on weekends, Bruton effectively demonstrates that such would work
very much against, in most cases, thorough religious formation.
Parents
inculcate religious values more by example than formal instruction, and
generally are unprepared and unready to give formal religious classes to
their children.
No doubt religious belief has declined significantly among the Irish,
and immigration has brought thousands into the country who are not
Christians, never mind Catholics.
Obviously the state-supported
education to which they are entitled should not require their taking
Catholic religious classes or being immersed in a Catholic atmosphere.
On the other hand, the majority, who are still Catholic, should be as
equally entitled to state support for the Catholic education they
desire.
While Catholic schools in a diverse school system should receive
comparable support as any other school, the Church should be wary of a
number of things.
For instance, religious identity must not used as a means of social exclusivity without any real interest in religion itself.
Secondly, the Church must make sure that the schools remaining under
its patronage not be staffed by faculty who are either lukewarm or are
non-believers.
Thirdly, the existing light-weight and superficial religion
curriculum must be strengthened.
The necessity of such is demonstrated
by the results of a survey of young Irish people, aged 15 to 24.
Only
one in 20 of whom could quote the First Commandment, about a third of
whom knew where Jesus was born or what Easter celebrated, and about a
sixth knew what transubstantiation was.
For the church to act as patron in national schools where faculty are
lukewarm and religious curriculum is superficial will only intensify
the growing pattern in Ireland of infrequent Mass attendance.
It would
also make youth cynical and indifferent rather than religious.