Cardinal Clancy Centre for Research in the Spiritual,
Moral, Religious and Pastoral Dimensions of Education
Spiritual, Moral and Religious Education is a key area of Research and Teaching in Australian Catholic University
Stifling Union or Creative Divorce?
The future Relationship between catechesis and religious education in Catholic
schools
By GRAHAM ROSSITER
(G.M. Rossiter, 1981, Stifling Union or Creative Divorce? The Future Relationship between Catechesis
and Religious Education in Catholic Schools, Word in Life, 29, 4, 162-173.)
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
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.1 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.2 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.3 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 Westerhoff's terms,
liberates catechesis from an unhealthy dependence on a "schooling-instructional paradigm".4 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
family centred 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 catechesis/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".5
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 faith oriented and educational concerts is needed. It is ironic that
a "creative divorce" might be the very thing needed to promote more catechesis, as well as more
authentic catechesis, 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.7
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 8) 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
believers 9). 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 - "If Sharing the Light of Faith has its expected
impact, the words 'religious education' will practically disappear to be replaced by catechetics and
catechesis".11 In fact, an undiscerning preoccupation with the church documents on education in faith
seems to cause in part a problematic gap between aims and practices in religious education in Catholic
schools. This is not the fault of the documents, but a problem caused by a failure to adequately
transpose their essential catechetical aims and ideas for application in the educational setting of
schools.12
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 initial awakening or conversion to faith; preceded by forms of precatechesis or pre-evangelisation; 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.13
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.14
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.15 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 educational 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 "schooling/instructional" paradigm, rather than on a "community of
faith/inculturation" paradigm.17. He argued the importance of celebrative ritual as the primary means
of communicating religious faith. Westerhoff's interpretation of problems with voluntary Sunday
school programs (in Protestant churches in the United States) was applied uncritically to (Catholic)
schools. Without questioning the appropriateness of Westerhoff's thesis for Sunday schools; a number
of religion teachers in Australian Catholic schools misapplied theory and presuppositions for a
voluntary, faith-sharing, non-school situation to a compulsory, classroom setting. Neither the common
ground nor the distinctions between the two contexts were explored critically. 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 schooling/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, "faith response", eliciting and experiential
approaches are Iying 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, "deschooled" 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
Referring to Catholic schools in the United States, Gabriel Moran claimed that a preoccupation with the
community of faith/inculturation paradigm was partly responsible for the situation where:
the church has been more successful in providing community/inculturation 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 community/inculturation 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 the same time, what might be expected specifically of
the Catholic school, an educational study of religion, 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 "the academic side is one of the weakest elements in religious education".21 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 community/inculturation 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/inculturation 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 schooling/instructional paradigm, was
inimical to community/inculturation. 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.22
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 schooling/instructional paradigm,
as if it had minimal relevance for school-based 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 fideism which is not worthy of serious
intellectual attention.23
To allow for innovative, personalised structures in religious education should not require wholesale
rejection of any theory that highlights the schooling/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 schooling/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 schooling/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 unresponsive 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 "life
centred" 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.24 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 religion
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.
A second consideration addresses the problem 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 "life 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 despair of the inability of the classroom to measure up to this 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
Religion25
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-developing 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 school based religious education, while not devaluing or
losing sight of the important place that catechesis 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 of
catechesis in the Catholic Church.26 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 faith oriented (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 catechesis.27 Leading theorists in countries like
England, Germany, France and the United States have likewise distinguished a religious education
separate from catechesis.28 In section 34 of Catechesi Tradendae, Pope John Paul II 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.29
The controlling influence of language on the theory of religious education
To open up an education in faith/education in religion dialogue would involve extending the "language
base" used for religious education in Catholic schools. This development would relate to the problem
Gabriel Moran is concerned about— the controlling dominance of ecclesiastical language at the expense
of educational language.30 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 self
enclosed 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.31
On the other hand, Michael Warren suggested that the language of catechesis added "an enriching
category for religious education".32. 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 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.33
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".34 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 faith/education in religion dialectic would help to secure the activity to an
educational moorage. This dialectic/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".35 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".36
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.37
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, attention to the principle of "the school
as a Christian community" is less effective if thought of primarily in relation to formal curriculum at the
expense of neglecting implications for the school's social life and organisational structures. At the
same time, 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 the
curriculum can be neglected. If teachers are accustomed to associating such principles or calls to action
primarily with the formal religion curriculum, they can fail 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.38
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 possibilities that a consequent more independent growth in each aspect might
involve. While there was not scope in 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
1. B. L. Marthaler, 1978, The Modern Catechetical Movement in Roman Catholicism: Issues and
Personalities, Religious Education, 73, 5-S. p. 88.
2. R. M. Rummery, 1975, Catechesis and Religious Education in a Pluralist Society, Sydney: E. J.
Dwyer.
3. M. Warren, 1981, Catechesis: An Enriching Category for Religious Education, Religious
Education 76, 2, p. 122.
4. J. H. Westerhoff, 1976, Will Our Children have Faith? Melbourne: Dove Communications. See
also J. H. Westerhoff, 1977, A Call to Catechesis, The living light 14, 354-358 and 1978, A Necessary
Paradox: Catechesis and Evangelism, Nurture and Conversion, Religious Education 73, 4, 409-416.
5. K. Nichols, 1978, Continuity and Change in Catechetics, The Month 11, 3, 88.
6. M. Krantzier, 1973, Creative Divorce: a new opportunity for personal growth, New York: New
American Library, Signet Books.
7. Some preliminary ideas about the interrelationships between religious education in government and
church-related schools appear in G. M. Rossiter (Ed.), 1981, Religious Education in Australian Schools,
Canberra: Curriculum Development Centre, chapter 4. It Is unlikely that the potential relevance of
general religious education for Catholic schools would be acknowledged without critical analysis and
evaluation. The recent correspondence in the Catholic Weekly (March-August, 1981) discussing the
Rawlinson Report (Religious Education in New South Wales government schools) illustrates some of
the extreme views opposing the very notion of general religious education.
8. R. M. Rummery, Catechesis and Religious Education in a Pluralist Society, p.26.
9. B. L. Marthaler, The Modern Catechetical Movement in Roman Catholicism: Issues and
Personalities, p.S-89.
10. McBrien noted that catechesis and religious education were used interchangeably in the early
drafts of the United States Catholic National Catechetical Directory. The final version, Sharing the
Light of 0th, showed a more exclusive preference for catechesis. See R. P. McBrien, 1976, Toward an
American Catechesis, The Living Light 13, 2, 168 and National Conference of Catholic Bishops, 1979,
Sharing the Light of Faith, Washington: United States Catholic Conference.
11. W. H. Paradis, 1979, "Catechesis in the Catholic Community", Religious Education 74,1, 50.
12. G. M. Rossiter, 1981, "The Gap between Aims and Practice in Religious Education", Word in Life
29,1, 24-28.
13. This list was drawn from the references already noted (Marthaler, National Conference of U.S.
Bishops, Paradis, Rummery, Warren and Westerhoff), and also from the following: V. Ayel, 1981,
"Shifts in Catechesis 1950-1980", Word in Life 29, 3, 110-120; M. C. Boys, 1981, "The Standpoint of
Religious Education", Religious Education 76, 2, 128-141; Catholic Congregation for the Clergy, 1971,
General Catechetical Directory, Washington: United States Catholic Conference; Pope John Paul II,
1979, Catechesi Tradendae, Rome: Vatican Polyglot Press.
14. G. Rummery, 1 981, "A Decade of Directories . . . and After?', Word in Life 29,1, 8.
15. B. L. Marthaler, "The Modern Catechetical Movement in Roman Catholicism: Issues and
Personalities", p.S-88, and K. Scott, 1980, "Communicative Competence and Religious Education",
Lumen Vitae 35,1, 83.
16. M. Warren, 1981, "Youth Ministry in Australia: Some Impressions", Word in Life 29,2, 93.
17. J. H. Westerhoff, Will Our Children have Faith?
18. K. Nichols, 1978, "Curriculum V Syllabus in Religious Education", paper presented at the Annual
Conference of the Conference of Catholic Colleges, Ampleforth, U.K. (March 1979), p.10.
19. V. Ayel, "Shifts in Catechesis 1950-1980", pp.118-119.
20. G. Moran, 1978, "What Now, Where Next?' in P. O'Hare, ea., Foundations of Religious Education,
New York: Paulist Press, p.106.
21. ibid.
22. D. J. Piveteau and J. T. Dillon, 1977, Resurgence of Religious Instruction Notre Dame, Indiana:
Religious Education Press, pp.65-73. See also J. T. Dillon, 1971, Personal Teaching, Columbus, Ohio:
Merrill
23. V. Ayel, "Shifts in Catechesis 1950-1980", p.119.
24. W. Firman, 1972, "Catechesis as a Process of Attitude Change", Our Apostolate 20, 2, 103-107, and
"Theories of Attitude Change applied to Catechetics", Our Apostolate 20, 4, 197-206; 241-252.
25. It is beyond the scope of this article to develop in detail what is meant by the language base,
education in faith/education in religion. These terms were used to differentiate approaches to religious
education in an introductory survey of practices in both government and church related schools in
Australia. See G. M. Rossiter, ea., Religious Education and Australian Schools chapters 1-4. The terms
"education in faith" and "education in religion" can be defined to highlight the contrasting, but
interrelated, faith oriented and educational concerns for religious education. The terms allowed for
distinguishing a view of religious education in public schools (purely educational) from a view of
religious education in church-related schools (where faith-oriented concerns were superimposed to
varying degrees, sometimes even supplanting the educational view). A brief account of the two terms is
given below.
Education in Faith refers to religious education aimed at handing on a particular religious faith tradition.
Education in faith seeks to exercise and deepen the believing activity of the individual and its directed
towards better understanding of the faith tradition of a particular religion or church. Education in faith
implies more than teaching or the giving of information. It suggests that the transmission of religious
faith and values is a complex process. Themes such as community of faith, evangelisation and
catechesis may be associated with education in faith to varying degrees.
Education in Religion can be defined as an approach to religious education where the justification, aims,
rationale and practices for the activity come from the general educational process and not from the
concerns of a community of faith. Specific assumptions about the formation of a community of faith in
a school and associated expectations for education in faith do not apply. Education in religion focuses
on how the study of religion may contribute to the general education of pupils. This form of religious
education makes its own distinctive contribution to the secular curriculum as would any other subject.
One way of analysing religious education in any school setting begins by determining where the relative
emphasis lies and by examining the tension between faith-oriented and educational concerns. While
religious education taught by public school teachers typifies education in religion, a number of
church-related schools consider that this same approach is appropriate for their formal religious
education curriculum. In these schools, catechetical activities would be optional for staff and students
who wished to associate in a community of faith "within" the school. This article suggests that Catholic
schools, which usually claim to be concerned only with education in faith, should give more attention to
such a division - more emphasis on education in religion in formal classroom religious education with
more emphasis on optional structures for catechesis. Religious education is taken as the general term
manifested from either an education in faith or education in religion perspective. Religious education in
a particular setting can be analysed from either or both perspectives. Catechesis, as a component of
education in faith, is regarded as a part of religious education.
26. G. Rummery, "A Decade of Directories . . . and After?'
27. See G. M. Rossiter, ea., Religious Education in Australian Schools, chapters 2 and 5.
28. See for example: Paul Hirst, (England), 1981, "Education, Catechesis and the Church School",
British Journal of Religious Education 3, 3, 85-93; M. H. Grimmitt, (England), 1978, What Can I do in
R.E.?, Great Wakering: Mayhew McCrimmon, Second edition; K. E. Nipkow, (Germany), 1979,
"Religious Education in Germany: Developments and Problems", British Journal of Religious
Education 1, 4, 126-135; M. DeWilde, (France), 1979, "Religion and Education in France Today",
Religious Education 74, 1, 87-93; G. Moran, (U.S.A.), 1977, "Two Languages of Religious Education".
The Living Light 14,1, 7-15.
29. This idea is also evident in P. Hirst, "Education, Catechesis and the Church School", where the
author suggested that "education" (in religion) and "Catechesis" should be kept as separate as possible
in English Catholic schools. Vincent Ayel's suggestion implied a similar differentiation for French
Christian schools when he used the words "Religious culture for everyone" and "Catechesis for
catechumens". He advocated "making a clear distinction between a scientific teaching on the cultural
phenomenon which makes up the religious and Christian event, and a catechesis properly so called
which acknowledges openly the extra cost of personal application". See V. Ayel, "Shifts in Catechesis
1950-1980", p.119.
30. G. Moran, "Two Languages of Religious Education", p.8.
31. K. Scott, "Communicative Competence and Religious Education", p.82.
32. M. Warren, "Catechesis: an Enriching Category for Religious Education".
33. D. Huebner, 1979, "The Language of Religious Education", in P. O'Hare, ea., Tradition and
Transformation in Religious Education, Birmingham, Alabama: Religious Education Press, p.93.
34. K. Scott, "Communicative Competence and Religious Education". p.83.
35. ibid. p.83.
36. ibid. p.80. See also G. Moran, 1970, Design for Religion, New York: Herder and Herder, and 1974,
Religious Body, New York: Seabury.
37. Other issues that can be addressed by this dialectic include: the problematic notion of the school as a
community of faith and its implications for religious education curriculum and religious practices;
difficulties to do with presumptions about a faith response from pupils in religious education; the
problem of being so concerned with handing on and developing faith that the very thing one might
expect of Catholic schools, the teaching of religion, is neglected; educational evaluation of aims,
curriculum and teaching/learning processes in religious education; a reappraisal of the appropriate
significance of teachers' religious commitments for religious education - to what degree are these
commitments to be appropriate content? What of educational commitments and the ethics of teaching
for commitment?; some of these issues are taken up in G. M. Rossiter, ea., Religious Education in
Australian Schools.
38. P. C. Rooney, 1974, "Religious Instruction in the Context of Catholic Schooling", Notre Dame
Journal of Education 5, 3, 260.