Historical perspective on Catholic School Religious Education

(G.M. Rossiter, 1999, Historical perspective on the development of Catholic Religious Education in Australia: Some implications for the future, Journal of Religious Education, 47, 1, 5-18.)

The National Symposium on Religious Education and Ministry in November 1998 provided an opportunity for Religious Educators from across the Catholic Education sector in Australia to take stock of their area of ministry and to think about future developments. What I hope to provide here is an interpretation of historical developments that will enhance our attempts to address present and future issues. The historian, Jaroslav Pelikan (1984, p.65), considered that a wise understanding of our history is the best starting point when planning for the future, especially in an era characterised by rapid social change and uncertainty. This means interpreting present issues in the light of the formative influences that have shaped them.

A wise, insightful and useful interpretation of past developments is not easy or quick to develop. Our capacity to interpret historical developments critically -- say in Religious Education and Ministry, or for any aspects of general culture -- depends on the social and intellectual climate in which we work. How insightful an interpretation can be depends on the relative maturity of the climate at the time. To illustrate this, let me take the example of a recently screened documentary film which offered an interpretation of the role of Paul Robeson in the African American civil rights and labour movements.

The social complexities that influenced the interpretation of his contributions in the 1950s and 1960s could not be widely appreciated at the time. Because of his simplistic and sympathetic views of the quality of life in the Soviet Union under Stalin, leaders like Martin Luther King and Malcolm X distanced themselves from him; for a time he was not permitted to travel outside the United States because of his so called "un American" activities. It has taken many years before an evaluation of his leadership role was possible which acknowledged the tensions and complications that explained the successes and failures of his work for those causes. Now we have a better understanding of the life work of this man who sang for the workers on the Sydney Opera house construction site in the 1960s and for Soviet workers in Moscow -- the man who can be judged as an influential precursor of the Black civil rights and labour movements in the United States.

The point I wish to make from this analogy is that a critical interpretation of developments within Australian Catholic Religious Education required a maturity of vision that was not available to us in the 1970s. A wise interpretation acknowledges various complex influences at work and resists the temptation to oversimplify; it does not collapse the tensions; it accepts the failures along with the successes; it candidly asks the awkward questions and does not baulk at embarrassing answers; it appraises both strengths and weaknesses. Also it attempts to extend the community's capacity to look carefully at history to interpret the influence of causal factors.

I consider that we are now better able to put the development of Catholic Religious Education into perspective than we have for many years.

However, it is important for a group like this to work towards a shared perspective which is more difficult to achieve. This means acknowledging and accepting the different estimates we have of what is the most appropriate content and method for Religious Education. I am aware of differences of professional opinion amongst religious educators, including the academic staff in the University's School of Religious Education; but our common commitment to the advancement of Religious Education is much larger and more fundamental than the differences.

I believe that the encounter with different insights -- even when we disagree with them -- can be creative if we endeavour to comprehend them and appraise them. We need to be open to rational persuasion -- ready to weigh up evidence and arguments. This may confirm what we already think; or it may lead to a change in our views, even slightly, if this means a more realistic and accurate interpretation of what is happening and the adoption of an action plan that is more relevant and effective. Conflicting views need to be understood and held in creative tension.

A climate of respectful dialogue does not require that differences be ignored or played down. The first requirement is that we seek to understand clearly the positions outlined. This helps avoid the problem where differences are created through inaccurate perceptions of what is said. Clarification of intended meaning should therefore be the first priority for both speakers and respondents. Disagreements based on misunderstanding will not advance Religious Education; differences of professional opinion based on accurate understandings can be fruitful.

I will concentrate on Catholic school religious education. This will also have some relevance to ministry in the Catholic church in Australia, but it would not cover that area adequately in its own right.

A first step is to compile a list of the factors that have had a shaping influence on religious education. They influence the thinking of authorities and religion teachers which gives the intentional curriculum; they also influence what actually happens in the classroom -- the actual curriculum -- where the perceptions and responses of the students make a critical contribution. However, such a listing, which is usually complicated and imposing, is only a starting point for a critical perspective. What is then needed is an interpretation of the interplay of factors by focusing on a few selected themes.

The scheme below is one example of a list of formative influences to which others might want to add new categories and additional items.

There are a number of historical interpretations of Catholic Religious Education currently available in the published literature and in some research theses (Rummery, 1975; Flynn, 1979; Rossiter, 1981; Ryan and Malone, 1996; Ryan, 1997), . What I offer here is an interpretation that revolves around the interplay between five themes which have influenced what teachers try to achieve in the classroom; this interplay is then considered in the light of the spirituality of contemporary young people. This view highlights major changes in emphasis since the 1950s and points towards developments for the future.

Perhaps the most evident change in Catholic Religious Education after the Second Vatican Council was the emphasis on the experiential and a quest for personalism and relevance. This came about through the coalescence of a number of movements. Whereas previously Theology had been mainly the preserve of the clergy it was opened to members of the teaching religious orders of sisters and brothers and to the laity. The religious personnel, who made up the vast majority of the religion teachers in Catholic schools at the time, joined a surge of interest in the new humanistic psychology (Rogers, Maslow, Allport, for example). Special attention was given to human relationships as a key aspect of personal and spiritual development. What emerged was a form of 'psychological spirituality' which sought to interpret Theology and Scripture in terms of relevance to contemporary life. It was this development which reinforced and magnified the changes that are often ascribed to the second Vatican Council.

Being able to relate sensitively in one-to-one relationships became a more prominent part of people's spirituality. The one-to-one counselling relationship became a sort of ideal for religious ministry. This interest not only affected their own lives, it changed their understanding of Religious Education. Efforts were intensified to try to make it a very personal activity which was more relevant to the lives of students. The spectacular success of the new style community retreats which began for senior students in the 1970s reinforced this thinking -- many teachers unsuccessfully tried to convert their lessons into retreats. The research on Catholic schools conducted by Br Marcellin Flynn (1975), following up that of Carmel Leavey (1972), stressed the importance of community and school climate. This was taken by some as a research justification of the quest for personalism.

In the Catholic Education sector, the language of psychological spirituality came to dominate thinking about personal and spiritual development. The small group discussion of life and spirituality was thought of as the process to pursue in Religious Education. The distinctions between Religious Education and Personal Development education tended to fade. Informality in context and method, personal sharing, group dynamics, and process rather than content became prominent in teachers' understanding of Religious Education, especially in the secondary school.

From the vantage point of time we can see that the personal formula with so much promise was unsuccessful. However, it is very important to note that it was not the quest for relevance and personalism in itself that was the problem -- I will argue later that this is now even more crucial for Religious Education than it ever was. The problem was the inappropriateness of the methods used in pursuit of personalism in the public forum of the classroom. The same fate befell the personalist movement initiated in British state schools by Harold Loukes in the late 1960s (Loukes, 1961, 1965, 1973). Too much informality and inappropriate assumptions about personalism in the classroom combined to make the activity of little consequence to students -- even though students may have enjoyed it. A more detailed analysis of the place for a personal dimension in classroom teaching and learning is given elsewhere (Crawford and Rossiter 1985, 1988; Rossiter, 1986, 1994, 1997A).

This may sound like deja vu, and perhaps a rash statement to make, given that some of us have labelled the quest for personalism in religious education in the 1970s as misdirected. But I propose that relevance and personalism are the most important issues for Catholic religious education into the next Millennium -- much more important now than they ever were in the 1970s. However, to justify this claim I need to consider the interplay between this and the other four nominated areas.

Firstly, the intention to make religious education personal and relevant to the lives of students was valid twenty five years ago, and it still is. But the particular formula pursued to achieve it in the classroom was, in hindsight, generally inappropriate and naive. It was much more successful in retreats and voluntary groups, and it still is, because there was greater congruence between the context and that formula.

What was required was a different formula for relevance and personalism that was more at home in the classroom and was consonant with the expectations of other subjects. I must add the qualifier that these expectations are not static and are continually evolving. I think that we do now understand in principle what the appropriate formula is but there remain some problems as I hope to show later.

More than any other subject area in the curriculum, religious education is the arena where the quest for relevance and personalism has been thoroughly explored and tested, with much experimentation, and many successes and failures over the years. The resultant wisdom has been costly. But this has very important implications for general education, particularly with the emerging movement within the last fifteen years to clarify the role of the whole school curriculum in promoting the personal, spiritual and moral development of pupils (Crawford and Rossiter, 1993, 1996B; Rossiter, 1996). I believe that, in principle, the main questions about the links between the classroom component of school education and spiritual/moral development have been resolved in religious education and can be applied generally across the curriculum. However, I think that not enough religious educators have yet discovered the solution. The complex place for the personal and spiritual dimension within classroom teaching/learning processes I have discussed in detail elsewhere (Crawford and Rossiter, 1985, 1988, 1991, 1996B; Rossiter, 1986, 1994, 1997A, 1998). It involves interplay between content, challenging processes for teaching/research/learning, and the subtle place for personal freedom. As I hope to show later, contemporary religious education often has the second and third parts well covered but falls down in the first one -- content.

The concept 'faith development' came to dominate the language of Catholic religious education in Australia since the mid 1970s, even though for religion teachers there still remains a level of ambiguity about its meaning. (Will Our Children Have Faith? by John Westerhoff, 1976, was the first book to popularise the concept faith development in Australia.) Sponsoring the faith of students had always been a fundamental aim for religious education -- this was never in question (Rossiter, 1986). But the interesting development at this stage was the tendency to equate faith development with the personal processes referred to in the previous section (Rossiter, 1998). It was like 'baptising' the quest for personalism. A dichotomy developed between the teaching of religion on one hand (where there was a cognitive emphasis) and the so called 'faith development' activities like retreats, counselling and small group discussions on the other. This was evident in diocesan guidelines, in the writings of theorists and in school programs, and no doubt it affected the thinking and practice of religion teachers (Archdiocese of Brisbane, 1997; Barry, 1997; Lovat, 1989; Moore, 1991; Rossiter, 1997B).

What would have been more accurately called an emotional component of religious education was often labelled as 'faith development'. This implied too narrow a dependence on psychological processes as the core of faith development and it devalued the classroom teaching of religion as if this was somehow 'less faith intensive' than intimate group processes. In turn, this oversimplified the great complexity in the links between religious education and students' spiritual development.

While much progress has been made, there still remains a need to clarify further the place for the personal and faith dimensions within classroom teaching/learning processes in Religious Education. As noted earlier, such clarification will also have implications for general education.

What is required is not a change in the aim for faith development but rather more discriminating use of the concept, in particular, a usage which reflects the importance of the contribution to the development of faith that can be made by classroom religious education. It may be expecting too much of religious education to require it to be influential in changing levels of commitment. Its natural concern is with knowledge, understanding and experience of the faith tradition.

An article in a recent book on Quality Catholic Schools (Keane and Riley, 1997) noted that the guidelines produced by various Australian Catholic dioceses had contributed significantly to the support for Catholic school Religious Education. Some visiting educators from overseas went further, considering that the contribution of the guidelines, in terms of personnel, time, funds, trialling, dissemination and inservice programs represented an extraordinary commitment to one particular strategy for the development of Religious Education in this country (Rossiter, 1997B).

The diocesan guidelines published in Australia since the 1960s reflect changes in thinking about the nature, purposes and methods of religious education -- both the quest for the personalism/relevance and the centrality of faith development are evident. Recently, the incorporation of the Education Outcomes movement into Religious Education guidelines has opened a new agenda.

Over the last two decades the Outcomes movement in education has had a notable influence on curricula, teaching and assessment in Australian schools. The emphasis has been on measurable outcomes for shaping the aims of education, for providing measures of effectiveness and for requiring accountability. The system works well for knowledge and skill outcomes, but has difficulties when dealing with outcomes in the personal/values areas (Crawford and Rossiter, 1993). Consequently, with the emphasis on faith development in Catholic religious education, how spiritual outcomes are to be written will become an area of interesting debate.

Catholic diocesan guidelines in Brisbane and Sydney have already moved in this direction to keep Religious Education on a par with other key learning areas in the curriculum (Barry, 1997; Catholic Education Office Sydney, 1996). The focus of outcomes on knowledge and skills will be beneficial for Religious Education by drawing attention to the immediate and achievable goals which tend to have been neglected. But as anticipated, ambiguities have arisen with values and faith outcomes -- especially where faith outcomes are talked about in much the same way as knowledge/skills outcomes.

In brief, it is proposed that a language of hopes (or hoped-for long term outcomes) be used rather than outcomes written in faith development language. These personal/spiritual hopes need to be distinguished from the measurable knowledge/skills outcomes because of the complexity of their origins and development. This same advice could be usefully applied to general education where it deals with outcomes in the values area.

The debate about spiritual outcomes for Religious Education also has relevance for assessment and reporting (A series of articles in recent years in Word in Life and Catholic School Studies have addressed some of the issues. For example: Macdonald, 1990, 1991, 1995).

While not questioning the fundamental need for diocesan syllabuses or guidelines, some overseas observers have raised questions about the efficacy of committing so many resources to the 'documentation phase' of Religious Education development, wondering why more attention was not given to later phases like student resources and school programming -- as was the pattern in the United Kingdom and New Zealand. They were, however, very admirable of the way in which dioceses have sponsored the inservice professional development of religion teachers and their studies for qualifications in Religious Education (Rossiter, 1997B).

While diocesan guidelines have a prominent place in the history of Catholic Religious Education in Australia, more research is needed to clarify the ways in which they have impacted on what is actually taught in the classroom by comparison with other effects such as the use of student materials or professional development programs for teachers. For example, student materials originally developed by the combined Catholic dioceses in New Zealand have been used extensively in Australian Catholic schools. If observers were to watch teachers using these materials in different Australian dioceses, would they be able to tell from their classroom observations which diocesan guidelines the teachers were working from? The student materials themselves can apparently have a more significant influence on lesson-planning and classroom teaching than distinctive diocesan guidelines. This raises questions about whether diocesan guidelines result in different and distinctive teaching styles and content selection for Catholic Religious Education around the country.

(Note: Not much systematic research has been done on the relative effectiveness of diocesan guidelines as a strategy for improving the quality of the teaching of religion in the classroom. The study by Patricia Malone (1990) though limited to a small sample, suggested that guidelines did not have a significant impact on the planning and teaching of religion in the school and they it was usually only the religion coordinator who read them. This may not be the case in all dioceses. There have been detailed evaluations of some of the diocesan guidelines which have affirmed their role; most of these evaluations have been internal to the systems. Where teachers have been seconded to pilot the guidelines and/or produce support material for use by others, they have been very pleased with the guidance that the documents provided. They have also been helpful for coordinators.)

A final comment that will be explained in more detail towards the end of the discussion. In my opinion, most of the Catholic diocesan religion syllabuses are too tame. I think that students consider them to be too concerned with institutional maintenance and not enough with what they see as the spiritual dimension of people's lives. I hope that they will move more in the direction of addressing issues. This can be done in a balanced way while not neglecting our commitment to handing on the Catholic faith tradition (Crawford and Rossiter, 1995).

4. New state Religion Studies courses and the quest for academic credibility.

One of the major problems faced by school religious education for many years has been its academic credibility. Catholic schools have long claimed that a subject like religion which deals with ultimate meaning, beliefs and values should have a philosophically central place in any school curriculum. However, it is the very subjects which are concerned with the personal and spiritual dimensions to life which had their credibility subverted by what I call the psychology of the learning environment. As explained elsewhere, a number of factors influence the poor level of involvement of many students in religious education, even when they enjoy it (Crawford and Rossiter, 1991). However, what is of interest here is its academic status -- or what students call "mark status."

There had been some moves in schools in the 1970s to improve the academic rigour of religious education at secondary level, but this was difficult, not only because of student perceptions, but because it ran against the current of teacher thinking at the time that religion lessons needed informality and personalism. There was a false dichotomy between the academic and the personal -- as if the two were incompatible alternatives. By 1973, some Catholic school year 11-12 religion programs had gained partial accreditation as "Other approved studies". But it would take more time before the fully tertiary accredited state Religion Studies courses were introduced. This followed the Government Reports on Religious Education in state schools in the 1970s and 1980s, leading to the availability of courses in all states -- with the exception of the Northern Territory (Rossiter, 1981).

Catholic schools embraced the new state courses enthusiastically. Catholic religious educators from Education Offices, schools and the Catholic Colleges (now ACU) were key players in the development of the courses and in the production of student materials.

The arrival of religion studies courses and the way in which they had been embraced by Catholic schools, have made an invaluable contribution to Catholic religious education. They altered significantly the academic credibility of religious situation. Even more importantly, they provided a context within which students could experience the study of religion with academic rigour. By that I mean, that the study of religion was no less demanding than what students came to expect from other academic subjects.

The development of religion studies courses also helped religious education in Catholic schools break down the artificial dichotomy between academic study and personal relevance. A challenging study was found to be the most appropriate context for the pursuit of relevance and personalism in the classroom.

So in effect, religion studies added a crucial element to the formula for classroom religious education -- academic study and research, which had been difficult to achieve earlier because of the circumstances of non-accredited courses. This was one of the key elements missing from 1970s religious education.

However, relevance in any education depends very much on the content and this is where I feel there is need for change in the current religion studies courses. While there are exceptions in various units, I think that too much of the content is descriptive and hence too tame.

I believe that the Australian religion studies courses, in the main, have been too strongly rooted in the structures and content selection principles of the British descriptive world religions movement of the early 1970s. Our courses seem to have put more energy into being politically correct than into relevance for students -- the quest for relevance in religion studies is just as pertinent to these courses as it is in Catholic school religious education. In the British state schools there have been significant moves in the 1980s and 1990s towards more issue oriented teaching in religious education, but there is not a lot of evidence for this yet in Australia (Grimmitt, 1987; Best, 1996).

One senior state education official recently acknowledged this about the Australian courses; he considered that they were constrained to stay with what he called "traditional religious content", while social science, and other subjects, were more free to address contemporary spiritual issues. I strongly disagree; this is taking too narrow an epistemological view of religion itself. And it is a view which tends to domesticate religion and reinforce for many their feeling that much of religion is irrelevant to their lives. The religion studies courses in Australia need to venture further from the structural confines of Smart's dimensions of religion (Smart, 1968).

Some attention to issues is already evident, but there is scope for more. The problem is that the traditional pattern of content selection tends to preclude giving major attention to issues. For example, in a topic on women in religion, by the time students have covered the required descriptions of traditional roles and looked at examples, there is little scope for direct exploration of issues like patriarchy and women's ministry in the church.

Perhaps more than anything, the student materials used over the decades -- and in some cases these were non-existent -- tells the story of Australian Catholic Religious Education since the 1950s. There is not space here to elaborate this view of the history, but I consider it remains a topic where research would yield a very interesting picture. I expect that it would reflect the trends discussed above.

Apart from some primary school programs in the 1970s, and the Year 12 Come Alive series in 1970, the Catholic dioceses have not invested in the production of student materials for Religious Education on any large scale since the new catechisms were produced in the 1960s. There are, however, current plans for diocesan student texts in Victoria.

I consider that the use of excellent student resources is the single most effective method of improving the overall quality of classroom Religious Education. Hence, I would like to propose more diocesan involvement in the development of texts, videos, multimedia and other materials on topics where there are not enough good quality resources already available -- including joint projects across dioceses. This is not intended to dampen the enthusiasm and productivity of individual religious educators who have made a sterling contribution to Religious Education through the materials they have published commercially. There is plenty of room for small, relatively inexpensive, modular materials rather than large, wide ranging texts which try to cover too many topics.

However, there are prior issues to be resolved before projects -- especially joint projects -- are likely to be viable and useful. Every resource makes an implied statement about the nature and purposes of Religious Education. Hence we need to acknowledge and address conflicting views of what constitutes appropriate content for Religious Education and what constitutes good methods woven into texts and other resources, including the use of the Internet. Research and dialogue are needed to achieve some consensus as well as acceptance that polarised views about some topics and resources will inevitably remain. I do not expect an agreed uniformity; my hope is for a tolerant pluralism.

Perhaps the controversy over the Year 12 Come Alive series of texts in 1970 has deterred us ever since from the joint development of student materials. The challenge is there for us again.

So far we have examined five areas of religious education historically. What I want to do now is look at one contemporary aspect -- the spiritual and social situation of children and adolescents -- and use this as a lens for examining the interplay between the five areas already covered. This will help show how those five, interactively, have a bearing on the spirituality of young people. Hopefully this will inform implications for the future in each of the areas.

Now, more than at any time in history, has the well-being of our young been under so much scrutiny. In September this year, the Australian Catholic bishops published a report on their research on the needs of young people -- Youth and the Future (1998). The search for meaning, purpose and identity emerged as a major area of youth concern. This report, and indeed the large research literature of youth studies, suggest that the need for young people to find ways of making meaning in their lives and developing an authentic sense of self should have priority in the community's strategies for their education and personal development. The Bishop's report noted that people "strong in their sense of purpose, sure of who they are will be better able cope with the psychological pressure imposed by today's lifestyle" (Australian Episcopal Conference, 1998, p. 3).

With a wealth of research findings on youth available, one might wonder why the community has not been more effective in addressing the problems of youth and making education relevant to their needs, or why advocacy on behalf of young people has not brought about more change. Part of the reason has been the general inability of the community and its leaders and educators to comprehend the complexity of the life situations confronting contemporary young people and to wisely address issues across a broad front.

An emphasis on one particular finding -- for example the high suicide rate for youth -- creates anxiety, but gives only a partial insight into the complex psychological world of young people and the intricate mosaic of influences on their spirituality and identity. Some synthesis is needed to give a more holistic understanding of the life world of contemporary young people. It is from this that the most appropriate and helpful education and advocacy for young people will flow. For example: Some surveys highlight the younger generation's ability to cope phlegmatically with rapid change that has more disruptive effects on the lives of adults. They have been described as ".. kids ... unfazed by the pace of change and the technologies that give adults anxiety attacks ... these 'screenagers' are flexible and adaptable. They have learned to thrive on chaos, uncertainty and insecurity in ways their parents never have." (Eckersley, 1997, p. 243)

However, a greater number of surveys paint a bleaker picture. While it is true that youth are more accustomed to change and are more comfortable with new technology, this view claims there is a deep seated malaise in meaning systems that cuts across the whole spectrum of youth: "young people are deeply cynical, alienated, pessimistic, disillusioned and disengaged. Many are confused, and angry, uncertain of what the future holds and what society expects of them. While they may continue to work within 'the system' they no longer believe in it or are they willing to serve it. From this perspective, the suicidal, the depressed, the drug-addicted and the delinquent represent the tip of an iceberg of psychological pain and distress that includes a substantial proportion, perhaps even a majority of young people today." (Eckersley, 1997, p. 244)

These apparently opposite findings may hold true for some young people at different stages of their lives, depending on their experience. The perspective of a young person living in rural Australia, or on the fringes of society, will be markedly different from that of one from a comfortable, economically stable supportive background who sees that life offers a variety of favourable options.

What is required of adults, and of teachers in particular, is a capacity to comprehend the apparent contradictions and tensions in the psychological world of young people, to enable them to 'walk the way' with them as fellow seekers of wisdom and spirituality in a confusing world.

To develop an holistic understanding of the spirituality of contemporary youth we need to begin by looking at the ways in which they forge meaning, recognising that this is often very different in approach and emphasis from that of older generations. Some key aspects of youth spirituality are:-

* It is often secular in tone and not so dependent on traditional religion; (Crawford and Rossiter, 1996A);

* It is eclectic drawing on a wide range of resources -- not the least significant is the world of film and television, and the entertainment and consumer industries which support it;

* Seeking identity is a major developmental task; it is difficult to balance the polarities between the core personal needs to have distinctive individuality and to feel a sense of belonging to groups;

* Personal freedom is presumed to be an absolute -- at least in Western countries; balancing freedom and responsibility is often problematic.

7. Further reflections on future implications for the five areas of religious education in the light of insights into the spirituality of young people

In the 1970s, teachers wanted to make personalism and relevance happen experientially in their religion lessons. The advice I would give today is: challenge your students with a serious, reflective study of personalism and relevance.

Psychological spirituality -- a valuable development from that earlier period -- has matured with more awareness of its potential excesses in narcissism and exaggerated individuality, and with a greater emphasis on social justice. Its language is needed for helping young people comprehend the interplay between their needs and the complex social environment. It provides the intellectual tools for learning how to hold in creative tension the demands of freedom and individuality on the one hand, and the security and responsibilities that come from identification with a group, on the other. It involves helping them learn how to interrogate the cultural conditioning they receive from many quarters especially in the commercial and entertainment worlds.

Religion teachers need to be model interpreters of meaning, prompting their students through their study and research to explore the meaning of identity, individuality, the need for community, and freedom -- this is a relevant beginning point for explorations of spirituality that teachers hope will move into the Church's traditions and those of other religions.

In a recent book on religious education, the Belgian scholar Herman Lombaerts (1998) described the situation in Europe: "There are ever increasing efforts to have better more relevant and more effective religious education, but increasingly, young people are choosing not to be part of a practising community of faith." It is also likely that they are drawing less on the theology and wisdom of the tradition in the forming of their own spirituality, identity and values. This same situation we have encountered in Catholic schools in Australia.

The problem that we face here as religious educators is a difficult one because we stand at an interface between young people and the Church. We hope to give them good access to their religious heritage, but we can be discouraged because they do not seem interested -- and we know in a more tolerant way than they, that the Church is also a human organisation which inevitably has human faults and limitations. Firstly we need to recognise that we are participating in the wider problem of the relevance of the Church to today's people. Consider the following recent comments that identify the problem.

Our primal interest is to survive. It is only later that we count the cost of survival and the damage our decisions may have caused to ourselves and others. It is for this reason, I believe, that many good Christian folk find themselves alienated from the Church, which almost inevitably in today's world has evolved into a highly centralised, imperial institution. . . whose language has become more and more juridical and less intelligible to the ears and understanding of ordinary men and women.

Morris West, Dr Newman's Toast, Lecture at Australian Catholic University, November 15 1998.

The language of the Church in its doctrinal expressions just do not mesh with most people's experiences of the main issues in life. They are not likely to listen when the Church apparently has nothing to say. MEd Religious Education student, Australian Catholic University, 1998.

The Church is in the meaning-making business; it has enormous resources in spirituality -- 2000 years worth. But if this is not directed to the points where people are struggling to find meaning in their lives, then these resources will remain museum pieces of interest only to the initiated few. MEd Religious Education student, Australian Catholic University, 1998.

The way forward I hope will help the situation in two ways: Firstly, the approach described earlier for the quest for relevance is a good starting point for considering religious options. Secondly, this approach is a practical example of the Church in action trying to speak the Good News to contemporary needs.

The following quotation shows how issues related to the quest for meaning can be used as a starting point for studying theology more systematically. In his paper, "Portraits of Youth", Richard Eckersley (1997, p. 246) quotes the American psychologist Martin Seligman:

One necessary condition for meaning is the attachment to something larger than the self; and the larger that entity, the more meaning you can derive.

To the extent that it is now difficult for young people to take seriously their relationship to God, to care about their relationship to the country, or to be part of a large and abiding family, meaning in life will be very difficult to find. The self, to put it another way, is a very poor site for meaning.

This thinking proposes that it is too much to expect individuals to forge a complete meaning system by themselves. This pressure arises from exaggerated individuality and from the privatisation of religion and it shows how naturally important it can be to connect with a community of shared beliefs and meaning. There is a need for young people to discern the important values in individualism and personal autonomy. However, it is just as important for them to understand the divisiveness and alienation that can flow from individualism which is not tempered by community, responsibility and a sense of the transcendent.

This discussion highlights the important 'bridge building' role that religious education has in trying to link the culture and thinking of young people with the culture and spirituality of the Church. In doing this we need to be careful to recognise that there are different styles of belief and spirituality in the Church. What nourishes the spirituality of various groups is very different. The role of religious education is not to predetermine a limited range of spirituality for students but to reflect some of the pluralism.

7.3.            Diocesan guidelines for religious education
and
7.4       State religion studies courses
and
7.5             Student resources

In a changing social, economic and familial landscape, many of the traditional support networks and structures for giving meaning are no longer so visible; and the relevance of their message is not so obvious. For many young people, the beliefs about life's meaning usually drawn from religious convictions no longer seem so compelling. On one hand they experience a lack of meaning; but paradoxically, they live in an environment awash with ways to make meaning and ways to find the true self. They need help in learning how to chart their way through this confusing territory.

The school as an educational agency contributes in this direction, but its contribution is naturally limited. But in the contemporary situation, schools, and particularly the study of religion, may well seek to be more influential because of the decline in the relevance of other agencies which traditionally give support for meaning and purpose in life. I would not want to propose that schools can solve the problem -- the school cannot prop up or substitute for the Church; I do not want to create unrealistic expectations; but I hope that we could review what we are doing to see how the limited, but valuable, work of school religious education can be as relevant as we can possibly make it.

The hopes proposed in 1 and 2 above can be enhanced or inhibited by the content and methods inscribed in diocesan guidelines and state religion studies courses. Both, in my opinion are too tame, but for different reasons; I think they need to be more adventurous in allowing for a direct study of the crucial questions of meaning and purpose.

For the Catholic school syllabuses this does not mean abandoning formal religious content, but adding more balance with a complementary focus on issues of meaning, purpose and values, and through teaching/learning which tries to highlight the meaning dimension of what is taught about religious traditions. I see this principle as just as relevant to state religion studies courses.

Research conducted by Nipkow (1991) one of the most prominent religious education scholars in Germany, found that if the teaching of religion did not focus in some way on what young people perceived to be the main spiritual and moral issues of the day, then they tended to regard descriptive content as religious paraphernalia, more concerned with institutional maintenance than with people's search for meaning and values. This was comparable with the findings of a large scale survey of Catholic schools in Italy (Malizia and Trenti, 1991). I have heard similar interpretations from religion teachers and scholars in Britain and I suspect that research would come up with similar findings in Australia. Surveys that have been done here have not to my knowledge looked at this issue. Also it would be important to test whether students today are not antagonised by a lack of relevance in the content of religious education -- they may be tolerant, regarding it with a type of detached, clinical, anthropological interest.

Increasingly, general education -- particularly in English, history, social science and personal development -- is catching up fast in its focus on values, questions of meaning and social issues. My worry is that while getting "off the blocks fast" in the 1970s, religious education has slowed and lost its way a little in the pursuit of relevance for pupils. I am concerned when I look at recent senior school syllabuses to find that the most exciting and creative studies of contemporary spiritual and moral issues are to be found not in religion, but in history, English and social science.

My view is that the two sorts of syllabus, both Catholic diocesan and state religion studies, for different reasons, fail to engage sufficiently at the level of contemporary spiritual and moral issues. In other words, they do not adequately touch the spirituality of young people -- the areas of life where they are confronted by its spiritual and moral dimension. Our syllabuses are in effect too 'domesticated'. It is not that every line of the syllabuses has to be issue-oriented. But the present pattern needs to shift more in this direction. The emphasis I am proposing is not one I would naturally choose -- my interests lie elsewhere; but I am persuaded by the current situation that this is the direction that would make religious education more relevant to the majority of young people. I also believe that it is the best option for the classroom in representing the Church and fostering Church participation. Because there is difference of professional opinion about where the balance should be, I would see the urgent need for more in-depth research on students' perception of the role of religion in giving people meaning in life and on their perceptions of the content of religious education. This research has to get beneath what I call the "student benevolence" factor; for example, I spoke with some students who recently completed a survey on Catholic schooling in which they reported on religious education as satisfactory. However, they acknowledged that within the culture of that survey, they felt that they had to be tolerant and positive; whereas in reality, they were indifferent, but not antagonistic, to religious education because it was not really concerned with their lives.

A good way of illustrating the formula I have been proposing is to look at particular topics that might be studied. These could be of variable length and could be integrated with the study of more traditional religious content. This is not a whole curriculum, but the sort of topics that I think should appear in the secondary school religion curriculum.

Examples of issue oriented topics in religious education

Critiques from a religious perspective:

The values -- or lack of values that underpin economic rationalist thinking.

Globalisation policies and free markets: whose interests are being served?

How do film and television influence the spirituality and identity of people

What are the links between contemporary music and youth spirituality?

Theological issues:

The contemporary research on the historical Jesus: implications for the beliefs of Christians.

Current debates about the role of women in religion: the problem of patriarchy and gender bias in the Christian church -- even evident in the New Testament.

Psychological spirituality:

The development of identity -- secular, ethnic, and religious -- and its influence on human behaviour.

The possible links between identity (including religious identity) and problems like racism, violence and ethnic cleansing.

Religion as answers to fundamental questions about meaning purpose and transcendence in life.

Science and religion:

The new Physics: Its impact on religion, and on people's ideas of God and creation.

World religions:

Judaism: Understanding the meaning of the holocaust for contemporary Judaism; Jewish controversy over the religious and secular significance of the state of Israel; Controversy in Jewish views of out marriage and homosexuality.

Islam: The interpretation of Jihad or holy war. Islamic fundamentalism.

Sect and cults: Why do people join them? Are cult members attracted because of their psychological needs or because of their personality type? How harmful is membership for their psychological and spiritual health?

These recommendations are controversial and they need further consideration and debate. But I hope that this airing will stimulate consideration of the issues at stake.

There needs to be a balance. However, the overall credibility of our representation of the tradition may be jeopardised if religious education is perceived more by students as concerned with maintenance of the institution then with addressing the critical spiritual and moral issues of the day.

I would see this proposal as an appropriate response to the urgency of the questions about youth raised in the research conducted by the Australian bishops conference.

Catholic Religious Educators have a dual commitment to hold together in creative tension. Firstly, they have a responsibility to hand on their two thousand year religious tradition. Secondly, they seek to help students learn how to think critically about contemporary spiritual and moral issues -- to interpret wisely, and to forge meaning, purpose and values.

I hope that this paper will help in providing a critical interpretation of past developments that is insightful for future planning. Perspective on the past can also serve as perspective on the future.

The National Archives building in Washington DC has four carved stone lions at the entrances. Each has an inscription highlighting the importance of history and heritage for creatively facing the future. I would like to conclude by reading two of them from which we can draw inspiration for deliberations on the future of Catholic religious education in Australia.

"The past is the seed that brings forth the harvest of the future"
"The past is prologue"

Archdiocese of Brisbane, (1997). Guidelines for Religious Education (Consisting of curriculum Statement, Profile and Syllabus). Brisbane: Catholic Education Office.

Australian Episcopal Conference, (1998). Youth and the Future. Sydney: Bishops Committee for Justice, Peace and Development.

Barry, G. (1997). Religious Education: A Key learning area in Catholic schools. Word in Life. 45 (2), 14-15.

Best, R. (1996). Education, spirituality and the whole child, Cassell, London.

Catholic Education Office Sydney, (1996). Faithful to God, Faithful to People (Diocesan Religious Education Guidelines). Sydney: Catholic Education Office.

Crawford, M. L., and Rossiter, G. M. (1985). Teaching Religion in Catholic Schools: Theory and Practice. Sydney: Christian Brothers Province Resource Group.

Crawford, M. L., and Rossiter, G. M. (1988). Missionaries to a Teenage Culture: Religious Education in a Time of Rapid Change. Sydney: Christian Brothers Province Resource Group.

Crawford, M.L., and Rossiter, G.M. (1991). Teaching Wisdom: Religious Education and the Spiritual and Moral Development of Young People, in B. McManus (Ed.), Education and the Care of Youth into the 21st Century: Proceedings. Brisbane: Nudgee College School Council.

Crawford, M.L., and Rossiter, G.M. (1993). The Future of Holistic Education: The Recession We Had to Have? Curriculum Perspectives, 13 (1), 37-46.

Crawford, M.L. and Rossiter, G.M. (1995). The spiritual formation of young Catholics through religious education. The Living Light. 31 (4), 16-23.

Crawford, M.L., and Rossiter, G.M. (1996A). The Secular Spirituality of Youth: Implications for Religious Education, British Journal of Religious Education, 18 (3), 133-143.

Crawford, M.L. and Rossiter, G.M. (1996B). School Education and the Spiritual Development of Adolescents: An Australian Perspective. In R. Best (Ed.), Education, Spirituality and the Whole Child. London: Cassell.

Flynn, M. F. (1975). Some Catholic Schools in Action. Sydney: Catholic Education Office.

Flynn, M.F. (1979) Catholic Schools and the Communication of faith. Sydney: St Paul Publications.

Grimmitt, M.H. (1987). Religious Education and Human development. Great Wakering: McCrimmons.

Keane, R., and Riley, D. (1997). Quality Catholic Schools: Challenges for Leadership as Catholic Education approaches the third Millennium, Brisbane: Catholic Education Office.

Leavey, M.C. (1972). Religious Education, School climate and achievement: A study of nine Catholic Sixth Form girls' schools. Unpublished PhD thesis, Australian National University, Canberra.

Lombaerts, H. (1998). The management and leadership of Christian schools: A Lasallian systemic viewpoint. Rome: Istituto Salesiano Pio XI..

Lovat, T.J. (1989). What is this thing called Religious Education? Wentworth Falls: Social Science Press.

Macdonald, M. (1990). Assessment of affective objectives in religious education. Word in Life. 38 (1), 22-26.

Macdonald, M. (1991). Why assess in religious education? Catholic School Studies. 64 (1), 9-13.

Macdonald, M. (1995). Assessing knowledge and evaluating faith: Dual approaches to determining outcomes of religious education, Word in Life. 43 (2), 9-14.

Malizia, G. and Trenti, Z. (1991). Una Disciplina in Cammino: Rapporto sull'Insegnamento della Religione Cattolica nell'Italia Degli Anni 1990 (English translation: An Evolving Enterprise: Report on the Teaching of Religion in Catholic Schools in Italy in 1990). Torino: Societa Editrice Internazionale.

Malone, P. (1990). Teacher approaches to the planning of religious education: A study of teachers in Catholic schools in Sydney. Unpublished PhD thesis, Macquarie University, Sydney,

Moore, B.S. (1991). Religion Education: Issues and Methods in Curriculum Design. (Texts in Humanities). Adelaide: University of South Australia Press, Pp. 26-45.

Nipkow, K E (1991). Pre-conditions for Ecumenical and Interreligious Learning: Observations and Reflections from a German Perspective, Sydney: Australian Catholic University Moral and Religious Education Project.

Pelikan, J. (1984). The Vindication of Tradition. Yale: Yale University Press, p. 65.

Rossiter, G. M. (1981). Religious Education in Australian Schools. Canberra: Curriculum Development Centre.

Rossiter, G.M. (1986). The Place of Faith in Classroom Religious Education. Catholic School Studies, 59 (2), 49-55.

Rossiter, G.M. (1994). Religious Education and the Spiritual Development of Young People: A Reply to Gideon Goosen. Journal of Christian Education. 37 (1), 37-50.

Rossiter, G.M. (1996). The Moral and Spiritual Dimension to Education: Some Reflections on the British Experience. Journal of Moral Education, 25 (2), 201-214.

Rossiter, G.M. (1997A). The Values dimension to citizenship education. Paper presented at Connections: The International conference on Citizenship Education, the University of Sydney, July 1997. Published on www.acu.edu.au/ren/index.htm

Rossiter, G.M. (1997B). Diocesan guidelines for Australian Catholic religious education: reflections from overseas visitors, Word in Life, 45 (4), 29-30.

Rossiter, G.M. (1998). The centrality of the concept Faith Development in Catholic School Religious Education. Word in Life. 46 (1), 20-27.

Rummery, R. M. (1975). Catechesis and Religious Education in a pluralist society. Sydney: E J Dwyer.

Ryan, M. (1997) Foundations of Religious Education in Catholic schools: An Australian perspective. Wentworth Falls: Social Science Press.

Ryan, M. and Malone, P. (1996) Exploring the Religion Classroom, Wentworth Falls: Social Science Press.

West, M. (1998). Dr Newman's Toast. Lecture presented at Australian Catholic University, Sydney, November 15 1998.

Westerhoff, J. H. (1976). Will Our Children Have Faith? Melbourne: Dove Communications.

	Cardinal Clancy Centre for Research in the Spiritual, Moral, Religious and Pastoral Dimensions of Education.
Spiritual, Moral and Religious Education is a Flagship area for Research in Australian Catholic University

Historical perspective on the development of Catholic Religious Education in Australia: Some implications for the future

By Professor Graham Rossiter, School of Religious Education, Australian Catholic University