In today’s The Scotsman, catholic pundit Dani Garavelli opines on the openness and tolerance of catholic schools, particularly in Scotland, and (to nobody’s great surprise) comes to the conclusion that such schools are not only needed, but that without them there wouldn’t be any kind of inclusive establishment of education, and that with catholics not being allowed to discriminate in the choice of educators is equivalent to abolishing such schools.

Garavelli writes:

I MUST admit that when my oldest son first walked through the gates of his RC primary, I felt vaguely embarrassed by our decision to send him to a Catholic school. Although I was still “practising”, I was often at odds with the Church’s pronouncements, and had few friends who supported the concept of separate schooling.

But my gut feeling was that Catholic schools offered something extra and intangible the majority of non-denominational schools could not deliver, because they tried to nurture the spirit as well as the mind. Was I, I wondered, so laden down with cultural baggage, I couldn’t see the wider picture?

Short answer: yes. The longer answer is that Garavelli has preconceived ideas as to what a school should and shouldn’t provide, and who is equipped to be able to do so. In this case, it seems obvious that she believes that the only place where children can have their “spirit” nurtured is in catholic schools. The key words here are gut feeling: Garavelli either hasn’t given this any more than a passing thought before rejecting it, or has thought about it long and hard, studied the evidence, then completely disregarded it for a “gut feeling”.

Over the years I haven’t become any more at one with the Church’s dogmatic attitude on particular issues. But I have become a more vocal advocate of Catholic schooling. Largely that’s because, in my experience, the ‘Catholic ethos’ has nothing to do with forcing children to recite their Catechisms or threatening them with eternal damnation for failing to sit still (although it was not always thus). Rather, it is about creating a climate of tolerance and respect and accepting that most people who believe at all want their faith to be integral to their daily lives, not confined to an hour on Sunday mornings.

And what, exactly, is this climate of tolerance and respect? Is this the same “tolerance” as shown to homosexuals? Is this the “respect” of teaching children that sex is wrong when not engaged within the confines of a heterosexual marriage?

The problem lies in that the dogmatic attitude on particular issues that Garavelli doesn’t see eye-to-eye on are the same attitudes that the vatican, via the catholic churches (i.e. those that control these schools) impose on their subjects. They may not be required to blindly recite catechisms, but they will be subtly (if not overtly) be being indoctrinated into thinking that the catholic ideas of morality are the only way to lead a decent life.

In one sentence, Garavelli has both noted and dismissed the precise reasons as to why catholic schools are not inclusive or tolerant, although of course she can’t see it, because she sees nothing wrong with catholic indoctrination in the first place, being a product of the system that she advocates.

The latest attack by the EIS is to demand the Church give up its veto over the recruitment of staff, a right enshrined in the 1918 Education Act, on the grounds that it is discriminatory. It claims to have been responding to the Scottish Catholic Education Service’s insistence that all teachers applying for a job should demonstrate appropriate “religious belief and character” and provide a referee who can “testify to their commitment to Catholic schools”.

Now I can see how this statement could be inflammatory. I can even sympathise with those who feel it is discriminatory against non-Catholics, although the wording doesn’t exclude those of alternative faiths from any post. But it is difficult to see what the term “Catholic school” would mean, if the Church relinquished all control over the appointment of teachers.

Now, Garavelli goes off onto the other tangent of this article, that of being able to discriminate against non-catholic teachers. She flips between the two topics as if they are one and the same which, on one level—because it’s about catholic control of schools—it is, but at the same time they are two quite separate topics: disallowing non-catholic teachers, and indoctrinating children with catholic attitudes.

I don’t think Garavelli can see this at all, because she’s looking at this through the purple-tinted goggles of catholicism. She says that the 1918 Education Act gives catholics a right, whereas it is not a “right” unless it’s available to all: it’s a privilege because it applies only to a subset of those under the auspices of the Act.

As Garavelli mentions, it’s not particularly worded against those who are not catholic, although it is discriminatory against non-catholic teachers who don’t explicitly hold catholic values or have a propensity for deferring to catholic dogma.

The rhetoric of those who oppose Catholic education is so emotive it is easy to get the impression RC schools are closed shops. In fact, there is nothing to stop non-Catholic teachers from working in Catholic schools. Some RC secondaries have more non-Catholic teachers than Catholic ones, and that is right and proper. If you are teaching maths or French then the only relevant criterion for your appointment is your competence.

Exactly! The only criterion that should be considered is their ability in teaching children in the subject of their expertise. It shouldn’t matter if such a teacher is a catholic, wishy-washy christian, agnostic, deist, atheist, sikh, muslim or whatever. Unless, of course, we now have a situation where catholics have a unique insight into French or mathematics or geology or music or literature.

The problem for the Church comes in primary schools - where some teachers will have to oversee ’sacrament’ classes (when the children are prepared for confirmation or communion) in promoted posts such as head and deputy head and in key pastoral roles such as guidance. The question is: how can a Catholic school foster a Catholic or even a Christian ethos if teachers appointed to these roles have no commitment to faith schools, or, in some cases, actively oppose them?

Ah, I see! It’s not just about indoctrinating them, it’s about indoctrinating them when they’re young! As with the old jesuit maxim, if you get them young, you’ve got them for life. The catholic church obviously sees the advantage in this wisdom and wants to take full advantage of it.

It does beg the question, however, as to why children should be having sacrament classes in school. Isn’t this a personal issue for the child and their parents? If so, shouldn’t it be restricted to those areas that the church has, as far as I can see, inalienable rights: in a church?

And then back to the teachers. What is this catholic (or even christian) ethos that isn’t catered for by a secular education? Being tolerant is already catered for by such an education, although this will likely be more directed by home life and parenting. The only things that I can see are those that are catholic ideals: being gay is bad, sex is evil outside marriage (and only heterosexual marriage), you were born a sinner, you must repent to get to heaven and you have to listen to the church. Does the church seek to take what are traditionally parental roles, replace them with school teachings, and only sanctioned church teachings at that?

If I’m correct in my assessment as to what this catholic ethos is, this is most certainly not appropriate for schools. If I’m wrong, I’m happy for a catholic to put me right.

To understand how complex an issue this is, you have to go back to the industrial tribunal that sparked off the latest debate. Last year David McNab won £2,000 compensation after he was told he was ineligible to apply for a guidance post in St Paul’s High in Pollok, Glasgow, where he taught maths and computing, because he was not Catholic. The tribunal ruled this was discriminatory, but restated the authority of the Church to approve appointments. McNab, an atheist, said he had been made to feel like a “second-class citizen” and is now apparently seeking election to the governing executive council of the EIS so he can campaign against the Catholic school system.

But, by his own admission, McNab does not believe in God. Would a nuclear power station be expected to take on a vehement CND supporter without at least considering what impact that was going to have on the workplace? Of course not. Employees of any organisation are expected to endorse its ethos or work elsewhere.

Yes. McNab was fully justified in seeking compensation for not being a catholic because, for all other reasons and being suitably qualified to teach the (non-religious) subjects of mathematics and computing and was excluded from the process purely because he wasn’t a catholic. As an atheist, he wasn’t seen as toeing the church line as far as guidance goes because, as everybody knows, atheists have no morality. ¹

Confusing cause and effect, Garavelli seems to have missed the quite obvious situation that McNab is now campaigning against catholic schools because he was discriminated against. Prior to the court case, McNab had no reason to do so, that was his employment.

The ridiculous and random comparison with a CND supporter applying for a job at a nuclear power station is completely bogus: CND supporters are not de facto against nuclear power, only by definition against nuclear weapons; the fictional CND supporter would already have to be working for the power station; and, security issues aside, the CND supporter would have to apply for a post where they would pose a threat to the “ethos” of the leaders of the nuclear power station.

It has nothing to do with judging some people’s lifestyle as less valid than others. I have more agnostic and atheist friends than religious ones. I respect their opinions just as I hope they respect mine, but it would be inappropriate to ask them to be Godparents to my children.

Hurrah! A “some of my best friends” argument! Lose ten points and sit in the corner.

To my mind, asking the Church to give up its veto over the recruitment of teachers is the same as saying Catholic schooling should be abolished.

No it isn’t! Removing the veto is the same as saying that the best person for the job should get it regardless of how deeply embedded within the catholic church they are. This is nothing but a thinly veiled (and badly executed) slipperly slope argument.

Whatever line of attack they take, that’s what critics really want. Those who hate the concept of faith schools (many because they hate the concept of faith) often use intemperate language to accuse them of breeding intolerance. They berate Catholic parents for wanting their children to be taught in a religious environment, while asserting their own family’s right to a secular education.

Saying that the catholic church should decide employment (in this case in a school) is a completely separate issue from how children should be taught. The fact that schools and catholics are the two common threads within these issues does not mean that the issues are the same, nor that the same arguments or solutions apply. Garavelli has conflated these two issues to make a point and, unfortunately, is likely to find credulous supporters who can’t tell the difference.

And it’s not because people like me hate the concept of faith, it’s because personal faith has no place either in the domains of employment or education. If those of faith want to exclude themselves from particular jobs or their children from particular schools because of their particular beliefs, that is their own business and I don’t have a problem with it (for example, I wouldn’t work in an abattoir) but it is not for the catholic (or any other) church to decide what is appropriate for anyone else.

But perhaps those swayed by the argument that Catholic schools are divisive should take a walk along the corridor of my children’s primary and see prayers to Allah up on the wall alongside prayers to God. They should consider that Catholic schools exist in other countries without provoking any of the defensive backlash that surrounds them here. And they should remember thousands of parents - of all denominations - opt to send their children to Catholic schools because they believe them to offer something of value. And then, perhaps, they should ask themselves, just who is fomenting intolerance.

For catholics being tolerant (as opposed to accepting) of other god-beliefs is not completely unexpected, especially in a relatively sanguine mixed culture as Britain.

And because other countries show deference to catholic whims and cultural permeations, it means that we should too? Sorry, no.

And because a child is sent to a catholic school doesn’t automatically imply a support of catholic values: it’s well known that some parents feign belief for the explicit purpose of getting their child into a school where the teachers have been, like their scripture, cherry-picked.

And yes, I did ask myself just who is fomenting intolerance, and I found that I am actually intolerant, and of what I am intolerant.

I’m intolerant of intolerance.

And, yet again, an argument in support of special treatment for the religious provides no evidence whatsoever that they are deserving of such special treatment.

1. Yes, I’m being ironic. Quote me out of context and I’ll bitch-slap you. [↩]

This entry was posted Sunday, May 20th, 2007 at 7:29 pm and is filed under . You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.