Catholic Schoolmaster

Lent Book - The Interior Castle

2012-02-25T17:58:00.001Z

"Nothing can be compared to the great beauty and capabilities of a soul; however keen our intellects may be, they are as unable to comprehend them as to comprehend God ..." (1st Mansion, chapter 1, section 2).

I've often thought that other people are in a sense incomprehensible to humans, but St Teresa seems to be suggesting that we can't even comprehend ourselves. And why? It's because we are made in 'the image and likeness of God,' and God is incomprehensible.

Kissing Friday

2012-02-24T00:25:00.000Z

There is an old tradition in parts of England that the Friday after Ash Wednesday is called 'Kissing Friday.'

From "The Lore and Language of School Children" by Opie and Opie (1959):

A teacher writing to the Yorkshire Post (24 February 1955) tells how in the Dales after Collop Monday, Pancake Tuesday, Ash Wednesday, and Fritter Thursday, comes Kissing Friday. A few years before, when she arrived at a country school and was taking a mixed class of 13-year-old children in country dancing, she saw the leading boy suddenly lean across and kiss his partner, who showed no sign of embarrassment. When, as teacher, she expressed her surprise, the boy said, 'It's all right, Miss. You see, it's Kissing Friday', and explained that on the Friday following Shrove Tuesday any lad had the right to kiss any girl without being resisted. 'And so it proved. For at each break in lessons every girl was soundly kissed by any boy she encountered. It was useless for me to expostulate, so I did not try. But each year as Kissing Friday came round, the school was in turmoil.'

A Westmorland correspondent to the same paper (28 February 1955) recalled that when he was a boy in the Eden Valley he and his fellows used to call this day Nippy Lug Day, and they used to pinch each other's ears. A Yorkshireman broadcasting in January 1955 recalled that, when a boy, the Tuesday after Easter week (Hocktide) used to be Kissing Day, and the boys would challenge all comers, their girl friends in particular, by putting a rope across the road on the way to school and demanding either a kiss or a forfeit. This would seem to be a survival of Hoke Day, Hoc Tuesday, or Binding Tuesday, a festival (when certain dues were paid) celebrated with unbridled sport and merriment in the Middle Ages.

I'm not sure I would recommend that this custom should be restored, but 'Kissing Friday' is a nice name for the day.

Lent Quiz - Spot the Writer

2012-02-23T22:14:00.000Z

1. Can you identify the writer of the following passage on the fewness of the saved?

"Nothing is more clearly brought out in Scripture, or more remarkable in itself than this, that in every age, out of the whole number of persons blessed with the means of grace, few only have duly availed them of this great benefit. So certain, so uniform is the fact, that it is almost stated as a doctrine. "Many are called, few are chosen." Again, "Strive to enter in at the strait gate; for many, I say unto you, shall seek to enter in, and shall not be able." And again, "Wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat … Strait is the gate, and narrow is the way that leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." And St. Paul seems expressly to turn the historical fact into a doctrine, when he says, by way of remark upon his own day as compared with former ages of the Church, "Even so then, at this present time also," that is, as formerly, "there is a remnant, according to the election of grace."

"The word "remnant" is frequent with the prophets, from whom St. Paul takes it. Isaiah, for instance, says, "Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved." Jeremiah speaks of "the remnant of Judah," and the "small number," to which a return was promised. Ezekiel, too, declares that God "will leave a remnant," "that ye may have some," continues the divine oracle, "that shall escape the sword among the nations, when ye shall be scattered through the countries. And they that escape of you shall remember Me among the nations, whither they shall be carried captives." And so well understood was this, that the hope of good men never reached beyond it. Neither the promise, on the one hand, nor the hope, on the other, ever goes beyond the prospect of a remnant being saved. Thus the consolation given to the Church in the Book of Jeremiah is, that God "will not make a full end;" and Ezra, confessing the sins of his people, expresses his dread lest there should be "no remnant." Thus Christ, His Apostles, and His Prophets, all teach the same doctrine, that the chosen are few, though many are called: that one gains the prize, though many run the race."

2. Which hymn writer penned the following lines, which contrast significantly in tone with the previous passage?

There's a wideness in God's mercy
like the wideness of the sea;
there's a kindness in his justice,
which is more than liberty.
There is welcome for the sinner,
and more graces for the good;
there is mercy with the Saviour;
there is healing in his blood.

There is no place where earth's sorrows
are more felt than in heaven;
there is no place where earth's failings
have such kind judgement given.
There is plentiful redemption
in the blood that has been shed;
there is joy for all the members
in the sorrows of the Head.

For the love of God is broader
than the measure of man's mind;
and the heart of the Eternal
is most wonderfully kind.
If our love were but more faithful,
we should take him at his word;
and our life would be thanksgiving
for the goodness of the Lord.

On The Neo-Catechumenate

2012-01-23T15:04:00.003Z

INTRODUCTION TO HERESIES IN THE NEOCATECHUMENAL WAY by Fr Enrico Zoffoli
http://eraofpeace.tripod.com/nchintro.html

CULT FICTION - Protestant cuckoo in the Catholic nest
http://www.cathud.com/LINKS/pages_MR/Neocatechumenal_Way_Kiko_Arguello.htm

A NEOCATECHUMENAL WAY EXPERIENCE by F. John Loughnan
http://jloughnan.tripod.com/neocatra.htm

THE LAST TROJAN HORSE? by MICHAEL McGRADE
http://www.christianorder.com/features/features_2002/features_oct02.html

The Liturgy of the Neo-Catechumenal Way by D.J. REDFERN
http://www.christianorder.com/features/features_1997/features_nov97.html

The Neo-Catechumenal Way - a heresy encouraged by Rome?
http://www.sspxasia.com/Newsletters/1999/July/The-Neo-Catechumenal-Way.htm

Directions for running Introductory Catechesis sessions
http://eraofpeace.tripod.com/nch-catechesis.html

An Experience Of The Neo-Catechumenal Way by D.J. Redfern
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/726775/posts

A Glass of Whisky and a Revolver

2012-01-12T10:57:00.001Z

(Or how some of the clergy have shamed the Church and their orders)

It is the stuff of legend that, in times past, military officers who had disgraced their regiments - whether by cowardice or treachery - were left in a room with a bottle of whisky and a revolver and were expected to do the decent thing. No need for courts martial, or firing squads - like the Romans, they fell on their own swords.

Nothing I am going to write is intended to justify suicide - which is a mortal sin - or to wish physical harm to anyone. It is metaphorical.

Once again, the newspapers are full of stories of monks, in charge of famous Catholic schools, who have betrayed their trust in charge of the young, and have disgraced their orders.

Even in the best regulated school or religious order, problems will occasionally arise. That is human nature. The Abbot or Headmaster who would stand before parents and give a cast-iron guarantee that his school or order will never contain bullying, or abuse, or dishonesty, is promising more than he can deliver. What they should be able to say is that they have proper procedures to reduce the opportunity for this misconduct, that they take seriously allegations when they arise, and when anything is demonstrated condign retribution will follow.

That monks should commit abuse of children or teenagers in their care is criminal. Regardless of their religious status, they must face the law.

But what I fail to understand - really cannot get my head around, at all - is why Bishops and Abbots, men with senior responsibility in the Church - have failed consistently, over a long period, to deal with this problem. Have covered up for malefactors; allowed them in positions where they can abuse again; have been wholly casual about the welfare of children in their care. We are not only talking about 20 or 30 years ago - some of these cases are even more recent.

Clericalism was supposedly a bad thing, which disappeared in the wake of Vatican 2. The laity were empowered, allegedly. Churches were vandalized on the pretext of dismantling a clergy-centred structure, and involving the laity. Less arcane knowledge, less Latin - more openness and respect for the people of God.

Frankly - all that is b*ll*cks.

Clericalism includes treating the Church like a private club, for the benefit of the clergy. Treating the Liturgy, Catholic Schools, Catholic Church buildings, doctrine - not as the common property of all that the clergy have a sacred duty to maintain - but as the private domain of the clergy who can do with it as they choose. It includes condoning malpractice or abuse by clergy, on the grounds that they are 'part of the club.' It has little to do with compassion for the sinner (which is a requirement), but more to do with maintaining control by an unworthy body of clergy. I know that it isn't only the laity who have been abused under this system, but also the large body of honest, decent priests. We may think the Bishops spineless, but they will fight like lions to preserve their prerogatives, including the prerogative to do what the hell they like.

As a Catholic, I am embarrassed by the senior clergy. I wish the Pope would abolish the English hierarchy entirely, and restore the Apostolic vicars, until we can show ourselves worthy of our own hierarchy.

As a Benedictine oblate, I am ashamed to call myself a Benedictine at the moment. How can the order that genuinely did so much to build Christian Europe now be doing so much to destroy it? I regret to say it, but may God remove from the earth those monasteries that have failed so badly in their task. May they be replaced by other monastics, who are committed to monastic discipline, and who aren't implicated in cover up on cover up, lie upon lie, one abuse upon another.

So what is the equivalent of whisky and a revolver for the senior clergy who have disgraced their regiments in the Church militant?

I understand that missionaries to North Korea, are very much in demand.

May they - and all of us - "recover by penance what we have lost by sin."

Office for the Dead, Dominican Rite

2011-11-30T14:43:00.002Z

Over on the Liturgia Latina blog, I have written a short article on the Office for the Dead in the Dominican rite, in memory of Dominic Mary, Tertiary of the Order of Preachers, recently deceased.

http://liturgialatina.blogspot.com/2011/11/office-for-dead-dominican-rite.html

Two Doctors - Communis et Universalis

2011-11-15T18:32:00.003Z

I admit that I've not been clear in my own mind on this point. The 'Universal Doctor' of the Church - isn't that St Thomas Aquinas.

I will now have no excuse, having read 'The New Theological Movement' on this point. 'The Universal Doctor' (Doctor Universalis) is St Albert the Great, the teacher of St Thomas. He is called the Universal Doctor because of the extent of his learning, which encompassed both faith and science - divine and natural learning.

St Thomas himself is 'The Common Doctor' (Doctor Communis) since he is the teacher of all, or 'The Angelic Doctor' (Doctor Angelicus) on account of his purity.

St Albert the Great, pray for us.

St Thomas Aquinas, pray for us.

All ye holy Doctors of the Church, pray for us.

It is the 80th anniversary today of the canonization and declaring as doctor of the church, by Pope Pius XI in 1931.

Blessed Hugh Faringdon

2011-11-14T16:55:00.002Z

Today is the feast day of Blessed Hugh Faringdon and his Companions, kept in Reading and the diocese of Portsmouth.

For a write up of his life, see the companion 'Liturgia Latina' Blog:
http://liturgialatina.blogspot.com/2011/11/14th-november-blessed-hugh-faringdon.html

Hugh of Faringdon was the last Abbot of Reading, and was executed at the gate of his own Abbey for resisting the tyrant king Henry VIII.

Here is a depiction of Reading Abbey Gatehouse, which stands to this day:

The Oxford Catholic Martyrs, by Bishop Challoner

2011-11-13T16:47:00.003Z

There were five Catholic Martyrs who were executed in Oxford on account of their Catholic Faith:

Blessed George Nichols: martyred 5th July 1589
Blessed Richard Yaxley: martyred 5th July 1589
Blessed Thomas Belson: martyred 5th July 1589
Blessed Humphrey Prichard: martyred 5th July 1589
Blessed George Nappier: martyred 9th November 1610

From the "Memoirs of Missionary Priests and other Catholics of Both Sexes that have suffered death in England on Religious Accounts" by the Rt. Rev. Dr. Challoner Vicar Apostolic.

73, * GEORGE NICOLS and, 74, RICHARD YAXLEY, Priests.

* From time Douay Catalogues, from Father Bibadaneira, in his Appendix to Dr. Saunders, chap. 3. from the Bishop of Tarrasona's history of the persecutions, book V. chap. 3, and from Dr. Champney's Manuscript.

George Nicols was a native of Oxford, and an alumnus and priest of Douay college, during its residence at Rhemes; from whence he was sent upon the mission, in 1583. My author gives him the character of a man of extraordinary virtue and learning, and of a zealous and laborious missioner, who, during the six years of his mission, was the happy instrument, in the hands of God, of the conversion of many souls. His mission was chiefly in and about Oxford: where, amongst other pious adventurers, the writers of his life particularly take notice of the reconciliation of a noted highwayman, who being apprehended and committed to Oxford castle, was, by the conversation of some catholics, who were prisoners there for their religion, brought to a sense of his crimes, and a desire of confessing them, and dying in the catholic faith; insomuch that he did nothing else, night and day, but bewail his sins, longing for the hour when he might
cast himself at the feet of a catholic priest to confess them. His catholic fellow prisoners found means to acquaint Mr. Nicols with these particulars; and failed not to instruct their convert how to prepare himself for a visit from this gentleman; who, on the very morning of the day of execution (no opportunity offering before) came to the jail, together with a crowd of others, whose curiosity brought them to see this famous malefactor before his death; and passing for a kinsman and acquaintance of the prisoner, after much salutations, he took him aside, as it were to comfort and encourage him, and heard his confession, for which he had prepared himself by spending the whole night before in prayers and tears; and which he made with great signs of a truly contrite heart; and having given him absolution, he left him wonderfully comforted, and armed against the terrors of death, which he now with joy was ready to welcome. The prisoner the

n declared himself a catholic; and though many persuasions were used to make him return to the protestant religion, he persisted to the end in his resolution of dying in the old faith, and professed under the gallows, that if he had a thousand lives, he would joyfully part with them, rather than renounce the catholic Roman Faith.

Richard Yaxley, who was Mr, Nicols's companion in death, was born at Boston, in Lincolnshire, of a gentleman's family, and was also an alumnus and priest of the same college, and was sent from Rhemes upon the English mission, in 1586. He was by many years younger than Mr. Nicols, and having his mission in the same country, regarded him as his father. They were apprehended together at the house of a pious catholic widow, who kept the St. Catherine's wheel, in Oxford, by the officers of the university, who broke in at midnight, and hurried them away, together with Mr. Belson, a catholic gentleman, who was come thither to visit his ghostly father, Mr. Nicols, Humprey, and Richard, the servant of the inn. The next morning they were all carried before the vice-chancellor, where several doctors were assembled, with many others who had the curiosity to see and hear the prisoners. Here they were examined concerning their religion, and they all readily answered, they were catholics. Then they were farther interrogated, if there were not any priest

among them? After some demur, for fear of prejudicing any other persons, Mr. Nicols, judging that it would be for the greater glory of God to confess his character, stoutly said, I confess that, by the grace of God, and of the holy see apostolic, I am a priest of the true holy catholic Roman church. The vice-chancellor and his assessors, from hence inferred, that he must needs be a traitor; and withal, some of them charged him with blasphemy, in taking to himself the name of priest which, as they pretended, belonged to Christ alone. This brought on a dispute concerning religion, in which Mr. Nicols pressed his adversaries so close, that the standers by appearing not a little moved with his arguments, the vice-chancellor thought proper to put an end to the controversy, by sending away the two priests to one prison, and Mr. Belson and the servant to another; and ordered. them all to be put in irons. Having thus, as they flattered themselves, tamed their spirits, they sent one of their most celebrated divines to the two priests, to confer with them concerning the blessed sacrament: but Mr. Nicols managed this controversy also so well, and urged so home the plain words of Christ, in the institution of the blessed sacrament, together with the current doctrine of the holy fathers, and of antiquity, and the authority of the church, and of her

general councils, compared with the novelty of the opposite doctrine, the inconstancy and infinite dissentions of its teachers, and uncertainty what they would beat, that he stopped the mouth of his adversary, to the great advantage of the catholic cause, in the minds of many who came into the prison to hear the dispute. Henceforward it was thought proper to let disputing alone, and to attack them another way. Therefore, the next day, they were all four brought, in their irons, before the vice-chancellor and his council, and examined again; not now concerning their faith, but why they, being priests, had presumed to come over into England? How they had employed their time here? with whom they had conversed? and upon what subjects? what acquaintance they had amongst catholics, &c.? To these questions the servants of God answered, that they came over upon no other errand, but to win souls to Jesus Christ, and to teach them the catholic faith; that this was their whole business here; and that they neither knew, nor treated, nor thought of any thing else, but how to discharge this great duty, though they were sensible of the danger which they thereby incurred by the laws; but they thought this was the least they could do for the honour and service of him who had died for them; and for whom they should be glad to sacrifice their lives. But as for any other catholics, they could not be prevailed on to name any, or bring any into danger. Upon this they were sent back to their prisons, and the queen's council was informed of all that had passed.

Soon after this, an order came down from the council, to have the prisoners sent up to London; who, pursuant to the instructions given from above, were set upon Rosinantes, with their hands tied behind them, and the two priests also, for greater disgrace, with their legs tied under their horses' bellies; and, in this manner, were conducted under a strong guard, from Oxford to London, being treated all the way with great cruelty by their guards, and affronted and abused by the populace, more especially when they came to London, where they were attended from the very skirts of the town to the gate of the prison by an insolent mob, loading them with reproaches and injuries, which they bore with invincible patience, setting before their eyes the sufferings of their Redeemer. And to add to their affliction, a young gentleman of the university, a graduate in arts, who, out of pure compassion, had attended them all the way from Oxford, and afforded them what service ho could, was, in reward of his charity, taken up as soon as he came to London; and whereas the persecutors could not proceed against him with any colour of law, they charged him with being mad, and as such, confined him to Bedlam, to be there treated (as one that had lost his senses) with low diet, and to be beaten into his senses again. In which manner they kept him a long time, for no other fault, but that of having been serviceable to these servants of God in their journey.

After they had remained some days in prison, at London, they were carried before secretary Walsingham, the capital enemy of the catholics, who put the like questions to them as the vice-chancellor had done before: to which Mr. Nicols would give no other answer, but that they were all catholics, and that he, for his own part, was, though unworthy, a priest of the holy Roman church. If you are a priest, said the secretary then, of course, you are a traitor. A strange consequence honoured sir, said Mr. Nicols, since, it is certain, that they, who first converted England from paganism, were all priests. But they, said the secretary, did not disturb the nation as you do, nor stirred up seditions against their sovereigns. To which the confessor replied, that, if preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ, if instructing the ignorant in the catholic faith, be disturbing the nation, or stirring up sedition, then were they equally guilty; if not, both we and they are equally innocent; nor can there be any treason in the case. With this the two priests were ordered to Bridewell, where they were tortured, and hanged up in the air, for the space of five hours, to make them confess by whom they had been harboured or entertained, &c. But these torments they bore with great courage and constancy, and generously refused, to the end, to name any one who might be brought into trouble upon their account. Artifices were also employed,

and a pretended convert was sent to Nr. Nicols, desiring to be addressed by him to some priest, that was at liberty, for further instructions. But the man of God, who was very discreet, discovered the trick, and would have nothing to say to the false catechumen. After this they separated the two priests from each other, and thrust Mr. Nicols down into a dark and stinking dungeon, full of nauseous insects; but translated Mr. Yaxley from Bridewell to the Tower, where he was every day put upon the rack, till, at length, it was resolved in the council, that they should be sent back to Oxford to be executed there, for an example to the scholars, and other inhabitants of that city.

This resolution was no sooner taken, than the prisoners, under the same guard as before had brought them up to town, and with the like cruel treatment, were conducted back again to Oxford, to be tried at the assizes there; and that none of them might escape, sir Francis Knollys, one of the privy council, was appointed to be present at their trial, to overawe the jury that they might bring in a verdict agreeable to the inclinations of the court. And first the good widow, their hostess, was tried, and cast in praemunire, condemned to the loss of all her goods, and to perpetual imprisonment; which sentence she received with joy, only regretting that she was not to die with her ghostly fathers. Then the two

priests were condemned to die, as in cases of high treason and, lastly, Mr. Belson and the servant being convicted of having been aiding and assisting to the priests, were, on that account, sentenced to die, as in cases of felony. They all received their respective sentences with cheerfulness, giving thanks to God for the honour he did them of dying for his cause; and mutually embraced one another with extraordinary marks of the inward joy of their hearts. They were drawn to the place of execution, on July the 5th, 1589, still retaining the same serenity in their countenance, and joy in their hearts; and meeting there with an infinite multitude of people, assembled to see their last conflict, they saluted them, saying, behold, we are here brought to die for the confessions of the catholic Faith, the old religion., in which our forefathers and ancesters all lived and died.

The first that was called upon to go up the ladder was Mr. Nicols, who, after having made his prayer to God, and to the people the profession of his faith, would have spoken more at large upon the subject, but was interrupted. and forbid to go on; so recommending his soul into the hands of his Creator, he was thrown off the

ladder, and happily finished his course. He was followed by Mr. Yaxley, who, after having embraced the dead body of his companion with great affection, and recommended himself in this his last conflict, to the prayers of his happy soul, going up the ladder, and beginning to speak to the people, was, in like manner interrupted; and, after a short profession of his faith, was also flung off. The standers by seemed to have a more than ordinary compassion for him, upon account of his youth, beauty, and sweet behaviour, and the consideration of his family; but all these things he despised for the sake of his master; for whom he willingly offered himself a sacrifice. Their bodies were cut down, bowelled and quartered; and their heads were set on the old walls of the castle, and their quarters over the gates of the city. Some false zealots disfigured their faces, cutting and hacking them with their knives, because of the extraordinary beauty which was observed in them; and it was much taken notice of, that, in the disposing of their quarters, the right hand of Mr. Nicols, instead of hanging down from the shoulder, as is natural on the like occasions, stood up erected on high, and turned against the city, in the posture and manner of one that was threatening.

75 * THOMAS BELSON, Gentleman.

* From the same writers, and the Douay diary.

Thomas Belson was born at Brill, the seat of the family in the county of Oxford. I find him in the Douay diary at the college of Rhemes, in 1584: from whence he departed for England, on the 5th of April of that year, in the company of Mr. Francis Ingolby, priest, who suffered at York, in 1586. We have already seen how he was apprehended in the company of Nr. Nicols and Mr. Yaxley, examined both at Oxford and at London, and finally tried and condemned with them for his hospitality and charity to them; and God was pleased he should be their companion in death; for no sooner was Nr. Nicols and Mr. Yaxley dead, but Mr. Belson was also ordered up the ladder to finish his course. He first embraced the dead bodies of his pastors, which were then in quartering, and begged the intercession of their happy souls, that he might have the grace to imitate their courage and constancy. He added, that he looked upon himself very happy that he had been their ghostly child, and was now to suffer with them, and should quickly be presented before the Almighty in so good company. And thus, with great cheerfulness, he delivered his body to the executioner, and his soul to his Maker.

The last in the combat was Humphrey Prichard, a Welchman, a plain, honest, and well-meaning soul; and, as our authors all agree, a great servant of God; who, for twelve years, had done signal services to the poor afflicted persecuted catholics in those evil days. He came to the gallows with a cheerful and smiling countenance, and being now upon the ladder, and turning to the people, he said, I call you all to witness, in the presence of God, and of his holy angels, that I am a catholic, and that I was condemned to die for the confession of the catholic faith; amid that I die willingly for the catholic faith. A minister that stood by, told him, he was a poor ignorant fellow, and did not know what it was to be a catholic. To whom Humphrey replied, that he very well knew what it was to be a catholic, though he could not, perhaps, explain it in the proper terms of divinity: that he knew what he was to believe, and for what he came there to die; and that he willingly died for so good a cause. With that he was thrown off the ladder, and so reposed in the Lord. They all suffered, July 5, 1589.

148. * GEORGE NAPPIER, Priest.

* Frem T.W. and Raissius in their printed catalogues. But chiefly from a manuscript relation by a fellow prisoner, which I have met with in Mr. Knaresborough's collections.

George Nappier was born in Oxford, and there performed his grammar studies. From thence he passed over to Douay, or Rhemes, and became a student in the English college. Whilst he was there, among many other more examples of virtue which he gave, his charity for his neighbours was particularly taken notice of; when in the time of a plague, two of his fellow-students being seized with the infection, he voluntarily took upon him to attend them and to take care of them, not without evident danger of his own life; for he was also himself quickly seized by the contagion. But that sickness was not unto death, for all three by the mercy of God soon after recovered.

Having finished his studies, and received his orders in 1596, he resided for some time at Antwerp; and from thence in 1603, being the first year of king James the first, he passed over into England. Dr. Worthington in his catalogue gives this short account of his conduct, during the seven years of his mission in England, that he was remarkably laborious in gaining souls to God. Strenuam navavit lucrandis animabus operam, p. 51. In the year 1610, he fell into the hands of the persecutors. The particulars of his seizure, and of what passed from that time till his death are here abridged from a manuscript penned by a catholic gentleman who was a fellow-prisoner with him in Oxford goal.

A true relation of the Martyrdom of Mr. George Nappier, &c. in a Letter to a Clergyman.

My Rev. Friend,

According to your request, I have here set down all the particulars that befell Mr. Nappier, from the time of his apprehension, until his exit out of this world.

And first, I have heard him say, that he had made it his prayer to God, that if by the disposition of divine Providence he should fall into the enemies' hands, he might not be taken in his friend's house, because of the penalty of the laws against harbourers of Priests - and it seems that God was pleased to hear his prayer. For being seen by a young follow to go into a catholic woman's house on the 18th of July towards evening, the knave ran in great haste to the vicar's house, to give notice and concert measures with him for seizing the priest.

The informer met with a cold reception at the first, the parson's daughter flatly refusing to tell whether her father was at home; and the mother being no less reserved, and unwilling to let the man come under her roof. Some few days before, it seems, a quarrel had happened between this blade and the parson; so that his furious knocking at the door, and calling for the vicar in haste, with such disorder in his looks and speech, joined to the fright that both mother and daughter were in from a dream of the latter the night before, that her father was murdered, affected the good women in such manner, that they held fast the door and refused him entrance. The fellow perceived the mistake, and bid them be easy, for that he came upon another sort of an errant, to do a piece of good service to the church, and assist the vicar in seizing a popish Priest just gone into one of his parishioner's houses. Upon this they began to listen to the man, and the parson was called down; who commended the young man's zeal, but was of opinion that nothing was to be done that night, but that they would take care to have him secured early in the morning; and accordingly a constable was engaged to be ready for that purpose.

Mr. Nappier having assisted the family, and performed his devotions very early, according to the custom of those times, took his leave, and was making the best of his way on foot (his usual way of travelling) through the inclosures, supposing all quiet at that early hour, when to his great surprise two or three sturdy young fellows came up hastily towards him, and bad him stand - You must go back with us, says one: You are a priest, says another, we'll have you before a justice. - The good man made no words on it, but went quietly with them.

And first they charged the constable with him, and bade him carry him before Sir Francis Evers. When he came, the justice ordered the constable to search him. - It must be here observed, that Mr. Nappier had his pix with him, and in it two consecrated hosts and as he owned to me several times, when he heard Sir Francis give the constable orders to search, he was under the greatest concern, for fear lest the blessed sacrament should fall into their hands, and be exposed to some profane or sacrilegious treatment. - And he farther assured me, not without tears in his eyes, that whereas the search was most strict, even so far that his shoes were pulled off in the presence of the justice, that nothing might escape them. And whereas also in searching of his pockets, the constable, to his feeling, had his hands many times both upon the pix and upon a small reliquary, yet neither of them were discovered, to the great surprise and no less joy of the good man. A passage he never spoke of during his confinement without blessing and praising the divine goodness for this merciful, may I not venture to term it with him, even miraculous preservation? For after all their labour, they only found his breviary, his holy oils, a needle-case, thread and thimble. Sir Francis said he was but a poor priest, and I verily believe, says he, no great statesman, - and bade the constable take him into his custody, and look well to him. The constable replied, he should take a special care of his not making his escape, and would therefore set him in the stocks till his worship should otherwise dispose of him. But Sir Francis forbad him, and ordered the constable to let him have a bed, and what else he called for, and Sir Francis used him very kindly at his own house, as did my lady. 'She provided me a mess of good broth, said Mr. Nappier, for my supper; and in order to receive my mittimus, my lady provided for me a mess of milk, with cinnamon and sugar for my breakfast; and that being the 20th of July they carried me in Oxford goal.'

The prisoner was brought to the bar the next assizes, which happened soon after his commitment, and was tried before Mr. Justice Crook, upon an indictment of high treason, for taking priestly orders by authority derived from Rome, and remaining in England contrary to the laws.
The judge asked him whether he was a priest ? The prisoner answered, If he was such the law did not compel him to discover himself:
but if, my lord, says he, you have witnesses to prove me a priest, let them be called. - Once more the judge said to him, Will you deny that you are a priest? Mr. Nappier replied, if any man will prove me in orders, let the court produce him; and then, my lord, I shall submit to the penalty of the law. The judge then directed his discourse to the jury in these or the like words. - Gentlemen, you hear the prisoner will not deny himself to be a priest; and therefore you may certainly believe that he is a priest. For my part, if he will but here say that he is no priest, I will believe him. - But indeed these instruments of his priestly functions "the oil boxes" do plainly shew him to be in orders; and therefore you have evidence sufficient that he is guilty of the indictment. Upon which the prisoner was brought in guilty by the jury.

His relations made great interest to obtain a reprieve for him, and his execution was respited 'till the month of November; and, probably speaking, had not some back friends, more especially the vice-chancellor of Oxford and some others interposed, his reprieve might have been continued from time to time, and be either transported, or permitted to languish away his life in durance, as many others had done before him. But two faults he was guilty of, which according to the divinity of these men were crimes unpardonable. There was a poor wretch tried at the same assizes for felony, and found guilty, whose name was Falkner. Some few days before his execution, he was reconciled by Mr. Nappier, and had all the helps that a dying man could expect, as far as circumstances of time and place would allow. In short, at the gallows the matter was discovered!, the poor man declared himself a catholic, abjured the errors of his former religion, as well as begged pardon of God, and of all the world for the sins of his past life; and with great appearances of repentance, and a devout behaviour, submitted himself to the executioner.

The people stormed; the ministers threw all the blame upon the condemned priest, made a heavy rout, called for justice, and went strait away to Abington, to make complaint to the judges. The high sheriff and the vice-chancellor were ordered to examine into the fact, and lay before their lordships a true account of the whole proceedings, with the names of the persons concerned in the perversion of this poor fellow. Mr. Nappier was sent for to Christ Church, and strictly examined by the vice-chancellor and the high sheriff about the whole affair. To these he gave this full account; that he had no discourse nor acquaintance with Falkner, 'till they had both received sentence of death; and he was removed from his former chamber to the condemned hole, where be found the said Falkner. 'Here he applied to me (said Mr. Nappier) for my advice and instruction how to make a happy end, and save his soul. I was glad of the opportunity, encouraged him in his good resolutions, and on my part endeavoured by all proper means to improve these pious motions of the holy spirit, in order to bring him to a true repentance and confession of his sins.' In a word, Mr Nappier told him without more ado, that he was the person whom God was pleased to make use of for reconciling the poor wretch to him and his church, and that as he was the only person concerned, he desired that no other might be questioned or troubled about it.

The high sheriff and vice-chancellor gave him to understand, that they were to lay this whole matter before the judges, who were highly displeased with what they had already heard; and that as soon as they had received this further confirmation by his owning the fact before them, they persuaded themselves it would put a stop to the reprieve, and hasten his execution. 'Their will be done, says M. Nappier, I did nothing but what I thought a strict duty; and so far I am from repining any ways at what is done, that if you please, Mr. Vice-chancellor, with my hearty commendations to my good lord judges, you may assure them, that if they will come back to Oxford, and give me the same opportunity, I will do as much for their lordships.'

The vice-chancellor asked him, whether he would take the oath of allegiance? he told him with all his heart, as far as it related to the obedience due to princes in temporals only; and would acknowledge upon oath, if he pleased, that king James was his liege sovereign, and that he was vested with as much authority over all his subjects, catholics as well as protestants, as any of his predecessors whatsoever. They insisted upon his taking the oath of allegiance, as set forth in the act of parliament, and upon this condition they promised him his life should be saved. But this he refused. Then they persuaded him to peruse Mr. Blackwell's treatise of the lawfulness of this oath, and the vice-chancellor called for the book. Mr. Nappier took it, and gave it a reading: but some few days after sent back the book, and told Mr. Vice-chancellor, that he still continued in his former resolution, the oath of allegiance as it stood worded he would not take.

It was soon after noised about, that Mr Nappier was to be executed in a few days. However nothing was done till the return of the judges from their circuits. Then indeed Judge Crook (as the report then went) managed matters in such sort with the council, that a warrant was sent to the high sheriff for the execution of the prisoner. But here by the unwearied endeavours of his relations, his majesty was again petitioned, and another short reprieve was obtained till the 9th of November; upon condition, that in the interim he should confer with the vice-chancellor and other learned divines. The vice-chancellor happening to be at London during most of the time, Dr. Hammond and the pro-proctor had instructions to discourse with Mr. Nappier upon the subject of the oath of allegiance, &c. And it is said of him, that these conferences were managed with so much calmness, humility, and candor on the part of the prisoner, that these gentlemen were not a little moved with his meek and modest behaviour, and made their report in such favourable terms, as plainly shewed their great unwillingness to have him suffer.

Some few days before the expiration of the reprieve, the vice-chancellor returning, sent again to have time prisoner brought before him, and interrogated him upon the old chapter, was he yet disposed to take the oath of allegiance? The prisoner offered him a draught of an oath of fidelity, which he was ready to take. But the vice-chancellor told him in plain terms, that nothing would satisfy but the parliamentary oath. If he would take this, he would use his best endeavours to save him, and not otherwise.

On Thursday the 8th of November, the discourse was received that he was to die, and that the next day. The report was brought to the catholic gentleman prisoner in the same goal, and the good man himself was not kept in ignorance. A special friend of his, "a priest," sent him word that day, that he purposed to sup with him. Mr. Nappier understood the message: and as this confirmed him in his opinion that his dissolution was at hand; so it extremely rejoiced him to have the comfort of a priest, and the benefit of the church's absolution to prepare him for his death. He shut himself up under a stricter confinement upon this notice, and employed the remainder of the day in devotion: but withal desired his fellow-prisoner, "the writer of this relation," to order a breast of mutton for supper, and to invite two poor catholics to sup with him, which was done accordingly.

Thus far we have only abridged the account given by this catholic gentleman. What follows is set down in his own words, copied from the original.

'Little did he eat at supper, only a piece of pigeon-pye, and after a few stewed prunes, which one of his sisters had brought him; and very merry he was that evening. And being at supper I said unto him, Mr. Nappier if it be God's holy will that you should suffer, I do wish with all my heart, that it might be to-morrow, it being Friday, and said, that our Saviour did eat the paschal lamb with his disciples on Thursday at night, and suffered the Friday following: and therefore I wish, if you must die, it must be to-morrow. He answered me very sweetly, saving, Welcome by God's grace; and I pray God I may be constant; praying us all to pray for him. And thus much I must let you understand, that every time that he heard news that he should suffer, he would give to some poor boy that was catholic some of his cloaths; and I would say unto him, methinks you might make reservation of them again, if you should not die: he would say unto me, oh, no, for I have more upon my back than I brought into the world, and if I live I will put myself to God's Providence. And truly if he had lived he had left himself little more than he brought into the world, for he had given almost all away. After supper he and the other good man withdrew themselves to a secret place to confer of some special matters, and when they had made an end, they look their leaves of one another, and so did all the company, and every man to his chamber

The next day being Friday, and the 9th of November, about six in the morning, the under sheriff sent to the keeper's wife, and willed her to let Mr. Nappier know, that he should prepare himself to die, for that was the day, between one and two in the afternoon that he should be executed. The poor woman took it very grievously, and fell a crying, and came to me. I hearing her cry much, marvelled what the matter should be, and came and met her at my chamber-door, and asked what the matter was? who answered me crying, oh, the blessed man must die this day, and I cannot find in my heart to go tell him of it. I answered him again, welcome by God's grade for now I am assured it is God' s will to have it so, and therefore I will go unto him myself to let him understand the news. And so I went to his chamber, and knocking at his door, he came and opened it, and I saluted him and asked him how he did? And he answered me, saying, well, I thank almighty Jesus. And I asked him how he slept in the night? and he said, very well, I thank God. Then I said unto him, that time bell had tolled, and, rung out also: and he asked me what I meant by those speeches? I said unto him again, that now he must put on his armour of proof, for he must fight that day a great battle. He took me in his arms and embraced me, saying, it was the best news that ever was brought unto him, and I was most heartily welcome in declaring of it unto him, saying further, that he found himself cleansed, he hoped, from all the rust which had troubled him long before. And as I thought he rejoiced much, and asked me if he might not serve God, "say mass," that day? I said, the day was far spent, but if it pleased him I would go and make all things ready: and he prayed me to do so, for he was ready and surely methought he did celebrate that day, as reverently in all his actions, and with as much sweet behaviour, as ever I saw him in all my life; for I did take special notice of him; he shewed no fear in any respect and when he laid made an end, and all things were laid aside, he fell to his devotions ; and by the end of our service many scholars were come into the castle-yard, and into the court. And after he had prayed some hours I said unto him, and asked him, if I should send for some comfortable thing for him to drink? and he answered me, no; saying, he would neither eat nor drink, hoping in his saviour, that he should have a sumptuous banquet shortly. And after a little stay I considered that his time drew somewhat near, I came unto him again, and put him in mind of shifting him with a fair shirt, and he said he would willingly do so: and then I made him a fire, and warmed his shirt, and coming down to put on his shirt, he made a step down amongst the poor prisoners, and did distribute some money amongst them and coming up again, he brought a piece of silver of half a crown, and some money besides, and put it in my chamber window: and I asked him what he would do with that piece of silver, having the picture of St. George? and he told me, that he would give it to the executioner for his pains; and the rest he would give to some poor people; and so he did. And. when he had put on his clean shirt he fell to his prayers again. He had prayed but a short time when a couple of scholars, masters of arts, and I think one of them was a minister, came in; and they began to offer some speeches to him concerning the oath of allegiance; he prayed them to give him leave, and to let him prepare himself, for he had not long to stay: and it stood upon him to call to mind all his reckonings, which he was to make to his Lord and Master; and therefore with most mild and sweet words he entreated them not to trouble him; and they, like honest-minded men, stayed their speeches, seeming to be sorry for him. - And then the pro-proctor cometh to the castle to speak with him, and he sent the keeper to bring Mr. Nappier to him: he staying in the chamber with divers other scholars, and some others besides: and the blessed man being come unto him, he began to use some speeches to him, to persuade him to take the oath. But the good man prayed him to give him leave to spend that little time which was lent him in prayer. And so kneeled down at a round table, and prayed a little. But the under-sheriff willed him to make him ready, for all things were almost ready for the execution. And then he rose up and went into a little chamber hard by, and put on a white waistcoat, &c. and being apparalled to the end that the law had appointed, he came again into the keeper's chamber, and I meeting my keeper, he asked me, if I had taken my leave of him? I answered I would willingly see him again. And he willed me to go up with him, and I should see him; and so I went with him into his chamber; and as I was coming in the blessed man was about to kneel down, and seeing me he staid; and I pressed through the scholars and came unto him, and kneeling down he blessed me, and rising up again he embraced me and kissed me. And I heard the pro-proctor ask, who I was? and one answered him, that I was a gentleman and a prisoner for my conscience. And then the blessed man began to kneel down, and the proctor said to him, Mr. Nappier, shall I pray with you? and he answered him in these words, oh, no, good Mr. Proctor, you and I are not of one religion, and therefore may not pray together. Then the proctor asked him again, saying, shall I pray for you? The blessed man said unto him, I would to God you were in a state of grace to pray for me. And then he kneeled down, and I kneeled by him, and I think he said but one pater-noster, for I could say but one, and presently the under-sheriff called very earnestly to come away: and so prostrating himself on the ground he kissed it, and rose up, and made the sign of the cross, and went forward to the dungeon door, where the hurdle staid for him. And coming by the proctor, the proctor said unto him, Mr. Nap pier, if you will but take the oath of allegiance, I make no doubt of your life. He spoke unto him and said, good Mr. Proctor, do not wrong me when I am gone, for I know many speeches will go of me; and now I say again unto you, that I have prayed most heartily, for the king, the prince, and all his children, as any subject he hath in the world; and will yield him as much power and authority, as ever any prince had or ought to have. And then the hangman came unto him and asked him forgiveness, and the blessed man said and embraced him, I most lovingly forgive thee, and for a pledge I have willed one of the sheriff's men to give thee some silver; and the hangman said, he had received it, and thanked him for it. And so he being called for again he went; forward, and coming down to the stairs foot, the door was open, and I followed him; and seeing the hurdle most willingly went himself and laid down with a lively courage, having blessed himself: he had not so much as a thread to bind him, which I think every one was bound saving himself. And then they offered to draw forward, and one of the pins of the trace broke, so they staid till it was fastened: and the people were so unreasonable in pressing themselves to see him, that they pressed me down twice upon the hurdle: and then I called to the proctor to command them to give back; and then I took both his hands in my hands, and prayed God to comfort him, and looking upon me he prayed God to bless me; and with much ado I got from the throng of people. And more than this I cannot set down of my own knowledge. What follows is the report of Mr. Charles's own hearing at the place where he suffered his martyrdom.'

The 9th of November being Friday, 1610, it pleased God to appoint the time in which the faith of Mr. George Nappier, priest, was to be tried in the furnace. Being brought therefore out of prison, and laid on the hurdle, with hands joined and his eyes fixed towards heaven, without moving any way, he was drawn to the place of execution. Where being taken off and set on his feet, beholding the place where he was to suffer, he signed himiself with the sign of the cross; and ascending the step of the ladder with a cheerful mind to receive his martyrdom turning his face towards the people, having again signed himself with the sign of the cross, he began to speak as follows: Gentlemen, you must expect no great speech at my hands, for indeed I intend none; only I acknowledge myself to be a miserable and wretched sinner. And therewithal joining his hands with intention to pray, he was interrupted by a minister who called to him, saying, Nappier, Nappier, confess your treason. Wherewith bending himself, and looking down towards him, be answered him saying, treason, Sir! I thank God, I never knew what treason meant. To which the minister replied, be advised what you say, do not you remember how the judge told you it was treason to be a priest? he answered the minister again, for that I die, Sir, and that judge, as well as I, shall appear before the just Judge of heaven, to whom I appeal, who will determine whether it be treason or no to be a priest. And withal he protested that none but catholics can be saved. After these words he desired that he might have leave to pray; whereunto the minister replied, pray for the king, to which he answered, so I do daily. But, said the minister, pray for the king now. With that he lifted up his hands and said, I pray God preserve his majesty, and make him a blessed saint in heaven. Then he desired the company that he might pray to himself. The minister interrupting him the third time, said, go to pray, and we will pray with you. To which he answered, Sir, I will none of your prayers, neither is it my desire you should pray with me, but I desire all good catholics to join with me in prayer. So addressing himself to pray, he said, in te Domine speravi, &c. In thee, O Lord, I have put my trust, let me not be confounded for ever: then lifting up his hands and heart, he said the psalm, De profundis,&c. after that, Beati quorum remissae sunt iniquitates, &c.; lastly, the psalm Miserere. These being ended, he pulled down his night-cap over his eyes, and most part of his face, and often repeating these words: in manus tuas, &c. Into thy hands, O Lord, I commend my spirit: he yielded himself to one side of the ladder, having his hands still joined. So being turned off, he struck himself three times on the breast, and yielded his blessed soul into his hands that gave it. Thus beseeching God to defend you from your enemies, I most humbly desire you to remember me in your prayers. From my cell this 19th day of December, 1610.

P.S. - His charity was great; for if any poor prisoner wanted either meat to fill him, or cloths to cover him, he would rather be cold himself than they should; if any of them would pray him to give his word to the keeper for them, he would do it, if he paid it himself, as sometimes he did: and he would wait for the poorest prisoners in the castle. There was one wretch went away with 20 shillings and 9 pence of his, promising him he would send it him honestly, but he never heard of him. One other he lent his cloak to wear a few days, to keep him warm: and hath willed that as long as he stays in the goal he must wear it, which I fear will be so long, that he will wear that out, and such another. And thus beseeching you once more of your prayers, I in all duty commend me.

Mr. Nappier suffered at Oxford, November 9, 1610. His head was set up on Christ Church steeple, and his quarters on the four gates of the city.

Sometimes I want to ask ...

2011-11-06T01:43:00.002Z

"Pax Christi in Regno Christi" v. The Spirit of Assisi

2011-10-30T10:07:00.005Z

This motto of Pope Pius XI, which was the programme of his pontificate during the inter-war years of the 1920s and 1930s, expresses the true Catholic attitude to world peace. Ultimately, there will only be "the Peace of Christ in the Reign of Christ."

Purely natural attempts to achieve world peace through leagues of nations - although well intentioned, perhaps, and with some temporary successes - will not wholly achieve their aim. Only union in Christ, the true King of the World, will result in peace.

To suppose that "the peace that the world cannot give" is to be attained by leaders of various religions meeting together, praying in their own way, and desiring peace, might be described charitably as a grave mistake. There is only one way to peace and salvation - that is through Christ, who is the prince of peace. The peace of Christ in the reign of Christ.

For non-Christians not to realise this is, perhaps, understandable. Whether excusable is a question that they will need to answer for themselves before their Maker. For a Christian, and indeed a Christian leader, to make this mistake, is rather more serious than an honest mistake.

The Israelites of old who worshipped the Golden Calf were justly punished by God. The Christian leaders of today are not worshipping the Calf themselves, but are inviting believers and non-believers of all kinds to bring their own Golden Calves to one of the Church's holy shrines, and to worship their own idols - whether golden or otherwise - in their own way. "We will worship our God, you worship yours; you in your way, and we in ours." We all mean well, and by sharing our good intentions we will promote world peace and understanding.

Idolatry. Blasphemy. Heresy.

To say that the Catholic religion contains the fulness of Truth, but that all other religions contain partial truths - that is correct and not in dispute. Even satanists believe some truths.

The difference between the true Catholic religion and other faiths is not a matter of degree. It's a matter of kind. On the one side stands the Body of Christ - not made with human hands. On the other stands a motley of faiths, many of them containing much that is good and true and admirable. Surely, the Holy Spirit works among them, calling them to Faith and Salvation. But the fact remains that they are human constructions, not the one true religion, through which alone God has given his public, definitive revelation of Himself.

It's one thing to be tolerant of our non-believing neighbours, and to make space for them to worship unmolested. This can be done without positively approving of their worship. It is usually a good thing - especially in the pluralistic societies which are characteristic of the modern world - since it can avoid greater evils, or lead to greater good.

But positively to encourage the worship of false gods - or even of the true God in a manner that ignores important facts like the Incarnation, the Trinity, or the Church - involves you in the crime of false worship. Practically speaking, you put the Incarnation, and the public Revelation of Christ to the world, in second place to the good intentions of unbelievers.

You may say with your mouth that you want to avoid Indifferentism. With your actions, you proclaim otherwise.

What point discussing doctrinal 'Clarifications' when your actions already proclaim with clarity to the world what is in your heart.

"With their mouths they offer me lip-service, but their hearts are far from me."

Attende Domine, et miserere, quia peccavimus tibi.

Mortalium Animos and the Kingship of Christ

2011-10-30T09:52:00.004Z

The traditional Catholic position on inter-faith meetings is cogently explained by Pope Pius XI, in his encyclical letter Mortalium Animos of 1928.

Pius XI was the Pope who instituted the Feast of the Kingship of Christ, as well as issuing the well-known Encyclical Divini Illius Magistri on the Principles of Christian Education.

From the Encyclical:

... For since they hold it for certain that men destitute of all religious sense are very rarely to be found, they seem to have founded on that belief a hope that the nations, although they differ among themselves in certain religious matters, will without much difficulty come to agree as brethren in professing certain doctrines, which form as it were a common basis of the spiritual life. For which reason conventions, meetings and addresses are frequently arranged by these persons, at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction are invited to join in the discussion, both infidels of every kind, and Christians, even those who have unhappily fallen away from Christ or who with obstinacy and pertinacity deny His divine nature and mission.

Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little. turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion.

... the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ. Shall We suffer, what would indeed be iniquitous, the truth, and a truth divinely revealed, to be made a subject for compromise? For here there is question of defending revealed truth.

... Let them hear Lactantius crying out: "The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship. This is the fount of truth, this the house of Faith, this the temple of God: if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. Let none delude himself with obstinate wrangling. For life and salvation are here concerned, which will be lost and entirely destroyed, unless their interests are carefully and assiduously kept in mind."

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19280106_mortalium-animos_en.html

"Hate Male"

2011-10-21T13:54:00.003+01:00

I just read a powerfully worded blog posting on 'Seraphic Singles' which speaks about "the ways in which society has shortchanged boys and men."

Auntie Seraphic is author of a book called "Seraphic Singles" and her blog - intended mainly for single Catholic women - often contains insightful reflections on gender differences.

As a Catholic Schoolmaster, with an interest in the education of the male of the species in particular, I often read her postings.

A wise priest once said that no man can fully comprehend woman, and no woman can fully comprehend man. I think this was in the context of nobody being able to comprehend the Trinity fully. There are not only supernatural, but natural mysteries. But the fact that something is a mystery shouldn't stop us trying.

Here's a paragraph from Auntie Seraphic:

"Men, like women, want to be loved for themselves, their concrete selves. Women are terrified that they will have to support a man who just mooches off them; men have the same fear. Women are no longer so worried that men will see them as baby-machines; this is something that now terrifies men, and it should: occasionally I get emails from women who wonder if they should marry a man they don't love just so they can have babies. Imagine if that man was your brother or son or friend."

I hear the sound of a nail being hit firmly on the head. And there's more ... here's the link:

h ttp://seraphicsinglescummings.blogspot.com/2011/10/compassion.html

The picture here is taken from Fathers 4 Justice, and is worth a closer look:

http://fathers4justiceadvertising.wordpress.com

Commentary on Pius XI's Encyclical on Christian Education - 2

2011-10-12T15:28:00.000+01:00

This part refers to sections 5 and 6 of the Encyclical, which are reproduced at the bottom of this page.

In these parts the Pope notes that in this age there is more discussion about education than there ever has been, with a multiplicity of new methods and theories. Why is this the case? The first reason is only alluded to by the pope, but it must certainly be economics - what the pope calls 'the most exuberant material progress.' Now we might speak in terms of maintaining a standard of living, promoting economic growth, or enabling our country to hold its own in the economic conditions of today. If you listen to politicians, it would seem that this is the only reason for educating children or improving standards - to enable them to earn their keep in the world, to get good jobs, not to be a burden on society, and to contribute to national wealth. None of these things are to be despised, though they may not be the most ultimate values in life.

Not only Catholics would consider there to be higher values in education - humanists and liberals would consider one of the chief ends of education to be the 'self-realisation' of the individual. To put it another way, the achievement of happiness in this life. The Pope comments that men are realizing more and more 'the insufficiency of earthly goods to produce true happiness either for the individual or for nations.' It might be more accurate to say that some people are realising this - others seem intent on piling up material goods as though these, on their own will purchase happiness.

The Pope recognizes that the impulse in human nature towards true happiness, or 'a perfection that is higher' than the purely material, is a good thing and is implanted in human nature towards the creator. People of seeking to acquire the means to this happiness through education. We might today call this 'education of the whole person,' and it might be expressed through 'happiness lessons' or 'emotional literacy' or 'personal and social education.' None of these things are bad in themselves, but they are partial and incomplete if they are not part of a coherent and true vision of what human life is about.

The Pope notes that of the many innovations that have been proposed, many facilitate education, or improve its efficiency. This is fine - the church is not opposed to the use of up to date methods of instruction, or reformed syllabuses, modified methods of assessment, or use of new technology - provided they are all used within reason. But Pope Pius also says that some of the innovations are intended part of systems that are intended create earthly happiness, apart from and without reference to the Creator of human nature. These attempts are illusory - human nature cannot be complete on its own, without God. As St Augustine famously wrote in His Confessions, "O Lord, our heart is restless until it finds rest in Thee." All attempts to create an earthly paradise, or purely natural happiness, without recognizing our human incompleteness and need for Divine grace, are doomed to failure. Moveover, the attempts are more likely to create chaos and despair, rather than the happiness that is ardently sought.

Pope Pius criticizes those who put too great emphasis on education as 'drawing out'. This is, of course, the derivation of the word 'educate' - from the Latin, to draw out. There is much to be said for methods which draw out latent capacities, require pupils to find out a certain amount for themselves, and seek the active engagement of pupils. Socrates famously tried to draw philosophical ideas out of his interlocutors, including geometric ideas from an uninstructed slave boy; though in fact he led people by carefully constructed questions, to the conclusions that he wanted them to draw.

From a practical point of view, insisting that pupils should learn everything for themselves is not only tedious but inefficient. The accumulated wisdom of centuries is too much for any individual, no matter what his genius, to work out in a lifetime. Education will not neglect drawing out the talents and intellectual powes of the young, but must also bring about engagement with the best that has been thought or done through the ages. However, the Pope has another concern about this view of education.

Too great insistence on education as 'drawing out,' says the Pope, can easily cause too great a focus on ourselves. You might say, it causes a self-absorption, belief in our own natural powers and limitations, which is only one half of the picture. Without reference to man's origin, supreme good, and true end - almighty God Himself - and our need for God's grace, then we have a false idea of our place in the world and the purpose of life on earth. A true 'anthropology' - understanding of man's place in the world and the purpose of life, is needed in order to correctly direct education.

A false view of life leads to a false view of education. Falsely designed systems of education lead to a false view of life. There is no such thing as a value-free education - even if values aren't explicitly stated, they are present. An education which is conducted as though God does not exist or has no importance for our lives is a false system - even if it contains many fine and true elements - because overall it is facing in the wrong direction: towards love of self and the material world, rather than towards God and our final destiny, which is ultimate happiness and beatitude through union with Him.

Text:

5. Indeed never has there been so much discussion about education as nowadays; never have exponents of new pedagogical theories been so numerous, or so many methods and means devised, proposed and debated, not merely to facilitate education, but to create a new system infallibly efficacious, and capable of preparing the present generations for that earthly happiness which they so ardently desire.
"6. The reason is that men, created by God to His image and likeness and destined for Him Who is infinite perfection realize today more than ever amid the most exuberant material progress, the insufficiency of earthly goods to produce true happiness either for the individual or for the nations. And hence they feel more keenly in themselves the impulse towards a perfection that is higher, which impulse is implanted in their rational nature by the Creator Himself. This perfection they seek to acquire by means of education. But many of them with, it would seem, too great insistence on the etymological meaning of the word, pretend to draw education out of human nature itself and evolve it by its own unaided powers. Such easily fall into error, because, instead of fixing their gaze on God, first principle and last end of the whole universe, they fall back upon themselves, becoming attached exclusively to passing things of earth; and thus their restlessness will never cease till they direct their attention and their efforts to God, the goal of all perfection, according to the profound saying of Saint Augustine: "Thou didst create us, O Lord, for Thyself, and our heart is restless till it rest in Thee."[3]"

Coeducation, and Homeschooling: Two interesting articles found online

2011-10-12T14:31:00.001+01:00

1. Coeducation Revisited for the 21st Century

by Father John McCloskey

"This paper highlights the value, indeed – insofar as it is possible – necessity of single-sex education, from the age of puberty through late adolescence. ... I believe that coeducation has been and continues to be a serious mistake because it generally ignores the radical differences between men and women in their biology, physiology, psychology, and in their proper roles in contemporary society and the family. I believe that these differences are good, that they are part of God's plan for the human race, and that by tampering with them over the course of decades we have brought the present state of society upon ourselves."

http://www.catholicity.com/mccloskey/singlesexedu.html

2. A Just War Theory of Homeschooling

by William Fahey

"Some enthusiasts claim that homeschooling is the Catholic approach to a child's education, but neither history nor the teaching of the Church supports this exclusivity. Though homeschooling is an important and virtuous pursuit, some families are drawn to it through a mistaken ideology – a shadow image of Catholic culture, Catholic education, and the family itself. ... The common approach to homeschooling today is inherently dangerous, because it may go against what our entire Western tradition and the Catholic Church herself teach about the education of the young – that education should not be done in the home, at least not for long, except during a time and place of crisis."

http://www.catholicity.com/commentary/fahey/06871.html

Night Walk to Littlemore

2011-10-09T15:46:00.000+01:00

For the first time, I was able last night to participate in the annual walk from the centre of Oxford to Littlemore. This walk marks the anniversary of the reception into the Catholic church of John Henry Newman by Blessed Dominic Barberi, which took place on 9th October 1845 at Littlemore.

On the way there were twelve stations - points at which we paused to consider some place relevant to the life of Newman, to hear his words, and to say a prayer. Prayers were included to the Holy Ghost, the Immaculate Mother of God, St Clement, St Athanasius - all of importance in the life of Newman.

Finally there was a Holy Hour in the modern (rather too modern) church of Blessed Dominic Barberi at Littlemore.

This is the 'College' at Littlemore - the place where Newman retired with a few companions to pray and study, and where he was received into the church. It is now in the hands of the Sisters of the Work, who receive pilgrims.

Blue Plaque to Blessed Dominic Barberi

2011-10-08T17:22:00.000+01:00

Inaugurated and blessed today, 8th October, in Reading on the site of the old Station Tavern where Blessed Dominic Barberi died in 1849.

Blessed Dominic Barberi, pray for us.

The following is a window from the Church of St James in Reading (next to Reading Gaol), and it commemorates Cardinal Newman, Blessed Dominic Barberi, and the anniversary of the Church.

Reading had a major relic of St James in pre-reformation times, and Reading Abbey was a site of pilgrimage as well as royal patronage.

Book Review - The Bitter Root

2011-10-08T12:17:00.000+01:00

"The Bitter Root; Educating the Wayward Scholar" by James Andrews. Anyone who wants to understand practical teaching should read this!

I found this little book by chance when browsing in Blackwells in Oxford one quiet morning in late July. I have not seen it reviewed, nor on sale elsewhere. But to the practising teacher, it is pure gold, and is likely to be one of my top ten favourite books on education, ever.

Other favourite books would include the writings of John Rae, former eccentric headmaster of Westminster School; also 'The Art of Teaching' by Gilbert Highet. There's even something to be said for the old chestnut, "The craft of the classroom" by Michael Marland.

There are many very worthy books in education, piling up information. Some of them are useful; many of them are useless or dangerous. But the book I want must contain insight, not just information.

James Andrews book contains plenty of insight. He clearly has a very good knowledge of human nature, and especially adolescent nature. Practical teachers will nod in agreement with much that he says - especially when there is no Ofsted inspector around to harass them. His knowledge of the foibles of wayward pupils, and the wiles of schoolmasters, are illustrated both with anecdotes drawn from the chalkface, and also from extensive reading of literature, taking in Plato, Machiavelli (an especial favourite), CS Lewis, the Holy Bible, Shakespeare, and Rudi Giuliani. Thus great literature increases our knowledge of humanity, and vice versa - just as it was meant to be.

From the blurb: "The Bitter Root asks why, after thousands of years of formal education, we fail to understand the full impact of some very basic classroom concepts. Free from acronyms, jargon and flowcharts, it relies for its evidence on history and literature, convincingly arguing that a view from the shoulders of yesterday's giants reveals far more than many of today's educational theories. The book is a celebration of the art of teaching, capturing the true mood of the profession behind the fixed grins of the politicos; a confirmation of what teachers think but often don't dare say. To teachers, parents and past pupils of a certain age, it is a highly amusing dose of common sense."

From the preface: "In the few thousand years since the advent of institutional education, many things have changed: the nature of children is not one of them. ... however, we find basic errors, arising from a failure to understand the behaviour of real - rather than theoretical - children. It is the wayward scholar who is particularly proficient at exploiting these errors ... he wields tremendous influence, and great is his capacity for bringing contention into the lives of others."

What is "the bitter root"? It appears to be taken from a quotation from Aristotle: "The roots of education are bitter, but the fruit is sweet." The root is discipline!
James Andrews describes himself as a "bog standard classroom teacher" and has never sought to be anything else. He has taught for 13 years in state comprehensive schools. The book tells us a lot about the classroom, but little directly about the author: what subject he teaches, what schools, what are his qualifications or background. He clearly doesn't regard these as important - he is communicating his content, not himself. But he does communicate a vision of the schoolmaster - caring for his pupils, being willing to discipline them, dealing imaginatively and personally with individuals, relishing the work of forming young people, knowing that the formation of character is ultimately more important than academic success, and bearing lightly a great breadth of learning. I was going to express the hope that this would not be his only book, though as I write this I realise that it is a masterpiece, and leaves little more to be said on the topic. Having set a high standard of quality in this book, it would be a pity to now write flannel - it is to be hoped that he is incapable of it. Maybe there will be other aspects of education or life into which he will offer insight in due course. In the meantime, he has a blog - http://timeseducationalmiscreant.blogspot.com/

There is also a website for the book: http://thebitterroot.co.uk/

And here's a link to Amazon:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bitter-Root-James-Andrews/dp/1903660092/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1314575920&sr=8-1

Res ipsa loquitur.

2011-10-08T12:14:00.002+01:00

More Poetry - Mesopotamia 1917 by Rudyard Kipling

2011-10-06T14:50:00.000+01:00

Mesopotamia 1917

They shall not return to us, the resolute, the young,

The eager and whole-hearted whom we gave:

But the men who left them thriftily to die in their own dung,
Shall they come with years and honour to the grave?

They shall not return to us; the strong men coldly slain
In sight of help denied from day to day:
But the men who edged their agonies and chid them in their pain,
Are they too strong and wise to put away?

Our dead shall not return to us while Day and Night divide--
Never while the bars of sunset hold.
But the idle-minded overlings who quibbled while they died,
Shall they thrust for high employments as of old?

Shall we only threaten and be angry for an hour:
When the storm is ended shall we find
How softly but how swiftly they have sidled back to power
By the favour and contrivance of their kind?

Even while they soothe us, while they promise large amends,
Even while they make a show of fear,
Do they call upon their debtors, and take counsel with their
friends,
To conform and re-establish each career?

Their lives cannot repay us--their death could not undo--
The shame that they have laid upon our race.
But the slothfulness that wasted and the arrogance that slew,
Shell we leave it unabated in its place?

Rudyard Kipling

National Poetry Day, 6th October 2011

2011-10-06T14:24:00.001+01:00

Vitai Lampada

(The Torches of Life)

by Sir Henry Newbolt (1862-1938)

There's a breathless hush in the Close tonight
Ten to make and the match to win --
A bumping pitch and a blinding light,
An hour to play and the last man in.
And it's not for the sake of a ribboned coat,
Or the selfish hope of a season's fame,
But his Captain's hand on his shoulder smote
"Play up! play up! and play the game!"

The sand of the desert is sodden red, --
Red with the wreck of a square that broke;--
The Gatling's jammed and the colonel dead,
And the regiment blind with dust and smoke.
The river of death has brimmed his banks,
And England's far, and Honour a name,
But the voice of a schoolboy rallies the ranks,
"Play up! play up! and play the game!"

This is the word that year by year
While in her place the School is set
Every one of her sons must hear,
And none that hears it dare forget.
This they all with a joyful mind
Bear through life like a torch in flame,
And falling fling to the host behind--
"Play up! play up! and play the game!"

Two great quotes from Cardinal Manning

2011-09-27T14:47:00.000+01:00

"Satan knows well that if he can separate religion from instruction, he has cut through the roots of the Christian civilization of the world. For that reason all the art, all the wiles, all the frauds, all the false politics of this day, are directed to what is called secular education, national education, imperial education - anything you like, only not Christian education."

"The softness, and the glare, and the temptations, and the licence, and the lax examples that are about us, are more seducing and dangerous than the winter of penal laws. They hardened the manhood of Catholic parents. The summer sun relaxes many."

These two extracts are taken from a wonderful book called "Towards Evening: Extracts from the writings of Cardinal Manning" which contains thoughts from the great churchman's writing, for every day of the year. It can be downloaded from: http://www.archive.org/details/towardseveningex00mann

Pope's Address to University Professors

2011-08-27T18:05:00.000+01:00

Pope Benedict XVI gave an address to young university professors, at the Basilica de San Lorenzo de El Escorial, as part of his visit to Spain for World Youth Day. Here is the majority of the address, which is available in full at: http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=9696

"I have looked forward to this meeting with you, young professors in the universities of Spain. You provide a splendid service in the spread of truth, in circumstances that are not always easy. I greet you warmly and I thank you for your kind words of welcome and for the music which has marvellously resounded in this magnificent monastery, for centuries an eloquent witness to the life of prayer and study. In this highly symbolic place, reason and faith have harmoniously blended in the austere stone to shape one of Spain’s most renowned monuments.

Being here with you, I am reminded of my own first steps as a professor at the University of Bonn. At the time, the wounds of war were still deeply felt and we had many material needs; these were compensated by our passion for an exciting activity, our interaction with colleagues of different disciplines and our desire to respond to the deepest and most basic concerns of our students. This experience of a “Universitas” of professors and students who together seek the truth in all fields of knowledge, or as Alfonso X the Wise put it, this “counsel of masters and students with the will and understanding needed to master the various disciplines” helps us to see more clearly the importance, and even the definition, of the University.

At times one has the idea that the mission of a university professor nowadays is exclusively that of forming competent and efficient professionals capable of satisfying the demand for labour at any given time. One also hears it said that the only thing that matters at the present moment is pure technical ability. This sort of utilitarian approach to education is in fact becoming more widespread, even at the university level, promoted especially by sectors outside the University. All the same, you who, like myself, have had an experience of the University, and now are members of the teaching staff, surely are looking for something more lofty and capable of embracing the full measure of what it is to be human. We know that when mere utility and pure pragmatism become the principal criteria, much is lost and the results can be tragic: from the abuses associated with a science which acknowledges no limits beyond itself, to the political totalitarianism which easily arises when one eliminates any higher reference than the mere calculus of power. The authentic idea of the University, on the other hand, is precisely what saves us from this reductionist and curtailed vision of humanity.

In truth, the University has always been, and is always called to be, the “house” where one seeks the truth proper to the human person. Consequently it was not by accident that the Church promoted the universities, for Christian faith speaks to us of Christ as the Word through whom all things were made (cf. Jn 1:3) and of men and women as made in the image and likeness of God. The Gospel message perceives a rationality inherent in creation and considers man as a creature participating in, and capable of attaining to, an understanding of this rationality. The University thus embodies an ideal which must not be attenuated or compromised, whether by ideologies closed to reasoned dialogue or by truckling to a purely utilitarian and economic conception which would view man solely as a consumer.

Here we see the vital importance of your own mission. You yourselves have the honour and responsibility of transmitting the ideal of the University: an ideal which you have received from your predecessors, many of whom were humble followers of the Gospel and, as such, became spiritual giants. We should feel ourselves their successors, in a time quite different from their own, yet one in which the essential human questions continue to challenge and stimulate us. With them, we realize that we are a link in that chain of men and women committed to teaching the faith and making it credible to human reason. And we do this not simply by our teaching, but by the way we live our faith and embody it, just as the Word took flesh and dwelt among us. Young people need authentic teachers: persons open to the fullness of truth in the various branches of knowledge, persons who listen to and experience in own hearts that interdisciplinary dialogue; persons who, above all, are convinced of our human capacity to advance along the path of truth. Youth is a privileged time for seeking and encountering truth. As Plato said: “Seek truth while you are young, for if you do not, it will later escape your grasp” (Parmenides, 135d). This lofty aspiration is the most precious gift which you can give to your students, personally and by example. It is more important than mere technical know-how, or cold and purely functional data.

I urge you, then, never to lose that sense of enthusiasm and concern for truth. Always remember that teaching is not just about communicating content, but about forming young people. You need to understand and love them, to awaken their innate thirst for truth and their yearning for transcendence. Be for them a source of encouragement and strength.

For this to happen, we need to realize in the first place that the path to the fullness of truth calls for complete commitment: it is a path of understanding and love, of reason and faith. We cannot come to know something unless we are moved by love; or, for that matter, love something which does not strike us as reasonable. “Understanding and love are not in separate compartments: love is rich in understanding and understanding is full of love” (Caritas in Veritate, 30). If truth and goodness go together, so too do knowledge and love. This unity leads to consistency in life and thought, that ability to inspire demanded of every good educator.

In the second place, we need to recognize that truth itself will always lie beyond our grasp. We can seek it and draw near to it, but we cannot completely possess it; or put better, truth possesses us and inspires us. In intellectual and educational activity the virtue of humility is also indispensable, since it protects us from the pride which bars the way to truth. We must not draw students to ourselves, but set them on the path toward the truth which we seek together. The Lord will help you in this, for he asks you to be plain and effective like salt, or like the lamp which quietly lights the room (cf. Mt 5:13).

All these things, finally, remind us to keep our gaze fixed on Christ, whose face radiates the Truth which enlightens us. Christ is also the Way which leads to lasting fulfilment; he walks constantly at our side and sustains us with his love. Rooted in him, you will prove good guides to our young people. With this confidence I invoke upon you the protection of the Virgin Mary, Seat of Wisdom. May she help you to cooperate with her Son by living a life which is personally satisfying and which brings forth rich fruits of knowledge and faith for your students. "

Learning from the Riots - a few random insights

2011-08-13T01:40:00.000+01:00

As volunteers help to clear up the mess, many are contemplating the recent riots, and what it tells us about the state of Britain, not to mention human nature. A few insights here, in no particular order.

1. Riots are nothing new. There have been riots in London and other cities in the Middle Ages, 19th century, during the Blitz, and more recently. The extent of these latest riots, the youth of some of the participants, the areas they have happened, the extent of the damage - these are novel.

2. The presence of a 'criminal underclass' in London and other cities is also nothing new. Social conditions change, but this group seems to persist. It probably isn't caused by poor conditions or capitalist oppression - though these things wouldn't help - but by genetics, culture, original sin. Attempts over the years to weed out this underclass - even by transporting it to the colonies - haven't worked. I don't believe that the bad environment makes these people as they are - they make their environment bad.

3. Failure to deal firmly with the first riots led to copycat incidents elsewhere. As soon as it was clear that there would be no firm response, that there were no boundaries, criminals and others took their chance. Availability of electronic media, and television reports, helped to spread the message and sow the seed. It's a message any schoolteacher could have told the police - let some pupils get away with bad behaviour, and it will spread and worsen.

4. Other people - who are not of the criminal classes - have been caught up in the riots and looting. University students, a young musician, a teaching assistant. The reasons for this are obscure - not necessarily understood by the culprits themselves - but may be connected with the psychology of crowds, search for excitement, concupiscence ... They are not the leaders of mayhem, but have been content to be led into temptation.

5. Many of us have been tempted to steal at some point, if we thought we could get away with it. Come on - how many of us have unreturned library books? It doesn't usually involve smashing shop windows and carrying away loads of electronic items, though. Brings to mind the "Ring of Gyges" analogy from Plato - wouldn't we all act immorally if we thought we could get away with it? Hopefully the answer is no, but it is unrealistic to pretend that temptation doesn't affect us all, in one way of the other. One of the purposes of society is to provide a disciplined structure that will encourage us to act morally (or compel us, if necessary).

6. Although I'm in favour of hard sentences for the criminals involved, what of these first-timers who have been caught up in the moment? Letting them off with a warning would send a dangerous message, and would not be proportionate to the damage that many of them have done. But little would be achieved by imprisoning them or dismissing them from useful jobs. Better a sharp but non-custodial sentence, with them being sent straight back to work.

6. Interesting how a number of tightly knit immigrant groups banded together to defend their lives and property - Turks, Sikhs, Moslems. The police don't like it - partly because it shows up their own weakness, but also because they quite rightly don't want vigilantes on the streets. But does this show a truth about society, that the formal system of justice must be underpinned by cohesive groups of neighbours who will stand together and defend their group form attack? An organic, conservative view of society would tend to believe that a group of individuals under the law doesn't constitute a society - cohesive groups under the law do.

7. How dependent we have all become on the state for all sorts of things, and not just defence of our lives and property (which after all is understandable). Discipline of children, morality, crime, social problems - these are all for 'them' to sort out, not for us.

8. Do many of us, at some level, find the idea of being in a riot rather exciting? Levi jeans have withdrawn an advert, even before releasing it, which included riot scenes. Do many of us actually find the idea of being part of a violent protest, or a riot, exciting? That's not to say that we would really want to be part of one (any more than most people would want their other fantasies to be fulfilled, necessarily), but the impulse towards rebellion is deeply engrained in the sons of Adam.

9. Someone wrote that 'a minority will act in accordance with moral principles, but the majority act because they are compelled to do so.' We can quibble about minority/majority and the figures. But it is surely true that a proportion of the population need to be given firm boundaries by the law. The criminals will transgress these anyway, but stern justice may restrain them to some extent. The weak may think twice.

10. But what if the lawmakers themselves are men who only act because they are compelled to, rather than with moral principles?

11. Shocking report that banks still want to collect mortgage payments on houses that have been burnt. Isn't that the definition almost of Usury - lending money, taking the profit, but not shouldering a fair share of the risk?

12. Thank heavens that the population is not generally in possession of firearms. Many would have used them to defend themselves - understandably - but it might have led to massive loss of life.

13. I have an increased respect for cohesive groups of Sikhs, Muslims, and Turks. Though not a fan of mass immigration, if multicultural society is going to work at all then these are the sorts of groups we need. We actually need similar cohesion among the native population, though that won't be easy to achieve.

14. Anti-authority Jamaican subculture, which is endemic among young black males in our cities, is being aped and admired by others, especially white "chavs." Not all cultures are equal, and this one is anti-society, anti-aspirational, anti-educational. But how to tackle it?

15. Hard sentences for the criminal classes will keep them off the streets temporarily, but probably won't cure them. Will anything cure them?? Prevention is better than cure - trying to keep the next generation away from crime.

16. For the youngsters involved - looting, swearing, defying both parents and police - there's a traditional item of punishment that might fit the bill very well. "Spare the rod and spoil the child." Too many have been spoilt already. Most children don't need corporal punishment; some will be defiant even under the lash; but there are those who won't listen to kindly words or gentle reprimands, who would learn from a physical rebuke (let's call them kinaesthetic learners).

17. Many people have turned out with brushes to help clear up, and want to help to build a good society. Far more than the numbers who turned up to riot and loot. Where is the leadership who are going to make good use of this instinct?

18. If David Cameron wants a Big Society, it can start here. Not with the frothy, superficial ideas that he spouted before the election, but for real. The symbol might be a Broom! But once again, I fear that he doesn't have what it takes; I'd love to be proved wrong.

Mathematical ability - is it in the genes?

2011-08-13T00:46:00.000+01:00

Articles in the press have reported a new study that apparently shows that mathematical ability, or lack of it, is innate. A closer reading of the research leads to a more nuanced position.

It is commonly accepted that talent in many areas, including mathematics, is something you are either born with or you are not. Some are born with the capacity to be a Newton or a Gauss, others are dyscalculic, and the rest are somewhere in the middle on a bell-shaped curve. Certainly the geniuses have had to work for their achievements, but they've got natural ability. The rest of us don't have the capacity to get there, no matter how hard we work. And some people just can't develop a number sense, no matter how hard they try.

This common-sense account has been challenged in recent years. And not just in mathematics, but in other areas too - sports, chess, music, etc. The alternative version is that achievement in any area is largely down to hard-work - to be precise, hard-work of the right focussed type. A number of books have been written in recent years developing this theme. One recent book of the genre is "Bounce" by Matthew Syed, which is worth reading.

Books of this genre present a lot of evidence, in particular that to perform at a high level in any discipline requires an enormous amount of focussed practice. Ten thousand hours is quoted as a rule of thumb. Even if we don't aspire to be world class, there is much evidence that all of us have capacities that could be developed to a high level, if we find the right approach and put in the effort. This has important implications for education. In particular, it suggests that dramatic improvements in academic standards might be brought about, with the right approach, and motivation, and sheer hard work. I like that message; it rings true with my experience and knowledge of the educational world.

However, do we entirely believe that there is no such thing as innate ability in any area? As the alternative thinkers have pointed out, there isn't much evidence for the existence of much innate ability in areas like mathematics, music, chess, sport - what you might call complex skills. (These contrast to some extent with simpler skills like running or weight-lifting, where there is a strong physical requirement for excellence, which is highly significant in these areas).

In mathematics, the "blank sheet" theory would read as follows. We are all born with a comparable capacity to learn mathematics. We absorb a certain amount in our early years from the influence of our parents, the richness of our surroundings, and experience. How quickly we learn basic mathematics may depend to an extent on our language - it has been suggested that some Asian languages, by their structure, give children a head-start. But then the amount we progress is dependent upon us and our teachers. The more we work - in a suitable focussed manner - the more we achieve. Good teaching can help to give us the right sort of practice. Cultural expectations can support us in our work - hence the high achievements of some Asian or East European countries. But in principle everyone can reach the same high levels. Problems in maths are due to faulty teaching, or to lack of effort.

But this month, a counter-suggestion has arrived. As the Daily Mail has reported it, "Bad at maths? You were born that way! ... Being good at maths may be entirely pre-destined - you either have it or you don't."

In fact, the news items are based on a paper written by Dr Melissa Libertus and two colleagues, of John Hopkins University in Baltimore, and published in the latest issue of the journal 'Developmental Science.' The university's press release is here: http://releases.jhu.edu/2011/08/08/you-can-count-on-this-math-ability-is-inborn-johns-hopkins-psychologist-finds/

Dr Libertus has been working with pre-school children, and testing the connection between their primitive number sense (Approximate Number System), which is a sense that is shared with non-human animals, at least to some extent, and formal mathematical ability, which is tested by standard arithmetic tests. A correlation has previously been established for adolescents, but it was possible that their ANS had developed as a result of mathematical instruction. By doing work with pre-school children, Dr Libertus has established a correlation at a much earlier age. This seems to show that, even from an early age before formal instruction has begun, achievement in mathematics is correlated with primitive number sense; thus justifying the university headline: "You can count on this - math ability is inborn!"

Being curious to find out more - and indeed a little sceptical of all educational research until I've looked up the details - I found a copy of the original paper. It is fair to say that the university's headline is more interpretation than scientifically established fact, and that the headlines in The Daily Mail are a long way from what has been established. (They may be true, for all that, but that's not the same as having been established).

First, the correlation between ANS and mathematical ability for the children tested seems to me to be weak. The paper quotes an R-squared value of 0.19, and if I remember my statistics correctly, this means that ANS accounts for 19% of the variation in mathematical ability - so it doesn't account for 81%, which is down to other factors. So at most let's say that about a fifth of our mathematical ability may be down to number sense. That is not insignificant, but it does suggest that teaching, hard work, and environmental factors might do a lot.

Secondly, is the ANS really something stable, which is determined by the genes, and "set in stone"? There's no reason to think that it is - parental influence and environment in early years might have as much influence, maybe more. So very little has actually been established about "being born that way."

It should be noted here that when referring to mathematical ability, it is really arithmetical ability that is being referred to. Higher mathematics - algebra, geometry, and so on - clearly depends on a sound arithmetical achievement, but it isn't quite the same. The best minds at mental arithmetic aren't necessarily the best at abstract algebra.

Three points in conclusion.

The paper provides some evidence of some innate ability in mathematics. This accords with most people's intuitions. But it may only play a weak part in most people's achievement in mathematics. It would be interesting to speculate that those with a low innate number sense are those who have exceptional difficulty with mathematics, and those with a high innate number sense are those who become the high fliers. The evidence isn't yet there; I hope that researchers will do more work in this field.

One interesting possibility raised by the paper is that innate number sense might be improved by focussed practice, and that this might help those who have difficulties in mathematics, or boost attainment. If so, that would be a valuable tool in raising standards.

From an educational point of view, it would be more useful to present the message that the level of achievement in mathematics - for most people - is largely down to hard work and good teaching. In fact, the research would equally well - if not more so - justify the headline: "Attainment in maths largely dependent on effort, rather than destiny."

P.S. I found online the test for innate number sense used in this research, where you can do the test for yourself: http://www.panamath.org/testyourself.php

The Fightback has started ... but will it continue?

2011-08-11T23:41:00.001+01:00

David Cameron talks tough. But when the smoke has cleared, will his deeds match his actions? The record of politicians in recent years isn't encouraging.

Prime Minister David Cameron has made a rousing speech in the House of Commons on civil disorder. The words he has used will strike chord with many in this country.

"The fight back has well and truly begun ...
Anyone charged with violent disorder and other serious offences should expect to be remanded in custody ... and anyone convicted should expect to go to jail. ...
There is a major problem in our society with children growing up not knowing the difference between right and wrong.
This is not about poverty, it's about culture. A culture that glorifies violence, shows disrespect to authority, and says everything about rights but nothing about responsibilities.
In too many cases, the parents of these children - if they are still around - don't care where their children are or who they are with, let alone what they are doing.
The potential consequences of neglect and immorality on this scale have been clear for too long, without proper action being taken ...
We need a benefit system that rewards work and that is on the side of families.

We need more discipline in our schools.
We need action to deal with the most disruptive families.
And we need a criminal justice system that scores a clear, heavy line between right and wrong. ...
We will address our broken society and restore a sense of stronger sense of morality and responsibility - in every town, in every street and in every estate."

These words show realism, and a clear understanding of what needs to be done in England. It is worlds away from David Cameron's pre-election posturing - "hug a hoodie" and "loving Britain as it is, not as it was" garbage.

He also has a chance to make his mark as a statesman - if he shows determination to act in accordance with his words, he will have widespread support from the public, especially after recent events. He has never so much appeared as a national leader, as this week.

But ...

My fear is that, with the weekend over, the broken glass swept up, the (mercifully few) bodies buried, the wounds bound up, and the world news turning its focus to some other trouble spot - the forces of Liberalism and Progressivism which are destroying our land will return in force.

Human Rights lawyers, race-relations experts, progressive churchmen, spineless functionaries who have made their careers on subverting decency and order - they will creep back out of their holes and want to conduct business as usual.

Will those who have been arrested and identified as criminals really be sent to jail?
Will schools really be given the powers to discipline children? Even if they are, will they use them?
Will a no tolerance approach to crime and the gangs which are blighting inner city areas really be implemented?
Will a system that rewards immorality, fecklessness and idleness in the name of compassion really be reformed?
Will society show a determination to find proper, rewarding employment for young people?

If David Cameron wants to answer these questions in the affirmative, he will have massive support from ordinary people of all ethnic and racial groups. But he will have against him a political system, which has grown up over decades, which is entirely bent on the opposite.

Other politicians have talked tough, but have done nothing. Will he be any different?

2011 - The End of an Age of Illusion?

2011-08-10T12:51:00.000+01:00

Will the years up to 2011 be called, in retrospect, "The Age of Illusion"? The shake-up in the financial markets, and civil disorder on the streets of London, suggest that Reality might be about to strike. Will we take the opportunity to construct a saner society?

Many of the suppositions on which society has been based in recent years are turning out to be illusions, as Reality bites. Here are my top ten illusions, that we might be well rid of:

1. That any Society can long subsist and thrive without a clear moral code, which is supported and imposed by the leaders in society.
2. That the exercise of authority - by parents, teachers, policemen, judges - can be optional.
3. That either individuals of nations can forever live and raise their standard of living on increasing debt.
4. That a country can live by financial jiggery-pokery, without the necessity of producing or manufacturing anything very much.
5. That success - whether academic, vocational, professional, or otherwise - can be achieved without hard work and discipline.
6. That society can forever maintain a substantial minority of the unemployed and undereducated, living on hand-outs, and that this won't eventually undermine the lifestyle of the rest of us.
7. That transporting large numbers of immigrants, of a very different culture and background, into a society can be done without severe social disruption.
8. That micro-regulation of law-abiding citizens can take the place of clearly enforced ethical standards.
9. That problems - whether social or individual, economic or psychological - can be solved just by understanding why they have arisen, and without decisive action.
10. That sexual freedom is purely a personal matter, and does not have social consequences.

Pictured is the Master of Illusion, Tony Blair. It would be unfair to blame all of society's ills on him, but for me he is iconic of The Age of Illusion.

Riots in England - London's burning.

2011-08-10T01:15:00.001+01:00

There will be a lot of discussion about why riots and looting have broken out in a number of big English cities. Will the politicians and the police identify the root causes?

I've been as surprised as anyone else that riots have broken out just at the moment. Certainly the politicians - who were enjoying no doubt well-earned breaks in impoverished countries like Italy, when they weren't worrying about world financial meltdown - weren't. What has surprised me isn't the fact that riots have happened - we've been there before. But I have been surprised by the extent of them, their locations, the comparative youth of many of the rioters, and the fact that so few of the looters have felt the need to conceal their identities.

There's definitely a racial element to the riots. It's clear from the television footage that many - though not all - of the rioters and looters are from black, Afro-Caribbean backgrounds. This hasn't been emphasized by the newspapers, though today the Daily Telegraph carried an article on an inside page discussing the racial awareness of the police, which makes it clear that even the press are aware of this aspect. But discussion on the internet shows that the racial aspect hasn't gone unnoticed, to put it mildly. The cities where the rioting has taken place are those where there is the highest concentration of people of black racial descent.

These rioters are not, by and large, East Europeans or Irish or Muslims or Sikhs or Indians. There is a particular issue with two groups - black urban youths, and white working class urban youths who in many cases are modelling their culture on their black neighbours (I've heard these called "Wiggers"). It's an issue of subculture rather than race as such, though racial background is a defining element of their gangsta culture.

Many of these youths - who are a small minority, though big enough to cause fear and destruction - are growing up in a culture that is alienated from the majority in society. They regard the police, "the rich", the government, the establishment, as enemies. Their music is anti-society. There is little discipline in many families, and certainly little male authority. Schools by and large struggle in vain to contain the problems they cause. They haven't much of a stake in society, and little to lose by defying the established authority.

What this isn't about, though, is poverty in any accepted sense. The rioters have coordinated their activities using the latest mobile technology, they are well-fed and clothed, and not homeless. The educational and other opportunities that are open to them are unparalleled in the history of the country - and many of their contemporaries take advantage of them. They are not looting essential food, but consumer items like 42" plasma TVs, cigarettes, alcohol, and designer clothes.

This problem is known to politicians. To be fair, the authorities have done much to improve material conditions, provide opportunities for education, training and leisure. The re-establishment of schools in deprived areas as Academies - some of which are very good - has shown an awareness that lack of education is part of the spiral of alienation from society.

But there is a problem of those who do not want, or cannot, be integrated into society. This problem is being contained, but not solved. Nobody actually knows how to solve it. The previous New Labour government tried to impose a framework of teaching Community Cohesion in schools, which was well intentioned, but came to feel like just one more plank of the excessive micromanagement characteristic of that departed regime. The trouble was, it had no effect on the groups who needed it most, because they either weren't there in school in the first place, or they were totally disengaged - Cohesion lessons being only one more government initiative to rebel against.

Politicians are talking about using the full force of the law against the criminals. Quite right - the fact that a softly-softly approach has been taken in recent years, leading many of the rioters to think they can act with impunity - is without doubt a contributory factor. The police and the courts have been infected with a political correctness that gives far too much weight to someone's supposed unfortunate or deprived background when enforcing the law. Wrong! The wages of this approach are now on the streets.

But stern law enforcement, important as it is, won't solve the endemic social problems of groups who are alienated from society. Feckless governments of the past, who have allowed virtually unlimited immigration from all parts of the world, have contributed to this problem. But that's now in the past, and we have to deal with the problem they have bequeathed us.

There is no easy answer to these social problems. What is certain is that, as long as the dominant tone in society is morally liberal, relativistic, hedonistic, reluctant to discipline children and young people, or to uphold firmly the rule of law - things can only get worse.

Add to this the failure of modern Britain to expect enough of young people, and to provide them with productive, structured employment - is it any wonder that some of them are rioting? What is a surprise is that more of them are not.

An enriched curriculum for the academically able

2011-07-29T11:23:00.001+01:00

The government's EBacc is still wedded to the "one size fits all" mentality, and fails to address the needs of the more academically able pupil. Here's the outline of an alternative "EBacc plus".

The government's plans for an EBacc - English Baccalaureate - are well intentioned and one of its aims is to ensure a more rigorous curriculum for many pupils. The idea is that by reporting on the percentage of pupils who have passed GCSE in English, Maths, a language, two sciences, and a humanity, that schools will be more likely to provide this curriculum to more pupils. Although schools are not legally obliged to provide this curriculum, inevitably most will move in this direction - and there are indications that this is happening already.

Now the EBacc proposals have not been without their critics, for many reasons. The position (or rather non-position) of Religious Studies has rightly been questioned. Restricting humanities to History or Geography seems ill-thought out, and unclear in motivation. How realistic is it for the vast majority of pupils to be required to do a language to GCSE level? And what is going to be the effect on minority subjects, including the creative ones, if there is a sharper focus on just the EBacc subjects.

Despite these just criticisms - which could be ironed out with a bit more thought (which preferably would have been done before implementing it) - the introduction of something like the EBacc as a curriculum for the middle 50 to 60% of the ability range is a definite step in the right direction.

However, we're back with our old friend "one-size-fits-all-ism." Pupils vary widely in academic attainment by the time they reach secondary years. We may not like this fact, or we may relish it. Some may wish that all pupils were Jo Average, and that nasty inegalitarian facts like differing aptitudes could be reversed. But ignoring reality doesn't serve the interests of real pupils.

First, considering pupils of lower ability, by which I mean those with standardized scores of about 85 or below - the lower 15 to 20 percent. A proportion of pupils do not have the aptitude to pass the EBacc. A further proportion may pass the EBacc, if they and their teachers grind away at it, but is it really the most appropriate curriculum for them? I'm no expert in this end of the spectrum, and won't pontificate on what might be a better curriculum. But by imposing the EBacc as the single standard for all, this group seems to be judged against a measure which is inappropriate. How are these pupils to realise their own talents, and make a decent place for themselves in the world, if they are doomed to educational failure before they get to first base?

My main concern at the moment is the other end of the spectrum - the more academically able, by which I mean those with standardized scores of about 115 or above - the upper 15 to 20 percent. Few of this group should have any trouble meeting the EBacc requirements. My concern here is that the it represents a poverty of aspiration. The answer to the needs of this group seems to be that they can achieve higher GCSE grades, and maybe do more GCSEs. Failing which, there are piecemeal programmes for the Gifted and Talented, and some acceleration. I don't decry the achievement of a pupil who achieves 10 top grades at GCSE; few can do this without serious work, and all credit to them.

The difficulty is that this curriculum often represents "more of the same" - do more GCSEs, or achieve higher marks in them - but that the curriculum itself is not sufficiently differentiated. There isn't enough depth and challenge in the curriculum, and having these pupils jump through the same hoops as everyone else militates against there being enough. Individual teachers do fine work with top sets, adding some depth and challenge. But the efforts of individuals, and the stopgap of extra sessions for the more able, don't make up for the fact that the curriculum is misconceived. The sacred cow of wanting all pupils to jump through the same hoops - "one size fits all" - is obstructing the proper development of the more able.

If the government were prepared to countenance an "EBacc plus" designed for the more able, what changes would I make? Here goes.

I refer here to the secondary curriculum only, and will deal first with 1st to 3rd year (ages 11-14).

Languages. The curriculum should require at least one "hard" language. By this, I don't mean French or Spanish (not that studying these as well is undesirable). I mean one that has a vocabulary and grammar that will be found difficult by the more able, possibly a different alphabet, and ideally inflected. The traditionalist in me prefers Latin, which has good cultural associations, but actually there are a number that would fit the bill: Russian, Mandarin, ancient Greek, Hebrew, Arabic, ...

English Language. Few of the target group will have problems with basic literacy. But it isn't clear to me that the current system is sufficiently good at giving pupils the skill to write extended pieces of English, which are comprehensible, accurate, and show effective use of language. What should be aimed at is a rich and extensive vocabulary; ability to paraphrase, precis, explain; logical arrangement of material. The ability to prepare and deliver a short speech, on a complex topic, is also desirable.

Literature. No need to restrict it to English, though clearly that will be the main focus. Challenging texts needed. Yes, I do mean Shakespeare and Chaucer, among others! What is to be avoided above all is the poverty of aspiration which is too common, even with able pupils.

Philosophy. There's a new one! Programmes have been used for a number of years now, aimed at introducing pupils to philosophical issues at an early age. Not only are the issues intrinsically interesting, but it is a good training in analytic reasoning. Better, I think than doing a course in Critical Thinking. Though Philosophy would of course include critical thinking, it is more interesting to have complex and important ideas to work with, rather than the rather sterile exercises which sometimes pass for Critical Thinking.

Mathematics. The essentials if mathematics for the more able are use of algebraic and geometric reasoning. That means putting a definite limit on the amount of time spent of 'Data Handling' and teaching algebra properly and rigorously. Also, it is unclear why the English can no longer handle geometrical proof, of the Euclidean variety. Many keen mathematicians have been inspired by the logic of geometrical reasoning. Bring it back forthwith!

Sciences. Once again, too much dumbing down has limited the horizons of budding scientists. A strict limit is needed on 'science in society' and more challenging theories are needed in their place. Increased experimental work is desirable. What is characteristic of the scientific method of working?

Other subjects. Like anyone else, the more able should have a varied diet of other subjects at this stage - History, Geography, creative subjects, physical training, Religious Studies. I would simply suggest for these: be ambitious; don't just teach the obvious (e.g. only 20th century history); require pupils both to use their memories and develop their powers of reasoning.

So for my "EBacc plus" (ages 15-16), to be aimed at during 4th and 5th year secondary.

Ideally pupils would be able to take a menu of subjects, at one of two levels: either GCSE or GCSE plus. These should include the subjects of the EBacc at one level or another. These should also be a requirement to take a qualification in either Philosophy or Critical Thinking (could be Religious Studies, if pitched at the right level); and to complete an independent project. At least five subjects should be passed at GCSE+ level to qualify for the EBacc.

How practical is it to offer this curriculum in a standard comprehensive school, alongside the standard curriculum? I don't know, but if it isn't possible then a case for selective schools would seem to be emerging.

That's enough for now - I could flesh it out. Any government willing to take the bait?

Cardinal Wolsey, and Church Reform

2011-07-23T20:21:00.000+01:00

Some readers - if there are any readers! - may wonder why there is a picture of Cardinal Wolsey at the top of this blog (along with St Thomas Aquinas and Pope Pius XI). One reason is that I attended as an undergraduate the college in Oxford which was founded by him in 1525 - then called Cardinal College, but since its re-establishment by the infamous Henry VIII now called Christ Church. I owe a debt to the college and its benefactors.

Further, although Wolsey was clearly no saint, he was a reformer of the church as well as an excellent statesman. From a relatively lowly background, he became Chancellor of England in civil matters, and a Cardinal and papal legate in the church. A testament to what a keen and bright boy could achieve through the English educational system in those dark and wicked days before compulsory education and the comprehensive school. He might be taken as a patron (not saint, just patron) of the grammar school system - he was in his younger days the Master of a grammar school, and also founded one in Ipswich (which did not survive).

It will be clear that in many ways I am an admirer of Wolsey. Not a saint - not a Thomas More or a John Fisher (rough contemporaries) - but a sinner like us, who did nevertheless much to reform church and state in those years before the Reformation.

As papal legate, Wolsey was empowered to suppress monasteries that were corrupt - or, let's say, not living in accordance with their original fervour - and reallocate their possessions to more deserving causes. It is recorded somewhere that he suppressed 30 foundations, in order to make new ones.

Which brings me to my point. Why can't we have a papal legate, now who will do similar? For all I can see, most religious houses in this land - no names, no pack drill - are hot-beds of Modernism, Liberalism, sodomy, child abuse, slackness, and tepidity. They will, in due course, receive their reward - God will not be mocked. But why do we have to wait?

What I would like to see is another Wolsey, acting with papal authority, who will suppress the whole damn lot of these places, disperse their inmates, allocate their assets to victims of abuse (whether sexual or doctrinal), and call for new, more fervent orders to take their places.

There are plenty of fervent new religious orders - many of them of a traditionalist disposition - thriving on continental Europe or in the USA. Why are they not taking root in England, by and large? That would also be worthy of a legatial enquiry in itself.

Achieving our Full Potential

2011-07-22T23:19:00.001+01:00

Have you achieved your educational potential? Have I? Have any of us?

I ask because I have just heard on the news that pupils at some schools are up to six times as likely to "achieve their potential" as in others. What is this potential, and how is it measured?

It seems common in the aims of a school to say something like "every child will achieve his or her potential." It is strongly recommended that candidates for headships and other senior jobs should emphasize the importance of "every child achieving his utmost potential." If the emphasis here is on "every" - in other words, no child left behind, then that is a worthy aim, if idealistic. But if the emphasis is on achieving potential, I wonder what this means.

Do any of us ever achieve our potential? I take potential to mean "what we are capable of doing or being." Now in this sense, I have no doubt that I have the potential to learn to speak Arabic, say. However, I haven't done it, so in that sense I have not reached my potential. Also, in life we make choices - I may only have time to learn the violin or the trumpet, so I may reach my potential in one but not the other.

Even if reaching potential is taken in the more limited sense of what is possible in the time constraints available, taking into account choices made, I'm still not satisfied with the concept. Do any of us, ever, achieve everything that we could have done? Instinctively, we all know that however hard we have worked, we could always have done just that little bit more. Even the workaholic, at some stage, makes the choice to stop. Most of us - certainly in my case - can identify slack time when we are working. Potential not reached!

In fact, the whole point of human potential is that it is never reached - there are always infinite choices and possibilities, and always room for improvement.

So I declare that no child ever reaches his or her potential. Therefore schools that state as part of their aims that every child will are talking nonsense.

At least, so I thought until last week, when it was explained to me in a meeting an alternative understanding of "reaching potential." Apparently some educationists - I have no means of knowing how widespread this interpretation is - interpret "reaching potential" as "achieving the grades that are predicted according to standardized tests."

The way the system works is that a child takes a standardized test at age 11, or 13, or whenever, and on the basis of this a prediction is made of a grade in public examinations (GCSE or A levels). This is based on average progress nationally. If the child exceeds this, it is positive value-added; if he doesn't make it, that is negative value added. This is a good system, that takes into account pupil progress as well as achievement.

However, is that really what should be meant by achieving potential. If so, of course, then it means that children can not only achieve their potential, but exceed it - in fact, roughly 50% will! So achieving potential would simply mean making average progress over a particular period of time.

Well, that is not what the ordinary person means by potential, and if this interpretation is common, then it is cheating. It may sound better in a prospectus to say "at Bogside Academy all children achieve their potential" than to say "at Bogside Academy all children make at least average progress for their age, social background, etc." But if that is what schools mean, then they should say so. It's not actually a very impressive aim - "bog standard" comes to mind.

While I'm ranting about potential, another thing. Is sometimes declared that top universities should select their students based on their potential, rather than their achievement. This is another nice sounding platitude, which on close inspection means less than it would seem. If it means "make allowances for students from a deprived background" or "for those who have not had access to very good teaching" - fine, say so. The devil is then in deciding how much allowance to make. But if the suggestion is that potential is something that can be assessed by tests or interviews - whether standardized or otherwise - then this is baloney. Simply one measure of achievement is being substituted for another. If it is a better test of likely achievement at university - good! But the idea that somehow a mysterious potential is being measured is garbage.

Character Building and the formation of the will

2011-06-08T20:17:00.000+01:00

Education is not only about cultivating the intellect of a child, but also about training the will and developing habits of virtue. How to train the will and develop these habits is the big question. (There are other aims as well, of course).

Last summer, I received a newsletter from a Priestly Society which has oversight of a number of traditional Catholic schools in the USA, in which it raised the question of how to train the will of a child. Its answer was, "discipline." Now I don't know about you, but when I hear the word discipline, I tend to think of rules and regulations, and a regime of punishment for those who don't comply. I don't know if that is what the writer of the Newsletter had in mind but, if it is, it seems to me a very incomplete approach to a good training of the will and formation in virtuous habits.

There are many good reasons for a tight disciplinary regime in a school. Precisely how tight will depend on a number of factors - the background of the pupils, size of the school, the intended destination of the pupils, the ethos of the foundation, etc. It can be overdone; nowadays, it is more likely to be underdone. Some of the recently established 'Academies' have imposed order on a failing establishment, and raised academic standards, by a focus on tight discipline.

Have they made their pupils more virtuous? Well, they've made it more likely. There is certainly the opportunity to develop self-discipline through internalizing the regime of the school, and I would argue that many young people lack that self-discipline, to their own detriment. A sense of order, working with others, following instructions, industriousness, respect - the opportunites are there. If pupils are, in addition, given opportunities to develop leadership as they get older, there is much to be said for the system.

But there is nothing automatic about it. A pupil can leave such an establishment full of resentment and rebellion, as much as with a sense of achievement and self-worth. Also, the picture I have painted is of a somewhat joyless and loveless establishment. Discipline does not exclude joy and love, but we know from the history of education over the last two centuries that schools can be run on excessively "Jansenistic" lines - all discipline, harshness, and a depersonalizing regime. There is nothing especially Christian about such a place - the care for the individual is missing, as well as a sense of joy and gratitude to God for the graces we have received. There may be academic efficiency, and a sense of order, but what about the development of virtue?

A book I picked up recently, called 'Character Building' by David Isaacs, provides a missing ingredient. Mr Isaacs focusses in his book on the development of the natural virtues in young people, particularly by parents but also by schools. His book provides a systematic approach to developing the various natural virtues. It doesn't eschew discipline by any means, but by discussing the full range of natural virtues, showing concern for the individual, having an awareness of the needs of young people at various ages, and advocating a range of approaches to developing virtue, it is superior to a 'rules and regulations' driven attitude to discipline.

I suspect that David Isaacs is from an Opus Dei background. The book is published by Four Courts, and is a translation of a Spanish original published in Navarre. I know that Opus Dei, in schools they direct, lays an emphasis on development of virtue, and individual pastoral care is an important part of their approach.

The natural virtues, for Mr Isaacs, include the cardinal virtues which we would expect - prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance - in a Thomistic approach. They also include subsidiary virtues such as generosity, modesty, optimism, patriotism - and the place of each one in the overall programme is explained in depth. Each chapter concentrates on one virtue, and explains what the virtue is, and how it fits into a Christian vision of life, with an discussion about how the teacher can develop the virtue in himself and in others. There is a clear principle that virtues must be modelled by the teachers; but unlike many schools which content themselves with claiming the force of example, and stop there, Mr Isaacs advocates an approach which also teaches the meaning of the virtues, and concentrates on developing them. They are developed partly when opportunity arises - what better time to develop patience than when there is provocation to impatience - but also more systematically; for example, through 'virtue of the month'.

Mr Isaacs explains why different age ranges need in particular different virtues. Children up to age 7 need Obedience, Sincerity, and Order. The over 16s need Prudence, Flexibility, Understanding, Loyalty, Audacity, Humility and Optimism. As children grow older, their need to understand what the virtues are, and why they should be practised, grows, and this is taken into account.

This is all, of course, a form of Discipline - a "structure for learning." It may well be what some schools mean, when they advocate strong discipline, but I think that few schools have as clear an idea as Mr Isaacs about what he wants and how to achieve it. We wouldn't say we wanted intellectual development, without specifying a curriculum; but often we seem to want our pupils to become good, and virtuous, without being clear about the curriculum for that type of development. With Mr Isaac's book in hand, we now have no excuse.

Reading Pagans

2011-06-07T12:05:00.000+01:00

The following reflection is taken verbatim from the weekly newsletter written by Bishop Richard Williamson of the SSPX. It should be read by all those educating the young.

It should go without saying that His Excellency's views are his own, and enthusiasm for one aspect of his thought doesn't necessarily imply approval for all aspects.

Catholic Schoolmaster

ELEISON COMMENTS CCIII (June 4, 2010): READING PAGANS
by Bishop Richard Williamson

Some Catholic eyebrows may have been raised a while ago when "Eleison Comments" (EC 188) recommended the reading of the pagan Greeks to get a handle on the universe's moral framework. Why not rather read Catholic authors? But the same great realities of life, suffering and death were faced by the Greek tragedians as are faced by the Catholic Doctors:- why, as it seems, are we born on this earth, only to suffer and die, and by death be separated from everything we have learned to love? The question is basic, and can be agonizing.

The Catholic answer is clear and complete: an infinitely good God gives to each of us life, free-will and time enough, if we make the right use of the suffering exactly dosed by his Providence (Mt.X, 29-31), for us to choose to spend our eternity rather with him in Heaven than without him in Hell. The Greek answer is incomplete, but not wholly wide of the mark. Instead of God the Father, they have a Father-god, Zeus, and instead of Providence they have Fate (Moira).

Now whereas for Catholics Providence is inseparable from God, the Greeks separate Zeus from Fate so that they sometimes clash. That follows from the Greeks having a too human concept of their gods. Nevertheless they do conceive of Zeus as more or less benignly directing the universe and of Fate as being unchangeable, as is Providence within the true God (Summa Ia, 23, 8; 116,3), so that they are not wholly wrong. Moreover they have more respect for their mythical gods, and for the moral order guarded by them, than do a host of modern writers, who have no respect for any god at all, and who set out to negate any trace of a moral order.

But the Greeks have one advantage even over Catholic writers. When they present great truths, these are drawn from raw life and not just - so to speak - out of the Catechism. The same holds true for any non-Catholic witness to truths taught by the Church. Just as today's Talmudic Jews, precisely because they reject Jesus Christ, render a special witness to him by guarding jealously in their synagogues the Hebrew text of that Old Testament which speaks of Our Lord from beginning to end, so the ancient Greeks give special witness to God and his Providence when, independently of the Catechism, they demonstrate the world's moral order in action. In this way they prove that such natural truths are accessible not only to believers, rather they belong to the very fabric of life as lived by everyone, if only it is sanely understood.

Another advantage of the ancient classics in particular is that having preceded Christ, there cannot be in them a trace of that apostasy which mars, more or less, even pious writers coming out of Christendom after the Middle Ages. Natural truths are presented by the ancients with a certain innocence and freshness which can no longer be recovered. The waters are too muddied.

In fact it was the Church's monasteries which ensured the survival of the manuscripts of the ancient classics in medieval times. Count on the true Catholic Church to save them once more in modern times from the new barbarians, liberals! Wherever the so-called "scholarship" of the liberals prevails today, it turns all classics to dust.

Kyrie eleison.

The Bells proclaim the Lord's Ascension

2011-06-03T00:17:00.000+01:00

Earlier today I was in one of our ancient cathedral cities - Lichfield in Staffordshire. From about 11am, the city was filled with the sound of church bells ringing. I am led to believe that this is a traditional way, in the city of proclaiming Ascension Day. The traditional time of Our Lord's Ascension is midday. (The picture here is of the inside of Lichfield Cathedral.)

I am told by those who are better versed than I am in these things, that the Catholic Bishops of England and Wales have decided, in their excellent wisdom, to transfer the celebration of Ascension Day from today to the next Sunday. This is for "pastoral reasons" - I suppose people were finding it difficult to get to church on Thursday, and their Lordships didn't want their flocks to be deprived.

Now, there's no harm in having a celebration of the Ascension on a Sunday. In fact, there has for centuries been the Sunday within the Octave, which essentially has repeated the celebration. In the past, many feasts were celebrated on Sundays, to the extent that the cycle of Sundays after Pentecost became disrupted; this was one of the things that the pre-V2 Liturgical Movement disapproved, and tried to change. Also, what days are holy days of obligation is a matter for the bishops.

However, there is a danger when people speak loosely, and say that "Ascension Day has been transferred to the Sunday." In fact, that is something that the bishops do not have power to do. Our Lord Himself determined to ascend to heaven 40 days after his Resurrection - not 41, or 42, or 43. Ascension Day is fixed for the rest of time to 40 days after Easter; like it or not. Their Lordships can ignore it, but it hasn't gone away.

I actually don't think this is harmless, either. The Ascension of Our Lord, like His Resurrection, was an actual, physical, historical event. It took place on a certain day, at a certain time, and in a certain place. There are plenty of Modernistically inclined theologians or pastors or faithful, who will either declare or insinuate that it is some sort of myth; a symbol of something important rather than a physical event; a primitive way of trying to communicate an important truth. Or they will say that it may well have happened physically, but that isn't the most important aspect of the event, which is mainly spiritual.

By not celebrating the Lord's Ascension on it proper day, 40 days after the Resurrection, Modernism is insidiously inserted into the practice of the faithful. The fact that we are dealing with a true event becomes obscure. The details of Our Lord's life become of little importance; less important than our own "pastoral reasons."

I understand that next year the Bishops may decide to restore the celebration to its correct day. Good! But it should never have been moved in the first place.

Today, the bells of Lichfield proclaimed the Ascension. Catholic Traditionalists joined the angels and saints in proclaiming that Our Lord has gone up with shouts of joy. The followers of the Novus Ordo were silent. Next year, may they too proclaim with us the risen Lord.

Why Beauty Matters

2011-06-02T22:52:00.000+01:00

"Have nothing in your houses that you do not know to be useful or believe to be beautiful.” William Morris

I discovered this quotation by the Victorian artist and designer William Morris, in the latest edition of 'The National Trust Magazine' (summer 2011). There was also a short article by philosopher AC Grayling – who I would not normally recommend! – called “Why Beauty Matters.”

“The idea of beauty is a rich and fascinating one, a main reason being that there are different kinds of beauty relating to different aspects of human experience … natural and artistic beauty, the beauty of things we desire, the beauty of things we contemplate, the things we find meaningful or moving.”

“Arguably, our need for beauty is almost as great as our need for companionship. Like the latter need, it is one that we sometimes fail to recognize … beauty is so important to human life that it is well worth the time and resources we devote to making and enjoying it, as all history attests. It would be a pity if we ever allowed functionality and profit to hide it from view.” Grayling, op. cit.

In his Summa Theologiae St. Thomas gives three distinguishing characteristics of beauty: wholeness or integrity; proportion or harmony; and claritas which can be translated splendour, radiance, light, brilliance. (ST, 1a, 39: 8).

Our destiny as human beings is contemplation of almighty God; in His truth, goodness, and beauty. Natural contemplation of the beauty of created things is a foretaste of contemplating beauty itself, which is the divine essence.

Since education is, or should be a preparation for life – life in this world and in the next – it should include:

1. Forming the intellect to make it apt to the knowledge of truth;
2. Forming the will to make it apt to desire the good;
3. Forming both intellect and will to recognize and appreciate beauty;
4. Forming the body to be subject to the rightly formed intellect and will, and to support a healthy and fully human life.

What part does beauty play in modern education? Not much, unless I am very much mistaken. The sheer ugliness of so many school buildings and furnishings militates against beauty, and dehumanizes the pupils.

Modern education is very much in hock to subjectivists philosophies, which would deny the objectivity of beauty. “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder” is taken from being the partial truth it is and made into a universal principle. Hence, educators won’t talk so much about beauty as about the creative arts. The point is not for little Johnny to recognize beauty, and learn skills that will enable him to produce beautiful things; it is about Johnny expressing himself creatively.

Many Art departments in schools will witness what is meant by creativity. There is much evidence of creation – in many weird and wonderful forms – showing a great deal of imagination. But even Johnny’s greatest fans are going to be hard put to describe it as beautiful. Just as well there is no objective beauty!

One important contrast between private schools and state schools is often the beauty of the site and premises. Many private schools have extensive, well cared-for sites – green fields, trees, flowers, water features. There are often buildings which testify that someone, at some point, cared about aesthetics – neo-Gothic chapels, stained glass, works of art. There is a dignity, stateliness, permanence about the place. (I generalize of course; some private schools are nothing like this. But many are).

By contrast, many state schools seem to have been designed to be as ugly as possible. Box-shaped concrete monstrosities dominate, in keeping with the high-rise slums that occasionally still blight our cities. Functionality, ugliness – a denial of beauty and the human spirit. Even the more recent academies, which have been built to space-age specifications, with stainless steel and French curves – ingenious, maybe, but hardly beautiful. As for the sense of permanence and tradition – forget it! These places are built to have a limited life.

Money is a factor, for sure. State schools can’t be expected to match the beauty and stateliness of a public school that has centuries of endowment and patronage behind it. But I’m convinced that this isn’t the main factor: a hatred of beauty is deep rooted. Why? Probably through some misguided sense that beauty is elitist, authoritarian, challenging, discriminatory.

Perhaps they’re right. Beauty has a power of its own, and the mind which comes to appreciate beauty is going to come to despise the shallowness of much of modern life, with its political correctness, and self-centred subjectivist nostrums. Contemplation of created beauty might even provoke a thirst for the uncreated source of all beauty Himself.

"Warriors both of course"

2011-06-01T01:32:00.000+01:00

The newspapers have been busy making fun of the Warwickshire primary school that disciplined two seven year old boys for playing soldiers, making pistol shapes with their fingers. These gestures were condemned by teachers as "unacceptable" and "threatening."

The teachers probably mean well. They are no doubt shocked by the aggression in society, and want their pupils to behave well. It's likely that they are trying to set high standards.

But for all that they are wrong. Dreadfully wrong. So wrong that they need to be sent to a Traditionalist re-education unit before being allowed back into a classroom. (I think I'm joking; am I??)

One thing that modern progressive educationalists hate, almost with aggression (if that were permitted), is that gender differences will not go away. Despite decades of pretending that there is no innate difference between the sexes, on the whole little boys still want to play with swords or guns, and little girls with dolls. (There are exceptions, and these tend to grow up as healthy normal adults too - that's one of the mysteries of life!). What is worse, in recent years evidence from neuroscience is that little boys and little girls tend to use their brains differently from a very early age, particularly in the way they process emotions. Even little boys seem to be from Mars and little girls from Venus, it seems!

Now the radical anti-gender fanatic might still argue that boys and girls should be educated and treated exactly the same, and any gender differences snuffed out from the very start. But it's far clearer now that they are fighting against human nature. The Roman poet Horace once said something to the effect of, "you can drive human nature out with a pitchfork, but it will slip in again through the back gate." (Naturam expellas furca, tamen usque recurret). Hence the Warwickshire two, and their pretend guns.

I wonder if the boys were playing cops and robbers, or were fighting the Taleban? When I was that age, in the 1970s, it was still the Germans who were the enemy at primary school. Being a bit of a loner, I played wargames at home, where I made myself a wooden sword and a painted shield, and dreamed of being a knight of the Round Table.

Go back in time, the enemy would have been the French, the Spanish, the Normans; instead of guns it would have been swords or spears. Did little boys in the twelfth century dream of being Crusaders, and freeing the Holy Land from the Saracens? Had King David, before he went out to fight Goliath of Gath, played wargames with his brothers? I wasn't there, but I'll bet they did.

As I get older, I dislike war more and more. When I see Englishmen fighting and being killed in distant countries, for heaven knows what cause, at the behest of corrupt politicians and international financiers, I shudder. But that is a distaste grown of maturity, of reflection on war and its terrors.

"They shall not return to us, the resolute, the young,
The eager and whole-hearted whom we gave:
But the men who left them thriftily to die in their own dung,
Shall they come with years and honour to the grave?"

If I thought that the Warwickshire teachers' attitude was based on a principled opposition to all war, I would be more forgiving. But they would still be wrong.

Some man are called to pacifism. Most are not. The God who made them "male and female" implanted in our natures a willingness to fight and defend a just cause. To be assertive, even physically, is part of being a male adult. Original sin has damaged our natures; assertion tends to become aggression, and fighting is often in an unjust cause. That does not take away the fact that God has implanted these instincts in us, and expects us to use them with discretion and valour. In a world which is so full of evil, the Christian needs to be on his guard even more and prepared to defend the right, whether by word or deed.

Boys, as part of their education, need a channel for their natural instinct for physical self-assertion. Outdoor activities, hard sports (for example, rugby), cadets - different boys have different needs, but most will become frustrated if their natural instincts are denied an outlet.

Proper outlets have proper standards, and adult guidance. Sports have their rules, and their referees, and their codes of conduct; and where these are ignored, everyone suffers. Cadet forces have their discipline, and uniform, and rank structure. Through these masculine activities, in a disciplined structure, the young man can develop him male nature in an honourable way. (Some would call this chivalry).

Little boys naturally see the glamour of warfare and weapons, and want to play soldiers (or cops and robbers, etc.) He will naturally grow beyond this, if his instincts are channelled into more appropriate, more adults, directions as he gets older. There is more danger of creating a fixation with guns and violence, by failing to channel these instincts properly, than by allowing them to run their course.

Denying to boys a proper channel for their masculine instincts won't result in society becoming less aggressive and dangerous. It will have the opposite effect. Nature will come back again. Young men growing up, without a proper channel for their natural aggression and masculinity, will not suddenly become peace-loving and gentle. It is far more likely that their aggression, not having been channelled and controlled through legitimate pursuits, will be out of control and dangerous to other members of society. The well-meaning infant teachers of Warwickshire will create precisely the monster they want to avoid.

That children should be taught about the evils of warfare, and the harm that can be caused by guns, is entirely right. A teacherly word to the effect that, "You boys do know that real guns are dangerous and kill people" would not be out of place. But that they should be taught pacifism, or to think meanly of the martial virtues, is quite wrong. Treating young boys playing soldiers as though they were malefactors shows a poor understanding of the nature of the young, and of the purpose of education. And failing to deal properly with these instincts as the boy becomes a young man creates a less responsible and more dangerous society for all of us.

If the tiara fits, wear it!

2011-05-28T11:39:00.000+01:00

Pope Benedict XVI has been presented with an new tiara by a Bulgarian group, comprising of both Catholics and Orthodox. Many of us are hoping that he will wear it - surely it would be rude not to? - and some websites have done mock ups of what he would look like in a tiara. (Here's one: http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/09/something-i-missed-in-westminster/ from Father Zee). If the day came when the traditional papal mass was celebrated once again, it would be an essential bit of "kit."

Schoolmasters spend a certain amount of time reading the expressions of their pupils. We don't always get it right, but we develop an instinct. The expressions on the faces of the principal characters in this photo remind me of some bright but mischievous fourth formers, planning a prank. Those presenting the tiara are saying, "Go on, I dare you." That on the face of His Holiness is saying, "I'd rather like to; can I get away with it?"

It's interesting that this tiara was presented by a mixed Catholic and Orthodox group. This seems to be a very strong message from the Orthodox involved. "We may well be ready to accept your primacy, and heal the Great schism. But you've got to behave like a pope. That means defending the faith. And it means preserving and respecting your own Western traditions because, if you can't defend your own, we can't trust you with ours."

What Christendom needs above all isn't a chief moderator of the various denominations and religions, nor a speculative theologian, nor a globe-trotting superstar, nor an ineffectual weakling who is prostrate before the modern world. It needs a Supreme Pontiff - someone who knows what he is for; who will clearly and decisively defend the traditional faith and disciplines of the church, strengthening and confirming his brethren. Wearing the tiara on state occasions, and acting in accordance with the authority it symbolizes, would give notice to the world - whether it likes it or not - that the pope is "the father of princes and kings, guide of the world, and vicar on earth of Christ Jesus our Saviour."

In Memoriam Sacerdotis Magni: 20 years on

2011-03-27T05:56:00.000+01:00

The Feast of the Annunciation this year is the 20th Anniversary of the death of the famous Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, founder of the SSPX.

Archbishop Lefebvre is a controversial figure. Did he go too far, or not far enough? Saint or schismatic? Defender of the Faith, or rebel? Justified in his actions, or not?

Those of us who are Traditionalists, of whatever flavour, owe him a great debt. Without his stand, and the actions he took - humanly speaking, we would not be where we are today.

Of your charity, spare a prayer for the soul of a mighty combatant, who gave hope to many of us when it appeared to be coming from precious few other places on earth.

O God, who didst raise Thy servant Marcel to the dignity of bishop in the apostolic priesthood; grant, we beseech Thee, that he may be joined in fellowship with Thine apostles for evermore. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.

Hyperinjunctions, and Secret Prisoners, here in the UK today

2011-03-19T17:10:00.000Z

The Magna Carta, one of the fundamental charters of law in England declares that:
"No Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right."

On Thursday 17th March, a number of MPs, led by John Hemming, Liberal Democrat MP for Birmingham Yardley, used parliamentary privilege to blow the cover on some grave abuses of liberty, which are taking place here and now, in England.

The debate highlighted how the law was being abused in order to "deny or defer justice or right" by secret imprisonment, with right of appeal denied; by removal of mental capacity, without right of review or appeal; by the frequent use of super-injunctions, which may not be reported in the press; and apparently by hyper-injunctions, where a person is even forbidden to talk to his MP. These injunctions are available to the super-rich, to cover their misdeeds; the rest suffer.

All of these things are done by no doubt well meaning officials. But they are directly in contempt of the foundational laws of England, and in contempt of parliament. They are techniques which would have been common in Stalin's Russia, and other dictatorships. Are they rare? Please God, they are, but how would we know?

The job of an MP, above all, is to defend the rights and liberties of the people of England. Thank heavens that some MPs have other priorities than false expense claims, or rubber-stamping the latest garbage from the EU.

Further, where is the Tory party? The party that is supposed to be the defender of freedom, of middle England, of traditional moral values, of free enterprise (rather than the dictatorship either of the state or of the super-rich)? What are the knights of the shires doing, as those liberties which were hard won by their ancestors are trampled underfoot?

A report of the debate is here:
http://www.annaraccoon.com/politics/hyper-injunctions-the-secret-misery/

The full transcript of the parliamentary debate is here:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110317/halltext/110317h0001.htm

Who needs a "Catholic Education Service"?

2011-02-13T20:58:00.000Z

The "Catholic Education Service of England and Wales" (CESEW) is the agency of the Catholic Bishops that oversees Catholic schools and colleges. It is currently headed by Dr Oona Stannard, an ex-HMI and by all accounts an impressive lady, and according to its website - http://www.cesew.org.uk/- its responsibilities include negotiating with the government and other bodies on legal, administrative, and RE matters, to "promote Catholic interests in education; safeguard Catholic interests in education; [and] contribute to Christian perspectives within educational debate at national level."

The CESEW is the successor of the Catholic Poor School Committee which was established in 1847. Its initial focus at that time was the provision of elementary Catholic education at a parochial level - which was rightly regarded by the hierarchy as a pressing need. Famously, Cardinal Manning resisted building a new cathedral for his diocese, on the grounds that it was more important to educate the Catholic poor.

Gradually the remit of this agency was extended, including in 1905 to secondary education. Also its name was changed to the Catholic Education Council.

Catholic secondary education up to that time had been the responsibility primarily of religious orders, or independent trusts of priests or laity. There was little uniformity across the dioceses, and structures varied. As the 20th century wore on, and an increasing amount of government money became available - especially after the 1944 Education Act - the dioceses became increasingly active in secondary education, setting up more schools under the direct control of the dioceses.

Every diocese has its own Education Commission, which oversees the schools in the trusteeship of the diocese, on its behalf. The Catholic Education Service, as it was renamed in 1991, provides advice to dioceses, and coordination at a national level.

There is no doubt that, as long as the church has schools, there will be need for Diocesan Commissions to manage this task. A central agency, like the CESEW, is no doubt also highly desirable.

I take issue, though, with the name - Catholic Education Service - and the attitude that goes with it.

"Service" is no doubt a good thing - we are all called to be servants of God and our fellow men. But to call an agency a "service" brings to mind images of nationalized industries, health services, social services, possibly even the armed services. Highly centralized, offical-ridden, and unresponsive to local needs. Unfortunately, there seems to be too much of that model in the Catholic education world.

Instead of there being Catholic schools - which share loyalty to the faith and a common vision of education, but having variety of structures, individual characteristics, and arrangements for management - the CESEW and the various Diocesan Schools Commissions seem intent on uniformity of provision. Let not an individual school seek to be different!

The wrath that is being currently vented on the Cardinal Vaughan School is a case in point. The case is complex, and it appears subject to legal review. It's a scandal to the world that well-intentioned members of the Body of Christ are apparently needing to rend one another publicly in this way (though that may be a lesser evil than passively accepting the destruction of the school). What strikes me above all is the determination of the diocese not to allow a school to deviate from the authoritarian line that the Schools' Commission has decided. Never mind that the deviance in question is educational excellence - recognized by secular society as much as by Catholics. If it is being achieved in any other way than by the means and methods laid down by the officials, then it is not to be tolerated.

Looking at the history of this school, which was set up as an independent trust with private money, and was only later put into the trusteeship of the diocese, reinforces the point. These schools have not all been provided by the hard-earned cash of bishops or their officials, but by Catholic lay people, doing their proper task of promoting the Social Kingship of Christ through education. In the past - the supposedly bad-old days of clericalism - there was greater diversity of Catholic schooling, than in the brave new world of supposed lay empowerment. Furthermore, I understood "trusteeship" to mean that something was entrusted, for a particular charitable purpose, rather than absolute ownership being transferred for the recipient to dispose of in accordance with his own whim or fancy.

"Academies" may provide a way ahead for Catholic schools. They no doubt have benefits and disadvantages, which need weighing carefully. But if they succeed in breaking down the pernicious model of a monolithic "Education Service" which "provides" schools according to a rigid model; and replacing it with a world where schools have to reflect on their ethos and be responsive to the needs of their pupils, and the wishes of their parents and community; then the overall effect will be advantageous to the Catholic communion in this country.

See also: "More Catholic than the Church? The decline of Catholic schools"

A Little (very) Late Latin

2010-12-01T12:22:00.000Z

One of the interests of this webmaster is Latin, including Late Latin, informal Latin, and humorous Latin. I've recently come across two websites that have taken my fancy: one of Latin Christmas Carols, and the other of Latin hymns. Both of these sites actually purvey, not original Latin compositions, but translations of well known English songs into the Latin tongue, usually retaining the original English tune.

1. Gaudium Mundo - Joy to the World. Latin Christmas Carols

http://gaudium-mundo.blogspot.com/

Mainly translations of well-knowl English carols into Latin. Here's a sample.

Silent Night - Silens nox, sancta nox.
(Translated by Stanford Miller.)

Silens nox, sancta nox,
placida, lucida,
virginem et puerum
dulcem atque tenerum,
somno opprime,
somno opprime.

Silens nox, sancta nox!
Angeli nitidi
"Alleluia" concinunt.
Nunc pastores metuunt.
Christus natus est,
Christus natus est.

Silens nox, sancta nox,
candida, splendida!
Fili Dei facies
nobis praebet novas spes.
Christus natus est,
Christus natus est!

2. Latinized Hymns.

http://www.latinisedhymns.org.uk/

Mark Mortimer has taken more than 300 English hymns, including many old favourites and some less well know, and produced Latin versions of them in the same metres.

For example, here's one by Newman (Blessed John Henry):

Duc, alma lux, dum noctem transeo;
tu dirige.
Caligo fit proculque sum domo;
tu dirige.
Serva pedes; spectare longius
quare velim? Sat unus est gradus.

Non semper is qui dicerem tibi
"Tu dirige",
meum tenere cursum malui;
nunc dirige.
Quid si superbe tunc vagatus sum?
Actorum ne memento temporum.

Manus beans tua usque ad terminum
me diriget
trans tesqua sicca, trans aquosa, dum
nox fugiet
et cum die ridebunt angeli,
cari prius, parumper perditi.

If you try to sing this, you'll find that some lines need a bit of elision where there are two vowels together. For example, "Manus beans tua usque ad terminum" would need to be sung as "Manus beans tu' usqu' ad terminum."

A Benedictine Oblate

2010-11-05T19:16:00.000Z

PAX

In the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Amen.

I, David Forster of Oxfordshire, offer myself to Almighty God, to the Blessed Virgin Mary, and to our holy Father St Benedict, for the monastery of Prinknash, and I promise before all the saints to remodel my life in conformity with the spirit of the Rule of our holy Father St Benedict, and the customs of the Oblates.

5th November 2010 (Feast of the Holy Relics)

Since approximately 3.30pm this afternoon, the author of this Blog has been an oblate of the Benedictine monastery of Prinknash in Gloucestershire.

An oblate - external oblate to be precise - of a Benedictine monastery is somebody who, while retaining their lay state and life outside the monastery, becomes affiliated to it. The commitment is to live in accordance with the spirit of the Rule of St Benedict, in so far as that applies to ones state in life.

Making ones final oblation follows at least a year of being a novice oblate, during which time the novice reflects on the rule, prays, discerns, and is either free to depart or to make a final oblation.

Discernment has not been easy for me. The right order? The right monastery? The right time? - All of these questions encircled my mind. On my last visit to the monastery, earlier in the summer, I remember thinking that "there's nothing for me here." This afternoon, as I knelt in the chapel after making my commitment, in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament exposed, I knew what I was there for - Jesus Christ Himself. The life of a monk - in which an oblate aspires to share to a degree - is a life of prayer, of companionship with Jesus, in all the work, joys and trials of life. Deus, Deus meus, ad te de luce vigilo, sitivit in te anima mea, quam multipliciter tibi caro mea. I may not reach union with Our Lord on this earth; I may not even get close; but I want to carry on travelling, and the Benedictines of all the ages are congenial guides and fellows on this journey.

Almost to the last moment there were doubts. Was I acting too hastily, for insufficient reasons, was I properly prepared? Events this week haven't been propitious - awkward, mistrustful colleagues at work, have disturbed my equilibrium more than once. Was I in the right frame of mind for such a commitment. Driving to Prinknash - nearly two hours each way on a busy Friday afternoon - the weather was foul. Heavy rain, and mist on the hills, which mirrored my mental state.

Before going inside to make my oblation, I opened at random for inspiration a book of letters of spiritual direction by Blessed Columba Marmion (the book is called "Union with God"). It opened to a section entitled "In Christo Jesu" and this is what I read:

"I cannot tell you how happy I am in seeing the graces which the Father is giving you through His Son, for in spirt of your misery He is leading you in His Spirit by the best of all ways, by Jesus, to the Father, in joyful and humble dependence on Him ... Let us remain closely united in sinu Patris through Jesus Christ."

My doubts and fears dissolved, and I went inside.

Suscipe me, Domine, secundum eloquium tuum , et vivam;et non confundas me ab expectatione mea.Receive me, O Lord, according to thy word, and I shall live: and let me not be confounded in my hope.

The Chapel at Prinknash Abbey.

More Catholic than the Church? - the decline of Catholic Schools

2010-10-18T11:54:00.000+01:00

Paul Barber, director of education in the Archdiocese of Westminster, has written an article with title "More Catholic than the Church" in the current issue of the Tablet (16th October 2010). In this article, he explains why his diocese is waging a battle against schools that select their annual intake on the basis of how active parents are in their parishes. Two schools are mentioned: The Cardinal Vaughan Memorial School in Kensington, and Coloma Convent in Croydon (which is actually in the neighbouring diocese of Southwark), which were referred to the government's Schools Adjudicator by the dioceses last year for alleged breaches of the schools Admissions Code.

The point of issue is this. These schools are highly successful and oversubscribed, with a notable Catholic ethos. To deal with this excess of applicants over places, they seek to select their pupils, not on the basis of academic ability or social background, but on the basis of commitment to the church. To do this, they have implemented a number of tests, including involvement in parish life, regularity in receiving the sacraments, etc. The dioceses have objected to this arrangement, believing that Catholic schools are for all the baptized, and in case of too many Catholic applicants, then those who live closest to the school should be admitted. Tests of Catholicity that go beyond baptism, and possibly occasional attendance at church, are disapproved, and those who seek to apply them are described as being "more Catholic than the Church" (by which is meant the local diocese).

The ideal situation envisaged by Mr Barber is that Catholic schools, when oversubscribed, will apply a minimum test of Catholicity - being baptized as a Catholic. They will then choose among Catholic applicants by proximity to the school. Then the lax and the devout will be shared out fairly among the family of schools. Instead of the children of fervent and active Catholics being over-represented in certain schools, they will be spread around, and will act as leaven in the other schools. In this way, the overall quality of schools will be raised, rather than the quality being unfairly clustered in just a few places.

Mr Barber also claims that this policy has a long lineage, citing the example of Cardinal Manning and his successors, who prioritized the provision of schools for the large masses of the Catholic faithful, especially for the poor. "Super-Catholic" schools are betraying this inheritance. Furthermore, by trying to deviate from this diocesan line, they are displaying "congregationalism" rather than being true Catholics - an allegation that will make every true-blooded Catholic shudder, no doubt. These dissident schools should stop trying to be "more Catholic than the Church" and come into line with the wishes of their bishops.

It cannot be said that Mr Barber doesn't practise what he preaches. According to the Daily Telegraph, in a news item of 15th September, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/8002896/Top-Roman-Catholic-school-split-by-legal-battle.html, the Diocese of Westminster education service has used the position of the diocese as trustee of the school to impose four new foundation governors on the school - including Mr Barber himself - in an attempt to bring one school into line. The news item reports that a group of parents have challenged this appointment in the Administrative Court. The result of this appeal is not as yet known.

Leaving aside specific schools, what is wrong with Mr Barber's argument?

1. Distortion of History. His representation of the history of Catholic education in this country as being a neat, top-down approach, co-ordinated by the bishops, is only partially correct. At elementary school level, there is truth in it. But in fact many Catholic secondary schools - certainly before the 1944 Education Act opened the governmental tap of finance - were inspired and administered by religious orders, rather than by the dioceses. Some were organized by groups of the laity. These schools had varying ethoses, and in large cities, parents often chose between them. These were welcomed by the hierarchy in the past, not regarded as a threat.

2. Uniformity versus Unity. He suggests that all Catholic schools should conform to his model of Catholic education, and have the same ethos. But why? Schools run by religious orders used to have distinctive ethoses, and models of education. The faith is an essential; unity in one church is essential. But exactly the same model of organization, curriculum, admissions policy, style of leadership? This is uniformity, rather than unity. It owes more to state socialism than to the much vaunted "family" of schools. Whatever Mr Barber pretends, it's never been the Catholic way. Furthermore, if he wants an example of "super-Catholic" schools he need look no further than the minor seminaries of yesteryear - that's precisely what they were, and were intended to be.

3. Dispersing Social and Cultural Capital. The idea that, by dispersing the pupils who at the moment are in the "best" schools among the others, that you will somehow end up with greater equity and better standards for all, is so threadbare that I'm surprised it is still being circulated. A particular school builds up standards and traditions over a long period, through the hard work of committed staff and pupils. Reorganizing that school does not result in this human capital being spread more fairly - it largely result in it being lost irrecoverably. The reorganization of the grammar schools in the 1970s is a case study of this - the high standards and cultural traditions of these schools weren't more fairly distributed; by and large they were lost. The national education system has hardly recovered from this systemic shock in the intervening decades. Is a similar fate to be inflicted on some excellent Catholic schools, whose main fault is to be outstanding?

4. Flight from Catholic Education. He is incredibly naive if he believes that parents from the schools that he has in his sights will just sit back and send their children to the local Catholic schools. If that is where they wanted their children, that's where they would be now. If these successful schools are made to conform to the diocesan ideal, then parents who can afford it will probably look to private schools - possibly Catholic ones, but more likely non-Catholic. The majority of parents, who can't afford private school fees - and remember that the schools we are talking about have a higher than average percentage of pupils from poorer and deprived backgrounds - will find the best state-maintained schooling that they can. This will most likely not be Catholic.

5. Provision or Nurturing. The way Mr Barber talks about provision of Catholic education to all the baptized as a public service puts me in mind more of laying a gas main or collecting rubbish, than nurturing the souls of children called to an eternal destiny. Where is the ideal of forming children with the best catechesis and spirituality that we can; of sending out well-instructed, devout young adults to transform our secular society; of ensuring those practising and active Catholics that parishes need; of nurturing vocations to the priesthood or religious life? Does he shirk from discussing these things, because the schools he directs are too feeble to deliver? But the ones he is attacking are conspicuously, gloriously successful at these things!

6. Success or Failure. It is unkind to speculate on people's motives. I do not know Mr Barber personally, and he may well be a kind, charitable man, inspired by the highest ideals. However, he is presiding over a Catholic education system which is conspicuously failing to deliver the goods. Poor catechesis, weak liturgical formation, lapsation on a grand scale, a vocations crisis, difficulty of recruiting Catholic school-leaders - these are the order of the day, and Catholic schools are, by and large, accessories to these things, if not actually the cause in some cases. Who could blame Directors of Education if they wanted to do away with schools that have shown an admirably independent spirit, but have succeeded in a measure that other schools cannot aspire to?

"Without Thee we are not able to please Thee"

2010-09-27T23:40:00.000+01:00

"Tibi sine Te placere non possumus" - "Without Thee we are not able to please Thee." - The Collects of the Sundays after Pentecost are insistent on the theme: human nature is weak; without God's help we cannot please Him; of ourselves we can do nothing availing to salvation, but rather will fail. Again and again returns the theme, in numerous variations, never letting us forget our absolute dependence on God.

As Catholics, we do not believe in the utter depravity of fallen nature. Still, the sequence for Pentecost itself declares, "sine tuo numine, nihil est in homine, nihil est innoxium" - "if You take Your grace away, nothing good in man will stay, all our good is turned to ill."

Taking the liturgy as our guide, we are meant to realise the great truth that "without me you can do nothing", not just by an intellectual assent, but with a practical realisation in our lives. To progress in the spiritual life, we must acknowledge before God that only He can give us the grace we need. As Fr Grou put it insistently in his little book on prayer, "only God can teach us to pray." We must not only confess with our tongues that "unless the Lord build the house, in vain do they labour that build it," but believe it in our hearts, and live in accordance with it in our lives.

As so often, the traditional liturgy emphasizes what we need to know: continual confession of our guilt, of God's majesty, of the redeeming sacrifice, of our unworthiness, and our utter dependence on Him. The primary purpose of the liturgy is the glory of God, rather than our instruction, but instruction is there aplenty if only we seek for it.

Before I am drawn aside into a discussion of the impairment of the Novus Ordo collects, both in Latin and much more so in their English translations - which has been documented so well by scholars like Fr Cekada - I move swiftly on to a related theme.

There is a marvellous collect to our Blessed Lady, containing the same idea of our own incapacity if left to ourselves, but trusting in her intercession: "qui tibi placere de actibus nostris non valemus, Genetricis Domini nostri Jesu Christi intercessione salvemur" - "that we who cannot please Thee through our own actions, may be saved by the intercession of the Mother of Our Lord." We need His grace; and we need her help, who is the Mediatrix of all grace. (A similar prayer is often applied to patron saints).

Maria Mater gratiae,
Dulcis parens clementiae,
Tu nos ab hoste protege,
Et mortis hora suscipe.

Stand up, stand up for Jesus, ye soldiers of the cross!

2010-09-26T13:05:00.000+01:00

"Stand up, stand up for Jesus, ye soldiers of the cross;
Lift high His royal banner, it must not suffer loss.
From victory unto victory His army shall He lead,
Till every foe is vanquished, and Christ is Lord indeed."

The words of this rousing Victorian Evangelical hymn have been prodding me since last weekend's visit of the Pope to England. The Pope gave many fine speeches and sermons, which will give us food for thought for some time, but I would summarize his message in three headings:

1. Stand up for Jesus.
Those of us who profess the name of Christian must stand up for our beliefs in public and in private. We must know what we believe and profess it. We must communicate with the God of love in our own souls, and communicate it to others in word and in deed. Newman's beatification remembers the great days of the Second Spring - now passed into history - and calls us to inaugurate the Third Spring. The call to witness in public has been reiterated by the Archbishop of Westminster in the last few days. We witness both by word - giving a reason for the hope within us - and by deed.

2. Stand on the Rock of Peter
If you want to stand up for Jesus, you've got to stand on the Rock of Peter. Seeing the crowds of Catholics - many of them young and enthusiastic - in Hyde Park, and outside Westminster Cathedral, and in Cofton Park presses home the point. If there's a future for Christianity in this country, it has to be with the Catholic Church. Only the Rock of Peter will support us in the storms which are undoubtedly ahead. No secondary motives - loyalty to a place of worship, awareness of historical ties, damage or abuse in the past - must prevent standing with the Catholic church. True, the Catholic church is not utopia - we have far more than our fair share of worldliness, bad practice, and the spirit of error, than we would perhaps like to admit. But as salvation comes only through Christ, security is found only in his Church.

3. The Truth in Charity
The Pope has won sympathy from many - inside and outside the Church - by his patent gentleness, charity, and hospitality. Without compromising the truth, he has won a hearing from at least some of the sceptical, that a more strident tone might not have achieved. (Of course, the stubborn and malicious are even more enraged by this - seeing some of them demonstrating in London put me in mind the baying mob that called out for the crucifixion of Our Lord, or a pack of demons which has escaped from hell). Thus, the saying of St. Francis de Sales, that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, is illustrated. In fact, St Francis de Sales was to an extent influenced by the Oratorian spirit of St Philip Neri, which also animated Blessed JH Newman. We've got to stand up for the fulness of truth - the Splendor Veritatis - but it is easy to convey bitterness or strife, even where that is not what we intend. That is the "bitter zeal" referred to by St Benedict in his Holy Rule. To quote another Evangelical hymn, let them "know we are Christians by our love."

"One thing in this world is different from all others. It has a personality and a force. It is recognized and (when recognized) most violently hated or loved. It is the Catholic Church. Within that household the human spirit has roof and hearth. Outside it is the night." Hilaire Belloc, Essays of a Catholic.

ADDRESS OF THE HOLY FATHER TO PUPILS

2010-09-25T09:08:00.000+01:00

ADDRESS OF THE HOLY FATHER TO PUPILS

Sports Arena of St Mary’s University College

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,
Dear young friends,

First of all, I want to say how glad I am to be here with you today. I greet you most warmly, those who have come to Saint Mary’s University from Catholic schools and colleges across the United Kingdom, and all who are watching on television and via the internet. I thank Bishop McMahon for his gracious welcome, I thank the choir and the band for the lovely music which began our celebration, and I thank Miss Bellot and Elaine for her kind words on behalf of all the young people present. In view of London’s forthcoming Olympic Games, it has been a pleasure to inaugurate this Sports Foundation, named in honour of Pope John Paul II, and I pray that all who come here will give glory to God through their sporting activities, as well as bringing enjoyment to themselves and to others.

It is not often that a Pope, or indeed anyone else, has the opportunity to speak to the students of all the Catholic schools of England, Wales and Scotland at the same time. And since I have the chance now, there is something I very much want to say to you. I hope that among those of you listening to me today there are some of the future saints of the twenty-first century. What God wants most of all for each one of you is that you should become holy. He loves you much more than you could ever begin to imagine, and he wants the very best for you. And by far the best thing for you is to grow in holiness.

Perhaps some of you have never thought about this before. Perhaps some of you think being a saint is not for you. Let me explain what I mean. When we are young, we can usually think of people that we look up to, people we admire, people we want to be like. It could be someone we meet in our daily lives that we hold in great esteem. Or it could be someone famous. We live in a celebrity culture, and young people are often encouraged to model themselves on figures from the world of sport or entertainment. My question for you is this: what are the qualities you see in others that you would most like to have yourselves? What kind of person would you really like to be?

When I invite you to become saints, I am asking you not to be content with second best. I am asking you not to pursue one limited goal and ignore all the others. Having money makes it possible to be generous and to do good in the world, but on its own, it is not enough to make us happy. Being highly skilled in some activity or profession is good, but it will not satisfy us unless we aim for something greater still. It might make us famous, but it will not make us happy. Happiness is something we all want, but one of the great tragedies in this world is that so many people never find it, because they look for it in the wrong places. The key to it is very simple – true happiness is to be found in God. We need to have the courage to place our deepest hopes in God alone, not in money, in a career, in worldly success, or in our relationships with others, but in God. Only he can satisfy the deepest needs of our hearts.

Not only does God love us with a depth and an intensity that we can scarcely begin to comprehend, but he invites us to respond to that love. You all know what it is like when you meet someone interesting and attractive, and you want to be that person’s friend. You always hope they will find you interesting and attractive, and want to be your friend. God wants your friendship. And once you enter into friendship with God, everything in your life begins to change. As you come to know him better, you find you want to reflect something of his infinite goodness in your own life. You are attracted to the practice of virtue. You begin to see greed and selfishness and all the other sins for what they really are, destructive and dangerous tendencies that cause deep suffering and do great damage, and you want to avoid falling into that trap yourselves. You begin to feel compassion for people in difficulties and you are eager to do something to help them. You want to come to the aid of the poor and the hungry, you want to comfort the sorrowful, you want to be kind and generous. And once these things begin to matter to you, you are well on the way to becoming saints.

In your Catholic schools, there is always a bigger picture over and above the individual subjects you study, the different skills you learn. All the work you do is placed in the context of growing in friendship with God, and all that flows from that friendship. So you learn not just to be good students, but good citizens, good people. As you move higher up the school, you have to make choices regarding the subjects you study, you begin to specialize with a view to what you are going to do later on in life. That is right and proper. But always remember that every subject you study is part of a bigger picture. Never allow yourselves to become narrow. The world needs good scientists, but a scientific outlook becomes dangerously narrow if it ignores the religious or ethical dimension of life, just as religion becomes narrow if it rejects the legitimate contribution of science to our understanding of the world. We need good historians and philosophers and economists, but if the account they give of human life within their particular field is too narrowly focused, they can lead us seriously astray.

A good school provides a rounded education for the whole person. And a good Catholic school, over and above this, should help all its students to become saints. I know that there are many non-Catholics studying in the Catholic schools in Great Britain, and I wish to include all of you in my words today. I pray that you too will feel encouraged to practise virtue and to grow in knowledge and friendship with God alongside your Catholic classmates. You are a reminder to them of the bigger picture that exists outside the school, and indeed, it is only right that respect and friendship for members of other religious traditions should be among the virtues learned in a Catholic school. I hope too that you will want to share with everyone you meet the values and insights you have learned through the Christian education you have received.

Dear friends, I thank you for your attention, I promise to pray for you, and I ask you to pray for me. I hope to see many of you next August, at the World Youth Day in Madrid. In the meantime, may God bless you all!

ADDRESS OF THE HOLY FATHER TO TEACHERS AND RELIGIOUS

2010-09-21T09:50:00.000+01:00

ADDRESS OF THE HOLY FATHER TO TEACHERS AND RELIGIOUS

Chapel of St Mary’s University College

Your Excellency the Secretary of State for Education, Bishop Stack, Dr Naylor, Reverend Fathers, Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

I am pleased to have this opportunity to pay tribute to the outstanding contribution made by religious men and women in this land to the noble task of education. I thank the young people for their fine singing, and I thank Sister Teresa for her words. To her and to all the dedicated men and women who devote their lives to teaching the young, I want to express sentiments of deep appreciation. You form new generations not only in knowledge of the faith, but in every aspect of what it means to live as mature and responsible citizens in today’s world.

As you know, the task of a teacher is not simply to impart information or to provide training in skills intended to deliver some economic benefit to society; education is not and must never be considered as purely utilitarian. It is about forming the human person, equipping him or her to live life to the full – in short it is about imparting wisdom. And true wisdom is inseparable from knowledge of the Creator, for “both we and our words are in his hand, as are all understanding and skill in crafts” (Wis 7:16).

This transcendent dimension of study and teaching was clearly grasped by the monks who contributed so much to the evangelization of these islands. I am thinking of the Benedictines who accompanied Saint Augustine on his mission to England, of the disciples of Saint Columba who spread the faith across Scotland and Northern England, of Saint David and his companions in Wales. Since the search for God, which lies at the heart of the monastic vocation, requires active engagement with the means by which he makes himself known – his creation and his revealed word – it was only natural that the monastery should have a library and a school (cf. Address to representatives from the world of culture at the “Collège des Bernardins” in Paris, 12 September 2008). It was the monks’ dedication to learning as the path on which to encounter the Incarnate Word of God that was to lay the foundations of our Western culture and civilization.

Looking around me today, I see many apostolic religious whose charism includes the education of the young. This gives me an opportunity to give thanks to God for the life and work of the Venerable Mary Ward, a native of this land whose pioneering vision of apostolic religious life for women has borne so much fruit. I myself as a young boy was taught by the “English Ladies” and I owe them a deep debt of gratitude. Many of you belong to teaching orders that have carried the light of the Gospel to far-off lands as part of the Church’s great missionary work, and for this too I give thanks and praise to God. Often you laid the foundations of educational provision long before the State assumed a responsibility for this vital service to the individual and to society. As the relative roles of Church and State in the field of education continue to evolve, never forget that religious have a unique contribution to offer to this apostolate, above all through lives consecrated to God and through faithful, loving witness to Christ, the supreme Teacher.

Indeed, the presence of religious in Catholic schools is a powerful reminder of the much-discussed Catholic ethos that needs to inform every aspect of school life. This extends far beyond the self-evident requirement that the content of the teaching should always be in conformity with Church doctrine. It means that the life of faith needs to be the driving force behind every activity in the school, so that the Church’s mission may be served effectively, and the young people may discover the joy of entering into Christ’s “being for others” (Spe Salvi, 28).

Before I conclude, I wish to add a particular word of appreciation for those whose task it is to ensure that our schools provide a safe environment for children and young people. Our responsibility towards those entrusted to us for their Christian formation demands nothing less. Indeed, the life of faith can only be effectively nurtured when the prevailing atmosphere is one of respectful and affectionate trust. I pray that this may continue to be a hallmark of the Catholic schools in this country.

With these sentiments, dear Brothers and Sisters, I invite you now to stand and pray.

Source: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2010/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20100917_mondo-educ_en.html

The Art of Concentration

2010-09-14T15:18:00.000+01:00

The ability to Concentrate is one of the important acquirements that a pupil should develop from an academic education. Too often it is taken for granted; or it is assumed to be something out of our control.

Every teacher will realise that some pupils are naturally better endowed with concentration than others. Some will, almost by instinct, concentrate obsessively to the extent that they are oblivious of what is going on around them. Others will be distracted by somebody scratching his head or sharpening a pencil on the other side of the classroom. Often the parents of the latter type will tell schoolmasters that their poor sons can't concentrate "because of the noise in the room". Actually, these boys will be distracted by anything and everything; the problem is them, not the room!

Now no doubt a lot has been said and written by psychologists on the subject of concentration: what it means, how and whether it can be developed, and so on. I write ex traditione et experientia rather than as a psychologist, though I don't wish to neglect the findings of the professionals. In particular, sport psychologists spend time examining how concentration can be effectively improved, and we could probably learn something from them in this area, as in many others.

Gilbert Highet in his excellent book "The Art of Teaching" - which should be required reading for all teachers - describes the difficulty that boys have with concentration, and how it is developed:

"The young hate concentration. It is an effort, an unfamiliar and painful effort. Watch a boy doing his home-work when he thinks he is not observed. He will read ten lines, then draw a funny face in the margin, then try to read ten lines more and give up, then stop to whistle two bars of "Blood on the Saddle," then rearrange all the books on his table and sharpen all his pencils, tehn make a dash at the book and read twenty-five lines, then sit panting and vacant-eyed for at least three minutes before beginning the struggle once more. Even his moments of true attention are accompanied by all kinds of waste motion and diversion: he taps both heels rhythmically on the ground, bites his nails, shifts his position as though he were sitting in a red-hot torture-seat, and usually keeps the wireless on full blast. All this side-effort means that he finds concentration to be so painful that he must mitigate the agony by every possible means. He is pretending to escape.

"Yet he learns. By the time he gets to the university he will be able to concentrate oftener and keep it up for longer periods. If he enters one of the professions, he will have to increase his ability until he can follow and reproduce nearly every stage of a complex operation, or summarise the essentials of six leading judicial decisions in one evening. If he goes to work on leaving school, life will teach him concentration - or else it will make him a nonentity, the sort of man who hops from job to job and has a constant struggle to keep alive in a world where the bees outnumber the butterflies.

"Concentration must be learnt. It should be learnt in school. A good teacher can teach it to his pupils. It should not be imagined as nothing but an effort of the will. concentration is also an intellectual process. It is a choice. Take the same boy who reads his book slowly, grudgingly, five lines at a time, and increase the urgency of his study - somehow, anyhow - make the choice clearer to him, and the importance of his study paramount - put him to work on the prize essay - and then watch. "Turn that wireless off!" he shouts. He clears the table, except for one photograph. He sits fixed in one position till he is cramped. Sometimes, when he is really intent, he will miss meals and forget about sleep. All this because he has chosen one aim and discarded others. And that, after all, is what we learn to do throughout life."

A number of important themes come into that extract. Concentration is something that can be developed, and one of the tasks of a school is to set up a system where it can be developed. The sooner we can start with the young, the better. Teaching styles that pander too often to short concentration spans, rather than seeking to develop concentration, don't do pupils any favours. On the other hand, expecting too much too soon is also a pitfall, though I suspect in modern education it is the lesser fault - we are inclined to expect too little, and give our pupils excuses for underperformance.

The use of computers is not irrelevant to this discussion, but it's not straightforward either. Some use of computers may promote short concentration spans, and a dilettante approach to learning - browsing the internet in such a way that little is digested or absorbed is one such. But computers may also be a way of getting pupils to concentrate, if used in the right way. The young like computers, on the whole, and may be more inclined to concentrate on a screen than on a page.

Teachers sometimes feel under pressure to act like a game show host, with constant stimulation, switches of focus, and multimedia activities. Variety is certainly the spice of teaching, as of life, but too rapid changes of focus can reduce pupils' opportunity to learn concentration.

How should we get pupils to develop concentration? A stern but fair schoolmaster who, with support of parents and his superiors, demands discipline and attention, is no doubt the best resource.

The extract from Higham suggests that competition, with a reward, is one way. I would also put in a defence of frequent examinations. Having regular exams has had a bad press lately - the poor children are examined year after year, to exhaustion, with GCSEs, AS levels, A2s, and so on. But I say that regular exams are not a bad thing - the provide a reality check to pupils, and something to work towards. I don't see any reason why there shouldn't be serious exams each year for teenagers, in fact. Where I would agree with the pundits, though, is that the current examination system is overblown, with a multiplicity of papers, coursework, assessments internal and external, orals - far too complex, and no wonder it's distorting the education system. But simple, clear examinations, taken frequently, would in my view be beneficial.

I would also advocate an hour of silent homework, done under supervision. Pupils need to learn to work silently and alone, and too often their experience of school is of noise and distraction.

What Higham does not refer to is that some people find concentration more difficult than others do. How can these be helped? I personally would tackle classroom design. The open plan classrooms, where pupils can work in pairs or little groups, and engage in discussion, are fine if that's what you want to do. But for individual work, it can be a distracting experience. A different arrangement would have desks around the wall of a classroom, with partitions between them to prevent pupils from communicating with each other when they are working individually, and a view only of the wall ahead of them. Chairs could be turned round to face the teacher, without pupils seeing each other. If groupwork was desired, chairs could be moved, but this would be under the teacher's control. Headphones - or ear defenders - could be used to block out unwanted noise. This may be the antithesis of modern ideas of socializing pupils in classes. The key question though is, would it work, for those pupils who are clearly finding modern education a distracting experience?

"Why Public Schools fail"

2010-09-11T12:34:00.000+01:00

The Times Educational Supplement, in celebration of its centenary of publication, is reprinting a number of articles from the past. "Why Public Schools fail" was in the first edition, 6th September 1910, and is reprinted in this week's edition. The early readership of the weekly newspaper consisted mainly of master in public and grammar schools, so no doubt they would have read this editorial with interest.

The TES noted that "the public school boy in the past has been too often in some ways an ignoramus" - plus ça change, old man! - but that "he has learned how to hold his own in life, how to face difficulties, and how, when in a tight place, to "muddle through" by sheer pluck and resolution. His education has been of the old Roman type which, if it despised the arts, at least strengthened the character, and had for its chief aim to secure that respect for "manliness", without which no race can long make good its claim to leadership or Empire."

At the time, there would have been a clear divide in this respect between many Grammar schools and public schools. The Grammar schools, often based in cities or market towns, would have catered for the sons of the professional middle classes and, through their scholarships, for the less well off. Much as they may have aped the manners of the public schools, their focus would have been more clearly on matters academic - whether Classical or Modern.

On the other hand, the archetypal Victorian public schools was, to a large extent, in a rural setting, intended for boarders, and dominated by classics (whether taught well or not), games, and chapel. Developing "character" - the fibre that won the Empire - was the main point of the education provided. They could be cold and harsh places but this was, "character building," so part of the point of the enterprise.

I exaggerate. Many of the old public schools had a fine tradition of scholarship too, which was undimmed, and produced many a learned man. These schools, too, emphasised character, as did the grammar schools. However, the minor public schools probably had a lot more character than academic excellence. (Do I hear someone in the back row call out, "Plus ça change, old man!"? See me after class!)

By 1910, things were clearly changing. The TES again, "Our upper classes are becoming intolerant of austerity, and education is, one thinks, losing that touch of sternness without which it can never remain sound." This suggestion may surprise us; after all, just a few years later many of those same upper classes lost their lives in the trenches of Flanders and, arguably lacking in intelligence, they were rarely accused of lacking moral fibre. However, other indications do suggest that schools had changed, with parents objecting to some of the rigours of the Victorian age.

Via a quotation from St Paul, and one given in the original Greek, the TES moves on to suggest that schoolmasters are becoming soft: "corseting and coddling ... are coming to be counted virtues in a schoolmaster." What would our editor say now of the batallions of Health and Safety officers, healthy eating edicts, partnerships with parents, and absence not only of corporal punishment, but virtually anything that might upset the little dears?

In conclusion, the TES blames the teachers: "Schoomasters are every year becoming a more dwarfed and puny breed. There are hardly half a score of them who in any other profession would stand out above the common level of the crowd." Ouch! After that, even the hardiest games playing master might wish for some "corseting and coddling."

Now, maybe I've become soft, but I don't necessarily accept that all the comforts and amenities of modern life are necessarily bad. Hot showers, decent food, parental involvement, the motherly care of house matrons - these are not necessarily anti-educational. Some of the bullying, fagging, and flogging of the old public school regime is deservedly consigned to oblivion.

The Victorian idea of "character" deserves further analysis on another occasion. Sufficient for now to observe that it was not considered entirely adequate by John Henry Newman who, in founding his Oratory School in 1859, aimed at a middle way between the Anglican public schools and the Catholic minor seminaries.

However, all too often education has lost "that touch of sternness without which [education] can never remain sound." In fact, quite a few teachers - and far more of the class of professional administrator, who writes policy but doesn't actually meet the pupils very often - would not accept that a touch of sternness is an important component in a sound education. The lack of discipline in society - of which only the wilfully blind can be unaware - gives testimony to a century of lack of sternness, by schoolmasters, and also by parents.

Also, an excess of material comforts - indeed, among public schoolboys an excess of affluence - is not helping educational aims. At least some austerity, sometimes - not having what you want immediately, when you want it - would improve the characters of young people immensely. Young people growing up without experiencing the reality of "no" are ill-adapted to the world, even speaking in purely practical terms.

And what of the "puny schoolmasters." I suspect that the TES editor was wearing rose-tinted glasses when he looked back on an era of great schoolmasters. Some of the Victorian head masters were indeed great; were the run of the mill assistant masters, in most public schools, really great men? Different men, perhaps, to nowadays - often clergymen, probably more literate (in a pre-television age), often celibate, perhaps better educated; but with characters that may not differ so much from nowadays - in the absence of proper evidence I can only speculate. Head Masters may well be a different breed, but the mid-Victorian pioneers were a phenomenon of the age.

And is it a fair criticism of schoolmasters that they would not be great in another profession? We are called to be great in our chosen vocation, not another one. If schoolmasters are not aiming at being very good at their calling, that is a fair criticism. If some of them are not becoming great teachers, that is a failing of the system, and worthy of reprobation.

There is a greater danger for public schoolmasters than not being great; and that is, becoming stale. There is too much of a temptation to recycle the same material, or similar, year on year, to similar groups of boys. The frankly exhausting nature of the job, the long hours, family pressures, the effect of middle age - all of these militate against having an intellectual life. Too often, the young man who has shown an interest in the arts, who at university has been keen on his theatre, opera, poetry, debating, will become the middle-aged man without time for these things. When he lives on the premises, he may go for weeks at a time, in term, not leaving the school. No less diligent, no less hard-working, he will imperceptibly become stale. Instead of a fountain of living water, he will become a purveyor of a stagnant brew. His teachings may be technically correct, well-prepared, totally fitted to the exam syllabus, but it will be too "cut and dried"

There are some schoolmasters who do go through their careers, living active intellectual lives, keeping a breadth of interests, and communicating this to the young. Some few of them manage to "persevere unto the end" - maintaining this to a retirement at full age (or beyond!). They are not always the strongest disciplinarians; heaven forbid that some of them should be put in charge of pastoral care, or in charge of the school! But they are an essential element of a great school, and this Catholic Schoolmaster pays them due respect.

A School of the Lord's Service

2010-09-03T19:41:00.000+01:00

The start of the academic year roughly coincides, fortuitously, with beginning reading the Holy Rule of St Benedict from the start, according to the traditional division. The Rule is read three times in the course of a calendar year, and the third reading starts on the 1st of September.

There is much wisdom in the Rule of St Benedict for schoolmasters. Perhaps that is why Benedictines have often made good schoolmasters, although that was not the primary purpose of the order, and many monasteries have never run a school.

Here is an extract from the Prologue:

"We have, therefore, to establish a school of the Lord’s service, in the setting forth of which we hope to order nothing that is harsh or rigorous. But if anything be somewhat strictly laid down, according to the dictates of sound reason, for the amendment of vices or the preservation of charity, do not therefore fly in dismay from the way of salvation, whose beginning cannot but be strait and difficult. But as we go forward in our life and in faith, we shall with hearts enlarged and unspeakable sweetness of love run in the way of God’s commandments; so that never departing from His guidance, but persevering in His teaching in the monastery until death, we may by patience share in the sufferings of Christ, that we may deserve to be partakers of His kingdom. Amen."
Holy Rule of St Benedict

Here is a rationale for school discipline. Discipline is not to be desired as an end in itself, and harshness is to be avoided where possible. But the purpose of discipline is the amendment of vices and the preservation of charity. Those who believe that vice will be avoided, and goodness will flourish, without a structure of discipline, are deluded; these theories have made mayhem in schools and in society. I will identify this, when I get round to denouncing them, as one of my Seven Key fallacies of education - the "anti-discipline" fallacy.

The beginning of discipline may be strait and difficult. Few of us enjoy being subject to discipline, though we like the order that arises from it. We are always keener, in fact, to see discipline imposed on other people than on ourselves! The process of education can often be like the ascent from Plato's cave - it's all a bit of a struggle, and we take time to accustom ourselves to the daylight.

But, like the inhabitant of Plato's cave when he becomes accustomed to the sunlight, the aim of all our discipline and training is that our hearts may be enlarged, and that we may enjoy the unspeakable sweetness of love. Humanly speaking, and also in the spiritual life, this is the way of nature and supernature - the way of purgation precedes that of illumination or union. Only by a special and extraordinary grace do we omit the discipline in the spiritual life, and the same is true in education. Without the discipline, there is not the reward.

If our pupils, or we as pupils, are not finding our education difficult and challenging in parts - it is to be hoped not wholly - then it suggests that we are on the wrong path - a broad and narrow one, perhaps.

As we start the year, let us resolve to reimpose self-discipline, and on our pupils a discipline which is strict, but not harsh; demanding, but reasonable; full of charity and faith.

Fratres, apprehendite disciplinam, nequando irascatur Dominus, et pereatis de via iusta.
Gustate et videte quam suavis est Dominus; beatus vir qui sperat in eo.

Cardinal Mercier, The Three Hour Rule, and Picking Blackberries

2010-08-30T18:41:00.000+01:00

Cardinal Mercier was the very learned and holy Archbishop of Mechelen (Malines) in Belgium from 1906 until 1926. As well as being at the forefront of the Neo-Thomist revival, he was wise in the ways of the spiritual life, and was a good friend of Blessed Columba Marmion. It is reported that the Cardinal, on giving retreats to enclosed religious, would impress on them the importance of spending a substantial amount of time in silent contemplation in the presence of God. In his experience, only after at least three hours of silent contemplation were the most important insights granted into matters divine.

It is difficult to imagine a busy Archbishop regularly spending three hours in contemplation – though he may have done this during his holidays. Clearly, though, the Cardinal wanted to impress on his hearers the importance of perseverance in prayer, beyond what would normally be regarded as sensible limits. Three hours is a long time to mediate – I speak as someone who finds the odd fifteen minutes tough. Cardinal Mercier is calling us to prayer to an heroic degree!

There is a lesson here for educators. We must persevere with our pupils, with our children, even when there is little apparent result, even when others may have given up. One sign of a good teacher is perseverance, even with material which isn’t necessarily promising at the outset. Heroic perseverance – when there is little sign of improvement, and little sign of response.

I will call this the "Three Hour Rule" - perseverance to an heroic degree is needed, both in contemplatives and in educators.

Teenage boys, in particular, are usually very difficult to read on deeper matters – their feelings, their beliefs, their faith. It is too easy to assume that there is nothing going on. In fact, boys often find it difficult to read their own feelings and beliefs – they have the feelings, but can’t articulate them. Lack of articulation doesn’t prove lack of existence. Even where they are dimly aware of something, social pressures may militate too strongly against expression. A good school will minimize these social pressures, but they won't go away entirely.

Faced with apparent disregard and uninterest, it is understandable that teachers give up. Give up trying to inculcate the faith; give up trying to communicate moral standards; give up trying to promote a cultural awareness; give up trying to develop proper standards of literacy, behaviour, or manners. It’s easier to give up on these things, and instead provide the boys with what they apparently want, those things where we can see a short-term improvement; where we get the warm response that every teacher likes to get from his pupils.

But by giving up, we communicate a message. We teach the boys what we did not intend to teach them – that we don’t value what we no longer insist upon. This message may not be true, but it’s what is received by the pupils; our actions speak loud and clear. By giving up, we teach as surely as we would by perseverance.

It can be difficult to persevere in the face of indifference, or resistance. As Catholic educators, we are planting seeds that may not spring up in time for examinations, or indeed while the pupil is at school. What we plant may not spring up at all – remember, stony soil – but there is the chance that it will come to life at times of difficulty or times of joy; ten, twenty, forty or sixty years hence. We sow for the long term, and ultimately for eternity, not just for the next examination.

Teachers who have given up on trying to inculcate the difficult but valuable – proper catechesis, worthwhile literature, moral understanding, classical languages – have misunderstood the nature of their profession, and the nature of their pupils, and have done a disservice to them. The pressures to go for the immediately relevant and useful (or what we think is useful and relevant) are alluring, but we must keep our thoughts on the vision glorious, even when the glass through which it is seen makes it very darkly.

I will call this attitude “The Fallacy of Short-Termism,” and it will be one of my seven key fallacies of modern education.

I hope it is clear, when speaking of perseverance, I am not speaking of tolerating bad behaviour. In fact, I am speaking of the opposite – persevering with attempts to discipline even where there is no immediate improvement. Nor do I advocate keeping the badly behaved in a school to the detriment of the rest of the pupil-body – that also sends its signals about what we value; allowing a pupil to remain but flout the discipline of the corporation teaches that we don’t value the discipline. An issue for another time.

Blackberries. I spent part of this morning picking blackberries. At first there weren’t many in sight, and certainly not the abundance of juicy fruit that we had hoped for. Disappointment. Still, since we were there, we did our best. I found that when I looked carefully, and turned branches, I did find fruit worth harvesting; maybe not large and obvious, but small and sweet. The more I looked, the more I found. Persevering, instead of going home in disappointment, I nipped through a fence, where I found a larger crop of berries, in a sunnier spot; so in the end went home satisfied.

Perseverance once again: not giving up, looking in the less obvious places, looking intensely, following the inspirations that come “after the third hour” (I don’t speak literally about timings now). I speak of education, not just of blackberries.

Simon dixit illi: Praeceptor, per totam noctem laborantes nihil cepimus, in verbo autem tuo laxabo rete." Et cum hoc fecissent concluserunt piscium multitudinem copiosam rumpebatur autem rete eorum.

Simon answering said to him: “Master, we have laboured all the night, and have taken nothing: but at thy word I will let down the net.” And when they had done this, they enclosed a very great multitude of fishes, and their net broke. (St Luke 5:5-6)

A levels - are they too easy?

2010-08-29T01:18:00.000+01:00

It's tradition to attack the easiness of modern exams at this time of year, and as a traditionalist I am loth to criticize this custom. It is reported today that Mrs Cynthia Hall, headmistress of a prestigious academic girls' school, and former head of the Girls Schools' Association, has said that A levels crush creativity, and prevent students from showing "originality and creativity."

There is a rule that says that when the Head of a public school makes a pronouncement to the press, if should not be taken at face value; an ulterior motive should be suspected, as it would be for politicians. But leaving aside any unworthy speculations about motive, is what Mrs Hall says correct?

It is true that A levels only test originality and creativity to a limited degree. Was it ever otherwise, I wonder? And in fact, do we really want exams that test originality? How is originality to be tested? How are marks to be allocated? Where are examiners to be acquired? And how is the reliability of the grading to be ensured? Is vital that public examinations are valid and reliable - that they test what they say they are testing, and that they do it consistently. Testing creativity would put a huge onus of personal judgement onto the examiners, thereby leading to multiple appeals, and a possible loss of confidence in the exam system (OK, an even greater loss of confidence, if you like).

The fact is, also, that for the majority of pupils taking A levels, the exam is not too easy. Certainly, it's not as hard as it was 20 years ago, let alone 50 years ago, but that's not the point - it's catering for a wider spread of ability than it did then. By and large, the exam is suited for the pupils who take it. It isn't ideal for the top 5%, who will tend to populate the most selective schools - hence the criticism from some headteachers. So, two cheers for A levels, in my view.

In fact, the A level exam does not in itself crush creativity, even if it gives little encouragement. That depends on the way the subjects are taught. If the teaching is narrowly focussed on the exam requirements - as it might well be - then certainly all sorts of things are crushed. Tell it not in Gath, but word has it that some of the very academic girls' schools are particular offenders in this respect - delivering a very structured, excessively directive, style of teaching. It delivers the results ... I doubt that this style would be as successful with boys, who tend to rebel against excessively prescriptive methods, certainly in the sixth form, and it may explain, in part, why some girls want to leave their single-sex environment at age 16 for something a bit more exciting. (It's not the only reason, admittedly).

The fact is, that A level can only test originality and creativity to a limited extent, and in a general purpose exam (remember that it is a GCE = General Certificate of Education) it cannot be otherwise. The top few percent need something additional, or instead of, A levels. This used to the the Special papers - later called AEAs - which were on the whole very good and did their task very well. They bit the dust, largely due to anti-elitist reasons: many state schools didn't have the time, resources, motivation, teachers, etc. to deliver them; and they were dominated by public schools and the remaining grammar schools. For this reason, the universities were very reluctant to ask for it, even from pupils where it was in fact a very appropriate target. (University entrance tests were discontinued for similar reasons, though they are creeping back surreptitiously, as the most selective colleges realise that they have need of them).

The new A* at A level will only do the job to a limited extent. The poor A level now has to discriminate between candidates who barely scrape an E grade, to those achieving an A*, and do it validly and reliably, and with all candidates doing the same papers. What will inevitably happen is that the A* will tend to be awarded for accuracy and careful preparation, among those who are of A grade standard. Not bad qualities, but not the same as creativity, originality, deep-thought, etc. In this respect, Mrs Hall is right - the A* is no substitute for Special papers for testing the top-end.

What we don't have here is a solution. The Cambridge Pre-U exam is attempting to discriminate at the top end, and to do it on the basis of criteria rather than simply on statistical grounds. It is trying to square the circle - using the same exam to test reliably both the majority of candidates, and also to discriminate properly at the top end. Whether they will succeed remains to be seen; all credit to Cambridge Assessment for trying. They have two camps against them: those who fear that an examination that tests the top end properly cannot also be fair to the bottom end; and those who fear that by discriminating at the top end we are being elitist, and giving a further advantage to schools with greater resources.

In fact, the top 10% of sixth-formers, currently taking A levels, need something different to the rest of their cohort. Something that will give them an appropriate academic challenge, encourage creativity and originality, and test the right things. This could either be in addition to A levels, or instead of it. It's accepted that some teenagers should be doing vocational, not academic courses, so why not accept a more rigorous academic course for those who are capable of it?

The answer, of course, is that it would be unashamedly elitist. Many schools would be unable to offer these courses, making them the preserve of larger schools, sixth-form colleges, private schools, and selective schools. So the proper academic development of our most able students is being sacrificed to anti-elistist dogma. If the social benefits of this arrangement were clear and uncontroversial, it might just - arguable - be worth making this sacrifice. But there is little evidence that "social schooling" has delivered the goods, either socially or academically. Not that the votaries of the great idol "Mediocrity" are likely to accept that any time soon.

Story time, Poems, and the role of the Imagination

2010-08-28T01:04:00.000+01:00

Many of us remember with fondness having stories read to the class when at junior school. In my case, we sat cross-legged, on mats, after lunch, while the class teacher read to us wonderful stories, which fired our imagination. At that time, we could not have read such advanced English for ourselves, but could certainly understand the stories. If they involved the preternatural - fairies, witches - all the better. Many had a moral message, all the more effective for being implicit - usually right prevailed, and the bad, mean, or impolite got their well-deserved come-uppance.

An article in this week's Times Educational Supplement praises the stories of Arthur Ransome - which I never experienced - and regrets the fact that in today's schools few teachers have the time to read to their pupils. If this latter is true, it is regrettable.

The imagination of the young is also fed by nursery rhymes, traditional games, sayings; what has been called, in the title of a wonderful book, "The Lore and Language of School Children." How much of this survives, I wonder? How much has been driven out by our televisual age? It's difficult to know, but these things were certainly in retreat when I was at junior school in the 1970s, and I can only think that they have further decayed.

Children of a certain age naturally learn rhymes, and the wise teacher will capitalize on this by having pupils learn by heart at a tender age - poetry, the catechism, mnemonic rhymes. My father, who was at a village primary school in the 1930s, was required to learn passages of scripture, and poetry, which he can still recall at least in part, over 70 years later. I recall that Laurie Lee, in his "Cider with Rosie", reports the common practice at the turn of the 20th century, of children being required to learn the weekly Collect from the Anglican Book of Common Prayer.

The doctrines of the 1960s and 70s reacted against learning by heart, and especially denigrated "rote learning" of things not fully understood. That seems to me a pity - these tender years are an ideal time to store away knowledge which can be unpacked later. It is now accepted that where pupils have not attained a certain level of literacy in the primary school, are unlikely to recapture the ground later. Advocates of Modern Languages allege that ideally they should be started in primary school, otherwise it is more difficult later - no doubt they are right, though I would suggest that memorizing some of the treasures of the English language, including poetry, is also of importance.

I suspect that even home-schoolers do not require their children to learn enough by memory, not having experienced these methods themselves. An essay by DL Sayers, called "The Lost Tools of Learning," which is available on the internet, should be required reading for all who are undertaking the education of children, especially the education of their own children.

We should not underestimate the influence of stories, poems, and rhymes, on forming the moral judgement of young children. Children who cannot understand abstract ideas of right and wrong have their moral awareness formed in the first place by the example of the adults who have charge of them, and by the framework of discipline that is set for them. Secondarily, the stories they hear, that fire their imagination, have an effect.

The enemies of truth and right know this only too well. I was talking recently to a newly-qualified primary school teacher, who commented to me how traditional stories have been distorted, with a very clear moral - or rather immoral - agenda. The traditional family is not portrayed as normal. The heroes of the story are those who challenge, who deviate from, accepted traditional standards. Before the children are fully self-aware, their consciences are already being badly formed by stories that lead their moral instincts astray.

I would not advocate children being brought up only on bible stories, or sanitized histories of the saints - though of course these should be present. Traditional nursery rhymes, classical tales, legends, tales of adventure - these all have a part to play in firing imagination, and enabling children to understand the world, its values, and culture a;s well as putting them in the tradition of children who have experienced these things in the past. But where traditional methods are misused, by those with a hidden agenda, Catholic parents and teachers must be on their guard.

The Sacred Cat and the Great Values-Inversion

2010-08-26T18:09:00.000+01:00

I would not recommend putting cats into dustbins, in the normal course of events. Not only does it seem cruel and unnecessary, but is likely to bring down the wrath of the press, the police, the RSPCA, "animal lovers" and anybody else without enough of their own business to mind. As a respectable woman from Birmingham has found, attempting to convert a cat into rubbish is a seriously dangerous occupation - it has brought upon her death threats, as well as the likelihood of a criminal record. At this rate, her membership of the Anglican church must be in question, too - surely there is no place in a compassionate organization for feline hatred!

In the same newspaper where I read about Mrs Bale's crime, I also read that an elderly man in hospital had had his breathing apparatus turned off by mistake. The medics are apologetic to his widow, but they can't work out who has made this unfortunate error; nothing can be done. There is no sense of outrage, no press camped outside the hospital, visits from the RSPCA, and so on.

It also occurred to me to wonder how many abortions were carried out in this country in the 15 hours when the poor cat was incarcerated in the green wheelie bin. My pocket calculator estimates 325. Human lives, snuffed out. Where is the public concern.

Actually, murder of human beings no longer necessarily makes the front pages of the newspapers. As for unjust imprisonment - I mean of humans, not of cats! - it might appear somewhere in the local rag, at least when news is slack.

I suppose, though, we must be grateful that our country is so blessed to have CCTV cameras watching our every move, that a villain like Mrs Bale just cannot escape, but is bound to be caught on film. A pity that murderers of human beings aren't so easy to capture. Still, more surveillance of innocent citizens must be justified, mustn't it, if it preserves the life and liberty of a single feline.

It's one thing to be an animal lover: it's another to be an animal worshipper. There are cultures where cats have been held sacred - notably ancient Egypt. Until recently, animals were not worshipped in England, but this news makes one wonder.

GK Chesterton pointed out, "Wherever there is animal worship there is human sacrifice." There does seem to be plenty of both animal worship and human sacrifice in our country today. It's part of the great values-inversion we are enduring - a total inversion of good and evil which can only come, ultimately, from the Father of Lies. Cats do seem to be associated with the occult, so maybe they have special protection from someone "down below". It's clear that mere humans mustn't interfere with these god-like beings.

"In quo corrigit adolescentior viam suam?" "How is the young man to correct his way?" (Psalm 118). How are our young, or indeed our not-so-young, to develop their moral sense, and their instinct for good and evil. Certainly not from reading the press, or watching the television. Unless our young are fed a healthy diet of the Catholic faith, the Scriptures, and good literature - and are kept from over-exposure to our values-inverted mass media - then their moral compasses might as well be pointing to Timbuktu.

The Humanities and their value

2010-08-26T00:30:00.000+01:00

"To study the humanities, from art, music and literature to languages, philosophy and theology, is to study the beliefs, values and nature of human existence - and to understand more fully what makes life worth living."

This quotation is from Professor Sally Shuttleworth, Head of Humanities at the University of Oxford, and is from an advert for the OU Campaign in the latest issue of 'Oxford Today'. The advert goes on:

"The tutorial is at the core of Oxford's educational mission in the Humanities, and its preservation is fundamental to our continuing success. Through rigorous examination of past and present cultures under the guidance of expert tutors, we prepare agile young minds to address the most pressing and complex challenges facing their generation."

There is an enormous amount which is right about this vision of education, and it is heartening to see my old university fighting the corner of the Humanities - also often called the Arts - and also of the Tutorial.

In a time of economic stringency, it is tempting to rush towards to the immediately useful in education: science, business studies, economics, engineering. It is harder to plead the cause of the arts, especially where taxpayers' money is concerned. But the purpose of education, especially at university level, is not only to enable its recipients to make a living, but to live. These graduates will, it is hoped, maintain the cultural level of society, and keep our world civilized. A world where we are all economically affluent is, all other things being equal, very desirable, but if it is a world where we simply have our material needs met to superabundance, then it is a world that is culturally impoverished.

The quotation from 'Oxford Today' defends the Humanities, but it is doing so for a relatively small number of able students, who have chosen a particular branch of the Arts to study at university. Fair enough, but there are two additional comments to be made:

1. For many centuries a study of the Humanities, at least to some degree, has been the backbone of education, not just at universities but at what we would now call secondary level. That ideal has been dimmed in recent years. There has been some overcrowding of the curriculum, owing to the many fine things that experts have decided that it is desirable for pupils to learn at school. The danger being that by attempting too much, they achieve too little. The laudable desire to ensure that pupils can earn a living when they leave school has led to an emphasis on what is immediately useful. Often this has been at the expense of an appreciation of culture. Also, even when the humanities are studied, it is often poor examples that are brought forward for pupils to consider - the third rate novel, the ephemeral piece of music or work of art - with the results that there is little inspiration available.

2. It is perfectly possible to study a branch of the humanities, and accumulate knowledge, without thereby obtaining much wisdom. Plato recognized this when he wrote in "The Republic" about how philosophers, the lovers of wisdom, should differ from the lovers of sights and sounds. I'm sure that Oxford University would like its undergraduates to achieve wisdom, by reflecting on what they are learning, and integrating it into their lives. It must be accepted, though, that even at Oxford - never mind other institutions of learning - that this ideal is often missed. In fact, the ideal isn't always made clear to the students, who if asked why they are studying what they are studying would probably reply that they enjoy it, and they hope to get a good job at the end. Fine, but if they are also "to understand more fully what makes life worth living," and contribute to the culture of our society, it would be a good thing for their teachers to put that ideal before them more clearly than hitherto.

So what does this all mean in practice? What am I recommending for our schools?

1. Schools should keep to the fore the ideal of a Liberal Education, and promote it confidently: one that initiates the pupils into the treasures of western civilization. This is specifically not vocational; it is designed to produce the educated man or woman, not the efficient worker. I'm not advocating a forgetfulness of vocational subjects, but a remembrance of the non-vocational.

2. Schools should remember that education is a value-laden process, and give up any pretence to being value-neutral. Values - moral, aesthetic, social - are intrinsic to the work of education; take them away, and you are left with vacuity.

3. Avoid dumbing down. Yes, culture can be difficult, but it should be attempted. Too often schools are content to do the minimum that is required for examination syllabuses, and don't even attempt to scale the heights.

Preparing our pupils for Death

2010-08-13T01:13:00.000+01:00

It is said that Dom Paul Neville, Headmaster of Ampleforth College from 1924-54, was at a meeting of the Headmasters' Conference (HMC ). The theme of discussion was preparation for life, and the various headmasters were vying to show how their schools were at the cutting edge in preparing their pupils for Life, in various ways. Dom Paul rose and said, "Gentlemen, I have been very impressed to hear how your schools are preparing pupils for Life. I have little to add to this discussion, because my school prepares the boys not for Life, but for Death." He sat down to an uncomprehending silence. Given that the memory of the Great War, and of tragic death, was fresh in the minds of many of these educationists, it might not be too much to say that some of them were appalled.

As Catholics, we are preparing for death. Not in itself, but as the gateway to eternal life. In these sensitive days, it is perhaps better to say that we are preparing for eternal life, rather than for death, to avoid misunderstanding. In former ages, prayers for a Good Death were common, but nowadays even traditionally minded Catholics shy away from such devotions. But the fact remains - death comes to all of us, and the state of our soul at that time determines our eternal destiny; and as St Augustine noted, by and large, as man lives so does he die.

We are preparing our pupils for life in this world - both for making a living, and for life in its fulness. But we must also prepare them for eternal life.

We are rightly concerned about the effectiveness of our schools. We use examination results as a benchmark; they are easy to measure in statistical terms. We are rightly concerned to prepare our pupils for these examinations as well as we can. Wider education aims - preparation of life in its fulness - often is neglected, because difficult to measure. But the ultimate measure of the effectiveness of our schools is souls safely entered into eternal life - which will never be definitely known in this world. Just because we cannot measure it, doesn't mean it isn't important - it is central to the work of a Christian educator. There is a higher judge than Ofsted or the DfE.

What is Education for? Three Aspects.

2010-07-28T00:57:00.000+01:00

Education is a preparation for life. What Education is for will therefore depend on what Life is for; one's convictions on the purpose of Life will affect one's view of Education. Those who pretend that somehow Education can be devised without reference to values and meaning are deceiving themselves; they are simply unaware of the values and principles underlying their actions.

Education is a preparation for Life in three senses:

1. Preparation to make a living in the world.
This regards pupils as economic and social units, and might be called vocational education, although that is narrower than I intend; some general education is important to earning a living, even though it is not specifically technical or professional. In my view, the education system in England is excessively aware of the need for pupils to make a living in the future, to the detriment not only of the other aspects of life, but in fact also to the detriment of preparing pupils to make a living. More of that another time.

2. Preparation to live life as a human being properly so called.
This might be called a Liberal education, or the education befitting a free man. It has been alleged that in the past English education, at least for the upper classes, was excessively humanistic and not vocational enough. The opposite is now true.

3. Preparation for eternal life.
"God made me to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him forever in the next." Given that our ultimate destiny is beyond this world, preparation in the moral, religious, and spiritual means to get there are vital. Given that our ultimate destiny is intended to be union with God, no education can be regarded as adequate which does not provide proper consideration of this.

The Patrons of the Blog

2010-07-28T00:22:00.000+01:00

"Let us now praise men of renown, and our fathers in their generation." Ecclus. 44:1

It is appropriate to a traditionalist to pay honour to those who have gone before, who have fought the good fight, and handed on what they have received (and preferably with interest). Having this in mind, this blog hereby adopts three men of renown to preside over it. All three of them were influential in Catholic scholarship in their ways.

1. St Thomas Aquinas. Saint and Scholar.
The only one of the patrons who can strictly speaking be called a saint, and a very great saint at that. He's also a Doctor of the Church - in fact, THE Doctor of the Church. Doctor means teacher; St Thomas is the common doctor of the Church. His Summa Theologica is one of the most important textbooks ever written. He is the patron saint of Catholic schools and students.

2. Cardinal Wolsey. Lord Chancellor of England.
Thomas Wolsey is best known as Lord Chancellor of England in the first part of the reign of King Henry VIII. His role in education isn't as well known. However, he was a vigorous reformer of the church (in the right sense), and as such was the founder of the Oxford College where I spent three years - Christ Church - and so I am a beneficiary of his Foundation. He spent some time early in his career as Master of Magdalen School in Oxford, and showed his keenness to promote education by founding both Christ Church and also a school in Ipswich.

His last words contain a much needed warning to put not our trust in princes. "If I had served God as diligently as I have done the King, he would not have given me over in my grey hairs." In his day, that was the king; in our day, the all encompassing welfare state.

3. Pope Pius XI. Scholar and Supreme Pontiff.
I haven't always been a fan of Pius XI - largely because of the condemnation of Action Francaise, and the consequent ill-treatment of the great theologian Cardinal Billot - but the more I learn, the more I realise his greatness. He wrote a seminal Encyclical letter on Catholic Education "Divini Illius Magistri" which condemned modern errors, as well as laying down important principles. A quotation from this Encyclical letter is at the top of this page.

Why was this Blog made?

2010-07-08T21:32:00.001+01:00

The author of this Blog is a Catholic of traditionalist persuasion, who spends his professional life as a schoolmaster. The purpose of this Blog is to received his thoughts on Education. These thoughts may well be disconnected, semi-coherent, incomplete. Through this Blog they will hopefully become more connected, coherent and complete.

If you have stumbled upon this Blog, I beg your indulgence for anything that may try your patience. Constructive comments on any of the postings will be received gratefully; unconstructive comments will be deleted.

Sedes sapientiae, Ora pro nobis.
Our Lady Seat of Wisdom, pray for us.