The Lasallian School and the Ministry
of Education in the Church
Luke Salm, FSC
Keynote Address
Lasallian Schools Workshop
Haverstraw, New York
October 8-10, 1986
The remarks that follow have been billed as a keynote address for a workshop that is to
deal with the characteristics of Lasallian schools. In view of the mix of those
participating, it has been suggested that this first presentation give some attention to
the role of the laity in the Church and in Catholic education. In an attempt to combine
the two themes, I should like first to make some remarks about the Lasallian school and
then broaden the topic to speak of the role of lay persons in the Church in general and in
Catholic education in particular.
You have in your hands the excellent brochure entitled Characteristics of Lasallian
Schools. In the words of the introduction, it is the result of a collaborative effort
of nearly 150 Brothers and their lay associates to produce "a foundational and
consensual document for the entire Lasallian system." The present workshop is
structured according to the three characteristics highlighted in the document: the teacher
as a minister of grace; association; and the management of the schools. This will surely
provide enough agenda to keep the participants busy, not only for the next couple of days,
but for years to come.
Excellent as this document may be both in its content and in its presentation, I must say
honestly that I am not entirely satisfied with it. The characteristics cited are indeed
central to the educational vision of St. John Baptist de La Salle who founded the
Institute of the Brothers. The well chosen excerpts from his writings make that rather
clear. But there is a vast difference between what De La Salle meant by these terms and
the way we interpret them today.
De La Salle was original and even daring in his use of the term ministry to describe the
mission of the teachers in his schools. But this term had not developed the layers of
meaning that it has come to signify in the Church today. The word ministry has re-entered
our Roman Catholic vocabulary only recently, and not without some controversy as it
applies to lay persons, including religious Brothers and Sisters.
Association is at the heart of what the Founder envisioned as the cohesive element in the
Society of the Brothers, but he had neither the need, the opportunity, nor the desire to
extend it to secular laymen living in what he called "the world." For him the
avoidance of contact with seculars was an essential means to preserve the spirit of
community and union among the Brothers within his Institute.
It is true that the treatise entitled The Management of the Schools, first
published a year after the Founder's death, was the result of a collaborative effort
between De La Salle and some of the "principal Brothers" as he called them, and
it was indeed based on their common teaching experience. Yet it was intended to impose a
rather rigid uniformity throughout all the Brothers' schools in France in matters of
school policy, curriculum, methodology, and discipline for a body of teachers who had
neither the education nor the experience to work these things out for themselves.
The authors of the Characteristics document have wisely chosen to take these three
characteristics, broaden them, and apply them in new and creative ways to the situations
and challenges that we meet in the schools today. In doing so they are following the
policy set forth by the 39th General Chapter of the Brothers in its 1966 Declaration on
the Brothers of the Christian Schools in the World Today:
Fidelity to the present moment of history and fidelity to the
Founder, far from opposing or excluding each other, are closely related, provided we do
not expect St. John Baptist de La Salle to have known in advance all our problems and the
answers to all our questions...Fidelity to the specific intentions of the Founder and to
the tradition of the Institute is confided to us as living men. It is we who carry on the
task of discerning how fidelity to his charism can be lived in the present time (#6,7).
That is what the authors of the document before you have done
in a truly remarkable fashion.
My personal reservations, therefore, have nothing to do with the revisions and the
updating of the Founder's thought. That is inevitable, necessary, and all to the good. The
problem, as I see it, is that the three characteristics that have been isolated and
developed to some extent in the brochure might just as easily be applied to any
institution devoted to education in a Christian context. Would schools conducted by
Jesuits, religious women, diocesan authorities, other orders of Brothers, or even
Lutherans for that matter, want to emphasize anything different?
For that reason, and no doubt for less worthy motives as well, I would prefer to return to
six characteristics of the Lasallian school that I attempted to isolate in an earlier
address given at Manhattan College on the occasion of the 1980 tricentennial celebrations.
A brief summary is available in the item listed under my name in the bibliography of the
brochure.
The six characteristics of the Lasallian schools enumerated in that address were the
following: sensitivity to social issues, religious education, excellence in teaching,
quality education, emphasis on the practical, and a certain independent distance from
church authority. Obviously most of these six characteristics can be subsumed under one or
another of the three that will occupy your attention for the next two days. It will
certainly be easier to focus on three rather than six. Nonetheless, I would like to
highlight two of the original six that might otherwise be lost in the generalities.
The first of the six characteristics that I would like to rescue from oblivion is to my
mind truly distinctive. It is the last in the list and it is the one that provoked the
most controversy in the subsequent discussion. There has been a good bit of resistance
among the Brothers to having their schools characterized by a "certain independent
distance from church authority." After all, our schools are Catholic schools with a
capital C, to some extent supported by the dioceses and the parishes, and to an even
greater extent by the Catholic community at large. Our schools were established, and I
presume still aim, to turn out good practicing Catholics. How, then, does it make sense to
speak of some kind of independent distance from church authority?
It might help to avoid misunderstanding if we nuance and reword this particular
characteristic a bit. What is really meant is a relative distance from the clericalism
that surrounds much of the exercise of authority in the Church? To my mind, this point is
fundamental. It derives from a long tradition that goes back to the time of De La Salle
and his embroglios with the parish and diocesan authorities of his day. Too many of them
did not understand his work in the schools and so tried either to control it, to change it
into something other, or to suppress it altogether. Even De La Salle's unquestioning
submission to the authority of Rome and his intense loyalty to the Holy See can be
interpreted in part as a way of freeing his young society from the interference of local
hierarchies. That is why he came to see early on that the Institute had to remain
exclusively lay if it were to survive.
With this in view, the Founder did all he could to keep the Brothers at the farthest
possible remove from the clerical establishment. He designed a distinctively un-clerical
looking religious habit; it was forbidden to the Brothers to teach or study Latin; they
were allowed to function in parish liturgies only as the supervision of their pupils
required; they could not wear the surplice nor were they allowed to sing in the church
choir. In addition, the Brothers were warned to steer clear of theological controversies
and to stick to the straightforward doctrine of the catechism.
In short, while respect for authority and the clergy, especially for the dignity of the
priesthood, were strongly inculcated in the Brothers and in the students, the Rule
and the tradition required that the Brothers be distinguished from the clergy in all that
pertains to clerical privilege, ambition, lifestyle, and dress.
Over the centuries, some of the specifics and most of the defensiveness in this attitude
have been considerably modified. This is particularly the case in English speaking
countries where people generally tend to identify the Brothers with the clergy. Indeed
some Brothers think of themselves that way, especially when it comes to clerical privilege
and exemptions of various kinds. Perhaps our formal street dress contributes somewhat to
that image. Our confreres in France, for example, who think of themselves as the sole
guardians of the tradition of the Institute, are scandalized by the clerical look of the
black suit and collar that we wear in this country. They call this outfit
"clergyman" with a French accent that leaves no doubt about its pejorative
connotations.
A more fundamental reason for the tendency to distinguish the Brothers from other lay
Christians is the commitment of the Brothers by vow to live out their consecration in a
celibate lifestyle. At one time this form of religious life was called the "state of
perfection," based on a long tradition going back to St. Paul that considered
virginity more perfect than the married state. Since Vatican II, however, with its
insistence that all Christians in whatever state are called to the perfection of holiness,
vowed religious need no longer claim or pretend that they are somehow "holier than
thou." Saints and sinners, the strong and the weak, committed and lukewarm Christians
are to be found on both sides of the monastic enclosure. The differences in lifestyle can
now be thought of less in terms of separation and more in terms of complementary and
interdependent ways of living out the Christian Gospel.
There is another recent development among the Brothers that might seem to be going in the
direction of an increasing involvement in clerical dimension of church life. Just prior to
Vatican II some few Brothers were sent to earn advanced degrees in sacred theology. Since
that time, the number of Brothers with professional training in this field, previously the
exclusive domain of the clergy, has increased significantly. In addition, Brothers have
become active in many aspects of church ministry outside the classroom: in spiritual
direction for adults, in campus ministry centers in schools and colleges, and in parishes
as lectors, acolytes, leaders of song, extraordinary eucharistic ministers and even, here
and there, as homilists despite the canonical ban. Such activities were explicitly
forbidden by the Founder and in the subsequent tradition of the Institute. Even today,
some Brothers view these developments with suspicion, precisely because they seem to be
moving the Institute closer to clerical status.
I, for one, do not agree with such an interpretation, perhaps because I am personally
involved. It seems to me that the intrusion of the Brothers into fields of study and
ministries once reserved to the ordained clergy is not at all an abandonment of their lay
character, or of their lay colleagues, to seek the greener grass on the other side of the
fence. On the contrary. These developments can be seen, and are in reality, ways of
setting precedents and supporting movements to win for all the laity their rightful place
in the leadership of the Church.
With those concessions in mind, it remains true that a respectful distance from the
clerical centers of authority is an important characteristic of the Brothers' tradition.
The same is pretty much the case from the other side as well. Brothers in general are not
privy to the inner workings of the diocese or the Roman curia. For the most part we are
left alone "to do our own thing." We frequently get lost in the cracks between
the "reverend Fathers," the "beloved Sisters," and the "devoted
laity." Quite simply, we are not part of the clerical club and most of us prefer it
that way.
There is another characteristic of the Brothers' schools in that famous list of six that
needs a few words of comment here. I refer to excellence in teaching. It is true that this
characteristic is implicit in the three that form the basis of this workshop. It is also
true that this element is shared by any educational institution worthy of the name.
For the Brother, however, commitment to teaching and to being good at it is at the very
heart of his vocation. It is one of the major contributions of De La Salle that he
transformed the lowly and despised function of schoolmaster, which in his day required no
preparation and was not even a marketable skill, into a genuine professional and religious
vocation, worthy of the dedication of a lifetime. The vocation of the teaching educator
for the Brother is no temporary vocation. It is not considered a way to gain pastoral
experience before moving on to something else, as in some orders of priests, nor is it a
short cut to ecclesiastical preferment, as is the policy in some dioceses. It is this
aspect that gives the excellent teaching in the Lasallian tradition its special character.
Both of the characteristics that I have singled out for special attention ‹ distance
from the clerical establishment and a permanent commitment to teaching ‹ are
qualities that the Brothers share with their lay colleagues. This fact provides the basis
for a smooth transition to the main theme of this address, namely, the importance of the
laity in the Church and in Catholic education.
It would be foolhardy and futile in this context to attempt a full analysis of the role of
the laity in the Church: what it has been, what it is, and what it ought to be. The best
that can be attempted here is to address some remarks to one aspect of the question,
namely, the role of the laity in Catholic education.
In a sense that issue has already been settled in practice. The simple fact is, that at
least in this country, Catholic education is already to a large extent in the hands of lay
persons who are neither priests nor members of religious institutes. The sharp distinction
once made between the so-called religious faculty and the co-called lay faculty is rapidly
breaking down. Lay teachers are no longer a temporary expedient in an emergency situation;
they are an absolute necessity if the system is to survive.
It happens more and more often that it is the lay staff and not the individual priests or
religious that give to a particular school its stability and continuity in its tradition.
The quality of Catholic education has been improved by what the lay teachers have
contributed by way of academic credentials, teaching skills, professional development and
creativity in curriculum reform. At long last, positions of responsibility and leadership
are being assigned to the laity in ever increasing numbers. In short, the lay person in
the Catholic school in the United States has finally come of age. As this situation has
evolved, it has become increasingly clear to the Institute of the Brothers that it ought
to be so. The revised Rule, approved by the recent General Chapter in Rome and
submitted to the Vatican for definitive approval, reminds the Brothers that theirs is a
shared mission. Article 17 states:
Ever since the time of their foundation, the Brothers have
contributed to the promotion of the Christian laity, especially among those educators who
want their professional work to be a form of gospel ministry...they assist their lay
colleagues in becoming more deeply involved in the work of the Church in the field of
education.
The implications are drawn in article 17a that follows:
The Brothers' community is ever mindful that its apostolic
activity takes place in the framework of an educational community in which all the
functions, including therefore positions of responsibility, are shared.
Pope John Paul II echoed this idea in his address to the
chapter delegates when he received them in private audience last May. He said on that
occasion: "I wholeheartedly encourage the Brothers in all their schools to work in
close concert with the lay people who share the Lasallian ideal. You need the
collaboration of men and women of quality who can contribute greatly to the vitality of
your institutions...The responsibility for Christian education has to be borne by
everyone."
In a recent article in America (10/4/86), Father Theodore Hesburgh of Notre Dame
makes a rather startling proposal. He suggests that the administration of the entire
system of Catholic elementary and secondary education in this country be turned over to
the laity. This would relieve the religious institutes of men and women from the burden of
trying to maintain the large institutions that they originally founded. Their most active
and dynamic personnel, though fewer in number, could then be released for the service of
the Catholic poor who could not afford the cost of quality education under lay auspices.
Radical as it sounds, this is not very far from what is proposed in Article 33a of the
Brothers' revised Rule:
The Districts and Regions establish a plan for the
development of their apostolic works that will bring about a situation where the direct
service of the poor becomes more and more their effective priority. Such a plan provides
ways to recruit or train replacements that will permit Brothers to be released for such
service.
Article 19a of the revised Rule applies the same
principle to missionary service:
As a response to this missionary call, the Brothers offer
themselves to be sent by the Institute to places where there is more urgent need for their
services. In such a case, it could even happen that the Brothers would have to confide
their present work to others, in order to free themselves to meet such demands.
At the present time there seems to be a great
resistance to such a policy on the part of the Brother as well as their lay associates.
The attitude seems to be that the Brothers are needed in the schools, much good is being
accomplished, and that the integration of lay personnel is working well.
If the more radical approach of the General Chapter and the Rule is ever to become
a reality, in other words, if the Brothers are ever to be willing to hand over to lay
persons the full responsibility for carrying on the Lasallian tradition, a radical
conversion will be required. That is precisely what the Chapter is calling for in the
attitude of the Brothers and the whole Lasallian family.
A start could be made by a greater effort to immerse the Brothers and their lay associates
in the thought and spirituality of John Baptist de la Salle. This would be followed by a
gradual transition whereby the control and operation of the schools would be handed over
by the Brothers to their lay successors. In a final stage, the majority of the Brothers
would then be assigned to educational work for the marginalized. Presumably the profession
of poverty and the flexibility that comes from a celibate lifestyle would allow the
Brothers to go into situations where their married colleagues with family responsibilities
would be in no position to follow.
Although I doubt very much whether we are prepared to think this way, it is possible that
circumstances may force the issue. There seems to be evidence that something like this may
already be developing in Catholic education in this country. If and when the laity are
entrusted with the full responsibility for the schools there might well be advantages all
around. The priests would be free to exercise the ministries proper to their ordination;
teaching congregations of men and women will have recovered some of the apostolic drive
that characterized their original foundation; and finally, the evolution of the role of
the laity in Catholic education will have come to its full term.
Whether we consider the involvement of the laity in Catholic education in terms of the
total operational control that may be in store for the future, or the present situation in
this country where the majority of the personnel in Catholic schools are lay, either
alternative has interesting and important implications for the role of the laity generally
in the Church.
Most of the traditional writing on this subject has been willing to concede to the laity a
distinctive mission in the world. Karl Rahner put it as well as anyone almost 25 years ago
when he noted that the lay person "allows the Church to be present in her most
essential nature...where no one else can represent the Church, not even the clergy, and
yet where the Church must be" (Nature and Grace, [Sheed and Ward: 1963],
p.97). Since Vatican II, however, there has been an increasing realization that the laity
have an active and essential role, not only in the Church's mission to the world, but also
within the structure of the Church itself.
The fundamental theological reason for this development is the teaching of Vatican II that
the word Church applies in the first instance to the entire people of God, and that the
guidance of the Holy Spirit is active in the whole Church and not just in the hierarchy.
This is important when we come to consider the teaching ministry in the Church, the Latin
word for which is magisterium. Not many are aware that the use of this scary Latin term to
refer exclusively to the official teaching of the church hierarchy dates back only to the
last century. Teaching ministry or magisterium in its broader meaning has a much longer
history. Over the centuries, teaching ministry has been exercised in a variety of ways and
by a variety of agents with varying degrees of extrinsic and intrinsic authority.
The teaching ministry of Jesus is the model for every other teaching ministry in the
Church where all the teachers must learn "to teach as Jesus did." In I
Corinthians, St. Paul distinguishes the charism of teachers from that of the apostles and
ranks teachers near the top of his list; he reserves a place for the administrators near
the end. St. Thomas Aquinas applies the term magisterium primarily to those licensed to
teach theology; he prefers juridical and pastoral language to describe the teaching
function of bishops. It should not be forgotten that Teresa of Avila and Catherine of
Siena ‹ women and lay religious ‹ are officially designated as Doctors, that is
teachers, of the Church. A century ago, Cardinal Newman could write an important essay on
consulting the faithful in matters of doctrine. There might be fewer tensions in the
Church today if some of his insights had been taken more seriously by church officials.
The question, then, is not whether the laity share in the teaching ministry, but how the
teaching ministry of lay persons is exercised. It should be made clear at once that there
is no claim that lay teachers at any level of education can teach authoritatively in the
name of the Church, as bishops do. On the other hand, teaching of any kind cannot be
called teaching in the true sense of the word, much less a service or ministry, if it is
limited to the memorization of formulas or mere indoctrination.
Teachers have to be open: open to learning and the search for the truth; open to
unexpected sources for insight into the truth; open to new ways to express and formulate
truth already possessed; above all, open to the needs, the preoccupations and the unique
personhood of those being taught. Lay teachers know from experience what it is to teach.
When they bring these qualities to their teaching, including especially the teaching of
the gospel message, then their teaching becomes a genuine ministry and their role in the
teaching ministry of the Church becomes indispensable.
A summary remark should suffice at this point by way of conclusion. Despite the reluctance
in certain conservative quarters to concede to the laity any genuine and significant
ministerial role in the Church, it is evident from our experience in this country, that
the laity do have such a role, especially in the ministry of Catholic education. It has
been the purpose of this presentation to relate this role to the distinctive
characteristics of the Lasallian school ‹ with special reference to a relative
distance from a dominant clericalism and a full time dedication to teaching as a vocation.
These aspects of the Lasallian tradition challenge the Brothers and their lay colleagues
to work out, together and by association, a plan for the management of the schools that
will transform the education that takes place there into an authentic ministry of grace. |
