Trusteeship of Catholic Schools: A look down the road ahead.

Text of talk given by Fr Aidan McGrath at conference of Education Assembly organised by CORI Education.

Education of young people has been a part of religious life for well over fifteen hundred years. It became a more integrated part of the life of many institutes founded in the sixteenth and subsequent centuries specifically for the purpose of providing Catholic Education for the poor. In Ireland, the roots of the modern Catholic School system can be discerned in the work of Nano Nagle in the latter part of the eighteenth century. Other religious operated schools in Ireland before that – our own Province has been operating schools off and on since the middle of the thirteenth century. The nineteenth century saw the rapid development in Ireland of religious involvement in schools. These were attached to religious houses of sisters and brothers. Education was seen to be the apostolate exercised by these religious, whether they actually taught in the schools or not. All educational, administrative and practical matters were handled “in-house”.

Eventually, of course, there came State involvement and assistance: school buildings apart from the religious house; payment of lay teachers by the State; the appointment of Boards of Management; lay Principals, etc. Religious have found themselves for several decades cooperating and collaborating with others in the provision of education – with parents, teachers, the Department of Education etc.

Faced with the contemporary challenges, religious sought to find a way forward, to preserve into the future the work done by previous generations. In 1996, came the publication of the CORI Handbook on Trusteeship. This was followed by multi-faceted conversations, involving CORI, the Episcopal Conference and the Congregations for Consecrated Life and Catholic Education at the Holy See. In February 2005, the Inter-Conference meeting entitled “Catholic Education in Contemporary Ireland” took place in Maynooth; a Strategic Task Group for Education was established; its work led to an Inter-Conference Workshop in Maynooth in November 2005 and a workshop in Portlaoise in February 2006 that included representatives of Management Bodies.

A focal point of the conversations that took place at the Workshops was the question: “By what canonical means can we assure the provision of Catholic schools into the future in Ireland?”
Responses to this fundamental question were considered at different levels:

Mechanisms: i.e. strictly canonical frameworks by which the ownership of Catholic Schools (not just in the sense of property) is maintained;
Structures: i.e. the need to establish a unified approach at national level to deal with issues concerning the provision of Catholic Education in Ireland;
Protocols: i.e. agreements or strategies that are needed from time to time to deal with particular situations or circumstances affecting the provision of Catholic Education where close cooperation is needed.

There were four choices of Mechanism facing all present:

the status quo with religious and bishops as trustees of Catholic Schools;
the transfer of religious schools to the relevant diocese;
the closure of the schools and disposal of the property;
the establishment of public juridical persons to act as Trustees.

After a lot of discussion and consideration in groups, overwhelming support was expressed for the establishment of Trust bodies as public juridical persons for emerging new trust groups

Since then, at least two such bodies have been established as public juridical persons by the Irish Episcopal Conference. As I understand the situation, there are at least three clearly identifiable groupings of School Trust Bodies functioning at present:

ERST
CEIST
Le Chéile

There are also the individual Trustee groups, many of which are working collaboratively in some measure. This reality reflects the possibility of diversity that was called for at both Workshops.

The whole process by which the conversations took place and ways forward were identified has been shaped by a fundamental context, i.e. that Catholic Education is an integral part of the Mission of the whole Church. Within that context, it must be remembered that the primary educators of children in the Church are the parents.faith, Bishops have an obligation to ensure the provision of Catholic Schools to assist the parents in the teaching of the faith. Religous Institutes co-operate or collaborate in this provision in the spirit of their founding charism and sound traditions. . In the journey so far, this collaboration has always been an expression of the “spirituality of communion” for which Pope John Paul called throughout his long pontificate . The journey so far has shown the willingness and ability of Religious and Bishops and Trusts to collaborate with parents to provide for the Christian Education of their children now and into the future.

This fundamental context of the Church and its Mission must determine how the current developments are read and understood:

Catholic Education is not a forum in which the “power” of the Bishops can be exercised;
Catholic Education is not the “property” of religious institutes, no matter how long and rich their experience might be in the field;
Catholic Education is not to be “controlled” henceforth (by religious and Bishops) through the new Trusts.

Instead, the provision of Catholic Education is understood as a service to Catholic parents, to the whole People of God, and to society in general.

With this radical perspective in mind, let us just revisit a few comments and observations that are not helpful and respond to them:

New forms of Trusteeship are simply the abandonment by religious of schools:

At the very beginning of the conversations that took place early in 2000-2001, the Congregations for Consecrated Life and Catholic Education made it clear that any innovation introduced into Trusteeship of Schools in Ireland must not be viewed as abandonment. The closure of schools and the sale of the property was presented in November 2005 as a valid option for some religious; yet the vast majority did not consider this as an adequate response to the situation. The introduction of the new forms of Trusteeship constitute a challenge to religious to be involved in the schools they founded and operated in a new way. Their role must now be supportive, educative, inspirational, rather than hands-on and administrative. The involvement of religious in the schools operated by the new Trusts remains a responsibility, but it must be expressed in a wholly new way.

The forms of Trusteeship mean that the religious are losing or surrendering their patrimony:

The property of any religious institute is held and used by that institute for very clearly defined and designated purposes. The property is not held for the well-being of the institute, but to serve the mission that is given to the institute and its members. Thus, for example, whatever was designated internally in a religious institute for the purposes of Catholic Education can legitimately be transferred (with the necessary authorisation, of course) to the new Trusts so that they can accomplish the mission given to them in the name of the Church. Since these goods are designated for use in the mission of the Church, a proper account must be given of their use. Consequently, some of the Trusts have incorporated a means of accountability into their statutes . Whereas in previous times, account for stewardship of property was given by the religious in schools to their internal superiors, the new Trusts now give this account to their approving authorities.

The religious are trying to control their schools from beyond the grave by reference to ‘charisms’:

In the establishment of many of the new School Trusts, great emphasis has been placed on the founding charism of the Founder of the Religious Institute involved and on the charism of the Institute itself. These charisms are gifts of God to the whole Church. They must be preserved and fostered as part of the patrimony of the whole Church. Obviously, first and foremost, they must be preserved and fostered in the Religious Institute itself – after all, if the religious do not consider it worthwhile preserving and fostering, why should outsiders take it seriously? In addition, by means of ongoing formation, preparation of Members and Directors of Companies, members of Boards of Management, Principals, Teachers and Chaplains, the religious have a right to ‘remind’ future generations in the schools of their heritage. They cannot expect laypeople to maintain the particular character of their schools in the way the religious did for generations; they can only trust that the new Trusts will keep alive the charism and founding intention of each Institute in a manner that is appropriate.

The involvement of the Bishops in the approval of ERST and CEIST is a surrender of control to them:

The canonical statutes of some of the Trust bodies include reference to the responsibility of the Trust to cooperate with the diocesan Bishop and with the Irish Episcopal Conference. This expression of accountability is not to be viewed as something negative. As partners in the Mission of the Church, the new Trusts refer to the Bishops, not because they are “under their control” but because it is an essential feature of the Episcopal ministry to be the guarantor of “Catholicity”. Thus, on a national level, the Trust must provide reports about its finances and activities , while at a local level, the Trust must acknowledge the proper role and authority of the individual diocesan Bishop . The spirituality of communion is not something purely theoretical but must find a concrete expression of some kind, such as these statutes . One of the challenges of 2008 and the years ahead is to provide Catholic Education in Ireland in wholly new cultural and social context. Many of the certainties and presumptions of the past are no longer valid. Catholic Schools must be able to stand up to scrutiny – to be what they say they are. A healthy working partnership between religious, Bishops, and the Trusts can help to make this a reality.

With a multiplicity of responses – in theory and in fact – to the radical question “By what canonical means can we assure the provision of Catholic schools into the future in Ireland?”, there is a need to ask how this relationship of communion between the religious, Bishops and Trusts is to be expressed in practical and organisational terms: what other mechanisms are needed to help everyone involved in the enterprise of Catholic Education in Ireland move forward?

At the workshops in 2005 and 2006, there was a certain groundswell of support for the establishment of some sort of National Office for Catholic Education. This received more concrete support in the Bishops’ Pastoral Letter of May 2008: “it is the Bishops’ intention to provide cooperation with the Religious Trustees further support in the near future for those involved in the work of Catholic Education by establishing a national Catholic Education Service for the whole of Ireland” . This has now been done. Among the key elements in the establishment of this Catholic Education Service are the following:

To provide a unified voice for Catholic Education
To foster a deeper awareness that Catholic Education is an integral part of the mission of the Church
To generate, distribute and administer appropriate funding for agreed services
To develop an inter-dependent and collaborative CES organisational structure.

These elements correspond very closely with some of the clearest responses returned from a variety of respondents to a Survey carried out by the Strategic Task Group for Education, namely:

Role clarification concerned leadership and representation of Catholic Education
A well-resourced support service
Clarification and formation regarding the Catholic identity of schools
A National voice and leadership for Catholic Education.

This Catholic Education Service – intended principally as a “Service” – is to become an agency of the Episcopal Conference. Among its roles will be the facilitation of the relationship between the Bishops (individually and as a Conference) with the principal stakeholders in Catholic Education, thus providing another concrete and practical expression of the “spirituality of communion”. This Catholic Education Service helps to channel the energies and resources of the Episcopal Conference, but what about the Trustees? How are they to liaise with the Bishops through the Catholic Education Service? If they are to liaise as individual Trusts, how is duplication and repetition to be avoided?

The rather obvious response is by means of the Association of Trustees of Catholic Schools. This Association already exists. As the Trusts are established (whether wholly lay or still – at least partly – religious), the service once offered by CORI through its Education Office becomes inappropriate and a new entity for coordination is required. The concerns raised at the Workshops 2005-2006 and in the responses to the Survey have been highlighted already; this Association is an obvious candidate to respond to some of those concerns, from the perspective of the Trusts. Thus, when and where necessary, the Association can provide a unified voice to express the concerns of the Trustees, a vehicle for the liaison between the Trustees and the Episcopal Conference (by means of the Catholic Education Service), or between an individual Trust and an individual diocesan Bishop.

In addition, the Association can provide a very useful forum for articulating a joint approach when circumstances or a particular situation require that a practical Protocol be prepared. At the Workshops 2005-2006, several areas were identified in which Protocols could be foreseen:

Collaboration – e.g. in the matter of the establishment, closure, amalgamation and rationalisation of Catholic Schools; the development of a national, regional or local plan;
Canonical mission – e.g. how to facilitate the Bishop in exercising his canonical role to the schools in his diocese? How to facilitate the Trusts in fulfilling their respective obligations? Reporting and accountability between Trusts and Bishops.
Communications – e.g. consultation with stakeholders; engagement with the local community; channels of communication between Bishops, schools and parents.
Supervision – e.g. guidelines for evaluation of the ethos of the Catholic School; mission effectiveness, etc.
Quality assurance/support – e.g. best practice guidelines concerning employment, appointments, training for the future, etc.
State-Church – e.g. negotiations with government departments.
Negotiations – e.g. negotiations between Trusts and Unions.

This list of areas that might require practical Protocols is far from exhaustive. However, these few areas highlighted already indicate the need for a coordinated approach. If each Trust were to engage with the Bishop(s) on an individual basis, a lot of time and effort might be wasted, time and effort that could possibly be devoted more usefully to the fundamental mission. The development of the Mechanisms (Trusts), Structures (e.g. CES and ATCS), and Protocols is intended to serve the mission of the Church “to preach the Gospel to all peoples” (canon 747 §1), by educating them and “helping all to arrive at the fullness of Christian life” (canon 794 §1), through the establishment and operation of Catholic Schools which “are the principal means of helping parents to fulfil their role in education” (canon 796 §1). This is a mission that has been entrusted to the diocesan Bishop and to religious institutes (canons 801; 802; 806).

The founders of religious institutes in the past responded bravely and with faith to the challenges of their times. They responded with faith and courage by setting up schools, often in the face of opposition and ridicule at a time when economic and personnel resources were in scarce supply. They faced a daunting prospect with no blueprint – but they remained undaunted. The challenge facing all engaged in the enterprise of Catholic Education in Ireland at the beginning of the Third Millennium is no less daunting – certainly, there is no blueprint and no guaranteed outcome. Can we face this reality and remain undaunted as our forebears did? Much has been done in the past decade to move forward in a new way; there is still much to do. As we move forward together – always in communion of faith and love with our sisters and brothers – we will learn how to respond together to the challenges of our age for the sake of the Mission entrusted to us.

Main Menu