Teaching...English?

So. (I think I'll borrow that little opener from the lovely Seamus Heaney translation of Beowulf -- it's simple yet profound. /digression)

My job description, if I had one, would probably include language about the teaching of English language and literature, helping students develop writing skills and critical analysis skills, and shepherding my youthful charges through various Extracurricular Activities that appropriately engage their interests and talents. Thank God it doesn't include coaching athletic teams, or I'd be sunk. Hand-eye coordination seems to be a prerequisite to most organized sports, and I am sorely lacking in that capacity. I don't know if it would include catechesis.

When I attended the National Catholic Educational Association annual convention last spring, I went to a session about the new publication from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops: the National Directory for Catechesis. It's been out for maybe two years...so perhaps new isn't quite the term anymore. Recent, perhaps. Anyhow, the session was unfortunately only an hour long, so the presenter was forced to give some items a lick and a promise. I've since gone back and read further in the directory for myself.

The most striking assertion the directory makes is that every teacher in a Catholic school is a catechist...not just those in the theology/religious studies/whatever the term is nowadays department. Which, on reflection, shouldn't be all that striking, but still is.

I think back to my own seventeen years in Catholic schools (kindergarten through undergrad), and I can certainly think of great catechists who were and were not specifically engaged in religious instruction.

But what does it really mean? Yes, I begin each class with a prayer...but certainly that isn't the be-all and end-all? The best I've come up with so far is leading by example when possible: reverence during school Masses and morning prayer, annual assistance in preparing musicians for the Latin Mass in February, speaking to the faith and gender course for girls, and the like.

This week, though, I got two opportunities to be a bit more direct in the presentation of the Catholic faith: once in a class discussion and once because of a slightly flippant remark I made. (I know...first rule of teaching is don't make jokes. I break it constantly.)

A class discussion on The Lord of the Rings (in fantasy literature, so it was on topic) brought up the question of the moral licitness of using evil means to achieve a good end. I posited and believe Tolkien's work posits the teaching that one can never use evil means (i.e., The One Ring) to achieve a good end and that Saruman is an example of what happens to those who believe otherwise -- evil is a strong force and not to be trifled with. A student asked the question, "What about the dropping of the atomic bomb to end WWII?" And we were off on the issue of that which is evil in itself (malum in se) versus that which is morally neutral but can be put to evil ends. Without expounding too much on just war theory and Catholic teaching on war, the class and I concluded that nobody would say that dropping the A-bomb was a moral good but rather that it was an evil perpetrated to prevent the possible greater evil of an invasion of mainland Japan and the probable carnage and destruction on both sides. I was pleasantly surprised to hear how articulate the students were in their moral thinking and only had to insert the "Well, the Church teaches X" comment in a couple of places.

The second situation arose during a casual exchange with a student after class -- he'd gotten a detention for being out-of-uniform and wanted to get demerits instead of going to detention. I remarked that while he might prefer that option, I was fairly certain his mother and father wouldn't feel the same way. He expressed his feeling that parents have too much control in their children's lives as it is, and I said that as long as one is on one's parents' payroll, that's just how it is. I added "And when you're off the parental payroll, there's always that whole 'honor thy father and thy mother' thing as well."

The student then stated his belief that parents wrote that and furthermore that the Bible was man-made rather than divinely inspired. Luckily, we were going into the lunch period, and I could stop and chat with him about faith, reason, and the Bible. It's rare in the modern world that one is actually afforded an opportunity to share one's faith openly and unreservedly, and in truth, it's a little intimidating. I don't think I really made a life-changing major impression on this young man, but he was open and receptive to what I had to say and I think maybe a bit impressed that I could answer his assertions and questions logically and not with "Well, that's just what I believe." (Hat tip to my husband, a.k.a. The Greatest Man in the World, for introducing Bible study and apologetics into my faith formation -- although he can still whip my backside when it comes to knowing Scripture by heart. The Protestants have us Catholics beat soundly there.) We parted with his summation: "I accept faith because I can't see another acceptable alternative -- sort of why/why not. You're more why/because -- you actually believe it because you thought about it." I suggested that he read Mere Christianity.

I came home today feeling like I accomplished something. Maybe only a small seed planted, but something nonetheless. And it was a good, good day.