Customer Reviews

Educating for Life: A Spiritual Vision for Every Teacher and Parent

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

In this work, Tom Groome proposes to offer a philosophy for catholic education and a catholic philosophy for education. He does a fine job of offering both and it will be of interest to any Christian educator who seeks to integrate universal principles of Christian faith into his or her spirituality of teaching. It is simple to read, yet offers more than just a simplistic rendering. As one of Tom's students, and as a professional religious educator myself, I heartily recommend it.

I have a love-hate relationship with this book. On the one hand, it inspired a great deal of thought and has really changed the way I look at religious education, and my own job as a religious educator. On the other hand, Groome can be *very* long-winded. This book could have been half as long without sacrificing very much at all.

But I have to recommend it -- it is one of the best books about religious education I've ever read.

Educating For Life: A Spiritual Vision For Every Teacher And Parent by Thomas Groome (Professor of Pastoral Theology and Religious Education, Boston College), is an informed and informative examination of what it truly means to have a Catholic education. Examining modern spiritual concerns both at home and at the school, Professor Groome offers a wealth of insights to help the reader cope with the latest flood of distractions that modern, hyper-connected life throws at the faithful. Education For Life is a highly recommended, accessibly readable, thoughtfully insightful, and quite personable look at the meaning and future of Christian education.

It is precisely because Catholic educators are forced to read books like this that Catholic schools are in the state they are in. Teachers read books like these and have their moral relativity and their democratic view of the Catholic Church reinforced by someone who is supposed to be a representative of the Catholic Church. The book is littered with statements and anecdotes that do little more than cast doubt in the mind of the uninformed.

Groome suggests that as an "antidote to sectarianism" he will note what he perceives as "failures of [his] own Catholic Christian community" (42). He wants to avoid, "absolutizing one's own tradition" concerned that this might somehow "legitimize prejudice."

Groome suggests that one should have a "healthy scepticism" or a "critical consciousness" toward the Catholic tradition, "given how much untruth is in every statement of faith" (142, emphasis added). He does not explain this statement he just states it as fact. For a person who desires to learn more about their Catholic faith and assumes that Groome is an authourity, their faith will be damaged more than nurtured. How is a teacher supposed to teach the Apostle's or Nicene Creed with any certainty? How would a teacher respond to questions about the creeds? Would he or she respond by telling the student not to take it too seriously since much of it isn't true anyway?

The authoritarian nature of the Church is of particular concern to Thomas Groome. Throughout his book Groome makes several negative references to this authoritarian nature (41, 240-243, 273, 299). He disdainfully suggests that the "undue emphasis on the church's authority amounted to "the church has already done the thinking for you-and now you must think as it thinks" (299).

Groome suggests that the teaching authority of the Church "cannot be limited to the institutionalized magisterium" (241). Groome refers to the Democratic spirit of Catholicism in America (56) suggesting that the "official magisterium should act as a consensus builder, articulating positions that reflect the faith of the community over time..." (241). The consensus 200 years ago was that it was perfectly fine to own slaves, today the consensus is that it is just fine to kill your unborn baby. Is this the consensus he is referring to? Was Jesus a consensus builder? Did concern himself with what was popular and politically correct? If he did, the woman caught in adultery might not have survived; it seemed the consensus was to kill her. He didn't seem to follow the politically correct consensus on divorce and remarriage either. I suppose Groome would critique Jesus' response to those situations as well.

Groome makes reference to the necessity or requirement of a person to follow his or her conscience, implying that this must be done even if the decision is contrary to Church teaching. He suggests that the "conscience is always the last court of appeal!" and then goes on, quoting Vatican II documents, stating that in order to come to God a Catholic in all activity must faithfully follow his or her conscience (242). Once again Groome offers a limited explanation potentially leading the reader astray. The implication is that the person in question has a properly formed conscience. It is not likely that many people would acknowledge or even be aware of the fact that their conscience has not been properly formed. People whose conscience has been formed by secular culture would likely reject the notion that their conscience should be congruent with the teaching of the church at all. This same Vatican II document (Gaudium et Spes) also states that the "conscience [can] go astray through ignorance...without...losing its dignity." On the other hand "this cannot be said of the person who takes little trouble to find out what is true and good or when the conscience is gradually almost blinded through the habit of committing sin" (paragraph 16). Later in this same document, in the section, The Fruitfulness of Marriage (paragraph 50), when deciding the number of children a couple should have, the Church teaches that the couple "should realize that in their behaviour they may not simply follow their own fancy but must be ruled by conscience - and conscience ought to be in accord with the law of God in the teaching authority of the church."

As stated further in the section Married Love and Respect for Human Life (paragraph 51), in the discussion on the use of artificial contraception, the Church concludes that, "daughters and sons of the church, faithful to these principles, are forbidden to use methods disapproved of by the teaching authority of the church in its interpretation of divine law." It seems that the last court of appeal is not our own personal conscience if our conscience is in direct opposition to the teachings of the Church.

In 1973, the CCCB published a document entitled, Statement on the formation of Conscience. In this document that some suggest is a response to the Winnipeg Statement of 1968, the bishops state:

41. For a Catholic "to follow one's conscience" is not, then, simply to act as his unguided reason dictates. "To follow one's conscience" and remain a Catholic, one must take into account first and foremost the teaching of the magisterium. When doubt arises due to a conflict of "my" views and those of the magisterium, the presumption of truth lies on the part of the magisterium. "In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent of soul. This religious submission of will and of mind must be shown in a special way to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra (Lumen Gentium, #25). And this must be carefully distinguished from the teaching of individual theologians or individual priests, however intelligent or persuasive.

The list could go on and on. Suffice it to say, this book has the potential to be very dangerous.