Editorial

The Catholic Church is in the process of drawing up a new policy on religious education. This is probably the single most important act it could perform in the face of some highly worrying trends in Maltese society, not least the recent shocker of a revelation that one third of children do not live with both biological parents. It appears that the value of the traditional family unit is losing the place it once held with so much pride at the very heart of our Catholic-inspired mores.

As more and more people cut loose from the anchor of the Church's teachings, the signs are that many are adrift without a compass on the increasingly choppy seas of materialism, with egoism and the desire for instant gratification clouding their sense of direction.

It is to children that the Church must now turn its full attention if it wants to have a chance of piloting the next generation safely through the raging currents of modern living to waters becalmed by strong faith in a loving, all-embracing God. Hence, the vital nature of what the Archdiocese of Malta has embarked upon. If parents, increasingly, cannot pass on this kind of religious orientation to their children, then it is up to schools to step in and try to fill the gap.

But the Curia's consultative document, in the wisdom of its compilers, does not call for any sort of return to a dogmatic approach to religious instruction - that lies more in the realm of the catechism provided by parishes. Neither is it actually pointing some sort of finger of blame at society for the need to strengthen religious education. Rather, it is turning back on the Church and telling it, in no uncertain terms, that it has been slow to respond to pedagogical advances and to transformations in society and, therefore, the methods of teaching religion need to be urgently reviewed in order to become more relevant and effective.

The document proposes, among other things, to replace the syllabi and texts that were designed a couple of decades ago, bolster training and support for religion teachers, and strengthen religious counselling in schools. A new Religious Education office would meet such needs and promote research.

There is also an attempt to answer the difficult question of what religious education should achieve: It should help students learn to face life's challenges, impart moral and ethical responsibility, educate spiritually, promote a healthy relationship with oneself, others, creation and God. The method of instruction should avoid being "arid" and target the students' affective natures.

The latter suggestion should be viewed with a measure of caution: Granted, youngsters are at the stage of development when an appeal to their emotions may serve to spark off or retain their interest, but it must be kept in mind that emotions tend not to be the most dependable side of one's personality. Certainly this approach must not be relied on at the expense of developing the ability to reason, to appreciate the beauty of reflective thought and to ponder upon truth.

To all this one might add that religious instruction should cultivate a questioning attitude and, ultimately, empower children to determine their own spiritual stance on life: To discover the voice of God within their own souls.