Amid the furore over crucifixes in state classrooms, Joseph Grech asks the Archbishop's delegate for Catechesis Fr René Camilleri about the real challenges facing the teaching of religion and catechesis.

Are you satisfied with the way religion is currently being taught?

The situation is not a happy one, but there are also signs of vitality. Judging from the outcome in the Matsec exams, the way religion is taught in schools leaves much to be desired.

We continue to have stereotyped answers, even at A-level, evidently prefabricated and studied almost by heart. This is terrible, considering that it's religion.

Quite a number of students, particularly at A-level, clearly take religion as a soft option and do not even bother to study. As a result, they reproduce answers regurgitated from parish catechesis lessons. It is an unbearable situation.

Both syllabuses and textbooks need urgent refurbishment, but this is the competence of the Maltese bishops conference.

What do you think of the local Church's policy of increasing the amount of catechesis taught after school hours prior to confirmation?

This is really the hottest issue at present. Initiation in the Catholic faith in Malta is still strong and is the competence of parishes. Up to three or four years ago, children started with First Holy Communion at the age of six or seven and received confirmation at 10 after having followed a two-year formation course.

In other European countries, there are diverse experiences in this regard. In some countries, confirmation is given even later than the ages of 16 or 17.

The idea of postponing confirmation in Malta had been repeatedly discussed for a number of years. After a period of consultation, it was finally decided to postpone it to the age of 12, thereby prolonging the period of initiation by a further two years.

But this decision was not without implications. I do not think our parishes were prepared. They need more catechists, more space, and more resources. Besides, catering for 11- and 12-year-olds is no joke.

When I came in two years ago, we did not even have textbooks to cover these two years. I set up two teams precisely to work on this. At the secretariat we are presently rethinking the whole curriculum, which I consider is too doctrine-oriented.

Although catechism lessons in parishes are meant to be complementary to school religion lessons many children find they are repetitive. Also, in catechism, children are not meant to be given homework, but it doesn't always work like that.

Don't you think placing this extra obligation may lead catechism lessons being abandoned and parents not confirming their children?

This is another problem. It is turning out to be quite challenging and difficult to expect children to keep coming for catechism lessons between the ages of six and 12.

Quite a number are just quitting, with the result that in the near future we'll end up with people wanting to get married without having received confirmation.

Lately I've put this issue on the agenda of the college of parish priests. For me it's a pastoral problem and we need a new approach to deal with it.

Is the religion curriculum being updated and are religion teachers being better equipped?

In the Secretariat for Catechesis, where I have been the Archbishop's delegate since July 2007, serious rethinking started in 2004. But things were at a standstill for various reasons.

Between 2007 and 2008 a working document was prepared and a national conference for all religion teachers was held in June 2008. Based on that document, a policy document is now ready and is being implemented.

An Office for Religious Education was set up within the secretariat and at the beginning of this year two task forces were set up within this office to start working on updating the syllabuses for primary and secondary levels respectively.

In preparing our curriculum and syllabuses, we are exploring experiments and experiences in other countries such as Ireland, Scotland, and to some extent, Italy. The draft new syllabuses are being discussed and the learning outcomes were forwarded to the Ministry of Education directorate last week.

Where syllabuses, textbooks and in-service training of religion teachers are concerned, it is the bishops who are ultimately responsible, and through them, the secretariat. There is also a close working relationship on the matter between the office and religion executive officers at the ministry. Given also the curriculum review underway within the directorate, it is important for us to adhere to the philosophy inspiring the national strategy.

At the moment, in-service training of religion teachers is our priority.

Recently there have been calls for the study of comparative religion in school curriculum to promote better inter-faith dialogue and understanding. Do you agree?

I agree with all efforts to promote inter-faith dialogue. But I do not believe schools are the right place to promote this dialogue. Schools can be a place where students are educated for diversity. Yet this should not make us jump to the conclusion that we should substitute religion with comparative religion.

Religion lessons take up almost two hours a week. I do not think that at this level you can teach about the different Christian denominations, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, and so on. Of course, that does not mean they have to be excluded.

I think being open to diversity does not necessarily mean not teaching the Catholic religion. If society does not know what it believes in, it has nothing to hand down to emerging generations. I strongly believe religious education is about transmitting a dynamic tradition rather than 'traditions'.

Schools cannot promote a critical approach to a tradition before that tradition is handed on in the first place. At times, we jump to conclusions and expect to transfer to the school environment what may be more appropriate to a university campus.

I consider the teaching of religion in school as part and parcel of the 'spiritual' journey of education.