Freedom and progress

FATHER BRINK WORTH'S article expresses strong feelings in strong language. He rebukes the C.R.M. for questioning the decisions and actions of the official leadership of the Church.
The occasion of his rebuke is the recent report. "The Future of Catholic Education in England and Wales" but the rebuke goes beyond the report. What Fr. •Brinkwc.irth really objects to, I think. is not so much the activities of the C.R.M. as its very existence.
He and many others 'feel that in The Catholic Church. whose leaders are divinely inspired. the leaders need little help from the followers in making decisions and issuing instructions. The duty of the followers is to follow, not to criticise.
It is thought-patterns like this which give Fr. Brinkworth his perspective in examining the "unjust pronouncements" he finds in the report. As it happens, the first of Fr. Brinkworth's quotes comes from the C.R.M. Manifesto printed on the inside covers of the booklet, and not from Mr Spencer's report itself. Fr Brinkworth thinks it unjust of the C.R.M. to say that when priests are unjustly treated for the expression of honestly held beliefs. the world is given scandal instead of inspiration.
He implies that because bishops obtain a promise of obedience from the priests they ordain, they have an absolute right to treat priests as they think fit. and can never justly he accused of injustice. Has the Catholic Church reached a point where complaints of injustice at the hands of its officials should automatically be regarded as unjust? Fr. Brink worth appears to think so, but the C.R.M. does not.
Fr Brinkworth comments on four points from the report: the framing of new justifications for Catholic schools; non-participation of parents in school management; the duty of parents to choose only Catho lic schools; and the lack of provision for Catholic children in non-Catholic schools. If you agree with his assumptions about the church, you will accept his opinion that none of these things merits complaint. If you think otherwise. you will agree with the C.R.M. that the points are at least worth further examination. At this level, we are back to the familiar Institution versus Movement debate, and a detailed scrutiny of the four points will be either unnecessary or unconvincing.
But Fr Brinkworth's final rebuke to the C.R.M. for pressurising the bishops through press publicity can he quickly disposed of Firstly, publication was timed to follow receipt of the report from the printer, and it was a coincidence that this took place a fortnight or so beforethe bishop's conference-, secondly. the report was not sprung on the bishops through the press; all the bishops had a summary of its recommendations a year ago, and very few showed an interest; thirdly who told Fr. Brinkworth that the report was to get "wider consideration" at the bishops' conference? Did he. or anyone else see the agenda? And finally. the aim was not to embarrass the bishops but to get discussion going.
Today the bishops are inviting informed Catholic opinion. Without publicity there will be no informed Catholic opinion. The implication that it is dis
loyal to bring problems into the open just won't do any more.
Fr. Brinkworth does however accept that the C.R.M. contains much potential for good. But unless we can all listen to each other openly, as brothers and sisters in Christ, that potential will not be realised. Here is our need: to find a vision of the pilgrim church which has a place for all of us and which will not 'blind us to the educational or other problems we undoubtedly have and must share.
No single description of the Church will do for all time: from the parables of Christ and the imagery of St. Paul we get many angles and widely differing hints of what the Church and the Kingdom are like. But an image I find helpful today is that of base and mission. Both are needed to win wars. Both are needed in the Church today. Some serve the mission hest by keeping the base secure and tidy. But the base is meaningless unless it is some kind of jump ing-off ground.
The C.R.M. is not trying to destroy the base. It is simply trying to make it a better jumping-off ground. a better place in which to prepare for the confrontation with evil in the world (especially the kind that masquerades as good).
In this view. the Catholic school is part of the base. We should expect it to produce "young people prepared to challenge the world .intelligently in terms of the gospel" (as this month's "New Blackfriars" puts it). If they are not doing this, and if mounting financial anxieties are pushing this goal further from our minds. then we have a problem which, as things are. obedience alone will not solve.
This report is already being interpreted as an attack on bishops. on Catholic teachers (especially head teachers). on the C.E.C. in particular and Catholic schools in general.
It is none of these things. it is an invitation to discuss and enquire into a problem.
Can we please get on with it?