December 14, 2009 (Catholic education, Catholic schools)

Recently, I read a letter, complimenting the staff of a Catholic magazine, (I believe it was either Commonweal or America) on the excellence of their work on behalf of the Catholic faith. The writer described their work as a “lay apostolate.”

It struck me as a most apt term, since I’m sure those who toil for a Catholic publication, whether Church sponsored or an independent like Commonweal, The Tablet or National Catholic Reporter are likely to be less handsomely paid than in the secular press.

I also liked it too, because I think it applies to those who blog independently; whether I like their brand of Catholicism or not, at least they have a passion for their faith and have a courage to speak to that conviction.

I like it too, because it applies equally to all those men and woman who toil in our Catholic schools, whether publicly or privately supported. But more importantly for the purpose of this commentary, I like it because it also applies to those who govern our schools, in Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta called “school board trustees” with a small honorarium and elsewhere, as a “board of directors,” most often for free.

The Decree On The Apostolate Of The Laity, Apostolicam Actuositatem (November 18, 1965) describes the vocation of the laity to the apostolate as:

2. The Church was founded for the purpose of spreading the kingdom of Christ throughout the earth for the glory of God the Father, to enable all men to share in His saving redemption,(1) and that through them the whole world might enter into a relationship with Christ. All activity of the Mystical Body directed to the attainment of this goal is called the apostolate, which the Church carries on in various ways through all her members. For the Christian vocation by its very nature is also a vocation to the apostolate. No part of the structure of a living body is merely passive but has a share in the functions as well as life of the body: so, too, in the body of Christ, which is the Church, “the whole body . . . in keeping with the proper activity of each part, derives its increase from its own internal development” (Eph. 4:16).

Indeed, the organic union in this body and the structure of the members are so compact that the member who fails to make his proper contribution to the development of the Church must be said to be useful neither to the Church nor to himself.

In the Church there is a diversity of ministry but a oneness of mission. Christ conferred on the Apostles and their successors the duty of teaching, sanctifying, and ruling in His name and power. But the laity likewise share in the priestly, prophetic, and royal office of Christ and therefore have their own share in the mission of the whole people of God in the Church and in the world.(2)

They exercise the apostolate in fact by their activity directed to the evangelization and sanctification of men and to the penetrating and perfecting of the temporal order through the spirit of the Gospel. In this way, their temporal activity openly bears witness to Christ and promotes the salvation of men. Since the laity, in accordance with their state of life, live in the midst of the world and its concerns, they are called by God to exercise their apostolate in the world like leaven, with the ardor of the spirit of Christ.

The inspiration for recalling the concept of “lay apostolate” was the reception of Michael Baillargeon’s speech to the Toronto Catholic District School Board trustees prior to their election of a chair and vice-chair on the evening of December 9th. I think it fair to call Baillargeon a Catholic education activist. And I say that in the positive sense, not the negative connotation it sometimes takes on.

Baillargeon, has clearly done his homework.  He demonstrates that he understands the larger purpose of why we have Catholic schools.  He understands why Bishop David Motiuk called it a “sacred task”. And by invoking a call to its history, he understands today’s trustees live in the shadow of those trustees, teachers, clergy and parents who sacrificed so much to get us where we are today. He understands theirs is a story we forget or don’t know at our peril.

Unfortunately, the result of Wednesday’s election would seem to indicate that this call to a higher purpose and the memory of our predecessor’s generosity of effort does not appear to have risen above a desire for partisan advantage.

As indicated in a pre-election editorial this publication had hoped for a different result. Although Tomorrow’s Trust supported Catherine LeBlanc-Miller for chair, it really wanted something more. And that something more could have been achieved even with Angela Kennedy as chair.

It has been obvious for months that the Board was divided into two camps. If TCDSB was to move forward in 2010, meaning regaining its independence, first through a co-management relationship with the “supervisor,” Dr. Alway, and perhaps in September coincidental with the new school and budget year with full authority, then they had to show that the two sides had come together with common purpose. Irrespective of which side won the chair, this would have been symbolically significant had the majority of board members seen fit to choose a representative from the other faction as their vice-chair. It is this failing on the part of the majority which is most disappointing and troubling.

This failure of magnanimity on the part of the majority seven does not bode well for the future of the Board.  First there is now less likelihood that full control can be achieved before the swearing in of a new board in December 2010.

Also, if Angela Kennedy is found guilty of a conflict of interest, then it is the chair, not just another trustee, who is being removed from the board. The ignominy of this situation in the secular press will not be pretty to watch. Perhaps, a deeper appreciation of the concept of “lay apostolate” might have prevented this imprudent possibility.

Perhaps, the majority chose Trustee Ann Andrachuk as vice-chair because they wanted one of their own to assume the chair in case the courts did remove Kennedy from her position. In that case they cannot be assured of success, since the Education Act states quite clearly that in the event of the chair’s resignation the “members” of the board must “elect” the chair’s replacement.  A vice-chair does not, like the vice-president of the United States, automatically assume the highest office (see section 208(5)).

Sometimes when one or one’s side attains the highest position, one must govern from the opposite side’s view. Again to use an American example, when Jack Kennedy was elected as the U.S.A.’s first Catholic President he had to govern from a secular perspective to prove the charge of Papal interference a false canard.  In the TCDSB’s case, Kennedy’s and Andrachuk’s most urgent priority should be to reach out to the  four who did not support them and jointly develop a strategy of cooperation such that Dr. Alway and the Minister of Education can return the board to its full authority before the next election.

This, above all else, is the one task that is most congruent with the concept of Catholic trustee as “lay apostolate”. As the Vatican II Bishops wrote over 44 years ago in Apostolicam Actuositatem :

Indeed, the organic union in this body and the structure of the members are so compact that the member who fails to make his proper contribution to the development of the Church must be said to be useful neither to the Church nor to him/herself.

The same can be said of a Catholic school trustee, a group of trustees and/or a Catholic school board.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites