Parents and children at a school in Churchtown have been shocked at itsannounced closure. Have the Notre Dame Mission sisters lost sight of a vitalpart of their vocation? asks Gina Menzies
Surprise decisions by religious orders to withdraw from formal education are severe blows to students, staff and the wider community in which a school is located.
The ramifications of such decisions are far-reaching. Educational plans for students and their families are thrown into disarray. Teachers and management are left to handle the fallout, even as their own careers and future are put on hold.
The recent announcement by the Sisters of Notre Dame des Missions in Churchtown, Co Dublin, is only one of a series of school closures where those most affected by the closure were the last to know. In this instance the decision was taken in Bangkok in January!
Nevertheless, the pattern followed in this instance is a familiar one. A decision was taken without reference to or consultation with the affected parties. No time was allowed for the possible exploration of alternative options to total closure - options such as sale of part of the land to help the order's mission to the Third World, with the school retaining sufficient land to continue its educational objective.
There is a moral issue at the heart of such decisions that demands an ethical response. Similar announcements are not unknown in the world of global business.
Reasons for closure are often based on crude market forces; profit is the priority. Workers and the local community are rarely factors given consideration in arriving at a decision to leave. Do the same values guide the decision-making process of religious orders?
Lack of vocations and a need to care for elderly and infirm members of orders are elements in reaching these difficult decisions, ones that no one would discount as legitimate and Christian. Should they be the only guiding principles? Is it possible to reach a formula that does justice to all the participants? Are other considerations of importance also: the needs of students, their families, staff and the wider community?
A renewed commitment to the marginalised peoples of the Third World is the main reason given by the Sisters of Notre Dame for pulling out of Ireland. They are a missionary order.
But their founder, Euphrasie Barbier, realised that mission, the call to insert the Gospel in society, is in every place. It is not determined by boundaries but addressed to women and men in search of God.
Is Dublin today a place in need of mission? No one can deny the different challenges posed by the need for mission in Dublin 14 and for mission in the Third World. There is no comparison at the material level. Destitution, starvation, illiteracy and early mortality stand in stark contrast to the needs of schoolchildren in urban Dublin.
But both are entitled to justice.
Gospel justice demands that those most in need receive the most. There is no argument against such a stance. But the question remains: does justice for one group necessarily mean that the other must be treated unjustly?
The stakeholders in any school enterprise include not only the owners of the land and buildings, but also students, staff, parents, the board of management and the wider community, and, of course, the State. Good practice requires that all those who have invested in the enterprise are entitled to a say in future plans.
This investment may have been in the form of fund-raising, or giving time in voluntary effort.
Would it be a reasonable expectation that religious orders should exercise a higher standard of fairness in their dealings with the other educational stakeholders than would be expected of those in lay society?
Subsidiarity and solidarity are at the heart of the Catholic Church's social teaching since the Second Vatican Council. Subsidiarity, allowing decisions to be taken at the lowest possible practicable level, and solidarity, identification with the needs of others, could be the basis of a just framework when religious orders consider their role in formal education as no longer viable.
What is needed in these situations is a template that reflects the Christian principles which these orders were founded to promote. Such a template should not deny the legitimate demands on all of us in relation to the Third World, but equally should not ignore the legitimate needs of those closer to home.
Land and its development value have the temptation to become the overriding consideration in the decision-making process that may lead to a decision to quit an educational enterprise.
What is often forgotten is that the land may have been bequeathed to the landholder for the sole purpose of education.
Its increased value, over many years, is usually due to an accident of location. Is there a moral obligation to retain the land in question for educational purposes in line with the original bequest?
It also seems reasonable to ensure that the religious order's entitlement to a return on their life investment in an institution is recognised. Elderly members of such orders need to know that their medical, accommodation and other social needs will be guaranteed for the rest of their lives.
But abandonment of a viable school, without any consultation or exploration of alternative ways of allowing the educational enterprise continue, could be interpreted as a rejection of the Gospel values these schools were founded to promote.
What is needed is an ethical template which provides justice for all concerned, religious orders, the students entrusted to their care, staff, parents and the wider community which a school serves.
Gina Menzies is a theologian and critic