EMRChaotic

Between humanism and catechism, I have always leaned more towards the former, “thank God”! I am not an opponent of the paths of faith , but I identify myself more as a man of convictions and, in my view, Education and Religion are situated on such distinct planes that I argue that, with regard to the public education system, these planes should be especially intangible. I say this right away, so that I do not come across as a precursor of any kind of puritanism or religious fundamentalism.

Nevertheless, and because I do not consider myself a signatory to any Jacobin lineage, a few days ago I accompanied the students of the school where I work to a meeting on Catholic Moral and Religious Education, promoted by the Diocese of Porto. I did so because I have a democratic view of teaching, since it was not my opinion on the existence or not of a given subject that was at stake, but rather my role as a teacher (since the enrolled students needed someone to accompany them) and as a colleague (since there were those who gave much more of their time than I did to make this activity happen). I did it, therefore, out of conviction.

Now, having never been in such a context before, I made several conjectures about what to expect. Some confirmed and others disproved, the real surprise of the day came with the stage entertainers, who managed to gather before them a notable number of the children who were there, to listen to and take part, not in the Eucharist, but in the choreography of some of the greatest and most current hits of… Brazilian funk .

Guided by the experience of the 5th grade students who were near me, I was able to find out who the artists were, both famous (for them) and despicable (for me), as well as the names of their songs, so that I too could follow the enthusiasm of all those beardless crowd and, more than anything, understand the reason for it all. However, I confess that I was perplexed, not by the acuity of those little shazams that surrounded me, but by such a mismatch between the playlist and the purpose of a meeting of students whose common denominator was the fact that they were classmates in the Catholic Moral and Religious Education subject.

Somewhat disconcerted, I looked for a colleague (preferably more static than the others) asking him if he knew the songs that were playing and, mainly, what their lyrics said. I did this two or three times and concluded that, although it was common knowledge that they were not lacking in vernacular and obscene content, this awareness still seemed to be somewhat inconsistent with my concern, since I heard the following comments from the adults I questioned:

1. “Well, it’s sad, but that’s what they like…”;
2. “This is what you are used to, this is what you must hear at home…”;
3. “They are tired of saying and hearing swear words and obscenities; for them this is already normal…”.

Despite containing perspectives that are very much in line with reality, each of these three observations triggers other questions that I believe are legitimate.

If we understand interpersonal relationships as vital to the objective that the school aims to achieve, it seems clear to me that the latter must be sensitive to what excites or annoys students. (1.) Is it, however, necessary or healthy for the school to become a mere hostage to the preferences of students?

If conceived as a truly democratic space, it is imperative that the school be guided by the principle of equity, that is, that it seeks to compensate for excesses and/or deficiencies in the family experiences of its students. (2.) Wouldn't it then be counterproductive to offer them more of the same?

If we view school as a place for reflection and (de)construction of ideas, then we must promote the rational questioning of everything that common sense tends to normalize. (3.) Isn't the indolent complacency towards the trends of the masses, in this context, a bet on the wrong horse?

Let us look, as an example, at schools when it comes to food. For example, children (and others) continue to prefer high-sugar foods. However, in 2021, the Ministry of Education banned their sale in school cafeterias by order, in order to “promote the development of healthy eating habits” (Order No. 8127/2021), meaning that (1.) at school, students’ appetites do not, in themselves, guarantee access to them.

In the opening sentence of the same document, we can read that the Government “considers public schools an element in the fight against inequalities and education as […] the necessary determinant for achieving an enlightened society”, that is, (2.) at school, students’ eating habits do not condition the menus.

Finally, in the second paragraph of the aforementioned order, it can be read that the Government considers it “fundamental to invest […] in promoting healthy eating […] enabling children and young people to make informed choices and manage their health, with quality”, that is, (3.) at school, consumers have access to healthy menus so that later on they also have the power to make decisions.

And since “man shall not live by bread alone [1] ”, let us turn to spiritual nourishment . It would be madness (and those who think so are mad) to think that the solution lies in punishing, censoring, or canceling words. It would be unrealistic to think that a swear word or an obscenity would never again be heard in a school playground. It would even be undesirable for the vernacular lexicon to disappear altogether, because, in essence, it would substantially impoverish the power of a language as rich as ours, as well as the possibilities it gives us. However, just as it is not by contemplating pollution that we can generate a deep respect for the environment, neither will it be by using obscene and vile language that we can win a love for words. And it is precisely because of the great affection we have for them that we—teachers and believers—should be more careful in the care we give them, especially with those who are being introduced to the many potentialities of language. For some, it should be a question of care, even of hygiene; for others, a question of faith, or else the Word would not have become flesh [2] .

What then happened to the disciples of the Word ? Perhaps in its clumsy eagerness to be inclusive, the church has forgotten that not everything, everything, everything should be given to everyone, everyone, everyone . Perhaps in its eagerness to embrace the world, the church has forgotten to reflect heaven. Perhaps the arguments of King Solomon [3] and the advice of the apostle Saint Paul [4] , of Jesus himself [5] or of his disciple Saint James [6] have lost their vigor, since it was also the preaching of the lust of the flesh (another flesh) that, shamelessly verbalized (by other verbs), reverberated through the hills of the Oriental Park of the City of Porto that Friday afternoon.

As for the question of Morality — and since good customs have apparently decided to turn their backs on it — it will be at the service of those who know how to make the best use of it. May “God deliver us” from them!

[1] Matthew 4:4 [2] John 1:14 [3] Proverbs 18:21; Ecclesiastes 10:12 [4] Colossians 3:8; Ephesians 4:29; 5:4 [5] Matthew 15:11; 18-19 [6] James 3:1-11