The pastoral cycle See-Judge-Act was ‘canonised’ by Pope John XXIII in Mater et Magistra, his encyclical published in 1961 to mark the 70th anniversary of the first of the social encyclicals, Rerum Novarum (1891). The cycle had been developed, in its modern form, by Joseph Cardijn, a Belgian priest who founded the Young Christian Workers at the beginning of the 20th century.

His starting point was that in any engagement with another person or community one had to ‘see’ the other as fully as possible, to immerse oneself in their reality, more so if they were oppressed. In this way an outsider to the community will not take as normative their own perspective, or bring a pre-determined ‘solution’ to the situation of the oppressed.

Cardijn’s central concern, writing in 1951, was the “transformation of life” through individual and collective action by lay people. The aim was to “replace human vision and judgement with the vision and judgement of God” (Cardijn, 1964, p. 97). The discernment required to do this was matured by the See-Judge-Act process, which he developed with the Young Christian

Workers as an “apostolic dialectic” by which lay people would bridge the gap between what God willed to be the case and what was the case, between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of

the World. “Lay people are formed first of all by the discovery of facts, followed by a Christian judgement, resulting in the actions they plan, the plans they carry into effect.” (Cardijn, 1964, p. 98)

In Mater et Magistra John XXIII adopted Cardijn’s approach as the exemplary way to apply the Church’s social doctrine. He said that the approach “should be taught as part of the daily

curriculum in Catholic schools, particularly seminaries” (Pope John XXIII, 1961, para. 223). Not only was the content of social doctrine to be taught but See-Judge-Act was to be used as the preferred pedagogical method: “It is important for our young people to grasp this method and to practice it” (Pope John XXIII, 1961, para. 237). The desire that this approach should be part of the curriculum in Catholic schools was not realised, at least in Europe and North America. It was in the soil of South America that See-Judge-Act took root in the post-Vatican II era and the next phase of its evolution unfolded. The papacy of John Paul II did not hold out much encouragement for this approach, perhaps because of its association with liberation theology and the lingering suspicion of proximity to Marxism.

Leonardo and Clodovis Boff describe how liberation theologians adopted what they call the “three traditional stages involved in pastoral work” and re-cast them as the three main ‘mediations’ of “socio-analytical mediation, hermeneutical mediation and practical mediation.” In the first stage, Cardijn’s search for “objective facts” is taken a stage further as the theologian asks the question, “Why is there oppression and what are its causes” (Boff, 1978, p. 24). Of the three explanations of poverty in liberation theology – the empirical, the functional and the dialectical – the dialectical explanation, poverty as oppression, sees poverty as the result of economic organization, a contrivance, not a natural or spontaneous phenomenon, by which some are exploited (workers) and some are excluded (unemployed, marginal). Unlike the approaches of aid and reform, this approach argues that poverty can only be overcome by replacing the present system with an alternative system. In this, it is very close to the vision for Catholic education described by the Congregation for Catholic Education in the 1982 document, Lay Catholics in Schools, when it states:

The vocation of every Catholic educator includes the work of ongoing social development: to form men and women who will be ready to take their place in society, preparing them in such a way that they will make the kind of social commitment which will enable them to work for the improvement of social structures, making these structures more conformed to the principles of the Gospel. (CfCE, 1982, para. 19)

This in turn is in line with the Council’s teaching on the “special vocation” of the laity which was to “seek the kingdom of God by engaging in temporal affairs and ordering these in accordance with the will of God” (Vatican II, 1964, para. 31). The “apostolic dialectic” developed by Cardijn – a formation in the process of understanding the incompleteness of social reality from a Gospel perspective – is very much at the heart of the Church’s teaching on education.

In a school context, this methodology provides an approach to the curriculum. Any body of knowledge can be regarded as way of ‘seeing’ the world but the See-Judge-Act methodology, especially as matured in South America, invites us to ask the questions relevant to an analysis of the power equations at work: who ‘runs’ this seeing? Who has ‘permitted’ this seeing and not others? Who is not ‘seen’ in this account of reality? Whose dignity are we oblivious to? Whose story is unheard? We also need to apply suspicion to our own point of view: do I understand or ‘own’ my own prejudice? Am I in danger of regarding the poverty I see as functional, to be reformed, with the poor as passive objects of my benign intervention?

In educational terms, this ‘seeing’ translates into the curriculum intent. What scope of ‘seeing’ do we intend to put before our pupils, what reality will we expose them to? Whose history?

Whose literature? In the apparently ‘neutral’ subjects of languages or mathematics the examples or applications we choose are part of our ‘seeing’. In languages are all our examples drawn from commercial exchanges (buying food, arranging travel)? In mathematics, in the teaching of percentages, say, consider the difference between using the example of calculating the interest rates on mortgage payments and the example of the interest rates on a pay-day loan taken out by a single parent on a zero hours contract. When we have assembled and interrogated the ‘primary data’ of the situation or event with as much self-awareness as possible, then we may be in a position to ‘judge’ or interpret the event “in the light of faith”.

This pedagogical approach is favoured by the Congregation for Catholic Education. In The Catholic School (1977), the document which Professor Gerald Grace refers to as the ‘foundation charter’ of Catholic education, it states that all teachers should be trained in “the art of teaching in accordance with the principles of the Gospel” (CfCE, 1977, para. 37). Like many of the Congregation’s documents, the ideal is held up but is unsupported by any suggestions for implementation, perhaps an understandable approach when the teaching is received in so many jurisdictions. Boffs’ approach to this part of the cycle, what they call “liberative hermeneutics”, is concerned not with the meaning-in-itself of the text but “interpreting life ‘according to the scriptures’” (Boff, 1987, p. 34). This begs the question of how we arrive at a ‘correct’ reading of the event or situation in the light of scripture, especially if a ‘proof texting’ approach to scripture is indulged, rather than Gadamer’s approach that “the whole of scripture guides the understanding of individual passages” (Gadamer, 2013, p. 182) which in turn pre-supposes a high level of formation in the teacher.

The priest and theologian James Alison offers us a way out of the teacher-as-theologian dilemma. He regards Luke’s story of the encounter on the road to Emmaus as the definitive account of the dynamics of Christian interpretation. Alison notes that the two disciples are more than just “talking” on the road. The Greek word “antiballete” is stronger and implies that they are having a row. They cannot agree on the significance of the events they have just experienced, they have all the fragments but don’t know how to read them yet. They are at odds. Jesus “came near and went with them” (Luke 24: 15). His accent reveals him to be a “stranger in Jerusalem” (sojourner). Having given them a chance to demonstrate the incoherence of their account, “he interpreted to them the things about himself in all the scriptures” (Luke 24: 13-35).

Luke presents Jesus here as their interpretative principle - and as a crucified and risen rabbi he is their living interpretative principle. The same point is made by Matthew when he described Jesus as our “one teacher” (Matthew 23:8) and we are all students. The two disciples then take part in the greatest seminar of all time, being inducted into salvation history by the hermeneutical key itself. If only they had taken notes, our lives might have been so much simpler. But as Alison points out, that would have just left us with “yet more text to interpret and there is no end of interpreting texts” (Alison, 2013, p. 66). In biblical theophany YHWH is only grasped as he passes by and so it proved here. YHWH can’t be grasped fully in any text or experience.

But nevertheless, we have an account of an experience which the disciples know to be genuine, “Did not our hearts burn within us.” They know it’s genuine before they report back (no longer at odds) to what Alison calls the Apostolic A team (Peter and the ten) in Jerusalem. What is remarkable to note is that this, the definitive account of Christian interpretation, happens away from the gaze of authority. When they go to Jerusalem, their story is confirmed. This is the shape of ecclesial authority and will help us in our application of this part of the cycle for schools. The experience of God is not received from Church authority, as Peter discovered when the Spirit descended on Cornelius and his household before he had a chance to fret about the correct ritual. If it’s real, we’ll know it as we share it. If we share it and it turns out to be eccentric, we have a Church which is “authentically interpreting the word of God” (Vatican II, 1965, para. 10), although that Church itself has not and cannot have arrived at the fulness of knowledge but is undergoing an “ever deepening understanding of revelation” (Vatican II, 1965, para. 10).

The ordinary Christian experience according to Luke, is in Alison’s reading, “to have your text, your story, your very self, interrupted by, re-interpreted by a crucified and risen Lord” (Alison, 2013, p. 72). This risen Lord is the non-vengeful, forgiving victim. This is our interpretative principle. It is in as much as the Spirit of the forgiving victim grows in us that we will be able to ‘judge’ (interpret) our own story, our cultural heritage and our present reality “in the light of faith.” This approach, from the perspective of the victim, gives us a hermeneutical key and a view of social reality, which does not require expert knowledge of the entire canon of scripture or the deposit of faith, although both are available to confirm and guide our work of interpretation. Boff adopts a similar position, what they call the “viewpoint of the oppressed.” They acknowledge that it is not the only possible and legitimate reading of the Bible, but they claim that for their community it is the “hermeneutics of our times” (Boff, 1987, p. 32). It was not the dominant hermeneutics in the west until quite recently. Pope Francis, who himself was formed in See-Judge-Act methodology, has insisted on his vision of “a poor church for the poor” since his election in 2013. In this respect, the interpretative principle promoted by Boff and Alison has been confirmed by Peter back at HQ.

In a school or parish setting, when we are engaged in a process of discerning the “signs of the times”, trying to judge a text, event or situation in the light of faith, we are invited to consider the perspective of the victim, the view from the bottom, from the margins. We are guided by the social doctrine of the Church, with its emphasis on human dignity and the nature of social structures which enhance or diminish human flourishing. We are guided by our own conscience by which we reflect on circumstances. A much-debated formulation in the Council document Dignitatis Humanae (the Declaration on Religious Freedom) states that the faithful “ought to carefully attend to [my italics, note: not ‘conform to’] the doctrine of the Church” (Vatican II, 1965, para. 14) when exercising conscience.

The final step is to act, to discern the best course of action to build the kingdom, to make the world a little more conformed to the will of God. In this step, Boff highlights the importance of “strategy and tactics” such as non-violent methods, dialogue, persuasion, moral pressure, passive resistance and other courses of action “sanctioned by the ethic of the gospel” (Boff, 1987, p. 40). In Aristotle’s terms, this is the application of practical wisdom, the virtue or excellence in deliberation, which involves “rightness with regards to end, manner and time” (Aristotle, 2009, p. 112). Without such wisdom, seeing can become addictive voyeurism, judging can become paralyzing reflection and action can become thoughtless intervention. Schools are invited to form their students in the habit of virtuous deliberation, seeing as fully as possible, judging what the plan of God is for the most vulnerable and acting to enhance human dignity and diminish human suffering.

The application of the methodology in a school setting can be illustrated by two examples which are currently testing the discernment of educators: the migrant crisis and digital literacy. When considering a boat full of migrants making their way to European shores, we invite our pupils to consider what they see, whose stories remain muted, who ‘runs’ the seeing of this story, why is this happening. We judge the situation from the point of view of the oppressed, the intervention of YHWH in the suffering of his people in exile in Egypt, the desire of Jesus to liberate the victims from their states of bondage and exclusion. Our action could be to understand more fully the status of migrants, their numbers in our community, to meet them, to hear their stories, to improve their physical condition in a benefit system which is hostile to their well-being.

Likewise, with digital literacy, we can guide our children through the virtual environment, helping them how to see and to judge what is ‘real’ or ‘fake’ – i.e. that which bears no relation to any factual basis – and how to act in this space, how to interact safely, respectfully and creatively with other humans.

The methodology as outlined above is primarily a moral, or even political concern and for some in the Church this is limiting. It can, however, be applied in a spiritual, or personal way. In this approach, the individual is encouraged to ‘see’ into his or her interior life, motivations and actions, to discern the gap between the actual life and the transformed life (the gap if you like between nature and grace), to discern the promptings of the Holy Spirit towards the good and to act, under the influence of grace, to ‘reform’ the inner life and its motivations, which will lead to actions more conformed to the Gospel. If it is conformed to the Gospel, in the terms outlined by Boff and Alison, then a focus on the most precarious and fragile will not be lost. In the Jesuit tradition, inspired by St. Ignatius of Loyola, the method used for this reflective personal practice is the Examen.

Mark Thibodeaux SJ comments that “in the Examen, we review our recent past to find God and God’s blessings in daily life” (Thibodeaux, 2015, p. x). The Examen does not use the language of See-Judge-Act but the elements are similar. Thibodeaux identifies five stages (the five Rs) in the Examen as follows: Relish the gifts in life and what has gone well; Request the Spirit to lead a review of the day; Review the day; Repent of any mistakes or failures; Resolve, in concrete ways, to live well tomorrow.

The review of the day is a way to “see” the day under the guidance of the Spirit and to “judge” or discern the aspects of the day which fell short of God’s plan. This includes repentance for failures or shortcomings. The final part, the resolve, is the engagement of the will, again under the direction of the Holy Spirit, to resolve to live better, to “act” in the world in a more Gospel- inspired way.

The two approaches, the moral and the spiritual, are intrinsically linked. They both work towards acting in the world in a way which will enhance the kingdom of God, bringing justice and peace where it is absent. The moral approach encourages group discernment, seeing a concrete situation as fully as possible, with a view to an examination of the power dynamics at work, interpreting the situation in the light of the Gospel and then discerning the appropriate course of Gospel-inspired action. This is well suited for use in schools and would, as John XXIII envisaged, provide an underpinning pedagogical approach to the curriculum. The moral approach can of course be applied by individuals formed in the practice, hence its suitability into adulthood. The spiritual approach, which works to the same end, the common good, is more aimed at an inner discipline which encourages the participant to grow in the practice of discerning past patterns of behaviour so that future behaviour can be more Spirit-filled.

The adoption of See-Judge-Act as the basis for lifelong learning is explicitly endorsed and encouraged by Vatican II. The Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity states that “Since formation for the apostolate cannot consist in merely theoretical instruction, from the beginning of their formation the laity should gradually and prudently learn how to view, judge and do all things in the light of faith” (Vatican II, 1965, para. 29). This definition in fact could be applied either to the moral or the spiritual approach.

The Council’s promotion of this methodology was part of the remarkable shift from a deductive approach, characterized by a teaching church in which the laity was regarded as passive recipients of revealed truth from the magisterium, to an inductive approach, characterized by a learning church which honoured the faith encounter between the person and God, which honoured conscience and understood that commitment to the faith, commitment to the Gospel and the transformation of the world was not likely to be sustained by blind obedience to a body of teaching, but rather by a lifelong induction into being forgiven, an induction into another story, told by a forgiving victim, which invites us to see the world otherwise than it is, and act in solidarity with the marginalized and oppressed. It is there that we will find ourselves.