What 'In-Acceptance-Being' can offer Character Education

What is La Vie's charism?

La Vie’s ‘Health and Healing Days 2024’ presented the core ideas in the charism of Elizabeth Duet and its relevance to character education. Her charism for healing, recognised by the Catholic Church, is founded upon what is called ‘in-acceptance being’, a practice of reconciling oneself with the basic ‘brokenness’ that is inside us as a consequence of our separation from God caused by original sin. 

Acceptance here does not at all mean to deny the reality of sin; it rather points to the root of sin in our frail (but not intrinsically corrupted) humanity, presenting a distinct moral problem from that of mortal sin. This frailty must be lovingly accepted foremost at the level of personal intimacy, not just intellectually. The ‘brokenness’ of our human condition itself precedes conscious or mortal sin, as that which disposes us towards mortal sin. It is a condition which we have not orignally wanted for ourselves, yet it does separate us from God. We are, then, at least to some extent victims of a certain arbitrariness about our limitations, deficiencies, and disordered desires. It is also true that we typically relate to this brokenness, not with the acceptance proper to our finitude and mortality, but with denial, which breeds imprudence and pride, or with resentment, which fosters envy, hatred and self-destruction. 

La Vie’s charism, twenty-five years running, continues to help those seeking spiritual assistance for inner healing understand how their pathologies may be at root a lack of acceptance of the brokenness which is integral to their humanity. They come to experience this acceptance as a new and deeper reconciliation with God, as they offer up new depths of their personhood which were previously inaccessible to God’s grace, for the reason that God respects our freedom to invite or reject Him. 

Why is the charism relevant to character education?

We had a number of character education specialists from the US, Netherlands and Germany present throughout the conference. They agreed that the core concepts in Elizabeth’s charism captured well what is for many character education programmes a weakness, particularly in the US. These programmes will tend to emphasise the virtues associated with hard work, success and discipline at the expense of those associated with resignation to one’s weaknesses and limitations, or with obedience. Furthermore, they often treat the accumulation of virtue and vice as mechanical habits which necessarily compound, with limited appreciation of the way our lack of self-transparency, at the deepest level of our person, means we do not always act and react predictably. They are, perhaps unwittingly, putting forward a vision of man closer to the spirit of Nietzsche’s Übermensch than the ‘meekness’ of Saint Paul (2 Cor. 10:1); the latter naturally relates to the famous line, 'when I am weak, then I am strong' (2 Cor. 12:9-10). 

There is a place for both visions of man, to be sure. But it is the case that modern people are more Pelagian in temperament, eager to overcome all problems on human terms, ameliorating suffering through medicine, technology, and 'good habits'. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with these things. However, at root, there is a reluctance to accept that in the end suffering is something which must be carried, not something which can simply be medicalised away. Even if one is sceptical of the religious expression this charism gives to brokenness, it is easy to imagine its resonance with the secular world, which is particularly 'weary and burdened' (Matt. 11:28) by a culture which insists upon wealth and success, which is militant about social justice and political corruption, and which is overwhelmed by fears of wars and ecological disaster. The Aristotelian virtues of productivity and good habit are not going to solve these issues unless we reckon with something much deeper: our shared human frailty. 

Ultimately, the charism reminds us that there is no human solution to the problem of suffering. For every positive step we take in this direction invites the vices of pride, ingratitude, avarice and worldliness, selfishness, neglecting the needs of others, and so on. Conquering a vice through good habit is like severing the head of a hydra; many more will grow in its place. Rather than overcome this weakness definitively, we must take that weakness to Christ in the sacraments: to Him who allowed Himself to be utterly broken for us, thereby turning our human weakness, through the Cross, into a new kind of power not of this world. 

I’ve summarised below a key discussion we had together on the current state of character education in the US and Europe and some of the ways La Vie’s work may better support it. 

Key takeaways from the conference

1. There are a number of challenges for contemporary character education, particularly in its core convictions, at least from a Catholic perspective:

   • Many educators assume that the point of character education is one’s honour or dignity, or conversely for the sake of social cohesion. This is not entirely wrong, but ultimately misses the spirit of virtue. St. Newman is particularly critical of this attitude in his Idea of a University, where he writes that ‘[some men] do not look through and beyond their own minds to their Maker, but are engrossed in notions of what is due to themselves, to their own dignity and their own consistency. Their conscience has become a mere self-respect. … When they do wrong, they feel, not contrition, of which God is the object, but remorse, and a sense of degradation. They call themselves fools, not sinners; they are angry and impatient, not humble.’ Consequently many programs ‘cherry pick’ the virtues; an emphasis on worldly success, however reasonable, may ultimately subvert true virtue. Ethics is more than civility and worldly accumulation.

   • The above attitude can carry with it a presupposition of our basic goodness, in the sense of leaving no adequate explanation for why the good habits which constitute virtue are genuinely moral efforts. This may be philosophically necessary for educators who do not look beyond Aristotelian ethics for their fundamental principles, for it is not clear that Aristotle provided a way out of being unvirtuous, as bad habits are supposed to compound in the same way that good ones do. This implied impossibility of redemption explains, for instance, why he argued for repaying our enemies with evil rather than good. 

   • Character education may benefit, therefore, from two things. First, a reappraisal of the relationship between freedom and moral habit. Second, a reappraisal of the origin of evil. 

   • There must therefore be a more substantial account of freedom and its relationship to character growth. That freedom to acknowledge one’s brokenness as Elizabeth describes is one possible avenue. 

   • Character education has often held a tension between respecting an individual’s freedom and binding him to a law within a state. There will always be an arbitrariness about negotiating this, reflective of our brokenness. 

   • New research suggesting the mainstream success-oriented character education programmes are not having a lasting impact on the character of their students after 5-10 years.  

2. The teacher-student relationship. Teachers may work individually with students to identify their strengths and vocation. (In PACT for instance, this person is presumably that member of staff who students see regularly for 1-1 tutorial.) For this work to be effective, there must be a sufficient level of trust for students to be open about their experiences, ambitions, and concerns. A school must create an overall environment of trust.