Setting the scene

Perceptions of Latin in UK society as an elitist subject, serving as a barrier to access and reinforcing the notion that it is the prerogative of privately educated students, have been thoroughly documented (Canevaro Reference Canevaro2021; Case and Haley Reference Case and Haley2020; Goodman Reference Goodman2017; Hodgkinson Reference Hodgkinson2021; Holmes-Henderson and Watts Reference Holmes-Henderson and Watts2021; Moran Reference Moran2019; Perale Reference Perale2023; Vereeck et al. Reference Vereeck, Bracke, De Herdt and Janse2024). The literature highlights concerns related to equality, diversity, and privilege. In light of declining enrolment figures, it also a preoccupation with the sustainability of the discipline (e.g. ‘Classics will always be facing the threat of extinction’, Perale Reference Perale2023, p. 27). A marked trend towards the democratisation of the curriculum as a whole, shaped by critical pedagogy and the critical sociology of education (Apple Reference Apple1979; Bourdieu and Passeron Reference Bourdieu and Passeron1977; Freire Reference Freire1970 see also Forrest Reference Forrest1996; McMillan Reference McMillan2015; Paul Reference Paul, Hardwick and Harrison2013; Stray Reference Stray1998 for an outlook on Latin), and its orientation towards more ‘useful’ disciplines have contributed to the decline of Latin teaching in England (and beyond) since the 1960s and 1970s (Vereeck et al. Reference Vereeck, Bracke, De Herdt and Janse2024, p. 103). This shift has generated a tension between two intertwining discourses, both aimed at ensuring survival: one advocating for curricular democratisationFootnote ¹ as an antidote to privilege, and the other seeking to preserve a subject perceived to be under existential threat by justifying its value through a variety of angles (Vereeck et al. Reference Vereeck, Bracke, De Herdt and Janse2024). Compared to much of this literature, centred on class and access, our research takes a different angle: by bringing in religion as a factor long neglected in the literature, we focus on Latin within Catholic education to show how ecclesial identity and faith-based values shape curricular priorities and pedagogical practices.

To situate our study of linguistic ideologies and pedagogical practices in its broader institutional context, we first briefly trace the Church’s evolving official pronouncements on Latin instruction, whose potential effects on curricular rationales and classroom approaches in Catholic schools underpin our investigation. Building on John XXIII’s Apostolic Constitution Veterum Sapientia (1962) and Paul VI’s Studia Latinitatis (1964), both of which advocated for Latin instruction in seminaries, Benedict XVI’s motu proprio Latina Lingua (2012, para. 4) further affirmed the Church’s responsibility for preserving and disseminating Latin beyond clerical formation: ‘It therefore appears urgently necessary to support the commitment to a greater knowledge and more competent use of Latin, both in the ecclesial context and in the broader world of culture’. Accordingly, he established the Pontificia Academia Latinitatis, endowed with a broad mandate to promote the language, most notably through its scholarly journal Latinitas. Although Pope Francis’s motu proprio Traditionis Custodes (2021) controversially revised certain provisions of Benedict XVI’s Summorum Pontificum (2007) regarding liturgical use of Latin, it did not address the language’s role in education or culture; consequently, Pope Benedict XVI’s endorsement of Latin pedagogy remains operative. In the wake of Francis’s death on 21 April 2025 and the election of Pope Leo XIV (8 May 2025), this moment of ecclesial transition presents an ideal opportunity to take stock of Latin’s status within English Catholic education and its wider cultural significance.

Starting from these premises, this study offers the first in-depth, empirically grounded analysis of how Latin is taught and positioned within a handful of Catholic secondary schools and colleges in the North of England, investigating whether, and to what extent, Catholic education ‘receives and responds to’ the papal mandate. Do these institutions view themselves as custodians of Latin? Do they teach Latin on different grounds than secular institutions? Do they engage with Christian Latin at all, and if so, to what extent?

Catholicism in the North West has long exhibited a layered history of recusant endurance, regional Catholic gentry, and working-class and immigrant Catholic communities. For centuries, the region was home to prominent recusant families, such as the Scarisbricks of Lancashire, whose long-standing Catholic identity and estate-based chapels exemplify the persistence of Catholic practice through the penal era (Scarisbrick Hall Trust n.d.). This recusant substratum was complemented by organised lay Catholic life in towns such as Preston, where institutions like the First Catholic Charitable Society (founded in 1731) attest to a substantial and continuous Catholic communal presence in the 18th century (Preston Historical Society n.d.). In the 19th century, waves of Irish immigration to industrial Lancashire, including Preston, further reshaped the religious demography and strengthened parish-based Catholic identity (Catháin Reference Ó Catháin2024). Broader historical studies confirm that Lancashire remained one of England’s most distinctively Catholic regions, with recusant and Catholic-gentry networks persisting well into the modern period (Blackwood Reference Blackwood1994; Callow Reference Callow2003). Together, this historical layering (gentry recusancy, evolving Catholic demography, and sustained communal institutions) has produced a region in which Catholic heritage, social memory, and identity remain deeply rooted (Harris Reference Harris2023), conditions that help explain local schools’ ongoing negotiation of tradition, identity, and education.

By focusing on the under-researched context of Catholic education, this study exposes how market forces, institutional (including practical/logistical) constraints, and individual teacher agency, more than ecclesial mandates, all have an impact on Latin teaching. By identifying a typology of inclusivity and branding discourses that shape Latin’s survival (or demise) in faith-based education, this research offers a novel contribution in tracing the ideological and practical tensions at the intersection of religious tradition and secular curriculum imperatives. Compounded with pressures noted in the Literature for secular institutions, Catholic education navigates a more complex ideological landscape. Instead of looking like a promising field for the strengthening of Latin’s teaching, complexities in the clergy’s positioning towards Latin usage in the Church often result in a further layer of disengagement, indifference, or lack of institutional support.

The Catholic branding

One way to explore the nexus between Catholic identity and Latin education (RQ1) is through the notion of Latin as a form of institutional ‘branding’. Catholic schools in England have long enjoyed a reputation for rigorous academic standards and exemplary teaching (Cleary Reference Cleary2024; Grace Reference Grace2002; Morris Reference Morris1994, Reference Morris2007, Reference Morris2009a, Reference Morris2009b). This esteemed institutional profile is especially evident in the contexts represented by T3 and T4, where Latin functions as a salient attractor for both national and international fee-paying families. T2’s reflections, instead, attest to the enduring association of Latin with the prestige of grammar schools.

In contrast, S1 offers a revealing counterpoint. As a non-fee-paying institution located in a better-off neighbourhood of a working-class, post-industrial town, and serving a predominantly local catchment, it neither positions Latin as a marker of Catholic identity nor as a symbol of institutional prestige. The absence of a Latin motto or anthem aligns with its broader educational ethos, where Latin is offered only as an optional enrichment activity accessible to all students. This decoupling of Latin from both elite cultural capital and overt Catholic symbolism positions S1 as an analytical foil to the more market-oriented deployments observed in S2, S3 and S4. S1’s inclusive approach to Latin reflects T1’s commitment to educational justice, aligning with its market positioning driven by local demand for accessible education but distancing it from a strongly confessional identity (see The inclusivity spectrum). In contrast, the following discussion shifts to how fee-paying institutions, such as S3 and S4, leverage Latin as a commodified symbol of prestige within the competitive educational marketplace.

Extracts (1)–(3) show that in S3 and S4, Latin serves to enhance the symbolic value of the educational offering (Bourdieu Reference Bourdieu1991). The heritage elements of Catholicism, including Latin and liturgical practices, are commodified as forms of symbolic capital, particularly within fee-paying schools. This process reflects enregisterment (Agha Reference Agha2003), whereby these practices become socially recognised indices of prestige and moral authority, functioning within a broader prestige ideology (Irvine and Gal Reference Irvine, Gal and Kroskrity2000). The invocation of familial and cultural Catholic networks further reinforces the social capital associated with attending well-reputed Catholic institutions, while Latin simultaneously indexes a form of linguistic capital. Extracts (1) and (2) illustrate how Latin and Catholic heritage practices, such as school mottos and liturgies, contribute to the schools’ prestige and moral authority.

(1)

(2)

(3)

However, Latin’s position within the curriculum is not immune to market pressures. Extract (4) illustrates how concerns about Latin’s potential discontinuation arise from the need to balance tradition with modern educational demands, such as performance in standardised assessments.

(4)

Another example of the commodification of Latin is found in school identity markers such as mottos: in S2, the school motto is in Latin, serving as a clear index of institutional heritage and prestige, while S3 and S4 use mottos in Old French.Footnote ⁵ S3 maintains the tradition of singing the Pater Noster before events such as sport matches, further embedding Latin within the school’s symbolic repertoire. The use of Latin in school mottos carries substantial symbolic and ideological weight, drawing on associations with tradition, authority, and timelessness.Footnote ⁶ In this context, Latin enhances the schools’ cultural capital by aligning them with enduring values and signalling distinction through linguistic heritage.

While Latin often indexes heritage, tradition, and prestige within Catholic schools, these values are not unique to religious settings.Footnote ⁷ However, there are aspects of Latin’s use that remain specific to Catholic contexts, particularly where it intersects with liturgical practice, historical memory, and perceptions shaped by England’s confessional history. Excerpt (5) is illustrative of these associations.

(5)

This perception can be meaningfully situated within the long-standing religious and political tensions rooted in the English Reformation of the 1530s (Duffy Reference Duffy2005). This historical rupture reshaped public attitudes towards Catholic ritual and symbolism, including the Latin liturgy, which came to be seen as opaque, foreign, and even subversive. In contrast, Protestant forms of worship, particularly within Anglican traditions, emphasised austerity, transparency, and the use of the vernacular, deliberately rejecting Latin as a symbol of hierarchical and inaccessible religiosity. These Protestant-inflected discourses left a durable imprint on the cultural imagination in England (Harris Reference Harris, Cummings, Matovina and Orsi2016, Reference Harris2023), even if this landscape was later complicated by the rise of Anglo-Catholicism, which reintroduced Catholic ritual and aesthetic sensibilities into parts of the Anglican tradition without entirely displacing the broader Protestant cultural frame (Nockles Reference Nockles1994). Crucially, this imprint remained influential even in the post-Vatican II era, which officially embraced the vernacular in Catholic liturgy (see The inclusivity spectrum). As a result, negative associations with Latin may persist in some strata of society, not only with regard to its liturgical use but potentially extending to classical Latin itself. Despite Catholic institutions also accepting individuals professing other faiths or no faiths at all (T4: ‘we have quite a few children here who are Anglican or not religious’), this residual anti-Catholic sentiment may complicate the reception of Latin, particularly within secular or pluralistic contexts, precisely because of its indexing of Catholicism.

Thus, while some elite Catholic institutions actively harness the cultural and symbolic capital of Latin, leveraging its indexical association with ‘heritage’ and ‘quality’ (Ochs and Taylor Reference Ochs, Taylor, Hall and Bucholtz1995; Silverstein Reference Silverstein2003) to reinforce institutional prestige and associated broader ideological frameworks (Kroskrity Reference Kroskrity2000; Schieffelin et al. Reference Schieffelin, Woolard and Kroskrity1994), others may adopt a more cautious stance. In such cases, the potential for Latin to index Catholicism may be perceived as a liability rather than an asset, particularly in pluralistic contexts where residual anti-Catholic sentiment lingers. This results in a degree of ambivalence towards Latin’s symbolic role, shaped by competing desires for tradition, inclusivity, and cultural neutrality. In contexts where both the elite connotations of Latin and its Catholic associations are simultaneously enregistered and deployed, institutions may risk being pigeonholed at the intersection of a ‘double minority positioning’, being marked as both socially elite and religiously distinctive within a largely secular and Protestant-majority cultural landscape.

The use of Latin in fee-paying Catholic schools illustrates a complex interplay between religious tradition and neoliberal branding. Latin functions not merely as a subject but as a cultural signal (indexing heritage, prestige, and Catholic identity) within a competitive educational marketplace. This reflects what Grace (Reference Grace2002) describes as the Catholic school ‘at the crossroads’, balancing its spiritual mission with the pressures of market performance. While positioning Latin as part of a school’s prestige may attract elite or international families, it risks commodifying both language and faith. The strategic use of Latin by fee-paying Catholic schools underscores the broader ideological tensions between education’s spiritual mission and its market-driven pressures. From the standpoint of Catholic social teaching (Himes Reference Himes2005), this instrumentalisation conflicts with the principles of Gravissimum Educationis (1965) and Caritas in Veritate (Reference Benedict and Miller2009, para, 40 and 61), which emphasise holistic human development over market logic. Biesta’s critique of education’s shift towards ‘learnification’ further underscores the ethical tensions (Reference Biesta2006, Reference Biesta2025, p. 76). Ultimately, marketing Latin as a heritage asset may bolster visibility but may slightly undermine the deeper theological and communal purposes of Catholic education. This contrast underscores how institutional context shapes the symbolic and pedagogical role of Latin (whether commodified as cultural capital or reframed as a tool of inclusive enrichment), highlighting the varied ideological meanings Latin acquires across different educational settings.

Waning institutional commitment

This section examines the dynamic relationship between Catholic (institutional and the teacher’s personal) identity and the support, maintenance, or decline of Latin instruction in schools and colleges (RQ2) and how perceptions of the Latin Mass may shape broader attitudes towards the place of Latin in the curriculum (RQ3). Although analytically distinct, these questions often overlap in practice. In particular, interviewees frequently moved between discussing Latin as a subject in the curriculum and as the language of liturgy, highlighting how ecclesial practices and preferences inform educational choices. Moreover, the Latin Mass emerges not only as a theological or ideological touchpoint but also as a symbolic barometer of the Church’s wider stance on Latin. While all teachers report a lack of institutional backing for Latin, the situation regarding the relation between Latin as a liturgical language and Latin as a school subject is more complex.

(6)

As we move forward, excerpt (7) shows how ecclesiastical attitudes (Baker Reference Baker1992; Garrett Reference Garrett2010) towards the Latin liturgy are reported to connect with institutional reluctance, or even obstruction, towards the support of Latin instruction in schools. Here, the clergy’s attitudes as reported by T1 are compatible with Vatican II’s emphasis on intellectual accessibility, suggesting that Latin inhibits comprehension and, by extension, participation in worship.

(7)

The clergy’s stance, as reported by T1, reflects a logos-based sacred language ideology, based on the assumption that cognitive access and rational understanding are prerequisites for authentic liturgical participation. In contrast, the vernacular is seen as inclusive and participatory, whereas Latin becomes marked as exclusive. This contrasts with an alternative framework grounded in pathos (the affective, aesthetic, and mystical, transcendent and timeless experience of liturgy) as well as ethos (a ‘legitimising’ connection to the authority of tradition). For example, T2’s reference to the ‘mystique’ of the Latin Mass in The Catholic branding echoes this second position, suggesting that the spiritual and symbolic weight of Latin can evoke a deeper form of engagement (which, however, may be looked at with suspicion by outsiders). Thus, T1’s framing presents these positions as binary and incommensurable ‘camps’, with no evident middle ground between comprehension and reverence.

(8)

Despite this divide, T1 proposes a tentative compromise, suggesting that Latin Mass attendance could be supported by Latin instruction. However, this suggestion ultimately shifts Latin from the domain of pathos/ethos back into the realm of logos.

(9)

In a more critical turn, T1 later directs a more pointed critique at the institutional Church, and particularly the Vatican, for its failure to provide the necessary infrastructure to support Latin instruction. This animated critique invokes the Church’s historical role as Latin’s custodian, implying a moral obligation to uphold that legacy.

(10)

Turning now to a different perspective and moving on to T3, they are equally sceptical of any institutional support, noting that Latin’s presence is limited to symbolic elements like the school song (the Pater Noster) while lacking a deeper pedagogical connection.

(11)

In contrast to T1 and T2, T3 only comments on the Latin Mass when directly asked. By prefacing their response with ‘I’m not Catholic; I’m Church of England’, a Protestant identity is foregrounded by T3. This is significant as the Protestant tradition has championed vernacular worship over Latin rites since the Reformation. This disclaimer both establishes her epistemic distance, thus framing her as an external, neutral observer, and hedges against any accusation of bias. When prompted, they go on to link the Latin Mass primarily with the Church’s most conservative factions, implying that its revival carries a politically charged, rather than universally welcoming, message.

(12)

Moving to a more indirect view, unlike T3, who confidently situates herself as Anglican, T2 never specifies their own confessional stance. Instead, they present themself as a ‘locally situated’ outsider with limited expertise, repeatedly disclaiming personal authority and framing their remarks as second-hand. Drawing on the perspectives of ‘strict Catholic’ parents, they indicate that these parents’ attachment to the Latin Mass rests on two pillars: a commitment to unbroken liturgical tradition and a drive for theological precision in terminology. While they acknowledge the Church’s broader appreciation of Latin as heritage, they stop short of linking this to any formal educational mandate.

(13)

In a more distinct shift, in contrast to T1, T2, and T3, T4 articulates a strong alignment between personal Catholic identity, institutional context, and a sense of mission linking Latin to both spiritual formation and educational practice. Speaking from within a uniquely ‘cohesive’ department, T4 situates their commitment within a collective ethos that reinforces the religious and pedagogical value of Latin. Unlike the other teachers in this study, who either distance themselves from the Latin Mass or frame Latin instruction as ideologically neutral, T4 integrates Latin explicitly into the life of faith and school culture.

(14)

This framing of Latin situates it not only as a teaching tool but also as an essential medium through which students connect to a larger religious narrative. The spiritual and ideological significance of Latin is most evident when they assert: ‘Let them accept that Latin is the language, the official language of the Church’. The verb ‘accept’ functions here as a presupposition trigger (Levinson Reference Levinson1983), implying that Latin’s status as the Church’s official language is a given and that the students’ current views are either resistant or unformed. In this way, the utterance subtly pressures students to align with an institutional truth. From a critical discourse perspective (Fairclough Reference Fairclough2003), this phrasing encodes a power relation: the teacher acts as epistemic authority, tasked with shaping students’ beliefs within a framework sanctioned by the Church. Latin, then, is not merely a classical language to be learned but also a doctrinal and ideological vehicle reinforcing ecclesial identity and hierarchy.

However, despite their convictions, T4 operates within a broader institutional landscape that offers uneven support for their liturgical and pedagogical commitments. While they report some freedom, such as being permitted to open lessons with the Pater Noster (saying that ‘the head was very on board’), this support is limited. Notably, the school has recently prohibited taking students to the Latin Mass, which they interpret as a form of institutional suppression: ‘So I promote it, if I’m allowed to, which I’m obviously not’. This tension reflects the paradox of T4’s position: they are both deeply embedded in a faith-driven teaching community and constrained by institutional decisions that limit liturgical expression.

(15)

Lastly, their personal stance on the Latin Mass is notably nuanced. Although their spouse regularly attends the Old Rite, they themself prefer the New Rite, citing personal comfort. Yet they maintain an inclusive attitude, expressing respect for both forms of worship (‘I respect both’).

(16)

This ability to navigate between tradition and reform further distinguishes T4 from other participants: they neither distance themself from the Latin Mass (as T2 and T3 do) nor render Latin ideologically neutral. Instead, they frame Latin as simultaneously a liturgical inheritance (‘it is after all, a valid Rite of Church, been around for a very long time’), a pedagogical tool (see Integration in the curriculum/classroom practice), and a site of institutional contention, underscoring how Catholic educators must negotiate doctrinal commitment, spiritual alignment, and institutional constraint.

T4 defends the legitimacy of the Old Rite and criticises its marginalisation under Pope Francis, stating, ‘So all these things are becoming… the Pope is limiting access to them’. This critique attributes this suppression to wider political and ecclesial tensions, particularly the influence of American ‘sedevacantists’ – a radical minority within traditionalist Catholicism who reject the authority of post-Vatican II popes and maintain allegiance to the Tridentine Latin Mass. Although institutionally marginal, sedevacantists are ideologically intense, thus complicating efforts by more moderate/progressive Catholics to defend its place.

(17)

Finally, in qualifying their own appreciation for the Latin Mass, T4 emphasises that this extends beyond linguistic familiarity, highlighting the ritual’s structure and theological significance. The Old Rite serves as a complex semiotic medium through which sacred meanings are conveyed and experienced (Ratzinger Reference Ratzinger2005; Tambiah Reference Tambiah1979; Yelle Reference Yelle2012). In fact, the interview excerpt from T4 offers a compelling insight into the semiotic and anthropological significance of the Old Rite.

(18)

Despite acknowledging elsewhere the symbolic and spiritual value of liturgical Latin, T4 backgrounds this in their account, favouring a more complex and integrated view of the rite, going beyond language itself. However, despite advocating for choice and opportunity, an implicit personal preference for the ideology of the logos nevertheless emerges (‘But Latin is fine, because I understand it’).

(19)

But Latin is fine, because I understand it.

(20)

These interviews reveal not only the limited and often ambivalent institutional commitment to Latin instruction in Catholic schools, but also how debates over the Latin Mass resonate far beyond liturgy, shaping broader curricular and ideological priorities. By foregrounding the interplay between ecclesial language ideologies and classroom practice, this section brings into focus a largely overlooked nexus, whereby liturgical politics/preferences intersect with pedagogical practices.

The inclusivity spectrum

This section investigates how different understandings of inclusivity are at play in shaping the pedagogy of Latin within Catholic schools and colleges (RQ4). After contrasting two antithetic ways in which inclusivity may be understood within the Catholic Church (T1’s pluralistic and secularly aligned inclusivity and T4’s faith-based intra-ecclesial inclusivity), it shows how these frameworks shape Latin instruction: T1’s approach supports an interdisciplinary, culturally resonant pedagogy, while T4’s stance argues for a pedagogical space that honours Latin’s sacred and liturgical role.

Integration in the curriculum/classroom practice

Following on from The inclusivity spectrum, this section focuses on the relationship between ideological stances and instructional choices, investigating how Late, Medieval, and Christian Latin are currently integrated into the curriculum and whether there is potential for their greater inclusion (RQ5). Unlike The inclusivity spectrum, it considers the views of all four teacher-interviewees, displaying a range of positionings and practical choices.

Let’s start with T2, who displays a minimal level of engagement with non-classical Latin as potential teaching content. While acknowledging that some students have expressed interest, T2’s attitude signals a lack of pedagogical investment in diversifying Latin provision beyond the standard curriculum. Notably, students’ interest in Christian Latin is framed as an extension of the religious identity of ‘committed Catholics’, a term T2 uses here analogously to ‘strict Catholics’ (see excerpt 13 above). In the broader context of T2’s school, where Latin provision is in decline, there is no indication that such interest could translate into curriculum development or the integration of new materials.

(25)

In contrast to T2, T3 reveals a cautious and largely instrumental perspective. While suggesting that post-classical Latin may be ‘simpler’, a perception that is not necessarily supported by scholarly consensus (but see Sinding-Larsen Reference Sinding-Larsen2011) and is challenged by other participants such as T4 below (excerpt 33), T3 attempts to identify specific curricular spaces where Church Latin might be meaningfully integrated. In doing so, they gesture towards a more concrete potential for curriculum expansion, even if this remains at the level of speculative planning.

(26)

Some level of concrete inclusion of material in the curriculum is expressed by T1, who integrates elements of Late and Medieval Latin into the OCR Entry Level Latin course to broaden students’ exposure and foster engagement. Rather than focusing on Christian texts, the material selected typically draws on secular sources that resonate with pupils’ interests and provide vivid examples of grammatical forms in context.

(27)

While Christian Latin is occasionally mentioned in the interview, including references to psalms or the Vulgate, there is no clear indication that these are actively analysed in class. Instead, they are presented more as part of a broader discussion about Latin’s historical and stylistic/sociolinguistic variation. Their use is thus indicative of a broader sociolinguistic framing of Latin’s historical evolution, rather than an engagement with Christian Latin as a liturgical or theological corpus.

(28)

When asked about the possibility of teaching Late Latin more systematically, T1 affirms their openness to it, but qualifies this with a self-deprecating remark about feeling ‘rusty’ after many years of focusing on Entry Level content. This response suggests a degree of ambivalence or diminished confidence, which may point to broader structural limitations, such as uneven availability of development resources or off-the-shelf suitable teaching material, affecting teachers’ engagement with less commonly taught historical varieties of Latin.

(29)

Among the participants, the most articulate and sustained engagement with the pedagogical integration of Late, Christian and Medieval Latin comes from T4. There is a clear sense of pedagogical commitment underpinning their approach, as illustrated in (30), where Church Latin is framed as a necessary complement to Classical Latin in the classroom.

(30)

This positioning reflects a deliberate effort to make Church Latin a visible and legitimate element of the school’s language offering. However, T4 is also attentive to the constraints imposed by the formal curriculum, particularly the centrality of Classical Latin as prescribed by examination boards, and severe time constraints. As noted, ‘the focus needs to be on the classical, the sense that it’s a language there that they’re learning’, while Church Latin is positioned as ‘an addition’, framed primarily as ‘an enrichment’ rather than as core content. Despite its marginal curricular status, liturgical Latin has the potential to play a role in teaching by integrating already familiar material drawn from the students’ participation in school-based religious observance.

(31)

This integration is also personalised: Church Latin is used strategically to support individual learners, as seen in the example of a student engaging with the Latin Mass.

(32)

The potential for Church Latin to be an adaptable resource, facilitating the learning of morphology and grammar is articulated in a broader instrumental rationale, advocating for the use of Church Latin irrespective of religious belief.

(33)

At the same time, T4 acknowledges some pedagogical complexity arising from the integration of non-classical forms of Latin, specifically the divergence from classical ‘norms’, potentially confusing students (see excerpt 26).

(34)

The argument thus shifts beyond purely functional justifications to emphasise the contemporary liturgical and spiritual relevance of Latin, which is presented as a shared, ongoing ‘living’ practice (‘We do use it’) rather than a static historical artefact. Within this framework, Latin assumes a role that transcends instrumental utilitarianism: its ‘usefulness’ emerges through its embeddedness in lived religious experience, ritual practice, and the construction of spiritual identity.

(35)

Despite showing variation in the levels of commitment to non-classical Latin, three out of four teachers see the potential to incorporate some Late/Medieval/Christian Latin, at least for functional or student-engagement purposes. Major structural limitations, curriculum constraints, and teacher confidence emerge as key barriers, suggesting that while there is some potential for greater integration, this is overall rather modest, depending largely on individual agency.