Proposals for imposing on religious schools quotas of pupils of other faiths or none seems motivated by a political desire to find a solution to divisions in multifaith, multiracial Britain. But the impact on the Catholic community, says the chairman of its education service, would be to put at risk a system of schooling that is successful and more integrated than ministers understand

The main issues involved in the Government's very late amendment to the Education and Inspection Bill, requiring new faith schools to make available a quarter of places to pupils of other faiths or none, are well known now.

From a Catholic point of view the action of the Government must be opposed for four main reasons. First, it radically alters the agreement over admissions, which has been in place for over 60 years and does so without consultation or discussion. Secondly, it assumes that Catholic schools are socially divisive when all the evidence suggests otherwise. Thirdly, it is a threat to the cohesiveness of Catholic schools with their distinctive ethos, for it suggests that people with no sympathy at all with the unifying vision of Catholic education have a right to places in a Catholic school. Fourthly, it will lead to Catholic children being denied places in a school, which has been planned precisely on the basis of that need.

No wonder this proposal has caused deep anger among many Catholics, especially those who appreciate the achievements of our schools. This anger is increased when hints are given that these measures could be extended to existing Catholic schools, too.

The wider implications of the amendment also cause concern. The intention it signals seems to suggest a very significant shift in Government thinking about the role of faith in our public life. That is why this is such a crucial moment.

It is now clear that a harmonious multicultural society will never be achieved through a strictly secular model. The reason is because in this model there is no room for a true engagement with the spiritual and moral values that lie behind many cultures present in our society. Secular multiculturalism encourages a diversity of cultures only when they are viewed detached from their religious roots. This is to deny the integrity of many of those cultures. It also leaves society with something of a spiritual and moral vacuum at its heart.

But this is only one version of secularism. As reported last weekend, Ben Rogers, associate director of the Institute for Public Policy Research wrote: "Very crudely, there are two sorts of secularism. One attempts to marginalise religious belief - holding that it is all just a private matter, shouldn't be discussed in the public realm and should be kept strictly out of politics and education. That breeds resentment. The other sort allows public expression of religious identities, while publicly affirming the supremacy of basic liberal democratic values like freedom of expression, equality of women and human rights ... that I am completely in favour of."

This second style of "secularism" is the one to which we are accustomed. Partnerships between the Government and the Churches are long-established and fruitful. They have given rise to excellent schools and a long tradition of voluntary work, motivated by faith. I see no reason why this model should not be continued and extended to new partners. This is no time to lose nerve. The disciplines of such partnerships are real. Through them Churches and faith communities must be open to public accountability and inspection; the Government must respect the integrity of religious faith and not seek to manipulate it. These are the foundations of partnerships. Negotiation is the way forward.

The simple fact is that for the majority of people in this country religious faith is part of their identity. Politicians have to recognise this and not pretend that the ideological secularism so often exercised in the media actually represents the reality on the ground. Newly arrived faiths have much to offer - it is not hard to find examples of partnerships that work productively.

One of the mistakes of this amendment is to imagine that coercion will promote social cohesion. It will not. This has been clearly pointed out not only by the Christian Churches but also by the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Muslim Council of Great Britain. Care must be taken to find a way forward that does not produce deep and lasting resentment.

Of course education plays an important part in achieving social integration. But schools are not society in miniature and should be judged by their output and not by their intake. Catholic schools have nothing to fear in this scrutiny. But the present moment makes demands on all schools. Let me outline them briefly. First, every school should be inspected as to the steps it takes to work with its neighbours and promote mutual understanding. This we have offered for Catholic schools. But it should be a requirement on all. Perhaps the most significant way in which schools separate children is by the segregation of the postcode. Catholic schools are among the few that sometimes break this down.

Secondly, it is clear that religious literacy is crucial for the future of our society. In the face of ignorance about religious faiths, the tolerance for which everyone calls quickly breaks down. So, too, some ability to think ethically about what makes for a good life is needed by all, otherwise as a society we are at the mercy of opinion polls and focus groups for our moral compass.

These are challenges facing every school. Catholic schools make a positive and clear contribution, and do so in an open and proven manner. They are part of the solution. They should not be undermined. At the time of writing this article, the text of the proposed amendment has not been made public. Catholic opposition to its central intent must be maintained. This is not self-interest, but a genuine concern for the common good.

Vincent Nichols is Archbishop of Birmingham and chairman of the Catholic Education Service.

Back to homepage