# And we thought the Catholic Church was meant to be Christian



## RMCF (15 Mar 2010)

I was fuming today listening to some Monsignor getting interviewed on the radio, trying to defend themselves (or Brady in particular) over their lack of response to the whole Brendan Smyth affair and subsequent cover-up.

The CC is dying, and it is very easy to see why. For a supposedly Christian organisation they have a very poor attitude for its followers.

I could not believe that this guy said that "Brady did nothing wrong". He used those words. There was a girl who was abused and raped for 5yrs, yet they knew about it after the 1st year. So this poor child suffered 4 *extra *years of terrible abuse at the hands of a sick monster, and this guy thinks that Brady did nothing wrong.

I was so angry today listening to him that I would have done something very unChristian to him if I could have got my hands on him. 

I cannot understand how they can argue that they are a caring organisation when they have this attitude. And it is rife amongst them.

I really do wish that these people could be charged by the Police under criminal law for withholding information. They cannot seem to grasp the fact that their own actions are helping to add to the demise of the Church in this country and around the world. I think its fairly safe to assume that the Church will be in ruins in the next generation or two as many people because so disillusioned with them and their actions.


----------



## Art (16 Mar 2010)

Not trying for a moment to defend Cardinal Brady or the CC but I cannot understand why the parents of these children in question did not go straight to the gardai in the first instance.. It just baffles me why they left it up to the church to investigate and deal with the complaints. When the CC showed it's response to be wholly inadequate, then why did the parents of the abuse children refer the matter to the civil authorities. I know that my parents certainly would have.


----------



## RMCF (16 Mar 2010)

Any parent worth their salt would have.

If someone sexually abused your child, why would you *NOT *go to the police?


And why is it that when people have a few % taken off their wages they will take to the streets etc, yet evil men rape children and cover it up, yet we let them stay in power and do nothing about it. I think its about time the CC was taken on and shown up for the evil organisation that it is.


----------



## Purple (16 Mar 2010)

Art said:


> Not trying for a moment to defend Cardinal Brady or the CC but I cannot understand why the parents of these children in question did not go straight to the gardai in the first instance.. It just baffles me why they left it up to the church to investigate and deal with the complaints. When the CC showed it's response to be wholly inadequate, then why did the parents of the abuse children refer the matter to the civil authorities. I know that my parents certainly would have.


Many parents did report the abuse of their children to the police. The police then went to the Church and were told to mind their own business.



RMCF said:


> Any parent worth their salt would have.
> 
> If someone sexually abused your child, why would you *NOT *go to the police?


 No, there is no way I would go to the police, not with the miniscule punishments handed out by courts in this country who think robbing a post office is a more serious crime than raping a child. The priest involved would be found nailed to the front door of his church (what was left of him).




RMCF said:


> And why is it that when people have a few % taken off their wages they will take to the streets etc, yet evil men rape children and cover it up, yet we let them stay in power and do nothing about it. I think its about time the CC was taken on and shown up for the evil organisation that it is.


 I agree. I have posted here for months that the Vatican state is a hostile power which has sought to undermine our sovereignty by instructing Irish citizens to hold its law as paramount over Irish law and therefore we should break off diplomatic relations, recall our ambassador and expel the Papal Nuncio.  We should then seek the extradition of the pope to face criminal charged for attempting to pervert the course of justice.
Obviously it would not work but it would cause an international furore and bring the actions of this evil state to the fore on the world stage.


----------



## The_Banker (16 Mar 2010)

Purple said:


> I agree. I have posted here for months that the Vatican state is a hostile power which has sought to undermine our sovereignty by instructing Irish citizens to hold its law as paramount over Irish law and therefore *we should break off diplomatic relations, recall our ambassador and expel the Papal Nuncio*. *We should then seek the extradition of the pope to face criminal charged for attempting to pervert the course of justice.*
> Obviously it would not work but it would cause an international furore and bring the actions of this evil state to the fore on the world stage.


 
Yes, it is time for that now. Our government are complicit with their inaction.


----------



## Shawady (16 Mar 2010)

Purple said:


> The priest involved would be found nailed to the front door of his church (what was left of him).


 
I'm surprised something like this never happened. I can only imagine how I would feel if someone did this to one of my children and I was basically fobbed off. I don't think I could let it rest.
The child abuse enquiry should be extended to all dioseces in the country.


----------



## Chocks away (16 Mar 2010)

Of course this would have nothing to do with Opus Dei and other right wing religious lunatics in the higher echelons of the police force and judiciary? How come that these shadowy groups have remained tight-lipped over all this. The Legionnaries of Christ have done little to bring to light the crimnal excesses of it's founder and only recently have opened up to this.http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/legion_of_christ_responds_to_founders_alleged_children/ Still fudging is the order of the day with no directives coming from the Vatican. Catholics everywhere must be despairing at this flagrant inactivity. But all churchgoers can become active by stopping the flow of money to this behemoth that has cast a dark shadow over their every being from the cradle to the grave.


----------



## Firefly (16 Mar 2010)

Purple said:


> . The priest involved would be found nailed to the front door of his church (what was left of him).


 
+1 and I'd be happy to deal with the consequences.


----------



## MrMan (16 Mar 2010)

Firefly said:


> +1 and I'd be happy to deal with the consequences.


 
You mean you would leave your child fatherless at a time of real need, both yours and Purples ideas for justice are emotional understandably, but also selfish.


----------



## Latrade (16 Mar 2010)

RMCF said:


> Any parent worth their salt would have.
> 
> If someone sexually abused your child, why would you *NOT *go to the police?
> 
> ...


 
I've heard seen the looking at the parents creep into this more and more within the media, in particular as some kind of defence. I just can't agree with it.

We forget several things, first is that these priest specifically preyed on vulnerable children without strong parental support or broken homes. Second is the huge deference that some parents would have had to the Church. The parents thought they were doing right by letting the church handle it. Plus the church "forgot" to mention that their process was only a disciplinary process and that the parents should go to the gardai. Many of those parents across the world who did report it were led to believe that the church would handle everything for them.

And last, as mentioned some cases were notified to the Gardai and they failed to ask.

This all comes down to pretty much the very first act when the state was formed where it pledged itself to allegiance with the Vatican, a separate sovereign state. 

They were given too much power and too much immunity. The fact that even in 1975 it was ok to do what Brady did infuriates me.


----------



## Purple (16 Mar 2010)

MrMan said:


> You mean you would leave your child fatherless at a time of real need, both yours and Purples ideas for justice are emotional understandably, but also selfish.



I’m not suggesting it would be justice; it would be a violent emotional vengeance. I would like to think that I would be able to react in a more reasoned way but experience has thought me otherwise.


----------



## Bronte (16 Mar 2010)

Purple said:


> I have posted here for months that the Vatican state is a hostile power which has sought to undermine our sovereignty by instructing Irish citizens to hold its law as paramount over Irish law and therefore we should break off diplomatic relations, recall our ambassador and expel the Papal Nuncio. We should then seek the extradition of the pope to face criminal charged for attempting to pervert the course of justice.
> .


 
This is what any right and proper government who had the interests of it's citizens at heart should do.  This is not what the Irish government will do.


----------



## MANTO (16 Mar 2010)

Purple said:


> I’m not suggesting it would be justice; it would be a violent emotional vengeance. I would like to think that I would be able to react in a more reasoned way but experience has thought me otherwise.


 
Lets not pretend to be something we are not, i agree with Purple. pure emotion would take over and you would deal with the consequences afterwards. Anyone who thinks they would have a rational mind if they found out their child was being abused is either sadly mistaken or stupid.


----------



## Yachtie (16 Mar 2010)

I am still shocked and somewhat disgusted at the number of people who go to church every Sunday and stick their hands in their pockets to hand over money (most of my in-laws included). If only one Sunday churches stayed empty, CC / Vatican would have no choice but to change tack. 

As already mentioned, there is an uproar for a lot smaller stuff but child abuse somehow seems to slip unpunished. It's the mentality that not all priests are bad BUT I can't stop wondering how is it possible that all those 'good' priests never noticed that something was off or did anything about it.


----------



## Firefly (16 Mar 2010)

MrMan said:


> You mean you would leave your child fatherless at a time of real need, both yours and Purples ideas for justice are emotional understandably, but also selfish.


 
I never said when I'd do it.

Anyway, I'd blame Purple


----------



## truthseeker (16 Mar 2010)

Yachtie said:


> I am still shocked and somewhat disgusted at the number of people who go to church every Sunday and stick their hands in their pockets to hand over money (most of my in-laws included). If only one Sunday churches stayed empty, CC / Vatican would have no choice but to change tack.


 

Its the herd mentality. Until people start to question why they do what they do it will continue to go on. Most catholics that I know only go to church sometimes, want to get nice piccys for their wedding so use a church for it, but attendance is rare other than that, get the kids baptised because the relations expect it, or theyre afraid they wont be able to get the kids into a local school etc...

They dont look at the bigger picture.


----------



## Latrade (16 Mar 2010)

Yachtie said:


> I am still shocked and somewhat disgusted at the number of people who go to church every Sunday and stick their hands in their pockets to hand over money (most of my in-laws included). If only one Sunday churches stayed empty, CC / Vatican would have no choice but to change tack.
> .


 
And one such devotee yesterday who stated the abused have: "had their pound of flesh" and it's time to stop picking on the clergy.


----------



## Purple (16 Mar 2010)

Latrade said:


> And one such devotee yesterday who stated the abused have: "had their pound of flesh" and it's time to stop picking on the clergy.



Who said that?!


----------



## csirl (16 Mar 2010)

In my mind, the Cardinal is guilty of intimidating witnesses/victims of serious crimes and he should face criminal charges for this.

If some criminal gang intimidates the witnessess/victims of e.g. a robbery or murder, the authorities attemtp to come down on them like a ton of bricks and sometimes even use the Special Criminal Court as a prosecution route. People also get prosecuted for being involved in criminal gangs.

Abusing children is a serious crime that ranks with or is more serious than armed robbery, importing drugs, murder etc. The CC is acting just like a criminal gang - intimidating witnesses, making sure its members do not pass info to the Gardai, protecting criminals etc. Why arent we seeing some prosecutions?

What is most sickening is that the Cardinal thinks that he has done no wrong and/or is above the law. His attitude to the questioning by RTE was sick.


----------



## Shawady (16 Mar 2010)

truthseeker said:


> Most catholics that I know only go to church sometimes, want to get nice piccys for their wedding so use a church for it, but attendance is rare other than that, get the kids baptised because the relations expect it, or theyre afraid they wont be able to get the kids into a local school etc...
> 
> They dont look at the bigger picture.


 
I aggree with this and as someone that had their children baptised I have mentioned in a previous thread I am undecided whether they make their communion/confirmation. I do feel a bit of a hypocrite as I do no attend church.

In reality though, how far would most people go to boycott the church?
Would they refuse to get their child baptised or attend weddings and funerals in protest of the churche's approach to the child abuse scandals?


----------



## truthseeker (16 Mar 2010)

Shawady said:


> In reality though, how far would most people go to boycott the church?
> Would they refuse to get their child baptised or attend weddings and funerals in protest of the churche's approach to the child abuse scandals?


 
Well I would, but it wouldnt be a far stretch for me as Im an atheist anyway and disagree with the CC for many other reasons than the current problems.

However - I do think you would find people not wanting to upset relations and/or friends by boycotting their church events - cant boycott John and Marys wedding, it wouldnt be fair on THEM - that type of thing.


----------



## Bronte (16 Mar 2010)

Shawady said:


> I aggree with this and as someone that had their children baptised I have mentioned in a previous thread I am undecided whether they make their communion/confirmation. I do feel a bit of a hypocrite as I do no attend church.
> 
> In reality though, how far would most people go to boycott the church?
> Would they refuse to get their child baptised or attend weddings and funerals in protest of the churche's approach to the child abuse scandals?


 
Can't understand this kind of question.  Why would you get your child baptised if you don't want to?  Why would you do it if you are not a practising member of the particular church?

By partaking in an event where someone else is having a religious ceremony doesn't mean you agree with the Roman Catholic Church, just that you're there in respect or celebration of an event. But getting your own child baptised is a different matter.  

What do you think happens to those of us who didn't get married in a church or don't get our kids baptised.  Fire and brimstone, that we wear horns?  That's our kids are denied schooling ?


----------



## Shawady (16 Mar 2010)

Bronte said:


> Can't understand this kind of question. Why would you get your child baptised if you don't want to? Why would you do it if you are not a practising member of the particular church?
> 
> By partaking in an event where someone else is having a religious ceremony doesn't mean you agree with the Roman Catholic Church, just that you're there in respect or celebration of an event. But getting your own child baptised is a different matter.
> 
> What do you think happens to those of us who didn't get married in a church or don't get our kids baptised. Fire and brimstone, that we wear horns? That's our kids are denied schooling ?


 
Bronte, you seem surprised that people that are not practicing RCs would get their child baptised. From my experience, the vast number of people I know that had their child baptised do not regularly attend mass. The reasons why they do vary from it is just the done thing, don't want to upset  their own parents or need a baptism cert to get into school. For us it was prob a mixture of these reasons although our child will not be going to a RC run school as it turns out. I have not got a link, but I thought there were situations last year where non-nationals were denied access to RC schools because preference was given to RC children.

Regards partaking in an event in a RC church, I am just asking the question would some people consider to boycott the church altogether. Not because the are non-believers, but in protest at how the church covered up child abuse and moved priests around knowing they would re-offend.


----------



## Lex Foutish (16 Mar 2010)

Purple said:


> Who said that?!


 
I heard that also. It was on the news on one of the radio stations yesterday. They interviewed people coming out of mass. Somewhere in Dublin, I think. All the others said he should resign.


----------



## MissRibena (16 Mar 2010)

Lex Foutish said:


> I heard that also. It was on the news on one of the radio stations yesterday. They interviewed people coming out of mass. Somewhere in Dublin, I think. All the others said he should resign.


 
Last week, the bishop of Elphin claimed the church was being unfairly singled out.


----------



## Firefly (16 Mar 2010)

Shawady said:


> Not because the are non-believers, but in protest at how the church covered up child abuse and moved priests around knowing they would re-offend.


 
Best thing people could do is continue to go to mass but leave after the gospel. This way they'll miss the all-important collection box as well as the preaching from the pulpit.


----------



## MrMan (16 Mar 2010)

MANTO said:


> Lets not pretend to be something we are not, i agree with Purple. pure emotion would take over and you would deal with the consequences afterwards. Anyone who thinks they would have a rational mind if they found out their child was being abused is either sadly mistaken or stupid.


Again with emotional words, but in reality how many abusers get their commupence from the family of the abused? I'm not just talking church abuse, because more often than not abuse comes from within a family. It is understandable to say we would all kill this that and the other, but in reality most of us are not wired that way and that is why we tend to operate on the right side of the law.


----------



## Bronte (16 Mar 2010)

Shawady said:


> The reasons why they do vary from it is just the done thing, don't want to upset their own parents or need a baptism cert to get into school. For us it was prob a mixture of these reasons  would re-offend.


 
And don't you think that one ought to have a better reason than that to join an organisation?  What would have happened if you didn't?

BTW what schools require a baptismal certificate from the Roman Catholic Church for entry?


----------



## DeeFox (16 Mar 2010)

Bronte said:


> Can't understand this kind of question. Why would you get your child baptised if you don't want to? Why would you do it if you are not a practising member of the particular church?


 
I don't have children but if I did I know that the older members of the family would be extremely upset if I didn't agree to the baptism.  I'm not religious at all but would do this as I don't this it does any harm.


----------



## truthseeker (16 Mar 2010)

Bronte said:


> BTW what schools require a baptismal certificate from the Roman Catholic Church for entry?


 
Any school that is partially funded by the church.
It wouldnt be an issue in a big city as there would be other choices, but its a problem in other parts of the country. My boss for example, was not allowed to enrol his kids in the local school as they are not baptised.


----------



## Bronte (16 Mar 2010)

It is quite amazing the amount of grown adults who comply with their parents wishes. Do people not make their own decisions and can they not go against their parents wishes when they are an adult.

Before making the decision to join, do people not ask what am I joining, why am I joining, to what end, what does this organisation stand for, can I live with that, do I believe in that?

Because if anyone looked into the actions, ethos and deeds of the Roman Catholic Church I don't know how any right thinking person would want to be part of it.


----------



## Bronte (16 Mar 2010)

truthseeker said:


> Any school that is partially funded by the church.
> It wouldnt be an issue in a big city as there would be other choices, but its a problem in other parts of the country. My boss for example, was not allowed to enrol his kids in the local school as they are not baptised.


 
Truthseeker would you know what percentage of schools this would be?  Presumable state funded?

Where did your boss send the children to school? (Type of school)

Off the top of my head I have 3 relations who have children in different schools and they don't have baptismal certificates (not city schools, country schools).


----------



## truthseeker (16 Mar 2010)

Bronte said:


> Before making the decision to join, do people not ask what am I joining, why am I joining, to what end, what does this organisation stand for, can I live with that, do I believe in that?


 
That choice is not given to most as the church indoctrinates from babyhood - people are baptised before they are able to make a decision about what they are joining.

Now why they dont up and leave in adulthood is another question!


----------



## Firefly (16 Mar 2010)

Bronte said:


> Before making the decision to join, do people not ask what am I joining, why am I joining, to what end, what does this organisation stand for, can I live with that, do I believe in that?


 
I think the problem is that most people join the church when they're kids and go to mass every Sunday. Only since recent events have occurred have people started asking the questions you have listed. Before that people just went with the flow. I imagine not being part of the church in rural areas might have been difficult in times past too.


----------



## truthseeker (16 Mar 2010)

Bronte said:


> Truthseeker would you know what percentage of schools this would be? Presumable state funded?


 
I wouldnt - but there is an interesting thread about it here somewhere - Ill have a look for it.

If you check out the enrollment policy for most schools that are state funded (and partially church funded) you will see that they go along the lines of :
RC children in the cachement area.
RC children of staff
RC children outside the cachement area....etc...

Its not that you CANT go to a state school thats partially funded by the church - just that the places will be offered to the RC kids first.

The bosses kids went to a different school that had places for them - a state school.

Theres an old thread that mentions it - I am looking for the more recent one:
http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=14430


----------



## Shawady (16 Mar 2010)

Bronte said:


> And don't you think that one ought to have a better reason than that to join an organisation? What would have happened if you didn't?


 
You are probably right but the fact is that this year thousands (probably tens of thousands) of children will either be baptised or make communion/confirmation and in many cases, their parents (a) do not attend mass (b) are disgusted by the child abuse and cover-up and (c) deep down may not even believe in the teachings of the church. Additionally many couples will choose to have a church wedding.
I have friends that chose to get married in a civil cermony because were not religious but when the children came along, had them baptised.
I don't know the answer. Maybe the church has had such a strong position in this country, people are not going to eliminate it from their lives overnight.

Regards the schools, I have no link but am sure there have been cases in parts of Dublin where, because of the pressure on school places, preferences would be given to RC children in RC schools. From memory I think a school from Blanchardstown was mentioned on news last year.


----------



## Shawady (16 Mar 2010)

truthseeker said:


> If you check out the enrollment policy for most schools that are state funded (and partially church funded) you will see that they go along the lines of :
> RC children in the cachement area.
> RC children of staff
> RC children outside the cachement area....etc...


 
I know the local COI school operates this way. Preference to COI children, then siblings, then children from other religious backgrounds in the cachment area. Some years there may be a couple of places open to children from other religions and others there are none. I assume RC schools would operate the same way, but there are obviously a lot more of them so probably a much better chance of getting a place.


----------



## Firefly (16 Mar 2010)

truthseeker said:


> Its not that you CANT go to a state school thats partially funded by the church - just that the places will be offered to the RC kids first.


 
Hi Truth,

Have I got this right...the Catholic Church funds (even partially) primary schools? I would have thought they would be receiving money from the state in return for providing teaching services?


----------



## johnd (16 Mar 2010)

Go past any church on a Sunday and you will see people flocking around the priest like that couple in Father Ted. Its all "oh father you're great, you're gas etc" These people are the lifeblood of the church and without them it could not continue. These are the people who nhave to demand changes but they won't, they are happy with the church the way it is.


----------



## annR (16 Mar 2010)

I had my daughter baptised for a mixture of reasons that Shawady mentions but I have to say that the Ryan and Murphy reports have made me think long and hard about my children having any to do with the Catholic church at all.  When she was baptised, the school situation was a strong motivator but I was also considering becoming more of practising Catholic.  Now I am leaning the other way entirely.  The church as an organisation is nothing to me now.  Rotten to the core.  I feel sorry for the innocent priests who have had their life's work tainted by it - it reminds me of the butler in Remains of the Day - justifying his life of servitude in the face of the disgrace of his employer.


----------



## Complainer (16 Mar 2010)

Bronte said:


> BTW what schools require a baptismal certificate from the Roman Catholic Church for entry?


No school bars non-Catholics from entry, but many schools do prioritise RC children over other kids. So if the school is over-subscribed, the non-Catholics will not get a place.


----------



## truthseeker (16 Mar 2010)

Firefly said:


> Hi Truth,
> 
> Have I got this right...the Catholic Church funds (even partially) primary schools? I would have thought they would be receiving money from the state in return for providing teaching services?


 
Thats my understanding of it alright. 
The church and state need to be seperated.

As Complainer says above - the RC children are prioritised - as the schools are RC schools (just look at the names of local schools - Saint this or that).


----------



## RMCF (16 Mar 2010)

Then its simple - time to break the link between the RC church and the education system.


----------



## Firefly (16 Mar 2010)

annR said:


> I feel sorry for the innocent priests who have had their life's work tainted by it


 
There's the rub. The excuse given before was that they were not aware the abuse was going on. Well now they do. By staying silent they are somewhat complicit IMO. Those "innocent" priests should have by now walked out en masse (pardon the pun).


----------



## truthseeker (16 Mar 2010)

Theres a bit of blurb about state funded schools on citizeninformation.ie



> *The types of schools available*
> 
> The Irish primary education sector consists of state-funded primary schools, special schools and private primary schools. State-funded primary schools used to be known as national schools and you may still hear this term being used. State-funded schools include religious schools, multi-denominational schools and Gaelscoileanna, which are schools that teach the curriculum through the Irish language. You can view a list of State-funded primary schools in Ireland on the Department of Education's website here.
> *Religion in Irish schools*
> ...





So - state funded schools include religious schools - which get some funding from the church. And which would be far more common than multi-denominational or Gaelscoileanna schools.


----------



## Firefly (16 Mar 2010)

truthseeker said:


> So - state funded schools include religious schools - which get some funding from the church.


 
This sounds so wrong now doesn't it? As the church were funding the schools they obviously felt they could run them as they saw fit...almost like they were entitled to abuse children.


----------



## gunnerfitzy (16 Mar 2010)

It is certainly time for the church and state to be separated. The schools would be a good place to start. Its amazing that in this day and age the RC church is running the vast majority of the primary schools in this country. I have no problem with schools with a religious ethos discriminating in favour of those of that faith. But in my opinion the vast majority of primary schools in the state should be secular. Religious education should be outside the state curriculum. As Inspector Charmers mentioned in a Simpson's episode once 'God has no place within these walls'.

Interesting article

[broken link removed]


----------



## csirl (16 Mar 2010)

Firefly said:


> This sounds so wrong now doesn't it? As the church were funding the schools they obviously felt they could run them as they saw fit...almost like they were entitled to abuse children.


 
The reality is that even the religious schools are 100% funded by the State except for some parents fund raising. The entire staff are on a State payroll, the buildings were built by the State, the consumables are bought by the State etc. etc.

What I object to is that the State builds these schools, staffs them and then hands them over to a religious "Patron" free of charge. Why do we need the "Patron" in the picture at all? And legally speaking, the assets belong to the Patron not the State - the Patron could evict the school and sell up any time they want to without the State getting a cent in return. 

And how can the State allow partonage from religious organisations that have harboured paedos? Surely its against the law? It appears that one set of laws applies to ordinary citizens working with children and another set applies to the church? Surely the RC is now ineligible to run anything to do with children as it is contrary to the State's child protection rules?


----------



## Capt. Beaky (16 Mar 2010)

truthseeker said:


> ............
> So - state funded schools include religious schools - which get some funding from the church. ..............


This statement is unintentionally misleading. The funding comes from the catholics who give x amount to the church. The church then keeps some for itself and dispenses the rest, after the vatican's tallyman gives it the once over, taking the kudos for so doing. Middlemen probably best describes this type of operation. So the funding = (x-vatican's take). In this way the catholic church has become extremely wealthy and is a long way from what Christ started.


----------



## Pique318 (16 Mar 2010)

csirl said:


> What I object to is that the State builds these schools, staffs them and then hands them over to a religious "Patron" free of charge. Why do we need the "Patron" in the picture at all? And legally speaking, the assets belong to the Patron not the State - the Patron could evict the school and sell up any time they want to without the State getting a cent in return.
> 
> And how can the State allow partonage from religious organisations that have harboured paedos? Surely its against the law? It appears that one set of laws applies to ordinary citizens working with children and another set applies to the church? Surely the RC is now ineligible to run anything to do with children as it is contrary to the State's child protection rules?


+1

But is it true that the 'Patron' actually holds legal ownership of the properties ?


----------



## gunnerfitzy (16 Mar 2010)

Explanation here

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/c...o-primary-school/ownership-of-primary-schools

The way I understand it is that the vast majority of primary schools are owned by the catholic church but in the case of new primary schools, the ownership is dependant on who paid for the site the school is built on.

The fact of the matter is the RC church is   intrinsically linked to the majority of primary schools and it will be next to impossible to break this link without their consent as they own the majority of these schools.  These schools and the compulsory patron's half hour per day is one of the reasons why the RC church is so ingrained in the Irish culture so don't expect them to give it up.


----------



## Chocks away (16 Mar 2010)

My European history is patchy but Henry the Eight did not have much of a problem with title.


----------



## Chocks away (16 Mar 2010)

RMCF said:


> Then its simple - time to break the link between the RC church and the education system.


Not before time. Again, pretty easy to cut the energy link to this cancer. Stop funding it.


----------



## Bronte (17 Mar 2010)

So if you're a parent in Ireland, where 90% of primary schools are Roman Catholic you have actually no choice, in most cases, but to send your child to a Roman Catholic school?  

A school which is owned by the Church, where it is run by the Church, where your child will be forced to attend Roman Catholic instruction and where the teachers can be fired by the Bishop, an unelected person accountable to no one being a member of an organisation that is seemingly beyond the laws of the Irish state in the cover up of men who rape and abuse children.  Seems like a bit of a strange organisation to have as the main educator of children.

Meanwhile the salaries of the teachers, the upkeep of the school building and the school running costs is paid for by the taxpayer.    Where does the Church funding come into this?

Then to cap it all the Church can decide to 'force' parents to get their child baptised by putting obstacles in parents choices so that they will not get a place in a school near them if they don't comply with Church orders?  And basically most of you go along with this subtle coercion for that very reason.  

Then you have the viscious circle of non practising/non believing parents having to go through the charade of Holy Communion and presumable Confirmation.  

And a lot of you think this is a reasonable state of affairs, many of you accept it, go along with it and never question it.

In the other thread currently on this subject there is a link to an old thread where Jaybird has to live this reality in Ireland of no choice for her children.  A very sad state of affairs indeed.


----------



## huskerdu (17 Mar 2010)

+1 Bronte

"And a lot of you think this is a reasonable state of affairs, many of you accept it, go along with it and never question it"

Every time that someone who is not a practising Catholic or not a believer in the Catholic church baptises their child for the cop out reasons that they don't want to 
upset their parents or that it will make it easier to get into a better school, they
are continuing to support a culture in Ireland that there is something wrong with
not being Catholic. 

The Catholic Church in Ireland is deeply corrupt and they have a stranglehold on eduction, and we let them and continue to let them.


----------



## Teatime (17 Mar 2010)

+1 Bronte & Huskerdu

People need to start having the courage of their convictions.


----------



## gunnerfitzy (17 Mar 2010)

Teatime said:


> +1 Bronte & Huskerdu
> 
> People need to start having the courage of their convictions.



Absolutely.

Make no mistake about it, this subtle coercion is exactly what the church desires and will not let go of it easily. Also, the state is no rush to take over the management of the primary schools. What I would like see is one of the political parties pledging to end this arrangement should they form a government after the next election. In fact... I think I'll drop an email to my TD!

edit: done!


----------



## The_Banker (17 Mar 2010)

The Eucharistic Congress in two years time will be a big test test of the relationship between church and state. I have no doubt the state will be heavily involved.
We have the Corpus Christi parade very June here in Cork and the army is heavily involved, providing a guard of honour (with swords drawn) for the bishop while he carries the host.


----------



## Capt. Beaky (17 Mar 2010)

The_Banker said:


> .................... providing a guard of honour (with swords drawn) for the bishop while he carries the host.


Why? In case some gurrier nicks it?


----------



## gunnerfitzy (17 Mar 2010)

Its a tradition that dates back to the early days of the state when the state and church were almost inseparable.


----------



## z107 (17 Mar 2010)

> What I would like see is one of the political parties pledging to end this arrangement should they form a government after the next election.


Any political party that decides to come between Church and State in Ireland will not be winning any elections.

Remember that we live in a country where people willingly vote FF. 
(Not that any of the other parties are any better)


----------



## Complainer (17 Mar 2010)

The_Banker said:


> The Eucharistic Congress in two years time  will be a big test test of the relationship between church and state. I  have no doubt the state will be heavily involved.
> We have the Corpus Christi parade very June here in Cork and the army is  heavily involved, providing a guard of honour (with swords drawn) for  the bishop while he carries the host.



Are those swords sharp?


huskerdu said:


> Every time that someone who is not a practising Catholic or not a believer in the Catholic church baptises their child for the cop out reasons that they don't want to upset their parents or that it will make it easier to get into a better school, they are continuing to support a culture in Ireland that there is something wrong with not being Catholic.
> 
> The Catholic Church in Ireland is deeply corrupt and they have a stranglehold on eduction, and we let them and continue to let them.


I agree with you in theory, but not in practice. Ours were baptised, partly because Mrs Complainer would have fairly traditional views on these things (not that she's get up out of her leaba on a Sunday morning), and partly because the nearest school (1 mile away) is indeed a Church school. It is also a very good school, and the one that most of the neighbouring kids attend. So the choice was between a purist principled position that would require two car commutes each day for eight years of primary school to get to the nearest ET school (4 miles away), and create a barrier between ours and the neighbouring kids. It is really not good for the community at large to have kids travelling for miles away to get to other schools.

There is also an upside to this. I'm active in the school, in the community, in the parents association and maybe even on the Board of Management some day. I will be an advocate for change inside the system. Sometimes better to be inside the tent...




umop3p!sdn said:


> Any political party that decides to come between Church and State in Ireland will not be winning any elections.


Am I naive for thinking that there may be an appetite for real change to the Church/State relationship?


----------



## gunnerfitzy (17 Mar 2010)

Complainer said:


> Are those swords sharp?
> 
> I agree with you in theory, but not in practice. Ours were baptised, partly because Mrs Complainer would have fairly traditional views on these things (not that she's get up out of her leaba on a Sunday morning), and partly because the nearest school (1 mile away) is indeed a Church school. It is also a very good school, and the one that most of the neighbouring kids attend. So the choice was between a purist principled position that would require two car commutes each day for eight years of primary school to get to the nearest ET school (4 miles away), and create a barrier between ours and the neighbouring kids. It is really not good for the community at large to have kids travelling for miles away to get to other schools.
> 
> ...



Your reasoning for having your children baptised is understandable and is repeated in every village in Ireland I have no doubt.  But it should not be the case that a child's education is dependant on whether or not they are baptised or not. 

I'm sure that if the same school that you chose was a secular state-run school you would would still have same involvement in it.

I wouldn't hold out for any changes from the Board of Management....

Extract from http://www.citizensinformation.ie/c.../going-to-primary-school/boards-of-management

"The people appointed must have a commitment to the ethos of the school. In the case of Catholic schools, they must have an  understanding of and  commitment to Catholic education as outlined in the Deed of Trust for Catholic Schools."

If you were on the Board and you suggested that the RC church no longer run the school the Bishop would have you out on your ear!


----------



## Teatime (17 Mar 2010)

gunnerfitzy said:


> "The people appointed must have a commitment to the ethos of the school. In the case of Catholic schools, they must have an understanding of and commitment to Catholic education as outlined in the Deed of Trust for Catholic Schools."


 
I can understand non-practicing/non-believing parents baptizing their kids to get them into RC schools but do they subsequently have to go thru the charade of communion and confirmation? i.e does the school push the parents/kids to do communion & confirmation. I doubt it anymore.


----------



## gunnerfitzy (17 Mar 2010)

Teatime said:


> I can understand non-practicing/non-believing parents baptizing their kids to get them into RC schools but do they subsequently have to go thru the charade of communion and confirmation? i.e does the school push the parents/kids to do communion & confirmation. I doubt it anymore.



I would imagine that parents ensure that their children have first communion and confirmation for a number of reasons other than the one and only reason that it should be done; that they firmly believe in the RC church and want to bring their children up in that faith.

But some of the other reasons may be:

1. They do not want to explain to the child's grandparents / relatives and family friends that they only had the child baptised so that they could enrol him/her in the school.

2. They do not want their child singled out in the class.

3. They are afraid that there may be questions from the school/patron as to why they declared that the child was an RC but is not proceeding in the RC faith.


----------



## Pique318 (18 Mar 2010)

Complainer said:


> So the choice was between a purist principled position that would require two car commutes each day for eight years of primary school to get to the nearest ET school (4 miles away), and create a barrier between ours and the neighbouring kids. It is really not good for the community at large to have kids travelling for miles away to get to other schools.


The point is that you shouldn't have to choose.
As was said before, all the church does in these schools is set the rules...nothing more. The taxpayers pay the bills, the lay people teach and yet the Bish is the Boss. 
Regardless if your child was inducted into the Catholic faith, or the Protestant, Jewish, Muslim or Buddhist one, or indeed touched by his noodly appendage, it's a state-run school in absolutely everything but name. Why should you HAVE to be held to ransom between the courage of your convictions and the education of your child.


Complainer said:


> Am I naive for thinking that there may be an appetite for real change to  the Church/State relationship?


Hopefully not. Maybe the Educate Together schools were the first step. Perhaps with the increased amount of non-catholic 'new-Irish' demanding places for their children that the ET schools can't accomodate, there is a stronger argument for stripping the 'St Whoever' from the names of every school in the land and removing the power of the Catholic Church from this convenient avenue for brainwashing kids into a 'faith' that means nothing to a child under 16. Why don't the govt see as Bronte has so clearly done.


> A school which is owned by the Church, where it is run by the Church,  where your child will be forced to attend Roman Catholic instruction and  where the teachers can be fired by the Bishop, an unelected person  accountable to no one being a member of an organisation that is  seemingly beyond the laws of the Irish state in the cover up of men who  rape and abuse children.  Seems like a bit of a strange organisation to  have as the main educator of children.


 Why not just say 'Enough!!! Your organisation has to be removed from this role, both as punishment (and enact a law to force takeover, and ruthlessly shoot down any legal challenge) and also so that this may never happen again." I don't see any argument from the sane being of much note.
Sadly, it's the lunatics running this particular asylum!!


----------



## csirl (18 Mar 2010)

> Maybe the Educate Together schools were the first step.


 
I dont think Educate Together is a step in the right direction. ET schools are multi faith rather than non-religious. We need to keep religion out of the State education system. I also have a difficulty with the ET policy that all religions are valid and respected - I'd hate to have my daughter go to a school that gives out the message that making girls wear burkas is ok.


----------



## Complainer (18 Mar 2010)

Pique318 said:


> The point is that you shouldn't have to choose.
> As was said before, all the church does in these schools is set the rules...nothing more. The taxpayers pay the bills, the lay people teach and yet the Bish is the Boss.
> 
> Regardless if your child was inducted into the Catholic faith, or the Protestant, Jewish, Muslim or Buddhist one, or indeed touched by his noodly appendage, it's a state-run school in absolutely everything but name. Why should you HAVE to be held to ransom between the courage of your convictions and the education of your child.





gunnerfitzy said:


> Your reasoning for having your children baptised is understandable and is repeated in every village in Ireland I have no doubt.  But it should not be the case that a child's education is dependant on whether or not they are baptised or not.
> 
> I'm sure that if the same school that you chose was a secular state-run school you would would still have same involvement in it.


Just in case there is any confusion about my comments, I wasn't recommending or justifying the continued involvement of the Church in public schools. I was simply pointing out that boycotting of such schools is not necessarily the best or only tactic to bring about change.



gunnerfitzy said:


> I wouldn't hold out for any changes from the Board of Management....
> 
> Extract from http://www.citizensinformation.ie/c.../going-to-primary-school/boards-of-management
> 
> ...


Thanks - I wasn't aware of that particular requirement, though it seems to be "more honour'd in the breach than the observance". I certainly know of at least one committed atheist/humanist who has served on the BoM of a Church school. Perhaps a "don't ask, don't tell" policy applies.


----------



## gunnerfitzy (18 Mar 2010)

Complainer said:


> Thanks - I wasn't aware of that particular requirement, though it seems to be "more honour'd in the breach than the observance". I certainly know of at least one committed atheist/humanist who has served on the BoM of a Church school. Perhaps a "don't ask, don't tell" policy applies.



Perhaps indeed. Maybe a blind eye was turned to appease the mortals. However I wonder what would have happened if he/she had suggested an end to church patronage!


----------



## gunnerfitzy (18 Mar 2010)

I received a response from my local TD about my concerns with the RC church's management of our  primary schools. He has told me that the FG education spokesperson is  going to speak about this matter at the FG conference in Killarney this  Saturday.

Text of the speech will be available afterwards.


----------



## Seagull (18 Mar 2010)

csirl said:


> I dont think Educate Together is a step in the right direction. ET schools are multi faith rather than non-religious. We need to keep religion out of the State education system. I also have a difficulty with the ET policy that all religions are valid and respected - I'd hate to have my daughter go to a school that gives out the message that making girls wear burkas is ok.


The problem is that the constitution bars schools from being non-denominational. They have to provide some kind of religious education. The educate together model is about the best that can be done under the current legislation. 

They also do not say wearing the burkha is OK. They don't get involved in issues of that nature. There is a significant difference between saying that you should respect other religions, and saying you should accept all their actions. There are a significant number of moderate muslims opposed to the burkha. 

My viewpoint on the RC church as an organization is that they strayed away from Christianity as their primary purpose a long time ago, and have been about maintaining political power and wealth. I'm surprised more people aren't moving to different churches.


----------



## Firefly (18 Mar 2010)

Seagull said:


> The problem is that the constitution bars schools from being non-denominational. They have to provide some kind of religious education.


 
Perhaps religion should be taught as an optional, extra class in the evenings. A group of schools could rotate the teachings, whether they be RC, Protestant, Muslim or whatever. That way it would be easier for children to abstain. I do think though that a "love thy neighbour" class should run during the normal class day as these teachings help promote a more social upbringing for children, but they should not reference any particular religion.


----------



## csirl (18 Mar 2010)

> The problem is that the constitution bars schools from being non-denominational. They have to provide some kind of religious education. The educate together model is about the best that can be done under the current legislation.


 
There is no constitutional bar on schools being non-denominational. VEC schools, for example, are non-denominational.


----------



## ali (18 Mar 2010)

In our school, Rathfarnham Educate Together, no denominational religion is taught during school hours. Any group of parents who wish to organise a religion class after school hours and supply their own teacher e.g. communion preparation class, is facilitated but none is prioritised.

During the school day the children learn what is called - The Ethical Education programme. This deals with respect for your fellow man, social responsiblity, personal confidence etc. etc. This is the substitute for the religious element of the curriculum. 

I pass 5 primary schools to bring my children to this school as the ethos is very important to me. I wish there was a secondary version of it.

A.


----------



## mathepac (18 Mar 2010)

Seagull said:


> ... My viewpoint on the RC church as an organization is that they strayed away from Christianity as their primary purpose a long time ago, and have been about maintaining political power and wealth. I'm surprised more people aren't moving to different churches.


The Catholic (and other Western so-called Christian churches) were never Christian in their doctrine - they are exclusively and dogmatically Pauline. The difficulty for Western people who claim to espouse Christianity  is that they cannot differentiate.


----------



## Chocks away (18 Mar 2010)

I'm glad that the arrogant monsignor Dooley will now hang his head. The higher up the slippery pole the less humility. It looks as if the will of God and canon law are open to wildly swinging interpretation.


----------



## The_Banker (19 Mar 2010)

The Catholic Church as an organisation is geared to serve the Catholic Church and and its institutions and its interests first and foremost. If it can do Christian work while it serves its own interests along the way, great but first and foremost it will preserve itself.


----------



## Capt. Beaky (19 Mar 2010)

+1. You got it in a nutshell Banker.


----------



## Complainer (16 Apr 2011)

gunnerfitzy said:


> I wouldn't hold out for any changes from the Board of Management....
> 
> Extract from http://www.citizensinformation.ie/c.../going-to-primary-school/boards-of-management
> 
> ...


 
Can I resurrect this thread to dig into this specific issue again?

From digging through http://www.education.ie/servlet/blobservlet/padmin_bom_procedures.pdf?language=EN, as far as I can see, the requirement for 'commitment to the ethos of the school' applies to the community representatives, but there is no mention of this specific requirement for the parents representatives.

Can anyone confirm if this requirement does apply to the parents representatives?


----------



## PaddyBloggit (17 Apr 2011)

*Looking at the BOM handbook:*

*"One of the most important responsibilities of the board of management is to ensure that the school continues to provide religious education for the Catholic children attending the school."*

It appears that if parents sign up to the board they have to agree to the above.


also:* "Board members must be willing to uphold and support the ethos, culture and traditions of the school .."*


In enroling their child(ren) in the school the parents have also agreed to accept the school rules and ethos so if they are elected from the parent body to serve on the board they are only fulfilling that commitment.

By default ... when they enrol their child(ren) they are accepting the ethos of the school. And again, by default, they are accepting that they will defend it in any role they might have within the school.


At the Board's first meeting all members have to sign a *Declaration of Acceptance of Membership* of School Board and have to accept the following statement:

*"I hereby declare that I accept membership of the board of management of the above-named school for its current term of office, and undertake, with the other members of the board, to manage the school in accordance with the Regulations of the Department of Education and with the terms of the Deed of Variation for ________________ Primary Schools."*



The Deed of Variation covers the preservation of the Catholic ethos in Roman Catholic Schools.
All members have to sign this before they are accepted on the board. If they sign it they must uphold the Catholic Ethos of the school.
 Other denominations/variations have their own Declaration, which, when signed, preserves their ethos also.
 No point having an ethos if those within start tearing down what they are supposed to be preserving/promoting.


----------



## Complainer (17 Apr 2011)

Thanks for the update, Paddy.



PaddyBloggit said:


> [
> [*] No point having an ethos if those within start tearing down what they are supposed to be preserving/promoting.
> [/LIST]



No point in having a Board of Management responsible for leading a school if all they can do is the same oul thing again and again. There has to be some change.

In relation to the specifics of our response, is this the BOM manual that you refer to?

http://www.education.ie/servlet/blobservlet/padmin_bom_info_manual.pdf?language=EN

I can't find your specific points in that manual, so I'm wondering if I'm missing something. I did find some interesting stuff in the manual about Section 16 of the 1998 Education Act requiring Minster's approval to remove a BoM member.


----------



## PaddyBloggit (18 Apr 2011)

No ... I'm referring to the CPSMA one provided to RC schools:

You can get it here:

[broken link removed]

Re. change ... has to come from the top .... BOM members can only work within the rules/their remit.


----------

