# Very bad behaviour at Mass for First Holy Communion.



## Romulan (10 May 2009)

I attended a Holy Communion on Saturday and was appalled by the behaviour of some attending.

Now I know to some religion is not important but is 1 hour of decency too much to ask?

I observed people talking constantly throughout the Mass, popping up at various times and taking photographs in the most obtrusive manner, texting away on phones and my favourite, a person giving a relative the finger when said relative photographed them - during the Mass.

It was so bad that for most of the Mass, I could not hear, never mind see my little relative.


----------



## MandaC (10 May 2009)

*Re: Holy Communion/Behaviour in Mass*

Was at a Christening recently and thought the same thing.  Most of the groups there were like they were going into Hello Magazine and were cackling away making it impossible to hear the ceremony in any way.  They were not really interested in what was going on, only the photo opportunities.  

I would not be the most religious of people and don t frequently attend at mass, however, I feel there is a certain level of respectful behaviour that should be observed in a Church.


----------



## Padraigb (10 May 2009)

*Re: Holy Communion/Behaviour in Mass*

A major reason is that many of the people attending are not regular worshippers, and simply don't know what constitutes appropriate behaviour. Unfortunately, they don't care either.

I have a slogan which I post from time to time in travel groups that I frequent: one believer at prayer outranks 1,000 visitors.


----------



## mathepac (10 May 2009)

*Re: Holy Communion/Behaviour in Mass*



MandaC said:


> Was at a Christening ...


Is that like a Baptism?


----------



## DavyJones (10 May 2009)

*Re: Holy Communion/Behaviour in Mass*



Padraigb said:


> I have a slogan which I post from time to time in travel groups that I frequent: one believer at prayer outranks 1,000 visitors.



 How very Christian of you.


----------



## RMCF (10 May 2009)

*Re: Holy Communion/Behaviour in Mass*

I am not a regular attendant at Mass but anythime I do go I am shocked at the noise, compared to what it was like when I attended regularly up to my late teens.

Nowadays there is constant noise in the Church, but I suppose it is just a sign of the times when people have very little manners or breeding, and we are now saddled with the generation who think they have the divine right to do whatever they want, whether it bothers other people or not.


----------



## MandaC (10 May 2009)

*Re: Holy Communion/Behaviour in Mass*



mathepac said:


> Is that like a Baptism?




Have always called it a Christening since I was a child.  My parents and grandparents called it that too. Not going to change now.


----------



## Sue Ellen (10 May 2009)

*Re: Holy Communion/Behaviour in Mass*



mathepac said:


> Is that like a Baptism?



And your point is?


----------



## oldtimer (10 May 2009)

Communion was in our church yesterday - 48 boys and girls. Today at Mass the priest stated 45 boys and girls made Communion last year but on the following day, Sunday, 7 went to Mass. He said it looks like less are here this year.


----------



## JP1234 (10 May 2009)

At a relatives Confirmation a few years back most people did adhere to the Priest's request to turn off all mobile phone except for one group of girls/young women in the row in front of us who seemed to be texting each other throughout. After putting up with a few minutes of listening to their phones going off the Priest stopped the mass, walked down to the offenders and asked them to either turn off their phones or leave the mass. They were suitably mortified and we didn't hear a sound from them for the remainder!


----------



## mathepac (10 May 2009)

*Re: Holy Communion/Behaviour in Mass*



Sue Ellen said:


> And your point is?


That the ceremony, held in Catholic and other Christian churches, commonly referred to as a "christening" is actually the sacrament of Baptism.


----------



## MandaC (10 May 2009)

*Re: Holy Communion/Behaviour in Mass*



mathepac said:


> That the ceremony, held in Catholic and other Christian churches, commonly referred to as a "christening" is actually the sacrament of Baptism.



I still dont see how that makes a difference to behaviour in the Church.


----------



## RMCF (10 May 2009)

*Re: Holy Communion/Behaviour in Mass*



mathepac said:


> That the ceremony, held in Catholic and other Christian churches, commonly referred to as a "christening" is actually the sacrament of Baptism.



Why be pedantic and take the thread off course?

If you have nothing constructive to add, don't post.


----------



## Graham_07 (11 May 2009)

*Re: Holy Communion/Behaviour in Mass*



mathepac said:


> That the ceremony, held in Catholic and other Christian churches, commonly referred to as a "christening" is actually the sacrament of Baptism.


 
There are common use names attributed to many religious events/items. I don't see how this is relevant to the thread though.


----------



## Complainer (11 May 2009)

oldtimer said:


> Communion was in our church yesterday - 48 boys and girls. Today at Mass the priest stated 45 boys and girls made Communion last year but on the following day, Sunday, 7 went to Mass. He said it looks like less are here this year.


The obvious solution to this is for the Parish Priest to step down from his role as school patron, and hand over responsibility to an independent community trust. Religion can then become an 'optional extra' like ballet or swimming. Those who want it can choose it. He is then much more likely to have the same number making their Communion as attending mass the next day.


----------



## Padraigb (11 May 2009)

Another equally-obvious solution is for parents who do not wish to raise their children as Catholics to be honest about it, and not present their children for communion.


----------



## liaconn (11 May 2009)

Padraigb said:


> Another equally-obvious solution is for parents who do not wish to raise their children as Catholics to be honest about it, and not present their children for communion.


 
I agree. If the sacrament is meaningless to you, why hijack it and turn it into an excuse to dress your kids up and have a party. Its hardly fair on practising Catholics, for whom the ceremony is important, to turn up at the church and then just treat the whole event with a complete lack of respect.


----------



## mathepac (11 May 2009)

Thank you, I agree.

If people want a "Shameless" type "christening / communion" party, go to a pub.

The above two posts answer questions about my being off-topic, pedandtic, irelevant, etc.


----------



## Bubbly Scot (11 May 2009)

Complainer said:


> The obvious solution to this is for the Parish Priest to step down from his role as school patron, and hand over responsibility to an independent community trust. Religion can then become an 'optional extra' like ballet or swimming. Those who want it can choose it. He is then much more likely to have the same number making their Communion as attending mass the next day.



If the communion preparation was done outside the school I think there would be less children presented. I can imagine the outcry however if such a thing was even suggested!


----------



## liaconn (11 May 2009)

It always amazes me how people who never bother to attend Mass and contribute nothing towards the upkeep of the Church, are always the first to start dictating what the priest can and cannot do in relation to Communions, Christenings/Baptisms etc.


----------



## Ron Burgundy (11 May 2009)

*Re: Holy Communion/Behaviour in Mass*



mathepac said:


> Is that like a Baptism?


 
What a pointless post. Is clubman alive and well ?


----------



## The_Banker (11 May 2009)

Lets be honest, the Catholic Church are not going to let go of the hold they have on primary schools. At least not without a fight anyway.

The parents of the kids in primary love dressing their kids up and giving them a day out on communion day. 

It’s a win/win situation and a bit of noise is a small price to keep everyone happy. Except of course for the devout parents of the kids who take the ceremony seriously.

Maybe there should be two ceremonies? One for devout parents and one for parent who like a nice day out?


----------



## Complainer (11 May 2009)

Padraigb said:


> Another equally-obvious solution is for parents who do not wish to raise their children as Catholics to be honest about it, and not present their children for communion.


Are the parents generally asked if the want to present their children, or is it just generally taken for granted that this is something that everyone does?



The_Banker said:


> Lets be honest, the Catholic Church are not going to let go of the hold they have on primary schools. At least not without a fight anyway.


In reality, you are right of course. But it is a bit rich of them to get uppity about people not taking these ceremonies seriously when the structures they impose are the root cause of the problem.


----------



## Ron Burgundy (11 May 2009)

*Re: Holy Communion/Behaviour in Mass*



mathepac said:


> That the ceremony, held in Catholic and other Christian churches, commonly referred to as a "christening" is actually the sacrament of Baptism.


 
Thats weird because its *Sacrament of Marriage *yet i go to weddings

Not once were the words sacrament of marriage used during the cermony at my own "wedding". Also the civil part is done after all the religious cermony is finished and tyhe majority of the paperwork is filled in before the weddings.

christening is a term used within my family as well and i think its rather sad to look down on other posters because they don't use the same words and terms as you.


----------



## liaconn (11 May 2009)

Complainer said:


> But it is a bit rich of them to get uppity about people not taking these ceremonies seriously when the structures they impose are the root cause of the problem.


 

What do you mean? The structures haven't changed since we made our Communion, and parents took it seriously then.


----------



## Complainer (11 May 2009)

liaconn said:


> What do you mean? The structures haven't changed since we made our Communion, and parents took it seriously then.


You're right. The structures haven't changed in decades.

And that's the problem.


----------



## liaconn (11 May 2009)

No its not. Its a sacrament. If you keep changing it to suit what less committed Catholics want, it just becomes meaningless.


----------



## Complainer (11 May 2009)

liaconn said:


> No its not. Its a sacrament. If you keep changing it to suit what less committed Catholics want, it just becomes meaningless.


I'm not suggesting any change to the sacrament.

I'm suggesting a change to the structure of the education system that herds children into this process at age 7, without asking the parents whether this is what they want.


----------



## liaconn (11 May 2009)

Given that most of these parents had their children baptised as well, I don't think its the school 'forcing' them to do anything. If that was the situation, why do they get so aereated about suggestions that the kids wear their uniform for the ceremony etc. I think a lot (not all) of parents just treat these occasions as a social event with the church part just a boring precursor to the party. I think priests are in a difficult position. If they refused to christen or confirm children who are not brought to Mass and whose parents have no intention of rearing them as Catholics they would be absolutely attacked.


----------



## Complainer (11 May 2009)

liaconn said:


> Given that most of these parents had their children baptised as well, I don't think its the school 'forcing' them to do anything.


Indeed it is. How many of them will have done the baptism simply to get round the school's discriminatory enrollment policies, which permit discrimination on religious grounds?



liaconn said:


> I think priests are in a difficult position. If they refused to christen or confirm children who are not brought to Mass and whose parents have no intention of rearing them as Catholics they would be absolutely attacked.


Again, I've never suggested that the priests refuse anything. I've simply suggested that they (along with the school authorities) don't make the automatic assumption that every parent wants their children to take part. Make it an 'opt-in' activity.


----------



## liaconn (11 May 2009)

Complainer said:


> Indeed it is. How many of them will have done the baptism simply to get round the school's discriminatory enrollment policies, which permit discrimination on religious grounds?
> 
> 
> Again, I've never suggested that the priests refuse anything. I've simply suggested that they (along with the school authorities) don't make the automatic assumption that every parent wants their children to take part. Make it an 'opt-in' activity.


 
I doubt very much that that's the main motivation behind baptism. If that was the case, why the elaborate parties, bouncy castles etc that seem to go with all christenings nowadays.

Parents are perfectly entitled to say that they don't want their child to make their Communion (or, indeed, to send their child to a non denominational school).


----------



## The_Banker (11 May 2009)

liaconn said:


> I doubt very much that that's the main motivation behind baptism. If that was the case, why the elaborate parties, bouncy castles etc that seem to go with all christenings nowadays.
> 
> Parents are perfectly entitled to say that they don't want their child to make their Communion (or, indeed, to send their child to a *non denominational school*).


 
How many non denominational schools are there in each area?

My sister sends her kids to a non denominational school in Cork but they choose the children who attend on a first come first served basis as the demand for places far exceeds the size of the school.

In fact the school was not a "designated" school. Parents in the past took over the building and had in converted to meet there needs. They have to fund raise for it themselves and for years previously had to fight for Department of Education approval.


----------



## BoscoTalking (11 May 2009)

Complainer said:


> You're right. The structures haven't changed in decades.
> 
> And that's the problem.


 centuries actually and where is the "problem" there is none as far as i can see.


----------



## TarfHead (11 May 2009)

Complainer said:


> Indeed it is. How many of them will have done the baptism simply to get round the school's discriminatory enrollment policies, which permit discrimination on religious grounds?


 
Well, in the absence of a proper measure, let's assume none ? God forbid that a message board should be subject to baseless conjecture to support an opinion .

My son made his first Holy Communion on Saturday and we had a great day. The school he attends has an up-front Catholic ethos and all children were encouraged to participate in the preparations for the sacrament. I'm not clear on the varying levels of engagement, buit no-one was asked to step out of the class.

On the day, most of the kids were in their Communion finery. Those who hadn't been baptised into the faith went to the altar same as everyone else. Those who were able to receive the host did so and those who were not received a blessing from the priest.

Some have not been baptised, others were baptised into other faiths, yet none were excluded.


----------



## Padraigb (11 May 2009)

The_Banker said:


> How many non denominational schools are there in each area? ...



I don't know of any non-denominational schools in Ireland, although I suppose that some might exist. The usual alternative to a denominational school is a multi-denominational school.


----------



## Ash 22 (11 May 2009)

liaconn said:


> Given that most of these parents had their children baptised as well, I don't think its the school 'forcing' them to do anything. If that was the situation, why do they get so aereated about suggestions that the kids wear their uniform for the ceremony etc. I think a lot (not all) of parents just treat these occasions as a social event with the church part just a boring precursor to the party. I think priests are in a difficult position. If they refused to christen or confirm children who are not brought to Mass and whose parents have no intention of rearing them as Catholics they would be absolutely attacked.


 
Could'nt agree with you more liaconn. Well said.


----------



## bullbars (11 May 2009)

Complainer said:


> Are the parents generally asked if the want to present their children, or is it just generally taken for granted that this is something that everyone does?


 
I remember at both communion and confirmation letters being sent out letting parents know that the class was preparing for these and if they had any issues they could meet the school board/principal beforehand


----------



## Mpsox (11 May 2009)

I remember when I went to the local village primary school in rural Ireland back in the 70s and 80s, there were a number of Protestant families in the village, their kids were in the same class as me and all that happened when it came to religous education/first communion etc they simply went off and had a "Study break" or did additional arts and crafts. There was never any issue around whether or not these kids would be granted permission or not to attend the school, they were local and that was that. I'm struggling to believe (as some posters are suggesting) that in this day and age a school would refuse permission for a child to attend because they were not baptised. 

Children are not forced to get First Communion by the schools or the church. It's a decision their parents have to make for them. The reality however is that many people nowadays see it as an excuse for a party/show off to friends, or don't believe in the sacrament but don't want their child to "loose out". The reality is also that many of the parents simply don't know how to behave in a church and their behaviour in a church quite often reflects their behaviour outside of it


----------



## Complainer (11 May 2009)

bullbars said:


> I remember at both communion and confirmation letters being sent out letting parents know that the class was preparing for these and if they had any issues they could meet the school board/principal beforehand


So it is an 'opt-out' process. Why not go for 'opt-in', and let those who choose to participate do so.



TarfHead said:


> Well, in the absence of a proper measure, let's assume none ?


OK, we I can confirm that 'none' is wrong, as in our case, getting access to the local school was the main reason for baptism.



TarfHead said:


> My son made his first Holy Communion on Saturday and we had a great day. The school he attends has an up-front Catholic ethos and all children were encouraged to participate in the preparations for the sacrament. I'm not clear on the varying levels of engagement, buit no-one was asked to step out of the class.
> 
> On the day, most of the kids were in their Communion finery. Those who hadn't been baptised into the faith went to the altar same as everyone else. Those who were able to receive the host did so and those who were not received a blessing from the priest.
> 
> Some have not been baptised, others were baptised into other faiths, yet none were excluded.


This sounds like a reasonably inclusive approach, and I'm glad you had a great day. However, I have a problem with religious activities being done as part of the core school curriculum. This is indeed religious discrimination, even if ways are found to involve the heathens.



Mpsox said:


> I'm struggling to believe (as some posters are suggesting) that in this day and age a school would refuse permission for a child to attend because they were not baptised.


Check out the enrollment policy of any parish school. Priority is given to children of that religion. If the school is over-subscribed, thouse who are not baptised won't get it. This kind of religious discrimination is enshrined in law.



liaconn said:


> I doubt very much that that's the main motivation behind baptism. If that was the case, why the elaborate parties, bouncy castles etc that seem to go with all christenings nowadays.


Well it definitely was the main motivation in our case.  Do you reckon that we are unique?

And no, there was no bouncy castle afterwards in our case - just a simple family lunch, but I can understand the attraction of the bouncy castle if you have a load of other younger kids attending the family function.


liaconn said:


> Parents are perfectly entitled to say that they don't want their child to make their Communion (or, indeed, to send their child to a non denominational school).



The choice of multi-denominational is not a simple one. There is none in my area. Choosing this school (which of course has a waiting list) would mean a 4-mile car commute each day, instead of a 1-mile bike/walk commute. It is not a simple option.

Religion is not an essential ingredient in any other state-provided service. It should not be part of our schools.


----------



## bullbars (11 May 2009)

Complainer said:


> So it is an 'opt-out' process. Why not go for 'opt-in', and let those who choose to participate do so.


I think the main point is they are given an option. If the parents dont want your children to take part its entirely up to them.


----------



## Complainer (11 May 2009)

bullbars said:


> I think the main point is they are given an option. If the parents dont want your children to take part its entirely up to them.


Many parents (me included) will be left wondering if there any other implications for how their children will be treated for their remaining five years in that school if they opt-out. 

Making it an opt-in process would remove some of these doubts by removing the expectation of participation.


----------



## Padraigb (11 May 2009)

Complainer said:


> Many parents (me included) will be left wondering if there any other implications for how their children will be treated for their remaining five years in that school if they opt-out...



They can expect to be treated like all the other children, and to suggest otherwise is unfair.


----------



## bullbars (11 May 2009)

Complainer said:


> So it is an 'opt-out' process. Why not go for 'opt-in', and let those who choose to participate do so.
> 
> Check out the enrollment policy of any parish school. Priority is given to children of that religion. If the school is over-subscribed, thouse who are not baptised won't get it. This kind of religious discrimination is enshrined in law.
> 
> The choice of multi-denominational is not a simple one. There is none in my area. Choosing this school (which of course has a waiting list) would mean a 4-mile car commute each day, instead of a 1-mile bike/walk commute. It is not a simple option.


 
1. I think the main point is that is entirely the parents choice. Opt-in or Opt-out, either way they have a choice.

2. Its the "Parish School", of course priority should be given. If you dont want your children to go to a catholic school you dont send them there.

3. You had the Baptism out of convenience but you want nothing to do with the Religion itself. Plenty of people travel a lot further to school.


----------



## liaconn (11 May 2009)

Complainer said:


> Many parents (me included) will be left wondering if there any other implications for how their children will be treated for their remaining five years in that school if they opt-out.
> 
> Making it an opt-in process would remove some of these doubts by removing the expectation of participation.


 
How on earth do you think they're going to be treated? Do you really think all their teachers up the line to sixth class are going to hold it against them because their parents said they didn't want them making their Communion? If the teachers aren't religious themselves, they won't care. If they are religious they will be glad that you showed enough respect for the sacrament not to take part in it meaninglessly.


----------



## bullbars (11 May 2009)

Complainer said:


> Many parents (me included) will be left wondering if there any other implications for how their children will be treated for their remaining five years in that school if they opt-out.
> 
> Making it an opt-in process would remove some of these doubts by removing the expectation of participation.


 
Rubbish. To suspect that they will be persecuted in some way is a ridiculous statement to make. Is that what you teach them; just join in, in case you stand out?


----------



## TarfHead (11 May 2009)

Complainer said:


> *Many* parents (me included) will be left wondering if there any other implications for how their children will be treated for their remaining five years in that school if they opt-out..


 
Another sweeping generalisation


----------



## gabsdot (11 May 2009)

Some of the kids in our school made the FHC last saturday. It's a Educate together school so they children have had religion classes after school since sept to prepare. 
I popped into the church and saw about the last 10 minutes of it and the thing I thought was odd was that the congregation kept applauding after the priest said anything. I don't think that's very conducive to a quiet reverent atmosphere. Just my opinion.
I'm not catholic BTW


----------



## Complainer (11 May 2009)

Padraigb said:


> They can expect to be treated like all the other children, and to suggest otherwise is unfair.





bullbars said:


> 1. I think the main point is that is entirely the parents choice. Opt-in or Opt-out, either way they have a choice.
> 
> 2. Its the "Parish School", of course priority should be given. If you dont want your children to go to a catholic school you dont send them there.
> 
> 3. You had the Baptism out of convenience but you want nothing to do with the Religion itself. Plenty of people travel a lot further to school.





liaconn said:


> How on earth do you think they're going to be treated? Do you really think all their teachers up the line to sixth class are going to hold it against them because their parents said they didn't want them making their Communion? If the teachers aren't religious themselves, they won't care. If they are religious they will be glad that you showed enough respect for the sacrament not to take part in it meaninglessly.





bullbars said:


> Rubbish. To suspect that they will be persecuted in some way is a ridiculous statement to make. Is that what you teach them; just join in, in case you stand out?



Some interesting comments in there. 

1) Of course the teachers will be religious themselves. They wouldn't get the job if they weren't, because the school can legally discriminate on grounds of religion again. Such discrimination would of course be illegal for other employers.

2) These posts seem to suggest that religion is not part of the core classroom activities. This is not the case. Religion (and specifically Catholic religion) will be covered daily in the classroom, and is intrinsincally linked with extra-curricular activities, such as the school choir. How are the non-Catholic or non-practicing children to be treated in this scenario.

3) It is interesting to note the 'if you don't like it, you can lump it' response. I wonder how these posters would respond if (or when) the boot is on the other foot, and the state finally realises that religion has no place in a state-funded service? 

Why should the state pay the salaries of teachers, where teachers and children are explicitly discriminated against on grounds of their religion. Why should parents be forced to drag their children out of their locality and community, away from their friends and neighbours simply to avoid being effectively forced to participate in religious charades (as indicated by the opening post in this thread)?


----------



## truthseeker (11 May 2009)

On baptisms, my bosses children were refused access to the local school because his children werent baptised Catholics. 

Its commonly accepted that the church has a hand in school policies. I disagree that if you dont want your child to go to a catholic school then dont send them there - many people have no other choice.
It would be different if it were a private school, but state run schools should not discriminate on the basis of religion and they do.


----------



## MandaC (11 May 2009)

*Re: Holy Communion/Behaviour in Mass*



Ron Burgundy said:


> Thats weird because its *Sacrament of Marriage *yet i go to weddings
> 
> Not once were the words sacrament of marriage used during the cermony at my own "wedding". Also the civil part is done after all the religious cermony is finished and tyhe majority of the paperwork is filled in before the weddings.
> 
> christening is a term used within my family as well and i think its rather sad to look down on other posters because they don't use the same words and terms as you.




Always called it a Christening in our family and (extended family) and have to say, nothing "Shameless" about me or anyone in my family whatsover. Very odd way of thinking?  My Grandmother (god rest her) loved family Christenings and never went into a pub in her life.


----------



## Padraigb (11 May 2009)

truthseeker said:


> ... It would be different if it were a private school, but state run schools should not discriminate on the basis of religion and they do.



Primary schools in Ireland _are_ private schools. Most of them are church-owned (Catholic and various other churches). They receive financial assistance from the state, a right given under Article 44 of the Constitution.


----------



## Purple (11 May 2009)

I’m not religious at all, I don’t believe in God, but the majority of the population is Catholic (if most of them are only so in name). Therefore I don’t have a huge problem with religion being thought in schools. I would prefer if schools were non-religious (with a Sunday school type set-up for those who want it). I think a civics class would be better so that our children have a sense of what it means to be a citizen and the rights and responsibilities which flow from that. That said I think the suggestion that teachers would discriminate against children because they don’t participate in religion classes is absurd.
This country has a Christian heritage and I for one am glad that is the case as Christianity has given the world far more positives than negatives (even if all religions are just different brands of crazy to me ).

On the OP’s first post; people should have the basic manners and social decorum to know how to behave in a church (or any other situation where proceedings are important to those around them).


----------



## Romulan (11 May 2009)

I have another little relative making their Communion later in May, it will be interesting to see how it goes.....maybe the priest should send an instruction manual to the parents for distribution to all attending


----------



## jasconius (11 May 2009)

Friend of mine in Dublin was getting her hair done recently and noticed a young girl getting her hair put up.
She asked her ' are you making your first communion tomorrow?'
'No' said the mother ' this is only a rehearsal to see how she looks!'


----------



## Complainer (11 May 2009)

Padraigb said:


> Primary schools in Ireland _are_ private schools. Most of them are church-owned (Catholic and various other churches). They receive financial assistance from the state, a right given under Article 44 of the Constitution.


While technically accurate, this doesn't give the full story. The 'financial assistance' is of course the full salaries of all the teachers plus the capitation fee per pupil, i.e. the lion's share of the running costs. And most capital improvement projects (new schools/wings/classrooms) are covered by the state too. So he who pays the piper doesn't call the tune.


----------



## truthseeker (11 May 2009)

Padraigb said:


> Primary schools in Ireland _are_ private schools. Most of them are church-owned (Catholic and various other churches). They receive financial assistance from the state, a right given under Article 44 of the Constitution.



Taken from www.citizensinformation.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.
> 
> ...



It would appear that 'financial assistance' = state funding.

It says here that you may withdraw your child from religion, but my experience of such is that if there is nowhere else for the child to go they must stay in the classroom.


----------



## casiopea (12 May 2009)

Complainer said:


> Some interesting comments in there.
> 
> 1) Of course the teachers will be religious themselves. They wouldn't get the job if they weren't, because the school can legally discriminate on grounds of religion again. Such discrimination would of course be illegal for other employers.



Nope, that is not the case at all.  Many teachers are not religious, were not asked if they were religious in the interview phase (depending on the school board) and in some cases actively dont believe what they are teaching.  It is an acknowledged problem that many schools are aware of.  The last time I was involved in a conversation about this I was told that there simply wouldnt be enough primary teachers if insisting they are practicing catholics (/belief in God) was made a criteria of job acceptance.


----------



## liaconn (12 May 2009)

I know primary school teachers who don't practise their religion, openly live with their partners etc. You seem to be looking for grounds to complain of 'discrimination'.


----------



## Bronte (12 May 2009)

Complainer said:


> Many parents (me included) will be left wondering if there any other implications for how their children will be treated for their remaining five years in that school if they opt-out.
> 
> Making it an opt-in process would remove some of these doubts by removing the expectation of participation.


 
I agree with you that it should be at a minimum an opt-in process but I'd go further as I don't believe religion should be taught as part of the school curriculum.  In relation to your point about there being implications, my sibling had a very difficult time with the pressure that is brought to bear on one if one does not go with the flock.  The teacher of the eldest child did the best to make it inclusive so the child (the only one) was not left out and for the next child a different teacher was quite nasty.  Children feel these things.  Incidentally recently when the local priest called to the school and asked a 'religious' question it was my sibling's child who was the only one able to answer.  There is also the pressure the child exerts on the parents, which comes from the school and classmates and wanting to be the same as everybody else, which the Church will milk for all it's worth.


----------



## liaconn (12 May 2009)

Bronte;865937There is also the pressure the child exerts on the parents said:
			
		

> Have you any basis for this? As far as I'm aware the Church does not want people taking part in sacraments that they don't believe in. Obviously the kids will want to be the same as the other kids but this happens with everything and is a natural part of growing up. In fairness, if you send your children to a Catholic school (for convenience or whatever reason) and the vast majority of the people there are happy to have religion taught, Holy Communion an integral part of the school year for 8 yr olds etc you can't demand that it all be changed to suit a small handful of people.


----------



## bullbars (12 May 2009)

Bronte said:


> There is also the pressure the child exerts on the parents, which comes from the school and classmates and wanting to be the same as everybody else, which the Church will milk for all it's worth.


 
How exactly will the church "milk" this for all its worth? Will the Priest encourage all the other children to stay away from the outcast? Nonsense.


----------



## liaconn (12 May 2009)

jaybird said:


> With respect, if all the people who didn't really believe in it, or didn't take it seriously were excluded from sacraments, there would be a lot of nearly empty churches, with few communions and even less weddings!
> 
> HC may be an intergral part of the school year for the majority, but for what reasons? Why does it have to take up most of the year? And if they do not make provision for those who do not want to be involved, is it ok for them to be discriminated against because they are in the minority? What happened to equality of education for all children? Doesn't exist from what I can see.


 
How are they being discriminated against? You seem to expect everything to be changed around to suit you, regardless of the fact that the majority of parents appear to be happy with current arrangements.

Also, you seem to be implying that the Church just wants full pews, regardless of whether people are there with any real belief. Why would they want that?


----------



## liaconn (12 May 2009)

jaybird said:


> You don't think a non christian child attending a catholic school is discriminated against when he is told to sit alone in the back of the class for hours per week for months on end? Seriously? I had the odd idea that I sent my child to school to learn things, not to be ignored while the school did the job of the church.
> 
> I don't expect anything to be changed (though I would honestly prefer that sacrament instruction is done outside of core school hours). I think if the majority of people really want to do things like HC prep within school then fair enough. But are you telling me that I am unreasonable to expect that a provision is made for my child that does not involve putting him in the corner and ignoring him for half the year? The attitude that if the majority are happy then the minority can go swing is prevalent, though deeply discriminatory.
> 
> And I'm not implying anything about what the church wants, I wouldn't have the faintest idea about that. But you must admit that on a HC day, the church will be full of people that haven't been there since the christening, and before that, the wedding. The numbers of people who make a big fuss about the sacraments is hardly representative of those who attend mass every sunday, is it?


 
The problem there is that a lot of parents, who don't practice their religion, are not expressing a wish not to have their child included. If they did, it would be practical for the school to make arrangements for all of these children to engage in a different activity during Holy Communion preparation. As your child is the only one, there is very little the school can do. As I've said already, the Church are in a difficult position. If they refused to let children whose parents don't practice to make their Communion they would be lambasted from a height. 

But at the moment, the bottom line is that your child appears to be the only one not making Communion so what can the school do? Change the whole system around to suit you? Set up a special class just for him?


----------



## liaconn (12 May 2009)

jaybird said:


> They could guarantee him a place in a multi-denominational school, so the problem doesn't arise in the first place.
> 
> It doesn't matter what size minority a child is in, a provision should be made. Its only one child, so it doesn't matter? When does it matter? 2, 5, 10? At what point do you say we will do something for children not of the majority religion? Every child deserves proper attention and education from their school, and not a single child should be give the lesson that they are unimportant and do not matter because they are not of the religion. And by not making any provision for that child that is exactly what you are saying.
> 
> Its the scale of it I object to. Its literally hours per week for months before the communion. It seems that in that year they do little else than HC. Am I seriously in the wrong that I expect that when my child is sent to school he is actually taught something? And if the majority don't even practice the religion, isn't it rather a sham anyway?


 
I agree he should have access to a multi-denominational school and you should not be forced to send him to a Catholic School if you are not Catholic.

 I don't agree that Catholic schools should be asked to cease teaching religion because it doesn't suit a small number of non-catholics whose children go there. In your case, you seem to have no option. But there are many,many cases where parents find the local Catholic school more convenient than travelling a little bit further to a multi-denominational school, and then demand that the school fit itself around their needs and I find that objectionable. 

I accept that you don't appear to be in that category though.


----------



## casiopea (12 May 2009)

jaybird said:


> I agree with you liaconn. I think Catholic schools should be completely free to teach religion and prepare for sacraments. I just think that the utmost priority should be on providing fair and equal access to education for all children, and that not even one child loses out because s/he is not of a particular religion.



But how is that child losing out jaybird?  He/she doesnt attend the religious class on the request of the parents but does attend all other classes.  I remember 2 girls when we did FHC got to play with their Sindys at the back of the class while the rest of us had to learn, we were all very jealous(!) however for the rest of the day they attended class as normal.  He or she isnt losing out on anything from what I can see - unless Im missing something in your point?


----------



## Bubbly Scot (12 May 2009)

I put my daughter to a catholic school even though she isn't being raised as a practising catholic. Given the choice to make communion she chose not to. Her school never once treated her differently. She took part in all the preparation and enjoyed it, there was no issue whatsoever. While I would have liked her to make communion it was never pushed on her and she sometimes recieves a blessing (arms crossed over her chest) from the priest.

We live in a predominantly catholic country and attend church for school functions, at least she knows how to behave, respond etc.

It never crossed my mind or her teachers to exclude her from any catholic teachings.


----------



## Teatime (12 May 2009)

jaybird said:


> Perhaps if you were non-catholic you may not be that bothered, and may join in to a limited extent. But we are non-christian, staunchly atheistic, and we are faced with being in a position of having religious instruction practically forced on our children, because you can only opt out to a very limited extent.
> 
> Let me reiterate, I have no real objection to religious teaching in schools (in an ideal world I would prefer not, but practically speaking), and I appreciate that the majority is either actually catholic or happy to go along with catholic teaching. What I cannot understand is that in this day and age there is no option available to a non-catholic family to have their beliefs and needs respected in terms of equal access to education.


 
Fair play to you jaybird. I agree with you completely.


----------



## DavyJones (12 May 2009)

jaybird said:


> Let me reiterate, I have no real objection to religious teaching in schools (in an ideal world I would prefer not, but practically speaking), and I appreciate that the majority is either actually catholic or happy to go along with catholic teaching. What I cannot understand is that in this day and age there is no option available to a non-catholic family to have their beliefs and needs respected in terms of equal access to education.




Talking about equal access to education, should other faiths not have the same rights? Should they not be forced to attend a catholic school?. Should we have Jewish schools etc?

We live in a democracy where majority rule. That majority is largely catholic so until that changes I can't see schools to suit minorities being  common place.


----------



## DavyJones (12 May 2009)

jaybird said:


> Since when is it the right of the majority, who in all honesty are only nominally Catholic, to force religious instruction on those of different faiths, or of no faith at all? Are you seriously suggesting its a case of tough luck for something as important as education of our children?



Thats exactly what I am saying. Unless you haven't noticed, we can barely afford the schools we do have, never mind supporting more. 

Where would you plan on having these schools? Large urban areas? What about people in rural areas, would it be tough luck for them?


----------



## Padraigb (12 May 2009)

DavyJones said:


> Talking about equal access to education, should other faiths not have the same rights? Should they not be forced to attend a catholic school?. Should we have Jewish schools etc?



We have them.

What we don't have, unless I blinked and missed something, is non-denominational schools (and if there are any, they are very few).


----------



## DavyJones (12 May 2009)

Padraigb said:


> We have them.
> 
> What we don't have, unless I blinked and missed something, is non-denominational schools (and if there are any, they are very few).



Yes, but is it fair that my Jewish neighbours have to drive 40 miles to the school.Should they not have a right to have one as a local amenity?



jaybird said:


> Thats a feeble excuse in the extreme. Religious intolerance is fine because we're a bit strapped for cash? Bigotry costs less money than inclusive education, so lets be the most backwards nation in Europe for yet one more thing?
> 
> Not good enough.



But it has to be good enough as that is the reality. It would be great to live in a country where everyone could be catered for but we don't.

My neice and nephew go to a  multi-denominational school as their parents have no respective faiths. They are not thought anything religious, would this suit you?

Back to an earlier question, where would you site these schools and how many do you think the country would need?


----------



## truthseeker (12 May 2009)

liaconn said:


> Also, you seem to be implying that the Church just wants full pews, regardless of whether people are there with any real belief. Why would they want that?



Bums on pews who contribute financially to the church, collection plate, payment for baptisms, weddings, funerals, church envelope etc...

Organised religion is not about whether or not the people have any real belief, it is about power, money and the control of the 'masses'. I would also think its about the control of the fertility of women (rules around sex outside of marriage etc...).

As for religious instruction in primary schools - its indoctrination plain and simple. Which is fine if you are a Catholic yourself and want your child indoctrinated, but not so good if you are an atheist or another faith who has little choice about primary school for your child and you end up with a child wasting hours a week while the indoctrination takes place.


----------



## DavyJones (12 May 2009)

jaybird said:


> And if you are seriously suggesting that Ireland is in such a bad economic position  that we cannot afford a fair basic education for our children, then we should all just give up now.




Or move closer to your second choice school, maybe? If your childrens education mean that much to you, it would be a small thing to do 

or

Do you serouisly want a school built close to you so your children can attend with minimal fuss to yourself?

What about the atheist famliy living on the Aran Islands, their children have the same right to education as mine and yours do. Should we build them a school?

My point being where do you stop and what kind of a demand for these schools is there?

You should be happy that the rest of your community have a new school and don't be begrudging them.


----------



## casiopea (12 May 2009)

jaybird said:


> You may disagree, but I see that as losing out. If for an hour a day, 5 days a week, one child is put in the corner of the room to sit alone, while the teacher gives their attention to the other children. If one child is isolated, and is not taught anything for 5 hours a week, while other children are? What about entire mornings when they go to mass, or entire afternoons dedicated to HC rehearsals?
> 
> And what about Easter and Christmas, and other catholic holidays? How many hours will be spent on nativitys and religious songs and prayers and even artwork of religious iconography? How do we opt out of all of that?
> 
> ...



But there are schools in Ireland that cater for non-catholics (Educate together or something - I think?).  You may say there isnt one near you and you have to send your children to a local catholic school which is fair enough but your statement above is incorrect I believe - there are options for non-practicing families.

Also you refer to entire mornings above where children go to mass - we never went to mass during our primary school day and when I did go a secondary school (taught by nuns) mass was always before school started - before first class.  There were a couple rehearsals for FHC but literally a couple very near the event itself and as for Christmas and Easter you refer to above we always had very long holidays around those events which both Catholics and non-Catholics enjoyed.  With all due respect I think you are exaggerating.

Finally my secondary school was a very very active hockey playing school.  Took place in all the tournaments, won all the cups, was written up all the time in local newspapers. Im not going off topic - my point is those of us who were useless at hockey (and sports in general) were thoroughly ignored.  We were the ones in the back of the class playing with our Sindys.  While it wasnt 5 hours a week every week. It was about 2 hours a week every week for 6 years.  What Im trying to say is schools can not accomadate all students all the time.  This religion issue could be sorted out and your child may be ignored for a certain period of time every week for a completely different reason.  Is it fair - no ok it is not.  Will it continue to happen - yes, you cannot cater to all of the people all of the time.


----------



## DavyJones (12 May 2009)

jaybird said:


> I am delighted that the community has a new school, I don't begrudge them at all. I just have this bizarre notion that a school should try to be inclusive and accomodate ALL of the children of the area, when those children have no choice to attend.
> Is it really such a terrible thing to ask for?



Not terrible at all. I am looking at this from a practical point of view. Lets say every school across the country was non religious. RE was an after school activity. Would you think it reasonable to have 95% of the schools pupils to have to be unsettled to satisfy the other 5%?

Bad time to sell your home and buy an other? That is as real as the lack of money to maintain existing schools nevermind building new ones. As unfair as it is, majority rules.


----------



## BoscoTalking (12 May 2009)

jaybird said:


> We all know its wrong, and we all know its not simply a matter of money. The catholic churches control of the vast majority of Irish schools has to change. And it will.


  in all  fairness - WE all don't think this...


----------



## DavyJones (12 May 2009)

jaybird said:


> Nowhere near 95% of pupils are practicing Catholics. If anything its the other way around. The real problem is that the vast majority of people just go along with it.



Where I live, I can safely say the large majority of kids going to schools are from catholic families, lasped or otherwise



> It doesn't matter how little money is available, its about attitude, not cash. And the attitude who say that non-catholic kids just don't count is appalling.



Again the reality is, there is no money. It's exactly the same reason why you can't move house, money.

I do see where you are coming from but in mind it isn't practical, as I have asked before, how many of these schools would we need and where would they be placed?

Most people probably don't care enough for it to happen, I know I don't. I would rather see my money spent on a health care system that actually works for all the people.

Your child will be exposed to religion everyday no matter where they go to school. they will celebrate Christmas and Easter and all the other holidays that go with it. 

If I had your beliefs, I would either move (unpractical) or find the best school in the area and just have them excluded from RE. The free time could be spent doing extra studying, exercises.


----------



## casiopea (13 May 2009)

jaybird said:


> With due respect, all schools are different, and I have my information directly from the head teacher of the school. I am not exagerating at all.
> 
> There are options for non-practicing families, but not enough to meet demand, nowhere near. ET schools are vastly over-subscribed, while many catholic schools have places to burn. A little re-distribution of wealth would make a huge difference very quickly.
> 
> ...



Yes all schools are different, you may have a gripe with your current school that there is too much focus on RE, you may have a gripe with a different school that they dont focus enough on maths.  



jaybird said:


> Unfortunately my son will be a casualty of an education system that sees him as less important than a catholic child.



This statement really bothers me.  How is your son a "casualty" and less important than a catholic child just because he is going to a school that teaches RE? If you are being serious then there is a bigger problem here than whether or not RE should be taught in schools and you need to contact the board of Education (or whatever authorities - but higher than that schools principal) about your childs case.  However from what I understand your child is being accomadated, not discrimated against, by not having to attend RE.  Otherwise he attends all other classes as normal and has the same education going forward into secondary school as every other child in that school - catholic or not.  Insinuating otherwise is a very serious allegation. 

Even as a practicing catholic I would not want my child attending mass during the school day or "extra" time spent on RE to the detrement of any other subject.  In the same way I wouldnt want extra time spent on geography to the detrement of maths.  If you feel this is happening in your son^s school then talk to other parents, you will find them very reasonable about wanting to talk to the school principal/board about the balance of RE to other subjects.



jaybird said:


> We all know its wrong



Not too sure what you are basing this statement on but from what I can see on this thread many people do not see it as wrong, myself included.


----------



## liaconn (13 May 2009)

truthseeker said:


> Bums on pews who contribute financially to the church, collection plate, payment for baptisms, weddings, funerals, church envelope etc...
> 
> .


 
Believe me, the Church do not want people trivialising their sacraments just because they'll hand an envelope into the Sacristy at the end, or throw a couple of euro into the collection basket. I think they're quite concerned about children being presented for baptism, Communion, Confirmation etc when there is no real intention on the part of the parents of rearing these children as practising Catholics.


----------



## bren1916 (13 May 2009)

jaybird said:


> He is not allowed to leave the class when RE is being taught. If I will not allow him to be intsructed, he has to sit at the back of the class alone and wait until the next lesson starts. He will not be given an alternative activity as this is deemed to be disruptive to the rest of the class. .


 
You could - of course, allow your child to make his own mind up about Religion and resist imposing your clearly negative views on Religion on him?
You never know - he might actually find some comfort in believing that there is a God out there who loves him....


----------



## TarfHead (13 May 2009)

jaybird said:


> .. the head told me that the school has a strong catholic ethos and is not required to accomodate non-faith children, though they do strive to be inclusive to different faiths (umm, helpful)
> 
> ..
> 
> I am not happy with this at all and will be persuing it further. I don't believe that anybody would be happy with that if it was their child


 
You evidently hold a very strong opinion about this. Pity you weren't more forceful when deciding on which school to send your child to. Maybe you chose convenience over principle ?

Maybe I'm being unfairly judgemental but, having being through this process myself, I have little sympathy for parents who want the world to spin on their demands. If there is no multi-denominational school near you, then you've a choice to make. But once you have made that choice, get on with it.

My children attend the local national school which has a Roman Catholic ethos. For those who have issue with this, there is an Educate Together school not too far away. I know of many parents who have chosen to send their children to the national school, even though they are not Catholic. They could have opted for the Educate Together, but opted for the national school because of location, educational standard, friendships, etc.


----------



## bren1916 (13 May 2009)

Ok - simple solution as mentioned already is to *move *rather than have the Catholic Church/State and everyne else change to suit your particular needs and beliefs.


----------



## TarfHead (13 May 2009)

jaybird said:
			
		

> How dare you accuse me of choosing convenience when we have no choices?


 
I didn't accuse you.



			
				jaybird said:
			
		

> .. if they are forced by the education system to be catholic by default.


 
Where has this happened ? I am not aware of any child being '_forced_' into the Catholic faith by the education system.


----------



## S.L.F (13 May 2009)

jaybird said:


> How on earth can he make his own mind up on religion if he is given hours of religious instruction every week from one particular religion? What a bizarre suggestion. In that case shouldn't we let all children make their own minds up, and don't teach any one particular religion in schools? Which to my mind would be ideal. Thats exactly what I want for my children, to learn about all religions and faiths and make up their own minds, which they are not allowed to do if they are forced by the education system to be catholic by default.
> 
> You have no idea what my views on religion are, as I have not mentioned them here. It is insulting to me and demeaning to yourself to jump to such conclusions.


 
Just to clarify you are sending your son to a Catholic school and think they should teach him other religions so he can make his own mind up in a few years.....what a bizarre idea.

The reality is your child is getting no less education than the rest of the kids in the school.

I know most kids just want to be part of the pack, they don't like to be singled out, to be the only one, the reason he is the only one is because you have decided it is so, and the school has nowhere else to put him so he has to stay in the class.

Besides what actual harm would it do to your son, would he be forced to walk coals or have his back frayed

What difference would it be to have him doing the classes?


----------



## mathepac (13 May 2009)

jaybird said:


> ... Thats exactly what I want for my children, to learn about all religions and faiths and make up their own minds, which they are not allowed to do if they are forced by the education system to be catholic by default...


As previously pointed out, you have choices.

Either :


Send your child to a multi- or non-denominational school
by moving house if access to an appropriate school is a problem
by sending them as a boarder
by establishing your own local school
 
Invest in materials relating to "about all religions and faiths" and ask the schools permission for your child to use these while the class-mates have RE / RK
The above suggestions are based on the old "put your money where your mouth is" test of principle or strongly held beliefs.

As any and all reasonable suggestions seem to generate more heat than light in your most recent responses, I have no expectation that you will find any of my suggestions attractive either.


----------



## TarfHead (13 May 2009)

jaybird said:


> You did of course, you said _"Pity you weren't more forceful when deciding on which school to send your child to. *Maybe* you chose convenience over principle ?"_


 
Maybe ? As in, a suggestion ? Not an accusation.



jaybird said:


> .. what do you call that except forcing religious participation?


 
Well, I don't call it ..


			
				jaybird said:
			
		

> forced by the education system to be catholic


 
It's a school with a Catholic ethos. How did you think that would be manifest ?


----------



## casiopea (13 May 2009)

jaybird said:


> And the idea that a catholic school could teach pupils about different religions? How bizarre in this day and age! What are they afraid of exactly?



That has been discussed - it probably wont be introduced as early as primary school cycles as (as you have pointed out yourself) there is so much to learn in the basics of our RE that needs to be learnt first before learning world religions.  It has been discussed for secondary schools along with introducing theology as a state exam subject (and thats a whole other debate).



jaybird said:


> Like I said, isn't it easy to give suggestions when you are not in the minority, or are lucky enough to have a suitable school place for your children.



And its also very easy to moan and do the poor-me routine.  You do have many choices jaybird but its easier to knock them down and critize than to do something active about them.  You keep talking about selling your house - you dont have to sell your house to move  - rent it.  I know you will post back with some reason why you cant - its easier to do that than to uproot everyone - I know.  Over here on most of the expat lists some parents bemoan that their children are being "forced" to learn in swiss german (as oppose to high german or better yet english) - they act like its some travesty being visited apon them (imagine being taught in the mother tongue of the country - disgraceful  ).  Many of us are minorities in different things - but we (thankfully) have choices even if we arent crazy about them.  

Good luck with what ever you decide and best of luck to your son and his education.


----------



## Firefly (13 May 2009)

jaybird said:


> I That is because nothing is more important than my childs education.


 
Hi Jaybird, just wondering, what's the non-religious education like at the school? Surely if this is very good then maybe it might be better to let your son get on with it. You can then explain your beliefs when at home and encourage him to make up his own mind (which may be different to yours). 

F


----------



## Padraigb (13 May 2009)

I think there has been as much bad behaviour in this thread as there was at the Communion Mass that Romulan posted about.

We cannot manage life without accommodating the various needs and wishes of people who want different things. It is not reasonable to expropriate church-owned schools; it is not affordable to set up multi-denominational an/or non-denominational schools within easy reach of everybody (not to mention the gaeilscoil question); it is not fair to demand that people move home because they don't have access to their preferred type of school.

So we get by the best way we can.

There might be a point in the DES making the funding of any school contingent on its being willing to make some reasonable effort to meet the needs of pupils of different denominations, or none. But it would be pushing it beyond reasonableness to require that a school abandon its denominational character.

It seems to me reasonable that where places in a school are limited, priority be given to children who adhere to the faith that the school has been set up to support.


----------



## homeowner (13 May 2009)

jaybird said:


> You have not been listening to the reality if you think I can just move to gain a place. I've looked into, I would be willing. Anywhere we could move to that was even remotely commutable for work have long waiting lists, we would have to have been on the waiting list years ago. Thats not apathetic poor me not being willing to sacrifice for my ideals, its the unavoidable fact that there is no place available. Thats the point. I am willing to be attacked for many things, but please do not underestimate the time, effort and money I have invested to explore all options. And I am unfortunatly left with none. Sometimes, despite our best efforts (and I truly defy anyone with a complete lack of resources in this climate to try any harder than I have ) we don't have any options.



I agree with you 100%.  I think most people dont realise the lack of choice available if you dont want to send your children to a catholic (or any other "religious" school).  The vast majority of schools in Ireland are christian ethos schools paid for by the state (even the private ones).

I look forward to the day when schools will be completely secular and parents who want religious instruction for their children have the choice to organise those extra classes.


----------



## mick1960 (13 May 2009)

The best education you can get is in Catholic school because they are funded by the Catholic church,so if your education is being funded by an organisation you have to listen to them.If the State stopped their part funding of the Catholic schools who would take their place?Also it sounds they should have lessons on how to behave at Holy Communion's


----------



## mick1960 (13 May 2009)

I went to a Catholic school,because my parents could not afford the independent schools in the area,and the State schools had far lower exam scores.The Christian brothers were trained by the Church and paid for by the Church and had devoted their life to the Church.But thinking back on these years I must say they did seem to talk a lot about Catholic things and God.
Do you think there is a connection?


----------



## homeowner (13 May 2009)

mick1960 said:


> The best education you can get is in Catholic school because they are funded by the Catholic church,so if your education is being funded by an organisation you have to listen to them.If the State stopped their part funding of the Catholic schools who would take their place?Also it sounds they should have lessons on how to behave at Holy Communion's



I dont think anyone is suggesting that the state stop funding schools.  The hope is that the catholic churchs bows out of state funded education, hands schools over to the state to be secular run (which I think will happen here eventually) and have the church take the role of giving religious lessons alongside other faiths on a paid per class basis by parents or organise religion classes (similar to Sunday school idea in church of ireland)


----------



## mick1960 (13 May 2009)

homeowner said:


> I dont think anyone is suggesting that the state stop funding schools.  The hope is that the catholic churchs bows out of state funded education, hands schools over to the state to be secular run .
> 
> That would be Great if the State could buy the property off them,or build Schools.That will only happen when the Vatican bank runs out of money,so it might happen soon.


----------



## mick1960 (13 May 2009)

Posted in error


----------



## homeowner (13 May 2009)

mick1960 said:


> That would be Great if the State could buy the property off them,or build Schools.That will only happen when the Vatican bank runs out of money,so it might happen soon.



Some school land was bequethed to religious orders going back years and they are precluded from selling it.  Certainly true of 2 local schools where I grew up - the nuns tried to sell them off but were prevented from doing so by the school boards.  I can imagine this is true of other schools around the country.  

I can see the state renting the school land off the church to get around this legality.  The state keeps schools open anyway, it funds improvements, new buildings, sports facilities  etc...or in most cases money is raised by parents.  Its been a long time since the church paid a cent into schools in ireland even private schools get their funding from a combination of school fees and the state.


----------



## mick1960 (13 May 2009)

Sounds very unjust jaybird.


----------



## S.L.F (13 May 2009)

jaybird said:


> But doesn't the state own both the land and the buildings, for some schools at least? The new school in our area was built on private land bought with state money and built with state money. My taxes went into paying for that school, why shouldn't it be as open to me as to anyone else?
> Thats a part I really have trouble understanding.


 
How is it closed to you?


----------



## Simeon (13 May 2009)

People in the Dingle penninsula also pay taxes ......... is it open to them?


----------



## Padraigb (13 May 2009)

jaybird said:


> But doesn't the state own both the land and the buildings, for some schools at least?



Generally speaking, the state does not own the land and buildings.



> The new school in our area was built on private land bought with state money and built with state money.



It's more usual for the land to be provided by trustees (typically a church or a religious order; more recently an organisation such as Educate Together) and the state paying a contribution towards building costs (usually a high percentage of the total cost).



> My taxes went into paying for that school, why shouldn't it be as open to me as to anyone else?
> Thats a part I really have trouble understanding.



Because, whether you like it or not, the school is private.


----------



## mathepac (13 May 2009)

The links between the Catholic Church and primary education in this country are very strong and historical. In many cases the schools are the property of or are built on Church / parish land, staffed by teachers who are employees of the parish via the school’s board of management, often with the local PP as the chairman and/or the bishop of the diocese as patron.

It is unsurprising therefore that these schools espouse a strong Catholic ethos and are logically seen as academies for the preparation of young Catholic minds for key sacramental milestones on the journey to Catholic adulthood through religious education and practice as part and parcel of the regular curriculum.

So where does that leave non-Catholic parents who are faced with a Hobson’s choice when it comes to finding schools they deem appropriate  for their off-spring? Apparently based on the postings in this thread, which is now several degrees off-topic, pretty angry and disillusioned.

But have their feelings got an appropriate target? I don’t believe so. The anti Church-schooling posts above  seem to have forgotten a number of key factors :


Their children are pupils in schools that are more than likely parish property
The teachers are parish employees via the school’s board of management
The school’s chairman is more than likely the local catholic PP
The school’s patron is more than likely the local catholic bishop
As they are not Catholics, presumably they provide no funding to the Church that can be channelled to support its educational endeavours / responsibilities.

Rather than railing at the lack of facilities for non-Catholics in Catholic schools, why not direct that ire where it belongs, at the Department of Education and the politicians who since the foundation of the State, have ceded massive amounts of their activities and responsibilities to unpaid parish councils and boards of management? In the meantime, perhaps a nod of acknowledgment and a word of thanks in the direction of the Catholic Church wouldn’t go amiss.

How is it that the Church has played such an influential role in education and apparently continues to influence the education of young people today? I can answer this in another post as this one has dragged on a bit - sorry.


----------



## S.L.F (13 May 2009)

jaybird said:


> Yes, historically the Catholic Church has been responsible for education in this country, and if the majority still wants it that way, it can stay that way for the majority. But the state has to step up to the plate to provide a proper, coherent plan for many more multi/non-denominational schools. the demand is growing all the time, and at some point its going to be a huge issue, as more parents get angry and frustrated at the lack of choice and provision.


 
The problem there is that our govt couldn't find it's ass with a map let alone come up with a good strategy to educate our kids.

The Church has the expertise to do it properly, not to your liking of course but to 90& of other people.


----------



## DavyJones (13 May 2009)

Jaybird, If you can't beat them with a large stick, join them. Save yourself and your son loads of hassle and just become Catholic.


----------



## Complainer (13 May 2009)

S.L.F said:


> The Church has the expertise to do it properly, not to your liking of course but to 90& of other people.


The only thing that the Church contributes today is the ownership of the property and chairing the BoM. It has no 'expertise'. The teachers, the principal, the BoM members, the fundraising cttee, the gardening ctte, the recycling cttee and the other cttees come from the community.


----------



## S.L.F (13 May 2009)

jaybird said:


> 2) 10% of people is still a lot of people.......


 
Yeah but spread over the whole country.

For what it's worth I hope you find what you are looking for I just hope you don't bring unnecessary unhappiness onto your boy because of your beliefs.

My own view on the religion thing is that it doesn't do any harm.


----------



## Padraigb (13 May 2009)

Complainer said:


> The only thing that the Church contributes today is the ownership of the property and chairing the BoM. It has no 'expertise'. The teachers, the principal, the BoM members, the fundraising cttee, the gardening ctte, the recycling cttee and the other cttees come from the community.



Are they not also the Church?


----------



## S.L.F (13 May 2009)

jaybird said:


> Nah, I'll keep the large stick and go down fighting, thanks!


 
You are already half way there...


----------



## Padraigb (13 May 2009)

S.L.F said:


> ... The Church has the expertise to do it properly, not to your liking of course but to 90& of other people.



When you observe attendance at mass (and the sort of behaviour at first Communion that started off this discussion) I suspect that 90% is a high estimate of those who want a Church education for their children.


----------



## Complainer (13 May 2009)

Padraigb said:


> Are they not also the Church?


Some are, and some aren't.


----------



## Bronte (18 May 2009)

mathepac said:


> In the meantime, perhaps a nod of acknowledgment and a word of thanks in the direction of the Catholic Church wouldn’t go amiss.
> 
> .


 I went to a Catholic School and I will never ever ever thank them, thank them for what, an organisation that hates women, tries to control people's minds, tries to control the laws of the state, tries to control women's bodies, where celebacy is something to be revered and giving birth dirty. And they are still trying to control schools. You got to be kidding right. 

Any school given state funding should accommodate all Irish children equally. A quite simple solution is to have a religious class for those who are Catholic and say a morality and ethics class for those who are not, even if that amounts to one child. If a teacher cannot be paid for this extra class then have religion at the end or beginning of the day so that that child who is being ostracised can arrive at school later or be taken home earlier.


----------



## Caveat (18 May 2009)

Just a quick report - I was at a FHC on Saturday and I have to say that the congregation and children were all pretty well behaved.  No photography (at least until after the ceremony) no over the top arrivals/entrances, no messing/joking/talking during the ceremony either.


----------



## sam h (18 May 2009)

Maybe we were at the same one Caveat - all the girls looked lovely (and no make-up/faketan or light up tiaras).  A lovely simple cermonary.

Only problem was the dad on one of the kids who took 2 phone calls during the mass (one quick one & one that lasted about 5 mins....he must have thought nobody could notice if he put his head between his legs!!!) and was in & out like a jack-in-the-box.  I think he left the church 3 times.


----------



## BlueSpud (20 May 2009)

Complainer said:


> But it is a bit rich of them to get uppity about people not taking these ceremonies seriously when the structures they impose are the root cause of the problem.


 
It is not clear what 'problem' you are referring to here.


----------



## BlueSpud (20 May 2009)

All this talk of the Catholic church's influence on national schools is a joke compared to the influence the CofI has over it's schools.  In modern Ireland it is rare, and probably a hanging offence,  to be excluded from an RC school because of religion, but it is a cornerstone of CofI schools, at least in Dublin.


----------



## Caveat (20 May 2009)

BlueSpud said:


> In modern Ireland it is rare, and probably a hanging offence, to be excluded from an RC school because of religion, but it is a cornerstone of CofI schools, at least in Dublin.


 
I've never heard of this.  

In my own (nominally) COI school there were more catholics than COI kids.  Likewise the same with any of the Dublin schools that kids moved from to my school.

Are you sure this isn't just some kind of begrudging gossip?


----------



## BoscoTalking (20 May 2009)

where i grew up - and where i live now from what i hear from parents the comment about COI school admission process holds true - not that i have particular issue with it.


----------



## Complainer (20 May 2009)

BlueSpud said:


> In modern Ireland it is rare, and probably a hanging offence,  to be excluded from an RC school because of religion


Do you have a source for this claim?


----------



## sam h (20 May 2009)

Local CofI school in my locality has a % of RC pupils (don;t know what it is but I do know some people attending whose kids would be RC.  I understand there are 2 reasons....nice small school (reminds me of years ago, kids skipping, playing chasing & hopscotch) so the kids get plenty of attention.  Also they have direct access to the local community college which is way over subscribed & they have first access.

My kids don't go there, but have to say, the yard mearly made me change them !!  Mine can't do anything bar walking in the yard (4 yards, each the size of a tennis court where there would normally be about 180 pupils in each yard.  Punished if they run, step outside the line or do anything remotely "kid-like")


----------



## Complainer (20 May 2009)

sam h said:


> Also they have direct access to the local community college which is way over subscribed & they have first access.


No VEC (i.e. community college) would give first access to any particular school.


----------



## The_Banker (20 May 2009)

Yorky said:


> Couple of points:
> 
> Everyone seems to be referring to Roman Catholics as just 'catholics' which is incorrect as Church of Ireland also see themsleves as catholic i.e universal.
> 
> Also, the main problem with the so-called sacraments is the tasteless way they are celebrated after the religious formalities. This is a momentous day which should be spent somberly in contemplative prayer rather than receiving money, having a party and jumping around on a bouncy castle.I fail to see what these have to do with making ones communion with God; on the contrary, they're the antithesis. I spoke to a girl who had 'made her communion' recently and asked her what was the msot enjoyable part: The bouncy castle was the reply. I asked about the religious ceremony and was informed 'that was the most boring part'.


 
To be honest what 7 year old child is interested in religious ceremonies? When I made my communion I was only interested in the cash and if people here are honest that would have been the case as well with them when they were kids.


----------



## Complainer (21 May 2009)

BlueSpud said:


> It is not clear what 'problem' you are referring to here.


See thread title.


----------



## Caveat (21 May 2009)

BlueSpud said:


> In modern Ireland it is rare, and probably a hanging offence, to be excluded from an RC school because of religion, but it is a cornerstone of CofI schools, at least in Dublin.


 


pennypitstop said:


> where i grew up - and where i live now from what i hear from parents the comment about COI school admission process holds true - not that i have particular issue with it.


 
Can posters maybe explain *exactly* what they are are referring to here - what are you accusing these schools of?

It's not entirely clear to me.


----------



## BlueSpud (21 May 2009)

Caveat said:


> I've never heard of this.
> 
> In my own (nominally) COI school there were more catholics than COI kids.  Likewise the same with any of the Dublin schools that kids moved from to my school.
> 
> Are you sure this isn't just some kind of begrudging gossip?



Far from gossip, it is a personal experience.  So shocked was I to encounter it, when I looked further I found that education is a grounds for descrimination in your schools, this is in our constitution, on the basis of protecting your faith.


----------



## BlueSpud (21 May 2009)

Complainer said:


> Do you have a source for this claim?


In the area I live in, the RC schools discriminate by geography, the CoI do it based on religion.


----------



## Caveat (21 May 2009)

Not my faith BTW Bluespud.

You say "exclusion is a cornerstone... etc" but that's it.

So what exactly are you saying - can you spell it out? 

What exactly was your experience?


----------



## sam h (21 May 2009)

Complainer said:


> No VEC (i.e. community college) would give first access to any particular school.


 
I'm not telling porkies.  The CofI pupils are the first in line for the local community college as per the selection criteria below & the reaosns behind it.  The pupils don't have to live in the catchment area either.  I don't have a big issue with it for the CofI pupils.


*Qualifications - Selection Criteria:

*1. Church of Ireland and Protestant students attending Castleknock Church of Ireland National School.

Note: There are no non-fee paying Protestant schools in North-West Dublin. Consequently when the college was established, it was designated as a feeder school for Church of Ireland and Protestant children in order to protect the rights of this minority, thus ensuring that a significant number of this community could be educated together. It was also agreed that a representative of the community would be a member of the Board of Management.


----------



## Complainer (21 May 2009)

sam h said:


> I'm not telling porkies.  The CofI pupils are the first in line for the local community college as per the selection criteria below & the reaosns behind it.  The pupils don't have to live in the catchment area either.  I don't have a big issue with it for the CofI pupils.
> 
> 
> *Qualifications - Selection Criteria:
> ...


Wow - I'm amazed at this kind of further discrimination on religious grounds. Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## Caveat (21 May 2009)

Complainer said:


> Wow - I'm amazed at this kind of further discrimination on religious grounds. Thanks for the clarification.


 
Why is it amazing? It's a 'designated' COI/protestant school.

Is the educate together idea not generally a good one? This is an example of sorts of the same ethos.  I don't see the problem.


----------



## TarfHead (21 May 2009)

BlueSpud said:


> In the area I live in, the RC schools *discriminate* by geography, the CoI do it based on religion.


 
emotive choice of word there - I would have said 'prioritise'. The national school that my children attend prioritise children from the cachement area (i.e. parish) over children from outside that area, regardless of faith They also, for kids outside of that area, prioritise siblings of pupils already in the school, over those who are not.

Or should that be '_sibling discrimination_'  ?


----------



## Caveat (22 May 2009)

jaybird said:


> Thats a fair enough selection process, although a great many schools do not do this. As I mentioned before, my local national school prioritises RC children, then siblings, then other faiths, and only if spaces are left are they given to un-baptised children, even if they live next door to the school. And they are legally entitled to do so!


 
But I thought it was just them awful protestants that did that eh Bluespud?


----------



## Complainer (22 May 2009)

Caveat said:


> Why is it amazing? It's a 'designated' COI/protestant school.


Because it is a state-operated and state-funded facility. Why should any state facility prioritise one religion over another? Would you be surprised if we had a catholic-only library or a protestant-only 'public' health clinic?



TarfHead said:


> emotive choice of word there - I would have said 'prioritise'. The national school that my children attend prioritise children from the cachement area (i.e. parish) over children from outside that area, regardless of faith They also, for kids outside of that area, prioritise siblings of pupils already in the school, over those who are not.
> 
> Or should that be '_sibling discrimination_'  ?


THe sibling rule often discriminates against those new to Ireland.


----------



## Caveat (22 May 2009)

Complainer said:


> Because it is a state-operated and state-funded facility. Why should any state facility prioritise one religion over another?


 
Seemingly, in this case,  because:



> *There are no non-fee paying Protestant schools in North-West Dublin.* Consequently when the college was established, it was designated as a feeder school for Church of Ireland and Protestant children in order to protect the rights of this minority, thus ensuring that a significant number of this community could be educated together.


 
I admit it is certainly unusual, if not maybe unique. But do you not think this is essentially a good thing?

In practice, I would have thought it highly unlikely that e.g. any RCs would end up being excluded from the school due to this policy.


----------



## TarfHead (22 May 2009)

Complainer said:


> sibling rule often discriminates against those new to Ireland.


 


.. but not because they are _new to Ireland_. For children oustside the cachement area, who have no existing connection to the school, _new to Ireland_ or eye colour or 'left-handedness' or otherwise, is neither a criterion not a basis for _discrimination_.


----------



## Thirsty (22 May 2009)

> How many non denominational schools are there in each area?


None, there's no such thing in Ireland as a non-denominational school.


----------



## Ham Slicer (22 May 2009)

Kildrought said:


> None, there's no such thing in Ireland as a non-denominational school.



There is now 

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/lenihan-opens-new-nondenominational-school-411854.html


----------



## mathepac (22 May 2009)

BlueSpud said:


> In the area I live in, the RC schools discriminate by geography, ...


Do you mean the Catholic schools won't accept children from outside the parish?


----------



## Complainer (23 May 2009)

Caveat said:


> In practice, I would have thought it highly unlikely that e.g. any RCs would end up being excluded from the school due to this policy.


If that is the case, then the COI community would have no objection to removing the priority rule - right?


----------



## sam h (23 May 2009)

Caveat said:


> In practice, I would have thought it highly unlikely that e.g. any RCs would end up being excluded from the school due to this policy.


 
Acually there are not enough places to cover the kids in the area, so there are kids from within the catchment area who would not get a place, of whatever religion.  Last year, apparently, there were kids who had lived in the area for 10 years+ who were not admitted


----------



## Thirsty (24 May 2009)

> non-denominational primary school


 
It's an inaccurate description - non-denominational does not mean "of no church" (or religion if you prefer).

In describing the  school as 'non-denominational' it could be argued that enrolment is offered to those who are members of a non-denominational church.

Under the current Education Acts all schools have to have a patron and must submit their religious educational curriculum to the Dept. of Ed.  

I think (but am open to correction) that the local VEC is the patron of this school.  The curriculum does not have to be instruction in a particular faith; hence the Educate Together method of teaching about all faiths. 

I'm willing to bet that the religious currciulum of this school will be remarkable similar to the other schools in the area.


----------



## Padraigb (24 May 2009)

Ham Slicer said:


> There is now
> 
> http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/lenihan-opens-new-nondenominational-school-411854.html



Maybe not. I did a google, and turned this up: 


> [FONT=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Explaining the ethos of the school, Ms. Lowe [Principal of Scoil Choilm] says “we are a multi-faith            school and we welcome children of all faiths and none. However we will            be teaching faith as part of our school curriculum.



[broken link removed]
[/FONT]


----------



## Caveat (25 May 2009)

Complainer said:


> If that is the case, then the COI community would have no objection to removing the priority rule - right?


 
I have no idea - how would I know?

BTW, it is by no means clear that this is a '*priority *rule' - the policy is simply mentioned as part of the admissions criteria. Does it explicitly say anywhere that COI members are are considered above all others?  Maybe it is simply a percentage admissions quota?


----------



## Complainer (25 May 2009)

Caveat said:


> I have no idea - how would I know?


You seemed to know whether non-COI families were likely to be affected by this rule, so I thought that you might have some detailed knowledge.



Caveat said:


> BTW, it is by no means clear that this is a '*priority *rule' - the policy is simply mentioned as part of the admissions criteria. Does it explicitly say anywhere that COI members are are considered above all others? Maybe it is simply a percentage admissions quota?


School enrollment policies need to be published. The published version for this school [broken link removed] lists number 1 as the COI community - they get priority.


----------



## Caveat (25 May 2009)

Complainer said:


> You seemed to know whether non-COI families were likely to be affected by this rule, so I thought that you might have some detailed knowledge.


 
Ah c'mon. I said 'I would have thought...' 

I thought this fairly clearly indicated that it was an assumption/guess.



> School enrollment policies need to be published. The published version for this school [broken link removed] lists number 1 as the COI community - they get priority.


 
Maybe, but as mentioned, it is very unusual and there is a specific reason for it.

And BTW, any talk so far of RC children being excluded as a result has been prefaced by "I heard" or "apparently" etc. Hardly convincing.

All schools have some sort of selection criteria - e.g. according to Jaybird's link, his/her local school prioritises RC children.


----------



## Complainer (25 May 2009)

Caveat said:


> Maybe, but as mentioned, it is very unusual and there is a specific reason for it.


Whatever the specific reason is, it doesn't justify religious discrimination on a state service. If there is a 'specific reason' for a COI-only bus or COI-only Motor Tax office, would that be OK?


Caveat said:


> And BTW, any talk so far of RC children being excluded as a result has been prefaced by "I heard" or "apparently" etc. Hardly convincing.


But you are convinced by your own assumption that RC children are NOT excluded, even though you have no knowledge of the situation?


Caveat said:


> All schools have some sort of selection criteria - e.g. according to Jaybird's link, his/her local school prioritises RC children.


No other state school (e.g. premises owned/built/managed/operated by the state) to the best of my knowledge discriminates on religous grounds. Jaybird's school is a parish school, not a state school. It is outrageous that a state school is discriminating on religous grounds.


----------



## Caveat (25 May 2009)

OK Complainer, maybe you are right - it is difficult to argue that this is not discrimination - and I'm not really trying to.

Maybe also I am making assumptions but I get the distinct impression that we are not getting the full story about this selection process. I just find it difficult to believe that if RC children from the locality have been prevented from attending this school due to this policy, that it would not have been all over the media/Joe Duffy etc. Maybe it was and I missed it all.

Regardless, whether there is a negative impact or not from the policy, it still appears to be a discriminatory practice from a state school - and extremely unusual, if not unique, as I have said.

Also, from _Sam H:_



> Local CofI school in my locality has a % of RC pupils (don;t know what it is but I do know some people attending whose kids would be RC. I understand there are 2 reasons....nice small school (reminds me of years ago, kids skipping, playing chasing & hopscotch) so the kids get plenty of attention. Also they have direct access to the local community college which is way over subscribed & they have first access.


 
Small point maybe, but is it not the *pupils* of this nominally COI school that get first access - among which there are also RC children?


----------



## Padraigb (25 May 2009)

Complainer said:


> Whatever the specific reason is, it doesn't justify religious discrimination on a state service. ...



I think there is justification. The state funds denominational schools in the area, but it happens that all of them are for Roman Catholics. So there is already religious discrimination in the provision of a state-funded service (as distinct from a state-provided service). This is permissible under the Constitution. So the granting of a degree of priority to COI children is clearly intended as a balancing measure.

You could imaginably have a situation where all the local RC schools admit only declared RCs, and COI children are crowded out of the only multi-denominational school in the area.


----------



## Complainer (25 May 2009)

Caveat said:


> Small point maybe, but is it not the *pupils* of this nominally COI school that get first access - among which there are also RC children?


Nope - it is purely religious discrimination - from the school website, the top priority for enrolment is;


> Church of Ireland and Protestant students attending Castleknock                      Church of Ireland National School.





Padraigb said:


> I think there is justification. The state funds denominational schools in the area, but it happens that all of them are for Roman Catholics. So there is already religious discrimination in the provision of a state-funded service (as distinct from a state-provided service). This is permissible under the Constitution. So the granting of a degree of priority to COI children is clearly intended as a balancing measure.
> 
> You could imaginably have a situation where all the local RC schools admit only declared RCs, and COI children are crowded out of the only multi-denominational school in the area.


So you attempt to fix a discrimination problem by discriminating? Ludicrous. The only real solution is to stop religious discrimination by all schools.


----------



## Padraigb (25 May 2009)

Complainer said:


> ... So you attempt to fix a discrimination problem by discriminating? Ludicrous.



I don't think it is ludicrous, any more than it is to balance the provision of women-only toilets by also providing men-only toilets.



> The only real solution is to stop religious discrimination by all schools.



That would involve steps that might not be possible: the expropriation of assets that belong to the Church and the changing of the constitution.


----------



## Complainer (25 May 2009)

Padraigb said:


> I don't think it is ludicrous, any more than it is to balance the provision of women-only toilets by also providing men-only toilets.


The analogy doesn't really travel well. The toileting approach would indeed be ludicrous if (as occurs with schools), there were people of many other genders and no gender whose toileting needs were not being met.


Padraigb said:


> That would involve steps that might not be possible: the expropriation of assets that belong to the Church and the changing of the constitution.


A quick scan of Article 42 of the Constitution doesn't throw up anything that would require change. 

Education





> Article 42
> 1. The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.
> 2. Parents shall be free to provide this education in their homes or in private schools or in schools recognised or established by the State.
> 3. 1° The State shall not oblige parents in violation of their conscience and lawful preference to send their children to schools established by the State, or to any particular type of school designated by the State.
> ...


Indeed, one could make a case that the current situation is contrary to Article 42.3.1, as parents are obliged to violate the conscience by sending children to religious schools. 

As for the property, perhaps the Churches might pay up their debts in relation to the abuse scandals by handing over school properties.


----------



## Padraigb (25 May 2009)

Complainer said:


> ... As for the property, perhaps the Churches might pay up their debts in relation to the abuse scandals by handing over school properties.



I recognise when I am wasting my time, and have no more to say here.


----------



## ajapale (25 May 2009)

Seems like as good as any time to end this discussion.


----------

