And we thought the Catholic Church was meant to be Christian

What I would like see is one of the political parties pledging to end this arrangement should they form a government after the next election.
Click to expand...
Any political party that decides to come between Church and State in Ireland will not be winning any elections.

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

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

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


umop3p!sdn said:
Any political party that decides to come between Church and State in Ireland will not be winning any elections.
Click to expand...
Am I naive for thinking that there may be an appetite for real change to the Church/State relationship?
 

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

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

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

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

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

If you were on the Board and you suggested that the RC church no longer run the school the Bishop would have you out on your ear!
 
gunnerfitzy said:
"The people appointed must have a commitment to the ethos of the school. In the case of Catholic schools, they must have an understanding of and commitment to Catholic education as outlined in the Deed of Trust for Catholic Schools."
Click to expand...

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

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

But some of the other reasons may be:

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

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

3. They are afraid that there may be questions from the school/patron as to why they declared that the child was an RC but is not proceeding in the RC faith.
 
The point is that you shouldn't have to choose.
As was said before, all the church does in these schools is set the rules...nothing more. The taxpayers pay the bills, the lay people teach and yet the Bish is the Boss.
Regardless if your child was inducted into the Catholic faith, or the Protestant, Jewish, Muslim or Buddhist one, or indeed touched by his noodly appendage, it's a state-run school in absolutely everything but name. Why should you HAVE to be held to ransom between the courage of your convictions and the education of your child.
Complainer said:
Am I naive for thinking that there may be an appetite for real change to the Church/State relationship?
Click to expand...
Hopefully not. Maybe the Educate Together schools were the first step. Perhaps with the increased amount of non-catholic 'new-Irish' demanding places for their children that the ET schools can't accomodate, there is a stronger argument for stripping the 'St Whoever' from the names of every school in the land and removing the power of the Catholic Church from this convenient avenue for brainwashing kids into a 'faith' that means nothing to a child under 16. Why don't the govt see as Bronte has so clearly done.
Why not just say 'Enough!!! Your organisation has to be removed from this role, both as punishment (and enact a law to force takeover, and ruthlessly shoot down any legal challenge) and also so that this may never happen again." I don't see any argument from the sane being of much note.
Sadly, it's the lunatics running this particular asylum!!
 
Maybe the Educate Together schools were the first step.
Click to expand...

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

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

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

Perhaps indeed. Maybe a blind eye was turned to appease the mortals. However I wonder what would have happened if he/she had suggested an end to church patronage!
 
I received a response from my local TD about my concerns with the RC church's management of our primary schools. He has told me that the FG education spokesperson is going to speak about this matter at the FG conference in Killarney this Saturday.

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

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

My viewpoint on the RC church as an organization is that they strayed away from Christianity as their primary purpose a long time ago, and have been about maintaining political power and wealth. I'm surprised more people aren't moving to different churches.
 
Seagull said:
The problem is that the constitution bars schools from being non-denominational. They have to provide some kind of religious education.
Click to expand...

Perhaps religion should be taught as an optional, extra class in the evenings. A group of schools could rotate the teachings, whether they be RC, Protestant, Muslim or whatever. That way it would be easier for children to abstain. I do think though that a "love thy neighbour" class should run during the normal class day as these teachings help promote a more social upbringing for children, but they should not reference any particular religion.
 
The problem is that the constitution bars schools from being non-denominational. They have to provide some kind of religious education. The educate together model is about the best that can be done under the current legislation.
Click to expand...

There is no constitutional bar on schools being non-denominational. VEC schools, for example, are non-denominational.
 
In our school, Rathfarnham Educate Together, no denominational religion is taught during school hours. Any group of parents who wish to organise a religion class after school hours and supply their own teacher e.g. communion preparation class, is facilitated but none is prioritised.

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

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

A.
 
The Catholic (and other Western so-called Christian churches) were never Christian in their doctrine - they are exclusively and dogmatically Pauline. The difficulty for Western people who claim to espouse Christianity is that they cannot differentiate.
 
I'm glad that the arrogant monsignor Dooley will now hang his head. The higher up the slippery pole the less humility. It looks as if the will of God and canon law are open to wildly swinging interpretation.
 
The Catholic Church as an organisation is geared to serve the Catholic Church and and its institutions and its interests first and foremost. If it can do Christian work while it serves its own interests along the way, great but first and foremost it will preserve itself.
 

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

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

Can anyone confirm if this requirement does apply to the parents representatives?
 
Looking at the BOM handbook:

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

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


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


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

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


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

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


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