Removing the consitutional protections for churches.

Fred Swanson · 26-07-2015 2:50pm #1

This post has been deleted.

Zamboni · 26-07-2015 3:46pm

Fred Swanson wrote: »

Would a referendum that removes all protections the church enjoys like how their property cannot be used by the state for projects like schools etc be ever possible to pass?

It would be a complete game changer in the whole school patronage game.

A sure ticket to a civil war.

dvdman1 · 26-07-2015 3:51pm

beliefs aside
The church is part of Irish heritage and deserves protection

Fred Swanson · 26-07-2015 4:04pm

This post has been deleted.

eviltwin · 26-07-2015 4:19pm

I think it would probably succeed. Why shouldn't churches pay tax and be transparent? Surely those involved in the church would want that.

frostyjacks · 26-07-2015 4:23pm

I think the constitution is fine the way it is. The Church is part of our culture, leave it alone.

Second Toughest in_the Freshers · 26-07-2015 4:27pm

eviltwin wrote: »

I think it would probably succeed.

Ah now...

Fred Swanson · 26-07-2015 4:28pm

This post has been deleted.

dvdman1 · 26-07-2015 4:39pm

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Here we go here we go here we go!

parents have abused children too.....Oh hold on, lets say the family is not part of culture too?

expectationlost · 26-07-2015 4:46pm

its a constitutional chruch

the_syco · 26-07-2015 5:38pm

Zamboni wrote: »

A sure ticket to a civil war.

I'd doubt it. If worded correctly, you'd probably get it to be wanted by the people.

Not a NSA agent · 26-07-2015 7:34pm

Removing it wouldnt change culture or heritage so I dont know why that would be brought up. If the first thing you go to is tradition or culture then you dont have any actual reasons.

dvdman1 wrote: »

Here we go here we go here we go!

parents have abused children too.....Oh hold on, lets say the family is not part of culture too?

When parents join together and start moving parents around then we can compare them.

magicbastarder · 26-07-2015 9:19pm

dvdman1 wrote: »

parents have abused children too

yeah, but parents don't get away with covering it up.

MrWalsh · 26-07-2015 10:21pm

frostyjacks wrote: »

I think the constitution is fine the way it is. The Church is part of our culture, leave it alone.

The Constitution is hopelessly outdated and needs a complete rewrite.

These days most people have little use for the Church outside of it being a pretty background for the wedding pics and a gathering place for funerals. Culture changes and evolves, it is a constantly shifting construct.

I absolutely think the Church should have any special constitutional protections removed, it seems bizarre to me that anyone would think otherwise in this day and age.

lazygal · 26-07-2015 10:29pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

yeah, but parents don't get away with covering it up.

And they aren't moved around to abuse other families or don't take out insurance policies to indemnify themselves against claims or don't hold canonical inquiries where children are sworn to secrecy.

recedite · 26-07-2015 11:08pm

dvdman1 wrote: »

beliefs aside
The church is part of Irish heritage and deserves protection

Even if there was only one church, and even if that one true church was an important part of Irish history and heritage, that still would not mean it deserved this special immunity. If it genuinely owes money for compensation to abuse victims, and won't pay, then we should seize some of their property assets.
Govt. would have to call the referendum though, and they won't do that unless they think its going to be a popular move.

Cabaal · 29-07-2015 8:44pm

dvdman1 wrote: »

Here we go here we go here we go!

parents have abused children too.....Oh hold on, lets say the family is not part of culture too?

So all family members knowingly cover up child abuse and allow further abuse on non family members?

The Catholic Church in Ireland in league with the Vatican knowingly silenced victims and moved priests to allow them to abuse again,

Your comparison is deeply flawed,

Cabaal · 29-07-2015 8:47pm

recedite wrote: »

Even if there was only one church, and even if that one true church was an important part of Irish history and heritage, that still would not mean it deserved this special immunity. If it genuinely owes money for compensation to abuse victims, and won't pay, then we should seize some of their property assets.
Govt. would have to call the referendum though, and they won't do that unless they think its going to be a popular move.

It won't be a popular move, many TDs won't support it just like marriage equality. But it would pass.

When the campaign airs the dirty laundry of the church and refreshes people's memory's to the horrendous crimes carried out and the utter refusal to pay compensation the church won't be protected.

jank · 30-07-2015 1:13am

Is the OP stating that the state should have the right to tell private citizens and organisations what it can and cannot do with its own property? What exact special conditions is he referring to?

Absolam · 30-07-2015 4:38am

Cabaal wrote: »

So all family members knowingly cover up child abuse and allow further abuse on non family members?
The Catholic Church in Ireland in league with the Vatican knowingly silenced victims and moved priests to allow them to abuse again,
Your comparison is deeply flawed,

So all of the members of the Catholic Church knowingly cover up child abuse and allow further abuse on non church members?
If you're going to complain about flawed comparisons, you could at least try to make sure your own are consistent.....

Peregrinus · 30-07-2015 4:59am

jank wrote: »

Is the OP stating that the state should have the right to tell private citizens and organisations what it can and cannot do with its own property? What exact special conditions is he referring to?

Most of the constitutional provisions dealing with religion (which are in Art 44) deal with religion, not churches - e.g.
- guarantee of freedom of conscience and the free profession and practice of religion
- prohibition on endowment of religion
- prohibition on the State imposing disabilities or making discriminations on the basis of religious profession, belief or status
- State aid for schools not to discriminate between schools under the management of different religious denominations, nor prejudice the right of any child to attend a school receiving public money without attending religious instruction

On the first three of these I don't think the the OP is calling for any change.

On the last, he might call for change, but I don't think it's the focus of the current thread.

When he talks about "all protections the church enjoys" I think what he's really challenging are the two provisions which deal with religious denominations, rather than religion:

- "Every religious denomination shall have the right to manage its own affairs, own, acquire and administer property, movable and immovable, and maintain institutions for religious or charitable purposes."
-"The property of any religious denomination or any educational institution shall not be diverted save for necessary works of public utility and on payment of compensation."

And I think the real focus of his call is on the last point. He is suggesting, I think, that religious denominations shouldn't enjoy any special constitutional protection for their property; they should have the same protections as everybody else (under Article 43) - neither more nor less.

Is that right, Fred?

Absolam · 30-07-2015 5:03am

Cabaal wrote: »

It won't be a popular move, many TDs won't support it just like marriage equality. But it would pass.

I'm not so sure. I don't know which I'd trust less, priests or politicians, when it comes to money, but I very much doubt there would be anything left to take from the Churches once the referendum was passed, which would make it a pointless exercise.
Additionally, 44(2,5&6) do serve a purpose; they prevent the State from suppressing religions by seizing their assets and preventing them from engaging in the activities of a religion. Any referendum that aims at increasing the States ability to suppress expression of faith, may encounter resistance from all sorts of quarters.

Cabaal wrote: »

When the campaign airs the dirty laundry of the church and refreshes people's memory's to the horrendous crimes carried out and the utter refusal to pay compensation the church won't be protected.

I imagine the Churches would be quick enough to point out that they haven't utterly refused to pay compensation; they've offered to pay €348.5 million, they had paid €70 million by July 2013, and were expected to have paid the bulk of what they owed by the end of that year. Not that that even approaches what they should pay, but that's a different matter.

robdonn · 30-07-2015 11:20am

Absolam wrote: »

Additionally, 44(2,5&6) do serve a purpose; they prevent the State from suppressing religions by seizing their assets and preventing them from engaging in the activities of a religion. Any referendum that aims at increasing the States ability to suppress expression of faith, may encounter resistance from all sorts of quarters.

If a religious practise promoted human sacrifice, the state can step in to stop this and no amount of claims of "suppression of faith" would stop them. As long as a religion is practised within the confines of the law then they would have no issues. The government cannot stop a company from operating as it does unless they operate outside of the law. Religions can register as a business and they can receive tax relief on charitable donations, or they can register as charities themselves.

recedite · 30-07-2015 11:45am

Probably worth posting the full Article 44 at this point;

1. The State acknowledges that the homage of public worship is due to Almighty God. It shall hold His Name in reverence, and shall respect and honour religion.
2. 1° Freedom of conscience and the free profession and practice of religion are, subject to public order and morality, guaranteed to every citizen.
2° The State guarantees not to endow any religion.
3° The State shall not impose any disabilities or make any discrimination on the ground of religious profession, belief or status.
4° Legislation providing State aid for schools shall not discriminate between schools under the management of different religious denominations, nor be such as to affect prejudicially the right of any child to attend a school receiving public money without attending religious instruction at that school. 5° Every religious denomination shall have the right to manage its own affairs, own, acquire and administer property, movable and immovable, and maintain institutions for religious or charitable purposes.
6° The property of any religious denomination or any educational institution shall not be diverted save for necessary works of public utility and on payment of compensation.

On this last point (6°) there is no particular public "value" or "merit" in giving a church (or a "denomination" if you prefer) a complete immunity to having their property seized, if it is being seized justifiably.
I mean for example, if they owed a debt to the residential abuse redress scheme, or if they had taken out a mortgage on some property and were not making the repayments. Yet this is the interpretation that RCC have taken, and strangely the spineless politicians that are supposed to represent the public interest have accepted it. Even if they didn't owe money to the state, the divestment of schools in the public interest would still be justifiable where the state has been paying for salaries, upkeep and maintenance costs, building extensions etc.. for donkey's years.
But no matter what the RCC do, their property is apparently sacrosanct.

This constitutional article was obviously intended to prevent religious assets from being seized by the state for political or religious reasons, such as when Henry VIII famously set up his own denomination and then seized the RCC monasteries and all their lands for himself. Its fair enough to protect religions against that sort of thing.
However there are a couple of serious holes in the current RCC interpretation of Article 44.

1. As above, my interpretation above that it does not prohibit justified seizing of religious property where a debt remains unpaid is backed up by actual case law, unlike the RCC interpretation.
The fact that the State chooses not to seize the property of RCC, while at the same time appointed a receiver for the property of a minority church, which property has now been seized by the banks, is itself a violation of 2° The State guarantees not to endow any religion.

2. Instead of paying for the redress board indemnity deal in cash, the RCC paid an inadequate amount of cash (probably about €40M), and also threw in some property towards it. Some of the property they didn't even own, because they had already transferred it to charities.
But if we take their own interpretation literally and consistently, then it was illegal for this property to be diverted to the state in the first place. A contract that contains illegal terms is null and void. Therefore the indemnity deal is null and void, and they now owe the full €1.5 Billion.

3. The Constitution is a living document and can easily be amended if there is some problem with it. If somebody wants to start enforcing something we don't like, then change it. We are not stuck with. Take for example the first part of the article above; "1. The State acknowledges that the homage of public worship is due to Almighty God. It shall hold His Name in reverence, and shall respect and honour religion."
The RCC could in theory say that all citizens must attend mass/church/whatever once a week for their "homage of public worship" and demand that the Gardai start enforcing the law. Obviously then, people would notice that something stupid was in the Constitution, and just remove it.

Absolam · 30-07-2015 12:05pm

robdonn wrote: »

If a religious practise promoted human sacrifice, the state can step in to stop this and no amount of claims of "suppression of faith" would stop them. As long as a religion is practised within the confines of the law then they would have no issues. The government cannot stop a company from operating as it does unless they operate outside of the law. Religions can register as a business and they can receive tax relief on charitable donations, or they can register as charities themselves.

Sure.. it just can't step in and impose any disabilities or make any discrimination on the ground of religious profession, belief or status, or divert the property of any religious denomination for necessary works of public utility and on payment of compensation, or deny a religious denomination the right to manage its own affairs, own, acquire and administer property, and maintain institutions for religious or charitable purposes.
These Constitutional provisions preclude the State from acts which could be used to suppress religious denominations.

Absolam · 30-07-2015 1:08pm

recedite wrote: »

On this last point (6°) there is no particular public "value" or "merit" in giving a church (or a "denomination" if you prefer) a complete immunity to having their property seized, if it is being seized justifiably.

But the Article makes no provision for value or merit? A religious denomination may only have it's property diverted by the State for necessary works of public utility and on payment of compensation. It's pretty clear; there's nothing to say the Article can be set aside if there is sufficient public value or merit.

recedite wrote: »

1. As above, my interpretation above that it does not prohibit justified seizing of religious property where a debt remains unpaid is backed up by actual case law, unlike the RCC interpretation.

If you avoid imaginative interpretation for a second and consider the actual words of the first line of the article you quoted:
"The trustees of a non-denominational church, the Victory Christian Fellowship, have lost their appeal against a High Court ruling that Bank of Scotland was entitled to appoint joint receiver over three of its properties."
then compare them to the Article:
"The property of any religious denomination or any educational institution shall not be diverted save for necessary works of public utility and on payment of compensation."
You may notice a disparity. I've added italics to indicate where your interpretation may have gone astray... in short, a non denominational church isn't protected by a provision protecting religious denominations.

recedite wrote: »

The fact that the State chooses not to seize the property of RCC, while at the same time appointed a receiver for the property of a minority church, which property has now been seized by the banks, is itself a violation of 2° The State guarantees not to endow any religion.

Well, obviously not, per the above, though in fairness not taking money from someone is not all the same as endowing someone with money either.

recedite wrote: »

2. Instead of paying for the redress board indemnity deal in cash, the RCC paid an inadequate amount of cash (probably about €40M), and also threw in some property towards it. Some of the property they didn't even own, because they had already transferred it to charities.

Wow. According to the Times they've paid €81.44 million in cash amd transferred properties valued at €42 million to the State. No mention of not owning any of them, and the Times set the cost of the redress scheme at €1.45 billion, not €5 billion. Odd.

recedite wrote: »

But if we take their own interpretation literally and consistently, then it was illegal for this property to be diverted to the state in the first place. A contract that contains illegal terms is null and void. Therefore the indemnity deal is null and void, and they now owe the full €5 Billion.

We have been here before; there is no way to interpret the Constitutional Amendment that prevents the Church using it's properties in any way it sees fit. No amount of imaginative interpretation can make that happen. It's frankly ludicrous.

recedite wrote: »

3. The Constitution is a living document and can easily be amended if there is some problem with it. If somebody wants to start enforcing something we don't like, then change it.
We are not stuck with.

Sure; the thing is though, it takes a referendum to change the Constitution, and the agreement of the majority of the electorate. If you're looking to change it based on the arguments you're putting forward here, I don't think there's much chance of it even making it to the polling booths.

recedite wrote: »

Take for example the first part of the article above; "1. The State acknowledges that the homage of public worship is due to Almighty God. It shall hold His Name in reverence, and shall respect and honour religion." The RCC could in theory say that all citizens must attend mass/church/whatever once a week for their "homage of public worship" and demand that the Gardai start enforcing the law. Obviously then, people would notice that something stupid was in the Constitution, and just remove it.

I think you're taking 'interpretation' to a whole new level there to be honest. The RCC could say whatever they want, but the law doesn't say hat all citizens must attend mass/church/whatever once a week for their "homage of public worship", does it? I very much doubt the Gardai will feel under much pressure to enforce a law that doesn't exist.....

magicbastarder · 30-07-2015 4:00pm

can someone explain in what ways the clause above differs from the state's 'rights' over property not held by religious orders?

recedite · 30-07-2015 11:34pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

can someone explain in what ways the clause above differs from the state's 'rights' over property not held by religious orders?

That would be an ecumenical matter. IMO Article 44 is merely giving churches the same property rights that you or I have as individual people.

recedite · 31-07-2015 12:08am

Absolam wrote: »

If you avoid imaginative interpretation for a second and consider the actual words of the first line of the article you quoted:
"The trustees of a non-denominational church, the Victory Christian Fellowship, have lost their appeal against a High Court ruling that Bank of Scotland was entitled to appoint joint receiver over three of its properties."
then compare them to the Article:
"The property of any religious denomination or any educational institution shall not be diverted save for necessary works of public utility and on payment of compensation."
You may notice a disparity. I've added italics to indicate where your interpretation may have gone astray... in short, a non denominational church isn't protected by a provision protecting religious denominations.

Well, this is a charming piece of sophistry. However, I'll think I'll have to just call bull$hit on it, rather than waste time discussing it further.

According to the Times they've paid €81.44 million in cash amd transferred properties valued at €42 million to the State. No mention of not owning any of them, and the Times set the cost of the redress scheme at €1.45 billion, not €5 billion. Odd.

Yes, you're right there; that was a typo, I meant €1.5 billion so I have edited that. I'll await further evidence for the €81.5 M. Even if they have got it up to that, its still way short.

We have been here before; there is no way to interpret the Constitutional Amendment that prevents the Church using it's properties in any way it sees fit. No amount of imaginative interpretation can make that happen. It's frankly ludicrous.

It literally says church property cannot be diverted. "Diverted" is a strange choice of words, except when talking about rivers. But here it seems to mean "to change hands" or to be appropriated or otherwise sold.
As I said before, the sensible interpretation of this wording is that the state cannot steal church property like Henry V111 did by creating an alternative denomination and then "diverting" the property from one denomination to the other, while ostensibly still calling it "church property".

Absolam wrote: »

The RCC could say whatever they want, but the law doesn't say hat all citizens must attend mass/church/whatever once a week for their "homage of public worship", does it? I very much doubt the Gardai will feel under much pressure to enforce a law that doesn't exist.....

It does say "The State acknowledges that the homage of public worship is due to Almighty God." As I have been neglecting this duty for many years, I must owe the Almighty a huge amount of homage by now. If it really is the State's view that this homage is due, then the state should enforce payment.

I am only making this point in a lighthearted way to highlight the fact that the correct response to a ridiculous constitutional claim by the RCC is first to laughingly reject it, and secondly to amend the wording of the Constitution if that is felt legally necessary.
The incorrect response, which we have seen so far, is to doff the cap and say to the public "sorry we can't do anything here, our hands are tied legally".

Absolam · 31-07-2015 1:04am

magicbastarder wrote: »

can someone explain in what ways the clause above differs from the state's 'rights' over property not held by religious orders?

In the case of privately held property State bodies have a more extensive right to enforce a compulsory purchase order; the acquisition need only be in order to secure, facilitate, control or improve the frontage of any public road by widening, opening or enlarging it, in order to provide areas with roads and other infrastructure facilitating public transport, for such services and works as may be needed for development, or for a local authority to deal with a property or site deemed to be dangerous or derelict.
In the case of religious properties, they can only be acquired for necessary works of public utility; works of public utility are not defined in the current Constitution, but The Irish Constitution by Kelly, Hogan & White (a King's Inns Constitutional Law textbook) points out that that Article 8 of the 1922 Constitution is helpful here, as it specifies “roads, railways, lighting, water or drainage …”, suggesting that the Government could not rely on this wording to justify taking property for some grander function.

What's probably more appropriate to Recedites point, is that the High Court can appoint a receiver or assignee empowered to dispose of the property and other assets of a company, organisation or person in order to discharge their debts (though those powers are specifically limited, particularly in the case of personal insolvency). The properties of a religious denomination or educational institution are Constitutionally protected from such a disposal; they would have to voluntarily liquidate their properties for them to be used to discharge their debts. If they choose not to liquidate their properties, they cannot be compelled to do so. And of course, under Irish Law 'Property' is defined as 'that which can be owned', so the protection isn't limited to sites and buildings; it arguably extends to all assets owned by the religious denomination.

Absolam · 31-07-2015 2:09am

recedite wrote: »

Well, this is a charming piece of sophistry. However, I'll think I'll have to just call bull$hit on it, rather than waste time discussing it further.

In fairness, sophistry would be trying to pretend that 'denomination' means 'church' so that you can present an argument that the High Court appointed a receiver to dispose of a 'church'es properties which means it can do the same to a 'denomination'.
When in reality, a ' non-denominational church' simply isn't a 'religious denomination'.

recedite wrote: »

It literally says church property cannot be diverted. "Diverted" is a strange choice of words, except when talking about rivers. But here it seems to mean "to change hands" or to be appropriated or otherwise sold.

It is a quite specific word; peculiar to it's time I'd say. Luckily we have the definitive Irish text “a bhaint díobh” which clarifies that diverted means taken or deprived of.

recedite wrote: »

As I said before, the sensible interpretation of this wording is that the state cannot steal church property like Henry V111 did by creating an alternative denomination and then "diverting" the property from one denomination to the other, while ostensibly still calling it "church property".

Such a sensible interpretation would require the text to specify to whom the property should not be diverted; specifically to another denomination. But it doesn't; the diversion is not limited, therefore includes all diversion, wherever it may go.

recedite wrote: »

It does say "The State acknowledges that the homage of public worship is due to Almighty God." As I have been neglecting this duty for many years, I must owe the Almighty a huge amount of homage by now. If it really is the State's view that this homage is due, then the state should enforce payment.

Right, it says homage is due; it doesn't say it must be paid though, does it?

recedite wrote: »

I am only making this point in a lighthearted way to highlight the fact that the correct response to a ridiculous constitutional claim by the RCC is first to laughingly reject it, and secondly to amend the wording of the Constitution if that is felt legally necessary.

Certainly, though (in a light heated way) you really ought to acknowledge that in order to correctly respond to a constitutional claim you must correctly construe it. Before you even get to the notion that the nation might think your construal is worthy of support in a referendum.

recedite wrote: »

The incorrect response, which we have seen so far, is to doff the cap and say to the public "sorry we can't do anything here, our hands are tied legally".

It seems to me that "our hands are tied legally" is always going to be a response when someone proposes an illegal act. Though of course another response that has been put forward to the proposal to seize Church assets is that the State has already entered into an agreement on compensation; reneging on that agreement presents it's own legal issues.

Removing the consitutional protections for churches.

Comments