Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Removing the consitutional protections for churches.
Options
Comments
-
Even if the RCC won the new patronage, the big difference is that the school property (buildings and lands) would be owned by the State. As such, the Dept of education would be in a position to set down conditions for enrolment and admissions policies etc..Not necessarily central; there's good reason to think that those schools would go to patrons with the same or a similar ethos, based on the information received from parents in the earlier discussion on the School Patronage thread. The net result (from a school point of view) might well be simply moving from one Catholic patron to another, or even the same one, simply no longer owning the property.
If the State doesn't close the schools, it won't realise the value of the assets; so where will the money for the Redress Board come from? If it has to come from somewhere else, then seizing the assets of the congregations doesn't serve the Redress scheme at all, it's just a land grab from the religious. Welcome back Henry.
Also any future capital spending on extensions or new roofs etc..paid for by grants from the dept. would accrue to the State, not the Church.
Its an extremely complicated legal situation, and probably the RCC had teams of lawyers to put it into place.The principle is "He who comes into equity must come with clean hands"; coming into equity is not the act of acquiring property, it is the act of seeking an equitable remedy before a court. So long as the Trust has not acted improperly they have clean hands when brought to equity, though arguably the State by changing the law specifically in order to obtain the Trusts assets might well be considered to be coming to equity with unclean hands, intending to profit by it's own wrongdoing.
Its beyond me to get through it, but the Attorney General should be examining the whole situation. I feel that somehow or other, this is the greatest asset laundering operation perpetrated since the foundation of the State. If it is deemed that trust funds or trusts were set up to hide assets from the State which would otherwise have had to be sold to pay compensation for victims of child abuse, then the AG should now decide on the best course of action.
Good point. So CAB is probably not relevant here at all. Hiding the assets is different to stealing the assets.I think you're confusing yourself by thinking in terms of 'seizing'. CAB is empowered to take possession of assets that are derived or suspected to derive from criminal conduct; as proceeds of crime they are not the lawful property of the possessor. It is not empowered to act to collect an actual debt.
I don't know much about a second offer, but I think it would have been accepted if it had been genuine. It may have had strings attached (further indemnities), and the property involved may not have been clearly defined property with good title.Peregrinus wrote: »Under political and public pressure, the religious orders did offer an increase in their payment, to €348.5 million, but two points have to be borne in mind. First, this was a voluntary offer. They were not obliged to make it and, unless it is formalised in a contract and something is given in return (which hasn’t happened) they can’t be compelled to follow through. The State has in fact rejected this offer, and discussions have continued on and off since then about the terms of any second contribution. Secondly, the offer explicitly included €235.5m in property, which now would be worth considerably less than that. (Indeed, the increased offer was only possible partly because the religious orders’ properties had appreciated so much since 2002. Now, of course, they have depreciated again.)
But none of that would raise even a shilling to cover compensation paid to abuse victims, would it? (Unless you are proposing that the state should auction off the patronage ;-)) A change in patronage might be desirable for other reasons, but I think abuse victims could reasonably take the view that the proper response to their plight is not to treat it as an opportunity to advance a campaign to rebalance the patronage distribution of Irish schools.
Also bear in mind that although property values did crash after the original indemnity deal, but before they were handed over, they have been on the rise again over the last couple of years. Those convents and associated schools with extensive grounds, especially around the Dublin suburbs would be highly sought after at the moment. Waiting for property values to rise might explain a lot of the footdragging involving the RCC payments.
The connection between schools and the Redress Board compo is that the State pays for both out of the same kitty.
Again, one for the AG to sort out.Peregrinus wrote: »If they do think that, they are very badly advised. Properties, unlike cash or shares or similar, always retain their identity and can’t be lost by mixing them in pooled accounts like cash can. The owner of Blackacre may own any number of other properties, but Blackacre will always be Blackacre, and will always once have been owned by the Christian Brothers. And if we have grounds for setting aside the transfer of Blackacre made by the Christian Brothers, we don’t lose those grounds merely because the present owner of Blackacre also owns Whiteacre, Blueacre and Greenacre, which he didn’t get from the Brothers.0 -
No. Setting admission policies, etc, is the prerogative of the patron, not of the owner of the land.Even if the RCC won the new patronage, the big difference is that the school property (buildings and lands) would be owned by the State. As such, the Dept of education would be in a position to set down conditions for enrolment and admissions policies etc..
If the political will is there, the State can change the rules so that patrons have less freedom on enrolment policies (and, in particular, the use of religion as an admission criterion is limited or forbidden altogether). But they don’t need to acquire the title to the school buildings to do that.
Legally, it’s not that complicated. The principles of law surrounding fraudulent preference (arranging your affairs to deny your creditors recourse to your assets) are well-established. The difficulty you usually come across in practice is not legal uncertainty but simply a lack of evidence. You may feel that this is the greatest laundering operation etc etc, but your feelings are not evidence. And one of the consequences of living in a democracy characterised by the rule of law is that, in any legal proceedings that it brings the state has the same burden of proof, and onus of proof, that any other party in legal proceedings has.Its an extremely complicated legal situation, and probably the RCC had teams of lawyers to put it into place.
Its beyond me to get through it, but the Attorney General should be examining the whole situation. I feel that somehow or other, this is the greatest asset laundering operation perpetrated since the foundation of the State. If it is deemed that trust funds or trusts were set up to hide assets from the State which would otherwise have had to be sold to pay compensation for victims of child abuse, then the AG should now decide on the best course of action.
Nothing we have seen suggests that the State has evidence of fraudulent preference here. Your feeling don’t seem to be evidence-based at all; it seems more probable that they arise out of wishful thinking – you hope that this situation can be exploited to advance change in the patronage system in Ireland. You’re not suggesting – rightly – that what you want to happen here would be of any benefit at all to the victims of abuse, or would do anything to alleviate the cost of compensating them.
It wasn’t accepted, I suspect, because the State hoped or thought that it could drive a harder bargain. It probably treated the religious orders’ offer as the opening move in negotiations and it’s response was to dismiss the offer and make a counter-suggestion of its own. (This would be fairly typical of how these things usually play out.) But the negotiations were derailed when the property market collapsed.I don't know much about a second offer, but I think it would have been accepted if it had been genuine. It may have had strings attached (further indemnities), and the property involved may not have been clearly defined property with good title.
Yes, on both sides. The State might be in no hurry to conclude an agreement on a further contribution because they calculate that, if property values recover, they’ll be in a better position to press for a bigger contribution out of the religious orders.Also bear in mind that although property values did crash after the original indemnity deal, but before they were handed over, they have been on the rise again over the last couple of years. Those convents and associated schools with extensive grounds, especially around the Dublin suburbs would be highly sought after at the moment. Waiting for property values to rise might explain a lot of the footdragging involving the RCC payments.
But we can’t get away from the fact that, in so far as the properties handed over comprise schools, etc, they really have no monetary value to the state, since they have to continue to be schools, or if sold they have to be replaced by other schools. It would be different if birthrates where declining and school roles were projected to fall; it would then be possible to take over a bunch of schools with the expectation that you could close some of them and turn at least part of the assets transferred into cash. But that’s not the situation we’re in.
If there are still convents and monasteries and seminaries and such with imposing buildings and spacious grounds then, yes, they could be sold to developers for cash if handed over. (And I would point out that none of those have been transferred to educational trusts – they have only received actual working schools.) But I don’t think there are many of those left, and quite possibly none at all in the hands of the 18 religious orders that we are speaking of here. Off-hand, can you think of any?
Which just underlines the point that the only way you can get more money for redress at the expense of the schools is by stopping the funding of the schools. Which the State is not going to do.The connection between schools and the Redress Board compo is that the State pays for both out of the same kitty.
(And which, if it was minded to do, it could do without acquiring the school properties. Couldn’t it?)0 -
In theory, the State could dictate the admissions policies of any publicly funded denominational school. But in practice, and under current equality legislation, they don't interfere with the ethos.Peregrinus wrote: »No. Setting admission policies, etc, is the prerogative of the patron, not of the owner of the land.
If the political will is there, the State can change the rules so that patrons have less freedom on enrolment policies (and, in particular, the use of religion as an admission criterion is limited or forbidden altogether). But they don’t need to acquire the title to the school buildings to do that.
More importantly though, if the ownership of the school was transferred (divested), the state could allocate the school to a completely different patron.
If the denominations were planning on paying with unspecified property + cash, then by waiting for property values to increase they would be paying less cash.Yes, on both sides. The State might be in no hurry to conclude an agreement on a further contribution because they calculate that, if property values recover, they’ll be in a better position to press for a bigger contribution out of the religious orders.
The properties transferred retain their full monetary value, but have a new owner. You might as well say that if one person gives their car to another as payment of a debt, that the car has no monetary value to the new owner because its still a car. Suppose the church decides to close a school and sell the site to a developer, and then spend the money on golden chalices. The state then has to purchase another site and build a new school.But we can’t get away from the fact that, in so far as the properties handed over comprise schools, etc, they really have no monetary value to the state, since they have to continue to be schools, or if sold they have to be replaced by other schools.
Whoever owns the asset chooses what to do with it. The State is obliged to "provide for" enough schools for the whole population. The RCC is not. It makes a huge difference which of them owns the school.
I'm not too well versed on who owns what. Perhaps the huge estates with farmland are all gone, but off-hand there seems to be a fair bit of land around the Goldenbridge area of Inchicore still owned by congregations or their trusts. Google aerial view here shows green areas owned by Oblate fathers and Mercy sisters. These apartments went on sale last year, on what seems to be part of the historical Christian brothers industrial school or mercy nuns site, but there are still various buildings and green areas left around the original site, including a school and a small chapel or church, and a cemetery. You could probably scan the map for green areas around other suburbs and find a lot of them were owned by religious congregations. Old cemeteries have been bulldozed before BTW. Usually some effort is made to relocate any bones dug up.If there are still convents and monasteries and seminaries and such with imposing buildings and spacious grounds then, yes, they could be sold to developers for cash if handed over. (And I would point out that none of those have been transferred to educational trusts – they have only received actual working schools.) But I don’t think there are many of those left, and quite possibly none at all in the hands of the 18 religious orders that we are speaking of here. Off-hand, can you think of any?
The Archbishop was also trying to close this school not far away. Not sure about the current situation with it.0 -
And what about property owned by Google ? Tesco, me, you ,etc?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.0 -
Fred Swanson wrote: »part of the culture of defending child abuse? No thanks!
As has helping the homeless and poor, SVdP? , Gosl, Trocaire, etc0 -
Advertisement
-
-
magicbastarder wrote: »yeah, but parents don't get away with covering it up.
yes they do get away0
Advertisement