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
School patronage
Options
Comments
-
-
expectationlost wrote: »Castlebar Educate Together opens despite objection http://www.mayonews.ie/news/28482-castlebar-educate-together-opens-despite-objection#.V8b5qvmaETM.twitter in a a first-floor office unit
It's only temporary, the pics looked like the place was done really nicely.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Odd. I would read that as 'If a school is actually full, it can refuse a place to someone who applies late'. Since it wasn't only half full; they were accepting half the numbers they had been previously due to only having half the classes, and he was't refused because they said they were full, he was refused because he applied late. Funny how that can be rewritten as elitismA school is "persuaded" to backtrack on its decision to refuse a place to a traveller child. Child and parents not the brightest, and fail to apply to the school on time. But school is only half full, therefore not allowed to refuse the place despite the above. The interesting thing here is that if this RC school had been one of the more desirable ones, and oversubscribed, the initial refusal would have been undisputed and completely unremarkable. So, the more elitist you are, the more you are allowed to discriminate. Its a funny old world.
0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
I really really wish Atheist Ireland would find someone better to write their articles. As soon as I read 'agents of a foreign state' I start to picture a spittle flecked author with dilated pupils typing furiously to get the TRUTH out to the world before the Opus Dei assassins shut down the latest breach in security.
Thank you for your kind words about me later in your post, and I’ll try to respond to your other points later, but I want to clarify here why Atheist Ireland sometimes use the phrase ‘agents of a foreign state’.
The phrase was introduced into the discourse in 2009 by Fintan O’Toole in an opinion piece in the Irish Times, when the Catholic Church was refusing to deal with the Murphy Commission on child abuse on the grounds that it wanted to be regarded not as a church organisation but as a foreign state.
The article was titled: Agents of foreign state should not control our schools.
Fintan was asking, if that is how they themselves decide (when it suits them) to be described, then why do we allow a foreign state to appoint the patrons of our primary schools?
I think it is a reasonable question. The Catholic Church wants to be able to be considered a religion when it suits them, and a foreign State when they are being held accountable for crimes against children. We should be able to hold them accountable for their own self-descriptions.
Here are some extracts from Fintan’s 2009 article:Last week, Minister for Education Batt O’Keeffe told the Dáil that questions like these are of no importance because “the current management of schools is working exceptionally well. The patron is in place in terms of ethos but has nothing to do with the overall management of schools. That is the responsibility of the board of management.”
This is wildly inaccurate, not least because the boards of management are themselves both appointed by and accountable to the local bishop. The handbook given to every school principal on his or her appointment spells this out with admirable clarity: “In appointing the board of management of the school, the bishop delegates to the members certain responsibilities for the Catholic school in the parish. Such delegation carries a duty of accountability by the board of management to the bishop and – where appropriate – to the Department of Education and Science.” (Note that accountability to the State is qualified, that to the bishop is not.)
Batt O’Keeffe misled the Dáil (presumably through sheer ignorance rather than intent) when he claimed that the role of the bishop is confined to the ethos of the school. Again the handbook is unequivocal: “The bishop, as leader of the Catholic community in the diocese and as patron of the school, has ultimate responsibility for the school. The bishop delegates some of his responsibility to the board of management which is accountable to him. There will be contact between the board and the bishop on a number of specified issues – for instance, the appointment of the board, the appointment, suspension or dismissal of teachers, finance, school ethos.”
While the entire board of management is essentially a servant of the bishop, he has very specific powers in relation to its composition and functioning. The board’s chairperson is legally obliged, according to the Education Act (not a medieval statute but passed in 1998), to act on behalf of the bishop: “The chairperson shall be appointed by the patron and his/her authority shall derive from such appointment.”
You can read the article here.
If this doesn't change your perception, then it is Fintan O'Toole who you should picture as a spittle flecked author with dilated pupils typing furiously to get the TRUTH out to the world before the Opus Dei assassins shut down the latest breach in security. 0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
That doesn't really justify Atheist Ireland using it, particularly in the context it was presented, though, does it? Fintan O' Toole didn't offer any substantiation for his allegation about the Vatican, which is more than a little misleading in any case; the Commission approached actual representatives of the Holy See in order to attempt to obtain information about activities of people (who were not in fact agents of that State) in Ireland. It was the Commission who acted outside normal diplomatic bounds in dealing with a foreign State (knowing they were approaching representatives of a State and not the members of the religious organisation they were investigating), yet Fintan O' Toole chose to disparage the Vatican over the Commissions misstep. I don't think repeating that kind of deliberate mischaracterisation does AI any favours, particularly when in the AI article these 'agents' cannot be claimed to be acting on behalf of the Holy See or the Catholic Church; they're simply Irish school teachers.Michael Nugent wrote: »Thank you for your kind words about me later in your post, and I’ll try to respond to your other points later, but I want to clarify here why Atheist Ireland sometimes use the phrase ‘agents of a foreign state’.
The phrase was introduced into the discourse in 2009 by Fintan O’Toole in an opinion piece in the Irish Times, when the Catholic Church was refusing to deal with the Murphy Commission on child abuse on the grounds that it wanted to be regarded not as a church organisation but as a foreign state.
The article was titled: Agents of foreign state should not control our schools.
But they didn't offer the description 'agents of a foreign state' did they? Fintan did, and he should be accountable for that description, as should AI when they use it to describe Irish school teachers. The Commission approached the Papal Nuncio for information; the Papal Nuncio is a diplomatic representative of the Holy See, to whom all the normal protocols of inter State communication apply, which the Commission ignored. Ultimately, the Papal Nuncio is a liaison between the Holy See and both the governing State and the Catholic Church in a particular country and has no responsibility for the running of the Church; that falls to the episcopate, headed by the Primate (in Ireland, Diarmuid Martin at the time). It was clear the diocesan offices of the Archbishop, in the State of Ireland never claimed to be a foreign State (or an agent of one) and the Commission was positioned to investigate it without attempting to back channel another sovereign State.Michael Nugent wrote: »Fintan was asking, if that is how they themselves decide (when it suits them) to be described, then why do we allow a foreign state to appoint the patrons of our primary schools? I think it is a reasonable question. The Catholic Church wants to be able to be considered a religion when it suits them, and a foreign State when they are being held accountable for crimes against children. We should be able to hold them accountable for their own self-descriptions.
No, I'm afraid the Murphy Commissions ineptitude is no justification for AI calling Irish teachers agents of a foreign state, or even the patrons of Irish schools.
You can probably tell it doesn't, and whilst I'm happy to agree that Fintan O'Toole seriously egged his pudding in coming up with his misleading headline, it doesn't excuse AI in taking his ball and running even further into nonsense with it.Michael Nugent wrote: »If this doesn't change your perception, then it is Fintan O'Toole who you should picture as a spittle flecked author with dilated pupils typing furiously to get the TRUTH out to the world before the Opus Dei assassins shut down the latest breach in security.
To be fair, that's why I responded to the post, and why I responded in the way I did (as Mikhail says, hyperbolically) to the post, because that is how the article comes across. There are valid points to be made about religious education in Irish schools, and the article by virtue of its tone and hyperbole did nothing to promote any of them.Michael Nugent wrote: »It's not remotely stupid, raving or fanatical.
See, that's unfair. It was Fintan O'Tooles description, and even that was unfair; it's silly to expect the representative of a State not to act like one (whether or not you think the State should exist). Had the Commission approached the British Ambassador in a similar fashion they likely would have had a similar response.Michael Nugent wrote: »And it is not based on our views of the Catholic Church (I don't agree that it should be treated as a State) but on its own stated self-description, and the fact that the Irish State and the international community tends to go along with that conceit.
That seems rather unfair as well; the Vatican State is a territory, the Holy See is the Sovereign State of that territory. Just as the 26 counties of Ireland are a territory, and the Republic of Ireland is the Sovereign State of that territory. There are specific distinctions between Vatican City, the Holy See, and the Catholic Church, which mean the Catholic Church isn't treated as a State whilst the Holy See is, and if someone like Fintan O'Toole or AI is going to make allegations (or headlines) about people acting as agents of them, they should give some consideration to those distinctions.Michael Nugent wrote: »Atheist Ireland spent last week at the United Nations and the OSCE, both of whom treat the Holy See as at least a quasi-State. Not the Vatican, mind you, which is the city-State upon which the claim was founded, but the Holy See, which is the governing body of the Catholic church worldwide.
Though it didn't. The Papal Nuncio, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Holy See, all these aspects of that foreign State were never potentially subject to criminal charges, were they? And in response to the Commissions cack handed attempts to obtain that States assistance in it's investigation, it responded just as a State should; they said requests related to the investigation should come through normal diplomatic channels.Michael Nugent wrote: »It is perfectly reasonable to hold it accountable for the consequences of its own self-description, particularly when it uses that self-description to avoid addressing criminal charges related to the abuse of children.0 -
Absolam, I don’t see those distinctions the same way as you do.
In theory, the Holy See is the religious entity, and the Vatican City State is the (supposed) sovereign political entity. The Pope is in charge of both entities, but with different bodies under him for each: the Curia for the religious Holy See and the Pontifical Commission for the Vatican City State.
The Vatican City State website says of this distinction that:Vatican City State was founded following the signing of the Lateran Pacts between the Holy See and Italy on February 11th 1929. These were ratified on June 7th 1929. Its nature as a sovereign State distinct from the Holy See is universally recognised under international law.
However, in practice the Catholic Church blurs this distinction (between the Holy See and the Vatican City State) to suit the occasion.
It is the Holy See that participates in international bodies such as the United Nations. It originally got involved as the Vatican City State then, without any vote, got the UN to change the name of the designated body to the Holy See, which is the name of the religious body, not of the City State.
The Irish Bishops are appointed by the Holy See, which is the religious body, which also claims at the United Nations etc to be State. The Bishops are therefore, by the Holy See’s self-description, agents of a foreign State, and they run 90% of this State’s primary schools.
It is at best confusing and at worst misleading. Of course they might be able to justify this blurring of distinctions with reference to mental reservation. 0 -
-
Not really though; the Holy See is both a religious entity and a sovereign political entity, isn't it? The Lateran Treaty specifically states "the sovereignty of the Holy See in the international domain as an attribute inherent in its nature, in accordance with its tradition and with the requirements of its mission in the world.", and that sovereignty is well recognised by more than a few States.Michael Nugent wrote: »Absolam, I don’t see those distinctions the same way as you do.
In theory, the Holy See is the religious entity, and the Vatican City State is the (supposed) sovereign political entity. The Pope is in charge of both entities, but with different bodies under him for each: the Curia for the religious Holy See and the Pontifical Commission for the Vatican City State.
The Vatican City State website says of this distinction that:Vatican City State was founded following the signing of the Lateran Pacts between the Holy See and Italy on February 11th 1929. These were ratified on June 7th 1929. Its nature as a sovereign State distinct from the Holy See is universally recognised under international law.However, in practice the Catholic Church blurs this distinction (between the Holy See and the Vatican City State) to suit the occasion.
. But the name of the sovereign political entity all the same. That the UN didn't initially distinguish between the two I don't think indicates any chicanery on the part of the Church, do you? It's not like it would make any difference to their participation.Michael Nugent wrote: »It is the Holy See that participates in international bodies such as the United Nations. It originally got involved as the Vatican City State then, without any vote, got the UN to change the name of the designated body to the Holy See, which is the name of the religious body, not of the City State.
Except the appointment of Irish Bishops is the responsibility of the Congregation for Bishops, a part of the Roman Curia who are administrators of the Catholic Church, not the political entity the Holy See represented by the Secretariat of State, or the Vatican City State which is administered by the Unicameral Pontifical Commission. You yourself have pointed out that the Holy See is a religious entity, so not just a political entity, so the Holy See is perfectly capable of making appointments as a religious rather than political entity. Even if the Curia did act on behalf of the political entity in this area, being appointed by it doesn't make someone it's agent, does it? To be an agent of the Holy See as a sovereign entity they would be required to act on its behalf in that capacity, and no one has even attempted to show they are; the Nuncio, sure, the Bishops, I don't think so. It's in fact what you're accusing the Church of; confusing and misleading to justify your mischaracterisation.Michael Nugent wrote: »The Irish Bishops are appointed by the Holy See, which is the religious body, which also claims at the United Nations etc to be State. The Bishops are therefore, by the Holy See’s self-description, agents of a foreign State, and they run 90% of this State’s primary schools.
I don't think the Church needs to; the information is there that delineates the entities and functions involved. Yes they're obviously very closely intertwined, and the Church obviously has no need other than the purely functional to separate Church and State in many regards, but I don't think they're the ones trying to confuse or mislead in this.Michael Nugent wrote: »It is at best confusing and at worst misleading. Of course they might be able to justify this blurring of distinctions with reference to mental reservation.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement