Pete Tong wrote: » They don't want their kids to miss out on the party. They also don't want their kids to stand out or be different. (what VinLieger above said) For them, it's just a party with a boring Church bit at the beginning. May I ask you for your personal opinion BellaBella - would you have a problem with religion being removed from schools? - you could still do this stuff in your own time.
Trey Quick Flame wrote: » I was actually querying the posters who implied that children 'lose out' when it comes to school places going forward. I was wondering if that actually happens, and do secondary schools discriminate against kids who haven't received their First Communion or Confirmation.
eviltwin wrote: » Do they though? I've known loads of kids in Catholic schools who didn't do them and no one cared or teased them.
Kace Prehistoric Raceway wrote: » A further twist is that Canon Law states that, for a Catholic Church wedding you need to make you confirmation first.
Trey Quick Flame wrote: » As I've said, I think Sunday Schools probably make more sense nowadays.
seamus wrote: » I don't understand why the priest wants to see the parents at Mass. They're not the ones making their confirmation.
Pete Tong wrote: » Trey Quick Flame wrote: » As I've said, I think Sunday Schools probably make more sense nowadays. Thanks. In my opinion, that is the answer. With a Sunday School system and no religion in schools you'd see a sudden drop in bouncy castle Catholics.
Odhinn wrote: » What if you can't fit into the suit anymore?
Trey Quick Flame wrote: » Genuine question, not being sarcastic, but do you actually know of any child who's been penalised for not making their Communion or Confirmation?
Trey Quick Flame wrote: » Most practising Catholics I know really dislike the way sacraments have become so meaningless and would prefer that only genuine Catholics took part in them. I think the Church is in a difficult position. If they put their foot down and refused to baptise, Confirm or allow making of Holy Communion for children from non practising families they would be attacked. If they allow it they're accused of hypocrisy.
wnolan1992 wrote: » Sorry, going to reply to three vastly different points at once here: A fair question, don't know why people were jumping down your throat a bit about it. No, I know of no such situation, nor do I think it's a widespread thing. My original post (which was what was originally replied to for those who don't want to read back) was mostly just me kidding around about parents who aren't believers putting their kids in religious education even though they have no faith themselves. However, I do subscribe to the idea that kids who don't partake in Communion and Confirmation prep in schools miss out, and I'll go into that more below. There's a very, very simple solution to keep everyone happy. Remove religious education (with a specific ethos, not actual education about religions) from schools. Parents can then opt IN to extra religious classes (say after school hours have finished or in a Sunday School type scenario where while the parents are at Mass, the kids are in the local community centre doing Communion and Confirmation prep). I genuinely believe people who so ardently oppose removing religious doctrines from schools only do so because they are too lazy to go to the effort themselves. They want their kid to be Catholic, but don't actually want to go to any effort in making that happen, they just want the school to do it. OK, I'll be drawing on my own experiences here, so bear in mind that these are anecdotal and may not be representative of wider trends. So, I'm visually impaired. Legally blind. When I received special resource hours during the week. Basically, at certain times I'd just head off to a separate room with a teacher to get one-on-one tuition. Similarly, in my secondary school, first years do every subject. Because of my limited vision, it was decided that I couldn't do subjects like Metalwork or Woodwork. I would break off from my class at these times to go with a resource teacher. And during my 5 years in secondary education, I spent the majority of my PE classes alone in the back room of the gym where there were some machines (rowing machine, treadmill, bike, elliptical, weights, etc). All of that is to say, I know what I'm talking about when it comes to being separated out from the main class. And it, f*cking, sucks. Do not misunderstand me. I am incredibly grateful I got those hours. I am. But it f*cking sucks to be the only one doing something in an environment where basically everything revolves around everyone doing everything at the same time. You come back to your class an hour later, and something has happened that they're all laughing at and you have to hear about second hand. They've all had a collective experience which you couldn't share in. So yeah, I was never teased because, luckily, pretty much everyone in both my primary school and secondary school classes were decent human beings, and I don't think the argument here should be that kids who opt out of religious education would be teased. The argument here is that they are being singled out and separated. Make it an extra curricular activity, done outside of school. Then it's no different to kids who play GAA or learn music outside of school.
wnolan1992 wrote: » ................ I genuinely believe people who so ardently oppose removing religious doctrines from schools only do so because they are too lazy to go to the effort themselves. They want their kid to be Catholic, but don't actually want to go to any effort in making that happen, they just want the school to do it. l.
piplip87 wrote: » Yes but how many if the Children are only Catholic because of the schools admission policy ?
Trey Quick Flame wrote: » I can see why that was difficult for you. I suppose the difference with a religious scenario is that an awful lot of the children don't come from families who practise their Catholicism so if those parents stopped opting in to ceremonies that they don't believe in, there would be at least a 50:50 split between those being prepared for Confirmation and those doing something else during that time.
wnolan1992 wrote: » TBH, I think your wife is right, as sad and all as that is. Just be sure to constantly tell him it's all bollox and you're literally just ticking a box so he can claim to be Catholic if his school requires it, and he should be grand.
wnolan1992 wrote: » So then you either have the 50% of the class that has opted out of religious education getting a superior education to their classmates by spending that prep time actually learning something, or you the 50% of the class that has opted out of religious education doing pointless busy work during that time effectively wasting their school hours. Neither of those are particularly palatable options.
wnolan1992 wrote: » . I genuinely believe people who so ardently oppose removing religious doctrines from schools only do so because they are too lazy to go to the effort themselves. They want their kid to be Catholic, but don't actually want to go to any effort in making that happen, they just want the school to do it.
Trey Quick Flame wrote: » Not really. They could work on group projects and present them to the other half of the class on a specified day; so they learn something and then pass what they've learnt on to the rest of the class. So maybe one teacher of that particular year could do the Communion or Confirmation preparation and the other(s) could work with the rest of the group. I'm sure there's lots of other options as well. But as I've already said, Sunday School is becoming a strong likelihood.
Guy:Incognito wrote: » What makes you believe they want their kids to be Catholic? If there was no downside, with schools etc, to not being Catholic, why do you reckon people who don't bother their holes to engage in Catholicism would want their kids to?
wnolan1992 wrote: » That would literally be my definition of "superior education" though. One group is researching a topic, preparing a presentation and presenting in front of a group. Sunday Schools are the best option, but a middle ground would be to just hold religion classes directly after school ends. Final bell rings, kids who want to prepare for Communion stay back, kids who don't either go home or go to after-school study. Parents fund the cost of the teacher for that extra hour. Win-win really. Kids in general get a better education because you're not spending limited school time on religious pursuits. Teachers no longer need to be educated for religious teaching at third level, allowing them to be trained to a higher standard in relevant real world subjects. Parents who want their kids educated about their faith still can. Those that don't don't need to make a choice between having their kid singled out or having them educated in a religion they don't believe in. Literally no downsides. Unless they're afraid if it literally isn't forced on people that people will suddenly realise they don't need religion as much as they'd like people to believe they do.
Trey Quick Flame wrote: » I don't think it's going to give primary school kids a massive edge over their classmates, to be honest. If they were in an exam year and getting extra study time or something then I'd agree. However, Sunday School or after school religion classes are starting to look like the more pragmatic option. Personally I think Sunday School before or after Mass would make more sense than keeping kids back after school which could be messy vis a vis being collected by childminders, getting to other after school activities and so on.
Dozyart wrote: » Had to get my kids baptised etc to get into local schools,but the oldest is up for confirmation this year and we have left it up to her now,she doesnt believe in god and we said we would respect whatever decision she makes.....so.....she made a business decision to do it for the money and never go back near a church were possible,pretty much what everyone does anyway
Trey Quick Flame wrote: » A priest in Enniscorthy has said that parents who want their children to make their Confirmation must attend Mass.
Dozyart wrote: » so.....she made a business decision to do it for the money and never go back near a church were possible,pretty much what everyone does anyway
hurler32 wrote: » It's coming to the stage in rural Ireland there won't be enough priests to deal with confirmations baptisms in every parish anyways so it makes sense for those who aren't interested forget about it and not be taking up time or space if they hate the church so much ... same for weddings ... take over a church and expect an already under pressure priest to do the service ...
VinLieger wrote: » We have been told by every school near us as they are all catholic that if our child is not baptised they will be at the bottom of any admissions list and not guaranteed a place.
