nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

help for parents/child starting in Catholic school

Gatica

for a number of reasons we are sending our child to a Catholic ethos school. We do not hold those religious convictions ourselves as parents, and this being our first experience of this, would love any tips from other parents who may have gone through this before.

We have already got a school book list, which includes a RE book with Jesus on the cover. I really don't wanna waste money on this, or fund religion in this way.

While we don't want to isolate our child from their class, we don't want that to be taught as fact to them, nor to be made to pray or take part in other religious activities. Has RE changed much in the last 20 years? should we just flat out take our child out of the RE class? I've no objection to them knowing about religion or that people believe different things, different gods, god or no god at all. However, I have this unease about the fact that it will be an immersive indoctrination about god, "sinful" humanity and other such things. Can this be done in a sensitive way without stigmatising the child for being "different"?

Would love to hear other's experiences and any suggestions and tips.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

looksee

I think that religion is something for home and families, not schools. It should not be taught in school and certainly not as part of the national curriculum.

However at the moment we are still stuck with the situation where religion - specifically Catholicism - pervades all aspects of the school day and while it is entirely appropriate for parents to make it known to schools that they do not want this for their children, pragmatically they have to put up with much of it.

However what you do at home, in the end, has considerable effect on children, and parents still have the last word.

My three children (now aged 50 to 34) attended Catholic schools throughout, they did all the Communions and Confirmations, 'alter boy' and other stuff. Their father was very much a practising Catholic and took them to mass every Sunday without fail until they were in their mid teens. I had undertaken to go along with this and did so, though occasionally I might have to go and sort out a nun telling a 6 year old about 'devils under the ground' and another teacher who told them that mixed religion marriages would not last and the non-Catholic would leave the family. Mostly though I listened to Catechisms and prepared them for whatever was happening. As they got older I was willing to discuss alternative ideas to religion but I never denigrated it.

At some stage in their teens all of them chose to move away from the church and religion. They did it quietly not to upset their father, but by adulthood non of them had any interest in or interaction with the church at all.

My son's children did their first communion, just to be part of the class, (I was not enthusiastic about this, but it was not my business). Now the eldest is Confirmation age she has entirely of her own volition chosen not to be confirmed. She will go to the church with her class because she wants to be with her friends, but she will not take part.

So while I agree that protesting religious instruction is understandable if you do not believe, and desirable from a point of view of making your opinions known, your own, even unspoken, opinions and ideas will have more influence than you might expect. I have come to the opinion that using a child as a kind of religion football is not the way to deal with the issue of religion in schools, if they have to go to a religious school go with the flow to some extent rather than making an exception of them. Don't panic about it, and do what is best for your child. But make your feelings known to school and government and anyone who wants to listen.

robindch

Mod:

_Brian wrote: »

I’m so glad your pedestal allows you to look down and pass judgment [...]

_Brian, please have a quick read of the charter, paying special attention to rule (1) "Attack the post not the poster."

Hotblack Desiato

tjc28 wrote: »

My impression is yes the schools are Catholic but it's not like it was in years ago. The religion aspect is in someways just background. Box ticking if you like.

Some schools are as you describe but some are the other extreme. It all depends on the principal, really.

lazygal

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Some schools are as you describe but some are the other extreme. It all depends on the principal, really.

Feedback from parents I know lead me to conclude catholic schools are doubling down on indoctrination in many cases. We had a fairly low key catholic programme in my old school when I was a kid but there are now more regular mass visits, sacred spaces, saints days marked and the use of the Grow In Love programme which is way more full on than the books we used.

Hotblack Desiato

lazygal wrote: »

Feedback from parents I know lead me to conclude catholic schools are doubling down on indoctrination in many cases.

I can see this alienating kids and parents a lot more and leading to big increases in opting out.

lazygal

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I can see this alienating kids and parents a lot more and leading to big increases in opting out.

Parents may opt out but the integrated curriculum (religious themes for art and music, religious references for spellings and in maths, history and geography and so on) is designed to make it impossible to opt out.
There's also the issue that textbooks all seem to assume a religious slant to all schools. My children are in an ET school, yet references to saints are in the 'history' section of their textbooks. As my daughter told her teacher, learning about a saint who may or may not have existed is not history, it is mythology.

The J Stands for Jay

lazygal wrote: »

We're looking at secondary schools and the so called community school has a religious symbol on the mandatory uniform and has RE as a compulsory subject. We'll probably end up choosing fee paying school without any religous ****e.

That would describe the secondary school o went to, but it wasn't too bad. Religion only got something like 2 periods a week, and no religion outside of that.

Hotblack Desiato

It's much more compartmentalised in secondary, which makes it easier to opt out of, but even ETB schools still don't offer an alternative subject to religion, and they're fully state owned! :rolleyes:

lazygal

Those schools make RE compulsory because religion teachers complained about losing hours of teaching if the subject was optional.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/tui-to-shun-religious-education-opt-out-1.3450404%3Fmode%3Damp&ved=2ahUKEwjkho3I0q7xAhVKTsAKHb9vCcUQFjAAegQIBhAC&usg=AOvVaw30HWcvZ7VR5m6Q6FV5w20k&ampcf=1

Peregrinus

lazygal wrote: »

Those schools make RE compulsory because religion teachers complained about losing hours of teaching if the subject was optional.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/tui-to-shun-religious-education-opt-out-1.3450404%3Fmode%3Damp&ved=2ahUKEwjkho3I0q7xAhVKTsAKHb9vCcUQFjAAegQIBhAC&usg=AOvVaw30HWcvZ7VR5m6Q6FV5w20k&ampcf=1

Other way around, as I read it - the union is concerned that they will be given extra teaching duties, with no additional compensation, if alternatives are to be offered to students who opt out of religion.

It's not the teachers of religion that would be affected here since, unless everyone opted out of religion the religion class would still be provided. It's the teachers of other subjects who fear that they would be required to teach the alternatives-to-religion classes, or that the resources provided to their courses would be depleted by the need to resource the alternative-to-religion classes.

_Brian

I was at my kids graduation from NS yesterday and this thread popped into my head.

Graduation was in the chapel, the whole sentiment was religious in nature with plenty of prayer. Each child had a part to play, bringing up offerings or reading.

Where would OP’s kid fit into this ??

My thinking is still if you send your kid to a Catholic school then there is no way to avoid the trappings that go along with that, or your kid will be terribly set apart from the other kids, it might ease things if there were a number of kids in the same boat, but that may not be the case and they may be the only one on the class.

Bannasidhe

_Brian wrote: »

I was at my kids graduation from NS yesterday and this thread popped into my head.

Graduation was in the chapel, the whole sentiment was religious in nature with plenty of prayer. Each child had a part to play, bringing up offerings or reading.

Where would OP’s kid fit into this ??

My thinking is still if you send your kid to a Catholic school then there is no way to avoid the trappings that go along with that, or your kid will be terribly set apart from the other kids, it might ease things if there were a number of kids in the same boat, but that may not be the case and they may be the only one on the class.

And what should the OP, and those like them do, in face of the fact that over 90% of State funded National Schools are "Catholic"*?

Where do you suggest all the not-Catholic children go when the only option is Catholic controlled?

*inverted commas as the RRC do not fund the majority of them in any way, shape, or form. They are "Catholic" in terms of the RCC being the patrons and therefore a great deal of power over what is taught.

eviltwin

_Brian wrote: »

I was at my kids graduation from NS yesterday and this thread popped into my head.

Graduation was in the chapel, the whole sentiment was religious in nature with plenty of prayer. Each child had a part to play, bringing up offerings or reading.

Where would OP’s kid fit into this ??.

If a child does their 6 years in NS then they fit in as a valued member of the school community. It’s up to the school to make an effort to have a fully inclusive ceremony that celebrates everyone. What would be the alternative? The child is excluded for being the wrong faith?

smacl

_Brian wrote: »

I was at my kids graduation from NS yesterday and this thread popped into my head.

Graduation was in the chapel, the whole sentiment was religious in nature with plenty of prayer. Each child had a part to play, bringing up offerings or reading.

Where would OP’s kid fit into this ??

My thinking is still if you send your kid to a Catholic school then there is no way to avoid the trappings that go along with that, or your kid will be terribly set apart from the other kids, it might ease things if there were a number of kids in the same boat, but that may not be the case and they may be the only one on the class.

Given the rapid decline in religious observance, and lack of multi-denominational alternatives for most parents, I'd imagine being the only non-religious child in a class of ~30 for a child just starting school at this point in time would be unlikely. Could well be the case in rural areas where class numbers are smaller and religiosity greater but not in Dublin. About 10% of the population are 'convinced atheists' according to Wikipedia

According to a 2012 WIN-Gallup International poll, Ireland had the 2nd highest decline in religiosity from 69% in 2005 to 47% in 2012, while those who considered themselves not a religious person increased from 25% in 2005 to 44% in 2012. The poll also showed that 10% of Ireland now consider themselves convinced atheists, which is a vast increase from 2005. This number is thought to be higher due to citizens describing themselves as "cultural Catholics".

According to the 2016 Irish Census, approximately 9.5% of Irish citizens are irreligious.

Given the steep rate of decline, I'd guess that percentage is significantly higher today five years later. I don't think families rejecting a religious doctrine for their children in Catholic schools can be considered an isolated minority at this stage, though it does seem to be used as a tactic by those struggling to maintain a collapsing and obsolete status quo.

Hoboo

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Where do you suggest all the not-Catholic children go when the only option is Catholic controlled?

.

Travel to the nearest non Catholic school? Live closer to a non Catholic school? Start a new school?.

What's your suggestion?

lazygal

Hoboo wrote: »

Travel to the nearest non Catholic school? Live closer to a non Catholic school? Start a new school?.

What's your suggestion?

Or we could have a school everyone can go to? Without duplication of resources because of historical and State reasons?

eviltwin

Hoboo wrote: »

Travel to the nearest non Catholic school? Live closer to a non Catholic school? Start a new school?.

What's your suggestion?

Why don’t we leave schools for education and anyone wanting to raise their kids Catholic teach them through mass. Use that extra school time to teach them something of value that will benefit them.

Hoboo

Who owns the Catholic schools?

smacl

Hoboo wrote: »

Who owns the Catholic schools?

Who pays for them? Who pays for all of our children's education?

Bannasidhe

Hoboo wrote: »

Travel to the nearest non Catholic school? Live closer to a non Catholic school? Start a new school?.

What's your suggestion?

Why should people have to move?
Why should people have to jump through hoops to get their child an education?
Why should people have to increase their daily commute?

What fecking non-Catholic schools?

Theses so called "Catholic" schools are actually the State funded National Schools - a system inherited from the Victorians - that were handed over by the Irish Free State to the RCC.
They are fully funded out of tax - taxes also paid by non-Catholics.
Why should non-Catholics subsidise Catholics?
Can't Catholics fund their own Catholics only schools?

[Deleted User]

Are all these children going to Catholic schools baptised?

robindch

Hoboo wrote: »

Who owns the Catholic schools?

I believe the majority are owned by trusts set up by the RCC on foot of bequests from wealthy individuals or local collections organized or supervised by the RCC.

I'm not aware of any schools in Ireland which the RCC paid for from its own central funds, though I'm sure there must be a few.

Peregrinus

robindch wrote: »

I believe the majority are owned by trusts set up by the RCC on foot of bequests from wealthy individuals or local collections organized or supervised by the RCC.

I'm not aware of any schools in Ireland which the RCC paid for from its own central funds, though I'm sure there must be a few.

The RCC in Ireland doesn't have much in the way of central funds. In many ways it's quite a decentralised organisation; most of the funds and most of the properties are held either by individual dioceses or by individual religious orders, or by trusts set up by a diocese or religious order.

As regards national schools, ownership of the land and buildings is usually separate from control of the operation of the school. And, so long as the school is in operation, ownership of the land and buildings is not an especially valuable right. The owner is under a legal obligation to make the land and buildings available for the operation of the school, and doesn't receive any rent or other income. Ownership really only becomes significant if the school is closed and the Dept of Education no longer requires the premises.

lazygal

bubblypop wrote: »

Are all these children going to Catholic schools baptised?

No.

robindch

Peregrinus wrote: »

The RCC in Ireland doesn't have much in the way of central funds. In many ways it's quite a decentralised organisation; most of the funds and most of the properties are held either by individual dioceses or by individual religious orders, or by trusts set up by a diocese or religious order.

Yes, indeed - one could be mistaken for thinking that it was set up specifically to avoid central responsibility - despite what appears to be a general belief amongst believers that the organization is highly centralized.

Peregrinus

robindch wrote: »

Yes, indeed - one could be mistaken for thinking that it was set up specifically to avoid central responsibility - despite what appears to be a general belief amongst believers that the organization is highly centralized.

It's a belief that seems to be just as general among critics of the church. We see regular suggestions on this board that contributions to the redress scheme unpaid by religious orders should be recovered by taking schools from dioceses or other properties from different religious orders. And it used to be common enough here to refer to the church as "CCL" ("Catholic Church Limited") to emphasis how very like a limited company the Catholic Church was supposed to be.

_Brian

Hoboo wrote: »

Who owns the Catholic schools?

It’s a mishmash.
The site is owned by the Catholic Church as we’re the original schools, modernisation has been done by state funding.

Truthfully as with the current hospital debacle I’d support a CPO program to 100% bring these into state ownership. Let religious teaching be a matter for church and home.

smacl

_Brian wrote: »

Truthfully as with the current hospital debacle I’d support a CPO program to 100% bring these into state ownership. Let religious teaching be a matter for church and home.

Problem there is with cultural Catholicism. Many people identify as Catholic and want the whole Christening/Confirmation/Church wedding/Church funeral thing but really could not be actually arsed with going next, nigh or near to a church beyond that. Better things to be doing with a Sunday morning than listening to some aged priest in a draughty church wittering on for hours on end. Taking religion out of schools would mean the parents would have to waste their precious free time taking the young 'uns to a church themselves. A church for God's sake! As if. I mean seriously, no one needs that nonsense. Hence no divesting the schools and stuff the atheists, Muslims and various other weirdos and hippies looking to upset the apple cart. Not going to happen. Apols, but no.

In truth, majority Catholicism in this country is horse on its last legs, flogged so hard it is not even fit for the salami factory at this point. I do believe there is an honest cohort of faithful practising Catholics out there and will be for generations to come, but reckon they're very much in the minority (20%-30% max, pure guess). My feeling is that religion classes should be moved to the end of the school day so as not to discombobulate the actual and cultural Catholics and let the rest of the kids just go home. Of course the church will fight it tooth and nail, but they depend on followers that don't actually follow to prop up their faltering power base.

lazygal

There are some catholic families in our ET school who chose not to send their children to the local catholic school because they don't feel they would get appropriate catholic doctrine taught. So they instead send their children to catholic doctrine classes once a week and go to mass every single week. I have gotten to know some of them and they would rather the whole system be secular and then they would not have to make these sorts of decisions and be lumped in with the bouncy castle Catholics. I can see their point TBH. There are also children of minority faiths who do their faith formation after school and again would prefer a secular system than having to work out just how 'catholic' a school is before they chance sending their kids there.

robindch

Peregrinus wrote: »

We see regular suggestions on this board that contributions to the redress scheme unpaid by religious orders should be recovered by taking schools from dioceses or other properties from different religious orders.

I'm sure one or two posters might have made that claim, but I don't recall it being one of the "regular suggestions".

Most, and quite possibly, all of the religious orders which are party to the redress scheme had more than enough assets to pay their fair share of the compensation bill - up until they settled their assets into various trusts anyway - and likely wouldn't have needed to put the squeeze onto their more law-abiding, or perhaps unrumbled, co-religionists elsewhere.