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

Labour wants to nationalise Catholic Schools

CDfm

"Render unto Caesar" is attributed to Jesus in Matthew.

http://www.labour.ie/press/listing/123566087650454.html

Part of Labours Election Manifesto is to Nationalise Catholic Primary Schools and effectively take them into Government Control -effectively the biggest land grab from the Catholic Church in Ireland since the reformation and Henry VIII.

So my question is should Catholics support Labour? My own view is we shouldn't and we should be more vocal about our rejection.

It appears to me that the Church stepped in where the state did not have the resourses to provide its Constitutional Guarantee of free primary school education enshrined in the Irish Constitution.

My other issue is that this "settlement" meant the state escaped admitting any liability by its own officials in its failure to regulate institutions to which it handed over children in its care. You can delegate authority but not responsibility and the state hasn't admitted any and those civil and public servants are now retired dying our dead. ( I have a vested interest as a friend was abused and commited suicide and I feel state officials are to blame and should be named and shamed).

Why should our communities co-operate with Labour in this headline grabbing policy -isn't it time for straight talking. Why should we trust central government regulation when they did such an appaling job before.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Tim Robbins

CDfm wrote: »

It appears to me that the Church stepped in where the state did not have the resourses to provide its Constitutional Guarantee of free primary school education enshrined in the Irish Constitution.

The state also stepped in and bailed the Church out in paying the victims of child abuse etc.

Why should our communities co-operate with Labour in this headline grabbing policy -isn't it time for straight talking. Why should we trust central government regulation when they did such an appaling job before.

Government is useless at pretty much everything. If it was good at running schools this wouldn't even be an issue. Dito secularists.

They'll moan and groan about having to get their kids baptized so they can get into the local school. But it will never occur to them they could have got up off their fat asses and helped the educate together network.

We live in a democracy. If the Catholics are good at organising and running schools so be it. If the secy's can't do any better I don't expect to see many secy schools.

Rev Hellfire

I'd imagine it's a lot easier to say we'll nationalise the schools than the legal reality of doing so.

Nodin

CDfm wrote: »

"Render (........).

Thats rather a distortion of what the man is saying. It's not simply a "land grab"

Ruairi Quinn TD, Labour Party Education Spokesperson, has called for the state to be given ownership of all 3,200 primary schools in the state, as the Church has only paid €128 million towards the €1.1 billion cost of compensating sex abuse victims.

"The deal between the Church and State to cover the cost of sexual abuse claims was always meant to be a 50:50 split. In reality, the Church has only paid 11% of the huge costs because the number of claims has jumped dramatically.
"This year, the state's budget for these claims will be €160 million. That money could have been better spent on hiring an extra 2,667 teachers, so it's important that we get a return for taxpayers money."
"I think it is fair that the state takes the title deeds to all schools in the state in return for covering the Church's liabilities in these abuse claims. The Church can continue to act as patron in these schools on a day to day basis. I have no objection to that".

(my bold and underline)

Its bad enough that the state is now stuck paying 50% of the bill, without the Church defaulting on its share.

CDfm wrote: »

"
Part of Labours Election Manifesto is to Nationalise Catholic Primary Schools and effectively take them into Government Control

Could we have a link to this please?

studiorat

Let's not forget it was the Irish Taxpayer who funded these Catholic Schools over the generations in the first place. Strictly speaking they should be state owned anyway.

This comes after Labour and Fine Gael already discussing the issue of children receiving emergency schooling in Dublin back in September, due to no places being available for non-Catholic children, where Catholic Primary schools had given preference to Catholic Children. The Catholic Bishops in-charge of education met with the Governmant and Opposition parties in September to discuss this.

Not only is the Taxpayer faced with footing the bill for the bulk of the settlements for the abuse cases, the church has only coughed up 11% of what was meant to have been a 50/50 deal. The Catholic Church's liability was capped at €128m, consisting of €66m worth of property to be handed over to the State, plus cash and services. Plenty of other aid organizations have had serious loss of funding on the back of this.

John Carr the head of INTO last year accused the church of "having it's cake and eating it", however it appears at this stage that the church have agreed themselves.

Mickeroo

Seems like a good idea to me, keep religion in the church and education in the schools, and if those figures of the state bailing out the churches like that are true, well frankly i'm disgusted so much tax payer's money was wasted.

Zamboni

They get my next vote.

dvpower

At last. The bones of a good idea from Labour.

Proper separation of Church and State is long overdue in Ireland. The state has the primary responsibility for education in this country so having the majority of the schools in the state owned and controlled by the church is now archaic.

philologos

I'd argue as a non-Catholic that there should be a significant proportion of Catholic schools left remaining if such an act was to take place. Parents who wish to bring their children to a school with a religious ethos should have a choice.

Mickeroo

Jakkass wrote: »

I'd argue as a non-Catholic that there should be a significant proportion of Catholic schools left remaining if such an act was to take place. Parents who wish to bring their children to a school with a religious ethos should have a choice.

I'm sure there would sill be some catholic schools, that wouldn't be a problem. It's just that at the moment the majority are catholic schools, which jus isn't right especially considering how much more multi-cultural ireland has gotten in the last 10 years. It's not just an issue for atheists but people of all religions/culures.

thebigcheese22

Jakkass wrote: »

Parents who wish to bring their children to a school with a religious ethos should have a choice.

Yes but parents who want to bring their children to a school without a religious ethos should also have a choice.

This move is long overdue and IMO shows the vision of Labour to take a break from the past. If our State had leaders 50 years ago that weren't in the Church's pocket they would have bought all of the schools off the Church and separate Church and State, like the French government did. Instead they did nothing and we have the awful situation today where the Catholic Church has a monopoly on education and it is truly sickening. Us, the taxpayers, paid a billion for the paedophilia and child abuse perpetrated by this evil Church and I don't see why people would have a problem with taking our education sector back as a payment for it.

Spacedog

What does God need land and money for anyway?

I would think the Catholic Church would be happy to keep a safe distence from themselves and school kids these days. Even Jacko sold off neverland ranch.

I'm sorry to bring up facts and reality and stuff, i know the supersticious like to call that persecution, But catholic priests are real quiet on the abuse issue, the fact is that there's a good chance that Fr. McGuinty didn't abuse any kids, but when it comes to the tax payer paying compensation to victims of clerical child abuse, he's cool with it. when it comes to non-disclosure of known sex offenders within the church, he's cool with it.

PDN

Jakkass wrote: »

I'd argue as a non-Catholic that there should be a significant proportion of Catholic schools left remaining if such an act was to take place. Parents who wish to bring their children to a school with a religious ethos should have a choice.

I agree, provided the parents are prepared to pay for it.

Tim Robbins

Jakkass wrote: »

I'd argue as a non-Catholic that there should be a significant proportion of Catholic schools left remaining if such an act was to take place. Parents who wish to bring their children to a school with a religious ethos should have a choice.

What about parents with other ideological views or belief systems? Should their marxists schools, vegitarians schools just so parents get their choice?

CDfm

PDN wrote: »

I agree, provided the parents are prepared to pay for it.

My objection to the settlement has always been that the state regulators have never been tackled.

I think the individuals that acted in this capacity as Civil Servants should be named and shamed.

thebigcheese22

Spacedog wrote: »

I would think the Catholic Church would be happy to keep a safe distence from themselves and school kids these days. Even Jacko sold off neverland ranch.

Haha brilliant!!! :pac:

CDfm

Nodin wrote: »

Thats rather a distortion of what the man is saying. It's not simply a "land grab"

Its bad enough that the state is now stuck paying 50% of the bill, without the Church defaulting on its share.

Could we have a link to this please?

THe deal was negotiated by civil servants.

Schools are owned by Catholic Communities and not part of the land fund owned centrally and in some cases are not unencumbered i.e. the donation of property pursuant to Catholic Education.

So it is a land grab -just like nationalising GAA pitches would be. There is no difference.

The only difference is they are picking on Catholics and tbh I think Catholics should vote anything but Labour as its demonstrating an anti-Catholic ideology and policy.

Nodin

CDfm wrote: »

THe deal was negotiated by civil servants..

With the Church, presumably. And the relevance of that is.....?

CDfm wrote: »

Schools are owned by Catholic Communities and not part of the land fund owned centrally and in some cases are not unencumbered i.e. the donation of property pursuant to Catholic Education...

But they aren't all thus owned....

CDfm wrote: »

So it is a land grab -just like nationalising GAA pitches would be. There is no difference....

Allow me to re-iterate -

labour wrote:

The deal between the Church and State to cover the cost of sexual abuse claims was always meant to be a 50:50 split. In reality, the Church has only paid 11% of the huge costs because the number of claims has jumped dramatically

.....thus, it is not a "land grab" but the taking of assets to pay off the Churches liability.

CDfm wrote: »

The only difference is they are picking on Catholics and tbh I think Catholics should vote anything but Labour as its demonstrating an anti-Catholic ideology and policy.

Policy? It's a bit of badly worded bluster from Mr Quinn.

I already asked you for a link to where Labour state that its part of their mainifesto....are you unable to provide it?

studiorat

CDfm wrote: »

My objection to the settlement has always been that the state regulators have never been tackled.

I think the individuals that acted in this capacity as Civil Servants should be named and shamed.

The Government issued the following statement in 1999-

‘ On behalf of the State and of all citizens of the State, the Government wishes to make a sincere and long overdue apology to the victims of childhood abuse for our collective failure to intervene, to detect their pain, to come to their rescue.

There had consistent enquiries into industrial schools since 1934.

In 1944 P. Ó Muircheartaigh, the Inspector of Industrial and Reformatory Schools reported that “the children are not properly fed,” which was “a serious indictment of the system of industrial schools run by nuns-a state of affairs that shouldn’t be tolerated in a Christian community” where there was “semi-starvation and lack of proper care and attention.” The Resident Managers of Lenaboy and Cappoquin industrial schools, both Sisters of Mercy, were dismissed for negligence and misappropriating funds, despite Church resistance.

Only 5% of children in these schools at one stage were actually orphans. Others were from seperated families and single mothers. The Catholic Hierarchy condemned the 'Mother and Child' scheme, which provided direct funding to expectant mothers for their children. Thus continuing the practice of sending children to industrial schools.

1951- Standoff between Church and State when Church refused to provide financial records of how it has used funding in industrial schools in exchange for increased state funding.

While many tried to have something done about the state of affairs throughout the years. Of the few cases that did make it to the dail nothing was done. However it should be noted that while the government sat on it's hands it was actually the members of the clergy in these institutions who actually carried out the abuse.

CDfm

However you dress it up its a Labour Policy and a Land Grab targeting Catholic Communities.

I can't get the connection between the operation of approved schools and magdeline laundries that operated autonomously in partnership with the state where children were sent by the state and where they were regulated by the state with individual catholic communities around the country.

I cant see how you can say punish a small country parish community by taking away its school for that.

If it was a teacher at a school I can see the link- but still - if you have a truck driver who is drunk unknown to the employer -you prosecute the driver not the employer. You dont seek compensation from an unconnected haulage firm down the road.

Also, the claims are about the actions of individuals(the abusers) and the inaction of others (DoE,DoJustice,DoH) and you are expecting communities of the same religion to take the blame.I think this is collective responsibility gone mad and I want to see proper prosecutions of the guilty and proper accountability from the Government Departments Officials who IMHO deserve to be named and shamed.

I really dont understand the logic here.

axer

CDfm wrote: »

I cant see how you can say punish a small country parish community by taking away its school for that.

What? They are taking away the school? Are they going to demolish it and build apartments or something?

CDfm, you are wrong here. The schools should be taken over by the government. It is not fair at present to non-catholics that pretty much their only option for schools is catholic schools. The government has been funding these schools for a long time and has bailed the church out regarding claims of abuse.

I think it should one of two ways - either the catholic church co-operates or cut funding to their schools and let the parents pay for a catholic school (the same for any other non-secular schools). See how long these schools survive without the government.

Nodin

CDfm wrote: »

However you dress it up its a Labour Policy
.

For the third time, where is it listed as such?

CDfm wrote: »

and a Land Grab targeting Catholic Communities..

It isn't targeting "communities" because theres no change of usage proposed. It isn't a land-grab because its proposing the taking of assets for defaulting on payment.

CDfm wrote: »

I cant see how you can say punish a small country parish community by taking away its school for that. ..

As mentioned above, theres no proposals to close schools.

CDfm wrote: »

I really dont understand the logic here.

Quinn proposes taking control of schools as a means of compensation for the Churchs failure to pay up its share of the deal re abuse. He also says he doesn't oppose the idea that the Church could stay as patron of the schools.

Its all very simple, if you actually read what he says, as oppossed to what you want to think he says.

axer

I think it is worth pointing out that it would be a waste for the government to do up schools that are owned by the catholic church (i.e. grants and funding) because the government do own such buildings as said by Ruairi Quinn.

Ruairi Quinn wrote:

"The benefits of state ownership are obvious. We can ensure these properties remain schools in the future and we can launch a Sustainable School Programme which would ensure that the state can invest in our infrastructure. I think this measure is long overdue and can only be to the benefit of our education system and the taxpayer."

CDfm

Nodin wrote: »

For the third time, where is it listed as such?

It isn't targeting "communities" because theres no change of usage proposed. It isn't a land-grab because its proposing the taking of assets for defaulting on payment.

Quinn proposes taking control of schools as a means of compensation for the Churchs failure to pay up its share of the deal re abuse. He also says he doesn't oppose the idea that the Church could stay as patron of the schools.

However you dress it up its a Labour Policy and its on their website.

So IMHO Catholics should not Vote Labour in Local or National Elections or transfer votes to them.

Its an anti - catholic measure by anti-catholic individuals and would be like __________ voting for _______________.(fill the blanks)

I mean should we would prosecute you for murder if your brother was the person who we had evidence against would we. By your logic its exactly what we should do. MY view has been prosecute the Guilty and none of this smoke and mirrors stuff.

axer

CDfm wrote: »

I mean should we would prosecute you for murder if your brother was the person who we had evidence against would we. By your logic its exactly what we should do. MY view has been prosecute the Guilty and none of this smoke and mirrors stuff.

I dont get your analogy.

The Catholic church has been caught out on abuse and successful claims have been made against them which the government had to step in to pay. Their assets should be taken to cover the costs which has been taken out of my tax payments.

The Roman Catholic Church as an organisation ARE GUILTY of covering up abuse inflicted by their employees. Not that many in the organisation are guilty of this covering up but the organisation itself is guilty and that is enough.

You analogy above about the drunk truck driver is flawed too since if the company knew he was drunk and still put him out on the road they could be done for manslaughter too if someone was killed.

Nodin

CDfm wrote: »

However you dress it up its a Labour Policy and its on their website..

Its not labour policy. Theres no mention of it being their policy that I can find. Its not listed. Its a bit of bluster by Ruari Quinn and thats it.

Now, you can either withdraw the claim, or link to where it is, either on a manifesto or in their "Our Ideas" section.

CDfm wrote: »

So IMHO Catholics should not Vote Labour in Local or National Elections or transfer votes to them...

....because of a claim you can't verify.

CDfm wrote: »

Its an anti - catholic measure by anti-catholic individuals ..

Then why does he say ....

The Church can continue to act as patron in these schools on a day to day basis. I have no objection to that".

http://www.labour.ie/press/listing/123566087650454.html

The Mad Hatter

CDfm wrote: »

However you dress it up its a Labour Policy and its on their website.

However often you say it, it still won't make you right.

axer wrote: »

I dont get your analogy.

I think he's trying to say that because members/employees of the church rather than the church itself committed the abuse, the church shouldn't have to pay. As you rightly point out, though, even if the church as a whole is innocent of the prosecutions (no matter how numerous the claims made), the church is guilty of attempting to cover up said abuse, and are therefore culpable.

Manach

For personal experience I found the Catholic school experience an excellent one and nationalising them will not improve standards if the current economic situation is any indicator of government oversight of institutions.

28064212

Manach wrote: »

For personal experience I found the Catholic school experience an excellent one and nationalising them will not improve standards if the current economic situation is any indicator of government oversight of institutions.

Except of course if you're a non-Catholic living in Dublin and can't get into a school because you're not baptised

CDfm

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

However often you say it, it still won't make you right.

I think he's trying to say that because members/employees of the church rather than the church itself committed the abuse, the church shouldn't have to pay. As you rightly point out, though, even if the church as a whole is innocent of the prosecutions (no matter how numerous the claims made), the church is guilty of attempting to cover up said abuse, and are therefore culpable.

Thanks MH - but the church in that way is not a collective.

Say the Christian Brothers are an autonomus order - that is one issue and its with them.

A small parish school may be owned by the members of the congregation of that parish and have nothing to do with a diocesan property. So the school will be seperate and the church and church hall may be owned by the diosese.

To say they are part of one collective fund is wrong and is the mistake which was made originally and which prevented the handover of property as settlement. You cannot hand over that which you do not own.

The implication being from Ruari Quinn is that he wants to force and coerce the Catholic Church as a "collectively " and that is wrong.

Nodin

28064212 wrote: »

Except of course if you're a non-Catholic living in Dublin and can't get into a school because you're not baptised

...though if schools are left under the patronage of the Church as suggested by Quinn, that situation may not change.