Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Communion and Confirmation grants scrapped...

  • 11-04-2013 10:43PM
    #1
    homer911
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,070 ✭✭✭


    About time or mean spirited?

    Personally speaking.. this seems like a grant that should never have been made in the first place. It only supports the crazy excess of what should be a spiritual occasion, and the Catholic church should be more outspoken on the matter...


«13456789

Comments

  • #2
    Manach
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 9,871 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


    At the end of the day, this country is in a dire economic straits cause partially by the banks and partially from Government overspending. This is a small step in rectifying the issue and so from that perspective a positive step. Now if the state could cut/delete the many hundreds of agencies, that would be an even better step.


  • #3
    martinedwards
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,046 ✭✭✭martinedwards


    seriously?

    there was/is a grant?

    why?

    Madness.

    just so little girls can dress up like brides in a paedo fantasy......

    I THINK NOT!!!!


  • #4
    dharn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,574 ✭✭✭dharn


    martinedwards wrote: »
    seriously?

    there was/is a grant?

    why?

    Madness.

    just so little girls can dress up like brides in a paedo fantasy......

    I THINK NOT!!!!

    ?...so as her parents could go on the pi.s


  • #5
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    homer911 wrote: »
    About time or mean spirited?

    Personally speaking.. this seems like a grant that should never have been made in the first place. It only supports the crazy excess of what should be a spiritual occasion, and the Catholic church should be more outspoken on the matter...

    I agree it should not have been a grant in the first place, and also the CC should have been a lot more outspoken on the excess. Would be great if the grant could be done away with, but used to maybe maintain childrens allowance rates etc, and not simply thrown into the bank debt black hole.


  • #6
    Benny_Cake
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,105 ✭✭✭Benny_Cake


    I'm trying to think of a good reason as to why that grant should have been retained, and I can't come up with any. It would be nice if some of the excessive spending and materialism surrounding these occasions could become a thing of the past, I fear it won't though.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 28,401 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    There wasn't really a grant directly for this.

    There's an "emergency payments" system for people who are on social assistance. It's recognised that social assistance provides the bare minimum to cover routine expenses, and if a substantial occasional expense arises - your fridge breaks down, it's the start of the school year - you can apply for an "emergency payment" and your application it will be considered. Up until now childrens' first communions and confirmations (and analagous ceremonies in other religious traditions) were events on which an emergency payment would be considered; they no longer will be.

    The idea, basically, was to minimise social exclusion and alienation through being unable to afford to participate in the socially acceptable rites of passage.

    On the whole, I'm pleased to see communions and confirmations taken out of the "emergency payments" list, and I'd like to see more done to eliminate the materialist excess that surrounds these events. But I don't want to overstate the issue; last year the total paid out was something under 1.5 million euros. Add that to the children's allowance, and it's roundings of a cent to each payment.


  • #8
    lmaopml
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    There wasn't really a grant directly for this.

    There's an "emergency payments" system for people who are on social assistance. It's recognised that social assistance provides the bare minimum to cover routine expenses, and if a substantial occasional expense arises - your fridge breaks down, it's the start of the school year - you can apply for an "emergency payment" and your application it will be considered. Up until now childrens' first communions and confirmations (and analagous ceremonies in other religious traditions) were events on which an emergency payment would be considered; they no longer will be.

    The idea, basically, was to minimise social exclusion and alienation through being unable to afford to participate in the socially acceptable rites of passage.

    I saw this post earlier on my phone and I'm not exactly a dab hand at replying mobile phone style..ha! But, yes, that's exactly it -

    It's not actually a 'Communion and Confirmation' allowance specifically and only for that...that's just a notion that people like reporting on because it's more newsworthy.

    It's an 'Exceptional needs' grant, that was there for mostly those who are already on SW and have an occasion for themselves, a loved one or their children that they like to give them some kind of dignity - The St. Vincent De Paul are the backup for many - and many schools will help out and help those who don't mind being helped - for those who are finding times difficult.

    However, the applicants that don't hit the news will be anything from people looking for maternity clothes to funeral help once the person presents themselves as in need and is assessed. It's basically a couple of hundred euro grant to help families who are struggling to give back some kind of dignity..especially single parents. Although to be honest I don't know whether the application process is entirely where one finds their 'dignity' so cutting it is perhaps a good thing in many ways..I've seen and spoken to women who bared their soul just to ask for help and it's very sad.
    On the whole, I'm pleased to see communions and confirmations taken out of the "emergency payments" list, and I'd like to see more done to eliminate the materialist excess that surrounds these events. But I don't want to overstate the issue; last year the total paid out was something under 1.5 million euros. Add that to the children's allowance, and it's roundings of a cent to each payment.

    Absolutely. I think the Archbishop of Dublin in particular has made numerous recommendations, but he is not the controller of everything or of how people celebrate - the thing is, how to put across the occasion in the right Spirit in a cultural environment? The Church celebrates and rightly so the occasion of the Holy Communion or Confirmation and also Baptism of a Child, but she doesn't control the purse strings of the parents - and imo she shouldn't either, for a very good reason.


  • #9
    LordSutch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,069 ✭✭✭✭LordSutch


    Well I am very glad to hear that "It's not actually a 'Communion and Confirmation' allowance" as I think many non RCs like myself were surprised & shocked when we (mistakenly) heard that such a grant was favourable & available to RC families only. However, as a fellow Christian of another denomination I still don't understand the connection between Communion/Confirmation & the 'loads a'money' circus which surrounds these ceremonies.

    The hire of stretch limo's, the spray tanning, the very expensive dresses, massive no expense spared parties, and all the monetary
    presents which go with (what are supposed to be) Christian ceremonies to welcome the Irish youth into Christ's Church . . .


  • #10
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Out of curiosity, where did the whole mini-wedding dress thing come from in relation to first communion? I assume it is supposed to represent the innocence of the child or something. Is it purely an Irish thing or a Catholic thing?


  • #11
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 28,401 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Out of curiosity, where did the whole mini-wedding dress thing come from in relation to first communion? I assume it is supposed to represent the innocence of the child or something. Is it purely an Irish thing or a Catholic thing?
    Other way 'round. Wearing white garments for the sacraments of initiation (baptism, confirmation, eucharist) is one of the most ancient Christian traditions that we know of; it goes back to at least the second century.

    Whereas the white wedding dress is a nineteenth century innovation, and then only for The Quality. It didn't become general through all social classes until the 1920s.

    Generally people wore finery to be married in, but not unique wedding finery; they would wear clothes that could be worn again on other occasions. A bridal dress could be of any colour.

    Queen Victoria chose a white dress for her own wedding. It was much admired for its "simplicity", "purity", "freshness", etc though, by our standards, it was anything but simple:

    queen-victorias-wedding-gown-21.jpg

    This started a fashion (among those who could afford a single-use dress) for white wedding dresses, which over a century or so gradually spread downwards through the social classes.

    So, in truth, girls making their first communion are not being dressed up as little brides. Rather, women getting married are being dressed up as little girls. (Which, if you think about it, is a bit sinister.)


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    Gumbi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,682 ✭✭✭Gumbi


    homer911 wrote: »
    About time or mean spirited?

    Personally speaking.. this seems like a grant that should never have been made in the first place. It only supports the crazy excess of what should be a spiritual occasion, and the Catholic church should be more outspoken on the matter...
    One of the particularly disgusting things some people do (thankfully, my family didn't do this, indeed I wasn't aware of it being a thing, and my extremely Catolic Dad abhorred it), the "tradition" of dressing up in your Communion gear and going to all your neighbours etc collecting money.

    *shudders* Had someone whom I barely knew come to my door doing that recently.


  • #13
    lmaopml
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    Gumbi wrote: »
    One of the particularly disgusting things some people do (thankfully, my family didn't do this, indeed I wasn't aware of it being a thing, and my extremely Catolic Dad abhorred it), the "tradition" of dressing up in your Communion gear and going to all your neighbours etc collecting money.

    *shudders* Had someone whom I barely knew come to my door doing that recently.

    Not so many years ago children used to play out on the street with each other more freely than today, there wasn't a lot else to do - also neighbours used to know each other perhaps a little better because everybody in a neighbourhood was pretty much in the same circumstances of relative poverty or prosperity ( and the business of others, right or wrongly ) a little better than today -

    The difference now is that, most young couples are out at work paying for to live in Ireland and trying to be honorable today and survive and it's really difficult to know the state of affairs next door, don't mind the in's and out's of the Governer - we're kept distracted paying up, or worrying about it.

    During that time, you might have a street where they made a fuss over a child who made their Communion and was well known by the adults who may invite them to 'knock in' on the day, even if it was only a biscuit or just a twirl or hug from the family who lived there - That is why the children went and knocked in, because they were 'invited' and received by the community and equally so the parents received another child in the neighbourhood that theirs were a part of, into their own home and invited them to 'knock in' on their neighbours child's big day.

    There was nothing 'sinister' - and there was nothing embarrassing about it at all, unless one is very easily embarrassed by having good friends and good neighbours.


  • #14
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    The problem with the demonisation of a lot of these social grants is that once they are gone, the people who were abusing them will still be alright, whereas the people who really depended on them will be lost :(


  • #15
    Gumbi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,682 ✭✭✭Gumbi


    riffmongous wrote: »
    The problem with the demonisation of a lot of these social grants is that once they are gone, the people who were abusing them will still be alright, whereas the people who really depended on them will be lost :(

    It was a ridiculous state of affairs anyway. The government shouldn't support certain religious ceremonies of certain religions.

    In any case, it should uniform only.


  • #16
    Sulla Felix
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,442 ✭✭✭Sulla Felix


    Gumbi wrote: »
    In any case, it should uniform only.
    I'd rather not conflate it further with the national school system. How about some nice robes, reuse them year after year.


  • #17
    Gumbi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,682 ✭✭✭Gumbi


    Sulla Felix wrote: »
    I'd rather not conflate it further with the national school system. How about some nice robes, reuse them year after year.

    Well you can't have it both ways. The two are already totally integrated. Nearly all primary schools in this country are Catholic, and by default, you are confirmed/have your first Communion as part if the school system.

    I've no problem at all with having some kind of dress code as long as it doesn't require lavish amounts of money to be spent.


  • #18
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Gumbi wrote: »
    It was a ridiculous state of affairs anyway. The government shouldn't support certain religious ceremonies of certain religions.

    In any case, it should uniform only.

    As lmaopml explained above that's not how it worked.


  • #19
    santing
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 671 ✭✭✭santing


    Gumbi wrote: »
    The two are already totally integrated. Nearly all primary schools in this country are Catholic, and by default, you are confirmed/have your first Communion as part if the school system.
    Yeah, but who pays for the teachers all those hours of preparation for first communion and confession etc.? And when your children are not RC you are not obliged to participate in most schools, but then you realise how much time and money is wasted on this.


  • #20
    Gumbi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,682 ✭✭✭Gumbi


    santing wrote: »
    Yeah, but who pays for the teachers all those hours of preparation for first communion and confession etc.? And when your children are not RC you are not obliged to participate in most schools, but then you realise how much time and money is wasted on this.

    Don't get me wrong, I am most certainly against it.


  • #21
    StudentDad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,525 ✭✭✭StudentDad


    To my mind any school that receives State funding should not have preparation for religious ceremonies as part of the teaching day.

    If parents want their children to be involved in such activities there are weekends and a whole summer of school holidays available for such activities.

    If a school is wholly funded by the parents - go for it. Otherwise there should be an absolute separation of Church and State.

    SD


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    lmaopml
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    StudentDad wrote: »
    To my mind any school that receives State funding should not have preparation for religious ceremonies as part of the teaching day.

    If parents want their children to be involved in such activities there are weekends and a whole summer of school holidays available for such activities.

    If a school is wholly funded by the parents - go for it. Otherwise there should be an absolute separation of Church and State.

    SD

    So basically a school with a Christian ethos shouldn't be allowed even though the parents pay taxes - it should be a one size fits all that suits 'some' parents values only. While we're at it private schools could go too and how dare they ask for funding from the department of education....there shouldn't be such a thing that parents could choose to support a school and it's students by contributing to facilities etc. It's not a good thing that a parent should be interested in that at all....

    People and families, mothers and fathers in general shouldn't be able to choose to send their child to a school that says a morning prayer and especially grace before meals, or a school that includes God in the day. There should be no God in schools that are funded by the State even 'if' the vast majority of people think this that it's valuable and in this country we are finding some kind of equilibrium or at least trying to - they should have no say, just because - well some people think so like you.

    I have no problem with parents choices - I support the ET model, I also support C.O.I. ethos schools as well as any other body that is interested in education, so long as they follow the curriculum to the dot - and care for their pupils within that ethos - whether it's primary, secondary or third level.

    I will always support multi-denominational schools as a person who pays taxes - and always support freedom of religion and freedom of choice for parents and the family. I don't worship the Government and thank it for distributing taxes equally (LOL) I worship God, and I send my children to a school with a Christian ethos because I believe this is valuable and a freedom that I feel is important.


  • #23
    StudentDad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,525 ✭✭✭StudentDad


    lmaopml wrote: »
    So basically a school with a Christian ethos shouldn't be allowed even though the parents pay taxes - it should be a one size fits all that suits 'some' parents values only. While we're at it private schools could go too and how dare they ask for funding from the department of education....there shouldn't be such a thing that parents could choose to support a school and it's students by contributing to facilities etc. It's not a good thing that a parent should be interested in that at all....

    People and families, mothers and fathers in general shouldn't be able to choose to send their child to a school that says a morning prayer and especially grace before meals, or a school that includes God in the day. There should be no God in schools that are funded by the State even 'if' the vast majority of people think this that it's valuable and in this country we are finding some kind of equilibrium or at least trying to - they should have no say, just because - well some people think so like you.

    I have no problem with parents choices - I support the ET model, I also support C.O.I. ethos schools as well as any other body that is interested in education, so long as they follow the curriculum to the dot - and care for their pupils within that ethos - whether it's primary, secondary or third level.

    I will always support multi-denominational schools as a person who pays taxes - and always support freedom of religion and freedom of choice for parents and the family. I don't worship the Government and thank it for distributing taxes equally (LOL) I worship God, and I send my children to a school with a Christian ethos because I believe this is valuable and a freedom that I feel is important.

    That's very interesting, however, there ought not be religious instruction in publicly funded schools for the simple reason that religion is a private matter and to my mind is it wholly inappropriate for the State to fund private organisations with monies from the public purse.

    If parents want to have their children educated in religious matters like I said there is time after school, weekends and school holidays for that.

    Religion if it is part of the curriculum should be taught in the same way as English or Maths - as a subject - covering all beliefs equally - with exams etc.

    I know from my own experience growing up, the school I had to attend (there were no alternative schools available) spent a ridiculous amount of time on religious activities that had no relevance to my day to day life and hindered my study of necessary subjects.

    SD


  • #24
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    StudentDad wrote: »
    ... religion is a private matter

    Are you claiming this in relation to religion in educational institutions or society writ large?


  • #25
    StudentDad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,525 ✭✭✭StudentDad


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    Are you claiming this in relation to religion in educational institutions or society writ large?

    Frankly yes. Religious belief or lack thereof is a wholly private matter and should not be funded by the State - at any level.

    SD


  • #26
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    I see. But that wasn't quite my question. Are you saying that religion (and I'll take religion to be something akin to Christianity, Islam etc.) is purely a private affair that has no place in the public square?


  • #27
    StudentDad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,525 ✭✭✭StudentDad


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    I see. But that wasn't quite my question. Are you saying that religion (and I'll take religion to be something akin to Christianity, Islam etc.) is purely a private affair that has no place in the public square?

    What I'm saying is that as a private matter, it should not be paid for with public funds. I have no objection to people practicing their religion, that is their right. I just don't think the State should pay for it. We have a separation of church and state for a reason.

    SD


  • #28
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    You can't from an argument by assuming it's conclusion, i.e. "religion is a private matter so...". You first have to demonstrate that religion is a private matter, not assume it and argue from there.

    But again this is not what I am asking. I understand that you are talking about Government funding with regards to religion. What I am asking you to do is expand on the ambiguous statement "religion is a private matter". I'm curious if you apply this same thinking to religious institutions, organisations, campaign groups, individuals and so on that seek to operate within the public square?


  • #29
    lmaopml
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    StudentDad wrote: »
    That's very interesting, however, there ought not be religious instruction in publicly funded schools for the simple reason that religion is a private matter and to my mind is it wholly inappropriate for the State to fund private organisations with monies from the public purse.

    If parents want to have their children educated in religious matters like I said there is time after school, weekends and school holidays for that.

    Religion if it is part of the curriculum should be taught in the same way as English or Maths - as a subject - covering all beliefs equally - with exams etc.

    I know from my own experience growing up, the school I had to attend (there were no alternative schools available) spent a ridiculous amount of time on religious activities that had no relevance to my day to day life and hindered my study of necessary subjects.

    SD

    That's very interesting, however those who pay taxes and contribute to the 'public purse' are members of the 'public' - you seem to be saying they shouldn't have a choice at all to send their child to a faith school where the ethos might be Christian, and receive the same funding from the department at all? There should only be one school type, the State school, with a multi-denominational ethos that is controlled by the State and not the people.

    Even if it's a private run enterprise, it shouldn't get normal state funding, and the department shouldn't pay teachers? So basically your worldview trumps other citizens simply because you hold it? That's nice.


  • #30
    StudentDad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,525 ✭✭✭StudentDad


    lmaopml wrote: »
    That's very interesting, however those who pay taxes and contribute to the 'public purse' are members of the 'public' - you seem to be saying they shouldn't have a choice at all to send their child to a faith school where the ethos might be Christian, and receive the same funding from the department at all? There should only be one school type, the State school, with a multi-denominational ethos that is controlled by the State and not the people.

    Even if it's a private run enterprise, it shouldn't get normal state funding, and the department shouldn't pay teachers? So basically your worldview trumps other citizens simply because you hold it? That's nice.
    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    You can't form an argument by assumed it's conclusion, i.e. "religion is a private matter so...". You first have to demonstrate that religion is a private matter, not assume it and argue for there.

    But again this is not what I am asking. I understand that you are talking about Government funding with regards to religion. What I am asking is that you expand on the ambiguous statement "religion is a private matter". I'm curious if you apply this same thinking to religious institutions, organisations, campaign groups, individuals and so on that seek to operate within the public square?

    Religious institutions are private organisations that are unelected and unaccountable to the electorate - the State - part of the reason for the separation of church and state.

    The time wasted in schools on religious activities that ought to be taken care of outside school hours is unfortunate and unnecessary.

    If parents want their children to have a particular 'ethos' in a school to my mind that is a private desire that does not deserve state funding.

    SD


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Just a point. Parents, particularly fathers, are actually spending more time with their kids than they used to (up to 10 times more in the case of fathers).

    Ironically they are worrying about not spending time with their kids more as well, and as such despite spending more time with their kids than their parents or grandparents generation they still feel they are not spending enough time with them.

    Its a bit like how crime keeps falling but fear of crime keeps raising as people with greater access to information about crime notice it more than previous generations and incorrectly assume there is more of it about.

    As parents have more and more access to information about parenting, despite greatly improving parental care they offer over a generations ago, they still feel they are not doing enough because it being a good parent is so visible these days.

    Which I guess is no harm to push yourself to be a better parents, so long as it doesn't cause you to become a stressed out wreck.

    Anyway, just an aside.


Advertisement
Advertisement