Labour wants to nationalise Catholic Schools

axer

CDfm wrote: »

I don't see it like that Studiorat. As Ive posted a close friend eventually killed himself as a result of abuse and feel that paedo's punishments don't go far enough as in life meaning life type sentences(hanging not being a legal option)

and hanging being against your beliefs.

CDfm wrote: »

Its these same Catholic communities that the abusers affected so badly that Ruari Quinn wants to go after.Now I can't understand how an atheist can't understand this but Catholics were the ones abused in the community and its a completely different issue to that of institutional use of collusion and it took both individual abusers and the state- it was a joint enterprise. Its a very weird issue but we have faith structures and communities participating in a secular society and you see power structures and we are being asked to pay our own compensation.

In many cases non-pedophile authoritative figures in the church - bishops etc. did not report the crime which they were aware of. I have heard that the last pope was aware of the problem but did not act. Instead bishops moved priests to cover up and stop the abuse going public. This is the catholic church covering up the abuse.

CDfm wrote: »

(I have posted before how we dont know what lenghts a paedophile will go to to access children but they do go for careers and jobs that allow this- but it was the regulators job to prevent infiltration by paedophiles and protect us).

No that is incorrect, it was/is the churches responsibility to report abuse/crimes which they are aware of. The church in many instances decided against reporting and just moved the offenders which caused more problems. Regulators cannot detect a pedophile until they are caught abusing - covering up this abuse makes it next to impossible to catch the abuser.

CDfm wrote: »

Its very like giving compensation to someone who was wrongly convicted of a crime and sueing the person for the cost of the prison stay food lodgings and whatever courses they did.Abusers needed the collusion of the state to operate the way they did.

The collusion of the state was allowing the church to have too much control in Ireland and trusting them too much i.e. by having a situation where the church controlled the schools etc. By taking over school land the state is making sure it is in control.

CDfm wrote: »

So here we have Ruari Quinn making a proposal to go after the victim communities of this issue on this as the abused were and many are Catholics. Here we have a proposal put out there by the Labour Party to transfer ownership of schools to one of the institutions who were a part of the problem and had the power to stop the abuse and didnt.

You are assuming athiests were not part of catholic communities or that all the victims are still catholics. You are also assuming that the government taking over these schools is a bad thing when in fact it is great because they can now plan infrastructure improvements since they would be in full control.

CDfm wrote: »

Many of us were affected by this in some way & think that individual and former state officals who didnt act need to be punished and are being protected by the state.

and I presume you think the church officials who covered up the abuse to stop the state finding out should be punished also? what do you suggest their punishment to be?

CDfm wrote: »

Here the proposal is to come after the Catholic Communities the abusers preyed on to pay the victim compensation.

Here is a proposal to improve the education system. Here is a proposal to reduce the power the catholic church - this is the same power that helped them get away with abusing innocent children. Here is a proposal to get a return for the millions that the government has put in so that the catholic church has not paid back.

CDfm wrote: »

I can't explain it in but its fairly obvious how absolutely horrified I am at the proposal.

You are acting like the government is taking the land to build apartments when in fact it is more likely that land would remain for school use when owned by the government and it is also more likely that schools would be renovated since the government can then plan mass upgrades since it would own the buildings.

I am not a labour fan at all but this is a great proposal if the legal side can be sorted out. I would love to know who's names are on these school land deeds? I would also like to know how many schools the church actually own directly?

CDfm

axer wrote: »

and hanging being against your beliefs.

Who told you that?

In many cases non-pedophile authoritative figures in the church - bishops etc. did not report the crime which they were aware of. I have heard that the last pope was aware of the problem but did not act. Instead bishops moved priests to cover up and stop the abuse going public. This is the catholic church covering up the abuse.

You are hung up on a collective issue. I believe that not reporting a crime is wrong. So you accept a priest may be bound by the confessional seal.

You also had Doctors and psychiatrists who declared these people fit and did not report.

No that is incorrect, it was/is the churches responsibility to report abuse/crimes which they are aware of. The church in many instances decided against reporting and just moved the offenders which caused more problems. Regulators cannot detect a pedophile until they are caught abusing - covering up this abuse makes it next to impossible to catch the abuser.

I dispute that cases were not notified to the guards and authorities and they did not act.

The collusion of the state was allowing the church to have too much control in Ireland and trusting them too much i.e. by having a situation where the church controlled the schools etc. By taking over school land the state is making sure it is in control.

So there is a land grab then.

You are assuming athiests were not part of catholic communities or that all the victims are still catholics. You are also assuming that the government taking over these schools is a bad thing when in fact it is great because they can now plan infrastructure improvements since they would be in full control.

I think that allowing the state to take over without prosecuting those who did not do their duty is wrong and this should include civil cases or tribunals where a civil servants or public official are held to account.Thats what I want.

and I presume you think the church officials who covered up the abuse to stop the state finding out should be punished also? what do you suggest their punishment to be?

Personally - the same as the civil servants they should be held publically accountable and if they did wrong prosecuted criminally or civilly and if the law has to be changed retrospectivelly as their wrong doing and negligence is that great jail them.

Here is a proposal to improve the education system. Here is a proposal to reduce the power the catholic church - this is the same power that helped them get away with abusing innocent children. Here is a proposal to get a return for the millions that the government has put in so that the catholic church has not paid back.

that is a completely seperate issue -its up to the communities and not central government what to do with their property. Taking it under the false pretences Labour propose is a con.

You are acting like the government is taking the land to build apartments when in fact it is more likely that land would remain for school use when owned by the government and it is also more likely that schools would be renovated since the government can then plan mass upgrades since it would own the buildings.

I think this sort of issue can only be discussed once you have the mass trials transparency and accountability.

I am not a labour fan at all but this is a great proposal if the legal side can be sorted out. I would love to know who's names are on these school land deeds? I would also like to know how many schools the church actually own directly?

But Axer you are an atheist and can't understand what a faith community is. I would have thought that at the very least you would look for a fair and just conclusion to the abuse compensation issue. That you would want to see those institutions and structures and individuals that colluded brought to justice. Its not without precedent as we had the blood tribunal where public officials are held to account and we have planning tribunals.

Its horrific that the faith communities that were harmed by this should be asked to pay up compensation as these are at the end of the foodchain.

Nodin

CDfm wrote: »

Ah cmon- its the policy and thats the ideology.

.

It's not the policy and they're about as marxist as the Pope is presbyterian.

CDfm wrote: »

No paranoia in the least - all I'm saying that given the press
release - Catholics should not vote Labour. Thats no big deal..

Given the press release, perhaps catholics should ask why their church has reneged on its half of a deal with the Government. Not exactly the moral thing to do, is it.

CDfm wrote: »

But he still wants to take the property belonging to individual catholic communities around the country. Mmm....don't think individual communities and parishes that built their own schools because the state didn't have the money should hand them over. I fail to see why. ..

Because now the Church owes the state money over its failure to pay its end regarding child abuse. You'll find scant sympathy over that one.

CDfm wrote: »

Why is patronage so important -

If the church is left in that position, any transfer of title wouldn't secularise the schools, thus giving you something else to whinge about.

CDfm wrote: »

Its on a Press Release he made. Its what he wants. You make it sound like I'm making it up.

Its not Labour party policy.

Nodin

CDfm wrote: »

We have no way of knowing and are not being told whether there were active abusers actually in regulatory positions and who had an interest in allowing it(the abuse) continue
.

Oooo...so it's a conspiracy now?

CDfm wrote: »

Its these same Catholic communities that the abusers affected so badly that Ruari Quinn wants to go after.Now I can't understand how an atheist can't understand this but Catholics were the ones abused in the community and its a completely different issue to that of institutional use of collusion and it took both individual abusers and the state-
.

Was the state the one who shuffled clerical abusers about from post to post?

CDfm wrote: »

- but it was the regulators job to prevent infiltration by paedophiles and protect us).
.

No, it was the churches job to vet its staff. Secondly, after these people were discovered, the church still failed to deal with them.

CDfm wrote: »

.Abusers needed the collusion of the state to operate the way they did.

The Church was in charge of the priests, the church dealt with the accusations, the Church moved them round.

CDfm

Nodin wrote: »

It's not the policy and they're about as marxist as the Pope is presbyterian.

The spokesman on education makes a statement and its not policy. :rolleyes:

Given the press release, perhaps catholics should ask why their church has reneged on its half of a deal with the Government. Not exactly the moral thing to do, is it.

Then they have recource to the law to collect. Not collect from people not involved.

It seems to me that you have certain institutions and politicians trying to collect from others.

The deal and its operation stink.

Because now the Church owes the state money over its failure to pay its end regarding child abuse. You'll find scant sympathy over that one.

I think you want local communities to hand over property to abuse facilitators.

If the church is left in that position, any transfer of title wouldn't secularise the schools, thus giving you something else to whinge about.

Then why seek the property. There must be a reason?



Its not Labour party policy.[/quote]

Then why is it on the website?

Are you a member of the Labour Party?

Ciaran500

CDfm wrote: »

Then they have recource to the law to collect. Not collect from people not involved.

It seems to me that you have certain institutions and politicians trying to collect from others.

They're collecting from an organisation.

CDfm wrote: »

I think you want local communities to hand over property to abuse facilitators.

What? The property is already owned by an organisation that facilitated child abuse.

CDfm wrote: »

Then why is it on the website?

Cause one of their member proposed it. A long way from being a party policy.

CDfm

Nodin wrote: »

Was the state the one who shuffled clerical abusers about from post to post? No, it was the churches job to vet its staff. Secondly, after these people were discovered, the church still failed to deal with them.

INstitutions such as the approved industrial schools and magdeline laundries were private prisons run by autonomous religious orders and were delegated powers by the State.

The same is true about other Orders such as the Christian Brothers.

The Church was in charge of the priests, the church dealt with the accusations, the Church moved them round.

If there are issues here it is not the fault of individual local schools which are seperate.

I abhor the deal -I believe there should have been criminal prosecutions and civil cases.

CDfm

Ciaran500 wrote: »

They're collecting from an organisation.

Then why not collect from the Public Service Unions too.

What? The property is already owned by an organisation that facilitated child abuse.

AS above.No Civil or Public Servant was harmed or suffered personally or financially in the making of this settlement.

Cause one of their member proposed it. A long way from being a party policy.

A very senior member and the spokesperson on education so there is a huge difference.

axer

CDfm wrote: »

Who told you that?

Moses, thou shall not kill but then again he could have just been a little looney.

CDfm wrote: »

You are hung up on a collective issue.

The catholic church is an orgnaisation and it does own schools.

CDfm wrote: »

So you accept a priest may be bound by the confessional seal.

Nope, just like a doctor etc is not bound when a crime has been committed and definitely not when child abuse is suspected.

CDfm wrote: »

You also had Doctors and psychiatrists who declared these people fit and did not report.

If there was evidence then they should have reported it. It can be hard to follow up when the priest is moved on quickly to another location and because priests and the church had too much power. The less power they have now the less chance they will abuse it and children again. Hence, I would go as far as not having them involved in schools anymore at all but taking over schools is a good first step.

CDfm wrote: »

I dispute that cases were not notified to the guards and authorities and they did not act.

Are you really claiming that there were not many instances where the accusations or suspicisions were not reported?

CDfm wrote: »

So there is a land grab then.

It suits both ways. The catholic church owe money, the state gets schools which it has funded for years.

CDfm wrote: »

I think that allowing the state to take over without prosecuting those who did not do their duty is wrong and this should include civil cases or tribunals where a civil servants or public official are held to account.Thats what I want.

I want all those who were implicit or who refused to act punished for that but it is an extremely difficult and costly process which does not guarentee the result I want.

CDfm wrote: »

Personally - the same as the civil servants they should be held publically accountable and if they did wrong prosecuted criminally or civilly and if the law has to be changed retrospectivelly as their wrong doing and negligence is that great jail them.

I agree but also the bishops and other clergy that knew what was going on but helped cover it up.

CDfm wrote: »

that is a completely seperate issue -its up to the communities and not central government what to do with their property. Taking it under the false pretences Labour propose is a con.

It depends who owns the school i.e. who's names are on the deeds. If the church owns the deeds then it should be taken off of them.

CDfm wrote: »

I think this sort of issue can only be discussed once you have the mass trials transparency and accountability.

mass trials are only for show and do not guarentee prosecution. Abuse is an extemely difficult thing to prove in a court of law. At this stage you only have witnesses and one person's word against another.

CDfm wrote: »

But Axer you are an atheist and can't understand what a faith community is.

I may be an atheist but im not stupid. Of course I understand what a faith community is - i grew up in one.

CDfm wrote: »

I would have thought that at the very least you would look for a fair and just conclusion to the abuse compensation issue. That you would want to see those institutions and structures and individuals that colluded brought to justice. Its not without precedent as we had the blood tribunal where public officials are held to account and we have planning tribunals.

I am also logical and realistic. Ideally I would like those that committed the abuse to have their genitals cut off and to spend the rest of their lives in jail but I realise that it is very hard to a) prove abuse and b) prove the a certain person did not act appropriately to stop it or recognise it, in a court of law.

CDfm wrote: »

Its horrific that the faith communities that were harmed by this should be asked to pay up compensation as these are at the end of the foodchain.

The catholic church is being punished as it will no longer be given children to brainwash (at least i hope so). How will these faith communities suffer if the schools are owned by the government? Are they prepared to fund these schools themselves? or do they want their own way i.e. funding and full ownership?

I still am waiting to hear who's names are on the deeds for these schools since I would imagine each one would be owned similiarly.

Ciaran500

CDfm wrote: »

Then why not collect from the Public Service Unions too.

AS above.No Civil or Public Servant was harmed or suffered personally or financially in the making of this settlement.

What are you on about? Do you understand what and why it is being proposed?

CDfm wrote: »

A very senior member and the spokesperson on education so there is a huge difference.

and its still not a policy.

axer

According to citizensinformation.ie the majority of the catholic schools are owned by the catholic church with the diocesan trustees being listed in the deeds. From what I know these are usually clergy.

End of story then. The church own the schools and they should be taken off of them since the church are reneging on their side of the agreement on the payment of abuse claims.

CDfm, you are wrong when you claim the faith community own them.

CDfm

axer wrote: »

Moses, thou shall not kill but then again he could have just been a little looney.

Is it not thou shalt not murder - my point is punishment where it is due.

The catholic church is an orgnaisation and it does own schools.

Nope, just like a doctor etc is not bound when a crime has been committed and definitely not when child abuse is suspected.

That is the situation now.

If there was evidence then they should have reported it. It can be hard to follow up when the priest is moved on quickly to another location and because priests and the church had too much power. The less power they have now the less chance they will abuse it and children again. Hence, I would go as far as not having them involved in schools anymore at all but taking over schools is a good first step.

I agree

Are you really claiming that there were not many instances where the accusations or suspicisions were not reported?

I believe from the cases I am aware of that there was a significant level of reporting.I personally was friendly with one victim who commited suicide.

It suits both ways. The catholic church owe money, the state gets schools which it has funded for years.

I want all those who were implicit or who refused to act punished for that but it is an extremely difficult and costly process which does not guarentee the result I want.

I agree but I dont want schools handed over to an institution where individuals are not held publically accountable and the only way I believe to ensure that is to prosecute the last bunch.

I agree but also the bishops and other clergy that knew what was going on but helped cover it up.

So prosecute.

It depends who owns the school i.e. who's names are on the deeds. If the church owns the deeds then it should be taken off of them.

I think its two issues that are jumbled. School ownership and faith schools and abuse compensation.They should not be linked up this way.

mass trials are only for show and do not guarentee prosecution. Abuse is an extemely difficult thing to prove in a court of law. At this stage you only have witnesses and one person's word against another.

thats what happens in court you present best evidence and here as the clergy have been released from the confessional seal by the pope and the documents handed over you have all the records so prosecute.

I may be an atheist but im not stupid. Of course I understand what a faith community is - i grew up in one.

Yes and no- you may have a juvenile view-no offence meant and I hope you are not offended.

I am also logical and realistic. Ideally I would like those that committed the abuse to have their genitals cut off and to spend the rest of their lives in jail but I realise that it is very hard to a) prove abuse and b) prove the a certain person did not act appropriately to stop it or recognise it, in a court of law.

we could hold lotteries on the ladies lounge for who will wield the knife;)

well churches kept records and civil servants kept records as its what they are good at. The Nazis were prosecuted because of their excellent record keeping. Its not that hard.

The catholic church is being punished as it will no longer be given children to brainwash (at least i hope so). How will these faith communities suffer if the schools are owned by the government? Are they prepared to fund these schools themselves? or do they want their own way i.e. funding and full ownership?

I will ignore that -but secular vs church schools is totally seperate.

I still am waiting to hear who's names are on the deeds for these schools since I would imagine each one would be owned similiarly.

Well go to the land registry. but its very clear from the settlement problems that the property which was part of the settlement was not that which those doing the settlement could give.

Quid pro quo. The people whose are the legal owners probably want what I want- don't you think many catholics are unhappy about people escaping prosecution.

CDfm

axer wrote: »

According to citizensinformation.ie the majority of the catholic schools are owned by the catholic church with the diocesan trustees being listed in the deeds. From what I know these are usually clergy.

End of story then. The church own the schools and they should be taken off of them since the church are reneging on their side of the agreement on the payment of abuse claims.

CDfm, you are wrong when you claim the faith community own them.

when you settle or donate a property you normally do so by a deed of trust which means that equitable and legal ownership are seperated.

you may as a trustee have legal ownership but the property cannot be disposed of at your personal discretion and to do so would be illegal.You may not be allowed to use the property to settle a civil debt as a result of the rules of the gift.

I imagine that the ownership of church property is subject to these laws and it is not uncommon for other parties to have an interest in the property.

I can imagine if Granpa Axer donated property to the church for a school with the condition that when its use as a church school ceased it should revert to his heirs at law -namely yourself - you wouldn't hand it over. Thats why this is complex.

now imagine lots of different donations each subject to different rules and where say when the church no longer has it for a school its interest goes to the local brass band or the descendands of the donors sister Betty who went to Australia in 1939 and you have a real complex issue.

You know what I wouldnt hand over a property either.

axer

CDfm wrote: »

Is it not thou shalt not murder - my point is punishment where it is due.

god (Exodus 20:2&#8211 wrote: »

You shall not kill

back to confessions for you.

CDfm wrote: »

I believe from the cases I am aware of that there was a significant level of reporting.I personally was friendly with one victim who commited suicide.

There were many instances where it was not reported until much later.

CDfm wrote: »

I agree but I dont want schools handed over to an institution where individuals are not held publically accountable and the only way I believe to ensure that is to prosecute the last bunch.

Do you see the irony of that statement. How is the church held publicly accountable? At least the government who make the decisions on how the schools should be run are elected by the public.

CDfm wrote: »

So prosecute.

not that simple since much happened so many years ago.

CDfm wrote: »

I think its two issues that are jumbled. School ownership and faith schools and abuse compensation.They should not be linked up this way.

They should be when firstly there are children involved, secondly the government is funding those schools and thirdly the church are trying to get away without paying their agreed share of the claims.

CDfm wrote: »

thats what happens in court you present best evidence and here as the clergy have been released from the confessional seal by the pope and the documents handed over you have all the records so prosecute.

Often they are not enough evidence.

CDfm wrote: »

Yes and no- you may have a juvenile view-no offence meant and I hope you are not offended.

I am not offended but I still live in the middle of a faith community. I still interact with priests and the church since I know the local priests well. My family are still active members of the catholic church.

CDfm wrote: »

well churches kept records and civil servants kept records as its what they are good at. The Nazis were prosecuted because of their excellent record keeping. Its not that hard.

If only the irish roman catholic church was as good as the nazis.

CDfm wrote: »

I will ignore that -but secular vs church schools is totally seperate.

It is part of the debate because it is another reason for the government to take over the schools.

CDfm wrote: »

when you settle or donater a property you normally do so by a deed which means that equitable and legal ownership are seperated.

you may as a trustee have legal ownership but the property cannot be disposed of at your personal discretion and to do so would be illegal.

I imagine that the ownership of church property is subject to these laws and it is not uncommon for other parties to have an interest in the property.

I can imagine if Granpa Axer donated property to the church for a school with the condition that when its use as a church school ceased it should revert to his heirs at law -namely yourself - you wouldn't hand it over. Thats why this is complex.

You know what I wouldnt either.

That is up to the government and solicitors to work out. If there are such stipulations on school property then you have nothing to worry about by voting labour. So what is the point of the thread again?

CDfm

Dont Vote Labour:D

Ciaran500

CDfm wrote: »

Dont Vote Labour:D

Great contribution :rolleyes:

axer

CDfm wrote: »

Dont Vote Labour:D

May have failed in that. I would never have thought of voting for them until now.

Nodin

CDfm wrote: »

The spokesman on education makes a statement and its not policy. :rolleyes:

Correct.

CDfm wrote: »

It seems to me that you have certain institutions and politicians trying to collect from others. ?

...collect from those who have reneged in their obligation to pay.

CDfm wrote: »

Then they have recource to the law to collect.

I'm sure they will.

CDfm wrote: »

It seems to me (....) operation stink.

If you have nothing to add, please don't c&p yourself.

CDfm wrote: »

I think you want local communities to hand over property to abuse facilitators.

And I think thats a pathetic attempt to shift blame.

CDfm wrote: »

Then why seek the property. There must be a reason?
.

To punish the church for its failure to fufil its obligations.

CDfm wrote: »

Then why is it on the website?.

Because its a statement by one of their members.

Theres a section for policies and its not in it.

CDfm wrote: »

Are you a member of the Labour Party?

I don't even vote for them.

CDfm wrote: »

we could hold lotteries on the ladies lounge for who will wield the knife

I was unaware that the abuse was limited to women.

CDfm

Nodin wrote: »

...collect from those who have reneged in their obligation to pay.

FRom their own assets not from the assets of others

To punish the church for its failure to fufil its obligations.

Nothing to do with punishing anyone on abuse but using the issue for a political purpose.

Because its a statement by one of their members.
Theres a section for policies and its not in it.

He is a senior party member and thats a statement of fact on what he said. Funny how those responsible dont loose out personally.

axer

CDfm are you ok with schools that are assets of the church being transferred to the state then? The state will still being using them as schools when transferred.

CDfm

axer wrote: »

CDfm are you ok with schools that are assets of the church being transferred to the state then?

No not until the legal issues are sorted and that means compensation payments. By all means sort out the payment from their own free resourses- houses, cars,artwork & precious treasures or whatever. Paying over other peoples money or community resourses was never going to hurt.

I am against transfering any schools to the Department of Education as I dont believe as an institution they have the culture or skills to "police" abuse or potential abuse situations. I just don't and anything I have seen recently on state regulation of banks etc has hardly inspired confidence.The lack of personal responsibility would personally bother me.


Like it or not I think we are better of in the current situation with hyper sensitivity and vigilance with the issues addressed locally.Thats the only thing the current sorry system has got going for it.

Personally the whole issue of faith schools in Ireland needs a huge overhall. The Gaelscoil showed what could be achieved and there is a huge case for that model to secularise education. So I do not think its the Churchs place to handle education and I am against the current system as its a total waste of Church resourses for Catholic education.I think the catholic church & its communities should be only dealing with education for Catholics.

I am against the nominal transfer of schools for its own sake as the fundamental lack core responsibilities is still the same as when the abuse took place.

CDfm

Ciaran500 wrote: »

What are you on about? Do you understand what and why it is being proposed?


and its still not a policy.

I do know what is being proposed & have posted why I dont like it. I don't think any Civil or Public Servant has personnaly paid over any money or suffered in anyway. Its a dirty little con job with the taxpayer (you& I) funding their neglegience.

I wouldnt let them regulate an abbatoir or tadpole pool with their track record let alone give them a new lot of schools.

Nodin

CDfm wrote: »

FRom their own assets not from the assets of others.

Presumably a court will decide where the assets can be considered that of the church.

CDfm wrote: »

Nothing to do with punishing anyone on abuse but using the issue for a political purpose..

Its to punish the church for non-payment and as such is entirely appropriate.

CDfm wrote: »

He is a senior party member and thats a statement of fact on what he said. ..

Nobody has denied what he said, merely pointed out the complete nonsense you seem to have made of it. It is still not labour party policy.

CDfm wrote: »

Funny how those responsible dont loose out personally.

This is about non-payment, not abuse. And as Churchmen take a vow of poverty how exactly could their assets be seized?

CDfm wrote: »

I am (.....)personally bother me.

Seeking to muddy the waters and rather ignoring the record of the Church.

axer

CDfm wrote: »

No not until the legal issues are sorted and that means compensation payments. By all means sort out the payment from their own free resourses- houses, cars,artwork & precious treasures or whatever. Paying over other peoples money or community resourses was never going to hurt.

What legal issues? What compensation payments?

CDfm wrote: »

I am against transfering any schools to the Department of Education as I dont believe as an institution they have the culture or skills to "police" abuse or potential abuse situations. I just don't and anything I have seen recently on state regulation of banks etc has hardly inspired confidence.The lack of personal responsibility would personally bother me.

And the church does have such skills? You have got to be kidding me. At present the state trains and provides the teachers and funding. The only thing the church does is usually have a chairman on the board of management and they own the school. Other than that the department advise on anti-abuse policies etc.

CDfm wrote: »

Like it or not I think we are better of in the current situation with hyper sensitivity and vigilance with the issues addressed locally.Thats the only thing the current sorry system has got going for it.

Do you think just because priests are removed from the picture that there would not be hyper-sensitivity?

CDfm wrote: »

Personally the whole issue of faith schools in Ireland needs a huge overhall. The Gaelscoil showed what could be achieved and there is a huge case for that model to secularise education. So I do not think its the Churchs place to handle education and I am against the current system as its a total waste of Church resourses for Catholic education.I think the catholic church & its communities should be only dealing with education for Catholics.

but then they should not receive government funding, free teachers and support for being secular - unless they come to some sort of agreement about handing over the schools and making the schools non-secular.

CDfm wrote: »

I am against the nominal transfer of schools for its own sake as the fundamental lack core responsibilities is still the same as when the abuse took place.

The department of education are well able to look after schools and are in more of a position to be responsible for running of such.

axer

CDfm wrote: »

I do know what is being proposed & have posted why I dont like it. I don't think any Civil or Public Servant has personnaly paid over any money or suffered in anyway. Its a dirty little con job with the taxpayer (you& I) funding their neglegience.

I wouldnt let them regulate an abbatoir or tadpole pool with their track record let alone give them a new lot of schools.

The government (the employer of civil/public servants) has paid over regarding the abuse. It is the church that is trying to get out of it.

Can you tell me one person in the faith community that has or will be personnaly paying over any money or suffered in anyway?

CDfm

axer wrote: »

The government (the employer of civil/public servants) has paid over regarding the abuse. It is the church that is trying to get out of it.

The Government paid over our money. Individual ministers did not pay over their own money.Individual Civil Servants lost no personal money. Thats a fairly neat way of taking responsibility.

Can you tell me one person in the faith community that has or will be personally paying over any money or suffered in anyway?

It is members of the faith community that are the victims here. When you break it down to individual schools like is being proposed it is personalised. A school is transfered to the state and by implication the perception is that it was an abuse location.

So if I take a school built by church community contributions in a small area to educate its children its personal.

axer

CDfm wrote: »

The Government paid over our money. Individual ministers did not pay over their own money.Individual Civil Servants lost no personal money. Thats a fairly neat way of taking responsibility.

Have you never heard of vicarious liability?

In the case of the failure of the state to intervene, individual civil servants cannot be held liable under law. Ultimately it is their employer, the government, that takes legal responsibility. The same goes with ministers employed by the state. The government paid over the government's money - where else does it get money if it does not come from the people.

CDfm wrote: »

It is members of the faith community that are the victims here. When you break it down to individual schools like is being proposed it is personalised. A school is transfered to the state and by implication the perception is that it was an abuse location.

It is not personalised because it is generalised. Nobody is been punished personally. The church is being taking financial responsibility collectively - just like the government took financial responsibility collectively. It would never come to a legal challenge for the property in court.

Such an agreement would be agreed outside of the courts. Legally it will not be put through as a repayment of debt but as an agreement to transfer the schools to the government and in return the government does not force the church to repay the debt owed.

CDfm wrote: »

So if I take a school built by church community contributions in a small area to educate its children its personal.

Such contributions were made by people like me. I am no longer part of the faith community that you talk of but I am part of the community. The lands will still be used for the benefit of the community as the lands were always intended to be.

CDfm

axer wrote: »

Have you never heard of vicarious liability?

In the case of the failure of the state to intervene, individual civil servants cannot be held liable under law.

And you want to transfer schools to them.:rolleyes:

Such an agreement would be agreed outside of the courts. Legally it will not be put through as a repayment of debt but as an agreement to transfer the schools to the government and in return the government does not force the church to repay the debt owed.

These schools are not collective property to be paid over to avoid legal constraints of a settlement. I don't think it possible for them to convert its use to that as thats like stealing or fraud.

I imagine this is the reason the original settlement actually failed as those making the settlement felt they could behave this way. I know of one school that was built and owned by the Dukes of Devonshire that was returned to them after its purpose as a catholic school was over.

I know of another Church of Ireland training centre where the trustees were in court and had to recieve legal approval from a judge to take a particular course of action on disposing of a small piece of property and which they were told under the original bequest in the 1870s they could not do.

robindch

axer wrote: »

The church is being taking financial responsibility collectively - just like the government took financial responsibility collectively.

That isn't strictly true.

I'm going from memory here so this may need to be corrected, but AFAIR, the outgoing cabinet in June 2002 struck a deal with a group of religious orders in which the state would bear 50% of the liability for residential abuse settlements and the religious orders would bear the other 50%. The final settlement bill was estimated to be 250m euro, and the orders agreed to hand over some of its share as cash (I believe around 20m euro), some in the form of "services" of one kind or another (I believe around 30m euro) and the remaining 75m euro would be paid in the form of the transfer of schools, hospitals and some other buildings.

As it turned out, the bill rocketed to around 1.25 billion euro, but the orders secured the services of an expensive city-center law firm who managed to cap their liability at 125m. Not sure about the current position, but two years back, few if any of the properties listed for transfer to the state had actually been transferred and I believes that little of the 30m in "services" had been used.

So the position as I believe it stands now is that the state has paid out hundreds of millions of taxpayers' funds, while the religious orders under whose auspices the abuse took place have paid, in comparison, almost nothing.

CDfm

robindch wrote: »

That isn't strictly true.



So the position as I believe it stands now is that the state has paid out hundreds of millions of taxpayers' funds, while the religious orders under whose auspices the abuse took place have paid, in comparison, almost nothing.

So at what stage does the deal struck by autonomous religious orders get transfered to local catholic communities to settle.

This is what Quinn seems to propose.

axer

CDfm wrote: »

And you want to transfer schools to them.:rolleyes:

Yes. Can't be much worse that an organisation that actively hid child abuse for years and then tries to get out of paying compensation.

CDfm wrote: »

These schools are not collective property to be paid over to avoid legal constraints of a settlement. I don't think it possible for them to convert its use to that as thats like stealing or fraud.

Each school can be dealt with on an individual basis. 'm sure there are schools that can be transferred without the religious clause.

CDfm wrote: »

I imagine this is the reason the original settlement actually failed as those making the settlement felt they could behave this way. I know of one school that was built and owned by the Dukes of Devonshire that was returned to them after its purpose as a catholic school was over.

I know of another Church of Ireland training centre where the trustees were in court and had to recieve legal approval from a judge to take a particular course of action on disposing of a small piece of property and which they were told under the original bequest in the 1870s they could not do.

Again, you cannot say that all the schools are that way but the idea would be to take over as many as is legally possible I would assume.

axer

CDfm wrote: »

So at what stage does the deal struck by autonomous religious orders get transfered to local catholic communities to settle.

This is what Quinn seems to propose.

Many (if not most or all) of the schools are owned by the dioceses in which they are located. They are not seperate to the church just because a community might have helped build them and they are not legally owned by the community in which they are located.

axer

robindch wrote: »

That isn't strictly true.

I meant to say the church is supposed to be taking financial responsibility collectively - just like the government took financial responsibility collectively.

CDfm

axer wrote: »

Yes. Can't be much worse that an organisation that actively hid child abuse for years and then tries to get out of paying compensation

.

Axer - this is to do with property held by religous orders who are autonomous from and not part of the local church.

Each school can be dealt with on an individual basis. 'm sure there are schools that can be transferred without the religious clause.

well why cant they do that then? surely it is a matter for the state to pursue the settlement ?

Again, you cannot say that all the schools are that way but the idea would be to take over as many as is legally possible I would assume

i do not know but it would appear that the property which was to be part of the settlement cannot be transfered as the religious orders have problems with doing so or may not have legal titlebn ie they dont own the property they are trying to transfer.

CDfm

axer wrote: »

Many (if not most or all) of the schools are owned by the dioceses in which they are located. They are not seperate to the church just because a community might have helped build them and they are not legally owned by the community in which they are located.

but this isnt a diocesan issue- religous orders are independent entities and operate by their own rulers..

dont you understand this - it is ruari quinn trying to make it one.

CDfm

axer wrote: »

Many (if not most or all) of the schools are owned by the dioceses in which they are located. They are not seperate to the church just because a community might have helped build them and they are not legally owned by the community in which they are located.

but this isnt a diocesan issue- religous orders are independent entities and operate by their own rulers..

dont you understand this - it is ruari quinn trying to make it one.

axer wrote: »

I meant to say the church is supposed to be taking financial responsibility collectively - just like the government took financial responsibility collectively.

it has nothing to do with the catholic church.

it is to do with autonomous religous orders who operated institutions which were not part of any diocese. Residential institutions were like borstals and the state had a private deal to incarcerate what were largely juvenile offenders in them.

axer

CDfm wrote: »

but this isnt a diocesan issue- religous orders are independent entities and operate by their own rulers..

It doesn't matter if it is a diocesan issue or not - they are all part of the same organisation. The diocese takes orders from the next up the chain of command - they are all part of the one like any organisation. An agreement can be made in principal and then followed up on an individual school by school basis. Where it is impossible to transfer the deeds legally then another arrangment is made but where possible then the deeds are transferred.

CDfm

axer wrote: »

It doesn't matter if it is a diocesan issue or not - they are all part of the same organisation. The diocese takes orders from the next up the chain of command - they are all part of the one like any organisation. An agreement can be made in principal and then followed up on an individual school by school basis. Where it is impossible to transfer the deeds legally then another arrangment is made but where possible then the deeds are transferred.

Axer - I have no doubt you are intelligient.

I dont know if your trolling but lets assume you are not.

An organisation "the Government" incarcerated children and subcontracted this work to private operators "the Religious Orders" who operate completely autonomously from the the Catholic Church Hierarchy in Ireland and are best described as affiliates.. The Religious Orders are seperate entities with their own Hierarchy- who are Catholics but not part of the church hierarchy. Just like Kilmacud is a Dublin GAA Team affiliated to the GAA and seperate from the Dublin County Board.

So the Government and their private contractors are culpable not anyone else. Just those. The Government took over the payments of compensation and issued an indemnity to the Religious Orders their Co-Defendants in the abuse claims from this that is all.It was a stupid deal and the government hasnt collected the contribution of its co-defendants.

Amongst those who complained to the Government authorities and officials over the years was the Catholic Church.

Now one defendant has welshed on the deal and a politician Ruari Quinn is attempting to pass the blame elsewhere and I object.He is playing pass the parcel.

Your attitude to Catholics is phobic as if being a Catholic is a different species.

Nodin

CDfm wrote: »

Now one defendant has welshed on the deal and a politician Ruari Quinn is attempting to pass the blame elsewhere and I object.He is playing pass the parcel.

Your attitude to Catholics is phobic as if being a Catholic is a different species.

The Church has reneged on its part. It should be made pay.

I might add that whining about 'attitudes to Catholics' is rather noxious. Its the actions of the Church that are under scrutiny.

CDfm wrote: »

So if I take a school built by church community contributions in a small area to educate its children its personal. .

As has been pointed out to you, no change of usage is proposed. You seem hell bent on ignoring that, along with other facts.

Nodin

CDfm wrote: »

it has nothing to do with the catholic church.

it is to do with autonomous religous orders who operated institutions which were not part of any diocese.

The settlement covered a range of issues. Secondly, all orders come ultimately under the same authority.

CDfm

Nodin wrote: »

The Church has reneged on its part. It should be made pay.I might add that whining about 'attitudes to Catholics' is rather noxious. Its the actions of the Church that are under scrutiny.

The State had private correctional facilities with religious orders that operated automously and independently from the Catholic church in Ireland.

Do you accept this because if you dont there is no point discussing it further as you have no understanding of either the issue or the settlement.

As has been pointed out to you, no change of usage is proposed. You seem hell bent on ignoring that, along with other facts.

A problem with this is that some of the property mentioned in the settlement may not belong to the particular Religious Order or they may have not proper legal title allowing them to transfer the property.

They may have use of it but it does not belong to them.

You may have the use of a bedroom in your parents house but you cannot rent it out or sell it.Its for your use only as long as you use it or quit but you can't use it for anything else. The principle is the same.

I have an office behind my house that my employer "rents" from me - if I quit working there why should they have rights to put someone else in.Its not their property.It is only nominally the company's office.

Enda Kenny has a constituency office in his house. Does that belong to Fine Gael?

Nodin wrote: »

The settlement covered a range of issues. Secondly, all orders come ultimately under the same authority.

See above - I am not replying to that one again as you clearly do not understand the issue.

And which authority is that. What part of independent and autonomous do you not understand?The Christian Brothers report to the Provincial of that Order who is a Christian Brother.

Nodin

CDfm wrote: »

The State had private correctional facilities with religious orders that operated automously and independently from the Catholic church in Ireland.

Do you accept this because if you dont there is no point discussing it further as you have no understanding of either the issue or the settlement.

I don't think its me thats lacking in understanding here...

Religious orders in the Irish Republic are to contribute 128 million Euros (£78m) to a state-backed compensation fund for children who suffered abuse in residential care during the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s.

Under the deal agreed with government, the 18 religious orders involved will make the contribution through a combination of cash and property transfers. In addition, they will make an extra payment to cover the cost of counselling, retrieval of records and pastoral services.

(my bold)
http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2002/02/07/34978/religious-orders-to-pay-compensation.html

CDfm

Nodin wrote: »

I don't think its me thats lacking in understanding here...

(my bold)
http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2002/02/07/34978/religious-orders-to-pay-compensation.html

There are 18 religious orders that had children who were in the care of the state placed under their control.

These religious orders are autonomous and not under the direct control of the Catholic Church Hierarchy In Ireland and its these orders that have made the settlement. Do you agree with that?

Now I am not disagreeing that these people/ Religious Orders owe the money and believe they should pay up but their liability should be theirs. If they have to be wound up to do that fair enough.

That does not get away from the fact that Ruari Quinn put down his marker

Nodin

CDfm wrote: »

That does not get away from the fact that Ruari Quinn put down his marker

And what marker would that be....?

CDfm

Nodin wrote: »

And what marker would that be....?

coveting his neighbours goods I think

Nodin

CDfm wrote: »

coveting his neighbours goods I think

Hardly. It's a question of seeking restitution. The fact is, as outlined by the article below, that one side has failed to meet its side of the bargain. And in having its liability capped, its quite the bargain indeed.
http://www.examiner.ie/ireland/idojojcwql/

CDfm

Nodin wrote: »

Hardly. It's a question of seeking restitution. The fact is, as outlined by the article below, that one side has failed to meet its side of the bargain. And in having its liability capped, its quite the bargain indeed.
http://www.examiner.ie/ireland/idojojcwql/

It says the transfers are taking place of 63 properties - 21 being completed and of the remaining only 1 or 2 are not in use or available for use by the intended recipients just yet just sorting out stuff like legal title which may in fact need to be handled by the High Court .

You are phobic about Catholics and why just admit that the religious orders had some power or hold that allowed them to negotiate this sweetheart indemnity. I think the indemnity was given so the state and government Departments and the religious orders could do a cover up and as a taxpayer and voter I am totally against it. Justice must be seen to be done.

So the 18 religious orders are co-operating with the handover which is complex and the minister isnt reopening negotiations.

Now where does this put the Labour party's attitude to Catholics- it still is prejudiced?

robindch

CDfm wrote: »

So the 18 religious orders are co-operating with the handover which is complex and the minister isnt reopening negotiations.

It doesn't take seven years to transfer 44 properties -- if there's a will on both sides, a single transfer can be done in a few weeks.

What's strikingly unfair bout this entire indemnity deal is that (a) the religious orders are paying, in cash, around 20m of a 1,250m euro cash bill (that's less than 2%) and (b) that the properties being transferred as "payment" are generally school-class buildings and cannot be sold onwards, so the state is effectively paying the religious orders' property tally too.

Unbelievable.

CDfm

robindch wrote: »

It doesn't take seven years to transfer 44 properties -- if there's a will on both sides, a single transfer can be done in a few weeks.

In fairness - any property that hasn't changed hands since the War of Independence may not have proper title. If there is a donation with conditions it would require a ce pre order thru the High Court which is a drawn out process.

What's strikingly unfair bout this entire indemnity deal is that (a) the religious orders are paying, in cash, around 20m of a 1,250m euro cash bill (that's less than 2%) and (b) that the properties being transferred as "payment" are generally school-class buildings and cannot be sold onwards, so the state is effectively paying the religious orders' property tally too.

Unbelievable.

Its a bit of a fallacy that the Church is cash rich. Its buildings are functional and some will have no real resale value. How can you value the Pro-Cathedral. The buildings are probably historic with preservation orders and if it was transfered to you what can you use it for - a concert hall perhaps?

1,250 million euro is a lot to payout if you have no liability by the state. Doesn't it strike you as very odd?

BTW - what was the nescessity of the indemnity and involvement by the state if they were not at some level responsible. This is something I never can grasp and with the government scrapping a way for 2000 million in cuts -well you think there would be something going on not to do that if thats 50% of the total.The Catholic Church is not that powerful.

Anchovies anyone?

Nodin

CDfm wrote: »

You are phobic about Catholics

Ahh yes, the ad-hominem.

CDfm wrote: »

and why (.....)done.

Unless you have some basis for that, I'd take it to the conspiracy forum, were I you.

CDfm wrote: »

So the 18 religious orders are co-operating with the handover which is complex and the minister isnt reopening negotiations..

They're taking their sweet time, I'd imagine they could come up with the cash if enough screws were put on them.

CDfm wrote: »

Now where does this put the Labour party's attitude to Catholics- it still is prejudiced?

More unsubstantiated nonsense.