School Chaplains' funding protected

JohnHamill151

There are 12 full-time chaplains. All are Catholic. 11 are male (11 priests and 1 nun). All 12 appointed by the local Bishop. Only 2 are direct employees (Waterford and Cork). The rest are employed by a contract for services with the local diocese.

I'm not sure why you have a focus on direct employees versus a contract for services. This isn't the issue that Atheist Ireland raised. The issue is that these are publicly funded positions for which there is no advertisement, no tender, no interview, no selection criteria and no effort to find the best candidate for students. Public monies are simply given to the Church and Bishop makes an appointment at his convenience, thereby discriminating against women and non-Catholics.

Whether the actual contract is signed by a Bishop providing services, or by a priest acting as the chaplain, seems to be beside the point.

Peregrinus

JohnHamill151 wrote: »

There are 12 full-time chaplains. All are Catholic. 11 are male (11 priests and 1 nun). All 12 appointed by the local Bishop. Only 2 are direct employees (Waterford and Cork). The rest are employed by a contract for services with the local diocese.

I'm not sure why you have a focus on direct employees versus a contract for services. This isn't the issue that Atheist Ireland raised. The issue is that these are publicly funded positions for which there is no advertisement, no tender, no interview, no selection criteria and no effort to find the best candidate for students. Public monies are simply given to the Church and Bishop makes an appointment at his convenience, thereby discriminating against women and non-Catholics.

Whether the actual contract is signed by a Bishop providing services, or by a priest acting as the chaplain, seems to be beside the point.

John, I accept that a lot of the criticisms you make are perfectly valid, and on one or two doubts that I had you have set my mind at rest.

And I'm happy that, if a college signs a contract for services with any provider for any services, the contract payments can fairly be described as payments to the contractor - in this case, the bishop/diocese. And that's clearly the bulk of the cases you list.

But two of the chaplains (who between them account for about 20% of the amount you calculate as "awarded to bishops") are apparently appointed to public service posts, and (I assume) are paid salaries in the usual way. They are appointed on the nomination of the bishop without an open competition having been held and, while that may be objectionable, I don't think it would justify treating the salary paid to the chaplains as having been awarded to the bishops.

And, while we're at it, you haven't addressed the question I put regarding the calculation of the total amount paid for chaplaincy. Your calculation seems to me to proceed on the basis that the two salaried chaplains are paid at the top of their respective scales. Do you in fact know that they are?

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

The reason I am not sceptical is because I have often heard over the years that some staff working in the health service (particularly doing home visits for post-natal and geriatric care) are actually nuns, even though they might not wear the nuns habit. And that their salary is paid to their religious order, where they live with other nuns (who presumably do not have a salary).
Whether that is actually true or not I cannot say with certainty, but I'd have no reason to doubt it, or object to it, so long as they were appointed to those jobs fairly and in an open competition. And if they share their salary within a commune, that is their own business. Though really, the salary should be paid direct to the employee, and then if they want to turn it over to their leader, that's fine.

SFAIK where monks, nuns, etc are employed, their salary is handled in exactly the same way as a lay employee. It's their salary, it belongs to them, it's taxed and subjected to social insurance as theirs, and it's paid into the bank account that they nominate.

They may well nominate a bank account belonging to the community or congregation of which they are a member. Whether they do or not, and why, is a matter between them and the order; it's no business of the employer. If they do nominate a bank account of the order, they can change that nomination at any time.

JohnHamill151

As you've been able to do the calculations yourself, you'll be aware that the information is presented in an entirely open and honest manner. If anything, the totals quoted greatly under-estimate the public monies paid to the Church on a purely sectarian basis, without advertisement or tender. If you look at the RTÉ piece, they did their own research and came up with a figure of more than €800,000 annually. Where personal salaries are concerned, rather that contracts for services, I'm not going to discuss specific figures for specific individuals. I wouldn't want anyone discussing my salary in public either.

There are two separate funding models. By far the most common involves the State awarding no-tender unadvertised contracts to Bishops in secret. The second allows a Bishop to make an appointment to a publicly-funded role. In all such cases, a Bishop used this privilege to remove a priest from his own cost base and put the salary of that priest onto the public payroll. In no case, did a Bishop use this privilege to award the public monies to a non-priest. Since all Bishops used this privilege in all cases, explicitly to their own financial gain and to the financial gain of their own diocese, I really don't see the distinction that you are making. If you don't think this was a financial gain for the Bishops then perhaps you'd be happy for the State to pay the salaries of all the employees in my company?

Either way, this really is a distraction into minutiae and avoids entirely the core point.

Peregrinus

JohnHamill151 wrote: »

As you've been able to do the calculations yourself, you'll be aware that the information is presented in an entirely open and honest manner . . . .

As long as you don't say why you do your calculations on the assumption that salaried chaplains are paid at the top of the scale, I don't think you're being quite as open as you might be. And perhaps not even quite as honest as you might be, if you are summing up the maximum which could be paid on certain assumptions, and then present is as a figure which is paid, if you don't know those assumptions to be correct.

And I'm unconvinced by your "bishop removes a priest from his own cost base" argument. Bishops in Ireland are importing priests, adding them to their cost base because they have clerical positions that they need to fill. It could equally be the case that, if one priest were not appointed to the chaplaincy post, he wouldn't end up being a useless drain on the diocese; he would be available to fill another clerical post, and the bishop would need to import one less priest.

Don't get me wrong. The substance of your criticisms is entirely merited, in particular the fact that proper public procurement/public appointment procedures are not being followed. But I don't think you do your case any favours with the dramatic and not strictly accurate presentation presenting worst-case possibilities as actualities, and treating, or encouraging the reader to treat, public service salaries paid to chaplains as if they were paid to bishops. They aren't paid to bishops, and if people can read your article and end up with the impression that they are, that doesn't reflect well on the journalistic qualities of your article.

JohnHamill151

We haven't just quoted the sum, which is the maximum that *could* be paid. We stated that the figure is more than €500K. RTÉ have stated that it is more than €800K. We've been very conservative in the sums we quoted but none of this relates at all to the core point and it is absolutely unfair of you to suggest that we've been in any way dishonest. I think you should withdraw that statement. There are very good reasons why I won't discuss the salaries of specific individuals. Those reasons protect their interests and not mine.

You are also flat wrong in your guesses and assumptions on how the Bishops fill the salaried roles. If you look at the documents published on the Atheist Ireland Twitter feed, you will see that Bishops routinely swap their Irish priests in and out of these roles at their whim. The idea that these are imported priests or that these roles are anything other than a public salary to be moved and allocated at the discretion of a Bishop, exists purely in your imagination.

You've made quite a few allegations on this thread. You've been routinely and consistently wrong and I've pointed that out using material that is already in the public domain and accessible to you. Perhaps the next time your imagination arrives at some theoretical narrative that you feel may mitigate this situation for the Bishops, you may just look it up yourself rather than immediately alleging that others are dishonest. I have no desire to do any more research on your behalf, while correcting your false allegations.

I think our discussion is now at an end. Have a good day.

Peregrinus

Oh, come on, John. You totted up all the chaplaincy payments and came up with the extremely precise sum of 510,6690.92. That figure doesn't relate to anything unless both the the employed chaplains are being paid at the top of their grades. I could take your sensitivity and discretion about their personal earnings a bit more seriously if it had prevented you from publishing a very clear representation that they are both being paid at the top of their grades.

If you really don't want to discuss what they are being paid then you should have presented the total of chaplaincy payments as "between 480k and 511k". (I'm rounding a bit here, obviously.) If you don't know what they're being paid, then I think that's the only honest total you could give. And you should have omitted a further 18k from any figure you quoted in reference to the Catholic bishops, since that amount is paid in respect of Presbyterian and CofI ministers.

I came in to this thread to suggest that you had a good case but were "bigging it up" for polemical purposes. What you have said hasn't really altered my view. I don't think your case is in any need of bigging up, and I think it's unfortunate that you yielded to the temptation.

recedite

The real question is why the priest is being paid at the lecturer's pay scale at all when he is not a lecturer. There must be lots of other ancillary staff; secretarial, maintenance etc on different pay scales which could be more appropriate.

BTW John, have the Dept. of Education contacted AI re their inquiry, or is it going to be purely an "in-house" affair.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/1008/733283-education-chaplains/

robindch

recedite wrote: »

The real question is why the priest is being paid at the lecturer's pay scale at all when he is not a lecturer.

*cough* *money* *cough*

Peregrinus

It's common enough for chaplaincy salaries to be linked to the salaries of other posts in the organisation. And this is usually a professional pay scale, reflecting the qualifications and role of a chaplain. This is how it works in the army, the prison service and (I think) hospitals. A military chaplain, for example, is paid on the scale for a captain with a professional qualification (lawyer, engineer, psychologist). Hospital chaplains are paid on one of the administrative grades, though I'm not sure which one it is.

If one of the criticisms of the present arrangement for educational chaplaincy is lack of transparency, one element of addressing that would be consistency in the remuneration of chaplains, and that would be achieved with a clear link to existing payscales.

I think it's striking that the two chaplains who are on public sector pay scales appear to be on completely different pay scales.

Hotblack Desiato

JohnHamill151 wrote: »

There was also one of the most widely read articles on Ireland's most popular student website "Oxygen_IE".

http://www.oxygen.ie/catholic-church-pockets-thousands-in-student-fees/

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think it's striking that the two chaplains who are on public sector pay scales appear to be on completely different pay scales.

Yes, it all seems very random. Almost as if some extra sweet deals are being done in some colleges.

What about TCD; all these chaplains but who is paying them?
Is it simply a matter of saying to the bishops "Yes, we give permission for your reps to proselytize on our premises, but don't expect us to pay for them".

Why not turn the whole thing on its head, and charge a license fee. It could be a nice little earner for the colleges. Say €10,000 a year per priest for access to the student body, plus an hourly rate for use of a college chapel or meditation rooms.
€50,000 for exclusive chaplaincy; to cover up to ten priests, and no chaplaincy given to any other religion for the whole year.

expectationlost

CIT criticised for paying 50% cost of chaplaincy paint jobs http://shr.gs/8CUhmQ

A spokeswoman for CIT confirmed it did not own the properties but said the offer of payment for painting the houses was in recognition of the services provided by the chaplaincy.

'recognition' what does that mean, is that benefits in kind

recedite

expectationlost wrote: »

'recognition' what does that mean, is that benefits in kind

Stroke politics. Anyone remember this guy? He was jailed after the county council paid for some fencing on his land. Not a totally dissimilar service.

And this guy

..a building contractor involved in public contracts had painted his house for free in the early 1990s..

I never forget a crook

Absolam

expectationlost wrote: »

CIT criticised for paying 50% cost of chaplaincy paint jobs 'recognition' what does that mean, is that benefits in kind

recedite wrote: »

Stroke politics. Anyone remember this guy? He was jailed after the county council paid for some fencing on his land. Not a totally dissimilar service.
And I never forget a crook

Hmm. CIT did point out that chaplaincy services are provided to CIT through the premises in question though.
"A spokeswoman for CIT confirmed it did not own the properties but said the offer of payment for painting the houses was in recognition of the services provided by the chaplaincy.
“CIT did contribute 50% of the cost of repainting some years ago — this was done in recognition of the services supplied by the chaplaincy through those premises. They form an important resource to the provision of our overall pastoral care service,” she said."
So it may be something of a quid pro quo; students have a place off-campus where they can avail of chaplaincy services, and the college throws something their way as a contribution to upkeep costs in return. Possibly?

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

So it may be something of a quid pro quo; students have a place off-campus where they can avail of chaplaincy services, and the college throws something their way as a contribution to upkeep costs in return. Possibly?

So priest roams the college campus inviting students to go back to the house for free tea and biscuits, and a chat about god. In return, college maintains priests house in addition to paying his salary. Possibly?

That's the thing about stroke politics, its done on a nod and a wink basis. There is no definite causal link (in writing) between a specific service provided, and a specific remuneration. And of course, no tax paid.

Hotblack Desiato

As I've said before, it's good for colleges to provide support and counselling services but these should not come with a side of religious woo.

It's reprehensible the way religions actively target vulnerable people.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

So priest roams the college campus inviting students to go back to the house for free tea and biscuits, and a chat about god. In return, college maintains priests house in addition to paying his salary. Possibly?

Seems a bit unlikely, but if they did I suppose at least they'd be proactively earning their salaries? I don't think paying for half of a paint job quite rises to the level of maintaining the house though, to be fair.

recedite wrote: »

That's the thing about stroke politics, its done on a nod and a wink basis. There is no definite causal link (in writing) between a specific service provided, and a specific remuneration. And of course, no tax paid.

What? Who's not paying tax now? That was a bit of a leap!

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

As I've said before, it's good for colleges to provide support and counselling services but these should not come with a side of religious woo. It's reprehensible the way religions actively target vulnerable people.

Meh. You never know, the chaplains might have been de-woo'ed before they took up the post. Or woo may be optional depending on student preferences. Maybe when they're roaming they offer free tea, but either woo or biscuits, never both. Unless they're fig rolls, which have built in woo. Sort of a twofer.

robindch

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It's reprehensible the way religions actively target vulnerable people.

There is a reason why the religious involve themselves with schools, prisons and hospitals.

Absolam

robindch wrote: »

There is a reason why the religious involve themselves with schools, prisons and hospitals.

Though of course those with religious convictions would tell you that they involve themselves with such places because this is where those most in need of their help are. It's worth pointing out that being religious doesn't preclude people from being motivated by benevolence or compassion, even if others feel the execution is misguided....

Cabaal

Its still relevant!
and its still an awful waste of money

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/very-few-students-attend-campus-religious-services-figures-show-1.2605741

A handful of students are turning up to weekly Masses held in some third-level colleges, new figures show.

While colleges and universities spend about €1.5 million in public funds annually to employ chaplains, attendance rates at services in many institutions are in single figures.

In Cork Institute of Technology, for example, there are about 12,000 students but average attendance at the religious services on campus is four.

The chaplain, a Catholic priest, is paid a salary of about €49,000.

At Sligo IT, which has 6,000 students, the average weekly Mass attendance is nine. The chaplain, also a Catholic priest, is paid up to €55,000.

The information was obtained from colleges under the Freedom of Information Act by Atheist Ireland.

The group is campaigning against the use of public funds to hire members of clergy at a time of cutbacks to the higher education sector.

Investigation

The costs and recruitment processes involved are at the centre of an investigation ordered last year by outgoing Minister for Education Jan O’Sullivan.

A spokesman for the Higher Education Authority, which is carrying out the investigation, confirmed that it is finalising the report but declined to comment further.

Records released to Atheist Ireland show that recruitment procedures and pay for chaplains vary widely.

However, the majority are Catholic and are appointed by the local bishop. Salaries are met by the colleges in almost all cases, through students’ fees or college funds.

Martin Long of the Catholic Communications Office defended the work of chaplains who, he said, provided extraordinary support to students.

This included spiritual support and pastoral care.

robindch

College chaplains? Religion? Perish the thought! Says a chaplain.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/college-chaplains-are-not-religious-operatives-1.2644203

recedite

A load of waffle. He never explains what he means by "pastoral care".
What does a goat-herd do when the goats leave his pasture?

If there is a need or a niche for a psycho-therapist within the college, then employ one. Don't employ a goat-herd, and especially not one who has been specially trained to herd just the one breed of goats.

robindch

recedite wrote: »

A load of waffle. He never explains what he means by "pastoral care".

I read it yesterday afternoon and it was like enveloping oneself in a vast ball of cotton wool - not once did Mr Keating come within a thousand fathoms of being, er, fathomable.

lazygal

https://www.dcu.ie/prospective/deginfo.php?classname=MAHC

This course ad popped into my newsfeed today, offered in conjunction with Mater Dei. Seems focused on healthcare but I would guess education can't be far behind?

recedite

the theological and professional competencies required for effective ministry within intensive clinical environments and complex healthcare systems

It seems to be a strange mixture of science and superstition. In some ways I think if I was in that hospital situation as a patient, I'd prefer just to see a priest in the role. At least I'd know who I was dealing with.

lazygal

recedite wrote: »

It seems to be a strange mixture of science and superstition. In some ways I think if I was in that hospital situation as a patient, I'd prefer just to see a priest in the role. At least I'd know who I was dealing with.

I presume it's only Catholic theology given Mater Dei is involved. I wonder if it's prompted by a shortage of priests or an attempt to have people who aren't priests or nuns in chaplaincy roles while maintaining a specific religious role.

recedite

lazygal wrote: »

I presume it's only Catholic theology given Mater Dei is involved. I wonder if it's prompted by a shortage of priests or an attempt to have people who aren't priests or nuns in chaplaincy roles while maintaining a specific religious role.

That seems a fair assessment.
There would be a trade-off though. The faithful would see these people as priests-lite, ie not properly qualified and anointed. On the other hand, those of no faith and/or the wrong faith would be more open to them than they would be to a traditional priestly chaplain.

Hotblack Desiato

DCU was established as a non-religious institution, it is very disappointing to see it getting involved with teaching nonsense as fact.

Samaris

recedite wrote: »

The reason I am not sceptical is because I have often heard over the years that some staff working in the health service (particularly doing home visits for post-natal and geriatric care) are actually nuns, even though they might not wear the nuns habit. And that their salary is paid to their religious order, where they live with other nuns (who presumably do not have a salary).
Whether that is actually true or not I cannot say with certainty, but I'd have no reason to doubt it, or object to it, so long as they were appointed to those jobs fairly and in an open competition. And if they share their salary within a commune, that is their own business. Though really, the salary should be paid direct to the employee, and then if they want to turn it over to their leader, that's fine.

In general, it certainly used to be the case that nun's "salary" went to the Order to which she belongs, yes. As far as I know, it is still the case as part of a vow of poverty. May not apply to all orders, but afaik, it applies within all Catholic orders and all the Protestant ones I've heard of, but I don't know too much about them.

expectationlost

Third-level college chaplaincies to be open to lay people – Irish Times
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/third-level-college-chaplaincies-to-be-open-to-lay-people-1.2704592
more details via AI, no official report yet
http://atheist.ie/2016/06/hea-enforce-atheist-ireland-recommendations/ well done John Hamill and co, now will the college presidents listen? I have my doubts

recedite

expectationlost wrote: »

well done John Hamill and co, now will the college presidents listen?

Yes, well done John Hamill. It looks like these guys have 12 months to adopt proper public service procurement procedures.
That means the local RCC bishop will no longer have a direct debit automatically being paid from the college/student funds.