Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
School patronage
Comments
-
silverharp wrote: »and the system is social pressure, its in a state of segregation. there is nothing intrinsic to Catholicism or Protestantism which suggest they must live apart and educate their kids separately, its an ethnic/cultural turf war.silverharp wrote: »its the consequences of segregation which have significant downsides and are worth commenting on.0
-
expectationlost wrote: »Castlebar Educate Together opens despite objection http://www.mayonews.ie/news/28482-castlebar-educate-together-opens-despite-objection#.V8b5qvmaETM.twitter in a a first-floor office unit
It's only temporary, the pics looked like the place was done really nicely.0 -
Now that the schools are back, is there any sign of sense on the horizon or will our tax money continue to be wasted on 'catholic education' in publicly funded schools for the foreseeable future?
In fairness I'd love to see one legitimate, rational and justifiable reason to condone such a balls stupid system, because I haven't seen one yet, plenty of embarrassing spin and pedantic diversion tactics but nothing remotely legitimate as yet.0 -
Huntergonzo wrote: »Now that the schools are back, is there any sign of sense on the horizon or will our tax money continue to be wasted on 'catholic education' in publicly funded schools for the foreseeable future?
In fairness I'd love to see one legitimate, rational and justifiable reason to condone such a balls stupid system, because I haven't seen one yet, plenty of embarrassing spin and pedantic diversion tactics but nothing remotely legitimate as yet.Huntergonzo wrote: ». . . our tax money . . .
We know from the consultation on primary patronage undertaken a couple of years back, and from other sources, that a large number of parents - a substantial majority, in fact - do want religiously-patronised schools for their children. Given that, the onus rather seems to be on you to explain why their wishes should be disregarded, rather than on them to persuade you to relax your veto on the expenditure of public money.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »Well there's this, from your very own post:
The fatct that it's our tax money means that your inability to accept the validity of the choices people make for the education of their children isn't quite the clincher that you think it is.
We know from the consultation on primary patronage undertaken a couple of years back, and from other sources, that a large number of parents - a substantial majority, in fact - do want religiously-patronised schools for their children. Given that, the onus rather seems to be on you to explain why their wishes should be disregarded, rather than on them to persuade you to relax your veto on the expenditure of public money.
Ok great, so basically, that many people (without actually supplying a number of course) can't be wrong and the majority always has final say over the minority no matter what the circumstances. Still no rational reason for religious indoctrination in publicly funded schools was supplied in your answer, you just jumped to the safety of the pack and status quo.
Now what is/was this 'consultation on primary patronage'? Who conducted it? How many people did they consult? And were the people consulted objectively educated in school about all religions and atheism or was their opinion somewhat compromised as a result of being educated within a particular religion?0 -
Advertisement
-
A school is "persuaded" to backtrack on its decision to refuse a place to a traveller child.
Child and parents not the brightest, and fail to apply to the school on time.
But school is only half full, therefore not allowed to refuse the place despite the above.
The interesting thing here is that if this RC school had been one of the more desirable ones, and oversubscribed, the initial refusal would have been undisputed and completely unremarkable.
So, the more elitist you are, the more you are allowed to discriminate. Its a funny old world.0 -
Huntergonzo wrote: »Ok great, so basically, that many people (without actually supplying a number of course) can't be wrong and the majority always has final say over the minority no matter what the circumstances. Still no rational reason for religious indoctrination in publicly funded schools was supplied in your answer, you just jumped to the safety of the pack and status quo.
A perfectly rational reason for allowing people to provide religious education for their children in State funded schools is quite simply that they demonstrably want to do so, and the Constitution guarantees that not only can they have it, but the State will provide for it. Unless we ever get to a point where not only do most people not want it, but they also want to deny it it others, that's not likely to change I would have thought.Huntergonzo wrote: »Now what is/was this 'consultation on primary patronage'? Who conducted it? How many people did they consult? And were the people consulted objectively educated in school about all religions and atheism or was their opinion somewhat compromised as a result of being educated within a particular religion?
In 2011, the Minister for Education and Skills established an expert group to consult with people and to make recommendations on how primary schools can become more inclusive of different traditions, religions and beliefs.
In April 2012 the Minister for Education & Skills, Ruairí Quinn, T.D. accepted and published the Report of the Advisory Group to the Forum on Patronage and Pluralism in the Primary Sector.
In June 2012 as part of his response to the recommendations of that report, the Minister started a new process to look at the possible transfer of some schools run by the Catholic Church to other school patron bodies in 44 areas * around the country. This process was undertaken initially on a pilot basis in the following areas: Arklow, Castlebar, Whitehall (including Kilmore West and Beaumont), Trim and Tramore. The Report to New Schools Establishment Group on the pilot surveys regarding parental preferences on primary school patronage was published in December 2012
Surveys are now being carried out in the remaining areas.
- See more at: http://education.ie/en/Schools-Colleges/Information/Diversity-of-Patronage/Diversity-of-Patronage-Survey-of-Parents.html#sthash.xWvadz64.dpuf
And of course you've probably noticed some of the information posted on this thread when patrons were being selected for various schools, showing their preferences. Understandably the people weren't selected to meet the criteria that you obviously fancy, but they were at least people who would be using the school system, even if their opinions were 'compromised' in your own opinion.0 -
A school is "persuaded" to backtrack on its decision to refuse a place to a traveller child. Child and parents not the brightest, and fail to apply to the school on time. But school is only half full, therefore not allowed to refuse the place despite the above. The interesting thing here is that if this RC school had been one of the more desirable ones, and oversubscribed, the initial refusal would have been undisputed and completely unremarkable. So, the more elitist you are, the more you are allowed to discriminate. Its a funny old world.0
-
Huntergonzo wrote: »Ok great, so basically, that many people (without actually supplying a number of course) can't be wrong and the majority always has final say over the minority no matter what the circumstances.Huntergonzo wrote: »Still no rational reason for religious indoctrination in publicly funded schools . . .Huntergonzo wrote: »Now what is/was this 'consultation on primary patronage'? Who conducted it? How many people did they consult?Huntergonzo wrote: »And were the people consulted objectively educated in school about all religions and atheism or was their opinion somewhat compromised as a result of being educated within a particular religion?
OK, you have your "rational reason" right there. Ireland is a democracy; politicians are generally sensitive to the views of taxpayers and voters. You seek to dismiss views that you don't like by assuming that can be taken to be the result of indoctrination or brainwashing. (How else could we possibly explain the fact that anyone could disagree with Huntergonzo?) But it's obviously irrational to expect your position to be reflected in a democratic system. To prevail in a democracy, you need to persuade people to agree with you. Dismissing their disagreement as irrelevant because brainwashing may bolster your self-esteem, but its a tactic pretty well guaranteed to marginalise your own views in the public square.
So, given the way in which you advocate for your own views, it is wildly irrational of you to expect your views to prevail in a democracy. Which, rationally, explains why they don't.0 -
Calling something which only took place in selected areas an "extensive consultation" is having a laugh.
I live in an area where there is no prospect of new schools, no non-catholic secondaries at all and one small CoI primary - the RC schools would have about a dozen times the number of pupils.
The CoI school is full and there is a waiting list to get in, most children on it won't get in, it only admits half a class a year.
There is no 'choice' here.
Divestment of one of the RC primaries is the obvious answer but there was no consultation here, so how could the demand for it be assessed?
It's a joke, and describing the legacy of religious control of education as if it were a free choice of the current generation of parents is a sick joke.Scrap the cap!
0 -
Advertisement
-
Hotblack Desiato wrote: »Calling something which only took place in selected areas an "extensive consultation" is having a laugh.Hotblack Desiato wrote: »I live in an area where there is no prospect of new schools, no non-catholic secondaries at all and one small CoI primary - the RC schools would have about a dozen times the number of pupils.
The CoI school is full and there is a waiting list to get in, most children on it won't get in, it only admits half a class a year.
There is no 'choice' here.Hotblack Desiato wrote: »It's a joke, and describing the legacy of religious control of education as if it were a free choice of the current generation of parents is a sick joke.0 -
If you're arguing about how our tax money is spent, you can't really dispute that we all get to have am opinion, and there are plenty of people who just don't consider it a waste to have 'catholic education' in publicly funded schools for the foreseeable future.
A perfectly rational reason for allowing people to provide religious education for their children in State funded schools is quite simply that they demonstrably want to do so, and the Constitution guarantees that not only can they have it, but the State will provide for it. Unless we ever get to a point where not only do most people not want it, but they also want to deny it it others, that's not likely to change I would have thought.
I'm not sure I agree that it's been demonstrably proven that the vast majority of people in this state want the catholic church running the vast majority of our primary schools (I know I haven't been asked and I don't know of any extensive surveys in my area). In any case I would be calling for neutral schools, not ones which suits me or anybody else specifically, as the Rolling Stones song goes 'You Can't Always Get What You Want'.
Anyway my 2 biggest concerns about the catholic church is 1) all the appalling child sex abuse and subsequent reprehensible cover up attempts and 2) just the basic lack of evidence to support their version of creationism. Now if they can prove their story then fine, go ahead, but they should at least be asked to prove their claims.There's a rundown on education.ie if you're interested;
In 2011, the Minister for Education and Skills established an expert group to consult with people and to make recommendations on how primary schools can become more inclusive of different traditions, religions and beliefs.
In April 2012 the Minister for Education & Skills, Ruairí Quinn, T.D. accepted and published the Report of the Advisory Group to the Forum on Patronage and Pluralism in the Primary Sector.
In June 2012 as part of his response to the recommendations of that report, the Minister started a new process to look at the possible transfer of some schools run by the Catholic Church to other school patron bodies in 44 areas * around the country. This process was undertaken initially on a pilot basis in the following areas: Arklow, Castlebar, Whitehall (including Kilmore West and Beaumont), Trim and Tramore. The Report to New Schools Establishment Group on the pilot surveys regarding parental preferences on primary school patronage was published in December 2012
Surveys are now being carried out in the remaining areas.
- See more at: http://education.ie/en/Schools-Colleges/Information/Diversity-of-Patronage/Diversity-of-Patronage-Survey-of-Parents.html#sthash.xWvadz64.dpuf
And of course you've probably noticed some of the information posted on this thread when patrons were being selected for various schools, showing their preferences. Understandably the people weren't selected to meet the criteria that you obviously fancy, but they were at least people who would be using the school system, even if their opinions were 'compromised' in your own opinion.
Thank you for that, I'll have a proper read of that later.
I don't think it's unreasonable to say that if you attended a catholic school you're more likely to be subjectively influenced in your preference for catholic education, which I think does somewhat compromise your opinion. For example I don't think you can credibly pick your favourite dinner off the menu if you've only ever tried one and never took a serious look at any of the others.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »If you have no response to what I said, your wisest course is to say nothing. Writing down random stuff that I didn't say is not a good look.
Haha and yet you did the very same thing with my post. Now my apologies if I took you up wrong, can we please clarify, under what circumstances do you believe the the majority has say over the minority? Do you believe it's always, under any circumstances? under some circumstances but not all? (if so elaborate), under limited circumstances? or under no circumstances?Peregrinus wrote: »"The parents of the children want it" is not a rational reason for providing it?
I want = I get......that's not a very mature attitude, in fact it that can be quite a reckless attitude, I refer you back to the Rolling Stones again 'You Can't Always Get What You Want'. Also the catholic church runs 90%+ of our publicly funded primary schools, can you please show me evidence which indicates that 90%+ adults in this state support their patronage.Peregrinus wrote: »Ah, I see. You favour an system of government in which views that don't align with yours are dismissed on the basis that views that don't align with yours can only be the result of of indoctrination and brainwashing.
OK, you have your "rational reason" right there. Ireland is a democracy; politicians are generally sensitive to the views of taxpayers and voters. You seek to dismiss views that you don't like by assuming that can be taken to be the result of indoctrination or brainwashing. (How else could we possibly explain the fact that anyone could disagree with Huntergonzo?) But it's obviously irrational to expect your position to be reflected in a democratic system. To prevail in a democracy, you need to persuade people to agree with you. Dismissing their disagreement as irrelevant because brainwashing may bolster your self-esteem, but its a tactic pretty well guaranteed to marginalise your own views in the public square.
So, given the way in which you advocate for your own views, it is wildly irrational of you to expect your views to prevail in a democracy. Which, rationally, explains why they don't.
Well in fairness that's just rambling gibberish, made for an entertaining read though, keep it up :-)0 -
Huntergonzo wrote: »Now my apologies if I took you up wrong, can we please clarify, under what circumstances do you believe the the majority has say over the minority? Do you believe it's always, under any circumstances? under some circumstances but not all? (if so elaborate), under limited circumstances? or under no circumstances?Huntergonzo wrote: »Now that the schools are back, is there any sign of sense on the horizon or will our tax money continue to be wasted on 'catholic education' in publicly funded schools for the foreseeable future?
In fairness I'd love to see one legitimate, rational and justifiable reason to condone such a balls stupid system . . .Huntergonzo wrote: »I want = I get......that's not a very mature attitude, in fact it that can be quite a reckless attitude, I refer you back to the Rolling Stones again 'You Can't Always Get What You Want'. Also the catholic church runs 90%+ of our publicly funded primary schools, can you please show me evidence which indicates that 90%+ adults in this state support their patronage.0 -
Huntergonzo wrote: »I'm not sure I agree that it's been demonstrably proven that the vast majority of people in this state want the catholic church running the vast majority of our primary schools (I know I haven't been asked and I don't know of any extensive surveys in my area). In any case I would be calling for neutral schools, not ones which suits me or anybody else specifically, as the Rolling Stones song goes 'You Can't Always Get What You Want'.Huntergonzo wrote: »Anyway my 2 biggest concerns about the catholic church is 1) all the appalling child sex abuse and subsequent reprehensible cover up attempts and 2) just the basic lack of evidence to support their version of creationism. Now if they can prove their story then fine, go ahead, but they should at least be asked to prove their claims.Huntergonzo wrote: »I don't think it's unreasonable to say that if you attended a catholic school you're more likely to be subjectively influenced in your preference for catholic education, which I think does somewhat compromise your opinion. For example I don't think you can credibly pick your favourite dinner off the menu if you've only ever tried one and never took a serious look at any of the others.0
-
I really really wish Atheist Ireland would find someone better to write their articles. As soon as I read 'agents of a foreign state' I start to picture a spittle flecked author with dilated pupils typing furiously to get the TRUTH out to the world before the Opus Dei assassins shut down the latest breach in security.
Thank you for your kind words about me later in your post, and I’ll try to respond to your other points later, but I want to clarify here why Atheist Ireland sometimes use the phrase ‘agents of a foreign state’.
The phrase was introduced into the discourse in 2009 by Fintan O’Toole in an opinion piece in the Irish Times, when the Catholic Church was refusing to deal with the Murphy Commission on child abuse on the grounds that it wanted to be regarded not as a church organisation but as a foreign state.
The article was titled: Agents of foreign state should not control our schools.
Fintan was asking, if that is how they themselves decide (when it suits them) to be described, then why do we allow a foreign state to appoint the patrons of our primary schools?
I think it is a reasonable question. The Catholic Church wants to be able to be considered a religion when it suits them, and a foreign State when they are being held accountable for crimes against children. We should be able to hold them accountable for their own self-descriptions.
Here are some extracts from Fintan’s 2009 article:Last week, Minister for Education Batt O’Keeffe told the Dáil that questions like these are of no importance because “the current management of schools is working exceptionally well. The patron is in place in terms of ethos but has nothing to do with the overall management of schools. That is the responsibility of the board of management.”
This is wildly inaccurate, not least because the boards of management are themselves both appointed by and accountable to the local bishop. The handbook given to every school principal on his or her appointment spells this out with admirable clarity: “In appointing the board of management of the school, the bishop delegates to the members certain responsibilities for the Catholic school in the parish. Such delegation carries a duty of accountability by the board of management to the bishop and – where appropriate – to the Department of Education and Science.” (Note that accountability to the State is qualified, that to the bishop is not.)
Batt O’Keeffe misled the Dáil (presumably through sheer ignorance rather than intent) when he claimed that the role of the bishop is confined to the ethos of the school. Again the handbook is unequivocal: “The bishop, as leader of the Catholic community in the diocese and as patron of the school, has ultimate responsibility for the school. The bishop delegates some of his responsibility to the board of management which is accountable to him. There will be contact between the board and the bishop on a number of specified issues – for instance, the appointment of the board, the appointment, suspension or dismissal of teachers, finance, school ethos.”
While the entire board of management is essentially a servant of the bishop, he has very specific powers in relation to its composition and functioning. The board’s chairperson is legally obliged, according to the Education Act (not a medieval statute but passed in 1998), to act on behalf of the bishop: “The chairperson shall be appointed by the patron and his/her authority shall derive from such appointment.”
You can read the article here.
If this doesn't change your perception, then it is Fintan O'Toole who you should picture as a spittle flecked author with dilated pupils typing furiously to get the TRUTH out to the world before the Opus Dei assassins shut down the latest breach in security.0 -
I'm all for principled stands, but that's stupid. Absolam's description of how it comes across is hyperbolic, but it's essentially accurate. It's doing your message no good at all to appear like raving fanatics. You'd dismiss someone who referred to abortion as child murder consistently in the media, even though it's a reasonable and logical description consistent with many pro-life folks views. This is no different.0
-
I'm all for principled stands, but that's stupid. Absolam's description of how it comes across is hyperbolic, but it's essentially accurate. It's doing your message no good at all to appear like raving fanatics. You'd dismiss someone who referred to abortion as child murder consistently in the media, even though it's a reasonable and logical description consistent with many pro-life folks views. This is no different.
And it is not based on our views of the Catholic Church (I don't agree that it should be treated as a State) but on its own stated self-description, and the fact that the Irish State and the international community tends to go along with that conceit.
Atheist Ireland spent last week at the United Nations and the OSCE, both of whom treat the Holy See as at least a quasi-State. Not the Vatican, mind you, which is the city-State upon which the claim was founded, but the Holy See, which is the governing body of the Catholic church worldwide.
It is perfectly reasonable to hold it accountable for the consequences of its own self-description, particularly when it uses that self-description to avoid addressing criminal charges related to the abuse of children.0 -
You'd dismiss someone who referred to abortion as child murder consistently in the media, even though it's a reasonable and logical description consistent with many pro-life folks views. This is no different.
But we are not saying that. The Catholic Church, on the other had, *is* saying that its governing body is a foreign State, relative to Ireland. And its governing body appoints as its agents the Bishops who are patrons of 90% of our primary schools. And the Irish State goes along with that.0 -
Michael, I'm not saying you're wrong. This is not about that. I'm saying you will look like an asshole to the average reader. When you look stupid, it hurts your message.0
-
Advertisement
-
If the "average reader" cares to read on, they will realise its the RCC that is making itself look bad.0
-
Michael Nugent wrote: »Thank you for your kind words about me later in your post, and I’ll try to respond to your other points later, but I want to clarify here why Atheist Ireland sometimes use the phrase ‘agents of a foreign state’.
The phrase was introduced into the discourse in 2009 by Fintan O’Toole in an opinion piece in the Irish Times, when the Catholic Church was refusing to deal with the Murphy Commission on child abuse on the grounds that it wanted to be regarded not as a church organisation but as a foreign state.
The article was titled: Agents of foreign state should not control our schools.Michael Nugent wrote: »Fintan was asking, if that is how they themselves decide (when it suits them) to be described, then why do we allow a foreign state to appoint the patrons of our primary schools? I think it is a reasonable question. The Catholic Church wants to be able to be considered a religion when it suits them, and a foreign State when they are being held accountable for crimes against children. We should be able to hold them accountable for their own self-descriptions.
No, I'm afraid the Murphy Commissions ineptitude is no justification for AI calling Irish teachers agents of a foreign state, or even the patrons of Irish schools.Michael Nugent wrote: »If this doesn't change your perception, then it is Fintan O'Toole who you should picture as a spittle flecked author with dilated pupils typing furiously to get the TRUTH out to the world before the Opus Dei assassins shut down the latest breach in security.Michael Nugent wrote: »It's not remotely stupid, raving or fanatical.Michael Nugent wrote: »And it is not based on our views of the Catholic Church (I don't agree that it should be treated as a State) but on its own stated self-description, and the fact that the Irish State and the international community tends to go along with that conceit.Michael Nugent wrote: »Atheist Ireland spent last week at the United Nations and the OSCE, both of whom treat the Holy See as at least a quasi-State. Not the Vatican, mind you, which is the city-State upon which the claim was founded, but the Holy See, which is the governing body of the Catholic church worldwide.Michael Nugent wrote: »It is perfectly reasonable to hold it accountable for the consequences of its own self-description, particularly when it uses that self-description to avoid addressing criminal charges related to the abuse of children.0 -
Absolam, I don’t see those distinctions the same way as you do.
In theory, the Holy See is the religious entity, and the Vatican City State is the (supposed) sovereign political entity. The Pope is in charge of both entities, but with different bodies under him for each: the Curia for the religious Holy See and the Pontifical Commission for the Vatican City State.
The Vatican City State website says of this distinction that:Vatican City State was founded following the signing of the Lateran Pacts between the Holy See and Italy on February 11th 1929. These were ratified on June 7th 1929. Its nature as a sovereign State distinct from the Holy See is universally recognised under international law.
However, in practice the Catholic Church blurs this distinction (between the Holy See and the Vatican City State) to suit the occasion.
It is the Holy See that participates in international bodies such as the United Nations. It originally got involved as the Vatican City State then, without any vote, got the UN to change the name of the designated body to the Holy See, which is the name of the religious body, not of the City State.
The Irish Bishops are appointed by the Holy See, which is the religious body, which also claims at the United Nations etc to be State. The Bishops are therefore, by the Holy See’s self-description, agents of a foreign State, and they run 90% of this State’s primary schools.
It is at best confusing and at worst misleading. Of course they might be able to justify this blurring of distinctions with reference to mental reservation.0 -
Michael Nugent wrote: »Of course they might be able to justify this blurring of distinctions with reference to mental reservation.0
-
Michael Nugent wrote: »Absolam, I don’t see those distinctions the same way as you do.
In theory, the Holy See is the religious entity, and the Vatican City State is the (supposed) sovereign political entity. The Pope is in charge of both entities, but with different bodies under him for each: the Curia for the religious Holy See and the Pontifical Commission for the Vatican City State.
The Vatican City State website says of this distinction that:Vatican City State was founded following the signing of the Lateran Pacts between the Holy See and Italy on February 11th 1929. These were ratified on June 7th 1929. Its nature as a sovereign State distinct from the Holy See is universally recognised under international law.However, in practice the Catholic Church blurs this distinction (between the Holy See and the Vatican City State) to suit the occasion.Michael Nugent wrote: »It is the Holy See that participates in international bodies such as the United Nations. It originally got involved as the Vatican City State then, without any vote, got the UN to change the name of the designated body to the Holy See, which is the name of the religious body, not of the City State.Michael Nugent wrote: »The Irish Bishops are appointed by the Holy See, which is the religious body, which also claims at the United Nations etc to be State. The Bishops are therefore, by the Holy See’s self-description, agents of a foreign State, and they run 90% of this State’s primary schools.Michael Nugent wrote: »It is at best confusing and at worst misleading. Of course they might be able to justify this blurring of distinctions with reference to mental reservation.0 -
Not really though; the Holy See is both a religious entity and a sovereign political entity, isn't it?
First, we have to distinguish between two things: (a) There is whatever relationship Italy and the Holy See agreed in 1929, which is enshrined in the Lateran Treaties; then (b) there is whatever the current relationship is that the Holy See has with the international community of sovereign States.
With regard to (a), in the Lateran Treaties, Italy recognised “the full ownership, exclusive dominion, and sovereign authority and jurisdiction of the Holy See over the Vatican as at present constituted, together with all its appurtenances and endowments, thus creating the Vatican City.”
So the Holy See was not the same thing as the Vatican City State. It was the sovereign authority of that State. As an analogy, the Holy See had the same relationship to the Vatican as the Irish people have to Ireland, or as the Queen of England has to the United Kingdom. But that does not make the Holy See a sovereign State, just as the people of Ireland and the Queen of England are not sovereign States.
Now, the reason that the Lateran treaties gave (for creating the new Vatican City and giving the Holy See sovereignty over it) was to recognise “the sovereignty of the Holy See in international matters as an inherent attribute in conformity with its traditions and the requirements of its mission to the world.” In other words, the aim was to give the Catholic Church the freedom to act internationally, not to give the Vatican City the freedom to act internationally. The Vatican City was a political means to a religious/political end.
Now let’s move forward to (b). After the Lateran treaties, the Vatican City State started issuing its own stamps and running its own radio station and doing other things that real States do. Because of this, in 1951, it got to attend UN meetings through its membership of the Universal Postal Union and an International telecommunications union. In 1957, the Vatican delegates persuaded the UN to refer to them as ‘the Holy See’. There was no vote on this, just an exchange of letters with the Secretary General.
With this political sleight-of-hand, the Catholic Church could now officially act as a State in the eyes of the rest of the world, not just in the eyes of a treaty signed with Mussolini’s Italy. In 1964, the UN gave the Holy See permanent observer status, allowing the Catholic Church to attend and vote at UN conferences.
In 1999, a campaign called ‘See Change’ tried to get the UN to treat the Catholic Church in the same way as it treats other religions – by allowing it to make submissions as an ordinary nongovernmental organisation. A reasonable suggestion, you would think. Instead, in 2004, the UN upgraded the Holy See to having all of the rights of a full member State except voting at the General Assembly, which they didn’t want to do.
So now we have this very messy, complex and ambiguous situation whereby the Catholic Church can pick and choose when it is a religion, when it is a State, and when it is whatever you are having yourself, and most of the rest of the world goes along with this fiction for whatever reasons, presumably mostly pragmatic.
The Catholic Church wants (and gets away with seeming to have) the participation in world politics that sovereign States have, without most of the attributes that States are supposed to have, and with a chameleon-like ability to switch into whatever form most suits it at any given time, and to deny that form when it suits them to deny it.
It would be like if the Queen of England convinced the United Nations to call the United Kingdom “the Queen of England,” and her Government then started using that status to start promoting the teachings of the Church of England at the United Nations on the basis that the Queen is also the head of that Church.
As I have repeatedly said, I don’t agree that the Holy See should be regarded as a sovereign State. But it believes that it should be, and gets away with that, but reserves the right to switch back to being just a religion when that is more convenient. Well, they can’t have it both ways. Or more accurately, they shouldn’t be able to have it both ways. Unfortunately, so far, they have.0 -
Michael Nugent wrote: »TI want to clarify here why Atheist Ireland sometimes use the phrase ‘agents of a foreign state’.
The phrase was introduced into the discourse in 2009 by Fintan O’Toole in an opinion piece in the Irish Times, when the Catholic Church was refusing to deal with the Murphy Commission on child abuse on the grounds that it wanted to be regarded not as a church organisation but as a foreign state.
The article was titled: Agents of foreign state should not control our schools.You can read the article here.
Then a couple of years later, when Gilmore closed the Irish Embassy to the Vatican, it was ostensibly as a cost-saving measure, but it was only politically possible because of their previous lack of co-operation with Ireland on a state to state level.
Now that the embassy has been re-opened, it seems to have officially become the Irish Embassy to The Holy See. Leading to this rather odd banner heading on the website; "Ireland in the Holy See". At least its better for Ireland than being in hot water!
Things are not the same though. The old Vatican embassy was a fancy building called Villa Spada which has now become our embassy to Italy. The new Holy See embassy is only a small rented one-person operation.0 -
As it happens, while we were having this discussion, Atheist Ireland has published another article covering the same topic.
Atheist Ireland rejects Holy See claims about Irish schools at OSCE
It includes this claim by the Holy See from its Report to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child:"1. The Holy See is a sovereign subject of international law having an original, non-derived legal personality independent of any authority or jurisdiction. The Holy See has diplomatic relations with 179 States and participates as a Member and/or non-Member Permanent Observer to the United Nations (UN) and several specialized Agencies of the UN System, as well as in various universal or regional Intergovernmental Organizations.
2. The internal law of the Catholic Church defines the Holy See as the government of the universal Church composed of the Pope and of the institutions which proceed from him (cf. Code of Canon Law (CIC) 361; cf. Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (CCEO) 48)."
"In consideration of its singular nature and position, the Holy See, in acceding to this Convention, does not intend to [derogate] in any way from its specific mission which is of a religious and moral character”0 -
Michael Nugent wrote: »Yes it is, insofar as it runs a church and engages in politics. But that does not make it a sovereign State. I'll try to address the thrust of your comment in one go, rather than address each point separately.
<...>
First, we have to distinguish between two things: (a) There is whatever relationship Italy and the Holy See agreed in 1929, which is enshrined in the Lateran Treaties; then (b) there is whatever the current relationship is that the Holy See has with the international community of sovereign States.
With regard to (a), in the Lateran Treaties, Italy recognised “the full ownership, exclusive dominion, and sovereign authority and jurisdiction of the Holy See over the Vatican as at present constituted, together with all its appurtenances and endowments, thus creating the Vatican City.”
So the Holy See was not the same thing as the Vatican City State. It was the sovereign authority of that State. As an analogy, the Holy See had the same relationship to the Vatican as the Irish people have to Ireland, or as the Queen of England has to the United Kingdom. But that does not make the Holy See a sovereign State, just as the people of Ireland and the Queen of England are not sovereign States.
Now, the reason that the Lateran treaties gave (for creating the new Vatican City and giving the Holy See sovereignty over it) was to recognise “the sovereignty of the Holy See in international matters as an inherent attribute in conformity with its traditions and the requirements of its mission to the world.” In other words, the aim was to give the Catholic Church the freedom to act internationally, not to give the Vatican City the freedom to act internationally. The Vatican City was a political means to a religious/political end.
Now let’s move forward to (b). After the Lateran treaties, the Vatican City State started issuing its own stamps and running its own radio
As I have repeatedly said, I don’t agree that the Holy See should be regarded as a sovereign State. But it believes that it should be, and gets away with that, but reserves the right to switch back to being just a religion when that is more convenient. Well, they can’t have it both ways. Or more accurately, they shouldn’t be able to have it both ways. Unfortunately, so far, they have.
By your own assertion even if they were acting on behalf of the Holy See, they would not be agents of a foreign State.
Your own arguments are that agents of the Holy See shouldn't be treated as agents of a State.
Yet your article pilloried Irish teachers and Bishops for being just that. It doesn't seem to me it's them trying to have it both ways here.0 -
Advertisement
-
So we have a sovereign political entity, conterminous with and the sole constituent of a sovereign State, and you object to the fact that it is treated as a sovereign State.
None of the entities involved in this shapeshifting entity has the attributes normally demanded of a body recognised as a State, including a proper population who are born and live and die as citizens or subjects, an actual territory larger than a few buildings in a city in an actual State, and a proper government and policing and economy and public services that are not dependent on the actual State in which it is situated.
The Catholic Church/Vatican City/Holy See State is a convenient nod-and-wink fiction that people go along with in order to enable the Catholic Church to exercise an influence on world politics that goes beyond what other religions are allowed to exercise. It is an international diplomacy version of Charlie Haughey's "Irish solution to an Irish problem".
So what we object to is that the thing in question is treated as a sovereign State, regardless of how it and others choose to portray it or name it in order to make the conceit more palatable.Fair enough, but notwitstanding the difficulty in determining the distinction you feel States should make between sovereign entities and sovereign States, the very fact that you object to it being treated as a State makes the assertion that people are agents of that foreign State even more egregious, does it not?
By your own assertion even if they were acting on behalf of the Holy See, they would not be agents of a foreign State. Your own arguments are that agents of the Holy See shouldn't be treated as agents of a State. Yet your article pilloried Irish teachers and Bishops for being just that. It doesn't seem to me it's them trying to have it both ways here.
By the way, I would make a distinction between Bishops and teachers in Irish schools. The Bishops are agents of the chameleon entity, being appointed by the Holy See under Canon law. Teachers are employees under contracts that under Irish law can discriminate against them on the basis of the religious ethos determined for the school by the Bishops.0
Advertisement