State Endows Religion - €9 million per year

Peregrinus

Tithes illustrate the point rather neatly - they were compulsory. Not because you were threatened with exclusion from the church - most of those liable to pay tithes weren't members of the church in the first place, and those who were were not threated with exclusion - or because you were threated with eternal damnation, but because they were a tax and the coercive power of the state was avaiable, and was used, to collect them.

That was rightly regarded as unacceptable, and tithes ceased to be compulsory. And since that day it has been the state funding for education which has been obtained from the people under threat of coercion, not the church funding. It is wildly irrational to pretend that what the church does to raise funds is more coercive than what the state does. The most we can say is that, in respect of one church, it was at one time equally as coercive as what the state did, and still does.

And I don't think we can say that, because tithes were once compulsory to support the Church of Ireland, therefore the church contribution to investment in education in Ireland wasn't "really church money". In the first place, the CofI is the patron of only 5 to 10% of national schools and, in the second place, the vast bulk of the CofI's investment in those schools was made long after the tithe system was abolished. There is no way in which we can rationally say that the compulsory nature of the tithe system underpins or characterises the investment made by various churches in the national education system, any more than you can say that the state's investment in the education system is characterised by the county cess (a tax which was abolished in 1898).

Floggin this particular dead horse can only give the impression that there are no credible or weighty arguments against state funding for chaplains, and why would anyone want to give that impression? There are much more serious arguments; should we not discuss them?

Brian Shanahan

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Technically Yes, It was. But to the COI as the Established church rather than to the RCC - but I don't see where Brian said it was going to the RCC just that it was mandatory - which is correct.

And the only reason why tithing wasn't mandatory to the RCC in Ireland was because the COI was the state church. When and where the RCC was the state church tithing to the RCC was mandatory.

lazygal

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Pastoral care role.

What caused you to have run ins with the chaplain?

robindch

Peregrinus wrote: »

Floggin this particular dead horse can only give the impression that there are no credible or weighty arguments against state funding for chaplains, and why would anyone want to give that impression?

You appear to be doing a fair amount of flogging yourself.

kylith

Peregrinus wrote: »

Floggin this particular dead horse can only give the impression that there are no credible or weighty arguments against state funding for chaplains, and why would anyone want to give that impression? There are much more serious arguments; should we not discuss them?

No credible arguments other than the fact that we could afford to hire hundreds more teachers. Or do you not consider actually having a decent education system important?

lynski

kylith wrote: »

:eek:

I despair of this country sometimes..... I really do.... We're closing hospitals and cutting the wages of teachers, doctors, and nurses, and then we turn around and hand the RCC €9m a year so that they can indoctrinate children.

speaking of hospitals how much does it cost to keep religion in hospitals? I witnessed an extraordinary scene in an irish hospital 2 yrs ago - a woman who did not have the time to adequately clean the floors, change patients soiled sheets, ensure patients were fed, etc as was her job, did have the time to walk the length of the ward, into and out of 5/6 rooms ringing a bell ahead of a visiting priest. I was horrified as I sat beside my dying father in the middle of an overcrowded, filthy ward.

Sponge Bob

The state pays even more than €9m in supporting minority religion schools, particularly second level boarding schools.

Furthermore a lot of the ;chaplains' in catholic ethos schools are lay teachers who teach other subjects too. The subsidy described by Quinn is for extra teachers in VEC schools by and large.

Catholic Day schools get no such subsidy and they are much cheaper to run than VEC schools ...on a per capita basis.

Secular schools, obviously, are equally cheap.

the culture of deference

kylith wrote: »

No credible arguments other than the fact that we could afford to hire hundreds more teachers. Or do you not consider actually having a decent education system important?

I think education and the gov dept that should be running our schools should not cater towards what the church wants. The time has come to remove religion fully from schools.

Millions of euro wasted along with 5 hours of a school week wasted on teaching children rubbish, then those children are not able to differentiate between fiction and reality.

kylith

the culture of deference wrote: »

I think education and the gov dept that should be running our schools should not cater towards what the church wants. The time has come to remove religion fully from schools.

Millions of euro wasted along with 5 hours of a school week wasted on teaching children rubbish, then those children are not able to differentiate between fiction and reality.

The RCC will fight tooth and nail against the removal of religious education from schools because they know that the populace are increasingly apathetic toward them and without the baptismal requirement for school entry, and schools doing all the prep for communion and confirmation, the Irish public would pretty much stop having any involvement with the church within the next few years.

The government needs to stop funding for non-secular schools. If they want to prep for sacraments they can do it outside of school hours.

robindch

kylith wrote: »

If they want to prep for sacraments they can do it outside of school hours.

I've said it before, but if only the church had access to lots of large buildings in just about every parish in the country, purpose-built for mass indoctrination, then they wouldn't need to use the schools, would they?

kylith

robindch wrote: »

I've said it before, but if only the church had access to lots of large buildings in just about every parish in the country, purpose-built for mass indoctrination, then they wouldn't need to use the schools, would they?

They wouldn't, except for the fact that only about 4% of their congregation actually, well, congregate so the schools are their only way of instilling Catholic Tradition as Normalcy.

Bannasidhe

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

And the only reason why tithing wasn't mandatory to the RCC in Ireland was because the COI was the state church. When and where the RCC was the state church tithing to the RCC was mandatory.

Afraid not.

Prior to the Tudor conquest there was no central authority to impose a tithe. With the Tudors came the Anglican Church as the Established church.
After 1922 the Irish State had a 'special relationship' with the RCC but it was never officially made The Established Church/ State religion (not for want of trying) so nothing existed like the Tithes in the way you mean.

Peer pressure was their M.O. for extracting funds from the community and although this was highly effective, it didn't have the force of law behind it.

Morag

lazygal wrote: »

Curious as to what the role involves, and the nature of the run ins.

Pastoral care program,supporting with the career guidance counselors and the school's counselors. Working with the two parishes the school is connected to to run religious services in the school and in the church for students, as well as administering ashes to students on Ash Wednesday.

The run ins have been mostly due to presumptions and unthinking assumptions that a white irish kid is usually catholic or at least christian.

SeanW

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Each envelope was clearly marked with a number and the name of the householder (in my case X & Y Shanahan, as my parents own the house jointly). It was a clear attempt to shame everybody (no matter if they were not Catholic) into giving weekly to the fund, and to tabulate how much each family gave for future reference. Needless to say we used our envelopes for shopping lists, and notes from telephone calls.

We get those routinely. Straight from the door into the recycle bin.

Hotblack Desiato

Robindch's thread title hints at it - according to the constitution the state shall not endow any religion.

How on earth can this be legal?

Can AI or somebody establish a fund to challenge this sort of crap in the courts?

I would be more than happy to contribute

lazygal

SeanW wrote: »

We get those routinely. Straight from the door into the recycle bin.

Ah now. They're fierce handy for scribbling shopping lists, notes, phone numbers etc on. The lord has provided free post it substitute!.

human 19

SeanW wrote: »

We get those routinely. Straight from the door into the recycle bin.

I seem to remember from the past that when because these would be collected by the church's minions , in order to give the illusion that it contained coins..other bits of metal would be put into the envelope. At the end of the year a household would get a list of what they had contributed...including a list of the non-monetary objects which were received

robindch

ninja900 wrote: »

Robindch's thread title hints at it - according to the constitution the state shall not endow any religion.

I asked this a couple of days back on the Teach, Don't Preach facebook page. Here's the response, I think from Jane:

Teach Don't Preach wrote:

Unfortunately the funding of Chaplains does not constitute an endowment of religion under Article 44.2. I’ll quote a section of Prof Gerry Whyte’s paper to the IHRC Conference which should explain things. There is also more on the subject in his paper which might interest you as well.

Prohibition of religious endowment

The prohibition on endowment of religion contained in Article 44.2.2º has been considered by the Courts in the context of second level education in Campaign to Separate Church and State Ltd v Minister for Education [1998] 2 ILRM 81. In this case, the plaintiff company contended that State funding of chaplains in Roman Catholic and Church of Ireland community and comprehensive schools amounted to State endowment of religion. This funding had commenced in the early 1970s with the introduction of new comprehensive and community schools and was confined to the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of Ireland as they were the only denominations which had such schools.

After reviewing the historical background to Article 44.2.2º, and noting, in particular, that the Constitution was enacted at a time when the vast majority of secondary schools in the country were denominationally controlled, Barrington J (with whom Hamilton CJ, O’Flaherty and Denham JJ concurred) held, inter alia, that the payment of monies to a denominational school for educational purposes was not an endowment of religion within the meaning of Article 44.2.2º. The fact that State payment of the chaplains’ salaries indirectly benefited the churches in question (inasmuch as they did not have to spend their own monies on such purposes) was discounted by the judge who pointed out that the same argument could be made in relation to the State payment of teachers’ salaries at denominational schools and clearly the framers of the Constitution did not consider the latter payments to constitute an endowment of religion.

http://www.ihrc.ie/publications/list/professor-gerry-whyte-paper-on-religion-and-educat/

Mark Hamill

robindch wrote: »

Barrington J (with whom Hamilton CJ, O’Flaherty and Denham JJ concurred) held, inter alia, that the payment of monies to a denominational school for educational purposes was not an endowment of religion within the meaning of Article 44.2.2º

And what education purpose did they say a chaplain fulfils?

Brian Shanahan

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And what education purpose did they say a chaplain fulfils?

The educational purpose of the chaplain in a school is to inculcate a behaviour of uncritical acceptance of any old nonsense when espoused by a figure of authority.

Politicians reckon that if priests can get children to accept the big beard in the sky, getting their adult selves to accept election manifestos (when all previous ones have been broken) as truthful will be a doddle.

Bannasidhe

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Politicians reckon that if priests can get children to accept the big beard in the sky, getting their adult selves to accept election manifestos (when all previous ones have been broken) as truthful will be a doddle.

It's worked so far...:(:mad:

Brian Shanahan

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It's worked so far...:(:mad:

Hasn't for me, went to a Christian Brother's school, and have consistently failed to vote in every election since I turned 18.

I registered to vote at 18, and voted in every referendum I could. When a referendum and election take place I deliberately spoil my ballot with the following formula: "Voting is wasteful in this case as all candidates are equally useless and corrupt."

Bannasidhe

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Hasn't for me, went to a Christian Brother's school, and have consistently failed to vote in every election since I turned 18.

I registered to vote at 18, and voted in every referendum I could. When a referendum and election take place I deliberately spoil my ballot with the following formula: "Voting is wasteful in this case as all candidates are equally useless and corrupt."

FF are now the most popular party - it worked with enough people.

Peregrinus

Art. 44.2.2 (“The state guarantees not to endow any religion”) has to be read in the context of art. 44.2.4, which explicitly envisages that the state will fund schools under religious management, subject only to the requirements that (a) the funding legislation is not to discriminate between denominations, and (b) every child has the right to attend a school receiving public money “without attending religious instruction at that school”.

The courts have responded to this combination of provisions by drawing a distinction between “religious education” - i.e. education in an environment and context informed by religious values - and “religious instruction” - instruction in the tenets of a particular faith. On this view, everything that goes on in (say) a Catholic school is religious education, but religious instruction is what happens in religion class.

So, there’s a constitutional right to go to a publicly-funded school without attending religious instruction, but there is no constitutional objection to the funding of schools which provide a Catholic (Anglican, Presbyterian, Jewish, Islamic) education. And, since “education” is understood broadly in contrast to the narrower “instruction”, although chaplains are not teachers they can easily be seen to be involved in the educational mission of the school in the same way as sports coaches, counsellors, special needs assistants and others who have no role in classroom teaching, or in the imparting of academic information. Consequently the funding of chaplains is not constitutionally objectionable (provided they don’t give religious instruction to pupils whose parents have withdrawn them).

[The fact that it's constitutionally permissible doesn't necessarily mean that it's a good idea, of course.]

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

Art. 44.2.2 (“The state guarantees not to endow any religion”) has to be read in the context of art. 44.2.4, which explicitly envisages that the state will fund schools under religious management.....

Good point. However whenever I see the words "in the context of..." I'm inclined to think that some inconsistency is about to be glossed over.

In this case, the two articles of the Constitution are incompatible. If you take the judgement on the first mentioned article;

After reviewing the historical background to Article 44.2.2º, and noting, in particular, that the Constitution was enacted at a time when the vast majority of secondary schools in the country were denominationally controlled, Barrington J (with whom Hamilton CJ, O’Flaherty and Denham JJ concurred) held, inter alia, that the payment of monies to a denominational school for educational purposes was not an endowment of religion within the meaning of Article 44.2.2º. The fact that State payment of the chaplains’ salaries indirectly benefited the churches in question (inasmuch as they did not have to spend their own monies on such purposes) was discounted by the judge who pointed out that the same argument could be made in relation to the State payment of teachers’ salaries at denominational schools and clearly the framers of the Constitution did not consider the latter payments to constitute an endowment of religion.
http://www.ihrc.ie/publications/list...on-and-educat/

The logical conclusion of that argument is that the State payment of teacher's salaries at denominational schools should cease.
Instead the judges decided to "gloss over" this obvious conclusion, "in the context" of another conflicting constitutional article in which The State only "provides for" as opposed to "provides" education, which provision has historically (but not necessarily currently) normally been satisfied by subcontracting the job out to religious cults.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

Good point. However whenever I see the words "in the context of..." I'm inclined to think that some inconsistency is about to be glossed over.

Honestly, you’re so negative, recedite! ;-)

I think harmonious interpretation, as the courts have called it, makes good sense. You can pretend that the constitution is a series of disconnected pronouncements which have no relevance to one another, but the pretence is, to be charitable, intellectually dishonest. The constitution is a single document which seeks to provide a foundation for what is quite a complex polity, and it makes sense to accept that each provision of it is part of a greater whole, and that all the provisions are going to affect the interpretation and application of one another.

recedite wrote: »

In this case, the two articles of the Constitution are incompatible . . . Instead the judges decided to "gloss over" this obvious conclusion, "in the context" of another conflicting constitutional article in which The State only "provides for" as opposed to "provides" education, which provision has historically (but not necessarily currently) normally been satisfied by subcontracting the job out to religious cults.

I don’t think they are incompatible. As you point out, the Art 42.2.4 requires the state to “provide for” free primary education. But the same language is used in Art 42.2.1, respecting the right of parents to “provide for” the education of their children, and these provisions are completely consistent with education being provided by schools, which may or may not be state run, and which may or may not be state aided, and which may or may not have a religious character. I don’t see any inconsistency there.

You contrast the “provide for” language with alternative language which might have been there, requiring the state simply to “provide” education. Three thoughts on that:

First, obviously the Supreme Court is going to interpret and apply the constitution as it stands, and not as it might stand if it said something different.

Secondly, if the constitution did say that, that would introduce an inconsistency, not resolve it.

Thirdly, even idsregarding inconsistencies, it would be very surprising if the Constitution did say that. It is universal in European democracies that education is provided through a combination of state-operated schools, and voluntary but state-funded or state-supported schools. Even in France, the home of laïcité, Catholic schools enjoy significant state subventions. A constitutional provision in Ireland creating, in effect, a state monopoly on the operation of publicly-funded or supported schools would be a bizarre departure.

Even in the US, where the state does not support voluntary schools, there is no general constitutional prohibition on doing so. The refusal to do so is not legal or constitutional, but cultural and political. The Americans have a surprising commitment to "socialised education" to balance their strange aversion to "socialised medicine". But that’s Yanks for you; there is no reason why Ireland should follow the US example in either of these regards, or why the Supreme Court should adopt a US-inspired interpretation of the Irish constitutional prohibition on the endowment of religions.

Obviously there can be a tension between state funding for schools which may have a religious character and constitutional, legal or political principles about the secularity of the state/endowment of relgion/separation of church and state. But I think the tension only amounts to an inconsistency if you take a very fundamentalist, absolutist view of the requirements of secularity. No European democracy does so, and the Irish Constitution plainly doesn’t, since it explicitly envisages state funding for religious schools. So I don't think that the Supreme Court is resorting to "harmonious interpretation" to "gloss over an inconsistency"; they are just interpreting and applying a constitution which is more nuanced than you would like it to be.

recedite

On a positive note, I realise that judges often have to balance conflicting rights, so I'm not saying they made the wrong decision. I'm saying the Constitution was badly worded in parts, because the intention is not made clear. IMO the original intention was merely to prevent the formation of an "established church" ; an official State religion, one which would receive preferential treatment from the State, as happened in the UK. But if that was the case, the wording was inadequate. To overcome the paradox in the Constitution, the judges have gone back to this kind of definition, whereas they could also have resolved it by moving forward to a more secular interpretation which would see the State cease paying teacher and chaplain salaries in religious institutions. The right of fundamentalist parents to continue to "provide for" the religious based schools as privately funded institutions would remain.

Peregrinus wrote: »

But I think the tension only amounts to an inconsistency if you take a very fundamentalist, absolutist view of the requirements of secularity. No European democracy does so...

Maybe no other European democracy has a law specifically banning the endowment of religion by the State.
As you point out, in the USA the state does not endow religious schools, despite not having a specific ban on it. Whereas here we do have a specific ban, and we do endow them. Perhaps we should swop constitutions

PopePalpatine

Well, at least the Americans don't have that gods-awful Article 40.3.3.

recedite

Last week, a Cof I school moved from being a private school to the state free education scheme.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2013/0221/1224330311598.html
This means they will now get one teacher salary per every 19 pupils, compared to 1:23 ratio for private schools. They can also access certain grants for a new building program, which buildings will remain their private property.
The "ethos" and "patronage" of the school will remain unchanged.
Instead of rejecting pupils who are unable to pay the fees, they can now concentrate on rejecting any prospective pupils who are of the wrong religion.
Its hard to see any major benefit for the State here.
So, if I was a foreign based religious fundamentalist (say a certain government in the Middle-East , or a U.S. evangelical group) I might consider "endowing" a new private school in Ireland. After a few years in operation, and when it had built up sufficient numbers of pupils to be able to harvest the state salaries and capitation grants, I would apply for the free education scheme. The Irish state would continue to endow it from then on, and I could start endowing another one somewhere else. Using this strategy, I could set up a network of Islamic or Creationist schools, complete with "chaplains" and all funded by the State.

PopePalpatine

recedite wrote: »

So, if I was a foreign based religious fundamentalist (say a certain government in the Middle-East , or a U.S. evangelical group) I might consider "endowing" a new private school in Ireland. After a few years in operation, and when it had built up sufficient numbers of pupils to be able to harvest the state salaries and capitation grants, I would apply for the free education scheme. The Irish state would continue to endow it from then on, and I could start endowing another one somewhere else. Using this strategy, I could set up a network of Islamic or Creationist schools, complete with "chaplains" and all funded by the State.

Maybe that's how J C can afford a computer. :pac:

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

On a positive note, I realise that judges often have to balance conflicting rights, so I'm not saying they made the wrong decision. I'm saying the Constitution was badly worded in parts, because the intention is not made clear. IMO the original intention was merely to prevent the formation of an "established church" ; an official State religion, one which would receive preferential treatment from the State, as happened in the UK. But if that was the case, the wording was inadequate. To overcome the paradox in the Constitution, the judges have gone back to this kind of definition, whereas they could also have resolved it by moving forward to a more secular interpretation which would see the State cease paying teacher and chaplain salaries in religious institutions.

There’s only a “paradox” in the Constitution if you take what I describe as the absolutist view that “the state shall not endow any religion” must inevitably mean that the state cannot provide support to religious schools. But that’s not inevitable, or even a common understanding.


And, even if there were a paradox, the judges couldn’t resolve it by ruling state aid to religious schools unconstitutional, since the Constitution explicitly envisages state aid to religious schools. If the Constitution provides for it the, however undesirable you may think it is, it’s not unconstitutional.

recedite wrote: »

Maybe no other European democracy has a law specifically banning the endowment of religion by the State.

Certainly they do; France is famous for it, and I shouldn’t really have to point that out in this forum. Spain has a constitutional ban on any religion “having a state character”; The German constitution provides that “there shall be not state church”. Portugal has a constitutional guarantee of the separation of church and state. In Italy, secularity (laicita) is among the “supreme principles of constitutional order”. Australia – admittedly, not a European country – has a constitutional prohibition on “any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion”. (This is modelled on the US constitutional provision.) All these countries provide public funding for religious schools. Belgium has a constitutional guarantee that “no one can be obliged to contribute in any way whatsoever to the acts and ceremonies of a religion”, and yet ministers of religion are paid with public funds. There are not many places where “separation of church and state” is considered to mean what you think it means.

recedite

www.thefreedictionary.com/endow
1.Endow ; To provide with property, income, or a source of income.

The current policy of the State is to endow all religions equally.
The policy in the Constitution is; “the state shall not endow any religion.”

My point is that these are two different policies.

You have given examples of other EU countries which have a ban on an "established church" ie a state religion. But they are still allowed to endow all religions equally. In Germany, the State even pays a portion of your income tax directly to whatever church you are registered to. It saves the church from having to collect the tithes themselves.

Yes, there are other parts of our Constitution which mention state aid for schools;

article 44.2.4 wrote:

Legislation providing State aid for schools shall not discriminate between schools under the management of different religious denominations, nor be such as to affect prejudicially the right of any child to attend a school receiving public money without attending religious instruction at that school.

Which seems like something that was added in later to suit the established practice of endowing all religions equally, and which is not actually compatible with the earlier Article 44.2.2.

Hotblack Desiato

The bit about the right to attend a state-funded school without receiving religious instruction at that school is certainly more breached than observed*


* I didn't write 'more honoured in the breach than in the observance' because of the second letter here

Peregrinus

Except that it wasn't "added in later", was it? It's an original part of the Constitution.

The problem with applying your dictionary definition of "endow" in this conext is that a religion, whether we see it as a faith, or a way of lving, or a set of relationships, is an abstract concept, and abstract concepts can't own things, or recieve things. How can you "give money" to religion, any more than you can "give money" to atheism, or democracy, or secularity? Can "religion" sign a receipt? Open a bank account? If I give money to a religious person for any purpose whatsoever, is that "endowment of religion"? If not, where do we draw the line between payments which are endowments of religion and those which are not?

The constitution clearly makes a distinction between paying money for the provision of education, or the provision of healthcare, or whatever, and the endowment of religion. The former doesn't become the latter even if the people who provide the education or the healthcare have a religious motivation for doing so.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

How can you "give money" to religion, any more than you can "give money" to atheism, or democracy, or secularity?

You can give money to a religion, or to an individual religious order, a priest, or even to Atheist Ireland. Cash is always accepted by the religious, but grants for building work will do nicely too.
But when it comes to getting something back from the religion, for example to cover the cost of redress for abuse victims, you tend to find that the money has gone into a trust fund.
I mentioned a few posts back that Kilkenny College, under C of I patronage, is planning to go on a building spree, now that they are eligible for the State school building grants. But all that property will remain in private ownership, probably in a trust fund controlled by the particular religion.
Then there is the issue of the State paying for "chaplains" (school-based priests who specialize in the indoctrination of children). This is an "entitlement" that the religious schools have managed to obtain, completely separate from their teacher allocation.
BTW I have no problem with the State paying members of religious orders to do a "real" job. For example, I know there are quite a few nuns working as social workers and getting paid as part of the public service sector. The same goes for individual teachers and hospital staff.

Mardy Bum

recedite wrote: »

. This is an "entitlement" that the religious schools have managed to obtain, completely separate from their teacher allocation.
BTW I have no problem with the State paying members of religious orders to do a "real" job. For example, I know there are quite a few nuns working as social workers and getting paid as part of the public service sector. The same goes for individual teachers and hospital staff.

Diocese actually pays for the chaplains in religious schools.

Peregrinus

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Diocese actually pays for the chaplains in religious schools.

Not according to what the Minister for Education is telling Dáil Éireann! Have a look at post #1 in this thread.

recedite wrote: »

Then there is the issue of the State paying for "chaplains" (school-based priests who specialize in the indoctrination of children).

If that’s the case, yes, it looks to me like it crosses a line.

But is it the case? Nobody has posted any information to this thread on who these chaplains are, or what they do. The notion that they are “priests” and that they “specialise in the indoctrination of children” is, so far, an unsupported assertion. (My impression is that an awful lot of them are not priests, in fact, and their role is not that of providing religious instruction - there are teachers to do that. But I’ll happily be corrected by someone with better information.)

I’d also be interested to hear if, in return for getting state funding, the chaplains or their employers enter into any agreement with the state about what their role is, and what they will or won’t do.

The other thing that strike me, and that nobody has explored in any detail, is the sums of money involved. We’re told that there are 152 full-time-equivalent chaplaincy posts funded at a cost of “approximately” €9 million. If that were all salary costs, it would imply a salary of just over €59k per post. Since this is well over twice what a priest in parish ministry earns, and well over what even a very senior teacher or a very senior guidance counsellor earns. It defies common sense to think that school chaplains are paid on such a scale.

I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that it’s not all salary costs. And the fact that the Minister is only able to give an “approximate” figure points to it not being salary cost, or other direct costs, because ft it was there would be no need for approximation and obvious rounding of figures. I suspect the figure includes some share of overheads school like office space, liability insurance, etc that is being allocated to the chaplaincy service, and that this is a bit of a “finger in the wind” exercise.

Why does this matter? Well, earlier on in this thread people talked about how many (say) classroom assistants could be provided for the sum involved. If I’m right in thinking that the amount involved is not just salary costs, then obviously you can’t answer that question by simply dividing €9 million by the salary cost of a typical classroom assistant. You’d need to look not only at how that €9 million figure is arrived at, and price alternative ways of spending it on the same basis. You’d also need to look at what chaplains actually do, and work out what it would cost to have that done by non-chaplains.

We’ve no information, as yet, on what chaplains actually do, but back in post #1 Robindch quotes Aodhán Ó Ríordáin (the Labour deputy who sought the information on cost in the first place. He suggests that there is at trade off between paying for chaplaincy and paying for guidance counsellors, and I think he probably has a point; the pastoral care provided by chaplains probably substitutes to some extent for what would be done by school counsellors (much more so than for what would be done by classroom assistants, say).

So to the extent that our focus is on value for money, a relevant question would be, for €9 million, with costs identified and allocated on the same basis as for chaplains, how many full-time school counsellors would we get? 152? More? Less? I don’t know the answer to the question, but I think it would be useful data.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

Nobody has posted any information to this thread on who these chaplains are, or what they do. The notion that they are “priests” and that they “specialise in the indoctrination of children” is, so far, an unsupported assertion.

Here's a link relating to the job description. The School Chaplains Association of Ireland apparently have a facebook page too.

The Chaplain is required to teach four hours of class instruction per week. Other Chaplaincy duties include visitation of homes, religious services, retreats and celebrations, as well as counselling. it is reasonable to expect that the Chaplain shares supervisory duties, but it is important that the special role of the Chaplain in developing the spirituality of students and in providing a strong Christian witness is not compromised by too much involvement as a disciplinarian.

So, just four hours a week working (at indoctrinating) and don't ask them to get involved with discipline, because that would compromise their happy-clappy "You can talk to me, I'm on your side dude" image.

Now, I realise there is a need to have someone in secondary schools who will watch out for issues relating to hidden cyber-bullying, clinical depression and any potential suicidal tendencies. But I question whether chaplains are cost-effective or even suited to this role. Firstly, their main role is religious indoctrination, and therefore the non-religious child and the "wrong religion" child are going to steer clear of them.
Secondly, the normal religious standpoint is that suicide is a sin, and therefore it's best not to mention it, even at the funeral, because you are speaking ill of the dead and shaming the family. Not a particularly helpful attitude IMO.
Thirdly, suicide levels are at an unacceptable level among people of secondary school age in Ireland, therefore the existing support system is failing them.

Peregrinus wrote: »

The other thing that strike me, and that nobody has explored in any detail, is the sums of money involved..... It defies common sense to think that school chaplains are paid on such a scale.

Seems a cushy number alright. A master's level qualification is required. Also, I'd imagine a lot of it is "justified" by the fact that a priest figure is generally available "out of hours", and if you were paying them a retainer for that at civil service rates it would amount to, well, .... a fair bit of money.
I don't think you would have to be an actual priest to get this job, but you would have to be pretty close to it, especially considering that the main man interviewing you on the School Board of Management is going to be one.
If you are thinking of applying your extensive knowledge of theology for personal profit, Peregrinus, here's a link to an accredited training course in Chaplaincy

It sheds some more light on the job description too;

Developing further the participants understanding of the psychology of adolescent development;

Providing the participants with an introduction to the stages of faith development and in particular the faith development of adolescents;

Providing participants with both the theoretical understanding and practical skills in basic counselling, including bereavement and suicide counselling;

Introducing the participants to the main areas of Pastoral Care arising in the educational environment and developing their skills for addressing these;

Exploring methods of prayer and liturgical celebration in various Christian traditions appropriate to adolescents;

Providing the participants with a sound grasp of the educational ethos of the Secondary school sector within which most will be working;

Developing a greater awareness among participants of the social and educational trends among post-primary school students and of the post-primary school sector.

recedite

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Diocese actually pays for chooses the chaplains in religious schools.

FYP

expectationlost

‘Labour's Bid to remove religion from schools is new low’ – McConalogue | Donegal Daily http://www.donegaldaily.com/2013/09/03/labours-bid-to-remove-religion-from-schools-is-new-low-mcconalogue/

unless O'Riordan brought it up again recently its taken a year to respond http://www.labour.ie/press/2012/01/25/9m-school-chaplaincy-expenditure-must-be-reexamine/


http://www.highlandradio.com/2013/09/03/deputy-mcconologue-slams-labour-party-plans-to-chaplaincy-services/ highland radio

Irish School Chaplins association
http://www.irishschoolchaplains.com/page9.htm

http://www.irishschoolchaplains.com/page17.htm


ACCS website description of the role of a school chaplain.

10.5 The School Chaplain

Provision is made for the appointment of a Roman Catholic Chaplain in all Community Schools. The School Chaplain is appointed by the Board of Management on the nomination of the local Bishop. The terms and conditions of such appointment are set out in DES CL 57/2008. The Chaplain is appointed in addition to the school allocation of wholetime teacher equivalents, and is paid a teacher?s salary by the Department of Education and Science.

The Chaplain is required to teach four hours of class instruction per week. Other Chaplaincy duties include visitation of homes, religious services, retreats and celebrations, as well as counselling. The Chaplain is also expected to take an interest in the extra-curricular activities of the school, to encourage young people to be involved in the community, to be available during state examinations and to be in contact with the adult education student body.

Chaplaincy is a full-time job and requires full-time commitment. As a staff member, the Chaplain is expected to share in the corporate responsibility for discipline and good order. In this context, it is reasonable to expect that the Chaplain shares supervisory duties, but it is important that the special role of the Chaplain in developing the spirituality of students and in providing a strong Christian witness is not compromised by too much involvement as a disciplinarian. Although no specific provision is made for the appointment of a Chaplain in Comprehensive Schools, Boards of Management are advised to seek such an appointment as a matter of equity. In the case of the five Protestant Comprehensive Schools the appointment of a School Chaplain should, of course, be subject to the nomination of the appropriate Church authorities.

Deeds of Trust http://www.accs.ie/content/publish/appendices/APPENDIX_1.php

which is O'Riordan says

"I understand that such a discontinuation may result in the deeds of trust of all community and Comprehensive Schools being re-visited, however this work is worthwhile if a large portion of the €9million can be recovered.

Cabaal

expectationlost wrote: »

‘Labour's Bid to remove religion from schools is new low’ – McConalogue | Donegal Daily http://www.donegaldaily.com/2013/09/03/labours-bid-to-remove-religion-from-schools-is-new-low-mcconalogue/

unless O'Riordan brought it up again recently its taken a year to respond http://www.labour.ie/press/2012/01/25/9m-school-chaplaincy-expenditure-must-be-reexamine/

Where does he get this ****e?

As someone with a background in education, you would expect Deputy Ó Riordáin to understand that the chaplaincy service in these institutions is more about student support than anything else

What support? When? Where?

I went through two CBS schools and no support was offered by the brothers or any priests. Infact at secondary level I don't think I even saw a priest.

In all fairness, what teenager in this day and age is going to confide in their local priest/chaplin for support for issues they are experiencing? Next to none

Obliq

Cabaal wrote: »

Where does he get this ****e?



What support? When? Where?

I went through two CBS schools and no support was offered by the brothers or any priests. Infact at secondary level I don't think I even saw a priest.

In all fairness, what teenager in this day and age is going to confide in their local priest/chaplin for support for issues they are experiencing? Next to none

I'm thinking it would be great if the state funded chaplin/priest would provide supervision to the students who have opted out of religious education (without, of course, instructing them religiously)......seeing as how it's their "patronage" that's the problem here. If my eldest's secondary has a difficulty with him taking RE off to study applied maths over the next 2 yrs of his Leaving Cert, I shall suggest it. With quotes from the constitution, thanks to this thread.

I love A&A

Bannasidhe

Obliq wrote: »

I'm thinking it would be great if the state funded chaplin/priest would provide supervision to the students who have opted out of religious education (without, of course, instructing them religiously)......seeing as how it's their "patronage" that's the problem here. If my eldest's secondary has a difficulty with him taking RE off to study applied maths over the next 2 yrs of his Leaving Cert, I shall suggest it. With quotes from the constitution, thanks to this thread.

I love A&A

Quoting passages from the Constitution or Legislation at school principles is great fun. It's the look of :eek: on their faces...just don't laugh until you get outside.

Cabaal

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Quoting passages from the Constitution or Legislation at school principles is great fun. It's the look of :eek: on their faces...just don't laugh until you get outside.

Any suggested quotes in particular?

Obliq

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Quoting passages from the Constitution or Legislation at school principles is great fun. It's the look of :eek: on their faces...just don't laugh until you get outside.

I never do. I am feared by schools in two parishes already (and by their priests/boards of management) It is only through threats of failure (due to burnout) that I have managed to hold off the parents clamoring for my election to the secondary school's P.A.

But I feel a slight tingle in my big toe telling me it's time......


soooooon

Ps. In fairness, I am still liked by both teachers and parents! It is possible to be fearsome, yet lovable (so my kids tell me anyhow ;-) )

Bannasidhe

Cabaal wrote: »

Any suggested quotes in particular?

When I came back from the UK and put Sonofmine in the local ('Catholic') NS to my surprise religion wasn't an issue - what was a huge issue was a Little Irelander of a vice-principle who decided that due to Sonofmine having a *shock* English accent this made him fair game for verbal abuse. That was when the school principle learned all about a piece of legislation entitled The Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989.

Hotblack Desiato

Cabaal wrote: »

Any suggested quotes in particular?

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/en/constitution/index.html

Articles 42 and 44...

Constitution of Ireland wrote:

EDUCATION

ARTICLE 42

1 The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.

2 Parents shall be free to provide this education in their homes or in private schools or in schools recognised or established by the State.

3 1° The State shall not oblige parents in violation of their conscience and lawful preference to send their children to schools established by the State, or to any particular type of school designated by the State.

2° The State shall, however, as guardian of the common good, require in view of actual conditions that the children receive a certain minimum education, moral, intellectual and social.

4 The State shall provide for free primary education and shall endeavour to supplement and give reasonable aid to private and corporate educational initiative, and, when the public good requires it, provide other educational facilities or institutions with due regard, however, for the rights of parents, especially in the matter of religious and moral formation.


[...]



RELIGION

ARTICLE 44

2° The State guarantees not to endow any religion.

3° The State shall not impose any disabilities or make any discrimination on the ground of religious profession, belief or status.

4° Legislation providing State aid for schools shall not discriminate between schools under the management of different religious denominations, nor be such as to affect prejudicially the right of any child to attend a school receiving public money without attending religious instruction at that school.

Morag

Chaplins don't have to be priests, the one in the school my teens attend is a woman.

Hotblack Desiato

Does she look like this?