National Synodal Assembly to be held within five years

smacl

smacl wrote: »

Perhaps you're not aware that the Dept of Educations strategy going forward is to promote interculturalism (source).



Unless you can come up with similar support for your own arguments, I would humbly suggest that the pipe dreams are yours.

Is the fact that government have a particular aim supposed to be some sort of trump card, when I have spent a considerable portion of the subsequent post criticizing the government? How odd, considering we are discussing what the church should do, within the context of the upcoming Synod.

I question the humility of your suggestion.

Hotblack Desiato

Bodie White Luck wrote: »

The Catholic church running the schools was a legacy of (rather heroic) native resistance to British imperialism...

Heard it all before many a time. The awkward fact is that what we to this day still call the National School system was established under British rule, and before the British government had any significant involvement in education in Britain, which was similarly at the time almost entirely run by churches and religious societies.

Do you disagree with my suggestion that the number of Catholic schools should be reduced? Do you believe they should all be banned?

Yes I agree, the proportion of Catholic schools is way out of line with the religious beliefs of today's parents.

Should they be banned - certainly not. But I am not keen on exclusionary schools of any sort receiving state funding. It is a thorny issue. We certainly shouldn't be giving state funding to what in effect is a junior seminary, if that comes to pass.

Yeah, grand, if that's what parents want for their children then work away, they should have that option. There should be a number of options, so parents can send their children to the type of school they think is best for their child.

So you accept that these schools are not in fact intolerant of religion, then?

Of course it is watered down. Very very few young people would be able to answer even basic questions about Catholic teaching. This is because it is not even attempted to be taught. There is far more to Catholic education than the odd token prayer at an assembly. Post Vatican 2 it seems that, for most, the traditional Catholic intellectual rigor when it comes to faith was let lapse, to be replaced by bland, unobjectionable, unchallenging sentimentality that teaches nothing, and does not give people an intellectual basis for their faith.

What you call intellectual rigor I'd call rote learning instilled by violence, but anyway - any decision in relation to religious instruction in Catholic ethos schools still is, and always has been, purely a matter for the Irish RCC hierarchy.

This is often not the fault of faithful teachers, a good portion of the reason for this dilution was an attempt to cater to (or at least not offend) everyone

That is not possible though when parents are forced to choose a religious ethos school when they are not of that religion, and the constitution recognises this and recognises the right (often violated) to opt out of religious instruction.

In any case when Vatican II came in, Ireland was still overwhelmingly observant Catholic. There was practically nobody there of any other type of belief to offend, Protestants had their own schools. It beggars belief to suggest that the curriculum changes in the late 60s/early 70s were because of burgeoning atheist pressure.

Hotblack Desiato

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Heard it all before many a time. The awkward fact is that what we to this day still call the National School system was established under British rule, and before the British government had any significant involvement in education in Britain, which was similarly at the time almost entirely run by churches and religious societies.




Yes I agree, the proportion of Catholic schools is way out of line with the religious beliefs of today's parents.

Should they be banned - certainly not. But I am not keen on exclusionary schools of any sort receiving state funding. It is a thorny issue. We certainly shouldn't be giving state funding to what in effect is a junior seminary, if that comes to pass.



So you accept that these schools are not in fact intolerant of religion, then?




What you call intellectual rigor I'd call rote learning instilled by violence, but anyway - any decision in relation to religious instruction in Catholic ethos schools still is, and always has been, purely a matter for the Irish RCC hierarchy.




That is not possible though when parents are forced to choose a religious ethos school when they are not of that religion, and the constitution recognises this and recognises the right (often violated) to opt out of religious instruction.

In any case when Vatican II came in, Ireland was still overwhelmingly observant Catholic. There was practically nobody there of any other type of belief to offend, Protestants had their own schools. It beggars belief to suggest that the curriculum changes in the late 60s/early 70s were because of burgeoning atheist pressure.

Leaving aside the stuff around the edges (for another day and thread maybe ), it seems that we may agree more than we disagree. We agree that there are too many Catholic schools, we agree that parents should have options of the type of school to send their children to, we agree that Catholic schools (and therefore other schools with the ethos of a different religion) should be allowed to exist.

So the disagreement is around if schools of a certain ethos should receive state funding. In fairness to you, I have found you to be consistent, so I suspect that you would object to any school with any religious ethos, not just catholic, receiving state funding, if it is "exclusionary". You might define what you mean by exclusionary.

smacl

Bodie White Luck wrote: »

Yes, many parents do a very poor job in raising their children and making decisions about their futures. Some even teach their kids a philosophy of pure materialism!

Mod warning: Disparaging others based on their philosophical outlook is in breach of the forum charter. Do not do this. Any feedback via PM or to the feedback thread only

Charter wrote:

3. Bigotry, crude generalisations and unreasonable antagonism will not be tolerated. This rule encompasses all intolerance towards creeds, beliefs, lifestyles or opinions that differ from one's own.

Regarding the Synod, here is the Bishops website landing page for it, which has a lot of resources:
https://www.catholicbishops.ie/synod

Submissions are currently invited from the faithful:

Initial Submissions Easter to Pentecost 2021
Before embarking on the Synodal Pathway consultation, between Easter (5 April) and Pentecost (23 May), 2021, bishops are inviting submissions to reflect on what methods/models to adopt in these coming two years of conversations. For example: focus groups, questionnaires, deep-listening sessions; written submissions; family-focused gatherings; summary of findings of assemblies that have already taken place across dioceses; and/or conferences.

These submissions, in not more than 300 words, are not yet about the themes for the Synod but rather how to go about this phase of setting up the initial conversations.

monara

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117103902#Comment_117103902

It is important that all Catholics in all parishes are enabled to express their views on future church structures and on the administration of the sacraments, not just for the Synod but permanently. For too long, most of the laity have found it virtually impossible to have their voices heard. Unfortunately the Parish Pastoral Councils have failed to give a voice to most of the laity. Perhaps a monthly open Laity Forum in each parish would be a start. We should all make our submissions at this time but permanent structures will have to be put in place.

Thinkingaboutit

If this Synodal Assembly happens, I see a mix of Ireland's blinded bishops in their full speed ahead, damn the torpedoes mode, alongside a handpicked clique of parish council people, all the sort of people who react to failure by doubling down, only to fail harder. I hope there are some doctors on hand for these elderly people. There'd be some Mary McAleese 'womyn priests' stuff. The timid reaction of bishops to what the government has done over schools suggests more of the same. I expect more parents to homeschool, but this government will likely try to restrict or ban homeschooling despite parents doing a better job than most teachers. State schools are meant to indoctrinate people with 'civic' values. Shaping people who can think and cope in the wider world is only a marginal concern.

Hotblack Desiato

The timid reaction of bishops to what the government has done over schools suggests more of the same. 

What has the government done over schools?

BTW banning homeschooling would be unconstitutional as the parents are recognised as the primary educators of the child.

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.