The NMH at St. Vincents

Hotblack Desiato

tigger123 wrote: »

I appreciate the point you're making, but it's not really what I'm getting at. Just because it's written into the constitution, doesn't mean it has a practical application.

If the RCC owns a majority of schools and Hospitals around the country, surely they have to work hand in glove with the State in a variety of set ups in the delivery of education and health services.

If the State do this by CPO, is that not going to sour the relationship int he future? How do you think will the negotiations go the next time a set up like this has to be figured out?

That ship has already sailed in a lot of cases. The RCC well know they are fighting a rearguard action on all fronts. Vincent's already has a prickly relationship with the HSE (because they used the public hospital you and me paid for, as collateral for loans to build their money-spinning private hospitals - and they also topped up state salaries for their public hospital executives with private money, which the HSE forbids) but they know that without public funding of running costs their public hospital is useless. Same for the schools. The problem is that not only are no government politicians prepared to stand up to them, they often bend over backwards to facilitate them.

aloyisious wrote: »

Personally I hope he gets the SVH board to swear and sign on the dotted line that if the sisters renege in any way at any time or date whatsoever that it will resign en masse in protest on a live broadcast

Why on earth would they do that? They are appointees of the Sisters of Charity, their loyalty is to the SoC and certainly not the public interest or some half-assed agreement with a minister.

He should also get the sisters to swear on the bible that they will not interfere at all into any and all medical procedures performed at the new NMH, regardless of any patient's religious status.

Are you being remotely serious?
You have heard of the concept of 'mental reservation' right?
Basically it's OK for a clergy person or member of religious order to say or do anything that advances the goals of their organisation.
They'd buy and sell the likes of you. Swear on the bible? Don't make me laugh :rolleyes:

Woodville56

Woodville56 wrote: »

So in essence, you have an objection in principal to the state taking any site donation from a religious body irrespective of the purpose or assurances of non intervention ? There's an awful lot of state infrastructure built on lands owned originally by religious communities etc - that a problem for you too ? Need more sack cloth and ashes stuff from the religious groups to atone for their past misdeeds ? I'm all for the state i.e. the taxpayer providing its own healthcare and education facilities etc so let them at it. I also agree that the religious communities involved in the reparation payments should pay over the agreed settlement and leave it at that. If those who would like the state to buy out all the religious donated properties on which schools, hospitals, community and resource centers etc were built to assuage their high moral ground principals and anti church /anti religious sentiments then let's do the sums and see how the balance sheet looks . The church and religious orders need to refocus their efforts towards their true charism for those who have faith and let the state look after its sick and young. Let's have our secular state - the nirvana so many here seem to be so excited about !

This.

Any and all monies owed from the redress schemes should be paid over.

After that, those who wish to have no church involvement in education or health should lobby their TDs to have the state fund all new schools and hospitals, or pay market value for existing ones.

Equally, those who wish their children to attend a school with a Catholic ethos should have that right, just as those who wish their children to attend schools with a different religious affiliation, or none, should have that right.

Level the playing field, grant everyone equal rights - and no cribbing about the extra taxation that will be required to pay for all the new buildings.

pontoonz

my religion teacher in secondary school was a nun

nickname was pebbles

kylith

Donal55 wrote: »

Yes. On someone elses property.

For which they could be paid rent rather than being gifted 300m of public money.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

This.

Any and all monies owed from the redress schemes should be paid over.

After that, those who wish to have no church involvement in education or health should lobby their TDs to have the state fund all new schools and hospitals, or pay market value for existing ones.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

This.

Any and all monies owed from the redress schemes should be paid over.

After that, those who wish to have no church involvement in education or health should lobby their TDs to have the state fund all new schools and hospitals, or pay market value for existing ones
.

The state already does fund all schools and hospitals. How about: all publicly funded schools are made secular and if a church wants to impose a religious ethos they can pay the staffing, bills, and maintainance.

tigger123

pontoonz wrote: »

my religion teacher in secondary school was a nun

nickname was pebbles

Stop flame posting!

jmayo

Call me Al wrote: »

Actually that account has been squared. They now owe nothing.
This ?3m was offset against their legal fees on this hospital transfer...

Are you seriously saying the legal fees for setting up this bast**dised solution was over 3 million ?

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

You said the RCC has been charged with countless crimes. Please give an example, just one will do.

Now, not individuals, the organisation like you claimed.

Semantics my dear boy.
We all know that the roman catholic church as an organisation, in mulitple countries over many decades, colluded in hiding criminals and criminal activity.
The stink went right to the HQ in Rome.
If it wasn't for the fact it is the rcc it would have been shutdown by now after all the crippling lawsuits.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

This rhetoric is cheap though, the reality would be ferociously expensive.

For good or ill, the majority of schools and a substantial number of hospitals are built on land owned by RCC affiliated organisations. If it were even legally possible for the state to acquire so these lands it would bankrupt it - it would cost billions. There is no feasible alternative to the current system (or mess depending on your perspective).

Were there is a will there is a way.

The problem is the state, politicians and civil servants, have long relied on religious institutions to provide education, healthcare and childcare.
It suited the state because it meant they didn't have to carry the cost.
But now the state does carry the cost, the cost of paying salaries and providing subvention to keep hospitals and schools open.

The state have often chosen to hide behind the church when it suits them especially when the shyte hits the fan, as in the case of Louise O'Keeffe where they fought until the bitter end to disavow their responsibility for one of their employees.

We are a sad nation when you look behind the veneer.

Anita Blow wrote: »

The land has been valued at 37.5 million. RTE recently purchased a plot of land near it double in size for ~75 million so it wouldn't really be prohibitively expensive to CPO it.

That RTE land is earmarked for residential development.
The St Vincents site is not so should not carry the same market value.

Call me Al wrote: »

Their obligations under the redress scheme have been addressed in this deal. Their legal fees have been offset against them.
They now owe the State nothing.

They damn well owe their victims.
And all the state is doing is lining up new ones for them. :mad:

osarusan

The comments by that bishop really ended any chance of this blowing over.

The order must be furious with him.

Donal55

osarusan wrote: »

The comments by that bishop really ended any chance of this blowing over.

The order must be furious with him.

And FG.

aloyisious

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

That ship has already sailed in a lot of cases. The RCC well know they are fighting a rearguard action on all fronts. Vincent's already has a prickly relationship with the HSE (because they used the public hospital you and me paid for, as collateral for loans to build their money-spinning private hospitals - and they also topped up state salaries for their public hospital executives with private money, which the HSE forbids) but they know that without public funding of running costs their public hospital is useless. Same for the schools. The problem is that not only are no government politicians prepared to stand up to them, they often bend over backwards to facilitate them.




Why on earth would they do that? They are appointees of the Sisters of Charity, their loyalty is to the SoC and certainly not the public interest or some half-assed agreement with a minister.



Are you being remotely serious?
You have heard of the concept of 'mental reservation' right?
Basically it's OK for a clergy person or member of religious order to say or do anything that advances the goals of their organisation.
They'd buy and sell the likes of you. Swear on the bible? Don't make me laugh :rolleyes:

Realistically no. There is a large "however" for them.

A refusal or disinclination by a board to its use would speak volumes as to whether the public and pregnant women in particular should have any trust in them re the new NMH. If they agree and then fail to honour a commitment, as god-fearing catholics, they'd find themselves in a personal faithful bind, the order V the Almighty. Plus the legal implications for them after their use of the bible as a guarantor of their good faith.

My last, catch the nuns out by use of the bible. They can't "mental reservation" their way past it and all it denotes for mother church and their faith. A refusal to agree with it's use would speak volumes yet again.

aloyisious

osarusan wrote: »

The comments by that bishop really ended any chance of this blowing over.

The order must be furious with him.

The bishop of Elphin??? I found it peculiar that he would voice such concerns, instead of the archbishop of Dublin. Thought maybe it was a "safe option" to get past NMH board personalities.

Donal55

aloyisious wrote: »

Realistically no. There is a large "however" for them.

A refusal or disinclination by a board to its use would speak volumes as to whether the public and pregnant women in particular should have any trust in them re the new NMH. If they agree and then fail to honour a commitment, as god-fearing catholics, they'd find themselves in a personal faithful bind, the order V the Almighty. Plus the legal implications for them after their use of the bible as a guarantor of their good faith.

My last, catch the nuns out by use of the bible. They can't "mental reservation" their way past it and all it denotes for mother church and their faith. A refusal to agree with it's use would speak volumes yet again.

There will be nine on the board. A 4/4 split and the chair to be decided by 3. Of which 2 will be nuns.
The nuns will control this hospital.

aloyisious

The issue is on the Sean O'Rourke show now, with Dr Pat Casey, Iona friend V another guest. Pat says the order should give up the ownership of any hospital that allows abortions, they should have nothing to do with it and thinks the order didn't realise the abortion issue would arise. rR the Iona Institute, Pat has reminded the host that it's not a catholic organisation.

Donal55

aloyisious wrote: »

The issue is on the Sean O'Rourke show now, with Dr Pat Casey, Iona friend V another guest. Pat says the order should give up the ownership of any hospital that allows abortions, they should have nothing to do with it and thinks the order didn't realise the abortion issue would arise.

The main tenet of RC teaching in a maternity setting and the nuns never thought of it!

#MadTed

aloyisious

Donal55 wrote: »

There will be nine on the board. A 4/4 split and the chair to be decided by 3. Of which 2 will be nuns.
The nuns will control this hospital.

Yeah I agree with you. I'd use the bible against them and their desire to control all that goes on in the new "independent" NMH. That's as plain as the noses on their faces.

volchitsa

Just tuned in to that now (thanks for the heads up) - was that the Dr Patricia Casey, psychiatrist, of Iona who said she didn't know if IVF was acceptable in Catholic teaching or not???

She either doesn't know her own religion or she's lying, surely?
(Or was it someone else entirely, seeing as I picked up in the middle?)

minikin

I don't see the problem with the nuns having an influence over the national women's hospital... it's not like they're against smushmorshion... look how good they were at killing and disposing of babies in Galway.

blanch152

tigger123 wrote: »

Surely purchasing the land by CPO opens a can of worms in relation to every other Church owned school and hospital throughout the country? Can't imagine the RCC playing ball after that.

Wonder how practical a solution it really is.

Of course it does.

How much is the land worth and how much will it cost the taxpayer?

Then, how much will we have to pay for all the other religious-owned land?

Better off to have full use of the land without paying for it.

aloyisious

volchitsa wrote: »

Just tuned in to that now (thanks for the heads up) - was that the Dr Patricia Casey, psychiatrist, of Iona who said she didn't know if IVF was acceptable in Catholic teaching or not???

She either doesn't know her own religion or she's lying, surely?
(Or was it someone else entirely, seeing as I picked up in the middle?)

No, it's the one and same person. She did make the comment. I think it was also in relation to other operations there which could/would affect the future of women becoming pregnant again.

recipio

At the end of the day this is a complete and utter capitulation by the Government to the Religious SOC. I can only speculate that they got tunnel vision about the site and hoped it would squeeze through. Why are there no dissenting voices and why the madcap decision about the Children's hospital.? It makes the electronic voting debacle look like small change.

Donal55

recipio wrote: »

At the end of the day this is a complete and utter capitulation by the Government to the Religious SOC. I can only speculate that they got tunnel vision about the site and hoped it would squeeze through. Why are there no dissenting voices and why the madcap decision about the Children's hospital.? It makes the electronic voting debacle look like small change.

Two dissenting voices have both resigned in the past two days. In my opinion they should have hung on and made their arguments from inside.

VinLieger

Donal55 wrote: »

Two dissenting voices have both resigned in the past two days. In my opinion they should have hung on and made their arguments from inside.

Pointless to do so if they are being ignored and steamrolled, it makes for far bigger headlines and a spotlight by resigning, also proves they are standing by their principles

oppenheimer1

VinLieger wrote: »

Pointless to do so if they are being ignored and steamrolled, it makes for far bigger headlines and a spotlight by resigning, also proves they are standing by their principles

And then what? The news cycle rolls on and they are just two ordinary citizens, making their stand.

By resigning, whatever influence they had, is lost.

VinLieger

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

And then what? The news cycle rolls on and they are just two ordinary citizens, making their stand.

By resigning, whatever influence they had, is lost.

They had zero influence as they were ignored anyway? By trying to argue whether they did this right or wrong the argument gets muddied, the problem is all the other members of the board not these guys

StudentDad

What great little Republic this is. When is the State going to tell the rcc (or any other version of unelected cabal) to bugger off out of our schools, hospitals and universities?

They haven't paid their dues in respect of the abuse enquiries and it would also appear that if this Bishop who has been commenting on this issue speaks for the church, they don't actually feel bound by law.

SD

oppenheimer1

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

And then what? The news cycle rolls on and they are just two ordinary citizens, making their stand.

By resigning, whatever influence they had, is lost.

Its clear from Peter Boylan's interview that he hasn't resigned for any publicity motives, but as a matter of principle, he wants nothing to do with the handing over of 300 million Euro of taxpayers' money to a private company.

oppenheimer1

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Its clear from Peter Boylan's interview that he hasn't resigned for any publicity motives, but as a matter of principle, he wants nothing to do with the handing over of 300 million Euro of taxpayers' money to a private company.

I never suggested they did, that was VinLieger.

VinLieger

Lets be clear one of the other board members accidentally admitted yesterday that she hadnt a clue what she was voting on by trying to claim the Vincents Hospital Trust is a separate entity and not under the control of the SOC.

Is it possible there are others who are equally ignorant of this fact? Is there a chance they were they purposely mislead?

oppenheimer1

StudentDad wrote: »

What great little Republic this is. When is the State going to tell the rcc (or any other version of unelected cabal) to bugger off out of our schools, hospitals and universities?

They haven't paid their dues in respect of the abuse enquiries and it would also appear that if this Bishop who has been commenting on this issue speaks for the church, they don't actually feel bound by law.

SD

Presumably when the state decides to buy the institutions from them, or decides to defund them and build its own on its own land.

Mrs OBumble

StudentDad wrote: »

What great little Republic this is. When is the State going to tell the rcc (or any other version of unelected cabal) to bugger off out of our schools, hospitals and universities?

SD

Are you really saying you want Educate Together out of schools, as well as the Church of Ireland, Jews , Muslims and Catholics? Really?

VinLieger

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I never suggested they did, that was VinLieger.

I didnt mean to suggest he did it for publicity motives but that is also a direct result of his resigning, it resonated massively whether he intended it to or not.

I believe he did it as like the other posted suggested he did not want to be linked to this farce and didn't want to compromise on his principles.