The NMH at St. Vincents

aloyisious

aloyisious wrote: »

Keeping away from the SVH ethos debate when it comes to the proposed new NMH replacing the current NMH (which actually serves women of more than one creed/belief) - If we're going to continue to discuss the separate matter of whether our "national" schools, (apparently owned mostly by the Catholic faith) can have religion as defined and taught by it as part of the curriculum to all the students, should we not add the other faith beliefs practiced here to it, instead of just the one creed, in a one nation - one people fashion?

Why? Don't Educate Together schools already do this?
Likewise, CofI schools have their own ethos, as do Presbyterian ethos schools.

What is so threatening about the Catholic ethos schools, that people feel they shouldn't be allowed to exist?

You're right about one thing - this is seriously off-topic....

aloyisious

Teaser..... There's an item in today's irish Times "latest news" column right side of page 1, which says Simon Harris has been sent a letter by Amnesty International ireland in relation to concerns of a possible intervention of the Vatican in the future ownership and ethos of the new NMH. The heading is "Concerns about possible Vatican intervention in new maternity hospital" followed in smaller print by "Amnesty sends letter to Minister for Health outlining ‘significant issue’ regarding ownership and ethos".

Unfortunately, I don't subscribe to the online I/Times so I can't supply a link to the article, damn technical block...... It's by Mary Minehan, timed 48 minutes ago.

kylith

Deleted User wrote: »

Some people want entirely secular schools.

I think they should get them - just as I think that those of us who want schools with a religious ethos should get them, too.

That's not an objectionable opinion, putting aside the fact that it's not great for community integration/children learning about other cultures/sectarianism. However, it's just not workable anywhere outside of large population centres.

Let's say there's a country school which has 40 pupils. Lets say for the sake of argument that the parents of 19 children want secular education, parents of another 19 want RCC education, and the parents of the other 2 want a Muslim education.

Do you think it is more feasible to pay for the upkeep, running, and staffing for 3 schools, one for each ethos, or to pay for the upkeep, running, and staffing of one school which provides a secular education for everyone and for the children to receive religious instruction outside of school hours, possibly with the school building made available if necessary?

aloyisious

Just sought out the A.I.I. letter as reported in the irish Times, referencing the Vatican, Simon Harris and the planned new NMH at St Vincent's..... https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjF6Z_WsNvTAhXpCsAKHQJFDnAQFgglMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fsocial-affairs%2Fconcerns-about-possible-vatican-intervention-in-new-maternity-hospital-1.3073232&usg=AFQjCNE1_2ys31bXcOEL4KULTSTlIrNBDg

There's a bonus in the report. It provides the name of one of the SOC sisters on the SVHG board (as it exists now) so the SOC has been given a human face, as it were, meaning it is no longer just a faceless entity referred to by three words or an abbreviation.

aloyisious

@looksee: Probably because the SOC, over generations, has become entangled in a commercial entity and needs cash to keep it afloat, something contrary to this quote: what shall it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his soul?

marienbad

Deleted User wrote: »

Is it? Or is it quite simply rational to treat people equally?

Why do you have an issue with Catholics attending schools with a Catholic ethos?

Your comment about replacing the RCC with Sharia is very disingenuous.

Sharia is a legal system. The RCC is a religion.

You are not treating people equally , and it is always amazing that many of those of your viewpoint can never see it .

I don't have an issue with Catholics attending schools with a Catholic ethos .

And Sharia is a legal system based on religion - so who would you feel about most of our schools run on Sharia guidelines ?

kylith

kylith wrote: »

That's not an objectionable opinion, putting aside the fact that it's not great for community integration/children learning about other cultures/sectarianism. However, it's just not workable anywhere outside of large population centres.

Let's say there's a country school which has 40 pupils. Lets say for the sake of argument that the parents of 19 children want secular education, parents of another 19 want RCC education, and the parents of the other 2 want a Muslim education.

Do you think it is more feasible to pay for the upkeep, running, and staffing for 3 schools, one for each ethos, or to pay for the upkeep, running, and staffing of one school which provides a secular education for everyone and for the children to receive religious instruction outside of school hours, possibly with the school building made available if necessary?

Firstly, do schools with 40 pupils exist anymore?

Secondly, the point is that not every area has parents who want a secular education at all.

Certainly, in my own area, the local school has a mainly Catholic student group, two Hindu families, one family who may be Muslim, and some CofI students (despite the fact that there is a CofI school equidistant to at least one families home).

It works perfectly well.

However, for the sake of argument, let's say your hypothetical situation exists.

Why would you need 3 buildings?

40 pupils wouldn't fill one building.

Current pupil/teacher ratios would allow for 2 teachers.

Meaning all that is required is for pupils to move to the next classroom for religious studies - though I'm not too sure where you'd find an IMAM in most rural areas.

Any other classes, where a religious ethos could have an effect, say, civics - same applies.

Here's a novel idea. Do you think the State should pay for the use of the Church school in such a situation?

Or do you think the state should build a new school to facilitate those who want a completely secular education?

Or should it be "donated"?

marienbad wrote: »

You are not treating people equally , and it is always amazing that many of those of your viewpoint can never see it .

I don't have an issue with Catholics attending schools with a Catholic ethos .

Then what do you have an issue with?

I don't have an issue with people who want a secular education for their children getting it, either.

marienbad wrote: »

And Sharia is a legal system based on religion - so who would you feel about most of our schools run on Sharia guidelines ?

Sharia is a legal system. Islam is the Religion.

I don't have an issue with Islamic ethos schools, provided they follow the Irish education curriculum, just like every other school.

Apples and oranges.

marienbad

Deleted User wrote: »

Firstly, do schools with 40 pupils exist anymore?

Secondly, the point is that not every area has parents who want a secular education at all.

Certainly, in my own area, the local school has a mainly Catholic student group, two Hindu families, one family who may be Muslim, and some CofI students (despite the fact that there is a CofI school equidistant to at least one families home).

It works perfectly well.

However, for the sake of argument, let's say your hypothetical situation exists.


Why would you need 3 buildings?

40 pupils wouldn't fill one building.

Current pupil/teacher ratios would allow for 2 teachers.

Meaning all that is required is for pupils to move to the next classroom for religious studies - though I'm not too sure where you'd find an IMAM in most rural areas.

Any other classes, where a religious ethos could have an effect, say, civics - same applies.

Here's a novel idea. Do you think the State should pay for the use of the Church school in such a situation?

Or do you think the state should build a new school to facilitate those who want a completely secular education?

Or should it be "donated"?



Then what do you have an issue with?

I don't have an issue with people who want a secular education for their children getting it, either.



Sharia is a legal system. Islam is the Religion.

I don't have an issue with Islamic ethos schools, provided they follow the Irish education curriculum, just like every other school.

Apples and oranges.

Pointless having a discussion with you .

aloyisious

Deleted User wrote: »

Firstly, do schools with 40 pupils exist anymore?

Secondly, the point is that not every area has parents who want a secular education at all.

Certainly, in my own area, the local school has a mainly Catholic student group, two Hindu families, one family who may be Muslim, and some CofI students (despite the fact that there is a CofI school equidistant to at least one families home).

It works perfectly well.

However, for the sake of argument, let's say your hypothetical situation exists.

Why would you need 3 buildings?

40 pupils wouldn't fill one building.

Current pupil/teacher ratios would allow for 2 teachers.

Meaning all that is required is for pupils to move to the next classroom for religious studies - though I'm not too sure where you'd find an IMAM in most rural areas.

Any other classes, where a religious ethos could have an effect, say, civics - same applies.

Here's a novel idea. Do you think the State should pay for the use of the Church school in such a situation?

Or do you think the state should build a new school to facilitate those who want a completely secular education?

Or should it be "donated"?



Then what do you have an issue with?

I don't have an issue with people who want a secular education for their children getting it, either.



Sharia is a legal system. Islam is the Religion.

I don't have an issue with Islamic ethos schools, provided they follow the Irish education curriculum, just like every other school.

Apples and oranges.

In the case you've outlined, 2 teachers & 40 kids, when it comes to religious instruction of the RC group within the overall during normal school hours, what happens the other section of that class group, as the other teacher is teaching another topic to the rest of the 40 in another class? (I'm assuming the 40 are split into two classes as part of the usual school routine).

Would it not be more sensible, more instructive, maybe even more moral for a particular religious instruction lesson be given to the kids of that belief structure in a time period outside usual school hours and avoid disrupting the regular non-religious classes and lessons of the overall 40 kids?

That would avoid disruption being caused in the non-religious education curriculum and ensure that children of non-RC belief are not being instructed in the beliefs of the RC religion, disrupting the faith instructions they are getting from their own faith/belief. It would also provide the parents of ALL the children relaxation from any stress they might feel in thinking their children were receiving religious instruction likely to be contrary to their own faith beliefs (a fear or suspicion of proselytizing by stealth).

As you have pointed out, the school is small under teacher/pupil ratio rule, & unlikely for there to be another school in the area. It would surely be more productive education and personal ethos-wise for the different faith children to have their faith lessons within their own faith groups outside the usual school hours.

If they chose it, cross faith/belief group meeting of ALL the parents and kids could be arranged outside usual school hours for meet & greet purposes & prevent sectional walls rising in the community. That way, any feelings of the school building being taken over & monopolized outside school hours could also be nipped in the bud. PTA meetings are usually held on what's being taught to their kids and the issue of secularity in the curriculum sorted out there between the parents of ALL the faiths, as it would affect ALL beliefs.

I promise not to offer any more insights into this part of the discussion, just read the posts.

aloyisious

aloyisious wrote: »

In the case you've outlined, 2 teachers & 40 kids, when it comes to religious instruction of the RC group within the overall during normal school hours, what happens the other section of that class group, as the other teacher is teaching another topic to the rest of the 40 in another class? (I'm assuming the 40 are split into two classes as part of the usual school routine).

Would it not be more sensible, more instructive, maybe even more moral for a particular religious instruction lesson be given to the kids of that belief structure in a time period outside usual school hours and avoid disrupting the regular non-religious classes and lessons of the overall 40 kids?

That would avoid disruption being caused in the non-religious education curriculum and ensure that children of non-RC belief are not being instructed in the beliefs of the RC religion, disrupting the faith instructions they are getting from their own faith/belief. It would also provide the parents of ALL the children relaxation from any stress they might feel in thinking their children were receiving religious instruction likely to be contrary to their own faith beliefs (a fear or suspicion of proselytizing by stealth).

As you have pointed out, the school is small under teacher/pupil ratio rule, & unlikely for there to be another school in the area. It would surely be more productive education and personal ethos-wise for the different faith children to have their faith lessons within their own faith groups outside the usual school hours.

If they chose it, cross faith/belief group meeting of ALL the parents and kids could be arranged outside usual school hours for meet & greet purposes & prevent sectional walls rising in the community. That way, any feelings of the school building being taken over & monopolized outside school hours could also be nipped in the bud. PTA meetings are usually held on what's being taught to their kids and the issue of secularity in the curriculum sorted out there between the parents of ALL the faiths, as it would affect ALL beliefs.

I promise not to offer any more insights into this part of the discussion, just read the posts.

The RCC students would receive instruction in one classroom, the other students normal class in the other.

In one sense, the small number of pupils would make this easier, since teachers would already have to teach multiple classes, anyway.

As to the second bolded section.

Answer me this:

Why should the people, who have ownership of the school, be the ones who are expected to give up their ethos?

I note you haven't answered any of my previous questions.
I would appreciate it if you could answer that one.

gctest50

[Deleted User] wrote: »

.....
Why should the people, who have ownership of the school, be the ones who are expected to give up their ethos?

.......

If a person who has ownership of a pub has an ethos of say not serving people due to :


•Gender
•Marital status.
•Family status.
•Sexual orientation.
•Religious belief or lack of religious belief.
•Age.
•Disability.
•Race, colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin.
•Membership of the traveller community.

they'd be done for it.

Even though they own the pub

aloyisious

Deleted User wrote: »

The RCC students would receive instruction in one classroom, the other students normal class in the other.

In one sense, the small number of pupils would make this easier, since teachers would already have to teach multiple classes, anyway.

As to the second bolded section.

Answer me this:

Why should the people, who have ownership of the school, be the ones who are expected to give up their ethos?

I note you haven't answered any of my previous questions.
I would appreciate it if you could answer that one.

OK. I'll break my last promise. It was because you agreed with me on one point (or so I thought - with your "your right about one thing - this is seriously off topic" remark) that this was not relevant to the "ownership by the Sisters of Charity of the new NMH" discussion thread.... mine at the bottom of page 78 and your's at the top of this page. So I'll keep to my promise and won't respond to your "educational ethos" questions. TTFN

gctest50

gctest50 wrote: »

If a person who has ownership of a pub has an ethos of say not serving people due to :


•Gender
•Marital status.
•Family status.
•Sexual orientation.
•Religious belief or lack of religious belief.
•Age.
•Disability.
•Race, colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin.
•Membership of the traveller community.

they'd be done for it.

Even though they own the pub

Apples and oranges.

The state has an obligation to educate all it's citizens, of all religions, and none

The catholic people have no such obligation, so why should they give up their right to a religious ethos education, for which they have provided the building - to carry out the States obligation for them?

The pub is privately owned, but must comply with the law.

The school is also privately owned, but is not breaking any law.

Why is there no criticism of the state for not honouring its obligation, to educate all children?

gctest50

[Deleted User] wrote: »

..............The school is also privately owned...........

Does the school receive any money from the state ?

Donal55

From maternity hospitals to pubs and schools. This argument has hit an impasse. Rather similar to what has happened at St.Vincents.

gctest50

gctest50 wrote: »

Does the school receive any money from the state ?

Certainly. The same amount per student as E.T, CofI, and Presbyterian schools - minus the capital costs of the buildings in many cases.

I'd call that more cost-effective than the E.T. schools.

Unlike many here, though, I don't begrudge parents the right to a non religious ethos, or a religious ethos.
It's their choice - or should be, if the State lived up to its duty to provide an education.

Thankfully the days when Catholics were denied an appropriate education are long gone....
We now have a right to acknowledge our faith, in all walks of life.

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

Certainly. The same amount per student as E.T, CofI, and Presbyterian schools - minus the capital costs of the buildings in many cases.

I'd call that more cost-effective than the E.T. schools.

Unlike many here, though, I don't begrudge parents the right to a non religious ethos, or a religious ethos.
It's their choice - or should be, if the State lived up to its duty to provide an education.

Thankfully the days when Catholics were denied an appropriate education are long gone....
We now have a right to acknowledge our faith, in all walks of life.

so long ago as to be irrelevant.

Osgoodisgood

Deleted User wrote: »

gctest50 wrote: »

Does the school receive any money from the state ?

Certainly. The same amount per student as E.T, CofI, and Presbyterian schools - minus the capital costs of the buildings in many cases.

I'd call that more cost-effective than the E.T. schools.

Unlike many here, though, I don't begrudge parents the right to a non religious ethos, or a religious ethos.
It's their choice - or should be, if the State lived up to its duty to provide an education.

Thankfully the days when Catholics were denied an appropriate education are long gone....
We now have a right to acknowledge our faith, in all walks of life.

How? What rights do you have?

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so long ago as to be irrelevant.

You don't see any similarities?

Osgoodisgood wrote: »

How? What rights do you have?

The same ones you do - freedom of religion (or not), and the right to an education.
Throw in property rights for good measure.

Osgoodisgood

Deleted User wrote: »

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so long ago as to be irrelevant.

You don't see any similarities?

Osgoodisgood wrote: »

How? What rights do you have?

The same ones you do - freedom of religion (or not), and the right to an education.
Throw in property rights for good measure.

That's what I thought. Your rights being just a bit more important than mine. Charming

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

You don't see any similarities?



The same ones you do - freedom of religion (or not), and the right to an education.
Throw in property rights for good measure.

i see a lot of similarities. the catholic church wants to do others what was once done to it. so much for christian charity.

Osgoodisgood

Osgoodisgood wrote: »

That's what I thought. Your rights being just a bit more important than mine. Charming

Not at all.

I'm merely pointing out the fact that your rights are no more or less important than mine.

And the fact that it is the responsibility of the Irish State to grant you your rights, not the responsibility of the Catholic Church, or its members.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

i see a lot of similarities. the catholic church wants to do others what was once done to it. so much for christian charity.

Again. Not so.
Because, as I said above, it is not the responsibility of the Catholic Church to provide an education, or the buildings for it.
It is the responsibility of the State.

Don't blame me if they haven't lived up to that responsibility.

Don't blame the Church for it, either. It was never their obligation to provide your child's education.

aloyisious

If the RC ethos is a necessary part of education of children being raised within the RC Church, doesn't that include it's teaching that abortion is wrong?

If so, would that also be on the education curriculum of RC schools for its pupils, regardless of the school staff and pupils parents opinions?

gctest50

[Deleted User] wrote: »

: gctest50

Does the school receive any money from the state ?

Certainly. The same amount per student as E.T, CofI, and Presbyterian schools - .

Sounds a bit like the b***ard offspring of a cartel and a cult

Limited supply n all that

Like always they have some tale of woe about how they started out but it's all better now

jimmycrackcorm

aloyisious wrote:

If so, shouldn't that also be on the education curriculum of RC schools for its pupils, regardless of the school staff and pupils parents opinions?

The educational curriculum is set by the dept of education.

rainbow kirby

Deleted User wrote: »

Thankfully the days when Catholics were denied an appropriate education are long gone....
We now have a right to acknowledge our faith, in all walks of life.

The fact that a group was denied an appropriate education in the past is no excuse for them to do the same to other groups now. :rolleyes:

aloyisious

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

The educational curriculum is set by the dept of education.

Would that include religious ethos education?

aloyisious

aloyisious wrote: »

If the RC ethos is a necessary part of education of children being raised within the RC Church, doesn't that include it's teaching that abortion is wrong?

If so, would that also be on the education curriculum of RC schools for its pupils, regardless of the school staff and pupils parents opinions?

They don't exactly introduce abortion teachings in the middle of History class....

As previously noted, the curriculum is set by the Dept of Education.

gctest50 wrote: »

Sounds a bit like the b***ard offspring of a cartel and a cult

Limited supply n all that

Like always they have some tale of woe about how they started out but it's all better now

Er, care to explain?

rainbow kirby wrote: »

The fact that a group was denied an appropriate education in the past is no excuse for them to do the same to other groups now. :rolleyes:

How are Catholics denying any group an education?

I haven't heard any Catholic complain about the existence of either any other religious ethos school, or Educate together schools.

Refusing to give up their own rights does not equate to denying any other group an education, since it is not the responsibility of the Church, or its members to educate any other group.

That is what we have a Government for.
One that promised to treat all the children of the Nation equally, and one that promised to provide an education for its children.

How does that translate into expecting a religious body - any religious body - to give up its right to its own teaching, in favour of another group.

aloyisious

Deleted User wrote: »

They don't exactly introduce abortion teachings in the middle of History class....

As previously noted, the curriculum is set by the Dept of Education.

I was wondering who mandated that the RC ethos could be taught in schools used by the general population (besides RC single faith schools) and is it separate to the curriculum, yet still apparently taught by the school teachers inside regular school pupil attendance hours.

If there were pupils of other faiths in the school, surely that would mean that they too could have the religious ethos applicable to their faith taught in the school as well (the education of all the children being all important in school & their faith beliefs (or none) being factored in)?

I actually hadn't asked that timing point question of you before of the RC ethos teaching to the children in schools as per your personal choice, maybe you could tell us so that we know if it's during regular school hours or extra-curricular?

aloyisious

aloyisious wrote: »

I was wondering who mandated that the RC ethos could be taught in schools used by the general population (besides RC single faith schools) and is it separate to the curriculum, yet still apparently taught by the school teachers inside regular school pupil attendance hours.

If there were pupils of other faiths in the school, surely that would mean that they too could have the religious ethos applicable to their faith taught in the school as well (the education of all the children being all important in school & their faith beliefs (or none) being factored in)?

I actually hadn't asked that timing point question of you before of the RC ethos teaching to the children in schools as per your personal choice, maybe you could tell us so that we know if it's during regular school hours or extra-curricular?

The answer to that question is that traditionally, there were no "general population" schools, to my knowledge, anyway.
Certainly there were none in the vast majority of rural areas.

I know there was a Jewish population in Dublin, and I think, Cork (from memory) at the foundation of the state.

I have no idea what educational arrangements were made for that group.

For the rest of rural Ireland, at any rate, people of Protestant denominations mainly went to existing schools, reflecting their own ethos.

There were some Catholic schools, but nowhere near enough to cater for demand.

Hence, collections were taken up in many parishes for the building of schools, for the Catholic population.

That pretty much covered the entire population.

Multiculturalism, and a variety of religions, or none, came much later.

This is where the problems began, since the State did not build enough schools for the general population, who wanted neither ethos.

I know there were agreements between the Government and the various religious bodies re: freedom of religion in religious ethos schools. I don't have the time, (or tbh, the inclination) to research it.

About the only "general population" schools I know of in Ireland are the Educate together schools, I'm not sure what ethos, if any, the Gaelscoileanna have.

So, it's not a question of who mandated for religious ethos "general population" schools.

It's that the schools were always single faith schools, with the occasional pupil from other faiths attending.

Traditionally, it was simply a matter of arranging for the local Minister to attend for religion classes for his own flock.

Nowadays, there is a greater variety of faiths, or people who want entirely secular schools, which they are perfectly entitled to.

What I would argue they are not entitled to, is to demand that their right to a secular, or A.N other education, is any more, or less, of a right than those who want their single faith schools to remain.

Hence, it is the State that has a responsibility to deal with the issue - not the Catholic, or any other Church, that has any responsibility to cede their own ethos.

And we are still seriously off-topic, and tbh, I'm getting bored with this conversation (no offence intended).

I wanted to make the point that everyone has a right to their choice of educational type. Yet no-one has a right to deny others that same choice. I certainly didn't expect it to go on for several pages...