08.21.06
A visit
The priest just called to see us. He’s very nice. I felt bad cos we don’t go to Mass. I’ll have to do the usual and buy my way out of the guilt. I’m not doing Mass.
An Irish woman’s social, political and domestic commentary
Bad Behavior has blocked 352 access attempts in the last 7 days.
Darren said,
August 21, 2006 at 9:03 pm
What do you mean by “called to see us”? As in, dropped by the house? Randomly, or is he friend of the family or something?
faolain said,
August 21, 2006 at 11:12 pm
A few days after I brought my new son home from hospital, the local curate “called to see us”. We’d never seen anyone from (nor been in) the church in the 8 years we’d lived there. He just wanted to know what arrangements we’d like to make for the baptism …
ben said,
August 22, 2006 at 1:29 am
I would LOVE IT if a priest came to see me wondering why I wasn’t at Mass. Come on, Rome, send me a bishop.
Conor Delaney said,
August 22, 2006 at 8:18 am
I hope you are not impose the culture of guilt on your child by getting it baptised?
C
Leon said,
August 22, 2006 at 9:00 am
Far better that your children should grow up to be vapid, soulless consumers. Catholicism is worth imposing on children for the aesthetics if nothing else.
Don’t blame the church for your guilt.
Paul said,
August 22, 2006 at 9:14 am
Sarah — how come you don’t go to Mass?
Leon said,
August 22, 2006 at 9:29 am
She doesn’t go to mass because she is a transgendered pagan.
Sarah said,
August 22, 2006 at 9:51 am
His visit was unexpected and unannounced. However he is by no means a stranger. He married us and baptised the children and if I see him around we’d generally have a chat. He a terribly nice man and I do pass on the few quid for the support of the parish etc. (If one of us drops dead he’ll be doing the funeral so its only fair we chip in for his upkeep in the meantime).
I don’t go to Mass because I don’t believe in God or any of that stuff. And I am too busy. And the church does pile on the guilt and I’ve enough of that thanks very much. I don’t blame them entirely for the guilt – the folks did the job there, but then, they’re Catholics, so what do you expect?
So why weddings and baptisms then? Sigh..too rushed now..another time.
Conor Delaney said,
August 22, 2006 at 10:30 am
Sounds to me that you are trying to hedge your bets…..
Sarah said,
August 22, 2006 at 11:43 am
ah yes, the just-in-case theory…
Actually I am not hedging, BUT I do believe in ritual at important times. When those big things happen, marriage, birth, death it is important to have some spiritual type person invoke whatever Gods or spirits or universal goodwill is there and say prayers over us. Its easy to go along with the established church because its there and if I did drop dead tomorrow the family need the ceremoney rather than my soul requiring the promise of eternal salvation, or whatever it is they are offering these days.
Also, you can’t get into schools unless you are a religion. And I HATE that, but what can you do?
Daniel K. said,
August 22, 2006 at 12:43 pm
We had the curate call around dinner time some years back when I was back from college and busy slicing up liver for the cat using a fish knife. I didn’t have time to clean up and it was late so wasn’t expect anyone at the door. He seemed highly supicious of my bloody hands and the knife when I was telling him that the folks were ‘gone away’. He basically invited himself into the kitchen but headed quickly enough when he saw the liver and heard the cat maoing. I don’t mind the occasional drop by, much like a politician canvassing really, just don’t be pushing.
Conor Delaney said,
August 22, 2006 at 1:52 pm
Can’t get into schools unless you are a religion…? Since when?
Conor Delaney said,
August 22, 2006 at 1:57 pm
Sigh,
A typical catch all government information piece on schools and religion
http://www.oasis.gov.ie/moving_country/moving_to_ireland/moving_your_child_irish_primary_school.html
Paul said,
August 22, 2006 at 1:58 pm
This priest. Sounds like he’s a guy you’ve time for and have a decent chat from time to time. And he does a job for you from time to time.
Consider him a friend so. You don’t have to agree with everything he does for a living or otherwise. And he doesn’t or shouldn’t have to agree with everything you do or may not do. Happy days so, no guilt !!
Leon said,
August 22, 2006 at 2:21 pm
Non religious schools are freak schools. You might as well tatoo middle class cunt on the child’s face.
Pete said,
August 22, 2006 at 2:33 pm
Have to agree with Paul. The priest is a guy with a business, trying to maintain and expand his customer base, and expand the services he sells to his existing customer base (ie. trying to get Sarah to go to mass). Just a guy doing his job, as long as he isn’t unpleasant about it that’s fine.
I wonder if someone can advise me about baptism? I’m getting some pressure to baptise my new son, and have no objection to giving the grandparents a day out and a bit of a ceremony, but I don’t want to make promises that I don’t intend to keep. Except to God of course, nothing wrong with breaking promises to a being who doesn’t exist. So, what do I have to promise and who do I promise it to? Like Sarah, my wife and I have no intention of going to mass ever again, we did that for 25 years and got nothing positive from it.
Conor Delaney said,
August 22, 2006 at 2:44 pm
If the grandparents are so keen on your childs involvement in a morally bankrupt religious organisation then tell them that they have to organise everything and take responsibility for all future engagements……oh sod it! You are an adult and parent, it is your son, it is none of their business!
tom said,
August 22, 2006 at 3:12 pm
“Schools that cater for a single religion may give priority to children of that religion”
They should have their public funding withdrawn.
One court case is all it will take. I keep saying I will be the person who brings it but I doubt I will ever get around to it.
A Lurker said,
August 22, 2006 at 4:28 pm
First the Irish language, then the church. When is the column coming on the GAA?
Leon said,
August 22, 2006 at 4:38 pm
You’d lose that case Tom. What about article 42 of the constitution?
tom said,
August 22, 2006 at 4:44 pm
European Convention on Human Rights
Protocol 1, Article 2: No person shall be denied the right to education
Article 14: The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.
tom said,
August 22, 2006 at 4:47 pm
wrt Article 42, I am not against religious schools existing, I am against schools discriminating on the grounds of religion. There is a difference.
Conor Delaney said,
August 22, 2006 at 5:59 pm
I agree with Tom, especially if the Tax Payer is footing the bill of the teachers…..
Sarah said,
August 22, 2006 at 7:13 pm
first on the mass issue: See, he didn’t SAY “how come you haven’t been at mass?”. In fact we were so mortified that we said “oh we’re very sorry we haven’t been to mass” and mumbled excuses about toddlers. He said “sure don’t worry” but of course, we felt awful. He’s SO nice…if he was a shit, you wouldn’t care.
On the school thing, techinically, they’d say they’d take the children without being baptised (I think) but there is pressure on space, so they’ll take their own first. Anyway, as Leon knows, sometimes it doesn’t make any difference. You don’t baptise the child but they come home asking to be baptised so they can get First Holy Communion like all their friends. WORST thing ever for a child is to be different.
Pete, well my advice is to go ahead and get the child baptised. It is a nice thing to officially welcome the child and if it makes the grandparents happy then why not. If you don’t believe in it anyway, then it doesn’t do any harm to the child and you make other people feel good. The christenings were very conflicting experiences for me. On the one hand I was really pleased to do the actual ceremony and it was nice. On the other hand I found it hugely pressurised. I tried to keep the parties as simple as possible, family only etc. but bloody hell, trying to be a hostess and still mind this young baby is really hard. I would suggest that if you do go ahead
a) leave it for a while. In retrospect I did mine far too young…within 12 weeks I think. It was just too early and I wasn’t fit for it. They’ll be fine at 6-8 months and your wife will be feeling stronger.
b) Not a bad idea to let someone else be hostess. or official host or something.. you know like the grandparents, your the best man or bridesmaid at the wedding. Takes a lot of pressure off
c)oh and speaking of bridesmaids, you do have to figure out the whole godparents thing without offending people. Its REALLY tricky. I decided to follow protocol and our best man and bridesmaid were godparents. That way no one could be offended (well they could, but at least I had an excuse, some one will always be offended).
Conor Delaney said,
August 22, 2006 at 7:45 pm
I am sorry Sarah but the “worst thing for a child is to be different” is a lot cobblers. Just think about what you are saying, remember all that mumbo jumbo they tried to force down us at school, not to mention the pressures from the “moral majority”. Do you really want you child learning stuff about immaculate virgins, bread turning into flesh, wine turning into blood? If you are serious about distancing yourself from the Catholic Church, then do it properly else you will just be labeled a lapsed catholic. They can’t pressure you if you don’t provide them with a context. Don’t give them your power.
C
ps: no I am not bitter about the Catholic Church, I believe it has become irrelevant, and I am tired of people “hedging their bets”, by doing so they keep it alive. We owe it nothing. I think Father Brian Darcy is right to be looking forward to the destruction of the Catholic Church.
Ray said,
August 22, 2006 at 9:59 pm
“You don’t baptise the child but they come home asking to be baptised so they can get First Holy Communion like all their friends. WORST thing ever for a child is to be different.”
Another good reason to stop state funding the bastards. Want to teach communion classes? Fine, on your own shagging time. Not during state-funded education hours, when it means sending the non-Catholic kids out of the class.
Sarah said,
August 22, 2006 at 11:31 pm
I agree with you completely Ray, but what can I do? They own our primary schools..that’s where the children will go…I can complain about it, but its not going to change anything in the next few years.
Conor, I mean, for a child, the worst thing for them is to be different. Children want to be the same as all the other children – same haircuts, clothes, accents, religion etc. And since the power is in the schools, they get to you through the children and there really is feck all I can do about it. I mean, even if I said, no, you will not have confession or communion when you are 7 or whatever it is..they’d still have to sit in the class and listen to all the stuff. I think the best I can do is remember that what they hear at home is more important than what they hear at school. So its up to me to teach them self-worth and knock all the guilt shit out that the school tries to put in. What happened generations like us is that what we got at school and in church was re-inforced by our parents who backed it up all the way. So I don’t see it as hedging our bets..I see it as navigating a minefield. Now, perhaps if I was more militant I would find a way to seal them from the whole thing in the first place, but I don’t see how I can do that. If I lived in Dublin there would be non-demoninational schools or something but this is the country and this is what you get.
SheepShagger said,
August 23, 2006 at 5:46 am
Sarah, tell us more about the transgendered pagan thing. This sounds far more interesting than your half-invented tales of residual catholic guilt…
Ray said,
August 23, 2006 at 8:57 am
What you can do is send your kids to a non-denominational, multi-denominational, or minority denominational school (because they know they can’t force religion down your throat). Leon will even give them the tattoo for free.
If there aren’t any such schools in your area, you can give out to that nice priest next time he drops in for tea, instead of giving him money, and you can make a nuisance of yourself at parent-teacher meetings – chances are there are plenty of other parents who object.
Conor Delaney said,
August 23, 2006 at 9:11 am
A quote from the government (via the oasis website):
“Children do not have to attend religion classes and you may choose to withdraw your child from such classes if you wish.”
Sarah said,
August 23, 2006 at 9:39 am
Conor, in our locality there is a group of “white mice”. I don’t know what their real name is. They are some kind of protestant sect (no tellies, women wear their long and plaited etc). They are all thoroughly respectable thought as one protestant parishioner remarked to my mother “They send their children to your schools and they bury their dead in our graveyards and give nothing to either of us”. Anyway, the children did go to our schools. There was one boy in my class and he was “withdrawn” when religion class started. Which meant he read a book while we were taught the different kinds of sin (so sheep shagger – its not half-invented – learning off venal and mortal sins at 10 did actually happen). The whole thing was ridiculous because other than this ostenatious gesture of the boy taking out his book to read we would never have known he wasn’t catholic. He couldn’t leave the room because where would he go? He had to sit there and listen to the whole thing anyway. It would just be the same if I “withdrew” my children. They just have to sit and listen to it anyway while the other children wondered why they got to read a book instead of learning off sins.
Ray, there are no other schools. I could make a huge fuss and start some non-demoninational school in a shed somewhere but a) I don’t have the time and b) bar the religious aspect, our local school is brilliant and in fact is going to be extended in the next few years. I’m not going to deprive them of a good school just because of the religion thing. It bugs me and I think its wrong but not enough to become the local hysteric on the issue. I’ll see what I can do on a national level but I’ve said it before – the government won’t do much on this because the first thing they’d have to do is buy all the school buildings off the church.. not going to happen.
Mol said,
August 23, 2006 at 9:55 am
Will you read for me at mass on saturday night please? I have a wedding to go to and can’t get anyone to swop with me.
Mol (who helped with the catering at your sons cristenings)
tom said,
August 23, 2006 at 10:15 am
“They own our primary schools”
Isn’t that the problem? Until WE own our primary schools then they have you over a barrell, and worse are apparently free to discrimate against children on the grounds of religion, using taxpayers money to do it.
Conor Delaney said,
August 23, 2006 at 10:24 am
Sarah,
Even though I come from an agnostic/atheist family I was sent to Catholic/Nationalist schools as that was all there was. In the schools I went to there were children of other religions who did not participate in religious classes, by doing so they denied the religious techers a handle/context by which the could be pressured/intimidated. I on the other hand played along, which caused all sorts of problems….what do you say if the teacher/priest asks you if you were at mass or why you weren’t at mass or even why don’t you have a bible at home? Do you lie, or do you because you are a child and have just been learning that to tell a lie is a mortal sin, tell the truth….Or how about when priest finally realises that your children are not really Catholic and asks you to remove your child from religious classes or refuses to allow them to take part in confession/communion/confirmation circus?
Do you really want your children to participate in the moral ambiguity of pretending to take Catholic religious classes seriously? How are they supposed to deal with being told one thing in religious class and another at home? Do you really want them to partake in living a lie from the day the start school? It really doesn’t set them up with good training for life.
How does “worst thing ever for a child is to be different” argument stand up in todays multicultural society? By the time your children get to school I am sure that there will be plenty of “different” children in their class. So please Sarah don’t use the facile arguments of an older generation, they lived in a different country, a country we never ever have to visit again…..thank God
Regards
C
Sarah said,
August 23, 2006 at 1:55 pm
sigh. Conor. Damnit you are RIGHT. damn damn damn. But now what am I supposed to do? (Lie: I know exactly what I’ll do – I’ll row in anyway and force all thought of PRINCIPLE or MORAL CONSISTENCY to the back of my head…ooooh ANOTHER reason to criticise myself.) However, new issue has arise.there’s the sister wanting me to read for her at mass. I want to oblige her. But what a massive lie that would be…standing up reading. Which is the greater crime? Not doing favour for most obliging sister or being HUGE hypocrite in front of church congregation…Advice please..
graham said,
August 23, 2006 at 3:41 pm
I’m getting the impression that most of the commenters here were in school a long, long time ago. Like all of my friends, I went to a catholic national school and we had religious education from an early age and a lot of contact with the parish priest etc. We were never made to learn sins off by heart and we were never made to feel guilty. In fact, we were always told, that no matter what he did, if we felt truly sorry for doing it, we would be forgiven.
I don’t believe in god or in organised religion at all now. But, I think it’s important to remember that the vast majority of the public in Ireland still identify themselves as catholic. Whether we like that fact or not, thats the way it is and I would be confident that a great majority of those are happy for their children to go to catholic national schools. I would even say that many of those people would prefer their children to go to a catholic school. Simply claiming that there are lots of people who want non-denominational schools doesn’t make it so. Now, whether the people who identify themselves as catholic attend mass or not, well thats a different story and I’m sure plenty of them do not. They may be hypocrites in your eyes for wanting to go through with the baptism, first holy communion and so on, and for not being more opposed to the hold the catholic church has over national schools in Ireland.
I work in a field (science) with a lot of people who, while not feeling a great deal of affection for the catholic church, or religion in general, they see that religious education has a place in the education of their children. This is not Ireland of the 50′s and 60′s, things have changed. As I said already, I don’t believe in a god or in organised religion. However, I went through 12 years of religious education in school, attended mass weekly until I was almost 18 and was involved in a childrens mass group for 4 years. I suppose I went from being very involved in the catholic church in my parish to now being as uninvolved as is possible. I still think my relgious education is of value though, even if it just allowed me to realise that I don’t believe in what they teach, that I don’t need what it is that they offer.
tom said,
August 23, 2006 at 4:08 pm
The fact that a lot of people are happy for schools to discrimate against a minority doesn’t make it ok.
btw:
“Simply claiming that there are lots of people who want non-denominational schools doesn’t make it so.”
The school that my kids go to is non-denominational and has a massive waiting list. In fact it is now almost impossible to get your child in unless you have a sibling already in the school. I doubt any of the religious schools in the area have much of a waiting list at all.
A lot of the kids who go there are being raised as Catholics of course, I wonder if there would be much of a fuss if their parents were told that their places were being given to atheists?
Leon said,
August 23, 2006 at 4:58 pm
The reason that the school your kids go to has a massive waiting list is a function of gentrification. You don’t want your kids to mix with working class kids. Unfortunately alot of people agree with you.
Niall said,
August 23, 2006 at 6:22 pm
You know, there’s plenty of communities on this island where the Church is the focus of the community. In such communities, it’s common for priests to visit people to make sure that, if they want, they’re included in community life. They visit not just lapsed Catholics, but people of different and no faiths. It isn’t about increasing market share, it’s about being a decent neighbour.
I’d also like to echo Graham’s words about that whole weird Catholic Guilt thing some of you folks talk about. It’s totally alien to me after 14 years in Catholic education.
Billy Waters said,
August 23, 2006 at 7:22 pm
Religion needs to be something that you pick yourself at age 18 or age of consent.
Religion before that age – for all the merit it has or has not is forced and brainwashing.
Sarah said,
August 23, 2006 at 8:25 pm
To be honest, I never noticed the guilt thing until recent years when I just began observing myself a bit. These things are so ingrained they’re just part of you and you assume its normal..and then you find out. hmmmm other people don’t think this way..
Now, you’ve all ignored my moral dilemma. Do I read in my sister’s place on Saturday night or not?
Conor Delaney said,
August 23, 2006 at 8:47 pm
Well that one would also be a question of guilt… which would make you feel more guilty, saying no to your sister or faking your sincerity to the congregation. Or to put it another way, just how afraid are you at annoying your sister?
faolain said,
August 24, 2006 at 10:02 am
Sarah,
You are a performer – think of it as a smaller audience than the radio one!
faolain said,
August 24, 2006 at 10:03 am
BTW, is your sister going to a CHURCH wedding? Let’s have a discussion on that one …
Ray said,
August 24, 2006 at 10:13 am
“The reason that the school your kids go to has a massive waiting list is a function of gentrification. You don’t want your kids to mix with working class kids.”
It’s funny, Alex is down for an Educate Together school, and half the people who question that say “oh, you just want him to get ahead by sending him to a nice middle-class school” and the other half say “you shouldn’t sacrifice his education, by sending him to a school where half the kids only speak English as a second language, just because you don’t like religious education”
Leon said,
August 24, 2006 at 10:48 am
The second group are wrong. Educate Together is a means for the cous cous eating Observer readers to make sure that their kids don’t have to mix with the children of batterburger eating Sunday workd readers.
And the Educate Together crowd want me to pay for it.
tom said,
August 24, 2006 at 10:54 am
That might be what it turns into Leon, but almost uniquely in Ireland Educate Together schools have a completely non-discriminatory admissions procedure. No religious group is ‘favoured’, parents don’t get interviewed, there is no rule about where you live, all you have to do is have your name down.
Any school that receives taxpayers money should have the same admissions procedure.
Leon said,
August 24, 2006 at 11:10 am
If there are a large number of schools in an area with no waiting list why am I paying for another school to be set up?
Mol said,
August 24, 2006 at 1:03 pm
Yes I am attaending a church wedding where ironically I will be reading, hense I won’t be able to read at the local mass as I will be nicely intoxicated elsewhere.
Pete said,
August 24, 2006 at 2:06 pm
>I still think my relgious education is of value though, even if it just allowed me to realise that I don’t believe in what they teach, that I don’t need what it is that they offer.
I see alot of merit in that. In Australia, where most people are raised with no religion, all sorts of wierd cults successfully prey on a population that doesn’t benefit from the deep suspicion, cynicism and even outright hatred of religion that a traditional Catholic upbringing engenders.
It’s interesting to hear some of the younger posters talk about their experience of Catholicism is school. Perhaps the church has changed to a “soft sell” approach now that it no longer has the absolute power it once had. But I suspect I’m of Sarah’s generation (I’m 40, sorry Sarah), and the Catholicism that I grew up with was a horrible, oppressive monster that crushed lives, spirits and original thought, actively promoted unhappiness and suffering and guilt as virtuous, and regarded happiness, or the desire for happiness, and very suspect and probably sinful.
I can clearly remember children of less than 10 keeping a log book of sins and confessions, with a running total of how many years they’d spend in puratory if they died today. And they believed it.
I can remember when a protestant family moved into our estate, and were spied on from afar by children and adults alike, although we never did spot any of the godless, heathen, blasphemous behaviour that we’d been led to expect. Still, we weren’t going to risk our immortal souls, or the wrath of the priest, by talking to them.
Now, when I see a fine older person bowing and scraping pathetically when near a young priest, I want to grab them and shout “He’s just a kid. He’s led a sheltered life, never paid an electricity bill or gone hungry or worried about how to pay the rent. He’s not in touch with God, and you already know more about the difference between right and wrong than he or his religion ever will. He needs you, you don’t need him. So treat him that way”.
Sarah said,
August 24, 2006 at 2:20 pm
I forgive you Pete (I’m 35). With regard to the younger posters I think if some asked me when I was 21 if I had catholic guilt I would’ve said “who me? No Way!” It’s only as you get older and find yourself behaving in bizarre ways that you start to ask why? and find out…..
Conor Delaney said,
August 24, 2006 at 3:03 pm
Well said Pete.
Niall said,
August 25, 2006 at 6:23 pm
Sarah, I’m telling you something you already know here I’m sure, but only you can make the decision. It just depends which you feel is more important, not hurting your sister, or not feeling like a hypocrite (which is different from which makes you feel more huilty).
Pete, that sounds like Ireland of the 50s/60s to me, not anything particularly Catholic.
We (and given that I wasn’t born at the time, I use the phrase broadly) were a pretty fucked up bunch. For God’s sake, parents would bring their kids to school and TELL the teacher to beat the living daylights out of them. People thought Dev was some sort of God. It’s not as though the bishops had some sort of army. Irish people gave the church power, and the church attracted the kind of prats that always tend to be attracted to power. That’s why religions tend to work best when they’re on the retreat.
The notion that the RCC is now trying a soft-sell approach is a bit weird. I’m mean it’s not as though in some smoke filled room in Rome, some sinister Cardinals are simply trying to fool the masses into thinking Catholicism is some sort of organisation working toward the betterment of mankind just so the moment that they gain our trust, they break out the soutanes, the canes, limbo and that McQuaid bloke.
ben said,
August 26, 2006 at 9:56 am
Either the bible is true and the church’s interpretation of it is true or it isn’t. It doesn’t matter what you feel about it or whether it’s in touch with your cultural heritage and what key you play it in. The bible and the church have been proven time and time again to be just flat wrong about everything. Look it up, Genesis onwards. It’s fake biology, fake geology, fake astronomy, fake history, fake morality, fake mathematics. There’s even fake ichthyology.
But when their salesman came to the door you immediately terrorized yourself into thinking that the right thing to do is to lie to your children and try to compel them to hold ideas that you don’t, to teach them to fear and despise individuality and that there’s nothing worse than being “different”, and to yourself fawn and cringe and offer vaguely-directed bribes. Would you have felt less “guilt” if it was a Scientology or a Mormon functionary who came up to the door? If everyone else at school was a Scientologist, would you think your child should be a Scientologist too, rather than suffer the awful fate of being different?
Sarah said,
August 27, 2006 at 12:26 pm
hmmmmmmmmm
Ok well an update first. I consulted with the following people:
1. Middle Sister – Yes I SHOULD read at mass because this would oblige obliging sister and if I didn’t do it, father would have to do it and the last time he read at mass (about 4 years ago I think) he had a heart attack. Long story. He’s fine. So I thought, shit, better read. Cannot force father to re-visit circumstances of heart attack.
2. Husband overheard phone call and said HANG ON A SECOND! you CAN’T read at mass. You haven’t darkened the door of the church in months and you think you can show up and read???? He said regular mass goers would be outraged. I thought, yeah, he’s right BUT must oblige sister.
3. Phoned mother. She said, no way should you read. That would be highly inappropriate. I will sort this out.
4. Phone call later from father. He acknowledged that I shouldn’t read and that he would read. I said, but what about heart attack memories? He said, its ok I read a month ago. It was fine. So. off the hook. BUT he also said, I should start going to mass so if crisis in future then I would be entitled to read. I said no.
5. Later discussion with mother re: schools. I voiced reservations about subjecting children to religious education. We acknowledged that pretty helpless to avoid when the church owns the school and that change unlikely as long as government quite happy (financially) to let church own schools. Much muttering about some latest row involving Bettystown and efforts of locals to get a school and how government is letting church pay for school rather stumping up the cash itself. So, unresolved basically.
Ben, you are kind-of right, but I should point out again that priest is:
a) a very nice man
b) has performed family ceremonies
Perhaps I should enquire what opposition party policies are on this. I suppose I can guess FG’s. I wonder what Labour’s is?
Oh and Niall. I went to school in the 70′s and 80′s! I think the policy then was to hit the children when you knew the parents were useless and wouldn’t show up to defend them. I was slapped once myself. On the hand with a ruler. For talking in class
It was either high infants or 1st class. ( I remember the teacher ) I meet her sometimes and we are very pleasant to each other but I still remember how f*cking sore that was. But you know what was worse? At one point there were some traveller children in our class. If you were in trouble the punishment was to sit beside them. Imagine? That was the teacher’s punishment. When there were no travellers in the class there was another boy and in retrospect he probably had ADD or one of those things. If you were bold you had to sit beside him. He turned out fine in the end. Went to America. But that must have worked wonders for his self worth. This is what Billy is talking about I think when he complains about school. But apparently things have changed.
) they had to hold that above their heads for ages. That got pretty sore after a while. And they had to stand facing the class while they did it. Still the same master was a good teacher. I didn’t learn one extra word of irish in secondary school. He taught us our verbs and I passed my leaving cert with the verb sheet he’d done for us in primary school. (in the interests of balance, only fair to point that out).
When the banned corporal punishment (which the local CBS just ignored for years – the ban I mean) the master in our PRIMARY school came up with more inventive punishments – only to boys – girls were left alone. (psychological punishments only for them). The stick that used to be used for hitting (the Bata Fada it was called – the long stick – for the non-irish speakers
Lorenzo said,
December 7, 2006 at 3:30 pm
I know I’m late (again) to the party but Leon’s comment that “Educate Together is a means for the cous cous eating Observer readers to make sure that their kids don’t have to mix with the children of batterburger eating Sunday workd readers” really grates. I think Gaelscoilleanna are far more open to that type of accusation than Educate Together, who take everyeone.
I have the same type of dilemma as Sarah’s (wrote about it here), the solution was the child’s interest comes first, parents principle’s second.
katie said,
March 3, 2008 at 4:36 pm
what is this all about haha i am just searching on the internet because i go to a catholic school but i am not catholic and my brother has not got into the school , i do not know if it is beacause he isnt catholic or because he is not extremely clever but it is discrimination.
Aidan said,
April 11, 2009 at 11:01 pm
What the hell is a white mouse, or white mice. There is nothing on the web about this so-called religion?
God said,
June 3, 2010 at 12:40 pm
Sarah,
As you can now see in black and white, I do exist, so I was a bit pained to read your offhand statements about mass etc. We provide a valuable service for consumers, invcluding afterlife services etc..
God