Sir, Perhaps I have overlooked a crucial point, but I have great difficulty understanding the logic behind Niamh Bhreathnach's recent deed of variation, which legally enshrines the power of churches over primary schools.
From some angles, it does make sense. Church involvement in schools can be a beneficial (although by no means vital) factor in teaching basic moral standards, aside from subjective issues. In addition, it may well be best at such a stage in a child's life for the parents to choose which religion (if any) they wish their child to follow, and the deed respects this right.
However, the crux of the matter is that our Government is promoting the segregation of children who follow different religions. There will be no obligation on a school to accept pupils of a different faith. Furthermore the document recommends that Catholic primary schools be "managed" in accordance with the doctrines, practices and traditions of the Roman Catholic Church.
Since over 90 per cent of the schools affected by this development are Catholic, the Government has handed the Catholic Church a huge amount of power. The church can now maintain a crippling influence over future generations. Subscribe to Catholicism, or be educated elsewhere. And in many communities there won't be another option. Also the recommendation of school administration bin accordance with the . . . traditions of the Roman Catholic Church" is to be questioned. Does this give an episcopal patron the right to refuse a gay, separated or divorced teacher, the employment of which could pose a threat to traditional Catholic teachings?
Primary school teachers are generally employed by the State, which I have always believed to be an equal opportunities employer. That doesn't seem to matter now, as the State now surrenders its control over the appointment of teachers to the school's patron, who under forth coming legislation, can veto their placement if their faith differs to that prescribed under the school's ethos.
It is not unreasonable for a Catholic based school to insist on employing some Catholic teachers. However, Ms Bhreathnach's deed affords the board full discretion to maintain a wholly Catholic staff base, to reject other teachers purely on denominational grounds.
Now let's face facts. Parents who send their children to a school, with the purpose of them receiving a Catholic education, want to see them make their First Communion, be Confirmed, and enter secondary school with a decent sense of the fundamental rights and wrongs. It doesn't take a 100 per cent Catholic, or even 100 per cent Christian staff to bring this about. To this end a Jewish or Muslim teacher could easily instruct a class, following a short course, to learn about the sacraments and other relevant principles. Even some discussions with a priest would probably be sufficient.
As I see it, there is no reason why a simple rota method akin to that used for teaching academic subjects in secondary schools could not be applied to the teaching of religion in primary schools. The ease with which such a system could be set up provides support for the establishment of more multi denominational schools.
I'm not saying that churches won't try out such systems, or that they will recklessly abuse their power. However the role of schools is primarily to educate for life and the issue of religion is now edging back into the spotlight. Also, I understand that the structure has constitutional support, but maybe it's time for an amendment to such a dated principle, particularly in a society where younger generations are turning more and more away from organised religion.
Finally in the weeks approaching the divorce referendum, the Government urged voters to be tolerant of other faiths, and (quite rightly) not to reject the amendment on purely Catholic grounds. Clearly the latest development by the Department of Education undermines this progressive attitude, and sadly also provides a shabby backdrop against which to negotiate any Northern Peace Agreement. Yours, etc., The Oaks, Newbridge, Co Kildare.