Sir, – In comparing the situation for Protestant schools in the Republic to Northern Ireland Peter Mulvany (April 6th) should have looked closer at the education system in the North and the role of the churches.
Back in 2009 the Anglican Archbishop of Armagh, Alan Harper, said that integrated schools and colleges could be helpful in combating sectarianism. He said: “I do think that is an issue we have to address with some imagination . . . parents have the right to have their children educated in the faith tradition which is their faith tradition, but we also have to find a way of enabling children to be brought up with a deeper understanding, appreciation and perhaps admiration for other faith traditions, from which they may gain a great deal”.
At the same time Cardinal Brady said that single-identity Catholic schools were encouraged to form links with nearby schools from other traditions, but defended the continuing importance of faith-based, single-identity schooling in Northern Ireland. This would suggest that the Protestant Church is more open to integration.
I would also point out that Rev Ian Ellis (secretary of the Transferor Representatives’ Council of the Church of Ireland, which oversees Church of Ireland education) in August 2011 said the idea of two communities sharing responsibility for schools is worth considering.
He said this could suit small villages in particular where church-run schools are at risk of closure because of dwindling numbers of pupils: instead of bussing both sets of pupils to separate schools in the nearest town, why could those two schools not come together as a jointly managed school with a common aim? Amalgamating Protestant and Catholic centres could preserve local education.
I respect the views of Fr John Joe Duffy (April 4th), but I am satisfied this Government will not force any rural school to close as is the case in Northern Ireland. But we can learn from the more focused debate on education that is taking place across the Border. – Yours, etc,
A chara, – Niall Meehan (April 10th) makes some good points about the difficulties faced in regard to schooling of children by Protestant and atheist families.
He makes a common mistake, however, in thinking that the Ne Temere decree, which came into effect in 1908, forced Protestants married to Catholics to promise to bring up children as Catholics. Ne Temere says nothing whatever about this. The whole thrust of the Ne Temere is to deal rather with the proper celebration of Catholic marriage, and particularly to rule out clandestine marriages in which no witnesses were present to establish that the marriages existed. The way this was implemented in Ireland, in relation to promises about the raising of children of inter-church marriage, is another matter. Thankfully, by 1991 this had changed entirely.
The relationship between the churches a century ago was not like today. Is it not strange that the alleged effects of Ne Temere of 1908 on the Protestant people of Ireland are quoted, without any reference to the far more drastic effects of legislation and practice on the Catholic people of Ireland in the preceding several hundred years? Even Catholic Emancipation in 1829 did not remove all discriminating legislation.
What Mr Meehan describes as the “resultant separation” of schools has far deeper roots than Ne Temere. One injustice, of course, does not justify another. And yet, without recognising the background, we are in danger of condemning our predecessors for their best efforts to deal with polarised situations which we do not have to face. Recognising the past, we can plan more effectively for the future for all. – Is mise,