You know you've hit a nerve when you can flush out a prelate on the airwaves, writes Mary Raftery. Bishop Leo O'Reilly, chair of the Irish Bishops' Commission for Education, phoned a radio show during the week to protest that really the bishops had very little power within the education system.
My writings here last week produced something in the nature of the standard response of the Catholic Church when its power is challenged - wilful misunderstanding peppered with half-truths.
The bishops appear to have collectively decided to take the hit on child abuse. After over a decade of rearguard, damage limitation exercises, full of hair-splitting and Jesuitical economies with the truth, most of them now seem to be in the process of saying "mea culpa".
But lay a finger on their prize possession of almost universal control of education in this country, and they come out fighting. Their line that it is the Department of Education rather than the bishops who have the power in this area needs to be critically analysed.
The bishops are patrons of 3,013 or 95 per cent of national schools. On a practical level they exert their power in three main ways. Firstly, they have enormous control over teachers. The local bishop directly appoints the three-member group that interviews and recommends for employment the principals of the schools in his area. He also controls the appointment of all other teachers through his selection of the interview boards for these positions.
Since 2002 there is no longer a need for prior sanction from the Minister for Education before the successful candidates are notified. However, prior approval from the bishop remains an absolute requirement. It is important to note that the salaries of these teachers are paid entirely by the State.
Secondly, the Department of Education's rules for boards of management of national schools lay out the powers of the bishops. They "may manage the school personally or may nominate a suitable person or body of persons to act as manager". The rules also indicate that the bishop "may at any time resume the direct management of the school or may nominate another manager". In the case where the schools are run by boards of management, the bishops directly appoint the chair of the board and one other member. (Recent figures indicate that local priests chair close to three-quarters of these boards.) Names of other nominees (teacher, parents' and community representatives) must be forwarded to the bishop, and it is he who then formally appoints the entire board.
Thirdly, most of the schools are owned by the Catholic Church, despite the heavy investment by the taxpayer in the buildings. Then, of course, there is the notorious "ethos clause" in the 1998 Employment Equality Act, effectively allowing schools to do whatever it takes to protect their ethos.
For the overwhelming majority of Irish teachers, this has profoundly worrying implications for their jobs if they happen to be gay, have sex or become pregnant outside marriage, have an abortion or even use artificial contraception, all of which are deemed contrary to the Catholic ethos. A survey undertaken on behalf of the Department of Education last November showed a strong majority of people in favour of the removal of Catholic Church (and other church) power over education. Almost two-thirds of people (61 per cent) felt schools should be non-denominational.
Just over 50 per cent said all religious instruction should take place outside school hours. Only 25 per cent favoured maintaining religious control of schools.
Perhaps in response to this the Catholic bishops went on the offensive a few months later. Last February, Archbishop of Dublin, Dr Diarmuid Martin said schools should have a defined Catholic ethos, verifiable in all its aspects. A few days later Bishop Leo O'Reilly said the time had come to "proactively reassert" the Catholic "agenda" in education.
In April Paul Meany, president of the Association of Management of Catholic Secondary Schools, said there was a need for schools to become "really Catholic", adding that young people in them were "a captive audience . . . crying out for guidance".
Much of this rhetoric is likely to be fuelled by the fear that shortly there won't be enough priests left to carry out their masters' wishes on school boards. And given the results of the Department of Education survey on religious control of schools, there is no longer a guarantee that the laity will continue to toe the line.
On a more fundamental level, however, it is clear that in this area we are being failed by our politicians. Even with the evidence of such a clear majority in favour of the separation of church and State within education, nothing has been done about it. The Labour Party, to be fair, has tentatively suggested that we have State-run national schools. The other political parties remain silent.
It is perhaps just one of the practical lessons they could take from the Ferns report, and, at least on this issue, obey the will of the people.