THE High Court President yesterday dismissed an action by the Campaign to Separate Church and State Ltd to prevent the State paying the salaries of chaplains.
The campaign had sought to stop the Minister for Education paying chaplains on the grounds that it breached the Constitution. However, Mr Justice Costello found that it did not infringe the Constitution.
Ireland's four Catholic arch bishops had successfully applied to be joined as co defendants because substantial financial loss would be suffered by bishops who had community schools in their dioceses should the plaintiffs succeed.
Mr Justice Costello, in a reserved judgment, said it was claimed the payment by the Department of Education of the salaries of community school chaplains breached the provisions of Article 44 (2.2) of the Constitution, by which the State guaranteed not to endow any religion.
The annual cost of chaplains' salaries payable by the State was currently £1.2 million. It was obviously the intention that in Catholic community schools the chaplain would be a priest, but there was now a small number of lay persons and nuns appointed as chaplains. In three Protestant comprehensive schools the chaplains were lay persons. There were currently 76 chaplains in community and comprehensive schools.
The judge said the evidence suggested there had been an evolution of the role of the chaplain in Catholic community schools in the past 20 years.
Mr Justice Costello said the help and counsel of chaplains was sought constantly and given to young people in need of assistance, not just in spiritual matters, but also in one or other of the many moral, social, educational, personal or family problems on which young people may need assistance, guidance and counselling.
The proper construction of Article 44 meant that the payment of salaries of teachers of religion in community schools even if such teachers were ministers of religion or members of a religious order - and the payment of salaries of teachers of religion in comprehensive schools did not constitute an endowment of religion.
The plaintiffs accepted that this was so; their case was that although the payment of such salaries was permissible, the payment of salaries of chaplains was not.
Mr Justice Costello said it was clear that one of the important reasons why chaplains, as well as teachers of religion, were appointed to the staff of community schools was for the purpose of assisting the religious formation of children attending the school assistance which, among other things, was given by the celebration of Mass in the school.
In effect, the State, by paying the salaries of chaplains, was having regard to the rights of parents vis a vis the religious formation of their children and enabling them to exercise their constitutionally recognised rights. If that was the purpose and effect of the payment, how could it be said that it was unconstitutional?
A moment's reflection would show that the payment of salaries of ministers of religion and members of religious orders did not in itself mean that the State was endowing the religion they professed.
Mr Justice Costello said that if the purpose of State financial aid was to assist in the protection of constitutionally recognised rights, or to assist in their exercise by right holders or to fulfil the State's obligation to respect them, it seemed to him that it could not be constitutionally invalid to give this aid.
It followed that the prohibition against endowment of religion must be construed as permitting State aid to assist in the religious formation of children in accordance with their parents wishes and that accordingly the payment of chaplains in schools was not unconstitutional.
The State and the archbishops were allowed costs against the company. A stay was allowed on the order for costs in the event of an appeal.