Courts

Aspiring monk who accused monastery of ‘anti-Traveller prejudice’ loses claim at Workplace Relations Commission

WRC said it did not have jurisdiction to consider complaint against head monk of Silverstream Priory in Co Meath

John Malone told the Workplace Relations Commission that becoming a monk had been an aspiration of his since childhood
John Malone told the Workplace Relations Commission that becoming a monk had been an aspiration of his since childhood
Stephen Bourke
Thu Oct 31 2024 - 16:51

A tribunal has said it has no authority to rule on a claim that an aspiring monk was denied a place in a monastery because he mentioned that his father was a Traveller.

The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) found it had did not have jurisdiction to consider a complaint by John Malone under the Equal Status Act 2000 directed against the prior of Silverstream Priory in Co Meath.

Lawyers acting for the religious community denied Mr Malone’s allegation that an offer had been withdrawn, submitting that no such invitation had ever been made.

Mr Malone told the tribunal that becoming a monk had been an aspiration of his since childhood – but that he had been prevented from exploring it as a vocation because of ageism and “anti-Traveller prejudice”.

READ SOME MORE

The tribunal heard the Benedictine monastery required new entrants to be aged between 18 and 35, and Mr Malone was aged 53 when he made inquiries about joining in 2022.

Mr Malone, however, said the master of novices at the monastery had invited him to stay at the monastery’s guest house for 10 days in July 2022, offered him a place in the monastery and told him would be able to stay longer.

Mr Malone said the master also invited him to attend a retreat at the end of the month in Co Waterford so that he could meet the head monk, or prior, of Silverstream.

The complainant said that upon meeting the prior and mentioning his Traveller heritage to him, there was a change in attitude from the senior monk. Mr Malone said the prior said “became cool” and “made no effort to engage with [him] thereafter”.

In an internal email exhibited to the WRC by Mr Malone, the prior wrote: “I have some doubts about John. I will tell you when I get back.”

Mr Malone said there was no word from the monks until he emailed again on August 16th – the master of novices telling him by reply that he had spoken too little to the prior at the retreat for “serious discernment”.

“In fact, based on his observations of your conduct during the retreat Father Prior judged that it would be not advisable for you to enter our community,” the master wrote.

“Bearing in mind that as I mentioned several times, it would, in any case, be very exceptional for us to accept a candidate at your age, and having heard Father Prior’s observations, I am in agreement with his judgment,” the master added.

Mr Malone said he would appeal to the bishop and legal correspondence followed until Mr Malone lodged a WRC complaint in February 2023.

Benedict O’Floinn SC, instructed by solicitor Michelle Murphy James H Murphy & Son, submitted that the prior had no memory of Mr Malone discussing his father – but said membership of the Travelling community would not “present a bar to admission”.

Mr O’Floinn said the allegation that the prior “changed his mind” was “unsubstantiated” and “not corroborated”.

Counsel submitted that the reasons for not inviting Mr Malone to join the community were the prior’s “observations about the complainant’s conduct during the retreat”, his failure to engage with the prior, and “in light of his age”.

The reasons were “entirely unconnected” to membership of the Travelling community, Mr O’Floinn submitted.

WRC adjudicator Emile Daly wrote that the process of joining a religious community “is not a provision of a service”.

“Admission to live in a religious community is a mutually agreed arrangement. There can be no enforcement by one party. Both parties need to desire it,” she wrote.

Ms Daly said she had no jurisdiction to investigate the substance of the complaint and dismissed it as “not well founded”.