Religious oppression in Ireland

lufties · 17-09-2015 10:15am #1

I'm interested in examples of how Ireland was oppressed by religion throughout the last century. I recently saw a video on youtube about how in the 1960s, books and people with 'certain' views were banned from the country. I thought is was incredible. Even the forefathers of the state were apparently thought to be the most conservative revolutionaries there ever was.

This thread isn't to sneer or look down on generations past, but I just find it fascinating how different things were back then. Personally, as a child of the 1980s, I probably didn't experience the full wrath of the catholic church, but I'm sure it has shaped my generation in a lot of ways.

Cabaal · 17-09-2015 10:30am

1979 - Monty Python's Life of Brian banned in Ireland, ban lifted in 1987
1983 - Monty Python's The Meaning of Life banned in Ireland, ban lifted in 1990

These were banned only because the catholic church did not agree with the content,

From a none media stand point, I had a relation that was a priest in the 1940's or 50's (not sure which), he decided to leave the priesthood which was a massive no no at the time. The Bishop told him he could never return to his home town and the local parish priest visited his mother and told her to destroy all the photos of him (she didn't as she didn't agree with being told this).

So off he went and he traveled to the UK, got married and had children. In the late 70's or early 80's my mother decided she wanted to see if she could track him down and she eventually located him. She eventually got him to agree to visit Ireland.

As part of visiting Ireland he of course visited certain relatives, one of the relatives commented at the time that she didn't want him coming in her front door incase anyone would see him and that he had to come in the back door of the house.

Thankfully we've moved on from this sort of twisted mindset where the church wanted a persons entire home town and family to turn against them. Sickening stuff really.

Luckily although my parents would consider themselves catholic without a doubt they always knew the church had some awful abuse of power in Ireland (McQuaid being one big example). My parents also likely experienced far more different situations with the public due to their work (a pub/shop) so I guess they saw reality for what it was instead of some idealistic view of what life should be as advertised by the catholic church.

I always find it amusing that my Dad tells a story about a regular in the pub that once said to him "I'd love to be like you, you don't care if you don't go to mass". My Dad asked why can't the man just not go to mass if he didn't want to, the man answered that he had to. A grown man feels they have to do something they clearly didn't wish to....so very very odd.

Akrasia · 17-09-2015 10:38am

My wife has relatives whose baby died before she had a chance to be baptised, and the local parish priest refused to allow them to bury the baby in the parish cemetery.

lufties · 17-09-2015 10:45am

Akrasia wrote: »

My wife has relatives whose baby died before she had a chance to be baptised, and the local parish priest refused to allow them to bury the baby in the parish cemetery.

Thats horrific, I heard it was the same for victims of suicide.

lufties · 17-09-2015 10:53am

Cabaal wrote: »

1979 - Monty Python's Life of Brian banned in Ireland, ban lifted in 1987
1983 - Monty Python's The Meaning of Life banned in Ireland, ban lifted in 1990

These were banned only because the catholic church did not agree with the content,

From a none media stand point, I had a relation that was a priest in the 1940's or 50's (not sure which), he decided to leave the priesthood which was a massive no no at the time. The Bishop told him he could never return to his home town and the local parish priest visited his mother and told her to destroy all the photos of him (she didn't as she didn't agree with being told this).

So off he went and he traveled to the UK, got married and had children. In the late 70's or early 80's my mother decided she wanted to see if she could track him down and she eventually located him. She eventually got him to agree to visit Ireland.

As part of visiting Ireland he of course visited certain relatives, one of the relatives commented at the time that she didn't want him coming in her front door incase anyone would see him and that he had to come in the back door of the house.

Thankfully we've moved on from this sort of twisted mindset where the church wanted a persons entire home town and family to turn against them. Sickening stuff really.

Luckily although my parents would consider themselves catholic without a doubt they always knew the church had some awful abuse of power in Ireland (McQuaid being one big example). My parents also likely experienced far more different situations with the public due to their work (a pub/shop) so I guess they saw reality for what it was instead of some idealistic view of what life should be as advertised by the catholic church.

I always find it amusing that my Dad tells a story about a regular in the pub that once said to him "I'd love to be like you, you don't care if you don't go to mass". My Dad asked why can't the man just not go to mass if he didn't want to, the man answered that he had to. A grown man feels they have to do something they clearly didn't wish to....so very very odd.

My folks are catholic aswell, and still go to mass. I can't understand how people still attend. My dad(as much as I love him) is brainwashed by catholicism still. One of his lifelong friends' recently decided it was all bull**** and left the church. My dad kind of sneered at this in a condescending manner. I must say I felt disappointed.

frostyjacks · 17-09-2015 12:00pm

Not being able to watch Monty Python was hardly living under oppression. I wonder if people in North Korea are yearning to watch those films.

I think society in general was quite oppressive towards minorities back in the day, of which the Church was but one element. But it's sort of like a sponge now to soak up everyone's discontent. The lay people that got their hands dirty seem to have got off lightly.

lufties · 17-09-2015 12:04pm

frostyjacks wrote: »

Not being able to watch Monty Python was hardly living under oppression. I wonder if people in North Korea are yearning to watch those films.

I think society in general was quite oppressive towards minorities back in the day, of which the Church was but one element. But it's sort of like a sponge now to soak up everyone's discontent. The lay people that got their hands dirty seem to have got off lightly.

Any chance you could back this up with any something?

frostyjacks · 17-09-2015 12:16pm

lufties wrote: »

Any chance you could back this up with any something?

The people who sent their daughters to the laundries, and the men who knocked them up. Do people think priests drove round in vans, abducting single mothers and taking them to the laundries? They were sent there.

JohnBee · 17-09-2015 12:25pm

frostyjacks wrote: »

The people who sent their daughters to the laundries, and the men who knocked them up. Do people think priests drove round in vans, abducting single mothers and taking them to the laundries? They were sent there.

And what do you think created the context for this? Was it some secular dislike of unmarried mothers? Some primitive fear that they were witches?

Or was it still the all pervasive power of the church that meant these mothers were considered unclean. And when they arrived in the laundries, was it secular females/males that beat and abused them? No, it was nuns and priests.

lufties · 17-09-2015 12:35pm

frostyjacks wrote: »

The people who sent their daughters to the laundries, and the men who knocked them up. Do people think priests drove round in vans, abducting single mothers and taking them to the laundries? They were sent there.

The whole thing was an abuse of their position, the state is ultimately responsible for allowing such abuse to happen.

Cabaal · 17-09-2015 12:48pm

frostyjacks wrote: »

The people who sent their daughters to the laundries, and the men who knocked them up. Do people think priests drove round in vans, abducting single mothers and taking them to the laundries? They were sent there.

Would that be the people that sent their daughters to the laundries after the local priest paid a visit perhaps?

Or maybe would it be the parents who pressure on their daughter telling her she had to give up her baby out of wedlock after a visit from the local priest?

I had this discussion with my parents, they said it was very common for the priest to call down and put pressure on family's to get rid of the baby etc or to put pressure on the man to marry the women.

My mother mentioned one instance where the priest called down to a women and told her that her daughter should give the baby up, the women who by all accounts was a right battleaxe told the priests to mind his own business and throw him out of the house. She helped her daughter raise the baby instead.

She was very much the exception in those sorts of situations though,

Huntergonzo · 17-09-2015 12:58pm

Sure you could probably write page after page about how the catholic church oppressed people in this country, Ireland was a theocracy in all but name for many years. My father (who's isn't particularly religious) was born in 1942 and he talks very candidly about how they had "too much control", he remembers his mother calling him in every evening to say the rosary and if he didn't there'd be war, local farmers needing permission to make hay on a sunday, the local priest accosting a man at his own doorstep over an unmarried woman living with him (the horror) etc etc etc

The women and children of Ireland were horrifically oppressed by the church and it's teachings, we had women forced into slave labour at the magdalene laundries for example, many children born out of wedlock were confiscated, many were abused sexually, physically and mentally, others were sold off, and some died, I saw many of their gravestones when I was working down in Letterfrack for a couple of days at the old industrial school, it's a heartbreaking sight.

There's other things as well such as minister for health Dr Noel Browne having to resign in 1951 over the Mother and Child Scheme he wanted to introduce which was staunchly opposed by the RCC and writer John McGahern who lost his job as a teacher after writing a novel called The Dark in 1965, which was deemed to be pornographic and banned of course.

But even today the church still endeavours to oppress as many people in Ireland as possible, just look at their opposition to the recent gay marriage referendum, their opposition to abortion, opposition to women priests, opposition to contraception, opposition to premarital sex, their continued indoctrination of children in public schools (which is crucial to their survival of course) etc etc. Now luckily for us their evil beliefs don't carry the same weight as they used to but that's only because we as a nation are far more educated now than we were 50+ years ago, I'd imagine the church would still rule with an iron fist if they could get away with it.

I don't watch the savage eye but apparently this clip was only recently banned by RTE (but perhaps now they've shown it? I don't know): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7soRJK92zg

Ps, finally don't forget that in 2009 Ireland passed a new blasphemy law, yes that's right only 6 years ago, freedom of speech is not welcome in Ireland!

Links234 · 17-09-2015 1:22pm

frostyjacks wrote: »

Not being able to watch Monty Python was hardly living under oppression.

Because state censorship based on religious values is never OK, doesn't matter if to you it was "hardly living under oppression" but the banning of art because it offended religious sensibilities most certainly is oppression. And it didn't begin and end with Monty Python either, Ireland has a long history of censorship and banning films the church didn't like, the Exorcist was banned, as was A Clockwork Orange, not to mention films critical of the state such as The Rocky Road To Dublin.

Hmm, banning things critical of the status quo certainly seems like oppression to me.

frostyjacks · 17-09-2015 2:19pm

Links234 wrote: »

Because state censorship based on religious values is never OK, doesn't matter if to you it was "hardly living under oppression" but the banning of art because it offended religious sensibilities most certainly is oppression. And it didn't begin and end with Monty Python either, Ireland has a long history of censorship and banning films the church didn't like, the Exorcist was banned, as was A Clockwork Orange, not to mention films critical of the state such as The Rocky Road To Dublin.

Hmm, banning things critical of the status quo certainly seems like oppression to me.

Oppression, as I understand it, means unjust or cruel acts of imposition. Censorship is not imposing acts upon citizens, it would be oppression if the Church forced people to watch certain religious films. I don't hear people in Britain talk about being oppressed by not seeing Clockwork Orange etc.

Links234 · 17-09-2015 2:38pm

frostyjacks wrote: »

Oppression, as I understand it, means unjust or cruel acts of imposition. Censorship is not imposing acts upon citizens, it would be oppression if the Church forced people to watch certain religious films. I don't hear people in Britain talk about being oppressed by not seeing Clockwork Orange etc.

Censorship of art and expression isn't oppression, you heard it here first folks! :rolleyes:

A Clockwork Orange was an interesting case, because Kubrick himself asked the distributors to withdraw the film after him and his family recieving death threats and protests because it was linked to the murder of a homeless person. But that aside the UK has it's own sordid history of censorship too, the whole "video nasty" scare and the video recordings act, Mary Whitehouse's moral crusade. And before you question the artistic legitamacy of dodgy 80's horror movies, it's still censorship whether you like the thing that's being censored or not.

Cabaal · 17-09-2015 2:41pm

frostyjacks wrote: »

Oppression, as I understand it, means unjust or cruel acts of imposition. Censorship is not imposing acts upon citizens, it would be oppression if the Church forced people to watch certain religious films. I don't hear people in Britain talk about being oppressed by not seeing Clockwork Orange etc.

Oppression is also by stopping people express things, your suppressing freedom of thought etc, banning content is part of this oppression.

It ensures that people don't get any ideas and think out of line,

Why do you think North Korea doesn't want its citizens watching Western movies, using the proper internet instead of their own restricted network etc? It doesn't want them getting any different ideas. There's a reason why the book 1984 doesn't exist in NK library's you know,

Banning films like Life Of Brian was a form of the oppression by the Irish Government in hand with the Catholic church, it was to ensure nobody got any ideas and thought differently about the church.

Huntergonzo · 17-09-2015 3:06pm

Yes generally speaking the banning of material is unquestionably a form of oppression because it restricts contrary views and makes people obedient rather than curious.

Just as a matter of interest I recently went looking for a book by John Cooney called 'John Charles McQuaid: Ruler Of Catholic Ireland', I tried several large and small book shops in Blanchardstown and Dublin city centre but couldn't find it anywhere and I was told in one of the larger shops that it was hard to get in Ireland and would have to ordered in from the UK, I eventually got it off Amazon but I haven't started reading it yet.

Now I'm not an avid reader and I generally don't read books about religion so I'm just wondering would this simply be because the book isn't in demand (although I was told in a couple of places that people do ask for it) or could there be more sinister forces at work?

Pawwed Rig · 17-09-2015 3:14pm

Forced indoctrination of children with still goes on today is oppression in my book.

lazygal · 17-09-2015 3:20pm

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Yes generally speaking the banning of material is unquestionably a form of oppression because it restricts contrary views and makes people obedient rather than curious.

Just as a matter of interest I recently went looking for a book by John Cooney called 'John Charles McQuaid: Ruler Of Catholic Ireland', I tried several large and small book shops in Blanchardstown and Dublin city centre but couldn't find it anywhere and I was told in one of the larger shops that it was hard to get in Ireland and would have to ordered in from the UK, I eventually got it off Amazon but I haven't started reading it yet.

Now I'm not an avid reader and I generally don't read books about religion so I'm just wondering would this simply be because the book isn't in demand (although I was told in a couple of places that people do ask for it) or could there be more sinister forces at work?

More likely a small print run and or bookshops not really sure if it'll be a seller.

lazygal · 17-09-2015 3:22pm

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Forced indoctrination of children with still goes on today is oppression in my book.

And religious control of essential services like schools and hospitals.

frostyjacks · 17-09-2015 3:30pm

Yes, truly the Church still runs this country. Look at how they defeated the divorce referendum, and the gay marriage referendum. When will we ever break free of their shackles etc etc.

We live in a modern, liberal republic. Perhaps the Church was once heavy handed with people, together with the State, but that's ancient history. People are free to do whatever they want now, which isn't necessarily a good thing.

Cabaal · 17-09-2015 3:36pm

frostyjacks wrote: »

Yes, truly the Church still runs this country. Look at how they defeated the divorce referendum, and the gay marriage referendum. When will we ever break free of their shackles etc etc.

Yeah, look how they tried to black mail TD's by saying that TD's that voted to pass the abortion legislation in 2013 won't get communion and also calling for any TD who voted to pass it to resign.

Funny how they tried to interfere with our democratic process by trying to black mail people using their believe in a god against them

We live in a modern, liberal republic. Perhaps the Church was once heavy handed with people, together with the State, but that's ancient history. People are free to do whatever they want now, which isn't necessarily a good thing.

People are free to do whatever they want?
Really?

Hmm, so if I don't baptise my kid they'll have no problem getting into every state funded school in Ireland and they won't be rejected based on religious ethos?
:rolleyes:

Huntergonzo · 17-09-2015 3:40pm

lazygal wrote: »

More likely a small print run and or bookshops not really sure if it'll be a seller.

Ye I wouldn't have thought there was much in it, just found it a bit odd that it wasn't in some of the bigger shops.

Seanachai · 17-09-2015 3:43pm

You have to ask yourself the question why did the newly formed church go to such trouble to hunt down the druids and the old tribal elders?. They realised the importance of religion in people's lives and they didn't want any competition for their project.

As far as I can tell organised religion is just one branch of the system needed to control a nation. You could argue that it's hold is waning in this part of the world and a form of scientism is filling the vacum, I think one is as bad as the other tbh.

They take a healthy instinct we have and then twist it to suit their own needs. If I am spiritual why do I need a middleman to bridge the connection?. I haven't been to a mass in over a decade and my mother who still has faith even stopped going in the last few years, my father stopped going long before that.

I read a book in a doctor's surgery recently that jarred me, it's made up of accounts from Dublin when people were still living in the tenements. The descriptions of the clergy and their antics are amazing, there were sinister characters linked to the church who basically snatched kids for the workhouses. Some of the kids never made it back from them, while I was reading it I thought about the people who still carry memories of those times and while conditions have drastically improved in lots of ways, would they feel we are still oppressed by the establishment in a way?.

Dublin tenements - Terry Fagan

Akrasia · 17-09-2015 3:48pm

Cabaal wrote: »

Oppression is also by stopping people express things, your suppressing freedom of thought etc, banning content is part of this oppression.

It ensures that people don't get any ideas and think out of line,

Why do you think North Korea doesn't want its citizens watching Western movies, using the proper internet instead of their own restricted network etc? It doesn't want them getting any different ideas. There's a reason why the book 1984 doesn't exist in NK library's you know,

Banning films like Life Of Brian was a form of the oppression by the Irish Government in hand with the Catholic church, it was to ensure nobody got any ideas and thought differently about the church.

Exactly.

The first step to breaking the grip of the church is to make it ok to laugh at it.

Dave Allen, Monty Python, Father Ted etc, all pointed out how ridiculous the cult of christ really is.

Satire is enormously powerful at changing the way people think about things. The Daily show and John Oliver are in the U.S. are doing more to educate people about politics than anything else.

frostyjacks · 17-09-2015 3:56pm

Cabaal wrote: »

Yeah, look how they tried to black mail TD's by saying that TD's that voted to pass the abortion legislation in 2013 won't get communion and also calling for any TD who voted to pass it to resign.

Funny how they tried to interfere with our democratic process by trying to black mail people using their believe in a god against them

People are free to do whatever they want?
Really?

Hmm, so if I don't baptise my kid they'll have no problem getting into every state funded school in Ireland and they won't be rejected based on religious ethos?
:rolleyes:

If a school run along a Catholic ethos gives preference to Catholic applicants, that's not oppression, that's common sense. People should look at some of the injustices going on around the world before they start crying about oppression here.

kunst nugget · 17-09-2015 3:57pm

Cabaal wrote: »

Would that be the people that sent their daughters to the laundries after the local priest paid a visit perhaps?

Or maybe would it be the parents who pressure on their daughter telling her she had to give up her baby out of wedlock after a visit from the local priest?

I had this discussion with my parents, they said it was very common for the priest to call down and put pressure on family's to get rid of the baby etc or to put pressure on the man to marry the women.

My mother mentioned one instance where the priest called down to a women and told her that her daughter should give the baby up, the women who by all accounts was a right battleaxe told the priests to mind his own business and throw him out of the house. She helped her daughter raise the baby instead.

She was very much the exception in those sorts of situations though,

I kind of get what frostyjacks is getting at - we can't transfer the guilt of the ill treatment of woman in this country solely to the Catholic Church - society at large had its part to play. I've heard horror stories over the years of people being disowned by their parents and getting kicked out of the house because they got pregnant and it had nothing to do with getting a visit from the priest - even with the mores of the day being what they were, it's hard to believe the coldness and cruelty displayed by some people towards their children.

kunst nugget · 17-09-2015 4:00pm

Cabaal wrote: »

Yeah, look how they tried to black mail TD's by saying that TD's that voted to pass the abortion legislation in 2013 won't get communion and also calling for any TD who voted to pass it to resign.

Funny how they tried to interfere with our democratic process by trying to black mail people using their believe in a god against them

Tbf, it's not really working out too well for them these days…

Pawwed Rig · 17-09-2015 4:22pm

frostyjacks wrote: »

If a school run along a Catholic ethos gives preference to Catholic applicants, that's not oppression, that's common sense. People should look at some of the injustices going on around the world before they start crying about oppression here.

It is the state funding and the lack of alternatives that is the issue. The international human rights ruling against Ireland would back that up too.

Pherekydes · 17-09-2015 4:48pm

frostyjacks wrote: »

If a school run along a Catholic ethos gives preference to Catholic applicants, that's not oppression, that's common sense.

A state-funded school should be accessible to all of the state's children. That's common sense.

Hotblack Desiato · 17-09-2015 10:48pm

lufties wrote: »

The whole thing was an abuse of their position, the state is ultimately responsible for allowing such abuse to happen.

Nice try.
The state allowed it to happen because politicians could not dare to go against the church lest they be denounced from the pulpit.
Most of them could not even conceive that the catholic church could do any wrong (some still can't.) See where that led us. All a result of the hold the church imposed upon them in childhood and upon their parents, like generations before them.

Yet these are the very people who claim to have a hotline to god on what is moral and what is not. By their acts you shall know them, indeed.

Hotblack Desiato · 17-09-2015 11:03pm

At independence Ireland was, legally whatever about socially, as liberal or illiberal as the rest of the UK and most of Europe. Then it all started to go wrong.

Abortion - illegal under the 1861 Act (still in force) - no surprise there. But in the 1960s and 70s the rest of Europe started to liberalise their laws, Ireland today is very much an outlier with a similar position to a muslim theocracy.

Divorce was legal in the Free State. Later outlawed by FF, then made unconstitutional in the 1937 constitution. Not repealed until 1995. Still very restrictive, and (stupidly) the conditions were written into the amendment so can't be changed without another referendum.

Contraceptives were legal in the Free State initially, later banned, allowed on prescription in 1979 (to married couples only!), condoms allowed in pharmacies 1985 but many refused to stock them, yes this was at the height of the AIDS epidemic. Law liberalised in 1995.
As late as 1993 a pharmacist in Rathmines (of all places) refused sell my then girlfriend the pill, she had a valid prescription. 'We don't do those'. I can only imagine what smalltown Ireland was like.

Censorship - same as UK and most European countries in 1922, was tightened and lay catholic groups were encouraged to submit texts for banning. All Irish writers of note in the 1950s were banned. Banning publications on grounds of having articles or ads relating to abortion continued into the 1990s.

Blasphemy law - like most countries we had a blasphemy law, unlike many we didn't repeal it. It was later declared unconstitutional, then Dermot Ahern in 2004/5 decided, yes in a western nation in the 21st century, to introduce a new blasphemy law. It is still in force.

The most commonly felt, and entirely legal, means of religious oppression today is the forced indoctrination of children (and discrimination against minority religions and non-religious) in 96% of primary schools. The state pays teachers to indoctrinate kids, and permits the religious patrons to exclude kids from their schools on the basis of religion.

Benny_Cake · 18-09-2015 12:39am

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Yes generally speaking the banning of material is unquestionably a form of oppression because it restricts contrary views and makes people obedient rather than curious.

Just as a matter of interest I recently went looking for a book by John Cooney called 'John Charles McQuaid: Ruler Of Catholic Ireland', I tried several large and small book shops in Blanchardstown and Dublin city centre but couldn't find it anywhere and I was told in one of the larger shops that it was hard to get in Ireland and would have to ordered in from the UK, I eventually got it off Amazon but I haven't started reading it yet.

Now I'm not an avid reader and I generally don't read books about religion so I'm just wondering would this simply be because the book isn't in demand (although I was told in a couple of places that people do ask for it) or could there be more sinister forces at work?

The book came out in 1999 so it's been out quite a while, I bought a copy in Dublin some years back (possibly Waterstones) so it certainly was available. It's a fine book let down by a salacious abuse claim, but worth reading. There are plenty of books in any bookshop (maybe not Veritas) which are far more critical of the Catholic church so there is absolutely nothing sinister going on.

Peregrinus · 18-09-2015 6:49am

Basically this. It's an old book, and booksellers these days tend not to carry large stocks of books which, by now, will be slow sellers - there's too much capital tied up in them. (A book of recipes by John Charles McQuaid, now, that would be a different matter.)

Also it was published by O'Brien Press; if it was being suppressed through "religious oppression in Ireland" you would expect a foreign publisher. It may be that O'Brien, too, as a relative small outfit, doesn't keep too much working capital tied up in stocks of slow sellers.

But it's still in print; you can buy it off their website, either in paperback or as an e-book.

Huntergonzo · 18-09-2015 9:08am

Ah fair enough, look I didn't really think there anything in it, just thought because McQuaid was such a prominent figure in recent Irish history that it wouldn't be hard to find in book shops. But again they aren't the sort of books I normally buy, so I had no idea what to expect.

Seanachai · 18-09-2015 9:35am

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

At independence Ireland was, legally whatever about socially, as liberal or illiberal as the rest of the UK and most of Europe. Then it all started to go wrong.

Abortion - illegal under the 1861 Act (still in force) - no surprise there. But in the 1960s and 70s the rest of Europe started to liberalise their laws, Ireland today is very much an outlier with a similar position to a muslim theocracy.

Divorce was legal in the Free State. Later outlawed by FF, then made unconstitutional in the 1937 constitution. Not repealed until 1995. Still very restrictive, and (stupidly) the conditions were written into the amendment so can't be changed without another referendum.

Contraceptives were legal in the Free State initially, later banned, allowed on prescription in 1979 (to married couples only!), condoms allowed in pharmacies 1985 but many refused to stock them, yes this was at the height of the AIDS epidemic. Law liberalised in 1995.
As late as 1993 a pharmacist in Rathmines (of all places) refused sell my then girlfriend the pill, she had a valid prescription. 'We don't do those'. I can only imagine what smalltown Ireland was like.

Censorship - same as UK and most European countries in 1922, was tightened and lay catholic groups were encouraged to submit texts for banning. All Irish writers of note in the 1950s were banned. Banning publications on grounds of having articles or ads relating to abortion continued into the 1990s.

Blasphemy law - like most countries we had a blasphemy law, unlike many we didn't repeal it. It was later declared unconstitutional, then Dermot Ahern in 2004/5 decided, yes in a western nation in the 21st century, to introduce a new blasphemy law. It is still in force.

The most commonly felt, and entirely legal, means of religious oppression today is the forced indoctrination of children (and discrimination against minority religions and non-religious) in 96% of primary schools. The state pays teachers to indoctrinate kids, and permits the religious patrons to exclude kids from their schools on the basis of religion.

I remember my father telling me that the local barber used to hide the condoms in a child of Prague statue. They were probably smuggled down from the North.

recedite · 18-09-2015 8:53pm

The Fethard Boycott is an interesting piece of social history. Basically two religions fought for control of one family, without caring that they were destroying the family.
It was unthinkable at the time that the family could live happily as neither protestant nor catholic, and not have to show total allegiance to one religion or the other.
The event was like a microcosm of Irish society as a whole. The National school system was set up in 1831 to be multi-denominational, but the two main religions saw this as a threat to the power they held over their respective followers, and so they divvied out the national schools between them to create a segregated school system where each could practice their own form of indoctrination.
Even the way the island ended up being divided into 26 + 6 counties is largely a result of the rigid segregation of people over hundreds of years, orchestrated by their religious "leaders".
Apart from the school system, its easy enough to ignore church power nowadays, but not so long ago they could (and would) break anyone who defied them.

Fred Swanson · 18-09-2015 8:56pm

This post has been deleted.

JohnBee · 18-09-2015 9:28pm

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Until recently, in the Mater Hospital, certain clinical drug trials, that required females to be on contraception due to the risk of birth defects, were not permitted by the nuns!

They feared Peter would turn them away at the Pearly Gates if they permitted such terrible sins.

recedite · 18-09-2015 9:31pm

Very much so, especially the maternity hospitals. And the "ethos" has influenced policy in matters such as sterilisation, contraception information, abortion information, abortion itself (ie at what point the mothers life is at a substantial risk) Also caesarean and symphysiotomy. I think policies are converging more nowadays, but where there was a choice, in Dublin for example, the Rotunda was always known as more "liberal" in these matters than Holles St.
For some maternity hospitals, it was most important to maintain the future breeding potential of their clients, whatever the cost to those women's personal health, hence the symphysiotomy scandals. Here's the current board of National Maternity Hospital. How many priests can you spot?

Hotblack Desiato · 18-09-2015 11:28pm

JohnBee wrote: »

Until recently, in the Mater Hospital, certain clinical drug trials, that required females to be on contraception due to the risk of birth defects, were not permitted by the nuns!

They feared Peter would turn them away at the Pearly Gates if they permitted such terrible sins.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/three-who-stopped-the-cancer-tests-25960150.html

THE people whose advice delayed the treatment of lung cancer patients at a major hospital are a priest, a nun and a businessman.
Share





The three members of the board of Dublin's Mater Hospital were key to the decision to stop trials of the drug for lung cancer patients.

They objected because female patients who get could get pregnant would have to take contraceptives under the treatment.

The subcommittee of the board - Fr Kevin Doran, Sr Eugene Nolan and John Morgan - were delegated the task of examining the conditions attached to testing the drug.

They looked to see if the conditions contravened the hospital's Catholic ethos.

The drug to be tested may prolong the lives of lung cancer patients by several months.

But it emerged last night that these patients, who have already exhausted all other forms of treatment, will have to wait until October 18 before knowing if the trials are approved.

Yes, that Kevin Doran.

MrPudding · 20-09-2015 4:09pm

kunst nugget wrote: »

I kind of get what frostyjacks is getting at - we can't transfer the guilt of the ill treatment of woman in this country solely to the Catholic Church - society at large had its part to play. I've heard horror stories over the years of people being disowned by their parents and getting kicked out of the house because they got pregnant and it had nothing to do with getting a visit from the priest - even with the mores of the day being what they were, it's hard to believe the coldness and cruelty displayed by some people towards their children.

frostyjacks wrote: »

The people who sent their daughters to the laundries, and the men who knocked them up. Do people think priests drove round in vans, abducting single mothers and taking them to the laundries? They were sent there.

I like the way you are ignoring why people sent their daughters to these places. Whilst you are of course correct that family members sent their daughters to these places I am sure you know very well why they did it. Do you think that society decided all by itself that unmarried mothers were something to be ashamed of? Do you think that parents decided all by themselves to disown their children or kick them out over a pregnancy?

Perhaps the church didn't send those poor children to the laundries, but they certainly were responsible for setting up environment where people felt they was what they had to do. They spent decades spinning their disgusting 'truth' and setting themselves up as the unquestionable authority. They didn't have to round the girls up, they had the people so brainwashed and scared of them that the work was done for them.

They are guilty. They were and continued to be a dispicable and disgusting organisation that poison every society they stick their noses into.

MrP

Peregrinus · 20-09-2015 4:28pm

MrPudding wrote: »

. . . perhaps the church didn't send those poor children to the laundries, but they certainly were responsible for setting up environment where people felt they was what they had to do. They spent decades spinning their disgusting 'truth' and setting themselves up as the unquestionable authority. They didn't have to round the girls up, they had the people so brainwashed and scared of them that the work was done for them.

They are guilty. They were and continued to be a dispicable and disgusting organisation that poison every society they stick their noses into.

MrP

Well, it's not a simple as that. Ireland became a much more puritan society, and much more judgmental of sexual transgression, in the decades after the Famine, and remained so until comparatively recently. We can hardly blame the Famine on church teaching, and we can see how that traumatic experience could have focussed attention on the need for effective social control of "irresponsible" procreation.

I suspect this was a kind of two-way thing. Society became more puritan in response to the experience of the Famine and other social and economic circumstances. The church, a social institution (and, in Ireland, a very "democratic" institution in the sense that its leadership wasn't drawn from any social elite or political establishment) reflected that, and then acted as a "feedback" mechanism which reinforced the phenomenon. But it wouldn't have been such an effective mechanism for so long if the social, economic etc circumstances which favoured puritanism has not persisted.

looksee · 20-09-2015 4:42pm

MrPudding wrote: »

I like the way you are ignoring why people sent their daughters to these places. Whilst you are of course correct that family members sent their daughters to these places I am sure you know very well why they did it. Do you think that society decided all by itself that unmarried mothers were something to be ashamed of? Do you think that parents decided all by themselves to disown their children or kick them out over a pregnancy?

Perhaps the church didn't send those poor children to the laundries, but they certainly were responsible for setting up environment where people felt they was what they had to do. They spent decades spinning their disgusting 'truth' and setting themselves up as the unquestionable authority. They didn't have to round the girls up, they had the people so brainwashed and scared of them that the work was done for them.

They are guilty. They were and continued to be a dispicable and disgusting organisation that poison every society they stick their noses into.

MrP

You could argue that previously women who were pregnant out of marriage were turned out to starve or prostitute themselves on the streets. So the laundries were an answer to that. Eventually it became less disgraceful to be pregnant out of marriage and the laundries began to be seen as overly harsh and repressive.

The women who became nuns were not all volunteers; it was equally a way of getting rid of a troublesome daughter, or gaining kudos for having a daughter in the Church. Or a woman with a personality of self-righteousness and 'holiness'. Or indeed a solution for a woman who did not want to be passed from paternal authority to a husband's authority. It was a recipe for disaster. They took their frustration and anger out on the people in their charge.

It was not so much the church that caused the reaction to 'fallen women' as society, it would be just as - probably more - accurate to blanket blame men for getting the women pregnant, then opting out of all responsibility.

recedite · 20-09-2015 5:19pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, it's not a simple as that. Ireland became a much more puritan society, and much more judgmental of sexual transgression, in the decades after the Famine, and remained so until comparatively recently. We can hardly blame the Famine on church teaching, and we can see how that traumatic experience could have focussed attention on the need for effective social control of "irresponsible" procreation.

And yet any form of contraception was still frowned upon, and family sizes remained high, so you can hardly say the famine caused people to think deeply about population sustainability.

Significantly there were a ridiculous number of RC churches built during the 1840's, perhaps the biggest church building boom ever seen in this country.
There are two ways of looking at this;
1) The cynical exploitation of the cheap labour of starving people.
2) A charitable act of providing gainful employment to starving people so that they could buy food. At the same time the landed gentry were also building follies and the British govt commissioned roads and harbours.
It was not the done thing at the time to dole out free money to people, without making them work.

Either way, the RCC emerged from the famine years in a much stronger position than before.

The roads and harbours did turn out to be useful, it has to be said.

Hotblack Desiato · 20-09-2015 9:09pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

We can hardly blame the Famine on church teaching

The church, a social institution (and, in Ireland, a very "democratic" institution in the sense that its leadership wasn't drawn from any social elite or political establishment) reflected that, and then acted as a "feedback" mechanism which reinforced the phenomenon.

WTF?
Where has any roman catholic church been 'democratic'? Where has the Irish roman catholic church been 'democratic'?
Its leadership was drawn from an elite all right, the elite emanating out of Maynooth.

Peregrinus · 21-09-2015 2:13am

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

WTF?
Where has any roman catholic church been 'democratic'? Where has the Irish roman catholic church been 'democratic'?
Its leadership was drawn from an elite all right, the elite emanating out of Maynooth.

You miss the point. In other countries, church leadership at the time was largely drawn from an existing political/social elite, and it tended to reflect the political/social priorities of the class from which it was drawn. But in the Irish Catholic church, leaders were drawn from very ordinary and unpriviliged backgrounds. (They may have acquired privilege through being elevated to leadership positions, but that's a different thing.)

My suggestion is that the puritanism of the Irish catholic church wasn't an external thing, originating from the top. It reflected the concerns and preoccupations and experiences of the class from which the leaders were drawn, which was a pretty ordinary class. Which helps to explain why people were so receptive to puritan teachings. (As opposed to, say, church teachings against republicanism/militant nationalism, which got much less traction.)

PS: You think reference to the Famine is a straw man in understanding social attitudes in Ireland in the nineteenth century? Seriously?

kunst nugget · 21-09-2015 9:32am

MrPudding wrote: »

They are guilty. They were and continued to be a dispicable and disgusting organisation that poison every society they stick their noses into.

MrP

I would never deny that - I'm just saying that we can't whitewash people's complicity in allowing their daughters be sent to those types of institutions or kicking them out of their homes. I knew a girl whose parents who had no connection with the Catholic Church who was sent packing by her family when she became pregnant after being raped and I know of people who were saved from those types of institutions because their parents fought for them when they became pregnant.

Cabaal · 01-10-2015 11:16am

Came across this delightful book from 1930's

Your Husband Comes First in the House’: a (Catholic) Guide for The Young Wife (1938)

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2013/08/15/the-good-wife/

Everything you needed to know about being a good Catholic wife in 1938 but were afraid to ask.

Your husband comes first in the house. His will should prevail. Therefore you belong to him more than to your parents (p. 23).

You are beginning a new life which you have entered through sacred doors. It was not a mere ceremony which took place before God’s altar. God’s hands were extended over you in blessing for the holy task which lies before you (p. 3)

And, in the context of the recent debate Ireland has had on abortion, here’s a section called ‘A Murderess’

When the mother’s life is endangered by the birth of the child, the life that is coming may not be destroyed. Even the doctor may not do this. He may do all that is possible to save the mother’s life except anything that would directly destroy the life of the child … Woe to the mother who is a murderess! (p. 26).

Really delightful!

PopePalpatine · 01-10-2015 11:38am

Well, at least we now know which year Jugendschutz want to take us back to.

robindch · 01-10-2015 1:32pm

Cabaal wrote: »

Your Husband Comes First

I'm sure a copy editor didn't mean to include that single entendre

Religious oppression in Ireland

Comments