Mass unmarked grave for 800 babies in Tuam

frostyjacks

Delirium wrote: »

I don't think you can say families were equally complicit when it was the homes who were caring for the children when they died and then disposed of the bodies in a septic tank.

Exactly. The homes were caring for the girls because the families kicked them out and washed their hands of them. Maybe it is fake news, maybe it's not. But the faux-outrage was entirely predicable.

Delirium

frostyjacks wrote: »

Exactly. The homes were caring for the girls because the families kicked them out and washed their hands of them. Maybe it is fake news, maybe it's not. But the faux-outrage was entirely predicable.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

pauldla

PopePalpatine wrote: »

And for the umpteenth time of asking, who taught these families that their "fallen" daughters were to be sent to the Magdalene Gulags?

Indeed. Teaching people from birth to accept the will of the Church unquestioningly, and then denying the responsibility of the Church when people accepted that will?

As for comments about faux-outrage and 'fake news'..."At long last, sir, have you no shame?"

King Mob

frostyjacks wrote: »

Exactly. The homes were caring for the girls because the families kicked them out and washed their hands of them. Maybe it is fake news, maybe it's not. But the faux-outrage was entirely predicable.

So these homes were advertising the fact that they let children in their care die and would then dumb the bodies?

frostyjacks

King Mob wrote: »

So these homes were advertising the fact that they let children in their care die and would then dumb the bodies?

Whether the girls were raped, promiscuous or just plain out of control, their families had a duty of care towards them. I can see how it's convenient to simply shove all the blame on the Church. There's a lot of dark family secrets up and down the country that people want to stay secret.

eire4

frostyjacks wrote: »

Whether the girls were raped, promiscuous or just plain out of control, their families had a duty of care towards them. I can see how it's convenient to simply shove all the blame on the Church. There's a lot of dark family secrets up and down the country that people want to stay secret.

Regardless of what percentage of blame lies where the facts remain the church acted in ways that were quite often evil never mind wrong. They need to be held to account this time and not given a sweetheart deal like the last time after the child abuse scandals came out. This time they need to be made to pay. No more apologies and insincere words there must be real consequences for the evil they did.

smacl

frostyjacks wrote: »

Whether the girls were raped, promiscuous or just plain out of control, their families had a duty of care towards them. I can see how it's convenient to simply shove all the blame on the Church. There's a lot of dark family secrets up and down the country that people want to stay secret.

But if you look at why those families failed in their duty of care, you come straight back to a church that taught that sex outside marriage was a terrible sin, and bearing children outside of marriage was shameful to the extent it brought shame on the whole family. If the Catholic church preached a bit of tolerance, which by my understanding is something Christianity aspires to, these events might have unfolded very differently. Instead, the message was very much hell and damnation for those that veered off their proscribed path or even for anyone who associated with such people.

BlinkingLights

This is starting to sound like a classic attempt to socialise the blame and diminish any responsibility much like what went with the 2008 banking collapse. That was apparently all of our collective fault and we all somehow blew up the economy.

Even if you were only barely making ends meet before the recession, you are to blame and the austerity was good enough for you!

No doubt this will all be everyone's fault too and the nuns were simply suffering from terrible peer pressure and society should have made them stop. I mean despite the fact that you couldn't say boo to the church without being ostracised or worse and that it drove pretty much all public policy in the area (including banning contraception) and set the social mores around motherhood, it was all obviously someone else's fault for not stopping them.

If only those downtrodden ordinary Irish people had stopped them!

King Mob

frostyjacks wrote: »

Whether the girls were raped, promiscuous or just plain out of control, their families had a duty of care towards them. I can see how it's convenient to simply shove all the blame on the Church. There's a lot of dark family secrets up and down the country that people want to stay secret.

But you seem to be implying that the families knew that leaving mothers and babies in the care of the Catholic Church is the same as abandoning them or letting the babies day.
Otherwise, it's hard to place blame on the family if they thought the mother and baby would receive adequate care.
The Catholic Church weren't exactly advertising that they would be treating people like **** and dumping the bodies of babies in unmarked holes in the ground.

And as everyone has been pointing out: Why would families believe that it is necessary for them to throw these women out? Who was teaching that having a baby out of wedlock is a sinful thing?
Do you believe that the church had no hand in this?

FA Hayek

Cabaal wrote: »

Seriously bad timing by the government, if they had sense they should have pulled out of this opening gig given the stuff that came out on Friday.

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2017/03/07/bon-succour/





Good to know they have lots of profit, now can we get some compensation for the victims?

Fake news at its finest, well done.

FA Hayek

smacl wrote: »

It does, but it is a morality informed by the Church to begin with, in that single mothers were demonised in Ireland for having sex outside of marriage on the basis that it was sinful in the eyes of the church. The same could be said about much of Irish moral attitudes surrounding sexuality, and to some extent still can. There does seem to be a long standing attitude in this country that it is of supreme importance to be seen to be doing the right thing even when everyone knows the right thing is as often as not the wrong thing.

This would be somewhat true if of course if what you said is correct. However, sex outside marriage has been demonised across the world for centuries, in places where the church has no influence or power. Therefore it stands to reason that the church were mere facilitators rather then instigators.

FA Hayek

Neyite wrote: »

The local authority -Galway County Council - who paid the stipend per mother and baby at the home for the care of the inmates? That stipend being the average industrial wage that could support an entire (catholic) family elsewhere.

Can I see some evidence for this?

FA Hayek

Cabaal wrote: »

The church created a society where "it knew best", it pushed the idea that these homes were the best places for these "fallen women".

No, the church was meeting a need. By all means tell us where in 1920's Ireland these people should have belonged.

FA Hayek

pH wrote: »

Nothing else could explain how a national mortality rate of 7% for infants up to 1 year old could be raised by almost five-fold to the 31% achieved within this home.

There are many explanations, the infants themselves could have been marked as deceased but actually adopted abroad. The people having the children themselves would have been poorer, suffering from ill health, malnourished leading to a much higher risk of complications later on with their birth. There are explanations.

The issue is that a stat like that only shows a small part of the picture.

aloyisious

FA Hayek wrote: »

No, the church was meeting a need. By all means tell us where in 1920's Ireland these people should have belonged.

Maybe at home with their families as frostyjack reckons they should have been, instead of in the care of the nuns in the Mother and Baby homes..... Still, where else could they go to ensure, to the best of their ability, that their babies had a chance in life, not realising that would not be realised......

Meanwhile, there seems to have been a lack of communication in Leinster House today on the issue debate there...... http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/dil-debate-on-tuam-babies-scandal-delayed-as-less-than-20-tds-show-up-35515795.html

Neyite

FA Hayek wrote: »

Can I see some evidence for this?

Nuns in Tuam were paid £1 a week for each inmate in 1929. I recall a figure of £1.62 for a few decades later and that it equated to the average workers income of the time but I think it might have been a book that I saw that in.

I'm trying to find a link online to what was the average industrial wage during that time frame but I'm at work and my time to search is limited, and haven't came across it yet.

smacl

FA Hayek wrote: »

This would be somewhat true if of course if what you said is correct. However, sex outside marriage has been demonised across the world for centuries, in places where the church has no influence or power. Therefore it stands to reason that the church were mere facilitators rather then instigators.

Not true. Even today the Catholic church promote an archaic and rather toxic values that still consider premarital sex, gay sex, and contraception for example to be sinful and shameful. As the Catholic church has lost its power, society no longer adheres to these values, and many are openly critical of them. This clearly shows that the Catholic church were and still are instigators rather than just facilitators of such values.

yellowlabrador

In the 70's, I went to a Catholic convent school in Antwerp,Belgium. when I was 16, we had a Dominican priest as a religion teacher. he told us that if we survived rape, we were to blame. we should chose death over rape and if we didn't, it was a sign that we were willing 'victims'. I never really recovered any respect I'd ever had for the church.
Yet on the other hand, one of my class mates became pregnant.
The head nun came to our class and told us that our class mate would stay in school and that the school would help her and that she would be bringing her baby to school with her so she could continue with her education. They arranged a childminder for her on the school premises. We were warned that if any of us said anything nasty or bullied her we would be expelled.
These nuns were quite modern and lived in shared flats outside the convent. They also didn't have a 'uniform' but wore every day clothes .
They often helped girls who were in trouble and always emphasized that our education was their priority.
This was in the days when Don Helder Camera and worker priests were popular. That movement seems to have disappeared since John Paul 1.
It's time to separate church and state and stop bringing religion into the class room. If a school wants to be religious, it should be private and fee paying.

frostyjacks

pauldla wrote: »

Indeed. Teaching people from birth to accept the will of the Church unquestioningly, and then denying the responsibility of the Church when people accepted that will?

As for comments about faux-outrage and 'fake news'..."At long last, sir, have you no shame?"

If it's such an outrage, why did hardly any TDs turn up to debate it in the Dail? It's obviously just another opportunity for militant atheists to vent their spleen at the Church. They really couldn't care less about those babies.

Delirium

frostyjacks wrote: »

If it's such an outrage, why did hardly any TDs turn up to debate it in the Dail? It's obviously just another opportunity for militant atheists to vent their spleen at the Church. They really couldn't care less about those babies.

Pot. Kettle.

optogirl

FA Hayek wrote: »

No, the church was meeting a need. By all means tell us where in 1920's Ireland these people should have belonged.

Somewhere where they could be looked after with compassion & kindness?

pauldla

frostyjacks wrote: »

If it's such an outrage, why did hardly any TDs turn up to debate it in the Dail? It's obviously just another opportunity for militant atheists to vent their spleen at the Church. They really couldn't care less about those babies.

Was there a debate in the Dail? How novel. I wonder, perhaps you could contact your local TD and ask them directly? It might be that they hope that if they ignore the matter it'll go away; a strategy that has been employed on numerous occasions, on a variety of issues.

frostyjacks

Delirium wrote: »

Pot. Kettle.

What do you mean by that?

pauldla

FA Hayek wrote: »

No, the church was meeting a need. By all means tell us where in 1920's Ireland these people should have belonged.

The church created the need. One may as well argue that a drug dealer is merely meeting a need (at a small profit for himself, of course).

Delirium

frostyjacks wrote: »

What do you mean by that?

Most of your posts have been attempting to pass blame onto the state and families of the pregnant women.

You've also suggested that the story is fake news.

It seems you're more interested in defending (deflecting blame away from) the religious orders who disposed of the dead children in the septic tank.

frostyjacks

Delirium wrote: »

Most of your posts have been attempting to pass blame onto the state and families of the pregnant women.

You've also suggested that the story is fake news.

It seems you're more interested in defending (deflecting blame away from) the religious orders who disposed of the dead children in the septic tank.

What evidence is there that the religious orders buried the babies in this way? Or did you just make that up?

Delirium

frostyjacks wrote: »

What evidence is there that the religious orders buried the babies in this way? Or did you just make that up?

Do you not follow the news?



Source

Your response suggests that you're more interested deflecting the story away from the orders (or suggesting it's fake news, as you just did again).

frostyjacks

Delirium wrote: »

Do you not follow the news?



Source

Your response suggests that you're more interested deflecting the story away from the orders (or suggesting it's fake news, as you just did again).

Where does it say the religious orders were responsible?

Like I said, fake news.

pilly

Can the words "fake news" please be banned from boards?

It's just the Trump defence. Please posters come with an actual argument instead of that crap.

Sofiztikated

frostyjacks wrote: »

Where does it say the religious orders were responsible?

Like I said, fake news.

Who "buried" them there then, ****ing aliens?