"Significant" numbers of babies remains actually found

Samaris · 05-03-2017 11:16AM

Oh, I agree it was rather bleak and outdated, Graces, and also partly based on what I've read about English orders (only nunning, especially being a working nun, was more looked down on there than here. Female orders had to fight to be allowed be both nuns and to go do useful things). But I'm trying to go back seventy, eighty years, to when the women most involved with all this were active. And I'm sure it doesn't apply to all of them.

But when it gets down to it, no oversight, one group controlling the other, plus an unhealthy dose of moral superiority will give rise to results like this. Especially when most of the controlling group is bound by strict Obedience to the person in charge.

There was an interview with a woman relatively soon before she died (I think her name was Jenny, but I may be misremembering) who worked there for years. It was her words that first put Corless onto that there truly was an unmarked burial ground where the rumours placed it. She spoke of the nuns and how some were sweet and saintly and others - including the Mother Superior, a Mother Martha - were absolutely not. Obviously Mother Martha couldn't have been in charge for the whole period (unless she was exceptionally long-lived and became MS very young!), so there's a few of them in it. But in a set-up like that, you only need the head and a couple of her...uhm..henchnuns to act poorly towards the women in their care for it to be the norm.

IvyTheTerrible · 05-03-2017 11:21AM

Samsgirl wrote: »

I was supposed to takey 5yr old to mass this morning to sing in the choir but after reading this entire thread I couldn't stomach it. Mr Sam has taken her -against my wishes. I will ask him when they get back.
We live in rural Tipperary and the church is still held in high regard here. My inlaws refuse to hear the truth.
There was a priest in the parish where I grew up who was 'moved on' when abuse allegations came to light. Imagine my surprise to find him in Mr Sams Aunts house saying mass and being around young children.
I told them of the abuse in Waterford but they accused me of making up lies and continually invited this man into their home.
Six months ago this priest was arrested over similar incidents in Limerick.
Not a word said. The church still has power in parts of Ireland. People are just blind.

It doesn't surprise me either.
When my brother died by suicide, a couple of members of my dad's immediate family did not attend the funeral because suicide is a sin (not giving two shiites about the hurt to my parents). And then I discovered that after my son was born out of marriage, the same people had referred to him as a bastard. And this is all in the last 8 years.

Samaris · 05-03-2017 11:22AM

By the way, and this may be totally inappropriate, but if anyone wants to get a bit of perspective about what actually living as a nun was like, in pretty positive ways, Call the Midwife is a good show*. It's gotten a tad overwrought since they moved away from the memoirs (but when they were following them, they stuck to them pretty accurately), but they too paint a very interesting picture of what it was like at the time. One of the stories even involves a young Irish girl (ofc called Mary!) who arrives pregnant in England. The nuns of the piece are based on an actual order that worked in London for just under a century and were much beloved by the locals. But it gives some insights as to what it was like having an unplanned baby alone. If you wander around Amazon to the connected links to her memoirs, there are similar ones from the nun side, etcetera.

Just to remember that good women who really felt a calling to help others did and do exist too.

*These were Anglican nuns, ofc.

volchitsa · 05-03-2017 11:24AM

BlinkingLights wrote: »

I'm male, and I'm not a father but I think I've a hard wired instinct to protect and look after kids. It would go against every fibre of what it is that makes me human or even mammalian to allow a kid to suffer or go without food.

It's totally abnormal to treat babies, kids, teens and vulnerable adults the way these absolute monsters did.

I'd have thought all normal humans share that same instinct to protect children and look after people generally?

I couldn't imagine putting my own needs ahead of a baby? I mean FFS, I'd put myself at risk to rescue someone.

It's why I can't get my head around this. It really must have taken one hell of a twisted view of the world for them to have just turned on children, women and vulnerable people generally like this.

Also pregnant women?!? I'd have thought that in most people's heads that you have an instinct to protect the pregnant and make sure that they're helped?
I just can't even imagine how anyone could bully and abuse women like that.

It's a fundamentally human trait to help and protect other humans.

These "things" clearly cast away any shred of their own humanity in some kind of utterly twisted notions of punishing sinners or something. Utterly sickening really when you consider just what went on in those places.

It's even worse when you consider that people couldn't have not known about it and did nothing.

It's just indefensible behaviour, yet you'll still have various diehard loyalists to the organisation who will attempt to defend it.

I'm just fed up hearing excuses.

Absolutely right, and a great post.

I think it has been explained, at least partly, by whoever it was who said that it takes religion to make good people do bad things.

Some of them were just evil, sure, but I really think that's the only way it could have become so "normal" to mistreat children that way. The children had to have been defined as worthless by religion, and that made it an unquestionable "fact" for most ordinary people.

It's the only explanation I can find that doesn't involve large parts of the population simply being psychopaths.

Graces7 · 05-03-2017 11:30AM

Samaris wrote: »

By the way, and this may be totally inappropriate, but if anyone wants to get a bit of perspective about what actually living as a nun was like, in pretty positive ways, Call the Midwife is a good show*. It's gotten a tad overwrought since they moved away from the memoirs (but when they were following them, they stuck to them pretty accurately), but they too paint a very interesting picture of what it was like at the time. One of the stories even involves a young Irish girl (ofc called Mary!) who arrives pregnant in England. The nuns of the piece are based on an actual order that worked in London for just under a century and were much beloved by the locals. But it gives some insights as to what it was like having an unplanned baby alone. If you wander around Amazon to the connected links to her memoirs, there are similar ones from the nun side, etcetera.

Just to remember that good women who really felt a calling to help others did and do exist too.

*These were Anglican nuns, ofc.

Yes to your last words and yes it makes a great and interesting difference. No Rome, no Pope

That Order in Call the Midwife was one I knew intimately. They stiil exist, in Derby now. Religious life in the C of E had a late flowering.

Graces7 · 05-03-2017 11:31AM

volchitsa wrote: »

Absolutely right, and a great post.

I think it has been explained, at least partly, by whoever it was who said that it takes religion to make good people do bad things.

And vice versa...

PMBC · 05-03-2017 11:32AM

Samaris wrote: »

Oh, I agree it was rather bleak and outdated, Graces, and also partly based on what I've read about English orders (only nunning, especially being a working nun, was more looked down on there than here. Female orders had to fight to be allowed be both nuns and to go do useful things). But I'm trying to go back seventy, eighty years, to when the women most involved with all this were active. And I'm sure it doesn't apply to all of them.

But when it gets down to it, no oversight, one group controlling the other, plus an unhealthy dose of moral superiority will give rise to results like this. Especially when most of the controlling group is bound by strict Obedience to the person in charge.

There was an interview with a woman relatively soon before she died (I think her name was Jenny, but I may be misremembering) who worked there for years. It was her words that first put Corless onto that there truly was an unmarked burial ground where the rumours placed it. She spoke of the nuns and how some were sweet and saintly and others - including the Mother Superior, a Mother Martha - were absolutely not. Obviously Mother Martha couldn't have been in charge for the whole period (unless she was exceptionally long-lived and became MS very young!), so there's a few of them in it. But in a set-up like that, you only need the head and a couple of her...uhm..henchnuns to act poorly towards the women in their care for it to be the norm.

The sisters are on the rack for this one, for sure and about time the truth came out. My interactions with the same was generally very good over the years except the ones at the top - the 'stormtropers' who would see that policy or doctrine was carried through. Generally, they were and still are under the control of the religious patriarchy. And where was the state in this? What party was in power for most of those times. The Soldiers of Destiny, for the most part probably. I dont suppose the other crowd would have been any more tolerant, though. Remember they owned the institutions. Were we all culpable - yes we were for the 'unmarried mother's' being hived off. But not too many knew exactly what went on - or did they?

Graces7 · 05-03-2017 11:40AM

Samaris wrote: »

Oh, I agree it was rather bleak and outdated, Graces, and also partly based on what I've read about English orders (only nunning, especially being a working nun, was more looked down on there than here. Female orders had to fight to be allowed be both nuns and to go do useful things). But I'm trying to go back seventy, eighty years, to when the women most involved with all this were active. And I'm sure it doesn't apply to all of them.

But when it gets down to it, no oversight, one group controlling the other, plus an unhealthy dose of moral superiority will give rise to results like this. Especially when most of the controlling group is bound by strict Obedience to the person in charge.

There was an interview with a woman relatively soon before she died (I think her name was Jenny, but I may be misremembering) who worked there for years. It was her words that first put Corless onto that there truly was an unmarked burial ground where the rumours placed it. She spoke of the nuns and how some were sweet and saintly and others - including the Mother Superior, a Mother Martha - were absolutely not. Obviously Mother Martha couldn't have been in charge for the whole period (unless she was exceptionally long-lived and became MS very young!), so there's a few of them in it. But in a set-up like that, you only need the head and a couple of her...uhm..henchnuns to act poorly towards the women in their care for it to be the norm.

Ah no; what I have bolded. is where you mistake Holy Obedience.

Each order has a rule and a constitution that every Nun signs assent to on taking Final Vows. Usually after around 8 years in the Order.

Long enough to know what they are signing to.
And her Vows are to Jesus. not the Abbess.

It is Holy Obedience TO THAT RULE. not to the will of a Superior. See the difference?

Also any Sister can refuse if what she is asked to do is against her conscience.

Rarely happens. But the leeway is there.

So your end words! lol!!

BlinkingLights · 05-03-2017 11:48AM

That's all fine and well but they're human organisations with a very strict hierarchy. I doubt any nun could challenge the boss or she'd be out on her ear, penniless and destitute without a support structure. I know I've heard of cases where men left the priesthood or women left the convent and were basically shunned by their own families.

Organisations like that can 'go bad' and very, very bad when they do. You see it in military and police organisations and they don't generally act as pseudo families for their members. So I would imagine the control and the peer pressure in a religious organisation is far, far more extreme.

pedigree 6 · 05-03-2017 11:53AM

This is going to sound crude but it's the way I feel.
Since many of the perpetrators are dead and will never feel the wrath of justice although if there truly is a heaven and hell maybe they are suffering now for all eternity.

But the point being they believed in an afterlife and were buried in consecrated ground and that they will rise again.

Anyway the way I feel is their remains should be dug up and thrown in the sea.
They don't deserve the dignity of being at "eternal rest" for what they did in life.

This sounds a little bit evil I suppose and I don't want to be compared to these people from history.
But it's how I feel.

You should treat people in life like you want to be treated back.
But justice should prevail.

Anyhow I apologize for this long post but not the sentiment.

Samaris · 05-03-2017 11:54AM

While I accept your point, Graces, I can't help feeling that this would be extremely easy to abuse. Certainly in the Anglican orders, Holy Obedience also included obedience to the Mother Superior and to clergy. I would be extremely surprised if it wasn't tacitly enforced in orders that, well, like this one, appear frankly poisonous.

BlinkingLights · 05-03-2017 11:58AM

I personally think the afterlife is the legacy they've left.

The full truth needs to come out and be published and attached to the organisations involved.

Graces7 · 05-03-2017 12:08PM

Samaris wrote: »

Oh, I agree it was rather bleak and outdated, Graces, and also partly based on what I've read about English orders (only nunning, especially being a working nun, was more looked down on there than here. Female orders had to fight to be allowed be both nuns and to go do useful things). But I'm trying to go back seventy, eighty years, to when the women most involved with all this were active. And I'm sure it doesn't apply to all of them.

But when it gets down to it, no oversight, one group controlling the other, plus an unhealthy dose of moral superiority will give rise to results like this. Especially when most of the controlling group is bound by strict Obedience to the person in charge.

There was an interview with a woman relatively soon before she died (I think her name was Jenny, but I may be misremembering) who worked there for years. It was her words that first put Corless onto that there truly was an unmarked burial ground where the rumours placed it. She spoke of the nuns and how some were sweet and saintly and others - including the Mother Superior, a Mother Martha - were absolutely not. Obviously Mother Martha couldn't have been in charge for the whole period (unless she was exceptionally long-lived and became MS very young!), so there's a few of them in it. But in a set-up like that, you only need the head and a couple of her...uhm..henchnuns to act poorly towards the women in their care for it to be the norm.

Ah no; what I have bolded. is where you mistake Holy Obedience.

Each order has a rule and a constitution that every Nun signs assent to on taking Final Vows. Usually after around 8 years in the Order.

Long enough to know what they are signing to.
And her Vows are to Jesus. not the Abbess.

It is Holy Obedience TO THAT RULE. not to the will of a Superior. See the difference?

Also any Sister can refuse if what she is asked to do is against her conscience.

Rarely happens. But the leeway is there.

So your end words! lol!!

Graces7 · 05-03-2017 12:12PM

JupiterKid wrote: »

The more I read through this thread the angrier I get.

The Catholic Church has damaged so many people, so many families. I walked away from the church back in 1993 when I was 18 and I have never looked back. I think there are actually relatively few families in Ireland that the church haven't negatively affected in one way or another. The monstrous and wicked, vile things they did to vilnerable people, and small children being the most vulnerable of all, are just sickening.

After 25 years of revelations of large scale abuse and corruption and pure rottenness, I thought that could not hear anything that would shock me any further. But the more we peel off the mask, the uglier the real face of the church and yes, Irish society until recently becomes. Hideous.

The only thing that keeps me from pure despair is the knowledge that the church in Ireland is fatally wounded - it is in terminal decline.

And Ireland isn't the only country these "mother and baby" misery prisons operated in - I'm sure there are similar tales from the USA, Continental Europe, Canada, South America and Australia to name a few waiting to be revealed.

Sickening.

Peru is next...

jameorahiely · 05-03-2017 12:16PM

Not 6 months ago babies were been thrown in bins and vunerable women being forced in to getting abortions without giving consent. Some posters did not want discussion on that. They are as bad as the nuns.

YourSuperior · 05-03-2017 12:18PM

It can be mentally jarring living with Christianity after the Age of Reason. It must be like living in a Kafkaesque Twilight Zone. What a grotesque postmodern nightmare.

eviltwin · 05-03-2017 12:44PM

jameorahiely wrote: »

Not 6 months ago babies were been thrown in bins and vunerable women being forced in to getting abortions without giving consent. Some posters did not want discussion on that. They are as bad as the nuns.

Where?

suicide_circus · 05-03-2017 12:56PM

Marion F was talking about this on the radio there and someone made an interesting point;

Just as families sent their daughters to these institutions to be "cared for", families also sent their daughters to convents to be nuns. Both sets of women were trapped with little or no say in the matter.

Samaris · 05-03-2017 01:07PM

Young men into the priesthood too.

All the following is absolute and pure supposition, based on a few notions that have been coming forward, so many doses of salt here!

But something that struck me, reading various accounts of young women sent to these places; some of them had no idea what sex actually was or how they got pregnant. Sex education being what it wasn't at the time, I can believe this. So there were presumably also young men who also weren't taught what exactly sex was or how babies are made. Sure, some of it is instinctual on both party's parts, but still.

A concept I've been reading about lately in regards to paedophilia is that some people may not necessarily mature in their sexual preferences as normal*. Mostly, once hitting puberty, we're attracted to people of roughly the same age and development. So what happens when you take young men who have not been taught about sex, and lamp them into an order where sexual maturity is not important, not taught and regarded as all generally somewhat unclean (same goes for masturbation and any other ways of relieving sexual tension). Could it be that in those circumstances, much like if a child isn't taught how to speak or behave, their growth will be stunted in those areas, a young man entering a seminary -may- not mature mentally regarding his sexuality and could be more prone to be attracted to children of the ages where he himself was held back?

I dunno, it's not very well explained, it might be absolute nonsense and it doesn't explain younger children (although that may be ease of getting away with it). But still, there is the question of why it seems to have happened so much within religious orders. Some of that may just be that there's focus on it, but there really does seem to be more than would be reasonably expected going by the general population.

*Note - it's only a theory. There is really very little study into the whys of paedophilia.

nhunter100 · 05-03-2017 01:15PM

When the remains of the children are identified and released for burial , I suggest the entire cost of burying each child is borne by the Church.

neonsofa · 05-03-2017 01:19PM

Samaris wrote: »

I dunno, it's not very well explained, it might be absolute nonsense and it doesn't explain younger children (although that may be ease of getting away with it). But still, there is the question of why it seems to have happened so much within religious orders. Some of that may just be that there's focus on it, but there really does seem to be more than would be reasonably expected going by the general population.

*Note - it's only a theory. There is really very little study into the whys of paedophilia.

I always thought the prevalence within religious orders was because it was....facilitated, in that the priests were left to care for these boys, no parents to stop it happening, access to a lot of boys, they had so much power that they knew they could instill fear in the boys. Nobody would believe they could do it due to their standing in society. Unfortunately it was the perfect environment for them to commit these crimes. It doesn't explain why there were so many paedophiles there to begin with but perhaps if more members of the general public had such opportunity as the priests did those numbers would be equally high? I also think the issue celibacy had a huge part to play, it is not natural to suppress natural biological urges.

smurgen · 05-03-2017 01:20PM

nhunter100 wrote: »

When the remains of the children are identified and released for burial , I suggest the entire cost of burying each child is borne by the Church.

I would love to see the authorities freeze assets until all sites excavated and full investigation carried out.any and all costs to trace dna,provide proper burials and compensation to victims should be billed to the church.if there is not enough money then land and buildings owned by them should be sold off.i'd like to see it treated the way C.A.B deals with other organised criminals.

Graces7 · 05-03-2017 01:20PM

YourSuperior wrote: »

It can be mentally jarring living with Christianity after the Age of Reason. It must be like living in a Kafkaesque Twilight Zone. What a grotesque postmodern nightmare.

Your post is the most bizarre ever. They were by the way not "living with Christianity" in any way.

neonsofa · 05-03-2017 01:21PM

nhunter100 wrote: »

When the remains of the children are identified and released for burial , I suggest the entire cost of burying each child is borne by the Church.

I'd want no involvement from the church at all. I think the babies should finally be free from the hold that church had over them.

YourSuperior · 05-03-2017 01:26PM

Graces7 wrote: »

Your post is the most bizarre ever. They were by the way not "living with Christianity" in any way.

In general terms. The secular West does live side by side with Christianity.

Caroleia · 05-03-2017 01:47PM

smurgen wrote: »

I would love to see the authorities freeze assets until all sites excavated and full investigation carried out.any and all costs to trace dna,provide proper burials and compensation to victims should be billed to the church.if there is not enough money then land and buildings owned by them should be sold off.i'd like to see it treated the way C.A.B deals with other organised criminals.

I agree with this. In fact, why aren't the Bon Secours nuns offering outright to do this as a means of reparation - instead of paying the like of Terry Crone to salvage what they can of their rotten reputation.

cactusgal · 05-03-2017 01:52PM

suicide_circus wrote: »

Marion F was talking about this on the radio there and someone made an interesting point;

Just as families sent their daughters to these institutions to be "cared for", families also sent their daughters to convents to be nuns. Both sets of women were trapped with little or no say in the matter.

Yes and no. I'm following this discussion with interest as my mother joined the convent at 13 years old. She was from a poor farming background in Galway, when the nuns came to the national school to ask if any of them felt they had a vocation to religious life, she was the first to raise her hand. Her parents asked her if she was sure this was what she wanted, and she was. Though she mentioned some negative things (the Mother Superior -despite being her father's cousin- was very harsh, she wasn't allowed home for her grandfather's funeral), she always said that, up to becoming a mother, her life in the convent was the happiest time in her life. She was always a deeply religious woman, and she loved the religious life.

She stayed for 17 years, age 13 to 31, from 1951 to 1969. She never gave a clear answer as to why she left, just that things were changing when Vatican 2 came in, but I honestly don't know why. She did say that for a lot of families, having a nun who'd left the convent would have been deeply shameful, but that her father wrote her a beautiful letter, saying that he supported her decision.

She has late stage Alzheimer's now. In a way, I'm glad that she can't understand what's come out about the church. It would break her heart. I dearly wish, though, that I could ask her about her experiences, and how something so awful could have happened. So many of the surnames of the dead children were the same as her neighbours in East Galway.

I miss her deeply.

Flippyfloppy · 05-03-2017 01:56PM

neonsofa wrote: »

I always thought the prevalence within religious orders was because it was....facilitated, in that the priests were left to care for these boys, no parents to stop it happening, access to a lot of boys, they had so much power that they knew they could instill fear in the boys. Nobody would believe they could do it due to their standing in society. Unfortunately it was the perfect environment for them to commit these crimes. It doesn't explain why there were so many paedophiles there to begin with but perhaps if more members of the general public had such opportunity as the priests did those numbers would be equally high? I also think the issue celibacy had a huge part to play, it is not natural to suppress natural biological urges.

I also read recently that not all child abusers are true paedophiles. True paedophiles are apparently rare enough, a lot of child abusers do so because of power and control (?!) apparently, which the priests certainly had over whole communities, let alone the absolute power they had in industrial schools and orphanages.

neonsofa · 05-03-2017 02:07PM

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

I also read recently that not all child abusers are true paedophiles. True paedophiles are apparently rare enough, a lot of child abusers do so because of power and control (?!) apparently, which the priests certainly had over whole communities, let alone the absolute power they had in industrial schools and orphanages.

That makes sense, thankfully I myself am so far removed from anything like that that I actually don't think about incorrectly using the terms interchangeably, but now that you say it, they are abusers not necessarily paedophiles. And that would again maybe link back with celibacy, they aren't necessarily attracted to children, but are suppressing natural urges and then taking that out on the children.

Seth Brundle · 05-03-2017 02:07PM

nhunter100 wrote: »

When the remains of the children are identified and released for burial , I suggest the entire cost of burying each child is borne by the Church.

The RCC still haven't paid the wastage what they owe from previous investigations so it's doubtful if they'd cough up to bury some dead sinner kids.

"Significant" numbers of babies remains actually found

Comments