"Significant" numbers of babies remains actually found

08-03-2017 01:36PM

Zebra3 wrote: »

When did the RC Church ever ask the opinion of the plebs?

You're just meant to turn up once a week, get spoken down to from a man up on the altar, hand over the cash and repeat the same mantra.

It's one thing about the CoI. It maybe a different variation of the same nonsense, but at least it's more of a bottom up organisation* than the Roman one.

*Please, no jokes.

Well. I'm very much one of the "plebs", and my opinion has been sought several times by priests.

I don't move in the Bishop's circle - but I do know people who do, and certainly, the subject has been discussed with some of them.

If there is one good thing that has come out of all these scandals, it's that the "plebs" are being asked their opinion.
I can't tell you how many are willing to give an honest answer to the questions, or how many are even willing to talk to the priests, for various reasons - but, definitely, the Hierarchy are a lot more humble than they were when I was growing up. Which is a good thing.

kylith · 08-03-2017 01:44PM

nhunter100 wrote: »

How was responsible for the treatment these unfortunates recieved inside the homes? Did wider society take a hand in the abuse both physical and mental? Who consigned the dead children to a disused septic tank?

I think that in as much as the general public knew about these places they did not know exactly what was going on in there. They probably knew that children were put up for adoption, but not that they were forcibly removed. They knew that the women worked, but not as slave labour. Just as the German public knew that the Jewish population had been moved to camps, but were told that it was so they could be with their own kind, not that they were being slaughtered by the train-load.

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you actually know the difference between the Catholic Church, and the "leaders" or Hierarchy of that Church?

Because your post displays a woeful lack of knowledge of this very basic difference.

The Catholic Church is it's members - all of them. Which is why I said pretty much all of us want an investigation.

Do you think that the bishops, priests, and pope want an investigation? Do you think that they give two shts what the congregation want? The heirarchy of the church will, as ever, fight tooth and nail to make sure that no investigation is carried out, and that if one is that they will not pay a penny in compensation.

Shurimgreat · 08-03-2017 01:49PM

nhunter100 wrote: »

The workmen and caretakers got their instructions from whom?

The nuns. They still could have said no. Its not like the nuns were holding a gun to their head. They also could have blown the whistle. As could inspectors and various governments of the day. Again I apportion most of the blame to the religious order and the governments of the day who should have done more.

Shurimgreat · 08-03-2017 01:53PM

nhunter100 wrote: »

The last home closed in '96. My son was born in '99. Should he accept some of the blame?

Should nuns and priests born after 1961 accept some of the blame for Tuam? Its a ridiculous point.

Its not who was born when or where. Its about the attitudes of church, state and society, all of whom seem to have colluded in making events like this happen.

laoch na mona · 08-03-2017 01:59PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

The nuns. They still could have said no. Its not like the nuns were holding a gun to their head. They also could have blown the whistle. As could inspectors and various governments of the day. Again I apportion most of the blame to the religious order and the governments of the day who should have done more.

Who would have listened though? the first report of abuse in Artane was in the 1930s but it wasn't accepted as fact until the 1990s.

Stories about abuse in leterfrack were published in the 1960s but again they were ignored

Shurimgreat · 08-03-2017 02:12PM

Zebra3 wrote: »

Quite staggering the levels of BS.

Church gets blame for man doing a runner?

Really?

That's the line you're going for?

Not "church blamed for institutional child abuse, torture, slavery"?

Wow. :rolleyes:

You should have been in that story about Jaysus getting executed. You could've been the bloke who sentenced him.

Let me know if you need a towel.

The issue is quite complex so I wouldn't expect you to get the whole picture. Its goes back to the founding of the state and the constitution that followed soon after that gave the church a dominant position.

Who voted the constitution through? The church by themselves? Remember it was a democratic vote.

I expect a simplistic one dimensional reply from you along the lines of "the church are evil, society and the people were ok".

The constitution sets the platform for what sort of society you have. So again who framed the constitution, who supported it, who voted for it.

You can say the church forced the people to do this and that. But at the end of the day, the people, including I'd imagine your grandparents had free will.

So it wasn't a case of religious dictatorship. It was collusion, much like some of the collusion in Nazi Germany. Very few "dictatorships" prosper without strong support from large sections of the population.

Again I make the point, the people were not forced to do anything at the point of the gun. They could easily have said no at any stage. Instead they took the easy option. And like I said I include our ancestors in this, yours and mine.

Shurimgreat · 08-03-2017 02:15PM

laoch na mona wrote: »

Who would have listened though? the first report of abuse in Artane was in the 1930s but it wasn't accepted as fact until the 1990s.

Stories about abuse in leterfrack were published in the 1960s but again they were ignored

Politicians. The Gardaí. The media.

The amount of cowardice at the time seems quite staggering. No-one was prepared to stand up except for occasional exceptions and even they were shouted down by politicians and the media.

I for one am disgusted by the behaviour of the church of the time. But I am equally disgusted by the rest of society at the time. I hope that clarifies my viewpoint.

ScumLord · 08-03-2017 02:20PM

nhunter100 wrote: »

The last home closed in '96. My son was born in '99. Should he accept some of the blame?

The last generation may have been the ones that carried it out but we're the ones that have to deal with it. We have to make sure an institution like the church can never hold that kind of power over the people again.

Just like we're the ones messing up the environment but it will be the next generation that will have to deal with it. It's not fair but it's the way it is.

Sierra Oscar · 08-03-2017 02:24PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Politicians. The Gardaí. The media.

The amount of cowardice at the time seems quite staggering. No-one was prepared to stand up except for occasional exceptions and even they were shouted down by politicians and the media.

I for one am disgusted by the behaviour of the church of the time. But I am equally disgusted by the rest of society at the time. I hope that clarifies my viewpoint.

Don't forget that plenty of families shoved their daughters into the convents to become nuns too. A sizable number of nuns that joined in the 60's - 70's ended up leaving in the 90's, it would lead you to believe that they weren't exactly happy during their time there. It must have made for a horrible, toxic environment within these institutions.

sondagefaux · 08-03-2017 02:27PM

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

I am not.

I dont doubt.

Wider society has to accept blame, not just a hang-em-high attitude of revenge or anger from a different cultural context.

Your position yesterday was that it would be hypocritical and unjust to judge people for past actions by today's standards.

It seems to have slightly modified.

As for the 'different cultural context', the Constitution of Ireland, adopted by the Irish people in 1937 is very clear that the type of ill-treatment meted out to unmarried mothers and their children was repugnant to the values of the Irish people as set out in their Constitution.

In short, the standards people set for themselves back in the 1930s were breached back in the 1930s and in the following decades.

Judging people by the standards they set for themselves isn't hypocritical or unjust - it's fair and reasonable.

Hopefully this will sink in at some point.

Shurimgreat · 08-03-2017 02:39PM

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

The blame is indeed with ALL. The church and religious order were Irish, and part of Irish society. They did not operate in a vacuum. They prevailing cultural norms created an environment where such behaviour was promoted, and tolerated outside that.
People of the time really are delusional if they are unwilling to accept a collective blame (and it wouldnt even call it blame exactly - it was rather a chosen way society at the time agreed to function) - and even worse and hypocritical if they go pointing the finger at individuals or organisation at this remove.

Agreed. Even today there is a lot of hand wringing and "if only we knew" type of thing.

I'm pretty certain a lot of people, even most people at the time had a fair idea of what was going on, or perhaps worse, decided to bury their heads in the sand or turn a blind eye.

Either they knew what was going on, which of course many did, as these institutions did not exist in a vacuum completely cut off from the outside world. Or else they preferred not to know and didn't make it their business. I don't know which is worse.

But these institutions could not have survived and lasted without the collusion of many people, people who must be held to account. The religious orders also must be held to account.

laoch na mona · 08-03-2017 02:47PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Agreed. Even today there is a lot of hand wringing and "if only we knew" type of thing.

I agree with you there some people were well aware what was happening, and some actually had the power to do something about it.

Instead men like Jimmy Gralton or Noel Brown who attempted to challenge catholic social control were pulled down from all sides

We still as a society ignore issues right under our noses like direct provision or homelessness until they get to big to ignore

ScumLord · 08-03-2017 02:49PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Either they knew what was going on, which of course many did, as these institutions did not exist in a vacuum completely cut off from the outside world. Or else they preferred not to know and didn't make it their business. I don't know which is worse.

You have to remember that they thought the church knew what it was doing. So if they hear women are kept prisoners and children dying they probably thought that those people deserved it, the church would know, right? They probably thought children dying was god punishing the mother for being a promiscuous.

Did they know to distinguish between the teachings of the church and what the local priest said? I don't think they did. The priest was their local lord governor and they did what he said.

nhunter100 · 08-03-2017 02:56PM

Shurimgreat wrote:

The nuns. They still could have said no. Its not like the nuns were holding a gun to their head. They also could have blown the whistle. As could inspectors and various governments of the day. Again I apportion most of the blame to the religious order and the governments of the day who should have done more.

Again you wish to ignore what position the clergy occupied in society. As for blowing a whistle we have seen how whistle blowers have been treated by the organisations they worked for.

nhunter100 · 08-03-2017 02:59PM

Shurimgreat wrote:

Should nuns and priests born after 1961 accept some of the blame for Tuam? Its a ridiculous point.

If those that were born after '61 choose to enter into an organisation with such an abhorrent attitude towards the most vulnerable then yes they are cupable as they by virtue of joining also agree with said organisations actions. Not difficult to follow really.

08-03-2017 03:01PM

kylith wrote: »

I think that in as much as the general public knew about these places they did not know exactly what was going on in there. They probably knew that children were put up for adoption, but not that they were forcibly removed. They knew that the women worked, but not as slave labour. Just as the German public knew that the Jewish population had been moved to camps, but were told that it was so they could be with their own kind, not that they were being slaughtered by the train-load.

Do you think that the bishops, priests, and pope want an investigation? Do you think that they give two shts what the congregation want? The heirarchy of the church will, as ever, fight tooth and nail to make sure that no investigation is carried out, and that if one is that they will not pay a penny in compensation.

Much like any part of society, I think that some do, and some don't.

In other words, anyone with nothing to hide has nothing to fear. Anyone who has something to hide - in any part of society - is not going to want an investigation.

ScumLord wrote: »

The last generation may have been the ones that carried it out but we're the ones that have to deal with it. We have to make sure an institution like the church can never hold that kind of power over the people again.

Just like we're the ones messing up the environment but it will be the next generation that will have to deal with it. It's not fair but it's the way it is.

Just the Church? Not society as a whole?

Because, if that's all we have to make sure of, there will be scandals aplenty down the line about something else.

ScumLord wrote: »

You have to remember that they thought the church knew what it was doing. So if they hear women are kept prisoners and children dying they probably thought that those people deserved it, the church would know, right? They probably thought children dying was god punishing the mother for being a promiscuous.

Did they know to distinguish between the teachings of the church and what the local priest said? I don't think they did. The priest was their local lord governor and they did what he said.

I think they did, tbh. Remember, some of them did raise these children, many of whom could ill afford to do so. Others who could afford to raise the babies chose not to.

nhunter100 · 08-03-2017 03:02PM

Shurimgreat wrote:

You can say the church forced the people to do this and that. But at the end of the day, the people, including I'd imagine your grandparents had free will.

Who forced the church to behave the way they did. Who forced the nuns to sell children, abuse the single mothers in their care, who forced the clergy to abuse, to rape and in some cases to kill ?

nhunter100 · 08-03-2017 03:04PM

Shurimgreat wrote:

I'm pretty certain a lot of people, even most people at the time had a fair idea of what was going on, or perhaps worse, decided to bury their heads in the sand or turn a blind eye.

So this justified the behaviour that went on in the homes and institutions run by the religious orders ?

ScumLord · 08-03-2017 03:05PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Just the Church? Not society as a whole?

Because, if that's all we have to make sure of, there will be scandals aplenty down the line about something else.

It was the church's morals that were the route cause of the problem. The state didn't do it's job, it allowed itself to be second to the will of the church.

I think they did, tbh. Remember, some of them did raise these children, many of whom could ill afford to do so. Others who could afford to raise the babies chose not to.

I'm sure it happened too. But I'm remembering my grannies here, they were devout, the priest was an honored guest, even in school everyone would treat a visiting clergy member like a teenager would treat an international celebrity.

smurgen · 08-03-2017 03:06PM

The church convinced everyone they were the only game in town.that they were experts in mother and child affairs.

nhunter100 · 08-03-2017 03:07PM

laoch na mona wrote:

Stories about abuse in leterfrack were published in the 1960s but again they were ignored

A young boy was beaten to death in Letterfrack by one of the 'good' fathers. The priest's punishment consisted of him being sent to Africa to be a missionary. The church covered up the murder at the time. Late 30's.

carolinej · 08-03-2017 03:08PM

I was looking at Google maps and street view and the area where the home was located. I have noticed that literally across the road from the former home is a very large cemetary that obviously served the town of Tuam. I cannot believe that the nums or whoever was calling the shots in that place could not have buried the babies and small children there in a plot with a headstone and their name. Unbelievable.

nhunter100 · 08-03-2017 03:08PM

Shurimgreat wrote:

I for one am disgusted by the behaviour of the church of the time. But I am equally disgusted by the rest of society at the time. I hope that clarifies my viewpoint.

Who carried out the abuse? I'll give you a clue, they liked to wear black and pray alot.

ScumLord · 08-03-2017 03:11PM

carolinej wrote: »

I was looking at Google maps and street view and the area where the home was located. I have noticed that literally across the road from the former home is a very large cemetary that obviously served the town of Tuam. I cannot believe that the nums or whoever was calling the shots in that place could not have buried the babies and small children there in a plot with a headstone and their name. Unbelievable.

Plots cost money and would have pissed off the locals if all their plots were filled.

nhunter100 · 08-03-2017 03:13PM

carolinej wrote:

I was looking at Google maps and street view and the area where the home was located. I have noticed that literally across the road from the former home is a very large cemetary that obviously served the town of Tuam. I cannot believe that the nums or whoever was calling the shots in that place could not have buried the babies and small children there in a plot with a headstone and their name. Unbelievable.

They didn't want to spend money on living children ( some died of malnutrition/ minor infections if treated with antibiotics) they most assuredly were not going to spend money on the dead.

nhunter100 · 08-03-2017 03:15PM

ScumLord wrote:

Plots cost money and would have pissed off the locals if all their plots were filled.

If only the church owned some land themselves around Tuam.

carolinej · 08-03-2017 03:17PM

ScumLord wrote: »

Plots cost money and would have pissed off the locals if all their plots were filled.

All the money they were raking in between the adoptions, government money, the Co Co paying for the upkeep of building aswell as probably plenty of donations. So much for being a religious "charitable" order. They were more like a ruthless corporation profit driven. Where is all the money today, spent / hidden.

laoch na mona · 08-03-2017 03:20PM

nhunter100 wrote: »

They didn't want to spend money on living children ( some died of malnutrition/ minor infections if treated with antibiotics) they most assuredly were not going to spend money on the dead.

Also the Catholic church wasn't fond of allowing the unbaptised to be buried in consecrated ground

Shurimgreat · 08-03-2017 03:21PM

nhunter100 wrote: »

Again you wish to ignore what position the clergy occupied in society. As for blowing a whistle we have seen how whistle blowers have been treated by the organisations they worked for.

I didn't ignore it. Read my posts again. I asked who put the church in that position? Ultimately politicians and the people. They outsourced dealing with unmarried mothers to the church. In effect they asked the RCC to do the dirty work. Unwanted babies has always been a controversial issue, even today, eg the abortion debate.

My point all along is that the society and the general population of the time as well as politicians should also be held to account and their behaviour questioned.

nhunter100 · 08-03-2017 03:23PM

carolinej wrote:

Where is all the money today, spent / hidden.

If you are referring to the Bon Secour order, the money is in private hospitals generating a nice profit. They had as some posters here would have you believe not got the more to bury the dead children, but yet after the home in Tuam closed they had the money to remove the deceased nuns from their graves in Tuam also build a substantial monument to the deceased and rebury near the orders HQ.

"Significant" numbers of babies remains actually found

Comments