"Significant" numbers of babies remains actually found

nhunter100 · 08-03-2017 03:24PM

laoch na mona wrote:

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

Considering the ages of some of the children that died, I'd find it unbelievable to think they weren't baptised. They didn't charge for baptising did they?

carolinej · 08-03-2017 03:25PM

laoch na mona wrote: »

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

Such BS really when you think about it. What sin is a tiny little baby going to have. Reading through this forum someone mentioned they had a sibling who had died very young back in the 1970's and the child wasn't given a proper buriel because the priest deemed he hadn't lived a life as so young. My mam had a baby brother who died in 1950's who's name wasn't put on the family headstone and despite us getting his birth cert, there is no official death record or church burial record for him. Most likely the same view was taken by the clergy at the time. Makes sense now why I could not get any death/burial record.

carolinej · 08-03-2017 03:28PM

nhunter100 wrote: »

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.

This made me so mad when I heard it. They literally abandoned the place and left the children without a backward's glance. When I think of the small babies alone in that ground surrounded by the 21st century, it makes me upset.

nhunter100 · 08-03-2017 03:28PM

Shurimgreat wrote:

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.

Yes you did, the constitution holds the church in revered terms, a politician who went against the church had a short career. Ever hear of a Bishop McQuaid? The dirty work ? Is that the description you wish to use for the abhorrent behaviour of the religious orders involved. Abuse, both physical and mental. Rape, torture and in some cases murder. Not 'dirty work', use the proper descriptive words.

laoch na mona · 08-03-2017 03:34PM

carolinej wrote: »

Such BS really when you think about it. What sin is a tiny little baby going to have. Reading through this forum someone mentioned they had a sibling who had died very young back in the 1970's and the child wasn't given a proper buriel because the priest deemed he hadn't lived a life as so young. My mam had a baby brother who died in 1950's who's name wasn't put on the family headstone and despite us getting his birth cert, there is no official death record or church burial record for him. Most likely the same view was taken by the clergy at the time. Makes sense now why I could not get any death/burial record.

Children were sometimes buried in the grounds of hospitals, if they weren't baptised (my grandmother lost a child and that is what was done in the 1960s)

pre Vatican 2 a woman with a coil in technically couldn't enter a church because it was a contraceptive device which denied life

Suicide victims were also turned aware in some cases, at the very least the priest let it be known that they died 'in sin'

ScumLord · 08-03-2017 03:38PM

carolinej wrote: »

They were more like a ruthless corporation profit driven. Where is all the money today, spent / hidden.

There was probably systemic corruption too. As I remember it priest were always loaded buying new cars every two years and taking holidays all over the place, I'd say they soaked up a large amount of the money.

Shurimgreat wrote: »

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.

The thing we have to remember about the current tolerant European is that we're the oddballs. For hundreds of years the church ruled with an iron fist and governments wouldn't question that power for fear of the church having all it's followers turning on them.

We can't look back on that period without baring in mind that mindsets were different, the powers of the church were different and politicians were different. If we were alive back then we'd likely have behaved exactly the same way. So it's a bit pointless trying to shame people from that time period. All we can do is ensure it doesn't happen again, and there are plenty of times when people on here have promoted similar ideas when it comes to travellers. Taking their children off them because they're "backwards" and we (the state) know better.

carolinej · 08-03-2017 03:43PM

laoch na mona wrote: »

Children were sometimes buried in the grounds of hospitals, if they weren't baptised (my grandmother lost a child and that is what was done in the 1960s)

pre Vatican 2 a woman with a coil in technically couldn't enter a church because it was a contraceptive device which denied life

Suicide victims were also turned aware in some cases, at the very least the priest let it be known that they died 'in sin'

The baby, who died, was about 6 months old & was buried in the family plot because. A few months later they buried my mam's grandfather in the same plot and when my Granny went to the buriel, the grave diggers had left her baby's coffin out on the ground to make room for the new coffin. My uncle told us this story a few years ago and said it upset my Granny terribly. Shocking stuff really.

Lukker- · 08-03-2017 03:51PM

The government during the time were as guilty as the families who forced mothers to give up their children and the nuns who ran the homes.

The burden of care should have fallen onto the state when a child was given up for adoption but they were happy to pay the church to handle it for them as doing it themselves would have been more costly.

After being pawned off to the church, did the government initiate any oversight or inspections to see how those in the care of the church were getting on? Not a chance, they were just happy that they were no longer the states problem.

nhunter100 · 08-03-2017 03:55PM

Lukker- wrote:

The burden of care should have fallen onto the state when a child was given up for adoption but they were happy to pay the church to handle it for them as doing it themselves would have been more costly.

The state gave the nuns the equivalent of 110 euros a week in today's money for each child in their care not a fortune granted but not peanuts either. They also recieved charitable donations along with income from the work preformed by the women that lived in these homes. ie the Laundries.

carolinej · 08-03-2017 04:01PM

nhunter100 wrote: »

The state gave the nuns the equivalent of 110 euros a week in today's money for each child in their care not a fortune granted but not peanuts either. They also recieved charitable donations along with income from the work preformed by the women that lived in these homes. ie the Laundries.

I was just thinking of Dr Noel Browne and his pioneering idea for the Mother and Baby Scheme but he was knocked down by the Church and other Government ministers. I remember reading his autobiography - against the tide - as a young teenager because it was at home in my parents house. It's probably still there. I must ask them how they came to have it as they are not book readers by any stretch of the imagination, so obviously the book had an impact at the time that they have it.

Grandeeod · 08-03-2017 04:15PM

carolinej wrote: »

I was just thinking of Dr Noel Browne and his pioneering idea for the Mother and Baby Scheme but he was knocked down by the Church and other Government ministers. I remember reading his autobiography - against the tide - as a young teenager because it was at home in my parents house. It's probably still there. I must ask them how they came to have it as they are not book readers by any stretch of the imagination, so obviously the book had an impact at the time that they have it.

Well worth a read. I recommend it.

08-03-2017 04:26PM

ScumLord wrote: »

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.

Partly. And yet - again - not quite.

A big part of the problem was the self-righteous judgement of the neighbours.

Now, you can argue that that was the morals taught by the Church - but that doesn't explain why non-Catholic Countries had the same judgemental attitude - or that many non-Catholic Countries still do have that attitude, or worse...

Like it or not, the Catholic church was not alone in it's condemnation of these girls.

Sadly, it was that condemnation that made what followed possible. The people who treated these girls so cruelly are responsible for their actions, but there's plenty of blame to go around, too.

ScumLord wrote: »

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.

The priest was an honoured guest in my Grandparents house, too - but they still did what they believed was right, and plenty of others likewise.

So, I suppose what I'm saying is, if we just blame the Church, and ignore the influence of society as a whole at that time - if we don't stop to consider how self righteous, condemnatory attitudes contributed - then we will make the same mistakes again, and again.

Because as long as society finds somebody to condemn - whether that's single parents, or the unemployed, or just someone who dares to be different - then we have not learned the most valuable lesson of all:
The one that says that those we condemn are made to suffer.

So, yes, by all means investigate, if there is someone to be held accountable, then do it - but that will not change the suffering of the victims one iota.

A change of attitude by every one of us who are quick to condemn (and I include myself in that, I'm not having a go at anyone here) - might just prevent victims of another type in future.

It's worth a try, anyway.

ScumLord · 08-03-2017 05:07PM

Deleted User wrote: »

The priest was an honoured guest in my Grandparents house, too - but they still did what they believed was right, and plenty of others likewise.

So, I suppose what I'm saying is, if we just blame the Church, and ignore the influence of society as a whole at that time - if we don't stop to consider how self righteous, condemnatory attitudes contributed - then we will make the same mistakes again, and again.

I agree, and I'm not trying to say that the state is innocent or anything, just pointing out that Christian morals played a huge part in this and like you point out, those attitudes aren't really gone they've just changed. We're all too quick to condemn all travellers, all Muslims, stc.. We can see those same holier than thou attitudes all over facebook where people condemn based on the flimsiest of evidence.

We are a more enlightened people than they would have been back then. We have more education, more access to information, and more avenues for open debate. People back then relied on their church much more, it was harder to seek out alternative views and expressing them lead to condemnation. The church knew what was happening and covered it up, the rest of the population had to guess and guessing put you at odds with the church. The church is clearly the main culprit here, they took advantage of a weakened nation.

Itssoeasy · 08-03-2017 05:26PM

I don't know how to feel about not just tuam but this in general. I would have talked to a lot of people in their 70s and while they do say that what happened was and is horrific and indefensible. They also say that without the church in the 1920 and 1930s who would have ran the hospitals and schools ? The nation was broke and a lot of children got at the very least a basic standard of education.

I see it through the prism of an early thirties person who thankfully never had to want for much growing up but in comparison to people who would have lived through much worse conditions than I did.

Colser · 08-03-2017 05:28PM

If we accept that we are more "enlightened" and different now I wonder how many people who shunned and made life so much more difficult for women that had babies back then will apologise to them now...they know who they are but have they actually changed their opinions I wonder?

Itssoeasy · 08-03-2017 05:28PM

ScumLord wrote: »

I agree, and I'm not trying to say that the state is innocent or anything, just pointing out that Christian morals played a huge part in this and like you point out, those attitudes aren't really gone they've just changed. We're all too quick to condemn all travellers, all Muslims, stc.. We can see those same holier than thou attitudes all over facebook where people condemn based on the flimsiest of evidence.

We are a more enlightened people than they would have been back then. We have more education, more access to information, and more avenues for open debate. People back then relied on their church much more, it was harder to seek out alternative views and expressing them lead to condemnation. The church knew what was happening and covered it up, the rest of the population had to guess and guessing put you at odds with the church. The church is clearly the main culprit here, they took advantage of a weakened nation.

The one quote from a politician at the time that sums up the mindset of the nation at the time was "I'm catholic first, Irish second." That just shows how much power the church had. It's hard for me to grasp how much power they had.

Itssoeasy · 08-03-2017 05:30PM

Colser wrote: »

If we accept that we are more "enlightened" and different now I wonder how many people who shunned and made life so much more difficult for women that had babies back then will apologise to them now...they know who they are but have they actually changed their opinions I wonder?

I would hope that most people would have changed their opinions. Now whether they would appologise is another thing.

TheWolfSheep · 08-03-2017 05:31PM

We are about to start digging up mass graves from institutions all over the place. The worlds media will be here asking what the fcuking hell went on here. When this happens I will ask for a 30 second interview in front of a camara. I will point the finger at who is responsible.

Fianna Fail

Fine Gael

The Catholic Church

The State

(All four of them, a bunch of ruthless rightwing *****, who ran riot for a century. A vicious spree of torture, rape, death camps, slave labour camps, child abuse, shocking beyond belief womans rights abuses, collusion, denial, starvation, hidden mass graves, profiteering, mind control and manipulation, medical mutilation of pregnant women pre and post birth, Implementing right wing economic policy all the way through, spitting on the poor, crushing and destroying any opposition to their reign, trechery and treson, forcing many to flee the country in terror, decade after decade.)

Thats what I will say if they dare try to spread the blame for this over the good people of Ireland, who were led up the garden path by a bunch of malignant social engineers who should have never been left near power in the first place.

I will point at the Communist Party of Ireland, who called for an enquiry into the death of a boy in Artane in 1935. I will say they are the only ones around here that have any sort of credibility.

Boggy Turf · 08-03-2017 05:32PM

Unbaptised children were often buried together in 'cillins' in some field in the middle of nowhere. Most of them have no traces now. They are very sad places.

This Tuam story sickens me so much. How could they? Beggars belief. I am glad this Roman cult is dying here.

ScumLord · 08-03-2017 05:38PM

Colser wrote: »

If we accept that we are more "enlightened" and different now I wonder how many people who shunned and made life so much more difficult for women that had babies back then will apologise to them now...they know who they are but have they actually changed their opinions I wonder?

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I would hope that most people would have changed their opinions. Now whether they would appologise is another thing.

These people are in their 70s now aren't they. I've met the teacher who made my life in national school a living hell, constantly getting hit and kept in during breaks. But he's a doddering old fool now. He could barely tell you his own name.

I don't think you can really expect much from them.

But people have changed their opinions and that's a big deal. I remember growing up hearing men talk about gays with nothing but disdain. Now those same men have a live and let live attitude. That is a win for society. We can't really go back and start labelling people for holding popular beliefs of the time.

sondagefaux · 08-03-2017 05:41PM

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I don't know how to feel about not just tuam but this in general. I would have talked to a lot of people in their 70s and while they do say that what happened was and is horrific and indefensible. They also say that without the church in the 1920 and 1930s who would have ran the hospitals and schools ? The nation was broke and a lot of children got at the very least a basic standard of education.

I see it through the prism of an early thirties person who thankfully never had to want for much growing up but in comparison to people who would have lived through much worse conditions than I did.

How much about life in Ireland in the 1920s and 1930s would people in their 70s have first-hand experience of?

A person who is 79 this year was born in 1938, a person who is 70 this year was born in 1947.

The state (by which I mean the people through their taxes) funded the schools, hospitals, industrial schools, mother & baby homes and other institutions run by religious denominations with grants, payments of salaries, payments for buildings, payments for improvements and extensions to buildings, payments for equipment and so on.

The extra costs of the state providing this infrastructure and services itself would have been marginal and could have been funded by tax increases.

Just after WWII, when it was 'flat broke', the UK implemented the National Health Service, created the UK's welfare state to care for people from 'cradle to grave' and began an extensive programme of council house building, including the creation of several new towns.

A state may be poor but if it pools its resources it can provide decent public services and decent public infrastructure, if the political will is there.

08-03-2017 05:42PM

ScumLord wrote: »

I agree, and I'm not trying to say that the state is innocent or anything, just pointing out that Christian morals played a huge part in this and like you point out, those attitudes aren't really gone they've just changed. We're all too quick to condemn all travellers, all Muslims, stc.. We can see those same holier than thou attitudes all over facebook where people condemn based on the flimsiest of evidence.

We are a more enlightened people than they would have been back then. We have more education, more access to information, and more avenues for open debate. People back then relied on their church much more, it was harder to seek out alternative views and expressing them lead to condemnation. The church knew what was happening and covered it up, the rest of the population had to guess and guessing put you at odds with the church. The church is clearly the main culprit here, they took advantage of a weakened nation.

You're missing the point. We, as a Nation, haven't changed that much at all. (I don't think any other Nation has, either, tbf)

We still condemn. We still make it easy for people to be made victims.
I think the greatest thing we could do for those babies and their Mothers, is to honour them by each and every one of us saying:
"I will not make it that easy for anyone to create victims again"
Church, State, Gardaí, Banks, Politicians - it doesn't matter - when we accept the rhetoric we are fed, and sometimes even repeat it - we are doing the same thing society did back then - and that's a thought I find very, very uncomfortable.

I agree that it was harder for people to seek out information. But, people did know that those places were hellholes.
That's why some people refused to send their daughters there. Yet, the priest, in my Grandparents case at least, continued to visit.

Maybe everyone didn't know the full story - but, in the case of the way those babies were "buried" - some people knew.
And it continued.

This, imo, is what we have to guard against in future. In all walks of life. Against all institutions, or individuals.

The tragedy is that we are almost bound to fail if we just lay it all at the door of the Church. That's the easy way out - but I don't believe it's the best way.

smurgen · 08-03-2017 05:46PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Partly. And yet - again - not quite.

A big part of the problem was the self-righteous judgement of the neighbours.

Now, you can argue that that was the morals taught by the Church - but that doesn't explain why non-Catholic Countries had the same judgemental attitude - or that many non-Catholic Countries still do have that attitude, or worse...

Like it or not, the Catholic church was not alone in it's condemnation of these girls.

Sadly, it was that condemnation that made what followed possible. The people who treated these girls so cruelly are responsible for their actions, but there's plenty of blame to go around, too.

The priest was an honoured guest in my Grandparents house, too - but they still did what they believed was right, and plenty of others likewise.

So, I suppose what I'm saying is, if we just blame the Church, and ignore the influence of society as a whole at that time - if we don't stop to consider how self righteous, condemnatory attitudes contributed - then we will make the same mistakes again, and again.

Because as long as society finds somebody to condemn - whether that's single parents, or the unemployed, or just someone who dares to be different - then we have not learned the most valuable lesson of all:
The one that says that those we condemn are made to suffer.

So, yes, by all means investigate, if there is someone to be held accountable, then do it - but that will not change the suffering of the victims one iota.

A change of attitude by every one of us who are quick to condemn (and I include myself in that, I'm not having a go at anyone here) - might just prevent victims of another type in future.

It's worth a try, anyway.

Or how about for once we nail people and make example of them?it's always societies fault isn't it? Everytime some scumbag sells drugs it's the social economic issues society created that made him do it..how about this for a novel approach...punish those who carried out the acts! It's like those scumbag nuns had no other choice but to dump those bodies in the septic tank. Any other arrangement would have been better than that which happened.at what point did the nuns come forward and say that mortality rates were climbing because of a lack of funding?

ScumLord · 08-03-2017 05:52PM

Deleted User wrote: »

You're missing the point. We, as a Nation, haven't changed that much at all. (I don't think any other Nation has, either, tbf)

I disagree, I think Ireland is a lot different, even from the 80/90s when I was growing up. Ireland in the 50s was almost a third world country. Our state had only been around for 20 years or so, the Brits dropped us like a hot potato and we were completely on our own. It's hard to contemplate just how different life in 1950s Ireland was. Basics like indoor plumbing and electricity were still new, my parents talk about the first TV on the street.

The tragedy is that we are almost bound to fail if we just lay it all at the door of the Church. That's the easy way out - but I don't believe it's the best way.

I totally agree. It's up to the state to fix this, and the people should take onboard the lessons to be learned here about mob behaviour and not questioning authority. I'd agree in many ways the people are still asleep and prone to this happening again.

08-03-2017 05:54PM

smurgen wrote: »

Or how about for once we nail people and make example of them?it's always societies fault isn't it? Everytime some scumbag sells drugs it's the social economic issues society created that made him do it..how about this for a novel approach...punish those who carried out the acts! It's like those scumbag nuns had no other choice but to dump those bodies in the septic tank. Any other arrangement would have been better than that which happened.at what point did the nuns come forward and say that mortality rates were climbing because of a lack of funding?

I've said more than once that people should be held accountable.

But, for me, that means all the people, in all the Institutions.

The rest of my posts, with regard to not allowing this/similar to ever happen again, means that society itself needs to be very careful about colluding in condemning people, and thus enabling those who would abuse them.

That doesn't mean don't punish those who do wrong. It means be very careful not to enable them by joining the general condemnation that makes it possible.

They're two very different sides of the same coin, and they're both equally valid, imo.

smurgen · 08-03-2017 06:02PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I've said more than once that people should be held accountable.

But, for me, that means all the people, in all the Institutions.

The rest of my posts, with regard to not allowing this/similar to ever happen again, means that society itself needs to be very careful about colluding in condemning people, and thus enabling those who would abuse them.

That doesn't mean don't punish those who do wrong. It means be very careful not to enable them by joining the general condemnation that makes it possible.

They're two very different sides of the same coin, and they're both equally valid, imo.

Okay.if we're not to let something similar happen again I think the church needs to be removed from all of the states operational activities.at the end of the day it's a religion and these people weren't qualified to teach or provide medical treatment in the first place.

08-03-2017 06:04PM

ScumLord wrote: »

I disagree, I think Ireland is a lot different, even from the 80/90s when I was growing up. Ireland in the 50s was almost a third world country. Our state had only been around for 20 years or so, the Brits dropped us like a hot potato and we were completely on our own. It's hard to contemplate just how different life in 1950s Ireland was. Basics like indoor plumbing and electricity were still new, my parents talk about the first TV on the street.

Ireland is a lot different in many ways.
On the old self-righteous scale, not so much.

Most of us don't condemn single parents anymore - at least, not for being single parents. On the other hand, there are plenty of self-righteous comments to go around about the Welfare bill, or "free" houses.

Likewise, there were plenty of cheerleaders for the "We all partied" line after the crash.

There are still plenty around who spew the line about how everyone bought over-priced houses, so don't deserve any sympathy if they end up homeless.

Some did buy houses they could never realistically afford, that's true. But not everyone who has since lost their job did. An awful lot of people bought homes that they would have been able to afford if the banks hadn't crashed, with the resulting loss of jobs that were previously thought to be secure.

So, the blame game still goes on. And it very much still gets taken advantage of by those with the power to do so.

ScumLord wrote: »

I totally agree. It's up to the state to fix this, and the people should take onboard the lessons to be learned here about mob behaviour and not questioning authority. I'd agree in many ways the people are still asleep and prone to this happening again.

+ 1000

Colser · 08-03-2017 06:10PM

ScumLord wrote: »

I disagree, I think Ireland is a lot different, even from the 80/90s when I was growing up. Ireland in the 50s was almost a third world country. Our state had only been around for 20 years or so, the Brits dropped us like a hot potato and we were completely on our own. It's hard to contemplate just how different life in 1950s Ireland was. Basics like indoor plumbing and electricity were still new, my parents talk about the first TV on the street.

I totally agree. It's up to the state to fix this, and the people should take onboard the lessons to be learned here about mob behaviour and not questioning authority. I'd agree in many ways the people are still asleep and prone to this happening again.

But the state cannot change people's attitudes and thoughts....leaving aside the "homes" look at the way so many young children were treated in schools ...absolutely horrific .. administered by well educated people..who's fault was that?How can someone treat a defenseless child in such a way? Why do laws have to be made to stop that kind of behaviour..surely people have to take responsibility for their own actions.

Of course it was very difficult almost impossible to make a stance against the "authorities" years ago and I can see why some people went along with to avoid repercussions for themselves but a lot of it was done in places where there was no one watching and that is inexcusable.

The Rape of Lucretia · 08-03-2017 06:46PM

nhunter100 wrote: »

So you wish to dismiss the power and influence the church had on society? Society didn't tell the clergy hoe to behave with children or the most vulnerable. The clergy claimed to follow the teachings of the Bible. Anyone know where in the Bible it says dead children should be consigned to septic tanks, living children if possible be sold to rich middle class families and the women in the churches care abused and forced to do menial work. Maybe just one passage?

I dont. The church indeed had great power, sure. But the people were part to it. It was a catholic state : you didnt cross a priest, a mother was proud if her son joined the priesthood, everyone went to mass all the time.
And looked up to and granted religious bodies great scope and freedom.That was the society of the era. Sure, we all know catholicism is bonkers now, and regard the church dominated state of the past with embarrasement, revulsion, and thanks they we have moved on from it.
But people farmed out their morality to men wearing black dresses - and must must accept the common blame for their backwardness - not castigate a handful as if they alone were to blame for the more repellent aspects of that environment. And that was acceptable to them in that context. To decide that we will now judge them by a transformed one is extraordinarily unfair.

volchitsa · 08-03-2017 06:54PM

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

I dont. The church indeed had great power, sure. But the people were part to it. It was a catholic state : you didnt cross a priest, a mother was proud if her son joined the priesthood, everyone went to mass all the time.
And looked up to and granted religious bodies great scope and freedom.That was the society of the era. Sure, we all know catholicism is bonkers now, and regard the church dominated state of the past with embarrasement, revulsion, and thanks they we have moved on from it.
But people farmed out their morality to men wearing black dresses - and must must accept the common blame for their backwardness - not castigate a handful as if they alone were to blame for the more repellent aspects of that environment. And that was acceptable to them in that context. To decide that we will now judge them by a transformed one is extraordinarily unfair.

Would that have anything to do with the fact that the men in black dresses were considered the world over - not just in Ireland - to be some sort of specialists in, eh, morality? You know, as in, they had actually studied it for years, supposedly?

So it would have been very daring, and possibly very strange, for a barely literate working man or small farmer to decide that he knew better than the priests and the bishops and the entire institution of the whole country what was the right thing to do when his daughter came home pregnant.

He might have known how to deliver a stuck calf, or when to plant his crops.
He wouldn't have expected to know better than the priests what was right and wrong.
After all, who had taught him his understanding of morality anyway?

"Significant" numbers of babies remains actually found

Comments