"Significant" numbers of babies remains actually found

Graces7 wrote: »

Post you were replying to' but the state DID know. Again I advise, read Ryan and Murphy reports, all online. They knew. All of it.

Sadly they all knew what was going on. Anyone who objected openly was ejected, usually within 24 hours, on the street, literally.

Many stayed because they hoped and believed they could.. dilute or lessen the abuse and many did just that. Many of the survivors, in the reports, speak of such Sisters. Of kindness shown.

I have in all my years in Ireland rarely met a priest and I have met many, who will even look you in the face.

They all knew. Ireland is such a small place.

Yes, the state knew. There is no question of that, and the cynic in me wonders if all the "outrage" of TDs (and their supporters?) - about what happened in these homes isn't just trying to deflect from the State's responsibility.

Re: The knowledge of the clergy.

I wasn't actually talking about the clergy of that time when I mentioned the two priests crying on the altar about abuse - though, in fairness, I'm probably guilty, to an extent, of assuming the priests I know are broadly similar to the priests of that era.
(But, of course, that's impossible, because the time frame is too long.)

You made me think about it - and the reason I made that assumption was because the first priest I mentioned would have been slightly older than you - and he cried openly on the altar at Sunday mass, and apologised to the congregation, when the news about Bishop Casey became public. The whole parish genuinely grieved when he died. (Thankfully, he died before the rest of the scandals became public. It would have destroyed him.)

The second priest would be in his 60s now. He cried when he read the Bishops letter of apology to the Diocese, for abuse suffered by children.

I've known that priest since my early teens. He's a good man.

On the other hand - the priest I mentioned who defended an abuser from the pulpit would be in his early 70s now (rough guess!). He defended an infamous paedophile - and was responsible for a mass walkout from the Chapel by the parishioners.
And, imo - they were perfectly right to walk out!:mad:

I tell you these stories so you can understand why I made the assumptions that all the clergy were not the same.

But, now, the question is - were the clergy who visited these homes (if they visited?) of the same mindset as the two priests who were horrified, or the type that defended the behaviour of a paedophile?

I'm relieved to hear, for instance, that many of the nuns showed kindness.

I genuinely don't know how many of the priests at the time knew exactly what was going on in the homes.

Again, you made me think, when you commented about confessions.

AFAIK - the local priest would normally have gone to the convent to hear Nuns confessions at that time (as in, pre-Vatican 2).

I would assume (I don't know for sure) the same would be true for the nuns in the home, especially since at least one victim left Tuam at 5 years of age, never having seen a bird!:eek:

So, I suppose the question is - did the worst of these Nuns regard their cruelty as a sin to be confessed?

I don't know. Again, maybe some did - and plenty more would have been so self-righteous that they would have blindly considered they were being "righteous", or "saving souls" - or some such false, bulls**t justification.:mad:

So, lots of food for thought, there, for me anyway!:o

Graces7 wrote: »

Hilarious expression! roflol!!!!!!!!!! And totally and utterly erroneous and immoral. There is right and there is wrong. These basics do not alter. What was done was wrong to any civilised person... AH THERE IT IS!

Any society that abuses its young? Uncivilised, barbaric.. at whatever time in history

Sweep it all under the carpet; while survivors and relatives are still alive and in pain? Some improvement that is!

All absolutely true!

As to the "sweep it under the carpet" brigade. I'm speechless, I really am - and that doesn't happen very often!:mad:

But, it's AH - and AH, like any discussion forum, or group of people - has it's share of people who see black, or white - and never a shade of grey in between. For whatever reason.

That's why we need an enquiry. The sooner, and the broader the terms - the better.

sondagefaux wrote: »

Yes, so what?

It's the state's responsibility to ensure that I don't punch you in the face, and it has Gardaí on patrol to prevent that happening.

And yet people are assaulted in Ireland every single day.

Even if you have a totalitarian level of extreme state control and inspection, you can never prevent people from breaking the law or harming other people.

There were still 'ordinary' assaults and murders in Nazi Germany and Stalinist USSR.

No amount of state intervention can catch every single case of abuse or neglect.

So there will be cases of abuse and neglect that the state doesn't know about and isn't responsible for, unless you're arguing for an impossible level of state control and inspection.

Impossible? Seriously?

If you have doctors employed to check on Institutions, then those doctors are obliged to produce reports, no?

Your standards for what is possible is

A: An attempt to deflect, and

B: Unbelievably low.