NY Times: The lost children of Tuam

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Before the 1960s, the province of Quebec in Canada was in many ways similar to Ireland. Catholic church dominated and they held massive influence and power in relation to education, health, social services, etc.

Then all of a sudden the Quiet Revolution happened, and Quebec became secular. Religious freedom was preserved - in fact enhanced - nobody had to suffer the imposition of religion any longer while accessing a taxpayer funded state service. Ironically some of those responsible for triggering this change were liberal catholic clergy.

The parallels are obvious. But given all that has happened (that we know about) and still nothing, I think the capacity of the Irish population for tolerating and excusing its own exploitation and abuse is close to limitless.

Fizzlesque wrote: »

Although I found it difficult to read that article, I felt compelled to read it to the end. During my reading, I oscillated between horror at what could have been and enormous relief that in the late eighties, when I was a pregnant unmarried mother-to-be, the church didn't have quite the same grip it heartlessly and callously enjoyed once upon a time. It was still there, but not quite so vice-like.

It's 28 years since I agreed to have my child adopted and while I wasn't forced to make that choice, it wasn't what I wanted. I wanted to keep my baby but my father painted such a bleak picture of how our lives would unfold, I was terrified at the thought of inflicting such an awful 'fait accompli' on my child.

I bowed to the pressure and agreed to let another woman become my child's mother. When I read this New York Times article, it brought back a lot of half forgotten memories and while they make my heart feel heavy, they also bring some relief and a lot of gratitude. The relief comes from remembering that the times back then were very different to how they are now, and the guilt I've allowed build up, like years of debris in an uncleaned gutter, should be stopped in its tracks because I'm using my today-mind to view a years-ago decision. The gratitude probably needs no explanation - mostly that I wasn't sent to a mother and baby home to atone for my "sin" and eventually relinquish my baby, never to hear of her again.

My heart bleeds for the women that were sent to these places, who lost their babies either through death or adoption. To never be able to speak of their loss, to share their pain or to try ease some of their heartache. They punished the grieving and made light of their pain.

I have a semi-open adoption. I know where my child is. I have contact of sorts. I have hope she will come back to me some day. I can talk (and do, freely and often) about my emotions and my loss, but these women were silenced and shamed. Although it is 28 years since I said goodbye to my child, just yesterday I cried like a wounded animal, and wailed to the earless air around me asking it to send a message to her that I miss her and desperately want to see her again. Today, as I read that article, all I could think of was, lucky me, to have at least the chance of reunion. Lucky me to be allowed to express my love and my pain. Lucky me to know my child had a good childhood, was cared for, hugged, loved and always knew laughter, happiness and acceptance.

Those children and those women were treated barbarically. Made out to be filth when the truth was the filth was the church and those who put its obnoxious teachings into practice.

I feel anger when I read that article. Anger for myself, even though I got off lightly. Anger for those that suffered with no respite and no recourse. But, anger is no good and I've cried enough over the last 28 years to drown us all so I will dry my eyes and switch my attention to feeling grateful that among us are wonderful women like Catherine Corless whose tireless insistence on getting to the bottom of this story has brought this terrible truth into the light.