Mother Child Homes Discussion ###DO NOT POST WITHOUT READING 1st POST###

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 16-06-2014 02:51PM

Muise... wrote: »

<..>much as I don't think your minimising of the mortality rates of children in institutions by comparison to national rates (which it exceeds, so well done there) is helpful.

Helpful to what? I've simply pointed out that these facts were known at the time. I've stated the full facts of the matter, not a partial view of the situation to support some bias.

Flippyfloppy · 16-06-2014 03:02PM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

The vatican changed the law to no longer recognise formal defection. i beleieve they are still registering the interest of people who want to leave. I don't know why people get so worked up about it. It's not like it changes anything. Just stop calling yourself a Catholic

You should read my previous post for context.

In addition to my previous post, it happens that we each have basic human rights regarding religion :

According to the UN Declaration of Human Rights, humans are entitled to basic human rights, two of which are:

Article 18: The Freedom of Religion

"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."

and

Article 20:

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Spring Onion · 16-06-2014 03:02PM

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

Absolutely, there must have been a large income of cash coming in to the home with 300 inmates & free labour. One would think the nuns would go without to feed the hungry mouths of vulnerable infants....doesn't look like this was the case.

I wonder what the balance of the Vatican Bank was at that time.

Flippyfloppy · 16-06-2014 03:08PM

Spring Onion wrote: »

I wonder what the balance of the Vatican Bank was at that time.

At the moment its one of the richest businesses in the world with shares in Oil etc. I'd daresay it was worth a lot then. Seeing as they have gold worth billions they must have started accumulating it long ago.

16-06-2014 03:12PM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

The vatican changed the law to no longer recognise formal defection. i beleieve they are still registering the interest of people who want to leave. I don't know why people get so worked up about it. It's not like it changes anything. Just stop calling yourself a Catholic

Exactly. When filling in census forms, hospital admission forms, etc, just don't put anything for Religion - unless you've converted to another. That's what I and my family do. I've also let it be known to my family that I want NO religious content to my funeral, I've even put it in my Will.

Little CuChulainn · 16-06-2014 03:15PM

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

You should read my previous post for context.

In addition to my previous post, it happens that we each have basic human rights regarding religion :

According to the UN Declaration of Human Rights, humans are entitled to basic human rights, two of which are:

Article 18: The Freedom of Religion

"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."

and

Article 20:

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

in what way are you prevented from exercising your right to freely practice religion and in what way are you compelled to belong to an association? What requirements are placed on you?

Flippyfloppy · 16-06-2014 03:19PM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

in what way are you prevented from exercising your right to freely practice religion and in what way are you compelled to belong to an association? What requirements are placed on you?

In no more than 8 words : by not being allowed to leave the rcc.

humanji · 16-06-2014 03:34PM

Let's get back on topic folks.

sunflower27 · 16-06-2014 03:51PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Oh, I do know what you meant. But isn't the point that this was out in the wider community at the time. It's something we've forgotten, rather than something that was hidden.

Back then, the Church had a very strong hold over people so I am not surprised it was not discussed- same as the abuse of children. It happened and people were scared to talk about it.

I suppose this is just another example of the hold the Church had over people. Who told people that a pregnant, unwed mother was a sinner and should be locked away out of shame?

Those in authority in the church have done so much wrong to people. If you read the Bible (which I admit I haven't since I was a child in school), God doesn't judge. It was the church that decided unwed mothers were sinners and that their babies were worth far less than those of married women.

The nuns responsible for the abuse of those young women (and who no doubt believed they were better people) should be hanging their heads in shame.

How anyone could think killing an innocent child was OK in the eyes of God is beyond me.

Muise... · 16-06-2014 04:20PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Helpful to what? I've simply pointed out that these facts were known at the time. I've stated the full facts of the matter, not a partial view of the situation to support some bias.

What bias? That children in homes run by the church and funded by the state should not be dying of malnourishment and disease in greater numbers than those outside the homes? That they should have been given the dignity of decent burials in marked graves? The full facts - do you mean the socio-economic and cultural context of the time? - don't change my "bias" on that.

16-06-2014 04:37PM

Muise... wrote: »

...
Children in homes run by Anyone and funded by the state should not be dying of malnourishment and disease in greater numbers than those outside the homes
..

This salient point is missed time and time again.

If "Mother & Child Inc", a private company, had tendered to the State for the services that we are discussing, and had mortality rates akin to what we have seen, would they be afforded "it was the times" as an excuse?

Should the State 'treat' the Tenderers that we have had any different to how it would treat our hypothetical "Mother & Child Inc"?

Muise... · 16-06-2014 04:50PM

Deleted User wrote: »

This salient point is missed time and time again.

If "Mother & Child Inc", a private company, had tendered to the State for the services that we are discussing, and had mortality rates akin to what we have seen, would they be afforded "it was the times" as an excuse?

Should the State 'treat' the Tenderers that we have had any different to how it would treat our hypothetical "Mother & Child Inc"?

Gotcha, but I was trying to be as specific as possible in answer to GCU's charge of "bias".

16-06-2014 04:56PM

Muise... wrote: »

Gotcha, but I was trying to be as specific as possible in answer to GCU's charge of "bias".

The idea of bias is interesting, I think that if we look into Mother & Child Homes outside of the RCC specifications, we're still going to find issues.

The Bethany Home in Rathgar (Church of Ireland), buried 219 bodies over 27 years in unmarked graves in Mount Jerome Cemetery.

The Home there wasn't investigated in the McAleese report nor afforded entry into the RIRB scheme, something that didn't seem to make an awful lot of sense at the time. However, if a second Inquiry is set about concerning all Mother & Child Homes, it will certainly fall under their remit.

This isn't a RCC-only issue. It is a "State + Tenderers" issue, whomever they were at the time.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 16-06-2014 10:34PM

sunflower27 wrote: »

Back then, the Church had a very strong hold over people so I am not surprised it was not discussed- same as the abuse of children. It happened and people were scared to talk about it.

Except, it was discussed. That, for me, is the surprising aspect of this issue. If you browse the Dail debates of the period, these matters are openly discussed. There was absolutely no secret around very high infant mortality rates in institutions.

Muise... wrote: »

What bias? That children in homes run by the church and funded by the state should not be dying of malnourishment and disease in greater numbers than those outside the homes?

Well, on that, the comparison to rates in the UK suggest that they, too, had a significantly higher infant mortality rate among illegitimate infants. It was still significantly lower than here. But I think it does suggest that your belief that the rates within homes would be the same as outside simply wasn't a practical proposition at the time.

Still an issue. Probably one that might interest a social historian. But that's about it.

16-06-2014 11:01PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Except, it was discussed. That, for me, is the surprising aspect of this issue. If you browse the Dail debates of the period, these matters are openly discussed. There was absolutely no secret around very high infant mortality rates in institutions.
Well, on that, the comparison to rates in the UK suggest that they, too, had a significantly higher infant mortality rate among illegitimate infants. It was still significantly lower than here. But I think it does suggest that your belief that the rates within homes would be the same as outside simply wasn't a practical proposition at the time.

Still an issue. Probably one that might interest a social historian. But that's about it.

I'm sorry to ask this in two theads now, but is your entire issue with this topic that in your opinion "people should not be interested in it"? I can't help but read that in almost every post, but I find it difficult to understand why the fact that this matters to other people is particularly 'wrong' to you?

(happy to only have an answer in one thread, but found myself having to ask the question twice, apologies)

Muise... · 16-06-2014 11:02PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Well, on that, the comparison to rates in the UK suggest that they, too, had a significantly higher infant mortality rate among illegitimate infants. It was still significantly lower than here. But I think it does suggest that your belief that the rates within homes would be the same as outside simply wasn't a practical proposition at the time.

Still an issue. Probably one that might interest a social historian. But that's about it.

Social historian, sure. Or a human.

Spring Onion · 16-06-2014 11:18PM

Deleted User wrote: »

This salient point is missed time and time again.

If "Mother & Child Inc", a private company, had tendered to the State for the services that we are discussing, and had mortality rates akin to what we have seen, would they be afforded "it was the times" as an excuse?

Should the State 'treat' the Tenderers that we have had any different to how it would treat our hypothetical "Mother & Child Inc"?

Very good post, did anyone answer it?

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 17-06-2014 12:06AM

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm sorry to ask this in two theads now, but is your entire issue with this topic that in your opinion "people should not be interested in it"?

Well, clearly that isn't it. What I'm pointing out is that some of the (apologies, but putting it frankly) clichéd statements being made about this issue don't hold water.

Some might say they enjoy watching paint dry. And that's fine, who can tell them it's boring. But if someone says (for the sake of argument) that it's a secret that paint is damp for a while when first applied, that's obviously pants.

So, no, I have thought it's very clear from my posts that what I'm doing is pointing to plain facts that contradict some of the statements that people are making on this topic.

Spring Onion wrote: »

Very good post, did anyone answer it?

I think the point is whether, if a tender was issued, any better suppliers would have come forward. For better or worse, the reason for involving the religious orders was an attempt to find something better than the "county homes", which were basically the old workhouses you'll remember from school history. A quote from the Dail Debates (as an accessible online source) gives a picture of why someone might be looking for a new approach

http://www.oireachtas-debates.gov.ie/D/0034/D.0034.193005010008.html

Dáil Éireann - Volume 34 - 01 May, 1930
In Committee on Finance. - Vote 40—Office of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health (Resumed).

Another aspect of public health work that has been referred to almost every year is the question of overcrowding in the county homes. County homes are, I take it, places chiefly for the convenience of old and infirm people. In a great many places there are many besides old and infirm people in these county homes —people who ought not to be there, imbeciles, lunatics, unmarried mothers and their children. There ought to be—again, it is a question of finance—proper segregation of these classes. Unmarried mothers and their children ought not to be in the county homes, and there ought to be proper provision made in the mental hospitals for imbeciles and lunatics. Such people afflicted mentally cannot get treatment in the county homes. Whatever slight chances of cure or improvement there may be in some of the cases, it certainly will not take place as long as they remain in county homes and get the kind of attention which in ordinary circumstances they are bound to get in these institutions, which are already overcrowded with other classes who are entitled to be there.

I think that's helpful in reminding us that the newly independent Ireland wasn't especially over-provided with social infrastructure.

Did the actions in response to this help? No, as was admitted at the time. (Note the following quote is about the infant mortality, in general, being too high for preventable reasons.)

http://www.oireachtas-debates.gov.ie/D/0098/D.0098.194512120029.html

Dáil Éireann - Volume 98 - 12 December, 1945
Public Health Bill, 1945—Second Stage.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government and Public Health (Dr. Ward):

Before leaving the subject of the mother and her child, let me say a few words on the subject of infant mortality. We in Ireland have rather an indifferent reputation as compared with other countries in this respect, yet it is not fully deserved, and is due to circumstances which have been hitherto beyond our control but which are rapidly ameliorating. Our infant mortality rate for 1944 was 79. This is too high. It could be brought down to a much lower figure. By infant mortality I mean the number of deaths occurring each year per thousand live births.

When it is realised that each year hundreds of children all over the country die from what are clearly preventable causes, it should be at once apparent to the House that every assistance must be granted to enable us to remedy the position. I have said that our infant mortality figures, which have averaged 72 for the ten years 1935 to 1944, do not truly reflect the position, and would indicate that throughout Ireland infants die at an excessive rate. I wish to make it very clear that that is not the position. While we have black spots which are largely responsible for maintaining a high average rate of infant mortality, the fact is worth nothing that for the last ten years the average infant mortality rate for County Mayo has been 43; for County Monaghan 47; and for County Leitrim 47; figures which, under the circumstances, are comparable with those in any other country, and no one will say that these are the richest counties in Ireland. On the other hand, Dublin County Borough has had a ten years' average of 104, Waterford 95, Cork 89 and Limerick 83.

This matter is being given considerable study and in Dublin at present, efforts to reorganise the care of infants are being made, but no amount of theorising, of discussing the why and wherefore will fill the empty cots and cradles in the hundreds of homes where babies have died. We must regroup our forces, take additional powers, spend more money, and by hard work and attention to every minute detail, and by aiming at the highest standards, continue the fight until success is achieved.

I'd suggest that's about as frank an admission of failure as you'll ever hear from a professional politician.

Oh, and just to give a flavour of the why the whole "De monzders UZEd de babbies for de vakzination teztz" might need to be reconsidered

http://www.oireachtas-debates.gov.ie/D/0097/D.0097.194505290041.html

Dáil Éireann - Volume 97 - 29 May, 1945
Committee on Finance. - Vote 41—Local Government and Public Health.

Minister for Local Government and Public Health (Mr. MacEntee):

<...>With regard to the increase in the incidence of diphtheria, I should like to refer the House to a statement made in a recent report by the Medical Superintendent of Health for Cork City, who said that after 15 years' experience of immunisation, during which 23,000 children were immunised, there has not been a single death from diphtheria amongst these children. His report stresses the fact that despite the success which has thus been achieved a great many people will not avail of the services placed at their disposal for the protection of their children, until faced with an acute emergency, and even under such circumstances a large proportion will still not take the trouble to have their children safeguarded. My Department continues to urge on local bodies the need for continuance of efforts to induce parents and guardians to avail of the schemes for the free immunisation of their children against the dangers of diphtheria.<...>

jank · 17-06-2014 04:17AM

Neyite wrote: »

Lets not forget that in addition to the farms, and laundries that they may have ran, they also got the equivalent of the average industrial wage (which, outside the walls, would support a man, wife and very large family) per inmate. Then they charged women who wanted to leave £100. Or got free labour from them for three years. Then sold the babies for an average of £2,000 - £3,000 per baby. Or, in today's money, €70,000 - €82,000.

?

There is a lot of exaggerations in this post. I can tell you for a fact that the first Bother and Baby home received no state aid at all and I can also tell you that not all babies were sold in the manner you state. There is so many half truths circulating that people take seem to take a snippet of information and apply it to every single instance, every single home and every single event in an effort to prove a point. Posts like the above actually do a disservice.

Neyite · 17-06-2014 09:30AM

jank wrote: »

There is a lot of exaggerations in this post. I can tell you for a fact that the first Bother and Baby home received no state aid at all and I can also tell you that not all babies were sold in the manner you state. There is so many half truths circulating that people take seem to take a snippet of information and apply it to every single instance, every single home and every single event in an effort to prove a point. Posts like the above actually do a disservice.

Where did I say that they applied to each and every single instance? I didnt. But those facts applied to many. Too many.

To sell even one baby in the manner that they did like to the thousands of other babies they exported is disgraceful.
To force even one woman to give up her child is disgraceful.
To incarcerate one woman against her will is disgraceful.
To earn money from the misery and suffering of even one child is disgraceful.
To leave even one child in a 'dying room' to starve to death is unspeakable.

I will very much welcome fact finding. And that appears to be the one thing that we agree on. But I note there are pitifully few civil servants and heads of religious Orders stepping forward to refute the serious allegations so very much doubt they disagree with establishing enquiries and fact finding.

recedite · 17-06-2014 09:55PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Oh, and just to give a flavour of the why the whole "De monzders UZEd de babbies for de vakzination teztz" might need to be reconsidered

Dáil Éireann - Volume 97 - 29 May, 1945
With regard to the increase in the incidence of diphtheria....my Department continues to urge on local bodies the need for continuance of efforts to induce parents and guardians to avail of the schemes for the free immunisation of their children against the dangers of diphtheria...

It is dishonest of you to try to conflate two completely separate issues.

1. A govt. program for free public vaccinations against diptheria, using a fully tested vaccine, and with the consent of the patient or their parents. Carried out in 1945.

2. Allegations about a private "for profit" agreement between the drug companies and certain religious orders, concerning the use of children for drugs trials. Carried out in the 1960's and 70's.
Aside from ethical concerns and the lack of consent, the testing may not even have been carried out with proper care and attention to detail. It seems nobody outside the drugs company knew (or cared) what drugs were being tested.

The country's ten care homes were said to have participated in the trials, which took place between 1960 and 1976, and involved 298 children. In one of the trials, 80 children became ill after they were accidentally administered a vaccine intended for cattle.

as reported by ze Telegraf

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 17-06-2014 10:18PM

recedite wrote: »

It is dishonest of you to try to conflate two completely separate issues.

Not two different issues. Some of the commentary is about the testing of a one-shot diptheria vaccine in the 1930s that included children in institutional care. The quote I linked is from 1945. But what the speaker refers to is a report by the medical officer in Cork on the outcome of 15 years of vaccination against diptheria - i.e. starting in 1930.

It's actually the same thing. The drug worked. And the incidence of infectious disease was very high, and very persistent, making it understandable that folk would be open to innovation.

recedite · 17-06-2014 11:57PM

Is that just your own "commentary", or is someone else involved in it too?

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 18-06-2014 12:44AM

recedite wrote: »

Is that just your own "commentary", or is someone else involved in it too?

Well, I suppose you're here.

Anyway, this article was posted on the thread in A&A.

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Religious-orders-allowed-over-2000-Irish-children-to-be-used-in-medical-experiments.html

The Irish Daily Mail has published a damning report which outlines how scientists secretly vaccinated more than 2,000 children in religious-run homes in suspected illegal drug trials.

The paper says that old medical records show that 2,051 children and babies in Irish care homes were given a one-shot diphtheria vaccine for international drugs giant Burroughs Wellcome between 1930 and 1936.

The report adds that no evidence exists that consent was ever sought.

Historian Michael Dwyer who unearthed the documentations says that no records of how many may have died or suffered debilitating side-effects as a result are in existence.<...>

Dwyer, a lecturer at Cork University’s School of History, told the Irish Daily Mail that he found the child vaccination data by trawling through tens of thousands of medical journal articles and archive files.

I don't know if Michael trawled the Dail Debates to see if he could get any inkling for how the trials turned out.

Spring Onion · 19-06-2014 10:15AM

I found this interesting and revealing

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/13/mother-behind-galway-childrens-mass-grave-story

She wrote to the nuns from the Bon Secours mission last year to tell them about her research. She had a brief email back, to the effect of "wishing you well with your project". The brevity of the response surprised her.

When her research became headline news, she was invited to meet the nuns in a hotel in Galway. The leader of the mission, Sister Marie Ryan, offered to make a donation to the collection for a memorial plaque, but questioned her findings, suggesting that the bodies belonged to famine victims, dating back a century. "She said the sisters are devastated about all this … I don't know what she meant. Did she mean for themselves, the limelight of the media, or the story that went out?"

Corless was disappointed that there was no promise to begin their own investigations, but later, as the scandal escalated, they released a statement through a PR firm saying they were "shocked and deeply saddened" by reports and promised "constructive engagement" to help establish the full truth of what happened.

Spring Onion · 19-06-2014 03:59PM

Good article here from Irish Central. Sums it up very well.

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/News-of-Tuam-babies-lands-in-Italy--more-lessons-from-Catholic-Ireland.html

But the death rate in these homes was around five times that among babies and young children in the general population. Yet no one in Ireland shouted stop.
Or almost no one. The chief medical officer in Ireland in the 1940s, Dr. James Deeny, closed down the mother and baby home in Bessborough in Cork when the death rate there was over 50 percent. Deeny personally inspected the place and discovered that the children had skin infections and severe diarrhea, all carefully covered up for his visit.
The deaths had been going on for years and the staff were "quite complacent about it," he wrote later in his memoir. He sacked the matron, a nun, got rid of the local medical officer and ordered that the buildings be disinfected.
When the home reopened the death rate in subsequent years was down to levels that were normal for the time. And the reaction of the authorities?
Bishop Lucey of Cork complained to the Papal Nuncio, and the Nuncio complained to the then Taoiseach (Prime Minister) Eamon de Valera, the founding father of the nation who had a habit of sinking to his knees to kiss the ring of every bishop he met.

Red Pepper · 22-06-2014 10:30PM

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/more-than-660-children-died-in-dublin-home-in-seven-years-1.1840174

More than 660 children died in Dublin home in seven years.

Almost half of all infants at Pelletstown mother and baby home in 1925 died.

More than 660 infants and children died in Pelletstown mother and baby home in Dublin during a seven-year period up to the end of March 1930, State records show.

The reports also contain figures compiled by the Registrar General that show the mortality rate among “illegitimate” infants in 1925 and 1926 was five times that of infants born within marriage, something the departmental reports acknowledge as a “deplorable loss of life”.

Department of Local Government and Public Health reports show there were 662 deaths in the institution on the Navan Road between April 1st, 1923 and March 31st, 1930.

jank · 22-06-2014 11:39PM

Neyite wrote: »

Where did I say that they applied to each and every single instance? I didnt. But those facts applied to many. Too many.

To sell even one baby in the manner that they did like to the thousands of other babies they exported is disgraceful.
To force even one woman to give up her child is disgraceful.
To incarcerate one woman against her will is disgraceful.
To earn money from the misery and suffering of even one child is disgraceful.
To leave even one child in a 'dying room' to starve to death is unspeakable.

I will very much welcome fact finding. And that appears to be the one thing that we agree on. But I note there are pitifully few civil servants and heads of religious Orders stepping forward to refute the serious allegations so very much doubt they disagree with establishing enquiries and fact finding.

Well you didn't specify that it was not applied to every instance and your post/rant made it quite vague.

Yes, you welcome facts yet proclaim children were deliberately starved to death when no real facts stating that as a truth. As I said we need truth and facts, not conjecture, half truths and agenda seeking points.

The orders are never going to come out in this toxic atmosphere and fight every single point made in the media either in the courts of public opinion or the courts of law. I know for a fact that a few years ago that the Cork Independent published untruths about one order but the nuns there were never going to challenge that in court. Its easy now to scapegoat the nuns like it was easy then to scapegoat the women who ended up in these places. That's easy but pointing the fingers at ourselves and society is much more difficult.

Of course one has to ask themselves what was happening to the women with unwanted pregnancies before 1922. Was there some world-class state or privately owned facility that took care of them? Did they get some state allowance? Nope, most ended up on the street of the infamous workhouses, sharing facilities with the destitute, criminals, mentally ill and physically ill. We need to temper hysterical reactions to the past with objective historical oversight and look at what Ireland was like then, how poor it was and how society treated these women.

People seem to think that the nuns went to peoples houses to kidnapp these women. No, they were sent there by their own family, their own fathers and brothers. That is the hard truth. How many can look at their grandparents or their great grandparents the same way now knowing that more than likely they would have sent their own child to this place? See that is the hard question but sure blame the nuns. Its easy and its reactionary and like the way Ireland is nobody wants to face the actual truth, take responsibility or stop listening to populist noises.

Muise... · 23-06-2014 12:26AM

jank wrote: »

Well you didn't specify that it was not applied to every instance and your post/rant made it quite vague.

Yes, you welcome facts yet proclaim children were deliberately starved to death when no real facts stating that as a truth. As I said we need truth and facts, not conjecture, half truths and agenda seeking points.

The orders are never going to come out in this toxic atmosphere and fight every single point made in the media either in the courts of public opinion or the courts of law. I know for a fact that a few years ago that the Cork Independent published untruths about one order but the nuns there were never going to challenge that in court. Its easy now to scapegoat the nuns like it was easy then to scapegoat the women who ended up in these places. That's easy but pointing the fingers at ourselves and society is much more difficult.

Of course one has to ask themselves what was happening to the women with unwanted pregnancies before 1922. Was there some world-class state or privately owned facility that took care of them? Did they get some state allowance? Nope, most ended up on the street of the infamous workhouses, sharing facilities with the destitute, criminals, mentally ill and physically ill. We need to temper hysterical reactions to the past with objective historical oversight and look at what Ireland was like then, how poor it was and how society treated these women.

People seem to think that the nuns went to peoples houses to kidnapp these women. No, they were sent there by their own family, their own fathers and brothers. That is the hard truth. How many can look at their grandparents or their great grandparents the same way now knowing that more than likely they would have sent their own child to this place? See that is the hard question but sure blame the nuns. Its easy and its reactionary and like the way Ireland is nobody wants to face the actual truth, take responsibility or stop listening to populist noises.

Eh, some of the death certificates recorded malnutrition. But of course, sone of them didn't, so let's not get carried away...

As for the rest of your oddly fact-free plea for objectivity, what do you suggest we do? Blame the grandparents and shrug it off?

mrsbyrne · 23-06-2014 12:43AM

jank wrote: »

Well you didn't specify that it was not applied to every instance and your post/rant made it quite vague.

Yes, you welcome facts yet proclaim children were deliberately starved to death when no real facts stating that as a truth. As I said we need truth and facts, not conjecture, half truths and agenda seeking points.

The orders are never going to come out in this toxic atmosphere and fight every single point made in the media either in the courts of public opinion or the courts of law. I know for a fact that a few years ago that the Cork Independent published untruths about one order but the nuns there were never going to challenge that in court. Its easy now to scapegoat the nuns like it was easy then to scapegoat the women who ended up in these places. That's easy but pointing the fingers at ourselves and society is much more difficul

Of course one has to ask themselves what was happening to the women with unwanted pregnancies before 1922. Was there some world-class state or privately owned facility that took care of them? Did they get some state allowance? Nope, most ended up on the street of the infamous workhouses, sharing facilities with the destitute, criminals, mentally ill and physically ill. We need to temper hysterical reactions to the past with objective historical oversight and look at what Ireland was like then, how poor it was and how society treated these women.

People seem to think that the nuns went to peoples houses to kidnapp these women. No, they were sent there by their own family, their own fathers and brothers. That is the hard truth. How many can look at their grandparents or their great grandparents the same way now knowing that more than likely they would have sent their own child to this place? See that is the hard question but sure blame the nuns. Its easy and its reactionary and like the way Ireland is
nobody wants to face the actual truth, take responsibility or stop listening to populist noises.

Great post I agree with every word. Both my grannies were turned out into the street by their own mothers. Nothing to do with religion, in either case, social status was the deal breaker in each case. One family were big privileged farmers busy making matches for each of their 8 other children with the children of other local big privileged farmers.
My great grandparents weren't about to let their one "dud"slutty daughter( my granny) put a spanner in the works.
My other poor granny was the daughter of a Superintendent in the RIC. Her mother was a shameless social climber in the Mrs Bouquet mould. My granny never stood a chance once she revealed her "terrible" news.
Both grannies I must add were very "lucky" in that the fathers of the unborn children both stood by them, married them , and went on to have more children. But neither had any further contact with their parents (not one word, in either case) and little or no contact with siblings.

Mother Child Homes Discussion ###DO NOT POST WITHOUT READING 1st POST###

Comments