Mass unmarked grave for 800 babies in Tuam

King Mob

frostyjacks wrote: »

... but neither is my taxes being used to subsidise them having illegitimate children.

Doesn't the bible have something to say about being charitable with your money?

Something about camels?

MrPudding

King Mob wrote: »

Doesn't the bible have something to say about being charitable with your money?

Something about camels?

This, along with the general theme of don't be a hateful cnut, seems to have been forgotten by a lot of "christians".

MrP

Cabaal

http://www.rte.ie/player/ie/show/the-late-late-show-extras-30003017/10698225/

The Late Late Show: Tuam Babies
Tuam Babies Historian Catherine Corless tells Ryan why she was so determined to get to the truth and persevered despite coming under intense pressure. She will also be joined in studio by survivors of the Mother and Baby homes.

Mutant z

This just proves how toxic, relegion is and the world is best of without it.

FA Hayek

Cabaal wrote: »

So the government wasn't at the opening?
Or Tuam didn't happen?

Which are you calling is false?

We know for a fact both happened, so to claim either didn't is downright idiotic.

Michael Noonan was at the opening. - True but he was not representing the government in an offical capacity so that bit is false.

What happened at Tuam is still under investigation so the actual facts surrounding this is mere guess work at this rate. Until all the facts emerge we don't really know what happened but I see most here have come to a conclusion anyway, as it suits their world view.

What you actually posted that was Fake News was the insinuation that a FG minister being at the opening meant that the government would go easy on the Bons Secours nuns and not harm them in any financial way.

That sir is a classic case of fake news. Make an claim with no evidence what so ever to back it up and pass it off as 'news', as the broadsheet and you did.

FA Hayek

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Is that where they learned to kill children through neglect and then inter them in an unmarked disused sewer? Where exactly in Britain did this happen?

Unless you have proof that actual murder took place then the question answers itself as indeed they did not learn that in Britain or elsewhere. Again, for atheists who thrive on facts there seems to be a lack of them.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

And no, we do not think that this is all the fault of the Roman Catholic Church - the Bethany Home was an appalling institution run by the Church of Ireland.

I think we may be finally getting somewhere now. Unwed mothers in cultures around the world have been shunned and shammed in scoeity for centuries. The answer to the why lies a little deeper then 'BLAME the RCC!! rabble rabble'

FA Hayek

smacl wrote: »

You've had to go back to the 20s for the UK to draw a comparison with Ireland in the 50s. In terms of eliminating toxic attitudes towards sexuality, this country has always lagged behind the UK by some decades, e.g.

- Decriminalisation of same sex activity, Ireland 1993, UK 1967
- Over the counter availability of condoms, Ireland 1979,UK never illegal
- Access to abortion services, Ireland still waiting, UK 1967

In the grand scheme of things 30 years is not all that much but I guess if we are comparing ourselves with our nearest neighbour let me remind you that Ireland never engaged in imperialism or conquered other nations like the UK, indeed how much rights did a Catholic have in Northern Ireland in 1967?

The RCC operated Magdelene Asylums in the UK from 1758 onwards, and there have been homes for 'fallen women' (primarily prostitutes) predating that. However, you're comparing the Ireland of the 1950s with the UK from a different era. I don't doubt that other religious orders ran similar operations to the Catholics, but again this is just whataboutery.

You don't doubt my point but still call it whataboutery. Seems like you want to have a blinked opinion on the matter an what to engage in self flagellation on the issue then actually step back and look at it from the context of the time, history and the similarities of other nations.

Not inward looking or unique to Ireland at all. The RCC has a long and widespread history of abuse wherever it goes.

Newsflash, power corrupts. I think we have established that. Any organisation that is powerful will abuse it, from the RCC to nation states, to NGO's and institutions like the EU (see Ireland, Greece)

It is one of the reasons why I doubt the positives of the 1916 rising as a more moderate path to Home Rule would have led to more social openness and liberalism, instead Ireland decided to hide itself away from the rest of the world for 40 years. Its how the dice falls.

FA Hayek

aloyisious wrote: »

Yes, treating them as per the "best" moral advice and not in line with the best morals when the women were "in the family way". So surprisingly appropriate a sobriquet when it came to keeping the good moral family name intact.

Had the advice been properly attuned to the actual needs of humanity, the women and their children would probably have been part of a proper family and the nuns abilities employed elsewhere benefitting humanity and God properly. Again it comes back to the "best" moral advice being propounded from the pulpit. One can say the nuns themselves were, for the most part, brainwashed products of the same "best" moral advice as the laity, whenceforth came their response to the women.

So your argument is that people 100 years ago should have the same moral code as we do today! Right so Ted.

FA Hayek

frostyjacks wrote: »

There's a really poisonous atmosphere around this story, where anyone who treads the middle ground and wants to wait until the facts are established is branded some kind of apologist for institutional abuse.

The homes served a purpose. Supply and demand. Look at what we have today, fatherless kids running the streets till all hours. Is that in anyway better?

There is certainly a bandwagon element around this story and others like it. It is black and white, the nuns are evil and keyboard warriors/journalists are the moral arbitrators of what life was like 50 years ago.

volchitsa

FA Hayek wrote: »

So your argument is that people 100 years ago should have the same moral code as we do today! Right so Ted.

Isn't the church supposed to be there with its eternal truths?
I thought that was kind of the whole point of it?

What exactly are people paying money to churches and being lectured to by priests if they are in reality no better than the very worst of the people they live among in every generation?

Avioi

@FA Hatyek

This isnt 50 years old. Some mother and baby homes are very recent. The last laundry closed in 1996 I think.

I heard somone on the radio the other night talking about her school in the mid 1980's. There was a laundry attached to it with girls/women working in it.

Zubeneschamali

FA Hayek wrote: »

Unless you have proof that actual murder took place then the question answers itself

How many of the 800 death certs recorded "malnourishment" as the cause of death?

Akrasia

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

How many of the 800 death certs recorded "malnourishment" as the cause of death?

Saint Mother Theresa 'cared' for the sick by not treating them and giving them a place to die.

This is the standard of care that the RC Church is capable of. These mother and baby homes had 'dying rooms' where children were left to die when they were deemed to not be worthy of saving.

pH

FA Hayek wrote: »

There is certainly a bandwagon element around this story and others like it. It is black and white, the nuns are evil and keyboard warriors/journalists are the moral arbitrators of what life was like 50 years ago.

I had an interesting conversation today with a person who knows they had a sister die at three months old in Dublin in the fifties. There isn't a grave, there is no record of the burial. There is a birth cert, a baptismal cert and a death cert. Nothing else exists to record this child's brief existence.

It appears (and it may be shocking to us) that for children of this age, the common practice would be for the man of the house to procure a cheap coffin, carry it themselves to a local graveyard and bury in without ceremony. There certainly would not have been a service or anything like that, nor a grave with a headstone. Nor is there any indication that even records of such burials were kept.

As for the plot, a family plot might have been used, but if it turns out that a common area was used (any graveyard historians out there) then are there 'mass unmarked graves for babies' in hundreds of graveyards all over Ireland?

Obviously with wealth would have come different arrangements.

Now in the case of a mother and baby home, the 'man of the house' was almost by definition absent. But an unceremonious disposal of the body would not have been uncommon after the death cert was issued and the death recorded.

Catholics may have questions about the 'sacredness' of the ground, but for atheists to be outraged that a priest hadn't done a magic spell on the ground that these bodies were interred in seems hypocritical at the very least.

Other may have concerns about the correct recording and planning permissions etc. for burial in this area, I am by no means an authority on historical land usage regulations but it seems to me that if this is what is outraging you about this issues then perhaps you need to re-tune your outrageometer.

Why so many children in the care of these homes died (well above the national average it seems) is certainly something the commission should get to the bottom of, but the issue of graves and disposal of children's bodies, seems to stem from a fundamental misunderstanding of how in Ireland the corpses of small children were dealt with during this time period.

Another issue is how much pressure was put on the parents to 'commit' their pregnant underage daughters to these institutions.

What laws allowed this? Were these women essentially prisoners here? What role did gardai and the legal system play in enforcing these private prisons for the morally delinquent (though these women had certainly committed no crime).

And perhaps more importantly why in 2017 does the Irish state still insist on channelling our taxes via such third party institutions for schools, hospitals and charity services, when time and time again history shows us this is a terrible idea in terms of 'services' provided and accountability.

Cabaal

Can't have those dirty protestant having those good valuable catholic babys now can you?





It's awful to know that this is what the familys of baby's sold off have to read,

lazygal

I wonder whether the adoptive parents ever felt twinges of guilt that they relied on a system that took other women's babies from them, with or without their consent, to create their families.
The overwhelming focus on the class level of the babies also speaks volumes.

Cabaal

lazygal wrote: »

I wonder whether the adoptive parents ever felt twinges of guilt that they relied on a system that took other women's babies from them, with or without their consent, to create their families.
The overwhelming focus on the class level of the babies also speaks volumes.

Odds are they believed the mothers gave consent, I would imagine they had as much guilt as people do now when they adopt Chinese, Russian etc children now.

looksee

The line about 'the better class girl has to leave here quickly so not to be detected in her sorrow' intrigued me. I was pregnant with my first child in 1970. We had been overseas and were living temporarily in England before going back. We came over for me to meet my husbands family who were an elderly, very religious family comprising a matriarch granny, an unmarried daughter who taught in a convent school, and several unmarried sons including a priest.

In fairness they did not make too much issue of the fact that the 'fair haired boy' of the family had married a black protestant, though of course I had signed to promise children would be raised as Catholics. I was hugely pregnant and, given the fashions that were around at the time, wearing a really very short maternity smock, and, again, in fairness they didn't comment on that either.

However when she had me safely on my own one day and none of the men were around, she leaned over to me and asked in a whisper 'when is your trouble?' She was asking me when I was due, but you could see from her attitude where the quote of the girl's 'sorrow' might come from.

Lisha

looksee wrote: »

The line about 'the better class girl has to leave here quickly so not to be detected in her sorrow' intrigued me. I was pregnant with my first child in 1970.

However when she had me safely on my own one day and none of the men were around, she leaned over to me and asked in a whisper 'when is your trouble?' She was asking me when I was due, but you could see from her attitude where the quote of the girl's 'sorrow' might come from.

I think euphemisms were used so much as people did not want to appear vulgar by voicing such words that would bring sexual matters into conversation.
Which seems rightly reduculous now.

I was very such during my pregnancy and an older neighbour asked my husband how I was. He said oh she is very sick a lot. The same lady spoke to me in a quieter moment and asked how I was. I said fine but yes very sick at times but once baby was ok i didn't care.
She nodded sagely, pursed her lips And said 'ye forgot nowadays but we must always pay for our fun'

I was stunned and I suppose it gives a glimpse into how backward attitudes were in the past.

aloyisious

FA Hayek wrote: »

So your argument is that people 100 years ago should have the same moral code as we do today! Right so Ted.

Let me put it another way. Would you agree that the women should have been allowed to stay in the family home and have their children there to be brought up within the family home, or put in the mother and baby homes? Which in you opinion is the better moral position? Counting back, it's around 56 years ago to the close of the Tuam Home itself (just over a half-century) the residents being moved to other mother and baby homes here.

This question is open to you and frostyjack.....

Off-topic, I'm wondering if your "right so Ted" is a sarcastic reference to the Fr ted comedy TV show?

smacl

FA Hayek wrote: »

In the grand scheme of things 30 years is not all that much

It is in terms of social progress in this country, e.g. 30 years ago homosexuality was illegal and gay bashing was commonplace, now we have gay marriage and being gay does not carry social stigma.

but I guess if we are comparing ourselves with our nearest neighbour let me remind you that Ireland never engaged in imperialism or conquered other nations like the UK, indeed how much rights did a Catholic have in Northern Ireland in 1967?

Not sure what that has to do with anything really. If you're suggesting that Catholicism isn't linked with Imperialism I think you may want to reconsider.

You don't doubt my point but still call it whataboutery. Seems like you want to have a blinked opinion on the matter an what to engage in self flagellation on the issue then actually step back and look at it from the context of the time, history and the similarities of other nations.

Your point can be true but still amounts to whataboutery if it is there merely as a piece of deflection. Similarly if 'blinked' opinions and self flagellation are what floats your boat then work away, but they seem rather wildly off topic. Same goes for home rule, 1916 and all that.

My point is simply that the Catholic church in this country have enjoyed a position of significant power from which they've continued to promote misogyny (and homophobia) to the masses. Do you dispute that?

robindch

FA Hayek wrote: »

That sir is a classic case of fake news. Make an claim with no evidence what so ever to back it up and pass it off as 'news', as the broadsheet and you did.

What you're doing here is inferring a motive, then condemning that motive while avoiding replying to the actual point made. In normal debate, as opposed to rhetorical debate, this would be considered a dishonest tactic.

So I have to ask at this point, is honesty something you rate highly?

pH

smacl wrote: »

My point is simply that the Catholic church in this country have enjoyed a position of significant power from which they've continued to promote misogyny (and homophobia) to the masses. Do you dispute that?

I remember reading a book a long time ago called 'Hitler's willing executioners', which quite controversially looked at our current historical interpretation of the Nazis, and asked 'how much were the Nazis an actual product of German society and attitudes of the time, and how much of what they did was actually what a significant proportion of the German population actually wanted?'

I think that the same applies here, the Catholic Church is a disgusting power-hungry and self serving institution, but much like our modern day politicians it can be quite flexible about what it actually believes in. Yes they pretend to change for various reasons, but let's be honest here, when the population moves on in terms of morals, any religion needs to follow or become irrelevant.

I think that it would be closer to the truth to say that Irish society was deeply homophobic and misogynistic, and we had the religious institutions we deserved. My mother's generation were expected to give up their 'career' the day they got married. Now we can get into a chicken and egg conversation about who made the Irish population homophobic and misogynistic in the first place, and I totally agree that the Catholic church in Ireland have never been a progressive force for social change and has fought every decent social change ever made in Ireland, but it was the people of Ireland in their toadish acquiescence that gave the church this power.

Even today, after all that's happened we cannot convince enough people/politicians that the Catholic church mightn't be the correct institution to run 95% of our primary schools, because within the political elite to a greater extent and the populace to a slightly lesser one, there's still considerable support for allowing them continue.

So while the Catholic church rightly stands accused, the people of Ireland must be co-defendants in this action.

smacl

pH wrote: »

So while the Catholic church rightly stands accused, the people of Ireland must be co-defendants in this action.

No doubt the public at large were complicit, and that those generations were raised misogynistic and homophobic, but for all that and to extend your metaphor I would suggest they were accessories rather than co-defendants. If you look at the history of the Roman Catholic Church, it has always maintained its position of power through the use force and terror, from the crusades to the inquisition and on. In Ireland of the 50s and much later, the local parish priest was someone to be feared, and while occasionally respected, not much loved. Fear breeds contempt which leads to the type of unkind society where the types of hatred such as misogyny and homophobia can flourish. Top that with an organisation like the Catholic church who's power lies in no small part by telling people when they can and can't have sex and you've created an ideal environment for the behaviour we're talking about. The fact that the whole show is being run by a bunch of frustrated celibate men who aren't getting any themselves just adds fuel to the fire.

I'd also dispute that the Catholic church is flexible, their ongoing failure to deal with the current social acceptability of things like contraception and gay equality shows this. They're rapidly becoming irrelevant in this country and I fully believe that their waning hold on the primary school system will be the final nail in their coffin.

aloyisious

MASSIVE EDIT.... Interesting mention on RTE's Drive-Time of a report produced by the 1930 Carrigan Commission for the WT Cosgrave Govt. It was not acted on.

Click on the "listen" box on the 1950s Adoptions item, last on page.

The treatment of unmarried mothers by the state and the religious orders is, as you know, now the subject of a commission of inquiry. Philip Boucher-Hayes on the previously unpublished report of the 1930 Carrigan Commission.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjW55CHk9TSAhUTOsAKHbSKBL8QFggzMAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rte.ie%2Fradio1%2Fdrivetime%2Fprogrammes%2F2017%2F0313%2F859447-drivetime-monday-13-march-2017%2F%3Fclipid%3D2428305&usg=AFQjCNHq_hyq7az-ublAqa1wRX3QhyDnDg

pH

smacl wrote: »

Top that with an organisation like the Catholic church who's power lies in no small part by telling people when they can and can't have sex and you've created an ideal environment for the behaviour we're talking about. The fact that the whole show is being run by a bunch of frustrated celibate men who aren't getting any themselves just adds fuel to the fire.

Yes, but the Catholic church is a product of us (ie. humans), and while those in the Catholic church would argue otherwise, I would view the Catholic church as exemplifying the very worst of us, our controlling, intolerant, hypocritical and prurient 'us'.

The Catholic church is not above or beyond humanity, it is part of humanity (yes its worse part for sure). There are many reasons that the Irish people embrace this culture so fully, some of it because it was a rejection of the evil English and their Protestantism, but also that it's not just Catholics who like power and telling people who they can and can't have sex with, it's a strong bias in all of us.

aloyisious

It's also probable that the fear of losing one's soul and going to eternal hellfire, as posited to those accused of being sinners by both versions of christianity here, worked on the hearts and minds of our population. That type of preaching is going on here on our island to the present day. It might well be called a debased form of mind control.

smacl

pH wrote: »

Yes, but the Catholic church is a product of us (ie. humans), and while those in the Catholic church would argue otherwise, I would view the Catholic church as exemplifying the very worst of us, our controlling, intolerant, hypocritical and prurient 'us'.

The Catholic church is not above or beyond humanity, it is part of humanity (yes its worse part for sure). There are many reasons that the Irish people embrace this culture so fully, some of it because it was a rejection of the evil English and their Protestantism, but also that it's not just Catholics who like power and telling people who they can and can't have sex with, it's a strong bias in all of us.

I agree, but if you look at how Ireland has changed in recent years as we've consigned this particularly hateful manifestation of religion to the past I for one certainly think we've become a kinder, more tolerant and inclusive society. Yes, we can still barely see the skin for the warts at times (homeless spring to mind) but we've still come a long way. The past is worth considering not so much to apportion blame as to avoid repetition.

looksee

The past is worth considering not so much to apportion blame as to avoid repetition.

Yes, totally. There are lessons to be learned from all wrongs in the past, but it benefits no-one to seek revenge. If there are any people still living who suffered from this or any wrongdoing, then there should be justice for them, but events that cannot be corrected should not be allowed to corrode society by demands for revenge.

The natural consequence of discovering that any organisation has betrayed trust should be that it is no longer trusted. Even without the active cruelty of the past the RC church in Ireland has shown itself to be unreliable in its duty to children. The consequence should be that children are removed from its care, including schools.

It has abused its power, therefore the power should be removed.

Zubeneschamali

If the RC church is simply reflecting the will of the people, why has it opposed the referendums on divorce, children's rights, gay marriage, abortion?

Why was it against legal availability of contraceptives, even for non-catholics?

Not buying it - the Church is not simply a mirror of society - it actively tries to make society reflect its vision, and it is a dark vision.

Cabaal

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If the RC church is simply reflecting the will of the people, why has it opposed the referendums on divorce, children's rights, gay marriage, abortion?

If we take the marriage equality ref,
If the catholic groups hadn't started that utter crap about "every child deserves a mother and father" that had 0% relevance to the marriage ref as adaptions etc were covered by totally seperate legislation then the marriage ref likely would have gone in favour of the yes vote by an even larger margin then it did,

The fact that it went so much in favour of the yes vote shows that the catholic viewpoint on gay people most certainly does not reflect society.

Its all about creating fear and miss information by the catholic groups, they did the exact same with "hello divorce, bye bye daddy" during the divorce ref. An utter lie as only a complete ****en nutbag wants to keep a marriage together at all costs.

If the catholic church is a mirror of society then the following things would still be illegal
- Condoms
- being gay
- marriage equality
- divorce
- women working after marriage
- single mothers receiving state support

Instead we only have to look back to the mother and child situation in the 1950's to know that the catholic church has gone against any progressing change, here was a progressive change the state wanted to do and the church said it was against its moral teachings.

Bristolscale7

The mental gymnastics of christians is impressive: to embrace moral relativism for Tuam while at the same time putting forth timeless claims elsewhere.

Cabaal

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

The mental gymnastics of christians is impressive: to embrace moral relativism for Tuam while at the same time putting forth timeless claims elsewhere.

Anything to protect mother church from scandal,
Sure isn't it the reason why the Vatican came up with a rulebook for how to move around child molesting priests.

This mindset is ingrained in priests, bishops, cardinals & the pope, only stands to reason that some of it would rub off on its followers.

frostyjacks

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If the RC church is simply reflecting the will of the people, why has it opposed the referendums on divorce, children's rights, gay marriage, abortion?

Why was it against legal availability of contraceptives, even for non-catholics?

Not buying it - the Church is not simply a mirror of society - it actively tries to make society reflect its vision, and it is a dark vision.

As I've said before, if these young women had simply listened to the Church and not got themselves pregnant, then their families wouldn't have sent them to these homes.

The Church's vision has served us well for two millennia. It's only recently that the toxic spread of Marxism and feminism, fuelled by globalist elites like Soros, has the fabric of society started to unravel.

smacl

frostyjacks wrote: »

As I've said before, if these young women had simply listened to the Church and not got themselves pregnant, then their families wouldn't have sent them to these homes.

Basic biology lesson for you here Frostyjacks, they didn't get themselves pregnant, men did. Did they not teach you that at Catholic school?

Cabaal

frostyjacks wrote: »

As I've said before, if these young women had simply listened to the Church and not got themselves pregnant, then their families wouldn't have sent them to these homes.

whataboutery,
The fact is women got pregnant, women will always get pregnant.
It might be because of rape, incest or consensual sex. (there are victims stories telling of all three)

But one of the big factors at the time that played a part was the total and utter lack of sex education and that fault lies solely with the church as it opposed any sex education, it also opposed any proper medical care being provided by the state to women.

The fact is women got pregnant and the church who received money from the state and the church with a duty of care of looking after these women and children and they failed, this cannot be debated, it cannot be defended, it is a fact. Yet here you are making pathetic attempts to deflect blame from the church.

The Church's vision has served us well for two millennia. It's only recently that the toxic spread of Marxism and feminism, fuelled by globalist elites like Soros, has the fabric of society started to unravel.

Indeed it has, it's always done a fantastic job.
If it wasn't starting wars it was butcher muslims and others in other parts of the globe, it was burning women claiming they were witches or it was killing natives who refused to convert to his religion.

Oh, yes I almost forgot to mention that its priests and nuns were abusing children, best not to forget that.

It's served the human race so very well, such a lovely peaceful and caring religion.
:rolleyes:


Seriously frosty, your attempts at deflecting are an utter farce, give it up

Delirium

frostyjacks wrote: »

As I've said before, if these young women had simply listened to the Church and not got themselves pregnant, then their families wouldn't have sent them to these homes.

That's weird coz I know single women who have gotten pregnant and haven't been interned as a result. It oddly seems to relate to the declining influence the Church has on society.

The Church's vision has served us well for two millennia. It's only recently that the toxic spread of Marxism and feminism, fuelled by globalist elites like Soros, has the fabric of society started to unravel.

It's odd that you would see interning pregnant women, child death due to neclect and/or abuse, and mass graves as having 'served us well'.

Zubeneschamali

frostyjacks wrote: »

As I've said before, if these young women had simply listened to the Church and not got themselves pregnant, then their families wouldn't have sent them to these homes.

And if you hadn't typed that nonsense out as if you believed it, we wouldn't all be laughing at you.

jimgoose

frostyjacks wrote: »

As I've said before, if these young women had simply listened to the Church and not got themselves pregnant, then their families wouldn't have sent them to these homes.

The Church's vision has served us well for two millennia. It's only recently that the toxic spread of Marxism and feminism, fuelled by globalist elites like Soros, has the fabric of society started to unravel.

Matthew 25:40

.......

This post has been deleted.

Cabaal

....... wrote: »

I find it difficult to believe that any reasonable person would say something like the above.

I feel like you are just saying something offensive to annoy people rather than say something honest.

Maybe his long term plan is to actually get more people to dislike the church?

robindch

frostyjacks wrote: »

As I've said before, if these young women had simply listened to the Church and not got themselves pregnant, then their families wouldn't have sent them to these homes.

The Church's vision has served us well for two millennia.

Not sure how well this "vision" would have served your church if Mary's parents had packed her off to the first century version of a Mother and Child home, there to see Jesus taken from her and sent to live with somebody else.

frostyjacks

....... wrote: »

I find it difficult to believe that any reasonable person would say something like the above.

I feel like you are just saying something offensive to annoy people rather than say something honest.

Well the Church has a marginal role in society now, and children are still being abused, women mistreated. How can that be explained?

Maybe some women were indeed treated less than favourably in these homes, but for others it might have been a rewarding experience.

If anybody had a viable alternative for what to do with these kind of women back then, they were very quiet. But everybody is an expert now of course.

Esel

frostyjacks wrote: »

Well the Church has a marginal role in society now, and children are still being abused, women mistreated. How can that be explained?

Maybe some women were indeed treated less than favourably in these homes, but for others it might have been a rewarding experience.

If anybody had a viable alternative for what to do with these kind of women back then, they were very quiet. But everybody is an expert now of course.

"these kind of women"... Is there not a novena or a legion meeting you should be at?

.......

This post has been deleted.

aloyisious

frostyjacks wrote: »

As I've said before, if these young women had simply listened to the Church and not got themselves pregnant, then their families wouldn't have sent them to these homes.

The Church's vision has served us well for two millennia. It's only recently that the toxic spread of Marxism and feminism, fuelled by globalist elites like Soros, has the fabric of society started to unravel.

If only the boys and men had listened to the church and not got the girls and women pregnant, then their families wouldn't have sent them to........ oops.

On this day and the newspaper headlines that's in it for Galway, are you harking back to when such matters of infidelity were not spoken of in polite society but kept locked away in the (family skeleton) closet? God forbid that the truth be told.

aloyisious

frostyjacks wrote: »

Well the Church has a marginal role in society now, and children are still being abused, women mistreated. How can that be explained?

Maybe some women were indeed treated less than favourably in these homes, but for others it might have been a rewarding experience.

If anybody had a viable alternative for what to do with these kind of women back then, they were very quiet. But everybody is an expert now of course.

1. Such behaviour became role-modelishly acceptable to Irish society over the decades at the hands of the teachers, out of sight, out of mind. It'll
take some years to unlearn such lessons, regardless of the teachers.

2. It sounds like you have doubts and at the same time are being acerbic towards the experiences the girls and women went through in the homes.

3. God and Jesus were probably shouting out in protest at the top of their lungs, only their subordinates weren't listening.

jimgoose

aloyisious wrote: »

...God and Jesus were probably shouting out in protest at the top of their lungs, only their subordinates weren't listening.

What fascinates me is the notion of, assuming it's all true and the just and unjust are raised up at the end of time to face the Head Buck-Cat Himself and give account of themselves, these people's reaction to the question "What in the fortified fuck did you think I, Almighty God, creator of the Cosmos and of every living and non-living thing, would think about the way you treated innocent women and babies??" :pac:

Hotblack Desiato

frostyjacks wrote: »

As I've said before, if these young women had simply listened to the Church and not got themselves pregnant, then their families wouldn't have sent them to these homes.

If their families had listened to the teachings attributed to Jesus, they might have been more charitable and accepting, he was the child of an unconventional famliy after all...

The Church's vision has served us well for two millennia.

The Catholic Church has left a trail of blood and human misery in its wake for two millennia.

magicbastarder

frostyjacks wrote: »

Well the Church has a marginal role in society now, and children are still being abused, women mistreated. How can that be explained?

at the risk of feeding the troll, children are still being abused and women mistreated. but to a far lesser extent by an organisation by an organisation which still retains a lot of power and which claims to represent god on earth.

that's still the bit i can't wrap my head around. that so many people still believe the church can be the best organisation to represent god to us earthlings. i mean, the AA (as in automobile association) breakdown service would strike me as a better organisation for a deity to pick to represent him or herself to us earthlings, than the catholic church.