Mass unmarked grave for 800 babies in Tuam

Cabaal

SpaceTime wrote: »

I think what we're unearthing here is evidence of the existence of fascism.

Fr Ted:
I'm not a fascist, I'm a priest. Fascists dress in black and go around telling people what to do, whereas... priests...

Funny at the time in a comedy, but when you look at what actually happened in Ireland back decades ago you realise there's a deep dark truth evil truth to it,

It wasn't just the priests though, it was all levels of the church that told people what to do and people did it because these were the people of god and they were moral guardians of right and wrong....sure a person of god can't be wrong can they? Why would you question a person with a direct connection to god?

Fear worked well for the catholic church, hell we even had a situation where people in government didn't want to do anything that would embarrass McQuaid.

SpaceTime

Cabaal wrote: »

Funny at the time in a comedy, but when you look at what actually happened in Ireland back decades ago you realise there's a deep dark truth evil truth to it,

It wasn't just the priests though, it was all levels of the church that told people what to do and people did it because these were the people of god and they were moral guardians of right and wrong....sure a person of god can't be wrong can they? Why would you question a person with a direct connection to god?

Fear worked well for the catholic church, hell we even had a situation where people in government didn't want to do anything that would embarrass McQuaid.

Bear in mind that Father Ted was written by satirical geniuses. It's a social commentary in many ways.

Position of women in society : Mrs Doyle (obsessed with teamaking, keeps herself in her place etc)… the comments to the female solicitor who the don't believe is a solicitor, the terror of bras by the priests in various episodes.

Marital violence hidden: the fighting couple who run the shop.

Sadism: that nun they hire to do the Lenten package which involved chasing them around and torturing them.

The hierechy : how scared they are of Bishop Brennan

Celibacy: Ted has more than a few crushes on sophisticated female writers etc..

List goes on and on... They're incredibly accurate reflections on the conservative religious place Ireland once was and how it was beginning to change in the 1990s

kylith

Bannasidhe wrote: »

This begs the question - what the blue blazes did it have to do with the diplomatic envoy from The Vatican? .... Unless they were involved?

My reading of that is that the bishop went to the nuncio because he believed that the nuncio would tell De Valera to make sure this upstart doctor kept his nose out of the church's business. Luckily the nuncio seems to have been a half-decent human being.

Bannasidhe

SpaceTime wrote: »

Why aren't those incidents being investigated?

There wasn't ANY law to back any of that up from what I can see anyway.

Stopped for what?
Under what authority?

That's crazy and really very worrying.

I think what we're unearthing here is evidence of the existence of fascism.

From what I can gather the 'grounds' were she was 'bold' and at age 18 was not legally considered an adult in the 1960s

Had a quick scan of this:

THE LAW REFORM COMMISSION

Working Paper No. 2 – 1977

THE LAW RELATING TO THE AGE OF MAJORITY, THE AGE FOR MARRIAGE AND SOME CONNECTED SUBJECTS and if my interpretation is correct, anyone under the age of 21 (unless married) was an 'infant' in the eyes of the law and required 'protecting' even if that took the form of 'tough love' but shure it was for their own good...

1.3

The age of majority referred to in the request means the age at which a person normally becomes an adult in law, i.e. 21 years. In this paper the terms “minor” and “minority” (and not “infant and “infancy”) will usually be applied to a person under the age of 21....

3.4

The law regards a person who has not attained the age of 21 years as a person of immature judgment who requires some protection. Such a person is subject to a legal incapacity and is given the status of “infant” or “minor”

I did notice this as well - apparently this was not changed in Ireland until the Marriages Act 1972 came into force.

4.4

The law governing marriage in Ireland was based on the common law as amended by statute. An individual was regarded as having reached marriageable age at 14 years, if a male, and 12 years, if a female. However, he or she did not reach full age until 21. A marriage when the bridegroom had attained 14 years and the bride had attained 12 years was binding on both parties. Parental consent to the marriage of a minor was not a legal requirement.

http://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/consultation%20papers/wpAgeofMajority.htm

Sex with a 12 year old girl was perfectly legal provided you married her... :eek:

Cabaal

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Sex with a 12 year old girl was perfectly legal provided you married her... :eek:

Isn't that basically what the bible says as well though?

Bannasidhe

kylith wrote: »

My reading of that is that the bishop went to the nuncio because he believed that the nuncio would tell De Valera to make sure this upstart doctor kept his nose out of the church's business. Luckily the nuncio seems to have been a half-decent human being.

Indeed.

However, one has to ask how many times a foreign diplomat was approached to intervene directly in what was an internal matter.... the fact that the Bishop of Cork tried to 'pull rank' by involving the Nuncio would indicate there was rank to be pulled....or at least the perception of rank.

It just so happened in this instance the Nuncio was a decent chap - but Bessborough was also reopened.

Bannasidhe

Cabaal wrote: »

Isn't that basically what the bible says as well though?

Co-inky-dinks.

kylith

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Indeed.

However, one has to ask how many times a foreign diplomat was approached to intervene directly in what was an internal matter.... the fact that the Bishop of Cork tried to 'pull rank' by involving the Nuncio would indicate there was rank to be pulled....or at least the perception of rank.

It just so happened in this instance the Nuncio was a decent chap - but Bessborough was also reopened.

Ah, I see what you mean. It's another demonstration of the fact that the church was, or believed it was, in charge in Ireland. The bishop of Cork believed that the papal envoy was, essentially, the boss of the Taoiseach.

SpaceTime

Bannasidhe wrote: »

From what I can gather the 'grounds' were she was 'bold' and at age 18 was not legally considered an adult in the 1960s

Had a quick scan of this:

THE LAW REFORM COMMISSION

Working Paper No. 2 – 1977

THE LAW RELATING TO THE AGE OF MAJORITY, THE AGE FOR MARRIAGE AND SOME CONNECTED SUBJECTS and if my interpretation is correct, anyone under the age of 21 (unless married) was an 'infant' in the eyes of the law and required 'protecting' even if that took the form of 'tough love' but shure it was for their own good...



I did notice this as well - apparently this was not changed in Ireland until the Marriages Act 1972 came into force.

http://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/consultation%20papers/wpAgeofMajority.htm

Sex with a 12 year old girl was perfectly legal provided you married her... :eek:

The question then is was this applied after the change to the law on age of majority and before that to anyone under the age of 21.

I'm personally aware of someone who was in an abusive marriage in the late 60s early 1970s. She'd been hospitalised several times with injuries some of which were really severe and caused life long damage.

Gardai allegedly ignored complaints etc etc

That woman's in laws were apparently conspiring to have her committed to a mental institution when she walked out and took the kids.

When she got wind of this she had to flee to the UK, change her name and remained off the radar until she was granted a divorce in the late 1990s!

That's how insane this country was 40 years ago.

She had a very happy and successful life in Britain BTW both in terms of family and career. So it didn't turn out a horror story in that regard and her family in Ireland were fully in on the plan to keep her out of harms way and stayed firmly in communication.

But can you imagine basically having to go on the run in a situation like that?!

It's totally mindboggling.

SpaceTime

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Indeed.

However, one has to ask how many times a foreign diplomat was approached to intervene directly in what was an internal matter.... the fact that the Bishop of Cork tried to 'pull rank' by involving the Nuncio would indicate there was rank to be pulled....or at least the perception of rank.

It just so happened in this instance the Nuncio was a decent chap - but Bessborough was also reopened.

To me it shows that they're actually agents of a foreign state with its own agenda.

The Troika were lovely in comparison!!

No other religious organisation gets to be treated as a country.

Bannasidhe

SpaceTime wrote: »

The question then is was this applied after the change to the law on age of majority and before that to anyone under the age of 21.

I'm personally aware of someone who was in an abusive marriage in the late 60s early 1970s. She'd been hospitalised several times with injuries some of which were really severe and caused life long damage.

Gardai allegedly ignored complaints etc etc

That woman's in laws were apparently conspiring to have her committed to a mental institution when she walked out and took the kids.

When she got wind of this she had to flee to the UK, change her name and remained off the radar until she was granted a divorce in the late 1990s!

That's how insane this country was 40 years ago.

She had a very happy and successful life in Britain BTW. So it didn't turn out a horror story in that regard and her family in Ireland were fully in on the plan to keep her out of harms way and stayed firmly in communication.

But can you imagine basically having to go on the run in a situation like that?!

It's totally mindboggling.

Law wasn't changed until 1985

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1985/en/act/pub/0002/sec0002.html#sec2.

Actually, I should have known that as in 1984 my passport needed renewal and I wanted to get my new born son put on it I had to get my father's signature.

This, despite the fact that I had been resident in London for over a year with a full-time job and a nice big flat in Shoreditch in my own name and everything, as far as Ireland was concerned I was an 'infant' who needed her Daddy's permission to get a passport for herself, never mind have her child included in that passport - affidavits were required for that last bit.

Let's just say when it was time for sonofmine to get his own passport - he got a UK one and the Irish Embassy were told to stick their passports where the sun don't shine.

Zubeneschamali

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Law wasn't changed until 1985

Yes, I didn't reach the age of majority on my 18th or my 21st birthday. I reached it on 1st March 1985.

(Went for pints anyhow

SpaceTime

Seems the only oddball western jurisdictions that don't consider 18 year olds adults are Mississippi (21) and New Zealand (20).

Age of majority in the UK was 21 until 1971 too.

robindch

The posts concerning jank's posting style have been moved here to keep the thread on-topic.

Bannasidhe

kylith wrote: »

Ah, I see what you mean. It's another demonstration of the fact that the church was, or believed it was, in charge in Ireland. The bishop of Cork believed that the papal envoy was, essentially, the boss of the Taoiseach.

Exactly.

Imagine if the C.O.I bishop of Cork approached the British ambassador and asked him to have a word with the Taoisaeach...

There would be roars of the Brits aren't the boss of us! How very dare he!!!
Rabble Rabble Rabble independent state rabble rabble sovereignty rabble rabble !!!!

Bannasidhe

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, I didn't reach the age of majority on my 18th or my 21st birthday. I reached it on 1st March 1985.

(Went for pints anyhow

Me too.

I went to the House of Commons to hand in a petition on behalf of Hackney Council.

SpaceTime

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Exactly.

Imagine if the C.O.I bishop of Cork approached the British ambassador and asked him to have a word with the Taoisaeach...

There would be roars of the Brits aren't the boss of us! How very dare he!!!
Rabble Rabble Rabble independent state rabble rabble sovereignty rabble rabble !!!!

Some countries would actually consider such activities spying and a foreign power attempting to undermine a democratically elected government.

Lesser diplomatic issues have resulted in ambassadors being expelled from countries and anti-espionage laws used harshly against agents.

This isn't much different from the way the Soviets acted as puppet master in Eastern Europe.

Cabaal

http://podcast.rasset.ie/podcasts/audio/2014/0611/20140611_rteradio1-liveline-motherandb_c20595606_20595607_232_.mp3

Liveline Podcast, approx 40min in

Women in 1977 was 14 and she got pregnant, both her parents wanted her to stay at home because she was so young and to have the baby. The parents were over ruled by the catholic church and she was brought to Cork, the nuns refused to allow her to go home when she asked could she go home.

She remembers shouting matches between her dad and the priests/nuns when they came to her house,

She only saw the baby twice in the home after she gave birth,

SpaceTime

Bear in mind that US-based Cardinal Law felt that he had the right to patronisingly lecture President McAleese only a few years ago.

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/cardinal-law-told-mary-mcaleese-he-was-sorry-for-catholic-ireland-to-have-you-as-president-173019561-237532251.html

He picked the wrong person to pull that stunt on though. She absolutely stood her ground and seems to have given him a good going over and extracted an apology from the Catholic Church.

He must have been expecting Dev.

Bannasidhe

SpaceTime wrote: »

Bear in mind that US-based Cardinal Law felt that he had the right to patronisingly lecture President McAleese only a few years ago.

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/cardinal-law-told-mary-mcaleese-he-was-sorry-for-catholic-ireland-to-have-you-as-president-173019561-237532251.html

He picked the wrong person to pull that stunt on though. She absolutely stood her ground and seems to have given him a good going over and extracted an apology from the Catholic Church.

He must have been expecting Dev.

I have had students* argue with me that Dev's independence from the RCC is 'proven' because he refused to bow to McQuaid's wish that Ireland be declared a 'Catholic Country' in the 1937 Constitution. Indeed, instead 'we' only had a 'special relationship' - a relationship that in still in place today (imho) despite that particular clause being removed.


*mature students. 'Immature' students (:p) have to have it explained to them that Dev was not Alan Rickman

SpaceTime

He could have just simply written a completely modern secular constitution. He chose not to.

To me it looks more like he was giving a tiny bit of politically prudent lip service to non Catholics and secularists while basically implementing an Established Church.

It was pure spin and really just a way of pushing through an ultra catholic agenda while pretending to be a pluralist society.

We're talking about the 20th century not the 1700s

We had every opportunity to break from British traditions of aristocratic and ecclesiastical first and second estates much like France and the US had done.

Instead we just got rid of the first estate and gave more power to the second estate (the bishops) while totally undermining the whole idea of a Republic.

Those in power at that time really should have been given a dictionary with the word Republic underlined and bookmarked.

We ignored human rights, natural justice and notions of government by the people, for the people and OF the people.

Where did it get us?

Indentured servants, slave camps, imprisoned women, babies in unmarked graves, economic stagnation for decades, industrial scale intitutional abuse and what I would call MASSIVE corruption of the state.

Either run the country as a real republic and develop a sense of pride in being a truely transparent, liberal democracy or stop abusing the term 'republic' and call it something else.

nagirrac

SpaceTime wrote: »

Those in power at that time really should have been given a dictionary with the word Republic underlined and bookmarked. We ignored human rights, natural justice and notions of government by the people, for the people and OF the people.

Either run the country as a real republic and develop a sense of pride in being a truely transparent, liberal democracy or stop abusing the term 'republic' and call it something else.

Ireland did not leave the commonwealth and become a "republic" until 1949, the constitution was written in 1937. The constitution should have been updated in 1949 to reflect the goals of the 1916 proclamation, with particular emphasis on paragraph 4.

Ireland was >95% RC at the time the constitution was written, as by then significant numbers of the Protestant population had left. In most rural areas that would have been 100%. Politicians are a reflection of their constituents.

Finally, Ireland has never been a Republic. That dream ended with the counter revolution in 1923 when the pro-treaty side with British military support crushed all dissent. The Republic died when Collins under British orders and with British supplied artillery shelled the Four Courts and started executing his former foot soldiers.

SpaceTime

We could still get it right yet!
Just takes a bit of reform and growing up.

SpaceTime

Cabaal wrote: »

http://podcast.rasset.ie/podcasts/audio/2014/0611/20140611_rteradio1-liveline-motherandb_c20595606_20595607_232_.mp3

Liveline Podcast, approx 40min in

Women in 1977 was 14 and she got pregnant, both her parents wanted her to stay at home because she was so young and to have the baby. The parents were over ruled by the catholic church and she was brought to Cork, the nuns refused to allow her to go home when she asked could she go home.

She remembers shouting matches between her dad and the priests/nuns when they came to her house,

She only saw the baby twice in the home after she gave birth,

That's really sickening stuff. The family were quite obviously prepared to look after everything.

What was a priest doing barging in.

They sound like a very powerless rural family being ridden roughshod over by a whole establishment.

Brian Shanahan

kylith wrote: »

Ah, I see what you mean. It's another demonstration of the fact that the church was, or believed it was, in charge in Ireland. The bishop of Cork believed that the papal envoy was, essentially, the boss of the Taoiseach.

I think the thinking was a bit different, it looks to me that the bishop of Cork didn't think himself or any other clergyperson or ecclesiastical property as part of Ireland, that they were above the law of the land and only subject to the "law of god" (i.e. harking back to the middle ages where clergy could only be tried under canon law) and therefore asked the nuncio as representative of his and Bessborough's temporal leader to step in and intervene on their behalf with the alien state, one of whose servants tried to interfere in their sovereign property.

Bannasidhe

This is a slide show of photographs taken by Michael O'Brien of the derelict Good Shepherds Convent/Orphanage/Magdalene Laundry Cork in 2010.

It shows the sheer size of the place and hints at the scale of the operation.

Imagine finding yourself in here...
Abandon all hope, ye who enter

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quPfbRkx4cw

Bannasidhe

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

I think the thinking was a bit different, it looks to me that the bishop of Cork didn't think himself or any other clergyperson or ecclesiastical property as part of Ireland, that they were above the law of the land and only subject to the "law of god" (i.e. harking back to the middle ages where clergy could only be tried under canon law) and therefore asked the nuncio as representative of his and Bessborough's temporal leader to step in and intervene on their behalf with the alien state, one of whose servants tried to interfere in their sovereign property.

Except that in an Irish context Canon Law simply didn't apply outside The Pale in the Middle Ages. Gaelic Ireland was, in fact, secular.

Have been pondering this whole demonisation of unmarried mothers and illegitimate children in Ireland and, truth be told, that was - initially - the 'fault' of the 'Brits'.

It is now undisputed that Gaelic Ireland was extremely liberal in all things sexual while also being, as a society, incredibly protective of children - defined as being prepubescent. The abuse of children was a serious enough offence to warrant the ultimate sanction - being declared 'outlaw'. This, in effect, meant one was disowned by one's Clann and cast out of the Clann's lands. As an 'outlaw' one no longer had any legal status and therefore no protection - to kill such a person was not a crime.

Plus, the truth of the matter is that the Gaelic church really didn't pay much (or any) attention to what Rome had to say bar writing them letters to point out where they were 'doing it wrong'. Hence - various Popes 'gave' Ireland to English monarchs with orders to bring the church to heel.

With the violent introduction of Anglicisation under the Tudors (followed up by the Stuarts and completed by Cromwell) came the concept of the Nuclear Family and an obsession with legitimacy.

The Victorian dual obsession with punishment/improvement (depending on whether it was Tory/Whig in power) was pretty much equally implemented across the then United Kingdom but in Ireland (thanks to a deal made in the 1790s between the RCC and Westminister for the relaxation of certain aspects of the Penal Laws as quid pro quo for the church supporting the Act of Union) the RCC was already moving into areas such as health care and education in a way not seen in England since the dissolution of the monasteries by Henry VIII.

Although Ireland was still part of the UK when LLoyd George began to legislate to protects various vulnerable sections of society - Ireland was a different legislative 'region' and we ended up with Children Act, 1908.

This consolidated the mass of legislation which had regulated the
treatment and provision of services for children since the middle
of the 19th century - in other words it codified that same legislation re:workhouses/industrial schools/orphanages which, at the exact same time, LLoyd George was slowly updating with more child centered legislation in England and Wales.

The 1908 Act was to remain in place with only mi­nor amendments until the gradual implementation of the ChildCare Act, 1991, despite a recognition by the Department of Edu­cation that the 1908 Act 'was drafted without reference to the circumstances peculiar to Ireland' in 1926. Whereas in England and Wales the 1933 Children and Young Persons Act ( http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/23-24/12/contents ) was a game changer.

In a nutshell - 'independent' Ireland essentially retained legislation such as the Poor Relief (Ireland) Act, 1838/ Reformatory School (Ireland) Act, 1858/ the Industrial Schools Act 1868 and codified brutality. But this time is was Irish people against Irish people and we cannot blame the 'Brits for that!

The 1908 Act remained in force until the 1991 Childcare Act and even then some parts of that were not enacted until 1996.

Far from throwing off the yoke of our colonial masters - we ringed the yoke with iron and tightened it around the necks of Irish women and children.

This is a case study of the South East region published in 1997 entitled CHILD PROTECTION PRACTICES IN IRELAND which has excellent information on just how events in Ireland we legal http://lenus.ie/hse/bitstream/10147/250811/1/ChildProtectionPracticesinIrelandaCaseStudy.pdf

Bannasidhe

Many believe that an Irish government is unwilling/unable to investigate properly so it has been decided to petition the U.N. directly:

https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/The_United_Nations_Crimes_Against_Humanity_Investigate_the_Mother_Baby_Homes_Forced_Adoptions_Medical_Experiments/?dIUCsab&pv=0lease

Bellatori

Bannasidhe wrote: »

...Have been pondering this whole demonisation of unmarried mothers and illegitimate children in Ireland and, truth be told, that was - initially - the 'fault' of the 'Brits'.

Personally I blame Hamurabi. If that monster had not started writing down laws no one would have been any the wiser.

Why do people always end up blaming the Brits. We gave the world civilisation. Think of all those things that the world would not have had but for us Brits... East India Company, Slave trade, Idi Amin, Israel and Palestine, The Sultan of Brunei... Some people are just ungrateful.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The 1908 Act remained in force until the 1991 Childcare Act and even then some parts of that were not enacted until 1996....

Oh come on... a mere 90 years. It took over 170 years to repeal ...

For anyone who doesn't appreciate the sound of a brass band in full cry, it will come as disappointing news.
A little-known law backing irritated householders who try to shoo away a noisy ensemble is one of hundreds of pieces of legislation being scrapped by the Government (2008).
The 1839 law, which allows for a 40-shilling fine on street musicians who decline a request to move on, was introduced to deal with a proliferation of Victorian brass bands and street organs.

SpaceTime

We do tend to conveniently forget that what what ended up with was really a bastardised version of puritanical Victorian society with its rigid social class system and a very harshly puritanical version of Catholicism.

Both were all about class and punishing anything 'sinful' or unrespectable.

They combined to create an very inhumane and society that really aimed to force conformity.

I really think when we look at what being Irish is all about that we are a lot more than that horrible period of history.

We have a lot of idealism, a lot of great social entrepreneurs and we once had one of the most progressive legal systems in the known world.

I honestly think we are rediscovering the good stuff about Ireland but we really urgently need to deal with the horrors of that ultra conservative period too.

I think Irish people were more oppressed and living in fear of authority figures than genuinely conservative. We're a fairly gregarious bunch most of the time and I'm not really seeing where the cold conservativism fits with the otherwise warm, people focused mentality that most Irish people seem to have.


The church and conservatives used the ultimate sanction : the threat of social exclusion and condemnation to control society.

I'm not religious at all but, I'd much rather see the more human face of the old Gaelic church approach than this medievalism that seems to have taken over from it.