Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Mass unmarked grave for 800 babies in Tuam
Options
Comments
-
Lingua Franca wrote: »...but for some the attitude is already "well, we KNOW that so why keep banging on about it?". ...
To which the response should be 'Then, if you knew, why did you do nothing?' Those people that try this approach should be named and shamed. It is far worse a crime than apologetics.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 25439
On the news this morning they arrested a former Auchwitz guard for war crimes. He is 89 years of age. No reason why a few nuns cannot be asked questions.0 -
On the news this morning they arrested a former Auchwitz guard for war crimes. He is 89 years of age. No reason why a few nuns cannot be asked questions.
Why hasn't one representative from the Bon Secours come out and said where the 800 babies are buried? They must know or have some idea.
Are they waiting for the inquiry to drag it out of them. It's criminal behaviour but once you add the tag "religion", logic goes out the window.0 -
As long as the RC church pretends to be a voice for morality then we have a duty to keep reminding ourselves and believers and the upcoming generations of the horrors they bestowed upon our people under the pretence of morality.
The forced labour, the forced adoptions, the false imprisonment, the physical and emotional abuse, the sexual abuse, the tearing apart of families, turning parents against their children, the forced exile of anyone deemed to be deviant, the totalitarian control of the vatican over the irish political system, the censorship of art and literature and cinema, the suppression of sexuality, the subjugation of women, the prohibition of contraception and divorce......
As long as they still force their abhorrent beliefs onto our society through indoctrinating our children in our schools and spreading intolerance and suppressing human rights for people who are 'sexually immoral'. As long as they campaign to deny women access to family planning services and conderm people for getting divorced, we should never stop reminding people of their crimes.. and even if they turn over a new leaf and leave that past behind, those crimes need to be at the fore of public consciousness lest they return to their old ways when memories fade as the crimes of 2000 years of crusades, inquisitions, reformations and witch-hunts have faded into history.0 -
In before the 'but what about all the good the church did'
The Nazis did some good too. Nazi germany had the biggest public welfare system in history. They also ran a winter welfare program to prevent people from starving or freezing during the winter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winterhilfswerk
Of course, the NAZI party did it to further it's own ends, but anyone who cannot see the ulterior motive behind RCC sponsored charies and education and hospitals needs to have their blinkers surgically removed..0 -
Advertisement
-
This has come up many times before.
Priest does good? Thank the church.
Priest does bad? Blame the priest.0 -
GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »You could be right, but have you any evidence? Bearing in mind, there is evidence that these matters were reported on annually and openly discussed. It would be strange to take flat public statements of fact as evidence of those same facts being suppressed.
I'm not sure that any of us see this forum as a court of law. It’s great to see though that the vast majority want and expect that this should be properly investigated.
I don't want to be facetious but - I wonder why so many of us fear that this could well be swept under the carpet??????
I strongly suspect that we all know that there is probably more to this than what is currently being reported. I really hope though that a protracted "due process" doesn't null our sense of horror around this issue and that we don't learnt to accept this particular issue as the norm in any part of our history.0 -
I would urge people to not turn this into a "Religion / RCC is bad" diatribe.
If at all possible, please try to abstract "the Church" away from it. If you do that, and both 'sides' agree to do that, it becomes painfully, painfully clear about just how scandalous this really is as a standalone issue. By all means, add it to the list, but for the sake of actual investigation and inquiry lines, this needs to be judged and checked on its own merits.
Third time posting this, but honestly the topic is inflammatory enough as is.Deleted User wrote: »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"?
The answer to the second question should be No.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »
Originally Posted by Hailey Abundant Harmonica
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"?
The answer to the second question should be No.
This is problematic in Ireland, as you know. Imagine if "Mother & Child Inc", the private company, had a sister company running our educational facilities, and many other organisations with unlimited one-to-one access to small children. Imagine then that these companies were found out to be rife with abuse, sexual, physical and emotional towards people in their care. Imagine then that the company director and management (who are based abroad) said "Nope, we don't feel the need to address this at all" and refused to pay their debt to society.....
Say that the state was reluctant to go after this company, as many questions would be asked about the state's culpability at the time in terms of having turned a blind eye (indeed, actively encouraging the company's behaviour by colluding and covering up the evidence of abuse), and in not having sought to terminate their tenders and establish new and better companies to do a better job.
Under these circumstances, you could hardly separate the Mother & Child Inc. from it's parent company, could you? And what should we do to the state that failed so many of our people? You can't ask people to be angry about just the one thing here. I, for one, am fcuking furious about ALL of it.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
I am too, and I am aware of all of the entanglement issues.
But if you do abstract away the entity that provided these 'services' to the State, and judge the actions as they appear to stand, You ought to reach a conclusion.
That same conclusion should be reached by a majority (imo), both by those of faith and those without.
Once that becomes clear, and the entity is identified, then if a different line of Inquiry / different Sanctions is imposed, then the hypocrisy is bright as day.
It's easier to get to that scenario if we try not to let he Issue of 796 unidentified burial sites for children, and anomalous mortality rates get caught in the crossfire of an anti-theist 'battle'. (sic - that's not the right phrase in the slightest)
The issue deserves more than that.0 -
i was looking at some Dublin history recently and i've never thought of this before, but when all our foreign rulers weren't here....they left the church in charge, I'm from west wicklow and virtually all the land from tallaght to carlow belonged to the church pre-cromwell and then most of it was handed over the the COI. The church should be looked at in the same way as the vikings/normans/english etc power hungry colonists. Independence must have been seen as an opportunity for a total takeover.0
-
Of course, the NAZI party did it to further it's own ends, but anyone who cannot see the ulterior motive behind RCC sponsored charities and education and hospitals needs to have their blinkers surgically removed..
Does the Roman Organisation sponsor our state funded schools anymore?0 -
Deleted User wrote: »I am too, and I am aware of all of the entanglement issues.
But if you do abstract away the entity that provided these 'services' to the State, and judge the actions as they appear to stand, You ought to reach a conclusion.
That same conclusion should be reached by a majority (imo), both by those of faith and those without.
Once that becomes clear, and the entity is identified, then if a different line of Inquiry / different Sanctions is imposed, then the hypocrisy is bright as day.
It's easier to get to that scenario if we try not to let he Issue of 796 unidentified burial sites for children, and anomalous mortality rates get caught in the crossfire of an anti-theist 'battle'. (sic - that's not the right phrase in the slightest)
The issue deserves more than that.
Let's get this straight. I am not "anti-theist". Theists can think what they like. I draw the line at them being allowed (traditionally, and today) to do what they like, in the very same way I think nobody, no company, no institution should be allowed to do what they like, because human nature being what it is, this allows for abuse.
I think there's been plenty of abstracting the issues, tbh. The abstraction afforded by the notion that sex outside marriage was bad for example. The abstraction of "it was a different time". The abstraction that was "well nobody else was offering to run these charities/educational facilities". The abstraction of "we were a new republic, broke and naive" does us no favours.
It's time for some specifics. The hypocrisy is already bright as day, it's the abstractions that allow people to say this self-examination that is hopefully underway here in Ireland is anti-theist, and therefore irrelevant.0 -
They're not abstractions. They're excuses.
That's ultimately extremely different. I'm quite simply saying that we shouldn't treat the Facilitators of any abuse any differently whatsoever than we would treat any others in reaching conclusions about what went on.
Anti-Theist was a totally incorrect phrase to use on my part, I'm not certain of what to change it to though.
In essence I'm trying to say that we can investigate this without either 'side' in a theist/atheist debate getting wound up by the background to it. That the actions/inactions by all involved in the issue are scandalous in their own right.
Much in the same was a criminal trial works, in that after a verdict is given, details of past crimes are then used in the sentencing, but cannot be used in arriving at the verdict. This scandal needs to be investigated firstly on its own merits.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »I'm quite simply saying that we shouldn't treat the Facilitators of any abuse any differently whatsoever than we would treat any others in reaching conclusions about what went on.
You are quite simply correct. However, it is not a great leap of imagination to think that these facilitators of abuse will be treated with the same kid gloves as any other belonging to the RCC or the State, is it? That this comes down to the problem that the State will essentially be performing an enquiry into it's own actions (as much as the RCC's) is a major issue, to my mind.0 -
Spring Onion wrote: »Why hasn't one representative from the Bon Secours come out and said where the 800 babies are buried? They must know or have some idea.
Are they waiting for the inquiry to drag it out of them. It's criminal behaviour but once you add the tag "religion", logic goes out the window.
I don't think they know.
Why they don't know.... now there's a question.0 -
Perhaps, but it is still wrong to intertwine other issues with this whilst trying to find the answers.
If/When 'sentencing', 'sanctions' or Justice is served, then the other elements become relevant. I 100% agree with that.
For the time being, in terms of an Inquiry/Investigation, it is important that in order to actually uncover what has gone on accurately, that we do not colour the investigation one way or the other.
Doing so gives "get out clauses" to people that might exercise them.0 -
If it was any other organisation that had a discovery of human remains dumped in a septic tank, the investigation would have happened 39 years ago when the mass grave was first discovered and most of the people responsible would still have been alive. Nobody would have accepted the 'it was the famine, nothing to see here' argument and brushed this under the carpet.Deleted User wrote: »They're not abstractions. They're excuses.
That's ultimately extremely different. I'm quite simply saying that we shouldn't treat the Facilitators of any abuse any differently whatsoever than we would treat any others in reaching conclusions about what went on.
Anti-Theist was a totally incorrect phrase to use on my part, I'm not certain of what to change it to though.
In essence I'm trying to say that we can investigate this without either 'side' in a theist/atheist debate getting wound up by the background to it. That the actions/inactions by all involved in the issue are scandalous in their own right.
Much in the same was a criminal trial works, in that after a verdict is given, details of past crimes are then used in the sentencing, but cannot be used in arriving at the verdict. This scandal needs to be investigated firstly on its own merits.
If it was any other organisation than the church, there would be no talk of an 'enquiry'. It would be a full gardai investigation. There is a lot we can know about the cause of death of these children from examining their remains. We'll be able to see their state of malnutrition, if they had chronic diseases that went untreated, if there are any injuries that might suggest that the cause of death was not recorded accurately..
At the least, we would know how many people are entombed in that place.
A place that was in death, only marginally more bleak than the institution they were interned in life.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Perhaps, but it is still wrong to intertwine other issues with this whilst trying to find the answers.
If/When 'sentencing', 'sanctions' or Justice is served, then the other elements become relevant. I 100% agree with that.
For the time being, in terms of an Inquiry/Investigation, it is important that in order to actually uncover what has gone on accurately, that we do not colour the investigation one way or the other.
Doing so gives "get out clauses" to people that might exercise them.
The investigation is essentially into ourselves, as we were then, and by default who we are now. Irish society was then, and still is to a lesser extent, so hopelessly entwined with the RCC and it's dubious morals, that we cannot untangle the "other" issues from the answers. These "other" elements are completely relevant, and actually crucial to how we address the society we had then and how it handed out such abuse to the most vulnerable.0 -
Advertisement
-
Ash.J.Williams wrote: »i was looking at some Dublin history recently and i've never thought of this before, but when all our foreign rulers weren't here....they left the church in charge, I'm from west wicklow and virtually all the land from tallaght to carlow belonged to the church pre-cromwell and then most of it was handed over the the COI. The church should be looked at in the same way as the vikings/normans/english etc power hungry colonists. Independence must have been seen as an opportunity for a total takeover.
This is a very interesting perspective and personally I tend to agree with each of the 3 previous comments. But let's get this issue investigated and get the true extent of it quantified, then if culpability falls at the door of the church and or state then so be it!
I gently suggest that "naming the blame" at this early stage may only distract from the due process and the investigative energy it requires.0 -
If it was any other organisation that had a discovery of human remains dumped in a septic tank, the investigation would have happened 39 years ago when the mass grave was first discovered and most of the people responsible would still have been alive. Nobody would have accepted the 'it was the famine, nothing to see here' argument and brushed this under the carpet.
If it was any other organisation than the church, there would be no talk of an 'enquiry'. It would be a full gardai investigation. There is a lot we can know about the cause of death of these children from examining their remains. We'll be able to see their state of malnutrition, if they had chronic diseases that went untreated, if there are any injuries that might suggest that the cause of death was not recorded accurately..
At the least, we would know how many people are entombed in that place.
A place that was in death, only marginally more bleak than the institution they were interned in life.
Knowing how these issues have typically unfolded in recent years, there could very well be more elements to horror0 -
-
The investigation is essentially into ourselves, as we were then, and by default who we are now. Irish society was then, and still is to a lesser extent, so hopelessly entwined with the RCC and it's dubious morals, that we cannot untangle the "other" issues from the answers. These "other" elements are completely relevant, and actually crucial to how we address the society we had then and how it handed out such abuse to the most vulnerable.
There is no doubt that Irish society became hopelessly entwined with the RCC after independence. However, if we want to understand how a society could treat its most vulnerable so callously we have to examine how we got to that point, and frankly the RCC had little to do with it's origins. The reality is that all those who were a burden to society, handicapped, mentally ill, unable to support themselves economically, were placed in workhouses under existing law from the 19th century. These workhouses were all over the UK in the 19th century and by extension in Ireland as obviously we had the same laws and social policies.
The question is why did unmarried mothers and their children end up in these hellholes, and the answer is found in this award winning article by Dorothy Haller "Bastardy and Baby Farming in Victorian England". If we are looking for a source for the attitudes towards unmarried mothers and their children, then look no further than the Bastardy clause from the 1834 Victorian Poor Laws "The bastardy clause absolved the putative father from any responsibility for his bastard child, and socially and economically victimized the mother in an effort to restore female morality". That's your source for how unmarried women were not just regarded by society but legally dealt with by society. As for arguments that this was the 19th century, as recently as the mid 20th century laws were passed in the UK denying citizenship to illegitimate children, including those fathered by military serving in the colonies.
http://www.loyno.edu/~history/journal/1989-0/haller.htm
The reality appears to be that the legal responsibility for raising illegitimate children throughout the UK at the time rested solely with the mother and if she ended up on the streets she went to the workhouse, or to a baby farm. After Irish independence, it appears most of these workhouses were replaced by or converted to religious homes, such as the mother and child home in Tuam.
This is not to absolve the RCC or the Irish state, as they were clearly very happy to continue the practices put in place by Victorian England. The point is there is nothing uniquely Irish about this problem, it was common practice throughout the British empire.0 -
1834, not 1934.
And the 1834 poor law regarding bastardy was reformed in 1874, when putative fathers were made responsible for the support of their illegitimate offspring. Pretty hard to enforce, but at least it WAS the law.
Whereas thanks to general atavism that the catholic church inspires, this was happening well into the 1960's in Ireland.0 -
Vivisectus wrote: »1834, not 1934.
And the 1834 poor law regarding bastardy was reformed in 1874, when putative fathers were made responsible for the support of their illegitimate offspring. Pretty hard to enforce, but at least it WAS the law.
Whereas thanks to general atavism that the catholic church inspires, this was happening well into the 1960's in Ireland.
Thanks, yes 1834.
I am not trying to absolve the RCC, the question is where did the attitudes towards women, unmarried women, and illegitimacy come from? My point is it is not uniquely Irish, but clearly Victorian English. There is some suggestion in these pages that the Irish came up with these abhorrent ideas, when clearly this is not the case.0 -
You are quite simply correct. However, it is not a great leap of imagination to think that these facilitators of abuse will be treated with the same kid gloves as any other belonging to the RCC or the State, is it? That this comes down to the problem that the State will essentially be performing an enquiry into it's own actions (as much as the RCC's) is a major issue, to my mind.
Given the states role in allowing these horrific practices to take place it is a very valid point to make. I don't hold out much hope given the disgraceful response by the church and the governments when it came to the sex abuse. Money cannot bring anybody back or change what is in the past. But there does need to be punishment and it needs to be real and punitive.0 -
Yes, it's that issue you invented that we've been invited to let drop. I'm moving on, accepting that Oireachtas debates are generally about stuff that was the subject of contemporaneous public concern. Strangely enough, I don't see that as an especially controversial view.Bannasidhe wrote: »Speaking of evidence....
Does 'Dáil debates widely known' ring any bells?
I don't know, when a few of us are wondering "how was all this stuff so quickly forgotten". In fairness, at least this material is being brought to light. Again.Glengormanjay wrote: »I don't want to be facetious but - I wonder why so many of us fear that this could well be swept under the carpet??????
Indeed, and the law was reformed again in 1930, when the State was starting its "copy British legislation a few years later" phase.Vivisectus wrote: »And the 1834 poor law regarding bastardy was reformed in 1874, when putative fathers were made responsible for the support of their illegitimate offspring. Pretty hard to enforce, but at least it WAS the law.
But, as you say, the question is how enforceable this legislation might be in practice. I don't know if any statistics are collated on affiliation orders. But it would be interesting to compare the number granted to the numbers entering Mother and Baby homes, or the number of Irish women leaving for England.http://debates.oireachtas.ie/seanad/1930/03/19/00005.asp
Illegitimate Children (Affiliation Orders) Bill, 1929—Second Stage.
Wednesday, 19 March 1930
Minister for Justice (Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney): The object of this Bill is to make the father of an illegitimate child responsible for the maintenance of that child. As the law exists at present the father of an illegitimate child can be made liable in two forms of action. One is what is called an action for seduction. That does not lie at the suit of the mother herself; it lies at the suit of her parents if she resides with them-or with her employer if she is working. If she is not residing with her parents or if she is not in the service of an employer no action lies. At the same time, unless she was living with her parents at the time of the seduction and at the time of the birth of the child, equally no action lies, and if in addition she is in employment only nominal damage can be recovered from the father at the suit of the employer. The Seanad will see, therefore, that the action for seduction is not one of universal application. There is another form of action which is also limited in its scope, that is to say, when an illegitimate child is being maintained at the expense of the rates the body maintaining it can maintain an action against the father for the maintenance of such child in the workhouse. In that case, the evidence of the mother has to be given and that evidence has to be corroborated. But the Seanad will see in that case likewise, that the remedy has not a wide application, being confined only to cases where the child is in the workhouse.
This Bill proposes to make, as far as possible, in every instance where it can be fairly done, the father of the illegitimate child responsible for its maintenance. The procedure is that the mother goes before a magistrate, makes an information against whoever she charges as the father of the child, whereupon a summons is issued and the case heard. If her story be believed, and the defendant be found to be the father by the Court, he becomes, if the child is dead, liable for burial expenses; if the child be not dead he is liable for maintenance under the provisions of this Bill at a rate not exceeding £1 a week, up to the time the child reaches the age of 16. If the child dies in the meantime he is also liable for the burial expenses. If the child is mentally or bodily deficient after reaching the age of 16 the liability for maintenance still continues. There is also provision by which the Court can order that the father of the child should pay an apprenticeship fee not exceeding £50 in order to have the child apprenticed to some trade.0 -
At the same time (just to illustrate that it's never simple) not infrequently we find that leadership on this issues was shown by people who probably owed more to English tradition than Irish. For exampleI am not trying to absolve the RCC, the question is where did the attitudes towards women, unmarried women, and illegitimacy come from? My point is it is not uniquely Irish, but clearly Victorian English. There is some suggestion in these pages that the Irish came up with these abhorrent ideas, when clearly this is not the case.
You may well ask who the feck is Sir Edward Coey Bigger, and how did someone with a knighthood end up in the Irish Senate?http://www.oireachtas-debates.gov.ie/S/0018/S.0018.193404110007.html
Seanad Éireann - Volume 18 - 11 April, 1934
Children Bill, 1934—Second Stage.
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government and Public Health (Dr. Ward): Briefly, the purpose of the Bill is to strengthen the law relating to children to whom Part I of the Children Act, 1908, applies. Part I of that Act was intended for the protection of children who were nursed and maintained for reward by persons other than their parents. It is administered in this country by the local poor law authorities and the experience of its working has revealed many defects which it is desirable to remedy.<...>
Sir. E. Coey Bigger: This Bill should greatly strengthen legislation in regard to the protection of infants and children. To my mind the whole success of the administration of this Bill when it becomes an Act will depend on the Prevention officer. If the Prevention officer is properly selected not only to look after the physical welfare of the child that is boarded out, but to look after its comforts, its food and its housing, it will lead to the avoidance of very great cruelty. A great deal will depend, as I say, upon the selection of the Prevention officer. I am glad to see that the Bill strengthens the hands of the Minister in the supervision of the Prevention officer. The Bill extends the age from seven to nine years; that is also a move in the right direction. I think the Bill may reduce very materially the death rate of illegitimate children. These children are not wanted; they are boarded out, and if they die so much the better. I think from every point of view the Bill is a good one and I have great pleasure in supporting it.<...>
A bit of background is here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2162218/pdf/brmedj04046-0028a.pdf
Over the next few decades, our infant mortality got worse while that in Britain improved. So, maybe there is some Victorian influence. But why would it retain influence here, if it was evaporating over there?0 -
Advertisement
-
GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »Over the next few decades, our infant mortality got worse while that in Britain improved. So, maybe there is some Victorian influence. But why would it retain influence here, if it was evaporating over there?
It's likely there were a number of factors as to mortality rates. The relative prosperity of the two states, the economic war at the time which had wealth destroying effects, the influence of the RCC which carried on the Victorian mindset, the fear of inheritance problems in a land of small farmers where ownership of land was regarded as life and death, etc.
As you say, it is never simple.0
Advertisement