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
-
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.
It was the thinking the the day that having a child outside of marriage was wrong, and something not to be encouraged. This was the view all over Europe and beyond.
This idea that it was the RCC that forced this view is wrong, while its a very Christian view, its also the same view in many other religions.
but from a practical view, in the 1920's if the mother did not have some family support there was no other options for here, there was no state support.0 -
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.
Be careful that we don't justify cause before the issue is investigated. It’s very easy to state that the relative wealth is primary concern here. Considerations are UK is perpetually broke from war – at times Ireland has relatively wealth due to neutral trade and high demand for agricultural produce. Many working class areas in British city centres are exceptionally poor with very high levels of infection due to communicable disease, very poor living conditions, dirty drinking water etc ....0 -
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.
I completely agree that the Irish did not invent it, or at least that they were not unique in treating unmarried mothers this way.
I do believe that the Irish version was harsher, because of the blurring of the lines between church and state authority that lasted until well into the second half the twentieth century. That is a uniquely Irish phenomenon I think, or at least I am not aware of any western country where this state of affairs lasted quite as long or received so much state sanction quite that recently.0 -
I keep hearing people say that many of the kids died from measles,TB, flu etc, difficult to control in a confined setting. But I cant help but think that these kids would be a lot more susceptible to those diseases if they were malnourished or neglected. I am not sure if an inquiry will ever investigate that aspect but it should. I wonder are there records showing the amount of food brought in to the home.
A cousin of my father use to deliver vegetables to the Industrial school at Letterfrack in the 1950s. The brother used to buy everything including all the very rotten vegetables at the corner of the cart. My relation said to him once "You must have a lot of pigs" to which the brother laughed and replied "No, these are for the boys, they are pigs!".
.0 -
The fact that babies were not breastfed by their own mothers would also be a factor. Breastmilk is designed for different things at different time. A newborn gets colostrum. It's very thick and only comes out in small quantities as a newborn's stomach is very small. In the early days and weeks babies feed very frequently, known as cluster feeding. Within a week of the birth milk 'comes in' and you produce a different kind of milk, more like the 'ordinary' milk we'd think of. Breastmilk also has fore and hind elements, which are designed to alternately fill baby up and give baby the right nutrients. Then on top of all that baby gets immunity from their own mother's immunity to illnesses, which these days is important as a child doesn't complete the vaccine programme in Ireland until the first birthday. If a baby is fed by a wet nurse who's feeding babies in a range of ages or is being fed a non breast milk or inappropriate diet from the outset, combined with potential health problems from birth or poor health in the mother during pregnancy, its not suprising so many babies died from communicable diseases or malnutrition or related illnesses.0
-
Advertisement
-
Vivisectus wrote: »I completely agree that the Irish did not invent it, or at least that they were not unique in treating unmarried mothers this way.
I do believe that the Irish version was harsher, because of the blurring of the lines between church and state authority that lasted until well into the second half the twentieth century. That is a uniquely Irish phenomenon I think, or at least I am not aware of any western country where this state of affairs lasted quite as long or received so much state sanction quite that recently.
Yes - I think we can all see that there are and should be social rules and norms, they were especially valuable to society and family in our chaotic past. In order to serve best purpose religion adopted and bolstered many of these rules - But at what point did we cross the line and devalue the life of a child born out of wedlock to the point that evident in this case?
At what point do we stop facilitating a social structure that actually creates and labels an "under class"? We Irish are actually at test case. We're largely descended from the 16 tribes of Ireland where all were included and relatively equal - yet today a 1000 years later we have a significant proportion of our population who are isolated and absent from effective society.
Lets all hope our government does the right thing and investigates this case in a manner that is as unbiased as possible! Only when politically advantageous our political class will jar with the church. So let our policing and legal system do want it should normally do independent of any political interference.0 -
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.
Absolutely.
As I pointed out earlier, in Gaelic Ireland - which existed up until Cromwell (or more precisely Henry Ireton) put the final nails in in it's coffin in the 17th century - there was no concept of illegitimacy. In fact, every child was not only prized, up to the age of 7 every child was not only literally valued the same under the law - every child, regardless of social background or if they had disabilities, had the same 'honour' price as a cleric. This is how we know they were prized - to harm a child was considered as grievous a crime as harming an educated, literate, 'man of God'. To do so could quite literally bankrupt a clann. From the age of 7 children went into fosterage and this was 'class' defined so from then on they were considered to belong to a particular strata of society and their 'new' honour price reflected this.
Large portions of the Brehon Law deal with the rights of children and the responsibilities of both parents - be they married or not the law made no distinction when it came to how a child was to be treated/regarded.
The most effective 'total war' tactic the Tudor's used in destroying Gaelic Ireland was the execution of children.
This is not to say all Gaelic lords were sunshine and lollipops - far from it -but they did not target children. That was a step too far even for megalomaniacs like MacMurrough. A Gaelic Chieftain who did not protect the future of his clann and dependent clanns by protecting the children would have been seen as a utter failure and quickly replaced. A Gaelic chieftain who harmed children would have been seen as a coward and not a man worthy of loyalty.
They also didn't give a flying about unwed mothers or adultery. There were few, if any sanctions, against adulators and those deal with who gets what should the adultery lead to divorce - which wasn't a given by any means.
A mother was a mother regardless of her marital status - although the Laws did deal with who bore the financial responsibilities this was usually primarily the 'named' father (who may not be the mother's husband) as the mother was responsible for raising the child. There were variations I won't go into here as they seem to have thought of every possible permutation but all are clear that all children are to be protected or the whole clann is shamed and the Chieftain ultimately liable.
It is notable in the Annals that when a couple remained 'faithful' this was commented upon when one of them died as it was so unusual.
However, post 1922 'independent' Ireland not only retained that Victorian attitude long after it had been abandoned in England - it reinforced it.
The 1964 Guardianship of Children Act made unwed mother's sole parent with all the responsibilities - that Act is still on our statute books.
As most of Europe began to move towards more secular and egalitarian societies - Ireland, off it's own bat, became a conservative bastion of inequality and the RCC and the State itself acted in concert to punish any who did not conform. Men, at least, had the option of getting the hell out of Dodge - women, not so much and unwed mothers and their children (unless their family had the ability to protect them) were the main victims of 20th century Ireland's continuation of Victorian attitudes long dead elsewhere in Europe.
We could have changed.
We could have guaranteed "religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens" as stated in the 1916 Proclamation. We didn't. We criminalised our most vulnerable and justified these crimes against humanity as the will of some almighty creator. How such attitudes came to exist in Ireland is moot really - the inescapable and inexcusable fact is that the those in power - be they 'secular' or religious - did not perceive all citizens as equal and acted accordingly. They were Irish committing atrocities against Irish women and children.0 -
While the new independent State didn't have money to burn, I think it's fair to say that the key issue was around who should pay for what. To an extent, there was a tussle between local authorities and central government over who should pay for services. The local authority view might be summarised as "if central government wants to oblige us to provide some service, they can give us money for it". And, whatever the rights and wrongs of it, it really was only when central government got seriously involved in funding services (in the 1950s) that things started to markedly improve.Glengormanjay wrote: »Be careful that we don't justify cause before the issue is investigated.It’s very easy to state that the relative wealth is primary concern here.
I know it's just an anecdote, but is it fair to say that we're programmed to hear that story and not particularly ask if there's anything wrong in selling food to an industrial school that we wouldn't eat ourselves.Spring Onion wrote: »The brother used to buy everything including all the very rotten vegetables at the corner of the cart. My relation said to him once "You must have a lot of pigs" to which the brother laughed and replied "No, these are for the boys, they are pigs!"..
Indeed, a similar point was made on the AH threadThe fact that babies were not breastfed by their own mothers would also be a factor.
That said, the relative mortality in this cohort was significantly higher than in England, where presumably the same issue was faced.GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
You could be right. An awful lot of the deaths seem to be between age 3 - 12 months, when the child's innate immunity would be gone.same ol sh1te wrote: »TBabies need the breast of their mother
How did they handle cases where paternity was disputed?Bannasidhe wrote: »<...>be they married or not the law made no distinction when it came to how a child was to be treated/regarded.0 -
GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »How did they handle cases where paternity was disputed?
To date no documents have been found where paternity was disputed. And yes, people have been looking very hard to find any.
You are thinking Anglo not Gaelic.
Why would a man dispute when having many children was a mark of status? It not only showed a man was virile and attractive to women. Many children meant the ability to forge many alliances by marriage and fosterage - a vital part of survival and success. A man with few children was to be pitied. A man who called a woman a liar and disputed paternity was considered a fool.
Con Bacach O'Neill - first Earl of Tyrone - was no fool yet when the wife of a Dundalk blacksmith said her teenage son was Con's he immediately agreed and had that 'son' made Baron of Dungannon and his heir. By doing so he was trying to undermine his eldest legitimate Shane, who was vocal in in opposition to Con's Surrender of Clann lands to Henry VIII. Many years later English commentators were amazed that Hugh O'Neill - already Earl of Tyrone - wanted the title of 'O'Neill' more than anything else - the O'Neill's were reluctant to call him that..perhaps as he was the son of the biological son of a Dundalk blacksmith who sided, like his father, with the Tudors most of his life...
Women, by the way, controlled most of the 'portable' wealth on the island due to the dowry system in place. Men who 'annoyed' women would soon find their access to funds cut off - any man who disputed paternity would start a dangerous precedence and quickly find himself in deep financial trouble.
Since Clan land was owed as a collective there wasn't the same obsession with paternity/inheritance. All sons descended to the fourth generation from a chieftain received shares expressed as parcels of land - it was then up to him to increase (or decrease) the value of that share - one way to achieve the former was to have many sons, who were entitled to shares in their own right, and would be tied to him by blood.0 -
In fairness, it did end with us speaking English.Bannasidhe wrote: »You are thinking Anglo not Gaelic.
I suppose, if we were looking for a contemporary example, it might be recognising that if a woman pursues Michael Jordan in a paternity suit, it reflects the fact that he's achieved a lot in life. Equally, if another woman diesn't bother pursuing some waster for paternity, if reflects the fact that she'd regard him as worse than useless.Bannasidhe wrote: »Why would a man dispute when having many children was a mark of status?
That said, I do have to agree that it strikes me as an artificial and unstable compromise. I can theorise about a society where kinship doesn't matter, and all children matter equally. I'd find it hard to envisage a society where kinship, at some level, matters, but the boundary of kinship has no limit.
In any event, it does make a profound contrast with a situation where people were denying children who were actually their blood relatives.0 -
Advertisement
-
GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »In fairness, it did end with us speaking English. I suppose, if we were looking for a contemporary example, it might be recognising that if a woman pursues Michael Jordan in a paternity suit, it reflects the fact that he's achieved a lot in life. Equally, if another woman diesn't bother pursuing some waster for paternity, if reflects the fact that she'd regard him as worse than useless.
That said, I do have to agree that it strikes me as an artificial and unstable compromise. I can theorise about a society where kinship doesn't matter, and all children matter equally. I'd find it hard to envisage a society where kinship, at some level, matters, but the boundary of kinship has no limit.
In any event, it does make a profound contrast with a situation where people were denying children who were actually their blood relatives.
Kinship was paramount - they just defined it differently to the nuclear Anglo model.
As for unstable - Gaelic society lasted from c500 BC to c1650 and ended only because of a concerted, and expensive, total war lasting decades. It went down fighting every step of the way.
The irony is that those who claimed to wish to remove the colonial influence on Ireland and return us to some 'Celtic' golden age also saw Gaelic Ireland through Anglo eyes and considered it 'barbaric'. They did not want to return to post-conquest Ireland - they wanted to create an Ireland based on Roman Catholic ethos enveloped in a Victorian societal construct shrouded in a romanticised Celtic twilight.0 -
Bannasidhe wrote: »Kinship was paramount - they just defined it differently to the nuclear Anglo model.
As for unstable - Gaelic society lasted from c500 BC to c1650 and ended only because of a concerted, and expensive, total war lasting decades. It went down fighting every step of the way.
The irony is that those who claimed to wish to remove the colonial influence on Ireland and return us to some 'Celtic' golden age also saw Gaelic Ireland through Anglo eyes and considered it 'barbaric'. They did not want to return to post-conquest Ireland - they wanted to create an Ireland based on Roman Catholic ethos enveloped in a Victorian societal construct shrouded in a romanticised Celtic twilight.
Well put: sounds idyllic, our sadness that it turned out gothic-enthralling.
I'm reading in the Irish Times about the Pelletstown Mother and Baby Home. http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/more-than-660-children-died-in-home-over-seven-years-1.1840174
Department of Local Government and Public Health reports show there were 662 deaths in the institution on the Navan Road between April 1st, 1924 and March 31st, 1930. The reports also contain figures compiled by the Registrar General that show the mortality rate among “illegitimate” infants in 1925 and 1926 was five times that of infants born within marriage, something the departmental reports acknowledge as a “deplorable loss of life”.
To me (unless there was a disease-outbreak there causing such a high death-rate over a short period suddenly) that death-rate indicates an average of ninety deaths a year (one death every four days) at the Pelletstown home alone. Given that deaths at such homes around Ireland continued up into and past the midpoint of the last century (when we were praising the modern living and industrial-era here due to Gov't planning) It seem's the same Politicians and Civil Servants (bar a few) might be amenable of failing to halt (or at lest slow) the death-rate.
I'm NOT going to point the finger at the population and say "you were at fault". The hands of the Politicians and the Civil Servants were solely at the tiller, under the rmoral guidance of the RC Church and the other Christian Church during the early and mid years of the growth of our nation. The "great unwashed" and the other classes did as they were told under pain of expelling from church (and shunning by society as a direct result).0 -
But if it means something so completely different, we might be using to the same word to describe things that are utterly different.Bannasidhe wrote: »Kinship was paramount - they just defined it differently to the nuclear Anglo model.
To be clear, I haven't a clue about Brehon law. I'm only trying to figure out how things would operate, if substantial obligations suddenly had to be fulfilled on the basis of a claim that the "father" knew to be false. Maybe that's something we can call Anglo, while avoiding sounding like the Savage Eye finding everything owing its origin to "British Rule".
It just sounds like quite an obligation for people to respect.
Just an aside - is that substantially different to the "seven hundred years of oppression" view ascribed to the Christian Brothers?Bannasidhe wrote: »As for unstable - Gaelic society lasted from c500 BC to c1650 and ended only because of a concerted, and expensive, total war lasting decades. It went down fighting every step of the way.
I'd agree it our development has to reflect the aspirations that mobilised people to establish a separate State. The invention of a glorious past is, presumably, something behind every nationalism. That said, for me, the Irish conception of nation has always seemed to have this view of there being the perfect virtuous Gael, and us being lacking for not living up to that model. Being a perfect Gaels is like being invited backstage by Alice Cooper.Bannasidhe wrote: »They did not want to return to post-conquest Ireland - they wanted to create an Ireland based on Roman Catholic ethos enveloped in a Victorian societal construct shrouded in a romanticised Celtic twilight.
It's like being Irish is meant to be a state of permanent unease, and you should worry whether everyone else is satisfied with your credentials.0 -
I think it has to be seen in a wider manner. For what it's worth, the civil servants seemed to be doing their job. The fact of a structural problem in infant mortality was very clearly identified by them.aloyisious wrote: »I'm NOT going to point the finger at the population and say "you were at fault". The hands of the Politicians and the Civil Servants were solely at the tiller, under the rmoral guidance of the RC Church and the other Christian Church during the early and mid years of the growth of our nation. The "great unwashed" and the other classes did as they were told under pain of expelling from church (and shunning by society as a direct result).
As to the ineffective response, it suggest that - whatever the reason that mobilised people to have an independent state - it wasn't especially to improve national health. A new issue would be that a central government of Ireland would have to corral national resources to meet costs that, otherwise, might have be met from central government in London.
And as for people obeying the Church, if they did it just reflects what generally worked for them. Anecdotally, if you had a cartload of vegetables in Galway, and the Man from Del Monte said no, you could take yourself to Letterfrack where the Christian Brothers would take it off your hands. You took the money, and got on with your own life.
Generally, things can be explained by reference to what people need to do to make a living. I'd expect that the Church underwrote a set of social obligations that supported that.0 -
GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »But if it means something so completely different, we might be using to the same word to describe things that are utterly different.
To be clear, I haven't a clue about Brehon law. I'm only trying to figure out how things would operate, if substantial obligations suddenly had to be fulfilled on the basis of a claim that the "father" knew to be false. Maybe that's something we can call Anglo, while avoiding sounding like the Savage Eye finding everything owing its origin to "British Rule".
It just sounds like quite an obligation for people to respect.Just an aside - is that substantially different to the "seven hundred years of oppression" view ascribed to the Christian Brothers? I'd agree it our development has to reflect the aspirations that mobilised people to establish a separate State. The invention of a glorious past is, presumably, something behind every nationalism. That said, for me, the Irish conception of nation has always seemed to have this view of there being the perfect virtuous Gael, and us being lacking for not living up to that model. Being a perfect Gaels is like being invited backstage by Alice Cooper.
It's like being Irish is meant to be a state of permanent unease, and you should worry whether everyone else is satisfied with your credentials.
I don't want to drag this thread off topic by trying to explain a very different, and incompatible, societal structure to the Anglo model we now inhabit so I will try and answer you in a simplified form and suggest that if you require more information you read the work of Ken Nicholls or Catherine Simms.
You are still thinking 'Anglo' and assuming there were disputes when all of the evidence says opposite.
A woman named the father of her child. All the available evidence - and there is a copious amount - says the named father then accepted financial responsibility (and in doing so the child would have his clan surname which is a Gaelic context meant 'race') and the mother had 'nurturing' responsibility - they did not necessarily live together - until the child was 7 then the father would arrange an advantageous fosterage. Ties of fosterage were also 'kinship' ties.
When the child attained adulthood (around age 15) she/he would go to the father's clan territory (i.e. not his personal property - most personal property was owned by women as they were the ones with the money and so it was women who extended mortgages and bought land). If it was a boy who was descended to the 4th generation from a previous chieftain then he was also a member of the derbfine and would be granted shares in the clann land. This did not impact in anyway on the father's share but did extend his sphere of influence. A man who had many sons would obviously have many allies with land. The more sons - the more land.
If it was a girl - she would be married to create an advantageous marriage alliance. Two clans would then become kin-in-law. Geróid Mór Fitzgerald managed to extend his influence across the island due to marrying his daughters to potential rivals. The last 'private' battle in Ireland was Knocktoe when MacWilliam Uachtar (Galway) made the mistake of beating a daughter of Geróid Mór and found a very large army on his doorstep as a result.
There were many other ways of establishing not-blood related kinships such as gossiprid which are too complex to explain here but the point is although they were obsessed with bloodlines - unbreakable kinship bonds existed outside of biological relationships as well and once a man was named as the father of a child that was the end of the discussion.
Now, as fascinating as I, personally, find all of this - it is very off topic and really has nothing to do with what happened in 20th century Ireland bar demonstrating that the view of unmarried mothers and illegitimate children was not, historically, part of the Irish psyche but was introduced as part of the conquest.
And the 700 years the CBS spoke about is complete BS.0 -
Whatever about the details of the history, you'd think they'll we would have been more idealistic about creating a forward-looking genuine republic.
The French and the Americans genuinely understand what that means. I don't think Irish people really understood it to be anything other than 'not England' in the old days.
We really should be looking towards creating a genuine Republic and to achieve that you can't really have state-church fusion going on.
Secularism is pretty essential.0 -
Whatever about the details of the history, you'd think they'll we would have been more idealistic about creating a forward-looking genuine republic.
The French and the Americans genuinely understand what that means. I don't think Irish people really understood it to be anything other than 'not England' in the old days.
We really should be looking towards creating a genuine Republic and to achieve that you can't really have state-church fusion going on.
Secularism is pretty essential.
The idealist republicans were shot - and not just by the 'Brits'.0 -
Bannasidhe wrote: »The idealist republicans were shot - and not just by the 'Brits'.
There were a lot of driving forces behind independence though. The idealists, the social liberals and the women who fought for it were very much sidelined in favour of very conservative catholic patriarchal social engineering.0 -
Bannasidhe wrote: »The idealist republicans were shot - and not just by the 'Brits'.There were a lot of driving forces behind independence though. The idealists, the social liberals and the women who fought for it were very much sidelined in favour of very conservative catholic patriarchal social engineering.
Now we're talking! (looking at the broader picture).0 -
GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »I think it has to be seen in a wider manner. For what it's worth, the civil servants seemed to be doing their job. The fact of a structural problem in infant mortality was very clearly identified by them.
As to the ineffective response, it suggest that - whatever the reason that mobilised people to have an independent state - it wasn't especially to improve national health. A new issue would be that a central government of Ireland would have to corral national resources to meet costs that, otherwise, might have be met from central government in London.
......................................................................................................................................................
Re your 1st, ti's a pity they were not, or did not feel they were, in a position to fulfil their role in Central Gov't, even in the Lemas era.
Re your 2nd, whar else is any Gov't, incl a Central Gov't (which we had) there to do when part of the population is suffering from malnutrition, bad medical care and deliberate ill-treatment as a matter of policy by those in charge at the homes? It sound's like the lesson of the famine was NOT learned by the Gov't, when it was seen and recognized by the Civil Service that children were dying unnecessarily while the state did nothing.
PS: While this might seem as an irate rebuttal of your post, it's not really. The Irish Republic had a free-standing Central Gov't of it's own for decades. The duty of that Gov't (as with any Gov't) was to look after it's citizens and to instruct and oblige other powerful bodies (foreign or domestic) to stop interfering illegally in Irish matters of state.0 -
Advertisement
-
Bannasidhe wrote: »The idealist republicans were shot - and not just by the 'Brits'.
The "Brits" stopped the practice of executing prisoners after 1916, likely because of the backlash in public opinion. There were some rogue executions, such as the Loughnane brothers in south Galway, but these were fairly unusual.
The new Free State government forces had no problem with executions, about 80 official executions during the civil war and another 150 (at least) unofficial, including the infamous Ballyseedy massacre. Executions of prisoners was the primary reason for post Civil War bitterness. There were roughly 10 times the number of Republicans executed in one year of the Civil war than the British had executed in the War of Independence.0 -
This deal that Bertie did with the religious orders. Is it true that they cannot get prosecuted again for any further crimes?0
-
In fairness, I'm not assuming that anything happened or didn't happen. I'm just feeling a need for a gap to be filled, but as you say that's of tangental interest here.Bannasidhe wrote: »You are still thinking 'Anglo' and assuming there were disputes when all of the evidence says opposite.
It just reminded me of a quote about Michael Bakunin, of whom it was said "What a man! What a man! A jewel on the first day of the Revolution, but he should be shot on the next!"There were roughly 10 times the number of Republicans executed in one year of the Civil war than the British had executed in the War of Independence.
That said, I'm not sure that the dispute within Sinn Fein was especially about any social agenda. I know that theme is central to "The Wind that Shakes the Barley", which is a very moving film which is eloquent in giving that sense of lost opportunity. But other narratives are more workaday. Some accounts of the independence movement comment on the extent to which the movement drew on Catholic post office workers who couldn't get promoted as their religion came up against a glass ceiling.
Perhaps, but the welfare state as we know it is a reasonably new idea. In the early 20th century, the main business of central government was to provide the army, the courts and the post office.aloyisious wrote: »The Irish Republic had a free-standing Central Gov't of it's own for decades. The duty of that Gov't (as with any Gov't) was to look after it's citizens and to instruct and oblige other powerful bodies (foreign or domestic) to stop interfering illegally in Irish matters of state.
Maybe the founders of the State should have had different or greater ideals. What seemed to motivate them, though, were the themes of promotion of the Irish language, veneration of Catholic values and support of rural life. That's, mostly, what they pursued. And not just under Dev. The initial prohibition of divorce was in the 1920s.
I think what you're talking about is the deal done on cases for compensation. That does mean the State is very frequently liable in cases where the Courts award damages to someone abused when in the care of a religious order that was funded by Government.Spring Onion wrote: »This deal that Bertie did with the religious orders. Is it true that they cannot get prosecuted again for any further crimes?
However, that has nothing to do with someone being prosecuted for a criminal offence. In that situation, the Gardai investigate and present the evidence to the DPP, who decide if a prosecution should be initiated.0 -
Spring Onion wrote: »This deal that Bertie did with the religious orders. Is it true that they cannot get prosecuted again for any further crimes?
This is the thinking but in truth it shouldn't nor does it have to be, as those in power can propose and pass any law they desire in Dail.
If there was a will they would find a way and they could hold the religious orders accountable and seek for them to compensate the victims.
But with a substantial number of TDs related and with nepotism so prevalent, it would be very unlikely any law that would bring them to account would be passed.
This is why I would like to see international inquiry rather than Government half arsed one where no one is accountable.0 -
I think the unique thing about Ireland is that the RCC had such a hold on the psyche of the people that they were able to slot themselves in to replace the empire.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.
The Victorian period was the heyday of the British Empire, and the empire was a racist and class ridden society. But it was also a long reign, which was becoming much more liberal near the end. Certain attitudes had become ingrained during that time; they did not want soldiers and colonial staff returning from places like India with "half-cast" children. Gentlemen farmers at home did not want pregnant maids to get inheritance rights for their offspring. But the question is, why did these attitudes take much longer to reform in Ireland?
Towards the end of the Victorian era, liberals were reforming (and secularising) British society. One important aspect was the setting up of free primary education; the state "national schools". This was opposed and blocked in Ireland by the churches, who cut a deal with the state such that the state would fund the schools, but only through the churches.
It seems to me that the extra power this brought to the RCC hierarchy was a major boon to them, and that they used this initial success as a blueprint for subsequent power grabs. Such as hospitals, mother and baby homes, orphanages, foster care etc. After independence they even managed to insert the bizarre wording in our constitution that the State is obliged to "provide for" as opposed to "provide" education.
So the question is not so much "Where did the callous attitudes originate?" as "Why did they persist so long in Ireland?" and also "Was the church part of the solution, or was it part of the problem?"0 -
I think you also have to remember that it very quickly wrapped itself in the flag of nationalism as soon as it saw that the tide was turning and that it could exert social control.
I actually think the parallels with Francoism in Spain are uncanny. The only difference is that democracy was intact here. Influence was exerted through other channels. The church basically assumed unaccountable control of education and social services as well as large aspects of the public health system.
It also undermined the legislative process by extreme and corrupt insider lobbying.
The state allowed completely inappropriate levels of access and control over public policy formation to what is a private instutuon that had no place being in the middle of all of those processes.
The system was deeply corrupt in the sense that it wasn't behaving as an accountable democracy. It was talking orders from a 3rd party.
I actually think the Irish democratic system really is only starting to work as a normal democracy in recent decades. Reforms that should have happened at the foundation of the state only happened towards the end of the 20th century.
We're finally maturing into something a lot more like a Republic but we've a lot of legacy issues to deal with yet!0 -
Can't believe I missed this.
http:// www .irishtimes.com/news/politics/surviving-a-mother-and-baby-home-1.1828918
My next door neighbour, as it happens.0 -
I think you also have to remember that it very quickly wrapped itself in the flag of nationalism as soon as it saw that the tide was turning and that it could exert social control.
I actually think the parallels with Francoism in Spain are uncanny. The only difference is that democracy was intact here. Influence was exerted through other channels. The church basically assumed unaccountable control of education and social services as well as large aspects of the public health system.
It also undermined the legislative process by extreme and corrupt insider lobbying.
The state allowed completely inappropriate levels of access and control over public policy formation to what is a private instutuon that had no place being in the middle of all of those processes.
The system was deeply corrupt in the sense that it wasn't behaving as an accountable democracy. It was talking orders from a 3rd party.
I actually think the Irish democratic system really is only starting to work as a normal democracy in recent decades. Reforms that should have happened at the foundation of the state only happened towards the end of the 20th century.
We're finally maturing into something a lot more like a Republic but we've a lot of legacy issues to deal with yet!
Indeed, when the Brits were kicked out instead of being sent to fight for them in world war 1, we were sent by the RCC church to fight on behalf of Franco in the Spanish Civil war (Irish Brigade)0 -
Indeed, when the Brits were kicked out instead of being sent to fight for them in world war 1, we were sent by the RCC church to fight on behalf of Franco in the Spanish Civil war (Irish Brigade)
Yeah, although we actually also had a significant number on the Republican side and the antifascist side of things too. However, the largest Irish contingent was definitely on the RCC side with Franco.
People tend to gloss over the fact that we had a very significant fascist movement here in the 1930s.
The government largely put a lid on it to avoid any more civil wars. I just wonder how much of it was incorporated into the state itself at that time.
A lot of that period of Irish history was very deliberately glossed over for fear of stoking up the civil war.0 -
Advertisement
-
No they can't. The Oireachtas can only validly make laws that conform to the Constitution. In particular, they can't make laws with retrospective effect.This is the thinking but in truth it shouldn't nor does it have to be, as those in power can propose and pass any law they desire in Dail.
However, to be clear, I think what was being referred to is this agreementThe Education Minister -- who has denied links to Opus Dei or the Knights of Columbanus -- later claimed credit for "kick-starting" the talks. "My religion was an asset. They knew me and they knew my work," he told the Sunday Independent in 2003.
The night before her meeting with the minister, Sr Elizabeth received an unexpected reply. The letter changed the whole substance of the State's negotiations with the religious orders. The official, who had appeared so unequivocal to the nuns a couple of weeks before, now took a "very different" tone, according to Sr Elizabeth.
The letter agreed to several of their demands. The State would provide a "permanent indemnity" against litigation in cases which would come under the remit of the Redress Board. It would also accept part of the contribution property it had transferred in the past, along with other bits and pieces. And even though the State estimated the likely cost at €254m to €508m, the congregations' contribution could be capped at €128m, which represented 50 per cent of the lowest cost estimate.
- See more at: http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/how-the-orders-got-more-than-they-bargained-for-26540185.html#sthash.4LhGnKPu.dpuf0
Advertisement