Was Catholic Ireland better than Modern Ireland?

Odhinn

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It would completely depend upon your perspective as to what you might see as positive and negative aspects then vs. today and I don't think there's any objective way to measure that which doesn't fall into the trap of subjective moral relativism.

Utter bollocks. The only reason they weren't called out on what they were at was fear. Things were whispered about them all - McQuaid and the rest.

Odhinn

BattleCorp wrote: »

Years ago young whippersnapper BattleCorp would be walking home from school and you'd have auld lads saying "Well young BattleCorp, how many slaps did you get in school today?" A perfectly acceptable question for those days.

Imagine asking a kid nowadays. They'd look at you like you were mad.

Or whether you got the leather or the cane or the fist.

One eyed Jack

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The rights people have, the reduction of societal stigmas, prosperity, people having more freedom to express themselves, better medical technology and schools, etc.. Plenty of objective metrics that I can see.

I can just as easily point to the way that there are groups in society as there was then who want to diminish people's rights, I don't see any reduction in social stigmas, prosperity being the gap between the poor and the wealthy has widened, I don't see healthcare has improved a whole lot as there were 600 people on trolleys in just one hospital in the last year alone and there are moves to close down many regional hospitals, educational institutions are still ideological institutions...

In order to be objective metrics they would have to be metrics and standards that everyone could at least agree on.

wakka12

Some things have gotten worse though. Materialistic ,ridiculous sense of entitlement from most people as the country becomes more wealthy, it happens in every country though not just ireland. People get more ungrateful the more they have

BattleCorp

Odhinn wrote: »

Or whether you got the leather or the cane or the fist.

I got both the leather and the cane but I was never fisted.

One eyed Jack

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Are you saying that child abuse in Ireland today is the same as it was when the Church was free to do as it pleased?

I would suggest that it is, and that only with time again will it be acknowledged just how prevalent it is now as it was then. For every story of institutional child abuse that is reported as happening today in the Irish media, there are at least I would say 100 stories that will never come to light now, but may at some point be pieced together and uncovered.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

One thing that is very true, yet hard to accept for many people, is that the church had so much power in Ireland because the vast majority of people wanted it to. The church is often a scapegoat for things that are just as much the fault of voters and politicians.

valoren

I think a society where someone can tell a priest or a bishop that the idea of religion and the notion of 'God' is complete and utter bull**** of the highest order without risking social and reputational damage is quite a good thing.

Also, the idea of there not being as much crime is a misnomer. If anything, anywhere happens around the country then we hear about it in a nanosecond these days. It's easy to surmise that crime is worse, whereas these crimes were always there and it's that we didn't have the instant exposure to it in the old days.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

There's no need to be condescending.

But I was responding to you being obtuse.

I simply pointed out that care is now a commodity. It used to be something that was simply provided. Now it's a job. You said you did not know of one example of this, so I pointed to the multi billion care industry.

Don't get me wrong, I prefer Ireland now. But I certainly liked aspects of the older Ireland too, aspects that we have lost.

BattleCorp

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

One thing that is very true, yet hard to accept for many people, is that the church had so much power in Ireland because the vast majority of people wanted it to. The church is often a scapegoat for things that are just as much the fault of voters and politicians.

What you said above is very true.

The nuns didn't go around with a big bag kidnapping pregnant women to work in the Magdalene laundries.

In most cases, it was the unfortunate girl's family that put her in the Magdalene laundry.

seamus

Deleted User wrote: »

Trying to deny that two salaries are now necessary is hilarious. My parents could have bought an almost-new 3-bedroom house in the late 70s for roughly their combined annual income in low-skilled jobs. That doesn't apply these days.

It does. It just doesn't apply when you're trying to buy exactly the same house that you grew up in. Move out further and they will be able to buy something rural for that price.

The very first house that my Dad bought was in Old Bawn - at the time regarded as being rural county Dublin; Crumlin and Templeogue being the outer suburbs.

Now the outer fringes of the Dublin suburbs are CityWest, Blanchardstown and beyond. There isn't even a "rural" West Dublin any more.

This is just what happens when you see huge population increases; properties closest to city centres go up in price.

pilly

Deleted User wrote:

Some aspects of modern society are better today, I doubt morally but economically perhaps. The suicide rates are far higher today which is worrying and certainly does not reflect a better Ireland !

I don't believe suicide rates are higher. Remember it was a mortal sin back then to commit suicide so it wasn't reported as such.

Ubbquittious

BattleCorp wrote: »

What you said above is very true.

The nuns didn't go around with a big bag kidnapping pregnant women to work in the Magdalene laundries.

In most cases, it was the unfortunate girl's family that put her in the Magdalene laundry.

Tis easier to blame some big ominous organisation rather than one's own family I suppose.

BarryD2

Deleted User wrote: »

I think of the days when many people simply took in elderly relatives or neighbours, it wasn't avoided, it wasn't a job or a chore, it was just done because it was right to do so. Most people regard it as a job now. People actually engaged with their neighbours, called to them, looked out for them.

Agreed, one of the bigger changes in society in my lifetime. Also a transfer of wealth, which was formerly kept within a family, now dispersed to the private nursing home industry.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

It does. It just doesn't apply when you're trying to buy exactly the same house that you grew up in. Move out further and they will be able to buy something rural for that price.

The very first house that my Dad bought was in Old Bawn - at the time regarded as being rural county Dublin; Crumlin and Templeogue being the outer suburbs.

Now the outer fringes of the Dublin suburbs are CityWest, Blanchardstown and beyond. There isn't even a "rural" West Dublin any more.

This is just what happens when you see huge population increases; properties closest to city centres go up in price.

I'm not in Dublin. If anything the area they were looking at then is far less desirable now (huge amount of council houses plonked next to it) yet would be at least 4x my annual salary as opposed to 2x either of their's back in the day. And I'm in a "booming" sector with plenty of qualifications, they went into jobs where reading was barely required and never got promoted.
Let's for a laugh say I'll concede location. Go ahead and find me a gaff for under 70k. Or do I have to concede on number of bedrooms too? Or it being habitable?

ancapailldorcha

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I would suggest that it is, and that only with time again will it be acknowledged just how prevalent it is now as it was then. For every story of institutional child abuse that is reported as happening today in the Irish media, there are at least I would say 100 stories that will never come to light now, but may at some point be pieced together and uncovered.

Do you have anything to base this on? Your statement is predicated on the idea that no laws have been introduced or changed since these allegations started.

Deleted User wrote: »

But I was responding to you being obtuse.

I simply pointed out that care is now a commodity. It used to be something that was simply provided. Now it's a job. You said you did not know of one example of this, so I pointed to the multi billion care industry.

Don't get me wrong, I prefer Ireland now. But I certainly liked aspects of the older Ireland too, aspects that we have lost.

I disagree. I'm from the countryside where this is still quite common and I don't recall anyone moaning about it aside from the odd bit of reasonable venting. I've pointed out why the care industry has emerged.

.......

This post has been deleted.

One eyed Jack

pilly wrote: »

I don't believe suicide rates are higher. Remember it was a mortal sin back then to commit suicide so it wasn't reported as such.

It's difficult to quantify because the social stigma against suicide then was only codified symbolically in law, it wasn't as though anyone who actually died by suicide could be punished for it (though there were other punishments upon those left behind such as the refusal to allow the deceased to be buried on consecrated ground). The stigma against suicide even today is a sort of double-edged sword in that it still acts as as a deterrent to some people, and the statistics released every year generally hover around the 500 mark, due too in no small part as you're suggesting to spare the families of the bereaved.

It's kind of the same way in which people imagine there has been an increase in the numbers of people experiencing ill mental health. In some ways there is an increase, but that's partly due to the way ill mental health has been redefined and is now diagnosed whereas before it wasn't. The ways in which we chose to overlook and excuse ill mental health and cover it up were also more socially acceptable - alcoholism for instance was much more socially acceptable then than it is now.

Some people would argue that people then were more resilient, more conditioned towards hardship than they are now, but I would suggest that social expectations then weren't what they are now either where young people's practically every waking moment (and for some their sleeping moments too) are recorded and stored and shared with the world, and as was mentioned in the thread already there is an almost constant need for some people to generate interest in themselves, to gain an audience, and when that audience wanes or moves on to the next thing, it can come as a terrible sadness to some people when they realise they are no longer relevant, and would be unlikely to be missed if they were gone.

Sleeper12

One eyed Jack wrote:

It's difficult to quantify because the social stigma against suicide then was only codified symbolically in law, it wasn't as though anyone who actually died by suicide could be punished for it (though there were other punishments upon those left behind such as the refusal to allow the deceased to be buried on consecrated ground). The stigma against suicide even today is a sort of double-edged sword in that it still acts as as a deterrent to some people, and the statistics released every year generally hover around the 500 mark, due too in no small part as you're suggesting to spare the families of the bereaved.

Even the coroner was very reluctant to say death by suicide. Death by misadventure was the norm unless it couldn't be explained any way but suicide.


I don't believe there is anyway to compare figures from now and the 80s or before.

One eyed Jack

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Do you have anything to base this on? Your statement is predicated on the idea that no laws have been introduced or changed since these allegations started.

If I'd solid, concrete evidence ACD I'd have reported it myself, but it's based upon a mixture of personal experience, the experiences of others, and extrapolation. Genuinely I don't think changing the laws has had any effect on it as the laws to punish it are generally only enforced when people are tried and found guilty, as opposed to encouraging prevention.

Imagine if you will for example the scale of the #metoo phenomenon. I don't think anyone really imagined that it could happen on such a scale, and yet it does, even today as it did then.

Grayson

BarryD2 wrote: »

Agreed, one of the bigger changes in society in my lifetime. Also a transfer of wealth, which was formerly kept within a family, now dispersed to the private nursing home industry.

I grew up in the country side and I can think of nursing homes that have been open since the 40's at least. One is a converted workhouse so it's been around longer.

Thankfully though, nursing homes are generally far better nowadays. If an elderly relative needs any kind of special care, they're probably better off in some of those places.
I said generally better because I know there have been scandals with some. However that doesn't mean that all nursing homes are bad or that it's inappropriate to send someone to one.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

I am sure there are still awful things going on behind closed doors that our grandchildren will be shocked by and will wonder how we let it happen.

There are always going to be corrupt, wicked and amoral people in society. So don't let's fool ourselves that we're living in some kind of highly enlightened age.

There are things about the past that were terrible, and there are things about the past that were good.

There are things about the present that are awful, and there are things that are far better than they used to be.

ancapailldorcha

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If I'd solid, concrete evidence ACD I'd have reported it myself, but it's based upon a mixture of personal experience, the experiences of others, and extrapolation. Genuinely I don't think changing the laws has had any effect on it as the laws to punish it are generally only enforced when people are tried and found guilty, as opposed to encouraging prevention.

Imagine if you will for example the scale of the #metoo phenomenon. I don't think anyone really imagined that it could happen on such a scale, and yet it does, even today as it did then.

Completely different things altogether. I get your latter point but the idea that child sex abuse is happening at the same levels today is quite unconvincing.

BattleCorp

BattleCorp wrote: »

In most cases, it was the unfortunate girl's family that put her in the Magdalene laundry.

Oh but it was the Church that made them think that they had to put them there lol. Joke.

I still ask people, do they not realise where Priests and Nuns came from ? they came from ordinary families, usually the pillars of the community who could afford to send them to Maynooth etc, usually from the families of Farmers, Guards, Teachers !

I think today we should concentrate our efforts on the abuse of the elderly both in their homes and in homes, it effects far, far more people than any Church abuse scandal in Ireland and it may effect us one day too if not tackled.

mad muffin

To paraphrase the Donald. Ireland was a sh*thole back then. Now it’s simply sh*thouse.

.......

This post has been deleted.

.......

This post has been deleted.

.......

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Then they were stupid fools, can't blame the Church. The Church didn't tell them to do it........

Blaming the Church is absolutely no excuse for the abuse these young Women received at the hands of their Mothers and fathers , their own flesh and blood.

Remember that the facts are that most people/Children abused are abused by a family member in the past and today !

How many people spent 3-4 hours a day commuting to work in the 80s or before, compared to now? This is just one example of a feature of nowadays which has a huge negative impact on your quality of life and which has become far more common.

Also, people don't socialise nearly as much during the week as they did during my parents time because they are too busy working and commuting to be able to afford their house and childcare and the standard of living they believe is necessary so as not to feel they are "falling behind" others socially.

BattleCorp

Deleted User wrote: »

How many people spent 3-4 hours a day commuting to work in the 80s or before, compared to now? This is just one example of a feature of nowadays which has a huge negative impact on your quality of life and which has become far more common.

Also, people don't socialise nearly as much during the week as they did during my parents time because they are too busy working and commuting to be able to afford their house and childcare and the standard of living they believe is necessary so as not to feel they are "falling behind" others socially.

I can't ever remember my Dad having a car that would be capable of driving for 3 - 4 hours per day without falling apart back then.

gargargar

People talking about the breakdown of families are talking guff.

Deleted User wrote: »

Also, people don't socialise nearly as much during the week as they did during my parents time because they are too busy working and commuting to be able to afford their house and childcare and the standard of living they believe is necessary so as not to feel they are "falling behind" others socially.

These days fathers are more actively involved with their kids. In the old days men went to the pub until after kids bedtime (in a lot of cases).

BattleCorp

Deleted User wrote: »

Then they were stupid fools, can't blame the Church. The Church didn't tell them to do it........

Blaming the Church is absolutely no excuse for the abuse these young Women received at the hands of their Mothers and fathers , their own flesh and blood.

Remember that the facts are that most people/Children abused are abused by a family member in the past and today !

While I agree with you to some extent, you can't absolve the Church of their responsibility either though.

To be honest there was higher unemployment than today and Booze is too cheap compared to Pub so People won't pay twice the price to drink in the Pub and Publicans do themselves no favours !

PopePalpatine

JupiterKid wrote: »

Absolutely not. It was backward, poor, stifling and oppressive.

Those who yearn for a return to those days have either never experienced it or are seriously deluded.

...or have a hard-on for totalitarianism.

BattleCorp

BattleCorp wrote: »

While I agree with you to some extent, you can't absolve the Church of their responsibility either though.

I'm not but People won't talk about the abuse people suffer at home which is and always was on a far higher scale than any Church abuse scandal. and the abuse of the elderly in homes and their own homes.

People don't think that the clergy came from families, the pillars of the community !

.......

This post has been deleted.

Cee-Jay-Cee

I think the 90’s were the sort of golden era in Ireland and we’d managed to rid ourselves of a lot of the control held by the RC church and rotten governments but it has sadly gone the other way now and crime has become a dominant force in all walks of life and I do believe that non Irish people are largely to blame for that.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Still, it only took a single income to buy a house in Dublin; nowadays two people must work to pay for the exact same house. Not exactly advancement by any definition. For some reason people can overlook that massive infringement on our personal freedom in 2018.

seamus wrote: »

I do think this is quite overstated as some new or unique phenomenon.

My Dad bought the house I grew up in on a single salary, I think he paid £30,000 in the late 70's.

His own father thought that he was off his rocker spending that much on a house; that he'd be paying it off until he retired.

I have no doubt that the increased spending power of dual incomes have inflated property prices to a certain extent, but to pretend that the prices our parents paid for their properties was reasonable or more affordable is falling victim to the same old rose-tinted fallacy.

Our children will be amazed at how cheap our houses were and we'll nearly choke at the prices that they're paying.

Deleted User wrote: »

How much was he earning?

Trying to deny that two salaries are now necessary is hilarious. My parents could have bought an almost-new 3-bedroom house in the late 70s for roughly their combined annual income in low-skilled jobs. That doesn't apply these days.

seamus wrote: »

It does. It just doesn't apply when you're trying to buy exactly the same house that you grew up in. Move out further and they will be able to buy something rural for that price.

So, you actually agree? It's obvious you could move outside Dublin and your mortgage will be cheaper, but that's equally obviously not comparable with what you could do decades ago. My Dad, on a single income very early in his career, paid £4,500 for his first house in Rathfarnham in 1965. He was earning £1000 per year, and got help with the £1,000 deposit from his oldest brother. A similar house two doors next to it was sold for just under €700,000 last year. At 3.5 times his salary, after the deposit has been saved he would need to be earning around €180,000 per year early in his career to get a mortgage for that in 2018. The vast majority of double incomes could not afford that, but two people must work outside the home to pay a mortgage on the exact same house that one person could get a mortgage for in 1965. That is the outstanding difference in 2018. No number of Sky Sports subscriptions, dishwashers or any other "modern conveniences" can compensate for that decline in quality of life. People are less free, not more free, because of that change. That necessity is a very real change in the quality of life. You want to stay at home and look after your children? Well, you no longer have that freedom that your parents had here because society has "progressed" to the point where two incomes are essential to buy the same house that one income used to be able to buy. That's a backward step by any standard.

As for the smugness of some who have embraced this "the past was much worse" narrative, perhaps dropping babies and toddlers into crèche/a childminder at 7:30am and collecting them at 18:30 every weekday will be the source of outrage and "child abuse" allegations of the future? In 2018 there's at least, at the very very least, a strong argument to be made that society has its priorities utterly arseways to have children (the few that we are having, again for financial/career progression reasons) clinically shuttled off to minders while parents keep the economy going. When there aren't enough people to pay our pensions, what are we going to blame? When immigrants from poorer countries are welcomed as a means to pay those pensions and our society becomes more of an economy than a society with shared values and culture, what are we going to blame? And so on.

Due to a large degree to property prices/two people having to work, most of us are in the service of mammon much more than past generations were, and our society is shaped and reshaped on a quotidian basis to consolidate this. From society to economy. The new consensus on this is strikingly similar to the consensus that kept the Roman Church in power in former times. In the 1950s they could talk about it being awful under the Brits, today it was awful under the RCC. There is too much self-interest and unchallenged assumptions today for people to even see what people in 50 years time will see about our society.

falinn merking

doolox wrote: »

Contraception not available but more importantly no education as to the possibility of controlling fertility. Most foreign residents even in the '70's could manage to obtain the necessary devices and pharmaceutical stuff once they had the knowledge of what to do and what to look for. Most Irish women were denied access to the knowledge needed to control family size.

How stupid were people back then FFS.
What education do you need?

Man has a love explosion in your special bits it's very likely a spog is on the way.:rolleyes:
How to avoid it save love explosion for different target.

gargargar

Deleted User wrote: »

In 2018 there's at least, at the very very least, a strong argument to be made that society has its priorities utterly arseways to have children (the few that we are having, again for financial/career progression reasons) clinically shuttled off to minders while parents keep the economy going.

Really good point about modern society. We definitely are consumerist.

Deleted User wrote: »

When there aren't enough people to pay our pensions, what are we going to blame? When immigrants from poorer countries are welcomed as a means to pay those pensions and our society becomes more of an economy than a society with shared values and culture, what are we going to blame? And so on.

This really is just bad economic policy. The issue is not having more kids as the planet is overpopulated. Your point about being a society rather than an economy would appear to be a thin veneer over racist attitudes?

Huntergonzo

Catholic Ireland was great if you were a kiddie fiddler I suppose, other than that nah.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Ipso

Not as many moving statues these days either.

falinn merking

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What they had no aim?

Let's be serious I knew a family of 14 if after 5 or 6 they have not learned one can only conclude they are brain dead.
Edit I fully agree with contraception but that does not mean people have to breed like rabbits without it.

BattleCorp

Verpiss dich wrote: »

How stupid were people back then FFS.
What education do you need?

Man has a love explosion in your special bits it's very likely a spog is on the way.:rolleyes:
How to avoid it save love explosion for different target.

It's not really fair to judge people back then with the same standards that we uphold today. They were different times.

Lots of Church policies were actually written into law so people had very little choice to go along with much of it. One example of this was the Church being against contraception. They wanted lots of little catholics running around. The government legislated for this and made contraceptives illegal.

.......

This post has been deleted.

BattleCorp

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Protestants, like Jews, lay eggs and then the devil fertilizes them.

Electric Sheep

Deleted User wrote: »

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I've seen no signs of what you're talking about.

None?

You've never heard of carers and how many billions we now pay for a task that was done out of a sense of duty and morality in decades gone by?

Done by the women, of course, who were told it was their duty by the men.