Pregnancy out of wedlock and perception of disgrace.

political analyst

The novelist Cath Staincliffe, who was given up for adoption, found her biological mother, Evelyn Cullen, whose aunt was married to President Seán T O'Kelly.

In 1956, Evelyn found she was pregnant with Cath.

This article is from 2002.

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/the-high-price-of-shame-1.1088817

Had she made the news known, she says, she would "probably would have ended up in the Magdalen Laundries". Her major concern, however, was for the fate of her twin brother, Jim, who was studying for the priesthood. "Had there been any scandal at all associated with his family, he would have been kicked out of the seminary."

"Father Jim", as she calls him, and to whom she was very close, died in 1985. The story of her baby, born in a home for single mothers in Leeds, when he thought she was pursuing her nursing career in England, was the one secret she kept from him all his life.

Why would senior figures in the Church blame Fr. Jim for his sister's supposed sin?

PS: This is specifically about Evelyn's case and so I've created this OP separately from the mother-and-baby-homes thread.

Parabellum9

The illusion of piety basically, likely to make a better priest if he comes from a god fearing family of devout catholics etc.

Day Lewin

I find it a little far-fetched. Did this ever really happen? (Kicking out a student priest because of a pregnant sister?)

It would be like criticising one of the Apostles for associating with Mary Magdalen.

If it did happen, shocking.

Parabellum9

Day Lewin wrote: »

I find it a little far-fetched. Did this ever really happen? (Kicking out a student priest because of a pregnant sister?)

It would be like criticising one of the Apostles for associating with Mary Magdalen.

If it did happen, shocking.

I don’t find anything about that time or the attitudes then far fetched after reading the stories today.

eviltwin

Day Lewin wrote: »

I find it a little far-fetched. Did this ever really happen? (Kicking out a student priest because of a pregnant sister?)

It would be like criticising one of the Apostles for associating with Mary Magdalen.

If it did happen, shocking.

When I got pregnant out of wedlock my mother, who had up until then been heavily involved in the church doing flowers, teas at events etc, was told her services were no longer required. That was in the 90’s. The priest was never friendly with her again. They loved shaming people.

Gatling

I doubt any one born in the last 30 years will ever under or comprehend what shame meant to family from early 1900 onwards here .
I think the closest you will come across is in Muslim families where parents will murder their daughters to prevent shame being brought on the family

saabsaab

Day Lewin wrote: »

I find it a little far-fetched. Did this ever really happen? (Kicking out a student priest because of a pregnant sister?)

It would be like criticising one of the Apostles for associating with Mary Magdalen.

If it did happen, shocking.

It would have brought scandal on the church for a Priest to have any association with unmarried mother even his sister. I'd say he would be encouraged to leave or perhaps at transferred to another country and his prospect of promotion would be nil.

mariaalice

There was a really good article in the Irish Times a few weeks ago. This woman was a GP and from a wealthy family and in the 1960s she went to England and had her baby adopted, never told her family, and went on to marry and have children. The article was by her daughter she never knew anything about what happened only discovered it by accident.

A well of a professional woman with a supportive family and she still went away to give birth so want chance did a poor woman have.

It all seems so bizarre now.

saabsaab

mariaalice wrote: »

There was a really good article in the Irish Times a few weeks ago. This woman was a GP and from a wealthy family and in the 1960s she went to England and had her baby adopted, never told her family, and went on to marry and have children. The article was by her daughter she never knew anything about what happened only discovered it by accident.

A well of a professional woman with a supportive family and she still went away to give birth so want chance did a poor woman have.

It all seems so bizarre now.

True. Those women were disowned in most cases. Either the homes or the streets were the options then. For the less well off.

mariaalice

There was another article I read a few years ago, about a pregnant student in the 1960s, and her brother was afraid his career in the civil service would be affected by having an unmarried mother as a sister. Again hard to comprehend.

mountai

And then of course , there was plenty of support for these " Wayward Girls " from the likes of Cleary and Casey .

Str8outtaWuhan

What everyone forgets is while the church and state were in cahoots, where were the fathers and family of these poor girls? many of the families handed the girls over to save face. surely this is the greatest betrayal?

saabsaab

Not that long ago since an unmarried teacher was sacked for having a child (with a separated man). Courts upheld the decision saying it was against the school's ethos.

Fred Cryton

There was some logic to it, even if you don't agree with it based on today's moral values. Especially at a time when Ireland was impoverished. You cannot apply today's values to another time. There's a reason we have the phrase "it was another time".

In an impoverished society where almost all wealth was based on inherited land ownership, you can see how illegitimate children were like a hand grenade thrown in the mix. Marriage was a tool used by people to gain resources. Hence the phrase "married into" this and that. Remember it was only couple generations before this when millions were starving in Ireland. People had to be very, very careful about how they used the tool of marriage, children etc as it was often the only way to gain enough resources to survive.

hesaidshesaid

eviltwin wrote: »

When I got pregnant out of wedlock my mother, who had up until then been heavily involved in the church doing flowers, teas at events etc, was told her services were no longer required. That was in the 90’s. The priest was never friendly with her again. They loved shaming people.

It's so terrible to think that events like these are in our very recent past. I agree with you, shame was a weapon wielded by too many figures of authority in the church.

bb12

I've heard of several incidences in recent times of women on their death beds suddenly talking about babies which their families had no idea about. There's a lot of secrets still going to the grave.

accensi0n

Fred Cryton wrote: »

There was some logic to it, even if you don't agree with it based on today's moral values. Especially at a time when Ireland was impoverished. You cannot apply today's values to another time. There's a reason we have the phrase "it was another time".

In an impoverished society where almost all wealth was based on inherited land ownership, you can see how illegitimate children were like a hand grenade thrown in the mix. Marriage was a tool used by people to gain resources. Hence the phrase "married into" this and that. Remember it was only couple generations before this when millions were starving in Ireland. People had to be very, very careful about how they used the tool of marriage, children etc as it was often the only way to gain enough resources to survive.

You would say that wouldn't you, Fr. Ed Cryton

eviltwin

Fred Cryton wrote: »

There was some logic to it, even if you don't agree with it based on today's moral values. Especially at a time when Ireland was impoverished. You cannot apply today's values to another time. There's a reason we have the phrase "it was another time".

In an impoverished society where almost all wealth was based on inherited land ownership, you can see how illegitimate children were like a hand grenade thrown in the mix. Marriage was a tool used by people to gain resources. Hence the phrase "married into" this and that. Remember it was only couple generations before this when millions were starving in Ireland. People had to be very, very careful about how they used the tool of marriage, children etc as it was often the only way to gain enough resources to survive.

The thing is Ed those attitudes didn’t just go away. Long after the laundries were shut women and girls who had babies outside marriage were judged for it. Still are in some places.

saabsaab

Fred Cryton wrote: »

There was some logic to it, even if you don't agree with it based on today's moral values. Especially at a time when Ireland was impoverished. You cannot apply today's values to another time. There's a reason we have the phrase "it was another time".

In an impoverished society where almost all wealth was based on inherited land ownership, you can see how illegitimate children were like a hand grenade thrown in the mix. Marriage was a tool used by people to gain resources. Hence the phrase "married into" this and that. Remember it was only couple generations before this when millions were starving in Ireland. People had to be very, very careful about how they used the tool of marriage, children etc as it was often the only way to gain enough resources to survive.

Good point. However, many practices were against the law even then. No death certs, no burial records, no legal adoption papers. One inspector of such places reported the problems but it was ignored and I believe he was moved on.

irishproduce

Fred Cryton wrote: »

There was some logic to it, even if you don't agree with it based on today's moral values. Especially at a time when Ireland was impoverished. You cannot apply today's values to another time. There's a reason we have the phrase "it was another time".

In an impoverished society where almost all wealth was based on inherited land ownership, you can see how illegitimate children were like a hand grenade thrown in the mix. Marriage was a tool used by people to gain resources. Hence the phrase "married into" this and that. Remember it was only couple generations before this when millions were starving in Ireland. People had to be very, very careful about how they used the tool of marriage, children etc as it was often the only way to gain enough resources to survive.

I had this conversation today with my mother. She was horrified reading the details. I like you took the position that it was a different time, and Ireland simply didn't have the wealth we have today. Single mothers didn't have anything going for them. There was no money. Marriage before children was used a form of a tool for societal management. But a horrible way to do it, when viewed through today's lens.
Single mothers today have all the options a woman could want and that is because we have matured, we have a broader view of human potential and an equal view that any child deserves the chance at their full potential. This is all possible because we have a huge economy full of companies from all over the world and that allows us to divide out resources somewhat better.
Back then, there was none of that. A daughter with a fatherless child, unfortunately was not a desirable situation by virtue of the state of the country.

It was awful the way women were treated and how many poor children died as a result of the way things were but unfortunately the state had limited options and sadly chose to attach a harsh stigma to having children without marriage.

Edit to add.
There was definitely mysoginy involved. However it was society who brought their daughters there to the homes, so a lot of society went along with that way of doing things.

Ave Sodalis

Gatling wrote:

I doubt any one born in the last 30 years will ever under or comprehend what shame meant to family from early 1900 onwards here .

I wouldn't even go back as far as 30 years. I was born in the first half of the 90s to a single, teenage mother and the priest came looking to take me off her. Whilst my mother told them to go to hell, that shame was still lingering on in the 90s and I've no doubt that where my mother succeeded in keeping me, there were other women who were not so bullheaded when a priest came knocking and were guilted into giving up their child.

Eric Cartman

bb12 wrote: »

I've heard of several incidences in recent times of women on their death beds suddenly talking about babies which their families had no idea about. There's a lot of secrets still going to the grave.

Even in some traditional families, the 40 something mother having a ‘miraculous conception’ to this day isnt that wild , raising the daughters child as their own.

I dont think theres ever going to be a time where theres no stigma around unmarried mothers in any religious family

bb12

bb12 wrote: »

I've heard of several incidences in recent times of women on their death beds suddenly talking about babies which their families had no idea about. There's a lot of secrets still going to the grave.

Think it was 4 years ago my father went to his Aunt's funeral, found out during the sandwiches after the burial she was actually his sister.
On the other side of the family I have 2 cousins that my granny more or less raised as her daughters; wasn't a secret but seemed to be a given if their mothers wanted to settle down with someone else.

Duke O Smiley

Day Lewin wrote: »

I find it a little far-fetched. Did this ever really happen? (Kicking out a student priest because of a pregnant sister?)

It would be like criticising one of the Apostles for associating with Mary Magdalen.

If it did happen, shocking.

My dad was turned down for the priesthood (at the age of 13!) because there was no father present in his household (his father had died) and his mother was raising he and his siblings on her own, which wasn't good enough for a potential priest, it was considered shameful.

He was told to go and join the brothers (Christian Brothers)...they'd take "his sort". And he did, at the tender age of 13, and left at 27.

VillageIdiot71

Fred Cryton wrote: »

In an impoverished society where almost all wealth was based on inherited land ownership, you can see how illegitimate children were like a hand grenade thrown in the mix. Marriage was a tool used by people to gain resources.

I think you're right to put it into that context. It wasn't just "oh, the shame of it". There was probably a strong element of "what the feck do you think you are at?"

If we wanted to make contemporary sense of it, it could be contrasted with those sensational homelessness stories, where a woman with seven or eight children gets a photo spread in the Sun and a breathless text suggesting that someone else needs to find a home for her. That's not exactly a sustainable model, either.

So, indeed, we don't react with complete shock and horror if a girl has an unplanned pregnancy. Although it still creates a lot of practical problems if she's still in school - it's just not a good idea. I suppose, in those years folk were more brutal in their reactions to unsustainable life choices.

Wonder how they'd have dealt with climate change.

ancapailldorcha

Fred Cryton wrote: »

There was some logic to it, even if you don't agree with it based on today's moral values. Especially at a time when Ireland was impoverished. You cannot apply today's values to another time. There's a reason we have the phrase "it was another time".

In an impoverished society where almost all wealth was based on inherited land ownership, you can see how illegitimate children were like a hand grenade thrown in the mix. Marriage was a tool used by people to gain resources. Hence the phrase "married into" this and that. Remember it was only couple generations before this when millions were starving in Ireland. People had to be very, very careful about how they used the tool of marriage, children etc as it was often the only way to gain enough resources to survive.

That's a pathetic justification. There's nothing in the Bible in my recollection about ostracising single mums and their families.

You're talking about this like it's medieval times or something. There are people alive today who've experienced this and been guilty of this.

the kelt

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Even in some traditional families, the 40 something mother having a ‘miraculous conception’ to this day isnt that wild , raising the daughters child as their own.

I dont think theres ever going to be a time where theres no stigma around unmarried mothers in any religious family

I went out with a girl when i was 19 or 20 or so.

Basically she was the youngest of a large enough family with a huge gap of nearly 10 years or more between her and her next sibling.

Turns out her sister was her mother and her mother was actually her Grandmother. Sister gave birth and her mother raised her as her own.

The reason being her actual mother had an affair with a local man much older than her and got pregnant and was hid away. The bizarre thing is the man who had the affair with her had a daughter who ended up marrying my Uncle.

I still think back to being at a family wedding when she was with me and we were sat at the same table with my Uncle and my Aunt through marriage. Girlfriend and my Aunt sitting chatting away and not a sinner any the wiser that they were actually half sisters.

mrslancaster

No such thing as a fatherless child @irishproduce.

There's an awful lot of shock & discussion now from the report released yesterday. Everyone is talking about the role of those who ran mother & baby homes, how the government didn't provide care or help & the attitudes of families and society at the time.

yes they all failed & it is truly horrific what happened & so upsetting to hear all of the terrible stories.

but there is a deafening silence about the men who fathered those babies.

Why did so many men abandon their children? Why did they think it was ok to walk away from the mothers & their responsibilities?

I don't know the answer to that but it is still happening today. Even though women have more options today, many still find themselves abandoned & alone. We can't blame the church or societal attitudes now.

Shame on every one of those fathers who walk away.

Potatoeman

I think the importance of biology today is trying to be downplayed. It’s a very unpopular opinion to say you wouldn’t date a single mother as you don’t want to raise someone else’s child. Many women wouldn’t either if they hadn’t had kids already as it’s a financial drain on their partner and even if they have kids themselves they can still not want the hassle. From what I’ve seen it’s a minefield.
I’m not surprised it was a taboo, who was going to pay for it? The poster above is assuming there was only one partner too.

Eric Cartman

Potatoeman wrote: »

I think the importance of biology today is trying to be downplayed. It’s a very unpopular opinion to say you wouldn’t date a single mother as you don’t want to raise someone else’s child. Many women wouldn’t either if they hadn’t had kids already as it’s a financial drain on their partner and even if they have kids themselves they can still not want the hassle. From what I’ve seen it’s a minefield.
I’m not surprised it was a taboo, who was going to pay for it? The poster above is assuming there was only one partner too.

I don't think its that unpopular an opinion. Many men would not date a single mother and many others might, but would choose a woman without children first.

I personally have no issue with it but can absolutely see why many many men would.

eviltwin

Potatoeman wrote: »

I think the importance of biology today is trying to be downplayed. It’s a very unpopular opinion to say you wouldn’t date a single mother as you don’t want to raise someone else’s child. Many women wouldn’t either if they hadn’t had kids already as it’s a financial drain on their partner and even if they have kids themselves they can still not want the hassle. From what I’ve seen it’s a minefield.
I’m not surprised it was a taboo, who was going to pay for it? The poster above is assuming there was only one partner too.

What you are talking about is different. There is not always a stigma behind the reason not to date a person with children, it can be a practical decision based on many factors. Many people who end up single parents never had a child outside marriage, circumstances just led them to a breakup. Its not the same as what the OP is describing.

Dating considerations don't account for women who had babies outside marriage being treated like dirt. I had a partner but still got called a slut by people in my locality and treated with hostility - funnily enough my other half never faced anything like that. Having a child without a husband or partner is not the worst thing in the world and isn't a reflection of the person.