Pregnancy out of wedlock and perception of disgrace.

Samsonsmasher

SusieBlue wrote: »

You don’t need to explain because no matter what the reasoning was, it was wrong. I accept it was a different time with different values and culture but we can still look back and say that it was a disgraceful way to treat people regardless of all that.

I don’t consider myself Catholic but I don’t know what part of ‘gods work’ involved allowing 9k+ babies to die from abuse or neglect, burying children and babies with no dignity in septic tanks, selling children as if they were cattle to the highest bidder and using the labour provided by the poor women they imprisoned for profit.
You will never convince me that they didn’t know exactly what they were doing and that it was wrong, or that they thought that this was ‘gods work’. It was greed and it was abuse.
But they knew such was their chokehold on society, the law, the schools, the hospitals, and the government, that they’d get away with it.
They knew no one would dare question them for fear of bringing their wrath on their own family.
They’re not sorry they did it, they’re only sorry they got caught.

There is something very wrong about getting innocent little 7/8 year olds to confess their ‘sins’ to the very people who perpetuated, carried out, and turned a blind eye to these abuses.

You do realise that stupid people don't know they are stupid otherwise they wouldn't be stupid?
In the same way people who commit heinous crimes in the name of religion or communism or national socialism or imperialism or Islamic fundamentalism don't consider what they are doing is evil but good?
They consider themselves righteous and their victims to be enemies deserving what is coming to them?
The majority of people went along with this stuff because it was the truth at that time and was unquestioned.
If a 21st century person travelled back in time to try to explain to them the harm they were doing they would laugh and think they were mad.
If you lived at that time you would have agreed with them. Why wouldn't you?

Anyway it's very odd to be upset about thousands of unwanted babies being buried in septic tanks when today in so called enlightened liberal tolerant Ireland thousands of unwanted babies are butchered by abortion?

Sebastian Dangerfield

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

You do realise that stupid people don't know they are stupid otherwise they wouldn't be stupid?
In the same way people who commit heinous crimes in the name of religion or communism or national socialism or imperialism or Islamic fundamentalism don't consider what they are doing is evil but good?
They consider themselves righteous and their victims to be enemies deserving what is coming to them?
The majority of people went along with this stuff because it was the truth at that time and was unquestioned.
If a 21st century person travelled back in time to try to explain to them the harm they were doing they would laugh and think they were mad.
If you lived at that time you would have agreed with them. Why wouldn't you?

Anyway it's very odd to be upset about thousands of unwanted babies being buried in septic tanks when today in so called enlightened liberal tolerant Irelsnd thousands of unwanted babies are butchered by abortion?

1 - they aren't "babies" when they are aborted under current law.
2 - there is a massive difference between someone making a choice about their own body, and someone being held captive in forced labour while that choice is made for them, against their wishes, for the financial gain of others.

I also dont think its correct that anyone who lived in this time with Catholic beliefs would have agreed. Agreement involves open discussion, when in fact this was the dirty little secret of every town that for the most part wasnt spoken about. The stink of shame created by the church and senior figures in Irish society meant most people just didnt want to know. Its like saying that all Germans were in favour of what the Nazis did. Its not true, but fear is a powerful tool and it stopped the majority of dissenters from acting.

Samsonsmasher

Sebastian Dangerfield wrote: »

1 - they aren't "babies" when they are aborted under current law.
2 - there is a massive difference between someone making a choice about their own body, and someone being held captive in forced labour while that choice is made for them, against their wishes, for the financial gain of others.

I also dont think its correct that anyone who lived in this time with Catholic beliefs would have agreed. Agreement involves open discussion, when in fact this was the dirty little secret of every town that for the most part wasnt spoken about. The stink of shame created by the church and senior figures in Irish society meant most people just didnt want to know.

So unwanted babies dying from neglect and buried in a septic in the name of Catholicism = Wrong.

Disposing of unwanted aborted babies as medical waste in the name of women's rights = Right.

Ok you just proved my point.

Whatever is the prevailing culture decides what is right and wrong and like the way iron filings obey a magnet the majority of people go along with it.

If you had been around 70 or 80 years ago you would have gone along with it like everyone else.

You wear a mask socially distance and stay within 5km of your house because you were told to.

Sebastian Dangerfield

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

So unwanted babies dying from neglect and buried in a septic in the name of Catholicism = Wrong.

Disposing of unwanted aborted babies as medical waste in the name of women's rights = Right.

Ok you just proved my point.

Whatever is the prevailing culture decides what is right and wrong and like the way iron filings obey a magnet the majority of people go along with it.

Your post is an exercise in deflection, Im not even going to bother arguing.

SusieBlue

Donald Trump wrote: »

None of your rant is relevant to what I posted. You can live your own life how you want to, or teach your own kids what you want

It was relevant. You said it wasn’t realistic or practical to expect men to be father material. Why is that?
Why do we expect women to do it, but not men?

Necro

Mod:

Samsonsmasher, your comparisons to abortion are off topic at the very least - do not derail the thread or your posting privileges on this thread will be removed. This is your one and only warning, any questions PM me.

SusieBlue

fantaiscool wrote: »

I have seen many a case where a woman gets involved with a man who clearly is not good "father material". If you are getting pregnant by a guy who is not going to be a good father then it's stupid to be surprised when he turns out to be such. He might have been an attractive "bad boy" though.

A) Men are just as responsible for conception as women are.
Pregnancy was rarely the intended outcome but the severe lack of sex education and lack of access to contraception meant it was extremely common. This is absolutely not the fault of any of those girls, the blame for that is solely on the church and the state.
C) Crisis pregnancies do not just happen to young schoolgirls getting pregnant by the local bad boy - even back then it wasn’t the case. Poor women ended up in the laundries, richer women went on an extended holiday to the UK to have an abortion.
D) Your attitude basically absolves men of any parental or social responsibility because the woman should have had the hindsight to know he’d abandon her, which is ridiculous. He shouldn’t be abandoning her in the first place.

fantaiscool

SusieBlue wrote: »

A) Men are just as responsible for conception as women are.
Pregnancy was rarely the intended outcome but the severe lack of sex education and lack of access to contraception meant it was extremely common. This is absolutely not the fault of any of those girls, the blame for that is solely on the church and the state.
C) Crisis pregnancies do not just happen to young schoolgirls getting pregnant by the local bad boy - even back then it wasn’t the case. Poor women ended up in the laundries, richer women went on an extended holiday to the UK to have an abortion.
D) Your attitude basically absolves men of any parental or social responsibility because the woman should have had the hindsight to know he’d abandon her, which is ridiculous. He shouldn’t be abandoning her in the first place.

I wasn't talking about the laundries or in the distant past. Men are also responsible for conception, although women have way more options than men do in that respect, but I'm talking about the cases when girls are getting knocked up by guys who clearly are not "father material".

If a woman is complaining that shes a single mother and the guy is a deadbeat she would have to ask herself why she chose to procreate with a deadbeat. Theres a narrative that the girls couldn't have seen this coming but female intuition is spot on generally and they know what kind of guy they are dealing with.

If I go to Coolock tomorrow, leave the keys in my car, leave it running outside a shop and it gets robbed I can hardly start complaining about how it should never have been robbed and go around saying it wasn't my fault and look for sympathy. I'd expect my friends to pull me aside as tell me it was entirely my fault and I should wise up and take responsibility for my poor decision and learn from it.

It's nice and exciting meeting attractive guys willy nilly off apps like Tinder and having sex without knowing the guy well. You are putting yourself at risk of getting pregnant by a guy that you don't know that well. Then if the guy turns out to be a deadbeat the women start blaming the guy. You are the one who lay down and let a deadbeat impregnate you, a decision they now regret and wouldn't do if they could turn back time. At some point they have to look in the mirror and take responsibility for it.

SusieBlue

fantaiscool wrote: »

I wasn't talking about the laundries or in the distant past. Men are also responsible for conception, although women have way more options than men do in that respect, but I'm talking about the cases when girls are getting knocked up by guys who clearly are not "father material".

If a woman is complaining that shes a single mother and the guy is a deadbeat she would have to ask herself why she chose to procreate with a deadbeat. Theres a narrative that the girls couldn't have seen this coming but female intuition is spot on generally and they know what kind of guy they are dealing with.

If I go to Coolock tomorrow, leave the keys in my car, leave it running outside a shop and it gets robbed I can hardly start complaining about how it should never have been robbed and go around saying it wasn't my fault and look for sympathy. I'd expect my friends to pull me aside as tell me it was entirely my fault and I should wise up and take responsibility for my poor decision and learn from it.

It's nice and exciting meeting attractive guys willy nilly off apps like Tinder and having sex without knowing the guy well. You are putting yourself at risk of getting pregnant by a guy that you don't know that well. Then if the guy turns out to be a deadbeat the women start blaming the guy. You are the one who lay down and let a deadbeat impregnate you, a decision they now regret and wouldn't do if they could turn back time. At some point they have to look in the mirror and take responsibility for it.

So basically you’re saying it’s acceptable for men to be wasters and deadbeats, and can’t be expected to take any responsibility whatsoever for their actions or support any subsequent children because the WOMAN should have been able to predict the future, so it’s her own fault for ‘laying down with him’, as you said.

And that by giving consent (or not) to sex, she is also consenting to being abandoned by the father of her potential child and shouldn’t expect any support or help because as you said, she should have known in advance whether or not he’d take care of his responsibilities.

If you leave your car unattended with the keys in it, it is still the fault of the thief if it is stolen. Anything else just amounts to victim blaming.

Judging by the sheer amount of single mothers in this country it appears that there are hundreds of thousands of deadbeats around the place.
Perhaps you’d be more in line to tell your fellow men to cop onto themselves and look after their responsibilities instead of laying all the blame on the shoulders of the woman left holding the baby?

I will also repeat for good measure that pregnancy is not always the intention when a woman chooses to have sex. The pill is 91% effective with typical use and contraceptive failure is common.
Young single women also aren’t the only groups who experience crisis pregnancies, it happens to women of all ages, backgrounds, cultures, and marital statuses.

You are making gross generalisations with your implication that only young sex mad stupid girls get pregnant from casual relationships and that it doesn’t happen to anyone else, while once again conveniently absolving the fathers of any and all responsibility.

Hellokitty1212

SusieBlue wrote: »

It was relevant. You said it wasn’t realistic or practical to expect men to be father material. Why is that?
Why do we expect women to do it, but not men?

Spot on!

I always told mine - both sexes - that if you were prepared to have sex you had to be prepared to be a parent.

saabsaab

brooke 2 wrote: »

Not all families did this. My mother told me once about a girl who became pregnant in the late 40s. She lived about a mile outside the town. Two priests went to her house, insisting she had to leave the parish as she would be giving 'bad example' to the other young girls there. Her father sent the priests running, telling them that, as long as there was breath in his body, his daughter and her baby would have a roof over their heads in his house. Sad to think that that man was heroic, for standing up to the power of the church. Most people could not resist the pressure from those bullies.

He would have been heroic or mad at that time. Most Irish Catholics unless they were traveled well educated and monied would have done what the church said.

Hamsterchops

political analyst wrote: »

Pregnancy out of wedlock and perception of disgrace.

Not for twenty-thirty years, not any more thank God.

mrslancaster

It was the RCC who said contraception was wrong & a succession of governments indoctrinated by that teaching who made the laws. It wasn't until 1978 that contraception became available & only on a medical prescription and in 1985 condoms became available.

It is hard to imagine now what it was like to live in such a strict environment & it was very slow to change.
It doesn't alter the fact that it takes two people & it was the women who were left.

8kczg9v0swrydm

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Poor examples, Poland was communist, the Catholic religion was there but no institutional strength

Italy never practiced the kind of puritanical Catholicism that we did , neither did the likes of Brazil

The Catholic Church in Poland, although it was persecuted by the Communists, had a massive amount of power. During 50s, 60s and 70s some referred to Cardinal Wyszynski, the Primiate, as 'the uncrowned king of Poland'. The Church was in a big way responsible for the downfall of Communism in that country.

On Italy, you are more or less making my point. Yes, they were Catholic, but their mores was not as harsh. Therefore, factors other than Catholicism (as well as our poor understanding of Catholicism) must account for the existence of mother and baby homes etc.

Former Former Former wrote: »

No offence to you, but talking about the 'mistakes' of Irish catholicism is very misguided. There were no mistakes, everything went exactly to plan.

Show me where it says in the Bible or Catechism that 'you need to establish mother-and-baby homes' or 'you need to set up Magdalen laundries'.

What you might find instead is this line: [Christ to the woman caught in adultery]:

"Woman where are they who accuse you? Has no one condemned you?"
“No one, Lord,” she answered.

“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Now go and sin no more.”

Repentance and mercy are the order of the day. What went wrong in Ireland was a matter of wrong interpretation or clergy going directly against what is written in the Gospel.

Any time they've been called to account and repent, they've weaseled out of it. When they had a real opportunity to make amends via the residential redress board, they just couldn't let go of their wealth and lands because there was no real contrition, there was no real remorse. They were like a bold child, not sorry for what they did but sorry they got caught.

That is not true. The Irish Church has paid millions into the redress board - at least €227m (as of 2018). Some religious orders are on the verge of bankruptcy, but money was still paid to atone for the crimes of the various members of these congregations. Moreover, the Church has instituted very strict guidelines on the safety of children and vulnerable adults, stricter than in other places. To say that the Church does not grieve over the horrible abuse which has happened is wrong.

I see old people still going to mass and I pity them. I'm sure these are good people who can't see that they're fanning the dying embers of the worst thing that ever happened this country.

People talk about churches closing and shortages of priests as a bad thing. I think it will be our final step out of the cave. It can't come quick enough.

Going to Church is about having a relationship with God, to worship Him as a community. What is wrong with that?

Catholicism is what made Ireland a great country. It is why this nation was known as 'the island of saints and scholars'. The Catholic faith consoled and strengthened our forefathers through centuries of trial, war and oppression. True, there were mistakes, there was abuse, but this is something that should never have happened. It is being remedied. The bottom line is: the soul of Ireland is Catholic.

Donald Trump

Hellokitty1212 wrote: »

Spot on!

I always told mine - both sexes - that if you were prepared to have sex you had to be prepared to be a parent.

Do you also tell your son that if your daughter decides to hook up with, and gets impregnated by, the local waster (whose proclivity for reckless behaviour and subsequent abandonment is clearly evidenced by the 3 recent and ignored kids he's had with 3 other local ladies) that your son, as a feckin' typical man bastard, is responsible when the now 4-time father moves on to lady number 5?


I mean it is apparently going to be your son's fault for not explaining logically to the daddy that he has societal responsibilities. Because if your son simply explains that to the daddy, then the daddy will obviously suddenly realise the error of his ways and not surprisingly abandon your daughter like he did the previous 3 women.


Your daughter will bear no blame. But your son definitely will. Even though he always takes precautions himself in his own life. Or something to that effect I think going by previous posts.

Hellokitty1212

Donald Trump wrote: »

Do you also tell your son that if your daughter decides to hook up with, and gets impregnated by, the local waster (whose proclivity for reckless behaviour and subsequent abandonment is clearly evidenced by the 3 recent and ignored kids he's had with 3 other local ladies) that your son, as a feckin' typical man bastard, is responsible when the now 4-time father moves on to lady number 5?


I mean it is apparently going to be your son's fault for not explaining logically to the daddy that he has societal responsibilities. Because if your son simply explains that to the daddy, then the daddy will obviously suddenly realise the error of his ways and not surprisingly abandon your daughter like he did the previous 3 women.

Your daughter will have no blame. But your son definitely will. Or something to that effect I think going by previous posts.

What are you taking about ?

jaxxx

Justin Uneven Bandit wrote: »

The Catholic Church in Poland, although it was persecuted by the Communists, had a massive amount of power. During 50s, 60s and 70s some referred to Cardinal Wyszynski, the Primiate, as 'the uncrowned king of Poland'. The Church was in a big way responsible for the downfall of Communism in that country.

On Italy, you are more or less making my point. Yes, they were Catholic, but their mores was not as harsh. Therefore, factors other than Catholicism (as well as our poor understanding of Catholicism) must account for the existence of mother and baby homes etc.



Show me where it says in the Bible or Catechism that 'you need to establish mother-and-baby homes' or 'you need to set up Magdalen laundries'.

What you might find instead is this line: [Christ to the woman caught in adultery]:

"Woman where are they who accuse you? Has no one condemned you?"
“No one, Lord,” she answered.

“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Now go and sin no more.”

Repentance and mercy are the order of the day. What went wrong in Ireland was a matter of wrong interpretation or clergy going directly against what is written in the Gospel.




That is not true. The Irish Church has paid millions into the redress board - at least €227m (as of 2018). Some religious orders are on the verge of bankruptcy, but money was still paid to atone for the crimes of the various members of these congregations. Moreover, the Church has instituted very strict guidelines on the safety of children and vulnerable adults, stricter than in other places. To say that the Church does not grieve over the horrible abuse which has happened is wrong.




Going to Church is about having a relationship with God, to worship Him as a community. What is wrong with that?

Catholicism is what made Ireland a great country. It is why this nation was known as 'the island of saints and scholars'. The Catholic faith consoled and strengthened our forefathers through centuries of trial, war and oppression. True, there were mistakes, there was abuse, but this is something that should never have happened. It is being remedied. The bottom line is: the soul of Ireland is Catholic.

Wrong. Wrong. Couldn't be more wrong. See, this is what happens when delusions are tolerated. Appreciate what is real instead of what only might be real. The planet, nature, life. That is real. That's what you, and by extension the entire world, should be worshiping, protecting.

Donald Trump

Hellokitty1212 wrote: »

What are you taking about ?

It wasn't really referring to you but another poster who ranted along those lines when I just said that there would surely be a correlation between fellas who are reckless and those who would not take responsibility and that people needed to be practical and realistic.



Other poster was further implying that all other men were to blame when it happened

Hellokitty1212

Donald Trump wrote: »

It wasn't really referring to you but another poster who ranted along those lines when I just said that there would surely be a correlation between fellas who are reckless and those who would not take responsibility and that people needed to be practical and realistic.



Other poster was further implying that all other men were to blame when it happened

Then quote them please.

Electric Sheep

Donald Trump wrote: »

Do you also tell your son that if your daughter decides to hook up with, and gets impregnated by, the local waster (whose proclivity for reckless behaviour and subsequent abandonment is clearly evidenced by the 3 recent and ignored kids he's had with 3 other local ladies) that your son, as a feckin' typical man bastard, is responsible when the now 4-time father moves on to lady number 5?


I mean it is apparently going to be your son's fault for not explaining logically to the daddy that he has societal responsibilities. Because if your son simply explains that to the daddy, then the daddy will obviously suddenly realise the error of his ways and not surprisingly abandon your daughter like he did the previous 3 women.


Your daughter will bear no blame. But your son definitely will. Even though he always takes precautions himself in his own life. Or something to that effect I think going by previous posts.

You seem quite obsessed with the local bad boy waster. I'm guessing it is personal.

Donald Trump

Hellokitty1212 wrote: »

Then quote them please.

Sorry. But you were kinda making another point I was making that people have to tell their own kids. That was why I quoted yours. I should have made that clear.


I think I'm a responsible person and have always been paranoid taken precautions. If something unexpected had happened, then I'd have expected to have had to take responsibility for it. So it would have been a big impact personally if I had had an "accident".



But being realistic I know that there are plenty of lads who don't bother begin careful because they know that they won't take responsibility. So it annoys me for someone (not you) to be saying "Why aren’t you urging your fellow men to be more responsible, use their own contraception and be there for and support the the children they created?" is a little annoying. There are fellas who just don't care. There is nothing that I can do. You have to be realistic. Saying that that is true is not condoning it or excusing their behaviour. Blaming me for their behaviour is like telling you to blame your son for it.



I have one fairly distant relation that had a kid as a teenager and the fella deserted her soon after. Were there any signs there that he potentially turn out to be not a nice responsible fella.... I mean who can say for certain but the first story that I heard about him was that his first introduction to her family was when she brought him to some small family event and he got drunk or high and attacked her younger brother and slashed him with a broken pint glass. He might have been a lovely fella. I never met him. I just heard that he did that and a couple of months later deserted her after getting her pregnant and never wanted anything to do with the kid. (Actually his own father was the only one in his family that wanted anything to do with the kid from what I heard)

Hamsterchops

Justin Uneven Bandit wrote: »

Catholicism is what made Ireland a great country. It is why this nation was known as 'the island of saints and scholars'. The Catholic faith consoled and strengthened our forefathers through centuries of trial, war and oppression. True, there were mistakes, there was abuse, but this is something that should never have happened. It is being remedied. The bottom line is: the soul of Ireland is Catholic.

Really :rolleyes:

Donald Trump

Electric Sheep wrote: »

You seem quite obsessed with the local bad boy waster. I'm guessing it is personal.

Bit of a stretch to say I'm obsessed with a term I never used - no?




Perhaps you inserting "bad boy" into your post is personal to yourself?

fantaiscool

SusieBlue wrote: »

So basically you’re saying it’s acceptable for men to be wasters and deadbeats, and can’t be expected to take any responsibility whatsoever for their actions or support any subsequent children because the WOMAN should have been able to predict the future, so it’s her own fault for ‘laying down with him’, as you said.

And that by giving consent (or not) to sex, she is also consenting to being abandoned by the father of her potential child and shouldn’t expect any support or help because as you said, she should have known in advance whether or not he’d take care of his responsibilities.

If you leave your car unattended with the keys in it, it is still the fault of the thief if it is stolen. Anything else just amounts to victim blaming.

Judging by the sheer amount of single mothers in this country it appears that there are hundreds of thousands of deadbeats around the place.
Perhaps you’d be more in line to tell your fellow men to cop onto themselves and look after their responsibilities instead of laying all the blame on the shoulders of the woman left holding the baby?

I will also repeat for good measure that pregnancy is not always the intention when a woman chooses to have sex. The pill is 91% effective with typical use and contraceptive failure is common.
Young single women also aren’t the only groups who experience crisis pregnancies, it happens to women of all ages, backgrounds, cultures, and marital statuses.

You are making gross generalisations with your implication that only young sex mad stupid girls get pregnant from casual relationships and that it doesn’t happen to anyone else, while once again conveniently absolving the fathers of any and all responsibility.

The bolded line above is where we disagree and I think where the core of our disagreement lies as it relates to responsibility. Leaving my car with the keys in it in an area filled with scumbags and its totally not my fault if it gets robbed? I deserve absolutely no part of the responsibility for it being robbed? I think that's a bizarre way to think and certainly not how people act in real life. Why are people not leaving their cars running and front door of their houses open every night?

SusieBlue

fantaiscool wrote: »

The bolded line above is where we disagree and I think where the core of our disagreement lies as it relates to responsibility. Leaving my car with the keys in it in an area filled with scumbags and its totally not my fault if it gets robbed? I deserve absolutely no part of the responsibility for it being robbed? I think that's a bizarre way to think and certainly not how people act in real life. Why are people not leaving their cars running and front door of their houses open every night?

Who is more to blame, a girl for consenting to sex with a man who she believed to be a good and decent person, or the man, for legging it at the first opportunity as soon as he finds out she’s pregnant?

Why is she more to blame for getting pregnant, and why is she more responsible for the resulting baby than the man is?

Your car analogy makes no sense because regardless of what either of us believe, in the eyes of the law the person who committed the crime and stole the car is in the wrong.
As a society we expect people to be decent and respect the law, and washing your hands of any responsibility by implying someone had no choice but to steal your car just because it was left unattended is ridiculous.
And you aren’t arguing in favour of *some* responsibility either, you are saying it’s the solely the woman’s whole fault and problem if she happens to get pregnant by a man who doesn’t want to know because she should have had the hindsight to know he’d abandon her.

We have come a long way since the days of the laundries but we still have a long way to go, and as a society we can do better.

saabsaab

I suppose it's the difference between blame and foolish.

I should not be blamed for being robbed if I walked half drunk late at night in some inner city areas of Dublin in a good suit with a gold watch and cash sticking out of my pockets but I would be called a very very foolish man to do so.

NutmegGirl

I think some of the problem was that a lot of nuns had no “vocation” and were sent to be nuns by their families which wouldn’t have been uncommon
As a result they had a load of anger and took it out on the girls and their babies, easy targets, no one cared and they couldn’t fight back
There was prob the occasional kind nun but in that kind of group think situation it would be v hard to go against the crowd and they’d prob have been moved on
My late grandmother was a primary teacher from the 1920’s onwards. V traditional Catholic, daily mass, but absolutely hated the nuns with a passion
Use to tell stories of how horrible they were . This was in a city school mainly poorer families but some better off. Treated the poorer kids like dirt she said

saabsaab

NutmegGirl wrote: »

I think some of the problem was that a lot of nuns had no “vocation” and were sent to be nuns by their families which wouldn’t have been uncommon
As a result they had a load of anger and took it out on the girls and their babies, easy targets, no one cared and they couldn’t fight back
There was prob the occasional kind nun but in that kind of group think situation it would be v hard to go against the crowd and they’d prob have been moved on
My late grandmother was a primary teacher from the 1920’s onwards. V traditional Catholic, daily mass, but absolutely hated the nuns with a passion
Use to tell stories of how horrible they were . This was in a city school mainly poorer families but some better off. Treated the poorer kids like dirt she said

Some nuns could be very cruel. I knew of a lad (5 years old or so) who was beaten every day if he missed a maths question. He was bad at maths and was asked almost each day. One day the nun said that she would get a big stick and beat him with his trousers off if he missed the next question at that point a cleaning lady saw this and stepped in and said the lad had had enough and he shouldn't get hit anymore. The nun stopped. Poor woman might have lost her job over it.

newmember2

SusieBlue wrote: »

Who is more to blame, a girl for consenting to sex with a man who she believed to be a good and decent person, or the man, for legging it at the first opportunity as soon as he finds out she’s pregnant?

Why is she more to blame for getting pregnant, and why is she more responsible for the resulting baby than the man is?...

Where does blame get us...we're all to blame...what are we gonna do about it?

Darc19

Up until about 1980, a child born out of wedlock has no succession rights, hence it was an illegitimate child.

When the law was being changed to give "legitimacy" to these, the catholic church demonised the change from the pulpits as once it became law, there would be no such thing as an "illegitimate" child and all children would be equal.

As they said, the catholic church here was so catholic, it forgot how to be Christian.

This was circa 1980, not 1880!!!