The NMH at St. Vincents

markodaly

Ush1 wrote: »

Sure you can call an apple an orange but it's just symantics isn't it?:)

Is it semantics or symantics?

Pyr0

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Mark is kind of correct but he is cherry picking.

The "Gaelic" Church considered itself part of the broad European Church ruled from Rome but had some doctrinal differences - the most well known being the date of Easter, which was sorted out at the Synod of Whitby in 664 when the vote went Rome's way and the Gaelic church conceded...

The State paid the bills but abdicated control to the Roman Catholic Church.

Very interesting post, thanks for that!

Hotblack Desiato

markodaly wrote: »

Oh, this is another one of those cute soundbytes but when you look at the actual evidence, it turns out to be as you say, bullsh!t.

Yes the councils did pay the nuns. Problem was the nuns spent the bare minumum of that money on the women and children in the homes. You also overlook their other sources of money - extorting the families of the women, stealing and selling babies. Yet they stuck women into mass graves and children into disused cesspits without even recording let alone marking the burials.

Funny isn't it that we had laundries paying their workers nothing, charging commercial rates for their services yet, according to the nuns at the inquiry a few years back, made no profit?

Yet somehow the "Mercy" and "Charity" nuns now have private healthcare empires worth billions.

Something sure doesn't add up... could it be that the nuns are lying?? :rolleyes:

I must have missed the time nuns were driving around Ireland and lifting kids of Irish streets and shoving them into vans. Again a cute soundbyte for the perpetually offended to gather around.

There's no need for you to pretend to not know what we're talking about, when it's perfectly obvious to everyone else. They stole children, that's a fact. The women did not consent to the adoption of their children and were in no position to prevent it. Most of these adoptions were illegal under Irish law.

Hotblack Desiato

jimd2 wrote: »

Did you fully read the article that I linked? i.e the part where she said that there will be no involvement of the sister of charity whatsoever in the running of the hospital?

Yes I did. It's classic RC "mental reservation" i.e. lying. There may be no nuns "involved" but the religious trust established by the nuns certainly will be "involved"

Regarding your comment there about nuns my own experience with nuns would be more positive than what you are saying there.

Good for you. There's still no reason to hand over any hospital built with public money to a private trust, whether one actively run by religious orders, one established by them, or otherwise.

aloyisious

An example of a secular maternity hospital hospital would be the original National Maternity Hospital, founded through charitable donations in 1894 and granted a royal charter in 1903. The present Holles St hospital building was built in 1936 with redevelopment funded from the Irish Hospital Sweepstakes. The original board of governance was changed during that decade with the Archbishop of Dublin then appointed as it's chair. It seems to have successfully operated as an maternity hospital for decades without input from a nuns order and is only moving to a new building for the sake of its patients, the St Vincents site being the one chosen as the best one available.

As the aim is to serve pregnant women of all and none belief, involvement in the medical running of the new NMH by a religious order is clearly unnecessary. The nuns religious ethics will conflict with their position as owners and landlord of the site where the NMH would be sited, with all the medically necessary operations that it will have to perform there, which it performs presently at its Holles St premises.

It would be extremely charitable if the order was to donate ownership of the site to the board of Holles St NMH for the new NMH. It might even be possible to get tax relief from such a donation into the bargain, a write-off beneficial for all.

markodaly

I have mentioned a few times now, why don't the state buy the land?

There seems to be a vocal minority who want to browbeat them into handing over complete ownership of said land and property to virtue signal.

As has been correctly stated, it was the state who choose the site. The SOC did not ask for this hospital to be built on their land, nor are they asking to be involved in the day to day running of it.

People wanting to have it both ways like little Englander Brexiters.

aloyisious

markodaly wrote: »

I have mentioned a few times now, why don't the state buy the land?

There seems to be a vocal minority who want to browbeat them into handing over complete ownership of said land and property to virtue signal.

As has been correctly stated, it was the state who choose the site. The SOC did not ask for this hospital to be built on their land, nor are they asking to be involved in the day to day running of it.

People wanting to have it both ways like little Englander Brexiters.

I don't know the legal niceties the order has to follow in the management of the whole of the St Vincents Hospital campus it own's but it's possible it may have been impossible to sell off a specific section of the campus for use by the NMH and still maintain ownership of the rest of the campus if it is in a pre-existing trust at the moment separate to the one proposed for the running of the new NMH.

Edit. I imagine [though I have not seen the plans] that the section of the campus proposed for the new NMH will be surrounded-by the larger part of the campus and not positioned adjacent-to Nutley Lane whereby it could have it's own entrance/exit. It would be good if the NMH had such but I don't see the owner ceding that much to the Govt etc where it comes to property-ownership rights and a lessee's rights.

Bannasidhe

markodaly wrote: »

I have mentioned a few times now, why don't the state buy the land?

There seems to be a vocal minority who want to browbeat them into handing over complete ownership of said land and property to virtue signal.

As has been correctly stated, it was the state who choose the site. The SOC did not ask for this hospital to be built on their land, nor are they asking to be involved in the day to day running of it.

People wanting to have it both ways like little Englander Brexiters.

I think calling it virtue signalling is to ignore the fact that the Sister's of Charity have failed to pay the full amount they committed to pay towards redressing victims of (their) historical abuse and now about to be "gifted" a sizable asset built by the same State they owe money to...

And yes, it is being "gifted" - building an asset on leased land is to ultimately "gift" that asset to the owner of the land . What happens when the lease runs out? I is my understanding it is a 99 year lease. That is ridiculously short for such a major investment by the State. It is entirely possible that children born in that Maternity Hospital in it's first year of operation will still be alive when that lease ends A lease of one lifetime. Insanity.
What happens in 99 years? Will there be a renegotiation of the terms? Will it be a case of - well, this land is worth considerably more now due to having this large asset on it so we will have to charge more?

Give the SOC owes the State money, and their guilt as regards historical abuse - would it kill them to sell the site of the Mat Hosp to the State for a sum that takes into account their debts and divest themselves of all involvement?

ProfessorPlum

......not to mention the fact that the state has already essentially paid for both the SVUH site and buildings through the Irish Hospital Sweepstakes and our taxes!

aloyisious

The "who owns the hospital" issue is live again apparently. Some [lay] gent in the Vatican is present-day supposedly urging the powers-that-be there to refuse to give the order of nuns permission to hand over the site due to their obligation to the church. I heard mention of the former NMH master on RTE 2 days ago saying something about the ownership but assumed it was about something done and dusted from the past, I was wrong as the Irish Catholic publication reportedly has an article in it about the latest objection being raised within the Vatican to the deal with the nuns. Mention was also apparently made in the article [which I haven't read] about the upcoming retirement of the Archbishop of Dublin which it supposes means if the present deal on the table is not concluded before his retirement, the whole handover deal falls apart. Passing mention was also made to the minister and the new NMH project.

Bannasidhe

aloyisious wrote: »

The "who owns the hospital" issue is live again apparently. Some [lay] gent in the Vatican is present-day supposedly urging the powers-that-be there to refuse to give the order of nuns permission to hand over the site due to their obligation to the church. I heard mention of the former NMH master on RTE 2 days ago saying something about the ownership but assumed it was about something done and dusted from the past, I was wrong as the Irish Catholic publication reportedly has an article in it about the latest objection being raised within the Vatican to the deal with the nuns. Mention was also apparently made in the article [which I haven't read] about the upcoming retirement of the Archbishop of Dublin which it supposes means if the present deal on the table is not concluded before his retirement, the whole handover deal falls apart. Passing mention was also made to the minister and the new NMH project.

Taxpayer pays but RCC ethos will be the excuse to try and deny those same taxpayers the right to access a safe, legal, abortion.

Gee... and we were told that would never happen.

The Vatican is reportedly being urged to block the transfer of land at St Vincent's University Hospital in Dublin for the building of a new national maternity hospital over concerns that abortions would be carried out there.

The Irish Catholic Newspaper has reported that the Vatican is under pressure to block the plans.

Speaking on RTÉ's Morning Ireland, Irish Catholic editor Michael Kelly said the Catholic Church will not stand over a situation where the Sisters of Charity, who own the St Vincent's site, are involved in a hospital where abortions are taking place.

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2019/1122/1094481-national-maternity-hospital/

RobertKK

People need to stand up for what they believe in.

Bannasidhe

RobertKK wrote: »

People need to stand up for what they believe in.

I have no problem with that as long as I am not expected to fund them to deny women their legal rights.

Kermit.de.frog

I really don't see the problem here tbh.

Just seems like concocted anger for anger's sake?

The land is in the hands of the catholic church. Of course they don't want abortions. That is them standing by their beliefs.

Build it elsewhere if it's an issue.

Hotblack Desiato

:rolleyes: Pretty much the whole point of the new NMH is that it's co-located with an adult teaching hospital.

decky1

good ould Ireland, The poor nun's , that's a joke.

Bannasidhe

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I really don't see the problem here tbh.

Just seems like concocted anger for anger's sake?

The land is in the hands of the catholic church. Of course they don't want abortions. That is them standing by their beliefs.

Build it elsewhere if it's an issue.

Then the RCC can pay for it.
They can certainly afford it.

The State should not be using public money to pay for facilities that are controlled by any organisation that will put it's own ethos above the law of the land.
Abortions are legal.

elperello

The Catholic church are certainly entitled to their beliefs but it is vital that before any public money is spent that the issue of control is resolved.

Hotblack Desiato

RobertKK wrote: »

People need to stand up for what they believe in.

I believe that taxpayer funded services including education and health should have no religious "ethos" imposed upon them.

decky1

worked for nun's for a while gardening etc, when you see first hand how lavish their lifestyle is all the furniture and trappings, then they go out 'foreign' to help the poor for a few months, if their so concerned about the poor why do they not sell all these fine items and give to the poor as should the Vatican, millions of euro's worth of paintings etc , their not worried about poverty--- they really are a force to be reckoned with.

beejee

The government is...

Short-sighted.

Incompetent.

Will sell anything, anywhere, anytime, to any for-profit private company anywhere on earth for a fraction of its worth.

Giving them control of assets is akin to giving a 10 year old 50'000 in cash. They'll equally blow it in a weekend, be robbed blind, and then come home crying because they've nothing left, expecting a hand out and forgiveness.

For all that you can say about the Catholic Church, they know how to run things competently. Even bad things

Just to add, so great is their incompetence, I bet that as soon as they announce any kind of idea or plan, there are slick dudes rubbing their hands and laughing. Another legal robbery handed into laps.

NuMarvel

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I really don't see the problem here tbh.

Just seems like concocted anger for anger's sake?

The land is in the hands of the catholic church. Of course they don't want abortions. That is them standing by their beliefs.

Build it elsewhere if it's an issue.

It's not as simple as just building elsewhere. All three maternity hospitals in Dublin are to be relocated to the campuses of adult hospitals, and there are only 6 of those. Out of those, Vincent's is the only one that's in the same operational area as the NMH. The partnerships between all the adult and maternity hospitals have been built up on the basis of those areas, so it won't be as simple as moving the NMH to a different one.

And that's before we assess the suitability of adult hospitals in other areas to be a co-location site for a maternity hospital. For example, Connolly is meant to get the new Rotunda, but it needs significant time investment to be a suitable site.

Hotblack Desiato

beejee wrote: »

The government is...

Short-sighted.

Incompetent.

Will sell anything, anywhere, anytime, to any for-profit private company anywhere on earth for a fraction of its worth.

Giving them control of assets is akin to giving a 10 year old 50'000 in cash. They'll equally blow it in a weekend, be robbed blind, and then come home crying because they've nothing left, expecting a hand out and forgiveness.

For all that you can say about the Catholic Church, they know how to run things competently. Even bad things

Just to add, so great is their incompetence, I bet that as soon as they announce any kind of idea or plan, there are slick dudes rubbing their hands and laughing. Another legal robbery handed into laps.

This post is completely and utterly idiotic.

ILoveYourVibes

mrsmags16 wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/sisters-of-charity-to-be-given-new-national-maternity-hospital-1.3052079

Is this a joke?!

I am stunned, appalled and disgusted. Women are not going to be safe in that hospital.

The sisters of mercy should be left to rot in the dark.

ILoveYourVibes

RobertKK wrote: »

People need to stand up for what they believe in.

THEY HAVE!

We voted against the 8th.

Now you cannot tell me abortion is a part of maternity care in some cases. You can't ask me to believe its a procedure those nuns will ever allow carried out in that hospital even if a mother's life is at risk.

Loafing Oaf

Fears 'Vatican veto' will result in fresh delay for National Maternity Hospital

What happens if the Vatican ultimately says no?

Hotblack Desiato

Ideally a CPO.

In reality, probably this

aloyisious

Sean O'Rourke is breaking his own rules by breaking news of the Nuns order who own St Vincent's Hospital grounds are gifting property there to the state. Sean has made it plain that there's a lot more to be made known yet of the gift on the upcoming RTE News programmes today, circumstances, and whether its the actual whole or a portion of the grounds, whom the new title-holder Ministerial Dep't will be, and what legal benefits are in the reported gift deal for the order. Another guest on the S,O'R show mentioned that the Vatican was in accord with whatever was put on the table [as it were] from the nuns order.

ILoveYourVibes

Ah the age old question how to defeat nuns once they have infested ...well they don't scare me!

Hotblack Desiato

aloyisious wrote: »

Sean O'Rourke is breaking his own rules

Eh???