The crime of being an unmarried mother

[Quick Karl]

I seem to recall someone's quote about the merging of corporate and government interests? Someone in Italy in the mid-30's?

Musobama? Musoreid? Musopelosi? Ahhh, I just can't remember...

[Quick Karl]

There always seems to be the counter argument that 'all organized religions have their dark side' that they also are guilty of abuses which, in my opinion, is just a way to mitigate the impact of this particular story. But, the Catholic church is a worldwide organization with a different social impact in different countries. In the US, the prevailing society isn't as deeply influenced by the church as is Ireland because the church is not the main denomination in this country, and because we're pluralistic. In Ireland, it's different. Irish society is deeply influenced by the church and it's teaching, as are the politics of the country. Abuse on this scale can take place precisely because of that, because no one dare question the church or the 'good sisters and brothers' who were the caregivers for these unfortunate children. There were no checks to to the power of the church, no accountability which makes abuse inevitable. It's a cautionary tale for any country that allows its laws to become influenced by dogma or raises a religious institution above the welfare of its citizens. If that society didn't cast out unmarried pregnant women and their children most of these abuses wouldn't have happened, but society became that way because of church teaching which is, in that particular country, deeply puritanical and misogynist.

I am waiting for folks to start getting after the atrocities being committed in the name of Islam, TODAY, as vociferously as they seem to like getting after the Catholic Church...

[Yorkshire pud]

I am waiting for folks to start getting after the atrocities being committed in the name of Islam, TODAY, as vociferously as they seem to like getting after the Catholic Church...

Start that thread. This thread is about ill treatment in Ireland. C'mon, you've started about 8 of the previous 10 threads, one more won't hurt you.

[albrecht]

I am waiting for folks to start getting after the atrocities being committed in the name of Islam, TODAY, as vociferously as they seem to like getting after the Catholic Church...

Never gonna happen. We need to be tolerant and accepting of Islam in all its misogyny, violence, and backward ways. In fact we need to accept Sharia, Hadith, Figh and other legal and traditional Islamic ideas, no matter how backwards, into our legal system and force school children to celebrate Islamic holidays.

[Yorkshire pud]

Never gonna happen.

Start the thread then.

Edit: Bear in mind though that any argument put forward by the proponent is open to personal attack based purely on (or not) the Democrat/Republican dynamic, irrespective of whether or not it has any relevance. It's also legitimate to use personal anecdotes as a means to undo any substantiated (or not) evidence put forward. Any appeal to get the thread back on topic can be met with disregard and/or personal attacks, using fictitious and defamatory accusations.
This seems to have been the MO to hijack this thread you see, so it only seems fair to return the compliment. 

[Quick Karl]

Never gonna happen. We need to be tolerant and accepting of Islam in all its misogyny, violence, and backward ways. In fact we need to accept Sharia, Hadith, Figh and other legal and traditional Islamic ideas, no matter how backwards, into our legal system and force school children to celebrate Islamic holidays.

ESPECIALLY because if anyone says something those warm fuzzy Islamists don't like, they might get their heads hacked off...

It's all a matter of picking on an institution that 'Catholic Haters' know, will not retaliate.

[Yorkshire pud]

ESPECIALLY because if anyone says something those warm fuzzy Islamists don't like, they might get their heads hacked off...

It's all a matter of picking on an institution that 'Catholic Haters' know, will not retaliate.

C'mon. Have the courage of your convictions and start the thread. You have a lot of pent up frustration on the topic, so start the thread.

[Quick Karl]

C'mon. Have the courage of your convictions and start the thread. You have a lot of pent up frustration on the topic, so start the thread.

Says the boy with internet balls...

[Yorkshire pud]

Says the boy with internet balls...

Hush child. Hush. 

[Catsmile]

I'll just leave this here...

[Quick Karl]

I'll just leave this here...

That is fucking FAKE 

[b_dubb]

That is fucking FAKE 

Yuhhhh theeeenk?

[UnscreenedCaller]

I am waiting for folks to start getting after the atrocities being committed in the name of Islam, TODAY, as vociferously as they seem to like getting after the Catholic Church...

I have plenty to say about them as well, but this story was about the Catholic church in Ireland. That there is misogyny in fundementalist Islam doesn't mitigate the facts of this story. It's like saying "Oh, this isn't so bad. Look at what THEY did." It is bad, regardless of what has been done in the name of other religions.  If you want my opinion on people who bury their daughter alive for running away with a boy, or big, courageous men who bury women up to the waist and stone them to death for some sexual misadventure or another, or honor killings, or throwing acid in the faces of women and children who attempt to start up or attend schools, or forcible marriage for 12 year olds amongst backward yahoos, just ask me. I'll be happy to tell you they are the lowest scumbags on earth. If they disappeared tomorrow, I wouldn't shed a tear, but that doesn't make this story about the church in Ireland any more palatable.

[Quick Karl]

I have plenty to say about them as well, but this story was about the Catholic church in Ireland. That there is misogyny in fundementalist Islam doesn't mitigate the facts of this story. It's like saying "Oh, this isn't so bad. Look at what THEY did." It is bad, regardless of what has been done in the name of other religions.  If you want my opinion on people who bury their daughter alive for running away with a boy, or big, courageous men who bury women up to the waist and stone them to death for some sexual misadventure or another, or honor killings, or throwing acid in the faces of women and children who attempt to start up or attend schools, or forcible marriage for 12 year olds amongst backward yahoos, just ask me. I'll be happy to tell you they are the lowest scumbags on earth. If they disappeared tomorrow, I wouldn't shed a tear, but that doesn't make this story about the church in Ireland any more palatable.

There is a non stop attack on anything Christian in this country, with full ignorance for the good that many Christians have done, and continue to do, to this day - only a willingly blind person would deny that. And, there is a willing ignorance for the atrocities being committed in the name of Islam, this very minute.

Aside from that, I agree with everything you've written about Islam.

Nevertheless, the attack on anything Christian, even from 500-years ago, continues, because they wont cut anyone's head off that dares critique the Intuition...

[UnscreenedCaller]

Maybe I'm missing something, but no one in this country is being forcibly held back from attending houses of worship, be they Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Sikh, Wiccan or Muslim. The only acts of violence against religious houses of worship were anti Jewish, anti Sikh, anti Hindu and the racially motivated bombings of churches in the south. Christians, along with everyone else, are free to practice their religions in this country. What people are calling an attack on Christianity is more accurately a growing concern with the attempts to codify Christian moral beliefs into law, especially social law. There's precious little of Christian concern for the poor, but a lot of Christian 'concern' for what goes on in other people's bedrooms or between a woman and her doctor, as well as a truly frightening assault upon science in the name of 5,000 year old biblical writings. Upholding separation of church and state isn't an attack on Christianity, although the point seems to be missed that it protects Christians from having religious beliefs from another religion codified into law and forced upon them.

[West of the Rockies]

Well said, UC.

And I know loads of liberals (binders of them!) who are appalled by the violence of SO many practitioners of Islam.  It is repellant.  I have also known Muslims who were kind and wonderful people.  Fundamentalism of any stripe seems to bring out the crazy.

[Yorkshire pud]

Maybe I'm missing something, but no one in this country is being forcibly held back from attending houses of worship, be they Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Sikh, Wiccan or Muslim. The only acts of violence against religious houses of worship were anti Jewish, anti Sikh, anti Hindu and the racially motivated bombings of churches in the south. Christians, along with everyone else, are free to practice their religions in this country. What people are calling an attack on Christianity is more accurately a growing concern with the attempts to codify Christian moral beliefs into law, especially social law. There's precious little of Christian concern for the poor, but a lot of Christian 'concern' for what goes on in other people's bedrooms or between a woman and her doctor, as well as a truly frightening assault upon science in the name of 5,000 year old biblical writings. Upholding separation of church and state isn't an attack on Christianity, although the point seems to be missed that it protects Christians from having religious beliefs from another religion codified into law and forced upon them.

^^^ And there ladies and gentlemen is your natural candidate for President 2016. Anyone think she shouldn't be?

[Quick Karl]

Maybe I'm missing something, but no one in this country is being forcibly held back from attending houses of worship, be they Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Sikh, Wiccan or Muslim. The only acts of violence against religious houses of worship were anti Jewish, anti Sikh, anti Hindu and the racially motivated bombings of churches in the south. Christians, along with everyone else, are free to practice their religions in this country. What people are calling an attack on Christianity is more accurately a growing concern with the attempts to codify Christian moral beliefs into law, especially social law. There's precious little of Christian concern for the poor, but a lot of Christian 'concern' for what goes on in other people's bedrooms or between a woman and her doctor, as well as a truly frightening assault upon science in the name of 5,000 year old biblical writings. Upholding separation of church and state isn't an attack on Christianity, although the point seems to be missed that it protects Christians from having religious beliefs from another religion codified into law and forced upon them.

For the record, I believe that ALL "religions" have ALL of the same problems - that is, they seek to control other people's thoughts - no different than political parties or social philosophies. But also, in all religions, there are people that do good for others. To disparage one particular clique, above all others, because it is currently in-vogue to do so, while ignoring the larger issues that are destroying this country, is naïve.

If someone tells me "they believe" God is going to condemn me to an eternity in hell if I do not kowtow to their brand of 'group-think", what good will it to, to run around saying how wrong they are, or reminding them what someone on their "team" did 500-years ago? You think they're suddenly going to fall on the floor, cast off their beliefs, and thank you for being so wise and showing them the error of their ways?

The abortion issue is a good metaphorical example - what good does it to do call an anti abortion person names, when abortion is legal in the eyes of the law? You think the anti abortion person is going to change their thinking because you suggested they are illiterate farmers from some Tennessee back woods?

If you want to prevent the horrors that have been perpetrated in the past, and that are being perpetrated today, to even have a chance of diminishing, you simply must think beyond the present mindsets that contribute to the continuance of the stupidity.

NOT saying you are stupid - it is a statement in general.

[UnscreenedCaller]

\
The abortion issue is a good metaphorical example - what good does it to do call an anti abortion person names, when abortion is legal in the eyes of the law? You think the anti abortion person is going to change their thinking because you suggested they are illiterate farmers from some Tennessee back woods?

I didn't suggest that anti-abortion people are illiterate farmers from Tennessee back woods. I did say people who kidnap 12 year old child brides are backwater yahoos, and they are. I think everyone can agree on that. There are people of intelligence on both sides of the issue. I believe the late Nat Hentoff was anti abortion. BUT, abortion is legal in the US, as you say. Some churches, particularly the Catholic church, have all but abandoned it's ministry to the poor in spending millions to influence general elections to overturn Roe vs. Wade. This is why the story about the Irish mothers and children rankles. The church can't morally bleat about the unborn while neglecting and performing horrors on the living.

If you want to prevent the horrors that have been perpetrated in the past, and that are being perpetrated today, to even have a chance of diminishing, you simply must think beyond the present mindsets that contribute to the continuance of the stupidity.

The horror from the past that currently haunts me is the horror of the Dark Ages, when humanity went through a time of incredible ignorance. How much was lost in the burning of the library of Alexandria? How much did we lose in the arts and sciences when 'pagan' writers' works were destroyed? At this juncture in history, here in the US, and I'm only speaking of the US, we have people trying to rewrite science and history to shoehorn facts into a biblical perspective that is, at best, metaphorical. This is something that is so profoundly disturbing for our future as a viable society that I can't even joke about it. And, in this country, it is Christian fundamentalists who are fueling it. And that is, in great part, why there's a backlash directed at Christianity, as wrongheaded as that may be because while you have boinks who want to rewrite science, you also have Jesuit astronomers who are open to the idea of a universe teeming with life. 

And, btw, I am not antiCatholic. It's because of diligent Irish monks during the Dark Ages that many more works on antiquities were not lost.

[SciFiAuthor]

Nope: These 'modern standards' have zero to do with the systemic persecution of girls who were pregnant and not married. It is all to do with the iron hard influence that the catholic church had and still has in Ireland. The legislature is geared to how the Vatican views the world. Nothing to do with American Democrats, nothing whatsoever.

You're actually talking about a cultural persecution in Ireland. The same thing was not happening in Catholic France, Italy or the US. It was Ireland and Irish culture. That home for unwed mothers was a charity ostensibly designed to take care of these women. In other words your blind anti-Catholicism drives you to attack something intended by the church to combat the problem you're bitching about.

It is not consistent with Catholic belief to turn someone out of the house. You're supposed to do the opposite. The Irish were turning them out, and the church in Ireland was taking them in. The conditions may have been terrible, but the conditions of all of Ireland were terrible. It was a third world country. I've been to third world countries, I've seen incompletely cremated bodies floating down the Ganges while people bathe in it. A converted cistern is nice compared to the things that go on right now.

Nope again... I think UC doesn't need patronising by you, considering she was taught by Catholic nuns, and has probably a far deeper understanding of how it behaves towards women and men in different ways.

UC is biased. The diphtheria vaccine post is a good example. The children were given the vaccine that was later made commercially available. In other words, it kept them from getting diphtheria. Incidentally, that kind of testing was standard practice in the US at the time. Mental institutions, schools, the military, all did the same sorts of things under the auspices that if the treatment worked, then it was a good thing. The ends justify the means thinking. Obviously that's not modern thinking, but in a world of typhoid Marys, public health thinking is necessarily very different. In fact, I can virtually guarantee that people are being vaccinated against polio in Pakistan right now under a false premise. There's no choice, if you want to eliminate polio in a country where people believe polio vaccines contain pork blood because that's what the mullahs are saying, then it's better to lie to them and eliminate polio than tell them the truth and watch their kids die.

Actually, given that the only thing standing in between the eugenic policies of most western governments at the time was the Catholic Church in Ireland, their fate might have been worse without the church. Had they not been there, those women would have been forcibly sterilized like they were in most other countries.

And entirely irrelevant to the topic. The nuns were given money by the Irish government and lived at a higher standard than the average Irish citizen. Open a thread on the spud famine.

I'd actually like to know how anyone knows they lived at a higher standard. I'd really like some unwed mothers or nuns to come forward and end the media speculation circle that's built up.

I'm curious as to how you downplay this yet you got very vitriolic in a thread about disposal of aborted foetuses. You were pretty upset that they didn't get a proper burial with any dignity... This case with the buried kids who died from malnutrition, and illness without ANY dignity doesn't' seem to generate that same amount of indignation in you..

It's because you were using them to heat a building and not telling the people in the building that the warm air around them was from a burning fucking body. I mean, why the fuck do you think that's ok? This is not rocket science, that's fucking disgusting and ridiculously stupid from a PR standpoint. As to disposal, we now have very specific rules in place for the disposal of any human tissue. We put biohazard symbols up, have special vehicles for transport, procedures out the ass--none of which existed in Ireland in 1921-61. I'm not going to condemn based on judging the standards of their time by holding them to the standards of my time just because I don't like the catholic church. It's inconsistent, piss poor reasoning. 

Nope..It's everything to do with the mistreatment of young mothers and children by a Church that alleges to help the poor, the forgotten, the persecuted, the destitute...Let's not forget that bit eh? This isn't about a self proclaimed dictator, this is a self proclaimed church teaching the word of a deity.

At the time, your empire was actively participating in the forced sterilization of women in most of your domains to achieve the eugenic goal of restricting reproduction to your master race. And, you're condemning an institution specifically set up to be a home for these women, ignoring MASSIVE inconsistencies in the reporting about it. Here is your thinking:

Its the catholic church's fault that unwed mothers are being persecuted. I illustrate this persecution by condemning a charity home for these persecuted women. I ignore the inconsistency that presents because my motive is to attack the catholic church.

I can buy into no such thinking. It is fundamentally and deeply flawed.

[UnscreenedCaller]

UC is biased

Yorkshire pud is quite correct. I don't need patronizing by you. I am immersed in Catholic culture right up to the present days. A wrong is a wrong, regardless of how many would be apologists like yourself might want to spin it. 

[SciFiAuthor]

Yorkshire pud is quite correct. I don't need patronizing by you. I am immersed in Catholic culture right up to the present days. A wrong is a wrong, regardless of how many would be apologists like yourself might want to spin it.

I don't see it as a wrong, I see it as an alleged wrong with problems which are most likely the result of media sensationalism. Firstly, the concept of drug trials and FDA or equivalent approval didn't exist in 1930-36 (and didn't exist on anything other than a voluntary basis until 1955 in the US, Ireland later), so there was no such thing as an experimental drug. Secondly, we don't know how rampant diphtheria was in the affected areas at the time, it may well have been an emergency measure. Third, the claim hinges on the drug being used before it was sold in the UK (which most of Ireland was no longer a part of. Why the UK? Was it for sale in the Republic of Ireland or elsewhere? Sold?) which suggests it became an accepted diphtheria vaccination when it finally was sold in the UK.

As far as Catholicism, well, you don't have a monopoly on it. I've been around it all my life, and rejected it as silly bullshit decades ago, but I don't hate it. Since I don't have a dog in the political hate arena, what I saw in 8 years of Catholic School and coming from a huge (no condoms, remember) devoutly French Catholic family leads me to be filled with bewilderment when I see all these accusations, sensationalism and claims. When I think through the claims being made, they just don't hold up well. It looks every bit like the usual media narrative and very likely isn't the whole story.

[SciFiAuthor]

Actually there's a fourth reason to be skeptical. At the time, in the 1930's, there was actually a push against vaccinations in the west as they were emerging as preventatives. There were eugenic lobbies that wanted vaccination against disease illegalized entirely because the net result would be a population explosion. Some of those lobbies were successful, such as with the DDT ban that persists to this day, so I am forced to wonder if that was at play with diphtheria in Ireland.

[Yorkshire pud]

I don't see it as a wrong, I see it as an alleged wrong with problems which are most likely the result of media sensationalism. Firstly, the concept of drug trials and FDA or equivalent approval didn't exist in 1930-36

Hmmm, so how do you see any justification for starvation and general lack of care? Even the current Irish President has said they were treated as sub human.

Suggesting that France, Italy and Ireland are all the same because they have a Catholic faith is an irrelevance. Ireland is the only one that has the Catholic doctrines written into it's legislature. France and Italy are secular. Therefore most laws in the Irish legislature are with either the tacet approval of the Vatican or written in knowing the Vatican would favour them.

[Yorkshire pud]

Actually there's a fourth reason to be skeptical. At the time, in the 1930's, there was actually a push against vaccinations in the west as they were emerging as preventatives. There were eugenic lobbies that wanted vaccination against disease illegalized entirely because the net result would be a population explosion. Some of those lobbies were successful, such as with the DDT ban that persists to this day, so I am forced to wonder if that was at play with diphtheria in Ireland.

You're one of the few that is sceptical. The current Irish government, Catholic bishops and the wider Irish population aren't at all sceptical. Are they wrong or just misguided? The vaccine aspect isn't the whole issue, it may not even be a major one. The mistreatment and general disdain for the unmarried mothers and their children (who were seen as not fit to live) is a far more serious part of this.

[UnscreenedCaller]

You're one of the few that is sceptical. The current Irish government, Catholic bishops and the wider Irish population aren't at all sceptical. Are they wrong or just misguided? The vaccine aspect isn't the whole issue, it may not even be a major one. The mistreatment and general disdain for the unmarried mothers and their children (who were seen as not fit to live) is a far more serious part of this.

Don't bother Yorkie. He's an apologist. It won't matter when Francis personally addresses the wrong. It'll always be an 'alleged' wrong because like doubting Thomas, some people won't believe until they can dip their hands directly into the wounds and that will never happen as they're comfortably removed from the action.

As far as Catholicism, well, you don't have a monopoly on it. I've been around it all my life, and rejected it as silly bullshit decades ago, but I don't hate it. Since I don't have a dog in the political hate arena, what I saw in 8 years of Catholic School and coming from a huge (no condoms, remember) devoutly French Catholic family leads me to be filled with bewilderment when I see all these accusations, sensationalism and claims. When I think through the claims being made, they just don't hold up well. It looks every bit like the usual media narrative and very likely isn't the whole story.

I don't have a monopoly on Catholicism. That's an illogical line of thinking. It's a religion, not a commodity, and one I don't hate contrary to the tiresome stereotype you just threw out. What I do have authority to speak about, based on direct immediate personal experience,  is the way in which the hierarchy treats people, particularly women, and that experience goes well  beyond an parochial school education and a cultural upbringing. But, the tactic of attacking the person's credibility and not the point, is noted. "Accusation, sensationalism and claims" is pretty much what was said by the apologists when the Boston Globe published the first articles on priest abuse and yet, now it's generally understood that they were right in exposing the abuse and cover ups, unpalatable as it might be to some. The same is true for this latest scandal.

[Quick Karl]

"Accusation, sensationalism and claims" is pretty much what was said by the apologists when the Boston Globe published the first articles on priest abuse and yet, now it's generally understood that they were right in exposing the abuse and cover ups, unpalatable as it might be to some. The same is true for this latest scandal.

They weren't "Priests". They were homosexual pedophile predators, pretending to be priests, so they could get access to victims.

Never forget that.

[Yorkshire pud]

They weren't "Priests". They were homosexual pedophile predators, pretending to be priests, so they could get access to victims.

Never forget that.

Wrong again.. peodophile and homosexual are not mutually inclusive to each other. In the same way not every bible bashing misogynist has a beard. Nor is every man who has a beard, a bible bashing misogynist.

Don't forget that.

[SciFiAuthor]

Hmmm, so how do you see any justification for starvation and general lack of care? Even the current Irish President has said they were treated as sub human.

Starvation never occurred. Malnutrition was reported, but in the same report the children were deemed to be in generally good condition. Sounds like Ireland of the early to mid 20th century to me. Malnutrition and starvation are not the same thing, so stop concocting it.

Michael Higgins is Labour, of course he's going to comment like that. I see no justification for anything, Ireland was a third world country living in subsistence conditions that prompted it to both revolt from the UK, flood the US with immigrants and experience periods of disease and starvation for over a century. It's the same story from the Potato Famine all the way through the mid 20th century.  Don't be led by the media, go through these articles and ask "How do they know that?" "What's the source of this?" and you'll see they fail badly.

Suggesting that France, Italy and Ireland are all the same because they have a Catholic faith is an irrelevance. Ireland is the only one that has the Catholic doctrines written into it's legislature. France and Italy are secular. Therefore most laws in the Irish legislature are with either the tacet approval of the Vatican or written in knowing the Vatican would favour them.

Untrue, the Roman Catholic Church is to this day a state-funded official religion in France, one of six. Italy wasn't a secular state until 1872, and previous to 1872 the Papal states were actually rather lax for Europe, allowing both gambling and prostitution under the pretense that people have free will; they will either sin, or they won't. More, it is against Catholic doctrine to turn someone out of your house for getting knocked up, you are to be compassionate, not cold and that's why it wasn't happening in any other catholic country.

Let's drop the pretenses. You're an extreme leftist that dislikes the church because the church dislikes abortion. You're willing to buy into anything, and even misrepresent, the Catholic church to get abortion going in full swing in Ireland. You're willing to use these dead children (but not the million+ the UK starved to death during the famine, that was ok, merely population control) to remove the RCC from Irish politics so you can legally kill more children. That is the end result of what you advocate: a new round of dead children. Maybe the Irish can use them for soylent heating like they do in the UK.

I'm fine with removing the church from politics, actually I encourage removing it, but let's not all lie about it and pull this stupid bullshit where we pretend we're outraged about one thing, just to accomplish a peripheral goal. You want the church out of Irish politics. Just say that, instead of concocting unsupportable bullshit from media articles and playing games with everyone. 

[SciFiAuthor]

You're one of the few that is sceptical. The current Irish government, Catholic bishops and the wider Irish population aren't at all sceptical. Are they wrong or just misguided? The vaccine aspect isn't the whole issue, it may not even be a major one. The mistreatment and general disdain for the unmarried mothers and their children (who were seen as not fit to live) is a far more serious part of this.

If they're going by the media articles, then yes, they are misguided. So are you, you're presenting me with a CHARITY HOME founded SPECIFICALLY to take care of these women as proof that the Catholic Church wanted Ireland's women mistreated and tossed out. Irish culture was the problem, not the Church.