Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 08:32 PM Jun 2014

The pathetic scramble to rationalize the Irish babies scandal

The pathetic scramble to rationalize the Irish babies scandal
A "that was then" attitude won't make it go away
Mary Elizabeth Williams

In a jaw-droppingly dismissive piece this week Forbes calls the story a “hoax.” Irish writer Eamonn Fingleton, to boost his case, notes that Corless never actually used the word “dumped” to describe what happened to the bodies, and the remaining question of where, precisely, all the unaccounted for bodies may be found. But from there he goes straight to speculation. “Although many of the nuns may have been holier-than-thou harridans, they were nothing if not God-fearing and therefore unlikely to treat human remains with the sort of outright blasphemy implied in the septic tank story.” See, it’s a hoax because he can’t believe it. “The nuns who ran the orphanage have long since gone to their reward but if they could speak for themselves they would no doubt claim they were doing their best in appalling circumstances,” he adds. They were so young when they entered religious life — typically in their late teens or early 20s — that they had little understanding of the secular world and were evidently short on managerial skills.” And while explaining the “positively Dickensian” circumstances of Ireland at the time, he feels it necessary to add, “Very often readers do not have the experience and worldly wisdom to see through the nonsense, particularly in interpreting reported developments in nations whose cultures diverge sharply from those of the West.” On this at least we agree — if there is a “reward” in the afterlife, I sincerely hope the nuns who ran the Home are receiving it.
advertisement

Let’s look at this “nonsense.” The abuses of women and children that went on in the Irish homes and institutions of its sort in the first part of the 20th century have been well established and documented. A 2009 Child Abuse Commission report cited multiple accounts of “physical, emotional, neglect and sexual” abuse throughout the Irish church- and state-run institutions at the time, and last year, Irish Prime Minister Enda Kenny issued a formal apology to the women who were forced into labor in the country’s infamous Catholic-run Magdalene Laundries, calling it “a national shame.” A 1944 report on the conditions in the Home notes overcrowded conditions and children who were “poor, emaciated and not thriving,” “pot-bellied” and “fragile.” And Corliss recalls that growing up, those managerially challenged nuns would make sure that the Home children “were always segregated to the side of regular classrooms…. They didn’t suggest we be nice to them. In fact if you acted up in class some nuns would threaten to seat you next to the Home Babies.” In some years, more than half of the children died.

That Ireland faced brutal poverty and high infant and child mortality during the years these institutions thrived is not a question. That does not, however, mitigate the undeniable track record of cruelty and neglect. It does not change that those children were not honored and respected, that they were, as the Independent noted this week, “denied baptism and, if they died from the illness and disease rife in such facilities, also denied a Christian burial.” So when the Tuam archdiocese’s Father Fintan Monaghan says, “I suppose we can’t really judge the past from our point of view, from our lens,” I think, sure we can. And when a contemporary Irish nun tells the Independent that “I was horrified by the headlines but that was then, and this is now, and a lot of those women had nowhere else to go,” I’m going to go ahead and say that Sister Liz’s fear of being “demonized by the media” suggests a deeply insensitive attitude toward the sufferings of others and some seriously messed up priorities.

There has been a widespread call for a full inquiry into the fate of the children of not just the Home but other similar institutions across the country, including a recent public petition that quickly garnered over 30,000 signatures. This week Enda Kenny has announced a special commission of investigation into the homes, including the high death rates, the burial practices, the vaccine trials and illegal adoptions. It is to be an inquiry into “the kind of country Ireland was, the kind of country where women in particular were the focus of shame and suppression” and out-of-wedlock children “were deemed to be an inferior sub-species.” An inquiry long overdue and utterly essential. Ignoring the misdeeds of the past doesn’t make them go away. And when you try to bury them, eventually, they’re found anyway.

http://www.salon.com/2014/06/11/the_pathetic_scramble_to_rationalize_the_irish_babies_scandal/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow


62 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The pathetic scramble to rationalize the Irish babies scandal (Original Post) beam me up scottie Jun 2014 OP
oh noes, the google splatter will commence. Warren Stupidity Jun 2014 #1
And DU has its very own scramblers. Arugula Latte Jun 2014 #2
No decency at all. trotsky Jun 2014 #8
That was June 11. This is June 15. rug Jun 2014 #3
So? beam me up scottie Jun 2014 #4
It was posted 10 hours ago. rug Jun 2014 #5
This message was self-deleted by its author beam me up scottie Jun 2014 #6
And? beam me up scottie Jun 2014 #7
The OP you posted is a direct reponse to his article. rug Jun 2014 #9
Make up your mind. beam me up scottie Jun 2014 #11
Focus your mind. rug Jun 2014 #12
What part of your article refutes the information in the op? nt beam me up scottie Jun 2014 #14
Here. rug Jun 2014 #15
Still nothing to do with the op, just more vile apologetic filth from religionists. beam me up scottie Jun 2014 #16
Since when is Forbes a religious site? struggle4progress Jun 2014 #18
"more vile apologetic filth from religionists" rug Jun 2014 #20
Since you like them so much, here are some facts from your link: beam me up scottie Jun 2014 #21
Yes those are the facts known to date. Notice the absence of bullshit. rug Jun 2014 #22
Thank you for admitting the story is not a hoax. nt beam me up scottie Jun 2014 #23
The complaint was about the reporting not the event. rug Jun 2014 #24
This message was self-deleted by its author beam me up scottie Jun 2014 #26
The death rate for illegitimate children in Ireland at that period intaglio Jun 2014 #32
No, it doesn't make them "genocidal". rug Jun 2014 #35
And the same sickening apologists skepticscott Jun 2014 #10
Lol! rug Jun 2014 #13
I don't understand why so many self-proclaimed rationalists and supporters struggle4progress Jun 2014 #17
Possibly there is an issue of consent. Htom Sirveaux Jun 2014 #19
Diphtheria is a serious illness, and in infants the mortality rate can be as high as 1 in 5 patients struggle4progress Jun 2014 #29
Tuam isn't the only home that allowed experimentation without consent. beam me up scottie Jun 2014 #33
By "experimentation" do you mean "vaccine trials" or are you referring struggle4progress Jun 2014 #41
Maybe, just maybe... uriel1972 Jun 2014 #25
con·sent Lordquinton Jun 2014 #27
The principle seems sound to me but 46 CFR 116 dates to 1991, which struggle4progress Jun 2014 #31
This was scientific experimentation on children without consent beam me up scottie Jun 2014 #28
What was scientific experimentation on children without consent and was not vaccine trials? struggle4progress Jun 2014 #30
You never "encounter any claims" that interfere with your beliefs. beam me up scottie Jun 2014 #34
I'm still trying to understand what exactly, other than vaccine trials, you consider struggle4progress Jun 2014 #37
The simple fact that you would even make this statement after the crap you post which is full Leontius Jun 2014 #38
If only there was a good phrase to describe it. edhopper Jun 2014 #39
The pathetic scramble to rationalize the pathetic scrambling beam me up scottie Jun 2014 #62
So you don't support science? edhopper Jun 2014 #36
To decide whether a behavior should be regarded as ethical or unethical, struggle4progress Jun 2014 #43
Really, WTF???? EvolveOrConvolve Jun 2014 #40
The Source WovenGems Jun 2014 #42
What is your evidence that the Catholic Church taught the locals that out of wedlock children struggle4progress Jun 2014 #44
My evidence WovenGems Jun 2014 #45
How were the children actually buried, and how do you know? struggle4progress Jun 2014 #46
Yes, this is known from the information gathered so far. trotsky Jun 2014 #48
Which competent professional has actually: (1) examined these reported gravess; struggle4progress Jun 2014 #49
Times New Roman Font! Times New Roman Font! trotsky Jun 2014 #50
How do you know that "bodies were ...mass buried in a chamber struggle4progress Jun 2014 #53
Yes, s4p, this really happened. trotsky Jun 2014 #52
How do extended psychological counseling service hours prove what you claim? struggle4progress Jun 2014 #54
I am through with this thread, s4p. trotsky Jun 2014 #56
It is good IMO to develop the habit of carefully examining what one thinks struggle4progress Jun 2014 #58
Do you really not see what you are doing? Goblinmonger Jun 2014 #60
Upthread in #42, a poster claims struggle4progress Jun 2014 #61
If you look at it as an archaeologist would okasha Jun 2014 #59
The evidence would be the church's canon law. trotsky Jun 2014 #47
Could you quote, with citation, the "Canon Law" to which you refer? struggle4progress Jun 2014 #51
Readily available with a Google search, if you know how that kind of thing works. trotsky Jun 2014 #55
That really doesn't add to what I already stated upthread struggle4progress Jun 2014 #57

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
8. No decency at all.
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 09:34 PM
Jun 2014

Such hatred toward atheists that they're willing to defend the most foul behavior on the part of the church just to prevent a "point" from being "scored."

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
4. So?
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 09:08 PM
Jun 2014

Other than the fact that you've posted even MORE evidence of pathetic scrambling from apologists, you're missing the point of the article in the op.

Which you didn't read in your mad dash to find something, anything to dismiss this as Catholic bashing.

 

rug

(82,333 posts)
5. It was posted 10 hours ago.
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 09:15 PM
Jun 2014

So now you see the New York Times and Washington Post as scrambling apologists.

Sorry to upset you with inconvenient facts.

I'm sure your posts are motivated solely by concern for these dead babies and not one whit by your personal revulsion with the RCC and anyone who does not join you in your revulsion.

Response to rug (Reply #5)

 

rug

(82,333 posts)
9. The OP you posted is a direct reponse to his article.
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 09:52 PM
Jun 2014

This is the additional information - from other sources - posted four days later.

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
11. Make up your mind.
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 10:28 PM
Jun 2014
rug

3. That was June 11. This is June 15.


Now the op is a direct response to something posted 4 days later?

 

rug

(82,333 posts)
12. Focus your mind.
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 10:35 PM
Jun 2014
This is the additional information - from other sources - posted four days later.


And they both relate to your OP.
 

rug

(82,333 posts)
15. Here.
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 11:01 PM
Jun 2014
To their credit, a few news organizations have revisited the facts and published correctives. In particular the Washington Post (“The truth behind Ireland’s dead babies scandal“) and the New York Times (“Facts Are Murky on Location of Dead Babies in Ireland“) have tacitly admitted that the implied image of satanic depravity that turned the story into a global sensation – that of wicked-witch nuns shoveling countless tiny human forms into a maelstrom of excrement and urine – almost certainly never happened.

As opposed to the OP:

The picture that has already been uncovered since the revelation this past weekend that historian Catherine Corless had uncovered death records for nearly 800 babies and young children who had died there – and a mass grave near a septic tank on the now shuttered site’s grounds. It worsened with the further news this week from Cork University’s School of History’s Michael Dwyer that potentially thousands of children in the Irish care homes system were also subjected to experimental vaccine trials.

He also has a sober take on this:

The conditions reflected a shameful effort by the whole of Irish society to ostracize and generally stigmatize children born out of wedlock. This effort was consistently made at every level. Political leaders were probably as guilty as church leaders, and the Anglican Church, known locally as the Church of Ireland, nearly as guilty as the Catholic Church.

Among the few people in the country who lifted a finger to help the victims of the stigma were the nuns of Tuam. Were they holier-than-thou harridans who looked down on the unmarried mothers who came to them? For the most part, probably yes. But they did do something for those mothers’ ill-starred children. The rest of society did almost nothing.

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
16. Still nothing to do with the op, just more vile apologetic filth from religionists.
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 11:20 PM
Jun 2014

None of it belongs on a progressive web site:

Among the few people in the country who lifted a finger to help the victims of the stigma were the nuns of Tuam. Were they holier-than-thou harridans who looked down on the unmarried mothers who came to them? For the most part, probably yes.

But they did do something for those mothers’ ill-starred children. The rest of society did almost nothing.


Here's what the nuns did for those children: they starved, abused and neglected them to death and disposed of their bodies like trash.

Your right wing religious sources claim that the nuns are the real victims here.

Are they waiting for an apology from the survivors?




 

rug

(82,333 posts)
20. "more vile apologetic filth from religionists"
Tue Jun 17, 2014, 01:11 AM
Jun 2014

I'll tell you what a progressive website does not need. Seething irrational hatred, made worse when it is in the face of objective facts.

You posted a screed from one writer attacking another. You don't like the response. You cry "more vile apologetic filth from religionists".

I'll tell you one thing. Apologetics is not every thing you disagree with.

Here's what the nuns did for those children: they starved, abused and neglected them to death and disposed of their bodies like trash.


Read the facts.

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
21. Since you like them so much, here are some facts from your link:
Tue Jun 17, 2014, 01:37 AM
Jun 2014
So where does the truth lie? The facts below seem to check out:

1. A total of 796 babies and children died at an orphanage in the town of Tuam in County Galway.

2. Even judged by the standards of the time (the orphanage operated between 1925 and 1961), this represented a disturbingly high death rate.

3. The babies’ final resting place has gone unrecorded.

4. Basing their opinion on practice at other such institutions at the time, experts believe that the babies were buried in unmarked graves within the grounds of the orphanage.

5. In the mid-1970s, two boys playing on the site came upon what seemed like a crypt in which the skeletons of perhaps 20 babies were discovered.

6. Some observers have recently concluded that the so-called crypt had at one stage been a sewage tank dating to the nineteenth century.


Response to rug (Reply #24)

intaglio

(8,170 posts)
32. The death rate for illegitimate children in Ireland at that period
Tue Jun 17, 2014, 06:43 AM
Jun 2014

was 3 to 5 times the rate for other live births (per the article quoted in this OP http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218135780 )
[center][font size="5"]That is 3 to 5 times[/font][/center]
If conditions in Eire at that time were "Dickensian" (in the words of the original article) what does that make the conditions in these so-called Homes - genocidal?

Note also that the young nuns who the author of your preferred article says ran these premises had plenty of older nuns to support and guide them, they had plenty of guidance from prelates they had access to medical advice.

Please stop with your pettifogging defense of what were an indefensible acts by "Holy" Mother Church.

 

rug

(82,333 posts)
35. No, it doesn't make them "genocidal".
Tue Jun 17, 2014, 01:39 PM
Jun 2014


Conflating child neglect into claims of genocide, mass murder and medical experimentation belittles what actually happened and makes the proponent of these claims look stupid.

Speaking of pettifoggery, I haven't heard such hyperbole and exaggeration since I last spoke to an ambulance chaser.

Here, you'll probably like "galloning".



Meanwhile, why don't you stop with your usual bias against "'Holy' Mother Church". It raise questions about your purpose.

 

skepticscott

(13,029 posts)
10. And the same sickening apologists
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 10:12 PM
Jun 2014

pop up like toadstools on these threads. To the silent delight of the other religionistas, who claim to value civility and decency, but who are ever and conspicuously silent in the face of such disgusting behavior.

struggle4progress

(118,039 posts)
17. I don't understand why so many self-proclaimed rationalists and supporters
Tue Jun 17, 2014, 12:02 AM
Jun 2014

of science are upset about the vaccine trials

Clinical trials are part of the process for developing vaccines. There's no point in doing a clinical trial unless there's already good reason to believe the vaccine is safe and effective. And you have to do the trial in a population at risk for the disease or it's a complete waste of time. For diseases most commonly associated with childhood, that means the clinical tests will eventually be tests in children. If someone is developing a vaccine, and all indications are that the vaccine is safe, then there's a possible advantage for a child in an at-risk population to take part in a clinical trial: the child might actually develop immunity to the disease, without ever catching the disease

struggle4progress

(118,039 posts)
29. Diphtheria is a serious illness, and in infants the mortality rate can be as high as 1 in 5 patients
Tue Jun 17, 2014, 06:10 AM
Jun 2014

The contagion spreads through airborne droplets, so it can represent a serious risk in crowded wards. Part of the hazard is the toxin released by the bacteria. Today, it seems to be treated with immediate administration of an anti-toxin, together with a course of antibiotics

Diphtheria was a major killer at one time: in 1921, over 200K Americans contracted the disease and over 15K died from it. For this reason, it has been studied extensively for well over a century, with effective anti-toxins first developed, standardized, and regulated in the 1890s. An effective method for artificially inducing immunity was first developed before WWI, and a de-activated-toxin vaccine was developed in the early 20s. In the UK, a campaign to vaccinate began around 1940, when there were over 61K cases and over 3K deaths -- with the result that the number of annual cases fell below 40 and the number of annual deaths below 10; the numbers have not since increased in the UK. The multi-vaccine DTP became available after WWII

Current vaccination regimes for diphtheria begin with DPT doses at 6, 10, and 14 weeks,with later booster shots. It is clear that such a regime could not be recommended medically without first performing clinical trials in young infant populations -- and patients in any clinical trials, testing the efficacy and safety of such an infant vaccination regime, are completely unable to provide informed consent; presumably informed consent then falls to the guardian. And since any vaccination has a certain risk of untoward side-effects, a clinical trial should not be conducted unless there is good cause to believe the benefits outweigh the risk for trial participants: this, for example, rules out any deliberate attempt to induce the disease in the vaccinated person or persons (as Pasteur is known to have done). In addition, the current view seems to be that clinical trials in adult and then older child populations should precede trials in infant populations

I am aware of several claims regarding clinical trials: that at Tuam there were diphtheria vaccination trials in the 1930s and that after 1960 in Ireland there were comparisons of two vaccination regimes, one administering a single dose of a combination of diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus vaccine with polio vaccine, the other administering a dose of the diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus vaccine and a separate dose of the polio vaccine

Probably no one present at the home in the 1930s is still alive, so investigating any reported trials in the 1930s may be difficult. There seems to be some outrage associated with claims that a "cattle vaccine" was tested in children. But cattle are a reservoir for the diphtheria pathogen -- or a close relative -- and the pathogen can spread from cattle to humans; moreover, in the early 20th century, it was widely believed that diphtheria was spread by milk; so in vaccine development, it would be natural to begin with the effort to immunize cattle (as this might be expected to reduce cases in humans as well) and then to regard development of a successful vaccine for cattle as the animal-testing phase in development of a vaccine for humans

Tuam closed permanently in 1961, so was probably not involved in any trials in the 1960s, since by 1960 it would have been clear that the future operation of the home was in doubt. By the 1960s, the diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus vaccine and the polio vaccine had already both been administered extensively: Salk's vaccine has been licensed in the US in 1955 and Sabin's in 1960; DPT had been available since 1948; and these vaccines were widely regarded as safe and effective. One news outlet reports finding a nun who was present at some of the 1960s trials and says participation in the trials was by voluntary parental consent, though (of course) she could not categorically guarantee that this rule was always followed

It's worthwhile, of course, to sort out accurately as much of the story as possible: it may shed real light on the importance of regular inspection of institutions, on the power of large companies, on the effects of public medical coverage (which began to become available in Ireland in the 1950s), on the problems with diffused accountability, and so on. If there were inappropriate vaccine trials at Tuam in the 1930s, for example, how would one allocate responsibility between the county government (which owned, funded, and inspected the facility), the Bons Secours (which administered the facility on a daily basis), and the pharmaceutical company (which ran the actual trials)? And, more importantly, what sorts of structural arrangements would make such abuses less likely?

But until we actually know what happened, I can't see any real benefit to claims that aren't backed by facts






beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
33. Tuam isn't the only home that allowed experimentation without consent.
Tue Jun 17, 2014, 01:02 PM
Jun 2014

Please keep your strawmen where they belong.

uriel1972

(4,261 posts)
25. Maybe, just maybe...
Tue Jun 17, 2014, 02:09 AM
Jun 2014

We care about people and don't treat them as a number game. Consent is the key issue.

Lordquinton

(7,886 posts)
27. con·sent
Tue Jun 17, 2014, 03:28 AM
Jun 2014
http://answers.hhs.gov/ohrp/questions/7280

What is the meaning of “legally effective informed consent?”

Informed consent is legally effective if it is both obtained from the subject or the subject’s legally authorized representative and documented in a manner that is consistent with the HHS protection of human subjects regulations and with applicable laws of the jurisdiction in which the research is conducted. In general terms, the regulations stipulate that an investigator should seek consent only under circumstances that provide the prospective subject or the legally authorized representative sufficient opportunity to consider whether to participate and that minimize the possibility of coercion or undue influence. The information provided should be in language that is understandable to the subject or the representative. No informed consent, whether oral or written, may include any exculpatory language.


Obviously this is specific to a US organization, but the principal is the same.

struggle4progress

(118,039 posts)
31. The principle seems sound to me but 46 CFR 116 dates to 1991, which
Tue Jun 17, 2014, 06:18 AM
Jun 2014

is about 60 years after the alleged trials at Tuam in the 1930s and more than 30 years after Tuam closed. Any legal culpability, that would attach to alleged trials in the 1930s, should be based on the standards in force in Ireland in the 1930s

struggle4progress

(118,039 posts)
30. What was scientific experimentation on children without consent and was not vaccine trials?
Tue Jun 17, 2014, 06:13 AM
Jun 2014

I haven't encountered any claims described as "experimentation" other than alleged vaccine trials

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
34. You never "encounter any claims" that interfere with your beliefs.
Tue Jun 17, 2014, 01:05 PM
Jun 2014

When facts about abuse are presented you counter them with apologist crap and remain willfully ignorant about what happened to the victims.

struggle4progress

(118,039 posts)
37. I'm still trying to understand what exactly, other than vaccine trials, you consider
Tue Jun 17, 2014, 03:21 PM
Jun 2014

"scientific experimentation on children without consent"

 

Leontius

(2,270 posts)
38. The simple fact that you would even make this statement after the crap you post which is full
Tue Jun 17, 2014, 06:00 PM
Jun 2014

of distortions and just plain untruths makes me want to puke. It's a shame that you would seek to have the admiration of Chick tract lovers so badly that you wallow in such slime. It just seems more like an addicts need than an honest search for the truth of what happened here, what a triumphant 'return', what a pity.

edhopper

(33,202 posts)
39. If only there was a good phrase to describe it.
Tue Jun 17, 2014, 06:09 PM
Jun 2014

I know, how about;
"The pathetic scramble to rationalize"

edhopper

(33,202 posts)
36. So you don't support science?
Tue Jun 17, 2014, 01:44 PM
Jun 2014

Or you do support it and think this is an ethical exercise?
Or you want to through idiotic crap on anything that might show your religion in a bad light?

struggle4progress

(118,039 posts)
43. To decide whether a behavior should be regarded as ethical or unethical,
Tue Jun 17, 2014, 09:19 PM
Jun 2014

it can often be helpful to begin by determining the actual facts, since simply knowing the accurate details of a case might already come close to resolving the question, of whether behavior was ethical or unethical. One can then approach any remaining issues rationally and with more confidence that one's deductions will be realistic, since one has made some effort to start from assumptions that match the facts

That would seem to me especially important in stories such as this one at hand: it first swept the world as a claim that nuns at Tuam had dumped 800 children's bodies in a septic tank, though there is still no evidence any bodies were put into a septic tank; and it has since sprawled off into a variety of other claims, such as the claim that nuns at Tuam murdered hundreds of children by neglect or by medical experimentation

Only specific claims can be investigated, of course: actual human events occur at times and at places, with particular participants; meaningful abstractions can only be formed after one has studied a number of definite events

EvolveOrConvolve

(6,452 posts)
40. Really, WTF????
Tue Jun 17, 2014, 08:05 PM
Jun 2014

Luckily I can only see half the posts in this thread. I expect the hidden ones I can't see are as demeaning as yours.

WovenGems

(776 posts)
42. The Source
Tue Jun 17, 2014, 09:06 PM
Jun 2014

One needs to look at who taught the locals that out of wedlock children were human vermin. Was it the ones who ended up in charge of those single mom babies? The answer is why we see all the scrambling by the Catholic Church.

struggle4progress

(118,039 posts)
44. What is your evidence that the Catholic Church taught the locals that out of wedlock children
Tue Jun 17, 2014, 10:52 PM
Jun 2014

were human vermin?

The Catholic Church seems at the time in question to have somewhat restricted the possibilities of Church office to persons born out of wedlock, though for most purposes these restrictions could be overcome. The restrictions seem to have originated in an attempt to prevent medieval Church officials from promoting their own out-of-wedlock children to Church office and were later generalized. The general restrictions wouldn't have made much sense to me, but in my understanding, these restrictions have subsequently been removed -- and in any case, they don't seem to justify your view that the Catholic Church took the position out of wedlock children are human vermin

Being born out of wedlock, for example, did not prevent one from joining the Church: by 1864, one in ten of all births recorded in the baptism register of the Catholic parish of Kilrush was that of an child born to an unmarried mother:


Bigotry against unwed mothers and their children can be read in part as class-prejudice, since poor woman were more likely to have children out of wedlock. Since poor women have also been less likely to receive good prenatal care, children born to unwed mothers were more likely to suffer various disabilities at birth and hence more likely to be abandoned to homes such as Tuam

Demonization of unwed mothers further had a political dimension, so one perhaps should also try to understand the political climate as it affected women's rights in the early days after Irish independence in 1921. During the struggle for independence, women were promised equal rights, and the Irish Republic appeared initially to promise such rights -- but before universal suffrage could have much effect, the still largely-male political class began to impose restrictions on women inconsistent with the original promises:


WovenGems

(776 posts)
45. My evidence
Wed Jun 18, 2014, 05:44 AM
Jun 2014

How the children were buried. That they weren't accorded the bare minimum indicates they were less than full members in good standings. Look at it as an archaeologist would.

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
48. Yes, this is known from the information gathered so far.
Wed Jun 18, 2014, 06:43 AM
Jun 2014

The only debate point apologists have had to this point is whether the bodies were "dumped" in an active septic tank, or mass buried in a chamber that had been used as a septic tank in the past.

That's all you've got. And it's far more disgusting than any septic tank has ever been, or will ever be.

struggle4progress

(118,039 posts)
49. Which competent professional has actually: (1) examined these reported gravess;
Wed Jun 18, 2014, 08:30 AM
Jun 2014

(2) carefully examined the graves and conclusively identified the graves as lying within a septic tank; and (3) carefully examined the remains within the graves and conclusively identified the remains as children from the Tuam home?

struggle4progress

(118,039 posts)
53. How do you know that "bodies were ...mass buried in a chamber
Wed Jun 18, 2014, 08:47 AM
Jun 2014

that had been used as a septic tank in the past" if you are unable to point to any competent professional who has actually examined these alleged mass-burials and has actually by inspection identified the graves as lying within a one-time septic tank?

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
52. Yes, s4p, this really happened.
Wed Jun 18, 2014, 08:44 AM
Jun 2014

It really, really did and no amount of Google blasting and Gish galloping will erase it.

Counselling service expands hours after Tuam babies revelations

Or are they just playing along with the "hoax"?

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
56. I am through with this thread, s4p.
Wed Jun 18, 2014, 09:10 AM
Jun 2014

I am too disgusted by your tactics to continue. You win, just like you wanted.

struggle4progress

(118,039 posts)
58. It is good IMO to develop the habit of carefully examining what one thinks
Wed Jun 18, 2014, 09:16 AM
Jun 2014

one knows, since often one does not know what what thinks one knows

 

Goblinmonger

(22,340 posts)
60. Do you really not see what you are doing?
Wed Jun 18, 2014, 12:29 PM
Jun 2014

Do you agree that a large amount of babies died under the care of these nuns?
Do you agree that this amount was significantly above the mortality rate for that country at that time?

You are arguing about septic tank. The deaths happened. Other horrible shit happened at that RCC run home. If you aren't doing it purposefully, it seems clear to all that you are making the specifics of whether it was a septic tank or whether they have found the actual remains the point and trying to make that show that the RCC did nothing wrong. And that tactic is a sickening level of apologetics. You are talking about "carefully examining" but several people who are pretty damn good at making sense of things see this as a deliberate attempt to obfuscate things so blame doesn't fall where it clearly belongs--on the RCC.

struggle4progress

(118,039 posts)
61. Upthread in #42, a poster claims
Wed Jun 18, 2014, 07:21 PM
Jun 2014
the Catholic Church taught that out of wedlock children were human vermin and in #45 says the evidence is how the children were buried but provides no actual evidence concerning how the children were buried

Another poster in #48 then claims that either the bodies were "dumped" in an active septic tank, or mass buried in a chamber that had been used as a septic tank and provides in #52 as evidence for this claim the fact that a psychological counseling service extended its hours. The same poster also cites in #47 unspecified "canon law", as evidence that the Catholic Church taught that out of wedlock children were human vermin, and then in #55 clarifies by citing some restrictions then in effect regarding ordination

#42 #45 #47 #48 #52 #55

There is, of course, no question there were deaths at the Home. The question of who died and of what causes is relevant to discussions of the Home. In another thread, there is a link from which one can recover a list of the deaths. This list was produced from public records, and it shows name and age, together with date and cause of death. It thus becomes possible to track by year deaths at the home attributed in whole or in part to marasmus, measles, pertussis, influenza, syphilis, tuberculosis, prematurity, and other causes. During the years of operation, there appear to have been two inquests, both in the 1920s; the other death reports were simply certified by the authorities

The death data group themselves naturally into several periods: the post WWI era, the depression era, the WWII era, the post WWII era, and the final years. Grouped by era, here are the total average deaths/yr

25 - 32: 16.9
33 - 39: 29.0
40 - 47: 42.4
48 - 54: 14.1
55 - 60: 03.5

To really understand these data, one would need to know home population, practices, and and turn-over. The home appears largely to have served the poor, but reports of policies there suggest that not all clients were destitute. Children left the home by various routes, including adoption and boarding, but it is plausible that children who were adopted or boarded-out to foster parents were generally healthier than children who remained in the home for longer periods: in particular, children with developmental or physical disabilities might have been much less likely to be placed with adoptive or foster parents. Thus the continuing population of the home may represent a group selected for ill-health or congenital problems

Deaths in the home rise sharply during the Great Depression and reach their highest levels in WWII and the years immediately afterwards: 68% of the deaths occur from 1933 to 1947, with about 36.1 deaths/yr in this period, compared to about 12.1 deaths/yr in the combined period 1925-1932 + 1948-1960. But note that in Ireland overall, infant mortality rates peaked during WWII and plummeted afterwards

Some increase in deaths 1933-1947 might be partly explained by increased poverty of clients or higher population in the home, both due to economic hardship. Increased poverty of clients would be associated with less healthy births, while higher population in the home would increase the chance of contagion. The poverty of clients might be indicated by increase in such diseases as tuberculosis and syphilis, while premature births might indicate poor health of mothers. Here are the data for average annual deaths where tuberculosis or syphilis are noted; these are mostly tuberculosis cases:

1925 - 1932: 2.1
1933 - 1939: 1.9
1940 - 1947: 3.4
1948 - 1954: 0.8
1955 - 1960: 0.0

Here are the data for average annual deaths where prematurity is noted:

1925 - 1932: 00.0
1933 - 1939: 01.2
1940 - 1947: 11.1
1948 - 1954: 00.8
1955 - 1960: 00.0

And here are the figures for average annual deaths from measles, pertussis, and whooping cough in the eras:

1925 - 1932: 07.8
1933 - 1939: 07.4
1940 - 1947: 11.1
1948 - 1954: 03.9
1955 - 1960: 00.2

A possible interpretation of these limited data might be that the home experienced from 1933 to 1939 an increased number of mothers in ill-health (as measured by premature children) but no substantial increase in the number of destitute mothers (as measured by tuberculosis and syphilis) and perhaps no gross overcrowding (as measured by contagion deaths), but that from 1940 to 1947 there was a dramatic increase in the number of mothers in ill-health (as measured by premature children) and in the number of destitute mothers (as measured by tuberculosis and syphilis), together with gross overcrowding (as measured by contagion deaths)

To interpret data for 1948 to 1960, one needs to take into account the dramatic improvements in health in Ireland after WWII. The infant death rate fell significantly, and various first moves were made to provide more access to medical care. The data probably indicate that the 1947 inspector's suggestion, that the home needed an isolation ward, was followed, since the number of contagion deaths dropped dramatically

If you wish to make the case that horrible shit happened at that home, you should make your case on the basis of the concrete evidence and rational argument that so many posters here profess to love and follow



okasha

(11,573 posts)
59. If you look at it as an archaeologist would
Wed Jun 18, 2014, 11:56 AM
Jun 2014

you would have to acknowledge that the burials have not yet been located, though they are assumed to be somewhere on the grounds of the home. Until they are located and examined we will have no idea what degree of dignity they were accorded.

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
55. Readily available with a Google search, if you know how that kind of thing works.
Wed Jun 18, 2014, 09:02 AM
Jun 2014

If on the wild chance you don't:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02579b.htm - the "Defect of Birth"

and

http://people.opposingviews.com/children-out-wedlock-catholic-church-4418.html

Until recently, illegitimacy bore a great stigma in the Catholic Church. Having a child outside wedlock was considered a sign of depravity, and the child was believed to be tainted by that depravity. In the 11th Century, Pope Urban II prohibited any man who was born outside wedlock from entering holy orders. Illegitimacy was considered a "defect of birth." Without a special dispensation, men who were born illegitimately were barred from the priesthood, the diaconate and religious orders. This policy continued into the early 20th Century.

struggle4progress

(118,039 posts)
57. That really doesn't add to what I already stated upthread
Wed Jun 18, 2014, 09:14 AM
Jun 2014

(see #44); it rather ignores the various escape clauses that were possible when those (now obsolete) rules were in effect; and although the old rules governing positions of authority in the church seem ridiculous to me, I cannot see how you could read them as declarations that children born out of wedlock were to be treated as "human vermin"

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»The pathetic scramble to ...