Religion
Related: About this forumThe 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, its a hoax because he cant 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
Lets 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 countrys 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 didnt 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 archdioceses Father Fintan Monaghan says, I suppose we cant 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, Im going to go ahead and say that Sister Lizs 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 doesnt make them go away. And when you try to bury them, eventually, theyre found anyway.
http://www.salon.com/2014/06/11/the_pathetic_scramble_to_rationalize_the_irish_babies_scandal/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)Disgusting.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)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."
rug
(82,333 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)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)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)
beam me up scottie This message was self-deleted by its author.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)What does your link have to do with the op?
rug
(82,333 posts)This is the additional information - from other sources - posted four days later.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)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)And they both relate to your OP.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)As opposed to the OP:
He also has a sober take on this:
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)None of it belongs on a progressive web site:
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?
struggle4progress
(118,039 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)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.
Read the facts.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)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.
rug
(82,333 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Response to rug (Reply #24)
beam me up scottie This message was self-deleted by its author.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)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)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)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)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
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)Clinical trials shouldn't be conducted without informed consent.
struggle4progress
(118,039 posts)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)Please keep your strawmen where they belong.
struggle4progress
(118,039 posts)to something else?
uriel1972
(4,261 posts)We care about people and don't treat them as a number game. Consent is the key issue.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Informed consent is legally effective if it is both obtained from the subject or the subjects 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)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
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Not vaccine trials.
struggle4progress
(118,039 posts)I haven't encountered any claims described as "experimentation" other than alleged vaccine trials
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)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)"scientific experimentation on children without consent"
Leontius
(2,270 posts)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)I know, how about;
"The pathetic scramble to rationalize"
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Looks like I pushed some buttons.
edhopper
(33,202 posts)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)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)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)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)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)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.
struggle4progress
(118,039 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)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)(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?
trotsky
(49,533 posts)No typewriter then could have printed that!
struggle4progress
(118,039 posts)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)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"?
struggle4progress
(118,039 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)I am too disgusted by your tactics to continue. You win, just like you wanted.
struggle4progress
(118,039 posts)one knows, since often one does not know what what thinks one knows
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)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)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)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)Jeebus, you are unbelievable.
struggle4progress
(118,039 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)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
struggle4progress
(118,039 posts)(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"