Filum Romanum - A Thread for the Catholic Church

@Madrugada

Handle sums up my feelings pretty well. If you are asked to be complicit in what was evidently the criminal neglect of children, and the dumping of their corpses in a septic tank in order to hide same, I don't give a ha'penny damn what vows you took - you should at the very least leave and bring it to the attention of the proper authorities or the press. Not having institutional power is not, should not, and cannot be, an option for abdicating moral responsibility. If they followed instructions that lead to the death of these children, then they are culpable.

I can see a humanitarian argument for not imposing a custodial sentence on elderly perpetrators, but I don't feel they should escape legal consequences for what was evidently a monstrous crime. Indeed, age has not been a barrier to prosecution in other cases, such as various war crimes trials.

edited 4th Jun '14 11:51:24 AM by Achaemenid

Schild und Schwert der Partei

Do we have any details about the children who died? Their ages? Were their names recorded?

I think there’s a global conspiracy to see who can get the most clicks on the worst lies

But what can they be charged with?

Ok, "Improper disposal of a body", let's start with that one, it's probably the easiest one to bring and stand a chance of proving to the court's satisfaction. The prosecutor would have to prove that the wom(a/e)n being charged are actually the ones who put at least one of the bodies in the tank. How are they going to do that? Without detailed records of who was assigned to what duties and what those duties actually consisted of, there's no way to prove it.

Murder, manslaughter or negligent homicide? For those they'd have to prove not only that the defendant knew about what was happening in general but that she personally did something that caused the child's death (and it would have to be a specific one of the children), or that she negligently failed to do something that would have prevented their death.

Maybe conspiracy would be the best choice. For that all they'd have to prove is that she knew what was happening but didn't report it in order to allow it to continue...

Obstruction of justice? Nope, that requires that she refused to co-operate with, or actively tried to thwart, an actual investigation, not merely that she didn't report something in the first place.

It's sick, it's sad, and it's horrible, and there's not really a legal recourse.

In the cases of war criminals, those were one particular person being charged with crimes that there were witness to who could still testify: "That specific man did these specific things. I was there, I saw it." Not simply "He was one of the many people who worked at the place bad things happened, and he might have had a part in them."

edited 4th Jun '14 12:17:14 PM by Madrugada

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

Your post is basically arguing the position, inimical to justice, that because an evil cannot be easily fought then it should be ignored. Who knows what an investigation into what happened will result in? It's quite possible that some surviving witnesses can be located who can testify; be they former children or even staff testifying against each other. Even if there is not enough for a criminal prosecution, then at the very least the Irish people deserve to know, as far as can be ascertained, exactly what happened to 796 children the state was supposed to look after.

Perhaps an investigation won't produce enough evidence for a criminal conviction of surviving perpetrators. Perhaps all the former sisters are dead. But at the very least an investigation must be mounted. The victims deserve nothing less.

Schild und Schwert der Partei

What he said. There must be a reckoning.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

Is this making the front pages/breaking news in Ireland right now? Are people actually talking about it and demanding that the authorities take action?

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.

The state didn't care. The Magdalene laundries I mentioned, which were where the mothers of these poor babies were slaving away for not a penny, were being supported by the state. The state let the Church tell them what to do, and didn't give a shite about unmarried mothers. Married ones either, actually, as the symphysiotomy issue should prove.

The Kerry Babies Tribunal is a lovely story, and the death of Ann Lovett too, both of which show what the state thought of unmarried mothers at the time.

It was just accepted that the Church knew how to handle these situations the best. Staying and being as kind to those children as possible was all you could do if you didn't support the abuse. Leaving wasn't going to do them any good.

Definitely, there needs to be some sort of enquiry to find out what happened. The horrible thing though is that it's not even 796 children. It's 796 babies in that one home, and one of our politicians has suggested that there's dozens more of these hidden burial sites.

[[Do we have any details about the children who died? Their ages? Were their names recorded?]] I think they were recorded yes, a lot of these children still have family alive today. I don't know if they were aware the bodies of the children were thrown down a septic tank.

edited 4th Jun '14 12:56:41 PM by QueenPanic

No, I am taking the position that if you want to put someone on trial for something as a show of outrage, you'd damned well be sure that you can get a conviction. Those posts were in response to Handle and Achaemenid's demand that any of the nuns who are still alive be charged with something, whatever, anything.

I have not said "ignore it". I have never said it should be ignored. I am saying that "Charge those elderly women with something!" is probably not viable in this situation.

Investigate the hell out of it. But don't do so expecting to get a prosecuteable criminal case out of it.

A reckoning only serves a useful purpose if there can also be amends or reparations afterwards. Otherwise it's just revenge.

edited 4th Jun '14 1:24:47 PM by Madrugada

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

@Queen Panic

I know about the Magdalene asylums and clericalism. But was there really, in 1961, no pressmen or politicians who might have been interested in the story, even a little bit?

That's debatable, but I can certainly appreciate the moral dilemma the nuns faced, even if it doesn't absolve the nuns of responsibility.

—

If punishing people for lethal neglect and abuse is revenge, call me vengeful.

I assumed that my statement would be read as endorsing the usual process of determining innocence or guilt, if you didn't see it, then I'm sorry. But I stand by the statement that if viable prosecutions can be brought, they should be.

edited 4th Jun '14 1:27:20 PM by Achaemenid

Schild und Schwert der Partei

But at this point there's no evidence of "lethal abuse and neglect". Only of disrepectful treatment of corpses.

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

Not revenge: vengeance. They aren't the same thing.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

Wrong.

Furthermore, as Queen Panic pointed out, the Tuam home was only open for 35 years. If the figure of 796 deaths a year is correct^note And Corless makes a good case in the linked radio program: she has death certs for all of the kids, and they aren't buried in most of the outlying cemeteries in the Mayo and Galway., then that's 22 deaths a year, or one a fortnight. I'm not an expert on childcare - far from it - but that stinks to high heaven in itself. Coupled with the less-than-spotless record of the Irish Church in this area, what with the Magdalene asylums, then someone has some very serious explaining to do if this is anything other than yet another example of Irish clerical abuse. There's also the bleedin' obvious point that, if the sisters had nothing to hide, why dump the bodies in a goddamn septic tank!?

As we lawyers like to say: res ipsa loquitur.

edited 4th Jun '14 1:59:29 PM by Achaemenid

Schild und Schwert der Partei

This is also all consistent with the findings of the Ryan Report, which determined that physical, sexual, emotional abuse and neglect were epidemic in institutions for children.

edited 4th Jun '14 1:35:50 PM by TheBatPencil

And let us pray that come it may (As come it will for a' that)

First: Achaemenid, I misinterpreted your statement that the least any surviving nuns should have to worry about was charges of improper disposal of a body as an outrages call for "Charge them with something for the sake of charging them." Since you say that's not what you meant, I apologize.

Second: General statistics are not legal proof. A criminal charge must be supported by admissible proof, not a general statement.

Third: Vengeance and revenge aren't the same? Really? What's the difference? All my dictionaries say they're the same, to the point of using one to define the other in all but one case.

• American heritage dictionary (revenge):
  • The act of taking vengeance for injuries or wrongs; retaliation.
  • Something done in vengeance; a retaliatory measure.

• American heritage dictionary (vengeance):
  • Infliction of punishment in return for a wrong committed; retribution.

• Collins (revenge):
  • the act of retaliating for wrongs or injury received; vengeance
  • something done as a means of vengeance
  • the desire to take vengeance or retaliate

• Collins (vengeance)
  • the act of or desire for taking revenge; retributive punishment

• Random House Kennerman (revenge)"
  • the act of revenging; retaliation for injuries or wrongs; vengeance.
  • something done in vengeance.

• Random House Kennerman (vengeance):
  • infliction of injury, harm, humiliation, or the like in return for an injury or other offense received; revenge.

edited 4th Jun '14 2:00:20 PM by Madrugada

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

Basically, revenge is driven by wrath and The Power of Hate, vengeance is driven by Justice Will Prevail. That's why there's a superhero group called The Avengers that don't do any revenge at all. Metal Gear Rising Revengeance is called such because Raiden is both avenging the abducted, organ-harvested Child Soldiers and taking revenge for his own grief, defeat and humiliation at the hands of his enemies. Hence, revenge with a vengeance: revengeance.

edited 4th Jun '14 2:12:26 PM by TheHandle

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

You've nothing to apologize for, the statement was unclear on my part. It's my fault. Sorry about that.

That isn't really what you said, though. You said 'at this point there's no evidence of "lethal abuse and neglect"'. That's what I was responding to; my argument would be that yes there is. We can say at the very least something terrible was happening at the Tuam Mother-And-Baby Home.

Now, that evidence isn't as yet conclusive enough for a criminal prosecution against specific individuals - that's why I support a full investigation by the Irish government to find out what happened, and that the investigation should have Garda involvement, to find out if its possible some earthly justice can be served for these poor kids. If it can, I think it should be. Now I certainly agree that there are immense practical difficulties - but at the same time, not every child who went through these homes died. Many were fostered out, and those people could still be able to testify against survivors. One such child is actually interviewed by the RTE show.

edited 4th Jun '14 2:22:11 PM by Achaemenid

Schild und Schwert der Partei

Sorry Handle, that's a quibble and one that's not worth much effort to refute. But I will anyway: the distinction you're making is whether or not you want it to happen. That's all.

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

Sorry about this long post. DX

It is, and it's shocking, but it's not entirely unsurprising. Abuses of this sort have been known for years now, and there's been no justice for many of those who suffered in these situations, or other related ones. People want something done, but the women from the Magdalene laundries and the women who were forced to undergo symphysiotomies haven't been truly acknowledged by the state yet, nevermind the Church. It's horrifying, but not surprising.

And do what? There were people who tried speaking out about these things, but they weren't always listened to. Also, some people accepted the treatment of these women and children. Families tended to be outright ashamed to have an unmarried mother in the family. They were choosing to put their daughters into these asylums, to save their own reputation, and the daughter's. Some of what went on was known to the public, but there was a view that the Church knew what was best for these women, and that these women deserved it anyway. The children weren't really seen as being much better. And in some ways, that's as much as society cared. These people were invisible to Irish society, which liked to pretend they just didn't exist.

1961? That was nothing in Irish history. In 1970, Irish women could not buy contraceptives, work in the public service if married, choose their official place of domicile, refuse to have sex with their husband or sit on a jury. http://irishecho.com/2013/05/10-things-a-woman-could-not-do-in-ireland-in-1970/

In 1979, the Pope visited Ireland, which had a population of 3.37 million people at the time. 1.25 million people went to a special mass with him, and events around the rest of the country were attended by thousands more. Five years later, a fifteen year old girl died a completely unnecessary death after giving birth in a field, essentially because of the stigma against unmarried mothers. This led to an outcry, and many women sharing their stories, but didn't ultimately change anything. Seven years after that, we had the abortion debate, when a fourteen year old rape victim was legally prevented from leaving the country to get an abortion, despite being at a risk of suicide. It was decided in a referendum that abortion should be allowed if the mother's life is at risk. This was only actually brought into law in 2013, twenty one years after the referendum. I'm not trying to derail this into an abortion thing, my point is that the Irish people voted on something that the Church opposed, so it wasn't brought into law. That was the way things were.

Yes, more could have been done, and should have, and hearing about so many babies buried in a septic tank definitely would have horrified people, but the Church had such a strong grip on the country at the time. You weren't guaranteed people would listen, and you weren't guaranteed the papers would run your story.

Abuse of the vulnerable by those in the church was going on everywhere, but not all of those in the church were bad. If I was a nun, and I saw that sort of abuse going on, there would be nothing I could do. The best I could hope for was to stay with those children, and show them some sort of love and affection. Leaving wouldn't do anything for them.

I'm not defending those who abused these children. If evidence can be found against any of the women still alive, they should be prosecuted.

And this grave isn't recent news, by the way. The bodies were discovered in 1975. It was first reported last week.

People are trying to get the children reburied though, which is good. At least the poor pets can have the dignity of a proper resting place, rather than a fucking septic tank.

edited 4th Jun '14 4:04:37 PM by QueenPanic

I think Handle may be saying that vengence is way of ensuring that justice is done.

I think Mads may be saying that punishing a nun who was 20 at the time for not standing up to a preponderance of authority may not be just.

That was an excellent post by the way.

edited 4th Jun '14 3:48:02 PM by demarquis

I think there’s a global conspiracy to see who can get the most clicks on the worst lies

demarquis: I can't speak for your accuracy on what Handle is saying, but you're dead on point about what I was trying to get at.

Queen Panic: Thank you for that background. Excellent post. I recall hearing about the horrific conditions before, but I don't think I'd ever realized how horrific it was.

edited 4th Jun '14 4:25:03 PM by Madrugada

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

Good post indeed Queen. It seems its a bind all over. One can only hope that the truth about the Tuam mass-grave will eventually come out.

Schild und Schwert der Partei

Conversely, Madrugada, the difference between what you call a revenge and what you call a justice is whether you want it to happen. Tell me this: do you think the Utoya killer's ultimate fate was just and fair? For that matter, do you believe that the criminal "justice" system, in any country, as a rule, is fair?

Here's what I know in my bones: when hundreds of baby corpses are found buried in a pile, those responsible must be fingered, denounced, shamed, and ostracised, at the very least. The difference isn't what to call what I want to happen, but whether it is fair, and I believe it is.

edited 5th Jun '14 1:19:48 AM by TheHandle

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

If they are still alive. It was a long time ago.

I think there’s a global conspiracy to see who can get the most clicks on the worst lies

A posthumous condemnation is fine too.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

A trial isn't so much about punishing the individual nuns but getting the RCC as an institution to own up to their mistakes. Of which this instance is but one of many. Acknowledging it should serve to prevent similar stuff in the future and to curb the social acceptance of the church, so that it can't be an unquestioned authority ever again.