Hundreds of dead babies found on Catholic property.

[Rhiannon]

It's pretty naive to think that this wasn't in some way done to please God or punish on his behalf.

[Robbie]

There hhave been times, Crusades for example, during the Reformation and with Islamic extremists but we're talking about dead babies on catholic properties and wider issues of abuse.
So you think if the children were murdered that catholic people murdered them in faith's name.  If they did, would their religion approve of it?

I thought i might have been harsh in my last post but read first page of this thread and that is the impression you gave more than once. Other posters tried to get through to you and it didn't work.

Speak to catholics you know about it, and listen.

[Rhiannon]

I have Catholics of Irish descent in my family.

If we take the view that these atrocities were *not* committed as an act of faith then we are assuming that nuns, priests and others committed and covered up acts of infanticide knowing that they had broken God's law on a terrible scale. Really?

Some people had a sick faith. Some still do. That doesn't say anything about the nature of God or even the existence of him/her/it, but it reflects perfectly well the nature of human beings.

[Nearly Sane]

I have Catholics of Irish descent in my family.

If we take the view that these atrocities were *not* committed as an act of faith then we are assuming that nuns, priests and others committed and covered up acts of infanticide knowing that they had broken God's law on a terrible scale. Really?

Some people had a sick faith. Some still do. That doesn't say anything about the nature of God or even the existence of him/her/it, but it reflects perfectly well the nature of human beings.

Agree, though i can imagine that some might have effectively only been obeying authority figures, and may not done it out of just RC faith but a generic acceptance of authority.

[Robbie]

I have Catholics of Irish descent in my family.

If we take the view that these atrocities were *not* committed as an act of faith then we are assuming that nuns, priests and others committed and covered up acts of infanticide knowing that they had broken God's law on a terrible scale. Really?

Some people had a sick faith. Some still do. That doesn't say anything about the nature of God or even the existence of him/her/it, but it reflects perfectly well the nature of human beings.

Yes it does reflect the nature of humans. The worst aspects of human nature which is terrifying.

I honestly believe that some perpetrators of such atrocities had no real faith, they probably joined up to whatever because they wanted some security and status.In places like Ireland religion was cultural, families considered it a great honour to have one or more of their children become a Religious. The Catholic Church had a vice like hold on society. Priests and nuns etc. were revered and it was considered sacreligious to criticise them but they were humans and sometimes not very nice ones.They could do what they wanted.
There are people who will convince themselves of anything. I did know someone in England who was abused by a clergyman who had also abused others over many years; he was able to lie to himself and justify everything to himself but it all came out eventually and he was disgraced.

Ireland is healthier now without the domination of the church. The Church must be healthier too with more openness and a decent pope, I'd have thought so anyway.

I'm very glad not to be religious!

(I have Irish relatives too, Northern Ireland. Not Catholic but nominal CofE   . They are all quite well educated, in business or professional. Even at the height of the Troubles they weren't affected at all, didn't live in Belfast. A couple of them went to boarding school in the Republic but, again, not catholicschool so they had little idea about religious domination.
Some seem to have charmed lives wherever they live.I don't grudge them at all but a thread like this one brings it home.)

[Robbie]

I think most RCs don't think it is done in the name of the faith they hold. This is little more than the all Muslims should apologise for terrorism.

I missed your post earlier! You have summed it up concisely.

[Bubbles]

Years ago the mindset around unmarried mothers and " bastards" was totally different.

That's how these things happen.

It seems incredible now, because we think differently.

Just because your mum and dad are not married, doesn't mean nowadays that you are worth less as a human being, then it did.

People hid things like not being married, because of the social stigma and people's reaction.

I lived in a small village and I can remember as a child seeing old women abusing a girl because she was an unmarried mother, calling her a slut and a scrubber.

Their attitude was appalling!

I can see exactly why those terrible things happened, it was because the people doing it had a mindset that these girls and their babies were worthless. It's what society tended to think at the time, people's attitudes were reinforced by each other. The law at one time was that a bastard couldn't inherit and it was something that followed someone throughout their life.

It was a matter of shame.

Years ago, people thought they had a right to pass judgment on other people's relationships and life and I can remember a time when landlords and guest houses were concerned about details like if their guests were married or not, because if not they could be accused of having a house of ill repute.

People gossiped if you were " mr and mrs Smith"

It wasn't just the RCC, it was society as a whole.

If you were an unmarried woman you were considered to be an unworthy person who should be grateful you got a roof over your head at all.

Think workhouses, people were really frightened of ending up in there, the attitude towards unmarried mothers was even worse, they were the lowest of the low, their babies even lower.

It was a horrible attitude, and is much better nowadays.

That's why no one hi-lighted such things, because those women and babies had no value

[Rhiannon]

It's the same on the IoM. They are currently debating changing abortion laws there too. Currently women have to travel to Liverpool or take smuggled drugs bought over the internet just as women in Ireland do.

[Sassy]

The 'Lime Pits' as they were called built under the Roman Catholic Churches and residents of Nuns and Priests.
It was long rumoured that pregnant nuns gave birth to the children of the priests.
Upon birth the mother superior would hold her hand over the childs mouth and nose till life extinguished and the
body of the infant placed under the build in a lime pit which would usually dissolve the body.

Is it the evidence of such evil and depravity?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Monk 

It first appeared in the 1800's was she telling the truth?

http://digitalcommons.macalester.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=reli_honors

Is the truth finally coming out?

[Harrowby Hall]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Monk 

Is the truth finally coming out?

This is interesting, Sassy, but - according to the article you quote - there is no evidence that it is anything but anti-catholic fiction dressed up as reportage. A propagandising extreme American sect with a touch of the future Westboro about it.  Does not the alliterative name - including the surname Monk - ring warning bells? Fake news is not new. Nor is credulity.

...............................................

As far as the subject of this thread is concerned, the word "culture" has been mentioned a couple of times, but nobody appears to have mentioned the role of the Irish state.

Devalera allowed the RCC to behave as an almost independent entity within the state of Ireland. It could behave as it wanted virtually without let or hindrance. The state would have been well aware of some of the atrocities being committed but chose to do nothing about it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It is about time devout Catholics woke up to the 'truth' about their unpleasant dogma. Forbidding the use of contraception caused women to suffer if forced to have more children than they wanted or could afford. Girls who got themselves pregnant without a ring on their finger, ended up ostracised or in one of those evil homes where they were abused and their babies either killed or adopted.

A faith which has also covered up sexual abuse by members of its clergy, and is possibly still doing so, should surely give them cause to question its provenance.

I'm not a catholic but even I recognise this as a tripe fest.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But its all true!

No...That what went wrong and the wrong committed is decreed by order of catholic dogma or is part of their faith isn't true.

[Harrowby Hall]

RCC teaching on sex comes from the musings of Thomas Aquinas who died in about 1275. He is regarded by the RCC as the greatest of all theologians and the world of non-theological philosophy also generally holds him in high esteem. He was a Dominican monk.

Much of Aquinas' thinking was influenced by Aristotle - in particular the idea of "natural law". One Aristotelian view in natural law is that the primary function of sexual intercourse is reproduction. Applied - sort of - to Christian life it was thought  it was God's intention that, wherever possible, coitus should result in conception and that any attempt to prevent conception was therefore trying to thwart God's will. At this time, the female's role in reproduction was not understood - the belief was something like man's semen = seed, woman's body = greenhouse.

It is interesting to note that "natural law" did not have a biblical origin but came from ancient Greece. Presumably the thinking was that if it was "natural" then it came from God anyway.

Modern physiological and behavioural science generally shows that sexual behaviour in homo sapiens is very different from that in almost all other species. My own view is that in homo sapiens sex has evolved to cope with the extremely long maturation period and that the primary purpose of sex now is to reinforce the pair bond between the parents.

Before the RCC can recognise this view of sex it has to dismantle about 750 years of Thomian misinformation.

[Dicky Underpants]

Before the RCC can recognise this view of sex it has to dismantle about 750 years of Thomian misinformation.

Yet it already has dismantled some aspects of Thomian misinformation, partly as a direct consequence of modern scientific understanding of the process of human reproduction, as you've implied. Unfortunately, this has led to an even more draconian attitude to contraception and abortion. The Thomian view was, as you say, that semen consisted of 'tiny little people', whereas the function of the womb was merely an incubating chamber. In addition to that, the Thomian view was that the point of 'ensoulment' came at the time of the 'quickening', a fair way into the pregnancy.The modern Catholic view, reinforced by John Paul II, is of course, that'ensoulment' occurs at the moment of conception.
I don't see how dismantling Thomian misinformation is going to overcome ideas about 'ensoulment', since they seem intrinsic to the matter.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yet it already has dismantled some aspects of Thomian misinformation,

The trouble with great historical thinkers is that they are infested with intellectual pygmies with the gift of hindsight. Know wha' ahm sayin'?

I think I have got a far better approach than you Undercarriage. My policy is I don't go to Thomas Aquinus for biology and I don't go to Dawkins for philosophy.

[Harrowby Hall]

I don't see how dismantling Thomian misinformation is going to overcome ideas about 'ensoulment', since they seem intrinsic to the matter.

I think that you are correct about "ensoulment", but I think that the RCC could relatively easily change its stance on the purpose of coitus. I would have thought that the size of the world population and its demand on limited resources could stimulate a rethink on birth control. Quality of life, surely, is as important as simply being alive.

When I was very young, I heard a story about a priest holding up a condom and telling his audience (I don't know whether it was a congregation) that when they threw this away they were throwing away a baby. I suppose, given normal fertility in a young man, he could have argued that they were throwing away sufficient spermatozoa to fertilise every appropriately receptive woman on Earth!

Going back to the subject of this thread, it would seem that - to some people - conception is a more important activity than nurturing!

[Dicky Underpants]

The trouble with great historical thinkers is that they are infested with intellectual pygmies with the gift of hindsight. Know wha' ahm sayin'?

I think I have got a far better approach than you Undercarriage. My policy is I don't go to Thomas Aquinus for biology and I don't go to Dawkins for philosophy.

Aw bless! The prince of the knee-jerk jerks off again. Did you really think I was castigating Aquinas for not having the information provided by modern biology? The point of my post (as should have been obvious from the last sentence) was over the question of 'ensoulment'. Aquinas saddled himself with all the difficulties of ontological dualism (which he inherited the Greeks), but having done so, decided that the 'soul' had to be inserted somewhere, and within his framework of ideas, his final pronouncements were fair enough. My point was concerning the Vatican's updating of the matter, with the benefit of modern scientific knowledge. The modern Catholic explanation makes a sort of sense within its own parameters, since if you must get a soul into a human, then the point of conception seems a 'logical' point for the insertion, though it all seems a bit ad hoc. It seems to offer a simple solution to many problems of dogma, only to be beset by far more when faced with everyday realities and actualities.

As for Dawkins, I prefer other writers on the life sciences such as Stephen Jay Gould, as I've already told you (though Dawkins is definitely your man if you want to know something about genetics). I certainly don't go to Dawkins for philosophy and definitely not for any comprehensive views on religion - I consider his views altogether too simplistic. This too you ought to have known, but then given your inability to read what anybody writes without getting hold of the wrong end of the stick, I'm not altogether surprised. If anybody presents views which don't fit in with your binary, procrustean view of the world, your little brain seems to go into meltdown.
As for the whole corpus of Aquinas (both he and his works were large), I wouldn't try to give any decision at all. (Some modern non-theist philosophers have some good words to say about him). I do know that his 'Proofs' of the existence of God have more holes in them than a rusty colander lurking for a century at the bottom of the village pond. And his dictum that one of the pleasures of the 'blessed' in heaven would be to contemplate the tortures of the damned in hell, doesn't encourage one to think that he had insight of a tremendously high order. Now, it may have been an off-day when he wrote those words, but no doubt such an expression of Schadenfreude would be right up your street.

[Rhiannon]

The prince of the knee-jerk jerks off again.

Brilliant turn of phrase. 

[Nearly Sane]

.....
As for the whole corpus of Aquinas (both he and his works were large), I wouldn't try to give any decision at all. (Some modern non-theist philosophers have some good words to say about him). I do know that his 'Proofs' of the existence of God have more holes in them than a rusty colander lurking for a century at the bottom of the village pond. And his dictum that one of the pleasures of the 'blessed' in heaven would be to contemplate the tortures of the damned in hell, doesn't encourage one to think that he had insight of a tremendously high order. Now, it may have been an off-day when he wrote those words, but no doubt such an expression of Schadenfreude would be right up your street.

Oddly enough just before reading your rather excellent post, I was reminded by Facebook of a quote I had put up last year, and it was the very Thomas


'In order that nothing may be wanting to the felicity of the blessed spirits in heaven, a perfect view is granted to them of the tortures of the damned'

[Sassy]

This is interesting, Sassy, but - according to the article you quote - there is no evidence that it is anything but anti-catholic fiction dressed up as reportage. A propagandising extreme American sect with a touch of the future Westboro about it.  Does not the alliterative name - including the surname Monk - ring warning bells? Fake news is not new. Nor is credulity.

...............................................

As far as the subject of this thread is concerned, the word "culture" has been mentioned a couple of times, but nobody appears to have mentioned the role of the Irish state.

Devalera allowed the RCC to behave as an almost independent entity within the state of Ireland. It could behave as it wanted virtually without let or hindrance. The state would have been well aware of some of the atrocities being committed but chose to do nothing about it.

Cherry Picking??? What about the second reference?


http://digitalcommons.macalester.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=reli_honors

[ippy]

I note AB has not responded to this thread. As a devout Catholic his input would be interesting.

If AB's true to form he'll be dogmatic, catmatic and any other kind of unrealisticmatic, he can come up with.

ippy

[Robbie]

I note AB has not responded to this thread. As a devout Catholic his input would be interesting.

I think he doesn't post on many threads.

[Harrowby Hall]

Cherry Picking??? What about the second reference?


http://digitalcommons.macalester.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=reli_honors

Hi Sassy

Since you did me the honour of waiting two months before responding to a post, I thought that I would return that honour. (Anyway, it gives me something to do on a rainy day in SW France).

I am surprised that someone with TWO English "O" levels did not realise that the paper referred was about folk tales - there is no indication that the stories are true.

I am also intrigued by your antipathy towards Roman Catholicism. You have a great aptitude for mining incomprehensible chunks about Pharoah caught sheep shagging in the second Book of Bollocks and infusing it with great meaning, but you are totally at sea about the message in the Parable of the Good Samaritan.

[Anchorman]

Dammit. I missed that bit when I was trying to translate. Bummer.

[Sassy]

Hi Sassy

Since you did me the honour of waiting two months before responding to a post, I thought that I would return that honour. (Anyway, it gives me something to do on a rainy day in SW France).

I am surprised that someone with TWO English "O" levels did not realise that the paper referred was about folk tales - there is no indication that the stories are true.

I am also intrigued by your antipathy towards Roman Catholicism. You have a great aptitude for mining incomprehensible chunks about Pharoah caught sheep shagging in the second Book of Bollocks and infusing it with great meaning, but you are totally at sea about the message in the Parable of the Good Samaritan.

 My brother died in January and I have been having my own health issues as well as being carer full time. Also helping a friend whose kidneys are failing. I guess you just have to take pot luck about me giving an answer these days. As for the rest of the post...grow up.You are not clever and you never will be good at being sarcastic. But I am sensible to know play ground humour is called play ground humour because like your reply it is childish and for children done in ignorance of youth, What is your excuse?

I was actually asking you " What about the second reference?"

Otherwise I would have just said:- "What about the second the reference!" But the question mark gave it away. I was asking you what about it?