Hundreds of dead babies found on Catholic property.

[Shaker]

Is anybody surprised by this sort of thing any more?

[Nearly Sane]

Is anybody surprised by this sort of thing any more?

What 'sort of thing'?

[Shaker]

Yet another example of multiple dead babies being found buried.

[Shaker]

They'll probably release a statement telling everyone about their deep sorrow and regret.

[Nearly Sane]

Yet another example of multiple dead babies being found buried.

That there are multiple burials is not in itself shocking given the times. The question is surely why this happened, and why the deaths weren't recorded. That the burials were greater in number than the records showed doesn't necessarily show any evil intent.

[Nearly Sane]

They'll probably release a statement telling everyone about their deep sorrow and regret.

which given any one issuing the statement will have had nothing to do with it will make it pointless as well as worthless, rather like Tony Blair apologising for the Irish famine.  That efforts were made to look after orphans at a time when they would be abandoned by society makes this a case that isn't simplistically black and white. Given I am a native of Scotland should I apologise that it happened in Scotland?

[Nearly Sane]

Far better if they buried their harmful doctrine where the sun don't shine.

what doctrine do you think led to this, and what do you think this is?

[Udayana]

The assumption is that they were covering up a regime of neglect, cruelty, abuse and possibly manslaughter or murder whilst projecting an outward image of charity, compassion and general saintliness.

[Nearly Sane]

The assumption is that they were covering up a regime of neglect, cruelty, abuse and possibly manslaughter or murder whilst projecting an outward image of charity, compassion and general saintliness.

Ah the assumption!


And obviously not a doctrine based on your post.

[Nearly Sane]

An assumption which has not been without justification in many instances, especially in Ireland.

So what's your evidence in this case  here for murder as Udayana mentioned? And any chance of explaining what doctrine you were referring to and linking to what happened, and evidencing what you think happened?

[Nearly Sane]

I think it right to assume the worst unless proven otherwise. The Catholic doctrine, which doesn't allow contraception or abortion is flawed. I suspect many of the children in that 'care' home were born to unmarried mothers. Hopefully the enquiry will eventually discover exactly what went on, and if the worst case scenarios had any basis in fact.

So no evidence just assumption of guilt. By the way how much of the doctrine against contraception was related to the burials of orphans betwen 1870 and 1930 in this orphanage in Lanark? And again please present evidence 

I have no doubt that there could be cruel shocking actions carried out here, i just think that the idea that cultural and religious aspects are complex and that rather indulge in knee jerk judgement evidence and context has importance.

[Shaker]

So no evidence just assumption of guilt.

The presumption of innocence is the cornerstone of the legal system in most cases and a fine thing it is too.

It does tend to work against human nature, however. If cash goes missing in a home or a workplace wherein there's a known thief, no matter the protestations of reform and repentance, people will form conclusions. They may, on the basis of subsequent evidence, be justified or unjustified. But form them they will. As Thoreau put it, some evidence is very suggestive, such as a trout in the milk*.

And the Catholic Church is guilty of far worse than lifting readies.

* This goes back to the olden days when those who sold milk directly from the churn or the pail would make the milk go further by watering it down via dipping the container in the river. Finding a trout in your milk doesn't prove your milkman has been up to no good ... but it's a reasonable suspicion.

[Nearly Sane]

If girls who got themselves pregnant, because the RCC doesn't approve of contraception, ended up in this home, they might not have done so if the church permitted its use. But until we know exactly what went on it can only be an assumption. I will eat humble pie if I am wrong.

Why would they be in an orphanage? What contraception was being denied in 1870 to 1930? Have you actually read your link?

[Nearly Sane]

The presumption of innocence is the cornerstone of the legal system in most cases and a fine thing it is too.

It does tend to work against human nature, however. If cash goes missing in a home or a workplace wherein there's a known thief, no matter the protestations of reform and repentance, people will form conclusions. They may, on the basis of subsequent evidence, be justified or unjustified. But form them they will. As Thoreau put it, some evidence is very suggestive, such as a trout in the milk.

And the Catholic Church is guilty of far worse than lifting readies.

So because these were women in charge of the orlganage , we can in the basis of your assumption of guilt, suspect women of murder? Maybe you want to try that point again, this time with even a smidgen of logic?

[Shaker]

Not sure what biological sex has to do with anything, but hey ho.

[Anchorman]

Is anybody surprised by this sort of thing any more?

   




Not trying to justify this, but local 'poor houses' - the Scottish equivalent of the workhouse - were not exactly brilliant at recording the burials of those children who died in their 'care' either.
I'm not saying there was no cruelty by the nuns - that would be wrong in every sense - but the biggest issue would be poor record keeping. From the Beeb reports this morning, the vast majoity of these deaths - over a 120 year period - were due to 'natural causes' - Ifyou count TB, polio, influenza, scarlet fever, etc, as natural.

[Nearly Sane]

Not sure what biological sex has to do with anything, but hey ho.

You seem to like assuming guilt by association, so just pointing out your illogicality by a reductio. 

[Shaker]

You seem to like assuming guilt by association, so just pointing out your illogicality by a reductio.

You could always try comprehending not merely reading my earlier post, of course, but your Sunday afternoon is yours to spend how you please.

[Nearly Sane]

You could always try comprehending not merely reading my earlier post, of course, but your Sunday afternoon is yours to spend how you please.

So in what way were you not indulging in guilt by association?

[Nearly Sane]

   




Not trying to justify this, but local 'poor houses' - the Scottish equivalent of the workhouse - were not exactly brilliant at recording the burials of those children who died in their 'care' either.
I'm not saying there was no cruelty by the nuns - that would be wrong in every sense - but the biggest issue would be poor record keeping. From the Beeb reports this morning, the vast majoity of these deaths - over a 120 year period - were due to 'natural causes' - Ifyou count TB, polio, influenza, scarlet fever, etc, as natural.

Completely agree. In addition the cruelty seems to me, if you are atheist, to arise out of human nature since any doctrine must be one from human nature logically.

There is undoubtedly tragedy and cruelty in what happened here, and undoubtedly much caring and compassion, but why bother with a recognition of logic or history when you can indulge in a little masturbation of your prejudice.

[ProfessorDavey]

So no evidence just assumption of guilt. By the way how much of the doctrine against contraception was related to the burials of orphans betwen 1870 and 1930 in this orphanage in Lanark? And again please present evidence

Why are you restricting the time range from 1870 to 1930?

[Nearly Sane]

Why are you restricting the time range from 1870 to 1930?

Because according to the article that was when the majority of the burials occurred, so therefore in Floo's generalisation that would be the most significant time as otherwise the generalisation would be ignoring the majority. 

[Owlswing]

So no evidence just assumption of guilt. By the way how much of the doctrine against contraception was related to the burials of orphans betwen 1870 and 1930 in this orphanage in Lanark? And again please present evidence 

I have no doubt that there could be cruel shocking actions carried out here, i just think that the idea that cultural and religious aspects are complex and that rather indulge in knee jerk judgement evidence and context has importance.

Are you defending this because you are Scottish and it happened in Scotland or because of your frequently demonstrated attachment to pedantry in just about any/every circumstance?

[ProfessorDavey]

Because according to the article that was when the majority of the burials occurred, so therefore in Floo's generalisation that would be the mist significant time as otherwise the generalisation would be ignoring the majority.

Most, but not all - the new articles specifically refer to a 13 year old who died in the 1960s. Apparently his brother had no idea what had happened to him nor had been told where his brother had been buried.

Now I can see how you can dismiss issues from 1920 on the basis that the world worked in a very different way then, but not so easy for deaths in the 1960 or even 1970s, noting that the home only closed in 1981.

Now it may be that the majority of the bodies are from much earlier times and died of natural causes, but that doesn't mean that all were - clearly there needs to be careful investigation of the bodies to determine whether there is evidence that some did not die of natural causes - noting that former residents of the care home reported serious abuse going on there.

[Nearly Sane]

Most, but not all - the new articles specifically refer to a 13 year old who died in the 1960s. Apparently his brother had no idea what had happened to him nor had been told where his brother had been buried.

Now I can see how you can dismiss issues from 1920 on the basis that the world worked in a very different way then, but not so easy for deaths in the 1960 or even 1970s, noting that the home only closed in 1981.

Now it may be that the majority of the bodies are from much earlier times and died of natural causes, but that doesn't mean that all were - clearly there needs to be careful investigation of the bodies to determine whether there is evidence that some did not die of natural causes - noting that former residents of the care home reported serious abuse going on there.

Which us why I talked about Floo's generalisation. It would be good if you didn't indulge in strawmen and claim I am dismissing anything in regards to this rather than questioning the generalisation. Once you have retracted that and actually dealt with what I was arguing perhaps we can progress.