Sir, – At the heart of the desecration of the children in Tuam lies the demonisation of young women who conceived a child outside marriage. They disappeared from the locality for a year, returning to the chill of local gossip and rejection, having been constrained to hand over their child for adoption.
What was particularly striking was the fact that the father of the child seemed to remain untouched by the whole affair. In accordance with an odious tradition where the woman was seen as a temptress and the man as victim of her wiles, the father was rarely held to account through the daily round of judgment-laden gossip.
In our response to the Tuam scandal, the first port of call must be ourselves who, over time, have unwittingly colluded in uncritically sustaining a society that had failed to come to grips with the realities of human sexuality.
The harsh treatment of Ireland’s women who conceived outside wedlock ran parallel to the church’s muddled thinking on contraception. Sadly, the Christian way of life was steadily corrupted by a culture of guilt and fear.
:fill(white):background_color(white)/static.themebuilder.aws.arc.pub/irishtimes/1647534191476.png)
We are slowly awakening from our dogmatic slumber as we reconnect our sexuality to the transforming nature of human love. – Yours, etc,
PHILIP O’NEILL,
Oxford.
Sir, – What is emerging in the news about Tuam is incredibly distressing. To think that anyone could dispose of a human being in such a callous manner defies belief, irrespective of the time in which it happened. It is a truly horrific story.
However, there is another unsavoury truth, a narrative that some would prefer to ignore or dismiss, and it is the fact that while it may be convenient for us to look to the church as a target for the abuse that is now being vented daily, it seems to me to miss the discomfort of the personal responsibility that each of us bears in this.
Whether we like it or not, there was a stigma, a societal rejection, associated with pregnancy outside marriage. This stigma knew no social bounds; it was as prevalent and vicious in so-called working class situations as it was in so-called middle and upper-class environments. Perhaps the options were different but the stigma and rejection were the same. And who or what were the sources of this stigma – well, that was society in general, and uncomfortable and all as it may be, that was (depending on our age) our parents, or grandparents, or great-grandparents. These pregnant young women were rejected by a majority view in society that saw them as “fallen” women. This was a shameful attitude. Standing up now and saying “not me”, pointing the finger in all other directions, is to ignore that reality.
In many cases, those unfortunate girls were destined to be thrown out of their homes, and for what? The state (and again, read you and I) had no interest nor care, and if they ended up on the side of the road, would do nothing. In so many cases, the individuals of society, the families, turned to church organisations such as the nuns, and despatched their stigmatised daughters to them, thus saving the state from the homeless that would otherwise have inevitably resulted and themselves from the shame of the crying sound of a new baby.
I have no doubt whatsoever that there was much cruelty within those walls; after all, the shunning and stigmatising was cruel and if society could be comfortable in that, then why would society within the walls be dramatically different? Is it the case that every single nun was cruel and heartless? Is it truly the case the there was no kindness ever shown? I don’t know. Of course, none of this excuses what is now coming to light about what happened to those babies and children who died; no society, in any age, can stand over that.
But let’s not engage in self-righteousness, that it was “them” and this has nothing to do with “us”. It has, and we must face up to that, to know that our families and our forebears were part of a society that could, at one time, inflict this cruelty on young women.
Of course, we don’t condone it, but strident statements in the Dáil or elsewhere cannot remove this personal responsibility and no commission can change that. – Yours, etc,
T GERARD BENNETT,
Bunbrosna, Co Westmeath.
Sir, – People are shocked by the finding of the remains of children born to unmarried mothers who were rejected by their families and society, which we judge as cruel and uncaring. How will a future generation judge us if we remove the protection of the Eighth Amendment to pre-born children? Is there an element of moral blindness here, or at least rationalisation to justify denying life to the most innocent? – Yours, etc,
KATHARINE DAVEY,
Shankill,
Dublin 18.
Sir, – Spreading the blame will not remove the heartache, and it can safely be assumed that what may be uncovered in Tuam will be the unsavoury result of the callousness and hypocrisy which permeated many elements of society – and not only in Ireland – at the time.
Despite the passage of the years there has to be closure for those who were affected by these events and, just as important, the lessons are there to be learned by generations to come, which is why it is imperative that the investigations should take place. – Yours, etc,
MIKE LAWLOR,
London.
Sir, – International Women’s Day in this Republic has passed in the shadow of the exposure of yet another grievous wrong perpetrated against women.
This State should declare International Women’s Day a day of public remembrance and apology for all the wrongs that women have had to endure.
This day should become the day each year on which civic society, business, trade unions and legislators measure their words against their actions. It will continue to be the day by which the rest of us will hold them to account. – Yours, etc,
ANNE SPEED,
Cabra,
Dublin 7.