CNA Staff, Jan 16, 2021 / 04:28 pm (CNA).- Catholic bishops have welcomed an Irish government report on 20th century homes for unmarried mothers and babies run by local governments and often operated by religious orders. They have apologized for the harsh treatment of unmarried mothers and their children, calling this a betrayal of Christ.
“Although it may be distressing, it is important that all of us spend time in the coming days reflecting on this report which touches on the personal story and experience of many families in Ireland,” Archbishop Eamon Martin of Armagh said Jan. 12.
“The commission’s report helps to further open to the light what was for many years a hidden part of our shared history and it exposes the culture of isolation, secrecy and social ostracizing which faced ‘unmarried mothers’ and their children in this country.”
He urged continued outreach to those whose personal testimony was central to the report.
“We owe it to them to take time to study and reflect on the findings and recommendations of the Report, and commit to doing what we can to help and support them,” he said. “We must identify, accept and respond to the broader issues which the report raises about our past, present and future.”
The Irish Commission of Investigation into Mother and Baby Homes released its report Jan. 12. The six-year inquiry concerned 14 “mother and baby” homes and four “county homes” in the time period of 1922 to 1998. The report examines individual homes and individual witness testimonies as well as providing historical context for the actions of the women, their babies’ fathers, their families, government officials, and religious leaders involved.
“Women who gave birth outside of marriage were subject to particularly harsh treatment. Responsibility for that harsh treatment rests mainly with the fathers of their children and their own immediate families,” said the report. “It was supported by, contributed to, and condoned by, the institutions of the State and the Churches.”
“However, it must be acknowledged that the institutions under investigation provided a refuge – a harsh refuge in some cases – when the families provided no refuge at all,” it added.
About 56,000 women and girls, as young as 12 or in their forties, were sent to these institutions. The county homes were government-run and -operated, while the mother and baby homes were generally run with government support by Catholic religious religious orders, technically under the authority of their local bishop.
About 57,000 babies were born in the homes over this 76-year period. There was a significant mortality rate, with 15 percent of babies dying before they left the homes. The high mortality rate was known to authorities and recorded, but there was no outcry and little effort to address these problems. The commission report said the high infant mortality rate was the institutions’ most “disquieting feature.” Before 1960, the institutions appeared to have “significantly reduced” survival prospects.
Some county homes had “appalling physical conditions,” as did the homes at Tuam, in County Galway, and Kilrush, in County Clare. Other homes were “considerably better.”
While poor living conditions were common in Ireland, poor sanitary conditions in the group homes had “much more serious consequences.” There was oversight and inspection reports were critical of conditions, but maximum capacity figures were not set for mother and baby homes until the 1940s. These figures were not enforced, because they would have massively reduced the homes’ capacity.
Archbishop Martin welcomed the report, saying, “as a Church leader today, I accept that the Church was clearly part of that culture in which people were frequently stigmatized, judged and rejected.” He “unreservedly apologized” to the survivors and all impacted for the enduring hurt and emotional distress.
“As Church, State and wider society we must ensure together that, in the Ireland of today, all children and their mothers feel wanted, welcomed and loved,” Archbishop Martin said. We must also continue to ask ourselves where people today might feel similarly rejected, abandoned, forgotten or pushed to the margins.”
“Mindful of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which calls us to protect life and dignity and to treat everyone – especially little children and all who are vulnerable – with love, compassion and mercy, I believe the Church must continue to acknowledge before the Lord and before others its part in sustaining what the Report describes as a ‘harsh … cold and uncaring atmosphere’,” Martin said.
While some 200 women who gave birth died while living at mother and baby homes, the report indicated that they likely received better maternal care than most Irish women through the 1960s or 1970s, as most gave birth at home with the aid of a midwife or even an untrained aid. Many Irish homes lacked running water. At the same time, county hospitals discriminated against unmarried women and would not admit them to maternity wards until the 1960s.
The report attributed the end of the homes to massive improvements in living conditions, changes in religious and moral attitudes, as well as gradual improvements like free post-primary education, the establishment of legal adoption in 1953, and an allowance for unmarried mothers in 1973.
Providing historical context, the report said that such homes were not particular to Ireland, at the same time the proportion of unmarried mothers admitted to these homes in the 20th century was “probably the highest in the world.” The group home system was believed to reduce the women’s risk of entering prostitution or committing infanticide. The system also purported to advance their moral reform.
“Some pregnancies were the result of rape; some women had mental health problems, some had an intellectual disability. However, the majority were indistinguishable from most Irish women of their time,” said the report.
In the first decades of the time period concerned, most women admitted to the institutions were domestic servants, farm workers, or unpaid domestic workers in their family homes. In later decades, women were clerical workers, civil servants, professionals, and schoolgirls or post-secondary students.
Many of these pregnant women had failed to secure support from their families or the fathers of the babies and were destitute. Some women entered the homes to prevent family and neighbors from learning they were pregnant. Some were forcibly brought to the homes by family members. There was no evidence that pregnancies among under-age women were routinely reported to police. There is no evidence Church or state officials forced them to enter, but most women “had no alternative,” the report said.
Most were financially supported in the institutions by the local government health authority. Many women were cut off from the world and assigned a “house name.”
Both Irish men and women were more likely to be dependent on their parents into their early twenties. Families tended to have many children and would be less able to support an unmarried daughter’s baby. An out-of-wedlock birth could destroy marriage prospects for both the woman and her siblings.
Irish men were also reluctant to marry, especially to marry young. The commission said it is possible that fewer men married their pregnant girlfriend than they did in other countries. Land inheritance customs and economic necessity meant land passed only to one son.
It was often impossible for pregnant women to prove paternity claims, and compared to other countries a low proportion of Irish men acknowledged paternity or provided financial support. Before 1950, many fathers were themselves financially imperiled, working low-wage jobs or unpaid jobs for family farms and businesses.
Most children born in the institutions were too young to remember, but some stayed after their mothers left through age seven. Legal adoption, which the report called a “vastly better outcome,” was not available until 1953, with farming communities still proving less likely to adopt. Children often ended up in industrial schools or were boarded out.
While the Catholic hierarchy evidently had no role in the day-to-day operation of mother and baby homes, religious congregations who opened such homes required the local bishop’s permission. Local authorities often deferred to the views of these religious orders or to the views of the local bishop.
“The Catholic church did not invent Irish attitudes to prudent marriages or family respectability; however, it reinforced them through church teachings that emphasized the importance of pre-marital purity and the sexual dangers associated with dance halls, immodest dress, mixed bathing and other sources of ‘temptation’,” said the report.
There is no evidence the religious orders running these homes made a profit, said the report, which added: “At various times, it is clear that they struggled to make ends meet.”
The report suggested that the mortality rate was higher than the Irish norm either because of the high risk of infection, or because the children born in mother and baby homes came from less privileged backgrounds than other women who gave birth out-of-wedlock but had healthier pregnancies and healthier babies. Women who gave birth in the homes had more stressful lives and worse pre-natal care and nutrition. There was a failure to implement appropriate hygiene standards at the homes and to educate mothers about hygiene. Almost all the homes lacked the staff needed to perform such education.
Infant mortality rates at the homes peaked in the 1940s, a time of economic difficulty due in significant part to the Second World War.
Archbishop Dermot Farrell of Dublin welcomed the report’s publication, saying such reports “bring to light the profound injustices perpetrated against the vulnerable in our society over a long period of time – against women and children whose lives were regarded as less important than the lives of others.”
“The silence which surrounded this shameful time in the history of our land had long needed to be shattered,” he said. “The pain of those who were hidden away must be heard; those once largely without a voice now can speak clearly to our world, and we need to listen, even when what we hear pierces to the heart.”
“A genuine response is required: ours – as a Church and a society – can only be a full apology, without any reservation. There should never have been a time for avoidance and facile solutions,” he said. “This country, the Church, our communities and families are better places when the light of truth and healing are welcomed. May the Lord’s compassion be the touchstone of our response. May the light of Christ bring healing to all.”
Bishop Tom Deenihan of Meath also apologized, saying: “While a lack of resources and an intense social poverty go some way towards contextualizing the period of this report, the lack of kindness and compassion, as identified by the commission, is also clear.”
Residents and children born in these institutions suffered from “unacceptable conditions” and inadequate assistance, and they have been “unfairly burdened with an unwarranted but enduring sense of shame,” he said.
The long-closed Tuam Children’s Home in County Galway became notorious after the discovery of an unmarked mass grave for children. Some 2,219 women and 3,251 children had been at the home, and 978 children died—80 percent before their first birthday.
The home was operated by the Bon Secours Sisters in from 1925 to 1961. In addition to unmarried mothers and their babies, it also accepted children of destitute and homeless families as well as children with special needs.
It is likely that many children who died are buried in the memorial gardens, but while there are records of their deaths there is no record of their burial places.
The Bon Secours sisters offered “profound apologies.” They said that the children who died at the home were buried in a “disrespectful and unacceptable way,” the Irish Times reports.
Sister Eileen O’Connor, the local superior of the Bon Secour Sisters, said Jan. 12 that the report “presents a history of our country in which many women and children were rejected, silenced and excluded; in which they were subjected to hardship; and in which their inherent human dignity was disrespected, in life and in death. Our Sisters of Bon Secours were part of this sorrowful history.”
“We failed to respect the inherent dignity of the women and children who came to the home. We failed to offer them the compassion that they so badly needed. We were part of the system in which they suffered hardship, loneliness and terrible hurt,” O’Connor said. “We acknowledge in particular that infants and children who died at the home were buried in a disrespectful and unacceptable way. For all that, we are deeply sorry.”
Archbishop Michael Neary of Tuam also welcomed the report and asked forgiveness for “the abject failure of the Church for the pain and suffering visited on those women and their children.”
“The Church of Jesus Christ was intended to bring hope and healing, yet it brought harm and hurt for many of these women and children,” he said. “Many were left broken, betrayed and disillusioned. For them, and all of us, these revelations seriously tarnished the image of the Church.”
The Galway County Council owned the Tuam home and was responsible for the residents, and the sisters operated it. The diocese had no administrative role. However, Neary emphasized, the diocese had a pastoral role, “in that the priests of Tuam parish served as chaplains.”
“Today, how can we even begin to comprehend the raw pain and psychological damage of family separation and its devastating consequences on loving mothers and on the emotional development of their children?” he asked. “Must we ask as to the whereabouts of the fathers? Had the Church been more forthright in acknowledging the responsibility of the men who fathered these children, the outcome for many young mothers and their children would have been very different indeed.”
The diocesan archives on the home have been shared with the commission, but the archive does not have information on the living conditions. Neary lamented the absence of burial location records, saying the burials have “understandably, caused the most outrage.” He welcomed any progress in uncovering the full truth.
Dublin’s Regina Coeli hostel, founded by the Legion of Mary, appeared to show some ability to break with the trends of Irish society. The full report’s 21st chapter says that the hostel was “the only institution that assisted unmarried mothers to keep their infant” before the 1970s, the Iona Institute reports.
“Although the mothers who kept their babies were a minority until the 1970s, the proportion was undoubtedly much higher than for any other institution catering for unmarried mothers”
Venerable Frank Duff, the layman founder of the Legion of Mary, wrote a 1950 memorandum to the Department of Health about encouraging women to keep their children. Duff opposed committing children to Ireland’s industrial schools, which have also been the target of historical inquiry for poor conditions and abuse of their residents.
The hostel received no regular state support. At the same time, babies of women at the hostel suffered a high mortality rate, which peaked in the 1940s, and other reports have questioned the conditions there.
[…]
There is an absolutely superb book written on this subject. It is rare that a Licentiate Thesis at a Pontifical Institute would get published, particularly when the book concerns a private revelation that has not been approved yet, but that is ultimately what happened with Jose Luis Saavedra’s Garabandal: Message of Hope, easily available online. This book is well worth reading. Revised somewhat from the original academic format to make it generally digestible, Saavedra situates the discussion refreshingly in the broader context of prophecy, with the infrequently accepted suggestion that Marian apparitions like Garabandal be interpreted in this context, where there is a well-developed
theology and spirituality. This book is a real gem, and has a Preface written by the Department Head in Theology at the University of Navarre in Spain. This book is a real page turner, assiduously researched and articulately presented. This book is a must read for anyone looking for a full picture of Garabandal.
Thomas,
The preface to that book is worth reading. I have only perused the book, so can’t make a definitive judgement. However, I have my friend, Fr. Saavedra’s two Spanish books and find them difficult, and translations usually aren’t as good as the original. The repeated improper use of semi-colons is only one of the difficulties. Conchita’s Diary is the only prime source that I recall that he cites. On page 130 of Garabandal, Mensaje de Esperanza, for instance, he cites Lanus describing how people were disappointed when they heard the first message. Wow! How does the Argentine who didn’t show up until the 70’s know that? Saavedra told me that he used modern authors to show that there is still interest in Garabandal. I found it difficult to know who was speaking, who was relating what was seen, heard or felt.
Have you read Fr. Pesquera’s “Se Fue con Prisas a la Montana,” Ramon Perez’ “El Pueblo Habla,” or Ed Kelly’s “A Walk to Garabandal a Journey of Happiness and Hope”? I trust that you would agree that Conchita’s Diary stands apart. The original hand-written manuscript with all of her errors is delightful, a gem. For coverage of the church’s investigation of, and pronouncing on the apparitions, none come close to Canon Julio Porro’s three works. Among these are, “Garabandal, Sin Interes” and “El Portento de Garabandal.”
Does ”It is rare that [this work] would get published, particularly when the book concerns a private revelation that has not been approved yet,” come from the author? He told me that his thesis would not have been accepted if it had not been for the then Santander Diocesan Apostolic Administrator Archbishop Carlos Osoro’s (now Madrid Cardinal) letter to me writing favorably on these apparitions.
I met Fr. Saavedra years ago. His Home of the Mother group has done heroic work in making Garabandal known in much of the world. In one of the religious society’s three houses, the sisters dedicate themselves to making and editing documentaries. You can see me in one of them, “Unstoppable Waterfall.”
In my six weeks in the village last Spring I met numerous small groups from Columbia, Argentina and many parts of Spain. Conchita’s sister-in-law Paquita told me on the phone a few months ago that the village was crowded with pilgrims in the Fall. It sounded like she meant more visitors than at any time since the apparitions.
Marysville, California edward729@frontier.com
Sr. deCardenas:
You write, “The bishop of Santander, Manuel Sánchez Monge, has stated regarding the extraordinary events of Garabandal that “my position, like that of my predecessors, is that Rome’s assessment remains valid: ‘There are no signs of supernaturality.’” Wow! Bishop Monje cites no source for that. Does he have one? The Vatican’s Cardinal Seper writes in his March 10 1969 letter to Santander Bishop Cirarda (page 36-37 of “Declaraciones Oficiales de la Jerarquia Sobre Garabandal,”) ‘. . .this office [of the Vatican] has never issued an authoritative judgment from the Holy See.’ Cardinal Seper gives reasons for the Vatican leaving the judgments with the Santander Bishops.
You continue, “The alleged extraordinary events took place. . .” What the investigating doctors call “naturally unexplainable reactions” are well documented by videos, photos, audio recordings and the testimonies of thousands of eye-witnesses. What do you mean by alleged events?
You end with, “The declaration of the bishop of Santander that in Garabandal ‘there are no signs of supernaturality’ is the most explicit message that has been made from the Spanish episcopate in recent years.” That is a change from his one “official” statement of June 24, 2015. In this he says that he agrees with his predecessors who “affirmed that it wasn’t certain whether these apparitions were of a supernatural nature or not.” (Garabandal Mensaje de Esperanza,p. 6 [my translation].
What indication is there that this significant change was meant for the whole world and not just for the Madrid group that he addressed? I would be surprised to see it in the Diocesan bulletin as are the other Official declarations of the eight men who have served as bishop or apostolic administrator since 1961.
What positive events about Garabandal has CNA published? Did it publish Madrid Cardinal Carlos Osoro’s very positive evaluation of these apparitions when he served as Santander Apostolic Administrator? If not, why not? That “official” statement expressed in a May 7, 2007 letter to me, can be found on page 5 of the above-mentioned book. It has travelled the internet world for years.
When I spoke with Bishop Monje in 2019, he had nothing to say about Garabandal.
You ask please consider donating to support our efforts. Not until you stop misleading people about what many consider the most important apparitions of our times and perhaps of all time.
Ed Kelly “A Walk to Garabandal a Journey of Happiness and Hope.”
Under the large heading THE CATHOLIC WORLD REPORT we read:
“The bishop of Santander, Manuel Sánchez Monge, has stated regarding the extraordinary events of Garabandal that “my position, like that of my predecessors, is that Rome’s assessment remains valid: ‘There are no signs of supernaturality.’”
Because there are two (at least) big problems with this letter, on June 6, I wrote the Santander chancery asking which of Bishop Monge’s two statements on Garabandal was the correct one, his letter of June 24, 2015 to J.M. Rovira in which he states, like his predecessors, that it isn’t certain whether the apparitions are of supernatural origin or not, or the negative 2022 statement above. The 2015 letter carries the bishop’s official stamp and signature.
I received the following the next day:
vicariogeneral@diocesisdesantander.com
To:’Kelly’
Wed, Jun 7 at 2:20 AM
Estimado Kelly:
La postura de los Obispos de la Diócesis de Santander ha sido siempre de acuerdo a las conclusiones de la investigación que la Santa Sede había realizado en torno a los supuestos acontecimientos. Según estas conclusiones, así como la contestación que el entonces Card. J. Ratzinger, como Prefecto de la Congregación para la Doctrina de la Fe, remitió al Obispo D. José Vilaplana, no consta la sobrenaturalidad, y no se han dado nuevos elementos para hacer un nuevo procedimiento.
The position of the Santander Diocese has always been in accord with the conclusions of the investigation that the Holy See made of the supposed happenings. According to these conclusions, as also the answer that the then Cardinal J. Ratzinger, as Prefect for the Congregation for the Faith, sent to Bishop D. Jose Vilaplana, the supernatural origin is not certain, and there have been no new happening that would merit a new evaluation. (Translation by the undersigned.
Un saludo cordial,
Sergio Llata Peña
Vicario General
Obispado de Santander
Plaza Obispo José Eguino y Trecu s/n
39002-Santander
CANTABRIA-ESPAÑA
942 36 56 57
Yes, the bishop did write as Cardenas reports, but it is not clear why. Those who know him, those living in the Diocese of Santander know that he does not look favorably on these reported apparitions but that he can’t officially say so. I asked a friend in the village why he wrote the 2022 letter. She said, “he probably did not realize how much it would be spread.” It appears that he was upset that a Group “Madrid con Garabandal” would organize a meeting to discuss and promote the apparitions and he wanted to make it difficult for them.
He is incorrect about Romes’s assessment. All of the communications from Rome (Pertinent ones can be found in “Declaraciones Oficiales de la Jerarquia Sobre Garabandal” Santander 1970), state that the Vatican has been pleased with the local bishop’s handling of the matter, but has never made any evaluation of its own about the nature of the apparitions.
Secondly, only one of this bishop’s predecessors evaluated “no signs of supernaturality,” and he, Bishop Beitia changed that in his second “Official” Note of 1965 stating “not certain if supernatural or not.” (Bold face by the undersigned)
Be careful about what you publish from Cardenas. Monge applied for retirement. Pope Francis should grant that wish.
Perhaps the good that can come out of this, is that the world might see how careless Santander has been in its investigation of, and reporting on, these apparitions.
Respectfully,
Ed Kelly
A Walk to Garabandal a Journey of Happiness and Hope
and
the English-speaking participant in the documentary, “Unstoppable Waterfall”
For years I appreciated your abstaining from publishing false information (unlike many other “Catholic” groups) on the most important apparitions of our times and perhaps of all time – Garabandal. But alas, disappointment with your publishing the Nicolas Cardenas article on Santander Bishop Monge’s October 2022 letter.
It is difficult to believe that Bishop Monge wrote, “my position, like that of my predecessors, is that Rome’s assessment remains valid: ‘There are no signs of supernaturality.’”
It’s not clear why Monge wrote this letter. Those who know him, those living in the Diocese of Santander say that he does not look favorably on Garabandal but that he can’t officially say so. In April a friend in the village told me that he did not realize how much the letter would be spread.
It might also be that he was upset that a group would organize a meeting to discuss and promote the apparitions, and he wanted to make it difficult for them.