http://world.time.com/2013/02/07/the-mag...nal-shame/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-...dries.html

Lately, we have had some interesting conversations with the Catholics on this forum. I would like to know what they think about the Magdalen Laundries that were run in Ireland by Catholic nuns. From the second link:

Quote:Thousands of women are thought to have passed through the gates of Ireland’s Magdalene Laundries, some of them never to emerge again and others to leave with deep emotional scars.
The women - some of whom had fallen pregnant outside marriage, or were the daughters of unmarried women - worked for years in church-run laundries, at times allegedly enduring both mental and physical abuse.

From what I understand, young women and girls were sent to work without pay in laundries run by nuns. They were often mistreated and weren't allowed to leave. Their crimes included out of wedlock pregnancy, perceived promiscuity or just not being wanted and being female. The Catholic Church basically enslaved these women/girls

Has the Catholic Church ever apologized to the victims of the laundry or paid them any restitution?

Don't worry about it.  I'm sure fucking jesus told them it was fine.

The following is an excerpt from the Wikipedia page concerning the Magdalene Laundries :

Catholic reaction[edit]

In February 2013, a few days after the publication of the McAleese Report, two sisters gave an interview for RTÉ Radio 1 under conditions of anonymity for themselves and their institute. They described the Irish media coverage of the abuse at the laundries (which they claimed not to have participated in), as a "one-sided anti-Catholic forum". They displayed no remorse for the institutes' past: "Apologize for what? Apologize for providing a service? We provided a free service for the country". They complained that "all the shame of the era is being dumped on the religious orders... the sins of society are being placed on us". On hearing the interview, a survivors' group announced to the press that they were "shocked, horrified and enormously upset" by the sisters' portrayal of events.

In a detailed commentary by the president of the Catholic League, a U.S. advocacy group, published in July 2013, it is claimed that "No one was imprisoned, nor forced against her will to stay. There was no slave labor, ... It’s all a lie." The inmates are described as "prostitutes, and women seen as likely candidates for the 'world’s oldest profession". Unmarried women, especially those who gave birth out-of-wedlock, were likely candidates. Contrary to what has been reported, the laundries were not imposed on these women: they were a realistic response to a growing social problem [prostitution]."

Historically, there has been a culture of secrecy surrounding the institutions. In 1955, while the abuse of inmates was still occurring, the English writer Halliday Sutherland was touring Ireland to collect material for his book Irish Journey. When he applied for permission to visit the Galway asylum, Michael Browne, the local bishop, reluctantly granted him access only on condition that he allow his account to be censored by the Mother Superior.

To the shock and outrage of survivors, the religious institutes, the Sisters of Mercy, Sisters of Our Lady of Charity of the Good Shepherd, and Sisters of Charity, have refused demands from the Irish government, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child and the UN Committee Against Torture to contribute to the compensation fund for victims, an estimated 600 of whom were still alive in March 2014.

(In a separate 2009 investigation, the Sisters of Mercy were one of 18 religious institutes found guilty in the Ryan report of permitting and covering up rape, molestation, beatings and mental cruelty in their children's institutions. In late 2013, they offered €128m million towards a €1 billion Education Department compensation fund.)

I have little doubt that the Church will make a full public confession of wrongdoing and apologize unreservedly about 50-100 years after the last of the victims is safely in the ground.

'Women seen as likely candidates for "the world's oldest profession" '. [emphasis mine]


So, the Church's reaction seems to have been to punish a potential social ill (prostitution) with an actual one (slavery).  This is repugnant, but actually self-consistent, as the Church has always condemned whores, but never slaveholders.

While the Magdalen Laundries were pretty awful, this sort of thing happened as much in the secular world as the religious one.  It wasn't uncommon (until fairly recently) for the poorest of the poor to find themselves in workhouses, or one sort or another.  Many social institutions had no qualms whatsoever about using any excuse available to gain slave labour.


Boru

It sounds as if the Catholic Church handled this the exact same way that they did the child molestation cases. They denied the accusations and tried to sweep everything under the rug.



http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Magdalene_laundry

According to rational wiki, women who were rape victims or just 'too silly' could be enslaved. They had to be claimed by a relative to get out but the nuns told many of their relatives that the girls had changed their names and moved away.

The fact that the nuns got away with this and that the police even returned escapees to them is mind boggling

Quote:Some ended up there simply because they were considered in moral danger. By the 20th century, unwed mothers, rape victims and generally "wayward" women were considered eligible inmates.

and

Quote:One reason women and girls who were considered ugly or silly were sent to the asylums was because, supposedly, they were vulnerable to seduction, and men were vulnerable to temptation by them. Physically or mentally handicapped women and girls were not sent to Magdalene laundries. These women would certainly seem to be as vulnerable to seduction as the unattractive or silly. However, these disabled women would not be capable of washing clothes. Since the Church could not profit from their unpaid labour, and would have had to pay to provide for them, they were not institutionalized.

That is just evil.

ATHEIST BRENDON O'NEILL RESPONDS

There are, of course, honest parties to this discussion, observers who have long been critical of the laundries, but who upon reading the McAleese Report, sought to correct the record. No one has done so with greater valor than Irish writer Brendan O’Neill.

When O’Neill read that the Irish Times was trying to look at the good side of exposing abuse, even if it didn’t happen, he was taken aback. Worse was a playwright who told the newspaper that even if the stories weren’t true, they “served an important function at the time—that is, to raise awareness about the problem of abuse in Catholic life more broadly.” To which O’Neill responded, “This sounds dangerously like a Noble Lie defence—the idea that it is okay to make things up, to spread fibs, if one is doing it in service of some greater good.”

“Anyone who points out that reports and depictions of abuse in Catholic institutions have been overblown risks being denounced as an abuse apologist or a sinister whitewasher,” says O’Neill. He insists, not without reasons, that those “who are genuinely interested in truth and justice should definitely be concerned that films and news reports may have left the public with the mistaken belief that women in Magdalene Laundries were stripped and beaten and that thousands of Irish and American children were raped by priests.”

What makes O’Neill’s account so persuasive is that he is an atheist; he has no vested interest to serve. His honesty is refreshing. “Catholic-bashers frequently accuse the Catholic religion of promoting a childish narrative of good and evil that is immune to factual evidence. Yet they do precisely the same, in the service of their fashionable and irrational new religion of anti-Catholicism.”

The horror stories associated with the Magdalene Laundries cannot withstand scrutiny, but they will continue to have a life of their own. That’s the way prejudice works. Unwarranted negative attitudes, especially when employed about a familiar whipping boy, are hard to shake. All we can do is pursue the truth and educate fair-minded people about what really happened. We certainly can’t count on the likes of the New York Times or the BBC to publish the truth.

Source.

Geez Randy, what's with your hard-on for finding the handful of atheists that agree with you? Not sure why you think it adds credibility to your argument, because there plenty of non-atheists that are extremely upset with the catholic church's activities as well.

I'll agree that critics of the Catholic Church can sometimes jump to conclusions on certain issues or try to paint every person in the organization with the same brush, but I don't understand your penchant for trotting out the one or two "REFRESHING ATHEIST WRITERS" that might agree with you.

What should lend credibility to your argument isn't the fact that one is an atheist, it's the facts that are present in the argument.

More importantly, what is it with you and quoting someone else's work without a word of your own to go with it? -_-

Statements from Physicians in the McAleese Reports

Dr. Michael Coughlan:

“I had expected to find a very unhappy, deprived group who would have significant medical and especially psychological complaints and special needs. I was, therefore, surprised to encounter a group of ladies who appeared to be quite happy and content with their current environment and who presented with the type of symptoms and problems that reflected those of the wider Practice population.”

“My expected image of them all looking the same in drab uniform was quickly dissipated when I observed that each one presented dressed in colourful clothes and those who came directly from the Laundry were wearing a type of overlapping protective overall or apron, under which I could notice that they were wearing a variety of more personal choice of clothes.”

“Whenever I sensed that one of the ladies had something personal or sensitive to discuss, I always asked the Nurse or Nun to leave and afforded them the opportunity to elaborate in confidence. Interestingly, I cannot recall any occasion that the patient complained in any manner about her treatment by the Nuns in the Home, neither recently nor in the distant past….”

“With respect to the question of any evidence of past injuries, broken bones or any other suggestions of physical or psychological abuse in the past, I cannot remember coming across any patient that presented with symptoms or signs that would or should have alerted me to such maltreatment, apart from one case when a resident got scalded with hot water, which I believe was an accidental injury.”

“Overall, my experience [with the Magdalene] was a happy and gratifying one. The Residents were a delightful and happy group of ladies, each with their own unique personality and they appeared to me to have a good and friendly relationship with the Mercy Sisters. Equally, my impression was that the Sisters were very caring towards the Residents and I never found any evidence to the contrary.”

Dr. John Ryan:

“[T]here were a number of incidents of fractures but they were all from falls and usually out in the city, but none were suspicious in any way and I did not come across any evidence of unexplained bruising or scalding etc.”

Dr. Donal Kelly:

“Many of these ladies were forgotten by their own or orphaned. They were poorly educated and some were mentally retarded. If the Sisters of Charity had not provided them with a home I don’t know who would have cared for them….Never did I witness any evidence of physical or mental abuse.”

Dr. Harry Comber:

“There was no evidence of any traumatic injuries inflicted during my time, nor did anyone ever show me evidence of any previous injury….The women seemed reasonably happy, although some regretted the loss of opportunity to have a life, families and children of their own….I would be surprised if there was, in the time I was there, any mistreatment of them, either verbal or physical.”

Dr. Malachy Coleman:

“I always felt that the ladies were well fed and well cared for. Their complaints were routine and normal consistent with those presenting in general practice. I saw no evidence of any traumatic injuries either historically, prior to my taking up the post, or for the time I cared for the ladies.”

“My overall impression of the Good Shepherd Convent in the main, was of an institute run by caring nuns which contained a number of ladies who were unlikely to be able to care for themselves.”

“While the ladies were very deferential to the nuns I did not at any stage get an impression of coercion or fear in the relationship between the ladies and the nuns. If anything I think the nuns did too much for the ladies and so decreased their capacity to care for themselves.”

Source.

Er...catholic league sources? For both your points?