“We’ve never had sex in Midwife and we never shall.”

… Anybody else watch this show? If not, here’s as good a reason as any to start watching.

Call the Midwife

Heidi Thomas, who created the award-winning programme, said sexual activity would have no place in the 1950s setting.

She told Radio Times magazine: “We’ve never had sex in Midwife and we never shall. We have the consequences of it, certainly, but I always try to look at things within the historic context.

“In the East End of the 1950s – or so a lot of people have told us – children playing out in the street would see the midwives arrive and they thought the babies came in the box on the back of the bike.

“We’re not a soap, we’re a medical drama, but we do tell a story about women in the 1950s and it’s quite nice to show these rather chaste romances, which are so different from the ones girls have today. SOURCE

Not like that horrible show, Downton Abbey, and that unspeakable thing they did to poor Anna.

About Katrina Fernandez

Mackerel Snapping Papist

  • Tim Canny

    Just watch out for the pro-abortion episode. It was rather disappointing to see them make it seem like having too many children causes mental illness in women and abortion solves the problem. Sure, (spoiler alert) the back alley abortionist/abortion was portrayed as horrendous and the woman almost died but when she recovered they showed her strolling through a field with her husband and non-aborted children as if everything was right with the world. My head kind of exploded a little bit at that.

    • Fallulah

      This illustrates the fact that too many children is a problem for families sometimes and backyard abortionists aren’t a good idea…that is why it is VITAL to provide women with safe, professional, accessible abortions.

      • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thecrescat Katrina Fernandez

        Kermit Gosnell. Your argument is invalid.

        • Fallulah

          What does his case have to do with what I said? Lots of other doctors have performed medical malpractice, but nobody would advocate the elimination of the medical practice. What is your point?

          • Suburbanbanshee

            If you’d said, “Too m any children is a problem for families sometimes, and that’s why adoptions are important,” that would make sense. Or “Women have trouble carrying children sometimes, so that’s why better prenatal care for mother and baby is important.” Or even “Sometimes even married people have to think about abstaining from sex for health and energy reasons.”

            As soon as “Let’s kill somebody, and let’s have medical people do the killing,” becomes the solution, then the age of the person being killed (and whether or not it’s baby or mother) becomes increasingly negotiable.

            Either the first rule for doctors is “Do no harm,” or you’ve got this person clinically allowed to use knives and drugs to execute people without a court trial, or a warrant, or a war. Which one are you willing to live with?

            Or more to the point, which one is likely to let you live?

          • Fallulah

            A fetus is not a PERSON, it is a collection of cells which feeds off its host (the mother) to stay alive. Sorry if you don’t like that fact, but that doesn’t make it any less of a fact.

          • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thecrescat Katrina Fernandez

            of course a fetus is a person. What else does a fetus develop into? When a women is pregnant she is pregnant with a human baby… not an elephant or a monkey. A human baby. An unborn baby looks exactly like a human is supposed to look for that particular stage in their development. You said “truth alert” in a comment earlier. Please open your mind to the truth in this post..

            http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thecrescat/2013/04/when-we-practice-to-deceive-semantics-and-redefining-what-abortion-is.html

          • Fallulah

            So is sperm a person too??? Cuz they develop into a person later on given the right conditions, just like a fetus.

            You think I haven’t considered this topic from all angles before? I used to be pro-life when I was a Christian, so maybe I’m not the one who should be opening their mind.

            If there were a god he would be the biggest abortionist of them all as many as 75% of conceptions end in miscarriage. Why is GOD killing all these PEOPLE? But you don’t have your panties in a knot over this now do you? It’s only when a woman has a choice that people get upset.

          • Ken D.

            Sperm isn’t a person and neither is an egg. But science tells us that at the moment of conception the resulting DNA is 100% human. All that is to be added is growth and knowledge.

            As far as science is concerned, your DNA and a fetus’ DNA are both fully human. Deciding who is worthy of life based upon their level of growth and knowledge is an extremely slippery slope that leads to nowhere good.

          • Fallulah

            Yes it’s 100% human DNA but if you take it out of the womb…it cannot survive on its own. It is a part of the mother, it is HER keeping it alive. It is not autonomous.

          • defiant12314

            naturally our mother’s keep us alive through breastfeeding until we are able to take solids, shall we kill the newborns who can’t feed for themselves?

            It is not DNA in the women, from the moment of conception it is a human being, it will grow, ingest nutrients, after 9 months it will be time to leave the womb, from then on it will acquire knowledge, act of its own accord even though it is still dependent on its parents and (hopefully) be baptized.

            I am a human being, my essence has not changed from 19th November 1987 when I was conceived, all that has changed is my size and knowledge.

            Viva Viva (long live life)

          • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thecrescat Katrina Fernandez

            Beautifully stated. I just pray that it’s absorbed by the reader you are addressing.

          • Fallulah

            So if a mother dies in child birth there is no way for the baby to stay alive and it dies due to lack of breastmilk? Ummm no sorry we have formula. Babies are not reliant on their mothers.

            You have actually changed since conception, every molecule in your body is replaced every 7 years so you are NOWHERE near the same as you were when you were conceived.

            All this you are espousing is incredibly poetic but have you ever stopped to think pragmatically about what would happen if you outlawed abortion?

            How can you ignore miscarriages while screaming about abortions?

          • defiant12314

            1) I said naturally there is no way for the child to survive, also was dependent on my parents to feed me as a newborn whether breast or formula milk

            2) sure every cell has been replaced, but Jack Hughes has persisted through the change, the Essence of humanity has been preserved, I am the same person as the boy who cried because he left his cuddly sea otter at home at six and whose mother drove him through the night to get it, I am the same person who brought the same sea otter to the first day of 1st grade, if anything mate you are proving my point, WHO I am has persisted through all the changes wrought upon my body, I am the same human that came into being on that November night in a Spanish Hotel room, and being a human being endowed with the right to LIFE it would have been murder had a doctor ripped me apart in the womb or if my mother had taken a chemical cocktail to eject my tiny body from her body.

            3) If abortion were outlawed I think that men would value women more and treat them with the dignity they deserve instead of viewing them as disposable sex toys existing only for their pleasure (consequently the family would be strengthened as Marriage became something that required sacrifice again), I think that the economy would be better as we’d have more people to pay into the social security accounts for retirees + buying lots of stuff, I think that autistic and downs children would have a much better chance of survival and would be seen as a blessing and I think that due to the necessary sacrifices that come with large families that children would be better behaved, less selfish and we’d have allot fewer social problems.

            4) miscarriages are tragic, abortion is the intentional destruction of human life and therefore murder

          • Fallulah

            How have fun living in imaginary land! The rest of us live in the REAL WORLD. I’m getting out of here before I lose all hope in humanity.

          • defiant12314

            of my points which one was ‘imaginary’?

          • Fallulah

            Well 1) firstly YOUR parents don’t need to feed you to survive. You know this.

            2) Well that just gets into a whole mess of existential quagmire. Let’s just say we disagree on what a person’s “essence” is.

            3) THIS THIS THIS is completely and entirely delusional!! I just can’t even….firstly, it’s assuming a bunch of social conditions, it completely ignores the fact that women have been inducing abortion themselves since the beginning of time and will continue to make those decisions, just if its outlawed it won’t be in a safe regulated way anymore. It completely ignored the fact that MEN aren’t going to just wake up one day and value women! What about the women who choose to keep the babies and their men abandon them, now? Those men are going to magically become responsible if abortion is outlawed?? It entirely ignores the strain on the social system having so many unwanted babies being born, we have enough. Not to mention the planet’s overpopulation problem!

            You just aren’t seeing the big picture here.

            Oh and Number 4: Miscarriages are tragic. Ok but you believe in a god…a god who rules over nature, therefore it would follow that miscarriages are god’s abortions. They can’t be that bad if god does them ALL THE DAMN TIME.

          • Nan

            But HE is our creator. It’s up to him to decide when our time has come. If that’s before birth, it’s up to him, not to the mother.

            To avoid having babies you don’t want, don’t have sex.

          • Fallulah

            You my dear live in a very simplistic world don’t you? You need to have more discussions with people outside your circle, read more, travel more. Expand your horizons for your own sake.

          • defiant12314

            How condescending of you, how about you keep of this blog as you clearly can’t disagree civilly with anyone who holds different views to you.

          • Fallulah

            Kick out the dissenters! How very CIVILIZED of you. I am having no trouble disagreeing and having a discussion on the topic. You seem to be the one having some trouble n’est ce pas?

          • defiant12314

            Neither Kat or I are kicking anybody out, I’m merely suggesting that as commenting on this blog seems to result in an increase in your blood pressure and a proportional decline in your civility that you may not want to read or comment on it in future. When I comment on blogs I remind myself that I am on the cyberspace equivalent of somebody’s home and and as a consequence do not swear, act condescendingly or insult other people’s intelligence.

          • Nan

            Or is it that you’re bitter about God because you had a miscarriage?

            BABIES! That’s what would happen if abortion were outlawed. Babies! Bouncing baby taxpayers! The economy would improve.

          • Fallulah

            Never had a miscarriage…see you are trying to make up some sordid past for why I am thinking logically about these matters? I am well educated, responsible, never married, never pregnant woman who has studied and pondered these issues to a great extent.

            So all these unwanted babies in homes that cannot afford to support them so they won’t get education, and likely will be a strain on the social system. Or they will end up in foster care which is also a nightmarish system and over burdened already.

            Do you know what happens if you allow families and women to choose for themselves how many children they will have…less burden on the social system, more money to educate the children you have and , less kids in foster care.

            Oh and as if it needs to be stated. BABIES DON’T PAY TAXES.

          • Nan

            Not if they’re aborted. If they’re born and grow into adults they do.

            The social system is a separate issue and the government encourages single mothers to have children so govt continues to support them, so no. Your statements about foster care and education are speculative; there’s simply no way of knowing what would happen.

            The single greatest benefit to women and children is marriage because it keeps them out of poverty. And children do better when raised in a family with a mother and father.

            Oh, and as to choosing not to have children? That’s really selfishness which is rampant in our society.

            You’re very bitter about women who have children and about the Church so of course I assumed that you either had an abortion or a miscarriage. Otherwise why would you care what others do?

          • Fallulah

            YOU are the one caring what women do with their bodies!! I am not trying to outlaw having babies or getting married.

            Oh and choosing NOT to have babies is actually the smart thing to do because the fucking planet is overpopulated already!!

          • Nan

            It isn’t overpopulated. That’s a myth perpetrated by those who hate women; abortion leads to depression and cancer. It isn’t “women’s healthcare.”

          • Fallulah

            Cite your sources.

          • Nan

            Why? You haven’t.

          • Fallulah

            The moderator won’t approve any of my posts which include links so yes I have, they are just being censored.

          • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thecrescat Katrina Fernandez

            You are such a pathetic liar. You are not censored.

          • Fallulah

            Ok all my posts keep getting deleted and none of you are being respectful so I am going to have to leave this blog (defiant, your wish was granted, no more knowledge and reason will invade this blog).
            Hope someday you will all open your eyes to the fact that not everyone thinks and does things the same way you do and you cannot regulate people’s bodies.
            Until that day, be well in your shroud of dark ignorance.

          • Nan

            Knowledge and reason? More like presumption and attitude. I’ll pray for you. He still loves you. No matter what.

          • Caroline M.

            Nan, is it really necessary to delve into personal attacks and assumptions? Can we discuss this without assuming that someone has had an abortion or miscarriage and is “bitter” about it? And how must that make women readers feel who are struggling to heal from miscarriages or abortions? What exactly do you think this will accomplish? If I were Fallulah I wouldn’t suddenly become pro-life after reading this.

          • Nan

            She’s so bitter about God of course I assume abortion or miscarriage; did you read what she said about God and miscarriages? Only He can heal her from whatever is wrong.

            This is a conversation in a combox,

          • Nan

            Don’t forget that the baby leaves DNA in the mother.

          • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thecrescat Katrina Fernandez

            It’s really hard to intelligently dialogue with someone so belligerent and willfully ignorant of facts. A simple Google search will reveal, according to the Mayo Clinic, that only 10-20% of pregnancies result in miscarriage.

            http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/seo/basics/definition/con-20033827

            And your basic lack of providing evidence to back up anything you say, like that Spanish black marketed babies gibberish above (that I didn’t even bother to acknowledge), makes it hard to take anything you have to say seriously at all.

            You sound angry and in need of someone who can professionally talk to you about your anger, professional help I am not qualified to give. I pray you seek good counsel from people who can help you work out your rejection of God.

            You have my sympathies and prayers.

          • Fallulah

            Also, a word to the wise…if you want to continue having open, honest dialog with your fellow man, I would drop the condescension. I am not in need of your sympathies.

          • Guest
          • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thecrescat Katrina Fernandez

            When a comment is deleted by the moderator, it will automatically say “Removed by Moderator” by Disquus. This comment was removed by poster.

          • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thecrescat Katrina Fernandez

            I was being 100% sincere. You are must certainly in need of sympathies. Your rage is disturbing.

          • Fallulah

            I don’t have rage thank you. All my other posts were deleted by the moderator so I won’t be responding anymore.

            I feel sad for you that you cannot have a discussion without feeling the need to label those who disagree with you “angry” and then dismiss them based on this label.

            You have my sympathies for the dark, little box you keep yourself in.

          • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thecrescat Katrina Fernandez

            Um. I am the moderator and nothing of yours has been deleted. When all else fails, cry foul and blame others for being close minded, when you yourself refuse to accept anything that doesn’t agree with your own ideals.

            I like my dark box, it’s cozy. I bid you adieu and wish you well. You still have my sincere and heartfelt sympathies and prayers.

          • Ron Turner

            No, you’re in need of a brain transplant.
            (I’m being kind and assuming that you’re honestly this dumb.)

          • Nan

            I’ll pray for you. And the child you aborted.

          • Fallulah

            I’ve never had an abortion, not that it is ANY of your business. You see, I use CONTRACEPTION, another thing your religion forbids you to do in the pursuit of turning women into baby making factories.

          • Nan

            Yes. My religion forbids contraception as a married couple is supposed to be open to creating new life. NB; women are designed to have children. Sex is designed to make them pregnant.

          • Fallulah

            I am a person, not a fetus (aka a collection of cells reliant on its host to survive). Why do I need to explain this to you? Take a damn biology class.

          • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thecrescat Katrina Fernandez

            “a collection of cells reliant on its host to survive”

            By this definition a toddler is a collection is cells whose survival is reliant on their parents. Kill it right?

            Or an elderly parent in a nursing home whose survival is reliant on the care of others or medication. Kill them too, right?

            Also, biologically speaking, you are molecularly nothing more than a fully developed fetus. Biology.

            Once you start advocating the right to kill humans at one stage of development you might as well embrace it whole hog and advocate their killing in every stage. There’s no distinction.

          • Fallulah

            A toddler nor an elderly person are 100% reliant on ANYONE to continue life. Don’t be silly.

            A much more accurate analogy would be someone who is brain dead and hooked up to wires and breathing apparatuses to continue life. If you detach, they die. Do you know what they do in these instances…they detach.

          • margaret1910

            The fetus can survive in his/her natural environment. When you remove him/her from that natural environment, he/she can no longer survive. If you are removed from your natural environment, you also can not survive. For instance, if you are removed from the atmosphere, you will die because you are outside your natural environment.

          • Caroline M.

            Thank you. This is the best response ever and I’ll have to remember it. We’re talking about a (usually) healthy, growing human being whose natural habitat is the womb of a woman. I like this better than the comparison to someone hooked up on life support, because the fetus is just doing her thing in the environment meant for her.

          • Nan

            Tell that to the CA girl whose parents just had her put on a ventilator and feeding tube.

          • Ron Turner

            waiting for film of a baby – say from one month to one year old – feeding itself food it obtained itself day after day …

          • Nan

            If you took a damn biology class you’d learn that once the sperm fertilizes the egg you have a tiny, embryonic human, not a clump of cells. Having children is what women were designed to do, claiming that the life she carries within her is merely a clump of cells is merely a disingenuous argument to promote murder.

          • Fallulah

            So if a woman is not capable of having babies she is no longer a woman? Wow.

            It is not murder, it is a medical procedure. You people. Really!

          • Christine Hebert

            It is most definitely murder, not a medical procedure. A medical procedure heals. There is no healing going on in abortion. There is an ending to an innocent life. If a woman doesn’t want to get pregnant, she should abstain from sexual activity, and don’t throw the “incest and rape card” here. Most pregnancies are not the result of either, but are rather the result of consensual activity.

          • Nan

            In a conversation with a doctor a couple of years ago, I learned that the hippocratic oath no longer applies as people are allowed to use whatever parts of it they like.

      • Nan

        It’s VITAL to provide children with safe, professional, accessible uterii. There were chophouses shut down in PA because they were unsanitary and the health department was loath to cite them. Margaret Sanger lives.

  • Maurisa Mayerle

    I know! Poor Anna! Have you watched Lark Rise to Candleford? Another great BBC offering that is more or less chaste–especially compared to Downton. Oh, poor sweet Anna!

  • Fallulah

    The babies probably came from The Catholic Church in Spain…you know when they trafficked babies away from their mothers and sold them?

    • Nan

      CItations:?

      • Fallulah

        I submitted a list of citations but they are up for moderation and the last time I cited the sources it wasn’t posted. So, just in case my other post gets moderated into the abyss. A three second good search of “nun kidnaps babies in Spain” will suffice.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thecrescat Katrina Fernandez

          Look, you really need to quite lying about this moderation. No posts were deleted or moderated. If that were true you wouldn’t be able to freely comment here. Your hiding behind false claims of censorship since you have nothing else valid to say.

  • Tim Canny

    Troll Alert!

    • Fallulah

      Truth Alert!

  • Susie

    The thing that made me crossest about the pro-abortion episode, and a lot ot the episodes, is that they added things that weren’t in the (biographical, ie, based on what actually happened) books, and made all the midwives 2000′s Guardian readers. There is no attempt to make people actually hold the positions and moral views they actually held.

  • cathblax

    I think I’m ditching Downton-I predict an abortion in the future…after all it was rape.

    • margaret1910

      My prediction is that Anna will not be pregnant..Edith will!

  • Guest

    As Ace Ventura said, “Ho-ho-ho! Fiction can be fun, but I find the reference section much more enlightening.

    Falullah’s
    comment that “The Catholic Church in Spain… trafficked babies away
    from their mothers and sold them” is imprecise and incomplete at best,
    and, at worse, deliberately deceitful and nasty, bigoted slander.”

    I
    live in Spain, and I am familiar with the case, and I can provide
    citations and resources in from the Spanish media for anyone who can
    read them. For the sake of the readers and commentators of this thread,
    I’ll provide a synopsis of the situation.

    1) Yes, there are
    numerous cases of babies stolen at birth from parents who were suspected
    or known to be sympathetic to the Republican government against which
    General Franco and his supporters had fought and won. These children
    were subsequently sold to families loyal to the Franco regime. The vast
    majority of these cases occurred in the period from 1939 to 1975, the
    year when General Franco died. There are further allegations that this
    continued for some years after his death, right up into the mid-1980s.

    In
    other words, the motivation for the thefts of the infants was political
    in nature, in order to place the children in “more appropriate homes”
    favorable to the government.

    2) Estimates, depending on the
    sources you consult, run as high as 15% of the live births in that
    period of time. An oft-cited figure is some 300,000 children. As is to
    be expected, the figure is disputed, with some claiming that it is too
    low or too high, but that is the figure that the Asociación Nacional de
    Afectados por Adopciones Irregulares (Anadir) (National Association of
    People Affected by Irregular Adoptions), the victims’ association that
    provides support for victims of this crime provides.

    3) The
    thefts took place in hospitals and maternity homes for unwed mothers, as
    well as in private homes and prisons. They took place in a number of
    places around the country, but not in every province or hospital.
    Bearing in mind that in those years there were very few hospitals in
    Spain that were not run Catholic religious orders (both health care and
    education were traditionally provided by the Church in Spain), then it
    is hardly surprising that thefts, when they occurred, occurred in
    Catholic hospitals.

    4) ONE nun in particular, Sister María Gómez
    Valbuena, has been charged with the theft of a number of these babies.
    JUST ONE. Others of her order are suspected of participating, but none
    have been formally accused or charged with the crime.

    In other
    words, if the crimes of one woman from a larger category of people with
    the same profession or state of life is sufficient to condemn everyone
    in that category, then kindly withhold your self-righteous indignation
    when other bigots broadly condemn all black people, or homosexuals, or
    women, or Hispanics for the crimes of SOME of them.

    5) There are
    also doctors and nurses who have also been accused or charged with
    participating in the thefts, both in the hospital where Sister Gómez
    worked and in numerous others around the country.

    Should we not then broadly condemn the medical and nursing professions too? If not, why not?

    6)
    It stands to reason that there were others in Sister Gomez’s order who
    knew about and perhaps actively participated in the thefts of these
    children, just as it stands to reason that there were doctors and nurses
    who knew about the thefts in the hospital where Sister Gómez worked, as
    well as in other hospitals across the country where there were medical
    personnel committing these crimes. It also stands to reason that this
    occurred in many places WITHOUT the knowledge of the religious who owned
    and ran the hospitals.

    If ONE SPANISH NUN, or one religious
    order = “The Catholic Church” in anyone’s mind, then that mind is a very
    bizarre and disturbing place and I’m glad I don’t live in it.

    To
    suggest or imply that the the Cardinal Archbishop of Madrid, or the
    entire Spanish hierarchy, or all Catholic health care institutions, or
    every religious order in Spain, or all priests, religious and laity, or
    even all the sisters in Sr. María’s order a) knew about and approved of
    the thefts of babies, b) were either somehow complicit or actively
    involved in the crimes, or c) bear direct responsibility is irrational,
    slanderous, bigoted and downright stupid.

    And if you’re going to
    stubbornly maintain an unjust and absurd position in the face of reason,
    then please insert “and the medical profession” between the phrases
    “The Catholic Church” and “trafficked babies away from their mothers and
    sold them in Spain”, and let’s slander every doctor, nurse, orderly,
    and medical student in Spain along with all the Catholics.

  • Navarricano

    .As Ace Ventura said, “Ho-ho-ho! Fiction can be fun, but I find the reference section much more enlightening.

    Falullah’s
    comment that “The Catholic Church in Spain… trafficked babies away
    from their mothers and sold them” is imprecise and incomplete at best,
    and, at worse, deliberately deceitful and nasty, bigoted slander.”

    I
    live in Spain, and I am familiar with the case, and I can provide
    citations and resources in from the Spanish media for anyone who can
    read them. For the sake of the readers and commentators of this thread,
    I’ll provide a synopsis of the situation.

    1) Yes, there are
    numerous cases of babies stolen at birth from parents who were suspected
    or known to be sympathetic to the Republican government against which
    General Franco and his supporters had fought and won. These children
    were subsequently sold to families loyal to the Franco regime. The vast
    majority of these cases occurred in the period from 1939 to 1975, the
    year when General Franco died. There are further allegations that this
    continued for some years after his death, right up into the mid-1980s.

    In
    other words, the motivation for the thefts of the infants was political
    in nature, in order to place the children in “more appropriate homes”
    favorable to the government.

    2) Estimates, depending on the
    sources you consult, run as high as 15% of the live births in that
    period of time. An oft-cited figure is some 300,000 children. As is to
    be expected, the figure is disputed, with some claiming that it is too
    low or too high, but that is the figure that the Asociación Nacional de
    Afectados por Adopciones Irregulares (Anadir) (National Association of
    People Affected by Irregular Adoptions), the victims’ association that
    provides support for victims of this crime provides.

    3) The
    thefts took place in hospitals and maternity homes for unwed mothers, as
    well as in private homes and prisons. They took place in a number of
    places around the country, but not in every province or hospital.
    Bearing in mind that in those years there were very few hospitals in
    Spain that were not run Catholic religious orders (both health care and
    education were traditionally provided by the Church in Spain), then it
    is hardly surprising that thefts, when they occurred, occurred in
    Catholic hospitals.

    4) ONE nun in particular, Sister María Gómez
    Valbuena, has been charged with the theft of a number of these babies.
    JUST ONE. Others of her order are suspected of participating, but none
    have been formally accused or charged with the crime.

    In other
    words, if the crimes of one woman from a larger category of people with
    the same profession or state of life is sufficient to condemn everyone
    in that category, then kindly withhold your self-righteous indignation
    when other bigots broadly condemn all black people, or homosexuals, or
    women, or Hispanics for the crimes of SOME of them.

    5) There are
    also doctors and nurses who have also been accused or charged with
    participating in the thefts, both in the hospital where Sister Gómez
    worked and in numerous others around the country.

    Should we not then broadly condemn the medical and nursing professions too? If not, why not?

    6)
    It stands to reason that there were others in Sister Gomez’s order who
    knew about and perhaps actively participated in the thefts of these
    children, just as it stands to reason that there were doctors and nurses
    who knew about the thefts in the hospital where Sister Gómez worked, as
    well as in other hospitals across the country where there were medical
    personnel committing these crimes. It also stands to reason that this
    occurred in many places WITHOUT the knowledge of the religious who owned
    and ran the hospitals.

    If ONE SPANISH NUN, or one religious
    order = “The Catholic Church” in anyone’s mind, then that mind is a very
    bizarre and disturbing place and I’m glad I don’t live in it.

    To
    suggest or imply that the the Cardinal Archbishop of Madrid, or the
    entire Spanish hierarchy, or all Catholic health care institutions, or
    every religious order in Spain, or all priests, religious and laity, or
    even all the sisters in Sr. María’s order a) knew about and approved of
    the thefts of babies, b) were either somehow complicit or actively
    involved in the crimes, or c) bear direct responsibility is irrational,
    slanderous, bigoted and downright stupid.

    And if you’re going to
    stubbornly maintain an unjust and absurd position in the face of reason,
    then please insert “and the medical profession” between the phrases
    “The Catholic Church” and “trafficked babies away from their mothers and
    sold them in Spain”, and let’s slander every doctor, nurse, orderly,
    and medical student in Spain along with all the Catholics.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X