Some of the abuse was well-known at the time. The mistreatment of women and children in Church-run Irish schools and workhouses throughout the 19th and 20th centuries was increasingly well documented by the 1990s. Mass graves were discovered in the 1970s, although in the 1990s the church was still publicly denying any responsibility. Hence Ms. O’Connor’s protest.
I don’t know what Ms. O’Connor knew about the ongoing abuse of children by priests and the church coverup efforts. But I’m sure she wasn’t surprised, as she was well-acquainted with the Church’s perfidy.
Iirc she was put into a catholic asylum type place when she was a teenager, and treated terribly. Presumably it’s where she saw up close and personal what the church was really doing.
It’s been a long time, but in the 80s, I recall the Catholic Church being known to be exactly what we know it’s to be now, but not in the same way. It wasn’t as widely accepted. As much as I despise this statement, it was also a VERY different time.
It was well known in Ireland, but not in the U.S. That’s why it was such a shocking moment and National headline. It wasn’t until the early 2000s that the scandals started popping up across the US and people decades later realized she had a point.
So, I was in my 30s when O’Connor did her thing on SNL, and I definitely remember the context being discussed here in the US. There was a (brief) national conversation at the time about why she would do this, and a fair amount of attention on the 19th and early 20th century abuses by the church’s schools and workhouses, where “women of questionable virtue” were held against their will and forced into labor. When O’Connor was interviewed about it, she talked about the abuse of women and girls.
I do agree that what the church calls “the crisis” – the revelation that active pedophiles had been using their positions in the church to cover up their extensive crimes – was not well known until the 2000s.
The issue was that it wasn’t really widely known at the time. Or at least, it was easier to handwave away as rumors and speculation. The church was still doing a pretty good job of keeping a lid on all their issues. So when she did it, all the Catholics immediately disregarded the protest and jumped on the “she hates God and Catholics” bandwagon. Some of the abuse was well known, but it wasn’t recognized to be anywhere near as pervasive and ubiquitous as it is these days.
She essentially made herself an easy target by not explicitly clarifying what she was protesting. Lots of people simply saw her ripping up the photo of the pope without any context as to why, so it was easy to take out of context.
Sorry to disillusion you but this was well known in the 70’s. It was a standing joke. People knew they just never confronted the issue because ethical standards were pretty low back then.
Yes and no. It was known among the churchgoers. The altar boys knew which priests to avoid, and why. The parishioners knew, or at least heard rumors. And when a priest was suddenly transferred across the country/internationally, it was pretty widely accepted as code for “they got caught.” But they didn’t tend to talk about it outside of the church, and the news was still afraid to be labeled as anti-catholic if they reported on it.
So the general public only really heard the jokes, rumors, and speculation. And the church had the plausible deniability to allow them to screech about being unfairly attacked. And it worked. The church happily played the role of the victim, and the general public turned on her.
I think she was principled, it doesn’t mean she wasn’t looking forward she was setting herself aside in favour of a justified cause in her eyes. It was selfless not poor forethought.
She said in an article i read today that she was proud because it prevented her from being No. 1 again, which is something she never intended. What a badass punk.
I watched Goodfellas last week for the first time. Pretty sure that’s who Joe Peeci really thinks he is. I liked things better when I only knew him for My Cousin Vinny.
deleted by creator
Which was recently proven true too. She was basically cancelled for being a good human and trying to call out some shitty things.
Some of the abuse was well-known at the time. The mistreatment of women and children in Church-run Irish schools and workhouses throughout the 19th and 20th centuries was increasingly well documented by the 1990s. Mass graves were discovered in the 1970s, although in the 1990s the church was still publicly denying any responsibility. Hence Ms. O’Connor’s protest.
I don’t know what Ms. O’Connor knew about the ongoing abuse of children by priests and the church coverup efforts. But I’m sure she wasn’t surprised, as she was well-acquainted with the Church’s perfidy.
Iirc she was put into a catholic asylum type place when she was a teenager, and treated terribly. Presumably it’s where she saw up close and personal what the church was really doing.
It’s been a long time, but in the 80s, I recall the Catholic Church being known to be exactly what we know it’s to be now, but not in the same way. It wasn’t as widely accepted. As much as I despise this statement, it was also a VERY different time.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdalene_Laundries_in_Ireland
This
It was well known in Ireland, but not in the U.S. That’s why it was such a shocking moment and National headline. It wasn’t until the early 2000s that the scandals started popping up across the US and people decades later realized she had a point.
So, I was in my 30s when O’Connor did her thing on SNL, and I definitely remember the context being discussed here in the US. There was a (brief) national conversation at the time about why she would do this, and a fair amount of attention on the 19th and early 20th century abuses by the church’s schools and workhouses, where “women of questionable virtue” were held against their will and forced into labor. When O’Connor was interviewed about it, she talked about the abuse of women and girls.
I do agree that what the church calls “the crisis” – the revelation that active pedophiles had been using their positions in the church to cover up their extensive crimes – was not well known until the 2000s.
The issue was that it wasn’t really widely known at the time. Or at least, it was easier to handwave away as rumors and speculation. The church was still doing a pretty good job of keeping a lid on all their issues. So when she did it, all the Catholics immediately disregarded the protest and jumped on the “she hates God and Catholics” bandwagon. Some of the abuse was well known, but it wasn’t recognized to be anywhere near as pervasive and ubiquitous as it is these days.
She essentially made herself an easy target by not explicitly clarifying what she was protesting. Lots of people simply saw her ripping up the photo of the pope without any context as to why, so it was easy to take out of context.
Sorry to disillusion you but this was well known in the 70’s. It was a standing joke. People knew they just never confronted the issue because ethical standards were pretty low back then.
Yes and no. It was known among the churchgoers. The altar boys knew which priests to avoid, and why. The parishioners knew, or at least heard rumors. And when a priest was suddenly transferred across the country/internationally, it was pretty widely accepted as code for “they got caught.” But they didn’t tend to talk about it outside of the church, and the news was still afraid to be labeled as anti-catholic if they reported on it.
So the general public only really heard the jokes, rumors, and speculation. And the church had the plausible deniability to allow them to screech about being unfairly attacked. And it worked. The church happily played the role of the victim, and the general public turned on her.
The general public were the congregations that went to the churches. I was brought up in a catholic system in the 70’s.
Iirc she was a pretty young adult when she did it. Not the age bracket for thinking ahead.
I get what you’re saying, but at the same time, even young me wanted to know more about what she was saying because it was clearly real.
I also agree it was a different time and the way info was handled and disseminated was wildly different too.
She just got the absolute shit end of the deal though.
I think she was principled, it doesn’t mean she wasn’t looking forward she was setting herself aside in favour of a justified cause in her eyes. It was selfless not poor forethought.
She said in an article i read today that she was proud because it prevented her from being No. 1 again, which is something she never intended. What a badass punk.
Maybe. Probably. You’re probably right.
I watched Goodfellas last week for the first time. Pretty sure that’s who Joe Peeci really thinks he is. I liked things better when I only knew him for My Cousin Vinny.