41 Comments

• Andrew007 | Aug 04, 2012, 10:54 AM EDT

  @Eiriamach Part #3 (aarrgh!); Unfortunately, the article made no mention of what became of the boy, and was in many respects scant on detail. I’d like to know quite a few things: #1: how was the boy treated and was he admitted to that Catholic school when she was not? #2: did the girl have other options for education in her town? #3: what steps did the public education system take to keep on educating her during and after her pregnancy? #4: who was it that went to the media first? #5: was she in fact a known troublemaker and had she been expelled from other schools before her application to the private school, which O’Shea alluded to (because that would mean she was being excluded not for being pregnant but for running amok)? #6: if she was initially a brat, what genuine steps she (and her parents) had taken to reform her behaviour, and had that been included with her application? The answers to all of these questions have major bearing on the case at hand, and without which, I simply cannot make a valid moral judgement call – despite my agreement with O’Shea regarding his legal right to make that call but my unease with his apparent lack of compassion.

• Andrew007 | Aug 04, 2012, 10:51 AM EDT

  @Eiriamach Part #2; Right, back to the topic at hand! (Phew!) Eiriamach, I share your JUST concern with underage sex amongst children, and I agree with your comment that laws aren't necessarily moral nor effective at protecting the innocent (sometimes from themselves), and I agree with you that both the girl AND the (presumed) boy should be treated equally and fairly - both were to blame equally, so as a matter of justice (which I believe in), they should share an equal burden of the punishment (although, I believe their parents have a lot to answer for too). I also agree with you that to deprive the girl of schooling is punishment, and I would even say it’s excessive punishment, as it ultimately punishes not just the girl for her whole life but also the utterly innocent baby who will have to grow up in a household condemned to poverty.

• Andrew007 | Aug 04, 2012, 10:35 AM EDT

  @Eiriamach Part #1: I thank you for your words of apology and explanation Eiriamach, which I gratefully accept. Please also accept my apology for my retort on Cahir's blog "As Good as It Gets", which was my reaction to what I believed was an uncalled-for insult against not just me but also - and *Especially* - my mother. I've only ever heard the term 'snarky' used before as an insult, and so when I saw it, after my shock, I reacted. Just so that you know, I only ever try to "play the ball, not the man". Yes, I'll be vociferous and direct in the expression of my opinions about public policy (and having been an NCO in the Army, I can even be very blunt at times should I believe the situation requires it), but when it comes to people's personal info I always try to tread carefully and respectfully first - as the saying goes: "walk softly but carry a big stick". I did actually send 2 other posts after my last (named) posting on Cahir's blog - the first WAS posted but weirdly without my name on it (despite being logged in), and the 2nd wasn't. The 2nd was an assurance to Cahir that despite our obvious moral/religious/philosophical differences and my concerns that remained (re social policy), that I had meant him no ill will in my post (describing only my 'lightbulb moment'), and that if he had taken offence then I apologised for it ... Altho please note Eiriamach that I can also be very dry, laconic and ironic at times, even to the point of being cynical and even a little sarcastic, but never when someone’s bravely exposing their emotions (well, at least not intentionally anyway – I am still human! :P ).

• eiriamach | Aug 02, 2012, 03:54 PM EDT

  I understand, Andrew007, I also wrote in annoyance, at not being able to reply to your reply on Cahir's blog "As Good as It Gets." IC has a software glitch that allows postings with no name; the next poster's name gets attached to the no-name posting. Since there's a no-name posting there, I cannot reply there and will take this opportunity. I thought I was being mild in commenting only on the *tone* of your posting ("snarky"), rather than inferring any anti-gay animus from it. One of the things I like about Maureen Dowd's NY Times column is that she is sometimes quite snarky, so that word is not always an insult when I use it (I usually agree with Dowd's politics, though not with her judgments about people). When I wrote that word, I meant to express my concern about what lies beneath the tone of your words. There have been many postings on IC lately that are openly racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. Editors remove some of them, but the number is worrisome. I should not have written the insult about morality. I know nothing about your morality, so I apologize. ~~~~~ I have followed cases of "violation" of underage girls reported in Irish newspapers and have read the laws, which changed recently. The fact that the law does not define intercourse with an underage girl always as rape does not mean that the law is a moral one that adequately protects children. I'm no fan of statutory rape laws, but if we're not going to punish the (presumed) boy, we ought not to punish the girl, and depriving her of schooling is punishment, whether the school is public or private. Add shaming to the rejection, and it's clearly mistreatment of a child. I base my view on the moral principle of equality, not the law as written.

• Andrew007 | Aug 01, 2012, 01:00 AM EDT

  @Eiriamach, I do apologise, my post to you was not as calm as I'd hoped, as I'd written amidst my annoyance at your insult.

• Andrew007 | Jul 31, 2012, 11:50 PM EDT

  @Eiriamach(Part 2): #3. There are wider factors at play here, not just your narrow focus on the rights of the girl and her need for schooling and her demand to be taught at that PRIVATE religious school (as opposed to elsewhere). I raised them as questions in my posts (and elsewhere), but your failure to even consider them and, worse, your decision to attack and engage in personal insult just because someone said something you disagreed with, reflects poorly upon you I’m afraid.

• Andrew007 | Jul 31, 2012, 11:48 PM EDT

  @Eiriamach: #1. I say again, your concern regarding the girl’s age when becoming pregnant is understandable (and commendable), but LISTEN to what I say and please read the relevant laws dealing with under-age pregnancies and statutory rape BEFORE you start ranting again and displaying your ignorance and obvious prejudice (even Wikipedia is a better place than none to start with). Even just a cursory inspection strongly indicates – as a generalisation - that providing that the female is at least pubescent (depending upon the jurisdiction, 12-14yo), males can be (depending upon the jurisdiction) up to 3 or even 4 years older than the under age female in question WITHOUT the consensual sex being deemed statutory rape. This means that in these “exceptional” so-called “Romeo and Juliet” cases, it is NOT RAPE. The facts of the case in question suggest that the girl became pregnant when she was 13, and thus – judging by the lack of ANY mention of a claim of rape or charges for statutory rape in the article (which I’m sure the author would’ve done so had it happened), that the act was consensual and almost certainly with a boy around her own age. #2. You stated the obvious when you mentioned that the law (and traditional morality) frowns upon underage people having sex and producing babies (which of COURSE I don’t dispute), but erroneously focussed on the health complications for 15-16yo girls (which again I don’t dispute despite the fact that 16yos can often physically bear children well and the girl in question was 13) as opposed to the very real and almost universal fact that teenagers of BOTH sexes are notoriously irresponsible and, as you correctly say, are in many ways still children (although of course decreasingly so) – especially boys who emotionally mature later than girls, and as teenagers and youths have testosterone-fuelled drives that help cause reckless behaviour (unless contained and directed by good fathering).

• misneac | Jul 31, 2012, 09:00 PM EDT

  I totally support Mr.OShea .He has no obligation to lower the standards of an institution to which any caring parent would wish to send their child .Dont try bringing in any red herring issues about " Catholic " morality .You sign up to get an education in an institution with high educational and moral standards ,if you dont obey the rules then why should other children and parents tolerate your indiscipline ? No wonder society in Ireland is populated with unmarried mothers and "partners " ,all of whom think that the taxpayers should subsidise their lifestyle ! If I was in Social Welfare I would teach them a lesson .

• eiriamach | Jul 30, 2012, 12:59 PM EDT

  The fact that it IS a crime when the male is older is enough to tell us that the law frowns upon intercourse with 15- and 16-year-old girls. Teen pregnancy imposes a risk to life, both to the pregnant girl and the fetus; if she can carry it to term, her health may be compromised for the rest of her life and the child would have a high risk of abnormalities. The law should protect girls for this reason, since, obviously, boys and men often lack the sex education or common sense, not to mention responsibility, to consider the health consequences of pregnancy for underage girls. O'Shea made a decision to blame the girl for her own predicament, regardless of how the pregnancy happened (or maybe he knew it was rape and didn't want her in the school talking about it?). The law tries to protect teenagers, even against their own foolishness. They are, after all, still CHILDREN under the law. Their role in society is NOT to serve as moral paragons for their peers or for you, Andrew007 (though you could benefit from some examples of morality). This girl needs schooling, and she has received discrimination of a kind the principal reserves for females. It was a shameful decision, no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

• JimmieM | Jul 30, 2012, 09:39 AM EDT

  Well if you want your little girls getting pregnant as soon as possible, then by all means make it comfortable and easy for them to do so...if not enough are getting with child, offer them some money...of course it is kind of mean to do as most of them will have to live sad and depressing lives because of it

• Andrew007 | Jul 29, 2012, 11:27 PM EDT

  Oops, forgot to say: Given that (according to some stats) that up to 1/2 of all children in Ireland are now born (or at least conceived) out of wedlock, and that (as an example) the towns of Wicklow and Arklow have public housing estates which are dominated by single-mother families, I have little doubt that O'Shea wanted to prevent from appearing to endorse to the children under his care a "sinful" lifestyle that contradicted everything his school taught (which may have unavoidably been the case had he enrolled the girl in question). Broken and fatherless families are a tragic cursed blight upon any society, with often disastrous consequences (esp with young males), and if this was O'Shea's reasoning then I cannot condemn his decision (altho providing male role models could've been within the ambit of the school), however uneasy and unhappy I am with it ...

• Andrew007 | Jul 29, 2012, 11:13 PM EDT

  This is an incredibly complex situation to make a conclusion about, which hasn't been helped by the lack of information in this news article. Was the girl raped or not? If the act was consensual was she repentant of it (important to Catholics & undoubtedly O'Shea)? Was the male enrolled when she wasn't? Was she a trouble-maker & had a history of being one (suggested by her being in 2-3 schools previously)? Were there other options open to the girl in question? While I'm not at all happy with the apparent lack of Christian compassion displayed by O'Shea, as the principal of a PRIVATE school (with undoubtedly restricted intake) he was responsible for the school's admin, discipline and direction, and accountable to the parents who effectively pay his wage (who seem to have publicly supported his decision), and as such his job was on the line. Also, O'Shea's primary responsibility wasn't to the pregnant girl but the children already under his care, and given his obvious suspicion that she was a 'bad apple', made a judgement call to safeguard his students - as the saying goes, "one bad apple spoils the bunch". Therefore, his decision may have been one of containment as opposed to callousness. So, do I like O'Shea's apparent smugness with his decision or lack of compassion? No I don't, but I think that there's more to this story than what has been reported here, & there are other factors that also need to be taken into account.

• Andrew007 | Jul 29, 2012, 10:42 PM EDT

  @Eiramach: while I understand your concern, an under-age girl who has sex isn't raped when #1 the male is around her same age & #2 it's consensual. This has been established as a legal principle in many jurisdictions throughout the West for many years. This of course contrasts to when the girl is under-age and the male with whom she's had sex with is NOT around her same age, whereupon it becomes "Statutory Rape" - an act legally deemed to be rape even if the girl voluntarily consented to the act.

• seamus60 | Jul 29, 2012, 03:06 PM EDT

  Let he without sin cast the first stone. Big fat twat.

• sparticusnorth | Jul 28, 2012, 11:19 AM EDT

  catholicabusesurvivorsni----------------typical old boys church school hypocrite---compassion and help ??/

• Tippergirl | Jul 28, 2012, 12:46 AM EDT

  Thank you irishcoffeekid and seanomelb for the kind thoughts. I don't know when or if I will be able to return to Roscrea and that saddens me a great deal, but I really appreciate your warm regards. We could all use a lot more kindness these days. Thank you again for yours.

• Searlit | Jul 27, 2012, 10:59 PM EDT

  @jacersagain, because the girl is pregnant, she can't go to any school now? It's not a crime to be pregnant & unmarried. Since we don't have all the information, like who the father is, maybe someone is guilty of abusing this 15 yr. old. Or, if a 15 yr. old boy impregnated her, should he be thrown out of school, too? It's wrong to treat females this way. To me, it's worse to see grown men treating a teenage girl with such vehemence than it is for her to be carrying a child, out of wedlock. Dear jacersagain, please say that you aren't like that. Now, if she had an abortion, she would be allowed into school? There has to be some common sense and compassion added to this equation otherise it doesn't add up.

• SingleDonald | Jul 27, 2012, 10:11 PM EDT

  I take exception in eiramachs' saying that, "A girl pregnant at her age is a 'rape victim'". So long as a near age boy was responsible for the pregnancy, this is not "statutary rape"! Most U.S. ststes have made this distinction. Those which have not are putting all the blame on the boy, when a mutual liason created the baby!

• seanomelb | Jul 27, 2012, 07:44 PM EDT

  Have a good life tippergirl I also found a sister I did not know I had.

• kelto67 | Jul 27, 2012, 05:06 PM EDT

  Good for him. Political correctness doesn't reign supreme everywhere!

• irishcoffeekid | Jul 27, 2012, 02:04 PM EDT

  Hey Tippergirl, i'm from Roscrea too - despite the catholic church and Fr. Bergin, I hope you enjoyed your visit to Ireland and my home town. Don't listen to anyone tells you that you're not welcome in Ireland or indeed in Roscrea - anyone from Roscrea is always welcome!!!

• eiriamach | Jul 27, 2012, 12:14 PM EDT

  Reminder: A girl pregnant at her age is a rape victim! The treatment she received from this "Catholic" but appallingly unChristian school official was another form of "rape," but just as demeaning. It's irrelevant whether she consented to sex; all males ought to know that we frown on sex with 15-year olds. jamie LM is right to ask how the male who impregnated her has been treated. Expelled from school? Put on trial for violating an underage girl? Oh yeah, sure. The double standard in some of the postings below scapegoats the female--probably for your own sexual sins.

• tempranillo | Jul 27, 2012, 10:38 AM EDT

  I am trying to understand the logic here. Were the girl to get an abortion [in private, of course], she would have continued on. So, obeying HM Church on with respect to this issue gets you barred; expelled. Hmmmm.............. 'Love the sinner; hate the sin' used to be the mantra. Now, Let she who is without sin be the first to enrol. That said, we must congratulate old Paddy for setting priorities: above all else, preserve the good name & image of the church. Well done Paddy.

• FallsRNat | Jul 27, 2012, 06:53 AM EDT

  time for the state to take control of the schools from the church.

• hollabackgurl | Jul 27, 2012, 12:33 AM EDT

  He looks like the sort of man who would throw a teenage girl out of high school.

• Tippergirl | Jul 27, 2012, 12:25 AM EDT

  I was adopted from Roscrea Ireland in 1952 after having been housed in Sean Ross Abbey for several months. My mother died in childbirth on May 11, 1951. She is buried on the hill overlooking St Cronan's Catholic Church. I was adopted by US parents in February 1952. I came back to Ireland in the late 1990's and met my sisters, aunts and uncles and cousins in Roscrea, saw the home I was born in. I was very disturbed to hear about the abuses of the catholic clericals and had a very heated discussion with Fr Frank Bergin (who was involved in my initial adoption back in 1952) He asked me not to come to Ireland for years and finally I came anyway.) I recorded our conversation at the rectory in Shinrone and have that recording still. I am appalled that after the unbelievable treatment of women in the launderies someone still claims to be a christian and behaves so unchristianlike to a needing young woman. By the way, my mother was married and so you need not take a shot at me or her. Mr O'Shea, you are a disgrace.

• jacersagain | Jul 26, 2012, 09:21 PM EDT

  @ Searlit, you who usually makes astute observations on ICentral, you who has a huge fan of yr posts on ICentral in this jacers … I think you’ve got it wrong on this occasion (no bother to me, I’ve got it wrong loadsa times … well, let me correct myself on that: let’s say a very, very, very few times). Mr. O’Shea can’t be fired ‘cos he’s retired. >>> A small PS for you, dear Searlit, and a very big one for everybody else reading: I'm inclined to agree with Mr. O’Shea’s stance. What next?... the liberation of the old Irish Magdalene Laundries that were filled with family-discarded and unwanted pregnant teenage girls to the convents all over again except that this time they will be surreptitiously transposed to be discarded within our “modern open” Irish Catholic or Protestant or Jewish and Muslim schools under another guise? In the studious classrooms of Ireland? Do we Irish people (esp Catholics) want to see our schools welcoming pregnant teenagers to sit at their desks and set themselves down to study and learn all of the curricula? Will we want and pay for specially carved school desks to accommodate growing bulging tummies of different sizes in classrooms? No, we don’t ... for the simple reason that an abnormally behaving (pregnant) student young teenage woman will not be paying attention at class… she will be paying attention to the kicking baby inside her young unknowing virgin-pregnant body and will probably utter the sounds that a pregnant woman utters while her baby kicks inside her, in class, much to the detriment and disturbance of the teaching of the rest of the class, whatever the subject. What if there are three or four or more of them of them at different stages of pregnancy in a single class? No thank you, would say the rest of the studious learners and teachers like Mr. O’Shea was once. I think Mr O’Shea was right, for the better good, in his decision. (More…)

• jacersagain | Jul 26, 2012, 09:15 PM EDT

  Just because he looks that way doesn't mean he's actually like that way. I'm reminded of the expresion: "Just because it says 'Bovril' or 'Marmite' on the bus, it doesn't mean there's actually Bovril or Marmite ON the bus". This man has Christian steel in him, as far as I can see. And I'll bore you with several posts following as to why I think so.

• seanomelb | Jul 26, 2012, 07:36 PM EDT

  Over-bloated,overfed Gombeen,how arrogant he looks. He seems to be enjoying his 15 minutes of loathing.

• Catholicman444 | Jul 26, 2012, 03:38 PM EDT

  What an amazing fool this guy is. Using his logic, he should be fired for obvious gluttony. What an embarrassment to the Church.

• Nicomax | Jul 26, 2012, 01:55 PM EDT

  A quick look at the accompanying photo says: 1) overweight, dull looking guy; 2) poorly made statue; 3) dog looks just fine.

• Searlit | Jul 26, 2012, 01:08 PM EDT

  Sanctimonius huff & puff! He should be fired!

• jamieLM | Jul 26, 2012, 12:19 PM EDT

  Was the boy who impregnated her a student? Was he allowed to enroll in a school? Just wondering. @Porickseantuny - agree with you about no biblical evidence that Mary M. was a prostitute. Kind of like people who talk about an "apple" in the Adam & Eve story, although it says "fruit" in the Bible, not "apple." @susan274 - agree that he looks and seems very self-righteous - probably has no sins, other than obvious gluttony. He seems to enjoy patting himself on the back for being able to punish a 16 yr. old girl for her "sin." No reason for him to show any understanding, compassion, and forgiveness, like Jesus modeled. He didn't want her to "contaminate" all of the non-sinners, including himself, with her presence. After all, Jesus didn't want His Church to have any sinners in its midst - just the sinless. Good job, Mr. O'Shea.

• Spartans22 | Jul 26, 2012, 11:56 AM EDT

  Maybe he can arrange to get her a cloth Letter A, so she can sew it on her dress. And this guy is exhibiting Catholic values as a principal in the 21st Century. Not.

• susan724 | Jul 26, 2012, 11:44 AM EDT

  biggles008 - oh yes, there are the Magdalene Laundries for pregnant girls - oh no, they closed them down due to the horrendous abuse these girls suffered and the baby stealing. You not only sound like a fool, but one who is stuck in the 1950s!

• Porickseantuny | Jul 26, 2012, 11:43 AM EDT

  There is no biblical evidence that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. The inference comes from a sermon by Pope Gregory and he was not speaking "ex cathedra" on the issue. If the instant case there is no evidence that the young woman is repentant, so what does she expect from a Catholic educational institution that calls her behavior sinful.

• Parents | Jul 26, 2012, 11:36 AM EDT

  Well I think that is the problem today - just no accountability for anything. I agree with the school, who has the right to force them to enroll any student that comes along. If her and the family were so concerned then why do it. Why get pregnant and why enroll in a catholic school when you are?

• Stiofain | Jul 26, 2012, 10:31 AM EDT

  He is showing symptoms of a sociopath, not a psychopath.

• biggles008 | Jul 26, 2012, 10:26 AM EDT

  Do we want this school to be a school for pregnant children and encourage them to be pregnant when they know they have a pregnant school to go to.What about the other schools that kept her out.

• susan724 | Jul 26, 2012, 10:18 AM EDT

  Love the photo of O'Shea self-righteously mugging for the camera, with a statue of his obvious hero, the one and only Jesus Christ, peering down on him. However, what is wrong with this picture is the fact that, as a principal of a Catholic school, one would think the first question O'Shea would ask would be "What would Christ do?" Can you say St. Mary Magdalen, O'Shea? Oh, and from the looks of things, seem to me that you, Mr. O'Shea, are wrestling with the sin of gluttony. 'Nuff said...

• Portia777 | Jul 26, 2012, 09:43 AM EDT

  "There was universal support. The ombudswoman gave me tremendous publicity - throughout Munster especially - and I thank her for it,' he scoffed." This is showing the mentality of a psychopath. As a retired teacher from Eire, I do not support this draconian male. Is the sperm donor in this case banned from school? Talk about the dark age Eire return. At least the world sees how anti wombman we still are under the Roman Catholic cult.