Sinéad O'Connor 1966-2023
this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2023
989 points (96.2% liked)
pics
19604 readers
254 users here now
Rules:
1.. Please mark original photos with [OC] in the title if you're the photographer
2..Pictures containing a politician from any country or planet are prohibited, this is a community voted on rule.
3.. Image must be a photograph, no AI or digital art.
4.. No NSFW/Cosplay/Spam/Trolling images.
5.. Be civil. No racism or bigotry.
Photo of the Week Rule(s):
1.. On Fridays, the most upvoted original, marked [OC], photo posted between Friday and Thursday will be the next week's banner and featured photo.
2.. The weekly photos will be saved for an end of the year run off.
Instance-wide rules always apply. https://mastodon.world/about
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.