The celibate life for some priests leads to spiritual awareness. For others it leads to some very dark places.

889 Years is a long time. 

The celibacy rule is now an 

institution in the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church and sexuality. Opening the can of  worms concerning the rule of celibacy for priests.

by Tom Thorne

The Catholic Church has a tortured past concerning human sexuality. Of course the teachings concerning this topic are all conceived to be positive and are directed towards building an exemplary moral life for the faithful. Sexual mores of a Catholic kind can be found in intimate detail in The Catechism of The Catholic Church. 

According to the Catechism heterosexual sex is seen as only kind possible and only within the bounds of matrimony between a man and woman with the objective of having children. Marriage is seen as a discipline for human sexual activity and appetites.  Marriage is a sacrament of the Church and a covenant with God. Sex outside of this sacrament is clearly seen as sin or a grave disorder. 

However, historically celibacy is often seen as a state of being higher than the marriage of a man and woman. However, celibacy is no where near to being a sacrament of the church like marriage. However, it is seen as a higher calling and a departure from the fleshy aspects of life. A high calling and a denial of the flesh whether practiced by clergy or by ordinary Catholics pursuing the single life. It is often prized above marriage as a measure of self control mixed in with a quest for spirituality unobtainable apparently to those engaging in sexual relations.  

Christ is the ultimate model for chastity and the basis for celibacy and self control of this kind.  And if your sexuality happens to be homosexual, then chastity and celibacy is your only way to live your life because otherwise you are in an automatic state of sin as a Catholic if you live out your orientation in the flesh.  It’s the sexless single life for you to stave off sin.

Sex in the eyes of the Catholic Church is seen as a great temptation that requires lots of self control and it is also seen as something very close to the Devil or at least a potential track leading to grave sin of some kind.  It is all laid out in The Catechism of The Catholic Church a document rarely examined by the faithful for its finer points on these matters.

When a priest falls from this high celibacy pedestal then the problems really arise. Even if celibacy is defacto a promise to a bishop and not a part of the sacrament of ordination to become a priest, a fall from celibacy is a serious breach of promise in the eyes of the church hierarchy. There is a lot of weight placed on this promise. It is rooted in tradition.

When they fall from their celibacy promise priests are placed on “administrative leave” and often sent to treatment centres devoted to rescuing them from their sexual failings, and sins. It is perhaps in its best form a type of reconciliation or attempt to mitigate sin and remain within a Catholic context. In a way it recognizes a type of contorted sexuality where intimacy is shunned as sin. It places sexual frustrations and tensions on the back burner with the heat set at simmer. The emphasis is on getting back into control if the priest in crisis is to ever return to a parish.

Many priests experience a burnout from trying to live this life of celibate chastity. Parish work is demanding and there is never enough time and when there is downtime for priests on a lonely vigil of sexual self control.  The main reason why priests crash or fall from grace is that  they often live alone and are frankly lonely people bereft of human interaction except in a controlled “don’t get too close” way. Sometimes it is not enough to live without intimacy. Sometimes this situation slips into pederasty or illicit sexual contacts with young people in their charge.

This inward life plays well for some but for others it is a psychological drag on their self esteem as they suppress their sexual orientations, feelings and desires or at worst the person retains a juvenile sexuality that teenagers usually work through from dating and the experimenting with life. Many priests enter seminary training without these life experiences. Their innocence is eventually their undoing.

The results we know. Case after case of priests burning out from too many parish duties combined with trying to live alone, perhaps praying to God for help as they wrestle with their truncated sexuality and lack of social interaction without anxiety or the potential for compromising their position as a priest. They must always be paragons of virtue. Always on a pedestal. This approach is  remedy for a breakdown. This is a recipe for problems. From the Church’s point of view it can always be sorted by more self control and more prayer. 

Arguments from the Catholic Church hierarchies that all faiths have sexual problems with their clergy really don’t amount to a solid case to meet their own problem. The truth is that the life of a priest is hard without intimate human company. The Catholic rules at the moment preclude priests from anything but a life of chastity and celibacy. Celibacy is a human rule made that emerged early in church history. It is, however, a rule and therefore can be changed. 

So why not change the rules? Why are priests unable to marry? And why do we have issues like married men becoming deacons and they promise if their wife dies they will take on the celibate life. Why can’t a deacon remarry?  And if a Anglican priest decides as a married man to join the Catholic Church he can do so and remain married.

The origins of celibacy go deep into Church history but they culminated in 1123 at the first Lateran Council and again in 1139 at the Second Lateran Council. The actual text for 1123 reads:

“Canon 3: We absolutely forbid priests, deacons, and subdeacons to associate with concubines and women, or to live with women other than such as the Nicene Council (NC)(NC Canon 3: states that you may stay with a wife who you married before ordination as a priest ) for reasons of necessity permitted, namely, the mother, sister, or aunt, or any such person concerning whom no suspicion could arise.

Canon 21: We absolutely forbid priests, deacons, subdeacons, and monks to have concubines or to contract marriage. We decree in accordance with the definitions of the sacred canons, that marriages already contracted by such persons must be dissolved, and that the persons be condemned to do penance.”

Sixteen years later after obviously failing to fully implement the 1123 Canons, the Second Lateran Council (1139), in which some five hundred bishops took part, enacted the following canons or rules:

“Canon 6: We also decree that those who in the subdiaconate and higher orders have contracted marriage or have concubines, be deprived of their office and ecclesiastical benefice. For since they should be and be called the temple of God, the vessel of the Lord, the abode of the Holy Spirit, it is unbecoming that they indulge in marriage and in impurities.

Canon 7: Following in the footsteps of our predecessors, the Roman pontiffs Gregory VII, Urban, and Paschal, we command that no one attend the masses of those who are known to have wives or concubines. But that the law of continence and purity, so pleasing to God, may become more general among persons constituted in sacred orders, we decree that bishops, priests, deacons, subdeacons, canons regular, monks, and professed clerics (conversi) who, transgressing the holy precept, have dared to contract marriage, shall be separated. For a union of this kind which has been contracted in violation of the ecclesiastical law, we do not regard as matrimony. Those who have been separated from each other, shall do penance commensurate with such excesses.”

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clerical_celibacy#Eleventh_and_twelfth_centuries

This tortured approach to normal sexuality has gone on for centuries finally culminating in 1123-39 period when it was institutionalized as a rule. After this time it remained very hard to implement with many priests remaining married and even popes retaining wives and families. 

In contemporary times there is nothing to stop the Vatican from rescinding these 12th century rules. They were made by men and they can be changed by men. Other reasons for these rules in the 12th century was based on the ownership of land or inheritances and even offices claimed by the children of priests upon the death of their fathers. 

This was especially true of medieval feudal bishops, cardinals and popes who often personally owned large estates and were often members of the landed aristocracies. Some of these people owned a diocese as a feudal fiefdom holding the office of bishop and very often without ordination into the priesthood and sometimes taking ordination as a way to hold property. Often they simply hired a priest to execute their priestly functions while drawing on the revenues of the diocese. 

The Lateran Council rules also set in motion a devaluation of marriage and to some degree ingrained the misogynistic approach to women that permeates the history of the Church. Women are seen in a temptress role started by Eve and her pact with the Serpent when she defied God’s command. Women are seen as creators of sexual tensions not as partners in the work of Christ. Wives and concubines are seen in the Lateran Canons as one in the same.

More liberal Catholics recently polled clergy throughout US dioceses. The mean average of this poll for the question “Would you like to see the rule concerning the marriage of priests reexamined” was about 70 percent in favour. 25 percent felt the status quo was fine and the remaining five percent had no opinion.

Also statistics for attracting men to the priesthood have been dropping appreciably for the last 40 years. These numbers basically demonstrate that at least the celibacy rule should be re-examined. The married deacon numbers are rising slightly but since they cannot perform all priestly duties they are simply helpers to a waning priesthood. 

However, the status quo goes on regardless that an aging population in Europe and North America means fewer men will enter the priesthood anyway. This fact spells severe problems for manning the existing churches of most dioceses. It seems that the church cannot escape old ideas and is willing to see the church fade away rather than make changes that would help to keep churches open. 

© Copyright 2012, Tom Thorne, All Rights Reserved

What is the real price of the celibate life?

Harper and Old Age Security: Let right wing ideology take flight.

Let me tell you about your Old Age Security.

Canadian Old Age Security system is not an expense to government because it creates economic activity.

by Tom Thorne

Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s recent comments about the fate of the Canadian Old Age Security (OAS) system has opened the debate about what his government has in mind for this universal social program. 

The Prime Minister vaguely announced an OAS review and potential changes at the World Economic Forum  meeting. He may have momentarily forgotten about the old age skew of Canadian demographics when he made this announcement wishing to please his European audience with his economic toughness in the midst of their Eurozone crises.  

He stated that those already drawing the OAS at this time will see no changes to their payments. There were hints that the age to start OAS would go from age 65 to 67 but no one in the Harper government to this point will say whether this is the case or not. There was no indications about what will happen to those sitting on the cusp of OAS qualification at 64 who normally would apply after their 2012 birthday.   

If the federal government goes ahead with this change it will be affecting people who actually vote in elections. Therefore it is likely that the federal government will achieve a later qualifying age for OAS over a phase in period of time. 

This payment each month is certainly important for those on any type of disability but if you make over $67,000 per year you get the OAS clawed back in taxation. At this time those with good retirement incomes probably bank and invest the OAS each month or they see it as money for jam. Many without these higher retirement incomes see the OAS as an important part of their monthly income.

No matter where you sit on the OAS, every OAS payment to Canadians is used to generate economic activity. In short the OAS funds cycle and recycle in the economy creating economic activity that would otherwise not happen. 

It is very short sighted thinking to alter the OAS age 65 qualifying age. The brutal fact is it is hard for anyone over 60 to work in this economy. After I left my last good paying job through no fault of my own, at almost 60, I received a truncated retirement income, then I took my Canada Pension Plan (CPP) early and finally at 65 took my OAS. I worked from 60 until I was almost 70 at a retail job to augment my income.

This is typical of many people whose good pay years are cut short about age 60 and despite excellent qualifications cannot replace their last big income job after that age. For those people these social programs are very important.

I really think of the OAS as a type of currency. Whether you receive a cheque in the mail or your bank receives a string of electronic impulses OAS is a generator of cash that in most cases will be spent. Those deposits enable chartered banks to lend at Bank Act ratios thus creating money.

Therefore to think of this cash as an expense line in the federal budget is wrong. In the times we have cutting back on this benefit would stop old folks from spending and there is a big population bulge of recipients of the OAS. Think of it in terms of an economic stimulus and you have the right idea about the OAS and for that matter the CPP.

It is good political optics for right wing politicians to be seen to be hard nosed and cutting back on profligate senior citizens. Get those seniors off the public tit. Make them use up their RRSP funds they have squirreled away for a rainy day. Tell them the rainy day is here.

The problem is not a lot of Canadians have pension plans with their employers. Very few have the cushy pension plans of federal government employees, teachers and the like. Most people rely on the CPP and OAS for their retirement. Many also need the supplement part of the OAS program.

And although Canadians are older and healthier these days the prejudice that after 65 they are employable if a myth. Many leave their career jobs and then supplement their incomes after retirement working at McJobs and greeting customers at Walmart. These people may want to be fully retired but they can’t afford it. 

I know from direct experience of my own retail years of many workers who hold down two or even three jobs during their time before 65. None or few of these jobs have health plans or retirement plans. For many the CPP and OAS is all they have at 65. And those who do have pensions from employers find that without CPP and OAS they are inadequate. 

Raising the age of OAS entitlement to 66 or 67 would mean many would have to stay working. And even with the CPP and OAS they would have to remain working part time to make ends meet.

And besides the retail world, better paying jobs with pension builders in them would also  have to stay until 66 or 67. That would freeze out the places needed for the debt ridden graduates of our post secondary institutions? 

And what about the double dippers? In professions like teaching people retire with great pensions, draw their CPP and OAS and then work up to 100 days a year supply and contract teaching. Often these people stop work at 60 leaving CPP and OAS until they are 65. Or they take CPP early and bank it in investments and tax free savings accounts. These people for certain get the OAS clawed back and they take hours away from newly minted teachers who cannot find jobs.

The entire notions we have about retirement are not just what happens to the OAS and whether you qualify for it at 65, 66, 67 or whenever. OAS payments clearly create economic activity at whatever age they are paid out. Second, many people rely on the OAS and CPP because they have little savings and little opportunity throughout their work life to create them. 

Poverty for many seniors is a reality. CPP and OAS may give them less than a $1,000 per month. A couple may get $2,000 between them. Not all of them have their own home paid off and many rent so it is poverty for many.  People in this situation can be guaranteed to spend all of their money each month making as they do so a contribution to the Canadian economy. 

Finally, if the Harper government wants to mess with the OAS they may have set in motion their first really stupid decision. OAS receivers and people forced to wait for this benefit are people whose profiles show that they go to the polls and vote and not all seniors have memory problems.

© Copyright 2012, Tom Thorne, All Rights Reserved.

My Catholic diocese needs some Christianity 101. A seven year silence finally gets loud.

The optics of a diocese scandal. A public trial will hopefully clear the air since no one has taken much responsibility for over seven years.

by Tom Thorne

Seven years ago a priest was unceremoniously removed from his parish and placed on administrative leave. Administrative leave is a euphemism for priest problems.  He is still on administrative leave today but remains on the list of priests for his diocese. After this long period of time alleged charges of sexual indiscretions and abuse have recently emerged in a civil suit with damages listed at $3.5 million. The case may be heard as early as March 2012.

My personal interest in this situation stems from the fact that I was brought into the Catholic Church as a convert by this priest. Later, I worked with him conducting a course for prospective Catholics for several years. I had no reason to believe that anything was wrong or out of place. It was a personal shock to me, and many others in the parish, when he was removed.

For the past seven years the diocese has kept this priest in a state of limbo. I was going to say a type of purgatory, but that would suggest a solution or change in his status was possible.  Apparently not, there has been only diocese silence by two bishops during this time.  We know nothing about his status and what he does each day since he remains on the diocese rolls. Now his future may be determined by a civil action in the courts. References to him on the diocese website no longer say he is on “administrative leave”. It simply provides his address.

The other interesting aspect of this story is the fact that the diocese in question has allegedly denied any responsibility for the civil action brought by the plaintiff. A question for the diocese is whether there has been any action over the past seven years in church Canon Law or in Civil law concerning this case until this time. Civil law trumps Canon Law when the plaintiff makes a claim of this kind. 

The age of consent for sex (homosexual or heterosexual) in Canada was changed to 16 from 14 in 2008.  In addition, with an age of consent now set at 16 when the alleged problems started. Under current law there is little possibility of a criminal charge for the priest unless the civil allegations can be proven.

In addition, another priest in the diocese allegedly withheld information from the diocese or other authorities in regard to the alleged charges. That priest for the moment is also on “administrative leave” according to the diocese website.

The only way this case can be won by the plaintiff is if there is a witness to the charges. Without a witness, (and the second priest could be a hostile witness), there may be proof of sexual misconduct and abuse as the plaintiff alleges. Without witnessed proof it is hard for the plaintiff to make a case. It boils down to the priest's word against the plaintiff's.

So, what is the point of asking for $3.5 in damages? Certainly, the priest cannot come close to providing such a sum. The diocese may have insurance to cover miscreant priests, but its real assets are fleeting. There will be more public silence if the parties arrive at a settlement before the court date.

In addition, the plaintiff’s father is a deacon of the diocese and for many years his mother was the housekeeper for the priest. This adds a dimension to the case that certainly deepens the accountabilities and the potential fallout. For some time the plaintiff allegedly had inclinations to become a priest himself. 

On the surface this case has festered in silence for almost eight years. When this civil case was launched recently in 2012 the question is why has it taken so long to surface? 

The closing of ranks and silence by the diocese is reprehensible. The reasons why the priest was pulled from the parish have been the subject of much misinformation, gossip and innuendo for too long. The silent seven years that have passed without any resolution means that justice has not been done or seen to be done.

Since the diocese seems quite ready to allow the civil authorities to do their work for them the outcome of this trial for the diocese can at best be an out of court settlement rather than a public airing in open court. After experiencing the sad silence of the past seven years I vote for a court room trial. The air needs to be cleared.

The Church has a very big public and media relations problem. This kind of story festering for seven years is really poor optics for the Church, diocese and parish. It makes the Body of Christ look like a bureaucracy without a soul. As a Catholic I find that  outcome unacceptable and without any merit.

© Copyright 2012, Tom Thorne, All Rights Reserved

Learning about my Scottish family history goes deeper than finding facts. It helps to confirm how to live life each day.

A Highland croft in the middle 19th Century

Life expects self reliance from its participants. There is a life long pursuit in Scottish culture that lionizes self reliance and always identifies with useful life forces.

by Tom Thorne

The last time I was in Scotland in 2007 I noticed that the environment my ancestors spent their lives in was bare, bleak and strangely beautiful at the same time. The glen behind the town of Inveraray in Argyllshire is aptly named Glenaray and my ancestors worked the farms in this deep valley of the Scottish Highlands with the Aray River winding its way to the town of Inveraray on the sea coast. Munros lived in this place from about 1670 onwards.

I don't think it is unreasonable to say that environment is a large part of how you develop and this bleak and yet beautiful spot dotted by multiple family farms and the steep hills that support sheep influences attitudes to life that over time may be bred into the bones and perhaps even into genetic makeups.

To live in Glenaray my Munro ancestors needed to be a hardy lot. They lived in family groups in small stone croft houses. We get  a very clear picture as early as 1779 about these family groups because they were recorded in a census taken by the Duke of Argyll, on whose lands they lived. This unique document records every man woman and child on the estate and is particularly useful because it records the wive's maiden names.

The Munros were concentrated on Drimfern and Tullich farms in that time. These farms were like villages some with up to 40 people living on them. Other Munros lived in the town of Inveraray and sparsely on other lands owned by the Duke. Some Munros actually owned their land at Stuckguoy Farm as  a reward for some service they rendered to the Duke of Argyll during one of the times the Duke was on the wrong side of a political dispute.

They were often in the courts in Inveraray disputing or answering charges of assault ( Anne Munro took her broom to a cheeky man at her door of her croft in the Glenaray) or they were accounting for lost barrels of bonded whiskey stolen from a warehouse and distillery they managed. In all these activities they maintained an acerbic wit and a sense of humour that always relied on a quick answer, even in court, as the records attest.

Andrew Mitchell Munro about 1930.

Dry humour was a distinct advantage.

Without romanticizing them too much, their humour was dry and pointed and is best illustrated years later with a story about my grandfather Andrew Mitchell Munro who was a dry witted Scot of the first order. Andrew was celebrating the birth of one of his nine children and was out with his friends at the local pub.

To celebrate the birth he offered his friends a round of drinks. One of his friends had a particularly large physical mouth and when offered a drink responded: "Aye Andra I'll have a mouthful, tae"  After a pregnant pause my grandfather responded. "I don't think you'll have a mouthful, Dugald, you'll have tae content yersel with glass like the rest of us!"

That is the attitude Scots take to life. There is always a sparkle of wit and dry humour that permeates conversation and social interaction. You have to be on the ball to drink and socialize with Scots and you are expected to engage them in this kind of repartée otherwise the experience is considered dull and anti-social.

Whiskey: a social lubricant.

This attitude towards life is expressed in the widespread use of an almost sacred golden liquid that Scots use during these moments. Whiskey is an anglicized Gaelic word which means Water of Life. It is a celebration of life and living. Its use in social interaction creates a bigger value than just yourself and your own problems. 

It is also used to seal business deals. In a bleak and yet strangely beautiful land it is the social lubricant combined with wit and honour. It is the stuff of good mental health. Those who misuse it to excess and fall into "the failing" are ostracized as a risk to society.

When my family decided to go to Canada in 1948 we went up to Scotland to visit my grand parents. It was a teary farewell because in those days it would be some time before anyone would see you again. In earlier times it was really a permanent goodbye for many Scots. In 1891 some of my relatives went off to Australia. They might as well gone to the moon.

Andrew Mitchell Munro, my grandfather and my grandmother Jane Kerr Munro had a small goodbye party for us. After the main meal me and my cousins sat around a large wooden table for dessert. It was a large fruitcake and it was to be smothered in hot Bird's custard. 

We waited for my grandfather to start cutting the cake. He played it for all it was worth. "Right noo" he said as the knife cut into the cake, "Ye'll all want some of this, then, won't ye?"  A chorus of yes yes ran around the table from the eager cousins. He then cut a piece and placed it slowly and deliberately in a bowl and lathered it with hot Bird's custard. All eyes were on this bowl and then there was another long wait and finally a spoonful was taken and was on its way to his mouth "Well watch me eat it !"

My cousin Iain Clark couldn't restrain himself. "Dae we no get any, granddad?" Granddad looked over his glasses "Have ye been gid all week Iain?" "Aye, I have," Iain replied. Then he looked about the table "And what aboot the rest of ye?"  A chorus of ayes and yes, yes went up in hopeful anticipation.

Then my grandmother intervened. "Och Andra stop pestering the bairns (children)!" Then in true Scottish matriarchal style she took over the distribution of the cake and pudding. It was a grand cultural moment. Scots can never resist taking a rise out of others and that is how they teach their children through teasing and fun.

At the end of that day as we were preparing to leave for Canada there was much somberness. As it worked out five months later Andrew Mitchell Munro would have a heart attack walking home. He then got up from the curb, walked home, and climbed the stairs to his apartment. When he came in he said "Jane...I don't feel too gid, I'll away tae my bed for a rest." He died several minutes later age 69 of cardiac arrest.

So as we left for Canada he called me to him: "Tam" he said quietly, "always remember who ye are and who ye are from. Ye come from me, Aindrea Mac an Rothaich" which is Gaelic for Andrew Munro. I have never forgot that moment. I felt intimately included. I was clan.

The death of my mother. Connecting back to the clan.

Very much later in 1976 I met with my Aunts in Scotland to discuss my mother's death in Canada and her unusual requests for burial. I came over at the New Year from Belgium where my own family and my wife were visiting her family for Christmas.

My Aunts (five bright, intelligent formidable ladies) sat in a living room and this meeting was chaired by my mother's oldest sister Anne. Auntie Annie began to inquire about my mother's Canadian funeral. I assured them that all was done in church but my mother had a strange request that hopefully they could help me with.

I opened my hand luggage and extracted a small cardboard box sealed in plastic by the undertaker in London, Ontario.  It was a portion of my mother's ashes from her cremation. She had left instructions that this "wee box" had to be interred in her father's grave which of course was in Scotland. I felt duty bound to carry out this wish.

Once Aunt Annie knew her facts she sprang into action. "Och there will nae reason tae have another church service here, Jeanie has had that already! We only need to call Andrew Johnson (my cousin). And so we waited for Andrew Johnson to arrive and I found out he was an undertaker.

Aunt Annie quizzed Andrew: "How much tae open Grandpa Munro's grave and put Jeanie in tae it?" Andrew stated that it would be 20 pounds. "Tam  pay  Andrew and gee him the wee box." I did that and Andrew said "I'll see you later," which turned out to be a big family party later that night.

Then Aunt Annie went to the serious business. "Tam I hope you had the presence of mind tae visit the duty free shop in Brussels", she stated with a glint of keen anticipation in her eye.

"Yes" I replied and pulled a bottle of Glenfiddich Malt from my hand luggage.  I had been well trained by my mother. Never go to a family meeting concerning funerals without whiskey.

Aunt Minnie dug out glasses for everyone and drinks were poured. Everyone waited for Aunt Annie (Scottish culture is very matriarchal) to say a few words. "Furst of all, Tam, I don't want ye tae think we're all boozers!" I  said " Yes, I know that you all only drink whiskey for medicinal purposes." A round of laughter went up as they got on with the serious business of toasting their sister's memory.

Aunt Annie then said "Tae Jeanie!" and we all toasted her. Then they began to tell stories about my mother and celebrate her life with comments like " Och Jeanie never forgot her faither. Dae ye no mind that she was only in Canada for five months when Grandpa Munro died, nae wonder she sent her ashes hame." That was an afternoon of concentrated  life experiences because I hadn't seen most of my aunts for over 25 years.

That night the family came and I spent the entire evening being introduced to all my aunts, uncles and their children. It was a party for Auntie Jeanie but it was a giant clan gathering that made me understand the great life force of my Scottish roots.

Main Street, Bon Hill: The Munros lived at 145 Main Street in 1881

My uncles take me closer to my roots.

The next evening my uncles took me out. We drove off into the countryside towards Loch Lomond and finally stopped at a tiny pub near Bon Hill. The pub had sawdust on the floor and the other patrons were mostly shepherds who had brought their sheep back to the night pens and then went for a drink. 

The uncles ordered a draft dark ale and a gill of malt whiskey to chase it then we stood at the bar and talked. They wanted to find out who this Canadian member of their family was and whether he was a person of standing or some bloody colonial fool. I guess I passed the test and I thank my time as an army officer for teaching me to pace drinks with the likes of these men. 

The real kicker that night is the relationship of this tiny pub to my direct ancestor Duncan Munro who was born in Inveraray-Glenaray in 1790 and died in Bon Hill, Dumbartonshire in 1882 at the age of 92.  Duncan came south from the Inveraray-Glenaray area in 1818 when he married. Duncan was a shepherd all his life and I was standing on his home ground drinking with my uncles.

Duncan's son Archibald Munro was born in 1825 very near this pub. Archibald was a Flesher which is the Scots word for a butcher but he was a specialist in sheep fleshing often with his father. Archibald married Helen Mitchell in 1854 and the result of that union was Agnes in 1855 and my great grandmother Janet Munro born in 1858. Archibald and Helen had a boy Duncan in 1860 but he died in 1861. 

Wee Duncan's death in 1861 was soon followed by Helen a few months later, and the children Agnes and Janet were doled out to relatives. Both girls had a ragged bringing up and we next see Janet as a single mother giving birth in 1879 to my grandfather Andrew Mitchell Munro. There is no record of his father's identity.  Andrew Mitchell Munro married Jane Kerr of Helensburgh in 1899 and my mother Jean is one of their nine children.

The roots go deeper.

And what happened to Agnes and Janet? Well after Duncan died in 1882 at 92, Agnes married James Broadfoot and they finally made their way to Australia in 1890 where they founded a large family that I am now in contact with through Wendy Davies, a descendant of James and Agnes. James was a sea captain and built an enterprising shipping company on Australia's east coast. Both Agnes and James are buried in Sydney.

What happened to Janet? She left her son Andrew Mitchell Munro with relatives and journeyed out to Australia in 1891 to help Agnes with her budding family. She returned in 1895 and married John Philps in Glasgow and had two more children,  John born in 1896 and Nelly Mitchell Philps in 1897. In 1898 the parents of these two young children died of typhoid within days of each other in the Fever Hospital in Glasgow. Janet was 40. Her children with John Philps were taken in by his father and sister.

I am a proud descendant of these people. It took a lot to be a single mother in 1879 then go off to Australia in 1891 and return to Scotland in 1895 and start another family at age 38. Janet's travel was very rare in those days when going to Canada or Australia was usually a one-way trip for life. 

Janet Munro-Philps early death in 1898 left her first son alone at age 19. A year later he married Jane Kerr in Helensburgh. He was used to being farmed out to relatives but he had obtained, some how, a good trade and would work for Singers machining the shuttle for sewing machines for the next 50 years at their giant factory at Clydebank. His mother worked as a domestic servant, a factory girl in the Leven River fabric dyeing factories near Bon Hill. Later she worked selling milk and bread with John Philps in Glasgow. She was a doer and survivor.

She was the granddaughter of a shepherd who made his way south from Inveraray in 1818 probably for opportunities as Scotland industrialized in the early 19th Century. Her father remained a shepherd-flesher but her son is the first in his family to take on a new type of work as a machinist that was offered in the new industrialized Scotland. The good times lasted until the 1930's when Scottish industry experienced a huge downturn caused by the Great Depression. 


That was followed by World War II when the Germans bombed the industrialized Clyde Valley in an attempt to destroy its shipbuilding capacity. The "Blitz" as it is called in Clydebank destroyed large sections of the town. My grandmother's comment: "Och...the Gerries missed ma hoose with their Blitz. If they had hit it I would have got a new one like my neighbours."

They maintained their honour and their connection to life forces that go centuries back into their Highland origins.  Through all of these ups and downs these people remained resilient, hard working and family oriented. They maintained their sense of humour that was created by their ancestor's example years before in the Glenaray. 

© Copyright 2012, Tom Thorne, All Rights Reserved