Tuam babies..what are your views on the cc?

kulekat

As an atheist, (brought up catholic but never believed even as a child), I wonder what Christians truly think about the burying of babies in mass graves by nuns, like in Tuam?

Why did they not bury them in coffins? In dignified plots? Do christians still believe that children born outside of marriage should be treated differently?

What do you think happens to these babies when they die? Do they go to heaven? Is there still a hell? Do they go there?

Im just curious on what your opinions are. We all as humans know that what went on was wrong, but i want to know what you think of illegitimate children now, and then their children?

Paddy De Plasterer

its redolent of another era in Irish life

J C

kulekat wrote: »

As an atheist, (brought up catholic but never believed even as a child), I wonder what Christians truly think about the burying of babies in mass graves by nuns, like in Tuam?
All Humans (including children) should be given the dignity of a proper burial, when they die.
Today, this should also apply to children being killed in abortions BTW.

Why did they not bury them in coffins? In dignified plots? Do christians still believe that children born outside of marriage should be treated differently?
Christians have never believed that children born outside of marriage should be treated differently in relation to burial.

What do you think happens to these babies when they die? Do they go to heaven? Is there still a hell? Do they go there?
I believe that, in justice, all persons including children, who aren't saved already, have the option of salvation presented to them by God at the point of their death.
Im just curious on what your opinions are. We all as humans know that what went on was wrong, but i want to know what you think of illegitimate children now, and then their children?
Children cannot and should not be blamed for the sins of their parents ... indeed we are all conceived in (original) sin ... so it ill behoves us to 'point the finger' at anybody ... and especially children conceived in less than ideal circumstances, through no fault of their own.
What happened in Tuam seems to be very concerning ... but I don't know much about it ... only some of the more sensational stuff that the media has highlighted.
Housing hundreds of babies and infant children together, from all over the country, at a time when there were no controls/cure for serious contagious childhood diseases, like whooping cough, Diptheria and dysentery that regularly killed children, at the time, would have been a bit of a recipe for disaster. I have heard that the nuns were legendary for their emphasis on cleanliness in the institutions they ran ... but if a contagious childhood disease manifested itself within one of these institutions, cleanliness alone, might not be sufficient to control it.

My answers in blue above.

kulekat

Thanks for your opinion, thats very enlightening. I agree that all in utero babies should be given a dignified burial too..both those who unfortunately have died due to abortion, or those through natural miscarriage.

Why would God, though provide salvation for these babies?

If he did provide salvation, then why wouldnt the nuns and priests understand this and therefore treat them with more respect?

What happens to the mothers when they die? Does he give them salvation?

If yes, then why have they been subject to so much hardship and stigma while alive?

It was indeed a different era, but the essence of religion and belief doesnt change. Thats what i want to understand. How did a belief system back then provide direction for this to occur. If that fundamental question isnt delved into, then i think we are all missing the point.

J C

kulekat wrote: »

Thanks for your opinion, thats very enlightening. I agree that all in utero babies should be given a dignified burial too..both those who unfortunately have died due to abortion, or those through natural miscarriage.
Agreed, both categories of children are equally deserving of respect in death.

Why would God, though provide salvation for these babies?
God is a God of Justice and mercy who desires that everybody should be Saved - but He will not force us to be Saved. In the case of young children and many others who have never been given the opportunity to be Saved, justice deands that they get the opportunity to be Saved at the point of death.
This is my considered belief ... but the Roman Catholic Church have resoved this issue with the idea of limbo as the place where innocents go when they die before being Baptised.
I don't think the concept of Limbo fully complies with the justice of God ... but then I think the RCC is now having second-thoughts about Limbo as well.

If he did provide salvation, then why wouldnt the nuns and priests understand this and therefore treat them with more respect?
I don't know ... somebody should ask them.

What happens to the mothers when they die? Does he give them salvation?
Jesus Christ came to Save sinners (and we are all sinners).
His absolute compassion for the woman caught in adultery would indicate a similar compassion for these misfortunate women ... and the men who impregnated them and then abandoned them and their children, also have a thing or two to answer for, IMO ... but they can be Saved as well, if they repent and believe on Jesus Christ.

If yes, then why have they been subject to so much hardship and stigma while alive?
They shouldn't have been ... and the men who impreganted them should have been made to face up to their fatherly responsibilities instead of all of the responsibilty being place on the women and their children. Indeed today, many fathers shirk their parental responsibilities and literally 'leave the woman holding their baby'. Equally, some selfish women deny fathers access to their children ... love and kindness and compassion is the way to go IMO.

It was indeed a different era, but the essence of religion and belief doesnt change. Thats what i want to understand. How did a belief system back then provide direction for this to occur. If that fundamental question isnt delved into, then i think we are all missing the point.
The essence of Human Nature of which religion is but a subset ... doesn't change ... it just changes the targets of it's judgementalism and the issues it chooses to engage in hypocracy on.

My answers in blue above.

fepper

J C wrote: »

My answers in blue above.

Have to commend you on your style of replying to OPs questions
...excellent

extrapolate

J C can you please explain from a Biblical perspective your comment about every unsaved person having the option of salvation presented to them at death?

J C

extrapolate wrote: »

J C can you please explain from a Biblical perspective your comment about every unsaved person having the option of salvation presented to them at death?

I come to this question from first principles ... because God is a God of infinite Justice as well as infinite Mercy it would be unjust to condemn somebody who never got the opportunity to be Saved i.e. to choose Heaven over Hell and avail of God's Mercy.
The only way that I can think of whereby this can be sorted is to give such people the choice of being Saved at the moment of death.


There are many such people, when you think about it ... children who die in utero or before the reach the use of reason, people who have never heard of Jesus Christ and people who suffer such severe intellectual/sensory deficiency that they cannot know of Jesus Christ.

extrapolate

You say it would be unjust to condemn someone who had never been given the opportunity, but the original comment which I was referring to covered every unsaved person:

all persons including children, who aren't saved already, have the option of salvation presented to them by God at the point of their death.

This including a lot of people who actually would have had ample opportunity to accept God. But that's okay, you already answered my question. It doesn't have Biblical basis, only a conclusion you've drawn from what you deem to be best.

I personally don't know one way or the other, whether unborn or incapable.

Quazzie

J C wrote: »

My answers in blue above.

How does the CC treat children that passed away before being Christened?

BlinkingLights

I think the days of having unaccountable organisations who think they're above the law and are incredibly arrogant with very high handed views of morality looking after our most vulnerable need to end.

Frankly I don't care whether it's the Catholic Church or anyone else, we need public schools, proper social care institutions and so on with full, transparent accountability.

uck51js9zml2yt

Sin is what separates us from God. An unborn child has never sinned. The question remains ,at what point in a child's life does innocence turn to rebellion and sin.

Like JC ,I've come to the point after 30 years that God who went to such lengths to save all mankind will do His utmost to see all men saved. That includes that last minute revelation of Himself to someone who is dying.
It still leaves room for rejection,at which point a persons eternal fate is sealed. There are also those whose deaths are sudden so expecting time to convert on your deathbed is foolishness.

Paddy De Plasterer

Paddy De Plasterer wrote: »

its redolent of another era in Irish life

An era carved out by the Catholic church. The archbishop in tuam tried to pull that one today i believe, saying it was a reflection on Irish society at the time. He's right, but it was himself and his pals that created that society with the levels of power and influence they had at the time

extrapolate

Tatranska, that means you don't believe in original sin?

Delirium

J C wrote: »

My answers in blue above.

Just FYI, the touch site doesn't display coloured font so touch users can't easily distinguish your response from the quote text you merged it with.

Nick Park

kulekat wrote: »

As an atheist, (brought up catholic but never believed even as a child), I wonder what Christians truly think about the burying of babies in mass graves by nuns, like in Tuam?

Why did they not bury them in coffins? In dignified plots? Do christians still believe that children born outside of marriage should be treated differently?

What do you think happens to these babies when they die? Do they go to heaven? Is there still a hell? Do they go there?

Im just curious on what your opinions are. We all as humans know that what went on was wrong, but i want to know what you think of illegitimate children now, and then their children?

As a spiritual issue I don't think it makes a blind bit of difference where you bury people. I've told my wife that, as far as I'm concerned, she can stick me in a wheelie bin.

However, I recognise that it's important for those who are left behind to know their loved ones are buried respectfully. So on the level of common decent humanity, disposing of these babies in a mass grave was horrendously disrespectful to the mothers. Sadly this was only one among many violations of these mothers by the State, the Church & society in general.

Children who die should not be treated any differently, irrespective of whether their parents were married or not.

I don't think any baby goes to hell. As I understand Christian theology, hell is a place of eternal separation from God where people who reject the forgiveness of Christ go because of their sin. Babies have neither sinned nor rejected Christ.

kulekat

What about original sin? A lot of these babies were not baptised either. But when theres risk of death, say in crumlin, the priest comes and baptises (if parents want obv.). Why?

Also babies who die in utero have original sin (in the eyes of the cc), and theyre not baptised.

I guess the whole situation has thrown up a lot of questions for me. I buried twin babies lost as a miscarriage. My sister died in utero (18weeks old) and ive no idea where she is buried. Even though im not religious, i wonder what the majority of religious people think.

Thanks to all for joining the conversation.

SGSM

Horrific horrific situation. I'm a devout Catholic and it's amazing how people were allowed to get away with such crimes.

Mrs OBumble

BlinkingLights wrote: »

Frankly I don't care whether it's the Catholic Church or anyone else, we need public schools, proper social care institutions and so on with full, transparent accountability.

Institutions like direct provision, Aras Attracta, foster care Grace style, garda McCabe's management ...

The problem isn't catholicism.

It's the irish pretendy version of it that is the problem.

J C

Gracie Unkempt Peninsula wrote: »

Sin is what separates us from God. An unborn child has never sinned. The question remains ,at what point in a child's life does innocence turn to rebellion and sin.

An unborn child shares our nature ... and they are, like us, endowed with free will, which they could exercise, to for example, be saved or not, at the point of death, if given the opportunity by God.

Gracie Unkempt Peninsula wrote: »

Like JC ,I've come to the point after 30 years that God who went to such lengths to save all mankind will do His utmost to see all men saved. That includes that last minute revelation of Himself to someone who is dying.
It still leaves room for rejection,at which point a persons eternal fate is sealed. There are also those whose deaths are sudden so expecting time to convert on your deathbed is foolishness.

I agree.

J C

kulekat wrote: »

What about original sin? A lot of these babies were not baptised either. But when theres risk of death, say in crumlin, the priest comes and baptises (if parents want obv.). Why?

Also babies who die in utero have original sin (in the eyes of the cc), and theyre not baptised.

I guess the whole situation has thrown up a lot of questions for me. I buried twin babies lost as a miscarriage. My sister died in utero (18weeks old) and ive no idea where she is buried. Even though im not religious, i wonder what the majority of religious people think.

Thanks to all for joining the conversation.

We lost an unborn baby sixteen years ago. The hospital couldn't have been better. My wife and I got the opportunity to hold our precious baby - and we had a prayer service for him and buried him in a tiny white coffin in our family burial plot.

The RCC has created theological problems, where none should exist, with its dogma that baptism is a requirement for Salvation, when this is not the case.
They then try and 'square the circle' when children die without being baptised, by introducing the concept of limbo.

J C

Nick Park wrote: »

As a spiritual issue I don't think it makes a blind bit of difference where you bury people. I've told my wife that, as far as I'm concerned, she can stick me in a wheelie bin.

However, I recognise that it's important for those who are left behind to know their loved ones are buried respectfully. So on the level of common decent humanity, disposing of these babies in a mass grave was horrendously disrespectful to the mothers. Sadly this was only one among many violations of these mothers by the State, the Church & society in general.

Children who die should not be treated any differently, irrespective of whether their parents were married or not.

I don't think any baby goes to hell. As I understand Christian theology, hell is a place of eternal separation from God where people who reject the forgiveness of Christ go because of their sin. Babies have neither sinned nor rejected Christ.

Mass graves in Ireland aren't unique to mother and baby homes ... or indeed the 1950s ... the victims of the Great Famine and the dead in workhouses in the 19th century were often buried in unmarked and sometimes mass graves. Unborn children who die in many hospitals, up to the present day, can end up buried in mass graves, if their parents ask the hospital to bury them.
Increasingly, dead people (and presumably dead children born and unborn) aren't buried at all, but are cremated.

... and Nick's comment about being happy to be put in a wheelie bin, when he dies, means that industrial incineration may become an acceptable disposal method for the dead, in the not too distant future.

extrapolate

kulekat wrote: »

What about original sin? A lot of these babies were not baptised either. But when theres risk of death, say in crumlin, the priest comes and baptises (if parents want obv.). Why?

Also babies who die in utero have original sin (in the eyes of the cc), and theyre not baptised.

I guess the whole situation has thrown up a lot of questions for me. I buried twin babies lost as a miscarriage. My sister died in utero (18weeks old) and ive no idea where she is buried. Even though im not religious, i wonder what the majority of religious people think.

Thanks to all for joining the conversation.

I can't speak for the Catholic church since I'm not Catholic myself. They might baptise so as to save a soul, but that is all in their traditions. I can say from a purely Biblical basis though that we don't know what happens to babies. There is nothing direct or inferred as far as I'm aware. We can only hope and trust in God's rule being perfect rule either way. We've lost two in our own family and it's a tough one to battle. Who was it, I think it was king David? He fasted and pleaded with God not to let his child die. His child died and he immediately went about his normal life and when questioned said that grieving won't bring the child back, but he will go to the child after his death. Or something to that affect. So I guess that is a pretty Biblical indicator that babies may be covered by God's grace in death.

J C

extrapolate wrote: »

I can't speak for the Catholic church since I'm not Catholic myself. They might baptise so as to save a soul, but that is all in their traditions. I can say from a purely Biblical basis though that we don't know what happens to babies. There is nothing direct or inferred as far as I'm aware. We can only hope and trust in God's rule being perfect rule either way. We've lost two in our own family and it's a tough one to battle. Who was it, I think it was king David? He fasted and pleaded with God not to let his child die. His child died and he immediately went about his normal life and when questioned said that grieving won't bring the child back, but he will go to the child after his death. Or something to that affect. So I guess that is a pretty Biblical indicator that babies may be covered by God's grace in death.

We do know that all persons who ask Jesus Christ to Save them will be Saved.
Infant children, unborn children, people of severe intellectual impairment and people who have never heard of Jesus Christ can't obviously ask Jesus to Save them, when they are alive ... but God is just and desires that all may be Saved.
The only way that this can be reconciled is by God giving these people's spirits the option of being Saved at the moment of their death, when they are freed from the physical limitations of their physical bodies ... but have not fully and definitively entered the spiritual realm.

extrapolate

I don't see a whole lot of choice when you wake on the other side tbh

J C

extrapolate wrote: »

I don't see a whole lot of choice when you wake on the other side tbh

There may be a period when we die when we are between the physical and spiritual realms where we can opt to be Saved ... or not, depending on our inclinations.

I agree that everything points to our eternal fate being sealed, once we fully and definitively enter the spiritual realm.

extrapolate

Yeah I mean that depends on how you divide the Word. Like Lazarus and the guy in Abraham's bosom etc. People can take that as being a permanent set-up or one that has since been made redundant depending on how they divide. Only one answer can be right obviously. But that doesn't mean we are all on the same page.

topmanamillion

Paddy De Plasterer wrote: »

its redolent of another era in Irish life

A lot of people would like this to be true but it simply isn't. The last Magdalene laundry closed in 1996.

kulekat

The RCC has created theological problems, where none should exist, with its dogma that baptism is a requirement for Salvation, when this is not the case.
They then try and 'square the circle' when children die without being baptised, by introducing the concept of limbo.[/quote]

This is an interesting point, and i think one that the majority of catholics dont think about, in depth anyway.

I really dont understand how the cc can chop and change rules, like limbo, for example. This concept was 'done away with' in 2007 by the pope. So there is no limbo now (for infants anyway). But shur thats ridiculous...just because on a certain date in 2007, the pope says..oh theres no limbo now everyone... then they all just go, ok thats fine. It doesnt make sense.

So yes, the cc does make theological problems for itself and then tries to chop and change them to suit the current social mood. I find that ridiculous. If you believe in something then commit to that in its essence. Moving the goalposts is insane.

uck51js9zml2yt

J C wrote: »

An unborn child shares our nature ... and they are, like us, endowed with free will, which they could exercise, to for example, be saved or not, at the point of death, if given the opportunity by God.

I agree.

That just doesn't make sense!!!!

Sin is rebellion against God. Where does an unborn child choose to rebel? There is an innocence which at at certain point gets corrupted. Yes they share our nature but sin at a certain point manifests itself.

baldbear

kulekat wrote: »

As an atheist, (brought up catholic but never believed even as a child), I wonder what Christians truly think about the burying of babies in mass graves by nuns, like in Tuam?

Why did they not bury them in coffins? In dignified plots? Do christians still believe that children born outside of marriage should be treated differently?

What do you think happens to these babies when they die? Do they go to heaven? Is there still a hell? Do they go there?

Im just curious on what your opinions are. We all as humans know that what went on was wrong, but i want to know what you think of illegitimate children now, and then their children?

Mass graves at homes throughout the country exist. Tuam is no different to Letterfrack or Castlepollard.

Paupers graves exist all over the place too where the poor couldn't afford a dignified burial. If you don't have money in this country you are screwed. 1940 or 2017 it's the same. The poor have nothing.

The state has not changed since then. The young & women of the country were treated with no respect. Today look at all the kids on waiting list for surgery. Look at women who have no right over their own bodies or just look at the Grace case where a child with intellectual disabilities was raped & the hse did not remove them from that foster home.

No accountability then & none now.

Heaven,hell we will never know. & Their is no such thing as an illegitimate child.

Timberrrrrrrr

fepper wrote: »

Have to commend you on your style of replying to OPs questions
...excellent

Unless you are reading on the touch site which does not show colour and so then posts just look like a wall of text

antiskeptic

J C wrote: »

My answers in blue above.

How would the option of salvation presented after death work for a child of 1 year do you think? They have no intellect to understand.

Cabaal

baldbear wrote: »

Mass graves at homes throughout the country exist. Tuam is no different to Letterfrack or Castlepollard.

Paupers graves exist all over the place too where the poor couldn't afford a dignified burial. If you don't have money in this country you are screwed. 1940 or 2017 it's the same. The poor have nothing.

I'll be honest I'd rather be poor or sick in Ireland then the USA and at least even in 2017 you won't be dumped into a septic tank if you are poor when you die.

Also we no longer have a situation where the church will take your baby from you and sell it off without consent.

The state has not changed since then.

I'd very much argue that the state has changed...but it isn't perfect however.
However, the catholic church has fought every change at every step, they've always lobbied hard to keep things backwards and restricted for women.

We only have to look at what Dr Noel Browne tried to do in 50/51 with the Mother and Child Scheme. Archbishop McQuaid strongly criticised the scheme claiming it was against the "moral teaching" of the Catholic Church'.

It was against the moral teachings of the church to provide a healthcare scheme for women???
Unreal.

Dr Noel Browne was a progressive man for his time, sadly he had to deal with such backwards people as Archbishop McQuaid and those who supported Archbishop McQuaid.

Since then the church has lobbied hard to make it so
- Gay people can't have a STATE marriage
- Contraception can't be easily bought
- Being gay remains illegal
- Divorce would remain illegal

Their is no such thing as an illegitimate child.

Indeed there isn't and for anyone to even claim for a second that a unbaptised baby went to their religions hell is frankly twisted.

hinault

I'd await the full evidence before drawing any conclusions.

uck51js9zml2yt

hinault wrote: »

I'd await the full evidence before drawing any conclusions.

He probably has me on ignore so wont see this.. but here goes.....:eek:


What evidence would you like? Hundreds of children died in an RCC run institution. Many of those were dumped in a septic tank. Archbishop of Tuam hasnt apologised but put it down to being "of its era" ...Since when in any era was the de-humanising of people right?

The RCC is an institution purporting to be THE Church founded by Jesus. He didnt institutionalise or dehumanise anyone...He loved them and gave His life for them. How can the RCC say it follows Christ and do this?

extrapolate

Probably some mystic traditions we just aren't privy to, I suspect..

Cabaal

hinault wrote: »

I'd await the full evidence before drawing any conclusions.

The evidence so far

- 796 children died in the home
- The percentage of deaths is WAYYYY above the national avg, this can't be argued against.
- An inmate/women in the home (not a nun) signed every birth and death cert for all 796 that died in the home...most unusual.
- The were no accurate records kept of where the 796 were buried
- When questioned about the story of body's in a septic tank dating from the 1970's the PR company acting on the instruction of the nuns said no bodies existed and any that were found would be from the famine. We know this to be false.

Care to at least comment on what we factually know so far?

I'm sure knowing what we know at this stage you can even express empathy towards the victims effected because at the "very least" the nuns didn't do their jobs right and they were incompetent.

hinault

hinault wrote:

I'd await the full evidence before drawing any conclusions

Cabaal wrote: »

The evidence so far

- 796 children died in the home
- The percentage of deaths is WAYYYY above the national avg, this can't be argued against.
- An inmate/women in the home (not a nun) signed every birth and death cert for all 796 that died in the home...most unusual.
- The were no accurate records kept of where the 796 were buried
- When questioned about the story of body's in a septic tank dating from the 1970's the PR company acting on the instruction of the nuns said no bodies existed and any that were found were from the famine

Care to at least comment on what we factually know so far?

No, as I said - and which you fail to understand - I await the FULL EVIDENCE
before drawing any conclusions.

Cabaal

hinault wrote: »

No, as I said - and which you fail to understand - I await the FULL EVIDENCE
before drawing any conclusions.

We'll never have FULL evidence because the nuns didn't keep accurate records.

For now we know certain facts and yet you seem incapable of even using empathy in relation to those effected.

Countless people that don't know where there family members bodies are, others that have birth certs and no death certs and that they have no idea if the lack of a death cert is down to the nuns not keeping an accurate record or because they sold the baby off to the USA because the mother says the child was adopted. (but no record of an adaption exists either!).

Without even giving a detailed breakdown of your view are you even able to show empathy in relation to such a horrific situation?

volchitsa

J C wrote: »

My answers in blue above.

This Christian burial of aborted "children" - does it apply to miscarried children too?

Only oftentimes those end up in the toilet, to be perfectly brutal. I know several women where that happened.

So if the woman can't bear to search through the blood and mess in the toilet bowl, is she not failing her "child" terribly?

And if she isn't, then what's the point in enforcing it for aborted fetuses?

hinault

Cabaal wrote: »

We'll never have FULL evidence because the nuns didn't keep accurate records.

We wouldn't have known that 796 children died, if accurate records were not kept by the nuns.

How else do you think Corless obtained that data? The nuns handed over the ledger containing the names of the deceased to the local authority when they (the nuns) vacated the site. Corless obtained access to the same ledger from the local authority.

I'd await the full evidence before drawing any conclusions

.........

As an atheist, (brought up catholic but never believed even as a child), I wonder what Christians truly think about the burying of babies in mass graves by nuns, like in Tuam?

I supposed it depends what people mean by a mass grave. Bulldozed in all in the one go after being murdered, that would be very concerning. Dumped and thrown in after being abused, and/or without any type of burial rights, that would be very concerning. Placed in reused concrete tanks with some sort of burial rights, that wouldn't concern me as much.

Sharing a large unmarked grave plot, I'm not so concerned about, as that was very common. None of my own relatives before the 50's have any grave markers, and are in shared graves.

I'd be mostly concerned about how they were treated when alive, and the higher than average death rate for the time, and the poor track record for children's care homes today and now concern me greatly.

I'd like to see a full independent enquiry into Tuam and all the homes and workhouses hospitals and asylums like it throughout Ireland, and their attached graveyards, and the involvement / lack of involvement / failures of all the authorities and people in the state.

But along with that, I'd like to see more resource also put into preventing the one in four Irish people that are still being sexually abused, or otherwise abused in families/organisations in Ireland to this day, day in day out. There's still a huge wall of silence going on today about that.

Why did they not bury them in coffins? In dignified plots?

It wasn't uncommon, probably due to their young age, shrouds/cloths were / still are used in some cases. Our local hospital still buries most of the pre term / miscarried babies in shared unmarked graves wrapped in shrouds/cloths to this day. Again, then as now, I'd be more concerned is it done carefully with respect or not.

Do Christians still believe that children born outside of marriage should be treated differently?

Christianity doesn't and never has, but people who call themselves Christian, like all people, behave in all sorts of ways from good to bad.

What do you think happens to these babies when they die? Do they go to heaven?

Christianity has a range of views, broadly speaking they go to heaven or a heaven like place.
Catholicism believes all baptised children go to heaven. It doesn't know what happens the unbaptised. That's what the theological term limbo meant (it was never a place, despite some people having been mistaught otherwise). The CCC states "The Church does not know of any means other than baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude. As regards children who have died without baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them . . the great mercy of God allows us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without baptism.” - It says something similar about hope for those who through no fault of their own never heard of Christ or his teachings, i.e. God will decide, and as he is ever merciful.

Is there still a hell?

Most Christians believe so. Christ continually warned about it in the gospels (much more than anyone else in scripture before or after that). As for Christians, it ranges from some downplaying hell to something inconsequential / almost non existent, to some emphasising it as something to be extremely concerned and weary of.

Do they go there

All of Christianity pretty much agrees, Children can't go to hell, as they are not old enough to make such choices / actions knowingly.

Im just curious on what your opinions are. We all as humans know that what went on was wrong, but i want to know what you think of illegitimate children now, and then their children?

In Christianity, there is no such thing as a illegitimate Children. It's a purely legal/state term for inheritance of estates etc. And nothing to do with Christianity. Not to say all Christians actually practiced/understood the Christian view though. A lot of Victorian style social views/fashions were wrongly intermixed / confused with Christian ones during the 18 /19th Centuries, by both Christians and non Christians alike (and still are).

Sorry if some of the answers are a bit short, but some of them will take us off into the whole topic of Christian beliefs, which can be very lengthy, so I tired to be as brief as I could, but this won't always result in providing full answers.

Cabaal

hinault wrote: »

I'd await the full evidence before drawing any conclusions

Good to know you are incapable of even empathy towards other human beings.

I feel very sorry for you...

Caledonia

A big thing is whether the children were actually in a septic tank? People believe they were and this is the main source of venom but the commission has said they were actually in a different chamber which they don't know was ever used for water or sewage. I think it is likely it was not. More like a crypt (the word Catherine Corless used).One witness who saw the remains said they were 'parceleens' swaddled and placed on shelves.
Re the death rate looking at the pattern measles killed 17 over 20 days - children in close quarters , and similarly many in tight time periods. This was before antibiotics were widely available.

J C

volchitsa wrote: »

This Christian burial of aborted "children" - does it apply to miscarried children too?

Only oftentimes those end up in the toilet, to be perfectly brutal. I know several women where that happened.

Like I have said one of my children died in utero ... and we had the opportunity to grieve for our much loved child and we gave it a decent burial and can visit its grave whenever we want.

I understand that it could have been disposed of as Hospital waste or buried in a mass grave, in some juristictions.

... or by flushing it down a toilet, as you say.

volchitsa wrote: »

So if the woman can't bear to search through the blood and mess in the toilet bowl, is she not failing her "child" terribly?

And if she isn't, then what's the point in enforcing it for aborted fetuses?

... if a woman has her unborn child deliberately aborted, 'failing her child terribly' would be one way of describing it allright.

.........

A big thing is whether the children were actually in a septic tank? People believe they were and this is the main source of venom but the commission has said they were actually in a different chamber which they don't know was ever used for water or sewage.

I've seen disused concrete septic tanks used for all sorts for things over the years. They are expensive structures in terms excavation, labour, concrete and steel materials. It wouldn't have been unusual for them to be re-purposed especially in 20-50's Ireland . . not much went to waste. Catherine Corless, the local amateur historian researching the home has always objected to the phrase "dumped in a septic tank"

‘I never used that word ‘dumped’,” Catherine Corless, a local historian in Co Galway, tells The Irish Times.

“I never said to anyone that 800 bodies were dumped in a septic tank. That did not come from me at any point. They are not my words.”

irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/tuam-mother-and-baby-home-the-trouble-with-the-septic-tank-story-1.1823393

We also don't know the size(s) or location(s) of the tank(s), or how many remains were found in the tanks as opposed to the rest of the graves.

Caledonia

It seems like it's too late for facts. Listening back to news podcasts and people 100% think they were dumped in a working septic tank. It's why the anger is so strong.

J C

Caledonia wrote: »

A big thing is whether the children were actually in a septic tank? People believe they were and this is the main source of venom but the commission has said they were actually in a different chamber which they don't know was ever used for water or sewage. I think it is likely it was not. More like a crypt (the word Catherine Corless used).One witness who saw the remains said they were 'parceleens' swaddled and placed on shelves.

That sounds a respectful burial to me ... certainly much more respectful than the treatment dead unborn children have received in other juristictions ...where some have been incinerated in heat recovery units ... to heat hospitals.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/03/15/aborted-babies-incinerated-to-heat-uk-hospitals/

... amazingly we don't hear this repeated for days by our media or run as front page news on our papers.:(

extrapolate

I think along with the actual burial place, there's also the implication of misdeeds because of the sheer number of dead babies. I think that's part of the rage. We know there was abuse, but now there's this possibility that the abuse could have went further than any of us could have imagined.

TBi

hinault wrote: »

No, as I said - and which you fail to understand - I await the FULL EVIDENCE
before drawing any conclusions.

I didn't real the whole thread but I do wonder if you are religious. Believing in god based on faith (not evidence) but needing full evidence to believe these nuns mistreated women and children. It would stink of hypocrisy if one was religious.