nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Mass unmarked grave for 800 babies in Tuam

Spring Onion

http://www.irishcentral.com/opinion/cahirodoherty/Mass-grave-of-up-to-800-dead-babies-exposed-in-County-Galway-.html

Why isn't story getting more attention? Nothing surprises me about the cruelty of religious orders anymore but this article suggests babies were neglected to die on purpose.

And most parents in Ireland still think it should force their children to join this organisation...

EDIT (robindch): the petition is here:

https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/Frances_Fitzgerald_Irish_Minister_for_Justice_and_Equality_A_full_Gardai_investigation_into_the_mass_grave_in_Tuam_Co_Ga/

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

I Heart Internet

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

You're right to strike a note of caution. There is a need for basic factual verification. But the story isn't incredible, unfortunately. And it is terrifically significant, if true.

The story of unidentified bodies in mass graves in Ireland is quite credible. But the underlying assumptions, that typically go unchallenged in this forum, that nuns personally dispatched each child through murder or neglect is quite absurD and knee-jerk. It needs significant, sensible investigation. Not wild conjecture fuelled by a hatred of the catholic church.

Hotblack Desiato

Even if we suppose that all of these deaths were due to natural causes and could not have been prevented, it is not legal to dispose of a body in a septic tank, and one would expect that a christian organisation would at least grant a respectful burial with christian rites to baptised christians who died in its care.

These children were treated in death as disposable sub-humans, and we have every indication that they were treated no better in life.

pauldla

One of the advantages of having no belief in God is that one will never be compelled to post nonsense on an Internet forum trying to explain away or obfuscate the finding of 800 corpses in a septic tank.

:mad:

foggy_lad

shruikan2553 wrote: »

The hole they put them in used to contain a water tank from my understanding, they couldnt have been assed to at least dig a hole for these people.

Water tanks were not put underground because they would freeze up faster and the water would have to be pumped out, that tank would have been an old septic tank.

I also read somewhere of one of the laundrys/orphanage/school in county Cork, possibly Clonakilty or Mallow which was clearing £100000 a month from the capitation payments, clothing and footwear grants as well as building grants and other payments plus wages for the nuns who thought in the school or worked in the laundry which was classed as a training facility plus profits from the laundry plus other sundries which were believed to include payments in US dollars for trips to America with babies. The money was supposed to have been kept in biscuit tins which were taken to Rome on monthly trips by some of the nuns.

Absolam

ninja900 wrote: »

Even if we suppose that all of these deaths were due to natural causes and could not have been prevented, it is not legal to dispose of a body in a septic tank, and one would expect that a christian organisation would at least grant a respectful burial with christian rites to baptised christians who died in its care. These children were treated in death as disposable sub-humans, and we have every indication that they were treated no better in life.

From the article it seems that a large proportion of (if perhaps not all) deaths were registered between 1932 and 1961 (796 according to Catherine Corless). There is also an anecdotal account of a local health board inspection report which detailed the poor condition of children in the home.
I find myself wondering how it is the State was made aware of over 700 deaths yet never questioned a lack of burials? Additionally how a local health board could be made aware of such conditions, and have access to the death certificates, yet not choose to take any action?
I think we need to look at the States role in this just as hard as the Bon Secours.

gctest50

So, the kids that didn't end up in the septic tank had segregation and much more to look forward to

Catherine Corless, the local historian and genealogist, remembers the Home Babies well. “They were always segregated to the side of regular classrooms,” Corless tells IrishCentral. “By doing this the nuns telegraphed the message that they were different and that we should keep away from them.

“They didn’t suggest we be nice to them. In fact if you acted up in class some nuns would threaten to seat you next to the Home Babies. That was the message we got in our young years,” Corless recalls.

http://www.irishcentral.com/opinion/cahirodoherty/Galway-historian-reveals-truth-behind-800-orphans-in-mass-grave.html

Fries-With-That

Some of the postings on this thread in defence of an organisation that was party to and apparently responsible for the placing of dead children in an unused septic belonging to a former workhouse is disturbing.

We should all be at least in some way a little shocked by this, and not looking to defend or justify its occurrence.

There is a thread here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056155035 that makes interesting reading.

The link below is also interesting, in particular the article where the local priest writes to the newspaper claiming that girls listed as coming from his parish were not in fact from his parish because one had moved away 9 years earlier and the other had gone into service 2 years previously.

This distancing of the parish from these immoral girls that ended up in the home says a lot about the attitude that pertained at the time.
The need to segregate and hide away, pregnant girls, from normal moral catholic society was the priority lest they contaminate the respectable.
It sadly also shows that it was always the girl ( Evil Eve) that was the corrupter there are no mentions of the men (unwitting Adams) that fathered these children.

The other unfortunate thing is that every place one of these homes existed people knew about it, it was talked about in whispered tones, you did not challenge authority, and the church in Ireland was the ultimate authority.

https://storify.com/Limerick1914/children-s-home-in-tuam-1920s-1960s

kylith

Manach wrote: »

One thing I agree with in the article was the knowledge of history is important. Other than that lots of speculation by an author pushing an agenda. On that point, I'd be guilty of myself for what I've formally learnt of history is that there are rarely neutral voices.
So for balance, I'd know that the Church took on board the dregs of society that Ireland state did not seek to engage with - that generations either ended up there or were forced to head to England based on a de facto government policy. Given the state of medical resources and skill, even in the best of circumstances, the life expectancy of children even in the most advanced of countries was less than ideal. Not to be cognisance of that fact, in the pursuit of condemning the Church shows this thread more fitting for the conspiracy forum .

How much of that government policy was pushed by the church? The RCC was the ultimate authority in Ireland at the time, if they had preached love and acceptance of the girls who became pregnant then the community would have accepted them. The fact that the church painted them as sinful Jezebels is why their families shunned them, they were afraid of church sanctioned ostracisation in the community.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

The story of unidentified bodies in mass graves in Ireland is quite credible. But the underlying assumptions, that typically go unchallenged in this forum, that nuns personally dispatched each child through murder or neglect is quite absurD and knee-jerk. It needs significant, sensible investigation. Not wild conjecture fuelled by a hatred of the catholic church.

So the children who died of malnutrition were on hunger strike, were they? Even if they did die of natural causes why did this Christian organisation that claims to love and cherish children dump them in a tank rather than giving them proper burials?

pwurple

This is an awful story. I don't understand how people could be so cruel to children. They obviously didn't even consider them to be human. The burial doesn't bother me so much as the children being mistreated. Were the nuns themselves buried in communal/mass graves? Although they at least were named on a stone probably. Starvation and lack of medical care is something completely different though.

We do still have an awful hangover of intolerance towards children here. People who still these days hate to see them in public spaces, believe they should be 'seen and not heard', and who still believe that children need to be beaten to behave. That attitude must have been much worse then, in order for people to wilfully mistreat them like that. By their own accounts they seemed to believe that beating and mistreating babies and children was in some way training them, or teaching them to behave.

And what on earth did the families who sent their daughters to these homes, or their sons to industrial schools think was happening there? They cannot have been completely oblivious.

Brian Shanahan

Manach wrote: »

So for balance, I'd know that the Church took on board the dregs of society that Ireland state did not seek to engage with

So it's the women's own fault then, for being no better than they should be. Very christian attitude that Manach (no sarcasm intended).

Given the state of medical resources and skill, even in the best of circumstances, the life expectancy of children even in the most advanced of countries was less than ideal.

This line is especially egregious, Manach. The death rate in these places was twice as high, at least, as the national average (and here's a graph to show the actual number of infant deaths between 1930 and 1960, a good portion of the time in question, it is very low compared to earlier periods, due mainly to the fact that the biggest advances in healthcare happened in the first half of the 20th century). Given the amount of money the state was paying the nuns, plus the church's extreme level of pre-existing wealth (I'd bet the Irish church had easy access to funds in excess of the then Irish GDP) that is a sign that those deaths were caused either by criminal negligence or by deliberate design.

lazygal

How can referring to people as the dregs of society mesh with the refrain about the dignity ofall humans whenever the church comments on abortion or euthanasia?

gctest50

Manach wrote: »

So for balance, I'd know that the Church took on board the dregs of society that Ireland state did not seek to engage with - ...........

Amazing - just don't know when to stop

http://www.bit.ly/1khph5c

jank

Fries-With-That wrote: »

you did not challenge authority, and the church in Ireland was the ultimate authority.

kylith wrote: »

The RCC was the ultimate authority in Ireland at the time, if?

Whatever about this story itself above is not true. The church was not the ultimate authority. Ireland was not a theocracy. It was puritan, more so than its neighbors given the historical years we are talking about but the RCC did not hold the country under some Stalinist spell.

Absolam

kylith wrote: »

How much of that government policy was pushed by the church? The RCC was the ultimate authority in Ireland at the time, if they had preached love and acceptance of the girls who became pregnant then the community would have accepted them. The fact that the church painted them as sinful Jezebels is why their families shunned them, they were afraid of church sanctioned ostracisation in the community.

That's a cop-out. The State was the ultimate authority. Whether the representatives of the State ceded their authority to religious bodies or not does not relieve them of their responsibility. The Church painting young women as sinful Jezebels, that was wrong. But it was no less wrong that families shunned them; fearing ostracisation does not excuse inhumanity.

kylith wrote: »

So the children who died of malnutrition were on hunger strike, were they? Even if they did die of natural causes why did this Christian organisation that claims to love and cherish children dump them in a tank rather than giving them proper burials?

What does that kind of rhetorical polemic add to the discussion? The children neither died of self inflicted starvation nor of nuns murdering with gleeful abandon.
More than the Church are to blame for this.

Lisha

pwurple wrote: »

This is an awful story.

And what on earth did the families who sent their daughters to these homes, or their sons to industrial schools think was happening there? They cannot have been completely oblivious.

Yes the nuns and the whole Catholic Church were disgustingly wrong in their past actions and their following coverups.
But their families aided and abetted the nuns by shunning their own daughters.

Society at large knew how many abhorrent practises went on. These places the orphanages, the mother and baby homes, were used as a threat to frighten bold children to behave.

Everyone was wrong. The nuns got away with it simply cos society let them.

I dread to think what secrets lie waiting to be discovered.

I don't know if the church can recover. Frankly I'm not sure if I want the CC to recover.

I baptised both my children, I do get comfort from my faith (weak as it is) but now I wish I did not bow to pressure to baptise them.

I am sad from hearing about this mass grave. It sickens me to see how the weakest in society were treated as vermin or rubbish.

kylith

Absolam wrote: »

That's a cop-out. The State was the ultimate authority. Whether the representatives of the State ceded their authority to religious bodies or not does not relieve them of their responsibility. The Church painting young women as sinful Jezebels, that was wrong. But it was no less wrong that families shunned them; fearing ostracisation does not excuse inhumanity. .

I agree with you that it was wrong of the families and it was wrong for the state to cede their moral authority to the RCC, but they did. And they did it because the RCC was, and is, a hugely powerful organisation claiming to speak for a divine authority. They did it because at the time a government that was against the wishes of the church would not have been in power for very long.

Absolam wrote: »

What does that kind of rhetorical polemic add to the discussion? The children neither died of self inflicted starvation nor of nuns murdering with gleeful abandon.
More than the Church are to blame for this.

They may not have been murdered with gleeful abandon, but they were murdered none the less. Murdered with emotionless callousness. The buck has to stop somewhere and in this case it stops with the people under whose 'care' these children died, the people who illegally dumped their bodies.

Fries-With-That

jank wrote: »

Whatever about this story itself above is not true. The church was not the ultimate authority. Ireland was not a theocracy. It was puritan, more so than its neighbors given the historical years we are talking about but the RCC did not hold the country under some Stalinist spell.

Its naive to think that, we were not a theocracy, when all aspects of Irish society, Justice, Eductation, Health, Sporting and Political were all under the direct or indirect control/influence of the RCC.

krankykitty

The "dregs of society"? For what crime, being born out of wedlock? Being a " loose" woman?
Let's face it the only reason why they were the dregs in the first place was because of the judgemental claptrap being peddled by the church.

I'm shocked at the attitude of some posters, making excuses because we don't know the full story. Well what we do know is pretty horrific.

Cabaal

gvn wrote: »

I can't help but get the impression that there's a big, stinking mass of deep, dark secrets waiting to be exposed about homes.....

No doubt there is or more so was, but like so many of the homes already the nuns have claimed that records have been misplaced or lost in bonfires fires

Bellatori

kylith wrote: »

...Murdered with emotionless callousness...

[irony]But surely these little wee bairns were better off in heaven?[/irony]

Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

How often is religion the motivator for great evil. Japanese killed themselves believing they would be reincarnated. Suicide bombers murder because they go straight to heaven. Here we have Nuns, probably not actively killing (?) but killing by neglect. Look at Sister Teresa who tormented those dying by not allowing them drugs and family visits. Have they made her a saint?

Religion induces callousness. Here and now is not important. Everything that is important comes after death. I have always thought most religions are death cults. This was obvious for the Egyptians!

Philippians 1:23 I am hard pressed between the two. My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better.

the_syco

Lisha wrote: »

Society at large knew how many abhorrent practises went on. These places the orphanages, the mother and baby homes, were used as a threat to frighten bold children to behave.

Everyone was wrong. The nuns got away with it simply cos society let them.

People at the time feared the wrath of the Catholic Church. Being excommunicated from the RCC was seen as your life being over, and no-one would talk to you.

krankykitty wrote: »

The "dregs of society"? For what crime, being born out of wedlock? Being a " loose" woman?
Let's face it the only reason why they were the dregs in the first place was because of the judgemental claptrap being peddled by the church.

The RCC viewed rape victims as loose women.

robindch

Manach wrote: »

One thing I agree with in the article was the knowledge of history is important. Other than that lots of speculation by an author pushing an agenda.

Pursuing an uncomfortable historical truth is now an "agenda"? An ugly word that I've only ever seen associated with paranoid conspiracy theories?

Manach wrote: »

So for balance, I'd know that the Church took on board the dregs of society that Ireland state did not seek to engage with [...]

"Dregs"? What an insensitive term to call women and girls who'd become pregnant without the church's blessing.

They were "dregs" only because that's what the RCC told people they were.

Lisha

robindch wrote: »

Pursuing an uncomfortable historical truth is now an "agenda"? An ugly word that I've only ever seen associated with paranoid conspiracy theories?"Dregs"? What an insensitive term to call women and girls who'd become pregnant without the church's blessing.

They were "dregs" only because that's what the RCC told people they were.

Dregs is a disgusting term to use on any person.
I'm sure the male in ' the act' that condemned the woman to be a 'dreg' or a 'fallen woman' got off scotfree . And he was possibly married off quick to some poor woman to prevent him from 'being tempted' again by some 'trollop'

robindch

Lisha wrote: »

Dregs is a disgusting term to use on any person.

There was a far more fissile term in there before "insensitive" showed up :mad:

One of my elderly relatives (not Popette for anybody keeping up) had a baby "offered up for adoption" in the mid-sixties. Pathetically, on the recommendation/request of the local parish priest -- for her father was involved with local schools and it would have been a "scandal" -- she shipped out to Boston from a small town down the country almost as soon as she found out, spent six/seven months there sending home a series of photos she'd shot as soon as she arrived, to make it look like she wasn't pregnant while there. Then gave birth around christmas time and had the baby taken away a few days later to god knows where, presumably with a mutual no-search clause in the "agreement". Nobody in our family knows what happened to him, though at least he didn't die of "malnutrition", as presumably hundreds of kids, having been left to starve to death, did in Tuam.

The only "dregs" in this story were the callous bastards who forced an innocent, naive girl to abandon her family and give up her child.

Bonedigger

robindch wrote: »

There was a far more fissile term in there before "insensitive" showed up :mad:

One of my elderly relatives (not Popette for anybody keeping up) had a baby "offered up for adoption" in the mid-sixties. Pathetically, on the recommendation/request of the local parish priest -- for her father was involved with local schools and it would have been a "scandal" -- she shipped out to Boston from a small town down the country almost as soon as she found out, spent six/seven months there sending home a series of photos she'd shot as soon as she arrived, to make it look like she wasn't pregnant while there. Then gave birth around christmas time and had the baby taken away a few days later to god knows where, presumably with a mutual no-search clause in the "agreement". Nobody in our family knows what happened to him, though at least he didn't die of "malnutrition", as presumably hundreds of kids, having been left to starve to death, did in Tuam.

The only "dregs" in this story were the callous bastards who forced an innocent, naive girl to abandon her family and give up her child.

What's most astounding is when the Catholic Church apologists arrive on the scene,how unchristian their sentiments are to the real victims here.They'd rather protect the institution that is the RCC at all costs,than have any sympathies for the "dregs".
Ah well,"Onward christian soldiers......"

gctest50

jank wrote: »

Amazing in a thread where we are looking for they truth for this sad discovery that some people are willing to throw the truth out just to get their oar in.

A "sad discovery" would be more like finding one person down a well or something, it just plays it down

800 kids is a septic tank is an atrocity

Cabaal

the_syco wrote: »

People at the time feared the wrath of the Catholic Church. Being excommunicated from the RCC was seen as your life being over, and no-one would talk to you.

And nobody did talk to you!

I knew a man who left the priesthood in the 1950's, he was made sign a contract by the church saying he would not return to his home town nor the parish in which he said his first mass.

His family was instructed to destroy all photos of him (his mother said she did but knew it was wrong and so hid them from the local priest).

When he eventually returned to Ireland and his home town in the 1980's even then people were odd with him and didn't want him to be seen going into their house.....that's how ingrained the fear and shame was from the catholic church!

Now that about that for a moment, this was a priest, a man who knew how the catholic church worked and look just how he was treated.

Now imagine the avg joe who fears the catholic church far more then a priest would......thats the level of fear a person had, a whole town could be and were often turned against people who went against the church.

shruikan2553

foggy_lad wrote: »

Water tanks were not put underground because they would freeze up faster and the water would have to be pumped out, that tank would have been an old septic tank.

Thats what I thought. Cant blame me for hoping they wouldnt put them in the same place as their ****.

Cabaal

I know certain people like to try get comments in here and there but in all honestly could some of the people on this thread please have some respect,

This isn't some minor issue, these people didn't do anything wrong, they are not dregs nor scum. Instead they were treated like utter dirt just because they got pregnant outside of marriage. There children were seen as dirt and full of sin because of this (more the the average sinful baby).

Some people in this thread may want to direct attention away from the catholic church, but bottom line is the whole "pregnant outside of marriage being wrong" thing came from the church and was ingrained into our society on all levels by the catholic church.

In addition the church had its fingers deep in health, education and government policy (and still does on some levels!).

ryan101

foggy_lad wrote: »

Water tanks were not put underground because they would freeze up faster and the water would have to be pumped out, that tank would have been an old septic tank.

This is incorrect. An underground tank actually protects from the frost.
Lots of underground reservoir water tanks exist in Ireland, particularly for old underground springs/ wells. Pumps are not required if such tanks are located in land that is above the supply area. It might well have been a water tank of some description, and that's what most of the press reports have been referring to it as.