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

Cabaal wrote: »

I Heart Internet, most people in Ireland would gladly vote in a referendum to allow the Irish Government to have the powers to seize church assets which could be then sold to compensate victims.

By all means, campaign for that referendum. More power to you.

I Heart Internet

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

Do you know any cold hard facts at the moment?

No. That's why I'm suggesting we investigate matters. The facts are important.

stoneill

I Heart Internet wrote: »

No. That's why I'm suggesting we investigate matters. The facts are important.

They were investigated by local historians - isn't that what this is about?
The facts have been revealed. Babies died of malnutrition and were buried in a cesspit.

Flippyfloppy

I Heart Internet wrote: »

No.

There actually are cold hard facts.

800 of them, children in an unmarked grave. Along with reports from Health Inspectors that children in the home were pot bellied and their skin was hanging from their limbs. Also, it is a fact that the Sisters received an industrial wage for each 'inmate'. Which is funny, because its hard to fathom why these kids might be in such bad health then? Another fact is that these kids were sold for adoption. Again, more income for the home. No malnourished Sisters, just kids. Kids with a death rate 3 times higher than the national average. Kids, whom by the sound of it had more income than most others in the country.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

That's why I'm suggesting we investigate matters. The facts are important.

Us? You want an amateur teams from Boards to investigate?

Cabaal

I Heart Internet wrote: »

It's not about explaining anything. It's about establishing the cold hard facts, rather than indulging in speculation.

Ok,
Be interested to hear your thoughts on the cold hard facts we know at the moment,

- Infant mortality rate was abnormally high and well above the national average
- The bodies were buried unmarked and in a cest pit
- Many of the children died of malnutrition...so not natural causes.

I Heart Internet

stoneill wrote: »

They were investigated by local historians - isn't that what this is about?
The facts have been revealed. Babies died of malnutrition and were buried in a cesspit.

Did they? How many? When did they die? Who were they? Who was responsible for them? Could their deaths have been avoided? Are they registered as having died? Who was responsible for registering this? Are there adults and children buried there? Are there potentially other burial sites in the area? Was malnutrition the sole cause of all the deaths? et, etc.

The allegations of the historian are very, very serious, so they deserve a serious investigation, not internet guesswork.

I Heart Internet

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

Us? You want an amateur teams from Boards to investigate?

Yes. That's obviously what I mean.

I Heart Internet

Cabaal wrote: »

Ok,
Be interested to hear your thoughts on the cold hard facts we know at the moment,

- Infant mortality rate was abnormally high and well above the national average
- The bodies were buried unmarked and in a cest pit
- Many of the children died of malnutrition...so not natural causes.

I would be slow to consider the results of this (welcome and well-meaning) historian's report containing these serious allegation as "cold-hard facts". That's why I suggest a thorough investigation - above ground and below ground.

ryan101

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Hear, hear. Many on here are wetting themselves to tell us what the big, bad church did without even the first notion of what happened, when, why and how. I suspect, given the choice, they would prefer a bishop to be jailed a church pulled down as retribution rather than actually investigate the truth of these allegations.

A proper investigation needs to be carried out, and if any crimes have been committed, they should be prosecuted, and those found guilty beyond all doubt in a court of law, by a proper trial should be sent to prison. I don't mind if they are a lay people, nuns, bishops, or public servants, or Guards. Everyone involved who is properly prosecuted and proven guilty beyond any reasonable doubt in a court of law of an act or omission should face prison. Justice should be done and seen to be done.

There are thousands of these types of burial grounds around the country, our local hospital buried still born and premature children in large unmarked graves up until the 70's. Ideally all these burial grounds should be investigated. Miscarried children are still disposed of as 'hospital waste' to this day.

The difference is this was a children's home, and many of the children, if the accounts are correct, were considerably older, it was also carried out until the 60's and so if any crimes were committed then people can still be sent to prison and should be if proven guilty by a court of law.

pauldla

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Interesting take you have.

The very existence of this thread is made possible by an unbelief in a god (atheist forum) and has seen posters try to pretend they are aware of the details of this case. They are, of course, entirely unaware and relying on third-hand rumour to try to pass judgement on their sworn enemy, the RCC.

Belief in a god, or not, I'd prefer to hear actual facts. I guess I'm a rationalist, where others are not.

I’d argue that the existence of this thread is made possible by people no longer being in fear of the Roman Catholic Church, and being aware that it is now becoming somewhat more possible to talk about the history of our island, and the role of the Church therein, more openly than in previous decades. It’s becoming increasingly apparent as to the scale of the abuses of the Catholic Church, and I’d wager that it goes much deeper than what we have seen so far. That would certainly explain the level of official heel-dragging that is taking place this, and other, scandals; for example, as others have pointed out, the State has some responsibility in all this, and I’d imagine that there are a lot of dirty hands. Of course, all this is speculation, and, unlike you, I am not a rationalist (I try to look to both rationalism and empiricism to form my opinions), so please feel free to disregard my musings if it so pleases you.

For posters ‘pretending they are aware of the details of the case’, I don’t think you’re really in a position to judge that. The comment made earlier (I think I recall the one you refer to, but please forgive me for not trawling back through the thread to find it) may well have been total BS. It may be true. If the comment is true I hope the poster has the courage to come forward on the matter. It would be a brave thing to do, and, I hope, would help to secure justice and, eventually, closure. Both are needed.

What are not needed right now are pedantic arguments about the true nature of septic tanks and the use of the vowel ‘thrown’. We certainly don’t need nasty comments about ‘dregs’ either. None of this helps, and, I suspect, the comments are made out of a need to in some way take the edge off this story. Of course, they cannot; and speaking for myself, they make me wonder what IS belief in religion if it can reduce intelligent and educated people to engage in such pitiful obscurantism.

As for your remark about ‘sworn enemy of the Catholic Church’, I hope I am not considered in that group, but if I am, I must be thankful that I live in an enlightened era, and will thus be spared the auto-da-fe. They looked unpleasant.

Cabaal

If there's one thing that I've learned from I Heart Internet is they like to put things in box's,

So because people think abuse and death of children at the hands of the catholic church and its workers, they are now sworn enemy's in I Heart Internet's view.
:rolleyes:

ryan101

Who is they ? I heart internet speaks for no one but themselves.

I Heart Internet

pauldla wrote: »

I’d argue that the existence of this thread is made possible by people no longer being in fear of the Roman Catholic Church, and being aware that it is now becoming somewhat more possible to talk about the history of our island, and the role of the Church therein, more openly than in previous decades.

I agree entirely with you here. But it is important (vital I would say) that any discussio nis based on facts.

pauldla wrote: »

For posters ‘pretending they are aware of the details of the case’, I don’t think you’re really in a position to judge that. The comment made earlier (I think I recall the one you refer to, but please forgive me for not trawling back through the thread to find it) may well have been total BS. It may be true. If the comment is true I hope the poster has the courage to come forward on the matter. It would be a brave thing to do, and, I hope, would help to secure justice and, eventually, closure. Both are needed.

Why would the person require courage and bravery to tell the truth about what they know today? This conflicts with your point above about there no longer being any fear of the Catholic Church. If this is true, which I think and hope it is, the only right thing for anyone with any information on this to do is to come forward and report what they know.

pauldla wrote: »

What are not needed right now are pedantic arguments about the true nature of septic tanks and the use of the vowel ‘thrown’. We certainly don’t need nasty comments about ‘dregs’ either. None of this helps,.

I agree. And I haven't indulged in such carry-on.

Cabaal

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Why would the person require courage and bravery to tell the truth about what they know today? This conflicts with your point above about there no longer being any fear of the Catholic Church. If this is true, which I think and hope it is, the only right thing for anyone with any information on this to do is to come forward and report what they know.

Most Younger generations don't fear the church,

Older generations (the one's that are likely to know information) are much more likely to still fear the church, as such they would very much need to be brave to work past this fear.

I Heart Internet

Cabaal wrote: »

If there's one thing that I've learned from I Heart Internet is they like to put things in box's,

So because people think abuse and death of children at the hands of the catholic church and its workers, they are now sworn enemy's in I Heart Internet's view.
:rolleyes:

No, no, no. You misunderstand entirely.

There are some people who are enemies of the RCC. They hate the RCC with a passion. They will use anything to attack the RCC.

Most people who are rightly upset with the RCC over misdeeds and failures are not biased against the RCC, they look for and consider evidence and respond as they see fit.

In short, hate the RCC if you must, but do so based on actual facts.

Cabaal

I Heart Internet wrote: »

No, no, no. You misunderstand entirely.

There are some people who are enemies of the RCC. They hate the RCC with a passion. They will use anything to attack the RCC.

Most people who are rightly upset with the RCC over misdeeds and failures are not biased against the RCC, they look for and consider evidence and respond as they see fit.

In short, hate the RCC if you must, but do so based on actual facts.

You do understand that anyone that does classifying themselves as hating the catholic church hates them based on facts already right?

Curious your take on the catholic church, you seem rather defensive of them so whats your thoughts on them?
Keeping in mind their piss poor handing of current sex abuse scandals.

Flippyfloppy

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Yes. That's obviously what I mean.

I definitely think the Gardai & Government would be best placed to investigate, for obvious reasons. The funny thing is, you'd think that when a mass grave is found it would be automatically investigated. There is a home in Jersey that was investigated when animal bones were found. These bones were found in the 70's and nothing has been done. So I echo other posters ; contact local TD's. Please don't dream of investigating this yourself.

And for all your talk about people here just being against the CC, in my case this is probably one of my first posts on the forum. I'm not a usual member of this forum at all, so you might be surprised to learn that a lot of people on this thread are the same as me. Not atheists. Just normal people, with good morals, unlike a lot of these religious folk who ran industrial schools, laundries and homes.

You ignored my summarising of the facts? Because it suits you does it?

I was thinking that you're so informed you could counter argue the facts presented?

I Heart Internet

Cabaal wrote: »

You do understand that anyone that does classifying themselves as hating the catholic church hates them based on facts already right?

I don't agree with you on this. I think some hate the church for subjective reasons. Some just like to hate.

Cabaal wrote: »

Curious your take on the catholic church, you seem rather defensive of them so whats your thoughts on them?
Keeping in mind their piss poor handing of current sex abuse scandals.

A good bunch of people (1.2 billion of us), let down, from day-one to today, by our own human faults and failings.

I Heart Internet

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

I was thinking that you're so informed you could counter argue the facts you presented?

I am almost entirely uninformed about this case. All I've learned is the scant insight from newspapers.

That's why I say, time and again, that a proper investigation is required.

(In case you thought I was serious that a boards.ie team should investigate this - I very much wasn't)

Cabaal

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I don't agree with you on this. I think some hate the church for subjective reasons. Some just like to hate.

But they have reason to hate, its hardly baseless

A good bunch of people (1.2 billion of us), let down, from day-one to today, by our own human faults and failings.

Nice dodge,
So some good and some bad eh?
Ignore the Vatican policy's and blind following of these policy's?...sure i guess they were only following orders?

Flippyfloppy

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I am almost entirely uninformed about this case. All I've learned is the scant insight from newspapers.

That's why I say, time and again, that a proper investigation is required.

(In case you thought I was serious that a boards.ie team should investigate this - I very much wasn't)

It may come as surprise to you that every single person is entitled to come to their own conclusion with the facts that are available.

Are you suggesting people should not discuss the available facts & figures until this 'investigation' that should have began in the 1970's occurs?

You really sounded like you think a boards team should investigate it?! Why lie?

ryan101

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I don't agree with you on this. I think some hate the church for subjective reasons. Some just like to hate.

You don't have to hate the Church or Catholics to legitimately and factually criticise some of it's members actions. Some people on each side of the debate, including some 'Catholics' will hate anyone who does not agree with them, haters are going to hate, but hate isn't going to solve anything, and is ultimately self defeating.

I Heart Internet

Cabaal wrote: »

Nice dodge,
So some good and some bad eh?

How is it a dodge?? You asked what I thought of the RCC, that's (in a nutshell) what I think. Some good, some bad, like any other organisation of people.

pauldla

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I agree entirely with you here. But it is important (vital I would say) that any discussio nis based on facts.

It is rare and welcoming to find agreement so readily, and I thank you. We do have the fact that there are approximately 800 remains (skeletons, did I read?) of infants in some form of utility tank, and apparently no national WTF. Questions I’d like discussed include ‘What the hell happened’ and ‘Who the hell is responsible’, and in addressing these questions I’d expect a certain amount of inference and speculation.

I Heart Internet wrote:

Why would the person require courage and bravery to tell the truth about what they know today? This conflicts with your point above about there no longer being any fear of the Catholic Church. If this is true, which I think and hope it is, the only right thing for anyone with any information on this to do is to come forward and report what they know.

Indeed, it seems I must ask your forgiveness again. Allow me to add ‘increasingly no longer in fear of the Church’, and perhaps my argument will be clearer. The Church, as I’m sure you know, still holds some sway over society in Ireland, especially in more rural areas. And it always takes courage to speak truth to power.

But yes, I hope that those who have information do come forward, that there is an investigation, and that the Catholic Church is more forthcoming than in previous investigations. Do I ask too much?

I Heart Internet wrote:

I agree. And I haven't indulged in such carry-on.

Not even a little bit?:P

eyescreamcone

I Heart Internet wrote: »

No, no, no. You misunderstand entirely.

There are some people who are enemies of the RCC. They hate the RCC with a passion. They will use anything to attack the RCC.

Most people who are rightly upset with the RCC over misdeeds and failures are not biased against the RCC, they look for and consider evidence and respond as they see fit.

In short, hate the RCC if you must, but do so based on actual facts.

There are plenty of actual FACTS to beat the RCC with

Some are:

they are anti women
anti gay
anti divorce
anti contraception including condoms to help prevent AIDS in Africa
anti abortion
Child abusers and rapists in numerous countries throughout the world
Facilitators of cover ups of this abuse throughout the world

And generally poking their nose where it is not wanted.

And you love the RCC because of which FACTS.

A few made up bible stories from years back??? :eek:

However, one of my favorite stories is the Assumption of Mary into heaven -"having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory"
as defined by Pope Pius XII (1950)
YES 1950!!!

All I can add is...and the dish ran away with the spoon!!!

Cabaal

I Heart Internet wrote: »

How is it a dodge?? You asked what I thought of the RCC, that's (in a nutshell) what I think. Some good, some bad, like any other organisation of people.

In dodges the fundamental issues in the catholic church,

Yes you'll have some good and some bad priests but that doesn't excuse Vatican policy's and refusal of apparent "good men" who have and continue to stand by and refuse to interact in a meaningful way with investigations.

Its not some good and some bad when the organisation has a rotten core and the employee's of the organisation blindingly follow that core, those that speak against it are shut down.

I Heart Internet

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

It may come as surprise to you that every single person is entitled to come to their own conclusion with the facts that are available.

Conclusion suggests an end to the story. I'd prefer a thorough investigation before I conclude.

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

Are you suggesting people should not discuss the available facts & figures until this 'investigation' that should have began in the 1970's occurs?

No. I'm suggesting they might hold off passing judgement until we know what, in fact happened.

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

You really sounded like you think a boards team should investigate it?! Why lie?

I was responding to your suggestion that a boards team investigate the matter. I responded, jokingly, that this is what should happen because the suggestion was so absurd (and I think you meant it in a tongue-in-cheek way to begin with yourself). Sorry for any confusion.

bumper234

I Heart Internet wrote: »

How is it a dodge?? You asked what I thought of the RCC, that's (in a nutshell) what I think. Some good, some bad, like any other organisation of people. Where the heirachy allow the systematic sexual/physical abuse of children

FYP

I Heart Internet

pauldla wrote: »

Not even a little bit?:P

Fair enough, I weighed in on that to shut down wild speculation, but fair enough. Fair cop guv.

I Heart Internet

Cabaal wrote: »

Its not some good and some bad when the organisation has a rotten core and the employee's of the organisation blindingly follow that core, those that speak against it are shut down.

I don't believe it has a rotten core. It's core is Christ and his teachings.

In the case of "those that speak against it are shut down", you'll find that it is only people claiming to teach false versions of catholic teaching as actual catholic teaching are shut down. Many, many people have weird and wonderful notions of catholic teaching and what it should be, but if you claim to teach it, but make up your own bits, you can expect to be called on it.

But this is getting off the point.