Is this another consequence of a Church State?

11-12-2014 10:39PM #1

This story emerging today about babies being buried in coffins with unrelated adults, just so they could be buried on consecrated ground.
http://m.rte.ie/news/2014/1211/666147-foi-baby-hse/

It's shocking really to think how fúcking backwards the Church really are.
I gave up on the Church a while back but its frightening to see the control they had over people from the scandals of recent years. Laundries, sex abuse silence, Ryan and Murphy reports etc.

What next one wonders?

Arsemageddon · 11-12-2014 10:41PM

In fairness, this has nothing to do with the church (for once)

Don Kedick · 11-12-2014 10:45PM

Who put the church in charge? Look up who gave them Maynooth to find the answer.

fro9etb8j5qsl2 · 11-12-2014 10:46PM

Arsemageddon wrote: »

In fairness, this has nothing to do with the church (for once)

Really??

Sheep Lover · 11-12-2014 10:47PM

I love Jesus and Jesus loves me.

conorh91 · 11-12-2014 10:48PM

TheTorment wrote: »

This story emerging today about babies being buried in coffins with unrelated adults, just so they could be buried on consecrated ground.

While it's shocking by today's standards, it might be some consolation to the parents of the deceased babies to think that some stranger did this for them with good intentions. You have to remember that those parents of the dead babies may have been just as devout as the person who put the child there, given the strength of the Roman catholic religion in Ireland at that time.

The parents may even have agreed to it. We don't know yet.

The alternative for these children was an unmarked grave in unconsecrated ground. Many parents of the era would have viewed that as a bigger nightmare.

You have to apply the standards of the time.

twinytwo · 11-12-2014 10:49PM

Arsemageddon wrote: »

In fairness, this has nothing to do with the church (for once)

well what would have been the reason for the baby not being buried correctly in the first place?

I mean if it was because the church refused because the baby were born out of wedlock for example thats a differnt story.

Organised religion is a farce either way

11-12-2014 10:50PM

This isn't exactly news I wouldn't have thought. It happened for a long time and people also used to do things like get a co-operative undertaker to put a body in with another, people would bury their children inside graveyard boundary walls or failing that just outside.

It's more an indication of the Stockholm Syndrome so many people suffered with the church.

The Backwards Man · 11-12-2014 10:51PM

Know of at least one instance of that around here, well when I say I know, it was way before my time, but it's one of things told late at night at a wake in hushed tones now and again. The family of the deceased man actually approached the family of the baby in this particular case, and the PP and all knew about it, it was different times back then.

conorh91 · 11-12-2014 10:51PM

twinytwo wrote: »

well what would have been the reason for the baby not being buried correctly in the first place?

Stillborn babies and infants who were not baptised before death were not entitled to be buried in consencrated ground.

looksee · 11-12-2014 11:04PM

This was 30 years ago, if it were still happening there might be some point in raising a storm about it, but there are more important things to get upset about now, not looking back to well intentioned actions in the past, even if they do seem misguided now.

Nabber · 11-12-2014 11:13PM

Reports are suggesting that the parents asked for it and the clergy allowed it, which by standards at the time would suggest that the preist took a big risk as well as the deceased family.

By all accounts here it sounds like it was a good thing given the situation. If the OP is suggesting that the Roman Catholic shouldn't have treated unbaptised babies as damned, well that's a different thing.

Posibility too that families couldn't afford funeral.

OP you could be disrespecting somethjng here that some parents at the time cherished.

Arsemageddon · 11-12-2014 11:27PM

First off, I don't believe in any of that religious mumbo jumbo stuff

Legend Lively Hose wrote: »

Really??

Eh, yeah.

twinytwo wrote: »

well what would have been the reason for the baby
not being buried correctly in the first place?

Tandem burial seems to have been a practice that started with the intention of having unbaptised babies buried in consecrated ground. However, by the 1950s the idea that unbaptised children should be buried in un-consecrated was dying out (it depended on the parish priest)

The burials referred to in the HSE report today presumably refers to still born babies. The practice of tandem burials seems to have continued in mortuaries until much later because they didn't have any policy in place about what to with the babies remains.

SwiftJustice · 12-12-2014 12:05AM

Give me your money or you'll go to hell

Oops69 · 12-12-2014 12:32AM

looksee wrote: »

This was 30 years ago, if it were still happening there might be some point in raising a storm about it, but there are more important things to get upset about now, not looking back to well intentioned actions in the past, even if they do seem misguided now.

Absolute rubbish , if I had a still born baby brother who died 30 years ago , I think I'd like to know where he's buried. My sister had a still born baby 5 years ago , she has had 2 children since then , the still Born baby has her own grave which the family visit and it is a comfort to my sister , why were those mothers and siblings deprived Of that right even if it was thirty and more years ago.?.Human rights are not dependant on what year you were born , this was an abhorrent practice to human dignity and we need to learn why it was done .

looksee · 15-12-2014 05:41PM

Oops69 wrote: »

Absolute rubbish , if I had a still born baby brother who died 30 years ago , I think I'd like to know where he's buried. My sister had a still born baby 5 years ago , she has had 2 children since then , the still Born baby has her own grave which the family visit and it is a comfort to my sister , why were those mothers and siblings deprived Of that right even if it was thirty and more years ago.?.Human rights are not dependant on what year you were born , this was an abhorrent practice to human dignity and we need to learn why it was done .

If you read the rest of the thread you will find several arguments for why it happened. However maybe it would be useful to save some of that indignation for events that are happening at the moment, especially things that are considered sad but not a violation of people's rights or emotions, and do something about them so that a variation on this argument will not be repeated in 30 years time.

What things? And what can you do about them? Who knows what will be considered unacceptable in 30 years time that people can look back to now and be indignant about?

Even now there are people who would like to be able to send their children to non-religious schools, no doubt in 30 years time it will be discussed as though today's children were forced into religion. Maybe that would be a worthwhile project?

Is this another consequence of a Church State?

Comments