Here is a link to a report that appeared on the BBC website:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-27703711

The unmarried mothers and their children were sent to a home for 'fallen women' in Tuam, Co. Galway, Republic of Ireland, and it seems that between 1925 and 1961 no fewer than 796 children, aged between two days and nine years, who died there were simply dumped - unbaptised, it would seem - in a large unmarked grave.

I find the whole thing deeply shocking, even allowing for different attitudes at the time.

Please don't use this post for a general attack on the Roman Catholic Church.

This was originally publicised in the Connacht Tribune in February this year. I think it's only become 'news' to the BBC because they are producing a documentary related to this.

http://connachttribune.ie/campaign-recognise-800-dead-tuam-babies/

I have a question regarding Catholicism...as I was not raised as such.

Aren't children supposed to be christened by a certain age? If so, 1) what age, and 2) what is the reasoning behind it?

Children born to Catholics are meant to be baptised as soon as possible after birth - immediately if their life is in danger. In societies with low rates of infant mortality that is often postponed for up to the first few months, but there's no doctrinal reason for that.

Catholics believe that baptism washes away original sin and admits the child into God's grace. It used to be widely believed by Catholics that if a child died before being baptised they could not get into Heaven but would go to Purgatory (Limbo) for eternity. That's probably the main reason for speedy baptisms! However there's no doctrine for that view - it's more generally accepted that unbaptized babies who die will be dealt with according to God's grace and infinite mercy. Similarly there's no doctrinal justification for refusing to baptise a baby born out of wedlock, but undoubtedly that did happen in the past when there was a greater stigma around 'illegitimacy'.

There's no doubt that dogma rather than charity was practised in many Catholic residential institutions in Ireland and Britain in the past. However practising Catholics will be consoled by the fact that these babies won't have been penalised after their death by God, whatever heartlessness was inflicted on them by some nuns.

It's really quite sad, and a testament to how a large group of people can lose sight of true Christian values by focusing on one small, unimportant aspect.

Going back to bloomsby's post above, if the children are supposed to get baptized that young, why were some of them age nine and not? Is it because they were born out of wedlock, possibly? Granted, I know very little about the Catholic faith, and what I know I've learned from a friend of my mother, who is a devout Catholic. Sorry, but the Sister Act movies did not show me anything regarding the religion...and this is slightly gettingh off on a tangent, but the one in those movies who was not dressed in a full habit (I only knew what it was called because of the second movie lol), what was her status?

I didn't realize "purgatory" was also referred to in the Catholic religion...I'd heard of it, but cannot remember where, or for what religion, but it was not Catholic.

Yes, they were denied the religious rites of their mothers because they were born out of wedlock. In Catholicism, this is denying these children the opportunity to get to heaven. Within that religion, it is punishing the children for the sins of the parents. It's really quite unconscionable.

Sounds like it is...but why punish the children for the actions of their parents? I'd ask about something else, but it may not be suitable for this site.

Taking on the judgment of others into your own hands, as opposed to God having the final judgment (according to Catholicism). It's not exactly the most Christian thing to do, strictly speaking, but it certainly happens.

Lots of things could have contributed to this: socio-political factors, pressure to punish a certain subgroup of people, a culture of degrading the poor as opposed to helping them. The reasons aren't Christian, by definition, but in this case Christianity was certainly the justification for these people.

First of all, I'd like to thank dippo for the link to the Connacht Tribune, which perhaps goes some way towards explaining the extremely high death rate of an average of about 22 a year. (I'm aware that this figure would be more meaningful if one had details of the average population of the home, rate of 'turnover' and general statistical information about infant and child mortality rates in Ireland at the time).

I agree with trident that religion was presumably an ostensible justification for punishment, rather than the real reason. The view that inflicting punishment is a virtue (!) is still with us in some parts of the world. Of course, if people think that inflicting punishment is a form of 'good citizenship', 'good Christianity', etc. then they tend to lay it on in a very big way.

I was raised Roman Catholic and was taught to divide the after life into four parts: Heaven; Hell; Purgatory; and Limbo.

The distinction made between Purgatory and Limbo was that Purgatory was where souls who'd had the stain of Original Sin removed through Baptism yet still needed the stain from the sins of life removed before entering the Grace of God spent time in having absolution performed and then were passed onto Heaven.

Limbo was where unbaptized souls went because they still had the stain of Original Sin. Some were freed from Limbo if they were determined to have undergone the cleansing of Original Sin by the facts of Baptism by desire or Baptism by blood. Those two conditions granting freedom and passage to Heaven leaves Limbo populated for the most part by the stained souls of unbaptized, innocent of all but Original Sin.

Some Theologists hold that that specific condition may be a Grace unto itself and allows passage into Heaven, I wonder about all the souls who existed before Christ's death. They should inhabit Limbo likewise. Some theories about Revelation say those souls will be taken to Heaven by Christ at the final reckoning. There is also the population of souls baptized by John the Baptist before Christ's sacrifice that removed Original Sin by Baptism from his death forward.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limbo#Limbo_of_Infants

So, to the original posted quandary of Irish children who died without baptism: some are in Limbo; and some grown aware of the concept of God may have experienced those two alternate forms of baptism, desire and blood. I do not believe any would have been sent to Hell.

Yes, even allowing for all sorts of things, this is horrific.

You may not want to read further details, in fact I advise you don't but if anyone thinks that this is a simple case of religious something or other ... Well, reading this report, linked below, it seems to me to be more akin to a human failing: the banality of evil. Starving and dying children. Don't read it.


These things surely couldn't have happened as a result of religious fervour. I think there were damaged and uncontrolled adults left in charge of people that needed help from a state, a country, that mostly did not know how to address the issue of single mothers and their babies, so swept it under thecarpet,: in effect, free reign was given to a group of psychotics.

It is moral cowardice.

I have an elderly neighbour whose entire life has been spent trying to survive his childhood, spent in a home at around the same time as these children. His whole life is blighted. He is always in recovery.

I feel ashamed sometimes to be linked to this country at all.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/new...d-30337248.html

I clicked on the link. The first question that springs to mind is: What, if anything, was done after the visit and report of the inspector in 1947?



Obviously, we don't know as yet what was really behind all this, but I'm inclined to share your view that it can't be explained simply as misplaced and ignorant religious zeal. However, the thought of 'psychotics' in some sense successfully masquerading for decades as a charitable (!) organization for very vulnerable children and their shunned and unwanted mothers is beyond shocking.

One sentence that stands out at me in that link is, "The truth needs to be known", and that is indeed correct. What gets me is why were there more people than the allowed capacity? That should be on whomever decided the whole thing, not the Church itself, unless it was their decision.

I could never comprehend the idea of 'original sin' - which is supposedly inherited by all humans, even a newborn, who is pure and innocent regardless of the sins of his ancestors. But then I don't get heaven and hell, purgatory and limbo. I think humans have trouble dealing with the fact that they will die someday, and feel that there should be some reward or punishment for the way they lived their life. To me the cycle of life makes more sense. We die and go back to give back to our nurturer, the earth, so that future generations can survive. Animal instincts, preservation of the species etc make more sense than religious rites.

Now serving number 70,457,832. 70,457,832, hell is ready for you. Will that be smoking or flaming?

This goes back to the Garden of Eden and the sin of Adam and Eve eating of the "forbidden fruit" in Genesis 3.

Let's keep the thread on topic, please, rather than drifting into theology.

This popped up on faceBook today.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/eamonnfingle...s-a-media-hoax/
It analyzes how the original reporter could have been wrong about the story but the worldwide media that picked up the original tale never disputed it nor investigated further. They just published because it attracts attention.

The word hoax is misleading as it relates, according to the above site, primarily to the media claim that the children's bodies were "dumped in a septic tank", not to the very high mortality rate among children at the home. The article provides a link to a report in the Irish Times which states:




In other words, the very high number of deaths is not in dispute.

It appears that Mr. Fingleton's own editorial staff is guilty of stepping into the sensationalism puddle when they employed the term "hoax" in their title of his commentary. He used the hoax term in his closing sentence but, I think, he was trying to put the spotlight on a trend toward yellow journalism in the growing internet media. In that field the word hoax draws readers and stirs up the pot.

Edit addition: The stat of 200 children and 100 mothers during that reporting period is a far cry from the near 800 bodies found. It would seem that the traditional pauper's grave was employed in times beyond those. And does that statistic indicate that the mothers were made pregnant a second time while there?

But why such a high number? There is no excuse to allow any structure to support a population it isn't allowed to hold. If the capacity of this structure is 100 people, why would anyone allow 150 to be there? In the US, places like that get shut down by fire marshals, plus the capacity must be conspicuously posted; I would imagine most other places are the same?

Dave, this story is about Ireland, at least fifty years ago. Things like fire regulations weren't as strict anywhere back then but I cannot imagine any fire prevention officer having the nerve to tell the Catholic church in Ireland to close a home for unmarried mothers because it was overcrowded. They might do now but then? Wouldn't happen.