Church sold graves where infants were buried on to adults

fro9etb8j5qsl2

From the Limerick Post:
http://www.limerickpost.ie/2015/09/17/infants-graves-sold-for-adult-burials/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook

A LIMERICK couple who lost their premature baby son were horrified to discover that the plot he was buried in was sold for adult burials and no record kept of the children buried there.

Phil and Paul Walsh lost baby William when he was delivered close to six months into Phil’s pregnancy in December 1971.

Paul had the sad task of bringing their son to Mount Saint Lawrence cemetery in a small white box provided by the maternity hospital and a gravedigger interred the baby in a part of the cemetery know as The Innocents’ Plot.

“I visited the plot a few times after that but then life moved on. A couple of years ago, I went up again and I couldn’t believe what I saw – there were adult graves where the Innocents Plot used to be,” Phil told the Limerick Post.

“The last time I was there, the gravedigger had put a crucifix on the wall to mark the plot but that was gone. There was no sign that any of the babies had ever been buried there”.

Phil sought out a gravedigger to ask what had happened.

“He said the plots had been sold for graves, that they needed the money. I asked him where were the babies who were buried there and what he said was terrible. He said ‘they dug them down deep’. I couldn’t believe it”.

While she was initially shocked, she said she had since moved to anger and frustration.

“It’s been playing on my mind all this time, not just for us but for who knows how many parents who buried children there. How could this happen?”

The Limerick Post learned that the cemetery was owned by the Catholic Church and managed by a committee of five trustees, made up of priests of the various parishes that used the graveyard.

It passed into the ownership of the City Council in 1979.

As a result of queries from the Limerick Post to the Diocese, Bishop Brendan Leahy called in the services of a retired senior Garda to investigate the issue.

He met with the Walshes but Phil says they are not happy with the outcome so far.

“He told us there were no records kept at the time and the Church’s thinking back then about unbaptised babies was different. That they were in Limbo. This is terrible for parents who have children buried there”.

In a statement to the Limerick Post, the Diocese of Limerick said it would erect a memorial at the plot to honour the memory of infants buried there. This follows the completion of a review into burials of the infants at the cemetery initiated after the Walsh’s experience was brought to the attention of the Diocese.

“The matter was brought to the attention of the Diocese in late April by the couple and the review, which was carried out for the diocese by retired Garda Chief Superintendent Gerry Mahon, was started immediately.

Commenting on the findings, Bishop Brendan Leahy said, “We thank the family in question for coming forward and alerting us to this matter. We embarked on this review through former Chief Superintendent Gerry Mahon, mindful of the need to be very sensitive to all concerned.

“A number of key issues have emerged from this review, not least the fact that it appears that the graves of these precious infants were not alone unmarked but there is an absence of records of these burials. As a result, it is not possible to identify exactly where any of the remains are buried, though we are assured that any remains that were discovered as plots were dug, were treated with respect and dignity as they were reinterred.

“While we have not been able to get all the detail we would have wished due to the inadequacy of records, the process has, at least, brought to our attention the burial in consecrated grounds of these infants.

“Arising from this we would like to commemorate these children by placing a memorial in the area where these burials are known to have taken place. We have been in touch with Limerick City and County Council to that end and will meet with them shortly to explore options for this tribute.”

Tbh, I can't say I am shocked (and that in itself is awful. How have these terrible emerging truths become so commonplace that they no longer surprise people???) The poor parents Imagine entrusting the church with the body of your dead baby only to discover they had sold it on and buried an adult on top of them. Scandalous :mad:

endacl

OK. Devils advocate post...

Well, 1971 was almost 45 years ago. Bodies don't last. Especially tiny three-months premature bodies.

It may sound harsh, but even graveyard land has to be used and reused. It used to be common practise. That's what the charnel house was for.

If everybody gets a plot, and it's never turned over, at some point there'll be no land left for the living.

whisky_galore

RCC in insensitivity shocker.

Buona Fortuna

It is scandalous, but sadly, like the OP, I'm not shocked.

I've never been particularly religious but I wonder at a religion that excludes these still born infants from a proper service and burial.

I am sometimes sickened by a relative who periodically insists on chanting the names of random infants so that "they will go to heaven". I mean wtf. What if your name was Farquoi or something even more unusual, are you just struck until someone slightly unhinged decides to chant your name.

Zebra3

It really is time for the RC church to have its assets seized for all its criminal behaviour.

It's also time for people to cop themselves on, stop funding those criminals and to stop using any of their services.

Sadly our country is full of spineless sheep.

fro9etb8j5qsl2

endacl wrote: »

OK. Devils advocate post...

Well, 1971 was almost 45 years ago. Bodies don't last. Especially tiny three-months premature bodies.

It may sound harsh, but even graveyard land has to be used and reused. It used to be common practise. That's what the charnel house was for.

If everybody gets a plot, and it's never turned over, at some point there'll be no land left for the living.

I can see where you are coming from in a way but graves are normally only reused within a family. And once a grave is marked, there is no chance that it will be opened a few years down the line and have another random person put in on top.

jimgoose

endacl wrote: »

OK. Devils advocate post...

Well, 1971 was almost 45 years ago. Bodies don't last. Especially tiny three-months premature bodies.

It may sound harsh, but even graveyard land has to be used and reused. It used to be common practise. That's what the charnel house was for.

If everybody gets a plot, and it's never turned over, at some point there'll be no land left for the living.

Yes, graves are re-used as necessary up to a point, but selling a used grave is a completely different animal. I think most of us can see what was going on here.

It is high time these lunatics appeared in orange jumpsuits and handcuffs, before being put away for a very long time indeed.

shamrock55

Why does it supprise people, the church is just one big money sucking leech, preying on the vunerable, it doesnt give two ****s about the people only about filling its pockets all through the centuries

biko

Reminds me that I need to re-read "Pet Sematary"

fro9etb8j5qsl2

Zebra3 wrote: »

It's also time for people to cop themselves on, stop funding those criminals and to stop using any of their services.

Sadly our country is full of spineless sheep.

Yep. The catholic church will continue to hold power in this country as long as people keep trotting along to church to christen their kids 'out of tradition'. I remember the time of the Tuam babies scandal, my cousin was particularly vocal in her opinions of it- nuns were evil beasts, priests were monsters, the church was demonic etc etc. Two weeks later, she christened her son, reasoning that she didn't want him to be left out at school and didn't want to 'do him out of a communion day'.

seamus

endacl wrote: »

OK. Devils advocate post...

Well, 1971 was almost 45 years ago. Bodies don't last. Especially tiny three-months premature bodies.

It may sound harsh, but even graveyard land has to be used and reused. It used to be common practise. That's what the charnel house was for.

If everybody gets a plot, and it's never turned over, at some point there'll be no land left for the living.

I agree on principle, but 45 years is far too short a time. The purpose of graves is to serve as a point of presence for people to mourn their loved ones and perhaps historical purposes too both for family and geneaologists.
With that in mind it seems like a minimum period of time should pass before a grave can be re-used - perhaps 150-200 years to give enough time for the those within two separations of the deceased to have passed away.

Even then an historical record should be maintained noting who is in which plot and when.

ballsymchugh

the graveyard was passed to the council in 1979. it doesn't state when the innocent's plot was changed to adults plots. could've been under the watch of the council.

Barely There

“I visited the plot a few times after that but then life moved on."


Yeah - sounds like they were really invested in the who burial plot idea :rolleyes:.

I imagine a compo-claim is around the corner.

fro9etb8j5qsl2

Barely There wrote: »

“I visited the plot a few times after that but then life moved on."


Yeah - sounds like they were really invested in the who burial plot idea :rolleyes:.

I imagine a compo-claim is around the corner.

Really??? Do people have to visit a grave every day to prove their dedication to a deceased loved one? And regardless of the parents, does a lack of visitors to a grave justify the body being deemed worthless and having it sold on for someone else's use?

Barely There

Sasha Old-fashioned Plasma wrote: »

Really??? Do people have to visit a grave every day to prove their dedication to a deceased loved one?

Nope, just more than once every 10-15 years for me to take their crocodile tears seriously.

Zebra3

Zebra3 wrote: »

It's also time for people to cop themselves on, stop funding those criminals and to stop using any of their services.

Sadly our country is full of spineless sheep.

Please, I am a catholic and attend mass by choice, nothing to do with being a sheep.

The comments by some posters in AH in relations to catholic people and mass goers is an absolute disgrace and easily said hiding behind a keyboard. Should be instant bans handed out for some of the stuff posted.

You can't tar the church and all its followers for the terrible acts of a small minority.

ancapailldorcha

Branson Mango Guitar wrote: »

You can't tar the church and all its followers for the terrible acts of a small minority.

That small minority being Catholic clergy...

padd b1975

Zebra3 wrote: »

It really is time for the RC church to have its assets seized for all its criminal behaviour.

It's also time for people to cop themselves on, stop funding those criminals and to stop using any of their services.

Sadly our country is full of spineless sheep.

lol.

One eyed Jack

Sasha Old-fashioned Plasma wrote: »

Tbh, I can't say I am shocked (and that in itself is awful. How have these terrible emerging truths become so commonplace that they no longer surprise people???) The poor parents Imagine entrusting the church with the body of your dead baby only to discover they had sold it on and buried an adult on top of them. Scandalous :mad:

I wouldn't say it was actually scandalous at all, it's simply an unfortunate set of circumstances which at the time would have even been considered progressive for a premature baby to have been given a proper burial on consecrated ground in the first place.

Zebra3 wrote: »

It really is time for the RC church to have its assets seized for all its criminal behaviour.

It's also time for people to cop themselves on, stop funding those criminals and to stop using any of their services.

Sadly our country is full of spineless sheep.

Any time you feel like getting up off your hole there and actually doing something about it, rather than soapboxing on social media like you think that's actually going to achieve anything.

seamus wrote: »

I agree on principle, but 45 years is far too short a time. The purpose of graves is to serve as a point of presence for people to mourn their loved ones and perhaps historical purposes too both for family and geneaologists.
With that in mind it seems like a minimum period of time should pass before a grave can be re-used - perhaps 150-200 years to give enough time for the those within two separations of the deceased to have passed away.

Even then an historical record should be maintained noting who is in which plot and when.

This is it in a nutshell really. I don't know the full facts of this particular case, but the suggestion that records of all burials weren't maintained contradicts the reputation that the Church has for it's meticulous record keeping (almost matched by their reputation for 'losing' said records when asked to produce them).

Neyite

Barely There wrote: »

Nope, just more than once every 10-15 years for me to take their crocodile tears seriously.

I haven't visited a close family members grave in about a year. There is not a day that goes by that I don't think about that person, and they were a massive part of my life. But just because I don't visit a grave doesn't mean that I want that person's remains to be disturbed or removed.

I know someone else who wells up every time she (rarely) speaks about her baby who died shortly after birth, over 40 years ago, but she also rarely visits the grave.

RDM_83 again

Neyite wrote: »

I haven't visited a close family members grave in about a year. There is not a day that goes by that I don't think about that person, and they were a massive part of my life. But just because I don't visit a grave doesn't mean that I want that person's remains to be disturbed or removed.

I know someone else who wells up every time she (rarely) speaks about her baby who died shortly after birth, over 40 years ago, but she also rarely visits the grave.

There is a difference between not going to a grave often and not going for 20+ years and claiming a personal outrage. It doesn't change the wrong thats done to the childs remains and I am curious about the Bishops response, I thought this was post Vatican II

seamus wrote: »

I agree on principle, but 45 years is far too short a time. The purpose of graves is to serve as a point of presence for people to mourn their loved ones and perhaps historical purposes too both for family and geneaologists.
With that in mind it seems like a minimum period of time should pass before a grave can be re-used - perhaps 150-200 years to give enough time for the those within two separations of the deceased to have passed away.

Even then an historical record should be maintained noting who is in which plot and when.

150-200 years is far too long realistically, I'm not talking about lumping out the burials though (and for a neonate they are really delicate so if done under commercial pressure your going to loose a lot of them) instead building up the soil and sticking another burial in on top of it.

Curious about what this means.

“He said the plots had been sold for graves, that they needed the money. I asked him where were the babies who were buried there and what he said was terrible. He said ‘they dug them down deep’. I couldn’t believe it”.

Were the infants landscaped out and put in the backfill? because that would be appalling or were they re-interned at the same site in a mass grave or were they reburied individually at a deeper level.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I wouldn't say it was actually scandalous at all, it's simply an unfortunate set of circumstances which at the time would have even been considered progressive for a premature baby to have been given a proper burial on consecrated ground in the first place...

...
...
...This is it in a nutshell really. I don't know the full facts of this particular case, but the suggestion that records of all burials weren't maintained contradicts the reputation that the Church has for it's meticulous record keeping (almost matched by their reputation for 'losing' said records when asked to produce them).

ballsymchugh wrote: »

the graveyard was passed to the council in 1979. it doesn't state when the innocent's plot was changed to adults plots. could've been under the watch of the council.

Woah woah woah with the common sense there.

People want to scream about the Church. Wait for that to pass first before pointing out the obvious...

jimgoose

Branson Mango Guitar wrote: »

Please, I am a catholic and attend mass by choice, nothing to do with being a sheep.

The comments by some posters in AH in relations to catholic people and mass goers is an absolute disgrace and easily said hiding behind a keyboard. Should be instant bans handed out for some of the stuff posted.

You can't tar the church and all its followers for the terrible acts of a small minority.

The leaders of your group, who claim to represent you both to society and to God, have maimed, killed and abused the innocent and helpless since recorded history began, and nowhere more so than in this jurisdiction. They continue to do so. If Christian you be, it is your duty to call them out on it and demand punishment.

Carlos Orange

jimgoose wrote: »

The leaders of your group, who claim to represent you both to society and to God, have maimed, killed and abused the innocent and helpless since recorded history began, and nowhere more so than in this jurisdiction. They continue to do so. If Christian you be, it is your duty to call them out on it and demand punishment.

I have a fairly loose grasp on the whole being a Christian thing since I haven't been one in a long time(maybe never really) but demanding punishment isn't really their style. They are more into forgiveness.

Also recorded history pre-dates Christianity.

The_Valeyard

jimgoose wrote: »

The leaders of your group, who claim to represent you both to society and to God, have maimed, killed and abused the innocent and helpless since recorded history began, and nowhere more so than in this jurisdiction. They continue to do so. If Christian you be, it is your duty to call them out on it and demand punishment.

Rabble rabble rabble

Since recorded time began?.........

cowboyBuilder

biko wrote: »

Reminds me that I need to re-read "Pet Sematary"

Good book that, the film is a very decent make too ..

jimgoose

psinno wrote: »

...demanding punishment isn't really their style. They are more into forgiveness.

Theoretically, yes. Unless you make the tactical error of presenting as poor or otherwise weak in front of one of these "Shepherds". :pac:

psinno wrote: »

Also recorded history pre-dates Christianity.

The_Valeyard wrote: »

...Since recorded time began?.........

Alright dammit, since their recorded history began!

c_man

jimgoose wrote: »

It is high time these lunatics appeared in orange jumpsuits and handcuffs, before being put away for a very long time indeed.

But what's the crime here?

jimgoose

c_man wrote: »

But what's the crime here?

I would suspect that Section 46 of the Local Government (Sanitary Services) Act, 1948 might have been contravened, not that it'll be properly investigated.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Who owned the graveyard at the time this was done? We're not getting the full story here, the child was buried in 71 it passed ownership in 79, was it converted to and adult plots during this 8 year period.

Having said that if this is the case the Church should have provided the council with it's records of burial. Like others have mentioned they keep meticulous records of such.

jimgoose

jimgoose wrote: »

I would suspect that Section 46 of the Local Government (Sanitary Services) Act, 1948 might have been contravened, not that it'll be properly investigated.

There is no suggestion that bodies were exhumed, surely, rather that their burial was not recorded and/or others were buried on top of them?

jimgoose

Deleted User wrote: »

There is no suggestion that bodies were exhumed, surely, rather that their burial was not recorded and/or others were buried on top of them?

Not exhumation as such, I know. But it appears that buried human remains were improperly interfered with.

The Randy Riverbeast

If no records were kept (or spontaneously combusted as is surprisingly common in that organisation) would it be possible that the council thought it was an empty plot so used it for adults?

It was mentioned they were buried deep so the adults could just be buried on top.

Tarzana2

Branson Mango Guitar wrote: »

The comments by some posters in AH in relations to catholic people and mass goers is an absolute disgrace and easily said hiding behind a keyboard.

Many people would quite happily speak those words as well.

Bring on the referendum on the blasphemy law.

Wompa1

It would be great if the churches had to start paying tax.

fryup

Zebra3 wrote: »

It's also time for people to cop themselves on, stop funding those criminals and to stop using any of their services.

Sadly our country is full of spineless sheep.

brain washed sheep,

unfortunately irish nationalism and Catholicism goes hand in hand due to the history of this country

Melodeon

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Curious about what this means.

“He said the plots had been sold for graves, that they needed the money. I asked him where were the babies who were buried there and what he said was terrible. He said ‘they dug them down deep’. I couldn’t believe it”.

Were the infants landscaped out and put in the backfill? because that would be appalling or were they re-interned at the same site in a mass grave or were they reburied individually at a deeper level.

According to the gravediggers I've spoken to over the years, what normally happens when they come across old human remains (usually just fragments of major bones) is that they are placed to one side until the 'new' grave is completed, and are then re-buried in a small hole at one end of the grave.
This practice might explain the 'dug them down deep' quote above.