"Significant" numbers of babies remains actually found

Seth Brundle

Colser wrote: »

How can you debate as you've said a few times that you won't form an opinion until an investigation is completed?Or maybe you actually do have an opinion and care to share it with us?I've never heard of someone debating something that they supposedly have no opinion on..how's that even possible?

I've already given my opinion on this matter in a number of threads in boards. However, seeing as you want this to be about me...
The fact that children died so young is inexcusable. But we don't know why they died despite the hysterics.
The fact that society shunned unmarried mothers simply because an uncaring church told them to is inexcusable.
Do I think the children were murdered? No, there's no evidence to support this despite people claiming they were.
Do I think the bodies were dumped? No, there's no evidence to support this despite people claiming they were.
Do I think they were disposed of in a septic tank? It was unlikely to be one that contained any sh*te. I'll await confirmation otherwise from the commission.
Do I think the RCC have questions to answer? Yes but given how they couldn't give a crap what people think, why would this change their view?
Do I think plenty of people are expressing faux outrage over this and despite their waffle will do absolutely nothing and will idly sit on their arses whilst we hear about other abuses of vulnerable people today? Definitley! There's plenty of evidence to support this!

Zebra3

Boggy Turf wrote: »

I just watched the Late Late inteview with Catherine Corless.

What a woman. I have huge admiration for her and her hard gotten research. Incredible courage and bravery.

How can we as a country repay this woman?

We could start by refunding her all those fees she paid for accessing certs/documents, etc.

Colser

Kbannon...why is in inexcusable if they died from natural causes?

A septic tank is OK as long as there's no ****e?

Faux outrage? From whom?There are people alive who experienced the homes,who don't know what happened to their children,whose lives were ruined because they became pregnant regardless of how it happened..I find it outrageous as do many others..nothing faux about it I can assure you.

Colser

Colser wrote: »

The women who were in the homes know how they were treated and many are alive and sharing their horrific stories.Babies can't survive without food,medical attention ect.Do you honestly believe that the babies in question got the best care that was available?Can you understand how anyone who thinks that their baby ended up buried in a chamber designed for sewerage purposes might feel it added insult to injury?

100 years ago, infant mortality was 81.3/1,000. In 2014 it was 3.7/1,000. Illnesses like whooping cough and TB were rife even in well to do families.

Ireland now is a vastly different country to that of the early 1900's. Actually it is vastly different from the 1960s! I can remember in national school having a Rang naAmadan the class of fools for the slow learners! Imagine that happening now?

http://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-1916/1916irl/bmd/births/

Colser

[Deleted User] wrote: »

100 years ago, infant mortality was 81.3/1,000. In 2014 it was 3.7/1,000. Illnesses like whooping cough and TB were rife even in well to do families.

Ireland now is a vastly different country to that of the early 1900's. Actually it is vastly different from the 1960s! I can remember in national school having a Rang naAmadan the class of fools for the slow learners! Imagine that happening now?

I'm well aware of all of that...do you believe that those babies were looked after in the best possible way that was available at that time?

Colser

Colser wrote: »

I'm well aware of all of that...do you believe that those babies were looked after in the best possible way that was available at that time?

Do you think they were all murdered?

tigger123

Would love to know what the infant mortality rate was within those homes, when compared to outside.

end of the road

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you think they were all murdered?[
/QUOTE]
rather then deflecting, can you tell us if you believe that those babies were looked after in the best possible way that was available at that time?

Zebra3

Deleted User wrote: »

100 years ago, infant mortality was 81.3/1,000. In 2014 it was 3.7/1,000. Illnesses like whooping cough and TB were rife even in well to do families.

Ireland now is a vastly different country to that of the early 1900's. Actually it is vastly different from the 1960s! I can remember in national school having a Rang naAmadan the class of fools for the slow learners! Imagine that happening now?

http://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-1916/1916irl/bmd/births/

How those babies were treated in death doesn't bode well for how they were treated in life.

gctest50

tigger123 wrote: »

Would love to know what the infant mortality rate was within those homes, when compared to outside.

4 times higher ?

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/death-rates-in-mother-and-baby-homes-similar-to-concentration-camps-1.3007096

.

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you think they were all murdered?[
/QUOTE]
rather then deflecting, can you tell us if you believe that those babies were looked after in the best possible way that was available at that time?

Taken from a link posted elsewhere "The most common causes of death were “debility from birth” (25%), 15% from “respiratory diseases”, 10% each from influenza and the measles, 8% born too premature to survive, 6% from whooping cough and in smaller numbers of epilepsy/convulsions, gastroenteritis, meningitis, congenital heart disease and congenital syphilis, skin diseases, chicken pox and one per cent – 10 children – of malnutrition."
http://www.thejournal.ie/list-names-tuam-babies-children-3270019-Mar2017/

Bullocks

Deleted User wrote: »

end of the road wrote: »

Taken from a link posted elsewhere "The most common causes of death were “debility from birth” (25%), 15% from “respiratory diseases”, 10% each from influenza and the measles, 8% born too premature to survive, 6% from whooping cough and in smaller numbers of epilepsy/convulsions, gastroenteritis, meningitis, congenital heart disease and congenital syphilis, skin diseases, chicken pox and one per cent – 10 children – of malnutrition."
http://www.thejournal.ie/list-names-tuam-babies-children-3270019-Mar2017/

Would you believe those causes were all true considering they werent even putting the real mothers names on some of the birth certs of the children being fostered ?

end of the road

Deleted User wrote: »

end of the road wrote: »

Taken from a link posted elsewhere "The most common causes of death were “debility from birth” (25%), 15% from “respiratory diseases”, 10% each from influenza and the measles, 8% born too premature to survive, 6% from whooping cough and in smaller numbers of epilepsy/convulsions, gastroenteritis, meningitis, congenital heart disease and congenital syphilis, skin diseases, chicken pox and one per cent – 10 children – of malnutrition."
http://www.thejournal.ie/list-names-tuam-babies-children-3270019-Mar2017/

can you tell us if you believe that those babies were looked after in the best possible way that was available at that time? what you have written isn't an answer and while interesting isn't relevant to what i asked

The Rape of Lucretia

Deleted User wrote: »

Contrary opinions seem to be frowned upon. Hysteria seems to rule the waves. No one will ever know what went on. The poor mites should be left Rest In Peace.

Well said. The whole business should be just shut down. It is extraordinarily tragic. We are extremely fortunate to live in better times.
And just best close draw the curtain on this one, and move on.

The Rape of Lucretia

Colser wrote: »

I'm well aware of all of that...do you believe that those babies were looked after in the best possible way that was available at that time?

I am sure they werent. But it is done now. We have improved as a society. Best just leave it.

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

can you tell us if you believe that those babies were looked after in the best possible way that was available at that time? what you have written isn't an answer and while interesting isn't relevant to what i asked

Does my opinion matter that much to you? No one will ever know the real truth, which is why I'm of the opinion that it's best let the poor mites Rest In Peace. If these babies were so highly thought of by their mothers families, then they wouldn't have been in this home.

Bullocks

Deleted User wrote: »

end of the road wrote: »

Does my opinion matter that much to you? No one will ever know the real truth, which is why I'm of the opinion that it's best let the poor mites Rest In Peace. If these babies were so highly thought of by their mothers families, then they wouldn't have been in this home.

So if your mothers family doesnt think highly of you then nobody else should either ?

marienbad

Deleted User wrote: »

end of the road wrote: »

Does my opinion matter that much to you? No one will ever know the real truth, which is why I'm of the opinion that it's best let the poor mites Rest In Peace. If these babies were so highly thought of by their mothers families, then they wouldn't have been in this home.

Why do you keep bringing up the families as if that somehow mitigated what was happening in these homes ?

These nuns had a duty of care irrespective of where and how the babies arrived with them . They should be judged on how they carried out that responsibility .

The Rape of Lucretia

Bullocks wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

Would you believe those causes were all true considering they werent even putting the real mothers names on some of the birth certs of the children being fostered ?

Possibly. Possibly not. But its all rather academic now. Of course they werent out and out killed. But the details are from another era whose context bears no relation to today, nor can we truly evaluate them in any objective way.

gctest50

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Well said. The whole business should be just shut down. It is extraordinarily tragic. We are extremely fortunate to live in better times.
And just best close draw the curtain on this one, and move on.

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

I am sure they werent. But it is done now. We have improved as a society. Best just leave it.

.

Colser

[Deleted User] wrote: »

end of the road wrote: »

Does my opinion matter that much to you? No one will ever know the real truth, which is why I'm of the opinion that it's best let the poor mites Rest In Peace. If these babies were so highly thought of by their mothers families, then they wouldn't have been in this home.

But surely a charitable organisation would have looked after those unwanted women in a humane and forgiving way?Isn't that part of their "job description"?Part of God's teachings ect..

Bullocks

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Bullocks wrote: »

Possibly. Possibly not. But its all rather academic now. Of course they werent out and out killed. But the details are from another era whose context bears no relation to today, nor can we truly evaluate them in any objective way.

I would rather investigate than evaluate , and we sure can do that .

The Rape of Lucretia

Bullocks wrote: »

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

I would rather investigate than evaluate , and we sure can do that .

There is nothing to investigate. It was appropriate to the time. Not to ours mind. So certainly history, and something to be learned from. But not really relevant to today in terms of seeking justice, or condemnation, from a perspective that no longer applies.

end of the road

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Bullocks wrote: »

There is nothing to investigate. It was appropriate to the time. Not to ours mind. So certainly history, and something to be learned from. But not really relevant to today in terms of seeking justice, or condemnation, from a perspective that no longer applies.

there is plenty to investigate. what was supposibly appropriate to the time isn't relevant. your wish for this to be swept under the carpet and for the people to pretend it never happened isn't going to happen.

smurgen

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Well said. The whole business should be just shut down. It is extraordinarily tragic. We are extremely fortunate to live in better times.
And just best close draw the curtain on this one, and move on.

Well we'll just agree to disagree on that one.this will not go away.no matter how much you want it to.

Seth Brundle

Colser wrote: »

Kbannon...why is in inexcusable if they died from natural causes?

Are you trying to imply that there were unnatural causes?
Infant mortality there was higher than outside of the homes. We don't know if this is due to lack of medical care, high densities or that they arrived in an I'll condition or what. We have to wait on clarity here. Either way there are questions that require further investigation. It doesn't mean we should automatically cast blame on the nuns.

Colser wrote: »

A septic tank is OK as long as there's no ****e?

If there is no sh*the in it then can it be called something other than a septic tank?

Colser wrote: »

Faux outrage? From whom?There are people alive who experienced the homes,who don't know what happened to their children,whose lives were ruined because they became pregnant regardless of how it happened..I find it outrageous as do many others..nothing faux about it I can assure you.

True.
There are also loads of others who are hopping on a bandwagon but will do absolutely nothing about it.

Seth Brundle

marienbad wrote: »

These nuns had a duty of care irrespective of where and how the babies arrived with them . They should be judged on how they carried out that responsibility .

But it seems that they're already being judged without us knowing how they cared for the residents.

gctest50

kbannon wrote: »

But it seems that they're already being judged without us knowing how they cared for the residents.

Seems they looked after some residents just fine and sent them back home before their "difficulty" became known

The Untermensch however ( since their babies were worth much less to sell) were left malnourished and after their babies starved, they were put to slavery

marienbad

kbannon wrote: »

But it seems that they're already being judged without us knowing how they cared for the residents.

Well the record of religious communities in this country when confronted with evidence of possible wrong doing in the past hasn't been exactly inspiring .

And it seems the Corless lady had to stick with this like a dog with a bone over years and at her own expense to bring it to light , so that also doesn't inspire confidence .

But in a legalistic sense I agree with you , but after so many scandals, year after year is it so surprising or unreasonable ?

I think most people at this stage would just wish it would end but who knows what is next on the horizon.

smurgen

kbannon wrote: »

Are you trying to imply that there were unnatural causes?
Infant mortality there was higher than outside of the homes. We don't know if this is due to lack of medical care, high densities or that they arrived in an I'll condition or what. We have to wait on clarity here. Either way there are questions that require further investigation. It doesn't mean we should automatically cast blame on the nuns.


If there is no sh*the in it then can it be called something other than a septic tank?



True.
There are also loads of others who are hopping on a bandwagon but will do absolutely nothing about it.

If a coffin has no body in it it's still a coffin.

smurgen

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

I am sure they werent. But it is done now. We have improved as a society. Best just leave it.

Can you please explain how it would be best if we didn't have an investigation? A point by point explanation please.

Graces7

kbannon wrote: »

Well, taking a step back, what constitutes an approved burial place?
Who approves it?
Could an underground crypt on their grounds (where other burial plots are)be considered as an approved burial place?

Interesting ...

This was not a crypt.

And yes, there was another burial place there. The consecrated one where the Sisters were buried, in daylight, in coffins, with due ceremony, and headstones

And when Bon Secours sold the property and left, the Sisters were exhumed and reburied with a monument to their good work.

Leaving the myriad dead babies hidden and unmarked

In the Church an approved burial place is consecrated ground designated.

And actually you have to have planning permission to establish a burial ground and give incredible detail re water courses etc ( I tried to do it once) and a septic tank/wastewater system has similar regulations so this ground was designated as such. Not as a burial ground.

Graces7

Deleted User wrote: »

I think the "kind that knows all and chooses the pure" would actually be a very good description of the lady in question - and probably many more. Although I would have to add that there's a certain element of an ostrich sticking its head in the sand there, too - and not just with regard to religion.

In any case, she's probably a better person than I am, and what right do I have to judge anyway?

We have no right to destroy anyone.
The irony in all of this is that the people who are baying for the blood of the entire Catholic Church are more similar to the self-righteous, judgemental society that allowed this to happen, than they would probably care to admit.

I hope you're not banned from CathAns.
The truth should always be welcome, however unpleasant that truth may be....

No there is not. Quite the opposite in fact. Would be eg a drug addict turning their back on that life. Knowing and choosing. Seeing the evil . or a prostitute turning away from that life, rather than a virgin

Have not been back to CathAns. I suspect I would be persona non grata now!

Graces7

kbannon wrote: »

Which act?
And whilst a septic tank that is in use is obviously out of the question, it appears that this one was probably never used as a septic tank in which case it is just a concrete chamber, so a septic tank in name only.

So? casuistry at its best !

infogiver

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Because the pressure put on them by society and the Church made them feel obliged ?

It all comes back to how the Church influenced people in thinking it was the right thing to do.

The priests and nuns that you say pressurised and obliged the families to dump their daughters, where did they come from?

Graces7

Neyite wrote: »

It appears to have been one of 7 underground chambers dating from the workhouse days where it would/may have been used as a cesspit.

But having said that, even if it was no longer used as one, or ever had been used as one, it was not a designated underground crypt or a consecrated burial ground that the RCC dictates baptised members are buried.

Or, to put it another way, if the nuns felt it was an appropriate resting ground for all who lived in this home, why were the nuns buried elsewhere in the grounds with a marked headstone?

I was speaking to someone at the weekend and from their account, I'm pretty sure that any children born in homes or wards ran by these nuns were not only baptised but also had their communion and confirmation performed as newborns if they were poorly.

Those who were going to be adopted certainly were but the stain of illegitimacy was great. So no baptism.

NB in the Catholic church there is no communion etc for babies. In the Orthodox Church , a baby is given communion at baptism always.

Graces7

kbannon wrote: »

Thanks. Hadn't seen the link.
Being devil's advocate, could it be possibke that they informed whoever appropriate e.g. a local garda (it's hard to read the Act on a phone), and they were given the all clear as permission was already granted for the main cemetery?

Nooooo. ! If that had been so, there would have been gravestones and records. Catherine Corless was alerted as there were death certs but no record of burials

And a matter of planning etc also. You just cannot bury folk like that. The nuns were buried a long way from the babies of course also.

Graces7

smurgen wrote: »

Can you please explain how it would be best if we didn't have an investigation? A point by point explanation please.

oh to sweep it all under the carpet of course :eek:

Graces7

tigger123 wrote: »

Surely if there was some mitigating circumstances, or some sort of spin to be made on this the RCC would have come out with something by now? Has anyone made any clarifying comments on the mother and baby home, or said anything yet?

The silence is deafening.

Maybe Archbishop Neary can answer that too?

http://www.tuamarchdiocese.org/2017/03/homily-of-archbishop-michael-neary-in-the-cathedral-of-the-assumption-tuam-12-march-2017/

Graces7

Deleted User wrote: »

Well, someone has to! A lot of hysteria out there. Just trying to calm the situation a bit. Thankfully, we have come a long way over the last 100 years and babies born out of wedlock are as welcome as ones born within a marriage. Just teasing out the possibility that the burial chamber might have been blessed and the infants given a christian burial. A lot of blame is being laid at the Churches door, but these poor babies had more than mothers. Surely the extended families must take some share of the blame for these sad losses.

We are not talking re 100 years ago.... far more recent than that.

And no to the second bolded; had that been so then the Church would have leapt on that as an excuse.

There is no hysteria by the way. Outrage yes. The sheer numbers ...

Graces7

kbannon wrote: »

How do you know? Have you seen inside it?

You seem to be making to common assumption that it was a septic tank full of sh*t. Based on what we've been told, it wasn't. It was just a sort of concrete bunker seemingly.

I'm not saying that it was appropriate to bury them without their mother knowing they were there but that's different.

a wastewater facility means and is a septic tank and that term was in the original statement. 20 chambers and remains in 17 of them

Graces7

Deleted User wrote: »

I am offering a contentious view in order to generate debate.

ah debate? Why?

Graces7

kbannon wrote: »

I've already given my opinion on this matter in a number of threads in boards. However, seeing as you want this to be about me...
The fact that children died so young is inexcusable. But we don't know why they died despite the hysterics.
The fact that society shunned unmarried mothers simply because an uncaring church told them to is inexcusable.
Do I think the children were murdered? No, there's no evidence to support this despite people claiming they were.
Do I think the bodies were dumped? No, there's no evidence to support this despite people claiming they were.
Do I think they were disposed of in a septic tank? It was unlikely to be one that contained any sh*te. I'll await confirmation otherwise from the commission.
Do I think the RCC have questions to answer? Yes but given how they couldn't give a crap what people think, why would this change their view?
Do I think plenty of people are expressing faux outrage over this and despite their waffle will do absolutely nothing and will idly sit on their arses whilst we hear about other abuses of vulnerable people today? Definitley! There's plenty of evidence to support this!

You do not know that; and you?

Oh and have you seen the death cert listings? eg malnutrition

Graces7

Deleted User wrote: »

100 years ago, infant mortality was 81.3/1,000. In 2014 it was 3.7/1,000. Illnesses like whooping cough and TB were rife even in well to do families.

Ireland now is a vastly different country to that of the early 1900's. Actually it is vastly different from the 1960s! I can remember in national school having a Rang naAmadan the class of fools for the slow learners! Imagine that happening now?

http://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-1916/1916irl/bmd/births/

Tuam ie the home had twice the national average of infant mortality and Bessborough even more

Graces7

tigger123 wrote: »

Would love to know what the infant mortality rate was within those homes, when compared to outside.

Tuam; twice the national average.Bessborogh even more and more died of severe malnutrition there too.

Graces7

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Bullocks wrote: »

There is nothing to investigate. It was appropriate to the time. Not to ours mind. So certainly history, and something to be learned from. But not really relevant to today in terms of seeking justice, or condemnation, from a perspective that no longer applies.

:rolleyes::eek:

NB as late as 1970s..

Graces7

infogiver wrote: »

The priests and nuns that you say pressurised and obliged the families to dump their daughters, where did they come from?

either from poor families and scared to stand up lest they were turned out or the upper class who despised the poor .

and they did pressurise.

Graces7

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

I am sure they werent. But it is done now. We have improved as a society. Best just leave it.

Noooooooooooooooo ! A million times no.

Seth Brundle

Graces7 wrote: »

You do not know that; and you?

Based on all experiences against the vulnerable that have occurred, people continue to let the RCC dominate their schools and hospitals. We still continue to tick the RCC box on the census.
Given everything that has happened, why do we still do this?
We still neglect the vulnerable in our society.
Where is the protest for Grace? Where are all the boards threads for her? Where is the public condemnation?
Where are all the state services needed for the vulnerable? Where is the public outcry?
Why is there still allegedly 1 in 4 children being abused?
Where is the public outcry against the immigration system and all those who have spent years being dehumanised in internment centres.

We as a nation are good at talking but not quite so good at doing!

Graces7 wrote: »

Oh and have you seen the death cert listings? eg malnutrition

So how long were the children in the homes before they died of malnutrition?
The reality is that we don't know why they died, what other factors were at play here.
If it was the nuns then I'll be the first to take aim at them but for now I won't be claiming that it was completely their fault.

Jelle1880

This mentality of just leaving it sickens me. Might as well admit you don't care and don't want to embarrass the Church.