The home, which was run by an order of Catholic nuns and closed in 1961, was one of many such institutions that housed tens of thousands of orphans and unmarried pregnant women who were forced to give up their children throughout much of the 20th century.
In 2014, historian Catherine Corless tracked down death certificates for nearly 800 children who died at the home in Tuam between the 1920s and 1961 — but could only find a burial record for one child.
I love how the headline says as if this happened recently. Clowns.
The article is a pile of crap. However another excavation has started this week, which is what probably what triggered the publish of this crap.
If you are interested here are better sources:
DNA analysis found that the ages of the dead ranged from 35 weeks gestation to 3 years.
Ok, atrocities aside, how the hell can you tell age from DNA? DNA doesn’t change as you age.
It actually does, telomeres shorten, this is one of the most important reasons why we, you know, age.
You don’t, the „journalist“ just made that up instead of searching for a minute finding details that would have enabled them to write a proper article.
There’s even an extensive Wikipedia article outlining known facts and atrocities - dumping the bodies is probably the least atrocious thing they’ve done.
There is even a Tuam Home Survivors website listing the names of the deceased and how they were uncovered by the historian.
Apparently this week they started a new dig to uncover the bodies as they found some but not nearly all of them.
It took me just a couple of minutes to uncover the info and write a tiny bit of that down. This is how journalism dies.
EDIT: This ARTE.tv Documentary outlines that DNA is used as you would expect: to identify the remains of lost relatives.
Telomere length is the only thing I can think of, but that’s totally a guess and I don’t know much about it. Telomeres, as I understand it, are padding at the end of DNA and shorten as you age.
Thank you. I asked myself same. Telomeres I guess you would need to know the length after birth. But we only have one sample (moment of death). Plus the victims bodies are probably not very good preserved. My best guess is, the text is just not accurate and they might used DNA testing for different things (sex, etc).
I’d guess they look at the telomeres but I don’t how accurate it can be.
Antitheism needs to rise.
Wow, thinking religion is bad just because there are more babies than you can really comprehend looking at in this septic tank, and you had to ask yourself ‘wait I’ve read this one before’?
Bigot.
Sure man, whatever you say. I’m happy to be bigoted when it comes to religion. Most religions promote being a bigot anyway, so whatevs.
Yeah! How many times has a religion done this?
And that first one you thought of doesn’t count. Or the next 3 cause those were all recent mass graves. Or those old ones if you thought of those. So just don’t count the first 20 times of this from religions that pop into your head and then tell me how often you really think this happened.
Heretic.
Scopes reports that the babies were buried in an adjacent structure and that the number is undetermined. An amateur published that number without evidence.
Until additional information is uncovered, it is not possible if the grave was a result of legitimate or initiate reasons.
https://www.snopes.com/news/2025/06/18/796-children-septic-tank-ireland/
Honestly, I’m disgusted how you misquote Snopes in an attempt to smear the historian and to gloss over the atrocities committed at Tuam and similar facilities.
The Snopes article pretty much contradicts your comment entirely.
Other Sources:
You say the number is inaccurate, which begs the question: what exactly is an acceptable number of infant remains to find in an orphanage septic tank?
There’s an extensive Wikipedia article outlining known facts and atrocities - dumping the bodies is probably the least atrocious thing they’ve done.
EDIT: I believe OP is trying to distract from the atrocities by focussing on a minor one and misquoting Snopes.
Raises. It raises the question.
If you read the scopes article, the number is zero and zero is a great number. “The human remains found by the Commission are not in a sewage tank but in a second structure with 20 chambers…” How did these children die? Were they murdered? Was there a pandemic? Neglect? Famine? Over what time range was this collective grave used?
After the story in Canada that sparked the burning of multiple churches was found out to be entirely false, I’m going to wait for actual facts here.
Wow, what an awful but fascinating read. Really changes the perspective on this.
It wasnt a place that harmed or neglected children, but rather a place that housed the most vulnerable at a difficult time and endured immense hardship.
Actually it was a place that harmed, neglected and even tortured children.
"There can be no Justice without redress for survivors and that redress must be paid for by Religious Orders who have harvested enormous wealth by inflicting misery and death on the most vulnerable in our society.
There can be no Justice without an Inquest into the dead of Tuam. They died horribly and unnecessarily. They had no life as children. The State owes them the dignity of an Inquest and a Death Certificate that truly shows why they died.
There can be no more betrayals of our dead children."
Also check out the Wikipedia article. The investigations and excavations are ongoing, so there will be proof of even more atrocities uncovered.
religions don’t deserve to exist.
Religion is the last mental illness you can’t call out or treat. When you have Mike Huckabees et al going around ushering in the End Times, we should have the power to medicate these people into a barely functional stupor.
Sure but you might be making some assumptions that don’t really apply here.
You mean assumptions about the 800 dead hidden babies in what is a very common finding inthese settings? Those assumptions?
Yes, those assumptions.
Do you think they had a valid and good reason to hide 800 dead babies in a septic tank?
It wasn’t a septic tank.
It was a structure with 20 compartments which was originally designed as some kind of sewage management system but was never used as such.
So your question is really, do I think they had a valid and good reason to bury 800 infants, who had died from various bacterial and viral infections over a long period of time.
The obvious answer to that is yes.
It was a refuge for mothers and children. There’s no indication of any abuse or neglect of the deceased at this time. I’m sure there are many valid criticisms to be made about this time and this place, and certainly there are valid criticisms to be made about religion, but this refuge is not the baby murder facility you’re looking for.
There’s a snopes article with a lot more information which challenges the assumptions you’re making:
https://www.snopes.com/news/2025/06/18/796-children-septic-tank-ireland/
Except that Snopes article does not even agree with you.
It’s time you stopped excusing and glossing over the atrocities committed.
Sources on how fucked up Irish mother and baby homes were:
the idea of banning religion is painfully tyrannical, like how could you do that without instituting a thought police or a state sanctioned belief system…
however, in reality, they most toxic part of religion of organised religions, when they are big institutions fighting for political power rather than maintaining their beliefs and communities.
possible solution: progressive tax on religious institutions based on their size, a small community of 50 to 100? tax free, you have 1000s of congregants? start rising, megachurches with 1000 thousand people? 95% tax…
banning religion? I didn’t say ban it.
i assumed you wanted them gone.
I do. religion is a profound evil, and the cause of nearly all human suffering.
God has caused the bloodiest and most brutal wars ever fought, which were all based on religious hatred. Millions have died simply because ‘God told’ Hindus, Muslims, Jews, and Christians it would be a ‘good idea’ for them to kill each other.
- George Carlin, Comedian and Social Critic
The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries, that have afflicted the human race have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion. It has been . . . the most destructive to . . . the peace and happiness of man.
- Thomas Paine, Political Philosopher (1796)
The bloodiest wars in history have been religious wars.
- Richard Nixon, even this Dick thinks so
I don’t think religion itself is evil. But corporate religion. Organizations and individuals that claim religion as the reasons for thier own sin for profit. People waving the bible as an excuse to do harm unto others.
Worship of a higher power or purpose shouldn’t ever be used as a reason or means to commit sins. That’s the major problem. Corruption and hypocrisy is rampant because people gather power under the flag of religion. Power easily corrupts the more it gathers.
agree 100%
but will be pedantic and complain about your usage of “sin”, as it is a Christian concept and not necessarily a bad thing.
Sin/evil deeds then. Many decent religions denounce evil deed and have good morals. Then there are other religions that promote sacrifice of life (your own or others).
They can exist - if they pay taxes.
I’d rather they not, though.
This isn’t the only place this has happened. More info here.
Good one! Added it to the list of sources:
- Arte.tv
- Part One: How The Catholic Church Murdered Ireland’s Babies | Behind The Bastards
- Wikipedia article
- Tuam Home Survivors
- easy to find sources as they are all over the place
It’s fucked up that up to today and ITT there are still people trying to gloss over and excuse the atrocities. Let’s show them what Streisand Effect means.
Thats awful, but you know who wont drown babies and hide their bodies in a septic tank?
I swear to God if the answer is a shark…
Don’t get off topic. Also, that’s speciesist, and just kind of rude.
The answer is the sponsors of this podcast!
Edit: Also, sharks would never do that, though. None of you have any reason to fear u-them.
Could have been worse, could have been atheists running the home.
Given the shit apologists write ITT you really need to use the “/s” marker.
There would have been no remains.
If there was an infant death, it would also have been reported to authorizes and given proper respects. The number of deaths is way to high, but SIDS is real and atheists wouldn’t have dumped the bodies in a mass grave in the backyard.
Get informed and stop being an apoligist
Sources:
Most of the infants died from bacterial or viral infections.
Religion is such hypocrisy. No wonder people are turning away.
On one hand, they tell people don’t use birth control, no abortion ; on the other hand, they don’t protect them.
If your society cannot or will not support an unmarried pregnant woman on her own, your society is a failed one.
My brain took a moment to register the word infant. As in the child was already born.
Satanic Panic was projection.
It’s always projection
If we do shit like this, imagine what they could do!
Yeah, and the irony is that in the Bible, Lucifer never even asked for an animal or human sacrifice, but god did.
Excellent name.
Also, under the Christian dogma, Satan has no authority beyond what God allows. Who then is truly responsible for his actions?
The band names are thick in the comments.
This is probably from poor medical care.
no this is post-birth abortion… aka murder….
No it’s not. Most of the infants died from bacterial or viral infections.
Not really abortion if it’s post-birth, is it? Once they’re born, if you kill them, that’s simply murder. The line is drawn at birth. Otherwise, where do you draw the line? “Billy was killed at age 13 months and Tommy was killed at age 11 months. Thus Billy was murdered and Tommy was post-birth aborted…” No. They’re both murdered.
Not really abortion if it’s post-birth, is it? Once they’re born, if you kill them, that’s simply murder.
which is exactly what they wrote:
no this is post-birth abortion… aka murder….
Looks like all the kids died of disease? Definitely evidence that the world has gotten better not worse.
Well, some things. Science and medicine are two of the things that I count as consistently bettering our lives.
Don’t jinx it, the antivax crowd certainly is growing. And then there is Maha.
Religion has historically provided a safe haven to the sick and twisted among society, where they’re allowed to act with impunity due to their perceived status.
That’s not directly due to the religion; but rather due to the societal pedestal being devout seems to put people on; “a holy person could never do that to a child” etc…
The reality is, other areas that benefit from this sort of status too find themselves riddled with bad actors… Just look through charity organisations and I can guarantee you’ll be combing over a sea of sociopaths buying themselves good credit with public opinion rather than people looking to make a difference because they want to (not to say these people don’t exist; they just don’t end up running the show normally)
mental health nurses who work in an asylum/“hospital”/“mental health unit” too according to a friend who works in one as a nurse.
All inequality creates abuse.
Your last paragraph reminded me of Ashton Kutcher… I can’t watch that 70s show anymore. It was my favorite tv show of all time.
The rosy romanticisation of what should be a humanitarian entity is probably worst with Buddhism. The Buddhist majority-Burmese oppressing the Rohyngian Muslims, some Buddhist monks advocating for dominance in South East Asia, and even pre-CCP Tibet where the dalai lama and his ilks were decadent and corrupt, seem unfathomable for many who view Buddhism as the most secular and least dogmatic religion. There was an article I have read lamenting this corruption in Buddhist communities, and I was like “they are still humans, what do you expect?”
Fuck off sino shill, CCP is not doing any Tibetans favour’s by invading their country, they are a bunch of corrupt dictators
Not making CCP any better here, but truth is truth and doesn’t care about your feelings. Was it China’s business to invade Tibet? No, but pre-CCP Tibet was a corrupt theocratic state similar to Iran and Renaissance-era Vatican.
And what’s your source for any of this, I can bring up multiple sources for the atrocities done by the CCP on their own citizens (tiananmen square massacre) and those of neighboring nations, can you back up any of what you claim about Tibet, and even if it were true that does not give China any rights to invade them. Should the other countries invade China for their corrupt leaders then?
Unhelpful American chiming in: if the Finns, or Danes are feeling feisity we could really use a regime change…
You could literally google and see sources what life was like in Tibet before. China is bad, and Tibet before was bad. Many things can be true at the same time. It is just the fact of life. No one is backing up China, it is only you problem if that is you are being emotional on a factual statement.
Look into any situation where there is a massive disparity of power between some people and other people and that’s were you will find the most abuses and I totally agree it’s for the reasons you said of there being far less risk for the abusers due to their “status” and that such places actually attract the worst people in society so it’s a bit of self-fullfilling prophecy that putting too much power and not enough transparency and accountability in a position will invariably end up with it being abused, even if you start with the purest of people and the purest of intentions.
This is also probably why there was (and only time will tell if that’s still or not the case) so much child sexual abuse in the Catholic church: adult in high standing in the community and implicitly trusted by all vs child (generally from a poor background).
Thinking about this over the years (mainly for Politics, but it applies to other areas) has led me to conclude that the “good” exercise of power is impossible to get from a static situation (i.e. the idealistic idea that “give power to honest people” solves it) and instead it has to be setup as a dynamic mechanism with frequent rotation of people and multiple unrelated (ideally, competing) people watching over each other other (which is probably where the ide behind the Three Pillars Of Democracy) and whose power balances.
Exactly concentrating power in the hands of a few is a recipe for disaster, doesn’t matter if you elect uncle Roger to the post. Power needs to be distributed and the people who have it should be in constant fear of losing it if they don’t work towards gaining the favor of the masses by working towards the betterment of society. This is why I find morons who pick political sides as if it’s a sports team so stupid, neither side should think you belong to them, they should worry about you flipping your mind all the time.
Couldn’t agree more!
Playing devil’s advocate here, could it be that they ran something like a baby euthanasia outfit? like, no contraceptives back then, extreme social stigma surrounding birth out of wedlock, poverty forcing women to give up their newborns, giving them up to the nunnery, which had no resources to deal with feeding caring and raising thousands upon thousands of children, and so either A) simply took it upon themselves to take the logical step and cull some of them, or B) that a high number of babies died of natural causes (neglect, malnutrition, sudden infant death syndrome, disease, whatever) and they simply disposed of them.
I don’t know what else could explain this, it’s not like we’re seriously talking about gangs of murderous baby killing nuns roaming the streets at night and snatching up babies by the hundreds for lust murders, right?
As far as I’m concerned, the only crime here is the institutionalized psychopathy of a religious patriarchal system that refused to take responsibility for giving people a legal and moral avenue to raise children that were brought into life in violation of religious law.
Makes more sense to me at least, I may be fuck way off wrong.
My ¢2, devil’s advocate, maybe they were trying to protect the women from emotional trauma, they’d still have some but, maybe an attempt to reduce it. Obviously they could have done different things to do that better, but, maybe it was what they thought was their only option. New Mom’s baby dies, instead of telling her that her child is dead, they hide it and tell her that it was adopted or transferred somewhere it would be taken care of or whatever.
It’s far fetched, probably unlikely, but hey, devil’s advocate, it’s a possibility.
Yeah to me it sounds like the babies died of such causes and weren’t intentionally killed. I can imagine that trying to get rid of the bodies in other ways (burial, cremation, dumping elsewhere) would make the many deaths too visible or obvious, and would lead to questioning. But they could be hidden in the sewage.
Fuck no.
You have a bad situation where babies are dying - a lot of babies - you don’t hide it. You scream for help.
You dump murder victims
That’s not how shame based religions work though
mate I was fucking raised roman catholic
So you think they “care” so much about these single women and their babies that they would kill their babies and hide their remains in a septic tank?, what’s wrong with you. Don’t you think the more humane thing would be to promote contraceptives and safe sex and safe abortions in case of accidental pregnancies, and run proper orphanages for the unwanted kids. But of course the actual church is against all of this, cause the idea that religion has anything to do with morality is ridiculously stupid. All religions are cults full of dumb fucks desperate to matter in this meaningless existence.
Nuns, historically, have not had much if any authority in the church. I think just a couple of years ago they ousted one of the only female pastors in the USA.
What made you think I’m talking about nuns, I’m talking about those in power, who’s orders they follow willingly, they could choose not to and walk away or expose the church higher ups, they choose not to, so don’t tell me about nuns being powerless, what they are is soulless
If only it were so easy. I’ve been atheist since middle school but I was raised by a Catholic and an Evangelical, if a person actually believes they suffer for eternity for not appealing to the source of all true good then you’re not going to convince them to walk away because of the church’s policy on condoms. And even if you did convince a handful, it’s not going to dent the Church’s bottom line. Real change has to come from the higher ranks.
There’s a behind the bastards episode about it if you’d like to actually educate yourself on why so many of the children died and why they were so callously thrown in the septic and stop sounding so ignorant
Or you can just tell us why, instead of being insulting and vague about it. Hell, you didn’t even link which episode has the information you say he is ignorant for not knowing about.
Lemmy is worse than reddit in terms of unhinged and hateful replies to benign, good-faith but ignorant comments. I don’t know how shut-in the users here are but everyone is itching to rip someone’s throat out over imagined slights or the desperate, performative need to look better than someone else who doesn’t know something.
No, it’s pretty annoying when people don’t link shit that should be easy. At least when I’m doing it from mobile, I’ll promise to do it when I get home.
Btw, here’s the Behind the Bastards episode. Part One: How The Catholic Church Murdered Ireland’s Babies | BEHIND THE BASTARDS
This! Im gonna get down voted for this im sure but I’ve been using Lemmy instead of reddit for almost a year now or so but the hive mind is almost worse here than it is on reddit! People here seem to not be interested in actual discussion unless you agree 100% with them. It’s frustrating, I was hoping Lemmy was gonna be better.
Oh well, at least there’s less bigots and my app still works haha
There’s probably significant overlap with the Linux warriors here who will respond to people’s legitimate questions with variations of “why don’t you just not do that and instead do this other thing that doesn’t solve your issue” (and also not explain how to do that either).
I changed my upvote to a little cute “down” arrow when I got to the end of your short but unhinged comment. Way to turn “informative” into “needlessly spiteful for no good reason.” You could have ended the comment with a link to the episode even.
Which episode?
Article says
DNA analysis found that the ages of the dead ranged from 35 weeks gestation to 3 years.
A major inquiry into the mother-and-baby homes found that in total, about 9,000 children died in 18 different mother-and-baby homes, with major causes including respiratory infections and gastroenteritis, otherwise known as the stomach flu.
So basically just Dysentery, yeah. The nuns were no saints (lol) either, though, because they punished the unmaried mothers and put them through hard labor (lol).
This is a terrible time for jokes, I’m so sorry about that. I always make sure to ask for forgiveness (lol).
dude… WTF is with the (lol)s in your post? None of what you said is funny, or even reads remotely like it’s even trying to be a joke.
Right, okay
-
“they’re no saints” is funny because they’re part of a religious organization who revere saints
-
“made to do labor” is funny because in english Labor is a term used to describe the final step of childbirth
-
“ask for forgiveness” again because religion that reveres asking the lord for forgiveness.
Hope that helps you out, buddy.
The first rule of comedy is reading the room.
What, too soon?
-
Wow! 3 years!
