Can an infant be baptized, be raised by believing parents & later turn from the faith?

6/15/2014 | Laissez-Faire Capitalist

[NKP_Vet]

Like I said before the story is bogus, started by Catholic hating liberals and 99% of FR posters accept the story as garbage. Then you come along and won’t let it go. Do yourself a favor and find a liberal message board that will agree with you.

[BlueDragon]

You wasted quite few words to basically say that you have absolutely no proof that the babies were not baptized.

All I was going on were reports I encountered that they were not baptized, such as this one from the BBC http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27710206.

Here's another article which at the end repeats the same claim; http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ireland-mass-graves-archbishop-of-dublin-calls-for-full-inquiry-as-evidence-of-medical-experiments-emerges-9513101.html

Notice there that mention is made of diphtheria shots being given to infants in some of the homes at least, in what was apparently a 'drug trial'.

Would you care to discuss that aspect? No? ok, let's skip that for now...

If I had dug around and found articles where it was said that the Tuam babies were not baptized -- would that have made much difference?

Part of the reason for that to have been included in early articles, as best as I can personally surmise (or guess at) is that condition (lacking formal baptism) could have precluded a person from being buried in 'sacred cemeteries' with us here needing to bear in mind that articles written from UK and Irish perspective, to mainly UK and Irish reading public, could expect the readers to apply what they knew of UK/Irish conditions and attitudes (particularly those of the past century) to the information being covered.

How far must I dig into this FOR you? And again, would it have made much of any difference -- to you?

Answer that right about now.

I DID as much ask that question of you previously.

Then, after that has been addressed -- tell my why the babies were not buried in the cemetery across the road, located nearby to the Northwest of the 'mother and baby home'.

Why is that? Do you have any answer for that -- which can be backed by proof rather than opinion? I doubt it...

TELL US oh verga, ye teacher of public skool babies. Why no burial records for these 796 -- when if memory serves, there were a few additional 'home babies' who died and were not listed with the 786 who burial records could not be found for, since these others DID have burial records. That was another aspect that got people to thinking, wondering where these nearly 800 in number ended up.

The lines on the plot maps show the nearby cemetery and the old work house property to all but abut one another. No hearse or wagon needed to have taken them that far -- but there are not burial records for 796 who died at the Tuam facility in any of the reasonably nearby cemeteries, nor any local lore or memory of numbers of them (about two a month during some periods) being transported elsewhere. There was some anecdotal evidence (fwiw) from a few persons who claimed to have seen the nuns and 'workmen' carrying [dead] babies to the sewage tank area presumably for burial in that concrete tank, but that's all pretty sketchy -- people at times "remember" things which didn't happen quite like they say they remember it did.

As far as I could glean, it is strongly possible that cost concerns could have been an issue (for deceased babies not being buried elsewhere) though that last not necessarily any fault of the nuns. Still -- the 'Home Babies' as they were locally referred to in the latter years of operation, could possibly not have been welcome there across the street, even after they had died, even if somewhere along the line they had been baptized.

Towards the ending years of the facility...it wasn't so 'well run' as in earlier years, though, according to one mention from a woman who is generally supportive or non-accusatory of the nuns in general - but trying to honestly asses the overall situation.

One thing I would like to mention, is that in the earliest years -- there was little supervision from outside governmental authorities.

It was NOT a government facility, merely staffed by Bon Secour nuns.

Somewhere in the 1950's the government as it were took more responsibility than before, for although there had been periodic inspections and reports -- and there was some mechanism for the nuns to make appeal to a board of health for funds beyond the (in earliest times -- meager) funding received on a per-child basis, it was very much run by the Bon Secours -- though the property itself seems to have always remained "government" owned or titled.

The nuns did apparently own other property though --- what was called the "Grove Hospital", which they sold in '94 if memory serves of newspaper clippings making mention of that. When that property was sold, about a dozen or so nuns who had been buried on the 'hospital' property were disinterred and moved elsewhere. Be that as it may...since that hospital ground property was good enough to bury nuns in -- was it too good for little Home Babies? -- one does wonder.

So where is YOUR proof that the Tuam Home Babies WERE baptized?

Would it make much difference one way or another?

Would it help if I found again the list of names, their date of death, their age (roughly, expressed as months and partial months in some cases) and brief comments as to the cause of death?

Reading that list I say quite a few that had as reason for death -- convulsions. I wonder if there can be any correlation made between cause of death and the drug trials that the Home Babies were made a part of -- instead of the trials being made among the general populace.

If we go through the list -- presuming many on the list were born on the property -- then WHEN did a RC priest come to baptize any of them?

According to one source, it is claimed that those of another mother & baby home had significant numbers baptized, but even though that comes from one who is alleged to be a local Diocese archivist (and a priest, too) why would he mention some other facility and "baptisms" instead of the Tuam facility -- if there were babies actually baptized at Tuam?

Can you answer that question too?

If you are going to demand answers and or proof from others, ye best be bringing to the table some of your own ----rather than your own mere (and highly biased) opinions.

[verga]

Once again wasting a lot of words and saying very little. MY answer to ALL of your questions is: I have no idea, there are so may articles that are contradictory that no sane conservative would make a snap judgment on this matter. I prefer to wait till all the evidence is in.

I have found that many protestants on these threads claim to be conservatives and view MSM reports with a degree of skepticism, as they should. Unless those same MSM sources present a negative story about the Catholic Church. Then it is "All hands on deck, Battle stations, Man the torpedoes, and fire at will."

Prime example: There were several threads about the priest that was murdered and the other that was assaulted. On one of them less than 10 posts in the comment was made about a jilted gay lover. No evidence to suggest that was in the article but: Hey it's the Catholic Church lets get our shots in. I will be the first to condemn the parish in Baltimore that is celebrating "pride" month, I was all over the Father Phleger incidents and even directly contacted his Bishop asking that he be censured and have his parish taken from him.

But here is the thing I will not make a snap judgment based media reports that contradict each other.

[BlueDragon]

"Like I said before the story is bogus.."

Like I have and others have been able to establish -- it's not as entirely "bogus" as you (and some others) casually & dismissively attempt to hand-wave it all away...

"...started by Catholic hating liberals and 99% of FR posters accept the story as garbage.

Huh? As usual, a FRoman speaks such mixture of junk -- it takes some doing to straighten things out, before they can be addressed.

Where do you come up with this 99% figure?

Then --- to impose fully upon those who have expressed reservations (which does include ME) in some lumpy 99% is to commit error of exaggeration, lack of specificity as to what elements of the story are seen as "garbage", etc.

Then you come along and won’t let it go.

No, I came along and pointed out to you that terming the story a "hoax" as one headline would have it to be, was itself a falsehood.

Then I went into some detail as to what WAS true enough, or that is so far known -- and what is not, with some discussion of various possibilities. I'm sorry if sifting through various information (in order to better arrive at actual truth) --is too much for you, but I couldn't care much less as to your own personal opinions, other than to showcase those as being less than actual truth, more often than not. But hey, like the saying goes, "even a blind hog finds an acorn every once in a while..." so upon occasion you may write some isolated sentence or sentence fragment which contains actual truth, which is not then subjected to some later addition or verdict rendering opinion of your own which distorts or undoes the more positive components.

Though the original headlines were admittedly misleading (as I did address previously) the background story itself was not "a hoax", since the primary researcher arrived at her own suppositions honestly enough -- as I went into some effort of touching upon various details to explain.

Which is why I objected to that term "hoax" and yourself linking to an article which had that word included in it's own (potentially misleading headline). You also claimed that commentary you linked to "debunked" the story -- but as a matter of actual fact (being based of facts rather than mere discussion) accomplished no such thing as any debunking included there, established on basis of actual fact(s).

Do yourself a favor and find a liberal message board that will agree with you.

Do the majority of us here a favor, and either tone it down on the personal attack (by insinuation) index, or if you cannot more generally do that, then do those of us here on FR (the silent majority?) the favor of just shutting your own yap.

[BlueDragon]

I had intended to add (but forgot) that in regards to this portion of comment, addressed to me;

Do yourself a favor and find a liberal message board that will agree with you.

...perhaps you could send a letter to the Archbishop of Dublin and tell him the same thing which you just told me.

Martin calls for investigation into mother and baby homes 10 June 2014

The Archbishop of Dublin has called for a “full-bodied investigation” into all of Ireland’s mother and baby homes after details emerged of 796 children and babies who had died at a convent-run home in County Galway for whom no burial records could be found.

Locals discovered children’s skulls in a septic tank beside the home in Tuam run by the Sisters of Bon Secours in 1975. Ten days ago research by local woman Catherine Corless was published on the children who died at the home between 1925 and 1961, when the home was closed.

Using the Galway Births and Deaths Registry she discovered 796 children aged between one to ten years old died during that time, many from sickness or malnutrition, but no burial records were available.

Archbishop of Dublin Diarmuid Martin told RTE radio he feared the discovery at Tuam may not be unique.

"The indications are that if something happened in Tuam, it probably happened in other mother and baby homes around the country," Dr Martin told RTÉ radio.

"That's why I believe we need a full-bodied investigation."

(I'm) Too Sexy (for my hat) what-ya think about that?

[NKP_Vet]

How many more posters beside you still believe this fabricated story.
Nothing to see here. Move along.

[NKP_Vet]

Of course he called for an investigation. And when it’s finished and the nuns praised you will say it was a whitewash. So like I said above move along, nothing to see here.

[BlueDragon]

MY answer to ALL of your questions is: I have no idea, there are so may articles that are contradictory that no sane conservative would make a snap judgment on this matter. I prefer to wait till all the evidence is in.

Which means what? What use is all of that in a postmortem sort of backwards glancing discussion?

No "sane conservative" would make a snap judgement you say? And how long have you actually been with us here at FR? hmm?

Perhaps you have not been paying attention, for there was one freeper who had the joking tagline much as; "proudly posting comments without reading the article, since 1999" (or some past year).

It's like a running joke around here,where we joke about ourselves. You may think yourself entirely above that sort of thing...but I don't think so, for I have been witness to all sorts of things which you have said here on this forum...

People make snap comments without reading the article, or reading through the thread, pretty much every day around here. It comes with the territory.

To now say "no sane conservative" would do so, if that were not disqualified from holding "truth" for reason that it be example of the "any true Scotsman" type of logical fallacy and thus balderdash, would have made it out to be that many freepers here are indeed insane.

Do you really want to go there? Perhaps some rewording is called for, if you wish yourself to be a voice of sanity in recommending that "snap judgements" be tempered. If they were to be done away with entirely -- that would make you out to be the biggest party-pooper of the decade, taking all the fun out of FR. :^')

If it be that one of your own "sacred oxen" was gored...and you wish to decry that sort of occurrence; then learn from that, and mind your own horns which are often so casually poked at others, and "things"...and then after enough demonstration of real restraint on your own part (instead of the head-fake kind which comes across as just so much posturing for effect) ...I just may take you a bit more seriously.

People here snark and shred. We are FAMOUS for it. Hello? knock-knock..is anyone home in that head of yours? Where have you been all your life, I do wonder...

Once again wasting a lot of words and saying very little.

You did demand proof that the Home Babies were not baptized, having singled that portion of mention out of one my previous comments here.

I provided two links which made the claim that was so...but added on my own the observation that that aspect is still not entirely proven, while you yourself have avoided providing anything to the contrary, or anything else contrary to any other points of discussion which I touched upon regarding this difficult matter.

Saying "lots of words" can be called for, such as my adding in the above -- that merely for reason mention WAS made in more than one article that the "Home Babies" of the Tuam facility were said NOT to have been baptized, since sources or reason for that particular item of mention were not included -- then it is not always safe to assume that information framed in such manner to be entirely valid, though for the fact that such is included -- may possibly indicate that someone somewhere must have made the claim, having their own reasons for believing that to be part of the bigger picture, though attribution as to who, and why they would do so was not mentioned, nor was there mention of any follow-up on the part of newspaper article writers to determine if that small portion was indeed true -- or not.

So why is it that you can speak of such things and somehow it is important, yet when I myself do so (without any prompting from you I should add) then it is just "lots of words"?

As you did otherwise just say; "...there are so may articles that are contradictory..." continuing from there as to preferring to "...avoid snap judgment on this matter." (NOW you tell us? ha!) and "...I prefer to wait till all the evidence is in"

Excuse me -- but the various evidences which are already in were the very sort of things which I made some effort to mention, then mull over possibilities, which is part of a process of making s-l-o-w-e-r judgements rather than the "snap" t type, while yourself in all of this are entirely ducking away from providing to myself any acknowledgement that I DID supply to you some basis for the very thing you questioned me about --yourself demanding from me an answer.

Now you turn to (try to) rend me once again. Hey thanks. I should have expected as much, huh?

You got an answer, providing what you demanded -- with some included and reasonable qualifying commentary included in the hopes that none around here would be further mislead by myself, due to my own choice of words. Is that enough? Why spit at it, as first reaction? Don't tell me why for that is one of those rhetorical sort of questions for you to ask yourself -- while standing in front of a mirror.

Prime example:

Spare me all the whining of the perpetually offended "Catholics", many whom show little to no restraint whenever opportunity arises for themselves to leap to conclusions, make snap judgements, openly speculate as to "bad" stuff being part of the untold story, etc.

It goes that-a-way just about as much around here, whether you recognize that or not.

Go police your own troops for a change, rather than cheering them on, high-fiving and back-slapping the worst and most bigoted comments and commentators among the FRomish crowd, here at FreeRepublic.

Then get back to me about how people make "snap judgements" and the like.

For I will venture that if you attempted to reel in some of the worst of the worst among the bigot-crowd of Roman Catholic freepers (not all Catholics are bigots, and not all Catholic freepers are bigots -- but many do continually demonstrate that they are) then they will likely "snap" at you pretty much like they have for YEARS now, snapped at me.

[RetiredArmy]

If your right, then you are reading a different book than I am. Sadly you are wrong as most with your cut on things are. I have heard way too many pastors, local, and those of the level of David Jeremiah say what I said. You must be following Simile Joel.

[BlueDragon]

You still have failed to provide support for your previous contention that the "babies" were "properly buried".

That may indeed be the case..yet for now...what is that but assumption on your part, which at this juncture faces a bit of a challenge, but one perhaps not impossible (but difficult) to fully establish.

Of course he called for an investigation. And when it’s finished and the nuns praised you will say it was a whitewash.

Wherever the facts would actually lead (rather than the blowhard stuff you linked to, saying it was a "debunking") then I'd be ok with it.

Meanwhile, it appears to me that you continue to misunderstand my intents and meanings, while making this all about me (and anyone else who does not meekly fall in line with whatever some 'Catholics' are saying?).

Try addressing what I actually do say (for a change)...rather than your own distorted synopsis of my own intents, or turning to imagining what my motivations are -- while pressing upon myself personally what you perceive to have been motivations of others.

I am none of those other persons. Got it?

As to potential for "whitewash" -- that was much what the article which you chose to link to is, calling it a "debunking" when it's mainly just a bunch of wind lacking any real evidence to speak of.

I did go into some detail as to how and why I considered that to be the case, for that particular article, and only for that particular article.

I stress things that way...in hopes of avoiding anyone (like you) taking comment I offered for THAT article, and transplanting any of my own statements to be applied anywhere else. It really is a pain to have to write out such prophylactic sort of comment, to stem the tide of false accusation towards myself in this, and hopefully head off that sort of thing which could have attempted grounds of justification for, rely upon misapplied and poorly reasoned response to that which I have said in regards to that one single article which I took exception to.

I did notice too that you didn't (or couldn't) refute what I otherwise did have to say (in correction or challenge for your own contentions).

Rather instead, all along here in our conversation, when not fully excusing "nuns" or dismissing out of hand that there was any problem, you seem to have been focusing upon what you think are my motivations, which has become the perennial topic of discussion. Do you have any idea how irritating that can be?

Attributing motives -- and in this instance speculating or forecasting what I will do in the future or how I will react, is far beyond your abilities to accurately assess, unless you be a prophet of God. Are you claiming to be one of those? If not...then again, "chill pills", I insist, take them you must...

In the meantime --- will you or will you not apply to the Archbishop the same standards which you applied to ME?

What of that aspect? Can you see what you are doing? Have you been trying (by any stretch of imagination possible) to defame me for just talking about the subject? If so, then the Archbishop should go to some "liberal" web page to discuss his own concerns? No? It WAS GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME just a little while ago...why not for him? Double-standards².

Would the sort of things you rudely shoved at me, not apply just as well to the Archbishop?

He accepted there could be much more to the story. When coupling his comments there, to that which has been said by others, both of the [Roman] Catholic church and outside of that who are seeking the wider truths to the matter, much of which could if not well enough justify "nuns" and others generally, when not more specifically -- I predict would show them to be not alone at all when it comes to the examination of attitudes towards the mothers and babies both, the underlying currents of judgmental, harsh, condemnation, which itself spilled over from the unwed mothers (who all of those could not singularly at fault for becoming pregnant -- and some perhaps were rape victims, or lesser 'victim' of circumstance) onto the "Home Babies" themselves rather as Corless herself has spoken by way of her own personal testimony, in limited fashion already...

The wider story goes far beyond just the "mother and baby homes", for there were Magdalena Laundries, industrial workhouses (some boys as young as 5 yrs old sent to those), large numbers of young men sent to Canada and Australia when they came nearer to adult age (sent as laborers, possibly somewhat indentured) along with adoptions too.

The Archbishop is not saying "move along" "nothing to see here".

That's ALL you.

Meanwhile...I do have an interesting link to article which holds information potentially exculpatory in a positive way, for the nuns, in regards to "what happened to the bodies 786 babies who died there", but until I encounter a bit more of a reasonable tone from you -- I'll withhold it, though you could go and make a search for it.

I planted hints as to what it was in http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3168037/posts?page=235#235.

Spend the time I have on digging around in regards to this issue and you may know better of things spoken of being _{under the ground}

Déjà vu

[Bryan24]

You need to heed your own advice. You assertion that baptism is not essential for salvation leads to the obvious question - Why be baptized? Why bother even mentioning it in scripture if it isn’t needed?

Peter told us in Acts 2 that they were to “repent and be baptized”. They SPECIFICALLY asked “What shall we do?”

You can mis-apply passages of scripture all you want, but Peter made it clear that baptism is part of the answer for salvation.

The Ethiopian Eunuch knew he needed to be baptized.

[verga]

I will pray for you.

[CA Conservative]

I have never understood the idea of baptizing an infant. There is no record of John the Baptist or any of the apostles baptizing infants, nor of Jesus commanding such. Baptism is an act that requires a deliberate decision on the part of the repentant believer in order to have any meaning - otherwise, all you get is a wet sinner (or in this case, a wet and screaming baby).

[CA Conservative]

Your misunderstanding of Peter’s statement in Acts 10 is..... making me shake my head. You obviously don’t understand the role of the Holy Spirit as the revealer of the Gospel.

Actually, if you want the most complete declaration of what is required for salvation, the best place to go is Acts 2. When the people in Jerusalem heard Peter preach on the Day of Pentecost, they were convicted and cried out "Men and brethren, what must we do (to be saved)?". Peter gave them a very direct answer;

"Repent": Turn away from sin and ask for forgiveness;
"Be baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ for the remission (or washing away) of your sins";
And the result of doing these things: "Receive the gift of the Holy Ghost (Spirit)."

So baptism is an important, even critical part of the process for believers, but it MUST follow repentance. Since an infant cannot repent, baptism makes no sense for them.

[NKP_Vet]

More liberal babble, catholic hating babble. Let it go.

[BlueDragon]

More liberal babble, catholic hating babble. Let it go.

Is that all you can say?

What a cop-out.

Look to your own "hating" and babbling.

[NKP_Vet]

The original post about the kids and the septic tank was covered in-length on FR. Once the story was shown as being bogus, it met a fast death. Not one, but a half dozen follow-up stories exposed the hoax. You are the only one that will not let it go, joining forces with the Catholic-hating liberal media to once again attempt to tarnish the image of the Catholic Church.

http://www.lifenews.com/2014/06/11/story-of-800-babies-buried-in-mass-grave-in-septic-tank-next-to-home-for-children-of-unwed-moms-was-a-hoax/

[narses]

Nope. My reading is right, yours is flawed. What authority do you claim superior to mine in interpreting Holy Writ?

[NKP_Vet]

The original post about the kids and the septic tank was covered in-length on FR. Once the story was shown as being bogus, it died a fast death. Not one, but a half dozen follow-up stories exposed the lie. You are the one that will not let it go. The story originally came from a left-wing AP

[Cicero]

I’m coming to this discussion rather late, but I never heard of a Christian who didn’t believe in baptism, although some disagree about the details.

I would have thought that the Gospel of Matthew makes it perfectly clear, in the words of Jesus himself:

King James Version (KJV)

19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

—Matthew, 28