Chapter 11 — Glin

Physical abuse

Prior to his time in Glin, Br Marceau worked in Tralee and, before that, in a day school in Clonmel. During his four and a half years in Clonmel, there were four serious allegations of physical abuse against him. Three of the incidents resulted in the parents of the children complaining to the Superior, and the fourth incident was witnessed by another Brother, who was so concerned over what he had seen that he warned the Superior to keep a close eye on Br Marceau. When confronted in respect of complaints, Br Marceau either minimised the seriousness of the incidents or emphatically denied that they had happened. He was issued with a Canonical Warning in the early 1960s. When the Superior of the Community received the fourth complaint from a parent later that year, he wrote that he was simply not prepared to deal with any more irate parents complaining about the ill-treatment of their children at the hands of Br Marceau. He regarded Br Marceau as a danger to the boys and simply unfit to be in charge of them. He begged for Br Marceau to be removed from his school. Br Marceau was transferred to St Joseph’s Industrial School, Tralee.

The first Visitation Report following his transfer to Tralee recorded that this Brother did not seem to be ‘quite normal and would appear to be deteriorating mentally’. He was ‘lacking in good sense’. The follow-up letter to the Resident Manager noted that he ‘may perhaps be inclined to be rather too exacting’ and, accordingly, the Manager would have to ensure that his ‘zeal’ for the children’s progress did not get the better of him. The Brother was transferred to Glin later that year, where he remained for approximately two years, after which he was sent back to Tralee.

In the year following Br Marceau’s arrival in Glin, the Visitor remarked that Br Marceau was still upset over the Canonical Warning he had received. Br Marceau was convinced that there was a vendetta against him and had tried to have the Canonical Warning rescinded, but to no avail. The Visitor noted that, in Br Marceau’s view, the warning was ‘too severe a penalty for faults that were grossly exaggerated by a Superior who was prejudiced against him and in fact was out to get him, as he put it’. He was bolstered in his opinion, having sought the advice of three priests on the matter, who unanimously agreed that the punishment did not fit the crime. The Visitor urged him to accept the situation and concentrate on his work in the School. He surmised that he was ‘not a vindictive type of man’ and noted that Br Marceau was very well regarded in the Community.

It was not long before Br Marceau once again came to the attention of the Provincial Council. Almost two years later, the Resident Manager wrote to the Provincial notifying him of an incident that had recently taken place. Br Marceau learned that a pupil had referred to him as ‘madman’. He took the pupil to the Superior and the boy admitted the offence. The Superior slapped him on the palm of the hand in punishment.

Later that day, the boy reported to the infirmary with a pain in his jaw. His face was noticeably swollen and, when questioned by the Brother in charge of the infirmary, the boy reluctantly admitted that Br Marceau had struck him on the face before he had brought him before the Superior. Br Marceau denied the allegation. A week later, the swelling had not subsided and the local doctor examined the boy on his weekly visit. He recommended an x-ray as a precautionary measure, and it was discovered that the boy had a fractured jaw. He was detained in hospital for observation.

The Provincial wrote to Br Marceau and requested an account of the incident. He responded the following day with a detailed version of events. He stated that he was aware that he was referred to by the nickname ‘madman’ by the boys, because he was considered over-vigilant in his supervision of the dormitories, playgrounds and toilets. On the day in question, he was made aware of the fact that a boy had referred to him by this name. He informed the boy’s teacher of the matter and the two Brothers questioned the boy. He admitted the allegation and, after being interrogated by Br Marceau, he reluctantly disclosed the names of two other culprits. Br Marceau accompanied him to the Superior’s office and back to the classroom where he stated that he ‘got him to apologise. Then I gave the boy a few slaps on the hands, but at no time during the incident did I beat him anywhere else’.

The Provincial replied, admonishing Br Marceau on his handling of the whole affair and, in particular, the manner in which he disregarded the Superior’s authority. He warned, ‘you understand I hope that you have made a very bad mistake and that you are fortunate the consequences have not been more serious. (I am praying they will not be.)’. He informed Br Marceau that he would be transferred immediately to Tralee.

There is no mention in the letter from the Provincial that Br Marceau had a history of serious physical assaults on pupils in other schools, including Tralee, the School to which he was being sent for the second time. Three days after Br Marceau’s untimely departure from Glin, a member of the Provincial Council conducted the annual Visitation of Glin. There was only a veiled reference to the incident which resulted in Br Marceau’s transfer. The Visitor noted that Br Marceau and another Brother had encouraged tale telling amongst the younger children and this had resulted in ‘the recent incident’.

However, that was not the end of the matter. The Christian Brothers were obliged to notify the Department of Education of the fact that a boy had been hospitalised. A routine enquiry issued, requesting information on the manner in which the injury was sustained. The reply stated ‘facial injury accidentally caused in the administration of punishment’. The Resident Manager feared that the enquiry was the result of a Dáil question, and he asked a member of the Provincial Council to meet with a Department official. Br Moynihan met Mr MacUaid of the Department to discuss ‘the affair in Glin’, and Mr MacUaid made a note that, ‘Brother Moynihan was not sure whether the injury was a result of a blow from the strap or from collision during punishment, as the Consultor, whom he had sent down to investigate the matter, was vague on this point’.22 He declined to divulge the name of the Brother, only revealing that he had been transferred elsewhere. Mr MacUaid noted that: The Resident Manager of Glin is a kindly man and I understand that there is a good atmosphere in the school. Yet, there is the possibility that the coincidence of the official query and the Bundoran inquiry may have flushed a bird which otherwise might have lain concealed.

The Department was somehow informed of the identity of the perpetrator, as the next letter was from Br Marceau to the Department, in which he referred to a recent interview in Tralee with a Department official. He was outraged that such an allegation could have been made and stated: I emphatically deny that I struck this boy on the face for a very insulting remark he made about me. I fail to understand how this false charge has been made against me. Therefore I have nothing to add to our recent conversation in St Joseph’s Tralee ...

Despite the gaps in the documents it is clear that: (1)The Department was aware that a boy in Glin was injured so severely that his jaw was fractured and he was hospitalised. (2)Br Marceau was the most likely perpetrator of the injury, despite his denial. (3)The Provincial Council saw fit to have him transferred from the School as a result of the incident to another residential school. (4)Br Marceau’s violence was documented in Congregation records. (5)The Congregation was in dereliction of its duty of care by sending Br Marceau to Glin, and then transferring him back to Tralee, despite his violent treatment of boys. (6)The Department was also in dereliction of duty, as it did not voice any concerns regarding the incident and was content to let the matter lie.

The Congregation asked surviving Brothers who had worked in residential institutions to complete questionnaires in relation to their views of life in industrial schools. Br Marceau completed one such questionnaire in 1999. In it, he stated that it was more difficult to mould industrial schoolboys because they lacked character. There was no written code of discipline; there was instead a code of practice which was passed from one Brother to another. His mentor advised him not to become too friendly with the boys. Each Brother was expected to handle his own discipline problems. He stated that he was humane in his treatment of the boys, but accepted that he also used the ‘lamh laidir’.23 In addition, he used competition between the boys and a rewards system to maintain control.

In his view, most of the allegations of abuse made against Brothers were false. He thought that there were too many Brothers accused for the matter to make sense. He denied all allegations of abuse made against him. 1.Glin had a severe, systemic regime of corporal punishment. 2.Brothers with a known propensity for physically abusive behaviour were sent to Glin.

Sexual abuse

Br Buiron spent almost seven years in Glin in the early 1940s. Prior to this, while resident in Artane, he confessed to the Superior that he had sexually abused a boy in the infirmary, where he was working. It appears from minutes of a General Council Meeting held at that time that there was a number of incidents. Br Buiron was called before the Superior General and admitted the offences. The Superior General wrote to the Provincial: I sent for Br B today and told him of the risk we ran in retaining him in the Congregation and gave him until tomorrow morning at ten o’clock to consider if he would apply for a dispensation or stand trial. I will let you know the result. He is a great danger to us. Two Brothers were hanged in Canada within the past two years for murder of their victims after such offence. A Brother of a community in charge of an industrial school in Rome awaits his trial for the murder of a boy in the school who told of his offence to his Superior. The school is closed and the community disbanded.

Br Buiron refused to apply for a dispensation and appeared before the General Council. A vote was taken but, instead of sending him for trial as predicted by the Superior General, it was unanimously agreed that Br Buiron should be retained in the Congregation. He was given ‘... the first canonical warning, threatened with expulsion and given a penance. The daily recital of the Miserere’. The Superior General wrote to the Provincial informing him of the outcome of the vote, which was taken ’after very mature deliberation’. He continued: I told him that you would send him the official warning when writing to him and giving him his location (which will be very difficult I fear.) He shows signs of the greatest repentance. He told us he was not sure [of the boy’s name] and that he told him after the first offence that he (Br B) would now have to leave the Brothers.