Chapter 12 — Salthill

Physical abuse

The Brother came to the notice of the Provincial and General Councils because of repeated complaints of ‘immoderate punishment’ of his pupils in successive schools. The authorities were worried that he ‘could become a very serious liability’ and noted that he had narrowly escaped prosecution.

The Provincial wrote that there was no doubt about most of the complaints. Another Brother had witnessed the latest incident, when, in the course of a plain chant class, the Brother injured a boy by striking him on the nose and face, making his nose bleed.

The Brother’s response to the disciplinary inquiries was to apply for a dispensation, which was rejected. Instead, he was ordered to remain in his vocation and was given a ‘maneat’ (an order to stay).

The Provincial Council did not recommend the dispensation because it thought that the way he administered punishment was something that the Brother ‘can correct as some Brothers have done in the past’. The Provincial did not think the situation merited a Canonical Warning, even though the Brother had been given a previous, informal caution. The General Council considered the matter and ultimately agreed to issue the ‘maneat’. The Provincial wrote to the Brother informing him of the position. He said that, by complying with his religious duties with meekness and humility, the Brother would find that his ‘difficulties with the pupils will lessen and that in time you will acquire that patience and kindness with children so necessary for us all as Other Christs in the school room’.

The manner in which this case was handled suggested that the first concern was for the Congregation, for which the Brother ‘could become a very serious liability’. The next consideration was for the Brother himself, who, it was hoped, would acquire the necessary teaching skills in time. The children who were likely to suffer at the hands of this man whilst he acquired these skills were not considered at all.

Br Marque was transferred to Salthill in the early 1970s, where he remained for 15 years. One Visitor was very critical of Br Marque who held a senior position in the Community at that time. He noted: Unfortunately he has a problem with drink and when under its influence he can deal harshly with erring boys. The boys are aware of this weakness and the irrational motivation behind these punishments. This does not increase their respect for their staff nor their confidence in it.

The following year, the Visitor noted that Br Marque ‘still has a drink problem but the Superior’s good sense and vigilance have helped to lessen the gravity of the situation’.

The situation remained unresolved into the mid-1970s. The Visitor remarked that Br Marque gave the impression that he was not too happy in Galway and repeated, verbatim, the comment of the previous year: ‘He still has a drink problem but the Superior’s good sense and vigilance have helped to lessen the gravity of the situation’.

The real problem was not just that this Brother drank but that, under the influence of drink, he administered harsh and irrational punishments to the boys. While ‘the gravity of the situation’ had been lessened by the Superior’s monitoring, the question of whether children should have been under the care of such a man was not addressed. He should have been seen as an unacceptable risk to the children in the School and removed once this problem was identified.

An incident was recorded in the Manager’s diary during the mid-1970s, concerning the behaviour of Br Remi. He spent most of his teaching career working in residential schools.

The diary entry from the mid-1970s stated ‘Br Remi struck [Michael].11 deformed his teeth’. The entry the following day noted that the boy attended the dentist.

He was mentioned by the Visitor as having difficulty in adapting to the new regime that was being introduced to Salthill at that time. He wrote: despite his overt yearning for the good old days when boys were made toe the line in quasi-military fashion one senses that deep down he is slowly and reluctantly coming to appreciate that the new approach has something to recommend it.

While the Visitor recorded his approval of the new, less rigid approach to controlling children as having something to recommend it, he was not nearly critical enough about Br Remi’s yearning for the ‘good old days’ of a harsher regime. Br Remi should have been left in no doubt that violence was completely unacceptable, and incidents such as that recorded in the diary should have been avoided. By the mid-1970s, there should have been a more formal procedure for recording and responding to physical abuse of children. There was no record that this incident was ever investigated, or that any disciplinary action was taken against Br Remi. Such an event, which was tantamount to criminal assault, was not considered to be sufficiently grave to warrant disciplinary action. It suggested that, notwithstanding the changes that had been effected in the regime, the underlying philosophy had not altered.

A diary entry in 1981 read: [John]12 Back. 6.30 . Had a chat with him and gave him a few clatters.

A casual approach to physical punishment was revealed in this entry. It suggested that giving a boy ‘a few clatters’ was acceptable when it should have had no place in childcare practices in the 1980s.