Chapter 12 — Salthill

Sexual abuse

Brother Julien spent seven years in Salthill during the 1930s. During service in his next posting, Artane, he was accused of misconduct. A personnel sheet in relation to Br Julien provided the information that: ‘clear evidence came to light of serious, long, continued misconduct with boys in Artane. He asked for dispensation from his vows and left the Congregation [in] 1944’. Br Julien was implicated, along with three other Brothers, according to the Visitation Report, which noted: In our Institution it should be considered a very grave offence for a Br to take a boy to his room on any pretext, or to be seen alone with a boy on any occasion. Unfortunately the Rule forbidding such was not observed in Artane. Boys were also taken out of the shops and off the parade by Brothers for various reasons. These have now been prohibited. The superior should have access to all rooms and stores in the institutions at all reasonable times and keys should be provided to enable him to have such access.

There was no documentary evidence as to any sexual activity by this Brother in Salthill but, given the recidivist nature of this crime, there must be serious concern regarding his time there.

Br Piperel taught in Salthill for two years in the mid-1940s. He had earlier worked in Letterfrack, where he had been the subject of a serious complaint that he was sexually interfering with boys. A full account of the case is contained in the chapter on Letterfrack but a brief outline of it is included here.

The Provincial received an anonymous letter of accusation from ‘a friend of the school’ in relation to concerns about Br Piperel’s behaviour in Letterfrack. The letter-writer asked the Provincial to change Br Piperel for the morals of the boys.

The Provincial did not conceal his disquiet. Having set out a transcription of the anonymous letter, he wrote to Br Piperel: These recurring warnings are causing me grave anxiety. Taken in connection with what did happen between you and boys on a previous occasion there is quite justifiable cause for all my anxiety. Has anything wrong, such as is described in the above letter, taken place between you and a boy, or boys? The matter is so grave, and is fraught with such serious consequences to you, to the Institution and to the Congregation, that I require you to be very open and candid with me. Please let me have a letter from you by return.

Br Piperel wrote a three-page letter defending his behaviour and alleging that another member of staff had made malicious allegations against him.

At the time of the complaint, Br Piperel had been in Letterfrack for some eight years and he continued his career there for another four years. Thereafter, he served in Salthill, Tralee and Glin for almost 10 years, including two years in Salthill. The records contained complaints about the Brother’s work and attitude in these institutions, but did not record incidents of sexual impropriety.

His last posting was to a school in Cork in the 1950s, where his career as a teacher came to a dramatic end as a result of a complaint by a local doctor about his inappropriate behaviour with a young girl.

In their Opening Statement for Letterfrack, the Christian Brothers recorded the facts about this Brother in summary form, noting that he ‘was given the opportunity to explain himself and give his interpretation of what happened’. They commented: It is not clear why Br X was moved around from institution to institution despite being a danger to the boys. There is no detailed account to indicate what discussion took place about the matter, nor any indication as to why such a decision was taken.

This Brother was transferred to Salthill, notwithstanding the history of concern about his conduct with boys. Again, there was no evidence that he interfered with boys there, and it must also be borne in mind that no case was proved against him in Letterfrack. However, the documents indicated that the Brother Provincial had a serious concern about his propensities, and that alone should have ensured that he was not appointed to another residential school.

Conclusions on sexual abuse in Salthill

1.The appointment to Salthill of a Brother with a known propensity for abuse of boys showed a reckless disregard for the safety of children in care. 2.Concerns were raised about three Brothers whilst they were in Salthill. In none of these cases was the abuse addressed, other than as a practical problem for the Congregation. One Brother continued in his post and the two others were transferred to other schools. In the case of one of them, there is documentary evidence of serious abuse of young boys continuing for over 20 years after his transfer from Salthill. 3.The Congregation protected its own reputation instead of protecting children.

Neglect and emotional abuse

In the 1940s and 1950s, there were around 200 boys in Salthill. Unlike the position in Artane, many of these children were under eight years of age. In 1955, for example, over 80 of the 165 boys registered for the national school were in second class or lower. Despite the large numbers of very small children, staffing was no higher than in other industrial schools.

In Salthill, the absence of any childcare training had more serious consequences because of the age profile of so many of the children.

Although conditions improved in the mid-1970s, for the previous 40 years of its existence, Salthill did not deliver an adequate level of physical care to the children who were sent there. A picture of the Institution emerged from the Visitation Reports and the Department of Education reports for the period.

As in other Christian Brothers’ schools, both the children and the Community were supported out of the capitation grants. Very little information was available in the Visitation Reports but, in one year, the figures were set out in detail. In 1943, £1,600 was allocated to the nine Brothers in the School by way of stipend. In that same year, the three teaching Brothers received £214, or £71 each, by way of salary from the Department of Education.