Chapter 12 — Salthill

Sexual abuse

Br Dacian wrote the apology as requested by Br Travis: Dear Mr and Mrs Murphy, My purpose in writing to you is to apologise for my behaviour with Tom and any upset I may have caused to you, his parents. I regret it sincerely. I am pleased to hear that Tom is back at school and faring well. Yours sincerely,

Br Dacian wrote to the Provincial expressing his gratitude and appreciation that ‘the whole affair is coming to a satisfactory conclusion’, which he thought was due to the Provincial’s ‘delicate dealing of the matter’.

The documents in this case revealed, incidentally, other unrelated instances of sexual abuse by religious and lay teachers.

In his first meeting with the Provincial and the Superior, Mr Murphy stated that interference with boys was going on in the School for many years, going back 25 or 30 years, and mentioned a Br Nathaniel.23 The Provincial recorded that he and the Superior said they knew nothing about it, and noted that Br Nathaniel was a Christian Brother in the Community in the early 1950s who had later left the Congregation. The story of Br Nathaniel, as revealed in the Congregation’s Rome Files, was that, in the mid-1960s, he sought and obtained a dispensation from his vows because of his trouble with the vow of chastity, although the record did not confirm that his sexual interest was in boys. The Brother had informed his Superiors that he had not been able to keep the vow of chastity for years. He was proposing to seek a job as a teacher in England. The authorities were keen to facilitate the Brother and, because ‘it would make matters too pointed if he was now taken off’ a course that he was to do, it was proposed to move him to the O’Brien Institute and have the dispensation executed from there.

The psychologist whom the Murphy family consulted reported to a senior social worker that the father of another child with whom he was dealing had himself, when he was a schoolboy, witnessed his Principal teacher, a religious Brother, sexually abusing a boy in front of the class on frequent occasions.

The story of Peter Brady emerged for the first time in that family when Peter’s brother had an unpleasant experience of a sexual nature with a teacher in his school and warned Peter about him, whereupon Peter revealed to his mother and brother the abuse that he had suffered at Br Dacian’s hands.

In none of the Br Dacian cases was there a prosecution or even a formal report to the Gardaí. None of the victims wished to pursue the matter by way of Garda investigation. In the Murphy case, the parents were fearful of the damage that might be done to their son by the publicity. The same was almost certainly true for the incidental cases mentioned above. These features of the responses of victims and their families to cases of abuse have important implications for abuse and the investigation of abuse, and often make it easier for perpetrators to avoid being required to answer for their actions.

The teacher who confronted Br Dacian in the Dublin school was the Principal, in the mid-1990s, when he wrote to Br Travis seeking confirmation that Br Dacian was no longer working with children. He wrote: We have to be absolutely certain that no other children are at risk. If we do not get that guarantee we will have to get legal advice.

Br Travis furnished the required confirmation in his reply: I wish to confirm that he is engaged in ministry with adults in England. His work does not entail any involvement or contact with children or young people.

In its Opening Statement on Letterfrack, the Congregation dealt with Br Dacian, who is referred to as Br R, as follows: 8. In ... Brother R, during his appointment to Salthill Industrial School was accused of touching a boy’s private parts in the dormitory. (a)He admitted that there was some truth in the allegation. (b)Unfortunately, he was subsequently sent to Letterfrack [in the early 1970s], having spent the previous years in day schools. Comment: Details of the complaint were found in the Generalate Archives, which had been transferred to Rome in the mid-60s while only a short reference was made in the Salthill visitation report ... The Provincial Council who had been in office [at that time] were replaced by a new Council who had no knowledge of the original complaint when R was sent to Letterfrack. Hence, Brother R was sent to Letterfrack without any knowledge of the previous complaint on the part of the new Council.

These Submissions are included here for completeness. The Christian Brothers did not address the issues raised by the fuller account of Br Dacian’s career of abuse contained in other parts of their own extensive documentation.

The case of Br Dacian is recounted in detail because it has significance beyond the story of sexual abuse in Salthill and other industrial schools. The later episodes illustrate some of the difficulties that confront persons reporting abuse and why they might be reluctant to prosecute it. These events happened relatively recently, at a time thought to be enlightened and in conditions that should have been conducive to proper investigation and sensitive treatment of victims and their families. It must be remembered that this account only contains what is recorded in documents and that there may be other instances that did not come to light.

In conclusion: The Brothers’ assurances to Tom Murphy’s family that they would carry out a proper investigation, take action and not cover up were hollow: they did not investigate, they withheld information, and they supported the perpetrator. The Murphys were treated shamefully: the parents were in turn passed on from one person in authority to another; their case was treated with indifference; they were delayed a meeting with the senior Brother; and when the meeting did eventually take place, they were patronised, cross-examined and misled. The need for proper procedures and protocols is highlighted by these cases, but they are of little value if those in authority are working to their own agenda. The failure to deal with this abuser led to other children being victimised, and the Congregation bears responsibility. The danger perceived by the Christian Brothers was the revelation of sexual abuse rather than the fact of abuse. Victims’ families were unwilling to prosecute this abuser in three separate cases, which would tend to suggest substantial under-reporting of sexual abuse. This perpetrator was able to exploit the reluctance of his victims to charge him and the complacency of his brethren.

A matter concerning Br Gautier was brought to the Provincial Council’s attention in the early 1950s. The Superior wrote to the Provincial setting out the matter. He explained that there were occasions when Br Gautier had stripped small boys who were in care in Salthill in order to apply a medical lotion. This was not an uncommon practice, in that boys suffering from various ailments, such as scabies, were usually treated with a medical lotion. The Superior questioned Br Gautier, who denied emphatically that anything improper had occurred and volunteered to attend at the Provincialate in Booterstown to defend his actions.

The Superior wrote that Br Gautier had acted ‘indiscreetly’ and should have brought to his attention the fact that the boys required treatment so that he could deal with it as he thought appropriate. He warned that there were ‘boys in our midst who have told lies about their companions with a view to having such punished’. The Superior remarked that he had intended to warn Br Gautier to be careful but that the matter lapsed from his memory. He added that Br Gautier ‘is severe – I mean stern’. He accepted Br Gautier’s explanation of the matter.