Chapter 13 — Cabra

Introduction

From 1959, the Congregation developed a new secondary school for boys in Cabra West, St Declan’s, and for the first number of years this school was directly and indirectly supported by the Community in St Joseph’s, Cabra.

Indirect support came in the form of accommodation to the Brothers working in St Declan’s, who did not acquire their own separate monastery until the 1970s.

The situation was summed up by a letter from the Provincial Council in 1963: Your finances are sound throughout the school for the Deaf but all monies should be well spent as there might be a change over-night. St Declan’s could not support a Community on what is over from the Secondary Balance. You could probably send us £3000 from the Brothers’ account in payment of loan due to Building Fund on St Declan’s.

By 1970, St Declan’s had become a viable separate institution, and a monastery for the Brothers teaching there was recommended. In 1970, the Visitor noted: ‘To date St Joseph’s carried the expenses incurred in the building of St Declan’s’.

Numbers in Cabra continued to be high into the 1970s. In 1973, there were 160 boarders and 120 day pupils. Although the Institution showed a loss of £3,361, the House accounts for the same year showed a credit balance in the bank of over £47,500.

The premises were not owned by the Congregation, and the maintenance costs were paid by the Committee. In 1954, the Visitor noted: The property belongs to the Committee which finances the establishment. The Superior keeps the place in repair and submits the accounts to the Committee. He is expected to keep expenditure within certain limits, but he need not get the Committee’s approval for minor repairs in advance. In general the place is in good repair, and the boys keep it neat and clean.

Although Visitors were in general positive about conditions in Cabra, criticism was made of some matters that directly affected the boys. The boys’ dormitories, kitchen and refectory all came in for criticism in 1949. In 1954, the Visitor commented: Many of the faces seemed pinched in contrast to the rosy, chubby faces of the Artane boys. This could be partly explained by the serious illness of some in the past ... but I think some of the blame lies in the feeding ... The boys never get milk except what partly colours the tea. Indeed half the farm milk supply goes to the boys, the other half to the Community! In general the quality, quantity, variety and service of the food could be improved. They have aluminium dishes and no knives at dinner. The main trouble is £.s.d. The grants are £61 per boy (except for boys from Northern Ireland who get £84). In contrast 30/- per week is paid on Industrial School boys in Eire, and even the authorities admit that this is not sufficient.

According to the Visitor, the Committee was loath to increase the funding to the School and stressed that ‘the school is a charitable institution’. This Visitor was the same Brother who also commented in the 1954 report on how the surplus funds in the House accounts could best be used.

The Visitation Report for 1948 would indicate that different standards applied to boys whose parents paid fees to the School: There are two distinct kitchens in the establishment. The larger one is for boys only and in the second one adjacent to the Brothers’ refectory cooking is done for the Brothers, teachers, workmen, and about a dozen boys whose parents pay the whole fee for them. The Brothers get clean wholesome food and a plentiful supply of same. For meat the boys get puddings and sausages never beef or mutton.

The Investigation Committee was unable to conduct a full hearing into this Institution. The principal difficulty was in obtaining statements of complainant witnesses. Protracted correspondence and discussion failed to produce agreement as to arrangements for taking statements. The result was that the investigation into the School was confined to a review of the discovered material produced by the Department of Education and Science, the Christian Brothers, the Catholic Institute for the Deaf, the Archdiocese of Dublin and the Garda Síochana. The Committee was, however, able to make its own arrangement for all complainants to be interviewed by its lawyers. A total of 44 complainants attended for interview, out of 65 who were invited to attend.

At the Emergence hearings held in public, when the investigation recommenced in 2004, Mr Kevin Stanley of the Irish Deaf Society highlighted an issue that was of major concern to his members, namely the policy that was imposed by the Department of Education on deaf schools of preferring oralism over signing as a method of communication. The contention was that this policy was ill-considered and unjustified. It made communication difficult between children educated under the new system and their families, who were used to sign language. It was also argued that the methods employed to implement the policy were abusive, because the school authorities used corporal punishment for that purpose. This last point could be examined in the general context of physical abuse in the School, but the policy issue was a different matter. The discovery material and Submissions make it clear that there was a real question of principle that had to be decided as to the method of communication to be taught in schools. There were arguments on each side as between oralism and signing, with advantages and disadvantages accompanying whichever was chosen. The decision that was made can be rationally justified. In those circumstances, it was not the function of an investigation into abuse to try to determine whether the policy choice was the best available, even if it could be argued that a different option would have been preferable. Another problem about this issue is that the policy does not appear to have been applied in more recent times. This complaint, accordingly had to be excluded, subject to the point about the implementation of the policy by means that constituted physical abuse.

This School is of particular interest because it had to deal with abuse that occurred in recent times, compared with other institutions, and the chapter concentrates on these modern cases and summarises the records of earlier allegations.

Physical abuse

The Christian Brothers in their 2006 Submission stated that their approach to corporal punishment in St Joseph’s was similar to that in primary schools throughout the country at the time, in which corporal punishment was permitted until 1982. Apart from the Departmental regulation of corporal punishment, the Christian Brothers were also bound by their own Constitution Rules and Acts of Chapter, which sought to reduce corporal punishment to a minimum. These provisions also emphasised that it was not to be used for failure at lessons, and that the sole authorised instrument of punishment was the leather strap, to be used only on the hand. In a letter written in 1958, the Provincial wrote to the Superior of Cabra, advising that ‘There must be no punishment except as permitted by rule and that is to be applied as seldom as possible’.

The documents furnished by the Congregation revealed instances of physical abuse by Brothers and lay staff from as early as 1955. The Brothers in their Submission asserted that known incidents of physical abuse ‘were dealt with in a responsible and appropriate manner’. A case that is more fully documented is set out first, followed by information about other episodes gleaned from records. Allegations against a teacher, Mr Ashe1

The allegations against Mr Ashe span a period of five years, beginning in the 1980s. In the year following the commencement of his employment at St Joseph’s, the first complaint about him was made at a Parent-Teacher meeting in the School. A parent complained to the Chairman of the Board, Br Noyes,2 that Mr Ashe had struck her son. Br Noyes responded by defending the teacher and ‘eventually smoothed over the situation’. In March of the following year, the parents of a boy wrote to the Principal, Br Ames,3 complaining about the aggressive and arrogant manner in which Mr Ashe had spoken to them. The Principal pointed out to Mr Ashe that such behaviour was unacceptable, but the teacher was unresponsive and Br Ames noted that he ‘got so little satisfaction from talking’ to him that he did not reply to the letter of complaint.