Chapter 6 — Christian Brothers

Sexual abuse

The Congregation’s approach to allegations of sexual abuse of pupils was broadly similar for all its schools. It was set out by Br Michael Reynolds in a representative capacity in September 2005 and may be summarised as follows: The Congregation accept that there were instances when members of the Congregation and members of staff engaged in the sexual abuse of boys while in their care. That such instances took place is a matter of great regret to the Congregation. That there was no systemic sexual abuse of boys in their institutions. Brothers who did sexually abuse boys betrayed the trust given them and thereby caused pain to the great number of Brothers who honoured this trust and devoted themselves to the education and welfare of the boys in their care.

It is stated in the Congregation’s Artane Opening Statement that: The Congregation endeavoured to ensure the safety of the children in its care, whether in day schools or in residential institutions. Brothers, during their training as teachers, were not given specific instruction in child protection, and such instruction is relatively new in the training of teachers and others involved in the education and care of youth. The issue of sexual abuse was seen as a moral one where such abuse was seen as a grave moral failing. It was the cause of scandal and a moral danger both to the child and to the abuser. Long-term psychological damage caused by sexual abuse was not understood by society at the time. The recidivist nature of child sexual abuse was, likewise, not understood by society at that time. The response of the Congregation to instances of sexual abuse was conditioned by this inadequate understanding of the issue. Procedures were in place for dealing with abuse, but they were of their time and were therefore very inadequate by current standards.

The Congregation’s statement describes how Brothers guilty of child sexual abuse were dealt with: A Brother not yet a finally professed member of the Congregation was usually dismissed. A finally professed Brother was summoned to the Provincialate and either given a formal Canonical Warning or dismissed. A repeat offender was dismissed.

The source material referred to and analysed by the Congregation in making its submission was identified as contemporaneous documentation extracted from the Provincial Archives of the Christian Brothers in Ireland and the General Archives of the Christian Brothers in Rome. As in the case of its submission in relation to corporal punishment, the Congregation does not in this submission place reliance on other possible sources of information such as the recollections and accounts of those who lived and worked in the institutions during the relevant period, nor on the accounts contained in the statements of complainants furnished to the Commission.

The documents extracted from the Christian Brothers archives in Rome were not comprehensive; in most cases, they did not contain statements of the evidence; they sometimes referred to the offence under scrutiny in oblique terms and they referred only to those cases where the allegation against the Brother was considered well founded.

Having analysed the documented cases, the Congregation concluded that the approach to sexual abuse was that it was seen as a moral issue. Such abuse was seen as a grave moral failing on a number of grounds: It was morally wrong, sinful in itself. It was a cause of serious scandal to and endangered the morals of the child. It damaged the reputation of the individual offender, the institution and the Congregation.

Its analysis of these cases also leads the Congregation to comment that there was no adequate understanding either of the emotional impact which sexual abuse caused the child or of the recidivistic nature of the abuser. The Congregation agreed with a suggestion by counsel for the Commission that the fact that the abuse was a crime should have been added to this list.

It was submitted by the Congregation that, while the approach to instances of sexual abuse of children was very inadequate by present-day standards, the manner in which the Congregation did respond was characterised as follows: There was no cover up of the issue. When personnel became aware of the issue they reported it to the Congregation authorities. Structures in place made it possible for boys to bring such issues to the attention of the Resident Manager or other personnel, and this in fact happened. The Congregation removed the abusers from the institution and in most cases from the Congregation. The Congregation Visitor was attentive to the dangers of sex abuse. Guidelines and recommendations were issued to assist with child protection.

In its investigations into individual schools, the Committee found that the Congregation’s response to sexual abuse fell short of the measures outlined above.

After the conclusion of the evidence given in Phases I, II and III hearings, the Congregation furnished written submissions setting out its position in relation to various aspects of the evidence heard by the Investigation Committee.

In essence, the submissions made by the Christian Brothers at this stage in relation to allegations of abuse were that the quality and reliability of the evidence given by complainants during the Phase II hearings had been undermined owing to a broad range of significant factors. The effect of these undermining factors was to render much of the evidence (particularly in respect of sexual abuse) implausible, inconsistent, contradictory, and therefore unreliable.

Assessment of evidence

The Congregation emphasised in its submissions the impact that publicity and lobby groups had on the reliability of evidence about abuse. It also outlined concerns regarding the Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Act, 2000 which, it submitted, affected the reliability of allegations of sexual abuse.

Many witnesses were questioned closely by counsel for the Christian Brothers about their association with lobby and support groups. There was a clear implication by the Congregation that active association with a lobby group was indicative of a lack of objectivity on the part of the witness.

The Committee recognised there were grounds for concern that some complainant witnesses had been influenced by events at meetings. For example, lists of names of Brothers who were present in the institutions were distributed at some meetings so that ex-residents would be able to name abusers. Issues such as this diminished the credibility and reliability of the testimony of some witnesses.

The Christian Brothers were able to cross-examine all the complainants who came forward, and the issue of collusion was fully explored by their counsel. Evidence of some witnesses was discounted by the Committee where these issues arose.