Chapter 7 — Artane

Physical abuse

He alleged the Brother would call him names such as ‘soiler’ and ‘slasher’ for wetting the bed. He also called him a dunce in school.

Another resident in Artane, for seven years during the 1950s, complained that Br Verrill caught four boys smoking and beat them with a leather strap and cane. He then put the boys up in front of the whole school and they had to apologise. He said that his little finger was split as a result. He went to the infirmary and his finger was bandaged.

A resident there for five years in the 1950s said of Br Verrill, ‘... if he happened to be in bad humour or if you were passing by him, he would hit you a clatter ... I had boils on the back of my neck and he hit me on the back of my neck’. This was with the strap and he would do this to other boys. When asked whether he complained about this, he said he didn’t know to whom he would have complained.

— The cases cited above are an example of the consequences of a failure by the authorities to stop abusive behaviour by a Brother. Complaints were not investigated and breaches of the rules were overlooked. The dismissal of written complaints supports the assertions of ex-pupils that they could not complain about their treatment to anyone in Artane.

Physical abuse

A Visitation Report in the late 1950s criticised two Brothers for excessive use of corporal punishment. It wrote the following about one Brother: Br Vailant31 was reported to be rather severe on certain boys, troublesome ones, and to be exceeding the permitted limits of punishment. I spoke to him about this and he promised to be more careful in future. He has excellent control and should not have to resort to corporal punishment at all.

It then made the following criticism about Br Deon:32 It was also stated that Br. Deon was too severe. When I spoke to him about it he said his attention had never been called to it and that he would amend.

One complainant claimed he had been struck by Br Vailant so hard that he had to be treated in hospital as an in-patient in 1959. The blow was known as an ‘electric jowler’, struck downwards across the face. The Brother who attended the oral hearing was asked if he was familiar with this phrase, and replied, ‘Yes, they called it a jowler ... it was being struck on the face like, I suppose, like getting an electric shock‘.

He admitted that ‘instead of using a leather I actually, on a number of occasions, struck boys with my hand on the face. I would say that that was ... not correct, that was being severe’.

He was asked if he had been consulted by the Congregation when it was preparing its statements in response to individual complaints. He replied: I remember discussing with ... the Provincial at the time and ... I said to him, yes, that there was an element of truth in the allegations that were being made, but we didn’t go into details as I remember it.

The Brother who prepared the Congregation’s response simply stated: Brother Vailant was the disciplinarian in Artane for part of my stay there. He was a strict disciplinarian. It is possible that there was some folklore about him and the manner in which he used to punish the boys. However I never saw him giving any boy an electric jowler. The leadership team have confirmed to me that save for the complaints furnished to the Commission there are no records of complaints of abuse of any type made against Br Vailant during the relevant period.

There was no mention in this response that the Brother had previously admitted that there was an element of truth in the allegations.

Br Vailant, who had two spells in Artane in the 1950s and early 1960s, stated that he felt the boys were angry against the State that committed them, against their parents who did not care, and angry against the Brothers as the ones who were keeping them there. ‘In their eyes’, he explained, ‘we were seen as types of jailers’. He admitted he used the leather strap for misbehaviour and then added: ... I think I would have to put my hand up and say that I also used it for failure in lessons, even though I knew that that was discouraged. If you ask me why I would use it for failure in lessons I would say to encourage people to get on and to learn something.

Br Vailant was asked about the reference to him in the Visitation Report quoted above, which noted that he was ‘exceeding the permitted limits of punishment’. When asked if could remember the rebuke, he replied: I think I could say that I was never aware that that was written about me in a Visitation Report ... I don’t actually remember that [the Visitor speaking to me]. He said that I was too severe. Well, I would say now that I probably was, or at least that I was too strict, or maybe too demanding.

He was asked if he exceeded his own standards and regretted it. He replied: I would say yes ... I would say instead of using a leather I actually, on a number of occasions, struck boys with my hand on the face. I would say that was, you know, not correct, that that was being severe and that maybe is what the Provincial was referring to ...

Under questioning, he added: ... I became aware that I was doing things that were not strictly right or not strictly necessary ... Like using the leather too frequently, or using it for failure in lessons, or in work. Also, using my hand instead of what was recognised as a way of punishing.