Chapter 7 — Artane

Physical abuse

Most of the witnesses did not complain of being punished if they had done wrong and deserved chastisement. Their main objections were to unjust, capricious punishments or excessive punishments that were administered without ‘proper comportment, gravity and propriety’, or where the experience was either cruel or humiliating.

Physical abuse

In the course of his interviews on behalf of the congregation, Mr Dunleavy discussed the ability of Brothers to complain to their superiors about incidents or deficiencies in Artane: No Brothers interviewed recalled any means by which they could make a complaint on any matter concerning the School. Several Brothers expressed feelings of disquiet about things they had seen during their time at Artane but maintained there existed no process by which they could make their feelings of unease unknown. The absence of any proper complaints procedure for staff was mirrored in a total absence of such a procedure for pupils. If a pupil had a complaint relating to any matter within the School or concerning any Christian Brother in the School he would have to make that complaint to another Brother. Apart from the inadequacy of such a system, Brothers being interviewed recognised that such a complaints procedure was unlikely to be invoked by a pupil because of the fear of his complaint being relayed back to the Brother concerned.

Mr Dunleavy reviewed 11 cases of alleged physical abuse and found that they shared certain features: (a)In no case of an allegation of physical abuse did the School notify the Dept. of Education of the allegation. (b)In no case where the Dept. of Education became aware of an allegation of physical abuse did it insist on carrying out its own investigation, or insist that an independent investigation be carried out. (c)In all cases involving allegations of physical abuse of which the Dept. of Education became aware, the Dept. were content on each occasion for the School authorities to investigate themselves. (d)In no case involving an allegation of physical abuse could I find any evidence that either the School or the Dept. of Education dismissed or disciplined the individual involved. (e)In no case involving an allegation of physical abuse does it appear that the experience of the incident led the School to establish any safety measures or any appropriate code of practice or even a simple regulation governing the maximum force to be used against a boy, to ensure that such incidents did not recur. (f)In no case of an allegation of physical abuse, where it was clear that the Dept. of Education’s own guidelines concerning the proper procedures for the notification of an injury to a boy had not been followed, did the Dept. of Education insist on carrying out its own investigation, or insist that an independent investigation be carried out.

The documentary evidence, the recollections of independent witnesses, the evidence heard by the Committee between September and December 2005, and the report of Mr Dunleavy that was commissioned by the Congregation all described a regime of punishment and physical abuse in Artane.

It is an inadequate response to the allegations of physical abuse to attempt to refute them by forensic analysis. The Congregation failed to address central issues about Artane. There is a body of information showing the prevalence of excessive use of corporal punishment in cases that are documented and others that are acknowledged. The evidence of complainants confirms what is beyond dispute. There was an absence of an ordered system of management and governance of the institution that had inevitable consequences.

1.Artane used frequent and severe corporal punishment to impose and enforce a regime of militaristic discipline. 2.Corporal punishment was systemic and pervasive. Management did nothing to prevent excessive and inappropriate punishment and boys and Brothers learnt to accept a high level of physical punishment as the norm. 3.Brothers used a variety of weapons and devised methods of increasing suffering when inflicting punishment, and in some cases they were cruel and even sadistic. 4.Brothers did not intervene to stop excessive punishment by colleagues, and there was a code of conduct between Brothers that prevented criticism of each other’s behaviour, even in cases where it was clearly extreme or excessive. All Brothers, therefore, became implicated in excesses. 5.Even where a child behaved and kept to the rules, he could still be beaten. 6.The result of arbitrary and excessive punishment was a climate of fear. 7.Artane did not operate within the Rules and Regulations for industrial schools and the precepts of the Christian Brothers concerning corporal punishment. 8.The absence of a punishment book in Artane was a disregard for a specific legal requirement intended for the protection of children. The Punishment Book was not maintained in Artane because the Christian Brothers chose not to maintain it. 9.The Department was also at fault in failing to ensure that the statutory punishment book was properly maintained and reviewed at every inspection. 10.The Department of Education failed in its supervisory role by maintaining a defensive and protective attitude towards the management and staff. Even when it conducted an investigation, the Department simply accepted Brothers’ explanations uncritically.

Sexual abuse

The Christian Brothers’ Opening Statement on the issue of sexual abuse commented on six Brothers who were guilty of sexual abuse while they were in Artane. It then discussed five more Brothers who sexually abused boys in other institutions after their time in Artane ‘because of a possible retrospective connection to Artane’. The Statement finally dealt with two cases in the 1930s, in each of which a Brother was assigned to the staff of Artane with knowledge that he had previously been guilty of child sexual abuse.

Following its review of the cases of these 13 Brothers, the Congregation concluded that there was no systemic sexual abuse of boys in Artane. With regard to Brothers who abused, the Statement accepted that they did ‘betray the trust given them causing serious damage to boys in their care’, and it contrasted this with ‘the great number of Brothers who honoured this trust and devoted themselves to the education and welfare of the boys in their care’, to whom it said the offending Brothers caused pain. The Brothers accepted that the approach to instances of sexual abuse was ‘very inadequate by present day standards’ and then went on to propose arguments which were intended to exonerate the Congregation at the time: There was no cover up of the issue. When personnel became aware of the issue, they reported it to the Congregation authorities. Structures in Artane 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.

The Congregation does not accept any blame as a Congregation for sexual abuse in Artane. It contends that the Brothers who dealt with cases of sexual abuse did so in a proper manner by the standards and procedures of that time. It acknowledged that these procedures would not meet present-day standards. It repeated the apology that it issued to people who suffered abuse in its institutions.

The Congregation contended that Brothers who committed sexual abuse were dealt with severely. A guilty Brother was either given a warning or he was dismissed. Repeat offenders were dismissed. A Brother who had not taken permanent vows was usually dismissed. Of the cases recorded in the archives, 11 Brothers were finally professed and two were of temporary profession. Dealing first with the 11 Brothers in the former category, six Brothers were permitted to apply for and were granted dispensation from their vows, three were given Canonical Warnings, and no sanctions were applied to the remaining two Brothers. One of the two Brothers of temporary profession was dismissed, and the other did not renew his vows at the end of the year.

These details show that the only actual dismissal was in the case of a Brother of temporary profession. The most common sanction was to permit the Brother to apply for a dispensation from his vows, a procedure which required the endorsement of a Bishop. Taking this course spared the Congregation the trouble of proceeding with a formal Canonical trial and it was of immense advantage to the abuser. He was able to leave the Congregation of his own volition, to all appearances in good standing. He was in the same position as a person who had lost his vocation to be a Brother and who had been permitted to rejoin the outside lay world. The records acknowledged this sharp distinction, and detailed comments made by the Congregation also recognised it. For example, in relation to one case, information was given that the Brother: applied to the Apostolic Visitor who advised him to seek a Dispensation from Vows. His application was granted and he left the Congregation ...

In another case, a decision was made that the Brother ‘should be dismissed from the Congregation but he was given the opportunity to apply for a Dispensation from Vows’. In a subsequent general comment on the six cases of Brothers recorded as having been guilty of sexual abuse in Artane, the Opening Statement confusingly appeared to equate these two quite different means of exiting the Community of the Christian Brothers: The sanction applied was either dismissal or a canonical warning. In cases where it was decided to dismiss a Brother, the normal procedure was to instruct him to apply for a dispensation from vows.

The records indicate that the authorities were very well aware of the distinction between dismissal and a grant of dispensation from vows, which was a considerable benefit offered to an abuser otherwise facing expulsion. Dismissal means removal from office, not permission to resign. The Brothers’ Statement offered no explanation as to why this facility was offered to offenders.

The Opening Statement made a cursory reference to the question why abuse was not reported to the Gardaí: It would appear that the abuse was not reported to the civil authorities. However, reporting of allegations and/or instances of child sex abuse may not have been common practice in the general population at the time.

The implication is that sex abuse against children was not normally reported to the Gardaí by ‘the general population at the time’ and that this furnished mitigation or explanation of the failure by the Brothers. The introduction of ‘allegations’ is not relevant in a section dealing with recorded cases of undisputed sexual abuse committed by Christian Brothers. Moreover, what may or may not have been common practice in the general population cannot be the rule for providers of childcare who should be setting standards. And, as a later account will show, the practice of the Brothers differed according to the case: when laymen were suspected of sexual abuse, the Christian Brothers reported them to the Gardaí.