Chapter 7 — Artane

Physical abuse

Officials of the Department of Education carried out an investigation and rejected the complaints. In the course of their inquiry, the officials interviewed the boy and his grandmother, and they received written statements from each of the Brothers involved, furnished to them by the Superior of Artane. Mrs McCarthy was unhappy with the way that she and her grandson were questioned. The officials’ investigation was hampered by the grandmother’s refusal to give the names of boys said to have witnessed the events involving her grandson and, in addition, they failed to obtain information from the chaplain, Fr Moore, who had some knowledge of the matter and was unhappy that he had not been approached directly but through the Superior of Artane. More importantly, he feared that his bond of confidentiality with the boys in Artane might be prejudiced. A genuine misunderstanding might have caused the failure to get information from the chaplain. In the circumstances, it would be unfair to criticise the inspectors on this ground. Whatever impediments there may have been to the inquiry, it nevertheless seems unsatisfactory that the officials did not question the Brothers involved. The report of the investigation did not, however, equivocate: From an examination of the evidence obtained through interviews, enquiries made by phone and the reports furnished by the Brothers concerned, in association with the grandmother’s refusal to give the names of the boys who witnessed [the boy’s] being taken from his bed at night for punishment, it is clear that the charges of brutality and sadism made by Mrs. McCarthy are without foundation. The fact that she is content to leave her other grandson in the care of the Brothers in Artane lend support to this opinion. Br Ourson37 did give [the boy] a shaking ... but considering the boy’s infuriating failures to remain in employment, he showed remarkable restraint. Outside this occurrence, nothing emerged from the enquiry to justify the charges of ill-treatment ...

The more senior official in the Department of the two who investigated decided that the grandmother should not receive a written reply to her complaint, because she had not co-operated by naming witnesses among the boys.

Br Reynolds was examined in relation to this in Phase I of the Investigation Committee’s inquiry. Referring to the view of the Brothers that the grandmother was dangerous, he said: I think in that particular case they had reasonably good foundation for the conclusions that they came to. I don’t particularly want to talk about the good lady in question, but I think if you examine the documentation in relation to that case it is quite clearly shown that Number one, an investigation was carried out and the considered opinion of the Resident Manager was that the incident she was complaining about didn’t actually take place. Nonetheless, they did issue a letter, not just to Artane, to all our industrial schools saying if punishments of this nature, if it should happen that they did take place it should cease if that is the custom or if it has happened. I am not sure why that happened. It would appear to me that that was their action to it first of all in relation to giving instruction to the various institutions and may well have said to the mother or the grandmother who was complaining, “we have done this. We don’t accept your complaint, but we have done this in relation to that complaint”. I haven’t documentary evidence in relation to that but I can’t see why else they would send that out to all industrial schools if there wasn’t some reason of that nature for it.

Br Reynolds was referring to a circular sent by the Superior General to the Christian Brothers’ industrial schools prohibiting the Brothers from taking boys out of bed at night to administer corporal punishment.

The letter, dated 4th March 1963, was a ‘Direction to all our Residential Schools’ and it stated: Should it be a custom that Brothers, Teachers or Night Watchmen take boys out of bed at night time and beat them that custom is to cease. I am now forbidding it. The Br. Superior is to call the attention of the Br. Disciplinarian, Brothers, Teachers and Watchmen who may have to supervise boys in the dormitory to this prohibition. Such a custom, if ever it existed, could only bring serious trouble and shame on our management. The Regulations regarding corporal punishment in our Rules and Acts of Chapter are to be adhered to.

In conclusion: A serious complaint was inadequately investigated and was dismissed on insufficient grounds by both the Department of Education and the Superior. The Superior did not deny that ‘to impress matters on the boy he gave him a tip of his hand’. The severity of the blow was subsequently disputed, but it is accepted that the boy was physically chastised in the presence of the grandmother. Neither the Brothers nor the Department of Education criticised the Superior for hitting the boy in this way. The correspondence reveals a lack of respect for the grandmother and her complaints. She is seen as a dangerous troublemaker whose complaints ‘have to be nailed’. The decision by the senior official in the Department of Education not to reply to the grandmother’s letter itself revealed a contempt for her complaint. The Department’s inspectors accepted written statements from the Brothers and did not question them directly, thereby affording them a preferential credibility. Although the grandmother’s complaint was totally rejected, the Superior still sent out a letter prohibiting a method of giving punishment that the establishment claimed had never happened. This odd fact suggests there was an apprehension that there was some truth in what had been alleged. Many witnesses before the Investigation Committee testified that they were taken out of bed and punished, thereby supporting this part of the grandmother’s complaint.

A case of documented abuse was summarised in the Opening Statement by the Congregation. It involved a boy who received treatment in the infirmary following a beating by a Brother: In 1964 a Brother gave a beating to a boy, apparently for misconduct with other boys. The nature of the misconduct is unclear. There is reference to this incident in the infirmary diary for June of 1965 (sic), from which it is clear that the boy was beaten on the back and legs. There is no indication that the matter was investigated or that any action was taken against the Brother.

The 1964 infirmary diary contained an entry regarding a boy who complained of a sore back and legs. The entry simply stated: ‘got beating by Br Lionel for bad conduct with other boys. Resting’.

Physical abuse

In evidence, Br Lionel denied that this had happened. The Brother said that he was never reprimanded for this incident and said that he had no recollection of the particular boy named in the diary. He went on to say that he had indeed severely punished another named boy for sexually interfering with three younger boys. He described the beating as follows: I had to deal with just one incident of [peer abuse] ... I literally gave the person responsible when he had admitted doing it – he admitted openly to having done this to three children and I gave him literally a hiding. I mean a hiding ... I would have slapped him on the hands, I would have slapped him on the backside. It was literally – it was something to deter him from ever doing this again ... It stands out in my mind, it was the toughest thing I ever had to deal with.

A workman witnessed this beating and reported it to the Superior, Br Ourson. According to Br Lionel, the boy was brought before the Superior, where he recounted what he had done in the presence of the Brother and the workman. The Brother then claimed the workman said, after hearing what the boy had done, ‘if I was dealing with him I would have killed him’.

The Brother was unable to describe to the Committee the nature of conduct which in his view merited this severe punishment. All he could say was that the three young boys had come to him reporting ‘badness’ being done to them by the offender.

The Brother admitted he had beaten another boy in the manner described, but not the boy named in the diary, which leaves the entry in the infirmary diary unexplained. If the entry is correct, a second boy must have received a beating that was so severe he required treatment in the infirmary.

It was obvious from the worker’s reaction that the beating he had seen was one of extreme brutality. In evidence, however, the Brother remained unapologetic about the incident. He viewed the offending behaviour as sufficiently serious to warrant this extreme punishment, and invoked the workman’s later comment as support of his claim. Given the obvious severity of the beating, the matter should have been fully investigated and reported on by the Superior, irrespective of the offending behaviour of the boy.

In their Opening Statement, the Christian Brothers referred to an incident in the mid-1960s when an employee injured a boy: The Manager’s diary contains an entry ... which states that two boys, who were brothers, were sent unaccompanied to the Mater Hospital and did not return. This note is followed by the word “readmitted” which seems to indicate that the boys did eventually come back to Artane. It appears that one of the boys was injured, his brother accompanied him to the hospital and both absconded. Two lines below the original entry there is another entry as follows: “The injury received was caused by an employee of the School, who was the object of a jeering attack by the injured boy and others”. It is obvious from the handwriting that the two notes were not written by the same person. It is not clear whether the two notes refer to the same boy, nor is there any indication what the nature of the injury was.

The Brothers maintained that it was ‘not possible to come to any logical conclusion on the matter’. What is clear is that an employee injured a boy. The source of the information that the employee punished the boys for jeering at him most likely came from the employee concerned, who presumably was questioned in relation to the assault. There is no record that he was reprimanded. If it was not acceptable behaviour, then some record of the reprimand should surely have been made. There is no other record of this incident.