Chapter 7 — Artane

Fr Henry Moore

He was asked for his observations on the comment made by Department Inspector Mr MacDaibhid that Artane was one ‘big happy family’, and he replied that such an observation was a travesty.

He had a good relationship with most of the Brothers. However: there was a resistance to any intrusion in the affairs of the Institution of Artane by the Brothers in general. They seemed to me, autonomous in their management and they resented and resisted any interference from anybody in their work.

Conditions did improve in Artane over his time there. Clothing and food improved, a swimming pool was installed and, most importantly, numbers were very much reduced. A community of nuns helped out in the School, introducing much-needed female influence. Aftercare improved with the opening of a hostel in Eccles Street by the Archbishop. Under cross-examination, he accepted that he was not aware of changes that the Brothers had initiated, such as the introduction of a remedial teacher and a psychological support service. Whenever the subject of Artane came up in conversation with the Archbishop after he had submitted his report, the Archbishop would mention the fact that he was working upon changing matters.

In summary, he said: Fundamentally I would have to say, my critique would be on the grounds of defective training in the emotional and psychological preparation for the after-life, for post-Artane days. I found boys were – they many times had an inability to negotiate everyday tasks like handling money, interpersonal relations. Now admittedly many, many of those I am talking about would have had long experience of institutional care before they came to Artane ... I feel also that the environment was harsh, Dickensian and in my view extremely excessive in its administration of punishment and emotional deprivation. I think today that the many, many complainants of their bad experience of Artane would, in my view, validate everything I have said about it, and the Archbishop of Dublin.

The Christian Brothers reject the conclusions drawn by Fr Moore in his report and in his evidence to the Investigation Committee. They contend that his evidence is unreliable, inaccurate and that it is contradicted by the contemporaneous Department reports and evidence from former Brothers. They submit that Fr Moore was a young, ambitious priest eager to please his Superior. He was well aware of the Archbishop’s attitude to Artane, who considered the Institution ‘the plague spot of his diocese’. They contend that Fr Moore’s report does not portray an objective analysis of Artane, but rather a biased account providing affirmation of the Archbishop’s views.

The Congregation contends that Fr Moore had relatively little direct experience of day-to-day life in Artane. He did not live in the School, and therefore his observations are based on his visits to the School, which were limited to particular areas. They contend that his overall contact with the School would not enable him to come to informed conclusions on the manner in which the School was run.

They cite, as an example of the shortcomings in Fr Moore’s research, his analysis of the boys’ diet. During his evidence to the Investigation Committee, it emerged that his conclusions on diet were based on one visit to the refectory, his general observations of the boys and the views of a doctor, who accompanied some of the boys on a camping trip, that they were undernourished and undersized. However, the report did not disclose the limited sources which led Fr Moore to his conclusions, but instead gave the impression that a comprehensive review and analysis of the nature and adequacy of the boys’ diet had taken place.

Similarly, his conclusion regarding the low standard of education in Artane was based on illegible letters he received from former residents, and the Christian Brothers submit that such a flimsy basis for such an evaluation ‘is of no real value’. They also emphasise that Fr Moore was relatively young and inexperienced, with no teaching experience, and submit that all of these factors, when taken together, render his assessment unreliable.

The Brothers in their Opening Statement on Artane said that Fr Moore was ‘both unprofessional and indiscreet in the manner in which he carried out his assignment’. Whilst he acknowledged in his covering letter to the Archbishop enclosing the report that his observations were restricted to his personal experience, he proceeded to offer his opinion on areas in which he clearly had no training or expertise. The Congregation contend that the statistics he presented were inaccurate and misleading.

Similarly, his criticisms of the medical care in Artane have to be viewed in light of the fact that he had no medical training and did not discuss the matter with the GP who regularly attended the School.

The Christian Brothers regard it as extraordinary that, whilst he had no difficulty in criticising the lack of experience of staff in the School, he had no doubts about his own ability to assess standards in the School, despite the fact that he had worked in the School on a part-time basis for less than two years.

The Christian Brothers submit that, even where no expertise was required, Fr Moore’s report contains ‘glaring errors’. Most notable is his assertion that the boys had to pay for their own overcoats. The Investigation Committee heard evidence from a Brother who strongly rebutted this allegation, and none of the complainants who gave evidence raised it as an issue. One of the Department officials who conducted the inspection in December 1962 found that the boys had overcoats of sorts, although few wore them. The Christian Brothers submit that this glaring error must raise serious doubts over the accuracy of other aspects of the Moore report. On the other hand, the fact that an order for raincoats for all the boys had been placed in early December, prior to the surprise visit, makes it impossible to reject the evidence that boys did not have coats.

The Moore report led to an unannounced two-day inspection of Artane by three Department of Education personnel. The Christian Brothers assert that this: inspection was extremely thorough and comprehensive and that there appears to have been a genuine effort on the part of those compiling the report to present an accurate account of all aspects of life in Artane.

They submit that what adds weight to the veracity of the Department reports is the fact that they criticise various aspects of the School where such criticism is warranted. The reports present an ‘honest and reliable account of a thorough inspection’, and ‘considerable weight ought to be attached to these reports’.

In summary, the Christian Brothers submit that: the Moore report was prepared on the basis of a superficial examination of the relevant circumstances by an inexperienced person who was not qualified to properly assess a number of the issues which he addressed and who probably prepared the report with the dominant purpose of confirming the Archbishop’s firmly expressed views rather than with the purpose of providing an accurate assessment of the school. In these circumstances, it is submitted that the Moore report cannot be relied on in making any findings on the state of matters in Artane at that time.