Chapter 7 — Artane

Fr Henry Moore

The Christian Brothers submit that the evidence given by Fr Moore to the Investigation Committee copperfastens the view that his assessment of Artane is biased, inaccurate and unreliable. His evidence only serves to emphasise his limited contact with various aspects of life in Artane and his limited interaction with the Brothers. They regard as particularly significant the fact that he was completely unaware of the participation of a specialist team from the Mater Hospital in providing a psychological service for the boys in Artane before he relinquished his position as chaplain.

The Brothers contend that Fr Moore’s assertion that the Archbishop was behind the initiative to introduce an Order of Sisters to the School is incorrect. They submit that contemporaneous correspondence makes it quite clear that the Brothers spearheaded this enterprise.

The Congregation vigorously rebuts the claim by Fr Moore that the Brothers resisted and resented any interference in the School from outside bodies. On the contrary, it says, the Brothers actively sought the assistance of outside parties such as the Child Guidance Clinic at the Mater Hospital, the Godparents Guild and, in the mid-1960s, they employed a remedial teacher. It is submitted that the totality of the evidence demonstrates that the Christian Brothers were fully supportive of and co-operative with participation from outside parties.

The Christian Brothers request that the Commission reject the findings made by Fr Moore. They conclude that he: presented himself as a witness who had a particular insight into the workings of Artane and his position there as chaplain for seven years would, prima facie, suggest that he did have such an insight. However, an examination of his testimony, especially when viewed in the light of that of other witnesses suggests that his knowledge of Artane and of issues relevant to the care of the boys was, in fact, extremely superficial and that his recollection about a number of matters was completely incorrect.

In conclusion: There were limitations on Fr Moore’s capacity to prepare a comprehensive report on Artane. The areas of the School with which he was most familiar were the Chapel, the yard and the trade schools. He visited the farm from time to time, but he did not go into classes or the dormitories or the refectory. He said that he visited the refectory on one occasion and similarly with the band room. He was in the hall more often. He did not speak to the Christian Brothers to get information for his report because he felt that that would endanger the confidentiality that was required. As to the question of bias, it is clear that Archbishop McQuaid was not an admirer of Artane as an institution. Fr Moore explained how, on a number of occasions, his mentor had expressed adverse views about the Industrial School. The two men kept in touch during the course of Fr Moore’s chaplaincy and his views did not surprise his superior. In the circumstances, it is reasonable to conclude that Fr Moore was unlikely to have approached his task of reporting with a sympathetic eye. But at the time when he was requested to do so, he had been there for two years and had being briefing the Archbishop on the conditions. There was nothing to suggest that Fr Moore was bending his views to meet the preconceptions of the Archbishop during the period from 1960 to 1962 before he made his report. Neither is there any evidence to warrant the conclusion that the chaplain was deliberately or subconsciously manipulating the evidence so as to produce an adverse conclusion. Fr Moore’s opinions were formed because of his observations in the two years before he was asked to furnish his report. While Fr Moore’s information was inaccurate in some particulars, as the Brothers point out, the example they gave of the boys having to purchase overcoats, which they claimed ‘was clearly wrong’ and which, therefore called into question the reliability of the report in general is not borne out by an analysis of the documents. Most of Fr Moore’s information came from his own observations or from the boys themselves. As to what he himself saw, the Congregation does not challenge his evidence. But on his conclusions, based on what he was told by the boys, there is major conflict. It is nonetheless the case that Fr Moore is the only person who is able to report what the boys were saying during this time, or indeed at any other time. There is no record of anybody else, either official or Christian Brother, actually talking to the boys and recording what they said. Neither is there any evidence of somebody in a position to do that because of his relationship with the boys. In other words, Fr Moore was the only person who was in a position where boys felt able to confide in him. That in itself is a significant >comment on the Institution. The fact that a witness received information from the boys in Artane, even if some of it is shown to be wrong, can scarcely be regarded as a disqualification to give evidence about the Institution in the course of an inquiry like this. The Committee concluded that Fr Moore was not actuated by malicious intent or bias in regard to the Christian Brothers or to Artane. He was in a position to observe events and to form opinions, and he had valuable information to give the Committee. His report of 1962, his evidence to the Inter-Departmental Committee and his evidence to the Investigation Committee were honest attempts to describe the conditions in the Institution as Fr Moore saw them and found them and believed them to be, based on the information at his disposal. This witness was uniquely qualified to comment on conditions in Artane because of his personal experience of being a child in a residential institution run by the Christian Brothers. Fr Moore was a witness of integrity and accuracy, whose evidence and report were corroborated in substantial measure by other evidence, including Mr MacUaid’s findings, Mr Dunleavy’s report and convincing oral testimony of complainants and respondents.

General conclusions

.Artane used frequent and severe punishment to impose and enforce a regime of militaristic discipline. The policy of the School was rigid control by means of severe corporal punishment and fear of punishment. Such punishment was excessive and pervasive. The result of arbitrary and uncontrolled punishment was a climate of fear. All Brothers became implicated because they did not intervene or report excesses.

	Boys	Tradesmen
Weaving	24	2
Tailoring	54	2
Bootmaking	41	2
Baking and milling	9	2
Carpentry	6	1
Cartwrights	14	2
Smith work	5	1
Fitters	7	1
Tinsmiths	7	1
Painting/Decoration	10	1
Hairdressing	3	1
Gardening	12	1
Farm work	60	7