Chapter 7 — Artane

Fr Henry Moore

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.

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.