Chapter 9 — Tralee

Sexual Abuse

Of all the former members of staff who gave evidence, only one, Br Mahieu, said complaints about peer abuse had been made to him. He said that younger boys would complain that they were being bullied or molested by other boys. He tried to get them to give a name but they never did. He said that he did suspect that there was sexual abuse going on between the boys but he never ‘actually became aware of it’, or of an incident or perpetrator. In response to the complaints, he would try to be as vigilant as he could be while on yard duty. He would change his pattern of patrolling the yard. He never checked for sexual abuse in the dormitories because he was never aware that it went on there. He would check to see if everything was ‘okay’, that ‘the majority of them would be asleep’. He never found sexual activity there.

He named other Brothers, including Br Cheney, whom he said were aware of the boys’ complaints in that regard. He concluded that they must have spoken to one another about it.

Of the other former members of staff who gave evidence, only two acknowledged being aware of particular instances of peer sexual abuse.

The first of these Brothers, Br Aribert, said that there was only one case while he was there of a boy complaining of being sexually abused by another boy. He said that it was dealt with, but did not give any further details. Br Bevis recalled an occasion when a boy was punished by two Brothers for abusing a younger boy.

The other respondent witnesses claimed to have never encountered peer abuse. This included Br Boyce, who acknowledged that the boys were very clever and he would not know if it was going on. He also said that no boy ever told him he was being bullied or preyed on. He also said that, if you thought it was happening and asked a boy, ‘he wouldn’t tell you anyway’ because the ‘others would give out to him’. Br Chapin said that, although he was aware of the possibility of sexual activity among the boys, he never came across it. He said that the Brothers were warned to keep an eye out for ‘bullying and for anything else’. He disagreed that there was an obsession in uncovering that kind of activity in Tralee. Another respondent, Br Lisle, was not aware of sexual activity between the boys.

An inadequate and indifferent regime of supervision allowed older boys to prey on younger boys . Bullying and intimidation occurred unchecked, which was frightening and demoralising, especially for younger children who did not feel the Brothers would protect them. The evidence of a boy being beaten by a Brother, in order to get names of other boys involved in sexual activity, describes a practice in Tralee that was common to other Christian Brother institutions. It resulted in unreliable information being given under duress, and often initiated a cycle of further beatings and revelations.

Neglect

The Congregation acknowledged that the emotional needs of children in its care were not properly provided for. The reason for this failure was, it was claimed, a lack of awareness of what these emotional needs were, rather than any deliberate policy on the part of the Congregation to ignore them. In the General Chapter on the Christian Brothers, the position of the Congregation on the issue of emotional and physical care is outlined.

Physical care and education, they claimed, were the main concern. The question remains whether the quality of ‘physical care’ in Tralee was of the required standard for the time. Physical care: financial matters Payment of monies to St Mary’s, Tralee

In the 1940 Visitation Report, the Visitor noted that, when the St Mary’s and St Joseph’s Communities in Tralee were separated, it was arranged that St Joseph’s should contribute £600 per annum to St Mary’s ‘to help towards liquidating the debt on the new Secondary School’. It was noted that this sum had been paid regularly up to 1938 but, as of 14th January 1940, it had not been paid for 1939.26

An undated document stated that the accounts of St Mary’s and St Joseph’s were to be separated on 1st July 1932, and that a separate account was opened on 11th August 1932 for St. Joseph’s. This document also referred to various accounting matters and stated: In view of these uncertainties but chiefly in view of the fact that St. Joseph’s will have to pay £600 a year for the next ten years to lessen St. Mary’s debt it may be just to decide that St. Mary’s should forego any claim it may have for a refund of part of this sum of £802.

In 1940, there were 120 boys in Tralee. As of 4th January 1939, the capitation grant payable by the Department in respect of boys over six years of age to industrial schools was seven shillings and six pence. This amounted to a total of £19.10 .00 per child per annum. The sum of £600, therefore, amounted to the annual capitation grant for 25% of the school population.

The capitation grant was paid to these schools for the care and welfare of the children, not to fund private secondary schools for the Congregation. Siphoning off 25% of the school income for the benefit of the Congregation was wrong, particularly where conditions in Tralee were barely adequate. The Congregation did not address this issue in its Opening Statement or its Final Submission.

As early as 1935, there were references in the Visitation Reports and annals to money being paid into a building fund/Baldoyle extension fund. The annals for 1946 referred to the payment as follows: It is also arranged to give ... one shilling per week, per pupil towards the Building Fund to enable Managers of Industrial Schools to effect improvements in the establishments. This Grant will be a help. It is hoped that it may be increased later.

At least £13,600 was paid by the school into the Building Fund, including £2,000 as late as February 1966. It is not known how much of this sum or the rest of the monies in the Fund were used for the purposes of effecting improvements in Tralee or for the benefit of the pupils there.

The annals disclosed certain irregularities that took place on the farm in relation to the disposal of produce and the ‘irregular use’ of income, which occurred during a period of severe deprivation for the boys. The annals report that the farm ‘appears to have been run on the lines of a Limited Company – between the Brother-in-Charge thereof, [a local businessman and a workman] – but with the liability on the Monastery’.