Chapter 9 — Tralee

Sexual Abuse

In addition to Br Lisle, four other former members of staff who had been in the School when Br Garon was there gave evidence to the Committee about him.

Br Bevis said that he never heard any mention of Br Garon’s being naked in the showers with the boys nor had he heard allegations of his acting inappropriately. He said that he never heard it discussed among the Brothers that he might have been in the showers with the boys, although he did acknowledge that it may in fact have been so discussed after his time.

Another member of staff, Br Mahieu, told the Committee that he was placed in charge of the showers, taking over from Br Garon, in approximately 1966. He did not know why this change took place, but said it was possibly because the Resident Manager, Br Sinclair, had asked him. When he took over, he insisted on the showers being upgraded and that was done. He knew ‘absolutely nothing’ about allegations that Br Garon took boys for individual showers on days other than Saturdays when he might not have been in charge. At such times the water would have been cold. He had never heard anything about Br Garon interfering with the boys in the showers, washing them or requiring them to wash him. He had ‘never heard it discussed’.

Br Aribert stated that he did not recall the subject of Br Garon’s showering with the boys being discussed. He told the Committee, however, that he did recall some of the boys not wanting to go to the showers but they never told him why. He felt it was because boys of that age did not like to shower in the middle of winter. He added, ‘it wasn’t for the reason that they were being abused that came across to me’. He never heard any boy complain about the ‘supposed carry on’ with the Brother. If Br Garon was abusing boys, he did not know how a tiny community could not be aware of it. He also told the Committee that he believed someone else was in charge of the showers when Br Garon was still there. He did not know why Br Garon was taken off that job.

Another Brother, Br Chapin, said that he never heard any discussion among the Brothers about Br Garon in the showers with the boys, or anything of that nature.

Br Garon was not mentioned in either the Opening Statement furnished by the Christian Brothers or in the Phase I or Phase III evidence.

In their Final Submission to the Investigation Committee, the Christian Brothers accepted that the evidence relating to Br Garon suggested that he ‘did behave in an inappropriate manner in the boys’ showers’. They stated that the extent to which he engaged in inappropriate conduct was obviously a matter for the Committee and said that it was worth noting that there was a ‘broad spectrum of evidence on this issue’. They believed that some allegations against Br Garon were ‘exaggerated’ but accepted that, even if his ‘activities went no further than requiring the boys to wash him ... this was totally inappropriate’. They also accepted that ‘from today’s perspective, it would seem to be unwise to allow one adult to supervise showers on a continual and consistent basis without any monitoring of that adult. This appears to have been what happened’.

The Submission conceded that the decision to place Br Garon in charge of the showers ‘was an error which was compounded by a lack of appreciation of the risks that might arise in such a situation’.

The Submission also stated that Br Garon’s activities in the showers took place when there was group showering and that ‘he did not have the authority, nor was it the practice, that he would take individual boys for showers’. This is not, however, borne out by the evidence of Br Lisle who made the statement in January 2006. The Congregation repeated its puzzlement at the evidence of Br Lisle that he had informed three Resident Managers of his ‘suspicions/complaints’. The Submissions also stated that the Congregation believed that the Resident Managers in question would not have ignored ‘complaints of this nature’.

Br Garon’s behaviour went on for many years, and was known to three Superiors, but they did nothing about it. The Brother who reported the complaints of boys and who confirmed that Br Garon was taking them into the showers was a very junior member of the Congregation in Tralee, and he felt that his conscience was clear when he complained and left it to the Superior to deal with the problem. Br Lisle, who made these repeated complaints to the Superiors did not pursue the matter further, for example by mentioning it to the Visitors. Neither did he make a written complaint to the Provincial. This reflects on the sense of discipline that was inculcated and which would have operated particularly on a junior Brother in the Institution. It is likely that over such a long period other Brothers in Tralee knew about Br Garon’s behaviour. Nothing is recorded about these complaints in the discovered material. Superiors chose to keep matters to themselves and did not report on to the Provincial or the Visitor. If they did, the Visitors did not to make a note of it or do anything about it. This is an example of the under-recording and under-reporting of sexual abuse. The Brothers would have dealt severely with boys behaving in the showers in the way that Br Garon did. The moral issues or the corrupting effect of the Brother’s behaviour was not dealt with. The fact that Br Garon behaved openly in this way is evidence of his confidence that he would not be challenged. Br Lisle recalled how Br Garon would select a particular boy to bring to the shower. The audacity of Br Garon is striking and is another reason why this case is a very serious one for the Congregation.

Br Marceau was moved to Tralee for the second time after cracking a boy’s jaw in Glin. One witness told the Committee that, during class, Br Marceau would stand him between his knees and put his arms around him and hug him into him. Sometimes he put his face on his shoulder, up against his face. Eventually, he would start putting his hand down the back of his trousers and fondling his bottom. This went on for ‘a period of time’. Br Marceau would call him up to the front of the classroom where this would happen. The other boys could not see what was happening and this happened to him a dozen times, maybe more.

This same complainant also said that, on one occasion, Br Marceau told him to stay behind after class and called him to his desk, after the others had left. He put him between his knees and put his arms around him. He told him to read his book and then he put one of his hands down the back of the complainant’s trousers and the other hand down the front. When he then started to open the buttons on the front, the complainant began to struggle. Br Marceau pulled him tighter but he got loose and ran to the door. Br Marceau caught him as he got to the door and pulled him away from the door. The complainant banged into a desk, hurting himself. He was crying at this stage and shouted at Br Marceau to leave him alone. Br Marceau started to hit the complainant over the head and told him to shut up. The classroom door opened, and Br Millard came in and told Br Marceau to leave the boy alone. He did not ask the complainant about it. After that, he was never called up to the front of the class again. The beatings did, however, continue in the classroom.

The witness was asked whether there were any Brothers to whom he felt he could speak about difficulties such as the way he was being treated by Br Marceau in class. He said no there were not, ‘you never went to a Christian Brother and told him your problem’. More specifically, he could not complain about what Br Marceau was doing because he did not know if the other Brother would believe him. If he did not, he might get ‘a hiding’, and then Br Marceau would be told and he would get a ‘worse hiding’ from him for telling lies.

He had no recollection or sense of this Brother being supervised or watched after the Brother intervened in the classroom on the occasion mentioned above.

One complainant, who was in Tralee in the 1940s, told the Investigation Committee that he knew there was ‘a lot of shenanigans’ going on between the boys in toilets and out in fields. They would be ‘playing with each other’ but he kept clear of that. The Resident Manager would call the boys in and question them on whether they were involved in sexual activities amongst themselves. He also said, however, that there was no talk between the boys and the Brothers about this ‘sex thing’, but the stigma was there and the boys would use it against each other in an argument, saying ‘at least I wasn’t called in for Question Time’.25 No boy wanted to let anybody know that they had been called in for ‘Question Time’.