Chapter 9 — Tralee

Physical abuse

This Brother continued to teach and inflict extreme punishment on boys for 10 years. His behaviour was severe and excessive and was known at the time to the Leadership of the Congregation.

The Opening Statement said that the Brother’s ‘withdrawal from a teaching and supervisory capacity in the school was long overdue when it occurred’. At the Phase I hearing, Br Seamus Nolan acknowledged that this Brother should not have been sent to Tralee after what happened in Glin. He could not explain it. He accepted that Br Marceau should have been removed before leaving the school in the Midlands. At the Phase III hearing, he also acknowledged that it was ‘absolutely indefensible and extremely difficult to understand, impossible to understand how it [was] allowed to go on for so long’. He claimed the Brother was there ‘essentially as a supernumerary to help out, not in an official capacity, and maybe the idea was that perhaps some supervision would be enough for him. But he had also failed on that in other occasions’.

In short, no explanation could be proffered by the Christian Brothers as to why this individual was permitted to continue to have control over children in several different schools.

Br Nolan also stated during the Phase I hearing that he believed that Brothers in Tralee would have complained about Br Marceau, but that there were no written reports apart from the Visitation Reports.

Br Nolan confirmed that transferring a Brother was a mark of disapproval, but he was still unable to explain the leniency shown towards Br Marceau.

In their Final Submissions to the Committee, the Christian Brothers accepted that: there had been a failing in how the Congregation dealt with this Brother; his removal from teaching should have taken place earlier; and the response of the Congregation to the problem had been ‘inadequate’, possibly partially due to the view of Brothers that it was not appropriate for them to interfere with the work of another Brother.

Four former members of staff at Tralee were asked about Br Marceau in evidence. The first Brother, Br Bevis, had no comment to make on him. He did not recollect ever seeing him punish a boy.

The second Brother, Br Aribert, noted that Br Marceau had problems with the boys. He and the other Brothers did not agree with Br Marceau’s methods of teaching and punishment. He said he could be a bit severe at times. He also said that he should have been able to complain to someone about this Brother, but could not. He accepted that Br Bevis would have had the authority to discipline Brothers, but that did not seem to happen.

The third Brother, Br Mahieu, said that Br Marceau would never have been asked to supervise a dormitory, as he would have caused trouble. In his view, he should never have been a teacher or put into a teaching situation, ‘He just hadn’t got a clue about controlling kids’. He described Br Marceau as a religious fanatic who also had difficulty in controlling himself.6 He accepted that Br Marceau was violent but he did not, however, remember any specific incidents other than shouting. He said he seemed a little strange.

A fourth Brother, Br Lisle, said Br Marceau was ‘very, very strict’ and a ‘little bit eccentric’. He had no time for the pupils at all. He could not, however, say what went on in the classroom because he was not there. He said Br Marceau thought everyone was against him. He did not remember a boy with a black eye, but did name the youngest boy in the school, who was four or five at the time, whose ears were boxed by Br Marceau. He said he never challenged Br Marceau about what he did because he, Br Lisle, had nothing to do with the school. That was the job of the Principal.

The Christian Brothers at one point sent questionnaires to various Brothers for response. These dealt with the running of the industrial schools. A questionnaire was sent to Br Marceau, and in it he said of his disciplinary methods: You were expected to handle your own discipline problems. I was humane in my treatment but I also used the lamh laidir.7 I also used competition among the pupils, and rewards.

He went on to say that he thought that most of the allegations made against the Christian Brothers, including those made against him, were false.

Br Marceau was in Tralee for eight months in the early 1960s, and for six and a half years later that decade. The Investigation Committee heard a number of serious complaints of physical abuse against this individual. A number of these complainants also alleged sexual abuse against him, and these are outlined in the section dealing with sexual abuse in Tralee.

A former resident said he thought Br Marceau was ‘the worst’ of all the Brothers. The boys knew when to avoid him. His moods could change at any time and he would turn on them both in and out of the classroom. He recounted an incident when the boys were playing under an alleyway and Br Marceau swung a hurley at them. The boy in front of him ducked and the hurley hit the complainant on the back of the head. Bleeding from his nose, he was taken to the nurse to be cleaned up and then he went to bed. Not long after this incident, he was taken to an ophthalmic surgeon in Tralee, who put a patch on his good eye, telling him he had a lazy eye. He was prescribed glasses and put the patch over the good eye but a week later he had to remove the patch because he could not see with the ‘eye going bad’. The other boys were also laughing at him. The complainant stated that, years later, an eye specialist told him he had a detached retina, which he, the complainant, believed had occurred as a result of the blow by Br Marceau.

He also told a story about a swimming trip where the water was freezing. Nobody wanted to get into the water but Br Marceau had a ‘set’ against one particular boy and tried to make him get in. All the boys started to throw small pebbles at the Brother and it caused a riot. The boys all ran back to Tralee, breaking windows and glass on the way.