Chapter 9 — Tralee

Physical abuse

This complainant also referred to Br Marceau’s habit of urinating in the classroom, saying that he used to have a bucket in the class that he ‘used as a loo’.

Another witness, who made allegations of being beaten several times by Br Marceau, alleged that Br Marceau used to lock the classroom door during classes. He was very strict in class: One minute he was talking to you and the next minute he could turn around and hit you with something, whatever it was. The nearest thing to his hand, he would hit you with ... It could be anything. It could be a bunch of keys he had in his pocket. He would take out the biggest key, which was the key to the classroom door, and he would hit you in the head with that. Or he would take the duster which had a wooden back, he would throw it at you. He would bang your head off the wall. Sometimes he would give you the edge of the ruler down the back of your hand. He would lift the top of the desk, he would put your fingers in the desk and slam the desk down on top of your fingers ... If you dropped a pencil while he was doing something he would call you up to the front of the classroom and he would given you a beating for it because you disturbed him. He was just a violent tempered man.

On one occasion in the band room, Br Marceau had one of the older boys on the ground and he was ‘giving [him] the heel of his boot down on the back of the head’. He said that this Brother was the type of person who would ‘just turn. He got violent for no reason, he just had a very bad temper’.

Given the seriousness of Br Marceau’s history with the Congregation, it was a matter of considerable concern that significant correspondence was not discovered to the Investigation Committee until 12th January 2006, two days after the public hearing in respect of this Institution. The solicitors for the Christian Brothers explained that this, and other material furnished at the same time, came to light as a result of further searches of archival material in the possession of the Congregation and ‘new collections’ being acquired by the archive since the main discovery had been made. The majority of the letters quoted above and in the Glin chapter regarding the ‘cracked jaw’ incident were not furnished to the Investigation Committee with the original discovered documents in relation to Tralee or Glin by the Christian Brothers. Although additional material was uncovered by the Congregation’s archivist and forwarded to their solicitors in December 2005, the Christian Brothers said: Unfortunately due to the ongoing hearing of the end of the Artane modules these were not looked at and their true significance noted by the writer until the 12/01/06. The delay furnishing these documents is very much regretted.

The importance of these documents, recording as they do a serious incident of physical abuse concerning a Brother in an institution that was about to be the subject matter of a public hearing, should have been apparent..

Br Marceau was violent and dangerous and known to be a risk to children, but the Congregation did nothing to protect them. This Brother’s understanding was deficient, he was irresponsible, he was out of control, he did not respond to warnings or advice, he could not be disciplined, he was manifestly in denial about his behaviour and he was unqualified to teach. The Congregation moved this man from one institution to another in disregard of the interests of the children. It was particularly irresponsible to move this Brother to an industrial school, where his unpredictable and uncontrollable violence was unlikely to lead to parental complaints or litigation. The Congregation said in their Submission, ‘His withdrawal from a teaching and supervisory capacity in the school was long overdue when it occurred’, but they did not explain why the full range of sanctions open to them was not used. Despite a succession of physically abusive incidents that made it clear he was a danger to children, he was only once given a Canonical Warning, and that was before he began his periods of teaching in industrial schools. The failures of the Congregation led to a great deal of unnecessary suffering and fear in vulnerable children in their care. Documented cases of physical abuse: Br Jules

The letters referred to in the Opening Statement by the Congregation, in which two Brothers were instructed to ‘temper their teaching’ before taking their Final Vows, were amongst a number of letters written in the 1930s by the Superior General of the Congregation to newly professed Brothers who went on to serve in Tralee and other industrial schools throughout the period of this Investigation.

These letters were contained in the Rome Documents discovered to the Investigation Committee in 2004. Three of these letters had also been held in the Irish archives.9

The first of these letters was written in the mid-1930s. Br Jules was sent a letter congratulating him on being admitted to perpetual vows. The letter also stated: You incline to the harsh side in school both in language and in inflicting bodily pain. Pupils hate sarcasm and they have a keen sense of what is just and fair in punishment. If you would secure respect for yourself and for your teaching be kind and just towards your pupils. It is said you are a poor student yourself. Perhaps it is due to your failure to make preparation for your work as a teacher that your pupils are made to suffer doubly.

This letter was sent to Br Jules whilst he was in Artane. He had previously worked in Tralee for a number of years, where his behaviour had also come to the attention of the Provincial and a Visitor.10

While in Tralee, Br Jules wrote to the Provincial in response to an inquiry made relating to ‘a special physical training’ given to a boy whose ‘bodily structure’ was ‘abnormal’. The Brother explained that the Industrial School Inspector had advised him to give the boy in question special physical training. The boy failed to perform the exercise on this occasion, though formerly he had been capable of doing so. He went on to say in the letter to the Provincial: Appealing to him several times I found that there was no improvement whatsoever. Not understanding what was wrong with the boy I gave him a few slaps whilst he was in this bent position (about four slaps). After this punishment I again asked him to perform the exercise. He then started to cry and said it hurt him to bend as his back was sore. On further inquiry he told me that he had been beaten on the back by the teacher, and that he got a kick from one of the boys whilst at play. He received this injury on the hip. Had I known that this boy was suffering in this way I would have not asked him to perform this drill exercise much less punish him.

Less than a month later, the Visitor commented on Br Jules’s methods of discipline: Br Jules has his boys in a state of terror. He maintains a harsh, unnatural discipline. His boys show this. At times he has been very severe and has treated individual boys in a cruel manner ... Were it not for the occasional outbreaks of severity on the part of Br Jules and his general harsh manner in dealing with them, the school would hold a high place amongst our Institutions.

This Brother had been due to take his perpetual vows that year but was rejected. The following year, it was noted that he had been ‘too exacting in school’. He showed ‘little devotedness to study’ and was ‘troublesome, crossgrained’. It was concluded that he ‘has not had good record – doubtful candidate’. He was, however, ultimately allowed to take his vows a year later.

Br Jules moved from Tralee to Artane, where he stayed for over 15 years. He later worked as Resident Manager in Glin in the 1950s. Br Jules is considered in the reports on Artane and Glin. His tenure in Glin as Resident Manager was marked by a less harsh disciplinary regime than had previously been in place. Documented cases of physical abuse: Br Sebastien

In a letter to Br Sebastien written in the late 1930s, confirming that he had been admitted to perpetual vows, there was a reference to ‘two rather serious faults’. One was his ‘severity to the boys’, which was described as ‘indefensible’ and ‘in every way against the canons of the teaching profession’. It went on to state that ‘Punishment in a moderate way is allowed; but severity is altogether to be avoided. It injures the boy’s feelings and never produces real improvement’.