Chapter 12 — Sisters of Charity

Sr Úna O’Neill, Superior General of the Congregation, told the Investigation Committee at The Public Phase I hearing on 7th February 2005 that: The issue of making a public apology didn’t really arise for us. Our response to the emergence of the allegations was twofold. When we received the allegations through legal means we responded to them legally through our solicitors. At the same time we were trying to respond pastorally and that pastoral response was a continuation of what had been happening on the ground with the Sisters who had actually been in these childcare homes. Many of our past residents have maintained their contact with the Sisters who were their carers and that continued and I think some of the Orders have expressed the way in which that continued.

Sr O’Neill stated that the Sisters provided two aftercare centres and a fund for past residents: past residents of our schools can apply for help for ongoing education, for counselling for themselves or their families, grants for those who are experiencing particular problems, with regard to family health, employment, accommodation, contributions towards funerals and burials for those who may not have immediate family, grants for those who may want to set up a little business or whatever, for those who are searching for parents or siblings, and for reunions and holidays.

Sr O’Neill said that the Congregation contributed to the Redress Fund: we had a number of civil cases before the Court at that time ... We had had the experience, I had the experience of attending these court cases and I had seen what that process had done particularly to the men who had taken the cases against us. I had spoken to them about the experience with both of them. I saw what it did with both the volunteers and the staff who had to testify. There was a strong pastoral reason for us not subjecting anybody to that kind of process if we could avoid it. We also felt the definition of abuse was so broad that it would invite many more cases against us and in fact that has proved to be the case. There has been a very, very significant increase in the number of cases that have come in from 2000 up to today, very significant increase for those that had come in beforehand. We also felt that if we didn’t contribute to the scheme, maybe we were wrong in this, we felt that perhaps the Redress scheme would give a partial payment to the children and then they would seek the rest from us through legal means and that would have been the same reason as I have given beforehand. The same thing again I suppose the cases before the courts take a very long length of time as we had experienced and we felt that if the Redress scheme to which we could contribute could be up and running it would mean that those cases would be heard much more swiftly than in the courts. It was our view that this process would be preferable to our past residents and to the staff and sisters than going through the difficulties of the court system and also of course that the substantial amount of money that would be expended in legal fees could be avoided if we did contribute. We felt it would bring finality to all of that.

In their Final Submissions to the Investigation Committee following the hearings into St Joseph’s, Kilkenny and St Patrick’s, Kilkenny, the Sisters of Charity submitted that the sexual and physical abuse that was perpetrated on the children in these Schools was inflicted by parties other than members of the Congregation. Therefore, they stated, ‘the issue of making a public apology did not arise for the Sisters of Charity’.

They stated, however, that ‘the Sisters of Charity are absolutely and deeply sorry that any children in their care were abused in any way’.

They accepted that ‘A certain number of children suffered appalling abuse’. They also submit that the manner in which the Sisters organised and ran their schools led to the risks and incidence of child abuse being minimised and to appropriate action being taken when abuse was discovered.