Chapter 13 — St. Patrick’s Kilkenny

Neglect and emotional abuse

In March 1945, two letters were sent to the Department defending the Sisters’ decision to allow the children go barefoot in the summer, and requesting that the Department should reconsider its direction to acquire sandals. One of these letters appears to be from a doctor or pharmacist living locally, and the other was from Dr Peter Birch, the Bishop of Ossory. In a letter which he claimed was unsolicited by the Sisters, Dr Birch asked that the edict in relation to the boys going barefoot be reconsidered. He suggested that the boys loved the freedom of playing barefoot in the summer, and most children in ordinary homes would be allowed this freedom.

This was followed by a letter to the Department from the Resident Manager, where she also took up the issue. The Department consulted Dr McCabe and suggested that perhaps a compromise could be reached, whereby children over six years of age could go barefoot. Dr McCabe was not willing to stand down on the issue. Her main reason for this was the danger of infections from cuts and bruises – in particular, tetanus.

The Department wrote to the Resident Manager on 14th March 1945, and refused to change its position on the matter. It suggested that sandals could be acquired from the boot suppliers. In an addendum to her General Inspection Report dated 14th March 1945, Dr McCabe made an additional note dated 11th April 1945, where she noted the difficulty the Resident Manager was experiencing in obtaining sandals. She conceded that, if they could not be procured, she would make an exception to the rule for the summer months only. Despite obtaining a number of samples, and several months of correspondence, it appears that no suitable sandals could be found, and the rule was relaxed for the summer of 1945.

From 1945 until 1964, Dr McCabe visited St Patrick’s annually and was generally pleased with how the School was run and the condition of the buildings. She repeatedly stated that the children were very well cared for and happy. Improvements to the buildings were being made constantly, and the accommodation and equipment were very good. In the late 1950s, the group family system was introduced and the children were divided into three groups. Dr McCabe described the new group system as very satisfactory.

For some of her inspections, Dr McCabe did not generate a separate report but simply made an addendum to the previous Inspection Report, saying that the School was running well. She appeared to visit the School very regularly. A single report covered the period from March 1961 to June 1963, and against each of four entries is stated, ‘Very well run school. Children very well cared’.

Each category of inspection is graded ‘v.good’, with Health achieving ‘excellent’.

A review of the Medical Inspection files for the relevant period shows that Dr McCabe was satisfied with the health of the children and the attention being paid by the Sisters to record keeping. Furthermore, in one instance, the Sisters paid for private treatment of over 40 children.

One complainant who was in the Institution during the 1940s, which was the period criticised by Dr McCabe, shared her views on the food there: Oh, it was terrible food ... You would get kind of watery soup. There might be bits of celery in it. It used to make me almost heave. Just, maybe, bits of meat and potatoes in it. The food, it wasn’t very good. It wasn’t something you looked forward to. You had to take it because there was nothing else. So the food was very bad there, I thought ... there was regular meals. You got breakfast, a bit of porridge in the morning. I was like a gruel, watery porridge. Then you got the dinner. Dinner was very poor. Then you got a bit of supper, a bit of bread and jam. That’s all I can remember ... Very little meat. I can’t remember ever getting eggs or bacon or anything like that. I’d never known food like that.

Another complainant was also in the School during that period. He was admitted in the mid-1940s after the break-up of his parents’ marriage: Well, food, we could have done with a bit more, you know. You didn’t get a lot for breakfast, there was only a bit of a slice of bread and a mug of tea. You had a bit of dinner then in the middle of the day and you had the same thing as you had for breakfast later on.

A witness who was there in the 1950s was critical of the food. He recalled: It was kind of a green mash, it was cabbage stalks and potatoes ... I remember getting that almost every day I was there: Green mash, bread and dripping, watery Cocoa. Egg flip, that was a kind of boiled milk with boiled eggs chopped up and put into it, you were given a ladle of it. There was other stuff they gave, castor oil with molasses in it in a big ceramic jug. The food wasn’t that good.

A witness who attended the School in the 1960s was quite clear that he had fared better in St Patrick’s than he would have at home: I know myself that you got food on a regular basis there; you got your breakfast, your dinner, your tea and you got cocoa going to bed. Food was not a problem there, I never felt hungry there. I might have felt frightened but I never felt hungry.

General conclusions

General conclusions. It was not possible for a handful of nuns to give an appropriate level of care to nearly 200 very young boys, irrespective of how hard–working and dedicated they were. 2. There was no accountability in the administration of punishment. 3. The authorities in St Patrick’s failed in their duty to keep proper records. The absence of documentary evidence, accordingly, does not mean that there was no abuse. 4. Record keeping is part of the duty of care and is intended to make an institution accountable. The absence of records has put both the Sisters of Charity and the witnesses at a disadvantage.