Chapter 5 — Lota

Introduction

Neither Government Department saw itself as responsible for overseeing the conditions and quality of care in the School. The witnesses who appeared before the Committee said very little about the diet and clothing of the residents, as their chief concern was to relate what had been done to them.

With no external supervision, the management of the Brothers of Charity alone assessed the quality of the care they provided and the suitability of the staff entrusted with the care of children with learning disability.

The Investigation Committee received from the Brothers of Charity a limited number of Visitation Reports. They were written by Brothers delegated by the Congregation to conduct Visitations of the School.

The Brothers of Charity conducted two kinds of Visitation. One was a general inspection of St. Joseph’s Province, with the Visitor reporting on every school within it. The second kind was a specific Visitation of Lota, which usually lasted a number of days. It reviewed how the School was being run and the extent to which the Congregation’s Rules were being observed.

The Visitation Reports reveal certain preoccupations. The first concern was ensuring that the Rules of the Brothers of Charity were being observed by the Community. For example, the 1955 Report noted: There are no serious abuses to chronicle, but in closing the Visitation I drew attention of the Brothers to the following points: 1) Morning Rising and spiritual exercises in general; 2) Fraternal Charity; 3) Spirit of Poverty; 4) Care of the Patients. I also urged them to pray earnestly for good vocations and for the beatification for our holy Founder.

The Visitation Report of 1961 made various observations regarding the School. The Visitor remarked that, in relation to chastity, ‘There appears to be no cause for complaint; the Brothers are attentive and careful in their dealings with the children and circumspect when they come in contact with outsiders’. He also noted that ‘SPIRITUAL EXERCISES. These are well and regularly attended. There is a weakness at the midday exercises when a number of Brothers come late’. He was also critical of the way the Brothers said their prayers. He wrote, ‘In respect of the Office, it is said somewhat on the fast side and too loudly – the superior is one of the worst offenders’.

The second preoccupation was the School finances. The Visitor in 1961 reviewed the financial situation of the School and found it in a healthy state and contributing its quota to the Province. At the conclusion of his Visitation, the Visitor wrote: 1.As religious, we must give to God at least what we vowed – the generous soul seeks ways and means of giving more. Be generous with God. 2.The morning rising needs attention – it is the first sacrifice of the day, Generosity towards God. 3.It is unbecoming and irreverent for Brothers to constantly come late to H. Mass. 4.Pray daily for one another, the works of your house, the Province, the Congregation – especially for vocations.

This Visitor’s report does not indicate that at any stage he spoke to any of the resident boys in the School, or to any Brothers in relation to the boys in the School. His priority was to observe the religious life of the community.

The Report of the Regular Visitation in 1975 is a typical example. It was a very brief, one-page report and listed each of the Brothers present in the Community, noting the position the Brother held in the School and his religious qualities, as well as an assessment of his contentment with religious life. The Visitor makes no reference to the boys in his report.

In brief, there is no contemporary comment on the condition of the boys and the premises. Even if everything was satisfactory, some comment to that effect should have been made. The existing records do not tell us whether all the conditions that were needed to ensure that a quality service was being provided to the children in the Institution were in fact present. Indeed, there is no evidence that such matters were ever the concern of the Visitor.

Physical abuse

For the most part, it would seem that the children in Lota did not need to be controlled by a regime of frequent corporal punishment. From the limited evidence available to the Committee it would appear that they were seldom, if ever, challenging or confrontational.

One witness, Frank,4 told the Committee: The only form of punishment I did receive during these years was being slapped with a ruler during school hours. This type of punishment was normal practice ...

However, Br John O’Shea, who is the Regional Leader of the Brothers of Charity in Ireland and Britain, talked of the ‘authoritarian atmosphere’ prevalent in schools at the time, and went on to explain what he meant. He said: In a general sense, and I will go back to my own school days or whatever, that there was a very different perception of people in authority. I suppose we had all kinds of sayings like "children were to be seen and not heard", and the sense of maybe rights of children would in some way not be seen as being equal to the rights of adults. Maybe that is not correct, but in a general sense that children didn’t have the same standing.

One respondent witness, Br Guthrie,5 who said he was known as a strict teacher, said that he did not need corporal punishment. He regretted the only time he did strike a boy. He told the Committee: during the 32 years I was there I struck one boy on the face with my open hand, once, and I have always regretted it. That was in 1983. I remember that. I felt like falling on my back when I had done it. I was cross about some remark he had made or something, and there were no beatings. I had no weapon for beating like has been described, whips or sticks or rulers or anything like that.

His size and his formal appearance in his cassock were enough to instil fear and obedience. He explained: I presume that, first of all, as you say, it was the size and then my position in regard to them. They had to come and go and stand up and sit down and everything like that when I told them.