Chapter 5 — Lota

Sexual abuse

In July 1965, Br Dieter was moved to Renmore, Galway, where the Brothers of Charity were managing a School. At his oral hearing before the Committee in March 2002, he explained: At that particular time then there was a very prominent, a very dominant association in Galway for mentally handicapped who were anxious to start a centre in Galway City, as a kind of residential day school for handicapped children and they approached the Brothers about the possibility of a Brother going there to start this. I was appointed to go there and I asked if I could be dispensed from it because of my – I felt totally inadequate for the position but they told me that they had confidence in me and they were totally unaware of my sexual abuse behaviour. They were totally ignorant of that and it was for that reason I was reluctant to be transferred to Galway. I was in Galway from 1965 to April 1969 when abusive behaviour was reported to the Superior ... and from there then I was transferred to our psychiatric hospital in Waterford.

In cross-examination, Br Dieter noted that the abuse was not reported by a pupil but by a member of staff, although he was unable to recall whether the member of staff involved was a fellow Brother or a lay member of staff. A full account of these events is given below.

As a result of this complaint, Br Dieter was removed from Renmore to Belmont Park, the Brothers’ psychiatric hospital in Waterford. He testified that he remained in the hospital until January 1970. However, he claimed he was not there to receive professional help and counselling, but rather to help out in the hospital. He held the post of Acting Secretary I.N.C.A. (Irish National Council on Alcoholism).

He was then transferred, in 1972, to a residential school in the UK for adults with learning disabilities. He became involved with a resident in the school and sexually abused him. This led to his conviction in 1998.

He attended two courses in the UK, the first was a course in special education in Preston, and then a course at a polytechnic attached to Leeds University where he obtained his certificate in education. With this qualification and recognition as a trained teacher, he began teaching in 1974 in a junior school for children aged 7 to 11 years, where he remained for 15 years. He claimed that he had not abused anyone since 1973. He retired in 1989 and lived with his Community in the UK until 1995, helping out in the working of the house, doing voluntary driving, and visiting the elderly in a home.

In a psychological report prepared for his trial in the UK, a clinical and counselling psychologist concluded that, following his treatment in Stroud and in view of his decision to withdraw from sexual relationships and recommit himself to celibate life, a decision he took in 1973, Br Dieter constituted a low risk in terms of re-offending.

The trial judge in the case in the UK took into account his plea of guilty, his age (73) and the fact the he was ‘a man of hitherto unblemished character’ and placed him on probation for three years on each count concurrently, on condition he attend a sexual offenders’ programme run by the Probation Office in England.

The judge appeared to have had no idea of the reason for Br Dieter’s transfer to the UK; it would appear that Br Dieter did not disclose his history of sexual abuse in Ireland to the psychologist.

The sentencing judge referred to Br Dieter’s upbringing and background: Yours is a very sad story indeed. It is a Dickensian story. I do not want to say more than is necessary to justify the sentence I am passing but you have a wretchedly sad childhood, characterized by the untimely death of devoted parents, then your recruitment and placement in the hands of an entirely different religious order where you yourself, as a young child, had a desperately sad time of it. Then, as a postulant and as a novice in this order, the abuse that you yourself suffered from those above you and in turn, of course, as is often the case, you abuse someone else. Yours is a very sad background, indeed. It is no excuse but it is an explanation for the wretched life you have had, particularly as a young man. Quite frankly the general public have, in recent years come to realize the lamentable criteria of recruitment that were applied 50 years ago or so by religious orders in recruiting very young men, children, to boost their numbers and the methods that were adopted. When I say, “the methods that were adopted” the encouragement, the enticement of people like you who were 11 years of age. That has all changed, and let it be said that it has all changed. It was asking for trouble, it was sowing the seeds for disaster and you have to then battle within that confined claustrophobic religious organization with your own puzzling sexuality and so you did and this is how this happened: opportunity, privacy and power in a small way.

When Br Dieter appeared before the Investigation Committee, his standard response to most questions asking for details of the abuse he had perpetrated in Lota was to say that he could not remember. He was precise and prompt in recalling other matters, such as the dates of his transfers between schools, and the names of his colleagues. He was asked, for example, to estimate how many boys he had abused in Lota, and he replied: I can’t remember really. I can’t remember ... I couldn’t possibly give you a figure ... It is an approximation. It is a long time ago ... I would say about 20 ...

Br Dieter was in Lota for 20 years, from 1945 to 1965, and this estimate of about 20 boys clashes with some of his other evidence. In another part of his testimony, he admitted he had a frequent compulsion to go to a boy for sex. This compulsion would occur ‘weekly’. He explained: It was well planned in the sense if I needed the boy or felt the need of a boy I would, for example, in a classroom situation, I would ask him if he would come back after class.

While he said he could not remember specifics, Br Dieter did outline how he set about the grooming process to win a boy over. He explained: I tended to attach myself to one boy and, as I learned afterwards in Stroud, it was a form of – they have a name for it – grooming, I think was the word, the terminology that was used, in order to get the affection of the boy ... it was an activity that I was ashamed of and at the same time, it is what happened. I became attracted to the boy, and then I became more familiar with him and tried to gain his trust by being kind to him and that sort of thing.

He admitted these attractions could lead to a ‘love relationship’ with the boy. He said, ‘I was very attached to one or two of the boys, yes. That’s true’. These loving ‘relationships’ could last a long time, and he believed it was rewarding for the boy as well.

He was asked whether he talked to the boy, and if the grooming continued, while he was having sexual relations with a boy. He replied, ‘It was a silent act ... It was basically touching the boys’ private parts’.

It could lead to mutual touching that sometimes, but not always, ended in ejaculation. He went on: It took place mostly during the day ... It would be, as far as I can remember, in the classroom, after school hours in the classroom in my room, and I can’t remember where else just at the moment ... it would be asking them perhaps to clean the classroom for me after school hours ... It happened sometimes at night, yes ... in that particular case, I would go to the boy’s bed and sit there for a while with them and chat with them and then invite them into my room ... he would go back to his bed then. I saw it as a mortal sin, and I was very troubled about it. I was genuinely very troubled ... I went to confession regularly about it ... I realise it is a crime, of course, yes, now ... I think that was my way of thinking, that it was a moral lapse.