Chapter 5 — Lota

Sexual abuse

He then spelt out what he accepted he was guilty of doing: I know I am guilty of sexually abusing Frank by touch. He also mentions that he touched me and I encouraged him to do so, that could possibly have been the case, but I think that most of my abuse was by showing my attention for Frank, because I was very sympathetically disposed towards him. As I said in my statement, he was a lonely person and I was tended to look on him as I was myself when I was a young person and I tried to show him affection in an inappropriate way by my behaviour towards him that way ... I had a very genuine affection for Frank, yes, I had ... There was a sexual attraction as well that went with that, yes, unhappily, yes ... I have no recollection of how frequently, but at the same time I don’t think in this particular case that the incidents were frequent. ... They took place, to the best of my knowledge, in Sancta Maria pavilion, where I lived. I have no clear recollection of the locations, but they could have taken place in my room in the Sancta Maria pavilion and they could also possibly have taken place in my classroom after school hours, but I am not certain about this because it is a long time ago and because of that I have no clear recollection of the locations of my sexual abuse.

The sexual abuse stopped, he said, because the witness was moved from the dormitory over which he had control. He told the Committee: my recollection is that Frank ... wasn’t very long in Sancta Maria pavilion because he eventually was changed and I can’t remember when that took place, he was changed to St Patrick’s. So my association with him would have terminated because both pavilions were physically quite a distance apart.

Senior counsel for the Brothers of Charity, at the end of the hearings, made clear the position adopted by the Brothers of Charity on the question of whether sexual abuse took place in Lota. He said: I represent the current community of the Brothers of Charity, not all of those who were ever there historically, it is not a body corporate. I represent those who are now members of the Community which happen to include some people who have been abusers, and the Brothers of Charity have made no bones about that, we admit that abuse has taken place, of that there is absolutely no doubt, by our members and by many of our members. In terms of this Committee’s function in determining whether a particular abuse took place with a particular complainant and by a particular Brother, that is something I can have very little to do with and have avoided getting involved in whether that is true in any particular case or not. That clearly cannot be my function. ... It is perfectly clear that in all three of these cases sexual abuse took place in the most appalling nature and must be condemned and is condemned by this Community wholeheartedly and unreservedly. Whether individual acts of sexual abuse took place or not is not a matter for me, with great respect.

Following the appearance in court of a Brother on 21 September 1999, Br Alfred Hassett, the Provincial Superior, issued the following apology: We deeply regret any abuse which may have taken place and we offer our apology to any person who may have been the victim of such abuse. Our first concern is for the victims of abuse, whatever the source of that abuse ... As an organisation involved with people with learning disability we have in place specialist counselling teams, one of them in the Cork area, with back-up support from a national counselling co-ordinator. This team is ready to help any person with a learning disability who may have been the victim of abuse and this help can be offered on a totally confidential basis. I would encourage anyone wishing to make an allegation to go directly to the Gardaí.

The fact that abuse took place is not in dispute. What this apology fails to address is the Congregational responsibility for what happened in their schools. The question that arises is the extent of the abuse, and whether it was systemic.

Br John O’Shea, leader of the region that incorporates both Britain and Ireland, gave an account of how sexual abuse emerged as a serious issue for the Congregation. He told the Committee: I suppose it became a very significant issue in 1995, at late 1995 we were informed that somebody had gone to the Garda Station and had made allegations that they had been abused during that time.

Prior to 1995, he said that allegations were regarded as individual incidents: The position prior to that is that there would have been a number of individual allegations, I think they would have been seen as isolated incidents and they would have been broadly dealt with as isolated incidents, that there wasn’t the sense in which we had after 1995, that this was a bigger issue than we had imagined. I suppose prior to that, there wouldn’t have been the kind of awareness of the impact that it had on the people who were abused.

He went on to state: I feel for us that 1995 was the watershed in the sense of our awareness that we had a fairly significant issue with abuse ... It was quite a shock to us really because it wasn’t something we were prepared for, and certainly the individual incidents we would have known of previously didn’t add up to a comprehensive picture, if you like, of widescale abuse.

In the written statement prepared by Br John O’Shea for the Emergence Hearings and received by the Commission on 23rd June 2004, he wrote: Prior to 1995, there were a few isolated allegations of abuse which were dealt with as deemed appropriate at the time. However, it was not until late 1995 that there was an awareness of more widespread abuse or the damage it had caused.

He admitted, however, that their record keeping was poor. He explained: Yes, I suppose one of the things is many of our files have a limited amount of information in them. We would have some sense, again, that where allegations would be reported, I would feel that maybe they necessarily wouldn’t be committed to writing. Yes, I think maybe our broader culture or even the wider culture wouldn’t have been as it is now where every allegation would be documented, there would be less kept on files.

When asked what procedures were in place for managing reported sexual abuse before 1995, he replied: I divide them between lay people and Brothers. Each of the centres that I have mentioned, Cork, Galway, Waterford and so on, would have their own administrative structure and there would have been a Director of Services and in those days it would have been a Brother, who would be broadly responsible for the administration of the centre. The Brothers would be responsible to the Provincial at the time and I think particularly if incidents related to Brothers, that it would entail the involvement of the Provincial. Where they involved lay people, I think the structure, as I say, my sense is that legal advice would have been involved and that we would have acted on that. I suppose in regard to Brothers, depending on the time it was, if it was the early 1990s because we would be more aware of the kind of Department guidelines and so on and there was a broad awareness, that people would be withdrawn from contact with service users. I feel that possibly in all cases Gardaí may not have been notified, because I think our awareness of that would maybe be stronger at a later time, but essentially that people would have been withdrawn. Again, I think the awareness of the level of allegation, if you like, in the sense that now if we speak of an allegation, we have a whole lot of accumulated knowledge as to what an allegation can entail or what it is likely to entail, and I feel back then that there wasn’t the same thing when you speak of an allegation. I would feel people didn’t have a clear-cut idea of just what the allegation entailed maybe or put it down, if you like, people who were behaving inappropriately at various levels, that it might be seen somewhat differently to how we would now view it and with the knowledge that we have of the impact that allegations or abuse did have on people.

He was asked where the records from that period were kept, and he replied: I suppose where they happened in locations and involved lay people, there would be records. The records would be kept at the location where the Centre was administered.

Complaints about abuse by lay people were recorded and kept. The situation was different for Brothers who had been reported for sexual abuse. He told the Committee: In regard to Brothers, certainly later allegations would be documented. I suppose I have a sense again that it is only now that it is coming to light that certain allegations were made that there wasn’t an awareness of until quite recently. I suppose our files in regard to Brothers tended not to have a lot of documentation on them, and I would have some sense again that, I suppose, the earlier allegations would have happened, the less likelihood there is that there would be something on file. I would also be aware of a particular situation that now with the knowledge I have, I can fairly definitely say it was an allegation of sexual abuse, but the document on the file doesn’t specify that it was abuse.

Complaints against Brothers were either not written down at all or were in codified language designed to obscure the nature of the offence. They were dealt with, said Br O’Shea, ‘in sort of a hushed way’. Despite this fact, enough records have survived to allow an examination of Br O’Shea’s claim that prior to 1995 there were ‘a few isolated allegations of abuse’, and no ‘awareness of more widespread abuse’. The convicted sexual abusers: Br Guthrie

Br Guthrie gave evidence to the Investigation Committee on 21st March 2002 and again on 14th March 2002.