Chapter 5 — Lota

Sexual abuse

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.

Once he had formed a ‘relationship’ with the boy, and he felt he ‘could trust the boy concerned’, the sexual activity began. In many cases, it became an enduring ‘relationship’.

He was asked if he maintained contact when the boy had left the School, and he replied, ‘In some cases, I did, yes, yes ... through correspondence’. He admitted in some cases he arranged to meet them, and in reply to the question where he would meet them, he replied: It was usually – well, on one occasion I arranged to meet one person in Cork ... I met this particular person in Cork on one occasion and in Dublin on another occasion.

When asked if these assignations were made in order to pursue a sexual relationship, he replied simply, ‘yes, it was, yes’. He was then asked if sex had taken place, and he replied, ‘Not particularly ... It is a long time ago so I cannot remember. I am sure that is the case’.

There are different accounts of how Br Dieter came to be removed from his post as principal of the School in Renmore in 1969. The Department of Education version of events is different to the one given by the Brothers of Charity.

The Department of Education’s version of events is described below.

Mr Parter23 was the District Inspector of Schools, with responsibility for all Special Education Services in Connaught and Donegal. In 1969, he visited the School in Renmore on a routine inspection.

In a statement made to the Gardaí on 13th January 1998, and furnished to the Investigation Committee in the Department of Education discovery, he confirmed that in 1969 he visited the School. During the visit, a boy of around 15 years of age approached him in the school yard and complained that he had been sexually assaulted by the Principal of the School, Br Dieter. He questioned the boy, and was satisfied that the boy was making a very serious complaint, and that he would have to report the matter to the School authorities and to his own Department. He then consulted with his superior in Dublin and informed the Provincial of the Brothers of Charity (Br Baldwin).24 He also discussed the complaint with the Manager of the School, Br Kurt,25 (now deceased) who assured him he would investigate the complaint as a matter of urgency.

Within a couple of days, Br Kurt telephoned him and said Br Dieter had been confronted and, after initial denials, had admitted the sexual abuse of the boy. Br Kurt informed him that Br Dieter had been transferred to Belmont Psychiatric Hospital in Waterford.

At the request of his superior, (the then Assistant Chief Inspector with responsibility for Special Education), Mr Parter made a written report on the matter to him. The report is missing.