Chapter 6 — Sisters of Mercy

During the Phase III hearing into Goldenbridge, Sr Helena O’Donoghue stated that she was unable to comment as to whether any steps were taken to avoid any indecent touching of children, or improper approaches from individuals visiting the School: I am not in a position to comment. I, myself, was not ever there, but I would believe that would be something that is in the mists of time, that we are not in a position to be clear on.

She also accepted that there was no system of vetting outsiders who took children at the weekends and during the holidays: There certainly wasn’t a vetting process that you might expect today, but mostly the families who took children from Goldenbridge were families known to the Sisters, either through having come maybe for entertainment times or for various activities, mostly. Because at one stage I think they did advertise for some people to take them.

The discussion of these topics, by way of introduction to the detailed investigations into abuse in the Sisters of Mercy institutions, is largely based on documents, submissions and evidence of the Sisters of Mercy which were presented by them without being challenged or contradicted.

The system of discrete Congregations created some difficulties and exacerbated others, and generally made the task of each Community more demanding. The Sisters’ vows and religious obligations contributed to the experience of harshness, distance and other deficiencies of care in the institutions.

It is, however, noteworthy that one senior member of the Dublin Community made no reference to these obstacles in 1953, when addressing the needs of good management. Any such impairment of the capacity of the Sisters in their temporal work by reason of spiritual commitments called into question the fitness of the Congregation to undertake work requiring sensitivity and understanding of the needs of others.