Chapter 6 — Sisters of Mercy

Regulation 13 stated that the punishments should consist of: (a) Forfeiture of awards and privileges, or degradation from rank, previously obtained by good conduct. (b) Moderate childish punishment with the hand. (c) Chastisement with the cane, strap, or birch.

The Regulation went on: Referring to (c) personal chastisement may be inflicted by the Manager, or, in his presence, by an Officer specially authorised by him, and in no case may it be inflicted upon girls over 15 years of age. In the case of girls under 15, it shall not be inflicted except in cases of urgent necessity, each of which must be at once fully reported to the Inspector. Caning on the hand is forbidden. No punishment not mentioned above shall be inflicted.

The 1946 Rules and Regulations for National Schools applied to the internal national school within the industrial schools: Instructions in regard to the infliction of Corporal Punishment in National Schools. 96. (1) Corporal Punishment should be administered only for grave transgression. In no circumstances should corporal punishment be administered for mere failure at lessons. (2) Only the principal teacher, or such other member of the staff as may be duly authorised by the manager for the purpose, should inflict corporal punishment. (3) Only a light cane or rod may be used for the purpose of corporal punishment which should be inflicted only on the open hand. The boxing of children’s ears, the pulling of their hair or similar ill-treatment is absolutely forbidden and will be visited with severe penalties. (4) No teacher should carry about a cane or other instrument of punishment. (5) Frequent recourse to corporal punishment will be considered by the Minister as indicating bad tone and ineffective discipline.

This rule did not permit the use of the leather strap in the classroom.

In addition, the Department of Education issued many circulars and guidelines to Industrial School Managers, indicating that corporal punishment must always be kept within the bounds set down by the Regulations and must never be used excessively. Circular 11/1946 stated: Corporal punishment should be resorted to only where other forms of punishment have been found unsuccessful as a means of correction. It should be administered only for grave transgressions, and in no circumstances for mere failure at school lessons or industrial training.

The Circular went on to state that punishment should be confined to slapping on the hand with a light cane or strap, and that this should only be administered by the Resident Manager or by a member of staff specifically authorised by him. It added that ‘any form of corporal punishment not in accordance with the terms of this circular is strictly prohibited’.

Punishment book

Only one punishment book from the Sisters of Mercy schools under investigation has been seen by the Committee.

The Sisters of Mercy say that the general prevalence of corporal punishment in schools during this period is a factor which should be taken into account when determining whether corporal punishment was excessive or abusive. To an extent they are correct, but the Regulations quoted above were drawn up at a time when corporal punishment was even more prevalent, and yet the authorities recognised the necessity of treating children in residential schools with particular care. The Regulations recognise that children in industrial schools are not only in their school but also in their home, and the standard that is applied is not that of the average national school but that of the average home. The reminder to Managers in the Rules and Regulations that ‘the more closely the School is modelled on a principle of judicious family government the more salutary will be its discipline, and the fewer occasions will arise for resort to punishment’ is central to the way a residential school should be judged.

Sexual abuse

The issue of sexual abuse did not feature as prominently in the evidence in relation to schools run by the Sisters of Mercy as it did in relation to schools run by other religious communities. There were, however, some very serious incidents of sexual abuse perpetrated by lay staff in some schools, which are dealt with in the individual chapters. During the Emergence hearings, Sr Breege O’Neill stated that the Congregation became aware of a small number of complaints from the Leadership’s discussions with Sisters who were involved in the industrial schools. She stated: I am aware of, I think, three, if not four ... Let me mention that there were three instances where the Resident Manager in a particular institution became aware of a concern that sexual abuse might have occurred in relation to a child. I am talking about an instance in 1960, one in the mid 60s and one in 1969. They were instances where that came to the attention of the Resident Manager and the individual Manager took action herself in relation to each of those three cases that we are aware of. One was in relation to somebody who was visiting the Institution and she barred that person. She mentioned it subsequently to a Department official. The other one was in relation to somebody who was working in a maintenance capacity. Again the Sister had that man removed. The third one was a volunteer coming in and when the Sister heard the complaint she sent for him but he never came back to the Institution. That would be from the recollection of the Sisters themselves ... Some of that, the dismissal, we have found some records that substantiate that.

She informed the Committee that she was not aware that there was anything specific done to help any of those children deal with the trauma of sexual abuse: The picture I get is that this was at a time when sexual abuse was not talked about. It came to somebody’s attention, they dealt with it. Whether they would have been aware of the impact on the child or whether they would have known how to deal with it I am not sure. But I am not aware that any action was taken.

During the Phase I hearing into Goldenbridge, Sr Helena O’Donoghue provided some detail on the allegations of sexual abuse in that Institution: A small number of complaints have been made of sexual abuse associated with Goldenbridge. However, the only definite knowledge that we have about sexual abuse in the School relates to 1962. At that time a pupil accused a male caretaker or groundsman of assaulting her and she reported the matter to the Resident Manager, Sr Alida, who went to the Gardaí immediately. The offender was prosecuted and dismissed from employment in the School.

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.