Chapter 6 — Sisters of Mercy

Dr McCabe made some severe criticisms of individual schools. For example, in relation to Dundalk in 1946, she stated: ... if these people are going to have a school they must look after the children – otherwise I will have to recommend that they are not fit to look after children and have them transferred elsewhere.

Similarly, in respect of Newtownforbes, she was highly critical of the management of the School. In 1940, she had noticed that there was bruising on many of the bodies of the girls in the infirmary. In her letter of 12th February 1940, to the Reverend Mother of the School, she stated: ... I was not satisfied in finding so many of the girls in the Infirmary suffering from bruises on their bodies. I wish particularly to draw attention to the latter as under no circumstances can the Department tolerate treatment of this nature and you being responsible for the care of these children will have some difficulty in avoiding censure.

She was also highly critical of the general conditions in the School.

Although not directly alluded to by Dr McCabe, the situation in Goldenbridge was so bad that the School had to be closed down for two weeks in 1942.

What emerged was a situation of serious neglect which had been allowed to develop in the late 1930s and into the 1940s. Dr McCabe’s comments in the Departmental memorandum quoted above would indicate that this was much more widespread than the schools looked at in detail by the Investigation Committee. Dr McCabe brought about considerable changes to those schools run by the Sisters of Mercy, and often in the face of opposition and obduracy on the part of the Sisters.

The Sisters have acknowledged the criticisms of individual schools, but have not addressed the question of why these schools were so uniformly bad in the standard of physical care provided. Although the Sisters have accepted that the religious vows they took had an impact on the way in which they cared for children in institutions, they do not explain the level of neglect that was found in the 1940s.

Possibility of change

The Congregation’s Submission dealt with their overall role in residential childcare. They stated: In conjunction with major changes in Religious Life heralded by Vatican II, in the later 1960’s the Kennedy Report ushered in a new era of child-care. The new model of child-care was the group home. It is, we submit, important to recognise that the Sisters of Mercy were also at the heart of this transition from institutional care to group home. It would be an unfair caricature to depict the Sisters as only being involved in the deposed regime of institutional child-care, and absent from the regime of group homes. On the contrary, the Sisters of Mercy were at the heart of this process of change.

The Congregation went on to say: It is unlikely that the problems posed by extreme poverty and family dysfunction can ever be addressed in a manner that avoids any pain to the child involved. But there is no doubt that the institutional form of child-care caused a great deal of pain to the children involved. The Sisters of Mercy were at the heart of that system and fully recognise their responsibility. However, it is also fair to say that the Sisters of Mercy were among the first to embrace the transition to the new system of group homes.

By the time of the Kennedy Report in 1970, numbers in the institutions had reduced to such an extent that the old system based on capitation was unworkable. Schools had either to close down or adapt. Change came slowly, and it was not until the mid-1980s that the old institutional care system was fully replaced by the Sisters of Mercy with group homes.

In contrast, the Sisters of Charity, who were also engaged in the institutional care of children, recognised the need for change, and attended childcare courses in England in the late 1940s. These courses changed the way the Sisters looked at institutional childcare in Ireland. They recognised that the existing nature of institutional care could not provide for the psychological or emotional needs of vulnerable children. They introduced the group home system to St Joseph’s, Kilkenny between 1951 and 1954. The success of this innovation was recognised almost immediately by Dr Anna McCabe, who saw that the children were happier in the new system.

Had the Sisters of Mercy seen the fundamental flaws in the system of childcare operated by them in the late 1940s, and introduced change accordingly, much of the abuse recounted to the Investigation Committee might not have taken place. As the Sisters have stated: It is significant that there have been few complaints about the group homes run by the Sisters of Mercy.

The extent of the Congregation’s involvement in residential care was reflected in the number of complaints received by the Investigation Committee from former residents of their institutions. The Investigation Committee conducted full investigative hearings into five of the largest institutions, namely Goldenbridge, Newtownforbes, Clifden, Cappoquin and Dundalk. Every witness who wished to participate in the investigation into these industrial schools was invited to do so. In respect of other schools, each complainant was invited for interview.

Name	Open	Certification	Original number of complainants	Invited for hearing	Attended hearing
St Vincent’s, Goldenbridge	1880–1983	185	77	52	43
Lady of Succour, Newtownforbes	1869–1969	145	6	6	5
St Joseph’s, Clifden	1872–1983	140	33	20	10
St Michael’s, Cappoquin	1877–1999	75	26	17	9
St Joseph’s, Dundalk	1881–1983	100	21	10	3

Response to allegations of abuse

During the Investigation Committee’s Emergence hearings, Sr Breege O’Neill, then Congregation Leader of the Sisters of Mercy, outlined the response of the Congregation to the issue of child abuse in Ireland.

The emergence of widespread allegations of abuse in the early 1990s coincided with the centralisation or amalgamation of the Congregation. The Congregation had just formed at national level in 1994, and the intermediate provincial structures had not yet been established. This made it difficult, she said, for the Congregation to determine precisely what had happened. Sr O’Neill stated: I suppose one of the reasons I outlined our structure in the beginning was because when the allegations that concerned our congregation became known to us in the mid 90s we did not have central archives. We had just amalgamated at national level in 1994 and our intermediate structures, which were the provincial structures, were not in place. So one of the difficulties for us in responding to the allegations at the beginning was that the information we needed to get the picture ourselves of just what happened in the institutions and what was known of life there, that information was spread around the country.

The records of institutions that had closed in the 1960s had been transferred to local convents, some of which were autonomous and others were branch houses of larger convents. Some records had been transferred to the mother house of the newly formed Diocesan Congregations. In 1996, the Sisters decided to collect what records there were and assemble them in a central archive. To that end, they employed a professional archivist and established the archive at the Congregation’s premises in Baggot Street. The records which had survived the closure of some of the schools and convents, and the process of amalgamation, were in some areas quite sparse. This made it difficult for the Leadership to develop an awareness of what had happened or to respond to the increasing number of requests for information from former residents of institutions run by the Congregation. Sr O’Neill stated that the records were: as complete as we have been able to find of record of any institution for which we were responsible as far as back as we have been able to find records for. So everything from attics to whatever little pieces of paper were available, we have done an immense trawl of every house to ensure that in some way the whole picture is contained in one place.