27 entries for Br Garon

One Visitation Report in the early 1950s noted Br Garon was ill. In fact, he was absent from the School for approximately eight months that year. Br Garon became Sub-Superior in the mid-1950s. In a Visitation Report compiled over a year after his appointment, he is described as being ‘fairly well; he rises late and retires early; he has no school work but takes the boys for morning and evening prayers and gives a hand in the games and supervision during the out of class hours’. Later Visitation Reports both noted his poor health, and the latter noted that his Superior had ‘the utmost confidence in him’. His poor health was again noted in the Visitation Reports in the early 1960s. In the 1962 Visitation Report the following extract is of interest: The Superior says that the Sub-Superior, Br Garon, is the most useful man in the place. Despite his deafness and indifferent health he is on the go all the time, doing endless little jobs that are most essential to a place such as St. Joseph’s. He acts as Infirmarian, supervises the play yard, takes the boys for basketball in the yard, checks on all kinds of odds and ends and is generally most useful. He is in charge of the baths also and supervises the health of the boys generally.

In addition to Br Lisle, four other former members of staff who had been in the School when Br Garon was there gave evidence to the Committee about him.

Br Bevis said that he never heard any mention of Br Garon’s being naked in the showers with the boys nor had he heard allegations of his acting inappropriately. He said that he never heard it discussed among the Brothers that he might have been in the showers with the boys, although he did acknowledge that it may in fact have been so discussed after his time.

Another member of staff, Br Mahieu, told the Committee that he was placed in charge of the showers, taking over from Br Garon, in approximately 1966. He did not know why this change took place, but said it was possibly because the Resident Manager, Br Sinclair, had asked him. When he took over, he insisted on the showers being upgraded and that was done. He knew ‘absolutely nothing’ about allegations that Br Garon took boys for individual showers on days other than Saturdays when he might not have been in charge. At such times the water would have been cold. He had never heard anything about Br Garon interfering with the boys in the showers, washing them or requiring them to wash him. He had ‘never heard it discussed’.

Br Aribert stated that he did not recall the subject of Br Garon’s showering with the boys being discussed. He told the Committee, however, that he did recall some of the boys not wanting to go to the showers but they never told him why. He felt it was because boys of that age did not like to shower in the middle of winter. He added, ‘it wasn’t for the reason that they were being abused that came across to me’. He never heard any boy complain about the ‘supposed carry on’ with the Brother. If Br Garon was abusing boys, he did not know how a tiny community could not be aware of it. He also told the Committee that he believed someone else was in charge of the showers when Br Garon was still there. He did not know why Br Garon was taken off that job.

Another Brother, Br Chapin, said that he never heard any discussion among the Brothers about Br Garon in the showers with the boys, or anything of that nature.

Br Garon was not mentioned in either the Opening Statement furnished by the Christian Brothers or in the Phase I or Phase III evidence.

In their Final Submission to the Investigation Committee, the Christian Brothers accepted that the evidence relating to Br Garon suggested that he ‘did behave in an inappropriate manner in the boys’ showers’. They stated that the extent to which he engaged in inappropriate conduct was obviously a matter for the Committee and said that it was worth noting that there was a ‘broad spectrum of evidence on this issue’. They believed that some allegations against Br Garon were ‘exaggerated’ but accepted that, even if his ‘activities went no further than requiring the boys to wash him ... this was totally inappropriate’. They also accepted that ‘from today’s perspective, it would seem to be unwise to allow one adult to supervise showers on a continual and consistent basis without any monitoring of that adult. This appears to have been what happened’.

The Submission conceded that the decision to place Br Garon in charge of the showers ‘was an error which was compounded by a lack of appreciation of the risks that might arise in such a situation’.

The Submission also stated that Br Garon’s activities in the showers took place when there was group showering and that ‘he did not have the authority, nor was it the practice, that he would take individual boys for showers’. This is not, however, borne out by the evidence of Br Lisle who made the statement in January 2006. The Congregation repeated its puzzlement at the evidence of Br Lisle that he had informed three Resident Managers of his ‘suspicions/complaints’. The Submissions also stated that the Congregation believed that the Resident Managers in question would not have ignored ‘complaints of this nature’.

Br Garon’s behaviour went on for many years, and was known to three Superiors, but they did nothing about it. The Brother who reported the complaints of boys and who confirmed that Br Garon was taking them into the showers was a very junior member of the Congregation in Tralee, and he felt that his conscience was clear when he complained and left it to the Superior to deal with the problem. Br Lisle, who made these repeated complaints to the Superiors did not pursue the matter further, for example by mentioning it to the Visitors. Neither did he make a written complaint to the Provincial. This reflects on the sense of discipline that was inculcated and which would have operated particularly on a junior Brother in the Institution. It is likely that over such a long period other Brothers in Tralee knew about Br Garon’s behaviour. Nothing is recorded about these complaints in the discovered material. Superiors chose to keep matters to themselves and did not report on to the Provincial or the Visitor. If they did, the Visitors did not to make a note of it or do anything about it. This is an example of the under-recording and under-reporting of sexual abuse. The Brothers would have dealt severely with boys behaving in the showers in the way that Br Garon did. The moral issues or the corrupting effect of the Brother’s behaviour was not dealt with. The fact that Br Garon behaved openly in this way is evidence of his confidence that he would not be challenged. Br Lisle recalled how Br Garon would select a particular boy to bring to the shower. The audacity of Br Garon is striking and is another reason why this case is a very serious one for the Congregation.

General conclusions 1. The pattern of abuse in Tralee was broadly similar to that in other industrial schools for boys, particularly those operated by the Christian Brothers. 2. Physical abuse was systemic and pervasive, and cannot be explained as a series of discrete cases of individual lapses. 3. Abuse became a matter of concern when it threatened the interests of the Congregation but not when it endangered boys. 4. Br Marceau’s brutality continued for so long because of inept, uncaring and reckless management by the Congregation and the authorities in the institutions in which he served. 5. Corporal punishment became physical abuse because of the excessive violence used and its general application and acceptance as a means of control of the Institution. 6. A junior member of the Community reported Br Garon’s sexual misconduct with boys to successive Superiors, and the probability is that other Brothers were also aware of his behaviour, which extended over many years . More sexual abuse could have taken place in Tralee without being reported. 7. Br Garon’s behaviour was reported. The problem was the failure or refusal by three Superiors to deal with it. 8. Predatory physical and sexual behaviour by boys on other boys was a prominent feature of life in the Institution and a source of anxiety and pain for younger boys. 9. The standard of physical care varied greatly depending on the capacity of the Resident Manager. 10. Trade training offered limited opportunities and became irrelevant and obsolete over the years. 11. Witnesses complained of a climate of fear in the Institution, of humiliation by the Brothers, the fear of sexual and physical bullying by their peers, and of the isolation experienced by children who were separated from families. A former member of the Congregation who visited Tralee briefly in the 1960s described the atmosphere as ‘a secret, enclosed world, run on fear; the boys were wholly at the mercy of the staff, who seemed to have entirely negative views of them’. The boys were ‘pathetically grateful’ for any act of kindness. 12. Department Inspections once again did not record the absence of a punishment book in Tralee and in one case that came to official notice Department unquestioningly accepted the proferred explanation.