73 entries for Br Marceau

This complainant also referred to Br Marceau’s habit of urinating in the classroom, saying that he used to have a bucket in the class that he ‘used as a loo’.

Another witness, who made allegations of being beaten several times by Br Marceau, alleged that Br Marceau used to lock the classroom door during classes. He was very strict in class: One minute he was talking to you and the next minute he could turn around and hit you with something, whatever it was. The nearest thing to his hand, he would hit you with ... It could be anything. It could be a bunch of keys he had in his pocket. He would take out the biggest key, which was the key to the classroom door, and he would hit you in the head with that. Or he would take the duster which had a wooden back, he would throw it at you. He would bang your head off the wall. Sometimes he would give you the edge of the ruler down the back of your hand. He would lift the top of the desk, he would put your fingers in the desk and slam the desk down on top of your fingers ... If you dropped a pencil while he was doing something he would call you up to the front of the classroom and he would given you a beating for it because you disturbed him. He was just a violent tempered man.

On one occasion in the band room, Br Marceau had one of the older boys on the ground and he was ‘giving [him] the heel of his boot down on the back of the head’. He said that this Brother was the type of person who would ‘just turn. He got violent for no reason, he just had a very bad temper’.

Given the seriousness of Br Marceau’s history with the Congregation, it was a matter of considerable concern that significant correspondence was not discovered to the Investigation Committee until 12th January 2006, two days after the public hearing in respect of this Institution. The solicitors for the Christian Brothers explained that this, and other material furnished at the same time, came to light as a result of further searches of archival material in the possession of the Congregation and ‘new collections’ being acquired by the archive since the main discovery had been made. The majority of the letters quoted above and in the Glin chapter regarding the ‘cracked jaw’ incident were not furnished to the Investigation Committee with the original discovered documents in relation to Tralee or Glin by the Christian Brothers. Although additional material was uncovered by the Congregation’s archivist and forwarded to their solicitors in December 2005, the Christian Brothers said: Unfortunately due to the ongoing hearing of the end of the Artane modules these were not looked at and their true significance noted by the writer until the 12/01/06. The delay furnishing these documents is very much regretted.

Br Marceau was violent and dangerous and known to be a risk to children, but the Congregation did nothing to protect them. This Brother’s understanding was deficient, he was irresponsible, he was out of control, he did not respond to warnings or advice, he could not be disciplined, he was manifestly in denial about his behaviour and he was unqualified to teach. The Congregation moved this man from one institution to another in disregard of the interests of the children. It was particularly irresponsible to move this Brother to an industrial school, where his unpredictable and uncontrollable violence was unlikely to lead to parental complaints or litigation. The Congregation said in their Submission, ‘His withdrawal from a teaching and supervisory capacity in the school was long overdue when it occurred’, but they did not explain why the full range of sanctions open to them was not used. Despite a succession of physically abusive incidents that made it clear he was a danger to children, he was only once given a Canonical Warning, and that was before he began his periods of teaching in industrial schools. The failures of the Congregation led to a great deal of unnecessary suffering and fear in vulnerable children in their care. Documented cases of physical abuse: Br Jules

Bullying was part of life in Tralee and contributed to a climate of fear that pervaded the Institution. Violence by bigger boys on smaller went unreported and unpunished. Relations between bigger and smaller boys echoed those between the Brothers and the boys, in being characterised by the use of physical power. Conclusions on physical abuse 1.Physical aggression was a means of communication between Brothers and boys and was used to control the large number of boys that were in Tralee. 2.The efforts of the Superior General in the late 1930s to reduce corporal punishment .in Christian Brothers’ institutions were an indication of an unease at a high level at the amount of corporal punishment in these schools generally. There was, however, no evidence that his warnings and exhortations were heeded or that measures were put in place to ensure that punishments were kept within the guidelines. 3.The story of Br Marceau indicated that excessive punishment only became a concern when it endangered interests such as the reputation of the Congregation or when it ran the risk that litigation would be instituted, but not when it endangered boys. The sequence of events as revealed by the documentation in the Br Marceau case was an example of uncaring and reckless management by the Congregation, which had serious consequences for the children involved. 4.The evidence of physical punishment and fear reported by complainant witnesses was confirmed by some respondent evidence and by the information inferred from the documentary materials. 5.Younger boys were not protected from older boys and were subjected to physical and sexual bullying. The authorities in Tralee did not provide a safe or secure environment for these children.

In a Garda statement responding to allegations made against him, Br Marceau acknowledged that Br Garon used to be in the showers with the boys. He said: On one occasion I had reason to look for Br Garon who was in the showers with the boys and he and the boys were naked. I was shocked and never approved of that.

Br Marceau was moved to Tralee for the second time after cracking a boy’s jaw in Glin. One witness told the Committee that, during class, Br Marceau would stand him between his knees and put his arms around him and hug him into him. Sometimes he put his face on his shoulder, up against his face. Eventually, he would start putting his hand down the back of his trousers and fondling his bottom. This went on for ‘a period of time’. Br Marceau would call him up to the front of the classroom where this would happen. The other boys could not see what was happening and this happened to him a dozen times, maybe more.

This same complainant also said that, on one occasion, Br Marceau told him to stay behind after class and called him to his desk, after the others had left. He put him between his knees and put his arms around him. He told him to read his book and then he put one of his hands down the back of the complainant’s trousers and the other hand down the front. When he then started to open the buttons on the front, the complainant began to struggle. Br Marceau pulled him tighter but he got loose and ran to the door. Br Marceau caught him as he got to the door and pulled him away from the door. The complainant banged into a desk, hurting himself. He was crying at this stage and shouted at Br Marceau to leave him alone. Br Marceau started to hit the complainant over the head and told him to shut up. The classroom door opened, and Br Millard came in and told Br Marceau to leave the boy alone. He did not ask the complainant about it. After that, he was never called up to the front of the class again. The beatings did, however, continue in the classroom.

The witness was asked whether there were any Brothers to whom he felt he could speak about difficulties such as the way he was being treated by Br Marceau in class. He said no there were not, ‘you never went to a Christian Brother and told him your problem’. More specifically, he could not complain about what Br Marceau was doing because he did not know if the other Brother would believe him. If he did not, he might get ‘a hiding’, and then Br Marceau would be told and he would get a ‘worse hiding’ from him for telling lies.

Witnesses who were taught by Br Marceau confirmed his brutality and eccentricity, which had been commented on by Visitors.

Br Aribert, who was in the School in the early 1960s, told the Committee he disagreed with Br Marceau’s teaching methods. He had charts ‘all over the walls’ and he made the boys go around learning them. He felt that the boys did not like this system.

Because Br Marceau was not trained, he was not subject to normal Department of Education Inspections, and therefore there was no control or supervision exercised by the Department over his activities.

Another former resident said that you never went to a Brother and told him your problem. He was being severely abused by Br Marceau, who was well known to the Congregation for his excessive punishment of boys in his care, but he could not speak to the Brothers about it because he did not know if he would be believed. If he was not believed, he could get a ‘hiding’ from the Brother he told. Then Br Marceau would be told and he would get a ‘worse hiding’ from him for telling lies. ‘That’s the way it was, you didn’t go to a Christian Brother because you didn’t expect any help from him’.

The 1966 Visitation Report noted that a number of older Brothers resided in Tralee, and advised that every member of staff should be able to take his share of duties and help to lighten the burden of the others, and this was going to be all the more necessary when the boys from Glin arrived. In the circumstances, the Visitor felt Tralee was not a suitable place for the old Brothers. With these older, more infirm Brothers unable to work, the burden of work fell unfairly on the younger Brothers. The evidence of Br Lisle confirmed that in 1966 there were only four Brothers, including himself, available to run the School, out of a total of 11 Brothers in the Community. He pointed out he was not trained as a teacher. Br Mahieu claimed that one of the remaining Brothers, Br Marceau, was not someone to whom supervision duties could be given.