73 entries for Br Marceau

Another complainant said he did not mind going to work on the farm as the Brother there, Br Avery, was ‘brilliant’ and ‘nice to everyone’. He said that this particular Brother took the shotgun to Br Marceau36 once or twice because of his cruelty to the boys and ‘told him to stop it once and for all’.

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.

Br Marceau already had a bad record of violence towards boys when he was assigned to Glin in the early 1960s. He worked there for almost two years, between periods of service in Tralee Industrial School. Investigations have revealed a paper trail of documented cases of physical abuse by Br Marceau in day and residential schools in which he taught. Accounts of Br Marceau’s conduct in the other institutions is dealt with in the Tralee chapter.

Prior to his time in Glin, Br Marceau worked in Tralee and, before that, in a day school in Clonmel. During his four and a half years in Clonmel, there were four serious allegations of physical abuse against him. Three of the incidents resulted in the parents of the children complaining to the Superior, and the fourth incident was witnessed by another Brother, who was so concerned over what he had seen that he warned the Superior to keep a close eye on Br Marceau. When confronted in respect of complaints, Br Marceau either minimised the seriousness of the incidents or emphatically denied that they had happened. He was issued with a Canonical Warning in the early 1960s. When the Superior of the Community received the fourth complaint from a parent later that year, he wrote that he was simply not prepared to deal with any more irate parents complaining about the ill-treatment of their children at the hands of Br Marceau. He regarded Br Marceau as a danger to the boys and simply unfit to be in charge of them. He begged for Br Marceau to be removed from his school. Br Marceau was transferred to St Joseph’s Industrial School, Tralee.

In the year following Br Marceau’s arrival in Glin, the Visitor remarked that Br Marceau was still upset over the Canonical Warning he had received. Br Marceau was convinced that there was a vendetta against him and had tried to have the Canonical Warning rescinded, but to no avail. The Visitor noted that, in Br Marceau’s view, the warning was ‘too severe a penalty for faults that were grossly exaggerated by a Superior who was prejudiced against him and in fact was out to get him, as he put it’. He was bolstered in his opinion, having sought the advice of three priests on the matter, who unanimously agreed that the punishment did not fit the crime. The Visitor urged him to accept the situation and concentrate on his work in the School. He surmised that he was ‘not a vindictive type of man’ and noted that Br Marceau was very well regarded in the Community.

It was not long before Br Marceau once again came to the attention of the Provincial Council. Almost two years later, the Resident Manager wrote to the Provincial notifying him of an incident that had recently taken place. Br Marceau learned that a pupil had referred to him as ‘madman’. He took the pupil to the Superior and the boy admitted the offence. The Superior slapped him on the palm of the hand in punishment.

Later that day, the boy reported to the infirmary with a pain in his jaw. His face was noticeably swollen and, when questioned by the Brother in charge of the infirmary, the boy reluctantly admitted that Br Marceau had struck him on the face before he had brought him before the Superior. Br Marceau denied the allegation. A week later, the swelling had not subsided and the local doctor examined the boy on his weekly visit. He recommended an x-ray as a precautionary measure, and it was discovered that the boy had a fractured jaw. He was detained in hospital for observation.

The Provincial wrote to Br Marceau and requested an account of the incident. He responded the following day with a detailed version of events. He stated that he was aware that he was referred to by the nickname ‘madman’ by the boys, because he was considered over-vigilant in his supervision of the dormitories, playgrounds and toilets. On the day in question, he was made aware of the fact that a boy had referred to him by this name. He informed the boy’s teacher of the matter and the two Brothers questioned the boy. He admitted the allegation and, after being interrogated by Br Marceau, he reluctantly disclosed the names of two other culprits. Br Marceau accompanied him to the Superior’s office and back to the classroom where he stated that he ‘got him to apologise. Then I gave the boy a few slaps on the hands, but at no time during the incident did I beat him anywhere else’.

The Provincial replied, admonishing Br Marceau on his handling of the whole affair and, in particular, the manner in which he disregarded the Superior’s authority. He warned, ‘you understand I hope that you have made a very bad mistake and that you are fortunate the consequences have not been more serious. (I am praying they will not be.)’. He informed Br Marceau that he would be transferred immediately to Tralee.

There is no mention in the letter from the Provincial that Br Marceau had a history of serious physical assaults on pupils in other schools, including Tralee, the School to which he was being sent for the second time. Three days after Br Marceau’s untimely departure from Glin, a member of the Provincial Council conducted the annual Visitation of Glin. There was only a veiled reference to the incident which resulted in Br Marceau’s transfer. The Visitor noted that Br Marceau and another Brother had encouraged tale telling amongst the younger children and this had resulted in ‘the recent incident’.

The Department was somehow informed of the identity of the perpetrator, as the next letter was from Br Marceau to the Department, in which he referred to a recent interview in Tralee with a Department official. He was outraged that such an allegation could have been made and stated: I emphatically deny that I struck this boy on the face for a very insulting remark he made about me. I fail to understand how this false charge has been made against me. Therefore I have nothing to add to our recent conversation in St Joseph’s Tralee ...

Despite the gaps in the documents it is clear that: (1)The Department was aware that a boy in Glin was injured so severely that his jaw was fractured and he was hospitalised. (2)Br Marceau was the most likely perpetrator of the injury, despite his denial. (3)The Provincial Council saw fit to have him transferred from the School as a result of the incident to another residential school. (4)Br Marceau’s violence was documented in Congregation records. (5)The Congregation was in dereliction of its duty of care by sending Br Marceau to Glin, and then transferring him back to Tralee, despite his violent treatment of boys. (6)The Department was also in dereliction of duty, as it did not voice any concerns regarding the incident and was content to let the matter lie.

The Congregation asked surviving Brothers who had worked in residential institutions to complete questionnaires in relation to their views of life in industrial schools. Br Marceau completed one such questionnaire in 1999. In it, he stated that it was more difficult to mould industrial schoolboys because they lacked character. There was no written code of discipline; there was instead a code of practice which was passed from one Brother to another. His mentor advised him not to become too friendly with the boys. Each Brother was expected to handle his own discipline problems. He stated that he was humane in his treatment of the boys, but accepted that he also used the ‘lamh laidir’.23 In addition, he used competition between the boys and a rewards system to maintain control.