25 entries for Br Ramon

Br Ramon was neither an older Brother (he was 48 at the time) and, as evidenced by his memorandum to Fr Luca referred to above, he wanted to continue to work in Daingean with ‘the unfortunant boys that passed through St. Conleth’s’. In the light of what is now known about Br Ramon and his time in Daingean, the reason for his transfer to a Scholasticate must be questioned.

When statements of complaint about this Brother were received by the Committee and forwarded to the Oblates, they should have considered these complaints in the light of the information they had about Br Ramon. There was a chance to investigate the behaviour of this Brother as soon as his activities became known in Britain. The allegations surfaced in the mid-1990s, and the Brother is now deceased.

Br Ramon ‘was charged with two specimen offences of “attempted buggery” and “indecent assault” and 16 other offences ...’. After that, he was admitted into the Stroud centre for a full assessment and treatment programme.27 A report on Br Ramon was prepared by his psychiatrists in Stroud and senior members of the Oblate Congregation were consulted in connection with that report.

There is no information about this report, and so it is not known if it covered his time in Daingean, although it would seem extraordinary that a man charged with indecent assault on boys in a residential institution would not have been questioned about the 17 years he spent in a reformatory in Ireland. This is particularly the case when it is now known that an investigation was carried out in Daingean in the late 1960s, by Fr Luca and the Gardaí, into allegations of sexual abuse against Br Ramon.

Following Br Ramon’s conviction on charges of sexually abusing boys, the obvious question arose in the Congregation as to whether he had engaged in such activities in his previous postings, including Daingean. Before he was assigned to a boys’ college in Wales, he had served for 10 years in an emigrants’ hostel in London, where he came under suspicion. In response to a query as to whether any investigation into Br Ramon’s activities in Daingean had taken place in 1997, the Oblates stated in a letter dated 8th May 2008 to the Committee: Fr [Benicio] himself followed up the inquiry referred to in the note of 6 March 1997. He did so by speaking with Fr [Luca]. Fr [Luca] indicated to him that there were no accusations against Br [Ramon], apart for an accusation that had been discounted at the time it occurred as being unfounded Fr [Arador]28 has no recollection of the matter being raised with him. Fr [Javier]29 has no specific recollection of being asked to enquire into the matter, however he is now aware that in [the mid-1960s] an allegation was made against Br [Ramon] which was fully investigated by both An Garda Siochana and the Oblates at the time and was dismissed as unfounded. With that exception, Br [Ramon] had a clean record at St Conleth’s. At the time of our letter dated the 21st of December 2006 we understood that Fr [Javier], as Provincial, did not know of the incident the basis of the accusation in [the mid-1960s], but it appears that he learnt of it around the time of the trial in [the late 1990s].

On the issue of whether Br Ramon ever admitted abusing boys in Daingean, the Congregation stated: We are instructed that Br [Ramon] never admitted nor acknowledged that he had abused boys at St Conleth’s Reformatory at Daingean.

Having regard to the sexual abuse that Br Ramon committed in Wales, the reservations expressed about his time in London, the complainant evidence received by this Committee, together with the investigation in the late 1960s and the recidivist nature of sexual abuse, there must be serious misgivings about Br Ramon’s behaviour in Daingean during his 17 years there.

Fr Luca referred to this incident in his Statement to the Committee although, again, he did not identify Br Abran as the Brother in question: It was a different Brother to the accusation about the 14 year old. There had never been any accusations against the second Brother [Ramon] before that, at least I had never heard anything against him.

Sexual abuse of boys by staff took place in Daingean, as testified by complainant witnesses. The full extent is impossible to quantify because of the absence of a proper system of receiving and handling complaints. The system that was put in place tended to suppress complaints rather than to reveal abuse or even to bring about investigations. The conviction of Br Ramon warrants a re-evaluation of the late 1960s episode.

General conclusions 1. Daingean was not a suitable location or building for a reformatory. The refusal by management to accept any responsibility for even day-to-day maintenance led to its complete disintegration over the years. 2. Daingean did not provide a safe environment. Management failed in its duty to ensure that all boys were protected. They lived in a climate of fear in which they were isolated, frightened and bullied by both staff and inmates. 3. Gangs of boys operated as a form of alternative government, victimising those who did not obey them, while the Brothers did nothing to break the system but acquiesced in it. 4. Flogging was an inhumane and cruel form of punishment. A senior management respondent described it as ‘a most revolting thing’ and ‘a kind of a horror’, and another respondent said that he was ‘horrified’ when he witnessed it, but the management did nothing to stop it and discussed the practice freely with the Department of Education and the Kennedy Committee. 5. Corporal punishment was a means of maintaining control and discipline, and it was the first response by many of the staff in Daingean for even minor transgressions. Black eyes, split lips, and bruising were reported by complainants. There was no control of staff in the infliction of punishment. 6. A punishment book was part of a proper regime, as well as being required by law. 7. The Department of Education knew that its rules were being breached in a fundamental way and management in Daingean operated the system of punishment in the knowledge that the Department would not interfere. 8. Sexual abuse of boys by staff took place in Daingean, as complainant witnesses testified. 9. The full extent of this abuse is impossible to quantify because of the absence of a proper system of receiving, handling and recording complaints and investigations. 10. The system that was put in place tended to suppress complaints rather than to reveal abuse or even to bring about investigations. 11. The Congregation in their Submission and Statements have not admitted that sexual abuse took place or even considered the possibility, but instead have directed their efforts to contending that it is impossible to find that such abuse actually occurred. 12. Having regard to the extent of the abuse of which Br Ramon was found guilty in Wales, the reservations expressed about his time in London, the known recidivist nature of sexual abuse and the complainant evidence received by the Investigation Committee, there must be serious misgivings about this Brother’s behaviour in Daingean during his long service there. 13. The Oblates acknowledged that they were aware of peer abuse and accepted that such incidents did take place. 14. Sexual behaviour between boys, which was often abusive, was a major issue that developed to such a degree because of the lack of effective supervision throughout the Institution and particularly during recreation. 15. The unsafe environment caused some boys to seek protection through sexual relationships with other boys in order to survive. 16. The conditions of neglect and squalor described by Dr Lysaght and the Kennedy Committee were primarily the responsibility of the management of the School. Inadequate buildings and the consequent overcrowding would undoubtedly have taxed the most efficient Manager, but dirt, hunger, shabbiness and lack of supervision were management issues and these were all present at Daingean. 17. The staff in Daingean was inadequate, ill-equipped and untrained. 18. The failure to offer emotional support was acknowledged by Fr Luca in 1972 when he wrote: The large numbers in such custodial situations with declining staff numbers not only rendered meaningful relationships between staff and boys unattainable but repressive measures for the purpose of containment were the order of the day. 19. The Department of Education neglected its regulatory and supervisory roles in Daingean and failed to condemn serious abuses, including the practice of flogging. 20. Daingean did not in practice have a remedial function, as a reformatory was intended to have, but operated as a custodial institution whose purpose was punishment by deprivation of liberty. Periods of detention were longer because of the supposed therapeutic value of a reformatory, a feature that was emphasised by the statutory minimum of two years. Because it was not officially a prison, there was an absence of legal and administrative protections for detainees.