75 entries for Fr Luca

Fr Luca, throughout his period as Resident Manager of Daingean, had serious concerns about his staff and the pressure they were placed under while working at this School. In his evidence and in contemporary documentation this was evident. His concerns about lack of staff numbers and the effect this was having can be seen in a letter he wrote in 1966. In it he protested: At present there are only nine active members of the Staff who are expected to cater at all times from seven in the morning to half-past ten at night, come what may, seven days a week ... Br X is not named as he is full time on the farm. The average age of these men is over 40, and obviously increasing. The staff as a whole feels that under the present circumstances they are unable to continue much longer with the present system. The strain is regarded as far too severe, and unless something tangible is done in the immediate future, they feel that they will be fit subjects for special institution themselves. That the strain is evident is obvious by the fact that six brothers in five years are sent from here with nervous breakdowns. This in itself should be a raw reminder of the seriousness of the situation of the already seriously understaffed school ... At present the Staff feel that they are being treated very unfairly.

Fr Luca’s letter of concern for the stress placed on the staff of Daingean is illuminating. At no time was similar concern expressed for the unfortunate boys who were there. The consequences of having overworked and overstressed staff in Daingean were examined during the Phase I hearing. Fr Hughes was asked about the content of the letter of Fr Luca and about the problems that could result from stressed staff. When asked if this kind of strain carried with it any risks for the people in the care of those under that type of strain, he replied, ‘I suppose the men under stress might snap and become abusive, it is a possibility’. He accepted that it was an undesirable situation, where people working in a position of responsibility over young people were under extreme stress. On the basis of this evidence, there was never an adequate staff at Daingean.

A designated priest or Brother, who maintained an office in the School, assisted the Resident Manager in his duties. He would keep records, accounts and numerous records required for the individual files on the boys. There was also a Brother Prefect who was responsible for dealing with serious breaches of discipline. As Fr Luca stated: It was always a man who ... was healthy, strong and who could bear the brunt of that responsibility and the work that it entailed, because it meant that he would have to be on the line at anytime if there was trouble of any description.

The Brother Prefect also had numerous other time-consuming duties. He would organise supervision of the boys outside school and work hours, and he was responsible for the boys’ correspondence and any monies sent to them. In practice, the Resident Manager left matters of discipline entirely to the Brother Prefect. As Fr Luca stated: I would have to say I don’t know how many slaps they had. I never saw the boys being punished while I was there. I didn’t regard it as part of my duty to supervise that. I know that the boys were punished and I know it was left to the prefect to decide what the punishment would be for the particular, well I don’t like to call it crime, misdemeanour.

Fr Luca, who was Resident Manager at the time, gave a different version. He said in evidence that he got two day’s notice of the visit and that they did not ‘land on the doorstep unannounced’. Fr Hughes urged the Investigation Committee to read instead the ‘much more careful report’ of Dr Lysaght who ‘made a report there in 1966 after a very careful investigation, it is a very nuanced report and I think one would accept his observations as being fair and just’. He went on to explain that Dr Lysaght: went there specifically to do an investigation. He did a very careful and very honest and objective report which is far from being totally favourable but at the same time it has its nuances. I think one would have to accept it. Dr Lysaght’s report on St Conleth’s, Daingean, 1966

Therefore, up to 50 percent of the boys in Daingean were not receiving any formal education in Daingean in 1966. This is reflected in the evidence given to the Investigation Committee, with numerous witnesses stating that the education they received in Daingean was poor to non-existent. Throughout the 1960s in Daingean, and in particular during Fr Luca’s period as Resident Manager, attempts were made to improve this situation.

Change in the school subjects developed on a modest level, and extra classes were provided. The Oblates said that this was done at the request of the boys to stop the boredom of the playground. A prolonged debate between the Department of Education and the Oblate authorities led to the recognition of a special national school in Daingean. However, it would close three years later. With the advent of the national school, the teaching numbers were increased, and it was proposed to recognise the School under the national school grouping and to pay the teachers. This was implemented on 5th January 1970, and Daingean was recognised as a special national school, with four teachers under the management of Fr Luca.

In his Statement, Fr Luca stated that, some time before his term as Manager in Daingean was completed, plans were being made to move from the School in Daingean to a new school in Lusk (Oberstown). Unlike Daingean, the new school was to have a board of management with representatives from the Department of Justice, the Department of Health and the Department of Education.

The site at Lusk was sold to the Department of Education by the Oblates. The new school was named Scoil Ard Mhuire. The vast majority of the Oblate staff, according to Fr Luca, did not want to work at Oberstown. Furthermore, it was felt by the Oblate Provincial Council that ‘if many of these brothers went to Oberstown it would be just more of the same old pattern’, as they would not take well to the new system the School was developing in childcare.

As early as 1958, the idea of dividing up the large institutions into groups was being talked about. When Fr Luca was in Daingean in the early 1960s, he raised the issue again. He wrote in his Statement: I had a whole lot of ideas for Daingean and what should be done with it. How to break up the large group, there were a 120 or 150 boys in this group at the time and I thought it would be much better to build units out around the various fields and break them up.

Fr Luca blamed the Departments of Education and Justice for the inability to introduce change. He wrote: The State was quite happy as long as we kept the lid on Daingean – took in all the boys who went through the courts, said nothing, and kept them there ... There was no public interest at that time ... There was nothing about the treatment of those boys and, in a way, whatever treatment they got was good enough for them, that was the attitude.

It is clear from this memorandum that the Department felt it was the Orders that were resisting change, while in the 1960s Fr Luca believed the Government Departments were to blame for stifling innovative thinking.

The School was a reformatory for Roman Catholics and ‘Religious practice was therefore an intrinsic part of the school’s life’. The Oblates stated that the School organised Christian Doctrine classes, retreats and special religious activities. Fr Luca made attendance at Mass optional in the 1960s, to encourage a more personalised faith commitment. 9. An insistence on discipline

The Oblates failed to achieve almost all of the objectives that they set themselves in running Daingean. They never had the staff, the training or the resources to run the Institution in a way that would have made these objectives realistic ones. As Fr Luca 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.

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.