52 entries for Fr Moore

Fr Moore learned about an Inter-Departmental Committee that was considering submissions in relation to Industrial and Reformatory Schools and he contacted the Chairman, Mr Peter Berry, who was the Secretary of the Department of Justice. A meeting took place on 26th November 1962 attended by Fr Moore, Mr Berry and the Secretary to the Committee, Mr Toal. Fr Moore’s criticisms, as summarised in the minutes, included the following: the absence of aftercare; a big percentage of boys needed psychiatric treatment which was not available; a psychologist was also required; many of the boys were institutionalised from babyhood until 16 years; the educational standard was very low; trade training was poor and did not lead to jobs in those callings and boys ended up in dead end jobs; neglect in regard to clothing, bed clothes, food and medical care; the Manager was unsuitable and ‘an unwilling captain’; and the Institution was short of money. At Mr Berry’s request, Fr Moore agreed to attend a meeting with Dr Ó Raifeartaigh, Secretary of the Department of Education.

This meeting took place on 13th December 1962. Dr Ó Raifeartaigh gave Fr Moore a very different reception to the one he received from Mr Berry and vigorously cross-examined him on the minutes of the November meeting. He accused Fr Moore of being inaccurate as regards certain salient facts and effectively suggested that he had a vendetta against the Christian Brothers. Fr Moore was shaken after the encounter, and wrote to the Archbishop the following day, informing him that the meeting had been ‘a most humiliating and embarrassing experience’. Mr Berry was quick to distance himself from the stance adopted by the Secretary of the Department of Education and wrote to the latter reproving him on his hostile interrogation of Fr Moore.

Mr Seamus Mac Uaid, Higher Executive Officer, wrote the principal report, which was described by the Chairman, Mr Berry, as ‘a model of its kind’. The general conclusion of the report was reassuring to the Department, but many of the detailed observations did not differ significantly from Fr Moore’s. The writer began with a summary of his findings: it is my opinion that the boys in Artane Industrial School are well fed, warmly clothed, comfortably bedded and treated with kindness by the Christian Brothers in an atmosphere conducive to their spiritual and physical development. I believe, however, that boys should not be reared away from the refining influence of women and am convinced that the introduction of female assistance at key points in the management would render more effective the work of the institution.

In the course of his report, Mr MacDaibhid mentioned that the ‘overcoats supplied by the School are raincoats only, 412 of which were ordered in December’. Mr MacUaid disclosed in his report that the number of boys in residence was 413, which means that outer garments for all the boys were being procured. The provision of overcoats for the boys was a matter of controversy in the questioning of Fr Moore by counsel for the Christian Brothers. This report suggests that these raincoats were being ordered for the first time, and it does not disprove Fr Moore’s report.

The relevant part of the minutes is introduced by the statement that the MacUaid report ‘was then considered paragraph by paragraph, the Chairman indicating the many ways in which the criticisms corresponded to what Fr Moore had said’ and goes on: The Report makes these criticisms for instance:- “that boys should not be reared away from the refining influence of women; “the necessity for having female assistants at key points in the institution; “there is an extravagance of space which makes a nightmare of maintenance (of Artane) in modern times; “nowhere else was I more forcibly struck by the criticism that Artane is too big than in this vast dining hall among 400 youngsters ... The fact that the dining hall was designed to accommodate several hundred more than the number present added to the impression that the charge “institutionalised” could not be defended here; “it is essential that a woman qualified in domestic economy and with a female assistant, be placed in charge of the kitchen and dining hall; “the standards here (in the dormitories) were male standards ... the furnishing of a dormitory is a woman’s role which man cannot adequately fill; “the clothes in most cases were of the rough type tweed in the familiar poor-house colours ... automatically identifying the wearers ... The Sunday clothes were ... equally drab in colour and unimaginative in pattern ... a woman with ideas could do really good work in the school workshop ... “add to this shirts buttoned or unbuttoned at the neck and no ties and even the most presentable boys are handicapped in appearance; “on paper this (each boy’s issue of clothes) looks a generous issue but it is not supported by the appearance of the boys; “the same general criticisms are made of the laundry which is described as being old-fashioned in methods and machinery; “he (the Dean of discipline) is too young for an exacting job that requires maturity, had little experience of the city type prior to his appointment as disciplinarian; “in response to the suggestion that a course in psychology in U.C.D. would help in an office of this important kind he (the Superior) replied that the question had never been examined by the Order; “the play-yard was disappointing, its surface uneven and puddle-holed contributing in turn to dirty boots and shoes and spattered legs; “the recreation hall is a long cement-floored room, uncared for, dismal, depressing and dirty and with no redeeming feature whatsoever ... The school classroom one of the same ramshackle type ... “the Superior drew attention to the lack of a satisfactory hostel for orphans or abandoned boys leaving Artane at 16 years; “the absence of a hostel for post industrial school boys with no homes to go to is a weakness in the system of aftercare which I think the Department should try to rectify; “12 boys (out of 150 eligible) were entered for the M.T. Group Certificate ... in June, 1962 but all failed ... this Branch will pursue this unsatisfactory performance with our Technical Instruction Branch; “the Resident Manager very seldom applies for the retention of boys until the age of 17 years to continue their secondary or technical school studies and the replies given by the Bursar in defence of this policy were vague and unsatisfactory; “Cleanliness in the bakery was barely adequate and the white tunics of the apprentices could do with replacement”.

Before Dr Anna McCabe retired from her position as Medical Inspector, she furnished a General Report on Industrial and Reformatory Schools dated 29th February 1964. She made specific reference to Fr Moore’s report, and stated that she was in substantial agreement with most of its contents. However, she rejected outright his findings regarding the boys’ clothing, diet and medical facilities available in the School, and she complimented Br Ourson on his management and attributed many improvements to his intervention.

Fr Moore in evidence said that he called to the School every morning to say Mass. After breakfast, he returned to his parish and visited the School every afternoon for an hour or two, which he spent mostly in the recreation yard, infirmary and workshops.

He was aware that Archbishop McQuaid was very unhappy with the state of affairs in Artane. He was concerned about the vastness of the Institution. Fr Moore believed that the Archbishop’s disquiet regarding Artane was motivated by a deep concern for the children. In 1962, when he was asked by the Archbishop to write a report regarding Artane, he did not feel any pressure to colour his report in line with the Archbishop’s trenchant views. In fact, the Archbishop’s opinion mirrored his own experience of Artane after two years’ working there. Fr Moore had become involved in the area of aftercare, much to the annoyance of the Brothers, he said. He worked with a youth club for former Artane boys run by the Legion of Mary, which highlighted to him the deficiencies in the provision of aftercare by the Brothers. He understood his purpose in writing the report was to present a global picture of his experience of Artane. He became aware subsequently that the Archbishop stated in correspondence with the Department of Justice that he had appointed Fr Moore to set about reforming Artane.

Fr Moore visited the refectory for the purpose of his report and observed that ‘it was generally unruly. Boys sitting at tables snapping each other’s food, as it were, things like that. Pretty unruly I would have thought. Pretty crude’.

Fr Moore confirmed the evidence of a complainant who said that he had reported sexual abuse to Fr Moore when he was in Artane. The boy had confided in him that he had been sexually abused by Br Adrien who worked in the kitchen. Fr Moore had always found him to be personable and thought that he was popular with the boys. He had never experienced or heard of complaints of sexual impropriety during his own time as a pupil in St Vincent’s and this was the first time he had ever had to deal with such a matter. Fr Moore suggested that the boy go to the Superior, Br Ourson, about the matter, but he was reluctant to do so, as he felt that it would be perceived that he was telling tales on Br Adrien. Fr Moore offered to speak to Br Ourson. He immediately went to Br Ourson and told him the nature of the allegations made against Br Adrien who said that he would deal with the matter. Fr Moore also informed the Provincial, Br Mulholland, to reinforce the seriousness of the matter. Within days, Br Adrien was removed from Artane and transferred to another institution. His departure was not announced: he simply disappeared.

The Christian Brothers reject the conclusions drawn by Fr Moore in his report and in his evidence to the Investigation Committee. They contend that his evidence is unreliable, inaccurate and that it is contradicted by the contemporaneous Department reports and evidence from former Brothers. They submit that Fr Moore was a young, ambitious priest eager to please his Superior. He was well aware of the Archbishop’s attitude to Artane, who considered the Institution ‘the plague spot of his diocese’. They contend that Fr Moore’s report does not portray an objective analysis of Artane, but rather a biased account providing affirmation of the Archbishop’s views.

The Congregation contends that Fr Moore had relatively little direct experience of day-to-day life in Artane. He did not live in the School, and therefore his observations are based on his visits to the School, which were limited to particular areas. They contend that his overall contact with the School would not enable him to come to informed conclusions on the manner in which the School was run.

They cite, as an example of the shortcomings in Fr Moore’s research, his analysis of the boys’ diet. During his evidence to the Investigation Committee, it emerged that his conclusions on diet were based on one visit to the refectory, his general observations of the boys and the views of a doctor, who accompanied some of the boys on a camping trip, that they were undernourished and undersized. However, the report did not disclose the limited sources which led Fr Moore to his conclusions, but instead gave the impression that a comprehensive review and analysis of the nature and adequacy of the boys’ diet had taken place.

Similarly, his conclusion regarding the low standard of education in Artane was based on illegible letters he received from former residents, and the Christian Brothers submit that such a flimsy basis for such an evaluation ‘is of no real value’. They also emphasise that Fr Moore was relatively young and inexperienced, with no teaching experience, and submit that all of these factors, when taken together, render his assessment unreliable.

The Brothers in their Opening Statement on Artane said that Fr Moore was ‘both unprofessional and indiscreet in the manner in which he carried out his assignment’. Whilst he acknowledged in his covering letter to the Archbishop enclosing the report that his observations were restricted to his personal experience, he proceeded to offer his opinion on areas in which he clearly had no training or expertise. The Congregation contend that the statistics he presented were inaccurate and misleading.