462 entries for Church Inspections

Under the heading ‘Records of Abuse’, the Congregation identified two former members of staff as documented and acknowledged physical abusers of boys whilst they were in Tralee. Two other Brothers were ‘instructed to temper their teaching as there had been some reports of severity about them’. This instruction was given to the Brothers by letter at the same time as the Congregation accepted their application for Final Vows. They were later on the teaching staff of Tralee but there were ‘no records to show that they did not comply with the advice given them’.

As a further example of how complaints were dealt with, they cited a case in the late 1960s when allegations were made that a boy had been severely punished. The Opening Statement further stated that the Department of Education had taken the case very seriously and, following an investigation, it had accepted the explanation given on behalf of the Resident Manager.

Although the Congregation reiterated its apology of 29th March 1998 in its Opening Statement, the only concessions it made with regard to physical abuse in Tralee were that occasional lapses in the administration of punishment did occur and that there were five documented cases of severe punishment in the records. In four out of the five documented cases, the Congregation suggested that the matters were dealt with appropriately. Only in the case of Br Marceau, dealt with below, did the Congregation concede that his withdrawal from the School ‘was long overdue when it occurred’ and ‘the delay in taking firm action casts a shadow over the good work accomplished’ by the Brothers in Tralee.

All 15 former residents who gave evidence in Phase II made allegations of physical abuse. Some former members of staff in their evidence admitted that the rules for corporal punishment were broken in Tralee, either by themselves or by others, and that excessive punishment of children did occur. Documented cases of physical abuse: Br Eriq

Br Eriq was in Tralee in the late 1930s. Three Visitation Reports referred to difficulties with this Brother. The first Report said that he was ‘an open mouthed man and seems to be lacking in good sense’. It went on to say he was ‘harsh with the boys’, and that he ‘punishes them in ways contrary to Rule and has the unhappy knack of setting them against him’. It found him ‘the least suitable member of the staff’ on account of, amongst other things, his poor handling of the boys and his severity and his clashes with the older boys.

Despite the very clear concerns expressed in the first Report about his severity, in a follow-up letter to the Resident Manager it was recommended that Br Eriq be appointed to a teaching post and that the services of a lay teacher could be dispensed with. The lay teacher had left before the next Visitation.

The next Visitor noted that ‘instances of harsh treatment and severe punishment of boys’ by Br Eriq had been brought to his attention and that he, along with Br Beaufort, had been warned of the ‘possible evil consequences to the reputation of the school and to themselves personally of immoderate punishment of the boys’. Both expressed regret and promised to be ‘more watchful over themselves in their necessary correction of the boys’.

The following Visitation Report again singled out Br Eriq for criticism of his excessive use of punishment: [He] gives way rather often to outbursts of ill temper and inflicts immoderate corporal on the dull children in his class. I had abundant evidence that the charge against Br Eriq is true. The Superior makes a strong appeal to have [him] changed at some future date and to get an additional Brother for the staff.

Br Eriq was subsequently moved in the early 1940s to another school. He served in Artane for a period of less than a year in the late 1940s. He left in April, not August, which was the usual time for Brothers to be moved.

During the course of the Phase I hearing, when asked whether he had any comment to make on the fact that this Brother was removed for immoderate corporal punishment and was then sent to another school, Br Seamus Nolan said: Well, he went to another school with a warning to behave himself and to control that failure so there was a chance. He didn’t lapse again apparently.

The Opening Statement stated that the request by the Resident Manager to have Br Eriq removed was a ‘practiced way of dealing with irregularities but in cases where the fault was a major one the reason for the transfer was made clear to the perpetrator and was in effect a warning and punishment for severity in school’.

One complainant, appearing before the Investigation Committee, said of this man: Yeah, he would hit you, he would hit you in a temper. He wasn’t a cold, sadistic sort of man. He would hit you in a temper. He would lash out at you in a temper. But if you met him the next day he would talk to you quite okay like. What you done with Br Eriq is the best thing, try and keep out of his way in case he was in a bad mood ... He was just a hot tempered man from what I could see of him.

He added that Br Eriq was ‘a bit of hard man...but he wasn’t consistently hard. He could actually be quite reasonable’.

In their Statement to the Committee responding to the allegations of this complainant, the Christian Brothers said that they were in no position to respond to the allegations by the complainant, but the Brother was ‘known to be over severe in class and was transferred at the end of the school year at the Superior’s request’.

Three Visitation Reports revealed that Br Eriq had failed to heed warnings about excessive punishments. There was no reason to believe that moving him to another school would have had any effect on his violent outbursts. A Brother with a known propensity for violent behaviour should not have been sent to another industrial school where he could inflict such punishment on other children. Documented cases of physical abuse: Br Marceau