462 entries for Historical Context

In 1965, the Visitor said: The after care of the boys cannot be termed satisfactory. A number of boys go out to farmers but after a few years make their way to England. Some farmers keep them till they are 19 years of age and then let them off as they would be obliged to pay them a man’s wage.

In the follow-up letter to the Resident Manager, he was asked to give as much attention as possible to the aftercare of the boys.

Four of the 15 complainants heard by the Committee were followed up for the prescribed period of two years, according to the Register. Two of these complainants left the School in the 1940s, one in the early 1950s, and one in the late 1950s. There was no two-year follow-up for another nine of them, and follow-up was not applicable in respect of two boys as they did not go into employment on leaving Tralee.

Aftercare was inadequate, as was acknowledged by the Congregation.

In its Submission on St Joseph’s, Tralee, the Congregation wrote: The philosophy of care in industrial schools was one of physical care and emphasis was placed on hygiene, order, neatness, discipline and physical education.

It also emphasised that ‘the use of corporal punishment was accepted in both home and school and certain aspects of diet, clothing, heating and furnishing were different from our present standards’.

Throughout the relevant period, Tralee had Brothers who were unduly severe and harsh with the boys. Where physical punishment is perpetrated arbitrarily and excessively, a climate of fear builds up which can impact on every aspect of life in the institution. The boys lived in fear, and many complainants spoke of this undercurrent of fear in their everyday life in Tralee.

Added to this climate of fear was the bullying by older boys of younger boys. It was a feature in this Institution. It was not properly addressed, either because of a shortage of staff engaged in a supervisory capacity or because of a failure to understand the seriousness of the problem. This increased the sense of insecurity and fear for the majority of children growing up there.

Tralee also had one acknowledged sexual abuser on the staff for a period of 20 years. Fear of speaking out, and lack of confidence in the willingness of Brothers to listen to them and protect them, left the children particularly vulnerable to sexual predators. The fact that this Brother could operate a bizarre ritual of bathing boys and being bathed personally by them leaves no doubt that the boys in Tralee were not adequately protected by the system and complaints were not properly dealt with.

The physical care that was provided was at best a minimum standard. The children were not well fed and were not dressed properly for a significant part of the period under review. The buildings were cold and drab and badly maintained, and there appeared to be very little in the way of recreation for the children. Indeed, when writing closing comments about Tralee in the annals, the final Resident Manager, Br Roy, commented that ‘recreation facilities hardly existed’.34

Tralee did not present a particularly edifying picture, but even with all of these shortcomings, it could still have offered a measure of comfort and security to the children, as was shown when one Resident Manager took an interest in the needs and welfare of the boys. When the atmosphere was right, the Brothers and boys could interact in a positive and supportive way.

Both complainants and former members of staff gave evidence as to the nature of the relations between the boys and the Brothers. Complainants spoke of instances of gratuitous cruelty that indicated a generally negative attitude towards the boys on the part of the Brothers.

One complainant, who was in the school in the 1940s, described how he was treated by the Brothers: There was no such thing as being good to you, there was no such thing as being good to you. You were there, you were just there to be worked and looked after. I couldn’t say I ever had a kind word from a Brother.

Another complainant told the Committee that he wet the bed until he was almost 16 and he got ‘some atrocious abuse over that’. He spoke of how the Brothers, but mostly one particular Brother, Br Ansel, would hold up the sheet after he wet the bed and show it to the rest of the School, mocking him. This led to him being labelled a bed-wetter by the other boys. This was, at the time, ‘the lowest you could be’.

Another former resident said that you never went to a Brother and told him your problem. He was being severely abused by Br Marceau, who was well known to the Congregation for his excessive punishment of boys in his care, but he could not speak to the Brothers about it because he did not know if he would be believed. If he was not believed, he could get a ‘hiding’ from the Brother he told. Then Br Marceau would be told and he would get a ‘worse hiding’ from him for telling lies. ‘That’s the way it was, you didn’t go to a Christian Brother because you didn’t expect any help from him’.