200 entries for Witness Testimony

The stress and anxiety Br Rene endured whilst managing Carriglea were described in a letter he wrote to the Department of Education, responding to criticisms made by Dr Anna McCabe9 following her inspection of the School in 1939.

Br Rene confirmed that he was severe on the boys in Carriglea. He was one of the few Brothers in the Community who could exercise control over the boys and he shouldered a large amount of responsibility in the day-to-day running of the School. In an environment where he had little or no support, it is not surprising that a heavy-handed approach to discipline was adopted at times. This case revealed the misery of a member of the Community who sought release by way of dispensation. However, the Councils both in Ireland and Rome decided that they knew his interests better than he did. The case also revealed how this Brother perceived himself and his colleagues in industrial schools. Br Rene was regarded by the authorities as badly educated, and by his own estimation he was hopelessly unqualified for his work. This deficiency in training and qualification caused him great personal anguish. Despite this fact, he held a senior position in Carriglea for 12 years.

By 1945, there was ‘a notable lack of union and harmony in the Community’. The new Superior did not fit in. He was aloof and odd in his behaviour. He had ‘little or no contact with Brothers or boys and ... generally disregards any representations made for the better working of the institution’. In an already troubled environment this was a recipe for disaster. Matters were not helped by the transfer of Br Rene, who had exerted a positive influence and exercised firm discipline over the boys. In his absence the burden of supervision fell to a disproportionately small number of Brothers, with the result that they were involved from dawn to dusk with the boys, with little or no respite. This strain left them ‘discouraged and dissatisfied’. To add to their stress, there was a particularly quarrelsome and disruptive Brother who exerted undue influence over others.

The result of this poisoned atmosphere between the Brothers was borderline anarchy among the boys. The Visitation Report for 1945 described the situation: The boys were very much out of hand during the past year and showed a very rebellious spirit. Boohing the Brothers was not uncommon and they refused, more than once, to submit to control. They made a determined attempt on one occasion to burn down the place and had actually got a fire going in one of the dormitories before they were discovered.

Furthermore, the Visitation Report noted that not only were the boys rebellious, but there was widescale sexual activity amongst them. It was recorded that ‘immoral practices were rife’ to such an extent that even ‘boys of eleven years of age have been discovered practising immorality with one another’.

The Visitor was in no doubt as to the root of this insubordination: This unfortunate state of affairs has been brought about by weak discipline, lack of suitable occupation and an insufficiency of games and other amusements.

Less than 50 boys were involved in trades training, and more than half of these were engaged on a part-time basis. Over 200 boys were left to spend their time outside school hours ‘lolling about the yard where they pick up most of their vicious habits’. The Visitor concluded that: the morals of the boys cannot be expected to improve until they are provided with more games and amusements and a much bigger number kept occupied at trades.

In his 1945 Report, the Visitor alluded to an even more sinister development. He noted that four workmen employed in the School received bed and board as part of their remuneration. Their sleeping cubicles were in or near the boys’ dormitories. The Visitor was informed by one of the Brothers that boys had been observed going into one of the workmen’s rooms several times. The Visitor was as much concerned by the fact that these workmen caused trouble in the kitchen, partaking in gossip and criticising their meals, as he was about the danger this man posed to the boys. A member of the General Council wrote to the Brother Provincial on 22nd October 1945, following receipt of the Visitation Report on Carriglea. He noted the ‘low standards in every department’ and blamed the elderly age profile of the staff. In his view, the staff required a complete overhaul. He surmised, ‘sin prevails in the school’.

The proposed staff overhaul took place and, by November 1946, only two of the 11 members of the previous year’s Community remained: the much criticised Superior, and another Brother, Br Durrant,10 whose only duty was to take care of the sacristy. Seven Brothers were transferred into Carriglea, and nine Brothers were transferred out of the Institution.11

Amongst the Brothers transferred to Carriglea was Br Maslin12, who had spent the previous five years in Letterfrack. He had also spent over a year in Tralee prior to that. He had a ferocious reputation as Disciplinarian in Letterfrack, to the extent that a Brother felt compelled to complain to a Visitor from the Provincial Council during an annual Visitation. In a letter outlining his concerns, he wrote that the Disciplinarian ‘can inflict terrible punishment on children and the boys have a awful dread of his anger’. The nub of the Brother’s concern, which he shared with other members of the Letterfrack Community, was that the Disciplinarian was happy to mete out severe punishment on the flimsiest of evidence, particularly if the alleged crime was sexual activity amongst boys.

The Investigation Committee heard evidence from an ex-resident of Carriglea who described this Brother as ‘an animal’. He alleged that Br Maslin was random and indiscriminate in his use of corporal punishment. He stated, ‘He would go behind you and he would just give you a whack. A whack of the leather on the head or the ears’. He used a leather strap to inflict punishment and he carried a cat-o’-nine-tails around with him, which was terrifying for the children.

Br Maslin supervised the washroom in the evening time and would beat the boys with a strap if they were too slow. This former resident described the daily scene in the washroom as follows: In the evenings if you had to go up to the washroom, there was a big washroom with all the taps and all that, and everything was cold, it was all cold, there was water in them. What you used to do was the kids used line up in two, one and then one behind him, and what you had to do was he just roared first ‘right leg’, you put your right leg in and you got the soap and you washed it and then he would say ‘wash off the soap’. Then you had the stand back and the next kid would go in and he would put his right foot up on the thing.

The Investigation Committee also heard evidence from Br Hardouin,13 who was in Carriglea at the same time as Br Maslin. He stated in evidence that Br Maslin was the most feared by the boys of all the Brothers in the Community. He described him as ‘very very severe’ in terms of his demeanour and manner. Even the Brothers in the Community regarded him as unfriendly and standoffish.

In their response to the complainant’s allegation, the Congregation stated that, as Br Maslin was now deceased, it was impossible for them to confirm or deny that any such abuse took place. No reference was made to this Brother’s record in Letterfrack or the reservations expressed by his colleague on his use of physical punishment.

Br Ansel14 was transferred to Carriglea from Tralee in December 1945. He spent less than three months in Carriglea, holding the post of Disciplinarian before being transferred to a day school. Br Ansel had a reputation for being strict. He had spent five years in Artane. When the Resident Manager in Tralee had complained that his current Disciplinarian was not sufficiently strict, the Disciplinarian in question was replaced and, 12 months after that replacement, Br Ansel was transferred there. He later sought and was granted a dispensation in the mid-1960s. Br Octave,15 who was in Tralee at the same time as Br Ansel, described him as the best Disciplinarian and Principal. ‘He didn’t tolerate disobedience in word or act. Returned runaways had to “walk the line” for longish periods until they were broken’.