10,992 entries for Inspections - State

A later Visitation Report, however, expressed concern about him. It mentioned he was not on the ‘official staff’: [Br Marceau] is a problem and a constant source of worry and anxiety to the Superior. He has a persecution complex, among others, and is unpredictable. At the moment his chief preoccupation is trying to recover a set of tools which he believes the Superior has taken and his enquiries have extended to the men in the Shops. He has several tea chests and cases of nondescript “property” stored away under lock and key and is constantly adding to his store. The Superior has a big job in keeping him under surveillance ... Br Marceau has a class of eleven boys but his stock of visual aids would supply several classes. I counted seventeen blackboards in his classroom. Most of his charts deal with Irish – lists of verbs, nouns, etc. – and he maintains that much time is saved. The children are tense and answer mechanically and are “encouraged” to use the time before class and other recess periods for learning off these lists and other lessons. He has beaten one of these boys severely, with the usual “black eye” result and boxed the ears of the youngest boy in the place, who attends the Convent School, but, as always, he denies everything when challenged and convinces himself that he is telling the truth. He made a strong appeal to the Visitor to have the Canonical Warning he received for such an offence annulled and he has consulted priests about this. It is preying on his mind.

This Visitation Report contained all the criticisms that the Superior of the school in the Midlands had made some years before: Br Marceau was using excessive corporal punishment, he was causing actual bodily harm to the boys, and could not be disciplined as he could see no wrong in himself. In the follow-up letter to the Resident Manager, he was advised: It appears that it is still necessary to keep Br Marceau under surveillance and that his indiscretions are liable to give rise to embarrassing situations ... he must be absolutely forbidden to punish the children.

The next year, the Visitor observed that Br Marceau, ‘who has a small class (10), seems to have steered clear of trouble (corporal punishment) during the year. He is very painstaking in the preparation of his work but lacks prudence’. He was teaching second and third standards, and one class in fourth standard.

Subsequently, however, the problem recurred. The next Visitor found him ‘most devoted’ but he still criticised his behaviour and his potential for being a ‘danger’. He wrote: [He] had a few breaks re punishment, not TOO serious, but he is always a potential danger, and difficult to convince. I have warned of this danger and told him that there is to be no punishment except in the approved method and that as little as possible. He is inclined to lose control of himself and then anything could happen.

Br Seamus Nolan, at the Phase I hearing, commented on this situation: It was perfectly obvious that there was to be no more of this. He would have told the local person, the Provincial Superior, that [Br Marceau] would have to be removed from teaching. In the meantime I think the Provincial Superior already had that power and it wasn’t exercised unfortunately.

Contrary to Br Nolan’s interpretation of Br Marceau’s removal, there is no evidence that Br Marceau was prevented from finishing the academic year as a teacher. At the end of the school year, the internal national school closed down anyway. He was not removed from the Institution and still had access to the children for over a year after the Visitation Report mentioned above.

A later Visitor wrote that Br Marceau was ‘completely useless as an efficient staff member. He is not teaching and while the boys are at school he is free all day. He cannot be given any responsibility even in the evening time with the boys’.

Br Marceau was transferred from Tralee to St Helen’s, Booterstown in the late 1960s. According to the Christian Brothers, he did not teach again.

The inadequacy of the Resident Manager appointed to Tralee in the 1960s was discussed above. He was considered by the Visitors to be lazy, disengaged and mentally slow. Such a man was clearly unable to protect the children in his care from the unpredictable violence of a man like Br Marceau.

This Brother continued to teach and inflict extreme punishment on boys for 10 years. His behaviour was severe and excessive and was known at the time to the Leadership of the Congregation.

The Opening Statement said that the Brother’s ‘withdrawal from a teaching and supervisory capacity in the school was long overdue when it occurred’. At the Phase I hearing, Br Seamus Nolan acknowledged that this Brother should not have been sent to Tralee after what happened in Glin. He could not explain it. He accepted that Br Marceau should have been removed before leaving the school in the Midlands. At the Phase III hearing, he also acknowledged that it was ‘absolutely indefensible and extremely difficult to understand, impossible to understand how it [was] allowed to go on for so long’. He claimed the Brother was there ‘essentially as a supernumerary to help out, not in an official capacity, and maybe the idea was that perhaps some supervision would be enough for him. But he had also failed on that in other occasions’.

In short, no explanation could be proffered by the Christian Brothers as to why this individual was permitted to continue to have control over children in several different schools.

Br Nolan also stated during the Phase I hearing that he believed that Brothers in Tralee would have complained about Br Marceau, but that there were no written reports apart from the Visitation Reports.

Br Nolan confirmed that transferring a Brother was a mark of disapproval, but he was still unable to explain the leniency shown towards Br Marceau.

In their Final Submissions to the Committee, the Christian Brothers accepted that: there had been a failing in how the Congregation dealt with this Brother; his removal from teaching should have taken place earlier; and the response of the Congregation to the problem had been ‘inadequate’, possibly partially due to the view of Brothers that it was not appropriate for them to interfere with the work of another Brother.