10,992 entries for Inspections - State

He described his need to form attachments, and he expressed this in a letter he wrote in 1986 to the Resident Manager: I was just thinking to myself, as I have always thought, of that I can never say that I never had a mother and father because I have had that, and that’s you and Fr Burke.8 Just like all mums and dads, you fed me, clothed me, taught me to read and write, brought me on holidays. I will never forget and loads more and I love you both and always will.

He was asked if he stood by those sentiments today and he replied: Yes, I would ... Fr Burke ... I wish he was my dad, because I loved him so much. He’s one in a million ... Sr Sienna as much as there is a lot of good fond memories, and I stand over the letter and those words I have said in it ... there is a lot of good but yet there is bad ... I thought she was so good and the next minute she turned bad, by locking me in the black hole and humiliating me and embarrassing me and hitting me in her office.

He was eloquent in describing his yearning for a family life he never had. He said: Father Burke was very affectionate and you would get a hug from him and so forth, but naturally children need ... more than that, more loving and to be wanted. As all children would, as anybody in general does. I felt I wasn’t getting that ... I felt that it was an uphill battle on my own against all the other environments ... just doing what father tells you to go to school at this time and you come back at this time, go to bed at this time. That’s fine, because one is institutionalised ... I find it easy to work in these environs, because I have been brought up in them. If I had joined the army I would have had no problems. But moving into ... the normal world, it is totally different. Naturally I would see the bond of family that [the family that befriended me] have with their daughter ... it is so beautiful that it is something that I wanted to express but I didn’t know where to express it. I just found that very, very difficult.

Even relationships with his fellow pupils from St Joseph’s proved transient. He explained: The funny part about it all, living so long in [another industrial school] and so long in St Joseph’s I am in contact with none of them ... all children were put into institutions but they weren’t made to feel together, to be integrated more so, so they can bond good relations. Now, when I try to bond relations with the children ... one would have been slowly doing it. Next minute ... you are cast right out of it. I have never seen any of the girls or the school since then, until the school closed down. The only contact that there would be with your peers, to the nuns ... The problem with this is that I am going through a third party.

He then gave a moving description of his ideal of family life, something he had never had. He said: (The family) is the foundation of their (children’s) life and if they have as many of their siblings and their uncles and aunts and moms and dads and grandparents and whoever else all round them, they will have so much love the strength that will come from that that they will be a much stronger person. The confidence will be very strong and the self-esteem will be very strong and nothing will hurt them. I believe that to the fullest.

While 21 written statements of complaint were submitted to the Investigation Committee, only three former residents came forward to give evidence.

There were no living respondents, and no evidence was heard from people who had worked in the School. The material that was therefore available was a limited amount of oral testimony and the information contained in the written records.

General conclusions 1. The relatively small number of children in St Joseph’s was an important factor in making this a less abusive institution. 2. The buildings were extremely cold, unfriendly and forbidding, ‘a barracks’ before 1960, and attempts to improve them made little impact. 3. The children were poorly educated and trained, and their full potential was not realised. 4. Family contacts were not maintained and children were deprived of crucial information that would have helped them form family ties and establish identity. 5. For most of its existence, recreational facilities were almost non-existent. The children were kept occupied by doing daily chores. The need for children to play was not considered by management. This regime harmed their emotional development. 6. The children came from deprived backgrounds and the conditions did little to help them. 7. The punishment book, even though it is not a complete record, is evidence of an attempt to control corporal punishment. 8. Problems arose from time to time in this Institution because of the incapacity of a Resident Manager, by reason of old age and/or infirmity. The management system of the Congregation was slow to remedy the situation. The Department of Education was limited to exhortation and threat, but was unable to effect the necessary change because the Mother Superior appointed the Resident Managers. 9. There was neglect of children in 1944 and 1946, including gross indifference to hygiene, where the children were left with ‘verminous and nitty heads’. 10. Despite the forbidding environment and the fear induced by some punishments, the children did not live in constant fear. The Sisters, particularly in the latter years, were more approachable and involved. A small anecdote told by Sr Ann Marie McQuaid illustrates this point: when Inspection Reports said the School needed painting, the Sisters ran bazaars and collected door to door in Dundalk and Dublin to fund the cost; they could afford the paint but not a painter, so four of the Sisters, including the Reverend Mother and the Resident Manager, two Sisters from the School and the caretaker of the convent, painted the building from basement to top floor at nighttime; a former resident told her that they used to creep out of bed to see the nuns without their veils.

In the early part of the nineteenth century, the Archbishop of Dublin, Dr Troy, wanted to establish a religious community of women to serve the needs of the poor in the city, similar to the Daughters of Charity who worked in France.

His coadjutor, Dr Murray, met Mary Aikenhead, and he thought she was ideally suited to carry out this plan. In 1812, Dr Murray sent Mary Aikenhead and a companion to begin their training in the religious life to the Institute of the Blessed Virgin Mary run by the Loreto Sisters in York, England. The rules of this Institute at that time were based on the Constitutions of the Society of Jesus (Jesuits), and the initial formation of Sr Mary Augustine, as she became, were based on Ignatian spirituality.

Sr Mary Augustine and her companion, Sr Mary Catherine, returned to Dublin in August 1815, and Dr Murray appointed Sr Mary Augustine as the Superior of the new Community. The Sisters made the usual three vows of religion – chastity, poverty and obedience – and an additional fourth vow to devote their lives to the service of the poor. The following year, Dr Troy canonically established the new Institute under the title of ‘Pious Congregation of Sisters of Charity’.

Soon after its establishment, the Sisters began their visitation of the poor, and found that the Rules of the Constitution of the Society of Jesus which they had chosen to follow were not suited to the type of apostolic life of their new Institute. A new Constitution was drafted by Sr Mary Augustine, with the assistance of a Jesuit Priest, and was submitted to Rome for approval in 1824. The Rules and Constitution were deliberated on in Rome during the pontificates of Leo XII and Pius VIII, but it was not until after the accession of Pope Gregory XVI that they were finally approved in 1833.

The original documents remained unchanged until 1917, when the Constitution was revised and modified in line with the new Code of Canon Law. The next revision took place in 1971, in accordance with the wish of Vatican Council II, and an Interim Revised Constitution was approved by Rome and put to the General Chapter of the Congregation in 1977. The Congregation felt that another draft was necessary, as they considered that the new Interim Constitution did not reflect the early Ignatian spirituality. A Congregational Committee was formed, and a new Constitution was drafted using the original 1833 Constitution and key parts from the Constitutions of the Society of Jesus. As the new Constitution was drawn from the original document, a second contemporary document was drawn up to encompass the teachings of the Vatican II Council and this was entitled ‘The Complementary Code to the Constitutions.’1 The new Constitution was circulated to the members of the Congregation in 1980 and, over the next three years, it was revised and edited and prepared for submission to the Sacred Congregation for Religious in Rome in April 1984. It was approved in August 1985.

In 1995, it was recognised by the General Chapter that the Complementary Code needed updating and, after a wide-ranging consultation process throughout the Congregation, a new Complementary Document was produced in 2001. The Sisters used the Jesuits’ document ‘Complementary Norms’ to assist them in the production of this document.

Today, the Religious Sisters of Charity have around 150 communities in six regions and two provinces, spanning four continents. They continue the work of their founder, Mary Aikenhead, in three ministries: education, healthcare and pastoral/social. The Sisters of Charity in Australia are a distinct Congregation since 1842 with their own Congregational leader.