10,992 entries for State Inspections

The Provincial gave Br Herve a Canonical Warning pursuant to Constitution 218 and a ‘serious warning that a repetition of any of the faults with which you are now charged will render you liable to expulsion from the Congregation’. He told Br Herve to make a determined effort to combat his ‘immoderate tendency to softness in dealing with your pupils and to think seriously over the grave spiritual harm your actions inflict on both them and yourself’. He also stated that, ‘May God grant that the consequences are not worse’. He transferred Br Herve as soon as possible pursuant to the rules of the Congregation.

On the same day that he wrote to Br Herve, the Provincial also wrote to the Superior of the School sympathising in ‘the amount of worry and humiliation that has been inflicted on you by the deplorable conduct’ of Br Herve. He stated that: The unfortunate man is really more to be pitied than to be censured, but to make him realise the gravity of his offence I am giving him the canonical warning provided for in the Constitution, and in doing so I think I am adopting the most charitable course that can be pursued in a case of this kind.

The Superior replied, thanking the Provincial for his comments and agreeing that Br Herve was more to be pitied than to be censured and concluding ‘He just has no control over his hands ...’.

The Superior reinstated the expelled boy in the School. His mother had threatened to inform the Bishop and to ‘bring this case further and further’. As he told the Provincial, the Superior had to ‘capitulate with the best grace I could’.

The crisis was resolved with the boy’s return to the School and Br Herve’s transfer. The Superior was more than a little relieved: For the past four years I always feared that when the inevitable would come in his case that it would be much more serious.

Similarly, the Superior noted that the complaining parent was not sure whether Br Herve had ‘meddled with the boys in their privy parts’ but thought not. He then commented. ‘Knowing Br Herve as we do I thank God he did not do worse’.

During the Phase III hearing into Artane, Br Reynolds, referring to the nature of Br Herve’s meddling, commented as follows: But I mean, what the Provincial believed or didn’t believe I am not sure is of any consequence. What I was saying in the submission is that the lady thought it didn’t happen, the Dean thought it did. And, obviously, that’s the view that I am taking, that if the Dean thought it did well then it did happen.

It was put to Br Reynolds that this comment showed clearly that the Congregation was aware of the recidivistic nature of abuse as far back as 1938. Br Reynolds did not agree: I would come back to say that this letter, in my view, does not point out that the recidivistic nature of child abuse was known to whoever wrote it. What he is saying is that this individual person, certainly he believed, abused but he wasn’t in a position to take any action on it until he had sufficient proof.

This observation is scarcely correct, as the correspondence shows that the Superior had brought Br Herve into his office in September 1937 ‘and abused him and rated him roundly for his kissing of the boys and his fondling of them. On that occasion he promised to give it up for good’. However, Br Reynolds persisted in his view that they had no evidence prior to 1938.

Br Reynolds was also reluctant to accept that the reference to ‘May God grant that the consequences are not worse’ referred to the involvement of the Gardaí or other authorities: That’s your interpretation is all I am saying ... Off the top of my head that would not have been my interpretation of that. But I am not saying that you are not correct in that.

The Superior did not incur criticism although, in his correspondence to the Provincial, he admitted that he was aware of Br Herve’s activities for years but did not even report to his own authorities until events forced his hand. Instead, the Provincial sympathised with him.

The letter from the Provincial to Br Herve shows awareness of some of the damage that sexual abuse could inflict on a child.

In conclusion: The School was driven to take action only when there was a threat to expose the behaviour of Br Herve. The Provincial expressed sympathy for, rather than criticism of, the Superior. The offending Brother was considered to be an unfortunate man who was ‘more to be pitied than censured’. There was relief that worse did not happen, having regard to the known habits of Br Herve. The Congregation was aware of the harm Br Herve was inflicting on children in his care, but did nothing to alleviate it or to ascertain the full extent of the damage. Sending a Brother with this history to a residential school for boys was reckless and dangerous, and showed a disregard for the safety of children in care.

Br Gustav began teaching in the O’Brien Institute in the 1920s. Three boys made written statements in which they alleged that ‘they had been immodestly handled’ by him on a number of occasions. These written statements no longer exist. The matter was considered so serious that it was referred to the General Council for consideration. At his trial before the General Council, the Brother ‘admitted immodesty in each case stated but not as gross as specified’.

The General Council issued a Canonical Warning to Br Gustav and imposed as a penance the daily recital of the Miserere for six months. A further condition was his transfer out of Dublin, with the injunction that he was not to return without the leave of the General Council. It was conceded in the minutes of the General Council meeting that this Brother had been dealt with very leniently: This lenient treatment of [Br Gustav] is largely due to the man’s age and, although it was not told him, to his very low condition of health.