|
Q. Could
I just ask you about another aspect of training which isn't
teacher training, but the sort of training Christian
Brothers would have got themselves in a general way to
inform them. There is a paper which was written by a former
brother and I have to say he is a brother who has been
convicted of sexual assault on pupils in Letterfrack which
is entitled "Memories of Letterfrack." He is trying to deal
with his concept of the Christian Brother mentality of the
late 1960's. In the course of this article he talks about
how they were trained, it's going up there on the screen. He
says in the first paragraph that:
"There
was a regimental attitude to body functions and the
oppressive ban on friendships."
He talks,
without going into details there, that even such mundane
bodily functions as urination and defecation were controlled
and you could only use certain toilets, of how, when you
were having a shower, there was an enormous military regime
in place and then a moment's silence when you recited a
prayer before bath to protect us from any form of bad
thoughts or immodest touches. The showers were conducted in
silence. He describes how friendships with other postulants
or recruits as he called them were actively discouraged,
that boys who were trained to be brothers would be moved
even in the refectory if they were showing any friendship
towards people, that they were told to avoid contact.
They were totally to exclude female
company and to avoid women especially their mothers and only
to look at a woman's chin when she was talking and never
into her face and eyes. Now, first of all, do you
have any general comment to make on whether this regime that
he describes as a form of training for Christian Brothers is
accurate or not?
A. First of
all, I would have to say that I don't think it's accurate.
Q. In
what way?
A. The first
thing, I think this document was written as a Garda response
to serious allegations of abuse. In my view this is trying
to justify the abuse that took place. I was in training
around the same time as this brother, a year or two after. I
think it's preposterous what he is saying.
Q. Are
you saying then that there was no protocol in place to
admonish brothers against forming any sort of close
relationship with another brother?
A. I think
there were a number of things. I think it's probably quite a
complex thing. A lot of the young people joining the
brothers at this time would have been very young, they would
have been probably 15/16. It's a time psychologically where
the whole homosexual dimension of sexual formation becomes
-- it's a sort of latent period of sexual homosexuality.
Obviously the people in authority were aware of that so they
were taking normal precautions that there wouldn't be active
sexual activity in a boarding school, which unfortunately
there is or can be in boarding schools. That was one thing.
The second thing was when brothers take a vow of celibacy
they take a vow to extend their love to all people rather
than focussing on a partner so their work and their ministry
and so on is to all people. It was highlighted in our
formation that we are not here to form close and intimate
relationships with people.
Q. Do
you think the training went so far as to actively discourage
you to form any forms of friendships. I am not talking about
improper friendships but friendships generally?
A. I would say
that there was a tendency to do that. I would also say that
a lot of brothers survived very well and formed very firm
and strong relationships, but there was an awareness that
brothers could develop relationships that were not healthy.
Q. I
understand that, but I am just wondering if the training,
when you look back on it now, perhaps had inherent dangers
in it in terms of being able to relate to people for some
brothers, would you have view on that?
A. I think all
people have difficulty of relating or can have difficulties
of relating. I went through the same sort of system which he
describes in a way that I wouldn't accept.
Q. Is it
the way he describes it or are you saying that the training
didn't encompass these things. For example, being advised to
sow up your trouser pockets?
A. That's
untrue.
Q. Hands
in pockets was regarded as a danger to chastity?
A. It is
ridiculous.
Q. You
were never told that?
A. Never.
There are lots of things in that document that are totally
off the wall. It's sad to see reading them and it would seem
to me when you compare this document written when the
unfortunate brother or former brother was accused of abuse
is writing this and when you compare that to the document he
wrote when he was actually in Letterfrack where he describes
the work of the brothers and I refer you to the
...(INTERJECTION)
Q. This
is the " The
Cause for Concern"
document?
A. Yes, I refer
you to, I just haven't got it to hand here, but the last
paragraph, in fact the last page of that, maybe if I can get
it.
Q. We
will put that up on the screen. I just want to make sure
there is no names in it now. In fact, Chairman, there are
too many names in this.
A. I will just
read a few sections.
Q. If
you could omit the names please.
A. This is a
brother who was in Letterfrack, very competent guy, but has
serious allegations of abuse against him. His final
paragraph says: "Let's
hope that the gates of St. Joseph's Letterfrack will remain
open to the underprivileged and closed to the auctioneers as
a summary comment."
He talks further on up at the second paragraph of page 47: "The
Christian Brother's ability to impart this sound Catholic
education qualifies them for working with underprivileged
children. Many of the boys who were sent to the institute
conducted by the congregation benefit greatly from the
training they get so much so that when they return home they
lead lives much different from the career of crime that they
originally embarked upon."
Then I refer to page 45 where it talks about the weight and
so on of the boys. It says: "The
remarkable difference is I think a tribute to the Christian
Brothers who by their tradition for sound learning and
progress succeeded in mitigating much of the backwardness in
the children sent to their industrial schools. Without this
tradition the figure for backwardness would be as high as
that for reformatory schools, none of which are run by us."
Maybe just to highlight that this document is pointing out
the very valuable contribution of the brothers and this
young man was pointing to all that was positive in the
school. This second document "Memories
of Letterfrack"
written for the Garda , he is in my view trying to explain
the reason for child abuse. It is unfortunate that child
abuse cannot be justified just by what a person would
consider inadequate formation.
Q. Can I
just ask you in what context was the " Cause
for Concern"
document
written?
A. The "Cause
for Concern"
document seems to have been written for a chapter that was
coming where he felt that reformatory schools or industrial
schools were going to be closed. He felt that there was need
for this type of education for boys who were wayward. His
cause for concern was that the work of Edmund Rice which
started off, he has a question here on page 1: "The cause of
Edmund Rice which was for young people and poor children
would be neglected." He says: "Are we witnessing the
complete shut down of institutes for underprivileged
children. Who is responsible? Questions such as these cannot
be answered satisfactorily." What he is saying is the cause
for concern is that there was need for a type of education
for these children and the danger was that we were going to
close them.
Q. Do
you know when that document was written?
A. My
understanding is, I remember myself reading it about 1970 so
I think it would have been written in probably '69. I
remember years ago reading it and feeling that that was an
interesting document.
Q. Can I
invite you to look at a document I am going to put up on the
screen by a same author which was dated September 1972. At
the top of the page there he deals with lack of trained
brothers: " Brothers
come here fresh and green from normal schools quite
unprepared for what they meet here. When faced with awkward
situations they do not know how to react. Such changes have
been disastrous. Brothers coming here need training in
delinquent care."
Now, I accept that's a slightly different issue, but do you
feel that when you look at the entire nature of the training
that the brothers were well prepared to deal with young boys
in a residential institution like St. Joseph's Letterfrack?
A. Well, I
suppose what I would say is this: Brothers were trained to
be teachers. There was no training for residential child
care. There was no State training, there was no State
funding. There was no courses on. I think the first course
in child care, serious course, was in Kilkenny in 1970 and
one of our brothers went on that course when it started.
There wasn't any form of child care formation. There were
occasional day courses or day seminars in child care in the
1950's, but other than that there was no proper training
available and certainly no funding for it. I would say the
brothers who went to these institutions were chosen
specially, a lot of them were of the highest calibre. There
were some who unfortunately were found to have abused. I
suppose it's particularly concerning that brothers who were
not trained; in other words, a brother who was say a kitchen
brother or a non-teaching brother probably hadn't the same
sort of training that a teaching brother had -- well, he
hadn't -- and maybe, therefore, hadn't that same
appreciation for the ministry of care to young people that a
brother would have had. |