ARTANE 7 - Reynolds: I Know Mental Case Brother
Q. I think it is true to say, when one goes through the visitation reports, that occasionally there would be criticisms made of a particular Brother, this is within the Order?
A. Yes.
Q. Of Christian Brothers themselves, that they would make criticisms of a Brother if he wasn't adhering to his religious vocation properly or practices, or if he was too strict or harsh on the boys, is that right?
A. Correct, and I give some examples of that.
Q. Yes.
A. The visitation itself was a rigorous exercise through which the Congregation carried out what it saw as its role in ensuring that everything was as it should be, both within the community itself and within the school or whatever institution was in question. There was a report written which didn't come back to the community, it went to the relevant Council, the Provincial Council. A covering letter came back to the superior or manager highlighting some of the positives, but generally highlighting the negatives and the things that needed to be attended to. There was follow up on those to ensure that it happened.
Q. Do you think the follow up was adequate?
A. I would say in general yes, in other instances no. A lot of that would depend on the individual person. In some that I could point out, I would certainly say in one that I quote, the 1952 visitation report was certainly one that was carried out that I have quoted quite liberally on, in which a lot of views were expressed and I would say it was responsible for a lot of the discussion that took place among the Brothers themselves through the 1950's and eventually led to significant changes in the running of the institution.
Q. Do you think that the suitability of a Brother to remain in the school would be something that would be addressed in these reports and followed up?
A. It would, and I have no doubt that Brothers were changed out. I have read all the reports and reading through them, one of the things I said to myself at times was that if the visitor was putting that in writing now about a Brother, he might want to consult his legal advisers before he would write some of the things that are written.
Q. I want to draw your attention to one such matter, and before the Chairman gets too apprehensive, it is redacted, there is no name in it. At page 48 of the book which you have there, there is a visitation report for 1958/59, and below the heading "Poultry Farm" the next heading says: - "The arrival of Brother ..., who is a mental case, created the problem of trying to get him something to do." - Then he lists a few different catastrophes he was involved in. Then if one moves on to page 51 in that book, you will find another reference in the second paragraph on that page: - "Brother ... is seemingly a mental case and it is very difficult to place him." - If you go on to the next page, page 52, that is a visitation in 1963, some considerable time later. I know it is not entirely helpful because the names of the Brothers who were there at the time are blanked out, but you may take it from me that that Brother's name is still there as a member of the Congregation in 1963, having been referred to in those less than flattering terms in 1958/59.
A. I would say a number of things about it. First of all, obviously I know who the Brother was, I knew the Brother and I would not agree with the description of the visitor, but so be it. Secondly, I would say that he wasn't a teaching Brother and I don't think the criticism was in relation to the mental soundness of the person. I think the main criticism was here
was somebody that was sent in and he does not seem to be able to fulfill any role, so essentially I think the visitation report said that he was a negative quantity in the place. I would take that certainly I presume not in the community and from religious observance, but from the point of view that his work rate wasn't very good and his contribution wasn't adequate in the eyes of the visitor. As you wisely say, why not take him out. The simple fact of the matter was he was left there, they tried him in a number of situations, they didn't work and eventually he was moved on. During part of that time incidentally, the Brother in question was studying in university, he wasn't a full-time member of the staff.
Q. I will be coming back to this later, Brother. There are examples of some Brothers who were there a very long time, some as long as 30 years, not many, but there are some there over 20 years, 25 years or 30 years. Was there any fixed policy in the Christian Brothers about ensuring a regular turnaround of Brothers?
A. There wasn't, I would say, in relation to industrial and residential schools, because people with experience and who were seen to be successful were left there. I think it is also worth noting that many of the primary and secondary school principals nowadays are also there in that once you go into the job, that is it, and there is no system of sabbaticals or anything like there, you are there in the job for that duration.
Q. I am not suggesting that there wasn't a regular turnaround, because we have been furnished with the dates when Brothers were there, and they clearly show that a great many of them were there only for two or three years at a time. I am just wondering was there any policy on this?
A. From reading it I would say the teaching Brothers were probably transferred more frequently and moved along, but part of the reason for that was that the system within the Brothers was you had a primary school in Artane and the system within the Brothers at that stage was, and right up until recent enough times, that every Brother who trained as a teacher trained first as a primary school teacher and then the decision afterwards as to whether or not he wanted to move to secondary school or remain in primary was largely left to himself. Those who were moving, who were deciding they were going to go would be applying to go to university and so on, and they would be moved rather more quickly so that they would attend studies and move into secondary school. A lot the principals, all of the them -- well, not all, and I am trying to think of names at the minute, but most of the primary school principals were there for a longer duration, but they were also people who were committing their lives to primary school education and hadn't any desire to move out of it.
A. Yes.
Q. Of Christian Brothers themselves, that they would make criticisms of a Brother if he wasn't adhering to his religious vocation properly or practices, or if he was too strict or harsh on the boys, is that right?
A. Correct, and I give some examples of that.
Q. Yes.
A. The visitation itself was a rigorous exercise through which the Congregation carried out what it saw as its role in ensuring that everything was as it should be, both within the community itself and within the school or whatever institution was in question. There was a report written which didn't come back to the community, it went to the relevant Council, the Provincial Council. A covering letter came back to the superior or manager highlighting some of the positives, but generally highlighting the negatives and the things that needed to be attended to. There was follow up on those to ensure that it happened.
Q. Do you think the follow up was adequate?
A. I would say in general yes, in other instances no. A lot of that would depend on the individual person. In some that I could point out, I would certainly say in one that I quote, the 1952 visitation report was certainly one that was carried out that I have quoted quite liberally on, in which a lot of views were expressed and I would say it was responsible for a lot of the discussion that took place among the Brothers themselves through the 1950's and eventually led to significant changes in the running of the institution.
Q. Do you think that the suitability of a Brother to remain in the school would be something that would be addressed in these reports and followed up?
A. It would, and I have no doubt that Brothers were changed out. I have read all the reports and reading through them, one of the things I said to myself at times was that if the visitor was putting that in writing now about a Brother, he might want to consult his legal advisers before he would write some of the things that are written.
Q. I want to draw your attention to one such matter, and before the Chairman gets too apprehensive, it is redacted, there is no name in it. At page 48 of the book which you have there, there is a visitation report for 1958/59, and below the heading "Poultry Farm" the next heading says: - "The arrival of Brother ..., who is a mental case, created the problem of trying to get him something to do." - Then he lists a few different catastrophes he was involved in. Then if one moves on to page 51 in that book, you will find another reference in the second paragraph on that page: - "Brother ... is seemingly a mental case and it is very difficult to place him." - If you go on to the next page, page 52, that is a visitation in 1963, some considerable time later. I know it is not entirely helpful because the names of the Brothers who were there at the time are blanked out, but you may take it from me that that Brother's name is still there as a member of the Congregation in 1963, having been referred to in those less than flattering terms in 1958/59.
A. I would say a number of things about it. First of all, obviously I know who the Brother was, I knew the Brother and I would not agree with the description of the visitor, but so be it. Secondly, I would say that he wasn't a teaching Brother and I don't think the criticism was in relation to the mental soundness of the person. I think the main criticism was here
was somebody that was sent in and he does not seem to be able to fulfill any role, so essentially I think the visitation report said that he was a negative quantity in the place. I would take that certainly I presume not in the community and from religious observance, but from the point of view that his work rate wasn't very good and his contribution wasn't adequate in the eyes of the visitor. As you wisely say, why not take him out. The simple fact of the matter was he was left there, they tried him in a number of situations, they didn't work and eventually he was moved on. During part of that time incidentally, the Brother in question was studying in university, he wasn't a full-time member of the staff.
Q. I will be coming back to this later, Brother. There are examples of some Brothers who were there a very long time, some as long as 30 years, not many, but there are some there over 20 years, 25 years or 30 years. Was there any fixed policy in the Christian Brothers about ensuring a regular turnaround of Brothers?
A. There wasn't, I would say, in relation to industrial and residential schools, because people with experience and who were seen to be successful were left there. I think it is also worth noting that many of the primary and secondary school principals nowadays are also there in that once you go into the job, that is it, and there is no system of sabbaticals or anything like there, you are there in the job for that duration.
Q. I am not suggesting that there wasn't a regular turnaround, because we have been furnished with the dates when Brothers were there, and they clearly show that a great many of them were there only for two or three years at a time. I am just wondering was there any policy on this?
A. From reading it I would say the teaching Brothers were probably transferred more frequently and moved along, but part of the reason for that was that the system within the Brothers was you had a primary school in Artane and the system within the Brothers at that stage was, and right up until recent enough times, that every Brother who trained as a teacher trained first as a primary school teacher and then the decision afterwards as to whether or not he wanted to move to secondary school or remain in primary was largely left to himself. Those who were moving, who were deciding they were going to go would be applying to go to university and so on, and they would be moved rather more quickly so that they would attend studies and move into secondary school. A lot the principals, all of the them -- well, not all, and I am trying to think of names at the minute, but most of the primary school principals were there for a longer duration, but they were also people who were committing their lives to primary school education and hadn't any desire to move out of it.
posted by The Knitter | Sunday, September 18, 2005
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home