IT was difficult to understand why allegations of abuse should have come as such a shock to the Christian Brothers as child sexual abuse was a persistent problem, the Commission of Inquiry in Child Abuse found.According to the commission, during its investigation, the stance of the Christian Brothers was that their institutions were not abusive and provided a positive experience.
During the investigation committee’s hearings, Br David Gibson, then province leader of St Mary’s Province of the Christian Brothers, outlined the response of the congregation to the issue of child abuse in Ireland.
He said they had great difficulty in coming to terms with the fact that Brothers could have abused children.
"It was something totally contrary to the whole vocation of a Brother and yet we were getting detailed accounts of how Brothers abused children."
It had particular difficulty in accepting that members of its congregation had engaged in sexual abuse, the commission found.
The Christian Brothers submitted that their schools provided positive experiences for the boys in them and that they offered a generally good standard of care, education and training when considered in the context of the time, having regard to shortages of resources and finance, and lack of training for the Brothers.
When answering allegations of sexual abuse in its schools, the Brothers accepted that there were instances when members engaged in the sexual abuse of boys in their care – but denied that there was systemic sexual abuse in their institutions.
According to the commission, there were "several problems" with response statements from the congregation, which generally took the form of a blanket denial of the allegations.
"Some of the statements were signed by Brothers who were not in the school at the time.
"The fact that they had signed the document gave the impression that they were in a position to affirm the facts asserted in statements, but in reality they were in no position to do so," it found.
"Brothers who signed the statements gave evidence to the committee that contradicted the facts asserted in the response statements and some statements simply omitted relevant facts, while at the same time making assertions that were known to be incorrect or misleading."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Disclaimer
No responsibility or liability shall attach itself to us or to the blogspot ‘Clerical Whispers’ for any or all of the articles placed here.
The placing of an article hereupon does not necessarily imply that we agree or accept the contents of the article as being necessarily factual in theology, dogma or otherwise.
Source (IE)
SV (3)