Te tūkino whakapono
Exploitation of religious beliefs

49.     The abusive brothers cynically exploited societal, whānau and individual deference to God (through existing belief systems or the brothers’ teachings), the biblical concepts of shame and humiliation and the wider fear of religious punishment or repercussions, to abuse and control the boys and young people.

50.     These beliefs and religious teachings were exploited and misused to inflict abuse. Sometimes there was a specific religious aspect to the abuse, with abuse occurring in the Chapel, or brothers saying that the sexual assaults were acceptable to God, or even thanking God during the sexual assaults.^[926]

“[Brother McGrath] told Mr HI that he had the devil in him, and he needed to be clean. Brother McGrath also told Mr HI that he wanted to help him. The first episode of abuse took place in the chapel, where Brother McGrath rubbed water on Mr HI and stroked Mr HI’s erect penis.”^[927]

51.      The misuse of religious teachings, bible concepts and scripture allowed abuse to occur, but also prevented disclosures by the boys and young people for fear of retribution by God himself.

Te ahurea o te murunga hara
Culture of forgiveness

52.     The Order placed a strong emphasis on forgiveness, even for those who committed abuse of children.

53.     The Order’s constitution treated sexual abuse as a minor sin rather than a major crime. It specifically instructed the brothers to stop knowledge of sexual abuse within its ranks becoming public. The 1977 constitution, applicable worldwide, emphasised an approach of ‘fraternal correction’ to sexual abuse, which it termed ‘immodest conduct’.^[928]

54.     The constitution required any brother who became aware of another brother’s immodest conduct to warn that brother “so that the evil can be corrected and may grow no worse”. If the warning did not result in a change of behaviour, the offending brother was to be regarded as “one wounded and who must be healed”.^[929] The constitution required the brother who observed the offending conduct to report it to his superior “who could warn [the offending brother] privately and thus avoid that it be[ing] known publicly”.^[930]

55.     This appeared to justify the practice of moving brothers accused of abuse to another town, city or country or to put them into ‘treatment’. Such transfers also had the effect of diffusing publicity or potential publicity about the abuse. Brother Brian O’Donnell, told police in 2003 that the Order’s attitude was that: “a sinner can repent and be forgiven and give up sinning … [i]f he were transferred elsewhere, it would be in the nature of giving him a chance to turn over a new leaf.”^[931] However, the Order appeared to take limited, if any, measures to safeguard those in its care at this new location from the possibility that the brother did not, in fact, turn over a new leaf.

56.     The high rates of child abuse found in both the Australian sexual abuse inquiry and in our investigation point to fundamental failings in some Catholic Church entities around the historical attitudes to children and treating abuse as a sin, rather than a crime.

Karekau he pūkenga, he tohungatanga
Lack of skills and expertise

57.      The Order’s public facing image was of a caring and skilled group of men looking to do good in Aotearoa New Zealand. The Order had a preoccupation with its reputation over the wellbeing of victims. The Order groomed the public, convincing those in power that its public image, of being caring and skilled, was genuine and real.

58.     The Minister of Education told the Minister of Health in September 1960 that: “officers of my department who had had close contact with Marylands hold it in high regard. It is clearly doing work of real importance.”^[932]

59.     In October 1972, the Ministers of Health, Social Welfare and Education, in a joint press release on State funding assistance to Marylands, said that Marylands was: “a centre which has extremely beneficial effects on the lives and future of disadvantaged members of the community.”^[933]

60.     In November 1972, the Ministers of Health and Education publicly stated that “Marylands plays a welcome role within the educational system”. The further funding announced would allow “the school to continue it valuable work”.^[934]

61.      In March 1982 the Member of Parliament for Yaldhust told the Minister of
Education (writing to support more State funding for Marylands): “Marylands is performing outstanding service for the handicapped and this work is widely acknowledged in the Christchurch area and beyond.” The local member of parliament supported the Prior’s approach for adequate funding: “to enable the Order to carry out its important social, educational and community role.”^[935]

62.     The extreme levels of violence, abuse and educational neglect within Marylands was in stark contrast to the way the Order presented itself to the world (both within the Christchurch community and to those with control of State funding).

63.     In addition, the brothers were not properly qualified to educate disabled children and were by no means experts in this field.^[936] The Order does not hold any formal policies, or other documentation, on the training and education requirements of the brothers or any lay teachers or assistants, at Marylands.^[937] The Order did not provide any specific training to the brothers for residential care.^[938]

64.     Although some parents sent their children to Marylands in the belief that they would receive the best possible specialist care and education for disabled children or children who required additional learning support, the brothers and other staff members were almost always lacking in the relevant skills and expertise.

65.     Dr Mulvihill recalled meeting with a mother whose son had been at Marylands.^[939] The mother, who was a social worker herself, believed that the school was the best place for him.^[940] Marylands was seen as a very innovative educational facility – even though most of the brothers who worked there had no education at all in working with children with special needs, or children who were neurologically diverse.^[941]

66.     In addition, the brothers did not have any particular understanding or recognition of the cultural needs of tamariki Māori, Pacific children or children of other cultural backgrounds who were in their care.^[942] There is no evidence the Department of Education took steps to ensure that students would be provided with culturally appropriate education at Marylands.

67.      Dr Mulvihill believes that the Catholic Church in Aotearoa New Zealand engaged a group of “untrained religious strangers” to educate children in need of care.^[943] She noted that there was one brother in the Order who did have some training in what used to be called ‘special education’, but most were instead health professionals. She said that the impression that they had expertise in the field of educating disabled children was:

“… part of what happens when you get a culture that grooms people believing that they are something they are not, and it goes to their very core. So, this was a situation in which people were untrained and a situation in which also lay people worked. … So, the window dressing is there, this is the grooming that society, that the New Zealand people, the parents, even the Government and other experts received. ...”^[944]

68.     The Order reported that the position improved a little over time. For example, by 1981 a qualified teacher was employed in the Remedial Clinic and was responsible for the assessment of all admissions to Marylands (to identify deficit areas of learning and to assist classroom teachers with remediation programmes).^[945] It was reported by the Order that boys with high support needs and multiple learning disabilities received individual attention.^[946]

69.     There were also lay teachers at Marylands, but they did little to raise the standard of teaching. When the State took over running Marylands in 1984, it was noted that many teachers inherited from Marylands would not have won those positions on the open market as they lacked any specialist qualifications and did not have significant teaching experience.^[947]

70.      When Trevor McDonald was asked about the education at Marylands, he responded:

“Didn’t have any, simple as that... They had us making nail boxes, tomato boxes, on looms making scarves, making rugs, everything for their faith. We were little slaves.

They had a classroom there, all done up, to make it look right, but we never learnt anything. If someone special came, they’d have us in the classroom making out that they were teaching us. When they were gone, we were out picking potatoes and working in the crops. We were just little slaves. No education.”^[948]

Ahurea noho mū
Culture of silence

71.      Abusers occupied positions of power within a strict hierarchy that made it difficult for lower-ranked brothers to raise objections or make complaints, and easy for abusers to protect themselves and others from accusations of abuse.

72.      A culture of silence prevailed. Junior brothers were discouraged from questioning more senior brothers, particularly those in leadership positions.^[949] All brothers were discouraged from criticising those in higher positions than themselves.^[950] Brother William Lebler, for example, in correspondence with the then Provincial in April 1956, noted he was afraid to approach his superior, Brother Berchmans Moynahan, and requested he be relieved from his appointment at Marylands.  In his July 1956 response, the then Provincial noted to Brother Lebler “how dangerous or wrong it is to write or discuss anybody”  and was chastised for writing a letter that condemned the Prior of Christchurch. Mr AR said a “very controlled and powerful hierarchy” operated within the Order, and “even as a 38-year-old man with a lot of life experience, I was initially at the bottom of the heap”.^[951] He said others used to look down on him, and he was treated accordingly. Brothers would say to him that if he wanted the Order “to be mine, I needed to go along with the programme.”^[952]

73.      This culture, combined with the lack of any statutory duty requiring mandatory reporting of child abuse, led to the failure to report to police or other authorities. It reinforced to the abusive brothers that no one within the Order or in wider society would stop their behaviour.

74.      At Hebron Trust, complaints of sexual abuse were ignored, and Hebron residents were disbelieved by the staff. Andrew Downs, who worked as a programme co-ordinator at Hebron Trust between January 1990 and October 1993, recalls a meeting that was held after the 1991 allegations of sexual abuse against Brother McGrath came to light:

“The staff were very protective of Brother Bernard and again, I felt like the goal was to cover everything up. In the meeting, we were told that the enemy is within. The implication was that people disclosing abuse by Brother Bernard were doing the wrong thing; they were the enemy.”^[953]

75.      Dr Mulvihill described as “indefensible and unforgivable” the brothers’ “attempts to protect their outrageous wealth, deviant sexual behaviour, obedience to closing ranks, and hostile displays of cold and inhospitable treatment of victims to this day”.^[954]

76.      The Order had an established practice of not recording criticisms of brothers, and those who committed allegations to paper were admonished for doing so.^[955]

77.      Instead, the brother would inform the Prior or Provincial of an abuse allegation, and the Order would make no written record of it. As a result, memories became blurred, and no picture emerged of the extent of the abuse within the Order. Brother O’Donnell confirmed to police in 2003 that “no allegations of sexual misconduct [were] ever documented and … held in archives”, and it followed this practice so as not to compromise “the good name of the person in the future”.

78.      Written records were occasionally made, but they were sometimes destroyed. In 1977, for example, Brother O’Donnell deliberately destroyed two letters sent to him alleging sexual abuse by Brothers Moloney and Brother McGrath. In 2014, Brother Timothy Graham, the Order’s current Provincial, told the Secretary General in Rome, Brother André Sène, to delete correspondence from an Aotearoa New Zealand survivor.^[956]

79.      As a result of the lack of recording, there is insufficient data on ethnicity, disability and age of survivors who attended institutions run by the Order, as well as a complete lack of records relating to reported abuse both at the time of offending or later.

Ahurea whakapohapoha
Culture of excess

80.     A culture of excess and entitlement existed at Marylands. Mr AR, a former brother at Marylands, told us he recalled Brother Graham once telling him the closeness and bonds of brotherhood “is what it’s all about”.^[957] The welfare of those they cared for took second place. For this reason, the brothers at Marylands ate separately from the children^[958] and breakfasted on bacon and eggs prepared by children, who ate porridge.^[959]

81.      Mr AR said the brothers would drink, smoke and enjoy fine dining at expensive restaurants.^[960] He said one brother in Australia refused to eat at home, contending “the world is your oyster” and instead “liv[ed] the [high] life“.^[961] Mr AR recalled coming home from work one evening and saw a sign on the kitchen door saying, “Do not open, we are praying”. He pushed back the door and saw a newly installed $5,000 spa pool in which a group of brothers were ‘praying’.^[962] He said brothers consumed huge amounts of alcohol, and some had gambling addictions.^[963]

82.     James Tasker, who was sent to the school at 14, said that every Sunday the brothers “used to get plastered from the wine. I could smell the alcohol on them. On Sunday there would be an early Mass [and] from then on, they would drink. The 5pm Mass got cancelled because they were pissed.” ^[964]

83.      Brother Damien John Walsh (known as Brother Ephrem) told police in 2003 that one of the first things to strike him about the school when he arrived was the volume of alcohol the brothers consumed. He had never drunk whiskey before going there “but soon got used to it”.^[965] Whiskey and red wine were the favourites, and the whiskey “would be obtained in half-gallon jars”. Drinking took place most nights between 8pm and 9pm: “That was our big happy hour.”^[966]

84.     A lay member of the Christchurch community said her father, a police officer and an alcoholic, used to drink with the brothers, and she recalled her mother saying her father used to go drinking at Marylands because the brothers “always had the top shelf”.^[967]

Te noho whakamohoao
Isolation

85.     The orphanage and Marylands were physically isolated from the community. Boys at Marylands were away from their own whānau, and community and were geographically and socially isolated. There were few visits from the State and when there were visits, boys were not spoken to alone. This isolation allowed a culture of abuse to flourish and minimised the risk that perpetrators would be uncovered.^[968]

86.     One survivor described how the isolated location prevented Marylands pupils from seeking help:

“When people ask me why we never got any help, I just answer that we couldn’t. We were isolated and surrounded by farmland. We weren’t allowed out of there and no one was allowed in.”^[969]