BishopAccountability.org
	Abuse Inquiry Questions Obedience Vow By Patsy McGarry One in Four [Ireland] May 16, 2006 http://www.oneinfour.org/news/news2006/obedience/ The role of the vow of obedience taken by Sisters of Mercy in how industrial schools were run was queried at a public hearing of the investigation committee of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse yesterday. Noel McMahon, senior counsel for the committee,quoted article 28 of the sisters' constitution: "The Sisters of Mercy are always to bear in mind, that by the vow of obedience they have for ever (sic) renounced their own will and resigned it to the direction of their Superiors. They are to obey the Mother Superior, as holding her authority from God . . ." He continued with article 29: "They are to execute without hesitation all directions of the Mother Superior, whether in matters of great or little moment, agreeable or disagreeable . . ." Sr Margaret Casey, leader of the Sisters of Mercy Western Province, said it was not accepted or the norm to complain to a person in authority about how a place was run. "It would show an inability to cope with the religious life," she said. In those years people were assigned to a job and could have ended up in the same ministry, some for 30 years. Post Vatican II obedience involved consultation, she said. She agreed the ethos of the Sisters gave no assistance as to how children should be cared for or educated but, rather, expressed the nuns' relationship with the children "in purely spiritual terms". Sr Casey was answering questions about the running of Our Lady of Succour Industrial School at Newtownforbes in Co Longford. She accepted that corporal punishment had been used there to enforce obedience among the children but did not know its severity. She accepted (Department of Education) documents up to 1945 that complained of children with bruises on their bodies, infested heads and untreated abscesses as well as a note from a father in 1948 who complained that his daughter's hand was so affected by scabies she was almost disabled. "We have apologised for those," she said. She could not explain to Fred Lowe of the committee why a report from 1939 could describe "12 small babies with no shoes, who looked forlorn" and 20 other children with no shoes on. Or why Newtownforbes was so bad in the 1940s compared to other institutions. "I don't know," she said.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.