An abundance of lawyerly caution

The Irish Jesuits' reluctance to do the right thing

I have come across yet another case of the late Paul Andrews SJ sexually abusing a child. This is the man, a child psychologist who was described in his funeral eulogy, as having “helped” some 10,000 children in his clinical practice, to say nothing of his rôle in St Declan’s Special School where he replaced fellow paedophile, Dermot Casey SJ, as director. This incident occurred in a social setting and involved a 12 year old boy. So voracious was his appetite for children he was not content just to prey on the children who were brought to him or those in school. He was the author of a book called Changing Children which is still in print. Those people to whom I have spoken who were abused by Andrews as children were certainly never the same again.

He was also, of course, the Rector of Belvedere when the first acknowledged complaint about Joseph Marmion’s behaviour was received. Andrews was known to have been Marmion’s closest friend in the Jesuit Order. They had much in common.

When the Jesuits finally agreed to name Marmion and state what he was, in 2021, they set about compiling a document entitled The Jesuit Response. It appeared to have been written after an exhaustive search of archives and numerous interviews, essentially an All We Know About Marmion.

And while it contains some valuable information, it certainly was not all the Jesuits knew. Indeed, it might be have been better titled The Jesuitical Response because it failed to reveal that Andrews had been the subject of numerous credible accusations of child sexual abuse.

By the time that a second document was issued - “Fr Joseph Marmion SJ His abuse, the harm caused and Jesuit accountability A narrative record” - produced by a joint committee of Jesuits and past pupils (from which three of the six past pupils resigned), I had revealed here that Paul Andrews SJ was a paedophile. And, curiously enough, the “narrative record” now made good the original document’s omission.

Interestingly, the Jesuits also got around to admitting that Dermot Casey SJ was a paedophile, after I had revealed the fact here. And, lest we forget, the Jesuits only owned up to Marmion’s crime after being forced to do so by a former pupil. There is a pattern here and I think I may have divined the fundamental reason.

The Jesuits have always retained highly experienced and expensive lawyers. Over the years, I believe, they have developed a very bad habit - of seeking legal advice before they do anything at all about historical sexual abuse. Of course, they are also concerned about reputational damage but their reflex action is talk to the lawyers. One lawyer in particular has his textual fingerprints over both of the documents mentioned above.

It would appear that the Jesuit conscience is subservient to legal considerations and an abundance of lawyerly caution. This must be costing them a great deal of money because while Jesuit legal alumni might occasionally do something pro bono, they certainly have not been dealing with the Marmion affair and its sequels for the good of their health.

And now we await the naming of the 45 Jesuits credibly accused of child sexual abuse since the 1940s. At least, this has been the recommendation of a Jesuit-appointed committee set up to advise on the question. But I have a feeling - and it is only a feeling - that the lawyers, for a fee no doubt - are urging caution. And that, of course, is their job: to point out that by airing all this befouled linen in public, the Society of Jesus makes itself especially vulnerable to substantial financial claims.

Well, my suggestion is that the Jesuits should thank the lawyers, pay the bill, and then listen to their consciences. And maybe consider what the person after whom their Society is named would do.