Eighteen Jesuit abusers named. Out of 44...

When will the full truth be revealed?

So, the Jesuits have named fifteen members of the Order who have been accused of child sexual abuse. This is good news. But I am left wondering how they arrived at this number. It seems that the independent committee approved the naming of fourteen Jesuits and that the Jesuits themselves, in the light of further information, added one more.

Now, the total number of Jesuits credibly accused of child sexual abuse since 1940 stands at 44 (I was convinced that it was 45 but I may have missed something). The immediate question that arises is why, at this stage, only eighteen have been named (the fifteen plus Marmion, Andrews and Casey, already named when the Order was forced to do so; it was never entirely voluntary).

Given that the eighteen have multiple accusations against them – between 4 and several dozen – I suspect that the balance have fewer, perhaps only one. The notion that the credibility of one’s story of abuse is dependent on being one of several is pretty reprehsensible.

The Provincial, Shane Daly SJ, speaking on RTE News – and doing a good job, I thought – implied that the Order would like this naming of names to encourage others to come forward, including those who were abused by Jesuits other than those named. It would helpful, however, if the Jesuits named all of those credibly accused. “Credibly accused” has a specific and clear meaning in the Roman Catholic church; it seems rather high-handed of the Jesuits to apply what appears to be their own interpretation to “credibly accused”.

Daly also said that others would be named as time goes on. This suggests to me that naming will still be on the basis of the number of accusations.

The Provincial acknowledged that the Jesuits’ silence and, effectively, protection of the accused over the years has been due to a misguided desire to protect the reputation of the Order, its schools and the “good name” of the abusers. This reflects what Noel Barber SJ has said about his role in the cover-up of the Marmion affair in 1977: the avoidance of reputational damage. Barber, however, admitted this several years ago.

A former Provincial said, privately, some time ago that in terms of sexual and other forms of abuse, Marmion was far from the worst offender. If this is true – and why else would he have even thought that – it opens a truly appalling vista. Perhaps the naming of the fifteen today will bring us to the point when we know the truth.

I wonder if today marks a departure for the Jesuits - from listening to and acting upon legal advice to listening to and acting up their consciences. Perhaps I am being over-optimistic, but I would like to think that they have made a belated start in that direction.