Hide and Seek: The Jesuits, Marmion and More...

HIDE AND SEEK: THE JESUITS, MARMION AND MORE

My first response to The Jesuits’ recent statements and the publication of the Marmion Document (i.e. the historical narrative) was to salute them for finally following their conscience rather than their legal advisors. And while, to some extent, this appears to be true, they have not reached this point as part of a lengthy search for truth and justice (two words that feature prominently in the Jesuit vocabulary). They have got to where they are today because of external pressure.

The Jesuits’ decision to name Joseph Marmion as a child abuser in March 2021 is presented in the narrative document, in a sense, as something spontaneous, that came out of the blue. The context of course was that the Order had a gun to their collective head: a former pupil, Donal Ballance, frustrated by refusal after refusal over a two year period, had told them that either they name Marmion or he would. That was the catalyst.

With the publication of the narrative document, of course, came two further admissions. One that Marmion’s best friend in the Order, and the recipient of the first complaint against him in September 1977, Paul Andrews SJ, was a paedophile. The other that Andrews’ predecessor at, and founder of, St Declan’s Special School, Dermot Casey SJ, was also a paedophile.

Neither of these further admissions came out of the blue. When the Jesuit Response was published in July 2021, expressing regret at failures and a promise of putting matters right, there was no mention of Andrews’ paedophilia. I became aware of two credible accusations against Andrews in the latter half of 2023 and subsequently revealed him to have been a child abuser in my account of Marmion’s life and crimes, DENY EVERYTHING. In a more recent Substack post, having spoken with several of Casey’s victims, I revealed what Casey had been doing to children prior to his removal from St Declan’s in 1977. I understand that one of his victims told the Jesuits that he would, in time, go public.

So, once again, the Jesuits had no choice. The information was in the public domain, information that they had been concealing and known to be true, and they had to comment.

I have searched the extensive narrative document and the Jesuit statements for an explanation as to why Andrews’ paedophilia was concealed in The Jesuit Response – why they were admitting to one Jesuit paedophile, while concealing another - but I have been unable to find any.

Now, we are told that the Order is considering naming the other Jesuits credibly accused of child sexual abuse since 1945 and has established a committee to advise on the matter. What this means is that the Jesuits have named three paedophiles within their ranks while still concealing a further 42.

They continue to be in charge of the process. There is no suggestion that they are commissioning an independent review of Jesuit abusers and the issue of naming them. I understand that the Jesuits, in the latter of half of 2024, appointed a panel of three people, one a retired Judge, to advise on the matter. I also understand that their advice was to publish the names of the accused. At the timing of this addendum, November 2024, there is still silence.

When the present Provincial, Shane Daly SJ, was asked on RTE’s News At One if the link between Marmion and Andrews could suggest that there was an abuse or paedophile ring at work in the Jesuit community in the 1970s, Daly replied that nobody has claimed that they were abused by both men. But he did not discount the possibility of a paedophile ring.

Indeed, Andrews and Marmion, best friends in the Order, and both paedophiles, are likely to have shared, at the very least, some sense of their shared interests. And Andrews is unlikely to have concealed his sexual interest in children from his colleague, Casey. Add to that the 42 Jesuits with credible accusations of child sexual abuse against them, and it is hard not to consider some kind of paedophile network or networks amongst Jesuits at the time.

I have listened to horrendous stories of abuse by Marmion and Casey. In the case of Andrews, I know only that (at least) two people say they were sexually abused by him, without further detail. I have heard from parents of children who were “helped” by him, that he asked inappropriate questions of very young boys (e.g. “what makes a willy hard?”) and took photographs of children without parental permission. But I would like to hear from people who have direct experience, as children, of Andrews. This will, of course, be strictly confidential.

Again, it’s only when certain details are subject to the oxygen of publicity, that Jesuits seem to be galvanised into action. So please, if you have anything to add to the Andrews story and, especially, if you can throw light on the 42 other Jesuit abusers, do communicate with me here.

The implication in The Jesuit Response, published in July 2021, was that the Jesuits had seen the error of their ways in relation to Marmion and that they were using the document to put everything into the light, to be frank and honest. And then they concealed what they knew about Andrews.

Their recent statements are in much the same vein. The suggestion is that this is openness, honesty, doing the right thing. I very much hope it is, but it would be naïf to assume that history might not be repeating itself. Old habits die hard.

I do know, and acknowledge, that there is something of a battle going on within the Irish Province of the Society of Jesus, that a few good men are urging the Order to wash its filthy linen in public. I just hope that they eventually win the argument.