MULTIPLE MONSTERS
Coming Clean but Hiding the Truth
When I wrote about Marmion, by name, in the Irish Daily Mail, I was lucky enough to have had access to photographs taken by my old friend and school contemporary, David Barry (of Gotham Café and the Independent Pizza Company fame, incidentally). I suggested a picture of Marmion, standing on the back steps of Belvedere House, to the editor; a photograph that was so evocative I could have been back in 1975 wearing grey flannel trousers. I found it difficult to look at what was on my screen.
And so I found myself writing the following opening sentence: “You are looking at the face of a monster.”
I have a theory – and it’s only that, I’ll admit – about the Jesuits’ admission that Marmion was a paedophile and a bully. Perhaps they felt that by coming clean, insofar as they did, about such an egregious offender, a Jesuit about whom stories were told that almost beggared belief in terms of sheer evil, a monster in other words, that this would deflect attention from all the other abusers within the Order. And they are many.
I was not alone in congratulating the Jesuits for The Jesuit Response in which they appeared to have gathered together such information as they could about the career of Joseph Marmion SJ. I think most of us who had come into contact with him during our school days felt relieved that what we had always believed about him was now in the public domain and that the Jesuits were contrite about allowing him to do what he had done.
And so it is very disappointing to realise that they were telling only part of the story. Indeed, they were deliberately concealing a hugely important fact. They failed to mention that Marmion, when confronted in 1977, was being managed by another paedophile, Paul Andrews SJ, as Rector of Belvedere and therefore his boss. But, you may ask, did the people who compiled The Jesuit Response, know about Andrews?
It is incredible to think that they didn’t. And why do I say that? The following is an excerpt from the Review of Child Safeguarding Practice in the Religious Order of the Society of Jesus (Jesuits) Undertaken by the National Board for Safeguarding Children in the Catholic Church (NBSCCCI) and available at www.safeguarding.ie. It was published in 2015.
That it refers to Andrews is as plain as a pikestaff.
Case File 4
An initial allegation was received about this Jesuit in 1991. The same allegation was repeated in October 1994 and in November 1994. After the allegation was made for the second time the Jesuit was removed from ministry and a preliminary investigation was established. A decree was issued in 1994 initiating the preliminary investigation under
Canon Law. The auditor found the complainant to be credible and suggested checking out and reporting the matter to the appropriate Board. The Jesuit attended for assessment in a well-recognised clinical facility.
There was advice elsewhere, when a psychiatrist involved in the case at the time, advised against reporting the matter to the Gardai. The Jesuits however notified the Gardai in 1995 and a decision was made by the DPP not to prosecute. This Jesuit was then returned to ministry.
In 2002 the Standing Committee (now Advisory Panel) advised that this Jesuit should not be in ministry with minors. It pointed out that the DPP decision was neither a declaration of innocence or guilt. Therefore in July 2002, he was asked to restrict his work to adults. At that time also, the Society felt they had missed the opportunity for outreach to the
complainant and felt they should offer support through the family. A letter was written to the family and an offer of support was made.
In 2004 there is a letter on file stating that the Jesuit was in good standing which confused the reviewers, given the restrictions on his ministry with children.
In 2008 there was concern expressed about the quality of the supervision he was receiving. In 2009 he was removed from all public ministries. However, in 2010 he resumed part time public ministry with full information shared. In August 2010 an allegation was made by a second complainant directly to An Garda Siochána. Once received by the Jesuits they notified the HSE. The DPP directed no prosecution. On foot of the allegation the Order removed him from public ministry.
As with the other cases there is no evidence of a management plan in place or written restrictions, but supervision and oversight is the responsibility of the local Superior.