Why the Society of Mary’s Accountability Matters
Dr. Christopher Longhurst
New Zealand’s Society of Mary (Marist Fathers) says it is committed to safeguarding, accountability, transparency, and putting survivors first. But what happens when a survivor actually comes forward?
For many survivors of clerical sexual abuse, the abuse did not end when the offending stopped. A second wound often followed. It came when they disclosed what had happened and encountered disbelief, defensiveness, delay, institutional self-protection, or attempts to control the narrative rather than confront the truth and redress the wrongdoing fairly.
That second wound remains one of the Catholic Church’s greatest failures.
Survivors do not experience institutions through their policies, safeguarding statements, or public commitments. They experience them through their actions—through how they are treated when they seek to be heard, ask difficult questions, and pursue accountability. This raises serious concerns about the Society of Mary’s accountability and whether its stated commitments match its actions.
It is here that a troubling contradiction emerges. While Church leaders speak of transparency, justice, healing, and survivor-centred practice, many survivors continue to experience something very different. The Society of Mary in New Zealand now faces precisely this challenge.
researcher. He was a witness and core participant in New Zealand's Royal Commission
of Inquiry into Abuse in Care.
Recently, I wrote to the Society’s new Provincial, Fr Mervyn Duffy SM, seeking two relatively modest measures.
First, I asked that a modest redress payment made to me in 2019 be reviewed so that it more accurately reflected contemporary standards and the seriousness of the harm suffered.
At the time, the Society characterised the sexual abuse perpetrated by Fr Kevin Francis O’Donoghue SM (deceased) as “a simple case of a relatively minor matter”—a description that, in my view, fundamentally failed to recognise both the nature of the abuse and its long-term impact.
Second, I requested that the 2019 Deed of Settlement be formally cancelled as a gesture of goodwill and in recognition that legal agreements should not limit the Church’s ongoing moral, pastoral, and ethical responsibilities towards survivors. Both requests were declined.
The issue, however, is larger than any individual case. It raises a fundamental question about what Church leaders mean when they speak of healing, reconciliation, accountability, and putting survivors first. If these commitments are genuine, shouldn’t institutions be willing to revisit past decisions that may no longer reflect contemporary understandings of abuse, trauma, safeguarding, and justice?
The question is no longer whether the Society of Mary has safeguarding policies. The
question is whether it has the courage to live by them.
The true test of any Religious Order’s Christian integrity is not found in policy manuals, mission statements, pastoral letters, or carefully crafted public relations statements. It is found in what happens when a survivor raises fair and reasonable concerns.
When the Society of Mary’s leaders are not prepared to listen with respect and compassion, take concerns seriously, acknowledge mistakes, confront uncomfortable truths, and place justice ahead of institutional reputation, then safeguarding becomes rhetoric rather than reality, accountability becomes performance rather than practice, and survivors are once again left carrying burdens that belong to the institution.
One is left to ask a simple but uncomfortable question: whose interests are being
served?
Jesus did not stand with institutions seeking to protect themselves from criticism. He stood with those who had been wounded, marginalised, and silenced. He repeatedly challenged religious authorities when they placed legalism, status, or institutional interests ahead of compassion and justice.
The measure of the Society of Mary’s response to survivors is whether its actions reflect
the values of the Gospel it proclaims.
The Society of Mary cannot simply point to safeguarding policies, settlement agreements, or public commitments while avoiding questions about how complaints have actually been handled. Public promises mean little if survivors continue to encounter defensiveness, minimisation, procedural manoeuvring, or institutional self-protection when they seek answers.
What I have encountered from the Society of Mary to date is not the compassionate face of the Church that I was promised, but an institution that appears more concerned with managing risk, controlling narratives, and protecting itself than engaging openly with those who have been harmed.
This is not merely a communications problem. It is a moral problem.
The tragedy of clerical sexual abuse was never only the abuse itself. It was also the institutional responses that followed: the secrecy, the disbelief, the protection of reputations, the reluctance to acknowledge wrongdoing, and the repeated failure to place vulnerable people first.
Every time a survivor’s concerns are dismissed, every time accountability is delayed, every time legal or procedural mechanisms are used to avoid difficult questions, Church leaders risk repeating the very patterns that caused so much damage in the first place.
The Society of Mary bears responsibility not only for historical abuse but also for how it responds to survivors today. The institution will ultimately be judged not simply by what happened decades ago, but by how its leaders respond when concerns are raised in the present.
Survivors do not need more promises. They do not need more carefully crafted statements about safeguarding and accountability. They need actions that demonstrate those commitments are real.
The question facing the Society of Mary is therefore a simple one: when survivors come forward, will the institution protect its reputation, or will it embody the Gospel values of truth, justice, compassion, and accountability that it professes to uphold?
Ultimately, the Society of Mary’s accountability will be judged not by policies but by how it responds to survivors today.
The answer will determine not only its credibility, but also whether it is prepared to live the Gospel it proclaims.
