I have previously identified three categories of Pell-observers.
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2023/01/they-dont-get-the-abc-in-heaven/
The first are those who, like (say) Tony Abbott, see a “saint for our times”, a holy man of God, a vigorous defender of the truth. The next are the rabid, obsessed bordering on derangement, Team-Get-Pell types for whom every opportunity to stick in the knife is taken with relish. Think Louise Milligan – the queen of the castle – David Marr, Daniel Andrews, Ray Hadley and all the rest. The third category are the fence-sitting Catholic prelates who only ever mention the victims of sex abuse whenever Pell is in the news and they are asked to comment. Archbishop Tim Costelloe seems to be the current flag-bearer.
I should now add a fourth, following the publication of an article by Terry Barnes in The Spectator Australia.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/01/daniel-andrews-double-standards-that-undermine-innocence/
Here are the two paragraph that give rise to position four:
As a parish priest, diocesan bishop, archbishop and head of the Catholic Church in Australia, Pell’s moral failure to lead, to act swiftly and decisively to ensure paedophile clergy were tried and punished rather than moved and covered up, and its failure to purge those parts of the Church under his care of their evil stain, cannot be quashed. (Written in 2020).
The issue here isn’t that Andrews, like his NSW counterpart Dominic Perrottet, has declined to offer Pell a state funeral. That’s understandable, given Pell presided over a Catholic Church that too long turned blind eyes to abuse by clergy, and in too many cases harboured them by moving them from parish to parish. Given what I wrote three years ago, it would be hypocritical to suggest otherwise (emphasis added).
(To all these might be added as a fifth category of Pell observers, namely Greg Craven’s liberal Catholics who were internal political opponents of the cardinal’s conservative position on various matters of doctrine and Church governance, and who did not necessarily see him either as a child molester or a protector of child molesters. They just didn’t like Pell’s version of the Church. Think Geraldine Doogue, Frank Brennan – a staunch defender of the Cardinal in relation to his trials and the accusers behind them – and Kristina Keneally, as three exemplars).
But here we will focus on what might be termed “the fourth estate” of Pell haters. (Or if “hater” is too strong, leave it at critics).
The fourth group, typified by Barnes, have opposed Pell with vigour if not venom, on the basis of his alleged sins of omission in relation to not doing enough to stamp out sex abuse in the Church. This was also the position of the Royal Commission in its absurd and harsh findings in relation to the Cardinal (delivered in May 2020). In a nutshell, this amounted to “well, he should have known”. Members of this group of Pell critics, possibly wilfully, misrepresent the powers of individual bishops and archbishops in relation to issues such as clerical abuse.
Writing since the death of the Cardinal, Gerard Henderson simply notes in relation to the Royal Commission’s verdict on Pell:
The cardinal has been condemned by findings that would not stand up in court.
In the case of the Royal Commission, there should have been no excuse for misrepresenting the capacity of a particular prelate to stamp out sex abuse.
As Henderson has written:
The Royal Commission declared that its findings would be consistent with the precedent laid down by the High Court in the Briginshaw Case – that is, the “reasonable satisfaction” test. This entails that the more serious the allegation – the higher level of proof required before a finding amounting to “reasonable satisfaction” of an event having taken place is made.
The Royal Commission did not apply this standard with respect to Cardinal Pell – in spite of the enormously serious allegations he faced, namely covering-up child sexual abuse. Yet “reasonable satisfaction” with respect to such serious allegations requires a high level of proof.
As I document in my book, there was no verbal or written evidence against Pell. None whatsoever. That’s why the Royal Commission found that it was, variously, “inconceivable”, “implausible”, “untenable” and “unlikely” that he did not know about clerical child sexual abuse. This is not proof of any standard – including the Briginshaw Test. Such vague words are frequently weaponised to cover-up a lack of evidence.
Indeed.
While critics like Terry Barnes are perfectly entitled to have their views on Pell the churchman and on sex abuse within the Church, they are not entitled to have their own facts. And their error is not a minor one, nor without consequences. Because this is a widely held and continuing misconception, and the source of great misunderstanding, perpetuating the error continues a grave injustice.
Barnes claims that Pell "presided over" the Catholic Church in Australia. He did not. Barnes and his ilk seem not to understand the authority structure in the Church and the nature of the episcopacy. Archbishops only preside over archdioceses, and (Ordinary) Bishops over dioceses. Not the whole Church. But wasn’t he a “cardinal”, I hear some ask? True but irrelevant. The functions of cardinals relate to Rome and their power rests only in Rome. They are papal appointments and papal advisers. They need not even be bishops. Pell was Australia’s most prominent Catholic cleric, but not its leader or powerbroker. Just ask the other Bishops.
Getting to the heart of Barnes’ quote, there was and is no evidence that Pell ever moved abuser priests from parish to parish, and if he knew or suspected it was going on elsewhere, he was never in a position of authority to do anything about it. Moreover, while Archbishop of Melbourne, Pell introduced the Australian Church's first ever process to achieve justice for victims of sex abuse (the so-called Melbourne Response). He sacked dozens of accused priests the moment he was able to. He and his appointees collaborated willingly with VicPol until they turned on him. Barnes never mentioned Pell's exemplary record on this issue or acknowledge its power in driving reform in other parts of the Australian Church. He should have. “Moral failure” on the Cardinal’s part? I think not.
Continuing with the fiction that Pell ran the church in Australia and can therefore be held accountable for all of its crimes has led directly to the persistent fallacy that is still embraced in ignorance by a large chunk of the population. And which will unjustly continue to dog the Cardinal in death.
Saying that Pell did have the power to stop sex abuse of minor by priests and religious in Australia, or that he “should have known”, intentionally or unintentionally allows the demonisation of George Pell to continue apace. It provides cover for the get-Pell brigade, shown by the events of the last week to have simply been having a sabbatical since 2020. The Barnes argument should be nipped in the bud, or at least exposed for what it is. You could almost say that those who, whether from ignorance or simple virtue signalling, maintain the fictions that Pell “should have known” or that he should have “done something”, might best be described as useful idiots, or, indeed, controlled opposition working in the service of the real Pell haters.
Paul Collits
17 January 2023
The Haters are going to hate… Their fellow travellers in the media have the megaphone out. No better sport for these imbeciles in attacking a dead man.
The 'He should have known' proponents are strangely quiet about Paul Bongiorno who, in his days as a priest before his tv career, shared a presbytery with a priest who WAS a pedophile. And Paul had no idea.
“Let me tell you that Ridsdale never came to the presbytery in Warrnambool and said, ‘Guess how many boys I’ve raped today’."
https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/ten-networks-paul-bongiorno-opens-up-about-the-sex-abuse-shame-felt-in-hometown-ballarat/news-story/f9df093fb9d005d751278dfe7a68160a