The Man in the Big Chair
By Barney Zwartz
It was meeting George Pell that that severed Chrissie Foster from her faith in the Catholic Church. The mother of two daughters who were horrifically abused by a priest went to her 1997 meeting with the then archbishop of Melbourne still a committed servant of the church. She left it crushed, embittered and furious. Displaying what her husband Anthony Foster later described as a ''sociopathic lack of empathy'', Archbishop Pell was bullying and confrontational from the start of the meeting organised so Pell could listen to their experiences. Chrissie Foster describes the encounter in her book Hell on the Way to Heaven. She had prepared a dossier of her varied church involvements, but never had a chance to show it. The Fosters were shown into a cramped furniture storage room in the presbytery and given a small wooden bench for both of them to sit on. The only other seat was a throne-like red leather armchair in which Pell was stretched out in a way they found intimidating. When Anthony Foster told how Father Kevin O'Donnell repeatedly raped Emma and Katie Foster, starting when each was five years old, Pell replied: "I hope you can substantiate that in court.'' As Anthony began to outline reservations about the church's Melbourne Response protocol for abuse victims, Pell interjected: "If you don't like what we're doing, take us to court." When they showed him a picture of Emma (who later killed herself) after she had slashed her wrists, he said matter-of-factly, "Mmm, she's changed, hasn't she?" Chrissie Foster wrote: "We felt like we'd been hit on the head and bullied into submission. The archbishop's threatening words ended all avenues of conversation. I believe this was his aim.'' The Fosters rejected the $50,000 offer under the Melbourne Response and took the church to court, where the church - despite having given the Fosters a written apology and the finding of independent commissioner Peter O'Callaghan confirming the rapes - it denied O'Donnell had abused the girls. They settled before judgment for $450,000 for Emma plus compensation for Katie and costs. Their account of the cardinal's response is not unique. A mother whose son killed himself after being abused as a child said Pell brushed her off "as he would a flea from his jacket", and victims have told the Victorian inquiry into how the churches handled child sexual abuse that they found meeting him unpleasant and distressing. Victims advocate Helen Last, a former employee of the Melbourne archdiocese, says the problem is not so much that victims find meeting the cardinal a negative experience but that they distrust him so much that they do not want to meet him. "They don't find him safe," she says. All this is far removed from Pell's self-image. The line run by the archdiocese of Sydney and the cardinal himself is that, according to a march press release, he has ''worked hard to eradicate the evil of sexual abuse from the church and to show his deep compassion for victims and survivors of sexual abuse not just by words but also by actions". It is the cardinal's credibility that will be on trial today when he becomes the final witness to give public evidence at the Victorian inquiry. Fairfax Media put to the cardinal the questions in the panel, but his spokeswoman replied that it would be appropriate for him to answer the inquiry's questions on Monday, which he was looking forward to doing. It is clear that Cardinal Pell sees himself as the solution rather than the problem, as the hero who cleansed the Augean stables of the filth of clerical sexual abuse. But many outsiders - and, since his catastrophic press conference in November after the royal commission was announced, many within the church as well - see him as a hindrance, a man dedicated merely to "managing" the problem. At that press conference he complained of a media "smear campaign" against the church, saying abuse by Catholic priests had been singled out and exaggerated, and that the inquiry was not needed but was welcome as it would "separate fact from fiction". "We object to being described as the only cab on the rank," he said. Shortly afterwards the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference appointed a Truth, Justice and Healing Council to liaise with the royal commission, removing the need for Cardinal Pell to act as spokesman on matters concerning abuse. If it's unfair to blame the cardinal for his personality, then perhaps the church's response to those it accepts have been abused demonstrates deep compassion? But here, too, few are impressed. Father Kevin Dillon, an outspoken supporter of victims from inside the church, asks why there is no follow-up of survivors to see how they are recovering. "So many have taken their lives, or lost them from self-neglect through alcohol and drugs. This is a tragedy of enormous proportion, the like of which the church has possibly not seen in its history within its own ranks. We've had corruption and we've had nepotism, but this beggars belief for people." Given that most victims come from strong Catholic backgrounds, a key question for Dillon is what has the church done to reconstruct their faith, "to give them the strength to overcome the damage. That's been ignored, but it's the very first thing we should have done." Dillon, priest at St Mary's Basilica in Geelong, observes that if the two church protocols introduced in 1996, the Melbourne Response and Towards Healing, had made the difference Pell believes they have we wouldn't now be in the middle of inquiries in Victoria and New South Wales and a royal commission. "What's coming through is that there are plenty of apologies for the original perpetrators, but none indicative of any remorse or contrition, let alone restitution, for what's happened in the meantime," he said. Helen Last, who used to run a pastoral response office for victims in the Melbourne archdiocese, was sacked by Pell months after he became archbishop. "When he was bishop at Mentone [Melbourne's southern regional bishop] he argued for me to be terminated for three years. His arguments were she knows too much, she's paid too much, she's the Vicar-General's woman (Gerry Cudmore was then replaced by Denis Hart), and the priests could do what I did. But they haven't used one priest to do anything like what I did. "Pell has not educated his clergy [about abuse] or given them ministries or created a ministry of healing. He has denied them. He has a lot to answer for," says Last, who now represents more than 50 sexual abuse victims as an advocate. However, Cardinal Pell has always stated his personal abhorrence for clergy sexual abuse. Last year, launching a document about the church in NSW and abuse, he said: "Church leaders, like myself, have apologised many times to victims and families, and we mean it. These crimes, with their tragic toll on victims and their families, have brought shame and disgrace on the church." NSW law required the church to report criminal sexual abuse to the police and to the Ombudsman, and to conduct safety checks for all church staff who worked with young people. The church complied with all these obligations, he said. In a November statement promising the church would co-operate with the special commission of inquiry into sex abuse in the Hunter Valley in NSW, he said much of the public discussion assumed the problems of 20 years ago were still prevalent, despite significant reforms. "Although the church started from well behind scratch, it is hard to name any other Australian organisation that has done more to produce a safe environment for young people." When he was archbishop of Melbourne, Pell did introduce far-reaching reforms with the Melbourne Response, which brought independent investigation of complaints, provision for compensation (with an upper limit of $50,000, later raised to $75,000), and support and counselling. It provided a mechanism to help victims whose abusers were dead, or who didn't want to go to police But he did so under pressure from premier Jeff Kennett, who summoned him to say "if you don't clean it up I will", which would have brought a loss of control the church could not countenance. Critics say the protocol was all about protecting the church's name and money, enabling it to keep the process in-house and secret, which is why the Melbourne Response has accepted 97 per cent of complaints. Remarkably, Pell launched the Melbourne Response just weeks before the Towards Healing protocol was introduced for every other Australian diocese and religious order. Parramatta Bishop Anthony Fisher, a long-time Pell supporter and ally, is one who endorses the cardinal's sincerity. "I know that he feels deeply for victims of child sexual abuse and is appalled by any instance of it," he says. "People don't always hear church leaders when they say sorry or don't believe them, but I know Cardinal Pell means it when he says it." According to Fisher, the cardinal has apologised to victims publicly and privately. "These can be very emotional encounters and sometimes it is difficult to find the right words to say. People don't always leave satisfied [but] I still think they are worth doing and I know the cardinal does." He says the cardinal has led the rest of the Australian church in "pushing us to clean up our act" through abuse protocols when there were few models of how to do it. If Cardinal Pell sings from the same songsheet as every other Catholic leader so far when he comes before the parliamentary inquiry on Monday, he will say that the church made tragic mistakes in the past, but none can be laid at his door - they were all before his time; that he has introduced reforms; that the church now puts victims first. This would be a step forward from what the Fosters claim he told them in 1997, that until abuse allegations are proven in court "it's just gossip. And I don't listen to gossip." Such an approach would mean no paedophile could be removed from ministry or reported to police until he had been convicted, or at least charged. The committee members have shown tenacity and determination in examining church leaders, winning surprising and new admissions by Melbourne Archbishop Hart a week ago that his predecessor, Sir Frank Little, had covered up paedophile priests and moved them to other parishes where they would abuse again. Hart said in a public statement that "I understand that the community is looking for someone to take responsibility for the terrible acts that occurred. I take responsibility.'' But he told the inquiry the only person responsible was the archbishop at the time - Frank Little. Asked for clarification by Fairfax Media, a church spokesman said that what Hart meant by taking responsibility was ensuring there was no resurgence of child abuse, that victims were treated fairly and compassionately and that offenders were removed from contact with children.
|
.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.