Sex Abuse Inquiry's Grilling Only the Beginning
By Barney Zwartz
On November 9 last year, Georgie Crozier strode to the lectern, fixed me with a steely gaze and read a short statement defending the Victorian inquiry into how the churches handled child sexual abuse. Although the chairwoman of the six-MP committee running the inquiry did not explicitly mention it, she was clearly stung by my opinion piece in The Age two days earlier criticising the pace and depth the inquiry had shown to that point - just 1½ days of hearings - and the opaqueness of the process. She answered many questions in the article, and concluded: ''We have begun the process, let us get on with it.'' This article is an odd sort of mea culpa, because I am not convinced I was entirely wrong at the time. The committee did start slowly, and there were legitimate doubts about its political will. But I certainly wouldn't write such an article now. I think the members gained self-belief and momentum as they went along, were appalled by what victims told them, and got emotionally involved. It is impossible not to, the stories are so harrowing. Those involved in the inquiry needed regular counselling. Advertisement This week they finished taking evidence, the last witness being Sydney Archbishop George Pell on Monday. I congratulate the committee. It has been diligent, dedicated and determined, united in purpose and free of party politics, aided by an excellent team including Frank Vincent QC, police adviser Mal Hyde, and Crown prosecutor Claire Quin. The police Taskforce Sano attached to the inquiry has already laid new charges. By the end, Crozier said last week, the committee received 405 submissions and held 160 hearings - just under half in secret - with 45 organisations and scores of victims, families, whistleblowers, academics and experts. Now the committee retires to write its report, due by September 30. Whatever its recommendations, many of which could be confidently predicted now, it has already served a valuable role in giving a public voice to victims and holding the churches to account. For the Catholic Church - the principal target of witnesses because the extent of abuse by its clergy so completely outweighs every other church, and whose leaders have been deeply resentful of that focus - I am in despair. Public expectations of church leaders has sunk so low that it causes not a ripple when a politician - Victorian Premier Denis Napthine at the weekend - lectures them to be frank and open and apologetic. What does it say when politicians can lecture bishops on morality without complaint? Various Catholic leaders were the last to give evidence. In the carefully stage-managed church response - a tendency criticised by deputy chairman Frank McGuire, who noted that the church could unite as a single entity to defend itself but not to redress abuse - all sang from the same hymn sheet. Yes, there were ''terrible mistakes'' and ''tragic errors'' in the past, and today's leaders are fully apologetic, but the failures were all in the past by their predecessors. Today they definitely put victims first, they are personally blameless, and everything is fixed and fine. Abuse, they say, is almost entirely historical. For the victims in the gallery and those who could not bring themselves to attend, for the families of the dozens who killed themselves, their suffering is today and every day; it is not fixed and fine. And it is certainly not historical. Cardinal Pell was a fitting culmination for the church, defensive and defiant throughout. Like the leaders who preceded him in giving evidence, he readily utters apologies, but for the victims these are rendered scarcely credible by the litany of self-justifications, defiant demeanour and blame-shifting. Like other leaders, he said he accepted responsibility, then promptly lodged the blame on his predecessors. He has constantly blamed the media, and on Monday provided another culprit - the state government, which should have forced the church to do more. Crozier was incredulous. In his press conference greeting the royal commission last November, Pell said an inquiry into the church was not needed and blamed a ''smear campaign'' by the media. The media got another serve on Monday. As part of that media, I have been writing about victims and abuse for more than a decade, and urging a royal commission or government inquiry. I think I can claim a small role in helping bring about the inquiries, and I am proud of that. The Age played a larger role, and the tireless campaigners among the victims and their advocates a larger role still. I am convinced that had it not been for the media - especially the Boston Globe's searing revelations in the early 2000s - the church would still be dismissing and silencing victims, moving offenders around and covering up to protect its ''good name''. Its appetite for change has been almost entirely imposed from outside. Tragically, the church leadership that tries to suggest the problems are now fixed is still seeking to ''manage'' the problem rather than root it out. The really important questions are off-limits. I do believe that leaders such as Hart and Pell are appalled by clerical abuse, but I'm afraid that, despite their protestations, they do not put the victims first. Protecting the church is still top priority; it's just that the goalposts have shifted. If leaders such as Hart and Pell found giving evidence gruelling, it is perhaps only a foretaste of the forensic grilling they will face when the commission hits its stride.
|
.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.