Cardinal Pell at the Royal Commission

By Frank Brennan
Eureka Street
March 27, 2014

http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=39184#.UzUbDfl_uSp

Prior to Cardinal Pell's appearance before Justice McClellan at the Child Abuse Royal Commission, I wrote in the Fairfax press: 'The spotlight on the Ellis case should lead to better church administration for the good of everyone, especially those abused or wronged by those in authority. Together, Pell and McClellan can provide us with a better-lit path through the thickets of past abuse and maladministration.'

It has been an excruciating week or two. But there can be no doubt that the Australian Catholic Church with the forced scrutinies of the State has been assisted in getting back to its mission and basic values, espousing truth, justice, compassion and transparency.

As an institution, it has been dragged kicking and screaming. Pell has been put through the wringer, though admittedly nowhere near to the same extent as was John Ellis when the Church decided to unleash the legal attack dogs on him in litigation which was euphemistically described as vigorous and strenuous.

In his written statement to the Commission, Pell was upfront in apologising again for the sexual abuse which Ellis had undoubtedly suffered at the hands of a priest. Pell wrote, 'I acknowledge and apologise to Mr Ellis for the gross violation and abuse committed by Aidan Duggan, a now deceased priest of the Sydney Archdiocese. I deeply regret the pain, trauma and emotional damage that this abuse caused to Mr Ellis.'

Under cross examination on Wednesday, Pell had to admit that he, his advisers and his staff had fallen well short of the standards expected of a model litigant, let alone a Christian organisation. He finally admitted to the vast chasm between Christian decency and the tactics employed in pursuing Ellis in the courts.

Having blamed various members of his staff for earlier errors and omissions, Pell was anxious to exculpate his lawyers who had acted on instructions and perhaps with insufficient supervision. He said, 'I believe in a legal sense there was nothing done that was improper, and any reservations I might have about particular stands of our lawyers, I would not want to suggest that they did anything improper. But from my point of view, from a Christian point of view, leaving aside the legal dimension, I don't think we did deal fairly (with Ellis).'

According to the ABC, at the conclusion of this afternoon's hearing, Pell made a long awaited apology to Ellis, not just for the initial and sustained sexual abuse he suffered at the hands of a deviant priest but for the hurt which had been inflicted on him by the Church ever since he had sought compensation and closure. Pell said:

As former archbishop and speaking personally, I would want to say to Mr Ellis that we failed in many ways, some way inadvertently, in our moral and pastoral responsibilities to him. I want to acknowledge his suffering and the impact of this terrible affair on his life. As the then archbishop, I have to take ultimate responsibility, and this I do.

At the end of this gruelling appearance for both of us at this Royal Commission, I want publicly to say sorry to him for the hurt caused him by the mistakes made, admitted by me, and some of our archdiocesan personnel during the course of the Towards Healing process and litigation.

The Cardinal's long time critics found fault with his mode of delivery. But I am one Catholic and one Australian citizen who is mightily relieved that the Cardinal has been man enough and priest enough to apologise publicly for his failures and the failures of those under his supervision.

It is now clear that the Church like all right thinking people would view priests and church workers as employees of those those church leaders who appoint and supervise them.

To date in Australia, the victims of sexual abuse have been unlikely to succeed in court against anyone but the perpetrator or a callously negligent employer or supervisor who had little regard for the signs that there may be a sexual predator in their midst. There have been many hurdles for a victim wanting to sue anyone but the criminal perpetrator. The Royal Commission will need to give detailed consideration to these hurdles, making recommendations to governments about reforms which will impact on all employers and not just churches.

Until now, a victim like Ellis has faced an additional hurdle when suing for abuse by a priest or other church personnel. Often the alleged abuse occurred many years ago and now there is a new supervising bishop or superior. The previous bishop or superior will have long since died. Who is to be sued?

In 2007, the New South Wales Court of Appeal ruled that in the case of the Catholic Church, there was no point in trying to sue the 'Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church', the statutory trust corporation that holds title to all the church lands of a diocese. That corporation may hold the assets but it does not supervise, employ or oversee clergy or other church workers.

This week, everyone has come to accept that the Church should not give any appearance of hiding behind the corporate veil. Justice demands that present church leaders agree to satisfy any judgment debt against their predecessors or their deceased predecessors' estates when there is an allegation of past failure to supervise or adequately investigate a sexual predator in their ranks. Any damages should be paid from church assets.

For the moment, we should all be grateful that Pell apologised to Ellis ruling a line under hierarchical behaviour that does not pass the sunlight test, to say nothing of the Sermon on the Mount. While Pell heads for Rome, McClellan is only starting to wrestle with the really difficult legal questions.