Come Home and Face the Commission, Cardinal Pell
By Michael Bradley
The time has come for George Pell to forget about the legal strategies, the honour and assets of the Church, and his personal dignity. He needs to come back home, face up and tell the truth, writes Michael Bradley. Immoveable object meets irresistible force. Cardinal George Pell has engaged various tactics over the years in his response to the grave allegations regarding his part in the Catholic Church's handling of sexual abuse victims, but the attitude has remained the same: impassive, righteous, unrepentant, unmoved. In terms of his apparent personal motivation of protecting the Church's reputation and assets, it's been pretty successful. But Royal Commissions are powerful beasts; and a determined Royal Commissioner can break the toughest resistance to their mission of shedding light into the darkest places. I have no opinion to express on the allegations levelled at Pell. They have not been tested, and we should not presume their truth or otherwise before that has been done. The Royal Commissioner, Peter McClellan QC, has been sending a very clear message that this is what he intends to do. It has set the scene for what could be a memorable showdown. Whatever Pell did or didn't do when he was originally confronted with claims and evidence of child abuse within the Church, there is much not in dispute about how he saw his role once he was in a position of senior authority and had personal responsibility for handling the ever-growing volume of claims by alleged victims. It seems clear that the "Melbourne response" crafted by Pell was not designed with the primary goals of exposing the truth and ensuring that abuse could never occur again within the Church's domain. The priorities appear to have been driven by legal concerns about the Church's exposure to liability. As the years went by, the growing number of victims seems, rather than triggering an empathic response or an urgent desire to bring the whole stinking mess to the light, to instead have caused Pell and the Church to double down and use the tools of legal process to both minimise the cost the Church might pay and keep the whole issue under wraps. Consequently, while Pell was in charge of claims management, confidential settlements were the rule and court cases were fought hard. Precedents were set and then used to the Church's advantage; most notoriously, the case of John Ellis that established that the Church was not a legal entity and basically can't be held legally liable for sexual or physical abuse committed by its own priests. Inevitably, it eventually all started to come out anyway. Faced with the prospect of explaining his actions to various public inquiries including the Royal Commission now running, Pell doubled down again. His several public appearances to give evidence have been utterly fascinating portraits of a powerful man unused to being questioned or doubted. He has sought to portray dignity, honesty and consistency; he has come across as a man who is completely mystified that he finds his integrity under question. While wishing to appear cooperative, he has conveyed an air of vague annoyance. It hasn't been a good look. Passive aggression is usually a quite effective approach for defendants facing legal claims against them. You don't have to admit anything. Short answers are the best answers, and it isn't your problem if the right questions are never asked. You can sometimes obfuscate and barricade your way to victory, and the truth is that the truth doesn't always come out. Lawyers know all this, and we are adept at using the tools of unhelpfulness and resistance to our client's benefit. We call it "putting them to the proof". Really, this is the approach Pell has maintained through the many years during which he has been dealing with the claims of abuse and the subsequent public relations nightmare that now afflicts his Church. He has, as is his right, put claimants to the proof. He has, when he has agreed to pay compensation, attached conditions of silence. As is his right. And he has caused or allowed his lawyers to play hard ball in the Church's interest. All good and he probably felt that the worst was over as he headed off to his new role as keeper of the Vatican's treasure. But it isn't nearly over. The Royal Commission has heard direct allegations of appalling behaviour by Pell, specifically that he tried to bribe a claimant into silence. It's explosive stuff, obviously. Pell's lawyers at the Commission have so far maintained his standard strategy: don't engage, any more than is absolutely necessary. They declined to cross examine the accuser, saying that they didn't want to add to any victim's suffering. They said that Pell had already denied these allegations, and would give a statement repeating that if the Commission wanted a response. Note the undertone of weary compliance. As I said, Royal Commissions are hard to resist. Commissioner McClellan has expressed his displeasure at the Pell strategy, stating in clear words that he intends to get to the bottom of this story. He will investigate, he will weigh the evidence and he will make findings as to the truth. If Pell elects not to test the evidence of his accusers, then that will be at his peril. He can stand on his moral high ground and insist that he remains above all this sordid business, but the Commission will have the final say so far as the law is concerned. Who knows what Pell is thinking about all this, far away in the fairyland castle of the Vatican. He would be well advised to take note, however, that a serious reckoning is coming. He stands accused of doing things that are beyond dreadful and would, if true, irredeemably disgrace him for all time. The time has come to forget about the legal strategies, the honour and assets of the Church, and his personal dignity; he needs to come back home, face up and tell the truth.
|
.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.