Australian Catholics take stock as Pell falls

By John Warhurst
LaCroix International
March 16, 2019

https://bit.ly/2HqGydO

Cardinal George Pell in Melbourne, Feb. 26. Photo by David Crosling

Catholic reaction to the conviction of George Pell for child sexual abuse was as diverse as the Catholic community itself.

Some of the reaction has a public voice, including the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference, the Catholic commentariat, individual bishops, leaders of Catholic agencies and education authorities, and prominent Catholic survivors.

This aspect of Catholic reaction can be identified.

Some explored the trial, conviction and forthcoming appeal, while the remainder discussed the likely impact on the Catholic community, sometimes a gut reaction of a personal kind.

Some emphasised the value of the Church's works in the community while others gave reassurance that the Church is now a safe environment. Some questioned the verdict or urged against a rush to judgement before the completion of the appeal process.

Survivors, including John Ellis, Chrissie Foster and Peter Gogarty, expressed satisfaction that justice had been done in this case and that despite such a high-profile suspect, the jury believed the victim and therefore the justice system had triumphed.

The reaction of regular church-going Catholics and the broader Catholic community is harder to capture. Anger and outrage at betrayal, even grief and trauma, was frequent. What they seemed to have in common was devastation for the church and guilt by association by being branded a Catholic in a hurtful way.

This association may be extended to the tens of thousands of non-Catholic parents and students in Catholic schools and the many thousands of non-Catholic staff of Catholic agencies, including hospitals, welfare services, aged care and international aid and development.

The enormous scale of the uproar and impact flowing from Pell's conviction was something new for Catholics even after a decade of revelations of widespread clerical criminality, including those revealed by the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.

Pell has been such a towering figure, representing the face of Catholicism not just within the church but to the wider community.

A conservative within a conservative church he was a divisive internal figure, not just because of his strictly orthodox views but because of the unbending and assertive style with which he promulgated them.

This appealed to some Catholics but mightily offended others. In dealing with survivors of child sexual abuse he projected a lack of empathy and, while Archbishop in Sydney, oversaw the case that led to the establishment of the Ellis defence, which made it easier for the Catholic Church to avoid liability from victims of abuse who sought compensation for their suffering.

He represented Australian Catholics in Rome, was close to popes and prime ministers, was identified with World Youth Day in Sydney and the canonisation of St Mary MacKillop as well as with the Melbourne Response to sexual abuse. Something died in Australian Catholicism with Pell's guilty verdict and Australian Catholics will have to live with that whatever the future turns out to be.

Recognising the gravity of the situation the Catholic world reacted quickly.

Fresh from successfully representing Australia at the Vatican Summit Archbishop Mark Coleridge issued a crisp and effective statement as president of the ACBC.

Many individual bishops and leaders of Catholic agencies followed in a cascading wave of statements, some directed to priests and staff and others to the wider community. Some were distributed in workplaces and in parishes.

Some parish priests adapted these messages in their own way at Sunday Masses.

In one church in rural NSW the parish priest came down from the pulpit to the floor to be on the same level as his parishioners in a gesture of solidarity to share his hurt and painful concerns.

Some church authorities and principals distributed letters reassuring parents and students that their schools were a safe environment. St Patrick's College, Ballarat, Pell's school, announced that his name was being removed from a school wing.

In all these reactions for those seeking to explain or defend the church or to reassure worried Catholics, hitting the right note was extremely difficult, in part because the audiences are so varied, from an orthodox, aged Catholic base to the wider unchurched Catholic community and outwards to people at large.

The statements varied in terms of their priorities and their language. Quotations then appeared in the mainstream media where unduly prayerful sentiments were probably greeted with rolled eyes.

There presumably was vigorous internal debate among professional communications advisers as to how best to react or even whether to react at all given the possibility of making things worse.

Many prominent Catholics have an outlet for their views on such occasions even though there was widespread trepidation about getting embroiled at such a difficult time for the church.

Interviewers often sensed this and were particularly sensitive to the very personal nature of the responses demanded and elicited.

Once again it was noticeable how most of the Catholic leaders and commentators were male, at a time when female voices would have added a valuable perspective.

It is harder for regular Catholics to exercise their voice because the hierarchical church is not set up for open discussion and for allowing the laity to have a voice.

Sunday Mass is a case in point because it is structured around a homily to a silent congregation and interchange is not invited. Parishes should consider calling meetings, led by parish pastoral councils where they exist, at which there can be open discussion of the church's situation.

Schools are better off and opportunities can be given to staff, students and parents to ventilate their views. Open discussion is always better than allowing the Pell conviction to become the elephant in the room.

No matter the outcome of Pell's appeal, the Church must do its best to create spaces for discussion between its members, clergy and lay, on an equal footing. This should not just be temporary but permanent.

The preparations for the 2020 Plenary Council may be one outlet, though the listening sessions have just finished.

Cultural change should be on the agenda when the first meeting of the Plenary Council takes place in October next year, but heartfelt discussions certainly can't wait till then.

The Catholic reaction, now in its early stages, may evolve in unpredictable ways.