Cardinal George Pell Stonily Impassive Giving Testimony at the Victorian Parliamentary Inquiry into Institutional Child Sexual Abuse
By Sue Wighton
I WATCHED most of Cardinal George Pell's evidence to the Victorian parliamentary inquiry last week about child sexual abuse by members of the clergy and its subsequent cover-up by the church. I didn't mean to watch the whole thing, but I was transfixed. I was struck by Pell's seeming lack of emotional engagement during his testimony. He sat stonily impassive in the face of stringent questioning by the panel members. His tone was largely defensive and even combative at times. Although there was a reluctant and measured intellectual response from Australia's most senior Catholic, the man seemed unable to show visible empathy or any true emotion for the victims, mostly innocent children. To these unreligious eyes, the cardinal had to be dragged unwillingly to face the gravity of the acts of priests in his church and the wilful covering up of these awful crimes. Sadly, Pell's responses mostly focused on the structures of the church and why it was not appropriate to take this or that action; the plight of the victims invariably came second. One online commentator observed Pell's "colourless detachment" as he discussed the matters at hand. He did become somewhat more sanguine when it came to defending the capping of compensation payouts. Pell's choice of words was interesting, to say the least. At least once, I believe, he referred to the sexual abuse of children by priests euphemistically as "'mistakes" or "misbehaviour". These acts are crimes, sir. Punishable by law. To call them anything else demonstrates a total lack of understanding and insults the victims. Pell also acknowledged that a meeting he had with Anthony and Chrissie Foster, whose daughters and family suffered unspeakably at the hands of a criminal priest, didn't go well. They were "cross" with him. Cross? Once again, the use of such euphemisms is insulting to those who have suffered. According to the Fosters, Pell bullied them, talked over them and showed heartless disregard for their claims. They would have been beyond cross. Pell said he was "happy to accept the invitation of the Premier to say that I am fully apologetic and absolutely sorry ..." It seems that like others in the Catholic Church, he was prepared to apologise (without naming the crime) only after being "invited" to do so. I was waiting for Pell say he is personally ashamed of his church for allowing the most vulnerable to be abused in such shocking ways. I was waiting for him to show Christ-like humility and to ask the victims of these priest perpetrators for forgiveness. But no. Once again, an old man - used to wielding enormous power and enmeshed in a moribund religious culture - was equivocating, shifting the blame and, as the most senior catholic in the land, refusing to accept responsibility. This is not good enough. Pell admitted that the late archbishop of Melbourne Frank Little covered up abuse, but there was (as always) a caveat. You see, Little inherited a system where there were "no protocols and no procedures". One wonders why a so-called Christian church would need protocols to tell them that sexual abuse of children is a crime, and covering it up and lying about it is a sin. Surely one only has to look to the Ten Commandments for the most straightforward protocols and procedures of all. Sue Wighton is a Brisbane freelance writer. Contact: suewighton@gmail.com
|
.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.