Six points on Pell

In a statement made well before the abuse scandal broke, Pell said of his role as Auxiliary Bishop: “the only decision I have to make every day is which side of bed to get out on”. So much for a position of power.

Pell also clashed with good friends of Little, including the then head of the Jesuits in Melbourne, Fr Bill Uren. These tensions give context to Pell’s claim that Little withheld information from him.

3. The Catholic Education Office may not have told Pell about the psychopathic Father Peter Searson, the parish priest of Doveton, in Melbourne’s eastern suburbs. In the closing minutes of the hearing, Pell’s lawyer, Sam Duggan, presented evidence from the former head of the Catholic Education Office, Monsignor Thomas Doyle, specifically stating that the auxiliary bishops of Melbourne had not been briefed about Searson’s behaviour. They were “not part of the decision-making structure in this area [education]” he told the inquiry earlier.

Astonishingly, only one journalist appears to have acknowledged the evidence: “In fairness, we’ve just seen evidence supporting Pell’s claim that he wasn’t told about Searson’s abuse by the Catholic Education Office”, tweeted The Australian’s Dan Box. 

4. In her questioning Furness constructed a scenario in which Pell, as an auxiliary bishop, ignored clear signals about Searson’s abuse. Yet Archbishop Little withheld crucial information and, incredibly, teachers from the parish school complained about him but “asked that he be allowed to stay on”.

What isn’t in dispute is this: as Archbishop of Melbourne Pell sacked Searson as soon as he had a clear case. In the closing minutes of the last session, Pell’s lawyer produced a transcript of the interview in which he terminated Searson. It is reveals the quality of Pell’s resolve:

SEARSON: Whatever they have said is fiction.  I'm sure of that.  The Police investigated and they don't want to take any action. Archbishop Little also decided not to proceed.  In spite of all that, Mr O'Callaghan [the investigator]  took the attitude all the way through ... I feel helpless now.

PELL: I need to know whether you are going to retire or not.

SEARSON: I'm prepared to step aside. …  All I want to do is get on with my life as a priest.

PELL:  You don't seem to understand. Do you accept my invitation to retire and resign or not?

SEARSON: I'm prepared to step aside. The conditions preclude me being a productive priest  …

PELL: …  Retire and resign.

SEARSON: And do nothing?

PELL: Do nothing.

SEARSON: You are asking me to step down and do nothing for doing nothing. Resignation is no problem, but allow me any opportunity to do a little.

PELL: I'm inviting you to resign. If not, I am proceeding canonically to remove you.  I have already taken civil and canonical advice on that.

SEARSON: What about working in another Diocese?

PELL: Any Bishop would consult me and I would advise him of the findings of the Independent Commissioner.

SEARSON: But he could know that the Independent Commissioner was wrong.  So is working in another Diocese a possibility? It does not require your consent.

PELL: It is outside my writ.  But you certainly won't get a clearance from me

5. The cardinal was under intense pressure. Each day he entered and exited through a media scrum.  He is 74 and has a heart condition. He testified for 19 hours over four nights (Rome time) into the early hours of the morning. The breaks were short. On the final day the cross-examining barristers worked in a relay with relentless and sometimes insolent and provocative questions. “I suggest very directly you are lying about this to protect your own reputation. What do you say about that?” one of the more brutal ones.

And interrogation of this length and intensity would test anyone’s stamina. It is unfair to judge the Cardinal on occasional slips of the tongue. He did say that “It's a sad story and it wasn't of much interest to me”  about Ridsdale’s abuse. But these apparently callous words did not represent what he meant and he clarified and withdrew them later.

6. The media has painted George Pell as an energetic and ambitious cleric eager for advancement within the Church who lacked compassion for vulnerable victims. This portrait is unrecognisable to people who know him. He showed his considerable empathy in a meeting with the Ballarat survivors who had gone to Rome to attend the hearing immediately after the fourth and final day of testimony.

"I heard each of their stories and of their suffering," said Cardinal Pell. "It was hard. An honest and occasionally emotional meeting… "I know many of their families and I know of the goodness of so many people in Catholic Ballarat, a goodness that is not extinguished by the evil that was done.” He pledged to support “a research center to enhance healing and to improve protection” in Ballarat.

I don’t know of many men who have the charity and strength to hold a frank and cordial conversation with his fiercest critics straight after four emotionally and physically exhausting days. Pell is a man who talks the talk and walks the walk.  

As I stated initially, my aim is not to exonerate the Cardinal. My point is simply this: the facts and the historical context of Australian sex abuse are complex. Don’t prejudge Pell. Don’t be misled by sound bites. Don’t get swept away by hysteria. Give him a fair go.