The Middle Aged Spectator considers Cardinal George Pell’s situation

Let’s begin by making clear that the MAS does not have any knowledge (apart from what has been made public through the media) of the charges Cardinal Pell faces with regard to child abuse.

For many years the MAS was a Pell-apologist, and the reader will see why below, but in recent times that position has changed somewhat.

Growing up in a Catholic family the MAS lived in St Alipius’ Parish, Ballarat East, from the beginning of his secondary schooling, and acted as an altar server to Father Pell in the early 1970s. At that time there were a number of priests living in the Ballarat East presbytery, and this is one fact often missed in the media coverage of the events that took place there around that time. Fr Pell was very much a junior priest then, despite his imposing physical size and intellect. Monsignor MacMahon was the Parish Priest, and also living there during that time were Fr O’Connell, Fr O’Toole, and Fr Gerald Ridsdale, who most readers of this will recognise as the convicted paedophile priest. For a time, Bishop Mulkearns also lived in that presbytery, as the man he replaced as the Bishop of Ballarat (Bishop O’Collins) was still living in the Bishop’s Palace, which is where Pell went to for a period, when his work departed from parish duties later in the 70s).

There have been a number of public criticisms of Cardinal Pell over the years, and he became seen in the wider community as something of a divisive character, but I shall try to show here how his actions around many of the things for which he is criticised were entirely consistent with Catholic teachings, and need to be seen in that light.

1.     The ‘Rainbow Sash’ affair.

When Archbishop of Melbourne in 1998, and again as Archbishop of Sydney in 2002, Pell refused the sacrament of Eucharist to activists wearing rainbow sashes during Masses. Catholics will recognise the importance of the sacrament, and the reverence and dignity of the Mass, in a way that can be very difficult to understand for those not steeped in Church traditions and ritual. To say the least, to present oneself to receive the Eucharist wearing a rainbow sash was a provocative action, and for those concerned to expect anything different as a response from Pell (or any other orthodox clergyman) would be naïve. The action was designed to cause a scene, and it did, and Pell acted exactly as Church law would expect him to. The Church, under Pope John Paul II at that time, was clear in its position around homosexuality. Pell, as Archbishop, had no choice in what he did. He couldn’t change Church law, and in his position, must be seen to uphold the law.

2.      “Piss Christ”

While Archbishop of Melbourne, a retrospective of American artist Andre Sorrano’s work was held at the National Gallery of Victoria in Melbourne, which included the piece entitled ‘Piss Christ’. As leader of Melbourne’s Catholic community, Pell called for this particular piece to be removed from the exhibition as he claimed it was blasphemous. Again, Christians (as opposed to just Catholics) could well agree with Pell on this one, and again those outside of the Church might not understand how spiritually hurtful blasphemy can be. A very thorough retelling what occurred can be found here, written by Martin Roth. Again, criticism of the Archbishop ignored the fact that he was acting in a manner perfectly consistently with what would be expected of a senior Church leader. It is worth noting that the Anglican Archbishop was also outspoken on this event.

3.      Walking with Ridsdale.

In 1993, Pell accompanied (now convicted paedophile) Gerald Ridsdale to court, where he (Ridsdale) was to face charges of child sexual abuse. Much has been made of Pell being there that day, but again, I believe it was perfectly consistent behaviour, and again, people outside the Church may find it difficult to understand. In brief, Pell was standing by a ‘brother priest’; he was supporting him when nobody else would. This was not excusing, nor was it an endorsement of Ridsdale’s behaviour, nor was it making any comment other than “I will be there with you”. Ridsdale’s crimes are well documented and dreadful. He would have been extremely anxious about what was to happen (and you might well say ‘good!’) and to have a supportive person would have made his trial easier to endure. Remember, he did plead guilty.

4.      The treatment of victims of clerical sexual abuse.

Clearly, from what is on the public record, the Melbourne Response, designed by Pell was inadequate and presented at times in what could be regarded as a bullying manner. Unfortunately, the Church, and Pell, seem to always have been more concerned with the reputation of the Church than with dealing compassionately with victims. For a long time, the protection of priests under accusation was considered a priority.  Kieran Tapsell’s ‘Potiphar’s Wife: The Vatican’s Secret and Child Sexual Abuse’ provides an outstanding and clear discussion of this problem.

At a personal level, I understand Pell’s actions in 1, 2 and 3 above, and as a poor Catholic, am not prepared to criticise him in those situations. But the response to victims of sexual abuse at the hands of clergy has been poor, inappropriate, tediously slow, and sadly lacking in compassion for the real victims.

Within the next few weeks, Cardinal Pell will face extremely serious charges himself, which he has consistently and strongly denied. Despite the fact that he has been responsible for an apparent lack of compassion in the way many people’s complaints have been handled, it must be remembered that, with regard to these charges, he is innocent until proven guilty. The many people who will follow this case closely, for various reasons, would do well to keep in mind that he is on trial only for specific things, and his behaviour in other spheres is entirely irrelevant to this.

I expect he will get a fair trial; I hope the media in Australia treat him fairly and with respect as well.