Right: former priest and convicted paedophile Gerard Ridsdale once shared a house with now-Cardinal George Pell. Ridsdale also appeared before the Royal Commission.
Arguments against Cardinal George Pell returning to Australia
1. Cardinal George Pell is too unwell to make the trip from the Vatican to Australia and back In February 2016, Cardinal Pell's physicians judged that the long-haul flight to Australia where he has again been invited to give evidence before the Royal Commission would represent too great a risk to his health. A two-page medical report was handed up to support the application that a flight to Australia from Rome, where Cardinal Pell oversees the Vatican's finances, could pose a serious risk to his health. Access to Cardinal Pell's medical report was provided at the hearing on the undertaking its details were not publicised. When Cardinal Pell had declined to attend the Commission in person in December, 2015, his office in Rome issued a statement stating his heart condition had worsened, making it unsafe for him to travel. The statement from Rome included the observation 'Cardinal Pell realises there may be some who will question his decision to remain in Rome; however, it would be unwise for him not to heed medical advice.' Supporters of Cardinal Pell argue that a man in his seventies cannot be expected to act against his doctors' advice. The same position has been taken by the chair of the Royal Commission. Commission chair, Justice Peter McClellan, indicated on February 8, 2016, that he accepted medical evidence that the 74-year-old Cardinal would be at risk of heart failure if forced to fly to Australia to give evidence. Justice McClellan stated, 'Although people with the conditions that Cardinal Pell has may fly long distances, it is apparent from the medical report that in the case of Cardinal Pell there is a risk to his health if he undertook such travel at the present time. Having regard to the nature of his aliments it could not be expected that his health is likely to improve and remove those risks.' Although the details of Cardinal Pell's medical condition were not released by Justice McClellan it was reported in some media outlets in February 2016 that 'Cardinal Pell was suffering from hypertension, ischemic heart disease complicated by a previous myocardial infarction and cardiac dysfunction related to the hypertension and ischemia.' Supporters of Cardinal Pell have highlighted the unfairness of condemning him for non-attendance when he is too ill to travel the distance. In an opinion piece published in The Herald Sun on February 18, 2016, commentator Andrew Bolt criticises those who abused Cardinal Pell as a 'coward' for giving video evidence, when in fact he is 'too ill to fly from Rome to give evidence'. On February 17, 2016, Andrew Bolt noted the disregard that Pell's critics demonstrated for the risk plane travel posed to the cardinal's health. Bolt noted, 'The Sydney Morning Herald published snide items urging Pell to get on a plane, despite being told by cardiologists that Pell's medical advisers were right it could kill the 74-year-old, given his heart problems.' 2. Cardinal George Pell has co-operated fully with the Royal Commission into child abuse, testifying in person and via video Supporters of George Pell point out that the Cardinal's ill health and inability to give evidence in person before the Royal Commission have not prevented the commission from receiving or examining Pell's evidence. They note that Cardinal Pell has always declared his willingness to co-operate with the Royal Commission. When asked about his readiness to testify before the Royal commission when it was first announced, Cardinal Pell stated, 'like every other Catholic priest or bishop, I comply with the law of the land and will cooperate fully.' When Cardinal Pell was publicly criticised, including within the Tim Minchin song, for not attending the Royal Commission in person in February 2016, the Cardinal's office issued the following statement, 'He has appeared before the Victorian Parliamentary Inquiry and twice before the Royal Commission, including for several days in person at the Royal Commission public hearing in Sydney in 2014. The Cardinal is anxious to present the facts without further delays. It is ultimately a matter for the Royal Commission to determine the precise arrangements for the provision of evidence by the Cardinal in Rome. The Cardinal will continue to co-operate with whatever arrangements the Royal Commission determines, so that he can be heard on the days and at the times recently set by the Commissioner.' At the same time Cardinal Pell was defended by the Archbishop of Melbourne, Dennis Hart, who stated he was 'appalled at the manner in which [Cardinal Pell] had been denigrated publicly'. The Archbishop further stated, 'It must be remembered that the Royal Commission controls this process, that it accepted that the Cardinal could give his evidence in Rome due to his health concerns. At the time that the royal commission was announced, the Church committed itself to full cooperation. I can assure the community that our support for the work of the royal commission will not waver." In the event, Cardinal Pell gave video testimony from Rome over a period of four days in February-March 2016. As Cardinal Pell's supporters have further noted, by giving testimony on three separate occasions (once in person and twice via video link), Cardinal Pell has testified before the Commission more than any other witness apart from the Anglican Archbishop of Brisbane, Phillip Aspinall, who has given evidence four times. Public supporter of Cardinal Pell, Herald Sun commentator Andrew Bolt, has noted the extent of Pell's testimony before the commission. Pell has noted that the Commission has 'asked Pell to give evidence three times in what is now becoming a punishment by process.' 3. Cardinal George Pell has assisted Victoria Police in their inquiries and the Senate's call for his return to Australia is an interference with due process Cardinal Pell has indicated that his inability to fly to Australia because of ill health has not prevented Australian police from investigating accusations of child abuse made against him. On October 27, 2016, the ABC's 7.30 program reported that 'three members of Victoria Police travelled to Rome [in the last week of October] where Cardinal George Pell voluntarily participated in an interview regarding allegations of sexual assault.' The Victoria Police has indicated that it is still looking into the accusations. A Victoria Police spokesperson stated, 'As a result of the interview further investigations are continuing. We are not prepared to comment further at this time.' Cardinal Pell has indicated his willingness to continue to assist the police in their inquiries. Following the announcement of the Victoria Police interview conducted in Rome, Cardinal Pell's office released a statement which said, '[The Cardinal] will continue to cooperate with Victoria Police until the investigation is finalised.' Supporters of Cardinal Pell have indicated that it is not necessary for him to return to Australia for further investigations to take place. Cardinal Pell can either be interviewed by video link or Victoria Police officers can again fly to Rome to question the Cardinal there. On February 7, 2017, it was reported that allegations of criminal misconduct against Cardinal George Pell had been sent to Victoria's Office of Public Prosecutions for a second time. Commentators have noted that sending a second brief to the DPP is significant because it comes after extensive investigations of the first brief. In response to the report that the allegations against him had again been referred to the Office of Public Prosecutions, Cardinal Pell once more stated that he would continue to co-operate with Victoria Police and that he awaited advice from the Office of Public Prosecutions. After the Senate's call for his immediate return to Australia to assist police in their investigations, Cardinal Pell sent a letter to the Senate which stated, 'I am concerned that the Senate's motion appears to have been made on the basis of a significant misunderstanding of my willingness to assist the Victoria Police in their investigations of allegations made against me. The use of parliamentary privilege to attack me on this basis is both extraordinary and unjust.' Cardinal Pell further wrote, 'Given that the investigation is ongoing, any calls from the Senate for my return to Australia can only be perceived as an interference on the part of the Senate in the due process of the Victoria Police investigation.' Cardinal Pell's letter concluded, 'I strongly believe that I should be permitted the same due process as any other Australian in an ongoing investigation, and that the Senate's interference in that regard is extraordinary. I call on the Senate to withdraw its call for me to return to Australia.' Cardinal Pell's concerns have been endorsed by civil liberties lawyer, Terry O'Gorman, who has stated, 'The wording of the Senate motion namely calling on Cardinal Pell to return to Australia to assist Victorian Police and the Office of Public Prosecutions was totally misguided and reflected the total lack of appreciation by those who voted for the Senate motion of the importance of observing the separation of powers doctrine which is fundamental to Australian democracy but also indicates an appalling, and one suspects, a wilful ignorance of the processes of Police investigations and decisions to prosecute by the DPP.' 4. Cardinal George Pell is being unjustly held to account for allegations made against others It has been claimed by both Cardinal Pell and his supporters that the Cardinal is being treated as a scapegoat by campaigners against child abuse who are trying to hold him to account for the crimes of others. Referring to the Senate's concern regarding allegations presented to the Royal Commission of sexual abuses committed by a large number of Australian Catholic priests, Cardinal Pell has stressed that he cannot and should not be held responsible for the behaviour of these men. In a letter the Cardinal wrote to the Senate in response to its call that he return to Australia to assist police enquiries, the Cardinal stated, 'In circumstances where the vast majority of the allegations highlighted in the Motion in fact relate to offences which occurred prior to my appointment as an Archbishop (and in a significant number of instances before I was even ordained as a priest) it is unjust and seriously misleading to link all offences and allegations against Church personnel to me.' In a public statement issued by the Cardinal after the Senate motion was passed, Pell similarly noted, 'The suggestion that Cardinal Pell should be accountable for all the wrongdoings of Church personnel throughout Australia over many decades is not only unjust and completely fanciful but also acts to shield those in the Church who should be called to account for their failures.' Cardinal Pell has repeatedly, in the past, stressed that the Catholic Church, as an institution, cannot be held responsible for the misdeeds of individuals within it. In video evidence Cardinal Pell gave to the Royal Commission in August, 2014, he compared the Catholic Church to a trucking company, suggesting that the Church was no more responsible for the misdeeds of individual priest than the trucking company was for the criminal behaviour of some of its drivers. Cardinal Pell stated, 'If a driver sexually assaulted a passenger they picked up along the way I don't think it appropriate for the ... leadership of that company to be held responsible.' When questioned in 2014 about the Catholic Church's supposedly obstructionist response to an abuse victim's attempt to sue it for damages, Cardinal Pell acknowledged that the Church's response may have been morally inappropriate; however, it was not illegal. Cardinal Pell was referring to what has come to be known as the Ellis response, a precedent which enables the Catholic Church to deny financial responsibility for the wrongdoing of its priests. The Ellis Defence is based on a ruling of the high court of Australia which found that the Catholic Church, as a whole, cannot be held legally (and thus financially) responsible for the actions of its priests who sexually abused children, because it is not incorporated as a single entity and there is no legal requirement for the church to do so. As a bishop and now Cardinal within the Catholic Church of Australia, Cardinal Pell appears to be arguing that he can no more be held responsible for the conduct of individual priests than can the Church as a whole. This, he suggests, is particularly the case for offences committed before he had any leadership role in the Church. 5. Cardinal George Pell is the victim of critics with a prejudice against religion and the Catholic Church Both Cardinal Pell and many of his supporters have argued that the hostility expressed toward him, up to and including the calls for him to return to Australia for questioning, often grows out of prejudice against religion and the Catholic Church. Cardinal Pell issued a statement after the Senate motion was passed, criticising the Greens, the party which put the motion up. The Cardinal's statement declares, 'The Greens would be well aware of the cardinal's decisive actions to address the evils of abuse and the changes he has implemented in the Church over 20 years ago. Their anti-religion agenda is notorious and most fair-minded Australians would see this motion as pathetic point-scoring.' Defenders of Cardinal Pell have similarly claimed that he is the victim of a 'witch-hunt' perpetrated by those who are opposed to Catholicism. Herald Sun commentator, Andrew Bolt, noted in an opinion piece published on February 17, 2017, that the media campaign being conducted against Cardinal Pell would not have been directed against leaders of some other religions. Referring to Channel Ten's 'The Project' which televised Tim Minchin's song ridiculing Cardinal Pell, Andrew Bolt asks of the program's host, Waleed Aly, 'Would you have screened four minutes of unbridled hatred for a Muslim cleric?' Bolt's implication is that the criticism is motivated by hostility directed toward a particular religion. In an opinion piece published in The Daily Telegraph on May 24, 2015, Miranda Devine similarly noted that Pell has been treated as a 'scapegoat' and that he has been subjected in the media to a 'defamatory swamp& [of] character assassination.' Devine suggests that Cardinal Pell has attracted criticism because of his 'abrupt style' rather than because of any misdeeds on his part. |
Found a word you're not familiar with? Double-click that word to bring up a dictionary reference to it. The dictionary page includes an audio sound file with which to actually hear the word said.