 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. |
Further implications
The vehement disapproval directed at Cardinal George Pell, though apparently highly personal in nature, seems an expression of popular anger toward the Catholic Church in Australia in the aftermath of the extent of child abuse by clergy revealed by the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.
Cardinal Pell's position as archbishop of two major dioceses, Melbourne and Sydney, together with his connections with Ballarat, one of the dioceses where the abuse of children by clergy appears to have been most prevalent, has made the prelate a natural target for community opprobrium.
The Cardinal's claim that he is not responsible for the wrongdoing of other priests has not found a receptive audience. Accusations ranging from obtuseness and insensitivity to probable cover-ups and attempts to limit the financial liability of the Catholic Church in claims for compensation have been made against Cardinal Pell. These have given him a moral and symbolic responsibility in the eyes of many, even if neither he nor the Catholic Church can be held legally responsible.
However, attempts to have Cardinal Pell return to Australia either to appear before the Royal Commission or be questioned by Victoria Police are problematic on a number of fronts.
There have been two classes of witness called before the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. As the Commission's Internet site notes, 'Some people can choose to participate (such as survivors of child sexual abuse) and others are legally required to attend (such as people working in the relevant institutions).' Thus, Cardinal Pell's attendance is required; that of those who have been the victims of abuse is not. However, once Cardinal Pell took up residence in the Vatican City, Australia lost the capacity to compel his attendance at any legal hearing.
Australia has granted the Vatican diplomatic recognition as a separate nation since 1973. It is one of 180 countries to do so. The complication is that while Australia has an extradition treaty with Italy; it does not have one with the Vatican.
Extradition is the process by which a person located outside Australia is handed over by a foreign government for trial or punishment within Australia. Without an extradition treaty with the Vatican, Australian authorities cannot require Cardinal Pell to return for questioning by Victoria Police or to appear before the Royal Commission.
Since his taking up residence in the Vatican, Australian law is no longer effectively binding over Cardinal Pell. Cardinal Pell was simply stating the truth when he claimed that the Senate motion calling on him to return to Australia was a 'political stunt'. It gave the Senate an opportunity to express popular outrage at the extent of child abuse within the Catholic Church while having no power to require Cardinal Pell to heed its request.
The Senate's motion is problematic on another front. It blurs the distinction between the legislative branch of government (the Parliament) and the judiciary (Australian courts). A separation of these two branches of government is a protection against courts being politicised and against the Parliament acquiring excessive power. An independent judiciary is seen as a fundamental guarantee of the just operation of a democracy.
Were Cardinal Pell ever to return to Australia to be tried in relation to the accusations of molestation made against him, the Senate's motion might be seen as an impediment to Cardinal Pell receiving a fair trial. In fact Cardinal Pell might even refuse to return to Australia for such a trial based on the supposition that he would not be tried fairly. This is an unlikely but not impossible development.
It must also be acknowledged that the Senate in making its request is indicating that it does not accept the validity of Cardinal Pell's medical advice that it is not safe for him to return to Australia by plane. Given that both the Royal Commission and the Victoria Police appear to have accepted this advice the Senate should reveal to Australia's citizens the basis on which it has not.
Cardinal Pell is not only under no legal obligation to return to Australia, he is under no legal obligation to respond to the Royal Commission's questions or to those of Victoria Police, either in person or via video link. Without an extradition treaty, there is no penalty that could be imposed on him for non-cooperation.
From the point of view of the Catholic Church's moral standing around the world, it would be very damaging for it to support Cardinal Pell in such a stand. However, it should be noted that the Vatican has not released to the Royal Commission records of the Australian priests whose names were referred to it as having been child abusers, despite the Commission having requested them.