Cardinal George Pell (we must resume his proper title now) is out of prison and is seeking asylum with an order of Carmelite nuns in Sydney. But his real protectors are the loyalists who always refused to believe he was guilty, and are now running a fierce campaign for his immediate canonisation.
True, it would be unusual for saints to be proclaimed before their death – unprecedented, even. But there are unprecedented events going on at present, so perhaps it’s worth a go.
Or, if canonisation is too big a stretch, we can always fall back on holy martyrdom, the line taken by the faithful choristers of The Australian, devoting pages each day to explain to its parishioners that their man was the victim of relentless persecution from the police, the Victorian government, the ABC, most of the non-Murdoch media, even many of the gullible public – just about everyone, really.
His Eminence was of course clearly innocent, the target of a monstrous injustice. Except that he wasn’t. The High Court found that he should be acquitted, but there was no suggestion that he was denied fair process – that the system itself had failed. It went just as it is meant to: charge correctly laid, trial held as normal, Judge’s summary impeccable, unanimous jury verdict announced.
Then to the Court of Appeal, where a majority failed to overturn the jury verdict. And so to the High Court, which unanimously agreed that there was a reasonable doubt involved and thus there was a significant possibility of Pell’s innocence – in other words he deserved the benefit of the doubt under the rules and under the overriding principle of the presumption of innocence.
All present and correct – no injustice there, except, perhaps, the obsessive secrecy with which the initial proceedings were cloaked. Tough on Pell, of course – he did nearly 15 months, although hardly in the most onerous conditions. But the system got him out, and so he can be pronounced innocent. He received justice which lesser beings simply cannot afford.
But back in the cloisters of The Australian there was never any doubt, before, during or after. Pell was without fault or sin, he could not have done it simply because – well, because he was George Pell. A prince of the holy Mother Church, third in rank at the Vatican, Australia’s most senor a celebrated Catholic – and all those who doubted were one-eyed bigoted sectarians, totally unlike themselves, impartial observers interested only in the truth..
And not only must he be publicly vindicated – a national apology will only be the first step – he must also be recompensed. Punitive damages are in order, perhaps even on the scale of the donations he received to fund his fantastically expensive legal team. And they maybe needed, with reports of another criminal case in the pipeline and the likelihood of civil litigation from disappointed victims. It is not over yet.
But he will never return to his former prominence; the Pope may well be pleased at his acquittal but asking him back to the fold is another matter altogether. Pell will be tactfully thrust into the shadows as far as possible – which in his case will not be easy.
There will be plenty more fulsome interviews in which to vent his displeasure. Plenty of time to rail about injustice, and gently wreak revenge. An eye for an eye – and forget turning the other cheek.
Mungo MacCallum is a former senior correspondent in the Canberra Press Gallery.
Mungo MacCallum is a veteran political journalist and commentator. His books include Run Johnny Run, Poll Dancing, and Punch and Judy.
mungomccallum@staging-johnmenadue.kinsta.cloud
Comments
31 responses to “MUNGO MACCALLUM. George Pell and the faithful choristers at The Australian.”
MacCallum writes lucidly and hopefully brings to a ‘relative’ close this awful interlude in the history of child abuse and of the deep divisions it has engendered. Teow Loom Ti, in another article commended by John Menadue, observes: “How can an imperfect human mind come up with truths or reality except in a relative sense? Some things are truer than others because there is more empirical evidence from science or mathematics to support it. Even science itself is as good as the next new theory that throws out the existing one. No good scientist will ever tell you that they have the absolute truth.”
Leaving aside for a moment our consternation about the dramatically different conclusions arrived at by two jurisdictions on the Pell affair, one has to ask if the next step forward is to ask why the plethora of child abuse cases brought against the Catholic Church (and, unlike the Pell case) unequivocally proven, means for aspects of its belief systems and in many cases its modus operandi. Granted that, in many instances, child abusers are known to have been themselves appallingly abused in childhood or adolescence, what can this excellent and critically conscience-raising e-journal do to move the discussion on to how this discussion can be advanced?
After all, many who contribute here are known to be Catholic and other Christians as well as secular others of good will, exceptional intelligence and deep and abiding integrity, unreservedly further harnessed to a reputation for impeccable zeal in the pursuit of a reform agenda for a sick society and world. Imagine that! What a head start to ensure that our conversation doesn’t become bogged down in narratives of outrage.
Granted then that some problems may outlive the life span accorded to us to share and shed light on the next steps to reform, where is there the commitment to critique many and varied Church practices that diminish the role of women and which accord a male clerical order all the privileges, and pitfalls I might add, of operating a system dedicated to a man who devastatingly challenged the precisely equivalent shibboleths underpinning the world order of his time?
What’s to stop us from addressing this question, unless we stumble at Nathaniel Hawthorne’s canny reminder about there being no dungeon so dark as one’s own heart and no jailer so inexorable as oneself. Is anybody listening or does some fond illusion mock us?
I find it exceptionally difficult to escape the belief that the High Court’s decision may itself have brought the law into disrepute.
I can barely accept the Court’s assertion that the jury must have been able to entertain a reasonable doubt, given the evidence for the prosecution. OK – on primary logic, perhaps.
What of the context? What of the dimensionality of the arena of the first hearing?
The High Court simply rules on matters of law.
It needs to rule on matters of justice. As our third arm of Government it needs to pay due respect to ‘right brain inputs’. Which its disposition and practice opposes.
This High Court is presently no substantive arm of our Government. It ducks and weaves more elegantly that the fastest cormorant. Politicians – eat your machiavellian hearts out (or, rather, simply just emulate!!)
Mungo he didn’t seek asylum in a Carmelite Convent in Sydney. He was taken directly from Melbourne to the Seminary of the Good Shepherd at Strathfield.
The High Court made no comment on Pell’s innocence or guilt in it’s finding, but it has been interpreted by his supporters that he is innocent of the sexual assault he was tried for! It’s decision was upholding a point, as mentioned by a previous comment.
Why were there 2 secret trials we didn’t know about? Was it was because the defendant was George Pell? Other convicted offenders like Ridsdale, Eagan & many others were tried in open courts!
There have been 24 jurors in 2 trial, 22 found him guilty. A Court of Appeal also found him guilty.
So what is “truth”in this privileged case?
Mr MacCallum, once a respected commentator, your sarcastic piece barely conceals a prejudiced malevolence towards Pell but if the HC had not come down 7-0 (even with some Justices who earlier might not have been seen as in favour of Pell), then every male, including yourself could be at risk of a concocted accusation from a “compelling witness to truth”. Look at the example of Carl Beech in the UK who made fools of the MET and there are several cases here in Austalia that are fiascos in terms of VicPol “investigation”. There is now no confidence in the Sano Task force or those connected with the preposterous allegations about Pell in the Cathedral, e.g Patton, reed and Sheridan. I am grateful to the HC for its decision to restore justice and belief beyond reasonable doubt.
Before I make a comment, I have to confess that I am certainly not a fan of George Pell.
His public persona indicates to me that he has little regard for human rights and social justice – especially his behaviour towards those who were seeking justice because they were abused by clergy, his identification with the right wing in the political arena and his general approach to life.
However, I did would not want him to face imprisonment for a crime he did not complete. Those Australians who want our legal system to be fair should adopt this attitude.
Having noted the attitudes of the right wing in Australia – including in the Catholic Church, the journalists and social commentators at The Australian and other media outlets and elsewhere that Mungo refers to, I am wondering if these people are trying to divert us from the real issue. Surely the main issue in this saga is obtaining justice for the huge number of young people who were violently and sexually abused and to ensure that this ill-treatment does not occur in the future.
My understanding of Christian teaching is that believers are supposed to show care and compassion for those who are poor and those who have been wronged. I have not heard one utterance about this in the tsunami of jubilation from either George Pell or his supporters.
I can only wonder how George Pell got to be in the position of third in line to the Pope when he seems to be so dismissive of the “social gospel” of the founder of Christianity.
And I have to have a parting shot in defence of “Aunty”. Those who try to blame the ABC for its so-called bias against George Pell that led to his imprisonment either did not diligently follow how the ABC presented both sides of the argument or are just using the High Court’s judgement to continue their abusive tirades against the ABC.
Geoff Andrews makes a point on which there has been little comment. Having listened to an awful lot of oral history interviews and read accompanying transcripts when available, I am stunned that a court of appeal could rely on transcripts of any court case, except, as appears to be the case here, that they show an omission of hard questions on opportunity. Being there gave the jury confidence to make their verdict.
Mungo,
Regardless of the High Court’s decision, I agree with you that Pell’s guilt or innocence was not the issue, rather points of law. For me as a Catholic who puts my penny’s worth in each Sunday, the enormous cost of the exercise staggers the imagination. Who ended up paying for this circus? No doubt the civil actions pending will chew up even more the ordinary parishioner’s planned givings as the Church hierarchy continues to defend their patch. I agree after the Churches open at the end of this Pandemic, there will be fewer bums on pews.
Donations from the faithful….. thanks to the Sydney Archdiocese with the specific backing of Archbishop Anthony Fisher.
Ref: Dr Judy Courtin
The Guardian May 9 2018
*He should be so lucky, unlike victims across the board fighting to maintain their dignity.
Allegedly no church money but contributions from supporters, both Catholic and non Catholic.
50 years ago I was a junior boarder at a christian boys school. We lived in terror of some particular men in robes, who even in the hubbub of the dorm at night would corner some poor kid and be pressed up against them while they berated them for whatever. You never looked in case you became a target yourself. And you never questioned these men with godlike power. They were opportunistic and arrogant, and in hindsight some of them psychopathic. They took risks with abandon and used aggression and scorn to quell any discontent. So when I read the robes would be in the way, or 5 minutes isn’t long enough, or the risk was too high, I have to laugh. These ‘reasons’ were irrelevant every day of my five years of hell.
Greg Briggs says:
20 April 2020 at 1:07 PM
……The lesson is juries are not perfect and this particular jury did not seem to consider “beyond reasonable doubt”……..
Since the jury asked the judge about reasonable doubt, quite clearly it is something they did consider. If there is such a thing as reasonable doubt, there must also be unreasonable doubt. A jury is entitled to judge something posed as a doubt to be nothing but a red herring.
——————–
Michael Byrne says:
20 April 2020 at 2:05 PM
……. Such a Cathedral Mass is big “show time”, and like any post-show backstage, it is organised chaos……
From my observations, even after such “big “show time[s]””, cathedrals empty remarkable quickly, as though it gets to a point where there’s a whisper, “OK, go home now” and everyone does. Certainly, “organised chaos” is the direct opposite of the defence’s presentation. Because if it were chaos, organised or not, there would undoubtedly be opportunities to break all sorts of rules from time to time, including boys getting up to mischief and clerics indulging in sexual assault. It would just be a matter of having an eye to grabbing an opportunity when it presented itself.
Not only has George Pell received the benefit of the doubt, courtesy of the High Court, but also the benefit to go on being George Pell – for better or worse, take your pick!!
Followers of this case should ask themselves: why would a man of God, accused of a serious assault on another human, decline to put his hand on the Bible and swear to tell the truth?
Something I too have wondered about.
And why not choose one of the many Catholic silks at his fingertips to represent him?
Seduction by stealth against whom is the question, keeping my opinions to myself.
Michael, you opine, “High Court 7 to nil for justice is a good score.” Sort of begs the question, doesn’t it?
The original score was 12 to nil. I’m sure the original Judge very carefully explained the concept of “reasonable doubt” and its implications and application. If only one member of the jury had have had a strong & unshakeable reasonable doubt and consistently voted as such, the result, as I understand it, would be a retrial.(?) Of course, if there was a majority of the jury (say 7 of the 12!) who had no doubt about Pell’s guilt, they may have been able to badger the minority to agree with them but that would imply that what could be up to five jurors had either compromised their conscience or had sufficient doubt about their first decision as to be persuaded by the majority’s arguments.
If one reads the script of a play or film then sees a performance, there will be subtleties or interpretations in the performance that would have been missed reading the script – even an emphasis on one word can change the whole meaning of a sentence.
I don’t know how much of the video of the original trial the High Court members viewed but if their decision were based on the transcript perhaps THEIR “reasonable doubt” was not reasonable in overturning a correctly conducted trial and an appeal.
Greg Sheridan an insightful person – maybe or maybe not.
Personally I find most if not all of his scribbles for the Australian to be atrocious. There is no evidence of a serious well informed religious consciousness in any of his scribbles, especially those dealing with religious themes.
So too with his book God Is Good Is For You – it is little more than a set of worn out cliches.
Mmmm Greg Craven certainly a well placed advocate receiving a papal knighthood sometime ago for his contribution to the church
Archbishop Fisher said Professor Craven was “an immensely gifted man, a man of faith, a loyal son of Christ; a distinguished exemplar of Vatican II’s teaching about role of Catholic laity in the world”. Catholic Leader December 10 2015
Stephen, Sheridan’s victory lap didn’t take place. It was a last-minute 15-metre sprint out the door before any challenge could be mounted. Like Pontius Pilate, he did not stop for an answer.
At the risk of splitting hairs, I don’t think he has been declared innocent even though the Pope has said so. Not guilty is more accurate. Ita’s editorial control has been restored and episode 3 of Revelation has been returned to iView.
Thank you Mungo for exhibiting the angst of the Lefty Luvvie set. Those who, in full anticipation, danced around Pell’s open grave prepared so neatly by the Victorian Government, its Police Administration and of course, the comrades at the ABC.
It is simply not the case that “loyalists .. always refused to believe he was guilty”. The original scenario was laid out in the police interviews in Rome. Such a Cathedral Mass is big “show time”, and like any post-show backstage, it is organised chaos. The accusations of such impulsive, immediate acts in situ were highly improbable. As such there was an expectation of justice to be served in a strong defence with “beyond doubt” playing front-row.
High Court 7 to nil for justice is a good score.
As you say, “organised chaos”, but luckily for Pell his bestie was able to keep tabs on Pell in all that chaos. I personally believe the evidence of the victim.
I’m not sure whether it had anything to do with Rupert’s late conversion to Catholicism. And of course The Australian’s journalists usually sing in unison from the same hymn sheet, with possibly the occasional descant harmony. They don’t need to be trained or even conducted; it is a natural talent.
I like Greg Sheridan personally, and often admire his insight. But not this time. Mungo is right: Pell had advantages given to extremely few in getting to the High Court, who acquitted him. Justice was done – no one wants a man in jail who may be innocent. But there are still a lot of questions. Let’s hope that answers can still emerge.
Barney how lovely to see a contribution by you…..not that you would remember me.
Murdoch’s late conversion made him a favourite son gaining him a papal knighthood too……for donating millions towards a new cathedral in Los Angeles, the largest single gift received.
I wonder what his reaction was when years later, prince of the church at the time Cardinal Mahoney was stood down in disgrace for “alleged ” failure to protect young people from sexually abusing priests…
National Catholic Reporter.
Feb. 1 2013
The indomitable Barney Schwartz… ……..https://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/cardinal-apologises-for-describing-jews-as-intellectually-inferior-20120412-1wwng.html
Barney, didn’t Pell get to appeal to the HC because the HC allowed the appeal not because of the “best lawyers”? Br John Tyrrell’s conviction also squashed by HC because of the absurdity of allegations made against him when he wasn’t even at the college/orphanage in Geelong. No flash lawyers in his case. Also for Pell, absurd accusations and improbable circumstances which the HC could see through easily. Lucky we have a HC to reverse a fiasco of a supposed legal process because every male would be imperilled by “compelling” witness for truth. Carl Beech in UK went from “credible witness” in accusing 1970s MPs in 2014 to “prolific and manipulative liar”, a paedophile himself and 18 year in jail for fraud and perverting the course of justice. “I see you. I hear you, I believe you.” Sure… Wake up to your prejudice.
Mr MacCallum, you sound very bitter and are dosed up with sarcasm. I suggest that you read the articles in The Australian more closely without a jaundiced eye and see that the case against Pell was flawed. The Victorian Police and DPP underperformed. The lesson is juries are not perfect and this particular jury did not seem to consider “beyond reasonable doubt”. The High Court agreed with the most experienced Appeals Court Judge Weinberg, who said the conviction was wrong. Case ended.
It is not news that proving historical abuse claims to the standard required by the criminal law is never easy when witnesses are scarce. And when an alleged victim has fatally destroyed their own young lives, it does not get any easier. So does that mean such cases should not be brought to the attention of the courts especially when the privileged are involved? We have been letting the problem rip for decades while those responsible for preventing it have conspired to fail in their duties. The cost is now evident.
How did the Victorian Police and DPP “underperform”? Are they expected to guarantee convictions that will survive High Court scrutiny every time?
Judge Weinburg’s case was based on *the only direct evidence against Pell was the testimony of one complainant. Whether he was a credible witness or not wasn’t the point, in Pell’s world where he has a foot in both secular and biblical worlds when it suits, the old testament [and Torah ] there needs to be two credible witnesses.
Deutromony 19:15
This technical law was further upheld in his High Court appeal.
There for all to read……… through no fault of their own most Catholics wouldn’t know of it
Silks?
I’m not so sure, if they do, may probably avoid it as in this case, not one called upon to represent him.
# Only those of the Opus Dei & Neocatechumenal Way and their ilk will take pleasure in this miscarriage of true justice for his victims, both personal and on behalf of those for whom he covered up, especially the likes of Gerard Ridsdale.
# The Ballarat Diocese is now in ferment.
# Expect to see a Popular Uprising against this verdict sufficient to get the High Court to reconvene and reverse this decision, after the shock of it has worn off.
# The likes of Popes Pius IX to Pius XII, John Paul II and Benedict XVI must be cheering in their graves. However, after this COVID thing has passed, and Mass gatherings can resume, expect a substantial reduction in both Mass attendance and Parish Plate contributions from mainly White-Anglos in revolt against these Popes & their Episcopal proteges heading up many Dioceses in Australia.
# One day, and hopefully in her lifetime, Louise Milligan will be elevated to the sainthood (Sancta Subito), just like Oscar Romero and St Mary McKillop of the Cross. And Pell will be retrospectively and possibly posthumously stripped of the dignity of the clerical state and excommunicated like Pope Vigilus.
.
And what will be her “speciality”? The Patron Saint of the victims of Child Sex Abuse, and the Exposer of their perpetrators, and the Exposer of those who covered up such crimes.
What better proof that god doesn’t exist, than the startling manifestation of Greg Sheridan, to do a victory lap on ABC The Insiders.
Courtesy the better class of legal reporters, now I understand how the High Court sliced and diced the complainant’s “5-6 minutes” into an exit route for Pell.
Stephen, where was the mythical “5-6 minutes”???