What type of underlying values were revealed by the Australian media, particularly Catholic media, in their reporting of Cardinal Pell’s successful appeal to the High Court? Clearly the case was polarising in Australian cultural life, and has been described in terms of a ‘witch-hunt’, ’scapegoating’, ‘prejudicial’ legally ‘appalling’ and reflecting very poorly on the ABC, Victorian police and aspects of the justice system.
Craig McMurtrie, Editorial Director, defended the ABC’s coverage as legitimate public-interest journalism, quoting Cardinal Pell’s remarks that “You never disbelieve a complaint….the allegations are taken very seriously and examined.” Some anti-ABC Pell supporters concede the value of Louse Milligan’ journalism around sexual abuse issues at St Kevin’s College earlier this year but argue that her investigation of Cardinal Pell was a bridge too far, a ‘witch-hunt’. Louise defended the integrity of her journalism, tweeting that now the ‘appeal’s over, they [victims] desperately want to know what Royal Comm found #Pell knew of awful paedo priest, Ridsdale, who wrecked their childhoods. Had Church acted earlier, their lives radically different.’ Milligan spoke at the Sydney Writers’ Festival in 2017 about her book, Cardinal and conveyed positive memories of a Catholic background with no malice towards the Church. ABC’s Sarah Ferguson’s harrowing interviews in Revelation revealed hard-edged, intrepid journalism.
News Corp commentators such as Andrew Bolt, Gerard Henderson, Janet Albrechtsen, Chris Kenny et al., castigated ABC media coverage of Cardinal Pell referring to injustice, trial-by-media, bias and the need for law reform. Retired ACU Vice-Chancellor, Greg Craven, a friend of George Pell, was particularly scathing, accusing the ABC of ‘polluting’ justice elements around the Cardinal’s Victorian trial.
Andrew Bolt’s Sky interview with Cardinal Pell [14April20] was a prominent media event. Cardinal Pell’ s lack of ‘anger or hostility’ towards the accuser emerged, confirming his initial statement which had been dignified and without rancour. Bolt’s characterisation of Pope Francis as being on the left, a climate change believer and a weak leader might have engendered a stronger repudiation by Pell during the interview, and subsequently in broader Catholic circles, although the Cardinal spoke positively of the Pope’s personal support.
The Jesuit online publication, Eureka Street, provided surprisingly minimal coverage of the High Court judgment. A contributor over the years, Frank Brennan’s article, ‘The Cardinal Pell case highlights the serious need for legal reform’, appeared in The Tablet [7April] and was reproduced with permission in The Catholic Weekly. He wrote an article in The Australian and was also interviewed on Sky News Afternoon. He spoke of three broad responses to the Cardinal: Pell-haters, those who idolise him and the majority of Australians who expect justice from legal cases but in this case constantly witnessed various types of ‘shoddiness.’ Independent articles on this site, Pearls and Irritations, from Jack Waterford, Francis Sullivan, Michael Mullins, and Chris Geraghty attracted ninety-four comments from readers.
Support for the High Court decision was provided by The Catholic Weekly, especially by Archbishop Fisher, Frank Brennan, Matthew Donnellan, and other staff writers who detected “an urgent need to establish inquiries into the Victorian police, the ABC and any other relevant organisation to assess whether they failed to act professionally in investigating and reporting on the allegations against Cardinal Pell.”
Given this brief media snapshot, how does one make sense of it?
The April dates imbue Pell’s HC judgment with Easter symbolism: ‘ours were the sufferings he bore’, scapegoating an obvious theme. At this time Jesus went before Pilate and the Sanhedrin, simply and humbly, to plead his cause, and met with injustice; Cardinal Pell did not personally plead his case but with assistance from private donors, hired a top-class QC and received justice.
This case falls into a broader narrative within the Australian media landscape. The Institute of Public Affairs advocates the privatisation of the ABC and News Corp, especially Gerard Henderson, Andrew Bolt and Chris Kenny, resent its existence. The ABC possesses flaws but it often pleads the cause of refugees, victims of domestic violence, climate change, and more recently the plight of Australian women and children with ISIS links, stranded in north-east Syrian detention camps, with the coronavirus a new source of fear. In a biblical sense, the ABC pleads the cause of the marginalised, the poor, the outsider, the vulnerable, the poor widow. It is the antithesis of News Corp which Malcolm Turnbull has described as a ‘debased’ media culture.
The Royal Commission heard evidence from almost 8,000 witnesses, with many of these victims undeniably encountering injustice through the Catholic Church. Then Bishop Anthony Fisher’s remarks – “dwelling crankily … on old wounds” – in reference to the Foster family, and the rape of their daughters by Melbourne priest, Father O’Donnell, still cries to high heaven. Media reports about collusion of police and Catholic clerics to avoid investigation of sexual abuse are readily available, but where is the outcry and proportionality with the Pell case?
Francis Sullivan’s observation that “the bishops should end their obsession with Pell and take up their moral responsibility to victims” provides a critical perspective for the future Church. The Catholic Weekly, too, could show much more leadership and provide coverage of more reform agendas around the Plenary Council. In 2020 they have provided supportive footage about the Shroud of Turin and the relics of St Therese, promoting an infantile faith in a time when real courage is needed.
In the current edition of The Tablet [30April] Charles Lamb comments on Pope Francis’ warnings against “a punctilious concern for the Church’s liturgy, doctrine, and prestige’. It can take the form of elaborate liturgy focused more on priest than people, the seduction of political ideology dressed up as theology or overcoming opposition from a high-ranking Cardinal resisting the idea of women being included in the Holy Thursday foot-washing ritual.
The political agenda of wealthy, conservative Catholics abroad – whether it be Steve Bannon, The Knights of Columbus, the multibillion-dollar US Catholic organisation – are powerful forces but in Australia, Fox and News Corp have recently provided haven for Cardinal Pell and his supporters. While personally supporting the Cardinal’s acquittal, Andrew Bolt had the temerity to describe Pope Francis as a weak leader. This insidious nexus between political ideology and theology by News Corp is anathema to a Church grounded in faithfulness to the Gospel, sincerity and spirituality. The takeaway is to end the obsession with Cardinal Pell and embrace reform after a dark period.
Peter Donnan is a retiree: he taught in Public and Catholic high schools and worked in two Australian universities.
Now retired, Peter spent forty-three years in education, teaching in NSW State and Catholic high schools for seventeen years. He then worked in academic staff development at two Australian universities – Charles Sturt University [Wagga Wagga] and The University of Canberra. He attends meetings of Concerned Catholics Canberra Goulburn and is particularly interested in how Catholic media can support reform agendas.
Comments
18 responses to “PETER DONNAN. Pell-mell and reform paths in Catholic media”
Personally I was disappointed by the High Court’s decision to find that the charges against Pell were (to use the Scottish concept) ‘not proven’.
I’d been quietly hoping that an unsuccessful appeal would finally illustrate just how horrific the Australian Catholic Church’s behaviours has been.
His dimensional defenders (individual and organisational) share this in common: 1. they are part of a cultural perspective which is defensively on the wane; 2. that that cultural perspective overvalues authority, hierarchy and institutional role playing; and 3. that perspective is both increasingly unreal in our age of individuated social media contributions and accountability and remains promotive of narcissistic, psychopathological and machiavellian personality orientation.
In Catholic language – they have been increasing Hell on Earth.
I am not sure what subjects Peter taught through his long career but if he had taught clear thinking and critical analysis, components across a number of state senior curriculums, he might have given a more evaluative comment on his survey of media releases on Pell Mell. The impression that the writings of Milligan, including her book, is just as valuable contribution as any of other writers which is dubious, the book filled with nearly 300 “ifs” and suppositions and giving credence to extraordinary and bizarre claims of criminal activity by GP. These uncorroborated claims were given plenty of airtime in Ferguson’s Episode 3 of Revelation (the first two episodes were certainly hard to watch let alone interview and those offenders were rightly condemned out of their own mouths; one of headmasters featured known to me personally now in jail for covering up) – but 3, with the laughable spectacle of “Bernie” describing how GP helped him with his constipation (when GP only visited the orphanage only after it closed) was something else, it pretended to be about NEW claims when they had been aired at the committal trial and discarded by the Sano (or should we call them, insano) a fiasco to rank with the Beech fiasco of investigation in England from 2013 to 2018. So a deceitful and defamatory practice designed to influence the HC which righted the wrong 7-0. Last time I looked defamation is still a crime. So, GP’s conviction squashed and presumed innocent of allegations which he wouldn’t and couldn’t have committed. What an absurd allegation that he grabbed the complainant’s privates in a crowded corridor! To gloss over what happened and to move on in the name of church reform (badly needed!) but at the expense of justice, reputation and truth (notwithstanding what GP has said or not done) is not the way to go, I would argue… Nor is uncritical acceptance of what Marr, Milligan, Morris and their ilk have written and said. 45 years of teaching and 13 as Principal of two schools have taught me to carefully check out the “convincing” stories of many students.
Hullo Graeme,
The distinction between a ‘brief media snapshot’ and a comparative analysis/critique of the arguments used by different commentators around the High Court Cardinal Pell acquittal is significant.
About Louise Milligan and the ABC: I believe their journalism was not motivated by malice towards the Catholic Church but was focussed on the perspectives of sexual abuse victims.
You clearly believe that Louise’s journalism is contaminated by hypotheticals, bizarre claims, absurd allegations etc. and that I have glossed over this. Strictly speaking, you can’t conclude whether I agree or disagree with your views about the quality of her journalism. Are you, for instance, able to identify any points in the article where there is a critical or uncritical acceptance of the views of Marr, Milligan, Morris, or indeed any other commentator? As indicated in the first sentence above, there is a distinction between ‘description’ and a ’comparative analysis’.
I agree with Michael Flynn’s view – “Cardinal Pell deserves a rest”.
In this article I was essentially looking through the windscreen at the road ahead, particularly for Catholic media, rather than looking back, through the rear vision mirror.
In response to Peter’s invitation to comment may I offer for reflection :
1. Cardinal Pell deserves a rest. He will select where and what he does next. Others should give attention to the Plenary Council, local parish renewal and their own calling.
2. The Redress Scheme seems to need support. The direct personal response that should be readily available is seldom noticed perhaps because claims might follow. An ABC commentator said CCI declined to pay claims under the scheme. Perhaps pushing claimants to litigate and losing the lower threshold of verification. A just outcome ?
3. The Holy See is responsible for the secrecy of the past and should expect more of the ACBC now. We could expect a new Cardinal when Cardinal Pell is 80. Who ?
Today, 7May20, we read the Royal Commission found: “We are also satisfied that by 1973 Cardinal Pell was not only conscious of child sexual abuse by clergy but that he also had considered measures of avoiding situations which might provoke gossip about it.”
Louise Milligan’s tweet [in the article above] re Ridsdale shows her focus to be less on Cardinal Pell and more on how many victims could have been saved by an earlier, ‘go-hard, go-early’ intervention. It was a leadership failure in the Catholic Church, at the highest levels, where sexual abuse victims’ complaints were not prioritised as highly as protecting institutional interests and priestly perpetrators.
So in my view, the attack upon the ABC was the old ‘shoot the messenger’ strategy. Greg Craven, in particular, might consider publicly apologising for his intemperate attack on the national broadcaster; but for Bolt, Henderson and Kenny etc it is simply a matter of ideology.
The flaws in the police/justice process in Victoria identified by Frank Brennan require follow-up – and Greg Craven, to be fair, did draw attention to this as well.
Reform often means systems changes, changes in culture and practice, and the RC has led this agenda in Australia: it would be hard to argue that Catholic Church leaders drove this change internally and across all Australian churches. A much earlier Melbourne Response, more generously endowed, supported nationally by all Bishops, with a forthright acknowledgment of Catholic Church’s failure, an apology and a genuine call to forgiveness was elusive at the time. Ditto with otter institutions. But going forward, there are still Australian bishops, such as Archbishop Porteous of the Hobart diocese who are apprehensive about ‘the dangers of a creeping clericalisation of the laity.’ The facts are that it has been external bodies, institutions such as the ABC, courageous sexual abuse victims who have spoken out, and other member of the laity who have driven change. I would love to write that Australian Catholic media led the charge. Archbishop Porteous’ ideas – he prefers male altar boys in high school serving at mass rather than girls, did not want Frank Brennan coming to his diocese to speak during the same-sex marriage campaign and still arguing for business-as-usual for the Plenary Council – will drive the Church back to medieval times. The Archbishop is now prioritising evangelisation but even in a secular sense people won’t buy a dud product. Reform remains fundamental.
Well reported, Peter, both originally and in your measured and forward-looking responses here: a line cannot be drawn under the Pell affair without many lessons to be learnt from it by the Cardinal himself, the Catholic chatterati on all sides, the Murdoch media and those in charge of the forthcoming Synodal decision-making process and agenda.
As for Archbishop Porteous, I suppose that anyone conversant with evangelisation shouldn’t be misled by the too-easy association between the ‘other-worldly,’ happy-clappy connotations of conservatism evangelical aspects of Christian renewal and the by now widely known and accepted position in the mainstream Australian Judeo-Christianity that there cannot be an effective focus on evangelisation without a major link with Social Justice.
The key to understanding this is missiology, which is a critical in-depth reflection on the competing claims of various theologies of mission. One cannot, to mix a metaphor, convert a hungry stomach without feeding it first!
Oops, I intended to write ‘conservative’ and to erase the definite article in the last sentence of my penultimate paragraph in my unseemly rush to comment. There’s many a slip…
In one of his numerous articles Frank Brennan says:
“Now the High Court has unanimously decided that the jury got it wrong. The court has ruled that on the evidence presented at trial, no jury could properly be convinced beyond reasonable doubt that these assaults occurred. The highest court in the land has determined that Cardinal Pell is not guilty of these charges.”
Do I have this wrong or did the High Court merely determine that the charges could not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt? It seems to me that this is not the same as finding him innocent of the charges.
As a native Scot, I observe a distinction of its law: a verdict of “Not Proven”.
Distinct from “innocent” and indeed “Not Guilty”.
Thank you Peter.
I think the issue of lack of transparency within the church remains a key issue in church reform.
Associated with this endemic lack of transparency is the conservative role of church controlled media. They regularly play a role in giving undue publicity to conservative views and closing down debate about church reform led by laity because they are too close to and deferential towards episcopal leadership. Freedom of speech within the church should be an issue taken up at the Plenary Council 2020 if we are serious as a church community about renewal.
I hope you keep your file closed, Frank, while the Victoria Police keep theirs open.
Peter ,
I completely agree with your remarks. As a tribal Catholic who spent the better part of two decades teaching in the Catholic education system, with a Masters of Theology towards the end of my career, I believe the Church has to revisit its roots and become a shepherd to the sheep instead of their master. It is too clerical and dogmatic- the very things Jesus during his mission criticized about his own faith.We must always remember Jesus was a devout Jew.I have no legal training so will defer any comment on the Pell case, other to say I have read Louise Milligan’s book as well as other accounts concerning the allegations against Pell during his time as a seminarian and his appointment at Ballarat . I find them to be compelling and illustrative of the ‘clericalist’ culture of the period .Greg I wish to echo your comments.
I agree with Peter that there are far more pressing issues confronting the Church in Australia and globally than the Pell case. The Church is becoming increasingly irrelevant to people as is witnessed by the dwindling attendances at Mass and the serious decline in vocations. Some of the key issues that need to be addressed if the Church is to revive its fortunes include,
• enhancing the role of women in the Church,
• ordination of married men,
• changing its attitude to LGBTI people and issues (instead of denigration,
accepting them as being created by God),
• improving the way it deals with sexual abuse by the clergy,
• reforming the governance structures and processes of the Church, including
greater accountability for bishops and embracing civil models of governance for
some Church agencies,
• reforming the Curia in Rome so that it better reflects the needs of a global rather
than purely European Church.
Thank you, Peter, for this clear exposition. Disputing the past is often used as a cover for inaction in the present. Your concluding remarks regarding the need for bishops to follow Francis Sullivan’s advice to move from Pell and work directly with people who have suffered abuse are particularly apposite. When we read reports from victims expressing appreciation for kindness, care and generosity received from the Church, we will know relevant action is being taken. I have not yet seen any such reports. Other areas also need reform as illustrated by Quentin Dempster’s piece.
Once the High Court determined the matter in Cardinal Pell’s favour, I published an article in The Australian explaining the judgment at https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/love-george-pell-or-loathe-him-we-should-all-be-grateful-that-justice-has-been-delivered/news-story/e75fb62cddb1d9eab49008fffc575198
I gave an interview to SkyNews at
https://www.skynews.com.au/details/_6147968194001
I wrote an article for The Tablet explaining the case and its context to the international Catholic audience: https://www.thetablet.co.uk/features/2/17852/the-cardinal-pell-case-highlights-the-serious-need-for-legal-reform
I wrote an article for the Australian Catholic media on ‘Cardinal Pell and the Victorian Criminal Justice System’ which was reproduced on various sites including:
https://www.catholicweekly.com.au/cardinal-pell-and-the-victorian-criminal-justice-system/
https://www.catholicoutlook.org/cardinal-pell-and-the-victorian-criminal-justice-system/?fbclid=IwAR2uDg_ZFZxU95Igml9cy3xJGVc-lhYsrBCUPfSCLDx127ScNOr1A9hjdlo#disqus_thread
https://www.catholicvoice.org.au/cardinal-pell-and-the-victorian-criminal-justice-system/
I delivered a homily which was placed on the Jesuit province website at https://jesuit.org.au/justice-truth-and-healing/
I wrote a lengthy piece for The Weekend Australian outlining forensically the failures of the Victoria Police and DPP in this prosecution which should never have been brought: https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/lessons-learned-from-george-pells-sad-saga-of-suffering/news-story/35afead1fd8d6adadf3aa8abbb7b8e58
This article is also available at https://www.catholicvoice.org.au/lessons-learned-from-pells-sad-saga-of-suffering/
I then closed my Pell file.
Hullo Frank,
Your publications, interview and homily following the High Court judgment re Cardinal Pell – certainly much more extensive than I conveyed – have been consistent in the serious matters raised: the Victorian police ‘set out to get Pell, and they did’; the need for the Police and the DPP to review their procedures; personal/policy differences at the highest levels in the Victorian police, including serious abuse of process in criminal justice, raising past and ongoing questions about how the Victorian police have conducted themselves; the ‘specious’ submission; legal issues about reasonable doubt; difficulties with evidence arising from a 22 year time-lapse; and, in a very personal sense “needless pain and avoidable harm to the complainant, to Cardinal George Pell and to the community”. You have made a significant national contribution in identifying critical reform agendas to the justice system in Victoria and your final sentence – “I then closed my Pell file” – quite understandably, indicates you wish to move on.
However, I invite you or indeed any reader to respond to any of the issues raised in the article – not that they are new, or can be reduced to simple statements.
* How much credence should be placed on criticisms of the ABC, as voiced by Greg Craven, Gerard Henderson and others?
* Is there cause for concern about the media nexus between political ideology and theology, especially around the increasing role of News Corp/Sky/Bolt etc – especially in the Cardinal Pell case and likely future developments, with the Religious discrimination bill?
* Is the Australian Catholic media, especially at the diocesan level, closed to reform agendas associated with the Plenary Council?
Hullo Aengus
Many thanks for your comments. I would like to have gone into the legal system more but I have no background in that area, still using the term QC instead of SC although ‘top silk’ is a more enduring term. I was struck, however, by Geoffrey Robertson’s view that an earlier Victorian trial should not have been held in secret. Both parties agreed for other legal reasons, I believe, but it’s interesting that ‘reputational damage’ during an inquiry – especially if one is not guilty – is being promoted as an argument to support an ICAC Light.
Well done PD, presenting a balanced critique of media reaction to the George Pell acquittal while displaying a fmailiarity across a widespread coverage of the topic. As Stephen Covey of 7 HABITS repute would say: ‘We think we see the world as it is, We see it as WE ARE’……Opinions expressed are conditioned by the ‘stables’ represented and by undergirding personal paradigms….It was ever thus ?….and remains.