George Pell’s Legacy

It has become common for the Church’s modern detractors in Australia to assign to Cardinal Pell unscrupulous motivations, or even to accuse him of a lack of empathy. Unfortunately, there was little in Pell’s testimony to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse to persuade them otherwise. But it seems royal_commissionto me that what has emerged over the course of the public hearings into the Catholic Church’s dealings with John Ellis is far more disturbing.

John Ellis is a formerly devout Catholic lawyer who had been sexually abused as a child by Father Aidan Duggan between 1974 and 1979. Like many hundreds of other survivors, John Ellis came forward in 2002 in the wake of a rolling series of reports of clerical sexual abuse and episcopal mismanagement that emerged from places such as Boston, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, Louisville. In June of that year, Ellis presented himself to the Church’s Towards Healing process, seeking help with the “emotional and spiritual dilemmas” he was facing. The personally devastating and morally reprehensible series of events that followed had less to do with flaws inherent to Towards Healing itself than it did with failures in implementation (especially on the part of John Davoren, then director of the Professional Standards Office, Monsignor Brian Rayner, then Chancellor of the Archdiocese of Sydney, and finally Cardinal Pell), unacceptably long delays, episcopal inconsistency and, whether intentionally or not, a cold disregard for the stated needs of John Ellis himself.

John Ellis had the right to expect that the Church would comport itself compassionately, Ellispenitently and according to the canons of divine justice – a justice brimming with self-sacrifice, a preparedness “to ‘lose oneself’ for the sake of the other instead of exploiting him, and to ‘serve him’ instead of oppressing him for one’s own advantage,” as Pope John Paul II put it in his 1987 encyclical Sollicitudo Rei Socialis. What John Ellis confronted was a Church intent on pursuing its legal defence as though there was no divine judge.

These pastoral failures would see Ellis’s claims of abuse successively dismissed by Davoren in December 2002. Ellis was informed in a letter signed by Cardinal Pell, which he received on Christmas Eve, no less. Then, after a proper assessment had been conducted in November 2003, his claim was upheld, only to be minimised in the course of a snail paced facilitation that took place between May and July 2004. Ellis recounted to the commission that the reason given by the facilitator, Raymond Brazil, for the meagre amount of the ex gratia payments proposed by the Archdiocesan authorities was “they only look at the seriousness of the conduct and not on how you are affected … they don’t consider your abuse to be that serious.” Finally, when the matter proceeded to litigation in August 2004, it was disputed by the Archdiocese.

That John Ellis’s complaint did proceed to the Supreme Court of New South Wales was precipitated, in large part, by the insertion of patently inappropriate quasi-legal elements into the pastoral process itself, in the form of a deed of release which would indemnifying the Archbishop and Trustees of the Archdiocese against further claims. This effectively forced Ellis, more out of desperation than malice, into civil litigation; although, even then, Ellis repeatedly made overtures to the Archdiocese expressing his desire to settle the matter through mediation. By this stage, however, a certain prejudice had hardened in the minds of Monsignor Rayner and Cardinal Pell, among others, that John Ellis (in Pell’s own words) was “a brilliant lawyer” who would not have opted for “this path [of litigation]” unless he was after “serious money.”

It is at this point that what can charitably be described as the Church’s abject failure compassionately and consistently to implement an otherwise sound process descended into an outright denial of the Church’s very principle. In order to “preserve the patrimony of the Church” and “protect the role of the Trustees in particular,” Cardinal Pell endorsed an aggressive legal strategy that would dispute John Ellis’s claims of abuse, defend against any extension of the statute of limitations or suggestion of vicarious liability on the part of the Archdiocesan Trustees, resist “excessive damages” and deny Ellis himself access to a spiritual advisor. Throughout the course of the litigation and subsequent appeal, Cardinal Pell insists that the “defense was not conducted improperly in a legal sense” but that its express intention was to “discourage Mr Ellis and others like him” from pursuing litigation – to make, in other words, an example of John Ellis.

That Cardinal Pell did so on the advice of Church lawyers is, finally, no defense at all. In the words of George Weigel, a Roman Catholic theologian and one of America’s leading commentators on religion and public life put it, “A bishop whose lawyers advise him notGeorge to meet with a victim of sexual abuse or with the victim’s family because of possible legal implications needs different lawyers – lawyers who understand what a bishop is, and who have the legal wit and skill to make sure that when the bishop exercises genuine pastoral care and responsibility, he does not end up compromising his legal position or his diocese’s. A bishop who truly believes that he is what the Catholic Church teaches he is – a successor of the apostles who makes present in the Church today the living headship of Christ the Good Shepherd – does not behave like a corporate executive managing a crisis in which he has little personal involvement beyond the protection of his own position.”

In the wake of the mismanagement of this criminal behavior, I believe Patrick Parkinson is correct in stating that, “in Australia at least, it may be that the crisis of confidence and trust will not pass until the present generation of leaders, who are tainted by their handling of matters earlier in their careers, have passed the baton on to a younger generation.”

This blog entry is based on an article that appeared in the ABC’s Religion and Ethics section entitled, “The Religion of the Humble? Cardinal Pell and the Peril of Institutional Atheism,” by Scott Stephens.

Advertisements

About Passionist JPIC Australia

I am a priest with the Passionist Congregation and a part of our Australian Province which includes Australia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea and Vietnam. I have been ordained since December of 1992. I was born in the Philippines, though am from Spanish decent. I came to Australia in 1972 with my family when I was 11 years old, and we settled in Brisbane. That is where I did the rest of my growing up. On completing high school, I went to Queensland University where I studied for 4 years, completing a B.Sc. with a major in Microbiology. The following year I decided to enter into the Passionist Congregation to study for the priesthood. I trained for 9 years, and have been a priest for 25 years. In my time as a priest I have been Director of the Passionist Family Group Movement in Victoria, Tasmania and Queensland; conducted over 400 Parish Missions all around Australia and New Zealand, but particularly in Victoria and Western Australia; worked in adult faith education, Sacramental preparation for children and parents; Hospital chaplaincy; High school chaplaincy, in-services and retreats. In the year 200 I became engaged in developing young adult retreat teams and training them to carry on our high school retreat programs. I am also chair of our Province’s committee for Justice, Peace and the Integrity of Creation (JPIC). I am also a member of ACRATH (Australian Catholic Religious Against Trafficking in Humans).
This entry was posted in Justice and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to George Pell’s Legacy

  1. Agnes from Melbourne says:

    Dear Father C.P, I found your blog quite by accident and was very keen on your opinion on the matter you raised. If only our whole church – Church – was to approach this blight, this calamity, this pus suppurating constantly with an air of open contrition and humility…maybe we would get somewhere. Painfully, I also add to this mention of sin another feet which, in my opinion, has not been treated fairly either, that is the abuse – regardless of form, and including specifically the sexual kind – of Priests, Brothers and Sisters. I understand few wish to come forward – in a secular sense – to be ‘counted’, (for all sorts of reasons – a desire to bury the pain and undeserved shame, a fear of what one’s Superior may say/do, anxiety at the thought of judgment from the ‘Church’ being labelled a ‘troublemaker’….funny, this list includes lots of fears laypeople have felt when considering coming forward…)…but…I urge all to remember the following:

    1. that not all Priests, Brothers and Sisters are abusers
    2. That most vowed are deeply horrified at the heartbreaking rape of the soul, spirit and body which others have experienced
    3. That there are Brothers, Sisters and Priests THEMSELVES who have been abused, and often stay quiet, partly because of fear, partly other reasons (in at least one case, the Brother/Priest/Sister I spoke to did not want to come forward because they, according to them, ‘did not want to detract from the lay people suffering’)….just because we don’t hear about it doesn’t mean it isn’t/hasn’t happened
    4. And finally, as a psychology and social sciences trained person, I urge you to remember that most of the time, the abusers did not develop the ‘urge’ or ‘inclination’ to abuse ‘because of’ religious life….instead, the truth is that these people were abusers and paedophiles BEFORE they swore themselves to religious life. Religious life, to these craven individuals, was in their mind me of the options to ensure a steady stream of victims.

    THEY WERE ABUSERS AND PAEDOPHILES BEFORE THEY BECAME PRIESTS/SISTERS/BROTHERS.

    My apologies for any clumsy phrasing – please believe (both the blog author and to anyone who happens to read my comment) I mean no disrespect nor unkindness…it is often difficult to find the vocabulary to express my thoughts on such a painful subject for many.

    To any who have been burned by the abuse I urge you to divorce your concept of God from the evil you have been forced to endure. I urge you to keep an open window to the belief in peoplekind. Moreover, I urge you to survive…God loves you more than the strongest love you’ve ever felt, even if it is hard to feel and believe it today. The truth will win over the lies and stonewalling. And, perhaps selfishly, I wish you to believe that not all Catholics are like ‘that’…there are so many of us who care…who love unconditionally….who would take on your pain in your place if it were only possible.

    *ducks head under shoulder* I’m not a ‘good’ Catholic, I miss Mass, I swear…I even smoke cigarettes! But my heart hurts for all of you, yet I have such a strong belief that you will triumph. Love yourself a little…even a fraction of how much God loves you and you will feel a bit of the reward waiting for you once this life journey is over.

    Peace.

    • Passionist JPIC Australia says:

      Thank you, Agnes, for your comment and for taking the time to read my blog article. Your comment is thoughtful and sensitive and adds to the concerns raised in my article. I have certainly met religious who have experienced abuse and have continued to serve the people as religious. I hope that their orders, as with mine, have in place the support structures that enable them to give voice to the crimes perpetrated on them without fear of recrimination. Thanks again for raising this issue on my blog.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s