George Pell and His Antagonists

I believe that, of all believers in the world, Christians are the most persecuted. The late anti-communist activist B.A. Santamaria, who along with Cardinal Pell had a role in establishing Aid to the Church in Need here in Australia, was wont to say that anti-Catholicism was the anti-Semitism of the intelligentsia. I understand that the saying is attributed to the American historian and poet Peter Viereck. He made the comment around 1960 when John F. Kennedy, a Catholic, was running to become president of the United States, against the Republican Richard Nixon. As we know, Kennedy won, narrowly.

Viereck’s words are not so relevant today, since many intellectuals are into both anti-Catholic sectarianism and anti-Semitism. Indeed, anti-Semitism is rife in large parts of the world, including Australia.

The driver of anti-Semitism in Western nations can be found in the universities and the intellectuals and students who inhabit the campuses, as well as among some Islamist groups and the Green Left. Moreover, what was anti-Catholic sectarianism has grown into members of the extreme Left sneering at Christianity in general, including Catholicism.

As I documented in my book Cardinal Pell, the Media Pile-On & Collective Guilt (Connor Court), Australia’s most influential prelate was targeted by his opponents—not so much because he was Catholic, but on account of the fact that he was a highly intelligent and influential conservative Catholic.

A decade ago, George Pell was perhaps the best-known Christian—and Richard Dawkins perhaps the best-known atheist—in the English-speaking world. They debated each other on the ABC’s Q+A program on April 9, 2012, before a live audience. The topic was “Religion and Atheism” and it is fair to say that both men held their own during the debate. It’s also fair to say that Dawkins performed as an equal-opportunity atheist—dismissive of all religions. Cardinal Pell died in January 2023 with his faith intact in what he referred to in his book Be Not Afraid as the “Four Catholic Foundations”.

This year, Dawkins spoke to Rachel S. Johnson on the Leading Britain’s Conversation radio program. He criticised the decision of the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, to turn on 30,000 lights for the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, but not for the Christian holy week of Easter. Dawkins told Johnson that he was a “cultural Christian”—although he does not believe a single word of the Christian faith. He added that it seemed to him that Christianity is a “fundamentally decent religion” and said that it would be “truly dreadful” if Christianity in Britain was “substituted by any alternative religion”. He also declared that he would not be happy “if we lost all our cathedrals and our beautiful parish churches”.

This is dramatically different from what Dawkins wrote in his 2006 book The God Delusion, where he ridiculed Christianity. Who knows: perhaps George Pell the conservative Christian believer had an influence on the atheist who now identifies as a “cultural Christian”.

Paul Collins (the one-time Catholic priest and, later, ABC broadcaster), who was not a member of the George Pell fan club, had this to say on December 12, 2017, at the winding-up of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, headed by Peter McClellan KC:

I don’t think the [Royal] Commission was an unequivocal blessing … I still feel that the Commission focused unduly on Catholicism and that it can’t be entirely absolved of unconscious elements of anti-Catholicism that has been the default position of Anglo-Australian culture since the 19th Century.

The Royal Commission, which was established in late 2012 by Julia Gillard’s Labor government, with the support of the Coalition under Tony Abbott’s leadership, had very wide terms of reference to examine the responses of all institutions—governmental, secular and religious—to historical cases of child sexual abuse. It cost some $342 million and ran for five years, with around 300 employees at any given time. It did some good work. However, it erred significantly by focusing on religious institutions, in particular those run by the Catholic and Anglican churches.

Also, the commission targeted the high-profile conservative Catholic George Pell. It brought down four reports of specific reference to Pell. It also had access to his appearance at the 2012 Victorian Parliamentary Inquiry into the Handling of Child Abuse by Religious and Other Non-Government Organisations. Moreover, at the commission’s request, Cardinal Pell gave evidence on three occasions—once in Sydney and twice in Rome—amounting to some thirty-six hours, not counting his appearance before the Victorian Parliamentary Inquiry.

As Professor Greg Craven wrote in 2017: “The rule is that if an inquiry gives the impression it is about one subject, the public will take it at its word.” McClellan’s focus on Cardinal Pell and Christian churches created the impression that there were few, if any, instances of paedophilia in secular and government institutions.

In the end, the Royal Commission made hostile findings with respect to George Pell’s response to child sexual abuse—yet it cited no independent witness or documentary evidence to support its findings.

Instead, the commission found that Pell’s account was, variously “inconceivable”, “implausible”, “not tenable”, “unlikely” and so on—and that he “should” or “could” have done something or other. These were opinions only, unsupported by evidence. Moreover, such word usage is weaponised when it cannot be established that an allegation is plausible or even likely.

The Royal Commission’s findings with respect to Cardinal Pell contained serious contradictions and factual errors. I provide a couple of examples in my book concerning Pell’s time as a priest in the Ballarat diocese.

McClellan and his colleagues found that Fr Pell and Fr Madden were both told by Bishop Ronald Mulkearns at a meeting in 1977 that Gerald Ridsdale was a paedophile priest. But, earlier in the report, it was found that Madden did not learn about Ridsdale’s criminality until 1988. So he and Pell could not have been told this at a meeting in 1977. Moreover, the Royal Commission found that Fr Pell and Fr McInerney were both told by Bishop Mulkearns at a meeting in 1982 that Ridsdale was a paedophile. But, earlier, the commission found that McInerney did not learn about Ridsdale’s offending until 1993. So he and Pell could not have been told this at a meeting in 1982. Yet Pell was condemned by the commission for not acting on this alleged knowledge in 1977 and 1982 respectively.

McClellan and his hundreds of staff failed to recognise the glaring contradictions in the commission’s findings concerning what Pell was told by Bishop Mulkearns. If such contradictory findings had been in a court decision, an appeal against the judgment would almost certainly have been successful. If they had appeared in a first-year university law essay, the student would at least have been required to undertake a re-write.

Perhaps the most serious oversight of the Royal Commission turned on its failure to examine the responses of state government schools to historical child sexual abuse. The commission conducted fifty-seven case studies—but not one covered an existing government school anywhere in Australia. This was a grievous error of omission, especially since it was empowered to look into all institutions, governmental, secular and religious.

Due to the commission’s failure in this instance, the governments of Tasmania and Victoria recently set up boards of inquiry into child sexual abuse in government schools. And there is the police investigation into government schools on Sydney’s Northern Beaches. The evidence suggests that there were many paedophile teachers in government educational institutions in Australia; many have been sentenced to long prison terms.

As I document in my book, the Royal Commission was told about instances of paedophilia in government schools but took no action. It did not even ask any state Education Department as to whether it held records covering child sexual abuse.

No one attached to the Royal Commission has criticised anything I wrote in my book. Like the ABC which, led by journalist Louise Milligan, initiated the media pile-on against the Cardinal, the Royal Commission and its supporters have just ignored criticism.

It is true that McClellan wrote to the Australian in response to one of my columns stating that the Royal Commission did “examine three NSW public schools in a case study”. What he did not say was that this examination took up three pages of a 200-page report and only covered sexual abuse of students by other students.

The case study did not look at adult offenders in government schools—principals, teachers, sports coaches and the like.

The evidence suggests that Peter McClellan is pursuing George Pell beyond his death. The former royal commissioner wrote a foreword to a book titled Still Standing which was published in May 2023, not long after the Cardinal died. In it he claimed that Pell gave evidence to the Royal Commission to the effect that he saw the rape of a child as a moral failure, not a crime. This statement is simply false. Cardinal Pell made a written submission to the Royal Commission in which he stated that he regarded clerical paedophilia as “a crime”. He also said this when giving evidence at the Royal Commission in McClellan’s presence. Cardinal Pell did not qualify in any sense his statement that child sexual abuse is a crime. All this is documented in my book. I have written to Mr McClellan about his error, by email and post. He has not responded.

Leading media players in the Pell pile-on have indicated that they do not accept the judgment of seven out of seven High Court judges in April 2020, in a single decision. Milligan and other Pell antagonists maintain their attitude of denial, in spite of the devastating dissent of Judge Mark Weinberg KC in the Victorian Court of Appeal and the very clear unanimous judgment of the High Court. The fact is that Kerri Judd, the Victorian Director of Public Prosecutions, could not explain the prosecution’s case to the High Court. Likewise Milligan has never explained how the crimes could have taken place immediately after a Solemn High Mass in a crowded St Patrick’s Cathedral on a Sunday morning.

Professor Jeremy Gans, of the Melbourne Law School, said this of Milligan’s journalism in a post on January 14, 2023: “It’s a recurrent problem with Milligan’s journalism. If there are facts that don’t help her argument, she doesn’t tell her readers. She just leaves them out.” Also, Milligan and other Pell antagonists have ignored the devastating criticism of the Victorian legal system by the likes of former Victorian Crown Prosecutor Gavin Silbert KC with respect to the Pell case, the Lawyer X case and other matters.

The continuing members of the Pell pile-on focus on the Royal Commission, and benefit from the fact that many people regard royal commissions as having the authority of a court. This is not the case. That’s why it is important that all who recognise the unfair attack on George Pell are aware of the Royal Commission’s errors and failings.

My last personal discussion with George Pell took place in north-west Sydney on June 19, 2022, at a small conference of Catholic priests. He gave the first talk and I delivered the second.

In the discussion period, I was asked a direct question, and gave a direct answer. One of the priests wanted to know what I thought about the Cardinal’s 405-day incarceration for crimes which he did not commit. My reply was along these lines: “Well, I wouldn’t want to serve 405 days in effective solitary confinement when I knew I was innocent. Prison is harsh enough for the guilty, let alone the innocent. However, I believe it was for the best that he suffered in this way. For, without an emphatic quashing of the convictions by all seven High Court judges in a single judgment, Cardinal Pell would never have been able to claim full vindication.”

The point here is that, as Justice Mark Weinberg said in his Victorian Court of Appeal dissent, juries do not have to give reasons for decisions, but judges do. Moreover, since the media was not allowed to report the Pell trial, virtually no one knew the nature of the charges he faced.

It was only when details of the case against Pell by Victoria Police and the Victorian Director of Public Prosecutions were fully revealed during Pell’s two appeals that it became abundantly evident that he had been wrongly convicted and that he should never even have been charged, so weak was the evidence. The Cardinal’s innocence is evident in the detailed reasons provided by Justice Weinberg in the Victorian Court of Appeal and by all seven judges of the High Court of Australia. Put simply, Pell could not have been at the scene of the crimes—and nor could have his alleged victims. But he needed all seven members of the High Court to accept this view in order to have the required impact.

After the morning session of the conference, I was allocated a seat at the luncheon table next to the Cardinal. Early on, there was a conversation, which went something like this:

G.H. George, I hope you didn’t mind what I said at the talk about the “upside” of you serving over a year in prison. But I was asked a question, and I gave my honest opinion.

G.P. No, Gerard. It didn’t bother me at all. Indeed, I have been thinking much the same recently. What’s more, if I had never served time, I would not have written my Prison Journal, and I’m very glad I did that.

George Pell v The Queen will live on as one of the highest-profile cases in the history of Australian criminal law. And the Cardinal’s three-volume Prison Journal is destined to become a classic account of a Christian who experienced grave injustices but performed as a good Christian should—offering up his suffering to God and expressing no bitterness towards his opponents.

George Cardinal Pell will be remembered at home and abroad, when his antagonists are long forgotten.

This is an edited version of the second annual George Cardinal Pell Memorial Lecture, which Gerard Henderson delivered in Sydney on May 18.