Cardinal George Pell has made four errors in handling the current s-x abuse controversy. The first three are dumb, the fourth is potentially devastating.
The first error, misjudging his accuser, is surprising for a man in Pell’s position. Victims of abuse often want official recognition of the crimes committed against them. It helps them move on. Every senior charity manager has come up against the single-mindedness of victims.
Pell initially spun a “this matter is closed” response, with an even lamer “I made an honest mistake” rider. It was never going to be seen as an appropriate response by the broader community or by the victim, Anthony Jones.
The second error involved misunderstanding the media appeal of Jones’ story in the lead-up to the Pope’s visit. Again surprising, given that Pell and the Australian Catholic Church can’t have missed the focus on s-x abuse in the church during the papal visit to the USA in April.
As the bard said: “desperate diseases, desperate measures require”. Pell should have ordered immediately a further review of the case by an independent person. This would have at least got the matter out of the current news cycle. Pell should have used the controversy as a platform for tackling the broader issue of s-xual abuse in our society and his church.
The third error is real rookie stuff. Every issue manager (someone who gets you out of perceptual poo) knows that a response must comprehend the full extent of the foul-up, otherwise you get blind-sided by the rolling revelation nightmare (see also Iguanagate).
No sooner had Pell asserted that the offender had told him it was consensual than evidence appeared, miraculously, that flatly contradicted this defence. Often the accuser, or journalist, will hold something back for a little second phase play. Or the heightened public interest will see juicy stuff heading to news desks.
Now the biggie, value alignment. People judge you on your emotional response to issues. It’s easier, and usually more accurate, than trawling through claim and counter-claim. If your values seem out-of-step, you’re stuffed.
Pell revealed a deep misalignment with this summation: “There was a candlelight dinner, they swam together, they were sitting on the bed together,” he said. “It was because of the circumstances as explained that I took that view…”
For the community, the only thing that matters is whether Anthony Jones said yes to s-x. Pell’s explanation, however, sounds like; “hey, she (he) was asking for it”. And using lurid details, like “candlelight”, just made Pell’s response look worse.
Pell now looks like damaged goods; a little too clever with his wordings; lacking in empathy and at odds with modern community values. It will be hard for him to recover the ground he’s lost in the past week.
I f Pell had accepted the results of the investigation process he set up, he would have no problems now. He did not do this. He made his own investigation and over ruled the results of the official church investigation. I feel this tells a lot about Pell. I wonder how many other cases have suffered the same fate.Time will tell as I feel there are some now in the legal pipe line.
.. the catholic church is largely responsible for the spread of HIV…” Please, give me a break! The sexual deviancy of the the homosexual lobby is the prime factor in the spread of HIV and continues to be a nightmare. Christians living the norms of the Gospel and being faithful to their spouse are the bulwark against this modern day form of the bubonic plague.
And condoms as a solution? Condoms as contraceptives have a failure rate of 50%. If you were HIV positive and used a condom to “protect” your spouse you’re literally playing with their life. You abstain or you destroy the lives of many. Of course the apologists for this sexual “revolution” are the same apologists for the butchering of the unborn.
They have so deformed human sexuality that they talk only about SAFE SEX. Staying alive has become the norm for a gift that should be a source of love and life.
JamesK andJohn James: Do you both realize that centuries of po-faced self-righteousness by you and the unctuous John James, together with easily-gypped fellow Catholics, have rendered the word ‘Christian’ to be on a par with ‘child-molestation, cannibalism or scr*wing the dead?
JamesK: Your anti-gay stance is both revolting and revealing. Go and get your head cleaned up before telling other people how to behave and what to believe in. As for Catholics who seek to trivialize Christ, it is sickening. Believe it or not; Christ was NOT a silly man. Yet the Catholic Church has reduced him to being not unlike someone’s mentally defective grandfather. I know it is in the interests of Catholicism to drag everything down to its lowest common denominator-hence the great Australian ‘Chip on the Shoulder Syndrome’. Why don’t you stick to b*ggery? At least that doesn’t reek of condescension. It’s an unpleasant fact that Catholics get more fun out of life defending the indefensible, rather than enjoying life for its multitude of wonders. 🙁 🙁 :(:(
Dave, I’m pleased you remember something of your religous instruction. The term ‘Passion’ has been used long before Mel’s film (which I though magnificent) when referring to the last week of Jesus life How the film could be described as anti semitic, when the heroes and heroines in the film are all Jewish, escapes me. If anyone comes out of the film badly, it is probably the Romans.
Anyway, the Anglicans are a confused lot at the best of times, so I’m not surprised by your faux pas.
Spot on article – his emotional response was just pathetic.