Trish Nielsen writes: A sin of omission is still a sin. George Pell was a very good regional CEO for the Catholic Church Inc. But a Christian? I think not (“For George Pell, the church was nothing if not a bastion of conservatism”).
John William Dare writes: I have always thought that people who cover up crimes, particularly the abuse of children, in the mistaken belief that it was somehow justified behaviour to protect their organisation’s reputation, were more culpable than the perpetrators — who at least had their sickness as an excuse. This behaviour further enables the crimes, and the organisations they claim to protect suffer untold damage eventually because of the cover-up and denial. Given his own statements and the evidence and conclusions of the royal commission (which Pell always disputed), calling Pell a martyr or a saint is just another act of self-serving denial.
Ailie Bruins writes: No mention in Crikey about Pell the climate-change denier. The royal commission found it hard to believe much of his testimony. Considering his reportedly formidable intellect, was he also being less than truthful when he refused to understand the science of human-induced climate change? A cardinal sin in my opinion.
Libby Mitchell writes: I can only hope that Pell might rot in the hell that his religion created. I know people who were abused by Catholic priests, and everyone (or their families) should be amply compensated now. To ignore that responsibility is a disgrace. If that runs Pell’s repugnant church into the ground, so be it. The state governments can hopefully buy resources, e.g. unused school buildings, at fire-sale prices and take over welfare and education to prevent child abuse from recurring.
If the Catholic Church does survive (as I have no doubt it will), celibacy for the priesthood should be outlawed.
Michael Byrne writes: The Latin root meaning of (lower case) catholic is “universal”, having sympathies with all; broad-minded.
As a baby boomer I can testify that our 1950s childhoods saw us experience US television “family niceness”, “cowboy goodies and baddies” — but no sex. Our sole reliance for knowledge of it was responsible parents who could talk of it and locate it to be best in marriage. That was the world where the then Father Pell began his priesthood: with the Irish prudery at large in the Catholic Church and not talking of “sex” being a safety measure for the young. The perverted priests were engaged in the new era, and the knowledge of their activity was no longer retained at the victim level. Scandal rose its head and was avoided but only to rise on a wave of truth later.
Pell did his utmost, and erred. He was an institutional man; if it is legal, do it, when it came to dealing with victims, real or otherwise. The initial absence of charity for their concern puts him in a bad light, but far from the darkness and the perversion of the law in Victoria that dumped on him. He paid his earthly price for his early errors and his misplaced concern for his church.
David Wright writes: I find the man abhorrent. I find his church just as abhorrent. I would love to see the whole institution wound up and all property sold to compensate the victims of the priests, the brothers and the lay teachers who destroyed the lives of those who were supposed to be in their care. I have a friend who was abused at a Marist Brothers school, a friend who now works tirelessly with the survivors and the parents of those who took their own lives because they could not live with the memory of what was done to them.
I believe that hell is an invention of the church with which to threaten the recalcitrant laity, but if it did exist I would happily see these predators, these ogres, condemned to its eternal flames. Suffer the little children to come unto me? Rubbish! Little children come unto me and suffer.
Karina Simons writes: Pell should not be honoured in any way, shape or form. The church should defrock him posthumously and denounce his actions. He got away with being an ignorant, unholy man.
Richard Ryan writes: Silence was the tactic used by the Catholic Church over child sexual abuse. Pell saying he was not aware of priests and brothers sexually abusing children is like a prostitute saying she is a virgin. It’s the old story: laws are always useful for those who have power but are harmful to their victims. Silence gives consent where Pell was concerned.
D. McLean writes: Your article “There are enough facts to judge George Pell on what he was — and what he was not” contains an inaccuracy that I believe in fairness to your readers should be corrected. Michael Bradley wrote: “In 1974, the commission found, Pell was approached by a victim of another paedophile priest, Edward Dowlan. Pell’s response was to say ‘Don’t be ridiculous’ and walk away. Pell conceded that he took no action.” But Edward Dowlan was not a Catholic priest. He was a Christian Brother, a religious cleric with the title “Brother”. I went to the same school as Dowlan at St Leo’s College, Box Hill, Victoria. Dowlan was never a priest.
If you’re pleased, peed off or piqued, tell us about it by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
The Murdoch press is running a series of gushing tributes to Cardinal Pell, including a puff piece this morning from Greg Craven. My benign criticism below, submitted to the Comments section, was rejected:
‘Instead of ad hominem attacks on Pell critics like David Marr and Paul Collins, and liberal Catholics generally, maybe Prof Craven could have seriously engaged with their arguments, instead of waving them away.’
I meant to add that the media I was referring to is ‘The Australian’ newspaper. Despite being supposed champions of free speech, censorship is alive and well there!
One positive from that rejection would be that your name was not published in The Australian. As one who refuses ever to buy any Murdoch medium I would be pleased with that outcome.
I think that many Catholics (as well as non-Catholics) would consider that an excellent response.
Numerous gushing tributes in The Australian was always a certainty. There is a reason that it gets referred to as ‘The Catholic Boys Daily’.
You can add my condemnation of him to your list. Vile man.
Our descendants are currently being sent to hell (and ourselves to damnation) because of fomented disbelief of climate change among the conservative public. Pell could only have felt free to deny climate change if his Vatican conservatives believed that their voice should override the voice of science. No doubt Pell would have undermined Pope John Paul for apologising to Galileo! When it comes time for us to bulldoze the coal mines, gas wells and pipelines, perhaps we should bulldoze the Catholic Church as well.
Ailie Bruins mentioned Pell’s fervent and aggressive climate-change denialism. In Daily this morning has a good article on this. It’s a shame that his multitude of other sins has dampened attention to the Cardinal’s relentless and untiring work in painting environmentalists as communists, atheists and anarchists.
He was an all round misanthrope, check out this offering from the original Counterpoint on ABC (pre Manny Vanny) –
https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/counterpoint/george-pell—islam-and-western-democracies–/3339288
Fair enough to be disgusted with the injustices but its worth reflecting on the law and the projection of power which Pell represented. He follows in the footsteps of the powerful and one Joseph Caiaphas especially comes to mind., He was another man of the law; a High Priest and Prince of the Jerusalem Temple in Ancient times. Like Pell he too knew the law thoroughly and how to use it effectively to protect his church. He too never waivered in delivering up for slaughter any innocent who threatened his power. We in this country are fortunate to have had this deeply imbedded wickedness played out for us plain to see. Hold onto the rage and be mindful and vigilant of those that exercise power over us. They need checking.