Reaction to George Pell’s death shows little learnt from abuse lessons

By Murray Silby

Jan 20, 2023

**Divisive figure:** The lionising of George Pell by leaders of the Catholic Church in Australia shows they have learnt little from revelations of clergy abuse. Photo: AAP

It is hard to see what the Catholic Church has learnt from its various child abuse scandals when considering its response to Cardinal George Pell’s death.

Hold tight - we’re checking permissions before loading more content

The Archbishop of Sydney, Anthony Fisher, called Cardinal Pell a “man of prayer, of deep Christian faith and a loving shepherd to his flock in parishes, schools, hospitals and throughout his dioceses”.

Archbishop Fisher said Cardinal Pell was “a fine priest, a good Christian soul” who “spoke truth as he found it, however difficult or unpopular”.

The Archbishop of Melbourne, Peter Comensoli, said: “Cardinal Pell provided strong and clear leadership within the Catholic Church in Australia, as Archbishop of Melbourne and Archbishop of Sydney and as a member of the Bishops Conference for more than 25 years”.

He said the cardinal was “a very significant and influential church leader, both in Australia and internationally, deeply committed to Christian discipleship”.

In contrast, the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse was not so glowing of the cardinal’s character.

It found that as far back as the early 1970s he was aware of clergy abuse.

“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,” the commission found.

Neither the archbishops’ statements left any room for the possibility that Cardinal Pell, through his career was anything but a “fine priest” or “strong leader”.

The royal commission’s findings must surely be acknowledged in any honest marking of his passing.

The lives of victims torn, damaged and lost through abuse by clergy under George Pell’s supervision or influence must surely be spoken of.

George Pell was found not guilty of abusing two choir boys himself, that is true.

At the very least though, it must be admitted that his disinterest, poor management or worse allowed children to be abused by clergy during his time in the church.

In my opinion, it is inconceivable that he was not aware of it, nor that he could have done more to prevent it.

Colleagues of his repeatedly abused children, abusive priests under his supervision or within his sphere of influence moved to different dioceses to abuse again.

If the church does not acknowledge this truth then for all the millions of dollars it has spent in compensation to victims and all the words of reassurance spoken by their leaders count for little.

Murray Silby is a journalist at The News