National Redress Scheme: Morrison Government's deviation from royal commission recommendations without sound evidence had been "to the detriment of the scheme and against the interests of survivors"

Sadly Prime Minister Scott Morrison and his political cronies continue to wage war on the poor and vulnerable without exception.

This time it is victims of insitutional child sexual abuse they are trying to deny access to compensation and to unfairly limit the amount of compensation recommended by the Royal Commission into Insitutional Response to Child Sexual Abuse.

Herald Sun, 4 April 2019:

THE Federal Government must explain how it capped National Redress Scheme payments to child sex survivors at $150,000 rather than a recommended $200,000, said a parliamentary committee left "deeply dissatisfied" when it was unable to find an answer during a review of the scheme.

The $150,000 cap was rammed into legislation after the Turnbull Government warned any push to lift it would delay the scheme's implementation by 18 months.

But the committee's unsuccessful attempts to solve the mystery has left survivors believing $150,000 was chosen because it matched Anglican and Catholic maximum payments, a joint select committee reviewing the scheme found.

"The committee is deeply dissatisfied that the maximum payment amount has been reduced and that no clear explanation has been provided about why this occurred or who advocated for this reduction," the report released on Wednesday said.

"The committee has tried to ascertain the reason for the reduction in the maximum payment and has put this question to various witnesses, including Department of Social Services and the Department of Human Services on numerous occasions. 

However, apart from acknowledging that $150,000 was the amount agreed to between the Commonwealth, states, and territories, the committee has not received any explanation or rationale about this discrepancy."

The committee, headed by Senator Derryn Hinch with Newcastle MP Sharon Claydon as deputy chair, was told more than 3000 people had applied for redress by February 28 after its launch on July 1, 2018, but only 88 cases were finalised, with fewer than 10 survivors paid between $100,000 and $150,000.

At least one person received the maximum $150,000.

"The committee recommends that the government clearly and openly explain how the maximum payments came to be set at $150,000 rather than $200,000, and the rationale for this decision," it said in one of 29 recommendations. The committee recommended amending legislation to lift the cap to $200,000.

The cross-party committee made up of four Liberal members, three Labor, one Green and Senator Hinch issued a damning assessment of parts of the redress scheme that vary from recommendations by the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse in 2017.

They include an assessment matrix that restricts maximum payments to penetrative child sexual abuse, counselling capped at $5000 and excluding people with serious criminal convictions or making applications from jail.

The criminal conviction and jail exclusions would "disproportionately impact" Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who made up almost one third of survivors seen by royal commissioners during private sessions in jail.

"This is an alarming statistic," the committee said.

Ms Claydon said the Federal Government's deviation from royal commission recommendations without sound evidence had been "to the detriment of the scheme and against the interests of survivors".

BACKGROUND

Joint Select Committee on oversight of the implementation of redress related recommendations of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse:

On 20 June 2017 the House of Representatives agreed to a Senate resolution that a joint select committee on oversight of the implementation of redress related recommendations of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse be established following the tabling of the final report of the Royal Commission.

Excerpts from Joint Committee's report:

Intrinsic to a survivor's access to redress are the institutions responsible for the sexual abuse and their decision to join the scheme. While all states and territories are now participating in the scheme, there are no mechanisms to force private institutions to join the scheme. Yet survivors will not be able to obtain redress if the institution responsible for their abuse refuses to join the scheme. This is both unfair and unacceptable. Plainly, more needs to be done to pressure non-participating institutions to join the scheme, and provide survivors with access to redress....

Central to the redress scheme are the survivors. Wherever possible, the scheme should be an inclusive scheme that does not exclude groups of survivors. Currently, certain groups of survivors are either not eligible for redress or are subject to potentially arbitrary decisions when seeking permission to apply for redress. The government has suggested that some of these exclusions are necessary to protect the scheme from particular risks, such as fraud, while others are necessary to ensure the efficient administration of the scheme. These are not sufficient justifications to unilaterally exclude large groups of survivors, who would otherwise have a legitimate claim, from accessing redress.

Recommendation 14
8.94 The committee recommends that the government clearly and openly explain how the maximum payments came to be set at $150 000 rather than $200 000, and the rationale for this decision.

Recommendation 15
8.95 In line with the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, the committee recommends that Commonwealth, state and territory governments agree to increase the maximum redress payment from $150 000 to $200 000.

Recommendation 16
8.100 In line with the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, the committee recommends that Commonwealth, state and territory governments implement a minimum payment of $10 000 for the monetary component of redress, noting that in practice some offers may be lower than $10 000 after relevant prior payments to the survivor by the responsible institution are considered, or after calculating a non-participating institution's share of the costs.

The full April 2019 Joint Standing Committee report can be read here.

NOTE:

The Anglican Diocese of Grafton on the NSW North Coast has now joined the National Redress Scheme.

Come down from your citadel Cardinal Pell and tell us what you knew

Vatican Prefect of the Secretariat for the Economy Cardinal George Pell has always enjoyed due process in any Australian court case, state inquiry or royal commission concerning child sexual abuse at which he was a witness and, observation over time would lead an ordinary person to conclude that his various religious titles have afforded him what amounts to favoured treatment by both the police and legal profession.

Fair treatment was also afforded Pell in the 2002 internal Catholic Church inquiry into his past conduct as a seminarian in the early 1960s.

Given that barely a year after appearing before the Victorian Inquiry into the Handling of Child Abuse by Religious and other Organisations Pell announced he was leaving Australia to reside permanently in the Vatican from 31 March 2014 and; after initial witness appearances on 24 & 26 March 2014 has now thrice refused to comeback to give evidence in person again at the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (preferring to be questioned by video link on 21 August 2014 & this coming 29 February 2016); is it any wonder that in the face of his obvious sense of entitlement the mood has finally swung sharply against this man?

A new twist to Cardinal Pell's reluctance to return to Australia was revealed on the front page¹ of the Herald Sun on 20 February 2016:

These allegations concerning Pell seem to spring from information received by Victoria Police's Sano Task Force:

The new allegations (which Cardinal Pell denies) are likely to compound the community response which finally spilled over four days earlier.........

This song is for the survivors

Tim Minchin

https://youtu.be/EtHOmforqxk

ABC News, 16 February 2016:

Ballarat survivors of sexual abuse plan to travel to Rome to hear Cardinal George Pell give evidence to the royal commission into child sex abuse, as a result of a crowdfunding campaign.

Cardinal Pell will remain in Rome after the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse accepted a doctor's report that said he was too sick to return to testify in Australia.

Comedian Meshel Laurie and television presenter Gorgi Coghlan started a GoFundMe page to send 15 people, including representatives from the City of Ballarat, survivors and support people to Rome for the hearing.

The campaign exceeded its target of $55,000 after the fundraising page was shared more than 3,100 times on Facebook and Twitter.

At midnight on Tuesday it was nearing $75,000 at 2.17pm on Wednesday it was over $100,000, at 11.07am on Thursday it was over $175,000, at 8am on Friday it was nearing $189,000 at 4.36pm on Saturday it was $202,210, including an anonymous donation of $10,000.

The campaign aimed to raise the funds before the hearing on February 29 and says "the opportunity to face Cardinal Pell is the least our community can do for these brave people who have bared their souls to ensure the world is a safer place for all children".

Abuse survivors like Stephen Woods want Cardinal Pell to give evidence in an "open" place like the Australian embassy where they can watch.

"It has to be somewhere where he's not in control, his lawyers are not in control and that way he will actually be pushed to give better answers than the usual 'I can't remember'," he said.

"We want to see a candidness that we haven't seen before with Cardinal Pell.

"We want to see honesty. We want to see a veracity, transparency.

"That will be really good to see face to face." [my updates in red]

ABC News, 17 February 2016:

Former New South Wales Labor premier and Catholic Kristina Keneally said she laughed when she first heard the song, but on second listening was brought to tears.

"It spoke really deeply to the abject failure of the Catholic Church to deal with the child sexual abuse crisis," Ms Keneally said.

"I have yet to see from the Vatican the type of frank, honest, acknowledgement of the damage that it has done and the recognition of the things that need to change in the Catholic Church to ensure this never happens again."

Tim Minchin's song peaked at number one on the Australian iTunes songs chart on Wednesday 17 February and reached 825,569 YouTube video views by the following Saturday.

Footnote

1. Apparently the Vatican, Cardinal Pell and senior clergy in Australia are more concerned with who leaked the latest sexual abuse allegations to the media rather than focusing on the possible suffering those allegations might represent. 
Having grown up in a predominately Catholic community, with one paedophile priest having free run of the local primary school and another frequently entertained in their homes by parents of young children, I understand the scale of such offending by men hiding behind the authority of black cassocks and birettas. 
In fact both these men appear to have gone to their graves unaccountable for their predatory behaviour and unremarked by the wider community. 
It is beyond belief that the Vatican still doesn't acknowledge the true historical scale of sexual abuse and fails to immediately request that named ordained priests (including cardinals) stand down pending the results of any such police investigations.

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse comes to an end after three and a half years of hearings

The long journey was harrowing for the victims, heartbreaking for their families and friends. It shocked and appalled a nation which up to that point had never turned to face the true scale of child sexual abuse within religious and state institutions.

With 57 case studies completed, an est. 5,000 alleged perpetrators revealed in previously reported/unreported claims of child sexual abuse, more than 6,500 victims or their representatives interviewed and 1,950 referrals to authorities (including police), this journey has completed its first stage.

What comes next will depend in some measure on the resolve of ordinary Australians to continue to publicly hold federal and state governments as well as religious administrations to the undertakings they have given to the Royal Commission, to completely eradicate child sexual abuse within their institutions and cease protecting the criminals in their ranks who perpetrate such abuse.

CLOSING REMARKS

Case Study 57

The Hon Justice Peter McClellan AM

Chair, Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse

Today brings the last of our case study hearings to an end. There is an unfinished matter which has been delayed because a trial is listed in April. We will consider the future course of that matter at a directions hearing at a later date.

As I indicated on Monday we have been conducting public hearings since September 2013. The hearings have heard from many survivors and have allowed the intensive scrutiny of the actions of individuals within institutions. We have also looked at how institutions were managed at the time of the abuse and how, once the abuse became known, the institution responded. We have been told by many people that the public hearings have had a profound effect on the community’s understanding of the nature and impact of the sexual abuse of children in Australia. This is primarily due to the courage and determination of the survivors who have given evidence. Although a relatively small number they have given voice to the suffering of the tens of thousands who have been abused in an institutional context in Australia.

There are many people who must be acknowledged for their contribution to our program of public hearings. The starting point for a public hearing is the

work undertaken by the Commission’s legal and investigation teams. They have worked with great dedication, and often under great stress and for long days to bring together witnesses and documents for the hearing. We thank each of them for their efforts on the many case studies. We have also valued the contribution from our policy staff who, of course, have a fundamental role in the preparation of our final report.

The technical expertise required to ensure our hearings are available to the internet has been complex. Without question this process has contributed greatly to the community’s knowledge of the work we have been doing. Going forward I suggest the usual position should be for the live streaming of the hearings of any public inquiry. Our thanks go to the team of technicians and operators who have made this possible.

The Royal Commission has travelled across the entire country to conduct public hearings. This has been a challenging and, at times, complex logistical task. The Commissioners are grateful to the staff who have contributed to the smooth running of our public hearing program.

We owe a special debt to the dedicated team of stenographers who have produced our transcripts. A real time transcript is a valuable tool for a Royal Commission but we appreciate it imposes considerable burdens on those who prepare it. We greatly appreciate their efforts. They have our thanks.

The Commissioners thanks are also due to the many people in institutions who have assisted by producing documents, identifying witnesses, and in almost all cases, participating in our public hearings with the purpose of assisting the Commissioners to understand the story from their institution.

For the care and support that our counselling team and community engagement staff have given to witnesses appearing before the Commission, especially survivors, the Commissioners express our gratitude. Their task has been complex but of fundamental importance to ensure that a survivor’s engagement is both positive, but more importantly, safe. These teams have the admiration of all the Commissioners for the skill and care they give to their task.

We also express today our gratitude to the media for the comprehensive and effective reporting of our work. Television has provided live coverage of the opening of many hearings. I appreciate the limits of column space and the demands of deadlines. But within these limits many media outlets have given prime news or current affairs space to our work. Both the Commissioners and, I am sure, the entire community are grateful for their efforts.

Our thanks also go to all counsel, both those who have assisted the Commission and those who have appeared for survivors and institutions. But above all our thanks are due to Gail Furness. She came to us with the insight gained from an inquiry in the child protection area. She has long ago mastered the inquiry process and the management of a public hearing. But beyond those matters Gail has remarkable abilities of forensic analysis and advocacy. Few people would appreciate the enormous burdens she has carried throughout the hearings. Scrupulously fair, without Gail’s efforts we simply could not have completed our task.

Finally we extend both our recognition and thanks to survivors who gave evidence. Without them our public hearings would be a hollow attempt to tell their story. Without them the realities of child sexual abuse and the extent of institutional failure could not be recognised. Given with difficulty but great courage the telling of each of your personal stories has enabled the Commission and the general community to gain a real understanding of your suffering. It will assist the Royal Commission in the preparation of recommendations in our final report to which we now must turn.

Victorian inquiry into child abuse by religious organisations continues

 

The Victorian Parliament’s Family and Community Development Committee Inquiry into the handling of child abuse by religious and other organisations continues, with hearings scheduled for 9,12,23,and 26 November 2012

 

This was Professor Chris Goddard from Child Abuse Prevention Research Australia for Monash University giving evidence before the Inquiry in Melbourne on 19 October 2012:

 

I have, however, a firm opinion that the abuse of children and young people in religious organisations is truly diabolical because of the lasting and terrible spiritual damage. This is supported by the literature. The abuse of children by adults always rests on a power imbalance. The large number of offences by Catholic priests reflects an extraordinary power imbalance. The religious authority they possess allows them even to turn parents and families against their own children. This has meant that many victims have had to attempt to deal with the abuse on their own, magnifying the impacts.

 

It is important to recognise that child-sex offenders are extremely cunning. Priests have used their positions to infiltrate families and gain access to children. They have used their knowledge of the families and the families’ strengths and weaknesses to gain access to the most vulnerable children. This is one of the major  reasons I believe there has been and continues to be such a long time period between offences being committed and reporting. Then of course when reports are made the Catholic Church in particular has

shown that defending itself is more important than defending the victims. The impact on children, thus, is catastrophic. They are betrayed many times. They are betrayed by the priest or priests. In some cases that I know of they feel they have been betrayed by their families who had difficulty believing them. In some terrible cases the parents of victims have gone to their graves believing the church, not their children. In many cases they have been betrayed by the church’s responses, as I have had said.

 

Professor Des Cahill, Professor of Intercultural Studies at RMIT University giving evidence before the Inquiry on 22 October 2012:

 

Mr McGUIRE — Thank you, Professor, for that multifaith overview and then coming down to the particular concerns you raised about the Catholic Church. I would just like to pick you up on the issue of prevalence. Your report at page 16 calculates the prevalence of clerical sexual abuse as between the 4 to 6 per cent range, which by implication is that about 1 in 20 ordained diocesan priests in Victoria and Tasmania become child sex abusers. The first question is: on what is that based? Then if you could also respond in regard to that this does not take into account offending by religious brothers, so what is the number of these that relate to offending in Catholic schools in terms of the current situation that exists within the Catholic school system?

 

Prof. CAHILL — The 1 in 20 is based on the analysis I have given in my submission of the priests from the dioceses of Victoria and Tasmania who trained at Corpus Christi College from 1940 to 1972. I chose that period because some from the very early period are still alive — they are very old — whereas those ordained in 1972 are now over 65. In reaching a figure I think it is important to have a data baseline, and it is very hard to achieve, but when we did that calculation and on the basis of data that I and other colleagues who are former priests know about and from information available on the Broken Rites website we were able to come up with

that figure.

** Cartoon comment found at Google Images

"Suffer the little children" takes on a new meaning this month

 

What Victoria Police told the Victorian Parliamentary Inquiry into the Handling of Child Abuse by Religious and Other Organisations concerning the manner in which the Catholic Church deals with allegations of the sexual abuse of minors by those in religious orders: 
 

 

That the Catholic Church is seen as the principal offender against the rights of child victims is made clear:

 

http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/images/stories/committees/fcdc/inquiries/57th/Child_Abuse_Inquiry/Submissions/Victoria_Police.pdf

 

Brisbane Times 19 October 2012:

Following up the explosive police submission to the state inquiry into the churches' handling of sex abuse, the deputy commissioner unloaded more broadsides attacking the Catholic Church's obstruction of police investigations into paedophile clergy going back six decades.

He unleashed his shocking litany in calm, measured tones, seated at a venerable table opposite the six committee members, watched by framed dignitaries on the wall and a packed chamber of visitors.

He said the police had for the first time aggregated their sexual offence statistics by clergy and church workers since January 1956: 2110 offences against 519 victims, overwhelmingly perpetrated by Catholic priests and mostly against boys aged 11 or 12. Yet the church had not reported a single crime to police.

The Church's submissions to this inquiry insist that there has been an emerging awareness of the problem, it has been recognised and the bishops are now handling allegations of sexual abuse in an appropriate manner.

However, this assertion denies fact. The Catholic Church has long known about sexual abuse by clergy and others. It has been codifying responses since its early years:

Child sexual abuse has always been a scourge in our society and in our Church.
[Rev. Msgr. Stephen J. Rossetti PhD DMin, undated]

The Council of Elvira, circa 306 AD - Canon Law

18. Bishops, presbyters, and deacons, once they have taken their place in the ministry, shall not be given communion even at the time of death if they are guilty of sexual immorality. Such scandal is a serious offense.

71. Those who sexually abuse boys may not commune even when death approaches.

[Catholic University of America]

While it was only the day before the Victorian inquiry began its public hearings that NSW Police arrested, charged with twenty-five offences and brought before the court a former priest who had allegedly abused children over a twenty year period before formally leaving the priesthood in 2005. A priest who had made certain admissions to the Church in 1992, but remained under its active protection for years until exposed in an ABC Four Corners program aired on 2 July 2012.

An Instance Of Failure To Contact Civil Authorities In Relation To Allegations Of Child Sexual Abuse In Ballarat, Victoria

The subject of child sexual abuse is always distressing and nevermore so than during the four days in February-March 2016 when Cardinal Prefect George Pell gave evidence from Rome to the Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.

Below is a brief background of one of the convicted paedophiles, excerpts from Cardinal Pell's evidence with regard to this former Christian Brother and the Vatican response to the evidence.

This is not the only recorded instance where Cardinal Pell and the Catholic Church failed to contact civil authorities after it was discovered that schoolchildren were being sexually abused.

________________________________________

BACKGROUND - Edward Vernon "Ted" Dowlan

The Age, 9 February 2015:

A former Christian Brother who was part of a notorious paedophile ring involving the clergy should be returned to jail for a "significant" period of time, a court has heard.

Ted Dowlan found himself in a Melbourne courtroom this month, nearly 20 years since his first appearance in a dock, after more of his victims came forward during the state's parliamentary inquiry into child sex abuse last year.  

Dowlan, who changed his name by deed poll to Bales in 2011, has pleaded guilty to 33 counts of indecently assaulting boys under the age of 16 and one count of gross indecency between 1971 and 1986 involving 20 victims……

Dowlan, 65, was teaching at Ballarat's St Alpius primary school in 1971 with other convicted paedophile brothers including Robert Best, Stephen Farrell and Gerald Fitzgerald. Gerald Ridsdale, who is regarded as one of Australia's worst paedophile priests, was the school's chaplain.

Dowlan admitted abusing boys at St Alpius in 1971; St Thomas More College in Forest Hills (1972); St Patrick's College in Ballarat (1973-74); Warrnambool Christian Brothers College (1975-76); Chanel College, Geelong (1980); and Cathedral College, East Melbourne (1982-1988).

Mr Sonnet said the Christian Brothers were aware of what Dowlan was doing and failed to act to stop him, instead moving him from school to school, which only "aggravated the problem".

Dowlan was eventually sentenced in 1996 to six and a half years jail for abusing 11 boys between 1971 and 1982.

He was not thrown out of the Christian Brothers order until 2008……

DPP v Bales [2015] VSCA 261, Supreme Court of Victoria, Court of Appeal, 18 September 2015, extension of the six year sentence imposed on 27 March 2015:

60 When added to the sentence imposed in respect of the first set of offences, the total term of imprisonment is 14 years and 11 months, with a non-parole period of 9 years and 8 months. In our opinion, bearing in mind the mitigating factors referred to, this is a proportionate sentence for 50 offences committed over about 15 years against 31 young boys who were entitled to expect that their teacher and religious instructor would not dishonour his position of trust towards them in the way he did.

Family And Community Development Committee, Inquiry into the handling of child abuse by religious and other organisations, Melbourne 3 May 2013:

As Mr O’Brien highlighted on Monday in his question relating to another witness, he said: The principal and grade 6 teacher was convicted paedophile Christian Brother Robert Charles Best. The grade 5 teacher was convicted paedophile Christian Brother Stephen Francis Farrell. The grade 5 teacher in 1971, before Farrell, was convicted paedophile Christian Brother Edward Vernon Dowlan. The grade 3 teacher was alleged paedophile Christian Brother Fitzgerald, who passed away before any charges were laid. The St Alipius Primary School chaplain and assistant Catholic priest was convicted paedophile Gerald Francis Ridsdale.

So it is evident that in the 1970s, when these men were teaching at St Alipius in Ballarat, there were paedophiles that were engaged in the abuse of children and, as I said, the chaplain attached was also a paedophile. It appears that the only person who was working at that time who did not offend against children was the sole female lay teacher……

________________________________________

Excerpts from evidence given by Cardinal-Prefect George Pell on Day 159, Day 161 and [sic] Day 163 of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse:

Q. Some of the Brothers who were at the school when you were assistant priest, Brother Dowlan?

A. Yes, I remember Dowlan, not –

Q. I beg your pardon, I'm sorry, Cardinal; you remember Dowlan but?

A. But not well. Not extensively, but I certainly knew him…..

Q. When did you first hear of Christian Brothers in Ballarat offending against children?

A. That's a very good question. Perhaps in the early 1970s I heard things about Dowlan.

Q. What did you hear about Dowlan?

A. I heard that there were problems at St Pat's College.

Q. What sort of problems?

A. Unspecified, but harsh discipline and possibly other infractions also.

Q. When you say "possibly other infractions", you mean of a sexual nature?

A. I do.

Q. Who did you hear that from?

A. Once again, it's difficult to recall accurately. I could have heard it from one or two of the students and certainly I think one or two of the priests mentioned that there were problems and some of them believed they were very - because of harsh discipline.

Q. And the problems described to you were problems of a sexual kind with children?

A. None of the activities were described to me, they were just referred to briefly.

Q. But you answered the question of, "When you say possibly other infractions, you mean of a sexual nature?", you agreed with that proposition?

A. Yes, that was a - that's correct.

Q. And it could only have been sexual with children, couldn't it?

A. That's correct, with minors.

Q. When you heard about those problems, did you do anything with that information?

A. It was, they were - it was unspecific, but in fact I did; I mentioned to the school chaplain, a priest whom I greatly respected, I said, "There is talk about problems at St Pat's College with Dowlan", and I said, "Is there any truth in them?" He said, "Yes, there are problems, certainly discipline problems, but I think the Brothers have got the matter in hand". And in fact, he left at the end of 1974…..

Q. Did you hear about what happened to Dowlan, if anything, after those people you've described came to you?

A. I heard he had left, I had no recollection of where he went until I started to prepare for this.

Q. Was it your understanding that he left not long after those problems had emerged?

A. That is my understanding, and I think that is what in fact happened, I think.

Q. Did you draw the conclusion that he left because of the allegations of sexual impropriety with minors?

A. Yes, I didn't know the nature of those, whether they were indiscretions or crimes.

Q. Did his leaving say anything to you about the likelihood those allegations were true?

A. Well, I certainly concluded there must have been - he must have been, at the very minimum, unwise and imprudent, at the very minimum…..

Q. Who spoke to you about Dowlan?

A. It was a St Pat's boy.

Q. Just one?

A. A fellow at the school. Yes, one that I remember.

Q. So there might have been more than one, but you particularly remember that one?

A. I remember one in particular.

Q. Do you remember his name? I'm not asking you to say it at the moment, but do you remember his name?

A. Yes, I do, and he recollected it years later, but I remembered him as a good and honest lad and I didn't think he'd be telling - I couldn't remember the actual incident, but I didn't think he'd be telling lies….

Q. Did you understand that the allegations that you indicated were told to you were admitted or otherwise by Brother Dowlan?

A. No, I didn't know what his response was other than eventually the effect.

Q. The effect being that he was moved?

A. Correct.

Q. And did you know whether that was to another - I'm sorry, Cardinal?

A. I - I would say that in the light of my present 39 understandings, although - I would concede I should have done more.

Q. What do you now say you should have done?

A. Well, I should have consulted Brother Nangle and just ensured that the matter was properly treated.

Q. Can you tell us why you didn't do that?

A. Because, one, I didn't think of it and, when I was told that they were dealing with it, at that time I was quite content……

Q. Did you tell the Bishop?

A. No, I did not.

Q. Can you tell us why you didn't tell the Bishop about this issue?

A. Firstly, because it came under the control of the 8 Christian Brothers and I was told that they were dealing with it.

Q. You were the Bishop's representative in relation to education, weren't you?

A. I - I was. 

Q. But you say that, even in that role, you didn't feel any necessity or responsibility to tell the Bishop about this problem?

A. No, I - I didn't. I - I certainly would not have presumed that he definitely would not have known, but anyhow, I didn't. I regret that I didn't do more at that stage……

Q. And you said in your evidence, transcript page 16241: He -- Being the boy who complained to you -- recollected it years later, but I remembered him as a good and honest lad and I didn't think he'd be telling - I couldn't remember the actual incident, but I didn't think he'd be telling lies . Do you mean to say by that that you didn't have a recollection about it until he told you?

A. I didn't have a recollection of him speaking to me very briefly and fleetingly about an accusation about Dowlan.

 Q. When did this boy come to you and complain to you about Dowlan?

A. He never came to me and complained. We happened to be together and he just mentioned it in passing.

Q. When did he come to tell you about this complaint? When did you come to know that this complaint had been made, or these conversations –

A. He just mentioned it casually in conversation. He never asked me to do anything. It wasn't technically - well, I suppose it was technically a complaint, a lament, but entirely different from this alleged event, of which I had no part…..

THE CHAIR: Q. Cardinal, what did that boy say to you?

A. He - he said something like, "Dowlan is misbehaving with - with boys."

Q. That was a very serious matter to be raised with you, wasn't it?

A. Yes, in - that is - that is the case.

Q. What did you do about it?

A. I - I didn't do anything about it.

Q. Should you have done something about it?

A. Well, I eventually did. I eventually inquired of the school chaplain.

Q. What about at the time you received the allegation from the boy, didn't it occur to you --

A. It would have been fairly close together.

Q. Well, you didn't go straight to the school and say, "I've got this allegation, what's going on?"

A. No, I didn't.

Q. Should you have?

A. With the experience of 40 years later, certainly I would agree that I should have - should have done more.

Q. Why do you need the experience of 40 years later? Wasn't it a serious matter then?

A. Yes, but people had a different attitude then. There were no specifics about the activity, how serious it was, and the boy wasn't asking me to do anything about it, but just lamenting and mentioning it.

Q. Cardinal, you and I –

A. It was quite unspecific.

Q. Cardinal, you and I have had this discussion on more than one occasion. Why was it necessary for people to ask you to do something, rather than for you to accept the information and initiate your own response?

A. Obviously, that - that is not - not the case, and my responsibilities as an Auxiliary Bishop and the director of an educational institute, an Archbishop, obviously I was more aware of those obligations in those situations than I was as a young cleric, but I don't - I don't - I don't excuse my comparative lack of activity, the fact that I only went to the school chaplain and inquired what was the truth of these rumours……

Q. And as late as last week, the headmaster at 5 St Patrick's College in 1973/74, Brother Nangle, denied any knowledge or denied having received any complaint or knowing of any rumours associated with alleged molestation or sexual offences against children by Dowlan. Are you aware of that?

A. I - I haven't studied the evidence in detail, but I am aware of that.

Q. And he was interviewed by a number of officers from the insurance companies, he was interviewed by police officers and by lawyers all the way until 2004 and, again, in every single instance he denied having any knowledge, denied having received any complaint about Dowlan's molestation of children; do you understand that?

A. I - yes.

Q. So why on earth, Cardinal, didn't you take the information that you had about the complaint that had been made to you by this St Patrick's school boy in 1973 to the police, to the investigators, to the insurance companies or to the Christian Brothers themselves? Why do we hear about it this week for the first time?

A. That is because I had no idea that the Christian Brothers were covering up in the way in which it's now apparent, and I did - as I repeat again, I mentioned it to the principal and he said the matter was being looked after, and I presumed that it was being looked after appropriately, not just denied. 

Q. You had essential –

A. And this man –

Q. You had –

A. I'm sorry, the only other thing.

Q. Go ahead.

A. May I just say, by way of completion, and also I was aware that at the end of that year Dowlan was shifted. Now, in the light of subsequent events, that was radically insufficient, but at that time that was regarded - given the unspecified nature of the accusations, I thought that was - well, that was something that was fair enough.

Q. Well, Dowlan went on to sexually abuse children in a teaching capacity all the way through to 1985 - dozens of them. Do you understand that?

A. I do.

Q. You could have done something which would have put a stop to that, potentially, couldn't you?  

A. No, with due respect, I think that's a vast overstatement. I did take the opportunity to ascertain the reliability of the rumours. I was told that there was something in them and that it was being dealt with…..

________________________________________

During the course of those four days of video links between Rome and Sydney, the Royal Commissioner appeared at times sceptical of George Pell’s frequent memory loss and constant denials of responsibility, Counsel Assisting often found his answers implausible and aimed at deflecting blame, a lawyer for one victim suggested that Pell was lying under oath to protect his own reputation and, victims who were in Rome to witness the cardinal giving evidence were not impressed.

So it came as no surprise to find the Vatican rushing to defend Pell and its own response to the sexual abuse of children in the Catholic school system:

Declaration by the Director of the Holy See Press Office: Protecting minors,

04.03.2016

Vatican City, 4 March 2016 – The director of the Holy See Press Office, Fr. Federico Lombardi, S.J., today issued the following note regarding the protection of minors from sexual abuse:

"The depositions of Cardinal Pell before the Royal Commission as part of its inquiry carried out by live connection between Australia and Rome, and the contemporary presentation of the Oscar award for best film to 'Spotlight', on the role of the Boston Globe in denouncing the cover-up of crimes by numerous paedophile priests in Boston (especially during the years 1960 to 1980) have been accompanied by a new wave of attention from the media and public opinion on the dramatic issue of sexual abuse of minors, especially by members of the clergy.

The sensationalist presentation of these two events has ensured that, for a significant part of the public, especially those who are least informed or have a short memory, it is thought that the Church has done nothing, or very little, to respond to these terrible problems, and that it is necessary to start anew. Objective consideration shows that this is not the case. The previous archbishop of Boston resigned in 2002 following the events considered in “Spotlight” (and after a famous meeting of American cardinals convoked in Rome by Pope John Paul II in April 2002), and since 2003 (that is, for 13 years) the archdiocese has been governed by Cardinal Sean O’Malley, universally known for his rigour and wisdom in confronting the issue of sexual abuse, to the extent of being appointed by the Pope as one of his advisers and as president of the Commission instituted by the Holy Father for the protection of minors.

The tragic events of sexual abuse in Australia, too, have been the subject of inquiries and legal and canonical procedures for many years. When Pope Benedict XVI visited Sydney for World Youth Day in 2008 (eight years ago), he met with a small group of victims at the seat of the archdiocese governed by Cardinal Pell, since the issue was also of great importance at the time and the archbishop considered a meeting of this type to be very timely.

Merely to offer an idea of the attention with which these problems have been followed, the section of the Vatican website dedicated to 'Abuse of minors: the Church’s response', established around ten years ago, contains over 60 documents and interventions.

The courageous commitment of the Popes to facing the crises that subsequently emerged in various situations and countries – such as the United States, Ireland, Germany, Belgium and Holland, and in the Legionaries of Christ – has been neither limited nor indifferent. The universal procedures and canonical norms have been renewed; guidelines have been required and drawn up by the Episcopal Conferences, not only to respond to abuses committed but also to ensure adequate prevention measures; apostolic visitations have taken place to intervene in the most serious situations; and the Congregation of the Legionaries has been radically reformed. These are all actions intended to respond fully and with far-sightedness to a wound that has manifested itself with surprising and devastating gravity, especially in certain regions and certain periods. Benedict XVI’s Letter to the Irish faithful in March 2010 probably remains the most eloquent document of reference, relevant beyond Ireland, for understanding the attitude and the legal, pastoral and spiritual response of the Popes to these upheavals in the Church in our time; recognition of the grave errors committed and a request for forgiveness, priority action and justice for victims, conversion and purification, commitment to prevention and renewed human and spiritual formation.

The encounters held by Benedict XVI and Francis with groups of victims have accompanied this by now long road with the example of listening, the request for forgiveness, consolation and the direct involvement of the Popes.

In many countries the results of this commitment to renewal are comforting; cases of abuse have become very rare and therefore the majority of those considered nowadays and which continue to come to light belong to a relatively distant past of several decades ago. In other countries, usually due to very different cultural contexts that are still characterised by silence, much remains to be done and there is no lack of resistance and difficulties, but the road to follow has become clearer.

The constitution of the Commission for the protection of minors announced by Pope Francis in December 2013, made up of members from every continent, indicates how the path of the Catholic Church has matured. After establishing and developing internally a decisive response to the problems of sexual abuse of minors (by priests or other ecclesial workers), it is necessary to face systematically the problem of how to respond not only to the problem in every part of the Church, but also more broadly how to help the society in which the Church lives to face the problems of abuse of minors, given that – as we should all be aware, even though there is still a significant reluctance to admit this – in every part of the world the overwhelming majority of cases of abuse take place not in ecclesiastical contexts, but rather outside them (in Asia, for instance, tens of millions of minors are abused, certainly not in a Catholic context).

In summary, the Church, wounded and humiliated by the wound of abuse, intends to react not only to heal herself, but also to make her difficult experience in this field available to others, to enrich her educational and pastoral service to society as a whole, which generally still has a long path to take to realise the seriousness of these problems and to deal with them.

From this perspective the events in Rome of the last few days may be interpreted in a positive light. Cardinal Pell must be accorded the appropriate acknowledgement for his dignified and coherent personal testimony (twenty hours of dialogue with the Royal Commission), from which yet again there emerges an objective and lucid picture of the errors committed in many ecclesial environments (this time in Australia) during the past decades. This is certainly useful with a view to a common 'purification of memory'. {my red bolding}

Recognition is also due to many members of the group of victims who came from Australia for demonstrating their willingness to establish constructive dialogue with Cardinal Pell and with the representative of the Commission for the protection of minors, Fr. Hans Zollner S.J., of the Pontifical Gregorian University, with whom they further developed prospects for effective commitment to the prevention of abuse.

If the appeals subsequent to 'Spotlight' and the mobilisation of victims and organisations on the occasion of the depositions of Cardinal Pell are able to contribute to supporting and intensifying the long march in the battle against abuse of minors in the universal Catholic Church and in today’s world (where the dimensions of these tragedies are endless), then they are welcome.

---

FOOTNOTE

Vatican on the Purification Of Memory:

Liberation from the weight of this responsibility comes above all through imploring God’s forgiveness for the wrongs of the past, and then, where appropriate, through the “purification of memory” culminating in a mutual pardoning of sins and offenses in the present.

Purifying the memory means eliminating from personal and collective conscience all forms of resentment or violence left by the inheritance of the past, on the basis of a new and rigorous historical-theological judgement, which becomes the foundation for a renewed moral way of acting. This occurs whenever it becomes possible to attribute to past historical deeds a different quality, having a new and different effect on the present, in view of progress in reconciliation in truth, justice, and charity among human beings…..

[http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000307_memory-reconc-itc_en.html]