The misconduct occurred in the Doveton parish, in Melbourne’s outer south-east, in the 1980s and were dealt with by Cardinal Pell in the years before he became Archbishop of Melbourne.
CARDINAL George Pell was involved in shuffling paedophile priests between parishes, the child sex abuse royal commission has been told.
In their submissions to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, counsel assisting Gail Furness SC and Stephen Free said that Cardinal Pell had been involved in moving paedophile priests as a consultor to then Ballarat bishop Ronald Mulkearns.
Mulkearns oversaw the movement of several paedophile priests, including the notorious Gerard Ridsdale.
“It follows that the conduct of any consultor who agreed to move Ridsdale, or indeed any priest, with knowledge of allegations of child sexual abuse made against them, is unacceptable,” they said.
While the submissions urge the commission to clear Cardinal Pell of wrongdoing over a string of allegations, they urge some of his evidence be rejected.
In his testimony to the commission in March, Cardinal Pell said he was the victim of a widespread deception, lasting decades, that kept him in the dark about child abuse.
He said in particular allegations of serious violent and sexual misconduct by Doveton priest Peter Searson were hidden from him while an auxiliary bishop.
But the commission has been told there was no evidence that anyone intentionally concealed anything from the Archdiocese.
In her submissions to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Abuse, Counsel Assisting Gail Furness SC also stated she believed the evidence of a number of witnesses in the Ballarat and Melbourne dioceses instead of Cardinal Pell's in relation to the Cardinal being told by children and adults of inappropriate clerical conduct towards children in the 1970s and 1980s.
Counsel Assisting has found that Cardinal Pell, along with a number of other priestly consultors to Bishop Ronald Mulkearns of the Ballarat diocese, knew notorious serial paedophile priest Gerald Ridsdale was being moved from parish to parish because he was sexually abusing children, despite the Cardinal's strong denials.
Ridsdale was moved from parish to parish and allegations about his behaviour were never sent to police.
BACKGROUND
619 It is submitted that the Commission should reject Cardinal Pell’s evidence that officers of the CEO intentionally deceived him and did so for the reasons suggested by Cardinal Pell. Those CEO officers who are available to give evidence about these matters gave evidence to the effect that they had no interest in deceiving Cardinal Pell or in trying to protect Searson. That evidence should be accepted. It is generally consistent with other evidence available to the Royal Commission. As submitted elsewhere, the CEO did not (both before and after 1989) effectively communicate their views that Searson posed a risk to children. The CEO also took an unreasonable attitude to such matters as the need for substantiation of claims and the making of formal complaints. The CEO officers who received information from time to time about Searson, and Monsignor Doyle in his general supervisory role, should have done much more to respond to the obvious threat posed by Searson. However, there is no evidence of the CEO or any of its officers having at any time intentionally concealed from the Archdiocese information that it had received about Searson. Nor is there any evidence, or logical reason, despite the theory advanced by Cardinal Pell, that the CEO or any of its officers wished to keep Searson in Doveton and were resistant to any moves to the contrary. The Royal Commission should find that the CEO officers had no motive to deceive Cardinal Pell and did not do so.
620 Cardinal Pell was briefed by CEO officials, including Mr Lalor, prior to meeting with the teachers. There is insufficient evidence available to the Royal Commission to make a finding as to the particular information that was conveyed to Cardinal Pell in that briefing. It included at least information that there had been an allegation of sexual misconduct by Searson.
621 However, given the significant concerns held by the CEO, it is inconceivable that in the briefing to Cardinal Pell, Mr Lalor deliberately held back any relevant information.
622 The matters known to Cardinal Pell on his own evidence (being the matters on the list of incidents and grievances and the ‘non-specific’ allegation of sexual misconduct) were sufficient that he ought reasonably have concluded that more serious action needed to be taken in relation to Searson. One option was for Searson to be removed or suspended as parish priest. At the very least a thorough investigation needed to be undertaken as to the veracity of the complaints, in particular the allegation of sexual misconduct. It appears that Cardinal Pell concluded that no such action was required because the teachers did not ask for Searson to be removed. That was not a satisfactory response. It was incumbent on Cardinal Pell, having regard to his responsibilities as Auxiliary Bishop, including for the welfare of children in the parish, to take such action as he could to advocate that Searson be removed or suspended, or, at least, that a thorough investigation be undertaken. While the authority to remove Searson from his role as parish priest lay with the Archbishop, Cardinal Pell had direct access to the Archbishop, including through the Curia. It was within his power to investigate the matters further and it was also within his power to urge the Archbishop to take action against Searson. Cardinal Pell’s evidence was that he could not recall recommending a particular course of action to the Archbishop and he conceded that he could have been ‘a bit more pushy’ with all the parties involved. That concession was properly made. Cardinal Pell should also have taken direct action of his own to investigate the veracity of the complaints, in particular the allegation of sexual misconduct. His failure to take any such action meant that Cardinal Pell, like other senior officials in the Archdiocese before and after him, missed an important opportunity to recognise and deal with the serious risks posed by Searson. Cardinal Pell and other senior Archdiocesan officials failed to exercise proper care for the children of Doveton…..
708 It was put to
Cardinal Pell that by 1993 it was notorious among priests that Searson was a
serious problem and he would have learnt that too, and he said ‘Yes, I knew he
was a serious problem.’ He said, however, he did not come to the conclusion
that he should not be a priest and he accepted the ‘official position’ that
there was not sufficient evidence to remove him.915
709 The allegation that
Searson had held a knife to a girl’s chest was admitted by Searson. The
incident was known to a number of staff of the CEO, the Vicar General
(Monsignor Cudmore), the Archbishop and the Curia. It added to information
already known to a number of senior members of the Archdiocese that Searson was
a danger to the safety and well-being of children......
115 Cardinal Pell said of the consultors ‘what I am saying is that they had no official role in providing such advice. It was advice that was sought and was given, but it’s quite clear that it’s nothing like a cabinet decision.’129
116 Irrespective of the competencies of the College of Consultors and its predecessor the Diocesan Consultors as set out in the codes of canon law, the evidence of Archbishop Hart and Cardinal Pell was that they had the capacity to advise the Archbishop in relation to the placement of priests. Whether or not that was an official capacity, as Cardinal Pell said, advice was sought and it was given.
Cardinal George Pell's response:
Submissions of Cardinal Pell
