Many more guilty in the church than Cardinal George Pell

IS Cardinal George Pell a brazen liar who protected paedophiles or the victim of a witch hunt not seen since Lindy Chamberlain, asks Andrew Bolt.

Cardinal George Pell in Rome on the FOURTH day of giving evidence to the The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse 2/3/16 Rome, Italy - Cardinal Pell speaks to the media in the lobby of Hotel Quirinale at the end of the four days hearing by the Royal Commission. Pic Ella Pellegrini

IS Cardinal George Pell a brazen liar who protected paedophiles or the victim of a witch hunt not seen since Lindy Chamberlain?

At the end of his four days of evidence to the royal commission, Pell chose the witch hunt.

“I have never expressed such a view, but I must confess the idea has occurred to me,” he said.

But it was his bad luck that some of the strongest evidence to back him came in the last minutes of this fourth day of his third appearance at the royal commission into child sex abuse in institutions. In 1996 Pell had finally replaced his boss and rival, Frank Little, as the archbishop of Melbourne.

Within months Pell had set up the first fund to compensate abused children, and then called in one of the paedophile priests, Peter Searson, who had been protected for so long by Little.

Little had refused to take any action against Searson, even after parents and teachers at his schools complained Searson had pulled a pistol on a boy, loitered around the school toilets and assaulted children

As one of the Little’s four auxiliary bishops, Pell had taken some complaints about Searson to Little but had no authority over Searson, and claims Little kept from him this dangerous priest’s record.

But with Little gone, Pell finally had real power and told Searson he had to resign and retire, and would never get a recommendation from Pell if he tried to work in any other diocese.

Pell told the commission that even the Vatican had — incredibly — overruled his decision to force Searson’s removal.

“Rome found against me,” he said, but he had just ignored it. Searson was gone and police charged him that year. This last-minute evidence suggested yet again that while Pell was sometimes dangerously incurious about warning signs of paedophile priests, there were many more people guiltier then he.

And why in God’s name did parents not go to police?

The commission’s repeated grilling of Pell has still failed to find the smoking gun that proves he was told directly of paedophile priests and protected them.

The case against Pell remains circumstantial.

The head of the royal commission, Peter McClellan, and his counsel assisting repeatedly suggested Pell’s claims of ignorance and of being lied to by colleagues covering up were implausible.

In short, they seem to me ready to call Pell, the third-most senior Catholic in the world, a liar — and a liar who has lied and lied and lied on oath.

For some people, albeit a minority, that may be even more improbable than Pell’s story — of an honest priest who didn’t notice the evil conspiracies around him, headed by his bosses, until it was too late for hundreds of devastated children. Is Pell lying when he says he was not part of it? Or is he the innocent who must now be destroyed to pay for the crimes of his church?

 

ANDREW BOLT WILL INTERVIEW CARDINAL PELL LIVE ON SKY NEWS AT 7PM