Get all your news in one place.
100’s of premium titles.
One app.
Start reading
The Guardian - AU
The Guardian - AU
National
Melissa Davey

Cardinal George Pell testifies to child sexual abuse royal commission from Rome, day two – as it happened

Cardinal George Pell says story of paedophile priest’s abuse “wasn’t of much interest to me”.

Guardian Australia’s news coverage of the day’s events can be found here.

I’ll close this blog now with some comments from David Ridsdale, who is a survivor of Father Gerald Ridsdale, his uncle. He has been watching the hearings from Rome. David Ridsdale tells me:

When he said he wasn’t that interested in the crimes of my uncle, yeah, that was a hard one.

And wasn’t it just an amazing coincidence that almost every single person who was involved with the consultors knew of his abusing, except George Pell. Pell keeps pretending he’s a friend of survivors. If that was true, he should have ended the evidence by saying; ‘You know what? I should have asked more questions at the time. But I didn’t, and I’m so sorry’.

Peter McClellan and Gail Furness, they did a remarkable job. They held their professional stance. Pell tried a couple of times at humour and really it was belligerence.

Melissa Davey signing off. I’ll be back reporting live from 8am tomorrow morning, when Cardinal George Pell again appears via videolink from Rome. You can share your thoughts with me then on Twitter or on Facebook.

Updated

I’ve just spoken to abuse survivor Paul Levey, who was sexually abused by Gerald Ridsdale in Melbourne and Mortlake multiple times, and who was forced to live with Ridsdale when he was just 14.

His case was highlighted by counsel assisting Gail Furness as she questioned Pell about Ridsdale, and was used to highlight the horrendous implications of the church’s failure to act in stopping Ridsdale.

Levey is currently at a bar in Rome with other survivors, trying to calm down after what he says was a difficult day of evidence from Pell. Levey suffers from severe deep vein thrombosis which requires medication and frequent walking around, but he said he had refused to leave the Hotel Quirinale and the room where Pell was giving evidence, despite the pain he was in.

“At one point I had to get paper and write my thoughts down, or I would have lost it,” Levey says.

“But I didn’t lose it, I held my ground and I tried to stay calm.” ”

Levey said he was angered by Pell’s claims that Ridsdale was “a sad story and it wasn’t of much interest to me”.

However, he said he was pleased the commission had asked tough questions of Pell.

Updated

The opposition leader, Bill Shorten, was asked about Pell’s evidence during a press conference a little earlier. He said he supports a national redress scheme for victims of abuse.

In terms of some of the specific matters which have been asked of Cardinal Pell, it very personal because one of the terrible cases was a story from Sacred Heart and Oatley church in Melbourne and that used to be my parish. The priest who went to jail who did terrible things which have caused such tragedy in the lives of families was my parish priest and through the actions of my mum and others, I think I avoided a monster.

So I think that the church does need to respond fully. This is now not a time to sort of disseminate and dissemble. Nothing less than full redress matters and if Labor is elected we will do our part at the national level, working with the institutions, working with the victims and survivors. It’s gone on too long and this is really a matter of overdue in justice being rectified.

A recap of today's evidence

Day one of Pell’s evidence before Australia’s child sex abuse royal commission may have started softly, with counsel assisting, Gail Furness, clarifying Pell’s roles within the diocese of Ballarat and who he worked with.

But on Tuesday, day two of Pell’s evidence, Furness comprehensively questioned Pell about how it was he could not have known that notorious paedophile priest Gerald Ridsdale was abusing children. At times, Pell appeared to grow frustrated with the questioning, but Furness was unmoved. She and commission chair, Justice Peter McClellan, systematically pressed Pell about what was known about child abusers within the diocese during the period he served as a parish priest at Ballarat East from 1973 to 1983.

Pell also served as a consultor to the bishop of Ballarat at the time Ronald Mulkearns, a role which included having meetings with Mulkearns and advising him on the appointment and movement of priests to and between parishes. The commission heard that by the time a meeting of consultors was held in 1982, at which Pell was present, Mulkearns and the majority of consultors knew Ridsdale was abusing. At that meeting, they decided to move Ridsdale between parishes for a sixth time.

Pell maintains that, despite widespread knowledge of Ridsdale’s abusing, he was not told about it and did not hear about it. Ridsdale had been abusing from the 1960s onwards, the commission previously heard. In 1973, Ridsdale and Pell lived together in the parish house of St Alipius in Ballarat East. But Pell says he never knew Ridsdale was abusing children.

The evidence was at times explosive.

Pell attracted gasps from those attending the commission in Sydney when he told the commission that the widespread child abuse at the hands of Ridsdale, was “a sad story and it wasn’t of much interest to me”.

Pell said he doesn’t think people with no knowledge of abuse should be held accountable for failing to protect children. He was accused by Furness of trying to “exclude yourself from all responsibility” from abuses that occurred within Ballarat.

Asked if he accepted any responsibility for Ridsdale being moved from parish to parish, rather than removed from the church or reported to police, Pell responded; “No, I don’t”.

At times, survivors of abuse walked out of the Sydney hearing, angered and distressed by Pell’s responses.

Furness put it to Pell that it was implausible he did not know about the abusing by Ridsdale and that he was being moved between parishes for that reason.

Pell replied; “That is a complete nonsense”.

We’ll have reaction to the day’s evidence from some of the survivors shortly.

Updated

And we've adjourned for the day...

The inquiry will resume tomorrow at 8am Australian eastern daylight time. Stay with us here for a wrap-up of the evidence and reaction.

'I am not sure at that stage there was even a civic obligation to report such a crime,' Pell says.

Furness: “Outside of the canon law provisions, are you suggesting that a priest, who has knowledge of an abuse of a child but has no responsibility under canon law, is entitled within the structure of the church to do nothing?”

Pell: “I’m not sure that he would morally escape such an obligation, but I am not sure at that stage there was even a civic obligation to report such a crime.”

Furness: “Could it ever be that someone in a position of responsibility, such as a priest, even if they didn’t have a legal obligation, when they had reasonable allegations that one of their colleagues was abusing children, could it ever be that that priest didn’t have a responsibility to do what he could to try and stop the conduct from happening?”

Pell: “I think I have explicitly acknowledged that moral responsibility.”

Updated

Emily Bryan, the ABC’s coordinating producer based in London, has quoted a NSW priest in Rome on Pell. She reports that he says that the Cardinal is answering truthfully, and that abuse cover-ups “wouldn’t happen now”.


The sentiment was echoed by young priests quoted by Bryan’s colleague Lisa Millar, the London bureau chief for ABC.


Millar has described the survivors coming and going from the hearing room.


She said earlier that there were 75 people in the hearing room at the Hotel Quirinale, with the front four rows still full of survivor groups from Australia.


Meanwhile, Pell and the Ballarat abuse survivors were covered in a half-page story in the Italian newspaper La Repubblica today. The headline says, ‘From Australia to Rome: ‘We the victims of abuse are here to see Pell’.

Justice McClellan and counsel assisting, Gail Furness, continue to press Pell on what was said at a meeting of consultors about Gerald Ridsdale’s abusing of children, and the reasons why it was decided at that meeting to move Ridsdale for a sixth time to another parish.

We now know Ridsdale was moved because he was abusing children, and that most of the consultors at the meeting knew that was the reason. But Pell maintains he did not know why Ridsdale was being moved to another parish, though he was present at the meeting.

McClellan; “You, as a responsible consultor, would want to know, you would be very concerned to know whether or not the reason [for moving Gerald Risdale to a new parish] was because Ridsdale’s activities had become a matter of public scandal, wouldn’t you?”

Pell: “I would have been much more – it would have been important to know whether the public scandal touched on underage sexual activity or the public scandal was of another nature, say drinking or quarrelling or adult sexual activity.

McClellan: “Whatever it was, public scandal brings real problems for the church, doesn’t it?”

Pell: “Yes, it does.”

Furness: “I think where we’re up to, Cardinal, is that you don’t have any recollection of what was said at the meeting, although you have a recollection of what was not said, is that fair?”

Pell: “I have studied the minutes of this meeting that took place over 30 years ago and, in the light of those minutes, I am quite happy to accept them.”

Furness: “That was not my question, I will repeat it. You do not have any recollection of what was said at the meeting although you have a recollection of what was not said, is that right?”

Pell: “I wonder whether that is misleading ... Independent of the minutes, I do know the basis on which we proceeded. That was ... when a priest could be shifted for non-criminal activities and the reasons would not necessarily be given.”

Updated

Justice Peter McClellan; “To your knowledge, there are many priests who have engaged in sexual activity, aren’t there?”

Pell: “Too many.”

Furness is growing impatient with Pell.

Furness: “You now recall that the bishop at that meeting said that [paedophile priest] Father Ridsdale was open and available for an appropriate transfer or promotion? Do you now remember that was said at the meeting?”

Pell: “Short of consulting the minutes, I don’t.”

Furness: “Consult the minutes, they are in front of you.”

Updated

Furness: I suggest that you failed in your responsibility as a consultor.

Continuing from the post below, Pell says he can not recall why, at a meeting of consultors in 1982 at which he was present, it was decided that Gerald Ridsdale, needed to be moved for a sixth time to another parish.

But he does recall homosexuality was mentioned, but paedophilia was not, he tells the commission. Ridsdale committed more than 100 offences against children as young as four, and is now in jail.

Furness: “You can’t recall what was said at the meeting, other than to recall that paedophilia wasn’t said at the meeting, is that your evidence?”

Pell: “That is, in terms of the reasons that were given for his being shifted and that recollection is reinforced by the fact that he has been proposed for a job which has some prestige. That is incompatible with, in my mind, with somebody with a string of awful offences. I knew nothing of his paedophilia.”

Furness: “Did you say to the bishop; ‘Why is it that his unusual number of appointments are continuing? Why are we moving him yet again?’. I suggest that you failed in your responsibility as a consultor, if, as your evidence is, you knew nothing about Ridsdale and you didn’t inquire. Do you accept that failure?

Pell: “I never suggested that I knew nothing. I have never suggested that I knew nothing about Ridsdale. I have never suggested that I didn’t inquire generally.”

Updated

Furness says it is 'implausible' Pell did not know Gerald Ridsdale was abusing children

By the time a consultors meeting was held in 1982 (Pell was a consultor), the then bishop of Ballarat Ronald Mulkearns, and a senior cleric, Monsignor Leo Fiscalini, knew Father Gerald Ridsdale was abusing children and a large number of complaints had been made against him. Ridsdale had been moved between five parishes by this time rather than being reported to police, the commission hears.

Pell was present at the meeting, minutes tendered to the commission show. At that meeting, it was decided Ridsdale had to be moved once again.

Furness tells Pell: “I suggest that it is implausible that those others, consultors at that meeting, including yourself, were not told why it had become necessary?”

Pell: “It would only be implausible if there was evidence that they had been told in some way or other.”

Furness: “I suggest that it is implausible, given the knowledge of three of those consultors, given the conduct of Ridsdale and the wording of those minutes that the consultors, including you, did not know why it had become necessary for him to be moved?”

Pell: “That is a complete nonsense.”

Updated

Pell is saying his role as principal of the Institute of Catholic Education in the early 1980s was a legitimate reason that he was not aware of widespread rumours that Father Gerald Ridsdale was abusing children.

The chair of the royal commission, Justice Peter McClellan, questions Pell about this. Pell was still living in Ballarat at the time.

McClellan; “Do you think that given the nature of the allegations and given the number of people that we can assume have knowledge of them, including senior church people, do you think it might be surprising that you didn’t hear any rumour at all?”

Pell: “Not necessarily, given the work I was doing. I wasn’t working full-time in the diocese. I was very much involved in the world of tertiary education.”

McClellan: “Where were you living?”

Pell: “With Bishop O’Collins” [in the house of St Alipius in Ballarat East].

McClellan: “Were you saying mass regularly on Sundays?”

Pell: “I was at Ballarat East.”

McClellan: “That was every Sunday, was it?”

Pell: “Yes.”

McClellan: “I assume three times a day, would that be right?”

Pell: “Three times a Sunday, generally.”

McClellan: “No doubt, before and after the mass, you would speak to members of the congregations, would that be right?”

Pell: “When that was possible, that was my – that was certainly my practice.”

Updated

Furness is turning her attention to Pell’s cousin, Father Henry Nolan. Nolan, who was vicar general at the time, took action immediately upon realising a 14-year-old boy was being made to sleep in the same room as notorious pedophile priest, Gerald Ridsdale.

Nolan demanded the child be removed, Furness said, despite not having direct authority over the Mortlake parish.

Furness: “That is an example, isn’t it, of a priest who didn’t have structural responsibility of taking a responsible course of action and having the child removed?”

Pell: “He was vicar general at that stage but what he did was excellent.

Furness: “What he did was available to any priest, I suggest to you, to demand action be taken to protect children.”

Updated

Pell: I can’t nominate another bishop whose actions are so grave and inexplicable

The bishop of Ballarat between 1971 and 1997, Ronald Mulkearns, behaved reprehensibly towards victims of child sexual abuse and their concerned parents, Cardinal George Pell has told the commission. The commission heard that in reaction to one parent who came to him to say her children were being abused, Mulkearns “just stared”.

Furness asks Pell: “Do you think Bishop Mulkearns is just one bad apple, as it were, within the Catholic church as a bishop by conducting himself in the way that he has up until this date?”

Pell: “Unfortunately, I would have to say that I can’t nominate another bishop whose actions are so grave and inexplicable. There might be some but they don’t come to mind. His repeated refusal to act is, I think, absolutely extraordinary.”

Updated

Furness is taking Pell through the various abuses Gerald Ridsdale inflicted on children in Mortlake. She’s also taking him through the numerous people who knew a 14 year-old boy, Paul Levey, was living with Ridsdale. She’s also presenting him with documents that details complaints made about Ridsdale. Pell maintains he was unaware of all of this.

Furness: “You will see that [a parent] BAI rang the family doctor and asked him what he could tell about people who molested children. She doesn’t recall if she named Ridsdale but he was the only priest in Mortlake.

“Again, stopping there, we have now at this stage in Mortlake the family doctor being aware there was a problem with Ridsdale, a number of people knowing that there was a boy living in the presbytery with Ridsdale and Father Finnigan being aware that one set of parents was concerned about the welfare of their child around Ridsdale. Do you agree with that?”

Pell: “I do.”

Furness: “It is getting close to common knowledge, isn’t it?”

Pell: “Certainly those people knew. Could I just repeat something I have said partially before. Some time around 1980, I became principal of the institute of Catholic education which had 2000 students in Ballarat and Melbourne. It is not a small job. I was in Melbourne at least a couple of times a week, so I certainly wasn’t in with the life of the diocese like someone who would be working full-time in parishes.”

Furness ignores this disclaimer, and continues with her questioning.

Updated

'Cardinal, do you accept any responsibility at all?'

Gail Furness asks Cardinal Pell if he accepts any responsibility for paedophile priest Gerald Ridsdale being moved from parish to parish rather than reported to police.

Pell responds: “No, I do not.”

Updated

Furness: “It was more than just leadership, wasn’t it? It was all parish priests, assistant priests, advisers, consultors, who all collectively failed to protect children who were living and under the care of the Church in that diocese in the ‘70s and ‘80s?”

Pell: “I think that is a vast and misleading overstatement. It goes far beyond any evidence where there is evidence that people knew of misbehaviour or they knew of a practical danger they should have acted. We are not permitted to go beyond the evidence.”

Furness: “Well, there’s evidence, isn’t there, that more than one parish priest knew of allegations against Ridsdale?”

Pell: “That is correct”.

Updated

'You don’t need a magic wand. You just need a group of adults who are responsible, don’t you?'

Furness is turning Pell to a statement from an abuse survivor, Paul Levey. Paul is at the commission hearing in Rome watching Pell give his evidence.

Furness tells Pell that Levey was “sexually abused all the time just about every day” at the Mortlake parish.

Furness: “He describes he always slept in paedophile priest Gerald Ridsdale’s room and there was a housekeeper and always people coming and going, including people having parish meetings at the presbytery. And then he refers to living at the presbytery in Mortlake.”

Pell: “I was director of the Aquinas campus and at that stage, I was principal of the entire institute of Catholic education.”

Furness: “If you had discovered that a 14-year-old child was living in a presbytery, you would have done what you could to take the child out, wouldn’t you?

Pell: “Well, before that I would certainly have wanted to know why the child was there, and what precautions were in place and whether this was something that was temporary or permanent.”

Furness: “Now, if you had known that there had been complaints about Ridsdale of a sexual nature before the child was placed in the presbytery, you would never have put that child there, would you?”

Pell: “Certainly not.”

Furness: “And once you had discovered that the child was there, it would be wrong to do anything other than take the child out. Isn’t that right?”

Pell: “That recommendation that the child be taken out if it wasn’t in my power to do so.”

Furness: “You would do more than recommend, Cardinal, wouldn’t you?”

Pell: “I would do whatever was in my power in such hypothetical situations. I think we are all surrounded by real constraints and sometimes we’re able to say this must be done, sometimes we’re able to ensure that it is done. Sometimes such a recommendation would be rejected and you would have to appeal to another party. Because something is wrong you can’t wave a magic wand and correct the situation easily in every situation.”

Furness: “We’re talking about the safety of children, Cardinal. You don’t need a magic wand. You just need a group of adults who are responsible, don’t you?”

Updated

Furness is going back to comments made by Pell that his first inclination back in the 1970s would be to accept the word of the priest who denied an allegation of child sexual abuse, rather than to believe a victim.

Pell confirms: “I would have said my first instinct would have been to accept the protestation of innocence – innocence from the priest, until it was disproven. But that I, especially [from] my experience as a bishop, I came to see this was quite unreliable criteria.

Furness: My recollection certainly, Cardinal, is that you put forward a period of time up to the mid-to late 80s as when these views were views held by the Church.

Pell: “Well, I wouldn’t have described them as views held [by] the church. I would have been talking about my view and the view of a number of the other priests. I certainly acknowledge that from the middle 80s we got much greater clarity on these things. But all along there was – there should have been a presumption that we went with the truth. Your starting point might have been – or is different now. But the obligation to truth is exactly the same.”

Updated

The commission resumes

We’re back following the morning adjournment.

Questioning about notorious paedophile priest Gerald Ridsdale is continuing. Ridsdale is now in jail, having committed hundreds of offences against children. By the time Pell says he became aware of Ridsdale’s abusing, in the 1990s, Pell was no longer working alongside him.

By then, Pell says, Ridsdale had “significant dementia”.

“The poor man ... after a couple of years he couldn’t even remember what job he had. So it was – it went from significant dementia to radical, radical dementia over the two or three years I was with him. So it was difficult to say I had a coherent conversation with him.”

Updated

Leonie Sheedy, head of the Care Leavers Australia Network for child sexual abuse survivors, says she found Pell’s evidence this morning “disgraceful”.

“Saying that priests were removed from parishes because they were restless? I was just so shocked,” she says.

Pell’s comments that abuse allegations “wasn’t of much interest” to him were distressing, Sheedy said.

“It just shows the lack of empathy and understanding. The audience were just... just gobsmacked. We were shocked.”

She praised Furness and McClellan for their thorough line of questioning.

Updated

Some reactions to an explosive morning of evidence.

Updated

Morning adjournment

The commission is taking a short break after an extraordinary morning of evidence from Cardinal George Pell. To recap;

  • Pell told the commission that the widespread child abuse at the hands of pedophile priest, Gerald Ridsdale, was “a sad story and it wasn’t of much interest to me”. His comments led to gasps among some of those attending the hearing in Sydney.
  • The head of the royal commission into institutional responses to child sexual abuse, Justice Peter McClellan, has pressed Pell on how it was he did not know about the abuse. Given he was one of the consultors appointed to give advice to the then bishop of Ballarat, Ronald Mulkearns, and the majority consultors seemed to know Ridsdale was abusing children, McClellan said it was a great deception that Pell was not kept in the loop.
  • Pell told the commission that the church works “within a framework of Christian moral teaching” and discussion of “the secret faults of others”, including child abuse, was not encouraged.
  • Counsel assisting, Gail Furness, pressed Pell on why Ridsdale was moved from parish to parish, and what he knew of the reasons behind these moves. She also said it was common knowledge among parents, teachers, children and senior religious staff that Ridsdale was abusing, and asked how it was this knowledge did not reach Pell, an assistant priest and consultor.

Melissa Davey with you here. You can share your thoughts with me on Twitter or on Facebook, and I’ll do my best to answer any of your questions.

Updated

Counsel assisting, Gail Furness, is not letting Pell off on his comments that he did share in the widespread knowledge that Gerald Ridsdale was abusing children within Ballarat parishes. Especially given he was a link between the parish and senior figures in his role as consultor.

Furness is trying to understand how that was the case Pell did not know. Her line of questioning is clearly frustrating Pell, who is growing impatient and who encouraged Furness to read her documents.

Furness: “And in your own language, you were the essential link between the bishop and the parents,teacher, children and principals of Catholic schools?”

Pell: “I find that an extraordinary claim in the light of the discussion that we had yesterday where we did a detailed study of the passage where it was pointed out very clearly that the Episcopal Vicar was one part of an essential linking between the bishop and the educational institutions and that linkage was a religious linkage.”

Furness: “Ultimately, it will be a matter for commissioners as to decide the meaning of your words in that document,Cardinal. Can I turn now to-

Pell: Could I suggest that for both of us the obligation is to study the words in the document and to conclude from that?”

Furness: “Thank you, Cardinal. I suspect some lawyers have an understanding of that concept.”

Updated

McClellan: 'We have to determine a very serious issue'

Justice Peter McClellan is interrogating Pell on why senior figures in the church would have known that Gerald Ridsdale, who committed more than 130 offences against children as young as four between the 1960s and 1980s, would have known about his abuse while Pell did not.

McClellan says; “I don’t understand why the bishop would choose to deceive you or lie to you, a member of his consultors, about Ridsdale’s behaviour when it was common knowledge in at least two of the parishes. Given that it was common knowledge amongst many people why would he choose to deceive you?”

Pell: “Because he would realise that I didn’t know and he did not want me to share in his culpability and also I think he would not have wanted to mention it to me and some – at least some other members of the consultors because we were – at the very minimum we would have asked questions about the propriety of such a practice.”

McClellan: “What is wrong with that? That was your job, wasn’t it?”

Pell: “I’m trying to explain why he didn’t do it. Of course it was our job and almost certainly it would have been done.”

McClellan: “You say you speak of the bishop’s culpability. If we were to come to the view that you did know, you would be culpable too, wouldn’t you?”

Pell: “That’s correct.”

McClellan: So we have – we have to determine a very serious issue, don’t we?”

Updated

"We work within a framework of Christian moral teaching"

Furness is really pressing Pell on how he could not have known that Ridsdale was abusing dozens of children given that it was common knowledge within the diocese of Ballarat, given that Pell was a senior figure within the diocese as a consultor and assistant priest with direct access to the Bishop, and given the bishop at the time, Ronald Mulkearns and many other senior figures, knew of the abuse.

Surely, given priests are “human”, Furness says, priests would have talked to each other about the abusing, including to Pell, she says.

Pell replies; “Human beings in different categories have very different approaches to these matters. We work within the framework of Christian moral teaching.”

[There are scoffs heard on the Sydney end of the hearing]

Pell: “Would you like me to continue?”

Furness: “I would indeed.”

Pell: “We work within a framework of Christian moral teaching or certainly we should. And discussion of the secret faults of others is not encouraged.”

Furness: “The problems with Ridsdale were not secret, Cardinal. They were known, the evidence says, by two communities ... Ridsdale says there must have been talk about town. Now, to suggest, Cardinal, as you have repeatedly, that knowledge about Ridsdale was secret is just not true.”

Updated

The commission chair, Justice Peter McClellan, who is widely respected by child sex abuse survivors, appears to be growing impatient with Pell. He repeatedly presses Pell to “answer my question”.

McClellan: “Why were you were sitting at that meeting, why did you think that Ridsdale had been moved in this irregular way?”

Pell: “Because obviously there were a series of difficulties but it certainly was not stated that those difficulties touched on paedophilia and crimes.”

McClellan: “Did you ask what the difficulties were?”

Pell: “I can’t remember specifically asking. But there would have been some generalised explanation.”

McClellan: “Generalised explanation - could you help me to understand what that might be?”

Pell: “Well, there might have been difficulties with the school principal, there might have been difficulties of personalities, there might have been a difficulty of an inappropriate adult relationship. There could have simply been that the man was perpetually restless. These are all possibilities.”

McClellan: “Did someone tell you that those possibilities had materialised in Ridsdale’s case?”

Pell: “They certainly did not mention that the reason he was being shipped was because of paedophilia.”

McClellan: “Cardinal, would you answer my question, please?”

Pell: “Could you repeat it, please?”

McClellan: “Yes. Did someone tell you that the possibilities you referred to had materialised in Ridsdale’s case?”

Pell: “I can’t remember exactly what was said. But it would have been quite clear that there were difficulties of some sort.”

Updated

"It's hard to imagine a greater deception"

The head of the royal commission into institutional responses to child sexual abuse, Justice Peter McClellan, has interjected to ask his own questions of Pell. As discussed in the post below, Pell was one of the consultors appointed to give advice to the Bishop of Ballarat, Ronald Mulkearns.

McClellan points out that all of the consultors seemed to know that Gerald Ridsdale was abusing children, except for him and one other consultor.

McClellan: “And you say that none of those people shared with you any knowledge they had about Ridsdale?”

Pell: “That is correct and these matters were not discussed at the consultors meetings and I think that is very close to the unanimous evidence of the consultors.

McClellan: “Cardinal, as I understand your evidence, the consequence is you say the bishop [Mulkearns] deceived you, is that right?”

Pell: “Unfortunately correct.”

McClellan: “It is surprising, isn’t it, that a bishop and a senior cleric who joined with you in a committee to advise in relation to appointments would deceive a member of that committee?

Pell: “It is surprising.”

McClellan: “It’s hard to imagine a greater deception, isn’t it?”

Pell: Well, it probably would be possible to imagine a greater deception, but it’s a gross deception.”

Updated

For part of the time he was a priest in Ballarat, Pell was one of the consultors to Bishop Ronald Mulkearns, who was head of the diocese. His was appointed to the role in 1977 and it included giving advice to Mulkearns on various diocese matters, including the appointments and movements of priests to parishes, and changing of people’s roles.

Pell was a consultor during a period of priests sexually and physically abusing children, and those priests being moved between parishes. Counsel assisting, Gail Furness, is now turning her attention to Pell’s consultor role, and the kind of conversations that took place about the movement of priests. Pell has always maintained he was never told that some of the priests transferred between parishes were paedophiles and that they were being moved for this reason.

“Consultors have an obligation to share the knowledge they have,” Pell tells the commission.

Furness is pressing Pell on why Father Gerald Ridsdale had his role changed so frequently, and was also moved frequently between parishes. The commission has previously heard paedophile priests, rather than being reported to police, were simply moved to other parishes.

Furness: “So it’s the case, isn’t it, that if he [Gerald Ridsdale] went from being parish priest to administrator, that would be a sign that there was something wrong with his ministry? Doesn’t that follow?”

Pell: “He would not go from being parish priest to administrator in the same parish. If he was parish priest and was then regularly appointed or was appointed as administrator, it would be a sign that there was some sort of problem or difficulty, yes.”

Furness: “Well Cardinal, it’s the case, isn’t it, he went from parish priest to administrator and then back to parish priest again, there was clearly a period between each of those parish priests appointments where there was some problem with him? Isn’t that clear?

Pell: “No, it’s not entirely clear to us. It wasn’t entirely clear then.”

Updated

Looks like those gasps of shock came from the Sydney end, not from Rome.

Another telling exchange

Furness is trying to get Pell to be clear on who he believes was and was not responsible for protecting children in the care of the church at schools and other institutions. Furness says that surely all adults have a responsibility:

“So who isn’t responsible in the church to ensure the safety of children who are taken in by the church either as parishioners or as altar boys or in any other way operate within the church? Who isn’t responsible?”

Pell: “Well it’s very difficult to answer these questions where we swing from one extreme to the other. Everybody has some sort of general responsibility. Individuals and especially office holders have particular responsibility for their areas of concern.

Furness: “So if it was the case that a parish priest heard of events dangerous to children happening in a neighbouring parish or a parish distant from them, based on what you’ve said they’ve got no responsibility in relation to the children who are in danger? Is that right?”

Pell: “Well very obviously I said nothing of the sort. I said that a person from a neighbouring parish or a distant parish has less responsibility for the care of children in those distant parishes than he does in his own. I’m not suggesting for a minute, especially in a neighbouring parish, that a neighbouring parish priest would have no responsibility at all. I never suggested that.”

Updated

From reporter Ben Doherty who is in the hearing in Sydney;

“Clumsy from Pell on the stand – describing his knowledge of whether it was common knowledge that Ridsdale was abusing children – drew audible gasps from those in the room in Rome.”

Updated

Audible shock heard in the room as Pell says story of abuse "wasn't of much interest to me"

Quite an extraordinary exchange has occurred between counsel assisting, Gail Furness and Cardinal George Pell, prompting audible gasps in the room. It’s unclear if those gasps came from Hotel Quirinale in Rome, where survivors are watching Pell, or in Sydney, where the commission is sitting.

Furness: “Did you subsequently know, not that [paedophile priest Gerald Ridsdale] he offended at Inglewood, leave that to one side, but that it was common knowledge of his interfering with children at Inglewood?

Pell: “I couldn’t say that I ever knew that everyone knew. I knew a number of people did. I didn’t know whether it was common knowledge or whether it wasn’t. It’s a sad story and it wasn’t of much interest to me.”

Furness: “What wasn’t of much interest to you, Cardinal?”

Pell: “The suffering, of course, was real and I very much regret that but I had no reason to turn my mind to the extent of the evils that Ridsdale had perpetrated.”

Furness: “In order, Cardinal, to not have the offences and misconduct of the past repeated, doesn’t one need to understand the circumstances in which those offences were committed and the structure and personnel that permitted that to occur? Isn’t it the case, Cardinal, that every adult in the Church is responsible for ensuring the safety of children going forward? It’s not a question of structural responsibility, it’s a question of being an adult and being responsible, isn’t it, Cardinal?”

Pell: “Well, an individual can only do what it is possible to do and everybody has a responsibility to try to preserve the moral health of the community in ways that are real and practical.”

Updated

Furness is going much further today into paedophile priest Gerald Ridsdale, who abused children across parishes for decades. Ridsdale is now in prison. His victims were as young as four. Furness is saying his abusing was known to many.

Pell, who supported Ridsdale during his first court appearance for child sex offences in 1993, has always denied knowing of any child abuse occurring in Ballarat while he worked there as a priest and with a clerical group called the College of Consultors during the 1970s and 1980s. Pell also spent time living with Gerald Ridsdale in 1973, but has said he had no idea he was a paedophile.

Furness: “I was asking you about knowledge you had that Ridsdale was interfering with children in Inglewood and you said not at that stage and then I asked you, at a later stage?”

Pell: “Yes.”

Furness: “When?”

Pell: “Well, I couldn’t say precisely but after he was tried and jailed.”

Furness: “So after 1993?”

Pell: “Yes.”

Furness: “And is it the case in 1993, or after that year, you understood that he had been committing offences for which he was now convicted and sentenced, is that what you understood in 1993 or thereafter?”

Pell: “I did.”

Furness: “Now that’s a different question from the one I asked you, Cardinal. It was whether you had knowledge that it was common knowledge at Inglewood at that time?”

Pell: “I did not know that it was common knowledge at Inglewood at that time because if I’d known that I would have known that there were offences. Possible offences.”

Updated

Indeed.

Pell maintains he didn’t know the circumstances around why Gerald Ridsdale was moved from parish to parish. Remember, Pell was assistant priest at Ballarat East at the time, and also spent some time living with Ridsdale. He said he knew Ridsdale was being moved around, but suspected it may have been to broaden his experience.

However, he admits that the pattern of moving him so frequently was “unusual”. The commission has previously heard that rather than dealing with perpetrators or suspected perpetrators, the church just moved them to other parishes.

Furness: “Now, the fact that it was somewhat unusual would, I suggest, give rise to some discussion about why he was moving in a pattern that was somewhat unusual, do you agree with that?”

Pell: “One would presume that. I can’t remember any such discussion. It would depend a bit on the attitude of the bishop as to whether he just made this clear that he wanted this to happen. So to summarise, I don’t remember such discussions, but by the same token, the pattern of movements even by the standards of the time, is somewhat unusual.”

Updated

Furness isn’t letting Pell get away with short yes and no answers.

Furness: “And Ridsdale was appointed to Inglewood.”

Pell: “Yes.”

Furness: “Now, it’s again the case, isn’t it, that Bishop Mulkearns and Monsignor Fiscalini moved Ridsdale to Inglewood knowing of the complaint by [abuse victim] BWA?”

Pell: “That is correct.”

Furness: “And again, what is your view of that conduct?”

Pell: “I repeat, it’s unacceptable.”

Furness: “Just tell us why it’s unacceptable.”

Pell: “Because of the risk that it presented to the children in Inglewood and that was exacerbated by the fact it doesn’t seem as though any effort was made to withdraw Ridsdale, at least for a period, from counselling or advice or help.”

Updated

The evidence begins

Counsel assisting, Gail Furness, has opened by questioning Pell about evidence given by a child sex abuse victim, identified only as BWA. She’s also asking about notorious paedophile Father Gerald Ridsdale, who committed more than 130 offences against children as young as four between the 1960s and 1980s.

Furness seems to be going towards asking Pell about why Ridsdale, given abuse allegations against him, was simply moved from parish to parish rather than be reported to police.

Furness: “Firstly there’s reference to a letter from Father Ridsdale applying for a position in Port Fairy which becomes vacant, and then if we can turn to the next page you see a reference there to Ridsdale being appointed to Apollo Bay.”

Pell: “Yes.”

Furness: “Now, from the statement of BWA, he said that he told [Father] Brophy who he said told Monsignor Fiscalini about a serious assault by Ridsdale. So it seems, doesn’t it, from this document that Bishop Mulkearns and Monsignor Fiscalini moved Ridsdale to Apollo Bay with knowledge of that earlier complaint about Ridsdale.”

Pell: “That is correct.”

Furness: “And what is your view of the conduct of Bishop Mulkearns and Monsignor Fiscalini in that regard?”

Pell: “That is unacceptable.”

Updated

Pell has just arrived at the Hotel Quirinale in Rome, where he is giving his evidence. It’s about 10pm in Rome, and Pell met Pope Francis during the day.

“I’ve got the full backing of the Pope,” he tells reporters.

Fairfax reports that the Pope “may accept Pell’s enforced resignation in June, if evidence to Australia’s royal commission links him to the relocation of priests suspected of paedophilia”:

Pope Francis and Cardinal Pell met face to face at the Vatican on Monday, just hours after the Australian cleric’s first session giving evidence by video link to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.

The Vatican gave no details of the meeting, but Corriere della Serra reported it was one of a regular series of “di cartelli” briefings the Pope gets from department heads.

Cardinal Pell is the Vatican’s prefect of the Secretariat for the Economy – he described himself to the Commission as the “treasurer” of the Vatican, and is widely called the third most powerful man in the Holy See.

Corriere said it was “difficult to imagine” that the interview would not have touched on the cardinal’s video evidence to the Commission which took place late on Sunday night, Rome time.

Read the Fairfax story here.

Updated

Reporter Ben Doherty is in the commission hearing in Sydney, which will kick off shortly. He’s been speaking to protesters this morning who have gathered in central Sydney where the royal commission hearing is taking place. Ben writes:

They are wearing the blue shirts of their organisation, the Care Leavers Australia Network, and carrying colourful placards calling on the prime minister to establish a national redress scheme, and urging witnesses “Tell the truth to the Royal Commission”. Others are broader: “Every child deserves a safe and happy childhood: MAKE IT HAPPEN”.

The Care Leavers Australia Network is engaging in some old-fashioned pamphleteering outside the commission, distributing leaflets calling on the prime minister to establish a National Redress Scheme for victims of abuse. Their statement reads:

“Whatever redress scheme is developed, priority must be given to survivors who were abused as children in ‘closed’ institutions where they lived 24/7. These include orphanages, children’s homes, residential ‘care’, youth training centres, foster families and mental institutions. Whether run by government, churches, or charities, children in these institutions were absolutely at the mercy of cruel and predatory brutes.

They children were: separated from their parents full-time; isolated from the community; afraid and alone; had no-one to turn to in their time of need. They couldn’t tell police. They couldn’t tell their families. They were the children of the state and the state betrayed their trust.”

Updated

We’re about 10 minutes away from Pell’s evidence beginning.

Day one largely went over Pell’s upbringing in Ballarat, his various appointments within the diocese there, including as assistant priest at Ballarat East from 1973 until 1984, and his role as the episcopal vicar for education, overseeing Catholic schools in the region.

It will be interesting to see where counsel assisting, Gail Furness, takes her questioning today, having now got much of the background out of the way. Furness also yesterday took Pell through a long list of names of known abusers, and those who complained about the abusers, as she tried to establish what Pell knew.

We have three more days left of questioning, including today.

Updated

News.com.au reports that the Italian press has given the child sex abuse royal commission and Pell’s evidence “modest coverage, but enough to please the survivors who have travelled to Rome to have their voices heard”.

Until now, the media in Italy has largely ignored the commission, seeing it very much as an Australian-only issue, news.com.au’s Victoria Craw reports from Rome:

But the appearance of Cardinal Pell, the Vatican’s high-profile equivalent of the treasurer, has propelled it as a top issue, with most of the national dailies recording the hearing.

The Italian press has largely remained silent on the abuse claims; yesterday they noted Cardinal Pell had admitted the church had made “enormous mistakes” in how it handled issues but their was no proof to implicate him in anyway.

La Repubblica gave the hearing a half page spread and noted that, while Cardinal Pell has consistently denied “with strength” any knowledge of wrong doing, the Australian public considered him guilty. They also found it hard to believe he could not have known what was going on.

Il Messaggero highlighted that thousands of children had been abused by the clergy in Australia.

Updated

Protesters from the Care Leavers Australia Network [CLAN] have set up outside the commission in Sydney – they’ve been there since 6.30am.

Overall, survivors from Clan are disappointed in Pell’s evidence yesterday, saying it wasn’t transparent enough. They’re hopeful Pell will be pressed more today about what he did when he finally realised that abuse had been occurring, even if he had by then moved on from his position in Ballarat.

Updated

The Guardian’s correspondent in Rome, Stephanie Kirchgaessner, writes that the Vatican “used to be impermeable to horrific stories of child sexual abuse by priests – and complicit in attempts to whitewash the perpetrators’ reputations”.

But an unexpected confluence of extraordinary events has changed all that this week. The film Spotlight, the tale of the Boston Globe’s dogged investigation into clerical sexual abuse, won Hollywood’s most coveted prize of the Oscar for best picture.

More importantly, hours before the Oscar win was announced, one of the most senior officials within the Vatican hierarchy, Cardinal George Pell of Australia, admitted under oath for the first time that he had heard that an Australian Catholic schoolteacher may have engaged in “paedophilia activity”, but never followed up on the “one or two fleeting references” he heard about the “misbehaviour”.

The teacher in question, Edward Dowlan, a Christian Brother, was later convicted of abusing 20 boys and is serving a six-year prison sentence.

Read Stephanie’s full piece here.

Welcome to day two of our live coverage of the child sex abuse royal commission, with Cardinal George Pell again due to testify in the next half hour or so.

There has been a range of coverage and reaction to Monday’s evidence overnight. Much of it focused on Pell’s acknowledgment that the church’s response to child sex abuse allegations was “scandalous” and a “catastrophe”, and Pell’s admission that although he heard rumours of priests abusing, the inclination was to believe the accused rather than the victims.

Guardian Australia’s David Marr filed this piece of analysis from day one, writing that since his last appearance in the box, Pell has engaged a team of first-rate lawyers. Marr says:

Perhaps they’ve encouraged him to reflect more deeply on his years in Ballarat when he returned from Oxford with a great career before him in the church.

“My memory is sometimes fallible,” he told the commission. But there seems so much more there than had been supposed. This is encouraging. And the details he gave on Monday save Pell from the fate of simply being disbelieved.

He had heard rumours. Parents raised the issue of abuse with him. So did one or two students. Even priests spoke about it, not as gossip – Pell still deplores gossip – but while “discussing church life”.

Discussing each other’s sexual proclivities, asked Furness? To which the cardinal replied with a hint of reproach, “I very rarely indulged in any such discussions.”

While correcting the impression he didn’t have a clue what was going on back then, Pell left the impression of being remarkably incurious. He seems not to have interrogated his sources. He gave no evidence of investigating the grim suspicions that were raised with him.

Melissa Davey with you here. You can share your thoughts with me on Twitter or on Facebook, and I’ll do my best to answer any of your questions. You can catch up with yesterday’s evidence as it happened here.

Stay with us.

Updated

Sign up to read this article
Read news from 100’s of titles, curated specifically for you.
Already a member? Sign in here
Related Stories
Top stories on inkl right now
One subscription that gives you access to news from hundreds of sites
Already a member? Sign in here
Our Picks
Bedbug chaos sweeps multiple states, with a travel insider revealing the shocking reason why you might bring them home
Bedbug infestations linked to travel are surging in multiple Southern states, and one travel expert is pointing to budget accommodations as a major culprit for why you might unknowingly bring these unwelcome guests home. This is definitely awful news if you’re planning any spring break trips or just general travel.
The Mary Sue
The Mary Sue
I’m Even More Upset About The Buffy Reboot Getting Canceled After Hearing All The BTS Tea
I didn't think this could get more annoying, then it did.
Cinemablend
Cinemablend
After Calling Out Diddy's Legal Drama For So Long, 50 Cent Is Now Dealing With His Own
50 Cent has been making legal moves as of late.
Cinemablend
Cinemablend
Zendaya: Many people fooled by AI-generated photos of wedding to Tom Holland
It comes amid speculation the couple have tied the knot.
Evening Standard
Evening Standard
‘Sleep divorce’: could separate beds improve your health?
They say love conquers all, but it doesn’t always conquer snoring.
The Conversation
The Conversation
Spider-Man: Brand New Day's Trailer Is Finally Coming, But With A Twist That's Got Me Scratching My Head
I... don't get it.
Cinemablend
Cinemablend
Fourteen days free
Download the app
One app. One membership.
100+ trusted global sources.
Download on the AppStore Get it on Google Play