Clare’s blog, aka rantspace

Tim Minchin’s song Come Home (Cardinal Pell) has raised quite a few eyebrows and brought out some of the most defensive of his supporters, who have described it as a witchhunt and argued that there’s no reason why Pell should have known about Ridsdale. As a clergy abuse survivor myself, though not in Ballarat and not of the Catholic Church, I laughed and applauded as I listened to Minchin. Yes, his words pull no punches (“But your ethical hypocrisy/Your intellectual vacuity/And your arrogance/Don’t bother me as much/As the fact that you have turned out to be/Such a goddamn coward”), but he says no more than abuse survivors have known for decades.

You see, survivors don’t generally lose their faith when they’re abused.  They lose their faith when they make a formal complaint to the church and get shafted – over, and over, and over again.  And each shafting is accompanied by futile and meaningless excuses from church hierarchy – “we didn’t understand back then”, “do you really want to damage his life?”, “I don’t have the power to offer you redress”, “it’s just your word against his”, “we’ve never had a complaint about him before”, etc. etc.  And one comes to the inescapable conclusion that it’s not just one abuser here and there – or even several abusers – but rather that the whole church organisation will do anything it can to discredit and silence those who threaten its safety and reputation.

Pell, of course, is a prime example.  And to illustrate this, let’s start with a few facts about Gerald Ridsdale (“Gerry” in the song):
1) In 1973, Pell and Ridsdale were not only priests in the same parish, but they lived together in the same presbytery (clergy house).
2) During that time, and throughout Ridsdale’s 30 years in the priesthood, he abused so many young boys that eventually he was charged with over THREE HUNDRED counts of assault/buggery.
3) He regularly abused young boys in his own bedroom in the presbytery, and he was known for carrying a jar of Vaseline in his car for abuses elsewhere.
4) Ridsdale’s first jail term (for offences against 8 boys) was imposed in 1966 – 7 years before that fateful year as Pell’s housemate and fellow priest.

Previously I’ve blogged about Pell’s confirmed lies, and how he continues to contradict himself in evidence, but still there are many Catholic faithful who see him through rose-coloured glasses.Yet even reserving judgement on his alleged involvement as an abuser (a complaint which was backed up with some fairly convincing detail, but which was fought tooth and nail by the church), there is simply no doubt that Pell has been anything but sympathetic to victims, and has consistently acted to minimise the church’s liability regardless of the impact such actions would have on already-traumatised and broken people.  Many survivors have testified to Pell’s bullying tactics – David Ridsdale (Gerald’s nephew and victim) and the Fosters (parents of two abuse victims, one of whom suicided) are two of the most outspoken.  And it’s generally accepted by psychologists that bullies are cowards at heart.  Pell has good reason to be afraid, and to be highly stressed at the thought of undergoing yet more public scrutiny, and no doubt if he really does have a heart condition that stress would exacerbate it.

His supporters of course argue that he has already demonstrated willingness to appear before the Commission, but a) that was while he was still in Australia, so his excuses were limited, b) he left Australia immediately after his last appearance, thereby obviating any possibility of legal action resulting from his testimony, and c) he has since remained in the Vatican, safe from any threat of being sued or extradited.  In any case, if the Commission wants to ask him more questions, his previous appearances obviously weren’t sufficient to answer everything the Royal Commission wants to know.

But there are options, if he really wanted to appear.  He could come by boat – a nice sea voyage would surely improve his health.  Or he could accept the assistance offered a few days ago by a Perth doctor with experience in medevacs. Dr Richard Sallie offered to ensure Pell got to Australia safely, and even offered to pay for his tickets first-class.   But again, Pell shows his true colours in not making every effort to attend in person.  At bottom, it’s obvious he doesn’t want to and is fearful of doing so.  Alas, the Royal Commission has no power to compel witnesses to appear, so they have little option but to accept his refusal and arrange the video link.  One would like to think that they will insist that it be in an open courtroom in Italy, but the likelihood is that it will be in some private room in the Vatican.

In my view, the REAL reason why Pell is pleading unfitness to travel here to attend the Royal Commission again is that he knows there’s a fairly high risk that he could be arrested on arrival – for perjury, for conspiracy to conceal crimes, and for perverting the course of justice.

I’ve blogged before about Pell’s responses to tough questions, and it never ceases to amaze me how much he gets away with which seems totally implausible because it’s so inconsistent with the facts.  Here he is at it again, in his evidence to the Royal Commission, as reported by The Guardian:

“George Pell was being asked to explain how his absolute conviction that John Ellis was abused as a boy by Father Aidan Duggan – a belief based on a five-month investigation by a church assessor – squared with the instructions he gave to contest the abuse in the New South Wales supreme court. His claim: to dispute is not to deny. “I made it quite clear to the lawyers that we could not deny that an offence had taken place,” he explained. All they did in court was dispute Ellis’s claims, “put the plaintiff to proof”.”
but a little later on:
“Mystery was the cardinal’s word of the day. The biggest mystery to him is a long email written by his private secretary, Dr Michael Casey, which, on a plain reading, has the cardinal trying find a way to disown the church’s own conclusions about Ellis’s abuse. “This appears to be a contrivance so as to give the lawyers a capacity to argue that the allegations of Mr Ellis should be disputed,” said McClellan [the Royal Commissioner]. Pell assured the commissioner that was the last thing on his mind. So what was his private secretary getting at? “It’s a mystery to me.” ”

Hmmm…anyone notice the inconsistency there?  In the first point, Pell is saying that the position of the church in the court case was to dispute Ellis’ claims.  But in the second point, disputing Ellis’ claims was “the last thing on his mind”.

Perhaps I’m being unduly cynical when I suspect that Pell’s imminent departure for Rome so soon after giving evidence to the Royal Commission is no coincidence.  As Geoffrey Robertson pointed out in his recent book, Dreaming Too Loud*, “As head of a make-believe but widely recognised state , Pope Benedict has had absolute immunity from legal action. But as ex-King Farouk famously discovered (when a court ordered him to pay for apparel acquired when he was king), this immunity is not the same after you retire. There are a number of priests who were permitted to stay in holy orders by Cardinal Ratzinger after their propensity to molest was known, and their victims would like to sue him for damages for negligence. If he chooses a retirement home outside the Vatican, the local court may decide that they have a case.”  Any evidence uncovered by the Royal Commission might allow those secondarily damaged by Pell’s responses to sue him, if he remained in Australia.  But apparently he’ll be safe from that in the Vatican.

*Robertson, Geoffrey, Dreaming Too Loud. Random House Australia, 2013. Kindle Edition, locations 4989-4993.

Cardinal Pell is one step closer to his ambitions, with the announcement of his appointment to a new post in Rome as Prefect for the Economy of the Holy See.  Apparently his job will be management and reform of the Vatican’s finances and administration.  He’ll have to deal with the fallout from Vatileaks, and the allegations of corruption and money laundering by the Vatican Bank.

So how, exactly, does a guy with a Masters in Education and a PhD in Church History get a job overseeing complex financial administration?  Well, you can take your pick of the fact that he’s been good friends with the current pope and the last two popes, or the fact that he’ll be strategically leaving Australia soon after giving evidence at the Royal Commission into clergy abuse.

Or, of course, that he’s qualified for the job in some way none of us know.

It’s been a long-running refrain of the Church (and church supporters) that clergy abuse victims who press a complaint to the church are doing it for the money.  And of course that’s a very difficult accusation to refute without specific figures, which churches are usually extremely reluctant to disclose.  Fortunately that kind of detail is the sort of thing that gets forced out into the open during a Royal Commission.

In December, the SMH reported that “Incomplete church data says 1700 people had participated in Towards Healing by 2013, and had been paid a total of $43 million by church authorities. The highest known individual payment was $850,000.”  Now $850,000 looks like the sort of amount that could bolster the ‘only in it for the money’ argument.  But let’s just stop and think for a moment.  $43M, divided among 1700 victims equates to an average payment of just under $25,300 each.  Taking one payment of $850,000 and one person out of the equation drops the average payment to all the others by around $500.

In most cases, complainants have struggled with the effects of their abuse throughout their lives since, and been profoundly re-traumatised in pressing their complaint.  Believe me, there’s no way $25,000 would make it seem worth it!

The federal Royal Commission into church abuse began its hearings yesterday in Melbourne.  Barney Zwartz reports that “Francis Sullivan, chief executive of the Truth, Healing and Justice Council set up by the Catholic Church to liaise with the commission, said after the hearing that the church had agreed to waive every confidentiality agreement to allow victims to tell their stories freely.”

How terribly magnanimous of him/them!

Firstly, these are the confidentiality clauses that Cardinal Pell denied existed (before published photocopies of them proved him wrong).  Secondly, many such clauses allowed the victims to disclose for legal purposes, so in those circumstances the waiver is meaningless anyway.  And thirdly, there is some question as to whether such clauses hold any legal weight at all, given that their intent and effect is to conceal crimes.

One such ‘gag order’, dating from May 2002, read “It is a condition of the settlement that the Releasor on the one hand and the Diocesan Body Corporate on the other mutually agree that as from this date each of them will not make any report or comment or communication of any type in relation to the claims, this Deed or any of the matters referred to herein or any other incidents alleged to have occurred relating thereto otherwise than as required by law for the purposes of enforcing the Deed or, in the case of the Releasor, obtaining any specialist medical advice. Each party must use their best endeavours to ensure that none of the employees, servants, agents, officers, advisors, relatives, spouses or partners diclose any information…”

In other words, the church could use the information to sue for any breach of the deed, and the victim could use the information to get medical/psychiatric treatment, but that’s all.

Such orders were not limited to the Catholic Church, either – I was asked by the Sydney Anglican Diocese to sign a similar clause (although, if I recall correctly, I had to “guarantee” the silence of my friends and family rather than “use my best endeavours”).  I refused to sign such terms, but many victims are so overwhelmed by the whole process that they have no heart for further quibbling.

I find it truly horrifying (though not at all surprising, unfortunately) that the church is still suggesting that it is somehow being generous in offering such waivers.  It would be far more truly generous – in fact, the very least they should do – if they were to guarantee to every victim, in writing, that they would never pursue action for breaches of the gag orders.

As Religion Editor of the Age, Barney Zwartz should know better.  In his article of 31st Jan here, he states two factual errors, both of which required only very basic knowledge or research of the issue in order to get right.

1) He said that Australia “now has two inquiries into the sexual abuse of children by clergy”.  Er, well, no.  Perhaps the Age may be forgiven for being Victoria-centric, but there is a third inquiry running in NSW, focusing specifically on the cover-up of a major pattern of abuse in the Maitland-Newcastle Catholic Diocese.

2) Zwartz also claimed that “Cardinal Bernard Law of Boston was the first, and so far only, archbishop to resign over public revulsion at his handling of child sex abuse by his clergy.”  This is an error of far greater magnitude, but one also incredibly easy to check the facts for, since there are several websites worldwide which list church hierarchy who have resigned or been dismissed.  My own site lists more than 25 senior clerics (admittedly some of whom were only bishops rather than archbishops) forced out by abuse scandals, despite not including more recent incidents.

The facts are that even in Australia, both Governor-General Hollingworth (formerly Anglican Archbishop of Brisbane) and Archbishop Ian George (Anglican, Adelaide) were forced to resign by public revulsion over their handling of clergy abuse matters.  George resigned in 2004, but Hollingworth resigned in May 2002 – 7 months before Law.  Perhaps (putting the best possible light on Zwartz’s error) he was only referring to the Catholic Church?  And perhaps only to those still in their archbishopric at the time of resignation?  And perhaps not to those forced out of office by their own abuses coming to light?  Ah well, then he still missed the news about Archbishop Penney (Newfoundland, 1991) and Archbishop Ward (Wales, 2001), both of whom were removed before Cardinal Law (Dec 2002).

And perhaps Zwartz also doesn’t really understand that bishops and archbishops are basically the same rank within the church? An archbishop simply oversees an important diocese, or a group of bishops within a diocese too large to be administered by one bishop.  Including bishops widens the field significantly, but Australia’s Bishop Shearman (2004) stands out as the first bishop actually to be defrocked due to abuse offences.

Which leads me to one of the most ironic points of the whole issue.  Many lay people within the church, let alone those outside the church, don’t realise that there are two separate factors involved in the holding of any ordained position within the church.  Firstly, that the person is ordained (holds Holy Orders).  Secondly that they are licenced (Anglican) or given faculties (Catholic).  This latter authorises them to act in a particular diocese and/or a particular position.  For the vast majority of clergy who are removed from office, their licence is withdrawn (or faculties are revoked).  They are rarely – only extremely rarely – defrocked.  Yet while they hold Holy Orders, they can be re-licenced at any time, by any other diocese.

When a priest or bishop is removed from office, people tend to assume they’ve been defrocked, and see that as the church’s affirmation of appropriate morals.  The irony lies in the fact that only very rarely is the church (which supposedly has a mandate on morals) acting according to the moral standard of the general public.

The Anglican Diocese of Brisbane argues that insurers constrain church responses to abuse.  To some extent that’s true, but it’s not as simple as saying that’s the cause of the appalling responses the churches have made to thousands – in fact, tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands – of abuse disclosures over the years.

Insurers do constrain the church from apologising because so often an apology implies liability.  But the actuality is that many victims do get (if they fight hard enough) some form of apology which says, in the same breath, “this is not intended to admit liability in any way”.  I leave it to the reader to decide how genuine such an apology might seem to the traumatised victim!

Insurers do generate a legal/adversarial response because that’s the way they work.  But the actuality is that churches haven’t had a good track record in this area even when insurance was not at issue.  Many victims simply want to be assured that their pain is heard and potential victims are protected.

Insurers may “prefer to litigate rather than settle”, but that’s not the point.  They’re not the ones who initiate a damages suit.  The point is that victims feel forced to litigate when the church’s  response falls appallingly short of justice and compassion.

Insurers may “inhibit the diocese from acting as they would wish”, but that doesn’t excuse the myriad of cases where church officials have advised victims not to report to police.  Even where a victim is reluctant to pursue a police report, I personally recommend that victims make a report (anonymously, if they so desire) to CrimeStoppers, so that the abuse is on record.  Churches could do that too, but they don’t.

Although the pattern of disclosure has altered somewhat in the last decade with the advent of advocacy groups urging a more litigious approach, the actuality is that most victims do not, in the first instance, think of suing the church.  Generally speaking, they simply want their story to be heard and the damage to them acknowledged.  They also want to be assured that the church stands with them rather than supporting the abuser.  Only when it becomes apparent that the church will not do those things do they consider legal action.  Victim support groups also strongly recommend reporting to police, since churches are not (either in qualifications or historically) the best people to decide whether the victim has grounds for a criminal case.

And throughout the process, there are many, many actions that simply can’t be put down to the insurers: that churches frequently demand documentation, or a meeting, or write letters to victims, right at trigger times like Easter and Christmas; that churches lie about what has been done or what can be done; that churches refuse to meet with victims or their families and offer specious excuses; that churches re-employ abusers despite knowing the danger (I doubt the insurers would be in favour of that!); that churches involved in negotiations with victims pressure them to sign release deeds without legal advice… the list goes on.

If it was really as simple as what constraints the insurers lay on them, a compassionate churchman could always say “I’d really like to offer you an apology for what you’ve suffered, but I hope you can understand that because the insurers dictate what we do in these matters, I’m simply not allowed to”.  But I’ve never yet heard of any victim being told anything of the sort.  Nor are any such constraints spelled out in church protocols for dealing with abuse – rather the contrary, in fact.

Yes, the Royal Commission should look at such concerns, but don’t get the idea that the insurers are the problem!

In the comments on this post, I invite anyone who has a question about having a Royal Commission into clergy sexual abuse to ask it.  I’ll begin with a few, and add more or reply to questions:

1) Why do we need one?

Basically because there’s no way the church can properly investigate itself, nor will any church investigation of individual complaints result in procedural change.  Moreover, the church has a history of changing only when society’s attitude forces it to.  I could probably name a dozen examples with a little thought… the solarcentricity of the galaxy, the purpose of marriage, and the need to do background checks on volunteers all come to mind.

2) Why does it need to be national rather than state-based?  Won’t that make it too big and unwieldy?

Yes, it will make it very big, and probably unwieldy.  It could well end up having to split into separate sections, as did the NSW Royal Commission into Police (which developed the sub-inquiry into paedophilia).  But it’s important that it begin as a national inquiry because this is a national problem.  Problem priests have been moved from state to state (and overseas and back), major denominations have national governing bodies, and state-based policies and laws make for a piecemeal response.  A nationally coordinated inquiry is the only thing that will track the broader patterns, have the power to make recommendations for federal law changes, and impact the churches at a national level.

3) Shouldn’t it concentrate on the Catholic Church?

No.  Problem priests who leave one denomination frequently end up in another, still abusing.  The underlying issues that make churches immune (to some degree) to public pressure operate across all denominations, but each denomination has a different structure and method of approach.  A Royal Commission should be examining those underlying issues and structures in order to make recommendations that will minimise the dangers across all denominations, rather than just one.  (Note: If, as I suggest above, the RC were to split into sections, then I think examining denominations separately and then collating the overall patterns would be the best way, rather than separating along state lines.)

4) Isn’t it going to be more traumatic than beneficial for victims?

Again, no.  Royal Commissions are indeed traumatic.  But to suggest that such trauma is more than the benefit underestimates the trauma already suffered by victims who have been denied justice, accountability and honesty by the church.  What the churches won’t give them, society must demand on their behalf.

5) But haven’t the churches changed, and put in place appropriate processes now?

There has been some change, yes.  But primarily that’s been on paper, and hasn’t really translated to action or mindset.  It’s less than two years since a church’s barrister told a victim I was supporting that she didn’t really need legal advice before signing the compensation deal!  Churches still offer their own “support people” (as if victims would trust someone from the organisation who abused them), refuse to pay for therapy for victims who are being re-traumatised by the complaints process, and lie continually about what they do and don’t have the power to do for victims.  And I’ve blogged before about Pell’s denials; I see no reason to infer anything’s changed there.

But that’s enough to begin with – I’ll take questions from the floor…

As readers of my site would know, I’ve been calling for a federal Royal Commission into clergy sexual abuse for well over a decade.  It was a little over a decade ago that I posted suggested terms of reference for it on my website.  I’m delighted the Gillard government has finally begun the process (although I could wish she hadn’t announced it just when I was away for 10 days on what was supposed to be a relaxing and healing holiday after a torrid quarter with multiple deaths in the family!).

A Royal Commission is necessary because a) the problem is big enough to merit it, b) until now the church has been investigating itself, which is crazy, and c) the victims need the kind of social change that comes only from such an all-embracing inquiry, rather than simply justice for themselves as an individual.

I’ll be blogging here about the news, from the past week as well as future details as they come to light.  As a clergy abuse victim who has gone through NSW Royal Commission, criminal case (though it didn’t come to court), civil case (stymied on the statute of limitations) and internal church complaint process (which I helped to formulate), I feel qualified to comment.

One crucial note: when I refer to “the church” I am loosely referring to ALL denominations, and particularly their administrative structures and hierarchy.

And a second, not-so-crucial note: I’d like to hope that adult victims will be included as well, because I think those dynamics also need to be examined, although I suspect that it’s far more expedient to examine child victims because everybody understands that dynamic more clearly as a crime.

I don’t know whether this has been said before, but the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) syndrome has a darker side.  It’s rather similar to a child’s “I didn’t do it” when asked about something that shouldn’t have happened, but it’s more corporate, so it’s more like a WeDDoT (We Don’t Do That) syndrome.  It shows up when some corporate group distances themselves from nasty actions taken by their enemies (or even their associates).

I think the only way of proving it to be false is with a free press and people prepared to be whistleblowers, and the outcome of such publicity is usually a grudging and minimising apology.

The Allies did it during the two World Wars (“the Japs torture their prisoners, but we Christian nations always treat our prisoners humanely”) – see this article for a different story.

News Ltd are doing it at the moment here in Australia as they watch the implosion of News Corp in England (“just because that was the culture in News Corp doesn’t mean you’ll find anything like that here”) – see this article.

Christians do it almost constantly these days with regard to Muslim fundamentalists (“Islam breeds fanatacism, but Christianity is a religion of love”) – see the current breaking story about Anders Breivik for a different tale. In Breivik’s manifesto he styles himself a “Christian conservative, patriot and nationalist”, and in internet posts he “blamed Europe’s left-wing parties for destroying the continent’s Christian heritage by allowing mass immigration of Muslims”.  And of course Christians the world over will say “just because he claims to be Christian doesn’t mean he is, or that Christianity supports actions like his”.  Which is true, of course, but they fail to allow Muslims the same opt-out when it comes to Muslim terrorists.

And the Catholic Church is still doing it by offering such a reluctant apology to the unmarried mothers they forced to put their babies up for adoption.  (At the time, it was “we’re the ones doing the loving actions; you’re not, or you would do what’s best for your baby”; now, it’s “that was a different time, a different culture, and there were different standards”. Funny – I thought the church’s ethics were supposed to be set by God and never change!). And yes, we are talking force – threatening to keep them in hospital until they signed the adoption papers, or drugging them till their resistance was too low to keep resisting, are not the actions of a loving group of people empowering the vulnerable in their care.

The clue that the attitude is still entrenched is in the wording of the “admission by Catholic Health Australia that ‘a small number’ of church-run hospitals and women’s homes maintained unwanted adoption practices from the 1950s to the 1970s.” A small number?? ALL Catholic hospitals and mothers’ homes did it (and not just the Catholic ones, either; it was pretty standard practice throughout), and there were many of them. AAP says “CEO Martin Laverty said he is prepared to front a Senate inquiry to make an expression of sorrow and regret if such an apology brought healing and comfort to the women who had their newborns forcibly removed.” It’s not going to heal them, but it is going to help. But why does it take a Senate Inquiry to elicit the apology?

Remember, too, that this is the organisation which STILL (at least as its official line) insists on no abortion, no contraception, and ideally no unmarried parents. Those among the unwed who fall pregnant are still, by Catholic standards, left with few options and little choice, although not subject to such brutal force as those of 50 years ago.  (One suspects that any change since is more in society than in the church, though.)

The reality is that none – or all, depending on the way you see it – of the ideologies involved are the problem. It’s not usually ideology per se which dictates evil actions. It’s ideology combined with a love of power and/or a disregard for others’ opinions. That desire for power or disregard for others’ opinions makes the person or group think they can do something nasty and feel justified about it. Whether it’s a news magnate, a lone radical, a government or the church doesn’t matter.

I do happen to think, however, that it’s nastier when it’s standard policy in a faith group simply because a faith group almost always tries to authenticate its position by claiming that they’re following God’s will.