Trish Nielsen writes: A sin of omission is still a sin. George Pell was a very good regional CEO for the Catholic Church Inc. But a Christian? I think not (“For George Pell, the church was nothing if not a bastion of conservatism”).
John William Dare writes: I have always thought that people who cover up crimes, particularly the abuse of children, in the mistaken belief that it was somehow justified behaviour to protect their organisation’s reputation, were more culpable than the perpetrators — who at least had their sickness as an excuse. This behaviour further enables the crimes, and the organisations they claim to protect suffer untold damage eventually because of the cover-up and denial. Given his own statements and the evidence and conclusions of the royal commission (which Pell always disputed), calling Pell a martyr or a saint is just another act of self-serving denial.
Ailie Bruins writes: No mention in Crikey about Pell the climate-change denier. The royal commission found it hard to believe much of his testimony. Considering his reportedly formidable intellect, was he also being less than truthful when he refused to understand the science of human-induced climate change? A cardinal sin in my opinion.
Libby Mitchell writes: I can only hope that Pell might rot in the hell that his religion created. I know people who were abused by Catholic priests, and everyone (or their families) should be amply compensated now. To ignore that responsibility is a disgrace. If that runs Pell’s repugnant church into the ground, so be it. The state governments can hopefully buy resources, e.g. unused school buildings, at fire-sale prices and take over welfare and education to prevent child abuse from recurring.
If the Catholic Church does survive (as I have no doubt it will), celibacy for the priesthood should be outlawed.
Michael Byrne writes: The Latin root meaning of (lower case) catholic is “universal”, having sympathies with all; broad-minded.
As a baby boomer I can testify that our 1950s childhoods saw us experience US television “family niceness”, “cowboy goodies and baddies” — but no sex. Our sole reliance for knowledge of it was responsible parents who could talk of it and locate it to be best in marriage. That was the world where the then Father Pell began his priesthood: with the Irish prudery at large in the Catholic Church and not talking of “sex” being a safety measure for the young. The perverted priests were engaged in the new era, and the knowledge of their activity was no longer retained at the victim level. Scandal rose its head and was avoided but only to rise on a wave of truth later.
Pell did his utmost, and erred. He was an institutional man; if it is legal, do it, when it came to dealing with victims, real or otherwise. The initial absence of charity for their concern puts him in a bad light, but far from the darkness and the perversion of the law in Victoria that dumped on him. He paid his earthly price for his early errors and his misplaced concern for his church.
David Wright writes: I find the man abhorrent. I find his church just as abhorrent. I would love to see the whole institution wound up and all property sold to compensate the victims of the priests, the brothers and the lay teachers who destroyed the lives of those who were supposed to be in their care. I have a friend who was abused at a Marist Brothers school, a friend who now works tirelessly with the survivors and the parents of those who took their own lives because they could not live with the memory of what was done to them.
I believe that hell is an invention of the church with which to threaten the recalcitrant laity, but if it did exist I would happily see these predators, these ogres, condemned to its eternal flames. Suffer the little children to come unto me? Rubbish! Little children come unto me and suffer.
Karina Simons writes: Pell should not be honoured in any way, shape or form. The church should defrock him posthumously and denounce his actions. He got away with being an ignorant, unholy man.
Richard Ryan writes: Silence was the tactic used by the Catholic Church over child sexual abuse. Pell saying he was not aware of priests and brothers sexually abusing children is like a prostitute saying she is a virgin. It’s the old story: laws are always useful for those who have power but are harmful to their victims. Silence gives consent where Pell was concerned.
D. McLean writes: Your article “There are enough facts to judge George Pell on what he was — and what he was not” contains an inaccuracy that I believe in fairness to your readers should be corrected. Michael Bradley wrote: “In 1974, the commission found, Pell was approached by a victim of another paedophile priest, Edward Dowlan. Pell’s response was to say ‘Don’t be ridiculous’ and walk away. Pell conceded that he took no action.” But Edward Dowlan was not a Catholic priest. He was a Christian Brother, a religious cleric with the title “Brother”. I went to the same school as Dowlan at St Leo’s College, Box Hill, Victoria. Dowlan was never a priest.
If you’re pleased, peed off or piqued, tell us about it by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
