Whatever your views on George Pell, at least one certainty has emerged since his death 10 days ago: posthumous search-and-rescue missions for the reputations of the seriously reviled are something to behold.
Witness, for instance, the claims of Opposition Leader Peter Dutton, who lamented the “modern-day political persecution” of the late cardinal at the hands of the “Victorian Labor government and its institutions”.
Or those of former prime minister Tony Abbott, who suggested Pell was an equal among saints, nay Jesus himself, such was the “modern crucifixion” borne by him through his conviction and subsequent acquittal.
And, not least, the ruminations of one Andrew Bolt, which fashioned Pell as an “innocent man” who had “died for the sins of others”. Taking this sentiment one step further was Australian Catholic University professor of law Greg Craven, who — writing in The Australian — boldly declared Pell the “ultimate victim” of the Catholic Church’s child sexual abuse scandal.
Crikey writers, for their part, instead opted for the unvarnished truth, and were duly admonished by some on social media for “rabid anti-Catholicism”, “lying” and/or for having the temerity to “defame” a dead man.
Some of this criticism seemed to rally around a variation of the ancient idea or custom that you shouldn’t “speak ill of the dead” — a phrase once traced to 6th century BC philosopher Chilon of Sparta. And the balance simply brought to the fore what has long been a legal impossibility in Australia: the idea that the dearly departed can be defamed.
Regrettably for Pell supporters, Australia is not Rhode Island, where it is unlawful to defame a dead person within the first three months of their death. Nor is it Switzerland or Germany, where defaming the deceased in the immediate decades after their death can land you a lawsuit, fine or even imprisonment.
In these places, the basic idea is that a person’s power to control their public image survives death, at least for some defined period. And it’s one some jurists have traced all the way back to the cadaver trial of 897, when Pope Stephen VI had one of his predecessors dug up and tried for perjury.
Luckily for Crikey, other news outlets and historians, the Australian Law Reform Commission’s bizarre recommendation in 1979 to reverse the law here — making it possible to defame a dead person within the first three years of their death — was sensibly ignored by the government of the day.
And so it remains the case that under Australian law, the death of a person sounds the death of their reputation.
That said, the practical reality is plainly otherwise, hence the furious attempt by the right to canonise Pell and completely rewrite history in the process. This is obviously a tall order, however, not least because the cavalcade of beliefs advanced by Pell were objectively repugnant.
He was, after all, a man who described abortion as a moral depravation worse than clergy paedophilia. A man who regularly expressed homophobic and anti-Semitic views, and deliberately conflated atheism with Nazism and Stalinism. A man who in the same breath declared few people, if any, had suffered more than the German people. And a man who helped rally the cultural right against climate action.
Worse still were his actions. Pell’s denials before the royal commission that he was ignorant of the systemic sexual abuse of children by clergy were emphatically rejected. As were his claims that he was unaware of the allegations surrounding some of the church’s most notorious paedophiles, including friend and former housemate Gerald Ridsdale.
Meanwhile, his callous treatment of countless victims and survivors of child sexual abuse were — as journalist David Marr put it — redolent of a “company man” who privileged the protection of the institution above both justice for survivors and the safety of children.
And beyond these serious failings lies the legion of (known) child sexual abuse accusations levelled against him, for which he was never tried. These same allegations were, by dint of a criminal justice system heavily skewed in favour of an accused, excluded as tendency evidence in his one and only trial for child sexual abuse.
On this footing, some of the more anodyne readings of Pell’s legacy in recent days, where he is described as a “polarising figure”, are at best charitable, and at worse, a disservice to the truth. This matters because it is often said that journalism provides the first rough drafts of history. It also matters because the long shadow of the dead can visit harm on individuals long after they’ve died.
In truth, Pell’s words and actions don’t belong to the past, where they risk being downplayed, revised or forgotten. They belong to history, for they disclose precisely who the man was.
In this one respect, Australia’s defamation laws are to be commended, for they enable history to be recorded honestly and accurately, at least once the person’s dead.
At best, Pell was a predatory paedophile protector, at worst, he was one himself.
Yes and if you couldn’t say that, while the right wing propagandists were free to spread their distortions, the harm he did to those he injured/allowed to injured would be going on, magnified by their words after his death. No doubt their words are doing that but at least there is some solace for the victims, in seeing how many completely see through the cant and condemn the man and his life.
Whatever crimes he was accused of, acquitted of or denied committing, the fact remains that he was clearly not a Christian in any traditional sense. He demonstrated no compassion, charity, humility or love towards anyone but himself. How he could live with his conscience is remarkable to those of us who even occasionally feel a pang of guilt about relatively minor infractions.
His supporters all seem to be in the same camp: every utterance whether true or false can be justified by the dollars, the kudos or the necessity to remain in the public eye.
None of them deserves a moment of a decent person’s time or energy and they should all be consigned to the same hell that Pell is no doubt infesting.
The virtues you describe are those foregrounded by Vatican 2, an attempt to modernise and reform the Church. Pell was a reactionary, especially against Vatican 2. His version of Catholicism was grounded in, the primacy and authority of the institution of the Church in all matters, virulent anti-communism (Marxism-Leninist parties and the church were pretty much two sides of the same coin in my view), and an anti-secularism that saw the secular world as the devil’s work.
Those Vatican 2 virtues would be second order ones, always liable to be overridden by the primary needs of the church as determined by its leadership (interpreting for god mind you). Further, inasmuch as these virtues coincided with secular humanism, they were to be treated with suspicion. For Pell it was doubtless all about “immortal souls”, not humans or their bodies. Bodies that led to corruption and sin, even if just because they were tempting to others. Salvation of those souls depended on the continued primacy of the institution of the church, instructing and policing the vile bodies they inhabited. Such a worldview sees human suffering in this life as not so important, against more important things like the power and reputation of the church. All hopelessly shallow and no excuse whatsoever but it helps explain the monstrosity.
Psychopaths don’t have consciences and narcissists don’t pay attention to anyone’s opinion except their own.
Both true but I think a particular trait of Pell’s, though he doubtless had others, was an authoritarian personality. Not talking about his authoritarian actions but rather his deep need for authority and authoritarian figures.
I mean the idea developed by the Frankfurt school to try and explain the mass support for Hitler. People with a deep anxiety about disorder who crave rulers and rule givers who censure and punish rule breakers, even as they keep finding more of them. The order and “certainty” that is offered is actually illusory, these leaders actually hate rule of law, though they may love bureaucratic procedure.
This doesn’t explain Pell’s arrogance or lack of empathy but I think it’s a key to one of his psychological drivers, to always be the political bruiser seeking enemies to fight. I would note a large proportion of those popping up to defend him share that authoritarian personality trait. Others just fake it as part of their persona to attract followers of the authoritarian personality type.
The claims by some that Pell could be saint might appear strange to anyone who takes the fairly conventional view that being saintly involves being not just a devout believer but also humble, kind and inoffensive. However, let’s remember Cyril of Alexandria, who died in 444 CE. Cyril was a powerful and effective political thug. He organised riotous mobs to intimidate his rivals and force the Alexandrian authorities to accede to his demands. He crushed various church rivals, denouncing them for heresy. He persecuted the Jews and seized their property. He whipped up a mob to murder and dismember the corpse of the great mathematician Hypatia because she was female, not Christian and pursued her public career instead of modestly staying at home; this sent a message. Cyril is a saint for Orthodox, Catholic, Coptic and Anglican Christians.
His worse crime was Cyrilian script. Why didn’t he write in English, fer Crissake!
He’s not guilty on that charge. The Cyrillic alphabet was developed about 500 years later by followers of an entirely different Cyril, AKA Constantine, from Thessalonica, and his pal Methodius; ‘the Apostles of the Slavs’.
You have to wonder whether Pell had an illustration of Cyril somewhere in his various abodes. They seem such kindred spirits. One awaits the announcement of Pell’s beatification by the next conservative pope.
Have to look after your own. Already seen too much of this from the establishment
It’s beyond me why the Australian Catholic church want to loudly and publicly honour a man whose actions and attitudes did so much to drive so many Australian Catholics away from the church- especially Millennials and younger cohorts, now raising children of their own. Talk about an inability to read the room! Mind boggling.
It’s like any political hierarchy, the objective is protecting your position and progress in the structure, so never admit fault. The messages are internally directed. It’s not like the laity get a vote. Theologically, the Pope is infallible, so ultimately how can there be error? ( I know I’m simplifying the doctrine of infallibility, but I believe the point stands).
I have some experience of what psychopaths can do in an organisation, and sadly this is standard practice. Look at just about any whistle blower case. Closeing the ranks and punishing the irritant are the first actions.
I’m not so sure the papal infallibility doctrine has any bearing. In the end, that doctrine only asserts that a formal ruling by the Pope made ex cathedra is the last word on an issue of Catholic doctrine. At all other times the Pope is as fallible as anyone else. This is not so very different to our federal legal system where a ruling by the High Court is the last word on judicial or constitutional interpretation. With any such dispute it is desirable at some point to say the question has now been decided, like it or not, and there’s no further stage of appeal.
All true, but mostly just known by theology nerds. It’s the aura of infallibility that hangs over everything that I was referring to 🙂
If the Church started admitting to error, where would it end! The Burning Times, Crusades, Heretic pogroms, women in general, on and on it goes, 2000 years of horror.
Thank you, an excellently written fresh perspective on this story