Cardinal Pell and Royal Commission Report: Myself and Ryan Commission Report [3]

"Abuse Survivor" John Kelly reading Ryan Commission Report May 2009

[1] Cardinal Pell - Acquitted by High Court, Denounced by Royal Commission

As per the Wikipedia article on Cardinal George Pell, on 7 April 2020, the High Court of Australia  on a unanimous verdict of 7 to 0, quashed Cardinal Pell's convictions for the sexual abuse of two boys and determined that judgments of acquittal be entered in their place. The court found that the jury, "acting rationally on the whole of the evidence, ought to have entertained a doubt as to the applicant's guilt with respect to each of the offences for which he was convicted".The court agreed with the minority judgment in the Court of Appeal, finding that the majority might have effectively reversed the burden of proof; the majority had been so impressed with the accuser's evidence that it had gone on to ask only whether, despite the testimonies of the "opportunity witnesses", there was a "possibility" that the alleged assaults had taken place and not, as was required by the test of reasonable doubt, whether there was a reasonable "possibility" that they had not. In their judgment, the judges said with respect to all five charges that, “Making full allowance for the advantages enjoyed by the jury, there is a significant possibility ... that an innocent person has been convicted.”

However on 7 May 2020 Australia's Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse revealed its findings on Cardinal  Pell concluding that he knew of child sexual abuse by clergy by the 1970s, but did not take adequate action to address it. The Cardinal responded that the commission's views "are not supported by evidence".

There seems to be a strong resemblance between the behaviour and attitude of Australia's Royal Commission and the Irish Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse ("Ryan Commission") that produced its report in May 2009. Both appear to have accepted as true any allegation that accused parties could not prove false and largely ignored the issue of false allegations. In Ireland these included claims of child murder made against the Christian Brothers and Sisters of Mercy - many relating to periods when no child died of any cause. (Accordingly I coined the phrases "Murder of the Undead" and "Victimless Murders"). Leaders of four "Victims'" Groups made the child-killing claims, all of which have long been discredited but the Report of the Ryan Commission drew no conclusions regarding the credibility of these leaders! 

Australia seems to have avoided the Blood Libel aspect of child abuse hysteria!  However as per Andrew Bolt: 
Bear this in mind, police have tried 26 times to jail George Pell using nine different alleged victims that it advertised for to come forward, a process that is highly suspect in itself. Every single one of those cases failed. And not because the organs of the state were defending Pell, they were against him, but because those allegations turned out to be so ludicrous, so poorly investigated, so weak that every one of them crumbled in the police’s hands.

As in Ireland, the Australian Royal Commission draws no conclusions from this farrago of anti-clerical lies!

The following are two letters published in the Irish Examiner in November 2011 regarding the Ryan Commission and the omission of many clearly false stories from its final Report. (Tom Hayes was then Secretary of the Alliance Victim Support Group).

[2a] Ryan Report Did Not Deal With False Allegations

Irish Examiner Monday, November 07, 2011

I REFER to the letter from Mr Tom Hayes published on November 2 regarding the Ryan Report on child abuse, and in particular the following:

Referring to “victims having been portrayed as guilty of exaggeration”, surely Mr Justice Ryan does not include those who gave evidence to the investigative part of the Child Abuse Commission and whose well-publicised, loud and exaggerated claims (so exaggerated as not to have been suitable for inclusion in his final report) were not proven when challenged under oath?

“What are we to make of these claims and those who made them? Can all survivors claim that ‘Ryan vindicated them’?... [Authorities] must be prepared to separate childhood abuse experiences, given confidentially and recorded within Mr Justice Ryan’s report, from some of the many clearly false stories that were omitted and which were challenged in the investigative part of the report.”

In the period 1996 to 2003, leading members of four victims’ groups made allegations that the Christian Brothers and the Sisters of Mercy were responsible for the deaths of children in their care. Some of these claims relate to periods when no child died of any cause.

Accordingly I coined the phrases “murder of the undead” and “victimless murders” to describe them.

I made representations to the Ryan Commission both personally and as a member of a delegation from Let Our Voices Emerge — a group representing those falsely accused of child abuse — during an official meeting with representatives of the Commission.

We requested them to investigate those allegations.

The report of the Ryan Commission published in May 2009 makes no reference to these claims of unlawful killing. Originally I thought that the commission had ignored them completely. It now appears that the commission did investigate the allegations in private session, found no evidence to support them and took a deliberate decision to omit them from its published report. I find this reprehensible.

Allegations of child abuse, made decades after the alleged events, cannot be properly investigated. Claims of unlawful killing can be investigated and their truth or falsehood determined. This is especially true when no child actually died at the time the accusation refers to.

When the people who made those claims also allege that they were sexually abused, then we can also judge the credibility of the latter allegations.

The Ryan Report is gravely deficient by failing to include the results of the Commission’s investigation of these claims.


Rory Connor
11 Lohunda Grove
Clonsilla
Dublin 15

[2b] Ryan Report Must Be Put to Real World Test

Irish Examiner, Wednesday, November 02, 2011

IN Mr Justice Sean Ryan’s address in Cork about the ‘Protection of Children Post-Ryan Report’, he talks about "knowledge of abuse". We have such knowledge of abuse again, this time in relation to HSE childcare.

What effective action is being taken? Having been subjected to all of the failures that brought about Mr Justice Ryan’s report, many of us today cannot be confident that the State, and its many agencies working in support of children, has fully grasped its responsibilities. Children are suffering, and will continue to suffer. A third generation of children from the institutions in all of the major cities, both here and in the UK and further afield, are subject to social services monitoring.

Our voluntary efforts working for survivors and our experiences within the institutions count for nothing among the professional bodies who regard academic qualifications as more important than life experiences.

Referring to "victims having been portrayed as guilty of exaggeration," surely Mr Justice Ryan does not include those who gave evidence to the investigative part of the Child Abuse Commission and whose well-publicised, loud and exaggerated claims (so exaggerated as not to have been suitable for inclusion in his final report) were not proven when challenged under oath?

What are we to make of these claims and those who made them? Can all survivors claim that "Ryan vindicated them"?

The Ryan Report has yet to be fully understood. Government, and other professional bodies, have yet to implement its main recommendations. Social scientists, religious scholars and other professionals and learned persons must be prepared to separate childhood abuse experiences, given confidentially and recorded within Mr Justice’s Ryan Report, from some of the many clearly false stories that were omitted and which were challenged in the investigative part of the report.

There is a need to challenge the Ryan Report if we are to fully benefit from its findings.

Tom Hayes
Richhill, Co Armagh

[3] Royal Commission and Journalist/Pell Critic Paul Bongiorno

In 2015 high profile  journalist Paul Bongiorno spoke to ABC Radio National presenter Fran Kelly about the Royal Commission in an interview published in The Standard on 22 May 2015 

Bongiorno related his shock and disgust over the actions of disgraced priest Gerald Ridsdale, whom he worked alongside in Warrnambool in the diocese of Ballarat . The Channel Ten personality served as a Catholic minister in Warrnambool during the early 1970s before leaving the priesthood to pursue a career in journalism.
 
Bongiorno outlined his memories of Ridsdale, who was moved to Warrnambool by then Ballarat Catholic bishop Ronald Mulkearns in the early 1970s.

 “I know Gerald Ridsdale, I lived in a presbytery with him in Warrnambool,” he said. “I’ve had the victims approach me to appear for them in court cases. Let me tell you this Fran, I had no idea what he (Ridsdale) was up to. And when people look at me quizzically, I say ‘let me tell you this — there are married men and women now that sleep with their husbands and wives that don’t know their husband or wife is having an affair’. “Let me tell you that Ridsdale never came into the presbytery in Warrnambool and said: ‘guess how many boys I’ve raped today.’ They (paedophiles) hide it, it was certainly hidden from me and when it came out after I left the priesthood, I was shocked and I was ashamed."

The Royal Commission found that Cardinal Pell was aware of general allegations that children were being abused in the Ballarat diocese from 1973. It also found that he was told that paedophile priest Gerard Ridsdale was being moved because of his alleged sexual abuse of children at a meeting with then Bishop Ronald Mulkearns in 1982 when Pell was one of the Bishop's advisors ("consultors"). The Cardinal denied that he was told any such thing and the other then advisors told the Commission the same. Nevertheless Paul Bongiorno has no problem in accepting the damning findings of the Royal Commission!

Witness to Royal Commission Said He Told Bongiorno about Ridsdale

On 10 May Andrew Bolt commented in an article in The Herald Sun If Pell knew, why not Paul?
 No one could understand better than Paul Bongiorno this blindness and culture of silence. That’s because he, as a priest, once shared a house with this same Gerald Ridsdale. What’s more, a witness to the royal commission claimed he’d told Father Bongiorno in 1970 or 1971 that Ridsdale had offered to watch him masturbating, but he’d done nothing. To be fair, Bongiorno said this alleged conversation did not happen because he’d have remembered it......"

Bolt goes on to say: Let me be clear: I believe Bongiorno. The royal commission believed Bongiorno. The ABC believes him. The media also believes he knew nothing. But why won’t they also believe George Pell? Is it because Bongiorno is of the Left and Pell of the Right? Because Bongiorno left the church, but Pell became a symbol of it?  

Bolt gave a more detailed account of this episode in a article in The Herald Sun 4 years ago (27 May 2016) entitled Why is Bongiorno not vilified as was Pell? Why is Pell the scapegoat?

Gerard Henderson and I accept the word of both Pell and Bongiorno that they had no idea of what Ridsdale was up to. Now, what I've said so far has been reported before, including on this blog. But now Henderson has uncovered an even more incredible example of double standards - of Pell being hounded for what seems excused in Bongiorno, and, moreover, not even reported.

Henderson: It’s a matter of record that the media has not reported some statements made to the Royal Commission with respect to Paul Bongiorno while, at the same time, covering George Pell’s appearances in extraordinary detail. 

On 29 October 2015 an anonymous victim of Ridsdale – given the title “BPL” by the Royal Commission – made a statement to the Royal Commission. It reads in part: 

9. I first came into contact with RIDSDALE on three or four occasions in 1970 and 1971 in or around Warrnambool. 
10.  I was sexually abused by RIDSDALE on three or four occasions in 1970 and 1971 in or around Warrnambool. 
11. Around the time of the abuse I went on a boys’ camp just outside of Warrnambool, to a little place I think was called Crossley. I went with some other boys from my class. It was organised though the school, I think as a sort of sex-education camp. They showed us a film about the birds and the bees. 
12. Father BONGIORNO, who was a priest in the parish at the time, came on the camp. There were also a couple of Christian Brothers at the camp, but I can’t remember which ones. 
13. When we were at the camp, I talked to Father BONGIORNO. It was only a brief conversation. I told him how RIDSDALE had approached me one afternoon in the bathroom of the presbytery after I had served at a wedding service. RIDSDALE had asked me how much I ejaculated and had said that he would get a teaspoon to measure it and check if it was “normal”. 
14. I also told Father BONGIORNO that I believed that similar things had happened with my younger brother Michael, who was also an altar server. Father BONGIORNO said, “Look, it’s a real problem. Me and Father BORPHY have talked to Monsignor FISCALINI about it and he is sorting it out with the Bishop”. Father BONGIORNO said he couldn’t do anything further and told me to talk to Monsignor FISCALINI about it. 
15. Father BONGIORNO was the first person I told about the abuse. He left the priesthood shortly after that camp…. 

On 24 November 2015, Paul Bongiorno made a statement to the Royal Commission.... Paul Bongiorno stated that he lived in the Warrnambool Presbytery with four other priests – one of whom was Ridsdale... Paul Bongiorno’s statement reads in parts: 

15. I have a vivid recollection of how shocked I was when I learned that Father Ridsdale had appeared in court and what he had been charged with. I had had no idea... 
19. I have been shown a statement made by BPL identified by the number [STAT.0738.001.0001">. The BPL name is vaguely familiar to me. There were BPLs in Warrnambool, however I cannot put a face to that name. 
20. At paragraphs 11-15 of that statement, Mr BPL sets out a conversation that he alleges he had with me in 1970 or 1971. The conversation did not happen with me. I would remember it. I would have been deeply shocked by the alleged substance of that conversation… 
26. At no time during my two years at Warrnambool did Monsignor FISCALINI discuss any allegations of RIDSDALE’s sexual abuse with me, and I never raised any issues of this nature with him... 
27. At no time during my three and a half years serving as a priest in the Ballarat Diocese did anyone make any report or complaint to me about the sexual abuse of minors by any priest or brother, and I was not in any other way made aware of these matters. I had no knowledge that these things were happening in the diocese at this time in my life...

Again, Henderson accepts Bongirono's word, as do I. Maybe BPL mistook him for another priest. Maybe he misremembered completely. Who knows? But why has one young priest of that time (Pell) been disbelieved, vilified and cross examined endlessly and denied - while another young priest of that time (Bongiorno) was not even required to appear as a witness to the royal commission, and has not had these claims against him reported? Different rules for conservatives?

ANNEX: 
STATEMENT  FROM  CARDINAL GEORGE PELL 
7 May 2020

Cardinal Pell said he was surprised by some of the views of the Royal Commission about his actions. These views are not supported by the evidence.

He is especially surprised by the statements in the report about the earlier transfers of Gerald Ridsdale discussed by the Ballarat Diocesan Consultors in 1977 and 1982.

The Consultors who gave evidence on the meetings in 1977 and 1982 either said they did not learn about Ridsdale's offending against children until much later or they had no recollection of what was discussed. None said they were made aware of Ridsdale's offending at these meetings. 

The then Fr Pell left the Diocese of Ballarat and therefore his position as a consultor at the end of 1984.

As an Auxiliary Bishop in Melbourne 1987-1996, Bishop Bell met with a delegation from Doveton Parish in 1989 which did not mention sexual assaults and did not ask for Searson's removal. 

Appointed Archbishop of Melbourne on 16 August 1996, Archbishop Pell placed Fr Searson on administrative leave in March 1997 and removed him from the parish on 15 May 1997.


ENDS.

quoted in George Pell 'surprised' by royal commission finding he was told of Ridsdale abuse ABC News