This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2016/mar/01/cardinal-george-pell-testifies-to-child-sexual-abuse-royal-commission-from-rome-day-two-live

The article has changed 13 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 2 Version 3
Cardinal George Pell testifies to child sexual abuse royal commission from Rome, day two – live Cardinal George Pell testifies to child sexual abuse royal commission from Rome, day two – live
(35 minutes later)
10.33pm GMT
22:33
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
at 10.33pm GMT
10.23pm GMT
22:23
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
at 10.26pm GMT
10.17pm GMT
22:17
"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, 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.”
The hole is getting deeper. #Pell #CARoyalComm
Some rather impressive questioning taking place by Commissioner and SC #Pell seems to be uncertain as to which way is up (rooted)
Updated
at 10.20pm GMT
10.11pm GMT
22:11
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
at 10.15pm GMT
10.06pm GMT
22:06
"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
at 10.09pm GMT
9.57pm GMT9.57pm GMT
21:5721:57
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.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.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.“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 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?”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.”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?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.”Pell: “No, it’s not entirely clear to us. It wasn’t entirely clear then.”
UpdatedUpdated
at 9.59pm GMTat 9.59pm GMT
9.43pm GMT9.43pm GMT
21:4321:43
Looks like those gasps of shock came from the Sydney end, not from Rome.Looks like those gasps of shock came from the Sydney end, not from Rome.
Reaction to Card Pell's comment that Ridsdale's story "wasn't of much interest to me" was first angry reaction from gallery@australianReaction to Card Pell's comment that Ridsdale's story "wasn't of much interest to me" was first angry reaction from gallery@australian
Room silent in Rome. Important to correct given spotlight on everyone here https://t.co/XTz3RRc8BERoom silent in Rome. Important to correct given spotlight on everyone here https://t.co/XTz3RRc8BE
Cardinal Pell taken aback when gasps of shock from Sydney room are heard in Rome room.Cardinal Pell taken aback when gasps of shock from Sydney room are heard in Rome room.
9.41pm GMT9.41pm GMT
21:4121:41
Another telling exchangeAnother 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: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?”“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.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?”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.”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.”
UpdatedUpdated
at 9.48pm GMTat 9.48pm GMT
9.37pm GMT9.37pm GMT
21:3721:37
From reporter Ben Doherty who is in the hearing in Sydney;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.”“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.”
UpdatedUpdated
at 9.47pm GMTat 9.47pm GMT
9.36pm GMT9.36pm GMT
21:3621:36
Audible shock heard in the room as Pell says story of abuse "wasn't of much interest to me"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.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?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.”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?”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.”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?”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.”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.”
UpdatedUpdated
at 9.45pm GMTat 9.45pm GMT
9.31pm GMT9.31pm GMT
21:3121:31
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.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.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?”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.”Pell: “Yes.”
Furness: “When?”Furness: “When?”
Pell: “Well, I couldn’t say precisely but after he was tried and jailed.”Pell: “Well, I couldn’t say precisely but after he was tried and jailed.”
Furness: “So after 1993?”Furness: “So after 1993?”
Pell: “Yes.”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?”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.”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?”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.”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.”
UpdatedUpdated
at 9.47pm GMTat 9.47pm GMT
9.23pm GMT9.23pm GMT
21:2321:23
Indeed.Indeed.
"According to today’s standards that would be clearly insufficient, it was then" #Pell on transfer of offending priests without counselling"According to today’s standards that would be clearly insufficient, it was then" #Pell on transfer of offending priests without counselling
9.21pm GMT
21:21
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
at 9.33pm GMT
9.15pm GMT
21:15
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
at 9.33pm GMT
9.11pm GMT
21:11
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.”
Back at the #RoyalCommission in to child sexual abuse this morning to hear #Pell's second day of testimony pic.twitter.com/JNOTm9L2kl
Updated
at 9.30pm GMT
9.01pm GMT
21:01
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.
Cardinal #Pell has walked past victims, arriving in the hearing room for his second day of evidence. Now taking his seat. @SBSNews
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
at 9.13pm GMT
8.57pm GMT
20:57
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.”
Demonstrators at Farrer Place, outside the royal commission. Cardinal Pell to appear again today. pic.twitter.com/buScIL8GvW
Updated
at 9.12pm GMT
8.54pm GMT
20:54
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
at 9.12pm GMT
8.46pm GMT
20:46
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
at 9.10pm GMT
8.28pm GMT
20:28
Protesters from the Care Leavers Australia Network [CLAN] have set up outside the commission in Sydney – they’ve been there since 6.30am.
Frank abused at #StPatricks #College #Ballarat with favourite #CLAN sign #MarkTwain pic.twitter.com/mwBOGPRYhh
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.
#Survivors disappointed with #GeorgePell evidence -well done #TrishCharter #StJoseph's #Orphanage #Goulburn https://t.co/WzY0V21jEF
This van has made its way to Sydney pic.twitter.com/BM8OgPOT9J
Updated
at 9.05pm GMT
8.22pm GMT
20:22
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.
8.19pm GMT
20:19
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
at 9.06pm GMT