Again I am in a minority. I think Cardinal Pell has done a good job and I felt that the questioning by the Royal Commission was poor and biased, with leading questions soaked in prejudice.
I was disappointed that the the Royal Commission treated Cardinal Pell as an accused or an accomplice in a crime. I thought that a Royal Commission was supposed to find the truth. If so, it has to ask questions that permit both sides of any question to be aired.
A good question would have been, “Cardinal, prior to being appointed as an assistant priest in Ballarat what was your experience of the world?”
He could have answered that he went to school when he was five and was taught by nuns and then brothers at St Patrick’s, and then he went to the seminary for many years, and then he went to Rome and he studied some more. Finally, he returned to remote Victoria and the age of 31 and became an assistant priest.
The following question might have been, “So, at the age of thirty-one your experience of the outside world was that of a five-year-old?” “Err.. yes.”
“Cardinal, please describe the hierarchy of the Catholic Church?” To which he could have answered, “The Vatican tells the Archbishop who then tells the Bishop who then tells the Parish Priest what to do.” “And, what about the assistant priest?” “He just does what the Parish Priest tells him, hears confessions, visits the sick and keeps quiet.”
Cardinal Pell has been questioned as Cardinal for things that happened when he was an inexperienced nobody. When he did become Bishop of Melbourne he wasted no time sorting out the mess that dozens of bishops had allowed to fester. He deserves better treatment.