Spin watch: Pell’s poor PR performance
|
Cardinal George Pell has made four errors in handling the current s-x abuse controversy. The first three are dumb, the fourth is potentially devastating. The first error, misjudging his accuser, is surprising for a man in Pell’s position. Victims of abuse often want official recognition of the crimes committed against them. It helps them move on. Every senior charity manager has come up against the single-mindedness of victims. Pell initially spun a “this matter is closed” response, with an even lamer “I made an honest mistake” rider. It was never going to be seen as an appropriate response by the broader community or by the victim, Anthony Jones. The second error involved misunderstanding the media appeal of Jones’ story in the lead-up to the Pope’s visit. Again surprising, given that Pell and the Australian Catholic Church can’t have missed the focus on s-x abuse in the church during the papal visit to the USA in April. As the bard said: “desperate diseases, desperate measures require”. Pell should have ordered immediately a further review of the case by an independent person. This would have at least got the matter out of the current news cycle. Pell should have used the controversy as a platform for tackling the broader issue of s-xual abuse in our society and his church. The third error is real rookie stuff. Every issue manager (someone who gets you out of perceptual poo) knows that a response must comprehend the full extent of the foul-up, otherwise you get blind-sided by the rolling revelation nightmare (see also Iguanagate). No sooner had Pell asserted that the offender had told him it was consensual than evidence appeared, miraculously, that flatly contradicted this defence. Often the accuser, or journalist, will hold something back for a little second phase play. Or the heightened public interest will see juicy stuff heading to news desks. Now the biggie, value alignment. People judge you on your emotional response to issues. It’s easier, and usually more accurate, than trawling through claim and counter-claim. If your values seem out-of-step, you’re stuffed. Pell revealed a deep misalignment with this summation: “There was a candlelight dinner, they swam together, they were sitting on the bed together,” he said. “It was because of the circumstances as explained that I took that view…” For the community, the only thing that matters is whether Anthony Jones said yes to s-x. Pell’s explanation, however, sounds like; “hey, she (he) was asking for it”. And using lurid details, like “candlelight”, just made Pell’s response look worse. Pell now looks like damaged goods; a little too clever with his wordings; lacking in empathy and at odds with modern community values. It will be hard for him to recover the ground he’s lost in the past week. |
|
|
|
24 Comments
I f Pell had accepted the results of the investigation process he set up, he would have no problems now. He did not do this. He made his own investigation and over ruled the results of the official church investigation. I feel this tells a lot about Pell. I wonder how many other cases have suffered the same fate.Time will tell as I feel there are some now in the legal pipe line.
.. the catholic church is largely responsible for the spread of HIV…” Please, give me a break! The sexual deviancy of the the homosexual lobby is the prime factor in the spread of HIV and continues to be a nightmare. Christians living the norms of the Gospel and being faithful to their spouse are the bulwark against this modern day form of the bubonic plague.
And condoms as a solution? Condoms as contraceptives have a failure rate of 50%. If you were HIV positive and used a condom to “protect” your spouse you’re literally playing with their life. You abstain or you destroy the lives of many. Of course the apologists for this sexual “revolution” are the same apologists for the butchering of the unborn.
They have so deformed human sexuality that they talk only about SAFE SEX. Staying alive has become the norm for a gift that should be a source of love and life.
JamesK andJohn James: Do you both realize that centuries of po-faced self-righteousness by you and the unctuous John James, together with easily-gypped fellow Catholics, have rendered the word ‘Christian’ to be on a par with ‘child-molestation, cannibalism or scr*wing the dead?
JamesK: Your anti-gay stance is both revolting and revealing. Go and get your head cleaned up before telling other people how to behave and what to believe in. As for Catholics who seek to trivialize Christ, it is sickening. Believe it or not; Christ was NOT a silly man. Yet the Catholic Church has reduced him to being not unlike someone’s mentally defective grandfather. I know it is in the interests of Catholicism to drag everything down to its lowest common denominator-hence the great Australian ‘Chip on the Shoulder Syndrome’. Why don’t you stick to b*ggery? At least that doesn’t reek of condescension. It’s an unpleasant fact that Catholics get more fun out of life defending the indefensible, rather than enjoying life for its multitude of wonders.
:(
Dave, I’m pleased you remember something of your religous instruction. The term ‘Passion’ has been used long before Mel’s film (which I though magnificent) when referring to the last week of Jesus life How the film could be described as anti semitic, when the heroes and heroines in the film are all Jewish, escapes me. If anyone comes out of the film badly, it is probably the Romans.
Anyway, the Anglicans are a confused lot at the best of times, so I’m not surprised by your faux pas.
Spot on article - his emotional response was just pathetic.
If Jesus had called in a high-powered legal team when he was being sentenced by Pilate, he might have gotten off with a lesser punishment but he almost certainly would not be the central figure of one of the world’s most popular religions today. Pell’s legalistic, non-compassionate approach to this issue tells me everything I need to know about the Catholic Church. It’s a disgrace, and if I was going to be in Sydney this weekend, I’d be protesting loudly.
Just a case of Peter Hollingsworth revisited
John James, I’m so much less confused since I dropped religion, but thanks for your concern. Given your comments on The Passion (and you are correct that displays of The Passion have been around for centuries, it probably used to be substantially more anti-semitic than Gibson’s movie) you’ll undoubtedly disagree with many of the sentiments here, but anyone else reading who’s interested might want to check out the following link for discussions about anti-semitism in the Gibson movie:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chrgibson10.htm
Cardinal Pell has to make up ground! Why? He is not a politician and the Catholic Church is not a democracy.
The atrocious handling of sex abuse cases by the Church hierarchy is a worse offence than the abuse itself. Why can’t the law prosecute those responsible for cover-ups and for perverting the course of justice?
“If Jesus had a high-powered legal team… he might have gotten off..” Have you read the New Testament Dave? Are you serious? If you do get to Sydney go and watch the reenactment of the Passion. The entire trial of Jesus is a farce, with the Roman procurator , Pilate, knowing full well that the man before him is innocent, that the Jewish leaders have handed him over because they need Rome’s permission to execute Jesus, and that they are lying. Pilate’s interrogation of Jesus is an amazing interaction between these two men with some famous exchanges, such as Pilate’s ” Truth, what is that?” remark and Jesus equally compelling exposition of why he is before Pilate and why he is in the world. What is absolutely clear from the first moment of his arrest is that what is unfolding occurs because Jesus allows it to unfold. “They have they’re hour”.
” I am innocent of the blood of this man” Pilate says as he washes his hands. Hence the well recognised metaphor in English of “washing one’s hands”, often meaning to abandon or disown or betray.
Why do Christians venerate the Cross? Because what the world regards as madness, God regards a triumph!
Mate, if you’re going to reject something at least know what it is you’re rejecting!
The Sydney Morning Herald’s David Marr on January 29, 2005:
“AS two men swam at Cronulla on a hot night 23 years ago, one fondled the other in the dark. What they did that night in January 1982 was criminal. The law in NSW was about to change after a long and acrimonious campaign for reform, but when these men had their one-night stand in the presbytery of St Catherine Laboure Church at Gymea, each was committing an “indecent assault” that might land them in jail for five years. Consent was no defence.
In September 2003 the police came for Father Terry Goodall at his Penshurst parish and arrested him for having sex with the teacher all those years ago. Judge Philip Bell, of the NSW District Court, remarked that on the facts before him, “you’d never get a conviction if you ran this trial today”, but under the old law Goodall had no choice but to plead guilty. Having sex with a man was enough to convict him. He was sentenced last week. In 2002 the victim formally complained to the church of sexual assault, and the Herald understands he sought $100,000 compensation. The then archbishop George Pell wrote offering his sympathy and promised to discipline the priest, but told the teacher: “I cannot be reasonably satisfied that abusive and criminal behaviour were involved.” Twenty-two years down the track - after being investigated first by the church and then by the police, after being dismissed from his parish and humiliated in the court - Goodall was sentenced to a few seconds’ imprisonment. “I sentence you to the rising of the court,” said the judge. “For which purpose the court now rises.” “
Easy to ‘bash’ a ‘bete-noir’ cardinal deeply unpopular within certain left circles. By all accounts Pell is a decent man and the church he leads a church which in this country does enormous amount of work for the good of the community in general let alone their flock.
Clearly the case needs to be reexamined. But Pell thought he was dealing with a complainat who was 29 yo adult man at the time of the alledged abuse and who ‘acquiesced’.
The ‘new’ evidece (mysteriously brought to light just before the pope’s visit), would question that assumption of acquiescence.
I would not fancy my chances if wrongfully charged and you blokes above were on the jury!
Another Howard toady in trouble with covering up sex abuse.
Well it is normal. I went through the Melbourne Archdiocese system as a victim of clergy abuse nearly two years ago. I went to the compensation hearing….. after a fews weeks I received a letter from the catholic church and obviously not happy with the amount I was offered. I asked for a reason for why I was offered so little considering the sexual abuse I suffered at the hands of a nun and a priest (one would like to think they may double the anti considering I had two people abusing me). I was told via email that the compensation panel does not have to give written or oral reasons for their decisions. I had no comeback at all. Where does one go? There is no transparency of the systems they use nor are they accountability for their actions. It is like Pell saying he considered the matter closed.
Could our pious cardinal have left himself open to a charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice?
Dear John James….. How dare you attack Dave on this issue if you wish to attack someone on the issue attack me…You can use the words of a New Testament. it is a pity that the cardinals etc do not follow the teachings of their own church, compassion, celibacy I am sure you know how it goes….. Why because the priest, bishops and cardinals here and in most of the world are not interested Jesus Christ words or actions but in the $$$$$ they can make in this lifetime. The church is worth 160 billion $ yet you cannot sue them as they are not a business.
Trevor’s final point is spot on. Candle light or swimming is completely irrelevant to the issue of consent. The comment by Pell was devoid of any legal basis for assessing s*xual assault or rape it is like saying if a girl accepts a drink from a guy in a bar she is asking for it. No means No and the sooner our rape laws are reformed the better. And David L, I would be right there with you protesting, probably handing out condoms; My Pov is the catholic church is largely responsible for the spread of HIV and over populated starving countries simply because the church says NO to condoms.
Despite my atheism now, I did actually have a religious education in the Anglican Church, John James, and I do recall a thing or two. Although it’s obviously convenient for the Catholic Church to highlight the role of the Jewish establishment in the crucifixion of Jesus (your reference to The Passion reminds us all instantly of well-known anti-Semite Mel Gibson, say no more), my non-Catholic religious education taught me that it was much more about Jesus going to his fate with minimal resistance because it was what he had to do to save us all from sin (must admit, I never got how that worked, but anyway). The same Jewish lobby to whom you refer would have happily released Jesus if he’d stopped his disciples promoting him the messiah. Any high-powered legal team would have picked that up and put something in place, and besides, nothing impresses the heads of powerful organised religions like a bunch of lawyers. I stand by every word in my intitial comment, John, and remind you that Catholics don’t have total ownership of the New Testament.
Whoops, just Wikipediad and realised couple of minor errors in previous email about the details of the crucifixion, for which John James will presumably attempt to crucify me, but my point stands. Whether they’d have dealt with the Jewish establishment or Pilate directly, a high-powered legal team would have saved Jesus from crucifixion. Pell’s reliance on the same in preference to honesty, apology and working to make things right is behaviour we’d expect to see from Pharisees, not people claiming to advance the cause of Jesus.
Why should Pell’s consistent lack of human compassion surprise us? Phillip Adams said some years ago that “any resemblance between Catholicism and Christianity is purely coincidental,” words that describe perfectly the complete abrogation of Christian principles by the Roman Catholic Church throughout its long history. A faint glimmer of hope came with Vatican II, but Pell, Ratzinger, and all the reactionary hypocrites in the ascendant today have quashed the possibility of even a whisper of Christianity penetrating the ideas of their evil hierarchy. And now we are to witness a couple of hundred million dollars of the faithful’s money squandered on a PR exercise in Sydney by these shameless men, who thumb their noses at the poor, the weak, the starving, and the disadvantaged of the world. Pell performs his duties in perfect accord with the disgraceful history of the Church he adheres to.
Can’t help but notice that when Cardinal Pell and his Catholic minders were stuffing up this matter in the first half of 2003 the rest of Australia was watching the Governor General, Dr Peter Hollingworth, writhe around in a morass of stuffed-up sexual abuse claims arising from his time as an Anglican bishop. Dr H had a go at dealing with the media and made a complete hash of it. His amateurish attempt to account for an errant priest’s disgraceful behaviour ultimately brought him down. As a result he resigned as GG in May 2003.
Cardinal Pell’s media moment - particularly on the 7.30 Report this week, revealed a similar amateurism where he gave away a hitherto secret - that he had spoken by phone to the errant priest before he brought down his (and the church’s) judgement on the complainant’s position. That action was a mistake which Dr Pell will now have to account for.
Worse still, he’ll have to explain the effect of the secret discussion which is/was to conceal the fact that he had knowledge, damning knowledge, of the priest’s deception. Deliberate or not, this amounts to a cover up because only Dr Pell and the priest knew about the conversation and only Dr Pell has admitted it now. A cover-up is the one thing that the cardinal never wanted to concede. Now it will be the one thing he can’t explain.
Dear Rhani, Nobody here is belittling your pain. I cannot imagine and I extend my goodwill to you. JohnJames is a Christian and made a point at what he saw was something of a belittling of his spiritual belief from a person who very clearly is not a Catholic. I believe that he made his point well and I certainly support his right to say it. He followed your comment and made no direct nor indirect criticism of your post nor should he have. The converse is also true.
“Your anti-gay stance is both revolting and revealing” says Venise. I say try rereading
Pell: “Another Howard toady in trouble with covering up sex abuse”
Good one Peter! Keeping up your usual intellectual standards I see…..
Mr Jones does not come to this matter with clean hands. He alleges “cover-up” in relation to Pell’s handling of the way in which he was assaulted. He speaks falsely - yet Trevor - you accept his words as though they are part of the Tradition that Pell works to represent - you and the Lateline followers believe you are right.
A Church hearing, a criminal proceeding complemented by a civil hearing - where the complainant appears to have settled for zero - hardly make the stuff of secrecy. Or are you just focusing on the opportunity to forensically assess Pell’s performance.
Mr Jones’ latest comments about priestly celibacy underline his desire to see in the Church that he “hates” a radical “reform” that will do nothing to address the very serious issues associated with child abuse and sexual violence, plus physical abuse of wives, deeply spread in our community.
A pity your forensic offense left the good bits out.