. . . heck no!
Gerard Henderson’s Media Watchdog is invariably a dose of factual commonsense, like his article titled THE (SO-FAR ALMOST) UNTOLD STORY OF PAUL BONGIORNO, BPL & THE ROYAL CO. (Scroll down a fair way.) It reads:As avid readers will recall, MWD Issue 317 carried an Exclusive titled “The Royal Commission, the ABC, Channel Ten – and Paul Bongiorno” – see here.
Well, you know, when “Get Pell” is the catch cry, lots of facts lose any interest they might have had otherwise.
Paul Bongiorno (born 1944) and George Pell (born 1941) were for a time in the early 1970s both priests of the Catholic diocese of Ballarat.
MWD was the only media outlet to report that a certain BPL had made a written submission to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse concerning Paul Bongiorno. Bongiorno was once a Catholic priest in the diocese of Ballarat where (then) priest Gerald Ridsdale sexually assaulted some hundreds of boys.
BPL gave a statement to the Royal Commission that, in 1970 or 1971, he told (the then Father) Bongiorno that Ridsdale had sexually abused him. Bongiorno provided a statement to the Royal Commission that he has no memory of any such conversation having taken place. Neither man was called to give evidence before the Royal Commission by Counsel Assisting or any other parties.
MWD wrote on 27 May 2016:A Matter of Double Standards
MWD accepts that Paul Bongiorno’s statement to the Royal Commission is completely truthful. What interests MWD is the double standard involved in the treatment in the media and elsewhere concerning George Pell.
BPL swore a statement that he told (the then Fr) Bongiorno in 1970 or 1971 that Ridsdale was sexually abusing him. This is nearly half a century ago. It’s possible that BPL’s memory is faulty. It’s possible that BPL has mistaken Bongiorno for another priest based in Warrnambool at the time. As Royal Commission head Justice Peter McClellan acknowledged in a paper, which he wrote a decade ago, memory is a very fallible thing.
It’s just that allegations from half a century ago that (the then Fr) Pell was told of Ridsdale’s offending gets traction at the Royal Commission in the media – while the allegation that (the then Fr) Bongiorno was told of Ridsdale’s offending is not reported. Neither BPL nor Mr Bongiorno appeared as a witness before the Royal Commission.
It’s much the same with the late Monsignor John Day. Gail Furness SC, the Counsel Assisting the Royal Commission, put it to Cardinal Pell in March 2016 that he should have been aware of Day’s offending because he (Pell) was also a priest of the Ballarat diocese. But no one has put it to Bongiorno that he should have been aware of Day’s offending because he (Bongiorno) was also a priest at the Ballarat diocese.
Nothing has changed. Last Monday, apparently without advising Cardinal Pell’s legal team, Counsel Assisting’s submissions to Royal Commission chairman Justice Peter McClellan were released to the public.
Despite the fact that neither BPL nor Paul Bongiorno were invited to give evidence to the Royal Commission, Gail Furness SC covered the matter of BPL’s claims in her submission. See pages 185-189 of Submissions of Counsel Assisting the Royal Commission: Case Study 28 – Catholic Church Authorities in Ballarat here. Ms Furness submitted that, while BPL’s account was “believable”, there was not sufficient evidence to support BPL’s claim with respect to Paul Bongiorno. She also submitted that there was not sufficient evidence to support the claims of BWF and BWE with respect to George Pell.
So far Counsel Assisting’s coverage of “Evidence of BPL” concerning Paul Bongiorno has not been reported by the likes of the ABC, Fairfax Media, The Guardian or The Project. Fancy that.
Responses