On the veracity, or otherwise, of Witness J

The Catholic media in both the UK and the US have described the criminal proceedings against Cardinal Pell as “Australia’s Dreyfus Affair”.

There are any number of issues around the whole affair one could discuss, from the unusual conduct of Victorian police to the manner in which some journalists, including, sadly, even some from the ABC, saw fit to conduct themselves. But for the moment I’d like to consider just one single issue.

Much has been made of how very “reliable” Witness J has seemed. He doesn’t seem at all reliable to me. His version of events is a string of things that simply wouldn’t have happened, culminating in something that is well nigh physically impossible.

That Archbishop Pell entered the priests’ sacristy immediately after Mass

Witness J has Archbishop Pell, as he then was, entering the priests’ sacristy (the Archbishop’s sacristy was under renovation) immediately upon the conclusion of Mass. This simply didn’t happen.

While Archbishop of Melbourne, Cardinal Pell initiated a custom he was to continue later in Sydney – when celebrating Sunday morning Solemn Pontifical Mass the Recessional would proceed the entire length of the nave and exit the cathedral through the main doorway at the facade. It was Cardinal Pell’s custom to remain standing there in front of the facade, approachable by anyone at all (even me!). So much for being “aloof”. So much for his supposed “arrogance”.

Now, no one has mentioned this, but I will. I think I should. That is actually a very Protestant practice. Priests normally head straight for the sacristy and remove their vestments. Bishops normally head straight for the sacristy and are assisted out of their vestments. It would seem Witness J might be aware of this.

That the boys entered the sacristy and remained there unnoticed until Cardinal Pell entered

Witness J asserts that he and his companion slipped away from the Recessional unnoticed. A bit tricky as they were both at the front end of the Recessional – some forty or fifty people following behind them in the Recessional should’ve (would’ve) noticed. He says they then entered the sacristy and remained there unnoticed until the archbishop entered. That simply didn’t happen. A sacristy is a busy place after a Solemn Pontifical Mass. The sacred vessels need safely to be put away. The chalice with its purificator, the patten, the corporal, and the chalice veil. Perhaps, with a bit of luck, also a burse. The cruets need to put away. The wash basin and its pitcher and hand towel need to be put away. Obviously, certain of the aforementioned will need to be put aside for laundering. So much to do! So many people coming and going. So many people carrying things and putting them away. All this, and the lads remained unnoticed?

That Cardinal Pell entered the sacristy alone

Witness J contends that Cardinal Pell was unaccompanied as he entered the sacristy. He contends that the three – himself, his companion, and the archbishop, were alone together. That simply didn’t happen. Once a bishop has been assisted into his vestments for Mass he is never left alone. Until he is assisted out of his vestments after Mass there are always people with him. As a matter of law there must be at least one at all times; as a matter of fact there are three or four – the master of ceremonies, possibly a deacon, and most certainly both the mitre bearer and the crozier bearer. In any case, as noted above, there was also certain coming and going.

That Cardinal Pell “suddenly undid his belt”

Witness J has asserted that after a very brief exchange with the boys Cardinal Pell “suddenly undid his belt”. That simply didn’t happen. When challenged on the exact mechanics of the act Witness J said, “He separated his robes”. That is meaningless. Separated what and separated it from what? Which “robes” are we talking about? “He moved his robes to the side”, Witness J answered. No, that still won’t do. (And why “robes” and not vestments? Nobody asked. Too polite?)

Let’s go back a bit. We need to be perfectly clear about this. Let’s consider exactly what was worn.

Disregarding the matter of the vestments for a moment, let’s pause to consider the attire of a bishop as he arrives at his own cathedral to say Mass. Any bishop.

He is wearing a Roman collar with a soutane and canonical (shoulder) cape, both with purple trimming. The soutane has 33 purple buttons. He is also wearing a purple waterweave silk fascia (waist sash) and matching purple waterweave silk zucchetto. His pectoral cross and bishop’s ring are a sign of his episcopal office.

Note that even at this point, sans vestments, any suggestion that he might undo his belt is more than a little strange. Should he need to relieve himself, all that is needed is that he simply undo four or so buttons in the relevant region, reach inside and unzip his trouser fly, and proceed as normal. There is no need to undo the belt. Which is just as well as he could not do it anyway, at least not easily or quickly.

Now let’s put the bishop in some vestments. After washing and drying his hands (wash basin bearer and pitcher bearer and hand towel bearer – crowded sacristy again) he removes his pectoral cross and puts on an amice. He is then assisted by the master of ceremonies (crowded sacristy again – there are also a mitre bearer and crozier bearer hovering in the background, by the way) into an alb which is then tied in place with a cincture. He then puts on his pectoral cross, wearing it over the outside of the alb.

Note that at this point any suggestion that he undid his belt is false. It’s well nigh physically impossible. It simply didn’t happen.

And we haven’t finished vesting him yet. After kissing the stole he places it around his neck. He is then assisted into the chasuble. If we’re in luck he might agree to wear a maniple. Finally his mitre is placed on his head and he is handed his crozier.

It is thus attired that we are asked to believe that he performed a vile act of sexual assault upon two little boys. How plausible is it? How can even the most ill-willed of his enemies seriously suggest it?

Witness J cannot possibly be telling the truth. As we say in Australia, blind Freddie could see it.

Cardinal Pell is innocent.