While the commission delivered its final report to parliament in December 2017, following five years of inquiry into abuse in Australian institutions, parts of it concerning the cardinal had to be redacted to ensure the information would not prejudice a jury.

Attorney-General Christian Porter said the full versions of the reports were now published “based on advice that criminal proceedings have concluded”.

Shine Lawyers national practice leader Lisa Flynn said the revelations tell a story already known: “That Cardinal Pell concealed knowledge of pedophilic behaviour in his time.”

VIEW ALL

“Cardinal Pell’s preference to protect paedophiles over [the] safety of children is deplorable,” said Ms Flynn. “Cardinal Pell has been released from prison for accusations against him but we still believe a raft of other allegations will be put forward to hold him to account for the grave wrong that was permitted under his watch.”

Cardinal Pell should have responded to abuse allegations
The royal commission’s findings revealed Cardinal Pell was handed the list of allegations about Father Searson, a controversial priest accused of abusing children in schools and parishes across three districts over more than a decade.

Among the accusations against the priest was that he hated women, liked pointing a gun at parishioners and stole $40,000 from the parish finances. At times, he also tortured and killed animals in front of children and showed them a dead body in a coffin.

He was the fifth child-molesting priest to be sent by the Catholic Church to the community of Doveton, about 31 kilometers outside of Melbourne. He died in 2009 without charges.

Cardinal Pell told the inquiry that he believed that the Catholic Education Office and then-Archbishop of Melbourne Frank Little were handling the allegations. He added that it was not “his place” to investigate the matters concerning Father Searson further.

“On the basis of what was known to Bishop Pell in 1989, it ought to have been obvious to him at the time. He should have advised the Archbishop to remove Father Searson, which he did not do so,” the royal commission noted in the unredacted findings.

The commission said it was incumbent on Cardinal Pell, as the then-Auxiliary Bishop, that he take responsibility for the welfare of children in the Catholic community and to proceed with action “to advocate that Father Searson be removed or suspended”.

“Cardinal Pell’s evidence was that he could not recall recommending a particular course of action to the Archbishop,” the commission wrote. “He conceded that, in retrospect, he might have been a ‘bit more pushy’ with all the parties involved.

“We do not accept any qualification that this conclusion is only appreciable in retrospect.”

The cardinal was told of Ridsdale’s ‘sexual transgressions’
Among the many accusations against Father Ridsdale was that he took young boys on an “overnight camp” to abuse them and did so to hundreds of children. Only a few years after learning of Father Searson’s abuses, Cardinal Pell would learn of Father Ridsdale’s.

The commission said Cardinal Pell was told of Father Ridsdale’s “sexual transgressions” by then-Bishop Ronald Mulkearns, who explained why the priest was moved to Mortlake.

“We are satisfied [that] Father Pell turned his mind to the prudence of Ridsdale taking the boys on overnight camps. The most likely reason for this, as Cardinal Pell acknowledged, was the possibility that if priests were one-on-one with a child, then they could sexually abuse a child or at least provoke gossip about such a prospect,” the report read.

The commission is satisfied Bishop Mulkearns gave Cardinal Pell the reasons for Father Ridsdale’s removal, including the “homosexuality context”. However, Cardinal Pell told the inquiry that Bishop Mulkearns lied to him and did not give the true reason.

The commission does not accept this: “We are satisfied that Bishop Mulkearns [had] told his consultors that it was necessary to move Father Ridsdale from the diocese and from parish work because of complaints that he sexually abused children.

“A contrary position is not tenable.”

The commission said it was also satisfied that the reason Cardinal Pell did not act on any of these allegations was due to concerns about gossip.

“We are also satisfied that by 1973 Cardinal Pell was not only conscious of child sexual abuse by clergy but that he also had considered measures of avoiding situations which might provoke gossip about it,” the unredacted report read.

Commission rejects claims Cardinal Pell bribed abuse survivor
The commission rejected a claim from Father Ridsdale’s nephew, David, that he reached out to Cardinal Pell about his own abuse and was bribed to keep quiet.

Mr David Ridsdale told the commission that Cardinal Pell asked what “it will take to keep you quiet” and it was later heard that Cardinal Pell was overheard telling another priest in the church that “[Gerald] has been rooting boys again” in 1983.

“It is more likely Mr Ridsdale misinterpreted an offer by Bishop Pell to assist as something more sinister,” the commission said. “There is no compelling reason for the statement.”