Pell Reborn at Easter

My greatest fear in life, thanks to my friend Mr Policeman who visited our primary school decades ago in Brisbane, has always been, to go to jail.

After watching George Pell’s interview with Andrew Bolt, after 405 days behind bars, I am reconsidering whether it is not a better option than a month at a Thai Health Spa.

Did I actually see Cardinal Pell laugh?

In this interview there is no semblance of the nasty, empathy-free ogre of his pre-jail time. The forceful, overbearing arrogance has completely disappeared, as if a magic wand has been waved and a new man stands before us.

Hinting at our previous Pell experiences, Bolt asked Pell whether the hatred towards him was caused by “something about how you present yourself” to which Pell replied “Ask them! It’s a mystery to me” and you could even believe that to be true.

But it was true. Pell did refer to what he had heard to be his “nasty, aggressive self”. Even Sergeant Smith, one of the investigators, noted “we faced arrogance from him”, referring to Pell’s ever-present resting bitchface, with half closed, staring eyes and tense mouth, all of which were nowhere to be found in Bolt’s interview.

Pell still has the unfortunate habit of taking his head forward and looking up through hooded eyes, for a statement such as “No doubt there was a threat” when referring to his time in jail. He then pulls his head back, half closes his eyes and shakes his head quickly as if to shake off the comment and he still leans to his right and places his left hand on his hip like John Wayne, but somehow, now it is all softer.

His stories of the prison cell and his mates who came to his door with sports scores and news of his acquittal at the Toorak end of the 12 cells were even endearing. His depiction of the drug affected fellows at the other end of the cells sounded heartfelt and his emphasis on forgiveness sounded and looked from his direct eye contact to be a solid conviction.

There is no more of his Socratic ‘maieutics’, a chronic technique he used during his case where he answered a question with a question. Instead it was Andrew Bolt who fell for Pell’s other technique of ‘casuistry’, coming out with an argument that looks logical, but actually may be ill-conceived. In the past Pell’s much-repeated statement “it’s a sad story and wasn’t of much interest to me” made sense for a man in a high position, distancing himself from gossip, until you thought, but wait, this is an institution nurturing the morals of its faithful. Surely you cannot turn a blind eye? Instead now it was Bolt who painted a picture of a Catholic-hating Victoria Police and corrupt Australian judges, of an ABC full of journalists whipping up hate and even of mafia acting within the Catholic Church in Rome. Pell would not take the bait.

Here was a man who told us he is wounded, but not scarred. He depicts a man ‘released’, a man carried through by his faith in God. A man with a smile and even a laugh.

In 405 days I have never seen such a transformation. Either vindication is a strong drug, God is a true healer or there is something about the food in jail about which I have never been told.