The Melbourne non-response?
The Submission apparently accuses the Church in the State of moving alleged abusers to hinder their investigations, prematurely alerting abusers that they were being investigated, and more.
The claims are not new. And they have been denied vigorously by the Church's lead investigator and other spokespeople.
But it surely does undermine the Melbourne Archdiocese's continuing insistence on doing it's own way with the so-called 'Melbourne Response'.
Meanwhile The Age is accusing the Church of stonewalling the media. The Archdiocese has apparently put in place some co-ordination arrangements to deal with media queries and generally instructed Church officials not to comment on the Inquiry. That is sensible. But the Archdiocese has also refused to provide contact details for its media spokesperson.
Not a good look.
Victim group credibility
At the same time, the credibility of some of the claims being made took a serious hit yesterday with yet another attempt to implicate Cardinal Pell. The claim was that as a parish priest he had refused to speak to a rape victim who had, as a result been physically punished for attempting to report his abuse.
The problem is, the Cardinal was not actually a priest of the diocese concerned (Ballarat) at the time (indeed, not even in the country) of the alleged events.
There have been a series of articles, over the last few weeks from assorted lawyers and legal students, about how terrible it is that the legal industry has largely been excluded from the handling of child abuses cases in this country. This kind of thing illustrates just why that is no great tragedy, but rather a positive! A little basic fact checking on the part of lawyers would go a long way...