Information in The Courier recently that Cardinal Pell is to be legally represented before the Royal Commission by Alan Myers QC – at reputedly $20,000 per day – raises some tantalising questions that demand clearly-worded answers from those concerned, especially the Cardinal himself.

Put bluntly, what is the character of the Cardinal’s felt need – or the Catholic Church’s felt need - for the Cardinal to have this form of legal representation before the commission? While no reasonable person would dispute the right of any person to be legally represented before this or any other Royal Commission, what perceived circumstances are impelling the Cardinal to seek this particular legal representation at this time in the commission’s work?

Does the Cardinal have something to fear in questions from counsel representing the commission? Could these questions be so threatening to the Cardinal’s testimony and status that he feels the need for representation and protection by one of Australia’s pre-eminent legal practitioners? Certainly the victims of these criminals have not been afforded such lofty representation. It would be fair to say that in the area of responses to proven sexual abuse of children by his clergy colleagues throughout his tenure in the Church, the Cardinal has maintained that he has done nothing wrong in his interactions with perpetrators, victims and their families or the Catholic Church itself.

If this is so, and assuming as we perhaps should, that the Cardinal always tells the whole truth and has never knowingly held back any relevant information from the victims or the commission, then what is it that is felt to be so threatening that there is the need for this high-powered shield of legal representation? Is not the armour of God enough? Is not the truth adequate in and of itself?

And finally – couldn’t the Cardinal ‘front up’ at the Royal Commission and just be himself and just represent himself? How is it a man so highly educated and articulate as the Cardinal, a man so accustomed to public speaking, a man so experienced in being questioned about his personal and his institution’s responses to child sexual abuse on his ‘watch’ - whether as a junior priest sharing a house with since-convicted perpetrators in Ballarat, as an Archbishop and latterly as a Cardinal - feels he cannot adequately represent himself before the commission?

Then there is the question about which entity or individual is footing the bill for Mr Myers? Has Mr Myers been engaged by the Cardinal himself and, if so, is the Cardinal footing the bill from his personal finances without a recoup from the local Ballarat or wider Catholic Church?

Since the Catholic Church has made clear in the past that child sexual abuse by their Ballarat clergy is a Ballarat diocese issue, and the Ballarat diocese is totally financially responsible, is the Ballarat diocese footing the bill for Mr Myers? And if so, by what process and under whose authority has a budget allocation been made from diocesan funds for Mr Myers? Cardinal, or whoever is behind the appointment of Alan Myers QC, we need answers.