Updated George Pell * Dead at 81yo

[Opine]

The church protected the church

After the next appeal, that could prove futile for the church.

Futile in what way?

 

[Melsy]

Futile in what way?

The church will not be able to stop civil action against it I feel. Essentially the head of the state has been convicted. If an appeal fails the church might be financially culpable. He has protected the church with his obligations. His obligation has been to the church over the law.

People think he is protecting sexual offenders when really he is protecting the church.

 

[GreyCrow]

He does not define the church. I think the church's response will indeed be heartfelt.

Your concerns on the broader issue are valid, but this case did not address, nor reach a finding on, the issues that your highlighting. As was made expressly clear by CJ Kidd; the Catholic Church is not on trial. Leave it at that.

The Catholic Church is not on trial but its actions dictate peoples opinions

I am not religious nor care for Catholics or Muslims but I felt Pope Francis' election to the Papacy was a good sign

His actions on the weekend leave me thinking he doesnt get it nor does the Church

So yes they can be villified

 

[Opine]

The church will not be able to stop civil action against it I feel. Essentially the head of the state has been convicted. If an appeal fails the church might be financially culpable. He has protected the church with his obligations. His obligation has been to the church over the law.

People think he is protecting sexual offenders when really he is protecting the church.

I don't believe that the possible advent of civil action is at the centre of the church's concerns. That is evident from its voluntary introduction of a third party victim compensatory scheme here in Australia. While there's been criticism that the scheme is dependant on victim waiving right to future action, that is no different to any other form of settlement outside the judicial system. Even our civil procedure legislation encourages dispute resolution outside the judicial system.

 

[Opine]

The Catholic Church is not on trial but its actions dictate peoples opinions

I am not religious nor care for Catholics or Muslims but I felt Pope Francis' election to the Papacy was a good sign

His actions on the weekend leave me thinking he doesnt get it nor does the Church

So yes they can be villified

Apologies GC, I'm not aware of what he did/said on the weekend, can you please expand on this ?

 

[GreyCrow]

Apologies GC, I'm not aware of what he did/said on the weekend, can you please expand on this ?

Held a Vatican summit and while the words seem ok the biggest failure (in my opinion) is that priests found guilty are not defrocked.

https://cruxnow.com/february-abuse-...s-summit-warning-abusers-of-the-wrath-of-god/

ROME - Clerical sexual abuse is the work of the devil and Church personnel complicit in abuse become tools of Satan, Pope Francis said on Sunday, closing a Vatican summit on the protection of children, during which he promised justice for all the victims of these crimes.

“I would state clearly: If in the Church there should emerge even a single case of abuse - which already in itself represents an atrocity - that case will be faced with the utmost seriousness,” Francis said.

Francis began his remarks closing a Feb. 21-24 summit that gathered presidents of bishops’ conferences from around the world and other Church leaders by noting that sexual abuse of children is a problem for society as a whole, and that the majority of cases take place within the family.

“Acts of violence take place not only in the home, but also in neighborhoods, schools, athletic facilities and, sadly, also in church settings,” he said. According to UNICEF, 9 out of every 10 girls forced to have sexual relations was abused by someone close to their family.

This is a “universal problem,” Francis said, and the evil is no “less monstrous when it takes place within the Church.” It’s actually more scandalous, he said, because it’s incompatible with the Church’s moral and ethical credibility.


A lot of words, a lot of blame shifting but not 1 mention of punishment to those who abuse

 

[PetterdHoisted]

John Sylvester coming down heavily on Pell's side in CH9 media today, in a read-between-the-lines kind of way. Saying a case with this sort of evidence would barely ever get to trial, let alone lead to conviction. I'm wonder if the pro-Pell forces might not get louder in the coming days...you can see from the posts above which way it will go- the Church was put on trial not the man.

 

[Opine]

Held a Vatican summit and while the words seem ok the biggest failure (in my opinion) is that priests found guilty are not defrocked.

https://cruxnow.com/february-abuse-...s-summit-warning-abusers-of-the-wrath-of-god/

ROME - Clerical sexual abuse is the work of the devil and Church personnel complicit in abuse become tools of Satan, Pope Francis said on Sunday, closing a Vatican summit on the protection of children, during which he promised justice for all the victims of these crimes.

“I would state clearly: If in the Church there should emerge even a single case of abuse - which already in itself represents an atrocity - that case will be faced with the utmost seriousness,” Francis said.

Francis began his remarks closing a Feb. 21-24 summit that gathered presidents of bishops’ conferences from around the world and other Church leaders by noting that sexual abuse of children is a problem for society as a whole, and that the majority of cases take place within the family.

“Acts of violence take place not only in the home, but also in neighborhoods, schools, athletic facilities and, sadly, also in church settings,” he said. According to UNICEF, 9 out of every 10 girls forced to have sexual relations was abused by someone close to their family.

This is a “universal problem,” Francis said, and the evil is no “less monstrous when it takes place within the Church.” It’s actually more scandalous, he said, because it’s incompatible with the Church’s moral and ethical credibility.


A lot of words, a lot of blame shifting but not 1 mention of punishment to those who abuse

Yeah, I agree with you. Your inferences are not unreasonable under the current circumstances .

The choice of words "faced with the utmost seriousness" could be inferred as meaning seriously challenged. If that is what was meant, then as a Catholic, it is disheartening. I may try and listen/read what was said, if said in Italian; hopefully it is an oversight in literal translation.

I think if reported correctly, his second statement re problem in society generally and family, while clearly true and no less concerning, is poor as it appears to shift the context away from the culture within the church.

 

[GreyCrow]

Yeah, I agree with you. Your inferences are not unreasonable under the current circumstances .

The choice of words "faced with the utmost seriousness" could be inferred as meaning seriously challenged. If that is what was meant, then as a Catholic, it is disheartening. I may try and listen/read what was said, if said in Italian; hopefully it is an oversight in literal translation.

I think if reported correctly, his second statement re problem in society generally and family, while clearly true and no less concerning, is poor as it appears to shift the context away from the culture within the church.

To be fair the Vatican did defrock McCarrick
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-17/former-us-cardinal-defrocked-for-sex-crimes/10819596

 

[Slartibartfast]

Happy for the Vatican to wait until all appeals are exhausted.

 

[Kurve]

John Sylvester coming down heavily on Pell's side in CH9 media today, in a read-between-the-lines kind of way. Saying a case with this sort of evidence would barely ever get to trial, let alone lead to conviction. I'm wonder if the pro-Pell forces might not get louder in the coming days...you can see from the posts above which way it will go- the Church was put on trial not the man.

Just my opinion but I think it's irrelevant whether these historical crimes ever get to trial or not. The only question for me would be whether Pell got a fair one. Absolutely he did.

 

[PetterdHoisted]

Just my opinion but I think it's irrelevant whether these historical crimes ever get to trial or not. The only question for me would be whether Pell got a fair one. Absolutely he did.

yeah I'm sure he did, but I could have some sympathy for the idea that some anger at the broader institution was focused onto Pell. There was a lynch mob atmosphere outside the door, but presumably inside justice was blind.

 

[Opine]

Just my opinion but I think it's irrelevant whether these historical crimes ever get to trial or not. The only question for me would be whether Pell got a fair one. Absolutely he did.

I had this article mixed up with another. JS is essentially saying that there was an absence of direct evidence led by the prosecution; and that the indirect (circumstial) evidence, in any other case, would have been incapable of eliminating reasonable doubt in the minds of a reasonable jury.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Here is an extract from Louise Milligan’s book The rise and Fall of George Pell, this article concerns the events surrounding the Kid and the choirboy which led pell to be charged by police.

You can see the overwhelming impact these events had on them , a burden they wore for life and in the case of the choirboy was cut short. Sexual abuse on minors has lifelong impacts . Such simple events cause Such great torment .

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...y-the-harrowing-story-of-george-pells-victims

 

[Melsy]

I don't believe that the possible advent of civil action is at the centre of the church's concerns. That is evident from its voluntary introduction of a third party victim compensatory scheme here in Australia. While there's been criticism that the scheme is dependant on victim waiving right to future action, that is no different to any other form of settlement outside the judicial system. Even our civil procedure legislation encourages dispute resolution outside the judicial system.

The church has protected the church. Pell has protected the church. Id say the church would be very concerned about losing followers.

To say there is not a political element driving the noise would be ignorant from anyone who said otherwise. There are people screaming, and they haven't even seen the evidence.

Look at the BBC and Jimmy Savile. Where's that at now?

 

[Melsy]

I will be interested to see what happens in the appeal.

The fact that the crimes happened in the sacristy is mind boggling post service. The sacristy is almost a public space at that time, especially in such a large church. Other staff can walk in anytime. The sacristy is a place of church staff which is why the choir boys might be there.

Everyone is there to rip their over wear off, and off they go fully clothed. They don't go less than fully clothed.

A typical example of mass staff. Six people in immediate view excluding choir.

 

[Opine]

I will be interested to see what happens in the appeal.

The fact that the crimes happened in the sacristy is mind boggling post service. The sacristy is almost a public space at that time.

This appeal is extremely important; not merely because it involves Pell and the serious nature of the offences. I'm not familiar with the cumulative strength of the circumstantial evidence in this case, but various commentaries suggest that it should not have been capable of satisfying a reasonable jury from entertaining a reasonable doubt as to guilt. Looking forward to learning more about the basis of the appeal.

 

[Opine]

Happy for the Vatican to wait until all appeals are exhausted.

I've thought about this since you posted this last night. I've come to the personal opinion, perhaps wrongly, that despite the pending appeal, the Catholic Church's position that Cannon law runs alongside State law, should compel the Church to recognise the current decision of the court. I think he should be defrocked; even if temporarily pending the outcome of the appeal.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I've thought about this since you posted this last night. I've come to the personal opinion, perhaps wrongly, that despite the pending appeal, the Catholic Church's position that Cannon law runs alongside State law, should compel the Church to recognise the current decision of the court. I think he should be defrocked; even if temporarily pending the outcome of the appeal.

Its like his order of Australia.
Government are waiting for any appeals before removing it.

The church have removed all of his rights in terms of being a priest. This is tantamount to defrocking.
These are I’s and Ts to dotted and crossed, they are symbolic. He is in prison .

 

[BlueE]

Its like his order of Australia.
Government are waiting for any appeals before removing it.

The church have removed all of his rights in terms of being a priest. This is tantamount to defrocking.
These are I’s and Ts to dotted and crossed, they are symbolic. He is in prison .

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...rge-pells-defenders-just-displays-their-power

This is part of an interesting read.

The law is complex, and an appeals process is still to take place. But Pell’s defenders have not decided on his guiltlessness after a careful review of the evidence. They do not know what that evidence is. They have not sat in on the trial, or reviewed its transcripts. It seems they did not – and this is damning – even take the time or have any inclination to read unsuppressed media reports before weighing in.

The options of saying nothing, or waiting for more information, were available to them, but they did not take them. Instead, they began with Pell’s position, and his politics, and reverse engineered his innocence from there. I would like to believe this is not merely a partisan exercise but I keep coming undone on a single word and its synonyms: unthinkable.

Because apparently these crimes are unthinkable. How would a man of such seniority, and such faith (whom they had met!) commit such acts? Why would he act so publicly and so spontaneously? Why had his victims taken so long to come forward?

Here’s my question: where have these people been?

Did these past decades of institutional child abuse never happen? Were they looking away the whole time? Has everything we learned – painfully – about the damage it does, and its shame, been unlearned? Can it be still unrecognised that abusers groom whole communities as well as individual children? Of all the implausible excuses available, surely “but how could a priest do this?” must rank close to the top.
...

When this is the response even to a conviction, you know why victims fear they will be disbelieved and discredited. That fear is correct, warranted and will be made stronger than ever before by this disgrace.

On top of this straw-clutching is a layer of active disinformation, lying and irrelevance. It is not true that priests rarely abuse their victims without grooming. It may be true that Pell is a “lively conversationalist” but he is not on trial for being a bad raconteur. As for the man of high office, the man that I knew, the man who is so privately charitable, the man who would never … These words already appear in tens of thousands of case files. How many more are needed?

Those files also find priests who raped children not just in the sacristy but at the altar. They molested children not only in public but in front of their own family members, sometimes in the same moving car. They raped them while wearing vestments, not only orally but anally as well. That same untieable cincture has been used to bind the hands of a 16-year-old boy, who was then raped so viciously he needed corrective surgery. Opportunistic priests have acted in windows of time not just after mass, but on school excursions in public toilets. They have snuck into a hospital to rape a seven-year-old girl. They have molested every daughter in a five-daughter family.

So what about Pell’s case is implausible, or even unusual? For anyone willing to look, it is almost humdrum, once compared to the vast, prolific compendium of international crime his institution has compiled.

Unthinkable? What his defenders really mean is that they cannot bear thinking about it.

 

[Slartibartfast]

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...rge-pells-defenders-just-displays-their-power

This is part of an interesting read.

The law is complex, and an appeals process is still to take place. But Pell’s defenders have not decided on his guiltlessness after a careful review of the evidence. They do not know what that evidence is. They have not sat in on the trial, or reviewed its transcripts. It seems they did not – and this is damning – even take the time or have any inclination to read unsuppressed media reports before weighing in.

The options of saying nothing, or waiting for more information, were available to them, but they did not take them. Instead, they began with Pell’s position, and his politics, and reverse engineered his innocence from there. I would like to believe this is not merely a partisan exercise but I keep coming undone on a single word and its synonyms: unthinkable.

Because apparently these crimes are unthinkable. How would a man of such seniority, and such faith (whom they had met!) commit such acts? Why would he act so publicly and so spontaneously? Why had his victims taken so long to come forward?

Here’s my question: where have these people been?

Did these past decades of institutional child abuse never happen? Were they looking away the whole time? Has everything we learned – painfully – about the damage it does, and its shame, been unlearned? Can it be still unrecognised that abusers groom whole communities as well as individual children? Of all the implausible excuses available, surely “but how could a priest do this?” must rank close to the top.
...

When this is the response even to a conviction, you know why victims fear they will be disbelieved and discredited. That fear is correct, warranted and will be made stronger than ever before by this disgrace.

On top of this straw-clutching is a layer of active disinformation, lying and irrelevance. It is not true that priests rarely abuse their victims without grooming. It may be true that Pell is a “lively conversationalist” but he is not on trial for being a bad raconteur. As for the man of high office, the man that I knew, the man who is so privately charitable, the man who would never … These words already appear in tens of thousands of case files. How many more are needed?

Those files also find priests who raped children not just in the sacristy but at the altar. They molested children not only in public but in front of their own family members, sometimes in the same moving car. They raped them while wearing vestments, not only orally but anally as well. That same untieable cincture has been used to bind the hands of a 16-year-old boy, who was then raped so viciously he needed corrective surgery. Opportunistic priests have acted in windows of time not just after mass, but on school excursions in public toilets. They have snuck into a hospital to rape a seven-year-old girl. They have molested every daughter in a five-daughter family.

So what about Pell’s case is implausible, or even unusual? For anyone willing to look, it is almost humdrum, once compared to the vast, prolific compendium of international crime his institution has compiled.

Unthinkable? What his defenders really mean is that they cannot bear thinking about it.

Yes, i find it amazing that people are offering maps off the church as evidence it could not happen. Looking for a scenarerio in which it may just have been not possible.
Pell has history which was not proven in court. This was due to the victims being considered unreliable , ie drug f***** after living with the abuse. There was the camp when Pell was in his 20s. Again good lawyers worked their magic over the victims.
To think a sex fiend is not impetuous and behaves without reason or sense is just in denial.

This witness was a professional in life, family man, educated, and was not able to be displayed as a money hungry , drug effected liar. His eveidence was compelling. Remember he answered questions from QC Richter for over a day, this guy makes cops appear genteel and stupid.

 

[Opine]

Yes, i find it amazing that people are offering maps off the church as evidence it could not happen. Looking for a scenarerio in which it may just have been not possible.

Don't you think that is an important aspect of a circumstantially led case?

 

[Slartibartfast]

Don't you think that is an important aspect of a circumstantially led case?

Well it is a his word against there word case.
It’s important if they could show it was impossible but that did not happen. Looking at it it is possible.

 

[Opine]

Well it is a his word against there word case.
It’s important if they could show it was impossible but that did not happen. Looking at it it is possible.

Without corroborating direct evidence to the contrary, an alternate explanation of the circumstances, that is reasonably possible, leaves doubt does it not?

 

[Opine]

Any way, we don't know all the evidence. The circumstantial evidence may have been overwhelming. We have to accept and respect the courts finding until/unless an appeal finds otherwise. He was found guilty. My conscience tells me he should be defrocked.