Opine
Norm Smith Medallist
- Aug 30, 2018
- 7,352
- 12,278
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Futile in what way?The church protected the church
After the next appeal, that could prove futile for the church.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
LIVE: Richmond v Melbourne - 7:25PM Wed
Squiggle tips Demons at 77% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
Futile in what way?The church protected the church
After the next appeal, that could prove futile for the church.
Futile in what way?
He does not define the church. I think the church's response will indeed be heartfelt.
The Catholic Church is not on trial but its actions dictate peoples opinionsYour 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.
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 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.
Apologies GC, I'm not aware of what he did/said on the weekend, can you please expand on this ?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 ?
Yeah, I agree with you. Your inferences are not unreasonable under the current circumstances .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
To be fair the Vatican did defrock McCarrickYeah, 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.
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.
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.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.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 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.
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.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.
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.Happy for the Vatican to wait until all appeals are exhausted.
Its like his order of Australia.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.
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...rge-pells-defenders-just-displays-their-powerIts 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 .
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.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.
Don't you think that is an important aspect of a circumstantially led case?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.
Well it is a his word against there word case.Don't you think that is an important aspect of a circumstantially led case?
Without corroborating direct evidence to the contrary, an alternate explanation of the circumstances, that is reasonably possible, leaves doubt does it not?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.