Religion Pell Guilty!

[Freo Big Fella]

Query what sort of system could be less adversarial? Applicant meets with an independent commissioner and tells their story. No cross-examination, no requirement for evidence other than testimony. What do you think is a better solution?
On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Perhaps the Church as a whole could have behaved in a manner befitting of it's increasingly hollow status as some sort of moral authority within the community, met with victims, acknowledged their needs, stopped protecting paedophile priests around the globe and used its considerable monetary resources to make some ongoing provision for their ongoing care and support?

Instead Pell had to be dragged kicking and screaming by Kennett and the Cops to the point where he had no other option but to establish the Melbourne Response, ranged for indifferent to bullying in his interactions with victims and played an instrumental leadership role in getting the ball rolling on the establishment of the Ellis Defence. It might have cost the church a bit of coin, but it also prevented any public accountability, action or reckoning until the advent of the Royal Commission.

It was little more that a soulless exercise in public relations and victim control.

And you blokes still talk Pell up as some sort of heroic crusader against child abuse? Spare me.

 

[blackcat]

This is nothing new, this time around the difference is it is factual, not rumour and innuendo.

Yes. Therefore it has the fundental to be grounded in, no need to push-poll the subject for ratings. It should exist on that, and not pique tv consumers with the emotive* touchpoints.

* content by its nature in this topic, will draw emotions. I presume this presentation of the material. I mean exacerbated material ceterus paribus.

 

[skilts]

I agree with that. This is not an apologia, but lots were enablers of heinous acts. The press is just not capable of informing the younger generation. It requires their counsel who have benefit of time and wisdom through experience, to educate a younger generation. The paradox inherent is the religious institution(s) had captured the mature generation, and held sacred status.

Will institutions maintain their status even with losses of constituents, but with this legacy buffer protecting gravity of loss(es). *legacyphenomenon

You pose some unanswerable, yet interesting, questions.

 

[sideswipe]

This same child rapist thought the crimes committed by Christian Brothers to be of no account in his precious process. Those crimes committed by priests were the only ones he wanted to hear about. That arseh*le Callaghan who ran interference for Pell, in the Melbourne cover up, had as his only interest the diminution of the financial burden on the church. It is difficult to decide which is the bigger arseh*le

I am sorry for what happened to you at the hands of the Christian Brothers but put simply the Melbourne Response has no capacity to hear matters outside of the Archdiocese.

May I ask whether you pursued other avenues for compensation?

Given O’Callaghan recommended compensation be awarded to around 97% of applicants he heard and he personally had no involvement in setting the quantum of that compensation (that is determined by a separate panel) not sure he did much of a job in the “diminution of the financial burden on the Church”.

Sorry once again.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[skilts]

I am sorry for what happened to you at the hands of the Christian Brothers but put simply the Melbourne Response has no capacity to hear matters outside of the Archdiocese.

May I ask whether you pursued other avenues for compensation?

Given O’Callaghan recommended compensation be awarded to around 97% of applicants he heard and he personally had no involvement in setting the quantum of that compensation (that is determined by a separate panel) not sure he did much of a job in the “diminution of the financial burden on the Church”.

Sorry once again.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Thank you for your kind thoughts.

I was not seeking any financial recompense for what happened to me. My sole concern was that the arseh*le who abused me (physically, though it had an element of sexually-driven sadism) was not in a position to visit his violence on others. In this, I gained no satisfaction from Callaghan. I had found out that the offender was still pulling the same trick ten years after he assaulted me. In that case, he was found out by some of the Matriculation boys of that year, who belted shit out of him. I knew no more of his whereabouts thereafter.

The most harrowing event after the offence against me occurred when I was on my honeymoon, at Lakes Entrance, six years after the assault. I encountered this turd as I was walking on the beach. He was walking with another brother from the same school, whom I respected and liked a lot. I was too stunned to say anything to the violent prick.

Because I was able to see the abuse as being of not my fault, and that any shame involved must attach to the perpetrator, Callaghan came to the conclusion that I was remarkably well adjusted, and thus would not be likely to gain any compensation. Despite me telling him severally that my only reason for me coming forward was an attempt to prevent the arseh*le ever having anything to do with children again, Callaghan's only interest was in whether, and to what extent, the church was financially liable. Like many others, I found the process worse than useless. I decided get on with the rest of my life.

It confuses me to think the Christian Brothers didn't come under the auspices of the diocese. Oh well. Callaghan, or whatever his name was/is, surely had a duty of care to establish whether my concerns about the possible continuing activities of this offender were at least investigated.

Nothing happened.

Edit: For the record, the offender's name was Coldrey. I've forgotten, if I ever knew it, his so-called Christian name. This is confused somewhat, because another Brother Coldrey was given the job of investigating this rort in Western Australia. He distinguished himself by being so effective at the job he was given, his investigation was closed down by the church there. He was a hero. Don't know if he was in any way related to the other brother. FMD, this is complicated.

 

[sideswipe]

Thank you for your kind thoughts.

I was not seeking any financial recompense for what happened to me. My sole concern was that the arseh*le who abused me (physically, though it had an element of sexually-driven sadism) was not in a position to visit his violence on others. In this, I gained no satisfaction from Callaghan. I had found out that the offender was still pulling the same trick ten years after he assaulted me. In that case, he was found out by some of the Matriculation boys of that year, who belted shit out of him. I knew no more of his whereabouts thereafter.

The most harrowing event after of the offence against me occured when I was on my honeymoon, at Lakes Entrance, six years after the assault. I encountered this turd as I was walking on the beach. He was walking with another brother from the same school, whom I respected and liked a lot. I was too stunned to say anything to the violent prick.

Because I was able to see the abuse as being of not my fault, and that any shame involved must attach to the perpetrator, Callaghan came to the conclusion that I was remarkably well adjusted, and thus would not be likely to gain any compensation. Despite me telling him severally that my only reason for me coming forward was an attempt to prevent the arseh*le ever having anything to do with children again, Callaghan's only interest was in whether, and to what extent, the church was financially liable. Like many others, I found the process worse than useless. I decided get on with the rest of my life.

It confuses me to think the Christian Brothers didn't come under the auspices of the diocese. Oh well. Callaghan, or whatever his name was/is, surely had a duty of care to establish whether my concerns about the possible continuing activities of this offender were at least investigated.

Nothing happened.

Glad to read it sounds like you have been able to get on with the rest of your life. To address your query on how orders and Archdioceses work, I can only put a very general explanation together as I do not profess to hold any great knowledge of Canon Law - and that provides the framework for the establishment of the Melbourne Response.

All across the world, the Catholic Church is broken down into Archdioceses which cover a physical area. The head of that is an Archbishop (or sometimes a Bishop?) who then reports "up the line" all the way to the Pope. The Holy Orders are separate "bodies" which at some time in history were established under the Church but operate in a separate "reporting line". They have their own finances, structures, etc. Put simply, they "report up" to the head of their orders and then up to the Pope. Note this is a really simplified explanation. So while Orders such as the Christian Brothers, the Jesuits, the Sisters of Mercy, etc., will operate "within" an Archdiocese, they are not "governed" by the Archdiocese, but rather by their individual order.

Think of the likes of the Church schools. Parish primary schools linked to a parish church are Archdiocesan, but then the likes of De La Salle, St.Kevins and Xavier are run by their respective orders. Hospitals are similar. They were variously established by separate holy orders and are still run by them with a few mergers along the way.

This is a key point that is widely misunderstood concept (once again, I do not profess to know of all the arcane workings of Canon Law). To continue with the simplified explanation, the likes of Pell, when Archbishop, would have had no formal "jurisdiction" over the Christian Brothers even though they were physically located within the geographical Archdiocese.

I can't comment on your experiences with the Melbourne Response other than to suggest the Independent Commissioner may have been advising on your prospects of obtaining compensation from the order directly? He would have had no authority to recommend you for compensation from the Melbourne Response because of acts committed by Christian Brothers. Only a very uneducated guess. Hope this helps?

As for talk of Kennett dragging Pell kicking and screaming to set up the Melbourne Response, that sounds like a good story in hindsight from Jeffrey Gibb. If he was so instrumental in establishing the compensation structure, shouldn't he be also widely pilloried for its perceived shortcomings?

 

[BloodRet]

Free Pell

 

[LordLucifer]

This judge in his summing up & sentencing is not leaving any stone unturned, whilst some of the content is 'colourful' (it has to be due to the nature of the actual charges), it is direct & scathing which is what the general public want to hear.

I realise that the judge is not doing this solely to appease community anger but it is a somewhat refreshing insight into the legal system and the attitudes to this sort of behaviour in society.

 

[Unknown Identity]

Slap with a wet lettuce leaf incoming..

 

[faible]

Good lord this judge is taking his time to get to the actual sentence.

 

[yodellinhank]

Free Pell

 

[Taylor]

Slap with a wet lettuce leaf incoming..

I'm thinking seven years

 

[Unknown Identity]

Who gives a **** what remaining years he has left or what kind of health he has.

He walked around as a free man in a priviliged position for 20+ years after he committed these horrendous acts.

**** him.

 

[Colonial]

Good character is someone who fiddles with kids and helps others cover it up over the years apparently.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

 

[Badesumofu]

I'm guessing around 5 years. Will be concurrent sentences of varying lengths.

 

[Sentinel]

Good lord this judge is taking his time to get to the actual sentence.

Needs to leave no stone unturned, I believe it otherwise opens up ground for appeal in sentencing (could be wrong).

 

[Unknown Identity]

Good character is someone who fiddles with kids and helps others cover it up over the years apparently.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

I think once you do something like this, you no longer get to be referred as someone with good character.

Seriously, what the ****!?

 

[yodellinhank]

Slap with a wet lettuce leaf incoming..

Slap? Not likely to be that harsh.

 

[Unknown Identity]

With all these allowances the judge is making for Pell's sentencing, sounds like he's going to get 27 days

 

[Halloween Jack]

is he a a chance for being fed to the lions?

 

[Badesumofu]

I dare say this makes interesting listening for the people who imagine the judges just pull numbers straight from their arses when sentencing.

 

[Tony Harrison]

I dare say this makes interesting listening for the people who imagine the judges just pull numbers straight from their arses when sentencing.

Yeh, they swirl the info around in there first.

 

[blackcat]

he was found out by some of the Matriculation boys of that year, who belted shit out of him.

ambiguous ^
We're the senior graduates standing up on behalf of the younger students, or, were they r*ped too? NB. The question need not be asked, do not answer.

The reason which I did ask, was as prologue for this actual following question. I cannot understand how one person has not played out an act of revenge by responding with a murder of a criminally responsible priest in public. I only heard of some recent arsons.

I noted before about those abused still in thrall psychologically to individual priests and the church, even noted, there has been no vigilante outlier...

 

[faible]

Well it's definitely under 10 years now I'd think.

 

[Colonial]

Ffs. Covering his arse on a light sentence so the cult leaders dont give him payback.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk