Protecting George Pell

Remove this Banner Ad

Kwality said:
Perhaps read what Bruce said, not what you want to believe. Its disengenuous to try & put words in Bruces mouth.

The strategy of trying to pin all that happened (it did, yes) on Pell might satisfy some here, but it failed.
Click to expand...
Plenty of other filth was taken to court and got their just deserts

they werent trying to pin everything on him in court - they had specific complainants and incidents. Quit with the “being picked on” narrative.

it was not proven - not because he was found innocent - but because there was insufficient evidence - as there often is in a case decades old where no physical evidence has survived or is available.

A royal commission has findings that he knew about kiddie fiddlers and did nothing - that in my mind should have him in jail - knowledge that something like that is happening and doing nothing is nearly as bad as committing the crime.
 
Kwality said:
Clearly thats your take. I'm suggesting trying to use Pell as a scapegoat was a strategy.
Click to expand...
He was tried for molesting a couple of boys who clearly accused him and him alone. He was found guilty of that offence, the sentence was upheld on appeal and released (correctly) on further appeal.

i dont think i have a take.

They are just the facts
 

Log in to remove this ad.

BruceFromBalnarring said:
No. I’m not. I find Gerard insufferable to be honest. Although I admire his resilient refusal to ignore historical facts.

But your adulation of Geraghty is vomitous. He’s no expert. He was a lousy priest and a compo lawyer who was in the right place at the right political time.
Click to expand...
A "lousy priest" who has a doctoral degree in theology from Sydney, a master's degree from Paris, and lectured in theology to students for the priesthood in the Theological Institute of Sydney. That "lousy priest"!

A "compo lawyer" who was counsel assisting the Chelmsford Royal Commission. That "compo lawyer"!

Became a judge because he was in the "right place at the right political time" ROFL!

Geraghty has also published three books all of which were successful. That would be three more than you I'd suggest.

He has no time for priests who know of child sexual abuse and do nothing to combat it, so I guess you are at odds there and that might be in part the basis of your animosity/jealousy. That said, personally attacking anyone who challenges your biased closed-minded views are par for the course.

Then there's you the forum poster. The forum poster who carried on like someone beside himself when on the 'where's the evidence' trail, but who traduces a person in the most vomitous manner without a scintilla of evidence. Frankly, Bruce, you are not only a hypocrite you grossly overrate your capacity - with a capital 'G'
 
Kwality said:
Perhaps read what Bruce said, not what you want to believe. Its disengenuous to try & put words in Bruces mouth.

The strategy of trying to pin all that happened (it did, yes) on Pell might satisfy some here, but it failed.
Click to expand...
I know what I believe - and sadly - unlike you - I have experience to back it up rather than a conspiracy theory. You think George Pell is a scapegoat. You are deluded.
 
kranky al said:
Ive got control over a christian brother who i find molesting kids - anyone does.

Personally id punch him in the head a few times - drag him by the f%}}% hair while kicking his arse to the cop shop and stand there and wait till hes f#}%% charged bruce.

you dont have to be so dramatic - you can just ring them if you like.

you dont need someone in authority to tell you you are f#}%% authorised to stop fiddlers

Thats the trouble with being inside a hierarchical system - you think in terms of that system - well heres a f#}^^^ hint - you dont need to wait for a paedo organisation to say its ok to do something about paedos.

what you do is see or hear of something happening like that and you progress right to doing something about that. You dont have to wait for the f%}%^ pope to tell you its ok in latin.

and as i mentioned - coming from a priest (back when a priests word was worth something) a few of those poor kids might have stayed untouched
Click to expand...

If you did all of that based only on a second or third hand report from a minor you’d truly be a fool.

Like Crypt above you can play the angry dramatics all you like. Back in the 70s by and large reports of child sexual abuse were not believed across the board, and to the extent that they were, they were covered up. By everyone. Not just the Catholic Church.

Trying to pin responsibility for society’s faults in this regard on a single person is, at best, a gutless self exoneration and, at worst, manipulation of a serious problem for political gain.
 
AM said:
A "lousy priest" who has a doctoral degree in theology from Sydney, a master's degree from Paris, and lectured in theology to students for the priesthood in the Theological Institute of Sydney. That "lousy priest"!

A "compo lawyer" who was counsel assisting the Chelmsford Royal Commission. That "compo lawyer"!

Became a judge because he was in the "right place at the right political time" ROFL!

Geraghty has also published three books all of which were successful. That would be three more than you I'd suggest.

He has no time for priests who know of child sexual abuse and do nothing to combat it, so I guess you are at odds there and that might be in part the basis of your animosity/jealousy. That said, personally attacking anyone who challenges your biased closed-minded views are par for the course.

Then there's you the forum poster. The forum poster who carried on like someone beside himself when on the 'where's the evidence' trail, but who traduces a person in the most vomitous manner without a scintilla of evidence. Frankly, Bruce, you are not only a hypocrite you grossly overrate your capacity - with a capital 'G'
Click to expand...
What did Geraghty know, when did he know it, and what did he do about it?
 
AM said:
A "lousy priest" who has a doctoral degree in theology from Sydney, a master's degree from Paris, and lectured in theology to students for the priesthood in the Theological Institute of Sydney. That "lousy priest"!

A "compo lawyer" who was counsel assisting the Chelmsford Royal Commission. That "compo lawyer"!

Became a judge because he was in the "right place at the right political time" ROFL!

Geraghty has also published three books all of which were successful. That would be three more than you I'd suggest.

He has no time for priests who know of child sexual abuse and do nothing to combat it, so I guess you are at odds there and that might be in part the basis of your animosity/jealousy. That said, personally attacking anyone who challenges your biased closed-minded views are par for the course.

Then there's you the forum poster. The forum poster who carried on like someone beside himself when on the 'where's the evidence' trail, but who traduces a person in the most vomitous manner without a scintilla of evidence. Frankly, Bruce, you are not only a hypocrite you grossly overrate your capacity - with a capital 'G'
Click to expand...
On this subject he’s just a forum poster. I’ve read his Pearls and Irritations blog. It’s nasty, dishonest, but worst, personal. He very clearly hates Pell.

So spare me his doctorates and crap. He’s just another flog with an opinion.

How about post your own opinion. And back it up with evidence. Like I have.
 
BruceFromBalnarring said:
If you did all of that based only on a second or third hand report from a minor you’d truly be a fool.

Like Crypt above you can play the angry dramatics all you like. Back in the 70s by and large reports of child sexual abuse were not believed across the board, and to the extent that they were, they were covered up. By everyone. Not just the Catholic Church.

Trying to pin responsibility for society’s faults in this regard on a single person is, at best, a gutless self exoneration and, at worst, manipulation of a serious problem for political gain.
Click to expand...

So that makes it ok for Pell to cover up reports of child molestation...because everyone else did?

Disgusting.
 
BruceFromBalnarring said:
If you did all of that based only on a second or third hand report from a minor you’d truly be a fool.

Like Crypt above you can play the angry dramatics all you like. Back in the 70s by and large reports of child sexual abuse were not believed across the board, and to the extent that they were, they were covered up. By everyone. Not just the Catholic Church.

Trying to pin responsibility for society’s faults in this regard on a single person is, at best, a gutless self exoneration and, at worst, manipulation of a serious problem for political gain.
Click to expand...
Every single person who did nothing is a turd

but this is the pell thread - and as i keep posting and you keep ignoring - pell was in a unique position to be believed if he stood up.

<<<
But the royal commission found: “We are satisfied that in 1973 Father Pell turned his mind to the prudence of Ridsdale taking boys on overnight camps”.
“The most likely reason for this, as Cardinal Pell acknowledged, was the possibility that if priests were one-on-one with a child then they could sexually abuse a child or at least provoke gossip about such a prospect. By this time, child sexual abuse was on his radar, in relation to not only Monsignor Day but also Ridsdale. We are also satisfied that by 1973 Cardinal Pell was not only conscious of child sexual abuse by clergy but that he also had considered measures of avoiding situations which might provoke gossip about it.”>>>
 
BruceFromBalnarring said:
He wasn’t in a position of power.

When he was, he did more than any institutional leader before him to confront the issue.

I don’t have to accept findings of a Royal Commission at all. They are simply findings. And in this case unsupported by the evidence.
Click to expand...

"he wasnt in a position of power"?

if you believed someone in your workplace was raping someone else there, would you do nothing about it because you are not in a position of power?

sometimes being a human being outranks where you are on the organizational chart
 
Ned_Flanders said:
"he wasnt in a position of power"?

if you believed someone in your workplace was raping someone else there, would you do nothing about it because you are not in a position of power?

sometimes being a human being outranks where you are on the organizational chart
Click to expand...
Bruce has consistently pushed the line that Pell was not in a position of authority in Ballarat whilst Ridsdale was active - it is a fallacy - he was destined for higher honours and the only way you get there is by knowing everything and staying silent. That’s how it works. Consider the case of Bp Brian “Easy Cash” Finnigan - a man of nondescript importance who apart from being secretary and Vicar General to Mulkearns had little to no experience as a Priest yet made it to Auxiliary Bishop - why because he knew everything and said nothing. His Royal Commission overall performance was shambolic. He lied, perjured and contradicted himself over and over and in doing so exposed the whole lot of them. “Mental Reservation” is the term used by Bishops for trying to dodge the truth. Pell & Finnigan are amongst the best at it, only problem is eventually the house of cards comes tumbling down.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

As others have stated in various ways, it doesn't matter what societies norms were at the time.
It doesn't matter what the institutional norms of the Catholic Church were at the time.
It doesn't matter what anyone else said or did at the time.
If you're a decent, compassionate human being and you have knowledge that kids are being abused you do something.
If you're walking around in a cassock as a representative of God on earth and you do nothing, you are scum.

Pell's recent prnouncements on Trump tell us all we need to know about his transactional morality.
It doesn't matter if someone is a liar, a cheat, a thief, a conman, commits serial adultery etc so long as he makes political decisions that reinforce our legal positions.
 
kranky al said:
Every single person who did nothing is a turd

but this is the pell thread - and as i keep posting and you keep ignoring - pell was in a unique position to be believed if he stood up.

<<<
But the royal commission found: “We are satisfied that in 1973 Father Pell turned his mind to the prudence of Ridsdale taking boys on overnight camps”.
“The most likely reason for this, as Cardinal Pell acknowledged, was the possibility that if priests were one-on-one with a child then they could sexually abuse a child or at least provoke gossip about such a prospect. By this time, child sexual abuse was on his radar, in relation to not only Monsignor Day but also Ridsdale. We are also satisfied that by 1973 Cardinal Pell was not only conscious of child sexual abuse by clergy but that he also had considered measures of avoiding situations which might provoke gossip about it.”>>>
Click to expand...
I don’t think overnight camps was the issue, now, was it? I’ll need to revisit the testimony but the issue was boys swimming naked in a dam (in itself not particularly controversial in the 70s) as best as I can recollect.
 
BruceFromBalnarring said:
I don’t think overnight camps was the issue, now, was it? I’ll need to revisit the testimony but the issue was boys swimming naked in a dam (in itself not particularly controversial in the 70s) as best as I can recollect.
Click to expand...
I quoted that from the abc website
 
kranky al said:
I quoted that from the abc website
Click to expand...
It will be an interesting exercise to compare their characterisation of the evidence (and, I guess the Commission’s) with the transcript. My clear recollection was Pell had misgivings about nude swimming. He considered it inappropriate.

I’d be staggered if camps at that point raised eyebrows.
 
E Shed said:
As others have stated in various ways, it doesn't matter what societies norms were at the time.
It doesn't matter what the institutional norms of the Catholic Church were at the time.
It doesn't matter what anyone else said or did at the time.
If you're a decent, compassionate human being and you have knowledge that kids are being abused you do something.
If you're walking around in a cassock as a representative of God on earth and you do nothing, you are scum.

Pell's recent prnouncements on Trump tell us all we need to know about his transactional morality.
It doesn't matter if someone is a liar, a cheat, a thief, a conman, commits serial adultery etc so long as he makes political decisions that reinforce our legal positions.
Click to expand...
The thing is why did so many in the Catholic Church do nothing? The answer is pretty obvious.
 
BruceFromBalnarring said:
He didn’t know of a kid being raped.

Come back when you’ve read the evidence.
Click to expand...

Given your burden of "did he know" is "did he see penetration", no s**t he knew nothing in your book

I pray to all God's that you are never looking after anyone's kids
 
Ned_Flanders said:
Given your burden of "did he know" is "did he see penetration", no sh*t he knew nothing in your book

I pray to all God's that you are never looking after anyone's kids
Click to expand...
This alternate dual universe where everyone knew it was going on and did nothing about it that is somehow co-located in the same universe as pell knowing nothing about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top