Protecting George Pell
- Thread starter pazza
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Can you elaborate on your impression of the matter a bit more?
Are you restricted in post length due to composing on a phone?
Seems like you fence sit a bit but regularly follow along.
Just curious
Its not that one side is right, its not a popularity contest, a cheer squad event.
My interest is the appeal & its not a replay of the case.
IMHO the Church is culpable for moving priests, hiding offenders, denying the problem.
George Pell has become the target that encompasses all of the problem to some (on here) & I will call out the nonsense where I consider it is posted.
My interest goes back to John Elliott in the BHP era:
Elliott's NCA fight ends with a whimper
Corps I read & respect your views , as I respect Bruces. I'm not cheering for anyone, the collateral is beyond my comprehension.
Only bruce could think thats a moral dilemma
zero
nada
nil
could be my best mate that saved my life and took a bullet doing so - a monster whos raped multiple kids would get zero from me
id pay the debt back to his kids or his mum - or maybe the kids he rooted
I am staggered at the amount of attention given here to the fact Pell accompanied Ridsdale to Court.
It is a 'red herring' or a 'furphy' nothing strange about it or Pell's comment about it at all.
Someone had to attend with him, if nothing more than keeping up appearances of this pretentious compassionate christian brotherly loving order. (Puke) If he turned up alone, no one to take his watch or be aware of the outcome etc . Pell is said to be and already narcissistic arrogant and ambitious and was a family friend. What sort of look to the court if no one from the Catholic mob turned up, abandonment and shame and implied gutless mob hiding guilt. (Some obviously had/were that)
Further there seems to be obsession with how much Pell knew of the detail of Ridsdales offending much earlier. He obviously knew all prior to attending court. If one reads the transcript of Day 245 (I posted earlier today) it is clear that if Mulkearns followed canon church law and the papal decree he was expressly forbidden from telling anyone (or openly convening discussions) about allegations against Ridsdale except the accused himself.
Sure, I think (opinion ) Pell knew and many many knew but as they are all in the mafia mob the rules are they never break the "Pontiffs Secret" never tell anyone was the strict command until the civil court makes it public.
Pell obviously lied at least on some matters to RC but HE said explicitly at RC something to the effect (more veiled) that when it comes to Canon Law versus Civil (Common ) Law he must make the Catholic Canon law the primary/ priority.
I suppose some of you are just limbering up the fingers in a BS meaningless training run for Tuesday though?
It is a 'red herring' or a 'furphy' nothing strange about it or Pell's comment about it at all.
Someone had to attend with him, if nothing more than keeping up appearances of this pretentious compassionate christian brotherly loving order. (Puke) If he turned up alone, no one to take his watch or be aware of the outcome etc . Pell is said to be and already narcissistic arrogant and ambitious and was a family friend. What sort of look to the court if no one from the Catholic mob turned up, abandonment and shame and implied gutless mob hiding guilt. (Some obviously had/were that)
Further there seems to be obsession with how much Pell knew of the detail of Ridsdales offending much earlier. He obviously knew all prior to attending court. If one reads the transcript of Day 245 (I posted earlier today) it is clear that if Mulkearns followed canon church law and the papal decree he was expressly forbidden from telling anyone (or openly convening discussions) about allegations against Ridsdale except the accused himself.
Sure, I think (opinion ) Pell knew and many many knew but as they are all in the mafia mob the rules are they never break the "Pontiffs Secret" never tell anyone was the strict command until the civil court makes it public.
Pell obviously lied at least on some matters to RC but HE said explicitly at RC something to the effect (more veiled) that when it comes to Canon Law versus Civil (Common ) Law he must make the Catholic Canon law the primary/ priority.
I suppose some of you are just limbering up the fingers in a BS meaningless training run for Tuesday though?
Last edited:
Found it, havent been able to quote for reasons beyond my comprehension, very shallow claim imho.
mcnulty
Norm Smith Medallist
- Sep 18, 2019
- 6,374
- 9,383
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Banned
- #2,633
“If you really want to understand what it’s all about, well, it’s history. In terms of relatively recent global history, you need to study Marx. In terms of even more recent Australian history, look at the ALP split in the 50s.
From Spain, to Russia, to Vietnam, to half of South America. Cambodia. China. Same thing over and over. Take out the Catholics first.”
There it is. Tin foil millinery at its finest.
From Spain, to Russia, to Vietnam, to half of South America. Cambodia. China. Same thing over and over. Take out the Catholics first.”
There it is. Tin foil millinery at its finest.
His use of Marx drawing your claim. I'd be amazed if you were simply too lazy to look, even a Luddite like my good self could find it, one only use in this forum. if I could link/copy it, you'd give yourself an uppercut, a real Dermie effort.
- Banned
- #2,635
That’s the explanation as to why there is a disproportionate need to get Pell’s scalp.
I stand by it.
I don’t think it applies across the board. I think there are many misled by the narrative. See MarkF’s error above re Pell giving evidence. And his other about Pell being at all of the consultors’ meetings.
Watch the ABC, read The Guardian, and that’s what you’d believe.
Read the transcript, and you’d see he was at one.
- Banned
- #2,637
Ok. So your 14yo son comes to you and confides he’s not keen on girls, or even post pubescent men. Prepubescent boys are his thing.
What do you do?
Well im guessing that at this stage he hasnt ruined lots of kids lives.
id speak to a friend of mine whos a psychologist for dcp and ask her opinion of where to go.
id be cognisant of the fact that a very large percentage of boys feeling this urge have themselves been molested - the fact that hes come to me with this is an encouraging sign that he understands its wrong and wants to do something about it.
bruce - im a crisis care foster carer for kids who have had all sorts of hideous s**t done to them.
what you posted above isnt a moral dilemma - my response didnt even require thought.
the fact that you can equate that to the scenario of pell vouching for ridsdale as if the are on any sort of par is revealing.
mcnulty
Norm Smith Medallist
- Sep 18, 2019
- 6,374
- 9,383
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Banned
- #2,639
Lol. Not because of Pell’s or the churches behaviour...
It always comes back to Marx with you people, doesn’t it?
I must say, for someone who’s ideas have been so spectacularly unsuccessful in any practical sense, Marx must be laughing in his grave at all the influence attributed to him.
- Banned
- #2,640
Ok.
He didn’t come to you when he was 14. He was too ashamed.
He’s 21. Has a teaching degree.
And wants to teach in primary schools.
Im not letting that happen. Under no circumstances.
He needs to be in a program - he needs professional help and he has to find another vocation.
same way you wouldnt have a drunk run a pub or a junkie run a chemist - the temptation is too much.
3 scenarios where there is zero moral dilemma bruce. I can see angst in the last because you have to kill a career - but no moral dilemma.
Why do you need to comment?
- Banned
- #2,643
Ok.
3 years later he introduces his fiancée and they want to have children together. You know his sexuality isn’t “vanilla”.
PS: If you work in the foster care system, you damn well know these are absolutely not black and white questions.
EDIT: And don’t forget, you have the benefit of 40 years of collective learning about this stuff.
Last edited:
Theres been literally no hesitation between me reading the question and starting to write the answer. If you work in the foster system you 1) protect kids 2) believe kids unconditionally if they come to you and tell you something of that nature has happened and 3) report sexualised behaviours immediately to the psych - even if initially its confidential and the department arent to intervene due to that confidentiality.
Your last question is a ripper - theres a moral dilemma - thats one i cant honestly give you an answer to - would take much thought and discussion with people whos opinions and moral judgement i hold in high regard.
i dont work in the foster care system i take in kids who are in their first point of being taken into care, kids whos placement has broken down or respite for other carers.
Last edited:
As you know full well the kiddy fiddling was brought directly to Pell's attention by a student and when asked why he took no action he said because he "didn't ask me to" Please stop this nonsense of Pell being oblivious to the goings-on.
- Banned
- #2,648
I’ve only just begun.
But what if it’s 1972?
What if the shrink tells you it’s all good? He’s cured.
I love the way that pell defenders tie themselves in knots to defend him regarding Risdale and general knowledge of abuse in the Church.
apparently a man lead of god, “smart” and ruthless enough to rise to the very top of the church, is also a naive, clueless naïf that couldn’t know what was going on. Very confusing.
apparently a man lead of god, “smart” and ruthless enough to rise to the very top of the church, is also a naive, clueless naïf that couldn’t know what was going on. Very confusing.
Only confusing to the ideologically blind
