On Cardinal Pell

Author: 

Anonymous, Tom A. ,Vox Cantoris, Murray, Virginie , Aqua, Master Dickey ,BaronaSt. Benedict's Thistle  , Johnno, Michael Ortiz , Irenaeus, Dorota Mosiewicz-Patalas , Kathleen1031, Lorraine Teager , Dymphna

                            

Date: 
Friday, March 8, 2019 - 23:00
Article link: 

 

 
Anonymous said...

Anything is possible in the case of Cardinal Pell but there is much speculation that, given his past record as a good Cardinal, he is likely innocent. What reason do do you have to make the insinuations that you do? Do you know something we do not? If not, then please do not make insinuations. If so, please indicate the evidence you have.

Tom A. said...

My gut tells me Pell is being framed on this charge. But who knows. Pell has made his bed with the NO false religion and they have turned on him. He has decieved scores of faithful catholics for decades. I cannot believe a man who rose to his rank did not know decades ago that the NO clergy were infested with homosexuals. Why didn't he speak out? He went along with the program and is now paying the price. He may be a conservative, but first he is a modernist. He compromised his Faith with ecumenism, he turned a blind eye to the homosexual infestation, and now he is being pushed out of the way lest he pose a threat to the more progressive modernists. I think those trad and conservative Catholics who still believe the NO establishment is the Catholic Church, better get used to the idea that the next false pope after Bergoglio is not going to be some conservative that puts some of the pieces back together. Its game over folks, wymen deacons, interreligious worship services, sodomitic marriages, this is all coming to a parish near you soon. Don't panic.

Vox Cantoris said...

I am not making any insinuation. I am asking a question? Or do you not know the difference?

...

Murray said...

Even if it is true (God forbid), the verdict should probably have been Not Guilty according to the law.

We had one accuser--the other putative (deceased) victim having twice told his mother that he had never been abused--describing a highly unlikely circumstance 23 years ago that was uncorroborated by anyone else present at the time, and that the Cardinal strenuously denied. Nothing about the story makes sense to anyone who has been inside a sacristy before or after Mass: The abuse taking place in a bustling, semi-public area, the difficulty of maneuvering an archbishop's vestments to facilitate the abuse, the sheer recklessness of the act against all public evidence of Pell's character...

How does this even begin to rise to the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard?

...

Anonymous said...

Vox i will also add, that you will get more traffic than usual from Catholic Church haters in Australia, they have trolled every Catholic Blog posting absolute rubbish, mark my words and check your IP stats. Cardinal Pell is the victim of hatred against the Church. This country has become a socialistic, atheistic, communistic country, some of them are so vile and abusive i can't help but think and pray they do not have children. As for Ann Barnhardt, i will no longer read any of her blogs, she knows nothing,Period!

...

Virginie said...

Well, a thing like what he is being accused of does not happen only once. When someone has pedophilic tendencies, it will happen again and again. 'What if' does not justify sending a cardinal of the Church to jail for the rest of his life or, for that matter, for any time at all. There is no evidence, it supposedly happened a couple of decades ago, it supposedly happened under circumstances that everyone can see are virtually impossible and the reputation and life of a man who has served the Church is at stake. He denies consistently that it ever happened. And you say 'what if'? I appreciate the fact that he is, as you say, conservative. But I am traditional so 'conservative' to me is still part of the problem. One may be well for Vatican II and still be called 'conservative'. So that is not the reason that I and so many defend him. He is simply and obviously to anyone with their head screwed on straight, innocent. That he is being framed, there is no doubt.

...

Murray said...

So many garbage responses already. No-one cares if you think this or that other thing might have happened some other time, or if you don't like Pell because he's a modernist, or if he kicked your dog that one time.

The only relevant question here is, Is George Pell guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of these specific charges against him?

Your personal hobbyhorses could not be less relevant. Start using your God-given reason, like Catholics do.

...

Anonymous said...

In ANY reputable court there MUST be a standard of proof, BEYOND any REASONABLE doubt, in order to convict.

Without corroboration, EVERY HE SAID, SHE SAID, THE OTHER ONE SAID...

MUST RESULT IN AN ACQUITTAL.

I was not there. Nor have I read any published accounts. BUT, unless more than one person testified, as an EYE WITNESS, or there was some kind of recording device or other CERTAIN AND ABSOLUTELY ESTABLISHED PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, there can be NO CONVICTION WITHOUT CORRUPTION!!!

I am appalled at the perverts who are taking advantage of their position(s) and sexually abusing ANYONE, ESPECIALLY CHILDREN. But,
facts, NOT emotions, MUST prevail, or it is time for MONUMENTAL, EARTHSHAKING GOVERNMENTAL CHANGES, AS ARE NECESSARY TO ENSURE THAT FACTS RUN THINGS AND NOT FEELINGS. The SAME HOLDS FOR THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

PERIOD!!!

Karl

...

Aqua said...

He is innocent as a lamb, until they prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

From what I’ve seen, they did not meet that standard.

That needs to be a pretty high bar before you cross that line. They didn’t even get a toe across. I’m waiting for them to show their work that led them to 12-0. Haven’t seen it yet.

...

Anonymous said...

To Anonymous @ 1:05 pm,

There's a big difference between laity defending a member of the clergy by saying: "He is holy, he makes rosaries himself, he is so conservative", and laity defending him because they are aware of the anomalies of the trial, and the fact that the evidence presented was uncorroborated to such an extent that it could not be said that the alleged events happened beyond reasonable doubt.

Even non-Catholic criminal lawyers with no particular interest in Cardinal Pell were astonished by the conviction.

Mar

...

Master Dickey said...

I am no great fan of Cardinal Pell, but I fear the power of the state. The judge and the government in Australia would very much like the power to tell the Catholic Church what it, the Church, will and will not believe, practice, etc.; order the Church to ordain women, etc.. This verdict is dangerous and identifies Australia as a "de facto" totalitarian country.

...

Barona said...

I agree with you Vox. We need to stand back, and allow this story to evolve. Australia is not a Soviet style show trail country. Let us not forget that all the pre-conciliar abusers were all "traditionalists". Time will tell about Pell.

...

St. Benedict's Thistle said...

As others here have said, it is important to judge the case at hand on evidence relevant to the situation. It seems in this case there was a travesty of justice.

Separately we can investigate if there are other cases against him, and whether he hid and protected sexual abusers. Many bishops currently in office have probably excused, his, moved, or otherwise protected abusing priests. This is the larger issue.

The bishops, as we have just seen with the sex summit, will do nothing to stop sexual abuse by priests. We must face that fact.

...

Johnno said...

My opinion.

With regard to this specific trial - it seems that Pell is being set-up.

While Pell may be described as modernist, compromised over past cover-ups etc. etc. I see no reason to believe that he couldn't have run afoul of Francis, despite being all for working with Francis initially.

If anything, the recent brouhaha over Justin Trudeau and the fact that one of his own Liberal-friendly judges has exposed him, just goes to show that, yes, even a friend of Francis can grow a conscience, and this can get them in hot water with one of their own.

So, with that in mind, and the entire shady operation being run by the Australian court, something stinks.

And I believe that it is the blogger Mundabor who raises the best question -

WHAT IS PELL'S 'SEXUAL ORIENTATION'?

If the man is 100% heterosexual, then this would be an open and shut case. At no time does a proper man with his head intact, ever consider relieving himself with some other guy. Especially not in any spur-of-the-moment circumstance.

Was this ever made part of Pell's defence? That in no way would he ever be attracted to another man? Did his lawyers just neglect to make the case because of political correctness?

If I were accused of sexual abuse of another man, the first thing I would be emphasizing is the fact that such a motive would be impossible for me to even consider. In fact it would be downright disgusting!

I'm not knowledgeable about this info pertaining to Pell, especially when much of this is secretive. But has this argument in Pell's favour been made?

And if it hasn't, then why not?

And if it can't, then... welp... there goes another one boys...

...

Michael Ortiz said...

Opus Dei isn’t perfect but the obsession some have in regards to it is simply weird. They have an overwhelmingly clean slate in regard to abuse, and have many traditional practices etc. I mean Cardinal Mahony paid out almost 700 million to settle his abuse issues w his priests. Just for perspective.

...

Irenaeus said...

Respectfully, it seems people have taken an ... aggressive interest in the whole case, when they've no right to. It's to the point where I have been blocked and put down merely because I have suggested a more reasoned approach, like Vox and Barona are doing here. Ironically, the most aggressive promoters of Cardinal Pell's supposed innocence are the Canadians, Americans, and the British. The Australians are more level-headed about it, and while individuals may believe in his innocence, they have asked for justice to be done. We need to take a deep breath and take emotion out of this whole business.

Fellow Voxxers, Cardinal Pell could well be guilty. Perhaps not of this particular crime, but others. Only Mundabor has asked if Cardinal Pell is homosexual. There are a lot of unanswered questions in addition to this one. I know it is difficult to comprehend that he is guilty, because we have been conditioned to believe that liberals are guilty no matter what, while conservatives are innocent, simply because we live in a liberal world.

But we have been fooled before by someone's conservatism. Cardinal Spellman is an example.

Cardinal Pell is either innocent or guilty, but the mistake is assuming he is either with absolute certainty. Like it or not, we do not have that quality for either his innocence or his guilt.

Wait for the appeal.

...

Dorota Mosiewicz-Patalas said...

Johnno claims after Mundabor that establishing Cardinal Pell's sexual orientation would be very helpful.

I could not agree less. We have all heard stories of husbands and fathers who allegedly realized that they were homosexual later in life. One older man in Canada, a father of 7, even discovered himself to be a 6 (or 7) year old girl. Ontario's former PM, wife and mother, became a lesbian. She kicked her husband out to the (freshly renovated, mind you) basement, and moved her female sex partner to the bedroom.

The so called sexual orientation is a falsehood. People choose what they do. So called straight men who are in jail and then are freed, are know to change their habits back and forth.

One of the reasons that we have a sodomite mafia in the Church, which celebrates and promotes sodomy among the laity, is that we believed psychologists and psychiatrists more than God. An inclination or an idea or a fashion or trend does not equal a choice to act.

As to Cardinal Pell, none of us here knows what his choices in this respect have been. What we do see is the attack on the Catholic Church everywhere, including Australia, where claims have been made for a long time about many horrific sexual crimes by priests. Fiona Barnett is one of the witnesses. She even talks about ritual murder by Catholic higher-ups and priests alike which she allegedly witnessed.

Out of love for justice and truth, and the Church, I think we must insist on proper justice delivery even in these circumstances. I want all the guilty sex perverts punished severely, and all sodomites who didn't commit any crimes, forced out of the Church. But - for the loves I listed - I equally want all other criminals - protestant pastors, rabbis, school teachers, pediatricians. social workers, child psychologists, foster parents, Hollywood... punished to the full extent of the law. Little is being said about the epidemic of crimes against children in all other environments. It is extremely troubling for many reasons.

Who has seen the very recent interview of Opreh's friend Gail with two victims of Michael Jackson? It was nothing less than thinly veiled paedophilia promotion on MSM. A comment I placed on you-tube, stressing the continuity between sodomy promotion and pedophilia (undeniable common logic of "I was born this way" and "Love is love") got many likes in the first 5 minutes, after which it disappeared never to be seen again. Bill Maher has been promoting pedophiia on his show for years (show produced by Kid Love Productions).

This preference for prosecution of Catholic priests is extremely troubling.

It seems to me that Australia wants to see blood of the Catholic Church.

...

 
Michael Ortiz said...

I’m not defending anyone. I’m defending an organization in the Church that has a very good record in regards to the abuse crisis. Randy Engel says many accurate things re the Church, but on Opus Dei she is completely mistaken.

...

 
Anonymous said...

Dorita , what you say is true. I read the actual case against the Dr who administered Propanol on a regular basis to M Jackson to sleep.
Over two dozen cases of sexual child abuse were presented by the FBI by Mr Jackson. Most had been heavily paid off to keep their silence. Like in the Church this practice of pay off for silence has been going on for a long time.
Sadly, jackson's daughter was in the courtroom. She found out she was not related even in part to the singer and was totally unrelated to her older brother. It followed that she tried to commit suicide twice and was sent away to a remote ranch for troubled teens by the Jackson family.
It is the sexual and financial perverts within any organization who want to keep the truth from coming to light.
I think it is the Aussie public and not the government who are fed up and frankly US Catholics and Canadian Catholics should be too.

...

Anonymous said...

Clear Corruption of the legal process by a jury who ignored the facts. The first jurors were honest, the second well chosen by the mob!

Irenaeus said...

It is not "clear corruption of the legal process by a jury who ignored the facts." Making absolute statements like this is silly. For all we know, the second jury was honest in their assessment.

Wait for the appeal, if there is one.

People, take a chill pill.

...

Kathleen1031 said...

Australia did itself a disservice with this trial. Clearly people have sketchy confidence in the fairness of the Australian system of justice.
I think the whole d--- church is chock full of homosexual predators. I think the world has gone pretty mad and there are demons running around preying on little boys and young men in particular. Some of these men wear Roman collars or red hats. If he's not guilty there are thousands who are. He's got means so he's likely got better legal representation than you or I would have. Little boys and young men are suffering from homosexual predation and will continue to suffer while thumbs are twiddled inside the "Catholic church", which today resembles much more a mafia or a Social Service organization than it does a church. Frankly they all make me sick at this point. I'm entirely sick of them all and get annoyed with myself for continuing to observe this train wreck. Perhaps I'll give that up for Lent.

...

Anonymous said...

@ Irenaeus
You are starting to show your true colors, Clearly you do not know Cardinal Pell, but I do, however i'm sure that won't effect your poisoned mind but maybe my next statement will. So you are prepared to state that Cardinal Pell, a priest for over 50 years went insane for five minutes, just five minutes out of 50 plus years, sorry make that 2 & half minutes because his other accuser admitted he lied on his death bed. I don't know about you but find that incredible.

...

Lorraine Teager said...

If he was a Traditionalist, I wonder if you would be asking the question. Has it occurred to you how preposterous it is that an Archbishop would spontaneously force a kid to do what he did after a Mass (which alone is preposterous since there are always, ALWAYS, people in the sacristy after Mass--any Catholic, liberal, conservative, or traditional, can attest to it)? This is an unbelievable travesty, and since he didn't get the assumption of innocence until proven guilty by the law (who started a witch hunt on him and even apparently ADVERTISED for "victims" to step forward)before anyone ever made such a complaint, or the courts, who allowed this supposed "evidence" to be carried to trial, surely we can see that it is a case of the worst kind of set-up, calumny, "bearing false witness". I suspect even his lawyer may have been pressured. In the first trial Card. Pell testified on his own behalf, and the verdict was a hung jury--10-2 in his favor. In the second trial, he was apparently advised not to speak, and the prosecution got a unanimous verdict AGAINST the Cardinal. Then his attorney's "plain vanilla" comment (which a high profile, experienced attorney should have known better than to say) seemed to imply he was guilty. It may be unrealistic to think his highly regarded attorney would cooperate with destroying a powerful prelate like Pell, but no more unrealistic than thinking an Archbishop with a reputation like his committed a spontaneous abuse of not one, but TWO boys because he suddenly found an OPPORTUNITY, and without any prior "grooming"? (Except, of course, that the "opportunity" could not have actually occurred as the prosecution presented it, but how many non-Catholics have actually been in a Catholic Church and seen the bustle of activity in the sacristy after Mass. The prosecution showed a picture of a big, empty room to the jury. That's not the case before, during, and after Mass. This is a lie on its face, and if the appeals court does not render a just decision, a lot of people are going to be very upset.

...

Dymphna said...

This one case is ridiculous. Unless Pell put all the people in the sacristy into a trance I don't see how he could have done it. That being said, there have been rumors about him for a long time and we have not heard the last of the changing room and pool story.

...

Aqua said...

@ Anonymous 2:14

The thing about pedophile perverts, their sodomy opus comprises a lifetime of perversity and evil. This tenacious bull of a former rugby player, at age 77, does not fit the profile. There is no history, except the opposite of faggotry.

Another thing I’ve noticed is that *actual* Priest sodomites, perverts and pedophiles are protected. Normally they operate with impunity. If caught they are hidden. If found they are protected and evidence covered up, destroyed, sent away to Rome. Their opportunities to advance and conquest are vast and somehow they just keep on.

Cardinal Pell , former Secretariat for the Economy, second most powerful position in he Catholic Church with knowledge of all their secrets, was not so protected. And he is now in solitary confinement, 23 hours a day for a stupid accusation and impossible hearsay evidence. Mr. McCarrick is not in solitary. He is living next door to a Boy’s school (yippy!). His pedo-sodomy opus is extensive. And he goes on.

Cardinal Pell, just another Priest pedophile pervert? Give me break. If he were that, he would be living richly in Rome right now enjoying the remainder of his days drinking fine wine, large meals and a steady stream of sexual opportunities coming his way. Instead, he is living the life of a Martyr, preparing to meet Almighty God, cut off from even saying Holy Mass. I like his chances when the meets the Just Judge. Mr. McCarrick and all the others who actually are infecting our Church and harming their flock? I shudder on their behalf.

...

Irenaeus said...

Cool it with the hysteria.

One question I have for people like Aqua: what will you do if the appeal finds him guilty?

...

Aqua said...

@ Iranaeus

In your carefully considered opinion, what is the evidence that clearly establishes Cardinal Pell’s guilt as a sodomite child predator who raped boys in the Cathedral, close to the altar, in the fanny, while still vested as Archbishop for Holy Mass?

Before I take the word of bigoted Catholic haters that a Catholic Cardinal did this exceedingly profane crime against God and boys, I need some evidence. I see no evidence. Perhaps you do. What do you have?

...

Aqua said...

@ anonymous 9:40

Those are not proofs you provide. I saw the video linked above. It was all similarly disgusting innuendo.

“Pie in the sky” is referring to the innocence, of a now Catholic Cardinal, of the charge of buggering boys through his vestments as Archbishop near the Cathedral High Altar moments after Holy Mass.

I would not use “Pie In The Sky”. I favor innocent until *proven* guilty. I have not seen proof. I want to see the 12-0 Jury’s work. What I’ve seen is similar to what you show above: innuendo and primarily *decades old* recovered memory charges. That doesn’t cut it for me.

The charges are the most serious imaginable. If he is guilty, his crime is Judas level. Proof please.

...

Aqua said...

@ anonymous 11:56

Sodomy: unnatural sexual relations such as anal, oral, homosexual.

Fondling from behind and oral copulation were the allegations - (while fully vested as Archbishop, moments after Mass, in the Cathedral, in the Sacristy, surrounded by crowds of people coming and going as usual after a Pontifical High Mass, and he uses the occasion to rape a boy who sang in his choir - the charges are outrageously stupid).

 

 

 

 

Own comment: 

I do not care much for Cardinal Pell. In my opinion he is a big part of the problem: the neo-Catholic who references Vatican II at every turn and refuses to criticise the revolution. He doesn't even believe in the Book of Genesis for crying out loud. The only thing he has done well as far as I am concerned is his intervention at the 2014 pre-synod against the family, in which he complained against the manipulation then ongoing. He has also celebrated the Tridentine Mass a few times, which is nice.

However, my opinion of him means very little, and is in fact entirely irrelevant to the question at hand: Namely, whether he is guilty of the charge levelled at him. Unfortunately, VoxCantoris seems to let his fondness or lack of it of someone take over his analysis of most situations. That was certainly the case with Trump's bombings of Syria, the treatment of Muslims at the hands of zionist and Western freemasons, and seems to be the case now, even though he is not as blatant.

What if Pell is guilty? I might as well ask "What is Bergoglio is Catholic?" What if VoxCantoris is a freemason who pretends to be Catholic? Is it even relevant? We can all make up "what ifs " to our heart's delight.

The only thing that counts is whether there is evidence to convict him of his crime, and from the reports I have read there is none. We have one witness, who I believe is either now or has been a drug addict who has fallen on rought times, whose testimony is contradicted by everyone else, including the man who he claims was his co-victim, now deceased. The physics of the crime don't make sense, unless we are to believe that Pell celebrated Mass in the emperor's new clothing and only the kids managed to see his nudity for what it was.

Evidence matters in crimes. In fact, it is all that matters. In this case we seem to have absolutely none, and the witness also lacks credibility. Even if Pell had not been a cardinal the conviction would make little sense, but given that he is a cardinal who does not push sodomy or other perversions, surely the benefit of the doubt shouldg o to him.

Make no mistake: This Pell case is a trial run for future evidence-free trials. If it is allowed to go ahead then it will absolutely ruin any hope of anybody - not just Catholic - getting a fair trial in crimes which are deemed fashionable by the state.

Some claim that we should wait for the appeal, but surely this is the height of imbecility! If they can have a kangaroo court at the first instance, what reason do you have for thinking that they cannot arrange a show trial in the second instance? Will the evidence be any different? Did they not have appeals when they were putting our Catholic martyrs to the sword in England? Another claimed that Australia is not some Soviet country with show trials, which just proves how dangerous Western totalitarianism is: At least in the Soviet Union, people knew that their country was guilty of show trials. In the West, we seem to have show trials with a large part of the populace under the illusion of justice. Even the show trials are dishonest.

In the end, God alone knows what Cardinal Pell is guilty of, but  he is innocent until proven guilty, and there does not even seem to have been an attempt to prove his guilt, merely an assertion which has carried favour among the political elite in Australia. We would therefore have to assume the man is innocent of this charge, and - unfortunate as it is to point this out since so many have missed it - this is the only charge that matters.

The assessment by Murray is spot on:

Even if it is true (God forbid), the verdict should probably have been Not Guilty according to the law.

We had one accuser--the other putative (deceased) victim having twice told his mother that he had never been abused--describing a highly unlikely circumstance 23 years ago that was uncorroborated by anyone else present at the time, and that the Cardinal strenuously denied. Nothing about the story makes sense to anyone who has been inside a sacristy before or after Mass: The abuse taking place in a bustling, semi-public area, the difficulty of maneuvering an archbishop's vestments to facilitate the abuse, the sheer recklessness of the act against all public evidence of Pell's character...

How does this even begin to rise to the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard?

If you think that the child-abuse excuse show trial will end with Cardinal Pell, then think again! These people are only interested in creating precedent, and then using that precedent to go after both the Church and their citizenry.

One final note: The Vatican has not come out in defence of Cardinal Pell. Given Bergoglio's Vatican's propensity to be at the wrong end of every moral and factual debate, that should be even more reason to conclude that the man is innocent of the crime of which he has been accused.