|
Post by cato on Dec 14, 2018 12:38:38 GMT
Cardinal Pell has been found guilty by an Australian court of charges of sexual abuse against altar boys in the 1980s. Details are vague as a media ban has been placed on the case by the Victoria state courts in Australia. Pell is appealing the verdict.
This is the first time ever a Cardinal has been convicted of such grave offences. Secular states are carrying out more and more investigations partially prompted by church coverups and incompetence.
I met Pell once in Ireland and am an admirer. This is a terrible blow if true. It is very mysterious why such a veil of secrecy has been drawn over this case. Perhaps our Australian correspondent can shed some light on the subject?
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Dec 14, 2018 15:48:47 GMT
Wow. I only discovered this right now, from your post. What a hammer blow.
Is he really guilty, I wonder? It's hard to believe.
|
|
|
Post by Tomas on Dec 14, 2018 16:08:55 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Dec 14, 2018 16:34:12 GMT
The link doesn't really tell you much.
|
|
|
Post by cato on Dec 14, 2018 19:25:06 GMT
Pell has made many enemies inside and outside the church. This verdict shuts up a critic of secular and ecclesiastical liberalism and financial skullduggery within the Vatican itself. He may well be guilty but many people will be greatly relieved that he has been taken out.
It is hard to know why there is still an air of mystery around the reporting of the trial. The alleged victims can have their identities protected. One of the principles of justice in democracies is that justice must be seen to be done openly as much as possible. Secret trials are not part of a normal democratic state
|
|
|
Post by Séamus on Dec 14, 2018 22:59:14 GMT
Cardinal Pell has been found guilty by an Australian court of charges of sexual abuse against altar boys in the 1980s. Details are vague as a media ban has been placed on the case by the Victoria state courts in Australia. Pell is appealing the verdict. This is the first time ever a Cardinal has been convicted of such grave offences. Secular states are carrying out more and more investigations partially prompted by church coverups and incompetence. I met Pell once in Ireland and am an admirer. This is a terrible blow if true. It is very mysterious why such a veil of secrecy has been drawn over this case. Perhaps our Australian correspondent can shed some light on the subject? This has been on internet sites since Wednesday, but not in any major news reports so far, so at this stage I find it spurious, the tv media made a huge deal of the charge,I couldn't see them sweeping this under the mat. Also, one report said that the crime took place when he was Bishop of Ballarat, which he never was(he was ordained for Ballarat but became auxiliary of Melbourne first). Also: high-profile cases in Australia are usually judge-alone,I'd be surprised if there was a jury in his case. I'm far from find any pleasure in the evils of others, but I noted with interest this week a (genuine) report about a young female teacher in Adelaide who's been jailed for grooming a male student IN A FORMER CHRISTIAN BROTHERS school. There's a counter-argument for those who see ending celibacy as the silver bullet that will kill the werewolf of abuse.
|
|
|
Post by cato on Dec 14, 2018 23:22:52 GMT
Cardinal Pell has been found guilty by an Australian court of charges of sexual abuse against altar boys in the 1980s. Details are vague as a media ban has been placed on the case by the Victoria state courts in Australia. Pell is appealing the verdict. This is the first time ever a Cardinal has been convicted of such grave offences. Secular states are carrying out more and more investigations partially prompted by church coverups and incompetence. I met Pell once in Ireland and am an admirer. This is a terrible blow if true. It is very mysterious why such a veil of secrecy has been drawn over this case. Perhaps our Australian correspondent can shed some light on the subject? This has been on internet sites since Wednesday, but not in any major news reports so far, so at this stage I find it spurious, the tv media made a huge deal of the charge,I couldn't see them sweeping this under the mat. Also, one report said that the crime took place when he was Bishop of Ballarat, which he never was(he was ordained for Ballarat but became auxiliary of Melbourne first). Also: high-profile cases in Australia are usually judge-alone,I'd be surprised if there was a jury in his case. I'm far from find any pleasure in the evils of others, but I noted with interest this week a (genuine) report about a young female teacher in Adelaide who's been jailed for grooming a male student IN A FORMER CHRISTIAN BROTHERS school. There's a counter-argument for those who see ending celibacy as the silver bullet that will kill the werewolf of abuse. You are on the ground Seamus but I doubt this is "fake news". Pell's previous trial was by jury and fell apart because of a split jury.Something strange about this story regardless. The pope has removed him from the Vatican advisory council. If he hasn't been convicted surely someone from the church would have pointed this out by now.
|
|
|
Post by Séamus on Dec 14, 2018 23:46:34 GMT
This has been on internet sites since Wednesday, but not in any major news reports so far, so at this stage I find it spurious, the tv media made a huge deal of the charge,I couldn't see them sweeping this under the mat. Also, one report said that the crime took place when he was Bishop of Ballarat, which he never was(he was ordained for Ballarat but became auxiliary of Melbourne first). Also: high-profile cases in Australia are usually judge-alone,I'd be surprised if there was a jury in his case. I'm far from find any pleasure in the evils of others, but I noted with interest this week a (genuine) report about a young female teacher in Adelaide who's been jailed for grooming a male student IN A FORMER CHRISTIAN BROTHERS school. There's a counter-argument for those who see ending celibacy as the silver bullet that will kill the werewolf of abuse. You are on the ground Seamus but I doubt this is "fake news". Pell's previous trial was by jury and fell apart because of a split jury.Something strange about this story regardless. The pope has removed him from the Vatican advisory council. If he hasn't been convicted surely someone from the church would have pointed this out by now. The Vatican story was headlines least week, but nothing about a conviction. Pell was also admitted to hospital for something minor which made some radio news also, but still no mention of the case. Although it was generally put over that he was fired from the Vatican, it was more like a cabinet reshuffle, three cardinals were excluded that had been on the original 9-committee,I think all of them on the older scale.
|
|
|
Post by Séamus on Dec 15, 2018 0:01:51 GMT
This has been on internet sites since Wednesday, but not in any major news reports so far, so at this stage I find it spurious, the tv media made a huge deal of the charge,I couldn't see them sweeping this under the mat. Also, one report said that the crime took place when he was Bishop of Ballarat, which he never was(he was ordained for Ballarat but became auxiliary of Melbourne first). Also: high-profile cases in Australia are usually judge-alone,I'd be surprised if there was a jury in his case. I'm far from find any pleasure in the evils of others, but I noted with interest this week a (genuine) report about a young female teacher in Adelaide who's been jailed for grooming a male student IN A FORMER CHRISTIAN BROTHERS school. There's a counter-argument for those who see ending celibacy as the silver bullet that will kill the werewolf of abuse. You are on the ground Seamus but I doubt this is "fake news". Pell's previous trial was by jury and fell apart because of a split jury.Something strange about .. Etc... I just looked in Tess Livingston's authorised biography, which covers the first accusation, several years ago. It only mentioned 'Alec Southwell QC' giving a verdict, no mention of a jury. The last procedure wasn't a trial, just a process to see whether charges would be laid. I actually don't remember mention of a jury at that either. Juries only her appointed after a formal plead of not-guilty, I've seen it happen. Possible but unlikely that he would have pleaded for that process.
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Dec 15, 2018 16:01:42 GMT
|
|
|
Post by cato on Dec 15, 2018 20:18:55 GMT
When the current allegations emerged Pell left Rome to go home to face the music. The Vatican helped Cardinal Law who faced serious cover up allegations to avoid US justice by giving him a post in St Mary Major's Basilica in Rome. Pell had Vatican diplomatic status from what I know and could have stayed in Rome. Had he been guilty this would have been the most obvious stategy.
Arguably the mood in the church has changed since the Cardinal Law case and Pell had no choice but to return. Again from my reading of the case he freely choose to return confident of his innocence. The link quoted by Maolsheachlann would appear to suggest something very fishy.
I wonder why the secrecy? If Pell is guilty as Saville was why not shout it from the roof tops and vindicate his victims? Australian secrecy in this case looks like something from Red China frankly.
|
|
|
Post by Séamus on Dec 16, 2018 1:02:44 GMT
Can't access. If it's been gagged it's done very well.
|
|
|
Post by Séamus on Dec 16, 2018 9:26:41 GMT
When the current allegations emerged Pell left Rome to go home to face the music....etc...br] I wonder why the secrecy? If Pell is guilty as Saville was why not shout it from the roof tops and vindicate his victims? Australian secrecy in this case looks like something from Red China frankly. I managed to ask a priest today. He suggested that it was in all possibility true but that media are gagged and won't risk the resulting court case if the story is broken before the allowed time. I think this does happen often enough for higher profile cases in Australia, they do try to avoid any sensationalism creeping into verdicts, which would make it very surprising if they'd decided to use a jury at all. I can't see commercial stations worrying about a quarter or half million dollar fine when it comes to breaking a story like that. If anything they're probably still cautious after the disappointment of the Archbishop Wilson of Adelaide case. He was charged with not reporting disclosed allegations reputedly made to him as a young priest. As one of these was reportedly in Confession it was almost a test-case also. His original conviction was an explosive news story, the choice of home-detention over jail an anti-climax, the eventual overturning of the verdict in a higher court made it altogether a non-event, even if he did retire his see in the interim. (not necessarily finished yet though, prosecutors have one more echelon of court to try) Why those responsible for the censorship would go to the trouble of blocking links like the one Mr Maolsheachlann published that I can't access I don't know. Morrison is probably one of the world's most religious-friendly leaders at present, but,hypothetically at this stage, it wouldn't surprise me if it's more a case of national security (seeing Catholics as a possible source of riots or fanatical behaviour): A friend decided on his own bat last week(never a good thing I know) to register his ongoing opposition to gay marriage on the first anniversary of the bill being passed in Canberra by handing a letter into the state premier, which eventually someone took off him. The Anti-Terrorism Squad have been in touch and he has an interview with them on Tuesday morning.
|
|
|
Post by cato on Dec 18, 2018 18:53:51 GMT
A blog I came across ( I forget which) suggests we non Aussies don't get the secrecy aspect which is to protect Cardinal Pell who is facing another trial shortly and would have been unable to get a fair trial if the previous verdict had been made public.
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Dec 18, 2018 19:20:41 GMT
A blog I came across ( I forget which) suggests we non Aussies don't get the secrecy aspect which is to protect Cardinal Pell who is facing another trial shortly and would have been unable to get a fair trial if the previous verdict had been made public. It's possible. I'm trying to keep an open mind. It's hard to get a clear picture.
|
|