From Cardinal To Criminal: Australian Cardinal Pell Jailed …editor
Update – 3 March, 2019…
Since writing my original editorial comment below, I have been moved by the information given by bloggers and the evidence provided by several (not least the Australian bloggers) which appears to point to the Cardinal’s innocence. Read on, and tell us if you agree.
St John Chrysostom, Bishop and Doctor of the Church, teaches that “…the person who does not become irate when he has cause to be, sins. For an unreasonable patience is the hotbed of many vices: it fosters negligence, and stimulates not only the wicked, but above all the good, to do wrong. (Homily Xl, super Matheum, 1c, nt 7).
So, what is the correct Catholic response to this sort of horrendous news? Horror at the Cardinal’s crimes (of which he insists he is innocent); compassion for his victims? Compassion for the Cardinal himself, that he has, apparently, succumbed to a shocking temptation and thus fallen from grace and brought his high office – and the Catholic Church itself – into disrepute?
Anger? Compassion? A combination?
We may hold different views on this – but we can surely all agree that we must pray hard for all involved. Our Lady of Good Success – pray for us! Our Lady of Fatima – pray for us!
One key question, however, has to be whether or not these appalling crimes are doing irreparable damage to the Bride of Christ, His Church. Of course Christ has promised to be with His Church until the end of time, that the gates of Hell will not prevail against His Church. There was no promise, however, that the gates of Hell wouldn’t come close, and they have never been as close as they are now, in our times. It has to be the case, then, that in some souls, the answer to the “irreparable damage” question is definitely “yes”. Some will never see the beauty of the Faith, some will be convinced that all priests are abusers, that the Church is evil. And isn’t that where St John Chrysostom’s exhortation to righteous anger should move us to action? But, what, if anything – beyond prayer and sacrifice – can any of us do about this sordid scandal of the abuse of children and vulnerable adults? There must be something we can do – but what?
For many years I have followed the career of Cardinal George Pell – from a distance.
I will not comment on his recent trial and conviction – subject to appeal.
I will make the following points.
1/ He was considered a viable candidate to succeed Pope Benedict.
2/ He was chancellor of the Vatican exchequer where he was about to expose financial “irregularities”.
3/ He was a vociferous opponent of the man made global warming religion.
4/ He had scientific background.
5/ He was an outspoken opponent of so called same sex marriage in Australia.
6/ He was an outspoken proponent of the sanctity of life from conception to birth.
7/ He was friendly with Tony Abbot (ex seminarian) ex Prime Minister.
8/He was the first prelate to instigate a viable anti paedophile/homosexual control system in the Catholic Church in the world.
9/He was constantly vilified by the ABC (the Australian version of the biased BBC) and their fellow travellers in the Masonic anti Catholic media in Australia.
I could go on – but you get the drift.
I am only an interested outsider with Catholic family in Melbourne, but I would implore our readers to visit the superb website Quadrant online where there are marvellous blow by blow accounts of the whole stitch up of Cardinal Pell – with our hosts indulgence of course..
Let the truth be told
Thank you for this – I’ve now visited Quadrant Online
so, here is the link for others to checkout. https://quadrant.org.au/
I heard mixed opinions from Australia some time ago, when the news of his arrest and trial first broke, so I will be very interested to read the comments of our very fair-minded boggers here, about this conviction.
I, too, have my doubts about his guilt although I didn’t know about all the items posted above by Patrick Healy. There are a lot of sodomites in the Church but somehow I think he’s innocent. He doesn’t fit the bill, so to speak. It does seem odd that all the “troublesome to the Vatican cabal and Pope” prelates were hunted down. 2 have died mysteriously and they’ve tried to bring down (to no avail) Cardinals Burke, Vigano and Mueller. Me smells a rat.
I agree. Something seems off here.
Well, I’ve dipped into the Quadrant website and I am more and more convinced that we need to pray for justice for the Cardinal – I selected this extract for posterity, knowing that posterity (i.e. some of the lazy blighters here) don’t always visit the links given…
The Herald Sun‘s Shannon Deery lists the defence’s ten key arguments which failed to persuade jurors
The timing of renovations
Victim “AA” alleged he was abused by Pell after a Sunday Solemn mass in the mid 1990s, and then again a month later.
It was established at trial that Pell said just two solemn Masses that year. The cathedral had been under renovation so was not used until November of the year the victim said the offences happened. AA was adamant the second incident occurred in that year, but Pell was able to establish that was impossible.
The timing of Mass
Pell also argued it would have been impossible for him to be in the sacristy, robed and alone, so quickly after mass ended. Instead, he says he routinely spoke to parishioners on the steps of the Cathedral before being escorted back to the sacristy by at least one other priest.
He was never alone (Ed: this especially made sense to me, knowing how everyone hangs around bishops and cardinals when they visit a parish. They must long for a bit of “me time”! Everyone wants to speak to the bishop/cardinal).
Pell argued that while Archbishop he would never have been alone while robed at the Cathedral. His legal team compared him to the Queen, saying she would never be left alone while robed for a ceremonial occasion. His master of ceremonies, Monsignor Charles Portelli testified that: “I recall the first two occasions he said mass and I can say I was with him the whole time he was robed on those days”.
There were people everywhere
It was argued that it would be impossible for Pell to molest two boys in the sacristy, or corridor, after mass because of the amount of potential witnesses in the area.
Former sacristan Max Potter, who worked at the Cathedral for decades, told the court he would unlock the sacristy in the minutes after mass when altar servers would start returning to the room to disrobe. They would also clean up after Mass, meaning the sacristy was only ever momentarily unattended.
Only a madman
It was Pell’s legal team’s submission that “only a madman would attempt to rape boys in the sacristy immediately after Mass.” They argued dozens of people would be around watching over the newly appointed Archbishop.
Choirboys don’t go unseen
The prosecution case centred on the fact that the two complainants were able to flee from a procession of choristers, altar servers, and priests, leaving church after mass in order to make their way to the sacristy.
Pell argued it would have been impossible for them to escape the carefully choreographed procession that was monitored with military like precision, without being noticed, and reprimanded. Further, he argued that even if they did, it would have been impossible for them to return to the choir rehearsal that immediately followed mass without being noticed. No witnesses testified that they could ever remember a single occasion when a choirboy left the procession unexpectedly.
The organists would know
Even if the boys did flee, Pell argued they would have most certainly been seen sneaking into the sacristy by nearby organists who continued playing for up to 15 minutes after mass as the congregation left the church.
Robes made it impossible
It was alleged that Pell abused the boys while robed in his Archbishop’s robes, consisting of multi-layered dress worn over his normal clothing. The robes were shown to the jury and exhibited as part of the trial with a demonstration of how they were worn. Pell argued that the nature of the robes meant that was impossible for him to expose himself while wearing them.
There was no red wine
AA testified that he and victim BB were caught drinking red wine in the sacristy. Pell argued that at the time only white wine was used at the Cathedral because of a preference by the then Dean of the Cathedral. Evidence was called by a wine supplier, but it remained unclear whether white, red or both wines, were available at the Cathedral at the time. Pell’s team argued that AA made up the wine reference based on Catholic tradition of using red wine during mass.
They remained silent (Ed: this is a loud alarm bell for me. Cannot understand the argument that so-called victims ESPECIALLY children would not report such abuse. Doesn’t ring true. Alarm bell loud and clear.)
The silence of both boys in the years after the abuse was used by Pell as strong evidence that it never happened. His team argued that if AA and BB were abused they would have, at the very least, discussed it among themselves. There was no evidence at trial that they had discussed it with anybody. AA swore he didn’t discuss it with BB, and there was evidence that even when asked by his mother, BB denied being abused while a chorister.
Note: my one reservation, when reading the reports about his conviction, was the fact that his lawyer seemed to admit guilt when he made his “plain vanilla ” remark
That evidence is quite convincing. However, I would agree that the “vanilla” comment is troublesome.
I think the “plain vanilla” reference is very easy to explain. It was Cardinal Pell’s lawyer who made that declaration after the Cardinal had been found guilty. In other words, he was trying to mitigate the penalty for the Cardinal post-verdict while going on to admit that the Cardinal himself maintains his innocence.
This case in Australia is a clear attempt to smear Cardinal Pell in particular and the Church by extension. If Cardinal Pell had been a child abuser, as they maintain, then hundreds of victims would have come forward. Paedophiles don’t offend on just two occasions and then stop, it’s just ridiculous.
As others have also mentioned, these alleged crimes took place decades ago and yet neither “victim” told anyone at any time. Sorry, that has never worked for me because the normal thing for any child abused by an adult is to tell their parents or some other trustworthy source.
Cardinal Pell was too adamant about his innocence, another sign that he is not guilty of these offences. He could have stayed in Rome and denied them while enjoying diplomatic immunity yet chose instead to return to Australia to face his accusers in court. Sadly, as we have seen in other cases, the legal system today has been altered to favour historic accusations that often cannot be corroborated and may well be motivated by the lure of compensation. I have never been able to understand how justice can ever be served under such circumstances.
It was once the case that an accused person was only found guilty of a crime if the jury was convinced of guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. That’s why there was always a statute of limitations in place for serious crimes, it was there to prevent miscarriages of justice from taking place due to lengthy time lapses between the alleged crime and its being reported. That was in the days of Christian justice when the accused was presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond all doubt.
There is a definite feel today, and I think this is borne out by the apparent absence of any substantial evidence against Cardinal Pell in this case, that one is now presumed guilty until proven innocent. But how does a Cardinal prove his innocence after twenty odd years of silence by only two alleged victims? I think his lawyer produced quite substantial information that should certainly have raise doubts in respect to their accusations, yet the jury disregarded that and found in their favour on nothing more, as far as I can tell, than their combined testimony. That is not sufficient evidence to convict a man of such serious crimes. The entire business stinks.
I understood that the “plain vanilla” description was about the crimes, not the penalty. The reports I read said that it meant, since there were so many layers of clothes involved it couldn’t have been a very bad sexual assault (my words) so that is why it seems to admit guilt. It was a very stupid thing for his lawyer to say and it could affect his appeal.
I agree that it was a stupid thing for the lawyer to say but my point was that he did not say it with Cardinal Pell’s approval. The Cardinal maintains his absolute innocence in this matter. His lawyer was simply trying to mitigate jail time after the Cardinal was found guilty despite enormous reasonable doubt.
I agree with you that it was a stupid thing for the lawyer to say. My point, however, is that he did not have the Cardinal’s permission to say it. Cardinal Pell continues to maintain his absolute innocence.
You are right, Athanasius. It does stink to high heaven. Trouble is, we are in an age in which too many have lost their sense of smell.
Thety have also lost their sense of justice! But the primary loss leading to all others is that of supernatural faith.
Thank you Editor.
It should be noted that Quadrant is not particularly Catholic – in fact it leans towards our estranged Anglican brothers – but it is one of the very few conservative (small c) sites still allowed to function in that Marxist outpost. Anyone who is anti ABC/Bbc is ok with me.
But what it does do is give ‘us’ a fair do.
Do explore its other takes on this issue – eyes will be opened.
I guessed that it is Anglican but without an About Us page we’re left to – well… guess!
I have serious doubts about the Cardinal’s guilt – if the jury ignored all that evidence when each individual item should have been cause for reasonable doubt, then I can’t help smelling a stitch-up.
It is clear, all these scandals are the rotten fruits of Vatican II and “you will judge the tree on its fruits”… but cardinal Pell is presumed innocent, so let us be prudent on our judgment!
I’m a bit confused about this because the second trial, which was about allegations dating back to the 1970’s, were dropped by the prosecution but I can’t find out why. Does anyone know?
If all that they have on the cardinal is the evidence which is listed above, from Quadrant, then there’s no way he should be in jail.
I am utterly convinced that this whole matter is a total stich-up. I am sure that the Cardinal is completely innocent. My friends agree with me. We actually live in Australia. I know the depth of hatred which quite a number of people hold. No other person has been subjected to the constant amount of attempts to bring him down. I watched the whole of the trial to which he was subjected on television between Rome and Australia. You people probably know almost nothing about that! That trial found him not guilty. According to law nobody can be tried again on charges which have been dismissed. But not Cardinal Pell. He came back to Australia and was immediately put on trial again and the result was that the Magistrate, a woman who clearly hated him, had to dismiss the more serious charges but she kept a few quite trivial ones back and he was then put on trial again in a higher court for those charges which the magistrate had kept back. This was the matter which the first jury decide 10-2 in His favour, but then was dismissed as a jury and the whole procedure was re-run (because the first jury had got the wrong result).
Do you get the picture?
He has been hounded and hounded and hounded. Finally this jury convicted him on the testimony of ONE person whose companion told his mother that there had been NO sexual assault at all. This companion is now dead from drug overdosing so he cannot give evidence in court.
The whole “conviction” is over these two choirboys having been sexually assaulted and the deceased choirboy cannot give his version but his mother claims that he formally declared to her that it had NEVER HAPPENED.
What sort of evidence is a conviction like that worth?
One website, a very Catholic one in America, run by a Bishop, is calling him a MARTYR!
That is SHOCKING in the extreme.
Surely, something can be done about that. There has been no mention over here of a first trial finding him not guilty and the rest of what you write.
That Bishop is right, if what you have divulged is true; he most certainly is a martyr, a kind of victim soul for all these abuse scandals.
How, though, do you explain his lawyer’s “plain vanilla” remark – the only thing that suggests guilt at some level – ?
Thank you for that very concise explanation, I didn’t know the half of it. My comment above spoke of two accusers but now I know there was only one. It is absolutely shocking to note the growing hatred for the Church within parts of Australia’s judicial system. I am thinking of something I read recently about priests now being obliged by law to breach the seal of Confession in a certain part of the country in cases of confessed sexual abuse.
The term “kangaroo court” ironically comes to mind here. If they can’t bring down their perceived enemies by other means they’ll invent sex charges against them. Yes, I agree that Cardinal Pell is innocent and I cannot help but see a similarity between his trial and that of Our Lord, and at the run up to Lent. Cardinal Pell, though suffering from this, must surely take great consolation from the honour of being falsely accused and publicly derided like His Master.
I am not in a position to know, but I strongly suspect that the State of Victoria, like some other jurisdictions, not allow majority verdicts in criminal trials which are less than eleven to one. In the case of Cadinal Pell, it seems that the the jury in the earlier trial trial voted to acquit by a majority of ten to two. Please tell us what the position is in the state of Victoria. Did the judge have any leeway which could be interpreted as bias against Cardinal Pell?
That comment from the Cardinal’s lawyer has already raised eyebrows here. It can easily be taken as an agreement that the verdict was just! The lawyer has agreed that he should have chosen his words more carefully. Indeed , he may well have ruined the appeal which he has lodged on behalf of Cardinal Pell. The matter is not over but the Cardinal has already spent his first night in jail!. Prayer and prayer and prayer are all required to overcome this horrific travesty of justice, But I think that we must also accept that justice is not likely in the next few years!
Makes you wonder if the lawyer is a “double agent”….
Just shows how differently we think – the lawyer’s “plain vanilla” remark made me wonder if he’s related to Inspector Clouseau…
What DID the lawyer mean, then, by that “plain vanilla” remark?
I wondered if – assuming we can receive a copy of the entire context – he had said something along the lines of “well, even if these allegations were true, they are not that serious…” (which I think is the meaning of “plain vanilla”) – the “even if” making all the difference.
Can you post a copy of his exact words, the entire sentence(s) around the “plain vanilla” remark?
Dear Editor, I am unable to quote the exact words he used but it is generally believed that what he was trying to say is exactly what you have guessed as being the case. He was trying to claim things were not in the highest order of abuse i.e. just what you have guessed. The pity is that such a claim does imply guilt. The judge apparently expressed his horror that the Cardinal has shown “no remorse”!
I ask you How can he show remorse for something which he has not done?
That’s exactly right – how can he express remorse for something he’s not done? It’s typical of the “all show” mentality that is everywhere today.
The lawyer has just made things worse by his apology for using the plain vanilla comment – he apologies for seeming to minimise the suffering of those who are sexually abused! He is digging the hole deeper and deeper, by giving the impression that he knows something we don’t – like that the cardinal is guilty (which I don’t believe)
I’d like to read your reply to Prognosticum’s question about majority verdicts in the State of Victoria. Can you provide that asap, please?
I too am convinced that Cardinal Pell is the victim of a terrible miscarriage of justice, and I hope and pray that his innocence will be proved and that those responsible for this disgusting witch hunt will not receive the eternal justice they deserve.
I agree. This is a travesty of justice.
It’s absolutely a travesty of justice. I keep thinking of that poor cardinal in a prison cell. How dreadful is that, for someone who is innocent.
I wonder how this poor cardinal is coping in a prison cell, and, worry on what kind of reception he has dad. Dreadful, and, as you say, someone who is innocent.
This has happened so quickly after the ex cardinal mccarrick being laicised.
There was a time, not that long ago, when the State would not have dared put a Cardinal in prison, much less bring him to trial in public. That kind of behaviour was restricted to the former USSR and other atheistic nations.
The Church was respected then and many more Catholics practiced their faith, they would have been up in arms had the State attempted such a travesty. The Church had her own courts and her own ways of examining accusations against clergy. Sad to say, it is due to grave failings on this front that secular arrogance has been allowed to take over.
The Cardinal Pell travesty amply demonstrates what the world really thinks of the Vatican’s new post-Vatican II approach to friendship with the world. It despises the Church even more than it did when it remained firm in doctrine and morals. At least it respected and feared the Church’s strength before, but not now that the men of the Church led by the Popes have turned hypocritical.
Now the world’s atheistic governments set about overturning the laws of God, eradicating Christian culture and hunting down clergy with great media exposure to do maximum damage. In the meantime, the hierarchy from the Pope down remain indifferent while the weak fall away and perish in ever greater numbers, scandalised, as Our Lord foretold for these end times, by the wickedness they perceive everywhere. So sad that so many people believe the falsehoods fed daily to them by the controlled media. Ours is truly a lazy, self-indulgent age of blindness and darkness.
Something smells very wrong with this particular case!
I couldn’t agree more – this has definitely not been a fair trial and I hope and pray that it will be overturned on appeal, despite his stupid lawyer’s comment about “plain vanilla”.
To be honest, I really do not know what to say on this matter. If Cardinal Pell is innocent—and indeed the evidence looks pretty flimsy indeed, especially to those of us used over decades to being in and around churches when ‘greater prelates’ celebrate Mass solemn Mass—then that it is a tragedy for him, for the Church and, not least, for the rule of law in Australia. If he is guilty, then it is a tragedy for his victims and for the Church. The Church, to go back to the Editor’s original question, is in a no win situation. Of course, I speak of the Church as God sees her, rooted in the the Most Holy Trinity, prefigured in Israel and flowing from the side of Christ down through the centuries, and, as CS Lewis once put it, as terrifying to the enemy as an army with banners. I do not mean the cosy rainbow coalition of the mediocre which is an apt description of the hierarchy and their sycophants in an age in which what passes for the Church Militant sees it as its primary role to suck up to the world, jettisoning along the way whatever truths, dogmatic or moral, would threaten to spoil the lovefest, as they try to do the impossible and make the Gospel conform to the present century. They might as well try to use Jacob’s ladder to get to their local pharmacy, but that they even believe remotely that they can do so is a sign of the hubris, born of moral cowardice, which has blinded them. As the Lord tells us in the Gospel, they have already had their reward, and, I would add, that they may well discover before too long the meaning of the old proverb which counsels the use of a long spoon in prandial encounters with the devil.
But I would invite all of you here to reflect deeply on a particular aspect of the present situation which applies to the Church, certainly, but is at the same time of wider cultural importance. It is the increasingly subjective and pernicious role of the mainstream mass media.
The ‘piazza’, for want of a better term, has been under presssure since the late 1960s, at least. By ‘piazza’, I mean the system of shared values, as they apply to public discourse, by which a journalist/editor/owner of a media outlet, especially those held generally to be ‘of record’ (emphatically not the tabloids) would accord a political/cultural/religious adversary a fair crack of the whip in reporting and editorial terms, conscious of a wider duty to society at large and, indeed, to objective truth. As the piazza—largely, but not exclusively, Judaeo-Christian in its construction—has crumbled, so we have had the rise of what is little more than propaganda masquerading as journalism and editorial comment. To use a recent expression, we are in an age of Fake News.
Take, for example, our own beloved (and I don’t think) Auntie. No fool she, the BBC assaults our eyes and ears daily with little more than liberal propaganda and make us fools pay for the privilege under pain of incarceration. I don’t think that even Goebels was that accomplished. But there she is, finger on the scales, the increasingly thin make-up of impartiality on and the mascara running, shutting down debate when she is not actively orchestrating it to suit her own ends which are those of furthering at all and any cost the asphyxiating liberal consensus which has almost destroyed the West. And the tell tale sign that this is true is the reluctance of either the centre-left or the centre-right to challenge her hegemony. On the contrary, second rate political exponents of both political parties have sucked at her rather abundant breasts (size £150.50 per annum) for decades. Chris Patten, a former chairman of the Conservative Party, has served as Chairman of the BBC Trust, while Greg Dyke, a minor darling of New Labour, was its Director General until he fell foul of the Hutton Inquiry. James Purnell, currently Director of Radio among other things, is a former Labour MP and Cabinet Minister. And in case you think that the revolving door only involves politicians, take the case of former BBC Director General Mark Thomson. A former Chief Executive of—surprise, surprise—Channel 4, he left the BBC to take up the role of—wait for it—Chief Executive Officer of the New York Times. You get the picture…. A vast liberal consensus trampling all before it. Against this kind of opposition, what chance has the Catholic Church let alone a wongly accused poor Catholic?
Humanly speaking, none at all. But Old Testament has a lot to teach us about giants and feet of clay. I suspect that the unfolding of history in the not too distant future will reserve some very unwelcome surprises for the seemingly invincible liberal consensus. We can only hope that the Church will by then have decided to return to her prophetic mission which is not that of incense-bearer in the adoration of the world.
I commend the following to your attention:
Very well said indeed.
What we have today masquerading as news media in the West is a culturally Marxist propaganda machine led by organisations like the BBC, CNN, Sky, etc.
They are indeed “fake news” outlets and they only succeed because the world, not to mention many high clergy, have turned from God and lost their zeal for truth and justice. When faith fails the devil will always be there to fill the void with lies. Part of the remedy is for people to stop believing the media and start educating themselves on the facts. The lazy option only leads to ignorance and subjugation under evil regimes.
Here is a new article by Marco Tosatti (warning: awkward Google translation) which explores the hypothesis, “The cannons are in Australia, but the bullets were made in the Vatican.”
And not only is Cardinal Pell in jail, I read somewhere that he is in solitary confinement – as if he is a danger to the State! Or a danger to Pope Francis….
Cardinal Pell is indeed in a solitary cell, but not because he is a danger to others but because he would be in danger himself if he were put amongst others. Now you perhaps can see exactly what depth of hatred the media have stirred up regarding Cardinal Pell. The police actually set about advertising for people to come forward with complaints about him before he was arrested for anything. The police are an utter disgrace. This is anti-Catholic prejudice pure and simple.
I was told that the same thing happened in Ireland, adverts including approximate amounts that might be won in compensation, were displayed everywhere to encourage people to come forward with abuse claims against the clergy.
That was at the time when the Republic had just rebuffed the Lisburn Treaty because of the EU’s pro-homosexual, pro-abortion rules. I think we can all see now how useful the witchhunt against clergy was, it scandalised so many weak Irish Catholics that they turned against the Church and gave Lisburn the nod second time around.
It seems the same tactic is now being employed in Australia for some equally evil end. One thing it demonstates is that the Catholic Church is in fact a divine institution. It’s the only religious institution attacked and hated the world over, just like its Divine Master. That’s how we know it’s the true Church. The devil knows it too.
That treaty was signed in LISBON, not in Northern Ireland!
First of all, apologies for writing “Lisburn” rather than “Lisbon”. Whadamistakatamaka!
On your main point, I didn’t say the Treaty was signed in Northern Ireland. I was speaking of ratification of the Treaty in Ireland, not signing. The first referendum for ratification failed so they tweaked it and brought it back, having of course raised a very public media scandal about clergy abuse in the meantime.
Have you anything to say on the topic?
What troubles me most in this case of Cardinal Pell is that, had he been a paedophile, as accused, then there would have been a great number of victims in court to accuse him, not just one. It is not in the nature of paedophiles to absue just one or two children and then stop. No, these people are serial offenders and they go on and on abusing as long as they can get away with it. Given his lengthy clerical career, many years of it spent in high office, virtually untouchable, is it not odd that Cardinal Pell went to jail on the historical, non-substantiated, evidence of a single person? That’s what makes me believe that he is innocent, at the very least on the grounds of reasonable doubt. I think this is definitely an orchestrated attempt to disgrace the Church in Australia while silencing the only top prelate to stand in opposition to “gay marriage” in that country. Catholics should be up in public outrage over this instead of aiding the enemies of the Church by their cowardice.
It’s even worse than that – there were originally two accusers, two choirboys, but one died. Then his mother testified that her son, the deceased accuser, had told her that it wasn’t true that nothing happened.
So, in a way that’s even worse than only one accuser. There were two but one retracted and said nothing happened before he died.. How that court could find him guilty, is beyond belief.
This article in One Peter Five is very interesting and shows that the Vatican may be part of this hatchet job on the cardinal:
“he was brought into the Vatican to do a job — audit and reform the Vatican bank — and when he found over a billion Euros in the Vatican mattresses, he was suddenly called back to Australia on decades-old sexual abuse allegations as papal hatchet man Archbishop Becciu swooped in to put a stop to any momentum the financial reforms might have.”
The mind truly boggles. Maybe that’s the real reason for the case against Cardinal Pell. There’s been suspicion over the activities of the Vatican Bank for decades. Remember Calvi and the Banco Ambrosiano?
That stinks to high heaven. The Vatican is probably even more corrupt that the European Union these days – and that’s saying something.
Some of you may like to send a letter or perhaps a card to Cardinal Pell in prison. The address to write to is:-
C/- Corrections Victoria
GPO Box 123
Melbourne, Victoria 3001
They will then forward your correspondence to Cardinal Pell. Just think, if we could swamp them with letters and cards what an effect that could have in letting them know what we think of this “conviction”.
Many thanks for that address. I will make a point of writing to the Cardinal.
Many thanks for that address. I will put a letter together as soon as possible this week – again, sincere thanks for providing the address.
Here is an excerpt from the police interview with Cardinal Pell
Here’s some short coverage from EWTN
Thanks for posting those videos. Now we know with absolute certainty that Cardinal Pell is, as we already knew anyway, innocent. I found the police interview harrowing to say the least, puting such filthy scenarios to a Prince of the Church is really hard to listen to. The Cardinal’s reaction, predictably, was one of absolute disgust and it was a genuine disgust. I would not like to be in the shoes of the person who told these filthy stories to the police in the first place. If there is any justice left in Australia then Cardinal Pell will have this false verdict overturned with ease on appeal.
I agree about his “disgusted” response to the allegations and also his reaction to the location of the allegations. That police interview was very telling, indeed.
I now have my letter ready for posting tomorrow, first thing in which I included the link to this thread, in case he is permitted access to the internet.
I just hope he doesn’t check us out with the Scottish Bishops 😀
Editor and Athanasius,
I couldn’t agree more; the videos were harrowing. Cardinal Pell’s reaction was one of genuine disgust.
I have my letter ready for posting as well. While I am absolutely convinced of Cardinal Pell’s innocence in this matter of abuse, and while I applaud his solid defence of Catholic moral teaching, he is not so hot on doctrine. Hence he will probably not thank you for a link to this blog.
Here are a couple of things I picked up from Wikipedia to demonstrate the point:
“Adam and Eve
During a debate against Richard Dawkins on the show Q&A in 2012, in response to whether there had ever been a Garden of Eden scenario with an “actual” Adam and Eve, Pell said:
Adam and Eve are terms – what do they mean: life and earth. It’s like every man. That’s a beautiful, sophisticated, mythological account. It’s not science but it’s there to tell us two or three things. First of all that God created the world and the universe. Secondly, that the key to the whole of universe, the really significant thing, are humans and, thirdly, it is a very sophisticated mythology to try to explain the evil and suffering in the world.”
Oops! There goes the Redemption!
We are all called to be instruments of peace and harmony among aggressors and those who practice terrorism although we worship the one God in different ways… We gather united in our plans for respect and friendship.”
Oops! There goes the infallible dogma Extra ecclesiam nulla salus
I really wouldn’t expect Cardinal Pell to be absolutely sound on doctrine or we’d have known about it – which is really why I not only included the link to this thread in my letter but enclosed a couple of editions of our newsletter as well. The current March edition and the November 2018 edition headlined: Corrupt Clergy & Silent Superiors: A Pernicious Partnership… So, I’m really not expecting a reply! I simply hope and pray that, in the predicament he now finds himself, he may begin to think deeply about – well… everything! Maybe realise that it’s long past time for him to return to the drawing board.
The quotes you provide are telling. His remarks about Islam reflect the widespread rejection of the dogma “Extra Ecclesiam”, as you indicate – “outside the Church, no salvation”? Yeah right, seems to be the general opinion of priests, prelates and popes these days. As I say, though, maybe the Cardinal will return to the drawing board.
Regarding Adam & Eve – how ridiculous of the Cardinal to deny that there were two people, male and female, our first parents, at the beginning of time – goodness any DNA scientist knows that.
So many people are confused about Catholic teaching on this, so I dug out a previous comment of mine from way back when, which I hope is helpful to those who remain unsure about this: I was replying to a blogger and a visiting evolutionist on this thread, back in 2013…
Below, the text of my comment from that discussion…
I strongly recommend that you read Pope Leo XIII’s landmark encyclical on Sacred Scripture, Providentissimus Deus:
15. But he must not on that account consider that it is forbidden, when just cause exists, to push inquiry and exposition beyond what the Fathers have done; provided he carefully observes the rule so wisely laid down by St. Augustine-not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires.
Now, there are all sorts of different genres in Scripture, not all to be taken literally – think about it. You know that. You know that there is history in there, and poetry/hymns of praise (psalms) and there are parables – stories which teach us something of morality and virtue. We needn’t believe there was an actual “publican” and an actual “tax collector” etc. You already know this, so you do understand the nature of Scripture but so many Catholics tend to say (despite this knowledge) that every verse of Scripture must be interpreted literally. That is not the teaching of the Church. Check out Providentissimus Deus
You are totally correct, however, to say that Scripture contains no error or “mythology”. END
The confusion in this matter has arisen because modernist lecturers in theology, in both seminaries and teacher training colleges, made the mistake of trying to explain the different senses of Scripture by dubbing certain passages (including Genesis 3) “myths”. Big mistake which has led to real confusion in a matter which is really very simple. We must adhere to the truths in Genesis 3 – that we are descended from Adam & Eve, our first parents, that God gave them a beautiful and perfect world to enjoy, with but one condition: that they had to observe His moral law (the forbidden tree) and that they succumbed to temptation, disobeyed His law and brought sin into God’s perfect world. Hence, as you rightly point out, the need for a Redeemer.
If you’ll excuse the pun, it really isn’t rocket science 😀
Very disappointed in Cardinal Pell intimating that Adam and Eve was a myth.
Why then would anyone be baptised if there was no original sin.
I now understand why he was in the popes inner circle!!
I agree that this is extremely worrying, especially coming from a Cardinal. However, I do think Cardinal Pell is innocent of the horrendous crime they accuse him of and so it is right that we support him in that and pray for him. Maybe we can add a little prayer for his return to doctrinal orthodoxy while we’re at it.
I am shocked at the evidence here – the Cardinal has been stitched up and it goes on, because the man whose case was dropped by the Prosecution is now taking out a civil lawsuit
From Catholic World Report… Just in…
An interesting article today from IP5..
Cardinal Pell has been sentenced to six years in prison
Please continue to pray for him.
Not sure if anyone has been reading the links I’ve posted since there are no comments, but here’s another one in today from Catholic World Report
This is a really important news reporter from Sky News in Australia defending the cardinal – he is not even a Christian, so what he says is totally objective.
Comments are closed.