Pell and other allegations

Ridsdale was in Sydney during the 80s. Pell was an ordinary parish priest in Victoria up until 1987 after which he became a 'trainee' bishop in 1987 (based in Melbourne again).

So the idea that your friend told Pell about Ridsdale doesn’t really make much sense. either from a logistical perspective or from a why perspective.

ie, why would someone tell a parish priest in Victoria about the goings on of a priest in Sydney?


From Wiki:

He then served at a parish in Ballarat East from 1973 to 1983, becoming administrator of the parish of Bungaree in 1984

Edit: here’s the link.

Oh and these roles too

During his tenure in Ballarat East and Bungaree, he also served as Episcopal Vicar for Education (1973–84), director of the Aquinas campus of the Institute of Catholic Education (1974–84) and principal of the Institute of Catholic Education (1981–84).

Oh please stop it, your facts are irrelevent to the discussion Trip is having. You bring facts into it and it ruins his horror at the injustice done to Pell.

Ps have you got the answer to your question to Trip yet? Does he have kids?

Err - I don’t think you and Gillsy are joining detective school any time soon.
Might I suggest try and re reading the discussion I was having with Wimm.

Particularly the point about one party being in Sydney and the other party being in Victoria.

Might be an idea to keep the headache tablets on stand-by in case it gets too complicated for you.

Ridsdale was in Sydney during the 80s. Pell was an ordinary parish priest in Victoria up until 1987 after which he became a 'trainee' bishop in 1987 (based in Melbourne again).

So the idea that your friend told Pell about Ridsdale doesn’t really make much sense. either from a logistical perspective or from a why perspective.

ie, why would someone tell a parish priest in Victoria about the goings on of a priest in Sydney?


From Wiki:

He then served at a parish in Ballarat East from 1973 to 1983, becoming administrator of the parish of Bungaree in 1984

Edit: here’s the link.

Oh and these roles too

During his tenure in Ballarat East and Bungaree, he also served as Episcopal Vicar for Education (1973–84), director of the Aquinas campus of the Institute of Catholic Education (1974–84) and principal of the Institute of Catholic Education (1981–84).

Oh please stop it, your facts are irrelevent to the discussion Trip is having. You bring facts into it and it ruins his horror at the injustice done to Pell.

Ps have you got the answer to your question to Trip yet? Does he have kids?

Err - I don’t think you and Gillsy are joining detective school any time soon.
Might I suggest try and re reading the discussion I was having with Wimm.

Particularly the point about one party being in Sydney and the other party being in Victoria.

Not a point so much as a fallacy.

Ridsdale was in Sydney during the 80s. Pell was an ordinary parish priest in Victoria up until 1987 after which he became a 'trainee' bishop in 1987 (based in Melbourne again).

So the idea that your friend told Pell about Ridsdale doesn’t really make much sense. either from a logistical perspective or from a why perspective.

ie, why would someone tell a parish priest in Victoria about the goings on of a priest in Sydney?


From Wiki:

He then served at a parish in Ballarat East from 1973 to 1983, becoming administrator of the parish of Bungaree in 1984

Edit: here’s the link.

Oh and these roles too

During his tenure in Ballarat East and Bungaree, he also served as Episcopal Vicar for Education (1973–84), director of the Aquinas campus of the Institute of Catholic Education (1974–84) and principal of the Institute of Catholic Education (1981–84).

Oh please stop it, your facts are irrelevent to the discussion Trip is having. You bring facts into it and it ruins his horror at the injustice done to Pell.

Ps have you got the answer to your question to Trip yet? Does he have kids?

Not yet. I just assume he is fact checking on whether he has kids or not before replying.

Interestingly...

Pell and Ridsdale were housemates in the 70’s at the St Alipius’ Church in Ballarat.

Ronald Mulkearns was the Bishop of Ballarat and he said he knew of claims against Rdisdale in 1975, same time as Pell was living in a house with Ridsdale. (Although a three-month police investigation into what Mulkearns knew about Ridsdale called “Operation Arcadia” concluded that he knew about Ridsdale’s crimes earlier than he admitted.)

Pell knew Ridsdale quite well if he spent a few years living at a house with him. May not have known everything but if the Bishop knew (and others within the Ballarat diocese) then it would be hard to think that Pell hadn’t even HEARD rumours.

So Trip your assertion that Pell had nothing to do with Ridsdale until the mid 80’s is wrong. They new each other in the 70’s and Ridsdlae didn’t get moved to Sydney until 1981. Mulkearns kept moving him and was aware of his activities.

Priests know when other priests get moved and why they get moved, there is very little that is hidden amongst the clergy.

Also interestingly Pell was the editor of the local rag for Catholics (called Light) from 79-84 and as editor I am pretty sure he would have seen and heard many rumours regarding issues going on around at that time.

To say he didn’t know of at least rumours would be false and misleading. Whether he was in a position to do much about it at that time is another issue altogether. He later was and that is what concerns people because he has admitted he didn’t do enough and just moved priests around as he had been taught.

Sigh - we were specifically talking about the 80s and how logistically it didn’t make sense.
You seem to have some real comprehension problems at times.

Paul Bongiorno the Ten journalist also was living in the same boarding house at the time. Are you suggesting that he knew what was going on because he emphatically denies it?

And swear words and sneering and his tongue it was a snarling
In a matter of minutes on bail was out walking

Ridsdale was in Sydney during the 80s. Pell was an ordinary parish priest in Victoria up until 1987 after which he became a 'trainee' bishop in 1987 (based in Melbourne again).

So the idea that your friend told Pell about Ridsdale doesn’t really make much sense. either from a logistical perspective or from a why perspective.

ie, why would someone tell a parish priest in Victoria about the goings on of a priest in Sydney?


From Wiki:

He then served at a parish in Ballarat East from 1973 to 1983, becoming administrator of the parish of Bungaree in 1984

Edit: here’s the link.

Oh and these roles too

During his tenure in Ballarat East and Bungaree, he also served as Episcopal Vicar for Education (1973–84), director of the Aquinas campus of the Institute of Catholic Education (1974–84) and principal of the Institute of Catholic Education (1981–84).

Oh please stop it, your facts are irrelevent to the discussion Trip is having. You bring facts into it and it ruins his horror at the injustice done to Pell.

Ps have you got the answer to your question to Trip yet? Does he have kids?

Err - I don’t think you and Gillsy are joining detective school any time soon.
Might I suggest try and re reading the discussion I was having with Wimm.

Particularly the point about one party being in Sydney and the other party being in Victoria.

Might be an idea to keep the headache tablets on stand-by in case it gets too complicated for you.

You were arguing that Pell was just a junior in the hierarchy of the clergy and should not hold responsibility for the action of other clergymen. I think the rules he held at that time, which I posted, disagrees with that. At the very least he could speak out.

A won’t listen to B
B won’t listen to A

Why do you all bother?

Agree you are both right/wrong/in love and move on.

Interestingly...

Pell and Ridsdale were housemates in the 70’s at the St Alipius’ Church in Ballarat.

Ronald Mulkearns was the Bishop of Ballarat and he said he knew of claims against Rdisdale in 1975, same time as Pell was living in a house with Ridsdale. (Although a three-month police investigation into what Mulkearns knew about Ridsdale called “Operation Arcadia” concluded that he knew about Ridsdale’s crimes earlier than he admitted.)

Pell knew Ridsdale quite well if he spent a few years living at a house with him. May not have known everything but if the Bishop knew (and others within the Ballarat diocese) then it would be hard to think that Pell hadn’t even HEARD rumours.

So Trip your assertion that Pell had nothing to do with Ridsdale until the mid 80’s is wrong. They new each other in the 70’s and Ridsdlae didn’t get moved to Sydney until 1981. Mulkearns kept moving him and was aware of his activities.

Priests know when other priests get moved and why they get moved, there is very little that is hidden amongst the clergy.

Also interestingly Pell was the editor of the local rag for Catholics (called Light) from 79-84 and as editor I am pretty sure he would have seen and heard many rumours regarding issues going on around at that time.

To say he didn’t know of at least rumours would be false and misleading. Whether he was in a position to do much about it at that time is another issue altogether. He later was and that is what concerns people because he has admitted he didn’t do enough and just moved priests around as he had been taught.

Sigh - we were specifically talking about the 80s and how logistically it didn’t make sense.
You seem to have some real comprehension problems at times.

Paul Bongiorno the Ten journalist also was living in the same boarding house at the time. Are you suggesting that he knew what was going on because he emphatically denies it?

The first claims against Ridsdale were from Melbourne. Trying to avoid the truth is your favouraite past time so you obscure it by saying Pell knew nothing because Ridsdale was in Sydney. That is boll ocks.

Further fact which ruins your fight:

Pell was part of a leadership group of Catholic priests in the Diocese of Ballarat that met during 1982 and discussed moving Ridsdale from the parish at Mortlake and to send him to Sydney.

So Pell most definitely knew the claims against him as early as 1982.

Just another interesting note about Pell. Again, not related to the Risdale case, but to later on when he was archbishop.

He had, what was known at the time, as a ‘Church Gestapo’ working for him. He set very strict rules about how a mass service was to be conducted, and he sent his spies out to every single church to make sure this was being followed. And there were ramifications for those that didn’t.

These spies would also interview regular parishioners, go through the books at the Presbytery, interview students at the school… The whole lot. Essentially, he knew every single detail about every parish. He was a control freak, but I guess you could also call that a thorough management style.

But I guess there mustn’t have been any sexual abuse cases during the 90’s, because surely a man with that much of an obsession with knowing details wouldn’t have let that slide…

Christian Brothers were some of the biggest dogs to walk the Earth. My father got sent to St Pat’s Ballarat as a boarder in the 60’s. Fortunately for him he actually got kicked out…

Ridsdale was in Sydney during the 80s. Pell was an ordinary parish priest in Victoria up until 1987 after which he became a 'trainee' bishop in 1987 (based in Melbourne again).

So the idea that your friend told Pell about Ridsdale doesn’t really make much sense. either from a logistical perspective or from a why perspective.

ie, why would someone tell a parish priest in Victoria about the goings on of a priest in Sydney?

Why the fark do you want to argue this?

Risdale and a gang of other pervert assaulted kids from 1960s to 1980s. Even people I know who were assaulted by Risdale and are in control, find it very hard to talk about exact detail, as it is very distressing. Others are complete basket cases and refuse to talk about any of it.

Pell has information and he was part of an elaborate Church coverup; no idea what extent or part but he needs to tell the whole truth. I have not heard anyone claim Pell is a paedofile.

You may be a real nice guy, with a family and a lovely wife and a couple of cute kids, but you come across at times as a complete arsewipe.

Not arguing the second paragraph at all.

Your 3rd paragraph asserts without any proof that Pell was part of a cover-up. That is a pretty serious accusation to make especially when it comes to child sex offences. I would have thought the burden of proof ought to be pretty high for something like that instead of being even less than CAS’s ‘comfortably satisfied.’ !!!

That is why Pell needs to come home and be interrogated. Innocent people do not plead the fifth or abscond. He is a very senior church leader and needs to step up.

There is too much evidence of church cover ups to give anyone the benefit of the doubt.

So ... that'd be a big fat NO to Hillsong then??

I can’t stand Hillsong, horrible stuff

Hillsong: bringing out the most cultish aspects of Christianity.

Dis someone say 'The Cult'?

I wont call a certain Cardinal a monster, because who wants this site sued off the air, so i’ll just refer to him as the kindly, caring priest who used to take orphaned boys on country trips to Colac for a week or weekend.
These boys were terrified of this kindly gent, god only knows why.
The Colac parish at the time had a genuinely nice parish priest who had no idea there would a sinister purpose to these visits, not that I’m claiming there was anything sinister.
The presbitory at the time wasn’t huge, so the visitors had to share a room. I assume that’s also because these orphaned kids were afraid of the dark.
Again, nothing sinister.

How do I know all this?

I personally know the house keeper who worked there at the time, and to this day it disturbs her greatly. This was in the 70’s.

This housekeeper wont speak to the police because she is terrified of the church authorities.

Nice mob that, the Catholic Church.

Ridsdale was in Sydney during the 80s. Pell was an ordinary parish priest in Victoria up until 1987 after which he became a 'trainee' bishop in 1987 (based in Melbourne again).

So the idea that your friend told Pell about Ridsdale doesn’t really make much sense. either from a logistical perspective or from a why perspective.

ie, why would someone tell a parish priest in Victoria about the goings on of a priest in Sydney?

Why the fark do you want to argue this?

Risdale and a gang of other pervert assaulted kids from 1960s to 1980s. Even people I know who were assaulted by Risdale and are in control, find it very hard to talk about exact detail, as it is very distressing. Others are complete basket cases and refuse to talk about any of it.

Pell has information and he was part of an elaborate Church coverup; no idea what extent or part but he needs to tell the whole truth. I have not heard anyone claim Pell is a paedofile.

You may be a real nice guy, with a family and a lovely wife and a couple of cute kids, but you come across at times as a complete arsewipe.

Not arguing the second paragraph at all.

Your 3rd paragraph asserts without any proof that Pell was part of a cover-up. That is a pretty serious accusation to make especially when it comes to child sex offences. I would have thought the burden of proof ought to be pretty high for something like that instead of being even less than CAS’s ‘comfortably satisfied.’ !!!

That is why Pell needs to come home and be interrogated. Innocent people do not plead the fifth or abscond. He is a very senior church leader and needs to step up.

There is too much evidence of church cover ups to give anyone the benefit of the doubt.

The whole point of the fifth amendment to the United States Constitution is to protect the innocent.

Ridsdale was in Sydney during the 80s. Pell was an ordinary parish priest in Victoria up until 1987 after which he became a 'trainee' bishop in 1987 (based in Melbourne again).

So the idea that your friend told Pell about Ridsdale doesn’t really make much sense. either from a logistical perspective or from a why perspective.

ie, why would someone tell a parish priest in Victoria about the goings on of a priest in Sydney?

Why the fark do you want to argue this?

Risdale and a gang of other pervert assaulted kids from 1960s to 1980s. Even people I know who were assaulted by Risdale and are in control, find it very hard to talk about exact detail, as it is very distressing. Others are complete basket cases and refuse to talk about any of it.

Pell has information and he was part of an elaborate Church coverup; no idea what extent or part but he needs to tell the whole truth. I have not heard anyone claim Pell is a paedofile.

You may be a real nice guy, with a family and a lovely wife and a couple of cute kids, but you come across at times as a complete arsewipe.

Not arguing the second paragraph at all.

Your 3rd paragraph asserts without any proof that Pell was part of a cover-up. That is a pretty serious accusation to make especially when it comes to child sex offences. I would have thought the burden of proof ought to be pretty high for something like that instead of being even less than CAS’s ‘comfortably satisfied.’ !!!

That is why Pell needs to come home and be interrogated. Innocent people do not plead the fifth or abscond. He is a very senior church leader and needs to step up.

There is too much evidence of church cover ups to give anyone the benefit of the doubt.


He has already been grilled multiple times.
These fresh accusations are from a twice convicted child sex offender whose previous testimony has been very hazy.

Let’s face it. The only reason people want him here is so the pitchfork brigade can make a scene outside the RC.

Testifying by video takes that opportunity away from them.

I must say that I am disappointed that supporters from our club would revert to mob justice given all we have gone through lately.

Ridsdale was in Sydney during the 80s. Pell was an ordinary parish priest in Victoria up until 1987 after which he became a 'trainee' bishop in 1987 (based in Melbourne again).

So the idea that your friend told Pell about Ridsdale doesn’t really make much sense. either from a logistical perspective or from a why perspective.

ie, why would someone tell a parish priest in Victoria about the goings on of a priest in Sydney?

Why the fark do you want to argue this?

Risdale and a gang of other pervert assaulted kids from 1960s to 1980s. Even people I know who were assaulted by Risdale and are in control, find it very hard to talk about exact detail, as it is very distressing. Others are complete basket cases and refuse to talk about any of it.

Pell has information and he was part of an elaborate Church coverup; no idea what extent or part but he needs to tell the whole truth. I have not heard anyone claim Pell is a paedofile.

You may be a real nice guy, with a family and a lovely wife and a couple of cute kids, but you come across at times as a complete arsewipe.

Not arguing the second paragraph at all.

Your 3rd paragraph asserts without any proof that Pell was part of a cover-up. That is a pretty serious accusation to make especially when it comes to child sex offences. I would have thought the burden of proof ought to be pretty high for something like that instead of being even less than CAS’s ‘comfortably satisfied.’ !!!

That is why Pell needs to come home and be interrogated. Innocent people do not plead the fifth or abscond. He is a very senior church leader and needs to step up.

There is too much evidence of church cover ups to give anyone the benefit of the doubt.

The whole point of the fifth amendment to the United States Constitution is to protect the innocent.

Not at all.

The Fifth Amendment is all about not be forced to give evidence that will incriminate you. Not a real problem if you are innocent as charged your Honor.

We have no such protection under our law.

Ridsdale was in Sydney during the 80s. Pell was an ordinary parish priest in Victoria up until 1987 after which he became a 'trainee' bishop in 1987 (based in Melbourne again).

So the idea that your friend told Pell about Ridsdale doesn’t really make much sense. either from a logistical perspective or from a why perspective.

ie, why would someone tell a parish priest in Victoria about the goings on of a priest in Sydney?

Why the fark do you want to argue this?

Risdale and a gang of other pervert assaulted kids from 1960s to 1980s. Even people I know who were assaulted by Risdale and are in control, find it very hard to talk about exact detail, as it is very distressing. Others are complete basket cases and refuse to talk about any of it.

Pell has information and he was part of an elaborate Church coverup; no idea what extent or part but he needs to tell the whole truth. I have not heard anyone claim Pell is a paedofile.

You may be a real nice guy, with a family and a lovely wife and a couple of cute kids, but you come across at times as a complete arsewipe.

Not arguing the second paragraph at all.

Your 3rd paragraph asserts without any proof that Pell was part of a cover-up. That is a pretty serious accusation to make especially when it comes to child sex offences. I would have thought the burden of proof ought to be pretty high for something like that instead of being even less than CAS’s ‘comfortably satisfied.’ !!!

That is why Pell needs to come home and be interrogated. Innocent people do not plead the fifth or abscond. He is a very senior church leader and needs to step up.

There is too much evidence of church cover ups to give anyone the benefit of the doubt.


He has already been grilled multiple times.
These fresh accusations are from a twice convicted child sex offender whose previous testimony has been very hazy.

Let’s face it. The only reason people want him here is so the pitchfork brigade can make a scene outside the RC.

Testifying by video takes that opportunity away from them.

I must say that I am disappointed that supporters from our club would revert to mob justice given all we have gone through lately.

The thing that is disappointing is a person who begs for evidence and when given it then denies or ignores that evidence because it does not fit his narrative.

Ridsdale was in Sydney during the 80s. Pell was an ordinary parish priest in Victoria up until 1987 after which he became a 'trainee' bishop in 1987 (based in Melbourne again).

So the idea that your friend told Pell about Ridsdale doesn’t really make much sense. either from a logistical perspective or from a why perspective.

ie, why would someone tell a parish priest in Victoria about the goings on of a priest in Sydney?

Why the fark do you want to argue this?

Risdale and a gang of other pervert assaulted kids from 1960s to 1980s. Even people I know who were assaulted by Risdale and are in control, find it very hard to talk about exact detail, as it is very distressing. Others are complete basket cases and refuse to talk about any of it.

Pell has information and he was part of an elaborate Church coverup; no idea what extent or part but he needs to tell the whole truth. I have not heard anyone claim Pell is a paedofile.

You may be a real nice guy, with a family and a lovely wife and a couple of cute kids, but you come across at times as a complete arsewipe.

Not arguing the second paragraph at all.

Your 3rd paragraph asserts without any proof that Pell was part of a cover-up. That is a pretty serious accusation to make especially when it comes to child sex offences. I would have thought the burden of proof ought to be pretty high for something like that instead of being even less than CAS’s ‘comfortably satisfied.’ !!!

That is why Pell needs to come home and be interrogated. Innocent people do not plead the fifth or abscond. He is a very senior church leader and needs to step up.

There is too much evidence of church cover ups to give anyone the benefit of the doubt.

The whole point of the fifth amendment to the United States Constitution is to protect the innocent.

Not at all.

The Fifth Amendment is all about not be forced to give evidence that will incriminate you. Not a real problem if you are innocent as charged your Honor.

We have no such protection under our law.

Bullshitt, of course we do. It’s called pleading the I can’t recall, or The AA amendment.

Ridsdale was in Sydney during the 80s. Pell was an ordinary parish priest in Victoria up until 1987 after which he became a 'trainee' bishop in 1987 (based in Melbourne again).

So the idea that your friend told Pell about Ridsdale doesn’t really make much sense. either from a logistical perspective or from a why perspective.

ie, why would someone tell a parish priest in Victoria about the goings on of a priest in Sydney?

Why the fark do you want to argue this?

Risdale and a gang of other pervert assaulted kids from 1960s to 1980s. Even people I know who were assaulted by Risdale and are in control, find it very hard to talk about exact detail, as it is very distressing. Others are complete basket cases and refuse to talk about any of it.

Pell has information and he was part of an elaborate Church coverup; no idea what extent or part but he needs to tell the whole truth. I have not heard anyone claim Pell is a paedofile.

You may be a real nice guy, with a family and a lovely wife and a couple of cute kids, but you come across at times as a complete arsewipe.

Not arguing the second paragraph at all.

Your 3rd paragraph asserts without any proof that Pell was part of a cover-up. That is a pretty serious accusation to make especially when it comes to child sex offences. I would have thought the burden of proof ought to be pretty high for something like that instead of being even less than CAS’s ‘comfortably satisfied.’ !!!

That is why Pell needs to come home and be interrogated. Innocent people do not plead the fifth or abscond. He is a very senior church leader and needs to step up.

There is too much evidence of church cover ups to give anyone the benefit of the doubt.

The whole point of the fifth amendment to the United States Constitution is to protect the innocent.

Not at all.

The Fifth Amendment is all about not be forced to give evidence that will incriminate you. Not a real problem if you are innocent as charged your Honor.

We have no such protection under our law.

“Pitchfork brigade” eh? He’ll need one where he is going.