Yep.
His own words at the Royal Commission prove that he condoned a systematic regime of child abuse. He was in a position to do something about it and consciously decided against.
5 Likes
The truth, as I have been told directly by victims in Ballarat, is much more than an accessory after the fact.
If there is justice Pell will see out his days in a prison cell.
1 Like
And very conveniently for Pell, these are some of the most serious charges against him.
Maybe all those prayers from his apologists have worked…
Thank you JESUS!!
Well, that’s about a quarter right and three-quarters totally wrong. He did say that the accusations were not his concern, but he said it to explain why he had not known of them, not to excuse inaction. Allegations that were made were dealt with (appallingly) by Mulkearns and others, who did not inform the Council.
Your statement that he was repeatedly told about kiddie fiddlers is not supported by any evidence and has been consistently denied by Pell.
I’ve never understood the deep hatred of Pell centred on this issue. The fact is that he was the first Catholic prelate in the entire world to acknowledge publicly that children had been abused by priests and deserved to be helped and compensated, and he established the first scheme for doing this in the entire world. Certainly some aspects of that scheme at the outset were inappropriate — eg making compensation conditional on not pursuing criminal charges — but those were dropped within a couple of years. Pell deserves praise for this, not vilification.
2 Likes
People have gone on record saying they told him, and another priest has gone on record saying he was present when said person told him.
Either both of them are liars, and for some unknown reason, Pell’s not pressing slander charges because… reasons… or Pell’s a liar.
Occam’s razor.
He’s admitted believing some victims, but going along with the church’s position to fight charges… because he’s an all-round great guy. He didn’t chase allegations because they weren’t his concern. He trusted X to “deal with” problems. There’s a huge long string of these cases, and (while he may be criminally innocent), in absolutely every one, he acted like the a cowardly scumbag.
Seriously, if this was the CEO of K Mart or 7-11, they’d be in jail, the company would be sued for billions, and the whole joint would end up burnt to the ground.
1 Like
Pell’s response gave the appearance of protecting the brand, little to no compassion in his early statements.
You don’t make it to the top 3-4 people in an organisation as large as the Catholic Church by being dumb and oblivious to what’s going on around you.
The infamous “melbourne response” was put in place not to fairly compensate the victims, but to limit the liability facing the church.
1 Like
You sound like another Catholic apologist.
I hate them worse than Carlscum.
If you heard the firsthand accounts from some of those abuse in Ballarat and then verballed by Pell to shut up then maybe you would not live Pell so much. I rarely cry, but I cried a great deal with these guys.
2 Likes
And when you hear of stuff that hasn’t been made public it’ll make you nearly throw up.
1 Like
As a matter of fact I was baptised into the Church of England, my heritage is half C of E and half Jewish, and I have not believed in the existence of God for one second of my life. I am not an apologist for anyone, least of all the Catholic Church, but I give credit where it’s due, I don’t convict without proper evidence, and I recognise blind unreasoning hatred and prejudice when I see it.
5 Likes
Touché
Sorry no offence meant, just because I have heard stuff that makes me sick in the guts about Pell directly from victims. I hope he gets exactly what he deserves in prison.
I’ve been a lawyer for 40 years and one thing I have learnt is that someone can remember something as vividly as if it happened yesterday, and believe that it happened with every bone in his body, when objective evidence proved conclusively that it was absolutely impossible for that thing to have happened.
Yep do doubt, and some psychologists get memories that are fiction to jump out. But I have heard the same details from too many victims to reject it as false memories.
If the charges are proven to be true, would this change your view on Pell, and your perception on blind unreasoned hatred and prejudice?
I’m having a bit of trouble understanding your very firm stance on the anti Pell opinions. If the accusations are true, then is it you that has been unreasonable and prejudiced?
On the flip side, would your perceptions change if and when he is found not guilty?
I suspect not.
If the charges are proven to be true of course it would change my opinion about Pell.
It wouldn’t change my views about blind unreasoning prejudice and unjustified hatred. Why should it?
My “very firm stance” is simply that the absolute belief of most people in this thread that Pell is a child molester and deliberately protected other priests whom he knew also to be child molesters is at this point of time not based on any rational view of the facts and is actually contrary to many known facts.
1 Like
suspect away.
im not privy to the details of the charges, so i havent a clue what is likely to happen, so i havent made up m mind on this current court case. sure, i have my opinion of him, the church and everything that has been proven to have happened over the years.
what im trying to understand is, if anyone can come out and say that others possess blind unreasonable hatred and prejudice, (i assume this means those that believe Pell is guilty already) then what if he proven to be guilty? Does the hatred become fair and reasonable?
2 Likes
Ok, so ill leave it for now, wait and see what happens, respect the process and the victims.
Some colourful language in that last para and cheap shots.
I have been involved with people in child abuse cases, accusers and accused and I am aware that a person can be accused based on false memory ( fortunately acquitted). But, given the evidence at the Royal Commission, it would be a long bow to suggest that no facts have been established
Are you saying that the magistrate decided that the case should go to trial despite the many known facts to the contrary?
I’m not prejudging his guilt as a child molester, but he was in a position of power. I knew a very good minor cleric who did his best to protect the children at Rupertswood. . Certainly his superiors knew and some were involved in it. He was powerless to bring change from within. The Salesians have since made efforts to bring the ones they moved on in the past to face justice ( which is not to suggest that it was down to Pell in that case). Some have been successfully prosecuted. The point is there was widespread knowledge of abuse. And the Christian Brothers were colloquially known as the shirt lifters.
To bear in mind also the powerlesness of children in the face of such powerful institutions, Catholic and other and the historical difficulties with children’s evidence in court ( since much improved).
2 Likes