Please note that there are 3 separate issues here:
- Whether Cdl Pell is personally liable for covering up Gerard Ridsdale when he was an active pedo.
It seems that there is no hard evidence to implicate Cdl Pell.
It seems???
Hard evidence???
Why not say -
NO evidence?
Why slur George Pell with the inference that there may be some kind of “soft” evidence.
…That said, Ricksdale himself said that his pedophilic activities were known to Bp Mulkearns, who consulted with Pell, and Pell and Ridsdale were at one point living at the same parish. This is enough to assert guilt by association, regardless of Pell’s actual involvement in cover-up or lack thereof.
No it is NOT enough to assert such a disgraceful thing!!!
Guilt by association? Are you for real?
By your logic, any priest who ever shared any parish with a closet pedophile at any time prior to any eventual court case would be presumed guilty of being an accessory before the fact.
…The situation is made worse by the fact that then-bishop Pell allowed himself to be photographed accompanying Ridsdale to court:
So no catholic clergy should ever be photographed with a criminal?
Have you notified the Vatican of this?
i.tmgrup.com.tr/dailysabah/2014/12/28/1419758336228.jpg
…2. Whether Cdl Pell attempted to bribe David Ricksdale.
Again, there is no hard proof, because there is no recording of conversation.
Again with the “hard proof” / “soft proof” stuff.
And you therefore invite yourself to wade in where there is no evidence and spread inuendo and gossip!
…However, this would fit with Pell’s later modus operandi in handling victims (see below). Plus, in TV interview, Ricksdale comes across as reliable, while Pell is caugh, ahem, having memory issues:
The so-called
“modus operandi” as you snidely put it, was an official policy of the church for victims who did NOT want to go to the police.
You can’t have it both ways. If one can accuse clergy of bribing victims to remain silent, what does that say about people who demand money in exchange for their silence?
Why didn’t victims go to the secular authorities? The church under George Pell certainly encouraged them to do so.
…3. Whether Cdl Pell is ‘callous’
Mr. Saunder’s claim of Cdl Pell as ‘callous’ refers to the testimony of the parents of Emma Foster, which I have linked above. The point of contention between Fosters and Pell was the amount of compensation. Pell offered them $50,000, while the Fosters wanted more (the parties eventually settled for $500,000).
The Foster case is very interesting and there are, in my opinion, some anomalies with respect to the apparent delay in reporting of alleged crimes to the police.
As a parent myself, I believe that ANY parent should report the suspected rape of their child IMMEDIATELY and that their failure to do so should be a crime!
No doubt, some fathers (and/or mothers) have their own reasons for not wanting their children to be interviewed by police on a sensitive topic like “inappropriate touching” etc.
…However, the description of interaction between Fosters and Pell is really chilling. According to Fosters, Pell was shown a photo of Emma after a suicide attempt and reacted with “a sociopathic lack of empathy”.
I suppose if you expected $500,000 and only got offered $50,000 you might well call that a ‘lack’ of empathy.
As for me, I would never regard the suicide of my own child as something where cash would be a suitable proxy for “empathy”.
…Plus, when the diocese was sued by one John Ellis in a similar situation, Cdl Pell’s lawyers used a legal strategy later known as Ellis defense which, despite being ultimately successful, appears to be morally questionable, as Pell’s lawyers essentially argued that the Catholic Church… does not exist:
There is nothing morally questionable about the Ellis defense. It is a matter of common law that a collective group of church goers cannot be held financially responsible (vicariously) for the criminal action of a person pretending to be a priest.
In fact, to hold ordinary church goers financially liable for such a law suit would amount to collective punishment of innocent people - and that WOULD be immoral.
…It appears that the Pope’s commissioner is saying that Cdl Pell creates a PR problem, so to say.
For who?
Not for me. I think George Pell is a brave and honest man of God who has done more than any other Australian clergy to fight and purge the church of this filth.
Sure, the anti-RCC crowd have him in their sights.
But that’s not bad PR. That’s just just a cross he has to bear unjustly.
…like every other priest who gets tarred with the same slanderous brush.
