‘Callous, cold-hearted’: Pope’s commissioner says George Pell has to go

[johnnykins]

Neither I nor anyone on this Forum knows the truth with respect to these accusations. IF His Eminence is truly not culpable, that is a terrible thing that he has been so accused. IF he is culpable in some way…that, too, is terrible.

Unfortunately, with all the hundreds and hundreds of priests, bishops, brothers and sisters who did such terrible things, and the multitude of bishops and provincials who have covered up and otherwise mishandled or abetted such terrible things, certainly has led me to distrust our hierarchy.

Perhaps there are ulterior motives at work. Perhaps His Eminence is another victim of the evil and ineptitude of way too many priests and hierarchs. Perhaps, His Eminence did all the things being alleged. I don’t know - and neither does anyone else here. I simply no longer trust our priests, bishops and cardinals when it comes to these matters. As the old saying goes, “Fooled once, shame on you; fooled twice shame on me.”

 

[weller2]

Why slur George Pell with the inference that there may be some kind of “soft” evidence.

Because Ridsdale the Pedo himself said that his activities were a public secret.

Guilt by association? Are you for real?

It’s how the media works unfortunately. Pell’s association with Ridsdale the Pedo makes him easy to smear regardless of his degree of culpability.

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?

Okay. Let’s establish a basic fact: was Emma Foster abused by O’Donnel? Again, here are diocesian statments on the matter:

LETTER TO EMMA FOSTER FROM CARDINAL GEORGE PELL [1998]: …] On behalf of the Catholic Church and personally, I apologise to you and to those around you for the wrongs and hurt you have suffered at the hands of Father Kevin O’Donnell. I offer you my prayers.

LETTER TO MR AND MRS FOSTER FROM THE LAWYERS FOR THE CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE OF MELBOURNE, 7 MAY, 2004: They do not admit that Emma Foster and/or Katherine Foster were subjected to physical and/or sexual and/or psychological abuse while infants by Kevin O’Donnell.

Thus, Emma Foster was abused according to Bp Pell in 1998, but was not abused according to his lawyer in 2004. If we assume that the diocese somehow determined between 1988 and 2004 that that she was NOT abused after all, why did they ultimately decide to settle out of court and pay up $750K?

I suppose if you expected $500,000 and only got offered $50,000 you might well call that a ‘lack’ of empathy.

Except that’s not what the comment refers to. Read Fosters’ deposition I have linked upthread. And, funnily enough, Bp Pell ultimately paid them $750K.

As for me, I would never regard the suicide of my own child as something where cash would be a suitable proxy for “empathy”.

Emma Foster killed herself in 2006. The Fosters’ confrontation with Bp Pell is discussed in his 2002 TV interview, so it obviously took place before that.

There is nothing morally questionable about the Ellis defense.

Sure there is: Bp Pell’s lawyers argued in court that the Catholic Church does not exist as a single entity.

This is denial of the Creed.

 

[Sirach2]

Neither I nor anyone on this Forum knows the truth with respect to these accusations.

And as such, I wonder why we are speculating all over this forum?

I read this comment from a really holy man recently, and it fits the situation.

These folks ARE the New and Improved Inquisition. They don’t execute people. They do worse. They execute a person’s good name and leave him alive to live with the disgrace.

 

[Lion_IRC]

And as such, I wonder why we are speculating all over this forum?

I read this comment from a really holy man recently, and it fits the situation.

It took a lot of self-restraint for me to engage with posters here who seem intent on maligning George Pell with insinuations.

 

[SonOfMan]

It took a lot of self-restraint for me to engage with posters here who seem intent on maligning George Pell with insinuations.

As much as I respected Cdl Pell before all this, the interviewer catches him lying red handed. Its on video, see it for yourself. No one has maligned his name.

 

[johnnykins]

And as such, I wonder why we are speculating all over this forum?

I read this comment from a really holy man recently, and it fits the situation.

I suppose it is because of the destruction of trust that the priests and hierarchy have wrought. Time and again, we see where priests have repeated abused children -all over the world. Time and again we’ve seen bishops knowingly cover it up, prevaricate, hide behind others, claim 'mental reservation" as their justification, respond only to money…you name it.

Sorry, but your “really holy man” has identified the wrong persons…the persons who have created this mess are our own priests and bishops…They did these ghastly criminal things; they destroyed the trust the people had in them; they have created the situation and now they want off the hook they themselves barbed that is catching their innocent confreres.

It’s a darn shame that good, honest, innocent priests and bishops are caught up in this - they need to blame their brother priests and bishops - not the victims, not the victim’s families, not the lawyers, not the press, not those who no longer believe them…

 

[Robert_Bay]

MODERATOR WARNING

I know this is a controversial issue, but keep to the forum rules:

Don’t call people any names (such as liars)
Don’t make derogatory remarks against anyone including clergy
Stay charitable in your posts.

 

[johnnykins]

MODERATOR WARNING

I know this is a controversial issue, but keep to the forum rules:

Don’t call people any names (such as liars)
Don’t make derogatory remarks against anyone including clergy
Stay charitable in your posts.

Do truthful remarks that constitute unpleasant realities constitute “derogatory remarks”?

 

[johnnykins]

And as such, I wonder why we are speculating all over this forum?

I read this comment from a really holy man recently, and it fits the situation.

Perhaps a reminder of some of the statistics concerning the child abuse scandal will solve your wondering:

bishop-accountability.org/AtAGlance/USCCB_Yearly_Data_on_Accused_Priests.htm

bishop-accountability.org/AtAGlance/data.htm#enabling_bishops

And this is JUST the USA…and is JUST what’s been reported…

How often do new reports seem to surface even on this Forum? How many instances never came to light?

This is, unfortunately, the face of Catholic Clergy as seen today by much of the world. It’s not derogatory - it’s the facts.

 

[johnnykins]

I was thinking maybe folks needed to review the Murphy Report out of Ireland…

Here’s a link: justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/PB09000504 I suggest folks google it and the other similar reports to see how our clergy have been depicted both in the media as well as official inquiries. This, again, is not derogatory - it is from an official report…and this time from outside the USA.

Here are a few quotes that all Catholics - especially those who would erstwhile defend her - should consider:

1.15 The Dublin Archdiocese’s pre-occupations in dealing with cases of child sexual abuse, at least until the mid 1990s, were the maintenance of secrecy, the avoidance of scandal, the protection of the reputation of the Church, and the preservation of its assets. All other considerations, including the welfare of children and justice for victims, were subordinated to these priorities…

1.17 The authorities in the Archdiocese of Dublin and the religious orders who were dealing with complaints of child sexual abuse were all very well educated people. Many had qualifications in canon law and quite a few also had qualifications in civil law. This makes their claims of ignorance very difficult to accept…

1.19…The claim that bishops and senior church officials were on ‘a learning curve’ about child sexual abuse rings hollow when it is clear that cases were dealt with by Archbishop McQuaid in the 1950s and 1960s and that, although the majority of complaints emerged from 1995 onwards, many of the complaints described in this report first came to the attention of the Archdiocese in the 1970s and 1980s.

Cover-up
1.35 As can be seen clearly from the case histories, there is no doubt that the reaction of Church authorities to reports of clerical child sexual abuse in the early years of the Commission’s remit was to ensure that as few people as possible knew of the individual priest’s problem. There was little or no concern for the welfare of the abused child or for the welfare of other children who might come into contact with the priest. Complainants were often met with denial, arrogance and cover-up and with incompetence and incomprehension in some cases. Suspicions were rarely acted on. Typically complainants were not told that other instances of child sexual abuse by their abuser had been proved or admitted. The attitude to individual complainants was overbearing and in some cases underhand (see Chapter 58). Individual Archbishops and bishops

1.36 All the Archbishops and many of the auxiliary bishops in the period covered by the Commission handled child sexual abuse complaints badly. …

 

[Sirach2]

Perhaps a reminder of some of the statistics concerning the child abuse scandal will solve your wondering:

This is, unfortunately, the face of Catholic Clergy as seen today by much of the world. It’s not derogatory - it’s the facts.

We are not talking here about the abuse scandal, but about a very specific person … about whom neither you nor I know the facts. Yet Saunders has seen fit to drag the Cardinal’s good name through the mud all over the media without the process having been completed by competent Authority. Canon Law does allow for investigation, whereas Saunders is bypassing the system to advance his own private animosity and solicit cheerleaders into the fore to do away with him… (I seem to recall that this is a sin, remember?)

Let’s not open a can of worms, please … stick to the topic.

 

[johnnykins]

Perhaps the world - or at least posters and moderators of this forum - would find Case Study #8 of the Child Abuse Royal Commission …at least interesting as to how Cardinal Pell was found to comport himself. I note this is an official report of the Australian Government.

childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/getattachment/a0204352-4103-452c-b2cb-7cc69476d122/Report-of-Case-Study-no-8

I believe Findings 33 and 34 should be a good start - but the entire report should be perused…

 Finding 33: We agree with Cardinal Pell’s evidence that ‘we’, which we take to be the Archdiocese, the Trustees and he as Archbishop, did not act fairly from a Christian point of view in the conduct of the litigation against Mr Ellis.

 Finding 34: The Archdiocese failed to conduct the litigation with Mr Ellis in a manner that adequately took account of his pastoral and other needs as a victim of sexual abuse by: (a) rejecting the first offer of mediation (b) not making a counteroffer after receiving a written offer from Mr Ellis (c) wrongly concluding that the Archdiocese had never accepted that Mr Ellis had been abused by Father Duggan, either at law or under Towards Healing, and that this would have been made clear to Mr Ellis at his facilitation (d) instructing its lawyers in June 2005 to continue not to admit the fact of Mr Ellis’s abuse because of legal advice that this suited its interests in the litigation, in circumstances where: i. these instructions allowed Mr Ellis to be cross-examined and challenged as to whether the abuse occurred, in circumstances which were harmful and painful to him ii. it was not necessary to dispute the fact of Mr Ellis’s abuse in order to properly test whether an extension of the limitation period should be granted or whether the Trustees were liable for Mr Ellis’s abuse Report of Case Study No. 8 18 (e) not instructing its lawyers that Cardinal Pell thought SA’s affidavit strengthened Mr Ellis’s case and that the Archdiocese should reconsider whether to continue its non-admission of the fact of Mr Ellis’s abuse (f) maintaining the non-admission of the allegation of Mr Ellis’s abuse after the affidavit of SA and the account given by Mrs Penton were available (g) rejecting an offer to mediate after Acting Justice Patten’s decision in February 2006 (h) taking too long to resolve the issue of recovery of costs from Mr Ellis (i) employing the measures set out in subparagraphs (a) to (h) above, which were disproportionate to the objective and psychological state of Mr Ellis. The Archdiocese of Sydney’s records show that, between the 1980s and 28 February 2014, the Archdiocese paid a total of $8,977,266 as ‘special issues payments’. Of this figure, $4,669,000 related to child sexual abuse and $746,000 related to boundary violations of adults within the Archdiocese. The Archdiocese made payments of $570,365 to Mr Ellis, which consisted of: • counselling costs of $10,424 to a period before October 2012 • $6,944 for Medicare gap payments and surgery • about $474,464 for repairs and renovations to Mr Ellis’s house, which was affected by storm damage • $28,533 for a holiday to New York • a final lump sum payment of $50,000.

No doubt any CEO would act the same.

 

[johnnykins]

We are not talking here about the abuse scandal, but about a very specific person … about whom neither you nor I know the facts. Yet Saunders has seen fit to drag the Cardinal’s good name through the mud all over the media without the process having been completed by competent Authority. Canon Law does allow for investigation, whereas Saunders is bypassing the system to advance his own private animosity and solicit cheerleaders into the fore to do away with him… (I seem to recall that this is a sin, remember?)

Let’s not open a can of worms, please … stick to the topic.

The scandal is the topic - first, last and throughout…that’s the issue and always has been. You can’t separate it.

 

[Sirach2]

Perhaps the world - or at least posters and moderators of this forum - would find Case Study #8 of the Child Abuse Royal Commission …at least interesting as to how Cardinal Pell was found to comport himself. I note this is an official report of the Australian Government.

Admonition fell on deaf ears, I see. You are acting as prosecutor, judge and jury here, without any authority. This is not a report from the Magisterium, but a public report, and it is not to be taken as a final word against the Cardinal. Only competent Authority, according to Canon Law, may decide this issue … not the armchair laity.

 

[LongingSoul]

The scandal is the topic - first, last and throughout…that’s the issue and always has been. You can’t separate it.

The issue in this thread is whether the accusation that Cardinal Pells approach is ‘sociopathic’ is justified. Do you think Cardinal Pell is just a sociopath? Is it justified for a high ranking member of a Commission to level that charge based on the character appearing before the enquiry panel?

 

[weller2]

The issue in this thread is whether the accusation that Cardinal Pells approach is ‘sociopathic’ is justified. Do you think Cardinal Pell is just a sociopath? Is it justified for a high ranking member of a Commission to level that charge based on the character appearing before the enquiry panel?

According to ICD-10 criteria, presence of 3 or more of the following qualifies for the diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder (~sociopathy):

**Callous unconcern for the feelings of others.**
Gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, and obligations.
Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships, though having no difficulty in establishing them.
Very low tolerance to frustration, a low threshold for discharge of aggression, including violence.
Incapacity to experience guilt or to profit from experience, particularly punishment.
Markedly prone to blame others or to offer plausible rationalization for the behavior that has brought the person into conflict with society.

High Functioning Sociopath

High functioning sociopath is term used to describe people with sociopath traits that also happen to have a very high intelligence quotient. They are likely to be highly successful in the field they endeavor (politics, business, etc.). They plan very meticulously and the presence of sociopathic traits like lack of empathy, lack of remorse, deceptiveness, shallow emotions, etc. makes it very difficult for “normal” people to compete with them.

md-health.com/Sociopath-Traits.html

 

[weller2]

$28,533 for a holiday to New York

How much and for what?

 

[_Abyssinia]

Asked about criticism that he was taking advantage of his position on the papal commission and was not in a position to judge individual cases, Saunders told the Guardian in an email that he was doing God’s work. “The protection of children is what it’s all about and Pell and his kind are a serious threat to that,” he said.

He added: “You should see some of the amazing messages of support I am getting from all over the world … from people thanking me for speaking out / and not being intimidated by Pell and his kind. They have no place in a church of love.”

theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/jun/05/vatican-cardinal-george-pell-abuse-survivor-row

5th June

 

[_Abyssinia]

Austen Ivereigh:

In this @ABC @RNBreakfast iv I critique my friend Peter Saunders, whom I admire, over his attack on Card Pell. mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/2015/06/bst_20150602_0636.mp3

mobile.twitter.com/austeni/status/605632599982280704

Tweet post June 2nd.

 

[Petaro]

'Sure there is: Bp Pell’s lawyers argued in court that the Catholic Church does not exist as a single entity.

This is denial of the Creed.’

I am afraid you do not have a good grasp of Australian Corporate law. The lawyers did not argue that the Catholic Church does not exist as a single entity; just that our Courts have held that the Church was not a legal entity that could be sued under its own name.
See: Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Archdiocese of Sydney v Ellis [2007] NSWCA 117
The Court found that the Church was at best an unincorporated association and Cardinal Pell was thus ineligible to be sued on its behalf.

As a lawyer, I prefer to wait for the evidence before I condemn a good and holy man of God. As a lawyer I rely on the rules of evidence to ignore hearsay and innuendo whispered behind hands of the professionally outraged on leftist television shows.

At least Thomas More had a show trial…