A link to the Cardinal Pell decision itself & a question

  • Thread starter Thread starter FiveLinden
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

FiveLinden

Guest
Here’s a link to the decision of the Australian High Court on Cardinal Pell. Easy to read and understand.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA//2020/12.html

This established, cogently I think, that Cardinal Pell is not guilty ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ which is the criminal standard.

But the Church has been using ‘credibly accused’ in making decisions about others. This is, I think, a standard of proof less than ‘balance of probabilities’, the usual standard in anglophone countries for civil liability.

As far as I know there has been no criteria laid out for whether any Church proceedings will be initiated in this circumstance and presumably a decision will have to be made.

Seems a classic no-win that could only be resolved by a voluntary withdrawn by the Cardinal from official roles.

Does anyone have any insight into the way the Church will proceed from this point?
 
FiveLinden said:
Does anyone have any insight into the way the Church will proceed from this point?
Click to expand...
My guess will be that he will be assigned something with no contact with children, or retired. That is standard practice when anyone has been accused with some credibility. It is a “better safe that sorry” lesson learned the hard way. It is better to re-assign nine innocent people to some other position in the Church than allow one predator to continue.

I am not surprised in the least of this being overturned. I was shocked at the conviction, as there simply could not be sufficient evidence for conviction based on years old eye-witness testimony alone.
 
Last edited:
Pell is 78. I would be surprised if he is given any further authority or position in the Church.

If Francis dies or resigns this year or next, will Pell vote in the conclave? it seems unlikely since he has said he has medical problems that limit his flying.

Will he be “defrocked” like McCarrick? Idk.
 
.
Right after Cardinal Pell was acquitted, the Pope spoke publicly against “unjust sentences.” He seems to have telegraphed his view about this matter. This seems to show that the Church will take no action against him, let alone “defrocked.”
 
Last edited:
mdgspencer said:
.
Right after Cardinal Pell was acquitted, the Pope spoke publicly against “unjust sentences.” He seems to have telegraphed his view about this matter.
Click to expand...
That’s brave of Pope Francis. Very brave indeed! He could be bringing the wrath of the world’s media down upon himself.
 
Last edited:
mdgspencer said:
.
Right after Cardinal Pell was acquitted, the Pope spoke publicly against “unjust sentences.” He seems to have telegraphed his view about this matter. This seems to show that the Church will take no action against him, let alone “defrocked.”
Click to expand...
Yes he mentioned that in his homily this morning and then later tweeted this …

“In these days of Lent, we’ve been witnessing the persecution that Jesus underwent and how He was judged ferociously, even though He was innocent. Let us PrayTogether today for all those persons who suffer due to an unjust sentence because of someone had it in for them.”

A lawyer on the news last night was asked if he had expected this acquittal and he said every lawyer in Australia expected it. It was so obvious that reasonable doubt applied from the get go. But not just in the judiciary, just so wide spread among so many who are not personally invested in the welfare of Pell himself.
 
Dovekin said:
Will he be “defrocked” like McCarrick? Idk.
Click to expand...
No. He has been unambiguously cleared of the allegations against him. If you read the judgment, it’s clear that the likelihood of them happening would have been incredibly remote. So there’s no basis for canonical proceedings to continue since the evidence has been tested and found to be seriously lacking

The term “credible allegation” is an allegation that, following an initial evaluation of the facts and circumstances, has at least the “semblance of truth” or at least seems true. It does not mean that the allegation is fully provable or that is has moral certainty (the canonical standard of proof) but that the allegation cannot be discounted. Once of the difficulties with the Church using this term or “credibly accused” is that made under this standard aren’t the result of canonical trials but often from review boards or similar bodies. At the same time however, it’s also used as a basis for definitive action such as and removing priests form active ministry, publication of names and the decision to pay financial settlements; sometimes without any further processes such as a full canonical trial. Granted, in some cases the evidence may be overwhelming but in other cases, further investigation or testing of the evidence may well show that allegation cannot withstand scrutiny. The problem is though that very few such trials (as far as I know) actually take place. In part this is because the criminal justice process effectively takes over but in other cases, a settlement is paid and little else happens. Where a priest is elderly or frail this is in some ways understandable, since there’s little to be gained from an trial. On other cases though, a priest can be left hanging in suspended animation as it were, with their reputation in shreds, for months if not years. This is something which sadly doesn’t get the attention is should - the focus is (understandably) on ensuring a swift and vigorous response to allegation (unlike what happened in years gone by) but the risk is that this comes as a considerable cost to the wrongly accused.
 
InThePew said:
No. He has been unambiguously cleared of the allegations against him
Click to expand...
No, it has been found that the allegations cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt. He is therefore, in law, innocent. There is no legal process other than a specific finding of fact that can ‘unambiguously clear’ someone. This has not happened here.
 
FiveLinden said:
There is no legal process other than a specific finding of fact that can ‘unambiguously clear’ someone. This has not happened here.
Click to expand...
What I mean is that there’s no ambiguity or wriggle room in the High Court decision. It wasn’t decided on technical points of law or procedural irregularities. Rather, for the first offence, Pell effectively had an alibi. While there was a posible window of opportunity it would have required a lot of things to happen together in a particular way at that precise moment in time. So while possible, it was highly unlikely. For the second offence, the Court had this to say:
The assumption that a group of choristers, including adults, might have been so preoccupied with making their way to the robing room as to fail to notice the extraordinary sight of the Archbishop of Melbourne dressed “in his full regalia” advancing through the procession and pinning a 13 year old boy to the wall, is a large one.
Click to expand...
That’s judicial speak for “we’re seriously not buying this”
 
Last edited:
InThePew said:
Rather, for the first offence, Pell effectively had an alibi.
Click to expand...
No, they did not accept his ‘alibi’. They said there was a possibility it was true, and therefore a reasonable doubt. Note that Cardinal Pell gave no evidence. His ‘alibi’ evidence was from someone else. You are right that there is ‘no wiggle room’. But only on the issue of whether there is reasonable doubt. The court has not found that Cardinal Pell is innocent. It has found there is reasonable doubt, therefore he is not guilty, and therefore he is innocent as is anyone found not guilty, or before they are found guilty.
 
InThePew said:
On other cases though, a priest can be left hanging in suspended animation as it were, with their reputation in shreds, for months if not years. This is something which sadly doesn’t get the attention is should - the focus is (understandably) on ensuring a swift and vigorous response to allegation (unlike what happened in years gone by) but the risk is that this comes as a considerable cost to the wrongly accused.
Click to expand...
Thank you for mentioning this. I know a priest who has been removed from ministry over allegations by an adult woman. He has been waiting for a canonical trial for more than 4 years. His life is on hold. He, his accuser, and the entire Catholic community deserve a trial and the closure that it could bring. I cannot imagine why it would take so long and it is sad to know that this is common.
 
@FiveLinden

You are arguing with a priest.

Fr InThePew is one of the two regular priest posters here.

I am sure that he knows more about Cardinal Pell’s case than a non-Catholic observer.
 
I will always respect a priest’s knowledge of priestly things but I wasn’t aware that the analysis of High Court decisions is one of those things. All I know about Cardinal Pell’s case is what I have learned from reading every decision published from each of the court cases and the evidence and findings published so far from the Royal Commission on Institutional Abuse. Some of that material was suppressed pending the resolution of this case so we will learn more shortly.
 
Last edited:
FiveLinden said:
No, they did not accept his ‘alibi’. They said there was a possibility it was true, and therefore a reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...
Yes and no: in overruling a jury like that, the higher court is explicitly finding that no reasonable person could fail to have a reasonable doubt. That is, yes it could be true, but no-one could be certain from the evidence presented.
 
FiveLinden said:
40.png
FiveLinden:
No, they did not accept his ‘alibi’. They said there was a possibility it was true, and therefore a reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...
Yes and no: in overruling a jury like that, the higher court is explicitly finding that no reasonable person could fail to have a reasonable doubt. That is, yes it could be true, but no-one could be certain from the evidence presented
Click to expand...
I have not gone back to check but when I read it I thought the court said what I said. I don’t disagree with your version of it but i think it goes further than the court said.
 
Has this been posted on any of the Pell threads here before? I don’t think so.

One of the two alleged victims died of an overdose after saying no-one had abused him. The surviving alleged victim claims Pell assaulted him in circumstances which the defence believed they had proved could not have happened. The layout of the cathedral and sacristy made the crime close to impossible. The elaborate vestments Pell was wearing at the time made it more so. There is no corroborating evidence.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top