Cardinal George Pell's barrister: loud, socially progressive and an avowed atheist

  • Thread starter Thread starter mdgspencer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mdgspencer

Guest
www.smh.com.au

Cardinal George Pell's barrister: loud, socially progressive and an avowed atheist

Loud and socially progressive, this celebrity silk is not the obvious choice to defend Catholic Cardinal George Pell against historical sex charges.
www.smh.com.au www.smh.com.au

This report reveals that Cardinal Pell’s lawyer is extremely high-powered, exactly the sort of person that can be expected for Cardinal Pell to win his case. For those interested in Cardinal Pell’s present legal situation, this article can be fascinating.

On 29 June 2017, Pell was charged with historical sexual assault offenses that occurred 40 years ago, and responded by stating he denies all charges. The Pope granted him leave to return to Australia to defend himself. Now he is in Australia still waiting for the court to act.
 
Last edited:
I would find it very hard to believe that he abused children himself.
I must say that a lot of people believe he knew about it but covered it up. But I know some who is quite anti Pell would still think it’s a bit improbable that he abused children himself.
I used to read smh everyday but not anymore. It doesn’t even attempt to stay neutral these days.
Day after day during the same sex marriage vote it was all just one sided opinion.
 
I’m glad he has a good lawyer, though I think the decision to voluntarily return to a state notoriously hostile to the Catholic faith to stand trial was downright insane.
 
Arkansan said:
I think the decision to voluntarily return to a state notoriously hostile to the Catholic faith to stand trial was downright insane.
Click to expand...
The alternative was to openly proclaim himself a fugitive from justice. For a cardinal of the Catholic Church, that would be okay if the “justice” he was fleeing from was that of Communist Hungary, like Mindszenty in the fifties, or that of present-day North Korea. But Australia? It wouldn’t go down well.
 
BartholomewB said:
40.png
Arkansan:
I think the decision to voluntarily return to a state notoriously hostile to the Catholic faith to stand trial was downright insane.
Click to expand...
The alternative was to openly proclaim himself a fugitive from justice. For a cardinal of the Catholic Church, that would be okay if the “justice” he was fleeing from was that of Communist Hungary, like Mindszenty in the fifties, or that of present-day North Korea. But Australia? It wouldn’t go down well.
Click to expand...
Going to prison will be worse PR-wise than being a fugitive. Either way the anti-Catholic press would have a field day, but it’s a lot easier to convince ordinary people that charges are bogus than that a conviction is.
 
Australia’s government has openly considered requiring priests to violate the seal of confession, or to make Catholic political activists register as foreign agents (both of which may still be implemented). It’s also sacked Catholics in the military who’ve openly supported the teaching of the Church on moral issues. I’m sure I could find other things as well.
 
Thanks. I was just curious at what sorts of issue you were referring to.
 
Returning to face charges and accusers was the right thing to do. Not doing so would reinforce the opinion of many that this is how the Catholic Church handles such issues. Last Wednesday it was reported that one of the charges involving a key witness may well be dropped. As for the choice in representation, I see nothing inherently wrong with seeking the best qualified counsel and would impose no restrictions on the choice.
 
ratio1 said:
I would find it very hard to believe that he abused children himself.
I must say that a lot of people believe he knew about it but covered it up. But I know some who is quite anti Pell would still think it’s a bit improbable that he abused children himself.
I used to read smh everyday but not anymore. It doesn’t even attempt to stay neutral these days.
Day after day during the same sex marriage vote it was all just one sided opinion.
Click to expand...
I stopped reading SMH and The Age (both Fairfax) several years ago, and in my letter terminating my subscription I explained that it was because of their consistent, one-sided support for “progressive” issues. At the time, it was euthenasia, but they are the same with all issues, including the Catholic paedophilia scandal. There have been days where very minor news, perhaps based on an unsubstantiated claim from long ago, were blasted in their headlines as a major new development.

They were aweful during the SSM debate, grabbing anything they could to portray the opponents as bigots and bullies, and the Yes campaign as the nice guys.
Arkansan said:
I’m glad he has a good lawyer, though I think the decision to voluntarily return to a state notoriously hostile to the Catholic faith to stand trial was downright insane.
Click to expand...
I had no doubt that he would return, when formal charges were announced (although they are yet to be laid). He would not want to be seen to be acknowledging guilt by avoiding the charges. I doubt whether the Vatican would have given him sanctuary anyway.
 
Edmundus1581 said:
They were aweful during the SSM debate, grabbing anything they could to portray the opponents as bigots and bullies, and the Yes campaign as the nice guys.
Click to expand...
So true! That’s when I stopped subscribing. It was just nauseating.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top