Cardinal Pell and the forgiveness of sins

  • Thread starter Thread starter pete_bowes
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

pete_bowes

Guest
Cardinal Pell is in jail for a sin that may be extinguished by confession and penance.
God forgives everlastingly.
We do not.
 
Fortunately Australia does not imprison people because the Church considers they have sinned. It imprisons people for some crimes, determined against a standard of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ and subject to multiple levels of appeal.

Australians are not required or encouraged to forgive either sinners or criminals by the state. People are, however, not permitted to take punishment into their own hands including by harassment.
 
pete_bowes said:
Cardinal Pell is in jail for a sin that may be extinguished by confession and penance.
God forgives everlastingly.
We do not.
Click to expand...
A sin he also unwaveringly insists he did not commit. I don’t know one way or the other whether he did the deed or not, but he is in prison because a jury (the second that heard the case) believed the complainant. (The first couldn’t decide.). There is no Evidence other than the complainant’s statement. I find it hard to believe the complainant would lie, or that such a brazen act with no confidence of privacy would be committed! Even more worrying is that the word of a complainant alone can prove events “beyond reasonable doubt”.
 
Last edited:
Pell is in jail yet remains a Cardinal, what do read into that?
 
pete_bowes said:
Pell is in jail yet remains a Cardinal, what do read into that?
Click to expand...
Allowing the appeals process to run its course?

What do you think about a jury finding guilt “proven” because the complainant seemed genuine but absent other evidence? It amazes me.
 
Pell has been subject to two judges: The Lord God in Heaven and mortal man on earth.
 
There is no way one should be convicted beyond reasonable doubt by some incompetent half baked jury based on no evidence from incidents that took place decades ago. Don’t these jurors understand it’s a big scam. The plantiffs are all lawyered up and trained in what to say and how to behave. It’s not their words. It’s the words of some slimeball manipulative lawyer. The financial incentives of the complaintant alone would be enough for me not to vote guilty. Even without that beyond reasonable doubt should be a high bar before throwing someone in jail.
 
Last edited:
God’s judgement is handed down by his Priest in a confessional. His condemnation is witnessed by defrockment and ex-communication.
 
I’ve always been taught that God judges us upon our death, whereas the priest absolves our sins in confession, if we’re clearly contrite and meet other conditions.

I don’t know how to link the catechism.

I’ve never heard of a priest condemning someone in the confessional for any reason. What is said in the confessional is like being in Las Vegas: it stays in the confessional.
 
To absolve means you declare someone free of guilt … how is that not judgement?
 
Doesn’t explain the intent behind your posting. And stating the purpose etc of this forum is not an explanation of the reasons for this topic and quoted comment in particular.

And replying with a question of your own to dodge answering…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top