Cardinal Pell charged and must return

  • Thread starter Thread starter Roseeurekacross
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
StudentMI said:
mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-21/catholic-priest-abuse-victim-says-pell-complicated-case/6488262

And then you have this.

youtu.be/ZULqryNKpME
Click to expand...
and none of that gets you off the hook.

The charge was that Ridsdale confronted Pell who then asked how much it would take to be silent. Pell denied that when it first surfaced, he denied it at the Royal Commission and he is still denying it.

The edited interview with Richard Carlton tried to conflate the claim of Ridsdale confronting Pell who then supposedly personally offered him a bribe with the victims compensation process. It was dishonest journalism from the secular ABC who are virently anti-Catholic and edited the interview to make it look like Pell was contradicting himself.

The other matter that was mentioned in one of your links is the fact that allegations against the priest concerned were already known to the police before Ridsdale met with Pell. The church knew about this so it makes no logical sense for Pell to personally offer Ridsdale a bribe to be quiet on a matter that was already before the police.

This is what you call a non credible claim.

I would also add that the priest that David Ridsdale said abused him was Gerard Ridsdale (his uncle) and also that David Ridsdale himself grew up himself to be a sexual abuser of a child.

David Ridsdale’s own abuse and misrepresentation.

Why is it that you in Michigan want so badly to believe that a Conservative Catholic cleric is guilty?
 
Padres1969 said:
My prayers are with Pell’s alleged victims and their families.
Click to expand...
That’s okay.

Most people on here’s are with Pell’s alleged victims, their families, and Pell himself as well. No need to snub anyone in the prayer department.
 
Wedge_Antilles said:
That’s okay.

Most people on here’s are with Pell’s alleged victims, their families, and Pell himself as well. No need to snub anyone in the prayer department.
Click to expand...
No snub intended. I pray for Pell’s soul as well, particularly if he did do what he’s accused of. But I’m more concerned with the victims as I am in all cases of abuse (and any other kind of criminal act for that matter). Too often the victims are forgotten.
 
abucs said:
and none of that gets you off the hook.

The charge was that Ridsdale confronted Pell who then asked how much it would take to be silent. Pell denied that when it first surfaced, he denied it at the Royal Commission and he is still denying it.

The edited interview with Richard Carlton tried to conflate the claim of Ridsdale confronting Pell who then supposedly personally offered him a bribe with the victims compensation process. It was dishonest journalism from the secular ABC who are virently anti-Catholic and edited the interview to make it look like Pell was contradicting himself.

The other matter that was mentioned in one of your links is the fact that allegations against the priest concerned were already known to the police before Ridsdale met with Pell. The church knew about this so it makes no logical sense for Pell to personally offer Ridsdale a bribe to be quiet on a matter that was already before the police.

This is what you call a non credible claim.

I would also add that the priest that David Ridsdale said abused him was Gerard Ridsdale (his uncle) and also that David Ridsdale himself grew up himself to be a sexual abuser of a child.

David Ridsdale’s own abuse and misrepresentation.

Why is it that you in Michigan want so badly to believe that a Conservative Catholic cleric is guilty?
Click to expand...
The ‘edited’ interview showed Pell claiming one thing and then acknowledging another. Show me proof it was edited. Show me where Pell or his aides claimed it was edited. He says one thing and then another. Hard to edit that. Claiming they are ‘viruently anti Catholic’ is just a strawmen. Show me proof that it was edited.

What that says to me, along with Pell ‘standing’ on the side of an accused priest outside court, and Peter Saunders’ reaction to Pell being in the same commission, etc is that Pell is not trustworthy. You can claim ‘oh the media or liberals in the Church are after him because he’s conservative’ or ‘the media hates Catholics’ but none of that explains why all of this occurred.

As for why I care, I care because he is a Cardinal in the Church. I care because he has a history of being untrustworthy. I care because he was put on a commission to protect children. Framing it as me wanting him to be guilty is frankly insulting and an ad hominem. I care because people are treating the accusers like outright liars for no reason.

Why is this so hard to understand? This isn’t about ‘getting me off the hook,’ this isn’t a debate about Mozart vs Beethoven. This is a serious issue.
 
I understand for praying for victims, but I never heard of praying for people who are alleged to exist. I guess that is like praying for the soul of someone in Purgatory when they are already in Heaven, maybe?
 
pnewton said:
I understand for praying for victims, but I never heard of praying for people who are alleged to exist. I guess that is like praying for the soul of someone in Purgatory when they are already in Heaven, maybe?
Click to expand...
Alleged victims = The people who are alleging he abused them. Hence alleged victims. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.
 
abc.net.au/news/2017-06-30/george-pell-charges-the-view-from-the-vatican/8663880

‘We must avoid a media verdict’

When asked directly by journalists about the Cardinal Pell matter last year, Pope Francis answered: “We must avoid a media verdict, a verdict based on gossip.”

“It’s in the hands of the justice system and one cannot judge before the justice system. After the justice system speaks, I will speak.”

The legal presumption of innocence is sacrosanct. The media is now legally required to avoid prejudicing the trial.

And

au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/36227364/cardinal-pell-hires-top-criminal-barrister/#page1
 
StudentMI said:
Lion IRC;14744384:
How DARE you deign to insinuate that Cardinal Pell ‘protected’ pedophiles or that he has demurred from facing his slanderous accusers! (Accusers who have conveniently waited decades.)
Go home???

Was Jesus ‘hiding’ in Gethsemene?
"…Have you come out with swords and clubs to arrest Me as you would an outlaw
Click to expand...
?"

God bless Fr George.
May God give him strength to face the spittal and hatred to which he willingly offers himself.

David Ridsdale. 60 minutes interview. Peter Saunders. Look them up.
Click to expand...
I don’t need to. I’m very well acquainted with subject matter in question.
StudentMI said:
Not my fault you haven’t done your homework.
Click to expand...
Oh, you mean anyone who disagrees with you must not know the facts?
You are being grossly disrespectful of Cardinal Pell’s entitlement to the presumption of innocence - ordering him to “go home” as if he has ever tried to avoid testifying in his own defence against this type of anonymous slander.

It’s like you think he was deliberately moved to the Vatican to try and hide him from authorities.
I wonder who you think appointed him to that position in the Vatican.
Are you equally shouting at Pope Francis to “send him home”?
You think there’s a cover-up conspiracy?

Here is the guy who was accused of abusing an alleged victim and when Cardinal Pell’s lawyers pointed out to the accuser that George Pell’s passport proved he wasn’t even in Australia at the time of the alleged event, the accuser suddenly decided it must have been a case of mistaken identity.
StudentMI said:
And comparing him to Jesus? Please.
Click to expand...
Please what?
We should ALL compare ourselves to Jesus.
George Pell has openly confronted his accusers without fear.
Like Jesus in Gethsemene, charges against George Pell could have been laid anytime. Why the deliberate delay? Why the show trial?
 
Lion_IRC said:
It’s like you think he was deliberately moved to the Vatican to try and hide him from authorities.
I wonder who you think appointed him to that position in the Vatican.
Are you equally shouting at Pope Francis to “send him home”?
You think there’s a cover-up conspiracy?
Click to expand...
Some Catholics paint Pell as an upstanding man who has never done anything the least bit questionable who is being smeared by the media for his conservative views… And you call me a conspiracy theorist?

I’m sorry but that’s too laughable to respond too. Thanks for the laugh, though.
 
StudentMI said:
Some Catholics paint Pell as an upstanding man who has never done anything the least bit questionable who is being smeared by the media for his conservative views… And you call me a conspiracy theorist?

I’m sorry but that’s too laughable to respond too. Thanks for the laugh, though.
Click to expand...
what exactly has Cardinal Pell been found guilty of ?
 
Rau said:
Certainly, given that many priests have been found guilty of these heinous acts against innocent victims, there tends to be a predisposition among many to side with those who say they are themselves a victim, and thus to believe allegations unless they can be disproved. There appear to be posters on this thread who have formed that judgement.

I suggest it is best to pray for justice for all and await the outcome. But it may be some years coming. And even if the Cardinal is found not guilty, I suspect justice for him will be elusive, as the accusations cannot be unmade.
Click to expand...
Actually, I’d say that “many” Priests have been found guilty is an overstatement. When you compare the number to how many Priests there are, it is a very small percentage. And, you also have to remember that, by far, the vast majority of those found guilty were from cases that stretch back decades.
 
StudentMI said:
The ‘edited’ interview showed Pell claiming one thing and then acknowledging another. Show me proof it was edited. Show me where Pell or his aides claimed it was edited. He says one thing and then another. Hard to edit that. Claiming they are ‘viruently anti Catholic’ is just a strawmen. Show me proof that it was edited.

What that says to me, along with Pell ‘standing’ on the side of an accused priest outside court, and Peter Saunders’ reaction to Pell being in the same commission, etc is that Pell is not trustworthy. You can claim ‘oh the media or liberals in the Church are after him because he’s conservative’ or ‘the media hates Catholics’ but none of that explains why all of this occurred.

As for why I care, I care because he is a Cardinal in the Church. I care because he has a history of being untrustworthy. I care because he was put on a commission to protect children. Framing it as me wanting him to be guilty is frankly insulting and an ad hominem. I care because people are treating the accusers like outright liars for no reason.

Why is this so hard to understand? This isn’t about ‘getting me off the hook,’ this isn’t a debate about Mozart vs Beethoven. This is a serious issue.
Click to expand...
Every time the picture cuts from Pell to Carlton that is an edit.

Pell is denying Ridsdale came to him to complain about his uncle abusing him and Pell offered him money to keep quiet.

The interview conflates this allegation with Pell describing the process of compensation given to victims.

You can’t dismiss the description of a biased Australian media, sitting in Michigan, knowing nothing about it. You also didn’t address the fact that Ridsdale himself is an abuser and misrepresented his own abusing history with other victims, you didn’t acknowledge the difference between the original allegation and the description of the victims compensation process that was instigated by Pell many years after the alleged conversation and you didn’t address the fact that if the case was already before the police, and known to be so, it would make no sense for someone to offer Ridsdale money to keep quiet.

Instead you want to believe the worst in a country you have nothing to do with and take as fact Ridsdale’s allegations he supposedly had with Pell many decades ago when Pell was not in a position of power within the church.
 
pnewton said:
Sometimes even an accusation will result in altered work assignment, but yes, a pedophile priest who is proven guilty is not allowed to continue in pastoral work within a parish. Understand that most of the cases of moving priests around or sending a priest on to another parish after treatment stems from a time when know today.
Click to expand...
Yes this is a most important fact to recall; judge based on information available THEN.
When I was in nursing school in the 80’s the standard “treatment” for those that sexually abused children was either (name removed by moderator)atient or outpatient depending on how grievous the crime and the purpose was to try to evaluate the arousal of these men to pictures of children. (I kid you not, now it seems stupid.)we thought we could treat most all forms of mental illness. Since we are looking back at cases decades old, we have to judge based on information available then, not what we

They went to counseling for however long deemed necessary and then they actually would show these mean pictures of kids and measure arousal by (Sorry for the graphic nature of the rest) how sexually aroused they became by these pictures with the help of electrodes and detection of an erection.

This was the entire 4 years I was in nursing school. It was later they determined based on the recidivism rate that this was not effective.

Thus the Church followed the accepted protocol at the time and thought after treatment if they passed the requirements they were ok with kids after treatment.

No one seems to know that pedophilia was once considered “curable” by treatment methods involving different methods.

May all those who sexually abuse our children, priests included be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. May those priests that have been accused especially of “historic crimes” be fully represented with legal assistance.

May justice prevail and may innocent persons be let out of our jails for there was a Catholic witch hunt with priests and any person who accused a priest, even years and years ago was given a settlement to prevent even larger legal settlements with a guilty verdict. A few priests said the Catholic church regretfully fell to a guilty until proven innocent stance.

Yes there were terrible cover ups and the Church has done what is humanly possible to prevent any further instances and apologized.

What more can we do than that?

Mary.
 
abucs said:
Every time the picture cuts from Pell to Carlton that is an edit.
Click to expand...
Correct. That is called shot-reverse shot. Acknowledging it as such does not imply editing in the way you are implying. And saying the channel is ‘anti Catholic’ is just a strawmen.
abucs said:
You can’t dismiss the description of a biased Australian media, sitting in Michigan, knowing nothing about it. You also didn’t address the fact that Ridsdale himself is an abuser and misrepresented his own abusing history with other victims, you didn’t acknowledge the difference between the original allegation and the description of the victims compensation process that was instigated by Pell many years after the alleged conversation and you didn’t address the fact that if the case was already before the police, and known to be so, it would make no sense for someone to offer Ridsdale money to keep quiet.

Instead you want to believe the worst in a country you have nothing to do with and take as fact Ridsdale’s allegations he supposedly had with Pell many decades ago when Pell was not in a position of power within the church.
Click to expand...
Strange you have mentioned Michigan by name twice now. Are you planning on visiting? I assure you, it’s not worth it!

Commenting on David Ridsdale as an abuser? Where did I say he was innocent? What does that have to do with the abuse he suffered and what he claims Pell told him? And what about Pell saying one thing and then another? Or is that shot reverse shot thing coming into play according to you? Also Pell was Auxiliary Bishop of Melbourne in 1993 when Ridsdale called him.

As to why I care, see my previous post. I’ll post it here again in case you somehow missed it.

As for why I care, I care because he is a Cardinal in the Church. I care because he has a history of being untrustworthy. I care because he was put on a commission to protect children. Framing it as me wanting him to be guilty is frankly insulting and an ad hominem. I care because people are treating the accusers like outright liars for no reason.

As a Catholic that is my right. Can’t take that away from me, pal.

But also, why do you trust the ABC when it comes to David? You said the 60 minutes clip was ABC. I looked it up and 60 Minutes is owned by another company I gather? Who owns it?
 
Operalan said:
Actually, I’d say that “many” Priests have been found guilty is an overstatement. When you compare the number to how many Priests there are, it is a very small percentage. And, you also have to remember that, by far, the vast majority of those found guilty were from cases that stretch back decades.
Click to expand...
Sadly it is a much greater % than for any other institution examined by the Royal Commission in Australia.

7% of priests working during 1950 - 2009 have been accused.

mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-06/child-sex-abuse-royal-commission:-data-reveals-catholic-abuse/8243890?pfmredir=sm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top