Cardinal Pell charged and must return

[Rau]

Accused does not equate to guilty.

I didn’t suggest that.

The stats simply reveal these accusations are over-represented in the Catholic Church. This is accepted by the Bishops appearing at the Commission hearings and was the subject of much inquiry to try and understand why.

 

[chris62]

Accused does not equate to guilty.

Indeed.

abc.net.au/news/2016-02-16/adf-bishop-max-davis-child-sex-cleared-future-military/7173302

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Of these charges? Nothing. I never said he was.

Of the stuff you are claiming is true.

You know that was my question. Either prove or claims or retract them.

 

[Ubenedictus]

If these charges are well-founded, Pell needs to be sent to the wall. The homosexual clergy networks need to be smashed, and if takes jailing and laicizing a Cardinal, so be it.

If not, his false contemnors should be sent to the wall. But the homosexuals should still take note–if a Cardinal can be tried, so can any of them.

It is not that easy to liaise a bishop, he is a successor of the apostle with the plenitude of power. Rome will do its best to avoid that option.

 

[Edmundus1581]

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.

Thanks for that interesting information, Mary. :tiphat:

As someone who was a child (non-Catholic) in the 60’s and a teenager in the 70’s, my recollection of the times was that pedophilia was just not regarded anywhere near as seriously then as it is now. We used to joke about “dirty old men” and “kiddy fiddlers”. It was even a standard joke in some off-color comedy shows. I was not a Catholic then - this was what I recall of the secular attitude. I think molestation of girls was taken more seriously, but not so much of boys. No doubt it was serious for the victims - but society as a whole was not awake to it.

That’s my recollection on the attitudes of the time. As we’ve agreed, over and over, the particular accusations against Cardinal Pell are awaiting a court process.

 

[abucs]

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.

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?

I didn’t say the ABC owned 60 minutes. Your first link was to an ABC news piece and the ABC tag is contained in your address link. Richard Carleton himself who did the interview you are talking about came from the government institution of the ABC and he even ran for the ABC board.

Secondly I didn’t ask why you cared but why you wanted to think the worst. The fact that you pretended I said something else shows you have no defence there. You are a certain type of Catholic that has outed yourself in wanting to think the worst of the church.

You have done that yourself Pal with your history of posts here on CAF.

Next it is not that Ridsdale cannot be a credible witness because he was an abuser of children, (but it is a factor when someone wants to point the figure in others directions) BUT you completely ignored the comment that he is accused by other victims of misrepresenting his own abusing behaviour. The fact that you deleted this part of the comment when you were quoting me shows you deliberately and deceitfully misrepresented the issue because again you have little defence.

Lastly you still have not acknowledged the difficulties with the charge of Pell offering a bribe to stay quiet when in fact it made no sense as it was already a police matter, you continue to make not even an acknowledgement that the charge of Pell offering Ridsdale a bribe is different from Pell explaining on camera the workings of the Pell created ‘Towards Healing’ program for victims with an obvious hostile interviewer (Richard Carleton).

You are trusting the editing honesty of the media but never even gave Pell the benefit of the doubt and refuse to acknowledge that in his address to the Royal Commission that he clearly stated that he was indeed explaining the workings of the Catholic response to victims in that hostile interview.

In short it is a disgrace to think the worst of a Cardinal you know nothing about regarding the issue of the abuse of children and take as fact the words of his accuser and nothing can take that disgrace away from you Pal.

 

[Rau]

…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.

This should be understood to be a personal judgement of course. Many who know the man rather better - the Pope included - are unlikely to hold that view methinks.

 

[pnewton]

Alleged victims = The people who are alleging he abused them. Hence alleged victims. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.

I am concerned with the underlying current of assumed guilt. I know that there is that part that everyone is saying that they are not assuming guilt. I get that. Yet are you claiming that no part of you felt stirred to pray for those who were abused, not those who need your prayers because they are greedy and bearing false witness? It did not come across that way. It sounded like concern for victims of clerical abuse, which is a good thing to pray for. But when a pronoun (his alleged victims) is attached to it, it sure sounds like there is an assumption that something happened that Cardinal Pell is guilty of. It would be akin to saying that one is praying for those who are fling false accusations at Cardinal Pell. It *might *apply to anyone that does this, though we would know it doesn’t. In this context it seems like a premature judgement that he is innocent.

Maybe you do truly give him the benefit of the doubt. I am just saying that it came across like you might have already have an opinion on the matter.

 

[pnewton]

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

• Jesus answered, “Do you say this of your own accord, or did others say it to you about me?” *John 18:34

Did Cardinal Pell betray you personally in some way, for you to reach this opinion? Is this based on what you read on the internet?

I really do not mean to pick at your words, but surely you can see why you are coming across as having pre-judged this man. Whether you have or have not is something only you can answer, but there is mounting evidence that you are rather biased, for whatever reason, valid or not, in this matter.

 

[StudentMI]

Know what, think I’m done with this thread. Just gets my blood pressure up. And when it comes to casting doubt on my love of Christ’s Church, or saying ‘how are we to pray for alleged people?’, there’s no point talking any more. So have at it guys.

 

[kmaaj]

Know what, think I’m done with this thread. Just gets my blood pressure up. And when it comes to casting doubt on my love of Christ’s Church, or saying ‘how are we to pray for alleged people?’, there’s no point talking any more. So have at it guys.

Christ was specific about how we are to voice grievances and level accusations in His Church. The OT laws He alluded to are very detailed and thorough. Pell’s accusers have not followed His commandments, and neither have you. If you’re not going to adhere to His commandments on the subject, you cannot claim to love His Church.

 

[pnewton]

. Pell’s accusers have not followed His commandments, and neither have you. If you’re not going to adhere to His commandments on the subject, you cannot claim to love His Church.

Canon law does not apply to those outside of the Church. Jesus never addressed this. St. Paul did a little, but only addressed how Christians are to handle the issue. There is no instruction forbidding civilian action against those in the Church who commit crime. This is the closest scripture on that.

Romans 13: 1. Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be subject, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience.

One can love the Church and still want to see justice done, or at least support the process of civil justice outside the Church. In fact, I bet most all support crime being tried outside of the Church.

 

[mikekle]

Canon law does not apply to those outside of the Church. Jesus never addressed this. St. Paul did a little, but only addressed how Christians are to handle the issue. There is no instruction forbidding civilian action against those in the Church who commit crime. This is the closest scripture on that.

Romans 13: 1. Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be subject, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience.

One can love the Church and still want to see justice done, or at least support the process of civil justice outside the Church. In fact, I bet most all support crime being tried outside of the Church.

IDk about that, the ‘governing authority’ that verse is referring to, is NOTHING like the governing authority we have today, in that they have their own agenda and narratives they seek to maintain. furthermore, I do not think people back then could have ever imagined a governing authority of the type that is common today., but if they had, I believe they would have instructed laypeople to disregard that type of authority at any cost.

When it comes to other verses, its often stated that times change and scripture meant for a certain time period should not be interpreted to match or justify something in modern times.

Personally I would rather see things like this handled inside the church and secular authorities not involved at all.

 

[janeway529]

Perhaps its just me, but the timing of it all seems a bit suspicious. +Pell seems like he would be a fine “sacrifice” to “appease” public opinion, so “historic” offenses are laid against him? I have an odd feeling this is like the Cosby case all over again in terms of “they said” “he said.”

 

[abucs]

Romans 13: 1. Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be subject, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience.

One can love the Church and still want to see justice done, or at least support the process of civil justice outside the Church. In fact, I bet most all support crime being tried outside of the Church.

Thanks for the quotation and comments (and replies). It gives me something to meditate on.

 

[CeelosDeznos]

In the end, the Church is right: Pell deserves his day in court.

It is written in St. Matthew: “Beware of the false claims of those who claim to speak in my name, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you shall know the good of men. Does one gather grapes from the twig of thorns, or figs from where grow thistles? In the same way, every tree that is really a good tree can only bring forth nothing but good fruit. And that which is an evil tree can bring forth only evil fruit. A good tree won’t produce what’s evil, neither can something evil produce what’s good. And every tree that doesn’t produce good fruit gets chopped down and tossed into the fire. In the same manner, it’s by their fruits you shall know these men.”–Matthew 7:15-20.

We have had our fill of many clergy who have claimed their innocence up to the end, up to the point when it all came out that they truly did the nightmarish things (and worse) they were accused of. How many times have we defended our clergy in situations like these just to end up eating crow in the end? People go into denial. We do too. Until we are ready to stop going into denial, we cannot expect our shepherds to do same.

We cannot blame Protestants and non-Christians and the media and atheists and others for their reactions and responses toward us and the Church. Read those words again in Matthew. Use any Bible translation you prefer. What kind of tree is the Catholic Church? What kind of tree are we and the Catholic clergy? Again and again many of accused shepherds have claimed they have done nothing wrong, and again and again we defend them, and again and again they disappoint us when it comes out that they did indeed commit these horrible crimes. Einstein said to the same thing over and over again expecting a different outcome is the true sign of insanity. Are we going to fall for the same thing again? Are we being unfaithful because we decide to put our foot down this time?

A good tree does not produce bad fruit over and over again, neither on a personal nor on an organizational level. If Catholics do not do something about this, it may not be merely the ridicule of the world that the Church has to worry about. “Every tree that doesn’t produce good fruit gets chopped down and tossed into the fire.” And that is “every tree” that fails to “produce good fruit.”

I would stop worrying about what others think about us, about Pell, and about the Church, and start concentrating about what practical things we need to start doing. Catholics need to start to fix things, to start healing things, to start helping victims, to start preventing this from happening again, and to prevent rot from taking root. If we don’t, then it’s already too late.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Know what, think I’m done with this thread. Just gets my blood pressure up. And when it comes to casting doubt on my love of Christ’s Church, or saying ‘how are we to pray for alleged people?’, there’s no point talking any more. So have at it guys.

Yeah, this thread makes me hug my kids tighter…

 

[pnewton]

IDk about that, the ‘governing authority’ that verse is referring to, is NOTHING like the governing authority we have today, in that they have their own agenda and narratives they seek to maintain. furthermore, I do not think people back then could have ever imagined a governing authority of the type that is common today., but if they had, I believe they would have instructed laypeople to disregard that type of authority at any cost.

The Catholic Church does not chunk teaching when inconvenient. Furthermore, the idea that our government today is somehow worse (too agenda-driven?) than the one that made the emperor a god to be worshiped kill Christians for not submitting to it, crucified people and had slavery, something I cannot really get my head around.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Ballarat lawyer Ingrid Irwin, who represents two of Cardinal Pell’s accusers, has warned her clients that she is “not confident of a conviction.”

Maybe that’s because her clients waited so long to decide whether or not to make the accusation.

 

[pnewton]

Ballarat lawyer Ingrid Irwin, who represents two of Cardinal Pell’s accusers, has warned her clients that she is “not confident of a conviction.”

Maybe that’s because her clients waited so long to decide whether or not to make the accusation.

That would not be surprising. Physical evidence is hard to come by with the passing of time, and testimony alone is almost never enough to convict.