Cardinal Pell's Conviction Announced; Verdict on Appeal

  • Thread starter Thread starter AngelaMarie
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You can choose to back whichever side you deem trustworthy. For me it isn’t the church or the cardinal.
The man was found guilty by a court of law for Child abuse. Not a Saudi court, an Iraqi court, Ethiopian court, a Mexican court or a columbian court. It was an austrailian court. A court system based on the same legal structure as most western courts rooted in English law. Like America. The level of denial and support from fellow Catholics used to shock me. Not anymore not after what I’ve seen. The Pope just outlined a very vague 8 point plan to combat abuse. And accepting these facts has to be part of it. Many liked Pell. Politically. I did. I dont care one bit about that now. He needs to repent and do so publically
 
Last edited:
Might better await the appeal of this. Australian Courts have already had to overturn a guilty verdict against another Cleric. From what I have read of the testimony and the court antics, this verdict smells.
 
Hoosier-Daddy said:
The Pope just outlined a very vague 8 point plan to combat abuse. And accepting these facts has to be part of it. Many liked Pell. Politically. I did. I dont care one bit about that now. He needs to repent and do so publically
Click to expand...
As I see it, in situations like this, bishops and priests have lost all credibility. You simply cannot trust them to tell the truth. You cannot trust their denials. You cannot give them the benefit of the doubt. This impacts even those who are totally innocent and I am sorry about that.

Unfortunately, the ordained clergy brought this upon themselves and it’s up to them to fix it. Until then, an entire generation of young Catholics will grow up shielded from priests and the sense of community will suffer.
 
Last edited:
Not only that but I would LOVE to encourage my kids to consider the priesthood. But with the seminaries and the problems… I just cant. I mean imagine the guilt knowing what we are finding out and if I guided my child to that…
 
Last edited:
Hoosier-Daddy said:
You can choose to back whichever side you deem trustworthy. For me it isn’t the church or the cardinal.
Click to expand...
I didn’t say I was backing anyone. I said there are some serious questions. If you don’t agree, that’s fine. But I’d appreciate it if you’d refrain from any further misrepresentations of what I say.
 
Last edited:
It’ll be interesting what the outcome of the appeal will be…much of the Australian media…and a considerable amount of Australians themselves are biased against Christianity to begin with…and more so if they get a whiff of a hint of a scandal involving the Catholic church…he may be guilty as charged…or he may not…it’s his word against the word of one accuser…but I’ll bet in the court of public opinion in Australia he’s guilty as sin…
 
Last edited:
It’s been my understanding that extreme nepotism of centuries ago, and had nothing to do with sex.
Click to expand...
The evidence from the time suggests otherwise.

St. Peter Damian (1007 - 1072) was one of the Gregorian Reformers who originally campaigned for the imposition of clerical celibacy in the 11th century.

Using as his authority a canon for the punishment of paedophile clergy from the 7th century, he quoted the following in 1051:

"A cleric or monk who persecutes [or “seduces”] adolescents or young boys, or who is caught in a kiss or other occasion of indecency, should be publicly beaten and lose his tonsure, and having been disgracefully shaved, his face is to be smeared with spittle, and he is to be bound in iron chains, worn down with six months of imprisonment, and three days every week to fast on barley bread until sundown. After this, spending his time separated in his room for another six months in the custody of a spiritual senior, he should be intent upon the work of his hands and on prayer, subject to vigils and prayers, and he should always walk under the guard of two spiritual brothers, never again soliciting sexual intercourse from youth by perverse speech or counsel."

(Book of Gomorrah Chapter 16)
Click to expand...
As you can see, there was no ‘tolerance’ for sexual perverts in those days - no touchy-feely “excuse the sinner” apologism and leniency. St. Fructuosus of Braga, in the seventh century, had issued a canon to the effect that any monk who molested young men should be compulsorily monitored for the rest of his life to make sure that he never had the opportunity to commit another crime, and suffer other severe punishments.

Discipline really meant discipline back then.
 
Last edited:
When clergy cease abusing children and having their crimes covered up by other hierarchs?

Perhaps then.
 
Last edited:
Another reason

uscatholic.org

Why are priests celibate?

Technically, celibacy is the commitment not to marry. In the Latin (Roman) Catholic Church, it is a prerequisite for ordination to the priesthood.
uscatholic.org uscatholic.org
 
I agree. In Australia over many years there has been a concerted effort by certain media outlets, including the public broadcaster (ABC) to paint Cardinal George Pell as guilty of covering up child sexual abuse at the very least. Even the Victorian Police would make regular media statements about their investigations into Pell stating for example, that Pell’s arrest was imminent. This is just crazy! Just prior to him being charged with a series of offences an ABC journalist wrote, as I understand it, a scathing book on Pell. Pell was never going to get a fair trial with this media witch-hunt. The scapegoating mechanism that we see throughout the Bible is still alive and well today. I pray that Pell receives a fair hearing during the appeals process.
 
AlNg said:
One question asked was:
Why was Cardinal Pell afraid to take the stand and testify under oath?
Click to expand...
How do you know he was “afraid?” How do you know it wasn’t the lawyers’ decision?
 
angel12 said:
How do you know he was “afraid?” How do you know it wasn’t the lawyers’ decision?
Click to expand...
Correct. In any case a question raised was why he did not testify under oath. I thought that an accused can always choose to testify under oath, even if the lawyer recommends against it ?
You get on the chair and testify honestly to what happened.
 
Last edited:
How are you supposed to testify about something that you didn’t do? Pell is not going to have any recollection of those dates 19 years ago since there is no reason for them to stand out to him
 
To my way of thinking, it is about discerning what is God’s Will for His priesthood. Money should be a consideration in discerning, but not prime. Look at our religious - many have really beautiful properties and buildings. The Lord will provide for His Will. We either put our active trust in that…or what?..
Marriage indeed is not cheap and it is not an easy vocation either; however, it would be terrible if The Church said “Priests will remain celibate because we do not have the money to permit them to marry. We cannot financially afford a married priesthood”…to my way of thinking. Where is The Lord in it all?

Blest to be able to state “I put my trust in God” but when it comes to the crunch, to put one’s money where one’s words are, one falls back on to practical considerations alone makes for an empty sort of trust. It is like St James I think it was who said that he could concretely reveal and witness to his Faith by his works.

Found the quote from St James, Chapter 2 “What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?..edit.,, faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead. Indeed someone might say, “You have faith and I have works.” Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works.”
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__P11W.HTM
 
Last edited:
Cardinal Pell’s defense attorney tried to minimize the crime by comparing it to plain vanilla. This is all crazy. I hate how offenders devalue and dehumanize their victims. And I don’t understand why the defense attorney would make such comparisons because it only served to aggravate the judge and make Pell look guilty. The judge revoked Pell’s bond.

 
My my point was made in light of the history of why the Latin rite put in place the discipline of celibacy. According to my understanding (and I re-read up on it), it had to do with both nepotism and apparently inheritances.

It really had nothing to do with sex, if what I read is historically accurate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top