Let's not rush to judge Cardinal Pell, Pope Francis says [CNA]

[CNA_News]

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/i..._Credit_Alexey_Gotovskiy_CNA_3_3_16.jpgAboard the papal plane, Jul 31, 2016 / 03:30 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- In response to news that Australian authorities are investigating multiple allegations of child abuse leveled against Cardinal George Pell, Pope Francis cautioned against gossip and making judgements before all the facts are known.

“We must wait for justice and not make a first judgement ourselves, a media trial … because this doesn’t help,” Pope Francis said July 31 during his in-flight press conference from Krakow to Rome. “The judgement of gossip and then, one can… We don’t know what the result will be; but be attentive to what justice decides. Once justice speaks, I will speak.”

The Pope was asked about Cardinal Pell, whom he appointed prefect of the Vatican’s Secretariat for the Economy in 2014, by the AP’s Frances D’Emilio. He began his response by noting that “the first information that arrived was confusing. It was news from 40 years back that not even the police made a case about at first. It was a confusing thing.”

Pope Francis then said that the accusation have been “sent to justice” and are now in the hands of justice. “And one mustn’t judge before justice judges, eh?”

“If I were to say a judgement in favor of or against Cardinal Pell, it wouldn’t be good because I (would) judge before. It’s true that there there is doubt, and there’s that clear principal of the law: in dubio pro reo.”

The Pope referred to the legal principle that a party who is accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty, which has been a foundation of law since at least the first Christian millenium.

Rumors of the investigation initially appeared in February in an article on News Corp Australia roughly a week before Cardinal Pell was due to testify before Australia’s Royal Commission for the third time, on charges that while in Australia he had been negligent when informed of child sexual abuse, bribed a victim, and moved a known abuser from parish to parish.

Established in 2013, the Royal Commission is dedicated to investigating institutional responses to child sexual abuse.

The allegations released before his Feb. 29 hearing, however, maintained that the state of Victoria had for a year been compiling a dossier investigating him for committing “multiple offenses” of child sexual abuse both while he was still a priest in the Ballarat diocese, as well as when he worked with the Archbishop of Melbourne.

On that occasion, Cardinal Pell’s office, as it has consistently done throughout, fervently denied any wrongdoing, and rejected “spurious claims” by the media accusing painting him as an abuser.

Full article…

 

[abucs]

Of course before any possible judgement, Cardinal Pell has to be formally charged let alone have his day in court.

From what i understand he is unlikely to be charged due to the weakness and low credibility of such allegations which look likely to have been spurred on by the government owned Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

This organisation is given over $1 billion per year of tax payers money to spout their rubbish and should have been defunded a long time ago.

ABC Left leaning bias.

 

[adamhovey1988]

Papa Francesco is absolutely right we need to have all the facts before we make a judgment on this. Personally I’m getting sick of the idea guilty until proven innocent

 

[Erikaspirit16]

I was in Sydney in Nov.-Dec. 2012. A priest was on trial for child abuse. Cardinal Pell was a visitor in the courtroom during the trial. When the press asked why he was there, he replied that he was there “in solidarity”…with the priest, not the victim.

Any time someone asks me about my “former” Catholicism, I can point to that, among other examples. “It were better for him to put a millstone about his neck…” Whatever happened to that? Out of fashion?

 

[phil19034]

I was in Sydney in Nov.-Dec. 2012. A priest was on trial for child abuse. Cardinal Pell was a visitor in the courtroom during the trial. When the press asked why he was there, he replied that he was there “in solidarity”…with the priest, not the victim.

Any time someone asks me about my “former” Catholicism, I can point to that, among other examples. “It were better for him to put a millstone about his neck…” Whatever happened to that? Out of fashion?

I’m sorry, but this makes no sense. We are innocent until proven guilty.

If my brother was in court for child abuse, I would be there in solidarity for him, not the child (unless it was my child and I was the accuser).

This would not because I would care that a child was potentially abused, but it’s because I love my brother and if guilty, I would want him to repent and right his soul with God.

This is SAME way bishops are with their fellow priests. Bishops don’t have an employer/employee relationship with their priests. They have sibling relationship and sometimes a uncle/nephew like relationship (if not a father/son relationship) when older bishops with young priests.

Point is, priests really do have a familial relationship with their brother priests. So this is NOT as bad as you make it out to be. It’s actually very merciful.

God Bless

 

[Randolph]

I was in Sydney in Nov.-Dec. 2012. A priest was on trial for child abuse. Cardinal Pell was a visitor in the courtroom during the trial. When the press asked why he was there, he replied that he was there “in solidarity”…with the priest, not the victim.

Any time someone asks me about my “former” Catholicism, I can point to that, among other examples. “It were better for him to put a millstone about his neck…” Whatever happened to that? Out of fashion?

All child abusers must face justice for their crimes–be it priests or anyone. That’s indisputable. It would repugnant and wrong for anyone to defend any priests, or anyone, guilty of child abuse. But justice must be fair, and be allowed to take its course. Everyone, including criminals, has the right to defend himself/herself on allegations of his/her crimes. If a priest is proven guilty of his crimes in the court of law, then he must face all the legal consequences. The standard in the West for all is “innocent until proven guilty”.

But when it comes to priests, there seems to be the presumption of guilt until proven innocent. This is wrong and unjust. There were many priests facing child abuse/sexual accusations were later exonerated in court of law. As a result, they suffered great damages in their reputation. Subsequently, their ability to carry out their duties as priests was negatively affected.

Let’s be fair, and allow the justice process to take its course. The vast, vast majority of priests throughout the world are good men who vowed to give themselves to the service of Christ and the Church. I ache for these good, innocent men who are often seen through the lens of suspicion of guilt, rather than for the sacrifice they have made for Christ and the Church.

 

[fin]

Cardinal Pell is a good priest.

If I’m wrong, then I’m wrong.

This is probably the work of people within the Church who hate him.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

I agree with Randolf: “Let’s be fair.”

Is it “fair” that thousands of clerical abusers go free? Is it “fair” that tens of thousands of children have their lives ruined? Is it “fair” that abusers were shuffled from parish to parish so they could abuse hundreds more children? Is it “fair” that only a handful (if that) of bishops have been held accountable for knowingly keeping predators safe at the cost of children’s lives?

My all-time favorite was a fellow called Spillane, a former priest, convicted (yes, convicted!) of child abuse. He was later hired at a national level in Baltimore to oversee liturgies for children’s masses. No one bothered to check his background when they hired him. I’m sure that was “fair” too.

 

[Randolph]

I agree with Randolf: “Let’s be fair.”

Is it “fair” that thousands of clerical abusers go free? Is it “fair” that tens of thousands of children have their lives ruined? Is it “fair” that abusers were shuffled from parish to parish so they could abuse hundreds more children? Is it “fair” that only a handful (if that) of bishops have been held accountable for knowingly keeping predators safe at the cost of children’s lives?

My all-time favorite was a fellow called Spillane, a former priest, convicted (yes, convicted!) of child abuse. He was later hired at a national level in Baltimore to oversee liturgies for children’s masses. No one bothered to check his background when they hired him. I’m sure that was “fair” too.

If you read my post correctly, you would understand that I have no tolerance for abusive actions by convicted priests. They must face justice and all the legal consequences for what they did. They can not be in situations where they can abuse children again.

What you missed in my post is that priests, like anyone else, have the right to be treated fairly in the court of law. It is right and fair to support the belief that everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

 

[phil19034]

I agree with Randolf: “Let’s be fair.”

Is it “fair” that thousands of clerical abusers go free? Is it “fair” that tens of thousands of children have their lives ruined? Is it “fair” that abusers were shuffled from parish to parish so they could abuse hundreds more children? Is it “fair” that only a handful (if that) of bishops have been held accountable for knowingly keeping predators safe at the cost of children’s lives?

My all-time favorite was a fellow called Spillane, a former priest, convicted (yes, convicted!) of child abuse. He was later hired at a national level in Baltimore to oversee liturgies for children’s masses. No one bothered to check his background when they hired him. I’m sure that was “fair” too.

Erika - no one is defending abusers who are actually guilty. But lets keep a few things in mind: the vast majority of priests are innocent. Be believe in innocent until PROVEN guilty.

When proven guilty… they should be locked up, plain and simple. But let’s not feed them to the wolves beforehand. That’s how the falsely accused & innocent have their lives destroyed.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

So according to all you “innocent until proven guilty” advocates, Cardinal Pell’s actions in 2012 were appropriate when he said he was attending the trial of a priest accused of pedophilia “in solidarity” with the accused priest.

So the Secretary of the Treasury should have attended Bernie Madoff’s trial “in solidarity” with Madoff, right?

And the Superintendent of the Naval Academy should attend the trials of the numerous midshipman accused of sexual assault, “in solidarity” with them, right? That makes perfect sense, does it?

And the leaders of Western Europe surely should have attended the war crimes trial of Milosevic, right? After all, innocent until proven guilty, and they should attend “in solidarity” with him, right?

I beg to differ. I won’t waste my time on this any more, except to say that priests should be held to a higher standard than an average person–as should be teachers, or anyone else whose profession brings them into contact with children. Their superiors should save their “solidarity” for the victims and the children, not the perpetrators. And just because you haven’t been convicted in a court of law doesn’t mean you’re innocent. It just means there are a lot of loopholes.

 

[TCEL]

I was in Sydney in Nov.-Dec. 2012. A priest was on trial for child abuse. Cardinal Pell was a visitor in the courtroom during the trial. When the press asked why he was there, he replied that he was there “in solidarity”…with the priest, not the victim.

Any time someone asks me about my “former” Catholicism, I can point to that, among other examples. “It were better for him to put a millstone about his neck…” Whatever happened to that? Out of fashion?

Out of curiosity, what do you make of Christ’s death on the cross? Was that not an ultimate act of solidarity, from God no less, with wicked mankind?

Please don’t use this as a statement that I defend pedophilia.

 

[mikekle]

But when it comes to priests, there seems to be the presumption of guilt until proven innocent. This is wrong and unjust. There were many priests facing child abuse/sexual accusations were later exonerated in court of law. As a result, they suffered great damages in their reputation. Subsequently, their ability to carry out their duties as priests was negatively affected.

Its not just priests, whenever there is a news story about someone being arrested, and they are ‘alleged’ of a crime, 9 times out of 10, majority of viewers will automatically consider them guilty right then and there, especially when it comes to crimes against children.

I think these people believe, if the police had all they needed to actually arrest the person, then they MUST be guilty.

Plus, even if the person goes to court and is found innocent, many many people will continue to consider them guilty, and probably harbor more resent against them, for ‘getting away with it’…what kind of world do we live in?!! LOL

Its almost like majority of people today side with police/ the courts, over their fellow citizen??!!

Its really sad people have reached this new low.

 

[abucs]

So according to all you “innocent until proven guilty” advocates, Cardinal Pell’s actions in 2012 were appropriate when he said he was attending the trial of a priest accused of pedophilia “in solidarity” with the accused priest.

You may be interested to know that while Cardinal Pell claimed to be showing compassion and solidarity to the accused priest, he has since publicly stated that such an action on his part was a mistake and not appropriate. He said that in hindsight his actions could well have been viewed as not showing proper compassion and solidarity with the potential (now confirmed) victim. He has apologised for not realizing this at the time.

So if Cardinal Pell himself has stated his actions in 2012 were not appropriate then perhaps the truth is that no one is doing as you accuse?

So why would you choose to think that they/we would advocate what you accuse?

 

[MacBP]

I agree with Randolf: “Let’s be fair.”

Is it “fair” that thousands of clerical abusers go free? Is it “fair” that tens of thousands of children have their lives ruined? Is it “fair” that abusers were shuffled from parish to parish so they could abuse hundreds more children? Is it “fair” that only a handful (if that) of bishops have been held accountable for knowingly keeping predators safe at the cost of children’s lives?

I don’t think you’ll find any shortage of people in the Catholic Church and on CAF who would agree that Church hasn’t always dealt with alligations of abuse well. Where that failure was criminal (either intentionally or negligently) we hope and pray that the guilty will be brought to justice and victims have the chance to heal. For those who escape justice on Earth, punishment will be meeted out after death. You ask if its fair for people to have their lives ruined while the guilty go free. No, but then many things on Earth aren’t fair. We trust in the Lord of all to ensure that justice is done, either in this life or next.

 

[Corki]

So according to all you “innocent until proven guilty” advocates, Cardinal Pell’s actions in 2012 were appropriate when he said he was attending the trial of a priest accused of pedophilia “in solidarity” with the accused priest.

So the Secretary of the Treasury should have attended Bernie Madoff’s trial “in solidarity” with Madoff, right?

And the Superintendent of the Naval Academy should attend the trials of the numerous midshipman accused of sexual assault, “in solidarity” with them, right? That makes perfect sense, does it?

And the leaders of Western Europe surely should have attended the war crimes trial of Milosevic, right? After all, innocent until proven guilty, and they should attend “in solidarity” with him, right?

I beg to differ. I won’t waste my time on this any more, except to say that priests should be held to a higher standard than an average person–as should be teachers, or anyone else whose profession brings them into contact with children. Their superiors should save their “solidarity” for the victims and the children, not the perpetrators. And just because you haven’t been convicted in a court of law doesn’t mean you’re innocent. It just means there are a lot of loopholes.

The Church is not a government department nor a college. An Archbishop not only oversees his priests, he is personally responsible for each and every one of them - physically, spiritually and emotionally. That responsibility does not end when an accusation is made. It doesn’t even end when a conviction is rendered.

You are right that priests should be held to higher standards. And Bishops are held to higher standards than the Secretary of the Treasury or the Superintendent of the Naval Academy. Part of that higher standard is to not not abandon his brother priests. Having solidarity with his brother priest does not equate to lack of compassion for victims both real and alleged. The converse is also true. Having high standards regarding the protection of children does not mean that every accused priest is abandoned before he has even been tried.

 

[StudentMI]

“Go home, Cardinal Pell.”

 

[ARSpade]

I just noticed that the deeper Cardinal Pell got into the Vatican finances, the louder the accusations got.

Made for an interesting correlation that made me go, “hmmm”. But I’m part Sicilian.

 

[Maximilan_Kolbe]

I agree with Randolf: “Let’s be fair.”

Is it “fair” that thousands of clerical abusers go free? Is it “fair” that tens of thousands of children have their lives ruined? Is it “fair” that abusers were shuffled from parish to parish so they could abuse hundreds more children? Is it “fair” that only a handful (if that) of bishops have been held accountable for knowingly keeping predators safe at the cost of children’s lives?

My all-time favorite was a fellow called Spillane, a former priest, convicted (yes, convicted!) of child abuse. He was later hired at a national level in Baltimore to oversee liturgies for children’s masses. No one bothered to check his background when they hired him. I’m sure that was “fair” too.

What do the mistakes of individuals have to do with whether or not the core teachings of the Church are correct? The Apostles (save for John) abandoned Christ and hid. Should I list the atrocities committed by prominent Jews, Protestants, and Muslims throughout history? That would rule them out for you as well, no?

So according to all you “innocent until proven guilty” advocates, Cardinal Pell’s actions in 2012 were appropriate when he said he was attending the trial of a priest accused of pedophilia “in solidarity” with the accused priest.

So the Secretary of the Treasury should have attended Bernie Madoff’s trial “in solidarity” with Madoff, right?

And the Superintendent of the Naval Academy should attend the trials of the numerous midshipman accused of sexual assault, “in solidarity” with them, right? That makes perfect sense, does it?

And the leaders of Western Europe surely should have attended the war crimes trial of Milosevic, right? After all, innocent until proven guilty, and they should attend “in solidarity” with him, right?

I beg to differ. I won’t waste my time on this any more, except to say that priests should be held to a higher standard than an average person–as should be teachers, or anyone else whose profession brings them into contact with children. Their superiors should save their “solidarity” for the victims and the children, not the perpetrators. And just because you haven’t been convicted in a court of law doesn’t mean you’re innocent. It just means there are a lot of loopholes.

That’s the thing. You call them perpetrators, when you have yet to see proof their are. That’s hardly fair, or any sort of moral high horse for you to sandbox on. You basically want to reenact the Salem Witch trials.

 

[abucs]

I just noticed that the deeper Cardinal Pell got into the Vatican finances, the louder the accusations got.

Made for an interesting correlation that made me go, “hmmm”. But I’m part Sicilian.

Yes i think this is right. Pell is number 3 in the Vatican and a strong conservative. The very liberal Australian Broadcasting Company see with Pope Francis the chance for a liberal takeover and want Pell out. It is as simple as that.

It has been reported now in Australia that, after the protests, the ABC are now laying down guidelines about how to report on Cardinal Pell which among other things prevents the repeat of the 30 minute hatchet job done on Pell last week without any serious attempt to hear the other side, or even acknowledge there is one.

Disclaimer : I am not saying Pope Francis is liberal, only that secular liberals in the Australian media perceive him as being close to them on social issues and someone who can be used to promote their agenda.