Pell appeal lost today

  • Thread starter Thread starter GiftofMercy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
So if you believe the jurors are wrong then don’t you think the severity of their actions of sending a man that old to prison when they had a sworn duty to be fair and just was indeed a grave matter and potentially sinful?

While of course false convictions exist, I just dont understand the use of that fact in the argument that Pell is wrongfully convicted. It is saying since false convictions exist that because he was convicted only proves his innocence

If you believe 12 people sent an innocent man to jail and you also believe that there just was not the amount of evidence there needed to be then indeed you ARE saying that the Jurors acted in a sinful manner. You are also saying the victim is not to be believed.

I’ll tell you this. I am thankful that the Australian legal system did the job they did and convicted the man. I mourn not only the scandal and the crime, but I also morn the fall of a man in the Church that was my kind of man theologically. And I pray that the imperfect justice that our earth offers is perfected in heaven, and that the real court judge him justly and fairly and accurately. And that is the best we can really hope for. We rely on an imperfect system here. And a perfect one from God where all our deeds are judged. So I cheer the justice here, and I weep for the victims and the loss of a leader of our Church.
 
IdaCatholic said:
If you believe 12 people sent an innocent man to jail and you also believe that there just was not the amount of evidence there needed to be then indeed you ARE saying that the Jurors acted in a sinful manner.
Click to expand...
Of course not! Not everyone is so anxious to judge other of sin as you have been. Some prefer to leave that judgement to God alone, as Jesus commanded.

I will say that he would not have been convicted here, or any other place I know of outside of Australia. This “Operation Tethering” is unique in all of modern jurisprudence, as I am familiar, where resources are expended to find a crime that fits an individual, then find evidence against him. This is the opposite of police work, where a crime presents itself, and then evidence leads to a perpetrator. It is by its nature biased, as those doing it have a goal of convicted someone before they have the specific crime. History has proven over and over such a directed search will find someone who will be punished, in the past, burned at the stake, or hung.

One of my bucket list items was to one day visit Australia. I have now scratched that off, as I do not ever want to travel abroad to a country without a justice system I can trust.
 
IdaCatholic said:
So if you believe the jurors are wrong then don’t you think the severity of their actions of sending a man that old to prison when they had a sworn duty to be fair and just was indeed a grave matter and potentially sinful?
Click to expand...
I didn’t say it wasn’t a grave matter or potentially sinful. I said that I cannot judge the consciences of those involved.
IdaCatholic said:
While of course false convictions exist, I just dont understand the use of that fact in the argument that Pell is wrongfully convicted. It is saying since false convictions exist that because he was convicted only proves his innocence
Click to expand...
I didn’t say that Pell is innocent simply because false convictions happen. I was only pointing out that court systems aren’t perfect. It was you who said that if we doubt a verdict by an established Western court system, then we’re being uncharitable.

My reasons for believing in Pell’s innocence come from a lack of evidence, as well as evidence by the defense that it was improbable for Pell to do what he is accused of.
IdaCatholic said:
If you believe 12 people sent an innocent man to jail and you also believe that there just was not the amount of evidence there needed to be then indeed you ARE saying that the Jurors acted in a sinful manner. You are also saying the victim is not to be believed.
Click to expand...
We can play this kind of game all day. What about the original 10-2 hung jury in Pell’s favor? If Pell is truly guilty, then were those 10 jurors supporting Pell’s acquittal acting in a sinful manner? Were those jurors who originally did not believe the victim guilty of sin? Either way, you yourself acknowledge that court systems are flawed and imperfect.
IdaCatholic said:
I’ll tell you this. I am thankful that the Australian legal system did the job they did and convicted the man.
Click to expand...
I just saw that Pell is appealing to the high courts. If they were to overturn his conviction, would you change your opinion? I mean, since you put so much trust in earthly justice systems.
 
That’s too had! It’s worth the 19 hour flight. Well worth it. And I found their rule of law to be quite civilized. Safer than traveling to any big city in the US. Especially if you were say, African American.
 
If he won an appeal, was tried again and set free I would treat it as suspect as I would treat anyone accused of a sexual Abuse crime. I would not think they were guilty, but the person wouldnt be allowed over at my house for dinner with my kids.
Here is how it works in the US. A priest I know had a US military roommate the roommate accused the priest of sexual assault. The priest went to trial and it was not going well. There was a mistrial declared because of the behavior of one of the jurors. The state was so close to a conviction that the priest had started admitting things to others. The victim was transferred to another base and wanted the issue to just be over so he could move on. The priest was not retried. The bishop told him to find another career because he cannot be a priest. The diocese does not list him as a priest. No conviction. But banished. Now another priest in the area was accused and convicted this year of a far worse crime involving children. This priest was popular, loved etc. His crimes were so unspeakable and so out of the blue that many didn’t or wouldnt believe them. Politicians spoke up in his defense. When the time for sentencing came the testimony of those who worked the crime scene was so intense that people got I’ll in the court. I know people who would still bring their kids around him. It’s crazy and to think the US has a better handle on justice or the abuse crisis over austrailia is on of the most dangerous positions one can take.
 
IdaCatholic said:
The priest went to trial and it was not going well. There was a mistrial declared because of the behavior of one of the jurors.
Click to expand...
If Pell’s sentence gets overturned, I doubt it will be due to a mistrial.

It is understandable to take caution and be suspect of someone accused of sexual abuse, regardless of the judicial outcome.
 
IdaCatholic said:
Yep. Not only understandable but morally required.
Click to expand...
I generally agree, except when someone’s name is completely and totally cleared of all wrongdoing (which does occur). Though that is not going to happen with Pell.
 
This is a quirk of mine. I also told my wife I would never go to New York City, or to San Francisco.
IdaCatholic said:
While of course false convictions exist, I just dont understand the use of that fact in the argument that Pell is wrongfully convicted. It is saying since false convictions exist that because he was convicted only proves his innocence
Click to expand...
In and of itself, this is absolutely correct, which is why I have attempted to qualify specific and unique issues with this case. Unless there are reasons which can be articulated, then there cannot be reasonable doubt. That is the very legal definition of reasonable doubt.

As to whether you would leave him alone with children, in the United States, the bishops have set a protocol to make this strictly forbidden for any priest. Therefore, anyone trying to break those rules would have to be considered a threat.
 
Last edited:
Phatmass1 said:
Yet he still didn’t testify under oath. If you are being accused of sexually abusing minors and it’s 50/50 if you will be convicted you better take the stand and defend yourself. Especially if you’re innocent.
Click to expand...
Yes. I agree that in a case like this, you should testify if you are innocent.
 
Really? I never see a court as infallible and a perfect example of an immoral and unconstitutional court decision in the USA is abortion and same sex marriage. Cardinal Pell is innocent and Australian Court system is nothing to brag about from what it has shown to the international community.
 
To state Pell is innocent definitively is one of the worst things I think you could post. But that is your own opinion, I doubt you will ever be in position to act upon that opinion in an unsafe manner.

No one with any sort of logical credibility would ever say a legal system is infallible. That is why there are appeals, that is why there are wrongful convictions. To use that fact to the defense of Pell is equally illogical.

If you want to talk about systems being something to brag about, the credibility of the Church on this issue is the one that has shown the international community something. A credible witness. 12 credible jurors, a credible judge, a credible appeals process, vs a Catholic prelate accused of crimes against children.

I like Pell’s Theology. I liked Bill Cosby’s show, I liked Michael Jackson’s music. It is one thing to doubt his conviction. I think it is illogical, but I understand the emotional want to do that. But it is quite another to assert his innocence. It is not only illogical but dangerous. We must show we can protect the abused, we can accept and acknowledge the problem in the Church, we can accept the evil that can happen, we can believe the victims and we can trust good and helpful people and authorities to help us. Your words are troubling. And it hearkens back to a time where parents did not believe their own children over the priest, or worse, blamed them. I’ve seen everything from accusing the jurors, the judges, and an entire country of evil. To some questioning the Church Herself thinking that it is a political deal within the Church to silence Pell. Both are crackpot conspiracy theories that one can have. But when one takes these ideas and bravely states them in the face of a conviction and an appeal, I think that is showing we are not ready to protect our own children in our own parishes. Because as hard as it is to look at Pell and think he did it, it is even harder when it is the priest you present yourself to in Mass every Sunday with your children. Some of us have dealt with that. I pray you never do.
 
Divine3 said:
Australian Court system is nothing to brag about from what it has shown to the international community.
Click to expand...
Neither is the US’s, or Canada’s, for that matter. There have been plenty of wrongful convictions in both.

As for Pell being innocent or not, only God, and Pell himself, know.
 
www.catholicculture.org

The Pell Case: Australia’s Dreyfus Affair?

The conviction of Cardinal George Pell on sex-abuse charges, despite the complete absence of evidence against him, was a shock and a black mark against the Australian justice system. The decision by an appeals court to uphold that verdict compounds the problem and the disgrace. The cardinal...
www.catholicculture.org www.catholicculture.org

“The conviction of Cardinal George Pell on sex-abuse charges, despite the complete absence of evidence against him,was a shock and a black mark against the Australian justice system.”. ( for reasonable reading link is above)
 
Yes. Some people share your opinion.
As a parent I’m concerned. As a Catholic, I’m concerned. But as a human he is incarcerated and that helps my concerns.
 
Last edited:
Yes and Jesus teaches us how to treat those who are in jail. It is one of the corporal works of mercy. And if there is any work needed desperately today is the works of coming to the aid of our neighbour.
The spiritual and the corporal works of mercy. Instructing, advising, consoling, comforting are spiritual works of mercy, as forgiving and bearing wrong patiently. The corporal works…feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and imprisoned, burying the dead. And among all these , giving alms to the poor is one of the chief witnesses to fraternal charity. CCC - 2447
Also the definition of concern is to worry and be anxious…Luke 12: 22-32. If we have faith in Jesus and allow him to love us, we believe HE can bring good out of evil. He can heal, he can raise up great saints to lead our Church through this painful time. Our Kingdom isn’t here on this earth and Jesus told that to Pilate and to his suffering Church of today.
Lk 12: 22 begins with the title…Do not be Anxious
22 And he said to his disciples, " Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, …
And if you take a little time by reading https://www.catholicworldreport.com...i-the-church-and-the-scandal-of-sexual-abuse/ The true translation of " Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea" (Mark 9:42) can be found in this text of Pope Benedict. Shalom and blessed Sunday
 
Last edited:
God bless you. It is a horrific miscarriage of justice for Cardinal Pell. The evil being permitted by Nations and including the USA, toward the Catholic Church is far from over yet. We truly need to pray. I am grateful to God for Cardinal Pell and look how those in top positions in the Vatican have abandoned Cardinal Pell. They will be at the judgment seat of God one day along with those who put Cardinal Pell in jail.
 
pnewton said:
40.png
IdaCatholic:
If you believe 12 people sent an innocent man to jail and you also believe that there just was not the amount of evidence there needed to be then indeed you ARE saying that the Jurors acted in a sinful manner.
Click to expand...
Of course not! Not everyone is so anxious to judge other of sin as you have been. Some prefer to leave that judgement to God alone, as Jesus commanded.

I will say that he would not have been convicted here, or any other place I know of outside of Australia. This “Operation Tethering” is unique in all of modern jurisprudence, as I am familiar, where resources are expended to find a crime that fits an individual, then find evidence against him. This is the opposite of police work, where a crime presents itself, and then evidence leads to a perpetrator. It is by its nature biased, as those doing it have a goal of convicted someone before they have the specific crime. History has proven over and over such a directed search will find someone who will be punished, in the past, burned at the stake, or hung.

One of my bucket list items was to one day visit Australia. I have now scratched that off, as I do not ever want to travel abroad to a country without a justice system I can trust.
Click to expand...
This case stands apart from the Australian justice system as we know it, pnewton. Something stinks to high heaven about it. You are right about ‘operation tethering’ as well. It’s just unheard of to go after a person who not only has never been accused of a crime but who even the victims and advocacy groups had never heard any whisperings or gossip about beforehand. Someone wanted Pell charged with something/anything to pay for the sins of the Australian Church. I believe that like the Lindy Chamberlain case 35 years ago, Cdl Pells case will be revealed to be a shameful blight in the history books of Australian justice.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top