Pell was disliked by many of the less orthodox especially after he made national headlines refusing communion to the Rainbow Sash crowd at St Mary’s in 2002, but I challenge your claim that he wasn’t liked by the devout members of the Ballarat diocese. One of those even here on CAF vouches otherwise. I’ve also got a close family relative who served as a young Priest in the Sydney diocese at the time of then Bishop Pells tenure. The accusations are viewed incredulously by those who worked with him. Unlike the accusations against the other high profile convicted clergy here.Emeraldlady:
Those who live in Ballarat and Melbourne have different opinions of Pell than you seem to. As one person who has interacted with him over the past 45 years, I can safely state that I would not trust my child around him, nor would I trust him not to cover-up an abuse by another priest. Providing evidence after all these years however, is the problem. And since most victims are not believed, they often don’t want to talk about what happened. It is about time that a jury actually listened and believed.
I also watched the entire broadcast of the sentencing here in Australia and found it both addressing the conviction in front of him appropriately and addressing the factors needed to be addressed by an appeal. He left no stone unturned for an appeal case.
I’m sorry to say but this type of accusation is provably baseless. Paul Tatchell who is a clergy abuse survivor from Ballarat, has served as Mayor of one of the shires, and has since advocated for many other Ballarat survivors had this to say back in 2016 when the first accusation emerged.poche:
Conspiracy theories never hold much weight with me. There were complaints about Pell in the local community long before the police investigation.
Luckily Lindy Chamberlains supporters didn’t take the same approach otherwise she may still be sitting in jail today for something she didn’t do.
Well in retrospect it would not have done him any harm if he had given evidence and been cross-examined, as his accuser was. This bolstered the evidence of his accuser (whose evidence we have not see; it is suppressed). He withstood cross-examination from Cardinal Pell’s very highly-regarded lawyer for many hours. Cardinal Pell merely produced a video of his police interview which was designed merely to record his response to the allegations, and included no cross-examination. I continue to see this decision (not to give evidence) as extraordinary given that the Cardinal could have stayed in the Vatican but came back to ‘clear his name’, an opportunity he said he welcomed. So why did he not do so? My only hypotheses that fits the facts is that under cross-examination he would have been asked questions about other things to which, his lawyer told him, he did not have credible answers. Incidentally, he never had to ‘prove his innocence’. The prosecution had to prove his guilt, which in the opinion of the jury they did. And the judge, at the very least, thought the jury’s verdict was possible given the evidence presented or he would have stopped the case or set aside their verdict. That’s how the law works.
In a perfect world. Lindy Chamberlain lost her appeal in the Federal Court. Then lost her next appeal in the High Court the following year. She’s only out by the grace of God exonerating her.
Divine justice obliges us to care about human justice. Justice is an unparalleled virtue. Aquinas writes.
Except that the jury declared it did happen, so for now at least, it did.
I’ve already addressed your post but in the light of another claim that accusations against Pell were circulating in Ballarat before the police witch hunt which was proven to not be true, I want to highlight how facts and figures are just made up when it comes to accusations against Pell.Emeraldlady:
Council for the defence and the prosecution get the opportunity to question and refuse any six jurors they consider to be prejudiced. Fourty percent of Australians self identify as Catholics. That would mean that up to five of the jurors were Catholic.
If anything, there would have been a tendency for prejudice in his favour.
To believe the uncorroborated statement of a complainant and decide the matter is proven “beyond reasonable doubt” is what gives me great pause.
All he could say would be “the events did not happen”. How could this be persuasive? It would simply appear to be a “nothing” defense.
