The latest on a certain case in Australia that is subject to suppression orders here

  • Thread starter Thread starter Roseeurekacross
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
That Priest was a Priest in my Diocese. He is now in Prison for all his crimes. Cardinal Pell was a Bishop and and had worked in the same Diocese with him for decades as a Priest.

We are called to show mercy and today Parishioners visit this priest in the prison here. There are many horrific stories of this Priest, there are also many good stories. But we must separate the issue with this priest with that of others. Gerard Risdale is whom you refer to.
 
Last edited:
Well, I am not familiar with criminal law in Australia, but the phrase “innocent until proven guilty” comes to mind.

Further, last time I checked, the Church still had the Sacrament of Reconciliation, and the individual on trial may have to deal with penalties if found guilty; but he is still a pries (one of the three “permanent” sacraments) and unless and until he is laicized, he is still the responsibility of the bishop.

And you make an interesting point: purged, meaning that individual is not inflicted upon society?
 
otjm said:
the phrase “innocent until proven guilty” comes to mind.
Click to expand...
That’s the point! He was found guilty on 5 counts. Unanimous jury verdict. Guilty, guilty, guilty.
otjm said:
he is still the responsibility of the bishop
Click to expand...
Not now. The Church failed, and the civil courts took over. It’s up to the judge to sentence him. What the bishop (or pope) does is now pretty irrelevant. They had their chance. They blew it.
otjm said:
purged, meaning that individual is not inflicted upon society
Click to expand...
Absolutely. Plus he needs to be an example. The fact that he’s a cardinal means nothing–he’s now a convicted sexual predator. Whether he is sorry (his outward behavior doesn’t show that) is also irrelevant. Whether God forgives him or not is irrelevant. Whether you agree with his theology or not is irrelevant. He got away with his crimes for 40+ years. That’s the real crime.
 
I did not write that, @Erikaspirit16 can you please reflect that it is from a news article written by Jesuits in USA.

thankyou.
 
Here, all cases like this are the realm of the civil criminal courts, not the church. And as yet, we don’t know what he is charged and found guilty of. We must wait till the second trial to find out.
 
Last edited:
This is astonishing. I’m Australian but overseas at the moment. But I still read the Sydney Morning Herald every day online. And I did see an article about a case on which they weren’t allowed to report anything a day or so ago. I skipped it - who wants to read about something they can’t tell me anything about. And I didn’t make the connection.

The fact that the Victorian courts have placed a suppression order on the case is understandable, but they made a rod for their own back in splitting the charges into two separate cases. And the fact that the majority of people get their news from social media means that it will only be a day or so before everyone in Australia knows about this anyway.

And it’s not difficult to find out exactly what the charges were and what he has been found guilty of. It was the physical abuse of two choir boys in the 90’s: https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...62b712e8fc2_story.html?utm_term=.715c71c1455d
 
I am certain there will be an appeal. But appeal courts in systems like Australia’s are loathe to overturn a jury verdict in a lower court. Basically if there was nothing wrong with procedure (such as a judge’s instructions to the jury) and it was possible for a jury to make the finding it did, the conviction will stand. And from the reports it seems there is another trial to come. Those who were hoping for a different outcome must now accept the very high likelihood that the result they feared will be the reality. The damage to the Church may have already been done but my feeling is that the reality of convictions will cause further harm.
 
FiveLinden said:
I am certain there will be an appeal. But appeal courts in systems like Australia’s are loathe to overturn a jury verdict in a lower court. Basically if there was nothing wrong with procedure (such as a judge’s instructions to the jury) and it was possible for a jury to make the finding it did, the conviction will stand. And from the reports it seems there is another trial to come. Those who were hoping for a different outcome must now accept the very high likelihood that the result they feared will be the reality. The damage to the Church may have already been done but my feeling is that the reality of convictions will cause further harm.
Click to expand...
I agree. The appeal will come to nothing. And the court has made it impossible for him to get anything like a fair trial (in the judicial sense) in the second case. It was imperative for Pell that all charges against him were considered at the same time. Because as it stands now, literally everyone in Australia will know about this conviction so all jury members in the next trial will be asked to consider if the convicted paedophile in the dock is guily of being…a paedophile.
 
Last edited:
FiveLinden said:
The damage to the Church may have already been done but my feeling is that the reality of convictions will cause further harm.
Click to expand...
I am confused. Where is the concern for “damage to the victims”? Is the “damage to the Church” simply that his crimes have become public and he has been convicted? The “damage to the Church” should be that he did these things in the first place!
 
Roseeurekacross said:
I did not write that, @Erikaspirit16 can you please reflect that it is from a news article written by Jesuits in USA.

thankyou.
Click to expand...
I realize that. I read the article. My comment wasn’t directed at you, although when I copied the quotation it automatically put your name there as the poster.
 
The cases are seperate, one Melbourne, one Ballarat. The charges are also quite different. I know what they are but cannot say.

I can imagine any further charges past a second trial are going to accrue, similar to another ArchBishop
 
Last edited:
The Archbishop’s appeal was upheld this past week

This Diocese is already damaged. Any other public figures up on charges, won’t make it any worse
 
Last edited:
I am wondering if the trial was merely a formality and the conviction was already decided upon?
 
Roseeurekacross said:
The cases are seperate, one Melbourne, one Ballarat. The charges are also quite different. I know what they are but cannot say.

I can imagine any further charges past a second trial are going to accrue, similar to another ArchBishop
Click to expand...
That would explain it. I believe I know the Ballarat charges. It was the ones he was charged with in Melbourne that came as a surprise.
 
poche said:
I am wondering if the trial was merely a formality and the conviction was already decided upon?
Click to expand...
What on earth can you mean by this? This was a unanimous jury verdict in Australia — a country with a robust and free judicial system. How could a conviction be “already decided upon”?
 
poche said:
I am wondering if the trial was merely a formality and the conviction was already decided upon?
Click to expand...
Decided by whom? If you are going to make accusations such as that then it is incumbent on you to tell us. Because whoever it was, they were going to have to make sure which judge and which lawyers were involved and to ensure that they were instructed to reach a particular verdict. Notwithstanding that 12 jurors needed to be specifcially selected so that they would agree, unanimously, to give a guilty verdict. And to keep all this hidden from anyone interested in the case.

I have sat on a jury in Australia and I can confirm, as Picky said, the system is robust.

But anyway, who do you think did all this?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top