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

[Roseeurekacross]

The charges have been revealed. The outlets where they have been revealed and discussed are blocked from view by the Australian people.

Again, what he has been FOUND GUILTY of, has NOT been revealed to any one outside the court, and this information is not available in any country.

There were obviously charges as thats why he was sent to trial. However, the charges that were dismissed and the charges that he was found guilty on, have not been revealed, and won’t be revealed to anyone, in any country, until after the second trial.

Sophie, it might help if you addressed the topic, rather then going off topic and making inane comments like this one

Often enough abusers seem very popular with the youger generation and are admired by parents. You can never tell.

this is in no way a reasonable opinion and has no professional backing. It is designed to lay blame on people other then those responsible for crimes. You might think twice before pushing out comments like that on topics like this.

or this one
which you still refuse to explain what you mean. We don’t need a fishing rod here. We know whats going on.

Yes, I have given you a free fishing rod rather than a fish.
Now you need to put in your own effort.
Wikipedia is your friend.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

In the Diocese he grew up in, worked in, was ordained in, went to school in, played footy in, was a Priest in,

He is known as a wonderful warm friendly man.

 

[Greenfields]

'Where we have had plenty of opportunity to judge his character".How much weight does that really bear ?

 

[Bradskii]

On the case? None whatsover.

 

[Greenfields]

Trying to discredit his character is kind of pointless then Bradski.

 

[Bradskii]

That assumes that my appraisal of his character, and to some extent my understanding of other people’s appraisal, was in the first instance meant to somehow influence the case against him. Which is obviously nonsensical.

I have given my personal opinion of the man based on the not inconsiderable amount of time I have seen him speak on TV and what I have read that he has written. I have been told, and have no reason to doubt, that in person he can be affable and charming. That is at odds with his public persona.

Some quotes from the Royal Commision:

“I must say in those days, if a priest denied such activity (abuse of children), I was very strongly inclined to accept the denial.”

On Brother Gerald Leo Fitzgerald kissing primary school boys:
“The general conviction was it was harmless enough.”

When asked if it was “common knowledge” that Ridsdale abused children:
“It’s a sad story and it wasn’t of much interest to me”.

“I think the matters you raised about ascribing resignations to ill health (as opposed to abusing children), that is one area of regret. Other than that, I don’t believe there is.”

These are not opinions. They are direct quotes. Based on them alone, how many people would say that he was a suitable person to be in charge of an institution where young children might be at risk of assault?

I said earlier that his public persona had no bearing on the charges for which he has been convicted. If I may I’d like to change that slightly and say that his public persona should have had no bearing on the case.

 

[Sophie111]

this is in no way a reasonable opinion and has no professional backing. It is designed to lay blame on people other then those responsible for crimes. You might think twice before pushing out comments like that on topics like this.

Its a forum, you are free to have your own view no matter how extreme it may be.
When you have some objective evidence to validate your OTT comments above they will be taken seriously and responded to…until then not so much.
You have a blessed Christmas.

 

[poche]

This is not Cardinal Pell.

 

[Bradskii]

The quotes are Pell’s.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

It was common knowledge within law enforcement , among other places, that Risdale is a paedophile.

Thats how Australia was in those days.

But its best to put those quotes in context. And this trial has nothing to do with the Royal Commission or in his role as Bishop with those Priests and laity and religious who are paedophiles.

 

[Sophie111]

Again your statement

Sophie111:

Often enough abusers seem very popular with the younger generation and are admired by parents. You can never tell.

When you can provide professional sources that demonstrate a peer consensus that my statement is mistaken I will reconsider. Until then, like yourself, I am entitled to air my view though you may disagree.

 

[Sophie111]

And that your insensitive and grossly misinformed opinion is not that of the Catholic Church or its people.

Strange, I am a Church going Catholic (twice a week) and therefore one of its people.
It is my opinion, therefore it is of one of its people.

You are quite right, the Church does not have any teaching on how popular (or not) an abusing clergy member might be to parents. I have never pretended it does.
Why the Church would be expected to have a teaching on this matter escapes me. Being popular is not a matter of faith or moral conduct from what I can see.

Therefore all opinions on the matter would seem acceptable - though clearly not to you for some reason. Nor have you been able to provide professional peer reviews demonstrating a consensus on the matter supporting your, I presume, contrary opinion.

God bless.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Strange, I am a Church going Catholic (twice a week) and therefore one of its people.
It is my opinion, therefore it is of one of its people.

That doesn’t make your opinion any less insensitive or grossly misinformed. Does it.

You are quite right, the Church does not have any teaching on how popular (or not) an abusing clergy member might be to parents. I have never pretended it does.

Please apply a little better comprehension to my point. That was not my point. I have in fact, never said that is the Church teaching or not.
You seem to have run on for several posts on an issue you have grossly misinterpreted.

Therefore all opinions on the matter would seem acceptable - though clearly not to you for some reason. Nor have you been able to provide professional peer reviews demonstrating a consensus on the matter supporting your, I presume, contrary opinion.

So opinions on what matter, is my next question, given you have not adequately comprehended what I was saying in rebuttal to your insensitive and grossly misinformed comment.

Before we head into a quest for non copyrighted peer reviewed journal articles , available for anyone on the internet, on Paedophilia and child abuse, it might pay you to actually understand what is being said to you.

Good day to you

 

[Sophie111]

RUC you are making mountains out of molehills and seem to get snagged on trivialities.
I leave you to it.
God bless.

 

[Bradskii]

But its best to put those quotes in context. And this trial has nothing to do with the Royal Commission or in his role as Bishop with those Priests and laity and religious who are paedophiles.

The context is that his responses were to questions asked during Australia’s royal commission into institutional responses to child sexual abuse. One could easily draw a direct line between that comission and current cases, including Pell’s.

In fact, just 4 days a go, as a result of that comission, another priest was convicted of the sexual assault of children from the Marist Regional College in Tasmania and sentenced to four years. This might be difficult to comprehend, but he was the SIXTH person from that college to be convicted. Former priest becomes sixth teacher at Burnie Marist College convicted of historic child sex offences | Tasmania | The Guardian

With situations such as that, the claims that the negative perception of the Catholic church is unwarranted can be difficult to justify.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

If we are trying to draw a direct line between any role accused of in Royal Commission reports and the current charges, we are negating the current charges and the people who now feel they have a little justice.
These are very different sets of circumstances.

No the marist college experience is not hard to believe, google Christian Brothers Ballarat.
As stated, what was it about society at that time that allowed this to keep happening.

There is no argument about the perception of the Church here, given this history. Try being a parishioner here at what one could call ground zero.
Its also the perception of religious institutions regardless of denomination and of public government run institutions.

 

[Bradskii]

As stated, what was it about society at that time that allowed this to keep happening.

Someone already answered that:

“I must say in those days, if a priest denied such activity (abuse of children), I was very strongly inclined to accept the denial.”

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Society as a whole Bradski. These reports were being ignored by police. What was it about western society as a whole, not just the Church, that made the historic child abuse acceptable to the extent it was experienced. The perpetrators were not just Priests.
I know 2 people , two non Catholics , who served jail time for their crime. One of them was a primary school principal of a public state school.

 

[Bradskii]

Take that quote and replace ‘priest’ with scout leader, swim coach, teacher etc and the quote itself is applicable to too many people. Myself included.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

It starts before the denial of the perpetrator.
It starts with not listening or believing the victim. It’s still happening today. If it wasn’t there would not be the me too movements, etc.

The denial happens because the perpetrator knows the lack of belief in what the victim is saying, will lead to his or her denial being validated.