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.
Emeraldlady said:
A commentary by Michael Sean Winters…

https://www.ncronline.org/news/opin...trials-cardinal-pell-media-needs-check-itself

Edit: The journalist’s reference here "If some reports are to be believed, there is a latent anti-Pell, perhaps even an anti-Catholic, sentiment in many parts of Australian elite culture, and that might extend to judges and lawyers. There is some of that here in the U.S. "

I’m thinking that the US has a more Protestant anti Catholic thing but in Australia, the ‘elite’ anti Catholics have always been the Freemasons who have a long tradition of control in the business, financial and judicial spheres here.
Click to expand...
If I may, from his public appearances I have always considered Pell to be supercillious, aloof and cold. Definately lacking in empathy. There is no openess about him and very little of the ‘common man’. And these are characteristics that would not endear him to the average Australian. They are what most Australians would consider to be the opposite of what should characterise what being a good Australian entails. It is to his detriment that most people I know consider him to be untrustworthy.

As to the church itself, it hasn’t helped that so many cases of abuse have been swept under the carpet. There is a general feeling that the barricades have gone up to try to prevent harm being done to the organisation when what was required was swift and definitive action coupled with contrition across the board.

Unfortunately, what we have sometimes got from the hierarchy and quite often from the laity are excuses. ‘It isn’t as bad as it’s being made out to be’. ‘Other organisations are just as bad’. ‘The problem is homosexuality and a general decline in morals’. And, of course, the self serving and ultimately self-fullfilling ‘It’s just anti-Catholic bias’.

If we keep getting bad apples in any given barrel then word gets around that the grocer is not to be trusted.
 
Last edited:
Being perhaps a little reserved and old school doesn’t make one untrustworthy.I’m almost 50 and I know average Australians,good dignified…and trustworthy people who have similar character to Cardinal Pell .Assasinating his temperament ,his character @Bradskii ,well I’m Australian and you and I are quite un alike . Am I untrustworthy?
 
Bradskii said:
If I may, from his public appearances I have always considered Pell to be supercillious, aloof and cold. Definately lacking in empathy. There is no openess about him and very little of the ‘common man’. And these are characteristics that would not endear him to the average Australian. They are what most Australians would consider to be the opposite of what should characterise what being a good Australian entails. It is to his detriment that most people I know consider him to be untrustworthy.
Click to expand...
Most of the Diocese he was a priest in , grew up in, played footy in, would vehemently disagree with you. As far as Aussie respect, the man was gifted at footy. and most sports. That made him popular from the get go.

its really calumny stating that. Come down here and listen to those whose souls he had the care of, speak of him. You are just so wrong in this assessment.
But then you are going off public appearances, not personal involvement at the Parish level. I could say that of many public figures, and they only get a fleeting chance to impart their personality on the crowd.

It doesn’t get swept under the carpet these days and again if you come here, there is brutal honesty about how disgusting and destructive it was , and how many people who’s lives it destroyed.
 
Last edited:
we cannot get ETWN live here atm either. I heard today. There will have to be a ban for months… This town is going to be an absolute circus next year.
The international media have suddenly taken an interest, I hope the trial is moved to the South Pole to be honest.
 
Bradskii said:
40.png
Emeraldlady:
A commentary by Michael Sean Winters…

https://www.ncronline.org/news/opin...trials-cardinal-pell-media-needs-check-itself

Edit: The journalist’s reference here "If some reports are to be believed, there is a latent anti-Pell, perhaps even an anti-Catholic, sentiment in many parts of Australian elite culture, and that might extend to judges and lawyers. There is some of that here in the U.S. "

I’m thinking that the US has a more Protestant anti Catholic thing but in Australia, the ‘elite’ anti Catholics have always been the Freemasons who have a long tradition of control in the business, financial and judicial spheres here.
Click to expand...
If I may, from his public appearances I have always considered Pell to be supercillious, aloof and cold. Definately lacking in empathy. There is no openess about him and very little of the ‘common man’. And these are characteristics that would not endear him to the average Australian. They are what most Australians would consider to be the opposite of what should characterise what being a good Australian entails. It is to his detriment that most people I know consider him to be untrustworthy.
Click to expand...
That is just not true at all unless you are speaking on behalf of the Rainbow Sash movement. The Australian public became aware of Pell as Archbishop of Melbourne and then Sydney. That was in the late 90’s and early 2000’s. He symbolised a strong voice of orthodoxy against the gay lobby trying to force the Church to change its stance on the sinfulness of homosexual behaviour. In the very Cathedral that he has now been accused of misdeeds in (St Pats Melbourne) he refused Holy Communion to the lobby group wearing rainbow sashes up the isle, about 10 times over the course of his tenure there. They are the voices that think he is what you accuse him of. The Catholics who remain true to the teachings of the Church on homosexual behaviour, viewed him as strong and unafraid to stand up to the work of Satan right at the altar rails. It raises more than a few eyebrows that the conviction he now has, has arisen around this very hub of homosexual protest.
 
Bradskii said:
40.png
Roseeurekacross:
But then you are going off public appearances, not personal involvement at the Parish level.
Click to expand...
Obviously. That’s what the vast majority of Australians are doing.
Click to expand...
You are twisting words here. Obviously the vast majority of Australians will go off “public appearances” of Pell, but you are suggesting these “public appearances” are representative of the real man and is all they have to go off.

The “public appearances” of Pell that most Australians see are only those presented to them by a hostile media, with carefully selected clips and voiceovers which present him as evasive, arrogant, cowardly, guilty etc. These were repeated ad nauseum for a couple of years, at least, before the suppression came in.

For just one of the many egregious instances, there were nationwide shouts for him to “Come home and face your accusers”, suggesting that he was hiding in the Vatican to avoid extradition, when in fact there were no charges to be faced and the police were still investigating. He fully cooperated with the investigation from Rome.

The media was presenting Pell as a guilty man, representatative of all the worst aspects of the clerical abuse crisis in the Catholic church, and of Catholicism itself (eg. hiding in the Vatican). They had no interest in aspects of his “public appearances” which presented him in a better light.

IMO this was driven as much by ratings as bias. The media found a cheap reliable headline which could lead any news segment and grab viewers. No work or research was required apart from editing the footage and repeating the same story. Damn the truth.

If you think the media wouldn’t be so unscrupulous then you are very naive. Or, perhaps, you are not Australian? I can’t remember. Our media is actually much worse than many countries in its depth of dishonesty and salaciousness.

The people I have known or know of who know Pell in real life, say he is nothing like the media caricature, as @Roseeurekacross says of those who knew him in Ballarat. Even these people (Ballarat) could have been presented by the MSM to give a balanced picture of him.
 
Last edited:
Edmundus1581 said:
40.png
Bradskii:
40.png
Roseeurekacross:
But then you are going off public appearances, not personal involvement at the Parish level.
Click to expand...
Obviously. That’s what the vast majority of Australians are doing.
Click to expand...
If you think the media wouldn’t be so unscrupulous then you are very naive. Or, perhaps, you are not Australian? I can’t remember. The Australian media is actually much worse than many countries in its depth of dishonesty and salaciousness.
Click to expand...
True. I’m old enough to still feel shame for the way Lindy Chamberlain was convicted of murdering her child, based on her awkward personality and unpopular religious faith.
 
Often enough abusers seem very popular with the youger generation and are admired by parents. You can never tell.
 
Lindy Chamberlain’s conviction had far less to do with her personality or.faith than with experts who mistakenly asserted that traces of fetal blood (the victim was a very young baby) had been found in her car and on a camera bag. And that a dingo would be incapable of taking the child in a manner consistent with the physical evidence.

These assertions were incorrect, with deeply regrettable consequences for Lindy. But it is most probable that the experts would have given the same evidence regardless of her religion or demeanour and that she would have been convicted regardless.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Not only am I Australian I am a lawyer. Vivid memories of studying the Chamberlain case in criminal law - and a stark warning it was on relying on questionable expert evidence.

The expert who gave evidence.on.the blood in particular was firstly not even based in Australia but Britain, and gave unreliable evidence in at least one conviction prior to hers in the UK, which like hers was subsequently overturned. Clearly his failings were more professional than related to personal bias, and his evidence was crucial to the success of the case against her.

I’m not denying that there was a lot of public prejudice against her which heavily coloured the trial and verdict. However, I am confident a jury would lean heavily towards convicting anyone based on the evidence of supposed blood in the camera bag alone.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
You are not making any sense.
As far as Wikipedia is concerned, it is no one’s friend in terms of accuracy and precision.
It also has nothing to do with this topic.

And please resist making comments like the one where you opine who abusers are popular with and admired by.
 
Last edited:
Roseeurekacross said:
And please resist making comments like the one where you opine who abusers are popular with and admired by.
Click to expand...
Its a forum, I am entitled to express reasonable views and personal experiences charitably. If you are riled to the point of attempting to censor the views of other persons perhaps its best not to read their contribtutions.

PS It would help immensely if you quoted text you respond to. I see above I made two posts above yours. As you did not quote I suspect I responded to you re the wrong one.
 
Edmundus1581 said:
40.png
Bradskii:
40.png
Roseeurekacross:
But then you are going off public appearances, not personal involvement at the Parish level.
Click to expand...
Obviously. That’s what the vast majority of Australians are doing.
Click to expand...
You are twisting words here. Obviously the vast majority of Australians will go off “public appearances” of Pell, but you are suggesting these “public appearances” are representative of the real man and is all they have to go off.

The “public appearances” of Pell that most Australians see are only those presented to them by a hostile media, with carefully selected clips and voiceovers which present him as evasive, arrogant, cowardly, guilty etc.
Click to expand...
That is imply not true. There have been plenty of ocassions when Pell has been interviewed as to his views and has taken part in panel discussions, one I know of for an hour in a two way discussion plus his recorded interviews for the Royal Commission into child abuse, where we have had plenty of opportunity to judge his character.

From a personal viewpoint, and from the views of many people that I know, including Catholics, the character description I gave earlier would be, from all the available evidence, which would NOT include selected clips and voiceovers, reasonably accurate.

Does that imply guilt on any of the charges he has been convicted on or the further matters with which he is charged? Obviously not.
 
The charges have been revealed. The outlets where they have been revealed and discussed are blocked from view by the Australian people.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top