Will Pell be defrocked?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bradskii
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Or the whole process is a shining example of truth and justice and the ability of a judicial system to disregard the stature of a man in pursuit of such.
 
The stigma that the clergy are all abusive pedophiles. And of course the many people that hate the Church.
 
LateranBasilica said:
Or the whole process is a shining example of truth and justice and the ability of a judicial system to disregard the stature of a man in pursuit of such.
Click to expand...
That is an odd assertion given that it is the legal community who aren’t known to defend the Church, who are expressing shock that the verdict grossly defies the normal requirement for ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ to be valid.
 
FiveLinden said:
I have no idea if Cardinal Pell is guilty. But this conviction to my mind makes it probable that he is. His decision to not give evidence seems inexplicable to me. He said he came home ‘to clear his name’. That’s active. It means doing more than seeing if others can damn the name beyond reasonable doubt. His lawyer’s representations on his behalf were not on oath. If he had given evidence, Cardinal Pell would have been on oath.

The decision to not seek bail seems unusual if there is a good prospect of success at appeal. It seems to me to suggest that, innocent or not, his advice has been to start the sentence in the hope of getting out of prison while still alive and mentally well. The sentencing of old people is a very harsh thing. But Australia does not impose the absurdly long sentences that are typical of the US so there is some prospect of freedom if the appeal fails.

I imagine the Church will wait until the appeal and, if it fails, laicise the Cardinal. What else could it do?
Click to expand...
I can see reason in him not taking the stand. His demeanour when I have seen him in panel discussions is somewhat dour and he gives the impression of lacking empathy. And I think that he expects his views to be taken without question as I have seen him become flustered and annoyed when questioned abruptly and directly.

Putting him on the stand where the prosecutor is going to be laying into him, interrupting him and continually questioning his honesty if not directly accusing him of lying would, in my opinion, not go well. for him.
 
It’s interesting how you read him,I see him completely different to what you describe .
 
Bradskii said:
Putting him on the stand where the prosecutor is going to be laying into him, interrupting him and continually questioning his honesty if not directly accusing him of lying would, in my opinion, not go well. for him.
Click to expand...
I guess what I am saying is that it could not have gone worse than the option his defence took. And there is little point in coming home to defend yourself if you then don’t.
 
A slip of the tongue could be disatrous. One defendant said something and people immediately pounced on the opportunity.
 
Last edited:
We are all sinners. The church is undergoing a much needed purge in many countries. Many people just hate religion and have anger towards God. It wouldn’t matter which religion, its their own personal conflict.
We must pray for them.
 
Emerald lady, with respect, the judicial system has found this man guilty. It is a shock to many and has stunned many catholics within Australian and international communities. However, once a certain book is re released, it may start to make much more sense. Did you have an opportunity to read it before it was pulled?
You are generalising that the legal community does not defend the Church. Where are your grounds for making this assertion, where are your stats and evidence?

Again please stop attacking the man, so to speak, address your replies to the topic at hand.

‘an odd assertion’ is a very disparaging personal attack. It contains no Christian charity. And considering this is a public forum, we must act as befits practicing Catholics.
 
Last edited:
Rubee said:
40.png
LateranBasilica:
Emerald lady, with respect, the judicial system has found this man guilty.
Click to expand...
With due respect the judicial system is not infallible.
Click to expand...
With due respect, why is infalliblility necessary? We are commenting on someone’s adjudged behaviour, not their character or their immortal soul.

We don’t know with infallible certitude that two plus two equals four, that the sky is blue, that fire burns or that if you take poison it might kill you. Yet we are - all of us - happy to take these as fact despite our lack of infallible knowledge about them. Our lives and safety depend on engineers being accurate with their maths and doctors with their knowledge of poisons in particular, and we are happy to trust their fallible opinion.
 
RealisticCatholic said:
If he isn’t guilty, then why would someone falsely accuse him of doing something?

Are the victims confused about who the perpetrator was?
Click to expand...
From what I understand there have been other accusations against Pell which have found to be completely fabricated.

Nobody here is factoring in an anti Christian bias that has run through the media and possibly tainted a jury.

Of the two people allegedly abused by Pell one is now dead and he never made a charge. In fact he told his mother he was not abused. It is reported that legal experts in Australia are shaking their heads at this case. The idea that someone can be found guilty by a legal system of abusing someone who never made a complaint and in fact said he wasn’t abused is worrying.

Especially when it appears the only evidence is what someone else said, contrary to what the person said themselves.
 
LilyM said:
With due respect, why is infalliblility necessary? We are commenting on someone’s adjudged behaviour, not their character or their immortal soul.
Click to expand...
With due respect, it’s necessary if you’re going to state that someone is a pedophile or other horrible thing just because of “adjudication”. That’s essentially a 100% faith being placed on said "adjudication’ which is a silly position to take without divine guarantee of protection over said process.

Your other examples you’ve listed are irrelevant:
  1. They are not statements about a person’s character: They do not involve morality and the duty to be charitable in anyway. There’s no duty to be loving towards Math and to not falsely accuse Math of things we don’t know Math did.
  2. We must make those decisions in our lives. I still don’t know what duty you feel you have to claim Cardinal Pell is a pedophile. You are not a juror or a judge, your opinion on the matter is neither called for nor necessary; just a person reading a forum and feeling you know that this person you don’t know committed this horrendous thing that he and many who know him desperately protest his innocence in.
  3. I’d like to know who disputes 2+2=4 in the same way people are disputing what happened here and who between two people might be telling the truth.
Again, not relevant.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top