Will Pell be defrocked?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bradskii
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
That’s a common but vile sentiment. Sick, perverse men with a tendency to abuse children marry women to blow off steam?
Because surely you’re not implying that single men are pressure cookers prone to raping children…
Also doesn’t address the many priests with same sex attraction at all…
 
Vonsalza said:
All human beings cry out for sex
Click to expand...
Not “all” and certainly not many to the degree that they would assault someone to satisfy a “cry for sex”.

Assault is about power and control. It is not primarily about sex. In fact, the major of sexual offenders do not “reach completion” during the commission of their crimes.
 
Nonsense. Priests encounter children of both sex, adult men and women… and if that desperate surely finding a prostitute would be a less extreme step than raping an innocent child. Only a truly sick person does the latter. A sane, ordinary priest drowning in desperation for sex would surely be far more likely to find a prostitute than grab the nearest boy and commit one of the most horrific sins known to man…a sin that would make any sane, ordinary functioning human puke at the very thought. No, desperation does not lead to child abuse. That’s terrible psychology.

Furthermore, marriage isn’t a magic cure all. What about all these married Baptists who have been abusing children? Married men abuse children all the time. Many people suffer in sexless marriages to boot. And like I said in an earlier post, what about men who suffer from same sex attraction? No marriage or licit sex in the cards…
 
Last edited:
Bradskii said:
40.png
phil19034:
It’s more important now that ever to assume someone is innocent until proven guilty.
Click to expand...
Well said. And once they have been proven guilty?
Click to expand...
If proven guilty, then one must answer for their crimes.
 
twf said:
Nonsense. Priests encounter children of both sex, adult men and women… and if that desperate surely finding a prostitute would be a less extreme step than raping an innocent child. Only a truly sick person does the latter. A sane, ordinary priest drowning in desperation for sex would surely be far more likely to find a prostitute than grab the nearest boy and commit one of the most horrific sins known to man…a sin that would make any sane, ordinary functioning human puke at the very thought. No, desperation does not lead to child abuse. That’s terrible psychology.

Furthermore, marriage isn’t a magic cure all. What about all these married Baptists who have been abusing children? Married men abuse children all the time. Many people suffer in sexless marriages to boot. And like I said in an earlier post, what about men who suffer from same sex attraction? No marriage or licit sex in the cards…
Click to expand...
So Pell is a truly sick man?
 
It appears the Church backs him. Sadly. I guess change will have to wait.
 
Bradskii said:
Stay tuned for the sentencing.
Click to expand...
I would need to read facts that are clearly undisputed, not circumstantial evidence. Jurys sometimes make mistakes.

Currently, his lawyers say he has a very strong appeal and that they expect this conviction to be overturned.

The Cardinal is being charged with sexually abusing two choristers immediately following a 10:30 AM Sunday Mass at St. Patrick’s Cathedral in Melbourne. According to George Weigel, the alleged crime “simply could not have happened, given the layout of the buildings, circumstances of time and so forth…”

Now, I’m not sure why Pell’s attorneys didn’t have him take the stand. The article states that the evidence appeared to lean heavily in Cardinal Pell’s favor but the decision not to take the stand “made a negative impression” on the jury.

 
Last edited:
There are many clerics who ought to be punished and in jail
If you read through the facts of this case, ti seems pretty obvious that unless Pell can bi-locate, he is being railroaded.

Read through the information. It is almost in-credible evidence. People are surmising that he made a huge mistake not to testify.
 
Hoosier-Daddy said:
It appears the Church backs him. Sadly. I guess change will have to wait.
Click to expand...
Hoosier - if you read the article, from the National Catholic Register, it seems there are holes in the testimony of the accuser.

The Church is waiting for all of this to be over. Pell’s attorneys are confident that they will win the appeal.

So it is possible, that Cardinal Pell is innocent and falsely being accused by someone with an agenda.
 
Bradskii said:
40.png
phil19034:
40.png
Bradskii:
So Pell is a truly sick man?
Click to expand...
If guilty, yes.
Click to expand...
Why do you keep sayin ‘if’? He has been found guilty as charged. Please don’t tell me that all convictions are to be considered provisional.
Click to expand...
Just because someone is found guilty in a court of law doesn’t always mean they are actually guilty. Sometimes juries make mistakes and convict innocent people.

His lawyers are confident that he will win the appeal.
 
Last edited:
twf said:
He maintains his innocence and many believe him… everyone knows McCarrick is guilty.
Click to expand...
McCarrick maintains his innocence as well. The issue for him was not guilt, but if the accusations were “credible.” (at least, I do not know of a canonical trial that established his guilt. If we somehow know he was guilty, that is a different situation.)

Credible was the issue I addressed. The accusations against Pell were believed by a unanimous jury. It is hard to maintain at this point that they were not “credible” accusations.

As to whether Pell is innocent, I have no idea. It may be that he was convicted because of the arrogance of his defense strategy. (Really, the little bit I have heard about his defense makes him sound awful; I’d probably want to convict him for that) I hope he is cleared. But that does not change the fact that the accuser was believed, ie was credible, while McCarrick has not been tried. “Degree of credibility” of accusers seems higher for Pell, given the acceptance by the jury.
 
The fact that an earlier jury voted 10 to 2 for acquittal makes me skeptical of the conviction.

And I can’t help but think of the numerous people in the U.S. who were convicted and sent to prison in the 1980’s for crimes of abusing children in daycare centers. Many of those crimes never happened, the charges were bogus, and innocent people went to prison.
 
phil19034 said:
40.png
Hoosier-Daddy:
It appears the Church backs him. Sadly. I guess change will have to wait.
Click to expand...
Hoosier - if you read the article, from the National Catholic Register, it seems there are holes in the testimony of the accuser.

The Church is waiting for all of this to be over. Pell’s attorneys are confident that they will win the appeal.

So it is possible, that Cardinal Pell is innocent and falsely being accused by someone with an agenda.
Click to expand...
If some evidence was ommited or presented incorrectly, then there would be grounds for a mistrial. However…if the jury were told all the evidence and the defence pointed out possible problems with it, then you can’t simply roll up a week later and say that the jury made a mistake.
 
Bradskii said:
40.png
phil19034:
40.png
Hoosier-Daddy:
It appears the Church backs him. Sadly. I guess change will have to wait.
Click to expand...
Hoosier - if you read the article, from the National Catholic Register, it seems there are holes in the testimony of the accuser.

The Church is waiting for all of this to be over. Pell’s attorneys are confident that they will win the appeal.

So it is possible, that Cardinal Pell is innocent and falsely being accused by someone with an agenda.
Click to expand...
If some evidence was ommited or presented incorrectly, then there would be grounds for a mistrial. However…if the jury were told all the evidence and the defence pointed out possible problems with it, then you can’t simply roll up a week later and say that the jury made a mistake.
Click to expand...
Strawman.

Do you acknowledged that there have been people who have been incorrectly convicted or cleared of a crime by a jury? That’s all I’m saying.

When I’m reading reports that the most damning thing against Cardinal Pell was that his defense didn’t have him take the stand, that makes me question the evidence.

Maybe it’s the American in me, but I strongly believe that not taking the stand should not be held against someone in a Court of Law.
 
Last edited:
Quick question…why was there a second trial? Was the first one ruled as a mistrial?
Thanks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top