P
phil19034
Guest
The first one was ruled a mistrial because the Jury voted 10 to 2 in his favor. Apparently, the Jury in Australia must be unanimous.
- Status
P
Pattylt
Guest
Thanks!
10 characters
10 characters
H
Hoosier-Daddy
Guest
It’s possible I’ll win the lottery. Listen, all this stuff about holes in the story and an impossible timeline can be brought up at trial. Apparently the holes in the story aren’t so good. Look, the church puts its credibility on the innocence of a pedophile up against a valid and just legal system. Just because Pell was a rather conservative and theologically pleasing cardinal doesnt mean he isn’t guilty. He is a convicted pedophile. Convicted by a court in a western civilized country ruled by law and order. Shout appeal or shakey evidence all you want. The fact is that Catholics in general but especially in Rome can show if the Church has actions to back the words of the meeting that just happened in Rome. The Pope in his 8 point plan indicated that victims should be believed and listened to. And that the Church should recognize these things as evil. Indicating he has reversed course since the Chilean crisis. Have we as a Church moved towards justice, or is the old mantra that even parents of abused kids had still our MO. "Oh sweetie, why would you lie about father so and so, he couldn’t do that! He is a priest!
B
Bradskii
Guest
Yes, of course people have been wrongly convicted. But almost certainly because evidence was either not presented or was patently wrong or was incorrectly presented.Bradskii:
Strawman.phil19034:
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.Hoosier-Daddy:
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.
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.
Most people seem to be taking the view that Pell is not guilty because the evidence doesn’t seem strong enough. You can’t appeal a conviction on the grounds that the jury should have found it likewise.
H
Hoosier-Daddy
Guest
Sure. And there are people who refuse to acknowledge abuse happens. What’s your point!? Will you stand with Pell, proclaiming his innocence? Why?
V
Vonsalza
Guest
I agree. @Vonsalza, people don’t turn into rapists because of celibacy.
[/quote]
@twf
@mrsdizzyd
Insomuch as one could distinguish between rape and more vague sexual assault, you’re most certainly right.
But again, as men in prison will often resort to homosexual behavior, it seems a substantial portion of priests are attempting to coerce young boys into assisting them into sexual gratification. Given the historically male dominated roles of the Church and the natural inclination to perpetuate that, they’re around little boys more often than they’re around little girls.
It’s just who’s available and can be coerced.
Moreover, the evidence is everywhere. And I think we can be reasonably certain that the culling of wayward priests probably isn’t over.
-But it’s part of it. So much so that the Catholic Church won’t let someone marry if they can’t consummate.
The problem looks systemic, given the lack of geographic isolation. As such, maybe you should consider that the cause of the problem is also systemic. These guys didn’t all go to the same seminary, after all.
The problem is celibate priesthood where there is no place for sexual release and these poor men are trying to approximate personal intimacy with something that they can’t touch nor be physically touched by.
[/quote]
@twf
@mrsdizzyd
Insomuch as one could distinguish between rape and more vague sexual assault, you’re most certainly right.
But again, as men in prison will often resort to homosexual behavior, it seems a substantial portion of priests are attempting to coerce young boys into assisting them into sexual gratification. Given the historically male dominated roles of the Church and the natural inclination to perpetuate that, they’re around little boys more often than they’re around little girls.
It’s just who’s available and can be coerced.
Moreover, the evidence is everywhere. And I think we can be reasonably certain that the culling of wayward priests probably isn’t over.
It isn’t just about sex itself. It’s about a sexual relationship. Intimacy. And we see this with the scandals where so many of these priests would show their victims some “reciprocation” in the form of gifts.
Of course not.
-But it’s part of it. So much so that the Catholic Church won’t let someone marry if they can’t consummate.
The problem looks systemic, given the lack of geographic isolation. As such, maybe you should consider that the cause of the problem is also systemic. These guys didn’t all go to the same seminary, after all.
The problem is celibate priesthood where there is no place for sexual release and these poor men are trying to approximate personal intimacy with something that they can’t touch nor be physically touched by.
Last edited:
H
Hoosier-Daddy
Guest
All of this to say that Pell is a convicted pedophile. And the refusal of people to accept that makes me fear for my children in the Church.
Last edited:
P
phil19034
Guest
Look, I’m not disagreeing with you here. All I’m saying is that juries sometimes make mistakes and the fact that the first trial was in Pell’s favor 10-2 makes me wait until the entire legal process is over.
When you have a media circus surrounding a case, the Jury often gets influenced. Just look at the OJ Simpson trial. In that case, the Jury considered a guilty man as innocent.
I’m not saying Pell is innocent. I’m just saying it’s not over and based on what I’ve read so far, I would not have voted guilty. However, I’m not in the courtroom. What happens if Pell wins the appeal? Does that mean that he’s not really innocent?
Rome is making the right decision to wait until the Judicial System is finished with this matter (and they are not).
R
RealisticCatholic
Guest
If he isn’t guilty, then why would someone falsely accuse him of doing something?
Are the victims confused about who the perpetrator was?
Are the victims confused about who the perpetrator was?
P
phil19034
Guest
Again - I NEVER SAID he is innocent. I have no freaking idea.
I’m saying the legal process IS NOT OVER. I don’t put stock in a court ruling that is going straight to appeal. I wait for the final ruling.
T
twf
Guest
O’Brien and McCarrick were both cardinals and the Church found them guilty… I feel that Pell’s case is less open and closed. It’s still going through an appeal process in Australian courts.
H
Hoosier-Daddy
Guest
It’s about as over as it gets. Everybody in prison wants an appeal. It might not be over for you. But it’s over. Praise God!
T
twf
Guest
McCarrick’s sexual misdeeds with seminarians was apparently an open secret for decades. Different situation.
P
phil19034
Guest
Why did someone hire two Africans from Nigeria to beat him up and claim it was white, homophobic Trump supporters?
Why did someone burn down their own house and let their pets die in the fire and claim that they were a victim of a hate crime?
Sometimes people do unhinged things for political reasons.
R
RealisticCatholic
Guest
I would never want to see an innocent cleric who has served the church be falsely accused. But I feel like we should first get behind the alleged victims, right?
Victims being cast aside and ignored is a huge problem, not only in the church, but in the culture at large.
Victims being cast aside and ignored is a huge problem, not only in the church, but in the culture at large.
Last edited:
T
twf
Guest
O’Brien was a “conservative” Cardinal and a public critic of homosexuality to boot, yet no one in the Church doubts that he was a sexual predator of seminarians etc.
Last edited:
H
Hoosier-Daddy
Guest
The only difference here is that mr mccarrick was a generally unlikable and creepy guy. Easily condemned. Pell, is likable in comparison and no one likes it when one of their "own"falls.
P
phil19034
Guest
What are you reading? What are you reading that says it’s over? The article in the NC Register says his appeal date will be announced after sentencing.
Last edited:
D
dochawk
Guest
No. That’s just not how pedophilia works.
The abuse rate is actually somewhat higher by married clergy (and the Catholic church actually has the lowest rate in the US).
V
Vonsalza
Guest
That’s true. In my civics class back in my college days, appeals overturn the original verdict a paltry tenth of the time. Nine times outta ten the original holds.
Of course, my information is a tad dated, here.
- Status