Will Pell be defrocked?

[Vonsalza]

I was blown away by those.

The idea of enjoying victim status so much that you craft forgeries to support it…

It’s like those people don’t actually want social progress…

 

[StudentMI]

Step 1: accuse Pell.
Step 2: ?
Step 3: profit.

 

[Vonsalza]

I know how you feel guys; the Catholic Church lost one of the good ones.

But this is the reality we’re in. He’s been convicted and convictions typically stick.

 

[StudentMI]

Um, considering he was convicted of these crimes I wouldn’t say he was one of the “good ones”. I’d say he was a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

 

[Vonsalza]

Um, considering he was convicted of these crimes I wouldn’t say he was one of the “good ones”. I’d say he was a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Fair enough.

Then perhaps he was “one of the ones we believed in most”.

 

[Hoosier-Daddy]

Yeah, you are not emotionally invested in this at all! Right…
We all are. It hurts. And I’m sure your pride prevents you from a meal culpa in the thread. But really. Man. Let’s be real for a second. We are online, discussing and debating a point of view. But what if we were parishioners having a face to face after Mass. And let’s say someone stated your position with your words after Mass. And that person said, they have no idea of his innocence or guilt, and that a hate crime was faked in Chicago so Pell should have that in his favor… etc. Now lets say you had any position or role in the Church. A youth minister. A volunteer for youth ministry. An office worker. A safe environment instructor.
Would I have a right to be concerned about an environment my children would be in. Not from you personally but just that mindset that all of us (including me) have of not wanting to see the ugly and not wanting to live with the reality of what has happened.

 

[Hoosier-Daddy]

Right. Convicted of those crimes. Pell. Convicted.

 

[Hoosier-Daddy]

It wasn’t that. It was staging a crime and self harm to try to be the match that lit the fuse. Faking a hate crime near parts of Chicago is an act of war.

 

[phil19034]

Your position is that a man was wrongly convicted by a jury because he didn’t take the stand? Why do you not extend the same charity you wish to extend Pell to the jury? Why are you accusing them of something horrific?

No, that’s not my position. My position is that IF (keyword here is IF) he was convicted by the jury because he didn’t take the stand, then that be wrong.

 

[Hoosier-Daddy]

Come on. Rarely on these boards is there an example where someone could just go.“you know what, my position is indefensible and wrong. I see that.” I mean we all want that to happen. We dream of it. But rarely is there just the perfect opportunity in reality for that to happen. The backtracking with “if” is disingenuous at best. It’s common in these abuse discussions to blame others. But your “if” is uncharitable to the jurors you dont even know! Honestly you have a chance to do something positive here.

 

[phil19034]

Yeah, you are not emotionally invested in this at all! Right…
We all are. It hurts. And I’m sure your pride prevents you from a meal culpa in the thread. But really. Man. Let’s be real for a second. We are online, discussing and debating a point of view. But what if we were parishioners having a face to face after Mass. And let’s say someone stated your position with your words after Mass. And that person said, they have no idea of his innocence or guilt, and that a hate crime was faked in Chicago so Pell should have that in his favor… etc. Now lets say you had any position or role in the Church. A youth minister. A volunteer for youth ministry. An office worker. A safe environment instructor.
Would I have a right to be concerned about an environment my children would be in. Not from you personally but just that mindset that all of us (including me) have of not wanting to see the ugly and not wanting to live with the reality of what has happened.

I’m not emotionally invested in Pell. I’m emotionally invested in your attacks against my posts.

If Pell did it, I will NOT be surprised. If this is a hoax, I will NOT be surprised.

Frankly, I will be MORE DISAPPOINTED and let down if this this a hoax / lie, because honestly, at this point: I kind of want Pell to be truly guilty because the idea of people making this up scares the hell out me.

 

[Bradskii]

Hoosier-Daddy:

Your position is that a man was wrongly convicted by a jury because he didn’t take the stand? Why do you not extend the same charity you wish to extend Pell to the jury? Why are you accusing them of something horrific?

No, that’s not my position. My position is that IF (keyword here is IF) he was convicted by the jury because he didn’t take the stand, then that be wrong.

You are saying that any conviction where the accused didn’t take the stand is doubtful.

'As a rule, criminal defense lawyers will not allow a defendant to testify unless it is absolutely necessary. Instead, we stand on the constitutional rights of the accused and demand that the prosecution prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

In any criminal trial, the defendant has the right to testify or not to testify. If a defendant chooses not to testify, this fact cannot be held against him or her in court. The court must instruct the jury that the defendant has a constitutional right not to testify, that the choice not to testify cannot be held against the defendant, and that the defendant is presumed innocent regardless of whether he or she testifies.’
https://www.justcriminallaw.com/cri...2017/01/27/should-criminal-defendant-testify/

 

[Hoosier-Daddy]

IF ITS A HOAX? OK. You win I’m out.

 

[phil19034]

Come on. Rarely on these boards is there an example where someone could just go.“you know what, my position is indefensible and wrong. I see that.” I mean we all want that to happen. We dream of it. But rarely is there just the perfect opportunity in reality for that to happen. The backtracking with “if” is disingenuous at best. It’s common in these abuse discussions to blame others. But your “if” is uncharitable to the jurors you dont even know! Honestly you have a chance to do something positive here.

You are accusing me of being uncharitable? Really? You are personally attacking me because I read the article from the National Catholic Register and am responding from what I learned from Edward Pentin’s article.

You are assuming that you know my heart.

You are assuming that I’m some Pell fan, I’m not - don’t really know him other than his role at Vatican.

You are making A LOT of assumptions about my views.

All I’m doing is trying to avoid the assumption of innocent or guilty until this whole circus is over.

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

Hoosier-Daddy:

Your position is that a man was wrongly convicted by a jury because he didn’t take the stand? Why do you not extend the same charity you wish to extend Pell to the jury? Why are you accusing them of something horrific?

No, that’s not my position. My position is that IF (keyword here is IF) he was convicted by the jury because he didn’t take the stand, then that be wrong.

You are saying that any conviction where the accused didn’t take the stand is doubtful.

'As a rule, criminal defense lawyers will not allow a defendant to testify unless it is absolutely necessary. Instead, we stand on the constitutional rights of the accused and demand that the prosecution prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

In any criminal trial, the defendant has the right to testify or not to testify. If a defendant chooses not to testify, this fact cannot be held against him or her in court. The court must instruct the jury that the defendant has a constitutional right not to testify, that the choice not to testify cannot be held against the defendant, and that the defendant is presumed innocent regardless of whether he or she testifies.’
Should a Criminal Defendant Testify at Trial? — #LadyJustice Speaks

No, I’m not. I’m saying that if the statement from the National Catholic Register is true, then that’s troubling. This below statement is the bases of my whole concern for this matter and why I’m reserving judgment until the appeals process is over.

But although evidence appeared to lean heavily in Cardinal Pell’s favor, his decision not to take the stand “made a negative impression” on the jury according to one source, while others defended his decision.

Suppression Order Lifted on Cardinal Pell Trial| National Catholic Register

 

[Hoosier-Daddy]

The circus is over. He is guilty. I am not being uncharitable or attacking you. I am truly shocked at your position and if anyone deserves the presumption of innocent until proven guilty here it is the jury members who have done nothing wrong. To accuse them or even indicate that its possible they committed such an evil that convicted a man of sexual abuse simply because he did not take the stand is a slander to their character.
I think it best we back away at this point. I hope you can see that I’m not attacking you personally, at least I’m trying not to, I’m just flabbergasted and frightened by your position. It may have been wrong to try to take it to a face to face example. I know you on the boards and you have a stellar reputation that I usually enjoy reading. But here… Here… there was just something new in your posts…
I hope you do not take offense. I will think of what you have said. And I really hope you do the same.

 

[Vouthon]

St. Peter Damian (1007 - 1072) was one of the Gregorian Reformers who originally campaigned for the imposition of clerical celibacy in the 11th century.

Using as his authority a canon for the punishment of paedophile clergy from the 7th century, he quoted the following in 1051:

Book of Gomorrah: An Eleventh-Century Treatise Against Clerical Homosexual ... - Saint Peter Damian - Google Books

"A cleric or monk who persecutes [or “seduces”] adolescents or young boys, or who is caught in a kiss or other occasion of indecency, should be publicly beaten and lose his tonsure, and having been disgracefully shaved, his face is to be smeared with spittle, and he is to be bound in iron chains, worn down with six months of imprisonment, and three days every week to fast on barley bread until sundown. After this, spending his time separated in his room for another six months in the custody of a spiritual senior, he should be intent upon the work of his hands and on prayer, subject to vigils and prayers, and he should always walk under the guard of two spiritual brothers, never again soliciting sexual intercourse from youth by perverse speech or counsel and he shall never again associate with youths in private conversation nor in counselling them."

( Book of Gomorrah Chapter 16 )

St. Fructuosus of Braga, in the seventh century, had issued a canon that any monk who molested young men should be compulsorily monitored for the rest of his life to make sure that he never had the opportunity to commit another crime, and suffer other severe punishments including public penance by flogging and iron chains.

Discipline really meant discipline back then.

St. Peter Damian went on to comment:

"This carnal man whom the sacred authority judges to be degraded by such ignominies and with such awesome reproach…should not flatter himself on not having corrupted anyone else since he should see it clearly written that whoever is found in a kiss alone or any impure situation will be justly subjected to the whole range of ignominious discipline.

And if a kiss is so severely punished, what should contamination with another merit? To punish this crime, this enormous crime, is it not enough to be whipped in public, to lose his tonsure, to be shamefully shaven, to be smeared with spit, to be cruelly imprisoned for a long time, and to be bound in iron chains besides? Yet finally he is also ordered to be struck with a fast of barley bread since it is right that whoever acts like a horse and a mule not eat the food of men but is to feed on the grain of mules.

We [must not] neglect to consider the gravity of this sin…One who is polluted by this filthy stain of sexual impurity does not merit to perform ecclesiastical duties…Truly, this vice is never to be compared with any other vice because it surpasses the enormity of all vices. Indeed, this is the death of bodies, the destruction of souls."

 

[phil19034]

The circus is over. He is guilty. I am not being uncharitable or attacking you. I am truly shocked at your position and if anyone deserves the presumption of innocent until proven guilty here it is the jury members who have done nothing wrong. To accuse them or even indicate that its possible they committed such an evil that convicted a man of sexual abuse simply because he did not take the stand is a slander to their character.
I think it best we back away at this point. I hope you can see that I’m not attacking you personally, at least I’m trying not to, I’m just flabbergasted and frightened by your position. It may have been wrong to try to take it to a face to face example. I know you on the boards and you have a stellar reputation that I usually enjoy reading. But here… Here… there was just something new in your posts…
I hope you do not take offense. I will think of what you have said. And I really hope you do the same.

I enjoy your posts as well. But please… I’m NOT taking any position here.

I’m responding to the article I read from the NC Register that is implying that the evidence was in support of Pell and that by not taking the stand is why the Jury voted against him.

I am NOT saying this is true.

I’m saying that IF that is true, it’s troubling. Therefore, based on what I read in the NC Register, I’m waiting for confirmation that this won’t be overturned.

I would NOT be saying any of what I have said if it wasn’t for the NC Register post from Edward Pentin I read today.

 

[Bradskii]

Hoosier-Daddy:

The circus is over. He is guilty. I am not being uncharitable or attacking you. I am truly shocked at your position and if anyone deserves the presumption of innocent until proven guilty here it is the jury members who have done nothing wrong. To accuse them or even indicate that its possible they committed such an evil that convicted a man of sexual abuse simply because he did not take the stand is a slander to their character.
I think it best we back away at this point. I hope you can see that I’m not attacking you personally, at least I’m trying not to, I’m just flabbergasted and frightened by your position. It may have been wrong to try to take it to a face to face example. I know you on the boards and you have a stellar reputation that I usually enjoy reading. But here… Here… there was just something new in your posts…
I hope you do not take offense. I will think of what you have said. And I really hope you do the same.

I enjoy your posts as well. But please… I’m NOT taking any position here.

I’m responding to the article I read from the NC Register that is implying that the evidence was in support of Pell and that by not taking the stand is why the Jury voted against him.

I am NOT saying this is true.

I’m saying that IF that is true, it’s troubling. Therefore, based on what I read in the NC Register, I’m waiting for confirmation that this won’t be overturned.

I would NOT be saying any of what I have said if it wasn’t for the NC Register post from Edward Pentin I read today.

It made a negative impression according to ONE source? That’s a pretty weak position on which to make a stand.

And how on earth could anyone come to that conclusion in any case? It sounds very much like a pre-judged opinion. And it most certainly won’t be overturned on that basis.

 

[phil19034]

You have no idea if he is innocent or guilty? Really? I think our conversation is going to be fruitless. However, it is incredibly frustrating to me as a father to run up against your position. It scares me. The Church and the faithful scare me. And I believe in the Church 100 percent with my life and my children’s lives. I also believe the fruit of the devil is the exact problem here.

Please enlighten me. What is my position? You seem to know what’s in my mind and soul better than me.

I’m a father of two little children: a 7 year old girl & a 4 year old boy. If someone did this to my kids, I would kill him if given the chance.

I’m NOT DEFENDING Pell because he’s in the Church. Sadly & frankly, the fact that he’s a bishop & priest makes these allegations credible!

I’ve been hit on by a gay priest before and my dad experienced a situation with a priest when he was a kid (that has ruined his faith). So I am NOT naive here. And what Rome has been doing is HORRIFIC because now the Bishops have zero credibility here, world wide.

Anyway, my position is this AND NOTHING MORE: We are innocent until proven guilty. And for me personally, I TRY (keyword “TRY”) to reserve judgement until after the appeals process is over. I do that for all high profile matters. But sometimes I have an opinion, which I may express. In this case I HAVE NO OPINION other than I don’t want to see someone go to jail if the only reason is because he didn’t take the stand.

BTW - Maybe because that’s because I work in a law firm, but I know darn well that sometimes the lower courts (and Jury) gets it wrong from time to time and that an appeals courts over turn a lower court rulings a lot. That’s why they exist.