Pell Discussion Forum: August 21, 2019

Update I: Appeal Rejected.

Update II: The actual judgement.

FERGUSON CJ, MAXWELL P

352 We would refuse leave to appeal in respect of grounds 2 and 3. We would grant leave to appeal in respect of ground 1 (the unreasonableness ground) but, for the reasons we have given, would dismiss the appeal.

WEINBERG JA:

1179 I would grant leave to appeal against conviction on Ground 1. I would order that the appeal be treated as having been heard instanter, and that it be allowed. I would set aside each of the convictions sustained below, and the sentences passed thereon. I would further order that there be entered judgment and verdicts of acquittal on each charge.

1180 I would refuse leave to appeal on both Grounds 2 and 3.

Update III: PvO has this tweet.

I do have some sympathy for PvO’s  position. We have a process for establishing “facts” and that process has established that George Pell is guilty of a crime. To be sure Pell can still appeal to the High Court – and I think he should. But here is the thing – we keep hearing that trust in social institutions is eroding. The legal system itself is such a social institution. We are being asked to believe a very big claim – that George Pell is a heinous criminal on evidence that strikes me (and I’m sure many others) as being somewhat implausible. True – as PvO points out – I wasn’t in the church in 1996 and so I don’t know what happened. Mind you none of the juries or judges was there either. If they had been there would be eye-witness accounts to the alleged crimes.  Anyway, not only are we being asked to believe a very big claim, we are asked to believe that claim after Pell was not tried in open court. Now to be sure, apologists will make their excuses – perhaps there are good reasons why that had to happen, blah, blah, blah.

To be clear, PvO’s position is the “responsible” position, the “appropriate” position, the  “bourgeois” position, the “moderate” position, and dare I say it, the “conservative” position.  Yet I do not consider myself to be unintellectual or pig-headedly ignorant.

Update IV: From the comments.

I probably don’t belong in this “centre right” blog, but I do believe in open and logical, fact based discussion, so please accept my somewhat dissenting comment in the constructive manner in which it is intended.

There are only 3 individuals that know what happened on that day in that church, and god depending on your beliefs.

One committed suicide and his evidence was not available to this trial.
One gave his evidence in the trial under the rules of our legal system.
One gave his evidence in the trial under the rules of our legal system.

Under the laws of Australia the judges enable both sides to present their evidence and arguments to the jury. The jury, made up of the peers of the accused, then decide which side they believe is presenting the truth.

That is the same arrangement that any of us would face in a similar situation.

C. Pell may be innocent, but the rules under which we agree to live by, find him guilty and that decision has been made by a majority? of the jury and the judges after listening and reviewing days and days of evidence.

Why is it that people on this blog believe that their opinion is more correct than those people of the jury and the judges, whom as a society we delegated the decision to.

What we as individuals desire or believe in our hearts or minds is utterly irrelevant.

If we believe that our emotional and unfounded beliefs are more valid than those of our legal system, then our society has some big problems.

No individual is above the law, even the Pope.

 

This entry was posted in Open Forum. Bookmark the permalink.

863 Responses to Pell Discussion Forum: August 21, 2019

  1. notafan

    LL nearly all have been belated prosecutions, the point was that they are not roaming free.

    nothing new there

    It is very clear to me that the police and courts did not want to prosecute child abusers in the 1960s and 1970s

    and lots of people didn’t think that is was all that dreadful

    I think CL mentioned before it wasn’t until those abused children grew up that anything serious was done

    I have mentioned before my brothers went to Christian brothers schools, the boys seem to have all known who was who in the p file zoo (even if they were not victims themselves) but no-one spoke up

  2. How pell could have had all charges dismissed:

    1. Announced that he was to release in a new book an expose of sumfin. (ABC exclusive)
    2. Announce he had discovered his aboriginal heritage
    3. Announce he was converting to Islam
    4. Assert that his transgender surgery would begin next month.
    5. Show that he was a paid up member of the CFMMEU
    6. Make a large donation to the ALP
    7. Hand over a church property to gangreens

    Any 2 of the above would be enough for an acquittal

  3. candy

    evidence before the Royal Commission indicates that such crimes in the Catholic Church peaked in the 1970s – i.e. around four decades ago – and had dropped dramatically by 1990.

    George Pell is the face of all those crimes because he is the one person people know because he is recent and seen on the websites and on TV. Really, that jury had to find him guilty – it was expected. There’s no-one else alive to be found guilty and punished. Literally there is no interest in evidence and fair trial.
    It’s like Lindy Chamberlain and the terrible time she went through.

    Even now. Lindy Chamberlain is guilty in the minds of many people – because they want her to be guilty and lack of evidence simply does not count. When folk are biased, you can make any untruth a truth.

  4. C.L.

    the institutions themselves are not directly responsible

    Not the institution, understood broadly (lay people, mums and dads, families etc), no. But we know Catholic chancelleries and bishops covered up and thereby facilitated further assaults.

  5. notafan

    I just like things to be factual LL

    I know a very little about Risdale because family had a run in, if Mulkearns had not been the bishop things might have been very different

  6. Elizabeth (Lizzie) Beare

    Yes, the ones we know about ended up in jail eventually.
    A key question is, should they have been detected earlier and prosecuted and turfed out of the clergy?

    Another key question is why they were not booted out immediately when they were outed. Rather than there being a great conspiracy amongst the priesthood (there certainly was some though), how much of the tolerance of pedo inclinations was due to the belief current in those times that they were just that, improper inclinations which could be changed with proper understanding and practice of theology?

    We should be careful we do not judge the past entirely by the standards of the present.
    The old saying about the paved road to Hades and good intentions may be relevant.

  7. Stimpson J. Cat

    Look, the Church was full of gays.
    The Vatican still is.
    This is indisputable,
    otherwise Francis wouldn’t make public statements about it.

    “It’s a reality we can’t deny.”

    All of this is irrelevant to the justice or otherwise of the case against Hell’s P®ll.

    Let’s try and stay on topic gentle people.
    😁

  8. notafan

    Yes they did CL

    Mulkearns and Little, both progressive types, and the Christian brothers were appalling, but I hope fairly exceptional

  9. Bar Beach Swimmer

    Nothing in Christianity is the basis for anything in our legal system.

    To name a few:
    The rule of law; Swearing on the Bible; Perjury; Equality before the law; The intrinsicvalue of every human being.

    Any honest analysis of contemporary Western history would have to recognize that no effective legal protection against tyranny can, in the long run, be sustained without the higher standards of justice and morality brought into the texture of Western societies by Christianity.
    Westerners who disparage their Christian heritage should get much better informed that were it not for this religion, they would not have the freedoms they enjoy today…
    The Christian foundations of the rule of law in the West: a legacy of liberty and resistance against tyranny
    by Augusto Zimmermann (Aug, 2005)

  10. notafan

    There was no ‘great conspiracy’ though it is clear that a couple of bishops and at least one religious order were culpable.

    I don’t think theology is relevant at all

    just a societal wide tolerance because sexual revolution

    people seem to forget there was significant agitation in the sixties to make child sex legal

  11. Leigh Lowe

    Another key question is why they were not booted out immediately when they were outed.

    Or not allowed into the clergy in the first place, like Paul David Ryan, who was initially turfed from the Adelaide seminary for trouser indiscretions.
    Ryan was picked up by Mulkearns in Victoria in the draft despite the warnings.
    Ryan then just happens to hook up with Ridsdale and another peter-file in Mildura.
    Deidre, what a fucking coincidence.

    Rather than there being a great conspiracy amongst the priesthood (there certainly was some though)

    There certainly was in Ballarat under Rotten Ronnie Mulkearns.

  12. notafan

    I can’t emphasis enough that we should not accept the progressive narrative that the child sex abuse scandal is not a Catholic problem but a societal problem that peaked in the sexually enlightened sixties and seventies.

    If you want to lay blame, lay at at the door of the anything goes sexual revolutionaries.

    Jean-Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir and the current French health and education ministers Bernard Kouchner and Jack Lang were among the signatories of petitions in the 1970s calling for paedophilia to be decriminalised, it emerged yesterday.
    A number of extraordinary documents have surfaced – in the wake of accusations of possible child sex abuse against the former student revolutionary Danny Cohn-Bendit that are forcing France’s intellectuals to confront the values of the May 1968 revolution and its aftermath, a period that witnessed probably the biggest change in sexual behaviour in recorded history.


    Calls for legal child sex rebound on luminaries of May 68

  13. notafan

    you are correct about Mulkearns LL

    who get a very light touch at the RC and then died

  14. notafan

    BBS it ts prog dogma to give Christianity zero credit for anything good about Western Civilization

    it is a mere accident/coincidence

    could have happened to anyone

  15. Leigh Lowe

    Another problem which existed in the 60’s was the exalted place priests held within the Catholic community.
    I know of one instance where a family was pilloried in their local parish as “troublemakers” shortly after making a confidential complaint to Rotten Ronnie Mulkearns about a certain Father Fiddler.
    The other little issue is that the Father Fiddlers were almost invariably relaxed, hip and groovy types, eschewing the dog-collar for open neck shirts and quick-release slacks.
    They were seen as an asset in retaining the younger members of the flock.

  16. Leigh Lowe

    Another problem which existed in the 60’s was the exalted place priests held within the Catholic community.
    I know of one instance where a family was pilloried in their local parish as “troublemakers” shortly after making a confidential complaint to Rotten Ronnie Mulkearns about a certain Father F1ddler.
    The other little issue is that the Father F1ddlers were almost invariably relaxed, hip and groovy types, eschewing the dog-collar for open neck shirts and quick-release slacks.
    They were seen as an asset in retaining the younger members of the flock.

  17. pbw

    To be clear, PvO’s position is the “responsible” position, the “appropriate” position, the “bourgeois” position, the “moderate” position, and dare I say it, the “conservative” position. Yet I do not consider myself to be unintellectual or pig-headedly ignorant.

    What do you think PVO would have said had his appeal been upheld. There would surely have been wailing and gnashing of teeth across the board. Would PVO have uttered the same statements about such unintellectual and pig-headed complainers?
    You have three hours to complete your answer.
    As to the comment, I daresay the same observations would apply; but I will point out this summary

    There are only 3 individuals that know what happened on that day in that church, and god depending on your beliefs.

    One committed suicide and his evidence was not available to this trial.
    One gave his evidence in the trial under the rules of our legal system.
    One gave his evidence in the trial under the rules of our legal system.

    Under the laws of Australia the judges enable both sides to present their evidence and arguments to the jury. The jury, made up of the peers of the accused, then decide which side they believe is presenting the truth.

    is incomplete on a number of grounds.

    For starters, this process occurred twice. The first jury could not reach a verdict. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it is possible in Victoria to get a criminal conviction on a 10-2 majority. Therefore, at least three jury members refused to convict after what I imagine was a fraught discussion over some days.

    That should have been the end of the matter. But no, Pell was to be given no respite, and the huge expense of his first trial would be incurred again, thanks not to the Church, but to those who believed in Pell.

    The sumary above continued,

    That is the same arrangement that any of us would face in a similar situation.

    Is it? Would the commenter be happy to be tried again if the jury in our first trial was undecided?
    Similarly, the appeal bench was divided 2 to 1 on whether to refuse the appeal. There is clearly something deeply amiss here.

    Why is it that people on this blog believe that their opinion is more correct than those people of the jury and the judges, whom as a society we delegated the decision to.

    We don’t. We share the opinion of members of the first jury, and of one out of three of the apellate judges.

    The prosecution’s entire case rested on the testimony of one witness, who remains anonymous, and whose credibility could not be questioned during the first trial. This anonymous witness, who appeared onlyi on video at the trial, was not required to appear at the second trial at all; the video of his previous evidence was shown instead.

    That is the same arrangement that any of us would face in a similar situation.

    Indeed. It is a measure of the corruption of due process which has been actively pursued for some time now, and it not finished yet. That corruption has been evident for decades in the Family Court and in respect of the ever-expanding definition of “domestic violence.” It will make its way soon to a rape trial near you.

    This is not even to address the decades-long conditioning of the public, which includes all potential jurors, to regard Pell as a hateful figure, or to address the inherent absurdities in the allegation.

  18. Leigh Lowe

    Blockquote fail.
    Them’s my words.

  19. Stimpson J. Cat

    Nothing in Christianity is the basis for anything in our legal system.

    Thank Socrates those enlightened Greek and Roman heathens abolished slavery, right Bro?
    The world could have been so very different.
    😂

  20. Percy Popinjay

    C. Pell may be innocent, but the rules under which we agree to live by, find him guilty and that decision has been made by a majority? of the jury and the judges after listening and reviewing days and days of evidence.
    Why is it that people on this blog believe that their opinion is more correct than those people of the jury and the judges, whom as a society we delegated the decision to.
    What we as individuals desire or believe in our hearts or minds is utterly irrelevant.
    If we believe that our emotional and unfounded beliefs are more valid than those of our legal system, then our society has some big problems.

    For the last time, for the appallingly ignorant imbeciles (and as usual, I’m looking at you, iampiñata, among others) attempting to defend the jury’s idiocy in the second Pell trial – he should not have been found guilty of the charges as they were unsubstantiated, uncorroborated, completely discredited by other witness testimony and beyond the realms of physical possibility – e.g. George Pell does NOT have three hands, you monumental morons.

    Therefore, the charges against Pell could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt, end of f*cking story and I have served on a jury that rejected a charge against an accused in a criminal trial on that very basis. In that instance, the word of the alleged victim against the word of the accused, with no other evidence produced to support that charge. The other ten charges in that case were all upheld as due to the production of other evidence, we determined the accused to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

    I do not feel safe from state persecution in a country where the type of miscarriage of justice inflicted on Pell could even occur, much less be upheld by a supposedly higher jurisdiction.

    Now sod off, you braindead pig-ignorant fascist stooges or I’ll phone up Fatty Ashton and report those decade old incidents when you mercilessly beat several homeless wallies senseless with a plastic turkey before gleefully incinerating entire litters of two week old puppies and kittens.

  21. Mother Lode

    Nothing in Christianity is the basis for anything in our legal system.

    The last big thing in the West before Christianity was the Roman Empire. Their laws would not seem altogether alien to us, and in fact they Christianised before the Empire fell. So the provenance of the laws could be traced back to the earlier pagan traditions, but those laws would only have been able to remain in force if they were consistent with the new official Christian religion of the Empire.

    After the Empire collapsed law and order would have taken a hit. In fact, without strong central authority passing and enforcing laws it is dubious as to whether you could say there was a legal tradition. There would have been custom and the judgement of the most eminent people around. Most people would have had to have made their own ‘law’. If someone killed someone it would have been up to their friends, families and communities to avenge them.If they were too fleet of foot then they would get away with it.

    The Church was the first central trans-territorial authority. Lords and whatnot were subject to the Church. So, given the break in tradition after the fall of the Empire it was the Church that re-introduced a legal tradition. By comparison to later periods it was patchy (depending to a mans degree and geography) but it grew from that. It was not supplanted by something else.

    At present we live in a largely secular world with a Christian tradition. The idea of the irreducible and universal value of the individual is something the Romans did not have and, until recently, secularists accepted – and a whole lot flows from that.

    And so on.

  22. If we believe that our emotional and unfounded beliefs are more valid than those of our legal system, then our society has some big problems.

    No. We have a different problem.
    The problem is that justice must be seen to be done, lest people fear that it has not been done.

    Shift your head and hypothetically assume that pell is guilty.
    Was there anything published, by our media, about the trial that would cause you, as hypothetical juror, to find guilty without any doubt?
    For me, the hypothetical answer is no. (he said versus he said)
    No, I was not at the trial. But hypothetical justice does not appear to have been done.
    The appearance of things is all important.

    Unless a higher court can decisively clear the air then yes, “our society justice system has some big problems”

  23. Farmer Gez

    There certainly was in Ballarat under Rotten Ronnie Mulkearns.

    Also known as Red Ron for political affiliations.
    My old man couldn’t stand the sight of him and an old aunt who was well up in the non clerical side of the church despised him in particular.

  24. notafan

    Indeed LL

    more evidence that it was the progs that were the problem

    fancy that

  25. dover_beach

    Pyrmonter:

    Thanks for at least some evidence, but … before you dive into such sectarian whattaboutery

    Hang on, how is CL, or notafan earlier, engaged in ‘whataboutery’ when both are directly countering the claim that the Catholic Church had a unique problem compared with other religious institutions owing to clerical celibacy or some other unidentified ‘problem’? The comparisons made are not ‘diversions’ or unrelated to the matter in dispute but directly relevant.

  26. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    Nothing in Christianity is the basis for anything in our legal system.

    Whoever said this is pig-ignorant and as dumb as dogshit.

    Equity arose out of the courts of Chancery acting as a clerical check on the King’s conscience and the intermittent harshness of the common law.

    Equity per se arose comparatively in other law systems as well, but as for us, it was from the Chancellor of the Kingdom of England & Archbishop of Canterbury.

  27. Bar Beach Swimmer

    pbw
    #3138124, posted on August 22, 2019 at 12:57 pm

    +1000

  28. Bar Beach Swimmer

    Notafan
    #3138114, posted on August 22, 2019 at 12:47 pm

    Nota, I remember watching the 7:30 Report in, about, the late 1980s and a bloke was arguing that s3* should be legalised between men and under age boys because this was their natural disposition and, for the boys, everyone, including children are s3*u4l beings! As I remember, there was no incredulity from the host, but can’t remember who that was. But that the ABC was giving air time to such crap without even questioning the position was beyond belief. It was handled like any other news/current affairs story.

    And what about the ho-hum attitude to a certain artist’s photographs of children/adolescents?

  29. notafan

    BBS

    Was considered quite a legitimate position to take

    strange fruit

  30. Iampeter

    Many men for many reasons go without sex for years.
    Wars, working away, not rich, ugly or in many cases in this day and age, there are by my estimation a few million men who know they have too many years on to start again, the sex has stopped long ago at home and they neither can afford (thanks to government on the woman’s side) nor want to start again.
    They resolve to deal with it as men.
    They live non sexual lives and think about going fishing.
    Occasionally running it through the knuckle, get a clear head and get on with it.

    Only a young person or maybe women, because they are not men, could believe that celibacy leads to homo pedofeelya.
    If celibacy caused homo pedofeelya, there would be a national emergency.

    You don’t need to overshare so much.
    It’s always been very clear that there’s more than merely totaly ignorance that causes so many of you dingbats that post here to react in such an unhinged manner so often.

    “struth
    #3138068, posted on August 22, 2019 at 11:53 am
    You are a moron.”

    Far too generous Struth.

    It’s important that you strive to maintain the level of trailer trash that people at the cat proudly represent.

    Stay classy, Cassie.

  31. Iampeter

    To name a few:
    The rule of law; Swearing on the Bible; Perjury; Equality before the law; The intrinsicvalue of every human being.

    To name a few what? You’re responding to the statement that “nothing in Christianity is the basis for anything in our legal system” and nothing you’ve listed for some reason challenges that statement.
    Let me help you so you don’t waste anymore time: a religious doctrine requiring mindless obedeince on pain of death and the promised terror of eternal suffering, is not the basis for any legal system.
    It is the basis for dictatorships and theocracy which is all Europe had while Christian ideas were dominant.
    In other words, trying to suggest something like this: “The Christian foundations of the rule of law in the West: a legacy of liberty and resistance against tyranny”
    …is going to be obviously wrong.

    Thank Socrates those enlightened Greek and Roman heathens abolished slavery, right Bro?
    The world could have been so very different.

    Greeks and Romans didn’t abolish slavery but the ideas they discovered eventually would.
    Christianity on the other hand is PRO-slavery. Not only that, but it IS slavery itself. A slavery that you can’t even escape from after death.
    Also, aside from this obvious, on-the-face-of-it issue with what you’re trying to suggest, abolishing slavery isn’t even a defining characteristic of what the West is about and amounts to nothing more than grasping at straws.
    And that’s my point.
    You don’t know what the West is about.
    You don’t know what Christianity is about either.
    You have have an incoherent and self contradictory world view you’ve mindlessly accepted.
    This is why the conservative movement is such a burning dumpster fire of a political movement.

    At present we live in a largely secular world with a Christian tradition. The idea of the irreducible and universal value of the individual is something the Romans did not have and, until recently, secularists accepted – and a whole lot flows from that.

    This is an example of that cargo cultist mentality, not at all reflective of the real world.
    The West is a secular culture with a Greek heritage of reason. It has no more Christian tradition than one could say it has a Communist tradition. Or ignorant, backwards mass murderers tradition, although all those things were present.

    Western civilization is secular, rational and individualistic. It is therefore anti-Christian.

  32. JC

    Peter

    You’re mentally unwell.

  33. Pyrmonter

    @ Dover

    This is what CL wrote, as an example, among a series of posts by him/her and others generally impugning the UCA:

    Yes, Monty, that’s because the Catholic Church ran more schools and institutions than all of the other denominations combined – and for a lot longer. Also because the UC doesn’t have any money because it no longer really exists as any kind of significant social force. But statistically, pro rata, the worst offender was the Uniting Church.

    Someone else quoted something from Henderson that sought to add apples and oranges to arrive at the count of vegetables, essentially by way of minimization. The RC Report showed that abuse was prevalent across a range of denominations (as well as among Hebraic institutions). That prevalence is one reason I think the focus of the recommendations on ‘clericalism’ was misplaced: abuse has been present (and responded to poorly) in organisations with widely differing governance: whether deferential and centralised (catholicism) or thoroughly lay such as the Salvation Army, JWs, and parts of the UCA (which cannot be treated as monolithic – it is a faction-ridden bitter mess; but for that reason, doesn’t allow for some of the problems of the Roman church).

    While the Roman church operated more schools (overwhelmingly day schools), the protestant churches operated more residential institutions, especially ‘inland missions’, and boarding schools: comparing organisational size and ‘rates of reporting’ (based on what the organisations themselves volunteered) is about as statistically robust as taking womens’ hemlines as an future indicator of macroeconomic performance.

  34. Mother Lode

    Greeks and Romans didn’t abolish slavery but the ideas they discovered eventually would.
    Christianity on the other hand is PRO-slavery. Not only that, but it IS slavery itself. A slavery that you can’t even escape from after death.

    Please tell me 1amp is a first year university student.

  35. JC

    Pyrmonter

    Someone did a study. I can’t exactly recall it as it was some years ago and more like the beginning of the decade. They did this so as to explain the number of offenses going back to the 30s (I think), when it peaked and when it began to quell. This was for the Catholic Church. The study cam out to show that despite peak peedo talk in the media the peak offense rate had passed us by perhaps 3 decades ago. In other words the media was peddling these offenses as though it was happening now. That was the perception in the public mind.
    Also, considering the number of kids that went through school for about the 30s to the then present day, the offense rate was not extraordinary in the sense that it was way over the general population’s.

  36. dover_beach

    Someone else quoted something from Henderson that sought to add apples and oranges to arrive at the count of vegetables

    Really, is that because the comparison he presents is unflattering? But leaving that aside, where is the ‘whataboutism’ given that CL’s reply above directly responds to the claim made that the Catholic Church had problems the other religious institutions didn’t? Further, contrary to your claim above, the governance of the Catholic Church institutions isn’t ‘centralized’, as dioceses, schools, and the like, are governed independently of each other.

  37. Pyrmonter

    @ JC – thanks. If anyone could track it down …

    More relevant comparisons would be, say, the rate of offending in state and confessional schools. The facts of the PAC (civil) case are informative there: PAC (then a Methodist boys school, mostly day boys, but with boarders) was sued for having hired someone in 1961 who had undoubtedly abused the boarders. He had left, of his own volition, a position in the state sector.

    Curiously, little inquiry appears to have been made about other potential victims; the evidence given by the then very elderly, retired state school masters about the circumstances of the perpetrator’s departure bear hallmarks of the diffidence or indifference similar to thatnow attracting the attention like of which Milligan.

  38. Pyrmonter

    @ Dover

    ‘Centralised’ may be a clumsy term, but my understanding (correct me if I’m wrong) is that RC parishes have no choice about their clergy: they can be appointed or removed by the bishop (as, in a different context, has proved controversial in northern Tasmania, fairly recenlty; and before that in Redfern). The opposite is the case in, say, the UCA and most other protestant churches, where the process of ‘calling’ a minister is complex, capable of being gamed, but involves the parish/congregation.

  39. Tintarella di Luna

    Mulkearns and Little, both progressive types, and the Christian brothers were appalling, but I hope fairly exceptional

    The Senate Inquiry into Children in Institutional Care filed two reports in 2004: one called Forgotten Australians:A report on Australians who experienced institutional or out-of-home care as children The other was called Protecting Vulnerable Children: A National Challenge
    The first report was over 500 pages long and contained significant evidence of serious abuses by people in positions of trust who had charge of the ‘care’ of children It is a harrowing read to say the least – Chapter 1 deals with the specifics of the Inquiry.

    The second report was about what can be done to improve the situation for vulnerable children who for whatever reason cannot live at home with their family.

    But the number of dead children since that 2004 shows precisely nothing has improved for children whose live short lives of unspeakable brutality.

  40. But the number of dead children since that 2004 shows precisely nothing has improved for children whose live short lives of unspeakable brutality.

    How many of those were in institutions Tinta?

  41. Tintarella di Luna

    Nota, I remember watching the 7:30 Report in, about, the late 1980s and a bloke was arguing that s3* should be legalised between men and under age boys because this was their natural disposition and, for the boys, everyone, including children are s3*u4l beings!

    I think it was covered by the Australian in this piece from 2014: Pro-pederasty past deserves and ABC apology:

    THE line in last Monday’s Four Corners program on ABC television, The Boy with the Henna Tattoo, was unequivocal. Reporter Caro Meldrum-Hanna condemned the practice once commonly called pederasty — homosexual relations between a male adult and a boy.
    The program dealt with the shocking case of two men, the Australian Peter Truong and the American Mark Newton, whose adopted baby boy was both personally abused and trafficked for sex. Meldrum-Hanna referred to the “depraved world inhabited by … a small group of hardcore pedophiles who call themselves Boylovers”.

    The Boy with the Henna Tattoo serves as an important reminder of how attitudes have changed at the public broadcaster and elsewhere with respect to pedophilia. Only four decades ago, pedophilia was a radical but fashionable endeavour within certain circles.

    The then ABC radio program Lateline was established by the left-wing radical ABC operative Allan Ashbolt (1921-2005). It was Ashbolt who commenced the left-wing stack of the taxpayer-funded public broadcaster and his influence is still felt today. In his sympathetic history This is the ABC (MUP, 1983), Ken Inglis refers to “Ashbolt’s (ABC) kindergarten”.

    It was in Ashbolt’s time that the ABC phenomenon emerged where debates were held in which everyone agrees with everyone else, including the presenter — all in a leftist way. And so it came to pass on July 14, 1975, when Richard Neville presented a Lateline program on pederasty where three adult men proclaimed what a great idea it was to have sex with boys. No other view was heard on the program.

    Not surprisingly, the Lateline program on pederasty was subjected to considerable criticism by, among others, the Reverend Fred Nile (then of the morally conservative Festival of Light) and The Sydney Morning Herald. Needless to say, Nile and his fellow critics were dismissed and ridiculed. In his 1979 book Outside Interference: The Politics of Australian Broadcasting, ABC friend and one-time board member Richard Harding declared that the pederasty program “was too much for the susceptibilities of some worthy citizens”.

    However, the most extraordinary intervention in the debate came from the then ABC chairman, Richard Downing. He said that “in general, men will sleep with young boys and that’s the sort of thing the community ought to know about”.

    In a letter to The Sydney Morning Herald, published on July 19, 1975, Downing argued that “the phenomenon of pederasty” was “appropriate for public discussion in a society which, if it is to be open, democratic and responsible, needs also to understand the diverse natures of the people who compose that society”.

    In other words, Downing stated that pederasty or “boylove” was an acceptable form of sexual behaviour which needed to be understood.

    ABC staff today are invariably calling on others to apologise for the inappropriate and/or criminal behaviour in the past of individuals or organisations. Perhaps the current ABC board might consider a mea culpa for the position taken by the ABC chairman just four decades ago in favour of adult men having sex with boys.

    In an article in the September 1984 issue of Quadrant magazine entitled “Paedophile Liberation and the Radical Homosexuals”, writer Andrew Lansdown documented how pederasty had become fashionable within sections of the Australian Left in the 1970s and 80s. He quoted an article in OutRage magazine which declared its “defence of the civil liberties of paedophiles”.

    Of course, it was not only underage boys who were regarded as suitable sexual partners at the time. In his 1970 book Play Power, Neville (who was born in 1941) boasted of having a “hurricane f . . k” with a “moderately attractive, intelligent, cherubic fourteen-year-old girl from a nearby London comprehensive school”. In the early 70s, the author of Play Power had no trouble in getting an ABC gig when he returned to Australia and in receiving support from the highest echelons in the ABC for inviting three pederasts on to his program.

    In his Quadrant article, Lansdown documented the existence in Australia at the time of a Paedophile Support Group. In recent weeks there has been controversy (in The Mail and elsewhere) over the Paedophile Information Exchange which existed in Britain in the 70s and 80s. The PIE was affiliated with the National Council for Civil Liberties.

    Prominent members of the NCCL at the time included Patricia Hewitt (the Australian-born Labour MP who became a member of Tony Blair’s cabinet), Harriet Harman (currently the deputy leader of the British Labour Party) and Jack Dromey (the Labour spokesman on policing). As Toby Young has revealed in Britain’s The Daily Telegraph, in 1976 Hewitt, as the NCCL’s general secretary, issued a press release advocating that the age of consent should be lowered to 10 years of age. Hewitt has since apologised.

    At the time, the PIE advocated that the age of consent should be lowered to four years of age. As Rod Liddle commented in The Sunday Times, the NCCL was “perfectly happy for its affiliate” to advocate sex between adult men and four-year-olds. Liddle quoted the NCCL at the time saying that “childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in with an adult, result in no identifiable damage”.

    In November 2012, the British historian Dominic Sandbrook reviewed Ben Thompson’s edited collection Ban this filth!: Mary Whitehouse and the Battle to Keep Britain Innocent.

    Whitehouse (1910-2001) was a morals campaigner and much mocked by self-declared progressive libertarians. In late 2012, Sandbrook reflected that when “reading this book during the fallout of the (BBC’s) Jimmy Savile scandal” he wondered if Whitehouse was “quite as cranky as she looked” at the time.

    Sandbrook quoted from a letter Whitehouse wrote to the BBC in 1973 objecting to the words of a song on the show Crackerjack in which the male singer suggested that “Every growin’ boy/ Needs a little joy/ Do you want to touch me there?” The song was titled Do You Wanna Touch Me? (Oh Yeah!) and the singer-songwriter was none other than Gary Glitter — who, in time, became a convicted pedophile.

    For all her oddities, Whitehouse spoke a truth denied by such pedophiles as Savile, Glitter and those, like Downing, who rationalised what was once termed “inter-generational sex”.

    This might make for a revealing Four Corners story one day.

    Gerard Henderson is executive director of The Sydney Institute.

  42. Tintarella di Luna

    How many of those were in institutions Tinta?

    None notafan because of course the institutions were all tarred with the same brush so the good ones were the same as the bad. No these children died at the hands of their biological parents about whom multiple notifications to DOCS were ignored by or swept aside by the rotating roster of child ‘protection’ offices.

    Ask Dr Jeremy Sammut he researched and wrote about the Madness of Child Protection in Australia – Ideology too often paves the way to atrocity – Terence McKenna

  43. Stimpson J. Cat

    Greeks and Romans didn’t abolish slavery but the ideas they discovered eventually would.
    Christianity on the other hand is PRO-slavery. Not only that, but it IS slavery itself. A slavery that you can’t even escape from after death.

    No buts Bro.
    I thought death was the end, my little Atheist chap?
    Aren’t you all about the individual?
    Why do you care how people spend their nonexistent Afterlife?
    You are very confused, aren’t you?
    😂

  44. notafan

    Incidentally the method by which pastors and priests come to a parish as being something relevant to this discussion is extraordinarily farfetched

    what does a bunch of hippy catholics forcing out a young priest have to do with anything?

    quite a while ago now the minister at the uniting church in the suburb of Vermont was removed after years of acrimony with parishioners

    big whoop

    The Catholic church is hierarchical like many other successful large organisations, that doesn’t make it ‘toxic’

    In fact I’d like to see an institution with millions of members that isn’t

    or a flat/democratic organisation that has successfully operated for even 100 years

  45. Cassie of Sydney

    “Greeks and Romans didn’t abolish slavery but the ideas they discovered eventually would.
    Christianity on the other hand is PRO-slavery. Not only that, but it IS slavery itself. A slavery that you can’t even escape from after death.”

    I’ve read some crap in my life but that takes the cake.

  46. Pyrmonter

    @ notafan

    Strict hierarchy doesn’t make it necessarily ‘toxic’ – in fact, it has some advantages in terms of accountability and transparency in performance. That was something where I thought the RC erred. But it does allow the sorts of ‘move the problem on’ approach seemingly adopted by Mulkearns.

  47. Old Lefty

    What really have the Royal Commission away was it’s refusal to spend one tenth of one second conducting hearings on stats schools despite the plentiful evidence about them. Only a political stitchup with Gillard can explain it.

  48. Iampeter

    Peter
    You’re mentally unwell.

    Says the resident wack job that only posts here because he’d be banned anywhere else.

    No buts Bro.
    I thought death was the end, my little Atheist chap?
    Aren’t you all about the individual?
    Why do you care how people spend their nonexistent Afterlife?
    You are very confused, aren’t you?

    I wouldn’t call anyone else confused if I’d just posted what you’ve posted here.

    Please tell me 1amp is a first year university student.

    That would make you clowns look even worse…

  49. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    I see Peter is here to discuss the issues, and not engage in invective and troll/run interference against ideas being discussed at this blog.

    He’s also very clearly laid out his point of view regarding solutions to policy issues, rather than just rage about he’s the One True Scotsman/Conservative/Libertarian.

  50. Stimpson J. Cat

    I wouldn’t call anyone else confused if I’d just posted what you’ve posted here.

    That’s not an answer, to any of my points,
    my little Atheist chap.
    But but but……
    Low energy.
    😂

  51. dover_beach

    ‘Centralised’ may be a clumsy term, but my understanding (correct me if I’m wrong) is that RC parishes have no choice about their clergy

    That is largely the case, but that is no way related to ‘centralized’ and since you were including schools, etc. and not only parishes and the appointment of clerics, a very unhelpful term.

  52. Pyrmonter

    @ Dover

    Do not bishops exercise control over diocesan property as well? The suggestions (though mostly from North America) that various ‘traditionalists’ have ‘de-platformed’ modernists and vice versa are an example that come to mind.

  53. Old Lefty

    On a lighter note, a friend reminded me that the late, great Peter Walsh used to call Van Onselen ‘Van Oscillator’.

  54. dover_beach

    Do not bishops exercise control over diocesan property as well? The suggestions (though mostly from North America) that various ‘traditionalists’ have ‘de-platformed’ modernists and vice versa are an example that come to mind.

    Sure, but there are 33 dioceses in Australia, and the religious orders, schools, hospitals, and the like, too, are all governed independently of each other.

  55. notafan

    Pymonter

    Leaders in any large organisation can do evil/commit crime, that doesn’t mean that the structure is itself the problem.

    Putting aside the lack of understanding about the recidivist nature of the offending at the time, which may have contributed to the moving ob (and don’t forget ridsdale was sent to the US for some sort of treatment and apparently given a clean bill of health iirc) a Bishop’s failures can be dealt with ‘up the line’.

    I believe that happened in Brisbane fairly recently.

    I still don’t see that the structure of the church is at issue.

    No-one has demonstrated that either the problem in the Catholic church was worse than in any other institution and more importantly that it is a continuing problem that requires that our 2000 old structures should be demolished.

  56. BrettW

    From The Daily Mail talking about “journalist” Sarah Harris Ch 10 after speaking to a victim of abuse by the Anglican Church :

    “Sarah added: ‘I think that if George Pell was any sort of man, he would let this go. He has the chance to right so many wrongs and even if he is not guilty – as he claims of this particular crime – he has played such a big part over so many years in destroying lives.

    ‘It will be best for everyone if he just lets this go. It was so hard to see these people [abuse survivors] outside court yesterday.'”

    and there we have it folks. He should accept his fate even if he is not guilty just to make all the victims of abuse, no matter by which church, feel better.

    Evidence is simply not an issue when you are up against this type of thinking.

  57. dover_beach

    he has played such a big part over so many years in destroying lives.

    Another lie.

  58. mh

    Liberty Quote
    Greeks and Romans didn’t abolish slavery but the ideas they discovered eventually would.
    Christianity on the other hand is PRO-slavery. Not only that, but it IS slavery itself. A slavery that you can’t even escape from after death.

    — Iampeter

  59. candy

    He should accept his fate even if he is not guilty just to make all the victims of abuse, no matter by which church, feel better.

    That is most likely what we are seeing. Cardinal Pell has to take the rap for the sexual abuse of children in the Catholic Church in Australia since forever, because he had a coolish personality and did not fully comprehend the tragedy unfolding in regard to the abuse. His personality was of uninvolved, cool.

    There was never any way the jury or judges could make any finding otherwise. Someone has to take the responsibility and so let the victims’ families move on and feel compensated by his incarceration. It was meant to be and I think George Pell knows he is the one to cop it. He never touched a child, I know that for sure. But that is meaningless in terms of this national reconciliation that someone must be punished for crimes against children under the Catholic guardianship. I am sure he knows that is the national feeling.

  60. calli

    He should accept his fate even if he is not guilty

    Yes, a liar would feel that way. Let the lie continue to make others happy.

    Lies don’t do that though. They just make things worse.

    Even if Pell never clears his name, he must make every effort to do so. To do otherwise would be to perpetuate a lie.

  61. notafan

    Sarah Harris = scary broken brain.

  62. calli

    mh
    #3138456, posted on August 22, 2019 at 7:34 pm
    Liberty Quote

    You know, the last bit of that really is a Liberty Quote.

    But not in the way it was meant.

  63. Cassie of Sydney

    “He should accept his fate even if he is not guilty”

    Any scum/slag who utters such putrid garbage deserves to also suffer from ignominious false allegations…I hope Ms Harris herself is the subject of unfounded allegations directed at her personally or directed against someone she loves…..such as her father/husband/brother/son…and then we need to say…very politely, to her…..oh Sarah, you should accept your fate even if you are not guilty or….oh Sarah, your father/husband/brother/son should accept his fate even if he is not guilty.

    I’m sorry…but the time to be nice is OVER.

  64. Geriatric Mayfly

    From The Daily Mail talking about “journalist” Sarah Harris Ch 10 after speaking to a victim of abuse by the Anglican Church :

    Another one. This country must be the world’s biggest slag heap. More detritus magically adds itself to the pile every day.

  65. Arky

    This thread has everything.
    Obsessive Catholicking, stupid trolling, Iampeter, Numberwangster, a cameo by doughnut boy, even a totally irrelevant travelogue from an elderly Sydney housewife.
    It’s like Catallaxy red cordial.
    Thank you George Pell.

  66. Confused Old Misfit

    mh
    #3138456, posted on August 22, 2019 at 7:34 pm
    Liberty Quote

    Wrong.
    Conflates slavery, a state of enforced subjugation, with a religion, a state of willing submission based on belief.

  67. Bar Beach Swimmer

    He should accept his fate even if he is not guilty”

    Obviously she wouldn’t be accepting Kant, then.

    Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.

  68. Bar Beach Swimmer

    Confused Old Misfit
    #3138512, posted on August 22, 2019 at 8:26 pm

    Hi Confused Old Misfit,
    Hope you’re ok.

  69. Bar Beach Swimmer

    Iampeter
    #3138232, posted on August 22, 2019 at 2:52 pm

    This from the same person who tried to argue on the Israel Folau thread that businesses/organisations have freedom of speech!
    You know what, I’ve grown tired of you, so not playing along with your boneheaded stupidity.

  70. mh

    Confused Old Misfit
    #3138512, posted on August 22, 2019 at 8:26 pm

    I was just having a giggle.

  71. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    “He should accept his fate even if he is not guilty”

    This is seriously fucked in the head.

    “She should just lay back and enjoy being forced to have sex against her will”

    Both are equally shocking statements.

  72. Confused Old Misfit

    Bar Beach Swimmer: Been better; been worse. But thanks for asking. Appreciate it.

    MH: Sorry should have referenced the idiot child directly.

  73. max

    “He should accept his fate even if he is not guilty”

    Fuck off.

    It would not surprise if Catholic priests are afraid to walk down the street now lest they be assaulted. That is where this goes.

  74. Anthony

    I just read the article in the Herald Sun in which Jeremy Gan comments that a High Court appeal could be heard ‘on the papers’. Makes perfectly good sense given Pell’s age and health, and even more sense given that the ridiculous case is an abomination at law. This must be what Weinberg meant in his dissenting opinion when he referred to sorting the case out ‘instanter’.

  75. Iampeter

    I see Peter is here to discuss the issues, and not engage in invective and troll/run interference against ideas being discussed at this blog.

    He’s also very clearly laid out his point of view regarding solutions to policy issues, rather than just rage about he’s the One True Scotsman/Conservative/Libertarian.

    For once you’ve said something that is spot on and not completely insane, unhinged and requiring translation into something intelligible. Good job!

    Bar Beach, you not knowing what you’re talking about in either the Folau or this thread is not an example of anyone’s boneheaded stupidity but your own. The worst part about cat posters is not the unparalleled stupidity that can’t be found anywhere else on the internet, but the delusional levels of dishonesty, evasion and projection, as you once again demonstrate.

    mh, that should indeed be a liberty quote. Also, I want to point out that attempts at being funny by people at the cat who have no idea what they’re saying, provide enormous entertainment to the lurkers here that come expecting a right wing blog but find a nest of religious and truly confused leftist kooks.

    In any case let me put the liberty quote more succinctly for you:

    Western Civilization was not created by the world’s oldest death cult – Iampeter

  76. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    Iampeter
    #3138744, posted on August 23, 2019 at 7:13 am

    I see Peter is here to discuss the issues, and not engage in invective and troll/run interference against ideas being discussed at this blog.

    He’s also very clearly laid out his point of view regarding solutions to policy issues, rather than just rage about he’s the One True Scotsman/Conservative/Libertarian.

    For once you’ve said something that is spot on and not completely insane, unhinged and requiring translation into something intelligible. Good job!

    Okay, so you’re clearly a left-wing concern troll.

    Fuck off, you’ve never added anything to a discussion here, not once.

    You don’t even make valid criticisms, you just whinge; let alone posit suggestions or solutions.

  77. Mother Lode

    Please tell me 1amp is a first year university student.

    That would make you clowns look even worse…

    How? It is not like you are putting forward any cogent arguments. Just lots of the ‘shocking’ insights of the sort undergraduates seize upon to make what they consider earth shattering pronouncements which they hope people will be simultaneously mortified yet unable to turn away from.

    It is all theatre of the mind. Like a child in a superman costume running around the back yard making ‘whooshing’ noises and jumping over puddles – a child at play doesn’t think they are at play, but are swept up in their own fiction. The feel like they are traveling at speed, leaping far, lifting heavy weights – to the adults the child is running at their usual tottering speed, jumping centimetres, and lifting their toys with exaggerated grunting noises.

    We can understand students, intoxicated by their new milieu, away from their parents, away from school uniforms, meeting a greater variety of people than they have met before (although there are still more in their parents’ world), believing each new idea they hear and think has only just been thought for the first time.

    But it isn’t the big wide world. It is as almost protected and as cloistered as the one they left.

    But it is understandable that they can be caught up in the group delusion. They can exchange their intellectual pretensions like ants exchange pheromones. They can marvel at the intricate conjectures, glistening spiderweb structures of assumptions, analogies, predictions, theories, and a good deal of wishing.

    The whole of which collapses as soon as soon as someone opens a window to the outside.

    So, yeah. If you were a uni student then your ridiculousness wielded with a comically misplaced pride would be comprehensible, and likely transitory.

    And this is the preferred of the two possibilities.

    Because otherwise you are just an idiot.

  78. Bar Beach Swimmer

    Mother Lode
    #3138771, posted on August 23, 2019 at 7:45 am

    +10000000000000

  79. Anthony

    What’s happening here?

  80. stackja

    Bar Beach Swimmer
    #3138811, posted on August 23, 2019 at 8:30 am
    Mother Lode
    #3138771, posted on August 23, 2019 at 7:45 am

    +10000000000000

    Petering out. There are two types of those posting here. Intelligent and you know who.
    Sinc is tolerant.

  81. Roger

    No, Archbishop Comensoli, Cardinal Pell and his accuser cannot both be telling the truth.

    For heaven’s sake.

  82. calli

    The distinction Comensoli is making is one of identity, Roger.

    He is being merciful to the accuser.

  83. Roger

    The distinction Comensoli is making is one of identity, Roger.

    He is being merciful to the accuser.

    He’s muddying the waters.

  84. C.L.

    No, Archbishop Comensoli, Cardinal Pell and his accuser cannot both be telling the truth.

    That was a truly bizarre intervention.
    It encapsulates the gun-shy relativistic paralysis of the contemporary episcopate, though.
    Hey, they’re both right.

    The Australian bishops’ conference should publish a forensic repudiation of this whole episode and order it distributed to every parish in the country. They should also call for a judicial inquiry.

  85. Roger

    It encapsulates the gun-shy relativistic paralysis of the contemporary episcopate, though.

    Comensoli had actually shown some spine up until that post-modern “pastoral” inanity.

  86. Iampeter

    Mother Lode, that is a great exercise in evasion and projection.
    When you have no counter arguments and are not a moral or honest person then lying to yourself and each other is all you have.

  87. Mother Lode

    Mother Lode, that is a great exercise in evasion and projection.

    Bwahahahahaaa!

    I knew you couldn’t resist.

  88. Old School Conservative

    Roger
    #3138886, posted on August 23, 2019 at 10:00 am
    Comensoli had actually shown some spine up until that post-modern “pastoral” inanity.

    Comensoli is the only person I have heard about in Australia who has quite publicly put his name forward to support Cardinal Pell since the appeal failed. The Vatican itself has been soft in support.
    Bear in mind the Comensoli is knowingly repeating the much-criticised actions of Pell himself who supported Ridsdale. He knows he is making himself a target.
    As Ray Hadley and Derryn Hunch take great glee in saying, that support goes to a convicted child molester.

    I’ll give him a well deserved pass.

  89. C.L.

    Good points, OSC.
    You’re right.

  90. Iampeter

    Bwahahahahaaa!
    I knew you couldn’t resist.

    Couldn’t resist what? Stating the obvious?
    This is a website where the conduct of posters alone would have you thinking they are on the level of 1st year grad students, but no one seems to raise that as an issue.
    As to the actual “knowledge” on display, I guess it could be described as “sophomoric” but then I think even that gives it too much credit.
    Posters here can best be described as spouting random assortments of talking points in what you’ve successfully established as an echo chamber. Then when someone who actually has a first clue comes along, you get triggered because you’re little pretense of being aficionado’s is shattered.
    All these points can be supported from posts in this thread alone, not to mention numerous other threads.

    So, you have boomer-level out of touch people, behaving like socially inept teenagers, but you decide to take this pretensious tone and lecture me on being at the level of a grad student?

    Like I said, a great exercise in evasion and projection.

    You are a very dishonest and unintelligent person. That makes you a good fit here so carry on.

  91. stackja

    Yet more petering out.

  92. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    Then when someone who actually has a first clue comes along

    That’s not you, little buddy.

    So, you have boomer-level out of touch people

    There is no way you’re younger than Gen X.

    Tell us, who do you vote for? Inquirin’ minds wanna know.

  93. Herodotus

    Characters like oneamp peter and gnumbers are allowed to succeed in making any thread unattractive to participate in.
    They are being given free reign to do exactly what they set out to do.

  94. classical_hero

    The verse still doesn’t require a priest or a bishop to be married.

    What part of the word “must” don’t you understand? According to the definition of the word here.

    be obliged to; should (expressing necessity).
    “you must show your ID card”
    synonyms: ought to, should, have to, have got to, need to, be obliged to, be required to, be compelled to, be under an obligation to
    “I must go”

    I just like things to be factual LL

    LOL

  95. dover_beach

    OSC, dead right. Abp. Comensolli has been stalwart.

  96. Roger

    OSC, dead right. Abp. Comensolli has been stalwart.

    He has, but his comment is illogical.

    It doesn’t help.

  97. dover_beach

    What part of the word “must” don’t you understand?

    the verse:

    A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

    It’s not the word ‘must’ that is the problem for you, it is the phrase ‘the husband of one wife’. That could mean anything from married to, if married to only one wife’. Another problem is that Paul, himself, was not married, and we have his own words re chastity too. And there is, of course, also the early practice of the Church which included married clergy but maintained the expectation of sexual continence in marriage.

  98. Iampeter

    Characters like oneamp peter and gnumbers are allowed to succeed in making any thread unattractive to participate in.
    They are being given free reign to do exactly what they set out to do.

    Right, as opposed to the invaluable contributions from raving nutjobs like Frank Walker and JC, or proud racists like Muddy, etc, etc…?

    Get outta here with that crap, you dishonest, stupid and actual concern troll.

  99. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    Iampeter continues his quest to be the only true libertarian and conservative in Australia, and be taken seriously by the rest of us.

    Hey petey, who do you vote for?

  100. Gab

    Comensoli is the only person I have heard about in Australia who has quite publicly put his name forward to support Cardinal Pell since the appeal failed.

    Really? I saw some meek statement that focussed on the alleged victim but nothing in support of Cdl Pell. Maybe he’s written another one?

    The only bishop to come forth in defense of Cdl Pell has been +Elliott and he’s an Emeritus.

  101. Roger

    It’s not the word ‘must’ that is the problem for you, it is the phrase ‘the husband of one wife’. That could mean anything from married to, if married to only one wife’.

    It means faithful to his wife (singular).

  102. Zatara

    Abuse in Britain’s boarding schools: why I decided to confront my demons
    For generations of boys, sexual abuse was part of the everyday cruelty of boarding school.

    Could someone please explain to me why something everyone knows and jokes about which has been going on for centuries(?) is ignored… until the Catholic church can be blamed?

    Talk about elephants in the room.

  103. Old Lefty

    Speaking of having things, what conclusions could Ferguson CJ have drawn from putting on the vestments, given that (presumably) she lacks a …..?

  104. notafan

    I see classical hero is still pushing the Catholics Don’t Understand Their Own Book and Must be Schooled by Anti Catholic Bigots line.

    He’s also comfortable with novel exegesis that makes the Bible appear contradictory.

    Fascinating.

  105. Old Lefty

    And on the fifth charge (the supposedly later groping), how does a tall man who is the centre of attention barge his way from the back to the front of a column if 40+ people and grope someone against a wall without anyone noticing?

  106. Old Lefty

    And given that Weinberg is an acting judge called on to help out in his retirement, what’s the betting that he’ll soon find that his services are no longer required?

  107. 1735099

    The power and hypocrisy of George Pell’s supporters

    Cardinal George Pell is escorted in handcuffs from the Supreme Court of Victoria on Wednesday.
    In an age when even amateur broadcasters can attain professional production values, few telecasts still look as spartan as a real-life court proceeding. In prelude, the live feed from the Victorian Supreme Court presented only three empty seats, a state seal and a test soundtrack of tinkling piano music. As the judges filled those seats, the court website became inundated with viewers and crashed. Once restored, the video sometimes chopped or slowed under the weight of this absent audience. Chief Justice Anne Ferguson’s delivery of the summary was halting as well – The Saturday Paper’s legal correspondent, Richard Ackland, tweeted that she brought “all the drama of a dead wombat to reading a summary of one of the most important criminal judgments of the year” – but this dour diction was, in its way, more compelling than a mannered performance might have been. The ruling Ferguson delivered was brief, clear and surprising – George Pell’s appeal on child sexual assault charges had failed.
    “It is fair to say that his case has divided the community,” said Ferguson, and so it divided the court. There were three grounds of appeal. One was that the defence had been unable to submit an animation, since nicknamed “the Pac-Man video”, purporting to show that the offending inside St Patrick’s Cathedral, Melbourne, was impossible. This was dismissed unanimously. So, too, was concern that Pell’s not guilty plea had been entered via video link only, and not in the presence of the jury. But on the most important question, of whether an “unsafe verdict” had been delivered, there was dissent. Justice Weinberg felt the evidence of the complainant, upon which the case hinged, was not satisfactory enough to preclude reasonable doubt. His colleagues disagreed. They found “A”, as he was called in the summary, was “not a liar, was not a fantasist and was a witness of the truth”. It was reasonable for the jury to believe him.
    The microphones recorded only silence from the gallery, and it was possible to forget the rest of those present: the press and lawyers, the survivors and supporters, and Cardinal Pell himself – he is not yet Mr Pell – who had arrived to court in a prison van, and would leave by the same means. Depending on their vantage point, court reporters said Pell “barely reacted” to the ruling, was “gripping the dock with his left hand and looking down at the floor”, looked “destroyed” or merely pursed his lips. Abuse survivors thanked the Lord for a decision many thought even more consequential than the cardinal’s earlier guilty verdict.
    Media and legal circles had tipped a different result, partly because of matters of law, and partly because of a cruder calculus – that elite power is so seldom brought to lasting accountability. There might yet be another appeal to the High Court by special leave, but “A”, or Witness J as he is better known, has already run an unusually long and vigorous gauntlet. He waited many years to speak to police, only doing so when the other choirboy abused by Pell died of a heroin overdose. It was at his former schoolfriend’s funeral that he decided to seek justice. As other cases prepared against Pell fell away, it was his that proceeded to trial. The first jury was unable to deliver a verdict. The second believed his version of events over the cardinal’s. Now two Supreme Court justices have made the same determination.
    Ferguson stressed the court’s decision was not a mere matter of law: it was a matter of fact. The judges had consulted the same evidence as the jury, so they could decide whether those 12 citizens were in a position to render a safe verdict. The Court of Appeal had reviewed many hours of video testimony and cross-examination and visited the sacristy and the corridor where the offending took place. In particular, they closely examined vestments identical to the ones Pell was wearing on the date of the crimes. These items of clothing had also been available to the jury, and the defence had imbued them with almost otherworldly qualities, pretending they were impervious to shifting or parting by human hands once donned. Not surprisingly, both the jury and judges discovered that these garments were entirely ordinary, not de facto chastity belts.
    But the defence was only doing what it could, and after the verdict was upheld, Witness J had a statement delivered, via a representative, in which he was magnanimous. Few witnesses cross-examined by a silk who costs $20,000 a day are thankful for the experience. Witness J is an exception. “I am glad he has had the best legal representation that money can buy,” the statement said of Pell’s team. “There are a lot of checks and balances in the criminal justice system and the appeals process is one of them.” Witness J also reserved some misgivings for “commentators” and “punditries”. His words for Pell’s defenders outside the courtroom could have been unkinder still. Some lay Catholics will not believe the verdict, but some lay Catholics once decided a Coogee fence post contained a divine presence: the ordinary faithful should not be judged too harshly. Those “commentators” are less deserving of mercy.
    Australia’s conservative organs have almost all embraced a mythology, by turns unhinged and incoherent, that seeks to turn Pell from an offender into a martyr. Before the summary was even publicly available, columnists were filing stories that decried a miscarriage of justice. This followed a pattern established long before the guilty verdict. In The Australian, John Ferguson indulged his talent for melodrama by suggesting Anne Ferguson had delivered a “death sentence”. Did Pell’s condemners not know the door of the sacristy was unlocked? The appeal judges noted that other similar cases of abuses had occurred in places that carried a high risk of discovery. Did they not know the robes were heavy? The judges had, of course, tried them on. Did they not know Pell had never been accused before? In fact, accusations have followed him his whole career – the church itself had already conducted a 2002 investigation into groping claims.
    Still they harped on about the cardinal’s role in the Melbourne Response, a “world-first innovation” in the Catholic Church’s response to child abuse. Pell was establishing it at almost the exact time he was raping choirboys. Was it really conceivable he should be leading the charge against child abuse, and committing it at the same time? Well, yes. Among survivor groups, the Response quickly became notorious for its mean-spiritedness and tight-fistedness. It spent substantially more on lawyers than it did on compensation. While fighting a claim made by an abused altar boy, John Ellis, the church made a novel and successful legal argument to limit payouts – as a legal entity it does not exist, and so cannot be sued. The Melbourne Response was not a good-faith effort to deal with child abuse in the church: it simulated action, while stymieing it at the same time. It also gave an abuser a smokescreen.child sexual abuse. As power grew, so did abuse, abetted by a deference to authority and the rites of tradition.
    In the world of Pell’s defenders, it is not the church that has conducted biased investigations, but the police. And the venom ordinarily aimed at offenders is instead directed at the journalists who reported on them. A conspiracy theory combines the two. After the appeal, an anonymous poster on the libertarian blog Catallaxy Files wrote that “the degree of joint enterprise by Victoria Police and the ABC is not known at this time”, calling them “conjoined twins”. The theory goes that the police, exhibiting a previously unexhibited anti-Catholic animus, trawled for victims, and then the ABC, through 7.30 reporter Louise Milligan, brain-poisoned the jury. No proof or evidence of this “enterprise” is offered or required: the conviction of the cardinal is by itself proof positive. Even this theory is more reality-based than that favoured by Quadrant, though, where Keith Windschuttle is blaming the whole episode on American-based reporting by Rolling Stone magazine.
    There is a temptation to write off such sentiments as skunk spray emitted in self-defence, but these are not isolated ideologues. A more finessed version of the same – “What we have witnessed is a combined effort by much of the media, including Australia’s public broadcaster, and elements of Victoria’s law enforcement agency, to systematically blacken the name of someone before he went to trial” – has been offered by the vice-chancellor of the Australian Catholic University, Greg Craven. Craven instructed his staff not to comment on the trial until all avenues of appeal had been exhausted, then provided a personal character reference for Pell and authored a post-conviction column in The Catholic Weekly headlined “Poisoning the well of justice”. The Pell Centre at the ACU’s Ballarat campus retains its name, and the staff muzzle remains in place.
    Like many of his ilk, Craven cannot restrict himself to a single epithet when referencing Milligan’s book, Cardinal. It is a “hopelessly biased, ill-written, ungrammatical and poorly proof-read volume”. In the time since the book was commissioned by Melbourne University Press, the university’s chancellor, Allan Myers, QC, derided MUP’s tendency to publish “airport trash”, opening a rift with the MUP board that saw four of its directors resign in January. Myers had previously represented Pell as counsel.
    Even by the low and gendered standards of Australian public life, the attacks on Milligan, the only journalist to meet and interview Witness J, have been extraordinary. The book resulted in Milligan herself being cross-examined for six-and-a-half hours, during which Pell’s counsel, Robert Richter, suggested she had flirted with an accuser during an interview. “I think it is an absolutely sexist assertion,” she responded.
    “Without a doubt this is the toughest story I have ever done,” Milligan later told the ABC. “This is a person who had immense political and cultural power so taking that on is enormous and very, very stressful… Being at the centre of this storm, it doesn’t get any harder than that as a journalist.” Echoing this duress, the reporter who broke the story of the Pell police investigation in the Herald Sun, Lucie Morris-Marr, said the effort had “nearly destroyed” her, and that she had been through “hell”. Andrew Bolt, her own paper’s columnist, tried to undermine her scoop by falsely claiming it had originated with a police leak, a “leak” that was subsequently referred to an anti-corruption investigation. Morris-Marr made an internal complaint about the Bolt column and claims News Corp responded by pushing her out. Just months after she produced a world-first exclusive, Morris-Marr was told there was “no money” left for her contract.
    Pell himself was a columnist for The Sunday Telegraph, and a friend of News’s proprietor, Rupert Murdoch. There have been suggestions this close relationship may have prompted Bolt’s about-face on the cardinal, which had once been far more critical. When Pell gave evidence about the Ballarat paedophile Gerald Ridsdale to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, Bolt wrote that the testimony would “stain his reputation forever” and that Pell would be remembered as “the priest who went by the book, not the heart”. Bolt then changed his mind and conducted an exclusive interview with Pell on Sky News. This is not evidence of an enterprise, however, and as so often with the Murdoch empire, no direct instruction is required. It is more indicative of the changing cultural and religious currents at the heart of conservatism, without which the reaction to the Pell case cannot be understood.
    “ ‘Catholicism’ is now a dirty word in Australia,” wrote Paul Collins in the National Catholic Reporter, “and as in most Anglophone countries there’s deep-seated sectarian bigotry against Catholics which surfaces in times like these.” But for anyone familiar with Australian history, it was the diminishing of sectarian bigotry that was noteworthy. The old divisions that had defined other famous Australian legal matters, such as the divorce case of the Test cricketer Arthur Coningham, who attended court armed with a revolver and the support of the Orange Order, were gone. So was any Protestant crowing. Only the trial’s title kept a vestige of the old animosity between Windsor and Rome: George Pell v The Queen.
    As late as 1950, publications as anodyne as The Methodist called the battle between Catholicism and Protestantism in Australia an unceasing “war”, that would continue “as long as men are even partially free, and as long as they retain an interest in the vital things of the Christian faith”. By the 1970s, the war was virtually over, the two sects declaring an ecumenical truce to combat secularism and socialism. Australia also took a different direction from the United States in this mid-century period. There, legal challenges enforced increasing secularisation of the publicly funded school system. Here, by contrast, the state began funding Catholic institutions in earnest. Controversies over the Eucharist and the order of precedence feel antiquated now, but the ambivalence, scepticism and outright hostility that greeted the foundation institutions, such as the ACU, have lodged in folk memory.
    After centuries as a bullied minority, Catholicism now has more adherents in Australia than Anglicanism, and the ruling Liberal Party has changed its predilections, from culturally Protestant into culturally Catholic. These reversals were once unthinkable, and the conservative Catholic ascendancy is at the core of the Pell response. Because it was the same institutions, operating in the same mode of fresh ambition, that turned the conservative establishment Catholic and simultaneously incubated an unparalleled epidemic of child sexual abuse. As power grew, so did abuse, abetted by a deference to authority and the rites of tradition.
    This is why Pell’s conviction has been so humiliating not only for the church, but also for the Australian conservative establishment more generally. Often Pell is referred to as “the third-highest ranked priest in the Vatican”, but this overlooks the prelates’ place in international right-wing hierarchy. He joins a select few Australians to attain a level of first-rank international success. In the political realm, only Rupert Murdoch matches him, and they have the simpatico relations of two men meeting in the middle – in the Murdoch papers, Pell broke with church doctrine on global warming; Murdoch, the grandson of a Presbyterian minister, was awarded a papal knighthood for his “unblemished character”. Both Murdoch and his close friend Robert Thomson, the chief executive of News Corp, are not Catholic converts but they are raising their children as Catholics.
    These changes cannot be reversed or apologised for. They can only be double or tripled down on, and in some quarters the accusations register only as a new retelling of an old canard: that the Roman church is riddled with sex crimes, refuses to succumb to secular law and operates schools for nefarious purposes. Accountability, like truth, will take time to sink in. Those charges are defended against almost reflexively, and with new allies. But the facts, when stated, are stark. George Pell’s Wikipedia entry now begins like this: “George Pell AC (born 8 June 1941) is an Australian convicted child sex offender and prelate of the Catholic Church”. The most imminent edit is the removal of that “AC”.

  108. John A

    dover_beach #3139069, posted on August 23, 2019 at 1:29 pm

    What part of the word “must” don’t you understand?

    the verse:

    A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

    It’s not the word ‘must’ that is the problem for you, it is the phrase ‘the husband of one wife’. That could mean anything from married to, if married to only one wife’. Another problem is that Paul, himself, was not married, and we have his own words re chastity too. And there is, of course, also the early practice of the Church which included married clergy but maintained the expectation of sexual continence in marriage.

    DB, you appear to have an incomplete sentence in there.

    But Paul must have been married (at some stage, at least) because it was a requirement for the sect of the Pharisees.

    It means what it says “the husband of one wife” – faithfulness in actual daily life, not potential (to include young single blokes). Other parts of the qualifications include having his children in order and his family well-managed. And not divorced – if you break the most solemn promise you will ever make before God, how much can others trust anything you say, any commitment you make, or contract terms in business etc?

  109. notafan

    The husband of one wife, not many.

    Paul was single and recommended the single life.

    Nothing wrong with celibate chastity.

    Christians have a wonderful model in Christ Himself.

    You can continue to take verses out of context, and ignore 1500 years of Holy Tradition.

    We can all see the motive that exercises the Protestant mind ( not that that is fractured into a million little pieces) the sacraments, veneration of our Lady, infant baptism, Conttantine started the Catholic Church, can’t call priests ( but anyone else) father and so many more.

    How can you be right unless Catholicism, which can clearly show continuity from the Apostles, is wrong

    There

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.