George Pell

CabanSail

Australian Cardinal George Pell has been charged with historic child sexual abuse charges. This is huge news here in Australia but we hear there are shockwaves around the world as he is probably the third highest ranking catholic in the world.

Apparently there is no extradition agreement between Australia and the Holy See but George has said that he will travel to Australia to appear and clear his name. He is denying all charges and maintains this is a vendetta against him.

George Pell has been a controversial character for many years and is not popular with some sections of the community. He has taken some quite extreme anti-homsexual stands in the past and can be quite abrasive. He would not attend a hearing into child abuse recently, citing health concerns and an inability to fly but has since been able to travel for other reason. He did appear via video link.

Have found some information from an earlier inquiry where some allegations were raised. It will be interesting to see if further evidence has come to light as what was raised before was not enough to establis proof. The charge alone will cause a lot of grief and so it has to be hoped there is something new which can justify these charges. I do not like the man but would not like to see the legal process being abused.

Peregrinus

CabanSail wrote: »

. . . He would not attend a hearing into child abuse recently, citing health concerns and an inability to fly but has since been able to travel for other reason. He did appear via video link. . . .

Not doubting you, Cabansail, but have you a cite for, or details of, the bolded bit?

I ask because there's a degree of scepticism being expressed on boards as to whether he will return at all, whereas my sense is that he'll come back to deal with this, even if he has to come by sea.

CabanSail

I do not have a link to hand but it was in the media that George had flown somewhere in europe after not being well enough to travel to Australia. I think he will return this time. The likelihood of a conviction has to be remote.

It may have been the long haul flights which were considered a problem. I have done the trip when a week out of spinal surgery and had to fly business class, get wheelchair transfers and break the journey.

John Hutton

Potentially some more amazing developments: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/cardinal-becciu-stole-funds-to-bribe-witnesses-in-sex-abuse-case-against-rival-george-pell-qq8hpf335

Peregrinus

It's paywalled.

John Hutton

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's paywalled.

I'll get in trouble if I post it all but here's an extract:


A senior Catholic cardinal has been accused of using €700,000 of Vatican funds to bribe witnesses to secure a sex abuse conviction against a rival.

Italian media have reported that Cardinal Giovanni Angelo Becciu, 72, is suspected of wiring the cash to recipients in Australia who helped to ensure hostile testimony in the abuse trial of Cardinal George Pell, who was accused of molesting choir boys in Melbourne in the 1990s....
Quoting leaked documents, the Italian newspapers La Repubblica and Corriere della Sera reported at the weekend that Vatican investigators suspect that Cardinal Becciu hoped to use the money to definitively derail Cardinal Pell’s transparency programme, which threatened to expose Cardinal Becciu’s allegedly corrupt management of Vatican cash.


Cardinal Becciu issued a strongly worded denial of the reports , stating: “I categorically deny interfering in any way in the trial of Cardinal Pell.”

It will probably be covered in non paywalled sites tomorrow

AllForIt

When Pell was released I was surprised there was such scant media attention around it. Maybe there were bigger stories at the time. Anyway from what I've seen of him in media interviews I'd say he's not guilty as hell. In fact he came across to me as a really nice guy and quite down to earth - for a cardinal. If he's a liar he's an especially gifted one. I'm kinda hoping there is some truth to this latest development as shocking as it is as it would be good for Pell if it was proven to be true. And I love a good scandal.

John Hutton

I think it is very unlikely that he was guilty, and this latest development, if true, is certainly another layer to an already shocking scandal.

Hotblack Desiato

He covered up abuse and deserved to go to prison for that, but that wasn't what he was convicted of.

All of the Irish hierarchy who covered up abuse (did any NOT?) deserved to go to prison as well, but there is zero chance of any investigation into their crimes here.

Manach

Based on the dicussion on various Catholic media sites, which at least highlisted Cardinal Pell's acuqital, it seems that the Austalian judicial authorities were looking for a judicial conviction for political reasons and were considerable of the evidence was undertaken, they failled to follow reasonable guidelines/presumptions.

John Hutton

Manach wrote: »

Based on the dicussion on various Catholic media sites, which at least highlisted Cardinal Pell's acuqital, it seems that the Austalian judicial authorities were looking for a judicial conviction for political reasons and were considerable of the evidence was undertaken, they failled to follow reasonable guidelines/presumptions.

It is vital for a functional democracy and legal system that everyone enjoys the same rights, this is especially the case if we do not like the accused, society and legal system should be extra vigilant.


I'm not sure what to make of Pell, but I thought the evidence against him was very tenuous at best and I am very doubtful that he was guilty of what he was accused.

smacl

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

He covered up abuse and deserved to go to prison for that, but that wasn't what he was convicted of.

All of the Irish hierarchy who covered up abuse (did any NOT?) deserved to go to prison as well, but there is zero chance of any investigation into their crimes here.

Mod warning: Please avoid broad sweeping statements relating to abuse in this thread. We have a mega-thread here for such discussion. Any comments to the feedback thread. Thanks for your attention.

Thinkingaboutit

Manach wrote: »

Based on the dicussion on various Catholic media sites, which at least highlisted Cardinal Pell's acuqital, it seems that the Austalian judicial authorities were looking for a judicial conviction for political reasons and were considerable of the evidence was undertaken, they failled to follow reasonable guidelines/presumptions.

It was political, and it appears, although it was denied, that the $700,000 in stolen money ex Cardinal Becciu sent to Australia, was designed to fund this political prosecution, or those close it to it. Trying to have the Vatican finances run to some basic standards of honesty Cardinal Pell stirred a hornets nest.

Peregrinus

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

It was political, and it appears, although it was denied, that the $700,000 in stolen money ex Cardinal Becciu sent to Australia, was designed to fund this political prosecution, or those close it to it.

But does it appear? Actual evidence that this has happened - either that Becciu sent funds to Australia, or that those funds went to witnesses in Pell's prosecution - has not been produced at the Italian end, and separate journalistic investigations at the Australian end have failed to find anything to corroborate the claims.

I'm not saying that the story is false; I'm quite willing to believe that it's true. But I couldn't go so far as to say that it appears to be true. At the moment, it appears to be an uncorroborated claim.

John Hutton

https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2020-10/pope-francis-audience-australian-cardinal-george-pell0.html

Pope Francis met with Cardinal Pell today

Thinkingaboutit

John Hutton wrote: »

https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2020-10/pope-francis-audience-australian-cardinal-george-pell0.html

Pope Francis met with Cardinal Pell today

There was a photo which seems to have Francis shrinking from Cardinal Pell, but looking at this and the only angles, it was more the effect of catching Francis at the moment he sat. Pell should be restored to some responsibility, if it is possible.

Hotblack Desiato

His covering up for child abusers doesn't bother you at all?

John Hutton

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

His covering up for child abusers doesn't bother you at all?

Can you explain how he covered up for child abusers?

Hotblack Desiato

The Royal Commission found that he had knowledge of child abuse and failed to take sufficient action.


https://www.theage.com.au/national/pell-knew-in-1982-that-ridsdale-was-moved-to-save-church-from-scandal-20200507-p54qr9.html


https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/may/07/george-pell-cardinal-was-aware-of-children-being-sexually-abused-royal-commission-report-reveals

Thinkingaboutit

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

His covering up for child abusers doesn't bother you at all?

Given how the Australian Courts put him away for something that wouldn't even pass the balance of probability, lest alone guilt beyond reasonable, I really cannot give too much credence to this Royal Commission, which would to a great extent be a sort of Tribunal, and have the some sort of legal personnel, like we had.

Cardinal Pell ended up in Court there as he tried to introduce some professionalism and honesty to Vatican finances. Given how ex Cardinal Becciu was caught out sending c. $700,000, which was not his, to fund efforts against Pell, this can no longer be in realms of conspiracy theory.

Hotblack Desiato

Where is your evidence that this 700k was used to "fund efforts against Pell" ?

Interesting that you condemn the court system which convicted him, even though it's the same court system under which he won his appeal.

John Hutton

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Where is your evidence that this 700k was used to "fund efforts against Pell" ?

Interesting that you condemn the court system which convicted him, even though it's the same court system under which he won his appeal.

In fairness it's a pretty crap court system that had an innocent man in jail for over a year. Just because justice prevailed in the end it does not mean what happened, the legal and court process, should not be condemned. An odd post and line of thought from you.

smacl

John Hutton wrote: »

In fairness it's a pretty crap court system that had an innocent man in jail for over a year. Just because justice prevailed in the end it does not mean what happened, the legal and court process, should not be condemned. An odd post and line of thought from you.

So are you dismissing the totality of the findings by the Royal Commission in relation to child sex abuse on the above basis or merely those relating to George Pell? If the latter, why so?

Personally I'd be inclined to think that a legal system dealing with an appeal over one calendar year is about par for the course if not somewhat better. I'd accept their acquittal much as I accepted their previous guilty verdict on the basis they had considered the matter in far more depth than anyone else. The same holds true for the Royal Commission. I'm of the opinion that it is sensible to put aside our biases as to what we would prefer to believe to be true until such a time as we personally review the totality of the available evidence. I'm not likely to ever do this so would defer to their own conclusions.

John Hutton

smacl wrote: »

So are you dismissing the totality of the findings by the Royal Commission in relation to child sex abuse on the above basis or merely those relating to George Pell? If the latter, why so?

Personally I'd be inclined to think that a legal system dealing with an appeal over one calendar year is about par for the course if not somewhat better. I'd accept their acquittal much as I accepted their previous guilty verdict on the basis they had considered the matter in far more depth than anyone else. The same holds true for the Royal Commission. I'm of the opinion that it is sensible to put aside our biases as to what we would prefer to believe to be true until such a time as we personally review the totality of the available evidence. I'm not likely to ever do this so would defer to their own conclusions.

But the "evidence" to begin with was nonsense and should never have gone to trial. Should you have had your life ruined, been labelled an abusive pedophile and spent a year or so in jail, mainly in solitary confinement, for a crime you did not and could not have committed you would have a harsh word or two about the courts.

The Irish, unfortunately, have plenty of experience when it comes to biased reports and dodgy, evilly motivated court cases, usually by the British authorities. Did you similarly defer drawing any conclusions with regard to these?

One of the reasons why abuse was as widespread as it was is because of what you display here - unthinking deference to authority. "Its not my issue, the authorities are dealing with it" / "I only know a little about it, they know more than me and are looking after it" / "Not sure I'd agree with what they decided there, but sure they are in charge, have processes and know more than me, they must have dealt with it rightly" / "Heard rumours but nothing concrete about that guy, the hierarchy saw fit to move him to a new parish, they must have looked into it and deemed everything ok". Unthinking, blind deference to authority, whether it be religious or civil, is wrong.

With regards to Pell, I'd believe that early in his career he did not respond to rumors, snippets and suspicions in the way he should have, in the way which he and other clergy would today. However, not being proactive and not doing enough is not the same as proactively covering up sexual abuse. Covering up sexual abuse is a specific crime in Australia. He has not been charged, never mind convicted, of this.

That said I do not think he should be in a position of responsibility as a Cardinal again.There's too much water under the bridge, it does seem that he should have done more early in his career to expose sexual abuse, and he's too old anyway. Within reason I'd have a bit of a "Ceasars wife" attitude about things like this.

smacl

John Hutton wrote: »

But the "evidence" to begin with was nonsense and should never have gone to trial. Should you have had your life ruined, been labelled an abusive pedophile and spent a year or so in jail, mainly in solitary confinement, for a crime you did not and could not have committed you would have a harsh word or two about the courts.

The Irish, unfortunately, have plenty of experience when it comes to biased reports and dodgy, evilly motivated court cases, usually by the British authorities. Did you similarly defer drawing any conclusions with regard to these?

Surely the point of a trial is to determine this though, particularly since a victim of the alleged crime was involved as a witness. Dismissing claims of sexual assault as nonsense seems like extremely dangerous ground, particularly in the context of Pell already being named in the Royal Commission report on clerical sex abuse. While there have been many dubious court cases in relatively recent history, I don't think taking the case was dubious on this basis, whatever about the outcome.

One of the reasons why abuse was as widespread as it was is because of what you display here - unthinking deference to authority. "Its not my issue, the authorities are dealing with it" / "I only know a little about it, they know more than me and are looking after it" / "Not sure I'd agree with what they decided there, but sure they are in charge, have processes and know more than me, they must have dealt with it rightly" / "Heard rumours but nothing concrete about that guy, the hierarchy saw fit to move him to a new parish, they must have looked into it and deemed everything ok". Unthinking, blind deference to authority, whether it be religious or civil, is wrong.

Not the same, Pell was part of the authority here, not simply a casual bystander such as myself.

With regards to Pell, I'd believe that early in his career he did not respond to rumors, snippets and suspicions in the way he should have, in the way which he and other clergy would today. However, not being proactive and not doing enough is not the same as proactively covering up sexual abuse. Covering up sexual abuse is a specific crime in Australia. He has not been charged, never mind convicted, of this.

That said I do not think he should be in a position of responsibility as a Cardinal again.There's too much water under the bridge, it does seem that he should have done more early in his career to expose sexual abuse, and he's too old anyway. Within reason I'd have a bit of a "Ceasars wife" attitude about things like this.

You could well be right, though it is worth remembering that one of the reasons other charges weren't brought against Pell was that they would prejudice the larger ongoing case. I think Pell may well have been a whipping boy here to some extent but again I'd tend to defer to to commission in terms of his failings. I'd tend to think more in terms of statute of limitations than "water under the bridge" in the event that a crime has been committed.

John Hutton

smacl wrote: »

Surely the point of a trial is to determine this though, particularly since a victim of the alleged crime was involved as a witness. Dismissing claims of sexual assault as nonsense seems like extremely dangerous ground, particularly in the context of Pell already being named in the Royal Commission report on clerical sex abuse. While there have been many dubious court cases in relatively recent history, I don't think taking the case was dubious on this basis, whatever about the outcome.

Every day of the week the DPP makes decisions on whether or not to prosecute by looking at the evidence and seeing if it is credible and if a conviction is likely. Are you suggesting that every accusation of a crime should go trial?


He was named in it, but there is nothing in it that suggests that he himself abused anyone. The "facts" as presented by the prosecution in this case were farcical - Pell physically could not have committed the crime he was accused of.

Not the same, Pell was part of the authority here, not simply a casual bystander such as myself.

The courts operate on behalf of the people, citizens are not "casual bystanders". "The Bishops look after that".

You could well be right, though it is worth remembering that one of the reasons other charges weren't brought against Pell was that they would prejudice the larger ongoing case. I think Pell may well have been a whipping boy here to some extent but again I'd tend to defer to to commission in terms of his failings. I'd tend to think more in terms of statute of limitations than "water under the bridge" in the event that a crime has been committed.

Tell me, what statute of limitations are there?

Interesting tenor from your posts on this topic, bearing in kind we are talking about a man who suffered a grave miscarriage of justice.

smacl

John Hutton wrote: »

Every day of the week the DPP makes decisions on whether or not to prosecute by looking at the evidence and seeing if it is credible and if a conviction is likely. Are you suggesting that every accusation of a crime should go trial?

I certainly think any accusation of a crime of this nature that the prosecutor considers credible and believes will result in a conviction should go to trial. Are you suggesting the public prosecutor here didn't believe this was this was the case?

He was named in it, but there is nothing in it that suggests that he himself abused anyone. The "facts" as presented by the prosecution in this case were farcical - Pell physically could not have committed the crime he was accused of.

Nor am I suggesting he abused anyone himself, though it does seem probable he was complicit in covering up abuse to a greater or lesser degree. In that context, i believe it was entirely reasonable that a direct accusation of abuse was treated with all seriousness.

Tell me, what statute of limitations are there?

Depends on the crime and jurisdiction. In Australia, for crimes against the person, there are no limitations. Nor in my opinion should there be, hence my dismissal of your notion of 'water under the bridge.'

Interesting tenor from your posts on this topic, bearing in kind we are talking about a man who suffered a grave miscarriage of justice.

In the broader context of clerical sex abuse in Australia which surrounds this case, there have been a lot of innocent people who have suffered unduly. I'll admit that on the basis that Pell may have been complicit in covering this abuse up to some degree, I have limited sympathy for the man. Certainly if there was any bribery, corruption or other external undue influence in the case it should be fully investigated.

John Hutton

smacl wrote: »

I certainly think any accusation of a crime of this nature that the prosecutor considers credible and believes will result in a conviction should go to trial. Are you suggesting the public prosecutor here didn't believe this was this was the case?

I believe that they made a "mistake" in going ahead with it, a "mistake" that had a lot to do with Pell being a Catholic Cardinal. If he was Joe Bloggs the teacher I don't think it would have gone ahead.

Nor am I suggesting he abused anyone himself, though it does seem probable he was complicit in covering up abuse to a greater or lesser degree. In that context, i believe it was entirely reasonable that a direct accusation of abuse was treated with all seriousness.

Oh I agree, it should have been treated will all seriousness, like any accusation against anyone. An accusation not going trial does not mean that it was not taken or treated seriously.

Depends on the crime and jurisdiction. In Australia, for crimes against the person, there are no limitations. Nor in my opinion should there be, hence my dismissal of your notion of 'water under the bridge.'

In the broader context of clerical sex abuse in Australia which surrounds this case, there have been a lot of innocent people who have suffered unduly. I'll admit that on the basis that Pell may have been complicit in covering this abuse up to some degree, I have limited sympathy for the man. Certainly if there was any bribery, corruption or other external undue influence in the case it should be fully investigated.

Ah, well this is the road to hell here, where justice is not objective. Justice should not only be for those you like, or have done no wrong in their lives, but for everyone.

Can you explain what you mean by being "complicit in covering this abuse up to some degree". What do you mean here?

smacl

John Hutton wrote: »

Can you explain what you mean by being "complicit in covering this abuse up to some degree". What do you mean here?

As an example, from the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse report page 20

We are satisfied that Cardinal Pell’s evidence as to the reasons that the CEO deceived him was implausible. We do not accept that Bishop Pell was deceived, intentionally or otherwise.

We are satisfied that, on the basis of the matters known to Bishop Pell on his own evidence (being the matters on the list of incidents and grievances and the ‘non-specific’ allegation of sexual misconduct), he ought reasonably to have concluded that action needed to be taken in relation to Father Searson

As Auxiliary Bishop to the Archbishop, Bishop Pell had the capacity and opportunity to urge the Archbishop to take action against Father Searson in order to protect the children of the parish and the Catholic community of his region. Cardinal Pell’s evidence was that he could not recall recommending a particular course of action to the Archbishop. He conceded that, in retrospect, he might have been ‘a bit more pushy’ with all of the parties involved. We do not accept any qualification that this conclusion is only appreciable in retrospect. On the basis of what was known to Bishop Pell in 1989, it ought to have been obvious to him at the time. He should have advised the Archbishop to remove Father Searson and he did not do so.

Another here from p36

We are satisfied that the Curia knew in August 1996 that Father Baker would probably be charged in relation to an incident at Brighton in 1965. We are satisfied that Archbishop Pell, Bishop O’Connell, Monsignor Connors, Monsignor Deakin, Mr Exell and Father Waters were at the meeting where this was discussed. Archbishop Pell had the authority to remove Father Baker. Despite that knowledge, Archbishop Pell did not stand down Father Baker at that point in time. Father Baker remained in his position at North Richmond – a parish with a primary school attached to it – until May 1997.

A period of more than 11 years elapsed between the time that Father Baker was convicted of sexually abusing children and an application was made to have him reduced to the lay state. The delay was unacceptable.

These are a couple of examples from this report which contains more. By my reading, it seems Pell was complicit in the cover up of clerical sex abuse, seeming more interested in protecting the church than the victims involved. How would you interpret it?

John Hutton

smacl wrote: »

As an example, from the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse report page 20



Another here from p36



These are a couple of examples from this report which contains more. By my reading, it seems Pell was complicit in the cover up of clerical sex abuse, seeming more interested in protecting the church than the victims involved. How would you interpret it?

Not doing enough to stop something, while certainly terrible, does not seem the same to me as "covering something up". That said, I do believe that the former should mean that Pell is not suitable for a position of authority in the curia.

Maybe you are being imprecise with your language when you say "cover up".

Do you care to address the rest of my post?

smacl

John Hutton wrote: »

Not doing enough to stop something, while certainly terrible, does not seem the same to me as "covering something up". That said, I do believe that the former should mean that Pell is not suitable for a position of authority in the curia.

Maybe you are being imprecise with your language when you say "cover up".

I disagree. Pell was in a position of authority where his subordinates were involved in sexual abuse of children, he was likely aware that this abuse was taking place and he didn't act to stop it or expose it where he had opportunity to do so. I think it is entirely reasonable to refer to that as a cover up. That Pell was likely aware of the abuse is made clear in the report here;

The Curia considered Bishop Jukes’ request when it met on 11 November 1993. There is no record of who attended, but Archbishop Little, Monsignor Cudmore, Monsignor Connors, Monsignor Deakin, Bishop O’Connell and Bishop Pell were members of the Curia at the time. Bishop Pell did not attend the meeting, as he was overseas. Monsignor Connors told us that
that he believed ‘nearly all’ other members of the Curia knew by December 1993 that Father Pickering was a sexual offender. However, Monsignor Connors’ evidence does not establish which particular members of the Curia knew that.

I think if it had been a single incident of abuse his excuses might hold up. What we're talking about though are multiple instances of abuse with many abusers over an extended period of time so this is not the case.

Do you care to address the rest of my post?

Not quite sure what I've failed to address here. Speculating whether or not the trial would have gone ahead if Pell had been a teacher rather than a Catholic Cardinal is no more than speculation. I imagine if he had been a senior teacher in an institute where some of his subordinates had a history of child abuse that he may have been involved in covering up, then yes, I think it would have gone to trial.

John Hutton

smacl wrote: »

I disagree. Pell was in a position of authority where his subordinates were involved in sexual abuse of children, he was likely aware that this abuse was taking place and he didn't act to stop it or expose it where he had opportunity to do so. I think it is entirely reasonable to refer to that as a cover up. That Pell was likely aware of the abuse is made clear in the report here;



I think if it had been a single incident of abuse his excuses might hold up. What we're talking about though are multiple instances of abuse with many abusers over an extended period of time so this is not the case.



Not quite sure what I've failed to address here. Speculating whether or not the trial would have gone ahead if Pell had been a teacher rather than a Catholic Cardinal is no more than speculation. I imagine if he had been a senior teacher in an institute where some of his subordinates had a history of child abuse that he may have been involved in covering up, then yes, I think it would have gone to trial.

Define what you take "cover up" to mean.


This attitude of yours in your final paragraph has all the hallmarks of bigotry. Justice is supposed to be blind. I agree that Pell did wrong, but that doesnt mean he is a paedophile or that he should be treated differently when it comes to justice. You even said yourself he was set up as a "whipping boy". This was wrong, and was a manifestation of misplaced righteous anger and bigotry towards Catholics. "Two wrongs" and all that.


So any accusation against a person like Pell should always go to trial?

smacl

John Hutton wrote: »

Define what you take "cover up" to mean.

From Merriam-Webster

Definition of cover-up
1a: a device or stratagem for masking or concealing
his garrulousness is a cover-up for insecurity
b: a usually concerted effort to keep an illegal or unethical act or situation from being made public

From my previous post

Monsignor Connors told us that that he believed ‘nearly all’ other members of the Curia knew by December 1993 that Father Pickering was a sexual offender.

The members of Curia were acting in concert, they were aware of illegal activity which they knowingly kept from the public eye. That's a cover up, plain and simple.

This attitude of yours in your final paragraph has all the hallmarks of bigotry. Justice is supposed to be blind. I agree that Pell did wrong, but that doesnt mean he is a paedophile or that he should be treated differently when it comes to justice. You even said yourself he was set up as a "whipping boy". This was wrong, and was a manifestation of misplaced righteous anger and bigotry towards Catholics. "Two wrongs" and all that.

Firstly, this isn't about Catholicism so much as institutional abuse. That the institute in question happens to be the Catholic church in this instance is not the issue. Secondly, I didn't suggest that Pell is a paedophile. I said that the public prosecutor was justified in bringing Pell to trial given the circumstances. I find it rather odd that you consider this bigoted on my part.

So any accusation against a person like Pell should always go to trial?

As per my previous post, any accusation of sexual abuse of a minor should be treated with all seriousness. More so if the accused has been linked to others who have committed such acts. Whether the evidence justifies a trial is a matter for the prosecutor. They thought there was in this case and given the initial conviction, this seems to have been reasonable.

Thinkingaboutit

It seems odd that Cardinal Pell was selected from all the many careless local ordinaries to be charged, to be the scapegoat. He wasn't charged for that, but for an extraordinarily weak case, which looks all the more like powerful Australians, plus others in the Vatican like Becciu who stole 800,000 to fund the efforts against Pell, wanted Pell in prison, evidence be damned. For the Australians it meant looked up a Catholic bishop, for Becciu it meant punishing a man who tried take away their pot of gold (another recent case involves the Substitute Vatican Secretary of State, one Edgar Robinson Peña Parra selling a building already owned by the Vatican to the Vatican).

smacl

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

It seems odd that Cardinal Pell was selected from all the many careless local ordinaries to be charged, to be the scapegoat. He wasn't charged for that, but for an extraordinarily weak case, which looks all the more like powerful Australians, plus others in the Vatican like Becciu who stole 800,000 to fund the efforts against Pell, wanted Pell in prison, evidence be damned. For the Australians it meant looked up a Catholic bishop, for Becciu it meant punishing a man who tried take away their pot of gold (another recent case involves the Substitute Vatican Secretary of State, one Edgar Robinson Peña Parra selling a building already owned by the Vatican to the Vatican).

You might want to define 'careless' in this context. Does it involve covering up child sex abuse or perhaps even extend to carrying out such abuse? I'd suggest there's rather more afoot here than carelessness.

It would certainly be interesting to see if there's a follow up between money changing hands between senior officials in the Vatican with others in the Australian government, and where that money ended up. Until such time as there is evidence of this however, it remains speculation. It will also be interesting to see if there are any formal charges made on the back of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse report? If not, one would gave to ask why?

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

It would certainly be interesting to see if there's a follow up between money changing hands between senior officials in the Vatican with others in the Australian government, and where that money ended up. Until such time as there is evidence of this however, it remains speculation.

Correction: SFAIK there has been no suggestion or allegation that Australian government officials were involved in any money that might have changed hands. The suggestion/innuendo is that prosecution witnesses may have been paid, but not that the prosecuting authorities were involved in or aware of that.

smacl wrote: »

It will also be interesting to see if there are any formal charges made on the back of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse report? If not, one would gave to ask why?

Because that wasn't really the focus of the Commission. Many of the specific instances they investigated had already been the subject of criminal investigation, and some had already been the subject of charges. So far as criminal law is concerned, the recommendations of the Commission were more directed towards changes that needed to be made so that the criminal justice system could address the issue of institutional responses to child abuse more effectively than it had done in the past - changed police practices regarding investigation, principles for charging decisions, new criminal offences that needed to be created, changes to court procedures and rules of evidence, etc. And there was a separate set of recommendations dealing with the issue of civil liablity for the institutions concerned.

(Note that this was a Commission into institutional responses to child abuse, and this would rarely focus on the criminal law, since the criminal law isn't an especially effective mechanism for dealing with institutions - you can't put an institution in prison, and very often control/responsibility is diffused in institutions in ways that makes it hard to identify individuals within the institution whose conduct can be said to amount to a crime. Which is not to say that you don't prosecute crimes where you find them, but you don't make the threat of criminal prosecution the centrepiece of your attempts to address the problem. If you do, your attempts will probably not be very effective.)

Thinkingaboutit

smacl wrote: »

You might want to define 'careless' in this context. Does it involve covering up child sex abuse or perhaps even extend to carrying out such abuse? I'd suggest there's rather more afoot here than carelessness.

It would certainly be interesting to see if there's a follow up between money changing hands between senior officials in the Vatican with others in the Australian government, and where that money ended up. Until such time as there is evidence of this however, it remains speculation. It will also be interesting to see if there are any formal charges made on the back of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse report? If not, one would gave to ask why?

Cardinal Pell was not charged for that. If bishops were put in the clink for that, Francis would be imprisoned for his interference in the trial of Julio César Grassi, commissioning as head of the Argentine Episcopal Conference, a three volume work attacking the witnesses, victims and case.

John Hutton

Interesting recent interview with Cardinal Pell, with an Irish dimension.