Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Ongoing religious scandals

Options
1…111112114116117…124

Comments

  • Options
    #3392
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,403 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Whereas Pell still maintains his innocence.
    Pell's guilty verdict has been overturned by the High Court of Australia which stated that there is 'a significant possibility that an innocent person has been convicted because the evidence did not establish guilt to the requisite standard of proof'.

    https://7news.com.au/news/court-justice/george-pell-to-walk-free-from-prison-after-child-sex-abuse-conviction-quashed-c-960419

    https://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgment-summaries/2020/hca-12-2020-04-07.pdf


  • Options
    #3393
    Yellow_Fern
    Registered Users Posts: 2,587 ✭✭✭Yellow_Fern


    robindch wrote: »
    Pell's guilty verdict has been overturned by the High Court of Australia which stated that there is 'a significant possibility that an innocent person has been convicted because the evidence did not establish guilt to the requisite standard of proof'.

    https://7news.com.au/news/court-justice/george-pell-to-walk-free-from-prison-after-child-sex-abuse-conviction-quashed-c-960419

    https://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgment-summaries/2020/hca-12-2020-04-07.pdf

    It was great to see this. I predicted it would be overturned at the lower court. I can't ever be 100% sure he is innocent but I am sure the conviction was tosh. It is so implausible and so far fetched if you read into the small details.


  • Options
    #3394
    Yellow_Fern
    Registered Users Posts: 2,587 ✭✭✭Yellow_Fern


    Quite remarkable silence on all the usual suspects who were so sure of the certainty his guilt :pac: Any other man would have gotten a fair trial but we live in a bigoted world.

    Media must atone for Witch-Hunt as Pell Finally Released


  • Options
    #3395
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Yellow_Fern wrote: »
    Quite remarkable silence on all the usual suspects who were so sure of the certainty his guilt :pac: Any other man would have gotten a fair trial but we live in a bigoted world.

    Media must atone for Witch-Hunt as Pell Finally Released

    Indeed.
    Gloating is always unattractive.
    Whomever the source.


  • Options
    #3396
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,281 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Gript fcukin' Media?
    Yellow_Fern wrote: »
    Quite remarkable silence on all the usual suspects who were so sure of the certainty his guilt :pac: Any other man would have gotten a fair trial but we live in a bigoted world.

    Well you appear certain of his innocence. I'm not but I'm not certain of his guilt either.

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3397
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,281 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    So Yellow_Fern do you think that this man is a liar? On what basis?

    https://www.rte.ie/news/world/2020/0408/1129233-pell-accuser-response/
    "It is difficult in child sexual abuse matters to satisfy a criminal court that the offending has occurred beyond the shadow of a doubt," Witness J said. "It is a very high standard to meet - a heavy burden."

    Regardless, he said: "I would hate to think that one outcome of this case is that people are discouraged from reporting to the police.

    "I would like to reassure child sexual abuse survivors that most people recognise the truth when they hear it."

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Options
    #3398
    Yellow_Fern
    Registered Users Posts: 2,587 ✭✭✭Yellow_Fern


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    So Yellow_Fern do you think that this man is a liar? On what basis?

    https://www.rte.ie/news/world/2020/0408/1129233-pell-accuser-response/
    Well we know he has a criminal past, mental health issues and mental health treatment, drug and alcohol abuse. None of which could be raised in court.

    Also the alleged events of the story are preposterous. The idea that a group of choristers, including adults, might have been so preoccupied with making their way to the robing room as to fail to notice Pell in his full cardinal regalia had some how advanced ahead of the procession and pinning two 13 year old boy to the sacristy wall, a room which is open to anyone, with considerable traffic for the entirety of the procession, isn’t plausible and it isn't plausible that a predator with a lot of lose would be so public. We know with certainty he only said mass twice that year. How you'd even get a penis through a chasuble, cincture, stole, alb and possibly a dalmatic is beyond me.
    The High Court noted that it is not reasonable to reason that Pell had the opportunity to commit the offences.

    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    Gript fcukin' Media?

    Well you appear certain of his innocence. I'm not but I'm not certain of his guilt either.
    Well I'd refer you to my post https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=113082467&postcount=3393 where I stated that "I can't ever be 100% sure he is innocent" That been said this wasn't a slim majority for Pell. It wasn't four judges to three against, the full bench of all seven judges ruled unanimously in Cardinal Pell's favour. Unpreceded stuff.


  • Options
    #3399
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,281 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Yellow_Fern wrote: »
    Well we know he has a criminal past, mental health issues and mental health treatment, drug and alcohol abuse. None of which could be raised in court.

    Ever consider there could be a reason for that?

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Options
    #3400
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,207 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Yellow_Fern wrote: »
    Well I'd refer you to my post https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=113082467&postcount=3393 where I stated that "I can't ever be 100% sure he is innocent" That been said this wasn't a slim majority for Pell. It wasn't four judges to three against, the full bench of all seven judges ruled unanimously in Cardinal Pell's favour. Unpreceded stuff.
    But, to be clear, ruling unanimously in Cardinal Pell's favour is not the same as ruling that his, or is probably, innocent; just that there is a signficant possiblity that he is innocent. I think there is probably still some gap between your position (fairly certain, but less than 100% certain, of his innocence) and the High Court's (recognises signficant possiblity that he is innocent).


  • Options
    #3401
    Yellow_Fern
    Registered Users Posts: 2,587 ✭✭✭Yellow_Fern


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    But, to be clear, ruling unanimously in Cardinal Pell's favour is not the same as ruling that his, or is probably, innocent; just that there is a signficant possiblity that he is innocent. I think there is probably still some gap between your position (fairly certain, but less than 100% certain, of his innocence) and the High Court's (recognises signficant possiblity that he is innocent).

    It is not the same and it is also impossible. Courts of law don't prove innocence. They can only prove or overturn proof of guilt. Your post is an extremely disingenuous form of gas lighting. You know perfectly well a court can't say that he is innocent. If you read the ruling, you'd know the judge said the accuser's account isn't possible (not reasonable to reason that Pell had the opportunity to commit the offences.), which is a bar rarely achieved and the closest they can go to saying he is innocent.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3402
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,207 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Yellow_Fern wrote: »
    It is not the same and it is also impossible. Courts of law don't prove innocence. They can only prove or overturn proof of guilt. Your post is an extremely disingenuous form of gas lighting. You know perfectly well a court can't say that he is innocent. If you read the ruling, you'd know the judge said the accuser's account isn't possible (not reasonable to reason that Pell had the opportunity to commit the offences.), which is a bar rarely achieved and the closest they can go to saying he is innocent.
    I have read the judgment. The words you present in italics do not appear anywhere in it. If anyone in this conversation is being disingenuous or engaging in gaslighting, it's not me, Yellow_Fern.

    You are correct to say that courts do not establish innocence; they only test whether guilt has been proven. Which was my point all along; your belief in Pell's innocence is not based on any explicit or implicit finding by the court that Pell is innocent; you go much further than the court did. You're perfectly eneitled to do that, but you can't present your position as one that is endorsed or validated by the court finding.

    It's quite wrong to say that what the court said about Pell is "the closest they can go to saying that he is innocent". In other cases, courts have often gone much further in that direction, holding e.g. that the evidence falls far short of what would justify a conviction, that particular elements of the offence had not be proven, etc, etc. In this case they only say that there is a "signficant possibility" that Pell is innocent, and that the totality of the evidence "required the jury, acting rationally, to have entertained a doubt as to [Pell's] guilt". But they also refer, several times, to the fact that is it possible that the assaults did occur as alleged. They do not overturn the conviction because they think it impossible or unlikely that the assaults occurred, but because they think asking "is it possible?" is the wrong question to ask.


  • Options
    #3403
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Police in Victoria have opened an investigation into Pell on allegations that date back to the 1970s when he shared a house with paedophile priest Gerald Ridsdale in Ballarat.

    Asked about Ridsdale, Pell said "“It was a sad story and of not much interest to me. I had no reason to turn my mind to the evils Ridsdale had perpetrated.”
    Which strikes me as a strange response - surly a 'man of God' would want to turn his mind to evil in order to combat it? Is that not in the job spec?
    https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/apr/14/police-investigating-george-pell-over-fresh-child-sexual-abuse-allegation-report

    Gerald Ridsdale was convicted of sexual abuse of 65 children, over the course of 40 years.

    https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/sep/27/gerald-risdale-victim-to-receive-more-than-1m-from-catholic-church


  • Options
    #3404
    Yellow_Fern
    Registered Users Posts: 2,587 ✭✭✭Yellow_Fern


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    I have read the judgment. The words you present in italics do not appear anywhere in it. If anyone in this conversation is being disingenuous or engaging in gaslighting, it's not me, Yellow_Fern.
    I was quoting an article by Professor Mirko Bagaric, Dean of Law at Swinburne University and Director of the Evidence-based Criminal Justice and Sentencing Project, which was written for ABC, Australia's national broadcaster. I provided the link. Are you accusing Prof Bagaric and their public broadcaster of gaslighting, isn that a bit far fetched?

    Please explain how I am gaslighting by quoting the professor?
    Peregrinus wrote: »
    You are correct to say that courts do not establish innocence; they only test whether guilt has been proven. Which was my point all along; your belief in Pell's innocence is not based on any explicit or implicit finding by the court that Pell is innocent; you go much further than the court did. You're perfectly eneitled to do that, but you can't present your position as one that is endorsed or validated by the court finding.
    If it was your point that courts can only prove guilt or disprove guilt, why did you claim earlier that he has not been found innocent, as if is noteworthy, even though a court can not do this. That is gaslighting. You were trying to cast doubt on Pells vindication. You painted this as a response to my comment but that was a red herring. My language was precise, because I have clarity of thought. I never claimed he was innocent and I never claimed the court found he was innocent. I even stated I cant be sure he is innocent. Do not put words in my mouth.

    The prosecution was a joke. Key evidence was never examined for example his diary which would have given a date. The media coverage here and in Australia was so biased. Why was the accuser referred to as the victim? Where was details leaked from the prosecutor's office to the ABC? A unanimous ruling casts a very dark shadow on the professionalism of the prosecutor's office but there is very coverage of this. There was also numerous article that implied that Pell was hiding overseas from justice before the police had even pressed charges. And then you have the airing of Tim Minchin's hateful libous song against Pell, released before any charges were pressed.


  • Options
    #3405
    Yellow_Fern
    Registered Users Posts: 2,587 ✭✭✭Yellow_Fern


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Police in Victoria have opened an investigation into Pell on allegations that date back to the 1970s when he shared a house with paedophile priest Gerald Ridsdale in Ballarat.

    Asked about Ridsdale, Pell said "“It was a sad story and of not much interest to me. I had no reason to turn my mind to the evils Ridsdale had perpetrated.”
    Which strikes me as a strange response - surly a 'man of God' would want to turn his mind to evil in order to combat it? Is that not in the job spec?
    https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/apr/14/police-investigating-george-pell-over-fresh-child-sexual-abuse-allegation-report

    Gerald Ridsdale was convicted of sexual abuse of 65 children, over the course of 40 years.

    https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/sep/27/gerald-risdale-victim-to-receive-more-than-1m-from-catholic-church

    He established Australia's first independent commissioner to handle child sexual abuse complaints church nearly 20 years ago. he did his bit. Despite his good work protecting kids, the mob has destroyed his career and he isnt the church leader that he once was. Working on child abuse will be the job of a successor.


  • Options
    #3406
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,731 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Yellow_Fern wrote: »
    I was quoting an article by Professor Mirko Bagaric, Dean of Law at Swinburne University and Director of the Evidence-based Criminal Justice and Sentencing Project, which was written for ABC, Australia's national broadcaster. I provided the link. Are you accusing Prof Bagaric and their public broadcaster of gaslighting, isn that a bit far fetched?

    Please explain how I am gaslighting by quoting the professor?

    Misattribution by my reading. You said
    Yellow_Fern wrote: »
    The High Court noted that it is not reasonable to reason that Pell had the opportunity to commit the offences.

    Yet it appears the High Court said no such thing, this was a comment by a third party.


  • Options
    #3407
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Yellow_Fern wrote: »
    Despite his good work protecting kids, the mob has destroyed his career and he isnt the church leader that he once was. Working on child abuse will be the job of a successor.

    Bull crap.

    Protecting children was his job. He failed.
    His former housemate and friend abused at least 65 children and that didn't 'interest' Pell.


  • Options
    #3408
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,207 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Yellow_Fern wrote: »
    I was quoting an article by Professor Mirko Bagaric, Dean of Law at Swinburne University and Director of the Evidence-based Criminal Justice and Sentencing Project, which was written for ABC, Australia's national broadcaster. I provided the link. Are you accusing Prof Bagaric and their public broadcaster of gaslighting, isn that a bit far fetched?
    No, not the professor. Just you, Yellow.
    Yellow_Fern wrote: »
    Please explain how I am gaslighting by quoting the professor?
    Because you didn't say you were quoting the professor; in fact you seemed to be trying to create the impression that you were quoting the court. This is what you said:
    Yellow_Fern wrote: »
    . . .If you read the ruling, you'd know the judge said the accuser's account isn't possible (not reasonable to reason that Pell had the opportunity to commit the offences.), which is a bar rarely achieved and the closest they can go to saying he is innocent.
    I have read the ruling, though the most charitable explanation for your posts is that you haven't. The court doesn't say that the accuser's account isn't possible, and the italicised words which you have placed so as to create the impression that they are quote from the ruling that you imply but do not state that you have read, when in fact you now admit that they are not. They're a quote from someone else entirely, a fact you didn't bother to mention when you quoted them. How is this not gaslighting?
    Yellow_Fern wrote: »
    If it was your point that courts can only prove guilt or disprove guilt, why did you claim earlier that he has not been found innocent, as if is noteworthy, even though a court can not do this. That is gaslighting. You were trying to cast doubt on Pells vindication. You painted this as a response to my comment but that was a red herring. My language was precise, because I have clarity of thought. I never claimed he was innocent and I never claimed the court found he was innocent. I even stated I cant be sure he is innocent. Do not put words in my mouth.
    I didn't put words in your mouth, which you should already have noticed if your thinking is as clear as you claim. I posted as I did because I sought to counter the incorrect impression that your post tended to create, that the court finding supports the view that Pell is likely innocent. I have read the court ruling; it does not support that view. If your thinking is as clear as you like to believe, and if you have in fact read the court ruling yourself, you will agree with me.
    Yellow_Fern wrote: »
    The prosecution was a joke. Key evidence was never examined for example his diary which would have given a date.
    The failure to lead evidence which might exculpate Pell is a criticism of the defence, surely?
    Yellow_Fern wrote: »
    The media coverage here and in Australia was so biased. Why was the accuser referred to as the victim? Where was details leaked from the prosecutor's office to the ABC? A unanimous ruling casts a very dark shadow on the professionalism of the prosecutor's office but there is very coverage of this.
    The ruling says - as you already know, if you have read it - nothing either explicitly or by implication about the conduct or professionalism of the prosecution. It focusses entirely on the questions which the trial court and the appeal court asked themselves and if you insist on reading it as critical of anybody it is critical of the lower courts.
    Yellow_Fern wrote: »
    There was also numerous article that implied that Pell was hiding overseas from justice before the police had even pressed charges. And then you have the airing of Tim Minchin's hateful libous song against Pell, released before any charges were pressed.
    I don't see how you can blame the prosecution authorities for things done by other people before any charges were laid. A clear thinker would spot the problem there, surely?


  • Options
    #3409
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,285 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Peregrinus wrote: »

    I have read the ruling, though the most charitable explanation for your posts is that you haven't. The court doesn't say that the accuser's account isn't possible, and the italicised words which you have placed so as to create the impression that they are quote from the ruling that you imply but do not state that you have read, when in fact you now admit that they are not. They're a quote from someone else entirely, a fact you didn't bother to mention when you quoted them. How is this not gaslighting?

    Is it not more correct to say it was a straight up lie? They said they were quoting the court when they knew (as they admitted themselves) that the quote came from elsewhere.


  • Options
    #3410
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    Is it not more correct to say it was a straight up lie? They said they were quoting the court when they knew (as they admitted themselves) that the quote came from elsewhere.

    MOD
    May I take this opportunity to remind you of the Charter which states:
    Posters are not allowed to refer to each other, directly or indirectly, as "liars", "trolls", "bigots", "bullies", "soap-boxers" or any other terms which impute antisocial motives to other posters. In the normal run of discussion, posters should avoid disputed terms without agreeing on what precisely the terms might mean, and should definitions be agreed, these terms should be used sparingly and only to bring the discussion forward. An example of such a disputed term is "murder" in the context of abortion.

    Consider your wrist slapped and the naughty step waved at in a warningish way.


  • Options
    #3411
    Yellow_Fern
    Registered Users Posts: 2,587 ✭✭✭Yellow_Fern


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    No, not the professor. Just you, Yellow.
    Did you read the ABC article? Because you keep telling me how you read the ruling and was I literally quoting the professor.

    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Because you didn't say you were quoting the professor;in fact you seemed to be trying to create the impression that you were quoting the court. This is what you said:
    I provided the link!
    Peregrinus wrote: »
    I have read the ruling, though the most charitable explanation for your posts is that you haven't. The court doesn't say that the accuser's account isn't possible, and the italicised words which you have placed so as to create the impression that they are quote from the ruling that you imply but do not state that you have read, when in fact you now admit that they are not. They're a quote from someone else entirely, a fact you didn't bother to mention when you quoted them. How is this not gaslighting?
    You cast the impression that the court concluding cast doubt on the innocence of Pell, which is something they dont do. This is gaslighting.
    Peregrinus wrote: »
    I didn't put words in your mouth, which you should already have noticed if your thinking is as clear as you claim. I posted as I did because I sought to counter the incorrect impression that your post tended to create, that the court finding supports the view that Pell is likely innocent. I have read the court ruling; it does not support that view. If your thinking is as clear as you like to believe, and if you have in fact read the court ruling yourself, you will agree with me.
    The failure to lead evidence which might exculpate Pell is a criticism of the defence, surely?

    The ruling says - as you already know, if you have read it - nothing either explicitly or by implication about the conduct or professionalism of the prosecution. It focusses entirely on the questions which the trial court and the appeal court asked themselves and if you insist on reading it as critical of anybody it is critical of the lower courts.
    The prosecution wasnt on trial. There was a lot of failings there that have been put out in the press that undercut the reliability of case.
    Peregrinus wrote: »
    I don't see how you can blame the prosecution authorities for things done by other people before any charges were laid. A clear thinker would spot the problem there, surely?
    Such a screw up doesnt typically occur due to one error in one system. Several errors in several of the involved systems.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3412
    Yellow_Fern
    Registered Users Posts: 2,587 ✭✭✭Yellow_Fern


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    Is it not more correct to say it was a straight up lie? They said they were quoting the court when they knew (as they admitted themselves) that the quote came from elsewhere.

    Wilful dishonesty at play in this comment. If you think the statement is untrue then the writer, Prof Mirko Bagaric, writing for Australia's equivalent of RTE is being dishonest, not me.


  • Options
    #3413
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Yellow_Fern wrote: »
    Wilful dishonesty at play in this comment. If you think the statement is untrue then the writer, Prof Mirko Bagaric, writing for Australia's equivalent of RTE is being dishonest, not me.

    MOD.

    Accusing another poster of "wilful dishonesty" is also indirectly calling them a liar which is breach of the forum charter - quoted above.
    All variations on the theme of "pants on fire" stops now or cards will be flourished.
    Thanking you


  • Options
    #3414
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,285 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Yellow_Fern wrote: »
    Wilful dishonesty at play in this comment. If you think the statement is untrue then the writer, Prof Mirko Bagaric, writing for Australia's equivalent of RTE is being dishonest, not me.

    what is dishonest about what i posted? you claimed the quote came from the court. it didnt.


  • Options
    #3415
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,731 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Yellow_Fern wrote: »
    Wilful dishonesty at play in this comment. If you think the statement is untrue then the writer, Prof Mirko Bagaric, writing for Australia's equivalent of RTE is being dishonest, not me.

    As already pointed out, you misattributed what this commentator said as having being noted by the high court. It is not the veracity of the opinion of Prof Mirko Bagaric that is being questioned, it is the incorrect attribution of this statement to the high court on your part. Saying that person X said A is not the same as saying person X said B and person Y considers this equivalent to saying A. Experienced legal professionals tend to be very precise in what they say and how they word it. If a judge does not say something specifically, the omission is also well considered.


  • Options
    #3416
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,731 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    I see Pell is back in the new again. The Australian royal commission says he was aware of ongoing child sexual abuse. The commission report states "We are also satisfied that by 1973, Cardinal Pell was not only conscious of child sexual abuse by clergy, but he also considered measures of avoiding situations which might provoke gossip about it". More here.


  • Options
    #3417
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,207 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    smacl wrote: »
    I see Pell is back in the new again. The Australian royal commission says he was aware of ongoing child sexual abuse. The commission report states "We are also satisfied that by 1973, Cardinal Pell was not only conscious of child sexual abuse by clergy, but he also considered measures of avoiding situations which might provoke gossip about it". More here.
    To be fair to Pell - much as I dislike being fair to Pell - I understand that what the Commission is talking about there is measure adopted by Pell to forbid priests from taking boys on overnight camps, etc., because such events (a) created opportunities for abuse, and (b) gave rise to gossip or speculation about abuse, even if there was in fact no abuse. Pell wanted to avoid these situations not only because they might spark gossip but also because they might facilitate abuse.

    The point here is not that Pell was more concerned about the church's reputation than about the welfare of children; the measure was aimed at protecting both. The point is that this undermines any claim by Pell that he was generally unaware at the time of the phenomenon of child abuse by clergy of the diocese. If he was taking measures to prevent it, and to prevent gossipa about it, then he obviously knew it was a problem.


  • Options
    #3418
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,731 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    The point here is not that Pell was more concerned about the church's reputation than about the welfare of children; the measure was aimed at protecting both. The point is that this undermines any claim by Pell that he was generally unaware at the time of the phenomenon of child abuse by clergy of the diocese. If he was taking measures to prevent it, and to prevent gossipa about it, then he obviously knew it was a problem.

    My reading of it that he was covering up the abuse first and foremost and removing specific opportunity for repetition. While this was most certainly motivated to protect the church on the one hand, on what basis do you suppose he also had equal concerns for the welfare of those being abused? Failing to report the abusers to the authorities while moving them to other parishes where they could re-offend doesn't suggest any concern for the victims to me.


  • Options
    #3419
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,281 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Allegations against 7% of Australian priests is a pretty shocking level, IIRC in the Dublin diocese it was about 3% of priests who had allegations made against them, and that was regarded as shocking when the report came out...

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Options
    #3420
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,403 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    Allegations against 7% of Australian priests is a pretty shocking level, IIRC in the Dublin diocese it was about 3% of priests who had allegations made against them, and that was regarded as shocking when the report came out...
    So far as I recall, and from the various reports issued by the various governments looking into the issue of clerical abuse, somewhere between 5% and 15% of priests had either been convicted of abuse, or had plausible allegations made against them. The percentage varied according to the place and the year - and were not very much different here in Ireland from the levels reported by the US Bishops' Conference for the US - of the graduating class of 1970, for example, around 10% subsequently engaged in child abuse, or had plausible allegations made against them.

    Separately - these high figures, plus the church's internal bush telegraph, make claims that nobody knew what was happening, frankly implausible.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3421
    Odhinn
    Registered Users Posts: 8,056 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    robindch wrote: »
    So far as I recall, and from the various reports issued by the various governments looking into the issue of clerical abuse, somewhere between 5% and 15% of priests had either been convicted of abuse, or had plausible allegations made against them. The percentage varied according to the place and the year - and were not very much different here in Ireland from the levels reported by the US Bishops' Conference for the US - of the graduating class of 1970, for example, around 10% subsequently engaged in child abuse, or had plausible allegations made against them.

    Separately - these high figures, plus the church's internal bush telegraph, make claims that nobody knew what was happening, frankly implausible.




    I think it was the Murphy report that noted that abuse and abusers - Fr Tony Walsh as an example - were common knowledge in the church.


Advertisement