George Pell has recently been declared by the Australian Courts to be not guilty of sexually assaulting two young men in a cathedral. But, as Joseph Sciambra noted a few days ago, should Pell be held up as a Catholic hero, given his mishandling of sexual abuse cases from the past? Sylvia's Site carries a lot of information on the coverups in Australia by monstrous pedophile priests.
In asking these very questions, Sciambra apparently was attacked online (Here we go again with the evil toxic online sub-culture generated by "Catholics" that I have referenced a number of times). Sciambra accurately notes: "I am starting to believe that the Catholic Church (in either conservative or liberal spheres) is no place for the inquiring mind".
Sadly, he is substantially correct.
Sciambra wrote:
Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more.” – Luke 12:48 Cardinal George Pell told an Australian Royal Commission he did not help a teenage boy who complained to him in 1974 that a Christian Brother named Edward Dowlan of St Patrick’s College (in Ballarat) was “misbehaving with boys”. “I didn’t do anything about it,” he said. When asked why, Pell told the Commission it was because: “The boy wasn’t asking me to do anything about it…"
Years later, Dowlan would plead guilty to 33 counts of indecently assaulting boys under the age of 16.
Following his acquittal for charges of sexual abuse, Cardinal George Pell was described by some Catholic bloggers, commentators, and journalists as a “hero,” a “martyr,” and even a “saint.”
I am starting to believe that the Catholic Church (in either the conservative or liberal spheres) is no place for an inquiring mind. A few days ago, I merely posted some questions about Cardinal Pell on my Facebook wall (I also shared my thoughts concerning his alleged mishandling of sexual abuse cases while he was a priest in Ballarat, when he was Bishop, and an Archbishop) – and then I got attacked.
The full article may be read here.
5 comments:
I am glad that the Australian judicial system exonerated Cardinal Pell because it was obvious that the evidence was so ridiculously flawed. You and I have both been in sacristy's after Mass. We know what goes on and the numbers present, now imagine that after a Solemn Sunday Mass in a Cathedral. Impossible.
So what do I think?
Very few, if any clerics, can ever be trusted.
All, including Pell, can be sexual deviants.
The "witness" was lying and paid off.
The Vatican is corrupt and helped to frame Pell because of what he was finding out.
The Victoria Constabulary is corrupt and was more than happy to railroad him.
Anti-Catholic bigotry is alive and well in Australia.
Much of it is deserved because of the sodomites and their filthy existence and attacks on youths.
Pell did not do all that he could have to reveal it as a young priest, out it publicly as a bishop and stop it. But none did much better.
Thoughts?
I agree that the evidence showed that it was impossible for him to have committed what he was accused of doing. Sciambra is merely pointing out that Pell, like many other bishops, seemingly failed in driving out evil priests. That separates him from a holy, militant bishop who risks all for the Truth: St. Peter Damian comes to mind. Pell may well have had the intention of "protecting the Church" etc., not exposing the dirty laundry. Well, we know it does not work. The hiding of dirty secrets and moving the abusers around eventually creates more problems (abstracting from the great moral evil of hushing it up and not seeking justice for real victims). Evil priests and bishops must be exposed. "It is better that scandal arise, than the truth be suppressed". St. Gregory the Great.
There is no doubt too that Pell had discovered very serious financial crimes committed in Rome. There is no doubt too, that the Freemasons in the Vatican are in some manner in contact with their Brothers who control the Victoria Constabulary.
Certainly the timing of Pell's removal from the Vatican was not coincidence. Questions should asked: what has become of all the evidence?And who is the Cardinal with the suitcase jammed with cash that Pell mentioned in the Sky interview? Does he know who this Cardinal is? If so, he must name names. Was this Cardinal receiving a payoff? Was it money made from blackmail? Was it illicit proceeds of money laundering? Was it bribery?
Pell, for his -seemingly - past grave failings to remove the spiritual cancer from the Church in Australia - now needs to go to monastery and save his soul. He might even see the Providential hand of God in allowing his jailing as penance for betraying the boys and their families, betraying the Church, when strong action was needed, rather than silence and coverup.
why do you say George Pell MAY not be guilty?
Christopher, I wrote "MAY" because the Courts ruled thus:
"a significant possibility that an innocent person has been convicted because the evidence did not establish guilt to the requisite standard of proof".
In other words the Court ruled that there is a "significant possibility" that Pell is innocent due to lack of "requisite standard of proof".
It is possible that Pell's past gross mismanagement of sexual abuse emboldened the authoritiies.
Great post by Barona.
Post a Comment