George Pell

Squash the Berries!

Kennel Enthusiast
Joined
May 27, 2019
Messages
1,406
Reaction score
502
Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sex Abuse found:

The Australian Catholic Church has paid A$276m to victims of sexual abuse since 1980.

The Catholic Church made the payments in response to 3,066 of 4,445 child sexual abuse claims between 1980 and 2015.

7% of the nation's Catholic priests allegedly abused children between 1950 and 2010.

No reference to Pell intended as he has been found innocent of any charge against him to date.

I'm interested to find out if Pell was involved in a cover up of reported charges made against Priests.

Finally will Pell seek damages?
 

Psycho Doggie

Kennel Immortal
Joined
Mar 25, 2014
Messages
17,874
Reaction score
25,382
From the data gathered by the Royal Commission, 61.4% of all accusations against someone in a religious context were in a Catholic Institution. The next worst were the Anglicans at 14.8%.

Figures show 7% of RCC Priests have been accused by someone of abuse, and given that research estimates that only about 20% of actual victims end up notifying authorities, the number of priests who have abused is certainly higher. As it stands some institutions within the Catholic Church have an atrocious number of accused members, St John of God Brothers are 40%, Christian Brothers 22%, and Marist Brothers 20%.

Both as a whole and in it's many parts the RCC has been atrocious when it comes to protection of children in it's care.

In view of its extent, senior clergy and the congregational community were aware of child sexual abuse as a common problem across Australia; they often also knew who the alleged perpetrators were. In the decades before the Royal Commission was established, however, the Church responded with pleas of ignorance, denial, minimisation and inertia, and even colluded to protect abusers. The Commission remarked on an institutional culture that “permitted abuse and silenced victims”. One priest, for example, had confessed his history of child sexual abuse to as many as 30 priests over a 25-year period, but no action was taken during that time to prevent him from offending or report him to the police. Source.

I can't find the data, but was at a training event on Child Safety where it was reported by someone in the know who would be held responsible for stating wrong information that victim data concerning the time length of the abuse found that on average victims in RCC institutions were abused for longer than in other religious and non-religious institutions. This means that if the data was collected based on number of instances of abuse, rather than number of victims, the RCC percentage would be even higher.

George Pell has been released, unsurprisingly, because that is the correct decision based on the way the legal system works. This, however, must not distract from the reality that the RCC is the worst of offenders as far as institutions go, something that has been found not only in Australia but also Ireland, Canada, and the USA.

Personally I think that the RCC dogma concerning sin and forgiveness is deeply flawed.
 

wendog33

Kennel Immortal
Premium Member
Ladder Champion
Joined
Aug 6, 2016
Messages
24,750
Reaction score
27,957
^^This ^^
From the data gathered by the Royal Commission, 61.4% of all accusations against someone in a religious context were in a Catholic Institution. The next worst were the Anglicans at 14.8%.

Figures show 7% of RCC Priests have been accused by someone of abuse, and given that research estimates that only about 20% of actual victims end up notifying authorities, the number of priests who have abused is certainly higher. As it stands some institutions within the Catholic Church have an atrocious number of accused members, St John of God Brothers are 40%, Christian Brothers 22%, and Marist Brothers 20%.

Both as a whole and in it's many parts the RCC has been atrocious when it comes to protection of children in it's care.

In view of its extent, senior clergy and the congregational community were aware of child sexual abuse as a common problem across Australia; they often also knew who the alleged perpetrators were. In the decades before the Royal Commission was established, however, the Church responded with pleas of ignorance, denial, minimisation and inertia, and even colluded to protect abusers. The Commission remarked on an institutional culture that “permitted abuse and silenced victims”. One priest, for example, had confessed his history of child sexual abuse to as many as 30 priests over a 25-year period, but no action was taken during that time to prevent him from offending or report him to the police. Source.

I can't find the data, but was at a training event on Child Safety where it was reported by someone in the know who would be held responsible for stating wrong information that victim data concerning the time length of the abuse found that on average victims in RCC institutions were abused for longer than in other religious and non-religious institutions. This means that if the data was collected based on number of instances of abuse, rather than number of victims, the RCC percentage would be even higher.

George Pell has been released, unsurprisingly, because that is the correct decision based on the way the legal system works. This, however, must not distract from the reality that the RCC is the worst of offenders as far as institutions go, something that has been found not only in Australia but also Ireland, Canada, and the USA.

Personally I think that the RCC dogma concerning sin and forgiveness is deeply flawed.
 

Dawgfather

Banned
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Messages
8,835
Reaction score
1,900
how do you know every catholic priest is not a pedo?
In Australia we have what is called the rule of law and the presumption of innocence, this isn't communist China where someone is guilty just because the government says they are.

btw the person you are defending has an awful record in the past in relation to priest who committed criminal acts against kids, he is the don king if the pedophile cover up was compared to greedy boxing promoters
I have heard this a lot and I'm open to the possibility, I just genuinely haven't ever looked into it (although now that I have a lot of free time, I might do this).

they found the victim credible all the way up, including that the victim wasn't able to recall specific things and didn't embellish, for example he said pell didn't tell them to keep quiet
Based on everything I've read, including judgements from each court (and without the possibility that we can view "A's" evidence ourselves, it's my opinion that A appeared to be believable.

However the issue of A's evidence was addressed by the high court in paragraph 46 of their judgement (quoted below). In a nutshell they said that although A's evidence seemed reasonable, the judges in the appeal court failed to weigh A's evidence versus the other evidence which should have created a reasonable doubt as to Pell's guilt (see below).

High Court Judgement said:
Their Honours reasoned, with respect to largely unchallenged evidence that was inconsistent with those allegations (the "solid obstacles" to conviction), that notwithstanding each obstacle it remained possible that A's account was correct. The analysis failed to engage with whether, against this body of evidence, it was reasonably possible that A's account was not correct, such that there was a reasonable doubt as to the applicant's guilt.
and the fact that he said it happened in the priests room is evident because at the time the archbishops room was closed for repairs and he would have used the priests room instead
This was addressed in paragraph 50 of the high court's judgement where they said that just because A had at some point been in the sacristy doesn't prove anything about whether he was actually assaulted in there (see below):

High Court Judgement said:
Satisfaction that A had been inside the priests' sacristy did not afford any independent basis for finding that, on such an occasion, he had been sexually assaulted by the applicant.
the jury was given the robes to feel and they thought it was very maneuverable so I don't understand why the robes are brought up as something that is inconsistent, did the high court also feel the robes or are they just repeating the defence teams arguments?
On this point I don't have a firm opinion as yet because I've heard conflicting information. At least one witness was sure that the vestments could not be manuevered to allow for what the allegations said had happened. However I'm sure I read that the appeals court judges physically inspected the vestments and decided they could be.
 

CaptainJackson

Kennel Immortal
Gilded
Joined
Nov 28, 2016
Messages
16,216
Reaction score
19,737
LIVE: TONIGHT 9pm on "Christians underground during lockdown"

Q&A discussing the facts on the Cardinal George Pell case!

Michael Obeid and Charlie Bakhos will be interviewing special guest: John Macaulay; former altar server at the Melbourne Cathedral at the time and longtime observer of the trial of Cardinal George Pell who has been a source to several news agencies.

He was interviewed last year on EWTN by Raymond Arroyo:

https://youtu.be/ht7cWkd-KF4

Comment or message us any questions and tune in tonight 9pm on Christinalivesmatter Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/groups/1852494475018627/



Now as this happened last night, here's the video:

Again I asked you to provide what the witness said and you come up with this bullshit.

You cant provide that by the way because other than those directly involved in the case, no one else knows what was said in the case by the over 50 witnesses.

The HC also made it clear that the case cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt, hence innocent until proven guilty mantra came into effect. It's basically saying that either what Pell said happened happened or what witness J said happened happened but we can't 100% beyond doubt prove either. The HC only said that it wasn't proven beyond reasonable doubt and again it's a TECHNICAL let off of Pell.
 

CaptainJackson

Kennel Immortal
Gilded
Joined
Nov 28, 2016
Messages
16,216
Reaction score
19,737
The Australian Catholic Church has paid A$276m to victims of sexual abuse since 1980.
Pell was made Vatican treasurer because he was meticulous with numbers but somehow he never knew about this $276 million pay off to victims as a cardinal
 

Typical dog

Kennel Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 22, 2017
Messages
2,103
Reaction score
4,442
Pell the Pedo Protector. Let men prey on vulnerable children then asks for a police escort once he weasels his way out. Was he feeling a bit vulnerable?
 

CaptainJackson

Kennel Immortal
Gilded
Joined
Nov 28, 2016
Messages
16,216
Reaction score
19,737
Personally I think that the RCC dogma concerning sin and forgiveness is deeply flawed.
They justifythemselves by blaming the victims. The pope even blamed the victims in one of his speeches in 2019. There's no sin on them, the child abuse survivors were in cahoots with the devil and enticed the priests

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02...ents-linking-church-critics-to-devil/10836244


During a speech to pilgrims from southern Italy on Wednesday, Pope Francis said "defects" from the church had to be denounced so they could be corrected, and those who criticise "without love" were linked to the devil.

"One cannot live a whole life of accusing, accusing, accusing, the church," Pope Francis said.

"Who is the accuser? Who in the Bible is called the Great Accuser? The devil.

"Those who spend their lives accusing, accusing, accusing are not the devil's children because the devil has none.

"[They are] friends, cousins and relatives of the devil, and this is wrong."
 

Typical dog

Kennel Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 22, 2017
Messages
2,103
Reaction score
4,442
They justifythemselves by blaming the victims. The pope even blamed the victims in one of his speeches in 2019. There's no sin on them, the child abuse survivors were in cahoots with the devil and enticed the priests

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02...ents-linking-church-critics-to-devil/10836244


During a speech to pilgrims from southern Italy on Wednesday, Pope Francis said "defects" from the church had to be denounced so they could be corrected, and those who criticise "without love" were linked to the devil.

"One cannot live a whole life of accusing, accusing, accusing, the church," Pope Francis said.

"Who is the accuser? Who in the Bible is called the Great Accuser? The devil.

"Those who spend their lives accusing, accusing, accusing are not the devil's children because the devil has none.

"[They are] friends, cousins and relatives of the devil, and this is wrong."
Going by the figures they've handed over $276M to the devil.......
 

CaptainJackson

Kennel Immortal
Gilded
Joined
Nov 28, 2016
Messages
16,216
Reaction score
19,737
Going by the figures they've handed over $276M to the devil.......
I suggest watching ABCs revelation series (they've removed episode 3 because it's about Pell and being updated). But the first 2 episodes shows that there's a clear case that these people believe they are above anyone else because they're "holy" men and just blame everyone else for their ills.

Mind you I'm not putting words in their mouths. One of the abusers literally said that at the time they were blaming the kids for it.
 

Wahesh

The Forefather of The Kennel
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
24,798
Reaction score
12,079
Again I asked you to provide what the witness said and you come up with this bullshit.

You cant provide that by the way because other than those directly involved in the case, no one else knows what was said in the case by the over 50 witnesses.

The HC also made it clear that the case cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt, hence innocent until proven guilty mantra came into effect. It's basically saying that either what Pell said happened happened or what witness J said happened happened but we can't 100% beyond doubt prove either. The HC only said that it wasn't proven beyond reasonable doubt and again it's a TECHNICAL let off of Pell.
If you watched the video, John Macaulay (an Alter boy at the Cathedral when the alleged incident took place) states that Pell ALWAYS had an individual such as a Priest with him in the Sacristy after mass. ALWAYS. He also said the Pell spoke to everyone after the mass finished and they left. Pretty hard to figure out why a choir boy would be there still.

You are right when you say that it comes down to one person's word versus another, but there are far too many holes in this story for it to be believable.
 
Last edited:

CaptainJackson

Kennel Immortal
Gilded
Joined
Nov 28, 2016
Messages
16,216
Reaction score
19,737
If you watched the video, the John Macaulay (an Alter boy at the Cathedral when the alleged incident took place), that Pell ALWAYS had an individual such as a Priest with him in the Sacristy after mass. ALWAYS. He also said the Pell spoke to everyone after the mass finished and they left. Pretty hard to figure out why a choir boy would be there still.

You are right when you say that it comes down to one person's word versus another, but there are far too many holes in this story for it to be believable.
Was john Macaulay there when the event took place?

Can john Macaulay 100% guarantee that it was the same each and every single time?

There's a reason 7 HC judges did not say that witness J wasn't credible. There's a reason 7 HC judges said that they felt it wasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt and not that witness J had falsified his evidence.

The court ruling hardly gets Pell off, that's why people are still calling the evil prick a peadophile without any fear of repercussions of defamation.
 

Rodzilla

Terry Lamb 1996
Joined
Dec 22, 2004
Messages
42,535
Reaction score
6,140
This was addressed in paragraph 50 of the high court's judgement where they said that just because A had at some point been in the sacristy doesn't prove anything about whether he was actually assaulted in there (see below)
it adds weight to their claims because it is not the standard room for pell to go, his room was under repair at that time

this all feels like they wanted to get him released and then found a reason to do it, like when they pointed out the evidence that pell would meet people after mass went unchallenged, they could say the same thing about the actual victims accusation direct evidence being unchallenged when pell refused to testify that he didn't do it
 

Wahesh

The Forefather of The Kennel
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
24,798
Reaction score
12,079
Was john Macaulay there when the event took place?

Can john Macaulay 100% guarantee that it was the same each and every single time?

There's a reason 7 HC judges did not say that witness J wasn't credible. There's a reason 7 HC judges said that they felt it wasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt and not that witness J had falsified his evidence.

The court ruling hardly gets Pell off, that's why people are still calling the evil prick a peadophile without any fear of repercussions of defamation.
Well they can say, do, and think what they want, but the amount of holes in the story is absolutely laughable.
 

Dawgfather

Banned
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Messages
8,835
Reaction score
1,900
it adds weight to their claims because it is not the standard room for pell to go, his room was under repair at that time

this all feels like they wanted to get him released and then found a reason to do it, like when they pointed out the evidence that pell would meet people after mass went unchallenged, they could say the same thing about the actual victims accusation direct evidence being unchallenged when pell refused to testify that he didn't do it
When you say 'they' want to get him released, who are you referring to?
 

CaptainJackson

Kennel Immortal
Gilded
Joined
Nov 28, 2016
Messages
16,216
Reaction score
19,737
Well they can say, do, and think what they want, but the amount of holes in the story is absolutely laughable.
What you find "laughable" is common practice in child sex abuse survivors. They usually report the crimes many years after the crime has taken place. In many case up to 30 years after.

So given the timeframe, the trauma, the victim trying to block the memory of it, there isn't enough of a complete picture (and this is what saved pell).

But however to suggest that nothing takes place in a sacristy is actual laughable.

Vincent Ryan - CONVICTED peadophile

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05...ncent-ryan-convicted-of-sexual-abuse/11138386

Vincent Gerard Ryan, 81, will spend up to another three years and three months in jail for two offences each against two boys during the 1970s and 1990s at parishes in the Hunter region.

He was found guilty of sexually abusing one boy in a church sacristy after giving him altar wine, and another boy who was upset after attending at a funeral.
 

Rodzilla

Terry Lamb 1996
Joined
Dec 22, 2004
Messages
42,535
Reaction score
6,140
When you say 'they' want to get him released, who are you referring to?
the people who wanted him released, its a huge push make no mistake about that including the main media outlet in Australia and prime minister level people

id like to see the stats on how many times a high court has set aside the verdict in a pedophile case based on something subjective like reasonable doubt which is precisely what the jury is meant to decide

there was no procedure error or anything like that in the trial so this is just an opinion that they didn't get beyond reasonable doubt, and they based it on things that the jury considered and overcame

id like to challenge anybody to define what is reasonable doubt and was is exactly required for it to be reached?

like a very credible accusation backed up by pells usual room being closed, and the defence offers that pell always talks to people at that time, that people could walk in on them and he wears a robe

so what is the reasonable doubt situation here? do they need 20% less reasonable doubt? 10%?

keep in mind that pell has a high priced defence team and they will say anything trying to create this reasonable doubt, they probably were locked in a room for months trying to be creative

but you could easily dismiss each of their suggestions:

1) of course nobody is going to remember the specific week over 20 years ago if pell talked to people, like I usually masturbate but im not going to remember if I did it on nov 9th 2007

2) the logic that someone would walk in on them and turn him into police assumes that if someone walked in on them they would turn him into police, I don't think anybody in that church's history has been caught and turned in, I think they have a 100% cover up record but could be wrong

3) the robe was felt up by the jury and the appeal court who said guilty and upheld it
 

Wahesh

The Forefather of The Kennel
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
24,798
Reaction score
12,079
What you find "laughable" is common practice in child sex abuse survivors. They usually report the crimes many years after the crime has taken place. In many case up to 30 years after.

So given the timeframe, the trauma, the victim trying to block the memory of it, there isn't enough of a complete picture (and this is what saved pell).

But however to suggest that nothing takes place in a sacristy is actual laughable.

Vincent Ryan - CONVICTED peadophile

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05...ncent-ryan-convicted-of-sexual-abuse/11138386

Vincent Gerard Ryan, 81, will spend up to another three years and three months in jail for two offences each against two boys during the 1970s and 1990s at parishes in the Hunter region.

He was found guilty of sexually abusing one boy in a church sacristy after giving him altar wine, and another boy who was upset after attending at a funeral.
Mate... I never said nothing takes place there, but in this case it didn’t as Pell would ALWAYS have someone with him.
 
Top