George Pell

Kelpie03

Kennel Enthusiast
Joined
Feb 21, 2017
Messages
4,449
Reaction score
3,223
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.
You say that the Catholic Church had 61.4 % while the C of E had only 14.8% of the child abuse cases. Any unbiased honest person will compare apples with apples. The Catholic church has a school in almost every town, often both primary and high, other Church's may have also but to a much much lesser extent.
To be honest the only fair comparison should be comparing the HSC colleges such as Riverview, St Gregs Catholic, with Kings, Grammar C of E. BTW older boys/girls would be much more aware of such dangers therefore not as easy to interfere with.
Celibacy is torture particularly since the sexual revolution, was told that celibacy amongst priests rose following the Sexual Revolution, so the 93% had to be very good to hold onto their vows.
 

Kelpie03

Kennel Enthusiast
Joined
Feb 21, 2017
Messages
4,449
Reaction score
3,223
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.
The idea of looking at your own mistakes is good one, since this forum is generally about football, I will point out how many times I've heard footballers say that they learn more from a loss than a win. So the bogma concerning sin and forgiveness is basically a good one, you will not be forgiven by God if you are not
sincere about avoiding sin in the future. I believe that many have abandon the Church because of fear of the confessional, If you TRULY WANT to believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God, who willingly humbled himself on the cross, you should be prepared to humble yourself just a little by facing your mistakes (sins), obviously a few Priests have failed that test to.
 

Psycho Doggie

Kennel Immortal
Joined
Mar 25, 2014
Messages
17,850
Reaction score
25,355
You say that the Catholic Church had 61.4 % while the C of E had only 14.8% of the child abuse cases. Any unbiased honest person will compare apples with apples. The Catholic church has a school in almost every town, often both primary and high, other Church's may have also but to a much much lesser extent.
To be honest the only fair comparison should be comparing the HSC colleges such as Riverview, St Gregs Catholic, with Kings, Grammar C of E. BTW older boys/girls would be much more aware of such dangers therefore not as easy to interfere with.
Celibacy is torture particularly since the sexual revolution, was told that celibacy amongst priests rose following the Sexual Revolution, so the 93% had to be very good to hold onto their vows.
That's a bit unfair saying "you say". A link to the Royal Commission findings was provided. It was their data, I'm merely quoting it. By saying "you say" the implication is that I have invented the data. Hopefully you agree that this is not the case.

Certainly, let's compare apples with apples. Please prove that the figures quoted can be explained based on the proportion of Catholic institutions compared with other religions. I did have a quick look at data from multiple sources concerning this before my previous post, and I saw enough to convince me that while there are more Catholic institutions than other religions, there is not enough to explain the much higher rate of abuse.

But even if broad numbers indicated they might explain the higher rate, there are plenty of other indications that Catholic institutions have been particularly bad on this. For example when looking at individual institutions, it is Catholic ones such as St John of God that have the worst rate of offence. Once again look at the links already provided to see the evidence for this. Read the report itself to discover that the Catholic church is identified by the Royal Commission as the most obstructive institution they had to deal with.

You raise the matter of age of the victims. Once again the data is available for anyone open minded enough to read it honestly. Average age of all victims at the moment of initial abuse in the Royal Commission review was 10.8 (boys) and 9.7 (girls). The average age of Catholic victims was considerably older; 11.5 (boys) and 10.5 (girls). You say (so far as I can tell it is you saying it, as you give no indication you are quoting someone else) that "older boys/girls would be much more aware of such dangers therefore not as easy to interfere with", which clearly implies based on the age data that Catholic offenders were able to abuse children more easily than the average offender. How is that possible, without there being institutional problems?

I was a bit surprised that you raised the vexed issue of celibacy. Celibacy is abstinence from sexual relations, which in and of itself has no connection to child abuse. Most people battling natural sexual urges are attracted to other adults, and priests too have had this option. Anyone, priest or otherwise, who is sexual attracted to minors should seek help, and be prosecuted if they offend. The trauma endured by children who are abused by adults is unconscionable, it is never excusable, but the facts show that Catholic institutions more than any other excused it. Celibacy doesn't enter into this, however, on the subject of celibacy I've long been fascinated by what Paul might have been getting at in 1 Timothy 4v3.

I can understand that nominal Catholics find the Royal Commission data difficult to comprehend. But the proof is comprehensive. In relation to abuse of children the Catholics as an institution are the worst of a bad bunch. Personally I think that Catholic dogma in relation to sin and forgiveness provides some explanation as to why the worst cases of abuse and cover up happened within it's institutions.
 

Psycho Doggie

Kennel Immortal
Joined
Mar 25, 2014
Messages
17,850
Reaction score
25,355
The idea of looking at your own mistakes is good one, since this forum is generally about football, I will point out how many times I've heard footballers say that they learn more from a loss than a win. So the bogma concerning sin and forgiveness is basically a good one, you will not be forgiven by God if you are not
sincere about avoiding sin in the future. I believe that many have abandon the Church because of fear of the confessional, If you TRULY WANT to believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God, who willingly humbled himself on the cross, you should be prepared to humble yourself just a little by facing your mistakes (sins), obviously a few Priests have failed that test to.
It is hard not to agree with the general message of what you are saying, anyone who thinks they are perfect, with nothing to learn, is wrong + incapable of learning.

To try and keep this simple, and not start delving deeply into arcane matters of theology, I think that the issue with Catholic dogma can be seen in their concept of absolution. The Catholic encyclopaedia says that absolution "is the remission of sin, or of the punishment due to sin, granted by the Church." This seems pretty straight forward, but the problem can be seen when we differentiate punishment due to sin from consequence due to sin. There is evidence in the records of how various offending Priests were moved around and protected that the hierarchy was unwilling to cooperate with secular authorities because the Priest in question had done confession with another Priest and received absolution. An absolved priest, according to Catholic doctrine, is free of punishment due to sin, and there is no differentiation between punishment and consequence. That lack of differentiation is what is behind the obstructive response of the RCC.
 

Squash the Berries!

Kennel Enthusiast
Joined
May 27, 2019
Messages
1,406
Reaction score
502
Pell will give a televised interview on Tuesday to Andrew Bolt.

Should be a fair and unbiased interview!
 

rainman

Kennel Legend
Joined
Feb 25, 2008
Messages
8,934
Reaction score
3,870
still something i dont like about the ****, he seams dodgy
 

Kelpie03

Kennel Enthusiast
Joined
Feb 21, 2017
Messages
4,449
Reaction score
3,223
It is hard not to agree with the general message of what you are saying, anyone who thinks they are perfect, with nothing to learn, is wrong + incapable of learning.

To try and keep this simple, and not start delving deeply into arcane matters of theology, I think that the issue with Catholic dogma can be seen in their concept of absolution. The Catholic encyclopaedia says that absolution "is the remission of sin, or of the punishment due to sin, granted by the Church." This seems pretty straight forward, but the problem can be seen when we differentiate punishment due to sin from consequence due to sin. There is evidence in the records of how various offending Priests were moved around and protected that the hierarchy was unwilling to cooperate with secular authorities because the Priest in question had done confession with another Priest and received absolution. An absolved priest, according to Catholic doctrine, is free of punishment due to sin, and there is no differentiation between punishment and consequence. That lack of differentiation is what is behind the obstructive response of the RCC.
In your first post I was only quoting what you posted it was not intend to imply that the figures were made up by you, as for comparing the % of primary School children attending Catholic School, to the number attending the Schools of other denominations I would be very surprised if numbers are not similar to the abused %, I haven't read the RC report so I don't know if those figures were published.
AS for your second post, I like most was sickened by the fact that such incidences ever happened, I went To Marist Brothers School I don't recall any abuse of kids their, it was drummed into us about the evil of sin, a lot of emphasizes was put on sins of thought, there can be no denying that any sinful or illegal act commences with the thought, I find it hard to believe that some did not practice what they preached. I believe that the confessional is a deterrent for most at least, in the end we will all be judged by the Almighty, it is God who will or won't forgive.
Actually every institution has covered up for its own, even the police force, I recall one officer saying on TV that he would never dob in a mate. (I could write a book on crimes which include Murder and corruption, I have personally witnessed that were covered up).
I believe that the Catholic Church in Australia is the first institution to have cleaned up its act. For the record, the recent RC into banking failed to deal with the criminal fraud committed against retirees by some of the Banks Financial Advisers, and there can be no denying that it was covered up by the current Government.
 

Realist90

Kennel Legend
Joined
Mar 30, 2014
Messages
13,949
Reaction score
3,261
Justice finally served. ABC still trying to say it was based on a “technicality” when that’s the biggest lie of the whole story, bigger lie than the “victim”.
It never should have gone as far as it did. Apparently the police did not even bother to ration the victims “friends” or people of interest. They just wanted pell locker up lol. It’s funny though the people saying before you must respec the court of the laws decision are now saying this decision was wrong and having meltdown. Someone doesn’t deserve to go to jail just to save face or to falsely believe “victim”
 

The DoggFather

OG DF
Premium Member
Gilded
Site's Top Poster
Joined
Sep 2, 2012
Messages
106,385
Reaction score
117,485
Justice finally served. ABC still trying to say it was based on a “technicality” when that’s the biggest lie of the whole story, bigger lie than the “victim”.
It never should have gone as far as it did. Apparently the police did not even bother to ration the victims “friends” or people of interest. They just wanted pell locker up lol. It’s funny though the people saying before you must respec the court of the laws decision are now saying this decision was wrong and having meltdown. Someone doesn’t deserve to go to jail just to save face or to falsely believe “victim”
Guess who's back!

Welcome back, habibeh!
 

Kelpie03

Kennel Enthusiast
Joined
Feb 21, 2017
Messages
4,449
Reaction score
3,223
Justice finally served. ABC still trying to say it was based on a “technicality” when that’s the biggest lie of the whole story, bigger lie than the “victim”.
It never should have gone as far as it did. Apparently the police did not even bother to ration the victims “friends” or people of interest. They just wanted pell locker up lol. It’s funny though the people saying before you must respec the court of the laws decision are now saying this decision was wrong and having meltdown. Someone doesn’t deserve to go to jail just to save face or to falsely believe “victim”
I grew up believing that perjury was a very serious crime punishable by imprisonment, but now-days it appears as though it is treated as a joke by our law enforcement authorities.
If perjury was treated as a serious crime by the authorities, both innocent people and victims would benefit at the expense of lawyers.
There can be no doubt that fewer and fewer people respect the truth in this day and age.
 

Realist90

Kennel Legend
Joined
Mar 30, 2014
Messages
13,949
Reaction score
3,261
I grew up believing that perjury was a very serious crime punishable by imprisonment, but now-days it appears as though it is treated as a joke by our law enforcement authorities.
If perjury was treated as a serious crime by the authorities, both innocent people and victims would benefit at the expense of lawyers.
There can be no doubt that fewer and fewer people respect the truth in this day and age.
Great point bro. I was thinking the other day about “false witness”. When you think about it, that shit is running rampant because the law doesn’t give a fuck anymore about it. People should be scared about thinking about baring false witness just as much as someone committing a crime because it is a fkn crime and you could destroy someone’s life because of it which we have seen so many times. Again great point
 

Kelpie03

Kennel Enthusiast
Joined
Feb 21, 2017
Messages
4,449
Reaction score
3,223
Great point bro. I was thinking the other day about “false witness”. When you think about it, that shit is running rampant because the law doesn’t give a fuck anymore about it. People should be scared about thinking about baring false witness just as much as someone committing a crime because it is a fkn crime and you could destroy someone’s life because of it which we have seen so many times. Again great point
Thanks bro, I think the problem lies with our law reform commission, which appears to be hell bent on creating work for their profession. Many new laws (or new interoperations of the law), today appear to encourage crims to become cleverer at committing and covering up their crimes.
I've had a few experiences with the law, and at times I left thinking that these lawyers must have gotten their degrees on the back of the corn flakes packet. Growing up many years ago the corn flakes packets carried some very use-full stuff on the back side of the packet, some of our more senior Kennelers might remember this.
 

Hacky McAxe

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Gilded
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
37,038
Reaction score
29,411
I grew up believing that perjury was a very serious crime punishable by imprisonment, but now-days it appears as though it is treated as a joke by our law enforcement authorities.
If perjury was treated as a serious crime by the authorities, both innocent people and victims would benefit at the expense of lawyers.
There can be no doubt that fewer and fewer people respect the truth in this day and age.
Perjury is one of those things that they try to convince you is serious but it will rarely ever be taken seriously. The only time is if it is 100% confirmed to be perjury and it caused major problems for people or a major cost to the legal system.

Some recent examples are the woman in Australia who accused a guy of sexual assault and he lost his family and went the gaol, then she said that she made it up. Now she's spending a year behind bars. Or Jussie whatshisface in the US who faked a gay bashing. Now he's looking at spending at least 6 months behind bars for perjury.
 

Alan79

Kennel Legend
Joined
Mar 10, 2007
Messages
13,201
Reaction score
18,947
The thing about this case is that the court didn't decide that anyone had committed perjury. They ruled that there was reasonable doubt. It was a situation where the one surviving victim had a crapload of people with the motivation to protect the organisation willing to step up and throw doubt in a number of ways.

This is equivalent to me kicking someone in the nuts in front of ten loyal friends in a pub where there were no other witnesses. A jury might see that I hated the guy enough to have kicked him, believe his testimony and see photos of his bruised scrotum. They rule rightly that I kicked him. But then I appeal to the high court. Three of my mates say I had a sprained ankle and couldn't have kicked anyone, 2 others say that I wasn't in the room at the time and another 2 say that the guy was drunk, tried to vault over a bar stool and landed on his nuts while drunk and passed out from the pain, when he woke up I was hovering over him to see if he was ok. All ten testify that I'm not a violent person. Despite having 10 people telling lies for me, the fiction adds up to provide reasonable doubt.

In any case the high court isn't supposed to over rule jury decisions unless the initial case didn't follow due process if my understanding is correct.

So the decision to let him off doesn't mean it's been proven that he wasn't guilty. It's just an indication that there was enough mud thrown into the water to obscure it.
 

Kelpie03

Kennel Enthusiast
Joined
Feb 21, 2017
Messages
4,449
Reaction score
3,223
The thing about this case is that the court didn't decide that anyone had committed perjury. They ruled that there was reasonable doubt. It was a situation where the one surviving victim had a crapload of people with the motivation to protect the organisation willing to step up and throw doubt in a number of ways.

This is equivalent to me kicking someone in the nuts in front of ten loyal friends in a pub where there were no other witnesses. A jury might see that I hated the guy enough to have kicked him, believe his testimony and see photos of his bruised scrotum. They rule rightly that I kicked him. But then I appeal to the high court. Three of my mates say I had a sprained ankle and couldn't have kicked anyone, 2 others say that I wasn't in the room at the time and another 2 say that the guy was drunk, tried to vault over a bar stool and landed on his nuts while drunk and passed out from the pain, when he woke up I was hovering over him to see if he was ok. All ten testify that I'm not a violent person. Despite having 10 people telling lies for me, the fiction adds up to provide reasonable doubt.

In any case the high court isn't supposed to over rule jury decisions unless the initial case didn't follow due process if my understanding is correct.

So the decision to let him off doesn't mean it's been proven that he wasn't guilty. It's just an indication that there was enough mud thrown into the water to obscure it.
In your post referring to the Pell case you are drawing a very long bow, I am not saying that he was innocent or guilty, so we just have to accept the courts judgment.
One thing I am certain off is that petty hates will always cover up the truth and distort justice, which is something all decent people should avoid.
But then only decent people are able to live their lives without carrying petty hates.
Yes it is possible that Pell was guilty, but it is also possible that the person making the complaint against Pell, thought that he could cash in on making a complaint against Pell because of his high position, and the fact that other complaints were made against Catholic Clergy.
Considering the fact that the Church has paid out in the vicinity of $2-3 hundred Mill to other victims, and also considering Pell position in the Church, I am sure that if Pell was guilty a settlement offer would have been made to the complaint. BTW if the complaint had received an offer from the Church for a settlement and he refused it, I'm sure he would have told the Prosecutor's about it, and it would have been given in evidence.
 

Realist90

Kennel Legend
Joined
Mar 30, 2014
Messages
13,949
Reaction score
3,261
Perjury is one of those things that they try to convince you is serious but it will rarely ever be taken seriously. The only time is if it is 100% confirmed to be perjury and it caused major problems for people or a major cost to the legal system.

Some recent examples are the woman in Australia who accused a guy of sexual assault and he lost his family and went the gaol, then she said that she made it up. Now she's spending a year behind bars. Or Jussie whatshisface in the US who faked a gay bashing. Now he's looking at spending at least 6 months behind bars for perjury.
Those sentences are bullshit bro. 1 year for destroying a mans life? Even though he’s been absolved, in many eyes he will still be guilty and the damage has already been done.
 

Mr 95%

Kennel Immortal
Gilded
Joined
Apr 13, 2013
Messages
22,161
Reaction score
22,880
Those sentences are bullshit bro. 1 year for destroying a mans life? Even though he’s been absolved, in many eyes he will still be guilty and the damage has already been done.
Welcome back..been too civil without you! Not surprised I found you in here..lol..
 

Dawgfather

Banned
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Messages
8,835
Reaction score
1,900
The thing about this case is that the court didn't decide that anyone had committed perjury. They ruled that there was reasonable doubt. It was a situation where the one surviving victim had a crapload of people with the motivation to protect the organisation willing to step up and throw doubt in a number of ways.

This is equivalent to me kicking someone in the nuts in front of ten loyal friends in a pub where there were no other witnesses. A jury might see that I hated the guy enough to have kicked him, believe his testimony and see photos of his bruised scrotum. They rule rightly that I kicked him. But then I appeal to the high court. Three of my mates say I had a sprained ankle and couldn't have kicked anyone, 2 others say that I wasn't in the room at the time and another 2 say that the guy was drunk, tried to vault over a bar stool and landed on his nuts while drunk and passed out from the pain, when he woke up I was hovering over him to see if he was ok. All ten testify that I'm not a violent person. Despite having 10 people telling lies for me, the fiction adds up to provide reasonable doubt.

In any case the high court isn't supposed to over rule jury decisions unless the initial case didn't follow due process if my understanding is correct.

So the decision to let him off doesn't mean it's been proven that he wasn't guilty. It's just an indication that there was enough mud thrown into the water to obscure it.
in Australia the prosecution must prove its case beyond A reasonable doubt. Just because I say you killed someone doesn’t mean you did it.

In the Pell case There was zero evidence to support the allegations except the victims version of events. Apart from Pell having multiple people Who gave evidence which made the allegations impossible (if believed), there was also evidence of Pell’s routine after mass which made it impossible for the events to have taken place in the way they were alleged.

the fact the high court overruled the jury and the appeals judges should tell you everything you need to know. The high court does this so rarely that it clearly indicates deficiencies in the Victorian courts.
 
Top