There will be much more to be said in the weeks and months ahead about the rejection of Cardinal George Pell’s appeal of his conviction for “historic sexual abuse,” by the 2-1 vote of a three-judge panel of the Supreme Court of Victoria. For the moment, this astonishing, indeed incomprehensible, decision calls into the gravest doubt the quality of justice in Australia—and the possibility of any Catholic cleric charged with sexual abuse to receive a fair trial or a fair consideration of the probity of his trial.
In the live-streamed appellate court proceedings on the morning of August 21 (Melbourne time), Victoria Supreme Court chief justice Anne Ferguson, reading the decision, made persistent reference to “the whole of the evidence.” But there has never been any “evidence” that Cardinal Pell did what he was alleged to have done. There was only the word of the complainant, and there was absolutely no corroboration of his charges—which, in the months since the cardinal’s trials, have been shown to be alarmingly similar to a fake set of charges leveled against a priest in a story published years ago in Rolling Stone.
Read the rest of George Wiegle’s commentary at First things HERE.
5 comments:
Father McDonald,
Off topic but you may want to look at this article:
https://canadafreepress.com/article/baby-killers
This article makes it almost incomprehensible that a Catholic, let alone a priests or bishop would vote for this evil cabal masquerading as a political party
I for one will go to my grave believing that Cardinal George Pell is innocent and was set up.
I do not believe he is guilty at all.
Nor to blame the accusers, but they are also fragile psychologically. The problem is that the time of the incident is so long ago that evidence may be impossible to find. I am trying to remain neutral but the accusations don’t seem to fit the circumstances even if one ignores “types” of people. It is disturbing how hateful the people of Australia are towards the Church. What caused that level of emotion?
Yes, I agree with your opening statement. Being convicted certainly does make one lean toward guilt, but it doesn't convincingly prove it. If you a conservative, there is the tendency to argue on his behalf.But what if he was liberal, what makes him different from McCarrick? For one,McCarrick's behavior was known for years. Can the same be said of Cardinal Pell? I think (but don't know) these are the first accusations against him. The first accusation comes when he is 70-80 years old? No one can vouch for his character? Why the sudden shift in behavior, or is this behavior he was known for? I understand the Vatican statement that they acknowledge his charge guilt. Personally I cant make heads or tails of it. I thinks that speaks to my cynicism towards governments and their courts
Post a Comment