Cardinal Pell committed to stand trial

71 posts / 0 new
Last post
arakish's picture
is there an adult version?

is there an adult version? sometimes even we have to be careful...


Fleeing in Terror's picture
I agree with the 'Jonathan

I agree with the 'Jonathan Swift' style protest, but I really don't find it funny at all.

My first week working at a new firm, we all went out to lunch. I was the only woman. The big joke at the lunch was the company surplus van being bought by one of the engineers as a "Creeper Van" to lure and molest children by showing them candy. All the engineers in the office thought this was the funniest thing ever and were laughing their heads off. The big wig from the main office was watching my face and NOT LAUGHING.

My daughter had a school mate come running up to the bus stop a couple years before that crying because a man had tried to drag her into his vehicle. The police staked out the bus stop for weeks.

The head of the local office had 3 daughters UNDER 3 FEET TALL.

I am the prime breadwinner in the family and sole provider of health insurance.

I kept my head down, my mouth shut, and my resume up to date. I got 'laid off' shortly after when the gas market tanked. YEAH!!!!!!!

Fleeing in Terror's picture
The video also reinforces the

The video also reinforces the image that pedophilia is only a problem if boys are being molested.

When I was outside my past church protesting Palm Sunday, the young, gay man came up and immediately started mansplaining to me the the Church didn't have a pedophile problem, it had a homosexual problem. Wasn't interested in what I had to say. He was telling me that all the abused were post pubescent boys.

SNAP was founded by Barbara B. in response to her being abused as a young girl.

This is the same attitude as the previous entity in possession of the vatican, whose other response to the pedophile crisis was to try to ban gay priests. After all it is only a problem if MALES are being abused. Being raped is the function of girls.

Alic2k18's picture
It's great to see someone in

It's great to see someone in a position of power being prosecuted for the crimes they have committed instead of being able to protect themselves using their​ position of power. Hopefully this just the beginning of things to come and not just the church using it as a white wash.

arakish's picture
About time!

About time!

Wished mine could be.


Grinseed's picture
I have little faith in the

I have little faith in the law, patricularly in regard to this particular case, where we have Pell who is deeply ensconced in the vatican. I hope justice rather than the law prevails. I cannot hide my great dislike of Pell. His behaviour towards victims who came out in the Royal Commission had none of the supposed hallmarks of christian charity or basic humanity. If he is guilty of his own sexual crimes I hope his trial will nail him....but I wait to see who will be the magistrate and hope to hell the appointed is neither a christian nor catholic...there are many in powerful positions who do not want to see him convicted guilty or not.

algebe's picture
I can picture Pell at a

I can picture Pell at a future parole hearing, trying to convince the parole board that he is a reformed man after finding Jesus in jail.

Fleeing in Terror's picture
I don't remember the details

I don't remember the details from the book posted, but Pell is the one who protected the finances of the Church by finding a legal loop hole that the laws of Australia didn't apply to the sovereign nation of the vatican. He was put in charge of vatican finances right after that.

I am waiting to see his argument that the laws of his religion and a separate sovereign nation legally REQUIRE him to DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO PROTECT THE PEDOPHILE and that he is just religiously following the law.

(code, policy - what ever the official title is. Whole chapter on how to lie about the 'law' based on exact title of document.)

Per the vatican, the core belief of his religion is that he has an extra special ontologically endowed penis that legally allows him to rape children and the mentally disabled. (Benne Dick included "those who habitually lack the use of reason" to those that can be molested with impunity as an important HR benefit. )

What are the laws on religious freedom in Australia?

Grinseed's picture
Its timely you should ask

Its timely you should ask about religious freedoms in Australia. We are awaiting the first report from a Government review panel examining freedom of religion in Australia.

Section 116 of the Australian Constitution states:
The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

Sound familiar? We stole it from the US First Amendment when drafting our own constitution, late 1890s.

Traditionally religious freedom in this country has never been more than an argument at extremely local levels. Very very few people would even know or care about section 116. We do not revere our constitution like the yanks because it is basically a document detailing the redistribution of states' rights under federation. There's very little about citizen's rights which for the most part remain under the jurisdiction of the states.

We are not a particularly religious nation, and generally we are very tolerant, despite the declarations and actions of various governments, like the current one, and the bad press some very small and vocal racist and homophobe groups seem to garner.

However, this review of religious freedom is a reaction of the conservative right wing religious factions in response to the majority 'yes' vote for marriage equality in Australia. And it is a considerable worry.

The head of the review is one Philip Ruddock, the oldest longest serving conservative politician in this country, best remembered for his "Pacific Solution" legislation that denied asylum seekers legal representation, a move that violated international law and human rights according to Oxfam and the United Nations refugee agency, UNHCR. Amnesty International felt it necessary to ask him to remove their lapel badge to distance their organisation from him and his hard line immigration intolerance. He also ensured his notoriety by referring to an infant refugee girl as "it". In 2004 he introduced federal legislation to prevent any possible court rulings, including state courts, that would allow same-sex marriages or civil unions.

The review was implimented following spuriously declared fears that christian cake makers would be sued for discrimination refusing to bake gay wedding cakes, that traditional marriage would disappear along with basic christian beliefs (the head of the Australian Christian Lobby declared christianity would be dead by Christmas 2017...guess what?) and other wildly improbable circumstances that would publically highlight the intolerance and homophobia of the god fearing religions, including islam.

Submissions from the public were invited and the first publication of the review panel's findings was due a week ago, but has been deferred to May 18.

The general argument from religious bodies is that religious freedom in Australia has been based solely on legal exemptions rather than rights enshrined in law, which they claim counters "the intent of the UN Universal Declaration and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights", which ironically they never referred to during the marriage equality campaign.

All this is resurrecting a debate about introducing an Australian bill of rights, which is even more ironic as a lot of supporters of traditional marriage are also constitutional conservatives opposed to any sort of bill of rights.

So basically, if the churches get their way, we might be seeing yet another campaign here in Austalia not so much for religious freedom as much as a campaign for the legislating of freedom for religions to do what they please, which is not a pleasant thought.

The next few weeks will be very interesting.
Its not expected that the review will influence the two Pell trials, which should be decided long before the panel's findings are acted on, if ever.
The only other bright hope is that nothing from the review will be achieved before the next election when the increasingly unpopular religious Turnball government is very likely voted out of office and this bloody farce about freedom of religions can be dropped and the more important debate over assisted suicide legislation can continue.

Cognostic's picture
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ..

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha .... ROFLMAO ..... This is the idiot that went on Q&A and was arguing with Richard Dawkins.

He lied his arse off on 60 minutes

It Couldn't happen to a nicer guy!

Sheldon's picture
I've seen him on a panel

I've seen him on a panel trying to argue against Christopher Hitchens as well. One of his arguments for a deity was that morality wouldn't exist without a deity, I think I'll have to bank some of this irony for later as I'm overdosing.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, what a complete bunch of scumbags.

"The Vatican has issued a statement saying: “The Holy See has taken note of the decision issued by judicial authorities in Australia regarding His Eminence George Pell. Last year, the Holy Father granted Cardinal Pell leave of absence so he could defend himself from the accusations. The leave of absence is still in place.”"

Now a cynic might see that as the RCC distancing itself in readiness of a guilty verdict. Sadly even that would be an improvement (small) on their appalling attempts at covering up the endemic child abuse in their church.

arakish's picture
Here is a solution that will

Here is a solution that will NEVER happen. All churches must hire an atheist bystander for all meetings between any church personnel and children. Additionally, the atheist will be inside a "cubicle" that cannot be accessed from inside the office/meeting room and there will be a vidcam recording the whole interview. The recording will only be used if there is any kind of child abuse, including mental, emotional, and psychological. Just a quick spew of an idea...


Tin-Man's picture
Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall
All the king's horses
And all the king's men
Said, "Daaamn...!
You be all fucked up, Humpty!"

(Sorry. I'm shit as drunk right now.)

Mikeykitty123's picture
So we aren't allowed to make

So we aren't allowed to make articles showing about athiests killing religious people but it's okay to make posts of a priests standing trial and call him a "bastard"?

Nyarlathotep's picture
Michael - So we aren't

Michael - So we aren't allowed to make articles showing about [atheists] killing religious people...

That isn't a rule here. No one has told you that is a rule here. You made that up yourself.

algebe's picture
@Michael: So we aren't

@Michael: So we aren't allowed to make articles showing about athiests killing religious people

Have you actually read the posting rules? You can't post links to gruesome images, and you can't post large chunks of copyrighted materials. Other than that, it's pretty much free.

Bring it on.

xenoview's picture
News from the BBC

News from the BBC
Cardinal Pell likely to face two trials, court hears

arakish's picture
I have to make a confession.

I have to make a confession.

How many here believe in the concept, perhaps right, of "innocent until proven guilty?"

I believe in this. However, when I first heard about Cardinal Pell, I shall be the first to admit that my automatic response was, "guilty with no chance of proving innocence."

That is my confession. I believe that all persons are innocent until proven guilty, I should practice it. My automatic response was due to the fact that I spent 7 years being ostracized, excommunicated, humiliated, beaten, and raped as child. Hell I am surprised they never tried an exorcism.

Since I have had this week off from work for a medical issue and reading the link above, I have had time to think about what I had done. What I had thought. Please do not think this as a plea for Cardinal Pell's innocence. It is just my way of confessing to myself and everyone here how past experiences can cause us to behave and think in a reprehensible manner.

I am ashamed.


Grinseed's picture
Arakish, no need to feel

Arakish, no need to feel ashamed. Really, relax.

I think we all beleive in the notion of "innocent until proven guilty" but we can not be blamed for assuming the guilt of those who have past histories of dishonesty and careless regard for the human rights of sexual assault victims.

George Pell's overriding concern has been to protect the church's reptutation rather than the faithful betrayed by sexual predator priests. Of that he is clearly guilty.
He has denied receiving the very many claims from victims and families of victims about the activities of priests like Risdale, Farrel, Searson as early as the 1980s and much earlier, despite conceding he had been given a list in 1989, which was produced in court, listing the offenses carried out by Searson and yet he still failed to act.
He has denied receiving the information in letters, phone calls, and in person, from victims and families testifying in court under oath, and then blaming others in the church for failing to inform him and of even misleading him.

As a cardinal Pell also used his financial prowess to set up funds for the victims, a world first for the church, boasting his compassion, but masking the fact the paltry compensations were granted to secure protection against further litigation against the church. Peoples lives were ruined, many committed suicide and Pell was more concerned for saving the church.

There are already claims and counter claims as to whether or not he can get a fair trial given his very public profile. But something of balance might eventuate. A lot of people will have already written him off as guilty, a lot will want him found innocent regardless of the facts, but this will not entail law or justice. Of interest is that his legal rep is considered a staunch atheist...

...and a dislikeable son of a bitch.

These two upcoming trials specifically charge Pell with sexual abuse against children, one in a community swimming pool, the other in a cinema. They are the only two of many accusations against Pell that have been recommended for trial. The rest were dropped by the magistrate for various reasons. This may be the only indicator of a fair trial.

I am a cynic but I do not claim to know if he is innocent or not. But for me he is already guilty of protecting pedophiles and by moving them around the country, endangering more children, rather than reporting them to the police.

The very least I can say is that after a long and aggressive career in advancing himself in a profession that exels in cognitive dissonance I wonder if he is capable of distinguishing between truth and deceit anymore.

algebe's picture
@Arakish, Grinseed:

@Arakish, Grinseed:

I find this comment from Pell sufficient to condemn him on moral grounds.

"Cardinal Pell faced the commission from a Rome hotel, drawing gasps from survivors as he declared the crimes of notorious paedophile priest Gerald Ridsdale were a "sad story" but "not of much interest" to him at the time."

Fleeing in Terror's picture
So who is paying for the

So who is paying for the defense, the vatican, Pell, or pizza dude?

Fleeing in Terror's picture
But the vatican follows ROMAN

But the vatican follows ROMAN law - Guilty until proven innocent. - therefore to the vatican, pedophilia is not a crime.

Cognostic's picture
It's easy to assume...

It's easy to assume... especially with the history of the Church. If I was placing a bet in Las Vegas I would put all my money on GUILTY regardless of how the court views the good cardinal. That's just a fact. The other fact is that he will have his day in court and he will be presumed innocent until proved guilty. Whatever the verdict, he has made enough people uncomfortable enough to file charges against him. That too is a fact. Reprehensible? The court will presume innocence, not the public. It is not reprehensible to have an opinion. And when it comes to another public figure in the Catholic Church, it is not reprehensible to discuss the matter publicly. The Bane of being a public figure is that you give up privacy. People will have opinions. Mine is "HERE WE GO AGAIN."

ZeffD's picture
Michael: "So we aren't

Michael: "So we aren't allowed to make articles showing about athiests killing religious people"
I see nobody is stopping you providing links or posting about that.

There will have been cases where non-believers killed religionists but I can't think of a single case where the motive of the killer was "atheism". Note: believers in an Abrahamic god are presumably atheistic regarding most gods such as Zeus and Hindu deities.

Cognostic's picture
Cardinal Pell went to the

Cardinal Pell went to the well to fetch some poor boy some water.
But when he got there the well was empty, so he used a substitute.

Cognostic's picture
Cardinal Pell, sweet as pie,

Cardinal Pell, sweet as pie,
kissed the boys and made them cry.
And when those boys came out one day
Cardinal Pell ran away.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Cog

@ Cog

Challenge accepted

" do not like thee, Cardinal Pell,
The reason why – I cannot tell (it's a secret you said);
But this I know, and know full well,
I do not like thee, Cardinal Pell."

Cognostic's picture
Hey diddle diddle,

Hey diddle diddle,
Pell likes to fiddle
His lust is over the moon.
Little dogs laughed
to see such fun,
even they were feeling outdone..

Cognostic's picture
Jack and Pell went up the

Jack and Pell went up the hill
to fetch a pail of water.
Jack fell down and broke his crown
and Pell denied any wrongdoing.

Cognostic's picture
Jack be nimble

Jack be nimble
Jack be quick
Jack jump over the cardinal's ------ He he he he he he ....


Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.