The case of Cardinal George Pell

I am of the belief that Pell is innocent, a scapegoat of the left wing movement with the objective of discrediting our religion in order to bring in sinful laws. And so I do wonder how many of those other convicted priests are innocent victims of this evil smear campaign.

The good news is that Pell has gone to the high court for an appeal, his final option, and has been granted it.

https://www.news.com.au/national/victoria/courts-law/george-pell-to-learn-whether-high-court-will-hear-his-appeal/news-story/6a074921d31fbdce8c76be4c9e0741dd

Until then I pray for Pell who is locked down in the MAP (Melbourne assessment prison).
I pray also to everyone in the world who is in prison. It is the sinners that need help as Jesus said. May they find God, repent their sins and acquire God’s grace into his kingdom.

8 Likes

I am convinced that he is not guilty, and that he is in fact a scapegoat, based on what I’ve read about the case, which is quite a bit

9 Likes

I’m convinced he’s innocent too, given what he was accused of would have been impossible to do without Witnesses.

4 Likes

Praying also, knowing that the system could still fail him even if personally innocent. There is too much hostility out there, and it’s highly likely that the judges will only want to avoid hurting abuse victims out there, regardless of whether Cardinal Pell should be freed. The sentiment surrounding clerical abuse is too strong and widespread, and abuse victims have a long history of being swept aside. People generally don’t have enough imagination to realize how very much the Cardinal has already lost and will never regain. I’ve seen more hatred to him as a person and a symbol than toward any other public person in my country…and he is now more a symbol than a person … that it wall be extraordinary if the appeal goes his way.
We can only pray.

8 Likes

If he was innocent and had returned, as he said ‘to clear his name’ why did he exercise his right to decline to give evidence on oath at his trial, unlike his accuser?

I am not saying this established guilt. It does not. But his accuser was subjected to two days of cross-examination by one of the country’s best defence lawyers. Cardinal Pell was never cross-examined under oath because he said nothing under oath.

I also find it hard to understand how people can be convinced of Cardinal Pell’s innocence when nearly all the evidence of his accuser, and his cross-examination remains suppressed.

His evidence was enough to convince some of one jury, all of the next jury, a judge, and two of three appeal judges.

I can’t see that Cardinal Pell could have been worse off had he decided to give evidence under oath.

1 Like

It isn’t uncommon for someone to decline to testify under oath when that is the counsel of their legal team.

4 Likes

True, and a jury is not supposed to hold their exercise of their legal right to remain silent against them. However in a case like this the optics of it are not good, and it may have worked against him.

2 Likes

You are correct in saying it was very odd for Pell to decline to take the stand. It was a bad mistake by his law team.
The evidence of his accuser has not remained suppressed and is easily found on the internet. Youtube has some great videos that give us the facts. There are also tons of newspaper articles and media sources breaking down the evidence.

For anyone that hasn’t followed the case to know all the countless little details and/or doesn’t know the justice system very well it is only logical to keep your faith in the courts ruling. But note how many legal experts have spoken out in support of Pell in this case. Look it up.

Please have faith in our Catholic Cardinal. The church has not yet stripped him and are patiently waiting on the outcome. I ask Catholics to do the same in prayer.

2 Likes

The case against Cardinal Pell is connected with this alleged corruption by others and not Cardinal Pell I suspect!

“Vatican officials: Swiss bank suspected of money laundering led to Pell conflict”

1 Like

I don’t think so. Some of his evidence was cited in the judgments. But as far as I know there are only a few dozen paragraphs out of two days’ evidence. If you have a link to a transcript I would love to read it.

Personally the support for him shows me that nothing has been learned from the scandals.

3 Likes

Hopefully not. Hopefully findings are based on facts and not otherwise. As I said in that other thread - I agree with the findings of Justice Weinberg.

1 Like

I think you should be clearer in what you mean by your statement. If someone does not read the link, they will think you mean he did something wrong.

Thanks for the tip. Sorted!

1 Like

There have been many threads on Cardinal Pell’s case, so this getting a bit tiring. Let’s all just wait until the results of this appeal before making any more judgements.

So it is now wrong to believe in the innocence of a person, simply because he’s a priest? There are compelling arguments for his innocence, or at least that it was very improbable that the things that were alleged to have happened actually could have happened. Anyway, the only thing to do now is see what happens with the final appeal.

4 Likes

I suspect the main reason people believe in his innocence is that he’s a priest who has not confessed.

Plenty of priests refuse to confess, but most people assume they are guilty (and they often are).

You can think what you want about Pell, but his case is different, and it’s much more than simply him not confessing to it.

There’s even big names in secular/non-Catholic circles defending him. That says a lot in an age where priests are vilified much more often than they’re defended.

6 Likes

Are any of these in a position to say more than ‘I don’t believe it on the basis of what I have seen of his past behaviour’? And why would that ‘say a lot’?

Reading about the case is different than being in court and hearing first hand witness testimony and evidence.

Former Australian Prime Minister John Howard, for one. And it says a lot because why else would they stick their heads out and defend the Cardinal unless they saw problems with how everything worked out? What ulterior motives would they have? It’s not exactly a wise PR move to publically defend someone convicted of child abuse.

I’m not making a judgement on his guilt or innocence, but I’m saying it’s something to consider.

2 Likes
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.