Pell charged over historical sex offences

a reply to: eletheia

See my above post ...

There are only two higher up.

a reply to: eletheia

those up and down the chain or perhaps the whole edifice ? you dont get much higher than the treasurer/chancellor with diplomatic immunity . i mean... immune from prosecution - what ?

originally posted by: Timely

See my above post ...
There are only two higher up.

Well??

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

a reply to: eletheia

It is whom he maketh to lay down ... or kneel ... that is the issue !

Catholic sexual abuse cases in Australia

1. Father Albert Davis was charged in 2006 with 17 incidents of indecent assault involving seven boys at Blackfriars Priory School between 1956 and 1960. He died before proceeding.
2. Father Charles Barnett pleaded guilty in 2009 to three child sex charges for events between 1977 and 1985 at Crystal Brook and Port Pirie.
3. Ross Murrin, a former Sydney Catholic school teacher and Marist brother, pleaded guilty to some of the 21 charges of indecently assaulting eight male Year 5 students at a Daceyville school in south-east Sydney in 1974.
4. John Sidney Denham pleaded guilty to 29 child sex charges involving 27 boys under his care while a priest in Newcastle in the 1970s.
5. On 31 July 2012, NSW Police in Strike Force Lantle announced they would be providing prosecutors with evidence that Father Brian Lucas, general secretary of the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference, Archbishop Philip Wilson of Adelaide and Michael Malone, retired Bishop of Maitland-Newcastle, had committed the offence of concealing a serious crime under s316 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) in concealing child sexual abuse by the priest Denis McAlinden (now deceased) in the Maitland-Newcastle diocese.
6. Vincent Kieran Kiss, retired Diocesan Director of Youth in Wagga Wagga, pleaded guilty in the Sydney District Court for
sex crimes against four teenage boys, aged 13 to 17, between 1966 and 1973 at locations including Albury, Yass and Sydney.
7. In 1993, the Illawarra Mercury alleged that Gwynneville parish priest Father Peter Lewis Comensoli and Brother Michael Evans had been involved in the sexual abuse of boys.Comensoli was jailed and was later named during the Wood Royal Commission. Evans committed suicide.
8. In 2010, Kelvin Gerald Sharkey, 83, was sentenced in the Wollongong District Court to at least 15 months jail for sexually abusing an altar boy on three occasions between 1969 and 1975 when Sharkey was parish priest of St John Vianney's Church at Fairy Meadow and at St Bernard's Church at Batemans Bay.
9. William Stanley Irwin, 55, a former Catholic brother, was convicted on 31 March 2011 by a jury in the Sydney District Court on two counts of gross indecency on a male under the age of 18 at St Stanislaus' College in Bathurst in the mid-1980s.
10. Kevin Francis Phillips, pleaded guilty in a Sydney District Court on 3 December 2010 to four counts of gross indecency with a child under the age of 18.
11. Brian Joseph Spillane also was convicted on 30 November 2010 on nine counts of indecent assault against three girls aged between eight and seventeen while he was based in Sydney in about 1979, a Vincentian priest at that time. During bail proceedings it was heard that Spillane faced a further 135 charges relating to alleged offences against boys at St Stanislaus' College whilst Spillaine was chaplain. These latter charges were expected to be heard in four more trials that were expected to last until late 2011. Spillaine was refused bail.After a court-ordered media blackout was lifted, in place since 2013, it was reported in 2016 that Spillane was convicted of assaults on five St Stanislaus' College students after a trial in 2013, and in 2015 he pleaded guilty to assaults on four boys at the school in the late 1980s. It was reported that during 2016 Spillane was convicted of attacks on five students between 1974 and 1990. Spillane, who is currently in custody, is expected to be sentenced in early 2017.


Sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne, Australia

1. Michael Charles Glennon: former diocesan priest, sentenced to at least 15 years in jail for sexually abusing four Aboriginal boys between 1984 and 1991.
2. Gerry Francis Ridsdale: convicted in 1994, he pleaded guilty on 46 sexual offenses.
3. Wilfred James Baker: sentenced to four years in prison (parole after 2 years) for crimes involving eight boys.
4. David Daniel: sentenced to six years jail, with parole after 4.5 years, for molesting four boys, a girl and an adult male.
5. Paul Pavlou: convicted on 29 June 2009 of committing an indecent act with a child under 16 and of being knowingly in possession of child pornography. He was sentenced to an 18-month jail sentence suspended for 24 months and to a two-year community based order. He was registered on the Sex Offenders Register for 15 years. These offences occurred in 2005-2006 while he was the priest at Healesville in the Archdiocese of Melbourne.
6. Francis Klep SDB: convicted of indecent assault in 1994, and charged with an additional five counts. He moved to Samoa, but in 2004 the Samoan government made moves to deport him from the country after becoming aware of the previous conviction and charges.

And more:
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

Catholic Church paid out $276m over child sexual abuse claims, royal commission hears

Due to unsual high number of sexual child abuses in Australia, I can only conclude, Cardinal Pell is most highly probable to, either directly or indirectly, cover up ( due to lack of preventive action ) and guilty to some extent partial or all charges against him. But given to nature of "Historical Sex offences," he may has some advantages because direct medical evidences could not longer available.

a reply to: EasternShadow

If only you would have seen the distant and un -emotive input he impacted into the Royal Commission ...

He carries an air of non interest and something more important ... constantly on his mind ...

Pell: '' I will return to Australia to face these charges IF my doctor clears my health for flying.

I'm sorry but that is outrageous!!!

I hope Australia cancels his passport and the US/UK/EU force him to seek refuge in a foreign embassy for x years until his charges are worked through.

a reply to: Agit8dChop

What ?

He deserves an Assangeing ?

Nope.

originally posted by: TobyFlenderson
a reply to: pheonix358

There are 2 types of people in the world: those who believe sex with children is morally wrong and those that don't. The Catholic Church as an organization fall into the latter category.

Catholic Priests are supposed to be celibate. All forms of sex are off limits. There's no preferred sexual orientation. It's no sex at all. The Priests take "vows" of celibacy. If they break these vows, they are supposed to be excommunicated.

But, there's also the doctrine that the devil is very active in the world, and false claims are made against Priests, in particular, to try them and test them, to make them fall out of grace if possible, since they are so close to God, that's why the Church protects the Priests. The word of the Priest is taken over that of his accuser, within the Church, because the devil is more likely to have influenced the ordinary person, to lie and make false testimony, than the Priest. But, Priests do fall also, they are not infallible. Some succumb to temptation, break their vows, and have to repent.

The real problem the Catholic Church has, is that the Bible says,

At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death. -- KJV, Deuteronomy 17:6

But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. -- KJV, Matthew 18:16

So, it always takes 2 or more different witnesses to establish a claim against a person. But, once 2 or more people come forward, and say "he did this thing", then the Church has to believe the witnesses.

So, people can conspire against a Priest, and bring his reputation down. If the Priest is truly holy, then presumably God would not let that happen. But, if the Priest is harboring some secret flaws, then God will let the events unfold, so that the Priest can reflect on his own character.

Now, God is a strange character. It does not necessarily mean the Priest did the particular thing he is being accused of, rather, the Priest did something wrong for which he was not punished, and he gets this punishment instead, for something he didn't actually do. The God of the bible typically does this, because when you "expect punishment" for a misdeed, it doesn't feel the same, and it doesn't have the same "astonishing impact" as when you get punished for something you didn't do.

It's the same "eye for an eye" principle.

Someone takes your "eye", which you did not expect to happen, it came as a shock. So, if you just take their "eye" in return, they won't be a shocked as you, because they "expected retaliation", for the deed. They were "anticipating" it. And so that "eye for an eye" doesn't work, the way "men" think it should work. When, God does "eye for an eye", he arranges the response, so that it comes with the same "surprise and shock" as when you did your misdeed.

That's why a Priest, may be innocent of the charges against him, and still get convicted of it, because then the Priest knows that there's something he did in his past, which perhaps he has forgotten, or didn't connect with right away, that was the cause of this apparent injustice against his person.

If you do something that is an "injustice" against someone else, God doesn't give "justice" in return. HE returns another "injustice" instead, that's the real "eye for an eye."

a reply to: AMPTAH

You make some interesting comments and you are clearly learned on the subject. However, my statements weren't relative to Catholic dogma, or the specific teachings of the Bible. I'm no Biblical scholar, but I don't think it says anywhere in there 1. that priests have to be celibate, or 2. that sex with children is wrong. So quoting the Bible or Catholic dogma, with regard to this topic, doesn't hold sway with me.

However, even under the dogmatic system of justice, father Paul Shandley, a convicted child rapist, should've been stopped long before he was and the man in charge of deciding to stop him or not, Cardinal Bernard Law was not only responsible to the Church, but to the laws of the community in which he lived and worked. He didn't protect his flock, in fact he took steps to harm it. Regardless of what any religion teaches, only perv's would not consider what these two have done universally and morally wrong.

Paul the Perv Shandley

originally posted by: pheonix358
"Cardinal Pell, the Vatican's finance chief, has repeatedly denied allegations of sexual assault dating back to his time as a Ballarat priest and as Archbishop of Melbourne."

For an Archbishop he should at least know the basics of what Jesus said where, For nothing is concealed that will not be uncovered, or hidden that will not be made known.

So if these allegations are false and all truths will soon be known worldwide, then he has nothing to fear in court.

Unless of course, he is a liar and a coward who cannot admit to Crimes Against Humanity.

Well, no Vatican bribe money or Diplomatic Immunity is going to save his 'alleged' evil spirit when he eventually faces God.

As all truths will eventually be known, it looks like very few Vatican clergy will ever see daylight again.

originally posted by: TobyFlenderson
a reply to: AMPTAH

You make some interesting comments and you are clearly learned on the subject. However, my statements weren't relative to Catholic dogma, or the specific teachings of the Bible. I'm no Biblical scholar, but I don't think it says anywhere in there 1. that priests have to be celibate, or 2. that sex with children is wrong. So quoting the Bible or Catholic dogma, with regard to this topic, doesn't hold sway with me.

The sex with children thing, is a modern invention. We, in the modern world, have picked an arbitrary age, usually 16 years old, and have decided that anyone younger is a "child". This has no biblical context. God himself, has set "puberty" around the age of 13. We don't accept God's age, for sexual maturity, because modern society is too complex, people have to learn a lot more to survive in today's world. They have to go to school longer, to acquire the "skills" needed to support having children, etc..so, since nobody can support a family at age 13 in our modern world, we call them a "child", and restrict their sexual activity. But, it is something that society considers "wrong", for which a person violating the rule can be "punished", by us. So, it's a pathway to punish a Priest, whether he did or did not actually do such a thing.

In this world, it doesn't matter if you did or did not do anything wrong, all that matters is whether the society thinks you did.

There's a reason that Catholic Priests have to be celibate. The spirit of man is bonded to the flesh of man through "sexual attraction". For the spirit of man to be "re-bonded" to the spirit of Christ, he has "to give up" that lust. Participating in the lusts of the flesh, therefore, binds this spirit more closely to the flesh, and makes it impossible to "walk in the spirit". The Priest is no longer "holy." His blessings are then practically "meaningless". They are mere words. Since Christ does not feed on sexual lust, anyone that habitually feeds on lust will "repel" the holy spirit.

This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. -- KJV, Galatians 5:16

For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. -- KJV, Galatians 5:17

Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart. -- KJV, 2 Timothy 2:22

For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; -- KJV, Titus|2:11-12

But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. -- KJV, Matthew 5:28

So, when Jesus came, he preached that even "thinking about lust" is to be avoided, not just abstinence from the act itself.

Since the average person is not expected to be able to avoid all lust, there are rules for the management of sexual desire, which God put there "to be fruitful and multiply". But, if you're not employing that lust to "multiply", then it's wrong for all, ordinary and priest alike. This doctrine comes from close reading of many verses in the bible.

There's no one verse that says "Priests must be celibate." The real Priests "understand" why they must be celibate, and don't really have to be told. Ordinary people don't get it, because they don't know what is meant by "walk in the spirit."

Many things in the Bible are written in "parables." They are for the understanding of "Priests only."

And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: -- KJV, Mark 4:11

That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them. -- KJV, Mark 4:12

So, the "disciples" of christ, and the "priesthood" that descended from them, are supposed "to know" why avoiding "lusts" is good, but ordinary folk aren't expected to understand.

The fact that someone knows, however, doesn't mean that they automatically stop thinking and practicing lustful thought and actions.

Anyone can Preach the gospels, you don't have to be celibate. That's just spreading the word. But, to be "holy", and to have any real "power to bless" others, the Priest must be celibate. The Priest must be "connected" with the "spirit of Christ" for his "blessing" to have any real impact.

When a Priest blesses you, it is not his own spirit that gives the blessing, but the spirit of Christ that dwells within him.

If, by practicing sexual lust, he has repelled the holy spirit, his blessing is now just words without power.

originally posted by: AMPTAH
Catholic Priests are supposed to be celibate. All forms of sex are off limits. There's no preferred sexual orientation. It's no sex at all. The Priests take "vows" of celibacy. If they break these vows, they are supposed to be excommunicated.

But they don't ... Do they.

They just get moved to another parish!!

Where they start all over again.

But, there's also the doctrine that the devil is very active in the world, and false claims are made against Priests, in particular, to try them and test them, to make them fall out of grace if possible, since they are so close to God, that's why the Church protects the Priests.

Without investigation of an independent source or trial the accuser

is deemed to be making a false claim because a priest (who is

first and foremost a man and men sin?) cannot do wrong.

The word of the Priest is taken over that of his accuser, within the Church, because the devil is more likely to have influenced the ordinary person, to lie and make false testimony, than the Priest

Surely the devil gains more kudos from breaking the priest .... the ordinary

person being a doddle.... no kudos there.

Priests do fall also, they are not infallible. Some succumb to temptation,
Break their vows, and have to repent.

I would say possibly more likely to sin and succumb .... as men and flesh and

blood being expected to live in denial of what and who they are.

So, it always takes 2 or more different witnesses to establish a claim against a person. But, once 2 or more people come forward, and say "he did this thing", then the Church has to believe the witnesses

In most cases there are far more than only two accusers?? And they are

accused for decades and still the church 'looks the other way and

just moves the priest on'.

So, people can conspire against a Priest, and bring his reputation down. If the Priest is truly holy, then presumably God would not let that happen. But, if the Priest is harboring some secret flaws, then God will let the events unfold, so that the Priest can reflect on his own character.
Now, God is a strange character. It does not necessarily mean the Priest did the particular thing he is being accused of, rather, the Priest did something wrong for which he was not punished, and he gets this punishment instead, for something he didn't actually do. The God of the bible typically does this, because when you "expect punishment" for a misdeed, it doesn't feel the same, and it doesn't have the same "astonishing impact" as when you get punished for something you didn't do.
It's the same "eye for an eye" principle.
Someone takes your "eye", which you did not expect to happen, it came as a shock. So, if you just take their "eye" in return, they won't be a shocked as you, because they "expected retaliation", for the deed. They were "anticipating" it. And so that "eye for an eye" doesn't work, the way "men" think it should work. When, God does "eye for an eye", he arranges the response, so that it comes with the same "surprise and shock" as when you did your misdeed.

That's why a Priest, may be innocent of the charges against him, and still get convicted of it, because then the Priest knows that there's something he did in his past, which perhaps he has forgotten, or didn't connect with right away, that was the cause of this apparent injustice against his person.

If you do something that is an "injustice" against someone else, God doesn't give "justice" in return. HE returns another "injustice" instead, that's the real "eye for an eye."

A highly convoluted *get out of jail card** no way he can sin/lose in

those circumstances. Its win/win all the way to heaven.

originally posted by: eletheia

A highly convoluted *get out of jail card** no way he can sin/lose in

those circumstances. Its win/win all the way to heaven.

Well, of course, in the end, all is forgiven.

..saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. -- KJV, Jeremiah 31:34

But, before the Priest gets there, he experiences lots of suffering along the way. There's no Royal Road to Heaven.

originally posted by: AMPTAH
Catholic Priests are supposed to be celibate. All forms of sex are off limits. There's no preferred sexual orientation. It's no sex at all. The Priests take "vows" of celibacy. If they break these vows, they are supposed to be excommunicated.

And they are supposed to be human too. All human and animals are driven by their instinct to reproduce. If they vows to break it, they will perish. it's the law of God written in DNA, whether you are a priest or not.

originally posted by: AMPTAH
But, there's also the doctrine that the devil is very active in the world, and false claims are made against Priests, in particular, to try them and test them, to make them fall out of grace if possible, since they are so close to God, that's why the Church protects the Priests. The word of the Priest is taken over that of his accuser, within the Church, because the devil is more likely to have influenced the ordinary person, to lie and make false testimony, than the Priest.

On the contrary. Because it is the priest duty to influence many more ordinary persons. Deceiving a person only affect that particular person. But deceiving a priest is equally deceiving a hundred or maybe a thousand persons. Therefore, it is far easier and more rewarding to deceive a priest than an ordinary person.

originally posted by: AMPTAH
So, it always takes 2 or more different witnesses to establish a claim against a person. But, once 2 or more people come forward, and say "he did this thing", then the Church has to believe the witnesses.

So, people can conspire against a Priest, and bring his reputation down.

Conspiracy is not limited to people. A Priest can conspire against their fellow priests too. In fact, a priest can bring his mob to massacre his fellow priests in church and still be elected as a pointiff, as proven by history.

originally posted by: AMPTAH
If the Priest is truly holy, then presumably God would not let that happen. But, if the Priest is harboring some secret flaws, then God will let the events unfold, so that the Priest can reflect on his own character.

Holy does not equote to being like angel. It's an imiginary status create by man.

originally posted by: AMPTAH
Now, God is a strange character. It does not necessarily mean the Priest did the particular thing he is being accused of, rather, the Priest did something wrong for which he was not punished, and he gets this punishment instead, for something he didn't actually do. The God of the bible typically does this, because when you "expect punishment" for a misdeed, it doesn't feel the same, and it doesn't have the same "astonishing impact" as when you get punished for something you didn't do.

It's the same "eye for an eye" principle.

So a priest convicted for housing a whore get punished for blasphemy?
Yes, it is weird.

originally posted by: AMPTAH
If you do something that is an "injustice" against someone else, God doesn't give "justice" in return. HE returns another "injustice" instead, that's the real "eye for an eye."

Well, hopefully that "injustice" doesnt occur to Pell. We are not interested with "astonishing impact" affecting Pell. But we are more concern with "abusement impact" affecting the lives of young ones which could lead to suicide.

originally posted by: CardinalBlack
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Unfortunately it's real. Thank God Liberalism as we know it is DYING!

How the hell does political ideology have to do with vile crimes against children? The premise is especially baffling considering we're talking about an institution that has been pushing a highly conservative platform for over a millennium and a half. Hate to break it to you but even the farthest right minded people, politically and philosophically speaking, are capable of the same perversion and atrocity they try to pretend they are above. Sickened and horror isn't hedged in by ideology.

originally posted by: EasternShadow
All human and animals are driven by their instinct to reproduce.

Not quite.

Humans exist in a sliding scale from animal up to angel. There are humans with absolutely no instinct to reproduce. While, there are others that can't get enough of it, no matter how much they are fed.

originally posted by: AMPTAH
Not quite.

Humans exist in a sliding scale from animal up to angel. There are humans with absolutely no instinct to reproduce.

Well, that "sliding scale" doesnt work for biological human and animal instinct for survival as it work for angels. Desire for mating is a chemical mechanism exist in every human except human with sexual dysfunction such as, Hypoactice Sexual Desire Disorder ( HSDD ) or Inhibited sexual desire (ISD). Patients identified with this syndrome would most likely not going to survive his/her gene pool.

Which is not the case for the priest, since Pedophilia is psychiatric disorder rather than sexual dysfunction.

originally posted by: AMPTAH
Humans exist

Proven!!

in a sliding scale from animal up to angel.

*Angel* is in the same category as *mermaid* .... NOT FACT unproven

In the same league as *myths and legends*

originally posted by: eletheia


*Angel* is in the same category as *mermaid* .... NOT FACT unproven

In the same league as *myths and legends*

I see what you're saying. You have seen animals, and have some idea what they are. But, you have never met an angel, so doubt they exist.

So, in your mind, there really is nothing higher than the animal, and humans are just animals that walk upright.

But, people also believe lots of things they have never seen, like dinosaurs, just because of some bones found in the ground.

Well, the bones of the angels are also there, facts and deeds recorded in the scriptures, by men who also claimed they met them.

Yet, on one level, I have to agree with you, that the dinosaurs and the angels are both things in our imagination, for which we have no direct proof, just writings and interpretations that were produced by other men.

They do form a framework for discussing ideas, however, so neither are useless concepts.