Jim the Moron wrote: ↑
Fri Dec 14, 2018 9:55 pm
Mr. Perfect wrote: ↑
Wed Sep 26, 2018 3:52 am
Pretty much a non answer.
Seems like everyone should be pissed off at someone who knowingly covered up for a pedophile.
"Cardinal George Pell Reportedly Convicted Of Sex Abuse"
https://www.npr.org/2018/12/13/67644194 ... in-austral
Speaking of covering up . . . why all the secrecy?
I would not have even known that the trial and conviction had even taken place but for the fact that I read the report in the Asia Times online. Overseas based media are of course beyond the reach of Australian gag orders.
http://www.atimes.com/article/australia ... ex-charge/
The only indication out here that something was afoot was that an announcement was published a couple of days ago of Pope Francis dismissing him from his high powered job in the Vatican administration as reformer of vatican finances.
Why the gag order? Cardinal (soon to be ex-Cardinal?) Pell was convicted on the sexual abuse of two choir boys half a century ago when he was still a young priest in a provincial city in his home state of Victoria. Yet there are still further charges pending against him over further episodes of sexual abuse dating from this time in his life. Then judge applied the gag order on the media because he foresaw that were news of Pell's conviction to be publicised here in Australia, the "media storm" that would be whipped up out here would jeopardise his chances of receiving a fair trial. That sounds reasonable enough to me.
Pell sounds like he must have been a real grub to me. After serving for years as Archbishop-Cardinal of Melbourne, Pell was appointed Archbishop-Cardinal of Sydney. Nobody up here wanted the man. After the former well liked Archbishop of Sydney retired most Sydney Catholics would have preferred one of the five (all well regarded) auxiliary bishops within the Sydney archdiocese to have been promoted into his place. He got the job because he had cultivated powerful friends within the Vatican.
Pell never really "got" Sydney - a city of very different temper and ambience to Melbourne (which catholic residents of the two cities reflect). In return Sydney only as best grudgingly accepted Pell (because we could do nothing to get rid of him). Local gay rights advocates (who were also practicing Catholics) would go up to the communion rail during mass at St. Mary's Cathedral rearing their rainbow coloured sashes and Pell would snub them by refusing to serve them communion. A priest who can sexually abuse choir boys in his younger years must have been in those days a man of homosexual urge himself. For a person like that to so publicly deny the sacraments to fellow homosexuals now that he was older and more senior in ranks implies hypocrisy on his part.
The apparent hypocrisy may have been to serve the practical purpose of providing a "smoke screen" cover-up for the sins of his horny, youthful past.