Jump to content
tanknet.org

Because The Roman Catholic Church


Recommended Posts

Texas Bishops demand, demand that Governor Abbott take in refugees. We take in too many as it is, and one more reason the Catholic Church needs to STFU on political matters.

 

Are they going to house them and feed them on their real estate?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 645
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Which he seems to have realized.

 

Ex-pope Benedict asks to be removed as co-author of book in priestly celibacy row

 

Move comes after claims he was manipulated into writing an attack on successor Francis

 

Lorenzo Tondo in Palermo

 

Tue 14 Jan 2020 09.26 EST

 

The former pope Benedict XVI has requested the removal of his name as the co-author of a controversial new book in which he spoke out against allowing married men to become priests as a dispute over its publication gripped the Vatican for a third day.

 

"I can confirm that this morning I acted on instructions from the emeritus pope and I asked Cardinal Robert Sarah to contact the books publishers and request them to remove Benedict XVIs name as co-author of the book and remove his signature from the introduction and the conclusions too", the retired pontiff's personal secretary, Georg Gänswein, told the Italian news agency Ansa on Tuesday.

 

Benedict's intervention in the book From the Depths of Our Hearts has come weeks before his reform-minded successor Francis is expected to publish a document on whether married men may be ordained in the Amazon as a solution to a priest shortage there.

 

The controversy over the book underscores the conservative-progressive battle lines that have exploded in the Catholic church following Benedict's decision in 2013 to become the first pope in 600 years to retire.

 

Extracts of the book published by France's Le Figaro newspaper on Sunday ignited a fresh round of briefings from backers of the current pope and traditionalists nostalgic for Benedicts orthodoxy. The book is published in France on Wednesday.

 

Francis's supporters claimed the increasingly frail Benedict, 92, had been manipulated by members of his rightwing entourage into writing something that amounted to a frontal attack on Francis.

 

Sarah, who heads the Vaticans liturgy office and co-authored the book with Benedict, posted to Twitter a series of letters from the former pope late on Monday making clear he had written the text and approved its publication after news reports quoting "sources close to Benedict" claimed he never saw or approved the finished product.

 

"I solemnly affirm that Benedict XVI knew that our project would take the form of a book. I can say that we exchanged many drafts to make corrections", he said.

 

Gänswein, however, told Ansa that "Benedict did not approve a project for a co-authored book and he had not seen or authorised the cover" and therefore asked the publishers to remove Benedict's name from the cover, the introduction and the conclusion.

 

"The pope emeritus knew that the cardinal was preparing a book and he sent him a text on the priesthood authorising him to use it as he wanted. But he did not approve a project for a co-authored book, and he had not seen or authorised the cover."

 

Gänswein said it was "a misunderstanding that does not raise questions about Cardinal Sarah's good faith."

 

Sarah tweeted minutes later that future publications of the book would name him as the sole author "with the contribution of Benedict XVI".

 

"Considering the controversies that provoked the publication of the book From the Depths of Our Hearts, it is decided that the author of the book will be for the further publications: Cardinal Sarah, with the contribution of Benedict XVI", he said. "However, the full text remains absolutely unchanged".

 

[...]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/14/cardinal-denies-manipulating-pope-benedict-over-priestly-celibacy

Edited by BansheeOne
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Texas Bishops demand, demand that Governor Abbott take in refugees. We take in too many as it is, and one more reason the Catholic Church needs to STFU on political matters.

 

Are they going to house them and feed them on their real estate?

 

Nah, the peasants have to deal with them, not the Princes of the church.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

Good news from Australia.

 

Pell to walk free after High Court overturns conviction

 

Cardinal George Pell will be freed from jail after the High Court overturned his conviction for historic child sex offences.

 

The stunning High Court intervention in Australia’s most contentious case of alleged clerical abuse will reverberate from Canberra to the Vatican and among abuse survivors in Melbourne and Ballarat.

 

It will also trigger a searing examination of how Victoria’s criminal justice system allowed the case against Cardinal Pell to proceed so far on evidence which, according to the unanimous view of all seven High Court judges, could not support a guilty verdict.

 

"The jury, acting rationally on the whole of the evidence, ought to have entertained a doubt as to the applicant's guilt with respect to each of the offences for which he was convicted,'' the court said in a summary judgment published on Tuesday morning.

 

The court found there was a "significant possibility" an innocent person has been convicted.

 

The High Court judgment, although a relief to 78-year-old Pell, leaves Australia’s most senior Catholic facing an invidious task to restore his reputation.

 

(...)

 

https://www.smh.com.au/national/pell-to-walk-free-after-high-court-overturns-conviction-20200407-p54hqe.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good news from Australia.

 

Pell to walk free after High Court overturns conviction

 

Cardinal George Pell will be freed from jail after the High Court overturned his conviction for historic child sex offences.

 

The stunning High Court intervention in Australia’s most contentious case of alleged clerical abuse will reverberate from Canberra to the Vatican and among abuse survivors in Melbourne and Ballarat.

 

It will also trigger a searing examination of how Victoria’s criminal justice system allowed the case against Cardinal Pell to proceed so far on evidence which, according to the unanimous view of all seven High Court judges, could not support a guilty verdict.

 

"The jury, acting rationally on the whole of the evidence, ought to have entertained a doubt as to the applicant's guilt with respect to each of the offences for which he was convicted,'' the court said in a summary judgment published on Tuesday morning.

 

The court found there was a "significant possibility" an innocent person has been convicted.

 

The High Court judgment, although a relief to 78-year-old Pell, leaves Australia’s most senior Catholic facing an invidious task to restore his reputation.

 

(...)

 

https://www.smh.com.au/national/pell-to-walk-free-after-high-court-overturns-conviction-20200407-p54hqe.html

 

Interesting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pell has been acquitted on the basis that the conviction was not beyond reasonable doubt. He, however, has not been found 'innocent', the Crown was found by the High Court to have not made its case at a high enough standard.

It will be interesting to see the redacted evidence from the Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Child Sexual Abuse when it gets tabled, as it will be. Pell may have no where to hide then, particularly about how he protected other 'pedophiles' (interesting word that - child lovers - who did not love children in any way shape or form, but abused them) in Ballaratt.

I cannot blame the High Court, I have served in courts where individual members have presided, and I know of a few matters where the Court confirmed jury decisions where state Courts of Criminal Appeal have let the bastards off. I would have loved to have seen the NSW DPP take Gordon Wood go to the High Court. I suspect he would have not been let off as he was. In the Pell case the High Court applied the law as each of the Judges saw it. Perhaps they may have even considered that Pell should go to hell, but they still had to apply the law.

 

Meanwhile - the Australian city of Ballarat. The vipers nest:

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-04-02/george-pell-ballarat-allegations-revelation/12109952

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/29/world/australia/ballarat-church-sexual-abuse-pell.html

 

just a short quote:

 

The scale of the abuse in Ballarat was staggering. Gerald Ridsdale, the former chaplain of St. Alipius Primary School in Ballarat, was imprisoned for sexually abusing 65 children from the early 1960s to late 1980s. He was only one of several priests convicted of abusing children.

About 45 victims were estimated to have committed suicide, prompting an outpouring of grief from once devout Catholic parents who said the church robbed them of their sons.

Edited by DougRichards
Link to post
Share on other sites

On witch hunts, and the Australian legal scene.

Despite his “I make no comment about the High Court’s decision” disclaimer, Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews last week gave Australia’s highest judicial body the virtual middle finger after the full bench unanimously quashed all five child sex offence convictions against Cardinal George Pell. In a message ostensibly directed to all victims of child abuse, Andrews tweeted “I believe you”.

Never mind Pell had spent almost four years fighting 26 criminal charges, all of which were either discontinued or found to be unsustainable. Never mind an elderly man had been unjustly convicted, not to mention wrongly imprisoned for over a year. Never mind his reputation has been destroyed or that he is financially ruined.

(...)

Never mind Pell’s right to a fair trial was compromised by a series of a damaging leaks from sources close to the police task force long before charges were laid. Never mind Victoria’s Office of Public Prosecutions proceeded to trial despite there being no reasonable prospect of conviction. Never mind the OPP continued the prosecution despite the first trial resulting in a hung jury.

Never mind Andrews has ultimate responsibility for the competence and integrity of Victoria’s criminal justice system, or that his government has serious questions to answer following this debacle. Andrews shamelessly resorted to shutting down criticism by demanding everyone believe all complainants in cases of child sexual abuse. It is a demagogue’s false dichotomy: you either support victims of this insidious crime or you don’t.

The corollary of Andrews’ message is that anyone accused of such crimes who denies wrongdoing must be disbelieved. That is an appalling disregard and contempt for the presumption of innocence.

Both police minister Lisa Neville and Attorney-General Jill Hennessy, whether it be a case of spinelessness or obtuseness, retweeted Andrews’ divisive message.

But this “I believe you” philosophy is a new thing for the Andrews Government. No such mantra existed when whistleblower and party member Jake Finnigan alerted the public to Labor’s rorting of electoral allowances in the 2014 election campaign. State Ombudsman Deborah Glass found that $387,842 had been misused for campaigning purposes. The Andrews Government spent $1 million in legal fees, all taxpayer-funded, in its unsuccessful attempt to shut down the Ombudsman’s inquiry. Finnigan was demonised, and his personal information, as well as that of his family, was leaked to the media.

Pell, you may recall, fronted up for a police interview. All 16 serving Labor MPs named in the red shirts scandal, including government ministers, refused to do so. Following the criminal investigation, Victoria Police referred a brief of evidence to the OPP. In October 2019 police advised that no charges would be laid against any person.

In response to criticism that the government had not co-operated in the investigation, Andrews simply observed “The (Office of Public Prosecutions) and Victoria Police are independent of government,” and that he had “nothing further to add.” That was as far as it went. Yes, just seven months ago Andrews was an ardent believer in respecting the process and the presumption of innocence, at least when it was in his government’s interest to do so.

As for the Pell acquittal, it was a day when the Fabians went feral. “The High Court has found there was not enough evidence to convict,” tweeted ABC host Barrie Cassidy. “It did not find him innocent.” That is an appraisal worthy of a bush lawyer. When an accused is found not guilty, the presumption of innocence remains.

(...)

Then there were those who argued any questioning of the jury verdict was akin to anarchy. “There is still a chance, however small, that [Pell] might yet beat the charges in the High Court, but it’s not much of a chance, and whichever way that final appeal goes, there is one outcome you can bet on with confidence,” wrote Brisbane Times columnist John Birmingham last August. “Pell’s defenders will do immense damage to the institution of the courts and the justice system as a whole in the prosecution of their culture war.”

If anything, exposing the prosecution’s deficiencies in what later was revealed to be a miscarriage of justice is ultimately a good thing for the judicial and justice system. And the High Court has come out of this with its reputation enhanced. But as for the suggestion Pell’s defenders had no interest in justice but were fighting a “culture war”, consider this excerpt. Writing for literary journal Meanjin – which is edited by ABC presenter Jonathan Green – Crikey correspondent Guy Rundle wrote last year of his euphoria at seeing Pell sentenced:

“George Pell was not being convicted or sentenced for the sins of the Church, Justice Kidd had noted. Not in the court, but out here, in the public square, it was impossible not to feel the full weight of history come down, Da Vinci Code lines bouncing inside my head. This was the descendant of the Borgias, of Julius II, of the Apostles really, convicted in a county court as far from Rome as it is possible to be on this planet, and sent to that distinctive modern torment, protective confinement in the grey walls and functional fittings of a solitary cell. Not as a Defender of the Faith, but as a paedo, a nonce, a rock spider. This was an event so epochal, so momentous, it seemed impossible to feel its import, its momentousness, in this no-space, a building that refused all glory, evoked nothing.”

That is the perspective of a spectator in the Colosseum as opposed to a courtroom. So much for the insistence by the left that conservatives are responsible for the culture war. No doubt they will deny they are fighting the battle they accuse others of, just as ABC editorial director Craig McMurtrie denied last week the national broadcaster’s reporting in the Pell affair was a “witch-hunt”. To them I say just one thing.

I do not believe you.


https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/george-pell-witchhunters-i-dont-believe-you/news-story/8e973b69243134174f69e3131399ddba

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, the court system worked as it should. But it should never have gotten that far based on what has been presented here.

 

Yes, and in the meanwhile, monsters like McCarrick are still free.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And Now the Pope wants a Universal Income. Remind us to never, ever allow a Pope from a Liberation Theology County, or the Jesuits. https://www.dailywire.com/news/pope-francis-suggests-universal-basic-wage-in-letter-so-human-and-so-christian-no-worker-without-rights The Pope needs to STFU and return to religion. He needs to stay in his lane.

A good friend of mine is an old card-carrying socialist friend from Argentina. He loathes Francisco because he's so cozy with the Peronists. Go figure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I agree, the court system worked as it should. But it should never have gotten that far based on what has been presented here.

 

Yes, and in the meanwhile, monsters like McCarrick are still free.

Yes it is unfortunate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-05-07/royal-commission-findings-on-cardinal-george-pell-released/12217362

 

Brief quotes:

 

Cardinal George Pell should have advised senior Catholic authorities to remove a paedophile priest in 1989, the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse has found.

 

Father Searson died in 2009 without facing charges, but the commission heard he abused children in parishes and schools across three districts over more than a decade.

Cardinal Pell told the inquiry he was handed a list of grievances and allegations about Father Searson in 1989, but believed the Catholic Education Office and the then-archbishop of Melbourne, Frank Little, were handling the allegations levelled against the priest, and did not think it was his place to investigate them.

However the commission found as an auxilliary bishop at the time, Cardinal Pell should have taken action.

"It was incumbent on Bishop Pell, as an Auxiliary Bishop with responsibilities for the welfare of the children in the Catholic community of his region, to take such action as he could to advocate that Father Searson be removed or suspended or, at least, that a thorough investigation be undertaken of the allegations," the commission said.

there is more

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been told that the ABC has not been unbiased through Cardinal Pell's trial and would be interested to see if they are reporting this fully or being somewhat selective.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From the Daily Telegraph ( a News Ltd publication / site that has been very Pro-Pell)

 

Cardinal George Pell knew children were being sexually abused by Catholic priests as early as the 1970s, the child abuse royal commission has found.

 

The damning finding, which contradicts persistent denials of knowledge by Cardinal Pell, has been made public today after being kept secret for more than two years.

 

The commission found Cardinal Pell was aware of allegations against a string of priests including Gerald Ridsdale, John Day and Ted Dowlan.

 

Cardinal Pell was a key witness in the commission’s probe into the Ballarat and Melbourne dioceses where he worked alongside notorious paedophiles and at times held senior positions.

 

But the 2017 findings, that were released just months after the Cardinal was charged with child sex offences, remained redacted until today so as not to prejudice his criminal matters.

 

His recent High Court acquittal cleared the way for the findings to be published in full.

The commission found Cardinal Pell must have been aware of children being abused in the Ballarat diocese from the 1970s.

In particular, it found Cardinal Pell must have been aware of the crimes of notorious paedophile Gerald Ridsdale, who he shared a home with for a short period in the 1970s.

 

The Cardinal has persistently denied knowing the extent of Ridsdale’s crimes until the 1990s.

 

From the non-paywall News Ltd site

 

https://www.news.com.au/national/courts-law/george-pell-inquiry-cardinal-was-not-deceived-about-abuse/news-story/6acc6c2daa49d960d2513dcc4529cf3e

Cardinal George Pell knew a Victorian priest was moved because he had sexually abused children and should have pushed for an unstable and disturbed priest’s removal, a royal commission found.

The child abuse royal commission rejected Cardinal Pell’s evidence that he was deceived and lied to by Catholic Church officials about Australia’s worst pedophile priest, Gerald Ridsdale, and Melbourne parish priest Peter Searson.

The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse findings relate to Cardinal Pell’s knowledge of abuse allegations in the 1970s and 1980s, when he was a priest and bishop’s adviser in Ballarat and an auxiliary bishop and adviser to the archbishop in Melbourne.

Cardinal Pell was one of a number of senior church officials criticised over their handling of abuse complaints or allegations against numerous priests and Christian Brothers in the Melbourne archdiocese and Diocese of Ballarat.

The catastrophic failures were led by the 1974-1996 Melbourne archbishop Frank Little and the 1971-1997 Ballarat bishop Ronald Mulkearns, who the inquiry found prioritised protecting the church’s reputation over the welfare of children. Ridsdale was repeatedly moved between parishes by Bishop Mulkearns, who knew about his offending.

 

The commission rejected Cardinal Pell’s claim that Bishop Mulkearns lied to or deceived his advisers in 1982 when Ridsdale was removed from the parish of Mortlake, where the priest later admitted his behaviour was “out of control”. Cardinal Pell gave evidence the bishop did not give the true reason for Ridsdale’s removal and lied by not doing so.

 

But the commissioners did not accept that Bishop Mulkearns lied to his consultors and were satisfied he did not deceive his consultors. The commission found Bishop Mulkearns told the advisers it was necessary to move Ridsdale from the diocese and from parish work because of complaints he had sexually abused children.

“Cardinal Pell’s evidence that ‘paedophilia was not mentioned’ and that the ‘true’ reason was not given is not accepted,” the commission’s said. “It is implausible ... that Bishop Mulkearns did not inform those at the meeting of at least complaints of sexual abuse of children having been made.”

 

The commission also rejected Cardinal Pell’s evidence he was deceived by Melbourne Catholic education officials because they did not tell him what they knew about Searson’s behaviour.

 

“We do not accept that Bishop Pell was deceived, intentionally or otherwise,” the commissioners found.

In its reports originally released in December 2017, the commission found Archbishop Little repeatedly did nothing about Searson - an “unstable and disturbed individual” - and others who abused children, as he sought to protect the church from scandal.

 

A 1989 delegation of Doveton teachers told then-Bishop Pell about Searson harassing children, staff and parents, showing children a body in coffin and animal cruelty, among other complaints.

 

The commission found Cardinal Pell should have urged the archbishop to take action against Searson to protect the children of the parish and the Catholic community in his region.

 

“On the basis of what was known to Bishop Pell in 1989, it ought to have been obvious to him at the time,” the commission said.

 

“He should have advised the archbishop to remove Father Searson and he did not do so.” The unredacted commission findings were released on Thursday after the High Court last month overturned Cardinal Pell’s child abuse convictions.

 

Sydney Morning Herald

 

https://www.smh.com.au/national/victoria/long-awaited-george-pell-royal-commission-findings-released-20200507-p54qmo.html

 

Cardinal George Pell was "conscious of child sexual abuse by clergy" as early as 1973 and failed to act on complaints about priests, according to royal commission findings released for the first time.

 

The child abuse royal commission also rejected Cardinal Pell's evidence that he was deceived and lied to by Catholic Church officials about Australia's worst paedophile priest, Gerald Ridsdale, and Melbourne parish priest Peter Searson.

 

The findings made by the Royal Commission into Institutional Child Sexual Abuse in December 2017 were redacted to avoid prejudicing the trial of Cardinal Pell, who was then charged with child sexual abuse.

 

During his time as a priest in Ballarat, Cardinal Pell was aware fellow priest Gerald Ridsdale was taking boys on overnight camps.

"By this time, child sexual abuse was on his radar," the report states.

 

"We are also satisfied that by 1973 Cardinal Pell was not only conscious of child sexual abuse by clergy, but that he also had considered measures of avoiding situations which might provoke gossip about it."

 

In 1974 Cardinal Pell was informed by a schoolboy about abuse being carried out by a Brother Edward "Ted" Dowlan, the commission found.

The boy said to Cardinal Pell: "We’ve got to do something about what's going on at St Pat's."

 

Father Pell responded: "Yes, what do you mean?" And the boy replied: "Brother Dowlan is touching little boys."

 

The commission found Cardinal Pell said words to the effect of, "Don’t be ridiculous," and walked away.

 

Dowlan has been convicted of more than 50 child sexual offences committed between 1971 and 1985.

 

=======================

 

Pretty consistent I would say, and from the actual report:

 

What Cardinal Pell knew about Ridsdale taking boys on trips in 1973

[Gerald] Ridsdale was appointed assistant priest at Ballarat East in 1972. In January 1973, Father Pell was appointed assistant priest at Ballarat East. He lived in the Ballarat East presbytery with Ridsdale for nine or 10 months in that year.

 

While at Ballarat East, Father Pell heard that Ridsdale had taken groups of boys away on camps, including overnight trips. Cardinal Pell accepted that, because of the Monsignor Day scandal, child sexual abuse was at least on his radar. In submissions, he also accepted it was clear that ‘momentary thought’ was given to the matter of Ridsdale taking boys away on camping trips.

 

We are satisfied that in 1973 Father Pell turned his mind to the prudence of Ridsdale taking boys on overnight camps. The most likely reason for this, as Cardinal Pell acknowledged, was the possibility that if priests were one-on-one with a child then they could sexually abuse a child or at least provoke gossip about such a prospect.

By this time, child sexual abuse was on his radar, in relation to not only Monsignor Day but also Ridsdale. We are also satisfied that by 1973 Cardinal Pell was not only conscious of child sexual abuse by clergy but that he also had considered measures of avoiding situations which might provoke gossip about it.

  • Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, Final Report
Link to post
Share on other sites

So before Pell had authority to act on his own, he kept silent. Not exactly the stuff of saints, but it is how one got to be a cardinal. At least he seems to have made a decent effort once he got the authority.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not good. The Church is sick, and the left has made it that way.

The issue predates the rise of the left in the Church by decades, probably centuries. Nor is it unique to the Church, though they're the biggest target.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...