I don’t know many Cats who had as much interaction with the Pell case that I had. Many of my dear personal friends are noted in his prison diaries, visited him, I had family members attend the court on the days that were open to the public and I personally liaised with Richter and got caught up in an eight-month legal battle with their ABC.
There is much that I could write about all of this but it would be going over old ground that I’ve often shared at the Cat and elsewhere. So why write at all?
Well, I am amazed (I don’t know why) at the sheer bigotry of the “tolerant” Left. The Left that hold so much faith (**feels**) in our scientific, judicial and anti-corruption bodies can’t bring themselves to let Pell go. This is the same authoritarian, big-government Left that dare not question anything that comes from above.
And so, having thought about this post for some time, I write not to cover old ground but to give you some tips when dealing with anti-Pell and anti-Catholic (or Christian) bigots, particularly in relation to child abuse. These are the same lines I use in twitter and, in-person, arguments and they have not failed me once in many years. I’ve even had these arguments with Premiers and Ministers.
It is a long read, please endure, and consider Pell’s time in 24/7 isolation next to Gargarsoulas’ cell.
Peddos are sick
Who wouldn’t agree with this? Well, sadly, many academics, throughout the 1960’s and 1970’s promoted this Leftist idea of “intergenerational love” and that children were missing out on intimate experiences that they were entitled to. Sickeningly, much peer-review literature is in the academic domain on this issue. If you encounter a Leftist saying peddos are sick, remind them that the Left promoted and condoned it.
Catholic priests are kiddy fiddlers (ergo, they should be able to get married so they can have sex)
Yes, it is true there have been some instances of child abuse in the church. Some, quite bad and we should continually ask forgiveness for this. But can you name a single organisation that handled these issues sufficiently? Nobody can. Because the prevailing thought of the time, across all organisations, was to move people on (behavioural psychology in changing an environment, thus changing a behaviour).
For the record, 97% of child abuse, according to Abuse Australia, happens in the family home so, having sex or not, has nothing to do with it. Also, remind them of their ABC’s Four Corners program in the 70’s that put peddos on air to promote their feelings (when they should have been in gaol!). Sure, if the Church covered some abuse up, but at the very least, did not promote it as a virtue!
Remind them also of the nice Mr Scott, former MD of their ABC who was Chair at Knox Grammar when abuse was happening on his watch.
Or remind them of the Heiner Affair which alleges, with some pretty lucid points, that Rudd shred documents in relation to child abuse claims.
The Catholic Church was the worst of the abusive organisations
No. The Auditor-General of NSW found that the State of NSW was the worst offender in terms of sheer numbers. Or, cut another way, on a per capita basis the Catholic Church was less offending than other organisations such as, say, the Uniting Church and Salvos. No offence intended upon these organisations as you have to remember again, 97% of abuse happens in the family home and no organisation ever handled these cases well.
Kids are getting abused in Catholic churches today!
Hardly likely. The most likely place kids are being abused are in family homes and, sadly, in indigenous communities. When I visited the Kimberley three years ago, some houses had “escape hatches” in the kids’ bedrooms where they could get out in a hurry from drunk relatives if they needed. Over the last twenty years, the Church has introduced policies where priests are not allowed to be alone with children, anyone who complains about a priest result in the priest being immediately stood down (no evidence required) while an investigation takes place. I know several priests that this has happened to and, even after being found innocent, remain scarred to this day. The Church is the safest place for kids these days!
The Catholic Church did not help “survivors”
This again, is utter tosh. The Church has paid out millions, provided counselling and psychological services to those who have suffered abuse. The redress scheme is actually more generous than any State scheme! Anyone who proffers this argument should be reminded of Jon Stephens from their ABC who abused a child on set a few decades ago. Firstly, their ABC did not even report on the case and secondly, shockingly, their ABC fought the victim with a massive legal team and resources and did not pay a single cent to the “survivor” or their family (that I am aware of). Put simply: Duplicitous.
But Pell got off on a technicality
That old chestnut. This was a line proffered by “High Court Justice,” Barrie Cassidy which has been picked up by a gulag of morons on twitter and the like. No, to be acquitted in the High Court is, according to Justice Murphy (best friend of the Left) in GARRAT VS QUEEN “is to be found innocent. To be found anything but innocent would be a complete travesty of our democratic and judicial system.” There are plenty of other cases where High Court Justices have explained that acquittal means nothing but innocence but I like using Murphy.
Remind people that 7 High Court Justices, with over 248 years of combined legal experience unanimously agreed that Pell was innocent. Are you a High Court Justice? Remind them of how the Justices actually started making fun of the DPP’s argument, it was that bad. Even Constitutional Lawyer/Observer Jeremy Gans conceded the Justices had the DPP on the run for making up a time period in the Cathedral called “quiet prayer” which just did not exist. Ever. It was the first, and only time, it was ever raised anywhere and the DPP just made this up when they realised their case was falling apart.
But the Royal Commission found him guilty!
Well, no. Royal Commissions make findings and these can lead to charges. No charges have led from the Commission’s findings into Pell because they are so flimsy that they wouldn’t even make it past an initial hearing. As the wonderful Erasmus (also known as Keith Windschuttle) pointed out: Firstly, the Commission asked for survivors to come forward and tell their stories. Many did. But it wasn’t an iterative experience. No questions or cross-examining was required. You just had to turn up and tell your story. That was it!
Secondly, the finding of the Commission was that it was “inconceivable” that Pell was not told about abuse in the Church with a meeting with Bishop Mulkearns in 1977. Two points on this, the other priest at this meeting said that “nothing of the sort was ever said.” And he didn’t find out about Ridsdale’s offending until Ridsdale himself told the other priest in 1989. The Commission accepted his evidence but still found it “inconceivable” that Pell wasn’t told (at the same meeting!). Bit of an inconsistent double standard there.
Thirdly, the use of the term “inconceivable” is not evidence. It is not a legal word. “Inconceivable,” as pointed out by Windschuttle, is a lazy way of saying “we think so, but we don’t have any evidence.” Whereas, don’t have any evidence actually means “we have no proof.” Having no proof, in most judicial circles, means the presumption of innocence remains. And that’s why it’s important to remember the Commission was not a judicial process, followed no judicial (or even proper) processes and was a theme park show.
Pell’s trial was rigged
There are more unhinged sectors of the Left that believe Pell got a rigged trial because he’s mates with a few high profile people. And yes, Pell’s trial was rigged. Never before in history has a man been so vilified in public, part of a get-Pell (despite no evidence) from Victoriastan Police, given appeal judges who have no experience in criminal matters. The process was completely flawed.
Appeal Judges Maxwell and Ferguson were so warped in their finding that “though J’s story was completely inconsistent and made very little sense, contradicted himself many times, got dates and key matters incorrect – this made his story more believable.” That, is unbelievable. So, for Maxwell and Ferguson, the less evidence makes you more guilty? God help us all. I believe, and many legal experts agree, that Pell received the worst possible treatment any innocent person could endure.
Key witnesses (such as the lady who met Pell for the first time on that Sunday and she remembers it clearly on the front steps of the Cathedral after mass because her son embarrassed herself in front of him) were not approached by the DPP or police. Many others too. Nor did the DPP even bother to go to the Cathedral and count the steps, or record timings.
Milligan’s book is so believable!
You’ll have to buy Windschuttle’s book to learn more about this as I refuse to read this trash. The only point I make here is it doesn’t matter, as 7 High Court Justices didn’t buy it either. And, from what I understand, Milligan’s book is actually more about herself than “J.” Typical of a **feels** rather than facts writer.
The Gillard Connection
Just a brief point but Gillard announced the Royal Commission off the back of some damning news about the Catholic church. Many of her closest mates in the Labor Party set up new law firms to deal with these issues. Not alleging anything here, just that Gillard set it up and several of her lawyer mates became the ones who presented most cases to the Commission.
Final Prediction
The get Pell saga is over. However, in his prison diaries, the innocent Pell recounts (in solitary confinement) how he would spend his days praying for those who persecuted him (vague reference to Milligan et al). This reminded me of Saint Thomas More who would not say a bad word (from the tower) about King Henry VIII to his family “lest they fall into the sin of judgement.” The Church is a bit like the public service, big, bureaucratic, complex, diverse and it takes a lot longer to make decisions than a government officer (due to, say, 2,000 years of history, precedence and policy). I firmly believe, perhaps in many years to come, Pell will made a Saint.
I’m no Saint and I will fall into the sin of judgement… I believe Andrews, Patton, Milligan, Ashton, many others and those Gillard-mate lawyers who have now made millions off the back of the innocent will find themselves in the 7th circle of hell. Pell, on the other hand, will be remembered for hundreds, if not thousands, of years; us Catholics are a bit like that when it comes to the persecuted.
Extremely well said, Lysander.
Superb. Thank you Lysander.
I have just been doing a little googling of Keith Windschuttle’s Pell book, and I see that, very predictably, the ABC referred to it as “the controversial new Pell book.”
No doubt the ABC would also have viewed reporting of the overturning of Captain Dreyfus’s conviction as “controversial.”
It is not a ‘long read’ because of its fluency it reads so easily, and its succinctness keeps one interested and wanting to go on to the next point.
Good on you Lysander.
Thank you.
Very well done, Lysander. I dips me lid.
Just a couple of small factual corrections.
(1) It was Lateline, then a radio program, not Four Corners, on which Richard Neville and his colleagues in Ashbolt’s Marxist kindergarten presented their sniggering, fawning promo piece for their pederast mates. The then refused to answer any police questions, and that prolific offender ‘person or persons unknown’ destroyed the tapes to protect the creeps from being identified.
(2) The Auditor-General may have some something, but I’m pretty sure that it was Justice Wood’s royal commission into the NSW police service in the 90s that made the findings you mentioned. He certainly put the state education department through the wringer: a random sampling of departmental files by his staff found over 200 cases of teachers being shifted around and the complaints covered up. For some strange reason, the search engines on ABC, Fairfax and McClellan royal commission computers seem unable to find this report.
You could also mention that the Tasmanian government has now started its own inquiry into government institutions (on which the Gillard-McClellan circus spent not one second) and it’s producing similar results.
But this is just i-dotting and t-crossing on an excellent piece.
You are a more patient man than me Lysander. I never argue with lefties, they are clueless and incapable of learning.
It’s persecution, simple as. The hysterical stoning of George was so like the reaction of the establishment to Stephen, with the same level of outrage and fury. And just as impervious to reason or reality.
We’ve had a few of these now. Tony Abbott, George Pell, Donald Trump, Bret Kavanaugh. Irrational incandescent hatred. But that’s entirely consistent with God’s Word:
What we witnessed was a lynching of George Pell by our very own KKK……aka the ABC. The KKK hated Catholics and Jews, the ABC hates Catholics and Jews.
Thanks Lysander – an excellent summary.
May I just point out what the High Court’s decision really means?
An appeal Court has very limited powers to overturn a jury verdict.
In essence they can do so only if there has been a serious miscarriage of justice on the face of the record.
One circumstance in which an appeal Court can overturn a jury verdict is if the appeal Court finds that no jury properly understanding the evidence and properly understanding its job could possibly have reached a guilty verdict. That’s basically what the High Court’s decision was.
Brilliant stuff Lysander.
These DPP lawyers should be disbarred, fined, failed and made to pay restitution.
They are privileged criminals who committed justice offences.
Well…me.
I have serious reservations about categorising paedophilia as a medical disorder.
It has, of course, been a trend in recent decades to medicalise every aspect of human behaviour, especially after the discovery of our genetic makeup, but I remain a sceptic.
For Christians, paedophilia should be recognised in the first instance as moral disorder. I use the word disorder advisedly because paedophilic desires and acts subvert the good order the Creator has put in place in human sexuality both for our protection and our flourishing.
Medical therapies may be of some use, although I understand paedophiles are often very resistant to treatment, but in the Christian church they should not usurp the role of the spiritual medicine we have available to apply to sinners – the call to repentance and faith. (This doesn’t mean a repentant paedophile can continue as though nothing has happened; anyone who thinks this does not understand what repentance is – his or her debt to society must be paid as also must justice be satisfied for the sake of the victims.)
I don’t mean to detract from what else you have written, Lysander, with which I largely agree, but I thought this needed stating.
Thanks all for accolades; it has taken me a while to get around to it (along with some psychological fortitude to relive it!).
Tim, yes you are right about the HC and its findings but the volume of cases in which HC Justice’s have said “an acquittal means innocent and nothing less” is something their ABC types cannot concede. Its the **feels** over the facts.
And happily stand corrected Old Lefty, thanks.
Biggest thanks goes out to Keith Windschuttle, my personal experience of going through this would have been nothing without reading his book.
Roger,
agreed, completely and such people should seek out medical help and salvation. Salvation, yes, means going to confession but to receive forgiveness you have to be genuinely sorry and state that you will not commit that act again.
I’ve never thought, as many wrongly do, as the Church as a place for “good people.”
Terrific, Lysander. Thank you.
” paedophilia”
I think it’s a combination of both mental and moral failure. The truth is that seeing children as sexual beings and wanting to engage in sexual relations with children is SICK…mentally and morally.
Once upon a time society dealt with this…..ruthlessly….however nowadays, with the decline of western civilisation, the collapse of religion and the rise of progressivism….everything once considered taboo, vulgar and antithetical to normality is considered “okay”….in fact it’s celebrated. Homosexuality, drag queens reading stories to children, transgenderism, autogynephilia, various fetishes and so…have all been been normalised. The thing, they’re not normal…they’re very abnormal and they damage people and societies. I find it interesting that the progressive left, whilst obsessing about paedophilia and blaming institutions like the Catholic Church, are actually encouraging it.
Excellent Lysander
I well remember your FOI battles.
And I agree child sex abuse is both a disordered desire and a choice to succumb to evil.
I also like to point out that it is Catholic church that is responsible for declaring the sexual abuse of children a grievous wrong and if not for that, the use of children for sexual gratification would still be considered normal in our society (and indeed still is in some cultures) another thing her detractors would overturn, in time, if they could.
Something I like to share on social media when I get the Catholic church this and thatted
how Christianity invented children
This travesty that was imposed upon this man disgusts me no end. I think it started out as Get Pell for standing up to the kiddie fiddlers in the church and then the liars party saw it as a way to get the obvious failings off Gillard the lying slapper off the news for all the wrong reasons. George Pell is a better man than I’ll ever be, not because he’s a Cardinal, especially when we see what is going on in the Vatican. He is just a far better man. How all the people involved are not in prison for this witch hunt I do not know, but in Vichytoria nothing surprises me. I’m not religious I just stand up for whats right.
Excellent! Thank you.
“I’ve never thought, as many wrongly do, as the Church as a place for “good people.””
*****
Indeed. The Churches would be empty if that criterion were applied properly, but Jesus Himself was very clear that He wasn’t on earth solely for the benefit of the decorous and respectable – “The well do not need a physician” as He put it rather ironically.
The church is for repentant sinners.
Unfortunately, not a few unrepentant ones slip in as well.
Great post.
They know not what they do, however God will judge the wicked. They will cry and gnash their teeth in darkness
Windschuttle pointed out how the old term pederasty was changed to paedophilia to imply love was involved.
Yes good point Dopey, I missed that!
Great read Lysander. I met George a few times in a professional context and, although somewhat pompous, he always became across as someone who was deeply committed to living his deep belief in Christianity and his faith in the Catholic church.
It impressed me at the time because a great many other theological folk I encountered there did not demonstrate the same.
It was a great injustice and even today many of those intellectual midgets I encounter who only get their talking points from the ABCess or the Aged refuse to concede they were not just wrong but completely, utterly and stupidly, wrong.
Again, well done on your excellent contribution here.
NO,NO, NO,WRONG ,WRONG ,WRONG !
“patricia agnellisays:
October 8, 2021 at 7:38 pm
NO,NO, NO,WRONG ,WRONG ,WRONG !”
What’s wrong Ms Agnelli?
patricia agnellisays:
October 8, 2021 at 7:38 pm
NO,NO, NO,WRONG ,WRONG ,WRONG !
Always good to read a well argued rebuttal. I found the references particularly interesting.
On a different topic, I was pleased to see Chris Minns put Michael Rowland of the ABC in his place over Perrotet’s faith. I’m not going to criticise him for being a practicing Catholic, said Minns, because I’m a practicing Catholic too.
Most Labor leaders until the late twentieth century would have fully endorsed Perrotet’s allegedly extreme right-wing views on sexual issues, abortion and euthanasia. And I don’t just mean the Catholics like McGirr, Cahill and Renshaw, but the CofE types like McKell and Baddeley as well.
Boambee John says:
October 8, 2021 at 7:57 pm
Great BJ – this is why I love the Cat.
Wonderful, Lysander. Thank you.
A thanks from you on this topic CL, is of some significance to me! Appreciated!!
Lysander, thank you so much for this excellent post. It succinctly summarises the issues and thanks to others for their comments.
I have family members who said Cardinal Pell may not have committed the sin but had to pay for those who did — my response was: 2000 years ago Jesus Christ, another innocent man, died on the cross to redeem the sins of others, isn’t hat enough? End of discussion.
Thanks for the timely reminder of the injustice in our justice system.
I’ve met Patton and debated him, along with others, in a public forum.
He’s a bureaucratic type and struck me as less than impressive.
The issue at hand was a push type law enforcement initiative to reduce speed limits on all secondary roads.
The concept came straight out of the Andrew’s wish list, with our local council was an accomplice.
The four senior police could not hold their argument against a room of country folk and dropped the idea.
Seeking permission from the public is a darn nuisance for the progressive society shapers. They are loving the current law by order situation.
I have family members who said Cardinal Pell may not have committed the sin but had to pay for those who did
Similar here.
A rotten standard of “justice’.
And a shout out the the judge (Mark Weinberg) in the trial that found him guilty who wrote the extremely well set out dissent.
IMHO it made the high courts decision a near certainty.
“And a shout out the the judge (Mark Weinberg) in the trial that found him guilty who wrote the extremely well set out dissent.
IMHO it made the high courts decision a near certainty.”
Yes.
Thank you very much to Lysander for this post and to those who have commented. I am pleased to have found the new Catallaxy site!
It has been very interesting to read Cardinal Pell’s Prison Journal, and the final weekly online download for Vol 3 arrived last week. He was so humble and grateful for small mercies in prison, and we learn about news he is given about his High Court appeal in March and his reactions to the screening of the 3 part ABC Revelations Program and then the High Court decision in April.
While I did not follow the Royal Commission at the time, when the redacted reports were released last year I read some of the witness statements and transcripts and could not understand how certain findings could be made based on the exhibits. Each victim’s narrative on the Royal Commission website includes: Disclaimer: This is the story of a person who spoke with a Commissioner during a private session of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. Real names of individuals have not been used, except of public figures in a public context. The information the person provided was not evidence, the person was not a witness, and did not need to take an oath or affirmation, although they were expected to tell the truth. Nothing in this story is a finding of the Royal Commission and any views expressed are those of the person, not of the Commissioners. The transcripts show that the witnesses just gave their statement, were thanked and then left. When the redacted reports were released, the complainant’s lawyer in the Pell case commented on ABC radio that the Royal Commission findings would assist civil claims to progress through the courts.
I always wondered about the group who held the signs and posters outside the Melbourne Courts in Cardinal Pell’s case. I think it was the same highly visible group who appeared in relation to Royal Commission matters and negotiations about the redress scheme – there are many photos online. And claims that have been made in relation to ‘sparking’ the Royal Commission – L Milligan has written about the work of police officer Kevin Carson in Ballarat, the journalist Joanne McCarthy writes about Julia Gillard’s visit to Newcastle in 2012 (McCarthy resigned a few days before the High Court decision) and MP Fiona Patten who co-founded the Eros Foundation (and appeared outside the Melb courts on numerous occasions as per her social media account) writes in her political memoir that in publishing 30,000 copies of her booklet Hypocrites in 2000, she believes she was the first public advocate to call for a Royal Commission into child sexual abuse in religious institutions.
In relation to the credibility and reliability of the complainant – I do not understand the evidence in the 12 March video on the High Court website for about 15 minutes from 2:55 in relation to where the complainant found the wine. Keith Windschuttle has written about this in his excellent book. If one looks at photos of the Priests’ Sacristy in the public domain, and listens to the full 42 minute Rome Police interview, there appears to be conflicting evidence as to whether the complainant found the wine in the storage kitchenette with sinks immediately to the left of the door (which was a wardrobe back in 1996 and then renovated in the 2000s) or in the alcove area in the corner of the room. I was quite surprised to see that 2 female prosecutors who worked on Cardinal Pell’s case were appointed as judges in March 2020 and August 2021 respectively.
Some very good points SydGal.
Much of what i wrote was a synthesis of my personal experience with what I read in Pell’s journals and Erasmus’ book. My major point is: If you don’t buy KW’s book, you’ll never truly know the fully corrupt devils that conspired against Pell. 🙂