This sort of thing was probably always going to surface in the media just before Pope Benedict XVI came to Sydney for World Youth Day, but I’m sure Cardinal Pell is annoyed that he’s been accused of lying to a victim of clerical sexual abuse in order to protect a priest who was later convicted. He might also be annoyed that there are documents obtained through legal action and given to Lateline which make a pretty convincing case that the allegations may have merit. When he was Archbishop of Melbourne, Pell was accused of offering victims hush money not to speak out (an accusation he denied), something that is now expressly prohibited by the Catholic Church’s protocol - Towards Healing - on dealing with clergy abuse victims. Broken Rites, a support and advocacy group, has criticised the Church’s protocols. It’s noteworthy here that the Archdiocese of Melbourne has a separate set of protocols, a legacy from the time when Dr Pell was Archbishop and his opposition (alone among all the Catholic Church’s Australian bishops) to the national standards regulating church responses.
It seems unlikely on past form that George Pell, who denies having inspired the “annoyance” regulations for World Youth Day, which have caused so much justified complaint, will apologise to the person he’s alleged to have wronged, despite expectations that the Pope will use the occasion of his visit to Australia to offer an apology similar to the one he offered on his recent trip to the United States. But, then, miracles do happen?
Given both Rudd and Nelson felt the need to publicly condemn the innocent art monthly pic, i should expect both of them to publicly condemn George Pell tomorrow over this.
same goes for devine, bolt, ackerman and hetty who somehow i dont see them getting themselves as worked up over this as they did for Bill Henson.
My sentiments exactly, cosmic jester.
Mark seemed a little equivocal about Lateline’s scoop; the thing turns on a letter from Pell to a victim saying the case against a priest could not be continued for lack of evidence, when on the same day Pell was writing a letter on another sex case involving exactly the same priest, to someone else who also had a complaint.
This is devastating stuff, and so evocative of the Hollingworth scandal of a few years ago. And Pell has refused to give his side to Lateline and SMH, also.
T-shirts referring to sanctimonious humbuggery, any one?
Wonder what Miranda will write on this one, given her such intense interest in “morals” issues, just lately?
No matter what elaborate protocols are introduced and what apologies are made it will not satisfy those with only malign feelings for the Catholic church. They will never be satisfied. Their demands - large amounts of money being the most important - are endless. Pell knows this. The Catholic church contributes to our society in so many positive and effective ways. It’s a pity that those positive contributions cannot be acknowledged.
Well, Maxie, I’m an ex - very ex-Catholic - who was an altar boy for four years,and I can tell you these stories are true. Granted, the abuse is only carried out by a small minority of priests, but that small minority have caused an immense amount of damage.
Generally, I get on very well with Catholics and Catholic priests, and in my former life as a welfare/education officer did a lot of work with them in the past and feel no animosity to the Catholic Church. I don’t like George Pell. I won’t give my reasons, as I’ve never met the man.
There are certain types of Catholics, few and far between, who are the epitome of authoritarianism and intolerance, especially if you breach their absurd Church laws on sexual conduct, marriage and the like. These type of Catholics do a grave disservice to the vast majority of tighes who are generous, tolerant, kind, understanding and exemplars of Xtan charity.Its a pity we have the former. Personally, as I’ve said before, both the Pope and Church doctrine are irrelevant to me.
Nevertheless, as a democratic socialist I uphold the principles of freedom of religion and freedom from religion, depending upon one’s individual inclination.
[But, then, miracles do happen?}
The Miracle of the Masked & Sealed Apology:
Fri July 4;(check date is correct)
http://news.yahoo.com/edcartoons/edstein;_ylt=AoTNDjgLTDzUX_QJM0fwuRMDwLAF
So the Cardinal’s bald-faced lying was merely to mitigate the Church’s financial exposure against these greedy heathens? Well, I suppose in that case…
I thought we had new laws that said “you can’t annoy catholics”?
Now if the law was balanced we could get Pell arrested for annoying you. Actually when I think about it, I could get Pell arrested for a lot of the crap he comes out with, it definitely annoys me.
hehehe - I wonder how many more “annoyances” we can tally before WYD? Actually, does the Lateline story count as one annoyance or, because it was broadcast nationally, millions? Also, does the rail union threat of strike action on WYD equate to one annoyance or 162,000 of them? Maybe this legislation was just cooked up by Iemma after all as a revenue raiser for NSW so they can avoid having to sell off the power stations?
But poor George … he must be having kittens at the moment. Let’s hope the birth is long and painful…
Anglicans are worse.
Well according to Iemma, its not an annoyance but industrial terror.
Dunno where you get the idea that Mark’s equivocal, paul walter:
“badly worded and a mistake”
This is Pell still in denial.
Not a smart move to make when you have been so clearly ‘caught out’ red handed. The two letters from the same day, as evidence, just cannot be run away from. If he had of been immediately honest instead of tricky he might have weathered this growing storm.
My bet is he will disappear to a job in Rome earlier than expected.
Tip of a very very large iceberg.
I don’t know what 18 million divided by 5,500 oe whatever the fine is,is, but that’s how many demonstrators you’d have to bust to cover the cost of the Popefest.
Shorter Pell in the privacy of the confessional: “a deliberate lie and a sin”
Pell’s claim to moral authority has evaporated like a snowflake on a hot summer’s day.
In other news, the NSW government plans to use WorkChoices to stop the rail strike:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/well-use-workchoices/2008/07/08/1215282785711.html
If we give Pell the benefit of the doubt and assume it was a mistake, what a mistake! Telling a victim of sexual abuse that you can’t substantiate his claims because the are no other reports of abuse by this person, when in fact there are. A letter like that would be crushing and for someone in authority like Pell to sign and send it without checking it and reading the report it’s based on is disgraceful even if it was just a mistake and nothing more sinister.
Saying it was badly worded doesn’t cut it.
Cardinal Pell offered to meet the victim in this particular case but was rebuffed. Why ? Because public humiliation of the institution and its representatives is needed again and yet again. A private meeting would not fulfil that aim. The Church in Australia is truly blessed to have such a steadfast and clear-minded pastor: he does not and should not seek to please those who wish only to weaken and deride.
Meanwhile, over in W.A. :
“Catholic Archbishop Barry Hickey, who has denied receiving any sexual misconduct complaints about the leaders of the Church-backed Bethel Covenant Community until last year, was handed written details of sexual harassment as early as 2000.
The West Australian has obtained a copy of a report signed by former members of the religious movement in August 2000, which outlined allegations of how the community’s leader Kevin Horgan asked female members their favourite sexual positions and urged one to remove her underwear…. The 13-page report, together with a request for a full-blown investigation, was handed directly to Archbishop Hickey during a meeting with a delegation of long-term Bethel members, who had decided to leave the community in disgust. Two of the report’s authors were former priests, while others included a teacher and a psychiatrist. The West Australian has interviewed three of the authors. … But in response to a series of questions from The West Australian on May 23 this year, asking what and when the Catholic Archdiocese of Perth knew about the Bethel scandal, the Archbishop denied having any knowledge of sexual misconduct allegations until 2007…”
(The West Australian, 6 July 2008)
Yeah Maxie, it’s such a shame the church never gets acknowledged. I mean, sure, we give them tax free status, an automatic public soapbox to express their opinion on any social issue despite the fact that only a minority are actually catholics,a lucrative industry educating our children, we’ll even rearrange our cities and write new laws for their massive cult day, but these things are so trifling. If only we could let them know how good they are really!!! If only!!!!!!
Maxie,
weaken and divide? Isn’t that the purpose of the Popefest? To stop the weaken and divide and make the Church whole again.
A couple of points _
1. It is a mortal sin for priests to break their vows of celibacy.
2.It is mortal sin for priests to abuse their duty of pastoral care by abusing and seducing their parishioners.
3.It is a mortal sin for priests to use confidences made on confession to gain esxual favours from those in their pastoral care.
4.It is a mortal sin of omission for bishops to fail to act when these abuses are brought to their attention.
As a welfare officer I had to deal with the results of serveral cases of sexual abuse (not church related) and I know the victims of such sexual abuse do not make such claims lightly.
The Church is wrong, wrong, and sinful in the eyes of God (if I have my Catholic theology right) when it ignores, does nothing or covers up priestly sins of abuse.
Wake up to yourself!
“Cardinal Pell offered to meet the victim in this particular case but was rebuffed. Why ?”
Gee, wouldn’t have anything to do with the fact that Pell was denying he was the victim of an abuser priest? What does the victim have to gain by meeting with someone who refuses to admit he IS a victim?
Perhaps you can explain why he should have met Pell? To get absolution for the ’sin’ of accusing a priest of unpriestly and criminal acts perhaps?
Isnt it curious that the Daily Telegraph are sponsoring world catholic youth day and the news ltd sites have buried this story away from their main page after they all went batshit crazy at the art monthly story just yesterday?
“Cardinal Pell offered to meet the victim in this particular case but was rebuffed. Why ?”
Wouldn’t it have made more sense for Pell to have admitted his mistake, apologised for making it then offered the victim whatever restitution/ compensation the Catholic Church had going for victims of abuse at the time the victim had made his claim.
If he had done that then it would have made sense for Pell to to meet the victim so that he could honestly convey to the victim that the apology for the abuse the victim had suffered and for Pell’s mistake about it was sincere and heart-felt.
Otherwise he’d just have been wasting the victim’s time and effectively just heaping more abuse upon someone who was already twice-abused.
If Catholic priests were allowed to marry, they wouldn’t have to abuse kids to get their jollies.
“If Catholic priests were allowed to marry, they wouldn’t have to abuse kids to get their jollies.”
Really? I wasn’t aware that abuse within churches was confined to the catholic church. In fact I could have sworn Hollingsworth was anglican.
I never said sexual abuse was confined to Catholic clergy, but their celibacy rule is definitely a contributing factor for the higher incidence of abuse.
“but their celibacy rule is definitely a contributing factor for the higher incidence of abuse”
Does any evidence of such a link exist?
I heard Archbishop Pell this afternoon, interviewed on “The World Today” (ABC radio). He sounded contrite. He explained his misunderstanding of the term “aggravated assaault”. It sounded like an apology.
cheerio
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/abuse/abuse05.htm
Happy now? I can dig up more quotes if you want.
“Happy now? I can dig up more quotes if you want.”
Yes thank you. No need to get snippy if someone asks for more information after your make generalisations as above that are open to misinterpretation.
http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:RNzn51rfar8J:www.rentapriest.com/web/pdf/CLERGY_SEXUAL_ABUSE.pdf+celibacy+sexual+abuse&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=au
joe2 at 12: “My bet is he will disappear to a job in Rome earlier than expected.”
Vatican Gazette—–Situations Vacant:
Senior prelate required to assist with global PR drive in media obsfucation regarding sexual abuse by priests of innocents under their duty of care.
Applications to Bernard Thomas Cardinal Law, C/- The Institute of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore, Rome, Italy.
Maxie@18. In that same letter, Cardinal Pell said that it could not be determined whether what Mr Jones had experienced was assault or “homosexual behaviour between consenting adults”. To someone who has been sexually assaulted that degree of disbelief and dismissal is not merely insulting, it constitutes a revictimization. Mr Jones did the right thing by refusing to meet Cardinal Pell; he chose to protect himself from further harm.
Su, there were two assaults. One occurred in a public swimming pool and involved groping his (Jones’) genitals. The second took place in a bedroom a few hours later. One wonders how it was Mr Jones found himself in such a situation after the incident in the swimming pool i.e. both alone, wearing nothing but towels. A certain amount of consent had to have been given for them to get to that point.
Something not mentioned in the Lateline report was that when Pell responded in his letter that there were no other allegations against the priest, he meant there were no other allegations of rape. Tony Jones did not mention this. Why not ? The ABC has for years run an agenda aagainst Pell particularly and against the Catholic church more generally. Its reports on such matters cannot be trusted. Pell should sue. He would amost certainly win. That’s why we have laws against malicious slander in this country. Religious bigotry - especially of the anti-Catholic variety - has long been a potent force in Australian history. That’s why we need laws so that normal people can do normal things like attending WYDs without being hindered and assaulted by bigots.
Does this also include the individual(s) Pell lied to more than once.
Katz: as Archbishop Pell explained today his mistake was to confuse ‘aggravated sexual assault’ with ‘rape’. He has acknowledged his mistake. I don’t think a reasonable person could call that lying.
It seems that in George Pell it also has a pastor who does not take Christ’s admonition in Matthew 18.6 and Luke 17.2, http://bible.cc/matthew/18-6.htm and therefore his duty as a pastor to live by and uphold the Gospel, too seriously.
I find your poor excuse for arguments exceedingly annoying maxine.
This absolutely wrong. I found Mr Jones’ description of the second assault to be entirely credible. I have heard similar accounts many times. It is by no means uncommon for victims of assault to ‘freeze’ and make no attempt to fend off the perpetrator. The trauma of assault can activate defensive mechanisms which result in the freeze response. When someone abuses your trust in this fashion it can also take some time to process exactly what has happened and to accept the evidence of one’s senses.
Adrian - equally annoying is your inability to get my name right.
Su- and the time lapse between the first assault and the second ? Plenty of time to unfreeze there. At the time of the assault Mr Jones was 29 years old ! The judge imposed a sentence of four seconds. Why ? Because even consensual sex between two men in 1982 was illegal. He had to but he knew this was no case of aggravated assault. Given the judge’s token sentence Archbishop Pell’s actions seem reasonable.
False accusations of sexual assault occur. Archbishop Pell was the subject of one. Nobody apologised for this attempt to smear a courageous, decent man.
Mark did you pick that picture ’cause it looks slightly Hensonesque?
Didn’t occur to me, Adrien!
But this was not one such; the church investigation and the courts (as you yourself acknowledge)found it to be a substantiated/true accusation.
Pell was the subject of an unsubstantiated not a false allegation, there is an important difference. There was no finding as to whether or not an assault had occurred, only that Pell himself was not proven to be the perpetrator. In fact the complainant was described thusly “I accept as correct the submission of Mr. Tovey that the complainant, when giving evidence of molesting, gave the impression that he was speaking honestly from an actual recollection.”
Maxie re:
Aggravated sexual assault IS “rape” with aggravating circumstances, for example use of or threat to use a weapon to force compliance.
He’s drawing a distinction which doesn’t make sense, more likely he’s digging himself a bigger hole.
What I think he’s now confused about (or possibly meant to explain)is his confusion between attempted sexual assault and rape, and within that he’s possibly confused with the difference between “attempted sexual assault” ie rape and “indecent assault.”
In other words, notwithstanding archaic Victorian legislation and definitions (and no ‘point in time’ legislation at Austlii) [compared BTW to the Superior First State :-)]his explanations raise more questions than they answer.
Rape and sexual assault are now synonymous in meaning, but whereas rape was a term used more commonly in the past in relation to a “sexual assault” against women and girls, the terminology changed with changing mores (and decriminalisation of homosexuality) to encompass male gay “rape”. The definition now in NSW requires penetration without consent, (with or without a penis BTW) of a vagina or anus.
There is also indecent assault, (and aggravated) ie without penetration, and there is assault with attempt to have sexual intercourse, again without penetration.
Essentially as I read the media, ie SMH
He apparently, meant to say “rape” instead of “sex abuse” (how convenient, reminds me of Mr Howard and core promises that does) but then launches into an explanation of his confusion between “aggravated sexual assault” and “rape” when the real issue always was, at the lowest level of sexual offences, indecent assault.
Confusing?–Indeed. Dissembling? I think so.
Anybody with a link to transcripts of everything Pell said?
Mark and Adrien at 44 and 43: please, we do NOT need photos of nekkid prelates, however artistic the intentions might be
maxie, sadly, you just do not ‘get it’ and look to be in a state of blind faith about your master and his doings.
This is about the predatory use of a position of power and respect against someone who had neither. And that includes what seems to be your archbishops’ attempts to deny his part in it, now.
Joe - c’mon the victim here was a 29 year old man, healthy , fit intelligent. He wasn’t a defenceless woman or a child. The magistrate in the case found his story unconvincing hence the perfunctory sentence. It was consensual, followed by regret, guilt, shame morphing into injured dignity which seeks compensation - $3.5 million to be exact.
Peter Kemp - try this link http://www.sydney.catholic.org.au/Archbishop/Addresses/200878_754.shtml
Yeah,Maxie,
Its always the victim’s fault. And because he was 29 he couldn’t be a victim. Or is it only the victim’s fault when the sexual aggressor is a priest?
What rot!
Don’t you ever wonder why many people leave and never come back to the Church? It’s not just because Mass is boring!
Wait, so a 29 year old man can be victimised and that’s okay, because he’s 29 years old, male, healthy, etc etc, so he should’ve been able to defend himself, but a 2000 year old religious institution, largely run by men (since we’re assuming men are inherently more powerful), with over a billion members around the world and worth (in 2001) $422 billion is being ‘victimised’ by teh evyl ABC and we should all run around upset because it can’t defend itself? I mean, really?
Maxie @ 50,
I also believe Zimbabwean Government backed newspapers that tell me Robert Mugabe runs free and fair elections.
As to the ABC being anti-Catholic. What a load of garbage. Thry certainly weren’t 30 years ago when I had dealings with them. And if they’re anti-Catholic, how come their premier religious TV show, Compass, is run by that prominent lay Catholic, Geraldine Doogue?
Maxie is likely to have run out of puff with the silly fair game argument given last nights Lateline revelation that the priest in question had allegations against him by an eleven year alter boy and a sixteen year old girl, amongst others.
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/
The archbishop new all about this blokes history and yet could not concede, at the time, that his charge may have been predatory in behaviour towards a church member.
Rather than cop it on the chin, Pell is now making matters far worse for himself and, more importantly, victims of this sadly far too common form of abuse.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/08/2297699.htm
Pell’s construction of these two letters cannot be an honest mistake.
Pell is deliberately equivocating and hedging his statements with mental reservations.
Bill Clinton pull the same stunt when he claimed that he “did not have sex” with Monica Lewinski.
Clinton was lying, of course. But his lies covered up an act that was victimless.
Pell’s lie covered up the culpability of a man (Goodall) who monstered an altar boy!
One can only guess at Pell’s motivations for doing such a despicable thing. A likely reason is that Pell was trying to stick his finger in the dyke to prevent a flood of expensive and damaging litigation.
Tried to open Cardinal Pell page in the tellegraph but it failed to open what a supprise .Cardinal Pell is a very good freind of J Howard he also is very good at lying. Think of the millions we the tax payers have given through J Howard to this lying crook.
OT but when I saw the picture accompanying this story about WYD, I broke down in laughter when I imagined Father Jack Hackett stumbling onto the scene.
Shaun - nothing like a really bountiful “nuns photo”, eh? That’ll have some men of the cloth slavering……
And the lovely lady was on talk back, this morning, attacking the ABC for running a campaign against the Catholic Church, just before the popes arrival. Then George Pell turns up, after midday, giving advice about the brutal dictatator Mugabe, as if nothing has happened over the last few days.
The archbishop prayed this would go away and it looks like his prayers have been answered.
Which lovely lady are you referring to, joe?
I did not catch her name adrian.
At a guess, “Mary”.
Pell mell
Pall mall
Is Pell palling? Does Pell (hide) malling?
Mugabe: he bad. Look, look over there!! A Dick Tater!
A drop of blood has been squeezed from a stone … in W.A. archbishop Hickey has, sort of, just apologised :
“My act of asking forgiveness from the people that I’ve let down by not doing enough for them is something that my faith obliges me to do. “
Sort of sort of, anyway.
“I don’t really want to do it, but my faith obliges me. And anyway I wasn’t trying to protect anyone, there was just lots of work to do, and the allegations of sexual abuse just slipped off the radar.”
You might want to think about getting a new radar, dude. One where sexual predator priests show up as a big fucking red ‘X’.
It’s more important that everyone be on the lookout for evil Dennis Ferguson types, gotta keep our hysteria in perspective.
Dennis = sub-human monster paedophile, worst of the worst, and vile. Catholic church = good and pure protector and safe harbourer of paedophiles and sexual offenders. Remains good and moral.
I know, why doesn’t the church take in Dennis, no-one else will have him near them. Win/win. Dennis may even become a priest in time!
Yes, there was an old tradition of giving sanctuary to those fleeing persecution, innit?
No, not a priest. Give him a desk job. Ohhhhh, c’mon, don’t be horrid!
I mean a clerical job. Ohhhhh, dear! You just don’t stop, do youse??!!
I mean an administrative employment position where he is locked in a room, 9am to 5pm, has only a phone (no outgoing calls; no internet access), sees no-one.
Ummmm, sounds a bit like jail.