There will be much more to be said in the weeks and months ahead about the rejection of Cardinal George Pell’s appeal of his conviction for “historic sexual abuse,” by the 2-1 vote of a three-judge panel of the Supreme Court of Victoria. For the moment, this astonishing, indeed incomprehensible, decision calls into the gravest doubt the quality of justice in Australia—and the possibility of any Catholic cleric charged with sexual abuse to receive a fair trial or a fair consideration of the probity of his trial.
In the live-streamed appellate court proceedings on the morning of August 21 (Melbourne time), Victoria Supreme Court chief justice Anne Ferguson, reading the decision, made persistent reference to “the whole of the evidence.” But there has never been any “evidence” that Cardinal Pell did what he was alleged to have done. There was only the word of the complainant, and there was absolutely no corroboration of his charges—which, in the months since the cardinal’s trials, have been shown to be alarmingly similar to a fake set of charges leveled against a priest in a story published years ago in Rolling Stone.
Judge Ferguson also referred to the “uncertain memory” of the “opportunity witnesses” who testified on the cardinal’s behalf, to the effect that the acts of sexual abuse alleged to have been committed simply could not have happened given the circumstances of a cathedral full of people, the brief time frame of the alleged acts, and the cardinal’s vesture. But what, one must ask, about the potentially “uncertain” memory of the complainant? Why is it simply assumed, on the basis of his videotaped testimony, that the complainant has a clear memory of what he alleged to have happened—especially when the entire scenario of the alleged abuse is implausible in the extreme?
– from an Aug. 21 op-ed by George Weigel in First Things
This is persecution not justice.
These comments sound very similar to what I recall from earlier rounds of the judicial process.
People don’t have uncertain memory when they are molested. They are quite certain. It’s indellible memory. To say that sworn testimony isn’t any evidence at all shows how poorly Weigel understands what evidence is.
Anonymous,
Clearly, sworn testimony is evidence. The question is whether it’s credible evidence. If the evidence is perjured, Pell will have difficulty refuting it because he wasn’t there. Therefore, his case is to show that the allegations aren’t credible by showing that it’s difficult to molest in public.
I don’t think the allegation is that Pell molested in public. I thought the alleged molestation took place in the sacristy. There are multiple accusations spanning several decades.
Anonymous,
Yes, but a sacristy in a Cathedral before Mass is a busy place – it is public. It’s not a place where a cleric can disrobe and engage in secret behavior unless he wants to get caught and go to prison.
Um, I think he is in prison.
I am so torn by this case. On the one hand, just because Pell is a high-ranking conservative prelate (I lean to the orthodox side) does not mean he is ipso facto incapable of these crimes. On the other hand, it was so long ago and the witnesses against him were not convincing to many observers. But they were convincing to a unanimous jury and two out of three appellate judges. It would be horrible if Australian justice has railroaded an innocent man. What heartbreaking suffering. The whole thing has a whiff of implausibility, possibly even of a vendetta by Vatican enemies pulling strings to get even with a man who was cleaning the Church’s financial house while steadfastly defending Church doctrine. I certainly have enough doubt to have voted for acquittal, but I wasn’t on the jury with benefit of hearing all the evidence. All we can do is ask Our Lord to ensure that justice prevails.
I well know the history of the Ballarat charges. If they had been adjudicated properly they would have sunk him.
I have read the horrible news stories, in the “Washington Post” (6-29-2017) and Australian news sources, all about Pell’s alleged cover-ups of the worst pedophila and child beating cases in Australia, by many priests and nuns– when Pell served as episcopal vicar for education in Ballarat, from 1973-1984. Also, there were horrific TV news stories! His housemate, a priest named Gerald Ridsdale, (whom Pell supported) was defrocked and sent to prison.These stories are too horrible!
During Pell’s tenure as Episcopal Vicar for Education in Ballarat (1973-1974)– at least 12 children who were sexually abused in a fourth grade class, later committed suicide. Something is terribly wrong with the Church, in Australia!
Anon….If the so-called evidence is anything like what happened in this case I am suspicious. Actually the first trial acquitted him. But no they couldn’t let it go. There was no credible substantial evidence except one person (the other one recanted I believe) And you must remember that the liberal media including the Washington Post and the Australian press had it in for Pell since the beginning because of his strong stance against abortion and homosexuality.
Ronnie, no one knows, for sure. But I don’t like the facts regarding Ballarat. And Pell’s housemate, Ridsdale — who was sent to jail for horrific crimes– why did Pell support him?? Why did he cover-up Ridsdale’s crimes? Why did at least 12 clergy sex abuse Catholic school kids kill themselves?? And many other scary things– why?? What was this Vicar for Education doing?? We don’t know.
Where are you getting your information? The fake news. I have read nothing on this but this is a separate case which of course, must be investigated. But this trial and conviction where the Australian media and government had it out for Pell was suspicious and I believe he will eventually be will be exonerated whether in this life or the next. Again I’ll reiterate that the media hated Pell because of his strong moral views. And also why did he go back to Australia voluntarily for this trial?
Ronnie, the crimes in Ballarat are not “fake news.”. You can read some of the facts as I cited above– in the “Washington Post” 6-29-2017. You can also read the same facts, in many Catholic and secular Australian news sources. Pell’s housemate, Gerald Ridsdale (whom Pell supported!) was sent to prison for many terrible crimes! Not related to Pell’s current trial– but very scary!
Ronnie, the terrible crimes of Ballarat are not “fake news.” They are not related to Pell’s current case– but that situation is too horrible! I think the Catholic Church has done a terrible job, with sex abuse crimes, worldwide! You can read the article I cited above, from the “Washington Post” (6-29-2017)— or Australian Catholic news stories,
None of us really know if Cardinal Pell is guilty. In my secular profession as an arson investigator, I’m involved in some criminal investigations. If there really is no evidence and only the testimony of one person, that would be unusual, at least in our justice system, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime had been committed. It’s a classic case of he said, she said or maybe he said, he said. Catholic clergy have been wrongly accused and even wrongly convicted in the past. Let us pray and work for justice for all persons.
Deacon, sworn testimony IS evidence. I don’t know Australian law, but I can’t for the life of me tell why people who should know better claim that there is no evidence. If you are an investigator, as you claim to be, and you render your opinion under oath, that IS evidence. Did you witness the crime? No. You used your professional expertise to speak about the situations about the fire under investigation. YOU provided evidence, didn’t you? Why do you claim that the victim – an eyewitness to the crime – is not providing evidence? Eyewitness testimony is the best kind of evidence, isn’t it?
I should have stated “physical evidence” to be clear(er). (Witness statements and physical evidence are usually seen, and reported, differently.) And, yes, I am an investigator ( as I “claim to be”) and have testified under oath. There are, apparently, contradictory testimonies of witnesses in this case, only one of whom claims the cardinal committed the crime he is accused of in this case. (He cannot be convicted in this case for crimes he may or may not have committed related to what happened in Ballarat. It would be a grave miscarriage of justice to convict someone of a crime he did not commit because we think he “got away with” another crime for which he was not punished.) And, no, eyewitness testimony is not necessarily the best kind of evidence. I (and others) regularly hear witnesses of the same event describe it with significant differences. Again, I want justice and am not defending the Cardinal. But, the uncorroborated testimony of one witness does not necessarily make that testimony true.
Jail will be Pell’s Purgatory. May his crown in heaven be great.
The New York Post ran an opinion piece on this. It’s at https://nypost.com/2019/08/22/catholic-haters-have-just-convicted-an-innocent-cardinal/ if you’re interested.
Thats an opinion piece. An opinion of a person who did not attend the trial. A trial in which unanimous fact finders who DID hear the evidence found him guilty, and appellate judges upheld the finding. Maybe only God knows the truth, but for those who want to make excuses for clerics found guilty of child abuse, God knows that truth too.
I would NEVER make excuses for a clergyman guilty of child abuse. Yet, do you want to make excuses for those who have wrongly convicted, or “found guilty” as you said, innocent priests? That has happened. And, that, too, is a tragedy. The justice system is not perfect.
What collaborating evidence was there? Again remember the first trial he was acquitted. One accuser with no one confirming the incident and almost impossible to have taken place. But when one has the whole country against you for your commitment to the teachings of the Church I guess what can you expect.
Even if Pell is innocent– I cannot trust the Church anymore! One must be very careful! How can you tell the good clerics from the bad?? Many clergy sex abuse crimes were repeatedly committed in public places, with people nearby– church rectories, sacristies, confessionals, seminaries, schools, gyms, pools, beach houses– etc. — and in a child’s home, with family close by! These criminals are very strong, deviant, fast, and smart– they don’t seek sex– they surprise and terrorize their poor victims, and seek evil ego and power over them, with sick, degrading sex acts! Wish the Pope would really CARE!!