Cardinal George Pell will appeal his conviction to the Australian High Court, following the decision last week by the Court of Appeal in Victoria to uphold his conviction for child sexual abuse.
Sources close to the cardinal told CNA Aug. 26 that Pell would be exercising his final appeal and that, while the majority of “special leave to appeal” cases were not granted by the High Court, his case would likely be accepted given the controversy triggered by the split decision of the Appeal Court judgement.
In seeking to take his case to the High Court in Canberra, Australia’s supreme court, Pell will be exercising his last legal avenue to overturn a conviction which has divided opinion in the country and internationally.
Several Australian media outlets have reported that Pell will retain the same legal team which presented his case in Victoria, led by Brett Walker SC.
The cardinal was convicted Dec. 11, 2018, on five charges that he sexually abused two choristers after Sunday Mass while he was Archbishop of Melbourne in 1996 and 1997.
He was sentenced to six years in prison, of which he must serve at least three years and eight months before being eligible to apply for parole.
Full story at Catholic News Agency.
The Cardinal is entitled to the full measure of appeals under the secular Australian court system. Have cannonical procedures started to possible remove Pell from the clerical state?
IF Cardinal Pell is guilty, why “laicize” him? That is insulting to the lay faithful. One leading lay Catholic pointed that out in the case of McCarrick. Bad clergy are bad clergy and they’ll still be clergy even if they end in hell. As Saint John Chrysostom, who must’ve had some bad priests in his diocese, pointed out, “The floor of hell is carpeted with the skulls of priests.” Of course, guilty clergy should not be permitted to serve as clergy, yet, do you really want the hierarchy to “defrock” bad bishops and priests and dump them on the majority of the Church, the laity? After one is caught, should the bishops say, “he is one of you now!”?
If guilty then yes he should be laicized. Priestly vows are a choice, a calling, a vocation – a sacrifice. They are established and written by Christ. If they can’t be held to then yes they should be “defrocked.”
We certainly do not need any more corrupt, fraudulent churches, to betray Christ, and severely harm good, sincere church-goers and their families! And the clergy has a responsibility to God, to lead very holy lives– and serve God and His people in the highest and holiest way possible– and lead them to Heaven! Those who are evil and Satanic need to be defrocked ASAP and punished!!
Anon….Did you know that he was unanimously acquitted the first time? And that it was impossible to have occurred in a public place at the time where many people were? Also that he was “hated” by the Australian press and media because of his strong opposition to homosexuality and abortion? And that the trial was done in secret? Remember what the liberals use to say…Let him without sin cast the first stone…
Let us pray that justice prevails.
The only way to win this type of case was to have Cardinal Pell take the stand in both jury trials and, while looking directly at the Jury, personally, forcefully, directly, deny each and every allegation and detail of the accuser’s testimony. During his testimony, Pell should have described in detail what he did during the time the alleged incidents occurred. That is the only way to win this type of case. Please do not tell me that it is the Prosecution’s burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; and do not answer by telling me that the JURY is instructed by the Trial Judge and the Defense Attorney that absence of Pell’s testimony should not be inferred to mean that he his guilty. Juries do not listen to that instruction. They want to hear from the Defendant on each and every detail. Simply pleading “Not Guilty” is not enough. In this type of case, I do not know of one Defendant who refused to take the stand and testify with a strong denial of all the details. Please do not tell me that Pell’s attorney were afraid of Pell’s cross examination .
what about oj simpson?
To Anonymous: “I am writing about Pell and not about Simpson.”
Anonymous has a very good point. If Pell is guilty, why insult observant laity by ‘reducing’ him to that state. Almost sounds like a caste system. Why not simply assign him to some sort of ‘non state’ as not a part of any of the other states.
why not