I thought Yuyutsu might be interested in - perhaps dismayed by - this revelation by Cardinal Pell to the Victorian Parliament in 2013. He was repeating what he told a Catholic gathering in Cork, Ireland:

"I was also summoned by the Premier at the time [Jeff Kennett] who made it clear that if we did not clean the church up, then he would, and so we made a determined effort to do so. Incidentally, the Premier was a deeply irreligious man… So we did clean it up; we set up an independent commission, we set up a panel to provide counselling and a system to pay compensation — and please God the worst of it is behind us. (Parliament of Victoria, Family and Community Development Committee, Transcript, 27/5/2013)

Of course, the motivation was wrong-headed so the"cleaning up" didn't work.

Yuyutsu "Cardinal Pell is not accused of personally molesting children, not even of liking or supporting that behaviour, not even of not trying to prevent it (in his own way, regardless how successful or otherwise he was) - but of not bowing down to the dictates of the state to involuntarily act as their policeman in betraying his friends and colleagues."

Are you for real?
Do you really think that Pell's actions in not reporting his alleged knowledge of sexual abuse of children by his paedophile mates and colleagues was justified because your dreaded 'state' has laws that say we must report such crimes?

You can't be saying that his alleged non-action in reporting these criminals, which led to them being shuffled on to other parishes and other victims, was justified?

These victims were children. They have all without doubt gone on to suffer a lifetime of mental health problems because supposedly trusted churchy leaders had sex with them as children. How is that ok that these paedophiles got away with it for so long?
That is simply dreadful!

Amanda Vanstone is a disgrace as both a woman and a politician.
Moral support for someone without morals himself. Pell needs to man up and face his accusers.

Dear Frank,

Yes, I am dismayed at the necessity for Pell's walk to Canossa.

Why did he have to visit his enemy, the premier, in the first place?
Why should he now again bow to a secular authority?

Understandably, one would not be overly-motivated to work and do a good job under the dictates and threats of a tyrant - just imagine you were ordered to build Pharaoh's pyramids... or even just work-for-the-dole... how more so when ordered to act and betray your friends and brothers-in-Christ against your conscience!

A Bedouin would give their life to protect even an anonymous guest who has come under their shelter, including from authorities - I would not expect less from a clergyman.

---

Dear Suse,

Essentially my answer to you is contained in my response to Frank.

Some cases of child-abuse were prevented - them we will never know about, others were not - which we know of. Tragically it is more difficult to try and help the children without betraying your colleagues to secular authorities. Had they not been in the way, Pell would have had more options - who knows, perhaps chopping off the offenders' balls? well perhaps he even so did, but this he won't tell, nor the ones who lost them, so we will never know, nor need we: the safety of children is one thing - satisfying your curiosity and secular concept of justice are another.

No Yuyutsu, safety of children comes before secular, religious or any other concern...especially any really misguided notion that you should protect others from from the law even if there is a possibility they may be active paedophiles.

In fact, that is a quite disturbing notion.

Dear Suse,

<<safety of children comes before secular, religious or any other concern...>>

I hope that you are awake right now, if you have children: their safety comes before your concern to get a sleep, or use the toilet, so you should be constantly watching them to ensure that their safety is not compromised. In fact, both parents should be watching in case one accidentally falls asleep. In fact, the neighbours too must be made to watch them and when you take them to school there must be a convoy of cars ahead and behind the car they are driven in to prevent any accident and their own car must of course have a 30-metre-thick concrete roof to prevent a meteorite falling on them. They should be attended by a team of surgeons constantly on standby and obviously they should never be allowed to swim, play in the street, ride a bicycle or have access to nylon bags or batteries (which could be swollen). You may not have electricity at home because they could get electrocuted and you must taste every bit of food before it goes into their mouth. There should be no garden around the house since it may invite snakes and spiders. Actually, there should be constant patrols outside your home, with strong flash-lights at night to guard against any such dangerous creatures entering. No germs of course - your home where your children live should be equipped with the most sterile and full-proof air-filter so they can't come in. Finally, your children should never be allowed to grow: being and adult is dangerous and always ends in death!

If you have the misguided notion that you can demand others to serve you as involuntary policemen, then it follows that you can also demand them to serve you in any other role you like, be is as babysitters, cooks, gardeners, cleaners, doctors, engineers or those who build this 30-metre-thick concrete roof on your car.

You of course do not owe them anything because you are the state, or as Napoleon Bonaparte coined it, "the state is I!".

Yuyutsu
What images have you you got on you pc? Tell the cops to %$&^ off?