An excellent article which deals with the facts.

I agree with Big Nana that recalling details of places, times and conversations from 40 years ago is not as simple as his detractors want us to believe, without ever demonstrating their own perfect recall, of course.

Rhrosty, with his intimate knowledge of the diagnosis of Pell's cardiologist, tell us blood pressure medication and an oxygen bottle were all that were required for Pell to take a long-haul flight back to Australia against the cardiologist's advice. The "court of public opinion" Rhrosty identifies with has a more accurate name: the lynch mob.

There are two types of bigotry which are bog-standard for the Left in Australia at present: anti-Catholicism and anti-Semitism.

The anti-Catholic bigotry has led to many of the inanities expressed in relation to Pell - that he should have taken a long-haul flight as though a commercial aircraft is fitted with an emergency medical centre, that his memory lapses were examples of deliberate evasion, that he "must have known" about Ridsdale and other perverts (when journalist and former priest Paul Bongiorno also admitted to being deceived by Ridsdale), that Pell's statements were "implausible" (which is an opinion of the counsel assisting, Gail Furness, not a fact), that he must have been aware of local gossip in a town 200 kilometres from where he lived (another unsubstantiated Furness assertion) and the numerous sly misrepresentations by journalists.

I'm an atheist, though I attended Catholic schools throughout my primary and secondary education. Not once in all those years was I aware of "rumour" or "gossip" or any innuendo about pedophile priests or brothers. Indeed, I remember most of my teachers as wonderful, dedicated men.

Finally, I hope I live long enough to witness the coming royal commission into female genital mutilation. There will surely be one, won't there? I want to hear from those who will have to admit to knowing about it, but doing nothing to stop it. After all, that's the (anhistorical) allegation made about Pell. Hat tip to Tim Blair of the Daily Telegraph on that one.

Suse, you are overlooking the fact that there is no evidence at all that he was ever told anything. And as he said himself, if he had heard any small rumours about such happenings he would have ignored them because like my husband, he couldn't believe any decent man could do a vile act like that.
You have also overlooked the fact that as soon as Pell was in a position of authority and he knew about this, he created the first ever church fund to compensate victims and provide counselling as well as reforming practises within the church to prevent these things happening in the future.
Quite frankly, as a parent, I would be asking myself how I missed the abuse, and if I knew about it, how could I live with myself knowing I hadn't gone to the police.

Sorry, you are not going to be able to whitewash George Pell. It would indeed be a massive coincidence if everyone in the Catholic Church was deceiving George Pell about the activities of pedophile priests. Given the level of knowledge that people throughout the Catholic Church in Victoria had about the activities of Gerald Ridsdale, it is inconceivable that George Pell knew nothing. After all Pell was enough of friend of Ridsdale to support him at his 1993 court hearing.

Even if we were to suspend belief for a while and accept that Pell was kept completely in the dark by everyone else in the Catholic Church, his failure to act when told by a victim of the activities of Edward Dowlan is damning enough. Pell's excuse that he wasn't asked to do anything demonstrates the deep flaw in his character. When you set yourself up as a moral leader you act when you see something that is morally wrong, regardless of whether any one asks you to.

Agronomist:

“When you set yourself up as a moral leader you act when you see something that is morally wrong, regardless of whether any one asks you to”

He might set himself up as a moral leader but he does not become a moral leader until he has some followers. If anyone is gullible enough to follow someone simply because he says he is a moral leader then they have some serious issues of maturity to address. Nobody needs a moral leader. We all have the responsibility to form our own moral values and not try and shift that responsibility onto someone else.

When you point out the failure of someone to take responsibility for not doing what they have no responsibility to do then you are trying to make them feel guilty for the responsibility of others. You are also saying that it is reasonable for someone to take up this responsibility on behalf of another which it is not. You cannot blame someone for not doing what they should not be doing in the first place.

He may have failed in his responsibility to protect children but he cannot fail as a moral leader unless people are naive enough to follow him.

I'm intrigued with the "transcript of the interview in which [Pell] terminated Searson"

That does not seem to have ever been mentioned before.

"He may have failed in his responsibility to protect children but he cannot fail as a moral leader unless people are naive enough to follow him."

George Pell is a former Archbishop of Melbourne, a former Archbishop of Sydney and a Cardinal of the Catholic Church. Of course he has people who follow him.

That is the whole point of the Church creating bishops, archbishops, etc. They are supposed to be leaders.

But in Pell it is more than that. He has appointed himself a moral arbiter in Australia over such matters as homosexuality, divorce, HIV/AIDS and embryonic stem cells.