May His Eminence’s incarceration not be overly stretched.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/cardinal-george-pell-found-guilty-of-child-sex-abuse-20181214-p50m86.html

.

Dear plantagenet,

.

You wrote :

« May His Eminence’s incarceration not be overly stretched »
.

His Eminence, Cardinal George Pell, was found guilty by a popular jury of 12 (4 women and 8 men) on five counts of sexual abuse of two 13-year-old choir boys in the sacristy of the Melbourne cathedral while still wearing his purple robes in 1996. He had just celebrated the Sunday solemn mass in the cathedral in which he had been inaugurated archbishop a few months earlier.

One of the boys survived to testify before the court. The other boy died in 2014 from a heroin overdose.
.

Pell’s statement through his solicitor :

« Cardinal George Pell has always maintained his innocence and continues to do so. An appeal has been lodged against his conviction and he will await the outcome of the appeal process.

Although originally the Cardinal faced allegations from a number of complainants, all charges except for those the subject of the appeal have now been either withdrawn, discharged or discontinued. He will not be commenting in the meantime »
.

The Vatican’s statement :

« The Pope confirmed Cardinal Pell has been forbidden from contact with minors as part of “precautionary measures” until his appeals have concluded, adding that he must also abstain from public ministry.

This includes a ban on him saying Mass in public and, “as is the rule, contact in any way or form with minors”.

The Vatican spokesman, Alessandro Gisotti, said the news of the conviction was “painful” and the Vatican was aware that his conviction for child abuse has shocked many people around the world.

However, no other measures will be taken against Pell until his appeal proceedings are exhausted, with the spokesman adding that he has “reiterated his innocence and has the right to defend himself” until the last level of justice »
.

Pell was released on bail to undergo surgical knee replacements in Sydney on Dec. 14. Prosecutor Mark Gibson did not oppose bail, saying the surgery would be more easily managed outside the prison system

.

https://cruxnow.com/news-analysis/2019/02/27/vatican-contrast-on-pell-mccarrick-driven-by-doubt-about-guilt/

POPE BLAMES DEVIL

Holy Men on Earth are therefore not responsible for deciding to rape kids.

____________________________________

In a shock move Pope expresses contrition!

http://www.smh.com.au/national/what-the-pope-didn-t-say-when-he-blamed-the-devil-for-child-sex-abuse-20190225-p5100n.html

Nah. He didn't.

Had ya going there...

We live in a violent culture where revenge is considered a virtue.

It is not!

Convincingly enough, the choir boy was not consciously lying, but long-term memories are subject to distortions and misinterpretations, even more so in the presence of alcohol, guilt and lying. According to the testimony, the boys sipped sacrificial wine and one of them told Pell: “Can you let us go? We didn’t do anything” - obviously a lie.

Pell was very clearly upset and angry when he discovered the desecration of the holy sacramental wine. It is likely that he wanted to inflict as much pain as possible on the boys, but very unlikely for him to be sexually aroused at such a time. In his rage he possibly (though unjustifiably) considered a sexual punishment adequate. Quite possibly, he even preferred and pretended to be seen as a paedophile rather than reveal his greater shame at failing to protect the holy blood-of-Christ that was desecrated in his presence. He could even deny that desecration in court and take that shame to his grave, even if this adds years to his imprisonment as a presumed paedophile.

Nevertheless, let us assume that the choir-boy's testimony was completely true.

The second spiritual injunction in Hinduism is truth-telling, Satyam, but Satyam is still subordinate to the first injunction: non-violence, Ahimsa, so should the two conflict, non-violence takes precedence over truth-telling.

Throwing in jail an elderly man who is obviously non-dangerous at present, for the thrill of revenge over something he did more than 20 years ago, is violence. It will not help the victim in any way, it will only be to his spiritual detriment, it will only exacerbate his problems and make him feel more guilty for his childhood mischief. A better attitude would be: "OK, I was naughty so I got punished. It might not have been proportional to my crime, but I better call it a day, turn a page and stop the cycle of violence right here". Spoiling one's whole life over a 6-minute traumatic incident, agonising as it might have been, is simply unwise.

Oops, I mistakenly posted the above in the wrong thread.

I don't think that discussing Pell's court-case is relevant to this important discussion about the Origin of Facts.