Why are conservatives supporting George Pell? Because the lack of objective "evidence", rather than unsubstantiated assertions, is strongly reminiscent of the "false memory syndrome" scandal of the 1990s. Got it?

Conservatives believe in justice, not witch hunting. Police and their paymasters targeted a group following the RC into child abuse, and ADVERTISED for victims. It's an investigation technique copied from the UK called 'trawling, never used in Australia before.

What an opportunity for fame, sympathy and, most of all MONEY in compensation! All the 'victims' have to do is suddenly 'remember' dreadful things happening to them many years ago, when there cannot be any chance of evidence. The creepy 'anti-racist' commissioner in the HRC did a similar thing - advertising for victims - without the success of the Putsch against the Catholic church. The #metoo phenomenon is another example. Its all an ongoing attack on white men.

Firstly, whether or not Pell had sex with trainee priests is nobodies business. Trainee priests are not children. Last time I looked, sex between consenting adults was legal.
As for the sex abuse conviction, conservatives are more likely to study the actual facts of the case and not be swayed by emotion.

we have seen the pussy headed regressive elite in America support lying women making up rape claims in order to see a man appointed as a judge, we have seen the regressives constantly lie about Islam and demonise anyone that questions their lies, we see the lying regressives deny that an unborn child is a human even up to birth. And we now have Peter a Professor of 'ethics' questioning why conservatives question the decisions of the elite. I personally have no time for the Catholic church but one needs to be blind not to see the consistent and often dishonest attacks the abc Marxist has had on Pell for the last 20 years. It has been conveniently overlooked that the first jury could not come to a verdict. Just like Brexit in Britain the so called progressives never let democracy take take its course.

Conservatism and genuine ethical Christianity are mutually exclusive belief systems. Why then are the hard right jumpingto Pell's defence? Well given Pell is also a hard right conservative, therefore, the Birds of a feather arguement would seem to fly!?
Alan B.

Big Nana, a die-hard conservative, makes some absurd claims for conservatives and bags the abused victims (pussy heads) for speaking out against an abuser?

As for taking an honest look at the evidence!? Risible beyond adequate description!

I mean, and in the face of overwhelming mountainous evidence, they almost to a generic man, believe that GW and CC are just BS and just so a few grubs can get their grubby hands on the public purse?

And one might rightly claim, judging others by their own highly flawed standards!?

I think that Big Nana's (evidence-free) accusations are outrageous and ought to be apologised for and withdrawn, ASAP!
Alan B.

Apology! Sorry, Big Nana, My remarks should have been directed exclusively at runner, I apologise and withdraw unreservedly!
Alan B.

Cardinal Pell has been sentenced to six years in jail
with a non-parole period of 3 years, 8 months.
He is now also listed as a registered pedophile.

He's gone through our legal process and has been
found guilty.

People may continue to argue one way or the other for
years. It won't change anything. Has justice been
served? That's up to whether you believe in our
legal process and jury system or not. The law has been
served.

We can now await the Appeal to be heard in June.

Dear Nana,

“Firstly, whether or not Pell had sex with trainee priests is nobodies business. Trainee priests are not children. Last time I looked, sex between consenting adults was legal.”

Agree with the second part of your premise not the first.

Pell was more than vigorous in attacking homosexual relationships, particularly in mainstream media. This either speaks to his hypocrisy and therefore his credibility or his propensity to abuse a position of power. Both reflect on the believably of the statements of denial he made during his police interview.

I would really hate to think any innocent person should be found guilty of a crime he or she did not commit. However I am not happy that the abuse that Pell enabled by protecting and moving offending priest to another unsuspecting school or parish was allowed to harm innumerable numbers of Aussie kids.

For that he deserved 20 years at least but he will never be held to account for those crimes.

Dear Alan B,

I am struggling to find 'pussy head' in the Christian lexicon. Are you able to assist?

It is not satisfactory to jail someone on twentytwo year old (1996-2018) uncorroborated evidence.

I note our ABC is getting a bit weepy about the sentence ie justice at last. Looks like Pell has taken a hit for the lot. Some of us have had plenty of crook situations but get over it.

Hopefully His Most Reverend Eminence Cardinal Pell's [1] fellow inmates won't give him too hard a time

during his 6 year stretch.

All this prison time will give Pell time to minister to his Prison Flock.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/His_Eminence#Catholicism

Dear Steele,

Cardinal Pell built his career preaching the sex
rules of his faith. His intransigence made him a
celebrity. Demanding obedience, listing sins,
condemning sinners kept him in the news. He was
always pouring his energies into combating
contraception, equal marriage, but particularly
homosexuality. He was particularly brutal to
homosexuals. He refused to give them communion.
When a wreath was laid outside St Patrick's
Cathedral in Melbourne in memory of gay students in
Catholic Schools driven to suicide - his disdain was
absolute.

He kept things simple and brutal.

His proclamation that "No sex is sacred,"
greatly impressed John Paul II and Benedict XVI immensely.
Not so much Pope Francis who took the view -
"Behind rigidity something always lies hidden. In many
cases a double life."

The world now knows that a little over 20 years in
Pell's first months as archbishop of Melbourne
this scourge of sex was forcing choirboys to suck his penis.

Foxy, you say: "Has justice been
served? That's up to whether you believe in our
legal process and jury system or not. The law has been
served."

So how does that fit with the fact that the "first" jury was 10-2 for NOT finding him guilty?

It's easy to rationalise your prejudices in retrospect.

calwest,

The first jury did not acquit Pell. He was not
in any way or in any sense cleared by their failure to reach
a verdict. The very tight circle that knows how the jurors
voted does not include either you or me or Andrew Bolt
or Miranda Devine.

Its OK for Grand Holy Men to do unto the poor choir boys...Aye Chaps?

Foxy,

"...this scourge of sex was forcing choirboys to suck his penis."

In the Sacristy just after Mass when the area is full of people going about their various duties or just looking for somebody or wanting a word with the priest?

If it had been said that he told the errant boys to go to his office, that'd be another matter.

Is Mise,

What you believe or don't believe is irrelevant.
The jury believed the complainant. It was a
unanimous verdict of guilty. I respect the
jury's verdict. Pell was found guilty.

Foxy,

"The very tight circle that knows how the jurors
voted does not include either you or me or Andrew Bolt
or Miranda Devine."

Yes, it does, apparently, it was 10 t0 2 for acquittal.
http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2019/02/the-cloud-of-doubt-over-pells-conviction/

Your bias is shewing.

Cardinal Francis George famously said, referencing the rise of aggressive secularism: ‘“I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr in the public square. His successor will pick up the shards of a ruined society and slowly help rebuild civilization, as the church has done so often in human history” (A Quadrant Online reader.)

It appears that we have reached stage two.

Perhaps because the helpless-victimhood-mentality is a modern/progressive fashion, which conservatives have not caught up with? Responsibility for one's emotions is no longer in fashion and only conservatives still seem to believe in it.

Perhaps because the panicked witch-hunt against man-child contacts (not necessarily sexual, because no adult male can nowadays take the risk of being seen near a child) has torn up families and intergenerational connections, as well as denied children access to the wisdom of older male role-models? Family and intergenerational connections are valued by conservatives but shunned by progressives, who would rather separate children from their elders and have them raised by single mothers so it becomes easier for them to indoctrinate such children in their "educational" institutes.

Elsewhere today Foxy opined..."Trump got elected because of a faulty electoral system that badly needs fixing in the US. "

The system produced a result Foxy doesn't like...therefore...the system must be changed.

Here..."He's gone through our legal process and has been found guilty."

The system produced a result Foxy does like....therefore...we all need to just accept it.

Is it just me or is there a whiff of double standard there.

Is Mise,

The first jury did not acquit Pell. He was not in any sense
cleared by the failure to reach a verdict. The first jury
could not reach a unanimous vote or a 11-1 majority
verdict. The second trial found Pell guilty. It was a
unanimous verdict of all 12 jurors.

mhaze,

Goodness me you're following me around discussions with
the same postings. I must have really got up your nose.
Either that or you're simply trying to provoke.

The American electoral system was established on the basis
of allocating the number of electoral votes proportionally
to the population in the state. Over decades the movement
of the population and migration increased the size of the
population in the Western States exceeding the population in the
Mid Western states but proportionally the number of electoral
votes in the Western States was never adjusted in proportion
to the population.

Therefore the Western states being predominantly Democratic and
collecting 3 million more votes for the Democratic candidate in
the last election they lost the election because of the
electoral voting system not being adjusted over the past
decades. And that's how Mr Trump won.

It had nothing to do with my likes or dislikes.

As for our legal system and the conviction of Cardinal Pell?
Again - this has nothing to do with my likes or dislikes either.
Cardinal Pell may not have received justice in your eyes.
However I have faith in the integrity of our legal system.
The Appeal is going ahead. I believe that the Cardinal has that
right and it will be treated appropriately.

However, the disregard that is being shown to the jury and
the disrespect that is being shown to victims by this
public commentary is quite extraordinary and frankly it should
stop. I really expected more from you.

G'day Hazey

Foxey is of course correct.

Russia certainly gamed the US Electoral System to put Russia's boy Trump in the Presidency.

Trump (Russia's Manchurian Candidate)[1] is, of course, an Agent of Influence [2] for Russia.

Trump's limited brain capacity has been remodelled to wreck the Western Alliance, as well as soiling Truth, Justice and the Yankee Way.

[1] http://www.dictionary.com/e/politics/manchurian-candidate/

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_of_influence

BTW Hazey

Further to Foxy being infallible.

Trump phoned me Again last night, begging for advice as usual...

Anyways Donald said that, while he knows he shouldn't comment on Australian matters, he uttered.

"Pete, my boss bwana, 6 years for Pell is too little, too late."

"And check out my latest Youtube http://youtu.be/vlxmiFF85yU "

Scouts Honour

plantagenet,

huh?

Foxy,

Not following you around. Simply posted in one thread and realised it was more appropriate to t'other.

"but proportionally the number of electoral
votes in the Western States was never adjusted in proportion
to the population."

Sorry but that's utterly, spectacularly, stunningly wrong. As in not even close to being correct. The electoral college is based on the number of representatives each state has in the Federal Congress. So for example California has 55 electoral college votes (EV) because they have 53 members in the House and 2 in the Senate. Florida has 25 Reps + 2 Senators so 27 EV. And so on.

AND the representation in the House is determined by the population of the state as determined in the decadal census. So the electoral college votes are based on the state's population and are adjusted each 10 years.

So.... utterly, spectacularly, stunningly wrong.

“When my information changes, I change my mind. What do you do?” JM Keynes.

The information changed Foxy...what will you do? Let me guess.

Trump didn't win the majority of votes. But then he wasn't trying to since that wasn't the way to win. Had it been, he probably would have spent more time and money in California and NY. He didn't because he stood no chance of winning those states, so his failure to get most votes is neither here nor there and merely the whining of those who always whine when things don't go their way.

mhaze,

Congratulations!

You've just passed your American
Citizenship Test.

Go to Canberra, the American Consulate, and Pledge
Your Allegiance.

McHazey?!

Well this just proves Trump's a Russian Jim-Bob http://youtu.be/jkghtyxZ6rc

Enjoy

'Congratulations!

You've just passed your American
Citizenship Test.'

no Foxy just exposing your complete hypocrisy. Does not deter you from the garbage you and the abc sprout.

runner,

You seem to be a self-professed expert on garbage,
I'll leave you to wallow in it as per usual.
You can join your kindred spirits and enjoy your
disgruntlement.

Hi Foxy

May your sound arguments always flow freely.

_________________________________________________

@runner

Your oft-repeated concern for the unborn does not seem to extend to the already born victims of Holier Than Thou Pell.

plantagenet,

OK I'm convinced. Trump wrestles.

Putin wrestles...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lxMglj8LuM

The collusion couldn't be clearer. Why haven't the Dems started impeachment based on this irrefutable evidence?

Foxy,

"Congratulations! You've just passed your American Citizenship Test."

That's a strange way to admit to a monumental error... but to each her own.

“When my information changes, I change my mind. What do you do?” JM Keynes. The information changed Foxy...what will you do? Let me guess."

I guessed right.

The thing is this Foxy, When you base an opinion on faulty facts and, after finding out your facts are wrong, you don't change your opinion, that simply shows that the facts of the matter were utterly unimportant to your opinion. That the opinion was formed and then a search was made to find something (anything) that would give the opinion a veneer of scholarship.

We see this all the time from the likes of Belly and Paul, but I keep hoping to convince myself that Foxy is better than that.

But you're making it very hard to hold to that hope.

mhaze,

I tried to point out the things that the US
Electoral College clearly violates - but it seems
that I did not do a good job and I did not
express myself well. What I was trying to say was
that due to the uneven representation of electoral
delegates in proportion to population some votes
count more than others.

For example the vote of a Wyoming citizen weighs more
than 3 times as much as a California vote. How can this
be fair?

The candidate with the majority of votes should become President.
(sorry Trump supporters but this should be obvious).
The election result should represent the majority. In at
least several cases in the US history tells us it didn't.

It's fundamentally undemocratic that someone with millions less
votes than his opponent wins the Presidential election.

If you can't see that this is wrong - that's your right.
I have the right to view things in a different perspective
to you.

I wrote to the Crikey website this morning. Crikey’s article says "Someone committing the ultimate profanity of child sexual assault at the heart of the sacred? That’s not an impossibility, it’s a Law and Order:SVU episode". In other words, Crikey is literally saying that the event is a fictional event, written by a scriptwriter.
I e-mailed kelso lawyers last night. Their website has an article dated 30.6.2017 which does not say anything bad about Pell, but suggests he is going to be stitched up. The website says "But his name will never be cleared now, even if he is found innocent. There is hardly any chance of Pell winning these cases".
Is this what Milo meant when he said that the word was out that Pell was going to be stitched up? Kelso lawyers web page seems to be evidence that at least they thought that a stitch up was going to take place.
I still think the evidence against Pell is absurd. I assume that the witness is lying, or deluded. I assume there is nothing unusual about a witness discussing their evidence with a lawyer. In this case I think the witness has been fed his lines by the lawyer (a scriptwriter with an over-excited imagination, perhaps smoking crack).

Foxy,
“I did not express myself well.”

Now let me get this straight. When you said “they lost the election because of the electoral voting system not being adjusted over the past decades” you really meant to say that they were adjusted every decade but just worded badly? Seriously? You think someone will buy that?

Why is it so hard for people here to just admit error and move on? Wouldn’t it be easier to just admit you got your facts wrong, undertake to try to do better next time, undertake to re-evaluate based on the new data, and then move on. That, to my jaundiced way of thinking would be easier and more honourable.

After all we all make mistakes. Even I’ve been known to be in error – it was 2008 as I recall, although I could be mistaken about that.

As to your general complaint that it was unfair that your girl lost when you were sure she’d win, I offer this. The rules of the contest were known going in. The aim is to win states – that’s always been the aim. Winning the most votes isn’t the aim. These are the rules in the US because, as a federation of states, it’s the states that make the president. Indeed there was time when people didn’t even vote for the president – it was done by the state congress.

It makes no sense in any real world scenario to simply change the rules after the event and then seek to claim victory. St Kilda lost the GF in 2009 despite having more scoring shots. Would it be fair to change the rules and award them the prize?
If the rules were different the contest would be played differently. Trump would chase Californian and NY votes.

You might not agree with the system in place, especially when it gives, in your view, the wrong answer. But it is the system (there are mechanisms to change it if the Dems so wish). Proclaiming Trump illegitimate because you suddenly deem the system wrong is invalid

mhaze,

You protest too much, me thinks.

I tried to point out what the electoral college
clearly violates. Having lived and worked in
the US for close to ten years it was something
that was quite apparent to us all. It has nothing to do
with Mr Trump. Why do you assume I'm pro Hilary
Clinton?

Anyway, I shall leave it there. You can continue to
argue. But you'll be arguing on your own.

Cheers.

Back to the topic...

Pat Hudson has won the Bald Archy Prize -
a parody of the Archibald Prize with a phallic
themed likeness of Cardinal George Pell.
Enjoy:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-22/cardinal-george-pell-portrait-wins-bald-archy-prize-2016/7651566

.

Dear Peter (the author),

.

Allow me to suggest that the so-called “conservative” people you mention – Andrew Bolt, Tony Abbott, John Howard, Miranda Devine and, of course, Cardinal George Pell – all share the same characteristics of classical narcissism.

The narcissist displays a grandiose way of thinking about their own talents, beauty, masculinity or femininity and intelligence. While they have an inflated sense of self-worth, they are generally devaluing and dismissive of others. In fact, to the narcissist, other people are generally not treated as peers, but instead as mere objects to be exploited for selfish motives.

Another common characteristic of the “conservatives” is what Nietzsche calls their "Der Wille zur Macht" (desire for power) that he considers to be their main driving force, their ambition to reach the highest possible position in life.

Nietzsche observed that people who are driven by the desire for power recognise that same craving in others who are similar to themselves and sympathise with them. They form what they consider to be an elite. He adds : « … they then conspire together for power. And the process goes on. »

For Nietzsche, the desire for power is not a sign of strength but of weakness. He wrote in one of his notebooks :

« I have found strength where one does not look for it: in simple, mild, and pleasant people, without the least desire to rule—and, conversely, the desire to rule has often appeared to me a sign of inward weakness … »

.

Foxy,

"Having lived and worked in the US for close to ten years it was something that was quite apparent to us all. "

Ten years and still managed to utterly misunderstand their system. I'll bear that in mind the next time you try to fortify your views on the US with your having lived there.

Probably a good point to end the inquisition. We've all seen your level of accuracy and honesty. No need to belabour the point.

mhaze,

Misunderstand the system?

No. unfortunately misunderstanding is your forte.
I thought that by explaining things to you
I may just make you see things what we had
experienced by actually living and working in
the country under discussion.

But it seems that
you'd rather not get the points I was
making - you prefer to argue against the way that I
I was doing it.

That is arguing on an emotional level -
not a mature intelligent one.

Have a nice day.

Foxy,

"Misunderstand the system?

No. unfortunately misunderstanding is your forte."

You asserted that Trump was elected as a result of a faulty Electoral College system (EV) because of, you asserted, " the electoral voting system not being adjusted over the past decades" when in fact it is adjusted EVERY decade. Somehow that, to your mind, is not misunderstanding the system.

I appreciate that you are now in muddy-the-water mode, where you are prepared to openly assert that you didn't say things that anyone reading the thread can easily see you did say. I have to say you are very practised at it.

“When my information changes, I change my mind. What do you do?” JM Keynes.
Foxy's answer...assert that my mind wasn't based on the information I'd previously said it was based on...or something.

BTW..I thought I was going to "be arguing on [my] own." :)

mhaze,

My good nature simply refuses to allow you to sink.
;-)

Banjo, Thank you .The only worthwhile contribution so far to the question this article raised .You say:Andrew Bolt, Tony Abbott, John Howard, Miranda Devine and, of course, Cardinal George Pell – all share the same characteristics of classical narcism. The American Psychiatric Association has listed the classification narcissistic personality disorder in its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) since 1968, drawing on the historical concept of megalomania

Narcissism is a pejorative. Let's apply that term to ALL (??) these people and pretend its scholarship.

"The American Psychiatric Association has listed the classification narcissistic personality disorder...."

Yes they have. They also have a thing called the Goldwater Rule which basically points out that its effectively impossible to diagnose this or any other disorder from afar. But alas....

Let's pretend all these people are narcissists as our local psychiatrists have determined. Does that go anywhere toward determining Pell's guilt or innocence. Oh, he's a narcissist so that proves that any allegation against him is true. Oh these others are narcissists so that means we can ignore and not bother to address any logic in their arguments. Is that really the level of thinking here fellas?

"A former Christian Brother who spent his 80th birthday behind bars as a convicted paedophile will immediately walk free from jail after his convictions were quashed on appeal.

A jury found John Francis Tyrrell guilty last year of 10 charges, including buggery and indecent assault.

At trial, a complainant alleged Mr Tyrrell abused him when he was aged between 10 and 12 at Geelong's St Joseph's College in 1965 and 1966.

Today, Court of Appeal Justices Stephen Kaye, Richard Niall and Mark Weinberg ordered Mr Tyrrell be acquitted of all charges.

The Justices found there to be “serious discrepancies between his [the complainant] version of events and the facts that were objectively established by the evidence.”

.

Dear mhaze,

.

You wrote :

« Narcissism is a pejorative. »

Pejorative means “expressing contempt or disapproval” (OED). Most people would probably agree with you mhaze, but as Peter pointed out in his article, a certain number of so-called “conservatives” such as Andrew Bolt, Tony Abbott, John Howard and Miranda Devine all supported Cardinal George Pell, also a so-called “conservative”.

There are certainly no signs of disapproval among them and even less of contempt. Quite the contrary. Apparently, they are all pretty much in agreement. Like “birds of a feather [they] flock together”.

And, in my previous post, I suggested that they all shared the same characteristics of classical narcissism. That, I hasten to add, is just my personal opinion – not the diagnosis of a qualified psychologist or psychiatrist.

I understand that narcissism may have either a psychogenic or a biological origin. The psychogenic or psychological narcissism is described as “selfishness, involving a sense of entitlement, a lack of empathy, and a need for admiration, as characterizing a personality type”. Whereas the biological or psychiatric narcissism is defined as “self-centredness arising from failure to distinguish the self from external objects, either in very young babies or as a feature of mental disorder”.

The narcissism I had in mind as characterising our so-called “conservative” compatriots was, of course, that of psychogenic origin. People who are not members of their clique tend to find them somewhat haughty, arrogant and altogether despicable.

Nevertheless, psychogenic narcissism is a mental disorder. Just to what extent the person who harbours it may be held responsible for it is debateable.

The same goes for Nietzsche’s “desire for power” syndrome that I also mentioned in my previous post and which I also associate with our so-called “conservative” compatriots.

In my humble opinion, they all have it. I find them all rather unsympathetic, but I hesitate to hold them solely and completely responsible for their condition.

.

Dear Banjo,

Only a saint is completely devoid of narcissism. The rest of us have it in one degree or another, whether or not it is sufficiently overt to reach clinical proportions.

Young babies do not yet recognise the boundaries of their bodies. When an adult still fails to recognise these boundaries, then that is a mental disorder. However, when one no longer distinguishes between one's self (as opposed to one's body) and what we normally consider to be "external objects", but instead sees the same everywhere, when one realises that all is God and all distinctions are an illusion, then one is enlightened and finally free from the vicious cycle of birth and death.

.

Dear Yuyutsu ;

.

You wrote :

1. « Only a saint is completely devoid of narcissism »

The term “saint” (from the Latin sanctus: sacred) is a person declared as such by the Christian faith. As canonisation takes place postmortem – usually many years, if not many centuries after his or her death – it is impossible to determine whether the person in question was ever “completely devoid of narcissism” during his or her lifetime or not.

If what you write is what Christians (and whoever else is willing to do so) are held to believe, then perhaps it’s because, like baptism, canonisation is considered to have the magic power of “wiping their sins” (narcissism) away.
.

2. « … when one realises that all is God and all distinctions are an illusion, then one is enlightened and finally free from the vicious cycle of birth and death »

As I consider that “God” is a figment of the imagination, happily, I am able to distinguish between imagination, illusion and reality. I sympathise with those who are not so enlightened but take consolation in the fact that, at least, in their minds, they think they are free. Freedom of thought is a precious redeeming factor, that I sincerely wish for everyone – including so-called "conservatives".
.

3. « … vicious cycle of birth and death »

Vicious, why vicious – from the Latin vitiosus, from vitium “vice” (immoral or wicked behaviour) ? As I see it, the cycle of birth and death is a natural process whereby life is relayed from one generation to the next. There is no morality in nature – just whatever is most efficient for its conservation and continuation in a long process of trial and error or “chance and necessity” as Jacques Monod, the 1965 Nobel Prize biologist, termed it, where chance is a “random variable” and necessity an “inevitable event”.
.

Perhaps you (and others) might like the following article on psychogenic narcissism by the American psychotherapist, Elinor Greenberg, which I, personally, find well written and quite interesting :

http://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/understanding-narcissism/201708/the-truth-about-narcissistic-personality-disorder

.

Going back to consertivism. I would argue that there is a base understanding of how the world should work, and part of that understanding is on the legal system running the right way instead of going on a witch hunt or using emotion as a proof instead of holding innocent until proven guilty.

Liberalism goes in the opposite direction. Sees an error (or thinks it sees an error) and is willing to fix that error at any cost. "What the rules won't fix, I'll fix on my own," kind of thinking.

Now put into both ideals the sitution of pedophiia. In the case of pedophilia the crime is rarely able to be proven and is often an ongoing problem that doesn't go away. Or at least that's the modern impression we get from the media. (Probabley right, but worth a small dose of caution when considering breaking down the laws and rules put in place to protect people). For the left pedophiia can be easily turned into a witch hunt, much like the metoo movement has turned emotional pleas into a weapon to ruin another's life.

(Continued)

(Continued)

With that in mind there are the accounts that the police advertised for anyone who had a case against the Catholic Church. Then there turn up a case to charge Pell on pedophilia. There isn't much to go on, but if you don't care about the rules and the law (innocent until proven guilty), then you can go ahead and let the guilty verdict fall so to appease the want to fix a crime (that wasn't proven) regardless of what the rules would say to do.

Conservatives see pedophilia as a sick crime as much as leftists, but they also see this case for what it is from beginning to end. An experiment of manipulating people and avoiding justice, in order to harm a specific target. Was the target Pell because of politics and his influence? Or was it an attack on the Catholic Church, and Pell was just a victim that could be caught in the trap? This was from the beginning a weapon and it was used to charge a man regardless of innocence or guilt. That as far as I can tell is why people are against the charges against Pell.

It's not narcissism, it's not birds of a feather (because some who are against the charges aren't affiliated with the church or with Christianity). What it is, is disgust at justice being broken. Enough of the charges to justify it,man the searching for excuses. If Pell is a saint or a narcissist what does that prove to his case? All it does is add an excuse to justify finding him guilty instead of seeing the errrors done from the beginning of the case till the end of the verdict. What good do these excuses do expect usurp justice, and fill you with justification while doing so.

Dear Banjo,

1. I referred to one's actual sainthood rather than to institutional titles: not every saint was declared a Saint, nor every Saint was in fact a saint!

2. «I am able to distinguish between imagination, illusion and reality.»

However, there are more than these 3 categories.

Take a clay pot: its appearance is of a pot, but the reality of it is clay. When the pot breaks, and one day or another it surely will, there will no longer be a pot, but the clay will remain.

Take a golden necklace: its appearance is of a necklace, but the reality of it is gold. If the necklace is melted, there will be necklace no more, but gold will remain.

Take a wave in the ocean: once the wind subsides there will no longer be a wave, but water will remain.

The pot, the necklace and the wave are neither imaginary nor an illusion, but they are not the reality either, only relative reality.

I made a bad mistake when stating that "all distinctions are an illusion". Sorry, I should have said "relative reality" or something to that effect rather than 'illusion' because there is no equivalent word in English to what I was trying to convey. In Sanskrit, the word is 'mithyaa':
http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/definitions/mithyA.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3r4fGfQKeQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHYTkzoaiKU

Though God is commonly and conveniently for practical purposes thought of as a deity, S/He/It is not, because deities too (assuming they exist) are still mithyaa whereas God is not.

God can only be described negatively:
Suppose everything breaks down and disappears/dissipates - all matter, energy, thought, memory, intelligence, even space, time, the universe, existence and the laws of physics, logic and mathematics: what remains is God.

3. Vicious, because it causes suffering. Every time we are born and every time we die, we suffer. I could go deeper into the connection of this cycle with vices, but I think this is enough to digest for one day.