Relevant!? Remain!? It hasn't been relevant for years any more than any other cult? It just happens to arguably be the biggest and longest established one?

And, I believe, takes pious hypocrisy to brand new uncharted levels?

Personally, given I had my druthers, would subject all the evidence, allowed and disallowed, by all participants, be tested with unbeatable space age lie detection.

If we must believe in something solid that can never ever disappoint us? Why not the might irrefutable truth?

Even if that has to be accompanied by the pain of disillusionment, disbelief, shared disgrace and disgust!

SUFFER LITTLE CHILDREN!
Alan B.

Oh poor, not yet defrocked, Pell.

But does he have dirt on the ever supportive Pope?

Pell is too great a personage to be tried by a non-religious court! Aye?

Thank you Murray Hunter for your calm and dispassionate overview and outline of this situation.If a person can be found guilty on the basis of one uncorroborated accusation we have reached a very dangerous place indeed.
The natural and justifiable anger about the fate of victims of abuse has produced a yearning for people to be made to be punished which has been maintained at a fever pitch.Deep anger and resentment can blind people and cause them to abandon reason.
I have concerns about the behaviour of the judge in this case.When he was first invested as a judge he said he felt it his duty to bridge the gap between the courts and the public.I do not find it reassuring to hear a judge speak in this fashion. Judges are there to mete out justice not to soothe public anger about an issue.The absolute crux of justice is that no person should be found guilty by any jury if the prosecution cannot prove that they are guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.For a judge to stop the defence from presenting material crucial to showing reasonable doubt exists and to forbid access to the medical records of the accuser is a cause for some concern.The anonymity of the accuser is also a curious aspect of this particular case. In past cases of victims seeking justice they have wanted the world to see and hear them because they were weary of being unbelieved and this was their moment to stand proud Why wasn't the case prosecuted while both lads were alive? If that had been done the jury could have heard the now sadly deceased boy either corroborate the living lad's account or repeat his denial that any abuse had occurred at all.I have lived long enough to know all is not always what it first seems and judgements are very difficult to form when in the grip of strong emotions.
Finally the judge's behaviour in inviting the world media and then having his sentencing broadcast showed a worrying narcissism more akin to the "show Biz" style of some courts in America.

Alan B,

Could we have a reference to this unbeatable lie detection?

plantagenet,

Your prejudices are shewing!!

You obviously are a long way from contact with the real people of Oz Murray.

"The nation is polarized, if not traumatized by the verdict". Where the hell have you been Murray. Apart from the rabid left media, & the Catholic/Christianity hating left of the political spectrum, no one in the real world is very interest at all.

While I am of the opinion that he did not have a snowflakes chance in hell of getting a fair trial, with all the media ruckus, I have no idea, opinion, or interest in the question of his guilt.

I have never heard anyone I know, or heard around town, anyone discuss or show any interest in the whole story..

Just get over it Murray. There has to be something wrong with people who are so interested in a dying religious sect, who's members parade around in funny dresses, & prattle on in a dead language

Pell's big mistake and he big mistake of is legal team was Pell's failure to get into the witness box. That never was an available tatic of a man who has made his living for 50 years as a preacher of the Gospel- a teacher of "truth".