mjpb,

"I could have sworn that organisation is on very recent record as having slammed both the program ..."

I read their website recently and quoted from it. After your claims about Pell going to school with Ridsdale etc. I'm not going to take your word for it.

"...and you may have seen footage of Broken Rites' and other groups' demonstrations over the weekend."

They probably thought Pell was protecting a paedophile from his paedophilia victim. Otherwise they are attracting attention to their cause seeking a papal apology. I didn't see the demonstrations.

"Your sarcastic definitions ...are grossly insensitive cynically designed to shift the focus away from Pell's and the Church's ineptitude and lack of Christian charity."

The hell they do. Every time I expose lies you try to whitewash over it by claiming it supports victims. You are unethically using victims. Misrepresenting any sex scandal as paedophilia and making false allegations to support a dubious allegation to make the perception of a public figure contrary to reality in no way supports victims.

"the answer is a resounding NO."

Then why the false allegations? If Pell is benefitial to victims, and this view is supportable, then why make false allegations and claim he needs to be removed? There must be some motive. If you are confident that Pell is not the best in this area why resort to that?

"There are many intelligent and compassionate Catholics out there who are appalled at the Church's track record on this matter."

I am sure Cardinal Pell is one of them. But for the actions of people like him things could have been worse.

"The motivation is to bring justice to the victims of Church sexual abuse and exploitation and to ensure accountability for breaches of the law and violations of human decency using the name of God as pretext."

Like anything else that can only be done effectively based on accurate information.

mjpb,

I admit my errors. e.g. on 10 July I clarified that "...Pell and Ridsdale were some years apart in their schooling..."

But the substance stands. Pell was Ridsdale's friend and went to court in his support while denying Ridsdale's many victims.

You 'recently' read Broken Rites website and implied that I was lying when I said that they were unhappy with Pell's procedures.

Use up-to-date sources. Here's this afternoon's ABC report: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/14/2302758.htm

"Chris MacIsaac, from sexual abuse advocacy group Broken Rites, has been a strong critic of Cardinal Pell's actions. Ms MacIsaac says an apology by Pope Benedict is a good start but the church must also address systemic problems in the way it deals with sexual abuse.

... "We are constantly hearing from victims that they feel re-abused by the church process, by the bishops' reaction to their claim."

MacIsaac is President of Broken Rites.

Without a scrap of evidence, you scurrilously accuse me of "...unethically using victims. Misrepresenting any sex scandal as paedophilia and making false allegations to support a dubious allegation to make the perception of a public figure contrary to reality in no way supports victims.

My answer:

1. I myself am a victim - and so was my brother. He is taking legal action because the process forced him to do. I couldn't bear the pain again.

2. I challenge you to produce any evidence to support your baseless claim that I have misrepresented "any sex scandal as paedophilia". You lie.

3. I further challenge you to itemise my "false allegations" against Pell (other than implying he and Ridsdale went to school together when I should have said they went to the same school).

Your final distortion is in response to my claim that "There are many intelligent and compassionate Catholics out there who are appalled at the Church's track record on this matter."

You say: "I am sure Cardinal Pell is one of them."

Pell appalled at the Church's track record? Pell is head of the Church. How can he be appalled at his own record which you say is excellent?

About nine months ago, I emailed Pells' Office several times and requested his support to speak with Tony Abbott, whom failed to honour a promise made on the 7.30 Report, to release a Commttee's findings of the need for and potential benefits of P.E.T. scanners.

While, normally for the separation between Church and State, I thought this one time the Cardinal could simply pick up the phone, I a have a chat. Abbott had been under pressure from oncologists and cancer suffers to acton his word, but didn't. Pell's Office basically said it wasn't matter for the Cardinal. It is only in recent days I have learned these two are quite close. [I have been living overseas.]

Also, I emailed Ben at the Vatican. Silence.

mjpb,
As to your two definitions, I agree that unfortunately some people accept them, perhaps unconsciously.

>> Did the lynch mob mentality of not caring whether an allegation is right or wrong as long as the recipient gets punished influential on you moving to Germany or was it other reasons? <<

The simple answer is no. I came to Germany in retirement because I married here. Both my wife and I escaped Czechoslovakia in 1968, she and her family to Germany, I and my late first wife to Australia. She came to love Germany, her new home, as I do Australia, where I found freedom. She is sad when she thinks Germany is giving itself a bad name, so am I, when I think Australia is doing it. That was the reason I got involved here.

Nevertheless, I have been following OLO, not only this thread, long enough to realise that nowadays not only religious, but also anti- (religion, Christianity, Catholicism etc.) zeal can degenerate into an ideological zeal and worse. Of course, not only in Australia.

As to the term "lynch mob" I would be more careful. If you were a policeman, being a victim, or just being personally related to the victim, would disqualify you from being involved in the investigation of the case. Here the situation is much more complicated, but I think one still should distinguish between a victim, whom one should compassionately listen to, and somebody who is just an ideological free rider and attacks (the Church, the Cardinal, any religion etc.) for preconceived reasons. I think it is only the latter that one could refer to as "the lynch mob", as hard at it is sometimes to tell which is which. (ctd)

(ctd) Otherwise thank you for the illuminative remarks, and factual information, in your argument with poor Spikey. I used to tell my math students that "I cannot mark you on what I think you think, only on what you write down". Well, life is different, and sometimes we have to judge people on what we as Christians think of those who deserve our compassion, than on what they write down trying to rationalise their pain (or rather their reaction to it).

"Not one of the religious organisations has a leadership which has made an effective attempt to rout out the evil of paedophilia from within its ranks.

Every religious organisation has sought to cover it up.

My only conclusion is the “leadership” who make these choices are frail, feeble, scared and weak people."

This hits the nail right on the head. In particular, I think the last sentence illuminates the character of Pell and other senior clerics in the Catholic Church. They would rather hide behind their towering intellects than face up to real-world problems which, if they were to do so, would force them to get out of their comfort zones - something they are reluctant to do.