“Perhaps it is something important to him”

Yes, very important by the sound of it, mjpb.

But his [Pell’s] comments on the need to breed up in order to maintain a stable population were just so profoundly wrong and abjectly stupid!! So if the subject is so important to him, why hasn’t he learnt about the world reality of rapidly growing population, and the same in Australia??

It seems that he is going to get away with it without being harangued by the media, or anyone! Incredible! He should be condemned left, right and centre for this stupidity…much more so than for his comments on climate change.

He did have something to say about the environment:

"We also very clearly have a moral obligation not to damage and destroy or ruthlessly use the environment at the expense of future generations." http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,,24016095-5012321,00.html

But it seems as though they were just words with no substance.

I repeat: what an enormous goose (to put it mildly!).

I dearly hope that old Joe Ratzinger is a little more genuine in his expression of environmental problems.

Lateline tonight.

Yet another Pell mishandling of a very serious rape case by one of his priests of two very young girls - one of whom has since committed suicide.

Their father has the reasonable view that Pell showed them no compassion and, after first conceding that the priest had committed the crimes against the girls, had his lawyers defend Church funds and forced them through a bitter eight-year legal battle.

The father of the girls (not the Father of the church) stressed that it was Pell who stuffed up and his system of redress was totally inadequate and a flawed process.

How many more of these cases do we have to endure before Pell is man enough to resign and hand over to a man of compassion? Or will it take a sacking to rid us of this troublesome priest?

Spikey,

“ Chris MacIsaac had not had a sex change when I last saw her.”
Noted.

”… 'his boss' (I'd like evidence of that claim).”
Wasn’t Pell a Bishop of the Diocese when Ridsdale went down?

“Not exercising his managerial responsibility?”
Perhaps.

”… Pell did not support Ridsdale's victims.”
He demonstrated clear support for a paedophile victim the same day he wrote a less clearly compassionate letter to a 29 year old subject of a gay advance.

“How does the Church generally and Pell in particular show Christian compassion by supporting the pedophile but not his victims?”

He did support the victims prior to Ridsdale going to court to plead guilty and go to jail. Pell has even provided free counseling to victims. An image of a split second in court may be deliberately used for rhetorical purposes. But there are too many assumptions required to conclude that the situation definitely doesn’t demonstrate compassion, demonstrates a lack of compassion, or contradicts Pell’s history as a compassionate person.

” Does that signify anything to you?”
No because the war has been evident since the 60s and was clearly bubbling away prior to that.

”Do you think it's OK to make malicious false claims about me because you got "a little frustrated"?”
No while I would have probably been more tactful had you claimed to be a victim at the time malicious is an exaggeration for jumping to a conclusion that motive and practical effect equated.

” Nor do I need your patronizing”
Stop witch hunting with human beings and stop shooting yourself in the foot and I’ll stop saying things that you might construe that way.

”… are you saying that Anthony Jones should go away and be satisfied with Pell's mismanagement and failure to show him compassion?”

No I’m saying that Pell is the best choice for paedophile victims. Many Bishops are insipid, less capable, and quicker to delegate to victims detriment.

"…I'd be even happier if you extended that to Cardinal Pell.”

As I’ve demonstrated I’m happy to condemn Bishops who genuinely fail in this area.

Spikey,

“Lateline tonight. Yet another Pell mishandling of a very serious rape case by one of his priests...”

I googled and got this link:

http://www.theage.com.au/national/parents-fly-in-to-confront-pell-over-abuse-case-20080716-3fl4.html

Mishandling = taking responsibility for the late priest’s behaviour, apologizing and offering them a large sum of money in circumstances where they rejected it, went to court, and obtained an unusually large payout of its kind?

Are you saying that because they did better in court, even though the resulting payout was described as “one of the largest of its kind in the country” Pell mishandled it by not realizing that they would be awarded an unusually high sum of money? In other words if Pell doesn’t accurately predict the legally unpredictable he is mishandling things?

”Their father has the reasonable view that Pell showed them no compassion and, after first conceding that the priest had committed the crimes against the girls, had his lawyers defend Church funds and forced them through a bitter eight-year legal battle.”

I know media twist things but I find it hard to believe that The Age asserted that Pell offered them compensation if he didn’t. If he did it sure isn't reasonable. It has the appearance that Pell apologized and saved them the trouble of going to court by offering them what (likely based on legal advice) was probably the amount they could expect in court but the family chose to go to court to try for more money. The fact that they got an unusually high award was lucky if the word lucky can be applied to someone dealing with such tragedy but it doesn't change what Pell did.

”The father of the girls (not the Father of the church) stressed that it was Pell who stuffed up and his system of redress was totally inadequate and a flawed process.”

He would clearly be very upset by what happened. He is still so knocked around by his tragic past that he indicated that he believed the recent tripe about Pell obstructing sex offense cases and took this action accordingly. But is there any logical grounds for his assertion?

mjpb

My archbishop right or wrong?

Your comment is so brief I might misinterpret it.

If you mean was I referring to your archbishop when demonstrating that I will condemn a Bishop then if your archbishop is the Brisbane one who defied the Pope's direction and retains a priest even having him saying Mass after a paedophile conviction then yes.

However I was more referring to my comments about Bishops historically who were derelict in their duty by simply delegating to mental health professionals when they became aware of a paedophile priest and my comments about the remarks of the US Bishops in one of the links that George gave. They still don't see the problem with that approach and effectively claimed they had done nothing wrong because the people they delegated to told them the wrong thing.

The main point I was making is that if a Bishop deserves it I'll give it but if he is the victim of a media beatup and he is does what he can for victims then I'll defend him. I note that the organiser of World Youth Day has gone on the line saying that Pell has done everything he can for victims.