Cardinal Pell excuses himself this week by saying he made an error. The man has form.

Pell was a long-term associate and passionate supporter of one of Australia's most notorious pedophiles, Father Gerald Ridsdale. He supported Ridsdale when he was on trial in 1993 rather than support Ridsdale’s vitims. Pell was by then auxiliary bishop of Melbourne.

Pell was a priest in Ballarat from 1971 and vicar in charge of the Catholic education system in the Ballarat Diocese from 1973 to 1984. For a year from early 1973, Ridsdale shared a house with Pell at the Presbytery, next door to the St Alipius Primary School.
Ridsdale was the school chaplain and parish priest.

Three Christian Brothers teachers - Dowlan, Best and Farrell - were convicted of sex offences against students at St Alipius Primary and St Patrick's College in the early 1970s.

Ridsdale was eventually sentenced to 18 years in prison in 1994 after pleading guilty to 46 counts of indecent assault, including buggery, against 21 children. Among the hundreds of victims, most of those who laid charges were altar boys aged 11-14 from the Ballarat Diocese.

On the eve of his swearing-in as archbishop of Melbourne, Dr Pell said he had had "no idea" about Ridsdale's activities when they lived together. However, Ridsdale's 1994 trial heard evidence that the church had sent him to a psychologist as early as 1971, and that before arriving at Ballarat he had been shunted from parish to parish because of complaints.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/06/01/1022569845430.html

Pell himself was accused of sexual abuse, but the charges could not be sustained because of the absence of forensic evidence after a 40-year interval, the complainant's credibility, lack of corroborative evidence and Dr Pell's sworn denial of the accusations. http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/10/14/1034561097748.html

A month before the allegations of his own improper conduct became public Pell stated that "[a]bortion is a worse moral scandal than priests sexually abusing young people."

As Archbishop of Melbourne and Archbishop of Sydney, Pell unwaveringly refused communion to gay people which made his support of Ridsdale all the more hypocritical.
.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Pell#cite_ref-5

Pell must resign.

GrahamY,

Yesterday, I submitted a very, very similar to the first post of this thread. Seemingly, in your wisdom, you thought my contribution, duplication, and did not post it.

That's, okay. :-)

Clive, please note, we all don't split the dummy and appreciate Graham a job to do. And a good job at that!

O.

RobP,

“… a paedophilia victim ..”

Are you a journalist? If so why is any abuse by a Catholic priest labeled by journalists as “paedophilia”? The victim was 28 or 29 when the incident occurred. Paedophilia only relates to prepubescent children.

“Pell's only comment was that he worded his letter wrongly to the victim. Like that makes his actions alright.”

The main allegation was that he was misleading the victim by implying that the priest did no wrong. Pell informed the guy that he was the only one who had accused the priest of rape. He used the term "sexual assault" for rape. He then wrote another letter shortly afterward apologizing. Stating to the victim that the priest had never been accused of "sexual assault" previously was construed by the victim and the media as suggesting that the priest had never done anything wrong sexually whatsoever. The priest had been accused of making inappropriate advances to a minor as another letter evidenced.

Given that the contentious issue was the use of the term “sexual assault” and given the legality involved and thus formality of such correspondence his explanation of the terminology made sense.

”Well, blimey, I thought the Church was all about compassion.”

Not completely but it is important. That might explain his subsequent letter.

“George Pell, based on his actions as opposed to the dogma he professes to hold, is a failed leader and at best can only be called a Christian follower.”

Foxy expresses a perspective that seems more of an authentic grievance about Pell than the current media beat up to make World Youth Day more newsworthy.

If you think he is a failed leader due to his drafting of that letter I hope you are not a leader. At least the term “sexual assault” actually means rape. Your use of the term “paedophia’ to describe the attempted rape of a 28 year old is clearly wrong

"On the eve of his swearing-in as archbishop of Melbourne, Dr Pell said he had had "no idea" about Ridsdale's activities when they lived together. However, Ridsdale's 1994 trial heard evidence that the church had sent him to a psychologist as early as 1971, and that before arriving at Ballarat he had been shunted from parish to parish because of complaints."

When I first read your post I thought you were responsible for this then I saw it was from the media so I guess there is no reason to take issue with normal journalistic practice.

The innuendo is that Pell was lying when he said he had "no idea". Somehow Pell as a priest not a Bishop or even Auxilliary Bishop or someone working in some area investigating such complaints must have known about Ridsdale because that history prior to their sharing accomodation. The journalist has somehow caught Pell out cold and considers it appropriate to use the "However".

Without any legitimate reason to have official knowledge is there any reason to think that Ridsdale or anyone else would have been that open about the situation? Would Ridsdale have boasted? Would the Bishop shunting him around boast? I wouldn't think so. On what basis is it so definite (or even more likely than not) that Pell knew?

mjpb,

No, I'm not a jounalist. I assumed the incident pertaining to the man in question was when he was a minor. I missed a few minutes of the interview on Lateline, but I stand to be corrected if what I've put forward is an incorrect fact. I am writing this on the basis that the Lateline interview is not a fabrication or overblown grievance.

The leadership I am referring to in Pell is in the moral sphere, and not in the legal one. (Writing some letter just doesn't cut the mustard any more.) When someone in a position of authority like him is made aware of ILLEGAL and IMMORAL acts such as this, under the roof of his Church, it is encumbant on him to do more than just run to his lawyers and hide behind them. The real criticism here is the way the Church hides behind its name and always leaves the individual victim in these types types of cases to thrash it out for him- or herself.

So, in my view, ANY form of sexual abuse is wrong and immoral; and ANY type of cover up, including by wilful ingorance, is also wrong.

It's about time Pell and the rest of the Church took responsibility for the damage the Church has done to people. That's what I mean when I say he needs to get out of the way, because it's clear he doesn't have the G&D to face up to it and do anything about it.

It's clear all he's interested in is World Youth Day.

go easy on Pell so he is still there when I get to sue him - like I am too busy just now with my action against Howards Cash for Comment mens groups pirating my book A Blokes Guide to Family Law

but has anyone else [besides Pell himself] tried to get relief under the Parkinson Towards Healing Protocol/Farce?