Spikey,

“Why ...Pell ... suddenly announced a review of the case at this particular time?”

Ridsdale claimed the encounter in his bed with the 29(?) year old was consensual to Pell. Police taped Ridsdale admitting to the victim the sex was non-consensual. The media have just brought that to Pell’s attention. Pell considered that that warranted re-opening the investigation.

George,

“I do not know more about the case than what is in the article”

This article creates more confusion than the original coverage by paraphrasing that Pell wrote that no other victims had come forward. Pell wrote that no one else had complained that Ridsdale raped (“sexually assaulted”) them. Ridsdale wasn't characteristically so forceful with victims and others were kids. The victim and reporters do not accept that Pell could write "sexual assault" to mean rape cf. any sexual misconduct. I have a different view. This paraphrasing explains the cryptic quote of Pell at the end of the article:

"There was no attempt at a cover-up," he said. "The letter to Mr Jones was badly worded and a mistake - an attempt to inform him there was no other allegation of rape."

Obviously the paraphrasing means that the quote makes no sense. Burying that at the bottom of the article without explanation of what Pell was saying is probably the reporters idea of balanced reporting.

I agree wholeheartedly but the victim did allege attempted rape to the Church. I in no way wish to blame the victim for the priests conduct. It does look odd but he probably had a good reason to sleep in Ridsdale’s bed after having his penis fondled in the pool. He had every right to expect to be left alone if he rejected Ridsdale’s earlier advance. But his situation is incomparable with that of the children who get molested and bluntly if he complained about being traumatised about a letter (promptly apologised for) relating to an encounter with someone who wasn’t a priest in a similar situation he would probably get howled down as an extreme case of homophobia not be considered a paedophilia victim.

mjpb,

Thanks for clarifying that you're not defending Ridsdale or the status quo (although you are not altogether convincing on that) but that you are defending Cardinal Pell.

Your defence of Pell is based primarily on the assertion that one journalist misreported one set of circumstances - although you use words like "false innuendos" (plural) and "the supporting evidence is fabricated or grossly misleading".

You contest the claim that Pell covers up innuendo about pedophilia. How are undisclosed financial settlements and secret agreements different from 'cover up'?

Your further defence of Pell:

(a) "...he is certainly a clever, strong leader not wishy washy like most Bishops including those in charge in the 60s to 80s when abuse peaked."

What evidence can you produce to sustain your claim that abuse peaked in the 60s-80s?

(b) "...he was capable of producing a programme that the clergy victim support group considers to be superior for victims than that produced by other Bishops throughout Australia."

One comment on Broken Rite's website. It is clear many dissatisfied and frustrated victims - Anthony Jones being one of them - strongly disagree. Moreover, if you're happy to quote one sentence for Broken Rites, why are you not happy to quote more directly from them on their assessment of Pell?

e.g. When in 1993 Ridsdale faced 30 charges of indecent assault on 9 boys aged 12-16 dating from 1974-1980, "Ridsdale arrived at the court, accompanied and supported by Bishop George Pell (a former colleague, who had become one of Melbourne’s four auxiliary bishops). Ridsdale pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 12 months jail (with parole after three months)."

Where was Pell's support for Ridsdale's many victims?

(c) "If preventing abuse (or, more realistically, minimizing it) is a priority (cf. pro-abortion issues) he would be the most logical candidate to take the lead."

Bold unsubstantiated assertion. Not many victims would agree with you.

(d) "False information that makes Pell looks like he is lieing about sex offenders will not promote any positive interest."

It's not 'false information' that makes Pell look like he's lying. It's Pell himself.

"But another letter showed Cardinal Pell was aware of a second allegation of sexual abuse against Father Goodall.

It was also revealed that an internal church report found Father Goodall had had sexual encounters with a 16-year-old female, as well as Mr Jones and the other young male complainant." - SMH

What is SMH read:

"But another minute showed Managing Director Pell was aware of a second allegation of the theft by General Manager Goodall.

It was also revealed that an internal company report found G.M. Goodall had had sexual encounters with a 16-year-old female junior staffer, as well as ayoung office boy complainant."?

What would happen to Drector Pell? Would Tony Abbott be singing the MD's praises?

FYI

An apology by the Pope is essential for all care survivors raised in Australia’s 114 Catholic Orphanages, the national care survivor support and advocacy body, CLAN, said today.

‘CLAN joins with Broken Rites and The Esther Centre in calling for a heartfelt and meaningful apology by the pontiff for the abuse perpetrated by Catholic priests, nuns, brothers, lay workers and church employees’, said CLAN President Leonie Sheedy.

Ms Sheedy stressed that it is not only sexual abuse which is the issue. In its eight years of existence CLAN has supported and assisted many thousands of Australians who suffered neglect, cruelty, physical assault, slave labour, and emotional and psychological damage during their time in Catholic institutional care. While CLAN acknowledges that some carers tried to do their best for children, the majority were part of an institutional ‘care’ system which abused children on a daily basis.

‘Children had their names changed and were called by numbers, were separated from their brothers and sisters and families, some left their Home illiterate, some were denied an education and worked for no wages in laundries, kitchens and on farms, and provided the free labour essential to keep the institutions running’, she said. ‘We were called no-hopers, guttersnipers, that our parents were dead or if alive didn’t love us or want us. We were made to feel hopeless, useless and worthless and told we would never amount to anything. Those who survived lost their trust in humanity and, for many, their faith in the Catholic church. The legacy of this childhood continues to affect not only survivors, but their children and families and society at large.’

Despite the evidence of numerous inquiries, state and federal, the Catholic church continues to deny and to hide its shameful role in the child welfare history of Australia, said Ms Sheedy: ‘We hope that the Pope will take the opportunity while he is a guest in our country, to show leadership and the true values of Christianity by humbly and sincerely issuing this Apology, to enable the healing to begin.’

Leonie Sheedy (0425 204 747) www.clan.org.a

Leonie,

I did not know this history. Tragic. Sad.

O.

"many thousands of Australians who suffered neglect, cruelty, physical assault, slave labour, and emotional and psychological damage during their time in Catholic institutional care. ... the majority were part of an institutional ‘care’ system which abused children on a daily basis."

Though I do not understand the relevance of this to the topic of Cardinal Pell's dealing with Mr. Jones, I think it says a lot about the author's emotional motivation for the position he/she is taking. That is a sad fact one must accept.

As far as I know, the Catholic Church was not the state religion at those times. The quote implies that other CONTEMPORARY institutions (Christian or not) did a better job when viewed from the position of PRESENT DAY standards and knowledge of psychology and pedagogy. Does there exist such a comparative historical study to support this claim? For instance, as far as I know, the "stolen generation" problem is not regarded as a merely Catholic affair.