Cardinal Pell's recent testimony for the
past couple of days to the Royal Commission
in Rome has been really surprising. To me
at least. He accepts no responsibility
and claims he did not know about the priest's
Ridsdale's sexual abuse of young children.
He claims that he wasn't informed - and also
that it did not interest him.

That I found to be rather surprising - when
supposedly it was common knowledge in the
community. The cover ups, the protection of
abusive clergy and the refusal to admit
egregious mistakes from a church leader such
as Cardinal Pell seem unjustifiable.

Cardinal Pell does not appear to calculate the
damage these crime have done to people's trust
and to the reputation of the church. Moving
abusive priests from parish to parish is
inexcusable.

What are your thoughts on this?

Hi Foxy. I agree with your point about the most implausible position Pell is taking by saying he knew nothing about Ridsdale's crimes, despite so many around him knowing.
The problem is that unless they can find some old letters etc where Pell admits he knew, then there doesn't seem to be any way of proving it.

What I was amazed with is the way he was made to give evidence to the Royal Commission by videoconference from a local Rome hotel, and not from his home at the Vatican? The world's media are watching these developments, and I imagine they would have thought that the Vatican wanted to distance themselves from the possible sins of the holy 'treasurer'.

Yes Pell should accept responsibility, and that should have started by telling the truth.
All those in the Catholic hierarchy who were responsible for re-locating clergy like Ridsdale to other parishes, after he abused kids in that parish, should bear equal responsibility for the children Ridsdale abused in every parish he was moved to.

I watched Pell for sometime giving his version of events through "TV Vatican" to the Royal Commission. Pell's version is so implausible that if it wasn't so serious it would be laughable. it wasn't even good acting.

Possible some of the religious on here can tell us how long you burn in hell for lying to a Royal Commission.

The RC is not required to prove its findings. For Pell this is a ticking time bomb. The Vatican moved Pell to Rome, reminiscent of how pedophile priests were moved out of harms way. All I can say is You can run Pell, but you can't hide.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/george-pell-tells-royal-commission-walking-gerald-ridsdale-to-court-was-a-mistake-20160302-gn902u.html

An insight into the thinking of Pell, reading the SMH article. What motivated Pell to walk Ridsdale to court, which he now admits was a mistake. On the surface some might say "That was a very Christian thing to do.", a bit like accompanying the condemned man to the gallows. No that was not the case, Pell thought that Ridsdale should get a lesser sentence for his vile acts on children, because he had done "good things". What were those "good things" that Ridsdale had done, according to Pell: "burying the dead and celebrating sacraments"...well, well, well, abusing children is mitigated to some degree if you mumble a few pious words over corpses, stick bits of wafer in peoples mouths and sprinkle water on babies. Yeah right!

Dear Suse and Paul,

I've come across this link where the author - Debien,
tries to help us understand Pell's testimony. It's worth
a read. It's an amazing mindset and indicative not only
of those times - but obviously still exist today:

http://www.abc.net.au/new/2016-03-04/debien-five-points-to-help-you-understand-pell's-testimony/7219688

cont'd ...

I'll try again. My apologies for the typo:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-04/debien-five-points-to-help-you-understand-pell's-testimony/7219688