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

From the moral and ethical point of view Cardinal
Pell must now either resign or the Pope must retire
him. If its not done, the Church will pay heavily
in the loss of its membership. Cardinal Pell was
more than just a parish priest. His responsibility
was the equivalent of a Director of a Corporation.
He placed his own ambition above that of the well being
of the members of his Church:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-02/humphreys-george-pell-and-the-power-of-indifference/7213120

What about the BBC?

Why haven't heads been rolling there?

Interesting and predictable that the focus in some quarters is on Pell, but others are somehow treated with kid gloves?

In politics too, the ministers have escaped Scot free. Why so?

Politicians like Willie Shorten (and others from both sides) are always quick to duck everything but the power, pay and privileges of position, saying that it is only where they are actually convicted by a court that it matters, but even then they wriggle out.

My concern and it has been expressed consistently on OLO, is that leaders must be held responsible for what happens under their watch. Usually they OUGHT to have known and were not fulfilling their responsibilities somewhere.

For example, what is there about the management of the BBC (or unions in Australia) that complainants did not feel they could come forward an use the internal complaint mechanisms (if in existence!) or that if they did, they themselves might (read as would) suffer?

The red flag is always up where ministers and leaders are shirking their fiduciary responsibilities and do not have adequate, proactive controls in place, with a program of independent reviews.

I doubt that Pell will be retired or resign Foxy. That would be seen as an admission of guilt and the church doesn't want to pay out any more compensation from the huge amount of wealth they have accumulated from the faithful (gullible) over the years.

Mind you, this 'serious heart problem' that supposedly precludes Pell from sitting in a first class seat in a plane flying back to Australia, may well be handy in keeping him from having to face more abuse victims in Australia.

He did look well to me when he forcefully proclaimed his ignorance on anything happening to kids in all the places he worked earlier in his 'career'. Not that I am suggesting he would lie about the seriousness of any heart problems, because priests don't sin like that...

Dear Foxy,

I think the Australian government should commission Pell to write a history of the Catholic Church in Australia. If Tony Abbott was still the PM (which he might be after the next election, i.e. the LNP dumps an elected Turnbull, putting Abbott back into the top job - I can just see Abbott saying 'Thanks Turnie for winning the election for me") I'm sure he would commission Pell to perform that task. Plus he might even give him one of those free fake $40K Rolexes as a sign of appreciation.

Foxy,

I think Pell is a gutless, lying enabler...however, we need to take into account that it is Canon Law not to boot out paedophiles.

http://www.theherald.com.au/story/2340393/opinion-pontifical-secret-allows-abuse-to-go-unpunished/

" The policy of secrecy may not have been so disastrous for children had canon law’s internal disciplinary procedures been adequate to dismiss such priests. But they were not.

Canon law required bishops to try and reform such priests before dismissing them. In his 1983 Code of Canon Law, Pope John Paul II imposed a five-year limitation period that effectively meant there would be no canonical trials of sex-abusing priests.

It also gave such priests a Catch-22 defence: a priest cannot be dismissed for paedophilia because he is a paedophile.

The more children a priest abused, the less likely it was could he be dismissed."

"In 1962, Pope St. John XXIII reissued Crimen Sollicitationis. In 1974, Pope Paul VI, by his decree, Secreta Continere renamed ‘‘the secret of the Holy Office’’ ‘‘the pontifical secret’’, and it continued to apply to the sexual abuse of children under the new 1983 Code of Canon Law.

In 2001, Pope St. John Paul II confirmed the pontifical secret under some new procedures, and in 2010, Pope Benedict XVI expanded its reach by applying it to allegations of priests having sex with intellectually disabled people. In 2010, the Holy See allowed a restricted form of reporting to the civil authorities but only where the civil law required it."

"But now there is hard evidence that six popes since 1922, two of them now saints, maintained and expanded a system of cover-up of child sexual abuse by clergy through canon law, in order to save the Church’s reputation.

These were not “bad popes” of the Renaissance kind.

An unintended consequence of this policy was an increase in damage done to children, a crime that the Church’s founder thought was so bad that those responsible should be thrown in the sea with millstones around their necks."

(More in article)

Personally I have no idea what level of crime that Pell partook or turned a blind eye to. What I do know is that numerous bosses at the bbc turned a blind eye to Saville and that numerous turned blind eyes to Islamic child abuse in England and Australia and that rates of abuse among Indigenous is at epidemic rates. Can't help but to think many haters of Pell are not concerned about victims nearly as much as hating the Catholic church probably because it does not line up with their worldview. Personally I have no time for the Catholic church after being brought up in it but am somewhat puzzled by the irrational hatred towards Pell as most don't really know what he did and did not do. No one on this forum would be able to accurately answer questions of what took place up to 50 years ago

runner,

George "It's a sad story and it wasn't of much interest to me" Pell slithered and slid his way through his testimony.

Your comment: "...No one on this forum would be able to accurately answer questions of what took place up to 50 years ago."...is exactly what Pell was hoping for...success!

When a Cardinal testifies that a young child reported abuse to him and says that he didn't do anything because in his eyes the child was merely "lamenting" and not requesting action - what do you expect us to make of this "man of the Church"?

You say:

"....Personally I have no time for the Catholic church after being brought up in it but am somewhat puzzled by the irrational hatred towards Pell as most don't really know what he did and did not do."

Well we know he dismissed that child's complaint - because he admitted it. That's the sort of thing he's despised for - why do you have trouble digesting that? It's not "irrational" - it's eminently "rational".

(The goings-on in the BBC are just as abominable...however, we're discussing Pell on this thread)

Strangely enough Poirot I agree with most of what you say on this. However the issue has been done over 3 royal commissions. It is obvious that Pell acted grossly by turning a blind eye like numerous others in society. We just have not had 3 royal commissions with hound dogs bent on the destruction of one man among many. No such scrutiny of elders in Indigeneous communities or others who have done as much damage or even worse than Pell. Had he not been promoted so highly in the Catholic church since those events I doubt whether most would even know who Pell is.

Catholics (and I am NOT one) should be proud of Cardinal Pell, a gentleman and true prince of the church. People who trumpet their 'surprise' (a cowardly, malicious way of calling the man a liar) that Pell didn't know things, are riddled with venom and ignorance. Pell was, and is, a conservative who stands by his faith, sidelined by progressive and grubby priests who protected their filthy, perverted mates by shuffling them to a fro, out of Pell's ken. It suits the cunning snakes in the grass to blame Pell. They understand grubbiness and perversion better than they do honour and decency, which Pell has in abundance.

ttbn "They understand grubbiness and perversion better than they do honour and decency, which Pell has in abundance."
Wow ttbn! You personally know that Pell has honor and decency, and everyone else is wrong? You must be very gullible if you believe the really obvious lies that Pell told.
Even the many Catholics I know have distanced themselves from this bloke.

Runner, I do agree with you re the terrible child sexual abuse that is rife in some Indigenous communities, but you do remember what happened when the government did try to send in help for some of those communities? There were cries about 'stolen generations' and the Indigenous people themselves did not want this help, or to have the problem looked into more closely. Personally, I think there wouldn't be many Indigenous families that weren't affected by child abuse in some way and thus a huge number of their menfolk would be taken away and incarcerated. I hope I am wrong.

As for Saville and Rolf Harris, and the others identified in the British child sex abuse scandal, there was a huge investigation there too, at least as big as this Catholic one.
The difference being that neither Saville or Harris put themselves out there as being morally better than anyone else, or supposedly the voices of God, like the hypocritical Catholic clergy do. So that makes what they did seem worse....

I am not sure how many posters actually watched the proceedings or just received their information via the media. I watched the entire get-go, so that I could form my own opinion.
Those were terrible times, and it is clear that Cardinal Pell was unaware of the misbehaviour around him while he was at Ballarat in the '70's, as were most other priests, including Paul Bongiorno who also spent some time living with a later, convicted, paedophile priest.
In Melbourne, as an auxiliary bishop, Cardinal Pell had no 'power', even in his own part of the diocese, except to confirm children and represent the Arch-bishop at local functions, eg opening a school.
I was living in the Sale Diocese in the late seventies and it was considered a scandal how lax was the administration of the Melbourne diocese, compared to Sale, and how impossible it was for conservative priests/teachers/parishioners in Melbourne to have any impact on the status quo. It was a very liberal time, possibly borne out by the fact that the Archbishop before Pell was sacked, 4 years before he turned 75.
A blogger suggested that Cardinal Pell's illness was a prop to protect him from the victims of abuse, however it is well documented that Cardinal Pell spent 2 hours with the victims who wanted to meet with him; reports suggest that there were and are to come very positive outcomes as a result of that meeting.
We should all turn our thoughts and prayers to finding ways to support victims now and into the future. That would be a more positive fruit of our labours that attempting to saddle one churchman with all the guilt of the catholic Church administration in Australia, let alone Melbourne.

What have Pell, Ridsdale, Shannon McCoole here in SA, Rotherham, abuse of children in orphanages, Hollingsworth's C. of E., etc. got in common ?

The abuse of power which people in positions of trust have over the defenceless.

Surely one lesson out of all this ghastly mess is that, for people in positions of power over defenceless children, there have to be systems of monitoring and surveillance, a ready response to complaints by children and expert follow-up counselling, and direct and severe penalties on organisations which cover up abuse. No transferring abusers from one place to another. No automatic denial of children's complaints. Most certainly no 'staying over night' alone with a carer. No sitting of kids on laps.

Teachers have been aware for generations of the need for distance between themselves and children, never to be alone with a child behind a closed door, never to encourage any love-struck teenager in any way. And children means 'up to eighteen, or whenever they leave school'.

Carers have to be squeaky-clean, as if their mothers or grandmothers were watching.

Joe

' No transferring abusers from one place to another. No automatic denial of children's complaints. Most certainly no 'staying over night' alone with a carer. No sitting of kids on laps.'

All sounds good Loudmouth, the only problem is there is now many teenagers from dysfunctional backgrounds who are pathological liars and know that the word paedeophile will excuse any despicable behaviour including destroying innocent people. Some mothers lie in order to stop men access to their kids

Bridge jenny, it is in no way 'clear' that Pell knew nothing about the abuse occurring around him during all those years in those parishes. For a supposedly intelligent man to not ask any questions about why certain priests were continually moved on to other parishes beggars belief.

I too watched all of his testimony and I am certain he structured his answers to escape being held to blame for allowing the abuse of kids to continue for so long by the same group of priests and brothers, both personally and for the church. He is a piece of work.

So Pell finally agreed to meet the small group of abuse survivors, some of whom have been on his case for over 30 years, for two measly hours? Big of him.
The whole sorry story makes me sick.

It is not unusual for women who were molested as children to have a an either greater hatred for there mother than the father committing the crime. Maybe they feel the mother covered for the father (maybe true maybe not). I kind of see Pell's situation like these mothers.

Runner:

“It is not unusual for women who were molested as children to have a an either greater hatred for there mother than the father committing the crime. Maybe they feel the mother covered for the father (maybe true maybe not). I kind of see Pell's situation like these mothers.”

This a very insightful point. Pell could be covering up because he believes that is the greater good. So many people have become disillusioned and saddened by this sorry mess because of their dependence on the Catholic Church and whilst he has sympathy for those who were abused he also has concern for the thousands of church members who have been shaken to the core. These are all rationalisations of course and should not be considered in a Royal Commission but lots of people live not by logic but according to rationalisations.

Women who do not act when they know their daughters have been abused by their fathers also rationalise away their inaction by telling themselves that it’s better to keep it quiet and keep the family together. That is not a logical response but it is that kind of denial that makes it worse for children and compounds the damage done to the daughter.

While justice has to be done there is often a lot more than justice which is being sought. A lot of people are out for blood - they want revenge. Which of these is not guilty of living by rationalisations? He who is without rationalisations should cast the first stone.

A lot of people are like the daughter you spoke of but they cannot bring themselves to confront their mothers – it would be too traumatic. A safer option for them is to project that rage onto others like George Pell.

I think there is a world of difference between a mother protecting her small family unit (if indeed that happened), and a Bishop who is aware of multiple paedophiles at work abusing kids while pretending to be moral crusaders in multiple parishes, who does nothing about it because he wants to protect his own job and the church.
Blind Freddy can see the difference there.

One assumes that Pell was acting in accordance with canon law when he turned a blind eye to all the things going on around him - things that were common knowledge in the parishes affected.

I don't think he was rationalising anything beyond toeing the Church line, knowing at the time that paedophile priests had been shuffled around between since time immemorial.

When you have a church organisation that mandates celibacy, like the Catholic Church, it's necessary to institute laws within the organisation to counter the abuses that arise. That's what that canon law does.

Pell, unfortunately being a mere church lackey - big on dogma, small on morality - saw fit to ignore what should have been patently obvious to anyone above a half-wit - and allowed "business as usual" to continue around him.

What a midget of a man.

"When you have a church organisation that mandates celibacy, like the Catholic Church, it's necessary to institute laws within the organisation to counter the abuses that arise."

What an ignorant comment! What has celibacy got to do with pedophelia?
Pedophelia has nothing to do with sex. I suppose if all men were married they wouldn't rape either? The most sexual abuse happens in the home where married men abuse their own children. It is all about access to children.

phanto,

"What an ignorant comment! What has celibacy got to do with pedophelia?"

Says the guy who's been busy on another thread blaming parents for the fact that their children were abused in institutions such as schools and church organisations.

Further to that, phanto claims institutions such as schools and church organisations have "no duty of care" to the children in their care.

The Catholic Church - a church which mandates celibacy - has had particular problems with child abuse in its ranks - thus emerging with that canon law which seeks to address paedophilia in the organisation by keeping paedophiles in house - and not booting them out.

Just for the record the Catholic Church does not require all its priests to be unmarried celibates I've known a few married priests; and a few others who weren't married but had a wife and family.

Suseonline:

“while pretending to be moral crusaders”

What difference does it make whether he is a moral crusader or not? You sound like the town gossip. “Did you hear that George Pell failed as a moral crusader? Scandalous!”

The only thing that matters here is that he be questioned about his failure to report criminal behaviour and that is the point of this discussion. It is about making sure that justice is done and nothing else.

If you have a problem with his moral behaviour then you should take it up with him. Why would you have a problem with his moral behaviour unless it affects you? His moral behaviour might be of concern for members of the church but for anyone else it is just gossip of people who have nothing better to do.

If you think that the two things are inseparable then why bring it up as an issue?

“I think there is a world of difference between a mother protecting her small family unit (if indeed that happened), and a Bishop who is aware of multiple paedophiles at work abusing kids”

So what is that difference? One person has responsibility for one person out of one and she fails her responsibility. She is a 100 per cent failure. The bishop has responsibility for thousands of people and he fails in his responsibility for a few dozen? Which way does the difference go?

Hi Phanto,

I would respectfully disagree that there is much incidence at all of fathers sexually abusing their daughters. I think that's an urban myth.

People with power over other people, especially children, may sometimes - rarely in the statistical scheme of things - abuse their power. That goes for most if not all churches, state welfare organisations, institutions, homes.

But if a carer is celibate, cannot get married, then it would be logical for a higher incidence of abuse to occur - I don't think that would be surprising. It may still be a tiny proportion of all celibate carers. As Big Nana says, the vast majority of priests and teachers in Aboriginal missions have been thoroughly decent people, and dedicated to the point of exhaustion, at least in my limited experience.

It's easy enough to tar entire groups with the brush of assertions and, in this case, anti-Catholic bias. Certainly Canon Law protecting such behaviour since the papal instructions around 1920 have probably increased the likelihood of abuse, and obviously has to be urgently brought in line with laws protecting people in care, and making it compulsory for complaints to be referred to police, and for police to investigate them.

Joe

phanto,

"If you have a problem with his moral behaviour then you should take it up with him. Why would you have a problem with his moral behaviour unless it affects you? His moral behaviour might be of concern for members of the church but for anyone else it is just gossip of people who have nothing better to do."

Believe it or not, I once considered you worthy of interaction on this forum.

However, judging by your recent posts over different threads, I've come to the conclusion that you possess some pretty wacky opinions - most of which you pull out of a hat and attempt to fashion into a parachute when your engine fails mid-debate.

Joe:

“But if a carer is celibate, cannot get married, then it would be logical for a higher incidence of abuse to occur”

I don’t think that the percentage of priests who abuse compared to their overall numbers is any greater than the percentage of non-priests. I think it would roughly be the same but how could you know?

Abusing children sexually is not about sexual satisfaction but about trying to meet some deep-seated need for emotional attachment. How could a 25 year old priest find sexual satisfaction with a four year old child? Sexual behaviour is rarely just about sex. There are many emotions and other aspects that accompany sexual behaviour. That is why we call it ‘making love’ there is so much more to it.

It is like saying that rape is simply about sexual satisfaction. Why would a 20 year old man rape a 95 year old woman – just for sexual pleasure? If someone is maladjusted and expresses that maladjustment by sexually abusing children then they will do so whether they are married or not.

Very few people want to look at the emotions of the perpetrators of these crimes because they are so full of rage but that is never going to stop the problem. ‘Broadchurch’ was an English drama which dared to draw the link between emotional need and sexual abuse. For many men it is about holding the child ‘within’ who is in a great deal of pain. It does not excuse such behaviour but helps to understand it. There are lots of people who do not want to even look at that possible connection because it may become too personal for them so they join a lynch mob directed at someone remote enough to keep them from facing their own pain.

The really sad thing is that this is like turning to drugs – it cannot help.

Hi Phanto,

No, I don't think that sexual abuse or rape are solely or totally or 'simply' about sex - more likely about power, and how it can be abused. But one major way for one person to exert that unequal power over someone else is through imposing sexual activity on them. After all, in most 'caring' situations, about the only ways to abuse one's power are either unwarranted physical punishment or sexual abuse.

No, it's not the only way, and yes, married clergy and carers may be guilty of such abuse, but I doubt that they would be as inclined as single men, since, frankly, they may not have such power urges if they have a partner to share their sex-life with.

Joe

If the most senior executive of a private or public body is not responsible for implementing robust, effective controls, who is?

The responsibilities of the most senior executive and affecting Cardinal Pell are so evident as to not require a quote. In Australia, he had been devolved full powers from the Vatican and he was ultimately responsible. However, the management layers below him also have fiduciary responsibility.

A senior executive cannot manage everything and s/he must put trust in others. However, that always carries the requirement that s/he assesses the risks and ensures that proper management controls are in place and operating, and that there is a system of monitoring and assurance.

What interests the public is that while many are bagging Pell (and he is due censure, but for the right reasons), they are not so similarly inclined where their own interests are involved. For example, the recent Royal Commission into Unions betrayed similar deficiencies in the management of unions and of the Labor Party as well.

As for the State itself and its handling of its young charges eg State Wards and other vulnerable citizens, for instance the abysmal, very sad role of the federal and State governments in the forced adoption scandal that went on for decades and up until very recent times, all politicians and others who should have known and acted better should be hanging their heads in shame too.

The then PM Julia Gillard should be given full credit for her apology to the surviving affected parties,

http://tinyurl.com/gqk6d9j

The obvious deficiency of this thread is that it is aimed at and has largely been responded to as a political exercise - mud-slinging and shabby political point-scoring.

There is a higher plane for the discussion than the relentless personal attack on Pell, skewed to avoid the larger issues.

"The obvious deficiency of this thread is that it is aimed at and has largely been responded to as a political exercise - mud-slinging and shabby political point-scoring."

Today's belly laugh provided by otb...

onthebeach appears to be the only poster who has attempted to "hijack" this thread for political ends.

Eg.,

"Interesting and predictable that the focus in some quarters is on Pell, but others are somehow treated with kid gloves?

In politics too, the ministers have escaped Scot free. Why so?

Politicians like Willie Shorten (and others from both sides) are always quick to duck everything but the power, pay and privileges of position, saying that it is only where they are actually convicted by a court that it matters, but even then they wriggle out."

"For example, what is there about the management of the BBC (or unions in Australia)..."

"What interests the public is that while many are bagging Pell (and he is due censure, but for the right reasons), they are not so similarly inclined where their own interests are involved. For example, the recent Royal Commission into Unions betrayed similar deficiencies in the management of unions and of the Labor Party as well."

Nice line in mud-slinging and shabby political point-scoring.

Can you point me to anyone else who attempted to skew this discussion for political ends?

What's this?

"There is a higher plane for the discussion than the relentless personal attack on Pell, skewed to avoid the larger issues."

Um...this thread is titled "Should Cardinal Pell accept Responsibility?"

What do you suggest we discuss with a title such as that?

To take an example, it is very worrying for parents and carers that the Safe Schools program is being funded and implemented without an independent, professionally-conducted examination of risks and possible treatments.

What about public consultation? It is impossible that any effective risk analysis could be conducted without reference to parents, school councils and parent and citizen associations.

How in the world a Marxist-inspired experiment in social reengineering could ever have won free access to children and taxpayer funding is beyond the understanding of most people.

Frankly, the public are fed up to the back teeth with political correctness and lazy politicians who leave it all up to the few, while occupying themselves sorting their own entitlements, especially their travel to tourist destinations overseas.

And here's more...

"How in the world a Marxist-inspired experiment in social reengineering could ever have won free access to children and taxpayer funding is beyond the understanding of most people.

Frankly, the public are fed up to the back teeth with political correctness and lazy politicians who leave it all up to the few, while occupying themselves sorting their own entitlements, especially their travel to tourist destinations overseas."

Btw, where your proof for "Marxist inspired"? You predictably never got back to me on that one.

Celibacy has nothing to do with children being abused. It occurs wherever children gather, mostly men from all classes, races, ages.

It has nothing to do with love. More to do with power, hate and cruelty.

It is not just about cuddling up to, fingering a child. it is full on sex, rape and torture.

Paedophiles seek out environments where there are children, they can operate with some sense being safe.

They are the family friend "uncle" that make themselves part of family, uncle who is always there to take over in an emergency. One that the family find it hard to do without. They latch onto single mums, groom for years to get trust.

The bloke that no group can do without. The one first on the scene last to go. Always willing to pick kids.

I am 74, sadly experienced it very close to home over my lifetime. It has taken a lifetime to realise the full extent of the harm it causes.

Yes, I have some understanding of culture norms of the past that allowed it to prosper.

Back in middle of last century, the church, especially priests played special part in families. Always respected. Someone most found it hard to find fault with. Harder still to confront, rush to the police over.

As for abuse did to the children, many didn't see it as a crime. Just a little too much cuddling,inappropriate kissing, even a little fingering. Dirty old man complex.

Much emphasis was put on the good name of the family. What happened in the family stayed in the family. Unmarried mothers to e where hidden, babies adopted out.

Victims became a long last concern in both home and church.

Yes I have some sympathy for Pell working in this environment.

I have no sympathy for the fact still can't take responsibility for the way he acted, was a part of the culture.

He needs to say, I was wrong, I know now. Until he can do that, he has learnt nothing. He is still keeping his head in the sand.

We were all wrong

"“It is not unusual for women who were molested as children to have a an either greater hatred for there mother than the father committing the crime. Maybe they feel the mother covered for the father (maybe true maybe not). I kind of see Pell's situation like these mothers.”"

Spot on. Kids find it hard to believe mum didn't know. Being a mum who allowed her daughter to be abused, I find it hard myself to believe I never suspected.

These men work hard at breaking down every relationship in their victims lives. Playing family members off against each other. This is what does the lasting damage.

They convince them mum won't believe them, or worse, mum knows, doesn't care.

They create a completely dysfunctional family around them.

At the end of the day, mums are there to protect them. To fix things up. Mum never forgiven.

The brain tells them that is not true. The heart never forgives.

Same can goes for DV. The kids never forgive mum for not fixing things with dad.

PS. Sex was never denied my perpetrator husband. Never stopped him.

Flo:
That is a heartfelt testimony.

Where do you go when dad is abusing you – to your mum. What do you do when she won’t believe you? You just suffer.

Where do you go when the priest is abusing you? To your parents. What if your parents are emotionally dependent on the church and cannot bring themselves to protect their own child because of that dependence?

What do you do if you are in a church institution and your mum and dad is that church institution?

What do you do when you tell one member of that institution but he does nothing because he too is dependent on that institution for his own emotional needs and basic needs.

What do you do when you are too little to run away? Where can you go? Nowhere except perhaps to an imaginary world inside your head where you tell yourself that the world outside your head does not exist for you.

There is brokenness all around but you have stopped the cycle. You are an inspiration.

sorry to hear that Flo. I have heard the story to many times. As a father I just can't comprehend it and yet I have met many abusers and those who were abused. I think many mothers knew but felt totally powerless. I am by no means excusing whatever Pell knew or did not but was I do feel he like many mothers could of turned a blind eye for the same reason (feeling powerless). This shows how sick parts of the Catholic church was. I am so glad I left it. In saying that with 20 years involvement with the church (mainly as a kid) I never witnessed or knew of any abuse. Maybe I was to naïve.

Runner I don't tell the story for sympathy. I tell it to let people know how insidious is paedophilia. In fact has many similarities to DV.

As a mother, I also find it hard to believe how one could harm children, even their own.

It shouldn't surprise one that many are found in the churches especially the Catholic Church.

One will find them wherever children are to be found.

'
It shouldn't surprise one that many are found in the churches especially the Catholic Church.'

yep and now Flo that most kids are not in church the Paedophiles are found in every other part of society. Strange that.

I recently re-read Paul Collins's book, "Believers:
Does Australian Catholicism have a future?" in which
Dr Collins tells us that church lawyer and former
Sydney Auxilliary Bishop Geoffrey Robinson stated that:

"I believe that the Catholic church is in a prison...
It constructed the prison for itself, locked itself
in and threw away the key. That prison is the prison
of not being able to be wrong... Far too often the
Catholic church believed that it had such a level of
divine guidance that it did not need the right to be
wrong...even when clear evidence emerges that earlier
decisions were conditioned by their own time and that
the arguments for them are not as strong as they were
once thought to be."

Collins tells us that Robinson was speaking within the
context of sexual abuse, but his comments have a wider
resonance. This imprisonment in the past has been
reinforced by the doctrine of infallibility, which
also conveys a sense that the church can never be wrong.
It is precisely this that the church needs to confront.

In his book, "No Set Agenda," Dr Collins wrote that
Catholicism was not facing an external crisis, but a loss
of confidence and self-identity. The core of the problem
was that the Catholic church had become lethargic and
passionless, it had lost its sense of direction...It had
turned in on itself.

Collins argued that Catholicism in the early 1990s had
entered a decisive period when hard choices
would have to be made for survival and when far reaching
decisions about the church's tranjectory in Australian
society had to be taken.

But as Collins tells us -
clearly nobody with any real influence was listening

Flo, "I have no sympathy for the fact still can't take responsibility for the way he acted, was a part of the culture"

Yes, that is right, the culture of any organisation is set from the top and Pell as the RC CEO in Australia must ultimately take the responsibility. I am surprised he hasn't removed himself from office.

Pell should have had processes in place to ensure that such practices, crimes, did not occur and where they did, the complaint and communication lines were open and encouraged reports that would be taken seriously.

The only acceptable decision for any CEO would have been to immediately refer the matter to the police. Any internal action must be see as intent to hide or minimise the offence and destroy the evidence trail.

I suspect in the RC church the problem extends to Rome, has historical roots and is deeply imbedded in the culture overall. There must be compelling reasons why no-one appealed to Rome and if they did, why no action was taken.

Returning to the BBC example and Saville (and perhaps others) it would not be as simple as 'just' Jimmy Saville. There is damn good reason to suspect that the kiddy fiddling problem extends far beyond and survives, most likely including those who could have acted and been resolute in the process of discovery but did nothing. They should have reported to police and are now saying they didn't really see anything at all. Bollocks to them!

Criminals fear discovery first of all. The police are the correct and only authority with the investigative powers and skills.

The very best way to deter, discover and disrupt the grots in organisations is for there to be an insistence on accountability from the CEO down. Part of that is a values statement of course and regular, random comprehensive audits by independents. It is easy for managers, staff too, to escape responsibility where the CEO and Board (and churches have similar roles) are avoiding their fiduciary responsibilities and most likely abusing the power and the assets of the organisation themselves.

Flo, I am so sorry to read of your abuse as a child. You are right of course in saying that celibacy is not a cause of paedophilia, and they are present in all organizations schools and sports etc, wherever they think they can gain access to kids.

The Catholic Church is no more likely to have more paedophiles in their ranks than any other church or organization, but maybe they were involved with more schools and orphanages etc than most other churches over the years?
I agree that the CEO's of the offending groups need to be more accountable for the actions of their employees, and for any inaction of the group to stop the abuse.

However, the fact remains that these disgusting paedophiles will find kids wherever they can, and if it isn't in sporting, scouts groups, church groups or schools, then it is more likely online now. Unfortunately the sexual abuse of kids in their own homes, or close by, and by people they trust, remains one of the most common places for paedophile activity.

Pedophilia in the Australian Catholic Church was/is systemic, as it was in the church world wide. What has been exposed in Australia is the tip of the iceberg, many instances of criminal behavior by clergy has never, and most likely never will be, reported. Today this past is a dark secret only known to the many victims, as children most victims were unable, or unwilling, to report abuse, by Father, by Brother, for fear of retribution. As adults many still have great difficulty reconciling the past, and would much prefer to "put it behind them" if they can.
When pedophilia was exposed, the church had a clear policy, and a clear procedure in place. The unwritten policy was first and foremost to protect "the good name of the church", by the prevention of scandal, and the procedure was simple, act quickly to move the offender elsewhere, out of harms way so to speak. Those in the middle and top levels of authority in the Church, were well aware of this unwritten procedure, move the offender elsewhere as quickly as possible to prevent scandal. Those in authority did not have to ask what to do, they knew instinctively what to do, it was common practice! This action was often rationalised by church authority with the belief the behavior of rough clergy was nothing more than a momentary lapse, possibly caused by overwork, or some low point in their life etc, and with the grace of god it would soon be rectified. Pell to say he was not in the loop on this is preposterous,

Suse,

So, I don't have personal knowledge about Pell, but you do! You are an arrogant and stupid woman: all mouth and no brain, riddled with hatred and fear. In the time now spoken of, people kept sexual abuse quiet; swept it under the carpet. You and that other harridin are merely ignorant bigots. You just go with the mob. You have no knowlege of anything but howl down those who do. You are too stupid to waste time on.

Paul 1405,

You are another ignoramus. Sexual abuse is not "systemic" in the Catholic church.It 'occurs' in the Catholic church, just as it occurs in other religious and non-religious organisations. Don't use words you don't understand to express your ignorance of Catholicism and Christianity in general. It merely shows you up as an fool, attacking religion for political reasons.

As for the absolute crap about celibacy, the latest priest caught out in SA was a MARRIED Anglican priest who switched to the Catholics. Claiming that celibacy has anything to do with pedophilia is another pointer to the ignorance of the loudmouths who screech their rubbish on OLO.

ttbn,

When is something considered..."systemic"?

When there is an ongoing and updated canon law dedicated to accommodating the practice...like the "pontifical secret" of the Catholic Church.

http://www.theherald.com.au/story/2340393/opinion-pontifical-secret-allows-abuse-to-go-unpunished/

"Canon law from the 12th century decreed that he should be dismissed from the priesthood and handed over to the civil authority for punishment in accordance with the civil law.

A commission set up by Pope Pius X in 1904 drafted a uniform code of canon law by discarding papal and council decrees that were no longer relevant, modifying others and creating new ones.

The 1917 Code of Canon Law discarded the decrees requiring priests who sexually assaulted children to be handed over to the civil authorities.

Five years later, Pope Pius XI issued his 1922 decree, Crimen Sollicitationis, imposing the “secret of the Holy Office”, a “permanent silence” on all information the Church obtained through its canonical investigations of clergy sex abuse of children. There were no exceptions allowing the reporting of these crimes to the civil authorities.

In 1962, Pope St. John XXIII reissued Crimen Sollicitationis. In 1974, Pope Paul VI, by his decree, Secreta Continere renamed ‘‘the secret of the Holy Office’’ ‘‘the pontifical secret’’, and it continued to apply to the sexual abuse of children under the new 1983 Code of Canon Law.

In 2001, Pope St. John Paul II confirmed the pontifical secret under some new procedures, and in 2010, Pope Benedict XVI expanded its reach by applying it to allegations of priests having sex with intellectually disabled people. In 2010, the Holy See allowed a restricted form of reporting to the civil authorities but only where the civil law required it."

"Canon law required bishops to try and reform such priests before dismissing them. In his 1983 Code of Canon Law, Pope John Paul II imposed a five-year limitation period that effectively meant there would be no canonical trials of sex-abusing priests.

It also gave such priests a Catch-22 defence: a priest cannot be dismissed for paedophilia because he is a paedophile.

The more children a priest abused, the less likely it was could he be dismissed."

ttbn,

May I remind you that you informed me that "ttbn" was an acronym for "try to be nice".

Ergo - the rhetoric in your last two 'short" posts doesn't appear to be living up to your intentions.

"You are another ignoramus..."

"...It merely shows you up as an fool..."

"...another pointer to the ignorance of the loudmouths who screech their rubbish on OLO."

Charmed I'm sure...

Paul1405:

“What has been exposed in Australia is the tip of the iceberg, many instances of criminal behavior by clergy has never, and most likely never will be, reported.”

What is the point of such an assertion if it has not been reported? Our justice system deals only with crimes that are reported. What should the royal commission do with your assertion that what we have seen is the tip of the iceberg? What we are discussing is the responsibility of George Pell and in this country you are innocent until proven guilty based on the facts. Should he be held responsible for what occurred or for the iceberg which is below the surface?

Such an assertion just shows that you do not have respect for one of the most fundamental values in society which is the presumption of innocence or else you have some personal bitterness and resentment towards Pell himself or the church. I don’t think the forums exist for you to work out your own personal issues.

phanto,

The "pontifical secret" is designed to guarantee that the tip of the iceberg is the only part apparent...and if the Catholic Church had its way, not even the tip would be visible.

Pell's "Melbourne Response"....

"The Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne's process of assisting people sexually abused by its priests or members discouraged victims from contacting police, according to a study by the federal government's Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.
The commission noted several problems with the Melbourne Response – a program set up by Cardinal George Pell in late 1996 when he was Archbishop of Melbourne – in a report released on Monday.
The case study identified 12 systemic issues, including the role of the Catholic Church in determining its own redress, and the "relationship between those delivering or coordinating counselling and pyschological care and those making decisions about the abuse and compensation".

In particular, the commission expressed concern that the church's own law firm was instructing both the independent commissioner and the archdiocese about the same cases, noting "Corrs' position as lawyers responsible for the Melbourne Response, as well as solicitors for the Archdiocese, raises a clear potential for conflict. It also raises difficulties with confidentiality."

The commission was also concerned that the independent commissioner who has run the Melbourne Response since 1996, Mr O'Callaghan, QC, gave victims advice about whether or not it was worth telling police about the abuse with a view to laying criminal charges."

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/catholic-churchs-melbourne-response-criticised-by-royal-commission-20150914-gjm1l2.html#ixzz42MX5V5Bf

"...identified 12 'systemic' issues..."

What does this mean?:

" I don’t think the forums exist for you to work out your own personal issues."

While I in no way condone what occurred in the Catholic Church, I get irritated at those that screech for retribution based on 2016 moral values for crimes that were committed 2 generations ago when priorities were vastly different.

The Church is not run like a company, and there is no clear reporting structure. While most people would consider that Pell would follow up rumours, it is clear that not only the church discouraged it, but the police actively did so as well.

Pell is now in charge of the Vatican finances and doing a sterling job by all reports, and until someone comes forward with concrete evidence that he was aware of an actual case of abuse and covered it up, asking for his resignation for unsubstantiated accusations would not save a single child, but be substantially unfair as well.

SM,

Pell, during his recent testimony, told of a student that reported abuse to "him".

He ignored it...saying that as far as he was concerned the student was merely "lamenting" and "mentioning it" and had not asked him to do anything about it.

"The commission earlier heard Cardinal Pell had received information from a student at Ballarat's St Patrick's College in the 1970s that Dowlan was "misbehaving with boys".

Cardinal Pell said he had inquired with the school chaplain about the complaint but did not take it further.

"With the experience of 40 years later, certainly I would agree that I should have done more," Cardinal Pell said.

"There was no specifics about the activity, how serious it was, and the boy wasn't asking me to do anything about it, but just lamenting and mentioning it."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-03/george-pell-child-abuse-commission-paedophiles-coincidence/7216072

Now that may not be "an actual case" and he may not have "actually covered it up"...however we can clearly glean how he operated in order to douse any thought of investigations into allegations.

I'm not about to make excuses for him...and this stuff occurred in the 1980s - not the 1580s or even the 1940s.

Shadow, not keeping up with the Royal Commission I see.

<<until someone comes forward with concrete evidence that he was aware of an actual case of abuse and covered it up,>>

Pell admitted at the RC to the following;

that a student at St Patrick's College in Ballarat said Brother Edward Dowlan was "misbehaving with boys" in 1974.
He said it was "casually mentioned" and the boy did not ask him to act.
Dowlan, who has since changed his name to Ted Bales, was jailed last year for abusing boys in the 1970s and '80s.

Well the boy, DID NOT ASK HIM TO ACT! So Pell did not investigate, did not ask for names, did not even make any real discreet inquires for himself.

Given the rumors that abounded in the Ballarat Diocese at the time, and Pell claims he was not in the loop.

I look forward to the Royal Commissions findings in relation to both Pell and the Catholic Church, it should make interesting reading.

Thanks Poirot, for the exhaustive timeline on 'Cannon Law' and how numerous Popes used it to protect church pedophiles.
I attended Catholic Schools in the 1960's and 70's and it was routine, and common knowledge, from time to time that certain brothers, Marist and Christian, within the schools were "touching" boys etc. When things got "hot" for a brother, the orders hierarchy would simply mover the offender to a new school. Monday morning would come and Brother Touchy would be replaced with Brother Feelem, no explanation given, just gone. This kind of action was done routinely and matter of factly. As I said abouse in Catholic schools was systemic, and the Catholic hierarchy had a policy and a method to deal with it. SHIFT EM' ELSEWHERE!

P&P,

"a student at St Patrick's College in Ballarat said Brother Edward Dowlan was "misbehaving with boys" in 1974" - I think that it would be difficult to get any less specific or concrete which makes my point precisely. While today this should trigger inquiries, 2 generations ago this would have been unlikely.

Perhaps you two would do well to consider facts instead of innuendo, there is still nothing to indicate that that Pell behaved inappropriately in the context of the times, especially considering that the police were turning away those that made specific and concrete claims.

SM,

You appear to be equating the 1980s with the zeitgeist earlier in the century.

The 1980s has far more in common with 2016 than it does with any time earlier in the 20th century.

It wasn't the 1930s or 40s, 50s or even the the 60s when things were quite adeptly hidden in these types of institutions and no-one expected any different.

I have no doubt that Pell was merely acting in accordance with past practises of his Church. Ignoring reports and moving perpetrators on was what the Catholic Church excelled at.

It doesn't excuse his non-action - or his recent slippery "I knew nothing" testimony.

He's a midget of a man.

Btw, our very close friends are church going Catholics. They broached the subject with us the other day, and were quite disgusted with Pell's testimony and his general countenance. He's precisely the type they repudiate as a representation of their church.

Hi Poirot,

Thanks for this article, which is worth repeating:

http://www.theherald.com.au/story/2340393/opinion-pontifical-secret-allows-abuse-to-go-unpunished/

"Canon law from the 12th century decreed that he should be dismissed from the priesthood and handed over to the civil authority for punishment in accordance with the civil law.

A commission set up by Pope Pius X in 1904 drafted a uniform code of canon law by discarding papal and council decrees that were no longer relevant, modifying others and creating new ones.

The 1917 Code of Canon Law discarded the decrees requiring priests who sexually assaulted children to be handed over to the civil authorities.

Five years later, Pope Pius XI issued his 1922 decree, Crimen Sollicitationis, imposing the “secret of the Holy Office”, a “permanent silence” on all information the Church obtained through its canonical investigations of clergy sex abuse of children. There were no exceptions allowing the reporting of these crimes to the civil authorities.

In 1962, Pope St. John XXIII reissued Crimen Sollicitationis. In 1974, Pope Paul VI, by his decree, Secreta Continere renamed ‘‘the secret of the Holy Office’’ ‘‘the pontifical secret’’, and it continued to apply to the sexual abuse of children under the new 1983 Code of Canon Law.

In 2001, Pope St. John Paul II confirmed the pontifical secret under some new procedures, and in 2010, Pope Benedict XVI expanded its reach by applying it to allegations of priests having sex with intellectually disabled people. In 2010, the Holy See allowed a restricted form of reporting to the civil authorities but only where the civil law required it."

"Canon law required bishops to try and reform such priests before dismissing them. In his 1983 Code of Canon Law, Pope John Paul II imposed a five-year limitation period that effectively meant there would be no canonical trials of sex-abusing priests..... "

The question that bugs me is : WHY ?! WHY change the Canon Law back in 1917 ? WHY protect pedophiles at all ? Surely they're bad for business, for numbers, as examples for other priests ? God, I'm so naive.

WHY ?

Joe

P,

Please read the thread before posting.

As the incident in discussion was in 1974, not in the 1980s, and there were cases, in that period, where children made complaints directly to the police who flatly refused to do anything, I find your claim that that era was similar to today in the treatment of child abuse was extremely feeble.