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