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