Steely, you are surprised I have made it personal.
I don't need to 'try again' or change anything, my comments were in response to what amounts to, continual mental torture.
I can't stand being patronised, or anyone else, for that matter.
I detest those who preach perfection, as though they are the keepers of the moral codes, and we are the imperfect sinners.
The reason Foxy cops a lot of flack, as does Paul, is because they preach to people as if from a pulpit.
OK, I'll give you an example.
She speaks so lovingly about the courts, the police, the whole system, even the jury, as if they are all saints and we have to respect them, and as if she is intimately familiar with all these different groups.
Whether anyone believes me or not, I AM familiar with all these groups, and it frustrates me to have to read these grossly mis-leading messages she promotes.
No one should have to compromise on the truth just to satisfy the ego's and naive beliefs of others.
And so it is that I come out with some outrageous comments at times, it is simply to counter the childish, naive ones I read continually from the same suspects again and again.
My reference to YOU was because you came out batting for the 'dark side', and in so doing put you in the same camp, aligning yourself with those I speak of.
Flowery comments are only useful to the aged and the very, very young.
So as none of us are mentally or socially challenged, I would suggest that preaching from the pulpit be dis-allowed.
Comments like that maggot on Q&A made about respecting this or that.
That type of language is the very stuff I am sick of.
All those mentioned do not automatically get respected just because she and Foxy say so, they have to EARN their respect.
These institutions have a long way to go before they can be respected, regardless of what any do-gooders want to believe.

Dear Steele,

I have been reading Richard Cooke's article in The
Guardian. You can read -
if you've got the stomach for it: I barely made it.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/01/the-inconsistencies-of-george-pells-defenders-just-displays-their-power

Cooke tells us that "...the law is complex and an appeals process
is still to take place. But Pell's defenders have not decided
on his guiltlessness after a careful review of the evidence.
They don't know what the evidence is. They have not sat on the
trial or reviewed its transcripts. It seems that they did not -
and this is damning - even take the time or have the
inclination to read unsuppressed media reports before weighing
in."

Cooke tells us that "Apparently these crimes are unthinkable.
How could a man of such seniority and such faith commit
such acts?" "Why would he act so publicly and so
spontaneously? Why had his victims taken so long to come
forward?"

Cooke asks - "Where have these people been? Did these past decades
of institutional child abuse never happen? Were they looking
away the whole time? Has everything we learned painfully
about the damage it does and its shame been unlearned?"

He tells us that "of all the implausible excuses available
surely "But how could a priest do this? must rank close to
the top."

He points out that "when this is the response even to a
conviction you know why victims fear they will be
disbelieved and discredited - that fear is correct,
warranted and will be made stronger than ever before by this
disgrace."

Cooke refers to the "tens of thousands of case files.
How many more are needed?"

He goes on to describe some of the incidents which are
horrific.

He talks about the priests "who molested children not only
in public but in front of their own family members,
sometimes in the same moving car. They raped them while
wearing vestments not only orally but anally as well.
That same untieable cincture had been used to bind the
hands of a 16 years old boy who was then raped so
viciously he needed corrective surgery."

cont'd ...

cont'd ...

Dear Steele,

Cooke continues by telling us that "Opportunistic priests
have acted in windows of time not just after mass, but
on school excursions in public toilets... they have
molested every daughter in a five-daughter family."

Cooke then asks us - "So what about Cardinal Pell's
case is implausible or even unusual?"

He answers, "For anyone willing to look it's almost
humdrum once compared to the vast prolific compendium of
international crime his institution has compiled."

Cooke ends on a pessimistic note, Ünthinkable?
What his defenders mean is - they cannot bear thinking
about it."

Foxy,

"Homosexuality is a sexual attraction between members
of the same sex or gender. Pedophilia is a psychiatric
disorder in which an adult experiences an exclusive
sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children. Homosexuality
is based on sex. Pedophilia is based on age."

Gosh, and here was me thinking that Pell had been charged with sexual offences against boys, people of the same sex as himself, I thought that that was homosexuality; can't there be homosexual paedophiles?

Interesting that you think that Pell has been found guilty of a psychiatric disorder?

Hi Foxy, I found the comments by KKK on Q&A to be at the heart of the matter. BTW Kristina Keneally is a practising Catholic. On 'Four Corners' the observation by the gentleman from the surf club of Pell standing stark naked purposely exposing himself to three young boys in the change room, not being involved directly as a Pell victim his statement was most interesting and believable.

Hi Steele don't bother with the trumped up know-it-all fascists, he is totally ignorant, knows nothing. What sort of mind believes buggering of young boys by a paedophile adult is a way of turning those boys into men, its a learning experience the kiddies, they should appreciate it, and for the perpetrator it a case of self satisfaction, a bit of "getting his rocks off". what kind of mind believes that, a trumped up know-it-all fascists, that's who.

Hi Issy, being rather coy about your 1945 experience. The policy of the Catholic Church would have been to move the paedophile to other fertile ground, where he could carry on as before. Were the police involved, I bet not!

Pell's number one lawyer has quit the team.

Paul,

"Hi Issy, being rather coy about your 1945 experience. The policy of the Catholic Church would have been to move the paedophile to other fertile ground, where he could carry on as before. Were the police involved, I bet not!"

Not being coy at all, I told what happened as it happened.
The Brother was not moved on to greener fields but left the Order shortly after being caught out.
He married, had a family and died a model citizen and the police were not involved, we were working-class Irish and no one told the police anything, ever.

None of his victims ever took to drugs, beat their wives or went weird.
Through the Old Boys Union we all kept in touch and had regular reunions so I know what happened to all of those who came in contact with this Brother, he was known among the cognoscenti as "Old Slobber Lips", even though his period of depredation was very short.