Foxy,

"This sentence will do much more than that.
It will send a message to Rome that it can
no longer protect men like him and that the
rule of law runs in this country"

You're joking. right?

What makes you think that Australia is important enough to worry the Vatican?

When did the Vatican last try to protect a man like Pell?
By all accounts, the Vatican urged him to return to Australia and face the music.

is mise I respect your right to stand up for the Catholic Church
At my birth, solid COE I truly thought that Church was somehow Holier than others
Yes heard the they are the devil stuff
I shudder each time someone ignores the revealed history of your Church, world wide
Often Drive past a Hunter Valley Catholic Church/School, one that saw ALMOST ALL its staff charged, often convicted with much the same
How can a no longer believer say this? *I know the Church, any Church is a strong benefit to a better world*
However in defending Pell, in trying not to pay compensation world wide,your Church is self harming
Maybe it is just a trend, but less and less are entering the Church/Faith, Pell must share some blam

Looks like the forums bunch of rabid paedophile apologists have fallen off the pace on this one.

Belly,

Who's standing up for the Catholic Church?

I said previously that I am in favour of executing paedophiles, isn't anyone else?

agree ismise and sorry if I miss spoke
The Thread Was started in defense of Pell,my mind must have drifted
That defense harms the Church
if only we listened to the kids
that did not always happen
Yesterday it did

Is Mise,

The Vatican is concerned about their image and so they
should be. Child sexual abuse has done
immeasurable damage to the reputation of the church and
respect for the priesthood global is understandably at an
all time low. People are leaving the church in droves and
that hits the Vatican in the hip pocket. Hence Pell's
instructions from Pope Francis to go back to Australia
and face the music.

BTW - you told me in the article discussion about Pell -
that the jurors in Pell's first trial found him 10-2
for acquittal. In actual fact the first jury did not
acquit Pell. They could not reach a unanimous vote for
acquittal or even a 11-1 majority verdict. So you
see he was not in any sense cleared by the failure to
reach a verdict. Hence a mistrial. Just thought you
should know. Whereas in his second trial the jury
returned a unanimous verdict of guilty - which ended
with the man's conviction and sentencing.