Pell's appeal was granted on a legal technicality and was not a proof of innocence per se.

The High Court judges did not consider his actual guilt or innocence but only the matter of "reasonable doubt" in failed applications to the Victorian Court of Appeal and they overturned the State decision.

I don't know how he went with other civil lawsuits likely after the release of the Royal Commission’s findings about his conduct in Ballarat.

Foxy.

FYI there was indeed a lot of Catholic versus Protestant hostility in Australia from the 1920s almost up to the 70s, particularly in marriages which were sometimes regarded as "mixed" and caused strife within families.

Sometimes those priests who agreed to perform such marriages would do it behind the altar and not in front so as not to offend God in some way.

The then-23% Catholic minority, especially those of of Irish descent were regarded as an "underclass" by British descended Protestants and were sometimes denied employment on the basis of their religion. It never reached the violence of "the troubles" as in Ireland but was indeed an ugly period in our own history. The original Catholic Schools were intended for the struggling poor and were not the elitist version of today.

"Pell's appeal was granted on a legal technicality and was not a proof of innocence per se."

Yes, very true. The technicality was that he wasn't guilty. Courts don't determine guilt or innocence. They determine whether is a person is guilty or not guilty.

There is a long tradition in British legal systems that people are innocent before the law until proven guilty. Pell wasn't proven guilty and was therefore innocent.

I'm sure the usual suspects here are aware of that legal standard. Its just that when it comes to groups they hate, they pretend that it doesn't apply. But if I was to say that Shorten got off on his rape allegation based on the technicality that they couldn't prove guilt, those same people would bristle at the thought.

So yes, for these people, normal legal standards don't apply when dealing with a group they hate. But don't point out this hatred, because they tell you interminably how very tolerant they are.

We will never hear the end of this "technicality" BS as long as legal ignoramuses draw breath. Pell's appeal was not "granted"; he was found not guilty because there was 'reasonable doubt' that what he was accused of could have happened the way it was described. That’s the way all acquittals work. Nothing to do with 'technicalities' parroted by people too stupid to be unconfined, let alone to have opinions and get a vote.

Hi rache,

I can still remember being told that I would burn in
hell if I ate meat on Fridays or missed out on Mass
on Sundays.

The posters who are on a roll here in decrying our
personal childhood experiences have neglected to do
one thing. To ask whether we actually followed all the teachings
blindly - that were so narrow - at that time?

My father took me out of the Catholic school system after
I came home with a swollen hand - as a result of being caned
for something I did not do.

I got enrolled in an all girls public school. My husband who
grew up under the Christian Brothers school system - had a
well know pedophile priest as principal - who later got
moved to another school - to avoid scandal. Thankfully
my husband was never abused - although a friend of his
a young lad - committed suicide. He was one of the
principal's "favourites." The entire school attended the
boy's funeral.

My husband was
an altar-boy for years - but his experiences at the school
were enough to turn him off religion for life. And he wasn't
alone in those feelings. However we both later found our own paths
in future years.

They were difficult times back then.
However both my husband and I did
not leave the church - we were married in one by our much
loved Catholic Irish priest and close family friend. My husband
and I firmly believe in the future of Australian Catholicism.
We still have a great deal of hope that people speaking out
and writing about their experiences - people like Paul Collins,
Edmund Campion, Thomas Keneally, and many others will make
their voices heard.

As for Cardinal Pell?

We have friends living in Ballarat. The Cardinal's reputation
is well known there. As it is in Sydney. Whether he's guilty
or innocent - the controversial judgement of the High Court
remains. He feels he's been vindicated. However justice wears
a blindfold - and perhaps in the Pell case it is warranted.

http://theconversation.com/how-george-pell-won-in-the-high-court-on-a-legal-technicality-133156#

Abnd as usual Foxy doesn’t answer one question thar is put to her; Ah! Well! See you on another thread.