Pictured above: In 1993, then Auxiliary Bishop George Pell accompanied predator priest Gerald Ridsdale to his court appearance – where Ridsdale was charged with 30 incidents of incident assault involving nine boys aged between 12 and 16. Ridsdale pleaded guilty.
Cardinal George Pell told an Australian Royal Commission he did not help a teenage boy who complained to him in 1974 that a Christian Brother named Edward Dowlan of St Patrick’s College (in Ballarat) was “misbehaving with boys”.
“I didn’t do anything about it,” he said.
When asked why, Pell told the Commission it was because: “The boy wasn’t asking me to do anything about it…”
Years later, Dowlan would plead guilty to 33 counts of indecently assaulting boys under the age of 16.
Following his acquittal for charges of sexual abuse, Cardinal George Pell was described by some Catholic bloggers, commentators, and journalists as a “hero,” a “martyr,” and even a “saint.”
I am starting to believe that the Catholic Church (in either the conservative or liberal spheres) is no place for an inquiring mind.
A few days ago, I merely posted some questions about Cardinal Pell on my Facebook wall (I also shared my thoughts concerning his alleged mishandling of sexual abuse cases while he was a priest in Ballarat, when he was Bishop, and an Archbishop) – and then I got attacked.
Stating in a Facebook comments section that – “Oh, I have followed you, but…” I think is a more subtle form of cancel culture; I follow many voices in the LGBT community that I disagree with, but I want to understand them – so I at least listen.
Although I am no fan of Cardinal Kevin Farrell, certain Catholics immediately threw their heads back and howled (me as well) when he claimed to have no prior knowledge of former house-mate Cardinal Theodore McCarrick’s proclivities; Pell (in 1993) said he knew nothing of former house-mate Gerald Ridsdale’s serial predations – Ridsdale was convicted of child sexual abuse and indecent assault charges against 65 children aged as young as four years old. Later, Pell admitted that he “did hear rumours about the time Ridsdale returned from treatment in the USA in 1990.” Farrell shared a residence with McCarrick for 6 years, but was a subordinate to the former Cardinal for most of his episcopal career; Pell shared a clergy house (for 1 year) with Ridsdale in the 1970s, but Pell also served as a priest, educator, and adviser to former Ballarat Bishop Ronald Mulkearns during the period of time when abuse allegations against clergy members in the city of Ballarat (where Pell was born and subsequently ordained a priest) were first beginning to surface. Pell has since regarded Mulkearns’ handling of the Ridsdale case as a “catastrophe for the church.” He also stated: “I must say in those days, if a priest denied such activity, I was very strongly inclined to accept the denial.” During his testimony before a Royal Commission which investigated sex abuse in the Australian Catholic Church, when asked about the Ridsdale case, Pell responded: “It’s a sad story and it wasn’t of much interest to me.” Does he bear any responsibility?
Why the double-standard?
I have learned…that the sex abuse crisis in the Catholic Church has left nearly no one unscathed. After my own abuse – and living as a gay man for over 10 years – I limped back to the Church. At first, in San Francisco, I could not find a priest who would absolve me of past homosexual behavior; they thought I needed to just settle down with one guy.
Blessedly, the Lord led me to a group of good priests – who also offered the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM;) they were kind to me and they spoke the Truth. At last, I thought – I found a safe place to hide.
Later, I desperately wanted to leave the Bay Area – as old friends were trying to pop back up in my life. I couldn’t deal with my own woundedness – let alone theirs.
I ran away to a (different than the one mentioned above) TLM religious order located in wilderness of Northeastern Pennsylvania; in my mind, that was about as far away from the gay enclaves of San Francisco as I could get. I was wrong.
Despite their outward appearance (black cassocks, 1962 Missal, and gorgeous vestments) some of these priests were sexual predators. I couldn’t believe it; I didn’t want to believe it. But I had to.
I reported what I knew; although I never reported my own past abuse – I experienced what many survivors have retold – that they were attacked, disbelieved, and dismissed.
Over the years, I have tried to be impartial and fair – when I wrote about comments made by Bishop Robert Barron to gay journalist Dave Rubin – I was attacked.
I’ve rarely (if ever) been attacked or even criticized for discussing what certain pro-gay Jesuits have stated concerning the Church’s teachings on homosexuality. Yet on this issue, inconsistency is almost everywhere in the Church. and the Jesuits are not the only offenders. In every case, the prelates in dioceses with massive, well-organized, and well-funded pro-LGBT Catholic ministries ignore any and all concerns voiced by the faithful; for the most part – the Catholic media have been silent on this issue; if you want to see the true face of clericalism, don’t look in the episcopate – you will find it among the sycophants in the so-called mainstream Catholic media; when is the last time a major Catholic news-source exposed the continued parade of homophile priests and LGBT activists who annually speak at the Los Angeles Religious Education Congress – now operating under USCCB President Archbishop Jose Gomez?
The priests I knew in Pennsylvania, from the pulpit, said all the right things – but they didn’t live it.
There are many priests in the Catholic Church who do just that, and despite my past experience, I have found that a number of them are also devoted to Catholic Tradition and to the TLM. I know I should truly love and admire only Christ, but for the past 20 years, these priests are the only reason I remain a Catholic.
As for the Cardinal Pell situation – I am sorrowed for everyone involved; one of his alleged victims died young from an overdose; though I think it might be possible (substantiated by the legal authorities in Australia) that Pell did not molested two boys in a sacristy; for myself, what he knew (and when he knew it) about the sexual abuse perpetrated by other priests remains highly problematic to me and to others.
What is known – then-Auxiliary Bishop Pell accompanied predator priest Gerald Ridsdale to his 1993 court appearance – where Ridsdale was charged with 30 incidents of incident assault involving nine boys aged between 12 and 16. Ridsdale pleaded guilty. That same year, David Ridsdale, the nephew of Gerald Ridsdale, informed Pell that his uncle had molested him. Years later, when interviewed about his recollection of those events, Pell’s memory, in my opinion: at best, was somewhat evasive. After watching the interview, in my estimation, it didn’t go well for Pell – as the interview was marked by his reluctance to take full personal responsibility. In the same interview, Pell at first denied then admitted that he offered the parents of an abuse victim the sum of $50,000 in compensation that included a “silence” requirement.
According to a seperate news-source, Pell once stated that Ridsdale had “done a great damage to the church” but “as a priest he had done other good things…”
When asked about his presence at the court with Ridsdale, which angered many in Australia, Pell said: “he was a brother priest who made terrible mistakes and it was simply a gesture on my part.” In 2013, Pell admitted that his presence with Ridsdale was a mistake; he said: “I realize that was a mistake…I’ve always been on the side of victims.” But Pell’s appearance at the side of Ridsdale wasn’t just a “mistake,” it wasn’t just incredibly insensitive to the victims, or an example of extremely bad-optics, it was a serious lapse in judgement. One that alone, I think it should have precluded him from rising up the ranks of the Catholic Church; the same goes for Jorge Bergoglio who has been credibly accused of sex-abuse cover-up while in Argentina. Bergoglio’s lack of sensitivity as well as his often ugly and dictatorial temperament was displayed again when he verbally chastised abuse victims in Chile.
Some may find this a minor infraction that is wholly inconsequential. Recently, numerous celebrities and politicians were rightly criticized for once appearing in public with the disgraced Harvey Weinstein or the late Jeffrey Epstein; in certain entertainment and political circles, the sexual debauchery of these men was a longtime open-secret. Imagine one of these self-centered actors or crooked politicians walking into a New York courthouse with Weinstein – I think their careers would be over. Do we expect less from a prince of the Church who should have known better or at least done more research?
In court proceedings, it was revealed that Ridsdale had assaulted victims in toilet stalls, showers, and even in the confessional. He had allegedly carried a jar of Vaseline to his car where he assaulted a boy. Another victim had to undergo anal surgery after he was sodomized by Ridsdale.
In 1996, the year Pell was appointed Archbishop of Melbourne (he served as Auxiliary from 1987-1996) in an effort to address the growing problem of sexual abuse by priests, Archbishop Pell created the “Melbourne Response.” The Melbourne Response included the following: an independent commission to inquire into allegations of sexual abuse, free counselling and professional support services for the victims, and the establishment of a compensation panel, which gives the Archdiocese recommendations on making payments to victims; payments were initially capped at $50,000 and have since been raised to $75,000. For those victims who did not want to participate in the Archdiocese compensation plan, the Melbourne Response included this admonition:
Complainants remain free to use the normal court processes if they do not wish to avail themselves of the compensation panel process. In that event they should expect that the proceedings will continue to be strenuously defended. Any claimant coming before the panel will be informed of their right to refuse the ex gratia payment being offered and to pursue their claim in the civil courts. They will also be informed that the Archbishop and the Archdiocese will continue to defend claims in the courts on all bases.
According to an investigation of the Melbourne Response by a Royal Commission, even though Cardinal Pell testified that “I had no reason to doubt” the validity of a particular victim’s abuse claim, the victim received a letter from the Archdiocese stating that compensation was “a realistic alternative to litigation that will otherwise be strenuously defended.”
If a victim accepts compensation, they must sign a “confidentiality” agreement. The Royal Commission reported that: “the Application for Compensation form is ambiguous – it could be read as imposing broad undertakings of confidentiality upon victims…” It was amended in 2002. In addition, those who agree receive compensation under the terms of the Melbourne Response, must waive their rights to future litigation against the Archdiocese.
Finally, in review, the Royal Commission found that: “A scheme that is heavily dominated by lawyers and traditional legal process is unlikely to provide the most supportive environment for complainants.”
Its tragic that some priests and prelates have been falsely accused, but it’s also tragic that children, young people, and vulnerable adults were preyed upon and exploited. The abuse situation was horrible enough – and a minority of priests were guilty of such heinous crimes – but the majority of bishops and the hierarchy made it a million times worse through incompetence, neglect, or by covering it up. That failure by the bishops and the hierarchy has consequences.
The laity have been gravely wounded – therefore, the Church should be especially cautious in terms of not only those who are to be ordained to the priesthood but also in terms of those who are elevated to the episcopacy.
It will be difficult to find living saints, but as a result of this man-made catastrophe within the Church, no one should be made a bishop (let alone a Cardinal) if they were in any way careless or demonstrated faulty judgement in terms of protecting their flock – especially the young, the innocent, and the vulnerable. However, there are extraordinarily brave and good men who have been beyond reproach – Bishop Joseph Strickland of Texas comes to mind. Cardinal Pell has admitted that mistakes were made; and that he made mistakes. Is that enough? At that point, I think he should have voluntarily stepped-aside. That could have been heroic. Sounds harsh. It does. But I know men, righteous men from the laity, who sometimes through no fault of their own, were once involved in the homosexual culture – although they did nothing illegal, they have spent their lives in reparation: not marrying, living alone, often lonely, but they are daily communicants and pray ceaselessly; they have stepped aside and humbled themselves for their love of God; some clerics who are coming-up for promotion should sacrifice their ambitions and use these men as a model.
I am not a judge or jury, but going forward, in order to restore trust – those who have been even tangentially involved in possible abuse cover-up or negligence should not be in leadership positions; nor should they be considered; in the US, this would exclude most of the current high-ranking prelates; for myself, I don’t see any other way to rebuild the Catholic Church.
In addition, Catholics should not create false heroes.
Priests must be the best of the best; bishops and Cardinals must be the best of the best of the best. If this means having smaller parishes, smaller dioceses – then so be it. For far too long, the Catholic laity have silently tolerated mediocrity (even wickedness) among the hierarchy. No more.
I once had a conversation with a bishop about a highly problematic parish with a facilitating priest – he didn’t know what to do; I said shut it down. He won’t. I’d rather see a drastically smaller Church than for another innocent and vulnerable person to be abused.
Maybe I am wrong, maybe I am full of pride, maybe I am too wounded to see things clearly, but I needed to speak. Perhaps, I am asking for too much; Who would want to be judged by such standards? But the trust that was the sole treasure bequeathed to the hierarchy was squandered – and that has consequences. We are all now living through the results: empty pews, apathetic youth, and bankrupt dioceses.
“Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more.” – Luke 12:48
Really excellent blog-post, Joseph. You give me so much hope!
Amen. And 18 months in solitary is sufficient punishment for his neglect and cowardice
Thank you for this Joseph … so much I did not know about Cardinal Pell. Thank you for not giving up on those of us who do want to know the truth and you share it despite the backlach. Thank you for the reminder: “Catholics should not create false heros.” May God bless you and continue to give you courage.
I agree with much if what you’ve said here, but your claims about Cd Pell have been refuted decades ago. To repeat them here is simply scurrilous. Pell was NEVER Ridsdale’s superior. Ridsdale NEVER worked in the archdiocese of Melbourne.
Pell publicly apologised soon after the event for accompanying Ridsdale to his first trial. He explained that he knew little about sexual abuse and that Ridsdale (a master of manipulation who received many people) had convinced him the charges concerned a trivial matter. Pell was shocked and appalled to discover in court what Ridsdale had done.
Yes Pell shared a presbytery with Ridsdale (and others) for a few months when both were junior priests. You don’t mention the fact that the left wing journalist and former priest Paul Bongiorno shared a house with ridsdale for several years, and he says he knew nothing about Ridsdale’s crimes either, but this is never mentioned by his fellow journalists who have led the campaign against Pell.
The Roman Catholic Diocese of Ballarat, based in Ballarat, Australia, is a diocese in the ecclesiastical province of Melbourne.
Perhaps you don’t understand how the chain if command works in the Catholic (please don’t use the grossly false sectarian insult “Roman Catholic”) church. An archbishop has absolutely NO power over the suffragan bishops of dioceses which are in the same ecclesiastical province; they are answerable to the Pope alone. A fortiori he has even less power over priests of those dioceses. He wouldn’t know what they were doing or even who they are. Your allegations against Pell are groundless and I think you know it.
And a correction, I said Pell and ridsdale were junior priests. Pell was a junior priest in his twenties, Ridsdale was eight years older. Your claim that Pell was somehow supervising him or responsible for his actions is almost as ludicrous as the absurd charges from which Pell has just been so emphatically exonerated.
Thanks, Peter K, for the much needed corrections to the false claims made by the author under the pretext of “setting the record straight.” With so many false claims in his post, any points worth considering must be taken with a very large grain of salt.
Spot on, Peter.
So many facts have been either covered up or set aside in efforts by the media and others to destroy Cardinal Pell. He was the first prelate in the world to introduce a scheme to compensate victims of sexual abuse. He has been a consistent and forthright defender of the faith and exposed financial corruption in the Vatican. Sadly, his efforts on behalf of truth and justice has made him many enemies – enemies willing to lie, distort, exaggerate in order to destroy one of the rarities amongst our Church leaders: a manly, forthright, courageous, defender of the faith.
Dear Mr. Sciambra,
Your articles always give us a lot to think about. Thank you for taking what obviously can be a very lonely path. Keep writing.
We need it.
You realize that St. Paul consented and even, in a minor way, assisted in the murder of St. Stephen, right? And that St. Dismas was a thief? That King David was a murderer and adulterer? That St. Hippolytus had been an antipope? That St. John Paul kissed the Koran — an enormous stumbling block to Catholics trying to maintain their Faith in Muslim-dominated countries? And that St. Adam brought sin into the world?
That is not by any means to say that Pell is a saint (which he won’t be until he dies in a state of grace, anyhow) or a dry martyr or whatever, but it IS to say that most saints (exceptions including the Blessed Virgin, St. John the Baptist, and probably St. Joseph) were guilty of their own personal sins, and in some cases those sins dominate the bulk of their lives on earth. Until their last hour alive on earth, Dismas and Gestas probably seemed headed towards the same final judgment.
The author makes a number of good points. I would add, though, that the remaining victim on whose behalf the case was brought was deemed eminently credible by the jurors and judges all along. Perhaps his childhood memory (he was 13 when the abuse was alleged) is not 100% solid after so many years. But the likelihood that Cardinal Pell sexually abused him is greater than not, even if the rightfully high standard of proof for a criminal conviction was not met.
John. please read the High Court of Australia’s unanimous judgement acquiting ++Pell. The former choirboy’s accusations against ++Pell were totally unsubstantiated – all other witnesses said it would have been very hard for Pell to abuse anyone in the circumstances; there were discrepancies in the accusers memory of the alleged abuse location; most damning, the accuser claimed another choirboy was abused by Pell along with him, yet that other (now dead) alleged victim always said he had not been abused (told to his own mother) .
This was not a case of ++Pell getting off on a technicality, or because there was some doubt. Rather, there was not a shred of evidence to support the accusation, and plenty against it.
That all said, I agree with the general point Joseph made – ++Pell may have done other things wrong; we just don’t know. We have to judge them based on evidence anyone brings forward. In the meantime, I agree it would not be a good look to return ++Pell to a high position in the church, but he could be an advisor to whoever Pope Francis appoints to oversee further financial clean up of Vatican and church finances. Perhaps ++Pell coud draft new rules for finances for all bishops to follow? A positive use of his skill, without any prominence in church hierarchy.
Joseph,
I am thankful to have read what you wrote. Although, I must be honest, I did not, at least, yet, read it carefully and deliberately. But what troubles me, and perhaps I missed it, is that you seem to leave no room for learning from one’s transgressions, repenting and being cleansed. Sinners, who repent and who work to undo their harm, should not be hindered or denied positions of authority, because it is not what Jesus or the Apostles would have done.
I think you need to step back and contemplate that, perhaps.
I have come to think highly of you, still do, as I have seen bits and pieces of your walk. I am sure that you can “rub people the wrong way”, because you do try to get “the big picture”, which some, who are mostly intransigent in their chosen perspectives, chose not to do,
Bully, for you! In the Teddy Roosevelt sense, not the Snowflake sense.
One of my, personal, reasons for thinking well of you, is your choice to be celibate, in view of your life experiences. I am an abandoned spouse, who was divorced, unilaterally and who fought to defend our marriage before Catholic Marriage Tribunals. I have chosen to remain celibate, also. Ultimately, in Rome, I was able to defend our marriage, but it made no difference as the adultery was openly accepted and encouraged throughout America. I lost our five children to my wife and her lover and they took everything from me. Neither has ever repented, nor will they, barring a miracle. They have gone their separate ways and he has picked up another gal along the way. I have seen, some clergy, who I trust, but very few. I trust MY conscience, only. But, like you, I still try to see differing opinions from their perspectives before I lock into a position.
Keep the faith, Joseph. It is challenging for those of us who have seen what we have seen. I am among folks from abandoned marriages, most who have even seen their marriages declared null, by Catholic Tribunals, who remain faithful to their vows and remain practicing Catholics, who refer to ourselves as Standers. I consider you, a Stander, Joseph. We face different issues, but have made the same choice of celibacy, to honor Jesus Christ, and we face the same enemy, Lucifer, and those who either knowingly, or naively, follow him.
Godspeed, Joseph. Keep all Standers in your prayers. We all need to do the same.
“Sinners, who repent and who work to undo their harm, should not be hindered or denied positions of authority, because it is not what Jesus or the Apostles would have done.”
First of all, the idea that “we should do what Jesus did” can be taken in far too simple-minded a sense. We are not the Lord; we are not omniscient; we do not have the same mission He did. Jesus knew that Judas Iscariot was an unrepentant thief who would betray Him and the Church, yet He kept Judas in a position of authority. I suspect you would agree, though, that it would be culpably foolish for us to keep in authority an unrepentant thief who we know will betray the Church.
As for the Apostles … have you actually read the New Testament? In particular, 1 Timothy 3?
“Now a bishop must be above reproach, … moreover he must be well thought of by outsiders, or he may fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.”
Karl.your post is a tour de force of selfrighteous dishonest cant. As the article above makes quite clear, Cardinal Pell has not ever take any responsibility or show any repentance at all, ever, for his past involvement with priestly pedophiles. He has claimed either that he did not know about them or that he did not think he had an obligation to do anytjhing about them or that he did what aws right at the time.
There is a fact about Ridsdale that needs to be commented on. This is the story: ‘ Pell is a member of the College of Consultors of the Ballarat Diocese, a group of senior priests who advise [Bishop] Mulkearns [of Ballarat] on the appointment of priests. In July 1977 Pell is part of a College of Consultors meeting that sends Ridsdale to his next parish, Edenhope. Mulkearns knew about complaints against Ridsdale, but Pell later tells the royal commission Mulkearns deliberately withheld details from him and other consultors. “The suffering, of course, was real and I very much regret that, but I had no reason to turn my mind to the extent of the evils that Ridsdale had perpetrated,” Pell would later tell the commission.” [https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/feb/26/rise-fall-george-pell-timeline]. Pell’s calim here is not credible; see https://cruxnow.com/church-in-oceania/2019/09/new-admission-by-diocese-could-cost-australian-church-millions-in-claims/.
There is also the case of his behaviour towars the abuse victim John Ellis, described here: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/28/a-cup-of-tea-with-the-cardinal-what-george-pell-did-in-the-ellis-case. Here Pell first accepted thatt Ellis had been abused, but then hired lawyers to deny that any abuse had occurred..
Glad to have read this article. I am among those who was convinced of the innocence of Cardinal Pell, and I’m glad an unjust verdict was set aside and he was judged acquitted. He didn’t do what he was accused of doing and there appeared to have been a vendetta against him. But he is not immune from criticism on account of other actions he took or failed to take. Clearly there are many who were silent when they should have spoken out and taken action. This article is a good reminder of that sad fact.
Thankyou Joseph. I liked your conclusion.
I think Peter K in the comments has better info on some of the fact regarding Ballarat diocese.
One more point worth considering
– in the 1970s, the reactions of police, schools, parents, public prosecutors and courts to claims of adults molesting children, was very different to our reactions today.
In Ballarat, I believe one of the complainants against Ridsdale was the son of a local policeman.
He complained when he was a boy. It was brought to police attention. His dad was a policeman.
They never brought that complaint to trial.
Why not? Because the police knew the courts would rarely take the word of a child over a respected adult, lots of adults thought the best thing to do was just to ‘forget about it’ rather than put a child through a trial, and adults in general didn’t want these things to be publicized in a trial. Maybe it was just too unsavoury.
If any of us wants to judge the inaction of an adult in the 1970s, they should try to understand why so few cases were brought to trial in the 1970s. It wasn’t just the church ignoring the child complainant, it was most of society.
Not to mention that the approved fashionable and “liberal” view in the 1970s -1980s was that sexual activity between adults and children was pretty harmless or even downright beneficial to the children involved. The ABC (which has led the media campaign against Pell) even screened a program in 1979 full of gushingly positive interviews and discussions with self confessed pedophiles expressing these views and calling for laws against it to be scrapped. 20 years later the head of the ABC laughed off calls for him to apologize for this, saying “there’s no Apostolic Succession for the heads of the ABC” refusing to take any responsibility for anything done by his predecessors. Yet at the same time the ABC was leading the campaign for the federal government to apologize for actions detrimental to aborigines which governments (mainly State governments) had done many decades and even centuries earlier. The hypocrisy is just head-spinning.
I have been a great admirer of yours, but I think in this case you need to man up and admit that you made grave mistakes of fact in your claims about Cd Pell. People who point these errors out are not “attacking” you much less part of “cancel culture”, so stop playing the victim card here, you’re insulting your own intelligence and (apart from this lapse) integrity and honesty.
And defending Cd Pell is nothing to do with his liturgical preferences, political views or governance style, about all of which I have large differences with him and have sharply criticised him for.
Thanks for your input. I tried to make no conclusions about Pell and his past handling of sexual abuse claims; when I did give my opinion it was only in terms of prelates who have made mistakes in this area – which Pell freely admits that he did make mistakes. In my opinion, such prelates should not be in leadership positions in order to help begin the healing process with survivors. As for my victimhood, there is nothing the Catholic Church can do to me that it has not already done – 99% which I have not talked about; precisely because I do not want to play the victim card; btw – the attacks against me for even mentioning Pell were sent to me via Messenger and email, therefore you were not privy to what was said. Blessings to you.
You “tried to make no conclusions about Pell”? You stated as fact several damning conclusions about him which are clearly false. And made innuendo suggesting further wrongdoing.
Not I do not want the church led by prelates who have never made mistakes! Show me a man who has never made a mistake and I will show you a man who has never done or achieved anything worthwhile.
I am dismayed by people’s lack of information and critical thinking on Cdl. Pell. Pell had a long history in Australia of covering up sexual abuse cases and he lied about it on national television. As to the mystery of this sham case, one could only speculate, but he doesn’t need to be made a martyr. Does anyone really think that Francis would put him in the number three position in the Vatican unless he had skeletons in his closet? All those folks use blackmail to control each other.
This is shameful defamation of ++Pell and others Angela. If you have specific allegations; make them. I f not, please don’t make wild accusations of ‘all those folks use blackmail to control each other’.
The Australian royal commission on sexual abuse concluded that Pell could not have benn telling the truth when he denied that he knew about Rdisdale being a pedophile, It stated: ‘“We do not accept that Bishop Mulkearns lied to his consultors,” the commissioners wrote in their final report. “It is inconceivable … that the bishop deceived his consultors by not telling them the true reason” that Ridsdale was being moved around.
Cardinal George Pell, whose appeal of his conviction on five counts of sexually assaulting two choirboys more than two decades ago was rejected by the Victorian Supreme Court Aug. 21, was a consultor to Mulkearns.
Pell told the royal commission, via a video link from Rome, that he had no knowledge of Ridsdale’s criminal activities. However, because of his then-pending criminal trial, a large section of the case study on Ballarat – about who knew what and when – was redacted when the royal commission released its report in 2017. The redactions are expected to be lifted once Pell has exhausted his last avenue of appeal.’ [https://cruxnow.com/church-in-oceania/2019/09/new-admission-by-diocese-could-cost-australian-church-millions-in-claims/]
Peter K states that ‘Your claim that Pell was somehow supervising him or responsible for his actions is almost as ludicrous as the absurd charges from which Pell has just been so emphatically exonerated.’ Pell was on the board of consultiors that recommended to the bishop that Ridsdale be moved to a new parish. That is a position of responsibility.
Ann Barnhardt’s take on Cardinal Pell: https://www.barnhardt.biz/2019/03/01/my-take-on-pells-conviction-fwiw/
God bless you Joseph:+) The Church has always insisted on the BEST of men to lead it. Not that those men may not have been hardened sinners before their conversion but that since their entrance into the Church they have displayed a myriad of virtues that show their ability to lead. Scripture and the Church are also quoted as hard on those who in leadership positions commit serious sins. So your post is accurate:+)
Happy Easter my dear brother in Christ:+)
Thank you for the article. I believe the high court of Australia was right in their decision to state this case lacked evidence. Only God truly knows what really happened behind closed doors and we wont know the full details until Jesus returns.
One can pray that God can speak to the heart of Pell and his accusers.