Wednesday, 21 August 2019

On Pell

Just because you think a man is innocent does not mean he is not guilty. I am disgusted with the lemming attitude here. Let's remember as a commenter said, he had to be warned not to return to a club where he had been naked with boys in a changeroom. What priest does this? One who is innocent, or one who is emotionally immature and sexually confused or perhaps one who is just evil and wants to temp sodomitic lust, desensitise youth and set up a potential victim for grooming? A holy man does not do this

I have always had an open comment box and allowed a free range of discussion. At this point in the year, I have neither the time or temperament to continue this debate. If I lose more readers now as I did after my article on the Satanic attack on good Muslims in New Zealand and the hope that in spite of their error our good God might be merciful to them, (as a Muslim colleague at work said about a deceased former colleague, "May God save his soul," then so be it. I don't need you to read this, I make no money on this blog unlike others. Be gone!

At this point, this box is now closed! Thanks, you did it!

It seems no surprise that this writer is not entitled to an opinion. I thought all the neo-fascists were on the Left, you know, the anarchist/Antifa types? Yet, I am insulted in the combox because I raise the possibility that George Pell, may have in fact, done what he is accused of doing. Is it possible that the Vatican set him up? That sodomites in Australia did him in? I suppose so. But did he not have highly paid lawyers who questioned the "ladies and gentlemen of the jury" as to their views and whether or not they were hidden anti-Catholic bigots? I was not there, I did not read the transcripts. I doubt any of you were either. My son is now 30. Would I have left him alone with a priest at 12? Well, maybe then but not now.

I went after that rotten Basilian Order a decade ago (the abuse by Rosica was just another) for what they did to me at the age of 13, I am now 62. A close personal friend was sodomised by a priest and groomed to be the faggot that he wasn't. You sit there and judge this man, Pell, as innocent, a lamb. I sit here and say, "he may have done it."  That is my perspective. Australia uses the same legal and justice system as we in Canada and the United States, both come from Common Law and the Magna Carta. 

Three are in the know, Pell, the victim and God. If Pell is innocent, he will receive great grace. If guilty, I would have hanged him.

Stop attacking me and if what I wrote causes you leave the reading of this blog, well, knock yourself out, don't the let the door hit you and have a nice life.

George Cardinal Pell, convicted of sexual crimes in Australia has lost his appeal and returns to prison. 

I did not write much about Pell or comment because from the very moment he was charged, I asked myself, "What if it is true?" If one reads comments from Catholics on various social media, Pell is enduring a "white martyrdom," and is a "sacrificial lamb."

Yet, I ask the same question now as back when he was originally convicted. 

What if he really is guilty?

Is he being defended by so many because he seemed to be "conservative?" 

Can any of these be trusted?

Is the court system in Australia really that corrupt? It is not North Korea.

Denial is not healthy.


Trad101 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tom A. said...

Well we know for sure that he is guilty of being a modernist and promoting the heretical V2 council. He is also guilty of saying the protestant NO liturgy.

Anonymous said...

Yes, the court system in Australia really is that corrupt.

An Australian

Amy said...

If he did do it, pray for him. If he didn't do it, pray for him.

I have in the past been accused justly and unjustly. What I now know is that the correct spiritual response is to accept whatever happens as a worldly punishment for my sins.

God never promised peace in this world.

We will ALL know in the fullness of eternity, at the general judgment, what happened here.

schoooter said...

What if he is being held hostage in order for the Church and the State to broker a deal concerning another prelate?

What if he is being used as a scapegoat?

Murray said...

There are two questions here:

1. Did Cardinal Pell sexually abuse his accuser?
2. Should he have been criminally convicted?

We probably won't know the answer to the first question until the Last Day. If Pell did molest the boy, the only way we're likely to know this side of the Judgement is if he makes a public profession to that effect. Personally, I believe Pell is probably innocent, but is it conceivable that he did it? Sure.

The second question is the relevant one. Is it now the standard that one can be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt of an act that is claimed to have occurred over 20 years ago, on the say-so of a single victim, with no witnesses or corroborating evidence whatsoever, against the testimony of many contemporaries who claimed that the act was nigh-impossible?

Well, yes. Obviously that is now the standard...if you belong to a disfavored group. Most Western countries now have a two-tiered justice system: members of favored groups can commit open criminal acts and be let off with a slap on the wrist; those in disfavored groups can be convicted on heinous crimes on the most tenuous grounds imaginable.

You ask: Is the court system in Australia really that corrupt? It is not North Korea. Denial is not healthy.

This isn't denial. And yes, our court systems are even more corrupt than you imagine.

Anonymous said...

It is virtually impossible to know who to trust anymore. But if Pell is a good priest he will probably save more souls in prison than if he were outside. If he is just another gay narcissist, then he is where he belongs.


Anonymous said...

You're missing the point. It's not about any perception of Pell being conservative. It's about the facts and reasonable interpretation of them.

Joe's Reality said...

I don't know if I have the right page to make a comment to the writer of Vox Cantoris but if you are reading this please go and read Divine Revalations from God and the Blessed Virgin Mary on Christina Gallaghers web site and you will see that Cardinal Pell is innocent and was set up by some really bad priests etc. from the Vatican.

Anonymous said...

Have any of you people even read the latest news about this travesty of justice? The police have practically confessed that they set out to frame Cardinal Pell.

Irenaeus said...

Well, perhaps we should look at this spiritually.

If the Cardinal is as innocent as he says he is, he has this wonderful opportunity to unite his sufferings with those of Our Lord.

It is a great honour to be treated this way.

If he is guilty, he has been given this chance to make due reparation for his sins.

This is also a great grace bestowed upon the Cardinal.

Kathleen1031 said...

Who knows anymore. Maybe. But what always seems odd is that he was probably making headway looking into the Vatican Bank corruption, as I believe I heard it, and that alone is worth a trumped up charge to the Sodomite lobby of Rome. Abp. Vigano went into hiding for a reason. If they want you gone, you're gone, one way or another, I absolutely believe that. Nothing is too low for them.
Also, I note the very anemic comments put out there by our Francis. He praised the Australian courts for this! Hardly a rousing plea for Pell.
It's likely most Cardinals and bishops should do time for something.

Kathleen1031 said...

Hi Murray, it's nice to see you post. I have not seen you for awhile.

MaryP said...

It appears impossible. In any case, he has been in solitary!

Anonymous said...

One can safely predict that should Cardinal Pell appeal to the High Court of Australia he is unlikely to succeed. His lawyers no doubt will caution him about the legal implications as well as the monetary cost of undertaking such a step. As to Cardinal Pell's guilt or innocence, the courts have rendered their decisions. One further comment is proffered by this writer, particularly for those bloggers and Catholic editorials, who have deemed the Cardinal to be a martyr. We all should keep in mind that there is a victim in this narrative who sorely needs our prayers.

JARay said...

The dissenting judge in the 2-1 verdict is strongly regarded as the most experienced judge of the three. He presented a 204 page document explaining his dissent saying that there were areas of the complainant's testimony to the original (second) trial that were clearly dreamland fantasies and he varied his statements without explanation on various occasions. Judge Ginsberg found him an untrustworthy complainant. But the jury took it all without question. They then found him guilty!
This was a completely unjust trial and Cardinal Pell is being persecuted.
Yes, the court system in the State of Victoria is a complete mess.

Barona said...

At this stage, all bets are off. We now know that there has been homosexual infiltration of seminaries well before the War. By the 1960s many were completely overrun by homosexuals. Not all homosexuals present as modernists or conservatives. Indeed, the founders of the homosexual takeover were all Latin Mass traditionalists. A perfect cover. Friends place your trust ONLY in Jesus Christ. Have NO idol before you. Place not your trust in princes ( be they political or ecclesiastical). You will be disappointed.

Anonymous said...

Both the police and the judiciary are Masonic hot -beds.Add to that the Bolshevik State government and you’ll understand that the Cardinal didn’t stand a chance,


Anonymous said...

Vox, I have followed you for many years, i have supported you through those ugly days when that twit Rosica did his very best to destroy you and your family. I have prayed along side your blog for your mother, i felt your pain when you lost your little friend, your dog, but today you have insulted me. I know Cardinal Pell, I know he is a Holy Cardinal and this is an evil witch-hunt against him and the Catholic Church. You,who do not know him, nor do you know what it's like to be a Catholic living in Commo Victoria Australia, which happens to be a lot worse than were you live,not to mention the maniac that governs Victoria is worse than your nut job Trudeau, yet you question the innocence of the Holy Cardinal whilst he offers this false accusation and imprisonment for the church and for all sinners, how sad clearly i know you have not prayed asking the lord to guide your judgement on this matter because if you did, you would be defending this anointed apostle of Christ. You have just given Satan the heads up, i will no longer visit your blog or call you my brother in Christ. God's holy suffering apostle is being slaughtered by today's anti-christian pagans and you give those creeps leeway. Pray Vox so that you may know what evil has done, even atheists can see this for what it truly is: A Demonic attack on the priesthood and Catholic Church! It is not just me you have called out a liar, you have also called out 30 plus witness who were there and some of them are very holy priests liars. Goodbye Vox!

TLM said...

Barona said...

Anonymous 10:46 you really need to put your name to your fulmination against the Vox. He asks serious questions, yet you have not replied to them. He asks "what if it be true"? You call him a "liar". Is that not of Satan?

Much is being said that the jury was rigged, evidence was suppressed etc. Please provide us with the evidence.

If evidence is presented then those Catholics who believe he is guilty, or those who are not sure, will then correct themselves according to the evidence. Character witness statements, "holy" priests are not evidence.

Remember, David, a HOLY man of God, ALSO committed grave sexual sin. So it can happen, even to the elect of God. Once again, place not your trust in princes, but in Jesus Christ alone.

Gareth Thomas said...

It is a while since we were in touch, and I comment rarely on blogs these days. Please pray for Cardinal Pell and - for those who believe in his innocence - I appeal to you to support him with postal correspondence. I provide an example on my blog:

Anonymous said...

Especially Victoria.

Murray said...

I appeal, once again, to the commenters on this blog to exercise some restraint on their inclination to engage in emotional outbursts, on either side.

The question at hand is pretty simple: is it just for a court to convict a man based on nothing more than a single accuser's say-so, with no witnesses or corroborating evidence whatsoever, regarding an event that is claimed to have occurred over 20 years ago?

Everything in the above statement is factual, and Judge Weinberg noted as much in his dissenting opinion. Would you want this standard of justice to apply even to your own worst enemy? If you answer in the affirmative, consider that it may very well be you in the dock one day, and to whom will you appeal then?

I commented here some months ago that even if Pell is guilty (and I do not believe that he is), he should not have been convicted on these flimsy grounds, and I stand by that. Not too many years from now, George Pell will face his Maker, from Whom no secrets are hid, and if he molested that boy, he will answer for it. In the meantime, we should strive to give even the devil the benefit of law, for our own sakes.

Anonymous said...

Barona, It is not a question of putting or not putting our trust in a Prince of the Church. It is about whether a Prince of the Church has been falsely accused and convicted. BIG difference. Or are you saying that as long as someone is a Prince of the Church, we shouldn't worry too much if he gets falsely accused?

An Australian

Anonymous said...

I'm with Amy on this. Having been unjustly lied about myself more than a few times, I have learned the best thing to do is give it to Our Lord. Sounds trite but offer it up and Grace will be your reward.
Looking back , many of my accusers have suffered their own rewards right here on earth . I pray for them. Several have died. I pray for them.
Our Father in Heaven holds the ultimate scales.

Frederick Jones said...

Pictures are hung people are hanged.

mazara said...

Most abusers continue abusing until their caught,and multiple victims are involved, these one off cases need thorough investigating.Sometimes the innocent pay for the guilty.If he is innocent hopefully he will be vindicated at some time in the future

Tom A. said...

Vox, you don’t understand. “Cdl” Pell is one of the NO neo con good guys. He wants a more traditional face to the modernist heresies of V2 and the NO. He believes in the fictional “hermeneutic of continuity.” I am being sacrastic of course. I have no idea if he is actually guilty of the crimes against him, but It is certain that he is guilty of professing the false NO V2 faith. I also am quite sure that any NO bishop of a diocese has looked the other way to protect a sodomite at one time or another. The whole corporate institution is corrupt and I am tired of so called trads calling this corrupt institution the Holy Spotless Bride of Christ. Not only is the NO V2 sect morally bankrupt, but more importantly and more dangerously, they are spiritually bankrupt, having signed on to V2 and the NO. That morally and spiritually bankrupt organization cannot be the Catholic Church. Everyone should stop pretending they are.

kiwiinamerica said...

Great comment, Murray. Spot on. Some rare sanity.

The issue here is whether the evidence was sufficient to convict Pell, beyond a reasonable doubt. The answer is a resounding "no". This was essentially nothing more than a finger-pointing accusation leveled by one person, who said "he did it!". No forensics, no witnesses, no smoking gun. Nothing whatsoever in the way of corroborating evidence.

This is exactly the level of "evidence" used to convict "enemies of the people" during the Stalin-era show trials in the Soviet Union. A string of accusers would simply point a finger at a defendant, recite an accusation and the judge would slam down the hammer...."Guilty!".

This is the Catholic Church's future, folks. The elites are coming for us.

Anonymous said...


Long-time lurking fan here, and a very infrequent commenter.

I know you have fought the good fight for a long time, against many villains (esp. the vile Rosica & his Argentine master), but methinks you're being overly sensitive to a few ill-thought critical remarks.

Take a sabbatical if necessary. I'd hate to see you leave the blogosphere, but you need to be strong to continue the fight. Don't allow yourself to get suckered into a acrimonious squabbles. You're better than that.

In this combox, I think Murray put up an excellent summary. Soldier on Vox Cantoris, Godspeed & God bless you.

- Randall in IL

Vox Cantoris said...

Thank you, Randall.

William Callaghan said...

you know what you can do with this so-called blog, utter rubbish

Vox Cantoris said...

Look how they love one another.

You have proven me right.

You Pell worshippers are all deluded and I have challenged your delusions so much you have become irrational and are lashing out at me.

The man is guilty.

You know it but need to blame me for my logical argument.

Murray said...

Vox, what exactly is your "logical argument" here? That we can trust the court system because Magna Carta and Common Law? I'm not sure how this qualifies.

For my part. I've never claimed that Pell is objectively innocent; in fact, I've acknowledged that it's possible (if not likely on the evidence presented) that he's guilty.

Once again, try to set aside your emotional reactions to unreasonable commenters and consider this as a dry, technical legal question. A man has been convicted of a terrible crime based on absolutely nothing more than a single person's say-so. There is:

a) No physical evidence
b) No circumstantial evidence
c) No witnesses
d) No corroboration of any kind
e) No demonstrated pattern of behavior
f) Testimony by others present that there was no conceivable way this assault could have occurred

Before you tell me to read the transcript, these are all acknowledged facts. The dissenting judge, Weinberg, noted that the entire case rested on the accuser and on no other grounds whatsoever.

Vox, imagine that you are the man in the dock. Imagine that (say) Fr. TR has accused you of a terrible crime that would send you to jail for the rest of your life and ruin your good name forever, without any evidence or corroboration, and in the teeth of testimony from your companions who state that you could not possibly have committed this crime. Say the judge and jury in your case found Fr. TR's testimony compelling, despite the utter lack of substantiation for his word. What then?

And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you — where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast — man's laws, not God's — and if you cut them down — and you're just the man to do it — d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?

Anonymous said...

“Against a priest receive not an accusation, but under two or three witnesses”. St Paul 1Ti 5:19

It is disappointing to see Cardinal Pell, or anyone else, subject to the judgment by a rule of “what if he did it?”

Should the indictment read “what if he did it?” Isn’t that simply mob justice ?

If it is true Pell waived diplomatic immunity, he was foolish or naïve.

There is the problem of going to trial twenty three years after the alleged incident, not to mention the shifting dates of the alleged crime. Did the alleged offense occur in 1996 or 1997?if
in 96’ Advent would have been memorable.if in 97’ perhaps a change in seasons . Did the accuser confide to any one over the twenty years following ?

Here is the issue, you were not there , nor was I, nor anyone who reads this blog. Hence we do not know if Pell is innocent or guilty . The only two that would know are Pell and the accuser , and we do not know if they ever met.

Francisco Moore

Anonymous said...

All of the commentators who believe Cdl Pell innocent have failed to read the history behind ALL the accusations o child abuse against him.
I was most impressed with the veracity of the older health club Manager who found it necessary to warn Pell about continuing to stand naked in front of three pre pubescent boys over the course of some time talking to them in the changing room.
Sorry but there is something a bit off about a so called "Catholic " much less a priest and or Cardinal , whose sense of morality is so ill formed.
Even common sense is not so common anymore.