20 responses

  1. God bless Cardinal Pell. He shows himself to be a true follower of Christ. His behaviour after the verdict of the kangaroo court is “forgives them they know not what they do”
    Unfortunately “they” knew full well what they were doing.
    Thank you Editor for this.

    • Patrick,

      Yes, the Cardinal came across as a very humble person.

      I heard earlier today [by phone 😀 ] that he had cleared modernists out of his seminaries and was favourable to the traditional Latin Mass – I’d heard the former in the past, but hadn’t known he was sympathetic to the old Mass. All very interesting.

      That, along with his investigation of corruption in the Vatican, perhaps explains why he has so few friends in the Vatican!

  2. That’s an outstanding interview and the man who is doing the interview is totally honest and fair. He is a non-Christian, who did a brilliant job interviewing the Cardinal. His words at the very end show what a kind and honest person he is. I read somewhere that he, Bolt, actually turned against the Cardinal at one point, and joined the media hacks, but later regretted it and became one of the Cardinal’s strongest supporters. Be sure to watch the video right to the end so you can hear Bolt explaining what the Cardinal was like off camera. That shows the kind of soul the Cardinal is.

    • Laura,

      I found it fascinating the the interviewer is a non-believer – all the more credit to him for giving the Cardinal an opportunity to say his piece in the mainstream media. Sky News – who’d have thought it?!

    • Wendy,

      I am not keen on that organisation – however, I did click on your link to sign the petition, but it took me straight to a “thank you for signing” – so I presume I’ve signed!

  3. My one regret watching this interview is that Cardinal Pell did not correct the interviewer when he referred to the “sins of the Church” in respect to paedophile crimes. The Cardinal should have pointed out immediately that any sins of priests in this regard,or failings of prelates to respond to reported crimes, relate to men in the Church, not the Church herself which is the spotless bride of Christ.

    That having been said, I think Cardinal Pell conducted himself in a very profound Catholic way, refusing to point the finger at institutions or condemn individuals for their part in one of the most shameful episodes in Austrian history, the clear and determined persecution of a Cardinal of the Catholic Church. I am quite happy to declare that all those involved in this evil conspiracy, from politicians through police and media, should stand trial for fabricating and publishing falsehoods against arguably the most senior prelate in the country. It doesn’t get dirtier than what these people have done. Had they done so to anyone else then they would certainly be called to account as justice demands.

    Can’t help wondering how much of this is tied to corrupt people in the Vatican, especially on the financial side of things. That really should be explored.

    • Athanasius,

      I definitely agree that those in legal circles who have blatantly ignored the evidence – all of which pointed to the Cardinal’s innocence, and, indeed, more; pointed to the impossibility of the crime having been committed in the first place – all of those complicit in his unjust conviction should be brought to trial themselves. Every last one of them.

      Do our Australian bloggers know if there is a call for this in the press, down under?

      • Am I to understand that you consider the organization of the Catholic Church to be the spotless Bride of Christ? Biblical understanding is that we, the believer, are the Bride of Christ–not the local building(s); organization; nor the main headquarters building (i.e. Vatican)

        • Helen Kelley

          I think you rather misunderstand Catholic teaching on this point of distinction.

          “Spotless Bride of Christ” is the proper term to describe the authority invested by Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Apostles and their successors through the Apostolic succession to preach, teach and sanctify souls with His divine doctrine and Sacraments, with a promise of divine protection against all taint of error and corruption, as per Christ’s words to St. Peter “upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.” And again, “I am with you all days, even to the consumation of the world.” It has nothing to do with church buildings.

          The term “Mystical Body of Christ”, which may be the source of your confusion, refers to the faithful who belong to the Catholic Church, the human members, as it were, who form one mystical body of divine faith and worship established by Jesus Christ through Peter.

  4. I am happy to say that almost all of the articles in “The Australian” have been totally supportive of the position of Cardinal Pell. He has served 4005 days of imprisonment, most of it in solitary confinement, for crimes which he never committed, simply on the accusation of one individual who has a history of mental problems. The general rule if law is that a person is innocent until proven guilty. Cardinal Pell had to prove that he was innocent because he was treated as being guilty until he could prove that he was not guilty. This is the total reversal of the the presumption of innocence until he is proven guilty!

    • John

      That reversal of due process which you describe is exactly right. The Cardinal was put in the position of being presumed guilty and having to prove himself innocent. It was a show trial – and thank God the final verdict of the seven appeal court judges was unanimous – 7-0. His enemies can’t argue with that!

  5. I thought Cardinal Pell handled himself in a very dignified manner throughout, though I found myself becoming irritated at the frequent nature of the interviewer’s questions, i.e. the typical “How did you feel when Horrible Incident X Happened?”

    This case is about anything but “feelings”: it is about the power of the state being manipulated to persecute an influential person, a person who was clearly a threat to certain cesspools of corruption in the Vatican Bank.

    Speaking of said cesspools, it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if the trail of dirty breadcrumbs in this case led directly to the Chair of Peter and his homosexual coterie. But I’m not holding my breath that any such revelations will make it to the public eye.

    • RCA Victor,

      I know what you mean about that sort of questioning, but to be fair, I was impressed with Bolt – perhaps prejudiced, because he had admitted acting like the pack early on in the allegations against the Cardinal but had the intelligence and independence of mind to follow the [lack of] evidence, at which point, he changed tack and supported the Cardinal fully.

      I was only disappointed on two points: (1) as Athanasius has pointed out, the Cardinal failed to correct that old chestnut “the sins of the Church” and (2) he didn’t give the Anglican blog which had supported him throughout, a mention. That blog (name escapes me at the moment) published everything possible on the case and loudly proclaimed the Cardinal’s innocence from the beginning, so I hope he knows about them and expresses his gratitude publicly at some time soon.

      No… I’ve not gone all ecumenical, but credit where credit is due – those are my kind of Anglicans 😀

      • Yes Editor,
        For all matters pertaining to the corruption in Australia and in particular Victoria – Quadrant on line or Andrew Bolt at (sorry to say) Sky are the best.
        Bolts own blog is blocked (for me at least).
        I have been unable to find any Catholic outlet which followed the Cardinal Pell case over the years of his persecution.

  6. It is shocking to see how the Cardinal has aged. His mistrial will go down in history alongside the trials of Cardinals Mindszenty, Stepinac and Beran.

  7. What seemed most peculiar to me about the allegations is that part of the complainant’s story resembled the storyline of a Hollywood film, ‘Doubt’, starring Meryl Streep and Philip Seymour-Hoffman. It just seemed to cliched and contrived to be true.

  8. Miles Immaculatae,

    Not having seen “Doubt”, I can only say that what seemed most peculiar to me about those allegatons were precisely what the 7 judges in the Appeal Court concluded … the impossibility of the crime having happened in the first place.

    I knew I should have been a lawyer 😀 Only, not in Australia – I’d prefer to convict guilty people 😀

  9. I thought Cardinal Pell came across very well in the interview.

    He was not bitter and seemed at peace, if tired. Also he was confident enough to consider agendas behind his ordeal.

    It is pleasing that he was given a fair opportunity to speak, in a sympathetic interview, on a mainstream news channel.

    I hope he will receive some compensation for what he has been through?

Leave a Reply to wendywalker95 Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: