Wednesday, August 21, 2019

Vatican Backs Court Decision to Deny Cardinal Pell's Appeal against Child Abuse Charges

By David Martin

Catholics the world over were aghast to learn today that the appeal by George Cardinal Pell against his conviction of child sexual abuse was denied by the Australian court. Worse yet, the Vatican endorsed the court decision to deny Pell.

This unfortunate news about the innocent and commendable Cardinal Pell immediately calls to mind Christ's words: "Blessed are ye when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and speak all that is evil against you, untruly, for my sake: Be glad and rejoice, for your reward is very great in heaven. For so they persecuted the prophets that were before you." (Matthew 5: 11,12)

Here the best Catholics of the Church, including the exemplary Archbishop Viganò, have respectfully attempted to elicit a response from Rome concerning its ongoing cover-up of sexual abuse and they continue to circumvent the issue, refusing to offer even a squeak of a reply. 

Worse yet, Pope Francis goes out of his way to install notorious sex-offenders like Archbishops Paglia and Maradiaga to the highest positions of the Church, thus aggravating the sexual abuse problem, but when Cardinal Pell is maliciously slammed and jailed for charges of "sexual abuse," the Vatican is right there thumping against sexual abuse, saying "Pell is guilty."

Yea, they orchestrated this whole frame job against Pell, since it covers their own sex-abuse problem while limiting any chance that Pell will expose their crimes. Today's blurb from the Vatican Press Office is typical of their Pharisaic covering of "dead men's bones" (Mt. 23;27), which shouldn't surprise us. Let us not forget that the Vatican News Service is run by the homosexual marketing firm, Accenture, known the world over for its LGBT political agenda, which means anything they say should never be taken seriously.  


  1. Yes, Cardinal Pell, a stand-in for all Catholic clergy, was railroaded--and there is plenty of blame to go around. But before anything much is done about this the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, beginning with Pope Francis, needs to clean up its act. This means a public confession. And a public penance.

    The Church must be brought to its knees, where it belongs, praying. Thankfully, the process appears well under way. But is indeed unfortunate there are innocent victims like Cardinal Pell just like the innocent martyrs of the early Church.

  2. Pell given two fair trials and was convicted by a jury in a court of law on charges of sexual crimes against minors. He was sentenced to six years in jail and was placed on a register of paedophiles.

    He is not innocent. He is guilty and this was confirmed by a majority of judges in a State Appeals Court.

  3. It figures that PW would side with those who slandered and maliciously accused an innocent Cardinal, rather than defend him against false accusations.

    These accusations were made years ago, and Pell survived them. There was no direct, irrefutable proof that Pell was guilty, as there is with so many of the perverts that Francis and company have protected ( McCarrick, etc).

    The Vatican and Francis are trying to protect their ass, which is why they sacrificed Pell. The outrage against them is mounting. There's also mounting proof that while Archbishop of Buenos Aires, Francis hid and protected pedophile priests. Tons of evidence that he did. He sould be forced to resign.

    Francis and his people must be from Satan. I can't believe that Our Lord Jesus Christ, thru the inspiration of the Holy Spirit would allow this trash to be elected to the Chair of Saint Peter. Those inspired by Satan forced the good but supremely weak Benedict XVI to resign, and installed in his place those inspired by evil.

    If only Benedict XVI would stand up and publish a total expose of these people, refuting that he indeed totally resigned his office, refuting the election of Francis, and condemning the October Amazon synod and its working paper which has been published. He would shock the world, and save the Church, if, despite his age and "supposed" ill health he would rise up to strike Francis down and his people.

    Damian Malliapalli

    1. Lurk for years Damian,always agree and enjoy your posts. God have mercy on the falsely accused

  4. Never been a fan of Pell anyway, but these current accusations are ridiculous. Pell is certainly guilty of other crimes, but innocent priests and bishops will be made to suffer in Australia because of this ridiculous ruling.

  5. I'll agree with "Anonymous" this time. None of the allegations add up. It's like when false witnesses came forward to testify against Jesus -- it was all made up. No one is saying Pell is perfect, no one is, but he is certainly innocent of the charges brought against him. The Vatican is only advancing this via the "Australian court" to cover their own crimes and to keep him quiet, since he is a potential whistle blower against them. They fear him.

  6. Damian,
    You have conflated and confused an number of cases. The charges on which he has been tied and convicted were made to the authorities four years ago and related to historical cases. The burden of counter proof is on you to demonstrate that Pell is innocent after two trials in the Country court and an appeal in a State Supreme Court.
    The free association ramblings about McGarrick and plots by the Vatican are of your own making. They are irrelevant to the Pell case.

    If Pell's defense lawyers choose to go to Australia's High Court, firstly that Court will decide if it will hear the case and if it does, they will have to prove an error in a point of law in the State court, not the verdict.

    It looks like Card Pell will be finally released from prison as Mr Pell, convicted pedophile.

  7. Re: Peter Watson - I suppose you think Christ was given a fair trial too. Don't you recognize a martyr when you see one? Even if a person is imperfect, or far from perfect, he acquires a great deal of grace from enduring persecution. We should always side with such individuals. Why are you siding with leftists?

  8. PW.

    Cardinal Pell was railroaded. There is no question about that. You need to look at the facts.

  9. @PW: Freudian slip my good man: "tied and convicted" would be well in line with the treatment of the Christ at his "show trial". There were three judges. The "normal guy" Weisenberg stated that there was "reasonable doubt". It appears that the other two, a man? and a woman? had their own personal lifestyle which stood in the way of the interpretation of the law.---That would also be "McCarrick" and not "McGarrick". Your lack of understanding and identification of the participants in the case only reinforces the fact that you don't know what you are talking about. George Orwell preached "thinkspeak". If you think it, it must be true.

  10. YES! The Vatican and Pope Francis fear Cardinal Pell, because he was, for over 4 years, a member of Francis C9 committee of advisors. He knows everything about the workings of Francis and his papacy and the Vatican.
    Now, it would be fantastic if Pell knifed the Vatican, the way they knifed him, and expose the rot of Francis and his papacy and advisors....especially Maridiaga.

    Don't be surprised if he does. Also don't be surprised if he knows even more than the great Archbishop Vigano.....and leaks what he knows, and about whom he knows it.

    That's what Pope Francis and his Vatican fear. And I hope they get blown away by it.

    Damian Malliapalli

  11. Mr Martin, Mr Dowd and JBQ, you have the burden of proof to demonstrate that Cardinal Pell has been dealt a miscarriage of justice. The jury and the Appeals court came to decisions 'beyond reasonable doubt.' If the US Supreme Court reversed Roe v Wade by a margin of one vote, would you claim that the dissenting judge(s) had more legal authority than the majority?

    The reasoning behind the original conviction and the confirmation by the Appellate Court are matters of public record. If you are going to persist with this litany of assertions, ambit claims and wild accusations about the personal lives of judges then you have a serious obligation to provide evidence to show that you are correct. So far, all of you have singularly failed in this.

  12. Damian,
    Your vent about Pell, the Curia and Pope Francis is totally off topic. Well done!

  13. Feast of the Immaculate Heart

    I agree with aspects of many of the commentators here, most surprisingly to my mind at least w pw, and I have apparently found a point of agreement between our gracious host and Mr. Watson.

    In sum. Tancred: “Pell is guilty of something.”

    PW: “Pell is guilty as charged.”

    I myself have viewed the 2002 and 2015 Aussie 60-minute exposés on the Cardinal and—fully aware of media bias toward most things Catholic—while I thought journalist Carleton at times hostile to Pell I also thought he was overall fair. I am troubled by the facts from the victims in those documentaries; and I remain unpersuaded after several viewings that Cardinal Pell was telling the truth much of the time.

    Huge questions swirl about Pell.

    1. Friend, housemate (as priest) and classmate of ‘Fr.’ Gerald Ridsdale, Australia’s own cross between our Fr. John J. Geoghan and ‘Cardinal’ McCarrick;

    2. Seemingly knowing shifting about of predator priests;

    3.Reputation in Rome via Barnhardt sources and the fact of his close association with Francis. The mere fact Francis invited him into the G-9 implies to me a high likelihood he’s part of the Homosexual Network Strangling the Church: one of them and most important blackmailable.

    Was he becoming a burr in Francis’s saddle with his audit. Yes. Could be a factor in Pell not seeking asylum/immunity holed up in the Vatican. Francis may have said: “Eh, No!”

    4. Failure to take the stand in his defense.

    Look, I fully recognize there can be good reasons not to take the stand unrelated to guilt. In Pell’s case I recall it was reported that he sometimes came off as combative and arrogant and shifty—all confirmed on the two 60-Min. episodes noted above.

    But most often one keeps a witness off the stand for fear of self-incrimination. Whether of the crimes at issue in the trial or to priest-pederast coverup as auxiliary bishop, bishop of Melbourne; and then as Archbishop Primate of Sydney/Australia.

    Hence I think Tancred is certainly right. He’s likely guilty of crimes in one or the other regard, or both.

    And meanwhile, I don’t see what’s so outrageous in the jury verdict. They heard the witnesses. We didn’t. George Weigel Pell’s bosum friend didn’t either apparently, yet argues there was “No Evidence!” Der Weigel knows full well that eyewitness testimony is evidence. In any historic sex abuse case that’s all there is likely to be. Is James Grein’s evidence against McCarrick not compelling simply because it’s eyewitness testimony?

    And every argument for the implausibility of the jury verdict—explaining that it was “impossible” for Pell to have done it—relies almost exclusively on eyewitness testimony for the defense. Weigel and all the George-the-Martyr crowd never note that fact.

    High priced legal talent found lots of archdiocesan witnesses.

    The jury found them to lack credibility. It wouldn’t surprise me if the jury thought of the defense witnesses as under the control of Pell or the larger Church hierarchy in Australia. Pell’s Shills, in a word.

    I share a mutual acquaintance with His Eminence—an older traditional priest and lawyer. Although he told me today he believes Pell is innocent; that Pell “doesn’t fit the mold;” he too admits that Pell’s failure to testify was inexplicable, and to him, “a stumbling block.”

    An Aussie journalist with no love lost for the Cardinal yesterday pointed out a significant fact: where Pell is going, he will know many of the Catholic priests and brothers already there. The Special Prison for Paedophiles.

    Sad and tragic. For the victims most of all, rather than His Eminence, for he was charged as shepherd with their protection. How can one look at the state of the Church in Australia and conclude he succeeded.

  14. One of my neighbors has a relative who is an elderly priest. He was trained in the seminary in the late 1940's-early 1950's and said that the discipline and oversight in the seminary back then, and as priests later, was so strict and tight that these things nearly never happened back then.
    The seminary was very much like the Marines, and was tightly disciplined. Even more so at the Pontifical North American College where he studied from 1951-54(ordained, 1954). The traditions of the Church, especially in Rome, were cherished and fostered among the students. They cultivated a traditional spirituality of prayer and personal sanctity. Their examples were Saint John Vianney, St. Ignatius, Saint Benedict of Norcia, and Saint Teresa of Avila (the discipline and traditions).
    As priests, they were bound to attempt to live lives above reproach, and were bound to recite the Divine Office daily. (I don't think any priests have recited this time honored Office since Vatican II). They were expected to make time every day, to meditate, pray the Breviary, and encouraged to say the Rosary. They were encouraged to say Mass every day.
    Their contact with the faithful was restricted to the administration of the Holy Sacraments and celebration of Mass.
    Back then they cultivated (or tried to) cultivate a personal holiness and also had a deep sense of what was sin, and sinfulness.
    They always dressed in cassock within the confines of their Church. In the USA it was not the custom to wear the soutane or habit on the street....but it was very much expected in Europe and Latin America and in Africa. Priests did not wear lay clothes unless relaxing in their own rectories, or engaged in sports such as golf, bowling, etc.
    This priest said that these issues we hear of today started, en masse, during, and immediately after Vatican II and have continued today. Even though he is old, and never advanced above the honorific title of Monsignor, he knows and recognizes when and how the evil began. He said it began with the wholesale discarding of Catholic traditions, disiplines, devotions, and most especially the traditional Mass. He himself has always celebrated both rites, old and new.
    But he knows when all this started at a huge scale. And it wasn't really known before 1962-65.

    Damian Malliapalli


  15. Damian Malliapalli

    Yes, Vatican II was the worst catastrophe in the history of the Church. It was intended to Protestantize the Church and its mission has been successful. Unless God intervenes we are headed for a much smaller and poorer Church but one that will be faithful to God and Traditional Catholic values.

  16. Brother Beowulf and PW : among many armchair assessors who feel comfortable to leave their decision-making to the reliability of the judicial system. And, funnily enough, neither of you know anything about the Australian judicial system! It is most likely that the jury of the second trial was made up with people who had a similar approach to evidence, as you do; hence this travesty of justice.

  17. PS

    PW : Your comments on this dreadful matter were so predictable that I would have been able to write them based on your past performance. In Australia, we call characters like you " RATBAGS ". Elsewhere you might be described as " Incorrigible ". You fit the profile exactly ! I can even predict your reply to this comment :)

  18. Do you have any specific objections, or are you just going to slap like an outraged transvestite?

  19. The best "An observer" 8:56 AM" can come up with is a personal opinion, "It is most likely that the jury of the second trial...." Prove it 'beyond a reasonable doubt' otherwise it would be a reasonable assumption that you are all talk and no trousers.

  20. The best "An observer" 8:56 AM" can come up with is a personal opinion, "It is most likely that the jury of the second trial...." Prove it 'beyond a reasonable doubt' otherwise it would be a reasonable assumption that you are all talk and no trousers

  21. "Anonymous PS 9:02",
    My Australian correspondents have advised me that your should be addressed as 'you bloody drongo.' With your vast lexicon, you probably know what that means.

  22. By the way chaps, there are still two volumes as yet unpublished of the eighteen written by the four year long Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Cases of Child Sexual Abuse. One of those two volumes is about Pell and the other relates, among other things, to Pell's time as a diocesan priest then auxiliary bishop followed by his time as Archbishop of Melbourne, then Sydney.

    What ever the outcome of the present case in the High Court, Pell might find himself in prosecutions against him that would last years. He's 78. Good luck with the confected rage churned out by the mendacious Lifesite, Weigel and Aroyo crowd.

  23. Whatever is one word, Mr. Grammar Constable.

    Considering that you rely upon and defend mendacious characters like the Sankt Gallen mafia for your vision of a church that really allows everything but Catholicism, your hypocrisy and narcissism know no bounds.

  24. When all is lost, the nostalgist invariably takes refuge in wild non-sequiturs and lazy way out projection.

  25. I’m just pointing out that what’s good for the goose is apparently not good for the gander when it comes to men, if I can say men, of your moral fiber.

  26. I never realized what blatant liars you all are--you say the pope is endorsing the verdict against pell, while everyone else is saying he isn't. This is the entire text of your link, David Martin--where does pope francis/the vatican state pell is guilty?

    "While reiterating its respect for the Australian judicial system, as stated on 26 February after the first instance verdict was announced, the Holy See acknowledges the court’s decision to dismiss Cardinal Pell’s appeal.

    "As the proceedings continue to develop, the Holy See recalls that the Cardinal has always maintained his innocence throughout the judicial process and that it is his right to appeal to the High Court.

    "At this time, together with the Church in Australia, the Holy See confirms its closeness to the victims of sexual abuse and its commitment to pursue, through the competent ecclesiastical authorities, those members of the clergy who commit such abuse."

    Even more to your pedophile protecting delight, the vatican has no intent of incriminating pell by canonically "investigating" him before the civil authorities are done hearing his "appeals."

    Once again the pedophile transgender opus devils are in league w/the socialist commie transgender devils.

    P.S. How is Vigano upright when he blocked the investigation of sodomite nienstedt? It's amazing how Church Militant has a 'news' article thanking Vigano while at the same time accusing Detroit of flaunting sodomite nienstedt.

    W/CM & deathblindlies constantly pulling Vigano out of the 'exclusive' israel owned koch-busch-barr right wing opus devil fbi/cia lying, murdering injustice dept, one wonders if vigano isn't murdered himself or being imprisoned/blackmailed for his role in the neinstedt case.