Agreed.
I agree with all of the above.
However it seems that Bricker, in particular, has focused entirely on the church as a theoretical institution with a PDS of rules, regulations and rituals. He’s forgotten that the church is made of people, human beings.
And it seems to me that, while he definitely doesn’t advocate child abuse, he is prepared to dismiss it if the church and its credibility is in any way threatened.
Actually he has focused, as he often does, on the legal justice system, and its rules. And the rules are in place exactly because human beings are fallible, and subject to bias and the desire to bypass the rules when they are inconvenient.
I don’t know if it is the same in Australia, but the concept in the US is that “we are a nation of laws, not men”. It doesn’t matter, or it shouldn’t, who the human being is - everyone is subject to the same laws, even when accused of horrible crimes.
“Let’s not worry about the rules just this once, because he is obviously guilty/a child molester/a murderer/a terrorist/a Roman Catholic bishop/one of Those People” doesn’t work.
Regards,
Shodan
This. He knows the law and can discuss it away from any other considerations. I really enjoy reading what he writes, although I think we are on opposite ends of the spectrum, philosophically.
I did one of my rare vanity searches here to see what’s been up. Interesting.
Indeed. But once the lynch mob gets its blood up…
It’s amazing to read the number of commentary articles in the media that flat out admit that Pell’s conviction was about the sins of the RCC in general and appear to believe that is acceptable.
You came very close to being right. See below
Hell. Yes. The prosecutor shouldn’t have proceeded but was (presumably) under too much political pressure to drop the case. The prosecutor (Judd) conceded in the High Court that if one witness’s evidence (that of Portelli) was accepted, there was a reasonable doubt ie that Pell should walk. And Portelli’s evidence was unchallenged.
That is beyond pissweak. That means she lost objectivity and didn’t do her job. Political pressure got to her. She knew there should be no conviction. But she didn’t want to be (metaphorically) lynched so she prosecuted. And from there it was all so tediously predictable - a jury almost certainly swayed by broader issues as they so often are in high profile cases, reasonable doubt ignored, conviction overturned on appeal.
The reality is the jury system sucks once a case becomes a public circus, but there is no (or no satisfactory) system for ditching the jury in such cases.
Thank you.
Nice to know what you turn into when you don’t think someone’s listening. And your comment above about me absolving the RCC “of any culpability in its crimes against children” is factually inaccurate and grossly abusive. But as if I care. You are just one of many wilfully ignorant and stupid people who are unable to distinguish between one thing and another when you are angry enough.
Too late.
Allegations that a rival Cardinal bribed witnesses to secure Pell’s conviction.
Damn it’s like the 15th century.
And George is gone.
… another reason why going to heaven might not be all it’s cracked up to be.
“Those whom the gods love, die young”. George Pell was 81.