But what did the poor starving alpacas ever do to you, Miller?
The plot thickens To be fair to Pell (who may not deserve fairness) these ‘allegations’ seem fairly incredible, particularlu the time frame. The leaking of information by rhe police is concerning as well.
Miller this is the pit and you’re the one who refused to use logic in one of the threads about islam just insulting me instead.
Eat a dick. I know you dislike me personally which is the only reason you’re arguing in this thread. You and Cardinal Pell can get together for a cozy session comparing notes on the best way of buggering pre-pubescent boys. I’m done here.
No, he’s revealed multiple times that he doesn’t believe that he’s actually ill enough that it’s a problem. (Even you said you think it’s probably safe if he’s taken care of properly.) He’s pointed out that multiple doctors are ready to come and insure that he’ll be okay.
He, and apparently a lot of other people, see it as a way for him to avoid going to Italy where he would actually be in danger of being arrested. No extradition nonsense–he’d already be there. They see it as the Church fighting tooth and nail to keep from submitting a Bishop to the secular authorities.
And it’s not an unreasonable belief with a Church that has been hiding this stuff forever, not submitting to the secular authorities. Not forcing those in confession to go admit their crimes in order to get absolution–which is what they are supposed to do.
It’s not about making him suffer. It’s about him apparently abusing the system by having a doctor say he can’t go back. He doesn’t allow some other doctor to confirm the diagnosis. He doesn’t agree to let doctors come with him pro-bono to ensure his safety. All reasonable requests are denied.
Coremelt thinks he’s getting off from having to do things that he should do. He’s pitting him (not the law) for not rising above and doing more, as he would expect out of a Bishop who didn’t want to make the Church look bad.
I tend to agree that it looks awfully convenient. And that the guy is probably guilty–hence why I think there’s a real possibility he’d be arrested. And I think there’s a very real possibility that he’ll try to use this medical excuse to avoid being extradited, too. Hence, get him to face his accusers.
(which, frankly, I do think should be a right. The accusers should get to faces the accused the same way the accused can face their accusers.)
Actually, I have no idea who you are. But if you’ve been an idiot in another thread, I’m more than happy to take your word for it.
Nah, I was giving good arguments in another thread and you were being a dickhead. Who did you have to fellate to become a moderator of the pit? You must be good at it.
Your mom.
Apparently, if the refund she gave me is anything to go by.
My mother died of intestinal cancer 10 years ago. So I hope you enjoyed sucking her desiccated hip bones. And by the way your death will be as slow and painful as hers was.
Why is he so worried about traveling while ill? Can’t he just “pray” he’ll make the trip ok? That should work, right?
Oh I think Pell’s prayers have, up to now, been answered.
Well his prayers for a cushy job at the Vatican were answered. Conveniently the vatican does not have an extradition treaty with Australia. As was mentioned above there is allegations that Pell himself was also a molester, apparently theres been a year long inquiry by the Victorian police.
He’s a sick (in the head) man that doesn’t deserve your sympathy. At the least he shuffled pedophile priests around to avoid a scandal. This is documented and is not disputed. At worst he himself also molested around 15-20 victims. If he did die on the plane back to Australia my only thought would be that he had got off far too easy.
Paywalled, so can’t access the link.
Here’s a different source:
… of what? My understanding is that he’s appeared in front of a number of tribunals, commissions etc and that the police have been investigating and charging people all over the place, but have not found anything on Pell.
What do you know they don’t?
Is it? I don’t know much about all this but I read quite a bit about his questioning earlier today and there didn’t seem to be any direct suggestion of this. And when I read articles on this they seem to use weasel words that imply Pell was involved without actually saying that outright. And the body of the article usually seems to be to the effect he sat on a board or similar that moved a priest, without any evidence Pell was either a driver of the decision or knew why the priest was being moved.
Of course it is more than a little ironic that is what is being done to Pell and the RCC at the moment echoes what the RCC did in Europe for many decades. Not that anyone expected the latter.
You know, Bricker, I bet I’m not the only one who gets tired of your shtick of demanding a can-you-prove-this-in-court level of argument and exactitude from other posters.
This is a message board, not a courtroom. Get over yourself, you overly legalistic stuffed shirt.
Random Doper: “It’s a nice day outside.”
Bricker: “Can you prove that? Have you taken temperature readings at sufficiently numerous locations to demonstrate that it’s not just a nice day exactly where you are? How about wind chill? Have you considered that? Have you checked to see if it’s nice in the shade too, or is it chilly there, and only nice when you’re in the sunshine?”
That’s you, buddy. Own it.
Why would anyone think, that this man, quite possibly guilty of shielding child molesting priests, would be anything BUT shielded by the church. It’s what they do. And they kinda owe it to him, he did his part, after all. How can they do otherwise now?
Whether it’s a message board, a bar, or the congregation of smokers at the intermission of La Traviata is not remotely relevant to the requirement that the proponent of a claim bears the burden of proving his claim. You confuse this as a courtroom requirement, but it’s not: it’s a requirement of logic.
I certainly understand your desire to dispense with that; given the majority of your beliefs, your desire to cloak yourself in an environment in which claims with which you agree are not challenged is perfectly understandable.
But unfortunately for you, and fortunately for the mission of fighting ignorance, you are not (yet) in a position in which your decrees can dispense with the mandates that logical debate demands.
So that’s a “no” on getting over yourself?
Correct. That’s a no.