Almost at deaths door I’d suspect, at least when the media is around.
This has been given double page spreads in the Italian media as well. As far as I’m concerned this is a watershed moment for Francis. If he forces Pell to resign within the next couple of weeks then I’ll believe he’s serious about tackling the problem of abuse in the church. At the very least he needs to send a message that turning a blind eye to abuse will not be tolerated, even if you are a cardinal.
If it’s business as usual, well then my next pit thread will be pitting Francis and the entire Catholic church. Will Francis cut out the cancer or is he the cancer?
Pell is willing to meet with victims, but no media and no lawyers, please.
Here’s another damning exchange:
Furness: “You recall at this time, 1993, that that was an active issue in the church, how to protect its assets if it is successfully sued in child sexual abuse claims?”
Pell: “… that certainly wasn’t the only consideration but that certainly was a consideration.”
Furness: “This item in the minutes suggests that, at that stage, all that was being considered was how to protect diocese assets in the effect of successful litigation?”
Pell: “I don’t think that is a justified conclusion, either about myself or the other participates but it was very important to know where we were about the money.”
Some more background for anyone not yet convinced of the utter callousness and amorality of Pell.
Summary: In 1993 tried to bribe an abuse victim asking him “I want to know what it will take to keep you quiet.”
Also, previous testimony from a victim “I said `Brother Dowlan is touching little boys’,” said Mr Green, himself a victim of Dowlan.
“Father Pell said ‘don’t be ridiculous’ and walked out.”
Fuck it, I’m at that point already. Seize all the assets of the Church, ignoring all the technicalities of ownership and asset protection, and distribute them to the victims. The true believers can go rebuild their church from scratch if they want to. We need a new Thomas Cromwell I reckon.
Meh, I’ll settle for revoking their tax free status in every country where there is hard evidence of ignoring or covering up abuse. They can earn tax free status back with 5-10 years of “good behaviour”. Oh also, as a registered sex offender, the Catholic church wouldn’t be able to have priests live within 300 meters of churches… oops…
While the rates bill would be crippling, I suspect it’d be too easy to wriggle out of paying any income tax payable though.
If I were the ordinary folks congregation who had been putting money and time into buying the land and building a church upon it for a few decades, and never had anything to do with paedophilia, I would think this totally fair, I assure you.
Whilst I’m not advocating seizing all assets, how is the church and its congregation any different to a corporation with shareholders? I should say WHY SHOULD the RCC (or any church for that matter) be treated differently?
Shareholders always shoulder a great burden when criminal and/or negligent companies rack up massive fines (eg, environmental devastation)…even though they personally had nothing to do with the acts. Why should Catholic parishioners be immune?
How fair was it when the institution they supported shielded the abusers of their sons and daughters?
How do the ordinary folks congregation who found their children victims of shuffled-around pedophile feel about the situation? I imagine they also find it totally fair. How about the ones who were at risk, but not victims (as far as been uncovered, that is)? Or the ones who inadvertently financially supported such shuffling of molesters, whether or not they had family members at risk? How about the children themselves? Hunky-dory, no doubt?
I am not a Catholic, so my imagined reaction is suspect at best, but Jesus God I would pissed if I were tithing to an organization that was shuffling pedophiles, giving greater access to innocent victims, and not holding the officials accountable for the damage they have done to countless communities.
Depends on how invested in the lifestyle they are.
See, I went to a catholic school at which at least two of the Brothers and a teacher were molesting the students. It’s been shown that the hierarchy of the order knew what was going on and just moved this particular brother around ahead of the questions. He used to have a Year 7 kid (so, 13 or 14 years old) come to his room in the monastery every morning and ‘wake’ him up. The rest of the brothers apparently thought this was a bit unusual but didn’t bother to ask any more questions.
There has been at least one suicide of a guy I was friends with which can be attributed to what went on.
I know several guys who were there at the same time and knew what went on but are still going to send their kids to the school because that’s where they went and they are invested in the ‘old boys’ network.
Fuck that noise. Neither of my boys will ever set foot on the grounds and the reaction of the school and church once the activities of these fuckers was exposed was so cowardly and self-serving that it was the final push out the door for me away from the church.
Because Catholicism is a culture not a single legal entity. There is no single RCC. It isn’t a company. There’s a big entity in Rome, other major entities in other countries, and entities at parish level and various offshoots (orders of nuns and brothers and so on). These entities are related by culture and tradition.
It isn’t like shareholders at all. It’s more like your local football club or scout group forfeiting its clubhouse or den because of something FIFA or Scouting USA did.
They didn’t support the institution’s infractions, any more than you support the infractions of other people of your culture or religion or sporting code in other places.
I don’t know, do you? Personally I’d feel pretty bad about a football club or scout den or whatever in another state losing their assets because of what went on in my local football club or scout den or whatever. But perhaps I’m less inclined to throw all principle and fairness out the window when I’ve been wronged, and most people are quite prepared to do something on the flimsiest of justifications when they are lashing out in anger.
There are mosques in Australia which are purveyors of radical thought, up to and including terrorism. Should we declare all mosques in Australia forfeit?
Look I know the score here: the mob is angry, the pitchforks are out, and someone is going to burn. If the mob can’t find the actual perpetrator (or is still angry after disposing of the actual perpetrator) then they are going to burn someone or something with some real or imagined connection to the perpetrator. But don’t be under any illusion as to what is going on here.
I say all this as an atheist, with a repugnance for the Catholic Church. But two wrongs don’t make a right.
Its hard NOT to see it as a monolithic corporation, though. Does the Holy See have final authority? Does the Church ultimately make the decisions? Is the Vatican (as some see it) shielding Pell?
All Roman catholic churches are under the direct control of the holy see, actually they are more like a nation than a company, They have diplomats to other countries in the world and sovereign status. Heads of each nations church (arch bishops) are directly appointed by the vatican / pope / holy see. They may have some legal fictions of separation, but its undeniable they are a single hierarchical organisation.
Now I am not in favour of seizing their assets globally, but just pointing out the reality of the single RCC. However, sovereign nations can be sued, if a pattern can be shown of neglect of duty or shielding supects on an organisational scale then I think victims should be able to sue for damages against the mother church and holy see.
IN your experience, what kind of involvement and knowledge does an auxiliary bishop typically have?
Play your games with someone else.
It’s not a game. I seldom agree with Bricker but if you can’t answer his question how the hell do you think you can comment on what Pell would have known?
In my experience people can be reluctant to take embarrassing or difficult problems to the boss. They will do so if they want to pass the buck upstairs and are absolutely sure they won’t get blamed for the problem. Otherwise they may well try to avoid the boss finding out. This is well known and trite. Except when people are angry at a corporation or big institution. Then the assumption is that the boss was a Svengali who somehow knew about everything that went on.
Bricker, I know you have a vested interest in playing Devil’s advocate in favour of Pell. No unbiased observer could walk away after seeing today’s testimony without a dim view of Pell, however. His testimony, if we take it at face value, relies on multiple sources within the Church actively concealing information from him, sometimes against their own interests and without any plausible reason.
Indeed, he often throws others in the Church under the bus, claiming a kind of conspiracy within the Church to keep him out of the loop. If you want to defend the Church, don’t look to Pell–the man is basically painting himself as a noble maverick who was caught up in labyrinthine conspiracies within a corrupt organisation.
IOW, if you believe Pell, the Catholic Church is rotten to the core.
There are none so blind etc…
Also, I don’t quite understand what your sequence of questions is supposed to mean.