The Catholic Book Club discussion

Presumption of innocence is one of the basic elements of justice in democratic countries. Persons shouldn't be considered guilty unless they are proved to be guilty.

Do you think the following entities complied with the presumption of innocence in the case of Cardinal Pell?

a) The Australian justice system
b) Pope Francis
c) The Holy See's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
d) The Australian Church
e) The Australian people and the media
f) The people, everywhere else
g) Yourself

In general: Do you think priests accused of pederastia are subject to condemnation before being proved guilty?

My answer to some of these questions:

d) and b) As a precautionary measure, the Australian Church forbade Cardinal Pell the public exercise of ministry and any contact with minors. Pope Francis upheld this decision.

My personal opinion: The practical effect of the precautionary measure was nil. Being in jail and in solitary confinement, Cardinal Pell couldn't exercise his ministry publicly and had no contact, not just with minors, but with anybody. Therefore the import of this measure was just publicity, to make it appear that the Church did something. I think they should have waited until the appeals ended.

a) From the reading of this book, it follows that the Australian justice system failed. In his trial, George Pell was considered guilty by the jury against the judge's advice. In his first appeal, two of the three judges considered him guilty in spite of all the proofs in his favor. The third judge strongly disagreed. Finally, in the second appeal, he was considered innocent by 7 votes against 0, which proves the failures in the preceding trials.

In general, I would say that this provides another argument against the trial by jury institution .

c) The Holy See's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) initiated its own investigation of the charges against Pell, but the Vatican also said the CDF would await a "definitive judgment" from the Australian courts in the case. The CDF's investigations concluded upon Pell's acquittal by the High Court. So this action cannot be considered a breach of the presumption of innocence.

I'm wondering why the Australian public seemed so quick to condemn the Cardinal, other than generalized antipathy to the Church and the abomination of widespread clergy crimes. Was he lax in dealing with accused priests in his diocese?

Jill wrote: "Was he lax in dealing with accused priests in his diocese?"

He was not accused of that. He was accused of direct (historical) sexual abuse, in conditions where several witnesses declared such sexual abuse would be impossible.

I think it's obvious that the Australian public had been prepared by the media to condemn the Catholic Church and any of its members whatever the circumstances.

I knew that wasn't the accusation that landed him in jail, but I wondered if there was something of that sort that stirred up criticism or influenced public opinion.

A friend who moved to Perth says that the area where Cardinal Pell was tried is like the California of Australia -- very liberal, very anti-Catholic (which the book alludes to as well).

I think Manuel is right to say "I think it's obvious that the Australian public had been prepared by the media to condemn the Catholic Church and any of its members whatever the circumstances."

Jill wrote: "I knew that wasn't the accusation that landed him in jail, but I wondered if there was something of that sort that stirred up criticism or influenced public opinion."

I haven't heard anything in that direction, and the Wikipedia (which has a long page about Cardinal Pell) does not mention anything either.

I cannot hide my anger and indignation when I read Cardinal Pell's Prison Journal book (I never doubted Cardinal Pell's innocence). I don't want to fall into the classic "and you more", but I'm infuriated by the latest news that has been received and by how it has been treated by the media (at least the Spanish ones). Always respecting the presumption of innocence, I have personally been infuriated by the viciousness with which cases of sexual abuse perpetrated by ecclesiastics have been looked at, and when other groups have been victims. I think, for example, of what has happened in England, in Rotherham and in Rochdale, where a network of Pakistanis who were dedicated to kidnapping British girls to prostitute and rape them. One was killed and served as food. I already knew about this case before it became famous, what I did not know was the involvement of politicians from both parties, especially the Labour Party, especially Gordon Brown and the current Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, who was a prosecutor of the Crown, who allegedly covered up this case so that racist episodes would be unleashed in England. The worst thing is that instead of showing solidarity with the victims, the parents were arrested and Mr. Musk has been attacked for uncovering it. We have had to find out about this in Spain from youtubers, from Toro TV and from Iker Jiménez. In Cologne the same thing happened when the rape of Afghan immigrants and Syrian women of young people was covered up, and the girls were blamed for being too scantily clad (they provoked). In Spain, a commission was opened to investigate sexual abuse, but only those of the Catholic Church, which were a tiny percentage, but nothing is known about the sexual abuse of minors in Valencia, the Balearic Islands, Asturias and Madrid. In the United States in Spain, all the misdeeds that Donald Trump did were known, but there was media silence in the face of those that Hunter Biden did, because the press wanted people to show their sympathies for Biden, but not for Trump. I also want to remember the ominous silence that has been about the list of the Epstein Case and Diddy. Meanwhile, we had to swallow the Weinstein case and the police abuse of George Floyd. What I mean is that I am furious about this double yardstick. How many films have been made about sexual abuse around the Catholic Church, and what happened in Ireland where it was fashionable to attack the Irish Church? I want to remember the winner of the Spotlight Academy Award, and how many have been made of sexual abuse of people from May '68, Hollywood, or the BBC? The problem is that it has happened to all of us being equal before the law, some are more equal than others.

I ask a question: was this not condemnation because Cardinal Pell was a stumbling block against the atheistic secularism that we are currently living in, and therefore it was appropriate to put him in prison?

Fonch wrote: "I ask a question: was this not condemnation because Cardinal Pell was a stumbling block against the atheistic secularism that we are currently living in, and therefore it was appropriate to put him..."

What I find most surprising is the fact that the first appeal was rejected 2-1. The failures in the previous conviction by a jury manipulated by the prosecution were evident. The prosecutor himself failed blatantly in public, before everybody, during the appeal, which was shown online. Everybody agreed on that. However, two of the three judges decided to repeal the appeal.

The only explanation is that they acted following an ideology that wanted a scapegoat to pay for all cases of pederastia in the Church, regardless of his being guilty or innocent. Therefore those two judges did not act fairly and in justice. They failed in their calling as judges.

The proof is that the second appeal to the Australian Supreme Court was decided 7-0 in favour of Pell's innocence. But by then, Pell had had to be over one year in jail.

Manuel wrote: "Fonch wrote: "I ask a question: was this not condemnation because Cardinal Pell was a stumbling block against the atheistic secularism that we are currently living in, and therefore it was appropri..."

I just finished the book; I was surprised that it ended before the failure of the appeal. Based on everything we're told, it is shocking that it failed. Thank God he was finally exonerated and freed.

Kristi wrote: "I just finished the book; I was surprised that it ended before the failure of the appeal. Based on everything we're told, it is shocking that it failed. Thank God he was finally exonerated and freed."

The book was too long and it was divided in three volumes for publication. As Cardinal Pell was 60 weeks in jail, each volume deals with 20 weeks, regardless of where the end of each part falls.

Manuel wrote: "Kristi wrote: "I just finished the book; I was surprised that it ended before the failure of the appeal. Based on everything we're told, it is shocking that it failed. Thank God he was finally exon..."

Yes, I meant volume 1 -- since it's "The Cardinal Makes His Appeal," I thought it would end w/ the result of the appeal. Thx for explaining about it being divided into equal parts.