I'm going to start by thanking Steve for this: "the truth matters here a great deal." Not one of us knows the truth about these accusations, and after all this time (and given the details I've read) we're unlikely to ever truly know.
I do pray that Cardinal Pell gets a fair trial.
Now. The tribal cries of "witch hunt" absolutely, utterly infuriate and sicken me beyond what I can express. If Cardinal Pell did do what his accusers say, I hope he is laicized and shunned for the rest of his life. Nothing else that he's done, for good or ill, in his life as a Catholic prelate matters in regard to this.
I could write for hours on the disgusting display of "he's on our team" tribalism I've read in the Catholic press. It's as if suggestive words, groping, the ruining of a child's trust, isn't that big a deal, as long as there was no further physical coercion.
Lots of people don't know what the hell they're talking about. I'm very tempted to name the bloggers and commenters who have already pronounced sentence on the "criminal, paid-off accusers." You can find them yourselves.
May justice be done- not cheering, smearing, or promoting 'loyalty' to anyone, at this point.

I don't know about Pell's case, but I do know of one priest in my own diocese who was completely innocent back in the American sodomy/sexual scandals. Nonetheless, his bishop decided to throw this good man under the bus in order to appear decisive and resolute himself (he had a less than stellar reputation in these matters up to that time). Trumped up charges leveled by a lunatic (clinically lunatic) woman were used to force this good priest to suspend ministry and, naturally, he was pilloried in the press. But he fought back, got himself some canonical legal help, and appealed this outrageous injustice all the way to Rome. Mirabile dictu, he eventually won! He was reinstated and welcomed back into his parish with a standing ovation. Soon after, he retired with his good name intact.

So, while I detest the very idea of clerical abuse of minors, I know there are some cases that are nothing more than a lynching, a witch hunt. And I know that this happens sometimes because a corrupt prelate is willing to smear another man in order to solve his own problems. Never jump to conclusions.

This is what happened in the case of Fr. Gordon MacRae. His bishop threw him under the bus. The person, a Msgr. in the chancery who was instrumental in helping to tainting the case, was himself recently convicted of stealing funds from the diocese to support his homosexual lover...a lover who the diocese took pains to assure the public, was not a minor. [I guess that made it okay then/ sarcasm off]. That Msgr. has now been liacised, but Fr. MacRae continues to be in prison, only because he refused to plead guilty. Had he pleaded guilty he would have been out 20 some years ago.

Fr. MacRae's latest post is about falsely accused priests and has also added a comment about Cardinal Pell.

http://thesestonewalls.com/...

Be very careful of the Gordon MacCrae case. I'm familiar with it, and things aren't quite so cut and dried as Gordon's defenders would have us see them; he had significant psychological problems discovered in therapy before his trial and sentencing in 1994. That's not to say definitively that he's guilty as charged, not that there weren't anomalies -- serious ones -- during the trial that led to his ridiculously long sentence in NH State Prison. Nor does it speak to the curious behavior of the very liberal former NH judge, Arthur Brennan. But, after much reading, I'm convinced MacCrae's innocence isn't as obvious as he pretends. I am also acquainted with Eddy Arsenault, the larcenous sodomite who once served Bishop John Brendan McCormack in several high-ranking roles at the chancery; I challenged him repeatedly online and in person while he was in power. While he's a perfectly disreputable and repellent fellow, he was not "instrumental in helping to taint the [MacCrae] case" as you allege. Neither Arsenault nor McCormack was serving when MacCrae was convicted in September of 1994. McCormack arrived from Boston in 1998, if memory serves me well, and Eddy started riding herd on the diocese even later. Any intervention they may have had in this case concerned MacCrae's appeals, not his original conviction.

Stop the presses Johnny! I just came across this, and your information is solid, but solidly wrong. I don't think there is anyone who has researched the case of Father MacRae more than Dorothy Rabinowitz of The Wall Street Journal and me. I will link at the end of this comment to a list of my posts on the MacRae case. The "psychological" difficulties you cite are bogus and contrived. They are mostly contrived by Bishop McCormack and the now laicized Monsignor Arsenault. It's true they were not around for the farce of MacRae's trial, but it's also true that they investigated his case, determined that he was innocent, and then tried to bury their own investigation when the Boston scandal exploded in McCormack's face in 2002. One of the reasons Monsignor Arsenault is now dismissed is that he was caught forging McCormack's name on thousands of dollars of travel vouchers to support his gay lover, but in the years before that he was also forging the Bishop's name on phony documents to the Holy See trying to have MacRae laicized while suppressing evidence of his innocence, Please don't add to the egregious injustice of this case by spreading some of its mistruths. Here is my link: The Father Gordon J. MacRae Story: Injustice in New Hampshire.

I read the material you refer to in your link a while ago and I remain unconvinced. I saw recently that MacRae now even defends the late Fr. Joe Maskell of Baltimore whom I also believe was a predator. Frankly, MacRae's thoughts about Maskell do not surprise me. After all, if Maskell, whose memory now faces a veritable legion of accusers, isn't guilty, well then perhaps Gordon.... Curious how there is a massive conspiracy of accusers to sink Maskell's name in Maryland, and another massive conspiracy to put and keep MacRae behind bars in NH. It takes a lot more than what you present to convince me of the validity of conspiracy theories.

I knew Arsenault and I can believe he is capable of all the evil you attribute to him and perhaps more, but that in no way extricates MacRae from his legal difficulties. If you believe his story as you seem to, you should spend all your time trying to exonerate him in the courts of the State of NH, not trying to convince average citizens to enlist in a crusade of sorts.

(In case anyone is tempted to enlist in Mr. MacDonald's crusade to free clerical predator MacRae, I append here the detailed report available at Bishop Accountability. Before believing MacDonald, MacRae himself, or others associated with this effort, read it. It is enough to make you think twice...make that ten times... before accepting as true the malarkey they are peddling. http://www.bishop-accountab... )

It sounds to me as though you are capable of some evil of your own. But thank God for you. When a man is long dead and cannot defend his own name, we have you to tell us who should be condemned in the sight of God and man. Thank you for filling this role, a much needed place in our Church that lets us know when to go ahead and cast the stone.

And thank you for rising to the defense of implausible scenarios and unspeakable acts; seeing your efforts restores our faith in human credulity.

I'm glad if that outcome was as just as you describe. And I'm not jumping to conclusions. To be clear, I'm criticizing the Catholic media sources who are claiming, without evidence, that Cardinal Pell is being subjected to a witch hunt. Yes, those occur. And many other child abusers, whether clergy or not, never face justice for what they do.
The media being anti-Christian does not mean that Pell is innocent, or that he's guilty. Why is this a controversial idea?
As I've said, it will be difficult if not impossible for the truth to be determined here. If Cardinal Pell is innocent, I pray the accusers will recant. Then they and he will have a better hope of salvation, though I agree with Steve Skojec that his church career is over in any case. If Cardinal Pell is guilty of hurting boys by ruining their innocence and trust, I hope he will be ruined unto repentance. But ruined in worldly status, honor, and any influence, nonetheless- however good that influence might be for traditional Catholics.
This is an unpopular opinion with a shocking (to me) number of people.

Notice something about these cases of unjust accusations when they occur: the goal of those supporting the charges is almost always achieved. The priest whose case I recounted retired months after his reinstatement; age and stress had taken their toll. Pell may "win" in court, but his maligners, if that is what they are, will have effectively ruined him anyway. The cardinal cannot retrieve his lost reputation and no one will go after false accusers ever. For the victims of these publicity scams, it's always "heads I win, tails you lose."

Shakespeare summed it up nicely in Othello - "He who steals my purse steals trash. But he who robs me of my good name steals that which enriches him not, but which impoverishes me."

Dear SAF
You're forgetting something. Until proven otherwise, Pell MUST be regarded as innocent. Although it may not work that way in the world, at least it should work that way with us. Your comments cast the man in no-man's-land with some sort of downgraded 'innocent' status.
Since the same rules apply to his accusers, the only moral option available to us is to tread carefully, say little, write less, watch and pray.

Cardinal Pell has a lot of enemies since he's been telling the truth clearly and being too rigid that hurts many "people of lies."

There is another completely innocent priest, Father Gordon MacRae (thesestonewalls.com), who has been incarcerated in New Hampshire for 22 years for abuse crimes he did not commit. His story will crush your heart. No doubt there are others. If Pell has his day in court and is exonerated, perhaps he should spend the rest of his life leading a mission to winning the release of priests like Gordon MacRae.

Under reign of PF is totally different.

I think the complaints about the witch hunt, at least in what I've read and linked, have more to do with how the media is leaking damaging information and just generally on a crusade to bring Pell down before he even has a trial. If it's true that he can't get a fair trial because of this, that, too, is a travesty and deeply unjust.

But I never claim to know what a man has done in the past, and I won't exonerate him before this is aired out. I was involved with the Legionaries of Christ for years, for Pete's sake. I know first hand how that plays out.

What I've read doesn't focus solely on the media. Of course it's a titillating, look-at-all-those-hypocrites story, for them. But Catholic bloggers with no connection to the Australian (or US mainstream) media are piling on with theories and words that, were I to let loose and describe them (idiotic is the mildest hint) you'd ban me for doing. I won't put in links; this stuff is out there and easily accessible to you and all readers.
As to a fair trial, I think it's impossible (barring a confession from Pell, or retraction by the accused, or admissible documents/recordings proving collusion among any of the parties) to prove guilt or innocence of these charges. At this point the judgement will be based on the perceived credibility of Pell and his accusers. Yes, the media play the usual role in prejudicing public (judges, juries, commissions included) opinion.
None of that makes any difference whatsover as to what I wrote.
Not to be ingratiating, but I meant to compliment your article in contrast to other sources.

Now they don't hate Francis church no more who is their ally.

Do you reside, or have you ever resided within either the Diocese of Ballarat, the Archdiocese of Melbourne or the Archdiocese of Sydney? If not, then it must be said that your summary dismissal of the suggestions of a "witch hunt" derives from complete ignorance. It would therefore be preferable if you refrained from making such uninformed comments.

The presumption of innocence. Lawyers are well aware of how a trial can be prejudiced by the media. Presumably his guilt or innocence will be judged by twelve jurymen. How easy will it be for them if they have read in the media that he is probably guilty to discard their prejudices? It is vital that there should not be such prejudicial (i.e. judgement beforehand) in the media. As the law has always said it is better that many guilty people go free rather than one innocent man be found guilty as a result of contemptuous prejudicial comment in the media. Incidentally that has always been my final objection to the death penalty.

I do think one has to be particularly careful in respect of charges relating to matter that happened many decades previously. People should not escape justice just because decades have passed but how much reliance can one put on people's memories of what happened years previously particularly in sexual matters. Do not we all ask ourselves did that really happen or did we dream it? Further there are people who really hate the church and are prepared to lie to do it down. Those involved in the forthcoming trial are going to have to be very careful.

Nicolas, you are absolutely correct. Such has been the relentless, heavily slanted media coverage of this whole unpleasant affair that there seems to be a determination in some quarters to 'nail Pell'. It is also quite apparent that certain elements in the Victorian police have been 'feeding' some 'journalists' with 'information'. BUt, as I pointed out in another reply, there has been a climate of loathing of the person of George Pell which long pre-dates the Royal Commission. The stark reality is that, even if Cardinal Pell is acquitted, the belief will remain that 'he got away with it. They are many, including large sections of the media, who believe in Pell's guilt because that is what they want to believe. After all, it sells news copy.

There was another Australian bishop, Max Davis, who, formerly the Chaplain to the Australian Defence Force, who was falsely accused of sexual abuse, again, decades ago. The press was relentless in its salacious coverage of the charges and the events leading up to the trial. Butas it has been said, when Bishop max Davis was found not guilty, "the press was out to lunch, and he wondered home alone." He is now a broken man.

And a priest friend on mine who was accused and charged on ten counts of sex abuse, occurring allegedly many years ago. From the time of his arrest, he was front page news, and his guilt was presented as a matter of fact. It also emerged that his four accusers were coached by corrupt police officers who were obviously prepared to go to any lengths to 'nail a Catholic priest'. But they didn't do a very good job, because the four totally dysfunctional accusers kept changing their stories and contradicting themselves. And again. when he was acquitted of all charges, this particular news item was restricted to one small column buried in the middle of the local 'newspaper'. The judge in this trial, who incidentally was excellent, later said that this whole case was so full of holes that it should never have gone to trial. She freely conceded that it had only gone that far because of a fiendish determination on the part of a couple of corrupt 'detectives' that they were 'going to get him. They failed, but this good priest still bears the scars, and they run deep. Very deep.

So, this is why I take great exception to the likes of SAF, who on the basis of nothing but his abysmal ignorance, contemptuously dismisses the possibility that there is any kind of 'witch hunt' against Cardinal George Pell. We have seen this kind of thing before, and once the damage has been done, it can never, ever be undone, irrespective of the outcome of a trial.

I reside in the USA and read media from all over the world, mate.
I'm not uninformed. You're another "yay! Team! It's all a witch hunt until it's Ricca, or whatever bad guy! Any inquiry about our prelates is proven false by the bias of Australian media alone!" types.
There is nothing I can say that will help you. Good night.

When you have Amanda Vanstone,former Federal Govt minister and Oz Ambassador to Italy and not a Catholic, jumping in suggesting that it's trial by media, she knows what she is talking about. What Steve wrote is on the money and you need to look at the big picture to understand the timing and methods .Stewart was right.

No, he wasn't. He assumes the logical fallacy that...oh, never mind.
Really, it's hopeless. Good night to you as well.

Your ignorance is hereby confirmed. And a very good night to you, too!

I totally agree, the truth must come out. No decent person, especially Catholic, wants to see anyone falsely accused, and therefore falsely found guilty. What we are seeing is the lingering ramifications of how the clergy have dealt with this scandal to begin with. This is all of their making and therefore, barring a wrong conviction, this is still their mess. Pell was less than accommodating when he testified at the abuse hearing last year. It's rather ironic but they are in fact self abusing themselves because they will not come clean.

I hope that one day the clergy gets so sick and tired of all this that they just release all the information, speak the truth, and allow God to cleanse this church once and for all. They just make it worse and worse. It's getting hard to watch them continue to allow this to fester, and frankly they act like petulant children who cannot face up to what they have done.

It is true that George Pell, by his sometimes, shall we say, "aloof" responses to the Royal Commission, did not acquit himself particularly well. But the openly expressed loathing of the person of George Pell long pre-dates the Royal Commission. It is something that the mainstream media has often enthusiastically fostered, with the encouragement on occasions of certain ostensibly Catholic politicians who are nothing but products of the degenerate, secular humanist zeitgeist.

SAF knows nothing of this. Instead, he makes a scathing assessment of someone (i.e. myself), whom he does not know from the proverbial bar of soap, thereby condemning himself by his own arrogance and ignorance.

I know of no thinking, knowledgeable and faithful Catholic would would deny the absolute necessity that the truth be known, regardless of how painful and acutely embarrassing it may be in the short term. But I also know that the Church will not bear the stigma of these evils in perpetuity. The Church, the Body of Christ on Earth, must ascend Her own Calvary to be put to death, and this can only be made possible if, like her Christ, she is betrayed by "an insider": by the many, many Judases within her ranks. But all of this filth will one day, by the Power of God, be consigned to the place where it belongs and the Church will be renewed and made ready, as the glorious Bride of Christ, to be received by her heavenly Bridegroom Future generations will see all of that preceded tis re-birth in the proper perspective, that is, the final, all-out attempt by the powers of hell to annihilate the Church, and so completely extinguish the Light of Christ from the whole earth and thus secure the everlasting destruction of humanity and all creation. No, future generations will not be looking back upon this and squirming: it will all be clearly understood for what it is. Regardless of the outcome of Cardinal George Pell's impending trial.

And for myself, my prayer is that the truth will prevail, and that justice be done in this matter. But, as Steve quite rightly says; whatever the outcome of the trial, the perception will always be that George Cardinal Pell is damaged goods.

I cannot help but find some similarity between the RCC and their "disregard" of what the BVM asked of them at Fatima and their inability to live in the Truth of God by not yielding to what is right and true. They are severely damaging the church by not having the faith in God, and the redemption of Jesus to cleanse this church physically, mentally, spiritually with this abuse crisis. Everything about this crisis, EVERYTHING, is ant-God, anti-Jesus, I cannot fathom why they cling to this for their own egos. I sincerely hope that one day, soon, they will have the faith and courage to speak the truth about this crisis, and allow God (who is patiently waiting) to bring it back to life. It is withering on the vine because of them and it is this scandal beyond anything else that is killing this church. Even those entering now who may be its salvation forward are learning this sinful behavior, are kept from bringing new light to the clergy. God and God alone will resurrect this church.

May I refer you to the most recent offering; "the Pontifical Academy For Life Edition" by the Lepanto Institute; (Michael Hichborn). It contains the latest in his excellent series, "Bold and Stupid Men" and runs for 15 mins.It contains a most beautiful description of the Church, given to a mystic monk in the 19th. century. This is not the result of his own contemplation; it is a revelation from Heaven.

Thank you for understanding what I meant.

Who's behind this?

Betting the Vatican Bank has more bones buried in its past than the Catacombs. Pell must have struck a nerve.

Follow the money. Wave to Soros and the Clinton Foundation as you go by.

Meanwhile on the same day, apartment of the former secretary of Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio as reported scarcely is gay drug orgy hell house, but did you see any media lynch over that?

The question is who will take advantage of Card. Pell situation to get rid of him?

There weren't enough column-inches to cover *both* stories, so...

It's amazing and quite sad, as to how many people IN THE VATICAN appear not to think that hell exists and that their souls might be the pinata of demons for ETERNITY. I know this isn't new. It's how we got the not so sweet strains of Marty Luther and his Reformation Band (Happy 500th, Francis!!) Still, even though the church will triumph in the end I think we're heading into some kind of reset both for the church and wretched humanity as a whole that's going to make WWII look like Disneyland by comparison. And, of course, Francis, enamored of globalist nonsense, is more concerned about climate change than doing to Consecration of RUSSIA as our Lord and our Lady asked for. We never learn, do we?? Kyrie Eleison Christe Eleison

If Russia got consecrated and the world had peace, NWO won't likes it that's a reason why rather concerning and concentrating more about climate change than making the boss angry. Please God, cleanse the Church. They don't believe in You at all.

We are almost their with the reset with the pandemic scam.

Steve, though you didn't mention this, everyone knows that the forced resignation of Benedict XVI was engineered through huge financial pressures (like the Vatican's SWIFT system connection closing) so that it would be mandatorily followed by the election of Card. Bergoglio and nobody else, once enough vote promises had been gathered by the St Gallen "mafia" during the ensuing conclave.
It looks now obvious that the financial pressures and the election of Bergoglio are very closely linked in a twofold plot against the Church orchestrated by specific dark forces inside and outside the Church as Mgr Luigi Negri described them, or the "powers and principalties" so named by St Paul.

I actually mentioned that specifically. Quoted a scholar who wrote a report on it this year, and then said:

"One of the lesser-known factors in the abdication of Pope Benedict is that in the days before his statement of resignation, banking within the Vatican had become all-but-impossible. The situation was a result of intentional pressure brought to bear against the Vatican — pressure some say was used to force the Vatican to clean up its financial corruption and comply with international banking standards, and others believed amounted to a form of blackmail against the person of the pope."

All of this can be summarised in one simple fact. Pope Francis was out to reform the Vatican finances. Price Waterhouse Coopers was asked to audit the accounts. Pope Francis allowed the audit to be pulled. Any public commercial firm that cancelled an audit would be suspended on the Stock Exchange because it would be seen as fundamentally corrupt and dishonest. The Vatican, at least as far as finance is concerned, is fundamentally corrupt and dishonest.

Again Pope Francis appoints Libero Milone as Auditor General in 2015. Milone now resigns. Why was he allowed to resign instead of being backed up to the hilt by Pope Francis? Is it because the great reformer is essentially a fake - a South American politician who is quite happy to give in to corruption?

Steve, there plainly is a pattern of Pope Francis favouring some very dodgy characters for no good reason. Apart from the ones you mention above, look the following appointments:

1. Archbishop Paglia, who commissioned the erotic mural for his cathedral in Terni. The charitible say the mural was homoerotic, the less kind that it is paedoerotic.

2. Father Timothy Radcliffe, former world wide Master of the Dominicans. Infamous for comparing sodomy to the self-giving of Jesus.

3. Cardinal Maradiago who complained in ludicrously exaggerated language about the coverage of the abuse crisis and ascribed it to Jewish control of the media.

4. Cardinal Daneels whose attempt to cover up an abuse scandal in Belgium has not hurt his access to the Vatican.

You know, I used to keep a watch list of these appointments, but it's impossible to keep it up to date:

https://onepeterfive.com/wa...

Of course -- knowing nothing of the facts -- we can all say that Card. Pell has done nothing wrong . . . because he's, like, a doctrinal conservative . . . and, because he will, at times, traipse around in the incense wearing the frillies . . . and, because some people have still learned NOTHING from the "Maciel Affair." I'm more amenable to an Australian Court sorting this one out.

Skeleton-rattling (Pavlovian style to obtain the desired result/behavior) is a fine-art, a specialty (even an industry) in certain parts of the world, and various strata of the administrative state. For some time South America has been en-cultured within, organized according to such rattling. For some reason (a bit of a mystery, really) being a Catholic continent has not vaccinated South America from the totalitarian habits of cronyism and control via blackmail. The place has, in fact, calibrated the rattling arts (industry) to a fine degree. Especially Argentina.

So why was Peter's Chair entrusted to someone whose political and cultural habits of mind and relations were the warp & woof of a such a place.

For me, the selection of Francis (B.) has the feel of a Fidel (C.) scenting the specialized Argentinean skills of a Che (G.) about it; of a German Nazi resettlement campaign nestled (*rat-lined*) among the pampas grass.

So why is anyone surprised that this papacy has collected the skeleton-rattlers & rattled ecclesiastical skeletons it has (does, and will)?

"...the pope seems to have a tendency to surround himself with compromised men."

Ann Barnhardt has an article saying pretty much the same thing here.

If I'm Pell and thoroughly convinced of my own innocence, the first thing I'm going to do is call for polygraph tests all around. I'll take one myself first then I'll challenge my accusers to do likewise. Let's see who's really telling the truth and not afraid of the light.

For some reason, I don't think that's going to happen.

As a police officer that was my first thought. Polygraph evidence does not hold in the Court of Law, but definitely does in the court of public opinion. Polygraph examinations are useful, and are clearly used regularly in the FBI and CIA.

Google "the selective use of polygraphs"