The video also reinforces the image that pedophilia is only a problem if boys are being molested.

When I was outside my past church protesting Palm Sunday, the young, gay man came up and immediately started mansplaining to me the the Church didn't have a pedophile problem, it had a homosexual problem. Wasn't interested in what I had to say. He was telling me that all the abused were post pubescent boys.

SNAP was founded by Barbara B. in response to her being abused as a young girl.

This is the same attitude as the previous entity in possession of the vatican, whose other response to the pedophile crisis was to try to ban gay priests. After all it is only a problem if MALES are being abused. Being raped is the function of girls.

I've seen him on a panel trying to argue against Christopher Hitchens as well. One of his arguments for a deity was that morality wouldn't exist without a deity, I think I'll have to bank some of this irony for later as I'm overdosing.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, what a complete bunch of scumbags.

"The Vatican has issued a statement saying: “The Holy See has taken note of the decision issued by judicial authorities in Australia regarding His Eminence George Pell. Last year, the Holy Father granted Cardinal Pell leave of absence so he could defend himself from the accusations. The leave of absence is still in place.”"

Now a cynic might see that as the RCC distancing itself in readiness of a guilty verdict. Sadly even that would be an improvement (small) on their appalling attempts at covering up the endemic child abuse in their church.

Michael - So we aren't allowed to make articles showing about [atheists] killing religious people...

That isn't a rule here. No one has told you that is a rule here. You made that up yourself.

Arakish, no need to feel ashamed. Really, relax.

I think we all beleive in the notion of "innocent until proven guilty" but we can not be blamed for assuming the guilt of those who have past histories of dishonesty and careless regard for the human rights of sexual assault victims.

George Pell's overriding concern has been to protect the church's reptutation rather than the faithful betrayed by sexual predator priests. Of that he is clearly guilty.
He has denied receiving the very many claims from victims and families of victims about the activities of priests like Risdale, Farrel, Searson as early as the 1980s and much earlier, despite conceding he had been given a list in 1989, which was produced in court, listing the offenses carried out by Searson and yet he still failed to act.
He has denied receiving the information in letters, phone calls, and in person, from victims and families testifying in court under oath, and then blaming others in the church for failing to inform him and of even misleading him.

As a cardinal Pell also used his financial prowess to set up funds for the victims, a world first for the church, boasting his compassion, but masking the fact the paltry compensations were granted to secure protection against further litigation against the church. Peoples lives were ruined, many committed suicide and Pell was more concerned for saving the church.

There are already claims and counter claims as to whether or not he can get a fair trial given his very public profile. But something of balance might eventuate. A lot of people will have already written him off as guilty, a lot will want him found innocent regardless of the facts, but this will not entail law or justice. Of interest is that his legal rep is considered a staunch atheist...

https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/cardinal-george-pells-barrister-loud-so...

...and a dislikeable son of a bitch.

These two upcoming trials specifically charge Pell with sexual abuse against children, one in a community swimming pool, the other in a cinema. They are the only two of many accusations against Pell that have been recommended for trial. The rest were dropped by the magistrate for various reasons. This may be the only indicator of a fair trial.

I am a cynic but I do not claim to know if he is innocent or not. But for me he is already guilty of protecting pedophiles and by moving them around the country, endangering more children, rather than reporting them to the police.

The very least I can say is that after a long and aggressive career in advancing himself in a profession that exels in cognitive dissonance I wonder if he is capable of distinguishing between truth and deceit anymore.

It's easy to assume... especially with the history of the Church. If I was placing a bet in Las Vegas I would put all my money on GUILTY regardless of how the court views the good cardinal. That's just a fact. The other fact is that he will have his day in court and he will be presumed innocent until proved guilty. Whatever the verdict, he has made enough people uncomfortable enough to file charges against him. That too is a fact. Reprehensible? The court will presume innocence, not the public. It is not reprehensible to have an opinion. And when it comes to another public figure in the Catholic Church, it is not reprehensible to discuss the matter publicly. The Bane of being a public figure is that you give up privacy. People will have opinions. Mine is "HERE WE GO AGAIN."

@ Cog

Challenge accepted

" do not like thee, Cardinal Pell,
The reason why – I cannot tell (it's a secret you said);
But this I know, and know full well,
I do not like thee, Cardinal Pell."