Quote# 142790

George Pell sentenced to six years' jail for sexually abusing two choirboys

Cardinal George Pell has been sentenced to six years' jail for sexually abusing two choirboys when he was Catholic archbishop of Melbourne in the 1990s.

Pell, 77, was found guilty by a jury last December of sexually abusing the choirboys after a Sunday mass in December 1996 and then assaulting one of them a second time two months later.

The man who was once Australia's most powerful Catholic sat in the dock dressed in a black shirt and a grey blazer, without a clerical collar, as County Court Chief Judge Peter Kidd delivered his sentence.

The chief judge described Pell's abuse of two choirboys in the sacristy at St Patrick's Cathedral as "a brazen and forcible sexual attack on the victims".

"The acts were sexually graphic, both victims were visibly and audibly distressed during the offending," he said.

"There is an added layer of degradation and humiliation that each of your victims must have felt in knowing that their abuse had been witnessed by the other."

"There was a clear relationship of trust with the victims and you breached that trust and abused your position to facilitate this offending," the chief judge said.

"I would characterise these abuses and breaches as grave."

Pell will serve a minimum of three years and eight months in jail before he will be eligible for parole.

He continues to deny he sexually abused the boys and has lodged an appeal against his conviction on three grounds, including that the jury verdict was unreasonable.

'Breathtakingly arrogant' offending

Chief Judge Kidd said the power imbalance between the victims and Pell as a senior church official was "stark".

"The brazenness of your conduct is indicative of your sense of authority and power in relation to the victims," he said.

"You may have thought you could control the situation by reason of your authority, as archbishop, whether or not that belief was well-founded.

"Such a state of mind would have been extraordinarily arrogant, but the offending which the jury has found you have engaged in was in any view breathtakingly arrogant."

The chief judge said Pell's abuse had had a "significant and long-lasting impact" on the wellbeing of one of his victims, whom he referred to as J.

"J has experienced a range of negative emotions which he has struggled to deal with for many years since this offending occurred … he has found it difficult because of issues of trust and anxiety.

"I take into account the profound impact your offending has had on J's life."

The chief judge said he did not have the benefit of a victim impact statement from his other victim, referred to as R, who died of a heroin overdose in 2014 and never reported the abuse.

"However on the basis of J's account at trial I am able to say your offending must have had an immediate and significant impact on R," Chief Judge Kidd said.

"Whilst it is not possible for me to quantify the harm caused, or articulate precisely how it impacted on R in the long run, I have no doubt that it did in some way."

The chief judge gave permission for the hearing to be broadcast live by media outlets and the court room was packed with abuse survivors, advocates and journalists.

[...]

Pell's crimes committed at cathedral

The court heard that Pell abused the choirboys, who cannot be identified, after celebrating one of his first Sunday masses as archbishop at St Patrick's Cathedral in East Melbourne.

He caught them drinking altar wine in the priest's sacristy, which was off limits to the choir.

One of the former choirboys gave evidence Pell had planted himself in the doorway and said something like "what are you doing here?" or "you're in trouble".

The then-archbishop moved his robes to expose his penis and forced one of the boys' heads down towards it.

The trial heard one of the choirboys asked: "Can you let us go? We didn't do anything."

But instead Pell moved onto the other choirboy. He pushed the boy's head down to his crotch and orally raped him.

After a few minutes, Pell ordered the boy to remove his pants and then molested him as he masturbated.

Pell abused that boy a second time two months later, after another Sunday mass when he pushed him up against the wall of a corridor in the back of the cathedral and groped him briefly.

Evidence of the abuse came from that former choirboy alone, who was the victim of two assaults.

The Court of Appeal is expected to hear Pell's appeal over two days in June.

Cardinal George Pell, ABC News 12 Comments [3/13/2019 4:53:02 PM]
Fundie Index: 6
Submitted By: Chris

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 | bottom

Hasan Prishtina

Three years and eight months in jail seems paltry for ruining two lives. Pell’s crimes, and his complete lack of remorse, make this post one of the most repulsive I have read on this site.

3/13/2019 8:03:56 PM

SomeApe

@Hasan Prishtina:
I agree. Let’s hope he gets some “fun extras” in jail, if you know what I mean.

3/14/2019 2:52:37 AM



https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2019/03/the-holy-see-and-cardinal-pell

Cardinal George Pell’s December 2018 conviction on charges of “historic sexual abuse” was a travesty of justice, thanks in part to a public atmosphere of hysterical anti-Catholicism—a fetid climate that had a devastating impact on the possibility of his receiving a fair trial.

How else does one explain how 12 jurors, presented with uncorroborated charges refuted by overwhelming evidence that the alleged crimes could not have happened, completely reversed the overwhelming pro-acquittal vote delivered by a hung jury in the cardinal’s first trial last year?

3/14/2019 3:57:00 AM

Indicible

@ #2187424

Could you please list the evidence contradicting the claims?
As for the anti-catholic atmosphere, what do you have in mind? The indignation about the widespread abuse in the catholic church is legitimate and can hardly be qualified as hate-mongering. Keep in mind that a lot of evidence has sufaced about the church aiding and abetting the pedophiles among its priests.

3/14/2019 4:47:57 AM



@Indicible
Did you even try to go to the link?
Go there and read it. See if anything there looks familiar.

3/14/2019 5:42:15 AM

TB Tabby

@2187424

Thanks. I was worried this article was stretching the definition of "quote" since it's an article listing the horrible things George Pell did rather than said. But your comment has made up for that completely. Now I'm off to the submission page.

3/14/2019 5:58:52 AM

Chloe

That's disgusting.

3/14/2019 7:22:41 AM

Anon-e-moose

George Pell sentenced to six years' jail for sexually abusing two choirboys




And there's less than fuck all that a certain paedo-condoner can do about it.

Good II.

That inferior subhuman's life is destroyed. Good III. And you've struck out, nonce-lovers.

3/14/2019 7:53:54 AM

Indicible

@ #2187433

All I see is another bias, trying to masquerade as fair and balanced. After all, this website clearly lists having a religiously influenced political power installed as one of its aims. This simply means that agnostics and atheists would get screwed. Considering how much of it is also christianity-centric, I would guess that other religions (other monotheisms, hinduism, buddhism, paganism, animism...) would not fare well either.

I read the article and all I saw were unsubstantiated remarks. The author lists his doubts on the judicial process, without ever giving one firm element of proof of injustice.
To be clear:

First argument on Pell enjoying diplomatic immunity: how grand of him not to hide behind his immunity. The Vatican should not even be able to give diplomatic immunity, as its qualification as a State is somewhat dubious (there is a territory, limited as it is, a State apparatus, but the existence of a population is doubtful as nobody has an exclusive Vatican nationality and there is no self sustaining population inhabiting the territory. All three elements are used in international law to define a State, but the Vatican falls short on the third.). I would argue that he simply could not hide behind his immunity, as the scandal had become too big. Refusing to stand trial would in fact have unleashed an even bigger backlash.

Second argument: "The police went on a tawdry fishing expedition for something-on-Pell. (Who, one wonders, set that in motion? And why?)" I have an answer there: it is called judicial proceedings, a prosecutor instrucs the police to investigate allegations and facts linked to these allegations. It is called inquisitorial procedure. Funny how that works: the catholic church has been one devout user of this type of proceedings for centuries... As for the conspiracy -mongering, the answer is as I gave it, but which purpose does it serve to ask the questions when the answer is known to anybody with some degree of legal knowledge? It serves to sow doubt among people without that knowledge which represent 90% of the population. The author is trying to drum up support by trying to discredit the work of the police and justice workers.
He also claims that there is no proof, but does not provide any evidence to the contrary. I can also claim whatever I want as long as I have no proof, that does not make it true.

Fourth argument: reversal of suspicions. Pell has to be innocent, so the Court system has to be guilty of something. This is an insult to the work of the investigators and the intelligence of the jurors. The catholic church has many skeletons hidden in its closet, some of which have emerged over the years. Money laundering for the mafia, rapes of nuns, assault on children, mistreatment of children in orphanages, mistreatment of women in Magdalen laundries... The church is a scourge on humanity, dating back centuries. It has no leg to stand on to criticise the working of any State. It should consider itself lucky it is not being dismantled as the criminal enterprise it has proven to be over the years.

Lastly, surprise, surprise, the author is a friend of Pell. What warrants such a support? What profit does he gain from defending Pell? Browny points with the church? Financing, I suppose? If he questions the motives of the Australian courts, we are allowed to question his, right?

3/14/2019 7:57:01 AM



@Indicible

And that is the whole point.

This site is an unlimited supply of FSTDT worthy material, except the submission would be way too long and you need a Ph.D in brain twisting philosophy to understand what they're talking about.

I found them when Obama was reelected - they were losing their mind over who was responsible for this outrage. They were starting to calm down after 6 months, then the
SCOTUS released their decisions about that CA referendum and the Windsor decision about gay rights and they lost their minds for 6 months again. I've been following them ever since.

They live in a fantasy world, where Catholic philosophical considerations supersede the laws of physics, therefore modern neurology isn't true,
and SSM makes mothers legally non-existent.

In a previous article about this, they claimed Pell
could only be guilty if 10 impossible things happened simultaneously,
but gave no clues about what those things were.

Because so many conservative claims have failed my fact-checking in the past, I don't spend any more time on it - I just assume they're lying and proceed from there.

Also this article and the previous one sounds just like their pre-2003 output
that claimed all these molesting charges was just the god hating atheistic
Satan controlled press raging against the holy beautiful mother Church.
This didn't help their credibility either, like the boy who cried no wolf too many times.

I posted that link to add more fuel to this fundie fire.

3/14/2019 9:20:35 AM



Pell should die in prison

3/14/2019 5:04:21 PM

Doubting Thomas

But remember, the Catholic church doesn't have a problem with pedophiles among their priesthood.

3/15/2019 6:19:47 AM

1 | top: comments page