By JOHN YOUNG
Interest in the Pell case is worldwide, and I have an added interest because I live in the city of Melbourne where the alleged offenses are supposed to have occurred.
Reactions to the unanimous verdict by the Australian High Court to free Cardinal Pell are as one could have predicted. Those who always believed him innocent have rejoiced; those who always thought him guilty have, for the most part, either continued to think so or have refused to concede that they were wrong.
Some have taken refuge in the excuse that the High Court found him “not guilty,” but not “innocent.” The fact, of course, is that there is no judicial verdict of innocent: An accused is either guilty or not guilty. But the unanimous verdict, together with the reasons given, makes it clear that the judges considered that a grave injustice had been done to an innocent man.
Hypocritical concern has been expressed by some that this verdict will tend to weaken our system of trial by jury. They praise the virtues of the jury system as a great bastion of democracy. They remain blind to the fact that unreasonable verdicts by a jury, if not remedied on appeal, will do much more harm to the jury system. The jury verdict in this case was a shocking injustice to Cardinal Pell.
Another ploy is to repeat the unsubstantiated allegations against him, those so flimsy that he was never charged with them, as if we should believe these rather than the evidence in the current case. In fact I believe it was these completely unsubstantiated claims, and the whole atmosphere of suspicion they generated, that led to the appalling verdict of guilty by the jury.
Another claim is that it was money and influence that got him off: If you have enough money and influence, they assert, you can afford the best legal team and escape justice. This claim is really bizarre when we see how heavily the odds were stacked against the cardinal, with a hostile media and a host of fanatical Pell haters out to get him, no matter what.
Not only that, but the police too were determined to build a case against him, instead of impartially considering the evidence. They even advertised for people to come forward who had been abused at St. Patrick’s Cathedral, Melbourne, during a specific number of years — the years when Archbishop Pell was there!
Significantly, adverse comments made after the High Court of Australia had found him not guilty have not addressed the evidence. They have not pointed out a single weakness in the defense case that should have led the High Court to reject his appeal, but have resorted to ad hominem arguments.
Cardinal Pell is said to be unsympathetic to victims of abuse; it is asserted that he did not take action to prevent abuse while archbishop of Melbourne; unsubstantiated claims from the past are recalled without a scrap of evidence that they are true.
Actually the measures he put in place after he became archbishop of Melbourne proved a model for other dioceses. And people who really know him see him as just and compassionate. In any case, such criticisms completely avoid the question at issue: Is he guilty of the charges for which he went to prison?
This question is similarly obscured, or rather avoided, by the assertion that the verdict will traumatize victims of sexual abuse. The question is whether the verdict was correct. Further, it can reasonably be argued that the effect on some such victims would be the opposite: They would see that in this case at least there had not been sexual abuse; so they would not feel traumatized by this case.
Sections of the media have presented victims of abuse, relatives of such victims and representatives of organizations that aid such victims, who have exhibited an outburst of indignation and emotion on television, but who have not even attempted to address the issue of whether the High Court judgment was correct. And that is typical of the way this matter has been dealt with from the beginning: Those who condemn Cardinal Pell have resorted to emotion instead of reason, while those who have defended him have offered rational arguments.
But the bigots will not stop. There is talk of new charges and of civil lawsuits. A small minority of people have abandoned reason and common decency, aided by a prejudiced media. I’m sure that does not apply to the great majority of Australians, who still believe in a “fair go” for everyone. But the truth about the Pell case is obscured for most people by a poisonous media.
There are certainly notable exceptions among journalists, particularly Andrew Bolt, a professed agnostic, who has consistently maintained Cardinal Pell’s innocence, and backed it up with arguments no one has been able to refute.
The Australian Catholic Bishops, on the other hand, have mostly remained silent when they should have defended Pell. And at Masses in most churches prayers have not been said for a just outcome.
Another vital aspect: There is a very large and nasty elephant in the room, carefully ignored by almost everyone. The alleged crimes are homosexual in nature, perpetrated on two adolescent boys. And that applies also to most of the proven crimes of Catholic clergy against minors.
So there should be a great outcry against the promotion of homosexual behavior, instead of which it is defended by the media and, even more disgracefully, by the law. The appalling and disgusting crimes against minors are rightly deplored, while their homosexual nature is ignored. Which shows how deeply brainwashed our society is.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress