Alternatively, you can email us or call us on (03) 8623 9900
Nov 12, 2012
Powered by Taboola
You must be logged in to post a comment.Not already subscribed? Get your free trial, access everything immediately
Pell is just a New Pharisee. Jesus wept and then got really cranky with some pharisees. If I was a believer I’d be hoping Jesus’d kick George in the nuts sometime early during the 2nd coming.
ok dogonauts, I know this is off the point but try typing ‘petraeus crikey resignation’ into google and click on the first return.
It used to be there
ZUT: You are irrepressible. Hehehehe
These are the best placed interpreters of “God’s will”?
Wonder if he wishes he could sack his PR?
“And all the while Cardinel Pell and his friends keep saying words and nothing keeps happening. Words”
The depressing truth for this and other wrongs
Bad, naughty zut! Though seriously, the idea of an ‘age of consent’ or there being something bad about an ‘unequal power dynamic’ in a sexual relationship would have come as a surprise to most men for most of history.
Have just realised there’s nothing about kiddie fidd1ing in the Ten C0mmandments. Perhaps some sections of the church have interpreted that as a green light…?
Yep Andybob, they’re good at this self-interested perpetuation stuff – the greatest bureaucracy on earth knows how to protect itself. Pity it didn’t protect those most in need of it. Guess we’ll just have to show them their priorities and protection of perpetrators were – and are – wrong and unacceptable in a modern secular society. Wrong anywhere actually.
The Church has 1,500 years of experience in keeping its assets out of the hands of secular authority to the extent that it has almost become the defining characteristic of what a ‘Church’ means. Scandals and reforms come and go but the prelates in charge of the Church deeply and honestly believe that they have a deacons duty to preserve the Church for the future in the face of challenges by secular authority. It is because of that history that they cover up abuse and seek to handle it in house. Preservation of the institution is honestly and deeply believed to be a greater good than the protection of children or the requirements of justice.
Hell’s pells, FD! Well said.
There was an infamous crook called John Wren who used to say that the only use for a Royal Commission was to clear the guilty. HOWEVER, the fact that a RC can access information from interstate and federally is an enormous step forward.
There is a way to stop the dog collarariat. En masse the taxpayer should protest to the government against the whopping amount of funds going to prop up a crooked religious organisation.
The one bit of good to come out of all this is George Pell’s campaign to become the next pope will hit a brick wall. Not because of the thousands of small children sodomised by the Catholic priests. It will be because it was under his watch the whole thing became public.
Weasel words are words spoken by weasels. In cassocks.
Succinct and eloquent Mr D.
I particularly enjoyed the comments from the local bishop of Newcastle Maitland diocese – a dumping ground for troublesome perpetrators and where abuse was endemic – that he could not see the urgency for such an inquiry. Convinced me.
Matthew, you recall correctly about ‘with the powers of…’ being parroted ad infinitum.
The major criticism of the Cole Inquiry was the narrow terms of reference which a full blown Royal Commission would not have had. During the 2006 Inquiry Crikey did a collation of L0rd D0wner’s responses ie: “I can’t recall..”, “I don’t remember…”, “It could’ve done..”, “It may have been” etc. In essence the Sergeant Schultz approach.
Serious question … why was the Cole Inquiry referred to (at the time) as an “inquiry with the powers of a royal commission”? Wikipedia lists it now as a royal commission, but my fairly un-law-edumacated recollection is that it wasn’t a “royal commission” at all – it was merely an “inquiry with the powers of a royal commission”. I clearly recall the PM using those specific words several times, and nobody contradicted him.
Am I right about that? And can anyone explain to me/us what the difference was? My cynical assumption at the time was that it was somehow nobbled so that it couldn’t go crazy and start investigating the wrong people (which royal commissions have a way of doing), but I don’t actually have any evidence for that, partly because I don’t understand what the difference is anyway!
“Dog collars”? Conflict of interest?
The tabloids seem a lot more willing to expose ordinary paedophiles than the ones in dog collars?
“Have Faith? You can. I’ll take Hope and Charity – now shut the door!”?
Is that a corgi of self-congratulation?
Excellent work today FD.
Unleash the corgis!
Or a Commission with the investigative powers of the Inquisition. Something they wouldn’t be expecting..
‘senior legal corgis’ – inspirational imagery, Mr Dog.
However, I fantasise about unleashing a few frothing-at-the-mouth dobermans amongst the most organised and churchiest . Reminiscent of that scene in ‘The Boys From Brazil’ film.