Last week we asked for your views on the ongoing coverage of George Pell. As the fallout continues, Crikey has published stories on conservative reactions to the verdict, the broader issue of suppression orders in Victoria, and the disturbing parallels between the case and the allegations levelled at Michael Jackson. With Pell’s sentencing scheduled for this week, the discussion will continue. As most readers attest, there’s plenty more to say…
On another week of Pell news
Mary Davies writes: I think the coverage should be maintained until Pell’s case is finally resolved (by a long and appropriate jail term, given the lives he’s wrecked). People want to express their feelings over this outrage, and also the disbelief that it has gone on so long and to what a large extent: right through the hierarchy of the church and, let us not forget, of society, where Pell continues to receive support. Most importantly [coverage must continue] because of the victims whose abuse needs to be fully recognised; their sufferings and their families’ suffering needs to be validated.
Chrys Glazebrook writes: I’ve just had enough of the whole disgusting business. How all this coverage must affect some of the victims I can only imagine. Probably reliving the experience over and over. Not good. We should never trust anyone completely who feels they have the ultimate power in their hands.
Ilona Riener writes: It is a very difficult, but necessary, reality to face for many Catholics. The worst part of the saga is that it could have been prevented. If the Vatican had taken the responsibility and detected these aberrations, it could have assisted the perpetrators to be clear about their conditions instead of covering up the dirt.
Richard Frawley writes: An aspect I find fascinating is the human nature to conflate one aspect of a person’s character with others yet unknown. In this case, say with say John Howard, his experience and particularly his character assessment of Pell is likely based on Pell’s professional behaviours towards him and the face that Pell has projected publicly. “If someone is X, then they cant possibly be Y”. Of course the weight of evidence generally, demonstrates the problem with this great myth.
Elizabeth Collier writes: Crikey‘s coverage has been balanced and objective. The testimony of victims/survivors cannot be undermined by spurious arguments and tangled legalese. The revealing of scandals following on from the royal commission has not helped the people who wish to deny the reality of abuse, or excuse any church leader, institution or single person. There is something really wrong about a society that enables this conduct to continue; we should be asking questions about the foundations of democracy, freedom and the right to be protected.
Apology to Andrew Hastie MP
Crikey published an article about the alleged war crimes revealed in the ABC’s “Afghan Files” investigation. We incorrectly stated that Andrew Hastie MP was “implicated” — this statement is incorrect and Crikey deeply apologises for the error. Crikey did not intend to imply any wrongdoing by Andrew Hastie, and the error was accidental. Crikey acknowledges that Andrew Hastie has been part of a push to investigate the alleged events and has supported an official probe into the incident. Crikey immediately sought to contact Andrew Hastie’s office once we became aware of the error.
Send your comments, corrections, clarifications and cock-ups to email@example.com. We reserve the right to edit comments for length and clarity. Please include your full name if you would like to be considered for publication.