The Appellate Court of Victoria, Australia will stream their decision on Pell's appeal on August 21st - at 9.30am (local time).

Currently in prison, Cardinal Pell is the highest ranking Catholic prelate to be convicted for the sexual abuse of children.

Although a number of other Cardinals no longer work for the church because of similar allegations, and legal actions - mainly in the USA.

Pope Francis (and those in Vatican City) - as well as Catholics around the world, will be anxiously awaiting the verdict.


Not least to see what happens next...

and reading the reasons why an appeal may be won..I'm not very positive.

It will be interesting to see how the judges respond to the notion that a person can be accused of abusing someone who is dead and who repeatedly told relatives he had never been abused in the Catholic Church but nonetheless...jurors decided to believe hearsay from one person and Pell was convicted of abusing that dead person.

I know the "established" Melbourne legal fraternity are aghast at his conviction on the basis of why he was. But will the judges be swayed by a public and media that demands blood?

## members of the first jury were in court for Pell's conviction and several openly wept.
It shows that in the end- you are in the hands of a group of people who could have all sorts of hidden prejudices and could be found Guilty or Innocent upon a whim.

Yes - the power of publicity is enormous. The Emperor's New Clothes remains one of the very best fables. But sometimes, when they go too far, the glass shatters. Carl Beech.

hedda wrote:
in the end- you are in the hands of a group of people who could have all sorts of hidden prejudices and could be found Guilty or Innocent upon a whim


However, the appeal decision will be made by three experienced appeal court judges who - hopefully - will give a clinical and fair verdict.

It's not a black and white matter though, as there are many possible outcomes/verdicts - which could lead to further appeals to higher courts, by either side.

Pell has been in solitary confinement (for his own safety) in a Melbourne prison for several months now - replying individually to several thousand goodwill messages.

The Washington Post has said that Pell personifies the church's institutional indifference to the welfare of boys and girls who were abused by its clergy.

Being the most senior Catholic cleric convicted of abuse, it may well be that - when the appeal verdict is given tomorrow - he will again carry the can, for that indifference.

As well as for the decades of denials, inaction and lies - perpetrated by his organisation. But now, at last, admitted by the relatively new and straight talking Pope.

And luckily, partly due to myself, the Pope has started to realise that the FalseAllegationsIndustry exists and even guilty people deserve Christian charity as much as anybody. Even False Accusers and charity bosses and police and bent lawyers benefitting from it deserve sympathy after conviction; yes even Carl Beech.

JK2006 wrote:
even guilty people deserve Christian charity as much as anybody

Forgiveness is conditional, however.

On repentance. Those who continue to abuse (for example) deserve nothing.

That - as I understand it - is the teaching of most religions.

Including the Catholic church.

Only Jesus (and you) know, Barney. Personally I would say forgiveness (not forgetfulness) should be unconditional or it is worth very little.

For a continuing, ongoing and regularly repeated crime/sin - unconditional forgiveness is inappropriate.

These unsavoury activities - though not always illegal - would include taking a £50 note from your employer's till, every day.

Or a married chap frequently screwing his secretary, during office hours.

It's somewhat unlikely that the employer or wife could be forgiving - or the offenders' formal religions, if they had them.

Ah Barney you choose one of my hated words "inappropriate". I consider it "inappropriate" to make forgiveness conditional. It's like those who give to charity in order to get great headlines or personal gratitude. Nothing wrong with any of it and each to their own morality. All I can say is - in my morality, forgiveness is unconditional.

Fair enough - but to forgive unconditionally doesn't make any sense.

Particularly if the 'offences' continue - like in the two examples I gave, and for an active child molester.

Even Francis - and the Catholic church - won't forgive in such cases.

Confession and repentance must first take place - together with the promise/affirmation that the sins/offences will immediately cease.


Makes sense to me.

Instead of the easier 'I'm sorry - OK, you're forgiven ' meaningless repartee.

I'd say it was harder, not easier, to forgive repeat offenders. But you go your way and I'll go mine; my way may have lead me down a wrong path in life but at least it's my life and has been my decision. As Edith Piaf once sang...

Fine...and finally.

Essentially, there are three types of laws.

That of your religion (if you have one), your country - and your own moral law.

Of the three, your own code - the latter - is the most important (except for the clinically insane etc.); the laws of the other two are very often wrong.

Frequently contradicting themselves.


Just one example - the Catholic church is against synthetic birth control, abortion and divorce.

Barney wrote:
The Washington Post has said that Pell personifies the church's institutional indifference to the welfare of boys and girls who were abused by its clergy.


Inevitably, someone had to carry the can - for this worldwide phenomenon.

And as usual in this mind boggling superficial century, it has to be one extreme or the other. Somewhere in the middle between everyone being an abuser and everyone being a CarlBeech there's the reality; many false allegations, many concealed victims, many exaggerations, many trivialisations, many claims wrongly ignored, many false claims wrongly believed.

Undoubtedly, many priests have been wrongly accused, and gullt - by association - assumed.

But the fault lies firmly with the church (not Francis who came clean) - who repeatedly denied that abuse was happening.

It's worth googling Fr Sean Fortune in Wexford, Ireland - as an example of how the church went to great lengths to defend the indefensible.


As for George Pell - a new prison is likely; he's now been in solitary confinement for 176 days.

Legal experts in Australia don't hold out much hope for a petition to the High Court in Canberra - in the light of today's appeal court verdict.

Then an eclesiastical court hearing looms at the Vatican; although few precedents exist for such cases - involving this high level of accused.

"To defend the indefensible" I'm afraid you clearly have more info than I do but I bet you that many considered Carl Beech's claims to be "indefensible" by those vile perverts he accused. Likewise dozens, hundreds, thousands more - like George Pell; and you'd be right; in most cases they cannot be defended and thus are indefensible. And if you assume all allegations are true, I'm 100% with you Barney.