presumption of innocence

On the Cardinal Pell case only the facts of this case matter, a point seemingly lost on most

This article consists mainly of a comment I wrote on the day's comment for the 8th of March, in reference to a piece titled " On Cardinal Pell ". It was written by VoxCantoris and elicited a lot of responses. The original is undedited and in this piece I have altered and elaborated a bit

***

I do not care much for Cardinal Pell. In my opinion he is a big part of the problem: the neo-Catholic who references Vatican II at every turn and refuses to criticise the revolution. He doesn't even believe in the Book of Genesis for crying out loud. The only thing he has done well as far as I am concerned is his intervention at the 2014 pre-synod against the family, in which he complained against the manipulation then ongoing. He has also celebrated the Tridentine Mass a few times, which is nice.

However, my opinion of him means very little, and is in fact entirely irrelevant to the question at hand: Namely, whether he is guilty of the charge levelled at him. Unfortunately, VoxCantoris seems to let his fondness or lack of it of someone take over his analysis of most situations. That was certainly the case with Trump's bombings of Syria, the treatment of Muslims at the hands of zionist and Western freemasons, and seems to be the case now, even though he is not as blatant.

What if Pell is guilty? I might as well ask "What is Bergoglio is Catholic?" What if VoxCantoris is a freemason who pretends to be Catholic? Is it even relevant? We can all make up "what ifs " to our heart's delight.

The only thing that counts is whether there is evidence to convict him of his crime, and from the reports I have read there is none. We have one witness, who I believe is either now or has been a drug addict who has fallen on rought times, whose testimony is contradicted by everyone else, including the man who he claims was his co-victim, now deceased. The physics of the crime don't make sense, unless we are to believe that Pell celebrated Mass in the emperor's new clothing and only the kids managed to see his nudity for what it was.

Evidence matters in crimes. In fact, it is all that matters. In this case we seem to have absolutely none, and the witness also lacks credibility. Even if Pell had not been a cardinal the conviction would make little sense, but given that he is a cardinal who does not push sodomy or other perversions, surely the benefit of the doubt shouldg o to him.

Make no mistake: This Pell case is a trial run for future evidence-free trials. If it is allowed to go ahead then it will absolutely ruin any hope of anybody - not just Catholic - getting a fair trial in crimes which are deemed fashionable by the state.

Some claim that we should wait for the appeal, but surely this is the height of imbecility! If they can have a kangaroo court at the first instance, what reason do you have for thinking that they cannot arrange a show trial in the second instance? Will the evidence be any different? Did they not have appeals when they were putting our Catholic martyrs to the sword in England? Another claimed that Australia is not some Soviet country with show trials, which just proves how dangerous Western totalitarianism is: At least in the Soviet Union, people knew that their country was guilty of show trials. In the West, we seem to have show trials with a large part of the populace under the illusion of justice. Even the show trials are dishonest.

In the end, God alone knows what Cardinal Pell is guilty of, but  he is innocent until proven guilty, and there does not even seem to have been an attempt to prove his guilt, merely an assertion which has carried favour among the political elite in Australia. We would therefore have to assume the man is innocent of this charge, and - unfortunate as it is to point this out since so many have missed it - this is the only charge that matters.

The assessment by Murray is spot on:

Even if it is true (God forbid), the verdict should probably have been Not Guilty according to the law.

We had one accuser--the other putative (deceased) victim having twice told his mother that he had never been abused--describing a highly unlikely circumstance 23 years ago that was uncorroborated by anyone else present at the time, and that the Cardinal strenuously denied. Nothing about the story makes sense to anyone who has been inside a sacristy before or after Mass: The abuse taking place in a bustling, semi-public area, the difficulty of maneuvering an archbishop's vestments to facilitate the abuse, the sheer recklessness of the act against all public evidence of Pell's character...

How does this even begin to rise to the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard?

If you think that the child-abuse excuse show trial will end with Cardinal Pell, then think again! These people are only interested in creating precedent, and then using that precedent to go after both the Church and their citizenry.

One final note: The Vatican has not come out in defence of Cardinal Pell. Given Bergoglio's Vatican's propensity to be at the wrong end of every moral and factual debate, that should be even more reason to conclude that the man is innocent of the crime of which he has been accused.

It matters little whether Cardinal Pell has been accused of in other instances, and I should point out, that he has been acquitted as well in those cases. It matters not that he is not the valiant champion of orthodoxy that we would like to see. This is not a Church trial, and he is not on trial for not defending orthodoxy, for which he is undoubtedly guilty, in good company with virtually all NOChurch bishops.

The only thing that matters is whether in this particular case there is enough evidence for conviction. Given that the trial was secret and the government imposed a media ban, we would have to conclude that the trial meets all the criteria for show trial and for no other reason we would have to conclude that the man is innocent, for were he not, the government would not have gone to such great lengths to conceal its many improprieties. Let us remember that this is teh same government which wants to break the seal of Confession, ostensibly because it cares about children. Of course, it doesn't care enough about them to want them to grow up with their biological parents, or spare them from being killed before they are born, or spare them from the psychological effects of childhood promiscuity. In other words, the government has proved itself to be dishonest, and it would take a very gullible man/woman to believe that anything in the Pell case has anything to do with the protection of children.

 

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - presumption of innocence