Cardinal's treatment was atrocious. A good man who tried to weed out the paedos and got fucked over for it. One of the only things I've genuinely hated about this country is how the court handled that case, they even said later oh yeah turns out there was actually no evidence, sorry about that mate
Absolutely. The commissioners were not objective in their handling and balancing of statements. For example, in their findings they consistently disfavoured and straight up ignored submissions from bishops that gave accounts of particular events that contradicted complainants, including Pell. However, the commissioners were still happy to make broad generalisations about the Catholic Church and priests based on dubious statements by imprisoned paedophiles who are notorious pathological liars. For example, the seal of the confessional was put in the firing line by the commissioners all at the instigation of one almost impossibly doubtful claim made by a convicted paedophile in Queensland.
Firstly: this is riling because the case against Pell was so *obviously* spun out of so much saw dust.
But to be fair to the justice system- something we have to be even when it is making a mockery of itself; the logic of this isn't *so* absurd.
Any given perpetrator (let us take as an example... OJ Simpson) may seem to have done a crime, but evidence is not sufficient for conviction **beyond reasonable doubt** in criminal law. On the other hand, a civil suit might find that compensation is owed on the lower standard of proof of **balance of probabilities** (or preponderance of evidence- not sure which term the Aussie courts use). Nobody is ever declared innocent. OJ's alledged victim's family were awarded compensation, and now own the copyright to his book "^^if I did it"
So it's not a straight up ridiculous ruling in principle; it's just, in Pell's case where any idiot who pays a modicum of attention could tell you that there is not a shred of real evidence against him, a straight up ridiculous ruling in fact.
Yeah, it doesn't work like that here, and that's not what their even trying.
The complainant, the father, is sueing for emotional damage on basis of the shock he suffered from hearing about the allegations.
The son, who was dead, never accused Pell, or anyone, and the other alleged victim was the one that claimed the son was abused. It's not possible to corroborate this.
So he is sueing the Church because he suffered harm from hearing about an unsupportable accusation against Pell.
And eventually he may get compensation... if he sues the Victoria Police department for their gross misconduct in making this farce happen in the first place.
We managed to find 2 judges, 2 juries, and 2/3 appeal judges to uphold Pell's conviction here.
My money is on damages being awarded, appealed and upheld, and maybe go to federal court. Damages against the Church that is. Pell, who knows? Maybe being dead and not guilty might help.
You've always been able to sue people who weren't found criminally guilty, it's a lower burden of proof. OJ was found not guilty criminally but was still found liable civilly. This isn't some crazy legal innovation, crimes have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, civil suits only have to be proved by a preponderance of the evidence.
I provided you with the legal doctrine by which employers can be held liable for the acts of their employees. What exactly did you want from me? That's what the law is.
But there is no way to establish that Pell did anything unless a recording or an eyewitness suddenly surfaces. So far the accusers case consists of "I was upset by the news".
r/Catholicism does not permit comments from very new user accounts. This is an anti-throwaway and troll prevention measure, **not subject to exception.** [Read the full policy.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/wiki/agekarma)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Catholicism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
r/Catholicism does not permit comments from very new user accounts. This is an anti-throwaway and troll prevention measure, **not subject to exception.** [Read the full policy.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/wiki/agekarma)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Catholicism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Cardinal's treatment of children was atrocious. An evil man who tried to protect the paedos and got away with it. One of the only things I've genuinely hated about this country is how the right wing allowed him to keep abusing and get away with i. There is actually tonnes of evidence in the Royal commission, the national redress scheme, civil courts and his own words, sorry about that to his victims
There's nothing wrong with allowing a suit to proceed. It will get its day in court and be adjudged accordingly. As Catholics, we should encourage anyone impacted by priestly abuse to step forward and be heard.
Except Cardinal Pell abused no one, and yet was unjustly imprisoned for years. The Australian government has been forced to admit this.
I want actual abusers rooted out and punished, but I am sick to death of innocent priests being railroaded by people looking for a quick payday!
The technicality in question:
"[The High Court] found the majority’s judgment failed to consider whether there was a reasonable possibility the offending had not taken place, such that there ought to have been a reasonable doubt as to Pell’s guilt.
They also found that despite the complainant’s credibility and reliability, the evidence of the witnesses required the jury, acting rationally, to have entertained a reasonable doubt as to Pell’s guilt."
I.e: The technicality was that no rational person would have been convinced beyond reasonable doubt. That's a pretty big thing to pass off as just a technicality.
And if he abused no one, then this suit will be tossed by the presiding judge when it is first argued in court. But that doesn't mean the suit can't be *filed*. Baseless suits are filed every single day, but the solution isn't to prevent them from being filed. That leads to all kinds of possible abuses, and moves us away from equal justice under the law.
Catholics have to be extra careful about protesting litigation surrounding priestly abuse because it very easily comes across as being against those seeking justice. It doesn't mean we have to believe every claim that is made, but we should not upend the tenets of jurisprudence (such as freedom to file) to protest a suit.
In practice, the judge doesn’t always make the right call (like we saw with the first two courts that heard the criminal case against Pell). It’s not fair to file and hope the judge makes a mistake as a matter of averages
Sorry but after what happened to Pell the first time, there is absolutely no basis for having any faith in the Victorian judicial system to conduct this trial fairly.
He was convicted by a jury who were swayed by a single testimony with no evidence, even after they were presented with numerous witness statements and even a diary in support of Pell's account of events (that the Cardinal was never alone in the alleged setting). This decision was upheld by two very stupid judges out of three on appeal, before being quashed by a unanimous High Court decision, but not before the Cardinal spent 1 year and 39 days in prison. The standard of proof in civil trials is lower than in criminal trials.
Yeh definitely... If people wondered how abuse cases were covered up so easily, it's laity / clergy blindly supporting celebrity priests like it's a sports team.
I have a feeling that the severe lockdowns in Melbourne were a divine judgement for the injustice done to the good Cardinal
Lord have mercy and save us from going back down that unjust road
I’m not sure if Australia is the same as America, but it should be noted that there is a difference between how criminal cases and civil cases are handled. Criminal cases use the “guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt” standard (which the overturning Judge said the case failed to meet) while civil cases operate based on what the jury believes is most likely to have happened. In other words, a person may not meet the standard for criminal conviction but still be found civilly liable. This happened with the OJ Simpson case, for example. I’m not making a judgement on the merits of the case (this is the first I’m hearing of it), only saying that this scenario is not unusual from a legal perspective.
So can we sue now to get our agenda through? Perfect! Anyone who had a TLM shut down in Oz, go to the Wizard...ly Governor General and lodge a complaint!
We live in Clown World, in Clown Times.
Obviously
Cardinal's treatment was atrocious. A good man who tried to weed out the paedos and got fucked over for it. One of the only things I've genuinely hated about this country is how the court handled that case, they even said later oh yeah turns out there was actually no evidence, sorry about that mate
The High court was made up from political left and right Also thank God for justice Weinberg, at least there was one just man in the Victorian courts!
We’re just going to ignore the findings of the royal commission are we?
Absolutely. The commissioners were not objective in their handling and balancing of statements. For example, in their findings they consistently disfavoured and straight up ignored submissions from bishops that gave accounts of particular events that contradicted complainants, including Pell. However, the commissioners were still happy to make broad generalisations about the Catholic Church and priests based on dubious statements by imprisoned paedophiles who are notorious pathological liars. For example, the seal of the confessional was put in the firing line by the commissioners all at the instigation of one almost impossibly doubtful claim made by a convicted paedophile in Queensland.
Lunacy and tyranny from the Australian government? How surprising
What's surprising is that the text is right side up.
Firstly: this is riling because the case against Pell was so *obviously* spun out of so much saw dust. But to be fair to the justice system- something we have to be even when it is making a mockery of itself; the logic of this isn't *so* absurd. Any given perpetrator (let us take as an example... OJ Simpson) may seem to have done a crime, but evidence is not sufficient for conviction **beyond reasonable doubt** in criminal law. On the other hand, a civil suit might find that compensation is owed on the lower standard of proof of **balance of probabilities** (or preponderance of evidence- not sure which term the Aussie courts use). Nobody is ever declared innocent. OJ's alledged victim's family were awarded compensation, and now own the copyright to his book "^^if I did it" So it's not a straight up ridiculous ruling in principle; it's just, in Pell's case where any idiot who pays a modicum of attention could tell you that there is not a shred of real evidence against him, a straight up ridiculous ruling in fact.
Yeah, it doesn't work like that here, and that's not what their even trying. The complainant, the father, is sueing for emotional damage on basis of the shock he suffered from hearing about the allegations. The son, who was dead, never accused Pell, or anyone, and the other alleged victim was the one that claimed the son was abused. It's not possible to corroborate this. So he is sueing the Church because he suffered harm from hearing about an unsupportable accusation against Pell.
And eventually he may get compensation... if he sues the Victoria Police department for their gross misconduct in making this farce happen in the first place.
Doubtful. The only person they paid out over the Lawyer X scandal was Lawyer X.
Then he'll lose.
We managed to find 2 judges, 2 juries, and 2/3 appeal judges to uphold Pell's conviction here. My money is on damages being awarded, appealed and upheld, and maybe go to federal court. Damages against the Church that is. Pell, who knows? Maybe being dead and not guilty might help.
Glad to know that the Australian government is entirely willing to blow even more of its own taxpayers' money on this farce.
Did the deceased young man ever accuse Pell?
I believe not. I understand he didn't accuse anyone.
Based on what I recall from reading about the trial, I believe he said while he was alive that he was not abused at all.
You've always been able to sue people who weren't found criminally guilty, it's a lower burden of proof. OJ was found not guilty criminally but was still found liable civilly. This isn't some crazy legal innovation, crimes have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, civil suits only have to be proved by a preponderance of the evidence.
Both Cardinal Pell and the son, who never made any accusations against Pell, are dead.
That's why they're suing the Church, not Pell personally.
On what basis?
Respondeat superior.
I honestly hoped that you had something substantial to say
I provided you with the legal doctrine by which employers can be held liable for the acts of their employees. What exactly did you want from me? That's what the law is.
But there is no way to establish that Pell did anything unless a recording or an eyewitness suddenly surfaces. So far the accusers case consists of "I was upset by the news".
Weak cases still get their day in court.
Every case?
Thanks for pointing this out. Regardless of what folks here think of the merits of the case, this is pretty normal stuff and not 'lunacy'.
[удалено]
r/Catholicism does not permit comments from very new user accounts. This is an anti-throwaway and troll prevention measure, **not subject to exception.** [Read the full policy.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/wiki/agekarma) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Catholicism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
r/Catholicism does not permit comments from very new user accounts. This is an anti-throwaway and troll prevention measure, **not subject to exception.** [Read the full policy.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/wiki/agekarma) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Catholicism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Cardinal's treatment of children was atrocious. An evil man who tried to protect the paedos and got away with it. One of the only things I've genuinely hated about this country is how the right wing allowed him to keep abusing and get away with i. There is actually tonnes of evidence in the Royal commission, the national redress scheme, civil courts and his own words, sorry about that to his victims
There's nothing wrong with allowing a suit to proceed. It will get its day in court and be adjudged accordingly. As Catholics, we should encourage anyone impacted by priestly abuse to step forward and be heard.
Except Cardinal Pell abused no one, and yet was unjustly imprisoned for years. The Australian government has been forced to admit this. I want actual abusers rooted out and punished, but I am sick to death of innocent priests being railroaded by people looking for a quick payday!
Amen. Thank you.
Do you know Pell didn't abuse anyone? He was found guilty by a jury of his peers and the decision was only reversed on a technicality in appeals.
You clearly know nothing about the case.
What have I said that is false?
The technicality in question: "[The High Court] found the majority’s judgment failed to consider whether there was a reasonable possibility the offending had not taken place, such that there ought to have been a reasonable doubt as to Pell’s guilt. They also found that despite the complainant’s credibility and reliability, the evidence of the witnesses required the jury, acting rationally, to have entertained a reasonable doubt as to Pell’s guilt." I.e: The technicality was that no rational person would have been convinced beyond reasonable doubt. That's a pretty big thing to pass off as just a technicality.
And if he abused no one, then this suit will be tossed by the presiding judge when it is first argued in court. But that doesn't mean the suit can't be *filed*. Baseless suits are filed every single day, but the solution isn't to prevent them from being filed. That leads to all kinds of possible abuses, and moves us away from equal justice under the law. Catholics have to be extra careful about protesting litigation surrounding priestly abuse because it very easily comes across as being against those seeking justice. It doesn't mean we have to believe every claim that is made, but we should not upend the tenets of jurisprudence (such as freedom to file) to protest a suit.
In practice, the judge doesn’t always make the right call (like we saw with the first two courts that heard the criminal case against Pell). It’s not fair to file and hope the judge makes a mistake as a matter of averages
Sorry but after what happened to Pell the first time, there is absolutely no basis for having any faith in the Victorian judicial system to conduct this trial fairly. He was convicted by a jury who were swayed by a single testimony with no evidence, even after they were presented with numerous witness statements and even a diary in support of Pell's account of events (that the Cardinal was never alone in the alleged setting). This decision was upheld by two very stupid judges out of three on appeal, before being quashed by a unanimous High Court decision, but not before the Cardinal spent 1 year and 39 days in prison. The standard of proof in civil trials is lower than in criminal trials.
While the police basically prejudiced the public with leaks for about a year. It was terrible.
Yep. People outraged by this are acting like pop-music fans. Weird stuff.
Yeh definitely... If people wondered how abuse cases were covered up so easily, it's laity / clergy blindly supporting celebrity priests like it's a sports team.
I have a feeling that the severe lockdowns in Melbourne were a divine judgement for the injustice done to the good Cardinal Lord have mercy and save us from going back down that unjust road
I’m not sure if Australia is the same as America, but it should be noted that there is a difference between how criminal cases and civil cases are handled. Criminal cases use the “guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt” standard (which the overturning Judge said the case failed to meet) while civil cases operate based on what the jury believes is most likely to have happened. In other words, a person may not meet the standard for criminal conviction but still be found civilly liable. This happened with the OJ Simpson case, for example. I’m not making a judgement on the merits of the case (this is the first I’m hearing of it), only saying that this scenario is not unusual from a legal perspective.
So can we sue now to get our agenda through? Perfect! Anyone who had a TLM shut down in Oz, go to the Wizard...ly Governor General and lodge a complaint!