Cardinal Pell - The Grounds for His Appeal

[KenW]

On 3/3/2019 at 7:10 PM, cruciatacara said:

- the jury has already done that, and they had ALL the evidence and the testimony. 

The jury did NOT have all the evidence. 

20 eyewitness accounts vouching that Pell was in constant company of others during the alleged incident ~~~~blocked by the judge.

The defense wanted to demonstrate how difficult it would have been to commit the crime while clothed in his vestments ~~~~blocked by the judge.

 

The defense wanted to introduce testimony of others that the 2nd victim recanted his accusation shortly before his death~~~~blocked by the judge.

 

This verdict was reached by mob mentality.

[cruciatacara]

You are believing conspiracy theories instead of the legal system. There was a trial.The jury found him guilty unanimously. He was convicted and sentenced. He has an appeal pending. Those are the facts of the case. No amount of wishing it weren't so will change that. 

I know because I wish it hadn't happened. I wish there had been no child victims of abuse anywhere in the world. I wish that all human beings treated all other human beings with respect. But wishing doesn't make it so.

 

[KenW]

35 minutes ago, cruciatacara said:

You are believing conspiracy theories instead of the legal system. There was a trial.The jury found him guilty unanimously. He was convicted and sentenced. He has an appeal pending. Those are the facts of the case. No amount of wishing it weren't so will change that. 

I know because I wish it hadn't happened. I wish there had been no child victims of abuse anywhere in the world. I wish that all human beings treated all other human beings with respect. But wishing doesn't make it so.

 

Conspiracy has nothing to do with my thoughts on the topic. 

Evidence and testimony that was possibly exculpatory for the defense was BLOCKED by the judge. This flies in the face of civil law and the Statutes of our Savior when -He- said: “....so that EVERY word may be established.” In the Pell case, not every word was established. Many words were suppressed.

[cruciatacara]

1 hour ago, KenW said:

Conspiracy has nothing to do with my thoughts on the topic. 

Evidence and testimony that was possibly exculpatory for the defense was BLOCKED by the judge. This flies in the face of civil law and the Statutes of our Savior when -He- said: “....so that EVERY word may be established.” In the Pell case, not every word was established. Many words were suppressed.

Those words were never spoken by Jesus - they were words that Paul wrote to the Corinthians. They have no application in this case. I think you might be guilty of eisegesis.

Eisegesis (/ˌaɪsɪˈdʒiːsɪs/) is the process of interpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that the process introduces one's own presuppositions, agendas, or biases into and onto the text. This is commonly referred to as reading into the text.[1] The act is often used to "prove" a pre-held point of concern to the reader and to provide him or her with confirmation bias in accordance with his or her pre-held agenda. Eisegesis is best understood when contrasted with exegesis. While exegesis is the process of drawing out the meaning from a text in accordance with the context and discoverable meaning of its author, eisegesis occurs when a reader imposes his or her interpretation into and onto the text. As a result, exegesis tends to be objective when employed effectively while eisegesis is regarded as highly subjective.

[KnightofChrist]

Read that Pell is not being allowed to pray the Divine Office or offer Mass. 

[cruciatacara]

2 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

Read that Pell is not being allowed to pray the Divine Office or offer Mass. 

I wonder why they won't let him have the Divine Office books? That seems a bit strange as prisoners are generally allowed books.

As for the Mass, I have to admit that since he hasn't been defrocked, it does seem a bit strange to deny that to him as well. 

I used to work in the prison system, in the remand section, but the prisoners there were allowed personal things and books, so I would like to know more about the reasons for this decision.

[cruciatacara]

18 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

Read that Pell is not being allowed to pray the Divine Office or offer Mass. 

I found this article that says he is allowed 6 books, so why couldn't he ask for the Divine Office volume for this season and say the Office on his own? As for Mass, they are trying to protect him for the general population because they think he is at risk.

I don't think it is good to post things that haven't been researched for their veracity. 

 

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/after-first-night-in-prison-what-s-next-for-george-pell

 

[KenW]

2 hours ago, cruciatacara said:

Those words were never spoken by Jesus - they were words that Paul wrote to the Corinthians. They have no application in this case. I think you might be guilty of eisegesis.

Incorrect on all 3 counts. 

I Heard the Voice of Jesus say: “But if he hear thee not, take with thee one or two more, that at the mouth of two witnesses or three every word may be established.” Jesus spoke those words. 

Every chain reference bible worth it’s salt refers to OT law; Jesus alluded to it, St. Paul affirmed it: “One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall a matter be established.”

The very foundations of our civil law. 

 

[cruciatacara]

3 minutes ago, KenW said:

Incorrect on all 3 counts. 

I Heard the Voice of Jesus say: “But if he hear thee not, take with thee one or two more, that at the mouth of two witnesses or three every word may be established.” Jesus spoke those words. 

Every chain reference bible worth it’s salt refers to OT law; Jesus alluded to it, St. Paul affirmed it: “One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall a matter be established.”

The very foundations of our civil law. 

 

Your civil law isn't the same as our civil law. Granted, there are a lot of similarities and common foundations but the US does things differently than Oz.

[KenW]

12 minutes ago, cruciatacara said:

Your civil law isn't the same as our civil law. Granted, there are a lot of similarities and common foundations but the US does things differently than Oz.

You said Jesus never said those words. I proved you wrong, and you ducked and chucked. 

In the case of Pell, not every word was established. Potentially exculpatory evidence and testimony was suppressed by the judge. That flies in the face of civil law EVERYWHERE and the statutes of Jesus. 

[cruciatacara]

3 minutes ago, KenW said:

You said Jesus never said those words. I proved you wrong, and you ducked and chucked. 

In the case of Pell, not every word was established. Potentially exculpatory evidence and testimony was suppressed by the judge. That flies in the face of civil law EVERYWHERE and the statutes of Jesus. 

You certainly seem combative. Could you please provide chapter and verse for your quote as I do not see it quite as you have presented it. I have also read commentaries about the quotes 2 Corinthians 12:20 and Matthew 18:16 where they say that Paul is concerned about discipline with the church and not applying this to civil law. I love learning more but would request your source for it.

I disagree that the judge suppressed exculpatory evidence, but if you can provide transcripts to prove this, it would be very useful to help me understand your point of view. IMO the evidence that the judge withheld was withheld for very good reasons - especially as evidence in many trials is withheld for a variety of reasons. In this case, obviously it did not seem verifiable to the judge.

Also, are you aware that putting things in all caps is shouting and that shouting never really supports an argument, it just detracts from it. 

 

[KenW]

8 hours ago, cruciatacara said:

You certainly seem combative. Could you please provide chapter and verse for your quote as I do not see it quite as you have presented it. I have also read commentaries about the quotes 2 Corinthians 12:20 and Matthew 18:16 where they say that Paul is concerned about discipline with the church and not applying this to civil law. I love learning more but would request your source for it.

I disagree that the judge suppressed exculpatory evidence, but if you can provide transcripts to prove this, it would be very useful to help me understand your point of view. IMO the evidence that the judge withheld was withheld for very good reasons - especially as evidence in many trials is withheld for a variety of reasons. In this case, obviously it did not seem verifiable to the judge.

Also, are you aware that putting things in all caps is shouting and that shouting never really supports an argument, it just detracts from it. 

 

You said, “Jesus never said that...” Jesus did say that. 

You said, “The jury had all of the evidence.” The jury did not have all of the evidence. And now you’ve just admitted that the judge “withheld evidence for very good reasons” but did not bother to state those reasons.

You accused me of eisegesis, and that the scriptures do not apply to civil law, yet when all is said and done, we are talking about 2 members of the Body of Christ.

If you really believe as a Catholic that Pell is guilty, the onus is upon you to set aside any bias you may have, avoid latching onto mob mentality, dot every i and cross every t, and see that every word is established. As it stands now, not every word was established. 

[cruciatacara]

5 hours ago, KenW said:

You said, “Jesus never said that...” Jesus did say that. 

You said, “The jury had all of the evidence.” The jury did not have all of the evidence. And now you’ve just admitted that the judge “withheld evidence for very good reasons” but did not bother to state those reasons.

You accused me of eisegesis, and that the scriptures do not apply to civil law, yet when all is said and done, we are talking about 2 members of the Body of Christ.

If you really believe as a Catholic that Pell is guilty, the onus is upon you to set aside any bias you may have, avoid latching onto mob mentality, dot every i and cross every t, and see that every word is established. As it stands now, not every word was established. 

You refuse to answer my questions: if Jesus said that, quote me chapter and verse please. I can't find it the way you imply it. You can't pick and choose scripture to suit the facts as you want them to be. That is eisegesis and you are guilty of it here.

The jury had all of the evidence that the court deemed allowable. Have you never watched an episode of Law and Order or any program on TV where evidence has been deemed 'inadmissible' by the judge? The jury don't get everything - they get what the court deems legally admissible. Not all 'evidence' is legal evidence for very good reasons. do you have a court transcript showing that legal evidence was withheld? The jury was shown things that we weren't. They still convicted. 

'Every word was established' as is legal. Hypotheticals and hearsay are not legal evidence.

As a Catholic I obey the law of the land as well as the law of God, and the law has found him guilty after a trial. It is not my job to find him innocent now. His lawyers have that job at the appeal.

 

 

[KenW]

32 minutes ago, cruciatacara said:

The jury don't get everything

Earlier you said the jury did get everything. This is one instance of many where you have contradicted yourself in our exchanges 

[Guest]

Cardinal Pell has been found guilty of child abuse by the law of the land.  The legal process is not fully complete until after his Appeal.  After the Appeal, the Vatican will decide the Catholic response to the full process of the law of the land.

42 minutes ago, cruciatacara said:

You refuse to answer my questions: if Jesus said that, quote me chapter and verse please.

I am very curious too, Ken, that you answer the above question.  I cannot follow your reasoning either.

7 minutes ago, KenW said:

Earlier you said the jury did get everything. This is one instance of many where you have contradicted yourself in our exchanges 

I cannot follow you.  Would you please give references for the above statement.  You are not answering any questions, rather continuing to pose those of your own.  Therefore as a reader to this point of this thread, I am disinclined to give your arguments credence.

Obviously, you have decided that Cardinal Pell is not guilty and that is your opinion alone to which you are entitled.  The process to date of the law of the land states otherwise and we are called by God to obey the law of the land.

Quote

 

Romans Chapter 13: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PZ1.HTM 

"Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God. Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves.

For rulers are not a cause of fear to good conduct, but to evil. Do you wish to have no fear of authority? Then do what is good and you will receive approval from it, for it is a servant of God for your good. But if you do evil, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword without purpose; it is the servant of God to inflict wrath on the evildoer."

 

Obviously Rome is observant of the above, because their decision re Cardinal Pell will not be made until after the Appeal and the full process of the authority of  the law of the land is complete.

The Catholic Theology of Divine Providence (as per Catholic Catechism) is reflected in the above quotation.
 

Quote

 

Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary https://www.ecatholic2000.com/haydock/ntcomment137.shtml

Ver. 1. Let every soul, or every one, be subject, &c.[1] The Jews were apt to think themselves not subject to temporal princes, as to taxes, &c. and lest Christians should misconstrue their Christian liberty, he here teacheth them that every one (even priests and bishops, says S. Chrys.) must be subject and obedient to princes, even to heathens, as they were at that time, as to laws that regard the policy of the civil government, honouring them, obeying them, and their laws, as it is the will of God, because the power they act by is from God. So that to resist them, is to resist God. And every Christian must obey them even for conscience-sake. S. Chrys. takes notice that S. Paul does not say that there is no prince but from God, but only that there is no power but from God, meaning no lawful power, and speaking of true and just laws. See hom. xxiii. Wi.

 

 

.

St Thomas More was not guilty of any crime at all, yet the unjust law of the land at that time found him guilty.  This is what he had to say before his martyrdom re his sentence:

Quote

Catholic Catechism "Divine Providence" Para 313 http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p4.htm

St. Thomas More, shortly before his martyrdom, consoled his daughter: "Nothing can come but that that God wills. And I make me very sure that whatsoever that be, seem it never so bad in sight, it shall indeed be the best."

 

 

Edited March 20, 2019 by BarbaraTherese