Cardinal Pell - The Grounds for His Appeal

[Peace]

On 3/4/2019 at 6:45 AM, cruciatacara said:

Sure, Lindy turned out not to be guilty and that was a terrible miscarriage of justice. But that doesn't mean we can second guess every criminal conviction, wondering if the jury got it wrong.

No, this is incorrect. We can second guess every criminal conviction, and wonder if the jury got it wrong. That is our right. We have to follow and respect the legal process but we do not have to mentally assent to any particular jury verdict and agree with the result.

On 3/17/2019 at 6:41 AM, cruciatacara said:

@Josh It has caused me a lot of anger and frustration as well, watching as Catholics try to question the jury because they simply can't believe - or don't want to believe that Pell could do such a thing. I know the man so I can accept the verdict of the jury a lot easier I suppose. I try to understand how confused some Catholics must be, but denial isn't the answer. This isn't the first time there has been a shadow over Pell about child abuse, but this is the first and only time it has gone to trial. The first jury was so conflicted that some of them were crying when they announced that they couldn't reach a verdict. To me, it is astounding that the second jury voted unanimously to convict because it is such a contentious issue. But that also tells me that the victim's testimony utterly convinced them that he was telling the truth. 

I think a lot of Catholics have come to accept that there are pedophile priests but a pedophile Cardinal? They either can't or won't accept that such a thing is possible. I am sure there is also fear involved because if they admit that Pell is guilty, then they might begin to question their faith as well. It takes a brave person to admit the wrongdoing and yet stay strong in one's faith.

Oh please. Get off of your high-horse. You are not omnipotent and you do not know if anyone is in denial or if they do not agree with the verdict because they did not find the evidence convincing. Just because people reach a different conclusion than you does not mean that they are emotional simpletons.

[cruciatacara]

29 minutes ago, Peace said:

No, this is incorrect. We can second guess every criminal conviction, and wonder if the jury got it wrong. That is our right. We have to follow and respect the legal process but we do not have to mentally assent to any particular jury verdict and agree with the result.

Yes, perhaps I worded that inelegantly. We do not have to believe anything we don't want to and we can question every verdict - true. But also as you say, we have to follow and respect the legal process. And at the moment, Pell is a convicted pedophile. This may change.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Peace said:

No, this is incorrect. We can second guess every criminal conviction, and wonder if the jury got it wrong. That is our right. We have to follow and respect the legal process but we do not have to mentally assent to any particular jury verdict and agree with the result.

The above is a certain kind of obedience, but from a Catholic perspective it is not obedience of the heart and the full intent/perfection of the virtue in that our personal considerations and conclusions are transcended by obedience to the law and therefore to God.  It is not assent to a jury verdict that is involved, rather it is assent to God and His Will.

This could be in possibility an instance where secularism is creeping into The Church and our spiritual theology.

 

Quote

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11181c.htm in so far as obedience stands for the execution of anything that is of precept, it is contemplated in this article as a definitely special virtue. The element that differentiates it adequately from other good habits is found in the last part of the definition already given. Stress is put upon the fact that one not only does what is actually enjoined, but does it with a mind to formally fall in with the will of the commander. It is in other words the homage rendered to authority which ranks it as a distinct virtue. 

Culturally, we can think of the virtue of and call by God to obedience as relating to religious etc. only.  Rather, we are all without exemption called to obedience; however to whom we are called to obey may differ.  And in all instances of obedience, we are called to the perfection of the virtue of obedience.  In obeying lawful authority, we are obeying God who is all deserving of the obedience of the heart.....

Quote

 

......Read section on "V - God Carries Out His Plan - Divine Providence" http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p4.htm

"For almighty God. . ., because he is supremely good, would never allow any evil whatsoever to exist in his works if he were not so all-powerful and good as to cause good to emerge from evil itself"

313 "We know that in everything God works for good for those who love him."180 The constant witness of the saints confirms this truth:

St. Catherine of Siena said to "those who are scandalized and rebel against what happens to them": "Everything comes from love, all is ordained for the salvation of man, God does nothing without this goal in mind."181

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."182

Dame Julian of Norwich: "Here I was taught by the grace of God that I should steadfastly keep me in the faith. . . and that at the same time I should take my stand on and earnestly believe in what our Lord shewed in this time - that 'all manner [of] thing shall be well.'"183

 

 

 

[Peace]

39 minutes ago, BarbaraTherese said:

The above is a certain kind of obedience, but from a Catholic perspective it is not obedience of the heart and the full intent/perfection of the virtue in that our personal considerations and conclusions are transcended by obedience to the law and therefore to God.  It is not assent to a jury verdict that is involved, rather it is assent to God and His Will.

This could be in possibility an instance where secularism is creeping into The Church and our spiritual theology.

 

Culturally, we can think of the virtue of and call by God to obedience as relating to religious etc. only.  Rather, we are all without exemption called to obedience; however to whom we are called to obey may differ.  And in all instances of obedience, we are called to the perfection of the virtue of obedience.  In obeying lawful authority, we are obeying God who is all deserving of the obedience of the heart.....

 

 

I am not sure if I completely follow your point, but I do not think we are bound to give mental assent to secular authorities in the same sense that we are to give mental assent to the teachings of the Church, if that is what you are trying to say.

I mean, both you and I know that Jesus was not guilty of the crime he was convicted of. We can accept the verdict "as a matter of God's will" as you seem to put it, but we don't actually have to believe that he committed a crime just because Pilate declared him a criminal.

But maybe I just don't get the point you wanted to make. It was a little difficult for me to follow, honestly.

[Guest]

46 minutes ago, BarbaraTherese said:

"V - God Carries Out His Plan - Divine Providence" http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p4.htm

"For almighty God. . ., because he is supremely good, would never allow any evil whatsoever to exist in his works if he were not so all-powerful and good as to cause good to emerge from evil itself"

St. Catherine of Siena said to "those who are scandalized and rebel against what happens to them": "Everything comes from love, all is ordained for the salvation of man, God does nothing without this goal in mind."181

Everything that happens, no exceptions, comes about by God's Will, either His Direct or His Permissive Will.  The link above to the section on Divine Providence explains it all.  My ruminating may have only confused the issue - not unusual.   In Catholic spirituality it is not a question of the jury verdict, rather that it is God's Will and assenting in the heart to His Will.

In reflecting a bit more even - and  huge red flag, it does seem to me that questioning a jury verdict while humbly assenting to God's Will in the verdict would be ok...........in my book.......if you want to risk my book       I mean, who knows the why's of God's Will, but it might be that God has permitted an incorrect verdict in order to highlight the faults in our system...........faulty, but the best we have, we think.  Thinking and speaking against the verdict and why we think it came about might be the highlighting factor intended by God?   It is a very deliberate question, not an answer.

The Will of God is an ever unfolding.  It seems to me too that there is a human being involved in Cardinal Pell.

We each all need to make our own decision re the Cardinal Pell conviction and "in fear and trembling work out our own salvation".  No person can state that they have unquestionably saved their soul - well, I certainly cannot..........and to be honest, I am not sure of my personal moral conviction either.  All my eggs are in the Loving Mercy of God.

Philippians Chapter 2 "Therefore, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not only in my presence, but now even more in my absence, continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling."

27 minutes ago, Peace said:

I am not sure if I completely follow your point, but I do not think we are bound to give mental assent to secular authorities in the same sense that we are to give mental assent to the teachings of the Church, if that is what you are trying to say.

The above is an excellent point.   If everything that happens comes about through God's Will as the CCC on God's Plan, Divine Providence, states - then yes, it is what I was stating i.e. obedience in all things not sinful.   However, there is a human being involved here in Cardinal Pell.  My question then becomes: "Have I the right to hold my behaviour to a concept of perfection - while any human being at all suffers an injustice?"  Again, in my book, a resounding NO........A SHOUTING LOUDLY: "NO!"   

LOL.....I can see the obvious but wont go any further.   I am going to follow what I feel is the right thing to do (before I confuse myself as well) as and until there occurs a reason to change my thinking.  "Do what you can and leave the rest to God" (St Mary of The Cross MacKillop - first Australian saint).

Apologies, I think at a keyboard and a longstanding habit of too many years to change (for me anyway).

 

[Guest]

50 minutes ago, Peace said:

I mean, both you and I know that Jesus was not guilty of the crime he was convicted of. We can accept the verdict "as a matter of God's will" as you seem to put it, but we don't actually have to believe that he committed a crime just because Pilate declared him a criminal.

But maybe I just don't get the point you wanted to make. It was a little difficult for me to follow, honestly.

You make an excellent point.  A really good point in your first paragraph.  However, we know for a fact Jesus was innocent.  The matter is unclear with Cardinal Pell.   A sort of apples and oranges comparison?  God's Will at this point is that Cardinal Pell is guilty subject to his Appeal.

In your second paragraph, I apologise because either I did not present my argument well, or I was wrong in the point I was attempting to argue.  It could be either.

[Peace]

21 hours ago, BarbaraTherese said:

You make an excellent point.  A really good point in your first paragraph.  However, we know for a fact Jesus was innocent.  The matter is unclear with Cardinal Pell.   A sort of apples and oranges comparison?  God's Will at this point is that Cardinal Pell is guilty subject to his Appeal.

Thanks. I don't think it is really apples and oranges though. We don't actually know for a fact that Jesus was innocent, if you think about it. We believe it as a matter of reason (and faith), but it's not like any of us were there and have actual firsthand knowledge of it . . . It seems to me that we make our decisions with respect to Pell in the same way that we evaluate whether what is written about our Lord is true (reason).

[Gary david]

Hello. Well I just read your reply here and although I know that God doesent need my support or protection I really have to say that I have never heard of anyone thinking that Jesus was guilty of anything at all. To me that is not even a point to be considered. I am afraid He is not in the class of sinners such as us. It is fine to say that He was innocent but not to say that He might not have been. I do not feel the need to go further here, i just felt the need to say what I have just said. We all may have different opinions on many things and I respect that. 

  I just felt a strong need to reply to your stsatement concerning Jesus.

God bless.....

[Peace]

2 hours ago, Gary david said:

Hello. Well I just read your reply here and although I know that God doesent need my support or protection I really have to say that I have never heard of anyone thinking that Jesus was guilty of anything at all.

The Bible itself demonstrates numerous people who thought that Jesus was guilty of blasphemy, etc.

And obviously St. Peter and the other apostles had doubts about our Lord, which is why they abandoned him when he was arrested.

Quote

To me that is not even a point to be considered. I am afraid He is not in the class of sinners such as us. It is fine to say that He was innocent but not to say that He might not have been. I do not feel the need to go further here, i just felt the need to say what I have just said. We all may have different opinions on many things and I respect that. 

  I just felt a strong need to reply to your stsatement concerning Jesus.

God bless.....

Gary, do you have absolute mathematical 100% certainty that Jesus is God?  If so, why does Jesus ask you to have faith in him? What need would there be for faith if you had absolute mathematical 100% certainty that Jesus is God?

I most certainly believe that Jesus is God and that he never sinned. But that belief is not based on a mathematical proof or my own personal witness. I believe it because I applied reason, and then made an act of faith by the grace of God.

Edited March 22, 2019 by Peace

[cruciatacara]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

The Bible itself demonstrates numerous people who thought that Jesus was guilty of blasphemy, etc.

And obviously St. Peter and the other apostles had doubts about our Lord, which is why they abandoned him when he was arrested.

Gary, do you have absolute mathematical 100% certainty that Jesus is God?  If so, why does Jesus ask you to have faith in him? What need would there be for faith if you had absolute mathematical 100% certainty that Jesus is God?

I most certainly believe that Jesus is God and that he never sinned. But that belief is not based on a mathematical proof or my own personal witness. I believe it because I applied reason, and then made an act of faith by the grace of God.

@Peace The difference for me here is as @BarbaraTherese said, 'oranges and apples'. while I can have faith in Jesus, I don't particularly have faith in Cardinal Pell. I know him personally and he is not a person I trust, let alone have faith in. And my reason tells me that he is guilty for a variety of reasons, including personal experience. So it is easy for me to accept the jury's verdict. It will be harder for me to accept the decision if the appeal is successful because my reason tells me he is guilty, but I will accept the decision as the law. I may always distrust him around kids and think the verdict wrong if they let him go, but I won't protest it in the streets like a lot of people probably will. I believe in the justice system to do the best it can, but it can err for either side. Just as there are people who have been found guilty of things who have later been found innocent (like Lindy Chamberlain), there are also people who have been found innocent who probably did do the deed (like OJ Simpson). The systems may be flawed (referring to Australia and the US) but it is what our societies have determined are the best systems we have to work with at the present time.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Peace said:

Thanks. I don't think it is really apples and oranges though. We don't actually know for a fact that Jesus was innocent, if you think about it. We believe it as a matter of reason (and faith), but it's not like any of us were there and have actual firsthand knowledge of it . . . It seems to me that we make our decisions with respect to Pell in the same way that we evaluate whether what is written about our Lord is true (reason).

From what we know of the facts and declared by The Church, Jesus was innocent.  From what we know of the facts, Cardinal Pell is declared by the state as guilty subject to his Appeal.  If there were problems with his trial, then I think these will come out at his Appeal.

1 hour ago, Peace said:

The Bible itself demonstrates numerous people who thought that Jesus was guilty of blasphemy, etc.

And obviously St. Peter and the other apostles had doubts about our Lord, which is why they abandoned him when he was arrested.

Para 1 above:  Undoubtedly many (including the pharisees) would have felt so challenged by Jesus and His Teaching, they would have thought it blasphemy.  That does not make blasphemy factual, rather only that many thought that it was.

Para 2 above:  I dont think such a dogmatic statement can be made.  The reason the apostles fled was likely that they were terrified for themselves once Jesus was arrested and put on trial.  They might have doubted Him but no indication that it was a case of doubt and doubt only.  It might have been fear or even terror and panic.

I think it conceivable that the apostles concepts of the longed for Messiah was so consistently challenged by Jesus and His Teachings, His Actions that there might have been great confusion at His arrest etc.  It is conceivable too that with the aforementioned, they were absolutely terrified for themselves and ran.

1 hour ago, Peace said:

. I believe it because I applied reason, and then made an act of faith by the grace of God.

That might have been your reason/process for Faith and indeed a great Grace of God that Faith was granted.  It is not of necessity and by a very long shot every person's reason for Faith and for unflinching Faith.

I think that there can be a 100% knowledge beyond the 'normal' reasons for belief and Faith that Jesus is God.  Such knowledge is a great gift indeed and perhaps a quite rare one even - and " Jesus looked at them and said to them, “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” (Matthew Chapter 19)

 

1 hour ago, Peace said:

Gary, do you have absolute mathematical 100% certainty that Jesus is God?  If so, why does Jesus ask you to have faith in him? What need would there be for faith if you had absolute mathematical 100% certainty that Jesus is God?

I most certainly believe that Jesus is God and that he never sinned. But that belief is not based on a mathematical proof or my own personal witness. I believe it because I applied reason, and then made an act of faith by the grace of God

Again, spiritual experiences are of great variety indeed. Indeed, perhaps it is because Gary had Faith in Jesus that Gary is granted by God 100%  certainty that Jesus is God.  Such a huge gift of God is not all that unusual either I suspect. " Jesus looked at them and said to them, “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” (Matthew Chapter 19)

 

Edited March 22, 2019 by BarbaraTherese

[Guest]

To return to the Opening Post in this thread:

Cardinal Pell to Appeal Conviction on three grounds: http://cathnews.com/cathnews/34355-cardinal-pell-to-appeal-conviction-on-three-grounds

26 minutes ago, BarbaraTherese said:

I think it conceivable that the apostles concepts of the longed for Messiah was so consistently challenged by Jesus and His Teachings, His Actions that there might have been great confusion at His arrest etc.  It is conceivable too that with the aforementioned, they were absolutely terrified for themselves and ran.

There was a pervasive concept of the Messiah as being warrior like and rescuing Israel from captivity (Rome in this instance).  We can have sort of similar concepts today in that we regard God as something of a father christmas in the sky as it were.

The apostles might have had similar concepts pf a warrior messiah and the arrest and trial of Jesus shocked them to the core and exploded their concepts with nothing to replace them until they had time to consider all that Jesus said and did and connect all the dots as it were - and immediately at the arrest of Jesus was too emotionally shocking to them to have time and the calm to do so.  I think by the time that Jesus was arrested, the apostles had undergone a tremendous interior journey - shaken to the core, almost turned inside out and upside down.  Talking amongst themselves prior to the arrest might not have provided much clarity for them, even confused them even further.

I know they all ran for cover when Jesus was arrested, but I can empathise with them.  I think I would have done the same, as much as I would like to state I never would.

[Guest]

Quote

  Talking amongst themselves prior to the arrest might not have provided much clarity for them, even confused them even further.

What I meant - and should have stated -  by the above is that they talked amongst themselves long before the arrest of Jesus and while they were on the road with Him.  My imagination ruminates that silences on the road would have been the apostles trying to connect dots and their conversations often mutually conversing trying to connect dots.  Peter makes his act of Faith and blurts out "Thou art The Christ, the Messiah, the Son of the Living God".  The poor apostles were probably trying to discern what on earth that meant in real terms going by all that had happened.

[Gary david]

I dont know about 100% mathimatical certainty. All.I know is that Jesus is 100% God. There are those that believe and those that doubt. Jesus said and did many things of heaven, performed so many miracles for so many that there becamea very large following of Him. As time went on these believers found thenselves at risk for their belief in Him and turned away for the sake of their lives. They may have believed but showed the opposite to save their lives. They may have believed but fears and desires got in the way of their faith. Pontias pilate even said "this man has done nothing" but then proceded when he realized that there would be repercusions from ceasar if he didnt procede to give Jesus the death setence. Well anyways I do see your point as well. Glad to know you have faith in God. As for judgments here on earth well whatever the sentence is in the end is what one serves no matter if I thought one was innocent and another thinks he is innocent. As you stated, how many have been behind bars for having done nothing while the other is free. Debates on whether or not one is guilty is healthy and interesting and we get to.learn from each others opinions.

   Nice of you to reply as you did. May God bless you.....

[Peace]

On 3/22/2019 at 12:29 AM, cruciatacara said:

@Peace The difference for me here is as @BarbaraTherese said, 'oranges and apples'. while I can have faith in Jesus, I don't particularly have faith in Cardinal Pell. I know him personally and he is not a person I trust, let alone have faith in. And my reason tells me that he is guilty for a variety of reasons, including personal experience. So it is easy for me to accept the jury's verdict. It will be harder for me to accept the decision if the appeal is successful because my reason tells me he is guilty, but I will accept the decision as the law. I may always distrust him around kids and think the verdict wrong if they let him go, but I won't protest it in the streets like a lot of people probably will. I believe in the justice system to do the best it can, but it can err for either side. Just as there are people who have been found guilty of things who have later been found innocent (like Lindy Chamberlain), there are also people who have been found innocent who probably did do the deed (like OJ Simpson). The systems may be flawed (referring to Australia and the US) but it is what our societies have determined are the best systems we have to work with at the present time.

I don't expect you to have faith in Cardinal Pell. If you think he is guilty that is perfectly fine by me. I honestly have no opinion as to his guilt or innocence. I am not too familiar with the man or the facts. My main issue was the characterization of people who disagreed with that conclusion as emotional noobs, and the idea that we have to mentally assent to a judgment that is handed down by a secular legal body.

My position is that when it comes to secular authority we have to follow the law because we live under a system of laws, but we don't have to "believe in our heart of hearts" that secular authorities are right in their judgments.