March 17, 2016. Cardinal George Pell speaks with CNA at the Vatican’s Apostolic Palace on March 17, 2016. / null
Sydney, Australia, Mar 8, 2022 / 06:05 am (CNA).
People who took part in a “pile-on” against Cardinal George Pell are refusing to reconsider the case almost two years after the Australian Church leader’s acquittal, a speaker said on Tuesday.
He argued that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Australia’s national broadcaster, and many of the country’s newspapers had overlooked critical accounts of the Pell trial and its coverage by the media.
“In short, members of the Pell pile-on will not engage in any reconsideration of the Pell case. In my view, that’s intellectual cowardice. In certain circumstances, it’s censorship,” he said.
Australia’s High Court unanimously overturned Pell’s conviction for five counts of alleged sexual abuse on April 7, 2020. The cardinal was released after more than 13 months of imprisonment and returned to Rome, where he had served as the Vatican’s economy czar.
Monica Doumit, the director of public affairs and engagement of the Archdiocese of Sydney, recalled that she was working for the archdiocese’s communications team when allegations against the cardinal were aired on an Australian television program.
Doumit, a columnist with The Catholic Weekly, a national Catholic newspaper, said that after the broadcast, she spoke over the phone to the cardinal, who was in Rome. As she returned home in the early hours, she received a call from a colleague at Pell’s behest. The caller explained that the cardinal was “really worried” about Doumit and wanted someone to check that she was OK.
“That’s the measure of the man we’re speaking about tonight,” she said. “And the reason I want to tell it is because when I look back on this, that’s actually the most important aspect of this for me, that first and foremost we’re talking about a man who cares deeply about other people.”
Doumit said that, two years on, many questions about the case remain unanswered. But she expressed hope that an ongoing Vatican finance trial would reveal why the Vatican sent more than $2 million to Australia during the Pell trial.
She said that Cardinal Angelo Becciu, one of the defendants, was connected to the transfer of funds from the Vatican to the tech company Neustar in Melbourne.
“So far witnesses at the trial have insisted that the money was sent to the Catholic bishops in Australia for the cardinal’s defense, but it’s demonstrably untrue,” she said. “We know the money went to Neustar.”
She noted that in a recent interview Pell challenged Becciu, who rejects all allegations of wrongdoing, to explain why the funds were transferred.
“Becciu has said he will not answer because to do so would be beneath the dignity of cardinals,” she said.
Brennan, a human rights lawyer, said: “When we go with the mob with the highest level of judiciary, we forfeit the rule of law. That’s why the High Court majority, seven to nil, was so essential to restore the rule of law, for the good of bonafide complainants, for the good of victims, and for the good of citizens including those like Citizen Pell.”
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Ranking Member Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-Louisiana, speaks about the development of a preborn baby during a Senate Committee on Health hearing titled “The Assault on Women’s Freedoms: How Abortion Bans Have Created a Health Care Nightmare Across America” on Capitol Hill on June 4, 2024, in Washington, D.C. / Credit: Samuel Corum/Getty Images
Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Jun 5, 2024 / 13:50 pm (CNA).
A Senate hearing orchestrated by Democratic lawmakers Tuesday scrutinized pro-life laws that emerged throughout the country after the United States Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade amid charges from Republicans that the panel was convened with the November elections in mind.
The Health, Education, and Labor Committee hearing, held on June 4, just five months before the 2024 elections, invited four pro-abortion witnesses and two pro-life witnesses. The hearing, titled “The Assault on Women’s Freedoms,” was chaired by Democratic Sen. Patty Murray.
“Today we take a close accounting of the trauma Republicans are inflicting on women and families across our country and the damage they are doing to basic reproductive health care through their horrific anti-abortion crusade,” Murray said at the hearing. “The issue here is simple, and it cuts to the core of American values: freedom.”
The pro-abortion witnesses included Madysyn Anderson, a woman who traveled out of state to obtain an abortion she could not have in Texas, and Nisha Verma, an abortionist who serves as a fellow at the Physicians for Reproductive Health.
With much of the committee hearing focused on anecdotal examples of women trying to obtain abortions in pro-life states, Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy, the ranking member of the committee, characterized the meeting as “partisan politics being played out in a committee hearing.”
“It’s an election year in which a Democratic incumbent president [Joe Biden] is running behind,” Cassidy said. “So a decision has been made to raise abortion to a high profile, to change the setting, to invite a lot of folks, to put us on TV.”
Cassidy, who displayed a diagram showing the development of a preborn baby from the 10th week of pregnancy through the 41st week, accused Democrats of attempting to “normalize a decision to abort a child,” which is a procedure “in which the intent is to end a life.”
“I’m a doctor,” Cassidy said during the hearing. “I see that you have to take care of that mama … but you have to recognize that there is another life there as well. This is not just a collection of cells. This is a child that, if delivered, will live, and maybe this one, too, and that one as well. So let’s have a national dialogue.”
Melissa Ohden, a woman who survived a late-term abortion procedure when her mother was 19 years old and pregnant, was one of the pro-life panelists invited to testify at the hearing. Ohden said: “The nightmare here is not abortion bans” but rather “the nightmare is that abortion continues to be aggressively promoted so that it is seen as the only option.”
“Consider how different women’s and children’s lives, families, [and] our society could be if just as much money was spent to provide financial assistance, housing, education, and employment support, child care, medical, and mental health care,” Ohden continued. “This would lead to a new era of women’s empowerment that ends the generational trauma of abortion.”
During the hearing, lawmakers and panelists engaged in brief back-and-forths about the safety and efficacy of abortion pill drugs as well as the abortion pill reversal drug. The Supreme Court is currently hearing a lawsuit challenging the approval and deregulation of mifepristone, which is commonly used in chemical abortions.
The abortion pill reversal drug, which is meant to counter the effects of mifepristone, has come under scrutiny from Democrats, including New York Attorney General Letitia James, who filed a lawsuit that accuses pro-life pregnancy centers of making misleading claims about the drug.
As abortion remains a divisive and polarizing topic in American politics, some Republican lawmakers are trying to pivot to pro-life policies intended to promote life that are unrelated to abortion heading into the 2024 elections. Just last week, Sen. Marsha Blackburn and Sen. Katie Britt introduced the More Opportunities for Moms to Succeed (MOMS) Act, which would seek to support women during and after pregnancy.
The proposal would increase access to resources and assistance for prenatal, postpartum, and early childhood development, according to a press release.
Asylum seekers wait in line to be processed by the Border Patrol at a makeshift camp near the U.S.-Mexico border east of Jacumba, San Diego County, California, Jan. 2, 2024. / Credit: GUILLERMO ARIAS/AFP via Getty Images
Archbishop Zbigņevs Stankevičs of Riga, Latvia (left), speaking during a Catholic conference in Warsaw in May 2022 on the natural law legacy of John Paul II (right.) / Photos by Lisa Johnston and L’Osservatore Romano
Warsaw, Poland, Jun 9, 2022 / 09:17 am (CNA).
Constant cooperation and dialogue among Catholic, Lutherans, Orthodox, and other Christian denominations have been crucial to protect life and family in the Baltic nation of Latvia, Archbishop Zbigņevs Stankevičs of Riga, Latvia, said during a recent Catholic conference in Warsaw.
In his speech, Stankevičs shared his personal ecumenical experience in Latvia as an example of how the concept of natural law proposed by St. John Paul II can serve as the basis for ecumenical cooperation in defending human values.
The metropolitan archbishop, based in Latvia’s capital, is no stranger to ecumenical work and thought. In 2001, he became the first bishop consecrated in a Lutheran church since the split from Protestantism in the 1500s. The unusual move, which occurred in the church of Evangelical Lutheran Cathedral in Riga, formerly the Catholic Cathedral of St. Mary, signaled the beginning of Stankevičs’ cooperation with the Lutheran church in Latvia, a cooperation that would ultimately become a partnership in the cause of life and the family. Since 2012, the archbishop has served on the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.
“I would like to present this ecumenical cooperation in three experiences in my country: the abortion debate, the civil unions discussion, and the so-called Istanbul convention,” Stankevičs began.
Entering the abortion debate
Ordained as a priest in 1996, Stankevičs struggled to find proper consultation for Catholic couples on natural family planning. It was then that he decided to create a small center that provided natural family planning under the motto “let us protect the miracle [of fertility].”
This involvement in the world of natural family planning would lead him into the heart of the abortion debate in Latvian society, and, ultimately, to the conclusion that moral discussions in the public square benefit from a basis in natural law, something emphasized in the teachings of John Paul II.
“I knew that theological arguments would not work for a secular audience, so I wanted to show that Catholic arguments are not opposed to legal, scientific, and universal arguments, but rather are in harmony with them,” Stankevičs said.
“[A] few years later our parliament introduced the discussion to legalize abortion. No one was doing anything so I decided to do something. I consulted some experts and presented a proposal that was published in the most important secular newspaper in Latvia,” the archbishop said.
Stankevičs’ article, “Why I was Lucky,” used both biological and theological arguments to defend human life. He noted that his own mother, when pregnant with him, was under pressure to get an abortion; “but she was a believer, a Catholic, so she refused the pressure.”
After the Latvian parliament legalized abortion in 2002, the different Christian confessions decided to start working together to protect the right to life and the family.
In Latvia, Catholics comprise 25% of the population, Lutherans 34.2%, and Russian Orthodox 17%, with other smaller, mostly Christian denominations making up the remainder.
“We started to work together by the initiative of a businessman in Riga, a non-believer who wanted to promote awareness about the humanity of the unborn,” the archbishop recalled.
“Bringing all Christians together in a truly ecumenical effort ended up bearing good fruits because we worked together in promoting a culture of life: From more than 7,000 abortions per year in 2002, we were able to bring it down to 2,000 by 2020,” he said.
Map of Riga, the capital of Latvia. Shutterstock
Ecumenical defense of marriage, family
Regarding the legislation on civil unions, another area where Stankevičs has rallied ecumenical groups around natural law defense of marriage, the archbishop said that he has seen the tension surrounding LGBT issues mount in Latvian society as increased pressure is brought to bear to legalize same-sex unions.
Invited to a debate on a popular Latvian television show called “One vs. One” after Pope Francis’ remark “who am I to judge?” was widely interpreted in Latvian society as approving homosexual unions, Stankevičs “had the opportunity to explain the teachings of the Catholic Church and what was the real meaning of the Holy Father’s words.”
After that episode, in dialogue with other Christian leaders, Stankevičs proposed a law aimed at reducing political tensions in the country without jeopardizing the traditional concept of the family.
The legislation proposed by the ecumenical group of Christians would have created binding regulations aimed at protecting any kind of common household; “for example, two old persons living together to help one another, or one old and one young person who decide to live together.”
“The law would benefit any household, including homosexual couples, but would not affect the concept of [the] natural family,” Stankevičs explained. “Unfortunately the media manipulated my proposal, and the Agency France Presse presented me internationally as if I was in favor of gay marriage.”
In 2020, the Constitutional Court in Latvia decided a case in favor of legalizing homosexual couples and ordered the parliament to pass legislation according to this decision.
In response, the Latvian Men’s Association started a campaign to introduce an amendment to the Latvian constitution, to clarify the concept of family. The Latvian constitution in 2005 proclaimed that marriage is only between a man and a woman, but left a legal void regarding the definition of family, which the court wanted to interpret to include homosexual unions.
The Latvian bishops’ conference supported the amendment presented by the Men’s Association, “but most importantly,” Stankevičs explained, “we put together an ecumenical statement signed by the leaders of 10 different Christian denominations supporting the idea that the family should be based on the marriage between a man and a woman. The president of the Latvian Jewish community, a good friend, also joined the statement.”
The Freedom Monument in Riga, Latvia, honors soldiers who died during the Latvian War of Independence (1918-1920). Shutterstock
According to Stankevičs, something strange happened next. “The Minister of Justice created a committee to discuss the demand of the constitutional court, and it included several Christian representatives, including three from the Catholic Church, which worked for a year.” But ignoring all the discussions and proposals, the Minister of Justice ended up sending a proposal to parliament that was a full recognition of homosexual couples as marriage.
The response was also ecumenical: Christian leaders sent a letter encouraging the parliament to ignore the government’s proposal.
According to Stankevičs, the proposal has already passed one round of votes “and it is very likely that it will be approved in a second round of votes, with the support of the New Conservative party. But we Christians continue to work together.”
Preventing gender ideology
The third field of ecumenical cooperation mentioned by Stankevičs concerned the Istanbul Convention, a European treaty which the Latvian government signed but ultimately did not ratify.
The treaty was introduced as an international legal instrument that recognizes violence against women as a violation of human rights and a form of discrimination against women.
The convention claims to cover various forms of gender-based violence against women, but Christian communities in Latvia have criticized the heavy use of gender ideology in both the framing and the language of the document.
The word “gender,” for instance, is defined as “the socially constructed roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for women and men,” a definition that allows gender to be defined independent of biological sex and therefore opens the document to the question of whether it really is aimed at the protection of women.
Christian communities also question the biased nature of the committee designated to enforce the convention.
The governments of Slovakia and Bulgaria refused to ratify the convention, while Poland, Lithuania, and Croatia expressed reservations about the convention though it was ultimately ratified in those countries, a move the government of Poland is attempting to reverse.
“When we found out that the Latvian parliament was going to ratify it, I went to the parliament and presented the common Christian position,” Stankevičs explained. As a consequence of that visit, the Latvian parliament decided not to ratify the convention, Stankevičs said, crediting the appeal to the unity provided by the common Christian position argued via natural law.
“In conclusion,” the archbishop said, “I can say that in Latvia we continue to defend the true nature of life and family. But if we Catholics would act alone, we would not have the impact that we have as one Christian majority. That unity is the reason why the government takes us seriously.”
If Pell was wrongly convicted, he stands in good company, for the Lord Jesus went through a mockery of a trial. He knows what he did or did not do, the matter being one of the eternal soul, with God as adjudicator.
Exodus 23:7 Keep far from a false charge, and do not kill the innocent and righteous, for I will not acquit the wicked.
Exodus 23:1- “You shall not spread a false report. You shall not join hands with a wicked man to be a malicious witness. You shall not fall in with the many to do evil, nor shall you bear witness in a lawsuit, siding with the many, so as to pervert justice, nor shall you be partial to a poor man in his lawsuit. “If you meet your enemy’s ox or his donkey going astray, you shall bring it back to him. If you see the donkey of one who hates you lying down under its burden, you shall refrain from leaving him with it; you shall rescue it with him. …
1 Peter 3:16 Having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behaviour in Christ may be put to shame.
Isaiah 54:17 No weapon that is fashioned against you shall succeed, and you shall confute every tongue that rises against you in judgment. This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord and their vindication from me, declares the Lord.”
John 17:17 Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.
I always knew he was innocent.
An absolutely admirable man.
Truly courageous. Cardinal Pell makes me very proud of being Catholic.
God bless him and protect him always!
In the eyes of the Lunatic Left, Cardinal Pell will always be guilty, even if they are not sure what exactly he is guilty of.
This is what happens when you substitute truth a narrative, and become ideologically and emotionally wedded to that narrative that, at the point the narrative gets shattered by truth and reality, you suffer emotional trauma and psychological damage.
Cardinal Pell, like Kyle Rittenhouse, will never receive forgiveness for the crime of being innocent.
Buongiorno.. conosco abbastanza il Cardinale Pell. Nel 2014 quando e diventato prefetto della segreteria per l’economia, sono stato scelto per essere a suo servizio come usciere/autista e non solo. Ho avuto piena fiducia da parte di tutto lo staff del Cardinale. Fin da sempre ero sicuro della sua innocenza. Il Cardinale è una persona che ti fa lavorare bene e ti mette a proprio agio.ho lavorato con S.Eminenza fino al suo ritorno in Australia per difendersi dalle accuse infamanti . Ero e sono sicuro della sua innocenza.persona stimata è direttissima. Da quando è tornato a Roma, ho incontrato almeno 5/6 volte. La prima volta era molto provato, ora si è ripreso benissimo. Mi dispiace tantissimo che il Papa non gli abbia dato un incarico.
Why assume the easily influenced High Court is more credible than a jury trial and Court of Appeals ? And, even if the charges against Pell for alleged PERSONAL acts of abuse were false, why should he be absolved of all responsibility for predators like Risdale, whom he defended and protected ?
Have you actually read the decision of the High Court? And the dissent to the decision of the Court of Appeals by the one judge on it who had experience in criminal law?
Cardinal Pell was tried for alleged personal acts of abuse. Ridsdale had nothing to do with the matter.
The Cardinal did not “defend and protect” Ridsdale.
Brian Young what happened to Cardinal Pell was a horrific hit job to ruin and destroy his reputation which is totally beyond repute. The good and holy Cardinal would have been a terrific papal candidate in the next conclave making him the first Pope from an English speaking country. The very same thing is now happening to Pope Benedict XVI. He too is a good and Holy man of God. Evil will not triumph! God is totally in charge and will ensure that next Holy Father will be the right man at the right time in Catholic Church and world history. Our Lady of Fatima pray for and protect Cardinal Pell and Pope Benedict XVI. PRAY! PRAY! PRAY!
Unfortunately, some Conservative commentators such as Joseph Sciambra are filled with hatred for Cardinal Pell and sees the Church defending him as gas-lighting. Sadly, Joseph has now left the Catholic Church for the Russian Orthodox and his Facebook timeline is mostly him bashing the Catholic Church. So keep him in your prayers!
Essentially we all have 3 things at our disposal, Truth, Reason and for those who choose, Faith. Issues relating to Cardinal Pell go well beyond the series of court hearings and final verdict this article refers to. As many readers here will be aware, I am one who often posted in terms considered hostile to Cardinal Pell. I would like to emphasise that my hostility was directed to a deliberate and sustained misrepresentation of the wider circumstances pertaining to Cardinal Pell that was evident in the writing on the subject, by George Weigle. His articles included vitriolic misrepresentations and condemnation of elements within Australian society and within the Catholic Church community who had years of involvement advocating for those wounded by the scourge of Clergy abuse. Mr Weigles writing to say the least, lacked nuance.
One can not separate the sordid mechanisms of political manoeuvring from these discussions relating to Cardinal Pell. Gerard Henderson, referred to in this article is a prominent player in the arena of Australian politics as Mr Weigel is in the US political power play being a signatory of the Statement of Principals by The Project For The New American Century making him a key player in the Neo Conservative political movement.
I stridently reject any accusation, implied by this article, upon my stated opinions in the many comments I have made on this site that I was involved in a pile on that also implied intellectual cowardice.
I will go further to say it is evident to me that many ( and I will emphasise not all ) advocating for Cardinal Pell are guilty of intellectual dishonesty and deliberate selective misrepresentation that has had a direct impact on those in the church community of the state of Victoria in Australia. Your carelessness is more than evident for those who have lived close to the truth that they have been a witness of.
To the CNA staff I say look at your headline to this article:
“ People who joined Cardinal Pell ‘ pile-on’ guilty of ‘intellectual cowardice’ says speaker, the speaker being Mr Gerard Henderson.
This statement endorsed by this website is an implied condemnation of Chrissie Foster, and all the other advocates, many of who I know personally who worked for and on behalf of the children abused by the clergy of Victoria, again I say because the subject matter goes beyond the specific legal case.
I ask any one who cares to search and read my many contributions to discussions pertaining to Cardinal Pell in articles mainly written by George Weigell. Read them in context of linear dialogue as I stand by every word I have written.
I have to the best of my ability been governed by truth, reason and faith.
I am an ex prison officer and I am totally disgusted in how Mr Pell was treated by the Victorian legal system. I am very sure that his physical treatment by both Police and most Prison guards would have been awerful.I hope that God will bless him in every way and forgive those who were such bastards towards him.
If Pell was wrongly convicted, he stands in good company, for the Lord Jesus went through a mockery of a trial. He knows what he did or did not do, the matter being one of the eternal soul, with God as adjudicator.
Exodus 23:7 Keep far from a false charge, and do not kill the innocent and righteous, for I will not acquit the wicked.
Exodus 23:1- “You shall not spread a false report. You shall not join hands with a wicked man to be a malicious witness. You shall not fall in with the many to do evil, nor shall you bear witness in a lawsuit, siding with the many, so as to pervert justice, nor shall you be partial to a poor man in his lawsuit. “If you meet your enemy’s ox or his donkey going astray, you shall bring it back to him. If you see the donkey of one who hates you lying down under its burden, you shall refrain from leaving him with it; you shall rescue it with him. …
1 Peter 3:16 Having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behaviour in Christ may be put to shame.
Isaiah 54:17 No weapon that is fashioned against you shall succeed, and you shall confute every tongue that rises against you in judgment. This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord and their vindication from me, declares the Lord.”
John 17:17 Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.
“When we go with the mob . . .”
That about sums up the media these days. Not just in Australia.
I always knew he was innocent.
An absolutely admirable man.
Truly courageous. Cardinal Pell makes me very proud of being Catholic.
God bless him and protect him always!
In the eyes of the Lunatic Left, Cardinal Pell will always be guilty, even if they are not sure what exactly he is guilty of.
This is what happens when you substitute truth a narrative, and become ideologically and emotionally wedded to that narrative that, at the point the narrative gets shattered by truth and reality, you suffer emotional trauma and psychological damage.
Cardinal Pell, like Kyle Rittenhouse, will never receive forgiveness for the crime of being innocent.
Buongiorno.. conosco abbastanza il Cardinale Pell. Nel 2014 quando e diventato prefetto della segreteria per l’economia, sono stato scelto per essere a suo servizio come usciere/autista e non solo. Ho avuto piena fiducia da parte di tutto lo staff del Cardinale. Fin da sempre ero sicuro della sua innocenza. Il Cardinale è una persona che ti fa lavorare bene e ti mette a proprio agio.ho lavorato con S.Eminenza fino al suo ritorno in Australia per difendersi dalle accuse infamanti . Ero e sono sicuro della sua innocenza.persona stimata è direttissima. Da quando è tornato a Roma, ho incontrato almeno 5/6 volte. La prima volta era molto provato, ora si è ripreso benissimo. Mi dispiace tantissimo che il Papa non gli abbia dato un incarico.
Why assume the easily influenced High Court is more credible than a jury trial and Court of Appeals ? And, even if the charges against Pell for alleged PERSONAL acts of abuse were false, why should he be absolved of all responsibility for predators like Risdale, whom he defended and protected ?
Have you actually read the decision of the High Court? And the dissent to the decision of the Court of Appeals by the one judge on it who had experience in criminal law?
Cardinal Pell was tried for alleged personal acts of abuse. Ridsdale had nothing to do with the matter.
The Cardinal did not “defend and protect” Ridsdale.
Brian Young what happened to Cardinal Pell was a horrific hit job to ruin and destroy his reputation which is totally beyond repute. The good and holy Cardinal would have been a terrific papal candidate in the next conclave making him the first Pope from an English speaking country. The very same thing is now happening to Pope Benedict XVI. He too is a good and Holy man of God. Evil will not triumph! God is totally in charge and will ensure that next Holy Father will be the right man at the right time in Catholic Church and world history. Our Lady of Fatima pray for and protect Cardinal Pell and Pope Benedict XVI. PRAY! PRAY! PRAY!
Unfortunately, some Conservative commentators such as Joseph Sciambra are filled with hatred for Cardinal Pell and sees the Church defending him as gas-lighting. Sadly, Joseph has now left the Catholic Church for the Russian Orthodox and his Facebook timeline is mostly him bashing the Catholic Church. So keep him in your prayers!
Essentially we all have 3 things at our disposal, Truth, Reason and for those who choose, Faith. Issues relating to Cardinal Pell go well beyond the series of court hearings and final verdict this article refers to. As many readers here will be aware, I am one who often posted in terms considered hostile to Cardinal Pell. I would like to emphasise that my hostility was directed to a deliberate and sustained misrepresentation of the wider circumstances pertaining to Cardinal Pell that was evident in the writing on the subject, by George Weigle. His articles included vitriolic misrepresentations and condemnation of elements within Australian society and within the Catholic Church community who had years of involvement advocating for those wounded by the scourge of Clergy abuse. Mr Weigles writing to say the least, lacked nuance.
One can not separate the sordid mechanisms of political manoeuvring from these discussions relating to Cardinal Pell. Gerard Henderson, referred to in this article is a prominent player in the arena of Australian politics as Mr Weigel is in the US political power play being a signatory of the Statement of Principals by The Project For The New American Century making him a key player in the Neo Conservative political movement.
I stridently reject any accusation, implied by this article, upon my stated opinions in the many comments I have made on this site that I was involved in a pile on that also implied intellectual cowardice.
I will go further to say it is evident to me that many ( and I will emphasise not all ) advocating for Cardinal Pell are guilty of intellectual dishonesty and deliberate selective misrepresentation that has had a direct impact on those in the church community of the state of Victoria in Australia. Your carelessness is more than evident for those who have lived close to the truth that they have been a witness of.
To the CNA staff I say look at your headline to this article:
“ People who joined Cardinal Pell ‘ pile-on’ guilty of ‘intellectual cowardice’ says speaker, the speaker being Mr Gerard Henderson.
This statement endorsed by this website is an implied condemnation of Chrissie Foster, and all the other advocates, many of who I know personally who worked for and on behalf of the children abused by the clergy of Victoria, again I say because the subject matter goes beyond the specific legal case.
I ask any one who cares to search and read my many contributions to discussions pertaining to Cardinal Pell in articles mainly written by George Weigell. Read them in context of linear dialogue as I stand by every word I have written.
I have to the best of my ability been governed by truth, reason and faith.
Christopher, you say “again I say because the subject matter goes beyond the specific legal case.
Yes! Absolutely!
kevin your brother
In Christ
I am an ex prison officer and I am totally disgusted in how Mr Pell was treated by the Victorian legal system. I am very sure that his physical treatment by both Police and most Prison guards would have been awerful.I hope that God will bless him in every way and forgive those who were such bastards towards him.