Cardinal George Pell has been found guilty of historic sex abuse by molesting two young choir boys at the Cathedral in Melbourne 22 years ago. Only 2 in 22 years?
He has attracted several high profile men come to his support with public statements and reference letters to the Court.
Having followed his career over recent years, I have a strong impression of an arrogant authority figure who blocked complaints of sexual abuse of children by priests.
One woman on TV recently told of how she went to him over her own abuse as a child and he was not even interested.
I can only see Pell laying down a smoke screen on his own sexual wrong doing. He was strongly against homosexuality. Who is he trying to fool? His sexual abuse of boys made him a homosexual paedophile.
Pell formed a group in the church to address priestly sexual abuse. Good trick. All complaints undoubtedly went through him including any complaints about him.
His admirers cast doubt on the evidence of the boy. They ask how he could have raped a boy with his archbishops cassock, with many people around the sacristy and the door open. His lawyer says that his was vanilla abuse - not if a tall man like Pell gave anal sex to a young boy.
It was his cathedral. He could have arranged to be alone with the two boys. What time frame did all this take? He could have changed into his black garb and taken an hour to do all that. He could have told the boys to wait.
The judge called his abuse brazen and callous. These words seem to apply to all his dealings with the faithful who came to the child abuse group.
Pell seems like the traditional hero in Shakespearean tragedy. The hero had many strong qualities but destroyed himself with one deadly defect - We recall Julius Caesar. King Lear, Macbeth and Henry IV.
But George Pell may not have had strong qualities over and above those to lay down a smokescreen and cover his arse.
What caused the death of the other young boy?
His admirers cast doubt on the evidence of the boy. They ask how he could have raped a boy with his archbishops cassock, with many people around the sacristy and the door open. His lawyer says that his was vanilla abuse - not if a tall man like Pell gave anal sex to a young boy.
It was his cathedral. He could have arranged to be alone with the two boys. What time frame did all this take? He could have changed into his black garb and taken an hour to do all that. He could have told the boys to wait.
The judge called his abuse brazen and callous. These words seem to apply to all his dealings with the faithful who came to the child abuse group.
Pell seems like the traditional hero in Shakespearean tragedy. The hero had many strong qualities but destroyed himself with one deadly defect - We recall Julius Caesar. King Lear, Macbeth and Henry IV.
But George Pell may not have had strong qualities over and above those to lay down a smokescreen and cover his arse.
What caused the death of the other young boy?
No comments:
Post a Comment