Becciu blocked Cardinal Pell’s financial investigation team from examining the Secretariat of State accounts, and was instrumental in destroying the team’s efforts. They had already found €300m in undeclared accounts salted away by various dicasteries. Pell’s chief auditor, Libero Milone, was sacked for no good reason, as were other competent members of the team.

At that time Pope Francis was backing Becciù.

I have heard Cardinal Pell speak in England on at least three occasions, and have had personal conversations with him. He said it’s very difficult inside the Vatican to sort out who is honest and who is, shall we say, dissembling. And then, among the honest and trustworthy ones, who is competent and who is not.

Many have suggested that the accusations of child abuse against Archbishop George Pell were motivated by characters inside the Vatican, who wanted to destroy his financial investigations. There are 2020 reports in the Italian media and DW of Australian police probing a secret €700,000 transfer of funds from Becciu to person or persons unknown in Australia.

George Pell was wrongly convicted of ridiculous offences against altar servers in Melbourne Cathedral. To anyone who understands priests’ and bishops' vestments, the charges were patently absurd. He would have needed four hands to do, wearing vestments, what was alleged. A ten-minute demonstration in court could have proved this.

The trial showed how abysmal was the state of justice in Victoria, and how malevolent the “Get Pell" campaign was. The Victoria Police had spent two years trawling for accusations against the Cardinal. It was really an anti-Catholic hate campaign.

Cardinal Pell served two years in prison, before the verdict was unanimously overturned by Australia's Supreme Court. Those who gave perjured evidence seem not to have been investigated. The whole thing was a filthy, filthy business, a travesty of justice, the persecution of a good man who opposed the politically correct canons of secular liberalism in his country. Yes, there have been dreadful cases of clerical child abuse in Australia, and guilty priests, but that does not make it right to fabricate a malevolent case against a good man.

When the channelling of funds by Becciu to his relatives in Sardinia came to light, Pope Francis suddenly dropped him like a hot potato. But Cardinal Pell and his staff were never reinstated.

What Cardinal Pell did tell us was that if proper financial controls had been in place, the controls and checks his team wanted to bring in, the Secretariat of State's disastrous speculation with Peter's Pence charity funds on the Kensington and Chelsea London property market, could never have taken place.

They lost close to €200,000,000 on that and associated “deals", and have had to sell property in Italy (?) to cover the losses. Have heads rolled over this disgraceful episode? What do you think?

Some of the Pell-Becciu clash resulted from the divergent Anglo-Saxon versus Italian approaches to financial administration. You get the point, I'm sure.

It was outrageous that for over a year the Victoria State Police ran their “Get Pell” campaign, advertising in newspapers, inviting complainants to step forward and make accusations against the Cardinal.

It took over a year, and all the accusations made, bar one, were dismissed as insubstantial or false.

The media witchhunt against Cardinal Pell was outrageous. In particular the way the ABC treated the issue, fuelling public hatred of him. He was used as a whipping boy for the failures of the Australian Catholic Church to properly tackle the issue of clergy sexual abuse.

He admitted these failures and introduced strict protocols to prevent them recurring. He was one of the toughest bishops in tackling the problems.

The Cardinal was unpopular because he had defended traditional Catholic teaching on marriage and sexuality, against the politically correct LBGTQI etc propaganda. He had also condemned abortion and other liberal sacred cows.

Then this case of this anonymous ex-choir boy was brought forward and Pell was put on trial.

The first jury found him innocent by 10:2 but the case was retried. It was outrageous that he was subsequently convicted on the unsubstantiated evidence of one prosecution witness, the many other defence witnesses being ignored.

What convinced me of the falsity of the charges was the following:

Anyone who knows a priest’s Mass vestments - alb, stole and chasuble - realizes that it is almost impossible to even have a wee while wearing them without wetting the vestments badly. You need both hands just to hold them up, another hand for the trouser flies, and a fourth hand for the necessary.

The Cardinal, who was quite traditional, may well also have been wearing a cassock under the alb, and a light dalmatic under the chasuble: four layers. Plus around his neck pectoral cross and pallium. So he had four layers of vestments besides trousers and underpants presumably.

To force a 13 year old unwilling boy, nay, allegedly two such boys, to perform oral sex on him, he would have needed five or six arms and hands. All this supposedly in a public sacristy about 10 mins after the end of High Mass, where any number of cathedral staff might have walked by at any moment.

There were only two Sundays that autumn when Cardinal Pell celebrated that Mass in the cathedral, he was always accompanied by his Master of Ceremonies, and he habitually stayed in the cathedral porch for up to 20 mins straight after Mass, greeting people and chatting with them.

Then the fact that an important choir practice was in progress straight after Mass and the boys’ supposed absence was never noticed?

There was a genuine case of child abuse in the USA, where a pervert Monsignor found an altar boy drinking the wine in the parish sacristy after Mass one day. He gave him more wine to get him drunk, invited him into his rooms and sexually abused him. He was convicted and sent down.

One wonders if this account gave some inspiration to the accuser of Cardinal Pell?

User-12236344879940448126, you asked “how much money did the Roman Catholic Church pay to exonerate Cardinal Pell?” — and the answer is

“The Catholic Church paid nothing.

Neither did Cardinal Pell pay to exonerate himself.

Cardinal Pell DID pay for his legal fees. The case was thrown out.

There was only one witness, who was the victim bringing the charge. The other alleged victim told his mother than he had never been abused (he passed away years before the trial). The time when the victim said he was abused the cathedral was under construction and the Cardinal was not saying mass regularly. The victims were in choir that practiced right after mass (when he said he was abused) and neither the choir director nor anyone else in the choir remembers them ever being missing. Apparently they were two of the only boy alto singers and their presence or absence would have been very noticeable.

The sacristy where the abuse allegedly occurred is wide open, with multiple points of access, no easy spot to hide and many people going in and out between services. The Cardinal’s assistant said he was always with the Cardinal after mass. On all but one occasion, the Cardinal had appointments with groups of people immediately after mass where witnesses said he was present. He supposedly forced his genitals upon the boy while still in priestly vestments, which anybody who has ever seen or been in priestly vestments knows is well nigh impossible even for a contortionist.

This case against Pell was a set-up. A fake case

Thank you for the A2A Quora User.

I will start with a family anecdote.

My late Dad was a religious man and his level of trust to the Catholic Church was set very high, as was the case of most people born in the 40-ties who received traditional upbringing and then witnessed heroic opposition of the Church in Poland against the communist/socialist regime.

There was however one leader of the Catholic Church in Poland who got on his nerves so much that he recounted this experienced quite often. “Oh, what a view! Such a small, fat cardinal trotting as fast as he could through the big hall with his arms wide open, with a happy smile on his face, to greet Aleksander Kwaśniewski!” This scene shocked my Dad to the core. How a cardinal might be so friendly to somebody who is the leader of the Left in Poland, who supports abortion, and most of all, who has strong ties to many people engaged in the infamous socialist regime in Poland - the same regime that persecuted the Church and bloodily oppressed the entire nation.

This trotting fatty in cardinal robes spreading his arms wide open was a complete contradiction of the image of patriotic, anti-socialist Church in Poland.

This Left-friendly cardinal was none other than Henryk Gulbinowicz, the anti-hero of the recent Vatican sanctions.

Now as to why:

1. Pedophilia. At least one case of molestation of a 15 yo boy was recently revealed. It’s also confirmed that he supported at least one pedophile priest, by being a surety for him and thus preventing his arrest. What’s more, there is a strong suspicion of the whole system of prostitution of minors where some members of the clergy deliberately set “accidental circumstances” to sent young boys to meet the cardinal and to be molested by him.
2. Treason. It was revealed that Gulbinowicz was informant of the secret police of the socialist regime for the whole 16 years. He was considered to be enemy of the heroic primate Stefan Wyszyński. He provided his regime friends with many valuable information. In turn the regime pulled its strings to secure for Gulbinowicz the position of the ordinary of diocese of Wrocław, one of the most important positions in the Catholic Church in Poland.
3. Homosexuality. As a mere priest, Gulbinowicz was engaged in many homosexual relationships. According to the teachings of the Church, being active homosexual is a mortal sin. What’s more, being in mortal sin while serving as a priest, particularly while receiving the Eucharist is a mortal sin in a league of its own. These facts were very well known to the secret police of the regime. While Gulbinowicz was never officially blackmailed by the officers, his fear that their knowledge might be put to use was probably one of his motives to engage in collaboration.

As you can see, being overly friendly to the Left was probably one of the smallest sins in the long life of our good cardinal.

Thank you for reading,

/Lucky/

Pope Francis is the first pope - at least in centuries - to publicly hold cardinals accountable for serious sins and crimes. He is the first pope to remove someone as cardinal, or force their resignation, because of malfeasance of some kind, and he has done so three times:

• Keith O’Brien, in 2015 (later died in 2018)
• Theodore McCarrick, in 2018
• Giovanni Angelo Becciu, in 2020

The cases are not all the same in each respect, of course, but effectively results are the same: these three men are no longer cardinals, either absolutely (McCarrick), or at least for all intents and purposes (O’Brien and Becciu).

I’m not a fan of this ambiguous situation of the latter two, announcing in both cases that they remained cardinals, but lost all rights and privileges pertaining thereto, including the right to vote in conclave. What’s the point of keeping them nominally cardinals? This isn’t like being bishop - it isn’t an indelible action, it is by definition, a creation of the papacy, which can and should be uncreated by the papacy for good cause.

There have been similarly egregious crimes by some cardinals in the not too distant past that were either covered up, or they were at least allowed to simply retire while maintaining all rights, privileges, and membership of the Sacred College. One thinks of the failures of popes to act with regard to Cardinals Law and Groër, for example, and potentially cases of Spellman, Madeiros, and Pell. No doubt there are others that we do not even know about.

This is a good thing. Too long, the culture was one of silence and cover up, the keeping of face more important than transparency and accountability. Now that even cardinals and bishops are begining to be held accountable, there is hope that this will affect all levels of complicit clergy.

EDIT: Now Italian sources are suggesting that Becciu is the one who offered to resign from the cardinalate in shock that the pope would treat him with the same severity as a pedophile… for apparently embezzling/misdirecting investments to the tune of somewhere between 200 and 450 million euros and nepotism to the tune of nearly a million. I think more information will be needed to clarify.

Nasty question insinuating that Cardinal Pell was guilty and the Australian Supreme Court was bribed.

Much more interesting is the allegation in Italian newspapers and by Cardinal Pell himself, although he admits he hasn’t the documentary evidence, that money was transferred from sources unknown within the Vatican, to those who brought the vile faked allegations against Cardinal Pell in the first place.

Cardinal Pell was investigating the finance and accounts of various Vatican dicasteries. He had already discovered some 300 million euros in accounts not on their balance sheets. There were top people who wanted to block his investigations, the now disgraced Becciù among them.

Once Pell was removed, returning home to Australia to clear his name, the chief auditor Libero Milone and other honest men were got rid of, and the whole investigation ground to a halt.

Catholics have a right to be angry at the financial shenanigans in the Vatican, and to adjust their voluntary donations accordingly.

And if some high-ranking churchman did orchestrate bribes and perjured allegations against Cardinal Pell, he should spend the rest of his life doing penance, or expect damnation.

In short, my opinion of him is that he is a grub, but a grub who has been convicted of a crime he didn’t commit.

Longer version. Let me preface first by saying I’m not catholic, and my opinion of the Catholic Church is quite low. My opinion of Pell is also very low. His handling of sexual abuse by priests under his jurisdiction was appalling, of that there is no question.

But did he sexually abuse children? Although a jury has said yes, I think it is doubtful. Other than the case he was convicted of, there have been several allegations made against him, none of which have stood up to even the most mild scrutiny. For example, he wasn’t even in Australia when one offence supposedly happened. In another allegation, he was working in another city. Whether these alleged offences were entirely fictional, or took place but were cases of mistaken identity, I can’t say, but they do paint a picture of someone being wrongly targeted.

So we come to the current case which he has been convicted of. Supposedly, 2 choir boys snuck away from the choir, went to a priests room where the wine was kept, started drinking, were busted by Pell, who then orally raped them.

But much of the story doesn’t add up. The other supposed victim is now dead, however prior to his death had claimed he hadn’t been sexually abused. The diary of a regular churchgoer indicated Pell used to greet the congregation on the steps after mass. The archbishop was always in the company of some other church official (sorry, I’m not a catholic so I don’t know the exact term). The room the choirboys found would have been extremely busy at that time, with people constantly coming and going. It is unlikely if it would even be physically possible for Pell to pull back his robes and commit the offence. The notion that he would commit a sexual offence in a room that would have had people coming and going is ludicrous. There is just too much that doesn’t add up.

Not surprising then, that the first jury couldn’t convict him, but because it wasn’t unanimous, it was declared a mistrial and they tried again. The second jury convicted him. But the question must be asked, was he convicted based on the evidence of the crime before the court, or was he convicted because he was well known, wasn’t highly regarded, and was unfortunate to be tried by 12 people who couldn’t sit their prejudices aside? Personally I think the latter, and I am quite confident the result will be set aside on appeal.

He’s still a grub though.

I just learnt about an hour ago that Cardinal Pell was found guilty in December 2018 of sexual penetration of a child under 16 and four other charges concerned with the abuse of children. News of the conviction was embargoed pending the outcome of another trial, in which the charges have just been dropped. I believe Pell is due to be sentenced next week, but is sure to appeal, a process that would take several months.

When things became a bit hot in Australia for Cardinal Pell, he was coincidentally offered a position in Rome to bring order to the Vatican’s finances. This kept him away from scrutiny in Australia, but also means it would be even more embarrassing if the man who holds supposedly the third highest position in the Vatican, after the pope and the Secretary of State, is found guilty of a serious crime.

During the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, Pell was asked to return to Australia to be interviewed but declined on the grounds that his health prevented him from flying. Not long after the Commission ended its hearings it was found that he flew to Britain, so clearly his health had improved and he was required to fly to Australia to deal with accusations against himself.

Subject to any appeal, Cardinal Pell is a criminal paedophile. What else can I say?

I think it will be hard. I know a lot of people who have already proclaimed the guy guilty and are relishing in the fact that he might be serving time for his crimes. They’re gleefully looking forward to him getting locked up and getting the justice he deserves.

I’m not a Catholic but I do believe someone is innocent until proven guilty. I know that there are Catholic clergy who have committed horrible abuses but there are also far more Catholic priests who are appalled by their colleagues crimes. I’m not excusing Pell’s past behaviour defending sex abusers but just because he wasn’t open and transparent as an Archbishop doesn’t automatically mean he was a sex offender as a younger man.

I haven’t seen any of the evidence against him and can’t judge whether he’s guilty or not. It’s possible every accusation against him is entirely true, it’s also possible he’s entirely innocent, but most of the feeling I’m seeing is that the guy is definitely guilty. That’s going to make it hard to find a fair jury.

I understand the question is about Cardinal Henryk Gulbinowicz

He was sanctioned primarily for not reacting properly, in his capacity as Bishop of Wrocław, to credible accusations of pedophilia against priests in his diocese. That criminal behavior of the Cardinal’s part seems to be beyond dispute. Instead of referring the abuse cases to the prosecutors, the Cardinal moved the abusers to other parishes.

The other accusation against the Cardinal, that of being a secret police informer in Soviet proxy Poland, is a more complex matter.

It is undisputed that the Cardinal, in a at least 16-year continuous period between before his first appointment as a Bishop, through his career, and until shortly after becoming a Cardinal, was listed as a “personal information source” in secret police files. We know his handlers by name, and the outline of the cooperation.

However, this has to be understood in the context of times. The Catholic Church in Poland was involved, as an entity, in a continuous game against the Soviet proxy regime. One absolutely cannot see the Church as anything else than an existential opposing force to the regime. Still, that game was not only the one of a incessant conflict: the opponents were also constantly trading larger and smaller concessions, trying to outsmart and use each other for own ends.

That game was officially conducted between the Polish Primate (the traditional title for the Polish Church leading Bishop) and the chief of the Communist Party Central Committee Department for Religions (or a similar name, I forgot). They had official meetings etc.

The Polish Primate had an official exclusive license, from the Church, for that gamesmanship. And he guarded this jealously, for obvious reasons. One has to remember that the Soviet proxy rulers were constantly trying to split the Church, undermine Church internal solidarity etc.

Cardinal Gulbinowicz was, by all accounts, a very ambitious man. He entered into his own private relationship with the secret police, regular contacts. The evaluation by historians who read through the police files on Cardinal Gulbinowicz and other documents is not firm. The most likely conclusion is that Gulbinowicz was not a traitor writ large. He appears to have conducted, at his own level, a similar game that the Church as an institution was playing with the Soviet proxy state. He did it to advance own career within the Church - by trading small favors (and possibly information) with the authorities, he was winning better concessions to build churches, expand Church activities etc. Which was earning him points within the Church for being a good administrator, and consequently was advancing his career.

Of course such conduct was strictly against Church regulations and the ethics of the times. So censoring Gulbinowicz for this is just and proper. But it possibly was not an outright sellout to the regime. Two most questionable related deeds by Gulbinowicz involved transferring “politically troublesome” priests out of their parishes, on regime request. But maybe this was still within the “normal” game rules of the time.

A more ominous tone in all this is the issue of Gulbinowicz sexual life. He was (was, now he is 96) an active homosexual through his life. By all accounts, his lovers were consenting adults. Still, it was a bit awkward for a Bishop, Archbishop and later Cardinal. My opinion here would be that for the Soviet proxy regime he was a long-term investment. The regime was probably not milking the relationship with Gulbinowicz too much, on the contrary, they were probably actively working to help him in his Church career, without doing things which would compromise Gulbinowicz too much. In this sense I believe Gulbinowicz was not a traitor sensu stricto - he did not have to be, he did not have to give the police too much, to receive much in return.

But of course, once Gulbinowicz became one of top Polish religious leaders, and even better, a Cardinal, the Soviets would have a huge leverage on him.

That leverage would be very valuable, as, at the same time, Gulbinowicz was deeply involved with the Polish political opposition movement. He is deservedly credited for much of organizing and maintaining the Church support for this movement. So his word had much weight, politically. Accordingly, after Poland became independent of Soviet Union, Gulbinowicz gathered many orders and other recognition for his role in overthrowing the Soviet regime.

Anyway, the story is very interesting. Assuredly not a singular case. It is worth reflecting on the fact that, if not for Gulbinowicz’s criminal acts concerning pedophile priests, he would not have been scrutinized so much and consequently he still could have been used (if not for his age). A tough problem for intelligence agencies - finding people compromised enough to control them, but not compromised so much that they will burn themselves.

It is also interesting that the more the Church condemns and fights homosexuality, the more it can be (and probably is) controlled from the outside. A smart thing the Church could do to cut off much of that outside control would be to simply accept homosexuality.

Footnotes

I’ve only read the executive summary section. Here are my thoughts.

1. It’s good that the Church makes this report public. It will help to rebuild credibility and transparency that was sorely needed.
2. It sort of exonerated Pope John Paul II in that he didn’t have enough substantiated evidence to take action against Cardinal McCarrick. After all, three of four bishops (lied?) vouched for the defrocked cardinal at the time. He only proceeded with the info available and the recommendations.
3. I think the problem was more with Pope Benedict XVI not taking decisive action with mounting evidence. Despite having a face of a bulldog enforcer, he is too gentle to a fault and therefore culpable for not taking decisive action to defrock the cardinal.
4. Pope Francis did the right thing in defrocking him.
5. The Church still has a long way to go with investigating and disciplining problem priests. This is a crisis and I think a synod must be called to address these problems to root out the evil, hold evil men accountable and review the priestly formation process.
6. We must pray for the Holy Father and all the clergy and religious much more fervently.

Just some thoughts.

Cardinal Pell was accused of exposing himself in front of two 13 year old children and forcing one of them to perform oral sex on him. Evidence was he was wearing his vestments at the time. At trial, Father Portelli, the opportunity witness, gave evidence that at that time he was with Cardinal Pell until he removed his vestments. Cardinal Pell was found guilty by the jury and sentenced to 6 years. He appealed to the High Court of Australia. The court quashed Cardinal Pell’s conviction and held a jury acting rationally, would entertain a doubt as to his guilt because of his lack of opportunity to commit the alleged crimes.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwduCslNf6Q

Disclaimer:

This answer is only for general information purposes and does not constitute legal advice.

Yes.

This has been in the news the last several years. First Pope Benedict XVI, then Pope Francis, have organized a serious reform and overhaul of the entire financial system of the Vatican, including investigations into the accounts at the IOR (“Vatican Bank”) and established an investigative and oversight body to deal with all of it.

The last 10–15 years have seen more and more transparency, oversight, and reform of Vatican finances than at any other point in history. And it has resulted in criminal trials, even of a cardinal, for the first time in centuries.

Basically, the “Vatican Bank” was established during World War II to help religious orders and their ministries in areas where traditional banking is difficult or nonexistent - for hospitals, orphanages, etc. But it became abused by certain wealthy elite and mafia, especially in the 1970s and 1980s.

It is a long process. Each Vatican dicastery had previously had almost complete independence for its investments and processes, and many seriously resisted the popes’ efforts at reform. The whole scandal around Cardinal Pell seems to have been cooked up by some of those invested in the old corruption who used money to foster accusations against him to derail the reforms he was working on.

https://www.coe.int/en/web/moneyval/jurisdictions/holy_see

President of Vatican Bank: Reforms have completely renewed the IOR - Vatican News

With New Rules, Pope Aims to Reform Scandal-Ridden Vatican Bank

Pope Francis Strips Powerful Vatican Office of Its Financial Assets (Published 2020)

Yes, the pope can demote, laicize (recent example: Cardinal McCarrick), or even fire cardinals.

They are elevated to the position of cardinal (“those clerics that help the pope to accomplish his work in the Roman Curia and the College of Cardinals”) and, therefore, serve at the pope’s good pleasure.

The pope can demote, laicize, fire, or dismiss any cleric in the Catholic Church as he has the power to “loose” and to “bind” on earth and in heaven given to St. Peter, and his successor popes, until the end of time.

Our Lord promises St. Peter:

“And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.” (St. Matthew XVI: 19)

And again, the fulfillment of that promise:

“Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.” (St. Matthew XVIII: 18)

Cardinal Burke, Patron of Sovereign Order of Malta in 2019

The significance is that the Church really needs to do a better job of vetting its senior officials. Let us not pretend that the Catholic Church is a collection of plaster cast saintly men and women. As has often been remarked, the Church is much more an hospital for sinners than a museum of saints. Nevertheless, it is scandalous that men such as Cardinal Pell and Archbishop McCarrick (in the USA) rose to such eminence in the Church. Of course, Cardinal Pell had been convicted of no crime when he was appointed and allegations only surfaced after his appointment. Thus at the time of his appointment he was, as far as the public and the Pope were concerned, innocent of any crime.

Cardinal Pell was chosen, not because or even in spite of his crimes and sins which were not publicly known, but because of his financial competence. He was appointed to oversee the reform of the Vatican’s finances and bring financial management up to date at the Vatican. Ironically, it was his job to see that financial scandals would no longer mar the reputation of the Holy See, the Vatican State and the Vatican Bank (Instituto per le Opere della Religione - IOR).

Now that he has been convicted by secular courts in Australia, Cardinal Pell is undergoing investigation by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Thus he is being investigated to see if there is the evidence to convict him of a crime under canon law, and if so, what the penalty would be for such a crime. This is entirely appropriate. The Church could not pre-empt the proceedings in secular courts, but now that a verdict has been rendered, she must investigate whether crimes have been committed against her own law. Under canon law no-one may be punished without going through due process in her own courts.

The claim was made by Sandro Magister, an Italian self styled investigative journalist who has a long history of making sensational claims which have not been supported, and many of which have been refuted, by facts which are later discovered.

I am certain that Cd Pell (God rest his soul) had nothing to do with the anonymous note released last year (under the name “Demos”). The writing style is nothing like that of Cd Pell. And it was certainly not Pell's personal style to make any criticism anonymously. If he had a problem with you, he would tell you straight to your face. As we saw with the last thing he wrote, a scathing criticism of the “Synodal Process", Pope Francis' signature great project of the past few years. He had no idea he was about to die, but put his name to this, ready to face the reaction from Pope Francis. Indeed he had probably already told Pope Francis to his face all the criticisms he had.

Cd Pell was one of Pope Francis' closest and most trusted collaborators. Named as one of the “Council of 8” Cardinals who were basically Pope Francis’ inner cabinet. Being maintained in this position even when Cd Pell was wrongly imprisoned. Pope Francis whilst observing diplomatic formalities made it very clear he knew all along that Cd Pell was completely innocent.

Also note Pope Francis' response when asked about the “revelation": He said “THEY SAY he has criticised me" and that Cd Pell was “a great guy.” Clearly the Pope knows that the claim that Cd Pell wrote the “Demos" memo is nonsense.

Sadly however the anti-Catholic and even neutral media are reporting the claim as Gospel fact, without even a pretence of bothering to investigate it. Fuelling yet another cowardly and terrible slur on a great and good Catholic leader who is no longer able to defend himself, and who I trust will one day be canonised as a saint.

It is rare that an appeal court overturns a jury’s decision (usually in criminal cases, if a conviction is overturned it is because of a technicality of law, not because the appeal judges consider the jury to have erred). Rarer still that it does so in such a way that the accused cannot be retried for the offense. I have not read the unanimous decision of the seven judges involved in overturning Cardinal Pell’s conviction, but they must have had compelling reasons to believe that the case against Cardinal Pell was definitely not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The most plausible explanation is that the jury was swayed by media reports rather than an examination of the evidence presented.

I’m not sure if the question is suggesting that the decision by the appeal court was outrageous, or that the initial charges against a man now deemed innocent were outrageous. If the latter, then the answer seems to be “Yes”.

The Vatican doesn't work that way. These two men are liabilities for the Vatican because of their actions. Yes there has been a tendency for the Church in general to “look after their own” which is part of the clerical sex abuse scandals but it does not extend to protecting and hiding them. During WWII the Vatican harbored Jews and priests who were wanted by the fascists regimes but those were priests who were wanted for speaking out agsinst the government. They may have hid others such as priests fleeing persecution from Vietnam or other countries who had a regime change that was openly hostile to the Catholic Church but that is speculation on my part. The point is the Vatican has in the past hid priests because they faced death simply for being a priest. They have not hid priests inside the Vatican itself who were criminals for moral failings to my knowledge. Besides a Cardinal is much harder to hide. They are more well known and recognizable by church watchers and they also wear those red hats. Makes you kind of stand out in a crowd. The Vatican may have had its faults in terms of how it has dealt with scandal but they are not dumb. Hiding those two men inside the Vatican would be almost impossible and therefore really dumb.

Yes.

Australia has an excellent record of prosecuting high profile people.

Ignore the Pell claims of total innocence. As a high school teacher, I hear Legal Studies students return from visiting our state’s high security prison each year, having learnt that every inmate is completely innocent. Well, that’s what the inmates say.

It is significant to me that charges have even been laid. Victoria Police has a high proportion of Catholics among its ranks. The fact that they have been able and willing to put together the case against Pell says an awful lot to me. It took a while, and must have ultimately taken some courage on their part to this. I suspect the case is strong.

Absolutely. He was a very good Catholic and a very good man. An urbane, highly intelligent, gentle and compassionate man.

In fact I expect that one day he will be canonised a Saint, having suffered “white martyrdom” for upholding the Catholic faith.

I first met him as a young newly consecrated junior auxiliary bishop, when he administered my daughter the Sacrament of Confirmation. Even then, there was a clamour of protest and disapproval against him, from some Catholics as well as some non Catholics. Yet every time I tried to pin down exactly what it was about him that they objected to, it basically boiled down to the fact that he actually believed, practised and taught the Catholic faith, as a bishop is supposed to do.

Immediately on becoming Archbishop, he became not only the first church leader in the world, but the first leader of ANY organisation in the world, to create a scheme to care for and compensate people who had accused employees of his church of sexual abuse, but whose cases had been rejected by police or courts or who were for any reason unwilling to take it to the police. The “Lavender Mafia” who had infiltrated the Catholic clergy hated him for that and they spent the next quarter century plotting to bring him down by foul means, and nearly succeeded. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation, some other hack “journalists", some politicians, elements of the Victorian Police and Victorian ”Justice" system set out to get him by promoting outrageous lies about him and many other tactics perverting the course of justice and fairness.

Through all the many trials his enemies put him through, he never said an unkind word about any of them, but offered up his sufferings without retaliation.

It appears that Cardinal Pell did receive a fair trial on charges of child sexual abuse. At a first trial, the jury was unable to reach a verdict, so a second trial was ordered. The judge instructed the potential jurors that if they felt unable to treat the evidence without bias because they feel they could not find him either guilty or not guilty, they should disqualify themselves. He was found guilty in 2018, but news of his conviction was suppressed so that a further trial on related matters could proceed without bias. The judge in that second trial ruled certain evidence against Pell inadmissible and these further charges were dropped.

The evidence is that in each case, the courts have acted with impeccable impartiality. Cardinal Pell received a fair trial on charges of of sexual penetration of a child under 16 and four other charges concerned with the abuse of children. The present archbishop of Melbourne says he has confidence in the Australian legal system and believes that Cardinal Pell received a fair trial.