I think it's important to stress that Cardinal Cipriani has vehemently denied these accusations. Just as Cardinal Pell did, who was subsequently vindicated. Given that, I don't think the truth is well served by mentioning the laicized Theodore McCarrick and the French Archbishop who admitted guilt, in the same article. It seems to assume guilt where there may in fact be none.
I think it's important to stress that Cardinal Cipriani has vehemently denied these accusations. Just as Cardinal Pell did, who was subsequently vindicated. Given that, I don't think the truth is well served by mentioning the laicized Theodore McCarrick and the French Archbishop who admitted guilt, in the same article. It seems to assume guilt where there may in fact be none.
Here I am replying to my own comment...I don't think the writer of the article was implying guilt, but the reader may be lead to assume likely guilt by the writer mentioning all three individuals in the same article.
Possibly part of the reason Cardinal Pell could be vindicated, is because his case was public and was therefore handled (eventually) by people competent in investigations.
Yes, it certainly does help if the people competent in investigations (and not corrupt) come earlier in the process, rather than later.
Cardinal Cipriani might not be prison, but he has had this accusation for over 5 years, and no process that could actually determine guilt or innocence has even started. Cardinal Pell was exonerated 3 years after his charge.
I donтАЩt know, Cardinal Cipriani does not necessarily seem like a reliable reporter of events here. I would like to see clarification from the appropriate Vatican authorities. (Note: I had never heard of Cardinal Cipriani before today and know nothing about him, but if everything reported here is true, his story seems confused at best.)
I would be very wary about comparing this case to Cardinal PellтАЩs.
First and foremost, the Victorian Police did need any prompting from PellтАЩs clerical nemeses to target him. They had their own reasons for pursuing any skerrick of a story, and at the time weтАЩre in BIG trouble for another incident that resulted in a miscarriage of justice for dozens of people. Pell was the right kind of distraction. They moved to arrest without approval by the ProsecutionтАЩs office. As for PellтАЩs clerical status he did the right thing in resigning his public roles until the matter was resolved. The Dicastrey also held off imposing canonical proceedings until after Pell had exhausted all legal recourse. They clearly had enough confidence that their services would not be needed.
I know little to nothing about this particular case, but IтАЩd bet thereтАЩs more differences than similarities. Just because a cleric protests their innocence, doesnt make them so, and is a claim best tested in a court of law, or civil.
Regarding the particulars, certainly one could not compare the two cases. But the Cardinal Pell situation was a set up. It is possible that something analogous could be happening here.
That would be ascribing intelligence to his persecutors, whoever you think тАШtheyтАЩ might be. I donтАЩt ascribe intelligence or malice when stupidity, pride and bureaucracy are sufficient.
I think it's important to stress that Cardinal Cipriani has vehemently denied these accusations. Just as Cardinal Pell did, who was subsequently vindicated. Given that, I don't think the truth is well served by mentioning the laicized Theodore McCarrick and the French Archbishop who admitted guilt, in the same article. It seems to assume guilt where there may in fact be none.
Here I am replying to my own comment...I don't think the writer of the article was implying guilt, but the reader may be lead to assume likely guilt by the writer mentioning all three individuals in the same article.
Possibly part of the reason Cardinal Pell could be vindicated, is because his case was public and was therefore handled (eventually) by people competent in investigations.
Yes, but I don't it should cost 400 days in a maximum security prison to clear your name of bogus abuse allegations.
Yes, it certainly does help if the people competent in investigations (and not corrupt) come earlier in the process, rather than later.
Cardinal Cipriani might not be prison, but he has had this accusation for over 5 years, and no process that could actually determine guilt or innocence has even started. Cardinal Pell was exonerated 3 years after his charge.
I donтАЩt know, Cardinal Cipriani does not necessarily seem like a reliable reporter of events here. I would like to see clarification from the appropriate Vatican authorities. (Note: I had never heard of Cardinal Cipriani before today and know nothing about him, but if everything reported here is true, his story seems confused at best.)
I wouldn't consider him reliable. I don't consider the Vatican authorities to be reliable either.
There are millennia of good reasons for public trials, in favor of some accused, and against others.
I would be very wary about comparing this case to Cardinal PellтАЩs.
First and foremost, the Victorian Police did need any prompting from PellтАЩs clerical nemeses to target him. They had their own reasons for pursuing any skerrick of a story, and at the time weтАЩre in BIG trouble for another incident that resulted in a miscarriage of justice for dozens of people. Pell was the right kind of distraction. They moved to arrest without approval by the ProsecutionтАЩs office. As for PellтАЩs clerical status he did the right thing in resigning his public roles until the matter was resolved. The Dicastrey also held off imposing canonical proceedings until after Pell had exhausted all legal recourse. They clearly had enough confidence that their services would not be needed.
I know little to nothing about this particular case, but IтАЩd bet thereтАЩs more differences than similarities. Just because a cleric protests their innocence, doesnt make them so, and is a claim best tested in a court of law, or civil.
Regarding the particulars, certainly one could not compare the two cases. But the Cardinal Pell situation was a set up. It is possible that something analogous could be happening here.
That would be ascribing intelligence to his persecutors, whoever you think тАШtheyтАЩ might be. I donтАЩt ascribe intelligence or malice when stupidity, pride and bureaucracy are sufficient.