I would be very wary about comparing this case to Cardinal Pell’s.
First and foremost, the Victorian Police did need any prompting from Pell’s clerical nemeses to target him. They had their own reasons for pursuing any skerrick of a story, and at the time we’re in BIG trouble for another incident that resulted in a miscarriage of justice …
I would be very wary about comparing this case to Cardinal Pell’s.
First and foremost, the Victorian Police did need any prompting from Pell’s clerical nemeses to target him. They had their own reasons for pursuing any skerrick of a story, and at the time we’re 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 Prosecution’s office. As for Pell’s 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 I’d bet there’s 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 ‘they’ might be. I don’t ascribe intelligence or malice when stupidity, pride and bureaucracy are sufficient.
I would be very wary about comparing this case to Cardinal Pell’s.
First and foremost, the Victorian Police did need any prompting from Pell’s clerical nemeses to target him. They had their own reasons for pursuing any skerrick of a story, and at the time we’re 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 Prosecution’s office. As for Pell’s 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 I’d bet there’s 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 ‘they’ might be. I don’t ascribe intelligence or malice when stupidity, pride and bureaucracy are sufficient.