I thought I had missed one episode of the ABC's Revelation series, but I was mistaken. Turns out I saw part of the first one, all of the second episode (which I posted about), and then last night I saw most of the final one, which centred on Ballarat and George Pell.
I reckon if it weren't for the COVID-19 situation, it would have attracted more commentary questioning its timing, when Pell's High Court appeal is due next week, and the most widespread view seems to be that the court will overturn his conviction.
I thought the show was most interesting in it description of the highly insular nature of Catholic schooling and clerical life in the period of the 1950's to (say) about 1990. Both Paul Collins's and David Marr's comments on that seemed insightful. I was also interested to hear a woman (unfortunately for her, the sister of the prolific child sex offender Ridsdale) who knew Pell from a young age saying he was always arrogant and a bit of a bully. I'm sure I have said here before that I used to suspect that it might be more a case that his odd manner of speaking made him sound more cold and arrogant than he might really be. My generous assumption seems to have been wrong.
I also have no doubt that he was legitimately considered with suspicion by some adults for his fondness of swimming and playing with boys, even at a time when there was much less awareness of the possibility that male authority figures in child centred organisations might be fond of sexually touching kids.
At the end of the day, it's hard to know what to make of some of the allegations against him. As the show suggested, though, they did tend to fit a pattern: one of a sexually frustrated young man who would touch where he shouldn't but was perhaps smart enough to never do anything with an absolutely clear sexual motive. (That is, of course, ignoring for the sake of the argument the offences for which he was convicted.)
As David Marr indicated, though, the overall impression of Pell's life is one that feels sad and tragic - a conservative wanting to fight societal change and maintain the influence of traditional Catholic thought, but becoming increasingly ineffective at doing so even while he climbed the ladder of authority within his Church.
Careful,
ReplyDeletemost legal scholars thought the court of appeal would throw out the charges.
Sexually frustrated men do not engage in pedophilia or anything remotely looking like it. If they go too far it is with women!
I have given up on trying to explain to you why your views on this are wrong, Homer. You believe expert evidence on most things, but for some reason reject the analysis given by nearly all psychologists and researchers who have looked into the issue within the Catholic Church.
ReplyDeleteSteve,
ReplyDeleteIt did not just happen in the Catholic denomination.
It happened in a lot of organisations.
Pedophiles gathered in occupations where they could have contact with children. 'CHILDREN'.
Funny how bone of these people tool out their sexual frustration with women.
Not hard to have secret affairs but they did not. Indeed they did not even try .
Lets not pretend that we can use this to suggest he is guilty of the SPECIFIC charges he's been accused of. I've heard backward speech analysis that suggests he's got an adult male prostitute habit. But you should stop playing silly-buggers and admit his innocence as charged. He was was investigating financiers handling of Vatican money. He's lucky to be in jail. We would have expected a car bomb or a poisoning.
ReplyDelete"I've heard backward speech analysis that suggests he's got an adult male prostitute habit."
ReplyDeleteWhat the hell, Graeme??
!!!!
ReplyDeleteThats what it seemed like to me. This was the interview that he had in the Vatican with these Victorian cops.
ReplyDeleteHe seemed to be saying that he must be being persecuted on the basis that they found out his weakness. But the backward speech analysts assumed that this meant he was guilty. I listened to the same thing and I couldn't see that at all. There was a lot of gay stuff coming out in his backward speech. But nothing at all to indicate that he was in any way guilty of the crimes suggested. It more seemed like he would console himself with a gentleman later on that night.
ReplyDeleteI didn't mention it before because I thought that simpleminded types would think it implied he was guilty. But if the finance community. The people who police and maintain the Overton window, want to stitch you up, rather than assassinate you, they will look for a weakness to build on.
ReplyDeleteI don't quite know why these clowns used gambling to take over my blog. I never took up gambling. Suppose they couldn't think of anything else. I lead such a lame and blameless life.
"You believe expert evidence on most things.."
ReplyDeleteHa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha you complete dick. You never fucking learn anything do you? Not science. Not evidence. But "expert evidence" meaning expert assertions, meaning circular reasoning when every expert who doesn't hold the right opinion is a non-expert. Meaning superstition and no evidence at all.
If I can make a comment on the appeals judgement.
ReplyDeleteI found it extraordinary that the two judges simply said they found the witness credible ergo what he said must be truthful.
not could this incident have occurred.
I asked legal friends of mine why this was and they simply shrugged their shoulders