Well, Cardinal Pell?

13 Apr

I’ve just read this piece in The Age titled “Church’s suicide victims.” It’s about a report from the Victorian police detailing the suicides of some forty victims of sexual abuse by Catholic priests, and calling for an inquiry into these and other deaths thought to be related to childhood sexual abuse by priests. The article states: In a damning assessment of the church’s handling of abuse issues, the reports say it appears the church has known about a shockingly high rate of suicides and premature deaths but has “chosen to remain silent.”

I then read this article published in On Line Opinion earlier this year, in which the author explains why  in NSW the Catholic Church cannot be sued when its priests sexually abuse children:

Put simply (as Cardinal Pell would no doubt argue), the situation is that when a Catholic priest commits sexual abuse, it does not happen in the Catholic Church because there is no such thing. It happens instead in one of its unincorporated parts and therefore responsibility for its rests totally on members of that part, especially the perpetrator and those responsible for appointing or supervising him. That is to say, responsibility is completely limited to the parish, school, hospital or whatever is the unincorporated part in which it occurred.

As the trustees merely own the property within which the abuse occurred and have no responsibility whatsoever for appointing or supervising the perpetrator, they cannot be held responsible for the abuse he committed. Of course, victims are perfectly free to sue the perpetrator or the unincorporated part but they have no assets (the Trust has them all and anyway priests take a vow of poverty) so there is nothing to be gained by it.

It seems that where sexual abuse of children is concerned in NSW, the Catholic Church has two parts: one that does the damage and one that owns the wealth…

I then read this:

Matthew 18:6  But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

Well, your Eminence?  What say you?

120 Responses to “Well, Cardinal Pell?”

  1. AJ April 13, 2012 at 12:35 pm #

    The Broken Rites group have masses of information about offenders and suspects. I urge anyone reading this post with any information at all to contact them. http://brokenrites.alphalink.com.au/


    • Jennifer Wilson April 14, 2012 at 3:36 pm #

      Did ya all vote for Sheep in the People’s Choice? 🙂


      • Hypocritophobe April 14, 2012 at 3:54 pm #

        Do you have a ‘six pack’ ?
        (Not the bread basket type)


      • doug quixote April 15, 2012 at 1:02 am #

        Vote early and vote often!

        (PS red wine is my preferred tipple.)


  2. paul walter April 13, 2012 at 12:39 pm #

    The law seems to be an utter ass as to obligations and liabilities, but who dares take on the might of organised religion?
    Who remembers the case of the teenage couple who were prosecuted for seeking to obtain RU 486 to terminate an early and unwanted pregnancy, a couple of years ago in Queensland?
    The politicians ran for cover like scared mice when attempts were made to end the harassment of the young couple and Parliament almost to a person, on both sides of the house, voted against changes liberalising the law on this issue, on the spurious assertion of “conscience”.
    Personally, I can’t quite “get” the fascination with kiddy-fiddling, within religious bodies. Perhaps fear of something more “adult”?
    To describe the behaviours as juvenile, irresponsible and outrageously reckless of others requirements, is being kind-malicious and selfish alikely better descriptors- and a stab at the very heart of Christianity as “other directedness”, as Jennifer’s citation of the definitional scriptural text on this issue makes uncompromisingly clear.
    Btw, I think Pell’s frock looks absolutely divine. The hat is almost a jaunty little pill-box- some lace would have helped, but really, would have loved to have seen the shoes. Gloves and handbag would added a nice touch, as to accessories


    • Doug Quixote April 13, 2012 at 1:21 pm #

      “Divine” is the appropriate term, PW, at least as far as Pell’s fond wishes are concerned.

      “When in choir dress, a Latin-rite cardinal wears scarlet garments — the blood-like red symbolizes a cardinal’s willingness to die for his faith. Excluding the rochet — which is always white — the scarlet garments include the cassock, mozzetta, and biretta (over the usual scarlet zucchetto). The biretta of a cardinal is distinctive not merely for its scarlet color, but also for the fact that it does not have a pompon or tassel on the top as do the birettas of other prelates.”

      Would Pell die for his faith? Didn’t sound like it on Q&A!


    • Hypocritophobe April 13, 2012 at 8:24 pm #

      I have just reviewed the picture of Pell in his Mardi Gras outfit.
      Where the hell can you get a doily that big?
      (Phillipines sweat-shop??)
      And seriously that plastic, red-pepper, outdoor, waterproof table cloth (whilst being ultra practical) for an over coat ??
      What was he thinking?
      As for the ‘Devo’ hat, (to me), somehow that seems appropriate.Very appropriate.

      Is it too late to nominate him for the Friday Feckwit?


    • helvityni April 14, 2012 at 9:41 am #

      PW, no amount of doilies or best of Manolo Blahniks would make that man look palatable, to me he is úncharitablessness inpersonified,not even carrying a Woolies green shopping bag would make him look human…does he ever smile…?


  3. Hypocritophobe April 13, 2012 at 1:08 pm #


    “Pick a topic,watch him deny.”


  4. Hypocritophobe April 13, 2012 at 2:15 pm #

    “Put simply (as Cardinal Pell would no doubt argue), the situation is that when a Catholic priest commits sexual abuse, it does not happen in the Catholic Church because there is no such thing. It happens instead in one of its unincorporated parts and therefore responsibility for its rests totally on members of that part, especially the perpetrator and those responsible for appointing or supervising him. That is to say, responsibility is completely limited to the parish, school, hospital or whatever is the unincorporated part in which it occurred.”

    And what of Duty of Care? Mr Pell?

    Does your church’s public liability insurance have a very high upper limit to possible claims? Either way,if your institution walks away (again) from justice for the victims,you will need very, very deep pockets.


  5. hudsongodfrey April 13, 2012 at 3:48 pm #

    I think that whatever we do say about religion here that not believing in it occurs to me as a natural extension of my rationality, something that also tells me that hating one another is irrational as well. So whether it is a priest or dirty old Uncle Ernie (Tommy) the fact remains that the permission we take to hate the crime of child abuse often means that we indulge in assigning guilt by extension. I don’t know if Pell is complicit in this but I do know enough about Christianity to know that its teachings don’t condone these crimes against children. So I’m happy to blame the churchmen rather than their religion. Indeed I think that they’ve strayed so far from it as to make the two barely reconcilable.

    What I think we may be critical of is the kind of ecclesiastical thought that eschews earthly accountability for something that to me is unsatisfyingly esoteric. That is to say that in the minds of the devout the law seems to come a distant second to divine punishment in the afterlife. I think this simply overlooks the extraordinary extent to which this is a breach of the parents’ faith in placing their children under the care of somebody they trusted and looked to for spiritual guidance as well as being an authority figure. That to say nothing of how the harm done to victims compounds itself in terms of why churches as social institutions are diminished by this.

    My criticism of Pell in this regard is therefore similar to that made by others of his boss in Rome. That as the people in charge of these institutions they have failed to redress such and egregious wrongdoing in the eyes of both their own flock and of society in general. It is not the kind of oversight that one can take to be merely accidental.


    • Hypocritophobe April 13, 2012 at 4:14 pm #

      The victims were subject to depravity committed by an employee of the RC Church, not a stranger in their midst.They abused their position willingly.They may have even done so using God speak in the perpetration of these acts.

      Surely the Catholic Church is hiding the laws of God, behind the laws of man, to protect an asset and an income?

      IMHO Only a Royal Commission can salvage the churches name.It is way too late for many victims.Surely the Church and State owe the survivors this much.


      • hudsongodfrey April 13, 2012 at 5:07 pm #

        Hello Hypo,

        I think we’re both primarily against hypocracy here. I’m just pointing out how hypocritical it is in terms of their own faith to act so shabbily towards the victims of child abuse.

        Frankly I don’t think the imposition of a Royal Commission would achieve much of any real value. We would on any account have in my view to be very careful not to impose something like that simply out of spite in an effort to disabuse them of their hubris.

        What we may seek recourse to instead are uniform laws to ensure that reporting requirements are met. I shouldn’t have to add retrospectively because all material assaults happened in the past.

        Nor do I mean to be squeamish or unduly idealistic when I say that it would do a great service to the community if instittions religious or otherwise where these assaults may have occurred would act to take the onus off the victims when it comes to seeing justice done.


        • Hypocritophobe April 13, 2012 at 5:50 pm #

          Whilst I agree broadly with your view here,HG,
          I would presume that in ‘some’ cases it is the ‘gravity and far reaching powers’ of a Royal Commission, which as well as getting to the truth, may also play a role in the healing process, by way of legitimising, and acting on, the victims claim/s, which may also encourage more of them to come forward.

          The wheels have turned too slowly, for too long, and we should consider that some(??) victims may want this dealt with in their lifetime.
          (The Katanning Hostel abuse case (non Catholic-I *think*?) is playing out in this way.This case has also seen a high rate of victim suicide.)
          I believe that the ‘suitably prescriptive’ terms and powers of a RC could contribute to some level of future prevention/protection, by way of the subsequent findings and sentences.

          Some may simply view a R/C on this issue as a ‘witch hunt’ (I am sure the Catholic lawyers would run that line) and it may be that some of the victims want just that ‘witch hunt’
          But this is their journey.
          I honestly cannot see a more applicably serious level of ‘independent’ investigation more appropriate to investigate a large religious (or any other) org, government etc.

          As for reporting requirements, I think the Church has had (more than) ample time.
          As for self regulation…….
          Lola makes a good point about the ongoing inward silence of so called advocates.
          Hopefully the victims voices are always heard, amongst all this other noise.


          • hudsongodfrey April 13, 2012 at 6:05 pm #

            Yes I think we do agree. The only thing I’d be cautious of if there was a royal commission is the kind of zeal that dredges up stuff that the victims don’t want to have to relive.

            I suspect we don’t have all the right answers to this one perhaps because it is the kind of wrong that really can’t be undone. That makes it worse… perhaps, but in all things I think the victims need to come first even if in this impossibly less than ideal circumstance the hypocrisy we both abhor can’t be entirely expunged.


            • Hypocritophobe April 13, 2012 at 6:29 pm #

              This is a unique set of circumstances which may actually require that the victims, and their personal support groups,either contribute to the initial dialogue of the investigations parameters or produce victim impact statements to assist with the Enquiries aims.

              (I believe the Katanning enquiry began as a local politician presenting a constituents {possibly a victim?} concerns to Parliament WA.
              Eventually Premier Barnett set up the enquiry (kudos) which is almost a R/C in nature.
              Suffice to say there are ‘already’ some convenient memory lapses which I think the Enq. Chair will see through.
              I can so far attribute this ‘differing recollection’ to a local cop, who is now very highly ranked, a local female councillor and a few other local ‘luminaries’.

              A lot of earlier testimony was behind closed doors for obvious reasons, which relates to your concerns about victim impact.
              I have been particularly impressed with a guy who has been involved(victim) since the instigation of the enquiry. He is also an unofficial spokesperson.He comes across as stoic,but holding it all in.I have heard him on radio,relate his dark days of suicide contemplation. I get the feeling he is honouring,with his actions, the memory of those victims no longer alive, and the victims too damaged to step forward.The media take is that there will be many more people coming forward.


  6. lola April 13, 2012 at 4:02 pm #

    And again, the MTR crew are silent as the grave on this issue. Maybe George and Mel need to sit down and watch this. I might be old, but I get this one!


    Many years ago, I worked with one of the young men who suicided. He had tried to obtain justice, but the church blocked him at every point. Grrrr. And it is every church, not just the Catholics.
    And the answer is not letting them marry – pedophiles will always seek out employment that allows easy access to children.
    And people wonder why I am so protective of my children and grandchild!


  7. Ray (novelactivist) April 13, 2012 at 4:23 pm #

    An evil dodge. One should ask the victims if they thought they ‘belonged’ to the Church or to an unincorporated affiliate? Isn’t the Church the body of Christ on earth? Of course we know the answer – and it shifts when it suits them.


  8. Doug Quixote April 13, 2012 at 4:29 pm #

    An interesting blog from a “committed christian “:

    “I must be honest and say that most of the “Christian Conservative” movement disgusts me. I have seen nearly every angle of the social-conservative agenda, from banning homosexuality (read: lock gays in cages), banning pornography (read: locking those who lust in cages) to other absurd yet popular notions. Note that the sins being punished are always sins that the conservative in question usually* does not suffer from. This is not just convenient — it’s absolutely hypocritical and, ironically, contrary to all of the notions of the New Testament.

    The fundamental sin that the moral legislation targets is generally sexual immorality. The argument goes along these lines:
    “Sexual immorality is very important. Sexual immorality is more than just about the bedroom — it affects the whole nation. This is why pornography and homosexuality should be banned by the government.”

    The standard for violent intervention by the government is nearly laughable for two reasons. First, if the standard of “it is socially important” is used, then disobedient children, pride, snobbery, irrationality and pretty much every other sin should also be outlawed,

    However, those who wish to enforce morality never argue against those things. The double-standard is as blatant as it is logically bankrupt. The reason for the restriction can’t be “it’s socially important/essential” because this standard is instantly dumped when discussing issues such as pride, irrationality and other “sins”.

    That said, the sin being restricted is even dumped regarding the restriction of sexual immorality. It’s easy for us to place ourselves on a pedestal and pretend that we are not the ones of sexual immorality. Pornography is to be violently restricted, why? Because it is sexually immoral, and sexual immorality will lead to the collapse of civilisation, or so the argument goes.

    Forget that Christ Himself said that lusting is adultery. In Matthew 5:27-28, Jesus explains, “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”

    Show me a man who claims not to lust, and I will show you a liar. People are sexually immoral. All people are sexually immoral. The idea of using guns and cages to restrict and/or punish the sexually immoral is ridiculous — with everyone in prison, there’d be no one left on the outside.

    “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.“

    *Though this is not always the case. I would actually contest that most of those who support banning pornography partake in it religiously, no pun intended. This is statistically inevitable, as unfortunate as it may be. ”

    (end quotes)

    If interested the rest of the blog/article is at :



    • hudsongodfrey April 13, 2012 at 4:42 pm #

      Thanks Doug,

      I think it is true that it is possible for a version of Christianity to emerge that doesn’t tolerate those double standards it has hypocritically perpetrated in the past.

      If I had to think of a primary reason not to legislate morality that was consistent with some kind of faith based worldview it would be because morality imposed by legislation is no morality at all but a constraint on behaviour of a kind that merits us nothing if we act well.


  9. Macabre April 13, 2012 at 9:23 pm #

    If the Victorian government have enough gumption to get stuck into the RC church, we’ll be surprised. Our press supine when it comes to religion need encouraging,

    Don’t see much from Tankard Reist defending the kiddies and demanding blood from the priests.

    Well MTR, are you reading? Get stuck into the RC church! Do something useful.


  10. Unsurprised April 13, 2012 at 9:45 pm #

    Hang on, could it be Miranda Miranda Miranda on her Catholic Charger coming in to defend the one true faith. No, thought not.


  11. Hypocritophobe April 13, 2012 at 10:59 pm #

    There are some things no government will ever do.And even though bringing these sexual deviates to justice is paramount to justice,
    in the end I agree,I doubt that any piss-ant Victorian government has the gonads to pick a fight with God.

    Can’t you hear the sound of shredders?
    I am sure some hush $$$ may also be on the cards, as well as some timely staff transfers,early retirements,strange disappearances, extra long holidays, stress leave and mystery illnesses.
    That should scratch 70%.
    Don’t be surprised if one or two Vic pollies resign or go independent over this.


  12. Trevor Melksham April 14, 2012 at 6:40 am #

    The current Pope was formerly the Chief Inquisitor. For an organisation so well versed in uncovering heretics, it appears remarkedly inept in uncovering sexual abuse.

    Until the Pope launches an inquisition and clenses the church of this long existant stain, then all current clergy stand condemned as abusers, and all Catholics as accessories.


  13. Hypocritophobe April 14, 2012 at 9:35 am #

    Another consequence of denying choice, and access to safe abortions.



  14. paul walter April 14, 2012 at 3:06 pm #

    I’d just like to compliment the rest of you, esp. Hypocritophobe.
    Pell for many reasons, quite a few self inflicted or imposed, is such a soft target.
    It was therefore necessary for someone to reminded us of the underlying point, as to why he is not received in friendly fashion in these threads.
    A person who holds forth in stentorian manner on “morality”, bemoaning the wickedness of hetero and gay adult’s personal arrangements, or in criticising family planning from a comfortable place including condemning the termination of zygotes whether the reasons for doing so are reasonable or not, can find no time for thousands of actually living people; in fact pointedly shuns these defenceless people damaged by abuses of power by his troops. Far from pity, religious hierarchs from a number of organisations deserve only contempt.
    I also congratulate those who have observed the usual deafening silence from the conservative bible bashers, as to abuse, corruption etc within religious organisations.
    Which organisations have “sexualised” kids and some vulnerable adults, more than the various big religious organisations, sanctuaries for self-ordained little tin gods who by some miracle of process are exempt from codes of behaviour applicable to the rest of us, simply through the ability to appear sanctimoniously pious at public outings whilst maintaining private standards that would cause the Marquis De Sade to blush.


  15. hudsongodfrey April 14, 2012 at 5:07 pm #

    Looks like there might have to be an inquiry after all



    • Hypocritophobe April 14, 2012 at 7:18 pm #

      So will the investigators be R/Cath or non?

      Either way I have a hunch about some of the strategies which may come to the fore.

      As mentioned before, if it already has the Vic govt whining about cash,this may end up being a half arsed attempt.( think about religious affiliations involved here, as well)

      I can sense a great deal of disappointment looming.

      Unless it has equal powers to a R/Com, what’s the point?
      And if it does, why not have a R/Com?


      • doug quixote April 14, 2012 at 10:20 pm #

        You may depend that the commission or whatever it is will be carefully constituted to avoid being labelled a ‘witch hunt’ by the apologists

        No doubt the terms of reference will need to be carefully drafted and suitable commissioner(s) found. It may take a few days to assemble.


  16. AJ April 15, 2012 at 12:47 pm #

    Without wanting to be an apologist for the RC church, I need to point out that several posters have erred on the generalisation that all Catholics are bad or evil or implicit supporters of child abuse. As usual, the minority and outrageous get the attention and the rest get tarred with the same brush, Its the same kind of flaw that branded all muslims terrorists as per Bush and others, You wouldnt want to be included in that intellectual league would you?


    • Doug Quixote April 15, 2012 at 1:44 pm #

      Which ones? Name names or withdraw that statement.Now.


      • Hypocritophobe April 15, 2012 at 4:23 pm #

        Is there a website :

        “Outraged and Vociferous Australian Roman Catholics Leading the Public Charge”
        (Or is it left to the victims ??

        I’ll be there in a flash to check out the humongous roll of honour.


      • Doug Quixote April 15, 2012 at 6:03 pm #

        I’m still waiting, AJ. Name names or withdraw.


    • helvityni April 15, 2012 at 6:15 pm #

      AJ, no one is saying that about Roman Catholics, no one is saying that all Muslims terrorists..??


      • helvityni April 15, 2012 at 6:19 pm #

        Edit: about ALL Roman Catholics…


    • hudsongodfrey April 15, 2012 at 7:04 pm #

      While it may well be an matter of intellectual honest to accept the view that criticism of Catholic clergymen doesn’t imply that all Catholics either knew of it or were implicitly supportive nor is that implicit in the criticisms made of the church here.

      So while I can understand that some Catholics would find certain remarks distasteful, this is a bitter subject where a certain amount of angst is to be expected if we’re to discuss it at all.

      The real question then for you goes to your defence of Catholics if it doesn’t acknowledge that nowhere near enough has been done by members of that church to explicitly condemn these crimes and to ensure that criminals are brought to justice.

      It may not be pleasant to have to direct that criticism of your remarks but if this is to be the intellectually honest discussion that you seem to require of us then I think that question simply can’t be ignored!


      • Hypocritophobe April 15, 2012 at 7:18 pm #

        I used the following words in a Google search

        “australian catholics against paedophilia”

        I got this.

        I went through the first two pages of the search results and did not find anything heartening.

        Neither I have seen any noticeable marches in any Australian city, led by Roman Catholics, condemning the RC Churches position.

        Yet religious groups are quick to rally for the rights to control others bodies and unborn foetuses.

        I don’t think that after all the crimes and cover ups, non-clergy (Catholic) community members do themselves, or their church, any favours by taking the 5th.

        It seems to me that whatever the reason, fear of ‘some form of consequence’ might be behind the silence.
        Which indicates an unhealthy facet of the same institution.

        If I am wrong and there is a strong, united, supportive loud and clear message to be found somewhere,a link would be dandy.

        Just imagine if this story was about public school teachers, doctors or AFL coaches, and not clergy men.


        • Hypocritophobe April 15, 2012 at 7:25 pm #

          (Search result was
          About 4,590,000)

          Don’t bother to copy and paste the link, it was so long it broke in the paste.
          If you need to,just use the words above and the search window.
          Hope your luck beats mine, at finding the Lassiter’s reef of this discussion.


          • hudsongodfrey April 15, 2012 at 9:00 pm #


            My comment was directed towards AJ as it happened.

            AJ asked for something approximating fairness and intellectual honesty and I think I tried to balance the conversation by offering the same.

            As you can see I’m not supporting the Catholic church by a long straw. What I don’t want to do at the same time is to become uncharitable or hyperbolic in my rage against what has been done. I do believe that most of it has been known (and unfortunately that means knowingly ignored at higher levels within the Church) for some time. It has likewise been suspected, and indeed accused of certain people by the likes of the Broken Rights group, for quite some time. So I think news of these suicides comes more as a dissapointment than a shock.

            Being not one to believe that two wrongs make a right I would say as I’ve done elsewhere that we shouldn’t take permission to hate under these or any circumstances no matter how it angers and frustrates us that these people behave as they do.

            If some feel more wounded than I then I fully accept that may inform their responses. I can only speak from a personal perspective as one who escaped pretty well unscathed thought not perhaps emotionally untouched by my memories of what may or may not have occurred around me.


            • Hypocritophobe April 15, 2012 at 9:08 pm #

              Understood HG,
              My comment was also primarily directed at AJ, HG , and as an additional source of info for others here.It was not really a direct response to you comment to AJ, but I hope somehow it is a flux between the few posts around ALs thoughts.

              I was just reinforcing the level of (ongoing) silence from within the flock,itself.


        • Jennifer Wilson April 15, 2012 at 7:51 pm #

          This is how you landed yourself in spam a few weeks ago Hypo. I don’t know how this got through. If there’s over a certain number of links it gets spammed, as one of the signs of spam is loads of links. Just saying in case you wind up there again. 🙂

          Apart from that, it’s incredible to me that Christians aren’t raising the roof about sexual abuse in their churches and until they do, they’ve forfeited the right to speak about anything IMHO.


          • hudsongodfrey April 15, 2012 at 9:09 pm #

            Somehow I think a forfeit almost affords people who proclaim their morality too liitle by way of accountability.

            I DO expect them to live up to expectations by saying and doing something about an issue that has too long been kept at bay when it should have been morally and legally confronted and dealt with. And in so doing I expect them to relieve victims of the onus of having to fight so hard for the recourse that is owed them.


            • Jennifer Wilson April 15, 2012 at 9:13 pm #

              Yes, the least that can be done is that the path is made easier for victims when instead it is a dreadful struggle, often without much outcome.


  17. Hypocritophobe April 15, 2012 at 9:10 pm #


    “ALs thoughts.”

    AL =AJ


  18. AJ April 19, 2012 at 1:45 pm #

    I have contributed witness statements in a couple of cases prosecuting now known offenders…fortunately I wasnt a recipeint of any direct abuse myself but contributed this so any victimns had further evidence and leads should they need it. As the matters are nearly all sub judice it is inapprpriate and indeed almost impossible to provide web links or any other evidence and apologies for that. I was the product of a scientist father and a devout catholic mother who niavely erred in sending my older sibling and myself to a now notorious boarding school to keep up our education standards while my father held a senior overseas post on behalf of the Australian Government. Luckily although exposed to Catholicism all my life. my mother made the mistake of forgetting to put me through a couple of the formal ceremonies to my fathers later surprise and pleasure when he found this. (“So you are one of my side!”). I digress, but my original post which seemed to inflame a few, was posted to point out that there is a big difference between generalising a whole group because of the bad apples. This is flawed logic and that’s all I was asserting. A public outrage has indeed occurred all over the world, but you dont catch these people with protest marches!


    • Doug Quixote April 19, 2012 at 4:45 pm #

      AJ, You stated “several posters have erred on the generalisation that all Catholics are bad or evil or implicit supporters of child abuse.”

      I repeat my request that you name these “several posters” or apologise and withdraw the remark.


      • helvityni April 20, 2012 at 7:51 am #

        I know who AJ is,DQ, you’ll never get an apology from her.


        • Trevor Melksham April 22, 2012 at 11:43 am #

          I am happy to be counted as an evil generaliser and stand by my comments. Since this article on Pell, we have had Abbott come out defending the Church, with the implicit message of don’t blame the church for a few “bad apples”. It is consistent with the approach of trying to minimise the damage by painting the evil inflicted by the church as the acts of a few, when the opposite is true.

          Unless the Pope orders and ‘inquisition, and gets fair dinkum on addressing this issue, then Catholics who abhor what is happening have no choice but to renounce their Church and to cease being Catholic. To do otherwise is to countenance the actions of the pedo priests and the Chrusch’s pathetic response to them.

          Extreme? Yes. Generalist? Yes. So sad, too bad.


          • AJ April 26, 2012 at 10:59 am #

            Trevor, if you knew anything at all about Catholicism you would know that children are recruited at birth, innocently lead through the various stages of membership through childhood and teen years and that there is no way to renounce your Catholicism. Want to have another go?


            • Trevor Melksham April 28, 2012 at 9:59 am #

              Gee, Catholicism abuses children by socialising them in its pathetic doctrine? Sounds a lot like most other religions, dunnit?

              Of course you can renounce Catholicism, just like you can renounce belief in God, the Easter Bunny and other assorted fingments of the imagination. You can choose not to be a practicing Catholic.

              I know what you mean though. The Jews that converted to Catholicism after the routing of Islam from the Iberian Peninsula and remained catholics for hundreds of years were still persecuted by the Inquisition and denounced as Jews.


            • helvityni May 3, 2012 at 3:26 pm #

              AJ, of course you can renounce Catholism, hubby did at fifteen years of age. You come up with some odd ideas….well,each to their own…


  19. Hypocritophobe May 1, 2012 at 12:24 pm #

    More proof that Pell is wrong.
    The church “IS” culpable and willingly keeps paedophiles on the payroll,despite their guilt.
    In short,the Church itself is a willing accomplice in protecting offenders.(It makes conscience decisions to protect sex offenders, and keep them employed).It obviously accepts lies as evidence, or encourages denial or silence.When that fails, does it reach for the cheque book?


    The Victorian enquiry MUST be a Royal Commission,with the power to cross borders.
    Just look who this priest is mates with………


    • Jennifer Wilson May 1, 2012 at 2:01 pm #

      Oh, God, fresh from a Twitter fight with Joe Hildebrand. I need a lie down.


      • Hypocritophobe May 1, 2012 at 2:11 pm #

        When he is not kicking aboriginals he reverts to other footballs, like women.

        Looks like LNP leadership material to me.Clive probably slipped him a carton of Bundy and coke, to bag Gillard.
        Such a price would buy Hildebrands gob for eternity.

        “He ‘is’ effluent. Kimmy.”

        Remember the gutless pussy did a runner and hid from a girl in the obscene media setup he created at Alice Springs?
        Then hiding under a bed while his OWN crew and hotel staff protected his sad pink pimply butt.

        What a snake.


        • Jennifer Wilson May 1, 2012 at 6:31 pm #

          Did you read his piece at the Punch today?


          • Hypocritophobe May 1, 2012 at 6:42 pm #

            Only enough to avoid the smell penetrating my monitor and confirm he is just borrowing words from the rest of the Murdoch/ABC sheep.
            He then finishes with a ‘you can’t criticism me I’m on your side’, bullshit.

            Blue Ribbon Tosser.


  20. Hypocritophobe May 1, 2012 at 10:24 pm #

    It seems wilfully turning the other cheek is a tactic of the Catholic Church AND the Murdoch scumbags.
    How predictable.I’m glad they created a Hell to rot in.Goodness knows they put others through it on earth.



  21. M.E. In The 21st Century May 2, 2012 at 5:01 pm #

    I don’t so much mind the Cattlelicks’ employing the kiddiefiddlers…
    Just as long as they’re not around children.
    An inquisition sounds good…Whips n Chains to excite them.


  22. M.E. In The 21st Century May 2, 2012 at 5:04 pm #

    Tis good to see you back Hypo.

    Rupert was miffed when his mum stopped him taking over her money…and I bet she’s making him squirm now too.


  23. AJ May 3, 2012 at 9:19 am #

    A Question to the group. Person A meets and starts dating Person B who is a little more introverted. Person A “Saves (Important)” Person B but as reward wants to explore some exciting new options in life, Extreme Sports, New adventures and travelling to new countries off the mainstream. Person B is generally more bookish and quiet but complies as they have now moved in together as a couple. All is relatively well until Person A decides a nude beach would be something different. Person B says no, Person A asks and asks until Person B aquiesces. This advances to Person B becoming something of a sex slave to Person A who gets but doesnt give in return. Person A has more money, owns the house they share and tends to set the rules of how they socialise while Person B gets back on their feet financially with work, saving for a deposit etc. Clearly there is a power imbalance. Has Person A committed a crime anyone?


    • Hypocritophobe May 3, 2012 at 10:04 am #

      How old are these alphabetic people?


    • helvityni May 3, 2012 at 3:23 pm #

      Has Person A committed a crime anyone?
      I find this a weird question.


  24. M.E. In The 21st Century May 3, 2012 at 2:39 pm #

    As long as Person B is as happy with the relationship as Person A is…it’s fine.
    And it’s just possible that Person B has more power than you give him credit for.


  25. Hypocritophobe May 3, 2012 at 9:55 pm #

    Gee look!
    Georgey baby has an evil twin.



  26. Hypocritophobe May 28, 2012 at 5:20 pm #


    A pity this will be scuttled by the over-representation of Catholics within the walls of Parliament.Where’s a butler when you need one?


  27. Gus Ewart June 4, 2012 at 1:51 pm #

    Great post. I was checking continuously this blog and I am impressed! Very helpful information specifically the last part 🙂 I care for such info much. I was looking for this particular information for a very long time. Thank you and good luck.


  28. Hypocritophobe June 5, 2012 at 3:41 pm #

    Sheep go to heaven,nuns go to hell.



    • Julia June 5, 2012 at 8:51 pm #

      the ol men in dresses have been piss’n off the yankee nuns (who tend to wear slacks) for awhile now…this article is just the lastest thing in a string of “get-back-in-yer-place” measures ratzinger has dictated….they got in trouble for saying contraception is okay. Among other stuff.

      There’s gunna be a clash sooner or later.
      Maybe the womenfolk will get themselves excommunicated and go n start their own cattleick church.

      Bluestocking penguins….oy!


      • helvityni June 5, 2012 at 9:03 pm #

        Julia, what’s the difference between slacks and pants? I always think that slacks are made of Polyester, and have permanent creases…am I on the right track?
        I have a husband, who is ex-cattleick, that sounds almost Swedish…


        • Hypocritophobe June 5, 2012 at 9:35 pm #

          Unless you wish to be fried for eternity you must never mention the words slacks,or permanent creases when talking about ‘cattle-tick’ nuns (“nones”).

          Henceforth this rebellious rabble shalt be knowneth as the Frying Nuns, given where the butlers boss will direct them.

          And some people reckon the Scientology mob are nutters.


          • Julia June 5, 2012 at 10:44 pm #


            they are…UFO nutters…waiting for an alien to come save them…and charge inter-galactic ticket prices for seats on the ufo, installments encouraged while you wait..

            as oppsed to cattlelicks…they only charge galactic prices.(with the hidden black hole sucking the marks inexorably down)…do they still guarantee a place in Heaven … for a price?

            I wonder how well the papa will fare coming down hard on the sisterhood. Neither in the US & Canada nor in Oz…they are highly likely to tell him where to stick his ring???

            This could be interesting to watch unfold.



            • M.E. In The 21st Century June 5, 2012 at 10:59 pm #

              Frying Nuns…

              Convent of St Ronald.
              Vatican Maccas?
              Happy meals with toy rosary.

              you want fries with that?


          • helvityni June 6, 2012 at 8:32 am #

            Hypo, I hate ticks (and slacks), our Jack Russell almost died from 78 paralysis ticks…will never take him to Chichester (?)Dam area again…..


        • M.E. In The 21st Century June 6, 2012 at 1:14 am #

          that’s sort of how I think of slacks too…
          slacks are supposed to have the zipper on the side…sometimes at the back…whereas pants only zip or button up at the front.

          Only loose women wear pants…(some rubbish about front fasteners are easier for the boys to undo during bouts of uncontrollable rapacious lust)

          good girls wear slacks….the side zipper is designed to get stuck;…no bloody chance of nefarious deeds 😦 you just end up stood there, arms & head at awkward angles…struggling with stubborn fastenings….

          …..kinda stuffs up the spontaneous moment.


        • doug quixote June 6, 2012 at 6:37 am #

          Poor gerard! Here was I thinking the Dutch were Protestants, a (slightly) less weird sect than the cattlelicks for the most part.
          I ‘m glad he escaped.

          To Julia : where there’s a will there’s a way!


          • helvityni June 6, 2012 at 8:34 am #

            …maybe that’s why the zip-less leggings and jeggings are so popular now…


            • Hypocritophobe June 6, 2012 at 10:36 am #

              Dare I ask what is with jodhpurs,then?


            • helvityni June 6, 2012 at 11:16 am #

              Jodhpurs are a crossing of pants and leggings, you see lots of them here in Bowral, combined with Royal red jackets…I think they are for horse riders, plenty of horses here…


            • M.E. In The 21st Century June 6, 2012 at 5:37 pm #

              jodhpurs …punjabi pants with pockets large enuf 2 hide ur pet kitten in….hence the purrr…

              speaking of Royals and woman power…
              … I’ve thoroughly loved Great Aunt Lilibet’s party.
              all the boats and the planes and the uion jack umbrellas.

              Pagentry at it’s best…


            • Jennifer Wilson June 6, 2012 at 8:04 pm #

              I just had a discussion about leggings on Twitter. Apparently one should not wear them out of the house which is news to me.


            • doug quixote June 6, 2012 at 8:40 pm #

              Indeed Jennifer – rather like tights, they are an underwear item and not outerwear. Unless you are a Madonna clone from the 80s perhaps . . .


              • helvityni July 3, 2012 at 2:21 pm #

                C’mon DQ, everybody wears leggings, the young, the middle aged, the old and all the little toddler girls…
                It’s how and with what you wear with them that counts…it’s the combination that matters not one item of any kind 🙂


                • Jennifer Wilson July 3, 2012 at 2:57 pm #

                  We are not having the leggings debate again are we? I thought after we saw Gina Rinehart strut her stuff in leggings and high heels, the subject was closed forever.


                  • paul walter July 3, 2012 at 3:30 pm #

                    Hermann Goering?


                  • helvityni July 3, 2012 at 3:39 pm #

                    It’s the size that matters here, they don’t make them big enough to fit Gina…in the past they had a brand called Big is Beautiful, it went from14 to 16…. I think we now have a size 24…we need a fat tax, like in Denmark. Funnily enough they all look pretty slim over there, even before the fat tax .:)


                    • Jennifer Wilson July 3, 2012 at 3:44 pm #

                      What on earth is a fat tax, Helvi?


                    • hudsongodfrey July 3, 2012 at 4:23 pm #

                      That’s something Tony Abbott would be against right?

                      He’s always saying he doesn’t want a great big fat tax on everything 🙂


                    • helvityni July 3, 2012 at 4:24 pm #

                      A Tax on all foods containing fat, this makes fat-rich food items more expensive, we’ll not buy them,…we are going to be slim and rich….


                    • gerard oosterman July 3, 2012 at 4:31 pm #

                      The fat tax in Denmark pales to what Finland is doing. They just restrict giving approvals for unhealthy fast food outlets.
                      Tony Abbott likes free enterprise, including dying prematurely in leggings so tight, they finally stop the bloodflow around thighs and calves with the wearer expiring ever so sadly in the toilets of a Foodmall.


  29. Hypocritophobe June 23, 2012 at 3:49 pm #

    The sound of alarm bells in Australia,drowns out the ones in the steeple….



    • hudsongodfrey July 3, 2012 at 12:58 pm #

      Geez Hypo, we’re in sync again!


  30. hudsongodfrey July 3, 2012 at 12:57 pm #

    I just watched 4 Corners and flicked over to Bob’s Blog…


    Then I wrote this. I think it is probably an issue that needs revisiting.


    • helvityni July 3, 2012 at 2:11 pm #

      I read your post on Bob’s blog…looks like we were both in tears…. 🙂


  31. Hypocritophobe July 3, 2012 at 8:44 pm #

    It’s a convenient coincidence that stories like this

    seem to pop up around the same time the spotlight does on Catholic paedophilia.

    Purely accidental of course.I mean the ABC would have no devout Catholics controlling timing and content.

    I wonder if the journo covering this has any religious affiliation to declare?
    Let alone political ones.




  32. Hypocritophobe July 4, 2012 at 10:26 am #

    Anything short of a (National) Royal Commission will contribute to the entrenched covering up of these crimes.Pell must stand down immediately.Given his position, until all facts are known,acted on and made public, he is a more a player, than a mediator(Obviously).


    • hudsongodfrey July 4, 2012 at 11:08 am #

      A year ago I’d have said calls for a Royal Commission were excessive. That surely the well would run dry and that fewer cases would continue to be found. Well it isn’t happening and if anything the cover ups continue.

      I’ve said elsewhere that recourse to the law and to compensation through the courts is the best way, and it is also becoming clear that without a royal commission police and the courts lack the powers they need to investigate cases where complainants either don’t come forward or parties to the cover ups aren’t compelled to offer testimony. I don’t know what the term of reference or expectations around this ought to be but I think now that it is clear that we need to have some form of inquiry with the powers of a Royal Commission.


      • Hypocritophobe July 4, 2012 at 11:12 am #

        As I pointed out yesterday the distractions and deflections have begun to veer the spotlight elsewhere.
        Gillard will never call for an RC.That would bring her demise even closer.
        There is no doubt Catholic influence, a mile deep in Canberra,so victims are likely to continue to suffer.Ten fold.


        • hudsongodfrey July 4, 2012 at 12:03 pm #

          Then she could deflect more criticism and more good by setting wider terms of reference to deal with other churches where this has been known to occur as well,


          • Hypocritophobe July 4, 2012 at 12:48 pm #

            I’m sure her string pulling mates at the ACL may have a few objections to that.
            She (Labor) has ‘fleas’ of her/their own doing.
            I think if a National RC is not called shortly, the victims should find a good non religious QC and hit the High Court.


            • hudsongodfrey July 4, 2012 at 4:16 pm #

              In the meantime they’re digging a hole for themselves so deep that when all’s done and dusted we shall be able to hand them over to Satan personally!


  33. Julia July 4, 2012 at 2:21 pm #

    One thing was mentioned in the 4 Corners programme: the child rapist priest, Fr F, admitted in Court that he had been stood down as active priest in part because of raping boys. Nothing more was said about what the Court did with this admission.

    Was it reported to police for proper investigation and did they lay criminal charges? It doesn’t seem to have been. Was it followed up or not…and if not, why not?

    My impression was it was left up to the victim to pursue justice. No arrest, no charges, just an out of court settlement with the cattlelicks buying the victim’s silence with paltry amount of hush money.


    • Hypocritophobe July 4, 2012 at 2:28 pm #

      …….and can anyone really say, with any conviction, that the church does not have influence over people, even when they are performing their vocational roles,be they cops/lawyers/journos or anything else?
      If it did not influence judgement through loyalty, what purpose would religion serve? World peace?

      That is why the High Court may be a better way to go than ‘just’ a Royal Commission.
      And in the end aren’t all of our pollies/lawyers/judges,also locked in by way swearing on a bible?


  34. Hypocritophobe July 4, 2012 at 2:48 pm #

    And why has the ABC chosen to NOT to open up for comments here;?
    It is under the Drum banner.



  35. kindle fire review uk May 28, 2013 at 2:53 pm #

    Hello thankyou for the article post about this pc tablet, i could not make a
    decision if it had been worth buying one as i already possess a samsung note but
    you have made my mind up, i’m going to order the moment i can thank you again


  36. Now a sugar daddy can smell his sugar even when she’s not around. Why forgo the pursuit of passion just to make a few extra bucks when you can actually live out your dreams with a well-paid top dog who’s got a passion for making you
    happy. These relationships include both the sugar daddy and sugar baby being satisfied in ways that they
    never imagined possible in any other form of dating.


  37. meridia June 16, 2013 at 5:18 pm #

    Right now it seems like Drupal is the top blogging platform
    available right now. (from what I’ve read) Is that what you’re using
    on your blog?


  38. lifeforce herbal body wraps June 25, 2013 at 4:45 am #

    Wonderful beat ! I would like to apprentice while you amend your web site, how can i subscribe for a blog site?

    The account aided me a acceptable deal. I had been tiny bit acquainted of this your broadcast offered bright clear idea


  39. superman stamina July 20, 2013 at 9:34 am #

    Hi, yeah this paragraph is actually pleasant and I have learned lot of things from
    it regarding blogging. thanks.



  1. Suicides attributed to Catholic Priest Abuse – Debbie Carr.com - April 15, 2012

    […] Well, Cardinal Pell? (noplaceforsheep.com) Rate this: Share this:FacebookTwitterPrintDiggEmailRedditStumbleUponLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. Filed Under: Family and Parenting, Rants · Tagged: Catholic Church, Sexual abuse, suicide « How Gratitude for the simple things in life helps me deal with stress […]


  2. Jo Chandler, the Catholic Church, paedophile priests and the suicide of the mentally ill | Iain Hall's SANDPIT - April 18, 2012

    […] Well, Cardinal Pell? […]


  3. Abbott on Pell: “One of the greatest churchmen Australia has seen.” « No Place For Sheep - July 4, 2012

    […] Pell was himself accused of sexually molesting a child,as is discussed here in an 2008 interview conducted by ABC journalist Ali Moore with former priest and now commentator Dr Paul Collins. Reading this 2008 interview I was struck by the similarities. Four years later, Cardinal Pell does not seem to have changed his perspective, in spite of more ghastly revelations about the behaviours of his priests, and the number of suicides thought to be related to sexual abuse. […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: