Cardinal spin

14 Nov

Happier times: Abbott & Pell breaking bread

In his press conference yesterday, Catholic Archbishop of Sydney Cardinal George Pell gave a compelling display of belligerent bafflement as he wrangled with reality to spin his institution’s appalling record of child sexual abuse as a smear campaign by the media against the church.

It is all an exaggeration, the Cardinal protested, a breathtakingly disingenuous stance given the church’s record in the Hunter Valley alone, which goes something like this: Β Four hundred known victims. Eleven clergy tried and convicted since 1995. Six Catholic teachers convicted since 1995. Three priests currently on trial. First priest charged this year with concealing the crimes of another. Twelve priests involved in compensation claims.Β 

As the conference progressed it became increasingly clear that a significant reason Β for Pell supporting the proposed Royal Commission is because he believes it will exonerate the church by proving its clergy are no worse than any other institution’s employees when it comes to sexually assaulting children. “We are not the only cab on the rank,” the Cardinal huffily claimed, and went on to demand that the police check their stats and tell us just how many of the total complaints of child sexual abuse received are made against the Catholic church, because that’s the only way the church will get any justice and by gods, the church deserves justice, for the church has been persecuted.

It is an indication of the morally parlous state the Catholic church is in, if George Pell is its most senior member, and the best spokesperson they can come up with. The man obviously has no grasp of the magnitude of the problem and is blinded by his loyalty not to his god, but to his institution. If ever there was a time a bloke should ask himself what would Jesus say, this is it for the Cardinal.

Just what the Royal Commission will achieve is an unknown, however what the promise of a commission has already achieved is validation of the suffering of survivors of institutional childhood sexual abuse. The offences against them are being acknowledged as serious enough to warrant outrage, and there is overwhelming support for a public accounting.

There is another group of survivors, of whom I am one, who are the victims of sexual abuse perpetrated by family, friends and acquaintances. For many of us there is no hope of justice, and we have had to learn to live with this reality. I am deeply relieved that institutional sexual abuse is finally receiving the scrutiny it deserves, because my life experience is also validated by this acknowledgement, even though my story can’t be told within a commission’s terms of reference, and the perpetrator and his enablers can’t be held accountable. I want to see a profound cultural change in attitudes towards the sexual abuse of children, and I believe we are on the way at last. This is grounds enough for rejoicing.

If the Australian Catholic church wants to get on board with this change, they first need to get rid of George Pell as their leader. His sickening whining is a disgrace. Pell is yet another example of the angry ageing Anglo male who just doesn’t get it. Like the rest of his ilk, he’s a boil on the arse of progress.

131 Responses to “Cardinal spin”

  1. Ray (novelactivist) November 14, 2012 at 7:32 am #

    I expect Pell to be recalled to Rome so he doesn’t have to testify, as much as I would like to see him squirm.

    I was listening to a former priest blame celibacy. That may be part of the reason but I tend to think the reason paedophiles were attracted to the church was because of the climate of secrecy. The church didn’t want people to talk about sex, or know much about it. What better environment than one where people didn’t want to talk about sex, were so shamed they would rather sweep it under the carpet. An environment full of naive children taught not to talk about sex – perfect.


    • Hypocritophobe November 14, 2012 at 10:43 am #

      That and the power of the position,the power to demand,the power to silence,the power to mesmerise etc.
      And the voyeurism of the confessional.It is a cult.And has become an incubator of harm.
      Some(possibly most,conceivably all) of these paedophile priests probably used gods name to get their rocks off with children.There is no getting past that.The maths,evidence,witnesses,honest cops etc, says there are more cases of child sexual abuse within the Catholic church.Period.
      No smear,just numbers.Too many large numbers.
      The ToR are too big.The time frame will be too long.


  2. doug quixote November 14, 2012 at 8:06 am #

    George is still well on the way to becoming Pope Superbus* I ; a little thing like covering up child molestation has traditionally rarely harmed a priest’s career in the past, and the RC Church is nothing if not traditional.

    (* superbus : Latin for proud, arrogant)


  3. Team Oyeniyi November 14, 2012 at 8:07 am #

    Great work! That is all. πŸ™‚


    • hudsongodfrey November 14, 2012 at 10:08 am #

      It’s a worry when the best indicator of how this might affect Pell’s standing in the church may well be the guy that they actually chose as their Pope!

      I’ve often said before that the problem with their doctrinal approach to sin is that its appeals to punishment in the purported afterlife have a way of conveniently failing to deal properly with the consequences in this one.

      It is almost as if what Pell wants to question are the limits of our tolerance for the churches’ culture of forgiveness for transgressions we’re not satisfied that done adequate penance for. Thus to create a persecution narrative premised on the notion that we’re too unforgiving.

      I think the only way to avoid this is to keep the focus of our ire and our doubts where they belong, with the victims and potential future ones should this not be taken out of their hands and dealt with as the crime that it is.


    • annodyne November 14, 2012 at 10:26 am #

      so eloquently articulated JW, right to the very end.
      “I’m not the only one” is the Most Pathetic Excuse.
      But of course it is true, and a True Christian would be leading the charge to eliminate this crime everywhere.
      The image here is sickening me. I can sense the waves of adoration in Abbott’s gaze on his cardinal, both so elegantly dining and damn all the poor women (through all history and geography) trying to feed the 14 children they had being good catholics.


      • Ray (novelactivist) November 14, 2012 at 11:30 am #

        Before you start talking about ‘true Christians’ you should look into the history of how Christianity has treated children. It is a dismal tale. Suffer the little children indeed.


        • Ray (novelactivist) November 14, 2012 at 12:05 pm #

          Look at the doctrine of original sin which argued that children were naturally sinful. Many Christians thought that it was necessary to discipline children harshly (spare the rod…). So even if they set up orphanages, they were often cruel, loveless places. The doctrine of original sin also meant that it was believed children were naturally sexual and promiscuous and could lead adults astray. It also created a belief that sexual abuse could not affect a child until they had reached the age of reason and could understand sexual sin, confess and be absolved.

          It wasn’t until the Enlightenment and Rousseau’s idea of childhood innocence, that attitudes started to change. This was a secular shift. The various child reform movements of the 19th century were the result of the Enlightenment, even when some of the reformers were Christian.

          The idea that Christians would not tolerate child abuse is a nice story modern Christians like to tell themselves. It just ain’t true.


          • Hypocritophobe November 14, 2012 at 12:22 pm #

            You only have to look at cultures crushed and destroyed by missionary their rush to lay the foundations of the slavery and pillaging of assets which always follows.Calm them down(brain wash with the fear of god) and then take everything of value from them.Reprogram the children (indoctrinate) them as future fodder for either the industries who moved in or the religion themselves.
            Western religion is built on predation in one form or another.Spiritual,emotional,psychological hunters and gatherers.
            (The parishioners ARE a flock after all.)
            Lobotomy by book.
            And the audacity to infer that ‘our immense amount of good work cancels out the odd evil bits’.Ha.


            • FatFreddy November 14, 2012 at 9:40 pm #

              So true!
              The Catholic Church has caused untold damage to the people of this planet for the past 2000 years.
              Spanish inquisition comes to mind……. maybe it is time for the Church to taste a bit of it’s own medicine.


              • Hypocritophobe November 14, 2012 at 10:05 pm #

                I doubt the perpetrators and their support network (within whatever institution), have the depth of character to think of anyone but themselves(each other).
                If this RCom gets it right,the long running party could finally be over.
                However, there are still many reasons to be apprehensive about any perceived outcomes.The ToR are too broad IMO.
                However, I don’t think anyone in either major party in Canberra was brave enough to narrow them down.There are too many connections.Party politicians these days always vote with whatever ensures self survival.

                I wonder what Keating would do(have done?)


              • hudsongodfrey November 14, 2012 at 10:12 pm #

                Contrary to Monty Python’s trope, this might well have been the one time and place where we did expect the Spanish Inquisition to get an airing!

                Maybe I wouldn’t mind breaking a couple of them on the wheel, for old time’s sake…., but honestly its very unlikely that giving them justification for playing the persecution card would serve the interests of their victims. I think doing that is so much more important.

                But here’s the real rub for us non-believers. If the church is wrong and there really is no god then the only ones to blame for any of humanity’s great atrocities are other mere humans like ourselves. On a secular view the main prerogative is to recognise our mistakes and correct them.


          • Poirot November 14, 2012 at 1:56 pm #

            It’s fascinating reading documents and narratives from the time of the Industrial Revolution. We know this was a time of change where the peasantry, and children in particular, were exploited so cruelly. Industrial entrepreneurs of the time – those who, no doubt, parked their behinds so righteously on the front pews in church every Sunday – happily procured orphans from city workhouses where they were exploited, beaten and starved in the factories, mines and mills of the time. While slavery was being attacked by Christian reformers, children were still being exploited by the higher echelons of society who fought tooth and nail against government reforms for women and children.

            Let’s hope this commission has teeth – it’s up to us to be unrelenting in our vigilance.


            • Ray (novelactivist) November 14, 2012 at 2:14 pm #

              The Christian churches supported the feudal system in which children were made serfs and forced to work. The child labour of the Industrial revolution was just an extension of those feudal attitudes.

              If the Christianity’s teaching on children was clear we should have expected to see the results when they gained power in the former Roman empire.

              The reform of child labour laws only happened after the Enlightenment as a result of the concept of human rights.


              • Poirot November 14, 2012 at 2:47 pm #

                We have to take into account that “working” in the feudal sense was learning and doing the “work” from the adults, emulating them, etc. “Childhood was more of an idea of ‘infancy’ followed by coming to an age where one was instructed in ones duties or trade. It was a totally different paradigm to our industrialised idea of “childhood”. Much of this work was cottage industry, which didn’t translate well into an industrial setting.

                So I agree that child labour at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution was indeed an extension of feudal attitudes – and was a complete disaster for the physical and mental welfare of all workers – especially children.

                My point was, Ray, that the presiding religious attitude of the time was one where it was most convenient to turn a blind eye to the
                cruelties…nothing changes without agitation when it
                comes to power structures.


                • Ray (novelactivist) November 14, 2012 at 4:02 pm #

                  Not only to turn a blind eye, but to actively participate. The church was one of the largest feudal landlords of all. It profited from children working as agricultural labourers in appalling conditions as serfs/slaves.

                  Yes, if you were lucky you might learn a trade. As for girls – the church happily married them off at age 12, some times even younger. Ersamus reported visiting France and witnessing girls as young as 10 been married in church.


          • hudsongodfrey November 14, 2012 at 2:16 pm #

            I think you’re right about the History, but I hope you’re wrong about the present. Seems to me that if I’m intellectually honest in what I’ve said about the levels of support, that regardless of the way the bishops have behaved a heck of a lot of their flock want the RC as much as we do because it’s in their own interests.


    • Team Oyeniyi November 14, 2012 at 10:55 am #

      Jen, feel free to delete this if you like, but I am still mulling over the possible connection between the treatment of women by religions and the abuse of children. I’m not a psychologist and can’t quite put my finger on it, but it is a thought that keeps bugging me.


      • Ray (novelactivist) November 14, 2012 at 11:25 am #

        Hi TO,

        I don’t know why you are still mulling over this issue. There is a clear connection. πŸ™‚


        • Team Oyeniyi November 14, 2012 at 12:29 pm #

          Mulling over how to word it, I guess is closer to the mark. I know it is there, but can’t document it! πŸ™‚


        • hudsongodfrey November 14, 2012 at 1:03 pm #

          Agreed. I was reading in the ABC’s R&E section the article by former Bishop Geoffrey Robinson, listing pretty much all the things that the church should’ve, would’ve or could’ve done to address this already. Not least among them is the need to bring women’s role to the fore.

          A non-believer like myself can only state that if we’re going to have organised religion then like any other social institution we’d like to think there’d be a time when we could positively embrace it. Men like myself these days identify as supporters of feminism, and nor would gay marriage be so high on the political agenda if so many straight people didn’t support gays despite not being members of that minority. I guess it could happen for the churches and might well do if women featured more strongly in their ideology. There’s a kind of inevitable intellectual honesty in saying that any such improvement has to be better than the kind of abuse and concealment we’ve been confronted with up until now.


          • Ray (novelactivist) November 14, 2012 at 2:07 pm #

            The only way they could have avoided it is by changing their teaching on sexuality completely.


            • hudsongodfrey November 14, 2012 at 2:18 pm #

              Absolutely agreed.


  4. graham woodruffe November 14, 2012 at 2:06 pm #

    One cannot choose to not be a pedophile, like sexual orientation, or a myriad of different fetishes, bestiality, zoophilla, their brain is wired that way. None of these is something people really choose, they can’t help how they are sexualy aroused and feel about these things, the same goes for pedophiles, therefore sending sex offenders to jail will do nothing to help the sex offender, what they need is support and understanding, which is what I aim to do at Range Court in Mullaloo with my support group called Second Chance. Remember: Condemn no one. If you can stretch out a helping hand, do so. If you cannot, fold your hands, bless your brothers, and let them go their own way.


    • Ray (novelactivist) November 14, 2012 at 2:09 pm #

      But you can choose whether or not to offend.


    • hudsongodfrey November 14, 2012 at 3:05 pm #

      I agree with Ray here, and although I was going to draw the comparison with otherwise normal heterosexual men who rape women needing to own the fact that rape is wrong I’m not really sure we can be confident in characterising these things as determined by sexual orientation alone.

      I concede it is a tempting for paedophiles to conclude that their problem stems from “sexual orientation”, since society permits no outlet for expressions of sexual desire towards children, but it should also be remembered that sexual desire for women is often regarded as being in the background to the psychological causes of rape.

      The choice not to offend is the important thing, and maybe the only one we can be quite sure of. The characterisation of a sexual “orientation”, or desire as opposed to that of the commission of a crime is a distinction that I think you’re failing to make here. The crime happens and is deemed to be criminal because children are violated without their consent.


      • Ray (novelactivist) November 14, 2012 at 4:05 pm #

        The evidence for it being an orientation is slender. It is not like being born same sex attracted. It is more like being born with a genetic disposition to being a psychopath.


        • Ray (novelactivist) November 14, 2012 at 4:11 pm #

          Meaning an inability to empathise with the victim.


        • hudsongodfrey November 14, 2012 at 4:36 pm #

          Yeah that’s part of what I was thinking too, but it makes it even harder to know what to say to somebody trying to help offenders. Though clearly because all psychopaths don’t child abuse there’s something peculiar to paedophiles that separates them from the kind that just end up running governments and major corporations.


          • Hypocritophobe November 14, 2012 at 5:28 pm #

            Going to have to go with you guys on this.I think it is ‘likely’ closer to a ‘choice’ or ‘preference’ or ‘fetish’, than orientation.Or possibly a psychopathic condition?
            Ans as such a lot of what Graham says is totally contradictory and possibly viewed by some as a dangerous position to take.
            I am not convinced.


            • Ray (novelactivist) November 14, 2012 at 5:47 pm #

              I should hasten to add that much sexual abuse is perpetrated by non-paedophile adults. This is an act of opportunity and might be done for many reasons (curiosity, simple availability, lack of impulse control). In some cases the offending adult doesn’t understand the consequences for the child and may genuinely think it is harmless. After all, the psychology of trauma is a specialist field.

              But then there are those adults who cannot empathise and simply don’t care what the child thinks.

              Not all paedophiles offend, but of course, if they don’t offend there is no legal problem. Some of these people may have a genetic predisposition, but as far as I’m aware it is a brain malfunction where the normal impulse to care for children stimulates the centres that govern sexual arousal.

              I would imagine that offending priests would fit all of these categories.

              It is the church’s ignorance of these issues that is inexcusable. There is no excuse for it.


              • Hypocritophobe November 14, 2012 at 6:00 pm #

                That may be true,but what the victims (of this alleged child sex abuse epidemic) are telling us is this appears to be pure serial generational predation.
                I think there needs to be a whole new category for these types of crimes.
                Including the aiding and abetting component.


    • doug quixote November 14, 2012 at 6:48 pm #

      You must be joking.

      The pedophile destroys lives other than his own. Putting them in gaol will not help the offender, but it will certainly save his victims. They may number in the hundreds.

      Suggest you look at yourself in the mirror, graham woodruffe, as you contemplate just how many lives are ruined by just one pedophile.


      • Hypocritophobe November 14, 2012 at 6:58 pm #

        Perhaps it’s a troll, (again.)
        I did a google with that name.



    • Someone Who Knows The Truth About Internet Scum November 18, 2012 at 7:55 pm #



      • Hypocritophobe November 18, 2012 at 9:01 pm #

        In that case report the incident as well as any others you are aware of.


      • Anonymous November 19, 2012 at 2:49 pm #


      • Shut It December 11, 2012 at 2:56 pm #


        Calm down love before you have a brain aneurysm πŸ˜₯
        you sound like another πŸ‘Ώ 😈 cyber nut,
        and stop SHOUTING, everybody is deaf & nobody is listening to you πŸ˜† πŸ˜† πŸ˜†


    • DF November 19, 2012 at 2:01 pm #

      JUST DO IT if he wont do it she just do it for him otherwise it wont stop EVER


    • paul walter November 20, 2012 at 4:13 am #

      graham woodruffe, the issue is not just about paedophilia itself so much as the authorities involved with various institutions. If you are trying to start a self help group for people subject to feelings many others would consider unhelpful and anti social, I’d be surprised if any here would find it necessary to criticise you and many would suggest it’s true, that rehabilitation has lagged behind punishment and deterrence.
      Yet any move to lessen what the public considers adequate discouragement through hard penalties, won’t, perhaps can’t, happen without some sense that offenders are responding to alternative therapy.
      and their families have been hurt in these adult antics, hence these become crimes since they are not victimless.
      Is there anything else people can do, short of retaliatory reaction from individuals or society, when people actually are harmed?
      Ray suggests one can refuse to offend. Maybe that is simplistic and misunderstands the power of some impulses and addictions.
      But, sad though you may feel for the drunk hauled off to jail for six months for momentarily buckling to a powerful addiction, you cant ignore it and the same with kiddie-fiddling if any condoning adds to the risk of harm to innocents abroad


  5. Hypocritophobe November 14, 2012 at 5:53 pm #

    Does anybody know whether the industry making cash from kids has spoken publicly about the RCom, or whether they have tweeted there support, since it was announced.
    Now you would seriously think if the kids were paramount over the cash the web would be glowing red by now.
    Is it?

    No comment on the MTR site.

    Nothing from Julie Gale by the looks of it.

    Kudos to Hetty Johnston

    The rest are obviously just quietly warming seats .
    They seem more interested in choosing suitable Christmas gifts and banning annoying adverts, than speaking out against church paedophilia.

    Why would that be?

    Some advocates.


    • Ray (novelactivist) November 14, 2012 at 6:26 pm #

      Hetty is an idiot.

      A Royal Commission has the power to force people to give evidence and the destruction of evidence would very likely have serious consequences.

      This is the same idiot who thought Bill Henson had probably produced child pornography.

      This is the same idiot who has argued that any image of a naked or semi-naked child should be deemed automatically obscene in law, and that there should be no defence of artistic merit.

      Hetty is an hysterical zealot. There is NO chance of Roxon proposing retrospective legislation. It seems Hetty has lost the plot.


      • Hypocritophobe November 14, 2012 at 6:43 pm #

        I’ll take your word for it Ray,but I reckon if someone is going down big time,I doubt the threat on an extra pittance of porridge, served concurrently,would scare them away from the big green button on the shredding machine.
        Let’s not think for a minute that all evidence is neatly laying around waiting for the RCom.
        I’d say the horses have been spooked many times over.Whirrrr whirrrrrrr!
        Most of the evidence is likely to be ‘not’ in paper form,by now-supposing it ever was.
        Which is, in fact, a very good point.
        If it turns out as it looks,that there is or was an epidemic of child sex abuse, and church employees knew,why ISN’T there any documentation?
        If as Pell says, this is ‘just the odd individual’ case, then what of the large amount of people coming forward?
        It must be significant if it has caused them to write a whole set of protocols.
        So his church should have reams of info on these offences.

        Johnston gets my kudos for speaking out at least.(Where are the other mouth pieces? The so called ‘children’s advocates?)
        That does not mean I have joined Hetty’s fan club,by a long shot.


        • doug quixote November 14, 2012 at 6:54 pm #

          The evidence will be that ten, twenty or one hundred people will testify to how they were interfered with by each priest, scoutmaster or “youth group coordinator” who is in the dock.

          Documents will hardly come into it.


          • Hypocritophobe November 14, 2012 at 7:03 pm #

            We should all hope that the numbers are at the lower end,for the victims sakes, but only time will tell.


          • hudsongodfrey November 14, 2012 at 8:21 pm #

            Doug, again I’m not sure your characterisation of a Royal Commission is an entirely accurate one. I know there is a dock at a criminal trial, but my understanding of an RC is quite different. It’s testimony as you mentioned, but without the element of a defendant being required to face their accusers.


            • Hypocritophobe November 14, 2012 at 9:05 pm #

              You know HG is says a lot that if Pell were even a mere AFL coach he would be long gone now.
              If he were a player wearing or selling smutty T Shirt the BACWAs would be crucifying and petitioning him across the weboverse relentlessly.
              But he’s not.The buck stops with him on this issue and yet he stills appears struck with denial.
              As for the BACWAs
              I can only draw one conclusion as to why those who ‘should’ speak out have chosen not to.Hardly a peep.
              That is another (very profound) reason why these people should NEVER have a seat at the table negotiating laws on the communities behalf.In the end they speak for claques,cults,gangs and individuals who form more of the problem,than that of any solution. These are the lobbyists who stand by the institutions which are now under the spotlight.No wonder they scamper behind lawyers when the focus zooms in on their religious connections.
              Could they be classed as hypocritical shadowy opportunists,indirectly defending the indefensible by turning away from the victims they claim to represent.
              Or just incredibly loyal subjects?
              Or both?


              • hudsongodfrey November 14, 2012 at 9:29 pm #

                Well I’d like to think he’d see that the writing is on the wall and step down over this. Maybe it’s taking a while to sink in.

                I think that if the recent Police revelations are true, and I very much suspect that they are, then I can’t see how he and maybe a few others could possibly maintain what the CIA used to like to call “Plausible Deniability”.


            • doug quixote November 14, 2012 at 9:12 pm #

              Speaking generally HG, not necessarily about the Royal Commission.

              Documents will be important in the context of investigating the internal procedures of the RC Church, if that falls within the Commission’s terms of reference.

              But when it comes to prosecutions, real genuine prosecutions, the evidence will be that of the victims.

              Sorry if I have muddied the waters.


              • hudsongodfrey November 14, 2012 at 9:32 pm #

                Thanks Doug, I think it’s always good to be clear and I agree there will be prosecutions arising out of the RC if it is to be anything like a worthwhile exercise.


        • paul walter November 20, 2012 at 4:42 am #

          Ray, I’d agree with you that Hetty and some like her are zealots at worst, but we can’t dismiss the idea that they are also well motivated, as well as reacting to possible misfortunes of their own lives that inform their attitude to certain types of activities that could be risky for kids.
          She can speak if she wants and it’s up to others what they make of her comments.
          Just sayin’.
          Poirot was right to suggest that the behaviour of humans towards humans seems to have had its dark side throughout history, so Hetty and co will continue to be alarmed and Ray will continue to say that parts of the world are more civilised now and draconian censorship and law and order are not applicable in our sort of society, a change is gradually appearing.
          Perhaps change will come very slowly, but short of putting the entire society locked up, there is going to come a stage where people will say no, even if it does reduce the number of evil thoughts emanating from we, the confined, which is just about all of us, on one risky self indulgence or another.


      • hudsongodfrey November 14, 2012 at 8:33 pm #

        Agreed again Ray, the only element of anything retrospective that might come up is the introduction, as elsewhere, of provisions failure to report cases of abuse to police to be instituted to come into force after the Royal Commission.


    • Forrest Gumpp (@ForrestGumpp) November 19, 2012 at 7:32 am #


      I don’t know whether this post is in any way an answer to your question, but I feel paragraph three of the linked item, within its context, should be up on the stateless ovine radar. Do you think that there may be any specific person around whom that recommendation may have been intended to have been written up?

      Paragraph three of that news item reads:

      “One of its key suggestions is to set up
      a “Children’s e-Safety Commissioner” or
      similar body to coordinate “a national
      response to online safety”.”


      • Hypocritophobe November 19, 2012 at 10:50 am #

        Which particular question(of mine) are you referring to FG?

        What I read into the 3rd paragraph is an alternative to Labor’s internet censorship.
        And probably a ‘job for the boys’ scenario, as well.
        Some might say there are plenty of ‘rabid opportunistic bints’ who fit the bill, perfectly.Perhaps too much choice?

        Parents should be the first cab off the rank when it comes to child safety.I mean, look what happened when the rank went ‘freestyle’. Besides there are police who deal with cyber crime etc; watching this ‘child damaging’ stuff, and reporting of content is also ongoing.
        More big brother IMO.
        I think it hypocritical of any political party to want to remove content based on a decision by a politically appointed judge and jury, while sitting on their hands (intergenerationally) about actual child harm,and not having the newly proposed RCom completed in full.
        (I have said it before-above somewhere.We have mouthpieces running around rabbiting on about potential harm,and projecting problems which don’t exist, but who are quite happy to STFU when it comes to decrying the Catholic church, and to a lesser degree, other RCom targets.An eerie silence surrounds them on this)
        It appears that child safety is suddenly now an issue to the coalition.Why then didn’t Howard and Abbott (Pells peer and fellow Catholic) support the Anglican Archbishop Aspinall when he recommended a full enquiry into child abuse?
        Why do nothing for so long?
        Why NOT even BROACH the issue.
        I guess for the same reason Howard treated the First Australians like (insert lower life form here), and then (post his electoral obliteration) crapped on about how his greatest regret was ‘not doing more to further the cause of reconciliation’.
        All you need to read into the article FG is political opportunism,nanny state,faux concern and Nepotism.
        Ergo-Canberra, business as usual.
        The irony and possible thorn for the coalition,is that should they get their way,appointing a commissioner is going to be ultra-difficult.
        The person will need to be three steps removed from any religious affiliation, to have any credibility or independence. That would include the persons peers and network of friends allies and contacts.The last thing they want to be seen doing (given there is a 95% community approval for the guts,of the current RCom) is putting a fox (or the fox’s own flesh and blood) in charge of the chicken pen.
        Given the failure of bridging the gap, and any other interventionist strategy so far, (especially the politically right versions)this concept is just word blancmange ala Sir Humphrey.
        One way or t’other the life forms in Canberra want to stifle free speech without actually saying it out loud.
        I think if the likes of Alan Jones can peddle his destructive wares freely , as long as we can get a single lawyer to cry “precedent’, we (Australia) have some hope or retaining a level of dignity and/or credibility.
        Rant over.


        • Forrest Gumpp (@ForrestGumpp) November 19, 2012 at 11:59 am #


          The specific question was:

          “Does anybody know whether the industry making cash from kids has spoken publicly about the RCom, …”

          I just thought the silence may have indicated a change in tack, maybe even a vested interest.


          • Hypocritophobe November 19, 2012 at 12:39 pm #

            Aha,that Q.
            Well I had a look at the usual suspects sites before I posed the question.
            The silence on institutionalised abuse was uncanny, as is/was their failure to publicly lobby in support of the RCom.

            (If they have gibbered flaccidly, post my search, I’d say the horse has bolted and input at such a late stage merely qualifies as DAMAGE CONTROL.)
            So unless since then,they HAVE spoken up,I think vested interest is exquisitely possible(as close to probable as is feasible?)

            To remain SO silent SO long,negates their claim to be ‘for’ children,in any way shape or form.
            So in answer to your(my) question,these types would make IDEAL children advocates, according to the current oppositions ‘lofty’ standards.


  6. Julia November 14, 2012 at 7:45 pm #

    So Pell pretends to believe it’s all just exaggeration & persecution by MSM (who have actually played down the child rape plague).

    And he would have us believe he knows nothing of the appalling findings by the Irish Commission, the thousands of cases, the cover-ups, the protecting priests, the active obstruction not only by the Irish church but by the Vatican (inc the Pope himself) where evidence, files, reports, etc were taken out of Ireland, along with the pervert priests, out of the Commission’s reach.

    And the similar story in Oklahoma…plus the Jesuit order declaring bankruptsy so they wouldn’t have to pay the millions of $$$ in compo to their victims.

    If Pell sicerely believe this is all just media beat-up then he has no business being a priest, let alone dirty old cardinal.


    • Julia November 14, 2012 at 7:47 pm #

      oops…sorry for the tangled typing.

      * sincerely believes.

      Pell, Birds of a Feather Flock Together.


    • helvityni November 15, 2012 at 8:58 am #

      I ask, why is it that the poor Ireland could undertake this costly Royal Commission, and only now, Australia, a much wealthier country is starting to think about it.
      Better late than never, but I still think it’s weird that the previous Coalition Governments did not see a need to do anything about this hideous issue..


      • doug quixote November 15, 2012 at 6:31 pm #

        For a start there are more priests to the square inch in Ireland, Helvi.

        I don’t think we want to start a blame game, about who should have acted earlier and when . . . Muhammad “married” Aysha when she was 9 years old.

        A can of worms.


  7. Hypocritophobe November 14, 2012 at 8:18 pm #

    Speaking of spin.

    Now we know EXACTLY why Hillary dropped in.

    Monitoring space junk?
    Sure thing.
    File it under;crock of military shit, or Another target for terrorists, or thin edge of the wedge.We are still Americas suppository.(Right up their arse)


  8. Hypocritophobe November 15, 2012 at 12:23 am #

    And the chaser nails it agiain.

    And I think it’s time for the Cardinal to go walkies…


  9. Hypocritophobe November 15, 2012 at 12:49 pm #

    Which western religion demands control over women’s bodies?

    Tragic and totally unnecessary and absolutely unacceptable.


  10. doug quixote November 15, 2012 at 6:21 pm #

    I notice references to the Spanish Inquisition. Torture may not work in terms of giving genuine results, but it must be somewhat satisfying to the former victims. πŸ™‚

    Pell on the rack – he’d be even taller . . . but no more credible.


    • Ron Savage November 16, 2012 at 9:47 am #

      Don’t forget Pell’s only qualification for appointment was to be able to turn a blind eye with unremitting ruthlessness.


  11. Sam Jandwich November 16, 2012 at 11:49 am #

    Sorry to come in late…enjoying some much-needed time off.

    But my take on all this is that the announcement of a royal commission is one of the most positive developments that could possibly occur at the moment. I liked something Hudson said in the comments on the last article: “I’m persuaded that justice has a civilising influence on societies that are willing to embrace it.”

    And I agree – this looks like it could be a significant first step towards highlighting and preventing child abuse elsewhere. I hear there are already calls being made to widen the RC’s scope to other areas, and that it’s envisaged it might end up running for many years. It just seems to me that, were you to look into the genealogy of child sexual abuse, the trauma that has been caused, and the effects of this trauma on society, I think you’d find that it has been a pervasive element of just about all cultures from time immemorial. So there’ll never be a bad time to start acknowledging this.

    But I think the millstone thing has a lot of relevance here too. Yes all very well to cast perpetrators into the sea attached to such objects, but millstones are expensive, and take a long time to produce. Perhaps in situations such as this where the demand for them explodes society simply baulks at the sheer amount of work involved.


    • helvityni November 16, 2012 at 12:07 pm #

      Sadly we dont always get justice, we get law.


      • Hypocritophobe November 16, 2012 at 1:18 pm #

        ……..and lawyers,litigation and loopholes….


        • samjandwich November 16, 2012 at 5:36 pm #

          Welllllllll I don’t know. These things often seem to take on a life of their own once underway. Read the senate committee inquiries into the Stolen Generation, Forgotten Australians, Little Children are Sacred etc etc. Different forum admittedly, but when public submissions are invited on topics like this they are often so powerful that they pummel anything lawyers can say into insignificance.


          • Hypocritophobe November 16, 2012 at 7:28 pm #

            I think you underestimate the legal clout the RC church is likely to muster to protect the brand.It would be nice to think they (church) would just automatically do the right thing.But from lessons learnt so far, is that in their DNA?
            When you think about the smears thrown at indigenous men to justify the intervention,it’s hard to see why the feds took so long to act accordingly on this current situation heading for a RCom.And that applies to both camps.Why have we not had a similar intervention on the Catholic church if child safety is paramount to our elected leaders? Could it be because the church said ‘it’s all OK now, we have printed a how to booklet’ ?Could it be the old patronising ‘we know best scenario?Or something more primal?
            As always, I seriously hope for the best outcome, going forward,but I think we all need to brace for some level of disappointment,if not resistance in certain quarters.And regrettably there is always the ‘I don’t recall’,precedent, sadly already set (well worn) by politicians and businessmen world wide, up for grabs.
            As we know,it appears some lawyers consider it a badge of honour, and a nice little CV addition, to represent the lowest forms of life, and some even crack champers with them when a not guilty verdict falls.

            “Lawyers, a necessary evil.” ……….I think that has a few meanings.


            • doug quixote November 16, 2012 at 8:58 pm #

              And sometimes, just sometimes, the lowest forms of life are actually innocent.

              Will you save them from the mob? Or from an overzealous police force?

              Do not be too quick to condemn.


              • Hypocritophobe November 16, 2012 at 9:16 pm #

                “And sometimes, just sometimes, the lowest forms of life are actually innocent.”
                Yes,quite so,DQ.
                Sometimes they’re not.
                Overzealous police force?
                There’s another kind?

                Our politicians aren’t too concerned,or they would not have first year cops armed to the teeth for every second of the working hour on our streets.
                That genie is well and truly out of the bottle, especially for socio economic group.
                I’ll stop there, lest I again cop the idealist rebuttal again.
                It’s quite selfish of me to expect so much from those who are voted in to ensure that police PROTECT and serve, all of us, without fear or favour.Gotta kick that habit.

                Yeah,yeah,I know they do a great job under difficult circumstances, etc etc
                BTW, DQ Take a look to the west and look at the newly proposed laws.Designed, no doubt, by lawyers to fit the populist bill.


                • Hypocritophobe November 16, 2012 at 9:18 pm #

                  “especially for SOME socio economic groupS.


                  • Sam Jandwich November 17, 2012 at 8:08 am #

                    I’ll admit I’m optimistic to a fault. One day I hope to see chickens on the moon!

                    But it seems to me that Roay Commisions probably function somewhat differently to the courts, and if those at their head feel as though they’re not getting the whole story from the lawyers, they can just tell them to shut up, and find someone else to give an alternative viewpoint.

                    I guess what I’m more realistic about is that, once these things are all over there’s a tendency for them to be forgotten by the very people towards whom they are targeted. That’s what the biggest challenge will be.


                • doug quixote November 17, 2012 at 8:23 am #

                  Not at all Hypo – I love your idealism!

                  I really do , I am not joking – just so long as it is not aimed at attacking the only possible half-decent government we have available.

                  If you haven’t noticed, they have been hanging on by a thread against rightist assaults in the media and copping it from all angles for several years now.

                  Be idealistic please (as if you won’t!); the world needs idealists, even sometime-Greens with a Messiah complex πŸ™‚


                  • hudsongodfrey November 17, 2012 at 10:32 am #

                    Half Decent you say! What does that make the other half?

                    A bit like the person who told me that Sophie Mirabella was half German…….

                    ….. and the other half Shepard!


                    • doug quixote November 17, 2012 at 7:04 pm #

                      The “other side” is the conservatives who are wholly unacceptable.

                      I will take half a loaf, as opposed to none, any day of the week thank you.


                    • hudsongodfrey November 17, 2012 at 7:09 pm #

                      Some people seem to like Malcolm Turnbull, they’re just not in his party πŸ™‚


                  • Hypocritophobe November 17, 2012 at 6:30 pm #


                    “like a circle in a spiral
                    like a wheel within a wheel….”

                    “bla bla bla,windmills in your mind”


                    • Hypocritophobe November 17, 2012 at 6:40 pm #

                      (That was for DQ November 17, 2012 at 8:23 am BTW)


    • paul walter November 20, 2012 at 4:51 am #

      They are choc-a-block up us too. You know from the thread topic already, that a weaker entity can be the pray of a larger. I think it also happens with nations. It’s wrong, but what do you do about it?


  12. Hypocritophobe November 16, 2012 at 2:58 pm #

    What Pell (and other so called Catholic church ‘leaders’ could should have said/done decades ago.

    Epic fail from the main culprits.

    I wonder if the lawyers have started hammering the Chaser boys yet?


    • hudsongodfrey November 16, 2012 at 4:18 pm #

      Well there’s a man I may not always agree with but can at least respect.


  13. Hypocritophobe November 16, 2012 at 11:47 pm #

    And the pattern continues.*Every time the Catholic sex abuse hits the spotlight, a ‘deflective’/’distractive’ story on other abuse in other areas pops up on the ABC*.(And I am all for reporting this stuff)
    but on the main point….*_*

    Not unusual you say?
    Well why is it that every time this happens there is no author/reporter name attached to it?

    Are we allowed to ask….why that is?


    • Forrest Gumpp (@ForrestGumpp) November 17, 2012 at 11:02 am #


      Is this, the news item to which the link delivers one, an example of that of which you speak?

      You will note that the Twitter user, ‘@mikejonesmelb’ , who posted this link, is described in his Twitter profile summary as, among other things, an ‘analogue+digital archivist’. His tweet had been retweeted by ‘@CassPF’, another archivist, whom I happen to ‘follow’ on Twitter, which is how I came to see it.

      I recognised the news item as ‘code’. Paragraph 8 contains the payload. It attributes to Detective Chief Inspector Fox this statement:

      “However, Det Chief Insp Fox said the
      NSW government had told him it would
      hold off changing its document retention
      guidelines until the terms of reference
      for the royal commission had been established.”

      Look carefully at the context in which this attributed statement is placed. It is technically hearsay, but if it is a true report, what it effectively is saying is that until and/or unless the proposed Royal Commission Terms of Reference are promulgated, the NSW government is reserving a claimed right to dispose of archived documentation under whatever its documentation disposal guidelines are (or may come to be) in the meantime!

      Paragraph 9 of the item, to its credit, quotes Fox directly in warning as to what the NSW government position really presently is:

      “”It’s going to be embarrassing if something
      is destroyed between now and the terms of
      reference being published and it turns out
      that that was something that would have been
      very important,” he said.”

      Should the NSW government shortly claim that ‘Fox has got it wrong, we are suspending disposal action on all documentation just in case it may prove relevant’, note the subtle discreditation of Fox that will go along with that. Note also how, to be effective, this Royal Commission depends upon action in accordance with requests of this nature:

      “Det Chief Insp Fox wants federal Attorney-General
      Nicola Roxon to direct all state premiers to keep
      any documents connected with the clergy or child
      abuse in institutions.”

      Under what Constitutional head of power?

      Although not expressly mentioned in the unattributed news item, this reporting called to mind the destruction, at Queensland State government level, of documentary evidence relating to institutionalised child abuse that had been submitted to the Heiner Inquiry in that State in 1989, a destruction of archived evidence that was to become notorious world-wide amongst archivists. To refresh my memory, I did a Google search on that Inquiry. It yielded this site:

      Right at the top of the page, the name Kevin Lindeberg arrested my attention. Kevin Lindeberg was a Queensland State Public Service Association officer who became a ‘whistleblower-by-accident’, and had, as a consequence, his life disrupted and his livelihood destroyed for doing nothing more than legitimately representing one of his Association’s member’s interests!

      On this web page in the right hand column is a text link ‘Lindeberg Address to NSW Parliament Theatre 9th October 2007’. Here it is for convenience:

      It is an explanation of the Heiner Affair by someone intimately, and innocently, involved. Note carefully EVERYTHING on this page, right from the start.

      Sometimes, especially if there is good reason to believe that an inquiry of the nature of this proposed Royal Commission will ultimately offer little prospect of real consequences for persons or institutions that may be the subject of it, there can be perceived to be an advantage in winkling out all of the evidence that might be ‘out there’, to the end, perhaps, of better planning the defence/avoidance tactics for one’s institution, co-accused, etc.

      In the meantime, at the superficial level of ‘code’ involved, this appears to be Gillard trashing Rudd. As such, is it overkill, or does she/her supporters see a need to further discredit him? Nobody kicks a dead dog.


      • Forrest Gumpp (@ForrestGumpp) November 19, 2012 at 11:31 am #

        Well, it looks as if the NSW government is promising to do the right thing with respect to preservation of archival evidence in anticipation of the promised Royal Commission, if the Sunday Telegraph print edition for Sunday 18 November 2012 is to be believed.

        Page 26 of the hardcopy edition of Sunday 18 November, under the white-on-red page number tag ‘Church scandal’, carried an item by State Political Reporter, Barclay Crawford, titled ‘Government acts to keep all evidence’. I looked for the item online, so that I could post viewers a link. Here are my search terms, and the Google result:

        For whatever reason, it appears the Telegraph has chosen not to publish it online (yet?). So I will transcribe the item:

        “STATE departments have been ordered
        to safeguard any documents that may
        point to evidence of child sexual abuse
        within churches and state institutions.

        The Sunday Telegraph has obtained a
        memorandum sent by acting Premier and
        Cabinet director general Stephen Brady
        to all departments that may hold crucial
        evidence detailing offences against

        The confidential memo was sent to top
        bureaucrats on Friday night and warned
        them to retain all relevant documents
        even if they had passed their normal
        expiry date.

        The NSW Ombudsman and Director of Public
        Prosecutions also received the memo, along
        with the commissioners in charge of the
        NSW Crime Commission, Police Integrity
        Commission and Independant Commission against

        “I am now writing to all agencies to
        request that they take whatever practicable
        steps are available to ensure that these
        normal administrative practices … do not
        result in the loss or destruction of any
        records that could be expected to be
        required in evidence before either of the
        Commissions of Inquiry.”

        the memo states.

        It follows Premier Barry O’Farrell’s
        announcement of a commission of inquiry
        into allegations by Detective Chief Inspector
        Peter Fox regarding the cover up of abuse
        by Catholic clergy in the Hunter region.

        Inspector Fox claims the church hindered
        police, destroyed evidence and moved offending
        priests in relation to child abuse investigations.

        The memo comes after Julia Gillard last week
        launched a royal commission into child sex
        abuse extending beyond religious organisations.

        Meanwhile, a case worker with the NSW Department
        of Family and Community Services charged with
        sexually abusing a nine-year-old girl has been
        refused bail.

        The 54-year-old man did not appear in person
        when the matter was brought before Newcastle
        Bail Court yesterday when bail was refused.

        The case is due before court again on Monday.”

        There you have it, non-sheep, for what it may be worth. Spelling and capitalisations (or the lack thereof) are as printed.


        • doug quixote November 19, 2012 at 5:24 pm #

          Thank you Forest. As you probably know, I am no Liberal supporter, but I have few arguments with Barry O’Farrell’s efforts so far in NSW. He seems to be a man of moderation.


          • paul walter November 20, 2012 at 4:59 am #

            It’s blown up to the point where they need a new best way to handle a situation that had to turn bad. When the first defence, saying mum, fails, then they have commissions instigated but this time to put distance between themselves and the priests they were formerly cosy with, lest they be tarred with the same brush.
            Like everyone else the politicians have reached the stage where’ they’ll probably say, “we warned ’em, now let them stew in their own juices”.


        • Forrest Gumpp (@ForrestGumpp) November 20, 2012 at 2:32 pm #

          Today’s Google search result:

          Not ringing any alarm bells for any non-sheep that item’s circulation is seemingly restricted? Sheep, even?

          What am I missing?

          Any suggestions?



          • Hypocritophobe November 20, 2012 at 3:04 pm #

            Can you make enquiries at the source, as to why??
            ie; ask(use the phone?)You could remain anonymous.
            Just call yourself Joe Citizen (or other) and dial 1831 before their number??

            It may be suss or just plain ignorant or lazy.(A few of the regular traits of the MSM)

            Or just keep throwing the question into cyberspace and see what happens.
            Maybe Independent Australia is interested?


  14. Gruffbutt November 17, 2012 at 12:59 am #

    Yes, Big George knows all about exoneration…not…

    Protesteth too much?


  15. Hypocritophobe November 18, 2012 at 4:08 pm #

    Make sure you are sitting down….
    (Some viewers may find some content offensive)


  16. Hypocritophobe November 19, 2012 at 1:58 pm #

    Make of this what you will.
    Although I agree with a narrower scope (dealing with the obvious and currently heavily investigated institution/s, first and foremost) and a limited time-frame, I think we see other senior politicians,possibly premiers or higher,using Barnett’s move as a chance to start a resistance campaign.
    Should ‘that’ event transpire it will indicate many things.
    True allegiances, real motives,faux concerns,misguided loyalties and who comes first, the abused or their abusers.

    BTW, given his obvious anti federal government form, it is pretty gutless of Barnett to want the satisfaction of RCom action, and possible positive results for the victims,but offer up nought of substance.In the recent St Andrews Hostel, Katanning abuse trials, Barnett and his ministers were pushed kicking and screaming to take action.Were it not for Labor member Peter Watson,the investigation would have NEVER started.Barnett,of course lapped up all the kudos.
    When the WA mining boom dies (should there even be an environment left afterwards) WA will need every other state and federal support.Barnett and his rape,pillage and “rip-off tax payers”-govt make a mockery of federation.He has no idea what it even entails.He leads for big business, and that is all.


    • Hypocritophobe November 19, 2012 at 2:05 pm #

      EDIT (Wrong specs!)

      I think we ‘will’ see other


    • paul walter November 20, 2012 at 5:01 am #

      Spot on the money.


  17. Hypocritophobe November 19, 2012 at 11:52 pm #

    Nicola Roxon is calling for input into this proposed Royal Commission.

    Can anyone here see a reason why the contents of this NPFS discussion,and other “sheep” chats on this topic should not form a part of that feedback?
    Is it possible and /or feasible for the content and/or it’s essence to be forwarded to the relevant place?
    Just asking.

    As an aside,
    I hope the govt is wise enough to publish all submitted content (save those submissions, victims deem too sensitive) in the same way as that for senate submissions,so the public can see ‘who’ contributed ‘what’.
    Personally I think the Rcom should be ‘issue phased’ so that the obvious and manifold Catholic offences are dealt with first.These abuse victims have suffered the double whammy of constant delay/and other ‘apparent’ suspect tactics, and constant media hype, and surely deserve a priority hearing, in order to deliver some hope of closure.

    It is important that the feedback Roxon receives is not tainted by any spoiling tactics, or deflection strategies.Such events are obviously not out of the question.
    I hope that this statement;
    “The centre is recording people’s contact details, which will be provided to the commission once it is established.”
    means that such details will be heavily scrutinised ,published when appropriate, and verified to extract,expose and punish ‘severely’ any subsequent ‘red herrings’ / Trojan Horse, submissions.
    This RCom needs to be the ‘one off’ kind, meant to deliver sound ,sensitive, compassionate and just outcomes.Anything less is surely a cruel hoax.


    • Hypocritophobe November 20, 2012 at 12:36 am #

      When I last checked this link(as above) no-one at Aunty seemed brave enough to ‘own’ the article.The pattern,therefore,continues.
      Now obviously ‘certain’ ABC regulars would not touch this issue with a ten foot pole, but the rest?


    • paul walter November 20, 2012 at 5:04 am #

      Probably the ALP right and the Coalition’s religious also, are chaffing under pressure from Mother Church and can’t afford a rude “no”. I doubt whether many politicians have much personal sympathy for it though.


      • Hypocritophobe November 20, 2012 at 10:23 am #

        Let’s hope you’re right Paul,and a shard of humanity’s bright rays break through this cloud of evil,to warm the souls of the abused.That may also be some sort of catalyst, to cauterise the wounds the ‘hard rights’,Abbott’s et al, have manifested on our community.
        The economic rationalists and vulture media have mesmerised the masses into reversing (if not abandoning) the things which really matter.

        Idealistic (tinged with green) rant over


        • doug quixote November 20, 2012 at 6:29 pm #

          I agree entirely, Hypo. We tend to concentrate on the things that divide us, to the exclusion of all the things we agree on.


          • Hypocritophobe November 20, 2012 at 6:36 pm #

            In that case,
            I’ll buy the first round, but I aint going skipper.


  18. Macabre November 21, 2012 at 5:59 am #

    Quixote thinks Pell might become Pope as Superbus I; I think “Sanctimonious” would be a better name for this next Pope.

    The RC Church and Pell deserve each other.

    The Royal Commission won’t do him any harm at all unless he is found to be a kiddie fiddler, which seems unlikely now. There were allegations made a decade ago, but apparently mistaken identity by a discredited petty crook.

    Instead, Pell gets a platform for grandstanding and appearing as the voice of moderation while he defends the Church.


    • helvityni November 21, 2012 at 8:38 am #

      Macabre, Pell will never appear as the voice of moderation, any more than you as a voice of reason.
      What happened to Broomy?


      • Macabre November 21, 2012 at 12:46 pm #

        As Reader1 says, discussing anything with you is like arguing with a blancmange. As for Broomhilde, couldn’t give a damn.

        Pell tries to appear moderate – read his bio.

        Sanctimonious will be the next Pope if Joe Ratzinger lasts another 3 years; the one after if Joe pops off early. LOL


        • Anonymous November 21, 2012 at 12:50 pm #



        • helvityni November 21, 2012 at 1:58 pm #

          I keep away from Readers,Hildes,and Macabres, I leave them swear to others.


          • helvityni November 21, 2012 at 4:45 pm #

            to swear


          • Macabre November 21, 2012 at 7:03 pm #

            Keep away? Pardon me? If you will reply to my posts, how am I to blame?

            Come on, tell us all how replying to my posts is “keeping away”.


            • Macabre November 22, 2012 at 1:38 pm #

              Well? Come on helvityni, tell us!


              • Hypocritophobe November 22, 2012 at 4:33 pm #

                Easy, tiger.


    • Anonymous November 21, 2012 at 12:51 pm #



  19. Hypocritophobe November 23, 2012 at 9:34 pm #

    Pell showed ‘sociopathic lack of empathy’ for abuse victims
    say what?
    Pell showed ‘sociopathic lack of empathy’ for abuse victims

    Pell showed ‘sociopathic lack of empathy’ for abuse victims
    Pell showed ‘sociopathic lack of empathy’ for abuse victims

    Nail, meet head.


    • doug quixote November 23, 2012 at 10:56 pm #

      Not another one! Hypo, is it true, do you think? How many of these sociopathic and psychopathic types can there be in Australian politics at once?!

      Poor Sanctimonious I !

      No, much as I detest Pell, I don’t think he is sociopathic. Abbott on the other hand, and Rudd in particular . . .


      • doug quixote November 23, 2012 at 10:58 pm #

        Thanks to Macabre by the way, for the name Sanctimonious for our very own next-Pope. πŸ™‚


        • Hypocritophobe November 23, 2012 at 11:23 pm #

          and for a minute there,it looked like he thought he mind end up talking to himself, all weekend….

          If Pell gets the nod,I vote for Pusillanimous I, or perhaps Vacuous X.
          Prevaric 8?
          Vassil 8?
          Obfusc 8?

          Personally I hanker for the days when a Pope could mow your lawn or wash your oft soiled Hard Yakkas.

          As a side note,I believe many of the older Popes are 2 strokes.


          • Macabre November 24, 2012 at 9:58 pm #

            Good names Hypo, if I may call you Hypo? Obfuscate is the best suggestion. ‘Obfusc8’ seems a name for a Twitter-ing Pope, but I doubt the RC Church is ready for that yet.

            Still like ‘Sanctimonious’ best though.

            ‘She’, if you please. XX chromosomes and bearded iris.


            • Hypocritophobe November 24, 2012 at 11:15 pm #

              Of course you may call me Hypo, Macca.
              This is Oz,where we shorten and nickname everything we can.

              Think of it as saving all that extra typing.


  20. Forrest Gumpp (@ForrestGumpp) November 24, 2012 at 6:12 pm #

    This, (paragraph 4 of the item) goes with this:

    and that goes with this:

    And here we are all at Sussan’s;

    Governments sitting on hands?!


  21. Hypocritophobe November 25, 2012 at 12:33 am #

    And here’s some Pope spin direct from the Vatican.

    Feign diversity to mesmerise the masses.
    Like they embrace it.


    • Hypocritophobe November 25, 2012 at 12:40 am #

      And BTW as per usual the public broadcaster has yet again allocated no/zero/nada/zilch name to the story.
      Not that it’s ‘actually’ news.
      Given the landslide of victims inundating (overwhelming) counselling services in Australia, since the RCom, was announced, I doubt any humane individual gives a flying toss about this deliberate distraction tactic from the place where the buck stops, when it comes to the issue.


    • Macabre November 25, 2012 at 6:25 am #

      So long as diversity does not include one half of humanity!

      Not just the RC Christians either; the Islamics and Judaics are equally profoundly sexist.


  22. Hypocritophobe November 26, 2012 at 10:00 am #

    “Bringing perpetrators to justice is not mentioned in the submission”
    and yet
    “Archbishop Hart says there has been a lot of attention on the Catholic Church, which it must face squarely.”

    “Conference president Archbishop Denis Hart says victims must also be allowed to choose to give evidence in private.”
    Because the church does not want the obviously huge extent of this issue to damage their brand.This is not about caring,it is about more cover-ups of the ‘extent’ of the ‘truth’.

    At the end of this conference,what’s the bet the resolutions passed will all go to addressing future problems,future policies and future reporting.
    “Let sleeping dogs lie”?

    I don’t think so,Tim.


  23. Hypocritophobe December 7, 2012 at 9:20 pm #

    Yet another ABC commentary apparently not important enough to tell readers who penned it.


  24. Hypocritophobe December 13, 2012 at 7:08 pm #

    I wonder if the magistrate has a view on the Catholic church?

    Perhaps he would be handy at the RComm?


  25. Hypocritophobe December 21, 2012 at 4:38 pm #

    Here is the first delay.

    It is already starting to mimick the
    ‘budget surplus’ debarkle.
    (Lack of ticker?)

    What’s the bet it drags out till the election is called.

    “Not yet,not yet,not yet,oops we missed the boat.”


  26. Gezza December 25, 2012 at 5:52 pm #

    I have a quick, simple question for George Pell: who is the patron saint for child abuse?


  27. Hypocritophobe December 29, 2012 at 1:01 pm #

    Here’s a test for the Catholic church.Will they choose dilution and suppression,or waive the legal camouflage, in the quest for truth and justice?


  28. Hypocritophobe December 29, 2012 at 2:13 pm #

    Yet another awakening….



  1. In bed with the Catholic Church: recovering from Childhood Sexual Assault « Devoted Eclectic - November 14, 2012

    […] This morning I read a piece by Jennifer Wilson about Cardinal Pell’s response to calls for a Royal Commission into the cover-up of paedophilia in the Catholic Church. In it, Wilson wrote: […]


  2. The 55th Down Under Feminists Carnival | the news with nipples - December 5, 2012

    […] Why White Ribbon Day matters by Tara Moss. No Excuses – No Victim Blaming by Fat Heffalump. Cardinal spin by No Place For Sheep. Reclaim the Night; my experiences, thoughts and opinions by Madeline Price […]


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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: