Excerpts from the police interview of Cardinal Pell. It astonishes me that charges were brought, that a Judge allowed this to go to trial and that a Jury convicted. One of the accusers recanted before his death. The idea that an Archbishop is molesting choir boys in a sacristy after Mass could only be believed by people who have never been in a sacristy after Mass, which is usually a whirlwind of activity with people constantly coming and going, especially parents of altar servers and choir boys picking them up.
Phil Lawler at Catholic Culture notes how weak the case against Pell was:
- He claimed that he and the other alleged victims, who were choirboys, slipped away from the choir. But nobody noticed that they were missing, and other choir members find it unlikely that they could have stolen away unnoticed.
- He claimed that they were in the sacristy drinking wine. He said it was red wine. But the only altar wine in use was white.
- He claimed that the cardinal came into the sacristy alone and caught them. But the cardinal was invariably outside the cathedral after ceremonies, greeting the congregation. When he did return to the sacristy, he was always—always—accompanied by other priests.
- He claimed that the cardinal parted his vestments and molested them. But the vestments that the cardinal wore did not allow for the movement the alleged victim described.
How did an Australian court reach a conviction, without any evidence, on the basis of such shaky testimony? It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that “the fix was in”—that this was the genteel Australian equivalent of the “show trials” that resulted in convictions for other prelates who were unpopular with Communist regimes in the 1950s.
Go here to read the rest.
This is a verdict that rests solely on anti-Catholic bigotry and mass hysteria. The people of Australia should be ashamed of this farcial miscarriage of justice. The Vatican, and all Catholics, need to rally to the support of this wrongly convicted man.