In a secret trial in Australia, the former holder of the third highest Office in the Catholic Church was found guilty of molesting and abusing youngsters; that molestation happening in the 1990’s. Pell, the Vatican’s former finance chief and the highest Vatican official to be committed for trial in the never-ending saga of the robed priestly kiddy-fiddlers protected by the Catholic Church versus the now middle-aged and sometimes elderly accusers; ended with a unanimous guilty verdict. The former Cardinal now faces a second trial regarding accusations that he interfered with, fondled and touched the genitals of two boys who were swimming alongside him in a Ballarat swimming pool when Pell was just a young priest.
This trial was no ordinary run-of-the-mill Catholic administrator accused of covering-up the vast numbers of abuse cases. (I paused when I wrote those words; imagine a scenario when it becomes almost routine to report on a priest who has been indulging in homosexual abuse with a child under his temporary care!) This trial was about a Cardinal of the Faith, the point below the pinnacle of the Church, which is the Pope. Just cast your minds back to the conclave which elected Pope Francis: you will find that Cardinal Pell was one of just 124 Cardinal Electors who sat in secret, within the Vatican. You must also realise that Pell, as a Cardinal, was just as likely to be chosen as Pope as the man who achieved that rare honour and privilege, Francis being the 266th in direct succession to Peter. So a convicted paedophile stood as much a chance of being elected Pope. The Leader of 675 million Roman Catholics, if Francis had not been selected, COULD have been Cardinal George Pell. A literal heartbeat away from the papacy! Is this the first time that anyone has actually considered this possibility? This twisted deviant, a former top guy in the Catholic Hierarchy, might have been Pope!
There is one other point which I would write about, if a Cardinal being found guilty of being a serial paedophile wasn’t enough. My first words were, and I quote, “In a secret trial in Australia,”, Pell was, ultimately, found guilty of abominable behaviour against small boys in the 1990’s. But his trial was not covered, or reported upon, ANYWHERE in Australia. The judge clamped a banning order after the prosecution’s request; and it was granted to “prevent a real and substantial risk of prejudice to the proper administration of justice.” That order remains in place in Australia. One of the foundations of democratic behaviour is open justice, where news reporters can state what happened within a trial; what was said or alleged; who said those words, and ultimately; hor the trial progressed. But because of a high profile defendant, the Australian public will NEVER know what was said, alleged or even given under oath in this, or any other trial where such a blanket ban operates.
We have the same judge-operated ban working in Great Britain, but those banned trials are now, almost always, reserved for the trials of Muslims, some British but mostly Pakistani; on charges of grooming, sexual abuse, rape and trafficking: almost entirely of White British girls and young women. Has anyone ever asked the Attorney General why judges are allowed to hide the truth away from the great British public?