Louise Milligan squibs on answering questions

Louise Milligan is an ABC journalist of note – so we are to understand. Her book Cardinal: The Rise and Fall of George Pell was published by the prestigious publisher MUP (Melbourne University Press) whose CEO and publisher at the time was the highly respected Louise Adler – at least in Australia’s leftist publishing industry.

Milligan’s book was brought forward and rushed out when it became known Cardinal Pell was to stand trial for sexual abuse. The book received the loud acclaim of Australia’s vast anti-Catholic constituency and went on to receive a Walkley Award thereby sullying the reputation and reducing the credibility of that self-congratulatory journalistic self-indulgence.

Gerard Henderson of the Sydney Institute sent Milligan a series of questions about the book . In No. 363 June 2 2017 edition of Media Watch Dog, Henderson reported he received a response from Adler. Milligan, displaying appropriate fortitude for an ABC purveyor of calumny, had taken shelter behind the Gothic ramparts of Melbourne University. Adler did not answer the questions, but in her short reply said:

‘MUP stands by the forensic and meticulous research that the author conducted to produce this important contribution to the community’s understanding of the Catholic Church’s response to child abuse.’

Continue reading Louise Milligan squibs on answering questions

‘Pell’s conviction and fall from high public esteem is a question of judgment’

Veteran and highly respected journalist Paul Kelly wrote a long article in the Australian which covered and expanded on the issues of plausibility in the conviction of Cardinal Pell. He argues well in favour of a mistrial. Perhaps more powerfully, he argues the significance of the overwhelming hatred and contempt shown towards the Cardinal over a long period, ‘spearheaded by the ABC’; and of the Victorian Police’s anti-Catholic bigotry with its ‘fishing expedition to ensnare’ Pell. It’s vividly expressed in the passages below.

Pell’s lawyer, Robert Richter QC, said his client had “been portrayed in the media and by everyone else as the evil incarnation of the Catholic Church”. That has a touch of exaggeration but the point is obvious. Ask yourself: Is there a prominent figure more ­denounced and traduced in this country over the past decade than George Pell?

Pell cannot escape responsibility for the failures of the church but the sustained visceral hostility towards Pell transcends institutional accountability. The vile hatred towards him is worse than displayed towards a serial killer. Veteran lawyers said privately they had never seen anything like it in their careers. What does this tell us not just about Pell but about ourselves? The Pell story goes ­beyond the institutional and cultural failure of the Catholic Church. It is far bigger, more complicated and dangerous.

It is about the poisoning of the culture, the anti-Catholic bias of Victoria Police and its fishing ­expedition to ensnare Pell, the calculated media assaults on Pell spearheaded by the ABC, the targeting of him by progressives who saw Pell (perhaps Tony Abbott aside) as the leader who most ­offended their every instinct — as a conservative Catholic, weak on empathy, strong on hierarchy, faithful to traditional doctrine, ­opposed to all aspects of sexual libertarianism, the tallest of tall poppies defending an order many wanted to pull down and the frequent target of, until now, never substantiated claims about being a sexual predator.

In a sense Pell is a leader but also a victim of his own church. ­Because the crimes of the church are so great our culture demands a scapegoat. Our media demands a scapegoat. The adversary and polarised nature of contemporary society means a scapegoat will be found. When the moral fault is so great, the pain of survivors so deep and the media quest for investigative retribution so pronounced, the pressures on the legal system approach breaking point.

‘Australia is now on trial’


George Weigel Distinguished Senior Fellow of Washington, D.C.’s Ethics and Public Policy Center has followed up his previous condemnation of Cardinal Pell with the following bringing into question Australia’s system of justice.

Has it occurred to anyone else debating the perverse verdict rendered against Cardinal George Pell, which convicted him of “historic sexual abuse,” that the cardinal did not have to return to his native Australia to face trial? As a member of the College of Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church and a Vatican official, Pell holds a Vatican diplomatic passport and citizenship of Vatican City State. Were he guilty, he could have stayed put in the extraterritorial safety of the Vatican enclave, untouchable by the Australian authorities. But because Cardinal Pell knows he is innocent, he was determined to go home to defend his honor—and, in a broader sense, to defend his decades of work rebuilding the Catholic Church in Australia, the living parts of which owe a great deal to his leadership and courage.

Cardinal Pell and I have been friends for over fifty years, and in the past two and a half decades of that friendship I have been appalled at the calumnies to which he has been subjected, in both the hyper-secularist Australian media and in Church circles determined to hang on to their dreams of post–Vatican II revolution.

Read on…

Ongoing summary of Cardinal Pell’s unjust conviction

Jailed Cdl. Pell is victim of anti-Catholic witch hunt, critics maintain

MELBOURNE, Australia, February 28, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) — A number of commentators have denounced Cardinal George Pell’s prosecution and conviction of sexual assault as an anti-Catholic witch hunt instigated by media and police.

Pell was taken to a maximum security prison Wednesday and will be held there under protective custody until his March 13 sentencing on five convictions of sexually abusing minors, reported the Guardian.

The 77-year-old prelate was found guilty by a jury in December of sexual abusing two 13-year-old choir boys some 22 years ago, and could face up to 50 years in jail. His lawyers have filed an appeal they will pursue once Pell is sentenced.

Read on…

‘The case does not stand up’

George Weigel is the distinguished senior fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, where he holds the William E. Simon Chair in Catholic Studies. He is the latest to highlight the incoherences in the Pell conviction.

On appeal, a panel of judges can decide that the verdict could not rationally have been reached on the basis of the evidence.

With the lifting of the trial judge’s order banning coverage of the conviction of Cardinal George Pell this past December on charges of “historical sexual abuse,” the facts can finally be laid out for those willing to consider them. (Disclosure: Cardinal Pell and I are longtime friends.)

Victoria police commenced an investigation one year before any complaints had been filed. During that investigation, the police took out newspaper ads seeking information about any untoward behavior with minors at the St. Patrick’s Cathedral in Melbourne —without any hint of such misbehavior having been received by the authorities.

Read on…


Andrew Bolt shows courage

I congratulate Andrew Bolt for speaking out about the incoherences in the case against Cardinal Pell. I have nothing to lose in attacking the juror’s decision, But Andrew Bolt does. He is a high profile journalist and television compere whose reputation and livelihood are at stake when he takes on the dominant political class. He is particularly vulnerable when he defies the left’s virulent anti-Catholic bigotry. But when he defends the left’s Catholic voodoo doll it is as good as baring his chest to the frenzied daggers of the Left.

On his Sky New program he outlined ten reasons for having ‘misgivings’ about the conviction of Cardinal Pell for sexually assaulting two choir boys in the sacristy of St Patrick’s Cathedral.

ANDREW BOLT:

First, one of the boys now dead denied he had been abused when his mother asked.

Second, the other boy didn’t speak about it for many years.

Continue reading Andrew Bolt shows courage

Pell-haters triumph – Australian justice system collapses

Cardinal Pell’s enemies inside and outside the Church have triumphed. It took years of mockery, vilification, fabrication, defamation, and calumny to achieve it. But there it is. The years of poison they have pumped into the Australian population, particularly in Victoria, meant Cardinal Pell was never going to get a fair trial. Indeed, it is likely there were some among the jurors who were determined to destroy the Cardinal before a word had been said in court.

Media sewer rats Louise Milligan and David Marr can be pleased with the brilliant results of their biased character-destroying books.

I don’t believe for one instant -never have and never will – that Cardinal Pell is guilty of the charges for which he has been convicted. What was charged never happened. What the motives were of the person who out of the blue made the charges, I cannot say. The public is not allowed to know anything about him. The public is not allowed to know details that may mitigate in Cardinal Pell’s favour, that may cast doubt on the accuser’s credibility.

Did the accuser have a vested interest in Cardinal Pell’s destruction?

To have doubt cast on the accuser’s veracity would be repugnant to the Pell-hating media who want the story kept as tight as possible and who prowled around outside the court building like hungry wolves. I watched the Channel 7 bulletin directly after the suppression order had been lifted. Their unabashed reporters showed they had long thought Pell guilty and were eagerly waiting for permission to pour out their disgust. Which they did in buckets. Not one mention of the questions that could be raised.

Ironically, the ABC whose commentators have played a determining role in the destruction of Cardinal Pell allowed comments of doubt from two high profile Catholics. Paul Collins, former priest, and Fr Frank Brennan, both critics of Cardinal Pell and on the Catholic left, said they were ‘gobsmacked’ by the verdict. They obviously did not think the Cardinal would have been found guilty. The shock generally among Catholics is reported to be tremendous. With good reason.

Apart from the effects of years of vilification, I have several reasons for rejecting the verdict.

First, such behaviour was totally out of character. I have followed Cardinal’s career closely for years. He was an articulate defender of the Faith orthodox Catholics wanted. To defend the Church against its critics inside and outside the Church, one has to be tough. But his behaviour was otherwise unimpeachable. He preached and acted out the Faith fearlessly. It is just too much to believe that such a well-organised man was so stupid as to jeopardize his newly assumed position as Archbishop of Melbourne with such risky action. It does not wash.

Second, in 2015 the scandal of clerical sexual abuse had been in the headlines for years. In 1996 Cardinal Pell had set up a body to deal with cases in Victoria. Compensation would be made. It was only a question of how much. Then all of a sudden around 2015, a basket of accusations of sexual abuse was laid at Cardinal Pell’s feet. Victoria Police were falling over themselves to arrest and charge him. Which they did. It was as if a faction had colluded.

Why did the successful accuser wait so long before he went to the police when he must have known he would have been treated with kid gloves if he had done so years before? The reasons he gives for waiting are not convincing. Why would an innocent 13-year-old who must have gagged and choked at the action he was forced to carry out not have stumbled shocked and half-conscious from the sacristy and then have escaped the notice of the people milling around in the church? And why, if he did indeed escaped attention, did he not saying anything about such violent action? The story is just not credible.

Third, the time and location of the alleged actions make them improbable, if not impossible to have happened. If people examine the location of the sacristy where the action was alleged to have taken place, then they must conclude not only would anyone in Archbishop robes find it extremely difficult to do what was charged, but they could not have done so without being seen. There would have been people everywhere at that time. See Fr Brennan’s article for far more detail supporting my analysis.

The far left – the Marxists – have always used demoralisation to undermine their ideological enemies. Most Catholics in Australia must be feeling utterly demoralised at the moment. Some who know their history must be thinking that not much has changed since the penal laws and anti-Catholic bigotry came ashore in Sydney Cove on the 26th of January 1788.

One must fear for the life of Cardinal Pell in prison. That would be the icing on the cake.

Who would watch the oscars?

The Oscars are on. But who would want to watch preening parading women bursting out of their scant frocks and waving #metoo flags? Who would want to witness the vulgarity, the squealing, and the political rants from actors whose thinking processes have not advanced beyond kindergarten? The number of talented actors who have made jerks of themselves in recent years through their puerile political opinions is disillusioning to put it mildly. Think of Robert de Niro.

In the beginning the Oscars was an elegant affair with actors maintaining dignity, letting their performances speak for them. The women were stunning, but modest, and the men handsome and reserved. They preserved the mystery of the film star. But all that has been shattered.

Writer … and still in the fifties