Fr Velimir is an elderly priest who has a little difficulty with his legs. That did not stop him from offering Mass in the Extraordinary Rite (the Old Latin Rite) on Passion Sunday (yesterday).
For most people unfamiliar with the theory, one can recognise a Marxist by the social and political issues he supports and pushes. The vehemence of his beliefs and the abusive intolerance he displays is a secondary indication. These are the some of the causes he supports.
Abortion – sacrificing the innocence for convenience and demographic control, and killing the culture
Gay culture – same-sex union foremost, but any sort of union
Gender fluidity – destroying the idea of female and male
Transgenderism – surrender of reason to ideological conformism
Feminism – female ascendance and misandry
Identity politics – racist and class fragmenting of society
Open borders – destroying the culture
Multiculturalism – the fragmenting of the nation and establishment of tribal areas
Diversity – the elimination of the national culture and the imposition of a leftist conformism
Aboriginal separatism – establishing a superior political class on the basis of race
Destruction of Christianity, especially the Catholic Church who he sees as the originator and guardian of capitalist society
Elimination of the nuclear family which is a breeding ground for sexism, patriarchy and female oppression
Anti-white racism – eliminating the (perceived) originators of capitalism
Dismantling of Western Civilization – eliminating the great Oppressor
There are two fundamental elements to the Marxist justification of these causes. The first is a (metaphysical) materialism. Materialism is the doctrine that there is nothing above or beyond the material world. Thus there are no objective moral standards, no preordained structure in the world. There is no God. But what separates materialist Marxism from a liberal materialism is the dialectic which Marx borrowed from Georg Hegel’s idealist philosophy. Dialectical theory is rather involved but in brief it is the idea that reality is conflictual and in continual flux. There are contradictions within the concepts that constitute our thinking. These contradictions gradually work themselves out, that is, evolve from a lower to higher order of understanding. In Marxism’s materialist dialectic, the conflict occurs preeminently between classes, between the perceived oppressor and oppressed. The clash of classes will lead to a higher order of material existence and eventually to some sort of utopian society. The ravage of established society with its enduring norms is of no account in the ineluctable progression of the dialectic. The most cherished beliefs of our Western culture are doomed.
The great opponent of Marxism is a philosophical conservatism with his realist metaphysics and epistemology. There are things out there over which a transcendent order prevails. The mind can recognise in the particulars of sense perception an intelligible order of abstract essences and necessary relations prior to particular things and contingent events. This explains why the ABC and the educational sector, both controlled by Marxists, will not tolerate a hint of conservatism, especially the conserving of Western Society. A stable world governed by a transcendent order is a hindrance to mass (Marxist) manipulation.
Remember David Ridsdale going to Channel 9’s ’60 Mins’ and feeding them a story about Cardinal Pell trying to bribe him? It was a wonderful trick for Ridsdale and his gay mates. And ’60 Mins’ lapped it up.
That was around the time that Archbishop Pell refused to give communion to the members of the Raindbow Sash movement. It was around the time that they stood outside St Patrick’s Cathedral yelling they would get Pell in the end. And they did.
Were you surprised to learn Ridsdale was gay? Were you surprised that he turned out to be a paedophile – using the same terms applied to Cardinal Pell? I wasn’t. Something stank about that fellow. The odour wafted from the UK where he went to hide. Here’s part of the story courtesy of ABC News who supported Ridsdale in his 60 mins gambol.
David Ridsdale: Child sex abuse survivor accused of not being open about his own past as an abuser
[Victim Coery Artz] was 12 years old when Mr [David] Ridsdale, then a leader at the local YMCA, befriended his family.
“When you’ve got a lad 18 years old come into your life, they’re almost like a hero to you,” Mr Artz said.
Mr Artz was intrigued when Mr Ridsdale offered to teach him magic one night on the way home from the video store.
“David pulled the car over and proceeded to pull his pants down and pulled out his penis and started to masturbate and told me I had to do the same thing as well,” he said.
“I vividly remember him grabbing my penis and I had to grab his and it just didn’t feel cool. I hated it.”
Confused and scared, Mr Artz was instructed not to tell anyone.
“Afterward was the threats of ‘The devil will kill your mum and dad if you ever say anything to anyone’,” he said.
Mr Artz says the abuse happened three times, then his family moved interstate.
It would be 10 years before he reported what had happened to the Ballarat police.
What does this say about the sort of people accusing Cardinal Pell of sexual abuse?
Martin Burger’s report Prayers start for Cdl Pell 9 days before high court hears final appeal on LifeSiteNews website raises two interesting points either not covered or rarely referred to. The first is Phil Lawler’s worry about the quality of the Australian legal system and the courage of the Australian government. It’s not only the courage of the government. The courage of the legal people administering justice is a huge worry. Will they dare to depart from the ideology and social attitudes (let’s say bigotry) responsible for Cardinal Pell’s incarceration?
Phil Lawler, the editor of Catholic World News, called the verdict “a shock and a black mark against the Australian justice system.”
He questioned the willingness of the Australian government to support a fair judgment.
“In Australia today, the government — specifically the justice system — is now also heavily invested in the conviction of Cardinal Pell. To admit an error would be to admit an unreasonable verdict, brought about by an unreasonable prosecution, and now buttressed by an unreasonable appeals-court decision,” Lawler commented.
“To say that Cardinal Pell is not guilty is to imply that the judicial system is guilty in its treatment of his case. Will the country’s top court have the courage to reach that verdict?”
The second aspect is the possible role of Cardinal Pell’s Vatican enemies in the lynch mob action against him. Make no mistake, some nasty individuals have wormed their way into Vatican power positions. When great sums of money are at stake, murder is the least of it. This part of the Pell affair needs a lot more investigation. Who will have the courage to do it?
As prefect of the Vatican’s Secretariat for the Economy, the Australian cardinal “was openly loathed by many of the other curial leaders,” Ed Condon wrote in an analysis piece published by the Catholic News Agency.
“The Australian cardinal’s efforts to deliver financial transparency and accountability to the curia in the first years of the Francis pontificate met with internal curial resistance — in one famous incident, the Secretariat of State maneuvered without Pell’s knowledge to cancel an announced independent audit,” Condon continued.
“Since his return to Australia, Pell’s reforms have largely been reversed by those who would take the closest interest in his case in Rome.”
Some observers, including Robert Royal of The Catholic Thing, have speculated that there might be a connection between people in the Vatican trying to protect certain secrets and Cardinal Pell’s trial in Australia.
The appeal majority said Cardinal Pell’s accuser “came across as someone telling the truth” and rejected the appeal. They kept the Cardinal in solitary confinement. So, in a vital criminal case, it comes down to the accuser’s believable appearance. This for most clear-headed unprejudiced people must be outrageous.
How weak and fragile the legal system in Australia must be when criminal cases are decided on mere appearance. I refer to the previous post where Chris Friel destroyed the supposed corroborative evidence of the accuser ‘accurately’ describing the priests’ sacristy. He did not. It was a lie that befits the talents of the best hoaxers and con artists.
How is it that two supposedly eminent judges seem not to know that the best hoaxers and liars come across as utterly believable? How is it that two eminent judges seem not to know that abstractly speaking nothing is impossible except a contradiction, and that the accusations of wrongdoing depend on the empirical evidence? It’s mind-blowing.
Now have a look at Cardinal Pell’s police interview in Rome. The least of it is that the Cardinal corrects some police errors or misapprehensions. The significant point is that Cardinal Pell reacts naturally and immediately to the absurdity of the charges. If anyone can project a complete lack of artifice, Cardinal Pell does it in this interview. On the appeal judges’ measures, they have unjustly condemned an innocent man to jail. See the video HERE.
In his latest essay, Chris Friel shows how the police and Cardinal Pell’s accuser had to desperately patch up his original story to deal with a great gap that became obvious over time. But the fabric of the accuser’s concoction has become so torn and frayed that no patching is possible. Again, this is appalling and explosive stuff. If the High Court does not uphold Cardinal Pell’s appeal in five minutes, they, too, will be the laughing stock of the legal world – here and abroad.
Locating the Wine in the Alcove
Chris S Friel
In this note I shall assess the evidence regarding the claim that Pell’s complainant had prior knowledge of the Priests’ Sacristy, in particular, that he could locate the place where the wine was stored. On the face of it, the claim has not been challenged, but I shall argue that it is almost certainly false.
Thus, in his recent submission to the High Court Bret Walker acknowledges that “he was correct that the wine was located in a particular corner,”i a point that Walker diminishes on the grounds that he might have gained such knowledge from a tour.
Again, the point had been raised by the Crown in their submission under factual matters of contention (11) that the complainant “described entering the Priests’ Sacristy just before the first incident and finding a wood panelled area containing cupboards and finding a storage kitchenette. It was in this area that he and the other boy found wine.”ii It was further claimed that he had correctly described the layout, and that this was out of view.
The majority, too, had made the same point, something they found striking. They had not actually viewed the initial police statement made in June 2015, but nevertheless they opine:
Keith Windschuttle, Quadrant, 18 February 2020
Yet another powerful article by Keith Windschuttle, utterly blowing apart the case against Cardinal Pell, and showing how very degraded Victoria’s justice system has become.
The Priests’ Sacristy of St Patrick’s Cathedral in Melbourne gets its name from the fact that it is where the priests robe and disrobe before and after Mass. Priests are normally part of the Sunday ceremony and the final procession out of the cathedral. They return to the priests’ sacristy along with the altar servers at the back of the procession, following the choir. (Some other altar servers lead the procession ahead of the choir.) When they arrive at the priests’ sacristy, the altar servers are engaged in their own separate duties of retrieving liturgical items from the cathedral sanctuary and storing them in the priests’ sacristy. In December 1996, when the Archbishop’s own sacristy was being refurbished, any concelebrant priests joined then Archbishop George Pell in robing and disrobing in the priests’ sacristy. The cathedral’s master of ceremonies, Charles Portelli, said that he could remember helping Pell to robe and disrobe when he first said Mass as Archbishop at his first Sunday Solemn Mass at the cathedral. Portelli added that concelebrant priests were present in the priests’ sacristy at the time Pell both robed and disrobed. [cited by Weinberg, minority judgment, Victorian Court of Appeal, paragraph 716] This was at the same time, and in the same room, that the choirboy claimed Pell sexually abused him and his friend.
[see also Keith Windschuttle: The Crown prosecutor’s bent trump card]
The sacristan responsible for the whole of the cathedral’s sacristy area, Max Potter, told the trial the concelebrant priests took part in the procession after Mass. They were positioned towards the rear of the procession, behind the choir. Potter added that these priests would disrobe in the priests’ sacristy after Mass, and remained there talking among themselves while waiting to farewell the Archbishop when he returned after meeting and greeting worshippers on the cathedral’s front steps. This evidence was not challenged by the prosecution. [Weinberg, par 72] Here is the exchange between Pell’s defence counsel Robert Richter and Potter:
Q: Let’s put it this way. (To Potter) When you were not in the sacristy were you aware as to what the altar servers were doing? A: Taking things what I gave them from the sanctuary to put in the sacristy, and then they would come back out — out — out, and to see if there was anything else to come off the sanctuary.
Q: Would there have been more than — sorry, by then would the priests have arrived back from the procession? A: They would — they would arrive back and disrobe.
Q: And they disrobed in the priest sacristy? A: Sacristy, yes.
Q: And sometimes they would sit around and talk? A: Or waiting for the Archbishop to come back. Yes. …
Q: So, Monsignor Portelli comes back with the Archbishop. There are people in the sacristy waiting for the Archbishop? A: Yes.
Q: They say their goodbyes? A: Yes.
Q: Everyone unvests? A: Yes. [cited Weinberg, par 732]
Sky News host Andrew Bolt says ABC journalists have “falsely, maliciously, and hurtfully” implied he was dismissing or trivialising the actions of a former sports coach at St Kevin’s College Melbourne. See the video HERE.
Malicious delusional Louise Milligan is at it again in her usual one-sided, question-begging, distorting way, inflating a case again Catholic St Kevin’s College to make it appear such things only happen in the Catholic Church and Catholic schools – all run through the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation), Australia’s Anti-Catholic Central. How wonderful it is to have a billion-dollar state enterprise at one’s disposal. Nobody and no institution does bigotry as well as Milligan and the ABC.
Andrew Bolt dared to make a mitigating comment about the St Kevin’s case. That was enough for Milligan to rise in fury and set the lynch mob on him. Bolt can handle himself, but he should know that he has risen high in list of those Milligan and her class are out to destroy. He should remember the mob outside St Patrick’s Cathedral shouting, ‘We’ll get you in the end, Pell.’ They got him.
Here’s Bolt’s answer to Milligan and her lynch mob:
ABC’S LOUISE MILLIGAN PICKS ANOTHER CHERRY IN HER CRUSADE
I don’t trust anything that the ABC’s Louise Milligan says in her reports on the Catholic Church or George Pell. Nor should anyone trust her tweets, like this appeal to my boss at Sky to, what, sack me?:
Christ Friel has updated the list of papers he has produced on Cardinal Pell’s jailing. This is priceless forensic research on the greatest miscarriage of justice in Australia’s history.