Category Archives: Political correctness

‘Revelation’ – the ABC poised to wallop the Catholic church

In January this year (2020), the ABC favoured the viewer with a flashy promo for their 2020 productions and imports. I thought to myself, well, this is something new. While the Marxist clique running the ABC has tried in the past to paper over their Marxist agenda, they have now dropped all pretence. Their frankness about their programs’ themes and preoccupations was almost disarming. In the current jargon, the ABC clique has come out proudly woke and are now geared up for a massive exercise in mass manipulation.

At the top of the clique’s list, the flag-bearer for the Marxist assault, is a three-part series on the Catholic Church. The series is titled REVELATION. Get it? The subtle Bible reference? Long-time faithful ABC foot soldier Sarah Ferguson was selected to front the series. Here is the ABC’s promo with a rather flattering photo of Ferguson (nothing wrong with that) against a background created by their best graphic designers (guess the significance of the nail and the faded cross):

Award-winning reporter Sarah Ferguson presents REVELATION, a ground-breaking documentary series on the criminal priests and brothers of the Catholic Church, their crimes laid bare for the first time in their own words.

One assumes the series is ground-breaking only because the ABC has enticed two priests serving long prison sentences to speak about their criminal abuse of pubescent boys. It can’t be for a general exposing of sexual abuse within the Catholic Church. As anti-Catholic central, as bad as the worst of the bigoted Orangemen associations, the ABC has surely milked the sordid criminal story for all its worth, their burning zeal culminating in Australia’s very own Alfred Dreyfus Affair.

What could the confessions of the two priests add? And why does the ABC need three programs? An enormous amount of work goes into one investigative documentary. So, what has Ferguson and the ABC’s billion-dollar support staff dug up or concocted to fill the documentary equivalent of a Cecil B DeMille production? First, let me outline what they won’t talk about. In his popular Media Watch Dog (No. 488, 13 March), Gerard Henderson runs through the ABC neglect, hiding or suppression of important information about clerical and non-clerical sexual abuse.

Ferguson will ignore the same proportional level of sexual abuse in other associations (private, religious and governmental), creating the widely held belief that the incidence of sexual abuse is much higher in the Catholic Church. She will not mention that the greatest incidence of child abuse is within the circle of family and friends. Richard Neville’s confessed ‘hurrican f…’ with a 14-year-old schoolgirl will be passed over together with his counterculture book Play Power which contains an implicit approval of adult-child sex relations.

She will skip over the sexual abuse of poet Dorothy Hewitt’s daughters by Hewitt’s bohemian circle of friends. Bob Ellis was one to enjoy her daughters. Speaking about the experience later, daughter Rozanna said,  ‘We were brought up in a very bohemian environment and some of those experiences were worse than others.’ Her sister Kate stressed ‘that the incidents that occurred in her childhood weren’t just restricted to the Sydney arts scene. Instead, she said it was part of a larger cultural problem at the time.’ (Sydney Morning Herald’s Dorothy Hewett’s daughters say grown men preyed on them as children.)

This ‘larger cultural problem at the time’ is, I suggest, of fundamental importance in any discussion about the high incidence of sexual abuse from the1960s to the 1990s, not just in religious institutions. (I devote a chapter to the 1960s sexual revolution in my book TONY ABBOTT AND THE TIMES OF REVOLUTION). Nor will Ferguson mention the ABC’s refusal to talk about its own case of child sexual abuse and the favourable comment about pederasty by a former ABC chairman (see Henderson).

Perhaps most telling is the ABC’s looking away from a critical feature of Catholic clerical sexual abuse. Around 80 percent of the cases is about male-on-male or same-sex abuse. The incidence of priestly abuse of pubescence males rose at the same rate as the entry of homosexuals into the priesthood. This a fact. Ferguson will not face the significance. She doesn’t dare. Finally, on these main points, I expect Ferguson and her ABC pals to be ignorant of the investigative work, ironically by traditional Catholic groups, into the homosexual networks in the American Church. There is talk of ‘Lavender Seminaries’ and the ‘gay mafia’. There is plenty of literature on this subject.

The cover-up in many cases was not to protect the institutional church by despicable conservative prelates, but the homosexual networks. The dramatic defrocking of Cardinal McCarrick, de facto leader of the American Church, gives a grisly view of this type of clerical double-cabinet and its protection. Why not in Australia?

What, then, will Ferguson’s three programs be about? I predict that she will use the two priests as a cynical weapon to strike hard and deep into the Catholic Church. I mean the traditional Church of two thousand years, not that of the dissenters and heretics whose parading pretence is nauseating.

Despite the two jailed priests being responsible for their own actions and despite their actions contradicting the Church’s sexual morality, Ferguson and her crew will work to minimise their guilt and shift it to the institutional church. Ultimately, it will be the Church’s beliefs, its structure and its male hierarchy that will be blamed. It will be interesting to see how far she drags Cardinal Pell into her case. You can be sure he’ll be there as ABC enemy No.1 in some form.

The viewer will be treated to the heterodox views of a string of Catholic ‘theologians’ and academics to which will be paid grovelling wide-eyed respect. The dissenters’ favourite causes will pass in review: priestly celibacy, married priests, homosexual relations, indeed, the full parade of LGBTQ+ issues, the lack of women in the hierarchical clergy and in executive positions, in a word, all the feminist demands against a patriarchal church. Ferguson might even extend the blame for the priests’ criminal acts to the prohibition of communion for the divorced and remarried. She might as well throw that in, too.

The object will be to support a fundamental change to the Catholic Church as envisaged by the dissenters, the parallel magisterium, from Vatican II to the papacy of Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

I have stuck my neck out. Let’s see if I have to recant. I might add that I have not plucked all this out of thin air. Whether I am right or wrong in the details, what I have outlined is the way the ABC thinks about the Catholic Church.

The first episode of REVELATION will be on Tuesday 17 March 2020.

See the following post for an explanation of how one recognises a Marxist: How do you recognize a Marxist?

A Last Chance for Australian Justice

George Weigel, The Catholic World Report, 6 March 2020

For Cardinal Pell’s sake, and for Australia’s, it must be hoped that, for once, and on its last chance, the Australian justice system will get it right.

On March 11-12, the High Court of Australia will hear Cardinal George Pell’s appeal of his conviction on charges of “historic sexual abuse.” The High Court has seven judges and a majority vote is required to decide an appeal. In a high-profile case like this, it is expected that all seven judges will sit for the appeal, although in some instances only five sit. There is no set time-line for the High Court to render its decision.

Should the High Court reverse Cardinal Pell’s conviction, a verdict of “acquitted” will be entered in his case and the cardinal will be immediately released from prison. Should the High Court uphold the conviction, the reputation of Australian criminal justice will be gravely and permanently damaged, just as the reputation of French military justice was destroyed by the false conviction of Captain Alfred Dreyfus – another innocent man victimized by rancid politics and irrational religious prejudice.

Read on…

The great slander: the Church condemns sexual pleasure

Canadian Jean Vanier was highly admired for his work with intellectually disabled individuals. News that accusations of ‘sexual misconduct’ against him appeared credible disappointed many Canadians. But instead of regretting the weakness of one man and holding him responsible for his actions, the usual sort of leftist pretend Catholic wanted to blame the Church’s sexual morality for Vanier’s action. Catholics under the influence of Catholic teaching have a ‘deep fear of sexual pleasure’, it is alleged. Donald Demarco in the comment below blows this idea away with some facts about the Church’s teaching. This refutation is relevant to the Pell case and to clerical sexual abuse in general because many (on the left) blame clerical celibacy for the abuse. Such a view cannot be sustained on the evidence. Demarco has written a timely piece in Crisis Magazine.

Jean Vanier’s Sins Are His Own


According to a report released by L’Arche International, Jean Vanier, the Catholic Canadian founder of a network of communities for intellectually disabled individuals, sexually abused at least six women. This news comes as both a disappointment and a shock to all those who regarded Vanier as a man of exemplary virtue.

“I was horrified,” writes Dorothy Cummings McLean for LifeSiteNews, “by revelations that its founder, the late Vanier, has been credibly accused of sexual misconduct by six women.” Discretion requires that we not go any further into what the report has revealed. Added to this unhappy revelation, however, is a bizarre criticism of the Catholic Church, as if it were as much to blame for Vanier’s lurid behavior as he was.

In an opinion piece for Canada’s Globe and Mail, Professor Michael W. Higgins (who calls himself a Catholic) stated the following in response to the Vanier revelations: “The deep pathology that runs through centuries of Catholic teaching on sexuality—a pathology marked by a deep fear of sexual pleasure with its body versus spirit dualism—needs to be recognized for its destructive potential. And the aftershocks of patriarchy reverberate throughout all of society. It’s time for a new and healthier anthropology.”

Read on…

What Everyone has overlooked

This recent essay in Quadrant by Chris Friel ‘What Everyone has Overlooked‘ should rather be titled, ‘Demonstrating Pell’s accuser lied’. He shows that the accuser’s story of what happened in the priest’s sacristy could not be right. His case is in the open paragraphs:

The Crown claimed, and still claim, that the complainant’s credibility was enhanced because he located the wine in the correct area of the sacristy, that is, in the alcove in the corner. To this the defence replied that maybe he got that knowledge from a tour back in 1996. But an attentive viewing of the interview with Pell and the police in Rome shows that originally the complainant did not locate the wine correctly at all. Beyond doubt the original location was a storage area that may be called a kitchenette as it contains two sinks (above). When the complainant visited the sacristy with the police he looked at that kitchenette and said that it was just the same as 1996. But the police were to learn after the interview that in 1996 the “kitchenette” was a wardrobe. The sinks had not been installed and the wood panels that apparently the complainant had described so well were not there. It was used for hanging albs.

‘So it is simply not true that, at first, the complainant correctly located the wine. What he did was place the wine where in 2016 it might reasonably be thought that the wine would be located – and incidentally, he got the colour of the wine quite wrong, as in 1996 only white was used. What this shows is that he could only have acquired his knowledge at a much later date, either from a visit or from coaching – an explanation that naturally he denied. Manifestly, this puts a completely different light on the complainant’s credibility; indeed, it destroys it. But these facts, which are very clear from open sources, appear not to have been appreciated. It’s important, then, that these points are made known before the High Court rules in a couple of weeks’ time. The jury, which may have been understandably misled by the Crown’s claims, would surely have taken a different view had they understood the evidence properly.’

Read the rest of the essay HERE. This is one of the most important of Chris Friel’s many essays on the Pell Affair. He adds some further explanation in a later essay, The Wine in the Wardrobe Revisited.

Pell Accuser – contradicting male sexual biology

So (following from the previous post) we have Archbishop Pell struggling under the awkwardness and weight of garments at waist level, his pants and underpants at his knees, on the verge of sexual assault. In other words, he is in a state of arousal ready to go into action. This is despite the gargantuan effort to hold all his clothes in the right place and the thought that any number of people could without warning enter the sacristy and catch him in a criminal act.

Utter nonsense.

Being a married man with children, I don’t believe any man could maintain an erection in such circumstances. An erection is the sign of male arousal and arousal can be maintained only in conducive circumstances. Apart from the environmental circumstances, layers of clothes don’t cooperate in maintaining arousal. There’s a good reason why films show couples flinging their clothes everywhere in the process of getting down to action.

The whole proposition is utter nonsense.

Say, now, that the lumbering, 56-year-old, 6-foot-3 archbishop has achieved what a slim nimble 18-year-old would have trouble with. The superhuman effort is now to maintain arousal while staggering after two 13-year-olds with a load of clothes and pants to his knees.

Utter nonsense.

To proceed to yet more incomprehensible behaviour, we are to believe that the two 13-year-olds have not done what the normal boy of that age would do. Recoiling in horror and disgust they would have easily evaded the tied-up archbishop and run from the sacristy into the arms of the many adults in the vicinity.

The scenario is utter nonsense.

Now we come to the truly incomprehensible. Once again, sorry to be indelicate. An erect penis once in action is looking for a climax. It doesn’t have a mind of its own. So, we are to believe that the archbishop put his erect penis into the mouth of one boy (he couldn’t do it without an erection), then into the other, and then fondled the unresisting boy while he had both hands engaged in holding his clothes in place and massaging a still erect penis. You see the problem? You would have to be a very stupid man not to. I won’g go further into the tawdry detail, but a normal man would see that the accuser’s claims are a total fantasy.

It is all a bare-faced lie.

The charges are so incredible as to be practically impossible

Regretfully, I have to repeat the accuser’s distasteful charges to make my point.

The anonymous accuser claimed that the then Archbishop Pell exposed his penis, grabbed the two boys, forced his penis into their mouths one after the other and finished by fondling one of the boys while he masturbated. This scenario is so incredible as to be practically impossible. First, the archbishop’s robes or vestments.

One can view a video of an archbishop vesting for a Solemn High Mass here. In this video, the archbishop is wearing a cassock before he begins vesting. It’s probable he has shirt and trousers on underneath the cassock. He has at least underpants on. But let’s count that as two layers.

He puts on the Amice and ties it tightly in front of him. I will count that as a restriction to movement. Next comes the Alb, a long white robe reaching to the floor. Three layers.

Continue reading The charges are so incredible as to be practically impossible

More about the liar

One Facebook page supporting Cardinal Pell began with this:

‘According to Cardinal Pell’s Biographer Tess Livingstone, in her article, ‘George Pell: This saga has a long way to go yet’, published in the Australian on March 1, 2019, Pell’s accuser has also in the past accused another Melbourne Priest of abuse.

If this is true, why is this not being spoken about? The secrecy of this accuser and his past are warranting of investigation.

Indeed, why is it not being talked about? The prosecutors have done everything they could to hide the identity of the person concocting the charges. Is their case so weak? But the unfairness and absurdity of the state’s actions does not concern me here. What is significant is that another piece of information about the accuser has slipped into the public realm despite the furious efforts.

In addition to psychological deficits, Cardinal Pell’s accuser has an inclination to pick on Catholic clergy. Nothing about this liar would surprise me. Indeed, the determined efforts to keep him hidden suggest there are other embarrassing (for the prosecution) things about him. For example, is he gay, is he a member of a gay activist group, has he a record of political activism of the leftist sort? What has the state prosecution to hide?

One thing is sure. The answers to these questions and many others will be revealed one day. Many of us will never let this affair rest. It is not just about the person of Cardinal Pell. It’s about what sort of people Australians are, what sort of country we live in. We will continue to work at tearing the skin from the onion piece by piece, even if it takes years.

If the choirboy was ‘believable’, what does that say about Pell’s police interview?

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.

The shifting story of Cardinal pell’s accuser

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:

Read on…

Pell-Queen chronology

The defence team for Cardinal Pell handed a chronology of events to the High Court. The key names for the defence in the process are included.

Portelli – Cardinal Pell’s Master of Ceremonies

Porter – St Patrick’s Cathedral sacristan

McGlone – altar server

Connor – altar server

Fr Brendan Egan – Mass sayer at second Mass (27 February 1997) at which Cardinal Pell presides in choir dress

Portelli, Porter, McGlone and Connor say Cardinal Pell was never unattended while robed.