It was no surprise to see the contemptible David Marr give vent to his mind-disturbed anti-Catholic biogtry on the release of the unredacted pages of the Royal Commission’s report about Cardinal Pell. It does not matter how tenuous the connection or how faulty the reasoning the Marr-type will exploit it to its maximum. Of course, the delusional hysterical Louise Milligan was right there with him also giving vent to her hate-filled twisted opinions.
There are three basic issues for me about the Royal Commission. First the RC’s unseemly aggression towards Cardinal Pell as if they had already made a judgement regardless of what he would say. Second, the totally disproportionate focus on the cardinal as if they had already made a judgement. Third, if Cardinal Pell’s counter to the accusations that he ‘knew’ were ‘implausible’ or ‘inconceivable’, why just him?
Remember that Cardinal Pell was an assistant priest in the 1970s and the early years of the 1980s, and a bishop with limited authority and responsibilities in the 1980s. The commission’s pages create a surreal picture of Fr Pell knowing while everyone else in the close company of the abusers wandered around like ghosts unaccountably oblivious to those same acts. Former priest and leftist scribbler Paul Bongiorno lived with the worst abuser Gerald Ridsdale as did Fr Pell. Nothing to see there, though, for the commission.
I find the use of the words ‘implausible’ and ‘inconceivable’ inappropriate and degrading of the RC’s purpose. The ready response to these two words about Cardinal Pell’s explanations is: ‘says who?’ Indeed, the use of ‘inconceivable’ raises the same issues about reasoning as found in the majority judgment in supreme court appeal. Nothing is inconceivable or impossible except a contradiction. If the RC found Cardinal Pell’s explanations ‘inconceivable’, then that’s just their opinion. The commission was not a court case and the information offered the commission distant and extremely limited. Their view smacks of partiality. It has Daniel Andrews’ sickening odour all over it.
Andrew Bolt covers some of these points in an interview with Peter Westmore who attended of the sessions of cardinal Pell’s trails.