(May 8, 2020 at 4:43 pm)SUNGULA Wrote:Quote:I thought the same thing but u know what I learnt, he wasn't in a position of power until well after in 1996. Another bishop actually lead Ballarat, Pell was just a priest thereBut then he moved in the ranks and you can't tell me he learned nothing of the rot in the church and did he do anything to address it ?
My point was that he was never in charge like many people think and so cannot be held accountable for not knowing what his colleges did.
How would he have known. I can't imagine a colleague openly telling others about such acts
Bishop Mulkearns of Ballarat had moved Gerald Ridsdale because of complaints. Both men were to be later exposed for their crimes.
The Royal Commission assumes that when Pell joined Ballarat 1973, Bishop Mulkearns would have told him.
Its a wild assumption driven by the perception that he was a pedophile which was being told by the media back in 2017 when these findings were made
Pell's defence has been the same all along. There was a point in time when he did start to hear about complaints coming from parents
When he confronted his colleges they assured him that they were false rumours. He says he was deceived by them
What does a man do at this point. U may argue that he should of gone to the cops and in hindsight he should have
But u r choosing to believe the story of someone you have never even met and disregarding the word of your workmate. Then to go to the cops
So he knew about the complaints but how was he to possibly know if they were true.
Knowing that his colleges were pedophiles and knowing about the complaints aren't the same thing
Anyway there is plenty there for u to pull apart and have fun with