Australian RC Church sent 5-paedophile priests to one parish

[a_unique_person]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11740898



The rest of the article is more shocking

As an ex catholic, can I just say what a ******* disgrace.

 

[ddt]

I was just reading that the Italian police have authority in Vatican City, excluding the steps of the basilica and beyond. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateran_Treaty

And we do have an extradition agreement with Italy.

I agree that it will require some balls from our PTB to actually charge Pell. The Catholic vote is not to be trifled with. But I wonder how many Catholics would actually oppose the move anyway. They're all about sacrifice, right? They may be happy for him to take the heat, and go some way to putting the church in a better light.

We can but dream. Maybe I'll pray.

I do hope the Australian authorities have the balls to charge Pell if they have compelling evidence. Nobody thus far has had the balls to charge any clergy from bishop up in the hierarchy.

(and frankly, I don't understand the utter reluctance authorities have against a trial in absentia when you know where the accused hides. If you can serve them the court papers, it's their decision to stand up and defend themselves - or keep hiding).

 

[Carnivore]

I do hope the Australian authorities have the balls to charge Pell if they have compelling evidence. Nobody thus far has had the balls to charge any clergy from bishop up in the hierarchy.

(and frankly, I don't understand the utter reluctance authorities have against a trial in absentia when you know where the accused hides. If you can serve them the court papers, it's their decision to stand up and defend themselves - or keep hiding).

That's an interesting point.

Does anyone know what are Australia's rules about trial in absentia? Has it ever been done? What are the potential pros and cons?

For that matter if in matters of extradition can the extraditing government not insist on it's own medical examination to determine if a defendant is too ill to travel? Or alternatively if are they are too ill to take part in a trial by video link?

 

[catsmate]

I know of no 12 year olds who are RC priests... do you?.

Not since the Cardinal-Infante.

 

[catsmate]

That's an interesting point.

Does anyone know what are Australia's rules about trial in absentia? Has it ever been done? What are the potential pros and cons?

It's not allowed in Australia. A defendant can be removed from a court sitting for disruptive behaviour or opt not to attend, but the scenario of trying someone who's currently resident in a different country is not permitted.
As with the USA and most common law jurisdictions the defendant must be present for the beginning of the trial.

For that matter if in matters of extradition can the extraditing government not insist on it's own medical examination to determine if a defendant is too ill to travel?

No.

Or alternatively if are they are too ill to take part in a trial by video link?

Hmm, I think that'd be theoretically possible but extremely unlikely.

 

[ddt]

That's an interesting point.

Does anyone know what are Australia's rules about trial in absentia? Has it ever been done? What are the potential pros and cons?

For that matter if in matters of extradition can the extraditing government not insist on it's own medical examination to determine if a defendant is too ill to travel? Or alternatively if are they are too ill to take part in a trial by video link?

From a site of a criminal lawyers club:

So in a nutshell – while trials cannot start in the absence of the defendant in NSW, the law is not so settled in other parts of Australia. And in cases where the defendant acts in such a way that the trial cannot continue in his or her presence, judges must consider a range of factors before deciding whether to proceed without them.

 

[Checkmite]

This whole argument is frankly silly. The fact that the priests in this case were pedophiles is relevant to the crimes they committed. Other priests in other churches have formed illicit and even abusive relationships with adult congregants before. These priests could have as well but they did not; they instead chose to pursue children, because they were pedophiles.

 

[Checkmite]

Well, no. They chose to pursue children for any of a number of different reasons.

Well you're quite simply wrong about that of course; the priests in this case did not simply seek to "scratch an itch" and jump out from behind pulpits at unsuspecting passersby, "just-so-happening" to victimize children. Nor was this a case of a setting like an orphanage or boarding school where children "just-so-happened" to be the most readily abundant and accessible class of victim when these predators struck. Rather, each of them apparently has an established pattern of specifically seeking out and victimizing children in particular, in a sexual manner. One of them, contrarily to your description, is described in the press as having a positive disregard for adult women. When it comes to the case of a nonviolent, serial sex offender whose victims appear to consist exclusively of children, it's simply an extraordinary claim to insist their sex-crimes against children must or even likely have nothing to do with a sexual objectification of children.

 

[luchog]

Well you're quite simply wrong about that of course;

Except that none of what you said refuted anything I actually said. Some may have been clinical paedophiles, but it's not necessarily the case that all were, some may have merely been opportunistic sociopaths. That's something only a medical professional could say for sure.

One of them, contrarily to your description, is described in the press as having a positive disregard for adult women.

You do realize that is a job requirement for the RCC priesthood, right?

 

[pgwenthold]

I'm arguing that it is profoundly, anti-socially wrong to demonize people who have not acted.

These guys HAVE acted so I see no problem in demonizing them.

 

[Carnivore]

These guys HAVE acted so I see no problem in demonizing them.

Which guys? The imaginary non criminal paedophiles under discussion or the actual criminal priests that this thread was originally about for a couple of posts?

 

[pgwenthold]

Which guys?

The 5 priests that have been sent into the one parish.

You know? What this thread is about, as described by the title?

I understand that many have tried to derail the discussion, which may lead to forgetting the topic, but it's right there in the title.

 

[lionking]

At the risk of derailing this wonderful exercise in pedantry, an earlier report about these disgraceful priests at Doveton and Pell's denial.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-...-victim-of-paedophile-priest-released/6972448

But, while being questioned in 2013 by Victorian MP Frank McGuire, Cardinal Pell defended his actions in relation to Searson.

The transcript of his evidence reads: "...No conviction was recorded for Searson for sexual misbehaviour - there might be victims..."

I look forward to the day when Pell goes down not just an enabler of child molesters (can I safely use this word guys?) but also as one himself.

Despite being an avid Business Class flyer, you can bet he will have the best Vatican doctors declaring him unfit to fly and face inevitable charges.

 

[Agatha]

Please return to the topic of the priests sent to the Australian parish. If you want to discuss definitions and language usage, please do it a thread that is not this one.Thank you.

ETA: I have split the derail to a new thread.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha

 

[stephaniediazllorens]

The article says "child-molesting", your headline says "paedophile".

When will people finally figure out that the two are not synonymous?

I think that this is very controversial. In my opinion the person or people that are either child molesters and/or paedophile are wrong. But in some places it is ok for a 50 something or more year male can marry a 10 or some years old.

Also those to words are by a string different. Is the think and do VS the think and don't do. For society these days you might think what ever you want but the actions are penalize. Technically pedophile is not followed by action until you turn into a child molester.

 

[lionking]

I think that this is very controversial. In my opinion the person or people that are either child molesters and/or paedophile are wrong. But in some places it is ok for a 50 something or more year male can marry a 10 or some years old.

Also those to words are by a string different. Is the think and do VS the think and don't do. For society these days you might think what ever you want but the actions are penalize. Technically pedophile is not followed by action until you turn into a child molester.

Could you re-state this in English please?

 

[Carnivore]

Could you re-state this in English please?

I suspect they were trying to, I also think they fell down the same rabbit hole most of this thread went down. Probably stephaniediazlorens post should be in the new thread.