Great comment at the end of the video on the two admirable "workers in the vineyard." I worked in the social service field for 40 years and I learned very quickly that it was not the politicians or the high-profile elite of the community who were the most important in the field. It was, however, the little lady who went into home bound senior citizens homes and helped them bathe and stay independent or the person who worked with low-income kids in after school programs and tried to talk some sense into them. They were the ones that really made an impact in people's lives.
OMG ! I kever thought I would say this, John Allen, you really supported/ inspired a catholic perspective. On a personal note, I knew Cardinal Pell.. you did him some justice. He was a wonderful Christian, A brilliant scholor, above all else, a good priest. What more could be askedfor? My dear friend,I will try and pray you to the sweet embrace into God's embracced. Best priest I hae ever known.
Time 3:21 How should matters be handled in the church where one member of the church does a wrong to another member of the church? What went wrong? These matters should be handled on the basis of the following Scripture teachings. 1) Matthew, chapter 18, verses 15 - 17 Jesus taught, " If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; ...." 2) 2Corinthians 13 : 1 Paul wrote to the church at Corinth, "Any charge must be sustained by the evidence of two or three witnesses." 3) 1Timothy 5 : 19 Paul wrote to Timothy, " Never admit any charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses". So, for example, if a boy (who is a lay person) says a priest has sexually molested /abused him, then the priests (who are presbyters /elders) of the boy's parish church community will talk to the boy and his parents and satisfy themselves that the boy is telling the truth. Then the priests will ask the accused priest about this matter and learn what the latter has to say, whether he confesses to the wrong or not, whether he is telling the truth or not. If the accused priest is found to be lying, the priests who questioned him and who are witnesses to the lying, will tell it to the other priests in the diocesan church and the bishop, who can then ascertain for themselves whether the accused priest is lying or not, whether he is a liar or a truth teller.
Time 3:21 How should matters be handled in the church where one member of the church does a wrong to another member of the church? What went wrong? These matters should be handled on the basis of the following Scripture teachings. 1) Matthew, chapter 18, verses 15 - 17 Jesus taught, " If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; ...." 2) 2Corinthians 13 : 1 Paul wrote to the church at Corinth, "Any charge must be sustained by the evidence of two or three witnesses." 3) 1Timothy 5 : 19 Paul wrote to Timothy, " Never admit any charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses". So, for example, if a boy (who is a lay person) says a priest has sexually molested /abused him, then the priests (who are presbyters /elders) of the boy's parish church community will talk to the boy and his parents and satisfy themselves that the boy is telling the truth. Then the priests will ask the accused priest about this matter and learn what the latter has to say, whether he confesses to the wrong or not, whether he is telling the truth or not. If the accused priest is found to be lying, the priests who questioned him and who are witnesses to the lying, will tell it to the other priests in the diocesan church and the bishop, who can then ascertain for themselves whether the accused priest is lying or not, whether he is a liar or a truth teller.
The end of this post made the whole thing worthwhile. In the sense that much gossip is history not yet written down, the first part was interesting. But the stories of these two people and their contribution to Christian life is what we all should be about. Thank you!🙏🏻👏🏻
It isn't "gossip" to tell the truth, that Cardinal Pell was the personification of evil in the name of God. Cardinal Pell was a CONVICTED pedophile (overturned on a technicality, which catholics don't make clear), a prolific pedophile protector, and a catholic hero. 45 children in Ballarat committed suicide because they were raped by 2 catholic priests, and Fr Gerard Ridsdale was Pell's roommate and good friend. Is that "gossip"?? Disgusting. Pell knew about rampant child rape since 1972 (according to the Royal Commission Report), and protected his pedo pals like Jesus would protect children. Also not gossip. Jesus said child rape was unforgivable (Matt 18:6-14), and everyone supporting it will get eternal damnation. That means every catholic. And yeah, Jesus didn't "Gossip". Of course, Pell will have his defenders, who will join him for eternal damnation.
Priests have demonstrated that their robes can be parted to go to the toilet so that argument is false. The numbers of people who were abused and ignored by the cardinal is awful. It is difficult being objective if a person is a friend.
Your comment is so inanely silly that it's difficult to know where to begin. The other possibility is that you are evil and with evil intent wilfully lying. Either way.... All justices of the High Court were 1. unanimous in judgment and 2. they all signed the reasoning behind the opinion. A single judgment was given for the full court, which held there is ‘a significant possibility that an innocent person has been convicted because the evidence did not establish guilt’. If you weren't a hard inane leftist you would be ashamed.
My condolences to you & your wife re the death of Cardinal Pell. This is a very sad time for you. He shared with the essence of his books re the accusation & his reflections about it. I would like the 3 books but am having problems to find them where I live.
Yes, truly a memorable message from John Allen this week. Ive followed George Pell for years and his innocence in Aust was a remarkable decision to free an innocent man who was persecuted. Now with God. And the story of thr two Italians who show the beating heart of the faith, with God now. Three deaths and also Benedict. Sad but with God. Thnkx for sharing your personal story of Pell. The Church lives on…semper ecclesia. Grazie mille
Time 3:21 How should matters be handled in the church where one member of the church does a wrong to another member of the church? What went wrong? These matters should be handled on the basis of the following Scripture teachings. 1) Matthew, chapter 18, verses 15 - 17 Jesus taught, " If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; ...." 2) 2Corinthians 13 : 1 Paul wrote to the church at Corinth, "Any charge must be sustained by the evidence of two or three witnesses." 3) 1Timothy 5 : 19 Paul wrote to Timothy, " Never admit any charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses". So, for example, if a boy (who is a lay person) says a priest has sexually molested /abused him, then the priests (who are presbyters /elders) of the boy's parish church community will talk to the boy and his parents and satisfy themselves that the boy is telling the truth. Then the priests will ask the accused priest about this matter and learn what the latter has to say, whether he confesses to the wrong or not, whether he is telling the truth or not. If the accused priest is found to be lying, the priests who questioned him and who are witnesses to the lying, will tell it to the other priests in the diocesan church and the bishop, who can then ascertain for themselves whether the accused priest is lying or not, whether he is a liar or a truth teller.
Nice personal valediction for Pell. He was a lightning rod for the Left's unbridled hatred. Not a mystic but a very orthodox old school Catholic Church bishop. For all the downsides of the type, infinitely more preferable to the modern type. A spine is necessary for real priestly formation.
Time 3:21 How should matters be handled in the church where one member of the church does a wrong to another member of the church? What went wrong? These matters should be handled on the basis of the following Scripture teachings. 1) Matthew, chapter 18, verses 15 - 17 Jesus taught, " If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; ...." 2) 2Corinthians 13 : 1 Paul wrote to the church at Corinth, "Any charge must be sustained by the evidence of two or three witnesses." 3) 1Timothy 5 : 19 Paul wrote to Timothy, " Never admit any charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses". So, for example, if a boy (who is a lay person) says a priest has sexually molested /abused him, then the priests (who are presbyters /elders) of the boy's parish church community will talk to the boy and his parents and satisfy themselves that the boy is telling the truth. Then the priests will ask the accused priest about this matter and learn what the latter has to say, whether he confesses to the wrong or not, whether he is telling the truth or not. If the accused priest is found to be lying, the priests who questioned him and who are witnesses to the lying, will tell it to the other priests in the diocesan church and the bishop, who can then ascertain for themselves whether the accused priest is lying or not, whether he is a liar or a truth teller.
Bravo bravo. The sister and the brother doing what ever good brother and sister of Christ do for their life in the journey to the heavenly hosts.. bravo bravo and thankyou for those two stories of people God!!!
Time 3:21 How should matters be handled in the church where one member of the church does a wrong to another member of the church? What went wrong? These matters should be handled on the basis of the following Scripture teachings. 1) Matthew, chapter 18, verses 15 - 17 Jesus taught, " If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; ...." 2) 2Corinthians 13 : 1 Paul wrote to the church at Corinth, "Any charge must be sustained by the evidence of two or three witnesses." 3) 1Timothy 5 : 19 Paul wrote to Timothy, " Never admit any charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses". So, for example, if a boy (who is a lay person) says a priest has sexually molested /abused him, then the priests (who are presbyters /elders) of the boy's parish church community will talk to the boy and his parents and satisfy themselves that the boy is telling the truth. Then the priests will ask the accused priest about this matter and learn what the latter has to say, whether he confesses to the wrong or not, whether he is telling the truth or not. If the accused priest is found to be lying, the priests who questioned him and who are witnesses to the lying, will tell it to the other priests in the diocesan church and the bishop, who can then ascertain for themselves whether the accused priest is lying or not, whether he is a liar or a truth teller.
@@Jimboken1There is a documentary on the ABC Revelations it’s from young men from Ballarat who said they were abused .They have never been to court .Stand up,for the faith but seek the truth .
@@Jimboken1look up Broken Rites and it’s about Catholic Clergy who abused young men and girls in Australia .We must never forget the abuse has caused to the Catholic Children of Australia and it must never happen again .
@@michaelkeane8508 There isn't one credible charge. Not one. Just slime a plenty. Repeating drivel without evidence isn't credible. And don't tell me to 'look up' an advocacy group who targeted Pell merely because he stood firm against homosexual grandstanding displays in a cathedral. Just one credible charge with names and details please.
The only question you need to ask yourself is “ Are you “born again believer in Christ” that is the only one you need to concern yourself with this is what Jesus teaches other wise you go to hell!❤ this is gossip
Give us a break In the first trial I believe the alleged abused said he did not recall at what Mass the abuse happened at and he said that to the Jury who believed him .In the Statement from the Police they wrote that it was on a Sunday Mass and it was impossible to have happened at that Mass and that is what got Pell off the Charge.The alleged abused said he could not remember what Mass it happened at .I would be happy to be wrong because he did some good things for the Church and some bad.I also had great respect for Father Bob Maguire who I new as priest in the Army who had to report Pell as a trainee Priest for actions against an altar boy
Show Fr Bob's reporting of Pell as a trainee priest for "actions against an altar boy" If ur something above a mere slime merchant, you'll have a reference for that filth. Fr Bob was a lefty and wouldn't have cared for Pell but I'd be astonished if what you said has even a iota of truth behind it.
He was also a career cleric who used people and discarded them as he rose. He was no servant, and a wooden character without genuine empathy or kindness. Yes he loved dining out (at others' expense), and rarely reciprocated. He was not Christlike in any recognizable sense.
So an unknown double-barrelled named dick on a You-tube comments section decides to character assassinate a recently deceased man because he mind-read the cardinal presumably before he died. What low-life pos you are Arfur.
I set aside the trial and personal accusation of abuse directed to Pell. After appeal, the case was dismissed. He is entitled to the presumption of innocence. Similarly, he was never convicted of any crime. As we know though, conviction for abuse is extremely difficult and there were credible accusations that dogged Pell's life from the very early years. But I don't dismiss his behaviour toward victims of abuse. This ranged from indifference to hostility. It's on the record, it's not speculation. He was truly awful. This is the legacy of a man whose heart was shrivelled, whose compassion for victims, and their loved ones, was missing. The 'Melbourne Response', so louded by Pell supporters, was certainly an attempt to get 'ahead' of the issue but, arguably, it did more to protect the church than benefit victims. It was also released just before the national response by Australian Bishops: Towards Healing. Why Pell 'went alone' is open to speculation. Financial reform? This may have been a significant achievement for insiders.
Time 3:21 How should matters be handled in the church where one member of the church does a wrong to another member of the church? What went wrong? These matters should be handled on the basis of the following Scripture teachings. 1) Matthew, chapter 18, verses 15 - 17 Jesus taught, " If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; ...." 2) 2Corinthians 13 : 1 Paul wrote to the church at Corinth, "Any charge must be sustained by the evidence of two or three witnesses." 3) 1Timothy 5 : 19 Paul wrote to Timothy, " Never admit any charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses". So, for example, if a boy (who is a lay person) says a priest has sexually molested /abused him, then the priests (who are presbyters /elders) of the boy's parish church community will talk to the boy and his parents and satisfy themselves that the boy is telling the truth. Then the priests will ask the accused priest about this matter and learn what the latter has to say, whether he confesses to the wrong or not, whether he is telling the truth or not. If the accused priest is found to be lying, the priests who questioned him and who are witnesses to the lying, will tell it to the other priests in the diocesan church and the bishop, who can then ascertain for themselves whether the accused priest is lying or not, whether he is a liar or a truth teller.
I set aside the trial but I KNOW Pell was a lowlife scum sez I-KNOW-I'M-FAIR-Tony. You don't actually know. You can't mind-read your fellow living humans let alone recently deceased ones. Without checking by googling, tell us the name of the Archbishop of Melbourne that Pell replaced. Because it is known he failed to respond to reports for over a decade. I'll bet that you don't know (99% probability I'm right). We know Pell immediately did act after his appointment. The first in Australia and among the first in the world. So if my guess is correct, you hate Pell much more than you care for the victims. And you hate Pell because you have been brainwashed to hate Pell. Moreover we also know Pell condemned the abusers in starkly harsh terms from the very earliest they were found guilty. Every single human at the sunset of their lives would say “l could have done more”. Everyone but the dishonest. The lazy leftist slime was that Pell didn't do enough and was that he was in the same parish as Risdale, one of the worst offenders, but said he wasn't aware. The most facile complaint that can be levelled against anyone was that in retrospect they "didn't do enough". Particularly after a criticism from a leftist kangaroo court egged on by 'their' ABC the national broadcaster every day for decades. Paul Bongiorno, a former priest and leftist progressive commentator on Channel 10 for decades after he left the priesthood to marry, also lived with Risdale in the same parish. Why no lazy leftist character assassinations against him in the Australian media? Bongiorno shared a presbytery with paedophile and defrocked priest Gerald Ridsdale without knowing of his cruel assaults on youngsters. “I had no idea what he was up to,” he said. “And when people look at me quizzically, I say let me tell you this: There are married men and women now who sleep with their husbands and wives and don’t know that their husband or wife is having an affair. Let me tell you that Ridsdale never came to the presbytery in Warrnambool and said, ‘Guess how many boys I’ve raped today’. They hide it. It was certainly hidden from me. And when it came out after I had left the priesthood, I was shocked and I was ashamed.”
@@Jimboken1 You start by putting words in my mouth, captialized to boot! Happy to defend what I did say, but won't waste time defending what I didn't say.
@@tonycarey1735 "Similarly, he was never convicted of any crime. As we know though, conviction for abuse is extremely difficult and there were credible accusations that dogged Pell's life from the very early years." And what about this for unctuous righteous ad hominem sliming: "But I don't dismiss his behaviour toward victims of abuse. This ranged from indifference to hostility. It's on the record, it's not speculation. He was truly awful. This is the legacy of a man whose heart was shrivelled, whose compassion for victims, and their loved ones, was missing. The 'Melbourne Response', so louded by Pell supporters, was certainly an attempt to get 'ahead' of the issue but, arguably, it did more to protect the church than benefit victims. It was also released just before the national response by Australian Bishops: Towards Healing. Why Pell 'went alone' is open to speculation" You're a slime merchant. Nothing more.
Pakesabe po pope francis sa intl alpha omega comands gov law nagmumura yung ahas nagtatanong sino raw ang magtotoro sa kanya ng kabutihan templo din sya ni holy god father alert pls help gods will amen
Time 3:21 How should matters be handled in the church where one member of the church does a wrong to another member of the church? What went wrong? These matters should be handled on the basis of the following Scripture teachings. 1) Matthew, chapter 18, verses 15 - 17 Jesus taught, " If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; ...." 2) 2Corinthians 13 : 1 Paul wrote to the church at Corinth, "Any charge must be sustained by the evidence of two or three witnesses." 3) 1Timothy 5 : 19 Paul wrote to Timothy, " Never admit any charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses". So, for example, if a boy (who is a lay person) says a priest has sexually molested /abused him, then the priests (who are presbyters /elders) of the boy's parish church community will talk to the boy and his parents and satisfy themselves that the boy is telling the truth. Then the priests will ask the accused priest about this matter and learn what the latter has to say, whether he confesses to the wrong or not, whether he is telling the truth or not. If the accused priest is found to be lying, the priests who questioned him and who are witnesses to the lying, will tell it to the other priests in the diocesan church and the bishop, who can then ascertain for themselves whether the accused priest is lying or not, whether he is a liar or a truth teller.
So what if he did all of this. A lot of cardinals have done lots of things in their respective areas. Look at any interview with him, he is the most unemotional, babbling man who could not speak clearly to anyone. When being interviewed and shown pictures of abuse victims (still available on RU-vid) he is totally unemotional and shows no emotion. Very ineffective communicator. The church is meant to be dynamic and alive. Pell speaks as if he is talking to a mausoleum crowd.
Time 3:21 How should matters be handled in the church where one member of the church does a wrong to another member of the church? What went wrong? These matters should be handled on the basis of the following Scripture teachings. 1) Matthew, chapter 18, verses 15 - 17 Jesus taught, " If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; ...." 2) 2Corinthians 13 : 1 Paul wrote to the church at Corinth, "Any charge must be sustained by the evidence of two or three witnesses." 3) 1Timothy 5 : 19 Paul wrote to Timothy, " Never admit any charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses". So, for example, if a boy (who is a lay person) says a priest has sexually molested /abused him, then the priests (who are presbyters /elders) of the boy's parish church community will talk to the boy and his parents and satisfy themselves that the boy is telling the truth. Then the priests will ask the accused priest about this matter and learn what the latter has to say, whether he confesses to the wrong or not, whether he is telling the truth or not. If the accused priest is found to be lying, the priests who questioned him and who are witnesses to the lying, will tell it to the other priests in the diocesan church and the bishop, who can then ascertain for themselves whether the accused priest is lying or not, whether he is a liar or a truth teller.
@@glynissequeira5544 1) Abuse kids don't have the status of 'brother'. 2) and 3) Most abusers take advantage of being alone with their victim, they are careful to make it a witness-free crime. In essence the last part of your post is recommending that matters are handled internally. Firstly, priest abusers are great liars and, as mentioned, don't invite witnesses. Secondly, 'presbeter/elders' have a history of keeping things quiet, moving the offending priest to greener pastures and, sometimes, being part of the problem in other ways. As has been made clear in dioceses around the world, we are long past believing this can be solved by internal mechanisms.
Pell and his lawyer were fools for not demanding that the jury go to the sacristy and see. Anyone who works in churches (as you rightly said) would know that a Cardinal is never ever alone when he is in public!!!! But Pell and his lawyer should have made that case by taking the jury to the sacristy and then let him robe where they would see it is virtually impossible for anyone to get under the robes!!!!!! So he was not very smart!
What all American commentators seem to miss is not whether George Pell was an abuser or not: The High Court of Australia dismissed those charges and the guilty verdict was overturned.The Royal Commission found that he knew of the abuse; and that he covered it up and moved priests around. His flimsy Melbourne Response was designed to protect the Church. His response to victims and victims parents was awful. His epitaph is what he said himself “ l could have done more”
Without checking by googling, tell us the name of the Archbishop of Melbourne that Pell replaced. Because we know he failed to respond to reports for over a decade. I'll bet that you don't know (99% probability I'm right) which tells the story. We know Pell immediately did act after his appointment. The first in Australia and among the first in the world. So if my guess is correct, you hate Pell much more than you care for the victims. And you hate Pell because you have been brainwashed to hate Pell since he was made Archbishop of Melbourne. It's an opinion and an emotion assigned to you rather than organically and rationally developed from reliable knowledge. Of course when asked, nobody believes they are brainwashed but we all are on a daily repetitive basis. Moreover we also know Pell condemned the specific abusers in starkly harsh terms from the very earliest they were found guilty and also, in the same terms, priestly child sex abusers in general. Every single human at the sunset of their lives would say “l could have done more”. Everyone but the dishonest. The lazy leftist slime was that Pell didn't do enough and was that he was in the same parish as Risdale, one of the worst offenders, but said he wasn't aware. The most facile complaint that can be levelled against anyone was that in retrospect they "didn't do enough". Particularly after a criticism from a leftist kangaroo court egged on by 'their' ABC every day for years. Americans have a far better understanding of Pell's suffering than brainwashed Aussies. Paul Bongiorno a former priest and leftist progressive commentator on Channel 10 for decades after he left the priesthood to marry, also lived with Risdale in the same parish. Why no lazy leftist character assassinations against him? Bongiorno shared a presbytery with paedophile and defrocked priest Gerald Ridsdale without knowing of his cruel assaults on youngsters. “I had no idea what he was up to,” he said. “And when people look at me quizzically, I say let me tell you this: There are married men and women now who sleep with their husbands and wives and don’t know that their husband or wife is having an affair. Let me tell you that Ridsdale never came to the presbytery in Warrnambool and said, ‘Guess how many boys I’ve raped today’. They hide it. It was certainly hidden from me. And when it came out after I had left the priesthood, I was shocked and I was ashamed.”
I am disappointed. I come here for a balanced church’s news. I did not find balance in your summary on Pell’s life and legacy. Great that he was a big mouth and your friend but if the text of the anonymous memo is his, he was a disciple of Judas and not thadeous. I am gay and catholic, I suffered all popes from Paul VI to Francis, but disagreed with a knee on the floor, for me the Pope is The Vicar of Christ, period. Pell promised twice he was going to be heroically faithful to the Pope. That memo is evidence of his duplicity. May God have mercy on him and all catholics that believe they know better than the Pope, they don't, period including me.
I agree. I'm a little tired of being told that Pell was a good bloke on a personal level too. I fear, as you imply, that this is the observation of someone lacking objectivity.
You "know" for certain Demos is Pell? Or are you just mouthing talking heads? Incidentally, I agree with everything in the Demos address to cardinals and I believe it needed to be said and passed around the college of cardinals. I also agree with Pell's posthumous article declaring the Synod on synodality has “developed into a toxic nightmare”, a “poutpourri” of “neo-Marxist jargon” and an “outpouring of New Age good will … hostile in significant ways to the apostolic tradition.” Given the vicious vindictiveness of Francis, Pell was brave in respect of the posthumous article. Do you believe an active sex life is a sin outside of the sacrament of matrimony? Do you believe a Catholic with a strong unipolar homosexual predisposition should always endeavour to be celibate? Yes or no?
@Jimboken1 Joe Ratzinger was obviously and mind-bogglingly effeminate, if he had homosexual tendencies but never acted on them, would that not be to his eternal credit?
@@a.t.c.3862 Your inane disingenuous enquiry is apropos of absolutely nothing but has the virtue of fully displaying an ugly psyche. If a Catholic man had strong unipolar homosexual tendencies and didn't engage in anal intercourse it would indeed be to his credit. If he failed and was honestly penitent then after absolution it would also be to his credit. Real catholicism is a little too demanding for you or are you simply merely a malignant troll? A little of both, probably...
