Should Cardinal Pell Be a SAINT?! w/ Joe Heschmeyer 

Interesting comment thanks.

This is so true. I remember watching and interview with a couple whose child sadly killed themself due to abuse suffered at the hands of a priest. They made a statement claiming Pell told them when they reported the abuse “if you don’t like how we do things you can take your child elsewhere” I’m not judging the man (Pell) but I think there’s enough evidence of wrongdoing to totally negate calling him a saint. I personally believe he was innocent of the prison term he had to serve but there’s other evidence of aiding and abetting paedophiles that remains unanswered.

Cardinal Pell, in an interview following his release from prison, said that he thought that the Jury convicted him, even in the absence of evidence, because, while they probably didn’t believe that he was guilty of the offence of which he was accused, he was part of the decision making body in the Church in Australia which covered up cases of sex abuse and moved predatory Priests around. At the time, the Church authorities considered, in the context of falling vocations, that ensuring that the Faithful had access to the sacraments was the first priority. If every Priest guilty of sexual abuse had been laicised, the Church would no longer have been able to function. In recruiting homosexuals to the Priesthood, the Church created a monster which it could no longer control. The policy was cynical and worldly. Homosexual men would be attracted into seminaries where they would be permitted to live active homosexual lives, on the understanding that their homosexual lifestyle remained “in house”. However, this policy caused heterosexual men with a genuine call to a chaste, celibate, life, to be driven out of seminaries, as they made those living active homosexual lives uncomfortable. Then, these active homosexuals were unleashed on unsuspecting parishes, where altar boys became the natural prey of these Priests. How could those running the Church in Australia simply admit to the Faithful that their clever policy of boosting vocations had gone so horribly wrong? A policy of “cover up” was the only way of saving face. However, once a policy of paying “hush money” to victims became established, false claims were bound to follow, once it became known that Church funds were being plundered by fearful Bishops in an effort to buy silence. Cardinal Pell was well aware of his responsibility for being part of all of this.

@@tonymole7396 thank you for the in depth reply. I feel anyone who participated in covering up sexual abuse regardless of their reasoning is guilty of a heinous sin , and it is absolutely the case that they should not be in the conversation to be a saint. I know you’re not defending sexual abuse I’m just giving my opinion. Thanks again. That was a great, concise reply.

There is no evidence at all that he turned a blind eye to pedophilia.

Agreed.

cope and seethe

@@Chunkieta exactly what the Church told victims of child rape to do for decades.

@WestCoastByzantine What he means is that all of them were born before 1924.

St María de la Purísima Salvat Romero (born 1926, canonised 2015).

@@bethmcmullan7686 I stand corrected.

Exactly!

The primary reason why canonization took so long is aside from the investigation, the severe difficulty of transmitting information back then was absurd.

@@filipinoarbiter5967 Back then being 1950's? The telephone was an old invention by that time. The reasoning behind the slow canonization process back then was precisely the same reason I suggest it here. To wait out the popularity of an individual in order to avoid it having an undue impact on the process. Then at some point in the 1980's JP2 expedited the process because he wanted to increase the number of modern saints (which is not the best motive). There was an additional reason St. Thomas More's process was delayed several centuries, and that was to avoid antagonizing the English monarchs who used to be prone to persecuting Catholics when vexed.

@@rtyria No, the hundreds of years of St. Thomas More not being canonized. Or the hundreds of years of St. Joan of Arc not being canonized.

@@filipinoarbiter5967 I looked them up. Joan of Arc was canonized 1920, and St. Thomas More in 1935 (not 53 like I thought). Her cause wasn't officially started until the 1890's. I don't know when St. Thomas More's cause was started but he wasn't beatified until 1886. Written communication was actually very good during the 1800's (and earlier in most of Europe). It didn't take centuries to research people's lives and send reports in. Canonizations were deliberately slow walked for the purpose of perspective. "Haste makes waste" and all that.

Where did you read that?or get this info from? I would like to read it

@@josephhaddas5707 www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/

@@josephhaddas5707 read the Royal Commission on Institutional Child Abuse. Or, as a start, search Gerald Risdale.

Rubbish, he was the solution not the problem.