Vatican City, Oct 3, 2018 / 02:59 pm (CNA).- At the end of a synod of bishops, the pope customarily issues a document- a post-synodal apostolic exhortation- that summarizes the gist of the meeting, and offers his reflections on whatever pastoral issue the synod took up for discussion.
Synods- at least modern synods- involve a great deal of time and expense, and often involve the best minds and hearts in the Church. But synodal documents- good or bad, well-constructed or hastily strung together- tend to have the same unhappy fate: they are consigned to library or chancery shelves, where they get dusty from disuse.
While there are some notable exceptions, post-synodal documents tend generally to have very few practical outcomes, and very little long-term impact on the life of the Church.
Apart from the substance of its controversy, Amoris laetitia, the exhortation that followed the 2015 Synod of Bishops on the family, is an unusual post-synodal document because it actually provoked a controversy of any kind- one still unresolved as the Church begins another synod, this one focusing on young adults, the faith, and vocation discernment.
During his Oct. 3 remarks opening the 2018 Synod of Bishops, Pope Francis mentioned the reputation of synodal exhortations for irrelevance, quipping that a synodal text is “generally only read by a few and criticized by many.”
Optimistically, Francis told the bishops gathered for the synod that he hopes the gathering will lead to “concrete pastoral proposals capable of fulfilling the Synod’s purpose.”
Earlier Wednesday, during the synod’s opening Mass celebrated in St. Peter’s Square, Pope Francis called for a meeting “anointed by hope.”
“Hope challenges us, moves us and shatters that conformism which says, ‘it’s always been done like this,’” the pope said.
He added that young people expect of the synod’s participants “a creative dedication, a dynamism which is intelligent, enthusiastic and full of hope.”
The pope’s call for creativity Wednesday encouraged bishops to update their prepared interventions- the short speeches each synod participant gives during the meeting’s initial sessions- suggesting that bishops “consider what you have prepared as a provisional draft open to any additions and changes that the Synod journey may suggest to each of you.”
Despite this call, there are synod observers who argue that the synod structure makes creativity and original thinking a difficult proposition. In the initial meetings of the synod, each synod participant will be given the opportunity to make a very short speech of approximately four minutes. While those speeches are added into the record, observers say they are not always reflected in the synod’s final report.
Of slightly more importance is the subsequent discussion on the resolutions that form synod’s final report, undertaken in groups divided by language. But even that discussion has only a limited capacity to shape the synod’s final text.
There are observers who ask whether the synodal structure allows for any genuine dialogue or debate, and whether the narrowly circumscribed window for intervention is a suitable environment for the prophetic ministry of bishops. Critics argue that the current structure gives most of the power to the Vatican staffers who organize the synods and do much of the report drafting, rather than to the bishop delegates.
At least one observer close to the synod has told CNA that bishops sometimes complain they are called only to rubber stamp texts mostly regarded as faits accomplis.
Francis last month issued a set of changes to the procedural rules for episcopal synods, that, according to some observers, further centralize real decision-making authority within the synod, placing considerable power over proceedings and final report in the hands of the general secretary. Those changes, critics say, mean that bishops will have even less influence over the final text than they did before. And, because of the new rules, the final text of the meeting can now be immediately approved by the pope, in place of an apostolic exhortation released months later.
Still, for the American bishops participating in the synod, Francis’ call for a new way of doing things is likely to resonate. Several members of the U.S. delegation are known as original thinkers and leaders, and some have already begun to signal that they’ll bring to the synod uniques ideas and approaches.
As the synod begins, it’s worth noting what some bishops from the U.S. delegation might bring to the table.
Bishop Robert Barron
Bishop Robert Barron, auxiliary of Los Angeles, is perhaps the U.S. bishop whose intervention in the synod is the most difficult to predict. Barron is a well-known public intellectual, a social media superstar, and the driving force behind the popular “Catholicism” series and Word on Fire catechetical apostolate.
Intellectually, Barron is difficult to pigeonhole. A polyglot with a doctorate from the theology faculty at the Institut Catholique du Paris, Barron’s intellectual interests and influences are broad-ranging. He’s managed to bring those interests to film and television reviews, to YouTube videos immensely popular with young people, and to seminars on preaching and pastoral work that have built a following among millennial priests.
The breadth and depth of Barron’s intellect make him hard to place consistently as a member of any of the ideological camps in which U.S. bishops are typically classified.
So what will he offer the synod?
In a Oct. 2 interview with L.A’s Angelus News, Barron said that he would prioritize ministry to young people in the context of their own culture. “We have to get them, we have to invade their space,” Barron told Angelus.
Barron told Angelus that he feels it important to address what he calls “the culture of self-invention.”
That culture, he said, “celebrated almost constantly: that I decide what my life is about, I decide what I’m going to believe, how I’m going to act, and no one tells me what to do.”
While calling for a methodology intended to speak in the language of a fluid culture, Barron told Angelus that calls for doctrinal and fluidity would be a mistake.
Saying the doctrine is “not ours to play with,” Barron added that “dumbed-down Catholicism has been a disaster.”
Archbishop Jose Gomez
Barron is not the only U.S. delegate from Los Angeles. His boss- L.A.’s Archbishop Jose Gomez, was also elected to the synod. Gomez, who is vice-president of the U.S. bishops’ conference, can be counted on for a perspective that differs significantly from that of his brother American bishops.
Gomez seems to very capably straddle notably different worlds. He is Mexican-born, and also the bishop of the largest diocese in U.S. He is a member of an ecclesial movement, and has also spent decades in diocesan ministry. He is regarded as a doctrinal conservative, and has also become the most outspoken American bishop on immigration reform.
From that unique position in the Church, Gomez has appeal and credibility across a remarkably broad swath in the Church. His intervention will carry a great deal of weight among a number of bishops.
The archbishop is likely to discuss themes that reflect his Opus Dei formation- most especially, the universal call to holiness, and the importance of intentional sacramental and devotional formation for young people. Gomez’ intervention will likely be Christocentric, and call for distinctive place for lay Catholics in the life of the Church.
To Angelus, Gomez said this week that “we need to change gears and say that the lay faithful are also called to holiness and to be leaders in the Church.”
“We need to understand that we all are called to holiness; that sometimes we are still in the process of understanding that the Church not only belongs to the pope and the bishops and the priests, but to everyone — the lay faithful,” he added. His intervention is likely to follow along similar lines.
Gomez is also likely to emphasize works of mercy, especially service to the poor.
“The young people of today, it seems to me, are trying to do something, to take action. It is difficult for them to stop and learn the teachings of the Church. The first encounter with Christ in serving other people is what I think is most important for us,” he said in an Oct. 2 interview.
Cardinal Blase Cupich
Cardinal Blase Cupich of Chicago was appointed to participate in the synod, along with Cardinal Joseph Tobin of Newark, who withdrew in response to fallout from the sexual abuse crisis in his diocese.
Cupich is reported to be a close collaborator of Pope Francis. He was appointed personally by Francis to this synod, rather than being elected by the U.S. bishops, and was similarly appointed by the pope to attend the 2015 synod.
After the synod, he became a vocal supporter of Pope Francis’ Amoris laetitia, hosting closed-door conferences on the document for bishops and theologians, and saying this February that the document “represents an enormous change of approach, a paradigm shift holistically rooted in Scripture, tradition and human experience.”
Cupich has been expected by observers to play a significant role in the 2018 synod. The cardinal, however, has had a difficult summer.
He become a central figure in the sexual crisis dubbed the “summer of hell,” especially because of an Aug. 27 interview in which he argued, or appeared to argue, that Pope Francis would focus on environmentalism and migration rather than going down the “rabbit hole” of an investigation into allegations of widespread corruption and misconduct leveled Aug. 25 by former Vatican diplomat Archbishop Carlo Vigano.
Cupich apologized for his remarks in a Chicago Tribune op-ed issued nearly a month after the interview.
“It was a mistake for me to even mention that the Church has a bigger agenda than responding to the charges in the letter by former Papal Nuncio Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano,” he wrote.
“What I should have said, because it has been my conviction throughout my ministry, is that nothing is more important for the Church than protecting young people. I apologize for the offense caused by my comments. It pains me deeply to think that my poor choice of words may have added to the suffering of victim-survivors.”
Those difficulties do not seem to have prevented Cupich from getting an early start to active participation in the synod. After Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia published Sept. 21 an anonymous theologian’s criticism of the synod’s working document in the journal First Things, Cupich sent the magazine a letter, saying that the “use of anonymous criticism in American society does not necessarily contribute to healthy public discourse, but in fact can erode it.”
Cupich wrote that the commentary published by Chaput “raises essential questions about the nature of theological dialogue in our Church,” before criticizing the text for “selectivity, condescension, and the deployment of partial truths” which served to “obfuscate the fullness of truth.”
“What is needed is the spirit of synodality that Pope Francis has made the very heart of the Church’s upcoming moment of dialogue and teaching in search of ways to bring the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the next generations,” Cupich added.
Cupich, it seems, is likely to offer an intervention, and points for discussion, in support of the synod’s working document, or instrumentum laboris. In recent months, he has discussed publicly the importance of listening to young adults, the gifts young people offer to the Church, and the importance of dialoguing with young people about sexuality and gender- topics which all receive considerable treatment in the instrumentum laboris.
“Young people today are living in a whole different world than when I grew up. So they find their classmates, maybe even themselves, in situations where their family is broken and they’re in blended families,” Cupich said in August interview with Rome Reports.
“The same thing too is with young people who have friends who have same-sex attraction, who are gay and lesbian. They treasure those friendships. So how can we speak to them in a way that challenges them – no matter what their attraction is – to live a life that’s in-tune with the Gospel?”
Archbishop Charles Chaput
Archbishop Charles Chaput has not been hesitant to express his views on the synod’s instrumentum laboris. In addition to the theological commentary he published last month, the archbishop has published or cited comments from young Catholics critical of the synod’s preparatory documents on several occasions.
On Sept. 29, the archbishop published an op-ed in the prominent Italian newspaper Il Foglio, saying that “the synod’s instrumentum laboris or ‘working document,’ needs to be reviewed and revised. As it stands, the text is strong in the social sciences, but much less so in its call to belief, conversion, and mission.”
Citing the Sept. 21 theological reflection, Chaput lamented within the document “‘serious theological concerns…including: a false understanding of the conscience and its role in the moral life;’ a ‘false dichotomy proposed between truth and freedom,’ a ‘pervasive focus on socio-cultural elements, to the exclusion of deeper religious and moral issues,’ an ‘absence of the hope of the Gospel,’ and an ‘insufficient treatment of the abuse scandal.’”
“The synod’s success depends on a profound confidence in the Word of God and the mission of the Church, despite the sins of her leaders,” his commentary added.
Chaput’s commentary proved criticism from Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri, the synod’s secretary general. Baldisseri told journalists Oct. 1 that because Chaput, whom he alluded to but did not name, is a member of the synod’s planning council, he could have raised objections to the instrumentum laboris early in the planning process.
In fact, sources tell CNA, the instrumentum laboris was given to members of the planning commission only days before they were asked to approve it, as is typical for the synod council. Sources also say it was likely available only in Italian. If those things are true, it seems improbable that Chaput, or any bishop, would have been able to adequately study the document and give meaningful feedback before it was released.
Nevertheless, it seems unlikely that Chaput will focus on the instrumentum laboris during his intervention.
Instead, Chaput, as a frequent observer of culture, is likely to comment on the way that family, public, and ecclesial culture impact the development of young people- and he will probably raise the sexual abuse crisis, since most of his recent public remarks have addressed the imprudence of holding a synod on young adults without recognizing that sexual abuse and misconduct will be rather significant elephants in the room.
Following the trajectory of his recent remarks, Chaput will likely call for a pastoral focus on forming young people from a genuinely Christian anthropology, and toward a Christocentric self-identity.
__
Whether the interventions of any American bishop will make a major difference in the synod’s final text remains to be seen. Indeed, whether the final text will have an impact on the Church, or merely gather dust on chancery shelves, also remains to be seen. But the interventions and actions of the U.S. delegation can teach a lot about what kind of men lead the Church in the U.S., and what kind of future that Church might have.
[…]
“The Vatican said Wednesday it respects the decision by the Court of Appeals in Victoria”
Well, that makes one of us who respects it.
“The complexity of the search for the truth in this matter has tested many” (Archbishop Comensoli Melbourne) is typical of politically correct blather. There was absolutely zero complexity in this prejudiced lynching. Conviction had to rest on guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Conviction was instead pronounced by the actual morally guilty on the slightest possibility within the spectrum of possibilities. That charge immediately following Mass in a crowded Cathedral he induced two altar servers in the sacristy to perform sodomy. Witnesses denied testimony the charade of justice to the eternal shame of Australia and may I suggest the very possible Eternal condemnation of those who convicted Cardinal Pell. Rarely in history has so obvious a case of vengeful injustice against a Catholic bishop been so evident. The Vatican “respects” the decision of classic Australian Kangaroo Justice. Some Australian Lawyers have commented on this site defending irrational Catholic hate in the verdict. God help them also. The sense given by this Vatican and cowardly prelates is that there is more injustice in store for those who uncover and seek justice as did Cardinal Pell regarding misuse of finances within this Vatican. That is any injustice exposed by the faithful. Ultimately the unjust will lose at terrible price unless they repent.
While the bureaucrats at the Holy See are ducking for cover, I shall continue to believe that Cardinal Pell is innocent for as long as he claims that he is. — Australia’s first martyr in the making.
He is indeed a martyr. An atonement for the hundreds of perverted and weak bishops and priests.
They might as well have done this at Tabatha.
He is indeed a martyr. An atonement for the hundreds of perverted and weak bishops and priests.
They might as well have done this at Tabatha.
It becomes a travesty of justice knowing Cardinal Pell is sitting in prison unable to say Mass while his accuser is free.
The accuser knows full well his testimony is false due to the simple & straightforward fact that he testified that Cardinal Pell held his vestment wide open. All Catholics understand the seamless vestment is not capable of being held split open & yet the jury upon hearing this evidence convicted Cardinal Pell anyway. Shame on them & shame on the appellate court.
Not surprising considering the rampant anti-Catholic bigotry in Australia.
Cardinal Pell , sharing the first name of St.George the dragon slayer , with our Holy Father – before he took on the name of St.Francis ..
St.George and England and Australia connections , may be realms of deep wounds against The Church and all that too .
EWTN commentary mentioned doubts whether the Cardinal has that much ‘fight ‘ left in him any more , because of his age too ..
there in might be the mystery ..
Australia to Argentina, may be a deep sadness , in the Fatherly hearts, of not having foreseen the tsunami that was building up – not due to any personal
neglects , yet … thus , may be even a desire to be the victim , for both sides – for the sake of the falsely accused , which would include The Father Himself, who is the One who gets accused for the human pride , hardness of hearts and the workings of the enemy spirits that are invited in , many walking away , even daring to deny the very existence of The Father ..
the desire too , likely , to help augment focus and thus efforts , to prevent future instances , by a more aggressive implementation may be of , of all the arsenals of The Church , such as ministry of deliverance , as suggested in this article – https://spiritdailyblog.com/commentary/a-simple-inconvenient-truth
Thank God that the simple ministries that do same , such as the Heart of The Father ministries are getting more attention as well .
Would even nonconventional means such as ongoing Eucharistic cruises , esp. around these island nations , be considered , as the appeal process is being looked into – there are persons in the charismatic circles that have reported miraculous results from same .
Those Vilnius images of Mercy too , should any church in our times be without a large enough image of same, to also bring honor to The Father , since this icon seems to have the most Fatherly look AFIK.
The Cardinal , possibly have the means to have Adoration , where he is at – same might have been true for the Holy Apostles too, in their last days , in jails ..
thus joining in spirit with many , to praise The Father , opening the prison doors of those in the fires of purgatory or of the world as well ..
Holy Father’s initiative to share the rosaries in Syria – hope those who can help him to do so for the Divine Mercy images also would take note .
Meanwhile, believers , with that sense of grief too , joining the victims , who are on both sides in one sense in this case , thus aid the Queen of Heaven , to bring the reign of peace , healing the deep wounds and driving out the enemy strong
holds of the dragon from one end to the other .
St.George and Mary , Queen of Heaven pray for us all .
There is a wave of hatred to Catholic clergy and the Church all over the world. The few irregularities committed by some clergy may be one reason for it. Here the judge never cared to hear the plea of the accused. A real judge should hear both sides and consider the case and not fully believing the accuser. Also I will argue that if the accuser had a complaint it should have been registered within a week or month of the happening. Simply accusing someone of immorality after many years is sheer nonsense,but rules do not invalidate . There should be a law of limitation as otherwise it is an encouragement for revenge by people any time.
K. C. Thomas:
“Simply accusing someone of immorality after many years is sheer nonsense,but rules do not invalidate. There should be a law of limitation as otherwise it is an encouragement for revenge by people any time.”
***********
I would agree that making accusations years after a crime has been alleged to occur is problematic, but what other recourse is there for young children who have been victimized & frightened by an adult perpetrator? They are easily threatened & manipulated into silence by the abuser & may not have the courage to confront him until they’re adults.
I worry also about our present anti-Catholic atmosphere & have real doubts about Cardinal Pell’s verdict. But beyond giving victims delayed justice you have to remember that there are dangerous predators who will continue to harm children unless someone speaks out. Even if it’s been
decades since their first crimes.
However to have real justice you have to have real evidence & corroboration-both seem scarce in Cardinal Pell’s verdict.
While some are in a cozy monastery, this honorable servant is in prison. One of the signs of satan, I understand, is he turns things upside down and calls evil good and good evil. One of Mother Angelica’s famous lines is “I wouldn’t want to be standing near them on judgment day.”
There wouldn’t be many convicted criminals who’ve enjoyed as much slavering support as George Pell.
George Pell is no Ned Kelly. Why, then, is so much energy being devoted into trying to make him a folk hero for conservatives?
There is still a chance, however small, that he might yet beat the charges in the High Court, but it’s not much of a chance, and whichever way that final appeal goes, there is one outcome you can bet on with confidence: Pell’s defenders will do immense damage to the institution of the courts and the justice system as a whole in the prosecution of their culture war.
Because that’s what this is. The extra-judicial defence of George Pell is not a fight for truth or righteousness – it is simply a continuation of politics by other means.
It is disgraceful.
The systemic abuse of children by paedophile clergy is not a myth or a meme. It is a massive and well-documented atrocity that has taken the lives of an unknown number of victims, and caused vast suffering to many, many more.
It has blighted the existence of survivors and their families and done incalculable damage to the church itself.
A truly conservative response to the conviction of so senior a figure as Pell would not seek to diminish or even negate his crime. A true conservative would accept the vital importance of a perpetrator accepting personal responsibility for his actions and attempting to make amends for them, no matter how impossible that restitution might be.
Instead we get conspiracy theories, special pleading and brazen contempt not just for the court and its officers but also for the victims of the crime.
https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/defending-the-indefensible-pell-is-no-ned-kelly-20190827-p52l3l.html
“The extra-judicial defence of George Pell is not a fight for truth or righteousness – it is simply a continuation of politics by other means. It is disgraceful.”
No, your cynical and, yes, politicized, slander of those who believe, with good reason, that Pell is innocent, is slanderous.
Carl, you quote from the article that is linked at the bottom of my post. They are not my words and I believe the situation is much more complex and multi layered that those words suggest. I also believe there is an element of truth to the opinions he has written about. Perhaps I should be more careful in what I post. It is worth stating that there has been numerous statements that have directly attributed motive to my expressed opinions that are unfair, untrue and way off the mark.
……and now I’ve had time to think over the choice of words, I think it a grave injustice that you chose the word slander as a descriptor of my commentary. It does come over as intimidation and a thinly veiled threat and completely unnecessary given the effort I have made to explain myself over many posts.
“I think it a grave injustice that you chose the word slander ”
Quite true; it’s an injustice to the language. It’s written, and therefore I believe the correct word is libel.
Furthermore Carl, It would seem to the casual observer, of which I hope there are many, that It would suit your narrative if my motive was essentially political. I am not sorry to inform you that my motivation is on behalf of the many children, now adults and their families, their broken hearts, bodies and minds, who have suffered abuse under Cardinal Pells watch! Details of which you lot seem to think have no relevance to the legal proceedings because no detailed analysis appears within the articles written so far. So not without reason, my question remains unanswered as to why not! The complete and utter betrayal of their innocence and the many unholy manoeuvrings to negate their just cause, are the subject of my posting here. This is the motivation i have had from since the 1990’s way before I heard anything about culture wars political correctness or Liberal Conservative catholic warring! You state unreservedly of my ” cynical and, yes, politicized, slander of those who believe, with good reason, that Pell is innocent, is slanderous.”
You sir do not know the motive of my heart!
“my motivation is on behalf of the many children, now adults and their families, their broken hearts, bodies and minds, who have suffered abuse under Cardinal Pells watch! Details of which you lot seem to think have no relevance to the legal proceedings”
Because they are not relevant to the legal proceedings, which are about this one person’s accusations about specific acts that he says Cardinal Pell committed.
I have read and written extensively about the Cardinal Pell file.
Many experienced people of good judgement, (including Melbourne Archbishop Peter, international Australian journalist Andrew Bolt, counsel Robert Richter and the lawyer Jesuit Father Frank Brennan S.J.), and who have known Cardinal Pell personally have declared Cardinal Pell to be innocent, not merely not guilty.
My views include that:
1) the search for the truth is continuing
2) the legal system in Australia is not a system designed to establish the truth
3) the chances of Cardinal Pell having a successful Australian High Court legal appeal are low, (his state level appeal was lost)
4) BUT a subsequent application under human rights law to the European based international court of justice has a higher probability of finding Cardinal Pell innocent, based on the public material available to date
To date not one relevant person has stated that they saw the Kid and Choirboy, (the Kid’s fellow chorister, now deceased), leave any post-mass procession and also no relevant person has stated that the Kid and the Choirboy returned to the group of practising choristers at a later time and in a disturbed and alcohol affected state (as would be consistent with the evidence given by the Kid).
To date there is no statement that any contemporaneous material has been sought that would tend to corroborate or contradict either the Kid or Cardinal Pell.
I note that those who claim to have professionally considered the allegations of the Kid, (including the police, the DPP and investigative journalists), have not produced any such material at all.
Regards to all from Peter Halliday at peter.halliday@gmail.com
Mr. Hallam,
I have no idea how old you are, but I can easily imagine how you would have held forth in 1982: “Some mothers have committed infanticide, and therefore Lindy Chamberlain has been rightfully convicted, and anybody who says that she was wrongfully convicted is showing brazen contempt not just for the court and its officers but also for the victim of the crime.”
The disgrace is that you are so fixated on politics and revenge that you seem not to care at all that an examination of the testimony at the trial – and no, I wasn’t there, but I’ve read the reports of it and I’ve read the excerpts provided in the appellate court’s decision, and the reports and excerpts agree – shows that the case was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Or are you of the opinion that Judge Mark Weinberg was part of this “disgrace” because he pointed out how flawed the decision was?
“The systemic abuse of children by paedophile clergy is not a myth or a meme. It is a massive and well-documented atrocity that has taken the lives of an unknown number of victims, and caused vast suffering to many, many more.”
Nobody is saying that the abuse is a myth, or that it wasn’t an atrocity that cause horrible suffering. That has nothing to do with whether Cardinal Pell committed this crime.
Every one of those clergy who committed the atrocity to which you refer is a man. Therefore, is someone ever accuses you of sexually assaulting him and tells a story composed of unlikelihood piled on impossibility, with no witnesses who support his story and many who testify that it couldn’t be true, will you be perfectly content if you are convicted in spite of the many shadows of doubts that should have arisen in the jury’s minds? After all, you are a man, and the crimes that were committed were heinous, and therefore you must be guilty.
“George Pell is no Ned Kelly.” I had to look up Ned Kelly, since I’d never heard of him. You’re quite right, Cardinal Pell is no Ned Kelly. Kelly was guilty, and there was plenty of evidence to prove it.
My concern about the conviction is the lack of evidence and the fact that the accuser’s story is full of things that are at the very best unlikely. I haven’t paid as much attention to Mr. Weigel’s discussion of the toxic atmosphere surrounding the case, since I’m less concerned with the reasons for the injustice of the conviction than the fact that it happened. But every post that you have made has pretty much proved Mr. Weigel’s point. You address not at all the many concerns that I, and others, have posted: about the whole “Operation Tethering” which started with a presumption that the Cardinal must be guilty of something and went hunting for someone, anyone, who would accuse him; about the accuser’s shifting story; about the fact that the accuser’s claims are contradicted by the testimony of many other witnesses. All you do is say that terrible things have happened, and that you dislike Cardinal Pell, and that everyone who doesn’t accept the verdict is focused on politics. In other words, you are a living exemplar of the toxic climate Mr. Weigel mentions. I’m left thinking that if the jury was composed of peoople who, like you, have a massive prejudice, a blind spot, a feeble grasp of logic, and a very strange concept of justice, it explains the conviction in the face of what any reasonable person must consider to be reasonable doubts.
“the victims of the crime.”
There was only one complainant. The other boy denied that he had ever been assaulted. I’ve read the claims that “Oh, but often it’s years before a victim is able to talk about it.” I daresay that’s true; but to claim that even though the second boy never made any accusations that would be just what one would expect of a victim” is the invisible man argument. “There’s an invisible man in that chair.” “I don’t see anything.” “Of course! That’s exactly what you would expect to see if there’s an invisible man in the chair!”
“A truly conservative response to the conviction of so senior a figure as Pell would not seek to diminish or even negate his crime. A true conservative would accept the vital importance of a perpetrator accepting personal responsibility for his actions and attempting to make amends for them, no matter how impossible that restitution might be.”
And again, you’re ignoring that fact that we don’t believe that he is guilty, and not for political reasons. A truly conservative response to a perceived injustice is to fight against it. That’s what we’re doing.
LESLIE!! you go girl!!!! Exactly as I would have said it if I had half your brain!!!!L
Well, thank you!