The public broadcaster posted a brief statement on its corrections and clarifications page online on Monday afternoon. They acknowledged that it was "inappropriate" for its news channel to describe Cardinal Pell as "disgraced" in the bottom of the screen text during a news bulletin on Oct 1.

"The ABC recognises this was inappropriate in light of his successful appeal and acquittal by the High Court of his previous conviction for child sexual abuse," the ABC said in a post titled Cardinal Pell.

Read More

After a panel of judges rejected Pell's attempt to overturn the December 2018 jury's guilty verdict against him, the Holy See released a statement saying the cardinal has "always maintained his innocence" and that he is entitled to bring his case to the High Court of Australia.

The Vatican added, however, that it is committed to pursuing perpetrators of abuse through the "competent ecclesiastical authorities," a reference to the Church investigation that has been opened against the 78-year-old former Holy See economy tsar.

That process, which could see Pell removed from the priesthood, will not get into a full swing until a decision on the final appeal bid is made.

It is still unclear whether the High Court will even hear the cardinal's case.

"As in other cases, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is awaiting the outcome of the ongoing proceedings and the conclusion of the appellate process prior to taking up the case," a Vatican spokesman said on Wednesday, adding that the pope had removed the cardinal from public ministry and contact with minors when Pell returned to Australia.

A senior Rome source said the church inquiry will rely on what the Australian court is willing to share with investigators, and an assessment has to be made on whether the case will proceed.

The cardinal can defend himself during the church process and, judging by his approach in the civil trial, he is likely to vigorously contest the case.

But it also opens a potentially nightmare scenario for the Holy See is if the church clears cardinal, while his criminal conviction stands.

The Pell case has become something of a litmus test for the church's handling of abuse, given that so much hangs on the testimony of a single complainant.

Will a victim, who has undergone cross-examination and convinced a jury, be believed, or will the denials of a powerful cardinal be accepted?

For the Church to convince the world it is serious about tackling abuse, child protection experts stress that everyone making an allegation of abuse must be listened to, regardless of who they accuse. Continue reading

The journey follows the Court of Appeal's split 2-1 decision handed down by Chief Justice Anne Ferguson.

Both she and Justice Chris Maxwell experienced no doubt about Pell's guilt.

"The Chief Justice and Justice Maxwell accepted the prosecution's submission that the complainant was a very compelling witness, was clearly not a liar, was not a fantasist and was a witness of truth," the summary said.

The dissenting judge, Justice Mark Weinberg, found discrepancies and inadequacies in the choirboy's evidence meaning the victim's account should have been impossible for a jury to accept.

Pell's lawyers had put forward 13 reasons why he should have been freed.

One of these reasons was the question of whether Pell's layers of liturgical vestments could be moved in a way the complainant said.

After inspecting similar vestments Ferguson and Maxwell concluded the jury made the correct conclusion.

The judges were however unanimous in dismissing the legal procedural arguments advanced by Pell's defence.

In full agreement, they dismissed the grounds that Pell's arraignment did not follow protocol and agreed with trial judge Peter Kidd that Pell's defence should not have seen an animation of the cathedral where Pell abused the choir boys.

The judges watched more than 30 hours of video testimony and read more than 2000 pages of transcript.

They also visited St Patrick's Cathedral and the sacristy where 23 years ago two boys were sexually assaulted by the then Archbishop of Melbourne.

Victims' pleased

The victim of Pell's sexual abuse, known as J, says he is relieved.

He hoped the matter ends today.

J rejects he acted for personal gain or to bring down the Catholic Church.

"Nothing could be further from the truth. I have risked my privacy, my health, my wellbeing, my family. I have not instructed any solicitor in relation to a claim for compensation. This is not about money and never has been.

"Although my faith has taken a battering, it is still a part of my life, and part of the lives of my loved ones.

"I am not an advocate. You wouldn't know my name. I am not a champion for the cause of sexual abuse survivors, although I am glad those advocates are out there. But that is not my path", the victim said in a statement.

"I appreciate that the criminal process has afforded Pell every opportunity to challenge the charges and every opportunity to be heard. I am glad he has had the best legal representation that money can buy. There are a lot of checks and balances in the criminal justice system and the appeals process is one of them. I just hope that it is all over now."

Child sexual abuse advocate Chrissie Foster described the Pell appeal verdict as "an outstanding example of justice".

"It's a rare thing, and so many victims will be encouraged and propped up by this," she said outside Victoria's Supreme Court.

"It's just astounding; we're not used to this."

Appeal possible

Not long after verdict's delivery Pell's spokesperson, Katrina Lee issued a statement expressing disappointment with the judges' decision.

"Cardinal Pell is obviously disappointed with the decision today".

"However, his legal team will thoroughly examine the judgment in order to determine a special leave application to the High Court.

"While noting the 2-1 split decision, Cardinal Pell maintains his innocence. We thank his many supporters."

Respect the decision

Peter Comensoli, the Catholic archbishop of Melbourne, issued a separate statement saying he respected the court's decision and encouraged everyone to do the same.

"My thoughts and prayers are with the man who brought this matter before the courts. I humbly acknowledge it has been a challenging time for him, and I stand ready to offer pastoral care and spiritual help, should he seek it.

"In Christian charity, I will ensure that Cardinal Pell is provided pastoral and spiritual support while he serves the remainder of his sentence, according to the teaching and example of Jesus to visit those in prison.

Comensoli says he and the Archdiocese are committed to a culture that listens, that seeks to bring justice and healing, and that protects children and vulnerable people.

Honours stripped

In 2005, Pell received the Order of Australia for his service to the Catholic Church.

Following the unsuccessful appeal, Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison says that Pell will likely be stripped of his Australian honour.

"The courts have done their job, they've rendered their verdict," he said. "That's the system of justice in the country that must be respected."

It is unlikely the Australian Governor-General will take any action to revoke his honour until resolution of a possible appeal to the High Court.

Pell is not allowed to celebrate Mass in prison and will be eligible to apply for parole after he has served 3 years 8 months of his sentence.

Appeal

The Vatican has acknowledged the Australian judicial system.

It recalls Pell has always maintained his innocence throughout the judicial process, which includes his right to appeal to the High Court.

He has 28 days to file what would be a final appeal.

Pope Francis' response

In what has been labelled a criptic comment, Pope Francis has broken his silence on Pell's unsuccessful appeal.

"It takes more strength to repair than to build, to start anew than to begin, to be reconciled than to get along. This is the strength that God gives us," Francis, last evening, wrote on Twitter.

On February 27, 2019, the Vatican announced the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith would conduct its canonical investigation.

Sources

• SMH
• The Age
• The Australian
• ABC News
• Vatican News
• Image: Alex Coppel

Pell, who is now waiting for a ruling on his appeal, may need to take refuge in a secure compound should his conviction be overturned.

The Daily Mail reports that while supporters of Pell are not making any assumptions about the appeal, they say if he were released, they believe he may need to take shelter in a west Sydney seminary.

They believe a second option is to return to Rome.

Pell's appeal is based on three grounds.

• Claims the verdicts were unreasonable and were not supported by evidence.
• that Pell was not accused in the presence of a jury, and
• Pell's defence team should have been permitted to present a video animation of its arguments during the closing statements.

But if the Victorian Court of Appeal rule against Pell, his case could be escalated to the High Court.

The exact date the ruling will be delivered has not yet been confirmed.

The Australian reports there is intense speculation about the timing of the Court of Appeals decision.

"There is a window of opportunity for it to rule next week, but it goes into recess from June 29 to July 14, raising the spectre of the judgment not being delivered for several weeks", reports The Australian.

Currently, Pell is considered a safety risk, and for 23 hours a day is being held in solitary confinement in the Melbourne Assessment Prison.

The Vatican will decide Pell's future within the Church once all legal proceedings have concluded.

Sources

• The Australian
• Daily Mail
• ABC News

He is currently in custody, waiting for three senior judges to consider his appeal against his conviction for child sexual abuse.

Pell was jailed in February for six years, with a non-parole period of three years and eight months, after being convicted last December of several child sex offences.

Regardless of whether he wins or loses his appeal, he may find the Vatican will also want to examine his case in court.

A lecturer in canon law at a pontifical university in Rome, who prefers to remain anonymous, says if Pell were tried at the Vatican, three judges would need to be involved.

"The two legal systems, that of Victoria [the Australian state where Pell is appealing his convictions] and the Vatican, are independent of one another.

"Canonical (Catholic Church law) trials can judge Catholic faithful independently from states," the lecturer says.

Therefore, if the Vatican were informed of a crime, canonical justice would investigate it "in any case", with the accuser represented by the "Promoter of Justice".

The lecturer went on to explain that there are two types of Vatican trial.

One is a trial by three judges, including a chief judge who conducts the trial. The trial involves interrogating, verifying documents and arranging psychological assessments.

At the end, the chief judge receives the comments the prosecution and defence make on all the evidence.

Only then do the judges pronounce their ruling, and sentence if appropriate.

If the person who has been convicted disagrees with the judges' decision, they can appeal the sentence through the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

The lecturer said the second and more likely type of trial was an administrative one.

In this type of trial, all possible proofs are collected and the accused is heard. Pope Francis, or someone nominated by him examines these and then tells the accused exactly what he is being accused of. The accused is then given time to prepare his defence.

As is the case with the first type of trial, the chief judge discusses the evidence with the other judges and makes a ruling.

Again, the option of appealing the sentence through the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is available.

The lecturer said the court in Melbourne could opt to share all evidence and documents with the Vatican trial judges who would take "more or less a year" to rule on the case after a "not secret but reserved" trial process.

If it chose to, the court in Melbourne could opt to share all evidence and documents with the Vatican trial judges.

The lecturer said it is likely it would take "more or less a year" to rule on the case after a "not secret but reserved" trial process.

"Those who don't believe in the Church's honesty won't believe in such a trial. Those who believe Church law is being respected, even if they don't have first-hand knowledge of its proceedings, will still trust it," the lecturer said.

Source

• SBS News
• TVNZ
• Image: RFI

The 77 year-old was sentenced last year to six years jail after a jury found him guilty of abusing two boys in 1996 while he was Archbishop of Melbourne.

He must serve at least three years and eight months of his sentence in jail. He has remained in prison since his sentencing.

Pell has always said he is innocent and says the jury's verdict is unreasonable.

The appeal hearing, heard by a three-judge panel from Victoria's Supreme Court began on Wednesday. It was expected to take two days.

Pell's barrister Robert Richter QC filed an application for appeal against the conviction arguing it should be overturned on three grounds.

Firstly, he said the unanimous decision of the jury could not have risen to the level of "beyond reasonable doubt". Richter argued this is because of the unchallenged exculpatory evidence of 20 witnesses during the trial.

The second ground of appeal challenges trial judge Peter Kidd's decision to exclude a video presentation by defence lawyers.

Richter said including the video would have illustrated the implausibility of the victim's narrative to the jury.

It showed where people involved in Sunday mass at St Patrick's Cathedral could have been in the church after the ceremony in which Pell is said to have abused the boys.

The third ground is a procedural appeal concerning Pell's arraignment. Richter said his arraignment was not properly carried out in front of a jury, which was a "fundamental irregularity."

He has since stepped back from the case, after speaking of his "disappointment and anger" at the jury decision to find Cardinal Pell guilty.

Sydney barrister Bret Walker SC ran the appeal, which is against the jury conviction only, not the length of the jail term.

If the judges find in favour of the first ground (concerning the fundamental injustice of the jury's verdict) Pell's conviction would be overturned and he would be released from custody.

A successful appeal on either of the other two grounds could result in a second trial for Pell.

In recognition of the high public interest in the case, arrangements were made to broadcast the appeal live from the Victoria Supreme Court in Melbourne, and will be accessible on the court's website around the world.

The three appeal judges — Justice Anne Ferguson, Justice Chris Maxwell and Justice Mark Weinberg — were not expected to deliver an immediate decision at the conclusion of the hearing.

They will probably deliberate for several weeks before returning with a decision.

If Pell fails in his attempt to have his conviction overturned, he is likely to take the case to the High Court.

Source

• BBC
• Catholic News Agency
• The Tablet
• NZ Herald
• Image: National Catholic Register

That conviction did not come close to meeting the criterion of guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt," which is fundamental to criminal law in any rightly-ordered society.

The prosecution offered no corroborating evidence sustaining the complainant's charge.

The defense demolished the prosecution's case, as witness after witness testified that the alleged abuse simply could not have happened under the circumstances charged—in a busy cathedral after Mass, in a secured space.

Yet the jury, which may have ignored instructions from the trial judge as to how evidence should be construed, returned a unanimous verdict of guilty.

At the cardinal's sentencing, the trial judge never once said that he agreed with the jury's verdict; he did say, multiple times, that he was simply doing what the law required him to do.

Cardinal Pell's appeal will be just as devastating to the prosecution's case as was his defense at both his first trial (which ended with a hung jury, believed to have favored acquittal) and the retrial.

What friends of the cardinal, friends of Australia, and friends of justice must hope is that the appellate judges will get right what the retrial jury manifestly got wrong.

That will not be easy, for the appellate judges will have been subjected to the same public and media hysteria over Cardinal Pell that was indisputably a factor in his conviction on charges demonstrated to be, literally, incredible.

Those appellate judges will also know, however, that the reputation of the Australian criminal justice system is at stake in this appeal.

And it may be hoped that those judges will display the courage and grit in the face of incoming fire that the rest of the Anglosphere has associated with "Australia" since the Gallipoli campaign in World War I.

In jail for two months now, the cardinal has displayed a remarkable equanimity and good cheer that can only come from a clear conscience.

The Melbourne Assessment Prison allows its distinguished prisoner few visitors, beyond his legal team; but those who have gone to the prison intending to cheer up a friend have, in correspondence with me, testified to having found themselves cheered and consoled by Cardinal Pell—a man whose spiritual life was deeply influenced by the examples of Bishop John Fisher and Sir Thomas More during Henry VIII's persecution of the Church in sixteenth-century England.

The impact of over a half-century of reflection on those epic figures is now being displayed to Cardinal Pell's visitors and jailers, during what he describes as his extended "retreat."

Around the world, and in Australia itself, calmer spirits than those baying for George Pell's blood (and behaving precisely like the deranged French bigots who cheered when the innocent Captain Alfred Dreyfus was condemned to a living death on Devil's Island) have surfaced new oddities—to put it gently—surrounding the Pell Case. Continue reading

• Image: Lifesite News
• George Weigel is an American author, political analyst, and social activist.

The current plan was designed to limit financial damage to the Church by having clergy sex abuse survivors sign away their rights to sue the Church.

Known as the Melbourne Response, compensation payments were initially capped at $50,000 when Cardinal George Pell devised the scheme in 1996.

Payments were later raised to $75,000. However, victims had to to sign a deed of settlement waiving their right to take civil action against the Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne.

A spokesperson for the archdiocese says, despite this deed, the archdiocese has provided "additional redress payments totalling $11.07 million based on a cap of $150,000 to 233 survivors of child sexual abuse".

These survivors include those whose claims were previously accepted by the Melbourne Response and who received compensation under previous caps.

Although the deed of settlement has not so far been challenged in the state of Victoria (of which Melbourne is the capital), some victims in other Australian states have received hundred-fold increases in payouts after judges set aside their deed of settlement with the church.

But that number could increase. Victoria's state government is considering following the states of Queensland and Western Australia in providing blanket relief to survivors who have signed so-called releases from liability for the Church.

If it were to do this, survivors would be free to sue for further damages, which would in turn see payouts from the archdiocese climb considerably higher.

Observers have noted in some other states, these payments have increased one hundred-fold.

Australia's Royal Commission into Child Abuse recommended a maximum payout to victims of $200,000. The National Redress Scheme currently limits payouts to $150,000, but a parliamentary inquiry has recommended this be changed to $200,000.

The Australian Catholic Bishops' Conference backed the $200,000 figure in its submission to the parliamentary inquiry.

Source

• Crux
• Image: Irish Times

A Tweet by Pope Francis' biographer, Austen Ivereigh alerted the English-speaking world that Claudia Ciocca, currently a director of the Control and Surveillance section of the Vatican Secretariat for the Economy, will soon be named its Prefect.

"2,000 years after women disbelieved over Christ's Resurrection, laywoman set to replace Cardinal Pell as prefect of Vatican's Secretariat of the Economy", tweeted Ivereigh.

Initial reports of the move came in non-English speaking media, with Religion Digital claiming it as an exclusive story.

However, both Church and secular English language media have been slow to pick up the story.

Ciocca, who is a professor at the University of Santa Croce, has also worked for the secretariat of the Institute for the Works of Religion (IOR), known as the Vatican Bank.

She started working for the Vatican in 2013 as an expert of the auditing company KPMG. Later she was hired by the Holy See.

Ciocca is one of several women Francis has assigned important offices in the Holy See.

Others include Italian woman Barbara Jatta in the Vatican Museums and the Slovenian Nataša Govekar whom Francis appointed to the Theological-Pastoral Direction of the Dicastery for Communication.

Pell, who served as the inaugural Prefect of the Secretariat for the Economy between 2014 and 2018 resigned from the position late last year.

He is currently in prison pending an appeal, having been convicted of child sex offences.

Source

• Austen Ivereigh @austeni
• Religion Digital
• Image: Religion Digital

Zollner, who is a leading expert in child protection and one of the chief organisers of February's summit on child protection, says the Church's responsibility to obey the laws of the land was clarified several years ago.

He says in 2011 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith told every bishops' conference that the Church must obey civil laws regarding cases of abuse.

"So, if a state - in a durably democratic, regulated and legitimate situation - arrives at the conclusion that a representative of the Church, whether a deacon, priest, bishop or cardinal has committed a crime, this must not only be respected, it must be accepted.

"This must be the norm of the Church."

Zollner says since the February summit several bishops' conferences have already have revised or begun revising their guidelines for protecting children and handling abuse allegations.

In doing so, some have revised their guidelines to find and implement ways of "cooperating with Civil Authorities".

Zollner says many Conference presidents were reduced to tears when they heard testimonies of survivors of child sexual abuse at the summit and some are seeking the help of the Centre for Child Protection in the formation of Church personnel on the ground.

In addition, projects promised by the Vatican will soon be bearing fruit, he says.

One such project involves promulgation of guidelines for the Vatican City State.

Another is a "vademecum" or handbook the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has been developing. It will explain in a step-by-step process, how bishops and religious superiors should handle abuse allegations. It will also include advice as to how they should prepare the relevant documents for the doctrinal congregation when an accusation is found to be credible.

There is no longer any question of people being protected because of their status in the Church.

The guilty verdicts against Cardinals George Pell and Philippe Barbarin demonstrate that church officials, including cardinals, are "no longer untouchable" and that governments will apply the law to them as well, Zollner says.

Pell is maintaining his innocence and is appealing his conviction.

Source

• Crux Now
• Vatican News
• Image: Wikipedia

Some clerical sex abuse survivors were reported as saying "even a week would have been enough". Others said the ruling is too lenient.

Some described the prosecution as proof the church is no longer above the law. Others said they suspected Pell has been made a scapegoat for the church's sins.

Pell himself maintains he is innocent of abusing two 13-year-old choir boys in Melbourne's St Patrick's Cathedral following Mass in December 1996 and early 1997.

He has lodged an appeal.

Of the two choirboys who fell victim to Pell, one has since died. His father is following the case through on his behalf.

The surviving victim says he is finding it hard to "take comfort" in Pell's jail sentence because his request to appeal the conviction has been granted. The appeal has been set for 5 June.

He said in a statement read by his lawyer: "I respect what the judge said. It was meticulous, and it was considered [but] it is hard for me, for the time being, to take comfort in this outcome.

"I appreciate that the court has acknowledged what was inflicted upon me as a child. However, there is no rest for me. Everything is overshadowed by the forthcoming appeal."

The father of the deceased victim, who is suing Pell, described Pell's sentence as a "joke" which could see him freed on parole after three years and eight months.

His lawyer said victims of abuse have been "waiting to feel heard.

"Pell's sentencing moves that progress forward, even if only a few small steps. I admire the courage of my client to keep fighting on behalf of his deceased son. To him, this battle is not over.

"The criminal justice system has only partially satisfied our client's pursuit for justice today.

"It's now on us as his civil litigators to keep pushing for more just outcomes."

The lawyer said her client is suing the cardinal "knowing that civil action has the power to disrupt an institution and impact meaningful change to prevent more tragedies from occurring".

Pell's sentence is said in part to reflect the court standards of two decades ago when his crimes were committed. In those days, judges placed less weight on the damage done to children by sexual abuse than is the case today.

Chief Judge Peter Kidd who imposed the sentence says it is shorter than usual due to Pell's age, 77, and ill health.

"Your age ... is relevant in a number of ways.

"Of some real importance ... is the fact that each year you spend in custody will represent a substantial portion of your remaining life expectancy.

"While it is a matter of speculation as to how long you will live, the fact is that you are of advanced years and are entering the last phase of your life."

Source

• The Tablet
• La Croix
• NewsTalkZB
• Image: NewstalkZB

Cardinal George Pell, an Australian who is one of the most senior people in the hierarchy of the Catholic church, was found guilty in December and no one till now has been allowed to know the details of the charges against him, the trial proceedings, the identity of the complainants, or his conviction.

It left a pretty big gap in the community's knowledge of a serious event in the affairs of the nation.

The county court in Melbourne ordered that any Pell-related criminal information be kept under wraps pending the outcome of a planned second trial on a number of separate charges.

The notion was to protect prospective jurors at a second trial from having their thoughts contaminated and their views prejudiced by what happened at the first.

Now that we know there will be no second trial, the suppression order remaining in place against reporting the verdict on the first trial looks, to my mind and in this age of the ubiquitous internet, rather nonsensical.

Indeed, suppression and non-publication orders from the courts increasingly take on a ludicrous quality, where locally based mainstream publishers and broadcasters with significant assets lie down and abide by judicial edicts, while those with one finger on a social media app blissfully ignore them.

One law for big publishers and no law for everyone else.

It's as though we are in Fantasia, where a large proportion of the population know something that they are not supposed to know.

Such was the case with Pell's conviction. Some of the big media outlets in this country gave us a whiff that there was something in the public interest going on that could not be reported, with headlines like "Censored", "Secret scandal" and so on.

Meanwhile, it became evident that the internet does not stop at the sovereign borders of the nation.

Online publishers beyond the writ of the county court of Victoria were doing their level best to pump out the story.

Among the notable reports were those by the Washington Post, the Daily Beast (which was published and then geo-blocked) and a US Jesuit news site.

The grapevine effect was up and running - so much for the holy writ of suppression orders.

Following the publication of those teasing headlines - after Pell's conviction on the choirboy charges - there was a tense session in the county court in which the chief judge, Peter Kidd, and the director of public prosecutions, Kerri Judd QC, expressed their concern that the suppression order may have been breached - even without Pell being identified directly.

Since then the office of the Victorian DPP has notified media organisations, along with some of their senior editorial employees, that she is "considering charges" for sub-judice contempt and scandalising the court.

The Melbourne lawyer Justin Quill, from Macpherson Kelley, is acting for a combined group of media organisations who will defend the charges, including the Nine newspapers and TV outlets, News Corp, Channel Ten, Mamamia and Macquarie Media.

As many as 100 editors, online content people and journalists are potentially in the frame. Continue reading

• Richard Ackland is an Australian journalist, publisher and lawyer, who graduated with degrees in economics and law and was admitted as a solicitor of the Supreme Court of New South Wales before going on to pursue a career in journalism.
• Image: SMH.com.au

Lamentable as that is, the question on many Catholics' minds is how did he reach such a position of eminence in the Catholic Church?

La Croix International's commentator Eric Hodgens has told the story of his rise in Australia and how it led to his visibility in the Vatican

But the abiding questions are two:

• How did he get to the Vatican and to a position of such significance in the administration of Vatican finances with what it now appears to be so much baggage?
• Why did Pope Francis appoint him to the kitchen cabinet at the Vatican - the C9 - at the center of the reform of the Church?

The answers are relatively simple.

The easiest is his membership of the C9 kitchen cabinet. It is composed of Cardinals from different geographic regions. At the time of its formation, Pell was the only cardinal in Oceania. It's not a race when there's only one competitor!

However, there are three reasons why Cardinal Pell reached the Vatican and they are very revealing for those who want to know how the Vatican actually works.

The first reason was that Cardinal Pell was a significant figure at the time Pope Francis was elected Pope.

He was believed to be the person organizing the numbers for the election of the candidate for the papacy preferred by Pope Benedict - Cardinal Angelo Scola of Milan.

Cardinal Scola was such a favorite among the Italians that when the white smoke appeared to say a candidate had been elected, the local bishops' conference sent him a congratulatory note, only to be disappointed when it turned out to be someone else - Jorge Mario Bergoglio from Buenos Aires!

As the "numbers man" for a competitor to Pope Francis he needed to be taken seriously.

During the previous two pontificates, Pell had become a well-known and influential figure in Rome.

He was a member of two of the most significant Congregations in the Vatican bureaucracy - Bishops and Doctrine of the Faith - and so became a force to be reckoned with.

Pell's prominence would lead any new pope to the advice of Machiavelli: keep your friends close and your enemies closer!

Having Cardinal Pell in the inner circle means that what he has to say and do was far easier to inspect than it would be from the distance of Australia.

But there was an extra advantage to having him in Rome.

A physically powerful character and charmingly persuasive personality when he wanted to be, Pell dominated many of the circumstances he moved in.

He towered over the Australian bishops.

Interestingly, they never elected him to be President of their Conference.

Pell specialized in tactics that circled around any group that got in his way as he headed for influence over the key decision maker.

At the first of the two family Synod gatherings, he organized a letter to Francis from 13 eminent Synod Fathers warning the pope not to soften in the pastoral treatment of divorced and remarried Catholics.

The move unraveled when the letter was leaked and Pell's ruse exposed.

It was living proof that Pell's presence on the world stage and exposure to peers who would call his bluff meant he could no longer hold sway as he once had from the remoteness of Australia.

The scrutiny of better qualified and critical peers became another way his power surges and bullying behavior had become contained.

But his arrival in Rome had other reasons than simply containing his impact on a pontificate he never warmed to.

Pell was generally unpopular as archbishop in both Sydney and the See he led before Sydney - Melbourne which is the largest archdiocese in Australia.

His departure from Sydney was a relief to many Catholics of that city and beyond, defusing the Catholic culture wars and allowing the church to regroup after almost two decades during which Pell was the most visible, divisive and controversial Catholic in the country.

But there was one more reason to welcome Pell to Rome.

The Vatican's finances - a small affair by comparison with what he had been responsible for in Sydney and Melbourne whose assets, staff numbers and turnover dwarf the Vatican - were a running sore for the popes for decades.

When Pope Francis came to Rome, he had a simple solution: close the Vatican's bank and hand financial responsibility to a suitably qualified and professional organization whose dedicated task was transparency and accountability - virtues never reached by the Vatican's bank.

The fact that the Vatican bank - the IOR - was a purpose built entity during WW2 which did not collapse with the Italian finance system, meant those influential in the Vatican prevailed on the new pope to retain the institution. But who could run it?

Enter George Pell. Though his reputation in Australia was one for being a big spender, internationally he appears to have developed a name for administrative and financial skills.

The fit was perfect: Pell got a job Francis didn't really care about.

This all came to an end last October when his resignation was accepted - long before his conviction in December.

Now that the conviction has been made public, Pell will be sentenced and then appeal against the conviction.

That will be a long and difficult process because the only real grounds of appeal will be that the presiding judge made errors during the course of the case or in his instructions to the jury.

Judge Kidd, who heard the case is Chief Judge of the County Court of the State of Victoria, is highly respected by his peers.

Only time will tell on the appeal.

Whatever the outcome of the appeal, there are still volumes yet to be released by the Royal Commission into child sexual abuse that ended in early 2018. Whether George Pell figures in those volumes and will face charges following referrals from the Commission to the Director of Public Prosecutions is another matter for time.

• Michael Kelly SJ is the CEO of UCAN Services.

In December, a jury of 12 of his fellow citizens found him guilty of five offences of child sexual abuse.

• No other charges are to proceed.
• Cardinal Pell has appealed the convictions.
• The verdict was unanimous.
• The jury took three days to deliberate after a four-week trial.
• The trial was in fact a re-run.
• At the first trial, the jury could not agree.
• The trial related to two alleged victims, one of whom had died.

Members of the public could attend those proceedings if they knew where to go in the Melbourne County Court.

Members of the public could hear all the evidence except a recording of the complainant's evidence from the first trial.

The complainant, who cannot be identified, did not give evidence at the retrial; the recording from the first trial was admitted as the complainant's evidence.

The recording was available to the public only insofar as it was quoted by the barristers in their examination of other witnesses or in their final addresses to the jury, and by the judge in his charge to the jury.

So, no member of the public has a complete picture of the evidence and no member of the public is able to make an assessment of the complainant's demeanour.

The complainant's evidence at the first trial lasted two and a half days.

He had been cross-examined for more than a day by Pell's defence barrister, Robert Richter QC, who has a reputation for being one of the best and one of the toughest cross-examiners in the legal profession.

Pell did not give evidence, but a record of his police interview, denying the allegations, was in evidence.

Complainant's evidence

The complainant's evidence related to events that occurred back in 1996 or 1997 when he was a 13-year-old choir boy at St Patrick's Cathedral Melbourne.

Most other witnesses had been choir boys, altar servers or Cathedral officials in 1996 when Pell first became archbishop of Melbourne.

The complainant claimed that the first event, involving four charges, occurred after a solemn Sunday Mass celebrated by Pell in the second half of 1996.

It was common ground between the prosecution and the defence that the dates to which these four charges must be attributed were 15 December 1996 or 22 December 1996.

These were the dates on which the first and second solemn Sunday Masses were celebrated by Pell in the Cathedral after he had become archbishop in August 1996. The Cathedral had been undergoing renovations and thus was not used for Sunday Masses during earlier months of 1996.

• The complainant said that he and another choir boy left the liturgical procession at the end of one Sunday Mass and went fossicking in the off-limits sacristy where they started swilling altar wine.
• The archbishop arrived unaccompanied, castigated them, and then, while fully robed in his copious liturgical vestments, proceeded to commit three vile sexual acts including oral penetration of the complainant.
• The complainant said that the sacristy door was wide open and altar servers were passing along the corridor.
• The complainant said that he and the other boy then returned to choir practice.
• The choir was making a Christmas recording at that time.

These two choir boys stayed in the choir another year but, the complainant said, they never spoke about the matter to each other, even though they sometimes had sleepovers at each other's homes.

The second boy was once asked by his mother if he had ever been abused by anybody and he said he had not.

• The complainant claimed that a month or so later, after a Sunday Mass when the archbishop was presiding (but not celebrating the Mass), Pell came along the corridor outside the sacristy where many choristers and others were milling about.
• He claimed that Pell grabbed him briefly, put him against the wall, and firmly grasped his genitalia.

This was the subject of the fifth charge.

Pell knew neither boy and had no contact with either of them thereafter.

Prosecution's case

The prosecution case was that Pell at his first or second solemn Sunday Mass as archbishop decided for some unknown reason to abandon the procession and his liturgical assistants and hasten from the Cathedral entrance to the sacristy unaccompanied by his Master of Ceremonies Monsignor Charles Portelli while the liturgical procession was still concluding.

Portelli and the long time sacristan Max Potter described how the archbishop would be invariably accompanied after a solemn Mass with procession until one of them had assisted the archbishop to divest in the sacristy.

There was ample evidence that the Archbishop was a stickler for liturgical form and that he developed strict protocols in his time as archbishop, stopping at the entrance to the Cathedral after Mass to greet parishioners usually for 10 to 20 minutes, before returning to the sacristy to disrobe in company with his Master of Ceremonies.

The prosecution suggested that these procedures might not have been in place when Pell first became archbishop. The suggestion was that other liturgical arrangements might have been under consideration.

Richter's compelling reply

In his final address, Richter criticised inherent contradictions and improbabilities of many of the details of this narrative.

I heard some of the publicly available evidence and have read most of the transcript. I found many of Richter's criticisms of the narrative very compelling.

Anyone familiar with the conduct of a solemn Cathedral Mass with full choir would find it most unlikely that a bishop would, without grave reason, leave a recessional procession and retreat to the sacristy unaccompanied.

Witnesses familiar with liturgical vestments had been called who gave compelling evidence that it was impossible to produce an erect penis through a seamless alb.

An alb is a long robe, worn under a heavier chasuble. It is secured and set in place by a cincture which is like a tightly drawn belt. An alb cannot be unbuttoned or unzipped, the only openings being small slits on the side to allow access to trouser pockets underneath.

The complainant's initial claim to police was that Pell had parted his vestments, but an alb cannot be parted; it is like a seamless dress.

Later the complainant said that Pell moved the vestments to the side.

An alb secured with a cincture cannot be moved to the side.

The police never inspected the vestments during their investigations, nor did the prosecution show that the vestments could be parted or moved to the side as the complainant had alleged.

The proposition that the offences charged were committed immediately after Mass by a fully robed archbishop in the sacristy with an open door and in full view from the corridor seemed incredible to my mind.

A devastating verdict

I was very surprised by the verdict. In fact, I was devastated.

My only conclusion is that the jury must have disregarded many of the criticisms so tellingly made by Richter of the complainant's evidence and that, despite the complainant being confused about all manner of things, the jury must nevertheless have thought — as the recent royal commission discussed — that children who are sexually violated do not always remember details of time, place, dress and posture.

Although the complainant got all sorts of facts wrong, the jury must have believed that Pell did something dreadful to him.

The jurors must have judged the complainant to be honest and reliable even though many of the details he gave were improbable if not impossible.

Pell and the legal system

Pell has been in the public spotlight for a very long time. There are some who would convict him of all manner of things in the court of public opinion no matter what the evidence.

There are others who would never convict him of anything, holding him in the highest regard.

The criminal justice system is intended to withstand these preconceptions. The system is under serious strain, however, when it comes to Cardinal Pell.

The events of the Victorian parliamentary inquiry, the federal royal commission, the publication of Louise Milligan's book Cardinal and Tim Minchin's song Come Home (Cardinal Pell) were followed, just two weeks before the trial commenced, by the parliamentary apology to the victims of child sexual abuse.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison said, "Not just as a father, but as a prime minister, I am angry too at the calculating destruction of lives and the abuse of trust, including those who have abused the shield of faith and religion to hide their crimes, a shield that is supposed to protect the innocent, not the guilty.

"They stand condemned ... on behalf of the Australian people, this Parliament and our government ... I simply say I believe you, we believe you, your country believes you."

Such things tend to shift not the legal, but the reputational, burden upon an accused person to prove innocence rather than the prosecution to prove guilt.

Would the verdict have been different if Pell had given evidence?

Who can tell?

All one can say is that, although the defence seemed to be on strong ground in submitting that the circumstances made the narrative advanced by the prosecution manifestly improbable, that failed to secure the acquittal.

A reasonable verdict?

Was the verdict unreasonable? Can it be supported having regard to the evidence?

Those are questions for the appeal court.

I can only hope and pray that the complainant can find some peace, able to get on with his life, whichever way the appeal goes.

Should the appeal fail, I hope and pray that Cardinal Pell, heading for prison, is not the unwitting victim of a wounded nation in search of a scapegoat.

Should the appeal succeed, the Victoria Police should review the adequacy of the police investigation of these serious criminal charges.

When the committal proceedings against Pell first commenced in July 2017, Fran Kelly asked me on ABC Radio National Breakfast: 'Do you have concerns about this case, regardless of the outcome, and how it's going to affect the Church?'

I answered: 'Fran, I think this case will be a test of all individuals and all institutions involved.

'And all we can do is hope that the outcome will be marked by truth, justice, healing, reconciliation and transparency. A huge challenge for my church, and yes a lot will ride on this case.

'But what is absolutely essential is that the law be allowed to do its work.

'And let's wait and see the evidence, and let's wait and see how it plays out. And let's hope there can be truth and justice for all individuals involved in these proceedings.'

And that is still my hope.

• Frank Brennan is a Jesuit priest who attended some of the Pell proceedings. A former professor of law, he is CEO of Catholic Social Services.
• This article was first published in The Australian.

In a statement, the Vatican acknowledges the "utmost respect for the Australian judicial authorities" and says the Vatican is waiting for the outcome of the appeals process.

It says, (Pell) "has the right to defend himself until the last stage of appeal".

"At the same time, it is important to recall that Cardinal Pell has openly and repeatedly condemned as immoral and intolerable the acts of abuse committed against minors," the statement says.

"[Pell] has cooperated in the past with Australian authorities (for example, in his depositions before the Royal Commission); has supported the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors; and finally, as a diocesan bishop in Australia, has introduced systems and procedures both for the protection of minors and to provide assistance to victims of abuse".

The statement also confirmed the arrangements barring Pell from public ministry and from contact with minors during the course of the legal process.

Vatican opens investigation

Following his conviction, the Vatican says it will be opening its own investigation into the accusations.

"The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) will now handle the case following the procedure and within the time established by canonical norm," Vatican spokesman Alessandro Gisotti said.

Just when the proposed investigation will take place has not been announced. The Vatican says the investigation could lead to a full trial or an abbreviated "administrative process".

When a deacon, priest or bishop is accused of abuse, the first phase of the investigation generally is carried out by the diocese where the abuse is alleged to have occurred.

If the allegations are found to be credible, the case is handed over to the CDF.

Last October Pell resigned his position as head of the Secretariat for the Economy, where he oversaw the Vatican's finances.

His successor's name has not yet been announced.

The County Court of Victoria, Australia, (December) found Pell guilty of five counts of child sexual abuse against two former choristers in Melbourne Cathedral in 1996.

Pell's guilty verdict was revealed in Australia on Tuesday this week after a court suppression order was dropped.

He spent his first night behind bars on Wednesday and will be sentenced on 13 March.

Pell, who has continuously said he is innocent, plans to appeal the verdict.

Source

• Reuters
• Catholic News Service
• Zenit
• Catholic News Agency
• Image: France 24

Members of the Council (known as the C9 because there are nine cardinals making up the papal advisory group) advise the pope on Church governance and reform.

Its work places a special emphasis on the reform of Pastor Bonus, the apostolic constitution which governs the Roman Curia.

Papal spokesman Greg Burke says Francis sent letters to Cardinals George Pell, Francisco Javier Errazuriz and Laurent Monsengwo at the end of October to thank them for their service to the Council over the past five years.

The letters followed a request the Council made in October for its work, structure and composition to be reviewed, "especially in light of the advanced age of some members."

The Vatican says "considering the phase of the Council's work, the appointment of new members is not expected at the moment."

Francis appointed the C-9 in 2013 to help him reform the Vatican and reorganise its bureaucracy.

That work is coming to an end, with the finalising of a new document outlining the work and mission of the various congregations that make up the universal government of the church and its 1.2 billion members.

Source

• Stuff
• Catholic News Agency
• Image: Crux Now

The jury in a County Court of the State of Victoria, delivered a unanimous verdict on Tuesday.

The verdict came after three days of deliberation and sentencing will take place in early February.

Until then Pell is released on bail.

This was the second trial on these offenses.

In September, a hung jury forced the trial, dubbed the "cathedral trial", to be declared a mistrial.

Few details are known about the nature of the charges against Pell because in Australia the entire first and second trials are covered by a strict suppression order issued by Judge Peter Kidd.

A second trial, called the "swimmer's trial", is expected to hear evidence that a then young Father Pell allegedly sexually offended two men when they were boys playing games in a swimming pool in Ballarat, Victoria.

The "swimmer's trial" will probably take place mid-February or early March, after sentencing for the "cathedral trial."

Most recently at the Vatican, Pell has had prime responsibility for cleaning up the Vatican's finances, and the work is paying dividends.

"The aim of the clean-up was to fight money laundering and terrorist financing and to bring Vatican finances into compliance with international norms.

"Thousands of accounts have been closed as a result.

"Last week (late November), the Board of the European Payments Council extended "the geographical scope of the Single Euro Payments Area [SEPA] to Vatican City State and the Holy See," reports CathNews NZ.

Pell took leave from his job at the Vatican in order to stand trial in Australia. However, the Vatican has not commented on the news of the cardinal's conviction out of respect for the suppression order.

"The Holy See has the utmost respect for the Australian judicial authorities. We are aware there is a suppression order in place and we respect that order," said the Director of the Holy See Press Office, Mr Greg Burke.

Earlier in 2018, Pope Francis told journalists in an airborne press conference he would speak only after the judicial process (which includes the possibility of an appeal and sentencing) had run its course.

In early December, former Adelaide Archbishop Philip Wilson had his conviction overturned by an appeals court.

Pell has always insisted on his innocence.

Sources

• NZ Herald
• The Daily Beast
• America Magazine
• CathNews NZ
• Image: Crux

An article seeking contributions has been posted in the Catholic Weekly.

Pell is fighting historical sexual assault offences charges. He has pleaded not guilty to all the charges.

The Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney posted an article. It includes bank details for people to transfer money directly through to his legal team.

They say the Church is not subsidising Pell's legal fees, and confirmed they did not set up the fund themselves. Read more

He will be defending historical sexual offence allegations which he denies.

The Vatican has issued the following statement about the court's decision:

"The Holy See has taken note of the decision issued by judicial authorities in Australia regarding His Eminence Cardinal George Pell.

"Last year, the Holy Father granted Cardinal Pell a leave of absence so he could defend himself from the accusations. The leave of absence is still in place."

On Tuesday the Australian magistrate presiding over last month's committal hearing, Brenda Wallington, dismissed some of the most serious charges of "historical sexual offences" against Pell.

However, she also ruled that Pell must stand trial on at least three other complaints.

Wallington's decision was not unexpected. She announced during the hearing that she believed a person should be committed to stand trial unless there was a "fundamental defect" in the evidence.

"I think issues of credibility and reliability are matters for a jury, except where you get to a point where the credibility is effectively annihilated," she said.

Pell has consistently denied the charges. He pleaded "not guilty" on Tuesday during his court hearing.

He is expected to face a directions hearing in Melbourne's County Court in the future, when a trial date will be set.

Pell's attorney on Tuesday said he may seek separate trials, given the nature of the remaining allegations.

Source

• Vatican News
• Crux Now
• Image: Huffington Post

Pell, who is Pope Francis's former finance minister, is facing several sexual abuse charges.

The alleged offences date back to when he was living in Victoria.

Police have described the charges as "historical" sexual assault offences.

During the hearing, the Melbourne Magistrates Court heard testimony from 50 witnesses.

The head of Pell's defence team, Robert Richter, then counter-attacked the Victorian Police, who opened a special operation in 2013 to investigate Pell.

He called it "an operation looking for a crime because no crime has been reported.

"The allegations are a product of fantasy, the product of some mental problems that the complainant may or may not have, or just pure invention in order to punish the representative of the Catholic Church in this country," Richter said.

Furthermore, the most serious complaints "ought to be regarded as impossible and ought to be discharged."

Richter said the false accusations could have been fabricated to punish Pell for the crimes of other clerics and for failing to act against abuse within the church.

A ruling will be made on 1 May about whether Pell will stand trial.

Richter called on the magistrate, Belinda Wallington, to throw out the charges.

The prosecutor, Mark Gibson, disagreed.

He told the court there is no evidence to back Richter's theory.

Wallington said questions of credibility and reliability were for a jury to decide, "except when you get to the point where credibility is effectively annihilated."

Source

• NZ Herald
• Crux Now
• Catholic News Agency
• Image: France 24