Talk:George Pell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject University of Oxford (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Oxford on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
WikiProject Australia / Melbourne (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon George Pell is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Melbourne (marked as High-importance).
 
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia.
WikiProject Catholicism (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Catholicism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
 

Untitled[edit]

Post-rename discussion starts at #6 — Донама 06:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Piss Christ[edit]

Pell's comments in the wake of the smashing of "Piss Christ" in Melbourne need mention under "Controversies". - David Gerard 00:39, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)

Feel free. Adam 07:57, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Reference to use:
http://artslaw.com.au/reference/piss974/ - Pell attempting to invoke the law of blasphemy - David Gerard 00:22, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
So write it already. Adam 01:47, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I know, I know. Here as a note to myself (or anyone else) to do in Copious Free Time - David Gerard 13:08, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Combining with George Pell article[edit]

Could we combine the histories of thsi and the George Pell articles?

Acegikmo1 03:16, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Strikes me that the tone of this article seems a little off for an encyclopedic piece: "Pell is the most highly educated, sophisticated, articulate and outspoken Catholic prelate Australia has seen since the death of Archbishop Daniel Mannix of Melbourne." That's not a fact, it's an opinion. I admit that it caught my eye because it's not something I agree with, but I think my point is legitimate: statements like this one permeate the article, they are not factual, and need to be recast as objective representations of other people's opinions.

Fair enough. I don't think there's too much dispute he's the most visible Australian Catholic bishop in decades; he's as big a media junkie as Peter Beattie or Allan Fels. His other merits are debatable and should be attributed. The challenge is to find attributable quotes to make those points. If you're lucky enough to have access, try poking around Lexis-Nexis (or Factiva). If nobody else does, I might see what I can find when I get time. --Robert Merkel 13:49, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Christian teaching on sexuality[edit]

"Christian teaching on sexuality is only one part of the Ten Commandments, of the virtues and vices, but it is essential for human wellbeing [sic] and especially for the proper flourishing of marriages and families, for the continuity of the human race," Pell said upon becoming Archbishop of Sydney.

Is that 'sic' appropriate? By my understanding, the proper use of 'sic' is to clarify that an apparent error in transcribed text was not introduced in transcription - effectively "thus it was in the source". I get the impression the intended meaning here is "of course, Pell is wrong in claiming this", which is not an appropriate use of 'sic' (and would also be POV). There's nothing I can see in that quote that's likely to be mistaken for a transcription error... but maybe I've missed something? --Calair 23:40, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I belive that it may be simply that "well-being" is considered by some to be two words. I don't know; I've seen "wellbeing" around in some places - anyone care to consult a dictionary, etc? Even if it is an error, it's such a minor one, I don't know if it's worthy of a sic. Slac speak up! 00:59, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is clearly a "sarcastic sic" and should be removed. Adam 01:19, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Since the passage the anonymous user above objected to has been removed, I don't see any evidence of an ongoing POV dispute about this article, so I have removed the tag. Adam 01:25, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I deleted the reference to "clerical celibacy" as a topic not open to discussion. Clerical celibacy is a discipline, and thus eminently changeable within the church and legitimately open to debate (though it is unlikely to happen anytime in the near future, I believe). Female ordination, on the other hand, is a settled doctrine taught by the magesterium of the Church, and isn't a matter of debate. Though I still think the notion that it "can't be discussed" is a bit strong, but I know what the original author meant. Dave Walker 03:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

He has made strong remarks against abandoning clerical celibacy, so I've re-added mention of this but (hopefully) fixed the wording to acknowledge the distinction you've pointed out. --Calair 04:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you hit just the right note. Though, in an overall sense, I still think the "controversies" section suffers from a non-NPOV problem, insofar as it shouldn't be considered controversial for a Catholic Cardinal to uphold Catholic teachings. I also recognize that the Church's teachings on matters of sexuality are a minority view in the world, so I can see how this POV came about. Dave Walker 21:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's just the fact that he upholds Catholic teachings that makes him 'controversial' (one of the most overused words in Wikipedia). Both in Sydney and in Melbourne, Pell seemed to be accompanied by a lot more commotion than other archbishops who, AFAIK, upheld the same teachings. IMHO, it has a lot to do with the way he expresses those teachings; his manner might be described as 'forthright', 'blunt', or 'tactless' depending on one's sympathies. --Calair 01:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I can buy that. Bishops can forget that they are to be shepherds, who lead, rather than cowboys, who drive. Dave Walker 00:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you think the page adequately explains this (e.g. mention of his outspoken and hierarchical approach in the 'Church Leader' section), or does it need to be clearer on the fact that it's not just the views but the presentation that makes the difference? --Calair 01:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Sources are needed for the claim that Vatican reaffirmed the Catholic teaching that practising homosexuals were "seriously depraved". This is not my understanding of the stance of the Church; the 'official teaching' is on the Vatican website http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html, and describes homosexual acts as 'intrinsically disordered', but nowhere is the word 'depraved' used. Until this confusion is cleared up, perhaps the allegation shoudl be deleted from the article, as per Wikipedia policy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_controversial_material

See the 2003 pronouncement on same-sex unions on the same site (emphasis mine):
"Sacred Scripture condemns homosexual acts “as a serious depravity... (cf. Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10). This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered”.(5) This same moral judgment is found in many Christian writers of the first centuries(6) and is unanimously accepted by Catholic Tradition." There is perhaps a fine distinction to be made a judgement on practising homosexuals and a judgement on homosexual acts, and I've tweaked the wording accordingly, but that quote comes straight from the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. The excerpt from Hingston's letter should not have been tagged as 'citation needed' since the paragraph already gives a source for that letter. --Calair 12:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

'Church Leader' section[edit]

I'm not very happy with this passage (emphases mine):

He uses the media, particularly television, with great skill.

Pell combines this sophistication with strict adherence to Catholic orthodoxy. As his rapid promotion shows, he had the full confidence of Pope John Paul II and his closest advisers such as Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI). Since the 1960s Australia has become one of the most secularised countries in the world, and Australians have become used to Christian leaders whose public utterances are confined to occasional exhortations to peace, love and charity. An Archbishop who strongly and capably expounds Catholic doctrines in matters of personal morality, and who exerts a strong top-down hierarchical discipline within the Church, has come as a shock to Australian Catholics.

Not flagrantly POV, but this seems a little more judgemental than I would like. What do others think? --Calair 01:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, well if you're going to pick those, I think "rapid", "one of the most secularised", "strong" and "has come as a shock" would be in the same boat. I'm in two minds: I can see what that para is getting at, and think something of that sort is appropriate to say, but I don't know how it can be phrased best. I'm tempted just to remove the bits that I disagree with as opinion, but that's probably not the best approach. Slac speak up! 02:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I removed them. Terms like that are inherintly unverifiable. Better to just mention the various mediums he has appeared on and let reader judge for themselves. Ashmoo 07:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

For this article to achieve a more neutral viewpoint the term "leader" should be abandoned here as too controversial and too biased. There could be debate as to whether a particular person in a particular role should be given this label viewed from a point of neutrality, which is the view Wikipedia espouses. The term 'leader' has many connotations some of which a neutral point of view would not endorse. See the wiki on leadership for further insights. A person may be validly regarded as a leader within certain contexts or organisations but not necessarily from opposite points of view or the neutral view point. This case is a perfect illustration of that. That a person has a particular role in society or an organisation which may entail education, publicity, propaganda, counselling, administration, or guidance, for example, could be argued does not imply leadership in all contexts of the rather loaded term. The person may not be regarded as a leader outside the context of his/her organisation. To avoid the trap of Wikipedia becoming a propaganda arm or public relations department of any particular organisation, it should be very careful how it headlines its articles. I suggest we be very specific in describing the person's role rather than evoking that emotive term, "leader."Bcebul (talk) 23:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that "leader" is usually a neutral and unbiased term and that it isn't in itself an "emotive term". A person can be a good leader, a bad leader or a nothing much leader. In Pell's case he is a leader by virtue of his particular office regardless of what kinds of leadership qualities he has or how he expresses his leadership. Simply by being an archbishop and cardinal, Pell is a "leader" within the Roman Catholic Church. What particular individuals think of his leadership is not really relevant. Afterwriting (talk) 11:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
It is precisely that this term, "leader", in this context is open to interpretation, nuance, connotation and commentary that it should be avoided here. The fact that this descriptive term is used as a headline in preference to many other possibly applicable terms such as "follower", "lackey", "spokesperson", "placeholder", "lobbyist", "authority", "obfuscater", "shepherd", "teacher", "defender of the faith", "bringer of light" or "moral bankrupt" is in itself commentary. Wikipedia should avoid commentary to retain a neutral viewpoint. If the person's formal position is "Leader" then say "Leader", if it is "Archbishop" say "Archbishop" not "leader".Bcebul (talk) 01:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


I think you are really missing the point here and investing the term "leader" with unecessary significance. In the article the term was simply being used in a generic manner by including Pell among the various Christian leaders of Australia - whether bishops or something else. Lots of otherwise neutral terms can also be open to what you are calling "interpretation" etc so I don't find your comments about calling Pell a leader at all convincing. As I wrote before, Pell is a Christian leader because his position makes him one and in normal usage any bishop would often be called a "Christian leader" so there is nothing about "leader" in its context in this article that makes it a loaded or biased term. If the article referred to him as a "wonderful leader" or a "dreadful leader" it would be an entirely different matter. Afterwriting (talk) 11:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It may be asserted or accused that an Archbishop has many attributes or roles, as I said above. Why choose "leader" or "leadership", which are not neutral terms says me and others like [Chomsky] for instance, in a headline above other roles? Even if the term were neutral which it is not, to emphasise it in a headline reflects bias towards this aspect of the person and invites commentary such as the above. In a commentary spree, to be fair all the other numerous relevant roles and attributes should get equal headline billing or, easier, no headlines. Bcebul (talk) 21:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Name of this article???[edit]

Why is this article not named in accordance with Wikipedia policy ie George Pell? George Pell redirects here.--A Y Arktos 08:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Controversies[edit]

I added some recent controversy stuff from 2006-05-05 news and also split it into sections because he is so controversial the controversies seemed to need some kind of categorisation! Feel free to reorder or rearrange. — Донама 06:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


Legatus Summit speech[edit]

At a speech delivered to Catholic Business leaders at the Legatus Summit in February 2006, Pell stated that the Koran is riddled with many invocations to violence that he stopped taking notes of them after about 50 pages. He also stated that in his personal opinion Islam is not a tolerant religion. (Note that the speech was made in February but was only released for general consumption in May.)

I'm no fan of Pell, but this is a good example of why it's better to go to the original source where possible. The ABC story cited as the source for this claim did not in fact say that. What it said was:

[Pell] also says that considered strictly on its own terms, Islam is not a tolerant religion and its capacity for far-reaching renovation is severely limited.

That's accurate as far as it goes, but it only goes halfway. Context, from Pell's original speech:

Considered strictly on its own terms, Islam is not a tolerant religion and its capacity for far-reaching renovation is severely limited. To stop at this proposition, however, is to neglect the way these facts are mitigated or exacerbated by the human factor.

He then goes on to describe Indonesia as an example of moderate Islam. Overall, by my reading, the gist of the speech is not 'Islam is an intolerant religion' but 'Islam has a large intolerant element, and productive dialogue with moderate Islam requires acknowledging that fact'. I think reading the original text will make it clear to most editors why I think the current article text is POV, albeit unintentionally so. --Calair 07:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I rewrote the section and added some of Pell's previous remarks on Islam. I tried to keep as NPOV as possible, but I'm not sure how good a job I did of that. --Calair 03:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Additions on paedophilia...[edit]

To the user who recently added some stuff relating to Pell's actions to deal with the problems of paedophilia within the church, I removed much of it as unattributed opinion (I don't think those opinions are universally held). If you can find some appropriate source to attribute them to, I'd be very happy to see them go back in. --Robert Merkel 07:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


Relationship with Howard government[edit]

This part of the Controversies section really needs a bit more grounding in citeable facts - Pell has agreed with the Howard Government's policies where they agree with his, but describing him as a 'close ally' really needs evidence of a relationship beyond that. Also, cf Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words - stuff like "Tony Abbott is considered to be the government's leading anti-abortion campaigner" needs to be sourced to somebody. --Calair 06:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

PET[edit]

To the anonymous editor who added the section on 'Life Saving PET Controversy', I have removed your contribution because most of it was unverifiable, either hearsay or innuendo ('who is presumed to be known to Pell', etc). Also, the section made little sense. Please re-draft, including appropriate citations (a press release from a politician is not an appropriate citation for a claim that some technology is or is not 'life saving'), taking care for readability in English, and re-submit. (211.29.117.181 10:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC))

Same problem again by the same anonymous editor (who has also doctored the Tony Abbott article). Failed to respond to talk requests. Section removed again, as per above. Please respond appropriately or you will be reported for vandalism. Also, deleted link to the Rainbow Sash Movement. The page linked had no information on or about Pell.(58.175.49.51 16:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC))
Third instance of vandalism from the same ISP 219.73.57.228. Refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard (58.175.49.51 08:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC))

World Youth Day[edit]

I was wondering if anyone else thinks that the section on World Youth Day is too long? Most of the discussion on World Youth Day is discussing the event rather than Pell himself. I think that it's quite unnecessary as WYD has its own article. Anyone else have thoughts on the issue?

Related to WYD, here it says that Australia won the bid in 2006, which is wrong, it was 2005 because the announcement was made in that year's WYD in Cologne. Lsalabust (talk) 04:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Prosperity doctrine[edit]

"His views on the prosperity gospel has also put him at loggerheads with Kenneth Copeland, Benny Hinn, T.D. Jakes, Joel Osteen, Creflo Dollar, Joyce Meyer, and Jesse Duplantis..." - yes, but what are those views? This article doesn't actually say. --144.53.251.2 (talk) 00:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Peter Jensen[edit]

Cardinal Pell's relationship with the equally hard line Anglican Archcbishop of Sydney, goes further than co-operation on political issues, and although they agree to differ on certain theological points, they certainly agree on matters such as homosexuality and women priests. The two regard themselves as friends, and Pell asked Jensen to be the main speaker at the book launch of a biography written by one of his supporters some five years ago. Millbanks (talk) 08:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Sources on sexual abuse / pedophila[edit]

These might be somehow helpful in On sexual abuse by Catholic priests, or On pedophilia within the Church.

'At home with' edits[edit]

Can an administator - or someone with more expert knowledge on Wikipedia policies and editing guidelines - please assist the editor called 'At home with' who does not understand how to appropriately contribute to this article? He or she seems to think this is a forum in which to express personal opinions on various issues. Thanks. Afterwriting (talk) 09:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no "ex officio head of the Roman Catholic Church in Australia"[edit]

The second sentence of this article is incorrect. Yes, many reputable sources speak of Cardinal Pell as being the head of the Roman Catholic Church in Australia (for example, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23986175-601,00.html), but this is simply not the case, as there is no one office that is an all-encompassing "head" in the Australian Catholic Church. This is a misconception. (You may wish to see the comment by John Buggy of the group Australian Reforming Catholics as quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald article "Minister says Pell as bad as that 'boofhead Hilaly'" authored by Alexandra Smith and Linda Morris, dated June 7, 2007)

Back to the topic at hand. There is a three-fold hierarchy in the Catholic Church worldwide; bishop, priest and deacon (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07326a.htm). There is no office in the church higher than that of "bishop." Even the office of pope (with jurisdictional rights and responsibilities of being the earthly head of the Catholic Church universally - it may go without saying at this point that the Church teaches that the true head of the Church is Christ) is bestowed on him by virtue of his being Bishop of Rome. To reiterate, there is no office higher than bishop.

Let us now return to the matter at hand which concerns Cardinals and their relationships to bishops. In the Australian case, Pell is a cardinal-bishop (not all cardinals are diocesan bishops). Cardinals' functions are really only functional in relation to the Pope and the Vatican. (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P19.HTM). Therefore, in terms of the Australian Church, Pell is not any more or less important than any other diocesan bishop, and he certainly does not have jurisdiction over the church of the entire country. As Archbishop (meaning he is bishop of an Archdiocese), he has ecclesiastical (church) jurisdiction, governance and responsibilities for only the Archdiocese of Sydney. And the Archdiocese of Sydney does not include the geography of the whole of greater Sydney (for example, while geographically, Parramatta is considered part of Sydney, when we speak about church (and diocesan) boundaries, the Diocese of Parramatta is a completely different diocese to the Archdiocese of Sydney.) So, Cardinal Pell has all the rights and responsibilities of being a Cardinal in relation to his functions and roles that are negotiated with the Pope and Vatican, but in Australia he is still a bishop amongst bishops.

The confusion (that Cardinal Pell is the supposed head of the Catholic Church in Australia) seems to lie in misconceptions that the Archdiocese (and thus Archbishopric) of Sydney is more important than other dioceses (and bishops) in Australia, particularly because the honour of Cardinalate is given to Archbishops of Sydney. As a historical trend/tradition, we can almost certainly expect that Archbishops of Sydney will become Cardinals (see Conclusion section of http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-5203149_ITM). Another historical honour for the Archdiocese of Sydney is in being the first place that institutional Catholicism took root in Australia. Apart from historical reasons, the Archdiocese of Sydney is no more or less important (in terms of authority in church affairs) than any other diocese or Archdiocese in Australia. (I want to be clear here that I am not speaking about the very different issue of politics; I am only speaking in terms of jurisdictional church authority.)

On to this penultimate point: each bishop has ecclesiastical jurisdiction and responsibilities only for their particular diocese. This means that there is no diocesan bishop in Australia who can interfere in the affairs of another diocesan bishop. They have rights and responsibilities only within the diocese they are called to serve. So Cardinal Pell, as bishop of Sydney exercises authority in only the Archdiocese of Sydney (e.g. the Archbishop of Melbourne cannot be told what to do by the Archbishop of Sydney and vice-versa). So, each bishop remains within the boundaries of their dioceses in terms of authority. (see "Rights and Responsibilities" section in http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm) See also the Code of Canon Law which says this in no uncertain terms (Canon 390, http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P1E.HTM)

Finally, while there is no "head" of the Catholic Church in Australia, there is the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference, of which there is a chair. It is not my place to explain the working of the ACBC here, but needless to say, the ACBC's statements are probably the closest thing that can be described as speaking on behalf of the entire church of Australia (and this authority really comes back to it being the authority of the combined local college of bishops).

In relation to the Wikipedia article, I would like to propose that the phrase "and ex officio head of the Roman Catholic Church in Australia" be removed, and perhaps even a new topic under the article to debunk the common misconception that Cardinal Pell, with all due respect, is not the head of the Catholic Church in Australia, but one of the better known leaders in the Australian Church hierarchy.

Caspianix (talk) 14:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

There is an ex officio head of the Roman Catholic Church in Australia, but it is not His Eminence. It is rather Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. 163.1.170.181 (talk) 16:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Monica Hingston References[edit]

Regarding the citations needed under Doctrinal Stances on Sexuality, this news article from The Age published the statements from Monica Hingston. Sorry for not putting them in myself, but I'm a bit rusty. http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/01/11/1073769452833.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simm (talkcontribs) 09:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Sex abuse controversies[edit]

There is already an article on Sexual abuse scandal in Melbourne archdiocese and the relevant information should be properly transfered there. There is already a keep consensus for similar controversies such Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexual abuse scandal in Cloyne diocese in case someone doesn't like the idea of a content transfer. ADM (talk) 23:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit request from 180.222.7.139, 30 December 2010[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}} Category:Australian Roman Catholic priests

180.222.7.139 (talk) 23:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Why? Inka888 00:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The first Catholic priest to celebrate Mass at Eton since the Reformation was not George Pell but David Woodard, parish priest of Our Lady of Peace, Burnham, who did so in the mid-1960s. Nicholas Lash (curate to David Woodard at the time). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.17.205 (talk) 12:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Increasing use of self-sourced quotations[edit]

In recent months, I've noticed that there is an increasing use of self–published sources used in this article. Right now approximately one–third of all references are either direct quotes from Pell (such as speeches and interviews), opinion pieces published in the Catholic and mainstream press (where Pell is the author), or media releases issued by the Sydney archdioceses, under Pell's authority. While at this stage it is still within Wikipedia policy on self–published sources, it is getting close to pushing limits. What is of more relevance is the interpretation of Pell's statements, rather than the statements themselves. Perhaps closer consideration could be given to editing to ensure that we're relying on primary sources. For example, Pell's comments on the recent ABCTV Q&A were highly topical. However, it was the subsequent review and interpretation of his comments that were of significant interest. Rangasyd (talk) 01:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Surely though, in an article about a public intellectual, philosopher or religious leader, it is important to include their own thoughts and words in sections relating to their "views" - rather than focus simply on interpretations (which seem to almost invariably be journalist opinion pieces in the case of this article). The standard of comment and interpretation of the recent Q&A debate in the media struck me as particularly weak and in many cases dishonest or sensationlist. Wikipedia in such cases can act as a reference point for what was really said - although I agree that overuse of extended quotations is not good.Observoz (talk) 06:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Quote on Darwin's autobiography[edit]

It is reasonable to be suspicious that the Cardinal has deliberately quoted Darwin out of context. Pell quotes page 92, however on pages 90 and 94 Darwin challenges arguments for existence of god and declares himself an agnostic. Darwin's autobiography, page 90: http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F1497&viewtype=image&pageseq=92

This video explains the whole affair in more detail: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzp1DEh6H3k --Kresimircindric (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Unlock and Add Multiple Issues Tag[edit]

I am concerned about the Accusation of Sexual Abuse section blaming the potential victim[edit]

I don't know anything about this case in particular but I have volunteered for a suicide / rape hotline. Pell may or may not have sexually abused a 12-year-old boy but I am not sure the boy's future activities have a bearing on this. Victims of Childhood Sexual Abuse– Later Criminal Consequences - Childhood sexual abuse can actually be correlated with criminal consequences. IF the 12-year-old was sexually abused - does his later criminal record excuse that? Unless they are showing that the boy actually was convicted of lying about the sex abuse - his record should not be in this article. I think this section underlines why rape victims have such a difficult time coming forward.

The Article says "In June 2002, Pell was accused of having sexually abused a 12-year-old boy at a Roman Catholic youth camp in 1961 whilst a seminarian. Pell vigorously denied all the accusations and stood aside,[59] but did not resign, as archbishop as soon as the allegations were made public. The complainant agreed to pursue his allegations through the church's own process for dealing with allegations of sexual misconduct, the National Committee for Professional Standards (NCPS). The subsequent inquiry found that the accusations had not been established.[60] Justice Southwell concluded:[61]
[B]earing in mind the... very long delay, some valid criticism of the complainant's credibility, the lack of corroborative evidence and the sworn denial of the respondent, I find I am not 'satisfied that the complaint has been established'
Doubts about the handling of the accusation arose following the publication by the Australian Herald Sun on 6 October 2002 of details about the accuser, whose anonymity had been preserved in previous media coverage. As relayed by the Zenit news service, "Pell's alleged victim was, it turned out, a career criminal. He had been convicted of drug dealing and involved in illegal gambling, tax evasion and organized crime in a labour union. A commission probing the union devoted a whole chapter of its report to the man's activities. As the inquiry report noted, 'The complainant has been before the court on many occasions, resulting in 39 convictions from about 20 court appearances.'"[62]"

I think it should have ended at Justice Southwell's conclusions instead of insinuating the charges were the POTENTIAL victim's fault. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.107.82 (talk) 00:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I think your concern is valid, so I removed that section, at least until we can work out what we want to do here. I guess the question is whether or not raising what were valid concerns about the accuser's credibility are justified - on the one hand, I have no desire to victimise the accuser, but on the other, it should be clear that there were serious doubts raised about the accusations. - Bilby (talk) 00:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Prefect of the Secretariat for the Economy[edit]

With today's announcement of the creation of the new Secretariat and Cardinal Pell being named as its first Prefect, his time as Archbishop of Sydney will be coming to an end. It is not clear yet when that will become effective. It is likely that it will be when he assumes his new vatican post, which will be "at the end of March".--Dcheney (talk) 00:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Sexual abuse section[edit]

I have placed the section on sexual abuse under his "Church role" which is under his "Episcopacy" section according to the usual hierarchical structure of biographies. It was arguably a violation of WP:NPOV to give it undue prominence by placing it high and out of order. Elizium23 (talk) 16:39, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

SMH apology keeps getting deleted[edit]

Under the heading "Accusation of Sexual Abuse", my reference to the Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) Apology on this matter keeps getting deleted. Wikipedia cannot publish that the SMH stated that the accusation left Cardinal Pell's reputation "falling short of complete exoneration given the inquiry's terms of reference", without also including that same newspaper's apology for not making it clear enough that he was exonerated. However every time I add this point, someone deletes it. Regardless of what people think about Cardinal Pell personally, this is an important fact to include under this heading.

Here is the sentence that keeps getting deleted:

After publishing an article that claimed that Cardinal Pell was not exonerated from these accusations, the Sydney Morning Herald published a correction on 30 March 2013, confirming that the "independent investigation cleared the Cardinal." It said: "The Sydney Morning Herald apologises sincerely to Cardinal Pell for any suggestion to the contrary and for any adverse reflections on him in our 11 March articles."[1]

I just wanted to put an alert here in case this keeps happening!

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaryBroady (talkcontribs) 23:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Update 26 March: This was deleted again for supposed "relevance" so I have given this paragraph its own title so the relevance is more clear. Can someone explain why something factual like this keeps getting deleted? Whether people personally agree or not, Wikipedia is about facts backed up by references, which is what makes this such a great site! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaryBroady (talkcontribs) 21:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

MaryBroady the edit summary clearly says (twice) that is was deleted because it confused two separate issues. Flat Out let's discuss it 23:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi MaryBroady. I haven't been involved in the back-and-forth, but as I understand it the apology was for comments published in 2013, while the text quoted was from 2002. So I don't think we can say that the SMH apologised for the 2002 comment. This leaves us in a bit of a quandary, though. I don't like the feel of adding accusations so that we can refute them - if they are false accusations, it is better that they not be given any oxygen. So the new section, which raises a false accusation in order to deny it, makes me very uncomfortable. However, as you rightly point out, the claim that the investigation failed to completely exonerate Pell is also problematic - the statement might still be true, but it misses the subtlety of the situation. I'm not sure about others, but given the SMH's later comments I'm inclined to remove both the line and the later apology, but to leave the claims of the two disputants in place to indicate how it could have been read as a win to all. Maybe add a summary about how it was fair to both parties, as there are a few discussions on that in the archives. Any thoughts? - Bilby (talk) 02:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Agree. Both claims should be removed. Flat Out let's discuss it 03:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I wanted to let this sit for a week to see if anyone disagreed, but it looks like it is ok to remove both. so I've taken both claims out. Hopefully that was acceptable. - Bilby (talk) 00:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

(From MaryBroady, 8 April) Sorry I am just catching up on this. Thank you for making the change I agree it is probably the best solution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaryBroady (talkcontribs) 00:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).