Talk:George Pell

Claim of "Catholic orthodoxy" and its contradiction with climate denial

Is the sentence in the lede correct "Since becoming Archbishop of Melbourne in 1996, he has maintained a high public profile on a wide range of issues, while retaining a strict adherence to Catholic orthodoxy." considering he is an outspoken and proud climate change denier. He has opposed the Encyclical Laudato Si from Pope Francis, hardly adherence to Catholic orthodoxy.

It is hardly surprising that the serious and somewhat blunt message of Laudato si’ has been met with resistance by many conservative Catholics, including those who advocate climate denial, such as Australian Cardinal George Pell.4 Pell’s idea that Pope Francis has no business meddling in either scientific or political matters crept into the conservative press. Such criticisms are false in light of the historical contribution of the Catholic Church to both scientific research and politics more broadly. In contrast with climate change deniers, Pope Francis...

References

Also https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/catholicism-environment

Skinnytony1 (talk) 04:45, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that this is the case. There's no ambiguity in the Vatican's views on climate change. That said, Pell preached orthodox sexual views, if not environmental care views. I can edit to reflect that. Vision Insider (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Could someone please state what the specific charges are that Pell was found guilty of?

Could someone please state what the specific charges are that Pell was found guilty of? 2604:2000:F64D:FC00:30B0:F075:BE56:77F4 (talk) 22:07, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

He was convicted of molesting two choir boys at the cathedral where Pell was bishop in the first trial (the so-called "Cathedral Trial"). A second trial is scheduled, known as the "Swimmers Trial", involves an accusation he molested two boys who were at a pool in Ballarat Victoria, where he was a local priest at the time. ("Vatican No. 3 Cardinal George Pell Convicted on Charges He Sexually Abused Choir Boys". The Daily Beast. 11 December 2018. Retrieved 16 December 2018.)

How, exactly, did he molest his victims? The article is still too vague. 173.88.241.33 (talk) 01:34, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

To clarify what happened: the state of Victoria does not allow the release of court proceedings if the matter either involves minors or if the defendant is facing separate charges. Since Pell was being separately trialled for another series of crimes, his offences were not allowed to be released as it could have swayed a jury and prevented a fair trial. That could mean not even holding a trial. It's a losing battle in a digital age (the story obviously leaked anyway) but Australian media weren't allowed to run the story. Overseas media had cryptic clues to go on, though. Vision Insider (talk) 04:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Do you really need to know which part of his body he used? Why the salacious interest? WWGB (talk) 02:14, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

@WWGB: Wikipedia is not censored. Any information covered by reliable sources may be included. Details of the crime are directly relevant to why the subject of this article is notable. To accuse another editor of mere "salacious interest" by pointing out that critical information is missing is poor faith. –Zfish118^⋉talk 18:37, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

It always amuses me when an uninvolved third editor feels the urge to interject in a discussion between two other editors, particularly to parrot bleeding obvious Wikipedia protocols. I wonder whether they never achieved their childhood dream to become a policeman. Some editors who boldly proclaim they are "retired" from Wikipedia seem incapable of adhering to their own decision. WWGB (talk) 00:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Cool story, bro. –Zfish118^⋉talk 19:47, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2019

Update infobox to include his conviction for child molestation. 129.127.145.232 (talk) 01:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. There are no fields in Template:Infobox Christian leader for criminal convictions. WWGB (talk) 01:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2019

His conviction has now been confirmed and I want this to be included.

In June 2017, Pell was charged in Victoria, Australia with multiple historical sexual assault offences; he denied all charges. The most serious charges were thrown out for "fundamental defects in evidence" and credibility issues over witnesses, but Pell was committed to stand trial on the lesser charges, pleading not guilty. As Vatican Prefect for the Secretariat of the Economy, Pell is reported to be the most senior Catholic cleric in the world to face such charges. On 16 August 2018, Spanish media reported that Pell had been removed from the Council of Cardinal Advisers due to the charges raised against him. On 11 December 2018, Pell was found guilty on five charges related to sexual misconduct involving two boys in the 1990s. He is listed to be sentenced in February 2019 and is expected to appeal the conviction. Pell's conviction was subject to a gag order issued by Judge Peter Kidd, which suppressed coverage of the conviction by Australian media companies. On 12 December 2018, the day after Pell's conviction, the Holy See Press Office announced that Pope Francis had written to Pell at the end of October 2018 to thank him for his work on the Council of Cardinal Advisers since 2013; and terminated his appointment to the council. His conviction was later confirmed by local sources on February 26, 2019."Cardinal George Pell convicted of child sex offences". 9news. February 26, 2019

References

. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); line feed character in |date= at position 49 (help) 2601:447:4101:5780:414C:1408:94AD:FC44 (talk) 02:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. Pell's conviction is covered adequately at George Pell#Criminal charges and conviction. WWGB (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Gag order penalties

Please add to the section on the gag order that in early February, Victoria's DPP, Kerri Judd QC, wrote to around 50 Australian news publishers, editors, broadcasters, reporters and subeditors, accusing them of breaking the gag order. Peter Kidd, the judge who laid the gag order, told a closed court that some of the breaches were serious and editors faced jail.

Thank you. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done It is not clear to me how the fact that some journalists may have broken a gag order is relevant to George Pell, subject of this article. Granted, the order was relating to his case, but due to the fact that the second case is not going ahead the success of the gag order is immaterial for Pell as the purpose of it was to avoid prejudicing the second trial. I suggest you consider expanding Gag order#Australia. Melmann^(talk) 15:05, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Melmann, I've done as you suggested and expanded the gag order article.--122.108.141.214 (talk) 20:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for being bold. Please consider creating an account and contributing further, Wikipedia needs editors like you. Melmann^(talk) 15:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

References

Beating around the bush: Criminal charges and conviction

The latest Reuters news Vatican treasurer convicted of sexually abusing 13-year-old boys is straightforward:

MELBOURNE (Reuters) - Vatican treasurer Cardinal George Pell has been found guilty on five charges of child sexual abuse committed more than two decades ago against 13-year-old boys in Australia - the most senior Catholic cleric to be convicted of child sex offences.

then

He was convicted of five sexual offences committed against the 13-year-old choir boys 22 years earlier in the priests’ sacristy of St Patrick’s Cathedral in Melbourne, where Pell was archbishop. One of the two victims died in 2014.

Why his crime description under this section suffers from a large number of words signifying nothing.--93.86.142.92 (talk) 07:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Tim Minchin

I found it a bit odd and it stood out for me that Tim Minchin's songs about Pell were mentioned 3 times in the article. Is he notable enough in Australia that his responses to current events need to be mentioned on Wikipedia? RadPaper (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd say that the article uses the same source three times in three different ways. All of them are reasonable. Minchin would be more recognisable than politicians who have been quoted, such as the accusations from Sharon Knight that he was faking his health problems to avoid coming to Australia.

It's noteworthy to mention that discontent with Pell's position on sexual abuse had reached the mainstream. I'd say Minchin is a good way of avoiding the issue of weasel words. In years to come, when people look at this page and wonder, "How did Australians react to Pell before his conviction?" they'll read, "Musicians made songs about him being a doofus."

Vision Insider (talk) 22:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

You might like to compare the mentions here with Tim_Minchin#"Come_Home_(Cardinal_Pell)" - the song was directly responded to by the then Attorney-General, explaining that it was not uncommon for videolink to be used (and thus Pell did not have to "come home"). --122.108.141.214 (talk) 00:16, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Whether or not Minchin was "right" is separate to the fact that he was voicing protest at Pell not coming in person. The song was part of a larger campaign that considered it cowardly for Pell not to come in person. This is also what other people quoted are alluding to elsewhere in the article. Vision Insider (talk) 02:15, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Edited to add:The article has since been updated to have just one reference. I think that the article doesn't lose anything with this change.Vision Insider (talk) 02:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Criminal status, jury results, commentary - only include facts!

Edits are cropping up on this page, and others such as more generalised articles on sexual abuse in the Catholic Church, regarding questioning Pell's conviction.

Victorian law is that somebody convicted of a crime is guilty of that crime. An appeal can be made if there are grounds for it, and it may overturn a result on one charge or another. At this stage, though, in the eyes of the law Pell is guilty on five counts for various charges. His status is not "probably guilty but maybe will get off on appeal" or anything similar. He is guilty. An appeal has not yet been granted. If one is granted, it may change the outcome, but for the moment he is guilty.

Similarly, an unverified rumour has been spread that the first trial resulted in a 10-2 vote favouring acquittal. This is probably untrue. I say probably because juries in Victoria may not disclose their deliberations under any circumstances. A decision can only be announced if it is unanimous or with a single dissent. Otherwise it is a mistrial. The second trial would not be identical to the first; prosecution and defence teams are allowed to change their arguments if they wish to (and it's advised that they do, since the most likely outcome is another mistrial with neither side convincing a jury).

To summarise:

DO NOT edit this page to include the unproven rumour regarding a 10-2 jury vote. No it wasn't. Juries don't disclose their deliberations. This is a rumour with unclear origins.

DO NOT make this page a flame war between commentators like Bolt and Marr regarding whether the decision was "correct." If Pell is later acquitted on appeal, it may be relevant to include commentary reacting to his initial conviction. Until then, it's all supposition and it doesn't belong here.

Vision Insider (talk) 01:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Isn't it premature to call him convicted. The verdict will be appealed. --175.158.233.14 (talk) 07:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

No, it's not premature. He has, as a matter of law and fact, been convicted of a crime. Yes, he plans to appeal. Should that be successful and his conviction be quashed, then his status would change. But right now, he is convicted, and sentenced, which is why he is in prison tonight. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

His Eminence

'His Eminence'? Is this epithet appropriate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Brett Alexander Hunter (talk • contribs)

Appropriate? Plausibly not. Standard means of address for a cardinal? Yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/His_Eminence 71.86.140.226 (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Opening sentence

The first sentence of the article reads, "George Pell AC (born 8 June 1941) is an Australian prelate of the Catholic Church convicted of child sexual abuse." I do not consider that appropriate. It is appropriate for the child sexual abuse conviction to be mentioned in the lead, given its inherent importance and the amount of attention it has attracted. There is no reason for it to be mentioned in the first sentence, however. Pell is notable for his role in the Catholic Church, not for his recent conviction. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Right now, 100% of reliable sources mention Pell in the context of his conviction. It belongs in the first sentence/paragraph until time determines what he is better remembered for. WWGB (talk) 01:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

As the article is about 15 years old, and the conviction was in the last few weeks, it's hard to justify putting the conviction in the first sentence. He was known for his position in the church, and in the last few weeks became known worldwide for the conviction. Certainly it could be in the first paragraph, maybe as the last sentence. I noticed we have a similar outcome with Robert Hughes, a well known person later more widely known for a sex conviction. --Dmol (talk) 01:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I oppose changes. His conviction is worldwide news and notable globally. He is also highest ranked Catholic convicted of child sex abuse and the very fact that he is such prominent Catholic leader makes the sexual abuse he has been found guilty of all the more important and notable. Melmann (talk) 12:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Melmann Pell is notable because of his conviction for child abuse. For some catholics he is notable for his ministry. But Wikipedia is note just aimed at catholic readers. Most readers will not have heard of him before the allegations and convictions. Contaldo80 (talk) 20:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• Agreed with rationale provided by Contaldo80. starship.paint ~ KO 02:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Televised sentencing and grounds of appeal

Please add to the end of the criminal charges section that Judge Kidd's sentencing remarks will be broadcast on television, and that Pell's appeal dates are set to be 5 and 6 June. Pell's appeal is understood to be argued on three grounds: that the verdict was unreasonable, that a visual aid was not allowed in the closing address, and that Pell was not allowed to lodge a plea of not guilty in front of the jury.

Thank you. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 00:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done

References

Paedophile or child sex offender

Can Pell be described as a paedophile or should we only refer to him as a child sex offender? How about child abuser? Which terms are in scope and which are out? The courts found him guilty of sexual relations with minors and there are lots of terms for that. Contaldo80 (talk) 20:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

It's not really a pleasant topic to discuss at great length, obviously. But to answer the question: a paedophile generally refers to someone who sexually assaults very young children (as in, prepubescent). "Child abuse" is a broader term that refers to assault against children, which may be violence, emotional manipulation, neglect and so on. Sexual assault would be a subset of child abuse. Vision Insider (talk) 21:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Paedophilia is not a crime.[1] Putting your penis in a child's mouth is a crime. WWGB (talk) 00:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

That's true, but also perhaps a callous way of dismissing the question. In general parlance the term refers to the action of child sexual assault rather than the psychiatric condition. Hence why I said "generally refers to" rather than "is defined as." Vision Insider (talk) 03:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

All very helpful. Therefore to describe Pell as a paedophile we'd have to demonstrate that he enjoyed putting his penis in a child's mouth? Without that he's just guilty of child abuse - and we're not certain whether or not he enjoyed the experience. Is that a fair summary? Contaldo80 (talk) 04:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

One cannot be "guilty" of paedophilia just as one cannot be guilty of schizophrenia. I am not aware that any psychiatrist has diagnosed Pell with paedophilia. WWGB (talk) 04:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Ah yes bravo. But of course I didn’t say he was guilty of paedophilia - you used that phrase. Contaldo80 (talk) 07:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

We don't know whether he has a preference for children, which would be paedophilia. We can only say that he was found guilty of those acts on those occasions, so he is an offender.--Gronk Oz (talk) 09:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

AgreedContaldo80 (talk) 02:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Should Infobox criminal be added in the section titled ***Criminal charges and conviction***?

{{Infobox criminal}} states: Choose this template judiciously. Unwarranted or improper use of this template may violate the Biographies of living persons, Neutral point of view and Privacy policies. This template is generally reserved for convicted serial killers, gangsters, mass murderers, old west outlaws, murderers, mafia members, fugitives, FBI 10 Most Wanted, serial rapist, mobsters, and other notorious criminals...... Infobox criminal is rarely used where notability is not due primarily to the person being a convicted criminal. (the emphasis above comes from the template, not me). Pell has been convicted of a serious crime; serious not just in its penalty, yet also in terms of his standing in the community (both in Australia and within the Curia). The critical issue, as I see it, is this instance rare (my emphasis) enough to warrant use of the Infobox. To assess that, we should look at other examples of where the infobox is used for those that fall outside the usual crowd (of serial killers, gangsters, mass murderers, old west outlaws, murderers, mafia members, fugitives, FBI 10 Most Wanted, serial rapist, mobsters, and other notorious criminals). With over 3,400 uses on Wikipedia, I selected the following as a topical guide, and I'm not condoning that the use of {{Infobox criminal}} is appropriate in these instances: Robert Hughes (Australian actor); Tommy Robinson (activist); Michael Williamson (Australian unionist); Brendan Smyth; and Eddie Obeid, to list just a few. Does Pell fall into the same category that this is a rare instance on when the infobox should be used for those who are not the usual crowd; or, should the infobox only be used for those who are the usual crowd, and hence there needs to discussion and consensus on the Infobox talk page to remove the rarely used phrase. It is my belief that the rarely used phrase is there for instances such as Pell. The criminal infobox should not be in the lede. His prime notability is as a prelate. However, like Obeid, it should be included in the section that relates to Pell's criminal history. In the event that Pell's appeal is quashed, the infobox should be removed; the precedence for this being with Ian Macdonald (New South Wales politician). Thoughts, please. Rangasyd (talk) 06:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

This advice is primarily in place to avoid breaching the due weight policy by placing undue emphasis in the lead on matters which might would otherwise be a few sentences in the article body somewhere. If there is an existing substantive section in the article which would benefit from summary by a section infobox, then there is no issue with adding one (bar the usual infobox war arguments). TheDragonFire (talk) 13:43, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't object to a simple infobox in George Pell#Criminal charges and conviction which reiterates charges, guilt and sentence. WWGB (talk) 13:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Infoboxes can occur in the subsection, and given how long that part of it is, I don't see an issue with summarising it. It's not especially easy to find what his convictions were in all of that text. Which probably means it also needs a tidy at some point. Maybe I'll do that when I have more time. Vision Insider (talk) 04:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Quotations by Pell’s barrister

Much has been said by all the participants in this trial and subsequently by others. How much of this should be quoted, verbatim, in Wikipedia?

Pell’s barrister made a comment about the “plain vanilla” nature of the offence. He subsequently retracted his comment and apologised, explaining that he did not intend to belittle the suffering of victims of sexual abuse. These comments were quoted, with quotation marks, in this article. Why? I erased the paragraph but I see it has been restored with the suggestion that it is important to the article.

Should we start uploading significant amounts of the spoken words from this trial, or just these comments, since retracted, by Richter? What do others think? Dolphin (t) 23:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I was the restorer. Richter's comments were widely publicised and roundly condemned, forcing an apology. I don't care whether the issue contains quotes or not, but it should be reported here. Remove the quotes if you wish, and replace with paraphrasing. WWGB (talk) 00:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I support what WWGB has said above, and add that many saw Richter's comment as a statement of guilt, one that could be paraphrased as "Yes, he did it, but it didn't really harm the victim much". They are very important words. HiLo48 (talk) 00:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Diff for easy reference. The 'plain vanilla' comment was widely publicised, denounced, and seen as an admission by Pell's own lawyer of his guilt, despite Pell maintaining his innocence. I think it should be restored, with an explanation of why Richter had to argue as if Pell was guilty (example to follow):

During a plea hearing on 27 February 2019, Pell's lawyer Richter argued for a more lenient sentence for Pell, accepting the jury's verdict of guilty in order to do so. As part of his argument, Richter argued that Pell's offence was "no more than a plain vanilla sexual penetration case where the child is not volunteering or actively participating". Richter later apologized for this remark, stating: "It was not intended to evade the seriousness of what had been done ... it was in no way meant to belittle or minimise the suffering and hurt of victims of sex abuse".

References

Thank you. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 03:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

My thanks to the three Users who have contributed to this thread. Pell was declared guilty on 11 December 2018. In a plea hearing on 27 February 2019 his barrister, Richter, spoke using the context of Pell being guilty of these offences. He could not have done otherwise. In the eyes of the law, Pell had been guilty for 78 days! Following a guilty verdict it would be unacceptable for any member of the bar or any legal professional to continue using euphemisms such as “the alleged offence” or “my client, who denies these charges.” Since l1 December 2018 Richter has been obliged, as a member of the Victorian bar, to acknowledge Pell’s guilt whenever he speaks. The comments on 27 February about “plain vanilla” offences cannot be construed as an admission of his client’s guilt made during the trial (which concluded 78 days earlier.)

Richter apologised for some remarks he made, saying his remarks were “... in no way meant to belittle or minimise the suffering and hurt of victims of sex abuse.” I concede this quotation, or a paraphrased version thereof, might warrant inclusion in our article on Robert Richter (lawyer) or even Child sexual abuse in Australia but I see no grounds for including these words in our article on George Pell. I particularly notice that, so far, no-one has attempted to argue that these words should appear in our article on George Pell. Dolphin (t) 05:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

"...no-one has attempted to argue that these words should appear in our article on George Pell." What an appalling misrepresentation! Doing that raises serious doubts about your motives here. HiLo48 (talk) 03:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

HiLo48: When I wrote "... so far, no-one has attempted to argue that these words should appear in our article on George Pell" I was obviously referring to the words I quoted earlier in the paragraph: “... in no way meant to belittle or minimise the suffering and hurt of victims of sex abuse.” If you believe that someone has attempted to argue that these words should appear in our article, please post the relevant diff so we can all see what argument you have in mind. (I notice that when WWGB restored some of the text in question, he didn't restore these words. I guess WWGB agrees with me on this point.) Dolphin (t) 03:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I think that the quote belongs due to its significance. To expand upon WWGB's point, the fallout of the trial is significant. Pell is the most senior Catholic ever convicted of a child sexual offence, and therefore it makes sense to go into more detail about it. Its historical importance is large, and warrants some specific quotes about the reaction to this unprecedented occasion. Furthermore, I think it's fair to predict that the quote, and its connection to Pell's lack of contrition, will maintain historical significance over time. Vision Insider (talk) 03:20, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I have restored the "plain vanilla" mention, although less quotey. WWGB (talk) 03:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

WWGB: Why did you restore it? The matter is under discussion in this thread. Is it your wish to stifle further discussion? So far, I see only four Users have contributed to the thread. I would like to see more Users join the discussion, and the discussion to go beyond 24 hours. Dolphin (t) 04:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure you would, but the current !vote is 4:1 in favour of retention. If the balance swings your way, then we can remove. WWGB (talk) 04:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)