Paul Sheehan suspended from Sydney Morning Herald following false rape story - ABC News
Sheehan did the honorable thing and has stepped down. Andrew Bolt has done a George Pell and has snuck off removed the post and is prepared to throw Sheehan under the bus. Let it not be forgotten Bolt uploaded the Sheehan post as soon as he saw it. You won't hear anymore from Bolt Is there a rape culture? | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog - News Removed without apology
The Cardinal Pell interview
By a Gold Digger is also a self declared Doubting Thomas
Andrew Bolt looking like an unmade bed interviews Cardinal Pell and asks
Which of the implausible stories true
1 The third highest Catholic on the planet was less than honest or
2 The Royal Commission is a witch hunt against an honest man a reformer and saint
Let's look at proposition 1
It's far easier for one man to lie than a board or group of men. Simply because it's one man's word. It's why waterboarding was used to extract confessions in other circumstances when the inquisitors needed to be proved right. It's common knowledge that it's harder for a board of directors to lie consistently in order to commit fraud. It's preferable to deal with a corporation than with a family business. Your far less likely to be ripped off. In this case Pell is acting as a single operator he is one man.
Given the history of the Catholic Church and it's Cardinals and Popes in the past when it comes to human ambition, sex, politics,murder and mayhem Bolt is not only drawing a long bow in defending the implausible that Pell the third highest Cardinal wouldn't lie to protect the church the organization he's been a part of for over 50 years. Churches are by their very nature creators of myths , smoke and mirrors and lies. They very slow organizations to change.
Pell has admitted as much when he totally contradicted himself by declaring there was nothing systemically wrong with the institution and structure of the Church. Any faults to be found were the faults of sinners and weak men which then allowed him to throw men overboard and call them all liars. He was defending the Church. In the same breath however he said it was the Church's fault in it's systemic denial of wrong doing for years. In trying to protect itself from shame and then later it's assets it messed up in the worst way. This and this alone was created by a culture that condoned a priority of lying in order to save the Church from public humiliation. Frank Little couldn't turn the ship around and it was heading for the rocks a new captain was needed one however who knew the rocks were there George Pell. Bolt would have no trouble if it were Tom Cruz and the Church of Scientology or the Exclusive Brethren. Why the disbelief when it comes to the Catholic Church whose very essence as a Church is built around the the thin fabric of "trust us" as it's justification for being. Bolt claims to be an agnostic who has declared his faith in Pell. He's no doubting Thomas. Yet he readily calls Pope Francis a liar.
2 The Royal Commission is a board of inquiry whose aim is to glean information about an issue. There are rules it must abide by. Either the whole Commission temporarily set up is a corrupt body set up by a corrupt political body and all those working for it are then corrupt individuals or naieve as Bolt suggests or it's a genuine body of inquiry. It's purpose or structure is short lived and it has no culture other than to gather information.
To be corrupt appointees must have been approached by others with malintent somewhat like a mafia who planned the pre-production of this star chamber independently of the Commission itself.. Strange there's no record of anybody standing aside, calling foul or blowing a whistle other than Andrew Bolt. What Bolt is proposing is a corrupt Commission was set up to witch hunt one man. Which of these scenarios is the most implausible? Bolt prefers to believe Pell was lied to in ignorance by the hierarchy of the church of which he was a part for over 50 years. That no culture existed that gave priority to protect itself even though Pell declared there was. Bolt ignoring Pell's admission twists to story from the active defense of the Church to the active defense of pedophiles something quite different. The Church doesn't actively defend pedophiles it actively defended itself and that is what we needed to judge. Pell was ready to throw others under the bus to do so. In doing that a total reorientation was needed to approach what was happening and Pell was brought in for the job. He was not the naive man Bolt paints him to be. Where in any of this were pedophiles defended Andrew Bolt? They were moved ,hidden, given psychiatric assistance etc etc and Pell knew nothing. Give us all a break. The victims stories were diminished, trivialized, whitewashed ignored and paid to go away with money and conditions all motivated to protect the Church not defend it. Defense means an element of guilt was accepted. Pell even said " I'm not here to defend the indefensible" . He was appointed to be the church's protector differently from what had been done before. To do that he wasn't green.
One point to be made in this interview is the absolute difference of demenour in Pell in tone of voice and posture than when before the commission. Pell wasn't being questioned but he was making a statement to his erstwhile spin doctor as if he knew he was about to take a walk and chat down the garden path with News Corp and Bolt and he did. What was in it for News Corp not news, not information, but commentary to garner headlines to sell newspapers and Sky News it's good for the bottom line to say we will give you our TRUTH Resigning would be an admission of guilt: Pell
The Cardinal Pell interview
The Cardinal Pell interview
No comments:
Post a Comment