Talk:George Pell/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Untitled

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

Piss Christ

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

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

"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

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???

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)

• As per the discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump/January_2004_archive_4#Cardinals, I propose to rename this article in accordance with policy and that discussion. --A Y Arktos 09:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Controversies

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

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...

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

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

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

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

"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

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

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

• Lambert-Patel, Anil (2008-07-16). "Catholic Bishop says abuse victims are 'dwelling on old wounds'". Livenews. Macquarie Radio Network. Archived from the original on 2008-07-16. Retrieved 2008-07-16. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) – This article makes some reference to accusations that Pell held up compensation claims. The quote is from Bishop Anthony Fisher, Australian World Youth Day coordinator, in defense of Pell.
• Burke, Kelly (2002-07-29). "Pell comes under fire from sex abuse groups". smh.com.au. The Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 2008-07-16. Retrieved 2008-07-16. – Pell quote: "abortion is a worse moral scandal than priests sexually abusing young people"

'At home with' edits

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"

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

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 (talk • contribs) 09:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Sex abuse controversies

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 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

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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."

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

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaryBroady (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

References

Cover up

The cardinal has been accused of attempting to cover up abuse.

At a royal commission sitting Timothy Green said that he told Pell in 1974 that Brother Dowlan was touching little boys, to which, according to Green, "Father Pell said 'don't be ridiculous' and walked out". Green said "his reaction gave me the impression that he knew about Brother Dowlan but couldn't or wouldn't do anything about it".[1][2][3]

It has also been alleged that Pell tried to bribe, David Ridsdale, the nephew of notorious paedophile Gerald Ridsdale to keep quiet about his abuse at the hands of his uncle. According to David Ridsdale's 20 May 2015 testimony at the royal commission, he phoned Pell in 1993 to tell him about the abuse to which Pell responded by asking asked "what would it take" for him to keep quiet. Ridsdale said he responded with "Fuck you George and everything you stand for.". According to the Herald Sun, "Secret church documents tendered to a royal commission yesterday [19 May 2015] revealed that the Cardinal helped move Australia’s worst paedophile priest Gerald Francis Ridsdale between parishes."[4]

Where shall we work that into the article? Jimp 06:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The first question is: "Shall we work that into the article?". Let's hang fire and see how this plays out. Otherwise, we risk being tempted to include every step of what may become a major saga. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree. There is already content that is borderline and adding untested allegations will not be helpful. Flat Out talk to me 06:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the wait-and-see approach does have its merits. So, let's wait and see. So the question becomes "Shall we work that into the article and, if so, where and when?" Jimp 08:36, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

My suggested answer is "Not yet. Let us wait and see what develops". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:25, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Too long

It is much too detailed, so undue weight. Zezen (talk) 17:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Not agree, but it is necessary to change the plan of the article. In fact the book of Livingstone is very rich in information about him. Olivier LPB (talk) 17:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on George Pell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131004184153/http://www.microsofttranslator.com:80/BV.aspx?ref=IE8Activity to http://www.microsofttranslator.com/BV.aspx?ref=IE8Activity&a=http%3A%2F%2Fpress.catholica.va%2Fnews_services%2Fbulletin%2Fnews%2F29673.php%3Findex%3D29673%26lang%3Den

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:14, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Sexual abuse: inquiry and allegations - will have to be in the lead soon, if things carry on as they are

It's my view that the tide of information re. Pell, both wrt. the inquiry, the allegations against him personally (and these are not the first) and the year-long police investigation into him personally, these are all so significant that if it carries on like this, we would be failing if we did not include a mention of the area in the lead to the article. There is a deluge about this, nothing less. We are not here to hold that back, to be the judge of whether that is right or wrong. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. So we must not ignore it. When it comes to Pell, it is all that people are interested in. Therefore, inclusion of some sort in the lead is very likely to have to follow, soon. What say you? I also think it is likely that they will in time make it imperative for the Pope to remove him from his position. Another matter, perhaps, but closely connected. But again it points towards the need for us to keep up to speed, not to "see how it plays out", and therefore to make mention of it in the lead. Boscaswell talk 18:32, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

The issue of child abuse within ‘the church’ is a highly emotive, contemporary subject that has now caught the attention of the wider public and the media. It may be argued that the past actions, administration of his office and the personality of George Pell contributed, in part, to the public’s increased interest in child abuse. This is a topic where contributors find it difficult to leave their opinions at the door. Therefore, judicious editing is required because much of our history is built upon empirical evidence that may have been, or should have been, challenged over time. To allow a reader to reach a rational conclusion, the reader should have the opportunity to evaluate past evidence, argument, bigotry and manipulation of the subject.User:Dingarwil (talk) 10:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

The lead of the article is presently quite short. It should be expanded to provide a summary of the entire article, per MOS:LEAD. The current lead paragraph appears to be adequate as paragraph 1, which leaves approximately three paragraphs to draw out everything else significant from the article. This would likely include one paragraph about sexual abuse, covering his role in bringing it to light as well as the current Victorian allegations and his evidence at the Royal Commission and Parliamentary Enquiry; one about his views in theology and politics; and one of whatever is in the article that didn't fit the other paragraphs but should be in a summary.

Taking a birds-eye view of the article (print to PDF and scale small), I would also suggest the article should be reordered to bring the large Views section up to be the next section after Episcopacy and put the criticism of Benedict XVI into either Episcopacy or Views, rather than standing next to them. --Scott Davis ^Talk 01:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Definitely extend the lead. It's only a few sentences; it should be a few paragraphs. Obviously one paragraph would have to deal with the abuse. Jimp 23:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on George Pell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110522013755/http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/02/23/australia.funeral.reut/index.html?section=cnn_latest to http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/02/23/australia.funeral.reut/index.html?section=cnn_latest

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:23, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Done checked archive and it said "Page not found" so I'm leaving the ref as a dead link. Elizium23 (talk) 19:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:DUE and the section on abuse

The section on abuse will grow without bound if every news report is included verbatim. Please summarize and condense the situation as it develops. Elizium23 (talk) 19:53, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Which is why I've been trimming. "Every news report is included verbatim" is, I have to say, a ridiculous over-exagerration. But there is only one subject for people at large when George Pell is brought to mind and that is sexual abuse by members of the church, so we would be failing as encyclopedists if we were not to reflect adequately what has been happening over the past few days and weeks and will continue to occur as he continues to give evidence. If, of course, that evidence rates inclusion. Which, up to now, parts of it has. I'm sure that there will be some editing down of the amount in the article about this subject at some time in the future. But the time for that is most definitely not now. Boscaswell talk 21:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

"Considerable responsibility"

@Elizium23: doesn't it seem to you to be simply beyond dispute that Pell held "considerable responsibility" (during the years 1996 to 2014 for the response of the Roman Catholic Church to the high number of convictions, trials and ongoing investigations etc.) There is no editorialising on my part here, it was merely a choice of words made to avoid misunderstanding, something I do my best to avoid. I'm flummoxed by the suggestion that you think a citation is needed for something which is so obviously accepted by all. If I had not reverted your first edit of those words, Wikipedia would have given completely the wrong impression. Let it go, eh? Best. Boscaswell talk 21:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

If it is so obviously accepted, then it should not be difficult to find a citation to support it. Elizium23 (talk) 21:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Are you disputing the veracity of the words, @Elizium23:? Boscaswell talk 21:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I am enforcing WP:BLP and WP:V. Are you refusing to comply with Wikipedia policy? Elizium23 (talk) 21:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Of course not. By the way, you haven't answered my question, so I'll take the opportunity to amend it slightly. I'd be obliged if you could answer, despite the final sentence of this edit. Do you agree that it is simply beyond dispute that Pell held "considerable responsibility" during the years 1996 to 2014 for the response of the Roman Catholic Church to the high number of convictions, trials and ongoing investigations etc. There is to my mind no serious problem with this statement over WP:V.

I refuse to waste any of my time finding a reference for something as obviously true as that and adding it in to the article. References are for things which require verification; this does not. If I were to write in a Wikipedia article "grass is green", would you say "citation needed" and claim that you were enforcing WP:V? I won't be wasting any more of my time responding. Boscaswell talk 21:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Very well, I will remove the unsourced material per WP:BLP. "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." Elizium23 (talk) 22:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

This is absolutely ridiculous. And now you have deleted a perfectly reasonable and sanguine opening lead sentence to the section, which gives the reader an excellent introduction to it. Or did, before you deleted it. Are you seriously suggesting that the words "held considerable responsibility" as in "Pell held considerable responsibility during the years 1996 to 2014 for the response of the Roman Catholic Church to the high number of convictions, trials and ongoing investigations etc" are contentious? If you consider that it is, then whatever is the Royal Commission doing, interviewing him? Boscaswell talk 07:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

This discussion is a bit of a mess. Why does this section even focus on his period as Archbishop of Melbourne when nearly all of the critical stuff Pell is being questioned about at the Royal Commission happened prior to then? It's completely misleading when, apart from criticism of the inadequacy of the Melbourne Response, all of the relevant things happened outside this time period. I can't work out off the top of my head who is pushing what POV with the argument over this sentence, but the whole thing is not necessary: Pell's responsibility with specific regard to the Melbourne Response is incontestable and sourceable everywhere, anything else needs to be sourced more specifically so it's apparent what is actually being referred to, and any discussion of the stuff he's done before needs to discuss what roles he actually held. This whole section kind of reads like the author didn't actually know what relationship Pell is actually accused of having had to church responsibility for abuse. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Quote (first sentence of lead of the Royal Commission article): "The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse is a royal commission established in 2013 by the Australian government pursuant to the Royal Commissions Act 1902 to inquire into and report upon responses by institutions to instances and allegations of child sexual abuse in Australia." The responses being inquired into do not have a time scale. They are looking into the responses both at the time of the abuse and later, later being when he was Archbishop. As to whether the author didn't know, and thank you for the insult, well from the reports of the hearing, it looks like the Commission does not know what relationship Pell actually had, for example, to Ridsdale. No-one "seems to know". Boscaswell talk 09:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

The whole paragraph implies that the concerns just relate things he did as Archbishop of Melbourne even though basically everything to do with the Ballarat victims (e.g. the focus of the vast amount of the storm that relates to Pell), besides their treatment by the Melbourne Response, happened before that. It doesn't need to say what relationship Pell did have with Ridsdale: it needs to report what is known about the reasons Pell came to fall within the Royal Commission's remit - something that is massively, massively widely reported and pretty easy to do. I just don't get why there's an edit war about badly generalised text: especially now that we're two days of the three days of testimony, just tell both sides of the main bits of the story. There was a David Marr article yesterday that summarised it all in pretty substantial depth but it's not like there's not a myriad of alternatives. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:45, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

The paragraph had disappeared by the time I got round to doing the article restructure that I foreshadowed in an early section of this page. I'm not sure whether it fits in the new shape, but I'm sure the expert copyeditors will do a better job than I have at the finer details of the shape of the article over the next few days. The Royal Commission is much wider than just the Catholic Church, or Ballarat. On the specific point of this section, I think it should be obvious that an Archbishop holds considerable responsibility within his diocese, but I'm less certain if it was relevant to that particular section. --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on George Pell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110522013755/http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/02/23/australia.funeral.reut/index.html?section=cnn_latest to http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/02/23/australia.funeral.reut/index.html?section=cnn_latest

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on George Pell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110316143541/http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/parlment/committee.nsf/0/73A134BD8CA52844CA2572FB0014E42B to http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/committee.nsf/0/73A134BD8CA52844CA2572FB0014E42B

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Ellis Defence

A lot of church sites seem to insist that the Ellis ruling/defence does not actually mean anything. It does, and it places the RC Church in a position of privilege above any other institution or individual, and Pell has freely used the defence ever since. The ruling stated that as a consequence, suing the RC church would lead to a small payout or none at all. There is a general principal at law in Aus that an employer (in a broad sense) is not responsible for the actions of an employee, provided that the employer was not complicit in the action. In criminal law there is no requirement for any bystander to pass on criminal intelligence. (If the bystander is actually involved in aiding crimes then he not a bystander.) The AC-NSW stated that clergy are not employees and that the RC church cannot be regarded as their employer. As a consequence, the RC church is not likely to be investigated for any complicity in aiding peodophile clergy. RC church claims about the ruling are rubbish. All clergy, particularly in the RC church, act on day-to-day orders of their seniors, and live in RC-owned accommodation. The AC-NSW also stated that the RC church does not exist as a legal entity because its assets are in trust. Sporting clubs in Aus are arranged the same way, particularly golfing clubs, and they most certainly do exist as legal entities. A player who hits an errant ball can be sued by the victim, and if the club has failed to provide adequate shielding it can also be sued for the players actions. It makes no difference in law that player is not actually and employee of the club. He is a member playing on club facilities. In short the AC-NSW Ellis ruling is a pile of inconsistent rubbish. Unfortunately the judges are the sole judges of the competence of their own rulings. There is no requirement in the Constitution for all groups or people to be treated equally before the law, thus an appeal to the High Court wont work. In fact, the HC-NSW could simply rule that the RC church cannot be taken to court at all, on any matter. Such a similar ruling would be perfectly constitutional. (I wonder how long this section will remain?)210.185.78.52 (talk) 06:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

It is already mentioned in this article and very briefly in Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. I have not looked further. Perhaps you could propose some better paragraphs to include in relevant articles? Be careful to follow Wikipedia:Five pillars or discuss your proposed inclusions on article talk pages to get help from more experienced editors on contentious topics. --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:39, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Some victims, particulalry the Foster family, said Pell just laughed at them while in private negotiations and he quoted the Ellis defence. While Frank Sullivan claims the Ellis defence is not used, as soon as the RC lawyers enter the negotion room Ellis is immediately put on the table. Now we can see that the head of the snake is the most venemous part, and all the victims' stories fall into place. (I wonder what Pell's view is on the 8th Commandment? Perhaps there's a caveat excusing Catholic priests from compliance? As far as the 6th goes, well kids are not adults.) There is now a growing trend in legal punishemnt for the state to gouge some money out of a convicts superannation kitty. It will be interesting to see if Ellis prevents the gouging of RC priests accounts in NSW. Perhaps only non-RC accounts can be raided.61.68.160.141 (talk) 01:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Not in cited source

The key words in the proposed edits do not appear in the SMH source or any other source. The newly added Newcastle Herald source is the only one that mentions a rape charge, and actually contradicts itself later by saying that the charges are so far unspecified and the Director of Public Prosecutions is mulling which ones to bring. There are several sources that bring up offences mentioned in the proposed edits but do not connect them to Pell's current charges. 72.201.104.140 (talk) 03:55, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

You are correct, the SMH article states "Police did not take any questions during the press conference and did not detail what the allegations were." Cjhard (talk) 04:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Summoned

• http://www.lawprose.org/lawprose-lesson-159-were-you-summonsed-or-summoned-to-appear-in-court/

Summonsed grates on the ears of many respected legal writers. One of the greatest, Glanville Williams, denounced it this way: “The horrible expression ‘summonsed for an offence’ (turning the noun ‘summons’ into a verb) has now become accepted usage, but ‘summoned’ remains not only allowable but preferable.” Learning the Law 15 n.28 (11th ed. 1982). That’s still true today. Let’s summon up the courage to call summons, as a verb, a needless variant of summon. 72.201.104.140 (talk) 20:19, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Paradise of Orcs

Bjenks has added "while Australia is characterised as a 'paradise of Orcs', in which 7 per cent of priests have been accused of pedophilia" to the end of the lead, and has put it back after I removed it, and has demanded an explanation as to why it should be excluded (Bjenks, I think you'll find it more productive to try to justify its inclusion). There are a number of reasons why this is inappropriate for the lead section, so I'm sure I'll miss some, but to start:

• The website for one Italian newspaper (la Republicca) made this characterisation. So properly written the sentence should be "while la Repubblica characterised Australia as a "paradise of Orcs", in which 7 per cent of priests have been accused of pedophilia".
• This brings us to the next point: why are we quoting one Italian newspaper in the lead section? The same newspaper referred to George Pell as "the controversial Kangaroo". Should we also add that to the lead? Of course not, that's patently absurd.
• So we could change the sentence to something along the lines of "Australia has received criticism for its handling of sexual assault by priests" (that's the other problem with this bizarre quote, and why I had originally thought it was vandalism, what's it trying to say exactly?) if we had some other sources to say the same, but from the little Bjenks has said, it appears the international nature of the criticism is a part of why it's been included? (Once again, Bjenks, this is why you need to justify your contested edits, not demand justification from those who contest your edits.) So something like "Australia has received international criticism for its handling of sexual assault by priests" with some more international criticisms of Australia.
• But the lead for an article should be a summary of an article's most important contents. "Critiques of Australia's handling of sexual assault allegations against clergymen" isn't a section, an element, or found anywhere in this article, let alone an important one.
• And nor should it be. This is an article of a man: George Pell. The topic is George Pell. Criticisms of Australia's handling of sexual assault allegations against clergymen don't belong in an article about George Pell. There are places for this information on wikipedia (Catholic sexual abuse cases in Australia, for example.)
• Bjenks has recognised the lead is "very long" as a reason why I should justify removing this line. It should be noted that lead sections are to be concise, so a lead section being "very long" does not justify the tacking on of further information.

Cjhard (talk) 02:48, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree - I was in the process of posting here on the same subject. One quote from one source about Australia, in an article about George Pell, does not belong in the lead in my opinion. Flat Out (talk) 03:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll remove the sentence now. If he reverts again it will be up to other editors. Cjhard (talk) 03:03, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Reply: Relax—I'll not revert again, being particularly averse to edit-warring and POV behaviour, and pleased that discussion has been opened, as the subject ABC News citation is neither "irrelevant" to the man Pell nor remotely related to "vandalism". I would note that

• In addition to high office in his church organisation, Pell's prime notability has long been, and now probably always will be a product of his connections with the issue of Australian priestly paedophilia, both nationally and in particular geographic locations, e.g., Ballarat.
• I believe that fact will in future have its due place in this article's lead, even when that section is reduced in size.
• In present circumstances, recognising the legal presumption of innocence, now is not an appropriate time to publish potentially prejudicial content, which is why I intend to postpone further contributions.
• However "bizarre" some editors may view an Italian newspaper's choice of words, they were cited in good faith by that most reliable Australian information source, ABC News, which fully conforms with verification standards.

Bjenks (talk) 06:08, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on George Pell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722140924/http://www.sydney.catholic.org.au/people/archbishop/stc/2008/2008119_174.shtml to http://www.sydney.catholic.org.au/people/archbishop/stc/2008/2008119_174.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.news.com.au/story/0%2C23599%2C21859144-2%2C00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2018

{{subst:trim|1=

"George Pell AC (born 8 June 1941) is an Australian prelate of the Catholic Church. He became the inaugural Prefect of the Secretariat for the Economy in 2014.[1] He previously served as the eighth Archbishop of Sydney (2001–2014), the seventh Archbishop of Melbourne (1996–2001), and Auxiliary Bishop of Melbourne (1987–1996).[1] He was created a cardinal in 2003.[2] Ordained in 1966, he has also been an author, columnist, public speaker and sportsman, having been signed by the Richmond Football Club, an Australian rules football team, in 1959.[3] 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.

Pell studied in Rome, Oxford, and at Monash University and has been a visiting scholar at Oxford and at Cambridge.[3] He worked as a priest in regional Victoria and in Melbourne and has since worked widely in education, in seminaries and the charity sector, chairing the aid organisation Caritas Australia from 1988 to 1997. He has written widely on religious subjects, authoring several books and writing a weekly column in Sydney’s Sunday Telegraph.[3] He received a number of international appointments during the papacy of John Paul II, and was brought to Rome by Pope Francis to advise on Vatican City finance and governance issues.[3][4] He was appointed as a delegate to the Australian Constitutional Convention in 1998, received the Centenary Medal from the Australian government in 2003, and was appointed a Companion of the Order of Australia in 2005.[3][4]

Upon becoming Archbishop of Melbourne, Pell set up the "Melbourne Response" diocesan protocol to investigate and deal with complaints of sexual abuse in the Archdiocese of Melbourne.[5][6][7] The protocol was the first of its kind in the world, but has been subject to a variety of criticisms.[5][7][6][8] Australia's wide-ranging 2013–2017 Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse called Pell three times to give evidence about the Melbourne Response, handling of abuse in the Ballarat and Melbourne Dioceses, and Case Study 8 regarding the John Ellis complaint.[4] Pell was also called to testify at a 2013 Victorian government Inquiry. Amid anger at the church's handling of abuse claims, Pell's appearances were subject to criticism and controversy.[9][10][11][12][13][14] These inquiries discredited a number of widely reported claims against Pell regarding his purported knowledge of events as a young priest, but also criticised some aspects of the procedures he later established for handling abuse claims.[15][16] Pell himself used the platforms to both condemn past failings of his Church and to defend his own efforts to combat child abuse in the church and care for victims.[17]

On 29 June 2017, Pell was charged in Victoria, Australia, with multiple historical sexual assault offences, and denied all charges.[8][18][19] The Pope granted him leave to return to Australia to defend himself.[20][19] 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.[21] 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.[18][8][22][23] On December 12, 2018, Pell was convicted of sexual abuse.George Pell AC (born 8 June 1941) is an Australian prelate of the Catholic Church. He became the inaugural Prefect of the Secretariat for the Economy in 2014.[1] He previously served as the eighth Archbishop of Sydney (2001–2014), the seventh Archbishop of Melbourne (1996–2001), and Auxiliary Bishop of Melbourne (1987–1996).[1] He was created a cardinal in 2003.[2] Ordained in 1966, he has also been an author, columnist, public speaker and sportsman, having been signed by the Richmond Football Club, an Australian rules football team, in 1959.[3] 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.

Pell studied in Rome, Oxford, and at Monash University and has been a visiting scholar at Oxford and at Cambridge.[3] He worked as a priest in regional Victoria and in Melbourne and has since worked widely in education, in seminaries and the charity sector, chairing the aid organisation Caritas Australia from 1988 to 1997. He has written widely on religious subjects, authoring several books and writing a weekly column in Sydney’s Sunday Telegraph.[3] He received a number of international appointments during the papacy of John Paul II, and was brought to Rome by Pope Francis to advise on Vatican City finance and governance issues.[3][4] He was appointed as a delegate to the Australian Constitutional Convention in 1998, received the Centenary Medal from the Australian government in 2003, and was appointed a Companion of the Order of Australia in 2005.[3][4]

Upon becoming Archbishop of Melbourne, Pell set up the "Melbourne Response" diocesan protocol to investigate and deal with complaints of sexual abuse in the Archdiocese of Melbourne.[5][6][7] The protocol was the first of its kind in the world, but has been subject to a variety of criticisms.[5][7][6][8] Australia's wide-ranging 2013–2017 Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse called Pell three times to give evidence about the Melbourne Response, handling of abuse in the Ballarat and Melbourne Dioceses, and Case Study 8 regarding the John Ellis complaint.[4] Pell was also called to testify at a 2013 Victorian government Inquiry. Amid anger at the church's handling of abuse claims, Pell's appearances were subject to criticism and controversy.[9][10][11][12][13][14] These inquiries discredited a number of widely reported claims against Pell regarding his purported knowledge of events as a young priest, but also criticised some aspects of the procedures he later established for handling abuse claims.[15][16] Pell himself used the platforms to both condemn past failings of his Church and to defend his own efforts to combat child abuse in the church and care for victims.[17]

On 29 June 2017, Pell was charged in Victoria, Australia, with multiple historical sexual assault offences, and denied all charges.[8][18][19] The Pope granted him leave to return to Australia to defend himself.[20][19] 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.[21] 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.[18][[22][23]"

Pell has been convicted

"George Pell AC (born 8 June 1941) is an Australian prelate of the Catholic Church. He became the inaugural Prefect of the Secretariat for the Economy in 2014.[1] He previously served as the eighth Archbishop of Sydney (2001–2014), the seventh Archbishop of Melbourne (1996–2001), and Auxiliary Bishop of Melbourne (1987–1996).[1] He was created a cardinal in 2003.[2] Ordained in 1966, he has also been an author, columnist, public speaker and sportsman, having been signed by the Richmond Football Club, an Australian rules football team, in 1959.[3] 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.

Pell studied in Rome, Oxford, and at Monash University and has been a visiting scholar at Oxford and at Cambridge.[3] He worked as a priest in regional Victoria and in Melbourne and has since worked widely in education, in seminaries and the charity sector, chairing the aid organisation Caritas Australia from 1988 to 1997. He has written widely on religious subjects, authoring several books and writing a weekly column in Sydney’s Sunday Telegraph.[3] He received a number of international appointments during the papacy of John Paul II, and was brought to Rome by Pope Francis to advise on Vatican City finance and governance issues.[3][4] He was appointed as a delegate to the Australian Constitutional Convention in 1998, received the Centenary Medal from the Australian government in 2003, and was appointed a Companion of the Order of Australia in 2005.[3][4]

Upon becoming Archbishop of Melbourne, Pell set up the "Melbourne Response" diocesan protocol to investigate and deal with complaints of sexual abuse in the Archdiocese of Melbourne.[5][6][7] The protocol was the first of its kind in the world, but has been subject to a variety of criticisms.[5][7][6][8] Australia's wide-ranging 2013–2017 Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse called Pell three times to give evidence about the Melbourne Response, handling of abuse in the Ballarat and Melbourne Dioceses, and Case Study 8 regarding the John Ellis complaint.[4] Pell was also called to testify at a 2013 Victorian government Inquiry. Amid anger at the church's handling of abuse claims, Pell's appearances were subject to criticism and controversy.[9][10][11][12][13][14] These inquiries discredited a number of widely reported claims against Pell regarding his purported knowledge of events as a young priest, but also criticised some aspects of the procedures he later established for handling abuse claims.[15][16] Pell himself used the platforms to both condemn past failings of his Church and to defend his own efforts to combat child abuse in the church and care for victims.[17]

On 29 June 2017, Pell was charged in Victoria, Australia, with multiple historical sexual assault offences, and denied all charges.[8][18][19] The Pope granted him leave to return to Australia to defend himself.[20][19] 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.[21] 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.[18][8][22][23] On December 12, 2018, Pell was convicted of sexual abuse.George Pell AC (born 8 June 1941) is an Australian prelate of the Catholic Church. He became the inaugural Prefect of the Secretariat for the Economy in 2014.[1] He previously served as the eighth Archbishop of Sydney (2001–2014), the seventh Archbishop of Melbourne (1996–2001), and Auxiliary Bishop of Melbourne (1987–1996).[1] He was created a cardinal in 2003.[2] Ordained in 1966, he has also been an author, columnist, public speaker and sportsman, having been signed by the Richmond Football Club, an Australian rules football team, in 1959.[3] 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.

Pell studied in Rome, Oxford, and at Monash University and has been a visiting scholar at Oxford and at Cambridge.[3] He worked as a priest in regional Victoria and in Melbourne and has since worked widely in education, in seminaries and the charity sector, chairing the aid organisation Caritas Australia from 1988 to 1997. He has written widely on religious subjects, authoring several books and writing a weekly column in Sydney’s Sunday Telegraph.[3] He received a number of international appointments during the papacy of John Paul II, and was brought to Rome by Pope Francis to advise on Vatican City finance and governance issues.[3][4] He was appointed as a delegate to the Australian Constitutional Convention in 1998, received the Centenary Medal from the Australian government in 2003, and was appointed a Companion of the Order of Australia in 2005.[3][4]

Upon becoming Archbishop of Melbourne, Pell set up the "Melbourne Response" diocesan protocol to investigate and deal with complaints of sexual abuse in the Archdiocese of Melbourne.[5][6][7] The protocol was the first of its kind in the world, but has been subject to a variety of criticisms.[5][7][6][8] Australia's wide-ranging 2013–2017 Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse called Pell three times to give evidence about the Melbourne Response, handling of abuse in the Ballarat and Melbourne Dioceses, and Case Study 8 regarding the John Ellis complaint.[4] Pell was also called to testify at a 2013 Victorian government Inquiry. Amid anger at the church's handling of abuse claims, Pell's appearances were subject to criticism and controversy.[9][10][11][12][13][14] These inquiries discredited a number of widely reported claims against Pell regarding his purported knowledge of events as a young priest, but also criticised some aspects of the procedures he later established for handling abuse claims.[15][16] Pell himself used the platforms to both condemn past failings of his Church and to defend his own efforts to combat child abuse in the church and care for victims.[17]

On 29 June 2017, Pell was charged in Victoria, Australia, with multiple historical sexual assault offences, and denied all charges.[8][18][19] The Pope granted him leave to return to Australia to defend himself.[20][19] 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.[21] 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.[18][8][22][23] On December 12, 2018, Pell was convicted of sexual abuse. }} 68.47.64.121 (talk) 17:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

References

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 17:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2018

George Pell AC (born 8 June 1941) is an Australian prelate of the Catholic Church. He became the inaugural Prefect of the Secretariat for the Economy in 2014. He previously served as the eighth Archbishop of Sydney (2001–2014), the seventh Archbishop of Melbourne (1996–2001), and Auxiliary Bishop of Melbourne (1987–1996). He was created a cardinal in 2003. Ordained in 1966, he has also been an author, columnist, public speaker and sportsman, having been signed by the Richmond Football Club, an Australian rules football team, in 1959. 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.

Pell studied in Rome, Oxford, and at Monash University and has been a visiting scholar at Oxford and at Cambridge. He worked as a priest in regional Victoria and in Melbourne and has since worked widely in education, in seminaries and the charity sector, chairing the aid organisation Caritas Australia from 1988 to 1997. He has written widely on religious subjects, authoring several books and writing a weekly column in Sydney’s Sunday Telegraph. He received a number of international appointments during the papacy of John Paul II, and was brought to Rome by Pope Francis to advise on Vatican City finance and governance issues. He was appointed as a delegate to the Australian Constitutional Convention in 1998, received the Centenary Medal from the Australian government in 2003, and was appointed a Companion of the Order of Australia in 2005.

Upon becoming Archbishop of Melbourne, Pell set up the "Melbourne Response" diocesan protocol to investigate and deal with complaints of sexual abuse in the Archdiocese of Melbourne. The protocol was the first of its kind in the world, but has been subject to a variety of criticisms. Australia's wide-ranging 2013–2017 Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse called Pell three times to give evidence about the Melbourne Response, handling of abuse in the Ballarat and Melbourne Dioceses, and Case Study 8 regarding the John Ellis complaint. Pell was also called to testify at a 2013 Victorian government Inquiry. Amid anger at the church's handling of abuse claims, Pell's appearances were subject to criticism and controversy. These inquiries discredited a number of widely reported claims against Pell regarding his purported knowledge of events as a young priest, but also criticised some aspects of the procedures he later established for handling abuse claims. Pell himself used the platforms to both condemn past failings of his Church and to defend his own efforts to combat child abuse in the church and care for victims.

On 29 June 2017, Pell was charged in Victoria, Australia, with multiple historical sexual assault offences, and denied all charges. The Pope granted him leave to return to Australia to defend himself. 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.

Cardinal Pell has been convicted and this should be included in the article. A domestic gag order should not serve as an excuse for omitting what some reliable international media is acknowledging

George Pell AC (born 8 June 1941) is an Australian prelate of the Catholic Church. He became the inaugural Prefect of the Secretariat for the Economy in 2014. He previously served as the eighth Archbishop of Sydney (2001–2014), the seventh Archbishop of Melbourne (1996–2001), and Auxiliary Bishop of Melbourne (1987–1996). He was created a cardinal in 2003. Ordained in 1966, he has also been an author, columnist, public speaker and sportsman, having been signed by the Richmond Football Club, an Australian rules football team, in 1959. 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.

Pell studied in Rome, Oxford, and at Monash University and has been a visiting scholar at Oxford and at Cambridge. He worked as a priest in regional Victoria and in Melbourne and has since worked widely in education, in seminaries and the charity sector, chairing the aid organisation Caritas Australia from 1988 to 1997. He has written widely on religious subjects, authoring several books and writing a weekly column in Sydney’s Sunday Telegraph. He received a number of international appointments during the papacy of John Paul II, and was brought to Rome by Pope Francis to advise on Vatican City finance and governance issues. He was appointed as a delegate to the Australian Constitutional Convention in 1998, received the Centenary Medal from the Australian government in 2003, and was appointed a Companion of the Order of Australia in 2005.

Upon becoming Archbishop of Melbourne, Pell set up the "Melbourne Response" diocesan protocol to investigate and deal with complaints of sexual abuse in the Archdiocese of Melbourne. The protocol was the first of its kind in the world, but has been subject to a variety of criticisms. Australia's wide-ranging 2013–2017 Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse called Pell three times to give evidence about the Melbourne Response, handling of abuse in the Ballarat and Melbourne Dioceses, and Case Study 8 regarding the John Ellis complaint. Pell was also called to testify at a 2013 Victorian government Inquiry. Amid anger at the church's handling of abuse claims, Pell's appearances were subject to criticism and controversy. These inquiries discredited a number of widely reported claims against Pell regarding his purported knowledge of events as a young priest, but also criticised some aspects of the procedures he later established for handling abuse claims. Pell himself used the platforms to both condemn past failings of his Church and to defend his own efforts to combat child abuse in the church and care for victims.

On 29 June 2017, Pell was charged in Victoria, Australia, with multiple historical sexual assault offences, and denied all charges. The Pope granted him leave to return to Australia to defend himself. 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 December 11, 2018, Cardinal Pell was convicted of sexual abuse.

68.47.64.121 (talk) 17:43, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2018

Criminal charges

On 29 June 2017, Victoria Police charged Pell with sexual assault offences with several counts and several victims. At a press conference, Pell stated that he would return to Australia and that "I'm looking forward, finally, to having my day in court" and "I'm innocent of those charges. They are false". On 26 July 2017, whilst not required to attend in person, he appeared at the Melbourne Magistrates' Court for a filing hearing represented by barrister Robert Richter and, although not required at this stage of the court committal process, he entered a plea of not guilty. An application by the media seeking the public disclosure of the details of the charges was refused by the magistrate.

At a procedural hearing on 22 November 2017, Pell's lawyers requested documents from ABC News journalist Louise Milligan and Melbourne University Press relating to a book named Cardinal: the Rise and Fall of George Pell which was published in early 2017.

In January 2018, a man who had accused Pell of sexual abuse died after a long illness. Former chief Victorian magistrate Nicholas Papas said that the man's death would affect the structure of Pell's court case, and stated that in a case of historical sexual abuse it can "seriously affect the case" due to a lack of witnesses. That charge was withdrawn on the Friday before the committal hearing was due to begin. Pell's lawyers requested and were denied the personal medical information of the complainants. Pell's defence was reported to be based on questioning the timing of allegations. Some other charges were dropped after a complainant was ruled medically unfit to give evidence.

The committal hearing to determine whether there was enough evidence to commit him to stand trial, commenced on 5 March 2018. The committal hearing allowed for approximately fifty witnesses to give evidence, including former choirboys. The magistrate allowed Pell's barrister to cross-examine all but five witnesses. As a result, the hearing was scheduled to allow for four weeks of testimony and cross-examination. Pell's barrister said the matter would go to trial and that some of the allegations, those involving St Patrick's Cathedral, were impossible.

On 1 May 2018, Pell was committed to stand trial on several historical sexual offence charges. Magistrate Belinda Wallington concluded that there was enough evidence for the case to proceed on about half of the charges. Allegations that Pell committed sexual assault in a Ballarat cinema during the screening of a film was among the charges dismissed. Pell entered pleas of not guilty to the remaining charges. As a bail condition, Pell surrendered his Vatican passport and is not permitted to leave Australia.

On 2 May 2018, Pell appeared in the County Court of Victoria for a directions hearing before Judge Sue Pullen and it was agreed that he would undergo two separate trials with two separate juries and that the charges would be heard separately for each trial. The two trials are for allegations in a Ballarat swimming pool in the 1970s and St Patrick's Cathedral in Melbourne in the 1990s. The Catholic Weekly, a publication of the Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney, is running advertising seeking donations for Pell's legal fund and has written an article promoting the appeal for funding. It is unknown who is responsible for the advertising or the donation drive. Prosecutors have sought a media ban on reporting of proceedings until the beginning of a final trial, including suppression of reporting an initial trial and no further reporting on earlier trials until completion of the final one.

A Catholic source acknowledging his conviction. The Australian gag order also doesn't excuse mentioning his conviction.

Criminal charges

On 29 June 2017, Victoria Police charged Pell with sexual assault offences with several counts and several victims. At a press conference, Pell stated that he would return to Australia and that "I'm looking forward, finally, to having my day in court" and "I'm innocent of those charges. They are false". On 26 July 2017, whilst not required to attend in person, he appeared at the Melbourne Magistrates' Court for a filing hearing represented by barrister Robert Richter and, although not required at this stage of the court committal process, he entered a plea of not guilty. An application by the media seeking the public disclosure of the details of the charges was refused by the magistrate.

At a procedural hearing on 22 November 2017, Pell's lawyers requested documents from ABC News journalist Louise Milligan and Melbourne University Press relating to a book named Cardinal: the Rise and Fall of George Pell which was published in early 2017.

In January 2018, a man who had accused Pell of sexual abuse died after a long illness. Former chief Victorian magistrate Nicholas Papas said that the man's death would affect the structure of Pell's court case, and stated that in a case of historical sexual abuse it can "seriously affect the case" due to a lack of witnesses. That charge was withdrawn on the Friday before the committal hearing was due to begin. Pell's lawyers requested and were denied the personal medical information of the complainants. Pell's defence was reported to be based on questioning the timing of allegations. Some other charges were dropped after a complainant was ruled medically unfit to give evidence.

The committal hearing to determine whether there was enough evidence to commit him to stand trial, commenced on 5 March 2018. The committal hearing allowed for approximately fifty witnesses to give evidence, including former choirboys. The magistrate allowed Pell's barrister to cross-examine all but five witnesses. As a result, the hearing was scheduled to allow for four weeks of testimony and cross-examination. Pell's barrister said the matter would go to trial and that some of the allegations, those involving St Patrick's Cathedral, were impossible.

On 1 May 2018, Pell was committed to stand trial on several historical sexual offence charges. Magistrate Belinda Wallington concluded that there was enough evidence for the case to proceed on about half of the charges. Allegations that Pell committed sexual assault in a Ballarat cinema during the screening of a film was among the charges dismissed. Pell entered pleas of not guilty to the remaining charges. As a bail condition, Pell surrendered his Vatican passport and is not permitted to leave Australia.

On 2 May 2018, Pell appeared in the County Court of Victoria for a directions hearing before Judge Sue Pullen and it was agreed that he would undergo two separate trials with two separate juries and that the charges would be heard separately for each trial. The two trials are for allegations in a Ballarat swimming pool in the 1970s and St Patrick's Cathedral in Melbourne in the 1990s. The Catholic Weekly, a publication of the Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney, is running advertising seeking donations for Pell's legal fund and has written an article promoting the appeal for funding. It is unknown who is responsible for the advertising or the donation drive. Prosecutors have sought a media ban on reporting of proceedings until the beginning of a final trial, including suppression of reporting an initial trial and no further reporting on earlier trials until completion of the final one. On December 11, 2018, a jury unanimously convicted Pell on five charges of sexual abuse. Despite the gag order, Catholic News Agency journalist Ed Condon stated that sources he spoke with confirmed the conviction. Pell plans to appeal the conviction. 68.47.64.121 (talk) 18:20, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Observoz edits 27 July 2017

@Observoz: Hello Observoz, you changed the introduction today that had been revised several weeks ago.

• 1. The Melbourne Protocol was "The protocol, acclaimed as being the first of its kind in the world, has been widely criticised for lacking sufficient independence, being legalistic, for initially capping ex-gratia payments to victims at A$50,000 and for advising that lawsuits would be "strenuously defended" and you changed to "The protocol was the first of its kind in the world, but has been subject to a variety of criticisms". It is important to state the criticisms. This information is not within the Melbourne Response section in the article - which needs to be re-written. In my view it is not overly worded and states the main criticisms.
• 2. The Royal Commission you changed from "Australia's wide-ranging 2013–2017 Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse called Pell three times to give evidence in Case Study 16 which examined the Melbourne Response protocol, Case Study 28 regarding handling of abuse in the Ballarat and Melbourne Dioceses (where Pell had worked as a junior priest and before he was an Archbishop) and Case Study 8 regarding the response to the John Ellis complaint under the Towards Healing protocol and subsequent lawsuit. Pell was also called to testify at the 2013 Victorian government Inquiry into the Handling of Child Abuse by Religious and other Organisations. Amid anger at the Church's handling of abuse claims, Pell's appearances were subject to criticism and controversy" to "Australia's wide-ranging 2013–2017 Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse called Pell three times to give evidence about the Melbourne Response, handling of abuse in the Ballarat and Melbourne Dioceses, and Case Study 8 regarding the John Ellis complaint. Pell was also called to testify at a 2013 Victorian government Inquiry." You have removed some of the Case Study numbers and left one. Why not leave the case study numbers. It is important to state Pell worked as a priest in Ballarat for context (it's not in the intro prior to this but Melbourne is mentioned twice - especially for non Australians reading article). The John Ellis case study you removed information on the Towards Healing protocol which is not within the Royal Commission section of the article which only refers to the lawsuit. Overall, it is important to summarise the attendances at the Royal Commission which is not done elsewhere in the article which the previous wording had done. Also, you removed the name of the Victorian government inquiry - Inquiry into the Handling of Child Abuse by Religious and other Organisations.
• 3. Your previous edits you stated the edits were made for "trim a little. the paragraph remains too long" and "looking for trims". But then you added "These inquiries discredited a number of widely reported claims against Pell regarding his purported knowledge of events as a young priest, but also criticised some aspects of the procedures he later established for handling abuse claims. Pell himself used the platforms to both condemn past failings of his Church and to defend his own efforts to combat child abuse in the church and care for victims." with no citations WP:VERIFY that may be WP:ORIGINAL. Regards, --Melbguy05 (talk) 06:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi thanks for asking. In fact, the details on the Hearings should be added to the main body and not only appear in the intro (we should remedy that). As for the new line I added - the citations and text for that are already in the body. I can migrate them up, as it is evident that many people are not aware of these facts (which is reflective I suppose of media coverage focusing on the senstational allegations rather than on the forensic refutations)

I trimmed 1 & 2 for weight - readers should then scroll into the article to find more detail of the hearings. I originally added the case study numbers to a shorter text, which was then expanded with more of the critique than support for Melbourne protocol. So I removed them again on space grounds, as the intro to Pell is not the space to give full details of the Royal Commission, but rather to stick to Pell related material. I did not want to add a new line with trimming. The line "These inquiries discredited a number of widely reported claims against Pell..." is already cited in the main body in several sections. I will attach the citations here, and given the antagonism to Pell and the unbalanced reporting towards the accusations against him rather than the refutations confirmed at the commission and during other inquiries, we have a duty to make these as plain as we can in the text. For your benefit here are some major examples:

• Pell disproved a very widely publicised allegation raised in the Victorian inquiry he had been present in Ballarat to ignore "the pleas of a child victim of a pedophile" by producing his passport: (http://www.smh.com.au//breaking-news-national/pell-pulls-out-passport-to-disprove-claims-20150627-3yg3p.html)
• A very widely publicised allegation that he had offered a "bribe" to a victim to remain silent was examined at the Royal Commission, only to have the defacto prosecutor Gail Furness state in her final submission that it was not credible (read p. 76 of Furness's concluding report
• Similarly a widely publicised claim by a witness he'd gone to "Pell's presbytery" in Ballarat to warn him about a pedophile was discredited by evidence that he did not live in Ballarat or in that presbytery at the time, and the Counsel-Assisting noted in her final submission that "Cardinal Pell's evidence about his living arrangements and duties in 1973 and 1974 make it less likely that he was at St Patrick's presbytery late in the afternoon on a week day."

As for Pell "condemning past actions, and defening his own" this too is already cited in the body. I will migrate some citations and attach them to the new lines. Observoz (talk) 01:17, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

@Observoz: Reading Case Study 28 Submission. You can't say:-

These inquiries discredited a number of widely reported claims against Pell regarding his purported knowledge of events as a young priest

Dowlan it was found that Pell knew about claims about Dowlan contrary to statements he made in 2002 to the Age newspaper and Pell was criticised for failing to consult and ensuring the matter was dealt with properly. BWF alleged statement about Dowlan in presbytery it was not discredited. It could not be resolved that is not saying it did not happen with BWF found to be credible. BWE the alleged statement about Ridsdale you could say that it was discredited. There was no evidence that a mass even took place on that day. Counsel stated BWE could have been confused when the statement was made and by which priests. David Risdale claim this was not discredited. There was not sufficient evidence to establish the claim however it was not stated it didn't occur with David found to be a credible witness. Not enough evidence to say one way or another.The ABC article cited for:-

defend his own efforts to combat child abuse in the church and care for victims

there is no nothing in the article regarding combatting or caring for victims.--Melbguy05 (talk) 08:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

We must distinguish between a "credible" witness and a "discredited" claim. Mistaken identity, and misapprehension of facts can be put in evidence by a "credible" witness, and their claims can be discredited by further evidence. It is certainly the case that widely publicised claims against Pell have been discredited. Clearly, Pell producing his passport discredited the first of these well-publicised claims regardless of whether the complainant was acting from mistaken identity or from malice. You agree BWE was discredited. As for David Ridsdale's apprehension of events - Furness stated "it is not likely that Bishop Pell would then have thought it necessary to offer Mr Ridsdale an inducement" and she did not pursue the matter. And, it remains my reading that Furness's statement that "Cardinal Pell’s evidence about his living arrangements and duties in 1973 and 1974 make it less likely that he was at St Patrick’s presbytery late in the afternoon on a week day" amounts to a discrediting of the claim. Is there an alternative wording you can suggest?

In relation to the ABC link, there is plenty of material relating to Pell's defence of his actions to combat and care. I'll add more. Observoz (talk) 00:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on George Pell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://202.14.81.230/hansard/conv/con1302.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110628221339/http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/2001/jun2001p3_455.html to http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/2001/jun2001p3_455.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121003190011/http://news.ninemsn.com.au/technology/1028159/catholic-church-funds-stem-cell-research to http://news.ninemsn.com.au/technology/1028159/catholic-church-funds-stem-cell-research
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160302235446/http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/church-mucked-up-with-paedophile-priests-vatican-finance-chief/ar-BBq7UUn?li=BBnbfcL to http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/church-mucked-up-with-paedophile-priests-vatican-finance-chief/ar-BBq7UUn?li=BBnbfcL

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:16, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Views - undue weight

The consensus is that the "Views" section is due weight so should not be removed.

Cunard (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I think that this section is completely unnecessary. Pell is not a world-renown intellectual nor thinker, he is just one of bureaucrats inside the Catholic clergy hierarchy. He became exposed to the public limelight for being the highest ranked official of the RCC accused for sexual abuse coverup and for sexually abusing the children. In the current version we have six pages dedicated to his views and only four dedicated for the abuse coverup and the sexual abuse itself.

I do not see any significance of his views. My proposal is completely eliminate the Views section or reduce it to no more than a half of the page.--Taribuk (talk) 14:51, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments

• Oppose. Pell was an arch-bishop for many-many years. Was written about (e.g. [5], [6]) has written himself (e.g. [7], [8]). He was charged in 2017. This wiki article was created in 2004 - [9], and was pretty fleshed out in 2008 - [10]. An arch-bishop is a major church figure not "just one of bureaucrats inside the Catholic clergy hierarchy". He certainly has been notable well before the RECENTish sex scandal.Icewhiz (talk) 09:28, 26 December 2017 (UTC) If at all - we should carefully consider WP:BLPCRIME here considering he has not been convicted. While I do think the current trial should be in the wiki article - he has not been convicted as of yet.Icewhiz (talk) 09:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
• His views are significant from his being the senior Catholic cleric in Australia for a long time. They may be less significant for his current role in the Vatican, except that he has been a member of the group that selects the next Pope, and Australian media has even speculated about the possibility of him being a candidate for Pope. It is possible that the section could be made more concise, but it is certainly relevant to an article about this person. --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose (Summoned by bot) He is a major person in the Church. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:58, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose I believe his views are "encyclopaedia worthy" because of his prominence both in terms of his offical position in the church (he's not just a cog or "one of bureaucrats inside the Catholic clergy hierarchy" as you say) but also his soft power in the church, he represents a conservative school of thought in the church and his views are worthy of cataloguing - [11]. He also leveraged his position for publicity for his causes or obtain the public eye for many different causes and its worth knowing what these are. He has spearheaded different issues and the effect of Pell will continue beyond the person. Skinnytony1 (talk) 11:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
• To all those who Oppose. Since when just his official position in the RCC, senior Catholic cleric in Australia for a long time, etc makes his views interesting and important to all those who are not Roman Catholics, for example? Or to all those who are Roman Catholics? Most of his views are not intellectually above views of an average educated person views. I do not see his views referenced, discussed, or cited outside the RCC realm. Wikipedia is not a RCC website to just get into account such views (or better "views") uncritically. His soft power in the church is perceived outside the church as scandalous (read the article's "Sexual abuse by clergy and members of religious orders")--Taribuk (talk) 17:06, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
• To Icewhiz: Better read the first version of his Wikipedia biography. You say, "He certainly has been notable well before the RECENTish sex scandal". Nope! From the earliest version of this article we read: "In June 2002 Pell was accused of having sexually abused a 12-year-old boy at a Catholic youth camp in 1961, when he was a seminarian.", "It was recalled that Pell had sought to protect a convicted paedophile priest, Father Gerald Ridsdale, and had given evidence in support of Ridsdale at the priest's trial in 1993" etc, etc.--Taribuk (talk) 17:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I am not sure of your point. The fact that there was an article about him in 2004 which also included several paragraphs of his views and their impact in the wider community demonstrates just as much as that it finished with a section about what was then still a recent event. I also note that the article in that state would be severely trimmed now, as it has a lot of material about a living person with no references. --Scott Davis ^Talk 23:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
    • " of his views and their impact in the wider community"?! Which impact and where and how it was/is visible before/now?--Taribuk (talk) 00:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sexual abuse “victims”

More should be written about the sexual abuse “victims” who also claim that other people had molested them and are only raising this issue for the first time after their other allegations failed. More should also be written about the corrupt Victorian police force which can be widely cited. Unbalanced article currently ! Very convenient the victims cannot be named and offences can’t be reported despite a book was going to be written, because the victims need to be “protected”. Nothing in here about that! 2001:8003:6A23:2C00:F445:A383:9AF8:7733 (talk) 02:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Sourced content is welcome, but remember that Wikipedia has policies named WP:BLP, WP:RS and WP:NPOV that mean that content, especially about living people (including Pell and his accusers) must be sourced to reliable publications and present the information from a neutral point of view. If you are not sure how to include it in the article itself, please provide links to any online sources here (or references to offline sources) and someone else will review them. --Scott Davis ^Talk 04:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it's our job to try to discredit people who say they have been sexually abused as children. A pretty vile offence. The courts can decide that thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2018

Remove category: Fellows of St Edmund's College, Cambridge.

Change requested from St Edmund's College as the Fellowship voted to deprive George Pell of his 'Honorary Fellowship' status following a guilty verdict in the trial which concluded today. Additionally, he was not a Fellow of St Edmund's College, but merely an Honorary Fellow which in substance are different things. Christopowers (talk) 17:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

If you provide a source, sure. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Pell is no longer listed as a Fellow [12]. WWGB (talk) 02:27, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:38, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Technical difficulties

@Galobtter: I did have some technical difficulties on my end, and my edit summary: "(Content deleted despite two requests that it be discussed on talkpage)" was made in error. However, I have never reverted any edit of yours, except to copy and paste the sentence in dispute, verbatim. Any other content reverted was by another editor. I apologize for the confusion. If I am misunderstanding your edit summary directed towards me "you reverted far more edits than your edit summary indicates", please discus below. –Zfish118^⋉talk18:11, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Zfish118, I restored the change you made; you just removed 5000 bytes of content while doing that copyedit (which is why I reverted). Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

As per the diff, you appear to have reverted to an old version of the page instead of merely doing a copyedit. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:14, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. My concerns are alleviated. –Zfish118^⋉talk 18:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Conviction of Sexual Offences Against Children and Suppression Order in Victorian County Court

There was some changes to the page that were reverted by another user. However there is talk about a geo-block on news of the conviction, in which case this news should be on the page. Can someone from outside of Australia confirm the article and correct the record (if it is true that he was convicted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Playlet (talk • contribs) 10:17, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

He certainly has not been convicted, at least not at this stage. The legal process still has a way to run before there's any outcome one way or another. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:33, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

It seems he has been convicted but not sentenced. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:40, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I love it when people confidently assert stuff when they don't know what they're talking about. Portwalrus (talk) 11:48, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, well, when I made that statement, all we had was one (1) source. Hardly overwhelming. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:26, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Not knowing whether or not he's been convicted, and therefore not including it in the article, is one thing. Asserting that he had not been while, frankly, not knowing what you're talking about is another. I don't want to make this personal, but I just don't think people should do that. Portwalrus (talk) 06:59, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

He obviously has a horse in the race here. There was no virtually coverage on the Pell matter since news of potential gag order was made public. Out of the blue on the 12th half a dozen articles were released in the Australian press alluding to the matter and dozens more internationally directly mentioning it. Admittedly the standard and volume of evidence may have necessitated a little hesitation when approaching an edit to the article, but in no universe does it ever signal a flat denial in the style that we have just seen. Manifest Truth (talk) 13:38, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm prepared to wear that. But I flatly deny your assertion "He obviously has a horse in the race here". That is an egregious and offensive untruth. In no universe is it ok to attribute motives to others. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 16:59, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Conviction reported by Daily Beast: https://www.thedailybeast.com/vatican-no-3-cardinal-george-pell-on-trial-for-historical-child-sex-charges?ref=scroll — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C00:E09:1D00:81D0:1FBD:77A4:51A5 (talk) 10:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

A young "nerd" in my house assures me it's true, but that it's hidden from (most) Australians because of a big suppression order (unless one uses a VPN or similar). Investigation and editing by non-Australians is needed here.

Are you serious? How about some, whaddaya call them, actual reliable sources? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

If this is the case, then I agree and Australians should refrain from editing the page one way or another and leave it to those not covered by the suppression order Playlet (talk) 11:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

It's almost certain that he's being charged but still hasn't been sentenced. However more to the point there is a suppression order granted by the Victorian Courts preventing any publication by Australian sources on the matter. This so that the jurors for upcoming trials will be untainted by knowledge of the case which would prevent their impartiality. So the question is can or should it be published on Wikipedia with this in mind? Manifest Truth (talk) 13:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

A reliable Australian source explaining why it can't report the news. https://www.smh.com.au/national/victoria/why-the-media-is-unable-to-report-on-a-case-that-has-generated-huge-interest-online-20181212-p50lta.html Fstix (talk) 13:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Here are some source on the matter: https://www.concisenews.global/2018/12/12/cardinal-pell-convicted-of-child-sexual-abuse/ https://www.citynews1130.com/2018/12/12/pope-cuts-3-cardinals-from-cabinet-2-implicated-in-scandal/ https://outline.com/NL3tpY and specifically talking about the gag order: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/14/world/australia/george-pell-trial-super-injunction.html Manifest Truth (talk) 13:34, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

The Vatican has confirmed it and even removed him from the Council of Cardinals. However it has also been confirmed that the conviction report currently has a gag order as well due to a ruling by a Victorian Court.[13] Not at all a "rumour."68.47.64.121 (talk) 17:45, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

The evidence is now pretty strong that he has been convicted, sentencing will occur in February. There are now numerous sources stating he has been convicted at a second trial after the first ended with a hung jury. There is a supression order in place preventing publication of any details in order to not prejudice a second trial due in early 2019 over separate allegations. Fstix has given a citation from the mainstream Australian media covering why the story can not be reported in Australian media, and the fact of conviction, sentencing date, and upcoming second trial. The reports are now also in the mainstrean Catholic media https://www.ncronline.org/news/accountability/cardinal-pell-found-guilty-sex-abuse-expected-appeal-reports-say Both of these two sources meet the criteira for Reliable Sources Jaxsonjo (talk) 23:00, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I know wikipedia is not normally censored, but in view of the exceptional circumstances here should we consider deleting this until the 2nd case is heard? PatGallacher (talk) 01:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

No. Victoria's anachronistic media gags are ineffective in the digital age. WWGB (talk) 01:58, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

A suppression order protects not only the defendant but it helps his possible victims get a fair case. We should remove all details into the suppression order is lifted. Olivertownshend (talk) 01:59, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

That might be the formal goal, but it ain't working. Have a look at the front page of the Herald Sun, a Murdoch paper, and the biggest selling paper in the state where the gag applies - https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/censored-a-story-we-cant-report/news-story/5346a51c7c31c8ed5b43985d28196a79. That is guaranteed to make people look for the news elsewhere, and many are. It is common discussion among people everywhere I've been today. It will be interesting to see what impact all this has on the policy of using suppression orders. 203.214.42.58 (talk) 02:21, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

It's now being reported in full in the Washington Post. About as reputable and mainstream as you can get. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/australian-court-convicts-once-powerful-vatican-official-on-sex-abuse-related-charges/2018/12/12/da0d909c-fe20-11e8-a17e-162b712e8fc2_story.html?utm_term=.6f89a174b216 WaPo has also run the story on their Twitter feed. These are no longer rumours, he has been found guilty of child sexual offences. The sole remaining issue is the presence of the suppression order in Victoria, which covers all of Australia. Both the Murdoch and Fairfax media (the two major print media publishers in Australia) are running articles pointing out the presence of this major story they can't publish and former Prime Minister Paul Keating has mentioned the case on his Facebook page. The comments there (despite him saying don't mention any names) make it abundantly clear who is referred to. The horse has well and truly bolted. There should be no bar to these details being on this page. Jaxsonjo (talk) 02:35, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

WAPO doesn't like us European readers and our pesky GDPR rights - http://web.archive.org/web/*/https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/australian-court-convicts-once-powerful-vatican-official-on-sex-abuse-related-charges/2018/12/12/da0d909c-fe20-11e8-a17e-162b712e8fc2_story.html is a functional workaround. Cabayi (talk) 12:04, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

the order from the court refers to Australian media and in no way effects coverage of the issues in a wikipedia article. This is due to the multiple high quality news articles about the issue. Also, the court's order has no jurisdiction over wikipedia. If there's a fear of stating a fact that might impact the fairness of a future case one needs to understand the threshold is extremely high for what constitutes news that would constitute a "Permanent stay of proceedings" see 2010 High Court case of Dupas v The Queen. Of course it is up to Australian media to not publish information or refer people to this wiki page or encourage people to google for news. The suppression order can cover twitter/facebook but only if the individual is covered by the order ie based in Australia, this is because they act like media empires with a one-to-many broadcast from users with large audience...IT would set a very troubling precedent if articles were censored because of orders like this one and be misguided and based on a misinformed and sensationalist view of the law. Skinnytony1 (talk) 04:03, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

According to The Australian Financial Review, (see link here), "the suppression order ... applies in 'all Australian states and territories' and 'on any website or other electronic or broadcast format accessible within Australia'." Wikipedia is, and is well known to be, accessible within Australia. Assuming that the AFR report is correct, it must follow that as far as the Victorian court is concerned, any editor anywhere in the world who publishes on Wikipedia any information inconsistent with the order could be held to be in breach of it. Bahnfrend (talk) 12:46, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

And the DPP "suggested extraditions of media to Australia".[14] Talk about a scare campaign. WAPO must be shaking in its boots! WWGB (talk) 13:42, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Is the suppression order and the Australian+global response to it worthy of an article in its own right yet? It certainly would be notable if Victoria/Australia attempted (rather than threatened) extradition to Australia for people who breached it overseas. --Scott Davis ^Talk 05:09, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Is there a page on vic suppression orders? Could fit in that. I think the comment by the DPP is probably a rhetorical flourish more than anything. Skinnytony1 (talk) 10:21, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Out of curiosity (I think the gags are stupid in fundamental principle but particularly stupid in the notion that a Victorian court can dictate beyond its obvious jurisdiction) does Wikipedia itself have an official policy on suppression orders etc? This is obviously a semi-niche case but I know the UK has really strict media gag laws as well and I imagine this has surely come up before. Dr-ziego (talk) 13:26, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Also I would like it if foreign editors could include more stuff about the suppression order, the reactionary front pages of the Herald Sun and Daily Telegraph etc. Some gut feeling suggests I probably shouldn't add it myself... Dr-ziego (talk) 13:41, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

There is this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gag_order#Australia but perhaps there could be a page of its own Australian suppression order laws considering the complex discussions that have already occurred from previous cases and the current one that can be explored more fully with the passage of time...

• https://journlaw.com/2017/03/07/is-an-open-justice-advocate-the-solution-to-overly-restrictive-suppression-orders-mlgriff/
• http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/CommsLawB/2014/11.pdf
• https://www.premier.vic.gov.au/suppression-order-overhaul-underway/
• https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/why-the-media-is-unable-to-report-on-a-case-that-has-generated-huge-interest-online-20181212-p50lta.html
• https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/new-data-reveals-victorian-courts-handed-down-more-suppression-orders-to-gag-journalists-last-year-than-every-other-state-in-australia-combined-prompting-a-government-review/video/3e1d0a01a1109863c33aa7350e7fa9d7
• https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/open-justice-or-the-suppression-state-20180624-p4znd4.html
• https://www.ruleoflaw.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Suppression-Orders-A-Fine-Balance.pdf

Skinnytony1 (talk) 11:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based in the United States

Wikipedia and its servers are located in the United States of America; censorship laws in Australia are utterly irrelevant. Details of Cardinal Pell's conviction that are published in reliable sources, as well as details of the gag order, should be recorded in the article as a matter of routine. –Zfish118^⋉talk 19:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@Galobtter: The gag order itself is the subject of much controversy and notable coverage, and does not qualify as "WP:UNDO". Please discuss before removing from the lead again so that your concerns can be better addressed. –Zfish118^⋉talk 17:30, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

It is fine to cover in the body - but is it really important or relevant enough to George Pell's life that it should be included in the lead? Think about how relevant something would be 5 or 10 years from now. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:34, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I believe it will be extremely important to remember that an Australian judge attempted to block news of the conviction of a high-level international official, especially decades from now. I find the secrecy surrounding the trial to be a critical element of the case document. I really do not understand why you would consider this neither neutral nor "important". Further, the gag-order is directly relevant to the quality of information available today. Details may change significantly if the gag order were lifted. –Zfish118^⋉talk 19:28, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

"Discussion" here consists of the continual assertion that Wikipedia can disregard Australian law. That is fine for overseas users but leaves Wikipedia in Australia exposed to legal action here, which may include any Australian editor that touches this page. Olivertownshend (talk) 04:08, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Writing "legal action here, which may include any Australian editor that touches this page" is simplistic and overly dramatic. Most of the content of this article is not covered by the Australian legal gag, including Pell's removal from the Council of Cardinal Advisers. The delicate balance between facts and the gag are not helped by scare mongering. WWGB (talk) 10:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

It is an Australian citizen's duty to observe and/or petition to change Australian law. As an American, writing on an American platform, I am wholly unconcerned about Australian law. Should Wikipedia observe censorship laws in China? Russia? North Korea? There is no material difference between the legal duty of an American to observe any such censorship laws. –Zfish118^⋉talk 17:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC)