The gag order was cancelled when the second trial was not proceeded with – the prosecution said something silly about leaving the papers on a train, or the dog eating them – whatever. The victim(s) were, unsurprisingly, more than a little miffed, but the official response was “tough”.
So Australians were then allowed to know what the rest of the world already knew, that Pell had been found guilty at the first trial by a unanimous jury. His rich and powerful friends and colleagues immediately screamed that they didn’t believe it, that their mate George wouldn’t do anything like that, that the jury was corrupt and so on, ad bloody nauseam. They were a little stunned when most Aussies and the official Roman Catholic church told them to shut up and respect the court, the jury and the victims. Pell immediately applied for an appeal (three points, one of which was that the jury’s verdict had been unreasonable! The arrogance of the man!).
Today Pell was sentenced to 6 years in prison, with a minimum of 3 years and 8 months to be served before he could apply for parole. The Judge was scathing about Pell’s lack of remorse and his refusal to accept his guilt.
The initial appeal hearing will be in June, but for now it’s back to his cell for George. Once regarded as the third most powerful man in the RC church, earmarked by many as the next pope in waiting, regarding himself as cast iron and far too senior to be troubled by the laws of men, he’s finally got his comeuppance. How are the mighty fallen!
Perhaps this will “encourager les autres”. Je m’en doubte. 😢
Boadicea's Chariot 
Can he have his sentence increased under the OZ system Bearsy? Seems an extraordinarily light punishment to me.
Hi JHL –
It certainly can be increased. I am not well up in legal niceties, but both or either verdict or sentence can be appealed by either side. Lots of rules about what is allowed to progress to an appeal, and about circumstances and so on. There have been cases in the last few years where some thug has appealed his sentence for thumping someone, and ended up with his time of incarceration doubled by a feisty and unsympathetic judge.
In Pell’s case he has benefited from his age (77) and his failing health, and the low prospect of recidivism, to get away with just under 4 years in real terms. It could have been as long as 10, I believe. 😎
Another complication in this case is that the applicable laws are those that were on the books when the crimes took place. In the 1990s, less weight was given testimony and penalties were laxer than they now are.
If this sort of thing continues, the corridors of the Vatican could be very empty by all accounts. Perhaps there will be a flood of early retirements now.
It is good that the civil courts have decided to bite the bullet on this problem rather than trying to obtain justice within the Catholic church. Perhaps a few more embarrassments on this scale will persuade them to put their own house in order.
I doubt it, judging from the Pope’s go round a few weeks ago.
Interestingly the early church was funded by mainly rich widows. By 325AD The council of Nicea, they were banging the drum for celibacy and male hierarchy to get rid of the ladies influence.
Look where it has got them ever since. Sexual malfeasance all the way!
About time they allowed priests to marry.
CO: The Eastern Orthodox Church virtually requires priests to marry and have children. One of their main arguments is that being a counsellor to the “flock” is one of the most important parts of the job. If this involves providing counselling on marriage issues and problems with children, how can an unmarried man with no (known) children realistically know what those problems are?
Exactly so! Pity the Western church didn’t do the same!
Celibacy was not demanded of the Catholic clergy until quite late. The Pope of the time blessed William the Conqueror’s invasion of England because William promised to enforce clerical celibacy on the Anglo-Saxon clergy. Part of the reason was that the offspring of the clergy were claiming what the church saw as its property when the said priest died…
… if you’re looking for reasons – always follow the money!
Boadicea: Oh, absolutely! In most cases, the priest has to give all — or most — of his property to the church and the church will keep it. For all the centralism of the Vatican, actual funding for parish churches and priests is a local affair. For many parish churches it is hard enough to support a priest. Increasingly, due to both the smaller number of priests available as well as fewer/ageing parishioners, several parish churches have to share a single priest. The cost of a traditional Catholic family — a priest, a priest’s wife and their large brood, would be very difficult for many smaller parishes to absorb.
In a monastery that need not be named, there once was a monk, who also need not be named, whose assigned task was to copy manuscripts. He took his work most seriously and, one day, told the Abbot that there was something about the way the job was done that bothered him. Making copies of copies of copies could, he said, result in errors being perpetuated. The Abbot saw his point and gave him permission to copy directly from the originals, provided that all due care was taken to safeguard those ancient texts.
One day the monk failed to gather with the others for the evening meal. Concerned, the Abbot went looking for him and found him in the library, weeping disconsolately.
“What troubles you so?” asked the Abbot.
The monk looked up and sobbed, “The word is CELEBRATE!”
Hi, thank you for your article. I wrote a blog on his sentence and if it was appropriate. If you could check it out and let me know what you think that would be great.