Thank God, justice was finally served in Australia for Cardinal George Pell. His outrageous conviction was UNANIMOUSLY quashed by their highest court. The prior verdict is officially changed to acquitted.

He was convicted on completely uncorroborated testimony of a single alleged victim. There was a LOT of evidence and witnesses to his innocence, including to the impossibility it could have happened at all as charged. Why was he convicted? Anti-Catholic bigotry was having its day and apparently in Australia only the highest court could fix it. Thank God for that, but he should never have been convicted in the first place.

"Observers say that the unanimous ruling by the country’s highest court constitutes a scathing indictment of the fundamentally unjust proceedings that led to the cardinal’s wrongful conviction and imprisonment."

Edward Pentin has written an excellent summary of this case:

Show thread

@George From the time that #CardinalPell was convicted, I was very surprised to learn that a man could be imprisoned based upon the testimony of a single witness with no other evidence that the crime had even occurred. Could this really happen in a court founded on English law?

Even without considering the details, it seemed to me that it was very reasonable to have doubts.


Sign in to participate in the conversation — a friendly social networking space for those with an interest in Catholicism.