Others hold him in high esteem.

Neither of these groups will have their minds changed about Cardinal Pell, ­regardless of what any court might determine.

The majority of Australians fall into neither camp.

Victorian Police

In the midst of controversy and with allegations of gross criminal activity, these Australians expect the police, the prosecution authorities and the courts to do their work diligently, imposing punishment on proven criminals and protecting the rights and liberties of all other citizens.

The Pell saga has now run for more than four years, ever since the Victoria Police commenced an operation on Christmas Eve 2015 seeking evidence of any wrongdoing by Pell around his cathedral during the years 1996-2001, when he was archbishop of Melbourne.

One complainant

This extraordinary trawling exercise turned up only one complainant, whose allegations were taken all the way to trial.

The complainant gave evidence that he and his now-deceased companion were serially assaulted sexually by Pell in the priests' sacristy immediately after solemn Sunday mass in St Patrick's Cathedral in late 1996.

He also gave evidence that Pell assaulted him in the sacristy corridor after another mass a couple of months later.

That's the case the High Court has just thrown out.

Thus the anger and relief at Tuesday's decision.

Court unanimous and with one voice

The High Court has spoken definitively, unanimously and with one voice.

All seven Justices have agreed that in relation to all five charges, "there is a significant possibility that an innocent person has been convicted".

The court ­ordered that Pell's "convictions be quashed and judgments of acquittal be entered in their place".

Pell has rightly walked free in time for Easter.

The complainant is left to get on with his life as best he can, wondering what was the point of this protracted legal trauma.

The court accepted that the jury had assessed the complainant's evidence "as thoroughly credible and reliable".

In the Victorian Court of Appeal, that step was enough for two of the judges to uphold the convictions.

But the dissenting judge, Mark Weinberg, Australia's most experienced criminal appeal court judge, thought that was just the first step of a court's inquiry, and not the last.

All seven High Court judges agree.

Reasonable doubt

The court needed to examine the record of all the evidence in the case "to see whether, notwithstanding that assessment, the court is satisfied that the jury, acting rationally, ought nonetheless to have entertained a reasonable doubt as to proof of guilt".

The court unanimously decided that any jury acting rationally must have had a reasonable doubt.

In addition to the complainant, there were many other witnesses called by the prosecution in Pell's case.

They included 23 witnesses "who were involved in the conduct of solemn mass at the cathedral or who were members of the choir in 1996 and/or 1997".

Many of these witnesses were also thoroughly credible and reliable, though their reliability faltered at times given that they were trying to recall what they would have been doing after mass in St Patrick's Cathedral on a particular Sunday 22 years before.

The honesty of these witnesses was not questioned by the prosecution.

The High Court found that many of these witnesses had given consistent evidence that placed Pell on the steps of the cathedral for at least 10 minutes after mass on December 15 and 22, 1996, the only possible dates when the first four offences could have been committed.

The prosecution "conceded that the offences alleged in the first incident could not have been committed if, following mass, (Pell) had stood on the cathedral steps greeting congregants for 10 minutes".

The court also found that there was unquestioned evidence by honest witnesses that placed Pell in company with his Master of Ceremonies when he returned to the priests' sacristy to disrobe.

Furthermore, there was abundant evidence of "continuous traffic into and out of the priests' sacristy for 10 to 15 minutes" after the altar servers returned to the sacristy at the end of the procession at the conclusion of mass.

There was no five-to-six-minute hiatus for the offences to occur with Pell, the complainant and his companion in the sacristy alone, together and uninterrupted, straight after mass.

A tragedy

The tragedy of this case for everyone, including victims and complainants (and most especially this complainant), is that an ordinary police investigation would have highlighted these problems with the complainant's account.

When interviewed in Rome back in October 2016 by Victorian police officers who were being supervised by their Deputy Commissioner, Shane Patton, Pell told the police that the sacristy was "a hive of activity" after mass with altar servers, sacristan, assistant sacristan, money collectors and any concelebrating priests coming and going.

He said he would have been accompanied at all relevant times by his MC Charles Portelli.

The police returned to Australia and interviewed Portelli and the sacristan, Max Potter, who basically confirmed all Pell had said about the "hive of activity".

But police did not bother to interview one single altar server.

They made no inquiries about money collectors or concelebrating priests.

They just went ahead and charged Pell, and with great media fanfare.

They went ahead building a case on the idea the priests' sacristy might have been left ­vacant and open on this one particular day, contrary to all church routine and ritual.

The High Court rightly observed that "adherence to ritual and compliance with ­established liturgical practice is a defining feature of religious observance".

The farce of the case was the ­belated attempt by the Director of Public Prosecutions to create the space for the necessary hiatus.

At trial, the prosecutor suggested, contrary to the evidence, the altar servers might have adjourned to another room, for no reason, for five to six minutes before being called back to the priests' sacristy to resume their duties.

He had to withdraw that suggestion before the jury.

In the High Court, the DPP submitted once again that the servers might have adjourned to another room or to the sanctuary to assist the sacristan.

The High Court dealt with this suggestion kindly but firmly: "The submission comes close to repeating the submission which the prosecutor withdrew at the trial.

"There was no evidence that the altar servers went to their room to disrobe prior to returning to the sanctuary in order to assist in clearing away the sacred vessels and other objects."

In the end, there was just not the evidence to support the complainant's account.

There never was.

For the good of all victims and complainants, Victoria's DPP and police must review procedures for cases like this.

Those who neither canonise nor despise George Pell should be grateful the High Court has delivered justice according to law in this protracted saga.

• Frank Brennan is a Jesuit priest and lawyer who attended some of the Pell court proceedings. This article was first published in The Australian newspaper.

These have included high-stakes cases involving the Yukos Oil Company in Russia, an energy business in Ukraine, and land claims under a treaty between Malaysia and Singapore.

In every case, the principle is clear: compensation must be fair and should aim to restore as much of what was lost as possible.

When it comes to New Zealand's Treaty of Waitangi settlements, the government consistently falls far short of international standards—and its principles of fairness.

Before signing the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840, the British government made it clear that the Maori "title to the soil" and "sovereignty of New Zealand" was "indisputable".

Crucially, colonisation depended on the "consent" of Maori.

Yet, the treaty that followed has been undermined by decades of breaches — particularly relating to the loss of land.

It is well documented and accepted by the government that compensation for land claims covered by Waitangi settlements does not remotely reflect market values and fall short of the loss suffered by Maori landowners.

Given the current debate about Treaty principles, the shortfall in compensation should be more widely acknowledged.

It is also far short of what New Zealanders generally could expect if the government seized their land.

Waitangi land settlements are a specific and substantial form of discrimination against Maori.

The Treaty Principles policy that ACT leader David Seymour campaigned for, guaranteed equal rights and duties for all.

Post-election, I was interested in whether a change was underway.

That is, given ACT's "everyone has the same rights" promise, I assumed that land settlements would now be based on the same standards of compensation New Zealanders could generally expect.

However, Seymour now considers his election promise "too broad" and the equal treatment guarantee would not apply to Treaty settlements.

There is a real danger that the inadequacy of Treaty settlements is intended to continue.

Two landmark cases — the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu and Ngai Tahu claims—illustrate the scale of the injustice. The government has acknowledged the wrongful confiscation of 1.2 million acres (500,000 acres) of Waikato-Tainui land, valued at $12 billion in 1995. Yet the settlement amounted to just $170 million—a discount of over 98%.

The same settlement sum was offered for Ngai Tahu, whose claim involved breaches involving a tenth of the 34.5m acres sold to the government (about 80% of the South Island). The government has never put forward any reasoned case to link these sums to the losses suffered by Maori.

While helpful for iwi development, these settlements are far from fair compensation.

The government admits as much.

There are many examples.

For instance, the Ngati Hinerangi Deed of Settlement explicitly states that "full compensation… is not possible." Yet, there is no effort to explain why or to address the vast gulf between the losses and the restitution provided.

The inequality becomes even more glaring when compared to the rights of other New Zealanders generally.

If the government took your home under the Public Works Act, you'd be entitled to compensation at market value—a right that every New Zealander expects and deserves.

Token compensation, such as the Treaty settlements, falls far short of this standard.

New Zealand is not alone in addressing treaty disputes.

Continue reading

• Tim Giles is originally from Wellington. He is an internationally recognised financial economics consultant and valuation expert, specialising in treaty disputes and international arbitration. He is a senior advisor for Analysis Group.

"No one cares about the tragic fate of the Papuan minority, who suffer from the injustices of the ruling powers and the Indonesian military, who accuse them of being separatists," said Father Alexandro Rangga.

Speaking by phone from Jakarta, the 37-year-old Franciscan, originally from Flores and living in Jayapura, the capital of Indonesian Papua for 20 years, summarised the tragedy and violence the Papuan minority has suffered since their territory's annexation in 1969, largely hidden from the world.

Papua lives under constant tension

"Majority Christian and Catholic," Father Rangga noted, "the Papuans hope to hear a message of support and hope from Pope Francis, who is attuned to issues of injustice, migration, and environmental destruction."

Closed off to journalists and UN diplomats seeking to investigate human rights abuses by the Indonesian military, Papua remains tense.

While neighboring Papua New Guinea, with a population of 10 million, gained independence from Australia in 1975, Indonesia forcefully took control of the other half of the island, Papua, home to 6 million people, in 1962, officially annexing it in 1969 after a sham referendum endorsed by the United Nations.

A militarised province

"It's Indonesia's original sin against this province, rich in natural resources," lamented a Jesuit priest recently returning from Papua.

The wealth from copper, gold, nickel, gas, and precious timber does not benefit the people of Papua, who remain the poorest in Indonesia.

Underdevelopment and discrimination have fueled an independence conflict that has displaced 100,000 people and claimed 150,000 lives.

For five decades, the separatist Free Papua Movement (OPM) has waged a low-intensity guerrilla war against the Indonesian military, which tightly controls the region.

"Since 2001, there's been a special autonomy law, but it's had little impact on local populations who demand a fairer share of the mining profits.

"What's happening is both a genocide and an ecocide, while the military presence has never been stronger," asserted Ayu Utami, a Catholic writer and human rights activist in Jakarta.

"She believes "Papua is a disaster because the government only approaches the issue through a security lens. The army should be withdrawn to pacify the region, but local oligarchs, politicians, and generals are in collusion."

Delivering messages to the Pope remains a challenge

For weeks, the Justice and Peace Commission in Jayapura has been trying to send a message to Pope Francis about the humanitarian catastrophe in Papua.

However, an Indonesian priest, speaking anonymously, revealed there are "obstacles and significant pressure, even from within the Catholic hierarchy, to prevent the pope from receiving these messages or addressing the Papuan issue."

A book written by 34 Papuans, including priests, detailing the history of Papuan Catholics and translated into Italian, was meant to be presented to Pope Francis in Jakarta by the Bishop of Jayapura, but this was prohibited.

"We still have hope," said Father Rangga.

"For the Papuans, even a simple mention of their existence by the Pope would be a form of recognition of their suffering and a political success that could improve their future."

• First published by La Croix International
• Dorian Malovic is a French journalist, winner of the 2007 Grand prix catholique de littérature.

We do so on behalf of the Catholic Worker Movement (Otautahi), a branch of a world-wide organisation of the same generic name.

Justice is built on love

We believe justice built on love to be the foundational essence of God and the teachings of Jesus. As Catholic Workers, our lives are dedicated to the poor by way of providing hospitality, advocacy and justice for them, giving them a voice whenever most needed.

Over recent decades considerable strides have been taken to address some of the structural discrimination enacted against Maori in the 184 years since colonisation and the signing of The Treaty of Waitangi, our founding document.

There is a long way still to go. It From a social justice and Gospel perspective, incremental steps continue to be essential.

Principles of justice contravened

We are very deeply disturbed by the current Bill before the House of Parliament which we believe contravenes basic principles of justice in that it will further marginalise minority groups, especially Maori.

Despite having a populist flavour, it contains content almost totally negative in relation to the place and state of Maori in Aotearoa, particularly in relation to guaranteeing their representation on decision-making bodies as a Treaty partner.

This Bill is deeply offensive by not having consulting Maori about its substance before it came to the House. This is yet another breach of the Treaty in which Article 2 guarantees Maori, as a Treaty Partner, the right to be represented and to participate in decision-making in good faith.

We can't think of any other freely chosen partnership where one partner makes all the major decisions without consulting the other. Imagine how long a marriage would last if one partner in the contract always had the controlling decision on major matters!

The divorce courts would be working 24/7!

Iniquitous polls

The most iniquitous aspect of this Bill requires polls to be binding.

Polls make sense to Pakeha who in this country have the majority of votes all the time.

Maori decision-making has never revolved around polling members and going with the majority. That is simply not their way. It is a very Euro-centric way of doing things, guaranteeing a favourable result against minority views.

Here at the Catholic Worker where we have met weekly to pray and reflect for more than 30 years, we fail to see how the already existing options, Sections 19H and 191 of the Local Electoral Act 2001, cannot be utilised if need be, to set out options for reviews and further debate if that is what is sought.

The re-introduction of polls will do nothing to improve race relations in Aotearoa.

Rather it will stir up a hornets next of discriminatory behaviour, racism and social unrest and further inflame already somewhat tense social relations. This we can well do without.

Strong Maori representation essential

We need strong Maori representation around local council tables. Justice demands this. Too often we have not had this in the past and as pointed out earlier, failed to enflesh Article 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi.

This is a structural matter that cannot be addressed through polls and popular vote, where public media, including huge amounts of virulent social media commentary, are already tilted to negate minority outcomes.

With respect, we urge the Parliament and this Committee to attend to the matters raised and discard the offensive content.

• Submission made on behalf of the Catholic Worker Movement (Otautahi)

The silence perhaps reflects Australians' identification of law with enforcement.

By these standards the judgement of the International Court was a mere opinion to which the United Nations General Assembly of the United Nations may decide whether and how to give effect.

For many Australian politicians and commentators, too, questions of legality are irrelevant in international relations. Disputes between nations are resolved by power and not by law. The judgements of international agencies are no more than an exercise in public relations.

Opinion significant

The ICJ opinion, however, is significant because it is carefully and thoroughly argued, and because international law is based on the ethical conviction that all human beings are of equal value.

Nations and their representatives who take pride in their democratic tradition boast that adherence to the rule of law distinguishes them from totalitarianism.

They will find embarrassing the legal judgement by an impartial Court that an allied nation has consistently violated international law. The opinion may not be enforceable, but it will reverberate in international institutions and ultimately in public opinion.

Although the questions put to the Court were asked prior to the Hamas invasion in late 2023, the opinion also sets standards for comment on the War in Gaza.

I shall summarise the opinion by drawing on and sometimes paraphrasing its accompanying summary.

The Court first established its right to speak, established by the request by the General Assembly for an opinion on two questions.

The first concerned the legal consequences arising from certain policies and practices of Israel as an occupying power in a situation of belligerent occupation since 1967.

The second concerned how such policies and practices affect the legal status of the occupation in light of international law, and the legal consequences which arise from this status.

The Court was satisfied that these were legal questions.

It also established its discretion to make an opinion on a bilateral dispute in which one side does not consent, dismissed as speculative any arguments that it risked inflaming the dispute, argued that it was sufficiently well informed to make a judgment, and that any bias in the formulation of the questions could be excluded.

In coming to its opinion, the ICJ measured the practices of Israel in the territory it had occupied against the provisions of international statutory and customary law.

Under these provisions the inhabitants of the occupied land may not be removed by force except in emergency, must be able to return, must not be discriminated against, must be free to form its government and institutions, and enjoy for their own benefit and not for that of the occupying power the resources of their territory.

In its findings, the Court decided that in all these areas the Israeli occupation had violated international law by encouraging settlements on occupied land, destroying houses belonging to Palestinians, by effectively controlling Palestine and weakening its institutions.

Israel remained capable of exercising, and continued to exercise, certain key elements of authority over the Gaza Strip, including control of the land, sea and air borders, restrictions on movement of people and goods, collection of import and export taxes, and military control over the buffer zone.

Furthermore the violence by settlers against Palestinians, Israel's failure to prevent or to punish it effectively, and the excessive use of force against Palestinians contributed to the creation and maintenance of a coercive environment against Palestinians.

In summary, contrary to International law, Israel occupied by force territory that was not its own and has since not yielded that territory but has maintained control over it and exploited its resources for its own purposes.

In doing so it has violated the law governing occupation in which the occupying power must govern in the interests of the occupied people, respect its self-government and their human rights.

Such prolonged and exploitative occupation cannot be justified by appeal to the occupiers' security, nor is it justified by the length of time that it has lasted.

Consequences for Israel

The ICJ then dealt with its consequences for Israel of this judgment.

It stated that it is obliged to bring an end to its presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory as rapidly as possible and cease to act unlawfully by ceasing all new settlement activity, repealing laws that created or maintained the unlawful situation, including those which discriminate against the Palestinian people in the occupied Palestinian Territory.

It is also bound to make reparations for the damage done.

'The history of violence provides both the people of Israel and of Palestine with reasonable fear for their security. To reach a mutually acceptable and enduring settlement will be like unscrambling an egg that has already been fried.'

Consequences for others

The Court also spelled out the consequences for other States and international agencies.

They may not recognise as legal the situation arising from the unlawful presence of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

Neither may they render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by the occupation.
Finally, the Court left it to the United Nations Security Council decide what further action is required to put an end to the illegal presence of Israel, taking into account its advisory opinion.

Devastating legal judgement

The ICJ opinion is a devastating legal judgment on the actions of Israel in Palestinian territory. Though the Court does not explicitly consider Israel's continuing actions in Gaza, many of them would likely be adjudged to violate international law.

Although the judgment imposes legal obligations on Israel and the international community, it did not consider how they might be met.

It left it to the parties and to the international community to negotiate a settlement in which the rights and the security of the people of Israel and of Palestine can be assured.

This challenge is made the greater by the historical claim of each party to the same land and by the aggravation of mutual hatred by military actions of Israel and Palestinian groups over many years.

The history of violence provides both the people of Israel and of Palestine with reasonable fear for their security. To reach a mutually acceptable and enduring settlement will be like unscrambling an egg that has already been fried.

The ICJ opinion highlights the long-term challenge to Israel's place in the world.

The pressure on public opinion in the West arising from the critical judgment, together with the radicalisation of nationalist politics in Israel and of populist policies in the West, already threaten to weaken military support for Israel at a time when it relies most on it.

For its lasting security Israel will need to build bridges to nations in its region. It cannot do that without respecting the rights of its Palestinian neighbours.

Other nations, including Australia, should not take sides in the present war in Gaza, but by refusing to supply arms and by other actions should press for the end of military actions that build and intensify mutual hatred. They should also press for negotiations that might lead to a lasting peace.

• First published in Eureka Street
• Andrew Hamilton is consulting editor of Eureka Street, and writer at Jesuit Social Services.

The modernisation seeks to fill a twenty-six-year gap and reflect some of the modern challenges.

Dr John Kleinsman, director of the NZ Catholic bishops' Nathaniel Centre for Bioethics, is delighted with the bishops' update.

Kleinsman describes the new document as a "succinct overview of eight key moral areas, including a new section on information technology and artificial intelligence."

Among the modern challenges the bishops consider

• Information technology and artificial intelligence
• Justice and correction systems
• War and peace
• Poverty
• Discrimination and abuse
• End-of-life issues
• Beginning of life issues
• Integrity of Creation

Kleinsman says that people generally know what the Chucrh teaches but are unsure of why.

Te Kahu o te Ora - A Consistent Ethic of Life summarises key points which can give people greater insights into Catholic thinking, comments Kleinsman.

"It is a great source for open and informed discussions", says Kleinsman who, as well as being a theologian, is a married man, father and grandfather.

The original Te Kahu o te Ora was inspired by Cardinal Joseph Bernardin's A Consistent Ethic of Life.

Bernardin's work grew from his observation that we must act consistently because all human life is sacred.

It was Bernadin's view that it was inconsistent to protect life in some situations but not in others.

In the years following Roe v. Wade, Bernardin argued that human life is always valuable and must be respected consistently from conception to natural death.

Being pro-life is not only about abortion or euthanasia.

Being pro-life must encompass war, poverty, access to health care, education and anything that threatens human life or human wellbeing, he argued.

Stephen Lowe, the Bishop of Auckland, the Apostolic Administrator of Hamilton and President of the NZ Catholic Bishops Conference, describes the update as "Opportune".

Lowe says human life and emerging challenges are interconnected.

"The essence of Te Kahu o te Ora is the interconnectedness of all life, from the womb to the Earth," he said.

Lowe says Pope Benedict put it well some years ago:

"There are so many kinds of desert. There is the desert of poverty, the desert of hunger and thirst, the desert of abandonment, of loneliness, of destroyed love. There is the desert of God's darkness, the emptiness of souls no longer aware of their dignity or the goal of human life. The external deserts in the world are growing, because the internal deserts have become so vast."

"While traditional human life issues continue to need our attention, we are now facing many new problems, all interlinked.

"The key message of Te Kahu o te Ora is that everything is connected, whether it is life in the womb or the life of the Earth," Lowe repeated.

Sources

• Supplied
• Catholic Sun

Tui Ah Loo is talking about the difficulties people face when they're released from prison.

"It is the sentence of judgement, stigma and bias."

As te tumu whakarae or chief executive of a prisoner reintegration agency, Te Pa, she sees how society reacts to them - the NIMBYs (not in my back yard) and NOTEs (not over there either).

Finding housing is the biggest struggle, Ah Loo says, exacerbated by the housing crisis but also the stigma of being an ex-prisoner or deportee.

She's talking to The Detail about what it is like for prisoners when they are released, following a report called Paying the Price.

It says that inmates not only face barriers to reintegration when they leave, but they also take big problems into prison, such as financial debts, which grow during the term of their sentence.

The author of the report, Victoria University senior law lecturer Victoria Stace, says the debts range from unpaid taxes and child support to unpaid phone bills.

Without anyone to do a checklist of what they owe at the start of their sentence, most prisoners leave them unpaid - only to face bigger bills when they are released.

Stace says it is difficult for prisoners to access their bank accounts, if they even have one, because they do not have internet or personal phones.

"You can send a letter by regular post. That is the most common way that we know of that most (prisoners) try and contact their bank."

The report recommends the creation of a universal number that prisoners are allowed to use that links them to their bank or a central point where they can sort out their debts.

Stace is also calling for the banks, government and prisons to work together to enable prisoners to set up bank accounts before they are released.

Without a bank account they cannot immediately get a benefit, she says.

"Some financial mentors said if they can't get their benefit straight away, that's a real problem because they need an income and if they've got no income, their options are very limited."

A number of agencies operate around the country, helping prisoners with accommodation, work and other life basics. Ah Loo explains how Te Pa - which is 90 percent government-funded, 10 percent philanthropy - interviews prisoners before they leave.

"So on their release day we're there picking them up and that service provides them with immediate need on release, food, clothing, shelter," she says.

Te Pa works with about 1,000 short- and long-term prisoners a year, giving them a place in a home that the agency owns or rents. Read more

• Sharon Brettkelly is co-host of The Detail
• First published by RNZ. Republished with permission.

Some propose peace simply defined as a halt to the fighting.

They cite the suffering: More than 300,000 Ukrainian and Russian soldiers have been killed or wounded, thousands of civilians have been killed, and more than nine million Ukrainians have been displaced and have become refugees.

Sirens, shortages, and missiles continuously frighten Ukrainian civilians; trauma and grief pervade. And no end is in sight.

Running through Pope Francis' more than 100 statements about the war is the leitmotif that war itself is the problem—absurd, a tragedy, a defeat for humanity.

More coolly, political realists say that Ukraine does not stand a reasonable chance of rolling back the Russian invasion and that trying to do so risks nuclear war.

And in the United States, some politicians call for scaling back a commitment to Ukraine that is expensive and, they say, not in our national interest. All of these voices put forth minimal peace, prioritising an end to the fighting.

The implication is that Ukraine should be coaxed or forced into negotiating.

An end to the war is not true peace, though if it means an end to Ukraine.

Sts Augustine and Thomas Aquinas held that the purpose of a just war is a just peace.

Pope Paul VI echoed this point on the Day of Peace in 1972 with a statement titled "If You Want Peace, Work for Justice."

A just peace would reverse Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 and its bids to control Ukrainian territory since 2014—frontal assaults on the most basic tenet of international law, the integrity of sovereign states.

Motivating this aggression is Mr Putin's version of peace, a "Pax Russica" that denies Ukraine's existence as a nation.

But recognising this manifestly unjust peace, Pope Francis has increasingly amended his previous neutrality and condemned Russia's aggression.

Ukraine's counteroffensive and its allies' supplying of arms to it, then, are justified.

In a Christian ethic, though, a just peace involves more than defeating aggression.

The just war ethic that dominates Christian thought on war and peace took shape during the Middle Ages when the church adopted a concept of justice from Roman law: the constant will to render another his due.

This concept came to dominate modern international law, which means the rights of nations and people to be independent. Russia's exit is thus "due" to Ukraine.

The notion of justice as rendering due, though, has occluded the original justice of the Bible, which means comprehensive right relationship, expressed by the Hebrew term sedeq and the Greek term dikaiosune.

This justice is compatible with rights and law but is wider, also including virtues such as gift-giving and performing mercy.

It culminates in God's reconciliation of the world to himself in the cross and resurrection, which the Apostle Paul describes as God's justice.

A season of war may not seem to be a time to speak of reconciliation and peacebuilding.

These words exude a symmetry of fault, suggesting that both sides must recognise their own wrongs and embrace each other.

Meanwhile, Ukrainians are fighting and dying to secure the freedom of their assaulted nation.

Reconciliation, though, is not relativism, nor is peacebuilding moral passivity.

Aspiring to restore the right relationship, just reconciliation recognises the balance of injustices in the war. Continue reading

• Daniel Philpott is a professor of political science at the University of Notre Dame. He is the author of Just and Unjust Peace: An Ethic of Reconciliation (2012) and has been involved in reconciliation as an activist in Kashmir and in the Great Lakes Region of Africa, as well as in efforts to address the sexual abuse crisis in the Catholic Church.

In Islam, forgiveness suggests alignment with Allah.

In Judaism, acts of atonement — or Teshuva — are expected for wrongdoing.

In Christianity, forgiveness is unconditional, by loving one's enemies as oneself.

Throughout human history, religion and science have often been framed as conflicting with one another. Advances in biology, cosmology and neuroscience can challenge traditional religious interpretations.

The tension between what science can measure and what a faith teaches, such as the theory of evolution or stem cell research, can be exacerbated by political concerns rather than underlying theological beliefs and practices.

The modern world is complex, and the challenges we face are multi-faceted and interconnected.

To become more resilient, we must draw upon the best of scientific insight and spiritual wisdom — finding inspiration through religious texts like the Torah, the Bible and the Quran and using the most rigorous scientific methods to shed new light on age-old teachings.

When it comes to the transformative power of forgiveness, scientists and faith leaders agree on its benefits for long-term mental and physical health.

It is clear that the ability to forgive — to transform anger and resentment into hope and healing — can indeed be a restorative and healing act requiring faith.

But forgiveness is also backed by an ever-growing body of scientific evidence, one that refines and extends our faith in new ways.

The distinct realms of science and faith traditions are endeavouring to understand the inner workings of forgiveness and to share that gift of knowledge with people from all walks of life around the world.

A strong example of a faith community practicing forgiveness in the midst of unthinkable violence, loss and deep sorrow is the Amish Community.

The October 2006 shooting at the West Nickel Mines School in the Old Order Amish Community, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, left five female hostages dead along with the gunman.

Before news spread of this tragic event, the Amish elders called on the younger Amish community not to harbour anger or seek revenge. "How did the Amish decide so quickly to extend forgiveness?

That question brought laughter from some Amish people we interviewed," writes Donald B. Kraybill in the book, "Amish Grace, How Forgiveness Transcended Tragedy."

"You mean some people actually thought we got together to plan forgiveness? … Forgiveness was a decided issue … it's just what we do as nonresistant people. It was spontaneous. It was automatic. It was not a new thing," quotes Kraybill.

The Old Order Amish Community certainly practiced "decisional" forgiveness — modifying behaviour to reduce direct hostility.

They may have practiced "emotional" forgiveness, using empathy and compassion to transform negative emotions into positive ones.

Forgiveness experts would suggest that while the community's approach is rooted in faith, the combination of decisional and emotional forgiveness is continually reinforced by the value it brings to the individual who forgives.

Forgiveness is not the same as justice, which is an equally important but altogether separate concept.

One doesn't need to reconcile with the offender or repair a relationship.

Forgiveness works even when it is unilateral.

We now know that to receive the most powerful benefits of forgiveness, it requires both the head and heart.

Decisional forgiveness, which accesses the cognitive centres of the brain, must be accompanied by emotional forgiveness, which involves a full range of affective consequences.

In addition, over the past two decades, research has delivered high-quality evidence that forgiveness improves overall health and well-being, down-regulates the body's stress response and improves cardiovascular outcomes.

And for those whose ability to forgive may not be as automatic, scientific knowledge based on tested interventions can support the work of spiritual leaders who seek to help their communities with their forgiveness journeys.

Likewise, scientific research has engaged directly with aspects of faith, demonstrating through empirical studies how belief can enhance a person's ability to forgive.

Across dozens of scientific studies in diverse contexts, the physical and mental health benefits of forgiveness have been validated.

At the Templeton World Charity Foundation, we continue to fund these investigations to increase awareness of the incredible potential for forgiveness to improve lives and have partnered with Religions for Peace to drive a larger campaign for individuals to "Discover Forgiveness."

The campaign aims to share the scientific benefits of forgiveness.

Evidence-backed tools such as the REACH forgiveness model, based on more than 30 studies testing its efficacy, provide a way to practice a set of steps that allow individuals to consider forgiving themselves, others and even God.

There are several tools like these, but the articulated steps, studied and verified, are where scientific methodologies prove to enhance spiritual principles.

Religious leaders around the world have seen firsthand that fostering and practicing forgiveness has the power to transform deep-seated responses to memories and legacies of injustice, conflict and war.

It can liberate people from being imprisoned in their pasts and the long-ingrained mental and emotional conditions created by such legacies.

Faith and spiritual traditions have long guided and inspired us to awaken the best of our human potential, to practice love, mercy, forgiveness and reconciliation and to reshape our destinies.

We invite you to continue to reflect on the journeys of forgiveness. We firmly believe that we all need forgiveness in our lives, families, communities, institutions and nations.

• Dr Andrew Serazin is the co-chair of the Discover Forgiveness campaign and president of the Templeton World Charity Foundation. Prof. Dr Azza Karam is the secretary general of Religions for Peace International.
• First published in RNS. Republished with permission.

Survivor advocates are critical of the move, saying providing guidance could help cast accused priests in an overly sympathetic light.

The Association of US Catholic Priests (AUSCP) say the guidance is necessary.

It notes over the last 20 years diocesan leaders have failed to respect priests' rights under canon law. In some cases the accused clerics have languished in administrative "limbo" for several years while civil and church authorities investigate allegations.

The AUSCP is mailing the guidelines and an accompanying wallet-sized card to the United States' 30,000-plus diocesan and religious priests.

"We're not taking a position on whether someone is guilty or not guilty. We're saying there's due process, here's what it is, and we will help you access it if you don't get that help from your diocese," AUSCP says.

AUSCP members say they're not looking to deflect attention from survivors or obstruct investigations of clergy sex abuse. Abusers should be held accountable for their crimes, they stress.

The critics

While they agree that due process is important, clergy sexual abuse survivors and their advocates say placing too much emphasis on the accused priests' plight risks a return the days of dismissing victims and protecting abusers.

Falsely accused priests' anguish is "minor compared with the pain, the loss and the betrayal experienced by survivors, their families and their parish communities," says one concerned commentator.

Another cited research that he said underscores the reality that the ranks of clergy sex abuse survivors outnumber those of falsely-accused priests" by an order of magnitude.

"We recognise that anyone accused of a crime in America has a right to due process.

"We also reaffirm that we believe survivors and will support those who come forward with allegations of abuse as, far more likely than not, their stories are true."

Justice

"I don't try to get guilty priests [acquitted], that's not my job," says a member of Justice for Priests and Deacons, an organisation that advises clergy members of their canonical rights.

Other members say clergy have rights under canon law. But Church leaders have often disregarded those rights, especially over the 20 years since the US bishops adopted the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People.

The AUSCP agrees. "Perhaps the pendulum has gone too far the other way ... where you're guilty until proven innocent, which is the exact opposite of what's fair and just."

A civil and canon lawyer not affiliated with the AUSCP says he sees the initiative as "an attempt to bring the pendulum back a little bit more towards the middle, where it should be.

"The investigation should be made before you take action against the priest."

"No bishop wants to keep in place someone who does turn out to be an abuser of children," he said. "The problem is that not every charge is true."

Source

• NCR Online

Allegations made by lawyer Tony Ellis implicate New Zealand's two most senior judges in an affair that reflects badly on the judiciary and its handling of concerns about Hawke's Bay Family Court Judge Peter Callinicos.

What Ellis has disclosed will almost certainly serve to reinforce perceptions that Callinicos has been the target of a furtive - in fact you might say conspiratorial - gang-up.

According to Ellis, the case threatens judicial independence and has caused a major rift among judges.

Senior lawyers are scratching their heads trying to recall whether any judicial squabble has ever before been aired so publicly.

Figuratively speaking, the fire is in the fern and threatening to singe some illustrious names.

In an incendiary letter to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner, Alan Ritchie, Ellis has alleged that:

• Callinicos was "unlawfully lobbied" by Chief District Court Judge Heemi Taumaunu and Principal Family Court Judge Jackie Moran, together known as the Heads of Bench, over his handling of a case that was then still in progress.
• Ritchie, whose role is to assess complaints about the conduct of judges, "irrevocably compromised" his independence through the way he dealt with concerns about Callinicos.
• Callinicos was investigated without his knowledge and with no opportunity to defend himself.
• Callinicos himself claims he received "misleading and bullying" correspondence from the two senior judges, known as the Heads of Bench, and was the subject of "scathing" letters sent to Ritchie by the Heads of Bench and by the second-ranked judge of the Supreme Court, Justice William ("Willie") Young.
• Ritchie predetermined Callinicos's guilt without his knowledge and without giving him a chance to respond to criticism.
• Ellis quotes Callinicos as saying: " … the dumping of this unilateral crap into [the] public domain compounds the injustice as I have no recourse in the investigation, or in the public eye."
• Chief Justice Dame Helen Winkelmann and Young are implicated in the affair by allegedly failing to disclose that Young was involved in behind-the-scenes discussions about the case.
• Young reached conclusions about the case without giving Callinicos an opportunity to put his side.

According to Callinicos, 60 of New Zealand's 180-odd judges have contacted him expressing their support.

Callinicos is quoted as saying the actions of his judicial superiors have sent "shivers of fear" through the District Court, of which the Family Court is part.

Ellis accused Ritchie of kowtowing to senior judges and added: "A well-informed independent observer would ask the question: "Who are the bullies here, Judge Callinicos, or Justice William Young and the Chief Justice?"

Readers of this blog will be familiar with the background.

In the Family Court, Callinicos thwarted Oranga Tamariki's underhand attempts to remove a girl - whom Stuff named Moana - from a loving, stable home and place her with unfamiliar Maori caregivers on the pretext that her Pakeha foster parents weren't meeting her "cultural needs".

In a 145-page judgment, Callinicos tore into Oranga Tamariki social workers over their conduct in the case.

His ruling rapidly escalated into a dispute over judicial independence when it emerged that Taumaunu and Moran had intervened in the case, apparently at the urging of the then acting Oranga Tamariki CEO Wira Gardiner.

Callinicos protested that this action compromised his judicial independence - a point subsequently taken up by Ellis and other unnamed lawyers in complaints to Ritchie.

In a preliminary report issued last week, Ritchie inflamed the issue further when he found that the two senior judges had not acted inappropriately. Extraordinarily, he appears to have reached this conclusion without bothering to speak to Callinicos.

That provoked Ellis into lodging the further complaint implicating Winkelmann and Young.

In this latest complaint, a copy of which has been sent to Attorney-General David Parker, Ellis alleges that when Winkelmann and Young met lawyers acting for Callinicos, they failed to disclose that Young "had been involved in making a finding that Judge Callinicos bullied witnesses [in the Moana case] and that the Chief Justice concurred".

Ellis continued: "Justice William Young, in reaching a conclusion that Judge Callinicos had made comments that were disproportionate and inappropriate, [had] made gratuitous criticisms, and engaged in what appears to be bullying, following an investigation which did not seek input from Judge Callinicos, and taking no action to seek such input himself, this undermined judicial independence. The Chief Justice's concurrence compounded this error."

Ellis challenged Ritchie to recuse himself from further consideration of the case, writing: "Your approach has created not just actual bias, or its appearance, but worse created a scandal not seen since Edwards [a landmark case from 1892], and has now implicated not only … the Chief District Court Judge and the Principal Family Court Judge, but now also the Chief Justice, and Justice William Young, NZ's second highest ranked Supreme Court Judge as well."

What is now clear is that judicial concerns about Callinicos date back to his handling of a controversial unrelated case in April involving a woman named as Mrs P, whose cause was taken up by feminist academics and sympathetic journalists who claimed she was mistreated in Callinicos's court.

According to leaked documents published by Stuff last week, Young had been providing "advice" to the Heads of Bench about Callinicos, apparently without his knowledge, since then.

Young was reported as saying in a letter to Ritchie that there seemed to be a pattern of conduct by Callinicos and those on the receiving end "considered, understandably, that they had been bullied".

He had read transcripts from the Mrs P and Moana cases and saw the intervention of Callinicos as "excessive, partisan and demeaning".

Even from a non-legal standpoint, this seems an extraordinary way of going about things.

Callinicos appears to have been investigated behind his back by the country's second most senior judge and been given no chance to respond to accusations against him.

According to Ellis, that's a denial of natural justice.

Meanwhile, questions arise about apparent bias in the media coverage of the Mrs P case, which unquestioningly took her side and almost certainly contributed to the anti-Callinicos mood.

People familiar with the case say the coverage didn't fairly reflect a long and complicated history dating back to 2012 and involving multiple judges.

In fact, media coverage of the Callinicos affair by Stuff - the only media organisation to report the Moana case and its repercussions - forms an intriguing sub-plot to the main narrative.

While coverage of the Moana case by Stuff's veteran Hawke's Bay reporter Marty Sharpe has seemed fair, neutral and balanced, the same can't be said for the loaded reporting of the Mrs P case.

Kirsty Johnston, the Stuff journalist who reported the protest in support of Mrs P by women academics and "domestic violence experts" in April, wrote a story published last Friday which highlighted Young's claim that Callinicos had bullied Mrs P and subjected her to demeaning treatment.

To bolster the story, Johnston went back to the same "anti-violence advocacy group" she had quoted in April.

Not surprisingly they obliged by calling for Callinicos to be "made accountable" for the Mrs P case and others he had presided over.

No one reading the story would have been left in any doubt that Callinicos had behaved reprehensibly.

After all, even the country's second most senior judge apparently thought so.

Coincidentally or otherwise, Stuff gave that story far greater prominence than one published a day earlier by Sharpe, which took a notably more neutral (and therefore less condemnatory) tone in reporting Ritchie's preliminary finding in the Callinicos case.

Johnston followed her Friday hit-job on Callinicos with another the following day targeting retired Hawke's Bay judge Tony Adeane, who was in the frame for several cases in which his decisions were overturned on appeal because of faults in the way he had directed juries.

Two stories on successive days, both reflecting badly on ageing male judges?

It looked suspiciously like a pattern - an impression reinforced by Johnston's description of herself on the Stuff website as "an investigative journalist with an interest in inequality, gender and social justice".

An activist, in other words, who by her self-description inevitably creates doubts about the neutrality of her work.

But at least Stuff published the stories, which is more than can be said for its treatment of the latest disturbing claims by Ellis, which apparently warranted not a word of coverage, although a copy of his letter had been sent to Sharpe.

Put all this together and you get a very worrying picture.

Courts are supposed to prevent abuses of power and the media are supposed to expose them.

The worrying conclusion to be drawn from the Callinicos affair is that we may no longer be able to depend on these two vital institutions to guard our rights and freedoms.

• Karl du Fresne has been in journalism for more than 50 years. He is now a freelance journalist and blogger living in the Wairarapa region of New Zealand.
• First published by Karl du Fresne. Republished with permission.

It's time to declare that George Pell is innocent of the preposterous charges he faced in the County Court of Victoria and to move on for the good of everyone, including bona fide complainants and victims of child sexual abuse in institutions.

Because of the suppression orders put in place by the County Court, you were unable to follow the trials of Cardinal George Pell day by day. That's why I was asked to attend the proceedings. That's why I have published a book, Observations on the Pell Proceedings - so you can make your own assessment of the evidence.

My book is dedicated ‘to those who seek truth, justice and healing and to those who have been denied them'. Having followed the Pell proceedings closely, I am convinced that the case did nothing to help bona fide complainants, victims, and their supporters.

I write in the introduction: "The failures of the Victoria police, prosecution authorities, and the two most senior Victorian judges in these proceedings did nothing to help the efforts being made to address the trauma of institutional child sexual abuse. As a society we need to do better, and the legal system needs to play its part."

I am convinced that light and healing can be more readily sought and hoped for if appropriate steps are taken to correct the errors made in the Pell proceedings. The compounding errors resulted in the unanimous judgment of the High Court of Australia which placed the Victorian criminal justice system in a very poor light.

I was left in no doubt. Cardinal Pell was innocent of these charges. He should never have even been charged.

At the first trial, the jury could not agree. So a second trial was held at which Pell was convicted of all five charges. The Victorian Court of Appeal upheld the convictions by 2-1.

The dissenting judge was Mark Weinberg, the most experienced criminal appeal court judge in the country.

He has now completely retired from the bench having taken up the demanding task of Special Investigator into the Afghanistan war crime allegations.

The High Court sat all seven judges on the final appeal. They were unanimous in their judgment signing on to just one statement of reasons ordering that Pell's "convictions be quashed and judgments of acquittal be entered in their place."

At trial, the defence called no evidence.

Cardinal Pell arrives at the County Court in Melbourne on 27 February 2019. He was jailed after being found guilty of child sexual abuse.

The prosecution's main witness was the complainant ‘J' (his name was and remains suppressed) who described what he said he recalled having happened to him and his friend, the now-deceased ‘R', in 1996 when they were 13 years of age. But the prosecution also called, at the request of the defence, a lot of other witnesses who were involved with the solemn masses celebrated in St Patrick's Cathedral Melbourne in late 1996 - sacristan, MC, choristers, choirmaster and organist.

Given that it was alleged that four of the five offences were said to have occurred in the priests' sacristy shortly after mass when usually you expect to find altar servers in attendance, it was surprising that the police did not interview any altar servers and the prosecution was not minded to call any altar servers until the defence forced their hand.

By the time of the second trial, two altar servers recommended for inclusion by the defence were called by the prosecution to give evidence. One of these altar servers, Jeff Connor, had a comprehensive diary which allowed the prosecution to identify the only possible dates for the offences to have occurred: 15 and 22 December 1996.

The other altar server, Daniel McGlone who is now a barrister, provided evidence of his attendance at one of these masses where he and his mother met Archbishop Pell on the steps after mass.

Fr Frank Brennan SJ. The high-profile legal expert attended the Pell proceedings and, after hearing the prosecution case, became convinced the cardinal was innocent. PHOTO: ACU

The High Court noted: "The trial judge held that evidence adduced by the prosecution that was inconsistent with, or likely to contradict, J's account of events, was relevantly "unfavourable". His Honour granted leave to the prosecutor to cross-examine a number of witnesses (and foreshadowed the grant of leave in relation to other witnesses)" with respect to six topics.

Despite having obtained the leave to cross-examine, the prosecution never took up that option and so never challenged the version of events given by the opportunity witnesses.

The six topics included: ‘(i) whether (Pell) was always in the company of another, including (the MC) Portelli or (the sacristan) Potter, when robed; (ii) whether (Pell) always greeted congregants on the steps of the Cathedral following Sunday solemn Mass'.

The High Court noted that this grant of leave to cross-examine ‘reflected the trial judge's satisfaction that the anticipated evidence, if accepted, excluded the realistic possibility of the offending having occurred as J described it.'

The High Court noted, "The honesty of the opportunity witnesses was not in question."

In its conclusion, the High Court realising that the crown case was full of holes decided to focus on just a few essentials. The court saw no need to address all the improbabilities or impossibilities raised by the defence.

The court said: ‘The likelihood of two choirboys in their gowns being able to slip away from the procession without detection; of finding altar wine in an unlocked cupboard; and of the applicant being able to manoeuvre his vestments to expose his penis are considerations that may be put to one side." There was no need to consider the possibility or likelihood of these matters.

Having reviewed all the evidence and having accepted for the purposes of argument that "the Court of Appeal majority did not err in holding that J's evidence of the first incident did not contain discrepancies, or display inadequacies, of such a character as to require the jury to have entertained a doubt as to guilt" the Court went on to conclude:

"It remains that the evidence of witnesses, whose honesty was not in question, (i) placed (Pell) on the steps of the Cathedral for at least ten minutes after Mass on 15 and 22 December 1996; (ii) placed him in the company of Portelli when he returned to the priests' sacristy to remove his vestments; and (iii) described continuous traffic into and out of the priests' sacristy for ten to 15 minutes after the altar servers completed their bows to the crucifix."

Cardinal Pell

So that was it - game, set and match.

On the evidence led in the case, there was no way that Pell and the two boys could have been alone together in the priests' sacristy soon after mass. There was neither time nor place for the offences to be committed. Absent both time and place in any narrative and you are in the realm of fantasy or false memory. The most basic police work would have disclosed this early in an investigation, particularly in a properly run investigation which had the huge resources committed as the Victoria Police dedicated to Operation Tethering which had Pell as its sole focus.

When the complainant J first presented to police on 18 June 2015, he had a fairly simple account of how he, his friend R and Cardinal Pell came to be in the priests' sacristy at St Patrick's Cathedral on their own while Pell did dreadful things to them.

They were finishing mass, and as usual, they were in an internal procession going directly from the sanctuary to the choir room via a corridor which passed the priests' sacristy which they had never previously entered. They would have taken only 56 steps to get there. The two boys started ferreting around going to places they should not go, and they discovered some altar wine in the priests' sacristy and started swilling it.

Mind you, even this account was problematic. Where were all the other people who would be passing along that corridor at that time, and especially, where were the people who would have been coming and going from the priests' sacristy immediately after mass, ferrying things from the sanctuary, bringing in money for collection or counting, concelebrants changing out of their garb etc?

J stated that he never revisited the priests' sacristy until the police took him on a walk through preparing for the case.

The sacristy of St Patrick's Cathedral

If the journalist Louise Milligan were accurate in her reporting and if R's mother was rightly recalling her own conversation with J, J also had another account at that time.

Let me quote Milligan's account directly which purports to be a record of the conversation between Milligan and the mother "sometime after the detectives took her statement" on 1 July 2015, which was after J had provided his first statement to police on 18 June 2015 (but before he made his second statement on 31 July 2015) alleging that the offending had occurred after mass:

"(J) gently told her what he says happened with the Archbishop. "He told me that himself and [my son] used to play in the back of the Church in the closed-off rooms," she says.

"In the cathedral?" I ask her.

"In the cathedral, yep. And um, they got sprung by Archbishop Pell and he locked the door and he made them perform oral sex." (J) still remembered the incident so clearly. Being picked up afterwards by his parents. Staring out the car window on the way home."

In the second edition of her book Cardinal, Milligan changed the detail about a locked door to a blocked door, and omitted all reference to J being picked up by his parents. The effect of these changes was to bring her account more into line with the evidence J gave at trial. Milligan doesn't explain whether the other boy's mother just got these things wrong or whether Milligan got them wrong. But it doesn't much matter.

This second account of recurring ferreting in back rooms when no one else was around was dropped altogether, or more accurately never adopted by the prosecution.

Milligan didn't give it much more of a run. It became generally known that Pell did not live at the cathedral presbytery and was only ever there for major liturgical events.

Then-Victorian Court of Appeal Justice Mark Weinberg. While Justices Chris Maxwell and Anne Ferguson upheld Cardinal Pell's conviction, Justice Weinberg dissented.

The first account of a one-off escapade straight after mass received a considerable re-working.

You will recall that Shane Patton (who when appointed Victorian Police Commissioner in June 2020 was described as ‘forthright and analytical', with his colleagues saying he was ‘right into the detail' ) led a couple of his men to Rome to interview Cardinal Pell on 19 October 2016. At the interview, Detective Sergeant Chris Reed was accompanied by Detective Inspector Paul Sheridan.

Preparing for the record of interview, Pell had thought, in light of the preliminary written details given him by the police, that the allegations related to assaults in a back room of the cathedral some time after choir practice when others would not be around - much like the Milligan account which was published a year later.

But it was now made clear to him that the allegation was that the assaults occurred soon after solemn 11am mass in the priests' sacristy. Having heard that, Pell must have thought that the police would realise that J's allegations were unreliable, if not ridiculous.

At the outset in the interview Pell told the police: "The allegations relating to Saint Patrick's cathedral are … the products of fantasy." He went on to say:

"The most rudimentary interview of staff and those who were choir boys at the cathedral in that year and later would confirm that the allegations are fundamentally improbable and most certainly false and I invite my interviewers to tell me who they've spoken to and I'm happy to provide them in due course the persons who can speak authoritatively about my functions, presence and conduct at the cathedral generally and more particularly at times when abuse is alleged to have occurred."

"I would earnestly hope that this is done before any decision is made whether to lay charges because immeasurable damage will be done to me and to the church by the mere laying of charges which on proper examination will later be found to be untrue. Thank you."

Detective Sergeant Chris Reed responded, "Thank you. I appreciate that."

Mr Reed, Mr Patton, and Detective Superintendent Sheridan returned to Australia and did nothing of the sort. Pell gave the police four vital pieces of information of which they were previously unaware, and which should have brought the investigation to an end after some very simple police work back home.

Click book to buy

Four vital pieces of information from the Pell record of interview, 19 October 2016

1. The Hive of Activity in the Priests' Sacristy After Mass
The first vital piece of information was that there would be a hive of activity in the priests' sacristy after mass, including the sacristan, his assistant, money collectors, concelebrants and altar servers.

Pell told the police that they should go back to Melbourne and interview these people who would be able to corroborate his claim that it was just not possible for Pell to be alone in that place at that time with two choir boys. Here are Pell's actual words spoken at the record of interview:

"Now, the sacristy after mass is generally a hive of activity because you've … well have got the sacristan there and often you had an assistant sacristan. If there were concelebrants, they would divest. The servers would get out of their vestments. The collectors would bring in the collection. The sacristan and the assistants would be bringing the chalice and the vessels out from the altar. Now, I was always accompanied by my master of ceremonies after the mass, so he would come around with me and help me unrobe. It was just the protocol."

When J's version was put to him, Pell said, "What a load of absolute and disgraceful rubbish. Completely false. Madness. All sorts of people used to come to the sacristy to speak to the priest. The sacristans were around, and altar servers were around. This is the sacristy at the cathedral after Sunday Mass?"

Mr Reed replied, "yes'" To which Pell responded, "Well, need I say anymore. What a load of garbage and falsehood and deranged falsehood. My master of ceremonies will be able to say that he was always with me after the ceremonies until we went back to the car park or back to the presbytery. The sacristan was around. The altar servers were around. People were coming and going."

The police led by Mr Patton with an eye for detail returned to Melbourne and did not interview one single money collector nor one single altar server.

By the time of the second trial, the police had been provided with the diary of an altar server Jeff Connor who documented key participants at each mass. Here is Robert Richter's cross examination of Christopher Reed the lead investigator at trial:

Yes. One of the interesting things about his diary is you were able to establish, from his diary, the names of a whole lot of altar servers, who were relevant to the relevant period?

- Well, relevant period. There was altar servers - I don't - I actually don't recall reading the - a name of altar servers in the diary of Mr Connor.

Well, in the diary entries he has lunch, they have regular lunches?

- Okay.

Do you recall reading something like that, and he names them? For example, in July, ‘Serves luncheon at Jimmy Watson's Lygon Street, Carlton, with Ray, Ralph' and a few other names there that I can't read?

- I don't recall that entry, no.

All right. They had regular lunches, get togethers, the altar servers, the adults?

- Okay.

You accept that, don't you?

- Yes, I'll accept that, yes.

So what happens is this; apart from the fact that we tracked down Mr Connor you had not tracked down any altar servers at all?

- No, that's correct.

But the altar servers were a very, very important part of this investigation?

- Well, not during the investigative stage, no, we were concerned with the choir boys specifically, because the events that have been alleged occurred surrounding the choir boys, not the altar servers that were in a different location and had a different role.

But there weren't any choir boys present when this happened, alleged to have happened?

- Well, there weren't any altar servers.

There weren't any of those present … ?

- There weren't any altar servers alleged to be present either.

Correct, but the altar servers took part in processions in the same way that the choir boys took part in the processions?

- That's correct, yes.

And not just that, the altar boys were more important because the altar boys were in a position to say what they did after mass in the priest sacristy?

- Evidence has been given to that effect, yes.

Yes, and you accept that?

- I accept the evidence that's given, yeah.

So the situation is that apart from Jeff Connor - it was certainly possible to ask him for the names of other altar servers who were operational at the time?

- Yes, it was.

But he was never asked by anyone in the taskforce?

- No, he wasn't.

No attempt was made by the police on their return from Rome to contact any altar server, or any money collector, or any concelebrant.

Why?

Because J said none of them was in attendance. Pell had told them that these people would routinely have been in attendance in the very spot and at the very time that the offending was alleged to have occurred. Instead of investigating the allegations, the police simply accepted J's account unquestioningly including the assertion that there were no altar servers present during any of the periods that the first incident could have occurred.

They interviewed no altar servers. But they interviewed over 30 choristers.

Why?

Because J was a chorister. Choristers don't enter the priests' sacristy after mass, unless of course they are misbehaving.

This policing technique, if applied to other cases, would compromise many a criminal investigation. Let's consider an example where police receive a report of a crime, not from a victim but from someone who is simply an honest eyewitness. Imagine if a pedestrian claimed to witness a bank robbery, telling the police that she did not see any bank tellers in attendance when the bank vault was raided.

The police then spend 18 months interviewing 30 other pedestrians, but they decide not to interview any bank tellers because the pedestrian witness said she did not see any. The police would want to interview all available bank tellers if only to learn from them what their usual practices were, assisting the police to understand how the robbery could possibly have happened.

The necessity of interviewing the bank tellers as part of a proper investigation is underscored if there is evidence that routinely bank tellers would be in attendance at the time the robbery occurred.

2. The Procession Route

During the record of interview, Pell told the police that it was usual after a solemn mass in the cathedral celebrated by the archbishop that the whole entourage including the choir of up to 60 members would not recess simply by way of an internal procession of 56 steps from the sanctuary direct to the sacristy.

Rather with the full fanfare of a recessional hymn followed by an Organ Voluntary, they would all process down the central nave exiting at the west door, then engaging in an external procession around the south side of the cathedral. I've measured that route at 308 steps. Together with the cathedral MC I have walked the route at procession speed. It takes about four and a half minutes. I should note that being over 6' 4", my steps tend to be more than average.

Pell told the police to go back to Melbourne and speak to the relevant people. When they got back to Melbourne the police found that cathedral personnel like the MC Monsignor Charles Portelli, the choirmaster Mr John Mallinson, the organist Dr Geoff Cox, and the sacristan Mr Max Potter confirmed what Pell had said about external processions.

If the weather were inclement or if Pell had another appointment shortly after mass, they would do an internal procession. But otherwise they would process externally. There would be lots of tourists around. It was obviously something of a spectacle. J seemed to be on his own, claiming that internal processions were routine and the order of the day.

By the time of the committal proceedings in March 2018, J's evidence was that on the day of the first four offences there had indeed been an external procession, and not an internal procession as he had earlier claimed in his police statements of 18 June 2015 and 31 July 2015 and in his later walk-through with the police on 29 March 2016 at the cathedral.

Victorian Supreme Court Justices Chief Justice Ferguson and President Maxwell wrote in their judgment: "In the 2016 walk-through, J said that the choir would come up and down the internal sacristy corridor every Sunday, before and after Mass."

For some unexplained reason, J remained fixed on the idea that he and R gained access to the priests' sacristy via the corridor they would have used if it had still been an internal procession. He described a two step route. First there was an external procession.

Second, when he and R got close to the south transept, the two of them without any prior planning and without any discussion peeled off from the procession, entering the cathedral via one of the doors at the south transept, then following the corridor which they would have taken if it were an internal procession. I have measured that route. It is 277 steps.

By the time Pell came to his first trial in the County Court in August 2018, J was confronted with a mountain of evidence from other witnesses called by the prosecution who claimed that it would be very difficult for two young boy sopranos at the front of the procession to peel off from the procession while it was still in train outside the cathedral, and to do so without being seen by others including adult choir members who would have been in line behind them with a clear line of sight.

Later, J's evidence became that he and R had remained in the procession until it reached the toilet corridor hidden from the view of the tourists. The toilet corridor is a narrow passageway outside the cathedral that provides access to public toilets and to the sacristies via a locked door.

J and another chorister Andrew La Greca (on whom Louise Milligan was very reliant ) gave evidence that by the time the procession reached the toilet corridor, order was breaking down and people were starting to disperse. So while inside the toilet corridor which is just 1.33m wide, J and R spontaneously and without any prior planning or discussion decided to go against the flow, finding their way out of the toilet corridor, back to the south transept then resuming the route which they would have taken to the priests' sacristy if indeed it had been an internal procession.

He insisted that they walked; they did not run. I have measured this new convoluted route at 408 steps. It takes five and a half minutes.

By the time of the second trial, the prosecution, searching to find the six minutes during which the offending was said to have occurred, had postulated that the offending must have occurred during the private prayer time after mass.

This six minutes was said to be the time that the sacristan Max Potter allowed for congregants to pray uninterrupted after mass before he got his altar servers to start their clearing duties on the sanctuary.

This six minutes had to elapse before the altar servers leading the procession had reached the priests' sacristy when they bowed to the crucifix at the end of their procession, and before they commenced their duties ferrying sacred items from the sanctuary to the priests' sacristy.

So here was the problem. J claimed that he and R were ferreting around and "would have only been in the room for a couple of minutes maximum before Pell came in."

But on the final version put the jury, they had already spent at least five and a half minutes on the convoluted new route getting to the sacristy in the first place. Mind you, it would have taken them longer than that because J said they were poking around various places before they got to the priests' sacristy.

You'd wonder what the two boys would have discussed with each other before they started their poking around and as they backtracked the 122 steps from the toilet corridor to the south transept and into the priests' sacristy.

Back in Rome, the change of the procession route was the matter which most concerned Detective Superintendent Sheridan. It was the only matter on which he took over from Detective Sergeant Reed during the interview seeking clarification that indeed the usual practice when the weather was fine was for Pell to process down the centre aisle and then to process externally after having stopped for a considerable period of time greeting parishioners on the cathedral steps at the West Door.

Sheridan realised that there were problems with J's account of the internal procession.

As it turned out, there were to be even greater problems with an amended account of an external procession that swallowed up all the available time for the offending to have occurred.

One can only speculate whether Detective Superintendent Sheridan was thereafter unhesitatingly prepared to run with J's account after these warning lights started flashing.

The final route proposed by J not only swallowed up all the possible time for the sacristan Potter to wait before instructing his minions to commence ferrying items from the sanctuary. It created all sorts of imponderables.

How would two 13 year-old boys with no previous planning decide to head off on such a convoluted route? Why wouldn't they have simply continued to the end of the toilet corridor turning left and commencing their ferreting, taking just 22 steps down the corridor which was all so familiar to them, given that they went up and back along that corridor every Sunday as J had told the police during the walk-through in March 2016?

What made them think they would not have been sprung upon entering a sacristy which was decidedly off-limits to the choir?

For most if not all of the six minutes during which Potter was allowing time for people to say their prayers after mass, J and his companion were not walking directly to the priests' sacristy via the 56 step internal procession, they were on a convoluted outside procession and cutback of 408 steps which would have taken them at least five and a half minutes before you factor in the additional couple of minutes for ferreting around, finding the wine and swigging it.

St Patrick's Cathedral Melbourne

3. Greeting on the Steps

Pell also told the police at the record of interview that his practice was to greet congregants on the steps at the west door after mass.

In his record of interview, Pell said, "I mean let me - let me start to roll out - most things on these or this story is counter factual and with a bit of luck I'll be able to demonstrate point by point. The first thing is that after every mass I would stay out at the front of the cathedral and talk to people."

The prosecution willingly conceded that this protocol might have developed later in Pell's ministry but they questioned whether Pell would have spent very long on the steps after his first two solemn masses as archbishop at 11am on the Sunday.

Anyone with experience of these things knows that the new archbishop once he stopped on the steps to greet people would have been besieged by his new parishioners.

At his first couple of masses, he would have been more likely to spend more time rather than less greeting those keen to meet their new pastor. If in any doubt about Pell's style and practice at this time, just consider the two page feature done on Pell in the Melbourne Age the month before these critical masses.

ABC journalist Louise Milligan leaves the Magistrates Court on 27 March 2018 after having been ordered to transcribe shorthand notes of conversations she had with Cardinal Pell's alleged victims.

Karen Kissane ended her 4,000 word article The Gospel According to George describing Pell after a funeral mass at Fawkner parish:

"After the service they spill on to the concrete outside and the older Italians line up in front of Pell to pay their respects. They reach for his hand, then bend and kiss his knuckles or his ring in an ancient gesture of homage. Some wipe away tears. Pell is unsurprised and responds to each one with a few words or a blessing. Later, when he tries to pose for a photograph, he is surrounded by a flock of giggling nonnas half his size who want to get in the picture too.

They are quite unembarrassed; he is their archbishop, the face of their church, and he belongs to them. This is Catholic faith in the old style, ritualised, tribalised and unquestioning." Every minute Pell spent on those steps after the 11am mass further blew out of the water the prosecution theory that Pell could have been back in the sacristy within six minutes of leaving the sanctuary.

Even if he'd proceeded directly from the sanctuary without stopping to greet a single parishioner, he would have needed to take 308 steps over a four and a half minute period which would have commenced after everyone else had processed before him, including 60 members of the choir and a handful of altar servers.

You will appreciate that the person at the rear of a procession of at least 70 people processing in twos arrives at the final destination some time after those at the head of the procession. Neither Pell nor J would have made it to the sacristy within the private prayer time, even if that time ran for six minutes rather than two minutes at most as Mallinson had testified.

One day when visiting the cathedral taking measurements, I was told by the MC that the archbishop leaves the sacristy at 10.54am precisely, when celebrating the 11am mass.

So it usually takes the archbishop and his entourage up to six minutes to process at the beginning of mass from the sacristy to the west door of the cathedral. The procession of choristers, servers, concelebrants and archbishop would take the same time to return.

Servers hold candles as the Gospel is proclaimed at Mass in St Patrick's Cathedral. A competent police investigation would have ended the trial against Cardinal George Pell before it even began, writes Fr Frank Brennan SJ

4. Accompanied by MC Portelli

Pell also told the police at the record of interview in Rome that he would have been accompanied at all relevant times by his MC Monsignor Portelli. The prosecution investigated a couple of strategies to separate Pell and Portelli for the critical 6 minutes needed for the offending to occur.

The first strategy took up Portelli's admission that if there was another commitment for the archbishop in the cathedral that afternoon, Portelli might have taken a couple of minutes to reorder the archbishop's speaking notes and liturgical books back at the lectern on the sanctuary. But there were no such scheduled events on these days. It was suggested that the archbishop might have celebrated the evening mass at the cathedral and that might have required Portelli to prepare papers at the lectern.

There was no evidence of that.

When the archbishop celebrates the main solemn mass in the cathedral on a Sunday he does not return to celebrate the low-key evening mass. In any event such an absence would account only for a couple of minutes absence.

A second strategy was attempted unsuccessfully at both trials. The prosecution suggested that Portelli might have ducked out for a smoke while being fully vested himself and while the archbishop was still in procession at the end of mass or while the archbishop was on the steps greeting parishioners.

Both times, the prosecutor had to retract the suggestion before the jury and apologise. Not only was there no evidence to support the suggestion, the only evidence excluded all possibility of the suggestion. The suggestion was put directly to Portelli by the prosecutor and he denied it. For example at the second trial, the prosecutor asked Portelli:

You said you were a 20 cigarettes a day man, mass has been for over an hour, you didn't go outside to have a smoke after mass?
- It would be as appropriate as for instance His Honour walking down William Street dressed as he is smoking a cigarette, which is not done.

When the prosecutor put the suggestion to the jury a second time, this was the indication as to just how difficult it was for the prosecution to find those magical 6 minutes when Pell could be alone together with the two boys in the sacristy.

Conclusion

I've said enough to indicate why no one can seriously question the conclusion of the seven High Court judges. Let me quote to you again their conclusion:

"It remains that the evidence of witnesses, whose honesty was not in question, (i) placed (Pell) on the steps of the Cathedral for at least ten minutes after Mass on 15 and 22 December 1996; (ii) placed him in the company of Portelli when he returned to the priests' sacristy to remove his vestments; and (iii) described continuous traffic into and out of the priests' sacristy for ten to 15 minutes after the altar servers completed their bows to the crucifix.'"

Chief Justice Ferguson and Justice Maxwell denied the validity of this conclusion. By way of contrast, here is what they concluded:

"In our view, taking the evidence as a whole, it was open to the jury to find that the assaults took place in the 5-6 minutes of private prayer time and that this was before the ‘hive of activity' described by the other witnesses began. The jury were not bound to have a reasonable doubt."

The High Court rightly concluded that on the overwhelming weight of evidence neither Pell nor the two boys could have been in the sacristy during those six minutes. The boys were processing and back-tracking and ferreting; Pell was processing down the main aisle and out on the steps greeting his new parishioners.

The High Court rightly concluded that on the overwhelming weight of evidence neither Pell nor the two boys could have been in the sacristy during those six minutes.

Upon the analysis of the High Court and consistent with the painstaking review of the totality of the evidence by the dissenting Justice Weinberg in the Victorian Court of Appeal, there was not the evidence to convict Pell on any of these charges.

Since the High Court decision, no one has come up with even a credible theory as to how Pell and two choir boys could be alone together completely uninterrupted for six minutes in the priests' sacristy soon after mass and before choir rehearsals for the Christmas concert.

If the police had their doubts about the statements of Pell, Portelli and Potter, on their return from Rome in October 2016 they should have sought out and spoken to any altar servers, money collectors and concelebrants who would have been there, before instituting committal proceedings 18 months later.

In the Rome interview, Pell had provided the police with an inconvenient truth: J's account was just not credible. But, undaunted by this inconvenient truth, the police returned to Melbourne and pursued their unsustainable case theory.

None of us knows the identity of the complainant, nor should we. When the High Court acquitted Cardinal Pell of all charges, J issued a statement through his lawyer Vivian Waller saying:

"My journey has been long and I am relieved that it is over. I have my ups and downs. The darkness is never far away. Despite the stress of the legal process and public controversy, I have tried hard to keep myself together. I am OK. I hope that everyone who has followed this case is OK."

Earlier, Vivian Waller told Louise Milligan: "My client's had a very long journey. The criminal process has been quite stressful for him and it's not over yet. Like many survivors, my client has experienced depression, loneliness struggle with various issues over time."

Undoubtedly he has suffered additional trauma through the processes of the law, including the appeals all the way to the High Court. Much of it was avoidable. These processes have also re-traumatised many other people who have experienced institutional child sexual abuse and who have placed hope in our legal system. Their situation would have been assisted if the police in this case had undertaken competent policing.

These failures in due process exposed J to needless and avoidable harm and imposed the grossest injustice on Cardinal Pell.

From the moment VicPol laid charges, the reality was that Pell had to prove his innocence to the public. VicPol knew that the mere laying of these charges against Pell would devastate, if not destroy his reputation, in the community. In part, VicPol, therefore, bears the responsibility for the appalling scenes of vitriol and abuse outside the County Court after Pell's conviction became known.

Everything said by the High Court and by Justice Weinberg vindicates the claims made by Pell in his record of interview, particularly his claims about an external procession, his greeting parishioners on the steps, his being accompanied by his MC, and the sacristy being a hive of activity.

If only the police had subjected J's recollections and claims to closer scrutiny after learning these recollections of Pell about his usual practice at the cathedral. If only they'd interviewed some of the altar servers. If only they had tracked down and interviewed some of the money collectors and concelebrants. With competent policing, there would have been no need for these trials and appeals.

If only the DPP had insisted that the police provide a brief of evidence capable of countering not only Pell's account, but also the claims made by a string of opportunity witnesses who honestly recalled to the best of their ability what went on at the cathedral during the busiest time of the week.

The DPP has a policy that it ‘not put forward theories that are not supported by evidence'. By the time the case got to the High Court, the DPP appearing in person did put forward theories not supported by the evidence.

Kerri Judd QC asserted wrongly that the altar servers adjourned to the ‘worker sacristy' for the critical minutes, and that the private prayer time might have been much more than six minutes. There was no evidence for either proposition.

She even submitted that the matter should be remitted to the Victorian Court of Appeal because the High Court did not "have before it the material to enable it to determine whether the verdicts are unreasonable or cannot be supported by the evidence."

In its judgment, the High Court described this submission with one word: "specious."

The Pell saga reminds us that we should be grateful that we live in a federation with the High Court of Australia overseeing the criminal justice systems of the states and territories.
It was specious to suggest that the Pell matter be referred back to the Victorian criminal justice system.

When Cardinal Pell walked free from prison, he said, "I hold no ill will toward my accuser, I do not want my acquittal to add to the hurt and bitterness so many feel; there is certainly hurt and bitterness enough. The only basis for long term healing is truth and the only basis for justice is truth, because justice means truth for all."

I hope my book and these remarks contribute to justice, truth and healing.

• Father Frank Brennan SJ is the Rector of Newman College at Parkville in Melbourne and an adjunct professor of law at the Thomas More Law School at Australian Catholic University.
• Republished courtesy of Frank Brennan SJ and the Catholic Weekly.
• Buy the book

Peace is the work for justice and the output of charity.

The Church preaches peace because peace is a sign and fruit of the promise of Christ, the Redeemer.

Peace is more than a detente or a passive-aggressive way of being in the world.

Where peace is the avoidance of decisions or of truth it becomes "peace at any price" and is totally utilitarian, another product to be wheeled out when the politics of the home, country, school, or parish require it.

It is not real peace, because the underlying conflict it covers up still remains because truth has been denied.

Peace and truth go together, just as justice and freedom do because these proclaim the presence of God's Kingdom of which we are the witnesses.

Evangelisation: St Pope Paul VI in his 1975 Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Nuntiandi wrote of the Church's role of evangelisation in the world. He asked three questions:

• In our day, what has happened to that hidden energy of the Good News, which is able to have a powerful effect on human conscience?
• To what extent and in what way is that evangelical force capable of really transforming the people of this century?
• What methods should be followed in order that the power of the Gospel may have its effect?

He continues, ‘The Church is born of the evangelizing activity of Jesus and the Twelve'(5).

The Emmaus experience is each persons', as the Scriptures open our eyes to the presence of God. Born of this, you and I go out to "gospel" others in a way that is inviting, welcoming and freeing. The transformation is an ‘interior change' that moves us to see the Other as friend and not as foe and into conversations with them.

Witness is the key for Pope Paul.

"Above all the Gospel must be proclaimed by witness.

"Take a Christian or a handful of Christians who, in the midst of their own community, show their capacity for understanding and acceptance, their sharing of life and destiny with other people, their solidarity with the efforts of all for whatever is noble and good.

"Let us suppose that, in addition, they radiate in an altogether simple and unaffected way their faith in values that go beyond current values, and their hope in something that is not seen and that one would not dare to imagine.

"Through this wordless witness, these Christians stir up irresistible questions in the hearts of those who see how they live:

• "Why are they like this?
• "Why do they live in this way?
• "What or who is it that inspires them?
• "Why are they in our midst?

"Such a witness is already a silent proclamation of the Good News and a very powerful and effective one.

"Here we have an initial act of evangelization." (21)

Pope Paul continues and notes the need to evangelise baptised people ‘who for the most part have not formally renounced their Baptism but who are entirely indifferent to it and not living in accordance with it.

Christian witness is our call.

Witness must become our flesh!

The most profound call to Christian witness perhaps comes in families, where, fully clothed, we are as it were almost naked; known 'warts and all'.

• Joe Grayland is a theologian and a priest of the Diocese of Palmerston North. His latest book is titled: Catholics. Prayer, Belief and Diversity in a Secular Context (Te Hepara Pai, 2020).

Which way is this going to go?

Not long ago, the Vatican secretary of state, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, echoed a 50-year-old passage from a book by ... wait for it ... Swiss theologian Hans Küng.

Speaking on Spain's church-owned COPE radio network, Parolin underscored the Good Friday theme of Cardinal Raniero Cantalamessa, preacher for the papal household, and (perhaps unknowingly) brought forth a concept delineated by Küng 50 years ago: Some things can change, but internal church divisions are dangerous.

Dangerous they are, and many divisions fostered by the well-funded hard right in the United States are fixated on pelvic issues and incorporate forms of Trumpism.

The relatively disorganized progressive left can tend to cross the line as well, in the opposite direction.

Still some things, Parolin said, can and should change, although "there is a level that cannot be changed, the structure of the church — the deposit of faith, the sacraments, the apostolic ministry — these are the structural elements."

So, who can change what?

Canon law maintains power in the priestly class, although the combined power of the secular purse and the power of media can present checks and balances to clerical power.

But money also supports clericalism.

Money and media, especially social media, demonstrate the dangers of a clerical-political cash-infused soup.

No doubt about it, there are many people only too happy to replace anything vaguely post-Vatican II with their 1950s imaginings.

There are probably just as many people annoyed at the ill-informed preaching of lace-dressed younger clerics and some bishops. (Recently, the bishop of Kildare and Leighlin, preaching during Ireland's RTE radio Mass, spoke about "Mary Magdalene with her colourful past.")

For those who think the Second Vatican Council was a good idea, there are many legitimate issues to discuss and many "merely ecclesiastical laws" that can and should be modified.

And the majority of the church — the lay 99% — want to have a say.

That is where the question of justice rises to the discussion.

Aside from women ordained as deacons, a fact continually affirmed by historians, there are well-researched, well-documented, well-established facts that support lay participation in church governance.

Over the centuries, the church froze the laity out of any participation in governance and jurisdiction, and the Code of Canon law nailed that door shut.

Canon 129.1 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law — written by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger — firmly states that laypeople can cooperate but not participate in the power of governance.

Cash, clericalism, divisions and authority

So how does the church — that means all of us — view what is going on with cash, clericalism, divisions and authority?

The money behind the alt-right is lay money aimed at affecting the way the church reacts to questions of justice: for the poor, for the needy, for women, in addition to the fixation on sexual matters.

Change or no change?

The "no-change" folks have a lot of clerical support. Some "change" folks continue to speak, but many simply walk away.

We know the church can change because it has, usually to maintain clerical power.

Over centuries, the church moved to remove women from any role in the celebration of Eucharist, to keep women outside the altar rail "fence" of superstitious misogyny. (The ridiculous beliefs remain: A bishop told me just the other day that his cathedral rector apologized because a woman was in the sanctuary during the Easter Vigil.)

Yet, there is some light at the top of the clerical ladder.

Pope Francis changed the law so women can be installed as lectors and acolytes. Cantalamessa warned against divisions. And Parolin's talk sounded like a passage from Küng's 1971 book, Why Priests? Küng writes:

A multiplicity of opinions, criticism, and opposition have their legitimate place and require a constant dialogue and the constructive display of contrary ideas.

In all this the private sphere of every member of the Church should be respected (whether they are avant-garde or conservative in nature).

In "matters of faith and morals" nothing can be attained with mere votes. In this regard, where it is impossible to obtain some sort of consensus (not unanimity), it is better to leave the question open according to ancient conciliar tradition.

Echoing Küng, Parolin said: "Sometimes ... one fails to distinguish between what is essential that cannot change and what is not essential that must be reformed, must change according to the spirit of the Gospel."

The secretary of state continued, "There is a whole life of the church that can be renewed."

But is there fear that change will cause the far right to take their money and run? You may recall that the church leaves many questions open because, as Küng points out, "it is impossible to obtain some sort of consensus."

I am not so sure avoiding decisions is the best route.

It is never good to prefer peace to justice.

• Phyllis Zagano is a senior research associate-in-residence at Hofstra University, in Hempstead, New York. Her most recent book is Women: Icons of Christ, and her other books include Women Deacons: Past, Present, Future. Study guides for both books are available for free download at sites.hofstra.edu/phyllis-zagano/.
• First published by ncronline.org. Republished with permission.

We tell ourselves: "Just another thousand police officers. Just one more prison. It'll be fine after that. We promise we'll stop there. They'll be better. We won't need any more."

Of course, the impacts of our overuse have been pretty harmful.

We spend an enormous amount of money, time and resources on criminal justice measures. There are sustained levels of trauma in targeted communities. There are high reoffending rates. Victims don't sense they are believed or supported. New Zealanders often report they worry about safety.

Maori are by far and wide the most affected by the harms of this system - disproportionately likely to be arrested, charged and incarcerated, and as a group the most likely to experience harm as well.

Amid the emotion, some politicians do their best to convince us of one more "getting tough" hit.

But the dominant talk of late has been focused on rethinking our situation.

Over the past two years, government-established bodies such as Te Uepu Hapai i te Ora - The Safe and Effective Justice Advisory Group have outlined New Zealand's urgent need for this.

It is strikingly clear the current system that relies on disproportionate levels of criminalisation, enforcement and adversarial approaches is not working for us, and cannot remain in place. There has been a lot of talk about how criminal justice should be transformed, decolonised, defunded or radically reformed.

And a radical approach is all the more necessary as we grapple with the impact Covid-19 and the economic hardships it has created will have on marginalised communities, particularly Maori, who have largely been shut out of the government's crisis response.

Yet, what to do next? It is one thing to call for change, another to build new solutions. Our criminal justice habits are hard to break.

One solution explored in a new report by Just Speak lies in the idea and practice of justice reinvestment.

JR programmes have a simple aim: to redirect spending on criminal justice into social justice initiatives that strengthen communities and reduce social harms, including offending behaviours.

Sounds good, right?

There is no "one size fits all" approach to justice reinvestment but successful projects are community-led, place-based and data-driven. What do these three steps mean in practice? Continue reading

They called for new legislation to address racial inequities in the country.

And they urged people to vote.

Among the speakers Friday was a son of Martin Luther King Jr and Sybrina Fulton, the mother of Trayvon Martin, whose killing in 2012 led to the Black Lives Matter movement.

He urged participants — who watched on television, online and in-person — to continue the work of the 1960s with what his father called the "coalition of conscience" by seeking a country that seeks love and health and dispels fear and hate.

"To achieve that America, we need to raise our voices and cast our votes," King said. "There's a knee upon the neck of democracy and our nation can only live so long without the oxygen of freedom."

The Rev. Al Sharpton, president of the National Action Network, and other speakers echoed some of the same themes enunciated by the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. in his "I Have a Dream" speech at the first march in 1963.

"We come in the same spiritual lineage," said Sharpton, organizer of the Commitment March, after members of King's family addressed the crowd. "'cause I want this country to know that even with your brutality you can't rob us of our dreams."

Sharpton announced the event — also called the "Get Your Knee Off Our Necks" march — as he preached at the funeral for George Floyd, a Black man who died in May under the knee of a white police officer.

Standing in front of the Lincoln Memorial before thousands, Sharpton said that Black people have long fought bigotry. But he noted that members of the interracial crowd that gathered in the same spot where others marched in 1963 have the power to move beyond their circumstances.

"We are the dream keepers, which is why we come today — black and white and all races and religions and sexual orientations — to say that this dream is still alive. You might have killed the dreamer but you can't kill the dream."

Before the throngs of people started marching to the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial, the granddaughter and a son of the famous civil rights leader took turns at the microphone to speak where their predecessor had appeared 57 years before.

"Americans are marching together — many for the first time — and we're demanding real, lasting structural change," said Martin Luther King III.

"We are socially distanced but spiritually united. We are masking our faces but not our faith in freedom."

"There are two systems of justice in the United States," said the father and namesake of Jacob Blake, the man who was shot seven times in the back by police in Kenosha, Wisconsin, on Sunday.

"There's a white system and there's a Black system. The Black system ain't doing so well. But we're going to stand up."

Sybrina Fulton, also addressed the crowd saying her favourite Bible passage is Proverbs 3:5-6, "Trust in the Lord with all your heart; lean not unto your own understanding."

"Even though it looks dark, I want to tell you to be encouraged," she said.

"Don't stop saying Black Lives Matter. Don't stop peaceful protesting. Don't stop praying. Don't stop unifying. Stand together," she said.

Source RNS

Then the Lord said to Cain, "Where is your brother Abel?" He said, "I do not know; am I my brother's keeper?" And the Lord said, "What have you done? Listen; your brother's blood is crying out to me from the ground! And now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand." (Gen 4:9-11)

In yet another iteration of state-sanctioned police brutality, the United States has witnessed the killing of George Floyd by police officer Derek Chauvin in Minneapolis, Minn.

In harrowing fulfilment of what political philosopher Hannah Arendt once defined counter-intuitively as the "banality" of evil, Officer Chauvin seemed frighteningly calm as he slowly asphyxiated Mr Floyd with his knee outside a corner store: eight minutes and 46 seconds of deafening, uncontested silence, save the plaintive protest of a passerby, and Mr Floyd himself, gasping for enough air to call for his mother.

How do we protest such a grotesque execution of injustice? How indeed do we cry out against its quiet collusion with systemic racism, which shapeshifts in response to each civil rights victory in order to ensure its transmission to the next generation?

An inventory of our treasures

As a Catholic, it has been both encouraging and indicting to follow the Catholic Church's response to the death of George Floyd: from watching clerical leadership denounce the "real and present danger" and "ongoing reality" of racism in America; to hearing lay prophetic voices, including EWTN radio show host Gloria Purvis, calling us to consider the extent to which racism has become an ecclesial "blindspot" among white American Catholics; to finding so few Catholic Church communities marching alongside our Christian and non-Christian brothers and sisters.

Why are we not, as Presbyterian minister Rev Alexis Waggoner of the Church of the Village in New York City recently described it, "putting [our] body where [our] theology is"?

Perhaps, in fact, we are: Increasingly privatized religion means privatized bodies. We have fulfilled, not forgotten, our seclusive theology.

At worst, Christians have preferred instead to cry foul in the face of church property damage and graffiti, blithely unaware that our central liturgical image is the crucified Christ, whose body was broken by violence and adorned with Roman graffiti, "INRI."

That is to say, our fidelity to Christ and his body the church has less to do with becoming an aggrieved church of fire damage than a compassionate church of kinship with the broken.

Saint John Henry Cardinal Newman once opined concerning the Christian intellectual and spiritual tradition, "[w]e have a vast inheritance, but no inventory of our treasures."

In a brief attempt to take stock of our shared inventory, then, and likewise to advocate a more self-consciously incarnational practice of Christianity in the world, I would like to propose that Christianity is best understood in nature and practice as a form of protest.

Who God is in the world

That is, Christianity offers a radically divergent vision of how humanity might confront, interrupt, and heal experiences of violence, suffering and loss, and in so doing both reveal and enact who God is in the world: the God of boundless compassion for the afflicted, the morally outcast and the enemy; and the God of unity, that binds together the "beloved community" in charity against temptations to self-conceit, the abuse of power, and indifference to the poor.

To begin, Christianity as protest reveals who God is in the world. Let us begin with the daring, plaintive story of the Book of Job. Continue reading

Under the current law, up to 10 people are permitted to make up the church service.

With such a limitation, it became abundantly clear that the parishes would exclude people.

Eleanor, representing the Foxton and Shannon communities was invited to be one of ten people participating in the Cathedral as the parishes live-streamed Sunday Mass.

On Friday she wrote.

Dear Friends,
I went to Bunnings this afternoon.

There were no queues, people were walking freely in and out of the store, shopping at close proximity to one another and then it dawned on me what Jacinda was doing.

It is not only unpractical but cruel, and now we are presenting this same model to our parishioners.

Imagine a parish of 200 people where only ten can enter the church at a time with restrictions, which means that parishioners must now scramble to get into their own church.

When the Mass was in the presbytery it was beautiful because it looked like a family saying Mass together but if we are going to have a Mass in the Cathedral or church with only a selected few and all the other parishioners excluded, Jacinda would succeed in humiliating us as a worshipping community.

Thank you for asking me to come, but in light of what I experienced today, I have to decline.

God bless us all
Eleanor

Mass from the Cathedral with just ten people was cancelled however continued as it was during lockdown, live-streamed from the confines of the Cathedral Presbytery.

• The Cathedral, Palmerston North, Our Lady of Lourdes and Foxton parishes

Juvenile Justice Board Principal Magistrate Manavendra Mishra also directed the officials concerned to ensure that the minor's family gets housing and ration under government schemes.

He also directed the police to submit the juvenile's progress report after four months.

"The boy had snatched the woman's purse at a market in Islampur police station area on April 17. He was identified through CCTV footage, detained and produced before the court the same day," an officer said.

The judgment was also pronounced on that day, he said. Read more

At first, this seemed like the routine lies that press offices tell.

During the recent visit of the new president of Argentina, for example, the Holy See Press Office said that the Holy Father had discussed abortion with the president, who advocates liberalizing the nation's abortion law.

But they hadn't discussed it.

Pope Francis hadn't raised it.

It was clumsy spin, a bit of easily corrected dishonesty. Embarrassing, but business as usual.

But after nearly three years, the "utmost respect" was more difficult to understand.

Across the depth and breadth of the Roman Curia how many people are there who have anything approaching even passing familiarity with Australian criminal justice?

In what was this "utmost respect" rooted?

I would hazard that the only Australian criminal case most curialists have even heard of would be that of Lindy Chamberlain - the "dingo" case.

That was a massive miscarriage of justice which saw an innocent mother falsely imprisoned for three years for the murder of her child.

The Australian justice system finally got around to fully exonerating her in 2012, thirty-two years after the death.

It is a false and dangerous thing for the Holy See to express "utmost respect" for judicial systems in regard to particular cases.

What the Holy See likely means is that the Australian - or Italian, or British, or American - system at least aims at justice, unlike that of China or Saudi Arabia.

But no matter how fine a criminal justice system may be in theory, it can be bent to unjust ends in a particular case.

Italians should know this more than most, given that for decades accusations that the criminal justice has been corrupted for partisan ends have been made at the highest levels.

It's enough to recall that former prime minister Giulio Andreotti was convicted of complicity in murder in 2002 even as the actual alleged killer was acquitted. The Italian supreme court acquitted him in 2003.

Thus to repeatedly express "utmost respect" for any system in relation to a particular case is to create confusion.

This is not just harmless diplomatic blather.

If a particular case treats a particular defendant unjustly, repeated assertions of "utmost respect" make it difficult, if not impossible, for the Church's canonical process to arrive at a different, honest result. And that would be the situation for any defendant who did not have the capacity to appeal his convictions, as Cardinal Pell did, to the High Court.

In the Pell case the professions of "utmost respect" became absurd bordering on the grotesque, given that it would be hard to find a single curial cardinal or bishop who did not think a monstrous injustice was taking place in Melbourne.

Despite what the Holy See said, there was precious little respect for Australian justice across the curia in this case.

Another Australian archbishop, Philip Wilson of Adelaide, was convicted of covering up sexual abuse only to be acquitted on appeal in 2018.

The appellate judge said flatly that Wilson could not be convicted as a scapegoat for the sexual abuse crisis.

Not much respectable there.

And not just Australia.

Cardinal Philippe Barbarin of Lyons was convicted of covering up sexual abuse while all of his many co-defendants on the same charge in the same case were acquitted.

Barbarin's conviction was quashed on appeal and it was clear that if he wasn't a cardinal he would never have been charged.

He resigned anyway.

"Respectable" criminal justice systems routinely convict the innocent, especially when involving alleged crimes against children.

In Canada, for more than twenty years innocent people were falsely accused and convicted of assaulting and killing children.

Parents were falsely convicted of killing their own children due to the malfeasance of the Ontario coroner's office.

It would be hard to imagine a more profound abuse of state power: innocent people sent to jail, reputations destroyed, families sundered, children traumatized and guilty parties going free.

Is Canadian criminal justice worthy of "utmost respect"? Continue reading