I think that Cardinal Becciu said that the money was sent for some very general purpose, such as “social communication” or some other vague and indeterminate purpose. Yes, it would be possible to find out just who received the money and how it was forwarded on, however, because of the opaque nature of finances in the Catholic Church, it would be very difficult to trace the funds. My own Archdiocese does publish what pass for full accounts, which are duly submitted to and approved by the Government (through the Charity Commission) however, no detail is provided in those accounts - the headings under which money is spent are extremely general, rather like Cardinal Becciu and his explanation of the funds being used to assist in “social communication”. That could mean almost anything.
May this note find us all ever closer to God, and His Peace. Thank you for bringing up the once and now continued Vatican unJust attack against Cardinal Pell. The destruction of his Name continued after death. God Bless., Steve
When Cardinal Pell was interviewed, he gave, as his opinion, that the Jury decided to find him guilty of an offence which, on the evidence before him, he could not have committed (because there was reliable evidence that he was elsewhere at the time his accuser alleged that the offence took place) because they wanted to hold someone in the Catholic Church to account for the sex abuse crisis in the Catholic Church in Australia. Cardinal Pell admitted that, following instructions from Rome, he was involved in the whole process of moving Priests around, rather than dismissing them from the Priesthood, enabling them to continue their abuse. He fully understood why, as part of the Australian Hierarchy, the Jury, representing the views of the average Australian, might have wanted to hold someone to account. However, they Jury would not have been able to find him guilty unless they were misdirected by the Trial Judge (which they were) and he would have been exonerated on the first Appeal, in the State of Victoria, if two of the Judges had not decided to give in to public opinion and deliver perverse verdicts upholding his unsustainable conviction. Fortunately, the third Judge, Mr Justice Weinberg was honest and delivered a dissenting Judgement, so that the case could go on to the Federal Court, where the Judges ignored public opinion and delivered a unanimous decision in accordance with the Law. I doubt if much bribery was required to persuade the Trial Judge, the Jury and the two Judges on the first Appeal to act contrary to Justice and the Law. They were simply giving vent to their frustration at the way the Catholic Church in Australia had handled the sex abuse crisis and Cardinal Pell did acknowledge that he was not without guilt in that respect, even if he was acting on instructions from Rome at the time.
@@Mark3ABE thanks for such detail information. Even though I was not in Australia at that time but I did follow the trial..We Catholic should be grateful to have Sky News especially to Mr. Andrew Bolt and the lady jounalist (I forgot her name) as they both were indeed the real hero for the truth and of course also the three judges in the High Court who unanimously overturned the conviction. May God bless them All...
@@marychristie6194 Even if Frances leaves, he will have already installed like-minded persons who will carry out his plans. Much like if George Soros were to "Leave" his son would pick-up the ball and run with it.
Pentin: highly cultured, sophisticated and wonderfully connected guy! Thank you for having him. Great show!
Cardinal Pell was a genuine servant of God. To attempt to smear him now is reprehensible.
The Pope wants to make The Catholic Church a democracy. Jesus Christ is King ✝️
The Australian government or independent team should investigate those $ 2 Millions transfer from Vatican to Australia.
I think that Cardinal Becciu said that the money was sent for some very general purpose, such as “social communication” or some other vague and indeterminate purpose. Yes, it would be possible to find out just who received the money and how it was forwarded on, however, because of the opaque nature of finances in the Catholic Church, it would be very difficult to trace the funds. My own Archdiocese does publish what pass for full accounts, which are duly submitted to and approved by the Government (through the Charity Commission) however, no detail is provided in those accounts - the headings under which money is spent are extremely general, rather like Cardinal Becciu and his explanation of the funds being used to assist in “social communication”. That could mean almost anything.
@Mark3ABE thank you for your information...my concern was only to ensure if it was nothing to do with the late Cardinal Pell's trial...
I believe we are in prophetic days, I just can’t shake the feeling that we are reaching a crescendo of evil and that something really bad is coming.
May this note find us all ever closer to God, and His Peace.
Thank you for bringing up the once and now continued Vatican unJust attack against Cardinal Pell. The destruction of his Name continued after death.
God Bless., Steve
When Cardinal Pell was interviewed, he gave, as his opinion, that the Jury decided to find him guilty of an offence which, on the evidence before him, he could not have committed (because there was reliable evidence that he was elsewhere at the time his accuser alleged that the offence took place) because they wanted to hold someone in the Catholic Church to account for the sex abuse crisis in the Catholic Church in Australia. Cardinal Pell admitted that, following instructions from Rome, he was involved in the whole process of moving Priests around, rather than dismissing them from the Priesthood, enabling them to continue their abuse. He fully understood why, as part of the Australian Hierarchy, the Jury, representing the views of the average Australian, might have wanted to hold someone to account. However, they Jury would not have been able to find him guilty unless they were misdirected by the Trial Judge (which they were) and he would have been exonerated on the first Appeal, in the State of Victoria, if two of the Judges had not decided to give in to public opinion and deliver perverse verdicts upholding his unsustainable conviction. Fortunately, the third Judge, Mr Justice Weinberg was honest and delivered a dissenting Judgement, so that the case could go on to the Federal Court, where the Judges ignored public opinion and delivered a unanimous decision in accordance with the Law. I doubt if much bribery was required to persuade the Trial Judge, the Jury and the two Judges on the first Appeal to act contrary to Justice and the Law. They were simply giving vent to their frustration at the way the Catholic Church in Australia had handled the sex abuse crisis and Cardinal Pell did acknowledge that he was not without guilt in that respect, even if he was acting on instructions from Rome at the time.
@@Mark3ABE thanks for such detail information. Even though I was not in Australia at that time but I did follow the trial..We Catholic should be grateful to have Sky News especially to Mr. Andrew Bolt and the lady jounalist (I forgot her name) as they both were indeed the real hero for the truth and of course also the three judges in the High Court who unanimously overturned the conviction.
May God bless them All...
Endless doctrinal and ecclesiastical confusion 😂
God I wish Francis would leave... please.
Me too 🙏🏻
@@marychristie6194 Even if Frances leaves, he will have already installed like-minded persons who will carry out his plans. Much like if George Soros were to "Leave" his son would pick-up the ball and run with it.
Talk about walking into the den of heretics, thank you Petin