Banned from mentioning Vatican supremo's conviction

[Garland-Green]

A Vatican supremo was just convicted of sex abuse in Melbourne. But Australian media can't report it

Cardinal George Pell was accused of abusing the boys at Melbourne's St. Patrick's Cathedral in 1996. At that time he was archbishop of Melbourne

Read more: link  

[cristobela]

I care more about submitting to what's written, over and above the world's merciless court systems (including the merciless court of "public opinion"); from what's being reported though, I can't tell: should they be shown mercy or not?

• Deuteronomy 17:6 (NIV)
  
  6 On the testimony of two or three witnesses a person is to be put to death, but no one is to be put to death on the testimony of only one witness.
  
  
• Deuteronomy 19:18-19 (NIV)
  
  18 The judges must make a thorough investigation, and if the witness proves to be a liar, giving false testimony against a fellow Israelite, 19 then do to the false witness as that witness intended to do to the other party. You must purge the evil from among you.
  
  
• John 8:10-11 (NIV)
  
  10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
  
  11 “No one, sir,” she said.
  
  “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”
  
  
• 1 Timothy 5:19-20 (NIV)
  
  19 Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses. 20 But those elders who are sinning you are to reprove before everyone, so that the others may take warning.

If there are not two or three truthful witnesses, then mercy should be shown, (even if the perpetrator is a Pharisee—who adds self-imposed traditions above the Law), the accusation not entertained/brought to court.

On another note,

Quote:

“The secrecy surrounding the court case — and now the verdict — is offensive. [...]”

the Washington Post’s media columnist Margaret Sullivan

I expect the world to get offended, not the church who should know better. We don't even know if the allegations are false, whether there were two to three (truthful) witnesses, and they want this man's reputation smeared already...?

Considering the little detail being reported, I can't justly form an opinion, defend nor condemn.

As an aside, in matters not related to elders, reminder to all: when Joseph thought Mary had committed adultery, and decided to put her away quietly, would we condemn that kind of secrecy? (she didn't actually commit adultery, but had she, no witnesses [let alone one], that's what he was planning to do to a "guilty" Mary: divorce her quietly, not make her a public example). No one condemns "secrecy" then...that's called mercy. The mercy of YHWH's Law.

• Matthew 1:18-19 (NIV)
  
  18 This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about[a]: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. 19 Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet[b] did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.
  
  Footnotes:
  a. Matthew 1:18 Or The origin of Jesus the Messiah was like this
  b. Matthew 1:19 Or was a righteous man and

Needing the "two to three witnesses" who saw the sin taking place (and that survive cross-examination, careful investigation, and thus who better be telling the truth) in order to condemn, is that mercy before they suffer public condemnation—elder and common person alike. Even if they did it (are guilty)...Jesus (YHWH-incarnate, YHWH Himself) doesn't condemn without sufficient, truthful witness (plural).