Talk:Anglican Communion sexual abuse cases

Trinacrialucente

@Trinacrialucente: you're compromising this article's ability to stay on Wikipedia and/or your own ability to edit if you persist in adding factually false claims, original research, and unrelated material. It is inappropriate to add a graffito of a Catholic priest molesting children in an article on Anglican abuse, especially if you persist in falsely claiming that Catholic sex abuse is negligible. Your two op-ed sources don't mention Anglicanism and you have used them to replace a much better article that is specifically about Anglicanism. (I was mistaken earlier - the latter is also opinion, though much more in-depth and investigative as well as, again, being actually about Anglicanism.) You need to write the article text based on the sources, not decide what you want to say beforehand and then cite something random. Likewise, it is completely inappropriate to write that defrocking was abolished under pressure from abuser priests - that's almost literally the opposite of what the source says. Wikipedia is not the place for editors to host their original speculative fiction. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I concur with all of the above. WP:STICKTOSOURCE. I think this is a topic notable enough for an independent article, but warring to retain OR on such a short article makes it more vulnerable to deletion. Rhoark (talk) 19:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@Trinacrialucente: if you are not willing to comply with policy, you should not have moved this article into namespace yet. Wikipedia policies on verifiability must be followed. You may not insert claims that do not appear in the sources regardless of your motivations. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm complying with policy. You are simply one editor and you have been WP:HOUNDING me (as evidenced yet again by your removal of my edits on the HEREDI page...which you had not visited in years prior to my edits. Once again, the citations I provided are valid and both concur with the statement. And the photo issue has been resolved already on the Catholic abuse page...and you know this.Trinacrialucente (talk) 22:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

It's a picture of a Catholic priest. You must not use it to illustrate an article on Anglicanism. This is obvious and straightforward. I have no interest in telling you to stop accusing me of hounding you to an article I edit regularly - go ahead, keep doing it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Proportions

I made a mistake reading the source, I haven't been well today.

Even taking a conservative estimate of 10,000 clergy serving in parishes over the 40 year period for which incidents of child sexual abuse were reported, and taking into account that this was not a complete census, the proportion of clergy accused of sexual abuse appears to be well below 1%. However, it must be emphasised that our findings represent no more than a rough estimate.

Comparisons

Those figures suggest what all other experience suggests, that rates of reported child sexual abuse by priests and religious in the Catholic Church are many times higher than for clergy and paid pastoral staff such as youth workers, in other denominations. The statistics from the Victoria Police giving evidence to the Parliamentary Inquiry, also provide some evidence of the incidence of child sexual abuse in the Catholic church compared with other faith communities. The Police identified all criminal convictions for sexual abuse of minors in Victoria between January 1956 and June 2012 involving members of religious organisations. 370 were victims of abuse in the Catholic Church. There were 37 victims in the Anglican Church; 36 in relation to the Salvation Army; and 18 involving Judaism. The uncertainty in the Police figures concerns how they defined the abuse as relating to Church personnel. The question of definition is particularly important in seeking to understand the figures concerning the Salvation Army, which does not have a structure equivalent to the ordained clergy of other denominations.

The figure for the number of victims in the Catholic Church was exactly 10 times that in the Anglican Church. This is only partially explained by the greater size of the Catholic Church in Melbourne. The Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne lists 287 parishes on its website. The Anglican Diocese of Melbourne contains 203 parishes covering greater Melbourne and Geelong. That is, the Anglican Church is about 70% of the size of the Catholic Church in the two Archdioceses as counted by number of parishes. [1]

Proportionately Roman Catholic abuse is much more frequent but absolute numbers are 1 tenth not proportional numbers. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:20, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Adult sex abuse victims

Sex abuse of adults can also be seriously harmful. For example one of Peter Ball (bishop)'s victims committed suicide unable to come to terms with what had been done to him.

Should this article include sex abuse of adults? Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:42, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

"Proportion"

@Proxima Centauri: where does this "one seventh" statistic come from and why have you added it? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:24, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Teresa Cooper see-also

Restored because it seems relevant. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)