Talk:Catholic Church sexual abuse cases/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 17

Undid edits by 94.223.112.246

I've undone the last few edits, by user 94.223.112.246. It's not that the information isn't interesting, it's because this page is about Catholic sex abuse in a global context. I know most cases have happened in the U.S. and it's understandable that it should be weighted towards the U.S., but the page Catholic sexual abuse scandal in the United States already exists and in my opinion this page is already too U.S.-centric. The information added by 94.223.112.246 is just too detailed for this page. Obscurasky (talk) 10:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

New? Relevant info

Portal:Current_events#2011_May_16 shows this text (below) which probably needs to be incorporated into article somewhere

• The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in the Vatican tells Roman Catholic to cooperate with police in investigating alleged sexual abuse by clergy. (AP)

EdwardLane (talk) 10:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Australia section

I have been removing the recent Australia section comments because they are unreferenced commentary and - therefore - considered as original research. The comments also refer in a misleading way to accusations against Cardinal Pell which were not in fact sustained. As far as I am concerned it is a BLP violation to refer to such accusations without also mentioning this fact. Therefore I have removed all the recent Australian comments due to their policy problems Anglicanus (talk) 06:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Christopher Jarvis

Christopher Jarvis recently admitted to 12 counts of making, possessing and distributing child pornography, ironically he was a child protection official for the Catholic church. Here's a source: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/07/31/church-child-protection-chief-caught-with-child-porn-pictures-115875-23308972/

I think it's worth mentioning in the 2011 section of the article.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.37.24.56 (talk) 14:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Thomas Plante quote issues

A Perspective on Clergy Sexual Abuse by Dr. Thomas Plante of Stanford University and Santa Clara University states that "approximately 4% of priests during the past half century (and mostly in the 1960s and 1970s) have had a sexual experience with a minor" which "is consistent with male clergy from other religious traditions and is significantly lower than the general adult male population which may double these numbers".

1.) Dr. Thomas Plante is a full professor at Santa Clara University (a Catholic school), and only a clinical associate professor (volunteer role) at Stanford -- he is not on their academic staff. I propose removing "Stanford University" as he does not represent Stanford academia or research. See his CV.

So we can change to "professor at Santa Clara University and clinical associate professor at Stanford" 194.76.232.147 (talk) 09:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

2.) Additionally Dr. Plante is a practicing, active Catholic himself and serves on the Diocese Review Board for Diocese of San Jose among other functions. I believe this possible conflict of interest should be mentioned, at the least. Thoughts on that?

The only thing that is important should be his qualification. As long as no one disputes his remarks from a scientific point of view, there should be no mention of other highly disputable "factors". 194.76.232.147 (talk) 09:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

3.) What is the Wikipedia-worthy significance of this quote, as there is question to his impartiality and is not a notable expert on the topic? Also the percentages he mention don't match up with Wikipedia's own article on pedophilia. Can we remove this controversial quote or at least write-in the appropriate caveats? aerotheque (talk) 03:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

He is an expert on the topic as are a lot of other psychologists. If there are contradictions, they should simply be mentioned. The importance of the quote derives from his estimation on the scope of sexual abuse. 194.76.232.147 (talk) 09:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

In the WP-article on pedophilia it's written:

The prevalence of pedophilia in the general population is not known, but is estimated to be lower than 5% based on several smaller studies with prevalence rates between 3% and 9%.

So the ratio is estimated at 5% or lower based on smaller studies who showed a prevalence of even 9 %. That seems to be consistent with Plante's estimation.--Ricerca (talk) 15:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Disputed

Sections covering statistics and accuracy are far from being accurate and up-to-date. The complete information about the abuse scope (abuse?! - why not about rape and sexual assaults?) is not known nor ever will be known, on one side. On another side, we have a huge amount of information not covered by this article. There is, also, excessive use of another bad word: alleged.--71.178.110.201 (talk) 23:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that you are right by criticizing the lack of information in that article. Feel free to ad. On the other side, this is not a documentation and reliable scientific literature on these cases is until today very rare. So there is at the moment a little problem with WP:RECENT and consequently good reason to take the time to better estimate the importance of certain facts. Apart from that: "Alleged" is a very precise word for things, that are only alleged. And that is the case in a lot of abuse cases concerned by this article. So the word is not bad at all, if it's well used. Ricerca (talk) 17:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The statistics comes from a report commissioned by Roman Catholic Church and based on incomplete and selective data. It shall be removed completely and just mentioned in this article within a single sentence. As to the media coverage, it shall be reduced to two or three sentences just used to illustrate the Church attempt to divert public attention to somewhere else i.e. to make the Church crimes of lesser severity. 'Alleged', as used here, is far from being precise. Apparently there are many who wants this article written in the Church line. The Church crimes shall not be obscured by extensive use of this word (alleged) in the article.--Eleven Nine (talk) 13:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

"based on incomplete and selective data" is the reason why it is inaccurate to talk about "cases", if there are in fact allegations. Presumption of innocence applies also to priests and other catholics. And the problem on the abuse cases and the John-Jay-Report is very simple: there is no other data. Even bishopaccountability works with it.

Concerning the media article I think there are also well based criticisms to the media on the handling of that issue. These criticisms should be mentioned like all the other stuff. Ricerca (talk) 13:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It is laughable that evidence about those heinous crimes committed by RCC priests are just marked here as 'allegations'. "Presumption of innocence" lasts more than a half of century testifying only about lies and obstruction of justice. The article is chocked by the "church responses" which is in the line of the above "presumption". So, the way to improve the article is to completely drop the "Church responses" replacing it by what was the real church response: self defense based on lies, deception, and obstruction of justice.--Eleven Nine (talk) 12:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

No one wants to rename committed crimes. But for good reason there is a difference between proven and alleged (or accused and convicted). So it is the best to distinguish and name the things according to what they are. --Ricerca (talk) 15:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

'Alleged' is not alleged at all. Many of those who committed that horrible crime of raping innocent and helpless children remained at large for the widespread coverup and obstruction of justice committed by the RCC and Vatican. The cash settlements were used to force the victims to give up their legal rights to name those criminals and have them brought to the court and punished. Especially in Ireland where in this coverup is involved even the Irish prime minister Enda Keny. Bottom line: shall we name the crime covered up by the cash settlements just "allegations"?! Read here more about this man: http://www.swp.ie/news/cloyne-report-kenny-still-covering-clergy/4748--71.178.110.201 (talk) 23:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Settlements don't confirm guilt. They may suggest it, but there are other reasons why someone might choose to settle instead of going to court. Generally, we need to use alleged until the crimes are proven in court, especially where living people are concerned. - Bilby (talk) 23:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Certainly the settlements ARE about guilt and crime. If there were not guilt and crime then why to have them? And 'we' are who? RCC? Roman Pope? I see many credible authors and publications with the credibility and knowledge far above the anonymous Wikipedia users confirming clearly what I see: the crime is crime.--71.178.110.201 (talk) 00:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

"We" as in "people developing this article". And no, settlements can be for a number of reasons, not all of which entail guilt. We can say that a settlement was reached out of court and allow the readers to draw their own conclusions, but unless the settlement involved an acknowledgement of guilt, we can't specifically say here that the crimes were more than alleged. - Bilby (talk) 00:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

"we can't specifically say here that the crimes were more than alleged"!!! This blind refusal to see the truth outside the scope of meaningless phrase drives me out this discussion with you for good.--71.178.110.201 (talk) 03:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)--71.178.110.201 (talk) 03:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Listen IP71. Here's the thing. Alleged is a necessity. In the cases where the accused are still living, it is legally necessary because calling them guilty without an admission from them or a court declaration would be libel and wikipedia can get sued for it. Getting incredulous because another user prefers precise and more accurate wording isn't going to change anything either.Farsight001 (talk) 03:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I did read in another section about the Catholic church about the increased numbers of Catholic church members. I was wondering if there have ever been any decent/accurate surveys of how many members have actually left the church becuase of the sexual abuse scandals??Mylittlezach (talk) 23:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I found some articles proving the opposite. There is a large number of people in Germany, Austria and Ireland who legally abandoned the RCC. Also, there is a huge dropout in the number of regular churchgoers in the USA. I remember that a couple years ago that dropout was about 25%. The RCC never gave a true account about losing her position in the West. I assume they got some gains in underdeveloped world, especially in Africa.--71.178.110.201 (talk) 23:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

And? First of all, people don't "legally" abandon the Church. They simply stop going or convert to a different denomination. It's not a legal matter. Second, if they are the articles I am thinking of (another user tried to use them in the past (or was it you then too?), and they don't say what is implied. Yes, many people are leaving the Church in those regions, but still more are joining the Church in those same regions. And there is a huge dropout of regular churchgoers in all denominations. That would be something of note in, for example, an article on the adherence to Christian beliefs in general. What does it have to do with Catholic sex abuse cases specifically? Very little. Farsight001 (talk) 12:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

You do not know what are you talking about. In Austria and Germany each taxpayer is subject of a tax portion that goes to the RCC. So, there are LEGAL document(s) confirming that a taxpayer left the RCC which explains my earlier comment. It does have a lot to do with pedophilia of the RCC priests; it prompted a great number of people in Germany and Austria to leave the RCC finding it immoral to further financially support this church.--71.178.110.201 (talk) 22:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Still pretty sure I know what I'm talking about. The government is not the Church. You don't have to submit a legal document to the government outlining that you are leaving the Church. And if they don't want to financially support the Church, then they stop listing themselves as Catholic in legal documentation. That, however, does not make one non-Catholic. How many of them are happily Catholic but just don't want to give the money? We don't know, so we cannot come to the conclusion you want based on that. And again, there is no mention of how many are joining the Church. People leave and join the Church every day. Are more joining than leaving? We don't know. So we can't say either way.Farsight001 (talk) 02:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

This article is no more than a Roman Catholic Church blog

Per discussion below, everyone seems to agree that the content isn't incredibly useful, or is a rant in violation of WP:SOAP. Please make future requests specific to the article content, with examples.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"The Catholic Church", said de Foxa, "has given evidence of being able to exist without the Gospels". (from K. Malaparte's Kaputt, Summer Night head) This article is written strictly in the Vatican line of self-defense. There is more than 5 pages of the Church response written in a deceptive and lying manner: we sinned but other too, much more we do; we did this and that in that year, we said this and that there and here, we shed crocodile tears a countless number of times. Of course, we never ever reported anyone to police, send to the civil courts ever never anyone, never ever helped and protected a single child if not forced legally by the civil authorities to do that. Then there is several equally worthless pages about media coverage, the 'statistics' about this heinous crime of the 'scholars' paid by the Church. Bear on mind that the Church has paid 'scholars' who are regularly confirming that a miracle, much needed to promote some of the Church faithful servants into the Church saint, always happened. Wikipedia is apparently another victim of the Church for being very popular online edition. There is a number of the Church watchdogs here sabotaging any serious discussion and any article improvement or a serious article rewrite. As a consequence, the article does not have place for the victims' views of this crime nor for a serious review of the Church crime in the 20eth and 21st century. As to the great writer, Malaparte was twice excommunicated by some senile bishops for their inability to remember that they already excommunicated him. Nevertheless, when Malaparte was dying in some of Rome's hospitals, some Catholic Church priest tormented him at the death bed by his 'confessions', 'sins' and 'embracing the Church again' About this blog: delete it completely, rewrite it in the line of latest available and collected information about this crime, reduce the Church officials, 'scholars', meetings, sayings, etc, etc, etc to what they are: deceptions, lies, coverups, obstruction of justice.--71.178.110.201 (talk) 13:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC) Thank you for this informative comment.--209.51.184.11 (talk) 12:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Per the discussion below (and edit war over this section), I'm hatting this section, and requesting that further discussion of article improvement be specific, citing examples from the article text with specific suggestions for change. Also, without making any specific accusations, please see WP:SOCK. Thank you.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Farsight

Please, avoid removing someone's comment you do not like here. Your personal opinion is not Wikipedia policy. Calling it rant you are slipping into personal attacks i.e. violating Wikipedia's No personal attacks rule!--209.51.184.11 (talk) 12:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

But it's not my personal opinion. If you are not trying to improve the article with the comment, as you very VERY clearly were not, it should, by policy, be deleted or hatted. Technically this comment, since it's purpose is also not article improvement, should be removed as well. Talk pages are for article improvement ONLY. Also, calling another user's edit disruptive or a rant is not considered a personal attack. It would have to be a direct insult.Farsight001 (talk) 12:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Read twice the comment you are removing. It is about the article improvement. It points at undue weight: the Catholic Church point of view covers more than 80% of the whole article.--66.151.103.9 (talk) 21:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I read the comment half a dozen times by now. No, it's not. It's an angry rant because the article is not a scathing expose. Posts for article improvement tend to mention a specific issue, citing specific paragraphs, not a general disparagement of the article as a whole.Farsight001 (talk) 05:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

You are forgetting the fact that some other people (I count four, me excluded) do not share your interpretation of the Wikipedia's policy. Cooperativity and mutual respect of all users are mandatory. The comment you are removing is a bit harsh, but still points correctly and fairly at many article defects: the Roman catholic Church point of view is prevalent, nothing about victim's perception of this crime, little or no place for opinions of lawyers, independent researchers, etc.--Eleven Nine (talk) 11:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't count 4. Where are you getting that from? I count one IP hopper who thinks no one would be able to tell he's all the same person, posting from multiple IPs to make it look like more people agree with him. And again, as I already said above, vague statements about the state of the article in general do not provide any pathway toward article improvement. Also what article are you reading that you think there is nothing about the victim's perception and the opinion of lawyers or independent researchers? The comment does not belong. Period. This is not my interpretation of policy. I have seen literally hundreds of times now much softer comments than that removed for the very reason I removed this one. Re-adding it is disruptive. Cease and desist.Farsight001 (talk) 13:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• Please, base your accusations on solid proofs. You pretend knowing both correct questions and correct answers. It's a bad idea to put yourself above others then draw conclusions out of blue. Sturunner is hopper too? Me too?--Eleven Nine (talk) 17:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Solid proofs? Like how one of you stops posting the moment the other one starts? How you have near identical edit histories and typing styles? Sturunner is not an IP hopper no, but there have been definite issues with him in the past in other subjects. But this is all besides the point - that the rant, and technically this thread too, have no merit towards improving the article and therefore are, by policy, to be deleted. It is a violation of policy and it is disruptive to re-add such a comment, and from now on out, will be considered vandalism if re-added. This conversation is over and will be hatted in 24 hours regardless of further posts made in it.Farsight001 (talk) 18:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't you think that you crossed the line of basic civilty rules in a bad direction? What else you are doing here except ranting? Denying, refusing, attacking? Behaving as if this article belongs only to you? I would like to say that, from the history of this page, there are two or three other account names behind which is the same brain. May I ask you who elevated you to be exclusive and authoritative interpreter of the Wikipedia's policy? If all you are ranting about "is all besides the point" then what makes you attacking people that way?--Eleven Nine (talk) 20:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• I think this continued removal of the comment is unacceptable conduct. Let it go. The comment while not perfect is discussing content. I'm more than happy to escalate this if its really needed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Fuck no, I'm not letting it go. It's a rant. You know it's a rant. I know it's a rant. The poster knows it's a rant. It is inappropriate talk page text and by policy it must go. You've been around long enough to know this. I'm not letting people bully me into getting their way like this anymore. It is a violation, therefore it is removed. It's that simple. You give them an inch, and they will take a mile. If they don't want to follow the policies of wikipedia, then we should make it clear to them that they can fuck off somewhere else. It'd be one thing if they just didn't know, but clearly, they are intentionally pushing limits and refusing to accept the correction of more knowledgeable editors (which was, at first, charitable). They're here to push buttons and get their way, not to collaborate. Don't tolerate that crap.Farsight001 (talk) 02:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

There is 6 people which think that's ok to have the comment you are continually removing. The only one who is ranting here is you. Therefore, putting back the comment. Please, do be reasonable.--Eleven Nine (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

There's not 6 people. There's an ip hopper trying to bully and push the article into the direction he wants it by acting like he's more people than he really is, there's Eraserhead who doesn't seem to exactly get what's going on, and there's Sturunner who is...well...Sturunner. If you annoy him, he spends the next week trying to piss you off any way he can, even if he doesn't agree with what he's saying. This bullshit needs to stop. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, so start collaborating. This means specific suggestions for article improvement, not a generalized gripe about the state of the article which you personally don't like, and it ESPECIALLY doesn't mean starting a new thread in an article talk page that targets another user specifically. If it had been posted anywhere, it should have been placed on my talk page. That's why I'm hatting this in a couple hours as well.Farsight001 (talk) 20:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Guys, this isn't constructive. It's also cluttering my watchlist with garbage. Yes, the comment is a rant which is unlikely to improve the article. Yes, it is technically discussing the article content, and probably isn't doing any harm by staying. If it stays and draws unconstructive attention, then it can be hatted or archived. If it goes, it's not really a big loss. It's not that big of a deal. Both of you are edit warring, and are collectively gunning for a block or page protection, which will be even less constructive. Please drop it.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I went and gave the IP a warning about it originally. However while it could be better written it isn't exactly the least constructive piece ever written and should stay. By making such a big deal about it you are giving it far more importance than it deserves. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

As a compromise, I've reverted the removal, and hatted the section. Now it's there for everyone to read if they wish, without cluttering up the page. I also added a request to the bottom that future discussion should center on specific content in the article, with examples. This should be sufficient for everyone. If the edit war continues over this content, I will escalate it to AN3, which won't be good for anyone. I think we can all let this go. Anyone who wishes to also hat this section would be welcome to, since it's even less useful.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Introductory and Scope and Nature sections

• Introductory

The Pope's point of view expressed as "He declared in 2001 that 'a sin against the Sixth Commandment ' " is not a knowledge worth to be here and shall not be in this section. A common man's perception of this crime is that IS THE CRIME then it is a sin.

• Scope and Nature

Plante's (a Roman catholic Church author) 'conclusion': "is consistent with male clergy from other religious traditions and is significantly lower than the general adult male population which may double these number" comes out of blue and shall be removed along with all other attempts to prove the 'we are not worse than others' Catholic Church mantra. As a proof of rejections of this mantra I offer:

When one considers the fact that this is the very institution that has produced and sheltered an elite army of child-molesters, the whole enterprise begins to exude a truly diabolical aura of misspent human energy.

from Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris, Random House Digital, Inc., 2008 page 66 See also http://www.samharris.org

John Manly, the Newport Beach attorney, who had represented Ryan DiMaria and hundreeds of wictims of clergy sexual abuse since 2001. ... His research shows about 6 percent of Catholic priests molest minors.

from Losing my religion: how I lost my faith reporting on religion in America--and found unexpected peace by William Lobdell, HarperCollins, 2009 page 218

Covering Up Evil from (read the whole section)

from Meeting the Ethical Challenges of Leadership: Casting Light Or Shadow by Craig Edward Johnson SAGE, 2008 page 129

Rodriguez notes that various estimates of the number of priests, and even bishops, who abuse minors range from 3 percent to 6 percent, though the figure for Spain may be even higher,

from Child Abuse by Lucinda Almond, Greenhaven Press, 2006 page 39

Estimates of the number of priests accused of child sexual abuse, the number of victims, and the number of incidents of abuse within the Catholic Church are based on allegations recorded in church personnel files, court filings, and media reports. Since many victims never disclose their abuses, the estimates are, by all accounts, low, and there is no way of knowing by just how much. There are also estimates of the number of priests who sexually abuse children based on clinical experience or small survey samples, but these do not support reliable generalizations.

from Holding bishops accountable: how lawsuits helped the Catholic Church confront clergy sexual abuse by Timothy D. Lytton; Harvard University Press, 2008

The last one I consider the more serious response to the Plante's commissioned by the Church 'statistics'

Bottom line. In order to improve these two sections, I propose removal of the Polish Pope's mantra about the sin and Plante's 'statistics'. The replacement should be for Plante and the likes Timothy D. Lytton--71.178.110.201 (talk) 19:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Pardon my french, but who the fuck are you to tell us what "shall" be removed? Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, which means you work WITH everyone, including us stinking, evil, propagandist Catholics. There is no "shall be removed" and there is no "mantra" without a consensus. Keep that in mind for future discussions.Farsight001 (talk) 20:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I was a Catholic once; thanks for admitting your bias, but please try to see beyond it. Letting a child come to harm is a despicable crime, but aiding and abetting those who harm children, so that they escape justice? That's monstrous. IP71.178.110.201's point is a little confused at times (I don't think he or she is a native English speaker), but the gist, I think, is to unbias the article -- which is always for the better on Wikipedia. Stolengood (talk) 18:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

First of all, where did I admit bias? Second of all, my bias, just like your bias, is irrelevant as long as it is not controlling us. Third, this is not a forum. We are here to discuss improvement to the article, not how abhorrent we think child abuse is, or any theories on supposed aiding and abetting the perpetrators. Fourth, I don't think that was the gist of what he was getting at. He's edited before under different IP's and he wanted it turned into a scathing hit piece that implied that seemed to imply that every single priest was a repeat offender and that every Catholic thinks it's a great thing. Fifth, even if the gist was actually to unbias the article, simply saying so doesn't help. Specific examples are needed with merit and reason and discussion that in some articles can take months. Without that, there's nothing really to do.Farsight001 (talk) 03:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I've already warned you to avoid personal attacks and incivilties. Moreover, I accidentally came across of some earlier warning against the same nature of your behavior here. "He's edited before under different IP's and he wanted it turned into a scathing hit piece that implied that seemed to imply that every single priest was a repeat offender and that every Catholic thinks it's a great thing"?!! It seems to me that you cannot help yourself get out of this perpetual rant. You'll force me to escalate this case demanding block on you account .--Eleven Nine (talk) 14:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead and try. What I said wasn't a personal attack, here or there. "Personal attack" has a specific meaning on wikipedia and what I said does not qualify as one, or as any real policy violation at all. Now if you don't have something to add to the discussion, please desist. Warnings of this nature should typically go on a user's talk page (only when justified, of course).Farsight001 (talk) 14:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Why this article is un-encyclopaedic and how to make it better.

I'd like to start first with the language used in this article. Most of the article used a

A. Devalued language used by the Roman Catholic Church (further RCC) - testimonies are called allegations - crime is called sin - rapes is called abuses In order to get a practical example of the devalued language, read this article, which summarizes in this quote

"Such a delightfully useful word. It creates just the right amount of wriggle-room to allow a putatively penitent prelate allow an outside perception of deepest repentance while not really feeling such a thing at all."

To fix it: Use the language of common people, language of the sources that do not belong to the RCC

The next problem is in so-called

B. Church response, Vatican response that took more than five pages (out of 17) reduced to what Roman Curia and the RCC overall said, declared, or wrote. Behind this curtain is obstruction of justice, secrecy, abuse of power, self-defense. Here are some recorded and proven pieces of information talking about what actually Vatican and the RCC did:

Vatican had direct control over the placement and laicization of Rev. Andrew Ronan

"Also among the documents was a letter from a Provincial Minister to the Prior General in Italy in 1966 that said "we believe it will be possible, if the Holy Father will grant Father Ronan's request, for him to leave quietly and without any open scandal."

"When confronted, Ronan admitted the abuse to his superiors at Our Lady of Benburb, Ireland, according to the documents, but was transferred to a Chicago high school anyway. He abused children there, the documents show, then was transferred to St. Albert's Church in Portland."

Vatican Opposed Reporting of Sexual Abuse

"Recent sexual abuse litigation in the United States has uncovered a letter purportedly from the Vatican’s cardinal Silvio Angelo Pio to Bishop Moreno of Tucson Arizona which says in part:"

“To the second question ("Should we allow or disallow civil lawyers from obtaining Father's personnel records from our Chancery files") we reply that under no condition whatever ought the afore-mentioned files be surrendered to any lawyer or judge whatsoever.”

"The letter goes on to say:"

“Your Excellency should therefore make known immediately and with clarity that no priest's files will be sent to any lawyer or judge whatever.”

Did someone at Catholic institutions in Netherlands graduate from abuse to murder?

"After all, it was less than a year ago that former Dutch Bishop Jan Bluyssen stood accused of shredding church documents related to sexual and emotional abuse cases in the archdiocese, all while he was refusing to testify in front of Deetman commissioners."

"And that is the most disgusting part: we know now without a doubt that Catholic bishops and priests didn’t generally prey on the kids of their well-to-do parishioners. They targeted poor kids, destitute kids, kids without parents or hope or homes. They even targeted kids who were mentally challenged."

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/martina-devlin/martina-devlin-church-is-selfdestructing-in-response-to-sex-abuse-2857064.html

"In the flurry of scandals engulfing this institution in Ireland, it has been the hierarchy's reaction to clerical sex abuse rather than the crimes themselves which have caused most havoc.

Archbishop Diarmuid Martin clearly realises that. But amid the upper echelons of the church he represents, this upright and isolated man is a lone voice in the wilderness.

Meanwhile, with their scattergun public statements, often clumsily worded, senior clergyman after senior clergyman demonstrates persistent and perhaps even willful blindness about the extent of the problem. Hardly surprising, then, that they seem incapable of offering leadership."

To fix it: Reduce the Roman Curia and the RCC declarations, sayings and other verbal expressions to its real dimension in scope (self-defense, denial, deception) and give far more room to the victims and their advocates and the real responses of the RCC to this scandal (protection of abusers, no care paid to the victims, use all legal and illegal means to avoid compensation and criminal actions against the priests)

C. Statistics and commissioned reports - all written by or commissioned by the RCC One illustrative examples that is not coming from the RCC is this one: [1] which content I'd like to summarize by this quote:

"For too long the Church has only tried to protect itself, with total disregard for the thousands of innocent victims who will continue for the remainder of their lives to bear the moral stigmas of the abuses suffered. Only in the United States more than 5,000 priests (including 16 bishops and archbishops) have been accused of sexual abuse from the 1950’s to the current days. The number of their victims is estimated to be in excess of 150,000, as a result of the fact that each paedophile priest abused more than one victim, in one well publicised case in Massachusetts a priest admitted to having used violence on over 100 children of both sexes. The vastness of the phenomenon was well known at the Vatican since the middle of the 1980’s, but until the scandal erupted at the beginning of the new millennium the Church tried with all possible means to avoid that the terrible truth surfaced, for example moving the accused priests to other parishes or even to other countries, to make sure that they evaded ordinary justice. In many cases the same priests continued to use sexual violence on new unaware victims, thus increasing the responsibility of those who, in order to protect the Church’s reputation, decided not to bring these crimes out in the open."

To fix it: Drop the statistics of the RCC self-defense, and mention it just as a means of the self-deffense. Switch to the latest and truly independent sources like the one I've quoted above.

D. Number of references used in the article is too excessive and to selective. There is 184 references used to support the existing article version. Many of them are simply repeating the same claims and are again supportive to the RCC and against the victimized people and their advocates.

To fix it:It is ok to use a number of references supporting the tactics and manouevres of the RCC but they shall be reduced to their representative sources, much smaller in the numbers. Give far more room to the sources presenting the victims, independent researchers and academia, and the victims' advocates.

E. Use of false and incomplete information I'll pay attention to just two cases: Thomas Plante's position with Stanford University. It is clear that he does not represent the Stanford academia nor research and he cannot be mentioned as one as the "clinical associate professor at Stanford". The second problem is with the RCC alleged prosecution under Nazi regime in Germany. The period of Nazism is marked by the cooperative and submissive role of the RCC. Bear in mind that the highest represenative of the RCC in Germany was a honorary guest of the NSDAP congress in Nuremberg (1934) and that the Reichconcordat was complemented by the RCC right to freely spread the Roman Catholicism in the newly conquered regions (by Nazis) in on the East of Europe.

To fix it: Never enter incomplete, out-of-context, historically questionable information in this article

F. The most recent development of this scandal is not visible in the article

To fix it: Start reading and tracking it and updating the article. I propose some of them: here, here, here

G. The scandal consequences The article did not address them at all. Reading some articles I've learned that, before the scandal broke, there was 35% of Roman Catholics in the USA. Some latest pools reduced it to 25%. Complaints of the USA RCC are that the Church attendance dropped 25%, there is no enough priests and overall interest in the priesthood in the USA is below the current needs. Number of people in Germany and Austria who formally left the RCC is 250 000 and 86 000 respectively in 2010. The next is - governments are less and less protective and tolerant to the RCC. See the latest development in Ireland, Germany and Netherlands. Public demands are raised in Ireland for full compensations of the victims by the RCC money.

To fix it: A separate section of the article named 'Consequences' shall be written based on reliable and available sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.110.141 (talk) 18:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Be bold and do it. Some of your changes, particularly the ones which are large in scope, may be reverted. That's ok. When they get reverted, then hash them out on this talk page. However, you won't know which ones are contentious and which need discussion until you try them out and make changes to the article yourself. Also, please create an account to make discussion with you easier. Right now, you're hopping from ip to ip, which can make that hard. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Reading the intro, it is fully of softening words, especially 'alleged', making it sound like there is limited proof of actual wrongdoing by clergy. The fact is, many clergy have been convicted of sexual abuse. This is what is notable, moreso than allegations of abuse. When talking about specific people accused of abuse, but not convicted, we need to use 'alleged' out of fairness and legal reasons, but the fact is, that sexual abuse of Catholics is not just alleged, it has been proven on many occasions and the article needs to reflect this. Ashmoo (talk) 07:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Generally the lead seems ok to me - it mentions that there were both allegations and convictions, and that seems accurate. Some allegations were proven (the convictions part) and some were not. The scandal involves both, so both should be referred to, not just convictions. - Bilby (talk) 08:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Really? To start with, the lede contains this: '...ongoing investigations into allegations and convictions...', which is incredibly poor English. Does it mean that there are investigations into convictions? I'm guessing not. Second, it puts the convictions after the investigations/allegations, whereas, surely, actual convictions are more notable than allegations. Thirdly, most of the lede focuses on the media attention, rather than the facts of abuse, which is poor style. Compare this to any other WP article on criminal proceedings, for example the O._J._Simpson_murder_case which also received lots of media attention (note, I am drawing to equivalence between the these two cases, except the media attention). These articles mention the media aspect of the case, but focus on the facts of what happened in both the crimes and trials. Ashmoo (talk) 09:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree about the way it is written. I guess my concern is that the comments above can be read as "drop references to allegations in the lead", when the allegations are, and remain, a major part of the scandal. So the lead needs to continue to refer to allegations as well as convictions. The text can certainly be improved, but I'd hate to see the reference to the allegations removed. Otherwise, the comments can be read as a request to change the text to present allegations as facts, which is a more serious legal problem, and therefore not what I was assumed was meant. - Bilby (talk) 09:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that allegations are important and should remain in the lede, and of course, that we should take care to never state as fact something that has only been alleged. My only concern is that the allegations and media response seems to be focused on over the confirmed acts of abuse, which seems the opposite of what an encyclopedia should be doing. Ashmoo (talk) 10:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure you're not surprised, but I must disagree with the suggestion to be bold. Your whole gripe seems ultimately be that Catholic sources are used and that the language is not as strong as you would like it to be. Whats wrong with using Catholic sources? Nothing. Our rules regarding bias dictate how the article is presented, not the sources we us. Also, removal of words such as "alleged" in a lot of places will create BLP violations are require immediate reversion without warning per policy. (A BLP issue is potentially a legal one, and wikipedia does not want to be sued). "testimonies" are referred to as allegations for this exact reason - allegation is the proper legal term unless a conviction has occurred, and in over half of all cases, there is no conviction. Abuse is also the proper legal term, and is more accurate anyway because not all instances involve rape. Your source, being an opinion piece, is also not useable. So there is nothing to fix here. The language used here is not the "language of the RCC", but is proper and precise terminology.

Next, your article states that the U.S. lawyer claims that the Vatican knew, which is not the same as stating that the Vatican knew as a fact. The lawyer is making an assertion, which we can talk about, but it must be spoken of as that laywer's assertion per policy. Furthermore, simply stating that the Vatican knew would not be clear enough anyway. As we all know, psychologists and psychiatrists of the day believed that abuse was a single target issue and their professional suggestion to various organizations with this issue was to move the abuser and keep things quiet so as not to embarrass and further scar the victim. Hence it is innaccurate and misleading to suggest that the Vatican simply tried to hide abuse.

Your next source is a blog and thus does not meet WP:RS criteria. But please not here that even in this blog which is by a lawyer, he prefers the terms "allegation" and "abuse". This is, again, because these are the proper terminology. The source after that is also an opinion piece and I'd be doubting it's reliability even if it weren't. They next source is ALSO an opinion piece and is not useable. So I don't see your suggestion to "fix it" happening here either. Especially since your sources, despite not being useable as sources, also say almost nothing to support what you want added to "fix" the issues. "Use of all legal and illegal means to avoid compensation?" Considering the massive number of payouts happening which are closing down some churches when church lawyers could easily stretch things out for years, I can't help but see such a statement as little more than ridiculous bullshit.

On to issue 3. You first cite another unuseable opinion piece. In addition, the articles numbers actually match the numbers already in the article pretty well - not exactly, but not too far off either. So what is there to "fix" here?

to issue D, you are literally suggesting that we give less sources. Seriously? We should be adding even more if anything. An article like this is often heated and benefits from over-sourcing as a result. What could we possibly gain by simply cutting citations? Nothing. Also, you seem to have a misconception about the weight of this issue in the public. This article is not precisely balanced with the public, but you seem to think it is multiple orders of magnitude off when it is not. In addition, if you actually totalled up the citations, you would see that present the victim's, acadamia's, and researcher's perspectives are cited at a rate of roughly 5 to 1 over the Catholic Church, so it is in no way the way you claim.

Regarding E - that is his position, so it is proper to call him such. Whether or not Standford supports him or his study is irrelevant. We do not stop calling professors and researchers what they are simply because the institution they work for has not publicly supported their efforts. And the CC's cooperation with the Nazi's is a widely known myth. As anyone who has studied this period of history should know, the Nazi's put to death approximately 1 million Catholics in their concentration camps and that high level clergy, including Pius XII, was directly involved in helping to save the lives of thousands upon thousands of Jews. Regardless of all this, it's irrelevant. The article is about Catholic sex abuse cases, and the Nazi's brought forth many cases against the Church during their regime. Hence such a section is completely relevant to the article, regardless of whether or not the Church helped the Nazis, and as that section makes little mention of the Church's position at that time, it's completely irrelevant to the article what that position was.

Regarding F - having the most recent developments are not a problem. I would remind you, though, that wikipedia is not a news service. What I mean by this is that wikipedia intentionally tries to avoid recentism - concentrating on the present to the neglect of the past. So be careful in how much concentration you place on recent changes - especially since the very new "breaking" stories tend to change some as more information comes out.

Regarding G - if Catholic numbers have indeed dropped by that much in the last 6-7 years, that would definitely be notable. However, all the statistics I have seen have indicated a rise, not drop, in Catholics. It is a strange phenomenon, but when members of some religion commit an atrocity, their numbers typically increase over the next several years instead of decrease. We saw this same phenomenon with converts to Islam post-9/11. So a drop - especially such a drastic one - is very atypical.

I would not be opposed to a consequences section, though I wonder if (and I place this as a question because I am not sure either way) we should stick with the consequences being places in their relevant sections instead of in their own separate section.

Lastly, I must say again that you really need to cut it with the "shall be written" language. Again, wikipedia is a collaborative effort. There is no "shall be" anything without consensus. Making such statements makes it sound like you're trying to control (WP:OWN) the article.Farsight001 (talk) 09:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• To anon user: Please, start with simple proposal of the introductory paragraph. Don't include the last sentence of the existing paragraph ('instituted reforms to prevent future abuse') I'm all in line of your thinking.
• To Farsight001: majority of us is against keeping this really, really bad article as is. Calling upon the consensus means only that you want blocking any collaborative effort here. You are the one against any serious collaboration which you confirmed by this lengthy response. So stop selling your wishes, opinions, disqualifications of the proposed changes if you want any collaboration here.--Eleven Nine (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I think Farsight is right with its critics against IP. IP is simply demanding changing the POV of the article to match with his opinion about the sex abuse cases. The sources delivered by IP are either biased or too recent to draw the proposed conclusions on it IP's proposing. But WP works on facts supported by reliable sources.

From my point of view it's too much emotion in here. This is a controversial issue and so we should cool down.

I agree that there are still a lot of things to be added to complete the knowledge about the when, why and how of the abuse cases. But that can easily be done by proposing things and reach consensus on the talk page.

But concerning the debate on the word "allegation", I'd like to mention that this point was already discussed here. Farsight is right. A lot of cases are alleged. That's a fact. To name it otherwise we need convictions or admissions of guilt. This is not given in all cases.

Perhaps a pause of reflection would be the best for all. Spamming the talk page with excessive accusations, claims, demands and off-topic-discussions won't help to improve the article. On the other hand I'd like to agree with Jess. If someone finds one point overrepresented he can outweight it by adding source-based information of other POVs. For example Germany: Instead of trying to delete relevant information on the Third Reich, it would be better to add information about cases happened afterwards. There is in fact still a huge gap. Any constructive expansion of that part would be welcomed.

This might be a better way of article improvement than never ending ideological discussions.

--Ricerca (talk) 20:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Really Eleven Nine? You should chill out. In what way was my lengthy response evidence that I am against any serious collaboration? I would think a detailed response would indicate, rather, my desire for collaboration. Those who do not want such a thing, typically edit and edit and edit and neglect discussion and accuse anyone who reverts them of bias or vandalism, etc. I am not selling wishes or opinions. I am trying to explain policy and give detailed reason for why a change should or should not be made. If you have a problem with my reasons, then respond to them instead of slinging accusations at me.Farsight001 (talk) 20:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

See this discussion IP hopper? This is on the EXACT subject and it is still here and still ongoing. So discuss here. Starting the discussion over is disruptive and not helpful to collaboration.Farsight001 (talk) 16:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Once again, you tried to start this very conversation over by adding a new section nearly identical to this one. The conversation already exists here. So continue the conversation here please. Starting a new one so you can ignore what those who disagree with you have to say is not collaborative or productive. All we'll do is respond to that, and then you'll start another new one, and then we'll respond to that, ad nauseum.Farsight001 (talk) 15:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Vox populi, vox dei

All Wikipedia articles have attached a small questionnaire, at the article bottom: Rate this page: Trustworthy Objective Complete Well-written

This article is not trustworthy nor objective for obviously being written by people who are coming from the RCC clergy or by some deaf and blind Catholics. Equally it is not complete nor well-written. Wikipedia shall make visible and browseable all questionnaires answered and commented, which shall be used to validate this article. My overall number of stars is zero for this version of article.

Any attempt to make any positive change is prevented by some who are just dedicated to prevent it. The three of them are bilby, farsight, ricerca (or, maybe, one person with three logins). Ricerca is dedicated to only this article and to only reverts.

No matter how long this bad article will be bad, people will be reading other articles like the one here. The most interesting thing are the readers' comments which are overwhelmingly (90%) negative and hostile toward the RCC. What I learned from these comments are: both Popes (Ratzinger and Wojtyla) were Nazi collaborators: Ratzinger ,Hitler's soldier from 1943 to just two months before the Nazi Germany collapse, Wojtyla, an I.G. Farben sales loyal representative whose workplace was just 6 miles from a large concentration camp in Poland. I. G. Farben was supplying zyklon gas to the camp. My earlier knowledge is about Pope Paul VI who signed the Reihchconcordat extension allowing the Vatican to freely spread Catcholicism in Yugoslavia and Russia.

I've mentioned this to shed proper light to the alleged persecution of the RCC in Germany. The fact is that paedophilia in Germany is much older than it was thought and putting allegations about paedophilia in Nazi Germany could only shed some positive light on Nazis.

Improve: My advice to the Wikipedia RCC followers is to remove Germany, Third Reich 1933-1945 section. Please, do not irritate readers of this article more than necessary.

Improve: Introductory shall contain only

The Catholic sex abuse cases are a series of ongoing investigations into allegations and convictions for sex crimes committed by Catholic priests and members of religious orders.[1] These cases began receiving public attention beginning in the mid-1980s.[2] There has been criminal prosecutions of the abusers and civil lawsuits against the church's dioceses and parishes.

Sexual abuse of minors by priests receives significant media attention in Canada, Ireland, the United States, the United Kingdom, Mexico, Belgium, France, and Germany, while cases have been reported throughout the world.

In addition to cases of abuse, much of the scandal has focused around members of the Catholic hierarchy who did not report abuse allegations to the civil authorities. In many cases they reassigned those accused to other locations where they continued to have contact with minors.[3]

It shall be added that the targeted victims were coming from the poor, disabled, or were orphans i.e. practically defenceless people. The other part of introductory shall be completely omitted and mentioned in the Vatican and the RCC defense. Popes explanation of the sin nature of this crime shall be not mentioned at all. This crime is at first crime, then sin which is well known and understandable to even the half-brained.

Later, I'll rewrite the introductory and see what are the opinions of other users.--66.151.103.9 (talk) 14:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.52.207.75

This is good! It's worth mentioning that Paceli (Pius XII) was the Hitler's Pope - it the time of alleged (?) child abuse in Germany. Read excellent Cornwell's book about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.52.207.75 (talk) 13:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

As to the alleged persecution of the Catholic Church in Nazi Germany (1933-37) for the child sex crime committed there, I found only one historically valid assessment of it. Some Holocaust historian wrote that Vatican and their Church did not fight back for being sure they would lose. I did not read Cornwell's Hitler's Pope. Is there anything written about this alleged persecution of the catholic Church?--66.151.103.9 (talk) 12:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Can't remember where Cornwell had an assessment like the one you mentioned above, if any. Read the book chapter 7: Hitler and German Catholicism--216.52.207.75 (talk) 14:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

One, this has nothing to do with article improvement. We are not a book club. So please get back to the subject. Two, if your true goal is to be fair and un-biased, then you should probably be checking out The Myth of Hitler's Pope as well. Hitler's Pope is mostly regarded as historical hogwash among scholars.Farsight001 (talk) 14:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with others that this should have been included in the previous section on the lead, not in a new section. That said, in regard to your suggested changes to the lead, the role of the lead is to summarise the article as a whole. Your changes, leaving out the Church's response, would be both counter to the neutral point of view policy and the manual of style on writing leads. So no, I don't think that it would be a good idea to change the lead as you describe. - Bilby (talk) 13:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what Ratzinger's relationship to Nazi Germany has to do with the article. If you have a reliable source making the connection clear, please provide it. Having said that, I agree that the intro is a mess and full of tortured language. I agree that the RCC's response definitely needs to be in the intro, but at the moment, the RCC response is about half of the intro, and the half that isn't presenting the RCC point of view talks just as much about the 'scandal' as it does about the facts of what has happened. Ashmoo (talk) 15:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, but what this In response to the widening scandal, Pope John Paul II emphasized the spiritual nature of the offenses. He declared in 2001 that "a sin against the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue by a cleric with a minor under 18 years of age is to be considered a grave sin, or delictum gravius."[7] has to do with this article? Or, why almost 11 000 testimonies about this heinous crime against Catholic children only in the USA are not mentioned in the summary section of this article? Even more, how this Woytyla's statement might have any moral weight knowing the fact that Woytyla was an I.G. Farben sales representative during the WWII? Read about it directly from Murder in the Vatican: The Revolutionary Life of John Paul and the CIA, Opus Dei and the 1978 Murders by Lucien Gregoire, Publisher AuthorHouse, 2008 ISBN 1434387232, 9781434387233, page 103. My friends, Wikipedia must follow the common sense moral line, not an arbitrarily interpreted Wikipedia guidance by some of you. I was born and raised as a Roman Catholic, but I am not convinced that two last popes were/are Catholics. --71.178.110.141 (talk) 16:53, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

To Ashmoo: The true Vatican and the RCC response was and is obstruction of justice, protection of the paedophiles, and self-defense. About this true response you have a great number of references based on collected and verified documents and testimonies. If you put in the article summary the true response (not the declarative and verbal ones) then I wouldn't object.--71.178.110.141 (talk) 17:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

First, what do you mean what does the Pope's words on the sex abuse scandal have to do with the sex abuse scandal? The relevance is extremely obvious. What are you trying to get at?

Second, 11,000 testimonies there are not. There might be 11,000 accusations, but considering that over half of all accusations have been determined to be false, then there is clearly nowhere near 11,000 testimonies. Where are you getting these numbers?

Third, JP2's job during WW2 is completely and utterly irrlevant to this article. In addition, he was in no way a zyklon B salesman. That is a ridiculous myth promoted in your even more ridiculous book. His young life is well documented, and there's nothing in it about this. He worked at a factory, but was never involved in zyklon B production (which had a legitimate and innocent use when he was working at that factory anyway) and was not working there when WW2 began. Please, I implore you, raise your standards when it comes to sources. The stuff you cite is so ridiculous sometimes.

Fourth, and most important, Wikipedia actually must NOT follow "the common sense moral line". Wikipedia follows verifiability by credible sources and nothing else. Wikipedia does not have "morals" to follow, but only guidelines.Farsight001 (talk) 18:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, forgive me for badly reading the reference. It's about 15,000 of testimonies. Who and where proved that more than half of them were false? Here is the correction

Data on the Crisis
The Human Toll

Thousands of Catholic clergy and religious have raped and sodomized tens of thousands of children—perhaps more than 100,000 children—since 1950. These crimes were committed in secret, and bishops nurtured that secrecy. Nearly 15,000 survivors have broken through the silence, and their accounts have created an in-depth picture of the crisis, both in their own writings and in the work of journalists and law enforcement officials. Attorneys have obtained diocesan documents that reveal additional survivor witness and also document parts of a huge cover-up. But for every account that is known, hundreds are not yet public. In order to understand the crisis fully and take the necessary policy actions, the in-depth testimony of individual survivors must be combined with data that capture the breadth of the crisis.

--71.178.110.141 (talk) 19:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

First, please respond to what I posted. You have ignored 90% of what I typed. Second, you know how I suggested you raise yours tandards when it comes to sources? You have clearly not done so if you're citing bishop-accountability. Try a scholarly and neutral source please. Notice how the statistics on their own page do not add up. 3566 clergy accused (not guilty, just accused), at 2.6 accusations per person on average is 9272, not 15000. And again, these are accusations, approximately half of which have not panned out as authentic, so most of them cannot be called "testimonies". A site that falsifies statistics is not a credible source of information. Farsight001 (talk) 19:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

You have first tone down your responses. Then, as to the standards, those neutral and scholar ones (sources) are not certainly coming from the Roman Popes, nor from the RCC, nor from their writers. Until you learn some civilty, until you stop quarreling, accusing, denying - there will be no further discussion with you.--71.178.110.141 (talk) 22:18, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I HAVE toned down my responses, which were never as blatantly insulting as yours in the first place. Second, no I don't have to tone them down. I am trying to discuss so that we can have collaboration here. Are you admitting that you refuse to collaborate and discuss? Because if you so refuse to speak to me, then edits made while ignoring and refusing to respond to my suggestions would be considered disruptive and worthy of a block of your editing privileges, according to policy. Please, discuss with me. Refusal to only makes it look to everyone like you can't respond and that therefore my arguments stand solid atop yours.Farsight001 (talk) 23:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I still don't understand the link between Ratzinger's Nazi past and Catholic sex abuse. Any details not directly related to Ratzinger's handling of rapes should be in the article devoted to him as a person. IP, am I misunderstanding what you are saying? Ashmoo (talk) 18:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Irish-Vatican embassy closed

This reuters article might be of significance - here's a quick quote. EdwardLane (talk) 10:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

"All things being equal, I really doubt the mission to the Vatican would have been on the list to get the axe without the fallout from the sex abuse scandal,"

.

most recent edits

There was a small edit made recently, which I reverted and suggested we discuss. I was reverted under the claim that it was already discussed. Since that is obviously not true, being that there is no discussion about it here, I'm starting one. so discuss. :) Farsight001 (talk) 23:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand the edit-war on that subject. In the NYT-article Cupich ist quoted with the following phrase: “There was mounting evidence in the world of psychology that indicated that when medical treatment is given, these people can, in fact, go back to ministry.” and Plante supports this assertion by "In fact, the vast majority of the research on sexual abuse of minors didn't emerge until the early 1980's. So, it appeared reasonable at the time to treat these men and then return them to their priestly duties." So what's the critique? --Ricerca (talk) 07:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it an edit war, but I'm sorry if I made a change that was considered a revert, I thought I was making a compromise edit. The problem with the sentence as I see it is two-fold. One, the sources do not say that psychiatrists believed this, only bishops. Ricerca, the quote you give above is from a bishop, not a psychiatrist. He is saying what he imagined psychologists believed, but without a source directly from a psychologist/psychiatrist, we can only say that bishops believed psychology said this. Indeed, the rest of the article seems to be saying that psychologists didn't believe that at the time. And secondly, the grammar is a bit weird and seems to be saying that psychiatrists are defending themselves, which I think, isn't the case. Ashmoo (talk) 08:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

You might have actually made a compromise edit. But ideally, we would still discuss it before making said edit. As for your reasoning - first, Plante, one of the authors of the sources, is a psychiatrist, and he clearly says this in the article, so at least one psychiatrist is saying it. It is this source that is provided for the perspective of psychiatrists. The Times article is provided for the perspective of the bishops. As the article says, "...some bishops and psychiatrists..." The Plante article supports this claim for the psychiatrists, and the Times article does the same for the bishops, instead of one source making the claim for the both of them. Also keep in mind that this is the lede of the article. Ideally, it has no sources at all since it is supposed to be a summary of the article, and thus sources are found below.Farsight001 (talk) 15:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree, in theory, that the lede doesn't necessarily need to include every cite, but in this case, the main article must contain the cite that supports the claim being made. Regarding Plante, I could not find the text that supported the claim in the cited article. Could you identify the part of the text that contains it? Furthermore, begin the lede, I think we need stronger sources than a single author. A 3rd party report, or a statement by a psychological/psychiatrist organisation is much better. In articles as obviously controversial as this one, I think we need to insist on very good sources to avoid problems, as it is easy to find single specialists in any field to support any assertion. Lastly, the other source cited actually says that the general feeling in psychiatry at the time was to not give molesters further access to children, but the text says nothing of this. Ashmoo (talk) 12:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone care to respond, before I make the appropriate changes? Ashmoo (talk) 12:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Still no-one wants to show the support for the claim? Ashmoo (talk) 14:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Dutch report

Two quotes from the BBC article

Tens of thousands of children have suffered sexual abuse in Dutch Catholic institutions since 1945, a report says.

Most of the cases involved mild to moderate abuse, such as touching, but the report estimated there were "several thousand" instances of rape.

Here's one of many sources BBC article

EdwardLane (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The 10,000 to 20,000 "cases" of abuse are a statistical estimation. In fact, the commission interviewed 34,000 Dutch people. 0.3 to 0.9 % of them declared to have had unwanted sexual advances before the age of 18 from a perpetrator working in the Roman Catholic Church. Like in several other cases, it seems better quoting the original sources instead of newspaper articles: Report summary in English --Ricerca (talk) 12:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

thanks for finding the original source summary in English EdwardLane (talk) 04:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal: Thomas G. Plante

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was no consensus to merge. (NAC) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

---

I propose that Thomas G. Plante be merged into Catholic sex abuse cases. The notable part of the content in Thomas G. Plante relates exclusively to the Catholic clergy sex abuse scandal, and hence can and should be explained in that context. The addition is of minimal length, consisting of citations from Times and a few other news outlets, and should not significantly alter the length of the Catholic sex abuse cases article. Ajoykt (talk) 05:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. The individual has other notable activities and meets criteria for separate article. -- Presearch (talk) 14:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

• The article now also cites media coverage of Plante on other issues unrelated to clergy sexual abuse. -- Presearch (talk) 16:52, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

None of that coverage is notable, they are incidental. When the article was created, it was the work on catholic clergy that was cited as the notability reason. Ajoykt (talk) 16:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The other press coverage certainly undercuts your original arguments for merger, which were weak to begin with. This individual obviously has notability, has broad interests and makes noted and media-covered contributions in a number of areas, and no supportable reasons have been offered for a merger. Your sudden interest in reducing Wikipedia's coverage of this individual on multiple pages seems odd. -- Presearch (talk) 17:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The other coverage on Wikipedia was all added by you, the creator of the page, and none of it is notable, those are routine activities expected of a college professor. The other press coverage too, recently added, is not noticeable. The central noticeability aspect of the article is the work on clergy sex abuse alone. I realize noticeability is subjective, depending on what areas one considers important. I think we should just wait for a third opinion, not linked to either of us.17:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajoykt (talk • contribs)

Other activities may not establish notability of this individual, but in many cases they involve notable topics. For example, several of his books are notable, having generated multiple reviews in relevant publications. Wikipedia does not operate by the principle that biographies of multifaceted people should be merged into the single topic for which they are most notable, or which best establishes their notability. FYI, I am mostly done with a page about one of his notable books. --Presearch (talk) 02:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

As regards academic notability, the criteria are here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28academics%29. Here is a list of his publications showing up in "Web of Knowledge." One doesn't assess academic contributions by number of reviews, but by number of citations. As can be seen in excerpts from "The Web of Knowledge," he is a poorly cited researcher (the sample is not complete, but are the first few pages which show up - the trend is unmistakably clear, especially where he is the first author). Plante has a an H-index of 12, per Scopus. To see where that ranks in Psychology/Psychiatry, go to: http://academic.research.microsoft.com/RankList?entitytype=2&topDomainID=6&subDomainID=22&last=0&start=1&end=100 and check - by the time you get to an H-index of 12, you are on page 27, with each page having 100 entries. That indicates "no academic notability," especially for somebody in the field for more than 25 years.

2.

Title: Exercising with an iPod, Friend, or Neither: Which is Better for Psychological Benefits? Author(s): Plante Thomas G.; Gustafson Carissa; Brecht Carrie; et al. Source: AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HEALTH BEHAVIOR Volume: 35 Issue: 2 Pages: 199-208 Published: 2011 Times Cited: 0 (from All Databases)

[ View abstract ]

3.

Title: Managing Change on Complex Programs: VIRGINIA Class Cost Reduction Author(s): Johnson David C.; Drakeley George M.; Plante Thomas N.; et al. Source: NAVAL ENGINEERS JOURNAL Volume: 121 Issue: 4 Pages: 79-94 DOI: 10.1111/j.1559-3584.2009.00230.x Published: 2009 Times Cited: 0 (from All Databases)

[ View abstract ]

4.

Title: Prospective study of religious coping among patients undergoing autologous stem cell transplantation Author(s): Sherman Allen C.; Plante Thomas G.; Simonton Stephanie; et al. Source: JOURNAL OF BEHAVIORAL MEDICINE Volume: 32 Issue: 1 Pages: 118-128 DOI: 10.1007/s10865-008-9179-y Published: FEB 2009 Times Cited: 0 (from All Databases)

[ View abstract ]

9.

Title: A prospective study of religious coping and health outcomes among patients undergoing stem cell transplantation Author(s): Sherman Allen C.; Plante Thomas G.; Simonton Stephanie; et al. Source: ANNALS OF BEHAVIORAL MEDICINE Volume: 35 Supplement: 1 Pages: S158-S158 Published: MAR 2008 Times Cited: 0 (from All Databases)

Title: Integrating spirituality and psychotherapy: Ethical issues and principles to consider Author(s): Plante Thomas G. Source: JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY Volume: 63 Issue: 9 Pages: 891-902 DOI: 10.1002/jclp.20383 Published: SEP 2007 Times Cited: 5 (from All Databases)

[ View abstract ] 12.

Title: Ethical considerations for psychologists screening applicants for the priesthood in the catholic church: Implications of the Vatican instruction on homosexuality Author(s): Plante Thomas G. Source: ETHICS & BEHAVIOR Volume: 17 Issue: 2 Pages: 131-136 Published: 2007 Times Cited: 0 (from All Databases)

[ View abstract ] 13.

Title: Religious faith and spirituality in substance abuse recovery - Determining the mental health benefits Author(s): Pardini DA; Plante TG; Sherman A; et al. Source: JOURNAL OF SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT Volume: 19 Issue: 4 Pages: 347-354 DOI: 10.1016/S0740-5472(00)00125-2 Published: DEC 2000 Times Cited: 56 (from All Databases)

[ View abstract ] 14.

Title: TRAINING CHILD CLINICAL PREDOCTORAL INTERNS AND POSTDOCTORAL FELLOWS IN ETHICS AND PROFESSIONAL ISSUES - AN EXPERIENTIAL MODEL Author(s): PLANTE TG Source: PROFESSIONAL PSYCHOLOGY-RESEARCH AND PRACTICE Volume: 26 Issue: 6 Pages: 616-619 DOI: 10.1037/0735-7028.26.6.616 Published: DEC 1995 Times Cited: 12 (from All Databases)

11.

Title: Ethical considerations for psychologists screening applicants for the priesthood in the catholic church: Implications of the Vatican instruction on homosexuality Author(s): Plante Thomas G. Source: ETHICS & BEHAVIOR Volume: 17 Issue: 2 Pages: 131-136 Published: 2007 Times Cited: 0 (from All Databases)

[ View abstract ] 12.

Title: Encyclopedia of psychotherapy, vol 1-2 Author(s): Plante TG Source: CONTEMPORARY PSYCHOLOGY-APA REVIEW OF BOOKS Volume: 49 Issue: 2 Pages: 154-156 Published: APR 2004 Times Cited: 0 (from All Databases)

13.

Title: Bishops behaving badly: Ethical considerations regarding the clergy abuse crisis in the Roman Catholic Church Author(s): Plante TG Source: ETHICS & BEHAVIOR Volume: 14 Issue: 1 Pages: 67-73 Published: 2004 Times Cited: 4 (from All Databases)

[ View abstract ] 14.

Title: Moral friends can help each other create a more humane, just, and ethical world Author(s): Plante TG Source: ETHICS & BEHAVIOR Volume: 14 Issue: 1 Pages: 84-87 Published: 2004 Times Cited: 0 (from All Databases)

15.

Title: Might virtual reality promote the mood benefits of exercise? Author(s): Plante TG; Aldridge A; Bogden R; et al. Source: COMPUTERS IN HUMAN BEHAVIOR Volume: 19 Issue: 4 Pages: 495-509 Article Number: PII S0747-5632(02)00074-2 DOI: 10.1016/S0747-5632(02)00074-2 Published: JUL 2003 Times Cited: 14 (from All Databases)

[ View abstract ] 16.

Title: Does virtual reality enhance the psychological benefits of exercise? Author(s): Plante TG; Frazier S; Tittle A; et al. Source: JOURNAL OF HUMAN MOVEMENT STUDIES Volume: 45 Issue: 6 Pages: 485-507 Published: 2003 Times Cited: 1 (from All Databases)

[ View abstract ] 17.

Title: Psychological benefits of exercising with another Author(s): Plante TG; Bogdan R; Kanani Z; et al. Source: JOURNAL OF HUMAN MOVEMENT STUDIES Volume: 44 Issue: 2 Pages: 93-106 Published: 2003 Times Cited: 3 (from All Databases)

[ View abstract ] 18.

Title: Stress and health: Research and clinical applications. Author(s): Plante TG Source: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF STRESS MANAGEMENT Volume: 9 Issue: 2 Pages: 125-126 Article Number: UNSP 1072-5245/02/0400-0125/0 DOI: 10.1023/A:1014958804643 Published: APR 2002 Times Cited: 0 (from All Databases)

19.

Title: Stress and coping among displaced Bosnian refugees: An exploratory study Author(s): Plante TG; Simicic A; Andersen EN; et al. Source: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF STRESS MANAGEMENT Volume: 9 Issue: 1 Pages: 31-41 DOI: 10.1023/A:1013015017147 Published: JAN 2002 Times Cited: 5 (from All Databases)

[ View abstract ] 20.

Title: Handbook of religion and health. Author(s): Plante TG Source: JOURNAL FOR THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF RELIGION Volume: 40 Issue: 4 Pages: 790-791 Published: DEC 2001 Times Cited: 0 (from All Databases)

PS Please also see comments in section

Talk:Thomas_G._Plante#Some_background_potentially_relevant_to_merger_proposal (DIFF). -- Presearch (talk) 15:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Further reading

This seems to be one newspaper article out of hundreds so I have removed it from "Further Reading". Perhaps another editor can include this information in the body of the text, or as a reference. This would seem the better place for a specific article, rather than in a list of books:

• Lobdell, William, "Missionary's Dark Legacy; Two remote Alaska villages are still reeling from a Catholic volunteer's sojourn three decades ago, when he allegedly molested nearly every Eskimo boy in the parishes. The accusers, now men, are scarred emotionally and struggle to cope. They are seeking justice." Los Angeles Times, Nov 19, 2005, p. A.1Cistercian (talk) 10:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Conference

Afp article which reports that Cardinal William Levada, the head of the Church's main enforcement body, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, opened the conference saying the Vatican had received more than 4,000 denunciations over the past decade.

and also reports Papal biographer Marco Politi said: "The meeting is a historic watershed because for the first time the Vatican is going to analyse on an international level the responsibility of the Church for child abuse." EdwardLane (talk) 14:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Parity across similar articles?

This appears in the lead of Scouting sex abuse cases, and has lasted there for a long time:-

It is felt by some that the incidence of sexual abuse is exaggerated, however, in any organization as large as the Boy Scouts, there is a chance for abuse to occur. Children of parents who have been told about what to look out for and have an open relationship with their parents about sexual matters are much less likely to become victims of abuse.

As editors seem to think this sort of thing belongs in a lead for such articles, I have added similar to the lead of this article.Testbed (talk) 10:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It's unsourced, and obviously somebody's personal opinion. I don't think it belongs, so I've taken it back out. Happy to await input from others on this discussion. Might also pop over to Scouting sex abuse cases to see how it got there too. HiLo48 (talk) 21:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

May I ask - what do other editors think about this as an approach to this article?:-

My broad view on the article is that because of its sensitivity, everything in it must be very well sourced, and it must deal fairly and sensibly with the variations in approaches around the world. Timing is an issue too. If a sex abuse case occurred twenty years ago, it should not be mentioned in isolation without extensive coverage of what that country's Catholic administration has done about sex abuse in general since then. In many cases, that's an awful lot.

Testbed (talk) 11:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

This article is awfully incomplete, inaccurate, and Vatican mind leaning

This article suffers heavily from incompleteness which is reflected in grossly neglected victims' experience and inability for decades to effectively counter the rapes (which are, in the Vatican parlance, called sexual abuse cases) and, on another hand, in "Vatican responses" which were actually coverup and obstruction of justice.

The Yahoo News Religion section is full (on the daily basis for the last 10 years) of horrible and never ending stories about children being raped by the Roman Catholic Church clergy.

Accordingly, to radically improve the content of this article, all "statistics" and Vatican responses (which were no more than ineffective and meaningless declarations) shall be unconditionally removed. The "statistics" is misleading and far from being complete and accurate. Any Vatican defense minded articles shall be scrutinized through independent reviews.--71.178.101.2 (talk) 18:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

You again? There is no "shall" anything. We are not here to cater to you and your desires for this article. This is an encyclopedia. That means we dispassionately report what reliable source say. We do not advocate for either side. We report what reliable sources say. Reliable sources call it sex abuse, and so we call it sex abuse, not rape. Reliable sources call them Vatican responses, and thus, so do we. Calling things coverups and obstruction of justice, which are precise legal terms, when they, legally, aren't those things, is a good way for wikipedia to get sued.

If you do not have a specific suggestion for article improvement, don't bother posting again. This talk page is for article improvement ONLY.Farsight001 (talk) 20:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'd like to suggest removal of all Vatican based or Vatican affiliated "sources" for being out of We report what reliable sources say. ms/mr Farsight. What is really missing is a section about the grave consequences (to the Vatican and its church)of this scandal which still lasts and goes back 70 years in 20ieth century. Ireland removed her ambassador from Vatican, number of Germans who declared themselves Catholics slipped as low as 3.5%, number of the Catholic Church goers in the US dropped 25%, etc. It is too obvious that the Roman Catholic Church lost her moral ground and religious influence worldwide. All this shall go to the section called "The scandal consequences", for example. Ms/mr Farsight, the article advocates only one side, the Catholic Church, no matter how authoritative your response might sound. Please, be kind of not teaching what is encyclopaedia.--71.178.101.2 (talk) 02:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Good point! I would go further: remove completely Debate over causes for being pointless and out of touch with reality. Farsight, all media wrote and talked and is still writing and talking about the Church coverup and obstruction of justice. Don't see any ever sued by Vatican or someone else. --68.98.167.207 (talk) 02:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Cut the crap, IP71. You're the same IP hopper that has posted previously and IP68 is the same person. Sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry, even when using IP addressess, is still a blockable offense.

In addition, it is complete and utter bullshit to claim that the article advocates only one side. Simply glancing over the section titles, let alone reading the article itself, makes this abundantly clear.

Either way, you need a reliable source to include any of this information in the first place, and it has to be notable enough, as we are an encyclopedia, not a compendium of every little tidbit of knowledge on the subject. Your claims about membership decline (the numbers I've seen actually indicate growth, not decline) really mean nothing without a reliable source, as I already explained above. You can rant and rave and claim a thousand different things, but without a reliable source, nothing will change.Farsight001 (talk) 03:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Any of your multiple IP addresses, mysterious IP hopper, want to actually discuss your desired changes in the article like an adult instead of ignoring me and charging ahead blindly? Your refusal to discuss the issue and come to some sort of agreement first is a good way to lose editing privileges around here. At the very least, it's quite uncharitable.Farsight001 (talk) 14:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

balance in lead

Does anyone else see it as a problem that the lead spends more time justifying, alibing and "contextualising" on behalf of the Catholic Church than it does on the actual abuse the article is supposedly about? Haldraper (talk) 05:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I would argue for removal of all of the lead from the words "In defending..." in the third paragraph onwards. It's not lead material. HiLo48 (talk) 05:55, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

As the lead makes accusations against the Roman Catholic Church (justified as they are), it seems reasonable to include a reply for neutrality. The extent and wording of that reply is tricky, but it does seem necessary to include something. - Bilby (talk) 07:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Something yes, but giving more space in the lead to the Catholic Church's defence of its actions than to the abuse itself is far from neutral. Haldraper (talk) 12:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would agree that it is more space per se - there are two lines on the Church's defence and two lines on the Church's response. Ideally, though, the lead should reflect and summarise the body - it might be worth hashing out something which better reflects the content of the article as a whole. - Bilby (talk) 00:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

How about this?

The Catholic sex abuse cases are a series of convictions, trials and ongoing investigations into allegations of sex crimes committed by Catholic priests and members of religious orders. These cases began receiving public attention beginning in the mid-1980s. There have been criminal prosecutions of the abusers and civil lawsuits against the church's dioceses and parishes.

Sexual abuse of minors by priests has received significant media attention in Canada, Ireland, the United States, the United Kingdom, Mexico, Belgium, France, and Germany, with cases reported throughout the world. In addition to the abuse, much of the scandal has focused around members of the Catholic hierarchy who are alleged not to have reported abuse to the civil authorities and reassigned those accused to other locations where they continued to have contact with minors.

Haldraper (talk) 15:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

All in all very well, but this is a view of the things, that could be seen as biased by other parts of the discussion on the sex abuse cases. So I think, we should keep also the church reactions:

Though recognizing the moral defy of the abuse cases and the demand for an appropriate reaction by the roman-catholic church, handling and presentation of the abuse cases caused also critique by Catholics and others. Media coverage in relation to abuse scandals in non-catholic institution for example has been criticised as excessive. On the other hand the majority of cases date back over 30 years ago. Accused bishops defended their actions on abuse cases as appropriate due to the prevailing psychology of that time suggesting that people could be cured of such behavior through counseling. --Ricerca (talk) 11:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Here you have added text claiming that most offenses date back 30 years or more as an excuse while here you argue that history dating back more than 60 years is important enough to precede the section on actual events. I fail to see the logic. Regarding the German history, perhaps you could better explain how you think it influences current thinking. However from my impression it has extremely little impact today, after war people in Germany had many other worries and the episode is completely forgotten by anyone but historians. Richiez (talk) 22:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The 30 years are the average of most cases according to the John-Jay-Study. But you're right, perhaps this should be added.

The Third Reich importance is given by the relation which was established by bishop Müller of Regesburg in 2010. Form my point of view, we can also do an historical section. But I think the paragraph is important and should be kept. --Ricerca (talk) 11:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not aware that the bishop of Regensburg established anything. Not within Germany and much that anyone noticed outside Germany. When German sex abuse cases are discussed I have never heard someone to take the recourse to third reich. Furthermore this is not about real abuse cases and this article is about "Catholic sex abuse cases", not political processes in the third reich. There is an separate article about that and absolutely no need to duplicate it here. Richiez (talk) 22:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I've opened a new section to discuss that matter below. --Ricerca (talk) 08:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I've cut the third para which to be honest didn't even reach the level of comprehensible English. It might be best if people who want to add things to the lead discuss them here first. Haldraper (talk) 09:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to make a better proposition. But I agree, that things should be discussed here first. Because of that I brought the article back to its original version.

I think a lead should include the following points: 1. What happend (I think your proposition is o.k.) and 2. the reactions of the church. In my opinion, these are the most interesting points for the majority of the readers. On the other hand, this is needed to get a neutral version. Simply repeating the point of view of some medias seems to fail the neutrality standard of WP. Nevertheless we have to keep in mind, that the sex abuse cases are still developing and no one can give a final judgement on it. --Ricerca (talk) 11:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Third Reich

Hi Richiez, lets open here a new thread to seperate this topic from the discussion on neutrality: First: I don't want to make you angry or something like that. I simply think, there should be discussions and consensus before changes. So I brought the article back to its original version.
To the topic:
My point is not to overemphasize the role of the events in the Third Reich.
But in my opinion there are several arguments to keep that section:
1. This article is on the sex abuse cases in generel. It's not only a case list. We can (after a long an thorough discussion) change the nature of this article. But at the moment it focusses also on how sex abuse cases are handled, discussed, etc. That's why there is a section on media inaccuracy or on causes.
2. It is not clear whether the cases discussed in the Third Reich where real, exaggerated or invented. That's the problem. Nevertheless the discussion in Germany also referred to these events. (Here is one link) I think this is also caused by a long tradition of let's call it "sexual discrimination an calumniation" of catholic priests in Germany in the aftermath of Reformation and Enlightement. There is e. g. the "Pfaffenspiegel", etc. and this, as it seems to me, caused the special role of sex abuse by priests in German debates.
3. Several Wikipedias refer to the Third Reich abuse cases. The french WP for example brings it a one of the early mentions. And I think also that it should be kept, perhaps in another section of the article. Perhaps we should also establish a historical section or something like that.
Finally, there has already been a debate on this section not long ago. It resulted in no changes. So I don't think you can't decide that on your own and your preferences. It should take place only after having found consensus here.

--Ricerca (talk) 08:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Nice article that you have linked here. As far as I can tell it says:

• Bishop Mueller tried to use alleged persecution by nazis to excuse current sexual abuse and alleged media are persecuting the church like nazis did in the third reich
• Bishop Mueller created a public scandal by this and was rebutted by "Kurienkardinal Walter Kasper" (presumably his superior), many others and received zero approval except from you.

It would be nice to summarize that in the reactions of the Catholic church but the story of the third reich is off topic here as are the witch hunts and exorcists. Richiez (talk) 19:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Richiez calm down please and stop your POV-led attacks.

1) You forget, that the linked article is from an liberal newspaper giving its point of view ("public scandal") and citing statements of people going along with that. Catholic blogs and also parish-magazines in Germany reacted in far different ways. The very interesting point in that matter is, that Müller never linked abuse to III. Reich (it was a hoax), but that was the first interpretation of one his speeches in the media. (because the events are still known to German Catholics and gloomed in the background and were discussed beneath the level of national medias)

2) Most important: With concentrating on the link and its fast interpretation according to your worldview, you answered to none of the arguments.

Finally we still can say: The historical events in the III. Reich belong to this topic and should be mentioned here. (As have decides multiple other WPs) What we have to discuss is 1) Where to put it and 2) How to bring the sections on Germany in a balance.

I would be pleased to get a constructive proposition from you.

--Ricerca (talk) 08:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Dear Ricerca, please be advised that I interpret all attempts to interpret the state of my mind as a grave sin against WP:CIVILty. Please refrain from personal attacks.

Regarding your arguments, I am perfectly fine to summarize this article under reactions of the church if you agree. However we can only say what to the article says which is the only reliable source that I can see.

Replying to "1. This article is on the sex abuse cases in generel." that may be true but it contradicts your edits where you insisted that something was largely irrelevant because most of the cases were older than 30 years.

Again - you have not replied to my question why you think something that happened 70 years ago should be so emphasized as to become the lead of the German section while there were thousands of real cases less than 30 years old. We could start with 18th century events as well but that would be somewhat contrary to the whole structure of the article.

Replying to "is not clear whether the cases discussed in the Third Reich where real, exaggerated or invented." Your argument contradicts the [wording] which you have several times reinstated that does not allow any doubt that the cases were false and fabricated to malign the CC.

Replying "3. Several Wikipedias refer to the Third Reich abuse cases." It would be best to use the reliable sources from other wikipedias as far as they have something that this article does not. Otherwise those are independent articles that may well have a very different scope.

Replying "Finally, there has already been a debate on this section not long ago". I fail to see how [this] debate should be interpreted as a consensus to keep the current placement and wording as it is. -- Richiez (talk) 21:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Richiez,

I set back the article to the original state. I hope you agree, that consensus is needed before making changes.

To your arguments:

1) Your POV: I refered to formulations as "witch hunts" and imputations as "you insisted that something was largely irrelevant"

2) An article is not as such a relevant source. We also have to carefully be with the source as such. Especially if it about only one-side interpretating sources presented by others. And if you want to, i have additional sources: Link1; Link2

3) "you insisted that something was largely irrelevant because most of the cases were older than 30 years" - That is your a bit deviant interpretation. I cited the John-Jay-Report to describe the situation (as I told you already above). In stating the fact that the majority of cases date back to the 1970ies, I say nowhere something on the importance of these cases. Contrary, we even cite reports, that refer even to cases from 1920. But 1920 was simply not the climax of the development of the number of cases in the 20th century. But your critique shows once again, that it is motivated by a certain POV, that you want to see expressed in this article.

4) I replied to your question on relevance. I told you the content of the section describes historical facts, that are important to understand reactions in Germany on sex abuse cases until today. That is proved by the media discussion on a misinterpreted speech of a German bishop in 2010.

5) "to become the lead of the German section" - if you read my answers above, you will find, that I am not voting for making the Third Reich section the lead. I am only convinced, that an article on catholic sex abuse cases in Germany should also give the necessary background details of the situation in general. The Third Reich sex abuse cases belong to these details as shows the debate in 2010. Moreover keeping the Third Reich section does not decrease the important of sex abuse cases happened later. I trust in the readers to be able to see the difference.

5) "We could start with 18th century events as well but that would be somewhat contrary to the whole structure of the article." Why? Open up at the beginning a historical section (like in the French WP) and everything is fine. By the way, I was critized once by another author to be careful not to concentrate the article to much on the U.S. In this way the Third Reich section is important,too.

6) "wording" - I don't see the contradiction. The section describes the campaign of the Nazis and emphazises that also innocent people were accused. There is no statement on sex abuse allegations in general.

7) "how [this] debate should be interpreted as a consensus to keep the current placement and wording as it is" I never interpreted it as such. I only see, that there is no consensus to simply delete the whole section. That's for me the point.

--Ricerca (talk) 01:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Ricerca, please fix your comments so that they are readable and in English. You can ask for help at Wikipedia:Local Embassy.

Also, this is the last warning to avoid personal attacks. Richiez (talk) 15:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Introduction is unclear, hazy, and doesn't represent true nature of scandal

The intro doesn't address at all the main problems with the scandal; it wasn't the scandal itself that causes shock but the reaction to said scandal. The intro is very incomplete and would mislead any new users of Wikipedia into thinking that the scandal WAS a past problem that has been addressed and now everybody has moved on. This is totally not the picture that we want to send out. Truth is the scandal is ongoing and is only widening as the reach of the Catholic empire continues to expand. Catholics do not view this scandal as a book that is closed, in fact many court cases are pending and every month lawyers for the Church manage to cover up scandals, settle with the involved parties, and defend new scenarios of child sexual predators in the Catholic Church. This Wikipedia article is a pathetic attempt to inform the public of what has happened and needs to be cleaned up. We need to start off with the introduction.

In the introduction we want to focus on the scandal and the aftermath of the scandal. While the article does do a satisfactory job of describing the scandal, it focuses little to none on the reaction to the scandal by the public and the papal hierarchy. Most of the attention itself isn't on the scandal anymore. Much of the general populace has accepted that X percentage of the church's clergy is you know what. So the public has moved on and that river has been crossed. What is now the current point of contention is if the Church acted as strongly as it needed to, to punish and persecute those responsible for the scandal. While most of the Papal leadership in the top rungs is not implicated in the scandal (as of yet), their response to those lower in the organization has been pathetically underwhelming. The focus is on this and why it happened. By this I mean the reaction from the top. The article needs to have at least an opening paragraph stating what I just have stated. At a minimum 1-2 paragraphs need to state what is perceived as a lack of responsiveness to the crisis and a public disgust of the handling of the scandal. While the few church supporters say the crisis was handled well the vast majority of the unaffected public disagrees.

In the next few weeks more research will be cited and the response and the reaction from the Catholic Church and the wide perception of a betrayal or a lack of urgency will the expanded and expounded upon.

12.129.87.3 (talk) 16:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

And just so people are clear we are not talking about Curial response to Catholic sex abuse cases we are talking about the public's response to the Church's reaction to the scandal. The facts are that the church was ineffective and largely swept the scandal under the rug for many years. It is known that the Church denied the scandal right until the last minute and tried to cover it up in any way possible. So the public was rightly incensed at the response and this article while mentioning it in the body does not even give a little bit of a starter or introductory thesis into said controversy.

12.129.87.3 (talk) 17:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Fraud claims and opposition to statute of limitations changes

I've reworded two additions which have been added a few times by an IP editor. The first was:

This along with the fact that the church has spent hundreds of millions of dollars in fighting lawsuits and proposed changes in child sex abuse reporting laws casts doubt on whether or not the Church truly apologizes or even cares about the sadistic actions of its priests.[2]

The source supports the statement that the church has been opposing changes to the statute of limitations in regard to child abuse laws, but it doesn't give a figure, nor does it provide a reference for "...casts doubt on whether or not the Church truly apologizes or even cares about the sadistic actions of its priests", which appears to be very much POV. As the statute of limitations opposition was already covered in the lead, I've added the new reference to the existing statement.

The second was:

While there have been few if any responses from the Pope to the scandal, many have been criticizing the slow and careless nature of any actions taken to mitigate the crisis.[3]

The reference here is about a fraud case against the church, where it is argued that the Church misled an abuse victim when it claimed that the accused priest would never work again. It is a serious complaint, but is unrelated to whether or not the Pope has responded to the scandal, and it isn't clear that it supports the claim that the church was "slow and careless". At any rate, the wording presumes that the church was slow and careless, which is probably true, but would need a source providing better support. Accordingly, I've reworded it to focus on the fraud claims. - Bilby (talk) 23:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure you can find a source with a quick google search online to see how much the C.C. is spending in lobbying efforts to fight more lax child sex reporting laws. Tons of info on it. Isn't that despicable. If you don't put that in the edit, then you didn't at all read the news in the past couple of days. This is a watershed moment for the C.C. and wikipedia should be bold enough to report on it and the consequences for all those involved. 108.70.61.233 (talk) 02:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

If you can find a source then that would be great. Except that the lobbying efforts on the statue of limitations were already in the lead, and the other claims you insist on adding are personal opinions not supported by the sources. I may well share your opinion, but that doesn't mean we can drop them into the lead. - Bilby (talk) 03:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I've raised this on the NPOV noticeboard - hopefully some assistance will help move this along one way or the other. - Bilby (talk) 14:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Support that. Wikipedia is for summarizing what is in reliable sources and not for sticking in one's own ideas about things. For 108.70.61.233 there is a short summary of the principles of WIkipedi in WP:5P and the appropriate policies here are WP:Neutral point of view and WP:Verifiability. Dmcq (talk) 18:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I looked at both references and I do not see the information stated in numbers 1 and 2 in either reference. It's just not there in those references. I agree it might very well be that other references exist that present that information. When reliable secondary sources are located that present those points, that would be the time to include the information in the article. I did hear a piece about this on NPR some months ago. If that is considered a reliable source, the IP might check their archives.Coaster92 (talk) 06:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• I'm here from the NPOV noticeboard. I agree that the content that the IP added is per se problematic because of the wording and so on, but the lead really needs to reflect the basic fact that this is an institutional problem. At present, it reads as though it's a problem of individual priests and bottom-tier officials misbehaving while the church hierarchy as a whole works against abuse, which is not reflected in the sources - we would indeed do well to add material about the church's institutional resistance to accountability. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I certainly agree with that. There should be some good papers on the issue that have discussed the wider issues, and would be solid for sourcing. - Bilby (talk) 01:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Introduction idea

I suggest that a sentence or two be added about the very large cash settlements these cases have been generating over the past decade or so. These are always a point of news stories and the amounts are in the millions. To me this would illustrate the divisions between the laws of the country vs how the church views these crimes. A multi-million dollar settlement is pretty clear. Insomesia (talk) 22:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

If you can summarize something about that and fit it in the lead then try doing so, it does sound a reasonable point that very large sums have been paid out and some places have had to declare bankruptcy. The thing that worries me is that I don't understand what you are saying and I don't see what you said would be clear. I get the feeling you want to prove some point and I have to advise that Wikipedia is about summarizing what is in reliable sources and not pushing one's point of view. Dmcq (talk) 23:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll have a look to see if I can form something. My point is that in my experience this is one of the more interesting facts about these cases, that lately there have been some extremely large cash settlements because of the lawsuits. An example is the case of Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston resulting in $157 million awarded to 983 claimants. It speaks to the enormity of some of the cases Insomesia (talk) 00:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

A few points come to mind. One, it would definitely be worth noting as well whether these were settlements or court awards, and, if the latter, whether they were awarded by judges, who tend to give smaller awards, or juries, which can be and often are chosen at least in part for their potential for giving large awards. It would also be worth noting how much emphasis in the trials the various attorneys give to allegations of "deep pockets" of the Catholic church, particularly considering most of their monetary worth is in the buildings they own. And, of course, individuals are also probably equally interested in the Canadian Anglican diocese which was dissolved because it went bankrupt as a result of losses from such suits. Also, it might be worth noting what the awards or settlements for sex abuse by teachers are, considering a recent report seems to indicate such abuse is much more common among teachers than among clergy. John Carter (talk) 00:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

These are good points, the teachers information seems a red herring, that some other profession is worse. Although on a different article that may may be relevant. Insomesia (talk) 00:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The information about teachers was in response to your statement about the "enormity of some of the cases". There are published studies, I think from an academic in Virginia, that sexual abuse of minors is much more common and widespread in the teaching and academic professions. If there are other professions where the circumstances are worse, that might reduce the comparative "encormity" of such abuse among clergy. Also, if you could find any notable and significant instances of abuse by clergy in South America, Africa, Southeast Asia, and other parts of the world which were not involved in the sexual revolution, that would also be very welcome. So far as I can tell, the cases are more or less confined to Europe and the English-speaking world, and I remember earlier discussion that there were few if any cases noted in those areas. John Carter (talk) 01:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

That a multi-million dollar settlement included hundreds of claimants speaks enough about the enormity. I'm not signing on to do a worldwide census and given the lack of transparency in most religious groups combined with the lack of free media in many countries, i don't think a worldwide comparison makes a lot of sense. If someone else want s to take that on they certainly can. I'll look into what is easily accessible and if any news reports details major cases in the past decade or so. Insomesia (talk) 01:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

No one is askking you to "sign on to worldwide census." All that is being asked of you is that you not try to use wikipedia to "push a point," as someone else put it. It is unfortunate that I myself, given the nature of your comments to date, find it hard to not believe that at least part of your motivation in trying to develop this article is perhaps to push a point. If that were to be the case, then WP:POV would perhaps enter into play. John Carter (talk) 01:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone looking to push a point would had bothered to post a suggestion here at all. That being stated I'll look into what the sources state rather than talk about what could be done. My statements to date have been about the lack of what I observe to be the most newsworthy covered aspect of these cases - that courts have found reasons to side with hundreds of claimants with monetary figures in the millions. This is newsworthy and I only know what I know by reading what news sources state. I have no motives but to helping the article be better. Insomesia (talk) 14:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Debate over causes

I transferred the following sectiom from the article to this talk page:

All of the victims were children and the majority of pedophiles identify as heterosexual.

Reasons:

1) The studies and research results are on pedophilia in general. There is no link to the catholic sex abuse cases. However the debate is on possible differences of the catholic sex abuse cases in comparison to sex abuse cases in general.

2) It is disputed, wether "pedophilia" can be used to describe the catholic sex abuse cases. The John Jay Causes and Context Study took another approach and shifted the age of pedophilia cases to 10 years and younger.

Therefore I think the wording should be more precise. It should become clear, if there are research results on the catholic sex abuse cases or on sex abus cases in general.

--Ricerca (talk) 06:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Those would be reasons to fix, not delete. The John Jay report was solely on childhood sex abuse, the pedophile datum was solely on pedophiles. We may never have a John Jay report on how those pedophiles identified so it sounds like we just need to clarify that the pedophiles self-identifiers is distinct from the John Jay report. And the only reason it's there is to balance to anti-gay cunard being spread by Donohue that the sex abuse cases are a homosexual crisis. This is false. It's also disingenuous to assert that the John Jay cases weren't pedophilia, in fact the NYT article backs up - "A five-year study commissioned by the nation’s Roman Catholic bishops to provide a definitive answer to what caused the church’s sexual abuse crisis has concluded that neither the all-male celibate priesthood nor homosexuality were to blame." "If anything, the report says, the abuse decreased as more gay priests began serving the church."(emphasis added) The cut-off clouding the age of children doesn't change to basic facts that these are sex abuse crimes against children. We're splitting hairs to suggest calling it some other something.

However rewording the statement to more accurately reflect the differences may make sense without compromising the basic understanding that indeed all the victims were children and generally all those committing these crimes generally identify as heterosexual. The anti-gay myth being perpetrated by Donohue needs to be countered by the sources and reports that more accurately portrays the men who abuse children sexually. It doesn't help our readers to mislead and lie to them. Research has born out that abusers are generally not strangers, identify as heterosexual and are opportunists who likely have more access to young boys than girls.

As such I'm re-adding "All of the victims in the John Jay report were children and the majority of abusers in pedophile cases identify as heterosexual." Insomesia (talk) 09:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I simply think, that we should seperate the precise data from the general research. That's all. --Ricerca (talk) 21:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand and generally agree. Insomesia (talk) 01:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Recent revert

Farsight recently reverted changes here, with the edit summary "rv widespread altering of article, mostly involving complete and utter reversal of meaning of some paragraphs under use of false edit summaries" I don't see that at all. In fact, the changes appear to be improvements, and some were even discussed here on the talk page. Farsight, did you intend to revert different material? I'm reverting for now, assuming there was a mistake or misreading of the changes, but if anyone else disputes the material, please feel free to revert me and discuss it here. Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm totally in agreement with you Farsight001 and Bilby seem to be pushing some sort of a Catholic Far right wing, biased agenda. See wikipedia NPOV. Thank you for reverting the changes and keep up the good work you do! I swear for every good editor like you there are 3 hooligans like Bilby and Farsight001. 12.129.87.3 (talk) 17:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Seriously? First of all, IP12, you think we're hooligans? You added to the article the statement that pope John Paul III committed abuses himself. There has never been a JP3! And your edit summary categorized it as "cleanup". What horseshit.

As for the false edit summaries I was talking about, This edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&diff=prev&oldid=500292930 was labeled "adding/improving refs", and it actuality it completely removed a statement and its supporting reference in preference for what is clearly a lesser reference and a new paragraph with literally the opposite assessment of the paragraph removed.

This edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&diff=prev&oldid=500292058 , labeled simply "clean up", removed a sourced statement but left the source, and added a statement that espoused the exact opposite of the previously sourced statement.

This edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&diff=prev&oldid=500291773 which is minor, is labeled simply "more clear" and altered words to more precise, yet incorrect assertion.

How is that NOT false edit summaries?Farsight001 (talk) 18:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I agree that the edits from the ip here do not appear to be accurate, and are missing sources for some rather grand claims. 12.129, please find sources for that content and propose it here on talk. Regarding Insomesia's edits, the first diff has a poor edit summary. I wouldn't say it's "false", exactly; edit summaries don't have to be perfect all the time. The second diff adds information which is verifiable. The NYTimes article summarizes the conclusions of the JJ report, which was quoted properly in that diff. I don't see a major problem with that edit, but I'd be happy to discuss it. The third diff changes the wording to be clearer. Homosexuality and heterosexuality are not a dichotomy, which is a fact that edit could have missed, except that the abstract of the report on pubmed seems to back up the new wording. Maybe I've missed something (please point it out if so), but the paper says "All regressed offenders ... were heterosexual". These appear to be good-faith efforts to improve the article. It may turn out that some may need improvement and discussion, but I think calling them misleading or implying that they're pushing a pov is not entirely accurate, and is unlikely to be altogether very helpful. Anyway, let me know what you think. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

What is this supposed to mean?

In all seriousness the phrase from the article below makes no sense. "In 2001, in response to the widening scandal, Pope John Paul II emphasized the spiritual nature of the offenses, "a sin against the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue by a cleric with a minor under 18 years of age is to be considered a grave sin, or delictum gravius."[9] 1) What does it mean? 2) Why is it important? 3) Should it belong in the article (more so, in the intro)? We don't need the Pope's response to every single wrong committed by the clergy. Who cares what the Pope said about the spiritual nature of the offenses. Regardless of spirituality this is a wrong, immoral, and everything else. We don't need the pope to say that this is a sin. This sentence is meant to help the reader understand that the Pope thinks that child molestation is not a good thing. I'm pretty sure most readers and people know that. This totally breaks the flow of an informative introduction and just confuses the reader. I strongly suggest the removal of this sentence from the intro. I don't know who inserted this sentence here but it should not be here. This is equivalent to the Pope coming out and saying "Murder is wrong." .... 12.129.87.3 (talk) 19:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

To provide complete coverage of the topic, it seems important to discuss the church and its response to the events and scandal. I think the Pope is an important figure, in that respect, and covering his sourced commentary on the topic is useful for our readers. However, I agree that presenting it as a "rebuttal" to the previous paragraph is not really appropriate. This part stood out to me too. I mean, who doesn't see sex abuse as a really bad thing? In particular, placing this comment in the lead might not be justified. It seems like if we keep it in the body, but remove it from the lead, we're not losing anything in the article in terms of tone or content. Does anyone oppose that? I'd be happy to talk it over. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm totally with you Jess. This is just redundant. The idea that the Pope thinks sexual abuse is a bad thing is not important, anything new, revealing, or pertinent. 12.129.87.3 (talk) 20:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

New Section Needed on Conviction of Monsignor Lynn in PA

You all know which case I'm talking about. Google it if you don't. Somebody please create a section on the 1st criminal prosecution of its kind in PA. I am hesitant to do it, because some right wing Catholic nut is just going to revert it and say some stupid wikipidease jargon and then I am going to be edit warring with him (or her). 12.129.87.3 (talk) 14:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:AGFFarsight001 (talk) 15:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not really sure what part of this article it belongs in, as this article doesn't really discuss individual cases - that is left to the various "Sexual abuse scandal in ..." articles. It was placed under "International public awareness", which doesn't seem quite right, especially as the conviction didn't get a lot of attention. I've moved it to "Criticisms of church responses", as the case seems to be about how the Church (or at least Lynn) responded to complaints. It is currently discussed in much more detail at Sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic archdiocese of Philadelphia. - Bilby (talk) 17:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, the article might need to have a summation of all the "Sex abuse scandal in ..." articles, or a summation article may need to be created. I believe one editor spun them all off and along with segmenting every other facet of these issues creating more confusion than cohesiveness. The present reading of this content needs at least one fix. The original edit had "This case was unprecedented in the 20-year history of clergy abuse investigations in the United States because Lynn was the first U.S. church official ever charged for his handling of abuse complaints." This has been somewhat lost presently and should likely be worked back in. Insomesia (talk) 18:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that line was a direct copy and paste from the source, so couldn't be kept. I thought that the main point was that it was the first case of its type in the US, so the first sentence now reads "In 2012, Monsignor William Lynn became the first United States church official to be convicted of child endangerment because of his part in covering up child sex abuse allegations by clergy."

A summary article covering individual cases exists at Roman Catholic sex abuse cases by country. It is ugly, but I don't think that a merger would be viable, especially given how incomplete that article is - a complete article would be impossible to merge. However, the only reference to it in this article was as one of 30 articles listed in the "see also" section, so I've added it as the main article hatnote in "Statistics on offenders and victims" to give it more prominence. It might be better in "International public awareness", but neither is really accurate, and a list of cases seems to fit better in a discussion of statistics than international awareness.

I agree with you that spinning off everything created a bigger problem, especially as many of the articles that were spun out weren't viable. I've been thinking that a serious rethink as to how these articles are structured would be worth looking into, as they are too fragmented. - Bilby (talk) 00:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I tend to think myself that, probably, the best way forward would be to go by country. Logically, the national laws of the countries are probably specifically involved in some way or other in the abuse cases, and that being the case, I would think that articles detailing the specifics of the individual nations' laws, and how the cases in general violated them, would be least problematic and clearest. One question I do have, however, is about alleged cases. I'm not sure, but if someone is just alleged to be an abuser by others, without any sort of evidence or ruling, BLP might be involved. Maybe, I dunno. The apparent multiplicity of US articles is also a bit of a question, because I'm not sure if the Pennsylvania article , for instance, meets the LISTN non-local notability requirements, and, honestly, if it is even "specific" enough to merit a separate article for that state. Most of the laws involved are US federal laws, and that being the case a US article would probably be easiest to prove notability of. John Carter (talk) 01:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

To me that last edit fixed the issue to emphasize first in US (rather than the state). Insomesia (talk) 03:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I realised that the mentioning the state could mislead the reader there, hence the edit. I should have seen that earlier. - Bilby (talk) 04:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I love how we can all get along and edit together. It makes me so happy. Usually I try and do something, somebody says don't but I still keep changing it to the way I want it until I get banned. This time, I can't believe how well it worked! I'm so proud of myself and you fellow wikipedians! Keep it up 12.129.87.3 (talk) 20:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

So, you get banned a lot, IP editor? There is a good chance that some sort of List of individual Catholic sex abuse cases could be generated, if it met the requirements of notability of a list, which would require that there be published lists of such a nature to demonstrate the list's notability, as per WP:LISTN. The questions I have is, would this be a single list of all the cases, or would it perhaps make more sense if it were broken up into the major countries or groups of countries involved, like perhaps List of Catholic sex abuse cases in the Pacific region? Also, and here LISTN might play a role, would these be lists specifically about just the Catholic abuse cases, or, if regional lists are opted for, would they be lists of Christian minister sex abuse cases? It might well be, for instance in Canada, that the latter is demonstrably notable, but the former isn't. The country where it seems to have received the greatest amount of sensationalist coverage is the United States, so I have very little doubt that it would be possible to demonstrate the notability of a list for the US. But it might not be so easy for other countries and/or regions, I don't know. If at least some of the others don't meet LISTN requirements, maybe it would be best to just have a single list. John Carter (talk) 00:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The major problem with this proposal is embodied in the very first sentence, which says "You all know which case I'm talking about", and telling us that it's "in PA". Pure US-centrism. Guess what? In Australia, most of us have never heard of this guy. And most would have no idea what PA means. We have our own paedophile priests to worry about. This is a global encyclopaedia. Get a global perspective! HiLo48 (talk) 00:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The US is where the majority of the cases are concentrated, and arguably where these cases will get the most airing all factors considered including media influence and non-governmental groups. I am somewhat satisfied that there is an over-arching Sex abuse cases by country and under that a list one for the US. As was mentioned above, by country has a logic tying the cases to laws of the jurisdictions. For the US one the reporting is uneven as I think there have been cases in every state so logically we are missing at least half of the reporting on this. Insomesia (talk) 03:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I would disagree with part of that. The Irish cases were significant, as were some of the European cases. And Australia has been going through its own scandal. It hasn't really been focused on any one region. - Bilby (talk) 04:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

It's true, I'm no expert here I'm only going on the sources I've seen so far and on our own reporting. Our own articles aren't very clear on this. It should be a pretty simply statement to make as to where the highest concentration of these reported cases are, US, Europe or somewhere else. Our articles are a hodgepodge list that IMHO is pretty incomplete. I also think the US list should be organized by state rather than parish. Insomesia (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I doubt it would be that simple. What do you mean by "reported" cases? Reported to police? Or to the media? Or to welfare bodies? Or to other priests in the confessional? Australia, like the USA, has state jurisdictions with different laws, so there's an awful lot of data to collect, compare and collate. And then there's other countries.... Lists in Wikipedia are one of its worst features due to the inevitable biases and limited knowledge of everybody who contributes. HiLo48 (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Well let's see what any reliable sources state and qualify it, just like any other finding, according to, based on available media reports or whatever is the best available. Insomesia (talk) 18:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Have to agree with Insomnia here. Part of the problem with this is "reported" cases. The John Jay report, if I remember accurately, was one where they had complete access to the internal records of complaints to the dioceses and archdioceses in the US. Those files probably contained reports of priests "exposing themselves" by urinating in public in view of juvenile campers due primarily to pressing need to void the bladder, and several other allegations, including all those that were found unsubstantiated or otherwise worthless. But, if there were a frenzied parent, or adult with strong anti-Catholic leanings, or whatever, involved, even a case of necessity urination might have been reported to the police and the diocese. I do remember an article from a Penn State academic on the John Jay report, and will try to find that. It might address the number of "baseless" reports to the various entities involved, or other cases, like the urination, which are probably only secondarily "abuse" matters. John Carter (talk) 15:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

New section needed on Catholic Church's attempts to stonewall child abuse leglislation in New York USA and other states

This was in the original edit that I made a long time ago and is now absent from the present revision. I'm not blaming anyone, the new edits all look awesome and we have definitely made progress. This is really important that I think we include this in the article and was the focus point of the first edit I made that caused all the revisions. We did good work but I really think that we need to find the original sources that I quoted and some new sources and create a section on the pervert's attempts to block new child protection legislation. Let me set the stage for you. For the past 5 years, states in the Northeast (Think New York etc..) have been pushing legislation to expand the statue of limitations on when a case can be brought up against a pedophile. Due to the very nature that children do not report the cases until they are older and are closer to the statue SNAP and other groups have been attempting to increase the time from when the abuse happened to when it can be reported in a court, but the Church has been actively lobbying against it (even hiring 2 professional lobbying firms). If somebody could find some information on this and please create a nice new section that would be awesome.

Also please read this article it is a good one and is another section proposal. This one is on the church targeting the SNAP group in an attempt to bring it down because it is shedding light on the Catholic Sex Abuse crisis: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/13/us/catholic-church-pressures-victims-network-with-subpoenas.html?pagewanted=all. We need two sections I guess. One on the Church lobbying against child sex abuse prevention legislation and the other on the Church taking vindictive measures against whisteblowers and victims of the sadistic actions of its priests.108.70.61.233 (talk) 21:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Rather than further clutter and unbalance this article, which already has almost a half of the lead containing detail of events from the USA, I'd suggest your idea might fit better in Roman Catholic sex abuse cases by country. HiLo48 (talk) 03:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

John Jay Report Biased Source

If you want to quote this article as support for the priests, this is like quoting a piece from the Oil and Natural Gas Lobby saying that global warming is a myth. This is total horseshit. Ban this Ricera guy first of all and then second of all remove all mention of the John Jay report or else have a disclaimer that says that the study was funded almost entirely by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. here is my link to that. Also there are tons of articles attacknig the study, the methodology and the conclusions that the authors drew from it. The John Jay article is a piece of work done by a Catholic Hack and is biased.http://open.salon.com/blog/witchjoey/2012/05/07/thomas_plante_phd_the_john_jay_report_on_clergy_abuse 12.129.87.3 (talk) 13:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi 12.129. I appreciate your input, but please try to keep discussion on the content of the article, and not on individual contributors. Civility is a foundational pillar of wikipedia, and allows us to operate collaboratively on improving the article. Sometimes there will be disagreements, but we resolve them by going to the sources. In this case, I think the JJ report probably should be contextualized; are we not doing that already? If you feel like we should include content more accurately describing the authors/etc of the JJ report, then we'd need quality sources discussing it. The blog by Joey Piscitelli probably isn't a reliable source; see WP:SPS and WP:SECONDARY. If we have some good sources, I'd be happy to discuss how to include them! Thanks   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello Jess! Thanks for your help as it is greatly appreciated. I have found more sources for the claim in the article that it was a 'crisis of homosexuality'.

1) http://articles.nydailynews.com/2010-04-13/news/27061643_1_celibacy-homosexuality-abuse I'm sure you'll go though the article but the sentence that shows why we need to delete the celibacy part of the argument is the first sentence (which also supports the need to give it a name of a cris of homosexuality) which states, "Celibacy is not the cause behind the child sex abuse scandal that has shattered the priesthood and imploded the Catholic Church. Blame homosexuality, the Vatican's second in command claims." 2) http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2010/07/catholic_churchs_issue_is_homosexuality_not_pedophilia.html "I maintain it has been a homosexual crisis all along. The evidence is all on my side, though there is a reluctance to let the data drive the conclusion. But that is a function of politics, not scholarship." Bill from the Catholic League so I think from an objective POV we can say that it has been a crisis of homosexuality with a few other contributing factors but that Celibacy, and Seminary training were not one of them.

I mean that is quite a strong assertion to make don't you think? the idea that you can blame an institution like the Catholic Seminary for a series of generalized horrific crimes. I don't think we can say although the abuse was pervasive, we don't have enough evidence to say that it was institutional (a byproduct of an organization, in this case the Catholic Seminary). Let me know what you think! 12.129.87.3 (talk) 15:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

First, I seem to remember that a professor from Penn State wrote extensively about the John Jay study in some academic source. Considering that the study was done by, I think, the publicly funded John Jay College of Criminal Justice, I think the allegations that the study was financed by the catholic church perhaps less than relevant. Whoever paid for the study, the people working on the study were, apparently, some form of government employees with some degree of knowledge in the field of criminal law. And the conclusions of the study weren't such that I think we could necessarily find them to be "self-serving". Also, while the quote is interesting, it basically is saying, "don't blame celibacy, blame homosexuality", the emphasis on the first "don't blame celibacy" part. The quote is from a source I think most anyone would find reliable, but the nature of the circumstances of the quotation are such that I think that saying he blamed it to homosexuality might not be very clearly supported by the evidence. By saying this, I am in no way saying that homosexuality and the Catholic priesthood are disconnected ideas. There obviously is a connection, and the nature of culture of recent times may have made it more pronounced, but I can't say the quotation seems to me to be saying that the quoted is blaming homosexuality exclusively, just providing one contributing factor out of what might be several which he thinks more relevant to the issue than celibacy. John Carter (talk) 18:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay. So after reading the report and the citation and what's on the talk page. A couple things are clear. 1) User: John Carter was right. Celibacy isn't an issue and is not a cause of the "Catholic Sex Abuse Cases" so that should be removed. But the more important thing is that 2) Homosexuality was a crisis and was reported to be a major contributor to the crisis. If anything else is important that I am missing feel free to add it in. 12.129.87.3 (talk) 19:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I would be very uncomfortable with arguing that homosexuality was the cause, if only because the Catholic church aren't exactly a disinterested party in this - they can either blame a fundamental and oft-questioned stance of the Church supporting celibacy, or they can blame homosexuality, which they view as unnatural anyway. Given the wealth of material arguing that child abuse and homosexuality are not necessarily connected at all, the argument that they may be connected in this case should, at best, be presented as the view of some members of the church hierarchy, or a possible explanation offered by other parties. That said, it seems that no explanation of the "cause" of the problem has sufficient evidence to be regarded as more than a view, at this point, and to be honest I think finding a root cause is going to be pretty much impossible anyway. - Bilby (talk) 01:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Bilby here. What we have is one individual high Vatican official attributing the abuse to homosexuality, possibly on the basis of moral bias of some sort. From what I remember from a radio show some time ago, there was a higher-than-average incidence of priests engaging in abuse having themselves been abused by priests as children, and in some cases they said they joined the priesthood because as celibate priests they wouldn't have as much chance to abuse children when they were adults. I also tend to think that there is little if any chance that we will find a single root cause, other than, maybe, that people are people. Several factors, including I think sociological factors (the sexual revolution and human rights), internal factors (Catholic press being, understandably, less likely to cover such cases in depth, partially due to a lingering paranoia about more Catholic-bashing, like the JFK criticism), general changes in society (when I was a kid, Ringo Starr was still topping the charts with a song about (presumably) someone his age being in love with a 16 year old - couldn't do that today), etc., etc., etc. Several sources on the Salem witch trials have argued that if it were not for all the possible "causes" being present to some degree, that particularly horror wouldn't have happened, and I tend to think the same probably holds true here. John Carter (talk) 15:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

New section needed on internal criticism of the handling of the scandal

While it may seem that way, not all members of the Catholic hierarchy are/were complicit in covering up the prior/continuing scandals. We need to have a section that addresses some of the criticism from inside the papal hierarchy and the groups closely affiliated with them (i.e. Catholic Review, National Catholic Reporter, etc...) There is a plethora of evidence available that shows that not all the members were satisfied or even partially satisfied by the actions that the church and its leadership took. I am going to talk about these in the following paragraphs. I am hesitant to add a new section to the article by myself but I first wanted to discuss this here before I start changing the article and some nut starts yelling at me.

So this the first article that talks about the lack of a response. It is done by editor Dennis Coday an esteemed figure in the American Catholic arena. Here is the exchange between David Gibson, who covers the Catholic Church for Religion News Service, and Dennis Coday, editor of the National Catholic Reporter.

Coday: I think the main problem is that, despite what Cardinal Dolan says, there is no accountability. There is no punishment mechanism for bishops. There's a one strike {against papal response/leadership}.

Gibson: Right. Exactly.

This goes to show you that most people even those heavily involved in Catholic circles consider the response to be meager and some of the criticisms come from inside the church and church-affiliated groups.

Here is an another article by the Columbus Republic stating that church clergy gave mainly negative reviews of the church's handling of the crisis.

"Some priests were angered at diocesan leaders for their lack of action, and others felt shame for the church and for themselves as its representatives. There was paranoia they could be accused falsely, and many said the incidents made them wary of interactions with congregants, especially kids. Some even stopped wearing their collars in public for fear of heckling."

More significance needs to be given to the response of "innocent" bishops and lower level clergy and their repulsion with the scandal engulfing their church. 17:08, 20 June 2012, ‎ 12.129.87.3