Talk:Catholic Church sexual abuse cases/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Proposal of 'Further Reading' ~ The Dark Night of the Catholic Church

I am unable to add a book to the ==Further Reading== as it was published by my employers specifically on this subject due to the obvious conflict of interest. I am instead posting the information here as a suggestion that someone might deem it appropriate enough to the subject of the Wiki article and add the information to the ==Further Reading==.

Title: The Dark Night of the Catholic Church

Authors: Brendan Geary and Joanne Marie Greer

Publisher: Kevin Mayhew Publishers

Year of publication: 2011

ISBN: 9781848673854

Description:

This timely and important book focuses on the current crisis within the Catholic Church over the sexual abuse of children by priests and other church personnel and the church hierarchy's failures in addressing the crisis.

Seventeen skilled practitioners have contributed their experience in readable and approachable language. The opening chapters deal with the difficult and perplexing issue of child abuse by clergy. These are followed by contributions by an abuser, two victims and a bishop who was responsible for responding to the abuse.

There are chapters on how best to respond to abuse, the appropriate treatment of victims and perpetrators and the proper pastoral response to allegations. The final section deals with education and the prevention of child sexual abuse in order to prepare people for ministry and ensure a culture of safeguarding in the Catholic Church.

This is essential reading for all priests and church personnel, concerned lay Catholics and professionals involved in victim treatment and perpetrator rehabilitation. Many chapters will also offer useful resources to media professionals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinMayhew (talk • contribs) 15:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Sources

This passage

The latest research indicates priests commit no more abuse than other males[21][22][23][24] and current research also indicates that the prevalence of abuse by priests has fallen sharply in the last 20–30 years.[25]

Is not accurate. Since they all come from a single primary source funded by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, I propose to eliminate redundant sources and modify the wording from a vague "latest research" to attribute it to specific authors. Here is an analysis on the sources:

The first source (21) is saying that Catholics do not sexually abuse any more than other religious denominations. It goes on to say that the number of individuals in the Catholic church that abuse is about 4%. That, conveniently, says nothing about the number of incidences of abuse perpetrated by that 4%. Oh yeah, that is the only study they have done and it was funded by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops.

The second source (22) cites the same study (the only one done) that was funded by the Conference of Bishops. They use the 4% number (again, even if accurate, that is only the number of individuals that abuse and does not account for the number of crimes by that 4%). It goes on to say that the data they collected was only from reported sexual abuse. That is to be expected, however, that in no way should be taken to mean that the incidence rate or prevalence rate is the number they arrive at. We know that many adult male-female rape cases are not reported. It seems likely that this would at least follow that pattern and possibly be much greater due to the supposed moral authority of the clergy, the intimidation due to age difference, and the concern for social standing due to the homosexual acts that took place.

The third source (23) cites the same study (obviously, because it is the only one that has been done...it is important to stress this). It says nothing new or compelling.

The fourth source (24) is from catholiceducation.org. Aside from the obvious bias, there is nothing of substance here. There are several claims made with little credible evidence.

The fifth source (25) is the same as source 22. As in, it is the exact same source. Why the parenthetical notation is as it is does not make any sense either.

--189.70.237.122 (talk) 00:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

sex abuse cases in other religion

Why nothing article with title "Protestant sex abuse cases", "Atheist sex abuse cases", "Agnostic sex abuse cases" "Buddhist sex abuse cases", "Hinduism sex abuse cases", etc --Erik Fastman (talk) 03:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Because the title is "Catholic sex abuse cases". HiLo48 (talk) 03:30, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Poland and the secret of the confessional

An IP editor recently edited the section on Poland, adding the words in bold below:

The Catholic Church in Poland has explicitly refused to publish data on sexual abuse. Meanwhile, it claims if the date was to be published, the scale would turn out to be very low. The bishop Antoni Dydycz has called not to press the priests to break the seal of confession and report sexual abuse to state authorities.

This was reverted by User:HiLo48 as "Reverted unexplained, cryptic addition". I checked the Polish-language source given with Google Translate; the "seal of confession" is clearly mentioned there, though the quality of the translation isn't good enough to tease out an accurate rendering (it just about avoids referring to "the walrus of admission"). Accordingly I reinstated the "seal of confession" text. HiLo48 removed it again with the summary "Well, it's a very strange translation, using language I'm not familiar with. Can you write it in idiomatic English, or find a decent interpreter?". It's certainly a strange translation. However, even the title of the article Google-Translates as "Bishop Dydycz in a letter to the faithful of pedophilia and the seal of confession. 'You can not push the clergy'"; it's clear that the seal of confession is claimed by the bishop to be a reason for not pressing the priests to report sexual abuse. Personally I think that the Google translation is adequate to support the disputed text in the Wikipedia article now, but if this is contested I certainly support HiLo48's request for a better translation, to be followed, if appropriate, by reinstatement of the text.

NPOV: I would clarify that I do not wish to support the implied argument that the seal of confession justifies withholding of all information, but merely to state that this excuse was given by the source.

Maybe compromise text night be acceptable to all: Bishop Antoni Dydycz said that priests should not be pressed to report sexual abuse to state authorities, invoking the "seal of confession". The translation is adequate to support that the seal of confession was invoked in some way.

Could a Polish speaker please accurately translate the reasons actually cited by the bishop?

Pol098 (talk) 10:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

On brief reflection, it is crystal clear at least that the bishop did in some way invoke the seal of confession, so I've added text to that effect. Commenting here on the reality (this is "original research" and cannot be added to the article unless sourced): looking at abuse cases elsewhere, there is much matter kept confidential by ecclesiastical authorities that is not related to religious confession: complaints, punishment and relocation of priests, etc.; invoking the seal of confession doesn't in reality preclude making available a lot of relevant information. Pol098 (talk) 11:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Really, the word "seal" is the only problem here. I'm not a Catholic. Many of our readers aren't. I don't know what it means. I'm sure many people won't. (Is it meaningful to English speaking Catholics?) Can we just find a way of putting it in more common language, and not in the internal jargon of the church? HiLo48 (talk)

Ah, I hadn't realised that. As it happens I have already added a link to that term, which I think resolves the issue entirely, though others may disagree and change the wording. The situation, which in fact many non-Catholics know about, but I agree needs to be made known in some way in the article, is that there is a practice of confessing sins confidentially to a priest who can impose penances and grant forgiveness. Ecclesiastical law requires that the priest may not under any circumstances reveal what is confessed to anyone; the jargon term for this is the" seal of confession", or "of the confessional". (I may have some detail wrong, but that's the gist). In the context of the article the bishop is presumably (subject to translation) implying that priests would have to break the "seal" to reveal information about crimes. In some (not all) countries the seal of confession is not recognised by the law, and priests have no legal right to withhold information; I don't know about Poland. Pol098 (talk) 11:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

By the way, I totally agree with the point about use of jargon without explanation. All articles are subject to this, typically entering into discussion of their subject without defining or explaining what it is. (Article starting "A fruncible is a device used to ensure that logritubes cannot be distrabed"), but articles on Catholicism particularly seem to assume that people understand all sorts of terms used as jargon (even "religious (Catholicism)" and "faithful (Catholicism)" don't have the meaning you'd expect.) Pol098 (talk) 11:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

And there's a lot that jargon in the church. I'm an itinerant teacher, who fills short term vacancies in different schools, typically a term at a time. Last term I was in a Catholic school for the first time ever. I was welcomed very generously, but there was a lot of internal language that it was assumed everyone would know that I was quite lost with. I'm still keen to learn more HiLo48 (talk) 21:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)