Jump to content

Talk:Debate on the causes of clerical child abuse

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Disclosure of COI

[edit]

In this edit, I quote myself regarding something I said in the media. Although I believe that the statement is appropriate to the page and topic, other editors should come to their own conclusion and revise or remove it as they see fit.— James Cantor (talk) 20:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CNN.com has published an opinion piece on this topic, which I have added as to this main page as an EL. Because I am the author of that opinion piece (at CNN's request), I am noting it here. Although I believe that the link is appropriate to the page and topic, other editors should come to their own conclusion and revise or remove it as they see fit.— James Cantor (talk) 20:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexuality theory

[edit]

Why was the following text commented? joo (talk) 05:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sexual abuse crisis in the Catholic Church in the US and abroad was a matter of homosexuals preying on adolescent boys, not one of pedophilia, said the Vatican's representative at the UN in Geneva, Switzerland. It is "more correct," said Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, to speak of ephebophilia, a homosexual attraction to adolescent males, than pedophilia, in relation to the scandals.

"Of all priests involved in the abuses, 80 to 90 per cent belong to this sexual orientation minority which is sexually engaged with adolescent boys between the ages of 11 and 17," said Tomasi. His statement is backed up by a report commissioned by the US bishops that found that in the overwhelming majority of cases the clergy involved were homosexuals, with 81 percent of victims being adolescent males.[1]

A $2 million study commissioned by Roman Catholic Bishops at the height of the Church's sexual abuse scandal has found no connection between sexual orientation and abuse of children by clergy, the AP reports: "The full report by researchers at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice won't be completed until the end of next year. But the authors said their evidence to date found no data indicating that homosexuality was a predictor of abuse. 'What we are suggesting is that the idea of sexual identity be separated from the problem of sexual abuse,' said Margaret Smith of John Jay College, in a speech to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. 'At this point, we do not find a connection between homosexual identity and the increased likelihood of subsequent abuse from the data that we have right now.' The question has been raised repeatedly within and outside the church because the overwhelming majority of known victims were boys. As part of the church's response to the crisis, the Vatican ordered a review of all U.S. seminaries that, among other issues, looked for any "evidence of homosexuality" in the schools."[2]


However Margaret Smith, "a John Jay College criminologist who worked on the report", said it was an “unwarranted assumption” to describe this as a homosexual crisis, at the same time as saying that: “The majority of the abusive acts were homosexual in nature". Is that not one and the same? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 03:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ }title=Sex Abuse in Catholic Church was Homosexual Problem, not Pedophilia: Vatican http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/sep/09092910.html }title=Sex Abuse in Catholic Church was Homosexual Problem, not Pedophilia: Vatican. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
  2. ^ "Study: Homosexuality Not Factor in Abuse by Catholic Priests".

No Special Cause

[edit]

Shouldn't there be a section stating the view that Catholic priests abuse children at the same or a lower rate as the general population, which would mean the causes would likely be whatever they are for non-priests? I'm not saying they are right, but they are part of the debate. Sources saying rates are same/comparable: http://catholic.net/index.php?option=dedestaca&id=3461 http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/04/07/mean-men.html Sources saying rates are lower for priests: http://blogs.denverpost.com/hark/2010/05/25/scandal-creates-contempt-for-catholic-clergy/39/ http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/do-the-right-thing/201003/six-important-points-you-dont-hear-about-regarding-clergy-sexual-abus http://www.themediareport.com/fast-facts/ Sources saying there is no evidence of different rates: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-06-07-column07_ST_N.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.51.130.25 (talk) 01:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Debate on the causes of clerical child abuse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Debate on the causes of clerical child abuse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone explain to me how this article is not simply a listing of thin excuses for this behavior rather then actual psychological or sociological explanations for it?

[edit]

Because I think anyone with half a brain can see that is exactly what it is, it's disgusting.

Write to the authors of source studies then. Zezen (talk) 17:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Failure to meet notability guidelines for Michael S. Rose and his book

[edit]

--LiberGomorrhianus (talk) 00:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC) Neither the book Goodbye, Good Men nor its author, Michael S. Rose, have a Wikipedia page, nor does either meet the notability criteria. In fact, the lack of prominence of Rose makes me strongly suspect his inclusion is self-promotion. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#Self-promotion_and_publicity)[reply]

Further, the book is entirely refuted by all available study and sociological inquiry, as stated immediately after the statement of its crucial argument. This is not stylistically or educationally appropriate for an encyclopedic source. Any reference to the book, its author, or its premise should be demonstrated to meet notability guidelines or it will be removed.

--LiberGomorrhianus (talk) Brief edit: The citation is also insufficient. The book is listed by ISBN number, but no pages, chapters, etc. are given and the hyperlink takes the reader to a broken homepage link. I am going to remove the hyperlink for now as it redirects to an unencrypted www6 address.

--LiberGomorrhianus (talk) 15:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC) Followed up on removal. Gave a few weeks in case anyone wanted to defend inclusion, seemingly no takers.[reply]

Power corrupts

[edit]

I always assumed that the major cause for sexual abuse by clergy is that they are beyond reproach. "Surely, a priest would never do such a thing." A clergyman (or -woman) will know that even if the child dares tell anyone (which may even be less likely in this case), it will likely be scolded for saying such things about a religious leader, someone of high moral stature, or be accused of seduction (eg the Singapore girl in the main article). This will likely have been more common in centuries past, when the power of the church was much greater, even absolute. And even if the priest is found out by the church, he will not be reported to the police and merely be transferred elsewhere. (This may be more common now, now that it has become public knowledge and the clergy therefore know they will likely not be punished, but this is just a guess.)
So I am surprised there is no mention of that in the article. Are there no sources for this? DirkvdM (talk) 10:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Debate_on_the_causes_of_clerical_child_abuse&oldid=1201411245"