Talk:Catholic Church sexual abuse cases

The word "scandal"

"Scandal" refers to the affect on listeners/consumers of media. We are supposed to be concerned here with reportable facts, not the affect that the revelations have had or are supposed to have had on anyone who was not directly affected. It is POV.

Having said that, IMO, the word "scandal" is legitimately used in a religious context to denote the possible affect on others. My opinion is to allow these reports which essentially are using canon law paraphrasing. Re-phrasing them would cause actual confusion. Student7 20:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Bishops not having wifes or Husbands of one wife

- "if they are to marry at all, >>Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, should be the husband of one wife<<". The "if they are to marry at all" is clearly an addition from wikipedian to the words of apostle Paul. Please notice that Pauls says that bishops, presbyters, and deacons, SHOULD BE husbands having one wife. 83.142.223.130 21:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)dikkaios

Indeed...the terms "at all" do not exist in the Greek text...this is a Roman Catholic translation error, (intentional would be a good guess as it changes the meaning to read against Church leaders being married). The original text reads "husbands of only one wife" indicating marriage as a pre-requisite to leadership in the work o0f the gospel...not the reverse (as the Devil would have us read it in reverse). Who is the Devil here I wonder? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.3.202.150 (talk) 20:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Take your pick from Devil (disambiguation).86.42.204.140 (talk) 15:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Tone of article

Major parts of this article sound more like an essay than like an encyclopedia entry, e.g., "From a legal perspective," "whether it was a deliberate plot to conceal his behaviour...," "The council essentially directed an opening of the doors to meet the world," and many, many more. How about just the facts, ma'am? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.76.130.48 (talk) 01:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It's very important to include the legalities as many have been accused and fewer convicted. Obviously only the convicted clergy can be mentioned, or those who paid off a victim to avoid prosecution. Criminal law exists, even if we have to avoid value judgements. As in most churches the clergy hold themselves out to be morally superior to their congregations, and so moral lapses and attempts to cover up abuse go to the very heart of the matter.86.42.204.140 (talk) 15:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I know that its quite common on wikipedia for articles to be US-centric, but surely that's something that should be avoided. Surely an article on sex abuse cases in the Catholic church should devote an equal amount of attention to allegations made outside of the US and other English speaking countries, and in times past as well? Catholicism exists and has existed in many countries for thousands of years yet this article tends to focus largely on one country during one century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.223.240 (talk) 19:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, one of the reasons is money. US laws favor the plaintiff and some litigants have made a little money; more attorneys have made a lot. This is due to something called "Deep Pockets" here - the church owner, the diocese, has been held financially liable for what clergy did in a parish someplace (or even outside the diocese in one case). This also results in publicity which enables editors to document the cases better. Tighter laws prevail elsewhere, or the church is protected (semi-protected?) as a non-profit or owner of church property is different or different liability laws prevail.

On the other hand, US public schools are mostly protected from financial liability (not in egregious situations however) and therefore result in fewer headlines though the cases are about triple church cases. Therefore there are no articles on individual sex abuse cases in US public schools.Student7 (talk) 23:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Forgot that in the US, the courts have held dioceses responsible for priests 24/7 and (as mentioned above) no matter where they are, even outside normal diocesan geographic boundaries. US school boards are only responsible for teachers only on school property, which means usually during the weekday. A lot less potential liability. Student7 (talk) 11:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Pope Benedict XVI

This article seems partly like a white wash. There is no mention of the pope's role in covering up the sexual abuse when he was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The article about the pope does mention this very briefly, as part of a paragraph, which in itself doesn't even have its own heading but is only part of a section about his years having that position. But in this article there isn't one mention of it. There are however two different mentions of the pope's regretting these events and apologizing for them (i.e. the events themselves, not his direct involvement). The entire section "Church Actions in Dealing with Sex Abuse Cases" actually only covers the apology and the compensation, which the church was of course forced to do once it became public. The covering up and not reporting the sexual abuse are surely also "church actions in dealing with sex abuse cases." 193.91.181.142 (talk) 07:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC) (Nick)

1. As explained earlier, the church has its own procedures for investigating accusations which not only pre-dates most western judicial procedures, but on which most western judicial procedures are based. It goes much further than telling a witness or jury "don't discuss this with anyone until the trial is over" and tells everyone not to discuss it at all except before a church investigating organization. Why? Whether the accusation was true or false, the church considers gossip sinful. The western media, a virtue. Who wins the argument? The media. I don't believe the media is correct though. There is no really good reason for publicizing these people other than to feel "better than" they are. This is gossip at its worst. (This has nothing to do with Benedict per se. Just following church procedure, centuries, if not millenia, old).

2. Also, the church does not want witnesses "polluting" their testimony by sharing it with others. In American courts, witnesses are "rehearsed" by people hired by their respective attorneys. By the time they get to court, they have been able to "polish" their testimony so it "sounds good" to a jury, judge, and incidentally, to the media as well. The church prefers raw unrehearsed testimony.

3. There is the implication in the accusation that Benedict was not following some law. The Vatican is a sovereign state, antedating the US by millenia. They have their own laws and are not subject to US laws in any event. If an article construes something that is legal in one country as illegal because it doesn't follow the procedure of some other country, this is considered a violation of WP:YESPOV. User:Student7|Student7]] (talk) 11:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Updating request for footnote

I removed an unfootnoted section that read:

"Others disagree and believe that the Church hierarchy's mishandling of the sex abuse cases merely reflected their prevailing attitude at the time towards any illegal or immoral activity by clergy. Hierarchs usually suppressed any information which could cause scandal or loss of trust in the Church. {{Fact|date=September 2008}}"

Another editor changed something before this paragraph and updated the footnote request. The "new" paragraph now reads:

"Others disagree and believe that the Church hierarchy's mishandling of the sex abuse cases merely reflected their prevailing attitude at the time towards any illegal or immoral activity by clergy. Hierarchs usually suppressed any information which could cause scandal or loss of trust in the Church. {{Fact|date=December 2008}}"

Note that the two paragraphs tend to resemble one another very closely. After three months, still no substantiation for the material. Why not? And why the mickey mouse on pretending that the two paragraphs are different when they are identical? At this point they seem to be more WP:OR than merely unfootnoted. Please take care of this now or delete it! The burden of proof is on the editor that furnished this material. It is not up to the rest of us to "support" unfootnoted scurrilous accusations, month after month with no justification. Student7 (talk) 20:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Iraq War

When the affair broke out, I was surprised that it occured at the same time that the USCCB was struggling with the Bush administration over opposition to the Iraq invasion and conflict. It would be interesting to note whether there is a political element to this, and whether it happened at a timely moment. 69.157.229.153 (talk) 11:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Public schools, other religions

There are similar affairs that are very much under-reported when it comes to public schools, which have their own problematic issues. There should be an article on Pedophilia in American public schools. And too, there are other religions where similar events have occured, such as in the Haredi and Baptist communities. [1] [2] 69.157.229.153 (talk) 11:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't have the statistics on homosexual violations as opposed to heterosexual but US public school problems are 3 times those of the church(es) because of the huge number of students and length of time in school. Few headlines because of unions, vigorous defense, and (as in the church) "victims" who are unwilling to testify at the time. Also, financial protection for schools that well exceeds that of the church when it comes to suing 30 years later.

And non-church, non-school violations are four times higher than church and school combined. Parents, foster-parents, siblings, etc. Everyone sweeping that under the rug!!!!Student7 (talk) 13:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

These things are indeed underreported. That goes equally for the Catholic Church. No matter how you look at it, the Catholic Church is far ahead of the competition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.73.146 (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

At risk population

There are about 67 million catholics in the US. I'm guessing but cannot find a good reference that at least 5 million of these are children 6-18 and are currently being educated in Catholic institutions, generally "Sunday school", much less frequently parochial school. Certainly the "at risk" population figure should occur somewhere.

There is no proportion here. Reporting 100 murders seems terrible. And if all committed in Agatha Christie's tiny "Cabot Cove, Maine" within one year would still seem terrible. But if committed in California over (say) ten years, it might not seem quite so bad comparitively speaking. Student7 (talk) 02:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Forgot to add that the church counted 12 "credible" cases of abuse in 2007.Student7 (talk) 02:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

1990s / 2000s

There appears to be strong opinion in American media that the abuses ceased after the 1970s. Summaries of reports from various sources even on this page shows that the abuse cases have continued since then. Would there be any objection to the addition of a table that would collate and summarize abuse cases on this page? Suggested format:

Eras	Perpetrator	Aider/Abetter
1960s - 1990s	Eugene Kennan	Superior Nicholas Postlethwaite
1960s - 1992	John J. Geoghan	Bishop Bernard Francis Law

Neutralaccounting (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The offender needs to be tried under some recognizable legal system, not just in the media. If there is an "abetter," he too, needs to be "certified" as being an abetter, which BTW, is a felony, and should not be used to casually describe someone who made a bad decision in the opinion of the media. Student7 (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Traditional catholics

I tried to discuss this earlier but was censored by another editor. I changed the "traditional" Catholic, intended as a pejorative, to "ultra-conservative." The church is "traditional" in its very nature. The intent of the council (all councils) was too enunciate what everyone already knew. The ultras, "more catholic than the pope," did not think so. That is fine and their right, but calling them "traditional" suggest that the council was automatically wrong WP:YESPOV. Perhaps this will be allowed to remain here for a few minutes for anyone with any question about the change. Student7 (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Frequency of sexual abuse events in public schools

I think the wording for the section legislation and media coverage is incorrect, specifically referring to the sentence which is sited with link 18. It reads "some commentators, such as journalist Jon Dougherty, have argued that media coverage of the issue has been excessive, given that the same problems plague other institutions such as the U.S. public school system with much greater frequency." The part about the frequency being higher is not necessarily true based on the article sited. In the article it says "To support her contention, Shakeshaft compared the priest abuse data with data collected in a national survey for the American Association of University Women Educational Foundation in 2000. Extrapolating data from the latter, she estimated roughly 290,000 students experienced some sort of physical sexual abuse by a school employee from a single decade—1991-2000. That compares with about five decades of cases of abusive priests." However, in the Wikipedia article for "Education in the United States" it says "Of those enrolled in compulsory education, 5.2 million (10.4 percent) were attending private schools." However, although Shakeshaft may have found that amount to be equal to five decades of abuse by priests, private education (which also would include other privates schools besides catholic ones) only made up approximately 10% of compulsory education children. Thus, when you do the math the rate of frequency is at least double for catholic schools.

Based on Shakeshaft's calculations lets do an example. Lets say there have been 1000 abused children in public schools in the decade between 1991-2000. According to her 1000 children would have been abused in Catholic schools in five decades. However, this does NOT mean the rate of abuse is higher in public schools because public schools make up roughly 90% of children whereas ALL private schools make up about 10% (this figure doesn't even have just the amount of children in catholic school alone which is undoubtably lower than 10% and thus makes the frequency even higher in catholic schools versus public).

If someone can find more data on this it would be much appreciated.

I sort of follow you. Shakeshaft intended to compare priest abuse with public school abuse. Abuse of catholic students has been trivial or minimal. Abuse by priests of (say) altar boys or in other situations (when the priest was alone), is another matter. Public school abuse is truly huge if you try to research it yourself (never mind the pros and cons here. I have done this and it is "around" 3 x as large in volume and probably in percentage as well). I agree that we need apples against apples, or, if not, to make it clear that it is not apples vs apples. Not sure how to change but Shakeshaft is a key reference, and should be preserved. For the record, priests have seldom instructed students in parochial schools. Student7 (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Media exaggeration

Most of the reporting on these issues reflected media annoyance with Catholic positions on political issues. The nomenclature that was assigned was picked up by all the media and rebroadcast so much that everyone takes it for granted now. But, there was never an "institutional" cover-up. As the article indicates, the parents, with second-hand information, told someone in the church, wbo now had third-hand information, about the alleged violation. About 15% of all accusations are untrue regardless of whom they are made about. For a first offense, the "Church" had knowledge of nothing. After repeated allegations, one would wonder, but repeat offenses (or reports of offenses) were relatively rare (and well-publicized since, of course).

There was seldom a "cover up", since the law didn't know about it in the first place. Where the law required a allegation to be reported, that is another matter, but in many cases, that wasn't true either.

Using media terminology without basis (citation) for this tends to reflect their WP:POV bias. (my sign-in expired. Sorry) Student7 75.76.105.240 (talk) 03:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

You've managed to pack in several blanket assertions and accusations there without even one specific and without any references or citations at all. While you seem to believe the issue to be a media witch-hunt, someone else seems to feel the USCCB was the victim of a dirty tricks tactic by the Bush administration. Neither of you have bothered to back up your statements in any way, so they perhaps deserve equal weight (i.e. very little). Similarly, it is pointless raising contrasting issues of paedophilia rates in US public schools, other religions etc on this page. This page deals with the notable issue of Catholic sex abuse. If there is no page on Sex abuse scandals in US public schools, then if that is also notable, then somebody could always start the relevant article.

If I understand you correctly, you seem to believe that a 'cover-up' occurs only when a felony has occurred or reported to have occurred, and no legal action results. This is not so. If some serious incident occurs that should be dealt with in a generally acceptable manner, and it is not, and/or it seems that the overarching priority of the relevant authority is protecting the image of the accused, or the image of the authority itself (in this case the Catholic Church), then it will be seen as a 'cover-up', whether the newspapers deem it so or not. Even the erstwhile Cardinal Law didn't seem to agree with you - in his statement on the Boston priest/sex abuse incidents just before he went to the Vatican, he referred to 'our significant mistakes', and said the sex abuse crisis is not just a

“media-driven or public perception concern in the United States, but is a very serious issue undermining the mission of the Catholic Church.”

Nor is this just a Boston or even a US-only Catholic issue more issues, and even more issues. If you wish to defend the Catholic Church around sex abuse, then you will have to gather some facts together. Centrepull (talk) 10:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Bush administration??? Hmmmn.

Anyway, I did document teaching abuse. It was immediately jumped on by the unions and fellow travellers. That was the end of that. But the experience in putting them (thousands of cases BTW. I barely scratched the surface) was very illuminating. There was a huge number which the media consistently fails to note. Public schools have legal (financial) protection not available to non-governmental institutions. While there is no "institutional" conspiracy, there are few convictions for the same reason that everyone else has in this regard: the minor either refuses to testify or the parents don't want them to or (worse) nothing can be proven because there is no evidence, just the child's word (which is sometimes false, just as in the church).

Pretty much like all statutory rape since the 1970s, in or out of school, prosecution has been a joke. Depending on age differences, officials just shrug. So felonies don't get prosecuted with equal intensity. Today's yawner is tomorrow's headline, I guess, just as it has been throughout media history. When they need a headline, they can find one. Student7 (talk) 23:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

This is pure apologetics

"The Church was widely criticized when it was discovered that some bishops knew about allegations and reassigned the accused instead of removing them,[1][5] although public school administrators engaged in a similar manner when dealing with accused teachers,[6]."

What does public school have to do with what probably is the greatest sexual abuse case in history? The magnitude and continued cover-up put this in a league all to itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.73.146 (talk) 22:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, reader is taking the media exaggeration at face value. Public school cases are about three times larger than religious, if only because children spend so much of their time in school and their are a lot of children and teachers. But both of these are totally eclipsed by sexual abuse at "home" (usually home) of children by mostly parents, guardians, relatives, other children, etc. That abuse is about four times the abuse in the church and schools, put together. The media can't think of any way to headline the latter abuse. As a result, the public seldom hears about it at all! Student7 (talk) 13:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• So, we have another relativisation of this terrible crime committed by the Roman Catholic clerics around the world. Public school cases 'statistics' comes from nowhere. We have to continue removing this shameless eclipse of the crime throughout this article.--138.88.103.233 (talk) 02:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I don't think "nowhere". Try [3].

This is misplaced and unreferenced of course and most likely will have been removed by the time you see this. Another site which covers Catholic abuse as well, is [4], [5]. And a rather comprehensive (over the past few years only) blog of US offenses at blog.Anyway any search will turn up huge volumes. Not in the media cause there is no money in it - can't sue the school district.Student7 (talk) 12:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• • Right, nowhere. I cannot see anywhere that the abuses in public schools are three times larger than the religious one--138.88.103.233 (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Why does this article appear at all? Why does a police blotter mentality appear here but is illegal elsewhere in Wikipedia? That is the substance of the discussion. Why when Catholic clergy abuse is measurably less than the rest of society: teachers, home, Protestant and Jewish clergy, etc. That is what the discussion is about. Student7 (talk) 01:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, puhleez. This is far more important than any number of articles that exist in Wikipedia on serial killers and mass murderers. This deplorable scandal will have a lasting impact on the Catholic Church for decades. Parish churches and parochial schools closed; dioceses went bankrupt; archbishops resigned. Some of the faithful had their faith shaken and left the church. Shame on the bishops who allowed this to go on for decades. Even the Vatican found that it had to speak up and address the issue.

We need to stop excusing the misconduct and coverup by trying to compare against "the rest of society". We need not indict the whole Catholic Church but we should not attempt to minimize the severity of the problem. If there are reliable sources who want to make the case that media coverage of the phenomenon has been overblown and exaggerated, then we can present that case but, before we do that, we need to just present the phenomenon as it was presented in the media. Then we can criticize it.

--Richard (talk) 02:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• Many thanks to Richard for this response.--138.88.103.233 (talk) 02:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Media attention

A large court case, which was lost in California, was national news in 2001 or so. Even though it was "national news", it was "no big deal." Not featured nightly as it is today. The following year, 2002, the cases of Shanley and Geoghan were publicized extensively by the Boston Globe. It was their series that propelled the sex abuse cases to the top of the national charts for media attention, replacing (what? OJ Simpson? Monica? I forget. Anyway). That same year, the Bishops, realizing for the first time how serious it was, produced a "Zero Tolerance" policy at their national conference. While this was not implemented in all dioceses until at least the following year, it deserves mention. However, when I tried to insert it, an editor removed it, saying that was the year the church began winning cases! Ha! Student7 (talk) 14:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I can agree with you where you say that the media is not even-handed in the way they address the different sources and institutions that might be involved in this kind of abuse. It is my sad duty to point out (in case you were unaware), that unevenness is a notorious point on which the media is subject to much justified criticism. Example. However, you are still complaining with no relevant point regarding this article. You didn't address any of the points I raised in reply to you. You have still failed to make your case on how the media's bias should affect this article - which is not about the media, nor even about what the media said, but about sex abuse in a Catholic setting. If you have a point to make other than '...but schools are even worse!', then please make it.

Your statement on the relative financial resources available to schools as governmental institutions (actually local government, and not always even that) seems to imply that the Catholic Church is too poor to afford good legal representation - demonstrably untrue. There seems to be a statement in the article already regarding the Catholic Church's zero tolerance policy from 2002. This page is about Catholic sex abuse, so the doubtless terrible goings on in public schools have no place here either. Why don't you use your 'documentation to start pages on 'public school' sex abuse, and 'domestic sex abuse'?

I would venture that the unusually high-level media attention that has been a feature of Catholic sex abuse reporting is a result of the breach of traditional respect and trust accorded to clergy, the contrast to the moral precepts that are assumed to flow from 'principled' clergy to the laity, extra angles such as the Catholic Church as a world-wide body (Boston->US->World->Pope) and the potential for internal division in the Church; and last but not least, the clear evidence that the Catholic Church repeatedly exposed young Catholics to child-molesting priests for decades (perhaps centuries) by defending and 'redistributing' such offending priests rather than acting to defend their young church-members. This point could be made in a media section of the article, while mentioning some of the major media investigative journalism that has been significant in flagging Catholic Church sex abuse, and the results of such investigations.

Off-article, don't worry about the size of the headlines. When sex-abusing priests become as run-of-the-mill as the evil swim-coach or dangerous candy-man two doors down, then there will be fewer splashes. I must point out though, that you are mistaken in your beliefs that those paedophile/sex abuser stereotypes don't get reported. Fortunately, they still do. Centrepull (talk) 01:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

But that is just it, teacher incidents are three times more common than clergy indidents were. Many fewer incidents since 2003 and implementation of Zero Tolerance. The media (and Wikipedia) essentially ignore it. The point being, since an article about teacher abuse is not allowed, why should this one be? Not to be completely rhetorical, it is because of bias against the church. Nobody "hates" teachers and is "out to get" the public school system. The raison d'etre for this article is institutional (to copy a word) WP:BIAS. The same with "removing all evidence of a discussion about bias, as well."

And, unlike the school system, the church has often gone into cases admitting that there was abuse, but the administration wasn't responsible for it. Where has ever a school system (with a teacher union looking on) ever admitted abuse up front? The abuse is triple, the admissions are not honest. The plates are stacked all wrong here. So there is a robust article on abuse in the church which is far less than schools, and nothing except a vague article on schools. Student7 (talk) 13:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Your emotions appear to be overcoming your reasoning, and you are coming off as if you wish to defend the Catholic Church at all costs, and would rather this article did not exist. I'm sure that isn't your actual stance, but:

• This is not the place to argue about whether the school system deal with their own allegations honestly or not.
• There is plenty of evidence of church denial/covering up of their own allegations - those allegations being the subject of this article
• Can you support your broad statement "Nobody "hates" teachers and is "out to get" the public school system"?
• Can you support your similarly blanket statement "The raison d'etre for this article is institutional (to copy a word) WP:BIAS"?

Please elaborate on why (you think) there is nothing except a vague article on schools. Which article is that anyway? 82.4.184.157 (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it is linked in this article: Sexual_harassment_in_education. But that is pretty much it. There are dozens (maybe not hundreds yet) of articles on individual priest cases. The only teacher cases are those poor women who were definitely guilty of harassing teen males and deserving of punishment but not deserving of everlasting infamy in Wikipedia, if you can call that "equality," though it serves to illustrate a point I am attempting to make here. Again, the stories of those four came on a slow news days. Everyone was titillated; ho ho-es about "lucky boys" (studies have shown they are as traumatized as anyone and I am not sticking up for the women). But there are hundreds of these cases, if not thousands. The media stopped when 1) they got hold of some other topic and 2) realized it was far more pervasive than just four cases. While this was fine with me (I don't hate teachers), it shows a media (and therefore a Wikipedia since editors seem to think they have to echo biased media) WP:BIAS in handling abuse for either schools or church. When I complained about the obvious inequity when the teacher abuse articles were deleted, they suggested complaining here. See how much good that does? Student7 (talk) 02:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree: I can't see why you shouldn't be able to start an article about sexual harassment in schools, but it seems ingenuous for you to complain here about your deleted article somewhere else. In fact, you are being ingenuous in several ways. Your deleted article was actually about sexual abuse cases in public schools in one US state. This article is about sexual harassment in the Roman Catholic church, a single worldwide organisation. Where are the parallels or the connection between the two? Surely the truth is that you have an interest in the Catholic church?
I disagree: did you seriously expect us to be discussing teacher sex abuse on this page? The people who suggested complaining here tricked you. Furthermore, you haven't supported your view that Wikipedia editors echo 'biased' media with even the slightest example or proof - apart from your original complaint that some people have written an article on Catholic sex abuse cases, while some other people deleted an article you wrote about something else entirely. Again, no connection.
Nor is your reasoning on why the media aren't interested in teachers' misdeeds particularly convincing. Try again with your teacher sex abuse article. There are plenty of egregious cases to mention. If you write it with less of an obvious axe to grind, and fewer ridiculous and unsupported generalisations, you might have better luck. Centrepull (talk) 23:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't need me. Anyone with a web page can find hundreds, if not thousands within the past three years in the US alone. They are mostly plea bargained away to "misdemeanors," the usual pigeonhole for cases where the victim refuses to testify or where there is scant supporting "evidence" like DNA. The difference is the union and teachers vigorously combat accusations (maybe 15% of which are false BTW as they are in Catholic abuse cases as well). Catholics generally admit them when true and are encouraged to do so by the bishop. This little factoid seems to be missing as well.

School abuse is mostly missing in Massachusetts (& a few other states) since laws or media practice refuses to publicize cases unless their is a felony conviction which is rare. So there is a news blackout conspiracy there. )

Oh, and there were four articles on four states. I had rough drafts of most of the others, except Massachusetts, for the reason I mentioned. Plus having to split California in two because it greatly exceeded suggested maximum article length. Student7 (talk) 00:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Student 7, per WP:Article, please remove your discussions of the issue

It does not follow guidelines. It is POV and Original Research and has no place in Wikipedia. Please go the the SNAP or a Catholic site for your discussions of the issue. They simply have no place here. Sturunner (talk) 00:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The Priest and the Showgirl

Removed this link, as it seems dead, couldn't find it elsewhere on ABC site, nor anything like it on google (except recursive links back to WKP):

• "Priest wanted for attempted murder of showgirl arrested"

Centrepull (talk) 02:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Scandal in Boston

Part of the article on Bernard Law might deserve to be split in an different article on the Boston chapter of the sex abuse affairs. Similar forking could also be done for the Los Angeles diocese, with relevant content being on the Roger Mahony article. The reason that I am proposing a fork is that I always felt that it was inappropriate to blame all the sex abuse cases on just a few bishops, since individual priests are theoretically responsible for their actions, and that there is a general and institutional American sex culture that is unlike anywhere else on Earth. Also, it is a bit un-Christian for the laity to refuse to acknowledge its part in the affairs, what with all the reconciliation and sin that the Church talks about. ADM (talk) 00:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

With some obvious gross exceptions, most of these cases were handled in the following manner: parent reports it to another priest. He reports it to the bishop. The parent is not too wild about "pressing charges" since it potentially places his kid on the witness stand. Alternately, the child cooperated or appeared to cooperate, which made both the child and the parent feel "funny" about the whole thing. The parent deliberately does not report it to the police for that reason.

Bishops seldom had first hand knowledge of this. Priests have their own parish. Bishops are not omni-present.

Church figures that it was "treatable" (obvious with Shanley that this wasn't true, but anyway). This seemed true in the 70s and later. There was no reason to think otherwise. Bishops are not necessarily talking to each other about this. They are individually horrified and yes, they are trying to keep it out of the papers. This is a requirement of canon law to "avoid scandal or the appearance of scandal." While this seems self-serving now, it is still true for all reported sins, regardless of who commits them, lay or cleric. Gossip is a sin, contrary to what the media believes and thrives on.

The suggestion that anyone other than the culprit is guilty is preposterous and malicious. Lucrative for lawyers though, isn't it?

Schools did the same for similiar reasons-no testimony from alledged victim. In their case, no confession from perpetrator only concealment with active help from teachers union. Suspicious principals or superintendents forced resignation or reassignment elsewhere where the perp did the same thing with the same result. Not liable under the same law used to sue the church.

The public has almost always concealed statutory rape (male over 18 or 21 having sex with girl under 18). How often does that happen? How many "convictions" do you get each year from that? Probably not even one percent? Depends on whose ox is gored, right? Student7 (talk) 01:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Irish and Irish-Americans

Has anyone ever written about why a disproportionate amount of abusers were of Irish ethnicity or Irish ancestry ? It has already been said that many abusers were gay, but how about being gay and Irish at the same time ? Are Irish clerics more susceptible to deviant, pedophile sexual behaviour than clerics of other ethnicities ? Why have comparatiely few Italian-American, Hispanic-American, African-American, Asian-American (etc) clerics been caught engaging in illicit or illegal sexual behaviour ? The ethnic and cultural element in this is interesting because it tends to indicate that some cultures are more prone to being sexually deviant than others. ADM (talk) 18:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about writing. Priests are Irish for two reasons: they had a disproportionate number of vocations to the priesthood in Ireland. They were a "feeder" to American parishes, as other nationalities were not (there were many fewer percentage of Italian, Puerto Rican, etc. vocations, for example). I suspect a non-abnormal number of those were homosexuals. Part two would be the same for the descendants of immigrant Irish=Americans in the US. Same caveat. I doubt that the proportion is out of line with the very high percentage of Irish priests. I wouldn't be surprised if someone found that the percentage was actually lower. They tended to be more conservative. Student7 (talk) 22:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It would be strange if Irish priests had

'a disproportionate number of vocations to the priesthood in Ireland'

as they would already be expected to make up the vast majority of priests in their own country. Or did you mean something different? To come to any conclusions, one would have to show that Irish priests are represented in the statistics on sexual abuse statistics differently to their proportional numbers in the priesthood overall, adjusting for many factors. To what end? Centrepull (talk) 20:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Inner cities

Are you saying you suspect a non-abnormal number of Irish clerics were homosexual men? I wonder on what grounds you think this. Due to traditional discrimination and disapproval of active homosexuality in Catholic-dominated cultures, I would suspect that more Catholic homosexual men might be willing to accept celibate priesthood than Catholic heterosexual men, as many of them might already be celibate in line with Catholic doctrine. I certainly can remember reading that gay priests are more likely to remain in the church, as in the past they would not have been able to marry. Perhaps irrelevant, but I believe that there are issues under discussion within the Anglican church also regarding their reliance on gay men as clerics in difficult parishes such as inner-cities that are regarded as unsuitable for families. Centrepull (talk) 11:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I think I meant abnormal, not non-abnormal. I don't think the inner-city explanation is really enough to explain the whole phenomenon. One interesting theory however is that the priesthood is sectarian by nature, and that homosexual and pederastic groups are also very sectarian. Therefore, since both have this sectarian character, there is a good chance that they will end up encountering each other, something that would eventually cause the kind of damage that we've seen. ADM (talk) 13:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Alleged connection to Satanic cults

There have been books written about alleged Satanic infiltrations within the clergy, some of which are said to be tied to the pedophilia scandal. It's maybe difficult to verify it, but at least some prominent authors have written about the subject. [6] ADM (talk) 04:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I grant you the author is prominent. But testing out the logic here, we are talking abusers with theology degrees. The book title appears to suggest a cult that would normally appeal to those who have been deprived of education. A bit hard to believe. Maybe not relevant here since the article uses specific cases. Also, it seems to me that the prosecution or defense would have to raise the issue to give credibility to the claim for a specific case. (Having said that, some of these abusers were most likely alcohol and drug abusers as well. Who knows?)Student7 (talk) 11:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Red Herring?

It seems to me that the introduction to this article is pointing to other cases of institutionalized child sexual abuse in an attempt to decrease the responsibility of the Catholic Church. It makes references to how other organizations have also committed similar acts; it list the Scouts, the Jehovah's Witnesses, and the public school system. These comparisons do not fit within this section of the article since firstly, this article is about the Catholic Church's sexual abuse cases and not about the Scouts/Jehovah's Witnesses/public schools sexual abuse cases, and the article should reflect this. And secondly, as I have already mentioned, these comparisons are attempts to water down the blame on the Catholic Church. selfworm^Talk) 04:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

So then, the article is not about reporting the facts, it is supposed to be about "blame?" Student7 (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The introduction immediately introduces two red herrings, is unsuitable and poorly constructed. While it should in no way be about 'blame', the introduction to this article certainly reads as an attempt to defend the Catholic Church before detail is mentioned, invoking the concept of blame by implication. The beginning is ridiculously off-topic, and I've changed it:

Allegations of sexual abuse of children have been made against public school teachers and a variety of religious groups

The article is about sexual abuse by Catholic priests. Why does it mention public schools twice in the opening paragraph? Is there someone editing this who has a been in his/her bonnet about them? It has been mentioned before on this discussion page that the sexual offences of public school teachers need to be in a separate, relevant article and have no place here. Perhaps Student7 could oblige? It is likely that domestic abuse by friends and relatives is more prevalent than either public school teachers or priests, but that would have no place in this introduction either.

End of first paragraph and start of second paragraph:

Some commentators, such as journalist Jon Dougherty, have argued that media coverage of the issue has been excessive, given that the same problems plague other institutions, such as the US public school system, with much greater frequency.

That same year, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops adopted a "zero-tolerance" policy for accused offenders.

Both reasonable points to make, but out of logical order. John Dougherty's argument is already in the Legislation and media coverage section, the correct place for it. The Bishops' Conference "zero-tolerance" policy belongs in the Church Actions section, as it was a reaction to the allegations and court cases, and the article hasn't yet detailed those. Centrepull (talk) 12:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Alleged Jewish conspiracy

Cardinal Oscar Maradiaga, in a May 2002 interview with the Italian-Catholic publication 30 Giorni, claimed Jews influenced the media to exploit the current controversy regarding sexual abuse by Catholic priests in order to divert attention from the Israeli-Palestinian crisis. This provoked outrage from the anti-Defamation League [7] ADM (talk) 23:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

"Irrefutable"

An unregistered user persists in using inflammatory words in the lead, with "irrefutable" evidence being one of them. Either the cases were being filed, and were (then) debatable, or the cases were concluded, and their facts were adjudged as the plaintiffs had indicated. Most people who use exaggerated pov terms like "irrefutable" usually have very refutable facts at their disposal. Why not word it in a WP:NPOV manner and let the reader decide. Inflammatory language is not mandatory in this encyclopedia. It is actually discouraged. Student7 (talk) 01:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• US courts were very clear in many of these cases. In the above 'explanation' I see only an attempt to enforce doubtful phrases insertion which are not supported by the references given. Nothing is inflammatory here except your attempt to contradict to many of us.--138.88.103.233 (talk) 02:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• • I agree that "irrefutable" is not an appropriate word to use here. I have rewritten the lead paragraph in a way that I think is truthful but more NPOV and less inflammatory. --Richard (talk) 02:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Except your plain disagreement with me ('NPOV' and 'less inflammatory') I do not see anything supported by references that might suggest that the evidence was refutable, i.e. that evidence is not evidence.--138.88.103.233 (talk) 12:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed move

I propose moving this article to Sexual abuse of minors by Catholic priests. Here's my rationale: this topic should not be limited just to the high-profile cases. The assertion is that sexual abuse of minors and coverup thereof by the Catholic hierarchy has been a problem in the U.S. and other countries. This problem has existed for decades and it's not clear to what extent it has been adequately addressed. Thus, IMO, we should expand the scope of the article beyond the specific cases and talk about the problem as a whole. (NB: This opens the door to presenting the opinions of those reliable sources who believe that the problem is not as big as the media has made it out to be.)

--Richard (talk) 02:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support move. The court cases are only one part of the story, the part that makes it to the courts. The topic is larger than that since only a fraction of incidents end up in the courts. There is no doubt that reliable sources are plentiful on all sides of the issue and the article can be much improved under the new title. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• Possible problem with "Priests". Is a "Brother" or a "Sister" a priest? If not, that would exclude much of the Irish Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse's report. - Pointillist (talk) 07:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Do you have a suggestion to fix this problem? We could consider Sexual abuse of minors by Catholic clerics and religious orders --Richard (talk) 14:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm afraid not. Actually I'm not convinced that one article can hold both (i) the specific cases and short-term reactions to them and (ii) the commentary on the problem as a whole, longer-term/wider themes etc., which I see as being something like Prostitution, finishing with a list of cases by country like Political corruption. We do need a "hub" article that all the case articles can link to, and somewhere that lists all the cases by country. Allegations and investigations-in-progress need to be labelled as such, but so long as they are reliably sourced there's no reason to exclude them from lists. There are going to be more cases and more follow-on from existing cases, so whatever structure you go for must be able to cope with future expansion. - Pointillist (talk) 16:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Turns out there is already an article Abuse by priests in Roman Catholic orders, which assumes members of orders are priests. I'm not sure that's right, because the Ordination article says (here) that: "ordination should not be confused with becoming a member of a religious order, which makes one a monk, friar, brother, nun, or sister (see Tonsure and Monastic vows)." Anyway, it is another potential component of any future structure. - Pointillist (talk) 15:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
      • The problem is the confusion of religious order as meaning "monk", "friar", "brother", etc. as opposed to "priest" and thinking that these are mutually exclusive terms (i.e. thinking that one is either a priest or a member of a religious order). The text in the ordination article is probably inaccurate and misleading. A better explanation can be found in Roman Catholic religious order. A religious order is kind of like a club to which both clergy and laity can belong. Some priests are members of religious orders (Dominicans, Franciscans, Jesuits, Benedictines, etc.). Some members of religious orders are not priests (monks, friars, brothers, sisters, nuns, etc.). Now the article titled Abuse by priests in Roman Catholic orders makes a distinction between "abuse by diocesan or parish priests" vs. "abuse by priests in Roman Catholic orders". I'm not sure why this is an important distinction to draw. I doubt that the media makes any distinction between the two. Moreover, Abuse by priests in Roman Catholic orders is an inaccurate title because it covers both "abuse by priests in Roman Catholic orders" and "abuse by unordained (i.e. non-clergy) members of Roman Catholic orders" (e.g. brothers). I was planning to propose a merger of that article into this one but I wanted to give it some more thought and, in the meanwhile, cleanup this article first.
      • You make a valuable point about discussing the "problem as a whole" vs. "specific cases and short-term reactions". This article seems to try and do both. We could start by having an article titled something like Sexual abuse of minors by Catholic clerics and religious orders which addresses the problem as a whole and serves as a main article for the overall group of articles. We might even drop the "of minors" part and widen the scope. Then the discussion of 21st century Catholic priest sex abuse scandal becomes a subsidiary article of the main article. We could have articles on sex abuse cases in specific countries such as U.S., Ireland, Canada and Australia. I don't know enough about the difference among the different countries to know whether there is enough material to support such articles for every country. --Richard (talk) 16:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
        • I agree that media don't necessarily get the ordained/lay distinction right, but if we can avoid having misleading article titles it would be best, e.g. "Sex abuse in the Catholic Church", "Catholic sex abuse cases in Ireland". Anyway it is clear that ordained priests have been covering up for sexual abuse of minors by lay brothers, so it doesn't make much sense to have separate articles about two sides of the same coin. While we're talking about labels, I don't think the media gets "paedophile" right all the time either: when a cleric gets his kicks from abusing post-pubescent adolescent males isn't that predatory homosexuality rather than pedophilia? I think the country approach is probably best when talking about investigations, reactions and legal cases, but there is also an argument in favour of listing cases by order (e.g. Sexual abuse scandal in the Congregation of Christian Brothers). I'm a bit busy right now but I suppose a good way to start might be to list all the known articles/sections on the subject. There's quite a mountain to climb, I'm afraid. - Pointillist (talk) 17:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this is pointing out that there are several catchall, overlapping articles. Maybe there should be an "Abuse" WikiProject, or an "Outline of Abuse," to try to re-organize this into something that does not duplicate and overlap. Student7 (talk) 18:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Do not see much rationality or usefulness in the proposal--138.88.103.233 (talk) 11:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I like the reversal of the nouns/adjectives. It sounds less pov somehow. Also it is more specific. It has always been about minors. The title maybe implied but did not actually say this.Student7 (talk) 12:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
  • It would help attain npov bias here if the article were renamed to "Sex abuse cases of Catholic" or something with the problem first, and the specific object of the article last. The one now implies that catholics "own" sex abuse which is pov and untrue. Student7 (talk) 12:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
    • No one says that catholics "own" sex abuse. This is just an article about quite distinguishable set of events (crimes) - correctly addressed by the article title. --138.88.248.86 (talk) 23:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
• Copied here from from my Talk Page

I think your title 21st century Catholic priest sex abuse scandal in Catholic sex abuse cases is highly inappropriate, even possibly devious, because it suggests that the abuse scandals will drag on for the next 100 years. For one, most of the cases occured in the 1960-1980 period, and many had already been revealed to the public in those years. Also, as you must know, among the rare caste of abusers, most do not live over the age of 100, and so they cannot commit any more crimes after a certain age. ADM (talk) 04:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Then why not call the article 20th century Catholic priest sex abuse scandal? Catholic sex abuse cases could cover all sex abuse cases back to the apostolic era and forward forever. (Note: User:ADM has already moved this article back to Catholic sex abuse cases which is, IMO, a worse title than the one I moved it to but it's a bad idea to edit war over the article title so I'll leave it where it is until we can form a consensus for a new title.) --Richard (talk) 05:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

While there are a few cases of alleged abuse here and there prior to the 20th century, I am skeptical that it would even possible to document it in a systematic way like in recent times because of the official use of press censorship, the presence of numerous pre-modern social taboos, the absence of Church-State separation or the frequent judicial confusion of pederasty with other major social sins. ADM (talk) 06:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support Move I am deeply concerned by having an article sorting sexual abuse cases by the religion of the perpetrators. I don't see any such article for any other religion or ethnic group. Either a) the religion is irrelevant, in which case it's a silly category (like "sex abuse by people born on Tuesday") or b) the religion is relevant, in which case you are accusing Catholics of being especially pederastic. Either way, it's completely inappropriate. How a type of charge affected the institutional church and how it responded does seem to at least be some sort of unified event, not just a horridly offensive category like "black killers" or "jewish thieves", which is what this one currently is (Smallvillefanatic (talk) 17:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)).

In my humble opinion, Smallville is mistaken. The reason why 'Catholic' features in the article title is because the media phenomenon and reporting focussed on the perceived 'breach of trust' by ordained members of the Catholic Church. Comparing the Catholic Church with 'black killers' or 'Jewish thieves' is a specious comparison - the Catholic Church was seen to be an over-arching organisation with some responsibility for the relations between its' officials and the laity; and most importantly, they are accused of institutional mishandling (or rather failure to handle) of the problem. There is no single comparable body responsible for black people or jewish people, who on the whole, are not assumed to have any specific duties or trusts, and not to be subject to the rules of any organisation.

Mentioning a date in the title is tricky. As it stands (Catholic sex abuse cases), the reader must read the article to discern which era is being covered. 'Twentieth Century Catholic sex abuse cases' would be misleading as there have been subsequent revelations (sorry), cases and consequences well into this new century. In any case, the cases most detailed in the article are mainly from 2002.

The title 'Twenty-first Century Catholic sex abuse cases' tends to exclude the background of recorded allegations dating from the 1950s. No date in the title is the least-worst options. Centrepull (talk) 12:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I actually think Smallville's point is a good one. Are we going to have a whole ream of related articles on "Anglican Sexual Abuse", "Baptist Sexual Abuse", "Orthodox Sexual Abuse", "muslim" and Buddhist sexual abuse. After all sexual abuse occurs in all these religious groupings and to generally no less an extent as in the Catholic Church. Simply because there has been more publicity about Catholic cases, does not mean that WP articles should reflect that. A main article on religious sexual abuse (with sub-articles) might be a way to go. Xandar 00:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It might make sense to have an article that discusses Sexual abuse of minors by religious institutions or some such. "Religious sexual abuse" sounds like some sort of kinky worship practice. However, that doesn't change the need for this article to exist. The fact is, fair or not, the scandal is a significant noteworthy phenomenon in the Catholic Church and in a number of countries including the U.S. You can't make that go away because you feel that it should not have gotten that much attention. It did get the attention that it did and Wikipedia has to report on what happened and give it the weight that it was given in the media and academic circles, not based on the amount of publicity that you think it should have gotten. Look at it this way, if it hadn't gotten media attention, would you allow other editors to insert it in Wikipedia because they felt it should have gotten wider publicity? Of course not, that would be OR. Likewise, your desire to suppress something that got what is, in your opinion, unwarranted publicity is also a kind of original research. Now, if there is significant notable debate about the media's overhyping the scandal out of proportion, we can discuss that. A statement from a single source doesn't provide adequate support to such an assertion. More sources establishing a widespread current of popular or scholarly opinion would help in this regard. --Richard (talk) 02:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Alleged, allegations

I'd like to ask all those defenders of the Catholic Church morality to avoid inserting these words pointlessly even in the cases when there is clear evidence accepted by the Catholic Church hierarchy and proven before the courts worldwide. The truth is clear - the crime is proven, made public, horrific. The Church admitted crime after huge public pressure and outcry. --138.88.103.233 (talk) 12:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

As I stated in the edit comment, a lawsuit brings allegations which must be proven in court. One reason lawsuits are settled is when the defendant becomes convinced that he cannot successfully challenge the allegations in court. This is what happened in a number of cases. One reason lawsuits are filed even when the defendant concedes the truth of the allegation is when there is a dispute regarding damages. If you can show me that the Catholic dioceses conceded the truth of the allegations at the time the lawsuit was filed, I'm open to changing the wording. --Richard (talk) 14:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

One thing I've discovered in investigating this topic is that sex abuse is "common enough" in society at all levels. It is not restricted to any denomination nor occupation. Nor have I seen any evidence that any occupation has been spared from this. And cover-up is usual. In several states, the media cannot publish allegations against teachers. It is illegal or not done by common consent (cover-up) by the media.

And it is much much worse in the home. Nearly all abuse in the home is covered up until the children grow up and start talking about it.

And, unfortunately, nearly all abusers are serial. Finding one isolated case is very unusual. I doubt that was generally known 30 years ago though some penologists and psychologists must have more than suspected.

While some attention has to be paid to this as befits a billion dollar bonanza for the law industry, it is no more suitable for breathless reporting than statutory rape which is probably a lot more prevalent and also has a lot of "cover-up" associated with it. Student7 (talk) 12:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• • So you are continuing your way again and again? You have got enough response to your 'billion dollar bonanza' and similar nonsenses. Please, refrain further from teaching us what is morality following your 'sex abuse is "common enough" ' way.--138.88.103.233 (talk) 14:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

"Crime"

"Crime" is a word used in felonies. There were a small number of prosecutable felonies that resulted in a sentence. Most cases in the US, however, were torts resulting in monetary damages being awarded. There is no "crime" involved in torts per se, just the accusation of "harm", a bit different that the word "crime." There is a legal difference. Student7 (talk) 22:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Legends on papal pederasty

For a long time, there were rumours disseminated about Innocenzo Ciocchi Del Monte, a Cardinal-Nephew who was alleged to have been abused by Pope Julius III. Although this has never really been proven as a fact, it could perhaps be included on the page as part of a section on historically unverified allegations on the subject. There are several other popes who were accused of engaging in such affairs. [8] ADM (talk) 07:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Probably not within the scope of this article. I'm not sure if there is another article that has the appropriate scope. I could imagine one that covers all misconduct of Popes, not just pederasty. A suitable title escapes me at the moment. --Richard (talk) 14:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Shaming

While the reports that come out of Ireland are mostly accurate, being Irish, there is always a lot of pov and politics with it. The word "Shamed" is nonsensical of course. The PM was not in charge during the course of the abuse. The church has always vied with the government for authority and with the scandal, the government has finally taken the upper hand. "Gleefully" would probably be closer to the truth! But the best thing to do IMO, is leave out the pov terms that always accompany even the best reports from Ireland. Never mind that they are a direct quote.Student7 (talk) 20:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

"Globalize" brick

I've put that there because a) I am not fully versed in the villainies perpetrated by certain representatives of the Catholic Church and b) this scandal is worldwide. There are stories of abuses from many countries, not only the USA and Ireland. Other perspectives need to be included to give readers some concept of the enormity of this issue.Kelisi (talk) 10:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, wrong article

For some strange reason, I can't find the article on the much more prevalent and recent cases of sexual abuse by public school teachers in the U.S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.106.71 (talk) 03:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

There should be an article on that subject. It seems that a lot of people here and elsewhere are not so much interested in child-abuse perse, but in incidences of child abuse connected with catholicism. Xandar 22:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Major Faults in Article

The approach of an article like this should be factual rather than sensational. As such, I feel the article as it currently exists contains numerous exaggerations, sections devoted to opinion rather than fact, and several clearly exaggerated and demonstrably false claims.

I am not particularly happy with the approach in the lead to the article. Statements such as "As it became clear that there was truth to many of the allegations and that there was a pattern of sexual abuse and cover-up " and "A major aggravating factor was the actions of Catholic bishops to keep these crimes secret and to reassign the accused to other parishes in positions where they had continued unsupervised contact with youth, thus allowing the abusers to continue their crime" are both opinionated and misleading, making factual allegations against the motives of Catholic bishops which are unproven, as well as not making clear what was standard practice for dealing with abuse allegations at the time. The claim that there is a "world crisis" is also wrong.

The main text of article itself has some very serious errors, huge exaggerations and false material that is easily checkable.

• Order of silence in the 1960s. This title is misleading and opinionated, since it has been stated many times that the document referred to had nothing to do with these cases. If this section is to stay it needs to be retitled and amended.
• The next section contains the statement " Brendan Smyth, who was reported to have raped and sexually abused hundreds of boys between 1945 and 1989.[27] " No reference at all is provided for this amazing statement, aprt from vague reference to a book that has been accused of dishonesty. Alliance Support The only information I can find states that Smyth "abused and indecently assaulted" (not "raped") 20 children in that period. Irish News
• The section heading "Malfeasance by Catholic hierarchy" is another new heading which expresses OPINION not FACT. Malfeasance has not been proven, and this is simply a prejudicial statement. Subheadings such as "FAilure to report criminal acts to the police" and "concealining evidence" are also strongly POV allegations, and should be changed to NPOV at once. Comparison with standard practice on these matters in other spheres is not made.
• The "explanations" sections contain a lot of unreferenced theories and arguments
• The Continued Allegations section again contains spurious accusations and unreferenced or selectively referenced opinionising. This needs to be cleared up. Xandar 23:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• It has also occurred to me that the new title "21st century" scandals is problematic, since nearly all the allegations refer to events in mid 20th century. Xandar 00:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Reading all above - everything is wrong to you if you, for some reason, do not like it. So, for rapes you have NPOV-ed "abused and indecently assaulted" term - just because someone did not want to name the crime straightforwardly and honestly.--138.88.248.86 (talk) 01:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. Rape is a pretty specific crime. I used the exact term in the Irish Times article. The large majority of abuse cases and allegations do not involve rape, so it is wrong to use the word "rape" of abuse allegations unless this is demonstrably so. Use where it is not warranted counts as POV through emotive or misleading language. A lot more exaggerated or misleading language has entered this article recently. Often that is from people who come to the article with a strong viewpoint, or who have decided to copy the tone and inaccuracies of some of the more lurid journalistic coverage. However an encyclopedia is not the place for exaggeration or editorialising. It is to present the facts, and important viewpoints on thoise facts in well-referenced context. Xandar 11:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Ok, let me be straightforward with you: your Order of silence in the 1960s above contradicts to the references: A confidential order issued by the Vatican 40 years ago instructing Roman Catholic bishops to conceal cases of sex abuse is set to reignite controversy over the church's treatment of suspect priests. AND Lawyers acting for alleged victims of abuse say the document proves that for decades the Vatican has systematically obstructed the course of justice in order to protect Catholic priests.. So, please, at least - read the references before trying to claim anything! I could continue the same way with all other of your claims, but, I think, this is sufficient enough to highlight your leading idea given under this title.--141.156.34.194 (talk) 13:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

No. What you are repeating, Mr Anonymous, are CLAIMS, and very weak claims at that made by unnamed interested parties. Claims of any sort should not be represented in the title or content of Wikipedia Articles as fact. The document some journalist dug up has nothing to do with the sex-abuse cases, being about acts in the confessional. That is why the title and coverage of this is a major fault in the article and breach of Wikipedia rules. Xandar 18:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Very weak claims, eh? What makes them weak? Your word of honor? Unnamed interested parties? The document has a lot to do with the sex-abuse cover up i.e. with the crimes of those who forgot the existence of one of Ten commandments: do not lie.--141.156.229.158 (talk) 23:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You are simply making assertions, which are without any solid foundation. Therefore they are unencyclopedic, and if they appear at all must appear as opinions or allegations. The rest of your post is opinionation and POV insinuation. Xandar 00:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• • All your text above is fully in the "You are simply making assertions, which are without any solid foundation." line. So, apply the rules you are trying to impose on others - to yourself first.--138.88.203.19 (talk) 02:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
• Hi Xandar, on a related point, on June 12th you said Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse contained "major errors and distortions". Please could you explain on Talk:Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse#Major Errors? Thanks - Pointillist (talk) 08:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Sturunner

Whether or not it is the truth, it still needs to be NPOV. We do not make decisions for the reader as to the acceptability of the activity. We report the facts and let the reader decide. Your wording makes that decision for them and floats into the realm of vandalism it's so pov. I cannot fathom how you could think that words like "malfeasance" is more neutral than "actions".Farsight001 (talk) 04:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. "Malfeasance" is making a judgement that has not been made by a Court of Law. It is therefore highly POV. The same goes to claims about the 1960s document. WP is not here to make moral or legal judgements. Xandar 21:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• All in this article does not need "that has not been made by a Court of Law" line. History of this crime is not what ever happened or had been proven in the Court.--138.88.246.164 (talk) 23:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

anon IP - I don't even know what you just said. Please clarify and reword.Farsight001 (talk) 23:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• I told you - to read the the given references first. In the existing references I did not find anything supporting your 'neutralization'. Hiding evidence is not 'handling' evidence. 'Handling' is not neutral - it is incorrect. If you do not like those given - try to justify your changes by new equally credible references.--138.88.246.164 (talk) 00:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The sources don't have to themselves be neutral for us to follow NPOV rules. In fact, rules of NPOV trump sources, so if they're really that bad, we should probably pick new sources. The sourcing is not a factor here, so I don't need to read them. the wording is POV, and thus completely unacceptable regardless of what the sources used say.

Also - it is not me who has to justify the "changes", as my changes were only reverts to begin with. "handling" is perfectly fine. In reading the article, we see that there was in fact hiding taking place, but that comes out by the facts speaking for themselves. We do not get to make such a call for the reader. This is very basic stuff. I suggest you pick up an account and read the rules you are directed to when you do, unless of course you are just Sturunner trying to avoid violation notices.

Words like "malfeasence" are bordering vandalism they are so bad. Cease and desist.Farsight001 (talk) 00:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The recently-added headings about "malfeasance" and "orders of secrecy" are clearly not neutral, since they make one-sided POV claims and judgements about matters that are certainly not in universal (or even majority) agreement. Such headings and material are not permissable under WP policies. Xandar 21:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't currently have a view but those headings aren't all that recent. "Order of Silence" has been in the page since at least 1 March (which is only as far as I looked) and "malfeasance" has been in and out for months also. BobKawanaka (talk) 21:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• Not a single editorial policy of any serious publication marks any words of the contemporary English as 'neutral' and not suitable for use in the editions. As I explained it below, this group is falsely calling upon the Wikipedia editorial rules.--138.88.246.164 (talk) 00:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Anon (which I again suspect is Sturunner logging out to bypass policy) - I don't even know what you're saying here. Who marked words neutral and then proceded to call them not suitable for use? Who is calling upon ANY editorial rules? Does wikipedia even have editorial rules?

Also - if you will notice - a request for 3rd party comment was made, which means the version displayed when the request was made STAYS there until the issue is resolved. Your continued edit was definitely contra policy. Thus I switched it back.Farsight001 (talk) 00:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• • I am not Sturunner. Please, be civil by avoiding ever throwing false accusations. Also avoid false interpretation of the existing editorial rules. "Who marked words neutral and then proceded to call them not suitable for use? " It is obviously you. Be so kind to read you responses to other people.--138.88.246.164 (talk) 02:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

If it is me, then please inform me what words I called neutral whilst simultaneously considering them not suitable. The words I call neutral I am wanting to STAY in the article. Again - you need to keep up with wiki policy. The request for a third party response is in play. this means that the version of the article in existence when the request was made MUST stay. I am not trying to boss you around. I am merely informing you of policies that you have to follow. Do not continue to ignore them.Farsight001 (talk) 02:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• • • No there is no rule that says the version of the article in existence when the request was made MUST stay This is what you invented on spot here. If you want to change i.e. reword the existing text - please, get agreement of the other editors and then make the changes you wish. I see three editor are here against your changes. Does it make you think that you might be wrong?--138.88.246.164 (talk) 03:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

No, for Hitler, "malfeasance" is, ah, a bit of a deliberate understatement. Re Nuremburg

YOU are the one who changed it in violation of WP policy. I didn't edit it, 138.88.246.164 did. You would also do a lot better on WP if you could spell the words you try to delete, as well as know their meanings. E.g., please see (& read, malfeasance.) Sturunner (talk) 01:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

You are completely ignoring the point I am trying to make.Farsight001 (talk) 02:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Farsight & Xandar

The legal system in the US has determined through criminal & civil verdicts & settlements that there has been at least a half-century cover-up of the sexual abuse of minors by Catholic clergy that had both legal & sacred authority to & over those minors, both male & female. This has also occurred in the other English-, Spanish-, Portuguese-, & French-speaking jurisdictions. Because you do not like the implications of these verdicts (e.g., the corporate "death-penalty" for the Christian Brothers) does not give you the right to whitewash this article. You cannot not threaten me--I have never lost a mediation or an arbitration.

If you wish to change a particular word to make it more NPOV, feel free. I don't want to quibble, but NPOV is not a license to prettify crimes, torts, or sin.

Xandar, these words are appropriate to the criminal & civil verdicts, judgments, & settlements involved. They would not have occurred had they not been true. Again, if there is a particular word in a particular instance that needs correction, go ahead, but no mass-whitewashing.

Thanks, Bob. Sturunner (talk) 21:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

You aren't listening. It doesn't matter that there has been a cover up. We describe the cover up neutrally. That means we present neutral facts and let the reader decide. It's true - I don't like the implications of these verdicts, but those implications are there even without your ridiculously POV additions. Whitewashing the article would involve me removing the information entirely. I did not do this. Anyone reading can still clearly see that there was a coverup without your changes. Compare this article to the one on Hitler. Possibly the biggest murderer of all time, yet the article neutrally describes events as "the systematic killing of as many as 17 million civilians" and other similar descriptors. I'm telling you again that your edits are so blatantly POV that they are bordering on vandalism. Yet you continue to make them against consensus. (2 to 1 is not much of concensus, but it certainly warrants more discussion without you continuously adding your edits back in). Again - read the NPOV policy. It is painstakingly obvious that you are ignoring it. The priests are villified just fine by the mere mention of their actions. Your changes do not help. This is an encyclopedia, not an opinion piece. btw - I have also never lost a mediation or an arbitration. Will the universe explode if we have one?Farsight001 (talk) 21:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Would it make sense to get a third opinion on these headings? - Pointillist (talk) 22:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

We already have one in Xandar, but Sturunner still isn't listening. I posted something to one of the noticeboards asking for another opinion too, but have not seen a response yet (obviously).Farsight001 (talk) 22:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. Xandar however is not neutral. Sturunner (talk) 22:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll also point out that it's so obviously a violation of NPOV policy that we shouldn't need another opinion anyways. Sturunner - because of your unwillingness to talk it out without reinserting your changes, all further changes by you will be considered vandalism and reverted without discussion. I already considered them vandalism to begin with, but this is just too ridiculous.Farsight001 (talk) 22:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh I see. Any third party who disagrees with you is automatically non-neutral? Did you learn your neutrality from conservipedia?Farsight001 (talk) 22:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's take Pointillist's suggestion. You have been personally attacking me & others for trying to maintain the headings as of about Mar 1. I hope Pointillist's suggestion is followed up on, or perhaps we could merge ALL the articles across WP, with of course appropriate Google translations (can I use those translations per WP? . . .) into one article that traces it across the centuries. I'm taking a break & will check back. Cheerio! (& try some empathy for the thousands of victims. Sturunner (talk) 22:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Might want to look up the wiki definition of personal attacks. I have done nothing of the sort. Let me also point out that the changes you want in are recent additions to the article, so you are not "maintaining" the headings. *I* am. You are wanting them changed. Don't get this issue backwards.Farsight001 (talk) 23:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

How about "Criticisms of the Catholic Hierarchy" rather than "Actions" or "Malfeasance"? As Farsight says, the text under that heading seems pretty fair. But "Actions" and "Malfeasance" are probably neither very satisfactory. (I don't know that "Criticisms" is satisfactory either btw). BobKawanaka (talk) 22:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Criticisms is misleading, though. As this isn't a criticism section. It describes the actions of the church. That is why actions is a suitable word. That these actions are negative should be left up to the reader to determine. We cannot make that decision for them. "Mafeasance" is non neutral. "contributions", in this case, would be non-neutral in the opposite direction. I really think "actions" is right in the middle here.Farsight001 (talk) 22:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

All I am asking is that Xandar & Farsight stop tag-teaming a whitewash by misconstruing NPOV. If a bad word, like "genocide" is appropriate it is manifestly NOT NPOV to call it "mass killings." Genocide is a specific crime under international law. To describe the continuous, decades-long rape (q.v., rape of a child under Massachusetts law) of children under their legal & sacred trust by clerics in the least offensive way possible is, like "mass killings" by Hitler, a deliberate whitewash. WP needs to be accurate, not kind to perpetrators & the organizations that protect them. Sturunner (talk) 23:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

If you want to follow up on the third opinion idea, the main parties involved (e.g. Farsight001, Sturunner and perhaps Xandar) simply agree that an uninvolved opinion would be helpful and list the issue at WP:Third opinion - e.g. by saying "dispute about neutrality of headings" and linking to this talk page section and (e.g.) this diff. Once that's done you all have to leave the issue alone, which means that one side or the other will have to put up with the "wrong" headings for maybe for 5-10 days. Easier said than done but it might help. Good luck. - Pointillist (talk) 23:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Pointillist, fine by me. Sturunner (talk) 23:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I still don't understand why Xandar doesn't count as a third party, as he popped his head in and provided his uninvolved opinion well after the dispute had started just like any other 3rd opinion, but I'll go do that right now.Farsight001 (talk) 23:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

There are constant attempts to disqualify the existing references based on a single 'neutral' point of view that might be named 'i-dont-like-it'. Then a lot of arguing and false logic which is against the valid editorial rules even though that the 'i-dont-like-it' parties wrote a lot of 'why-i-dont-like-it' text baselesly calling upon the Wikipedia editorial rules. As to the existing article's subtitles

• 3 Malfeasance by the Catholic hierarchy
• 3.1 Abusers moved to different locations
• 3.2 Failure to report criminal acts to police
• 3.3 Concealing evidence

I do not see any rationale (ever offered) to 'neutralize' them as Farsight001 and company did it. They do not offer a single evidence supporting their text changes.

To Farsight001 and company. Please be aware that there is more people against your 'neutralization' - read this please! I don't currently have a view but those headings aren't all that recent. "Order of Silence" has been in the page since at least 1 March (which is only as far as I looked) and "malfeasance" has been in and out for months also. BobKawanaka (talk) 21:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC) --138.88.246.164 (talk) 23:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

ok...why is this signed by two people? I checked the edit history, and while bob's name is here, I don't see where it was added in the edit history. this is a bit confusing. Thank you for pointing out that the words have been in and out for months. I only saw their recent addition by an anon and reverted it. Regardless, they are still in blatant violation of NPOV. Do we get to put words like "malfeasance" in Hitler's article? Of course not. "mal" in spanish is bad and the root of both words comes from latin, also meaning basically bad. We at wikipedia, however, do not get to make value judgments like good or bad. They were actions. Were they good actions or bad actions? We report the facts and let the reader make that choice. This is very very basic stuff.Farsight001 (talk) 00:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing someone cut and pasted my comment that was under the Sturunner heading. BobKawanaka (talk) 01:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Yes, you are right. I copied your comment above - just to tell this editor (Farsight001) to not ignore comments of other people.--138.88.246.164 (talk) 02:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not trying to ignore the comments of anyone. But I will say that it is hard to follow what you are trying to say when you don't follow standard formatting conventions.Farsight001 (talk) 03:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Xandar, just a heads up, in your edits you mistakenly removed a reference by Moore. BobKawanaka (talk) 01:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

3RR violation

I'd like to draw attention of Wikipedia's administrators that user Farsight001 is calling upon editorial rules baselessly, attacks other editors changes (claiming vandalism) and is waging war forgetting and ignoring existence of the 3RR editorial rule.--138.88.246.164 (talk) 03:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)