Talk:Catholic Church sexual abuse cases/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions about Catholic Church sexual abuse cases. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

From the Economist online

Slightly off topic, but it should help people understand so called "Fringe theories" a bit better. From the Economist: "As Austrians and Germans leave the church in ever-greater numbers, and with the Belgian Catholic church reeling from a police raid on its headquarters (as a well as a search of two cardinals’ tombs), the politics of the Vatican’s upper echelons look more and more out of touch with rank-and-file Catholics—let alone the rest of the world."

http://www.economist.com/blogs/newsbook/2010/06/catholic_church?source=features_box_main

Stuff that criticises the leadership of the catholic church isn't really a fringe theory given this. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

PS for the article itself maybe some criticism of the Catholic church for being too Conservative (especially in light of the sex scandals) and that large numbers are leaving the church could be added? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Again we seem to be dredging around for bits and pieces with negative slants. And they contradict. The Belgian stuff is criticising elements of the heirarchy that are too Liberal, and promoting liberal sex-education programmes. The little filler from the Economist states the Church is too Conservative! Also if there is talk of "large numbers leaving the Church" we need something a lot more specific as a reference than a one sentence aside in a short filler piece. On what basis is this claim made? What figures is this remark based on? Where can these figures be accessed? Where do such figures state who is allegedly leaving, in what numbers, and why? A broad factual assertion needs a more solid basis. Otherwise the claim is mere journalistic rhetoric. Xandar 23:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Its from the Economist, they don't exactly have a reputation for making stuff up as they go along... And I don't think saying that 2 year olds enjoy touching themselves is a "liberal" position - its just odd. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that you'll find that that is indeed a liberal position, promoted by sexologists of the Kinsey school. And if one actually got to the bottom of this textbook malarkey, that is what will be found at the base of it. Again. the Economist article is not a research-based piece, but a filler piece about personnel changes in Rome, to which a throwaway aside about "people leaving the church" has been added. Journalists tend to add such padding, based on other articles, or half-recalled facts, to fill out shallow pieces. If there really are "large numbers leaving the church" over this issue, then there should be a more solid source that quantifies this and backs up the point with solid evidence. As an encyclopedia, information presented as fact needs to be solidly based on factual sources, not what some journalist thinks he overheard somewhere. A solid source would read something like "x,000 people have left the church in Y since Z, and R percent of them cite the scandal as the reason they left." Xandar 23:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

If we were talking about someone's blog then sure - but we're talking about the Economist. If it wasn't true someone important would write in to give a correction. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily. It's an aside in a small filler piece. To establish a major statement like "large numbers are leaving the church," we need far better attribution than an unreliable journalistic by-blow. If the statement is true and well-founded there will be a far better attribution than this, one with an element of quantification and some idea where the figures have come from. We can't write stuff as facts based just on unverified journalistic comment. Xandar 22:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I say we need a better source too, as I have seen several myself which report that despite the sex abuse, people are converting TO Catholicism in droves. In addition, it says specifically that Germany's and Australia's Catholics are leaving in droves. What about Catholics in other countries? How many are converting TO Catholicism in Germany and Australia? These questions are not answered. If we include information that Catholics are leaving the Church, we would need to be VERY careful about how it is said because we can't reasonably give the impression that Catholic Church membership is declining, either as a whole, or even just in Germany and Australia, since that's not actually what the cite says.Farsight001 (talk) 04:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Fortunately we have one http://www.smh.com.au/world/germans-abandon-catholic-church-20100325-r002.html. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's not better because it ALSO fails to specify a drop in membership, but only says that many are leaving the Church. How many are joining?Farsight001 (talk) 04:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The only figures quoted are a few hundred in the two dioceses - hardly "large numbers" in terms of a Catholic population measured in millions. Xandar 22:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The few hundred are the monthly figures, and the Economist and Sydney Morning Herald both think its a big deal - besides there is also the trust percentage which has dropped hugely. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

But what certain journalists "think" may be ill-informed and different from facts. It could be argued (reather weakly) that we could say that some journalists think that many people have left the church, but basically here we need to have hard facts. An important claim needs to be backed up. The only backing given so far is marginal and in no way backs up the assertion of "large numbers" leaving the Church. We could factually say "several hundred have left dioceses x and y", but that's it really on this evidence. And WHY these people have left is largely assumption as well. Xandar 22:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems a bit odd to try and claim that the Economist and Sydney Morning Herald are "ill-informed" - especially the former - unless you have an alternative reliable source stating that large numbers aren't leaving the church. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, not even the Economist and Sydney Morning Herald are technically saying that large numbers ARE leaving the Church in the first place.Farsight001 (talk) 19:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

They're ill-informed because what evidence they quote doesn't back up statements which seem to have been very loosely made (a habit with some journos). It's the "everybody is doing x" rhetorical statement. As I've said, the only specifics that have been produced are in terms of hundreds in certain dioceses. We therefore have backing for saying that "Hundreds have left a number of dioceses", but nothing more. "Large numbers leaving" or similar wording suggests far more than is reliably sourced. Xandar 00:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Overemphasis section

As per my argument used elsewhere. This also appears to be backed up by reliable sources so should stay. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 01:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Ordination of Women = Sex abuse and improvements to the Churches handling of sex abuse cases

This should be included. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The Vatican has revised its in-house rules to deal with clerical sex abuse cases, targeting priests who molest the mentally disabled as well as children and doubling the statute of limitations for such crimes.

Abuse victims said the rules are little more than administrative housekeeping since they made few substantive changes to current practice, and what is needed are bold new rules to punish bishops who shield pedophiles.

Women's ordination groups criticized the new rules because they included the attempted ordination of women as a "grave crime" subject to the same set of procedures and punishments meted out for sex abuse.

No, this most certainly should not be included. This is about ordination of women. The article is about sex abuse cases. Attempting to draw a link between the two is pointless and SYNTH.Farsight001 (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Then why does Rome include it? Sturunner (talk) 00:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Quite, and theres a whole bunch of reliable sources showing the link. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 01:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Sturunner - what does the city of Rome have to do with this? And please specify exactly what "it" is here. There are numerous things you could be referring to.

Eraserhead, I don't really know how you still don't get it, but the existence of reliable sources is not the only criteria for inclusion. These are encyclopedia articles, not attempts at comprehensive studies on a subject. They give overviews of a thing, and as such, do not include every little detail, but rather the most important ones. Speculating on a link between abuse and ordination of women is just that - speculation. Not important to the article.Farsight001 (talk) 01:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

If there weren't 1000 hits on Google news talking about the Vatican's latest pronouncement you might have a point, as there are your case for not including this is damn weak. This is getting towards notable enough for enclusion on WP:ITNC. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 01:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

PS here's the Google news link: http://news.google.co.uk/news/more?q=women+ordination+on+par+with+sex+abuse&hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&prmd=n&resnum=1&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ncl=dAzZy6drlSujh0MH8qZBnQ00EUivM&ei=0AxATMe5KI-94gbAyLnADg&sa=X&oi=news_result&ct=more-results&cd=1&resnum=1&ved=0CCYQqgIoADAA. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 01:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain you didn't read a single thing I just said. Try again.Farsight001 (talk) 02:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

OK I'm trying again. The link is that that the Vatican has claimed that ordinating women is a grave sin - which is that same thing they say about pedophillia. That is definitely notable, and definitely backed up by the sources given. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah...you're still not understanding what I'm getting at. You keep talking about the existence of reliable sources, which is not what I'm talking about at all. In addition, you seem to have ignored that the conversation is ongoing and simply added the information. That's a big no no, so I'll give you a chance to self revert.Farsight001 (talk) 11:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Farsight, its clearly notable and important as its a response from the church on the pedophile scandal and the immediate criticism of it.

Its the churches fault for being stupid/naive enough to bring up the ordination of women priests at the same time as their response to the pedophile scandal and to be backwards enough to call the ordination of women a "grave sin" (just like pedophillia) - especially when preventing women from working for the organisation would be illegal in the vast majority of countries if it was a secular organisation. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

PS I've self reverted for now. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand how one calls it a response from the Church. It has considered ordination of women a grave crime for well over 1000 years now. Also, while the Church may consider both "grave sins", that in no way means that they are on considered on par with each other in the sinfulness scale.Farsight001 (talk) 07:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

For 900 of the past 1000 years women haven't had the vote in any country. For 950 of the past 1000 years women haven't legally had the same rights as men. For 980 years discrimination against women hasn't been against international law. Womens rights have improved a lot.

Besides if its been true for the last 1000 years why repeat it? And why call it a grave sin without clarifying it that pedophillia was worse? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

First, what in the world does the rights of women in a nation have to do with the ordination of women in Church? The Church is not a nation and doesn't function like one. Second - why not repeat it? And why should the Church need to clarify that pedophilia was worse? If other people want to draw that assumption, then that's their own fault. It certainly wasn't implied by the Church. If the misunderstanding becomes rampant enough, then the Church will clarify, but that's probably not going to happen.Farsight001 (talk) 00:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You realise the Church will have a specific exemption from sexual equality laws? Ditto gay rights laws? If there weren't they'd be taken to court for not allowing women priests. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I phrase my question this way not because I am frustrated at you, but because I am confused, so please do not find insult with it. What the fuck are you on about?!Farsight001 (talk) 09:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I appeared patronising. My point is that women's rights apply generally to secular positions and the catholic church has a specific exemption on grounds of religion. Therefore in todays world if the Catholic church goes around saying that being a woman priest is a grave sin - just like pedophillia and schism that doesn't look very good. Especially if they do so in the same document that they are trying to move on from the sex scandal.

However I think you have a point too and that it is slightly off topic here (and maybe more relevant on an article on the Vaticans PR handling or something) so maybe its not worth including here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Why this Wikipedia article is so bad?

I like this New York Times article for addressing a policy of nonresponsibility, denial, legalistic foot-dragging and outright obstruction i.e. whatever is done by Vatican is right and unquestionable which is followed strictly in the two third of the Wikipedia article. The words alleged, allegation(s) are used 113 times in the Wikipedia article. Bizarrities like the pope Wojtyla's explanation what is sin, or opinions of some psychiatrists (?) that the criminals shall be treated by the psychiatrists, are for idiots. That pope forgot that the sin is a moral notionnot the religious one and it is clear and known to ordinary man. But in the Wikipedia article it is an attempt to level down the crime to the sin, for the benefits and interest of the Vatican. The Chirch and Vatican never did anyting for victims ix excluding Austria's RCC fund (established in 2010) aimed to support the victims. Then there is the Joh Jay report comissioned by the US RCC written to 'explain' what the RCC wanted to be 'explained'. Then the 'media bias' which is not even a part of defense line of the RCC today. The RCC crime(s) are the media headlines today and will be in future, too.

Rome Fiddles, We Burn by MAUREEN DOWD Published: July 16, 2010

The Catholic Church continued to heap insult upon injury when it revealed its long-awaited new rules on clergy sex abuse, rules that the Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said signaled a commitment to grasp the nettle with “rigor and transparency.”

The church still believes in its own intrinsic holiness despite all evidence to the contrary. It thinks it’s making huge concessions on the unstoppable abuse scandal when it’s taking baby steps. The casuistic document did not issue a zero-tolerance policy to defrock priests after they are found guilty of pedophilia; it did not order bishops to report every instance of abuse to the police; it did not set up sanctions on bishops who sweep abuse under the rectory rug; it did not eliminate the statute of limitations for abused children; it did not tell bishops to stop lobbying legislatures to prevent child-abuse laws from being toughened.

In a remarkable Times story recently, Laurie Goodstein and David Halbfinger debunked the spin that Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger had been one of the more alert officials on the issue of sexual abuse:

“The future pope, it is now clear, was also part of a culture of nonresponsibility, denial, legalistic foot-dragging and outright obstruction. More than any top Vatican official other than John Paul, it was Cardinal Ratzinger who might have taken decisive action in the 1990s to prevent the scandal from metastasizing in country after country, growing to such proportions that it now threatens to consume his own papacy.”

--208.103.155.175 (talk) 03:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Your contribution to this discussion was deleted by a person who thinks (s)he has last word here.--Remind me never (talk) 13:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Probably some content from this should be included in the article, though the content on the Belgium case is already included and the content on the Vatican's recent pronouncement is already being discussed above. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Most of this, and a lot of the other stuff trawled by our anonymous friend, is simply the opinionising of a certain clique of ill-informed journalists. It deserves no place in this article except as a minor strand of over-all opinion. This is not meant to be an opinion article. It isn't the spot for a ringing denunciation of Catholicism. And it isn't here to duplicate the purpler prose of groups with an axe to grind. It is here to dispassionately reflect facts and all strands of opinion in a balanced encyclopedic manner. I don't care how often certain people keep writing that they hate the Pope. That is irrelevant. Unless someone can provide reliable evidence of the alleged "foot dragging" and "obstruction", and how this was different to what was going on everywhere else at the time, then its just so much overheated air from people with an agenda. Xandar 23:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

- @Xandar: As to "our anonymous friend", (s)he is as anonymous as you are. The reliable evidence that future pope was part of a culture of nonresponsibility, denial, legalistic foot-dragging and outright obstruction is documented and will be used by, at least, two prominent American lawyers against Vatican and Ratzinger. As you might notice, the articles are from the world-renown news magazines, Time and New York Times. Wikipedia is ranked just as a blog. Talking about "of a certain clique of ill-informed journalists" the way you did (high post, high tone), says us what?.--Remind me never (talk) 00:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Since this "reliable evidence" hasn't come to light yet, it can't be included here. As for what various publicity (and wealth) seeking lawyers in the US claim. When they've proved it in courts of law rather than blogged, it may have more substance as something other than self-puffery. Xandar 00:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

external and citations

I have trimmed the link farm , there were all sorts of non reliable links and suchlike, some of then where also duplicated in the citations, there are 179 citations, most of them need formating so that it is possible to see what is gong on, many of them are not reliable also and some of them broken and some just dead and some to front pages, if someone is bothered enough that would be a good work. Off2riorob (talk) 16:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The see also section is also bloated and tangential. Off2riorob (talk) 16:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Your cleaning out of the external links was brilliant. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, it is often easier for an outsider than an involved editor. Off2riorob (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Vatican responses section is too long and too detailed

The "Vatican responses" has turned into a chronology which is inappropriate for a summary article at this level. We should be summarizing what happened rather than providing a blow-by-blow account of individual events. I'm not saying that the material as written is completely inappropriate for an encyclopedic article although it is questionable. What I'm saying is that the material would fit better in an article titled Chronology of Vatican responses to the Catholic sex abuse scandal. The current text of the "Vatican responses" section is spending too much time describing individual trees rather than providing a bird's-eye view of the forest. --Richard S (talk) 17:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I support that. The whole article is probably too long. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to add that the "Vatican responses" weren't known publicly until recently being 'un-earthen' by Vatican. As it was pointed at by many, all Vatican responses completely excluded the victims. In that context these 'responses' shall be mentioned here and in much shorter form.--Remind me never (talk) 00:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You could "add" that, but seeing as how it's not even remotely true, fat chance convincing others.Farsight001 (talk) 01:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

@Richard S: In order to further support your idea, I am all for two leading rules stated below:

a)"The church's internal rules are no more important than the rules of your local golf club." (by Andrew Madden) and
b) "Church's new rules fall short - again" (the article title below)

I mean endlessly detailing their internal opinions and rules whose the only goal is to save the Church face and money are of very low face value and of no interest to an average reader

Vatican bombs with crimes letter
"The first thing the church should be doing is reporting crimes to civil authorities," said Andrew Madden, a former Dublin altar boy who filed the first public abuse lawsuit against the church in Ireland in 1995. "That's far, far more important than deciding whether a criminal priest should be defrocked or not," he told AP. "The church's internal rules are no more important than the rules of your local golf club."
Church's new rules fall short - again
They do not include a one-strike-and-you're-out penalty for pedophile priests. They do not require bishops to report every instance of sex abuse to police. They do not include penalties for bishops who cover up abuse. Nor do they eliminate the statute of limitations for such crimes.
Incredibly, the new rules do manage to insult women by listing the ordination of women as priests — arguably one of the most likely ways of eliminating much of the sex abuse — as a grave offense against the church, on par with pedophilia. So, women priests are the moral equivalent of child molesters?

In other words: we shall clean article of the excessive amount of text containing very cheap ideas how the people outside the Church hierarchy shall see this scandal and crime.--Remind me never (talk) 00:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Section about the victims

I think that a section about the victims and the psychological consequences of the abuses is necessary. There are specific effects when the abuse are done by priests. It's important to write them. A good ref. for that, easy to summarise for English-speaking users : johnjaystudy Victims of Child Sexual Abuse by Priests P. 40 of the doc (or p. 42 of the PDF).--Noel Olivier (talk) 14:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

What content do you suggest adding? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Content on other religious groups

While definitely worthy for the article as a whole to comment that other religious groups have seen sexual abuse (and its also well sourced) is this appropriate for the lede? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I would say - not really, its not about the subject of the article is it., remove it, personally I wouldn't bother replacing it elsewhere, its a tangent to the topic. Off2riorob (talk) 16:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Definitely not in the lede. Maybe a brief mention elsewhere. Most of the material of that nature looks like spin control. --John Nagle (talk) 17:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The lede is meant to be a microcosm of the article as a whole, and the facts and arguments contained. Whether the Catholic Church is unique in suffering such a scandal is a major point in coverage and contention on the topic. Therefore that issue requires mention in the lede. Xandar 22:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

This article is about the c\catholic sex abuse, the fact that other organization are also in the same situation i a see also only. Off2riorob (talk) 22:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I teach junior high scholl. At the start of every session of classes I make it clear to my students that, of the popular excuses I hear for unacceptable behaviour, one of the most pathetic is "But he's doing it too." Forget it. That others sin does not excuse the Catholic Church sinning. HiLo48 (talk) 22:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

A) The Catholic Church has not "sinned", if individuals within it have. B) Since most of publicity and criticism about this is based on purveying the assumption that this is CHIEFLY or SOLELY a Catholic problem, then the response to this accusation has to be presented too - your grade-school experiences notwithstanding. Xandar 00:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Info removed

A couple of editors have been removing reliably sourced information without any discussion whatsoever. I'm just starting this section to give them a chance to explain their actions and talk about it first, since no justification for removal has been given yet.Farsight001 (talk) 01:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

NARTH really are awful, and the content sourced from them should be removed (so the content in this edit should go). However the other content removal (this edit) looks wrong to me, and should stay. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course if the NARTH stuff can be sourced from a reliable source I'm happy for it to stay. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the NARTH content. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The P.Jenkins quote saying "In almost all cases too, with the older teenagers, there is an element of consent" is a WP:REDFLAG and serves as a nice illustration what kind of person this person is. However as per WP:REDFLAG I am afraid the source is not good enough to make the point - the whole section should go. Richiez (talk) 17:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

With an 16-17 year old in the UK (and other countries with an age of consent at 16) they'd only be abusing a position of trust, which is a far less serious offence than child abuse - so it doesn't seem like a totally unwarranted comment. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The assertion that most are 16 or 17 is a WP:REDFLAG in itself. Needs better sources. Richiez (talk) 19:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Jenkins is an expert on the subject and it is reported as a statement of his, not of absolute fact. What other kind of source could you possibly want?Farsight001 (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The section is a clear an attempt to belittle the issue of sex abuse. So here we have one guy who is openly pro-christian raising several redflags contrary to all the other numerous references gathered in the article. The only source for this is the forum of some never heard about online portal. Richiez (talk) 22:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually I would not mind if the section would stay as is - with the title "Attempts to marginalize the abuse". Richiez (talk) 07:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

"attempts to marginalize the abuse" is not even remotely NPOV.Farsight001 (talk) 11:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

And what does him being "pro-christian" have to do with it? As far as wikipedia is concerned, he's an expert on the subject and that's settled. His personal bias is of no consequence.Farsight001 (talk) 11:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The title saying "inaccuracies" is ambigouos. Does it refer to the content of the section? Does the sections establish inaccuracies of other sections or sources? In that case it would need much better sources. Some guy saying that there is an element of consent in nearly all abuse cases is a red herring in wikipedia. Richiez (talk) 20:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Your demand for "much better sources" is completely unwarranted. Jenkins is quite a bit more than qualified enough to be an adequate source here.Farsight001 (talk) 06:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Assuming Jenkins meets the reliable sources criteria I agree. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

When he is claiming that in almost all cases there is an element of consent he is contradicting all other established sources and saying something that is dangerously close to justification of sexual child abuse. Wikipedia is not a platform for this and the claims of a single partisan researcher in some opinion forum of a newspaper is never a sufficient source for such dramatic conclusions. Richiez (talk) 08:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

No he's not. In most nations, legally, it is de facto sex abuse under a certain age, even if the person involved is fully willing. Jenkins is saying, with non-legal terminology, that most victims consented. However, and again, even though they consented, in the eyes of the law, it is still sex abuse. Hence there is in no way a contradiction.Farsight001 (talk) 10:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't really think consent with someone underage holds that much water if one of the individuals is more than 2-3 years older and especially if they are in a position of authority (like a priest or a teacher). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Church responses -> Diocesan responses -> United States

I've removed the table based on 2004 John Jay report because

the report is obsolete and, therefore, inaccurate and incomplete
the report is commissioned by the Roman Catholic Church and therefore tailored by their own (Vatican) interest.
the same report is overused and nonsensically repeated in the article--Remind me never (talk) 00:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

1) What a bunch of hogwash 2) Wikipedia doesn't give a crap. It's an RS, so it's ok. Your personal opinion of the Vatican is irrelevant 3) where is it used elsewhere? 4) you deleted without any discussion whatsoever. You've been an editor here for months now. You should know better. Discuss, come to an agreement, and THEN and only then, delete.Farsight001 (talk) 04:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

In addition the Jay report was an INDEPENDENT study from a reliable and authoritative academic body, so who commissioned it has no relevance. Xandar 19:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, actually the John Jay report was based entirely on reports from units of the Catholic Church. There was no independent data collection. --John Nagle (talk) 18:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

In addition to the John's comment, I'd like to re-iterate: the John Jay report is obsolete, incomplete, and inaccurate. Just read the most comprehensive Documenting the Abuse Crisis in the Roman Catholic Church http://www.bishop-accountability.org/--Remind me never (talk) 00:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Repeating yourself doesn't create a reason for you to remove reliably-sourced information from the article without consensus. Per WP:BRD, you've been bold and were reverted, it's now time to discuss and establish consensus before re-reverting. Anything else is edit warring.

Jess

_talk
_edits

00:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Disregarding the other issues the table seems rather messed up. Full of overlapping categories, most likely for any single case there might have been several responses which is hard to figure out from the table etc. Does not look usable in this form. Are there any sources which question the report as such? Richiez (talk) 12:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Claims attributed to John L. Allen, Jr.

He never claimed "the document's legal force expired in 1983 ", not in any of the sources mentioned anyway. Furthermore this claim is directly contradicted by [1] which is linked from Crimen sollicitationis. From everything I know the document was applicable till 2001 and Allen has been apparently misattributed a few claims. Richiez (talk) 23:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Looking through the article one could easilly get the impression that Allen is some kind of official speaker of the Vatican, eg looking at Catholic sex abuse_cases#Vatican responses. Has there ever been a discussion whether it is appropriate that he represents the case of the catholic church in this article?

Does someone insist to keep Catholic sex abuse cases#United Kingdom 2? It would need some rewrite so that the claims are backed by the mentioned sources or other sources need to be found. Richiez (talk) 20:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

removed the section, if someone wants to rescue it this should be fixed:

However, John L. Allen, Jr. noted that three points had been established^[1]

source does not back claim

As an "instruction", the document's legal force expired in 1983 with the revision of the Code of Canon Law. Canon 1395,§2 explicitly named sex with a minor by clerics as a canonical crime "to be punished with just penalties, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state if the case so warrants".^[2]

source does not back claim

The rest appears not very convincing anyway and has been disputed by other sources. Richiez (talk) 13:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Inaccuracies Section

Sorry, I didn't check the history when I pulled that out. However, I stand by my reversion. While that section may be long standing, that doesn't make it any less a violation of policy. That statement is based on an Opinion piece by an independent academic in a newspaper. This is very much not a reliable source. At best, that opinion article can be used to support what Philip Jenkins's opinion is about the sex abuse cases. But, as someone who's never before looked at this article, why is Jenkins's opinion notable enough for inclusion? Especially since it falls under the subheading of Inaccuracies, and since the quote is so long, it looks like the reader is supposed to understand that Jenkins is accurately stating that these ideas are inaccurate, as opposed to it just being Jenkins having the opinion that these ideas are inaccurate. Does that distinction make sense? I'm trying to get at the fact that Opinion pieces are generally only reliable in that they show a person's opinion, not in terms of the underlying details in that opinion piece. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

That reads more like spin control from an involved party. Also, the Catholic Church does not conduct "criminal trials" in the United States. They do not have the power to put anyone in jail. (They did in the Middle Ages; see Ecclesiastical court.) There's a church "judicial system", but it's purely administrative. The worst they can do is kick someone out. --John Nagle (talk) 07:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible to find further sources? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

As a note, I have no particular opinion on the section, as I haven't looked into the issue or the source. I was simply responding to Strunner's repeated edit warring against consensus. Don't take that as support (or lack thereof) of the actual content.

Jess

_talk
_edits

13:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Jenkins' conclusion is not even supported by the church' own investigation - the John Jay Report states that 22% of the victims were under 10 and full 73% under 15. While the exact age where some sort of consent is possible is debatable, under the circumstances of coercion by authority it is hard to argue that anyone bellow 15 could give real consent and completely unthinkable for the under 10 group. Richiez (talk) 17:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

So far I don't see anyone defending the inclusion of this information (aside from the reverts in edit history). Can anyone explain why this part should remain? If not, I'd argue that, despite his offensive personal attacks, Sturunner is correct to remove this POV quotation sourced to an Opinion Article. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

After having looked the section over, I would support its removal. It's possible it could find a place in the article somewhere, but it doesn't warrant its own section, and it should be rephrased substantially. That said (due to the good deal of edit warring recently) please don't remove it until we've given this discussion some time to mature and consensus forms.

Jess

_talk
_edits

04:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

But don't we have a WP:DEADLINE coming up soon? I'm also comfortable waiting. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't mean you specifically! =P Honestly, I was really saying that if our neighborhood edit warrior removes the section again, he should be reverted and reported as usual... regardless of the ultimate fate of the section. As a note, if anyone does want to justify the content, the best place to start would be notability of the author, and how widely the quote was published.

Jess

_talk
_edits

05:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Current version is inacceptable. It would be possible to restore this version as a quick fix but in the long term if anyone wants the Jenkins material it would have to be balanced by facts - and those are quite clearly that Jenkins was blatantly wrong claiming that there has only ever been a single pedophile priest. Also someone might get the idea to cite the concerned catholic scholar Garry Wills claiming that Jenkins is a praiser of pornography and boy love [2]. Although that would be amusing my impression is that it would be excessive for this article. Richiez (talk) 14:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

How about taking the better stuff from the "Inaccuracies" section and putting it in the appropriate "criticism" sections? It's mostly opinion. --John Nagle (talk) 17:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I've reinstated the "quick fix". -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Is Jenkins' criticism relevant? I'm not very familiar with this issue, but it's not normal to include random criticism from random people, unless they're either uniquely qualified to comment on the issue (say, as scholars with significant experience in the field) or they're relevant to the topic itself (like, of course, officials in the Catholic Church criticicize the claims). Is there some reason why Jenkins is so relevant to the debate that his opinion (which, if Richiez is correct, is flatly wrong) that he gets an extended quotation, wherever it's placed?Qwyrxian (talk) 22:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It probably was relevant in some (distant?) past and Jenkins might have been correct in some remote academic sense. The statement was apparently also met with some criticism back then. As of today the statement is very misleading and irrelevant, new reports and more thorough investigations have superseded it and proven wrong in substantial points. It could only serve as an example of yet another failed rebuttal attempt. But I somehow doubt that Jenkins was significant enough to elaborate the section in this way, just as I think that we do not need to record every single mistake some newspaper has done in some distant past when reporting about sex abuse. There sure were many and most are pretty irrelevant today as they have been superseded by new information. Richiez (talk) 09:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the first paragraph of the section and added a 'too long' tag to it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Have replaced a cut version of this paragraph. Its lack makes the section disjointed, and this is a significant criticism of coverage. Jenkins too is a significant academic expert and critic. Xandar 22:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Crimen sollicitationis

User:Richiez commented:

John Allen, Jr. never claimed "the document's legal force expired in 1983 ", not in any of the sources mentioned anyway. Furthermore this claim is directly contradicted by [3] which is linked from Crimen sollicitationis. From everything I know the document was applicable till 2001 and Allen has been apparently misattributed a few claims. Richiez (talk) 23:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

A Google search for "Crimen sollicitationis 1983" will yield a number of hits. I found this one useful:

CatholicCulture.org

The norms of Crimen sollicitationis were clearly not heeded at the local level, and after the Code of Canon Law was promulgated in 1983, other curial dicasteries became responsible for handling cases of the abuse of minors-- cases that bishops always had the authority to address at the local level. Msgr. Scicluna explained in March:
The first edition [1922] dates back to the pontificate of Pius XI. Then, with Blessed John XXIII, the Holy Office issued a new edition for the Council Fathers, but only two thousand copies were printed, which were not enough, and so distribution was postponed sine die [indefinitely]. In any case, these were procedural norms to be followed in cases of solicitation during confession, and of other more serious sexually-motivated crimes such as the sexual abuse of minors.
Between 1975 and 1985 I do not believe that any cases of paedophilia committed by priests were brought to the attention of our Congregation. Moreover, following the promulgation of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, there was a period of uncertainty as to which of the delicta graviora were reserved to the competency of this dicastery. Only with the 2001 motu proprio did the crime of paedophilia again become our exclusive remit. From that moment Cardinal Ratzinger displayed great wisdom and firmness in handling those cases, also demonstrating great courage in facing some of the most difficult and thorny cases … Therefore, to accuse the current Pontiff of a cover-up is, I repeat, false and calumnious.

I think the point is not that Crimen sollicitationis "expired" in 1983 but that " there was a period of uncertainty as to which of the delicta graviora were reserved to the competency of [the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith]". This uncertainty was not resolved until the 2001 motu proprio.

--Richard S (talk) 14:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

It is certainly fair to say that the church law is complicated. Fr Doyle reasoned that not only was the particular code theoretically in effect but it has also been applied in practice in a number of cases. A further search brings back indirect evidence of one of the missing references (which was the reason I deleted the section in first place), via a reply of Fr Doyle to the said assertions by Allen: http://ncronline.org/node/4530 Richiez (talk) 16:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

While John Allen, Jr. is certainly not the "official voice of the Vatican", he is certainly an apologist for it. On the other hand, Father Doyle et al certainly have an anti-Vatican POV. The best solution, IMHO, is to describe the dispute by presenting both sides without asserting that one is more right than the other. Let the reader decide for himself which side to believe. --Richard S (talk) 03:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The remarks about Allen as speaker of the Vatican were regarding a different section - this one. If you look at it you could easily get the mistaken impression that he is some official speaker of the Vatican.

Regarding Allen vs Doyle in the Inaccuracies/UK section it is a dispute from 2006 about a BBC documentary from the time and the primary source may be a blog entry of Allen (unless someone can find a newspaper or something quoting this controversy). I am not at all opposed to having both sides have their word but usually blogs are not good enough as sources even if they are by the Pope himself? Is it interesting enough? Richiez (talk) 15:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Modern treatment not that dissimilar to "ancient" treatment

Here is a partial quote from the article, "the bishops came to adopt an emerging view based on the advice of medical personnel who recommended psychiatric and psychological treatment for those who sexually abused minors..." This sentence suggests that their idea was quaint and wrong. This is not the case either then or now.

The treatment has changed. Experts agree that the condition cannot usually be "cured." On the other hand, there are 600 programs in the US which treat sexual felons. At least one, Vermont's, has a recidivism of 5%. So professionals still believe that it can be treated. This belief is not different from what it was in the 60s. Only the treatment has changed. States do not necessarily lock up offenders today and throw the key away then or now. See http://www.7dvt.com/2008bennett-case-raises-questions-about-vermont-s-sex-offender-treatment. Also contains report where treatment notoriously didn't work, but again - 5%.

Wording suggesting that the bishops incorrectly thought the problem could be treated should be amended to show that it can be treated today. Maybe the bishops were premature, but that was prevailing thinking then. Also, the same attitude prevails today. Student7 (talk) 23:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

This is not an article about treatment of sex offenders. The scope here is only whether the cases were handled according to best medical practice at the time they were handled, everything else is totally irrelevant for this article. I am sure there are articles about treatment of sex offenders on WP and your input is welcome there, where you can even create a section about treatment of catholic clergy sex offenders if you think it deserves special attention and have enough high quality sources.Richiez (talk) 08:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

IMO, it's really worthwhile to understand that the actions of the bishops were not necessarily just about avoiding scandal and protecting the Church. It's reasonable to consider that a more compassionate approach was to "hate the sin but love the sinner". A particularly poignant tale is the story of why Fr. Gerald Fitzgerald founded the Servants of the Paraclete (see [4]). However, Father Fitzgerald eventually came to the conclusion that, unlike those who were alcoholics, sexually abusive priests could not be rehabilitated and recommended "total laicization". (See [5]).

Whether or not modern medical opinion believes that sexually abusive offenders can be "cured", the fact remains that the Church has adopted a stance which is much closer to "zero tolerance". (In fact, the Vatican's comment on the first draft of the USCCB's proposed rules was that the rules were too harsh and did not respect the rights of the accused priest.) AFAIK, there is no effort now to rehabilitate priests accused of sexual abuse. The Church and society at large seems to have come to the conclusion that sexual abusers are irredeemable (ignoring, it seems, the experience of William Pithers et al).

If you know of a source that criticizes the Church for abandoning its efforts to rehabilitate sexually abusive priests, I'd love to see it. Otherwise, I think the discussion of "modern medical practice" risks engaging in synthesis and original research.

--Richard S (talk) 04:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I wish there were more people inside the clergy like Fr Fitzgerald. The mere fact that he was apparently ousted should suffice to show how little agreement there was within the church about the issues and historically the "zero tolerance" policy apparently was never enforced. The range of actual responses described in the JJ report is very wide, however many times offending priests were silently moved from one parish to another, sometimes for decades without ever getting treatment. As far as I can see maybe 40% got treatment of any kind? I think trying to elaborate this in the article would give rather unwieldy results. The coverage of what happened is more important than speculation about what treatment method might have been best 20 years ago or now. Richiez (talk) 20:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The point is that those who wish to attack the Church use the story of Father Fitzgerald as evidence that the Vatican "knew" that these priests could not be rehabilitated. Fitzgerald was smacked down as "out of step" with modern medical practice. He wanted to keep the priests out of pastoral service and either keep them in treatment centers indefinitely or laicize them.

Now, some want to argue that he was a "prophet in the wilderness" that no one would listen to even though he warned them. We should report on Fitzgerald because his story is used as a notable criticism of the Church's policy in the 60s and 70s. I'm not making a judgment here. I think the truth is very complicated. All I want to have the article state is that treatment centers like those founded by Fr. Fitzgerald were one option that was utilized by bishops. It's not clear that the treatment was effective and the Church has decided to move towards a "zero tolerance" posture. Whether or not it is possible to treat sexual abusers is a debate best left for a different article. I do think it would be helpful if someone could find statistics that indicate how many abusers were sent to treatment and how many were just transferred to another parish without treatment. --Richard S (talk) 06:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify - the church's policy of "zero tolerance" started in 2002/3. It is harshly enforced with few reported incidents since. The criticism now is (there is always criticism!) that the church does not "supervise" accused priests. This is true. They fire them! They aren't priests anymore. Student7 (talk) 13:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and further clarification should be made that when we speak of a "policy of zero tolerance", we need to discuss policies at the level of the national conference of bishops rather than suggesting that there is single worldwide policy. Pope John Paul II did say that there is no room in the Church for abusers but, AFAIK, the Vatican did not set specific policies for handling cases although I believe it did set the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith as the final authority over such cases and I'm sure it has established some guiding principles.

My point here is that it is the individual conferences of bishops that set policies. In the case of the USCCB, their original proposed policy was quite harsh and the Vatican's response was that it did not adequately protect the rights of the accused (after all, it is possible that the accused might be innocent). The USCCB modified its policy to address the Vatican's response although the final version is still quite harsh and one of "zero tolerance". I personally wonder if we have not thrown out compassion and understanding for the sinner in exchange for a model of the abuser as inhuman monster. But that's just my opinion. Nobody notable seems to be arguing along those lines.

--Richard S (talk) 15:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

@Richard S: I remember from some source that approximately 40% of the priests did get some medical treatment. Can we really tell much from this? Not me. The thing that boggles my mind is that the Church did not take more care these did not re-offend. "A few serial abusers (147) were responsible for a quarter of all allegations." (https://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=3497) Unlike the state attorney the church has way more possibilities to make sure those guys do not ever abuse children again. Consider the nice trappist monastery around the corner. So again.. its sure nice they get treatment and I am not the one to advocate they should be burned alive but the question is why on earth did they let them re-offend again and again and again? A school teacher who did get caught once was pretty sure not a school teacher anymore anywhere on earth. Maybe he did re-offend as gardener.. but why did the church leave a few of these people in the position to do such damage? So I would cleanly separate the aspect of medical treatment and that of "criminal liability".Richiez (talk) 22:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it is mind-boggling but we have to understand the mentality at the time. In that time, sexual abusers were treated in the same facilities as alcoholics. It was felt that sexual predators were as treatable as alcoholics and that they could be returned to pastoral duties after treatment. I think we now realize that the risk of recidivism is high and moreover the potential injury to children is unacceptable and so we now remove verified abusers from pastoral duties immediately and permanently ("zero tolerance"). We also have to realize that post-Vatican II there was a significant exodus of clergy from the priesthood and a shortage of seminary candidates (especially in the developed Western countries). There was a lot of pressure on bishops to keep priests in the clergy and they may have let this pressure overshadow the great moral hazard that they were facing. (not an excuse but just an explanation). Finally, re the "nice Trappist monastery", not all who are called to be pastors are called to be monks. Moreover, the economics are such that priests with pastoral duties are working to support a congregation which presumably donates to their upkeep. Monks who lead a contemplative life (rather than ones that lie a life of service) are basically an economic burden. It is a burden that the Church takes on as part of its mission but there is nonetheless a pressure to keep a "working" priest working. (Once again, not an excuse but an explanation).

@Student7: I did not notice much of that, do you have sources? How many priests were fired? Overall much of this article is about historic events. Today's policy will be judged in 10 years or so. Richiez (talk) 22:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

You are under a huge misapprehension about schoolteachers. Not only do they have a greater percentage of abusers. The ignoring of teachers known to have abusive behaviours was endemic See [http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49389 this article on US Schools.] I would also argue that the Church does not have the power or facilities to lock-up everyone with allegations of abuse against them. It was also not realised how cunning and manipulative abusers were, claiming innocense, penitence, to have reformed etc. and actually determined to revert to their old practices. Xandar 00:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Xandar, your argument that "the Church does not have the power or facilities to lock-up everyone with allegations of abuse against them" is misleading. When evidence of pedophilia is known, the legal obligation is to notify the police. Failure to do so is a criminal act in the United States and many other countries. Religious institutions have no authority to imprison anyone. Indeed, it would be a criminal act for churches or synagogues or any religious institution to take away anyone's freedom. Skywriter (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Notification laws are a very recent introduction, not in force for most of the period concerned. Xandar 00:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Regardless not reporting serious crimes like pedophillia to the police is appalling. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't generally done at the time by most groups, the general practice was to deal with such allegations or suspicions internally. Police also were not that concerned with such issues unless they became very grave, as can be seen from numerous cases. Xandar 10:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

While the police don't always take such crimes as seriously as they should I suspect that they would have been taken seriously if they were reported by a member of the church - especially if they were a senior figure. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Cartor & Cimbolic papers

just noticed when editing, the papers are not very widely cited. Google returns exorbitantly few hits, google scholar even less. The paragraph could really use additional sources. Richiez (talk) 21:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Whats the purpose of this section anyway. It does not contain any hypothesis about causes but is a call for further research. The article is ridiculously expensive and so far zero notability. Richiez (talk) 14:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The Ephebophilia information cited to Cartor is important and needs to be in the article at its most relevant point. There is no need for a paper to be heavily cross-cited for it to be a reliable source. Xandar 21:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

What does this section try to say - it certainly does not say anything about the causes. Arent't there better sources for whatever it tries to say? Richiez (talk) 23:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it was put into the "causes" section because it goes to the root of what has been happening, and WHO has been abused. However I have no quarrel with it going somewhere else in the article if people think it is better sited there. It is, however, important factual information. Xandar 21:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

So just another attempt to claim that most victims were 16 and 17 year old boys if I understand it correctly? I have fixed the factual errors in the meantime. Whoever did put it there in first place did a great job at misrepresenting the ever so obscure source. Richiez (talk) 23:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Can an additional source be found which shows that most of the abuse victims were 16-17? Otherwise I suggest this section is removed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The question is not whether most victims were 16 or 17, which may be so, but I don't think I have claimed. But whether the vast majority of these assaults are actually pedophilia or ephebophilia. The majority of victims are certainly not within the pedophilia range. Xandar 20:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It can be easily shown that just a ridiculous 15% of the victims covered by the J.J. report were 16-17 years old: https://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=3497 (cited from John Jay Report)

This is consistent with all other interpretations of the report which I have seen. 51% were 11-14 (both sexes). Is this ephe..bla..what philia? It would be better to compile a comprehensive table of age and sex which most readers can understand. I do not see how this source helps doing that in any way. Given the exorbitantly low citation ratio I would not only remove it but put on MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist as it might be a vanity citation and we should be cautious to spread the fame of less than mainstream psychosexual theories reasoning about pedophilia vs ephebophilia.

At some point it would be very interesting to get better insight into the motivation of the misguided personel and there is definitely room for that in this article but it is very hard to find something halfway sensible about that.Richiez (talk) 21:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Given duty of care that priests have and the large age barrier between them and their victims doesn't seem reasonable to assume any sort of realistic consent. It holds very little water to claim that - especially for victims under 16. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree to that and also think it might be best to avoid that kind of judgement as far as possible. Given readable information about age structure of victims the reader can make his own judgment.

The question was is the section pedophilia vs ephlebophilia good for anything? It was child and adolescent abuse. Pedophilia has defintion as psychyatric condition - one that requires qualified psychiatric examination to make the diagnosis. Afaics this did happen only in a small fraction of "our" cases and hence it is speculation when Cartor, Cimbolic or we try to label it as either pedophilia or ephlebophilia. What Cartor et al did was that they assumed that anyone who had 2 or more offences against victims of a defined age group had -philia for this group. This did leave out all those offenders who did just one offence (about 50% cases iirc) or had victims from several age groups (more than 20% iirc). Unfortunately this was the majority of the cases and there might also be strong systemic bias in this - in their results around 70% of offenders come out as not attributable to either philia. Richiez (talk) 20:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

So lets delete the section. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the above discussion has gone off the rails...

We must report on the distinction between pedophilia and ephebophilia not because of the Cartor & Cimbolic paper but because a number of sources have reported on Cardinal Silvano Tomasi drawing the distinction. (see [6] for example). Tomasi's comment has been widely reported and thus the distinction is notable even if we don't think it is a useful distinction. It's not our job to determine which issues are "useful" and which are not. It is our job to report on the issues that notable people have raised as reported by reliable sources.

Now, the section which discusses the Cartor & Cimbolic paper doesn't mention Cardinal Tomasi and so it seems to draw a distinction but not say anything meaningful about the implications of the distinction.

I think we need to rewrite the section to point out that a number of Catholic sources draw this distinction (I'm not sure if Tomasi is the only representative of the Vatican to point out the distinction). It would really help if we can also explain what the implications of the distinction are (presumably the point is that it's not really child abuse per se but something a bit more adult and consensual). Then, it would be good if we could find a source that responds to rebut the assertion.

Remember, our job is not to resolve the debate but simply to report on the existence of the debate.

--Richard S (talk) 04:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Good point. So it is basically about some clergy who want to make it appear that it was not child but rather adolescent abuse.

user:Xandar did insert the Jenkins section again and if it is not going to disapper I will add an opposing view - something which I would rather avoid because it does not go without reporting the controversy about the person of Jenkins. Do we need yet another section like this? Maybe we could merge both into one section? Richiez (talk) 09:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I have a problem with the Jenkins text. Jenkins says "The vast majority of instances involve priests who have been sexually active with a person below the age of sexual consent, often 16 or 17 years old, or even older. " However, our section on the John Jay report says "22.6% were age 10 or younger, 51% were between the ages of 11 and 14, and 27% were between the ages to 15 to 17 years." Assuming these numbers are accurate, this suggests that Jenkins' statement is way off since 27% is not a "vast majority". I'm OK with reporting what Jenkins said since he is a notable apologist but I think we have to be very careful to avoid giving his assertions undue weight.

As regards the "pedophilia/ephebophilia" distinction, I have found this topic frustrating because various sources comment on the distinction but almost no one ever spells out what the point is. My sense of it is that just about everyone is shocked by the concept of sexual advances towards a prepubescent child; this is widely seen as unnatural and perverse. Sexual relations with a 16 or 17 year old might still be wrong as being counter to the behavior we would expect from a man of God and an abuse of the power inherent in being a parish priest. However, it doesn't have the egregious shock value of the advances towards a prepubescent child. Now, the problem is that we can get caught up in the debate over just how many victims were near adulthood (i.e. 16 or 17) as opposed to younger but pubescent. What we know is that the vast majority were between 11 and 17 but it's hard to argue that it's OK for an adult to make sexual advances to a child that is in the 11-14 age range.

Me personally, I would not want to attempt to draw this distinction because it doesn't seem to excuse very much. However, as I noted above, the problem is that Cardinal Tomasi drew the distinction and many articles in the Catholic press have quoted him as if the distinction was worth making. So, according to the principles of Wikipedia, we should mention the issue. Me personally, I would love to see anything that has been written which actually looks at the distinction and analyzes it carefully instead of just blindly parroting it or just rejecting it out of hand.

--Richard S (talk)

And it doesn't want to be limited just to "Cardinal Tomasi said," academic material that makes clear the distinction such as Cartor, Cimbolic & Tallon needs to continue to be cited. The article contains a number of lengthy and often misleading quotes from journalists which need to be tightened and evaluated before we start trimming important topics. Xandar 11:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

So it would be a good idea to combine the Tomasi quote with the Jenkins section and add the usual opposing view? Regarding Jenkins we can not simply repeat claims that are totally outdated and factually incorrect without an opposing view.

As of distinguishing the various philiae, the great majority of victims were 11-14 which strongly suggests hebephilia. Quite good for the article because unlike pedophilia or ephebophilia, the hebephilia diagnosis is much easier to do based on the victims age alone. Furthermore the hebephilia diagnosis actually allows useful conclusions about prognosis and motives. So should we expand the distinction to include hebephilia. Richiez (talk) 22:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Richiez asked on my talkpage if I would comment on this discussion, which I am happy to do. (In the way of disclosure, Cimbolic and Cartor cite some work published by my team. I don’t believe that their reference to us has any significant bearing on the discussion here, but I prefer to err on disclosure.)

My first comment is that both Cimbolic et al. articles have a terminology problem, which may be adding some confusion. The most common professional uses of the relevant terms are:

pedophilia for sexual preference for prepubescent children,

hebephilia for sexual preference for pubescent children (usually 11–14),

ephebophilia for sexual preference for older adolescents (usually 15–19),

teleiophilia for sexual preference for adults (usually 17+), and

gerontophilia for sexual preference for the elderly (50+?).

The confusion comes from this terminology having evolved over time, as the research and understanding increased. In ancient Greece, ephebe– pertained to males, and there were authors who also used ephebophilia to refer to males. In my experience, most of the field (but not everyone) has moved to the above terminology. Cimbolic et al. are not telling the whole story when they cite Freund as an example of using “ephebophile” to refer to males only. His mid- and late-career writings all used the above terminology.
The Cartor et al. paper operationalized ephebophilia as people who had offenses against 13–17 year old males; most researchers (including me) would call that a mixed group of hebephiles, ephebophiles, and teleiophiles. Nonetheless, a report of statistically significant differences between pedophiles and the other groups is all well and good; that there are differences between these groups is why contemporary researchers separate them when analyzing them. (However, I believe the current phrasing on the main page that researchers “found distinct differences…” is overstating it a bit. Although there were statistically significant differences, the effect sizes (that is, the amount of difference) were rather small.)
Finally, I can’t help but bring up a POV I have seen in many different venues (off-wiki). In my experience, people who want to defend sex offenders (whether that’s folks in the Church trying to defend Priests who have offended, or professional witnesses selling testimony for defense lawyers, etc.) also want very much to duck the stigma associated with the word “pedophile.” Although I certainly agree that a person deserves fair treatment and that the word “pedophile” can bias many listeners, I find that there is easy slippage for some people to go from, “Technically, he’s not a pedophile, he’s a hebephile” to just “He’s not a pedophile.” The distinction between offending against 9 year olds versus 12 year olds is sometimes relevant, sometimes, not.
I hope that’s a help. I am going to be offline for a few days, but I’m happy to answer any other questions when I get back.
— James Cantor (talk) 23:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. My taste is to prefer an exact age range (like 11-14) over "pubescent" - terms like tend to be confusing for people with from different ethnic backgrounds. Richiez (talk) 12:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

(Revising an earlier comment made by me) I agree with Richard S. above i.e. the distinction has been made as relevant by a cardinal and that is what should be recorded. But in fact it's already recorded in the section Vatican responses 2009. I can't see that a section 'Distinction between pedophilia and ephebophilia' properly belongs to a section 'Debate over causes' nor can I see that the reference to Cimbolic & Cartor's academic work in sexual paraphilias is relevant. The only circumstance it seems to me where it could be relevant is when someone has made a notable attempt to argue that there is no 'crisis' of pedophilia but rather an exaggeration of existing pederastic traditions (by implication 'less abusive' but of course many would argue that doesn't follow). However I don't think even Cardinal Tomasi would argue that though he must have been seeking to imply it and that might reasonably be noted if a source can be found. I have to say I find this section 'Distinction between pedophilia and ephebophilia' a disconcerting blot on Wikipedia's reputation and ask that it be dealt with sooner rather than later Rinpoche (talk) 18:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Flag on the article

Will anyone explain the exact reason for the flag on this article? What is the nature of the dispute underlying the claim that the neutrality of this article is disputed. This flag has been here since May 2010. Thanks. Skywriter (talk) 23:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I will wait a few more days for an explanation and absent one forthcoming, I will remove the flag for lack of any explanation of the reason why it is there. Skywriter (talk) 16:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The reason there is a flag is because the article was very pro-church when it was added. I'm not going to read through the whole content, but the article has significantly improved since then. I'm happy for you to remove it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it. Please revert and discuss if you object. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Roman Catholicism template

Why isn't the 'Roman Catholicism' template added to this article? In its 'Background' section there is a link to Criticism of the Catholic Church in turn leading to this page. Rinpoche (talk) 17:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Canon law prevented laicization of abusive priests?

I just read this article and was surprised to read that canon law did not allow for laicization of abusive priests without a church trial. I think it is important that we document what the canon law used to be and what it is now. --Richard S (talk) 16:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. It might also be worth finding out whether there are any attempts to expedite such trials if they do prove necessary. I think part of the objection is that, given its history, the Catholic Church still does not recognize the authority of civilian governments over their personnel, given the fairly regular bias some governments have presented. I don't think that holds here, but the matter is definitely worth noting. John Carter (talk) 16:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

There are now. In the past the rules of due process and the presumption of innocence until proved guilty held, without the provisions that have now been introduced to take preventive measures even without proof of guilt. Unfortunately, I am too busy at present to look up the sources. But you probably know already that one document that got perhaps excessive publicity expressly mentioned laicization as a punishment. Esoglou (talk) 17:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

There used to be all kinds of restrictions on laicization in the past. Once upon the time, the petty rule that a priest should not be laicized before age 40 allegedly delayed the dismissal of a major sex offender of the worst sort by several years. However details like that are of diminishing significance here, a reader who reads this article and has a negative bias regarding the CC will only shake his head in disbelief about yet another perceived excuse to protect abusive priests. I would think for 90% of the readers the question is why did not he rot in hell (catholic readers) or in prison (atheist readers), not which petty medieval law was used as an excuse to hold him. Richiez (talk) 18:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Whether the canon law was a real obstacle or just a convenient excuse, the point is that it was considered enough of an issue that it was changed. What I'm looking for is a reliable source that states what the old law was, when it was changed and what it was changed to. --Richard S (talk) 19:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

This 2009 story refers to changes in the 1983 Code of Canon Law. Some of the links at Canon law (Catholic Church) might be what you're looking for in terms of sources. John Carter (talk) 19:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Canon law (Catholic Church) needs a lot of work. Your source does not mention sexaul abuse with a word and this article is already long enough. Richiez (talk) 10:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

This might be helpful: [7] Harmakheru ✍ 15:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It shows that the Holy See refused to laicize a priest (an ecclesiastical penalty) by fiat, without first presenting the case before an ecclesiastical court (the kind of court that can impose an ecclesiastical penalty). Esoglou (talk) 07:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

A sore story; does canon law really matter that much in this? As the Vatican claims (in hindsight!) "they should have reported him to police" - which they incidentally did so I am not even sure what Vatican is trying to claim here. Had there been the will to deal with the issue the Catholic Church would sure have found ways to deal with it but apparently for several decades they were not willing to face the problem. Richiez (talk) 10:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it probably does matter enough for this article. I also think that the possibility of fraudulent memories, as per repressed memory syndrome, is significant enough for discussion in this article as well. I wish I knew something about canon law myself, but I don't really. Maybe some of the editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Canon Law might know more about it than I do. Alternately, it is I suppose possible that maybe someone at Catholic Answers or maybe someone at EWTN Open Line or someone similar might be able to point in the right direction. But, like I said, I am waaaay out of my league in matters of canon law. John Carter (talk) 17:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that "repressed memory syndrome" is another element worthy of inclusion. As regards canon law, a more detailed treatment of this issue, including the fact that its penal powers went out of use for a period after Vatican II, can be found in Chapter Four of the Irish Murphy Report [8] Xandar 23:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the 2010 Catholic Almanac last night, and it indicated that the last time canon law was changed was in 1983, after about a 15 year period of discussion and development. The material very definitely gave the impression that Catholic canon law is changed only rarely, perhaps in a way similar to the US Constitution. That, however, referred only to global Catholic canon law; I don't know if there are such things as regional adminsitrative policies which have the effect of law in those areas. I am contacting the individual members of the Canon Law project for their input, however. John Carter (talk) 16:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

To use your words John, there are "regional administrative policies" which have the force of law. For example, in the Diocese of Norwich, CT, USA, the "Sexual Misconduct Policy" and the "Pastoral Code of Conduct" were promulgated by the Bishop in accord with Canon 8 §2 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law. These two documents have the force of law only in the Diocese of Norwich, and are thus known as "Particular Law". Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 17:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, in Philadelphia Cardinal Rigali has implemented a strict policy in the Philadelphia Archidiocese. I read about it in the Catholic Standard and Times and it seems to be different from other areas.Malke 2010 (talk) 05:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure the answer lies in canon law. The practice of not reporting priests seems to have been universal among all parishes in all countries. I read a while back that it was believed within the Church that the priests were good men dealing with evil, and that the Church expects the devil/satan to attack the Church and this was seen as one way that satan does it. The Church believed these were men called to the priesthood by God and for whatever reason, Satan was attacking them. So trying to deal with the problem by moving them around and sending them to retreat houses, etc., seemed the solution. The Church doesn't want to believe that pedophiles see the Church as a good place to be. And of course, that meant that the Church totally ignored and even vilified the victims. And since we're talking about innocent, defenseless children, the Church's behavior in this regard seems they were more concerned with preserving themselves, as well.Malke 2010 (talk) 05:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

In fact, until very recently abusers were not generally reported to the police by most organisations, secular and religious. Be it schools, childrens homes, churches, synagogues, reformatories, boy scouts; abuse accusations were normally "dealt with" internally until the 1990s. The concentration on Church "Non-reporting" in the media is largely an artefact of coverage and back-projecting modern attitudes on to the past. There were indeed no laws demanding reporting by a third party such as the church of of alleged abuse. When abuse was reported to police, charges were often dropped or low penalties such as probation or fines imposed. The Church's attitude, post Vatican II seems (according to the Murphy report) to have been based on the falling into disuse of the penal provisions of the old Canon Law and the idea that cure and therapy for accused and guilty priests was the way forward. Xandar 22:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, so the children got victimized twice. I read a book written by a SNAP member who said going to the police nearly always ended up with the police officers helping the parish cover it up since they themselves were often Catholic. Very sad. I think of the child in that circumstance and when you read their stories as adults you can understand all the problems they have dealing with it.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Beware. SNAP is certainly not an unbiased source. And most police officers are not Catholic, even in the US. Certainly not in the UK. The simple fact is that abuse was not considered a serious cause for action in society as a whole till very recently. Twenty years ago it was common knowledge that a city councillor where I lived was habitually importuning under-age boys, but nothing was ever done about it officially. Xandar 22:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

At about the same time, my junior high school choir teacher held one of our annual "mini classes" at the Ramada Inn, with the knowledge of the principal that one of the reasons he did so was to be able to have contact with the amenable and better-developed female junior high school choir members. That went on for about 10 years. Later, in high school, it was only after a week-long series in the local newspaper that one of the science teachers in my high school, who also was the head coach of the school's most important sports team, men's basketball, was dismissed for having sex with students. Things were a lot different 20 years ago. John Carter (talk) 22:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Malta

And according to ''[[the Economist]]'', given that 45 of the 850 priests in Malta have been accused of sexual abuse, the problem is "alarmingly widespread".<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15868530|title=When walls are too high: A penchant for conspiracy is no help to the Vatican’s image|publisher=The Economist|date=April 8, 2010|accessdate=May 3, 2010}}</ref>

I've removed the above from the Global extent section. The number of cases in the US and Ireland were significant and warrant mention in this section. Whilst a high percentage, the cases in Malta are not significant enough to warrant inclusion in the Global extent section. I've copied the text, above, verbatim so it can be re-inserted in another section is necessary. Obscurasky (talk) 10:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

In addition, I'd say the blurb removed is unintentionally misleading, saying that there are 45 *accused* and then calling the problem wide spread. How many of the accused are guilty? There's no actual problem if none of them are guilty. (though some likely are). The point being is that one can't reasonably say that there is a problem until there are convictions. Farsight001 (talk) 11:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

While in individual cases we should assume innocence until guilt is proven, the chances are the majority of the 45 are actually guilty. Additionally while Malta is a small country, that 5% of the priests there have been accused is a big deal. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, statistically, chances are likely that the majority are not guilty. About 5% of priests in the U.S. have been formally accused too. Only 1% appears to be guilty. And what in the world makes you think that we should assume innocent until proven guilty for individuals, but guilty until proven innocent when you stick those same individuals in a group?Farsight001 (talk) 11:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

If so then it'd be reasonable to expect the same to be the case in Malta, in which case its not notable enough for inclusion. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:OR ?

Moving this fragment here. It appears that the claim made involves some mathematics that are by no means obvious from the provided sources? Richiez (talk) 10:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

However, statistics from the US Department of Health an Human Services show that this figure was less than 0,2% for the rest of the population of the US during the last decade.^[3]^[4]

^ Cite error: The named reference Allen2003 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ "Code_of_Canon_Law,_Book_VI_Part_II:_Penalties_for_Particular_Offenses#TITLE_V:_OFFENSES_AGAINST_SPECIAL_OBLIGATIONS". Vatican. Retrieved 2010-04-18.
^ "Perpetrators by Maltreatment Type and Relationship to Victims, 2008". The US department of Healt and Human Services. 2008.
^ "Child Abuse & Neglect Research". The US department of Healt and Human Services. 2008. {{cite news}}: Text "http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/index.htm#can" ignored (help)

that care for the sick or teach children

I'm just wikihopping and this phrase makes no sense. It's in the first paragraph so please whoever knows what it means, fix it 82.25.214.51 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC).

I just realised there was a comma, sometimes grammar makes a massive difference, "That care for the sick, or teach children." I'm not just being a grammar nazi, I was reading it totally wrong without the comma, I was seeing catholics caring for the teach children. Jameilious (talk) 00:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the comma is the less preferred solution. It gives you a clause that reads like this: "People stand, or sit." The sentence actually runs "that care for the sick or [that] teach children". The second relative pronoun ("that") is implied, and the confusion is probably best resolved by making it explicit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Corrected Version of the Introduction

I removed the following line from the introduction:

In the United States, churches have paid more than $2 billion in compensation to victims. In Ireland, reports into clerical sexual abuse have rocked both the Catholic hierarchy and the state. A nine-year government study, the Ryan Report, published in May 2009, revealed that beatings and humiliation by nuns and priests were common at institutions that held up to 30,000 children. The investigation found that Catholic priests and nuns for decades "terrorised thousands of boys and girls, while government inspectors failed to stop the abuse."^[1]

^ Butt, Riazat (28 September 2009). "Sex abuse rife in other religions, says Vatican (with examples from USA)". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 1 September 2010. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Reason: This section deals only in the beginning with sexual abuse. The quoting of the Ryan Report is all about physical abuse. By this type of quoting physical and sexual abuse are confused. As a result a biased picture of the scope is created. Ryan Report found exactly 381 abuse cases among 25,000 children. See http://www.childabusecommission.com/rpt/03-07.php and http://www.childabusecommission.com/rpt/03-09.php Additionally we have to ask why the Ryan-Report or the amount of compensations in the U.S. is already mentioned in the introduction? Both facts are part of local catholic sexual abuse cases and tell nothing about catholic sex abuse cases in general. Giving the fact, that this section is only based on a partly incorrect newspaper article, it should be deleted.

188.102.151.206 (talk) 21:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Is this similar to [9]? And do you have any other sources-- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

If you look here: http://www.childabusecommission.com/rpt/ You will find the interlink to the (irish) website, you mentioned.

Moreover, I gave three reasons:

1. The biased facts (Ryan Report showed 381 cases of abuse and the article indicates 33,000 by giving the fact, that pedagogic standards until the 1970ies were also in catholic institutions much more different than today (more violence in education, etc.))

2. Their use in a way, which is more similar to discrimination than information. The number of children who passed catholic institutions is not the numer of abuse cases.

3. I question that this has to be placed in the introduction.

Additonally I offered already, that the fact of the rocking of the Church in Ireland and in the U.S. can stay in place, but the only answer was an edit-war (who was not started by me).

For the reputation of wikipedia, I simply think we should not engage in the propagation of stereotypes who turned out to be false as a result of a biased argumentation.

188.102.151.206 (talk) 06:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I am heavily inclined to consider the interpretation of 188.102.151.206 as a fringe theory. The abuse included all kinds of abuse and a substantial portion of it was sexual abuse. Richiez (talk) 14:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

There are no fringes. There are only facts (from Ryan Report):

"The report dealt with allegations collected over a period of nine years between 2000 and 2008. These related to experiences between 1914 and the opening of the commission.^[1] Hearings were held in Ireland, the UK and elsewhere. Of the approximately 25,000 children who had attended the institutions in the time period concerned, around one thousand five hundred persons came forward with complaints to the commission.^[1] Commission records show that 474 claims of physical abuse and 253 claims of sexual abuse were made by boys against the institutions in that period.^[2] Records show that 383 claims of physical abuse and 128 claims of sexual abuse were made by girls against institutions over the years concerned. These claims covered all levels of abuse from the most serious down, and were made against both religious and lay personnel. The majority of sexual abuse claims by girls were against staff that should have been supervised by the religious orders.^[3]"

^ ^a ^b "Commission Report Vol 3 Ch. 2". The Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse. Retrieved 2009-07-22.
^ "Commission Report Vol 3 Ch. 7". The Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse. Retrieved 2009-07-22.
^ "Commission Report Vol 3 Ch. 9". The Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse. Retrieved 2009-07-22.

We help nobody, when we not work correctly . 188.102.151.206 (talk) 17:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The primary source for this information was a respected newspaper and I think it was largely correct. We could argue whether there were 25 or 33 thousands of children in these institutions or whether the ~1500 cases the commission looked at should be described as thousands but a British newspaper should be a trustworthy source for this. We might also note that the report was rejected as a whitewash by many, the scandal has been called a holocaust by the Belfast Telegraph and the BBC declared "Sexual abuse was endemic in boys' institutions and a chronic problem in some residential institutions run by the Catholic Church in Ireland, a report has said". Richiez (talk) 20:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I had to remove the test as a copyvio, but I have no problem with rewriting information about the Ryan Report for the lead. However, in trying to do so, I noticed that the Guardian article was very specific - it states "... beatings and humiliation by nuns and priests were common at institutions". I find that I am in agreement with the IP above, in The Guardian may well be accurate, but it is difficult to use something about general physical abuse to give a figure for child sexual abuse. (Both are awful, but this article's focus is narrower than The Guardian's article). Per the argument above, we may be better off relying on the report itself for figures, depending on which ones we need, or an alternative source which provides more focused figures. - Bilby (talk) 00:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Copyright violations by other websites

A problem with copyright violations on a sex-abuse-related website was reported to WP:External links/Noticeboard today. In taking a quick look around, it appears that the problem affects more than just the one website.

It appears that several of these websites are illegally distributing copyrighted newspaper articles. I'm sure that you all know that Wikipedia does not accept copyrighted material in the encyclopedia like that per WP:COPYVIO, but what's less known is that the policies also prohibit us from even linking to someone else's copyvios per WP:LINKVIO and because of what the lawyers call contributory copyright infringement. So if SNAP or bishop-accountability.org or some other website put up a copy of an Associated Press article or a news story from the local newspaper, editors must not link to their unlicensed/illegal copies of these articles.

You may WP:CITE these newspaper articles: these are great sources. Reliable sources are not required to be available online. However, you can't link to the illegal copies of sources. If you can quickly find a legal copy (most commonly, on the website of the original publisher), then please feel free to substitute a good link for the bad one. Otherwise, the correct response is to write a proper bibliographic citation, with the journalist's name, the date of publication, the headline, and the newspaper's name, exactly as if you were working from the original, dead-tree newspaper rather than from an illegal copy.

As you find these, please fix them up. I'm hoping that this can be resolved without any of these sites being WP:BLACKLISTed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

mistake in the article

The article says:

"According to Sandro Contenta, writing in the Toronto Star:

Internal division became public, with at least two Cardinals calling for a review of celibacy. Austrian Cardinal Christopher Shoenborn, an ally of Benedict’s, even accused the late John Paul II of blocking Ratzinger’s investigation of a high-profile case in the mid 1990s.
Charges that Ratzinger participated in protecting pedophile priests rallied the Vatican’s top brass to protect Benedict’s moral authority.^[1]

"

In fact this is partly false. Schönborn told the press, that Ratzinger wanted to take up an investigation in 1995. But he was not blocked by John Paul II., but by Cardinal Sodano. (Source in german and Source in English). So it should be changed 94.223.112.246 (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

10 years from now nobody will have an idea who was who, should we write "higher ranking Vatican officials" instead of pointing fingers at one particular person? I doubt that Sodano was the one who decided this case anyway. Richiez (talk) 23:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Nevertheless Schörnborn names Sodano and this goes along with Sodanos behaviour in the abuse crisis in 2010. Additonally I think that Schönborn remembers very well about the things that happend in 1995. The Groer-crisis was perhaps the most marking point of his life. So I think Sodano should be named. But if you think it goes too far, I can live also with "higher ranking Vatican officials". Everyone can read the names in the sources. 94.223.112.246 (talk) 07:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Vatican's Document on Homosexual tendencies

Hi to all,

the article states the following:

"

In November the Vatican published Criteria for the Discernment of Vocation for Persons with Homosexual Tendencies, issuing new rules which forbid ordination of men with "deep-seated homosexual tendencies". The US National Review Board cited the preponderance of adolescent males among the victims of clerical sexual abuse of minors in its report.^[2] This attracted criticism based on an interpretation that the document implies that homosexuality is associated with pedophilia or ephebophilia.^[3]

Rome's Congregation for Catholic Education issued an official document, the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocation for Persons with Homosexual Tendencies^[2] in 2005, which attracted criticism based on an interpretation that the document implies that homosexuality is associated with pedophilia or pederasty.^[3]"

^ Sandro Contenta (18 April 2010). "The trials of Pope Benedict". The Toronto Star. Retrieved 18 April 2010.
^ ^a ^b Pope Benedict XVI (2005). "Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders". Vatican Publishing House. Retrieved 2008-03-09.
^ ^a ^b "Statement From The Board Of Directors and Staff of the National Association of Catholic Diocesan Lesbian and Gay Ministries" November 29, 2005. Retrieved June 18, 2007.

I simply have the problem, that I don't see the link to the sex abuse cases. It is mentioned, that the Vatican's document would interlink pedophilia and homosexuality. But in the document I find nothing to support this remark. Does anybody know where it comes from? Was there a statement of the Vatican? The given source of nacdlgm.org is no longer accessible. So there is a highly problematic statement with little backup in the sources. If nobody has a source for this, we should delete this from the article to avoid the promotion of homosexuality=pedophilia-ideas.

Ricerca (talk) 07:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if it answers your question, but have a look at Debate on the causes of clerical child abuse and look for Donohue and such. In the history of that article you will also find a link to the add he placed in a major US newspaper. Usually the Vatican does not say anything but lets others put forward the problematic statements, Jenkins, Introvigne etc.. Richiez (talk) 23:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I googled the thing once again and I only found some bishops who promoted their abuse=homosexuality-ideas but also some bishops who explicitly denied this connection. So I removed this thing from the article. It is in no case an official response of the vatican to the abuse crisis. It might be driven also by that and there are a lot of people who think that. But I found no official connection in relation to this document. Ricerca (talk) 15:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Historical context

It looks like there's a bit of an edit war shaping up over a section on treatment vs incarceration. I think it would be highly appropriate to include a historical description of what happened and how it matched or diverged from the standard approach. I'm not convinced that those particular sentences are the best way to go about that.

In general, I think this article would benefit from a more descriptive and scholarly approach. Right now, it reads a bit like a not very well edited magazine story, with an emphasis on "dueling quotations" as the means of approximating truth. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I removed the addition of this paragraph from two ips now, asking for it to be discussed first. I have a number of concerns with the content, including that the sources aren't stellar (one being a wordpress blog, and another the "National Catholic Newspaper"), and that the wording gives improper weight to the idea that the Catholic Church is (or was) handling the issue identically to the authorities at the time the abuse occurred. As can be seen from the rest of the article, this is not the prominent accepted view. If this section is to be reintroduced, it should include proper sources showing that it is a notable view which has garnished sufficient media attention, and be reworded to make it clear that the views expressed are still in the minority. — Jess· Δ ♥ 15:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing I combined my new section with yours, since they both concern the same content. Obviously, my paragraph isn't a direct response to you, however. :) — Jess· Δ ♥ 15:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

We must have been typing at the same time. I'm glad to see that at least two of us know how to use a talk page. ;-)

Just to bring me up to speed here, since this page wandered on to my watchlist because of WP:ELN, can you give me a rough idea of how different groups handled allegations and confirmed abuse back in the 1960s? I assume from your comments that the Catholic response was different from, say, the secular school response, and I assume that different countries had (and probably still have) different responses. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I only can say, that in Germany it is an accepted view, that the changing views on pedophelia especially in the 1970ies contributed a lot to the handling of abuse cases. Revision of the church archives by independent advocats showed for example, that the church authorities after the Second World War were very strict and threw out every priest, monk or else who committed such abuses. Then in the 1960ies and 1970 due to emerging positive views on pedophelia coming along with the sexual liberation movements the handling changed and it started the moving from parish to parish. The treatment by the police and the courts where exactly the same. This could be seen during the revision of the history of the german child asylums by the german parliament. (Same thing for Ireland) The problem for me is, that I have only a lots of sources in german.

Concerning the sources I understand the reservation against the blogosphere, but Plante is a recognized scholar in that matter and his view was never contradicted, but is supported by the general view on pedophelia (Take for example the Wikipedia-Artice on it: "A significant amount of research in the area has taken place since the 1980s. At present, the exact causes of pedophilia have not been conclusively established")

Therefore I think, the view should be included in the article. Moreover, the feminist theory also exists only with one source.

Apart from this discussion, I would like to express my support for the revision and rewriting of this article. There is no system at all and the traces of the ideological battle between pro- and counter-church-fractions can be seen everywhere. 178.0.172.238 (talk) 19:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I know nothing of this accepted view in Germany but you can show me your sources. Actually I recall that during the investigations of the St. Blasien scandal last year abuse cases emerged from the late 1950ies, long before the official start of sexual revolution and even longer before this could have affected the church. Those cases were never handled at all. The biggest problem back than seems to have been that the victims did not dare to speak, or if they ever did nobody investigated because most of these cases only became known in very recent time. Richiez (talk) 21:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello Richiez,

1) This is NOT about sexual revolution, ok? So let's put apart these ideological stalemates and look at the things and how they happend (Note by the way: As a german I am a little bit affected by your holocaust comparison above. I hope you are open for fact oriented discussions without such misguided and holocaust relativizating arguments)

2) Here are the sources. First we can start in the USA. Because the statistical point in Germany is at the moment the John-Jay-Report. (A German report is prepared at the moment) The John-Jay-Report showed that the peak of abuse cases took place in the generations of the seventies with the highest rate of allegations against priests ordained in that time(Link) This is going altogether with the fact, that the reactions of church authorities in that matter changed as well. According to the report 40% of all alleged priests received a psychiatric treatment and Robert S. Bennett underlined with reference to that, that there was in past "too much faith in psychiatrists" (Link2).

This worked together with the view Plante described and who ist mentioned also by the Wikipedia-Article on pedophelia.

The change in matters of reaction was according to the german understanding of the situation also caused by a more "positive view" on pedophelia after 1968, who also entered psychiatry on which church authorities put their trust (psychiatrist who promoted that were in Germany Rüdiger Lautmann, Helmut Kentler, Frits Bernard, Ernest Bornemann and Theo Sandfort (Netherlands)). (One expression of this phemonenon were the activities of paedophile davocacy groups (Wikipedia), who in germay even influenced parties like the Greens (This was critical reviewed in 2010 (Critical Article on that in the german newspaper Der Spiegel)

In Germany this came clear by the revision of the personal records of 13,000 Priests in the diocesan archives in Munich. The first two vicars after WWII were very strict, then situation changed and one of the vicars (Friedrich Fahr, who also invited Hullermann to Munich) undertook everything to dissimulate allegations and even stocked problematical personal records in his own appartment. (Report of Munich (german))

The absolute reliance of church authorities on psychiatry showed up in several interviews before 2010 (Link 3 (example german)) In the same article (from 2007) Wunibald Müller, psychiatrist treating priests, declared, that according to the (by Müller claimed!) fact that most priests were ephebophile and not paedophile they could be healed and cured from their desires. Ephebophelia was stated as curable!

In 2010 the advocat Norbert Diel took up these arguments and demanded of the catholic church to leave that point of view and to accept that spiritual and psychiatric means have, as proven by the facts, only a limited affect in cases of sex abuse.(Link 4 (german))

Recognized psychiatrist (with no church affiliation) like Klaus Beier instead explained at the same time, that paedophile priests should stay in service, if they take part in a therapy. Treatment could teach them how to handle their desires. (Link 5 (german))

O.K. thats the rought debate in germany, a bit shortaged, but I hope its unerstandable 178.0.172.238 (talk) 07:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, 178.0. Am I correct in assuming that you are using the word "revision" to mean "study" (e.g., the Brits seem to "revise" before a school examination)? In American English, "revision" means "change". To "revise" a record means to change the contents of the record, so that it says something totally different.

Thank you for providing this list of sources. I read German very slowly, but I'll start looking them over. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Ahhh, sorry! Thank you for the hint. I followed a "false friend". Actually I meant: They went to the archives, read every file, did some interviews to find out what happend when and why exactly. I think, that is what you mean by "study"? 178.0.172.238 (talk) 21:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello anonymous, as a non-german I have no clue how I managed to step upon your sore Holocaust toe. I am normally all for WP:AGF and WP:NPA but I think you are wrongly accusing me of Holocaust comparisons. I understands that Germans are extremely paranoid of being reminded of, or compared with Hitler but it was not me who mentioned this.

Thank you for the sources, will look at them. Richiez (talk) 18:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Richiez, earlier on this Talk Page you wrote:

We might also note that the report was rejected as a whitewash by many, the scandal has been called a holocaust by the Belfast Telegraph and the BBC declared "Sexual abuse was endemic in boys' institutions and a chronic problem in some residential institutions run by the Catholic Church in Ireland, a report has said".

This is perhaps what the anon IP editor was reacting to. Unfortunately, the word "holocaust" has become trivialized in the English language to the point where any "seriously bad thing" is referred to as a "holocaust" even when any attempt at the comparison is ludicrous. Even tens of thousands of molested children cannot compare to millions killed. Such liberal overuse of the word "holocaust" trivializes the gravity of the Holocaust even though the word "holocaust" technically means any " act of mass destruction and loss of life (especially in war or by fire)". If you add that some Germans are sensitive to the mention of the Holocaust, you wind up with the negative reaction of the anon IP editor. Perhaps, with this explanation that the choice of the word was made by the author of the Belfast Telegraph article and not by you, the anon IP editor will recognize that there was no offense intended on your part. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 20:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I recognize and I apologize. Nonetheless it is very interesting to learn (and a bit frightening, too), that the holocaust has become something like that in the English language. I support the point of view, that the comparison ludicrous. Ok, but let's leave Belfast to get back to work. 178.0.172.238 (talk) 21:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The word holocaust (as a common noun, not as a capitalized proper noun) is a very old word (~13th century in English texts) that means burnt offering, especially the burning of a whole animal carcass on an altar, as a sacrifice to a deity. A holocaust is not the same as the Holocaust. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

thanks for clearing up where the misunderstanding with the holocaust comparison came from, it was indeed an indirect citation and not my idea.

I did look at most of the sources and could not confirm the findings of 178.0.172.238 up to and including the "report of Munich". I would delay discussion of the later claims (too much reliance on psychiatry) at this point until the previous claims are resolved, I think we need to go it through step by step. So where do we find proof that after WWII there was any cleric dismissed from catholic church in Germany. Richiez (talk) 23:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't understand, how you have come in that short time to this conclusion. First, the Munich Report was to highlight the visible change in the reaction of the church authorities to the sex abuse cases. The Munich Report is important because he proves, what is long discussed in Germany: That there was too much reliance on changed psychiatric views since the 1970ies. In the Munich Report this is clearly shown by the changing behaviour of the vicars. Moreover you have to take into consideration the Hullermann case, were this is highlighted once again. Why he came to Munich? To make a therapy. When he was reintegrated? Once he was in therapy.

The proof, that clerics were dismissed in Germany after WWII you can find in press articles based on the full version of the report (I could only interlink the press version, where this point did not came clear): "Für einen korrekten Umgang mit bekannt gewordenen Sexualdelikten in den eigenen Reihen seien letztlich die Generalvikare von entscheidender Bedeutung und weniger die Bischöfe, sagte Westphal. So habe es gleich nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg in München zwei Generalvikare gegeben, die in solchen Fällen sehr rigoros durchgegriffen hätten." (English: As [the lawyer responsable for the report] Westphal declared: For the correct handling of sex abuse cases, the vicars were more important, than the bishops. The two vicars after WWII in Munich for example have taken rigorous steps against sex abuse by clerics (i.e. they threw them out).) Link to source

When we take into consideration, that the same effects in term of psychiatric handling have shown up in the US, I think we should mention this point also in the article. It is not to write something like, "changes in psychology were responsable for the inappropriate reaction of church authorities against sex abuse cases". That is not true. But we should mention this role of psychology and psychiatrists, who surely contributed to the underestimation of the dimension and cruelty of the sex abuse cases by clerics. 178.0.172.238 (talk) 08:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

sorry for the late response, was away for a while. You write "have taken rigorous steps against sex abuse by clerics (i.e. they threw them out)". Neither of your sources says explicitly what those rigorous steps were, your assertion "threw them out" is so far not backed by a single source. Also if this was restricted to the actions of two "general-vikars", was that official church policy or an anecdote in history? How many such vikars were there at that time in Germany? To make your point we would need data such as how many priests offended between 1945 to 1960 and what happened with them, than contrast that with the data for later decades. Something like the Jay report for Germany. However your sources show foremost how rigorously the Catholic Church tried to hide all evidence. Following from that they did neither rigorously throw out anyone at any time nor rely on psychiatric views very much because the most frequent course of action appears to be outright denial. It remains to be established if there was a different policy at some point but the sources do not give any details about that.Richiez (talk) 22:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you take it a bit too simple and a bit to much from a POV. It is fact, that church authorities worked since the 1960ies together with psychatrists. In Germany there is a bunch of psychiatrists who work regularly for the Church.Source

Together with the debate about sexual abuse by clerics started also a debate about the role of psychiatry. (With the experts declaring even in 2010 to let pedophile priests in office (Source (german)) So we can state: There is a nexus, which is furthermore corroborated by the John-Jay-Report.

That the view on pedophelia changed in time is proven. Also the peak point in the Seventies in Church ans society is proven. (Take John-Jay as a source) The general changing attitudes should have showed up also in the behaviour of the church administration. That was the point proven in Munich. So I think we can state it with the normal scientific precautions.

"However your sources show foremost how rigorously the Catholic Church tried to hide all evidence." Here, I think, your POV comes clear. THE Church tried nothing. There were concrete persons who acted on abuse cases. And for Munich it was shown, that the two vicars after WWII reacted in a rigourous way and the following vicar (who is even named: Friedrich Fahr), and who was a vicar of the 1970ies (which goes along with the described things above) tried to cover up all cases by actions who were even illegal according to church law (e.g. taking personal files at home). We can give this summary of a researcher, who worked on the topic. (With my sources from above)

By the way, I don't think it is a good idea to stress the point "First we need to know all exactly" too much. If we take this for serious we still know nothing about sex abuse cases in the catholic church. Do anyone knows exactly what happend? I think no. Until today, I only see more or less biased opinions. Nonetheless we fill WP-articles about it. And I think it's o.k. We collect sources and sum the stated things in the most neutral way.

We can only document the given theories and hints in order to provide a thorough picture. The debate about the role of psychiatry and psychology is such an important point to discuss, who should be mentioned.94.223.112.246 (talk) 09:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I discovered that the point to much reliance on psychiatry was also included in the wikipedia-article John-Jay-Report. There it is stated:

"Some bishops and psychiatrists have asserted that the prevailing psychology of the times suggested that people could be cured of such behavior through counseling.^[1]^[2] Many of the abusive priests had received counseling before being reassigned.^[3] ^[4]"

^ Steinfels, A People Adrift (2003). pp. 40–6
^ Filteau, Jerry (2004). "Report says clergy sexual abuse brought 'smoke of Satan' into church". Catholic News Service. Retrieved 2008-03-10.
^ Terry, Karen; et al. (2004). "John Jay Report". John Jay College of Criminal Justice. Retrieved 2008-02-09. {{cite web}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)
^ Frawley-ODea, Perversion of Power: Sexual Abuse in the Catholic Church (2007), p. 4

So I think, we should include this point in this article as well. If there are no more substantial counter arguents, I will try to make an edit to the article in the next days. 94.223.112.246 (talk) 12:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Such statements should be as precise as possible. Which bishops, which scholars at which times. However I found the claim "Some bishops and psychiatrists have asserted that the prevailing psychology of the times suggested that people could be cured of such behavior through counseling" completely unsupported by Filteau-2004 and have doubts about Steinfels-2003. What Filteau wrote was "Key problems with bishops who kept abusive priests in ministry, he said, included a failure to reach out to victims and speak with them, protective attitudes toward their priests, "too much faith in psychiatrists" and a lack of information-sharing with one another that could have helped them realize earlier that the problem was of "epidemic proportion." " - which is however an indirect citation from Robert S. Bennett and should not be attributed to Filteau. In summary, while the statement "Some bishops and psychiatrists have asserted that the prevailing psychology of the times suggested that people could be cured of such behavior through counseling" may be right we must be much more careful to point out what the sources say. Can you figure out what that Steinfels-2003 actually said? Richiez (talk) 22:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

"Such statements should be as precise as possible." As stated above, I also think, we should work as precise as possible, but not to that extent. This is not possible and also not necessary.

We are dealing here with quotations for a general paragraph. If we took for serious your approach, we had to delete 75% of the article. So let's write a text who sums up the discussed approaches on the base of clear sources.

1) In Filtheau I also find simply the statement of Bennet. Which should be mentioned in the article. This could be made clear in the reference

2) I have no idea about Steinfels. But it is given and if someone finds the time, he can take a look. Until today the source was not questioned. All in all, I think we can rely on it. If you agree, we can take the two german sources (Source1 and Source2) to corroborate this. In these articles it is expressed, that a pedophile could control his behaviour by counseling. I think at this point, Plante could be added. 94.223.112.246 (talk) 09:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I gave constructive criticism and already wrote once that it would be better to concentrate on one point at a time instead of regarding a pile of loosely related ideas. So far your ideas are not backed by any reliable source, what you are trying to achieve is WP:SYNTH. I am not saying that you are wrong, but we need reasonable sources for this.

Very few people in Germany, much less outside of it ever heard of a certain Mr. Plante and as such he is not of sufficient notability for a citation in this article. It does not appear he is mentioned anywhere in the German wikipedia in relation to the catholic sex abuse scandals? If you can find an article by a mainstream newspaper giving his opinion that would be different.

The statement "Some bishops and psychiatrists have asserted that the prevailing psychology of the times suggested that people could be cured of such behavior through counseling" does appear reasonable at first glance reasonable but requires a source saying pretty much exactly this. We can not attach random footnotes linking to articles saying something completely different and regard it as sufficient proof - this is misattribution of sources. So since you did bring up the issue it would be very helpful if you could find out what Steinfels actually wrote about it or even better find a mainstream source supporting this statement.

It would be very helpfull if you would consider creating an user account, IP-hopping - even if completely innocent is not likely to help you make your point at the very least because of the confusion it creates.

If you want to reach anything try to read WP:CIVIL again. It is not good to accuse other editors of POV. Richiez (talk) 20:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello Richez,

I don't wanted to "accuse" you of anything. I simply stated, that in my point of view going from including the role oy psychology to ""However your sources show foremost how rigorously the Catholic Church tried to hide all evidence."" mashes up the debates. And answering the underlying question "shouldn't the role of psychology be included in this article?" by "the church tried to hide all evidence" is simply giving your POV (and answering nothing). That's not dramatically, happens sometimes to everyone. Back to the debate:

"Very few people in Germany, much less outside of it ever heard of a certain Mr. Plante" Mr. Plante is known in Germany and quoted in the german article three times by giving his opinon, his source and listing his book. But I don't understand this remark. Does it play any role who knows Plante in Germany?

"I am not saying that you are wrong, but we need reasonable sources for this." O.K. this clarification helps a lot.

"If you can find an article by a mainstream newspaper giving his opinion that would be different." That would change nothing. Concerning sex abuse cases, even newspapers with normally high quality standards wrote and write a lot of misleaded rubbish. Some weeks ago the german SPIEGEL (comparable to the GUARDIAN or NYT) was convicted to have falsly accused a german diocese of having tried to hide a sex abuse case. So let's be careful with newspapers. Every journalist is a POV!

Plante is a distinguished researcher in that matter. I don't see, why he shouldn't be mentioned. And he clearly states: "Almost all the cases coming to light today are cases from 30 and 40 years ago. We did not know much about pedophilia and sexual abuse in general back then. In fact, the vast majority of the research on sexual abuse of minors didn't emerge until the early 1980's. So, it appeared reasonable at the time to treat these men and then return them to their priestly duties. In hindsight, this was a tragic mistake."^[1] So here we have a clear source. Which can be backed up by some of the sources I gave and (what I don't see as necessary) can be enriched by the german point of view. So please tell me, where is the problem? There is no WP:SYNTH.

"It would be very helpfull if you would consider creating an user account, IP-hopping - even if completely innocent is not likely to help you make your point at the very least because of the confusion it creates."

Sorry, you're right. At the beginning I only wanted to fix up some mistakes in this article. But I see, it will take more time. I'll create an account soon.

So to get some beef to the bones: Do you agree, that Plantes view should be added to the article? I think there are enough reasons for it. 94.223.112.246 (talk) 19:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, you need to learn and respect how wikipedia works. There are rules which were created mainly by consensus of editors and you can not make your own rules. Rules about notability of people, rules about notability and reliability of sources and rules of conduct in disputes between editors. You are trying to violate pretty many rules at a time. Furthermore your English is not quite perfect which makes it occasionally a little difficult to understand your argumentation.

Regarding your Spiegel allegation, I believe you are referring to http://www.stefan-niggemeier.de/blog/wie-die-kirche-leute-zum-schweigen-bringt/ . Indeed a very fine and noble approach chosen by the Catholic Church of Germany - excuse the sarcasm but I am just a mere human.

Regarding Plante, read wikipedia guidelines about notability and reliable sources. According to my reading there is absolutely no way. It is not the matter of judgment whether Plane is right or wrong, interesting or not. The matter is that we can not include the opinion of random people without establishing notability and reliability of the source.

You have chosen to work on a difficult article, one of the more problematic here. You might want to consider working on the German wikipedia and get some mentoring help there before jumping on such difficult projects. Richiez (talk) 21:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Richiez,

First, tell me please, why Plante, a researcher who did a lot of work on the subject may not be included in this article. There are no random people here at all. His statement is abolutely reliable and supported by the remarks done by Bennett while publishing the John-Jay-Report. This makes two scientific reliable source about an important point. If don't bring another argument I will include this in the article. Anything else would be a violation to WP-principles. By the way Plante is mentioned twotimes in this article! And the point made by me is already part other WP-articles. Your argumentation is nothing else but your POV.

Second, I don't want to discuss with you the Niggemeier/Aigner case, but this is exactly the type of "victim supporter" doing more harm to the cause of abuse victims than anybody else. Aigner claimed the archdiocese had payed to cover up an abuse case. But in fact the diocese wanted to go the police and was pressed by the parents of the victim to abstain from this. In good English: He lied to put forward his POV. This is disgusting! What do think? How will pressure on the catholic church develop, if furhter journalists are condemned for not having written the truth? Take the SPIEGEL who also was convicted. (Read here the joy of the conservative catholics about the defeat of these would-be-"victim supporters" before the court: http://www.kath.net/detail.php?id=30577) I am a human being, too. And so I know that the truth must always be respected, especially in difficult cases like this.

Third, concerning my English, it's up to you to correct it. That's the principle of WP.

So, I will include the point I made and continue my work here. It's up to you to bring more and better arguments.

94.223.112.246 (talk) 16:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Find a better source for it or seek wider consensus. Does anyone else have opinions on the sources which I have removed?

Oh, and please get an account so that it is easier to report you for your continuing violations of civilty. Richiez (talk) 22:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Richiez, please give an argument against Plante. I still don't see one. He has on several times published on that subject. There is also no violation of civilty. Contrary I think censoring articles without reasonable arguments is a violation of civilty. So please stay civilised and stop disturbing the normal work on that article. Thanks. 94.223.112.246 (talk) 16:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not arguing against Plante. However http://www.psychwww.com/psyrelig/plante.html is not an acceptable source. Wikipedia has rules for this. If you find a newspaper article with that or similar statement that would be a different thing. So I am going through the article and deleting every instance of that source. Richiez (talk) 23:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The source from Pastoral Psychology would be acceptable in principle, however it should be used sparsely as it predated the John Jay report and many assertions from the time before the publication of the Jay report are obsolete. Richiez (talk) 23:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Richiez, but the cited Web-Article of Plante is an updated version of an article he published in the San Jose Mercury News, in March 24, 2002. So it is a normal published article published by a known researcher. Thus I've reverted your changes. For this we really need a wider consensus. But to better match WP-rules I will update the references. 94.223.112.246 (talk) 07:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Richiez that www.psychwww.com is at best a marginal source. It appears to be the work of one person (Michael Nielsen). In actuality, it's probably a fine source as is Plante but the problem is that because Wikipedia has no easy way to discriminate between good websites like psychwww and dicey ones, we are generally prejudiced towards websites with more substantial editorial staff. It would be easy for Joe Crackpot, Ph.D. to put up a similar website and only careful reading would be able to distinguish it from psychwww. Thus, the Murky News source is preferred although we could then add a reference to the psychwww version of the article noting that it is an update of the Murky News one. NB: this doesn't mean we can take everything Plante wrote as "gospel truth". We must still differentiate between what is fact and what is Plante's opinion. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see no problem anymore. The source is not www.psychwhatever.com, but the article Plante wrote in 2002. By the given webasite we only have the advantage to have access to an online version, who was updated by Plante in 2010 (But only concerning some formulations. I've compared it to the original article.). From my point of view, everything's now alright and arranged according to the rules of WP. 94.223.112.246 (talk) 16:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a bunch of problems with the "website", its not only that wikipedia has rules against using it. One of the problems is that somewhere on the website it claims to have been last updated in 2002 which would contradict "anonymous"' claim that it is an updated version of the article. Clearly it is not, it contains dubious pre-John Jay assertions that are known incorrect since many years and since the article in Pastoral Psychology is from 2004 it takes precedence, much more so because its published in a respectable medium. Richiez (talk) 23:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Richiez, if you look at the website, you will see the Copyright by Plante in 2010 at the top. You will find also a statement about the original source of 2002 and the made update at the bottom. So there is no "anonymous" claim. Furthermore it might contain some assertions in conflict with the John-Jay-Report, but a) these assertions are not cited in the article and b) it is not, that everything stated in the John-Jay-Report is a "gospel truth". The cited assertions by Plante in this article are even backed up by the John-Jay-Report (around 4% of accused clerics and the too much of trust in psychiatry). So I really don't see any problem anymore. 94.223.112.246 (talk) 08:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow - this talk page is long and convoluted - I can't even remember why I started reading it, are there sensible portions that could be archived? Anyway I added a couple of square brackets further up the page to link to Ephebophile as I've never even heard the word before.EdwardLane (talk) 17:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Neutral point of view from the stuff above I don't currently have an opinion on the validity of the Plante reference. But I'll go have a look EdwardLane (talk) 17:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC) this [[10]] link looks interesting - might give some notability EdwardLane (talk) 17:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

criticism of secrecy

New question: What have the following paragraphs to do with criticism of secrecy?

"In April 2010, Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins stated that they are seeking to prosecute the Pope for crimes against humanity due to what they see as his role in intentionally covering up abuse by priests.^[2]^[3]

But it was Cardinal Ratzinger's official responsibility to determine the church's response to allegations of child sex abuse, and his letter in the Kiesle case makes the real motivation devastatingly explicit. Here are his actual words, translated from the Latin in the AP report: "This court, although it regards the arguments presented in favour of removal in this case to be of grave significance, nevertheless deems it necessary to consider the good of the universal church together with that of the petitioner, and it is also unable to make light of the detriment that granting the dispensation can provoke with the community of Christ's faithful, particularly regarding the young age of the petitioner."

In a CNN intervew a few days later, however, Dawkins declined to discuss the international crime law courts definition of crime against humanity saying it is a difficult legal question.^[4]"

^ http://www.psychwww.com/psyrelig/plante.html
^ Richard Dawkins (13 April 2010). "The pope should stand trial". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 18 April 2010.
^ Horne, Marc (11 April 2010). "Richard Dawkins calls for arrest of Pope Benedict XVI". The Times. London. Retrieved 18 April 2010.
^ CNN http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ccbVCxWNn8. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

On the other hand, I believe to remember, that this thing (pope before trial by court in Louisville) finally failed due to the incapacity of the plaintiffs to prove that bishops are vatican employees. (Like depicted in this article). So I would vote for deleting or at least shortening this verbal fight between pro- and anti-church fractions. Moreover it tells nothing about the abuse cases. The only thing is, that there are people who wants to see the pope on trial. But that's not new and should be discussed more thoroughly in other paragraphs. Ricerca (talk) 15:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I shortened and updated the section a bit. I think it is not useful to extensively quote all these people expressing only wishes and suspicions. For the case of the Milwaukee-trial I found no source giving an update view. 94.223.112.246 (talk) 16:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

[Allen2003-1] Cite error: The named reference Allen2003 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Canon1395-2] "Code_of_Canon_Law,_Book_VI_Part_II:_Penalties_for_Particular_Offenses#TITLE_V:_OFFENSES_AGAINST_SPECIAL_OBLIGATIONS". Vatican. Retrieved 2010-04-18.

[3] "Perpetrators by Maltreatment Type and Relationship to Victims, 2008". The US department of Healt and Human Services. 2008.

[4] "Child Abuse & Neglect Research". The US department of Healt and Human Services. 2008. {{cite news}}: Text "http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/index.htm#can" ignored (help)

[5] Butt, Riazat (28 September 2009). "Sex abuse rife in other religions, says Vatican (with examples from USA)". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 1 September 2010. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

[Commission_Report_2009_3.2-6] "Commission Report Vol 3 Ch. 2". The Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse. Retrieved 2009-07-22.

[Commission_Report_2009_3.7-7] "Commission Report Vol 3 Ch. 7". The Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse. Retrieved 2009-07-22.

[Commission_Report_2009_3.9-8] "Commission Report Vol 3 Ch. 9". The Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse. Retrieved 2009-07-22.

[9] Sandro Contenta (18 April 2010). "The trials of Pope Benedict". The Toronto Star. Retrieved 18 April 2010.

[vatdocord-10] Pope Benedict XVI (2005). "Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders". Vatican Publishing House. Retrieved 2008-03-09.

[nacdlgm.org-11] "Statement From The Board Of Directors and Staff of the National Association of Catholic Diocesan Lesbian and Gay Ministries" November 29, 2005. Retrieved June 18, 2007.

[adrift-12] Steinfels, A People Adrift (2003). pp. 40–6

[sexabusereport-13] Filteau, Jerry (2004). "Report says clergy sexual abuse brought 'smoke of Satan' into church". Catholic News Service. Retrieved 2008-03-10.

[JohnJay-14] Terry, Karen; et al. (2004). "John Jay Report". John Jay College of Criminal Justice. Retrieved 2008-02-09. {{cite web}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)

[FrawleyOdea-15] Frawley-ODea, Perversion of Power: Sexual Abuse in the Catholic Church (2007), p. 4

[16] ttp://www.psychwww.com/psyrelig/plante.html

[17] Richard Dawkins (13 April 2010). "The pope should stand trial". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 18 April 2010.

[18] Horne, Marc (11 April 2010). "Richard Dawkins calls for arrest of Pope Benedict XVI". The Times. London. Retrieved 18 April 2010.

[19] CNN http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ccbVCxWNn8. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]