Talk:Catholic Church sexual abuse cases/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

POV Problem

In the introductory paragraph it states-

"It should be noted that the Roman Catholic Church doctrine has always considered the sexual abuse of children to be mortally sinful. They covered up what sad they considered mortal sin rather than try and stop it"

This seems to be a matter of the author's opinion as to whether or not Church leadership purposely covered up the abuse. It also suggests that covering up the abuse is Church policy, which is untrue. This needs to be removed or corrected to indicate that the coverup was the fault of individual Bishops and not the Church Leadership itself.

Caesar89 03:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

A later version of this paragraph (as of 11 Mar 06) read "It should be noted that the Roman Catholic Church has always considered the sexual abuse of children to be mortally sinful, thus the senior clergy involved were covering up both crime and mortal sin." It was deleted with reference to this section in Talk. The argument above doesn't hold for this wording: there is no implication of Church policy, and no original research (unless we need a reference to confirm that chile sex abuse is mortla sin?). I've reworded it to be even more obviously a simple statement of fact.

Pol098 17:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Please cite a reference. --WikiCats 12:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Celibacy & abuse

It is baldly stated in the article that "There is no evidence that child molestation is in any way related to celibacy", with no references. (I removed a "whatever")

Could knowledgeable people clarify and document this?

Specifically, is there simply an absence of evidence either way; or is there positive evidence that celibacy is not correlated with molestation?

Of what nature is the evidence (presumably statistical)?

But, whatever the answers, they need to be documented, not just stated. Pol098 05:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Last year 200,000 children were abused. Virtually all by people who aren't Catholic clergy or bound to celibacy. So if celibacy is the problem...? Also what about Buddhism? Don't they have celibacy? So shouldn't there by similiar problems among Buddhist monks? Why aren't they under the microscope?

There are 23 sui iuris particular Catholic Churches. One of them is the latin rite and is dominant in the US. Of the 22 other sui iuris Churches in full communion with Rome, I haven't heard anything at all about abuse cases. That doesn't mean that there are none (the Orthodox certainly have them so we shouldn't be immune: see pokrov.org for details) but the entire article is structured badly because it does not draw any distinctions betweeen the various parts of the Catholic Church. Since many if not all of these other parts of the Catholic Church have a married priesthood, they are an inconvenient inclusion as their differing rules ruin an awful lot of ax grinding narratives. Bishops are generally drawn from monastic celibate communities.

Thus we have a situation where a Church with differing rules (there is a separate code of law for the Eastern Churches) is being discussed as if it only had one. This is somewhat unfair and misleading. The legal situation inside the Church is more complex than is being recognized here. TMLutas 19:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

More than one collection of statistics shows that Protestant ministers, most of whom are married, have similar abuse statistics to Catholic priests, most of whom were sworn to celibacy. See for example: Clergy who molest. Most neutral studies show the same. It is difficult for a neutral observer to conclude that celibacy is the cause of sexual molesting. Student7 20:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Boys or girls?

The entire article talks about sexual abuse of "children". I think that we need to distinguish abuse of boys by men, abuse of girls by men, abuse of boys by women, abuse of girls by women, Where relevant we should speak of "boys" or "girls" rather than "children".

I agree. Abuse of boys by men and of girls by men are equally grave, but not the same. Robert McClenon 23:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Both boys and girls were abused by Priests, so children is the correct word. Also, women cannot become priests in the Catholic Church, so your statements about women abusing children doesn't pertain to the article. User:Mrbusta 7 July 2007

monastic orders are not immune to the problem of child abuse. As there are female monastic orders and this is not a priestly sex abuse article but a Catholic one, abusive nuns would be on topic IMO TMLutas 19:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It is more proper to refer to children. Too often, apologists will try to place the blame for pedophilia on homosexuals, and thus, try to make this about homosexuality. This is about pedophilia. Many of the victims were boys because altar boys were often the only child-age volunteers that were supervised by the priests in the Church. There are and were vastly greater numbers of boys under the supervision of priests, therefore, the number of victims that are/were boys will reflect that. (When girls were under the supervision of pedophile priests, you had a proportionate number of female children/girls who were victims. The facts reflect that.) Many pedophiles will have victims of both sexes when children of both sexes are available or under the supervision of the offender(s).

Homosexuality, more properly homosexuality expressed inappropriately through unchaste acts *is* a significant part of the problem and hand waving is not going make the facts go away. We've had far too much hand waving and timeouts from reality already. The spiritual formation of all children, girls and boys, is done under the supervision of the parish pastor and his staff. Like it or not, that's just how Catholicism is organized. The idea that there are parishes where girls were not supervised by priests implies that there were parishes without girls period. While that can happen when a parish is dying, it would be a very aberrant case. TMLutas 19:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

In fact, at least one question by a Catholic in a diocesan newspaper was that they could not remember ever being in a situation where a nun was not present when a priest was. That is, that a child was never left alone with a priest. Her question at the beginning of these revelations was "where were the nuns?" (in "that" school). Nowdays, with few priests, the liklihood of even seeing a priest or nun is remote. Religious formation is mostly done by either trained religious teacbers or laymen.

Having said that, in public schools, where abuse is many factors higher than clergy abuse because of the huge number os teachers and students and hours spent in class, a very high portion of abuse is caused by poorly screened aides, assistant coaches, peripheral people. Unseen, I would trust a unknown priest way more than I would trust a unknown layperson with my children. Despite the media and wikipedia hype, the percentages are far better. Student7 20:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Celibacy or its practice is not even mentioned in the Holy Bible. Clearly, homosexuality, beastiality, child molestation, and other immoral practices are condemned by God.

Sorry, you should study your Bible more thoroughly, anonymous. Passages recommending celibacy include Matthew 19:9-12, 1 Corinthians 7:1-2, and 7:7-9, Revelation 14:1-5. TMLutas 19:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Reverted batch of changes by KoolKid2006

I have reverted a batch of changes by KoolKid2006. The thrust of the changes seems to be to remove all statements that the Church authorities knew about the abuse and covered it up. Specifically, the following changes:

Deleted: "In many cases crimes, when reported to them, were covered up by high-ranking authorities of the Church, and the perpetrators simply moved to another location, often with continued access to children. This has fueled criticism of the Church and its leadership."

Deleted: "and it is clear that the senior clergy involved were covering up both crime and mortal sin."

The following paragraph was edited to include additional items which are undoubted good works, but unrelated to children. The thrust of the paragraph is that members of the Catholic Church have abused positions of trust with access to children; the additions are irrelevant.

Original: "...Catholicism has a direct involvement in other areas beyond parish work. Its many religious orders operate schools, hospitals, orphanages, and reformatory schools, and are involved in social work."

Edited to: "...Catholicism has a direct involvement in other areas beyond parish work. Its many religious orders operate schools, hospitals, orphanages, soup kitchens, reformatory schools,homeless shelters, and any other social instution where any kind of work is needed.

A deletion:

Deleted: "From a legal perspective, the single worst failure—other than the actual abuse of children—was the unwillingness of certain Church leaders to report the incidents directly to the police."

Another deletion:

Deleted capitalised words: "There is, for example, the priest John Geoghan, who was shifted from one parish to another DESPITE KNOWLEDGE OF HIS DEPREDATIONS BY CARDINAL LAW."

I submit that knowledge and coverup of crimes by Church authorities is a known fact which has been amply documented; this has aroused much anger and criticism, and is highly relevant to the issues. In many cases this has been acknowledged by the Church, and apologised for.

Deletion of references to these matters is simply censorship.

Pol098 23:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Please do not refer to deletion of unsourced statements as censorship. Robert McClenon 23:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Point taken: will document. Pol098 01:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Teacher sex scandals

Given that there are many teacher sex scandals now coming to light shouldn't there be an entry for them. Also shouldn't there be an article on Protestant clergy sex scandals. Let's also add Jewish, Muslim, Sihk, and others. Let's be fair and do articles on all groups sex scandals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cestusdei (talk • contribs)

• Well, this article is about the RCC sex abuse scandal. As this is Wikipedia, do feel free to add the missing articles you cited above. Good luck with your research! - Ali-oops^✍ 09:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

In other words you miss the point. No doubt deliberately. Which is: why only one religion deserves this special attention? I suppose no one really wants to admit that it is bigotry.

Now consider this part:

"On the other hand, the Center for the Study of Religious Issues (CSRI), which was set up to fill the research void, published a book about quantitative studies 1999-2004 (The Bingo Report, pub. CSRI Books, 1995, ISBN 0 9770402 0 8) about which they say[8]

"The evidence is so strong that we can predict a continuation of the crime as long as mandatory celibacy exists in the priesthood."

If celibacy is the problem then why are married teachers with kids? That question should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cestusdei (talk • contribs)

• I didn't miss your point (of view). In this article, other sex abuse scandals are irrelevant to the topic in hand; the RCC sex abuse scandal. You might want to look at celibacy. My only interest is in keeping this article to NPOV, that includes POV from apologists such as yourself and my own - Ali-oops^✍ 08:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I did look at celibacy. They avoided the issue there also. There is evidence that homosexuality is a major causal factor. So where is that in the article? I guess some POV's are more equal then others.

Protestant sexual abuse scandals

I started an article, a stub really, on this issue. The powers that be want to delete it. They are afraid it will be offensive! to Protestants. The facts don't seem to matter. Please check it out and vote to keep it. It may help bring some balance to the issue.

yep, i bet thats why they want to delete it... not because its a stub... WookMuff 06:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah the voice of bigotry speaks. Thanks WookMuff, for reminding us of what POV really looks like. You must be very afraid that the truth might challenge your prejudices.

My attempt to do an article on Protestant church sex scandals ended in failure. Despite the facts there seemed to be an intense desire to not have such an article. Some of the reasons were absurd. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Some POV is more equal then others.Cestusdei 05:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Poor baby... why is it so important to you to start a "protestant" sex scandal article? Why not just gather specific cases, start articles on each of them, THEN make an overarching article. Because, if you don't, it will never be more than a deleted stub. Also, quit calling me a bigot. If you read what i said in response to your whiny insulting comments on the other talk page, you will see that i think that the only reason there is more publicity on catholic sex scandals is because altar boys are a part of the church. My local anglican (or as you would say "protestant") church doesn't have any groups of young boys as part of our ceremonies. I am not saying that Anglican priests don't molest children... i am saying that priests who molest children are invariably priests in positions with access to children ie. schools, orphanages, etc. WookMuff 06:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Protestant church sex scandals --WikiCats 06:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The reason given for deleting Protestant church sex scandals was that it was a stub and did not have enough information. But Wikipedia guidelines say “Stubs are Wikipedia entries that have not yet received substantial attention from the editors, and as such do not yet contain enough information to be considered real articles.” and “They are short or insufficient pieces of information and require additions to further increase Wikipedia's usefulness. The community values stubs as useful first steps toward complete articles.” So why were so many so eager to delete a stub when they could of just added more information? --WikiCats 14:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

because we are a secret cabal of catholic haters, obviously. You are so whiny. The reason that stub was singled out is most likely because it was created as a pointless backlash to this article. It contained no information... just one single quote. It wasn't summarily dismissed, it was nominated for deletion, people went, looked at the article, voted for or against it. The aye's won. God bless democracy. If you want then fine, go ahead and make a new one. Make it good, put lots of examples in it, give sources and examples. Don't just quote one persons OPINION and then give a link to a site that attacks non-catholic priests. Because that, my friend, is POV. Also, go to http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=PTLEA2XVX2T5CCRBAE0CFEY?type=oddlyEnoughNews&storyID=11493276 and then you can attack buddhists too. Yay WookMuff 23:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah wookmuff, I know a bigot when I see one. It did contain info and I found more. You simply didn't bother to look. Typical. You're Anglican? I seem to remember in New York a few of your priests imported boys from Brazil and sodomized them on an altar while they wore vestments. Is that in the new book of common prayer somewhere? I have been to Anglican churches where they do "use" young boys. In fact didn't they have some recent scandals where some choir boys in England were found to have been abused? I think the Queen's choirmaster was involved if I remember. Care to write an article about that? And yes, Buddhist monasteries have had problems that don't get written about much. Largely due to people like you. In your POV if the kid isn't Catholic then his abuse and pain just don't count. You just didn't like me shaking up your prejudices.Cestusdei 05:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Once again, YOUR predjudices show. Where are these anglican churches of which you speak? WookMuff 05:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Check with your Episcopalian diocese of New York. I am sure they remember the scandal well. No one else does since there is no article in wikipedia that deals with Protestant scandals. See, you don't remember either. Case closed and your bigotry is proven.Cestusdei 23:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

no, i mean the Anglican churches you have been to with altar boys. WookMuff 00:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Uh, the one my best friend belongs to. Most of the ones I visited in England. The one in the city where I live. Maybe you just aren't hanging around the right Anglican churches. Or perhaps the feminists have finally driven all males from the sanctuary or at least all the straight ones. Just look around and you will find altar boys. Try the high Anglicans.70.108.115.200 01:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Uh huh... and I'M the bigot? interesting. WookMuff 04:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey wook, you started on me. I am always amazed that those who bash catholicism seem to think that their own religion is somehow off limits. If you want scandals you don't have to look beyond your own church. I think we've both said all that needs to be said. You've made it clear you don't care for the Catholic Church and I've made my opinion clear. You should be happy. The ultimate result is that Protestant kids can be abused without any pesky wikipedia articles or media coverage. I am sure their abusers will be suitably grateful to remain off the radar screen. Be proud that no article will begin to shed any light on the problem. Congratulations. Well done.Cestusdei 04:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Nope... as i have said multiple times, i have no issue with catholicism. You, on the other hand, just want to spread the blame around. I have admitted that catholicisms problems are more one of opportunity than any problem with the catholic faith or its ministers, your discussion of anglican altar boys aside. I think all churches... all organizations that deal with children are sure to have some predators in them, because people are the problem. I am equally sure that all churches have scandals they have brushed aside or covered up, rather than bring one of their own into the light as a mortal sinner. WookMuff 06:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Buddhists often have young children who become monks. Sometimes permanently and sometimes just for a few months. Anglicans have altar boys and boy choirs. Our local Lutheran church employs boy servers. You brought up the altar boy question. The point of the article was that this is a universal problem and is not more prevalent in the Catholic Church. To treat it as such is biased. That's why an article was needed for Protestant clergy or there should be one article covering ALL clergy and religions. A section of it on each. But that would be to objective apparently. I am content that I tried. My failure doesn't hurt me, but it helps cover up a problem that hurts others. Enjoy the victory.Cestusdei 18:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC

The first objection read like this: "This is 100% original research and POV, to wit, no encyclopedic content. While it is possible that a proper article could be created on the sex scandals plaguing the protestant church, this isn't it." Later on, an objection was because material was copied from a news source verbatim. If you had provided links to sources and paraphrased what they said, then you would have been closer to what Wikipedia content should be. Autarch 17:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

If anyone is seriously interested in making a case-specific, detailed article on Protestant Church sexual abuse, there are several internet resources listing extensive cases, with links to press articles. One of the most comprehensive is http://www.reformation.com/ . However, as a Catholic myself, I'd rather not see a long-winded article about Protestant sexual crimes simply for the purpose of retaliation. Any reasonable person must realise that sexual abuse occurs in every sector of public and private life, both secular and ecclesiastical. I would urge anyone who embarks on such a contentious article to seriously consider their motives for doing so. Cravenmonket 15:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Title

The title of this article “Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal”, has very real NPOV problems. It is based on a particular point of view.

I propose that it be titled “Roman Catholic Church sex abuse allegations”. --WikiCats 12:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

If there is no objection I will change the title back to Roman Catholic Church sex abuse allegations to comply with Wikipedia NPOV guidelines. --WikiCats 03:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I object... there aren't allegations of sex abuse, there are allegations of cover ups. The scandal referred to is not children being harmed, its the acts being found out about and dealt with by not telling the police and moving the predator to another church. If you want to change it to Roman Catholic Church Sex Abuse Cover-Up Allegations, go for it. WookMuff 07:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The result of the recent debate in Articles for deletion/Protestant church sex scandals was to detete the article because it was not NPOV.

On those grounds, Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal is not NPOV under that title. --WikiCats 08:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Said article was deleted because it was a stub with no information, just one quote and a link. WookMuff 08:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

It was deleted despite valiant efforts to save it. Anti-Catholicism is alive and well.Cestusdei 00:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

This article was originally called Roman Catholic Church sex abuse allegations which a neutral point of view. In December 2003 it was changed to Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal. At the same parts of the article that gave an opposing view were deleted. They were moved here[1] then deleted.

The title “Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal” is based on one point of view. The proof of this is that since the title was changed it has only attracted comments that support “scandal”. For example there is no heading like “Response of the Church.” Wikipedia articles have to present both sides of an issue for NPOV and until it has a NPOV title it will not. --WikiCats 10:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

My only issue with title change is that allegations is very wishy washy. Many of the "allegations" have been proven under law. If you wished to change it to something like Roman Catholic Sex Abuse Cases, i would be up for that. That both implies a degree of NPOV as well as not claiming innocence or guilt, just facts.WookMuff 01:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you WookMuff. I must say that Roman Catholic sex abuse cases seems to address NPOV problems. Are you happy with that ? --WikiCats 04:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I am as long as everyone else is. I think that cases doesn't deny that its going on but nor does it villify anybody. WookMuff 05:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I will make the move to Roman Catholic sex abuse cases. There is a lot of work involved in linked pages. --WikiCats 09:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I would like to suggest an even shorter title 'Catholic Sex Abuse' for this article. A search of US and worldwide (NPOV) newspaper articles on my library's Proquest database shows:

• 3500 articles on "Catholic Sexual Abuse Scandal"
• 3800 articles on "Catholic Sexual Abuse Cases"
• against almost 11,000 articles on "Catholic Sexual Abuse"

To me the shorter and more inclusive the title the better here. Clearly, Catholic Sexual Abuse is the big hitter when it comes to NPOV newspaper reports nationwide. Please comment if the work has not already been done.Anacapa 00:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Radical Protestant Sex Scandals

I urge those who wish to see a Protestant article on church related sex abuses check out the four part series from the heart of PA Dutch Country entitled Silenced by Shame: Hidden in Plain Sight an award winning series by Linda Espenshade of the Lancaster Intelligencer Journal exposing Amish and Mennonite domestic violence, incest, sexual abuse and church coverups. [2] Anacapa 03:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Criminal convictions

The intro makes no mention of fact that sucessful criminal prosecutions have been brought against RC clergy. This should be included as at the moment for a first time reader the word "allegations" sticks out in blue giving the impression that this is some sort of unproven protest. Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 14:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, although I'd like a wording that doesn't give the impression that all of the accused were guilty. AnnH ♫ 14:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll have a think as it should also mention that this was part of widespread abuse problems in all areas of access to children through state/church/charity homes that surfaced over the last couple of decades. Not excusing what happened but putting it into context that the problems were due to poorly or unregulated access to children. Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 14:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Shortening the preface-y thing

I feel that the pre-face (i think thats what its called) is insanely long. It should be a concise summary and introduction to the article, and probably shouldnt include any quotes and facts on its own. Here is my suggestion (though even it is rather long).

In the late 20th century, and early 21st, the Roman Catholic Church was confronted with a series of allegations, many of which were later proven, concerning sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests (exclusively male) and by members of the various religious orders (both male and female). For the purposes of this article, these are referred to as the Roman Catholic sex abuse cases.

An increasing number of cases were and are being reported by the press, after the victims decided to disclose what had been concealed by the church. Many cases involved orphanages, schools and seminaries, where children were in the care of clergy, a form of what is known as 'incestuous' sexual abuse (see Incest).

In many cases the crimes, when reported to them, were "covered up" by high-ranking authorities of the Church, and the perpetrators simply moved to another location, often with continued access to children. This has fueled criticism of the Church and its leadership especially as there are still ongoing refusals by some high-ranking Church authorities to disclose sex abuse information to government authorities.

The Roman Catholic Church considers the sexual abuse of children to be mortally sinful: covering up abuse is both hiding a breach of secular law, and hiding what in the eyes of the Church is mortal sin. WookMuff 05:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC) Thanks wikicats

This has problems as the cases were "prosecuted" - "proven" sounds like they were handled internally which adds to the cover up theories. Also I'm sure some abuse cases involve orphanages with nuns (Ireland comes to mind but I would have to do some checking) so you could not just say that men only were involved. However I agree that keeping it concise and a presis of the article is a good idea. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 07:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

read more carefully... i said priests AND members of various orders. I don't think proven sounds that way but, again, this is just a suggestion... feel free to add your own and they can duke it out :) WookMuff 22:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - missed that bit. Still like "prosecuted" best but the rest reads well (I don't duke so I'll leave it to you to decide!). Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 22:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't WANT to just go and do it... i want... you know what, blah. I will do it. Other people can always revert or something, and if nothing else it will draw attention to my suggestion. WookMuff 04:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

As they say - be bold! (looks good by the way!) Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 08:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

As the perpetrator of some of the verbiage, a note just in case it happens again: somebody insisted on removing mention of cover-up and mortal sin from the introduction, claiming that it was unsourced (see 26 Feb 06, KoolKid, Robert McClenon, pol098), so I added the quotes. In hindsight I should have referred to later sections rather than added verbiage.

Pol098 09:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

That which was removed

In the late 20th century and especially in the early 21st many allegations of sexual abuse of children, mainly boys under of consent ¹, were made against Catholic clergy (who are all male) and members of religious orders. Many of these allegations led to successful prosecutions. For the purposes of this article, these cases are referred to as the Roman Catholic sex abuse cases.

An increasing number of cases has been reported in a number of countries, including amongst others Britain, Canada, the United States, and predominantly Catholic Ireland. The crimes, which in most cases were committed years before they became public knowledge, were and are being reported by the press after some victims decided to disclose what had until then been silenced and concealed by the church.

Many cases involved orphanages, schools and seminaries, where children were in the care of clergy, a form of what is known as 'incestuous' sexual abuse (see Incest).

In many cases crimes, when reported to them, were covered up by high-ranking authorities of the Church, and the perpetrators simply moved to another location, often with continued access to children. This has fueled criticism of the Church and its leadership especially as there are still ongoing refusals by some high-ranking Church authorities to disclose sex abuse information to government authorities. The Church in several countries has responded more openly than in the past, resulting in apologies and restitution to the victims, and the criminal prosecution of the perpetrators. In the US in particular, restitution has been a very heavy financial burden on the Catholic Church. However, official Church stonewalling continues despite the best efforts of officially sanctioned committees inside the Church to deal openly with these crimes. There have been no attempts to prosecute anybody for failing to report crimes known to them.

Examples involving offenders being quietly relocated by Church authorities include, amongst others:

"For three decades, [priest John] Geoghan preyed on young boys in a half-dozen parishes in the Boston area while church leaders looked the other way. Despite his disturbing pattern of abusive behavior, Geoghan was transferred from parish to parish for years before the church finally defrocked him in 1998."[1],[2]

"The leader of England and Wales's Catholics, Archbishop Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, has apologised for relocating priest Michael Hill when accusations against him arose."

and

"The Archbishop of Boston, Cardinal Bernard Law, was forced to resign late last year after he admitted he had covered up sexual abuse by priests for many years."[3]

The Roman Catholic Church considers the sexual abuse of children to be mortally sinful: covering up abuse is both hiding a breach of secular law, and hiding what in the eyes of the Church is mortal sin. WookMuff 04:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

First paragraph

I've changed "... priests (exclusively male)" back to "... priests (who are all male" again. Reasoning: this is to be readable by people in countries where Christianity, let alone Catholicism is a little-known minority thing. The first form could be misinterpreted as meaning that the abuse was exclusively by male priests, the female priests not having participated. If you are looking for conciseness, this replaces 11 letters by 9 letters and 2 spaces! By the way, I think "both male and female" later is redundant in context, but certianly very clear. I've also changed "many of these allegations led to successful prosecutions" from a clumsy parenthetical clause to a sentence. By all means revert if unhappy.

Pol098 09:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Someone else wanted the prosecutions thing, no skin off my nose. But there ARE no female catholic priests and as such the second part is not redundant in any way. But yeah, as long as its all concise yet accurate i couldn't care less :) WookMuff 10:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Relation to incest

I changed the use of the word incestuous and the link to incest to better reflect the link between these sex abuse cases and those of incest.Pendragon39 00:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

intro redux

does the may thing need to be in the intro? it appears to be just one more thing that forces the index further down. WookMuff 09:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I put the bit about the Pope cracking down on Maciel in the intro as in my opinion it may (just may) be the indicator of a change in the church's attitude towards covering up: a change in attitude belongs in the intro. If there's serious disagreement about this, just delete the paragraph (or reword the intro to suggest this possible change of attitude) - I won't fight. Maciel is dealt with in detail in the body; there's nothing in the new bit in the intro that isn't already in the body. Pol098 11:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The figures for Protestant clergy are between 2 and 3 percent

I have looked at available reference to Philip Jenkins' work. Almost all of them report "between 0.2 and 1.7 percent" figure for catholic abuse while I could not find a mention for protestant statistics except here. This include few article which is making argument for Catholic Church. I find it quite hard to believe that those who are making reference to Jenkins' work to defend Catholic church would fail to utilise such favourable comparative statistics. Moreover, I find it hard to believe that Jenkins manage make estimate of protestant abuse given the fragmented nature of protestant movement. I will call on verification criteria on this instance. Please make direct quote from Jenkins' work in regard to 2 and 3 percent abuse rate for protestant clergy. Vapour

Poor source

I suggest that the section entitled "Advocacy against mandatory celibacy" be deleted. It relies totally on a non-existent (or existent only by name) organisation known as the "Center for the Study of Religious Issues" which is part of "Rent A Priest 1-800-PRIEST-9", an organisation that falsely claims to supply "married Catholic priests". There is no way that such a source is consistent with the Wikipedia:Reliable sources policy. There is no evidence that she has any expertise or qualifications, there is no evidence of peer review, and the report is essentially self-published.

Secondly, the section entitled "Ferns Inquiry 2005" is in need of editing. One part simply re-iterates the allegations of Liz O' Donnell. What has that got to do with anything? Plenty of politicians allege all sorts of things but can we limit this to things that have been judicially determined? If it's an inference from a set of facts that have been judicially determined, then include other reasonable inferences alongside them. GuyIncognito 07:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I've edited the "Ferns report" into the "Roman Catholic Diocese of Ferns," eliminating most, if not all of the POV junk that was there. I would appreciate someone else removing the "neutrality" complaint. I believe the new section meets those objections.Student7 13:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Some of them?

Citation: Though some of these accusations may be true, - some of them or actually most of them may be true? --85.206.214.132 01:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

crimes and the Vatican

This will be the title of a documentary on oct 1st 2006 by the BBC'c long running and often controversial documentary program Panorama. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/5389684.stm is the link to the article previewing the program and they usually post a transcript after the program airs. It can also be watched live or for a week after from that link, as well as source documents and legal opinions.Hypnosadist 13:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The program was interesting and shocking though a bit one-sided as usual with Panorama. The main new allegation seemed to be that the present pope Benedict was involved in drawing up the church's rules that any accusations of abuse should be reported (only) to the Vatican. Poujeaux 16:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC). I have put in a link to the ferns report in response to one of the 'citation needed' tags in the intro.

Re the rules - My opinion is this is just a norm how to proceed in such cases on church's side, not eliminating the civil investigation. I doubt members of the Catholic church in the UK are excluded from British secular (criminal) law. Tom, 29 October 2006

Heres the link to the transcript of the documentry [3] with interesting witness testomy of the abuse and more importantly the continued cover-ups.Hypnosadist 15:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Not always against Secular law to "cover up"

No criminal charges were pressed in the Boston incidents where the hierarchy didn't report abuse because it wasn't against the law. Massachusetts had a law on the books requiring several professions to report suspected abuse. Priests were not included until a 2002 law was passed after the fact. The law: http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/seslaw02/sl020107.htm News summary: http://edition.cnn.com/2003/LAW/07/23/church.abuse.report/index.html

--Cacimar 15:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't make it right. In fact, since priests claim special moral authority, they should aspire to behave better than others, not the same as. In other words, they should have volunteered to turn offenders over to secular law. Balok 21:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually all priests swear an oath (to God) of obedience which includes obeying canon law. Canon law puts all such cases into a secret file. Us civilians know this as "privacy." Privacy and canon law prevailed. In the 70s, when confronted with apparently consenting teens and homosexual priests, it didn't seem obvious at the time to turn them in to the cops. Particularly when it wasn't obligatory to do so.Student7 02:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, this article already reads as quite POV and unencyclopedic. To now make it about what priests "should have done" and what certain editors think would have been the "right" thing to do would be to take the article deeper into the realm of individual research and opinion. --Anietor 05:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I have just attempted to change the Ferns article rather substantially, removing all POV terms. If you can help remove other POV and opinion future readers would be more enlightened. The Ferns section was way, way over the top. Read like a letter to the editor or a blog. Almost pure rant. Student7 11:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Overhaul in process

Background

This is a situation where news reports revealed that priests had molested people on a number of occasions over a long period of time. This caused a huge scandal that nearly everyone has heard of.

Early reports exposed paedophile priests. Later reports exposed priests who molested male youths. However, media sensationalism clung to the description “paedophile crisis” long after it became obvious that that clearly wasn’t representative of the problem. However sensationalism is what sells papers. By contrast people come to an encyclopaedia for an accurate summary of what happened.

Eventually the media exposed Bishops who had hidden the problem and had not removed the priests from their duties. This created outrage in the community.

The problem

This is an encyclopaedia article not a news report and must not be misleading or inaccurate. A number of problems were located in this regard. They can be summarised as follows:

1. Right at the beginning of the article it confused the time of happening of the molestation with the time that there was a media expose of the problem. That required urgent attention.

2. It read as if the entire problem had been a paedophilia problem in spite of the unusually low incidence statistically of paedophilia among Roman Catholic priests even compared to Protestant priests. (Unsurprising as paedophilia normally occurs within families and Catholic priests are celibate.)

3. It contained a significantly flawed statistic. This appeared to be speaking about an overall statistic for molestation. It gave a range from the overall rate to the rate in one of the worst Dioceses. The error could be corrected by giving just the overall rate (as I did) or it could have been reworded to make it clear it covered the range in Dioceses rather than giving an overall range. If it was to cover the range in Dioceses the bottom of the range should have been changed to zero as that was the incidence in some Dioceses. The statistic had clearly been accurately sourced but reported extremely clumsily and hence misleadingly. I took the approach that required minimum redrafting by just chopping out a number.

4. Some author or authors clearly wanted to push the line that celibacy clergy are associated with paedophilia when this displays a fundamental lack of understanding of the condition due to failing to account for the within family nature of paedophila and it doesn’t fit the facts due to the low incidence of paedophilia in the Roman Catholic Church. As a result the main two explanations focussed on that factor and other explanations were hazily lumped under another heading as if they were just a treatise on general Catholicism. This suggests both structural and factual problems.

5. There is almost no attention given to explanations or interventions that do not relate to celibacy. Other explanations were buried away and lumped together as stated above. Highlighting this imbalance was the dismissal of an argument that a historical Church event in the 1960s was to blame on the basis that molestation wasn’t confined to post 1960s. However as there was a surge from the 1960s to 1980s it is much stronger an explanation for the crisis than the celibacy argument. Again this is an encyclopaedia article and should be objective and factual not sensationalising things that are verifiably incorrect. The celibacy explanation deserves a mention as it factually is something that has been put forward very publically but it should not be the main explanation. The corollary is that there is definitely room to provide further information to correct the deficiency.

The whole article has a problem with form. I note that the project failed to get top marks for quality but rated highly for importance. It is too long for quick reference and could easily have information to other linked pages to make the main information more readable. Moreover, to improve clarity, the structure needs a major reorganisation. For example a quick summary of the subject matter is that priests molested and church covered up. Logically this is a two part problem. However the article divides the problem into 3. It divided molesting into two types of location without explaining this apparently unimportant but clarity obscuring distinction. Headings also need revisiting to improve clarity.

As a result of the above problems I have already tinkered and intend to make a major overhaul of the article with a view to achieving:

1. Accuracy 2. Balance 3. Clarity.

Thanks for reading. I hope this helps explain why the article suddenly transforms totally. I believe editing will make it less a mish mash of inaccurate sensationalism and more a clear explanation of an important scandal in our society caused by priests behaving badly. The scandal has done irreparable damage to the reputation of the Roman Catholic Church but benefited the commununity by helping to prevent a repeat of the surge of molestation between the 1960s and 1980s.

--jb3 3:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Hears some answers and points for you jb3

1. The changes you have made are totaly innacurate, this scandle did not fall out of space in 2002 as the intro now says. There have been alligations of sex crimes by priests for years, and convictions before 2002 so this is totally false now.

2.Prove that statement with a notable acadhemic not paid for by the catholic church!

3.The stats are about the one dioceses that has had a complete review of its members, and 20+ criminals is a bit much! We have no evidence about other dioceses as the criminals are responcable for recording the crimes (No lynchings happened in the deep south of america before the 1950's because the sheriff did them!). Of course the first thing you do is remove the sourced info on the level of criminality.

4.Couldn't care about celabacy but "it doesn’t fit the facts due to the low incidence of paedophilia in the Roman Catholic Church" what planet are you on. PS what kind of deffence is "our holy men are only have statistically average chance of raping your kids?"

5. Is this the covering up of the crimes by bishops that you are talking about its so hard to tell. If it is then they did repeatedly and many kids where hurt as a direct result of this (in)action.

POV edits will be reverted!Hypnosadist 12:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

jb3 you are not making the article any better. It is still a shambles. Your first sentence is awful as Hypno says, it didnt start it 2002, and you mention a 'news article' but cite a book. The structure is a mess and the page is getting too long. I'm tempted to revert the lot. Poujeaux 15:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding "Kathy’s Story" controversy

As mentioned in the Abuse_in_literature section of the article, there are grave doubts about the authenticity of Kathy O’Beirne's book "Kathy’s Story". Evidently the author's family held a news conference denouncing the book because "The allegations are untrue".

O'Beirne claimed her siblings were bitter and that she had been telling the truth. She promised to provide sworn statements from other people to back up the claims.

The ghost writer, Michael Sheridan, has said "There are no documents. Those documents are either falsified or destroyed. There is no evidence or records of Kathy in the two Magdalene Laundries. There never was.

The Sisters of Our Lady Charity issued a statement: "We can categorically state that Kathy O’Beirne did not spend any time in our laundries or related institutions".

The publisher of the book still claims it is a work of non-fiction.

This information was brought together by the Gotcha News Limited Crime Blog. The book and the controversy surrounding it deserves its own article. Jpe|ob 08:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Verifying Sources - Page Numbers required for clarity and truly legitimate statements

This diff has alerted me to a problem. If we are to have a comprehensive article on this controversial subject, we must not only CITE sources, but cite page numbers.

It is no good just to provide a book. By providing a book, edits can hide behind a false sense of legitimacy that they should not be given. The diff cited above is an example of an editor going through the article and placing references to books after claims without citing page numbers.

There is a danger here that if we do not enforce stringent referencing, that the quality of the article will be reduced.

We must aim for real sources with real page numbers. Giving undue legitimacy to statements that are not sourced in specific pages of books is a trap that we should not fall into. Jpe|ob 02:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Editing explanation

Hypnosadist and Poujeaux

1. I agree about allegations and convictions but I invite you to consider the issue: scandal.

As the article acknowledges there were earlier reports regarding Catholic priests. But Evangelical Pentecostal priests had more scandal than the Catholic Church before 2002. From what I have read and my recollection the storm definitely hit in 2002. I have read reports of Jehovah's Witness elders sexually abusing but I would argue that there is no Jehovah's Witness scandal. Haven't things changed since 2002? Now it is a case of Jimmy who? (Swaggart)

2.The author primarily works for an ecumenical organisation the Ethics and Public Policy Centre. There is nothing on the face of it to suggest he was paid by the Catholic Church to write the book. If you know something please provide more detail and accept an apology for my skepticism.

3. I'd suggest that it should include verifiable facts not speculation. What if the other dioceses have accurate recording? What if someone speculated something bad about you? Would you consider it fair or academically sound to base an encyclopedia article on the speculation instead of verifiable fact?

4."Couldn't care about celabacy but "it doesn’t fit the facts due to the low incidence of paedophilia in the Roman Catholic Church" what planet are you on."

A non-Catholic researcher looking at 20 years found that paedophiles are underrepresented among Catholic priests. A man (probably Catholic) who's livelihood is based on working at an ethical organisation studied media reports and publically pointed out that most didn't refer to paedophilia (even if the term "Paedophilia crisis" was used). I think that I am on safe ground.

"PS what kind of deffence is "our holy men are only have statistically average chance of raping your kids?"" It is no defence to "the filth" but it makes sense in a discussion of celibacy. If less paedophiles are found in a celibate group than a non-celibate group surely it is illogical to argue that celibacy must cause paedophilia. It is analogous to saying that it is nonsense to suggest that being indoors creates sunburn if people spending more time indoors get less sunburn. I haven't studied logic but I still think the conclusion is correct.

5. I agree with what you say about the cover up. Please look again at the article. I have inserted some 'smoking gun' correspondence that is pretty damning for the bishops.

I agree that the article is too long as it was originally. I'd suggest the answer is not reverting to something too long and with other problems but to put some sections on other linked pages. The reason I haven't done that is that the most obvious bits to move are the enquiries. However there is already an external page (linked in the intro) on the Fern Enquiry. Thus should the text within the article be pasted to a new page or should it just link to the existing page? I gave up at that point. Anyone who sorts it out will have a tough job. Have you noticed that it is growing? There is now a big spiel on homosexuals in the introduction.

The reason for the reference is that the book indicates that it was the first article. It is arguable that the article itself should be referenced. I am happy to change it if you feel strongly.

jb3 02:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

5% of teachers are s

I'm going to take this claim as it is not given proper accademic or legal sources.Hypnosadist 14:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Read WP:V "Sources should also be appropriate to the claims made: outlandish claims require stronger sources."Hypnosadist 18:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

READ WP:V Hypnosadist 19:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I still say these sources are not enough for such broad claims but the one more NY times story helps. We will see what other people say about these claims and if they should be in the intro.Hypnosadist 19:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Hypno, I think you are objecting to the bit about teachers in the intro. And I think you are right. In addition to your points, it says 'up to 5%'. What does that mean? Its a meaningless statement. See Weasel words. Furthermore, the article is about Catholic priests, not about teachers. If someone wants to write a separate article about teachers, OK, but it doesnt belong here, and certainly not in the intro, as you say. So I have taken it out again. CC80's talk page shows he doesnt follow Wikipedias guidelines. Poujeaux 13:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The information you're objecting to is backed up by multiple sources, one of which was a U.S. Department of Education report. Other sources include articles in the New York Times and other media sources. There is no justification for deleting two entire paragraphs based on the claim that this one statistic is allegedly poorly documented.

Likewise, nothing on my talk page would imply that I refuse to follow Wikipedia guidelines - please don't turn this into personal attacks and unwarranted allegations. CC80 16:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

It is a meaningless claim 'up to 5%' and it is an irrelevant distraction to the main issue of the page, in a page that is already too long. Wikipedia articles should stick to the point. jb3, you've put a lot of effort in to the page, what do you think? Poujeaux 12:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the personal invite. I read it ages ago but didn't have time to type anything. I am in two minds about it.

My main concern was the lack of referencing. Whoever put it in should also have made the effort to do the job properly. If you want it in why just throw in an anecdote from some article and leave it for others to sort out? Someone has obviously worked on it and at least it is now referenced. That is a good start.

It is already very long and it might be a distraction. Perhaps an article on teacher molesting could be created elsewhere and a brief comment and link provided?

I can understand using a comparison to give context. For example distinguishing media reporting from fact by arguing for media exageration or something. However if people aren't relating to the comparison it probably needs to be better expressed (naturally avoiding POV's).

Finally the up to 5% does sound vague. It would be good to have it better expressed. (Again that requires doing more homework) eg. Research differs with regard to the percentage of teachers convicted for molesting children. This ranges from 2% to 5%. Jb3 12:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It appeared that someone pullled multiple reference from one single article. Given the sensitivity regarding this type of topic, I would doubt "5% of teacher being child molestor" would go unnoticed particularly among politician and tabloid. It possible that the actual original sources may be spinned. Checking/verifying the origina sources would be a good idea. Vapour

Notes on the paragraph that currently begins: "Some media sources have noted that when placed in perspective, the documented cases in the Catholic Church are much lower than incidents of child sexual abuse in the public school system. For the latter, the problem is over three times higher (up to 5% of American teachers, versus estimates of 0.2%[7] and 1.5% of Catholic priests)"...

Regarding the "5% of American teachers" claim, the only source on this appears to be the Catholic League article. All the references cited come directly from that article, footnotes xxxvii, iv, xxxiii, xxxv, xxxvi, and then xxxvii again (!). The references have all been copy-and-pasted directly from that article's footnotes, so I assume they were not read and that the Catholic League article is the only source. If that is the only source, it is dishonest to pretend otherwise. The Catholic League article does not claim all of these sources back up the "5%" claim -- the only source it claims on that is a Fort Lauderdale newspaper article, with no quote provided. I was unable to find any more information on this newspaper article; it appears never to have been cited anywhere except by the Catholic League, and now by Wikipedia. Newspapers do not typically perform this kind of statistical research, so we are in fact at least two citations removed from any actual study that could provide this number. We are being asked to trust the Catholic League which clearly does not have a neutral point of view on this topic. I cannot see how the "up to 5%" claim should remain.

Furthermore, the John Jay Report, which is already cited in this article's preceding paragraph, clearly states that "4.0% of all priests active between 1950 and 2002 had allegations of abuse" -- not 0.2% or 1.5%. The footnote on the 0.2% number points to a 2001 book, which is unlikely to be an especially valuable source for a scandal which, as the Catholic Church page points out, erupted in 2002. Unless sources can be found which are authoritative on a par with the John Jay Report, the "0.2% and 1.5%" numbers should be removed. The Catholic League article notes that "Shakeshaft will soon be ready to release the findings of a vast study," and since it was written that study was actually released. I have taken that study as more authoritative, at least, than the Catholic League article, and have added a ref to it and cited a number it provides.

Finally, whether and how frequently teachers lose their licenses and police are notified about claims of public-school teacher abuse is utterly irrelevant to this article. For these reasons I am largely rewriting this paragraph, to remove extraneous and incorrect information, and to cite the actual source used. JamieMcCarthy 14:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I would urge caution in dismissing a 2001 book due to its date and considering the John Jay study as the exclusive authoritative study for quantifying molesting. The book also can be considered authoritative. Further, the comment relates to known pedophilia so the book is on point. The John Jay study included that but looked at other things.

Firstly, the scandal related to a long history of abuse. Most of it was pre-1990s so a 2001 book shouldn't be immediately tossed out due to its date.

Secondly, the book was the product of research of 20 years of information and it attracted reviews with comments such as:

"Jenkins's study is published by Oxford University Press, which means it was subject to a rigorous academic peer review before it was published."

Contrast this with the John Jay study which was a project of some group of Bishops and a report to them by an research organisation they hired. The data is extensive and covers a wide time period. However it may in future find itself subject to peer review and criticism.

For example what if people take issue that the abuse was defined as 'something' that didn't necessarily involve physical contact and

where the accusation involved physical contact it wasn't necessarily genital contact. It might be argued that the definition is vague and data might not lend itself to comparisons with studies such as Jenkins (the author of the 2001 book) relating to sex abuse in a more commonly understood sense.

Another issue is that the book considered only child molestation (pedophilia) for the statistic. The John Jay study looked at abuse allegations up to age 18. Thus on that specific point the John Jay study relates but is not completely on point.

That isn't to say that the John Jay study couldn't add another dimension to that paragraph. The book looked at the issue as something established. The John Jay study dealt with allegations. Presumably not all true allegations are established but not all allegations are true. By focussing on allegations the findings essentially translates to "up to x (the number of allegations) incidents of abuse may have occurred". Although vague it may give an upper end of a range.

Because the reasons you cite to remove the book statistics are not as clear cut as they seem on the face of it I'd suggest the issue be approached with caution. Using statistics that may include telling a bad taste joke to a 17 or 18 year old to replace statistics on pedophilia when discussing pedophilia might not be the ideal approach for an encylopedia article.

Jb3 12:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Why 2002?

What happened in 2002 to bring this stuff to light? I seem to remember lots of cases before then. Paul, in Saudi 04:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thats becuse there were lots of cases before, see above talk sections.Hypnosadist 04:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. So why does the article say in the first line that it started in 2002?! Please change it somebody. I think whoever wrote the 2002 bit has a US-centric view of the world, in fact massachusssetts-centric. The first para should be re-written in a much more general way, with no reference to Paul Shanley or specific cases. Poujeaux 17:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not commenting below on the Paul Shanley stuff you refer to - just your first question. As Hypnosadist said see above talk sections. There were lots of cases before that in the Roman Catholic Church and many other Churches etc. but the central theme of the article is the scandal. Prior to that the Church didn't have the heat on it due to the stuff that happened before. Then the bomb went off in the media.jb3 12:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I am writing from Dallas and have added a link to http://www.wearethechurch.org/kos/ which is 3000 pages of the 9000 page transcript from the 1997 liability trial of 9 boys against the Dallas Diocese for allowing their abuse by Kos during the years from 1986 to 1993. They won a $120,000,000 judgment if I recall correctly. Abuse by priests did not start in 2002. The public awareness of it grew greatly then, but it was growing for many decades before then. This page must be changed to reflect the much longer history of abuse by priests! bbetzen 12/4/06

The intro needs changeing and i'll get onto it, this is very US centric as the media in Ireland and the UK have coverd this for years. This article is about all the sex abuse cases all over the world. Also it needs updateing as some more judgements against the church have been made.Hypnosadist 14:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

How About Other Countries?

While I am asking questions, why do these cases seem to be limited to English-speaking nations? I have asked about this in Mexico (for example) and civilians deny there is a problem. Is The Church doing a better job at suppression in other nations? Paul, in Saudi 10:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

YES!Hypnosadist 15:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

False Accusations Heading

I want to start a heading in this article which talks about the several false accusations which have been brought before secular authorities but have been judged to be unfounded. I know that this is the way most accusations end up here in Australia, but I don't know much about the United States. Links to information on this will be welcome. Thebike 06:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Just as long as you remember the difference between a "false" accusation (ie one made up) and a not guilty verdict.Hypnosadist 22:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Probably best to call it something else. On second thoughts I will probably struggle to keep NPOV on this issue. I still think that the issue needs to be dealt with, but I would prefer if someone else wrote it. Thebike 07:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Community ban of the Joan of Arc vandal

This article has been targeted in recent weeks by CC80, a sockpuppet of the Joan of Arc vandal. This and similar articles may be targeted again by other sockpuppets of the same person.

A vandal who has damaged Wikipedia's Catholicism, Christianity, cross-dressing, and homosexuality articles for over two years has been identified and community banned. This person will probably attempt to continue disruption on sockpuppet accounts. Please be alert for suspicious activity. Due to the complexity of this unusual case, the best place to report additional suspicious activity is probably to my user talk page because I was the primary investigating administrator. Durova^Charge! 17:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

A "little boys behind the Vatican tradition" in the Catholic church?

I asked a question in the Priests talkback about any historical evidence of "a little boys behind the Vatican tradition" in the Catholic church. Its a rumour I have heard of that I would like to find some citations for so it can go into the article if it is true that is? Anyone know anything about it?

It seems a likely thing to me for several reasons including a western pedophilic tradition that goes back to the ancient Greeks who did have a cutrual prediliction to homosexual relations with young boys often tutelidged by theri older men. Secondly, and in this same vien, the idea of sexual relations with a young boy may well have been considered less of a sin than full blown relations with a woman by the Church and it is for these reasons I have strong suspicions.

Lots of things went on the deep dark and often depraved ages including another rumour of the Popes riding to war on horseback - if not in full amour - but certainly leading the army and the wars and battles during the days of the Holy Roman empire etc. Mattjs 18:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't that in Himmler's Der Schwarze Korps? Does anyone else know? Der Schwarze Korps considered that the Catholic Church was a haven for all manner of perversion and crime:

"...not one crime is lacking from perjury through incest to sexual murder. . .. Behind the walls of monasteries and in the ranks of the Roman brotherhood what else may have been enacted that is not publicly known and has not been expiated through this world's courts? What may not the church have succeeded in hushing up?jb3 12:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, true some elements of the Nazi regime launched attacks on the Catholic church based on sex scandals. Himmler was one of them. Others were Goebbels and Rosenberg. I am not sure where to write this in the article, if it belongs here at all, but I have reputable sources. Andries 18:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Canon Law and the Holy See

(Note: for many centuries churches sought to retain exclusive legal jurisdiction over their own members in place of state law, but clergy are nowadays nowhere exempt from state law).

Is this true? Even in the holy see? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stuartyeates (talk • contribs) 17:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

Media hype

I don't like this sentence in the Media hype section: "Statistically child molestation occurs within families but Catholic priests do not have families." Should it have this sense: According to statistics most instances of child molestation are carried out in the family home by family members?--Shtove 18:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Secretive compensation schemes

Shouldn't there be a section critcising the compensation schemes? There is a lot of anecdotal evidence from Ireland that fraudulent claims have succeeded, and that many payouts are for abuse meted out by fellow pupils/inmates (ie. extreme bullying), or for treatment that was common to all childcare institutions of the period. I don't know if there have been studies on this, but my limited experience in this area as a lawyer suggests to me that these secretive schemes have no hope of getting close to the truth of the matter.--Shtove 18:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Nazi propaganda

As Himmler is quoted above (whether as a serious source or not, I can't quite tell), I looked up the detail on false accusations by Nazis in Michael Burleigh's well-reviewed book on the history of religion and politics ("from the European dictators to al Qaeda"): 'Sacred Causes'. There was enough to add an authoratitive sentence to the main entry (for which the references are on p's 186 and 187 of the 2006 hardback edition). I will leave it to others to argue whether anti-clerical propaganda by the Nazis (including the publication of vastly inflated figures of clerical sex crime) had any long-term effect. Testbed 13:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Testbed

Classic "reducto ad hitler" or in this case himmler. So the nazi's (is this before or after they took tea with the pope and washed there hands in JEWISH SOAP) inflated the numbers of recorded child rapes by priests, inflated as in there were peadophile priests we are just arguing about how many. Hypnosadist 20:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Nazi propaganda extensively focused on sexual abuse in the RCC, so this falsifies the statement in this article that the publicity was quite new. Source. Richard J. Evans "The Third Reich in Power" ISBN 0-713-99649-8 Andries 14:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Cases of child sexual abuse in the Roman Catholic Church

The result was merge into Cases of child sexual abuse in the Roman Catholic Church The template has been up for weeks, with no comments in opposition. -- Anietor 01:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The merger proposal banner has been here for some time, but with no discussion. Let's start a dalogue on merging the 2 articles. --Anietor 04:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems like the 2 articles can be easily merged. I think the other article can be added to this one. --Anietor 04:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)