Talk:Catholic Church sexual abuse cases

Proposed name change

Now the article has settled down, I'd like to propose a name change to Catholic sexual abuse scandal. I feel the current name implies the article is a list of all the cases that have occurred during the scandal and I think my proposed name would more accurately reflect the article's content.

The term is in keeping with the vast majority of related articles on Wikipedia [1] and has even been used by the vatican [2]

Using the word 'scandals', rather than 'scandal' in the title is an option, but I feel this too would wrongly create the impression that the article is a record of all the individual scandals that have occourred - whereas 'scandal', in the singular, is more of an umbrella term. Obscurasky (talk) 23:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The word "scandal" is one of the words specifically listed in Wikipedia:Words to Avoid, especially for titles, since it tends to editorialise. Xandar 00:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Specifically, Wikipedia:Words to Avoid says...

The words scandal, affair, and -gate are often used in journalism to describe a controversial episode or in politics to discredit opponents. They typically imply wrongdoing or a point of view. The use of one of these words in an article should be qualified by attributing it to the party that uses it. They should not be used in article titles except in historical cases where the term is widely used by reputable historical sources (e.g., Teapot Dome scandal, Dreyfus affair or Watergate scandal).

So the question before us is whether the "Catholic sex abuse cases" have moved to the point where "reputable historical sources" call it a scandal. I personally think that the guideline here is poorly worded. "Reputable academic sources" and "reputable news sources" should also be acceptable. In other words, if you have papers such as the New York Times and reputable academicians calling it a scandal, then, by golly, it probably is a scandal. Even Catholic sources refer to it as a scandal. And, the point here is that there would not be (or should not be) an article about "Catholic sex abuse cases" if there were not a notable scandal surrounding them. Imagine if Wikipedia existed in 1975 and someone wanted to create an article titled "Catholic sex abuse cases". It would have been entirely appropriate to ask "Why is this laundry list of sex abuse cases notable?" It is only the post-1980 revelations of the breadth of the scandal and the allegations of coverup that made this scandal notable.

Wiktionary provides these definitions for "scandal"

1. An incident or event that disgraces or damages the reputation of the persons or organization involved.
2. Damage to one's reputation.
3. Wide-spread moral outrage, indignation, as over an offence to decency.
4. Religious discredit; an act or behaviour which brings a religion into discredit.
5. Something which hinders acceptance of religious ideas or behaviour; a stumbling-block or offense.
6. Defamatory talk; gossip, slander.

I would think that the first three definitions apply to this case and that "scandal" is appropriate. I assert that this is true even if you take a pro-Church stance. Mistakes were made, there was a scandal. The various national hierarchies and the Vatican took steps to correct the problem. I don't see what the problem is in calling a horse, a horse.

--Richard S (talk) 05:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that historical sources yet exist for this topic, and so we are led back to journalistic coverage - which we shouldn't be aping. I'm just concerned that "scandal" is a word guidance states should be avoided, because of its unencyclopedic nature - so why go out of the way to use it when other alternatives exist? Xandar 23:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

What other alternatives did you have in mind? I am not pursuaded that anything muted thus far is more suitable, or more in line with existing Wiki articles, than Catholic sexual abuse scandal. I accept that, without reasonable support, this change is unreasonable, but I do ask that you give it some thought.Obscurasky (talk) 22:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Scope of this article

User:Hne123 removed text reporting the cases of Eamon Casey and Michael Cleary (priest) on the grounds that "Priests who fathered children have nothing to do with "Catholic sex ABUSE cases". Well, I did think about this before inserting that text but decided to add the information and see what other people thought. Since Hne123 doesn't think it's pertinent to the scope of this article, this seems to be a good time for us to discuss the question.

Should this article be about the "sexual abuse of minors" only or about "sexual abuse" in general? In the case of Ireland, there are two cases that are borderline. The Michael Ledwith scandal is about abuse of seminarians who presumably were at least in their late teens and possibly adults. In the case of Michael Cleary (priest), the question is whether Cleary used his position as a priest to sexually abuse a woman who came to him for help.

I know in the United States the focus of the scandal has been on the sexual abuse of minors and it has generally been understood up to now that this is the scope of the article. However, the real world is not so easily compartmentalized as we would like it to be. In Ireland, a major piece of the scandal has been the abuse in the Catholic-run state childcare system. This abuse consisted of physical abuse as well as sexual abuse and it is not clear to me which abuse was more prevalent. My guess is that physical abuse was more prevalent than sexual abuse. In short, it is hard to discuss the sexual abuse scandal in Ireland without mentioning these other related scandals. These seemingly "unrelated" scandals are mentioned together with the sexual abuse of minors in the sources and so it seems a little arbitrary to separate them out because we think that they are unrelated.

I'd like to hear what other editors think on this topic.

--Richard S (talk) 19:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not specialized/knowledgeable in editing religious topics, crime or not, so I'll restrict myself to speculate under what self-imposed restriction I would have edited, myself:

1. I would restrict myself to alleged legal cases of sexual crimes according to a national law performed by priests and other ecclesiacal employes, not non-ecclesial ones — a (smart and wise) ecclesiacal person deciding to break the celibacy, leave and marry legally would IMHO be a good thing, not a bad thing (at least beneficial for the human gene pool),
2. I wouldn't add cases of persons solely violating either some national cultural codex, making a scandal, or a person solely violating a ecclesial codex aspect such as the abbot making the abbedissa pregnant, that would be off-topic.

Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 18:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Deleting sources

Why were so many sources deleted in this edit?[3]   Will Beback  talk  21:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I removed one source because it didn't support the point being made in the text - that some Catholics consider the media coverage excessive - and the other because it was a blog and therefore fails WP:RS. Haldraper (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC) (copied from User talk:Will Beback[4])

The edit deleted these citations:

• Irvine, Martha (21 October 2007). "Sexual Misconduct Plagues US Schools". The Washington Post. Retrieved 13 October 2008. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |dateformat= ignored (help)
• Shakeshaft, Charol (2004). "Educator Sexual Misconduct" (PDF). US Department of Education. Retrieved 12 April 2008. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dateformat= ignored (help)
• "Not the Catholic Church? MSM Mum About Huge L.A. School Sex Abuse Scandal". 2008-05-19. Retrieved 2009-08-01.
• "Media Bias". 2008-10-07. Retrieved 2009-08-01.

I see the Newsbusters blog, but I'm not sure about the other sources. Could you be more specific please?   Will Beback  talk  21:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, the sentence the sources are supporting reads:

Some members of the church hierarchy and outside commentators have argued, quoting studies relating to the USA, that media coverage of the issue has been excessive given that abuse occurs much more frequently in other institutions.

So what we want is reliable sources to show that "Some members of the church hierarchy and outside commentators have argued, quoting studies relating to the USA, that media coverage of the issue has been excessive", not sources to show "that abuse occurs much more frequently in other institutions" which is not the point the sentence is making. Hence, the academic study and Washington Post article, while reliable sources, do not support the text while the Dougherty Newsmax and Guardian pieces do. Haldraper (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a bit confusing because the edit deleted four sources from two sentences in separate sections. Your comment apparently refers just to the sources for the sentence in the intro. Your explanation for that sentence makes sense, which just leaves the question of why the Catholic League source was deleted.

As a general point, when deleting reliable sources from an article it's incumbent on you to explain why you're doing so. Other editors editors shouldn't have to track you down and extract an explanation.   Will Beback  talk  22:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

On your two points:

I thought the edit summary was clear on why I was deleting the refs, I also came on your talk page to explain when you asked for further clarification and on here as well so in no real sense was it necessary to "track you down and extract an explanation".

The deletion of the Catholic League ref was inadvertent and had now been restored. Haldraper (talk) 12:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. We're good.   Will Beback  talk  12:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Sources?

Did someone remove a general list of sources from this article? The References section lists entries such as "Bruni, p. 336" and "Walsh, p. 62", but nowhere are these sources identified. - dcljr (talk) 23:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

A weapon against the Global, Ancient, Mother Church

The size of media campaign against the Church on this issue is massively out of proportion considering the infinite number of great people the Church has produced to a few number of rotten apples. On a scientific analysis, it is very clear that if we consider all the great but silent people of the Church, the Church will exceed even the ‘SIZ SIGMA’ error rate.

But the internet media is largely ignoring all such silent people of great virtue as if they do not exist and trumpet only the misdeeds of a few bad people. In fact, it is an organized attempt to defame the ‘Great and Ancient Mother Church’.

Whenever the Pope speaks for moral discipline and self control, many of the business interests are hurt and they try to destroy their enemy number one.

Whenever the Pope speaks for unity in Christianity, many hidden forces of vested interests try to downsize the importance of Papacy.

In fact, these dark forces jointly use Internet as a weapon against the Church. This is because, it is very easy to cast and remold the internet to make people believe the opinion of a minority as the opinion of the majority.

Who knows, whether the ‘rotten apples’ are planted inside the Church by the axis alliance of these dark forces!?

These dark forces use the internet to even publish the ‘list of rotten apples of the church by country’.

The questions are,

1. Why they never try to make a list of ‘great apples of the Church by country’? Here, all the greatness is brutally suppressed and ignored !

2. Why they never try to make similar lists ‘rotten apples of business groups’ / ‘rotten apples of political groups’ / ‘rotten apples of financial institution’. Here all the wickedness is smartly suppressed and ignored !

3. Why the above mentioned ‘double standard’? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.91.193.7 (talk) 13:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

This is personal opinion, which may or may not true, but either way, witout citations its credability is not demonstrated and so it can't be included in article page. Alun Williamson (talk) 13:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

May I ask why then I was warned for deleting it earlier today (25/3)? (at the time I wasn't logged in, but it was around 16:00 or 17:00 UT) Gaussgauss (talk) 01:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Probably because the warning was made by automated tool, and the tool gave the warning. When the editor reconsidered and restored the text, he didn't remove the warning. I've left a notation on the IP's talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 02:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Reception by the laity

User:Mobrangle put the following statement in the article, but it really belongs on the talk page. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Missing here are links to and information about public ridicule of victims by laity.

Sexual abuse of women by Catholic Priests

I've just come across this article, which includes a claim that "over 95% of victims of sexual exploitation by clergy are adult women". No reference to this form of sexual abuse appears on the Catholic sex abuse cases page, and no other dedicated page seems to exist on Wikipedia. Does anyone have an opinion on whether a section should be created on this page to cover the subject? Obscurasky (talk) 21:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It's clear that there is a sense that the abuse of minors by Catholic clergy and religious is a phenomenon unto itself and that sexual abuse of adults, especially women is a different phenomenon. I think it would be difficult to write a coherent article that covered both phenomena. I would urge that two separate articles be written although an umbrella article covering both topics could be written as long as there were adequate sources to deflect any charges of synthesis. --Richard S (talk) 06:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Isnt this the sort of material in question ? - Magdalene Asylum. This article is called Catholic sex abuse cases not "Catholic child sex abuse cases" so it would be expected to include catholic abuse of adults not just children. However text on adult abuse should be relatively self contained and in separate sections. Religious abuse (Catholic or non-Catholic) of anybody (not just children) is also covered in religious abuse and spiritual abuse. Another point is that although the title of this article Catholic sex abuse cases doesnt distinguish between children and adults, it does specifically mention sexual abuse but there may well have been a lot of Catholic abuse (child and adult) that wasnt sexual. Magdalene Asylum was primarily not sexual for starters. --Penbat (talk) 09:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree but the problem is that sexual misconduct by clergy goes back centuries perhaps all the way back to the institution of clerical celibacy. It is documented historical fact as well as part of lore and legend. It really deserves an article unto itself.

The current scope of this article (despite the inappropriate title) is "clerical abuse (mostly sexual) of minors". The reason I say "mostly sexual" is because the scandal in the Irish governmental childcare system was mostly physical with some sexual abuse. Otherwise, the global scandal has focused primarily on the sexual abuse of minors. I would be glad to change the title to more accurately reflect the scope of the article rather than change the scope in such a way as to become unwieldy. This article is meant to be a summary of the many subarticles on this topic. Expanding its scope will make dilute its focus to the point where the reader will wind up confused and distracted.

--Richard S (talk) 13:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

i am not minimising the occurrences of church sexual abuse but am just saying that there is, in addition, plenty of church abuse that isnt sexual. Yes it is probably a good idea to rename this article as "Catholic child sex abuse cases" but as a consequence maybe quite a few other "abuse case" articles need renaming as well. Then somebody can start an "Catholic adult sex abuse cases" article.--Penbat (talk) 13:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Comparison with incidence of pedophilia in general population

The following paragraph does not have an adequate reference for the significance of the claim that the incidence of pedophilia is lower in the Church than in the general population. It uses a single reference that, in turn, simply makes this claim without any substantiation. I cannot believe that 8% of the population is a pedophile; consider that a common behaviour of pedophiles is repeat offences, often dozens of victims. 8% of the population would mean practically the entire population would be abused on an annual basis -- totally ridiculous. Given the known difficulty in providing good stats on statutory rape, such as separating out all the 17-year olds girls with 18-year old boyfriends, I need to see some more serious backup of a key claim that the Church has a _lower_ rate of pedophilia than the general public, which is the thrust of the deleted paragraph. Prove me wrong, please, but not with some unfounded claim that merely exists on a different webpage with no sources itself.

A Perspective on Clergy Sexual Abuse by Dr. Thomas Plante of Stanford University and Santa Clara University states that "available research suggests that approximately 2 to 5% of priests have had a sexual experience with a minor" which "is lower than the general adult male population that is best estimated to be closer to 8%".

Deletion comment: Must provide a direct reference for claim that 8% of general population is a pedophile. This just links to an article that makes this totally unsubstantiated (and frankly unbelievable) claim.

Also, the 2-5% stat duplicates the properly-sourced statistic in the preceding paragraph that states that 1.5%-5% of priests were committed sex acts with minors.72.45.120.6 (talk) 04:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't provide the original citation. But for information this report on Anglican Abuse in Australia, (p6) provides some interesting figures on abuse of minors in the general population. Xandar 20:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• I removed the same - face value of the 'Must provide a direct reference for claim that 8% of general population is a pedophile.' is zero, i.e. utter nonsense.--71.163.237.38 (talk) 22:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Anon IP, are you trying to say that the source provided does not meet the criteria for WP:RS? Because so far what you seem to be saying is that the source provided does not provide a source of it's own. But wikipedia policy does not dictate that this is needed. So thus far, your objection is without merit and your deletion of sourced material qualifies as disruptive.Farsight001 (talk) 03:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Anon Farsight001 - your frivolous interpretation of the Wikipedia's rules are against Wikipedia's Fifth Pillar.--96.241.131.67 (talk) 12:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I can only notice that you didn't answer my questions. Do you have a valid response? Or are you just trying to put me down and mock me? Again, you are essentially removing the source because it does not have a citation of it's own. This is not what wikipedia policy says is necessary. In addition, most of the material you are removing is a direct quote from the source provided. The rest of the material is basically saying "so and so said...". Explain to me how informing the reader who said something, then providing that something, and then providing a link to that something, is in any way against policy. What are the cited reasons for it's removal so far? First, original research - even though it's a quote with a source. Second, Synth, again, even though it's a quote with a source. Third, it was Assume Good Faith - completely unrelated to article content. And now because it's "nonsense"? Really? It has a citation (two now), and is attributed only to the one who said it and it's nonsense? Get real. You crossed into vandalism a long time ago.Farsight001 (talk) 19:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The operative principle here is that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary support". It's not the "direct reference" that is needed. It's that we can't base an extraordinary claim on only one source. If a claim is supportable, there will be more than one source that makes that claim. --Richard S (talk) 14:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I am actually one of the people who added the facts about 8% of the population having a sexual experience with a minor. The source of this information is a peer reviewed study called: Pastoral Psychology, Vol. 52, No. 5, May 2004 ( C ° 2004) The Sexual Abuse Crisis in the Roman Catholic Church: What Psychologists and Counselors Should Know Thomas G. Plante1;2;3 and Courtney Daniels1 Springer Publishing, 2004 The whole article can be read at: http://ww.scu.edu/cas/psychology/faculty/upload/Plante-Clergy-Paper-2.pdf Please note that article says that 8% of the general population had a sexual experience with a minor not that 8% are pedophiles. Having a sexual experience with a minor does not make one a pedophile, only attraction to prepubescent kids does. I would appreciate if you reverted any deletions that you've made to my edit of the article. TheRickster11 (talk) 02:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)therickster11

"extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"

It is not an extraordinary claim that 8% of the general male population has had a sexual experience with a minor because "it has been well established that approximately 17%of all American women and 12% of American men report that they have had an unwanted and abusive sexual experience with an adult while they were still minors (see Laumann, Gagnon, Michael, & Michaels, 1994; Rossetti, 2001a). Source: Pastoral Psychology, Vol. 52, No. 5, May 2004 ( C ° 2004) The Sexual Abuse Crisis in the Roman Catholic Church: What Psychologists and Counselors Should Know Thomas G. Plante1;2;3 and Courtney Daniels1

TheRickster11 (talk) 02:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)therickster11

• I am not impressed by this defense of the 8% and 12% and 17%. As long as authors do not show a respectable way leading to independent confirmation and verification of the data - calling upon 'peer review' is an empty phrase. How come that these 8% and 12% and 17% did not ever erupt into public outrage and civil actions, then?

• 'Get real. You crossed into vandalism a long time ago'. Vandalism is to reject face value of claims coming out of blue? What to say for this kind of 'ethics' and 'expertise'? Just a new disqualification of Wikipedia as a reliable and serious source of information. Does Wikipedia respect common sense, if not scrutiny of serious academic approach?--96.241.138.114 (talk) 01:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, Anon IP, familiarize yourself with policy better, because you very clearly don't understand it.Farsight001 (talk) 01:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

"I am not impressed with your defense"

Who really cares? I gave you a peer reviewed source which is independent and reviewed by leading experts in the field. If you want to get a list of the editorial review board of the journal you can, and check for yourself their credentials. And I am not impressed with the fact that you think because the media is not outraged this is somehow evidence that something posted in a scientific journal is wrong. But don't worry I'll look up many many more peer reviewed sources for you. TheRickster11 (talk) 04:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)therickster11

To the people who keep removing this section. You have no right to do so under wikipedia guidelines. Peer reviewed sources were provided for the information that 8% of the general male population had sexually abuse a minor while they were adults. Here's another source, according to the Newsweek article and Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children: "Experts disagree on the rate of sexual abuse among the general American male population, but Allen says a conservative estimate is one in 10. Margaret Leland Smith, a researcher at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, says her review of the numbers indicates it's closer to one in 5"

http://www.newsweek.com/id/236096

• These two (Farsight001+TheRickster11) are parroting the same nonsense over and over: Wikipedia guideline/policy and peer review. All their nonsense is nothing more than ridiculing common sense and serious academic approach to this problem. It is too apparent that Roman Catholic Church is in dire need for such relativisation and minimization of their world-wide perceived and recorded crime. So, the most primitive way to do that is to collect as many 'sources' as possible as a 'proof' that the Roman Catholic priests are even better than the rest of the world and in the line with other churches, if not better. Wikipedia is a medium where these goals is much easier to achieve than somewhere else where the sound mind and basic ethics requires full accountability for claims and data provided.--96.241.138.114 (talk) 01:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, anon IP, are you currently wearing a tin foil hat?Farsight001 (talk) 02:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

LOL, so tell me how else could I give evidence besides peer reviewed sources that sexual abuse is lower in the catholic church? Or do you just have your mind up made already? I think you do, so it's pointless to discuss anything with you. I'll add the section which was deleted again.Besides your personal opinion is meaningless, my sources adhere to the highest standards set by Wikipedia.

TheRickster11 (talk) 05:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)TheRickster11

lastly I am quoting wikipedia here "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."

So whether you think the sources I've provided are true or not is irrelevant, they're verifiable and are a reliable peer reviewed source.

TheRickster11 (talk) 06:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)TheRickster11

• I counted at least five people who are against this nonsense defended and posted by (Farsight001+TheRickster11). Actually, these two are ridiculing Wikipedia's guidelines. Wikipedia also requests reliable resources and there is no rule saying that Wikipedia does not prefer truth over dubiouses. Wikipedia has its Fifth Pillar which denies rigid and meaningless interpretation of the guidelines. Wikipedia is also against propaganda which is the main intention of Plante's article: minimize this horrible crime and relativize it following the line: other are worse or at least we are at their level, all based on the 'data' pulled out of his sleeve. There are so many article showing how frivolous is Plante's and comp writing. The most recent are here and here . May I ask these two: what makes them believing that they are right and other five wrong? If Wikipedia's basic principle is collaboration, how come that these two are blindly rejecting common sense and obligatory respect of others?--96.241.136.224 (talk) 22:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Anon IP - what you are doing is vandalism. It is a reliable source. It is provided by experts in a relevant field. From what I understand, pretty much the world's leading expert on the subject is involved. If even this is not an acceptable source, then NO source used in this article, pro or con, would be acceptable. I of course, don't believe for a second that you want this article erased, so I can only logically conclude that you are full of it. So cut the crap. The only thing that's going to happen here is you are going to get blocked for repeated article vandalism.Farsight001 (talk) 05:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

and you think somehow posting sensationalistic nonsense from the Vancouver sun trumps a source posted in a scientific journal by an actual researcher who dedicated his life to sexual abuse research, and which was actually reviewed and edited by an editorial board of certified experts/psychologists in the field of sexual abuse research? How's the fact that 2 million Canadians know someone abused by a Catholic priest even verifiable?Besides your argument is meaningless, I am following clear wikipedia guidelines posting reliable and verifiable sources, so there's nothing you can do, except remove my edits again which amounts to vandalism.As to what makes me think I am right over the 5 other people, I have a strong background in the social sciences and research, as well as psychiatry/psychology and I know what counts as reliable information and what doesn't. You can't label a scientific journal "propaganda" just because it conflicts with your preheld notions. The director of the national center of abused children also clearly states that 10% of males in the general population have in the past sexually abused a minor at least once, and I have posted the source for that. See newsweek: Catholic priests do not abuse at rates higher than the general population

TheRickster11 (talk) 00:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)TheRickster11

• • My two cents: if it were as Plante claims (Catholic priests do not abuse at rates higher than the general population), then we should have even bigger number of abuse cases (than the one committed by the Roman Catholic Church clergy) against the Protestants clergy visible in the courts, reported by media in the USA. The US Protestants population is larger than the US Roman Catholic population. Calling upon 'board of certified experts/psychologists' which expertises area gainst publicly and broadly available information only disqualifies these 'certified'. 'Cut the crap' certainly talks about selective abilities of those who are pushing claims aimed obviously to defend the Church or to diminish its crime. I did not remove that bad text and I do not have intentions to argue with the people who think that Plante is a scholar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.32.193.81 (talk) 18:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there IS a higher instance of abuse cases against Protestants in general. It is not, however, reported on as much in the news. No one really knows why, but I think the Catholic clergy get more attention in this because not only are they not supposed to abuse children, like everyone else, but they are also supposed to be celibate. I think that makes for a juicier news story. It has been said that the news (no matter the station you watch) displays bias most by omission of information. I think this situation is a perfect example of that because tons of people, many Catholics included, are convinced that this is some gigantic epidemic that is specific to Catholics, when it is most certainly not. That is, in part, the purpose of the Plante quote. This is an article about Catholic sex abuse cases in general. The fact that they get unfair attention in the media is information about the cases in general, so it is perfectly relevant.Farsight001 (talk) 20:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• The support to remove this miserable propaganda is growing. Thank you 166.32.193.81!.--96.241.136.224 (talk) 00:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

What, exactly, about a statement made by one of the biggest, if not the biggest, experts in the field of child sex abuse, says to you that we're trying to insert propaganda?Farsight001 (talk) 02:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The media is focusing on Catholics for sure. It's been pretty much proven in psychology that 25% of women and 15% of men have been sexually abused before their 18th birthday. The scale of sexual abuse in society is huge. But of course it is easier to focus on an easily identifiable group: in this case Catholics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.122.15.169 (talk) 01:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Insurance companies say premium for Catholic Church aren't higer than for other denomination

[5] --Atlan da Gonozal (talk) 14:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

This definitely needs to be cited in the article. Why the Catholics are singled out, I do not know— it looks like a personal vendetta against the Church. The statistics for abuse of minors by public school teachers is as much as 100 times that as by Catholic clergy, by ratio. This info needs to be put in as well: [[6]]. The Catholic Church's clergy do not have a higher rate of abuse than Protestant clergy. Resolver-Aphelion (talk) 20:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Quote I removed from the article

I see the quote I removed earlier has been readded. I removed it as the quote isn't actually directly in the source, and a lot of the content is missed:

Here's the quote in the source:

"First, the available research (which is quite good now) suggests that approximately 4% of priests during the past half century (and mostly in the 1960s and 1970s) have had a sexual experience with a minor (i.e., anyone under the age of 18). There are approximately 60,000 active and inactive priests and brothers in the United States and thus we estimate that between 1,000 and 3,000 priests have sexually engaged with minors. That's a lot. In fact, that is 3,000 people too many. Any sexual abuse of minors whether perpetrated by priests, other clergy, parents, school teachers, boy-scout leaders or anyone else in whom we entrust our children is horrific. However, although good data is hard to acquire, it appears that this 4% figure is consistent with male clergy from other religious traditions and is significantly lower than the general adult male population which may double these numbers."

And here's the quote in the article:

"available research...suggests that approximately 4% of priests during the past half century ... have had a sexual experience with a minor ... this figure is consistent with male clergy from other religious traditions and is significantly lower than the general adult male population that is best estimated to be closer to 8%"

I'm going to improve it slightly for now to:

"available research...suggests that approximately 4% of priests during the past half century ... have had a sexual experience with a minor ... it appears that this figure is consistent with male clergy from other religious traditions and is significantly lower than the general adult male population which may double these numbers."

Which is better, though the quote still is pretty bitty. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that if the quote is to be included that the following is used:

"First, the available research (which is quite good now) suggests that approximately 4% of priests during the past half century (and mostly in the 1960s and 1970s) have had a sexual experience with a minor ... However, although good data is hard to acquire, it appears that this 4% figure is consistent with male clergy from other religious traditions and is significantly lower than the general adult male population which may double these numbers." -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You must have simply missed it, because the quote most definitely IS in the source. I did a simple Edit>Find in page and came across it right away. I don't know why you missed it, but it's really quite obvious.Farsight001 (talk) 21:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Its true that most of it was in the article (though spaced out). Though the old end bit: 'that is best estimated to be closer to 8%' isn't in the article at all, and the 8% claim was what I looked for first. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Changed the quote to my suggestion. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Vatican scandal damage control of 2010

This issue is in the headlines right now. Frantic spin control from Vatican. Attempt to blame gays: "Vatican cardinal blames scandal on gays" (UPI). Attempt to back off from statement blaiming gays: "Vatican Backtracks on Linking Abuse Scandal to Gays" (Sidney Morning Herald) Attempt to blame media: "Anti-church campaign seen in scandal stories, Vatican editor says" (Catholic Spirit). Attempt to act contrite: "Pope says church must do penance for abuse cases" (Reuters) All this is coming from top people at the Vatican. There's so much coverage that a "breaking news" template may be needed. --John Nagle (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• John, we see the same here in this article: an adamant attempt to blame media. The 'fighters' are Farsight001 & TheRickster11 (or maybe, just one anonimous person using two user names).--166.32.193.81 (talk) 13:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

So comparing how often it happens in the Church with how often it happens outside the Church is someone completely irrelevant?Farsight001 (talk) 18:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

No other organization seems to have a large-scale, organized cover-up operation for their pedophiles. It's the cover-ups that took entire Catholic dioceses into bankruptcy. --John Nagle (talk) 20:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Funny thing about cover ups - to be real, there has to be some sort of actual covering up of it. Most people don't tend to refer to something that's been in the news for decades now a "cover up". In addition, while said "cover up" is of course relevant, it is not actually the subject of this article. Making this article about the cover up, instead of the abuses, would be a little odd.Farsight001 (talk) 02:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

There is not a higher incident of sexual abuse of minors in the Church than in other public institutions; no one hears about the public school system, even though the abuse occurring there is 100 times worse and is being massively covered-up or just ignored by the media. There were bad cover-ups in the U.S. Church; the CDF in the Vatican fixed that by taking jurisdiction over from them. since then, abuse incidences have dropped to 6 cases in 2009, from over 100 in 1981. The Vatican is implementing the U.S. reforms, which have been hailed by CPS as the most comprehensive of any U.S. institution, worldwide.Resolver-Aphelion (talk) 21:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Resolver and Farsight. The titles added by Nagle were POV, mentioning "damage control" rather than the NPOV "responses". I have deleted the section "Damage control in 2010", since this was A) Recentism, and B) contained no factual information, being merely the regurgitation of the opinionisising of selected POV journalists. The whole recent publicity incident is based on nothing new, but a rehashing of old cases by people with an agenda. As far as "attempts to blame gays" are concerned. The mention was a factual one referring to the fact that the vast majority of priestly abuse incidents involved teenage boys. This is discussed elsewhere in the article. Xandar 00:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• And I agree with Ipsos: [7]

The Ipsos Reid survey, carried out last week for Canwest News Service and Global Television, shows that child abuse scandals — which for years have troubled the Catholic Church and now directly threaten the Pope — are deeply felt in Canada, where Catholics and non-Catholics alike are unhappy with the Church's handling of the crisis.

"Two million people is a shocking number, admitting that they personally know someone sexually abused by a Roman Catholic priest," says John Wright, senior vice president of Ipsos Reid Public Affairs. "This is not something that can evade scrutiny."

The results on this question were highest in British Columbia (11 per cent) and Atlantic Canada (10 per cent), Quebec (nine per cent), Alberta (eight per cent) and lowest in Saskatchewan and Manitoba (three per cent each). For Ontario, the result was six per cent.

--71.191.25.221 (talk) 00:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

These sort of hilarious junk surveys (note: "someone" sexually abused, rather than a "minor", and the fact that these telephoned people were only asked about Catholics, not other groups.) Clearly another publicity stunt with an agenda. Lets stick to real facts shall we? Xandar 20:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh please, a telephone survey now somehow trumps peer reviewed articles. What a load of crap. Did they personally interview the 2 million Canadians? That would take uhmm 10 years. So how the hell does the Vancouver Sun know that 2million canadians know somebody abuse by a catholic priest? Oh that's right, it's complete nonsense they just made up, to inflate the numbers. I personally have met about 2000 people in my lifetime, so that means I MAY know someone abused by a Catholic priest. Since I do know 2000 people personally I *MAY* also personally know serial killers, war crimes suspects, Noble prize winners, etc....And people swallow this crap hook line and sinker.People are so naive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.154.133.252 (talk) 21:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, there is not a higher incident of sexual abuse of minors in the Church than in other public institutions; no one hears about the public school system, even though the abuse occurring there is 100 times worse [[8]] and is being massively covered-up or just ignored by the media. There were bad cover-ups in the U.S. Church; but the CDF in the Vatican fixed that by taking jurisdiction over from them in 2001. since then, abuse incidences have dropped precipitously to 6 cases in 2009, from hundreds in 1981, the peak of abuse cases. The Vatican is implementing the U.S. reforms, which have been hailed by CPS as the most comprehensive of any U.S. institution, worldwide this year [[9]] . Anti-Catholic bias violates NPOV in Wikipedia, and will not be tolerated.98.192.224.211 (talk) 23:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Opinionated wordings

The text "Pope John Paul II failed to firmly declare that sex crimes are a criminal as well as a spiritual offense." in the beginning of this article suggests opinionated wording. Why would it be necessary for the pope to declare sex crimes as a criminal offense? Don't all of us already know? Anyway, the pope's role is a spiritual and not a judiciary one. Joo (talk) 17 April 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.74.34.139 (talk) 01:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Isn't the "Vatican Responses" section supposed to give the facts on Vatican Responses? How come the wordings are not fact-based but seem to have devolved into media perceptions of the Vatican responses? joo (talk) 05:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The Sidney Morning Herald report title and the Wikipedia 'quote' (earlier) says the Vatican backed off from linking paedophilia with gays. But within the SMH report, "A Vatican spokesman, Federico Lombardi, said the statement was aimed at clarifying Cardinal Bertone's remarks and should not be seen as the Holy See distancing itself from them." joo (talk) 05:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Apparent apology in March by the pope

The Pope formally apologized again on March 18, 2010, for "stray priests" and called for both forgiveness by the victims and penitence by the accused priests. This occurred as new cases came to light in Germany, Ireland and Italy.

The source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/8572875.stm) doesn't appear to make the required claim so I've removed it for now. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• The 'apparent' apology is nonsense. Committing such crime means accepting all lawful consequences including arresting the Church officials involved in the crime cover-up and shielding the criminals in the priest robe. Here is more about this two-face papal policy: Catholic Church Tries to Quiet Pedophilia Scandal with New Policy, While Atheists Push for Pope's Arrest in the UK. --71.191.26.127 (talk) 18:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• For those thinking that the Pope's formal apology (except his wish to get this horrible crime forgiven; whose forgiveness he was looking for?) solved this problem, read The pope should stand trial

  Suppose the British secretary of state for schools received, from a local education authority, a reliable report of a teacher tying up his pupils and raping them. Imagine that, instead of turning the matter over to the police, he had simply moved the offender from school to school, where he repeatedly raped other children. That would be bad enough. But now suppose that he justified his decision in terms such as these:
  
  "Although I regard the arguments in favour of prosecution, presented by the local education authority, as of grave significance, I nevertheless deem it necessary to consider the good of the government and the party, together with that of the offending teacher. And I am also unable to make light of the detriment that prosecuting the offender can provoke among voters, particularly regarding the young age of the offender."
  
  The analogy breaks down, only in that we aren't talking about a single offending priest, but many thousands, all over the world.
  
  Why is the church allowed to get away with it, when any government minister who was caught writing such a letter would immediately have to resign in ignominy, and face prosecution himself? A religious leader, such as the pope, should be no different. That is why, along with Christopher Hitchens, I am supporting the current investigation of the pope's criminal complicity by Geoffrey Robertson QC and Mark Stephens. These excellent lawyers believe that, for a start, they have a persuasive case against the Vatican's status as a sovereign state, on the basis that it was just an ad hoc concoction driven by internal Italian politics under Mussolini, and was never given full status at the UN. If they succeed in this initial argument, the pope could not claim diplomatic immunity as a head of state, and could be arrested if he steps on British soil.

  --71.191.26.127 (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd be taking that call to arrest the pope more seriously if Hitchens and Dawkins hadn't picked a priest who was defrocked, prosecuted, and arrested almost immediately after it was discovered as support of their argument. And on the subject of putting it in an article, it is definitely important enough to be in an article, but I'm not sure it belongs in this one. This article is about sex abuse cases and not so much about a cover up.Farsight001 (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

No one treats this joke seriously. Even Dawkins has pulled back from support. The sovereign state argument itself is a red herring designed to divert attention from the fact that there is no actual crime the Pope can be accused of - even if he were a penniless resident of Tooting. Benedict has been probably the religious leader who has been toughest on exposing abuse. Xandar 20:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The real question is why you keep quote mining Ratzinger's letter. He clearly does not call for not having the priest defrocked, he only calls for more investigation. The priest was defrocked later on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.154.133.252 (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• It's difficult for me to understand these three last responses to my post. Are these people grownup persons with sound mind? Did they ever learn Ten Commandments if they are Christians? Do they really think that their anonymity is a screen behind they could say whatever pleases them?--71.191.26.127 (talk) 00:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL. Also, let me take the time to remind everyone, especially you IP71, of WP:BLP. Anything about a person still living MUST be very carefully cited. Has the pope been accused of covering things up? Yes. However, to simply state as fact that he was directly involved, when such a thing is as of yet inconclusive, is a BLP violation.Farsight001 (talk) 00:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I notice that you said in the edit summary that I removed it based on a misunderstanding of BLP. What, exactly, is the misunderstanding? The pope is a living person. His involvement in the coverup is still speculative. Therefore, we CANNOT, under any circumstances, state it as a fact. what about that very simply concept am I not understanding?Farsight001 (talk) 03:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• • Here we are not writing the pope's biography. Sure, read WP:CIVIL once again and tell us what you have learned.--71.191.26.127 (talk) 17:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's BLP rules apply to all articles which contain information about a living person. From the beginning of WP:BLP: "Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page." so Farsight is quite right that a reliable source does need to be found, additionally the content should be removed until a reliable source is found if it is controversial, which this clearly is. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

PS http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/10/pope-paedophile-priests-cover-up may well do as a source depending on what is required. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• • Thanks - do not forget the Wikipedia's Fifth Pillar. The source is undeniably reliable and in full agreement by a number of other reliable resources.--71.191.26.127 (talk) 18:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The source is reliable, though I say barely. However, what you are presenting as a statement of fact (that the pope intentionally covered things up) is not yet a fact, but still just an allegation. Hence, BLP vio. I don't know why I've had to explain this three times now.Farsight001 (talk) 21:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• • For all those concerned more about the Wikipedia's guidelines (i.e. the pope's image), please, read Church in worst credibility crisis since Reformation, theologian tells bishops by Hans Kueng
    
    There is no denying the fact that the worldwide system of covering up cases of sexual crimes committed by clerics was engineered by the Roman Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under Cardinal Ratzinger (1981-2005). During the reign of Pope John Paul II, that congregation had already taken charge of all such cases under oath of strictest silence. Ratzinger himself, on May 18th, 2001, sent a solemn document to all the bishops dealing with severe crimes ( “epistula de delictis gravioribus” ), in which cases of abuse were sealed under the “secretum pontificium” , the violation of which could entail grave ecclesiastical penalties. With good reason, therefore, many people have expected a personal mea culpa on the part of the former prefect and current pope. Instead, the pope passed up the opportunity afforded by Holy Week: On Easter Sunday, he had his innocence proclaimed “urbi et orbi” by the dean of the College of Cardinals.--71.191.26.127 (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

You just seem to be regurgitating the most negative smears and innuendo available from the press, most of it absolute rubbish from journalists with an agenda. This however is an encyclopedia, and so does not report such opinionising as fact or anything other than the view of one journalist. The simple fact is that NO organisation before recent days dealt with these issues in any way other than under confidentiality. We know that US schools did not report cases in over 90% of cases as late as the 1990s, from the shakleshaft reports. All we are seeing here is (deliberate?) misquotation of papal laters and guidance and extrapolation by journalists. The key facts are that Benedict has led the way in exposing and trying incidents of clerical abuse. Xandar 20:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• • Before using strong words, in order to express your admiration of J. Ratzinger and his church, I advise you to read the reference. Moreover, I can imagine what kind of his crime perception in public might deserve a proven criminal complaining that no one before him, who committed such a crime, did face with such publicity. Pay attention who is the article author
    
    VENERABLE BISHOPS,
    Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, and I were the youngest theologians at the Second Vatican Council from 1962 to 1965. Now we are the oldest and the only ones still fully active. I have always understood my theological work as a service to the Roman Catholic Church. For this reason, on the occasion of the fifth anniversary of the election of Pope Benedict XVI, I am making this appeal to you in an open letter. In doing so, I am motivated by my profound concern for our church, which now finds itself in the worst credibility crisis since the Reformation. Please excuse the form of an open letter; unfortunately, I have no other way of reaching you.--71.191.26.127 (talk) 21:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

To express concern for the Church = Guilty? All sincere Catholics are concerned for the Church. Please think logically. joo (talk) 02:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Error in Statistics quoted?

According to the John Jay report, 10,667 individuals had accused 4,392 priests of abusing them between 1950 and 2002 and NOT "the dioceses were able to substantiate 6,700 accusations against 4,392 priests in the USA." joo (talk) 21:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

"A report to the police resulted in an investigation in almost all cases (see Tables 3.7.1 and 3.7.2). Only 384 of the 4,392 priests and deacons were criminally charged (see Table 3.6.3)." See https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/cleric7.pdf So, those figures on substantiated allegations, where did they come from? joo (talk) 21:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Just found the correct figures at https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/response3.pdf joo (talk) 21:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

298 priests and deacons had been completely exonerated. The allegations were thought to be credible for 1,671 priests and not credible for 345 priests. joo (talk) 21:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

9,281 Victim Surveys had information about an investigation. In 6,696 cases, or 72%, an investigation of the allegation was carried out. Of the alleged incidents investigated by the dioceses and religious communities, a definitive result of the investigation was reported for 5,681 cases. Of these cases, 4,570, or 80%, were substantiated; 1,028, or 18%, were unsubstantiated; 83, or 1.5%, were found to be false. Rather confusing figures. They don't seem to tally up to the 4,392 figure above. joo (talk) 21:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

4,570 substantiated cases against 1,671 priests? joo (talk) 06:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

How do you substantiate an alleged abuse that happened 10, 30 or even longer ago? joo (talk) 06:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Another quote mine removed

I removed this edit because it contains an obvious quote mine of the original letter written by Cardinal Ratzinger.

This is what I removed:

"Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins are seeking for prosecution of the pope for his role in inentional crime cover-up as seen in The pope should stand trial article.

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."

"

The user who added this is obviously posting his personal opinion when he writes: "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."

Besides being personal opinion it is also wrong, Card. Ratzinger at this time was not in charge of sexual abuses cases. See: http://insightscoop.typepad.com/2004/2010/04/lets-get-the-story-straight-defrocking-and-divorce-fr-joseph-fessio-sj.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.154.133.252 (talk) 21:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

In addition, he quote mines Card. Ratzinger's letter. Card. Ratzinger calls for more investigation before removal of the priest, and this part of the letter was excluded by the user who made the edit in an obvious attempt to change the context of the letter to reflect negatively on the Catholic church and Card. Ratzinger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.154.133.252 (talk) 21:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• You apparently did not read the referenced article. That's your first grave mistake.--71.191.26.127 (talk) 00:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The Catholic Church's handling of this issue reflects poorly on them

Just a few most recent articles:

Cardinal: late pope backed priest-shielding

Cardinal justifies praise for French bishop's silence over abusive priest

This is really disgusting: A 'Failed Papacy'? How Benedict XVI Got Into This Mess

Castrillon was until 2006 the head of the Vatican department responsible for policies regarding the more than 400,000 priests around the world, and it also emerged last week that in 2001 Castrillon had praised a French bishop for going to jail rather than reporting one of his abusive priests to the police. --71.191.26.127 (talk) 00:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

While this is probably going a little far, some of this content should be in the article. The Catholic church has been doing a lot of covering up of this sex abuse scandal. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• I see on this page that there is a group of fervent Catholich trying adamantly to whitewash the crimes of Catholic priesthood. (This is not respones to Eraserhead1; I agre with him/her).--208.103.155.79 (talk) 12:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Most of what our anonymous friend is posting is just more POV opinionising from journalists, which he has googled up, as well as non-stories, like the priest not reporting what he heard in the confessional. I'm not quite sure what's "disgusting" about the Politics daily rant lonked to above, apart from the bad journalism and non-checking of facts. But hey, anythings okay in a hate campaign against Catholics. Xandar 20:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Plante discussing Churches structure

The following has been removed from the article by 71.191.26.127:

Writing in a peer reviewed article Dr. Thomas Plante, a psychiatrist specializing in abuse counseling, and considered an expert on clerical abuse contends that it is clearly a myth that the Catholic hierarchy was clueless about the best way to manage cases of sexual abuse by priests. He writes that: "unlike most large organizations that maintain a variety of middle management positions, the organizational structure of the Catholic Church is a fairly flat structure. Therefore, prior to the Church clergy abuse crisis in 2002, each bishop decided for himself how to manage these cases and the allegations of child sexual abuse by priests. Some have handled these matters very poorly (as evidenced in Boston) while others have handled these issues very well."

Personally I think it is reasonable content that should be in the article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Of note there has already been some discussion on this on the IP's talk page and my talk page which is quoted below:

I can't see a clear consensus for removing this on the talk page, so as its a controversial topic it should stay for now - especially as this is a sensitive topic. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus to have him in the article either. Moreover, Plante is already in this article:

while experts in the field of sexual abuse counseling contend that celibacy has no effect on rates of child abuse in the Catholic Church, as it has been shown that the rates of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church is not higher than in society, other public institutions and other religious denominations.

No need have him twice in the same context.--71.191.26.127 (talk) 12:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

They appear to be discussing different things each time. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

From the above on this page:

The operative principle here is that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary support". It's not the "direct reference" that is needed. It's that we can't base an extraordinary claim on only one source. If a claim is supportable, there will be more than one source that makes that claim. --Richard S (talk) 14:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

--71.191.26.127 (talk) 13:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

"extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is NOT the operative claim. That is your nonsense claim. Wikipedia does not require multiple peer reviewed sources. I am going to go through this wikipedia article which only have one source and proceed to remove them one by one, starting with all the edits you've made if they're supported by one source only. See how that would amount to vandalism? Now what makes you think you're justified removing information that you disagree with personally which is supported by peer reviewed articles? besides there's nothing controversial about Plante's statement: the organizational structure of the RC church is flat, and it is a fact that some bishops have handled the abuse poorly, while others well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.154.133.250 (talk) 01:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The issue here, imo, is not that the extrodinary claims do not have extrodinary evidence. (what else would you call the foremost expert on a subject but extraordinary) The issue here is that you think such a claim is itself extraordinary when in reality a lot of this is actually relatively common knowledge. An extraordinary claim would be "the moon landing was faked" or "9/11 was an inside job". That other people molest children too is hardly extraordinary.Farsight001 (talk) 03:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Good point. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Dodgy figures

I corrected some unreliable wording in the Irish abuse section, which stated that "thousands" of cases of abuse had occurred and been verified in Irish government reports. Wrong on both counts. The figures are hundreds of cases over many decades, not thousands, and most were allegations rather than verified or convicted cases. The Ryan report specifically did not verify or deny allegations, but just reported them as allegations. Xandar 21:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of media coverage: Overemphasis: I added more sources about sexual abuse occurring in public schools

Apparently this is what Carol Shakenshaft found after reviewing 228 cases of teacher sexual abuse. This is from the official government report on teacher sexual abuse:

"All of the accused admitted sexual abuse of a student, but none of the abusers was reported to the authorities, and only 1 percent lost their license to teach. Only 35 percent suffered negative consequences of any kind, and 39 percent chose to leave their school district, most with positive recommendations. Some were even given an early retirement package.

Moving molesting teachers from school district to school district is a common phenomenon. And in only 1 percent of the cases do superintendents notify the new school district. According to Diana Jean Schemo, the term “passing the trash” is the preferred jargon among educators.

I've cut this for the two reasons given in my edit summary:

1. this is a global issue and referring to US studies gives the section a US-centricity that we should avoid.

2. more importantly, it's WP:OR/WP:SYN because you're using data from a study of US schools and a 2002 New York Times article and making your own comparison with the sexual abuse committed by Catholic priests/response of Vatican that the sources themselves doesn't make. Haldraper (talk) 13:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

1. This article has many large US sections. Did you cut anything in the other sections? Anyway, media over-emphasis on this issue in the US is amplified worldwide. Each time some US paper squeaked, I read about it in the local papers. joo (talk) 15:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

2. The source that I quoted and you deleted, Dr Shakeshaft herself compared the sexual abuses committed by priests with those by people in the schools. Professor Charol Shakeshaft is the author of a groundbreaking report commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education in 2004. How can this be WP:OR? joo (talk) 15:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Hofstra University Prof. Charol Shakeshaft, the report's author, estimated that about 290,000 students were victimized between 1991 and 2000. "So we think the Catholic Church has a problem?" Shakeshaft told Education Week. "The physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests." See http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/90405449.html?elr=KArksc8P:Pc:U0ckkD:aEyKUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU

Haldraper, your edits (or what seems to be "deletes" only) in this article are apparently confined to the Criticisms of Media Coverage section and not anywhere else. What is your special interest in ensuring reliable sources and removal of US-centricity only in this section? joo (talk) 16:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I repeat, because this is a global issue: there is a section on the US scandal, this is not it. It's about Catholic criticism of media coverage, maybe you want to change it to 'Criticism of US media coverage'?

I'll add a US sub-section then, just as the other sections have a US sub-section. As stated in the article, the largest number of abuse cases is found in the US (it's a large country and has one of the highest sex offence rates in the world). joo (talk) 01:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Similarly, her very vague comparison (she "estimated that about 290,000 students were victimized...likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests.") is again confined to the US and tells us nothing about the global situation. Haldraper (talk) 18:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

What vague comparison? About 290,000 students were reportedly victimized in public schools between 1991 and 2000 (10 years). Around 10,667 people were reportedly abused by priests between 1950 and 2002 (50 years). This is over 100 times, just as she said. joo (talk) 01:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

er, that's because you've cut her 'estimated' and 'likely' and left only the still vague 'about'. Haldraper (talk) 17:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Commandment: Do not lie

See here

Barbosa told investigators that "he is not a pedophile," but after three former altar boys testified he had abused them, he asked for forgiveness, said Renato Paoliello, a spokesman for Malta.

Barbosa also told investigators he is not homosexual and said what was shown in the video was a one-time incident, Paoliello said.

The video — secretly filmed in January 2009 — was broadcast by the SBT network last month. It was not clear if the 19-year-old, identified as a former altar boy who had worked with Barbosa for four years, had previous sexual relations with the priest.--71.191.26.127 (talk) 01:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

We all know by now that your sole purpose here is to vilify everything Catholic, so let me just point this out to you - this article is about the sex abuse cases in general. There is no purpose, or even a reasonable way, to talk about each individual case. As such, there is no purpose in you trying to list every single news article on every single priest you can find.Farsight001 (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• We all know... Who are 'we'? Just you and couple others? Catholicism is vilified by its priesthood which gets reported almost daily. Ratzinger is even in his native Germany a bad person. Read here

  A survey published last week in the German magazine Focus underscores that threat. Some 56% of 613 Germans polled by researchers at Zeppelin University in Friedrichshafen, Germany, said they had no confidence in the church; one-quarter of the survey's Catholic respondents said they were mulling leaving the church.

  --71.191.26.127 (talk) 20:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Your article is irrelevant to what I said. And as a man who has actually done studies himself, I must say that is a piss poor study. 613 people is an extremely weak polling.Farsight001 (talk) 21:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually I believe statistically 613 is fairly reasonable. Its not as good as 1000 but it is good enough that I believe it can even be used in psychological research. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It's enough to be used in psychological research. It, however, is not one of the more respectable numbers I've seen, especially when it seems they probably just polled other students at the college, instead of getting an even spread for a more diverse polling.Farsight001 (talk) 21:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

And also in Germany people are automatially registered as either Catholic, Evangelical or Lutheran. A large proportion of those registered A) Have little connection with the churches in the first place, and B) Don't go to Mass anyway. Xandar 22:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

For those supporting the pope's innocence

I see that there is a number of adamant people deleting any information, in this article, pointing at Ratzinger's criminal handling of the crime committed by some priests - child predators. My idea, as a devout Christian, is: the crime is the crime, then the sin. To support the fact that I share other people's view about this type of crime, please, read:

"Sinner" church shames Pope Benedict

However, despite the emotional remarks, the Vatican hierarchy and the pontiff himself remain under fire for helping protect child-molesting priests, and creating a "wall of silence" around such issues.

Punishment for the Pope?

A letter was revealed that showed the pope refused to defrock a Catholic priest who molested children for “the good of the universal church.” Furthermore, reports have shown that while archbishop of Munich, the pope approved a pedophilic priest to undergo therapy, and, despite warnings from a therapist, the priest was later allowed to return to parish duties, whereupon he continued to molest children. Whether or not the pope knew about the priest’s re-instatement is somewhat irrelevant, as the ruling happened under his watch.

Is the Church protecting sinners or criminals?

As Cardinal Ratzinger, he was head of the Vatican body investigating these abuses by priests, he argued that it would be wrong to hand the accused priests to secular authorities. In his persuasion, and he wrote confidentially to bishops around the world in 2001, the issue should be investigated with “utmost secrecy” within the church and as much as possible, avoiding public and media attention.

In not adopting a zero-tolerance policy for abusive priests, the Catholic Church closes its eyes toward justice. However, when it is forced, like now, to open its eyes in the face of its own institutional crimes and sins, the Catholic Church still will not take full responsibility for its evasive policies and wayward clerics.

Catholic Church Imploding

Kung doesn't hesitate to indict Pope Benedict for his role in this unprecedented moral leadership crisis ~ " There is no denying the fact that the worldwide system of covering up cases of sexual crimes committed by clerics was engineered by the Roman Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under Cardinal Ratzinger (1981-2005). During the reign of Pope John Paul II, that congregation had already taken charge of all such cases under oath of strictest silence. Ratzinger himself, on May 18th, 2001, sent a solemn document to all the bishops dealing with severe crimes ( "epistula de delictis gravioribus" ), in which cases of abuse were sealed under the "secretum pontificium" , the violation of which could entail grave ecclesiastical penalties. With good reason, therefore, many people have expected a personal mea culpa on the part of the former prefect and current pope. Instead, the pope passed up the opportunity afforded by Holy Week: On Easter Sunday, he had his innocence proclaimed "urbi et orbi" by the dean of the College of Cardinals."--71.191.26.127 (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

We've read them. I think you need to read more, or perhaps brush up on wiki policies again. Like the pope's letter? He never refused to defrock the priest. In fact, he wound up defrocking that priest, and the priest was arrested and prosecuted. What he called for in the letter, which you claim as the source for the article section in question, is a further investigation before action is taken. This has actually already been explained to you. What you are doing is selectively citing sources that help you vilify the church, whilst trying to hide the other half of the story. In addition, believe it or not, because a cover up of this magnitude is so severe, we need an equally "severe" source. What you have cited thus far, does not actually qualify. What we would need would be an actual court document in which the pope was actually convicted of said cover up. Until then, it is just an allegation.Farsight001 (talk)

Agreed. Most of these stories are inaccurate, highly-opinionated journalism, the factual basis of which has been exploded across the more honest sections of the media. Cardinal Ratzinger wasn't even informed that the priest was accused of grave crimes - only that he wanted to leave the priesthood. And the letter was A) mistranslated, and B) a standard form letter. see here The same goes for the other press allegations. As for Kung. He has been an opponent of the Catholic mainstream for thirty years, and was dismissed as a catholic theologian decades ago. His view is just that, his personal view. Our anonymous contributor seems to have revealed where he is coming from, describing himself as a "devout Christian" - a self-description often used by fundamentalist groups, many of which are hostile to Catholicism. Such groups are also affected by child-abuse and cover-ups. [10]. The main point, however, is that we are not here to regurgitate or give prominence to the worst examples of lurid journalism - but to present facts in a balanced manner from reliable sources. Xandar 22:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps our anonymous "devout Christian" needs a few lessons in what is and what isn't acceptable in an encyclopedia. This editor keeps adding an alleged translation of an unreferenced quotation attributed to Ratzinger ( together with some unacceptable personal commentary about what the alleged quotation proves ) and when it's removed justs puts it straight back in while falsely claiming that it is "perfectly referenced" ( when it's not referenced at all ) and also falsely accusing me of "vandalism" when I remove it. In my dictionary this is called "lying" and isn't the sort of behaviour that one should expect from a so-called "devout Christian". Our anonymous editor should take some time out to study the relevant Wikipedia policies on unreferenced and contentious BLP matters. If you can't reference the alleged quotation then it will be removed on the basis of policies - as will any personal opinions / commentary / original research / prejudices etc. Afterwriting (talk) 08:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

---

I advise all three defenders of the pope's innocence avoiding strong and baseless disqualifications of the media reports and of those who accept them as truthful and impartial. As an addition to the reading proposed by 71.191.26.127, please read here

Last week, the Vatican for the first time issued guidelines telling bishops they should report cases of abusive priests to police where civil laws require it. While the Vatican has insisted that was long its policy, it was never written explicitly and victims, lawyers, government-backed inquiries and grand juries have all accused the church of mounting a cover-up to keep clerical abuse secret and away from civil jurisdiction.

--166.32.193.81 (talk) 15:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

In case you haven't noticed it, an important word in this is "accused". For encyclopedia purposes - as well as legal purposes - an accusation of something isn't a proof of factual truth. I would have thought that this is a case of the "bleeding obvious". Afterwriting (talk) 07:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Shakeshaft's quote and statistics

user:Haldraper, why do you keep removing Charol Shakeshaft's quote and statistics? Why are the Shakeshaft's quotes and statistics not about overemphasis in US media coverage? joo (talk) 01:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Hofstra University Prof. Charol Shakeshaft, the report's author, estimated that about 290,000 students were victimized between 1991 and 2000. "So we think the Catholic Church has a problem?" Shakeshaft told Education Week. "The physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests." http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/90405449.html?elr=KArksc8P:Pc:U0ckkD:aEyKUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU

About 290,000 students were reportedly victimized between 1991 and 2000. Around 10,000 people were reportedly abused by priests between 1950 and 2002.

Hofstra University researcher Charol Shakeshaft looked into the problem, and the first thing that came to her mind when Education Week reported on the study were the daily headlines about the Catholic Church. “[T]hink the Catholic Church has a problem?” she said. “The physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests.” http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/24/opinion/main1933687.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joo (talk • contribs) 02:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that none of the Shakeshaft quotes - unlike the ones from Hoopes and Weigel - relate to the subject of the section: US media coverage of clerical child sex abuse, not the abuse itself but the media's coverage of it. If you've got a quote from her where she discusses how the US media has reported the issue, fine include it. If it's not, then it doesn't belong here. Haldraper (talk) 09:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Weigel cited Shakeshaft's statistics in his criticism of media coverage. 10,000 Catholic cases over 50 years (with 2000 stories in 61 largest papers) vs. some 290,000 over 10 years (with just four stories in 61 papers) sure puts things into perspective, doesn't it? But you simply have to remove a well-sourced statistic that points to a fantastically large number of sexual abuses in the schools (vs. in the church), don't you? One can't help but wonder why. joo (talk) 15:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Haldraper, you've just removed Weigel's citation that: "In the United States alone, there are reportedly some 39 million victims of childhood sexual abuse..." What are you trying to cover up? joo (talk) 23:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The Shakeshaft quotation obviously deals with the US media's selective focus on the Vatican rather than on a much bigger problem occurring in public schools, therefore belongs in "criticism of medial coverage" section. So haldraper has no reason to remove it because it's very relevant to the topic that is being discussed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRickster11 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

"The Shakeshaft quotation obviously deals with the US media's selective focus"? Really? Is that why the words in bold and underlined by Joo above aren't from Shakeshaft herself but a journalist. Her actual quotation is: "Think the Catholic Church has a problem? The physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests." There is no direct criticism of how the media has covered the issue, unlike in Hoopes' and Weigel's quotes. Haldraper (talk) 17:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

That is irrelevant. There has been criticism of the media coverage in the US by several reputable newspapers, which interviewed Carol Shakeshaft, and this information belongs in the "criticism of media coverage" section. The criteria for inclusions for wikipedia is verifiability. The information we're posting is verifiable and reliable, you keep removing it. Please stop.

TheRickster11 (talk) 17:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)TheRickster11

Added more information to criticism of media coverage section

It seems Public schools have been hiding sexual abuse much more so than the Catholic church. For example the State of Maine has enacted laws against disclosing sexual abuse cases to the public. While in California and Hawaii many teachers are serving time behind bars yet hold on to their teaching licensese because the educational board doesn't want undue attention on sex abuse cases. The sources are provided in the main article. TheRickster11 (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)TheRickster11

• The article is not about public schools in USA or elsewhere. Please, remove the irrelevant information.--166.32.193.81 (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not irrelevant information. This section of the article is about the criticism of the media's focus solely on Catholics while ignoring much wider problems in public schools and society in general. For example the Catholic church's policy of secrecy has been widely criticized by the media, but some states of the US, for example Maine have specific laws which mandate keeping sexual abuse cases secret. It's anyone's guess why this problem of epidemic proportions is being ignored by the media. Therefore the information is very relevant.I would ask that you please quit refraining from deleting my contributions, because I'll simply undo if you delete them again.

TheRickster11 (talk) 21:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)TheRickster11

It does have to be verifiable but it also has to be relevant and written in summary style. Surely all the material on this can be covered in a paragraph - or two at most? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree that the material can be summarized. Let me try. joo (talk) 23:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Vatican responses

Here is a visible intention to whitewash the crime of Vatican. The whole section shall be shortened and cleaned of garbage which has no informative value at all.--71.191.26.127 (talk) 00:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

So...what? You're king of the article now and it has to be your way or else? Get a clue. You started with several people on your side and all of them that I see have since switched. Why? Because almost none of your edits have merit. Repeated BLP violations actually fall into the realm of ILLEGAL, and no amount of explaining things to you gets you to listen. Therefore WP:DNFTT. I suggest that people simply revert edits made by this IP. It boggles my mind why he hasn't been blocked yet.Farsight001 (talk) 02:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm amazed too, Farsight001. 71.191.26.127 (hiding behind an IP and not logging in), do you understand that Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia? All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors. joo (talk) 02:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Here, here. Wikipedia isn't a soapbox for personal prejudices. Anyone who keeps abusing articles in this way should be blocked indefinitely as quickly as possible. All they achieve is wasting the time of responsible editors who actually want articles to be properly developed. Afterwriting (talk) 17:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree the aforementioned user should be blocked because he's not adding any reliable information to the article, and only vandalising the changes made by others at his whim and he's not following wikipedia guidelines. TheRickster11 (talk) 22:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)TheRickster11

COI disclosure

I have added an EL to the mainpage. Because I am the author of that EL, other editors should review/retain/remove it as appropriate.— James Cantor (talk) 13:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi! What is an EL? 219.74.33.25 (talk) 12:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Homosexuality Theory

@Joo What are you trying to accomplish by inserting nonsense about NAMBLA and quoting a hate group such as Family Research Institute? Why all this anti-gay propaganda?--Dvd-junkie (talk) 05:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

@Dvd-junkie:

(1) You need to put my name in proper wiki formatting (as I've put here) before I can see your message.

(2) The NAMBLA reference is not nonsense. It is a fact (documented on Wikipedia itself at NAMBLA and at the jstor reference I gave) and a significant fact that NAMBLA was a member group (for 10 years!) of ILGA a homosexual organization that has consultative rights to the UN and European Commission. If NAMBLA (the pedophile group) is not homosexual, what was it doing inside ILGA?

(3) How is Family Research Institute a hate group? Who defines it as a hate group? And not worthy of having its views and research being represented here? Even if it is, aren't Dawkins and Hitchens also reacting out of hate? They should be removed as well then.

(4) You have removed references to research studies made by more than the Family Research Institute. You've also removed (a) the Freund, Heasman, Racansky, and Glancy study, (b) the Erickson, Walbek, Sely study, (c) the K. Freud and R. I. Watson study, (d) the United States Army, Office of Judge Advocate study, (e) the Archives of Sexual Behavior study. Please explain your deletions. joo (talk) 06:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Even if you disagree, even if you think the other party is responding out of hate:

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia? All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors.

I disagree with many things written on this article. I think that Dawkins, Hitchens and most of the media reports on the Catholic sex abuse issues are reacting out of hate. But I don't remove their quotations or references. joo (talk) 06:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The NAMBLA thing is incredibly controversial, so I presume there are multiple reliable sources backing it up? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see the following: joo (talk) 06:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAMBLA#The_International_Lesbian_and_Gay_Association_controversy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ILGA#Controversy_and_loss_of_UN_consultative_status

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.mega.nu/ampp/baldwin_pedophilia_homosexuality.pdf

btw did you have a message for me? I couldn't find it on your talk page, so I deleted the notification. joo (talk) 06:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

"ILGA itself had hosted workshops on pedophilia and passed resolutions in 1985, 1988, and 1990 to abolish age of consent laws claiming that "same sex age of consent laws often operate to oppress and not to protect" and supported "the right of every individual, regardless of age, to explore and develop her or his sexuality."26 Eventually, reacting to congressional legislation threatening the reduction of $119 million in financial support, the United Nations kicked out ILGA in 1995 for refusing to sever ties with a half dozen member groups that advocated or promoted pedophilia. Revealingly, even though ILGA did expel NAMBLA (many say it was for show), it could not muster enough support among its membership to expel other more powerful and discreet pro-pedophile organizations from Germany and other countries. It is extremely revealing that the majority of members of the world’s leading homosexual coalition, the ILGA, decided they would rather be excluded from UN deliberations than vote out groups that advocate sex with children.27"

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.mega.nu/ampp/baldwin_pedophilia_homosexuality.pdf

"...over the last fifteen years the homosexual community and its academic allies have published a large quantity of articles that claim sex with children is not harmful to children but, as stated in one homosexual journal, "constitute an aspect of gay and lesbian life."28 Such articles have appeared in pro-homosexual academic journals such as The Journal of Homosexuality, The Journal of Sex Research, Archives of Sexual Behavior, and The International Journal of Medicine and Law. The editorial board of the leading pedophile academic journal, Paidika, is dominated by prominent homosexual scholars such as San Francisco State University professor John DeCecco, who happens to edit the Journal of Homosexuality."

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.mega.nu/ampp/baldwin_pedophilia_homosexuality.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joo (talk • contribs) 07:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

"mainstream gay publications make no effort to hide their pro-pedophilia views. For example, BLK, a leading black homosexual publication, defended pedophilia with an article entitled, "Must Men Who Love Boys Be Guilty of Sexual Misconduct?"30 San Francisco’s leading homosexual newspaper, The Sentinel, bluntly editorialized, "The love between man and boys is at the foundation of homosexuality."31 In 1995, the homosexual magazine Guide stated:

We can be proud that the gay movement has been home to the few voices who have had the courage to say out loud that children are naturally sexual, that they deserve the right to sexual expression with whoever they choose . . . [w]e must listen to our prophets. Instead of fearing being labeled pedophiles, we must proudly proclaim that sex is good, including children’s sexuality . . . . We must do it for the children’s sake.32

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.mega.nu/ampp/baldwin_pedophilia_homosexuality.pdf joo (talk) 07:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

@joo:

The deletions happened during an editing conflict – I simply copied and pasted my edit.

Really? Very well.joo (talk) 00:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

NAMBLA's self-serving comment doesn't represent gays just as the Ku Klux Klan doesn't represent whites.

NAMBLA was a member group of ILGA for 10 years. ILGA organised pedophile seminars, called for age of consent to be lowered, etc. Ku Klux Klan wasn't a member group of a large public group with lots of power, say, the Senate and the Senate didn't organize seminars for the Ku Klux Klan. joo (talk) 00:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Who considers the Family Research Institute a hate group? The Southern Poverty Law Center, for example. The FRT's anti-gay stance is hardly a secret. As for their founder, considerable controversy surrounds Dr. Cameron and his research. The American Psychological Association dropped Cameron from its membership for a violation of the Preamble to the Ethical Principles of Psychologists. The Nebraska Psychological Association adopted a resolution stating that it "formally disassociates itself from the representations and interpretations of scientific literature offered by Dr. Paul Cameron in his writings and public statements on sexuality. Cameron's credibility was also questioned outside of academia. In his written opinion in Baker v. Wade (1985), Judge Buchmeyer of the U.S. District Court of Dallas referred to "Cameron's sworn statement that 'homosexuals abuse children at a proportionately greater incident than do heterosexuals,'" and concluded that "Dr. Paul Cameron...has himself made misrepresentations to this Court" and that "There has been no fraud or misrepresentations except by Dr. Cameron".

The Southern Poverty Law Center has an explicit pro-gay agenda. Calling the FRT (and many other groups who oppose homosexual acts) hate groups seems to be a major part of its activities. With regards to misrepresentations by Dr Cameron, I would prefer to read the details of the problem before making such a judgment. Otherwise, it's possible that those who accuse him basically have an agenda of their own. joo (talk) 00:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

By quoting the geek squad the ratio is a tad bit skewed. Why don't you present representable studies?

Cite me some of the studies which you claim are in the majority. I only found one or two and they talk about homosexuality and pedophilia. These cases involve mostly pederasts (over 81 percent) and not pedophiles. joo (talk) 00:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, please explain your anti-gay propaganda! Your edits over-represent a scientific minority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvd-junkie (talk • contribs) 07:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not anti-gay. That's your perception. I have a few gay friends but I cannot ignore the problems that somehow plague the gay community. I'm Catholic but not with blinkers. I want to defend the Church, but I have no intention of distorting the truth. Give me information and references that can convince me. joo (talk) 00:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

@Joo, none of those sources look reliable to me... I was hoping for something along the lines of the New York Times or a Scientific Journal. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The NAMBLA information regarding its participation in ILGA looks pretty well documented, and so probably deserves mention in any discussion of the homosexuality controversy. Links cannot be denied if they do exist. Xandar 23:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Eraserhead1, is the New York Times a reliable source? I'm afraid it has stopped being one. As for what "reliable sources" means, I've just taken a closer look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources and I think my references stand just fine. E.g. The Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy is an independent journals under the leadership of Robert Taylor Segraves. The Archives of Sexual Behavior is the official Publication of the International Academy of Sex Research. The Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy is a peer-reviewed scientific journal published by Routledge. The United States Army, Office of Judge Advocate, should be reliable... don't you diagree? joo (talk) 00:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins & Christopher Hitchens proposed lawsuit

Several users keep removing information about this. I have seen some people refer to this as a BLP violation. I don't understand how including the proposed lawsuit in this entry is any sort of violation of wikipedia's policies. Mrbusta (talk) 16:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed it on the grounds that it was in a section where it didn't self-evidently belong without some indication of its relevance - not for BLP violations as such. I am not against including it per se but it needs to be placed within an appropriate section with some further information. Afterwriting (talk) 17:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I've been removing it because it states the pope's culpability as a fact when there is as of yet even a case brought up against him. For us to state his culpability as though it were fact, we would need an actual conviction. That particular entry was also filled with SYNTH and had, IMO, a rather pov tone to it.Farsight001 (talk) 17:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Plus I'm not sure it holds enough relevance and am to understand that Dawkins has since retracted his call to do this. The BLP violation alone was enough, but add all this together and it just doesn't seem to belong at all.Farsight001 (talk) 17:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It has way more relevance that the page of content on whether homosexuality is related to pedophillia... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. I don't care what Dawkins and Hitchens are going to do. Their accusations don't hold any water. Catholic priests worldwide do not commit more sexual abuses than another other church denomination. In fact, the abuse is lower than the general population and much lower than that in the public schools of USA (according Shakeshaft's statistics). And the alleged cover-ups comprise only a small percentage of bishops and could not be a systemic thing. See tabulated John Jay statistics at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases#United_States_5 - where the allegation were substantiated or credible, around half the priests were suspended. Around 10-20 percent of the priests were dead or inactive at the time of allegations. Around 29 percent retired or resigned. About 6 percent sought laicization and were removed from clergy. The Church officials may be mostly guilty of forgiving too much but of systemic cover-up. joo (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, the section on whether homosexuality is related to pedophillia is very relevant. distinguished Professor Philip Jenkins said "Of the 2,200 priests, just one was a pedophile." The vast majority are pederasts who abused adolescents aged 11-19. See Pederasty: "Pederasty is the archetypal example of male age-structured homosexuality." (Sandfort, Theo (2000). Lesbian and gay studies: an introductory, interdisciplinary approach. SAGE. ISBN 076195418X.) joo (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

PS here's what Dawkins has to say on the legal challenge: http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5415. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The "challenge" is a publicity stunt which Dawkins himself couldn't justify see here. It deserves as much credibility as any other self-promoting media publicity stunt. Xandar 23:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• To Mrbusta. There are many other who want to see these criminals under priest's robe there where they shall be - in jail. The misery of this article is a great number of the Roman Catholic Church sycophants who are regularly censoring the text not allowing the whole truth to be seen. All these 'distinguished scholars' with all their percents and comparisons are in the same line as these few here who knows what is the right question and the right answer to the right question. The irony is that all their efforts of whitewashing and further suppressing the truth and all Ratzinger's crocodile tears shed are and will be in vain.--71.191.26.127 (talk) 00:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)