Talk:Catholic Church sexual abuse cases

criticism of secrecy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Undid edits by 94.223.112.246

I've undone the last few edits, by user 94.223.112.246. It's not that the information isn't interesting, it's because this page is about Catholic sex abuse in a global context. I know most cases have happened in the U.S. and it's understandable that it should be weighted towards the U.S., but the page Catholic sexual abuse scandal in the United States already exists and in my opinion this page is already too U.S.-centric. The information added by 94.223.112.246 is just too detailed for this page. Obscurasky (talk) 10:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

New? Relevant info

Portal:Current_events#2011_May_16 shows this text (below) which probably needs to be incorporated into article somewhere

• The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in the Vatican tells Roman Catholic to cooperate with police in investigating alleged sexual abuse by clergy. (AP)

EdwardLane (talk) 10:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Australia section

I have been removing the recent Australia section comments because they are unreferenced commentary and - therefore - considered as original research. The comments also refer in a misleading way to accusations against Cardinal Pell which were not in fact sustained. As far as I am concerned it is a BLP violation to refer to such accusations without also mentioning this fact. Therefore I have removed all the recent Australian comments due to their policy problems Anglicanus (talk) 06:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Christopher Jarvis

Christopher Jarvis recently admitted to 12 counts of making, possessing and distributing child pornography, ironically he was a child protection official for the Catholic church. Here's a source: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/07/31/church-child-protection-chief-caught-with-child-porn-pictures-115875-23308972/

I think it's worth mentioning in the 2011 section of the article.