Talk:Catholic Church sexual abuse cases

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.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.37.24.56 (talk) 14:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Thomas Plante quote issues

A Perspective on Clergy Sexual Abuse by Dr. Thomas Plante of Stanford University and Santa Clara University states 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" which "is consistent with male clergy from other religious traditions and is significantly lower than the general adult male population which may double these numbers".

1.) Dr. Thomas Plante is a full professor at Santa Clara University (a Catholic school), and only a clinical associate professor (volunteer role) at Stanford -- he is not on their academic staff. I propose removing "Stanford University" as he does not represent Stanford academia or research. See his CV.

So we can change to "professor at Santa Clara University and clinical associate professor at Stanford" 194.76.232.147 (talk) 09:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

2.) Additionally Dr. Plante is a practicing, active Catholic himself and serves on the Diocese Review Board for Diocese of San Jose among other functions. I believe this possible conflict of interest should be mentioned, at the least. Thoughts on that?

The only thing that is important should be his qualification. As long as no one disputes his remarks from a scientific point of view, there should be no mention of other highly disputable "factors". 194.76.232.147 (talk) 09:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

3.) What is the Wikipedia-worthy significance of this quote, as there is question to his impartiality and is not a notable expert on the topic? Also the percentages he mention don't match up with Wikipedia's own article on pedophilia. Can we remove this controversial quote or at least write-in the appropriate caveats? aerotheque (talk) 03:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

He is an expert on the topic as are a lot of other psychologists. If there are contradictions, they should simply be mentioned. The importance of the quote derives from his estimation on the scope of sexual abuse. 194.76.232.147 (talk) 09:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

In the WP-article on pedophilia it's written:

The prevalence of pedophilia in the general population is not known, but is estimated to be lower than 5% based on several smaller studies with prevalence rates between 3% and 9%.

So the ratio is estimated at 5% or lower based on smaller studies who showed a prevalence of even 9 %. That seems to be consistent with Plante's estimation.--Ricerca (talk) 15:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Disputed

Sections covering statistics and accuracy are far from being accurate and up-to-date. The complete information about the abuse scope (abuse?! - why not about rape and sexual assaults?) is not known nor ever will be known, on one side. On another side, we have a huge amount of information not covered by this article. There is, also, excessive use of another bad word: alleged.--71.178.110.201 (talk) 23:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that you are right by criticizing the lack of information in that article. Feel free to ad. On the other side, this is not a documentation and reliable scientific literature on these cases is until today very rare. So there is at the moment a little problem with WP:RECENT and consequently good reason to take the time to better estimate the importance of certain facts. Apart from that: "Alleged" is a very precise word for things, that are only alleged. And that is the case in a lot of abuse cases concerned by this article. So the word is not bad at all, if it's well used. Ricerca (talk) 17:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The statistics comes from a report commissioned by Roman Catholic Church and based on incomplete and selective data. It shall be removed completely and just mentioned in this article within a single sentence. As to the media coverage, it shall be reduced to two or three sentences just used to illustrate the Church attempt to divert public attention to somewhere else i.e. to make the Church crimes of lesser severity. 'Alleged', as used here, is far from being precise. Apparently there are many who wants this article written in the Church line. The Church crimes shall not be obscured by extensive use of this word (alleged) in the article.--Eleven Nine (talk) 13:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

"based on incomplete and selective data" is the reason why it is inaccurate to talk about "cases", if there are in fact allegations. Presumption of innocence applies also to priests and other catholics. And the problem on the abuse cases and the John-Jay-Report is very simple: there is no other data. Even bishopaccountability works with it.

Concerning the media article I think there are also well based criticisms to the media on the handling of that issue. These criticisms should be mentioned like all the other stuff. Ricerca (talk) 13:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It is laughable that evidence about those heinous crimes committed by RCC priests are just marked here as 'allegations'. "Presumption of innocence" lasts more than a half of century testifying only about lies and obstruction of justice. The article is chocked by the "church responses" which is in the line of the above "presumption". So, the way to improve the article is to completely drop the "Church responses" replacing it by what was the real church response: self defense based on lies, deception, and obstruction of justice.--Eleven Nine (talk) 12:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

No one wants to rename committed crimes. But for good reason there is a difference between proven and alleged (or accused and convicted). So it is the best to distinguish and name the things according to what they are. --Ricerca (talk) 15:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

'Alleged' is not alleged at all. Many of those who committed that horrible crime of raping innocent and helpless children remained at large for the widespread coverup and obstruction of justice committed by the RCC and Vatican. The cash settlements were used to force the victims to give up their legal rights to name those criminals and have them brought to the court and punished. Especially in Ireland where in this coverup is involved even the Irish prime minister Enda Keny. Bottom line: shall we name the crime covered up by the cash settlements just "allegations"?! Read here more about this man: http://www.swp.ie/news/cloyne-report-kenny-still-covering-clergy/4748--71.178.110.201 (talk) 23:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Settlements don't confirm guilt. They may suggest it, but there are other reasons why someone might choose to settle instead of going to court. Generally, we need to use alleged until the crimes are proven in court, especially where living people are concerned. - Bilby (talk) 23:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Certainly the settlements ARE about guilt and crime. If there were not guilt and crime then why to have them? And 'we' are who? RCC? Roman Pope? I see many credible authors and publications with the credibility and knowledge far above the anonymous Wikipedia users confirming clearly what I see: the crime is crime.--71.178.110.201 (talk) 00:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

"We" as in "people developing this article". And no, settlements can be for a number of reasons, not all of which entail guilt. We can say that a settlement was reached out of court and allow the readers to draw their own conclusions, but unless the settlement involved an acknowledgement of guilt, we can't specifically say here that the crimes were more than alleged. - Bilby (talk) 00:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

"we can't specifically say here that the crimes were more than alleged"!!! This blind refusal to see the truth outside the scope of meaningless phrase drives me out this discussion with you for good.--71.178.110.201 (talk) 03:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)--71.178.110.201 (talk) 03:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Listen IP71. Here's the thing. Alleged is a necessity. In the cases where the accused are still living, it is legally necessary because calling them guilty without an admission from them or a court declaration would be libel and wikipedia can get sued for it. Getting incredulous because another user prefers precise and more accurate wording isn't going to change anything either.Farsight001 (talk) 03:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I did read in another section about the Catholic church about the increased numbers of Catholic church members. I was wondering if there have ever been any decent/accurate surveys of how many members have actually left the church becuase of the sexual abuse scandals??Mylittlezach (talk) 23:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I found some articles proving the opposite. There is a large number of people in Germany, Austria and Ireland who legally abandoned the RCC. Also, there is a huge dropout in the number of regular churchgoers in the USA. I remember that a couple years ago that dropout was about 25%. The RCC never gave a true account about losing her position in the West. I assume they got some gains in underdeveloped world, especially in Africa.--71.178.110.201 (talk) 23:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

And? First of all, people don't "legally" abandon the Church. They simply stop going or convert to a different denomination. It's not a legal matter. Second, if they are the articles I am thinking of (another user tried to use them in the past (or was it you then too?), and they don't say what is implied. Yes, many people are leaving the Church in those regions, but still more are joining the Church in those same regions. And there is a huge dropout of regular churchgoers in all denominations. That would be something of note in, for example, an article on the adherence to Christian beliefs in general. What does it have to do with Catholic sex abuse cases specifically? Very little. Farsight001 (talk) 12:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

You do not know what are you talking about. In Austria and Germany each taxpayer is subject of a tax portion that goes to the RCC. So, there are LEGAL document(s) confirming that a taxpayer left the RCC which explains my earlier comment. It does have a lot to do with pedophilia of the RCC priests; it prompted a great number of people in Germany and Austria to leave the RCC finding it immoral to further financially support this church.--71.178.110.201 (talk) 22:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Still pretty sure I know what I'm talking about. The government is not the Church. You don't have to submit a legal document to the government outlining that you are leaving the Church. And if they don't want to financially support the Church, then they stop listing themselves as Catholic in legal documentation. That, however, does not make one non-Catholic. How many of them are happily Catholic but just don't want to give the money? We don't know, so we cannot come to the conclusion you want based on that. And again, there is no mention of how many are joining the Church. People leave and join the Church every day. Are more joining than leaving? We don't know. So we can't say either way.Farsight001 (talk) 02:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

This article is no more than a Roman Catholic Church blog

Per discussion below, everyone seems to agree that the content isn't incredibly useful, or is a rant in violation of WP:SOAP. Please make future requests specific to the article content, with examples.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"The Catholic Church", said de Foxa, "has given evidence of being able to exist without the Gospels". (from K. Malaparte's Kaputt, Summer Night head) This article is written strictly in the Vatican line of self-defense. There is more than 5 pages of the Church response written in a deceptive and lying manner: we sinned but other too, much more we do; we did this and that in that year, we said this and that there and here, we shed crocodile tears a countless number of times. Of course, we never ever reported anyone to police, send to the civil courts ever never anyone, never ever helped and protected a single child if not forced legally by the civil authorities to do that. Then there is several equally worthless pages about media coverage, the 'statistics' about this heinous crime of the 'scholars' paid by the Church. Bear on mind that the Church has paid 'scholars' who are regularly confirming that a miracle, much needed to promote some of the Church faithful servants into the Church saint, always happened. Wikipedia is apparently another victim of the Church for being very popular online edition. There is a number of the Church watchdogs here sabotaging any serious discussion and any article improvement or a serious article rewrite. As a consequence, the article does not have place for the victims' views of this crime nor for a serious review of the Church crime in the 20eth and 21st century. As to the great writer, Malaparte was twice excommunicated by some senile bishops for their inability to remember that they already excommunicated him. Nevertheless, when Malaparte was dying in some of Rome's hospitals, some Catholic Church priest tormented him at the death bed by his 'confessions', 'sins' and 'embracing the Church again' About this blog: delete it completely, rewrite it in the line of latest available and collected information about this crime, reduce the Church officials, 'scholars', meetings, sayings, etc, etc, etc to what they are: deceptions, lies, coverups, obstruction of justice.--71.178.110.201 (talk) 13:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC) Thank you for this informative comment.--209.51.184.11 (talk) 12:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Per the discussion below (and edit war over this section), I'm hatting this section, and requesting that further discussion of article improvement be specific, citing examples from the article text with specific suggestions for change. Also, without making any specific accusations, please see WP:SOCK. Thank you.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Farsight

Please, avoid removing someone's comment you do not like here. Your personal opinion is not Wikipedia policy. Calling it rant you are slipping into personal attacks i.e. violating Wikipedia's No personal attacks rule!--209.51.184.11 (talk) 12:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

But it's not my personal opinion. If you are not trying to improve the article with the comment, as you very VERY clearly were not, it should, by policy, be deleted or hatted. Technically this comment, since it's purpose is also not article improvement, should be removed as well. Talk pages are for article improvement ONLY. Also, calling another user's edit disruptive or a rant is not considered a personal attack. It would have to be a direct insult.Farsight001 (talk) 12:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Read twice the comment you are removing. It is about the article improvement. It points at undue weight: the Catholic Church point of view covers more than 80% of the whole article.--66.151.103.9 (talk) 21:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I read the comment half a dozen times by now. No, it's not. It's an angry rant because the article is not a scathing expose. Posts for article improvement tend to mention a specific issue, citing specific paragraphs, not a general disparagement of the article as a whole.Farsight001 (talk) 05:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

You are forgetting the fact that some other people (I count four, me excluded) do not share your interpretation of the Wikipedia's policy. Cooperativity and mutual respect of all users are mandatory. The comment you are removing is a bit harsh, but still points correctly and fairly at many article defects: the Roman catholic Church point of view is prevalent, nothing about victim's perception of this crime, little or no place for opinions of lawyers, independent researchers, etc.--Eleven Nine (talk) 11:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't count 4. Where are you getting that from? I count one IP hopper who thinks no one would be able to tell he's all the same person, posting from multiple IPs to make it look like more people agree with him. And again, as I already said above, vague statements about the state of the article in general do not provide any pathway toward article improvement. Also what article are you reading that you think there is nothing about the victim's perception and the opinion of lawyers or independent researchers? The comment does not belong. Period. This is not my interpretation of policy. I have seen literally hundreds of times now much softer comments than that removed for the very reason I removed this one. Re-adding it is disruptive. Cease and desist.Farsight001 (talk) 13:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• Please, base your accusations on solid proofs. You pretend knowing both correct questions and correct answers. It's a bad idea to put yourself above others then draw conclusions out of blue. Sturunner is hopper too? Me too?--Eleven Nine (talk) 17:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Solid proofs? Like how one of you stops posting the moment the other one starts? How you have near identical edit histories and typing styles? Sturunner is not an IP hopper no, but there have been definite issues with him in the past in other subjects. But this is all besides the point - that the rant, and technically this thread too, have no merit towards improving the article and therefore are, by policy, to be deleted. It is a violation of policy and it is disruptive to re-add such a comment, and from now on out, will be considered vandalism if re-added. This conversation is over and will be hatted in 24 hours regardless of further posts made in it.Farsight001 (talk) 18:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't you think that you crossed the line of basic civilty rules in a bad direction? What else you are doing here except ranting? Denying, refusing, attacking? Behaving as if this article belongs only to you? I would like to say that, from the history of this page, there are two or three other account names behind which is the same brain. May I ask you who elevated you to be exclusive and authoritative interpreter of the Wikipedia's policy? If all you are ranting about "is all besides the point" then what makes you attacking people that way?--Eleven Nine (talk) 20:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• I think this continued removal of the comment is unacceptable conduct. Let it go. The comment while not perfect is discussing content. I'm more than happy to escalate this if its really needed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Fuck no, I'm not letting it go. It's a rant. You know it's a rant. I know it's a rant. The poster knows it's a rant. It is inappropriate talk page text and by policy it must go. You've been around long enough to know this. I'm not letting people bully me into getting their way like this anymore. It is a violation, therefore it is removed. It's that simple. You give them an inch, and they will take a mile. If they don't want to follow the policies of wikipedia, then we should make it clear to them that they can fuck off somewhere else. It'd be one thing if they just didn't know, but clearly, they are intentionally pushing limits and refusing to accept the correction of more knowledgeable editors (which was, at first, charitable). They're here to push buttons and get their way, not to collaborate. Don't tolerate that crap.Farsight001 (talk) 02:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

There is 6 people which think that's ok to have the comment you are continually removing. The only one who is ranting here is you. Therefore, putting back the comment. Please, do be reasonable.--Eleven Nine (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

There's not 6 people. There's an ip hopper trying to bully and push the article into the direction he wants it by acting like he's more people than he really is, there's Eraserhead who doesn't seem to exactly get what's going on, and there's Sturunner who is...well...Sturunner. If you annoy him, he spends the next week trying to piss you off any way he can, even if he doesn't agree with what he's saying. This bullshit needs to stop. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, so start collaborating. This means specific suggestions for article improvement, not a generalized gripe about the state of the article which you personally don't like, and it ESPECIALLY doesn't mean starting a new thread in an article talk page that targets another user specifically. If it had been posted anywhere, it should have been placed on my talk page. That's why I'm hatting this in a couple hours as well.Farsight001 (talk) 20:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Guys, this isn't constructive. It's also cluttering my watchlist with garbage. Yes, the comment is a rant which is unlikely to improve the article. Yes, it is technically discussing the article content, and probably isn't doing any harm by staying. If it stays and draws unconstructive attention, then it can be hatted or archived. If it goes, it's not really a big loss. It's not that big of a deal. Both of you are edit warring, and are collectively gunning for a block or page protection, which will be even less constructive. Please drop it.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I went and gave the IP a warning about it originally. However while it could be better written it isn't exactly the least constructive piece ever written and should stay. By making such a big deal about it you are giving it far more importance than it deserves. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

As a compromise, I've reverted the removal, and hatted the section. Now it's there for everyone to read if they wish, without cluttering up the page. I also added a request to the bottom that future discussion should center on specific content in the article, with examples. This should be sufficient for everyone. If the edit war continues over this content, I will escalate it to AN3, which won't be good for anyone. I think we can all let this go. Anyone who wishes to also hat this section would be welcome to, since it's even less useful.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Introductory and Scope and Nature sections

• Introductory

The Pope's point of view expressed as "He declared in 2001 that 'a sin against the Sixth Commandment ' " is not a knowledge worth to be here and shall not be in this section. A common man's perception of this crime is that IS THE CRIME then it is a sin.

• Scope and Nature

Plante's (a Roman catholic Church author) 'conclusion': "is consistent with male clergy from other religious traditions and is significantly lower than the general adult male population which may double these number" comes out of blue and shall be removed along with all other attempts to prove the 'we are not worse than others' Catholic Church mantra. As a proof of rejections of this mantra I offer:

When one considers the fact that this is the very institution that has produced and sheltered an elite army of child-molesters, the whole enterprise begins to exude a truly diabolical aura of misspent human energy.

from Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris, Random House Digital, Inc., 2008 page 66 See also http://www.samharris.org

John Manly, the Newport Beach attorney, who had represented Ryan DiMaria and hundreeds of wictims of clergy sexual abuse since 2001. ... His research shows about 6 percent of Catholic priests molest minors.

from Losing my religion: how I lost my faith reporting on religion in America--and found unexpected peace by William Lobdell, HarperCollins, 2009 page 218

Covering Up Evil from (read the whole section)

from Meeting the Ethical Challenges of Leadership: Casting Light Or Shadow by Craig Edward Johnson SAGE, 2008 page 129

Rodriguez notes that various estimates of the number of priests, and even bishops, who abuse minors range from 3 percent to 6 percent, though the figure for Spain may be even higher,

from Child Abuse by Lucinda Almond, Greenhaven Press, 2006 page 39

Estimates of the number of priests accused of child sexual abuse, the number of victims, and the number of incidents of abuse within the Catholic Church are based on allegations recorded in church personnel files, court filings, and media reports. Since many victims never disclose their abuses, the estimates are, by all accounts, low, and there is no way of knowing by just how much. There are also estimates of the number of priests who sexually abuse children based on clinical experience or small survey samples, but these do not support reliable generalizations.

from Holding bishops accountable: how lawsuits helped the Catholic Church confront clergy sexual abuse by Timothy D. Lytton; Harvard University Press, 2008

The last one I consider the more serious response to the Plante's commissioned by the Church 'statistics'

Bottom line. In order to improve these two sections, I propose removal of the Polish Pope's mantra about the sin and Plante's 'statistics'. The replacement should be for Plante and the likes Timothy D. Lytton--71.178.110.201 (talk) 19:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Pardon my french, but who the fuck are you to tell us what "shall" be removed? Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, which means you work WITH everyone, including us stinking, evil, propagandist Catholics. There is no "shall be removed" and there is no "mantra" without a consensus. Keep that in mind for future discussions.Farsight001 (talk) 20:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I was a Catholic once; thanks for admitting your bias, but please try to see beyond it. Letting a child come to harm is a despicable crime, but aiding and abetting those who harm children, so that they escape justice? That's monstrous. IP71.178.110.201's point is a little confused at times (I don't think he or she is a native English speaker), but the gist, I think, is to unbias the article -- which is always for the better on Wikipedia. Stolengood (talk) 18:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

First of all, where did I admit bias? Second of all, my bias, just like your bias, is irrelevant as long as it is not controlling us. Third, this is not a forum. We are here to discuss improvement to the article, not how abhorrent we think child abuse is, or any theories on supposed aiding and abetting the perpetrators. Fourth, I don't think that was the gist of what he was getting at. He's edited before under different IP's and he wanted it turned into a scathing hit piece that implied that seemed to imply that every single priest was a repeat offender and that every Catholic thinks it's a great thing. Fifth, even if the gist was actually to unbias the article, simply saying so doesn't help. Specific examples are needed with merit and reason and discussion that in some articles can take months. Without that, there's nothing really to do.Farsight001 (talk) 03:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I've already warned you to avoid personal attacks and incivilties. Moreover, I accidentally came across of some earlier warning against the same nature of your behavior here. "He's edited before under different IP's and he wanted it turned into a scathing hit piece that implied that seemed to imply that every single priest was a repeat offender and that every Catholic thinks it's a great thing"?!! It seems to me that you cannot help yourself get out of this perpetual rant. You'll force me to escalate this case demanding block on you account .--Eleven Nine (talk) 14:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead and try. What I said wasn't a personal attack, here or there. "Personal attack" has a specific meaning on wikipedia and what I said does not qualify as one, or as any real policy violation at all. Now if you don't have something to add to the discussion, please desist. Warnings of this nature should typically go on a user's talk page (only when justified, of course).Farsight001 (talk) 14:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)