Talk:Catholic Church sexual abuse cases

Lead paragraph rewrite needed

I'd like to suggest removing completely or significantly reducing this portion of the lead paragraph

In defending their controversial actions, some bishops and psychiatrists contended that the prevailing psychology of the times suggested that people could be cured of such behavior through counseling. The promoter of justice in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has however made it very clear that the condemnation has always been firm and unequivocal. In an interview, he stated the following "It may be that in the past - perhaps also out of a misdirected desire to protect the good name of the institution - some bishops were, in practice, too indulgent towards this sad phenomenon. And I say in practice because, in principle, the condemnation of this kind of crime has always been firm and unequivocal. Suffice it to recall, to limit ourselves just to last century, the famous Instruction Crimen Sollicitationis of 1922".[4] In response to the widening scandal, Pope John Paul II emphasized the spiritual nature of the offenses as well. He declared in 2001 that "a sin against the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue by a cleric with a minor under 18 years of age is to be considered a grave sin, or delictum gravius."[5] He also gave CDF a broader mandate to address the sex abuse cases from 2001.[6] In 2003, he declared again that "there is no place in the priesthood and religious life for those who would harm the young".[7] With the approval of the Vatican, the hierarchy of the church in the United States instituted reforms to prevent future abuse including requiring background checks for Church employees and volunteers and, noting the preponderance of adolescent males (teenage boys) amongst victims of abuse, warned that a more searching inquiry is necessary for a homosexually oriented man;[8] and the worldwide Church also prohibited the ordination of men with "deep-seated homosexual tendencies".[9]

Members of the church hierarchy have compared the church with the secular world, arguing that media coverage of the issue has been excessive given that abuse occurs in other institutions.[10] Other commentators have said that the scandal highlights deep-seated problems with mandatory celibacy in the priesthood of the Catholic Church and how that institution deals with allegations of child abuse by its clergy[11] while some 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 rate of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church is not higher than in society, other public institutions and other religious denominations.[12]

for being fallacious, declarative (no proper actions leading to effective protection of minors, legal support of the victims, or actions of the Church helping the victims to overcome consequences of the crime committed on them), and aimed to relativise (has been shown that the rate of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church is not higher than in society) the crime of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) hierarchy (the popes and the cardinals).

This is an encyclopedia edition and, by no means, a RCC blog.--71.191.26.33 (talk) 18:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

There do seem to be rather too many "excuses" for the catholic church in the lead - far more that the content obliquely describing what the sex scandals actually are. Those paragraphs should be reduced in size. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• I am all for completely removing the quoted text above. And much more of the excuses in the article.--96.231.80.99 (talk) 01:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You want to get rid of the Catholic, and sometimes non-Catholic responses? And you think *we're* the ones pushing a pov?!Farsight001 (talk) 02:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Where are the non-Catholic responses in the lead? And why are there any comments on homosexuality in the lead? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

New lead

What about the following - I've removed references for now for clarity:

The Catholic sex abuse cases are a series of lawsuits, criminal prosecutions and scandals related to sex crimes (including vaginal and anal rape, molestation and voyeurism) committed by some Catholic priests and members of religious orders, both under diocesan control and in orders which care for the sick or teach children, that first rose to widespread public attention in the last two decades of the 20th century. Although awareness of the widespread scope of these abuses first received significant media attention in Canada, Ireland and the United States, other cases were also reported in a number of other countries. Most of the abuse that has been uncovered occurred in the 1960's and 1970's.

In addition to the actual abuse, much of the scandal focused around the behavior of some members of the Catholic hierarchy who did not report the crimes to civil authorities, and in many cases reassigned the offenders to other locations where they continued to have contact with minors, giving the unrepentant the opportunity to continue their sexual abuse. In defending their controversial actions, some bishops and psychiatrists contended that the prevailing psychology of the time suggested that people could be cured of such behavior through counselling. Members of the church hierarchy have also compared the church with the secular world, arguing that media coverage of the issue has been excessive given that similar or higher levels of abuse occur in other institutions.

In response to the widening scandal, Pope John Paul II emphasized the spiritual nature of the offenses as well. He declared in 2001 that "a sin against the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue by a cleric with a minor under 18 years of age is to be considered a grave sin, or delictum gravius." Additionally with the approval of the Vatican, the hierarchy of the church in the United States instituted reforms to prevent future abuse.

-- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

1) This is far too brief. 2) Maybe "unfortunate unrepentent" should simply be "unrepentent". 3) The Church's responses is much more than what Pope John Paul II has said about the offenses. I'll look into this detailed rewriting of the summary later. joo (talk) 02:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

1) It may be a little brief, but I think its fairly balanced. 2) Done 3) Maybe we could get another sentence in, possibly with a sentence on the secular response as that hasn't been included. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I've added some more comments on the catholic response, though it'd be good to get some comments on the secular response too. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done I've now added this new version to the article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion is to erase completely this:

In defending their controversial actions, some bishops and psychiatrists contended that the prevailing psychology of the times suggested that people could be cured of such behavior through counseling.

In response to the widening scandal, Pope John Paul II emphasized the spiritual nature of the offenses as well. He declared in 2001 that "a sin against the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue by a cleric with a minor under 18 years of age is to be considered a grave sin, or delictum gravius." Members of the church hierarchy have compared the church with the secular world, arguing that media coverage of the issue has been excessive given that similar or higher levels of abuse occur in other institutions.

Main reasons are:

The 'controversial actions' are the crime: obstruction of justice. Voytyla's 'spiritual nature of the offenses' is cynicism, not worth to be mentioned at all. The worst kind of their cynicism is this claim: 'similar or higher levels of abuse occur in other institutions'.

Moreover, please, read these excerpts from a number of articles:

Catholic cardinal accused of coverup

Cardinal Christoph Schonborn this past weekend accused Cardinal Angelo Sodano, a former Vatican secretary of state, of having headed off probes into the alleged sexual abuse by Groer, who had been Schonborn's predecessor in Vienna, The Times of London reported Monday.

Priests kept working despite investigations

The Catholic Church is accused of bungling sex abuse inquiries, with at least two priests continuing to work despite church investigations into the cases.

A Sydney priest, Finian Egan, was found to have groped two girls over many years in the 1980s, yet he was praised at a public Mass in Carlingford last year for 50 years of service.

A Melbourne priest, Patrick Maye, twice celebrated the annual Mass for Victoria's Irish community, despite being banned from acting as a priest after church investigators found that he had committed serious sexual abuse in 1973 by forcing himself on a 31-year-old woman when she was in a vulnerable state.
...
In a statement to the Herald, the Bishop of Broken Bay, David Walker, would only say it would not be appropriate to make any response that could jeopardise the balance of trust that is placed in the church's process of healing.
...
Archbishop Hart also acknowledged the pain his victims would experience on learning of the priest's actions, but has been unwilling to publicise Father Maye's name to ensure he can't act as a priest.
...
One victim said: Dealing with the church itself was a hell of a lot more traumatic than dealing with the abuse.

Hartford Archbishop Urges Parishes To Fight Legislation On Child Sex Abuse Cases

A proposal to extend the civil statute of limitations for child sexual abuse cases could have a "devastating financial effect" on the state's Catholic dioceses, Hartford Archbishop Henry J. Mansell wrote to pastors this week, urging them to include a letter opposing the bill in parish bulletins this weekend.

Governments must step into priest sex abuse cases

Cardinal Brady, back when he was the Rev. Brady in 1975, swore two little boys to secrecy during a church investigation into their abuse by the Rev. Brendan Smythe. In the ensuing 18-year silence, Smythe went on to abuse dozens of other children in Ireland and the United States. He died in Irish prison in 1997.

Vatican's Top American Has Mixed Record on Abuse

"He said, 'Father Conley, you do know what wrestling is, don't you?'" Conley recalled. "And I said, 'As a matter of fact, I do know what wrestling is. It's usually in a gymnasium with all the lights on. It is not a 60-year-old man and a 14-year-old boy in a hallway."
The archbishop is now Cardinal William Levada, the highest-ranking American at the Vatican and head of the office that defrocks pedophile priests.

Bottom line: it's immoral and cynical to have the Catholic Church 'responses' in the leading paragraph.--96.231.80.99 (talk) 23:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

This anononymous editor is a persistent troll hiding behind various IP addresses. Please don't feed the troll! Afterwriting (talk) 08:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, how the catholic church has responded is an important part of it. I also believe that: "In defending their controversial actions, some bishops and psychiatrists contended that the prevailing psychology of the times suggested that people could be cured of such behavior through counseling." can be sourced reliably - if not, then it should be removed as well.

Some further content on the victims might well be appropriate in the lead along with the responses from the church. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

This has been sourced reliably and Haldraper removed all the references that I had added to Applewhite's quotation on 1) no child protective services then, 2) particular behaviors involved not criminalized yet, 3) "We began studying sexual abuse in the 1970s", 4) "discovered it caused real harm in 1978", and 5) "realized perpetrators were difficult to rehabilitate in the 1990s." 6) "During the ’70s when we were sending offenders to treatment, the criminal justice system was doing the very same thing with convicted offenders — sending them to treatment instead of prison." joo (talk) 02:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

"I have seen newspaper articles criticizing officials for not reporting acts of abuse to the civil authorities during years when there were no child protective services and the particular behaviors involved were not criminalized yet . It is fair for criticism of decisions made in the ’60s and ’70s to focus on interpretation of moral behavior, weakness in the resolve of leaders or even the disregard of procedures set out in canon law. By the same token, it is essential to separate this from expectations that are based on the laws and standards of today.

"We began studying sexual abuse in the 1970s, discovered it caused real harm in 1978, and realized perpetrators were difficult to rehabilitate in the 1990s. During the ’70s when we were sending offenders to treatment, the criminal justice system was doing the very same thing with convicted offenders — sending them to treatment instead of prison. At the time, it was believed they could be cured with relative ease. This is a very young body of knowledge, and as we sort through both valid and questionable criticisms, we must consider the historical context of any given episode."

The references are from reliable sources (as defined in Wikipedia), such as: (1) Pecora et al. (1992), p. 232; Petr (1998), p. 126. (2) Pecora et al. (1992), pp. 232-3; Petr (1998), pp. 126-7. (3) KC Meiselman (1978). Incest. Jossey-Bass Publishers. (4) http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume3/j3_1_2.htm (5) more references within the History section of the child protective services article and the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act article within Wikipedia. joo (talk) 02:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, read a much fuller list of academic research references compiled by Applewhite on her Facebook page at http://apps.facebook.com/files/shared/4erf0droty joo (talk) 02:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

PS your 'Moreover, please, read these excerpts from a number of articles' section looks a little off topic, do you mind if I collapse it so it is hidden from view by default? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• • Nothing above is off-topic, please! What I counted above is the true response of the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy to the crime committed by their priests: damage control and lack of any support or care for their victims - children. What you try to 'source' means to support leveling down and taking out of the public focus the crime committed, which might not be your intention and which is true intention of the RCC. I am all on the side of innocent children. We have to follow the high ethical line no matter whether some of the RCC defenders might see it as POV. These innocent children, victims of the heinous crime, are true Christians, not Ratziger, Levada, Sodano, Law, and Woytyla.--96.231.80.99 (talk) 01:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

First, the lede, per policy, is to be a summary of the article. If there are Catholic responses of significance in the article body, then the lead paragraph definitely needs something. Second, you seem to have a gross misunderstanding of what has been going on with the sex abuse cases around the world. The Church is, in fact, taking quite a bit of action to stop what's going on. To say that we as Catholics are simply defending our own despite their heinous crimes is ridiculous.Farsight001 (talk) 05:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

@96.231.80.99, we all know the catholic church has behaved badly, but the issue does need to presented in a neutral fashion. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Farsight. The lead is a summary of the article. Catholic responses should be represented there. Eraserhead, some members and leaders (bishops) of the Catholic Church have behaved badly. You cannot accuse the entire organisation for the misbehavior of a small percentage of their people. Whatever your viewpoint, WP:NPOV must be observed here. On the other hand, as I've uncovered in recent days, (1) Most offences reported took place in the 1960-1970s when casual sex was the order (or disorder) of the day. (2) The practice of sending sex offenders for psychiatric evaluation and treatment is commonplace even within the criminal justice system then. (3) As mentioned over and over again, only a small percentage of Catholic clergy were involved (only 4 percent accused and not all substantiated or credible). (4) Why do the media accuse the Catholic Church only then? The learning curve about how best to treat sex offenders applies to everyone - Catholic or not. joo (talk) 06:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

By the way, why do the most strident voices against the Catholic Church on this article and this talk page persist in hiding behind IP addresses and not logging in as a proper Wikipedia member? joo (talk) 07:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

|}

I'm not doing anything of the sort, I'm just shortening the lead and removing some of the content. To reply to your specific concerns: 2) I kept that in my version of the lead: In defending their controversial actions, some bishops and psychiatrists contended that the prevailing psychology of the times suggested that people could be cured of such behavior through counseling.. 3) and 4) These are also addressed in my lead Members of the church hierarchy have compared the church with the secular world, arguing that media coverage of the issue has been excessive given that similar or higher levels of abuse occur in other institutions. - maybe that could be reworded to be clearer. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

PS On 1) we could add something to clarify that the abuse largely took place in the 1960's and 1970's, I've added something to the first paragraph of my new version of the lead. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• • @Eraserhead1 Neutrality you are talking about is violated by you by following the defense line of the Roman Catholic Church: "Members of the church hierarchy have compared", "media coverage" etc. The church hierarchy (with a few honest exceptions) deserved to be jailed for all their "controversial actions" and "prevailing psychology". I do not like your "neutrality", I'd like to see strong morality and voice of those who suffered from that heinous crime here in the lead paragraph. This is not a RCC chat room and all above I quoted and you marked off topic (who gave you the right to do that?) is about the true response of the RCC: honest and highly moral ('Cardinal Christoph Schonborn this past weekend accused Cardinal Angelo Sodano') coming from the church hierarchy, or disturbing and raising further questions (One victim said: "Dealing with the church itself was a hell of a lot more traumatic than dealing with the abuse.")--96.231.80.99 (talk) 00:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

1) This is not your prosecution soapbox. 2) There are over 1 billion Catholics and over 400,000 priests worldwide. The priest offenders comprises only a small percentage (2-4 percent). You cannot blame the majority and the entire Church for the sins of a minority. joo (talk) 02:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

While the RCC deserves some blame there needs to be a balance between blame and accepting their response, otherwise we aren't being neutral. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Could everyone please stop feeding the anonymous troll editor. It is a waste of time and energy. You are only encouraging his campaign of vilification and falling into his trap. Trolls should just be ignored. Afterwriting (talk) 09:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Throwing troll accusations around isn't likely to stop the edit warring when the article is unprotected. And regardless of the IP going a little far and bringing up some off topic comments (which I attempted to collapse) he does have a point that the current lead is overly long-winded. Maybe rather than criticising IP editors you could help improve my new lead above. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

"Going a little far"? Have you actually been following his contentious editing history, ignoring of BLP and other policies and the use of various IP addresses? Regardless of any valid points he may have his behaviour is classic troll behaviour and should no longer be tolerated or encouraged. Afterwriting (talk) 07:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Eraserhead, you do know that IP96 is the same user as IP71, right?Farsight001 (talk) 09:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done I've now added this new version to the article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

John Coverdale's comments from a reliable source?

How about the tendetious text I've just discovered claiming that John Coverdale's comments are from 'a letter to the New York Times'. If you follow the link, you'll see that the NYT declined to publish the letter and it was actually released on someone's blog. This seems to me an attempt to dress up a non-reliable source as a reliable one. Haldraper (talk) 17:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you give the source here? PS I've broken your comments off into a new section I hope you don't mind. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

It's from the Just B16 blog: The NY Times and the facts of the Kiesle case. Haldraper (talk) 18:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Well as its a blog its not a reliable source for the article, however I think its reasonable for the New York Times themselves to be sourced for the letter to show its been published, rather than the Daily Telegraph. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Coverdale's comments were published in the Daily Telegraph. Read the reference given. Anyway, this is an opinion piece (a criticism). As Richard S has pointed earlier, so long as "it not be self-published i.e. that the stuff that is published went through some sort of editorial review." joo (talk) 02:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The blog btw is on MercatorNet which is a magazine which has been online since 2004. With regards to reliability, are you questioning that Coverdale ever wrote the letter? Or the reliability of Coverdale's criticism? If it's former, Coverdale would have spoken up by now having given publicity in Mercator and Daily Telegraph. If it's the latter, the reference stands since this a criticism (just as most of the media pieces are criticisms) and Wikipedia's NPOV policy clearly stated that reliable sources are not about truth but verifiable sources. joo (talk) 03:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

If the Daily Telegraph has published the letter say that - its dishonest to imply that the New York Times have published the letter if they actually haven't. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, and the Telegraph hasn't published the letter: one of its columnists quoted from the blog on which it appeared. We should either make this clear or cut it. Haldraper (talk) 16:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I'd count: [1] as publishing the letter. I don't feel that strongly though. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Well it depends how you word it (and it obviously needs rewording if it is to stay). I wouldn't say "in a letter published in the Daily Telegraph" as readers will assume it was accepted by the editors for the letters page rather than a blog quoted in a comment piece by a columnist. Whoever wrote "in a letter to the New York Times" was clearly intent on misleading the reader. Haldraper (talk) 19:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I don't know if they were intent on confusing the reader, but that was the result IMO, I think "in a letter published by the Daily Telegraph" would be enough - as I can't think of a better description without getting pedantic. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It was a letter to the New York Times. And it was mentioned clearly in both MercatorNet and The Daily Telegraph that NYT didn't publish it. You're certainly free to add qualifying statements that NYT didn't publish it. So what if NYT didn't? This letter is highly critical of NYT (Laurie Goodstein especially) in the first place. However, if you delete it, you'd be removing a key criticism written by a law professor (who presumably understands that what he writes mustn't make him liable to be sued later) from the Criticism section. I strongly oppose this. joo (talk) 06:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It could be worded as "in a letter to the New York Times that was later published in the Daily Telegraph instead". joo (talk) 07:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if you want to continue deceiving the reader: it wasn't published as a letter in the Daily Telegraph, the blog on which it appeared was quoted by one of their columnists in a comment piece. We either say that or cut it. Haldraper (talk) 08:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Haldraper, you are making an unwarranted personal attack. Now you need to read WP:NPA. What's so great about NYT? Its propensity for sensationalism and the errors (to the extent of stating the opposite) in the defective English translation that it held as "holy grail" for attacking the pope? Have you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases#Inaccuracies in full yet? Who's deceiving indeed? Good gracious! Daily Telegraph quoted it IN FULL. If that's not publishing, what is that? That's enough for me. joo (talk) 10:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the fuss over "a letter to New York Times". It was a letter addressed specifically to NYT. One could just add that it was not published there but in the Daily Telegraph instead. Stop being so upset or paranoid, for goodness sake! joo (talk) 10:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

In quick succession joo advises me to read WP:NPA and accuses me of being "paranoid": Physician, heal thyself? Haldraper (talk) 11:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

@ Joo, whats wrong with saying "in a letter published by the Daily Telegraph"? Mentioning the New York Times just makes it more long-winded. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

What about "in a letter published by the Daily Telegraph criticising the New York Times" as a compromise? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me. Thanks, Eraserhead. And alright, I'm not going to feed the troll. joo (talk) 01:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Read WP:NPA say joo before calling me "paranoid"; now he accuses me of being a "troll". Time you looked in the mirror I think.

For the third time, Coverdale's comments were not published as a letter by the Daily Telegraph: they were published on a blog and then quoted from by a columnist. Clear? We either say that or cut it. Haldraper (talk) 08:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The Daily Telegraph publishes their website, so they have published it. To be honest the whole argument really is over a pretty minor point. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Putting the facts before the reader rather than twisting words to mislead them isn't a minor point. I suggest:

"In his column in the Daily Telegraph, Damian Thompson quoted law professor John Coverdale as saying:" Haldraper (talk) 08:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Nice. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done its in the article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Template:SACC

{{editprotected}} Hi. Based on discussions at Template talk:SACC, I'm changing the SACC template from an infobox to a navbox format. Accordingly, it will then break the layout of this page, as there will then be a navbox at the top of the article. Would it be possible for someone to move the SACC template from the top to the bottom, to jo--Noel Olivier (talk) 06:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)in with the other two navboxes? The change will happen fairly soon, but it seems it would be better for layout to have an infobox at the bottom for a few minutes than a navbox at the top. Thanks. :) - Bilby (talk) 06:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - much appreciated. - Bilby (talk) 10:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Church responses and Criticism of media coverage

These two sections together are more than half of the whole article. The intention of those who contributed content of these two sections is to provide 'proofs' that the scandal is actually not a scandal and that Roman Catholic Church did a lot to prevent their own abusers of innocent children to do what they already did and what they kept doing for decades. As it can be read here Admitting failings fills ‘God-sized’ gap with a chance for holiness

The recent scandals in the Catholic Church are even worse. They actively profane faith because of the bad behavior of certain priests. These priests have their own desires and insecurities and somehow manage to justify to themselves terrible behavior. Compounding the priests’ abuse of children is the hierarchy’s ongoing willingness to cover up the bad behavior and move the offending priests to other places. All the parties involved know the behavior to avoid; a great opportunity for holiness is destroyed by this failure.

This article must drop excuses, big words of the Roman Catholic clergy, and the pope's crocodile tears. The Church hired 'independent researchers' who with their statistics, all which are obsolete, inaccurate, and coming from nowhere, serving the purposes of the commissioner so clearly explained in the quoted text.--96.231.80.99 (talk) 00:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a fair point, though how much content should be removed/changed is going to need a fair bit of discussion. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• @Eraserhead1 Thank you for this response. We have to pay attention to so-called 'neutral' experts. In the same article, Thomas Plante is referenced twice but the question: Who is Thomas Plante? is answered: Thomas Plante, a member of the National Review Board on abuse policies for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

The source is an opinion piece by a non-expert. It does not meet criteria for inclusion. Furthermore, in reading the whole article, I find the quoted section deceptively misleading without the context of the rest of the article.Farsight001 (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The article is not here to adopt a single opinion or to express a judgement. It is there to provide information, and context, and to describe the major relevant schools of published opinion, including those which consider the Church has been unfairly pilloried on this issue. Xandar 22:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• @Xandar I am telling you that the content of 'unfairly pilloried' is excessive, wrong and biased. I never advocated 'a single opinion', rather moral and accurate opinions.--96.231.80.99 (talk) 23:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

96, per your past editing suggestions and constant soapboxing, we all know quite well that what you just said about your motivations is not even remotely true. You tried to get all positive wording, and all defense of the Church removed whole-sale from the article multiple times. Do you really expect us to believe that you actually want an accurate representation after moves like that?

And to others who may be familiar with the user, does IP96/IP71 remind you of Giovanni33?Farsight001 (talk) 02:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Not only is this anonymous editor a persistent troll but he is also a persisent sockpuppet as a little research has demonstrated. I really don't understand why some editors are continuing to feed the troll - it's a waste of time and energy and only encourages his continuing abuse of policies and intimidation of other editors. Enough is enough! Afterwriting (talk) 05:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand. So many of us have complained against the troll-like actions of IP 96 and 71 (most likely the same person using different PCs). Yet they continue with their antics on the article and on the talk page, not barred or blocked at all. joo (talk) 01:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

1983 Canon Law

In the article, section 1983 : "The legal force of Crimen Sollicitationis as an "instruction" expired in 1983 with this revision of the Canon Law.". According to Thomas Doyle, "Crimen Sollicitationis" didn't expire with the revision of the canon law in 1983. The instruction was to be reviewed when the new canonical Codes were promulgated. The instruction was still in force until 2001, according to Ratzinger. See Thomas Doyle [Nov 2006, n°5] : -Under ordinary circumstances Crimen Sollicitationis would have ceased to have legal force with the promulgation of the 1983 Code of canon Law. This was not the case however, and the words of the subsequent document, commonly known as De delictis gravioribus, signed by Cardinal Ratzinger, clarify this issue: "At approximately the same time the Congregation for the Faith, through an ad hoc Commission established, devoted itself to a diligent study of the canons on delicts, both of the Code of Canon Law and the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, in order to determine "more grave delicts both against morals and in the celebration of the sacraments" and in order to make special procedural norms "to declare or impose canonical sanctions," because the Instruction Crimen sollicitationis, issued by the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office on March 16,1962,(3) in force until now, was to be reviewed when the new canonical Codes were promulgated.- --Noel Olivier (talk) 06:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Could you perhaps explain what you're trying to say here?Farsight001 (talk) 09:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, this is the talk page of the article "Catholic sex abuse cases". In this article, there are differents sections. One of these, number 6. 3.2, is about Crimen Sollicitationis and the 1983 Code canon law. The information in this section is false. As you can see in the citation above, Joseph Ratzinger himself wrote in 2001 (De delictis gravioribus) that "Crimen sollicitationis" was in force until 2001. So, could anybody change this section at the end of the protection. Thank you. I Hope it's more clear like that.--Noel Olivier (talk) 18:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

So the section Catholic_sex_abuse_cases#1983 should be removed? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

It should be completed, with more precisions.--Noel Olivier (talk) 14:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Lead paragraph again

In addition to the actual abuse, much of the scandal focused around the behavior of some members of the Catholic hierarchy who did not report the crimes to civil authorities, and in many cases reassigned the offenders to other locations where they continued to have contact with minors, giving the unfortunate unrepentant the opportunity to continue their sexual abuse.[3]

who did not report the crimes to civil authorities reads who shall be charged with obstruction of justice.

In defending their controversial actions, some bishops and psychiatrists contended that the prevailing psychology of the times suggested that people could be cured of such behavior through counselling. Members of the church hierarchy have compared the church with the secular world, arguing that media coverage of the issue has been excessive given that abuse occurs in other institutions.[4]

people could be cured of such behavior through counselling - criminals are criminals! The Church never paid for psychiatric treatment of the victims, nor initiated their legal protection. So, until the Church was not pressed hard against the wall of justice, the Church did not do anything to protect the children. It was interested only into the damage control and the scandal cover-up.

In response to the widening scandal, Pope John Paul II emphasized the spiritual nature of the offenses as well. He declared in 2001 that "a sin against the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue by a cleric with a minor under 18 years of age is to be considered a grave sin, or delictum gravius."[5] With the approval of the Vatican, the hierarchy of the church in the United States claimed to institute reforms to prevent future abuse including requiring background checks for Church employees and volunteers, while opposing legislation making it easier for abusers to sue the Catholic Church.[6]

How come that Woytyla discovered this truth

"a sin against the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue by a cleric with a minor under 18 years of age is to be considered a grave sin, or delictum gravius."

in the year of 2001? Was it not clear to every Roman Catholic Church priest at the very first day of his priesthood?

The cited text, as written, is too ugly and immoral and deserves its immediate removal.

I could go from one RCC defense paragraph to another paragraph in this article. Let us start with the lead paragraph because its ugliness and the harm it causes to the overall quality of the article. --71.163.237.120 (talk) 17:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I suggest adding the following after people could be cured of such behavior through counselling: "- in contrast no such help was provided to the victims." -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Seriously why was this section removed? It may be a little long winded, but 71.163.237.120 is making a valid point here. Its really rather annoying for talk page discussions to get removed when serious changes to the article have been suggested. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Because it's soapboxing. You seem to be the one and only editor who does not see this, which frankly, makes me wonder a bit if it's just you logging out (only a bit. I find it quite doubtful). The anonymous editor is a troll, plain and simply, and you are feeding them repeatedly. Again, everyone seems to see this except for you. He's not trying to improve the article. He wants it to be a scathing expose. The editing history makes this VERY apparent.Farsight001 (talk) 21:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

If you think he's me I suggest you take a look at my contributions as they are on a wide variety of topics. There are three differences with me and other editors here, a) I'm not a catholic, b) I'm pretty relaxed about talk page discussions and think that everyone has a right to speak c) I just ignore all the ranting off topic content, as there is some good stuff as well. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Now back to the topic at hand, I do think that there is room in the lead for some content about the response from other organisations apart from the catholic church as currently the lead which I suggested only includes responses from the catholic church - and this does seem like a reasonable change. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I've also now hidden the off-topic content. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done The change I suggested above has been made to the article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

And I undid it. In what world did you think the discussion was complete? Just because we're busy fighting off trolls doesn't mean no one's going to object to the change, especially since it was suggested by said troll in the first place.

To say that the victims got no help is wildly and ridiculously untrue, and even if not, we have no actual indication that they didn't get help. Lastily, it is also undue weight for the lede.Farsight001 (talk) 07:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I hate to go and post random links, but there is at least some evidence to back up these claims from a reliable source. For example in Ireland: "It found the Department of Education had generally dismissed or ignored complaints of child sexual abuse and dealt inadequately with them." (source) and from Germany "In one of the frankest admissions yet to come out of the scandal-battered Catholic Church, the head of the German Bishops’ Conference, Archbishop Robert Zollitsch, said help given to the victims of abuse 'had not been enough.'" (source). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

You'd have to admit that inadequate help is certainly not the same as no help right? I don't mind a phrase about help being inadequate, though I feel like it would be awkward in that location.Farsight001 (talk) 18:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, I see your point, I probably overreacted this morning sorry :o. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Ha. No worries. ^_^ Farsight001 (talk) 19:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• • Oh don't make me laugh! I want see this article as-is. No changes please! Common sense tells us that the only interest of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) in this article is to continue with deception the RCC exercised for the last century.
  • A good comment I saw somewhere is the one saying that the RCC is the best managed criminal organization, a godless church which 'God' lives in Rome and wears expensive red shoes.--69.72.42.55 (talk) 23:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand your irony. I still believe in the Wikipedia's existence and purpose. Some ethics line shall be followed ultimately here. --71.163.237.120 (talk) 23:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• • Malraux wrote in one of his novels story about a Spanish peasant, a soldielr of the Republican Army, who paryed to God outside a RCC church. When asked why not entering the church and prayng there, the peasant responded: " In the church dwells devil himself". I like this infantile and cynical coment of John Paul II. It shall be definitely in the article lead paragraph.--69.72.42.92 (talk) 23:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

All above dissatisfaction(?)/irony I would like to accept only as a support to my intention to eliminate the text that is wrong, unethical, and offensive against the victims.--71.163.237.120 (talk) 02:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Making it easy for others to sue you?

opposing legislation making it easier for abusers to sue the Catholic Church.

Over 4,000 priests were accused, but less than 2000 had the allegations substantiated. And there're over 400,000 priests. That means less than 1 percent. Therefore, I truly wonder: Who in their right mind will help to make it easier for others to sue herself/himself or the organisation that s/he belongs to? Esp. when the offenders constitute only a very small percentage. Will you? joo (talk) 01:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

This person apparently does not understand the quoted text. Looks like (s)he thinks that it is moral and legal to obstruct the justice. As to wishful thinking "less than 1 percent" - Philadelpia archdiocese counts 10% of all its priests to be accused for sexual abuse (read rape) of minors. Moreover in Sexual Abuse Survivor Calls for Legislative Reform in Maryland it reads: Studies show that only 10 percent of victims ever report childhood sexual abuse, and most who do wait until they are well into adulthood. --71.163.237.120 (talk) 02:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The cited article from the New York Times, "Bishop Avidly Opposes Bill Extending Time to File Child-Abuse Suits", more than backs up the statement. If you search for that phrase with Google, you can read the article without the NYT paywall. "Bishop DiMarzio has mounted such an urgent and aggressive sally into the political realm that some elected officials and community leaders have questioned whether he has overstepped church-state boundaries." --John Nagle (talk) 20:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for directing me to this article. I found its full version here Bishop Avidly Opposes Bill Extending Time to File Child-Abuse Suits by Paul Vitello (NY Times) June 5, 2009--71.163.237.120 (talk) 22:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

John, my point is: Does it deserve to be in the lead and be part of the summary of this article? It doesn't matter whether someone did say it or that the Church did oppose attempts to make it easier to sue the Church. Suing people is neither moral nor immoral. There have been false accusations. At least hundreds (if not thousands) of priests have been falsely accused and completely exonerated, according to the John Jay study. The people of New York City are against suspending the statue of limitation too. See http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/28/nyregion/28about.html joo (talk) 05:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It is a collision of powerful civic values: the need to provide justice to people who were outrageously injured as children and manipulated into silence, and the duty of courts to decide cases based on reliable evidence.

Suddenly, lobbyists and advocates for school boards, counties and small towns spoke out.

“Statutes of limitation exist for a reason,” said Bob Lowry, the deputy director of the New York State Council of School Superintendents. “How can anyone go back 40 years and ascertain what happened? Witnesses, responsible authorities, even the perpetrator himself or herself, may have passed away.”

By the way, the wording is all wrong. "making it easier for *abusers* to sue the Catholic Church." Is there a typo? Shouldn't it be "making it easier for *victims* to sue the abusers"?

Oops. Yes, please change "abusers" to "victims" in the first paragraph. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 07:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Removed text put back

Here is the text including vaginal and anal rape, molestation and voyeurism

removed by a person signed as Farsight001: (07:01, 24 May 2010 Farsight001 (talk | contribs) (140,165 bytes))

with the 'explanation': (removing unsourced and pov sounding changes. Yes, I realize that the lede is ideally without citation, but not if the info is controversial)

I've put it back for, really, not being difficult to find many references supporting the removed text:

Irish State 'colluded with religious authorities to hide child abuse', report says, The Times, May 21 2009
“Acute and chronic contact and non-contact sexual abuse was reported, including vaginal and anal rape, molestation and voyeurism in both isolated cases and on a regular basis over long periods of time,” the document states.

Catholic priests: it is better to marry than to burn (and beat up) by Tony Delamothe, deputy editor, BMJ

Half the witnesses reported some form of sexual abuse, including "vaginal and anal rape, molestation and voyeurism in both isolated assaults and on a regular basis over long periods of time." In general, it was a far greater problem at boys’ schools than girls’ schools. --71.163.237.120 (talk) 22:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

There's a phrase that keeps getting added to the lede in parentheses, "(including vaginal and anal rape, molestation and voyeurism)". Now I find myself adamantly opposed to such detail in the lede because it seems to be too much detail for a summary paragraph. In the article body, though, I have no issue with it. Except that I have to ask - is voyeurism part of this? The article is about sex abuse cases specifically. Voyeurism, while illegal and especially so when a child is involved, from what I can tell, does not qualify as sex abuse and thus is not within the scope of the article. Would someone with more legal expertise than me mind chiming in here, though?Farsight001 (talk) 04:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Given there are reliable sources to back this up it should be able to appear in the article. I'm happy for voyeurism to be excluded. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Such detail should *not* appear in the lead. The purpose of the lead paragraph is to present an overview of the article. If such detailed information has a place in the article then it is elsewhere. I am also opposed in principle to including any information added by such an offensive and edit-warring sockpuppet troll who constantly flaunts policies for his own ideological agenda. Afterwriting (talk) 09:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Same thoughts here. The term "sex crimes" already imply the details. The lead is supposed to be a summary. joo (talk) 05:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Full protection of the page

Can people seriously stop edit warring on this article? Its now locked again. If you feel that you need to discuss stuff it should be done on the talk page.

Do we need to get mediation to stop this dispute? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

PS It takes 2 to edit war - not just one, so if you've been edit warring you can't just blame other people, it doesn't matter which WP:WRONGVERSION is on the page in the meantime. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the edit-warring will cease when *you* stop encouraging the troll! Honestly, how many times does it need pointing out to you what - and who - the principal problem is with the edit-war?! His behaviour is completely unacceptable by any reasonable standard but you just don't seem to get it! Afterwriting (talk) 17:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Afterwriting. The problem here is the anon troll. Without him around we could get stuff done. The edit warring is a result of the troll's complete and utter refusal to discuss his article changes on the talk page or listen to anyone when we say his changes need a source or are a blp vio (which, by the way, edit warring does not apply to removing blp violations). I like to go through old talk page discussion on all sorts of articles and read the bickering. I have never seen anyone come anywhere close to the troll here. He has at least twice as many warnings as I've ever seen on anyone else without being indefinitely blocked - and yes, that includes IP addresses. I know wikipedia is reluctant about blocking IP's. It is still, flat out, mind boggling why nothing has been done to this IP yet. They obviously know what they are doing, so I must conclude that they are a logged out editor who otherwise uses a screen name, which makes this even worse. I reiterate - the problem is the troll, who in refusing to discuss his additions which are often unsourced or blp violations, etc, he FORCES us to edit war with him and he knows it.Farsight001 (talk) 20:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

He cannot possibly force you to edit war, you can just allow the WP:WRONGVERSION to stay in the article for a bit and discuss the changes on the talk page. If the administrators can see thatIP editor(s) are the only one being disruptive then the article can be semi-protected, indefinitely if needed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Why are you having such a difficult time understanding the problem here? All BLP violations *must* be be removed immediately - without any discussion first. Removing contentious BLP edits doesn't constitute edit-warring. There is no excuse for not doing this so your comments about allowing a "wrong version to stay in the article for a bit and discuss the changes on the talk page" are totally erroneous. You really need to try to properly understand the BLP policies. Afterwriting (talk) 10:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm well aware of what the BLP policy states, but you also cannot edit war. Maybe instead of just removing the content several times you should take the case to WP:AIV or WP:RFPP and once appropriate sanctions have been given to then remove the offending content.

Besides if just BLP violations were being reverted the administrators who have fully protected this article wouldn't have done so as it wouldn't be a content dispute. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

You obviously don't understand the BLP policies. It is NOT "edit-warring: to remove BLP violations so stop falsely accusing responsible editors of edit-warring for removing them. Afterwriting (talk) 17:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Pages don't get fully protected unless editors on both sides of the dispute are behaving in an unacceptable manner... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Once again, Eraserhead, you have completely failed to understand the BLP policies. It is required to immediately remove all BLP violations without discussion and it's not considered edit-warring to do so. Therefore removing BLP violations isn't "unacceptable" as you erroneously seem to think. Again I must ask you why you are having such a hard time understanding this?! Afterwriting (talk) 05:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, this section : [[2]] of BLP policy says that the article may be protected to stop BLP violations. It also suggests raising issues at the BLP noticeboard, which was probably a better place for me to report anon at. Oops. >_< Farsight001 (talk) 20:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

He can, in fact, in a way force us to edit war. Like I said, most of his edits to the article have involved BLP violations, which per policy need to be removed immediately. editwarring and 3RR should never prevent a user from removing BLP violations. So when he adds them, per policy, we are supposed to delete them. But all he does is re-add them. And thus we need to remove them again. Hence, an edit war, albeit justified on the part of those trying to keep BLP violations out of the article. Even if he wasn't adding BLP violations, he's a troll. He'll add what he wants to the article and leave it there without discussing it. If we sit back and wait to discuss, nothing will happen. So we're just supposed to wait months for the IP to come to the talk page to discuss his edits with us? You know full well he's never going to do that.Farsight001 (talk) 20:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

If after you've started a thread the IP editor doesn't defend his edits (even if they are BLP violations) then after a few days it is reasonable to remove the content again. Having to wait months is hyperbolic. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

And we've actually done that. The moment we've waited a few days and then reverted, he pops on withing a few hours and reverts again. After the last block expired, he was back to editing literally within minutes. I have no doubt the same will happen here after this block is up. He's still editing the talk page - continuously re-adding his off topic posts. But is he actually discussing with us? OF course not.Farsight001 (talk) 20:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty straightforward to change your IP address, so how does blocking it stop someone returning with a different one?Obscurasky (talk) 21:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Blocking that IP will at least make it inconvenient for that guy to edit the Wikipedia. The fact that he kept coming in from the IP suggests that it's a permanent IP for a PC that he uses very often. joo (talk) 05:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

As his behaviour has such a distinctive pattern to it then it shouldn't be too difficult to recognise him using new IP addresses and to keep blocking them. Zero toleration is the only solution in this kind of case - not useless attempts at "discussion". You cannot discuss complex issues with fanatics who are incapable of understanding how destructive their own behaviour is. Just have a look at the pathetic "complaint" that he has recently made against me and Farsight and his false claim that "several" IP users have been unhappy with this article when we all know that it's only him using different IPs. There is no end to such behaviour. He needs to be blocked for a long period with no excuses accepted. Afterwriting (talk) 16:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

More Criticisms of Media Coverage

Hidden Agenda

Ed Koch, a former New York mayor who is Jewish and disagrees with the Catholic Church on practically all the hot-button issues including same-sex marriage and abortion [1][2], wrote in 'The Jerusalem Post':

"I believe the continuing attacks by the media on the Roman Catholic Church and Pope Benedict XVI have become manifestations of anti-Catholicism. The procession of articles on the same events are, in my opinion, no longer intended to inform, but simply to castigate...

"Many of those in the media who are pounding on the Church and the pope today clearly do it with delight, and some with malice. The reason, I believe, for the constant assaults is that there are many in the media, and some Catholics as well as many in the public, who object to and are incensed by positions the Church holds, including opposition to all abortions, opposition to gay sex and same-sex marriage, retention of celibacy rules for priests, exclusion of women from the clergy, opposition to birth control measures involving condoms and prescription drugs and opposition to civil divorce."[2]

[1] http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/david-quinn-a-more-honest-media-would-relentlessly-hunt-down-child-abuse-wherever-it-is-found-2140338.html
[2] http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/koch/entry/he_that_is_without_sin

What does this have to do with directly improving the article? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

That letter by Koch seems to be more about another issue. Koch wrote: "I am appalled that, according to the Times of April 6, 2010, "Last week, the center-left daily newspaper La Repubblica wrote, without attribution that 'certain Catholic circles' believed the criticism of the Church stemmed from 'a New York Jewish lobby.'"". Koch's letter is thus a defense of the New York Jewish community, and was published in the Jerusalem Post. It's not really relevant to "Catholic sex abuse cases". For a while, the Vatican was trying to blame others (media, the abortion rights movement, gay marriage, other religions, secular society, prosecutors, etc.) for their problems. On May 11, 2010, the Pope dropped that attempt at spin.[3] --John Nagle (talk) 18:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I also must ask the relevance to improving the article. Also, I get the feeling that it was a stab at, not a defense of the Church. He seems to essentially be saying "hey Church, we'd stop treating you unfairly if you'd stop being complete prats.", but that might just be me.Farsight001 (talk) 20:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I am unsure why people believe this is not relevant to the article. While I concede it is better to post information with a clear suggestion on how it would be added to the article, this suggestion has clear relevance to me. We already have a section entitled "Criticisms of Media Coverage". This quote could go there. To me, the quote is valid...I don't understand Nagle's theories about Koch's motives. However, regardless of motives, we should take his opinions at face value unless there is strong evidence to suggest otherwise. Despite all this, I still don't know that the opinion of one former Mayor warrants inclusion here.LedRush (talk) 00:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The fact is that, whatever the principal subject of the article, Koch is an example of a prominant non-Catholic who has made trenchant observations about the reasons behind some of the vituperative media coverage of abuse with respect to the Catholic Church. It is thus a very relevant comment to include in the Criticisms of media coverage section. It also speaks to the important issue of why and whether media coverage has unfairly singled out the Catholic Church for attack with regard to abuses that have occurred at least equally in other groups and institutions. Xandar 21:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see this persons comment about this as being notable at all. You could find multiple such comments from semi notable people. I don't think the critisism of media coverage is worthy of expansion at all. The media are not the issue. Off2riorob (talk) 21:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Since most sources show that clerical sex abuse is LOWER than rates in non-clerical society, the media coverage focussing on the Catholic Church is a major part of the issue. Criticism of media coverage that infers Catholicism is particularly prone to sex abuse and covering it up is therefore very relevant to the issue, especially when such criticism is from notable unbiased sources. Xandar 21:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

BLP Policy

For those who are having a hard time understanding the BLP policies the following excerpt should clarify things:

<< We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who constantly or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing. >>

Afterwriting (talk) 06:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I've seen the BLP argument a lot, and I have, perhaps, a stupid question. This isn't a biography, and it's not about a person, and the non-person obviously isn't living, so how could BLP apply?LedRush (talk) 14:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

BLP policies actually apply to all articles - not just biographies. Therefore any comments about living people in any article must follow the BLP policies. In this article the BLP violations by the multi-IP user have mostly involved the current Pope. Hope this help. Afterwriting (talk) 14:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It does have to specifically be about the pope though to fall under WP:BLP rather than the catholic church generally. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Dead links and front pages and opinionated editorials

citations , there are some deadlinks and front pages and many opinionated editorials and such like. Off2riorob (talk) 21:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Any source (and its associated content) that clearly doesn't meet the standards for WP:RS (e.g. blogs etc) should be removed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Question

I see an ugly practice on this talk page which consists of removal of the posts or portion of the posts based on pure disagreement. If someone disagrees to someone's else point of view - then let him/her express it on the same page. Mutual respect here is mandatory.

As to the page content, my question is: why to have in this article such common sense conclusions as the one: "a sin against the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue by a cleric with a minor under 18 years of age is to be considered a grave sin, or delictum gravius."? Just for being said by a pope, or for the sake of some phrases like: 'Decalogue' and 'delictum gravius'? If a cleric rapes a minor, it is not a sin according to 'Decalogue' and 'delictum gravius', it is a crime for which a criminal can be sentenced to 14 year imprisonment according to in the Louisiana state law, the state where I live now.--166.32.193.81 (talk) 12:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

As for your initial paragraph, talk pages are for discussion of changes to the article, not a forum for general debate on the subject matter. The article content in question helps illustrate that child abuse isn't somehow allowed by religious law I imagine. Falcon8765 (talk) 12:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The posts are being removed because they are not here to help improve the article. You can search the talk page history and the archives and see us try to explain this to the other IP repeatedly. Now its being removed because they guy is beyond trolling. Any reasonable person can see the edits and realize right away that IP71/96 had/has absolutely no intention to "improve" the article, unless by "improve" you mean "turn into a scathing expose".Farsight001 (talk) 21:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

EC.I see a lot of soapboxing and posting of content that has not chance of ever getting into the article or improving the article. This article is about the church so that is likely why that is there, the punishment in Louisiana perhaps belongs in another article. Off2riorob (talk) 12:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

@Falcon8765: As for my initial paragraph, it is the matter of mutual respect. Saying 'not a forum of general debate' means nothing to me. I did not find it that way and many others apparently did not. As to the content, I assume that you know that an encyclopedia is all about knowledge, not about a bizarre knowledge.

@Off2riorob I can see only your answer as 'soapboxing and posting out of content'; still I have no intention of removing it. The article is not about the Church, it's about the crime committed by the Church clergy. I tried just differentiate the 'sin' and the 'crime'. The 'sin' might be just a wishful thinking i.e. pope John Paul II re-categorized the crime to the lower stage, to the sin. Bottom line, the pope's point of view is a bit dishonest and, therefore, does not deserve place in the article lead.--166.32.193.81 (talk) 14:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Without direct links to the specific content being discussed, it's hard to directly comment on specific content. Having said that, part of the problem is that we cannot judge on our own whether an act was a crime. By wikipedia policies, only courts can do that. There is a very serious question regarding whether we can actively or passively describe some act allegedly committed by a living person, particularly if that individual has not themselves admitted it, as a "crime". WP:BLP may well be in play in that regard. If there has been no formal court ruling of guilt, then we cannot say or imply that a crime was committed. Also, unfortunately, there are different definitions of crime in different countries, some of which vary dramatically. On that basis, discussion of "criminality" might force us to expend too much space to the specific laws of the specific ountries in which the alleged incidents took place. Also, frankly, at least in a sense, I myself would have to agree the moral/religious aspects of a given action is more directly relevant in this case, considering that the individuals who have instigated such acts are themselves all, at least in this case, subscribers to a given set of religious principles which specifically condemn such actions. Matters regarding legality are probably best discussed in the specific articles on the specific instances,. For a more detailed response, however, please indicate the specific potential content being discussed. John Carter (talk) 21:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

isn't child abuse illegal in every country in the world? That makes talking about the legality really quite easy... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)