Talk:Catholic Church sexual abuse cases/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

NYTimes article is an interpretation without fundament in the original sources

New User:Ricerca has just made a small but fairly significant change to the "Debate over causes" section of the article with the fascinating Edit summary you see in the title of this section. Firstly, I have no idea what the Edit summary means, and secondly, the reversion seems to be towards using a primary source rather than a secondary one, one that's usually regarded as pretty reliable. Is User:Ricerca on the right track here? HiLo48 (talk) 08:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm all for making changes to the article and making it a better source, but I tend to agree with ^^^ HiLo48 on this one. I don't understand Rivera's edits. I say we change the article back to the previous version before Rivera worked on it. This Rivera fellow changed the wording of a bunch of phrases and paragraph and didn't provide any new sources. I saw until we get sources corroborating his major points we change it back to the way it was! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.129.87.3 (talk) 18:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Also does anybody else feel as though he just changed the wording to make it seem as if the Church did no wrong. His phrasing without sources seemed to be a complete defense of the Church that was unsourced and uncited. I really feel as though he is pushing a Pro-Catholic agenda... I thought we were striving for neutrality here... 12.129.87.3 (talk) 18:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm seeing a few problems in those edits. Regarding the edit summary, I think Ricerca intends to say "the NYTimes article offers a novel interpretation not found in the original source". However, that does not appear to be the case. Indeed, Ricerca's new summary, which places emphasis on "confused" priests being more likely to abuse, appears to be undue weight. Quoting directly from the conclusion in the JJ (page 74):

“ There has been widespread speculation that homosexual identity is linked to the sexual abuse of minors by priests, largely because of the high number of male victims identified in the Nature and Scope study. However, the clinical data do not support this finding. Treatment data show that priests who identified as homosexual, as well as those who participated in same-sex sexual behavior prior to ordination (regardless of sexual identity), were not significantly more likely to abuse minors than priests who identified as heterosexual. Priests who were ordained prior to the 1960s who had a “confused” sexual identity prior to ordination were more likely to sexually abuse minors than those who clearly identified with a particular sexual identity from those cohorts. This finding was not consistent with priests ordained in later cohorts; as such, it is important to conceptualize this finding within the appropriate historical context. ”

I don't think it's appropriate to pick out the "confused" bit and leave out the rest. Even the JJ report says that the data is old and inconsistent with current stats. If we're going to use any part of that here, I think we need to use something more descriptive of the entire report. I noticed some other problems as well. For instance, this edit seems to be largely original research, and at best, appears to give undue weight to an idea printed in one partisan paper, The National Catholic Register. I'd encourage Ricerca to discuss these edits on the talk page, and perhaps we can hash out better sources to improve the article. Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, sorry, i was not in town for a while. I deleted (now once again) the claim in the NYT, because it is an interpretation of the Causes and context study, that i don't find backed up there. The CaCS only talks about little evidence for greater numbers of abuse by a group of priests unsure of its sexual identity. --Ricerca (talk) 04:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Seminary training a "predictor of child abuse" what? This makes no sense at all

This sentence was added in there to clutter up the "Debate over Causes" section and was provided with so sources, no backing, and no evidence or written wording on the talk pages. This makes no sense at all because it then can be argued then why did clergy not from the seminary background have the same rates of sexual abuse and "deviant sexual behavior" (see J.J. report). The Rivera fella can't have his cake and eat it too. he can't just quote the J.J. report by splicing together parts of sentences to change the meaning of it and then also ignore what it says about the true causes See Homosexuality and gay priests and Pedophilia and deviant behavior.12.129.87.3 (talk) 13:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

12.129, you seem to be stating that Homosexuality and gay priests and Pedophilia and deviant behavior are the "true causes", yet our own sources conclude that gay priests and homosexuality are not, and in fact abuse went down when more gay priests were serving. As for Pedophilia and deviant behavior I think that's fairly obvious as the article is about pedophile priests and the cases brought against them. I didn't feel comfortable deleting the section on seminary training as there could be some validity to it, common sense and all. If priests were given more support they might know how to handle abuse situations or indeed how to prevent them. My understanding is that all seminaries now do offer more training in these areas. Are you saying that it can't be true and you've looked into resources and found nothing? Insomesia (talk) 01:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I found

"But the uncertainties of Catholic life after Vatican II (1965) eroded the old standards of clerical discipline. Seminaries relaxed their restrictions on their students, at just the time when the sexual revolution bombarded young men with provocative stimuli. Bishops and chancery officials eased their standards as well, allowing a much greater latitude for priests in their choice of recreational activities. Within a few years the old norms of proper priestly conduct were gone, and no clear new standards established in their place." (emphasis added)(The Faithful Departed: The Collapse of Boston's Catholic Culture Philip F. Lawler)

and

"Researchers commissioned by the nation's Roman Catholic bishops to analyze the pattern of clergy sex abuse have concluded that homosexuality, celibacy and an all-male priesthood did not cause the scandal. The study by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York instead said that the problem was largely the result of poor seminary training and insufficient emotional support for men ordained in the 1940s and 1950s, who were not able to withstand the social upheaval they confronted as pastors in the 1960s. Crime and other deviant behavior increased overall in the United States during this period, when the rate of abuse by priests was climbing." (emphasis added)(Associated Press [1])

So this largely affirms that the content is apt and needs to be clarified what seminary training it refers. Insomesia (talk) 03:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Changes by Jess

You wrote : I noticed some other problems as well. For instance, this edit seems to be largely original research, and at best, appears to give undue weight to an idea printed in one partisan paper, The National Catholic Register. I'd encourage Ricerca to discuss these edits on the talk page, and perhaps we can hash out better sources to improve the article. Thanks!

Could you please explain to me your problems in detail. Because, to take the cited paragraph, I don't understand your remarks. What the text says is found in the sources. and concerning the "partisan" newspaper: The main source is the article of McBride. furthermore i don't think, that other newspapers are more objective sources. So I think it would need a least a further source directly contradicting Applewhite to judge it simply as biased.

Concerning the other changes in the lead: I think we should not give to much weight to the attemps to use ONE letter from the fifties. It could be a single example and I see no source proving, that Fitzgeralds view was more common than the other one.

To the payments: I don't think, the lead is the right place for such details. There is a section for it, and we should use it.

--Ricerca (talk) 04:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ricerca. First of all, I removed my sig. Please don't copy another user's signature where they haven't placed it; it tends to confuse other editors, since it implies that I started this section, and wrote that here.

As for the content issues, it's late so I'll have to be brief. We have a lot of sources saying there's a problem with abuse in the Catholic church. Some of those sources are high quality. We can't contrast all those sources by dismissing the issue out of hand, particularly in wikipedia's voice. We especially can't say that when the best source we have for it is an opinion piece in The National Catholic Register. To cover that view at all, much less devote a full paragraph to it, we would need a high quality, independent, secondary source. If we can find at least one to establish this is at least a minority view, then we may be able to attribute the statement in the article. Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

"pedophilia" claims

As per the hatnote of the article Pedophilia, that term specifically refers to sexual contact or thoughts regarding pre-adolescent children. There are, and have been for some time now, well before these cases, other terms for older children. However, I do note that the terms "pedophilia" and "pedophile priests" are used frequently not only in the media, but here as well. The word "pedophilia" itself is one which will cause serious emotional responses in many adults of the age to have been parents when this case broke out, and there was significant social criticism of them at the time for placing their own lives before their duties as parents. So, I think part of the media propogation of this story over time, which is itself a factor in the frequency the subject is reported and the attention it receives, is that the use of the emotionally loaded, and generally inaccurate, term "pedophilia" generates a stronger emotional response.

I acknowledge that I can't necessarily prove that the above is a significant factor in the popularity of these stories, but at the same time I can't help but think that it is a very significant part. However, I do think that editors using the term inaccurately, at least in this instance, on the talk page is itself a cause for concerns. Yes, it is the pop term for the crisis, but it is a clearly misleading and emotional one, and use of it could cause some editors to perhaps think other editors are perhaps driven more by the impression they have received through popular media than by trying to report on it fairly and accurately here. John Carter (talk) 15:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi there is a large number of items on the page so I've overlooked this post. I think 'pedophile priests' is the scare alarmist take on things and is not completely neutral, however it's what a fair, if not majority of those who are aware of the issue would easily recognize as the core issue. Compounding that is likely most people would never differentiate between the names corresponding to different ages of child victims, a non-adult is a child in simple terms. I do support the clarity that the article needs coupled with the frankness that the talk page might also need. For my part I'll try to watch using what can be seen as a loaded term only when it seems needed. Insomesia (talk) 04:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Does 'Third Reich 1933-1945' really belong here

With this edit an entire section on the Nazi Third Reich (1933-1945) was added. This entire section seems valid in a larger article on the history of the Roman Catholic Church in Germany or on anti-Catholicism in general. But it feels like it's out of the scope of this article, at least as presented. We have several countries that are unevenly presented, and part of that is a lack of sources discussing and comparing the global sex abuse of children in the Catholic Church. In Germany's case we seem to be reaching for an excuse as to why or how cases are presented in the following decades by extrapolating decade from WWII. Is there a place in this article for any material about this? Isn't there a better way to contextualize this without such a diversion? Any ideas? I'm thinking the section should be removed but perhaps there is some value on another article? Insomesia (talk) 10:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It was re-added by the same editor here, here, here, here, here, and here after being deleted by two or three other editors. As far as I can tell they are the only ones re-adding the material.

Seemingly identical (original?) content was added here in September 2010 by a different user. I didn't look too far back but it could predate that edit as well.

I'm not opposed to the information being somewhere on Wikipedia, just likely not this article. Would a straw poll be appropriate to see if there is any consensus to keep it in the article? Insomesia (talk) 11:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

There was never consensus to add it to the article. Some of the material is also covered in the German article but we also do not include many other things that are in the German article so there is no particular reason why this should be here and not other things not. Judging by the contents of the German article which I hope to be reliable the content in the English text is incorrect anyway.

I believe there should be a broader discussion what constitutes notability for this particular article. I consider it fairly bizarre when the section about "Church responses" starts with a quote by some "Thomas Plante" whereas I could not find any mention of any pope saying anything about this. Richiez (talk) 17:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

If the items are incorrect they should be removed if not fixed. I'll look at the Thomas Plante, although I do want to see consensus here on if the Third Reich content should be kept at all. Insomesia (talk) 19:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I did look at http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-43278950.html, an article in a popular and usually well researched weekly mag which is reflecting on Höckerts' research. According to this article the real and alleged cases were mostly related to homosexual behavior (which was allegedly heavily prosecuted after Röhm putsch in Germany), some institutions of the Church like the "Waldbreitbacher Kongregation" were a real gomorrah of that time which the bishop failed to see or did not want to see. The Nazis tried to exploit that for propaganda, unsuccessfully. There were many very real abuse cases, such as the case of pater Leovigild who has apparently had a "devastating influence" on novices and aspirants and "seduced" at least 22 congregations members. As of the alleged propaganda, it is somewhat unclear why the Nazis would make propaganda against the church as it was Ludwig Kaas who gave Hitler his Reichsermächtigungsgesetz in return for a concordate and there seems to have been lots of cooperation in Germany, Slovakia, Croatia, Hungary and other catholic countries.

The current WP article text seems to claim that all cases were constructed to malign the church which is clearly false, the Spiegel article does not mention a single case that was deliberately constructed. It does say that the Nazis did sloppy investigations and had relied upon unreliable witnesses (many of them mentally retarded fosterlings) of catholic institutions - in those cases the accusations were quickly dismissed once the case was brought to court. The 234 convictions which Florence Tamagne writes about is interesting, however it is also in my opinion difficult to balance properly as we know relatively little about all the cases and all propaganda machineries were running at full speeds during that time and after the war. For example it seems that the Spiegel article is written in the usual "nazi-bashing" style of post-war Germany and needs to be read very carefully to extract the facts.

One thing is for sure, the current text just can not stay like this. Richiez (talk) 22:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

law suits in lead

I transferred the following lines from the lead to discuss their placement in the article:

"BishopAccountability.org, an "online archive established by lay Catholics," reports that over 3,000 "civil lawsuits have been filed against the church" in the United States, some of these cases have resulted in multi-million dollar settlements with many claimants. The Roman Catholic Diocese of Dallas paid $30.9 million in 1998 to twelve victims of one priest ($57.8 million in present-day terms). In July 2003 the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Louisville paid $25.7 million to "settle child sexual-abuse allegations made in 240 lawsuits naming 34 priests and other church workers." In 2003 the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston also settled a large case for $85 million with 552 alleged victims. In 2004, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Orange settled nearly 90 cases for $100 million. In April 2007 the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Portland in Oregon agreed to a $75 million settlement with 177 claimants and the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Seattle agreed to a $48 million settlement with more than 160 victims. In July 2007 the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles reached a $660 million agreement with more than 500 alleged victims, in December 2006, the archdiocese had a settlement of 45 lawsuits for $60 million. In September 2007 the Roman Catholic Diocese of San Diego reached a $198.1 million "agreement with 144 childhood sexual abuse victims." In July 2008 the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Denver agreed "to pay $5.5 million to settle 18 claims of childhood sexual abuse." The Associate Press estimated the total from settlements of sex abuse cases from 1950-2007 to be more than $2 billion. According to BishopAccountability reports that figure reached more than $3 billion in 2012. Addressing "a flood of abuse claims" five dioceses (Tucson, Arizona; Spokane, Washington; Portland, Oregon.; Davenport, Iowa, and San Diego) got bankruptcy protection. Eight Catholic diocese have declared bankruptcy due to sex abuse cases from 2004-2011.

I plead to integrate these facts in the section on U.S. abuse cases. Otherwise the article looses its international character. This might and mislead to the impression, that catholic sex abuse cases are first and foremost a problem of the U.S. --Ricerca (talk) 07:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

You didn't transfer or discuss the mass deletion, you wholesale deleted the whole thing, without any discussion. This is well sourced and stable information and you should follow your own admonishments to gan consensus before making such sweeping deletions.
The are the results of these cases, some of the most notable ones, that paragraph rightly focusses on the US as this is where the nexus of international attention has been heightened. I have been looking for other country information and been finding that the US cases generate unique heat and media attention. The are well discovered and brought to civil authorities, and a multi-million dollar and multi-claimant settlement speaks volumes about the enormity of the abuse. I think any attempt to minimize this shows a lack of understanding how serious sexual crimes against children affects them and how severely the public and courts view the perpetrators of these crimes. I feel the lead is way too short and needs to be well developed. I think an additional paragraph should be added to focus on how other main countries with cases have progressed in seeing the perpetrators of these sexual crimes against children be prosecuted and brought to bear for the damages they have done to the victims, their families as well as the church. The first few paragraphs need to also be developed.

I'm open to finding ways to better represent this information but this is a part of Show, don't tell where nothing speaks quite like multi-million dollar lawsuits and hundreds of claimants in a single case. I think it's also original research for us to pick just one to represent all, every diocese is unique and there are cases throughout the U.S. I think this defines it but deleting this content will not be of service to readers who may not understand anything but the results of civil cases. Just like some inside the church may not understand the severity except when the Pope makes a statement about the sex abuse. Insomesia (talk) 13:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I admit that I'm uncomfortable with the growing focus on US cases instead of retaining a broadly international perspective, and the presentation of the US cases as being somehow more significant or greater than those outside the US. We do have Catholic sexual abuse scandal in the United States to provide the more specific focus, as well as the many articles related to the other countries. I guess I'd be inclined to leave out any mention of specific cases here, unless those cases have particular significance in the global picture, providing the reader with the option to drill down to the more specific articles. - Bilby (talk) 16:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

If the article's lead were improved I think this would not seem to lean so heavily. Each of the first three paragraphs is short, two of the paragraphs are only three sentences. This content, by comparison to that metric is obviously large. However it gives an overviews of thousands of cases, millions of dollars, and hundreds, over 1300 I believe claimants in settlements for only nine of the largest cases that Show, don't tell the end results of these well covered cases. I think additional content should illustrate some of the largest non-US cases with some relevant context of why they are being included. For instance, at least one example case from each continent that might be contextualized as to how different cultures respond to child sex abuse cases in their regions. I've been looking for information comparing countries and world regions to each other and there seems to be limited news reporting on that aspect. Hopefully some other editors know of research that can help illustrate why US cases are seen and processed differently. I've seen some writing on this but i think there must be more. In short I think the lead has been hacked up a bit and presently needs to be more robust as that is the one section of the entire article likely to even be read. Insomesia (talk) 04:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I keep getting the impression that you are starting from the assumption that the US cases are different, and looking for evidence to show it. Fundamentally, this is a global problem, and we have specific articles devoted to specific countries. So I'd prefer to keep an international focus in this article, and use those specific articles to drill down on the regions. Otherwise the lead will either become horribly long, or, as it currently stands, be strongly weighted towards one country.

That aside, we seem to be working backwards. :) The role of the lead is to summarise the article, so normally when I'm writing on WP I develop the article first, then go back and summarise the main points in the lead. Here the lead seems to be going in a different direction to the body, so that most of it relates to material not covered in this body, while most of the body isn't being reflected in the lead. - Bilby (talk) 04:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I generally focus on the lead to reflect the summation of information on the topic as that is generally all the majority of readers will even read. The lead should entice those engaged to keep reading. The article as is, is a patchwork and not a cohesive one. My hope is that we can have a solid lead section and work to fix the worst problems of the rest of the article. I do see that you and I are working from different perspectives so i hope we can still complement each others' ideas. In adding the US information I was addressing what i saw as a epic mark against the lead in that it didn't really illustrate that civil authorities had forced monumental cases with millions of dollars and hundreds of claimants. Those numbers are undeniable, they illustrate that indeed these problems are so severe that the Church has had major reprecussions for not internally addressing the problems head-on. The next logical step is to make international comparisons but I've found those to be less readily available. I'm convinced they will illustrate the cultural chasms that exist but between countries and the internal church culture. The differences between the cases in Ireland and the US is a fairly good example. The US focussed just on the sex aspect and was fueled by lay people and the media whereas in Ireland a governmental wing was commissioned and focussed on the institutional abuse endemic. That is what is still missing in this article, and what is by far the most interesting, how a similar situation is seen/handled so uniquely from place to place.

Looking again at the current lead, Wow!, it's really woeful and way too short, additionally every section in the rest of the article I look at needs clean-up as well. Insomesia (talk) 06:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Relevant reference sources and MOS questions

Personally, I have always thought that articles in reference books which deal with roughly the same topic as that of our own article may be one of the best indicators for what to put in the article, how to structure it, etc., particularly if we don't have a clear MoS directly relevant to the article. Clearly, there will be differences, regarding new material and relevant MoS here in particular, but they are still useful. Does anyone here know of any substantial articles in refernce sources which deal with the issue? I think I find a few online, in a few databanks I have access to, but would welcome anything anyone else can produce.

Also, I'm not sure how much, if any, impact the existing Manual of Style articles here, if there are any relevant ones, might apply. Specifically, how useful would WP:MOSLAW be in developing this article? John Carter (talk) 21:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I feel WP:MOSLAW might apply more to articles that are about a single or few cases within one legal jurisdiction. I too would be interested in any good research that compares relevant issues between countries. i think the cultural differences may be greatly impacting the cases reported and brought forth. Insomesia (talk) 00:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

History of child sex abuse

I've added a history of child sex abuse section from the parent article that gives a fair overview of why cases and media reports seem to have exploded when they did. I'm not sure everything needs to be there but I did like that it gave some more international focus. Insomesia (talk) 00:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

We should probably trim it back to a sentence or three - I don't have any problem with some mention of a broader history, but copying large amount of content from an article dedicated to that topic isn't necessary. We can direct readers to the other article with a hat note for the section, and the duplication makes it difficult to maintain the content acorss multiple articles. - Bilby (talk) 01:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it could be trimmed but taking so many paragraphs down to three sentences doesn't seem practical or helpful. And there is no History of child sex abuse, just a section on it at the very bottom of the child sex abuse article. Insomesia (talk) 11:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Globalize

I've added the global tag as this is suppose to be the global overview but is almost exclusive in many cases to the US. This was due to the article mainly being about the US incidents with an "other countries incidents" section (see [2]) and then being slowly converted, split out of main incidents, and merging of existing articles. It seems the focus has always been US specific. Insomesia (talk) 21:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Anew section specifically bundling international issues was added, and with other additions I think this tag is no longer needed. Insomesia (talk) 01:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Removed content

I'm a little taken aback by this edit; I certainly didn't mean to mislead but I did condense into one sentence perhaps too much? I think it's a valid point to be made; In 2002 The Boston Globe noted that in United States, which has 6% of the world's Catholics, the crisis are often fueled by the media which is seen as sometimes being "crazed by sex" and a perception "there is a hysteria when it comes to anything sexual. from "World doesn't share US view of scandal":

• "The Vatican has long had a love-hate relationship with the United States, which is home to just 6 percent of the world's Catholics"
• "[the Vatican] thinks ... the reporting on it is uniquely American ... And that thinking is tied to the larger perception about American culture, which is that there is a hysteria when it comes to anything sexual."
• "from the perspective of many at the Vatican, there is something quintessentially American about the current clergy sexual abuse scandal, which some see as a manifestation of cultural depravity and a news media crazed by sex."

I could see rewording this but removal does not seem warranted and this is a component for understanding some of the handling of this crisis. Insomesia (talk) 11:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I had to remove it because the line was misleading. The source didn't say that the crisis was fueled by media, but the article seemed to present that as a factual claim. The source was talking about how some in the Vatican perceive the crisis, and how this perception may be influencing their responses. This is a very different and lesser claim to what we were saying. Rewording could make it accurate, but then that point about perception is already being made, more accurately, later in the article, and that seems to be the better place to discuss the issue.

In going through the article I'm finding this problem with many of the sources, and I think that a more careful examination would be worth doing. Many of the sources aren't really supporting the claims they are being used for - they are saying something a bit different, or not supporting the entire claim. - Bilby (talk) 02:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate more what you were getting at. I don't fully share your assessment but accurately representing the sources is certainly our best goal. Insomesia (talk) 11:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

International dimension

I've tried to reorganize the article so it reflects the international dimension of the problem. This is what this article should be about. There is a separate article for abuse in the USA. Instead prior to this the opening section has a huge slab of statistics about the USA. Much of the USA material should be moved to the article on the USA cases. The cynical amongst us might say that the reason some editors don't want this article to reflect (as it should) the international dimension of the problem is that there is currently an application before the International Criminal Court to prosecute the Pope and other senior Roman Catholic Church officials with a Crime Against Humanity on this issue.NimbusWeb (talk) 00:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The US vs the world issue has its genesis in that this article has always been about cases in the US and recently has been expanded to be about cases worldwide. I do applaud the new international section BTW. The us cases in the lead is specifically noting the civil outcomes of only some of the largest cases in US history and I think we are need of the international counterpart. In short the US cases have always been more documented here first then the rest of the world content seems to follow that. Now we need a section about the largest non-US cases.

This is the first I think I've heard about the Pope being sued but that component, as far as I know, has had no bearing thus far. It certainly could be added wherever you think it fits. Insomesia (talk) 01:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The historical dimension about the article seems incongruous now. You can't load a whole detailed para on just one jurisdiction in the opening section. There is now a large separate article on the US Cases and a lot of the US material here should be shelled out and placed there.NimbusWeb (talk) 07:11, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I hear what your saying however that one jurisdiction, the United States, are leading the rest of the investigations and cases worldwide. We may never know if the rest of the cases would have been delay or never discovered but the evidence is that the US led the wave of investigations and reforms. Yet this remains a worldwide scandal as the Church has redistributed offending priests from country to country. And this part of the lead remains the strongest part of the outcomes of these cases outside the church's control. The civil courts have intervened because the circumstances are so egregious. So here is the evidence of those non-church cases. This is a part of the overall story and we should not shy from that reality. I have reworked this section to offer more of a summary. We are still missing a summary of other major non-US cases.

BTW I would feel the same way if some other country was the source of the inital wave of scandals, investigations, and reforms. Insomesia (talk) 11:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Then again, we may never now if the other cases Insomnia presumes even exist. These comments above display a very clear presumption on the part of the editor involved which raise very serious questions about that editor's ability to edit this material objectively. I once again urge the editor above to both refrain from using the article talk page as a soapbox for him to express his own personal opinions as if they were indisputable fact, and to recognize that his clear and obvious presuppositions about the topic in general make him perhaps among the least well-qualified to make judgments about this topic. John Carter (talk) 18:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

My statements were based on news reports that the US cases led the way for reporting elsewhere. If you could let me know what you feel I was soapboxing otherwise I could specifically address those concerns. Insomesia (talk) 22:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Time to change the title of this article?

After learning more than I was first interested on this subject I have to say I find the article's title misleading. Especially looking at case reports from other countries where the attention is focussed on rape of women by priests and bishops. This article is solely about the sex abuse of children, or minors, or children below the age of consent. I think we should consider that this article refers not to all sex abuse cases but specifically on those involving children. Thoughts? Insomesia (talk) 10:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

So, Catholic child abuse cases, or Catholic child sex abuse cases? How prevalent (in the news / other sources) are these "adult" cases? Do we already cover them in wikipedia somewhere? It seems renaming the article may not be the best approach to solving this issue, but I'd have to see more about the scope of the problem to be sure.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I think Catholic child sex abuse cases might be accurate as there is plenty of abuse that isn't sexual and wouldn't be covered here, especially in Ireland right now. Perhaps try a Internet search and see if you get a mixed bag. I think in other countries, part of the information I was looking for, any talk of sex abuse - child or not - wasn't even escalated officially. In Asia cases would be rumored about but celibacy (what priests were supposed to be about) was highly revered so those who were on that path were seen as extra revered and somewhat above suspicion. Or maybe getting abused as a child was a weird rite of passage and the sex stuff was just ignored as a thing a child makes up. Or they couldn't express what had happened. Plus the culture supported victims staying quiet. In Africa there are many cases of nuns being raped. There likely were children abused as well, likely actually, but there were also gay sex scandals, heterosexual sex scandals and child sex scandals. I didn't quite find a good succinct telling of another cultural difference, that in many countries being a priest was an elevated societal position so the very thought of one doing something bad was impossible on some level. Insomesia (talk) 15:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, I think there are two possibilities.

1. Reporting of non-sexual abuse cases, or adult abuse cases, is extensive and sufficient to warrant coverage in wikipedia. If so, we should have an article titled either Catholic abuse cases or Catholic sex abuse cases which covers the topic in full, providing a summary of Catholic child sex abuse cases, as well as any other articles we would need to create for the new coverage.
2. Reporting of other cases is either not sufficient to warrant coverage, or is minimal enough in detail that it doesn't warrant a new article. If so, and we need to cover the material at all, we should either retitle this article Catholic abuse cases to include non-sexual abuse, or keep the current title but expand its scope to include sexual abuse of adults.

As far as you've discovered reading the literature so far, which scenario best describes our sources?   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I think renaming this article to Catholic child sex abuse cases and then summarizing this one at Catholic abuse cases makes the most sense. There are loads of non-sexual child abuse cases, and there are plenty of cases of sex abuse that don't cover child victims and both those populations can also be summarized at Catholic abuse cases. That article can also catch some of those that are prosecuted for child sex abuse but are settled as only an abuse case. I think Wikipedia's coverage has echoed the most sensationalistic cases, but similar to other crimes against minorities we only get a fraction of the whole story from those. I also wonder how many people were told to get over the abuse they faced because at least they weren't sexually abused. Insomesia (talk) 15:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I think that makes a lot of sense. I'll boldly make the move, and create a stub of the other article that we can start working on. If you know of any really quality sources for the new article, please jump in and add them :)   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I created Catholic abuse cases, and filled the content in from here and a few other articles, with a sparse lead. Please improve on it, add sources, etc, as you can. This page is move protected, so we'll have to file an RM or get the page unprotected to make the move.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm now seeing that almost every article about child sex abuse fails to even mention that children are involved until you get into it pretty far. If you're bored i think they all should be renamed if indeed they seem to be only about child sex abuse. Insomesia (talk) 17:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I have a question regarding the scope of the articles. First, I don't doubt that there are numerous cases of "abuse" of pretty much every sort regarding a group of about 1 billion people currently. The question I have is about instances of, for instance, Catholic nuns being raped by individuals who are not related to the Catholic Church in any clear way, like local military officials. That is "Catholic abuse" as well, albeit of a different form.

And, unfortunately, I think a lot of these problems would probably have to pretty explicitly say that the conduct today is recognized as "abuse," although, at the time it happened, its status might have been much less certain. At the risk of repeating myself, societal standards of abuse of all kinds have changed dramatically recently, even within the lifteimes of living individuals. And, yes, what is called "abuse" in one country isn't in others. The Pitcairn sexual assault trial of 2004 comes to mind here, a case in which some individuals were following the norms of their local society, which differed dramatically from the laws of the UK. Seeing the actions of one group through the eyes of another which is dissociated either through time or distance is probably a fairly clear violation of NPOV, and every effort should be taken that it is not violated. John Carter (talk) 18:56, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, we encounter issues such as this occasionally. The only way we have to resolve it is by reporting just what the reliable sources say, without judgement. If the reliable sources say that some event was an instance of "Catholic sex abuse", then it should be included. If we have a plethora of other reliable sources which indicate its status in this category is controversial, then we can attribute each claim and put those comments in as well. Our job is only to see which sources apply to the article, and to weight them appropriately. We shouldn't be figuring out some objective standard on our own.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, it could perhaps partially be resolved by use of words like "by" and "of". Articles on Sexual abuse by Catholics and Sexual abuse of Catholics would reasonably have at least somewhat different scopes. FWIW, that is one of the reasons I like having the word "cases" included in the titles of these articles. I have no doubt, for instance, that some castrations, voluntary or involuntary, like Peter Abelard for instance, will be called by some reliable sources as "sexual abuse" of some sort. Inclusion of words like "cases" makes it a bit clearer that we are talking about instances in which the then-current laws of the country or world or whatever are involved, and that is a useful limiter in situations like this one, where there is the potential of a lot of OR/SYNTH problems. Sexual misconduct by Catholics is a rather broader topic, which could include cases of, for instance, priests having sex, voluntary or involuntary, with nuns in France before the French Revolution or whenever the then-current laws weren't invoked. It might also be useful for some cases of what is now called Catholic sex abuse, if, for instance, the laws at the time of the incident may have been unclear, but the subject was prosecutable later under laws that had been changed since the incident. I don't know how often, if at all, that sort of thing has happened, but it might be useful if it has. John Carter (talk) 20:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we could do that too, if the article title was closer to that formulation. As it is, we're pretty far off, so we'd have to revamp the title entirely. To illustrate: we're not talking about sexual abuse by Catholics generally; we're talking about the Church specifically. We'd have to say Sexual abuse by the Catholic Church, a lengthy title which avoids the use of the word "cases". We could say Cases regarding sexual abuse by the Catholic Church, but now we have a full sentence. I think WP:UCN applies here. Most often, the literature seems to refer to this as "Catholic sex abuse cases" (or something very similar), so I think that's what we should stick with. I think changing it to include "children" would be ok, because it's still pretty close, and the literature sometimes says "child sex abuse cases" too, and properly defining the scope of the article is important. But I think getting too far away from that might be problematic. Perhaps I've misunderstood you, though. Do you have any specific title that you're really fond of that we could consider instead?   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I can actually live with the current title for an article which deals with the incidents of sexual misconduct in recent years by individuals who are in some way officially tied to the Catholic Church as "employees" (monks, priests, nuns, music ministers, church secretaries or maintenance, things like that) and have been brought to some sort of court in civil or criminal cases on that basis. (Yeah, that's long, but I'm trying to be specific). And I could live with Catholic sex abuses cases involving children and Catholic sex abuse cases involving adults. I myself would maybe limit the scope of this article to that, though. And I kind of have reservations about implying that these incidents themselves were by the "Catholic Church," unless there is some form of evidence of official church hierarchy approbation in a particular case, which I don't know I've seen yet. Other cases like Abelard and Heloise could qualify as "Catholic sexual misconduct incidents," or something similar, if there were no clear evidence of any form of legal review. And, yeah, that might apply to incidents of juvenile, adolescent, or competency-related abuse in earlier times or adult "abuse" at any time which isn't brought before a court. Basically, I just want to make sure that we don't try to lump together the kitchen sink-full of incidents from, say, the Middle Ages in with these current incidents. Regarding possibly different articles about "child and adolescent abuse" and "adult abuse," I could see that too. Just making it clear that I don't have any reservations about having coverage of all forms of "sexual misconduct" by Catholic officials (or any other kind of misconduct, for that matter), but in a way which doesn't raise in the minds of some BLP matters or maybe SYNTH concerns regarding anachronisms. And I think, although Insomnia may well disagree, that there are probably going to be a fair number of allegations of abuse of some kind that aren't investigated but just printed in media which might well be false or "tactical" in some way. And, yeah, I have very serious BLP WEIGHT concerns regarding having any sort of separate article on, basically, allegations of misconduct by Catholic officials or something of that like. John Carter (talk) 22:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, do you have any objection to the move we've been planning? That is, rename this article Catholic child sex abuse cases, with a parent article of Catholic abuse cases (which covers a more general scope). By the way, Insomesia, I could also live with Catholic child abuse cases to lump together all abuse of children. I don't think the article contents would change much; most (but I'm sure not all) abuse was sexual, so the scope would barely change. Then the title would flow better, and fit more closely with its parent Catholic abuse cases. Does that work for everyone? Forgive me if I've missed anyone's points above in suggesting it... I'm a bit scatter brained ATM :P   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

In a comment few people who know me could believe I could make this short, "Works for me." John Carter (talk) 23:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I followed everything but I would be opposed to enlarging the scope of this article to cases that are not sex crimes against children. I think there is already way too much information on the subject and squeaking in anything else leads to softening the tragedy of a sex crime against a child. I have the same opinion no matter what religion, by the way, or for that matter institution, if we were talking about a school, business, or any social group. Insomesia (talk) 13:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The current proposal, as far as I can tell, is to have:

• Catholic abuse cases
  • Catholic child abuse cases

This article's content would almost entirely fall into the child article, Catholic child abuse cases. While the scope of that article would technically be larger than child sex abuse, it would not be substantially so. What coverage of child abuse do we have other than sex abuse? I'm sure there's some, but not much. I imagine we'd simply have to add a very brief section detailing a few incidents... and that would only happen after we'd tracked down quality sources for it. I'm happy to discuss this further, but just as a note, whether such a move would "soften a tragedy" is irrelevant to our job here. We're not trying to "paint a picture of abuse", or write novel literature. We're simply trying to report the reliable sources, and decide on a grouping which logically makes sense based on their coverage. With that in mind, let me know what you think of that proposal, in particular. Thanks Insomesia! :)   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I can't be sure of this, but if there have been any recent legal actions regarding spanking of students in Catholic schools or anything similar, they would probably fall within the scope of the "child abuse cases" as well. I know that in some countries such suits have been filed. One of the big disadvantages we have, which I might have mentioned before, is that, as I have heard reported, the US has 50 times as many attorneys per capita of any other country on the planet. I am going to assume, in admitted OR, that such numbers increase both the number of lawsuits in the US, and, probably by extension, the number of frivolous and harassing suits, as well as, probably, suits designed to just get some money out of individuals who might have done something wrong which might not actually rise to the level of being able to lose a civil suit, but are willing to settle out of court to avoid the publicity. On that basis, I do have some reservations about our having an article or any content which simply lists the number of suits without further elucidation about the possible causes. Unfortunately, I imagine the independent press probably hasn't looked too deep into matters such as I have described above, and I imagine that several people would object to any information coming from press associated with the Catholic Church or religious groups in general. John Carter (talk) 19:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Many of the Irish cases involved physical or emotional abuse, but not sexual abuse. This was especially in the orphanages, and in Australia there were similar cases. I'm not aware of the US situation in regard to physical non-sexual abuse. In general, I'm not too worried if the focus is reduced to child abuse cases, except insofar as the definition of 'child' is a bit flexible in regard to the varying ages of consent, so the general topic might avoid having to work out if something should be raised here when the person involved was below the age of consent in one country but not another.

One thing I'm concerned about with the proposal is the forking of content so that there is a lot of duplication between articles. At the moment Catholic abuse cases is a direct copy-and-paste of this article and Roman Catholic sex abuse cases by country. Other than some minor copyright concerns (which I’ll handle in a minute), this means that we have a harder time with maintenance, with a higher risk of problems emerging between articles. If there is clearly enough information to warrant a content fork then it should be pulled from the other articles and added to that one, rather than duplicated. If there isn’t, or if that isn’t desirable, then I don’t see that the new article is warranted. - Bilby (talk) 03:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I support the new article as being the parent article encompassing all the abuse cases. Specifically the Irish cases that are not specifically sexual but are becoming well documented. My initial research into other countries is that abuse is documented but in many, perhaps most developing countries, there are enormous social stigmas about anything sexual so it's less rare to see abuse cases, then there are some adult rape cases, and then the minority is child sex abuse cases. The opposite seems to be true is the US were sex scandals are openly talked about and reported on. The media focusses on scandal and by that metric, child sex abuse cases gets headlines and repeat coverage. A rape of a nun by a priest? Not so much. Likewise children abused non-sexually just a less notable to the media unless it's an exceptional case, even if these are the majority of actual abuses, they would be less taken to trial and reported on. I think this article needs to remain focused solely on Catholic child sex abuse cases, with the name clear to that end. The very new article will likely improve vastly over the next few years as our coverage becomes more holistic. Insomesia (talk) 04:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you may be underestimating the coverage and importance of institutional child abuse. The Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse gives some picture of the scope, and there was extensive overage in other regions. To some extent it becomes difficult to distuinguish between overtly sexual abuse and some other forms of physical abuse.

In regard to the new article, I'd rather wait until there is enough content for spin it off, rather than duplicating existing coverage and assuming that over time the distinctions will emerge. - Bilby (talk) 04:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Well I'm glad you pointed that out. To me the new article is a new parent article for all the abuse, sexual or not, children or not, internal church workers or not. Whereas this article should be limited in scope to just sex abuse on children. Agree also that there is a lot of blurriness in abuse, often there is crossover. However, the news sources also are quick to point out, and the public reaction is often different for sexual abuse. I suggest more sympathetic and outraged. This article would house only the documented sex abuse and its focus just like the civil courts have a different and higher standard for sex abuse than any abuse. I want this article to not be watered down with debates on can we use various wordings if not all the abuse was sexual, we already have these discussions to work out defining the ages of abused children, and wether they're into or past puberty. I think we should maintain more a "bright line" that this article is only for sex abuse of children. There is a more parent article covering adult victims and non-sex abuse cases (as defined by their sources). Insomesia (talk) 05:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

My proposal is to have this article renamed to Catholic child sex abuse cases to exclude non-sexual child abuse and non-child sexual abuse. Should I start a new section or continue here? Insomesia (talk) 01:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

New possible article if anyone is up for it

If anyone is up for creating a new article, a summary article Catholic sex abuse cases in the United Kingdom could be a summary utilizing information from Category:Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal in the United Kingdom. Insomesia (talk) 16:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

What are the major non-US Catholic child sex abuse cases?

I had hoped this information would be easily obtainable somewhere but perhaps I've overlooked it so far. I think it's important to document what are the most notable cases from each continent/region even if we only have one to represent the area. Insomesia (talk) 12:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

This is very silly editing. If someone did add all the non US cases the opening section would be vast. You have to move all the detailed info on US cases form that first section. It is completely out of place. It should go further down the article or into the separate article on US cases.NimbusWeb (talk) 18:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you'll see I was specifically looking for the most notable. And these are the outcomes of the cases that this article is suppose to be about. The lead has to also serve as a standalone article so a reader could read only that and get a summary of the entire subject. The multi-million dollar settlements with hundreds of claimants is one of the most notable elements of this subject. Insomesia (talk) 22:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

When (if) you apply for good article status. The first thing a senior editor will demand is a short lead.208.57.251.240 (talk) 21:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The lead still needs to be tightened but that does not mean these cases have to be removed, already they have been summarized. Also I don't see this article going for good article status until a lot of clean-up has taken place, I would say it's improving but still needs a lot of work. Insomesia (talk) 21:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course they should be removed. That lead is probably 5 to 10 times the length it should be. NO specific cases or details of what's happening in any single country should be mentioned. Mentioning the thoughts of the American Psychiatric Association in the first paragraph(!) is just ridiculous. Far too US-centric. It may belong in the article, but not in the lead. The lead could contain a list of countries where legal action has been and is under way, but beyond that, we must keep it global and general. HiLo48 (talk) 22:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree on the length of the lead. If you look at other comparable articles that are FA quality the leads are often very long but are well organized. I think we are heading in a better direction but reducing it to correspond with a desire to decrease the length alone is not likely to serve the article the best. Insomesia (talk) 00:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

As a personal opinion, and that's all it is, I would suggest the lead be constructed more or less like this:

• 1) Begin with a basic definition of the scope of the term "sex abuse cases"
• 2) Give some idea of the rough chronology of the subject, like, maybe, mentioning the first really prominent cases
• 3) At this point, I might add some material about the media attention to the subject, if that is appropriate chronologically
• 4) Describe how the cases have since spread, if they have, and what sort of responses to them have been made
• 5) Describe any actions, legal or administrative, by the church itself or the various national legal systems have had, in terms of changing policies, laws, legal procedures, etc.

Just an idea, anyway. John Carter (talk) 22:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you,I agree that there needs to be more organized approach and this might show where we are maybe missing something relevant. I'd like to try organizing based solely on what we currently have while looking to also trim away some of the superfluous content. Insomesia (talk) 00:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the criticisms of the article as it is. We seem to have an editor who is attached to his work on the US cases and can't seem to comprehend the article is no longer centrally about those US cases. Learning how to lose that attachment is 'Editing 101.' They need to go down into the body of the article, along with the other cases, divided up under subheadings according to their jurisdictions with references to the main articles in each case.64.134.234.223 (talk) 03:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I do a degree agree, but only to a degree. The central problem seems to me to be that the cases of sexual abuse by Catholic clergy have become something like a social "fever", similar to the Qigong fever David Palmer titled his book by that name on the Qigong movement in China after. Another comparison would be to the witchcraft trials in the Middle Ages. By saying that, by the way, I am not saying that any of these "fevers" lack legitimate bases. So, yeah, I think in a way significantly due to the prompting of the more-than-a-little-sensationalist early US press coverage of events in that country, which was almost at saturation level for some years, this has become a global phenomenon. But, at least based on my own memories of the events, which is probably flawed, the first major cases came out of the US, and it is thus reasonable to begin the article with that, and then expand beyond it as the cases themselves have. And it should also, if I am right in what I say above, give significant coverage to the US cases, even if those cases do have a separate article, because at least some of the US cases are among the central developments in the history of this phenomenon. Similar to Falun Gong, which is now a global movement which has grown since its beginnings as a group targeted as an "evil cult" by the Chinese government, a significant part of the history of this cultural phenomenon of reporting Catholic sex abuse cases is specifically confined to a single nation, I personally think, and if I am right we would misrepresent the phenomenon if we did not give that one country probably the biggest part of the space and weight. Maybe. John Carter (talk) 14:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd appreciate just a little credit actually. I have been advocating for a more world perspective on this article which has always been a US article and over the last year or so changed into a worldwide article. I have been continually adding non-US content as that has not been forthcoming despite requests. The US information was added chiefly because it is relevant. What weight to attributed to different zones is a longer discussion which likely needs to be preceeded by actual research to see what information is even available. I looked and I found it hard to find specific content. Of the thousands of documents available I confess I'm not familiar with them all. Anyone else is welcome to find non-US content. I applaud any effort to do so and bristle at the implication that in any way I'm opposed or even negligent in doing so myself. Insomesia (talk) 21:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I acknowledge the difficulty of getting non-US based information, particularly if you, like me, are based in the US. We have a glut of sources here, but in a lot of cases there are nowhere near as many sources available in English for other parts of the world. If you want to, drop me an e-mail with your address, and I can forward to you what information I can find from the multiple databanks I have access to. But I do acknowledge this isn't like most of the articles I have worked with, where all one has to do is consult any of a number of reference books which have content on the subject. Actually, my laziness is probably the reason those are the types of articles I most often work with. But you have done a good job, so far as I can see, in finding non-US material, and like I said, finding such material can at times be so difficult that it is one of the reasons I myself like to pontificate from the sidelines without doing any real work myself regarding such articles. Current events articles are a real terror to work with, and I appreciate those who are willing to go through the effort to develop them. John Carter (talk) 21:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Why do you restrict the cases only to the Catholic church? What about other religions as reported in newspapers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.236.53.16 (talk) 06:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

This article only covers within the Catholic Church, other religions may have other articles of their own. Insomesia (talk) 10:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The exceedingly long and detailed intro is an article in itself, and so i moved most of the excess to pertinent sections, but it was moved back. I tried. Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 02:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The lead is suppose to be a mini article for the majority of readers who only will read that and nothing else. It could be tightened up a bit more but I think you removed too much. The history of this article has been mainly about US cases and we are now attempting to have more of a global view, as sources allow. As well we have had attempts to push POVs from two main sides who feel the cases are unwarranted and those who feel the Church is not being held accountable. We try to allow all notable views to be represented. Insomesia (talk) 10:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but i see the excess lump of info in the intro, which at least should be broken up more, as not fitting for this format, regardless of intent, nor is it necessary to avoid POV. "A good introduction should introduce the topic, telling readers unfamiliar with the topic exactly what it is. Write a line or two about who or what the subject is (State the obvious). A good intro should also contain a concise overview of the article, summarizing the most important points. That means writing a bit about each of the sections in the article, expanding slightly on the more important points. For longer intros an "Overview" section separated from the lead may be appropriate." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Introductions. I was trying to make the article more organized and less redundant, and while it seems there is only one editor here who insists this must stay as verbose as it was, i will leave it though it could be tagged. Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 12:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Requested move from Catholic sex abuse cases to Catholic child sex abuse cases (or similar)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move. Cúchullain ^t/c 15:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

---

---

Catholic sex abuse cases → Catholic child sex abuse cases – To be more accurate that this article is confined to Catholic sex abuse cases of children as the current article shows. And purposely to not include Catholic abuse of children that is not sexual in nature (which is well documented especially in Ireland). And purposely not include Catholic sex abuse that is of adults, rape of nuns, etc. which is documented and sometimes reported at the same time in sex abuse scandals. Our current coverage IMHO is good in this article but this would make it clear from the title that content needs to be about Catholic sex abuse cases of children. I hope that's clear enough. Insomesia (talk) 00:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Support - Basically what you said, its more specific and it only includes children. One point though, if it was only adults involved would you suggest it to be called "Catholic adult sex abuse cases"? --JetBlast (talk) 22:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

We have Catholic abuse cases as the overall parent article, and if needed Catholic adult sex abuse cases could be created if the need seems to be there. Presently the child abuse cases, especially the sex abuse ones seem to get the most coverage. Insomesia (talk) 00:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment. The article was once called Cases of child sexual abuse in the Roman Catholic Church. I was going to state that I oppose this move because, judging by the Debate over causes section, the majority of offenses are commited against postpubescents. But the end of that section says, "According to definitions of the American Psychiatric Association, the majority of the victims has to be considered pre-pubescent (age 13 or younger)." What does the line mean about "definitions"? The definition of pedophilia? The American Psychiatric Association doesn't have an ephebophilia definition because it's not considered a mental disorder (unless it "results in dysfunction or exploitative behavior"), and it only has one pedophilia definition. And when I looked at the lead, it says, "against children as young as 3 years old with the majority between the ages of 11 and 14." So which is it? Are the offenses committed more against prepubescents, pubescents, or postpubescents? It seems to be the first two, but more like those with hebephilic tendencies.

Anyway, the term "child sexual abuse," or rather "child molestation," is more often used in reference to prepubescents, while statutory rape (though not termed statutory rape in most countries and jurisdictions) is used more so for pubescents and postpubescents. Plus, when people think of the word "child" or "children," they usually think of prepubescents, not some 17-year-old guy who may be one month from turning 18 and thereby attaining legal adulthood. The age of consent varies, but age 16 and up are usually legal. So if most of the offenses are committed against postpubescents, ranging from 15-19, then that means that most of the minors are legal. I'm thinking that the current title not having "child" in it is partially due to the reasons I've just mentioned. 217.147.94.149 (talk) 01:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

"with the majority between the ages of 11 and 14" is in the first sentence and I think child sex abuse is what the majority of sources use in connection with these cases. While technically other terms may also be correct I think Wikipedia:COMMONNAME applies here. There may be a need to devote more space than already has been, to go into the differences but this RfC is just to make the title to specifically cover what is not included (child abuse that is non-sexual, sexual abuse of adults) and using the commonly accepted terminology of adult vs. child. When needed, the article covers age of consent, etc. This RfC is not about those issues. Insomesia (talk) 02:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment Shouldn't it be "sexual", rather than "sex", to match child sexual abuse? Unreal7 (talk) 23:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The majority of sources seem to suggest "sex abuse" rather than "sexual abuse." You may have a case that child sexual abuse is the best title for that page though. Insomesia (talk) 13:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose. My concern is that this new title limits the coverage to only Catholic children. Is it know for certain that all of the victims were Catholic? If so then I'm not really opposed based on this argument. I am however of the option that both names are not acceptable and that we can do better. I'm tempted to relist this to see if there are better options out there. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  • The sources overwhelmingly refer to these as Catholic sex abuse cases, that they involve children and are done in Catholic institutions. This would limit to children cases of sex abuse as oppose to the many Catholic sex cases that involve only adults. The Catholic part is that they are Catholic institutions involved, churches, schools, etc. We don't drill into the faiths of the children and arguably those are set by the parents and the church leaders rather than a choice of the child. Insomesia (talk) 23:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
• Comment The word "cases" turns this into a list, which means the title would be List of. However, the article is not a list (barely), so "Child sexual abuse by priests" might be better. The current status of the article, though, is almost as pathetic as the subject. Apteva (talk) 04:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Debate Over Causes

I don't understand why the framing of the debate is only populist in point of view: IF 80% of Priests do not remain celibate, and only 20% do, and IF Priests are not allowed to develop emotionally or psychosexually beyond a 14 year old level, by their celibacy vows, not being allowed to date or have sexual relationships (these facts were gleened from a discussion on a viewer-supported LinkTV show, and I am having trouble backing them up beyond the somewhat dated Sipe Survey)...then it seems to me it really is an accident waiting to happen. Why isn't the public allowed, through proper framing of the issue, to tell their children (and adults) that these are not necessarily evil men, just men who don't really understand their underlying needs? Why saddle young people with the stigma of victim instead of teaching them some men need better perspective and therapy (that "some men are sick, or deficient really, and need help" to use colloquial terms). With what we now know about the Human Reward System, and how when People are not given enough experience with the primary dopamine pathways, they usually develop secondary pathways in an attempt to fill the vacuum, and that that is a drive not a choice, especially when knowledge of dopamine pathways is not commonly made available on television or our education systems. There are no evil People, just People who lack the right perspective and experience, and who go astray. Why is none of this mentioned in any of the Wikipedia pages about sex abuse or Clerical celibacy? Thanks, OasisMike I've learned a new way of thinking. (talk) 17:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I do not mean to use this as a forum, however information IS missing, probably due to cultural opinion: People who "develop" difficulties with appropriate use of their Human Reward System (which in colloquial terms are called co-morbid conditions to ADHD, but which I maintain are simply secondary dopamine pathways - and that ADHD is a misnomer for Reward System Dystrophy) are more likely to be seen as deviant, and will continue to form complex defenses against being seen that way, UNTIL they are given a factual context for understanding their real underlying needs (ie: experience with the primary dopamine pathways, or the pathways natural to the human species), and so open themselves to the real damage and pain they often cause. It has been studied and written about in relation to the Church ("Clericalism: Enabler of Clergy Sexual Abuse" Thomas P. Doyle, Pastoral Psychology, Volume 54, Number 3 (2006), 189-213, DOI: 10.1007/s11089-006-6323-x) - a quick Internet search for the three words: clerical psychosexual immaturity, yields many books and scholorly articles in the results. Outside the context of the Church, both genetic and developmental arguments abound in brain studies dating back ten and fifteen years (Reward Deficiency Syndrome, or RDS, and Conditioned Attentional Avoidance Loop response models), and although much complexity has been introduced in the diagnostics and cataloging of the symptoms, I believe it all comes back to the Human Reward System, or how we learn to control and focus our dopamine. This applies to murderers, drug addicts, sexual deviants and addicts, gamblers, hoarder, and child/domestic/elder abuse, in all walks of life. And, it belongs in Wikipedia, and not just in one place, but in each of the places where People come to learn about the effects, it is purposely stripped out of the Popular Media because they know they don't want to lose their viewers and listeners, and because they have a dysfunctional model of supporting changes in behavior which focus overly on punitive justice and personal responsibility - but the costs of not telling the truth about these things is evident, and damns both the perpetrators and the victims. Someone's gotta start putting this into the public discourse because abstinance is not enough, and rarely works [just look at the success (or failure) rate of 12 step programs]. I have ADHD, so writing about this is beyond my ability, Thank you for allowing this note to remain in hopes someone gets a clue and includes it in the proper places and in the proper manner. [And, I do appreciate that non-celibates are just as often violators as celibates are, but statistics don't paint the proper picture of how people learn to use their Reward System, and will never paint the picture of how dopamine is a drive, not a choice, nor how people require the proper perspectives to learn how to grow and move forward - and, I am not making this up, I am comparing brain studies to my own experiences and learning - it is so very easy to correct a problem through REBT/CBT and behavior modification once restructuring the underlying meanings is accomplished, this is not the same as being homosexual, which IS physical or organic, this stuff is learned and can be changed in five months, so the question stands, "Do we want to help people get better, or keep playing the Enemy Card?" or "Do we want to think like Parents, or continue to think like Cops?") Thanks, OasisMike I've learned a new way of thinking. (talk) 19:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like a load of crap to me, frankly. But regardless, if you are comparing brain studies to your own experiences, then that qualifies as WP:OR or at least WP:SYNTHESIS, and thus we cannot use the information. We need a reliable 3rd part source for what you want to include. Without then, we can't change anything.Farsight001 (talk) 19:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I've gotten that response from my Uncle, a retired (and successfull) attorney...who had Dyslexia, another symptom (or Co-Morbid condition) of ADD. It doesn't make me think I am wrong, just that I am bumping up against something much bigger, a cultural prejudice that's been ingrained into us by the 1% (now I am straying into use as a forum, so sorry)...but everything I say can be backed up by brain studies. Synthesis? Definitely, but...well visual aids are perhaps the most powerful: look at a brain scan of dopamine activity between an ADD brain and a normal one, and then look at a similar brain scan of a normal brain compared to one in deep meditation or prayer, and you have to assume that the ADD brain is shutting off their dopamine given I've been able to meditate myself into highly dopaminergic states through cognitive means (ADD's an ingrained defense mechanism, vis a vis the Conditioned Attentional Avoidance Loop model), then look at the brain scans and studies of Tibetan Monks who are able to create new complex brain structures through cognitive effort even later in life, and you'll know that self-exploration can create new brain structures (even later in life). Then ponder how I was able to cure myself for a paraphilia in only five months...three years ago. I could no more enjoy those old pictures now...than I could drink a glass of cows milk, knowing it was wrestled away from a baby cow in most cases and won't be properly absorbed by my body (it's a lie and pain in a glass). Both make me cry, actually giving me a physical reaction, and a strong one, at this point. Something (the paraphilia) most doctors are still taught cannot be "cured" and yet...here I am...and, now, learning to use my dopamine as I should have as a child, at the age of 51, blurring the line between adult and child, between retardation and being very smart (IQ 130-135).

No, it looks like I'm going to have to do this research myself, go to college, get a degree and prove you all have the wrong perspective on this. I look forward to making the contribution, but that's a long road, and I have no resources. I'm pissed I was lied to for so long, so maybe that'll help me get through it. Take care, and thank you for the responses. OasisMike I've learned a new way of thinking. (talk) 14:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I get the impression that your comments here are basically driven by a personal belief regarding the applicability of some individual psychological theories, like the Rewards System example you use above. I am not at all sure that independent reliable sources would necessarily support the idea that those theories apply here. This subject is, basically, a subtopic of the broad field of psychology of religion, which we at this point have rather inadequate content regarding. There is a great deal of information about it, but I am also not entirely sure that this particular subject has received significant attention by people in that field, although I have to acknowledge that I myself don't know it that well. My suggestion would be to go through the archives of JSTOR and maybe any other databanks you might have access to and see what material if any they have there. I think it might be useful to have some content regarding the p.o.r. view on this subject, but we really should have that material produced from independent reliable sources, preferably professional ones in this instance, given the contentiousness of the topic, and I don't know how much if any there is available on that aspect yet. John Carter (talk) 15:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

International Criminal Court submission

I have inserted this paragraph.

In September 2011, a submission was lodged with the International Criminal Court alleging that the Pope, Cardinal Angelo Sodano dean of the College of Cardinals, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone Vatican Secretary of State and Cardinal William Levada head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, had committed a crime against humanity by failing to prevent or punish perpetrators of rape and sexual violence in a "systematic and widespread" concealment which included failure to co-operate with relevant law enforcement agencies. In a statement to the Associated Press, the Vatican described this as a "ludicrous publicity stunt and a misuse of international judicial processes." Lawyers and law professors emphasised that the case is likely to fall outside the court's jurisdiction.NimbusWeb (talk) 05:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Article Needs an Editorial Clean-up

The introduction is still too long. The international dimension section has a collection of apparently random examples (in other words--examples should be by continent or groups of nations. Material here repeats what happens later under teh sections where nationals are listed (is this needed if there's a separate article on cases around teh world). The headings should relate to different conceptual aspects of the problem.149.171.241.157 (talk) 03:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The international examples have already been collapsed into a footnote. They had been added to show the worldwide phenomena as opposed to just the US centric aspect. Insomesia (talk) 13:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

There's still a lot of issues with this article, including quite a bit of duplication among sections. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly there is a lot of strong opinions on various sides. I've tried to focus on getting the lead more NPOV and do various clean up on the rest of the article. Feel free to do whatever you have the energy for. Insomesia (talk) 22:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Catholic abuse cases be merged here, as there is overwhelming overlap between the two articles. In the title, the difference is the word "sexual", which would make one expect that it is about abuses other than sexual, but that is not the case. Most of it is about sexual abuse. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 15:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

When we originally discussed this, we had looked at how to break this article into smaller, better organized chunks. We originally discussed separating child abuse from general sex abuse... but we ultimately reached no consensus on creating Catholic child abuse cases and the rest. We settled on this hierarchy, with Catholic abuse cases being a parent article for this one, while also providing a space for any abuse cases which weren't sexual. I think that makes sense. This article is huge, so anything we can do to organize the content into a parent and a few children is worthwhile.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I still hold that this article would be better renamed to Catholic child sex abuse cases to preemptively prevent child abuse cases that aren't sexual and sex abuse cases that aren't of children. Perhaps that would help here. I don't support a merger as this article is already very large. Insomesia (talk) 04:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure renaming the article to preemptively prevent some future problem is a great idea; WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NODEADLINE and all. But otherwise, yes, making this article bigger wouldn't be an improvement, IMO.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I understand the logic of hiving off specific elements into separate articles and I have no doubt that that would have been the original intention. However, as things stand, the article that would have been about child abuse (not sexual) is presently about 75% about cases of sexual abuse. There is no clear boundary between the two articles or about what each should contain/ cover. That is why I proposed the merger. As for the argument about the length of the article, that per se should not be an argument for not merging. In terms of "parent article" and "children articles", is sexual abuse is a sub-set of abuse, then the 'child' dwarfs the parent in size and scope, making it look as if that is indeed the main article. Would it work to create a page about "abuse of a non-sexual nature"? Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 13:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Catholic abuse cases is the newly created parent article to this one. This article started as solely about sex abuse cases of children in the US, it has been the locus of much editing and is now shaping up to be the summary article of all the child sex abuse cases of the Catholic church. This is the subject area that has caught a lot of media attention over the last decade. The parent article, Catholic abuse cases, is to specifically summarize the sex abuse cases of children as well as abuse cases that don't involve sex with children and cases that don't involve children. It's quite underdeveloped. Insomesia (talk) 09:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Pope Benedict XVI's resignation

Off topic discussion

A recent addition draws a connection between Pope Benedict XVI's resignation and the child abuse scandals. I've had to remove part of that, as in checking the source being used, [3], there is no claim of a connection between the two. There is the clear statement that his resignation was due "a progressive decline in his strength" as opposed to "difficulties in the papacy", and there is a separate earlier discussion of his papacy claiming issues around his management of the child abuse scandal, but nothing that directly connects the two. That said, raising it in this article does seem to suggest a connection that may be unwarranted. - Bilby (talk) 02:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC) Certainly it may be impossible to prove a causal connection, given facts as they are currently understood. But to say that including the fact of his resignation in this article "may be unwarranted" is a position I totally disagree with. Many, many reliable sources are reporting on that connection. That makes it notable, and that makes inclusion our imperative. Notice that the word used is "connection". There is a connection between what he had for breakfast this morning and the resignation speech he gave later in the day. It does not mean that his choice of pop tarts (or whatever) caused him to announce his resignation. The scandals and his resignation are facts that are being reported on in the same articles published by the multitudes of sources. If those sources made no mention when reporting his resignation, then it would be appropriate for us to remove that mention here. But as it is, there are many sources that are publishing a causal connection, so when the dust settles it seems evident that what was added to this article today will need to be strengthened. This is not to agree that what is being reported is accurate. It is simply to acknowledge as notable that it is being reported. Now if at some future point in time, some memo gets posted through the "Vatileaks" channels that will provide more insight on motivations behind today's announcement, then of course that will give reason to change this article one way or the other. But even that would not change the fact on what is being reported today and how it is being reported.--Tdadamemd (talk) 02:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC) The difficulty is that the source you are using doesn't make a connection, except in the very generic way in which you are speaking. It opens with some paragraphs about how he resigned and everyone was surprised, then moves into a discussion about his time as Pope, covering the child sex abuse scandal as a focus, (which makes sense, it being one of the defining issues for the Church in recent years), and then moves to discuss the specifics of his resignation. The article never draws a connection between the reasons for his resignation and the child abuse scandal, or, for that matter, suggests one - any discussion on his time as Pope should refer to the handling of the child abuse scandal, but that doesn't mean that his resignation and the handling were related. I don't think that we should be suggesting a connection between the two events, either, as we do by conflating them here. - Bilby (talk) 04:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC) I would totally agree that neither you nor I should indicate anything like 'sex abuse scandal' > therefore 'resignation'. Our job is to document what reliable sources say. And I would also agree with your feedback that the one article I had picked is not suggesting a causal relationship. But I did say earlier that there are many sources that are reporting this, and that it is our job to capture that in the article. I will not do that myself today. Nor maybe this week, nor maybe this month. I see it to be a wiser course of action to 'let the dust settle' here because Wikipedia is not a news outlet. It is an encyclopedia, and that will benefit with a bit of aging on very fresh news. That said, I expect you are well aware of the types of news articles I was talking about. I will post a sampling here - just the headlines: - Pope Benedict's Legacy Marred by Sex Abuse Scandal - Pope Benedict XVI to Resign From Scandal-Plagued Church - Pontiff’s mission clouded by sex abuse scandal - Pope Benedict 'burdened' by sex abuse, butler scandals, papal expert says - Pope Benedict XVI: A Conservative Whose Papacy Was Dogged By Scandal - Pope Benedict XVI Resigns from a Church in Crisis - Why Did Pope Benedict XVI Resign? Some Blame Widespread Church Sex Abuse, Butler's 'VatiLeaks' Scandal That's just a sample. As for any Wikipedia article that states his reason for resignation was declining health, and makes no further effort toward presenting a more complete article would be as silly as hearing a US President say that they're resigning because they're afraid to fly on Air Force One, and then presenting that as the unquestioned reason. Dying in office is part of the job for a Pope. It's in the job description. It is what you accept when you agree to taking the job. Unless you are hit by a truck or poisoned by your adversaries (eg-JP1) you will get old and die. This whole aging/dying process means that your health will decline. And a Pope dying is what Catholics call "getting a promotion". All the more reason to stick it out to the end, as all Popes in recent as well as not-so-recent history have done. Wikipedia has clearly set policies that guide us to make the best and most proper presentation of info in cases like this. I haven't read those policies in a while, but from my understanding our best approach for this article is to find if there are sufficient secondary sources that draw a link from the resignation to the topic in this article, then state that - while also indicating the primary source version of the story (declining health). That's where the article appears to be right now. ...and when causality is reported on by reliable sources, then the article is improved by citing that as well. Those articles are available today, and it would be perfectly reasonable to incorporate that today - not that there is a causal relationship, but that these sources are identifying a causal relationship - a fine, but important distinction. So while I myself may not see today to be the best time to make that next-step edit, others here may want to do this sooner rather than later. If and when a source from within the Vatican were to say something like, "these scandals were a major factor in his decision to resign - his closest advisors told him to consider it as the best move for the long-term good of the Church", or whatever, then clearly the time would be over-ripe to make that next-step edit.--Tdadamemd (talk) 10:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC) There's a bit of progress there, but I think you need to keep in mind the distinction between discussing the child sex abuse scandal in covering his time as Pope, and connecting the child abuse scandal with his reason for resigning. Out of the sources you have provided, the vast majority make no connection between the two issues. They discuss his resignation, and they discuss issues during his term as Pope, but this does not mean that they draw a connection between the two. Only one says that it may have been a factor, noting that this is fully denied by the Vatican. The point is that anyone looking back on Bennedict's time as Pope will have to make mention of the sex abuse scandals. But that isn't the same thing as saying or suggesting that his resignation is in any way connected to it. If you want to write about the issues during his time as Pope, that's what Pope Benedict XVI is for. But this isn't the place use use synthesis to draw a connection beyond what is in the sources. - Bilby (talk) 11:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC) There's been some major instability in the article today. I understand the points being made, and it would be good if more editors would join this Talk discussion. The one criticism that stands out the most to me is Mavigogun's: "if the material is unsupported, remove it. If not, remove the weezle words and kid gloves" I see that as an excellent point. The connection is either supported, or it is not. If it is not, this needs to be removed, as '70.62.55.100' saw fit to do. And I would have tended to agree with that argument, except for the info in the many references I posted above in my previous comment. Within those reports is the justification for inclusion. I found a very strong causal connection drawn by "Anne Barrett Doyle, co-director of BishopAccountability.org". She is quoted as having stated, "Benedict’s papal reign had to come to an end because he facilitated widespread abuse." Again, the paragraph I readded with this inclusion is not Wikipedia telling anyone that it is true that the resignation was caused by the scandals. The article, as it currently stands, is simply presenting how other verifiable sources are drawing that causal connection. For anyone who sees the current edit to be improper, based on BLP, Verifiability, or for any other reason, we can discuss that here.--Tdadamemd (talk) 22:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC) What she did not say is that his reign did come to an end due to child abuse - she only said that he should resign due to the child abuse scandal. The point is that you need to show that his decision to resign is connected to the child abuse scandal. You have not done so, and the Vatican has specifically denied that this is the case. What you are doing is synthesis, not reflected in the sources you are using. - Bilby (talk) 00:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC) The exact quote is: "Benedict’s papal reign had to come to an end because he facilitated widespread abuse." That one word "because" is the causal connection. This quote is a clear cut fact. Just look how long the quote is, and then click on the reference to see that I changed absolutely nothing. Me changing nothing = no synthesis. But yes, we are certainly agreed that the Vatican's story is totally different. And the current edit reflects that. I see this to fit perfectly with NPOV.--Tdadamemd (talk) 00:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC) I think you're reading a lot into that statement that isn't there. "Had to come to an end" means that she believed it had to end, not that this is in any way connected with the actual decision to resign. - Bilby (talk) 00:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC) The quote specifically states that his "reign had to come to an end". There are only two ways for that to happen: resignation, or death. So the other way to read that quote is that Benedict had to die. I expect that we could all agree the quote is not a death threat. As for causality from abuse to resignation, I see that quote to be crystal clear: -Fact) "he facilitated widespread abuse" -Conclusion) "Benedict’s papal reign had to come to an end" -Causal Connection) "because" And again I'll reiterate, the article is not presenting that "fact" as irrefutable, and this is why those words are within quotes. Those specific words are attributed to Doyle's view of what the facts are.--Tdadamemd (talk) 06:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC) Bilby is being very polite. Let me be more blunt: that edit is not going to happen. Wikipedia is not to be used to insert coy suggestions about why the Pope resigned, based purely on WP:SYNTH. Picking the words "whose tenure has been overshadowed by sexual abuse scandals" from a reliable source as a reason to mention the resignation here will never fly. Johnuniq (talk) 01:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC) Comment While I think there may be a place for this in the article I don't think it belongs in the lead as of yet. As this will likely be reported on heavily do we have strong sources tying the child sex abuse cases to his resignation? Insomesia (talk) 01:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC) Insomesia, here is a NY Times article from Tuesday: ‘Constant Drumbeat’ Sped the Pope’s Exit One quote: "Clerical sex abuse scandals battered the papacy relentlessly, erupting in the United States, Ireland and across Europe, all the way to Australia." Another quote: "It was another scandal-marred trip, this one to Mexico and Cuba in March, that seems to have finally persuaded Benedict to consider the idea of stepping aside, Vatican officials said. The visit to Mexico was haunted by the specter of the Rev. Marcial Maciel Degollado, the Mexican founder of the Legionaries of Christ, a powerful and deeply conservative religious order with close ties to John Paul’s papacy. Before he died in 2008, Father Maciel was found to have raped seminarians, fathered several children and engaged in drug abuse." So there is the NY Times reporting on what Vatican officials have stated. (The first quote follows a reporting on what a "Vatican expert" from an Italian newspaper had said.) That is just one of a handful of new articles I have found in the past hour or two. I can post those as well, if anyone is interested. But you all can find these other references as easily as I can. I'm finding all of these through GoogleNews.--Tdadamemd (talk) 07:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC) That source doesn't tie the resignation to these cases but to various scandals. Any others? Insomesia (talk) 09:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC) Johnuniq, you are voicing a similar criticism to Mavigogun's in that it is improper for the article to imply a causal connection through coy suggestions. That is a criticism to which I have thoroughly agreed with. This is why the Doyle quote was selected. It does not mince words. It is an extremely direct statement that identifies causal connection. Certainly many can and will disagree with that quote. But Wikipedia is not about making articles that contain 100% of statements that no one disagrees with. Editors have been emotional here because widely contrasting versions of reasons behind the resignation have been presented. The guidance Wikipedia gives us in situations like that is NPOV. And I've previously expressed (earlier comment posted above) how the current edit accomplishes that.--Tdadamemd (talk) 07:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC) The Doyle quote does not necessarily say what you think it does. You are running with an interpretation of what Doyle intended. Let's not try and use an interpretation of someone's statement as proof of their stance. In this case Doyle could have meant one of two things when she said "Benedict’s papal reign had to come to an end because he facilitated widespread abuse": It is a description of why she believes he resigned. It is a statement that she believes that he should have resigned for that reason, whether or not that was the reason he did, and so she is glad that he's gone. You are assuming that she meant the first. She could just have easily meant the second. Given that she is far from a neutral commentator, the Vatican denied that issues facing the Church was a cause, and that Doyle was in no position to know, I think that the second interpretation is at least as likely. But either way, we can't rely on our interpretations of what she meant to advance a position. We need statements that don't require interpretation. - Bilby (talk) 07:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC) I actually am in total agreement with you that 1) and 2) are both plausible meanings. I was never trying to say anything here that would exclude the possibility of 2). The bigger point is that the quote is presented in the article with absolutely no interpretation at all. It is a straight cut & paste. It does not mislead a reader toward 1) if she had meant 2), nor does it mislead a reader toward 2) if she meant 1). That, combined with the Vatican's official reason, meet the standard of NPOV. (My opinion.)--Tdadamemd (talk) 14:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Specifics of Pope resignation edit

Currently in the lead it states, in regard to Benedict's resignation:

No specific problems within the papacy- such as taint from the administration of subordinate sexual criminals -were given as cause.

This is sourced to The Guardian [4]. However, it seems misleading. What the Guardian actually says is:

Federico Lombardi, a Vatican spokesman, said the pope had resigned not because of "difficulties in the papacy" or a specific illness but instead a progressive decline in his strength.

It seems to me that the source isn't saying that no specific problems were given as a cause, so much as it is explicitly denying that problems within the papacy were a cause. The current wording leaves open a possibility denied by the source. I'd like to suggest changing it to:

The Vatican stated that the resignation was due to "a progressive decline in his strength", and denied that it was the result of problems within the papacy.

Would this be acceptable? - Bilby (talk) 07:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I still question if it belongs in this article at all? We have the resignation but what exactly does it have to do with these sex abuse cases? =It has nothing to do with sex abuse other than if one cares to speculate or gossip. =Insomesia (talk) 09:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I did not realize that WP:SYNTH was still in the article. I just removed it. I suppose it will be edit warred back in, but it will be removed because that text has no place here. By definition it is just gossip and speculation because no one but Benedict and a very small number of advisors know the full story, and they are not going to make a public statement that conflicts with what has already been said. Even if commentators A, B, and C all think the sex abuse cases were a factor, the text is still cherry-picked gossip. What about commentators X, Y, and Z who think something else was a factor? What about common sense which tells us that the simple explanation (Benedict means what he said) is correct? Are people seriously suggesting we should have a paragraph saying Benedict claimed he was resigning due to some reason, but commentator A has speculated without any evidence that sex abuse was a factor? Furthermore, A has no way of specifying how much of a factor abuse played—if only 10% it is too tangential to mention here. Johnuniq (talk) 09:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy with leaving it out altogether. It seemed that we were leaving some in, so if that's the case I'd like it to match the sources, but I agree that it isn't needed. - Bilby (talk) 09:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I am at a total loss for how that paragraph was seen to be SYNTH. People called for his resignation in 2010 due to his involvement. That is a well-cited fact. And now that he's announced his retirement, there are people who are saying that this was a needed action because of the scandals. Another well-cited fact. Johnuniq, you just clobbered a set of well-documented facts that are extremely pertinent to this article.

If you'd like to see what speculation looks like, here is The Young Turks report on the Pope's reasons for his resignation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n3Rmfvbw_o.

...and a strong argument could be made for using that as a source. (Not that I'm recommending it.)

I also need to address your criticism of cherry picking, Johnuniq. I would actually agree with you if we were here discussing the Pope Resignation article. But we are not. We are talking about an article dedicated to Sex Abuse Cases. What the Pope's actual reasons are, that only he can know with 100% certainty, are totally irrelevant to this article. What is relevant is that people called for his resignation, and then he resigned. His own personal reason is totally beside the point (maybe he had a telepathic connection with his pet dog who suggested he step down so he could spend more time petting - whatever). It is the very fact of him resigning that makes it notable to this article.

Now say that we were discussing the Resignation article. The proper correction to the cherry picking criticism is not to delete the statement about the connection to the Sex Abuse Scandals. The way to fix that is to add the other reasons that people are identifying as major factors. No one is suggesting that for our article here, because none of those other factors are relevant to this article.

If the major objection to the section that was removed was that it gave the impression that the sex abuse scandals were the only reason his critics identified in the resignation, then I would be inclined to agree with that, and a good fix would be to include a caveat like "among other factors". Most of the articles I posted in the section above talked about various factors, as I recall.--Tdadamemd (talk) 15:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I just came up with a solution that honors all of these objections [even though I myself do not agree with those objections]. It is an edit to re-add just the 2010 call for resignation which links to the Resignation article, but says absolutely nothing of the fact that he resigned. I hope everyone finds this to be acceptable.--Tdadamemd (talk) 16:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC) [edited for clarification--Tdadamemd (talk) 12:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)]

I think there is a way to present this information and given the reporting I've seen reliable sources do seem to be connecting these sex abuse cases to the resignation, if nothing else a contributing factor to his resignation. Thus allows a sentence to precede what you have there to state that in Feb. 2012 the resignation was announced and some news media outlets such as A, B, and C tied the abuse cases as a contributing factor (or a major contributing factor). Insomesia (talk) 01:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Possible sources

• Pope Benedict resigns: sex abuse survivors hope move eases prosecution: Victims and their advocates – who hold pontiff responsible for covering up abuse – push forward with international legal cases
• Pope 'could face court over pedophiles': AUSTRALIAN human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson says the Pope's resignation could expose him to lawsuits from victims of pedophile priests.
• Pope's resignation a surprise to U.S. Catholics: Benedict's tenure draws praise from some members of the church, scorn from abuse victims
• Benedict XVI Resigns: A New Path for the Papacy?

I think there's some good material there for extending the section on criticism of the Vatican's response, which would be good. But none of those sources seem to say that he resigned because of the child abuse scandals - one stating resigning puts him in a worse position in regard to them.

The difficulty is that we're getting a lot of people criticising his actions on child abuse in looking back at his tenure of Pope, but it is important to distinguish between criticism of his prior actions can claims that his resignation was connected to them. - Bilby (talk) 01:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I thin the content would be about that by resigning he is possibly put in jeopardy for being sued in some of the cases, the legal angle. I think it will be a little bit longer before we have strong sourcing that he resigned because of the cases, although I think we have enough to state that some news media tied his resignation to the abuse cases. Insomesia (talk) 01:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I missed something in your links above? But I can't see where his resignation is tied to the abuse cases. They discuss his resignation, and they discuss the sexual abuse scandal, but they don't seem to tie the two together. That said, I think there is some good material there to develop a section on his effectiveness (or lack thereof) in regard to child sexual abuse as Pope. There's a lot to work with in the Vatican responses section, and as people look back on his time as Pope they will provide some really good analysis that we can incorporate. - Bilby (talk) 04:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Bilby, I'm going to repost the previous quotes here, because now you're just burying your head in the sand.

In 2010, several secular and liberal Catholics called for his resignation, citing then Cardinal Ratzinger's blocking of efforts to remove a priest convicted of child abuse. "Anne Barrett Doyle, co-director of BishopAccountability.org, said Benedict’s papal reign had to come to an end because he facilitated widespread abuse."

Wikipedia has a policy pertaining to weasels. They should also have one about ostriches.--Tdadamemd (talk) 12:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC) [Post deleted after having gotten a better understanding of Bilby's reasons from latest post.--Tdadamemd (talk) 22:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)]

Bilby, your edit from several hours ago has just buried the lede. While I agree that it is good to include this in the body of the article, there are many who will see this Pope's resignation as one of the most important events surrounding this issue of sex abuse cases. I suggest that it will be best to have mention in both the lede as well as in the body.--Tdadamemd (talk) 11:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

If that turns out to be the case, then yes, by all means add it to the lead. But the claim I moved to the body said simply that "several" unnamed people had called for his resignation in 2010. This, in itself, is far from a significant point, and it doesn't seem to warrant its own section in the lead. - Bilby (talk) 12:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I guess I need to clarify my stance on this. Any and all significant criticism of the Pope's response to the sex abuse scandal should be included (within, of course, the scope of the usual polices). The response of the Vatican is a major part of the issue, and I just added one of the sources listed by Insomnia to the article in order to expand our coverage on this. It is important enough that I can see it being included in the lead, but to be in the lead, which is meant to be a summary of the body, we need to expand the coverage in the body first, and then summarise the key points. I don't see the 2010 call for his resignation as a key point.

In regard to his resignation, I can see this as worth covering if we reach a point where there are reliable sources connecting his decision to resign to the abuse scandal. At this stage, there doesn't seem to be any significant sources making the direct connection, but this may change. However, what is happening is that people are writing critical pieces on his time as Pope as they reflect on his resignation, some of which are directly addressing how he responded to the scandal. This gives us a great opportunity to expand our coverage, per my point above. - Bilby (talk) 12:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the body needs to be expanded for each point covered in the lede. And I also agree that the 2010 quote would have been much stronger if it had identified names. Perhaps someone will find a quote from that period that gives more specifics. I apologize for my earlier statements about ostriches. I now have a much better understanding of where you are coming from, and I am far more agreed with what you are saying than any area of disagreement that we may have.

This actually goes back to my early wish to hold off on citing specific quotes. My initial edits were of a general nature, and I wanted to keep it that way as I knew that the highest quality references do not come out on the same day or week of a shocking event like this. I am looking forward to getting solid reports from organizations like PBS Frontline before we will be able to have top quality Wikipedia articles on this issue.--Tdadamemd (talk) 22:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

As it turns out, I do not need to wait for Frontline. I just need to subscribe to HBO. (Lots more below.)--Tdadamemd (talk) 06:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

As to the strength of that 2010 article talking about calls for the Pope to resign, here is a quote I just found in this CatholicNews.com article - In hindsight, Pope Benedict's resignation seems almost predictable:

"But if Pope Benedict declined to resign at the height of the controversy over clerical sex abuse in late winter and early spring of 2010, when some accused him of personally mishandling cases of pedophile priests in Germany and the U.S., it is hard to imagine what sort of crisis he might deem disturbing enough to resign over now."

Hard to argue with a source like that.--Tdadamemd (talk) 00:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Here's another source to add to the growing pool:

• 'Mea Maxima Culpa' Documentary Asks Unsettling Questions Of The Catholic Church, The Very Week Pope Benedict Resigns...

Quote (including caption):
Alex Gibney's film asks questions of the highest echelons of the Catholic Church
Now, his documentary exploring the abuse of power in the Catholic Church - all the way to the highest levels in Rome - is being released the very week the Pope announces his resignation, an event unprecedented in 600 years of goings-on at the Vatican. And Gibney has told the Hollywood Reporter he thinks the Pontiff's departure from office is most certainly "inextricably linked" to the scandals he explores in his film.

Having the documentary coincide with the resignation announcement is quite intriguing. I'm surprised I had not seen that mentioned in any of the news reports I have read up til just now.--Tdadamemd (talk) 05:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I just watched the documentary trailer. Quote:

"From 2001 forward, every single priest sex abuse case went to Ratzinger. He has all the data."

Wow. Monday's announcement is making a lot more sense now.--Tdadamemd (talk) 05:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems less significant when you consider that it was released months ago, and that the person making the claim that the timing is so significant is the movie's director. - Bilby (talk) 12:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Those were local city screenings, as I understand it. The worldwide HBO release was what happened this month, within a week of Benedict's announcement. There was criticism over on the Resignation page similar to yours here, complaining that these references were not reliable. I just found a heavy hitting CNN report from Monday - CNN--Pope Benedict: Priest abuse mars legacy - with these quotes:

"...even priests lost faith in the Pope's handling of the child abuse crisis ... there was a real sense that Pope Benedict was attempting to dodge responsibility ... for many, Pope Benedict had failed."

Because of the high quality of sources, the information has been re-added. This CNN report is as direct as it gets. Well, barring any direct admission from the Papa Ratzi himself. And we saw how long it took someone like Lance Armstrong to come around. The more the public becomes aware of the facts, then the more the Vatican will be feeling the need to give direct answers. The key role that Wikipedia plays is that we are a major conduit for presenting accurate facts to the public.--Tdadamemd (talk) 13:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

So yes, it was released earlier, and I really can't see the director of a documentary saying "my documentary is important - it must have made the Pope resign" as an unbiased source. In regard to CBN, as before, it is a show talking about the Pope's legacy now that he has resigned, and addressing the child abuse scandal. It never says that he resigned because of the scandal. We need to keep those two issues separate. Indeed, the quote you are referring to had nothing to do with his resignation - it was to do with the letter he wrote. Cherry picking quotes to claim a connection that isn't in the source isn't the best way forward.

I'd much rather develop the material covering the Vatican's response, and problems regarding the response, to the sex abuse scandal, than focus on making a very tentative connection between that scandal and his resignation. It is perfectly reasonable to say that Benedict resigned for the reasons he gave, but that he was nevertheless inadequate in his response to the problems in the Church. - Bilby (talk) 13:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Clearly we are back at our impasse again. Bilby, there is no requirement that a source be unbiased. Every source has a bias. The requirement that we operate under is NPOV, which tells us that when we present a heavily biased source that we balance that with opposing points of view. You have clobbered two perfectly viable and pertinent sources. Instead of deleting, it is incumbent upon us to present a balanced view. The Pope said he resigned for health reasons. Many others are pointing to the scandals.--Tdadamemd (talk) 14:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Recent addition of Benedict content to the lead

Ok, so Insomesia added a large amount of content to the lead about Benedict. I've had to revert it due to a number of concerns, especially as this regards a living person. In particular:

• This turns a third of the lead into content about Benedict. Given that this is intended to be an article discussing Catholic sex abuse scandals in general, devoting a third of the lead to negative material about a single person has significant due weight problems, especially when so little of the body is focused on Benedict.
• Every quote used in the new content was anti-Benedict, with nothing to balance this out at all. This is a POV problem to begin with, but when you also consider that almost the entire section was based on quotes from people specifically opposed to Benedict then we have a big problem.
• Many sources have more positive or balanced things to say about Benedict. No reference to any of these was included. Looking at the current coverage on the topic at Pope Benedict XVI, we get a complete different account. This may also be POV, but clearly there is an awful lot missing from Insomnia's version.
• Insomesia has again added the contentious claim that Benedict may have resigned over the child abuse scandal, without balancing that with the many sources that say otherwise. Additionally, the source used [5] does not directly make this claim. Indeed, we've yet to find a reliable and neutral source that does.

I continue to support expanding the article to better cover Benedict's role in the scandal, and I've been expanding it to do so. But converting a huge chunk of the lead to anti-Benedict using almost exclusively biased sources, or adding similar POV material elsewhere in the article, isn't the way to go, and it raises significant BLP concerns. - Bilby (talk) 00:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

This is well documented facts, and just because pro-Catholic forces have whitewashed other articles doesn't mean this article should. Cluetrainwoowoo (talk) 09:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm concerned that this edit is a serious BLP problem, so I have raised it at the BLP Noticeboard in the hope of getting some people with a bit more distance to comment. Hopefully this will help clarify the situation. - Bilby (talk) 10:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I see no difficulty with the lead mentioning Benedict's role -- but the addition is much too long, with far too many quotes. There is no reason the addition should be repeated without working on a consensus version here; WP:LEAD should be consulted closely. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:09, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Benedict was the person responsible in the church for these cases being handled. He threatened excommunication against those who ratted out pedophiles outside of the church. His papacy is mired in non-stop pedophile priest cases and lawsuits. He faces prosecution now that he is stepping down. These are all verified facts that deserve a place in a good article. Whitewashing this article like his biography is unacceptable. Cluetrainwoowoo (talk) 12:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

As always, the story is more complex. Benedict met with and made formal apologies to the victims of abuse, introduced policies that resulted in immediate action to the majority of those that were accused of sexual abuse and sent to his office, acted decisively in regard to Marcial Maciel, and generally responded far better than John Paul II did to the crisis. This isn't to say that he did things right, or that he did enough, or that he didn't screw up as well - just that an NPOV discussion of his actions as Pope, and prior to that as Cardinal, is going to need to be a lot more balanced than what was written. I'd very much like to see the article expanded in that way, as the role of the Vatican is not explored enough in the article as things stand, but I'd like to keep it within policy as this is done. - Bilby (talk) 13:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

But deleting everything is worse. Most readers of this article will only read the lead and here we are discussing the one person, the most powerful man in the Catholic church who was ultimately responsible for addressing the criminal behavior of staff/employees as well as how to handle the rights of victims. Let's not whitewash any involvement. I certainly was unaware of his role but now that he is losing legal protections even more sources are discussing his role. Lets get this corrected. Insomesia (talk) 20:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• Another source - "Pope Benedict's decision to live in the Vatican after he resigns will provide him with security and privacy. It will also offer legal protection from any attempt to prosecute him in connection with sexual abuse cases around the world, Church sources and legal experts say." Pope will have security, immunity by remaining in the Vatican. I had no idea how connected to these cases Benedict was, I think it's to our detriment to add to misinformation by not reporting what is clearly known and notable criticism. Insomesia (talk) 20:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Bilby, I'd like to suggest that the ball is now essentially in your court. While I agreed that the addition to the lead was not an improvement as written, we all agree that something on this issue is necessary. if Insomesia were to re-write his addition, he (she) might have to wonder whether you would simply delete it again. He shouldn't have to read your mind as to what you will consider acceptable. I know everyone is busy, and perhaps you won't be able to suggest some text -- but if you don't, your argument for deleting what others write will be weaker in my view. I hope you take that comment as collaborative; that's how it is meant. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I wanted to step back a bit, rather than just have the two of us discus content, to give space for other opinions. But at this stage I'd like to spend more time looking at sources - I've been going through academic papers in order to get an idea of balance, but the difficulty is the best work I've found is published around 2010. Given a 6-12 month delay for publication, that only covers half the time of the Papacy.

The addition Insomesia wrote can't simply be rewritten, as it was entirely reliant on overly biased sources. Which isn't the fault of Insomesia, so much as the polarising of opinions created by the topic area within the media. What we need to do is get a better picture of events and work from there. - Bilby (talk) 14:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

One problem I'm hitting is that the current article does seem to cover some of what it should, but the timeline model used in the section on the Vatican response makes it difficult to see areas of responsibility. I'd like to extend that and summarize the content in the lead, but it may need to be organised differently. - Bilby (talk) 15:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Would it make more sense to look at adding more to the lead about the Vatican response, rather than focusing on one individual? - Bilby (talk) 15:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with adding about the Vatican response, but I also think there's nothing wrong with adding about Benedict specifically. Insomesia, I'd encourage you to propose something here that relies much less on quotations and uses at least some sources that are unlikely to be identified as partisan. Given the extensive criticisms levelled at Benedict, it's clearly appropriate to present the perspectives of critics -- but the more you can use high-quality sources, the less likely it is that other editors will object. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Noting that this isn't a Criticism of Pope Benedict XVI article, and Benedict's actual role has been small. So we need to keep the lead from turning into undue and one-sided criticism of a single person. I can see a sentence or two regarding his role in the lead, but I'm hard pressed to see much more being warranted here. The two main points probably being the apologies and actions made as Pope, with the criticism that many felt more decisive action was required, and his role in the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, given that it had a much reduced role until 2001. - Bilby (talk) 10:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

a proposal for the article

In the article on Catholic sex abuse cases you mention that children as young as 3 years old were abused by nuns and priests. I was one of those children, severely abused. Recently, with the help of my wife we published a book: Smothered. It is my story and also a well-researched and referenced account of all of the crimes committed by the Catholic Church and its minions. In the article, under publications, I would like to add the title of this e book. The book has been endorsed by Barbara Blaine, President of SNAP (the survivors’ advocate organization mentioned), and includes her review in addition to other reviews by lawyers, educators, child advocates and lay persons. Thank you for your consideration. George Barilla — Preceding unsigned comment added by George Barilla (talk • contribs) 00:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

It's an e-book on Amazon that has two reviews, a positive one from a relation, and a negative one from a reader who seems to regard the book as fiction.

Because Wikipedia is not a publicity or promotion medium, I am skeptical about having this article provide this book with a spotlight unless there's some evidence of notability.

Reviews of the book would help, but they would have to be published independently, not be part of the book's liner notes or preface. Can you point to some?

Thank you for bringing it to the attention of this talk page rather than inserting the reference yourself in the article. Hopefully others can comment. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. My intention in writing the book was to add to the growing body of evidence of crimes of the Catholic church. Other than relatives and close friends, no one knows about the book – I have not done any promotion for it. I hope it will encourage other abused people to write about their experiences. The negative review on amazon “from a reader who seems to regard the book as fiction” is actually from my cousin who is the son of two people mentioned in the book that also abused me as a child after the nuns and priest finished their abuse. I agree that it would be helpful if there were more reviews and I hope that happens.George Barilla (talk) 00:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The Catholic abuse cases page covers the exact same topic with one less word. 8ty3hree (talk) 18:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed changes

Mann Jess wrote: "Too much weight in lead for one study." I provided 4 sources:

(http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0011.html) mentions Jenkins.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/16/AR2010041602026.html mentions Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and the John Jay College of Criminal Justice and abuse by other organizations.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8654789.stm mentions the John Jay College of Criminal Justice as well as "current research and expert opinion".

http://news.uk.msn.com/world/articles.aspx?cp-documentid=152959036 mentions Ernie Allen and "experts who study child abuse" and: "Since the mid-1980s, insurance companies have offered sexual misconduct coverage as a rider on liability insurance, and their own studies indicate that Catholic churches are not higher risk than other congregations. Insurance companies that cover all denominations, such as Guide One Center for Risk Management, which has more than 40,000 church clients, does not charge Catholic churches higher premiums. "We don't see vast difference in the incidence rate between one denomination and another," says Sarah Buckley, assistant vice president of corporate communications. "It's pretty even across the denominations." It's been that way for decades."

So there is good evidence and the extent of the abuse is obviously of great importance to the article.

Mann Jess wrote: "and you removed sourced content in criticism."

I took out the line which mentioned "5,000 abusive priests" because it is false and contradicted elsewhere in the article! These priests were only accused and sometimes of "sexual talk".Jimjilin (talk) 06:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

This is also very important to include: "a Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll found that 64 percent of those queried thought Catholic priests "frequently" abused children. Yet experts say there's simply no data to support the claim at all." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimjilin (talk • contribs) 07:21, 8 November 2013 (UTC) Since there are no objections I'll make the small changes I recommendedJimjilin (talk) 05:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC).