![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
Slightly off topic, but it should help people understand so called "Fringe theories" a bit better. From the Economist: "As Austrians and Germans leave the church in ever-greater numbers, and with the Belgian Catholic church reeling from a police raid on its headquarters (as a well as a search of two cardinals’ tombs), the politics of the Vatican’s upper echelons look more and more out of touch with rank-and-file Catholics—let alone the rest of the world."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/newsbook/2010/06/catholic_church?source=features_box_main
Stuff that criticises the leadership of the catholic church isn't really a fringe theory given this. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 22:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Fortunately we have one http://www.smh.com.au/world/germans-abandon-catholic-church-20100325-r002.html. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 17:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
It seems a bit odd to try and claim that the Economist and Sydney Morning Herald are "ill-informed" - especially the former - unless you have an alternative reliable source stating that large numbers aren't leaving the church. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 06:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
As per my argument used elsewhere. This also appears to be backed up by reliable sources so should stay. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 01:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
This should be included. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 07:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
The Vatican has revised its in-house rules to deal with clerical sex abuse cases, targeting priests who molest the mentally disabled as well as children and doubling the statute of limitations for such crimes.
Abuse victims said the rules are little more than administrative housekeeping since they made few substantive changes to current practice, and what is needed are bold new rules to punish bishops who shield pedophiles.
Women's ordination groups criticized the new rules because they included the attempted ordination of women as a "grave crime" subject to the same set of procedures and punishments meted out for sex abuse.
PS here's the Google news link: http://news.google.co.uk/news/more?q=women+ordination+on+par+with+sex+abuse&hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&prmd=n&resnum=1&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ncl=dAzZy6drlSujh0MH8qZBnQ00EUivM&ei=0AxATMe5KI-94gbAyLnADg&sa=X&oi=news_result&ct=more-results&cd=1&resnum=1&ved=0CCYQqgIoADAA. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 01:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
You realise the Church will have a specific exemption from sexual equality laws? Ditto gay rights laws? If there weren't they'd be taken to court for not allowing women priests. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 07:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I like this New York Times article for addressing a policy of nonresponsibility, denial, legalistic foot-dragging and outright obstruction i.e. whatever is done by Vatican is right and unquestionable which is followed strictly in the two third of the Wikipedia article. The words alleged, allegation(s) are used 113 times in the Wikipedia article. Bizarrities like the pope Wojtyla's explanation what is sin, or opinions of some psychiatrists (?) that the criminals shall be treated by the psychiatrists, are for idiots. That pope forgot that the sin is a moral notionnot the religious one and it is clear and known to ordinary man. But in the Wikipedia article it is an attempt to level down the crime to the sin, for the benefits and interest of the Vatican. The Chirch and Vatican never did anyting for victims ix excluding Austria's RCC fund (established in 2010) aimed to support the victims. Then there is the Joh Jay report comissioned by the US RCC written to 'explain' what the RCC wanted to be 'explained'. Then the 'media bias' which is not even a part of defense line of the RCC today. The RCC crime(s) are the media headlines today and will be in future, too.
Rome Fiddles, We Burn by MAUREEN DOWD Published: July 16, 2010
The Catholic Church continued to heap insult upon injury when it revealed its long-awaited new rules on clergy sex abuse, rules that the Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said signaled a commitment to grasp the nettle with “rigor and transparency.”
The church still believes in its own intrinsic holiness despite all evidence to the contrary. It thinks it’s making huge concessions on the unstoppable abuse scandal when it’s taking baby steps. The casuistic document did not issue a zero-tolerance policy to defrock priests after they are found guilty of pedophilia; it did not order bishops to report every instance of abuse to the police; it did not set up sanctions on bishops who sweep abuse under the rectory rug; it did not eliminate the statute of limitations for abused children; it did not tell bishops to stop lobbying legislatures to prevent child-abuse laws from being toughened.
In a remarkable Times story recently, Laurie Goodstein and David Halbfinger debunked the spin that Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger had been one of the more alert officials on the issue of sexual abuse:
“The future pope, it is now clear, was also part of a culture of nonresponsibility, denial, legalistic foot-dragging and outright obstruction. More than any top Vatican official other than John Paul, it was Cardinal Ratzinger who might have taken decisive action in the 1990s to prevent the scandal from metastasizing in country after country, growing to such proportions that it now threatens to consume his own papacy.”
-- 208.103.155.175 ( talk) 03:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I have trimmed the link farm , there were all sorts of non reliable links and suchlike, some of then where also duplicated in the citations, there are 179 citations, most of them need formating so that it is possible to see what is gong on, many of them are not reliable also and some of them broken and some just dead and some to front pages, if someone is bothered enough that would be a good work. Off2riorob ( talk) 16:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
The see also section is also bloated and tangential. Off2riorob ( talk) 16:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
The "Vatican responses" has turned into a chronology which is inappropriate for a summary article at this level. We should be summarizing what happened rather than providing a blow-by-blow account of individual events. I'm not saying that the material as written is completely inappropriate for an encyclopedic article although it is questionable. What I'm saying is that the material would fit better in an article titled Chronology of Vatican responses to the Catholic sex abuse scandal. The current text of the "Vatican responses" section is spending too much time describing individual trees rather than providing a bird's-eye view of the forest. -- Richard S ( talk) 17:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Vatican bombs with crimes letter
"The first thing the church should be doing is reporting crimes to civil authorities," said Andrew Madden, a former Dublin altar boy who filed the first public abuse lawsuit against the church in Ireland in 1995. "That's far, far more important than deciding whether a criminal priest should be defrocked or not," he told AP. "The church's internal rules are no more important than the rules of your local golf club."
Church's new rules fall short - again
They do not include a one-strike-and-you're-out penalty for pedophile priests. They do not require bishops to report every instance of sex abuse to police. They do not include penalties for bishops who cover up abuse. Nor do they eliminate the statute of limitations for such crimes.
Incredibly, the new rules do manage to insult women by listing the ordination of women as priests — arguably one of the most likely ways of eliminating much of the sex abuse — as a grave offense against the church, on par with pedophilia. So, women priests are the moral equivalent of child molesters?
I think that a section about the victims and the psychological consequences of the abuses is necessary. There are specific effects when the abuse are done by priests. It's important to write them. A good ref. for that, easy to summarise for English-speaking users : johnjaystudy Victims of Child Sexual Abuse by Priests P. 40 of the doc (or p. 42 of the PDF).-- Noel Olivier ( talk) 14:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
While definitely worthy for the article as a whole to comment that other religious groups have seen sexual abuse (and its also well sourced) is this appropriate for the lede? -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 16:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
A couple of editors have been removing reliably sourced information without any discussion whatsoever. I'm just starting this section to give them a chance to explain their actions and talk about it first, since no justification for removal has been given yet. Farsight001 ( talk) 01:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Assuming Jenkins meets the reliable sources criteria I agree. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 06:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I've removed the table based on 2004 John Jay report because
1) What a bunch of hogwash 2) Wikipedia doesn't give a crap. It's an RS, so it's ok. Your personal opinion of the Vatican is irrelevant 3) where is it used elsewhere? 4) you deleted without any discussion whatsoever. You've been an editor here for months now. You should know better. Discuss, come to an agreement, and THEN and only then, delete. Farsight001 ( talk) 04:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
He never claimed "the document's legal force expired in 1983 ", not in any of the sources mentioned anyway. Furthermore this claim is directly contradicted by [1] which is linked from Crimen sollicitationis. From everything I know the document was applicable till 2001 and Allen has been apparently misattributed a few claims. Richiez ( talk) 23:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Looking through the article one could easilly get the impression that Allen is some kind of official speaker of the Vatican, eg looking at Catholic sex abuse_cases#Vatican responses. Has there ever been a discussion whether it is appropriate that he represents the case of the catholic church in this article?
Does someone insist to keep Catholic sex abuse cases#United Kingdom 2? It would need some rewrite so that the claims are backed by the mentioned sources or other sources need to be found. Richiez ( talk) 20:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
removed the section, if someone wants to rescue it this should be fixed:
source does not back claim
source does not back claim
The rest appears not very convincing anyway and has been disputed by other sources. Richiez ( talk) 13:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't check the history when I pulled that out. However, I stand by my reversion. While that section may be long standing, that doesn't make it any less a violation of policy. That statement is based on an Opinion piece by an independent academic in a newspaper. This is very much not a reliable source. At best, that opinion article can be used to support what Philip Jenkins's opinion is about the sex abuse cases. But, as someone who's never before looked at this article, why is Jenkins's opinion notable enough for inclusion? Especially since it falls under the subheading of Inaccuracies, and since the quote is so long, it looks like the reader is supposed to understand that Jenkins is accurately stating that these ideas are inaccurate, as opposed to it just being Jenkins having the opinion that these ideas are inaccurate. Does that distinction make sense? I'm trying to get at the fact that Opinion pieces are generally only reliable in that they show a person's opinion, not in terms of the underlying details in that opinion piece. Qwyrxian ( talk) 06:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I've reinstated the "quick fix". -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 18:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
User:Richiez commented:
A Google search for "Crimen sollicitationis 1983" will yield a number of hits. I found this one useful:
The norms of Crimen sollicitationis were clearly not heeded at the local level, and after the Code of Canon Law was promulgated in 1983, other curial dicasteries became responsible for handling cases of the abuse of minors-- cases that bishops always had the authority to address at the local level. Msgr. Scicluna explained in March:
The first edition [1922] dates back to the pontificate of Pius XI. Then, with Blessed John XXIII, the Holy Office issued a new edition for the Council Fathers, but only two thousand copies were printed, which were not enough, and so distribution was postponed sine die [indefinitely]. In any case, these were procedural norms to be followed in cases of solicitation during confession, and of other more serious sexually-motivated crimes such as the sexual abuse of minors.
Between 1975 and 1985 I do not believe that any cases of paedophilia committed by priests were brought to the attention of our Congregation. Moreover, following the promulgation of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, there was a period of uncertainty as to which of the delicta graviora were reserved to the competency of this dicastery. Only with the 2001 motu proprio did the crime of paedophilia again become our exclusive remit. From that moment Cardinal Ratzinger displayed great wisdom and firmness in handling those cases, also demonstrating great courage in facing some of the most difficult and thorny cases … Therefore, to accuse the current Pontiff of a cover-up is, I repeat, false and calumnious.
I think the point is not that Crimen sollicitationis "expired" in 1983 but that " there was a period of uncertainty as to which of the delicta graviora were reserved to the competency of [the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith]". This uncertainty was not resolved until the 2001 motu proprio.
-- Richard S ( talk) 14:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Here is a partial quote from the article, "the bishops came to adopt an emerging view based on the advice of medical personnel who recommended psychiatric and psychological treatment for those who sexually abused minors..." This sentence suggests that their idea was quaint and wrong. This is not the case either then or now.
The treatment has changed. Experts agree that the condition cannot usually be "cured." On the other hand, there are 600 programs in the US which treat sexual felons. At least one, Vermont's, has a recidivism of 5%. So professionals still believe that it can be treated. This belief is not different from what it was in the 60s. Only the treatment has changed. States do not necessarily lock up offenders today and throw the key away then or now. See http://www.7dvt.com/2008bennett-case-raises-questions-about-vermont-s-sex-offender-treatment. Also contains report where treatment notoriously didn't work, but again - 5%.
Wording suggesting that the bishops incorrectly thought the problem could be treated should be amended to show that it can be treated today. Maybe the bishops were premature, but that was prevailing thinking then. Also, the same attitude prevails today. Student7 ( talk) 23:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Regardless not reporting serious crimes like pedophillia to the police is appalling. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 07:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
just noticed when editing, the papers are not very widely cited. Google returns exorbitantly few hits, google scholar even less. The paragraph could really use additional sources. Richiez ( talk) 21:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Whats the purpose of this section anyway. It does not contain any hypothesis about causes but is a call for further research. The article is ridiculously expensive and so far zero notability. Richiez ( talk) 14:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Can an additional source be found which shows that most of the abuse victims were 16-17? Otherwise I suggest this section is removed. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 20:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I think the above discussion has gone off the rails...
We must report on the distinction between pedophilia and ephebophilia not because of the Cartor & Cimbolic paper but because a number of sources have reported on Cardinal Silvano Tomasi drawing the distinction. (see [6] for example). Tomasi's comment has been widely reported and thus the distinction is notable even if we don't think it is a useful distinction. It's not our job to determine which issues are "useful" and which are not. It is our job to report on the issues that notable people have raised as reported by reliable sources.
Now, the section which discusses the Cartor & Cimbolic paper doesn't mention Cardinal Tomasi and so it seems to draw a distinction but not say anything meaningful about the implications of the distinction.
I think we need to rewrite the section to point out that a number of Catholic sources draw this distinction (I'm not sure if Tomasi is the only representative of the Vatican to point out the distinction). It would really help if we can also explain what the implications of the distinction are (presumably the point is that it's not really child abuse per se but something a bit more adult and consensual). Then, it would be good if we could find a source that responds to rebut the assertion.
Remember, our job is not to resolve the debate but simply to report on the existence of the debate.
-- Richard S ( talk) 04:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Richiez asked on my talkpage if I would comment on this discussion, which I am happy to do. (In the way of disclosure, Cimbolic and Cartor cite some work published by my team. I don’t believe that their reference to us has any significant bearing on the discussion here, but I prefer to err on disclosure.)
My first comment is that both Cimbolic et al. articles have a terminology problem, which may be adding some confusion. The most common professional uses of the relevant terms are:
The confusion comes from this terminology having evolved over time, as the research and understanding increased. In ancient Greece, ephebe– pertained to males, and there were authors who also used ephebophilia to refer to males. In my experience, most of the field (but not everyone) has moved to the above terminology. Cimbolic et al. are not telling the whole story when they cite Freund as an example of using “ephebophile” to refer to males only. His mid- and late-career writings all used the above terminology.
The Cartor et al. paper operationalized ephebophilia as people who had offenses against 13–17 year old males; most researchers (including me) would call that a mixed group of hebephiles, ephebophiles, and teleiophiles. Nonetheless, a report of statistically significant differences between pedophiles and the other groups is all well and good; that there are differences between these groups is why contemporary researchers separate them when analyzing them. (However, I believe the current phrasing on the main page that researchers “found distinct differences…” is overstating it a bit. Although there were statistically significant differences, the effect sizes (that is, the amount of difference) were rather small.)
Finally, I can’t help but bring up a POV I have seen in many different venues (off-wiki). In my experience, people who want to defend sex offenders (whether that’s folks in the Church trying to defend Priests who have offended, or professional witnesses selling testimony for defense lawyers, etc.) also want very much to duck the stigma associated with the word “pedophile.” Although I certainly agree that a person deserves fair treatment and that the word “pedophile” can bias many listeners, I find that there is easy slippage for some people to go from, “Technically, he’s not a pedophile, he’s a hebephile” to just “He’s not a pedophile.” The distinction between offending against 9 year olds versus 12 year olds is sometimes relevant, sometimes, not.
I hope that’s a help. I am going to be offline for a few days, but I’m happy to answer any other questions when I get back.
— James Cantor (
talk)
23:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Will anyone explain the exact reason for the flag on this article? What is the nature of the dispute underlying the claim that the neutrality of this article is disputed. This flag has been here since May 2010. Thanks. Skywriter ( talk) 23:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I will wait a few more days for an explanation and absent one forthcoming, I will remove the flag for lack of any explanation of the reason why it is there. Skywriter ( talk) 16:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Why isn't the 'Roman Catholicism' template added to this article? In its 'Background' section there is a link to Criticism of the Catholic Church in turn leading to this page. Rinpoche ( talk) 17:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I just read this article and was surprised to read that canon law did not allow for laicization of abusive priests without a church trial. I think it is important that we document what the canon law used to be and what it is now. -- Richard S ( talk) 16:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
To use your words John, there are "regional administrative policies" which have the force of law. For example, in the Diocese of Norwich, CT, USA, the "Sexual Misconduct Policy" and the "Pastoral Code of Conduct" were promulgated by the Bishop in accord with Canon 8 §2 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law. These two documents have the force of law only in the Diocese of Norwich, and are thus known as "Particular Law". Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 17:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
And according to ''[[the Economist]]'', given that 45 of the 850 priests in Malta have been accused of sexual abuse, the problem is "alarmingly widespread".<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15868530|title=When walls are too high: A penchant for conspiracy is no help to the Vatican’s image|publisher=The Economist|date=April 8, 2010|accessdate=May 3, 2010}}</ref>
I've removed the above from the Global extent section. The number of cases in the US and Ireland were significant and warrant mention in this section. Whilst a high percentage, the cases in Malta are not significant enough to warrant inclusion in the Global extent section. I've copied the text, above, verbatim so it can be re-inserted in another section is necessary. Obscurasky ( talk) 10:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Moving this fragment here. It appears that the claim made involves some mathematics that are by no means obvious from the provided sources? Richiez ( talk) 10:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
However, statistics from the US Department of Health an Human Services show that this figure was less than 0,2% for the rest of the population of the US during the last decade. [3] [4]
Allen2003
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: Text "
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/index.htm#can" ignored (
help)
I'm just wikihopping and this phrase makes no sense. It's in the first paragraph so please whoever knows what it means, fix it 82.25.214.51 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC).
I removed the following line from the introduction:
In the United States, churches have paid more than $2 billion in compensation to victims. In Ireland, reports into clerical sexual abuse have rocked both the Catholic hierarchy and the state. A nine-year government study, the Ryan Report, published in May 2009, revealed that beatings and humiliation by nuns and priests were common at institutions that held up to 30,000 children. The investigation found that Catholic priests and nuns for decades "terrorised thousands of boys and girls, while government inspectors failed to stop the abuse." [1]
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
Reason:
This section deals only in the beginning with sexual abuse. The quoting of the Ryan Report is all about physical abuse. By this type of quoting physical and sexual abuse are confused. As a result a biased picture of the scope is created. Ryan Report found exactly 381 abuse cases among 25,000 children. See
http://www.childabusecommission.com/rpt/03-07.php and
http://www.childabusecommission.com/rpt/03-09.php
Additionally we have to ask why the Ryan-Report or the amount of compensations in the U.S. is already mentioned in the introduction? Both facts are part of local catholic sexual abuse cases and tell nothing about catholic sex abuse cases in general.
Giving the fact, that this section is only based on a partly incorrect newspaper article, it should be deleted.
188.102.151.206 ( talk) 21:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
188.102.151.206 ( talk) 06:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
"The report dealt with allegations collected over a period of nine years between 2000 and 2008. These related to experiences between 1914 and the opening of the commission. [1] Hearings were held in Ireland, the UK and elsewhere. Of the approximately 25,000 children who had attended the institutions in the time period concerned, around one thousand five hundred persons came forward with complaints to the commission. [1] Commission records show that 474 claims of physical abuse and 253 claims of sexual abuse were made by boys against the institutions in that period. [2] Records show that 383 claims of physical abuse and 128 claims of sexual abuse were made by girls against institutions over the years concerned. These claims covered all levels of abuse from the most serious down, and were made against both religious and lay personnel. The majority of sexual abuse claims by girls were against staff that should have been supervised by the religious orders. [3]"
A problem with copyright violations on a sex-abuse-related website was reported to WP:External links/Noticeboard today. In taking a quick look around, it appears that the problem affects more than just the one website.
It appears that several of these websites are illegally distributing copyrighted newspaper articles. I'm sure that you all know that Wikipedia does not accept copyrighted material in the encyclopedia like that per WP:COPYVIO, but what's less known is that the policies also prohibit us from even linking to someone else's copyvios per WP:LINKVIO and because of what the lawyers call contributory copyright infringement. So if SNAP or bishop-accountability.org or some other website put up a copy of an Associated Press article or a news story from the local newspaper, editors must not link to their unlicensed/illegal copies of these articles.
You may WP:CITE these newspaper articles: these are great sources. Reliable sources are not required to be available online. However, you can't link to the illegal copies of sources. If you can quickly find a legal copy (most commonly, on the website of the original publisher), then please feel free to substitute a good link for the bad one. Otherwise, the correct response is to write a proper bibliographic citation, with the journalist's name, the date of publication, the headline, and the newspaper's name, exactly as if you were working from the original, dead-tree newspaper rather than from an illegal copy.
As you find these, please fix them up. I'm hoping that this can be resolved without any of these sites being WP:BLACKLISTed. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
The article says:
"According to Sandro Contenta, writing in the Toronto Star:
Internal division became public, with at least two Cardinals calling for a review of celibacy. Austrian Cardinal Christopher Shoenborn, an ally of Benedict’s, even accused the late John Paul II of blocking Ratzinger’s investigation of a high-profile case in the mid 1990s.
Charges that Ratzinger participated in protecting pedophile priests rallied the Vatican’s top brass to protect Benedict’s moral authority. [1]
"
In fact this is partly false. Schönborn told the press, that Ratzinger wanted to take up an investigation in 1995. But he was not blocked by John Paul II., but by Cardinal Sodano. ( Source in german and Source in English). So it should be changed 94.223.112.246 ( talk) 17:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi to all,
the article states the following:
"
In November the Vatican published Criteria for the Discernment of Vocation for Persons with Homosexual Tendencies, issuing new rules which forbid ordination of men with "deep-seated homosexual tendencies". The US National Review Board cited the preponderance of adolescent males among the victims of clerical sexual abuse of minors in its report. [2] This attracted criticism based on an interpretation that the document implies that homosexuality is associated with pedophilia or ephebophilia. [3]
Rome's Congregation for Catholic Education issued an official document, the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocation for Persons with Homosexual Tendencies [2] in 2005, which attracted criticism based on an interpretation that the document implies that homosexuality is associated with pedophilia or pederasty. [3]"
I simply have the problem, that I don't see the link to the sex abuse cases. It is mentioned, that the Vatican's document would interlink pedophilia and homosexuality. But in the document I find nothing to support this remark. Does anybody know where it comes from? Was there a statement of the Vatican? The given source of nacdlgm.org is no longer accessible. So there is a highly problematic statement with little backup in the sources. If nobody has a source for this, we should delete this from the article to avoid the promotion of homosexuality=pedophilia-ideas.
Ricerca ( talk) 07:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
It looks like there's a bit of an edit war shaping up over a section on treatment vs incarceration. I think it would be highly appropriate to include a historical description of what happened and how it matched or diverged from the standard approach. I'm not convinced that those particular sentences are the best way to go about that.
In general, I think this article would benefit from a more descriptive and scholarly approach. Right now, it reads a bit like a not very well edited magazine story, with an emphasis on "dueling quotations" as the means of approximating truth. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 15:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Richiez, earlier on this Talk Page you wrote:
This is perhaps what the anon IP editor was reacting to. Unfortunately, the word "holocaust" has become trivialized in the English language to the point where any "seriously bad thing" is referred to as a "holocaust" even when any attempt at the comparison is ludicrous. Even tens of thousands of molested children cannot compare to millions killed. Such liberal overuse of the word "holocaust" trivializes the gravity of the
Holocaust even though the word "holocaust" technically means any "
act of mass destruction and loss of life (especially in war or by fire)". If you add that some Germans are sensitive to the mention of the Holocaust, you wind up with the negative reaction of the anon IP editor. Perhaps, with this explanation that the choice of the word was made by the author of the Belfast Telegraph article and not by you, the anon IP editor will recognize that there was no offense intended on your part. --
Pseudo-Richard (
talk)
20:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I discovered that the point to much reliance on psychiatry was also included in the wikipedia-article John-Jay-Report. There it is stated:
"Some bishops and psychiatrists have asserted that the prevailing psychology of the times suggested that people could be cured of such behavior through counseling. [1] [2] Many of the abusive priests had received counseling before being reassigned. [3] [4]"
{{
cite web}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help)
So I think, we should include this point in this article as well. If there are no more substantial counter arguents, I will try to make an edit to the article in the next days. 94.223.112.246 ( talk) 12:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I gave constructive criticism and already wrote once that it would be better to concentrate on one point at a time instead of regarding a pile of loosely related ideas. So far your ideas are not backed by any reliable source, what you are trying to achieve is WP:SYNTH. I am not saying that you are wrong, but we need reasonable sources for this.
Very few people in Germany, much less outside of it ever heard of a certain Mr. Plante and as such he is not of sufficient notability for a citation in this article. It does not appear he is mentioned anywhere in the German wikipedia in relation to the catholic sex abuse scandals? If you can find an article by a mainstream newspaper giving his opinion that would be different.
The statement "Some bishops and psychiatrists have asserted that the prevailing psychology of the times suggested that people could be cured of such behavior through counseling" does appear reasonable at first glance reasonable but requires a source saying pretty much exactly this. We can not attach random footnotes linking to articles saying something completely different and regard it as sufficient proof - this is misattribution of sources. So since you did bring up the issue it would be very helpful if you could find out what Steinfels actually wrote about it or even better find a mainstream source supporting this statement.
It would be very helpfull if you would consider creating an user account, IP-hopping - even if completely innocent is not likely to help you make your point at the very least because of the confusion it creates.
If you want to reach anything try to read WP:CIVIL again. It is not good to accuse other editors of POV. Richiez ( talk) 20:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello Richez,
I don't wanted to "accuse" you of anything. I simply stated, that in my point of view going from including the role oy psychology to ""However your sources show foremost how rigorously the Catholic Church tried to hide all evidence."" mashes up the debates. And answering the underlying question "shouldn't the role of psychology be included in this article?" by "the church tried to hide all evidence" is simply giving your POV (and answering nothing). That's not dramatically, happens sometimes to everyone. Back to the debate:
"Very few people in Germany, much less outside of it ever heard of a certain Mr. Plante" Mr. Plante is known in Germany and quoted in the german article three times by giving his opinon, his source and listing his book. But I don't understand this remark. Does it play any role who knows Plante in Germany?
"I am not saying that you are wrong, but we need reasonable sources for this." O.K. this clarification helps a lot.
"If you can find an article by a mainstream newspaper giving his opinion that would be different." That would change nothing. Concerning sex abuse cases, even newspapers with normally high quality standards wrote and write a lot of misleaded rubbish. Some weeks ago the german SPIEGEL (comparable to the GUARDIAN or NYT) was convicted to have falsly accused a german diocese of having tried to hide a sex abuse case. So let's be careful with newspapers. Every journalist is a POV!
Plante is a distinguished researcher in that matter. I don't see, why he shouldn't be mentioned. And he clearly states: "Almost all the cases coming to light today are cases from 30 and 40 years ago. We did not know much about pedophilia and sexual abuse in general back then. In fact, the vast majority of the research on sexual abuse of minors didn't emerge until the early 1980's. So, it appeared reasonable at the time to treat these men and then return them to their priestly duties. In hindsight, this was a tragic mistake." [1] So here we have a clear source. Which can be backed up by some of the sources I gave and (what I don't see as necessary) can be enriched by the german point of view. So please tell me, where is the problem? There is no WP:SYNTH.
"It would be very helpfull if you would consider creating an user account, IP-hopping - even if completely innocent is not likely to help you make your point at the very least because of the confusion it creates."
Sorry, you're right. At the beginning I only wanted to fix up some mistakes in this article. But I see, it will take more time. I'll create an account soon.
So to get some beef to the bones: Do you agree, that Plantes view should be added to the article? I think there are enough reasons for it. 94.223.112.246 ( talk) 19:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
94.223.112.246 ( talk) 16:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Find a better source for it or seek wider consensus. Does anyone else have opinions on the sources which I have removed?
Oh, and please get an account so that it is easier to report you for your continuing violations of civilty. Richiez ( talk) 22:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Wow - this talk page is long and convoluted - I can't even remember why I started reading it, are there sensible portions that could be archived? Anyway I added a couple of square brackets further up the page to link to Ephebophile as I've never even heard the word before. EdwardLane ( talk) 17:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Neutral point of view from the stuff above I don't currently have an opinion on the validity of the Plante reference. But I'll go have a look EdwardLane ( talk) 17:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC) this [ [10]] link looks interesting - might give some notability EdwardLane ( talk) 17:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
New question: What have the following paragraphs to do with criticism of secrecy?
"In April 2010, Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins stated that they are seeking to prosecute the Pope for crimes against humanity due to what they see as his role in intentionally covering up abuse by priests. [2] [3]
But it was Cardinal Ratzinger's official responsibility to determine the church's response to allegations of child sex abuse, and his letter in the Kiesle case makes the real motivation devastatingly explicit. Here are his actual words, translated from the Latin in the AP report: "This court, although it regards the arguments presented in favour of removal in this case to be of grave significance, nevertheless deems it necessary to consider the good of the universal church together with that of the petitioner, and it is also unable to make light of the detriment that granting the dispensation can provoke with the community of Christ's faithful, particularly regarding the young age of the petitioner."
In a CNN intervew a few days later, however, Dawkins declined to discuss the international crime law courts definition of crime against humanity saying it is a difficult legal question. [4]"
{{
cite news}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
On the other hand, I believe to remember, that this thing (pope before trial by court in Louisville) finally failed due to the incapacity of the plaintiffs to prove that bishops are vatican employees. (Like depicted in this article). So I would vote for deleting or at least shortening this verbal fight between pro- and anti-church fractions. Moreover it tells nothing about the abuse cases. The only thing is, that there are people who wants to see the pope on trial. But that's not new and should be discussed more thoroughly in other paragraphs. Ricerca ( talk) 15:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
Slightly off topic, but it should help people understand so called "Fringe theories" a bit better. From the Economist: "As Austrians and Germans leave the church in ever-greater numbers, and with the Belgian Catholic church reeling from a police raid on its headquarters (as a well as a search of two cardinals’ tombs), the politics of the Vatican’s upper echelons look more and more out of touch with rank-and-file Catholics—let alone the rest of the world."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/newsbook/2010/06/catholic_church?source=features_box_main
Stuff that criticises the leadership of the catholic church isn't really a fringe theory given this. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 22:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Fortunately we have one http://www.smh.com.au/world/germans-abandon-catholic-church-20100325-r002.html. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 17:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
It seems a bit odd to try and claim that the Economist and Sydney Morning Herald are "ill-informed" - especially the former - unless you have an alternative reliable source stating that large numbers aren't leaving the church. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 06:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
As per my argument used elsewhere. This also appears to be backed up by reliable sources so should stay. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 01:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
This should be included. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 07:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
The Vatican has revised its in-house rules to deal with clerical sex abuse cases, targeting priests who molest the mentally disabled as well as children and doubling the statute of limitations for such crimes.
Abuse victims said the rules are little more than administrative housekeeping since they made few substantive changes to current practice, and what is needed are bold new rules to punish bishops who shield pedophiles.
Women's ordination groups criticized the new rules because they included the attempted ordination of women as a "grave crime" subject to the same set of procedures and punishments meted out for sex abuse.
PS here's the Google news link: http://news.google.co.uk/news/more?q=women+ordination+on+par+with+sex+abuse&hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&prmd=n&resnum=1&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ncl=dAzZy6drlSujh0MH8qZBnQ00EUivM&ei=0AxATMe5KI-94gbAyLnADg&sa=X&oi=news_result&ct=more-results&cd=1&resnum=1&ved=0CCYQqgIoADAA. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 01:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
You realise the Church will have a specific exemption from sexual equality laws? Ditto gay rights laws? If there weren't they'd be taken to court for not allowing women priests. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 07:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I like this New York Times article for addressing a policy of nonresponsibility, denial, legalistic foot-dragging and outright obstruction i.e. whatever is done by Vatican is right and unquestionable which is followed strictly in the two third of the Wikipedia article. The words alleged, allegation(s) are used 113 times in the Wikipedia article. Bizarrities like the pope Wojtyla's explanation what is sin, or opinions of some psychiatrists (?) that the criminals shall be treated by the psychiatrists, are for idiots. That pope forgot that the sin is a moral notionnot the religious one and it is clear and known to ordinary man. But in the Wikipedia article it is an attempt to level down the crime to the sin, for the benefits and interest of the Vatican. The Chirch and Vatican never did anyting for victims ix excluding Austria's RCC fund (established in 2010) aimed to support the victims. Then there is the Joh Jay report comissioned by the US RCC written to 'explain' what the RCC wanted to be 'explained'. Then the 'media bias' which is not even a part of defense line of the RCC today. The RCC crime(s) are the media headlines today and will be in future, too.
Rome Fiddles, We Burn by MAUREEN DOWD Published: July 16, 2010
The Catholic Church continued to heap insult upon injury when it revealed its long-awaited new rules on clergy sex abuse, rules that the Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said signaled a commitment to grasp the nettle with “rigor and transparency.”
The church still believes in its own intrinsic holiness despite all evidence to the contrary. It thinks it’s making huge concessions on the unstoppable abuse scandal when it’s taking baby steps. The casuistic document did not issue a zero-tolerance policy to defrock priests after they are found guilty of pedophilia; it did not order bishops to report every instance of abuse to the police; it did not set up sanctions on bishops who sweep abuse under the rectory rug; it did not eliminate the statute of limitations for abused children; it did not tell bishops to stop lobbying legislatures to prevent child-abuse laws from being toughened.
In a remarkable Times story recently, Laurie Goodstein and David Halbfinger debunked the spin that Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger had been one of the more alert officials on the issue of sexual abuse:
“The future pope, it is now clear, was also part of a culture of nonresponsibility, denial, legalistic foot-dragging and outright obstruction. More than any top Vatican official other than John Paul, it was Cardinal Ratzinger who might have taken decisive action in the 1990s to prevent the scandal from metastasizing in country after country, growing to such proportions that it now threatens to consume his own papacy.”
-- 208.103.155.175 ( talk) 03:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I have trimmed the link farm , there were all sorts of non reliable links and suchlike, some of then where also duplicated in the citations, there are 179 citations, most of them need formating so that it is possible to see what is gong on, many of them are not reliable also and some of them broken and some just dead and some to front pages, if someone is bothered enough that would be a good work. Off2riorob ( talk) 16:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
The see also section is also bloated and tangential. Off2riorob ( talk) 16:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
The "Vatican responses" has turned into a chronology which is inappropriate for a summary article at this level. We should be summarizing what happened rather than providing a blow-by-blow account of individual events. I'm not saying that the material as written is completely inappropriate for an encyclopedic article although it is questionable. What I'm saying is that the material would fit better in an article titled Chronology of Vatican responses to the Catholic sex abuse scandal. The current text of the "Vatican responses" section is spending too much time describing individual trees rather than providing a bird's-eye view of the forest. -- Richard S ( talk) 17:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Vatican bombs with crimes letter
"The first thing the church should be doing is reporting crimes to civil authorities," said Andrew Madden, a former Dublin altar boy who filed the first public abuse lawsuit against the church in Ireland in 1995. "That's far, far more important than deciding whether a criminal priest should be defrocked or not," he told AP. "The church's internal rules are no more important than the rules of your local golf club."
Church's new rules fall short - again
They do not include a one-strike-and-you're-out penalty for pedophile priests. They do not require bishops to report every instance of sex abuse to police. They do not include penalties for bishops who cover up abuse. Nor do they eliminate the statute of limitations for such crimes.
Incredibly, the new rules do manage to insult women by listing the ordination of women as priests — arguably one of the most likely ways of eliminating much of the sex abuse — as a grave offense against the church, on par with pedophilia. So, women priests are the moral equivalent of child molesters?
I think that a section about the victims and the psychological consequences of the abuses is necessary. There are specific effects when the abuse are done by priests. It's important to write them. A good ref. for that, easy to summarise for English-speaking users : johnjaystudy Victims of Child Sexual Abuse by Priests P. 40 of the doc (or p. 42 of the PDF).-- Noel Olivier ( talk) 14:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
While definitely worthy for the article as a whole to comment that other religious groups have seen sexual abuse (and its also well sourced) is this appropriate for the lede? -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 16:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
A couple of editors have been removing reliably sourced information without any discussion whatsoever. I'm just starting this section to give them a chance to explain their actions and talk about it first, since no justification for removal has been given yet. Farsight001 ( talk) 01:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Assuming Jenkins meets the reliable sources criteria I agree. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 06:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I've removed the table based on 2004 John Jay report because
1) What a bunch of hogwash 2) Wikipedia doesn't give a crap. It's an RS, so it's ok. Your personal opinion of the Vatican is irrelevant 3) where is it used elsewhere? 4) you deleted without any discussion whatsoever. You've been an editor here for months now. You should know better. Discuss, come to an agreement, and THEN and only then, delete. Farsight001 ( talk) 04:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
He never claimed "the document's legal force expired in 1983 ", not in any of the sources mentioned anyway. Furthermore this claim is directly contradicted by [1] which is linked from Crimen sollicitationis. From everything I know the document was applicable till 2001 and Allen has been apparently misattributed a few claims. Richiez ( talk) 23:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Looking through the article one could easilly get the impression that Allen is some kind of official speaker of the Vatican, eg looking at Catholic sex abuse_cases#Vatican responses. Has there ever been a discussion whether it is appropriate that he represents the case of the catholic church in this article?
Does someone insist to keep Catholic sex abuse cases#United Kingdom 2? It would need some rewrite so that the claims are backed by the mentioned sources or other sources need to be found. Richiez ( talk) 20:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
removed the section, if someone wants to rescue it this should be fixed:
source does not back claim
source does not back claim
The rest appears not very convincing anyway and has been disputed by other sources. Richiez ( talk) 13:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't check the history when I pulled that out. However, I stand by my reversion. While that section may be long standing, that doesn't make it any less a violation of policy. That statement is based on an Opinion piece by an independent academic in a newspaper. This is very much not a reliable source. At best, that opinion article can be used to support what Philip Jenkins's opinion is about the sex abuse cases. But, as someone who's never before looked at this article, why is Jenkins's opinion notable enough for inclusion? Especially since it falls under the subheading of Inaccuracies, and since the quote is so long, it looks like the reader is supposed to understand that Jenkins is accurately stating that these ideas are inaccurate, as opposed to it just being Jenkins having the opinion that these ideas are inaccurate. Does that distinction make sense? I'm trying to get at the fact that Opinion pieces are generally only reliable in that they show a person's opinion, not in terms of the underlying details in that opinion piece. Qwyrxian ( talk) 06:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I've reinstated the "quick fix". -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 18:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
User:Richiez commented:
A Google search for "Crimen sollicitationis 1983" will yield a number of hits. I found this one useful:
The norms of Crimen sollicitationis were clearly not heeded at the local level, and after the Code of Canon Law was promulgated in 1983, other curial dicasteries became responsible for handling cases of the abuse of minors-- cases that bishops always had the authority to address at the local level. Msgr. Scicluna explained in March:
The first edition [1922] dates back to the pontificate of Pius XI. Then, with Blessed John XXIII, the Holy Office issued a new edition for the Council Fathers, but only two thousand copies were printed, which were not enough, and so distribution was postponed sine die [indefinitely]. In any case, these were procedural norms to be followed in cases of solicitation during confession, and of other more serious sexually-motivated crimes such as the sexual abuse of minors.
Between 1975 and 1985 I do not believe that any cases of paedophilia committed by priests were brought to the attention of our Congregation. Moreover, following the promulgation of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, there was a period of uncertainty as to which of the delicta graviora were reserved to the competency of this dicastery. Only with the 2001 motu proprio did the crime of paedophilia again become our exclusive remit. From that moment Cardinal Ratzinger displayed great wisdom and firmness in handling those cases, also demonstrating great courage in facing some of the most difficult and thorny cases … Therefore, to accuse the current Pontiff of a cover-up is, I repeat, false and calumnious.
I think the point is not that Crimen sollicitationis "expired" in 1983 but that " there was a period of uncertainty as to which of the delicta graviora were reserved to the competency of [the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith]". This uncertainty was not resolved until the 2001 motu proprio.
-- Richard S ( talk) 14:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Here is a partial quote from the article, "the bishops came to adopt an emerging view based on the advice of medical personnel who recommended psychiatric and psychological treatment for those who sexually abused minors..." This sentence suggests that their idea was quaint and wrong. This is not the case either then or now.
The treatment has changed. Experts agree that the condition cannot usually be "cured." On the other hand, there are 600 programs in the US which treat sexual felons. At least one, Vermont's, has a recidivism of 5%. So professionals still believe that it can be treated. This belief is not different from what it was in the 60s. Only the treatment has changed. States do not necessarily lock up offenders today and throw the key away then or now. See http://www.7dvt.com/2008bennett-case-raises-questions-about-vermont-s-sex-offender-treatment. Also contains report where treatment notoriously didn't work, but again - 5%.
Wording suggesting that the bishops incorrectly thought the problem could be treated should be amended to show that it can be treated today. Maybe the bishops were premature, but that was prevailing thinking then. Also, the same attitude prevails today. Student7 ( talk) 23:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Regardless not reporting serious crimes like pedophillia to the police is appalling. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 07:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
just noticed when editing, the papers are not very widely cited. Google returns exorbitantly few hits, google scholar even less. The paragraph could really use additional sources. Richiez ( talk) 21:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Whats the purpose of this section anyway. It does not contain any hypothesis about causes but is a call for further research. The article is ridiculously expensive and so far zero notability. Richiez ( talk) 14:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Can an additional source be found which shows that most of the abuse victims were 16-17? Otherwise I suggest this section is removed. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 20:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I think the above discussion has gone off the rails...
We must report on the distinction between pedophilia and ephebophilia not because of the Cartor & Cimbolic paper but because a number of sources have reported on Cardinal Silvano Tomasi drawing the distinction. (see [6] for example). Tomasi's comment has been widely reported and thus the distinction is notable even if we don't think it is a useful distinction. It's not our job to determine which issues are "useful" and which are not. It is our job to report on the issues that notable people have raised as reported by reliable sources.
Now, the section which discusses the Cartor & Cimbolic paper doesn't mention Cardinal Tomasi and so it seems to draw a distinction but not say anything meaningful about the implications of the distinction.
I think we need to rewrite the section to point out that a number of Catholic sources draw this distinction (I'm not sure if Tomasi is the only representative of the Vatican to point out the distinction). It would really help if we can also explain what the implications of the distinction are (presumably the point is that it's not really child abuse per se but something a bit more adult and consensual). Then, it would be good if we could find a source that responds to rebut the assertion.
Remember, our job is not to resolve the debate but simply to report on the existence of the debate.
-- Richard S ( talk) 04:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Richiez asked on my talkpage if I would comment on this discussion, which I am happy to do. (In the way of disclosure, Cimbolic and Cartor cite some work published by my team. I don’t believe that their reference to us has any significant bearing on the discussion here, but I prefer to err on disclosure.)
My first comment is that both Cimbolic et al. articles have a terminology problem, which may be adding some confusion. The most common professional uses of the relevant terms are:
The confusion comes from this terminology having evolved over time, as the research and understanding increased. In ancient Greece, ephebe– pertained to males, and there were authors who also used ephebophilia to refer to males. In my experience, most of the field (but not everyone) has moved to the above terminology. Cimbolic et al. are not telling the whole story when they cite Freund as an example of using “ephebophile” to refer to males only. His mid- and late-career writings all used the above terminology.
The Cartor et al. paper operationalized ephebophilia as people who had offenses against 13–17 year old males; most researchers (including me) would call that a mixed group of hebephiles, ephebophiles, and teleiophiles. Nonetheless, a report of statistically significant differences between pedophiles and the other groups is all well and good; that there are differences between these groups is why contemporary researchers separate them when analyzing them. (However, I believe the current phrasing on the main page that researchers “found distinct differences…” is overstating it a bit. Although there were statistically significant differences, the effect sizes (that is, the amount of difference) were rather small.)
Finally, I can’t help but bring up a POV I have seen in many different venues (off-wiki). In my experience, people who want to defend sex offenders (whether that’s folks in the Church trying to defend Priests who have offended, or professional witnesses selling testimony for defense lawyers, etc.) also want very much to duck the stigma associated with the word “pedophile.” Although I certainly agree that a person deserves fair treatment and that the word “pedophile” can bias many listeners, I find that there is easy slippage for some people to go from, “Technically, he’s not a pedophile, he’s a hebephile” to just “He’s not a pedophile.” The distinction between offending against 9 year olds versus 12 year olds is sometimes relevant, sometimes, not.
I hope that’s a help. I am going to be offline for a few days, but I’m happy to answer any other questions when I get back.
— James Cantor (
talk)
23:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Will anyone explain the exact reason for the flag on this article? What is the nature of the dispute underlying the claim that the neutrality of this article is disputed. This flag has been here since May 2010. Thanks. Skywriter ( talk) 23:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I will wait a few more days for an explanation and absent one forthcoming, I will remove the flag for lack of any explanation of the reason why it is there. Skywriter ( talk) 16:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Why isn't the 'Roman Catholicism' template added to this article? In its 'Background' section there is a link to Criticism of the Catholic Church in turn leading to this page. Rinpoche ( talk) 17:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I just read this article and was surprised to read that canon law did not allow for laicization of abusive priests without a church trial. I think it is important that we document what the canon law used to be and what it is now. -- Richard S ( talk) 16:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
To use your words John, there are "regional administrative policies" which have the force of law. For example, in the Diocese of Norwich, CT, USA, the "Sexual Misconduct Policy" and the "Pastoral Code of Conduct" were promulgated by the Bishop in accord with Canon 8 §2 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law. These two documents have the force of law only in the Diocese of Norwich, and are thus known as "Particular Law". Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 17:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
And according to ''[[the Economist]]'', given that 45 of the 850 priests in Malta have been accused of sexual abuse, the problem is "alarmingly widespread".<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15868530|title=When walls are too high: A penchant for conspiracy is no help to the Vatican’s image|publisher=The Economist|date=April 8, 2010|accessdate=May 3, 2010}}</ref>
I've removed the above from the Global extent section. The number of cases in the US and Ireland were significant and warrant mention in this section. Whilst a high percentage, the cases in Malta are not significant enough to warrant inclusion in the Global extent section. I've copied the text, above, verbatim so it can be re-inserted in another section is necessary. Obscurasky ( talk) 10:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Moving this fragment here. It appears that the claim made involves some mathematics that are by no means obvious from the provided sources? Richiez ( talk) 10:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
However, statistics from the US Department of Health an Human Services show that this figure was less than 0,2% for the rest of the population of the US during the last decade. [3] [4]
Allen2003
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: Text "
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/index.htm#can" ignored (
help)
I'm just wikihopping and this phrase makes no sense. It's in the first paragraph so please whoever knows what it means, fix it 82.25.214.51 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC).
I removed the following line from the introduction:
In the United States, churches have paid more than $2 billion in compensation to victims. In Ireland, reports into clerical sexual abuse have rocked both the Catholic hierarchy and the state. A nine-year government study, the Ryan Report, published in May 2009, revealed that beatings and humiliation by nuns and priests were common at institutions that held up to 30,000 children. The investigation found that Catholic priests and nuns for decades "terrorised thousands of boys and girls, while government inspectors failed to stop the abuse." [1]
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
Reason:
This section deals only in the beginning with sexual abuse. The quoting of the Ryan Report is all about physical abuse. By this type of quoting physical and sexual abuse are confused. As a result a biased picture of the scope is created. Ryan Report found exactly 381 abuse cases among 25,000 children. See
http://www.childabusecommission.com/rpt/03-07.php and
http://www.childabusecommission.com/rpt/03-09.php
Additionally we have to ask why the Ryan-Report or the amount of compensations in the U.S. is already mentioned in the introduction? Both facts are part of local catholic sexual abuse cases and tell nothing about catholic sex abuse cases in general.
Giving the fact, that this section is only based on a partly incorrect newspaper article, it should be deleted.
188.102.151.206 ( talk) 21:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
188.102.151.206 ( talk) 06:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
"The report dealt with allegations collected over a period of nine years between 2000 and 2008. These related to experiences between 1914 and the opening of the commission. [1] Hearings were held in Ireland, the UK and elsewhere. Of the approximately 25,000 children who had attended the institutions in the time period concerned, around one thousand five hundred persons came forward with complaints to the commission. [1] Commission records show that 474 claims of physical abuse and 253 claims of sexual abuse were made by boys against the institutions in that period. [2] Records show that 383 claims of physical abuse and 128 claims of sexual abuse were made by girls against institutions over the years concerned. These claims covered all levels of abuse from the most serious down, and were made against both religious and lay personnel. The majority of sexual abuse claims by girls were against staff that should have been supervised by the religious orders. [3]"
A problem with copyright violations on a sex-abuse-related website was reported to WP:External links/Noticeboard today. In taking a quick look around, it appears that the problem affects more than just the one website.
It appears that several of these websites are illegally distributing copyrighted newspaper articles. I'm sure that you all know that Wikipedia does not accept copyrighted material in the encyclopedia like that per WP:COPYVIO, but what's less known is that the policies also prohibit us from even linking to someone else's copyvios per WP:LINKVIO and because of what the lawyers call contributory copyright infringement. So if SNAP or bishop-accountability.org or some other website put up a copy of an Associated Press article or a news story from the local newspaper, editors must not link to their unlicensed/illegal copies of these articles.
You may WP:CITE these newspaper articles: these are great sources. Reliable sources are not required to be available online. However, you can't link to the illegal copies of sources. If you can quickly find a legal copy (most commonly, on the website of the original publisher), then please feel free to substitute a good link for the bad one. Otherwise, the correct response is to write a proper bibliographic citation, with the journalist's name, the date of publication, the headline, and the newspaper's name, exactly as if you were working from the original, dead-tree newspaper rather than from an illegal copy.
As you find these, please fix them up. I'm hoping that this can be resolved without any of these sites being WP:BLACKLISTed. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
The article says:
"According to Sandro Contenta, writing in the Toronto Star:
Internal division became public, with at least two Cardinals calling for a review of celibacy. Austrian Cardinal Christopher Shoenborn, an ally of Benedict’s, even accused the late John Paul II of blocking Ratzinger’s investigation of a high-profile case in the mid 1990s.
Charges that Ratzinger participated in protecting pedophile priests rallied the Vatican’s top brass to protect Benedict’s moral authority. [1]
"
In fact this is partly false. Schönborn told the press, that Ratzinger wanted to take up an investigation in 1995. But he was not blocked by John Paul II., but by Cardinal Sodano. ( Source in german and Source in English). So it should be changed 94.223.112.246 ( talk) 17:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi to all,
the article states the following:
"
In November the Vatican published Criteria for the Discernment of Vocation for Persons with Homosexual Tendencies, issuing new rules which forbid ordination of men with "deep-seated homosexual tendencies". The US National Review Board cited the preponderance of adolescent males among the victims of clerical sexual abuse of minors in its report. [2] This attracted criticism based on an interpretation that the document implies that homosexuality is associated with pedophilia or ephebophilia. [3]
Rome's Congregation for Catholic Education issued an official document, the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocation for Persons with Homosexual Tendencies [2] in 2005, which attracted criticism based on an interpretation that the document implies that homosexuality is associated with pedophilia or pederasty. [3]"
I simply have the problem, that I don't see the link to the sex abuse cases. It is mentioned, that the Vatican's document would interlink pedophilia and homosexuality. But in the document I find nothing to support this remark. Does anybody know where it comes from? Was there a statement of the Vatican? The given source of nacdlgm.org is no longer accessible. So there is a highly problematic statement with little backup in the sources. If nobody has a source for this, we should delete this from the article to avoid the promotion of homosexuality=pedophilia-ideas.
Ricerca ( talk) 07:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
It looks like there's a bit of an edit war shaping up over a section on treatment vs incarceration. I think it would be highly appropriate to include a historical description of what happened and how it matched or diverged from the standard approach. I'm not convinced that those particular sentences are the best way to go about that.
In general, I think this article would benefit from a more descriptive and scholarly approach. Right now, it reads a bit like a not very well edited magazine story, with an emphasis on "dueling quotations" as the means of approximating truth. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 15:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Richiez, earlier on this Talk Page you wrote:
This is perhaps what the anon IP editor was reacting to. Unfortunately, the word "holocaust" has become trivialized in the English language to the point where any "seriously bad thing" is referred to as a "holocaust" even when any attempt at the comparison is ludicrous. Even tens of thousands of molested children cannot compare to millions killed. Such liberal overuse of the word "holocaust" trivializes the gravity of the
Holocaust even though the word "holocaust" technically means any "
act of mass destruction and loss of life (especially in war or by fire)". If you add that some Germans are sensitive to the mention of the Holocaust, you wind up with the negative reaction of the anon IP editor. Perhaps, with this explanation that the choice of the word was made by the author of the Belfast Telegraph article and not by you, the anon IP editor will recognize that there was no offense intended on your part. --
Pseudo-Richard (
talk)
20:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I discovered that the point to much reliance on psychiatry was also included in the wikipedia-article John-Jay-Report. There it is stated:
"Some bishops and psychiatrists have asserted that the prevailing psychology of the times suggested that people could be cured of such behavior through counseling. [1] [2] Many of the abusive priests had received counseling before being reassigned. [3] [4]"
{{
cite web}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help)
So I think, we should include this point in this article as well. If there are no more substantial counter arguents, I will try to make an edit to the article in the next days. 94.223.112.246 ( talk) 12:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I gave constructive criticism and already wrote once that it would be better to concentrate on one point at a time instead of regarding a pile of loosely related ideas. So far your ideas are not backed by any reliable source, what you are trying to achieve is WP:SYNTH. I am not saying that you are wrong, but we need reasonable sources for this.
Very few people in Germany, much less outside of it ever heard of a certain Mr. Plante and as such he is not of sufficient notability for a citation in this article. It does not appear he is mentioned anywhere in the German wikipedia in relation to the catholic sex abuse scandals? If you can find an article by a mainstream newspaper giving his opinion that would be different.
The statement "Some bishops and psychiatrists have asserted that the prevailing psychology of the times suggested that people could be cured of such behavior through counseling" does appear reasonable at first glance reasonable but requires a source saying pretty much exactly this. We can not attach random footnotes linking to articles saying something completely different and regard it as sufficient proof - this is misattribution of sources. So since you did bring up the issue it would be very helpful if you could find out what Steinfels actually wrote about it or even better find a mainstream source supporting this statement.
It would be very helpfull if you would consider creating an user account, IP-hopping - even if completely innocent is not likely to help you make your point at the very least because of the confusion it creates.
If you want to reach anything try to read WP:CIVIL again. It is not good to accuse other editors of POV. Richiez ( talk) 20:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello Richez,
I don't wanted to "accuse" you of anything. I simply stated, that in my point of view going from including the role oy psychology to ""However your sources show foremost how rigorously the Catholic Church tried to hide all evidence."" mashes up the debates. And answering the underlying question "shouldn't the role of psychology be included in this article?" by "the church tried to hide all evidence" is simply giving your POV (and answering nothing). That's not dramatically, happens sometimes to everyone. Back to the debate:
"Very few people in Germany, much less outside of it ever heard of a certain Mr. Plante" Mr. Plante is known in Germany and quoted in the german article three times by giving his opinon, his source and listing his book. But I don't understand this remark. Does it play any role who knows Plante in Germany?
"I am not saying that you are wrong, but we need reasonable sources for this." O.K. this clarification helps a lot.
"If you can find an article by a mainstream newspaper giving his opinion that would be different." That would change nothing. Concerning sex abuse cases, even newspapers with normally high quality standards wrote and write a lot of misleaded rubbish. Some weeks ago the german SPIEGEL (comparable to the GUARDIAN or NYT) was convicted to have falsly accused a german diocese of having tried to hide a sex abuse case. So let's be careful with newspapers. Every journalist is a POV!
Plante is a distinguished researcher in that matter. I don't see, why he shouldn't be mentioned. And he clearly states: "Almost all the cases coming to light today are cases from 30 and 40 years ago. We did not know much about pedophilia and sexual abuse in general back then. In fact, the vast majority of the research on sexual abuse of minors didn't emerge until the early 1980's. So, it appeared reasonable at the time to treat these men and then return them to their priestly duties. In hindsight, this was a tragic mistake." [1] So here we have a clear source. Which can be backed up by some of the sources I gave and (what I don't see as necessary) can be enriched by the german point of view. So please tell me, where is the problem? There is no WP:SYNTH.
"It would be very helpfull if you would consider creating an user account, IP-hopping - even if completely innocent is not likely to help you make your point at the very least because of the confusion it creates."
Sorry, you're right. At the beginning I only wanted to fix up some mistakes in this article. But I see, it will take more time. I'll create an account soon.
So to get some beef to the bones: Do you agree, that Plantes view should be added to the article? I think there are enough reasons for it. 94.223.112.246 ( talk) 19:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
94.223.112.246 ( talk) 16:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Find a better source for it or seek wider consensus. Does anyone else have opinions on the sources which I have removed?
Oh, and please get an account so that it is easier to report you for your continuing violations of civilty. Richiez ( talk) 22:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Wow - this talk page is long and convoluted - I can't even remember why I started reading it, are there sensible portions that could be archived? Anyway I added a couple of square brackets further up the page to link to Ephebophile as I've never even heard the word before. EdwardLane ( talk) 17:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Neutral point of view from the stuff above I don't currently have an opinion on the validity of the Plante reference. But I'll go have a look EdwardLane ( talk) 17:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC) this [ [10]] link looks interesting - might give some notability EdwardLane ( talk) 17:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
New question: What have the following paragraphs to do with criticism of secrecy?
"In April 2010, Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins stated that they are seeking to prosecute the Pope for crimes against humanity due to what they see as his role in intentionally covering up abuse by priests. [2] [3]
But it was Cardinal Ratzinger's official responsibility to determine the church's response to allegations of child sex abuse, and his letter in the Kiesle case makes the real motivation devastatingly explicit. Here are his actual words, translated from the Latin in the AP report: "This court, although it regards the arguments presented in favour of removal in this case to be of grave significance, nevertheless deems it necessary to consider the good of the universal church together with that of the petitioner, and it is also unable to make light of the detriment that granting the dispensation can provoke with the community of Christ's faithful, particularly regarding the young age of the petitioner."
In a CNN intervew a few days later, however, Dawkins declined to discuss the international crime law courts definition of crime against humanity saying it is a difficult legal question. [4]"
{{
cite news}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
On the other hand, I believe to remember, that this thing (pope before trial by court in Louisville) finally failed due to the incapacity of the plaintiffs to prove that bishops are vatican employees. (Like depicted in this article). So I would vote for deleting or at least shortening this verbal fight between pro- and anti-church fractions. Moreover it tells nothing about the abuse cases. The only thing is, that there are people who wants to see the pope on trial. But that's not new and should be discussed more thoroughly in other paragraphs. Ricerca ( talk) 15:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)