Talk:Catholic Church sexual abuse cases/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

NPOV

For those interested in eliminating POV in this and other articles, there is a List of fallacies in Wikipedia and a rather tighter one in http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies. I've noticed a number of sentences that start off with the "assumption" that "everybody knows." etc. This is great grist for the POV folks and something that some of us would like to replace or remove. This list provides support for those hoping to revert to an encyclopedic article. Student7 16:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that link, Student7. I agree that this "article" is chock full of POV statements, unreferenced conclusions, etc. I have tried to deal with some, but to be frank the whole thing is such a mess it's hard to figure out where to begin. It's like emptying the ocean with a teaspoon. But at least it's comforting to see some other teaspoons out there. --Anietor 23:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll make a suggestion on where to begin. The paragraph that starts, "The Catholic League has argued..." seems to contain a lot of information about teachers, strung together in a way that seems POV if not OR; the article isn't about comparative rates of abuse. The Catholic League response should be included, but without the additional survey and report info. 24.4.253.249 07:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I changed it. Kept the references. I didn't think that was the worst sentence in the intro BTW. Teachers should be pleased!  :)

If you have bathwater, let me know. Just make sure there isn't a baby in it first!  :) Student7 13:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yup, much better. I'm going to rearrange some of the sentences to try to make the lead flow better. Feel free to revert if you don't think it improves the article. 24.4.253.249 16:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

"Secret" document

The document, if anyone will recall, was never secret. It is referenced several times on Vatican.va prior to it's "discovery" and publication. IgnatiusAntioch 6:32 27, November 2007 (UTC)

Miami "stuff"

The Miami archdiocese "stuff" has finally overflowed onto this article. It is Dominvsvobiscvm's POV that Archbishop Favalora is pro-homosexual and is intending to publicize that POV ad infinitum. More Catholic that the pope, you see. The sources used are not double edited like controversial material should be, but from blogs, columns and other unverified references. The Miami stuff is supposedly going into arbitration having failed mediation. With enough eyes and a heads up, we ought to be able to handle this here or force a mediation first (which won't work) and then to arbitration separately. We will try to couple them but don't know if that will work. For those who hate the church, this poorly documented type of accusation does not help your case and you may wish to help as well! See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources Student7 12:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

My feeling is that Dominvsvobiscvm's goal is not to contribute to Wikipedia as a body of knowledge, but to use it as a vehicle to promote a vendetta against several entities: Archbishop Favalora, the Archdiocese of Miami, and gay and lesbian people in the Catholic Church, their families and friends. Dominvsvobism is attempting to cobble together "sources"--correct or not, appropriate or not--in a frantic attempt to prove her accusations. Also, it is obvious that since the John Favalora and Archdiocese of Miami articles have been "locked" she will target other articles in Wikipedia as convenient places to promote her agenda of harassment. Annpavlosky 4 September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.80.55 (talk) 09:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I've been taking this entirely too seriously. It was one thing to place this stuff in the middle of the Miami articles - ruining perfectly good copy. It's quite another thing to put them here when half this stuff is nonsense or exaggerated already. The entire article is too long ensuring that no one will read it. The quality is not good. The main intent is to defame. Anyway, Dominvsvobiscm's contributions are even more ludicrous that the usual ones and totally without merit. If they weren't ready to disbelieve this article prior to arriving at the Miami section, they will afterwards. That is a plus not a minus. Secondly, this has a good basis for an article in uncyclopedia. I copied Dominvsvobisvm's original and moved it there. Will need a bit of "enhancement," but I think the people there will get a big kick out of it when I am through. (I knew it would be good for something!). Student7 19:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Bankruptcy

Just looking at the "bankruptcy" section. This is all repeated below in the diocese section. Why in two places? Plus being in the article on the diocese. I do want to point out that articles this long don't get read anyway, but it is annoying for those of us who do look at it occasionally.Student7 21:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

(Hope you don't mind that I refactored your comments for ease of reading.)

I agree that duplicate information is not a good thing. The question then becomes, Where is it more logical to present it? I'm tempted to say that the Diocese section should be rewritten into a summary that presents full aggregate info, with a list of links to the specific Diocese articles/sections for details based on location. That would allow the Bankruptcy section to remain largely intact. 24.4.253.249 00:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

CSRI Books

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SPS Louise Haggett is listed as the President/Founder of CITI Ministries. She is listed as the author of the report. CSRI Books is listed as part of CITI Ministries. All this is conveyed in the relevant section of the article but Wikipedia's relevant policy says:

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.[5]

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

The exception is if: The report is produced by "an established expert on the topic of the article" and "has been previously published by reliable third-party publications". Neither has been established so I intend to delete the section unless someone can prove that Louise Haggett is an "established expert" who has been published by "reliable third-party publications". GuyIncognito 01:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I have waited four months and no-one has protested so I have deleted the relevant section. --GuyIncognito (talk) 07:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Miami

I just removed some comments and disputed material from the section on the Miami Archdiocese, which was making all of it hard to read. I hope this works. I'm putting what I think was all of the disputed material here. If there is more disputed material, I'd suggest using the same technique (or simply to delete it, if that's what needs to happen) which should make it easier for others to see what has happened. Here is the material:

In 2005 and 2006, Catholic columnist Matt C. Abbott (of RenewAmerica.us) published several articles tracing developments in what became known as the "Miami Vice" scandal. Bourassa claimed that several "straight" priests were feeding her information on a culture of sodomy and theological heterodoxy on the part of priests of the Miami Archdiocese. Among the allegations: 70 to 90 percent of the Archdiocese's priests are sexually active gays; Archbishop Favalora and Catholic Charities of Miami owned several thousand shares in stock for a liquid aphrodisiac popularly sold in gay clubs and strip joints; at least 70 percent of bishops in the United States are sexually active gays; many parish priests were misappropriating parish funds to live exorbitant lifestyles, and archbishop Favalora and vicar-general Msgr. William J. Hennessey are in some way implicated in this superculture.

The comment was: "well he didn't "publish" anything. Abbott is simply a tabloid web blogger in effect. Not allowable in Wikipedia under guidelines previously cited. Particularly for controversial stuff. This is utter nonsense." I was going to check this but haven't yet. Plinkit 19:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Reasons why material referenced to Matt Abbott Columns should be removed from Archdiocese of Miami sections

Regarding the allegation that Archdiocese of Miami owns stock in a liquid aphrodisiac company, the alleged liquid aphrodisiac is this http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-149600240.html As you can see by visiting this independent third party reference to the supposed liquid aphrodisiac, the beverages sold by this company are marketed as "energy drinks". No where does this company say that it is selling a liquid aphrodisiac. In no newspaper is it reported that any of these drinks are aphrodisiacs that are sold in gay bars. I would also like to point out that there are no references that Wikipedia would allow to sustain having any of the material referenced to Matt Abbott columns. I searched for any third party references to any investigations of any Archdiocese of Miami priest for stealing money and there are none. I searched for any third party references to find any kind of evidence that would sustain an accusation that Miami Archdiocese priests (over 400 of them) are sexually active homosexuals. There are none. Wikipedia policy states that extraordinary claims must have extraordinary sources. This does not exist to sustain these claims. I have four school age children here. Sharon Bourassa and her tiny catholic hate group told entire schools full of children, including my own that the priests they have loved and known all their lives are practicing homosexuals because they own real estate (just like doctors do when investing) with other priests. (Archdiocese of Miami requires their priests to provide for their own retirement) I watched my child cry for over two hours and she only stopped after I told her that her own father owns a hunting cabin with his hunting friends, owning real estate does not mean a person is an active homosexual, nor that they have bought it with stolen funds. One priest lives in a home on the intracoastal. He is an only child who has lived in this home most of his life with his parents. When his parents died, he inherited the home which is three blocks from his parish. Sharon Bourassa assumes that since it is on the intracoastal, it is a luxury home he owns with stolen parish funds. This is such a horrible defamation of good, innocent priests who have been loving and kind to our kids and it is so painful to see this garbage being proclaimed on Wikipedia. This material clearly violates wikipolicies WP:Redflag, WP:Proveit, WP:NPOV#undue weight, and WP:RS If you visit the mediation page of John Favalora you will see many editors who have a consensus that this material should be removed. The only person who wants this material on this site is DominvsVobiscm. If you visit his talk page you will see how many times he has been reprimanded for vandalizing Catholic sites in Wikipedia. This is not an unbiased Wiki editor. This is a person using Wikipedia to turn Catholic sites into anti Catholic propaganda.NancyHeise 14:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Basically agree witht he above. Student7 17:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

removal of material from Miami subsection that violates Wikipolicies

The following comments are in regard to items referenced to the source of Matt Abbott columns who has no fact checker or editor as required by Wikipedia to be considered a reliable source. He prints emails on the protestant web site "Renew America" which could be considered by many to be anti Catholic propaganda.

1. Paragraph two of this submission by DominvsVobiscm devoted the dismissed Dowgiert lawsuit received no major news coverage. A few paragraphs down, the editor who contributed this section states that the lawsuit was dismissed because of church/state separation reasons and courts did not comment on the veracity of the allegations. There is no reference to sustain this sentence. We have no third party reference to see what was the court's actual ruling in why they dismissed this lawsuit. In a similar lawsuit like this one in New York http://www.nylawyer.com/adgifs/decisions/021307crotty.pdf, you can see that the justices ruled for sanctions against the attorney after they dismissed the case. Beginning on page 29, they state that the attorney used the courts only to generate propaganda against the Catholic Church. Sharon Bourassa, the attorney in the dismissed Dowgiert lawsuit may have also been sanctioned for the same reasons. (google her name to see the places her allegations in Matt Abott columns were published, with no references to the dismissal) To place any sentence in this paragraph without an actual reference to the actual ruling is not only against Wikipolicy, it makes Wikipedia look ridiculously unreliable. Likewise, to mention a lawsuit that was dismissed in its first hearing and then withdrawn by the plaintiff does not make sense. It makes Wikipedia a possible tool of anti Catholic propaganda, also against Wikipedia policy.
2. Paragraph three lists the allegations contained in the dismissed lawsuit just discussed. Listing these allegations is further evidence that the editor intends to use Wikipedia as an anti Catholic propaganda tool. I have searched for local and national newspaper coverage that would sustain these allegations that are over two years old, I find nothing in local or national papers. I do not find any articles about Archdiocese of Miami priests stealing money from parishes, being investigated or prosecuted for such felony crime. I do not see where any luxury properties have been confiscated because of such felony crime. I do not find where homosexually active priests in the Archdiocese of Miami are being removed or investigated. Further, how can anyone state with a straight face that they personally know the sexual orientation of over 360 United States Bishops? Yet this paragraphs states that almost all of them are sexually active homosexuals. This is anti Catholic propaganda. I did find that one of the attorney's who brought the lawsuit in the first place, Sharon Bourassa's co-counsel, Mr. Joe Titone, was disbarred. Maybe this lawsuit and its allegations do not belong in this article for the very reasons that they can not be substantiated with any real news sources Wikipedia requires. To include this paragraph would violate Wikipedia policy and make it appear to be a tool of anti Catholic propaganda.
3. This sentence "Christifidelis claims to have sent their investigation to the Vatican for adjudication; they claim Pope Benedict XVI is "well aware" of these scandals, and is currently deliberating a solution to them" does not make sense. We do not know who "Christifidelis" is. There is no reference to a web site for them, I do not find any. There are some groups with the name Christifidelis on the web, searching their sites, there is no mention of their suppposed founder "Sharon Bourassa" nor this claim to have sent their investigation (also not mentioned) to the Vatican. I have searched to find where Pope Benedict XVI has stated he is "well aware of these Archdiocese of Miami scandals and is currently deliberating a solution to them". There is no reference to back up this statement. It is a completely unreferenced statement. Wikipedia policy states that "extraordinary claims must have extraordinary sources". This is an obvious violation of Wikipedia policy and further evidence that the article is possibly being used as a tool of anti Catholic propaganda.
4. "Archbishop Favalora and Catholic Charities of Miami owned several thousand shares in stock for a liquid aphrodisiac popularly sold in gay clubs and strip joints". This sentence has no reference. Going to the source, Matt Abott columns, I do not find a list of stockholders for Xstream Beverage Network, Inc., the alleged stock. Searching news articles of this company, I do not find any drink they sell that is called a "liquid aphrodisiac" nor any news articles stating that any of their drinks are sold in gay bars. This appears to the average reader to be a blatant display of anti Catholic propaganda. I don't think it serves the purpose of Wikipedia to include such a statement.
5. "Two of the Miami Archdiocese's parishes (Saints Anthony and Maurice, both in Fort Lauderdale) are publicly featured on the directory of the Conference for Catholic Lesbians as being "Gay-Friendly"; a complimentary directory lists both Archdicoesan universities, Barry and Saint Thomas, as "Gay-Friendly"." This sentence does not explain why it is a scandal to be "gay friendly". The Archdiocese has a homosexual ministry and also and AIDS ministry. South Florida is home to the second largest homosexual population in the country. Why shouldn't they be gay friendly? What purpose does this sentence serve under "Church Scandals". This is referenced to a source that is not part of the Catholic Church. It does not state that the Church sanctions homosexual behaviour, blesses unions or other activities that would violate church teaching and possibly be considered a scandal in the Catholic Church. Likewise, there is no local or national newspaper coverage of these parishes being gay friendly or any scandal associated with being so. I did find in the Catholic Catechism the requrement to be welcoming to gays see:http://ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/mysite.html?q=paragraph+2358&sufs=0&order=r&cmd=context&id=4810ea482028fc5b#hit1 Evidently, it is not a scandal to be "gay friendly" and this sentence does not belong in this article under Church Scandals.
6. "Archbishop Favalora has been deposed in a lawsuit filed against retired Broward priest Neil Doherty; at least four lawsuits are alleging the Archdiocese knew Doherty was a pedophile and covered-up allegations, keeping Doherty in ministry until he was first publicly accused of sexual abuse in 2002" This paragraph is incorrect. Neil Doherty was first publicly accused of sexual abuse in 2005. He was removed from ministry by Archbishop Favalora in 2002 after Favalora went through priest files and found an accusation against Doherty that had occured under the previous and now deceased Archbishop of Miami. Please see the first lawsuit at http://www.hermanlaw.com/pdf/complaint-02.pdf date is on bottom of page. Also see http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2007/01_02/2007_02_20_Weaver_ArchbishopDeposed.htm
7. " In July 2007, Miami lawyer Jeffrey Herman announced new lawsuits against the Archdiocese, alleging sexual abuse by six Florida priests, including Doherty. "This whole scandal is far from over," Herman said. "We're still in the heart of people coming forward." This sentence stands alone. It does not give both sides of the story making it biased. This sentence is already included in the article Roman Catholic Sex Abuse cases under the subsection Archdiocese of Miami. However, in that article, both sides of the story are given. Either this should be eliminated here and a reference to the other article inserted or it should contain the unbiased version.StacyyW 11:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I tried to look into the Abbott material, and agree that it shouldn't be there unless independent sources can be found. I wasn't able to find any. I'm not sure whether the rest is disputed or not, but I agree with making the material two-sided. Is there another side to this? Plinkit 23:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Some answers i'll add more later;

4)The energy drink stuff is rubish and should not be on wikipedia, i looked up the energy drink and its just another Red Bull clone with added chinese herbs. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 06:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

5)Being gay friendly is not a crime or against catholic teaching (just another sinner), this section should go as well. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 06:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

3)This should be removed until a good reliable source is found. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 06:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

5) As a point, it is neither a "sin" per se, to be heterosexual nor homosexual. Most Christian churches, including Catholic, are "friendly" to both. It would be worthy of an article if one weren't! Student7 12:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Boy, are you ignorant. RenewAmerica.us is not a "Protestant" website, much less an anti-Catholic one. The site is areligious, and supports the so-called "Declarationist" principles of Alan Keyes, a Catholic! Matt Abbott is Catholic, too. Student: Did you do some research on what Yohimbe is, and what it is known for?DominvsVobiscvm 19:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hate groups rarely call themselves "hate groups." No one would join! If we are to believe CS Lewis, practicing homosexuals are less sinful that those who preach hatred, get angry, or seek vengeance on someone. Student7 19:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as yohimbe is concerned, Wikipedia sums up by saying "... generally, available results of treatment are not impressive." Pretty much like most alternatives, though some are okay. Student7 19:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

RenewAmerica looks like an activist site, that's why I don't think it qualifies as a reliable source. If this hasn't spread to more recognized sources, I don't think Wikipedia should be the one to give it greater publicity. Better to run a little on the side of caution, I think. Plinkit 20:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what the Dowgiert and "Miami Vice" cases are doing here at all. They have nothing to do with the topic of this article. And two of the sources, http://www.theworldofstuff.com/archives/2005/11/30/scandal-more-of-the-same/ and http://www.nbc6.net/news/8616813/detail.html, aren't even about the Dowgiert case. The first one of these is a blog anyway, meaning it can't be considered a reliable source. Another inappropriate link used as a source is http://www.renewamerica.us/search.php?q=Miami+Archdiocese, which is just a search for any article at RenewAmerica using the words "Miami" and "archdiocese". As of the current protected state of the article, the only paragraphs in the section about the Archdiocese of Miami that are actually on-topic are the first one and the last two (that isn't to say they are yet adequately sourced and neutral, merely that they aren't irrelevant). The middle five paragraphs, on the other hand, are not about alleged sexual abuse of children and so are irrelevant to the topic. —Angr 20:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree. The Dowgiert and "Miami vice" stuff don't really belong here. Citing blogs is an embarrassment and an insult to all Wikipedia editors who try to get their facts straight. I confess to often going into and article with a POV and being forced by facts to straighten out my own ideas and even wind up "helping the enemy." Not fun, but accurate. At least I can help word the case against my side! But warping the article with tabloid nonsense is non-productive in the long run IMO. No one is going to believe anything you say after that. Student7 17:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above concerns. The section is chock full of unreferenced, poorly reference, and irrelevant info and should be removed. As for some of the questionable sources, such as RenewAmerica, Plinkit's point is a good one...if the information is accurate, it should appear in other sources that are more widely accepted as reliable. Let's start clearing out some of the improperly inserted material already. --Anietor 17:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Page protection

I've protected this page from editing because the current edit war has gone on long enough. This is not an endorsement of the current state of the article. I invite all participants to discuss their differences here rather than engaging in back-and-forth reverting of the article. —Angr 22:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

This article has been locked down in its most offensive version. The statements on the section for Archdiocese of Miami not only do not have a reliable reference, many statements have no reference. Please see the comments on this article by stacyyw above NancyHeise 02:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that The Wrong Version has been protected, but in an edit war that's pretty much inevitable. If DominvsVobiscvm comes to the talk page to discuss, maybe something can be worked out. If not (and he hasn't used the talk page yet), it won't be an issue to unprotect and allow the consensus version to reestablish itself. —Angr 06:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Angr: I have negotiated on these talk pages ad nauseam. If you look up the history of this, I've shown myself willing to compromise every step of the way.DominvsVobiscvm 19:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I did look at the history. Today is the first time you have ever edited this talk page. And starting out your very first comment with "Boy, are you ignorant" is hardly civil, or likely to lead to productive discussion. —Angr 19:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Angr, The talk page containing most of the discussion for the offensive material relating to Archdiocese of Miami is on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/John_Favalora There are two pages of discussion on this site and more on the discussion page of Archdiocese of Miami. It has been discussed over and over for at least two months with many editors who all reject the material except DominvsVobiscm. There is nothing more anyone can say on any more Wikipedia sites. The editor DominvsVobiscm who submitted the offending material has placed it on the Wiki pages for John Favalora, Archdiocese of Miami and Roman Catholic Sex Abuse Cases. Right now, it is saved in his version on two of these pages. It was not locked on John Favalora (Archbishop of Miami Archdiocese) for possible violation of Wikipolicy regarding living persons. Someone in Admin needs to make a decision about this material by looking at the discussions on the pages of these three sites 1)John Favalora Requests for Mediation 2)Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami and 3) Roman Catholic Sex Abuse Cases. Thanks,NancyHeise 01:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I read those pages after you posted the above message to my talk page. I don't see any severe WP:BLP problems with the current version of this article, as everything in the Archdiocese of Miami section making negative claims about living people is sourced. What I do see, as I mentioned above, is discussion of issues unrelated to the topic of this article, and inclusion of unacceptable sources. —Angr 06:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and unprotected it again, because in the three days of protection DominvsVobiscvm still hasn't discussed his additions. Dominvs, I strongly recommend discussing here before making any more edits to this page. —Angr 20:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Miami Section: Sharon Bourassa's unproven allegations violate WP:REDFLAG

There is a Wikipolicy that would prohibit statements in this article. The statement made by Sharon Bourassa that 70-90% of priests are practicing homosexuals and 70% of Catholic Bishops are practicing homosexuals is an extraordinary claim. Wikipedia policy states "Extraordinary claims must have extraordinary sources" see WP:REDFLAG. If there were a Gallup Poll conducted asking priests if they were practicing homosexuals and the results showed that 70-90% of them were, then I could see including this statement by Sharon Bourassa. But there is no such source for this comment. Courts have thrown out lawsuits with such allegations. How do we know this is not what happened to Sharon Bourassa? I can not find the court opinion for the dismissal of the Dowgiert lawsuit on the web. In the Wiki article it says it was dismissed because of church state issues, not because of the allegations but clearly, lawsuits are being tossed specifically for those reasons as we see in this opinion beginning on page 28 of this lawsuit http://www.nylawyer.com/adgifs/decisions/021307crotty.pdf NancyHeise 18:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, If you search the internet for any evidence of convictions of Miami priests for "stealing money to live exhorbitant lifestyles" you will find one lawsuit against a Miami priest that the plaintiff lost because of lack of evidence. In addition, the court did not allow the plaintiff to go on what it called a "fishing expedition" to find such proof. See opinion at http://www.3dca.flcourts.org/Opinions/3d06-1948.pdf That is one lawsuit with no conviction. There are 400 priests in the Archdiocese of Miami. Extraordinary claims must have extraordinary sources - I think that means we would need to see several major news sources covering lawsuits against at least 280 priests (70% of the 400 priests in the Archdiocese of Miami) to justify including this statement in this article. NancyHeise 19:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This is the text of part of the opinion of the dismissed New York lawsuit that contains similar allegations to Sharon Bourassa's "Finally, further evidence of Mr. Aretakis’s motives is the drumbeat of publicity which Mr. Aretakis has sought. The day he and his client filed this complaint,he held a press conference to announce his lawsuit. This appears to be his common practice. The immediate link between the filing of the complaint and the press conference support the inference that Mr. Aretakis’s intention was to injure. That intent is confirmed by Mr. Aretakis’s statements in which he describes himself as an activist for clergy sexual abuse victims and is quoted as intending to “continue to humiliate and embarrass the Church” by bringing incidents of sexual abuse to light, even if he cannot bring them in court. 18 This intent to humiliate and embarrass is further manifested in the amended complaint which is littered with wholly irrelevant, inflammatory, and embarrassing facts concerning defendants and non-defendants alike that have no bearing on the actions brought, such as “it was widely known that he [one of the defendants] was an alcoholic.” (Am. Compl. ¶ 27.) Accordingly, the Court finds that sanctions are necessary in this case." http://www.3dca.flcourts.org/Opinions/3d06-1948.pdf The copied text begins on page 28 of this opinion. In light of this opinion on a lawsuit which contained identical claims (in another diocese) as Sharon Bourassa's, I find it difficult to be able to include her statements without considering the possibility of Wikipedia appearing to be part of that effort to "continue to humiliate and embarrass the Church", expecially when including these claims would clearly violate WP:REDFLAG. If you Google Sharon Bourassa, you might conclude that her lawsuit was filed for identical reasons, ie: not to win, but to use the courts as a means to humiliate and embarrass. NancyHeise 19:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree. If pertinent to this section, the article could include the basics, but it is up to the attorney to prove allegations. Quoting her inflammatory remarks, since they are unproven, seems to contradict the basic idea of Wikipedia about "reporting facts." The filing of the suit may belong with "facts." The statements, which are not contained in the formal suit, clearly don't belong there. They are mere allegations. In any event, I don't see how this positively helps anybody to make a case. It seems redundant somehow. After all is said and done, nothing was accomplished. Student7 17:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

(A whole day off. I don't know what to do with myself! First time in three months! I think I'll find something by Mrbusta and revert it! That should start something. No. On the other hand, I'd wind up spending the next 24 hours in the penalty box having to listen to you-know-who. They would have to fit me for a straight jacket afterwards!  :) Student7 20:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Editor DominvsVobiscm continues his edit war

After all of our discussion that has resulted in removal of the material added by DominvsVobiscm we still have his material on this page. He clearly intends to keep adding it, without discussion, no matter how irrelevent to this page it is. We need an administrator who can block this material from being added over and over so we can all get back to creating a relevant and unbiased article.NancyHeise 19:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted a couple of times, but I can't do it on my own. If there is a consensus it doesn't belong, then others should delete/revert accordingly as well. Dominvs can only go so far before violating 3RR, but only if others support the consensus and remove the innappropriate material. --Anietor 20:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

DominvsVobiscm has been warned to stop violating Roman Catholic Sites, identified as a vandal and violated the three revert rule. See his talk page. He has still not been blocked by Wikipedia. I think Wikipedia has good policies but enforcement is lacking, at least in the case of DominvsVobiscm.NancyHeise 21:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

He has just been blocked for 24 Hours for violating 3RR. --Anietor 05:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

And has started reverting again now that his block has expired. I've brought up the issue at WP:AN/I#What to do about DominvsVobiscvm? —Angr 16:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Simple question on Doherty for DominvsVobisvm

I tried inserting my question in the material which is easier, but it got reverted without an answer. The statement is made that Doherty was removed from the ministry. This is followed by the statement that he was continued in the ministry. The sequence is illogical. If he was removed in 2003 or whatever, can that be stated? If it was another date, can that date be used? Will the reference support those dates? I'm just trying to understand the statement. I don't see why you reverted it without answering the question. Student7 00:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Repair to sentence noted. Does this mean that the suit alleges that Doherty was really in the ministry when the Archdiocese says that he wasn't? - The "three year" lapse? This sounds too simple. All the archdiocese has to prove is that he was doing something else other than "ministering" from 2002-2005. There must be more to the suit than that.

I thought that the suit was that Favalora kept him in the ministry when Favalora took over as archbishop job back in 1992 or so when Favalora supposedly already knew that Doherty was abusive. So the time lag was not three years but more like ten. What the article says, though, is NO, there is only a three year period when Favalora knew and did nothing about it and Favalora says that Doherty was removed during that three year period. Am I now reading the article correctly? Student7 01:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Student7, I think I can answer your question. Favalora was appointed Archbishop in Nov. 1994. He did not actually step into the Archdiocese until 1995 and then it took him a year to adjust (this is a very large Archdiocese, 25% of the population of South Florida is Catholic). In 1996, Favalora required all employees, priests and volunteers to be fingerprinted and have a background check (I had to have this done because I was a volunteer in my children's school). Doherty had this done but nothing came up on his record because he had never been arrested or convicted of any crime. After the priest scandals hit the papers all over the country, that same year, Favalora had an archdiocesan employee go through all 400 priest personnel files and found a 30 year old allegation of molestation against Doherty that was settled by the previous and since deceased Archbishop McCarthy for $50,000. There were two other allegations but no settlement for either of those. None of these accusers nor the Archdiocese ever contacted the police. When Favalora found the $50,000 settlement and the two unprosecuted and unsettled other accusations, he removed Doherty from ministry and suspended him. Three years later, the first public accusation was made by an accuser using Jeffrey Herman as his attorney. The Doherty scandal has been reported on extensively over and over again in our local papers. I hope this answers your question. NancyHeise 03:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Corporate vs personal responsibility

Okay. I guess I understand. The dates don't quite match though. He was removed in 2003, well after the review, it seems to me.

I have a concern, as I have had in the past, with "corporate governance" versus "personal attribution." I don't think that Favalora's deposition is germane here. If everytime General Motors is sued and their chairman or president "deposed," the articles would be full of nothing else! When the archbishop is personally involved, that is another matter. For example, one bishop ran a stop sign and killed someone. Definite personal involvement. But here, there is only corporate involvement. The archbishop is merely doing what he is supposed to do as part of his job. The editor is making a big deal out of this. Too big. The lawyers have to do what they are paid to do, which is to recruit high level witnesses in the hopes of embarassing them into settling our of court. This is the lawyers job, not Wikipedia's. We are doing .com work when we publicize people as part of their corporate (and not personal) involvement. Student7 11:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it is important to include this information. The Doherty lawsuit received a lot of news coverage here and accusations were printed in these newspapers alleging that Favalora knew he was a pedophile and did not remove him. I think his deposition plainly reveals that he did not know until he went through all 400 priest files It was important to people like me to see his side of the story. I don't mind that this information is in here as long as it is unbiased and shows his side too. Plaintiff's attorney Jeffrey Herman remarks in the reference that it is a shame Favalora didn't go through the priest files sooner and remove him. I am wondering what CEO goes through all of his employees personnel files when they step into the job? None. NancyHeise 16:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Name change

I finally realized what I don't like about the title of this article - the name. The name appears deliberately chosen (POV) to emphasize that the Roman Catholic church owns sex abuse as an issue. I've been reviewing teacher abuse recently and I can assure you that the church has no ownership. Because of the numbers of teachers and students and hours in class, there is more abuse in the US classrooom in one year than appears in this entire article for forty or more.
The article should be entitled "Sex abuse cases - Roman Catholic." This indicates that RC doesn't own it and that Wikipedia is broadminded enough to report other sex abuse cases when they arise.Student7 11:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I've no problem with the name change as long as its "Sex abuse cases - Roman Catholic Church." as this is not about people who happen to be catholics but about the church and the structures it uses to protect pedophiles and the legal tricks they use so they don't have to pay the victims. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 13:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a name change would be a good idea. Either of the suggestions listed above would be fine with me...with one change: I believe it should be "sexual abuse", not "sex abuse". --Anietor 14:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

"Sex(ual) abuse cases - Roman Catholic" is not the usual way of naming articles at Wikipedia though. (It sounds like a Subject listing on an index card for a book at the library.) I don't think the current name suggests sexual abuse is something unique to Roman Catholicism any more than Anglican views of homosexuality sounds like Anglicans are the only people who have an opinion on the matter. (Okay, bad example, the article isn't still called that, but you see my point.) If the name is going to change, how about Sexual abuse in the Roman Catholic Church? —Angr 15:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

But using your example, it does seem to me that Anglicans (supposedly) have the only recorded view on homosexuality. I would suppose there were other articles but wouldn't really be motivated to look for them. I agree that reversing it does sound pedantic/bureaucratic: "hammer, claw, home use" or whatever. I would think to look for other hammers, though. Dumb but functional. Student7 02:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

(A reason that the French have their adjectives last  :)Student7 02:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

"But using your example, it does seem to me that Anglicans (supposedly) have the only recorded view on homosexuality" thats just not accurate about wikipedia or the article itself, at the top of the article there is this template which clearly links to lots of other christian perspectives of homosexuality. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 14:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly! That was my point. That the poor naming made a reader think that there was only one article. What we are discussing here is a name change to this article. The "Anglican" article was just made up to be able to discuss this issue more easily. It has nothing to do with Anglicans or homosexuality. I apologize for pushing your hot button. I would appreciate it if you would eliminate the box.Student7 18:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

What would you name it? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 20:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I voted in the first paragraph. Having said my piece, I don't really want to be omnipresent here! Student7 21:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the suggestion for a name change from the header. The vote has failed for lack of interest/consensus. Thanks to all who participated in the discussion. I would appreciate it for future discussions on the same topic to start a completely new subsection and NOT use this one. Thanks again. Student7 02:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

My Apologia

Alright, here is all I will say to this in my defense, as I've already defended myself elsewhere. The Andrew Dowgiert material is absolutely relevant, as it gives the Archdiocesan cultral context in which the sexual abuse of minors occurred. This article is, after all, a part of the GayLesbianBisexualTransgenger project, and noting the alleged homosexual superculture just helps to contextualize everything. Should this go to arbitration, I will submit to the judgment of the arbitrator. DominvsVobiscvm 16:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear DominvsVobiscvm, The references you give for the material you want to add have statements that refer to Sharon Bourassa and her group as a hate group. See http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/abbott/060506. Your edits turn the entire article into propaganda for that hate group. This Wikipedia page is about sex abuse cases. The material you add is not a sex abuse case, it is heresay from a leader of a hate group (Sharon Bourassa) whose comments are never reprinted in the local or national news media. They originate in Matt Abbott Columns, a relgion gossip columnist with no fact checker or editorial oversight as required by WP:RS. Your hate group material is currently locked on the site Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami and has been for over a month.NancyHeise 16:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

DominvsVobiscm, the allegations you are trying to add to the Miami section are statements made by an attorney to the columnist Matt Abbott. They are not allegations included in a lawsuit. The dismissed Dowgiert lawsuit does not claim what Dowgiert's attorney Sharon Bourassa is claiming. Your edit makes it appear as if the claims are being made by a plaintiff in a lawsuit. Further, when I investigated the claims, I could find no news articles in local or national papers to back them up. See my previous comments on this discussion page complete with references that justify not including your submissions on this page.StacyyW 17:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Then you're obviously not reading all the footnotes I provided.DominvsVobiscvm 17:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

DominvsVobiscvm, I am looking at your references and I want to give you these two to look at too, the first is the text of the actual lawsuit as it was originally filed and the second is the Sharon Bourassa allegations that are obviously not part of this lawsuit. http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/abbott/050521 , http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/abbott/060412 As you can see, Dowgiert alleges homosexual activity by two priests. There are 400 Archdiocese of Miami priests. Sharon Bourassa is alleging that 90% of those 400 priests are sexually active homosexuals who steal money and live exhorbitant lifestyles. That is not what the lawsuit says. That is what Sharon Bourassa is saying she heard someone tell her (heresay). Big Difference. Also, I do not see in your provided references where the Sharon Bourassa allegations are repeated by any reliable source, including the only reference to a Miami Herald article that reports the filing of the since dismissed Dowgiert lawsuit.StacyyW 18:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It is commercial to do the work of lawyers which is to intimidate their opponent into settling before a suit. Pay them to "go away," as it were. Wikipedia should not be involved in commercial work on anyone's part. The lawyer has failed to prove whatever her rant was. The raving was contentious enough that it should come from a verifiable source. It isn't verifiable. Anyway, if Dowgiert never said it in the lawsuit, it is irrelevant.

Dominvs, you need another vehicle for promoting your agenda. Wikipedia isn't it. It is not supposed to be from anyone's POV. I've come into articles before with a POV and been forced to back off when confronted with the facts. If you are not willing to do that, perhaps another forum would be more appropriate.

Have you noticed the lack of edits here lately? I think other editors have been embarrassed out of the article! The accusations don't seem credible even to people who hate the Catholic church and want to believe them! (And privately, for the wrong reasons, I would rather see them remain - they pollute the article. Poison the water, so to speak. Fine with me!  :) Student7 19:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The Dowgiert lawsuit was dismissed on its first hearing and then withdrawn by the plaintiff. How does that make it important enough to mention? Also, the dismissed Dowgiert lawsuit was not a sexual abuse case, Dowgiert was not saying he was molested or raped or in any way a victim of sexual abuse. He says another priest made passes at him. He also calls another priests friend his "domestic partner" because the priest went on vacation with him. I would like to call attention to the fact that priests go on vacation. They do not go alone. If they went with a woman, they would be suspected of having an affair. I think there is a lot of assumptions going on in this dismissed lawsuit and not a lot of facts.StacyyW 20:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear DominvsVobiscvm – I saw once again you added links to parish & college resources my site (cclonline.org) to bolster your specious argument of a “homosexual superculture” in the Archdiocese of Miami. I have previously stated to you we do not have any official or unofficial relationship with the Archdiocese or institutions in question – they are known to us through word of mouth as being “gay-friendly” through the warmth and hospitality of the pastoral staff and parishioners; and also that they are not overtly homophobic. You have suggested to me that I remove this listing from my web site and you would not pursue a further link. I considered that to be low-grade blackmail, and indictative of what seems to me to be your real agenda; not bringing pedophile priests to justice, but to leverage this sad and ugly situation to persecute Catholic clergy and parishes that may not share your views of Church, faith or doctrine.

It is my understanding that Wikipedia should not be used as a marketing vehicle to promote political agendas or a personal grudge. It is an encyclopedia, and as such is a repository for facts, not fantasy or conjucture. If it’s an opinion, it needs to be identified as such. It is important the information in Wikipedia be as factually correct as possible, since more and more people use it as a reference.

My site has no relevance or connection to “Roman Catholic Sex Abuse Cases.” We are not involved in any legal action, nor to my knowledge are any of the parishes or institutions named. It is convenient for you to use us, but it is not correct or appropriate. Lacking real evidence, you are try to cite our "visibility" as proof of a situation with which you do not agree. That is, lesbian and gay Catholics welcomed back to their spiritual home. If you have an opinion on that, it belongs in another article in Wikipedia. Catholic lesbians and gays do not constitute a link to sexual abuse. Please think about what you're doing to innocent people in an attempt to prove your point.

I hope this situation can come to a respectful and dignified conclusion soon. Ann Pavlosky —Preceding unsigned comment added by Annpavlosky (talk • contribs) 21:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

A way out of this mess

Hello everyone. I have blocked User:DominvsVobiscvm for persistent edit warring and because it seems fairly clear that the consensus on this talk page is against his recent edits. That being said, it takes at least two editors to create a revert war and I'd like to ask everyone to stop reverting the page because it will have to be protected otherwise. You can try the various (if imperfect) resources of dispute resolution but at the very least, I would ask everyone involved in the present dispute to stop editing the article for, say, a week, so that you all cool down and focus on the talk page discussion. I see no reason why calm, rational discussion can't solve this, though I tend to be naive about these things. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 18:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I am willing to do this, but we have talked this thing to death over the past two months. The speed at which we can do this makes it seem like "forever" from our perspective! Several good editors who were making useful contributions just got sick of it and threw in the towel. This is a shame, I think, when good people are driven away by editors "acting out," as it were. The stress just gets too much for them.

Nancy Heise has stuck it out and has analyzed most of the offensive material in meticulous detail. Not much I can add. The problems continue to be, as they have been, POV, unqualified references, and deliberately inflammatory, extravagant, tabloid section titles. We haven't seen much change here. Us other editors can work out our differences, but can't ever get to the point where the article is stabilized enough to discuss them with any hope that they will be there a few minutes from now, much less hours. Student7 21:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

StacyyW is a relative of mine who has been upset with the DominvsVobiscvm additions. I helped her learn how to edit. I was just asked by Andre if I am affiliated with this person. I told him I am a relative. Is there a problem with that?NancyHeise 23:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no problem with that. Your acknowledgment and disclosure is appreciated and I think it further demonstrates that there is nothing sinister going on. Plenty of editors know each other, and are bound to be interested in similar topics. You're not using another username for sockpuppetry, or to create some cabal. Thanks for taking the time to teach a newbie the ways of the wikiworld! --Anietor 03:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This article does not cite any references or sources tag

Why does this article have this tag? There are 107 references not counting direct links. -Mrbusta 03:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the tag to "This article needs additional references or sources for verification" this fits the situation for the article better. -Mrbusta 14:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Adding McDonagh

Added with ref.

Why is the article's neutrality disputed? Surely only one aspect it seems to me, the rest is fine.Red Hurley (talk) 09:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed...the terms "at all" do not exist in the Greek text...this is a Roman Catholic translation error, (intentional would be a good guess as it changes the meaning to read against Church leaders being married). The original text reads "husbands of only one wife" indicating marriage as a pre-requisite to leadership in the work o0f the gospel...not the reverse (as the Devil would have us read it in reverse). Who is the Devil here I wonder?

POV Title

The title of this article is POV. 'Roman Catholic sex abuse cases' implies that the allegations are true rather than just being allegations. Also isn't the issue to do with priests rather than just ordinary Catholics? I don't think the latter engage in sexual abuse more than any other religion unless this article is just a POV excuse for fashionable Catholic bashing. I bet if there was an article entitled 'Jewish sex abuse cases' or 'Hindu sex abuse cases' or Anglican sex abuse cases or Methodist sex abuse cases or Shinto sex abuse cases or Baptist sex abuse cases or Moslem sex abuse cases there would be a howl of protest so why is acceptable to pick out one religion rather than another? See how all the above are red linked? Has anybody ever demonstrated that one religion has more sexual abuse cases than others? That demonstrates that this article is POV. Colin4C (talk) 15:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

About this in the intro:

"There had been charges that a minority of the clergy had been practicing such behavior for decades, alleging that a "homosexual collective" within the priesthood viewed child sex abuse as a "religious rite" and "rite of passage" for altar boys and young priests for example, see Rite of Sodomy by Randy Engel (1989)"

For those that don't know Randy Engel is an ultra-conservative Catholic who expresses extremely POV views on the sins of "sodomy" in the church. She links "sodomy", i.e. homosexuality with the liberalisation of the Churh after Vatican II and the infiltration of leftists into the church. Her book is self published as well (in 2006 not 1989 by the way). Is the wikipedia the right place to promote self-published rants against homosexual priests? Colin4C (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is one admiring review from Amazon of Engel's self published book revealing her startling revelation that the Pope Paul VI was gay....:

"The Rite of Sodomy chronicles the history of homosexual subcultures from ancient times through the infiltration of the Catholic hierarchy by the Lavender Mafia. This book recounts the effective measures used by St. Peter Damian, one of the 33 Doctors of the Church, and Pope Leo IX to overcome the first scourge of sodomite priests in the Church. Currently entrenched myths about homosexual subculture in ancient Greece and Rome are compellingly debunked. Though not a physician or mental health professional, the author effectively adduces the medical evidence against the "God made me this way" shibboleths that are essential in advancing the homosexual agenda.

The guilty are named, as are the means they used to conquer even the Chair of Peter. An entire chapter is devoted to the evidence proving that Pope Paul VI was an active homosexual blackmailed into promulgating numerous modernist alterations in Catholic practice, deformities never ordered or envisioned by the Second Vatican Council. Such imposed alien aberrations include the impoverished Novus Ordo Mass authored de novo (notwithstanding false antiquarian claims by its proponents) by the Freemasonic mole Abp. Annibale Bugnini, so deficient in its theology that the Novus Ordo Mass is approved by Protestants and Freemasons alike.

Engel recounts the history of Americanism and demonstrates how that heresy blended with Modernism, enabling the perverted infiltrators and corrupting the Church even today. The activities of all the usual suspects are thoroughly documented - Law, Wuerl, Bernadin, McCarrick, Weakland, Sparks, Ziemann, Wright, Williams, Weldon, "St. Sebastian's Angels," Ryan, Gramick, Nugent, Schexnayder, Cummins, Mugavero, Lynch, Mahony, Spellman, O'Connell, Ferrario, and too many more to mention here.

This book leaves no stone unturned in exposing the satanic vermin destroying lives, souls, and Holy Mother Church.

Shortly before penning this review another piece of the puzzle arrived, the 2007 revelation of the Soviet KGB "Seat 12" covert operation to infiltrate and corrupt Judeo-Bolshevism's arch enemy, the only real moral authority in the world, the only Church Jesus founded, the Roman Catholic Church." Colin4C (talk) 20:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Colin4C, you shouldn't change the title of a page that is 50kb long without seeking people's opinions. There are some considerations:

• a) Constricting it to Roman Catholic is not POV in itself, but could be worded in a POV way, and such wording must be avoided.
• b) Widening it to "clerical" abuse is too vague, as clerical related to the church 50 years ago but has a much wider meaning today.
• c) I don't see how (e.g.) Methodist or Shinto sex abuse case pages could ever be POV, if each can be referenced.

In all this, we must remember that wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a billboard. Being a Catholic myself, I am ashamed of the abuse of thousands of young people in the last few decades by a small number of priests, but feel that it must be fully and dispassionately recorded, with a source in every entry, to make sure it doesn't happen again.

The essential matter relating to the whole church was how abusers were moved from A to B, denials were issued, and the prior interest of the church was to protect its good name, and not the abused. That is undeniable in very many cases, and that is why the church itself should be named in the title. Being an encyclopedia, journalists need such a page as a reliable reference. And as an Irish taxpayer I am still paying towards the damages recovered by the victims, so this is a current matter.Red Hurley (talk) 14:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

And I must add that "allegations" is inaccurate. Many admissions and convictions have resulted. Many false allegations have also been made. "Cases" most accurately describes matters that are only allegations until they have been proved / admitted, or not.Red Hurley (talk) 14:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Such a drastic step of changing the title significantly for an article with such a long history and many authors requires first a notice on the talk page and at least one week of delay waiting for responses. Andries (talk) 17:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

This move was out of process and disputed, so I have reverted it. For future proposals, please use WP:RM or make sure there is a clear talk page consensus before hand. Thanks.-Andrew c ^[talk] 04:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I have also protected for moves, for a period of 30 days. If there is agreement to move this article to a new name, you can place a request at WP:RFPP ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

So you all agree with Goebbels and the Nazis that the Catholic Chuch is 'awash with sex fiends' more than any other religous group or national group or ethnic group. Do you also agree with Goebbels that Jewish 'sex fiends' should be targeted, named and shamed as well? Maybe some wikipedia nazi should write articles about Jewish, Moslem and Hindu sex abuse cases? Why just target the Catholics? This article is discriminatory hate speak and represents a cowardly lynch mob mentality. You should be ashamed of yourselves for allowing it.Colin4C (talk) 09:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not create (not re-name) an article Allegations of sexual abuse by religious authories? Andries (talk) 10:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Answer me truthfully. Would you approve of a Jewish sex abuse cases article? Why is OK to target the Catholics and not the Jews? Tell me please I'd love to know your opinion on this. And what about various ethnic groups: maybe an article like Black sex abuse cases would tickle your fancy - the Ku Klux Klan (who hate the Catholics also by the way) would be much gratified by this. Yes, lets introduce lynch law to the wikipedia - why not? Colin4C (talk) 10:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I dunno about Jews, but plenty of reputable sources exist for the topic sexual abuse by gurus. Andries (talk) 10:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The titles are not comparable. The Roman Catholic Church is an organization while Jews and blacks are not. Andries (talk) 10:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the article title you approve so much of that you have protected it reads: Roman Catholic sex abuse cases. It mentions nothing about organization - just the person's religion. Basically an outlet for people's hatred of Catholics - sanctified by admins who should know better, admins who have changed my non-discriminatory title to one which sanctifies and protects hate-speech. I understand that America has a long tradition of anti-Catholicism but I would have thought that some here could have risen above it and looked their disgusting prejudice in the face. Colin4C (talk) 10:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Colin4C i would advise you to read wp:civ and stop calling other editors Nazi's and members of the KKK if they disagree with you. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 10:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Colin4C, the organization is clearly mentioned in the article, and was a part of the problem. All the abusers and the church claim a line of authority from St Peter which put them in a superior position to the abused, whether in church schools or hospitals. Or even in churches.Red Hurley (talk) 11:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Can't you read? The article title says Roman Catholic sex abuse cases. It doesn't mention the organisation or priests or anything. But I see I'm wasting my breath. Join the cowardly anti-Catholic lynch mob if that makes you happy. Colin4C (talk) 11:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

And what if a Catholic sex abuser changed his religion and became a Presyterian? Would he be delisted as no longer of any use to anti-Catholic propaganists? Sure he abused kids but he's no longer a Catholic - no need to mention him. Only CATHOLIC sex abusers are allowed to be mentioned on the wikipedia! You are not worried about the abuse at all it seems - just the religion of certain perpetrators - THAT is your agenda. Colin4C (talk) 11:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Media doesn't care much for Catholic position on abortion, homosexuality, or on other "meddling" in public morality issues for which the media feels it only has the right. What happens when you fight someone who buys "ink by the barrel", videotape by the mile or whatever the modern metaphor is. Student7 (talk) 19:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The National Front

In the UK the rascist National Front used to print out large lists in their periodicals of Pakistani doctors who sexually abused their patients. Would you support a similar list on the wikipedia? Go on....you know you want to....I mean some of those Pakistanis might have been CATHOLICS! Boo! Hiss! - Get the ropes ready for the lynching boys - Goebbels will fasten the knot and a wikipedia admin will pull on the rope. Bravo! What heroes you are! Colin4C (talk) 12:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Pakistan has been around since 1947 and the NF since 1967, while the church has survived for nearly 2,000 years. Please develop a reasonable sense of perspective, as this is an encyclopedia, not a forum for opinions that are overly for, or against, the church.Red Hurley (talk) 14:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You'll enjoy this: courtesy of Julius Streicher's unvaluable 'Der Sturmer' mag - the Catholic is on the right the Jew is on the left! Have you got the ropes ready yet? Colin4C (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not see a practical solution to your objections. What do you propose? Merging with Hare Krishna sexual abuses cases or something like that? Andries (talk) 18:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well for one thing I would like to why you think Roman Catholic sex abuse cases is acceptible? As far as I know there is no greater sexual abuse commited by Roman Catholics than anyone else. The only reason to mention the religion is to engage in an anti-Catholic polemic. Before WW2 Julius Streicher went to a lot of effort to document Jewish sex crimes but instead of giving him a chance to become a wikipedia editor they hanged him at Nuremburg as a war criminal! Sad but true. And the anti-Catholic Goebbels shot himself. A great loss to the wikipedia editorial team I know - but both Streicher and Goebbels are both now 'brown bread'. We'll have to do the best we can here without their help! Colin4C (talk) 19:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It is acceptable because it is one organization and I cannot think of a better title. Clergy abuses makes it too broad. Andries (talk) 19:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Colin4C, the Nazis were also against foxhunting and Hitler was vegetarian. Lots of people would agree with those choices today, who could not remotely be described as Nazi.Red Hurley (talk) 10:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia "has" to have the article because the (US) national media "has" to publicize only Catholic abuse. While only a small portion of the abuse is by priests, the rest, by teachers who are supported by the media, and parents/stepparents/etc. who are too amorphous to report on. So the 4% (or whatever) is a straw dog for the 96% which remains concealed and unreported or underreported. I tried to start one on teachers and found that the story was pretty much the same as Catholic except way more, of course. Huge amounts of kids in public schools for 30 hours a week or so. Same sort of thing, can't prove allegations, teachers get protected by unions and moved around, or move themselves to another state. Can't prosecute cause kids won't testify or parents don't want to subject their kids to the ordeal. We're talking hundreds of cases a year most of which get plea bargained away on misdemeanor stuff. Media cover up. Wikipedia reflects that cover-up. Oh, BTW, my articles got Afd-ed in short order by the unions and admins. Surprised? Student7 (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Student7, I say create a page on that. But as many of the accused are still alive you must also quote a reference for each case. To merge all religious abuse pages would be too unwieldy, but there is a case for a new category perhaps.Red Hurley (talk) 10:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

So Red Hurley it would be acceptible to you to have a 'Jewish sexual abusers' page on the wikipedia? You agree with Streicher that Jewish sex fiends should be exposed? Or is it just Catholics sex abusers who should be exposed? Why one and not the other? And what has religion got to do with it anyway? Do you have proof that Catholicism inclines one to sex abuse more than any other religion or more than whatever profession they are in or any other factor whatsoever? Where is your proof? As far as I can see the only reason that 'Catholic' is up there in the title is because of long-standing anti-Catholic propaganda in Europe and America. Henry the VIII used Catholic sex abuse as an excuse to dissolve the monasteries - but did that solve the problem - no it still went on Catholic or no Catholic. Like in Nazi Germany - the Jews were a tiny percentage of the population but they got blamed for everything. Picking on the Catholics is an easy option but it won't solve the problem of sexual abuse. The Catholics are picked on for political reasons by those in other professions whose record is no better. Governments and police and civil servants and bureaucracies probably have a greater percentage of sex offenders than the Catholics, but it is not politically expedient to say so - and probably more difficult to get a compensation claim from them. Colin4C (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

"Jewish sex abuse" would be worse than "Rabbinical sex abuse". Would you be happier if it was "Roman Catholic clergy sex abuse cases"? Most of us can see the (big) difference between Nazi propaganda allegations and dozens of priests who have admitted or been convicted for their crimes, before courts that assume the defendant's innocence - unlike the Nazis' courts. I'm a Catholic (by birth), I don't find it abusive as it is, and it has been a big matter for government and the press here in Ireland. Maybe not where you live?Red Hurley (talk) 22:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I had scads of references in the articles on sex abuse in schools. I even omitted names and just put school districts attempting to pacify the crocodiles. There were so many cases that I had to break them up by state. Anyway, no luck. They said that "Wikipedia wasn't a police blotter." When I complained that they had a double standard with Catholics, they said well maybe the Catholic articles should be deleted as well. Actually some did get severely edited for awhile. Anyway, back to the double standard. Student7 (talk) 00:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to remind people that my alternative name for this article 'Clerical sexual deviancy allegations' specifically alluded to priests - who are the subject of the (both true and false) allegations. The present title - protected from change by the admins - just says 'Roman Catholic' i.e. any Roman Catholic, man, woman and child: a whole religion condemned because of anti-Catholic prejudice. Something the admins wouldn't dream of doing for any other religion: so ingrained is the 500 years of anti-Catholic prejudice in our society that even wikipedia admins can't see that it is wrong. As some author has stated: 'anti-Catholicism is the last acceptible prejudice'. Articles like this prove his point. Colin4C (talk) 17:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Add clergy to title?

Student7, I would remake your page in the near future. Colin4C, I'm not prejudiced against myself. "Roman Catholic clergy ..." may be better. But recall that the victims were also all Roman Catholics, so it was an "in-house" matter. It can't be "allegations" as there are thousands more unproved allegations. It has to stick with admissions or findings of guilt, and there are plenty of them. Who wants to arrange a vote?Red Hurley (talk) 19:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

(not to confuse this discussion): Wasn't quite following the "Colin4C remaking my page." While I spent a LOT of time on the abuse in public schools articles, the clobbering I got was not worth it. There are a lot of people out there who want to cover up sexual abuse in public schools and a certain percentage of them are on Wikipedia. Way, way more than for Catholics. I cannot handle attacks from several dozen people all at once. And some of them knew what they were talking about; the others didn't much care! And none of them wanted to listen. They had already decided. When I responded to their specific criticism, they did not change their vote. POV. So thanks, but no. At least on my account. If someone else wants to argue with them, fine.

Also, I found that I didn't have the heart/stomach for it. I wasn't really out to "get" the perpetrators. I wasn't trying to make myself feel better by bashing a teacher who had made a bad choice or a heck of a lot of bad choices, as the case may be. To edit this type of article with a clear conscience, you need to be cold-blooded and/or hate Catholics (or whoever the perps are supposed to be). I just did not have it in me. Student7 (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I sympathize. The difference is (perhaps) that the school management didn't move known or suspected abusers around to repeat their crimes again, but the church heirarchy did. "Public service" organizations are often much more concerned about their organization than public service.86.42.225.221 (talk) 21:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

While the intensity of feeling might not be there, the school administrators did move people around. The problem there (as with the clergy) is a) you can try to convict, forcing the teacher out or b) ignore it or c) (the usual) sense something is wrong but are totally unable to gather evidence because the pupil won't testify or wouldn't be a good witness. Sometimes the teacher resigned and got a job elsewhere. The unions were alert to wrongful accusations but (of course) couldn't tell the bad guys from the good. The real problem here is nobody can automatically tell who is telling the truth though the administrators often got a pretty good "sense." But "sense" is not prosecutable.

Anyway, with some latitude, the problems were pretty much the same and the handling pretty much the same. Sometimes for the same reasons, sometimes for different reasons.

In some cases, nobody could believe that the "best" football coach or the "best" teacher had done so and so, leading to a lot more abuse and, essentially cover-up. Most of it was not malicious. But, given the same degree of prosecutability (which the school got or realized more in real time since they were on the spot) most of it wasn't prosecuted until a lot later than it might have been.

Because no one is infallible, it is still going on. The other side of the story is that no one wants to admit how much the two situations resemble each other. The only difference is, that teachers have a principal on the spot, as it were. The priests often did not have this level of "close" supervision.

The people scrubbing the article were quite delighted to concede this similarity, merrily telling me to get rid of similar Catholic articles. Yeah, right. Student7 (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Browsing on Amazon, most of the books about this subject have 'priest' in the title. I.e. its about some people in authority abusing that authority, usually in a teaching capacity. Its nothing to do with being Catholic unless you want to maliciously target Catholics by recycling the same old ancient Protestant porno-propaganda stuff about wicked priests and naughty nuns which goes back to 16th century at least. Also there are some conservative Catholics (whose self published gay-bashing stuff was quoted in the intro to this article until I deleted it) who have seen this as a heaven sent opportunity to have a go against homosexuals in the church. The Emperor Nero was the first one to target supposed sex-offenders in the Church. Its the oldest trick in the book: divert attention from your own misdeeds by targeting an unpopular group. Nero, Henry VIII and Hitler all used this same trick and the gullible masses took it all in without question and are still taking it in. I don't deny that some of the accusations are true but fail to see what it has to do with being Catholic. Perverts are everywhere: not just in the Catholic church. Colin4C (talk) 12:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

This article sucks

I'm just saying. It's bloated, hard to read, and unstructured. I suspect this is partially fallout from edit wars. If any brave soul wants to try and fix this thing, I recommend they first make the opening paragraphs clear, readable, and relevant to the rest of the article. Also, good fucking luck. 69.29.78.152 (talk) 00:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Characterization of John Jay Report findings

The text of the article states "The John Jay Report... found accusations against 300 priests in the USA, equalling about .006% of all U.S. priests." That seems to be based on the section here, which in fact states that 384 priests in the survey sample were "investigated by the police and subsequently charged". Data in Table 3.7.4 shows 252 were convicted.

The section of the article desribing the John Jay report is better constructed, quoting the number of "priests and deacons in the United States who have been accused of sexual abuse of children", 4,392, though this number may be short because of differences in reporting for the various different survey instruments.[1] "the average percent of all incardinated priests in a region’s dioceses to have been accused of sexual abuse is consistent: all regions averaged between 3% and 6% of priests accused." For priests in religious groupings, "the percentage accused of child sexual abuse is 2.7%."

While the survey methodology seems to have been very thorough,[2] I would personally be cautious in describing the results as if they were a census.

We probably should look at how the results could be better described. John Nevard (talk) 04:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I've quoted out the inaccurate summary of results (and I don't have any idea which results they are supposed to be) in the introductory paragraph. I'm going to do a bit of writing on the main John Jay Report article, and summarize that in the section here. I have to say I think that describing the percentage of priests towards whom allegations were made (to the diocesian and religious leadership), and the percentage towards whom charges were brought, would be the most appropriate summary for the introductory paragraph. John Nevard (talk) 05:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

.2% proven to be abusers?

Shouldn't the sentence in the lead that says .2% of priests have proven to be abusers be removed, considering that the reference provided is from 2001, before the scandal really blew up? --Michael White^T·C 23:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Change the Title

I recommend changing the Title to: Roman Catholic Alleged Scandals Dannyza1981 (talk) 21:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

"Alleged" I like. The word scandal seems POV to me. A lot of accusations are bandied about in Wikipedia and named "scandals." What is the scandal if the accusation is false? IMO the stigma stills clings to the falsely accused. "Scandal" is a word I think Wikipedia should drop except when quoting. Student7 (talk) 23:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The cases are much more than allegations, being the result of law cases and trials. That moves many allegations up to crimes, which are recorded in the article. Some allegations have not been proven. It moves defendants to convicted criminals, or creates liabilities in civil law. "Scandal" is POV, as the activities were only scandalous within the church and not outside it.86.42.206.36 (talk) 10:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The credentials of Philip Jenkins

How many adjectives does a scholar need? One credential for Jenkins is "professor" to establish his credentials as a "scholar" essential for a scholarly quote. Then as an "Episcopal" ensuring that he was not actually Catholic, giving him some measure of NPOV. An editor has added "conservative" which may turn out to be true, but attempts to undermine the first two adjectives and, after all, is technically not mandatory for Wikipedia. Do we now discover that he is pro-life? pro-NRA? Republican? How many labels are really required here to establish relevance? How many labels until the sentence becomes ridiculous? Remember this is reversible! Critics can be similarly labeled. Student7 (talk) 02:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

If he's a published professor he's quotable - with a reference at the end.86.42.192.228 (talk) 23:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Jenkins is quotable, but the quote seems to ignore the superior moral position of a priest within the church. Comparing priestly abuses to percentages of abuse by the rest of society misses this status of a priest within Catholicism, often representing Christ himself. As Chaucer said: "That if gold rust, what shall iron do?/ For if a priest be foul, in whom we trust,/ No wonder is a lewd man to rust."86.42.206.36 (talk) 11:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, nice to know that we are blackening the name of morally superior people. If they were just ordinary people, I shouldn't be wasting my time constructing police blotters for them.Student7 (talk) 21:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe he's trying to say that the Catholic clergy should be held to a higher moral standard, rather than excused abuses. John Nevard (talk) 03:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Failure to report criminal acts to police

I am removing the last paragraph in this section. First, it is false. Second, the Crimen sollicitationis document is explained properly later in the article.--74.210.134.132 (talk) 19:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Parity across sex abuse articles on Wikipedia?

Perhaps there are good/experienced editors who look at this page, who might be interested in taking a look at a (very) different article: Scouting sex abuse cases. There are well-organised vested interests determined to cover-up what goes in the Scouts so some fresh contributions might be useful. Testbed (talk) 20:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Source to consider

This 2002 article from The Christian Science Monitor could help provide, here and/or in a relevant subarticle, some balance for comparison to other Christian denominations. Its scope is American Christianity, so it won't help with comparisons outside the U.S. nor with comparisons to non-Christian religions. But it is good as far as it goes, and also suggests other sources that might be worth reviewing. GRBerry 13:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

"adversaries to legislative reform "

• The Roman Catholic Church is one of the most vocal adversaries to legislative reform that would protect children.
  • Doyle, T. P.. "A Review of Marci Hamilton's Justice Denied: What America Must Do To Protect Its Children", June 24, 2008. "one of the two most vociferous and determined adversaries to any legislative reform that would protect children and strike fear into the hearts of predators is the Roman Catholic Church" [3]

Why was this material deleted? It appears relevant and well-sourced. As an opinion it perhaps should be attributed to the writer. I expect that if it's a widely-held view additional sources could be found. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Red Hot Catholic Love

I object to the removal of the Wikilink to the South Park episode Red Hot Catholic Love. It is very relevant, definitely as much as the other links that are already there and being enforced. Repeated removal is a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:3RR. Please discuss instead of edit warring. Reswobslc (talk) 22:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, you can't insert an irrelevant link and then object when other editors remove it. You need to establish how it is relevant. This is a serious topic, and a link to a cartoon that makes fun of the issue is not relevant. It may be good satire, but that's not encyclopedic. As for the "other links", those are links to other wikipedia articles that deal with issues of child sexual abuse. Those are obviously relevant and related. Really no comparison. --Anietor (talk) 23:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I also looked at the links for in literature and in film, and they all appear to be serious links, as opposed to satires. If it were going to be mentioned in the article, that would be the most appropriate section. —C.Fred (talk) 23:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no WP:SATIRE that says that satire is automatically irrelevant to its subject as to not be worthy of a mention just because it's satire. I could understand the relevance argument if I were trying to link to Hymenoptera. Likewise, the link to Twist of Faith could be called "irrelevant" due to it being fiction in light of this (OMG!) serious issue. Consistency is desirable. Reswobslc (talk) 23:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You have removed the link again with an edit summary "per talk page". What part of the talk page demonstrates consensus for doing that? No part, therefore you are continuing to edit war. Oh wait, I get it. Consensus has nothing to do with it, just like relevance - you simply don't want the link there (WP:NPOV). Reswobslc (talk) 13:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, you have not stated how the cartoon is relevant. Just because a cartoon uses this topic as a theme for an episode, that doesn't make it relevant. How does it contribute to the article?--Anietor (talk) 21:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

So now that I have demonstrated its relevance, now you remove it because you think Red Hot Catholic Love is about "Vatican spiders", which is of course obviously not so? What'll it be next? Let me guess, you'll say it refers to the OTHER Catholic church. The only common theme is that you simply don't want the link there. Look, the fact that there's been a scandal and you find it unpopular is not a legitimate reason for censoring it, as Wikipedia is not censored. Reswobslc (talk) 17:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think readers gain a greater understanding of Catholic sex abuse cases if they follow that link. By the same reasoning I think a lot of other link on that list should be cleaned up. See alsos (and the appearances in film and literature) should not be an index to everything we have an article on that in someway touches upon the issue. They really ought to be important to an understanding of the phenomenon. -- SiobhanHansa 19:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with SiobhanHansa. There are a few things that could be trimmed. Thanks for the comments. And to Reswobslc, calm down with the rhetoric. Those of us who have stated our reasons for finding this cartoon unhelpful and irrelevant are not "censoring", and has nothing to do with whether anyone thinks it's an "unpopular scandal" (whatever that means...). We don't include in an article every link that refers to the topic. As stated, South Park's episode about reverse-defacation, vatican spiders and parents turning to atheism because of the scandal doesn't help here, and contributes little to an understanding of a serious topic. It's great for shock value, and may be a noteworthy and funny episode in its own right, but that doesn't warrant it going into the See Also section of this article because it uses the topic as a springboard for the show. --Anietor (talk) 20:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

That depends on what side of your mouth you're talking out of. Last time I removed some of the items that seemed to have the same relevance level, you quickly reinstated them, asserting their importance. I don't have a problem with the section being cleaned up, so long as it is done in a neutral unbiased manner. The episode is about Catholic sex abuse (hence the title), and isn't about reverse-defecation or spiders any more than the Bible is about frankincense or myrrh. WP:NPOV is a fundamental tenet of Wikipedia, and you may either include the link, or remove it with the links that are similar to it. Anything short of that is POV-pushing and is unacceptable. Reswobslc (talk) 21:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the other links, but at least in a film, those releasing it have an obligation to help the audience suspend its disbelief. A satirical cartoon does not have that level of scholarship. The more outrageous the claim, the "funnier" (more amusing) it seems to some people. Student7 (talk) 21:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion of what constitutes a "filmmaker's obligation" has absolutely no relevance to Wikipedia policy, let alone any basis in truth. With one exception. Generally, the more "funnier" something is considered, the more notable it is. That makes it more appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia, not less. Reswobslc (talk) 21:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

No one has said it isn't a notable cartoon that's irrelevant to its inclusion here - what everyone else has said is that it just isn't notable in terms of the Catholic sex abuse scandal. I certainly agree other wikilinks need looking at too - but it's clear that inclusion of this link does not have consensus here. -- SiobhanHansa 16:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Per the introduction of WP:NPOV: "NPOV is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies... The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by... editors' consensus." I support efforts to clean up the links, but in that case, all the shows must go. The red herrings about how Red Hot Catholic Love is "trivial", or "immature", or not "serious" enough, or irrelevant due to being about "spiders", are all silly excuses to draw attention away from what is a blatant NPOV violation. Reswobslc (talk) 16:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

So now your position is that it should be included because there are other, equally non-relevant links in the article? That's really not the way that NPOV works. You get points for your valiant attempt to make this an issue about upholding WP:NPOV, but nobody is disputing the importance of this policy. The sole issue is whether this cartoon adds something to the article. It does not. To say that an irrelevant link must be included to somehow balance out what you consider other irrelevant links is not the right approach. --Anietor (talk) 17:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. You don't "balance" and article by adding more crap. -- SiobhanHansa 17:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to lighten the mood...I am tickled by your use of the word "crap", since the cartoon we are discussing actually has that second story line about defacation. If your word choice was intentional, SiobhanHansa, very clever. If an accident...well, that's even funnier! Also, thanks for the "Others to clean up" review you list below. That was helpful, and I agree that a lot of the links should go. --Anietor (talk) 18:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is disputing the importance of policy, but that doesn't mean they aren't just ignoring it by injecting their bias. On the other hand, one person's crap is another person's roses. Personally, I think Paris Hilton is non-notable and counts as "crap". Many people think the whole Catholic church is just a bunch of crap, but no one is insisting on total removal of it. Reswobslc (talk) 18:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

"Crap" was an inappropriate word to use and I apologize. And given the tone of this debate I really shouldn't have used such a pejorative word. My bad. I did not mean either the Red Hot Catholic Love episode or its WP article are crap. Just that in this situation it adds nothing to this article and is a distraction. The fact that other wikilinks add nothing and are a distraction is not in anyway balanced by adding more distraction. -- SiobhanHansa 18:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Others to clean up

Here's my take on how we could clean up the other links to literature, film and see alsos.

I think the ones that are external links or red links should all go. The only one that doesn't fail our external links guidelines is the John Jay study which has its own article already linked above and is incorrectly wikilinked in the see also section.

The "Abuse in literature" section is of a preferable format in my opinion - though it is currently basically unsourced and reflects the writer's opinions of what is important.

Otherwise here's how I see the wikilinks:

Film

• Deliver Us from Evil (2006 film) about the Oliver O'Grady case. I think a link to the actual case is more pertinent than a link to the film - besides this is already mentioned in the previous section.
• Sex Crimes and the Vatican (film) - seems relevant because it talks about how Colms' work lead to the resignation of Dr Brendan Comiskey and indirectly to the Ferns report. Not very well sourced but if this isn't particularly disputed it seems like a reasonable link.
• Bad Education nothing in the article that enlightens readers about this article. Just the subject matter is related. I think it should be removed.
• Song for a Raggy Boy though it claims to be based on true events there is no sourcing about those events and the article provides no insight into how its reception or existence impacted attitudes in relation to this article's subject. I don't think it should be linked.
• The Magdalene Sisters This film is really about a different sort of abuse (though there was sex abuse it isn't the main focus of the film). The main link seems to be a "bad things the Catholic church have been associated with" angle - which isn't really sufficient. This is also mentioned inthe previous section where I also think it is inappropriate - especially given its prominence as the first thing mentioned. I think it should go from the films section and needs toning down in the literature section.
• Primal Fear (film) An apparently fictional film that involoves Catholic sex abuse but is not about the reality of this article. I think it should go.
• The Boys of St. Vincent: 15 Years Later and The Boys of St. Vincent both of these link to the same place. They're about a docudrama that attempts to document an episode that is relevant to this article. There's no mention of critical or public reception that might help us work out whether it's actually a great or poor thing to link to for readers. But in general I think one link to the article not out of place. Suggest keeping.

See also

• Child sexual abuse - already wikilinked in the article - should be removed.
• Sexual harassment in education; Jehovah's Witnesses and child sex abuse; Scouting sex abuse cases. While I see the relevance of these I think this needs watching in case it becomes a bit of a catalog - perhaps a different way of displaying and linking similar articles could be found.
• Sexual harassment and abuse by teachers Links to an article already linked above. Should be removed.
• Crimen sollicitationis already linked - should be removed.
• Ferns Report already linked should be removed
• Brendan Comiskey already linked should be removed
• Pontifical Secret I understand why this should be in the article but it seems inappropriate to have it out of context in the see also. Ideally we should work this into the article somewhere.
• Virtus (program) seems reasonable
• Sex Crimes and the Vatican Links to the Panorama main page which points people to the main article on the documentary. Already mentioned in the film section. Should be removed from this section.
• Desmond Cardinal Connell - is only a bit player in many ways. Wonder how worthwhile it is listing him here given the lack of well sourced commentary on his role in the article linked to. Suggest removing.
• Bernard Cardinal Law - Significant content on his role in relation to this subject (though refs could be improved). Suggest keeping and perhaps linking directly to the relevant section:Bernard_Cardinal_Law#Sexual_abuse_scandal.
• Roger Cardinal Mahony - Once again significant coverage in relation to this issue and suggest linking directly to relevant section Roger_Cardinal_Mahony#Sexual_abuse_cases.
• Thomas Vose Daily - Currently very little content in his article on this subject. Suggest removing.
• Barbara Blaine - founder of Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests. The Blaine article contains nothing about this subject. The Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests article would be more appropriate (and is mentioned below) - though even that is very uninformative in terms of sexual abuse within the Catholic Church.
• Bad Education duplicate of one in the film section. and for the same reasons I think it should go. Definitely shouldn't be in both places.
• Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests as mentioned under the Barbara Blaine link - this has very little about catholic sexual abuse. I'm not clear if it's pretty much the organization victims of catholic sexual abuse turn to; what its reputation is; or how US centric is. It's potentially appropriate but not necessarily so in my opinion.
• Magdalene Asylum already mentioned in the literature section and as I stated the focus isn't really sexual abuse. Definitely shouldn't be here.
• Twist of Faith externally linked (inappropriately so) in the film section. It's fiction and as with the other fictional accounts direct links do not necessarily enlighten readers about what actually happened. Should go.
• Sinner (film) - again fiction and as with the others I don't think straight listings of these articles are appropriate.
• Red Hot Catholic Love - as previously mentioned not an article that sheds any light on this subject.

-- SiobhanHansa 17:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I endorse the above assessment and will discontinue any efforts to include Red Hot Catholic Love if the other items nominated by User:SiobhanHansa are likewise removed. Reswobslc (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Martin Kafka

I'm new to Wikipedia, can someone explain the problem here please? I added the important news that the American Psychiatric Association has appointed Martin Kafka MD to rewrite the diagnostic criteria for pedophilia. I confirmed this, though it can form a source I trust, by telephoning the APA myself personally. It can hardly be disputed that the medical diagnostic criteria for pedophilia is extremely relevant to priest pedophilia or that Kafka has definitely traveled to the Vatican and taken part in seminars there on pedophilia. It is surely important news, whichever way it goes priest pedophilia is more or less certain to be either further enabled or further suppressed in consequence to changing the psychiatric criteria. And the courts take psychiatric diagnosis into account when sentencing. Perhaps the news is not expressed correctly, but it would be very wrong to suppress this important news as it will likely mean a lot more or a lot less priest pedophilia will occur in coming times. Especially since Martin Kafka MD is hiding their light under a bushel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.216.193 (talk) 03:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I will try. The title of the article is "Catholic sex abuse cases" (emphasis mine). A police blotter. A higher level article, named "Catholic sex abuse" might contain your contribution. This is supposedly for cases. I can see why you are confused. So are a lot of other editors who are essentially using the article as a junkpile for collection of vague stories and innuendo about Catholics and sex abuse. Catholic bashing is fashionable now in Wikipedia and the media. Why not start this as a higher level article? Student7 (talk) 12:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I deleted it because it had no references and it is WP:OR. All information added to wikipedia should have citations. Citation plates that can be used in article edits can be found at [4]. Another problem was the possible inference that his traveling to the Vatican could influence his decision making process on the DSM-V. This could be a violation of WP:SYN (synthesizing two ideas without a reference doing this to make a third one). I do agree that this is important information and hopefully you can find reliable sources (see WP:RS) to back these up. ResearchEditor (talk) 15:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, yes, Martin Kafka may or may not be involved in actual cases, but I have no information on that. Again thanks for the clarification. For whatever reason the AMA has not announced his appointment in public (I could speculate why) but it will not stay "secret" for long. For now the only way to confirm it is to telephone them and ask, which I encourage anyone who doubts the veraxity to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.216.193 (talk) 03:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Hamilton says that the Roman Catholic Church is one of the most vocal adversaries to legislative reform that would protect children

Some incidents involved diocesan priests and members of the various Roman Catholic religious orders, with reports coming from the United States and Ireland. Cases involved seminaries, schools, orphanages and other institutions (such as the Irish industrial schools) where children were in the care of clergy. Criticism of the Church and its leadership focused on the failure to act upon information, and often to move priests who had received complaints from church to church in order to protect them. Some allegations have led to successful prosecutions of the accused, as well as civil cases settling for millions of dollars. Hamilton says that the Roman Catholic Church is one of the most vocal adversaries to legislative reform that would protect children. [2]

I would like to see an example of legislation for the protection of children that the Catholic Church is opposing. The way this is written it is only one “hostile witness’” opinion. There needs to be examples of such opposition. Lawrence Goodwin (talk) 23:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Hamilton provides at least three examples in her book.

[[5]]

Page 51:

"... Although the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has been the most publicly active entity :to battle such reform to date, ..."

1. pg 54 - Denver Bishop Chaput - Colorado
2. pg 57 - Ohio - legislation by Sen Marc Dann
3. pg 61 - Delaware - SOL reform "Child Victims Act" ResearchEditor (talk) 01:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Marci Hamilton is a legal expert, not necessarily a political or religious one. Her statement is political. Most recently she was extremely vocal on the losing side of the polygamy wives and children. She wanted the state to keep the kids.

Lawyers love her. Money. (And remember, they get theirs regardless of who wins!) Her legal bias certainly does not attest well to her political neutrality. The fact that she can pop out half a dozen cases is irrelevant. That's what lawyers do. And judges routinely reject their lists in favor of someone else's! This is lawyer stuff. We need another neutral source. Does the NY Times say this? The Washington Post? Somebody neutral who isn't chasing money. (Well directly, as the lawyers are, anyway). Student7 (talk) 13:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The book is published by Cambridge University Press. It is clearly a reliable source. She cites specific examples to back her point. Therefore it should be cited in the article. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe if this were a legal article instead of a police blotter/political article, I would agree. Hamilton wants to increase traffic in the courtroom. That is her "job" as she sees it. I can understand that the lawyers would be quite interested in getting more cases. More money for them. For all children (as principals and others have learned), it is extremely difficult to get testimony against the accused. Kids, who complied and were discovered by parents (or whoever) won't cooperate. This is why so few teachers, with all the cases they have levied against them, wind up convicted. And get moved around to other schools/school districts. (Sound familiar?).

There is no court closed to accusations. Saying more laws are needed is preposterous. There are dozens of laws now. That is why her claim is nonsense. I've studied this from the teacher side and there is no realistic way to raise the conviction rate through more laws. The current way is working great for lawyers. Wait long enough and get a lot of money out of somebody in the distant future when the alleged molester is sometimes even dead. But before adulthood, most molestees just are not interested in testifying. Which brings us back to why the priests weren't "properly" indicted in the first place.

Does she mention how teacher unions respond to those preposed laws? Again, ehere are the trusted reporters on this same issue? The ones that are neutral. Why aren't we hearing those? Is it because there aren't any? Student7 (talk) 12:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't find it convincing that her book was published by a commercial press interested in selling books. It may prove that people like to read her books, but it still fails to prove she is an unbiased WP:NPOV] source on politics (not law) on which her observation is based. Student7 (talk) 12:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The opinion above is OR and cannot be used in the article. Her book is from a University Press and Hamilton is clearly a well known notable researcher on the topic. Wikipedia reports verifiable facts, and cannot published conjecture. ResearchEditor (talk) 02:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I rather question her reputation. A good lawyer may want more court cases and therefore be very popular among lawyers. A good jurist (which she clearly is not) should want to reduce court cases. For example, if the reformers wanted to video record everything that goes on in all schools, public or private, requiring a court order to look at the video. This would ensure that most abuse would occur away from the premises recorded. This would tend to reduce cases.

There are several thousand dioceses in the world. Suggesting that there is a concerted effort on the part of the entire church by quoting some legislation in which she had an interest, which several dioceses opposed (and maybe other people too) is hardly NPOV. In none of these states do Catholics have a majority of votes. And Catholics can read. If there was an effort on the part of their clergy to stop effective legislation that was unbiased, I think Catholics would have noticed. So would the NY Times, Washington Post, and Newsweek. But, seeped in ignorance, they didn't.

Does the Univesity Press often publish stuff at a loss? Who subsidizes them?

She is not only not unbiased, I don't think she is that great a lawyer/jurist either. She is merely another anti-Catholic bigot IMO. Interested in generating bucks for her side. Period. Student7 (talk) 14:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence from reliable sources for the claims you make above? If so, please produce it. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, try to find anything she supports that isn't anti-Catholic, or anti-religious in some way. Very difficult.

I'm not sure that this guy disagrees with Hamilton, but he definitely differs on logical/legal/political grounds, (not quite what you were asking for, I admit).

http://www.michiganlawreview.org/archive/105/7/laycock.pdf

She insults the Supreme Court by saying that the only reason they voted in a manner she opposed was that some members were Catholic (and presumably shouldn't have voted, I suppose).

From National Review (published by pro-Catholics, but this article is not)

http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzY2ODQwZjcxMTVkNjc0ZTg5NzJkZWIwYmYzODhhZTY=

From the tenor of this article, I suspect, like me (indepently) realize that she is merely another anti-Catholic. "If Catholics do it, it must be wrong." This is her prerogative under the Constitution, of course, but hardly qualifies her as "unbiased." Still waiting for the NY Times, Post and Newsweek quotes BTW. Lots of Hamilton but total silence from unbiased sources.

Another one on abuse, but not Catholic (gee. Is there such a thing?) is her stance on the polygamists from Texas. I confess to sort of agreeing with her on that one. But anyway, criticism:

http://hughmcbryde.blogspot.com/2008/06/marci-hamilton-thinks-texas-right-to.html

(yes, a blog. Couldn't pssibly use it but a good summary nonetheless)

{From Brigham Young! Who knew they had lawyers?)

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3736/is_200402/ai_n9474015

While I haven't found anything attacking her personal beliefs, I am still left with the vivid impression that she never does anything that isn't anti-religious. Again, her prerogative, but hardly unbiased. Student7 (talk) 12:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Catholic sex abuse cases in the history.

Maybe you are interested in knowing that on it.wikipedia at Pedofilia e chiesa cattolica there are a lot of childs sexual abuse cases in the history of Vatican. --151.56.38.216 (talk) 15:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Anybody know how closely foreign language articles are supposed to be to each other? At least two of the ones listed aren't the same topic at all but cheerfully document "Pederasty in the Catholic Church." (Some from the Middle Ages) In short, they aren't bothering to look at our English language article. Why should they even be listed?Student7 (talk) 22:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

BTW, the one listed at the top is in our file as the "Italian" version of this article! Student7 (talk) 22:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)