Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:31, 12 November 2005

I've removed the link to Catholic Apologetics of America regarding information on celibacy. There is a separate article on Clerical celibacy and it should not be a focus of this article. Brlancer 03:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I cut out the line "- largely fundamentalist Protestants and Modernist dissenters " because I feel it violated NPOV. The term "Mondernist dissenters" is a term used by tradtionalist Catholics against anyone who disagrees with them.
JesseG 02:36, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

This article is getting long. Should it be broken up into sections? Most certainly we should keep this information linked together. The Roman Catholics have been trying to hide their guilty secrets too long.

This entry shouldn't exist. The information within should be divided and placed appropriate either under the history of the Catholic church, or under pedophillia or child molestation (as a notable historical example.) -EB-

I respectfully disagree. This has been a ongoing major event in current US history. This page is little different from our accounting scandals article or even the US plan to invade Iraq article. --mav

The above comment about Roman Catholics trying to hide their guilty secrets by breaking up the article I sincerely believe is just more Catholic bashing. It is a comment that I stridently object to, because this site should not be used as a sounding board against certain groups of people based on race, gender, ethnic background, or religious tradition. This being an article about sexual abuse does not excuse that.
JesseG 02:36, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Is the proper term, Pedophilia, or Pedarasty? The first "sounds" like a questionable expression of kindness, while the other "sounds" like brutality. Is it lack of neutrality that I "hear" in the latter word, in your opinion? The second also "sounds" antique. Is it still the right word; or, not? Mkmcconn 00:57 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Please see the article pedophilia for the answer in detail. In short, a paedophile is someone who is chiefly sexually attracted to children; it is a term from abnormal psychology. A paederast is an adult who has sexual relations with children; classically, a man who has sexual relations with boys. Neither one means the same as child-molester or statutory rapist -- a person can be a paedophile and not do anything about it (just as a person can be heterosexual without having sex with anyone); a person can also commit statutory rape despite not being a clinical paedophile. --FOo 02:02 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Thank you. Mkmcconn 02:13 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

In the overview section, it says that some people think the media's widespread coverage of these cases representes an anti-Catholic bias. I would like this opinion attributed. Here's why. Here in Boston, MA, which is one of the most deeply-affected communities in the US, coverage has been everywhere in the media since the Boston Globe decided to cover it (the weekly Boston Phoenix had been publishing stories about it for years before the Globe picked it up). But the Catholic church is extremely important here in Boston. The emphasis of the story has not been the "pedophile priests", it has always been the bureaucratic response of the archdiocese. And the scandal caused enormous turnover in one of the most important institutions in Boston, ousting Cardinal Law, formerly one of the most important figures in all of Boston (O'Malley seems to be no less important so far). If they didn't give it the kind of coverage they did, I'd frankly call that anti-Catholic bias. But I don't know what coverage was like in the rest of the country or world.

But there are other undercurrents that we should make sure to include. The lay organizations like Voice of the Faithful quickly became some of the most important and powerful lay Catholic organizations this city has ever seen. Enormous amounts of donations were given to the Catholic church through VotF, donations which the archdiocese has rejected (last I heard), forcing the shutdown of many catholic institutions, including schools. The relationship between VotF and the archdiocese is very uneasy as the archdiocese thinks they are liberal reformers who want to do everything from end celibacy to bring women into the priesthood. And they may yet be right; VotF has not really come out and defined itself completely. This may not be "part" of the allegations, but it's definitely an important part of the story. (Of course, everything I said is analysis and needs to be attributed to somebody, not me.)

DanKeshet

Here's the text:

Others suggest that the Roman Catholic Church is being unfairly singled out by a secular media which they say fails to highlight similar sexual scandals in other religious faiths, such as the Anglican Communion, various Protestant churches, the Jewish community, the media focus on Catholic scandals reflecting an anti-catholic agenda. In particular they focus on the term Paedophile priests widely used in the media and note that the term implies a distinctly higher rate of paedophilia within the Roman Catholic priesthood than in reality actually exists, its 1.5 to 2% being no higher than any other segment of society and lower than some. And they ask when, in the interests of balance, the media will write about paedophile teachers, paedophile police or paedophile politicians.

I don't recommend putting it back in until it can be attributed and verified. Also, until it's more specific (which media? where?). Misplaced Pages:Avoid weasel words and all that. DanKeshet

It is a summary of opinion expressed in verious catholic newspapers, notably the Catholic Standard, the Irish Catholic, the Irish Family and by Catholic columnists, notably Breda O'Brien in The Irish Times. It is regularly expressed in conservative catholic letter writers into newspapers. It is a simply a summary of widely expressed opinions. As such I am reinstating the paragraph. FearEIREANN 18:33, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Title

I don't like the current page title. It sounds as if the Roman Catholics were making allegations. How about "Catholic church sex abuse scandals"? While I am well aware that other forms of catholicism exist, conventionally it is understood that with the lack of a qualifier we refer to the Roman Catholic Church; besides, I highly doubt that such scandals are limited to that particular denomination.—Eloquence 03:00, Aug 9, 2003 (UTC)

High Church Anglicans take high offence when Catholic is used exclusively to refer to Roman Catholics, as do some other denominations. They also take offence when people talk about 'catholic sex abuse' because they stress it is the Roman Catholic branch of catholicism. As the name of the church is Roman Catholic and the article not about anyone else who considers themselves, it makes logical sense to use the most accurate title that avoids causing offence to others who also call themselves catholic, and who are called catholic by millions of their followers, but whom the article is not about.

Forced priests

I'm not really sure how to put this properly, but I remember being given a lecture while at school about the way things were in Ireland up to around the late 1960s, which was offerred by way of explaining the peculiarly high amount of abuse cases in Ireland (mainly in reference to physical abuse); that in many families the youngest son became a priest, with no choice in the matter.

Does anyone know anything more concrete about this? -- Jim Regan 03:11, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

In the post famine period, land restructing (which meant only one son, that them all, inherited land) and the emergence of a new catholic middle class led to career paths, one of which was the Church. One son usually headed (often against his will) for the priesthood or into a religious order, while often one became a nun). Sometimes the least intelligent who could not get church career, having no other alternative. On occasion who became the priest was decided by plunking at straws, which is where the term Straw priest comes from. FearEIREANN 18:33, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd never heard that phrase before, but it makes sense. Come to think of it, I think there's still some of it left; I remember in college, a lesbian friend took us to a gay bar for her birthday, where I heard that one of the guys was a trainee priest simply because it was easier than explaining to his parents why he never brought girls home. -- Jim Regan 03:06, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

"Statistical evidence"

Moved:

"While statistical evidence suggests that Catholic clergymen are no more likely to commit sexual crimes against children than any other segment of society, "

What is this evidence? Later it states that a comparison has been made with priests of other denominations, though we do not learn how high abuse incidence was within these groups. We learn nothing about a comparison with the general population.—Eloquence 03:30, Aug 9, 2003 (UTC)

A year and a half later and these problems are still there. The artcile claims that the sexual abuse rate of priest is comprable to clergy in other faiths and data on Catholic priests is given, but know numbers to compare them to are given and no other source for the claim is offered. Also no attempt to compare the rates to the population as a whole is made. I'm deleting the section. If some has complete information they should restore the section and make the neccessary corrections.

I haven't the figures here right now (they are buried in a bundle of notes) somewhere it my files, but Catholic priests do not actually fit the sex abuser profile issued by Bureau of Justice Statistics, except in terms of race and marital status (white and unmarried). They are far more educated than the average abuser, have a fundamentally different career type, and among other characteristics engage in sex abuse when in a different age range to other sex abusers. In fact few Catholic priests convicted of sex offences are paedophiles, but sex abusers, with a regressed sexuality. FearEIREANN

I have removed the opening paragraph add-in. It is poorly written, poorly located and contradicts the structure of the article. A controversial article on a high sensitive issue needs careful structure. Plonking judgments and conclusions at the opening is one sure way in sensitive articles of driving the reader away. If they agree, you have just re-enforced their opinion without reading further, if they disagree they just think "this is POV" and dismiss the article. The article is constructed to explore the issues in detail, not to begin with a glib opinion which some readers may see as POV. On a controversial topic you should let the reader decide on the context and evidence, not glib opinions at the start. Professionally written articles on controversial topics in encyclopaedias don't do that, not least on topics whose ultimate longterm impact remains a matter of speculation and cannot be definitively assessed. Reaching snap decisions on longterm issues in the opening paragraph is not a good idea. FearEIREANN 19:04, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Jtdirl is right that the disputed sentences inserted in the intro are poorly written and sensational (I totally concur with his above statement), but they do make two points. One is that many allegations have been substantiated; the other is that the Church's image has suffered.

So, how about this paragraph as a compromise:

In the late twentieth century, Roman Catholicism was hit by a series of sexual allegations, many of which have since been substantiated, concerning the behaviour of priests, nuns and people employed by the Church towards under-age children. Well-publicized charges that that Church has covered up such charges instead of reforming its structures have arguably tainted the image of the Church.

BTW, keep in mind how enduring the Roman Catholic Church is! Keep in mind how it survived far greater crises in the past! Some of the more sensational commentators on this subject lack historical context. 172 20:14, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Good rewrite. I'll add in plus one minor change. As to the length of existence of the RC Church, its endurance is something often forgotten, with people presuming that some major crisis is the one to destroy it. Personally I suspect the current crisis will do significant damage but there is no way of being sure, not for years, possibly for decades, until the whole longterm impact is assessed. The earlier reference to a 'public relations' disaster is a classic example of glib analysis. Anyone who has ever worked in the media or on PR knows that that term can only be accurately used in cases where you are talking about an institution, person, etc whose survival depends on short term atttudes. But it is worthless in assessing anything in other than short term periods. For example, in 1994 the Prince of Wales was the most unpopular person in the UK. In 1998 he was more popular than Tony Blair in polls, even though Blair was at the height of his popularity. Blair six months ago was invincible, the Tories' Iain Duncan Smith on the brink of being sunk, Labour way ahead in the polls. Now the Tories are beating Labour in the polls, IDS seems safe and Blair's popularity is at rock bottom. And Ireland's taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, who was universally popular in August 2002, in August 2004 is reviled. In 2001, the Roman Catholic Church in the diocese of Ferns was at rock bottom, accused of covering up child abuse, with its once widely popular bishop discredited as a drunken incompetent. Now it is undergoing a major revival under an Apostolic Administrator who has thrown every file open, made unqualified apologies and won the praise of the Church's own victims.

So there is no way of knowing how the longterm impact of the crisis on RCism will be. New bishops if they handle the crisis well could turn around the crisis; the new Archbishop of Boston has made a good and much praised start. So in twenty years time, the crisis may well be judged by historians to be one of three things; a disaster that seriously weakened RCism, a crisis that did medium-term damage but which is being overcome, or a shortterm crisis that was handled effectively by new leaders in the early 2000s, undoing much of the damage to the Church's reputation, whatever about the damage done to individual victims of clerical sexual abuse. We simply have no way of knowing and guessing at the likely longterm impact in a manner that simply states the impact as fact is simply POV. After all, no-one could have predicted in 1903 the longterm damage caused by Pius X's anti-modernist campaign. And people from the 1920s would be flabbergasted that the seemingly crucial policy acts of Pius XI would not be forgotten and judged a minor blip, he himself being forgotten also. FearEIREANN 20:53, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

You just have to love it when people claim that a paragraph is "poorly written" (without elaborating) or judgmental (without providing evidence) and then replace it with something like "Well-publicized charges that that Church has covered up such charges". Unacceptable, absolutely unacceptable.—Eloquence 21:08, Aug 9, 2003 (UTC)

well done. You have screwed up links, lost part of a reading list, spelling corrections and now screwed up the location of the talk page. Just because you want to put a semi-literate POV in doesn't mean it is going in. The fact that you don't understand the difference between underage children and children shows just how little you know about the topic. Underage children are children beneath the legal age of consent. Children remain children after the age of consent in most jurisdictions, which is the reason for the distinction, which if you had the slightest understanding of the topic you would know. FearEIREANN 22:03, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

More unsubstantiated claims. Which "links have I screwed up"? Which "part of a reading list" have I lost? If you revert my edits without explanation, don't expect me to keep track of any other additions you make to the article in the same edit. That's why an effort should be made to debate such changes, preferably without resorting to primitive attacks like "semi-literate". POV? Which POV? That the sex abuse scandal was a public relations problem for the Church? Don't be ridiculous. As for the underage distinction, this may be applicable in the jurisdiction where you live, but in mine, it is merely a tautology -- a "child" is legally any person below the age of consent (14 years in Germany). I will rephrase this paragraph to state "children below the age of consent", which is less problematic and also adds a useful link.—Eloquence 22:17, Aug 9, 2003 (UTC)

I didn't. I had made major changes all through the text, then found there was an edit conflict. Because of the sheer number of changes I had no choice but to do a cut and paste save. I then tried to go into the text you had added to transfer over all NPOV changes you had made but had to wait ages as usual for wiki to get through to the page, by which time you had reverted all the changes, including a new reading list and more international links.

As to the name of the article, what you keep trying to do is blatently POV. Yes I believe it is a scandal, so do many people, but scandal is a POV judgmental term best avoided. Allegations allows us to discuss everything, cases that have not yet come to court but which in many jurisdictions would be legally prejudiced if presumed guilty in an article, cases that because of time delays cannot be judged, cases that could never come to court because the perpetrator has died and cases thown out of court. And to introduce public relations into the opening lines of an article on the rape of children is replusive. If it is mentioned at all, it should be further down, not in the opening paragraph. The article that was here until yesterday was probably the worst article on wiki; a semi-literate, POV rant that made the serious issue of clerical sexual abuse a joke and I'm not going to allow this article be tabloidised to suit the POV of anyone with an agenda. FearEIREANN 22:29, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Edit conflicts - they suck and inevitably often lead to lost information. Sorry if I contributed to that, but the next time you make major edits, maybe save the part of which you know that it will be controversial for a separate edit.

Arguments on name - see below. I do not see scandal as a POV term, and nor did the dozens of contributors who use that term in other contexts on wiki. As for the "public relations" link, how is that any more "repulsive" than saying that "rape of children" (sexual abuse is not equivalent to rape) "arguably tainted the image of the Church"? The latter seems much more apologetic and problematic given the severity of the crimes.—Eloquence 22:38, Aug 9, 2003 (UTC)

tainted is a factual word. Public relations is a business', (one I work at part time ,so I'm not running it down. I am currently on retainer to two victims of clerical abuse) and so should not appear on the opening because it tivialises the issue. FearEIREANN 02:03, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Opinions on page title wanted

I would like to invite others to comment on whether this page should reside under

• "Roman Catholic church sex abuse allegations"
  • FearEIREANN 02:18, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • 172 07:56, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC) ("Allegations" is more appropriate. We're dealing with both unconfirmed and confirmed reports in this article. Every confirmed report is an "allegation," but there's not necessarily a confirmable "scandal" behind every "allegation." In addition, I favor the plural "allegations," since this is a global matter of many instances over thousands of years that is only getting publicized heavily now. The word "scandal" suggests that this problem is more recent in scope, as if there has only been one scandal in recent years, which it isn't the case. Other factors sensitizing our culture to Church corruption today might explain why this story hit the media in the past couple of years, not ten, twenty-five, or fifty years ago. There simply is no single scandal. To go back even further, allegations of sex abuse among the clergy and the orders, for instance, intensified in the years leading up to the Protestant Reformation.)

or:

• "Roman Catholic church sex abuse scandal"
  • —Eloquence
  • Cimon Avaro on a pogostick

Please add your votes below these options, and arguments here:

Arguments for "scandal":

A scandal, according to the American Heritage Dictionary, is simply "a publicized incident that brings about disgrace or offends the moral sensibilities of society", which is arguably a very on target description of the cases in question. While it is true that some of these cases are merely allegations, using the word allegations in the title is itself a point of view, because it implies that the article is only about allegations, which is not the case. Scandal, a word that the Vatican itself uses extensively, is perfectly neutral and says nothing about whether the scandal is justified or not. Also note that all other pages linked from scandal use that nomenclature, and I see no reason to make an exception for the Catholic Church.—Eloquence 22:32, Aug 9, 2003 (UTC)

Well, it's hardly an allegation any more, if the church is making settlement offers, now is it? -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick

Read the headline, pogo. We are discussing allegations. Most are real, some are false, some have gone to court, some are going to court, some are true but cannot go to court for legal or practical reasons. It is not an allegation that clerical child sex abuse happened, it is reality. This article is not about that. It is about the complexity of the actual allegations, specifics, which is why it is factually correct to call them allegations, because if we didn't say that, 80% of cases which still at the legally unproven case could not be covered. FearEIREANN 02:03, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The article is primarily discussing the nature of the abuse, with its impact on Catholicism a broader topic, not the central issue. To cover the full nature of allegations (those proven, those yet to come to court, those which cannot go to court because of time delays or the death of the abuser, and those thrown out as fiction) a neutral word is needed in the title. The impact of the abuse may be a scandal but that it reaching a judgment, which is POV. (BTW it is my POV, but wiki is not abuse POV but about encyclopaedic NPOV.) But overall impact is only one part of article; this is an article primarily about the allegations made, what they suggest about Catholicism, how they have impacted, not about the impact alone. Titles on very sensitive topics need to be very sensitive also, so the reader reaches the article without having their views on the issue coloured by the title language. This title was chosen for its neutrality to avoid tabloidising the topic and apply academic encyclopaedic neutrality, not generating up an emotional response based on title but letting the reader read the text and reach their own conclusions. It is for the reader to conclude if they wish that it is a scandal, not for wiki to tell them what to think. As to the Vatican's use of the word, they use it for its propagandistic, soundbite quality to generate emotion. We aren't in the business of soundbites, propaganda or provoking a response. We are an enyclopaedia FearEIREANN 02:03, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I removed the following italicised bits -

instead of reforming its structures have fueled criticism and tested the faith of its followers.

Both are very poorly worked.

1, Reformed the structures? Which structures? Adminstrative, legal, leadership, belief system, reporting system, bureaucratic, centralised, relationship between secular and religious clergy, etc etc etc? It sounds like a rather simplistic soundbite based on little knowledge.

2. Tested the faith? Another bit of poorly worded nonsense. Even the Catholic Church has no idea on the impact of the crisis on individual people's faith . It may outwardly impact on the symbols of their faith; Mass going, etc. but that may simply be an act of disapproval, it does not mean their faith has changed one iota. There are many people who have a strong faith but who do not go to church. As to a crisis of faith, disapproval of the institution may or not be a symptom of that. No-one knows how the sex abuse crisis has impacted on faith and it will be decades in the future before anyone can make any definitive judgment on the impact of the sex abuse on Catholic belief. Remember this is not an institution that thinks in terms of the next press release; it thinks in decades and centuries not how a story carries on NBC Nightly News on July 27th. It is a classic 'make haste slowly' type organisation. Talking about how the crisis impinged on faith is a bit like wondering whether the Iraq war has changed US republicans' beliefs. Who knows? It is an utterly pointless reference that suggests a very superficial understanding of catholicism. Wiki needs to avoid simplistic references that simply reflect today 's thinking on the issue without making some effort to understand that this is a far far more complex issue that dodgy soundbites reflecting August 2003 thinking can convey.

BTW the above was written before Eloquence reinstalled the removal. I could not save the above because of the work on the system. (It has been sitting on my computer for 3 hours.) I am re-removing the line. BTW also, the 'missing footnote' was one lost all the messing around with the article location. I am going to have to retype it in, as with other stuff Eloquence's unilateral antics lost also. (Quite what else if anything was lost I don't know yet.) FearEIREANN 02:03, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

While list of Roman Catholic sex abuse allegations might be an appropriate title for a listing of allegations of sexual abuse by Roman Catholic priests, that is not what the content of this article is. This article discusses the allegations, the media coverage, the response by the Church, etc.--that is, the whole scandal. I'm moving this to "scandal". If someone wants to break off component parts into separate entries, they're welcome to do so. --The Cunctator

I support a change of title, I oppose the split-off of the Church response as POV (it's an important part of the scandal, although with the current title, I agree that it is off-topic).—Eloquence 17:15, Dec 14, 2003 (UTC)

Please change the title of response of Roman Catholic Church to sex abuse by priests in the 20th century to something more neutral and edit its content if you can figure out what that is. Please don't call it "mutilations" and just revert it.

I'm making an honest effort to separate the different subjects of this entry, which you agree needs to be done.

My read is essentially that there's two significant periods--the time during which cases were handled privately by the Roman Cathollic Church, and then the time following widespread media coverage of the volume and severity of the cases and of how the Church handled them. The entry response of Roman Catholic Church to sex abuse by priests in the 20th century presently discusses just the handling before the scandal.

How's this for a fair breakdown?

The late 20th-century Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal is the scandal concerning sexual abuse by Roman Catholic priests in the 20th century and the response of Roman Catholic Church to sex abuse by priests in the 20th century. Cases of sexual abuse of children by priests, nuns, and employees of the RCC were handled privately by the Church until the volume and severity of the cases, and the nature of the Church's response to known and alleged sex abusers, were made public in widespread media coverage at the end of the 20th century.

The scandal involved thousands of allegations of sexual abuse. Most of the allegations were substantiated, but many were not.

--The Cunctator 17:46, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

That sounds good... Greenmountainboy 17:50, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Look, I only agreed that under the title "allegations", material such as the Church response was slightly off-topic. It is desirable for numerous reasons to have topics that are almost always going to be referred to together combined into a single article. Who on Earth would search for an article on the "response of Roman Catholic Church to sex abuse by priests in the 20th century"? It's the articles that should be detailed, not the titles. Not to mention that there are POV problems with splitting away the church handling from the main article about the abuse scandal (decreases information visibility).

Also, this is not just 20th century stuff. Much of the scandal has been reported in the last couple of years, so it sounds very silly to always refer to it as a "late 20th century" scandal.—Eloquence 17:53, Dec 14, 2003 (UTC)

Yes the scandals were recently uncovered but did not necessarily recently occur. Greenmountainboy 17:56, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

So would you refer to the late 1990s discovery that Swiss banks profited from the Holocaust as an "early 1940s scandal"? Scandals are primarily processes of public discovery and shame, and dated as such.—Eloquence 18:01, Dec 14, 2003 (UTC)

no, i thought you meant it should be called early 20th century. My mistake. Greenmountainboy 18:05, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The idea that topics that are almost always going to be referred to together must be combined into a single article just is not workable. This leads to articles of unstoppably arbitrary length. The criteria for entry names is not how likely someone's going to search on the title, but for how accurately it presents the content. There is clearly enough content in Misplaced Pages on both the Church response to sex abuse before the scandal and the Church response following the scandal for there to be two distinct entries on that content.

In response to "the scandals were recently uncovered but did not necessarily recently occur.": the sex abuse scandal is the recent uncovering of cases of sexual abuse which did not necessarily recently occur. That is why the two topics need separate entries.

The sex abuse scandal is specifically the event of the publication and response to the publication of the history of sex abuse in the Church and the history of the Church's response. If you prefer history behind Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal which began in the late 20th century to response of Roman Catholic Church to sex abuse by priests in the 20th century then that's one approach. But I find the claim that the events leading up to a scandal and the scandal itself need to be merged strikingly unconvincing, --The Cunctator 18:08, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

"The events leading up to a scandal" vs. "the scandal itself"? Excuse me? What is "the scandal itself"? We're talking about sexual abuse of children that often occurred decades ago. Are these the "events leading up to the scandal"? Then what about Church instruction to cover up such cases? Are these the "events leading up to the scandal"? Then what is the "scandal itself"?

I'll help you out: The scandal itself is the process of publication of numerous facts and allegations related to sexual abuse within the Roman Catholic Church. Some of these facts and allegations regard the abuses themselves, of course, widespread and hitherto unknown as they were. Some of these facts and allegations regard the way the RCC dealt with the sexual abuses shortly after they occurred. And the RCC fueled the scandal through the way it dealt with it.

We are talking about the same complex here -- children were sexually molested by priests, the Church tried to cover this up as best as they could and threatened those who would talk with excommunication, and lastly they lied about their level of involvement and refused to provide proper compensation to the victims when the scandal become public. To separate these all closely related incidents without need is like wading through World War II and splitting off battles arbitrarily.

I am not opposed to splitting up articles when they get too long (30-40K). But if we do so, we have to do so in a proper fashion: By taking each section, regardless of its content matter, moving it to a separate article and leaving a summary in place (like the country pages). I don't think this is needed at this point and would prefer to shorten some of the article's more rambling passages (as well as the footnotes). —Eloquence 18:19, Dec 14, 2003 (UTC)

You ask what is the scandal itself, and then you answer yourself with the same answer I gave. The scandal is the process of publication of numerous facts and allegations. The numerous facts and allegations are not the scandal. They caused the scandal. The break-in at the Watergate hotel was not the Watergate scandal--it led to the Watergate scandal. The trading of arms for hostages was not the Iran-Contra scandal--it led to the Iran-Contra scandal.

I did take the section I moved and leave a summary in place. I'm really at a loss as to how what you're saying gibes with your claim that my actions were mutilations. Do you feel that I left an insufficient summary? Is that the basic problem? --The Cunctator 19:52, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I fail to see any logic in your first paragraph. Are you saying that all information relating to the events that caused the Iran-Contra scandal should be moved out of that article, and only a discussion of the media coverage of said scandal should remain?—Eloquence 19:56, Dec 14, 2003 (UTC)

No; I'm saying that the events that caused the Iran-Contra scandal should be summarized in that article, and that extended discussion of the events themselves should be in their own entries. For example, if there was sufficient content in Watergate scandal about the Watergate break-in itself to merit its own entry, then there should be a Watergate break-in entry, leaving only the summary of the information most relevant to the scandal. --The Cunctator 20:04, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I can agree with you to move information out of this entry that is sufficiently logically separate from the scandal itself. I do not agree that this is the case for the entire Church response section, but it seems applicable to the 1971 report and perhaps some other parts of the article.—Eloquence 20:24, Dec 14, 2003 (UTC)

Suggestion for title

The title is "Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal", so would not the first sentence make more sense as "In the late twentieth century, the Roman Catholic Church was...". That is, I propose changing the topic of the first sentence from "Roman Catholicism" to "the Roman Catholic Church". I suspect the latter is the more damaged party of the two ("was hit" is the main verb). But if this is a flame war like MT, please simply delete my suggestion and proceed :) -- ll

I don't mind if it's "scandal" or "allegations" but I'd like to point out another thing. The RC Church consists of both clergy and lay people. As far as I know, the scandal is only about priests abusing children, so the title should be rather "Roman Catholic clergy sex abuse scandal (or alegations if you will)". Kpalion 00:26, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The article is a pain, and so does this discussion. An encyclopedia don´t have to reflect recent events, it has to be historical. So, why there is not ANY indication that the allegations are by no means new (a link to e.g. Alexander VI. would give me some hope that NPOV at least is a goal). One of the "not-so-good" examples of Wiki.

Work on it then - I think there's room for both a historical analysis and an accurate description of current events.—Eloquence 19:01, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)

John Jay study

Why is there no mention in this article of the widely publicized John Jay study? --Radarthreat 19:41, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What is the scandal?

The scandal is not that some priests are pedophiles. So are some rabbis and cops. The scandal is the institutional culture that covered it up; a culture that persists to this day. Note the ruling by Ratzinger excommunicating any catholic who blows the whistle. Bernard Law is more guilty than John Geoghan was.

Sorry, I forgot to sign the above. Too Old 21:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Classic "I'm less responsible for my own actions" thinking. John Geoghan is of course more guilty because he is the one that actually did the crimes. Do you think if the Church had defrocked him and helped send him to prison he'd have stopped being a pedophile? That said the Catholic Church in Massachusetts was apparently horrid in its running. They suck up to the rich by giving Kennedy's anullments when they want them and most of the Catholic politicians in the state favor abortion laws more liberal then even France's. Ideally all priests who did this should be sent to cloistered monasteries in Siberia for the rest of their life, the courts could never do anything like that, and background checks should be done on entering seminary. Not the "are they gay" background checks, but "are they psychotics or felons" type background checks. Possibly full psychological testing too.--T. Anthony 04:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Besides being inflammatory, the above is either patently untrue or in contention. There was not a single systematic "cover up"; further, many actions which are currently being criticized were considered acceptable or exemplary at the time they occurred--before the 1980's, it was believed by the medical community that pedophilia could be cured and the healthy individual could return to normal life. I will point to Pontifical Secret for dispution of your assertation against Pope Benedict XVI (then Cardinal Ratzinger). Brlancer 02:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

What have I said that is untrue? Many teen-aged lovers were proscuted and jailed for statutory rape because their sweethearts were under the age of consent. I doubt whether anyone in the church would have opposed such punishment. I have read the article on Pontifical Secret. I note that the passage quoted below, which you apparently regard as refuting me, besides being logically ridiculous, (they were keeping it secret only from themselves?) was made in the context of a legal case, and postdates the scandal in Boston. In other words, they locked the barn door after the horse was gone. The extreme efforts that the Roman Catholic Church made over many years to keep these things secret from all outside the church bear evidence on the matter. As far as being 'inflammatory' - perhaps there should have been more inflamation previously. By the way, I feel the same way about all official secrets, no matter which religious or civil organization is involved. Too Old 21:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

When plaintiffs in Houston, Texas began a suit arguing obstruction of 
justice, in April 2005, the Archbishop of Houston, Joseph Fiorenza, issued
a statement elucidating “pontifical secret”: “These matters are confidential
only to  the procedures within the Church, but do not preclude in any way
for these  matters to be brought to civil authorities for proper legal
adjudication. The Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People of
June, 2002, approved by the Vatican, requires that credible allegations of
sexual abuse of children be reported to legal authorities.”

Part of the scandal included allegations of assault and misconduct against adults; while this wasn't the main focus of the news, I do think it falls under the larger scope of the scandal. I'll try to get some information/links. Brlancer 03:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi there, I hope it will be alright for me to include the updates. I made no mention of contumacy - which in canon law relates to how a crime can only class as a crime if it is known by the perpetrator to be a crime . I have not studied canon law to do with paedophilia but I have read it concerning other church activity . Contumacy- means: if these paedophile priests (some rapes would perhaps be of adults) did not know that what they did was a crime , then it were no crime .So- If I swung out of the jungle , fancy your ass and grab you and rape you - I'm a monkey . I expect someone here could quote the relevant canons , or are there none . If I think you are a cutey, a bit young but you seem to like me raping you or encourage me ( the argument has been broadcast ) , and if I don't see that this is wrong and in conflict with my canon law duty to be nice to you , well I'm just being nice to you by raping you , perhaps ? Thats not contumate, and so not a crime , seems . I shouldn't say it really , as it's a better let-off . In fact if my bishop knows I'm like a monkey and don't have an understanding or shame , well since I have not committed a canon crime, he doesn't commit a contumate crime by allowing me to continue if he thinks similarly , that a bit of sex is just natural monkeys. Sorry to say that Editorial Crime we all notice pronto .There is very thin ice around the WP lake , and canon law is simple as pie compared to WP law (oops) .And yes- "allegations" is POV , as was conspiracy . EffK 01:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Removal from article-Celibacy & etc

Dear Anne Heneghan- I address you thus because I do not recall personally addressing you before . I am not noted for my lovey attitude here on WP, so I won't beat about the bush .

You have removed very large and several small important sections and facts from this article . In the case of the large, Celibacy , you may note that my qualifications were added in attempt to balance that which was biased and insulting to the totality of the abused, and which served to defuse the issue through disgustingly twisted argument . I have no idea how that came to be and do not suggest it had anything to do with you . In fact it was , previous to my attempt at balancing , deserving of heavy removal . However you have not solved the problem by this out-knife-and-cut approach .

To your other edits- I am shocked and appalled at your cavalier removals . Do you wish before I say more to review these removals , which are IMO indefensible . You know perfectly well to which I refer. Please return them to the article , where they rightfully belong . EffK 08:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)