Talk:Catholic Church sexual abuse cases/Archive 5

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Miami "stuff"

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: CSRI Books

message: 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.http://www.renewamerica.us/search.php?q=Miami+Archdiocese Series of columns from RenewAmerica.us, tracing the "Miami Vice" debacle
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)
thread_title: Miami

message: 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)
replies: text: Basically agree witht he above. Student7 17:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reasons why material referenced to Matt Abbott Columns should be removed from Archdiocese of Miami sections

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Page protection 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: (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)
thread_title:  Miami Section: Sharon Bourassa's unproven allegations violate WP:REDFLAG 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: He has just been blocked for 24 Hours for violating 3RR.  --Anietor 05:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Editor DominvsVobiscm continues his edit war

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Corporate vs personal responsibility

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Name change

message: Why does this article have this tag?  There are 107 references not counting direct links. -Mrbusta 03:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: This article does not cite any references or sources tag

message: 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)
thread_title: Adding McDonagh

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The National Front 

message: 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)
thread_title:  This article sucks 

message: 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. "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, 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Characterization of John Jay Report findings 

message: 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 WhiteT·C 23:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  .2% proven to be abusers? 

message: I recommend changing the Title to: Roman Catholic Alleged Scandals
Dannyza1981 (talk) 21:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Change the Title 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: The credentials of Philip Jenkins

message: 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)
thread_title: Failure to report criminal acts to police

message: 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)
thread_title:  Parity across sex abuse articles on Wikipedia? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Source to consider 

message: *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" 
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)
thread_title:  "adversaries to legislative reform " 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Red Hot Catholic Love 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Others to clean up 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 .  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)
thread_title: Martin Kafka

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Catholic sex abuse cases in the history.