Talk:Catholic Church sexual abuse cases by country

message: I've gone through an removed some of the more egregious violations of our undue weight and biographies of living people  policies.  There's more clean up to be done.  Most of these sections seem to be merely listings of news stories that include some sort of sex abuse claim against a Roman Catholic Priest.  This is not the same thing as providing encyclopedic information about Roman catholic sex abuse cases in each country.  We should be focusing on what experts say about public and Church opinion, changes in public and Church policy and laws because of these cases.  While some of the news coverage reflects this, most of it does not. -- SiobhanHansa 11:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored a paragraph, that was removed on the basis of the reference (i.c. a WP dutch article).  I changed the reference to an outside source, but the facts mentioned in the paragraph have not changed in the mean time. Stijn Calle 20:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't really address the issue of WP:WEIGHT.  How are these cases noteworthy?  What experts on sex abuse or the Church consider them to be illustrative or important? -- SiobhanHansa 20:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The references contain the additional information regarding their validity. Stijn Calle 21:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which has nothing to do with undue weight. -- SiobhanHansa 21:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The year is 2012 and the problem still persists. LMB (talk) 07:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keeping things encyclopedic 

message: In regard to Student7's comment in the article - it seems likely to me that an Archbishop having to step aside for a while because of accusations is noteworthy and had an impact on the Church there - we should really look for reporting that talks about the impact of him stepping aside and then being cleared to work again. What it did to the Church and to public perception of the Church.  I would have thought good local Catholic publications would be good sources of opinion pieces from experts on that.  But it should be made clear it was an enquiry, he was not charged, and the findings were that the available evidence could not sustain a criminal prosecution. -- SiobhanHansa 21:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: About to comment again, not remembering that I had done so. It again strikes me as a "police blotter." Guilt by innuendo. Most of the Sidney subsection should be struck. The article is not supposed to be a police blotter. This is for persistent abuse, covered up, I supppose, since that was the criterion before. If all abuse by professionals (teachers, religious of all faiths, doctors, police, etc.) were as lovingly and carefully documented in here as are RC, Wikipedia would be nothing else BUT abuse. There are millions of cases worldwide folks. Millions! 85% in the home. 10% in schools (twice as much as religious). Either get over it or document all of it (which is crazy - it is so pervasive). Student7 (talk) 01:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pell 

message: I've added a press ref on this report, necessarily brief.86.42.198.32 (talk) 10:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Brothers of Charity, Galway 2007 report

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) 20:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parity across sex abuse articles on Wikipedia? 

message: An editor wants a lengthy discussion of why Sydney has weasel words in it.
"Pell temporarily "stood" aside from his post during an investigation - why are there quotes around "stood?" What is the point here?
The allegations against Pell could not be proven or disproven - my (rather unpleasant) accusations against the initiators of this aricle can't be proven or disproven either. Can I start a new article with that assertion?
Pell has been accused of covering the tracks of child sexual abusers in the Australian Priesthood. - accused? accused? Where in English jurisprudence (of which Australia is a part), it accusation tantamount to conviction? What is this doing here? wikipedia is not a tabloid or a newspaper.
Pell has publicly stated that he believes, "Abortion is a worse moral scandal than priests sexually abusing young people." - Ah. Now we finally get at the heart of it. The Church may not take any moral stand whatever because it disagrees with the media! What is this sentence doing here other than to attempt to "prove" by innuendo, as usual, that Pell is a hypocrite. Since he isn't guilty of anything, he can't YET be a hypocrite!
James Fletcher - sexually abusive priest sentenced to 7.5 to 10 years jail for sexual penetration of an altar boy, later died in prison - well you've gotten even with him, I guess. This is police blotter stuff. There are 1,000,000 priests. I don't know what the percentage of felonies they commit, but if less than 1% over their lifetimes, that would still be 10,000 people. I didn't think Wikipedia was supposed to be a police blotter. When I tried to document teacher abuse, I was told that anyway. Wikipedia is not a directory.Student7 (talk) 12:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sydney

message: The same editor wants to know why this sentence is WP:POV and WP:WEASEL.
"It is difficult to ascertain the correct statistics for clerical sexual abuse in Italy because the Italian Government has a treaty with the Vatican that guarantees areas of immunity to Vatican officials, including bishops and priests." I mentioned on my edit line that it is difficult to tell what this is in North Korea, Burma, and several other countries as well. Gee, you could start several dozen articles with this type of lead in! No information is bad information. This is media bias as usual. If the tabloids don't like it, we don't like it? The sentence doesn't say anything at all except by innuendo. "There must be a lot of abuse because we aren't hearing anything about it."
"Before 2001, all cases were handled privately within Dioceses. In 2001 then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger sent a letter to all bishops ordering all sex-abuse cases be transferred to the Vatican. He imposed total secrecy on the proceedings, with the penalty of excommunication for any violations." - this is true for most church investigations to avoid polluting the evidence. Same as telling jurors not to discuss the case before its verdict. Only this tells the witnesses not to discuss the case which makes a lot more sense!
But here, again, it means that since there is some smoke there must be a lot of fire.
"In May of 2007 the Panorama Documentary Episode Sex Crimes and the Vatican was only allowed to run on the state run television station with equal time for church officials." Imagine - equal time to answer innuendo and smears. The US media would have a heart attack!
There was nothing in this subsection at all that was useful to this article. Student7 (talk) 12:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Italy

message: Why is someone inserting information about the "Marthoma Church" in an article about the Roman Catholic Church? Absolutely has no bearing.  Start one on Marthoma church sex abuses.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.77.188.221 (talk) 13:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: India

message: I think for living persons, you need at least a reference. Most of the new entries seem to be missing footnotes. Student7 (talk) 10:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: New entries

message: Thank you for your contribution. Several editors do not feel that including an episode of South Park is scholarly, for some reason, though it seems to have the merit of elevating the discussion, somewhat from what we have come to regard as "usual" for this article.
Please do not add this cartoon as a useful reference again. Thank you.Student7 (talk) 11:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: South Park

message: A reference is being used for Borremans: . This superficially looked like a scandal site to me. If it is a tabloid-type site, perhaps an editor can replace it with a more reliable one. Probably in Dutch, which can't be helped.Student7 (talk) 21:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Diocese of Bruges

message: An editor (maybe more than one) has inserted extremely meticulous descriptions of sentences on people who have articles. Isn't the precise sentence beside the point? I would think "sentenced to jail" should be sufficient for this article, rather than go on into unnecessary detail about how much was served and why when an interested reader can find it in either a footnote or a linked article.Student7 (talk) 17:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Precision in sentencing

message: An editor has inserted: "   Coadjutor Bishop John J. Myers of Peoria was among the two-thirds of sitting bishops and acting diocese administrators that the Dallas Morning News found had allowed priests accused of sexual abuse to continue working." This will come as a shock to editors used to accusations being made, tried and executed in the media, but the media is not really in charge of any of this. It is in the lead, because the issue became national headlines as a result of Boston Globe reporting. But other than this one instance, the media has nothing to do with any of this by itself. When it confines itself to reporting what people are legally accused of doing, or (more often) being sued for money for, then using the media (not quoting them by name, necessarily), may be useful.
The media does not really decide anything. Yet. A future Supreme Court may rule otherwise, but so far they seem content to pretend they have jurisdiction. 
We could, I suppose, split the article in two, leaving one for real felonies actually reported by juries, real successful law suits, and a second one: Media versus the Catholic church or something like that, where we report letters to the editor, editorials, etc. As they say, you can't fight anyone who buys ink by the barrel or video tape by the mile (back when they had videotape. Don't know the metaphor du jour). Student7 (talk) 00:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Peoria

message: What weird kind of article is this? How many priests and how many members have the Roman Catholic church? Why don't we have an article about Filippinian sex abusers by telephone number? Of, course, I would also wish the Roman Catholic clergy to marry the opposite sex clergy and start producing children like never before, but what's the meaning of this sneaky article? To blackpaint that church maybe. ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 16:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Emotions retracted by myself. This too! Sigh! ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 12:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Whatte heck?!

message: I find the current structure of the document very misleading.  It typically starts with "There have been several abuse cases in country X", then proceeds to give ONE example.  Most casual readers won't read further than this, and will not get an accurate picture of the extent of the problem.  It is only if one takes the trouble to go to the main page (e.g. abuse cases in Europe) that one realizes the true extent of the problem.  
Please consider quantifying, e.g. "There have been 17 abuse cases in country X.  Here is a list of documented abuse cases."
If quantifying is not practical, consider removing the one example and replacing it with a link to a list of all the documented cases, e.g. "There have been several abuse cases in country X.  Here is a list of documented abuse cases."
Thank you.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.165.239.118 (talk) 21:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing about WIkipedia is that everyone, you included, can edit. It's always better to add facts, even poor;y, than to hope that someone else will pick it up and run with it. We do need references when we put facts into an article, but that should be easy enough if the cases are a matter of public record. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure of document misleading about extent of the problem 

message: Please add.  See newspaper article "Bishop: Africa not immune from paedophile priests." 
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-04-08-bishop-africa-not-immune-from-paedophile-priests
Thanks so much for your efforts on this topic.  I am glad to see all this information in one place. Regards, Rumjal 
rumjal 13:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Africa

message: Your case count for Italy is incomplete absent information on the scandal in the 17th century.  
http://books.guardian.co.uk/reviews/history/0,6121,1221970,00.html
http://www.karenliebreich.com/AKL/HTML/FO/Reviews.html 
Regards, Rumjal  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumjal (talk • contribs) 13:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Italy

message: I've changed the name of the section 'United Kingdom' to 'Great Britain'. The  Catholic Curch in Ireland serves Catholics in both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. The UK section, therfore, should only contain cases which have occourred on the mainland (Great Britain). Obscurasky (talk) 07:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  United Kingdom/Great Britain 

message: Regarding recent anonymous edits here:
* "It should be noted that during this process the priest was already removed from ministry". 
Who cares - he did voluntary ministry work and worked with youths again.
* "dispensation from priesthood for priests younger than 40 was very rarely granted". 
Both points somehow contradict the statement of Ratzinger who wrote "Consider the good of the Universal Church.  It is necessary for this Congregation to submit incidents of this sort to very careful consideration, which necessitates a longer period of time." Why did not he write ok, we will defrock him as soon as he turns 40?
* "However, as Kiesle had already been removed from ministry and "defrocking" in this case meant releasing him from clerical discipline, i.e., freeing him from obedience to his bishop, etc., this may be based on a misunderstanding over what the dispensation process is about. " 
So why exactly did Bishop John Cumming solicitate the Vatican to have him defrocked? Was Bishop Cumming so dumb that he misunderstood what the dispensation process is about? The cathnews source tried to assert that Vatican was not at all responsible for defrocking Kiesle. Why didn't Bishop Cumming do it himself? Why did not Ratzinger write him back this is your affair, go ahead instead of writing what he wrote?
Richiez (talk) 22:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kiesle 

message: "This page documents notable Alleged Roman Catholic sex abuse cases by country." -> the word "alleged" must be removed from this sentence. I do realize that it is perhaps to avoid being sued, but it suggests that we're reporting cases, in which the "alleged" person has not been sentenced yet - and those cases definitely do not belong to Wikipedia. Remember, "innocent until proven guilty". LMB (talk) 07:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Alleged" MUST be removed! 

message: I found a reference to an unproved allegation of abuse in Harare and the alleged abuser is a convicted child sex offender.  Priest accused of child abuse 'sent to Australia'.  If this case is proved in court it should go into the article. Proxima Centauri (talk) 07:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harare 

message: The term cases in the title seems unclear to me.  What "cases" are we talking about, just the regular English sense of the word, as in "there was a case of sexual abuse in Arizona in the 1980s", or are we talking about "case" in the legal sense, where there were criminal or civil charges brought before a court?
Because it isn't clear to me.  I had assumed it was just regular usage of "case" at first, but then everything I glanced at  seemed to involve judicial proceedings of some sort. What about cases of abuse that never made it to court, for one reason or another (they agreed to drop it, they tried to work with the Church and it is/was still in progress, a settlement was reached, they're being stonewalled, whatever) are they within scope for this article?
I was surprised at the mention in the lead of cases in the U.S. in the 21st century, as if that is when they started. But this was being reported on in the news since the 1980s, but it may be that it never reached the courts in those days.  So either the article needs to be expanded to cover those cases, and statements that it started in the 21st century need to be altered, or the title needs to change to reflect the fact that it's only about legal cases. Mathglot (talk) 10:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does "cases" in the title mean? 

message: I had to excise many of the stories in this article and related ones. bishop-accountability.org is not a reliable secondary source and the copyright status of the articles they have "borrowed" is dubious. News articles such as those are WP:PRIMARY source but can be usable with caution when cited directly. No URL link is strictly necessary as long as we have bibliographical information to go by. Elizium23 (talk) 04:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much reliance on unreliable sources 

message: Wikipedia has this article, Catholic Church sexual abuse cases by country, and also Catholic Church sexual abuse cases in Europe (and probably other regions). This seems to be massive duplication; it would make sense to remove all the European cases from here, making sure that all the information is in Catholic Church sexual abuse cases in Europe (i.e., merge). In this article there should simply be a Europe section with . Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 15:37, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Get rid of duplication with "Catholic Church sexual abuse cases in Europe" & similar?