Talk:Catholic Church sexual abuse cases

More Criticisms of Media Coverage

Hidden Agenda

Ed Koch, a former New York mayor who is Jewish and disagrees with the Catholic Church on practically all the hot-button issues including same-sex marriage and abortion [1][2], wrote in 'The Jerusalem Post':

"I believe the continuing attacks by the media on the Roman Catholic Church and Pope Benedict XVI have become manifestations of anti-Catholicism. The procession of articles on the same events are, in my opinion, no longer intended to inform, but simply to castigate...

"Many of those in the media who are pounding on the Church and the pope today clearly do it with delight, and some with malice. The reason, I believe, for the constant assaults is that there are many in the media, and some Catholics as well as many in the public, who object to and are incensed by positions the Church holds, including opposition to all abortions, opposition to gay sex and same-sex marriage, retention of celibacy rules for priests, exclusion of women from the clergy, opposition to birth control measures involving condoms and prescription drugs and opposition to civil divorce."[2]

[1] http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/david-quinn-a-more-honest-media-would-relentlessly-hunt-down-child-abuse-wherever-it-is-found-2140338.html
[2] http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/koch/entry/he_that_is_without_sin

What does this have to do with directly improving the article? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

That letter by Koch seems to be more about another issue. Koch wrote: "I am appalled that, according to the Times of April 6, 2010, "Last week, the center-left daily newspaper La Repubblica wrote, without attribution that 'certain Catholic circles' believed the criticism of the Church stemmed from 'a New York Jewish lobby.'"". Koch's letter is thus a defense of the New York Jewish community, and was published in the Jerusalem Post. It's not really relevant to "Catholic sex abuse cases". For a while, the Vatican was trying to blame others (media, the abortion rights movement, gay marriage, other religions, secular society, prosecutors, etc.) for their problems. On May 11, 2010, the Pope dropped that attempt at spin.[1] --John Nagle (talk) 18:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I also must ask the relevance to improving the article. Also, I get the feeling that it was a stab at, not a defense of the Church. He seems to essentially be saying "hey Church, we'd stop treating you unfairly if you'd stop being complete prats.", but that might just be me.Farsight001 (talk) 20:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I am unsure why people believe this is not relevant to the article. While I concede it is better to post information with a clear suggestion on how it would be added to the article, this suggestion has clear relevance to me. We already have a section entitled "Criticisms of Media Coverage". This quote could go there. To me, the quote is valid...I don't understand Nagle's theories about Koch's motives. However, regardless of motives, we should take his opinions at face value unless there is strong evidence to suggest otherwise. Despite all this, I still don't know that the opinion of one former Mayor warrants inclusion here.LedRush (talk) 00:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The fact is that, whatever the principal subject of the article, Koch is an example of a prominant non-Catholic who has made trenchant observations about the reasons behind some of the vituperative media coverage of abuse with respect to the Catholic Church. It is thus a very relevant comment to include in the Criticisms of media coverage section. It also speaks to the important issue of why and whether media coverage has unfairly singled out the Catholic Church for attack with regard to abuses that have occurred at least equally in other groups and institutions. Xandar 21:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly, Xandar. joo (talk) 06:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see this persons comment about this as being notable at all. You could find multiple such comments from semi notable people. I don't think the criticism of media coverage is worthy of expansion at all. The media are not the issue. Off2riorob (talk) 21:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Since most sources show that clerical sex abuse is LOWER than rates in non-clerical society, the media coverage focusing on the Catholic Church is a major part of the issue. Criticism of media coverage that infers Catholicism is particularly prone to sex abuse and covering it up is therefore very relevant to the issue, especially when such criticism is from notable unbiased sources. Xandar 21:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The % of priests who abuse is probably lower than those in comparable groups, I don't know offhand of a serious scholar who says otherwise, but the incidence is very high because abusers are serial & often abuse many over many years. Sturunner (talk) 00:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The incidence is very high and over many years among 149 priests (about 3 percent of the 4 percent accused, i.e. 0.12 percent?). joo (talk) 00:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Same thoughts again, Xandar. joo (talk) 06:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a strained point to blame the media for the troubles of the church. Surely the reality is that the media and the public do demand higher standards of those proclaiming a position of moral leadership. If someone wants to put some words together as a suggestion to improve the article in this area, go right ahead, but it cannot be a major point in the article. HiLo48 (talk) 06:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

As I pointed out before, even the Pope has given up on blaming the media.[2]. Meanwhile, the cover of Time this week is "Being Pope Means Never Having to Say You're Sorry.[3] --John Nagle (talk) 19:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I think your opinions on what the Pope thinks are rather suspect, Nagle. the simple fact is that many sources have "blamed" the media for overreporting, biased reporting and sensationalising abuse in Catholic contexts. This is an important area of opinion on the subject and should not be suppressed. The cover of "Time" merely reflects exactly what has been complained about - ie anti-Catholic reporting by elements of the media. Xandar 21:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The Pope has been reported to have apologised for the issue so many times (although many have also reported that he was the one who did the most to address the issue). Isn't Times nitpicking and trying to be funny? What's your point, John? When the Pope didn't blame the media, he's right (and contrite)? When Times said the Pope didn't apologise, the Pope is wrong (and not contrite)? joo (talk) 23:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

10 Ways Media Has Failed to Protect Children

Tom Hoopes: "When reporters first began to pound Pope Benedict XVI, spuriously, on the abuse problem, the Internet news outlets of the biggest media companies in the world had to make a tough choice. What to feature: the slideshow of Tiger Woods’ latest porn-star mistress, available to all users regardless of age; the viral video of “Bombshell” McGee stripping before she met Jesse James, so popular with the middle-school crowd; or the hard-hitting critique of how careless the Pope is about children?" joo (talk) 00:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes we are most oblivious to what is most obvious. So let us describe the elephant in the room regarding the abuse scandals and how the biggest players in the media handle issues of sexuality, children, and abuse:

• Media companies send sex images to your kids for money.
• The media ignores today’s hurricane to report a stiff wind long ago.
• The media looks the other way for predatory teachers.
• The media shrugs at Planned Parenthood’s abuse cover-up.
• The media suggests it’s dangerous to promote sexual morals.
• The media rarely shares the solutions the Church has found.
• The media isn’t even sure all child molestation is wrong.
• The media celebrates child abusers.
• The media won’t admit to the homosexual underage grooming problem. Cartor, Cimbolic & Tallon (2008) found that 6 percent of the cleric offenders in the John Jay Report are pedophiles (indiscriminate abuse of children/preteens), 32 percent ephebophiles (homosexual abuse of teens), 15 percent 11 & 12 year olds only (both male and female), 20 percent indiscriminate, and 27 percent mildly indiscriminate.
• The media helps give pedophiles cover through selective attention to the problem.

More details in http://www.catholicworldreport.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=188:the-elephant-in-the-room&catid=37:exclusive&Itemid=54

"The force of the media coverage of pedophilia has frightened people about the Church, where they are extremely safe, while enabling people to let their guard down in other places, where kids are less safe.

"What to learn from all of this? There is a giant and worsening problem in the world today. The notorious Ted Bundy said he discovered pornography in a dumpster and it launched his sex abuse career. Today’s media companies have put Ted Bundy’s dumpster in living rooms and laptops across America. Entertainment media objectifies sex, builds prime-time stories around sexual perversions, offers heroes to kids and then sexualizes them, lionizes abusers, and encourages sexual experimentation. The news media raises doubts about the fundamental assumptions of sexual morality, refuses to connect dots between abusers in favored fields such as public schools and abortion counseling, then writes scare stories about the one institution that has comprehensively addressed sex abuse.

"So next time the media complains about the Church—in between “celebrity sex tape” and “hottest redheads” slideshows—keep in mind that when it comes to sexual abuse and morality, you’re hearing the fox’s critique of the farmer’s ability to guard the henhouse." joo (talk) 00:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

==But what does your essay have to do w/the article? Apparently, my Edit summary didn't survive the edit process. This is your opinion & essay, & is not appropriate here, but might be in an article on media coverage. Sturunner (talk) 00:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a criticism of media coverage, including the exaggerated and selective media coverage of the Catholic Sex Abuse Cases and media non-coverage of a much higher incidence of abuses among educators and even teens referred to Planned Parenthood. And this information is on the Talk page. Our page mediator Xavexgoem wrote, "Stop edit warring on a talk page, fercryinoutloud." I don't understand your point on Edit Summary. Your changes on that article was removed? What has that to do with what's posted on this talk page? joo (talk) 01:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

This (the talk page is not a forum for general discussion of the subject--see the qualifiers for the talk page. It is ONLY for discussions to improve the article--NOT for opinion about the issue. Pls remove. Thank you. Sturunner (talk) 03:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, this is not a forum. this is for adding another criticism to the Criticisms of Media Coverage section in the article. joo (talk) 08:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Sturunner, the relevance to the article is dubious at best, these criticisms apply generally to the media - not just this specific case. So making these kind of posts isn't productive. That said I don't think it should be deleted as that just causes issues too. I suggest the section is collapsed/archived. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that a specific recommendation be made for the article.LedRush (talk) 10:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Question

I see an ugly practice on this talk page which consists of removal of the posts or portion of the posts based on pure disagreement. If someone disagrees to someone's else point of view - then let him/her express it on the same page. Mutual respect here is mandatory.

As to the page content, my question is: why to have in this article such common sense conclusions as the one: "a sin against the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue by a cleric with a minor under 18 years of age is to be considered a grave sin, or delictum gravius."? Just for being said by a pope, or for the sake of some phrases like: 'Decalogue' and 'delictum gravius'? If a cleric rapes a minor, it is not a sin according to 'Decalogue' and 'delictum gravius', it is a crime for which a criminal can be sentenced to 14 year imprisonment according to in the Louisiana state law, the state where I live now.--166.32.193.81 (talk) 12:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

As for your initial paragraph, talk pages are for discussion of changes to the article, not a forum for general debate on the subject matter. The article content in question helps illustrate that child abuse isn't somehow allowed by religious law I imagine. Falcon8765 (talk) 12:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The posts are being removed because they are not here to help improve the article. You can search the talk page history and the archives and see us try to explain this to the other IP repeatedly. Now its being removed because they guy is beyond trolling. Any reasonable person can see the edits and realize right away that IP71/96 had/has absolutely no intention to "improve" the article, unless by "improve" you mean "turn into a scathing expose".Farsight001 (talk) 21:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

EC.I see a lot of soapboxing and posting of content that has not chance of ever getting into the article or improving the article. This article is about the church so that is likely why that is there, the punishment in Louisiana perhaps belongs in another article. Off2riorob (talk) 12:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

@Falcon8765: As for my initial paragraph, it is the matter of mutual respect. Saying 'not a forum of general debate' means nothing to me. I did not find it that way and many others apparently did not. As to the content, I assume that you know that an encyclopedia is all about knowledge, not about a bizarre knowledge.

@Off2riorob I can see only your answer as 'soapboxing and posting out of content'; still I have no intention of removing it. The article is not about the Church, it's about the crime committed by the Church clergy. I tried just differentiate the 'sin' and the 'crime'. The 'sin' might be just a wishful thinking i.e. pope John Paul II re-categorized the crime to the lower stage, to the sin. Bottom line, the pope's point of view is a bit dishonest and, therefore, does not deserve place in the article lead.--166.32.193.81 (talk) 14:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Without direct links to the specific content being discussed, it's hard to directly comment on specific content. Having said that, part of the problem is that we cannot judge on our own whether an act was a crime. By wikipedia policies, only courts can do that. There is a very serious question regarding whether we can actively or passively describe some act allegedly committed by a living person, particularly if that individual has not themselves admitted it, as a "crime". WP:BLP may well be in play in that regard. If there has been no formal court ruling of guilt, then we cannot say or imply that a crime was committed. Also, unfortunately, there are different definitions of crime in different countries, some of which vary dramatically. On that basis, discussion of "criminality" might force us to expend too much space to the specific laws of the specific ountries in which the alleged incidents took place. Also, frankly, at least in a sense, I myself would have to agree the moral/religious aspects of a given action is more directly relevant in this case, considering that the individuals who have instigated such acts are themselves all, at least in this case, subscribers to a given set of religious principles which specifically condemn such actions. Matters regarding legality are probably best discussed in the specific articles on the specific instances,. For a more detailed response, however, please indicate the specific potential content being discussed. John Carter (talk) 21:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

isn't child abuse illegal in every country in the world? That makes talking about the legality really quite easy... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• @John Carter There is a very serious question regarding whether we can actively or passively describe some act allegedly committed by a living person, particularly if that individual has not themselves admitted it, as a "crime"?! (Please, fix the grammar of this sentence) This 'wisdom' means: committed crime is not crime if that individual has not themselves admitted it. Then By wikipedia policies, only courts can do that.?! Which policy? Who wrote it? A high post style of writing which did not pass test of common sense.--71.191.30.202 (talk) 13:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

If you are unfamiliar with WP:BLP, and apparently you are, that was the policy to which I referred. I suggest you read it. The only ways we can describe something as a crime are if the individual themselves has admitted to the action in such a way as s/he explicitly or implicitly recognizes it as being illegal or if the courts of that country have made a ruling that it was a crime. And, also, the definition of "child abuse" does and has varied pronouncedly over the years and in different countries, even today. And some of these cases, particularly those which might involve teenagers, deal with people who are, in at least some countries, counted as not qualifying under child abuse laws. On that basis, we are, more or less, in cases where the alleged action has not been acknowledged by either the perpetrator or the courts, bound by policy to not say anything beyond what the involved parties have stated themselves. John Carter (talk) 18:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

My dear friend, there is the Fifth Pillar of Wikipedia which you have to read first then come back to discuss things. Therefore, please, avoid elevating yourself above others by suggesting what to read and how to understand it. I see that you have strong opinion and no knowledge at all about the subject under discussion, despite many phrases you have used here. So, My Lai Massacre, according to your explanation above, was not crime due to the 'fact' that 'the individual themselves has (not) admitted to the action in such a way' and 'the courts of that country (did not) have made a ruling that it was a crime'. Yet another example of crime that cannot be explained by your 'definition': a medieval witch hunt case. So, an innocent woman was sentenced to death and executed. Applying your definition what is the crime, (the courts of that country have made a ruling that it was a crime), the sentenced woman committed crime. Not the court of that country?--71.191.30.202 (talk) 19:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Um, actually, if you look at the My Lai massacre, I don't see the word "crime" used in the lead, although several other words are. And, again, if you look at that page, there was someone convicted, which, by definition, means that he committed crimes. Perhaps if your examples actually supported your comments they might be more applicable? John Carter (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

You are pushing ahead your frivolous way: you don't see "crime" and also you don't see "mass murder", "rape" which are the "crime" and which are there. Good bye.--71.191.30.202 (talk) 00:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I was pointing out the fact. "Crime" in this context would be basically irrelevant. More detailed descriptions of the actions, which are included, are both more relevant and less judgemental. To make it clear, my only real reservation is about the word "crime". Allegations of mass murder and rape, bad as they are, do not necessarily say anything about the nature of laws at the time. My objection is to using words like "crime", possibly "violation of human rights" (particularly before human rights were included in law), etc. And, clearly, if someone was charged with, say, rape, it is both clearer, less redundant, and less verbose to say "he was charged with rape" than "he was charged with the crime of rape" or anything similar including the superfluous word "crime". My reservation is about the fact that the word "crime" more or less demands an outline of the specific charges, not to a more direct, meaningful, description of the actions individuals were accused of. And, yes, particularly if no charges were ever brought against the alleged abuser, if BLP is involved, we would have to be very careful about what language we would use to describe his or her misconduct. John Carter (talk) 21:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

MedCab mediation open

Hi, I'll be your mediator for a week or a month or a year or until Andromeda collides with us.

Please sign here so I can get the ball rolling. I'll draft a few guidelines after everyone has agreed to participate. Xavexgoem (talk) 06:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Stop edit warring on a talk page, fercryinoutloud. If you don't like what someone says, ignore it. If it's a bunch of strawman, don't bat at them. Bikeshedding all over the place, I swear. Xavexgoem (talk) 20:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Sturunner just removed a media criticism that I've posted on this TALK page for discussion. I've reinstated it. joo (talk) 00:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Whither SNAP?

If the incidence of child abuse is so comparatively low as claimed by the "objective" coverage in this article, why has no one referenced the very high incidence of abuse reported by SNAP, the Survivor's Network of those Abused by Priests? Why do they have only a disconnected mention down at the bottom? Why are they absent from any criticisms section? --StudiousReader (talk) 12:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, SNAP are a protest/agitprop group, and so not a reliable source for figures, especially when reliable academically backed sources are available. Xandar 21:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

SNAP is not in the business of providing stats readily available from the appropriate researchers themselves. Would both of you provide links, please? Otherwise, we should delete this section. It contains no facts & is not relevant to improving the article. Sturunner (talk) 01:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't find the section on SNAP. Has it already been removed? If so, could you provide a link to a revision that includes that section?

I agree that any figures compiled by SNAP are likely less reliable than those conducted by organizations such as the John Jay College. However, the notability of SNAP as an organization makes the figures notable even if they are unreliable. It would be better to provide the SNAP statistics and then provide a critique of those figures as made by reliable sources. (i.e. it would be OR for one of us to construct a critique of the figures but it would be acceptable to cite a critique made by a reliable source)

Whatever you might think of SNAP's strong anti-Catholic rhetoric, it does seem to be the single organization of abuse victims with the highest profile. As such, it not only deserves mention in this article, probably as part of a paragraph or section about organizations of abuse victims in general. I say this not because I endorse everything SNAP says but because it is so frequently mentioned in the press that to completely omit any mention of it from this article seems to be highly POV.

--Richard S (talk) 04:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It's worth noting that not only was the John Jay College study ordered and paid for by the United Conference of Catholic Bishops, the data on which it was based came only from surveys sent out to Catholic Church officials. [4] They didn't poll Catholic church attendees. Other studies of crime which compare police reports with polls of citizens show huge underreporting. "Comparing the rates of victimization and crimes known to the police, the victimization data showed fifteen times as much assault, nine times more robbery, seven times the amount of rape, and, surprisingly, five times more motor-vehicle theft than reported in the UCR for the same period" [5] --John Nagle (talk) 06:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

John, I don't disagree with anything you wrote. However, unless you can cite it to a reliable source, it constitutes original research and synthesis. Find a reliable source who makes these points and we can insert those criticisms in the article text. --Richard S (talk) 07:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

See John's PDF citation. His facts came from the study itself, which we all accept as a reliable source. --StudiousReader (talk) 18:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a tricky area of WP:OR. It's undeniably true that the John Jay College study was based on data that came "only from surveys sent out to Catholic Church officials." We can state that fact and I'm sure we do that, if not in this article, then in one of the subsidiary articles. What would be OR would be the assertion that the John Jay College study is therefore flawed because of the methodology used. That assertion should be sourced to a reliable source. Otherwise, it's just Nagle's opinion that the study is flawed for this reason. --Richard S (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps SNAP themselves would be the best source to query on all this dis-creditability...as long as we are so concerned about objective "reliability" :)

Also, the comment above that SNAP is a "protest/agitprop" group is CLEARLY a violation of NPOV. Or is this your OR? --StudiousReader (talk) 12:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, SNAP would be a good source for criticisms of the Church in general and the John Jay report in particular. I wouldn't want to say that it is the "best source". SNAP is almost certainly going to be extremely biased against the Catholic Church. I would hope that there might be more neutral sources that can provide an objective and detached analysis of the John Jay report. SNAP has its own perspective. It is important and should be presented. However, we shouldn't take everything it says as "gospel truth". We need to be critical about what is said and evaluate how much is "fact", how much is "opinion" and how much is exaggeration and distortion. The same is true for Catholic sources. NPOV demands that we not favor one POV over the other. At the moment, this article probably favors the Catholic POV but we should not cant it to the point where it favors the anti-Catholic POV. The NPOV "sweet spot" is hard to achieve but we must try. --Richard S (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you can violate NPOV and OR on a talk page...those standards are for the information inserted into the article.LedRush (talk) 14:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, one should recognize when one is presenting POV, OR or SYNTH and accept that it has no place in the article unless it can be cited to a reliable source. SNAP is a reliable source for its pronouncements on the scandal. However, its pronouncements are its opinions, not necessarily "facts". We have to make sure to present facts as facts and opinions as opinions. This is not always easy to do as some "facts" are susceptible to being characterized as biased or distorted (e.g. the claim on this page that the John Jay statistics are distorted by self-reporting from the dioceses). --Richard S (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course SNAP is a reliable source for SNAP opinions. That doesn't seem to be the issue here. Also, my point was that StudiousReader should focus on the article, not on naming various wikipedia standards that may or may not apply here.LedRush (talk) 20:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It therefore continues to discredit this article that a commonly cited high profile organization like SNAP continues to be ignored. Also, it would seem the best place for criticism of SNAP should not be in this article but in their own wiki page, SNAP. And the opposition to prominence in this article clearly violates WP:NPOV, as stated.

As to the absence of "facts" suggested above, their US archive page contains a multitude of relevant articles from reliable sources, too many to mention in this short article. They have separate archives for several countries. We would need to be selective to keep this article short. --StudiousReader (talk) 18:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: "It continues to discredit this article..." - yes, I agree. "We would need to be selective to keep this article short" - also agree to this. There are many subsidiary articles about the sex abuse scandal in individual countries and in many of the larger dioceses. If you wish to compose a summary-level treatment for this article, please do so. Also, please add more specific information to the subsidiary articles. --Richard S (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I am a little late to this party, so please forgive my ignorance. I came here after seeing the ANI posting about issues related to this article. While I am not any type of mediator, I find that it is sometimes helpful to have non-interested parties come in and give their opinions. Could you please tell me what you're suggested change to the article is? I must confess, I have seen the articles on the sex abuse cases in the major newspapers, but I've never heard of SNAP (I told you I was ignorant of these issues, after all). Being able to place the specific recommendations in context may help me to analyze the situation.LedRush (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

SNAP is the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests. URL is http://www.snapnetwork.org --Richard S (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, though I figured that much out on my own...I am asking for specific recommendations.LedRush (talk) 19:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I've never seen stats on SNAP's page. That's not the business they're in. Sturunner (talk) 01:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. I've never seen anything quantitative out of SNAP. Mostly it's been rhetoric based on anecdotal evidence. I just figured that StudiousReader knew something I didn't. For that matter, I should comment that statistics are a scarce commodity in this domain. That's why the John Jay numbers, however flawed they might be, are quoted so much. Does anybody know of any other relevant statistics? I would think the two Irish reports would have statistics but I haven't been able to find them via Google. --Richard S (talk) 02:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

See "Sexual Abuse in Social Context", [6]. This is from the Catholic League, which is trying to make priests not look so bad. They have data for priests, ministers, coaches, etc. The data on priests is based on formal complaints known to the Catholic Church, while the data for Protestant ministers is based on surveys. So Protestant figures look higher, but the numbers aren't really comparable. No neutral party seems to have done a sound study based on interviewing a random sample of Catholics. The US National Crime Victimization Survey (a Census Bureau project) doesn't ask questions in this area. "Sex in America, A Definitive Survey" (1994) [7], which did in-depth interviews with several thousand people, didn't cover this.

That article does say "Almost all the priests who abuse children are homosexuals. Dr. Thomas Plante, a psychologist at Santa Clara University, found that “80 to 90% of all priests who in fact abuse minors have sexually engaged with adolescent boys, not prepubescent children. ... According to the Boston Globe, “Of the clergy sex abuse cases referred to prosecutors in Eastern Massachusetts, more than 90 percent involve male victims. And the most prominent Boston lawyers for alleged victims of clergy sexual abuse have said that about 95 percent of their clients are male.” The article should reflect that. --John Nagle (talk) 18:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The Irish reports do actually contain solid figures with respect to allegations. The figures need to be dug out of the reports themselves, since they are generally glossed over or exaggerrated in sensationalist coverage in some media. It is these sort of exaggerations that plague the issue and which mean that surveys and other unscientific matter produced by media or groups with an agenda can be used only with extreme caution and disclaimers as to their source and reliability. Xandar 21:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Two problems

First:

There is a group of people strongly motivated in following the RCC paradigm: sin and forgiveness. Most of this article is strongly painted that way.

Second: No way to remove that group from this article.

--166.32.193.81 (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Please offer specific suggestions on how to improve the text of the article.LedRush (talk) 18:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

166.32.193.81 raises an interesting issue although the difficulty at the moment is one of original research. I've often thought that there are two different paradigms at play. The first views the abuser as a sinner who should be given a chance to repent and never sin again. The second, which is a more recent view, views the abuser as a criminal who should be taken through an adjudicative process both within the Church and within the criminal justice system. A "zero tolerance" policy does not give the abuser a second chance. The Church has been forced to abandon the first view and adopt the second view.

Without commenting on whether this change in view is right or wrong or whether the Church was justified in holding the first view during the 20th century, I think the fact that there are two views is worth mentioning. My problem is that I have not seen any sources who analyze the issue from this perspective in exactly this way although many articles kind of hint at it. Does anyone know of a reliable source who frames the issue in this way?

--Richard S (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Richard, I *think* IP166 is just complaining about the people editing the article.Farsight001 (talk) 19:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know... however, I'm just sharing what my thoughts were when I reflected on the "sin and forgiveness" paradigm. I personally think too many people are using a secular criminal justice perspective and missing that the Church's approach is actually the Christian way to do things even if it turns out not to be practicable in this case. I really don't think the Church intended to have priests abuse children. It just was looking for ways to deal with the problem and failed. --Richard S (talk) 04:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• This crime is the crime, not a sin. The most abused words in this article are: alleged allegation, abuse. Bear in mind that 8,000 RCC priests are convicted and more than 6bln$ paid to more than 30,000 victims worldwide and to the courts handling these criminal case. As late French president F. Mitterand responded to some French RCC cardinal: The church must obey first to the civil laws then to the God's law. Here in this article must be predominant paradigm crime-and-punishment, which will not happen due to the presence and activity of those who are fervently embellishing the tarnished and dark image of the RCC and diminishing the crimes committed by its clergy. Roman pope keeps chanting further about 'forgiveness'. Here is (in the New Yrk Times) a very good insight into it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/12/world/europe/12pope.html Pope Pleads for Forgiveness Over Abuse Scandal

He added that the church, “in admitting men to priestly ministry and in their formation we will do everything we can to weigh the authenticity of their vocation and make every effort to accompany priests along their journey, so that the Lord will protect them and watch over them in troubled situations and amid life’s dangers.” The pope did not mention any specific actions the church was planning to take to combat abuse, as some had hoped, and victims’ groups said Benedict’s remarks did not go far enough.

“The root cause of this horrific and on-going clergy sex abuse and cover up crisis remains the nearly limitless power of bishops,” said Barbara Blaine, the president of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, in a statement.

“There must be a world-wide Catholic policy against clergy sex crimes and cover ups that is widely enforced. And we still don’t have it,” she added.