Talk:Catholic Church sexual abuse cases

Dr. Thomas Plante quote issues

A Perspective on Clergy Sexual Abuse by Dr. Thomas Plante of Stanford University and Santa Clara University states that "approximately 4% of priests during the past half century (and mostly in the 1960s and 1970s) have had a sexual experience with a minor" which "is consistent with male clergy from other religious traditions and is significantly lower than the general adult male population which may double these numbers".

1.) Dr. Thomas Plante is a full professor at Santa Clara University (a Catholic school), and only a clinical associate professor (volunteer role) at Stanford -- he is not on their academic staff. I propose removing "Stanford University" as he does not represent Stanford academia or research. See his CV.

So we can change to "professor at Santa Clara University and clinical associate professor at Stanford" 194.76.232.147 (talk) 09:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

2.) Additionally Dr. Plante is a practicing, active Catholic himself and serves on the Diocese Review Board for Diocese of San Jose among other functions. I believe this possible conflict of interest should be mentioned, at the least. Thoughts on that?

The only thing that is important should be his qualification. As long as no one disputes his remarks from a scientific point of view, there should be no mention of other highly disputable "factors". 194.76.232.147 (talk) 09:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

3.) What is the Wikipedia-worthy significance of this quote, as there is question to his impartiality and is not a notable expert on the topic? Also the percentages he mention don't match up with Wikipedia's own article on pedophilia. Can we remove this controversial quote or at least write-in the appropriate caveats? aerotheque (talk) 03:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

He is an expert on the topic as are a lot of other psychologists. If there are contradictions, they should simply be mentioned. The importance of the quote derives from his estimation on the scope of sexual abuse. 194.76.232.147 (talk) 09:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

In the WP-article on pedophilia it's written:

The prevalence of pedophilia in the general population is not known, but is estimated to be lower than 5% based on several smaller studies with prevalence rates between 3% and 9%.

So the ratio is estimated at 5% or lower based on smaller studies who showed a prevalence of even 9 %. That seems to be consistent with Plante's estimation.--Ricerca (talk) 15:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Disputed

Sections covering statistics and accuracy are far from being accurate and up-to-date. The complete information about the abuse scope (abuse?! - why not about rape and sexual assaults?) is not known nor ever will be known, on one side. On another side, we have a huge amount of information not covered by this article. There is, also, excessive use of another bad word: alleged.--71.178.110.201 (talk) 23:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that you are right by criticizing the lack of information in that article. Feel free to ad. On the other side, this is not a documentation and reliable scientific literature on these cases is until today very rare. So there is at the moment a little problem with WP:RECENT and consequently good reason to take the time to better estimate the importance of certain facts. Apart from that: "Alleged" is a very precise word for things, that are only alleged. And that is the case in a lot of abuse cases concerned by this article. So the word is not bad at all, if it's well used. Ricerca (talk) 17:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The statistics comes from a report commissioned by Roman Catholic Church and based on incomplete and selective data. It shall be removed completely and just mentioned in this article within a single sentence. As to the media coverage, it shall be reduced to two or three sentences just used to illustrate the Church attempt to divert public attention to somewhere else i.e. to make the Church crimes of lesser severity. 'Alleged', as used here, is far from being precise. Apparently there are many who wants this article written in the Church line. The Church crimes shall not be obscured by extensive use of this word (alleged) in the article.--Eleven Nine (talk) 13:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

"based on incomplete and selective data" is the reason why it is inaccurate to talk about "cases", if there are in fact allegations. Presumption of innocence applies also to priests and other catholics. And the problem on the abuse cases and the John-Jay-Report is very simple: there is no other data. Even bishopaccountability works with it.

Concerning the media article I think there are also well based criticisms to the media on the handling of that issue. These criticisms should be mentioned like all the other stuff. Ricerca (talk) 13:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It is laughable that evidence about those heinous crimes committed by RCC priests are just marked here as 'allegations'. "Presumption of innocence" lasts more than a half of century testifying only about lies and obstruction of justice. The article is chocked by the "church responses" which is in the line of the above "presumption". So, the way to improve the article is to completely drop the "Church responses" replacing it by what was the real church response: self defense based on lies, deception, and obstruction of justice.--Eleven Nine (talk) 12:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

No one wants to rename committed crimes. But for good reason there is a difference between proven and alleged (or accused and convicted). So it is the best to distinguish and name the things according to what they are. --Ricerca (talk) 15:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

'Alleged' is not alleged at all. Many of those who committed that horrible crime of raping innocent and helpless children remained at large for the widespread coverup and obstruction of justice committed by the RCC and Vatican. The cash settlements were used to force the victims to give up their legal rights to name those criminals and have them brought to the court and punished. Especially in Ireland where in this coverup is involved even the Irish prime minister Enda Keny. Bottom line: shall we name the crime covered up by the cash settlements just "allegations"?! Read here more about this man: http://www.swp.ie/news/cloyne-report-kenny-still-covering-clergy/4748--71.178.110.201 (talk) 23:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Settlements don't confirm guilt. They may suggest it, but there are other reasons why someone might choose to settle instead of going to court. Generally, we need to use alleged until the crimes are proven in court, especially where living people are concerned. - Bilby (talk) 23:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Certainly the settlements ARE about guilt and crime. If there were not guilt and crime then why to have them? And 'we' are who? RCC? Roman Pope? I see many credible authors and publications with the credibility and knowledge far above the anonymous Wikipedia users confirming clearly what I see: the crime is crime.--71.178.110.201 (talk) 00:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

"We" as in "people developing this article". And no, settlements can be for a number of reasons, not all of which entail guilt. We can say that a settlement was reached out of court and allow the readers to draw their own conclusions, but unless the settlement involved an acknowledgement of guilt, we can't specifically say here that the crimes were more than alleged. - Bilby (talk) 00:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

"we can't specifically say here that the crimes were more than alleged"!!! This blind refusal to see the truth outside the scope of meaningless phrase drives me out this discussion with you for good.--71.178.110.201 (talk) 03:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)--71.178.110.201 (talk) 03:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Listen IP71. Here's the thing. Alleged is a necessity. In the cases where the accused are still living, it is legally necessary because calling them guilty without an admission from them or a court declaration would be libel and wikipedia can get sued for it. Getting incredulous because another user prefers precise and more accurate wording isn't going to change anything either.Farsight001 (talk) 03:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I did read in another section about the Catholic church about the increased numbers of Catholic church members. I was wondering if there have ever been any decent/accurate surveys of how many members have actually left the church becuase of the sexual abuse scandals??Mylittlezach (talk) 23:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I found some articles proving the opposite. There is a large number of people in Germany, Austria and Ireland who legally abandoned the RCC. Also, there is a huge dropout in the number of regular churchgoers in the USA. I remember that a couple years ago that dropout was about 25%. The RCC never gave a true account about losing her position in the West. I assume they got some gains in underdeveloped world, especially in Africa.--71.178.110.201 (talk) 23:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

And? First of all, people don't "legally" abandon the Church. They simply stop going or convert to a different denomination. It's not a legal matter. Second, if they are the articles I am thinking of (another user tried to use them in the past (or was it you then too?), and they don't say what is implied. Yes, many people are leaving the Church in those regions, but still more are joining the Church in those same regions. And there is a huge dropout of regular churchgoers in all denominations. That would be something of note in, for example, an article on the adherence to Christian beliefs in general. What does it have to do with Catholic sex abuse cases specifically? Very little. Farsight001 (talk) 12:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

You do not know what are you talking about. In Austria and Germany each taxpayer is subject of a tax portion that goes to the RCC. So, there are LEGAL document(s) confirming that a taxpayer left the RCC which explains my earlier comment. It does have a lot to do with pedophilia of the RCC priests; it prompted a great number of people in Germany and Austria to leave the RCC finding it immoral to further financially support this church.--71.178.110.201 (talk) 22:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Still pretty sure I know what I'm talking about. The government is not the Church. You don't have to submit a legal document to the government outlining that you are leaving the Church. And if they don't want to financially support the Church, then they stop listing themselves as Catholic in legal documentation. That, however, does not make one non-Catholic. How many of them are happily Catholic but just don't want to give the money? We don't know, so we cannot come to the conclusion you want based on that. And again, there is no mention of how many are joining the Church. People leave and join the Church every day. Are more joining than leaving? We don't know. So we can't say either way.Farsight001 (talk) 02:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

This article is no more than a Roman Catholic Church blog

Per discussion below, everyone seems to agree that the content isn't incredibly useful, or is a rant in violation of WP:SOAP. Please make future requests specific to the article content, with examples.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"The Catholic Church", said de Foxa, "has given evidence of being able to exist without the Gospels". (from K. Malaparte's Kaputt, Summer Night head) This article is written strictly in the Vatican line of self-defense. There is more than 5 pages of the Church response written in a deceptive and lying manner: we sinned but other too, much more we do; we did this and that in that year, we said this and that there and here, we shed crocodile tears a countless number of times. Of course, we never ever reported anyone to police, send to the civil courts ever never anyone, never ever helped and protected a single child if not forced legally by the civil authorities to do that. Then there is several equally worthless pages about media coverage, the 'statistics' about this heinous crime of the 'scholars' paid by the Church. Bear on mind that the Church has paid 'scholars' who are regularly confirming that a miracle, much needed to promote some of the Church faithful servants into the Church saint, always happened. Wikipedia is apparently another victim of the Church for being very popular online edition. There is a number of the Church watchdogs here sabotaging any serious discussion and any article improvement or a serious article rewrite. As a consequence, the article does not have place for the victims' views of this crime nor for a serious review of the Church crime in the 20eth and 21st century. As to the great writer, Malaparte was twice excommunicated by some senile bishops for their inability to remember that they already excommunicated him. Nevertheless, when Malaparte was dying in some of Rome's hospitals, some Catholic Church priest tormented him at the death bed by his 'confessions', 'sins' and 'embracing the Church again' About this blog: delete it completely, rewrite it in the line of latest available and collected information about this crime, reduce the Church officials, 'scholars', meetings, sayings, etc, etc, etc to what they are: deceptions, lies, coverups, obstruction of justice.--71.178.110.201 (talk) 13:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC) Thank you for this informative comment.--209.51.184.11 (talk) 12:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Per the discussion below (and edit war over this section), I'm hatting this section, and requesting that further discussion of article improvement be specific, citing examples from the article text with specific suggestions for change. Also, without making any specific accusations, please see WP:SOCK. Thank you.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Farsight

Please, avoid removing someone's comment you do not like here. Your personal opinion is not Wikipedia policy. Calling it rant you are slipping into personal attacks i.e. violating Wikipedia's No personal attacks rule!--209.51.184.11 (talk) 12:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

But it's not my personal opinion. If you are not trying to improve the article with the comment, as you very VERY clearly were not, it should, by policy, be deleted or hatted. Technically this comment, since it's purpose is also not article improvement, should be removed as well. Talk pages are for article improvement ONLY. Also, calling another user's edit disruptive or a rant is not considered a personal attack. It would have to be a direct insult.Farsight001 (talk) 12:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Read twice the comment you are removing. It is about the article improvement. It points at undue weight: the Catholic Church point of view covers more than 80% of the whole article.--66.151.103.9 (talk) 21:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I read the comment half a dozen times by now. No, it's not. It's an angry rant because the article is not a scathing expose. Posts for article improvement tend to mention a specific issue, citing specific paragraphs, not a general disparagement of the article as a whole.Farsight001 (talk) 05:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

You are forgetting the fact that some other people (I count four, me excluded) do not share your interpretation of the Wikipedia's policy. Cooperativity and mutual respect of all users are mandatory. The comment you are removing is a bit harsh, but still points correctly and fairly at many article defects: the Roman catholic Church point of view is prevalent, nothing about victim's perception of this crime, little or no place for opinions of lawyers, independent researchers, etc.--Eleven Nine (talk) 11:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't count 4. Where are you getting that from? I count one IP hopper who thinks no one would be able to tell he's all the same person, posting from multiple IPs to make it look like more people agree with him. And again, as I already said above, vague statements about the state of the article in general do not provide any pathway toward article improvement. Also what article are you reading that you think there is nothing about the victim's perception and the opinion of lawyers or independent researchers? The comment does not belong. Period. This is not my interpretation of policy. I have seen literally hundreds of times now much softer comments than that removed for the very reason I removed this one. Re-adding it is disruptive. Cease and desist.Farsight001 (talk) 13:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• Please, base your accusations on solid proofs. You pretend knowing both correct questions and correct answers. It's a bad idea to put yourself above others then draw conclusions out of blue. Sturunner is hopper too? Me too?--Eleven Nine (talk) 17:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Solid proofs? Like how one of you stops posting the moment the other one starts? How you have near identical edit histories and typing styles? Sturunner is not an IP hopper no, but there have been definite issues with him in the past in other subjects. But this is all besides the point - that the rant, and technically this thread too, have no merit towards improving the article and therefore are, by policy, to be deleted. It is a violation of policy and it is disruptive to re-add such a comment, and from now on out, will be considered vandalism if re-added. This conversation is over and will be hatted in 24 hours regardless of further posts made in it.Farsight001 (talk) 18:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't you think that you crossed the line of basic civilty rules in a bad direction? What else you are doing here except ranting? Denying, refusing, attacking? Behaving as if this article belongs only to you? I would like to say that, from the history of this page, there are two or three other account names behind which is the same brain. May I ask you who elevated you to be exclusive and authoritative interpreter of the Wikipedia's policy? If all you are ranting about "is all besides the point" then what makes you attacking people that way?--Eleven Nine (talk) 20:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• I think this continued removal of the comment is unacceptable conduct. Let it go. The comment while not perfect is discussing content. I'm more than happy to escalate this if its really needed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Fuck no, I'm not letting it go. It's a rant. You know it's a rant. I know it's a rant. The poster knows it's a rant. It is inappropriate talk page text and by policy it must go. You've been around long enough to know this. I'm not letting people bully me into getting their way like this anymore. It is a violation, therefore it is removed. It's that simple. You give them an inch, and they will take a mile. If they don't want to follow the policies of wikipedia, then we should make it clear to them that they can fuck off somewhere else. It'd be one thing if they just didn't know, but clearly, they are intentionally pushing limits and refusing to accept the correction of more knowledgeable editors (which was, at first, charitable). They're here to push buttons and get their way, not to collaborate. Don't tolerate that crap.Farsight001 (talk) 02:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

There is 6 people which think that's ok to have the comment you are continually removing. The only one who is ranting here is you. Therefore, putting back the comment. Please, do be reasonable.--Eleven Nine (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

There's not 6 people. There's an ip hopper trying to bully and push the article into the direction he wants it by acting like he's more people than he really is, there's Eraserhead who doesn't seem to exactly get what's going on, and there's Sturunner who is...well...Sturunner. If you annoy him, he spends the next week trying to piss you off any way he can, even if he doesn't agree with what he's saying. This bullshit needs to stop. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, so start collaborating. This means specific suggestions for article improvement, not a generalized gripe about the state of the article which you personally don't like, and it ESPECIALLY doesn't mean starting a new thread in an article talk page that targets another user specifically. If it had been posted anywhere, it should have been placed on my talk page. That's why I'm hatting this in a couple hours as well.Farsight001 (talk) 20:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Guys, this isn't constructive. It's also cluttering my watchlist with garbage. Yes, the comment is a rant which is unlikely to improve the article. Yes, it is technically discussing the article content, and probably isn't doing any harm by staying. If it stays and draws unconstructive attention, then it can be hatted or archived. If it goes, it's not really a big loss. It's not that big of a deal. Both of you are edit warring, and are collectively gunning for a block or page protection, which will be even less constructive. Please drop it.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I went and gave the IP a warning about it originally. However while it could be better written it isn't exactly the least constructive piece ever written and should stay. By making such a big deal about it you are giving it far more importance than it deserves. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

As a compromise, I've reverted the removal, and hatted the section. Now it's there for everyone to read if they wish, without cluttering up the page. I also added a request to the bottom that future discussion should center on specific content in the article, with examples. This should be sufficient for everyone. If the edit war continues over this content, I will escalate it to AN3, which won't be good for anyone. I think we can all let this go. Anyone who wishes to also hat this section would be welcome to, since it's even less useful.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Introductory and Scope and Nature sections

• Introductory

The Pope's point of view expressed as "He declared in 2001 that 'a sin against the Sixth Commandment ' " is not a knowledge worth to be here and shall not be in this section. A common man's perception of this crime is that IS THE CRIME then it is a sin.

• Scope and Nature

Plante's (a Roman catholic Church author) 'conclusion': "is consistent with male clergy from other religious traditions and is significantly lower than the general adult male population which may double these number" comes out of blue and shall be removed along with all other attempts to prove the 'we are not worse than others' Catholic Church mantra. As a proof of rejections of this mantra I offer:

When one considers the fact that this is the very institution that has produced and sheltered an elite army of child-molesters, the whole enterprise begins to exude a truly diabolical aura of misspent human energy.

from Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris, Random House Digital, Inc., 2008 page 66 See also http://www.samharris.org

John Manly, the Newport Beach attorney, who had represented Ryan DiMaria and hundreeds of wictims of clergy sexual abuse since 2001. ... His research shows about 6 percent of Catholic priests molest minors.

from Losing my religion: how I lost my faith reporting on religion in America--and found unexpected peace by William Lobdell, HarperCollins, 2009 page 218

Covering Up Evil from (read the whole section)

from Meeting the Ethical Challenges of Leadership: Casting Light Or Shadow by Craig Edward Johnson SAGE, 2008 page 129

Rodriguez notes that various estimates of the number of priests, and even bishops, who abuse minors range from 3 percent to 6 percent, though the figure for Spain may be even higher,

from Child Abuse by Lucinda Almond, Greenhaven Press, 2006 page 39

Estimates of the number of priests accused of child sexual abuse, the number of victims, and the number of incidents of abuse within the Catholic Church are based on allegations recorded in church personnel files, court filings, and media reports. Since many victims never disclose their abuses, the estimates are, by all accounts, low, and there is no way of knowing by just how much. There are also estimates of the number of priests who sexually abuse children based on clinical experience or small survey samples, but these do not support reliable generalizations.

from Holding bishops accountable: how lawsuits helped the Catholic Church confront clergy sexual abuse by Timothy D. Lytton; Harvard University Press, 2008

The last one I consider the more serious response to the Plante's commissioned by the Church 'statistics'

Bottom line. In order to improve these two sections, I propose removal of the Polish Pope's mantra about the sin and Plante's 'statistics'. The replacement should be for Plante and the likes Timothy D. Lytton--71.178.110.201 (talk) 19:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Pardon my french, but who the fuck are you to tell us what "shall" be removed? Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, which means you work WITH everyone, including us stinking, evil, propagandist Catholics. There is no "shall be removed" and there is no "mantra" without a consensus. Keep that in mind for future discussions.Farsight001 (talk) 20:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I was a Catholic once; thanks for admitting your bias, but please try to see beyond it. Letting a child come to harm is a despicable crime, but aiding and abetting those who harm children, so that they escape justice? That's monstrous. IP71.178.110.201's point is a little confused at times (I don't think he or she is a native English speaker), but the gist, I think, is to unbias the article -- which is always for the better on Wikipedia. Stolengood (talk) 18:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

First of all, where did I admit bias? Second of all, my bias, just like your bias, is irrelevant as long as it is not controlling us. Third, this is not a forum. We are here to discuss improvement to the article, not how abhorrent we think child abuse is, or any theories on supposed aiding and abetting the perpetrators. Fourth, I don't think that was the gist of what he was getting at. He's edited before under different IP's and he wanted it turned into a scathing hit piece that implied that seemed to imply that every single priest was a repeat offender and that every Catholic thinks it's a great thing. Fifth, even if the gist was actually to unbias the article, simply saying so doesn't help. Specific examples are needed with merit and reason and discussion that in some articles can take months. Without that, there's nothing really to do.Farsight001 (talk) 03:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I've already warned you to avoid personal attacks and incivilties. Moreover, I accidentally came across of some earlier warning against the same nature of your behavior here. "He's edited before under different IP's and he wanted it turned into a scathing hit piece that implied that seemed to imply that every single priest was a repeat offender and that every Catholic thinks it's a great thing"?!! It seems to me that you cannot help yourself get out of this perpetual rant. You'll force me to escalate this case demanding block on you account .--Eleven Nine (talk) 14:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead and try. What I said wasn't a personal attack, here or there. "Personal attack" has a specific meaning on wikipedia and what I said does not qualify as one, or as any real policy violation at all. Now if you don't have something to add to the discussion, please desist. Warnings of this nature should typically go on a user's talk page (only when justified, of course).Farsight001 (talk) 14:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Why this article is un-encyclopaedic and how to make it better.

I'd like to start first with the language used in this article. Most of the article used a

A. Devalued language used by the Roman Catholic Church (further RCC) - testimonies are called allegations - crime is called sin - rapes is called abuses In order to get a practical example of the devalued language, read this article, which summarizes in this quote

"Such a delightfully useful word. It creates just the right amount of wriggle-room to allow a putatively penitent prelate allow an outside perception of deepest repentance while not really feeling such a thing at all."

To fix it: Use the language of common people, language of the sources that do not belong to the RCC

The next problem is in so-called

B. Church response, Vatican response that took more than five pages (out of 17) reduced to what Roman Curia and the RCC overall said, declared, or wrote. Behind this curtain is obstruction of justice, secrecy, abuse of power, self-defense. Here are some recorded and proven pieces of information talking about what actually Vatican and the RCC did:

Vatican had direct control over the placement and laicization of Rev. Andrew Ronan

"Also among the documents was a letter from a Provincial Minister to the Prior General in Italy in 1966 that said "we believe it will be possible, if the Holy Father will grant Father Ronan's request, for him to leave quietly and without any open scandal."

"When confronted, Ronan admitted the abuse to his superiors at Our Lady of Benburb, Ireland, according to the documents, but was transferred to a Chicago high school anyway. He abused children there, the documents show, then was transferred to St. Albert's Church in Portland."

Vatican Opposed Reporting of Sexual Abuse

"Recent sexual abuse litigation in the United States has uncovered a letter purportedly from the Vatican’s cardinal Silvio Angelo Pio to Bishop Moreno of Tucson Arizona which says in part:"

“To the second question ("Should we allow or disallow civil lawyers from obtaining Father's personnel records from our Chancery files") we reply that under no condition whatever ought the afore-mentioned files be surrendered to any lawyer or judge whatsoever.”

"The letter goes on to say:"

“Your Excellency should therefore make known immediately and with clarity that no priest's files will be sent to any lawyer or judge whatever.”

Did someone at Catholic institutions in Netherlands graduate from abuse to murder?

"After all, it was less than a year ago that former Dutch Bishop Jan Bluyssen stood accused of shredding church documents related to sexual and emotional abuse cases in the archdiocese, all while he was refusing to testify in front of Deetman commissioners."

"And that is the most disgusting part: we know now without a doubt that Catholic bishops and priests didn’t generally prey on the kids of their well-to-do parishioners. They targeted poor kids, destitute kids, kids without parents or hope or homes. They even targeted kids who were mentally challenged."

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/martina-devlin/martina-devlin-church-is-selfdestructing-in-response-to-sex-abuse-2857064.html

"In the flurry of scandals engulfing this institution in Ireland, it has been the hierarchy's reaction to clerical sex abuse rather than the crimes themselves which have caused most havoc.

Archbishop Diarmuid Martin clearly realises that. But amid the upper echelons of the church he represents, this upright and isolated man is a lone voice in the wilderness.

Meanwhile, with their scattergun public statements, often clumsily worded, senior clergyman after senior clergyman demonstrates persistent and perhaps even willful blindness about the extent of the problem. Hardly surprising, then, that they seem incapable of offering leadership."

To fix it: Reduce the Roman Curia and the RCC declarations, sayings and other verbal expressions to its real dimension in scope (self-defense, denial, deception) and give far more room to the victims and their advocates and the real responses of the RCC to this scandal (protection of abusers, no care paid to the victims, use all legal and illegal means to avoid compensation and criminal actions against the priests)

C. Statistics and commissioned reports - all written by or commissioned by the RCC One illustrative examples that is not coming from the RCC is this one: [1] which content I'd like to summarize by this quote:

"For too long the Church has only tried to protect itself, with total disregard for the thousands of innocent victims who will continue for the remainder of their lives to bear the moral stigmas of the abuses suffered. Only in the United States more than 5,000 priests (including 16 bishops and archbishops) have been accused of sexual abuse from the 1950’s to the current days. The number of their victims is estimated to be in excess of 150,000, as a result of the fact that each paedophile priest abused more than one victim, in one well publicised case in Massachusetts a priest admitted to having used violence on over 100 children of both sexes. The vastness of the phenomenon was well known at the Vatican since the middle of the 1980’s, but until the scandal erupted at the beginning of the new millennium the Church tried with all possible means to avoid that the terrible truth surfaced, for example moving the accused priests to other parishes or even to other countries, to make sure that they evaded ordinary justice. In many cases the same priests continued to use sexual violence on new unaware victims, thus increasing the responsibility of those who, in order to protect the Church’s reputation, decided not to bring these crimes out in the open."

To fix it: Drop the statistics of the RCC self-defense, and mention it just as a means of the self-deffense. Switch to the latest and truly independent sources like the one I've quoted above.

D. Number of references used in the article is too excessive and to selective. There is 184 references used to support the existing article version. Many of them are simply repeating the same claims and are again supportive to the RCC and against the victimized people and their advocates.

To fix it:It is ok to use a number of references supporting the tactics and manouevres of the RCC but they shall be reduced to their representative sources, much smaller in the numbers. Give far more room to the sources presenting the victims, independent researchers and academia, and the victims' advocates.

E. Use of false and incomplete information I'll pay attention to just two cases: Thomas Plante's position with Stanford University. It is clear that he does not represent the Stanford academia nor research and he cannot be mentioned as one as the "clinical associate professor at Stanford". The second problem is with the RCC alleged prosecution under Nazi regime in Germany. The period of Nazism is marked by the cooperative and submissive role of the RCC. Bear in mind that the highest represenative of the RCC in Germany was a honorary guest of the NSDAP congress in Nuremberg (1934) and that the Reichconcordat was complemented by the RCC right to freely spread the Roman Catholicism in the newly conquered regions (by Nazis) in on the East of Europe.

To fix it: Never enter incomplete, out-of-context, historically questionable information in this article

F. The most recent development of this scandal is not visible in the article

To fix it: Start reading and tracking it and updating the article. I propose some of them: here, here, here

G. The scandal consequences The article did not address them at all. Reading some articles I've learned that, before the scandal broke, there was 35% of Roman Catholics in the USA. Some latest pools reduced it to 25%. Complaints of the USA RCC are that the Church attendance dropped 25%, there is no enough priests and overall interest in the priesthood in the USA is below the current needs. Number of people in Germany and Austria who formally left the RCC is 250 000 and 86 000 respectively in 2010. The next is - governments are less and less protective and tolerant to the RCC. See the latest development in Ireland, Germany and Netherlands. Public demands are raised in Ireland for full compensations of the victims by the RCC money.

To fix it: A separate section of the article named 'Consequences' shall be written based on reliable and available sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.110.141 (talk) 18:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Be bold and do it. Some of your changes, particularly the ones which are large in scope, may be reverted. That's ok. When they get reverted, then hash them out on this talk page. However, you won't know which ones are contentious and which need discussion until you try them out and make changes to the article yourself. Also, please create an account to make discussion with you easier. Right now, you're hopping from ip to ip, which can make that hard. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Reading the intro, it is fully of softening words, especially 'alleged', making it sound like there is limited proof of actual wrongdoing by clergy. The fact is, many clergy have been convicted of sexual abuse. This is what is notable, moreso than allegations of abuse. When talking about specific people accused of abuse, but not convicted, we need to use 'alleged' out of fairness and legal reasons, but the fact is, that sexual abuse of Catholics is not just alleged, it has been proven on many occasions and the article needs to reflect this. Ashmoo (talk) 07:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Generally the lead seems ok to me - it mentions that there were both allegations and convictions, and that seems accurate. Some allegations were proven (the convictions part) and some were not. The scandal involves both, so both should be referred to, not just convictions. - Bilby (talk) 08:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Really? To start with, the lede contains this: '...ongoing investigations into allegations and convictions...', which is incredibly poor English. Does it mean that there are investigations into convictions? I'm guessing not. Second, it puts the convictions after the investigations/allegations, whereas, surely, actual convictions are more notable than allegations. Thirdly, most of the lede focuses on the media attention, rather than the facts of abuse, which is poor style. Compare this to any other WP article on criminal proceedings, for example the O._J._Simpson_murder_case which also received lots of media attention (note, I am drawing to equivalence between the these two cases, except the media attention). These articles mention the media aspect of the case, but focus on the facts of what happened in both the crimes and trials. Ashmoo (talk) 09:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree about the way it is written. I guess my concern is that the comments above can be read as "drop references to allegations in the lead", when the allegations are, and remain, a major part of the scandal. So the lead needs to continue to refer to allegations as well as convictions. The text can certainly be improved, but I'd hate to see the reference to the allegations removed. Otherwise, the comments can be read as a request to change the text to present allegations as facts, which is a more serious legal problem, and therefore not what I was assumed was meant. - Bilby (talk) 09:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that allegations are important and should remain in the lede, and of course, that we should take care to never state as fact something that has only been alleged. My only concern is that the allegations and media response seems to be focused on over the confirmed acts of abuse, which seems the opposite of what an encyclopedia should be doing. Ashmoo (talk) 10:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure you're not surprised, but I must disagree with the suggestion to be bold. Your whole gripe seems ultimately be that Catholic sources are used and that the language is not as strong as you would like it to be. Whats wrong with using Catholic sources? Nothing. Our rules regarding bias dictate how the article is presented, not the sources we us. Also, removal of words such as "alleged" in a lot of places will create BLP violations are require immediate reversion without warning per policy. (A BLP issue is potentially a legal one, and wikipedia does not want to be sued). "testimonies" are referred to as allegations for this exact reason - allegation is the proper legal term unless a conviction has occurred, and in over half of all cases, there is no conviction. Abuse is also the proper legal term, and is more accurate anyway because not all instances involve rape. Your source, being an opinion piece, is also not useable. So there is nothing to fix here. The language used here is not the "language of the RCC", but is proper and precise terminology.

Next, your article states that the U.S. lawyer claims that the Vatican knew, which is not the same as stating that the Vatican knew as a fact. The lawyer is making an assertion, which we can talk about, but it must be spoken of as that laywer's assertion per policy. Furthermore, simply stating that the Vatican knew would not be clear enough anyway. As we all know, psychologists and psychiatrists of the day believed that abuse was a single target issue and their professional suggestion to various organizations with this issue was to move the abuser and keep things quiet so as not to embarrass and further scar the victim. Hence it is innaccurate and misleading to suggest that the Vatican simply tried to hide abuse.

Your next source is a blog and thus does not meet WP:RS criteria. But please not here that even in this blog which is by a lawyer, he prefers the terms "allegation" and "abuse". This is, again, because these are the proper terminology. The source after that is also an opinion piece and I'd be doubting it's reliability even if it weren't. They next source is ALSO an opinion piece and is not useable. So I don't see your suggestion to "fix it" happening here either. Especially since your sources, despite not being useable as sources, also say almost nothing to support what you want added to "fix" the issues. "Use of all legal and illegal means to avoid compensation?" Considering the massive number of payouts happening which are closing down some churches when church lawyers could easily stretch things out for years, I can't help but see such a statement as little more than ridiculous bullshit.

On to issue 3. You first cite another unuseable opinion piece. In addition, the articles numbers actually match the numbers already in the article pretty well - not exactly, but not too far off either. So what is there to "fix" here?

to issue D, you are literally suggesting that we give less sources. Seriously? We should be adding even more if anything. An article like this is often heated and benefits from over-sourcing as a result. What could we possibly gain by simply cutting citations? Nothing. Also, you seem to have a misconception about the weight of this issue in the public. This article is not precisely balanced with the public, but you seem to think it is multiple orders of magnitude off when it is not. In addition, if you actually totalled up the citations, you would see that present the victim's, acadamia's, and researcher's perspectives are cited at a rate of roughly 5 to 1 over the Catholic Church, so it is in no way the way you claim.

Regarding E - that is his position, so it is proper to call him such. Whether or not Standford supports him or his study is irrelevant. We do not stop calling professors and researchers what they are simply because the institution they work for has not publicly supported their efforts. And the CC's cooperation with the Nazi's is a widely known myth. As anyone who has studied this period of history should know, the Nazi's put to death approximately 1 million Catholics in their concentration camps and that high level clergy, including Pius XII, was directly involved in helping to save the lives of thousands upon thousands of Jews. Regardless of all this, it's irrelevant. The article is about Catholic sex abuse cases, and the Nazi's brought forth many cases against the Church during their regime. Hence such a section is completely relevant to the article, regardless of whether or not the Church helped the Nazis, and as that section makes little mention of the Church's position at that time, it's completely irrelevant to the article what that position was.

Regarding F - having the most recent developments are not a problem. I would remind you, though, that wikipedia is not a news service. What I mean by this is that wikipedia intentionally tries to avoid recentism - concentrating on the present to the neglect of the past. So be careful in how much concentration you place on recent changes - especially since the very new "breaking" stories tend to change some as more information comes out.

Regarding G - if Catholic numbers have indeed dropped by that much in the last 6-7 years, that would definitely be notable. However, all the statistics I have seen have indicated a rise, not drop, in Catholics. It is a strange phenomenon, but when members of some religion commit an atrocity, their numbers typically increase over the next several years instead of decrease. We saw this same phenomenon with converts to Islam post-9/11. So a drop - especially such a drastic one - is very atypical.

I would not be opposed to a consequences section, though I wonder if (and I place this as a question because I am not sure either way) we should stick with the consequences being places in their relevant sections instead of in their own separate section.

Lastly, I must say again that you really need to cut it with the "shall be written" language. Again, wikipedia is a collaborative effort. There is no "shall be" anything without consensus. Making such statements makes it sound like you're trying to control (WP:OWN) the article.Farsight001 (talk) 09:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• To anon user: Please, start with simple proposal of the introductory paragraph. Don't include the last sentence of the existing paragraph ('instituted reforms to prevent future abuse') I'm all in line of your thinking.
• To Farsight001: majority of us is against keeping this really, really bad article as is. Calling upon the consensus means only that you want blocking any collaborative effort here. You are the one against any serious collaboration which you confirmed by this lengthy response. So stop selling your wishes, opinions, disqualifications of the proposed changes if you want any collaboration here.--Eleven Nine (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I think Farsight is right with its critics against IP. IP is simply demanding changing the POV of the article to match with his opinion about the sex abuse cases. The sources delivered by IP are either biased or too recent to draw the proposed conclusions on it IP's proposing. But WP works on facts supported by reliable sources.

From my point of view it's too much emotion in here. This is a controversial issue and so we should cool down.

I agree that there are still a lot of things to be added to complete the knowledge about the when, why and how of the abuse cases. But that can easily be done by proposing things and reach consensus on the talk page.

But concerning the debate on the word "allegation", I'd like to mention that this point was already discussed here. Farsight is right. A lot of cases are alleged. That's a fact. To name it otherwise we need convictions or admissions of guilt. This is not given in all cases.

Perhaps a pause of reflection would be the best for all. Spamming the talk page with excessive accusations, claims, demands and off-topic-discussions won't help to improve the article. On the other hand I'd like to agree with Jess. If someone finds one point overrepresented he can outweight it by adding source-based information of other POVs. For example Germany: Instead of trying to delete relevant information on the Third Reich, it would be better to add information about cases happened afterwards. There is in fact still a huge gap. Any constructive expansion of that part would be welcomed.

This might be a better way of article improvement than never ending ideological discussions.

--Ricerca (talk) 20:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Really Eleven Nine? You should chill out. In what way was my lengthy response evidence that I am against any serious collaboration? I would think a detailed response would indicate, rather, my desire for collaboration. Those who do not want such a thing, typically edit and edit and edit and neglect discussion and accuse anyone who reverts them of bias or vandalism, etc. I am not selling wishes or opinions. I am trying to explain policy and give detailed reason for why a change should or should not be made. If you have a problem with my reasons, then respond to them instead of slinging accusations at me.Farsight001 (talk) 20:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

See this discussion IP hopper? This is on the EXACT subject and it is still here and still ongoing. So discuss here. Starting the discussion over is disruptive and not helpful to collaboration.Farsight001 (talk) 16:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Once again, you tried to start this very conversation over by adding a new section nearly identical to this one. The conversation already exists here. So continue the conversation here please. Starting a new one so you can ignore what those who disagree with you have to say is not collaborative or productive. All we'll do is respond to that, and then you'll start another new one, and then we'll respond to that, ad nauseum.Farsight001 (talk) 15:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

most recent edits

There was a small edit made recently, which I reverted and suggested we discuss. I was reverted under the claim that it was already discussed. Since that is obviously not true, being that there is no discussion about it here, I'm starting one. so discuss. :) Farsight001 (talk) 23:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand the edit-war on that subject. In the NYT-article Cupich ist quoted with the following phrase: “There was mounting evidence in the world of psychology that indicated that when medical treatment is given, these people can, in fact, go back to ministry.” and Plante supports this assertion by "In fact, the vast majority of the research on sexual abuse of minors didn't emerge until the early 1980's. So, it appeared reasonable at the time to treat these men and then return them to their priestly duties." So what's the critique? --Ricerca (talk) 07:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it an edit war, but I'm sorry if I made a change that was considered a revert, I thought I was making a compromise edit. The problem with the sentence as I see it is two-fold. One, the sources do not say that psychiatrists believed this, only bishops. Ricerca, the quote you give above is from a bishop, not a psychiatrist. He is saying what he imagined psychologists believed, but without a source directly from a psychologist/psychiatrist, we can only say that bishops believed psychology said this. Indeed, the rest of the article seems to be saying that psychologists didn't believe that at the time. And secondly, the grammar is a bit weird and seems to be saying that psychiatrists are defending themselves, which I think, isn't the case. Ashmoo (talk) 08:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

You might have actually made a compromise edit. But ideally, we would still discuss it before making said edit. As for your reasoning - first, Plante, one of the authors of the sources, is a psychiatrist, and he clearly says this in the article, so at least one psychiatrist is saying it. It is this source that is provided for the perspective of psychiatrists. The Times article is provided for the perspective of the bishops. As the article says, "...some bishops and psychiatrists..." The Plante article supports this claim for the psychiatrists, and the Times article does the same for the bishops, instead of one source making the claim for the both of them. Also keep in mind that this is the lede of the article. Ideally, it has no sources at all since it is supposed to be a summary of the article, and thus sources are found below.Farsight001 (talk) 15:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree, in theory, that the lede doesn't necessarily need to include every cite, but in this case, the main article must contain the cite that supports the claim being made. Regarding Plante, I could not find the text that supported the claim in the cited article. Could you identify the part of the text that contains it? Furthermore, begin the lede, I think we need stronger sources than a single author. A 3rd party report, or a statement by a psychological/psychiatrist organisation is much better. In articles as obviously controversial as this one, I think we need to insist on very good sources to avoid problems, as it is easy to find single specialists in any field to support any assertion. Lastly, the other source cited actually says that the general feeling in psychiatry at the time was to not give molesters further access to children, but the text says nothing of this. Ashmoo (talk) 12:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Vox populi, vox dei

All Wikipedia articles have attached a small questionnaire, at the article bottom: Rate this page: Trustworthy Objective Complete Well-written

This article is not trustworthy nor objective for obviously being written by people who are coming from the RCC clergy or by some deaf and blind Catholics. Equally it is not complete nor well-written. Wikipedia shall make visible and browseable all questionnaires answered and commented, which shall be used to validate this article. My overall number of stars is zero for this version of article.

Any attempt to make any positive change is prevented by some who are just dedicated to prevent it. The three of them are bilby, farsight, ricerca (or, maybe, one person with three logins). Ricerca is dedicated to only this article and to only reverts.

No matter how long this bad article will be bad, people will be reading other articles like the one here. The most interesting thing are the readers' comments which are overwhelmingly (90%) negative and hostile toward the RCC. What I learned from these comments are: both Popes (Ratzinger and Wojtyla) were Nazi collaborators: Ratzinger ,Hitler's soldier from 1943 to just two months before the Nazi Germany collapse, Wojtyla, an I.G. Farben sales loyal representative whose workplace was just 6 miles from a large concentration camp in Poland. I. G. Farben was supplying zyklon gas to the camp. My earlier knowledge is about Pope Paul VI who signed the Reihchconcordat extension allowing the Vatican to freely spread Catcholicism in Yugoslavia and Russia.

I've mentioned this to shed proper light to the alleged persecution of the RCC in Germany. The fact is that paedophilia in Germany is much older than it was thought and putting allegations about paedophilia in Nazi Germany could only shed some positive light on Nazis.

Improve: My advice to the Wikipedia RCC followers is to remove Germany, Third Reich 1933-1945 section. Please, do not irritate readers of this article more than necessary.

Improve: Introductory shall contain only

The Catholic sex abuse cases are a series of ongoing investigations into allegations and convictions for sex crimes committed by Catholic priests and members of religious orders.[1] These cases began receiving public attention beginning in the mid-1980s.[2] There has been criminal prosecutions of the abusers and civil lawsuits against the church's dioceses and parishes.

Sexual abuse of minors by priests receives significant media attention in Canada, Ireland, the United States, the United Kingdom, Mexico, Belgium, France, and Germany, while cases have been reported throughout the world.

In addition to cases of abuse, much of the scandal has focused around members of the Catholic hierarchy who did not report abuse allegations to the civil authorities. In many cases they reassigned those accused to other locations where they continued to have contact with minors.[3]

It shall be added that the targeted victims were coming from the poor, disabled, or were orphans i.e. practically defenceless people. The other part of introductory shall be completely omitted and mentioned in the Vatican and the RCC defense. Popes explanation of the sin nature of this crime shall be not mentioned at all. This crime is at first crime, then sin which is well known and understandable to even the half-brained.

Later, I'll rewrite the introductory and see what are the opinions of other users.--66.151.103.9 (talk) 14:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.52.207.75

This is good! It's worth mentioning that Paceli (Pius XII) was the Hitler's Pope - it the time of alleged (?) child abuse in Germany. Read excellent Cornwell's book about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.52.207.75 (talk) 13:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

As to the alleged persecution of the Catholic Church in Nazi Germany (1933-37) for the child sex crime committed there, I found only one historically valid assessment of it. Some Holocaust historian wrote that Vatican and their Church did not fight back for being sure they would lose. I did not read Cornwell's Hitler's Pope. Is there anything written about this alleged persecution of the catholic Church?--66.151.103.9 (talk) 12:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Can't remember where Cornwell had an assessment like the one you mentioned above, if any. Read the book chapter 7: Hitler and German Catholicism--216.52.207.75 (talk) 14:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

One, this has nothing to do with article improvement. We are not a book club. So please get back to the subject. Two, if your true goal is to be fair and un-biased, then you should probably be checking out The Myth of Hitler's Pope as well. Hitler's Pope is mostly regarded as historical hogwash among scholars.Farsight001 (talk) 14:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with others that this should have been included in the previous section on the lead, not in a new section. That said, in regard to your suggested changes to the lead, the role of the lead is to summarise the article as a whole. Your changes, leaving out the Church's response, would be both counter to the neutral point of view policy and the manual of style on writing leads. So no, I don't think that it would be a good idea to change the lead as you describe. - Bilby (talk) 13:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what Ratzinger's relationship to Nazi Germany has to do with the article. If you have a reliable source making the connection clear, please provide it. Having said that, I agree that the intro is a mess and full of tortured language. I agree that the RCC's response definitely needs to be in the intro, but at the moment, the RCC response is about half of the intro, and the half that isn't presenting the RCC point of view talks just as much about the 'scandal' as it does about the facts of what has happened. Ashmoo (talk) 15:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, but what this In response to the widening scandal, Pope John Paul II emphasized the spiritual nature of the offenses. He declared in 2001 that "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."[7] has to do with this article? Or, why almost 11 000 testimonies about this heinous crime against Catholic children only in the USA are not mentioned in the summary section of this article? Even more, how this Woytyla's statement might have any moral weight knowing the fact that Woytyla was an I.G. Farben sales representative during the WWII? Read about it directly from Murder in the Vatican: The Revolutionary Life of John Paul and the CIA, Opus Dei and the 1978 Murders by Lucien Gregoire, Publisher AuthorHouse, 2008 ISBN 1434387232, 9781434387233, page 103. My friends, Wikipedia must follow the common sense moral line, not an arbitrarily interpreted Wikipedia guidance by some of you. I was born and raised as a Roman Catholic, but I am not convinced that two last popes were/are Catholics. --71.178.110.141 (talk) 16:53, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

To Ashmoo: The true Vatican and the RCC response was and is obstruction of justice, protection of the paedophiles, and self-defense. About this true response you have a great number of references based on collected and verified documents and testimonies. If you put in the article summary the true response (not the declarative and verbal ones) then I wouldn't object.--71.178.110.141 (talk) 17:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

First, what do you mean what does the Pope's words on the sex abuse scandal have to do with the sex abuse scandal? The relevance is extremely obvious. What are you trying to get at?

Second, 11,000 testimonies there are not. There might be 11,000 accusations, but considering that over half of all accusations have been determined to be false, then there is clearly nowhere near 11,000 testimonies. Where are you getting these numbers?

Third, JP2's job during WW2 is completely and utterly irrlevant to this article. In addition, he was in no way a zyklon B salesman. That is a ridiculous myth promoted in your even more ridiculous book. His young life is well documented, and there's nothing in it about this. He worked at a factory, but was never involved in zyklon B production (which had a legitimate and innocent use when he was working at that factory anyway) and was not working there when WW2 began. Please, I implore you, raise your standards when it comes to sources. The stuff you cite is so ridiculous sometimes.

Fourth, and most important, Wikipedia actually must NOT follow "the common sense moral line". Wikipedia follows verifiability by credible sources and nothing else. Wikipedia does not have "morals" to follow, but only guidelines.Farsight001 (talk) 18:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, forgive me for badly reading the reference. It's about 15,000 of testimonies. Who and where prove that more that half of the were false? Here is the correction

Data on the Crisis
The Human Toll

Thousands of Catholic clergy and religious have raped and sodomized tens of thousands of children—perhaps more than 100,000 children—since 1950. These crimes were committed in secret, and bishops nurtured that secrecy. Nearly 15,000 survivors have broken through the silence, and their accounts have created an in-depth picture of the crisis, both in their own writings and in the work of journalists and law enforcement officials. Attorneys have obtained diocesan documents that reveal additional survivor witness and also document parts of a huge cover-up. But for every account that is known, hundreds are not yet public. In order to understand the crisis fully and take the necessary policy actions, the in-depth testimony of individual survivors must be combined with data that capture the breadth of the crisis.

--71.178.110.141 (talk) 19:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)