Talk:Catholic Church sexual abuse cases

This article is awfully incomplete, inaccurate, and Vatican mind leaning

This article suffers heavily from incompleteness which is reflected in grossly neglected victims' experience and inability for decades to effectively counter the rapes (which are, in the Vatican parlance, called sexual abuse cases) and, on another hand, in "Vatican responses" which were actually coverup and obstruction of justice.

The Yahoo News Religion section is full (on the daily basis for the last 10 years) of horrible and never ending stories about children being raped by the Roman Catholic Church clergy.

Accordingly, to radically improve the content of this article, all "statistics" and Vatican responses (which were no more than ineffective and meaningless declarations) shall be unconditionally removed. The "statistics" is misleading and far from being complete and accurate. Any Vatican defense minded articles shall be scrutinized through independent reviews.--71.178.101.2 (talk) 18:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

You again? There is no "shall" anything. We are not here to cater to you and your desires for this article. This is an encyclopedia. That means we dispassionately report what reliable source say. We do not advocate for either side. We report what reliable sources say. Reliable sources call it sex abuse, and so we call it sex abuse, not rape. Reliable sources call them Vatican responses, and thus, so do we. Calling things coverups and obstruction of justice, which are precise legal terms, when they, legally, aren't those things, is a good way for wikipedia to get sued.

If you do not have a specific suggestion for article improvement, don't bother posting again. This talk page is for article improvement ONLY.Farsight001 (talk) 20:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'd like to suggest removal of all Vatican based or Vatican affiliated "sources" for being out of We report what reliable sources say. ms/mr Farsight. What is really missing is a section about the grave consequences (to the Vatican and its church)of this scandal which still lasts and goes back 70 years in 20ieth century. Ireland removed her ambassador from Vatican, number of Germans who declared themselves Catholics slipped as low as 3.5%, number of the Catholic Church goers in the US dropped 25%, etc. It is too obvious that the Roman Catholic Church lost her moral ground and religious influence worldwide. All this shall go to the section called "The scandal consequences", for example. Ms/mr Farsight, the article advocates only one side, the Catholic Church, no matter how authoritative your response might sound. Please, be kind of not teaching what is encyclopaedia.--71.178.101.2 (talk) 02:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Good point! I would go further: remove completely Debate over causes for being pointless and out of touch with reality. Farsight, all media wrote and talked and is still writing and talking about the Church coverup and obstruction of justice. Don't see any ever sued by Vatican or someone else. --68.98.167.207 (talk) 02:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Cut the crap, IP71. You're the same IP hopper that has posted previously and IP68 is the same person. Sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry, even when using IP addressess, is still a blockable offense.

In addition, it is complete and utter bullshit to claim that the article advocates only one side. Simply glancing over the section titles, let alone reading the article itself, makes this abundantly clear.

Either way, you need a reliable source to include any of this information in the first place, and it has to be notable enough, as we are an encyclopedia, not a compendium of every little tidbit of knowledge on the subject. Your claims about membership decline (the numbers I've seen actually indicate growth, not decline) really mean nothing without a reliable source, as I already explained above. You can rant and rave and claim a thousand different things, but without a reliable source, nothing will change.Farsight001 (talk) 03:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Any of your multiple IP addresses, mysterious IP hopper, want to actually discuss your desired changes in the article like an adult instead of ignoring me and charging ahead blindly? Your refusal to discuss the issue and come to some sort of agreement first is a good way to lose editing privileges around here. At the very least, it's quite uncharitable.Farsight001 (talk) 14:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

balance in lead

Does anyone else see it as a problem that the lead spends more time justifying, alibing and "contextualising" on behalf of the Catholic Church than it does on the actual abuse the article is supposedly about? Haldraper (talk) 05:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I would argue for removal of all of the lead from the words "In defending..." in the third paragraph onwards. It's not lead material. HiLo48 (talk) 05:55, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

As the lead makes accusations against the Roman Catholic Church (justified as they are), it seems reasonable to include a reply for neutrality. The extent and wording of that reply is tricky, but it does seem necessary to include something. - Bilby (talk) 07:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Something yes, but giving more space in the lead to the Catholic Church's defence of its actions than to the abuse itself is far from neutral. Haldraper (talk) 12:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would agree that it is more space per se - there are two lines on the Church's defence and two lines on the Church's response. Ideally, though, the lead should reflect and summarise the body - it might be worth hashing out something which better reflects the content of the article as a whole. - Bilby (talk) 00:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

How about this?

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

Sexual abuse of minors by priests has received significant media attention in Canada, Ireland, the United States, the United Kingdom, Mexico, Belgium, France, and Germany, with cases reported throughout the world. In addition to the abuse, much of the scandal has focused around members of the Catholic hierarchy who are alleged not to have reported abuse to the civil authorities and reassigned those accused to other locations where they continued to have contact with minors.

Haldraper (talk) 15:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

All in all very well, but this is a view of the things, that could be seen as biased by other parts of the discussion on the sex abuse cases. So I think, we should keep also the church reactions:

Though recognizing the moral defy of the abuse cases and the demand for an appropriate reaction by the roman-catholic church, handling and presentation of the abuse cases caused also critique by Catholics and others. Media coverage in relation to abuse scandals in non-catholic institution for example has been criticised as excessive. On the other hand the majority of cases date back over 30 years ago. Accused bishops defended their actions on abuse cases as appropriate due to the prevailing psychology of that time suggesting that people could be cured of such behavior through counseling. --Ricerca (talk) 11:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Here you have added text claiming that most offenses date back 30 years or more as an excuse while here you argue that history dating back more than 60 years is important enough to precede the section on actual events. I fail to see the logic. Regarding the German history, perhaps you could better explain how you think it influences current thinking. However from my impression it has extremely little impact today, after war people in Germany had many other worries and the episode is completely forgotten by anyone but historians. Richiez (talk) 22:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The 30 years are the average of most cases according to the John-Jay-Study. But you're right, perhaps this should be added.

The Third Reich importance is given by the relation which was established by bishop Müller of Regesburg in 2010. Form my point of view, we can also do an historical section. But I think the paragraph is important and should be kept. --Ricerca (talk) 11:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not aware that the bishop of Regensburg established anything. Not within Germany and much that anyone noticed outside Germany. When German sex abuse cases are discussed I have never heard someone to take the recourse to third reich. Furthermore this is not about real abuse cases and this article is about "Catholic sex abuse cases", not political processes in the third reich. There is an separate article about that and absolutely no need to duplicate it here. Richiez (talk) 22:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I've opened a new section to discuss that matter below. --Ricerca (talk) 08:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I've cut the third para which to be honest didn't even reach the level of comprehensible English. It might be best if people who want to add things to the lead discuss them here first. Haldraper (talk) 09:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to make a better proposition. But I agree, that things should be discussed here first. Because of that I brought the article back to its original version.

I think a lead should include the following points: 1. What happend (I think your proposition is o.k.) and 2. the reactions of the church. In my opinion, these are the most interesting points for the majority of the readers. On the other hand, this is needed to get a neutral version. Simply repeating the point of view of some medias seems to fail the neutrality standard of WP. Nevertheless we have to keep in mind, that the sex abuse cases are still developing and no one can give a final judgement on it. --Ricerca (talk) 11:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Third Reich

Hi Richiez, lets open here a new thread to seperate this topic from the discussion on neutrality: First: I don't want to make you angry or something like that. I simply think, there should be discussions and consensus before changes. So I brought the article back to its original version.
To the topic:
My point is not to overemphasize the role of the events in the Third Reich.
But in my opinion there are several arguments to keep that section:
1. This article is on the sex abuse cases in generel. It's not only a case list. We can (after a long an thorough discussion) change the nature of this article. But at the moment it focusses also on how sex abuse cases are handled, discussed, etc. That's why there is a section on media inaccuracy or on causes.
2. It is not clear whether the cases discussed in the Third Reich where real, exaggerated or invented. That's the problem. Nevertheless the discussion in Germany also referred to these events. (Here is one link) I think this is also caused by a long tradition of let's call it "sexual discrimination an calumniation" of catholic priests in Germany in the aftermath of Reformation and Enlightement. There is e. g. the "Pfaffenspiegel", etc. and this, as it seems to me, caused the special role of sex abuse by priests in German debates.
3. Several Wikipedias refer to the Third Reich abuse cases. The french WP for example brings it a one of the early mentions. And I think also that it should be kept, perhaps in another section of the article. Perhaps we should also establish a historical section or something like that.
Finally, there has already been a debate on this section not long ago. It resulted in no changes. So I don't think you can't decide that on your own and your preferences. It should take place only after having found consensus here.

--Ricerca (talk) 08:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Nice article that you have linked here. As far as I can tell it says:

• Bishop Mueller tried to use alleged persecution by nazis to excuse current sexual abuse and alleged media are persecuting the church like nazis did in the third reich
• Bishop Mueller created a public scandal by this and was rebutted by "Kurienkardinal Walter Kasper" (presumably his superior), many others and received zero approval except from you.

It would be nice to summarize that in the reactions of the Catholic church but the story of the third reich is off topic here as are the witch hunts and exorcists. Richiez (talk) 19:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Richiez calm down please and stop your POV-led attacks.

1) You forget, that the linked article is from an liberal newspaper giving its point of view ("public scandal") and citing statements of people going along with that. Catholic blogs and also parish-magazines in Germany reacted in far different ways. The very interesting point in that matter is, that Müller never linked abuse to III. Reich (it was a hoax), but that was the first interpretation of one his speeches in the media. (because the events are still known to German Catholics and gloomed in the background and were discussed beneath the level of national medias)

2) Most important: With concentrating on the link and its fast interpretation according to your worldview, you answered to none of the arguments.

Finally we still can say: The historical events in the III. Reich belong to this topic and should be mentioned here. (As have decides multiple other WPs) What we have to discuss is 1) Where to put it and 2) How to bring the sections on Germany in a balance.

I would be pleased to get a constructive proposition from you.

--Ricerca (talk) 08:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Dear Ricerca, please be advised that I interpret all attempts to interpret the state of my mind as a grave sin against WP:CIVILty. Please refrain from personal attacks.

Regarding your arguments, I am perfectly fine to summarize this article under reactions of the church if you agree. However we can only say what to the article says which is the only reliable source that I can see.

Replying to "1. This article is on the sex abuse cases in generel." that may be true but it contradicts your edits where you insisted that something was largely irrelevant because most of the cases were older than 30 years.

Again - you have not replied to my question why you think something that happened 70 years ago should be so emphasized as to become the lead of the German section while there were thousands of real cases less than 30 years old. We could start with 18th century events as well but that would be somewhat contrary to the whole structure of the article.

Replying to "is not clear whether the cases discussed in the Third Reich where real, exaggerated or invented." Your argument contradicts the [wording] which you have several times reinstated that does not allow any doubt that the cases were false and fabricated to malign the CC.

Replying "3. Several Wikipedias refer to the Third Reich abuse cases." It would be best to use the reliable sources from other wikipedias as far as they have something that this article does not. Otherwise those are independent articles that may well have a very different scope.

Replying "Finally, there has already been a debate on this section not long ago". I fail to see how [this] debate should be interpreted as a consensus to keep the current placement and wording as it is. -- Richiez (talk) 21:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Richiez,

I set back the article to the original state. I hope you agree, that consensus is needed before making changes.

To your arguments:

1) Your POV: I refered to formulations as "witch hunts" and imputations as "you insisted that something was largely irrelevant"

2) An article is not as such a relevant source. We also have to carefully be with the source as such. Especially if it about only one-side interpretating sources presented by others. And if you want to, i have additional sources: Link1; Link2

3) "you insisted that something was largely irrelevant because most of the cases were older than 30 years" - That is your a bit deviant interpretation. I cited the John-Jay-Report to describe the situation (as I told you already above). In stating the fact that the majority of cases date back to the 1970ies, I say nowhere something on the importance of these cases. Contrary, we even cite reports, that refer even to cases from 1920. But 1920 was simply not the climax of the development of the number of cases in the 20th century. But your critique shows once again, that it is motivated by a certain POV, that you want to see expressed in this article.

4) I replied to your question on relevance. I told you the content of the section describes historical facts, that are important to understand reactions in Germany on sex abuse cases until today. That is proved by the media discussion on a misinterpreted speech of a German bishop in 2010.

5) "to become the lead of the German section" - if you read my answers above, you will find, that I am not voting for making the Third Reich section the lead. I am only convinced, that an article on catholic sex abuse cases in Germany should also give the necessary background details of the situation in general. The Third Reich sex abuse cases belong to these details as shows the debate in 2010. Moreover keeping the Third Reich section does not decrease the important of sex abuse cases happened later. I trust in the readers to be able to see the difference.

5) "We could start with 18th century events as well but that would be somewhat contrary to the whole structure of the article." Why? Open up at the beginning a historical section (like in the French WP) and everything is fine. By the way, I was critized once by another author to be careful not to concentrate the article to much on the U.S. In this way the Third Reich section is important,too.

6) "wording" - I don't see the contradiction. The section describes the campaign of the Nazis and emphazises that also innocent people were accused. There is no statement on sex abuse allegations in general.

7) "how [this] debate should be interpreted as a consensus to keep the current placement and wording as it is" I never interpreted it as such. I only see, that there is no consensus to simply delete the whole section. That's for me the point.

--Ricerca (talk) 01:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Ricerca, please fix your comments so that they are readable and in English. You can ask for help at Wikipedia:Local Embassy.

Also, this is the last warning to avoid personal attacks. Richiez (talk) 15:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Introduction is unclear, hazy, and doesn't represent true nature of scandal

The intro doesn't address at all the main problems with the scandal; it wasn't the scandal itself that causes shock but the reaction to said scandal. The intro is very incomplete and would mislead any new users of Wikipedia into thinking that the scandal WAS a past problem that has been addressed and now everybody has moved on. This is totally not the picture that we want to send out. Truth is the scandal is ongoing and is only widening as the reach of the Catholic empire continues to expand. Catholics do not view this scandal as a book that is closed, in fact many court cases are pending and every month lawyers for the Church manage to cover up scandals, settle with the involved parties, and defend new scenarios of child sexual predators in the Catholic Church. This Wikipedia article is a pathetic attempt to inform the public of what has happened and needs to be cleaned up. We need to start off with the introduction.

In the introduction we want to focus on the scandal and the aftermath of the scandal. While the article does do a satisfactory job of describing the scandal, it focuses little to none on the reaction to the scandal by the public and the papal hierarchy. Most of the attention itself isn't on the scandal anymore. Much of the general populace has accepted that X percentage of the church's clergy is you know what. So the public has moved on and that river has been crossed. What is now the current point of contention is if the Church acted as strongly as it needed to, to punish and persecute those responsible for the scandal. While most of the Papal leadership in the top rungs is not implicated in the scandal (as of yet), their response to those lower in the organization has been pathetically underwhelming. The focus is on this and why it happened. By this I mean the reaction from the top. The article needs to have at least an opening paragraph stating what I just have stated. At a minimum 1-2 paragraphs need to state what is perceived as a lack of responsiveness to the crisis and a public disgust of the handling of the scandal. While the few church supporters say the crisis was handled well the vast majority of the unaffected public disagrees.

In the next few weeks more research will be cited and the response and the reaction from the Catholic Church and the wide perception of a betrayal or a lack of urgency will the expanded and expounded upon.

12.129.87.3 (talk) 16:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

And just so people are clear we are not talking about Curial response to Catholic sex abuse cases we are talking about the public's response to the Church's reaction to the scandal. The facts are that the church was ineffective and largely swept the scandal under the rug for many years. It is known that the Church denied the scandal right until the last minute and tried to cover it up in any way possible. So the public was rightly incensed at the response and this article while mentioning it in the body does not even give a little bit of a starter or introductory thesis into said controversy.

12.129.87.3 (talk) 17:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

New section needed on internal criticism of the handling of the scandal

While it may seem that way, not all members of the Catholic hierarchy are/were complicit in covering up the prior/continuing scandals. We need to have a section that addresses some of the criticism from inside the papal hierarchy and the groups closely affiliated with them (i.e. Catholic Review, National Catholic Reporter, etc...) There is a plethora of evidence available that shows that not all the members were satisfied or even partially satisfied by the actions that the church and its leadership took. I am going to talk about these in the following paragraphs. I am hesitant to add a new section to the article by myself but I first wanted to discuss this here before I start changing the article and some nut starts yelling at me.

So this the first article that talks about the lack of a response. It is done by editor Dennis Coday an esteemed figure in the American Catholic arena. Here is the exchange between David Gibson, who covers the Catholic Church for Religion News Service, and Dennis Coday, editor of the National Catholic Reporter.

Coday: I think the main problem is that, despite what Cardinal Dolan says, there is no accountability. There is no punishment mechanism for bishops. There's a one strike {against papal response/leadership}.

Gibson: Right. Exactly.

This goes to show you that most people even those heavily involved in Catholic circles consider the response to be meager and some of the criticisms come from inside the church and church-affiliated groups.

Here is an another article by the Columbus Republic stating that church clergy gave mainly negative reviews of the church's handling of the crisis.

"Some priests were angered at diocesan leaders for their lack of action, and others felt shame for the church and for themselves as its representatives. There was paranoia they could be accused falsely, and many said the incidents made them wary of interactions with congregants, especially kids. Some even stopped wearing their collars in public for fear of heckling."

More significance needs to be given to the response of "innocent" bishops and lower level clergy and their repulsion with the scandal engulfing their church.

Fraud claims and opposition to statute of limitations changes

I've reworded two additions which have been added a few times by an IP editor. The first was:

This along with the fact that the church has spent hundreds of millions of dollars in fighting lawsuits and proposed changes in child sex abuse reporting laws casts doubt on whether or not the Church truly apologizes or even cares about the sadistic actions of its priests.[1]

The source supports the statement that the church has been opposing changes to the statute of limitations in regard to child abuse laws, but it doesn't give a figure, nor does it provide a reference for "...casts doubt on whether or not the Church truly apologizes or even cares about the sadistic actions of its priests", which appears to be very much POV. As the statute of limitations opposition was already covered in the lead, I've added the new reference to the existing statement.

The second was:

While there have been few if any responses from the Pope to the scandal, many have been criticizing the slow and careless nature of any actions taken to mitigate the crisis.[2]

The reference here is about a fraud case against the church, where it is argued that the Church misled an abuse victim when it claimed that the accused priest would never work again. It is a serious complaint, but is unrelated to whether or not the Pope has responded to the scandal, and it isn't clear that it supports the claim that the church was "slow and careless". At any rate, the wording presumes that the church was slow and careless, which is probably true, but would need a source providing better support. Accordingly, I've reworded it to focus on the fraud claims. - Bilby (talk) 23:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure you can find a source with a quick google search online to see how much the C.C. is spending in lobbying efforts to fight more lax child sex reporting laws. Tons of info on it. Isn't that despicable. If you don't put that in the edit, then you didn't at all read the news in the past couple of days. This is a watershed moment for the C.C. and wikipedia should be bold enough to report on it and the consequences for all those involved. 108.70.61.233 (talk) 02:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

If you can find a source then that would be great. Except that the lobbying efforts on the statue of limitations were already in the lead, and the other claims you insist on adding are personal opinions not supported by the sources. I may well share your opinion, but that doesn't mean we can drop them into the lead. - Bilby (talk) 03:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I've raised this on the NPOV noticeboard - hopefully some assistance will help move this along one way or the other. - Bilby (talk) 14:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Support that. Wikipedia is for summarizing what is in reliable sources and not for sticking in one's own ideas about things. For 108.70.61.233 there is a short summary of the principles of WIkipedi in WP:5P and the appropriate policies here are WP:Neutral point of view and WP:Verifiability. Dmcq (talk) 18:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I looked at both references and I do not see the information stated in numbers 1 and 2 in either reference. It's just not there in those references. I agree it might very well be that other references exist that present that information. When reliable secondary sources are located that present those points, that would be the time to include the information in the article. I did hear a piece about this on NPR some months ago. If that is considered a reliable source, the IP might check their archives.Coaster92 (talk) 06:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• I'm here from the NPOV noticeboard. I agree that the content that the IP added is per se problematic because of the wording and so on, but the lead really needs to reflect the basic fact that this is an institutional problem. At present, it reads as though it's a problem of individual priests and bottom-tier officials misbehaving while the church hierarchy as a whole works against abuse, which is not reflected in the sources - we would indeed do well to add material about the church's institutional resistance to accountability. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I certainly agree with that. There should be some good papers on the issue that have discussed the wider issues, and would be solid for sourcing. - Bilby (talk) 01:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Introduction idea

I suggest that a sentence or two be added about the very large cash settlements these cases have been generating over the past decade or so. These are always a point of news stories and the amounts are in the millions. To me this would illustrate the divisions between the laws of the country vs how the church views these crimes. A multi-million dollar settlement is pretty clear. Insomesia (talk) 22:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

If you can summarize something about that and fit it in the lead then try doing so, it does sound a reasonable point that very large sums have been paid out and some places have had to declare bankruptcy. The thing that worries me is that I don't understand what you are saying and I don't see what you said would be clear. I get the feeling you want to prove some point and I have to advise that Wikipedia is about summarizing what is in reliable sources and not pushing one's point of view. Dmcq (talk) 23:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll have a look to see if I can form something. My point is that in my experience this is one of the more interesting facts about these cases, that lately there have been some extremely large cash settlements because of the lawsuits. An example is the case of Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston resulting in $157 million awarded to 983 claimants. It speaks to the enormity of some of the cases Insomesia (talk) 00:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

A few points come to mind. One, it would definitely be worth noting as well whether these were settlements or court awards, and, if the latter, whether they were awarded by judges, who tend to give smaller awards, or juries, which can be and often are chosen at least in part for their potential for giving large awards. It would also be worth noting how much emphasis in the trials the various attorneys give to allegations of "deep pockets" of the Catholic church, particularly considering most of their monetary worth is in the buildings they own. And, of course, individuals are also probably equally interested in the Canadian Anglican diocese which was dissolved because it went bankrupt as a result of losses from such suits. Also, it might be worth noting what the awards or settlements for sex abuse by teachers are, considering a recent report seems to indicate such abuse is much more common among teachers than among clergy. John Carter (talk) 00:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

These are good points, the teachers information seems a red herring, that some other profession is worse. Although on a different article that may may be relevant. Insomesia (talk) 00:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The information about teachers was in response to your statement about the "enormity of some of the cases". There are published studies, I think from an academic in Virginia, that sexual abuse of minors is much more common and widespread in the teaching and academic professions. If there are other professions where the circumstances are worse, that might reduce the comparative "encormity" of such abuse among clergy. Also, if you could find any notable and significant instances of abuse by clergy in South America, Africa, Southeast Asia, and other parts of the world which were not involved in the sexual revolution, that would also be very welcome. So far as I can tell, the cases are more or less confined to Europe and the English-speaking world, and I remember earlier discussion that there were few if any cases noted in those areas. John Carter (talk) 01:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

That a multi-million dollar settlement included hundreds of claimants speaks enough about the enormity. I'm not signing on to do a worldwide census and given the lack of transparency in most religious groups combined with the lack of free media in many countries, i don't think a worldwide comparison makes a lot of sense. If someone else want s to take that on they certainly can. I'll look into what is easily accessible and if any news reports details major cases in the past decade or so. Insomesia (talk) 01:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

No one is askking you to "sign on to worldwide census." All that is being asked of you is that you not try to use wikipedia to "push a point," as someone else put it. It is unfortunate that I myself, given the nature of your comments to date, find it hard to not believe that at least part of your motivation in trying to develop this article is perhaps to push a point. If that were to be the case, then WP:POV would perhaps enter into play. John Carter (talk) 01:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone looking to push a point would had bothered to post a suggestion here at all. That being stated I'll look into what the sources state rather than talk about what could be done. My statements to date have been about the lack of what I observe to be the most newsworthy covered aspect of these cases - that courts have found reasons to side with hundreds of claimants with monetary figures in the millions. This is newsworthy and I only know what I know by reading what news sources state. I have no motives but to helping the article be better. Insomesia (talk) 14:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Careful Now.

Down with this sort of thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.0.23.176 (talk) 00:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Debate over causes

I transferred the following sectiom from the article to this talk page:

All of the victims were children and the majority of pedophiles identify as heterosexual.

Reasons:

1) The studies and research results are on pedophilia in general. There is no link to the catholic sex abuse cases. However the debate is on possible differences of the catholic sex abuse cases in comparison to sex abuse cases in general.

2) It is disputed, wether "pedophilia" can be used to describe the catholic sex abuse cases. The John Jay Causes and Context Study took another approach and shifted the age of pedophilia cases to 10 years and younger.

Therefore I think the wording should be more precise. It should become clear, if there are research results on the catholic sex abuse cases or on sex abus cases in general.

--Ricerca (talk) 06:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Those would be reasons to fix, not delete. The John Jay report was solely on childhood sex abuse, the pedophile datum was solely on pedophiles. We may never have a John Jay report on how those pedophiles identified so it sounds like we just need to clarify that the pedophiles self-identifiers is distinct from the John Jay report. And the only reason it's there is to balance to anti-gay cunard being spread by Donohue that the sex abuse cases are a homosexual crisis. This is false. It's also disingenuous to assert that the John Jay cases weren't pedophilia, in fact the NYT article backs up - "A five-year study commissioned by the nation’s Roman Catholic bishops to provide a definitive answer to what caused the church’s sexual abuse crisis has concluded that neither the all-male celibate priesthood nor homosexuality were to blame." "If anything, the report says, the abuse decreased as more gay priests began serving the church."(emphasis added) The cut-off clouding the age of children doesn't change to basic facts that these are sex abuse crimes against children. We're splitting hairs to suggest calling it some other something.

However rewording the statement to more accurately reflect the differences may make sense without compromising the basic understanding that indeed all the victims were children and generally all those committing these crimes generally identify as heterosexual. The anti-gay myth being perpetrated by Donohue needs to be countered by the sources and reports that more accurately portrays the men who abuse children sexually. It doesn't help our readers to mislead and lie to them. Research has born out that abusers are generally not strangers, identify as heterosexual and are opportunists who likely have more access to young boys than girls.

As such I'm re-adding "All of the victims in the John Jay report were children and the majority of abusers in pedophile cases identify as heterosexual." Insomesia (talk) 09:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I simply think, that we should seperate the precise data from the general research. That's all. --Ricerca (talk) 21:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand and generally agree. Insomesia (talk) 01:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Recent revert

Farsight recently reverted changes here, with the edit summary "rv widespread altering of article, mostly involving complete and utter reversal of meaning of some paragraphs under use of false edit summaries" I don't see that at all. In fact, the changes appear to be improvements, and some were even discussed here on the talk page. Farsight, did you intend to revert different material? I'm reverting for now, assuming there was a mistake or misreading of the changes, but if anyone else disputes the material, please feel free to revert me and discuss it here. Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm totally in agreement with you Farsight001 and Bilby seem to be pushing some sort of a Catholic Far right wing, biased agenda. See wikipedia NPOV. Thank you for reverting the changes and keep up the good work you do! I swear for every good editor like you there are 3 hooligans like Bilby and Farsight001. 12.129.87.3 (talk) 17:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Seriously? First of all, IP12, you think we're hooligans? You added to the article the statement that pope John Paul III committed abuses himself. There has never been a JP3! And your edit summary categorized it as "cleanup". What horseshit.

As for the false edit summaries I was talking about, This edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&diff=prev&oldid=500292930 was labeled "adding/improving refs", and it actuality it completely removed a statement and its supporting reference in preference for what is clearly a lesser reference and a new paragraph with literally the opposite assessment of the paragraph removed.

This edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&diff=prev&oldid=500292058 , labeled simply "clean up", removed a sourced statement but left the source, and added a statement that espoused the exact opposite of the previously sourced statement.

This edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&diff=prev&oldid=500291773 which is minor, is labeled simply "more clear" and altered words to more precise, yet incorrect assertion.

How is that NOT false edit summaries?Farsight001 (talk) 18:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I agree that the edits from the ip here do not appear to be accurate, and are missing sources for some rather grand claims. 12.129, please find sources for that content and propose it here on talk. Regarding Insomesia's edits, the first diff has a poor edit summary. I wouldn't say it's "false", exactly; edit summaries don't have to be perfect all the time. The second diff adds information which is verifiable. The NYTimes article summarizes the conclusions of the JJ report, which was quoted properly in that diff. I don't see a major problem with that edit, but I'd be happy to discuss it. The third diff changes the wording to be clearer. Homosexuality and heterosexuality are not a dichotomy, which is a fact that edit could have missed, except that the abstract of the report on pubmed seems to back up the new wording. Maybe I've missed something (please point it out if so), but the paper says "All regressed offenders ... were heterosexual". These appear to be good-faith efforts to improve the article. It may turn out that some may need improvement and discussion, but I think calling them misleading or implying that they're pushing a pov is not entirely accurate, and is unlikely to be altogether very helpful. Anyway, let me know what you think. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

What is this supposed to mean?

In all seriousness the phrase from the article below makes no sense. "In 2001, in response to the widening scandal, Pope John Paul II emphasized the spiritual nature of the offenses, "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."[9] 1) What does it mean? 2) Why is it important? 3) Should it belong in the article (more so, in the intro)? We don't need the Pope's response to every single wrong committed by the clergy. Who cares what the Pope said about the spiritual nature of the offenses. Regardless of spirituality this is a wrong, immoral, and everything else. We don't need the pope to say that this is a sin. This sentence is meant to help the reader understand that the Pope thinks that child molestation is not a good thing. I'm pretty sure most readers and people know that. This totally breaks the flow of an informative introduction and just confuses the reader. I strongly suggest the removal of this sentence from the intro. I don't know who inserted this sentence here but it should not be here. This is equivalent to the Pope coming out and saying "Murder is wrong." .... 12.129.87.3 (talk) 19:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

To provide complete coverage of the topic, it seems important to discuss the church and its response to the events and scandal. I think the Pope is an important figure, in that respect, and covering his sourced commentary on the topic is useful for our readers. However, I agree that presenting it as a "rebuttal" to the previous paragraph is not really appropriate. This part stood out to me too. I mean, who doesn't see sex abuse as a really bad thing? In particular, placing this comment in the lead might not be justified. It seems like if we keep it in the body, but remove it from the lead, we're not losing anything in the article in terms of tone or content. Does anyone oppose that? I'd be happy to talk it over. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm totally with you Jess. This is just redundant. The idea that the Pope thinks sexual abuse is a bad thing is not important, anything new, revealing, or pertinent. 12.129.87.3 (talk) 20:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

New Section Needed on Conviction of Monsignor Lynn in PA

You all know which case I'm talking about. Google it if you don't. Somebody please create a section on the 1st criminal prosecution of its kind in PA. I am hesitant to do it, because some right wing Catholic nut is just going to revert it and say some stupid wikipidease jargon and then I am going to be edit warring with him (or her). 12.129.87.3 (talk) 14:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:AGFFarsight001 (talk) 15:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not really sure what part of this article it belongs in, as this article doesn't really discuss individual cases - that is left to the various "Sexual abuse scandal in ..." articles. It was placed under "International public awareness", which doesn't seem quite right, especially as the conviction didn't get a lot of attention. I've moved it to "Criticisms of church responses", as the case seems to be about how the Church (or at least Lynn) responded to complaints. It is currently discussed in much more detail at Sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic archdiocese of Philadelphia. - Bilby (talk) 17:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, the article might need to have a summation of all the "Sex abuse scandal in ..." articles, or a summation article may need to be created. I believe one editor spun them all off and along with segmenting every other facet of these issues creating more confusion than cohesiveness. The present reading of this content needs at least one fix. The original edit had "This case was unprecedented in the 20-year history of clergy abuse investigations in the United States because Lynn was the first U.S. church official ever charged for his handling of abuse complaints." This has been somewhat lost presently and should likely be worked back in. Insomesia (talk) 18:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that line was a direct copy and paste from the source, so couldn't be kept. I thought that the main point was that it was the first case of its type in the US, so the first sentence now reads "In 2012, Monsignor William Lynn became the first United States church official to be convicted of child endangerment because of his part in covering up child sex abuse allegations by clergy."

A summary article covering individual cases exists at Roman Catholic sex abuse cases by country. It is ugly, but I don't think that a merger would be viable, especially given how incomplete that article is - a complete article would be impossible to merge. However, the only reference to it in this article was as one of 30 articles listed in the "see also" section, so I've added it as the main article hatnote in "Statistics on offenders and victims" to give it more prominence. It might be better in "International public awareness", but neither is really accurate, and a list of cases seems to fit better in a discussion of statistics than international awareness.

I agree with you that spinning off everything created a bigger problem, especially as many of the articles that were spun out weren't viable. I've been thinking that a serious rethink as to how these articles are structured would be worth looking into, as they are too fragmented. - Bilby (talk) 00:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I tend to think myself that, probably, the best way forward would be to go by country. Logically, the national laws of the countries are probably specifically involved in some way or other in the abuse cases, and that being the case, I would think that articles detailing the specifics of the individual nations' laws, and how the cases in general violated them, would be least problematic and clearest. One question I do have, however, is about alleged cases. I'm not sure, but if someone is just alleged to be an abuser by others, without any sort of evidence or ruling, BLP might be involved. Maybe, I dunno. The apparent multiplicity of US articles is also a bit of a question, because I'm not sure if the Pennsylvania article , for instance, meets the LISTN non-local notability requirements, and, honestly, if it is even "specific" enough to merit a separate article for that state. Most of the laws involved are US federal laws, and that being the case a US article would probably be easiest to prove notability of. John Carter (talk) 01:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

To me that last edit fixed the issue to emphasize first in US (rather than the state). Insomesia (talk) 03:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I realised that the mentioning the state could mislead the reader there, hence the edit. I should have seen that earlier. - Bilby (talk) 04:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I love how we can all get along and edit together. It makes me so happy. Usually I try and do something, somebody says don't but I still keep changing it to the way I want it until I get banned. This time, I can't believe how well it worked! I'm so proud of myself and you fellow wikipedians! Keep it up 12.129.87.3 (talk) 20:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

So, you get banned a lot, IP editor? There is a good chance that some sort of List of individual Catholic sex abuse cases could be generated, if it met the requirements of notability of a list, which would require that there be published lists of such a nature to demonstrate the list's notability, as per WP:LISTN. The questions I have is, would this be a single list of all the cases, or would it perhaps make more sense if it were broken up into the major countries or groups of countries involved, like perhaps List of Catholic sex abuse cases in the Pacific region? Also, and here LISTN might play a role, would these be lists specifically about just the Catholic abuse cases, or, if regional lists are opted for, would they be lists of Christian minister sex abuse cases? It might well be, for instance in Canada, that the latter is demonstrably notable, but the former isn't. The country where it seems to have received the greatest amount of sensationalist coverage is the United States, so I have very little doubt that it would be possible to demonstrate the notability of a list for the US. But it might not be so easy for other countries and/or regions, I don't know. If at least some of the others don't meet LISTN requirements, maybe it would be best to just have a single list. John Carter (talk) 00:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The major problem with this proposal is embodied in the very first sentence, which says "You all know which case I'm talking about", and telling us that it's "in PA". Pure US-centrism. Guess what? In Australia, most of us have never heard of this guy. And most would have no idea what PA means. We have our own paedophile priests to worry about. This is a global encyclopaedia. Get a global perspective! HiLo48 (talk) 00:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The US is where the majority of the cases are concentrated, and arguably where these cases will get the most airing all factors considered including media influence and non-governmental groups. I am somewhat satisfied that there is an over-arching Sex abuse cases by country and under that a list one for the US. As was mentioned above, by country has a logic tying the cases to laws of the jurisdictions. For the US one the reporting is uneven as I think there have been cases in every state so logically we are missing at least half of the reporting on this. Insomesia (talk) 03:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I would disagree with part of that. The Irish cases were significant, as were some of the European cases. And Australia has been going through its own scandal. It hasn't really been focused on any one region. - Bilby (talk) 04:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

It's true, I'm no expert here I'm only going on the sources I've seen so far and on our own reporting. Our own articles aren't very clear on this. It should be a pretty simply statement to make as to where the highest concentration of these reported cases are, US, Europe or somewhere else. Our articles are a hodgepodge list that IMHO is pretty incomplete. I also think the US list should be organized by state rather than parish. Insomesia (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I doubt it would be that simple. What do you mean by "reported" cases? Reported to police? Or to the media? Or to welfare bodies? Or to other priests in the confessional? Australia, like the USA, has state jurisdictions with different laws, so there's an awful lot of data to collect, compare and collate. And then there's other countries.... Lists in Wikipedia are one of its worst features due to the inevitable biases and limited knowledge of everybody who contributes. HiLo48 (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Well let's see what any reliable sources state and qualify it, just like any other finding, according to, based on available media reports or whatever is the best available. Insomesia (talk) 18:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

New section needed on Catholic Church's attempts to stonewall child abuse leglislation in New York USA and other states

This was in the original edit that I made a long time ago and is now absent from the present revision. I'm not blaming anyone, the new edits all look awesome and we have definitely made progress. This is really important that I think we include this in the article and was the focus point of the first edit I made that caused all the revisions. We did good work but I really think that we need to find the original sources that I quoted and some new sources and create a section on the pervert's attempts to block new child protection legislation. Let me set the stage for you. For the past 5 years, states in the Northeast (Think New York etc..) have been pushing legislation to expand the statue of limitations on when a case can be brought up against a pedophile. Due to the very nature that children do not report the cases until they are older and are closer to the statue SNAP and other groups have been attempting to increase the time from when the abuse happened to when it can be reported in a court, but the Church has been actively lobbying against it (even hiring 2 professional lobbying firms). If somebody could find some information on this and please create a nice new section that would be awesome.

Also please read this article it is a good one and is another section proposal. This one is on the church targeting the SNAP group in an attempt to bring it down because it is shedding light on the Catholic Sex Abuse crisis: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/13/us/catholic-church-pressures-victims-network-with-subpoenas.html?pagewanted=all. We need two sections I guess. One on the Church lobbying against child sex abuse prevention legislation and the other on the Church taking vindictive measures against whisteblowers and victims of the sadistic actions of its priests.108.70.61.233 (talk) 21:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Rather than further clutter and unbalance this article, which already has almost a half of the lead containing detail of events from the USA, I'd suggest your idea might fit better in Roman Catholic sex abuse cases by country. HiLo48 (talk) 03:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

NYTimes article is an interpretation without fundament in the original sources

New User:Ricerca has just made a small but fairly significant change to the "Debate over causes" section of the article with the fascinating Edit summary you see in the title of this section. Firstly, I have no idea what the Edit summary means, and secondly, the reversion seems to be towards using a primary source rather than a secondary one, one that's usually regarded as pretty reliable. Is User:Ricerca on the right track here? HiLo48 (talk) 08:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm all for making changes to the article and making it a better source, but I tend to agree with ^^^ HiLo48 on this one. I don't understand Rivera's edits. I say we change the article back to the previous version before Rivera worked on it. This Rivera fellow changed the wording of a bunch of phrases and paragraph and didn't provide any new sources. I saw until we get sources corroborating his major points we change it back to the way it was! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.129.87.3 (talk) 18:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Also does anybody else feel as though he just changed the wording to make it seem as if the Church did no wrong. His phrasing without sources seemed to be a complete defense of the Church that was unsourced and uncited. I really feel as though he is pushing a Pro-Catholic agenda... I thought we were striving for neutrality here... 12.129.87.3 (talk) 18:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm seeing a few problems in those edits. Regarding the edit summary, I think Ricerca intends to say "the NYTimes article offers a novel interpretation not found in the original source". However, that does not appear to be the case. Indeed, Ricerca's new summary, which places emphasis on "confused" priests being more likely to abuse, appears to be undue weight. Quoting directly from the conclusion in the JJ (page 74):

“ There has been widespread speculation that homosexual identity is linked to the sexual abuse of minors by priests, largely because of the high number of male victims identified in the Nature and Scope study. However, the clinical data do not support this finding. Treatment data show that priests who identified as homosexual, as well as those who participated in same-sex sexual behavior prior to ordination (regardless of sexual identity), were not significantly more likely to abuse minors than priests who identified as heterosexual. Priests who were ordained prior to the 1960s who had a “confused” sexual identity prior to ordination were more likely to sexually abuse minors than those who clearly identified with a particular sexual identity from those cohorts. This finding was not consistent with priests ordained in later cohorts; as such, it is important to conceptualize this finding within the appropriate historical context. ”

I don't think it's appropriate to pick out the "confused" bit and leave out the rest. Even the JJ report says that the data is old and inconsistent with current stats. If we're going to use any part of that here, I think we need to use something more descriptive of the entire report. I noticed some other problems as well. For instance, this edit seems to be largely original research, and at best, appears to give undue weight to an idea printed in one partisan paper, The National Catholic Register. I'd encourage Ricerca to discuss these edits on the talk page, and perhaps we can hash out better sources to improve the article. Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

John Jay Report Biased Source

If you want to quote this article as support for the priests, this is like quoting a piece from the Oil and Natural Gas Lobby saying that global warming is a myth. This is total horseshit. Ban this Ricera guy first of all and then second of all remove all mention of the John Jay report or else have a disclaimer that says that the study was funded almost entirely by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. here is my link to that. Also there are tons of articles attacknig the study, the methodology and the conclusions that the authors drew from it. The John Jay article is a piece of work done by a Catholic Hack and is biased.http://open.salon.com/blog/witchjoey/2012/05/07/thomas_plante_phd_the_john_jay_report_on_clergy_abuse 12.129.87.3 (talk) 13:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi 12.129. I appreciate your input, but please try to keep discussion on the content of the article, and not on individual contributors. Civility is a foundational pillar of wikipedia, and allows us to operate collaboratively on improving the article. Sometimes there will be disagreements, but we resolve them by going to the sources. In this case, I think the JJ report probably should be contextualized; are we not doing that already? If you feel like we should include content more accurately describing the authors/etc of the JJ report, then we'd need quality sources discussing it. The blog by Joey Piscitelli probably isn't a reliable source; see WP:SPS and WP:SECONDARY. If we have some good sources, I'd be happy to discuss how to include them! Thanks   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello Jess! Thanks for your help as it is greatly appreciated. I have found more sources for the claim in the article that it was a 'crisis of homosexuality'.

1) http://articles.nydailynews.com/2010-04-13/news/27061643_1_celibacy-homosexuality-abuse I'm sure you'll go though the article but the sentence that shows why we need to delete the celibacy part of the argument is the first sentence (which also supports the need to give it a name of a cris of homosexuality) which states, "Celibacy is not the cause behind the child sex abuse scandal that has shattered the priesthood and imploded the Catholic Church. Blame homosexuality, the Vatican's second in command claims." 2) http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2010/07/catholic_churchs_issue_is_homosexuality_not_pedophilia.html "I maintain it has been a homosexual crisis all along. The evidence is all on my side, though there is a reluctance to let the data drive the conclusion. But that is a function of politics, not scholarship." Bill from the Catholic League so I think from an objective POV we can say that it has been a crisis of homosexuality with a few other contributing factors but that Celibacy, and Seminary training were not one of them.

I mean that is quite a strong assertion to make don't you think? the idea that you can blame an institution like the Catholic Seminary for a series of generalized horrific crimes. I don't think we can say although the abuse was pervasive, we don't have enough evidence to say that it was institutional (a byproduct of an organization, in this case the Catholic Seminary). Let me know what you think! 12.129.87.3 (talk) 15:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

First, I seem to remember that a professor from Penn State wrote extensively about the John Jay study in some academic source. Considering that the study was done by, I think, the publicly funded John Jay College of Criminal Justice, I think the allegations that the study was financed by the catholic church perhaps less than relevant. Whoever paid for the study, the people working on the study were, apparently, some form of government employees with some degree of knowledge in the field of criminal law. And the conclusions of the study weren't such that I think we could necessarily find them to be "self-serving". Also, while the quote is interesting, it basically is saying, "don't blame celibacy, blame homosexuality", the emphasis on the first "don't blame celibacy" part. The quote is from a source I think most anyone would find reliable, but the nature of the circumstances of the quotation are such that I think that saying he blamed it to homosexuality might not be very clearly supported by the evidence. By saying this, I am in no way saying that homosexuality and the Catholic priesthood are disconnected ideas. There obviously is a connection, and the nature of culture of recent times may have made it more pronounced, but I can't say the quotation seems to me to be saying that the quoted is blaming homosexuality exclusively, just providing one contributing factor out of what might be several which he thinks more relevant to the issue than celibacy. John Carter (talk) 18:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay. So after reading the report and the citation and what's on the talk page. A couple things are clear. 1) User: John Carter was right. Celibacy isn't an issue and is not a cause of the "Catholic Sex Abuse Cases" so that should be removed. But the more important thing is that 2) Homosexuality was a crisis and was reported to be a major contributor to the crisis. If anything else is important that I am missing feel free to add it in. 12.129.87.3 (talk) 19:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Seminary training a "predictor of child abuse" what? This makes no sense at all

This sentence was added in there to clutter up the "Debate over Causes" section and was provided with so sources, no backing, and no evidence or written wording on the talk pages. This makes no sense at all because it then can be argued then why did clergy not from the seminary background have the same rates of sexual abuse and "deviant sexual behavior" (see J.J. report). The Rivera fella can't have his cake and eat it too. he can't just quote the J.J. report by splicing together parts of sentences to change the meaning of it and then also ignore what it says about the true causes See Homosexuality and gay priests and Pedophilia and deviant behavior.12.129.87.3 (talk) 13:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)