Talk:Catholic Church sexual abuse cases

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Vatican investigation and Report That Never came[edit]

When the media exploded with coverage of sexual abuse in the late 1990s the Vatican responded after years of media coverage by claiming that they would investigate. After years of this claim the media accused them of foot dragging. The Vatican responded that it was a wide ranging investigation that was uncovering a shockingly large amount of abuse and that they wanted to get it right. The Vatican continued to make that claim for many years as well. The media again accused the Vatican of foot dragging. The Vatican responded with the claim that the investigation was complete and that a report was being composed. That claim went on for several more years. The media again accused the Vatican of foot dragging. The Vatican then claimed that a synopsis of the report would be released. The media responded that was just more foot dragging in furtherance of cover up, and publicizing doubt that an investigation even took place. The Vatican responded that the synopsis would be released the following week. The following week the pope resigned, and the report has been forgotten since then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.87.100 (talk) 10:09, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Vatican is just headquarters of the crime syndicate called RCC.--178.222.213.210 (talk) 16:11, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
A understandable view, but I don't think we can put that in the article. HiLo48 (talk) 05:11, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree. My comment is here to support the Luisiana IP 98.164 statements given above and that view can go into the article.--178.222.213.210 (talk) 05:15, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
In addition, there are many proofs of the Luisiana IP statements like "While the Pope has come under increasing pressure in recent weeks with cases of sexual abuse within the Catholic Church making headlines across the world, Healy says the Pope's lack of action has left survivors fearing that little punishment will be handed out to those responsible."--178.222.213.210 (talk) 12:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Or the latest one:BREAKING: Viganò releases new ‘testimony’ responding to Pope’s silence on McCarrick cover-up--178.221.153.102 (talk) 06:27, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Further, as of December 20 2018: More Accusations Of Child Sex Abuse By Priests In Illinois Uncovered, Says AG

Accusations of child sex abuse against at least 500 Roman Catholic priests and clergy members in Illinois have never been made public, a preliminary investigation by the state's attorney general has found.

That brings the total number of members in the Illinois dioceses who have been accused of sexually abusing minors to about 690, according to the report released Wednesday. The church had previously made public the names of only 185 accused priests, 45 of whom were added after Attorney General Lisa Madigan's office started investigating in August.

From Catholic Church in Illinois Withheld Names of at Least 500 Priests Accused of Abuse, Attorney General Says:

But it tries to quantify the enormous gap between the number of accusations made by victims who dared to contact the church, and the number of accusations the church deemed credible.

Three-fourths of the allegations against clergy were either not investigated, or were investigated but not substantiated by the dioceses, the report found, based on files that the dioceses turned over to the attorney general’s office.

Even worse: Cardinal admits Church files on paedophile priests 'destroyed' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.93.141.78 (talk) 12:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was Not Moved. The discussion is closed without prejudice due limited participate and no consensus to move developing over the past four months. Any interested editor may open a new move proposal if desired. –Zfish118talk 17:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

This article and Catholic Church abuse cases seem to cover the same material. Is there any reason not to merge these into one article? Clean Copytalk 23:37, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

If there was material about the sexual abuse of adults and significant non-sexual abuse material in the article, like the lead of the article states, I would not be for a merge. But the only non-sexual content in the article that I see is a mention in the lead and mentions of cruelty and beatings lower in the article. The cruelty part seems to not be about sexual abuse, but I'm not sure. Still, I suggested in the RfC above that this article be the home for Catholic Church sexual abuse of adults and Catholic Church non-sexual abuse cases, since the article is set up that way in the lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Would oppose, this page mainly focuses on the sexual abuse of children under the care of the catholic church, the other page overlaps into other forms of abuse. They seem fine as two separate but related subjects. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Randy Kryn, what do you think of the arguments made in the #Raped, pregnant nuns section above about inclusion? The nun material could go in the Catholic Church abuse cases article, which is mostly about sexual abuse, and the child sexual abuse content in that article could be substantially cut since we have Catholic Church sexual abuse cases article for that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:02, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
That seems to work, and then this page should probably contain the word 'child' in its title (Catholic Church child sexual abuse cases, which is at this moment a red link and I'll redirect it here after writing this) for accuracy. Merging the topics seems to be diluting the important and notable child sexual abuse topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:07, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
A descriptive name for the remaining child sex abuse page could be, per brevity and simplicity, Catholic Church child sex abuse. In any case, I've created it as a redirect to this page. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:57, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Randy Kryn. Seraphim System (talk) 23:10, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I am very much against the proposed merger. Sexual abuse in the Catholic Church (or any other religious organization) is a distinctive phenomenon, and it is proper to have an article on that particular subject. It seems to me that we should also stop for a moment, and think about the victims - they were silenced for so long, in many cases. Any attempt to merge this article on "formal" grounds might also look very strange, almost like some form of an attempted cower-up. I am not suggesting that merging was proposed with that intent, but it seems to me that such move would inevitably look like an attempt to sweep this particular subject under the rug, or to put it under a covering umbrella of a much wider subject, making it less visible. Such move would look very strange, and it is not hard to imagine a tweet: "English Wikipedia removes an article on sexual abuse in the Catholic Church" or something similar ... it would spread on social media like a fire, not to mention potential reactions of various groups and organizations. This article should not be merged, but it surely can and should be improved, as proposed by several users above. Sorabino (talk) 22:08, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Not a move discussion[edit]

Zfish118, the above is not a move discussion. It's a merge discussion. One could have easily turned it into a WP:RfC for more opinions. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

The result is the same. After 5 months, no consensus to merge has developed. As I said above, I closed it without prejudice, so anyone may propose an RFC. –Zfish118talk 02:30, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 31 January 2019[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: do not move. (closed by non-admin page mover) Warm Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 14:51, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


Catholic Church sexual abuse casesSexual abuse in the Catholic Church – It's a more appropriate title. There should be an article with that title, but it now just redirects to this. There is a template called Sexual abuse in the Catholic Church, but no article. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 19:06, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose and rename 'Catholic Church child sex abuse' or 'Catholic Church child sex abuse cases' per accuracy of article topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. How is "Sexual abuse in the Catholic Church" more appropriate? And as for adding "child" in the title, that's not needed either since the vast majority of the information about Catholic Church sexual abuse cases is about the sexual abuse of children. As far as WP:Common name goes, a look at the sources and literature in general show that the topic without "child" in the title is significantly more common than "child" in the title. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Let me just add a little explanation of why I think "Sexual abuse in the Catholic Church" is better -- it's because I don't think the article is only about "cases", or at least it shouldn't be. So why do we need to put the word "cases" into the title? I added a sentence yesterday about sexual abuse (or sin as I'm sure it was called back then) back in the eleventh century. I think the article should mention historical things like that, but it doesn't really fit under the title "cases of sexual abuse". Eric Kvaalen (talk) 09:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "Case" can mean action in law, or an instance, such as a case of failure. [1] Johnhsjunk (talk) 08:30, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

References

Pope's comments to journalists Feb 2019[edit]

I have added a short verbatim quote, demonstrating the candour of the current Pontiff. Cpsoper (talk) 21:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

‎Sexual abuse of nuns by priests and bishops material[edit]

Per Talk:Catholic Church sexual abuse cases/Archive 15#Raped, pregnant nuns and the #Merger proposal and #Requested move 31 January 2019 discussions above, I have removed the "‎Sexual abuse of nuns by priests and bishops" material that was recently added. As noted before, this material can easily and validly go in the Catholic Church abuse cases article. The "Catholic Church sexual abuse cases" article, however, is specifically about child sexual abuse cases. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

And regarding Cpsoper adding the nun material to the Catholic Church sex abuse cases by country article, an argument can be made that the material should not be there either since that article (with the exception of the nun content) is entirely about child sexual abuse and child sexual abuse is what that article is supposed to be about. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, it may be helpful to clarify that in the title not just the lede, it is not explicit in the latter. I might add that a public admission serious sexual abuse of this kind may be regarded as relevant to serious sexual abuse of children, though we'd await secondary sources to link them. Do other editors agree? Cpsoper (talk) 21:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
As seen by previous discussions mentioned above, we have discussed renaming the article. I don't see a rename as needed because the vast majority of sources that concern Catholic Church sexual abuse cases are about child sexual abuse. And it is only recently that editors have considered changing the title to include "child" in it, and this is solely based on the nun material. We should keep WP:Recentism in mind. By "public admission," what are you referring to? If it's about sexual abuse of nuns, I wouldn't add it to this article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
The sources indicate a Papal admission of this nature is unprecedented. What reference confirms that child abuse is vastly more prevalent than the abuse of nuns and other adherents of the church in India, Chile, Africa, France, Italy and other countries named in reports? The sources and the Pope's own statement indicate that the 'secrecy' and 'silence' of the church have meant tackling this problem has only just begun, who knows then how prevalent it is? In any case, I don't see why the prevalence of one kind of abuse should preclude the documentation of other kinds, unless the page is specifically devoted to documenting one type of abuse, in which case it should be so labelled, lest it deceive the unwary reader. I would appreciate comment from other editors. Cpsoper (talk) 10:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
You asked, "What reference confirms that child abuse is vastly more prevalent than the abuse of nuns and other adherents of the church in India, Chile, Africa, France, Italy and other countries named in reports?" Notice that I focused on what the preponderance of reliable sources cover, which is what WP:Due weight is about. WP:Due weight works the following way: "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." It is easy to see from looking at the literature, which I am very familiar with, that the vast majority of sources that concern Catholic Church sexual abuse cases are about child sexual abuse. That is not debatable whatsoever. If there are no sources stating that "child abuse is vastly more prevalent than the abuse of nuns and other adherents of the church in India, Chile, Africa, France, Italy and other countries named in reports," which surely there are not, then it is because the nun matter has only recently been covered by sources and sources have not yet analyzed the extent of abuse of nuns and other adherents. You questioned if this page is specifically devoted to documenting one type of abuse. It is specifically devoted to child sexual abuse, as is clear by looking at the article, and as has been made clear by previous discussions. If this article were broader, it would make sense to include the nun material. But it's not. Having the article as devoted to child sexual abuse as it is (which it should be per WP:Due weight) and to then randomly have a piece about nuns, which is how the Catholic Church sex abuse cases by country article currently is due to your edits there, is not ideal.
You make it sound like people coming to this article will be expecting material on nuns, even though sexual abuse of nuns doesn't have nearly as much coverage as sexual abuse of children. Some might expect to see some nun material. But I very much doubt that readers will feel misled to any great degree. The lead's focus on children is clear. And readers haven't felt misled for years. Now, all of sudden, they are going to feel misled because of recent coverage of the nun material in sources? I've pointed to the Catholic Church abuse cases article. And you have yet to add the content there, even though that article is mostly about sexual abuse and should have some "sexual abuse of nuns" content in it. Instead, you are focused on this article and the Catholic Church sex abuse cases by country article, seemingly because "sexual" and "sex" are in the titles respectively, and because "child" is not in the titles. I disagree with having this article be a home for "sexual abuse of nuns" material. It is not an umbrella article for Catholic Church sexual abuse cases. If anything, the Catholic Church abuse cases article is. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd welcome other comments on the removal of so much referenced material [1] on these grounds. Please try to address these two questions:

  1. Should the title of the article be changed to specify child abuse?
  2. How to appropriately aid navigation between the two pages this one and Catholic Church abuse cases.

For now per suggestion I have added some of the deleted material to the alternative page. Cpsoper (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)