Talk:Roman Catholic sex abuse cases/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1
| Archive 2 →

Contents

Early material

I've removed the link to Catholic Apologetics of America regarding information on celibacy. There is a separate article on Clerical celibacy and it should not be a focus of this article. Brlancer 03:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I cut out the line "- largely fundamentalist Protestants and Modernist dissenters " because I feel it violated NPOV. The term "Mondernist dissenters" is a term used by tradtionalist Catholics against anyone who disagrees with them.
JesseG 02:36, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

This article is getting long. Should it be broken up into sections? Most certainly we should keep this information linked together. The Roman Catholics have been trying to hide their guilty secrets too long.

This entry shouldn't exist. The information within should be divided and placed appropriate either under the history of the Catholic church, or under pedophillia or child molestation (as a notable historical example.) -EB-

I respectfully disagree. This has been a ongoing major event in current US history. This page is little different from our accounting scandals article or even the US plan to invade Iraq article. --mav

The above comment about Roman Catholics trying to hide their guilty secrets by breaking up the article I sincerely believe is just more Catholic bashing. It is a comment that I stridently object to, because this site should not be used as a sounding board against certain groups of people based on race, gender, ethnic background, or religious tradition. This being an article about sexual abuse does not excuse that.
JesseG 02:36, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Is the proper term, Pedophilia, or Pedarasty? The first "sounds" like a questionable expression of kindness, while the other "sounds" like brutality. Is it lack of neutrality that I "hear" in the latter word, in your opinion? The second also "sounds" antique. Is it still the right word; or, not? Mkmcconn 00:57 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Please see the article pedophilia for the answer in detail. In short, a paedophile is someone who is chiefly sexually attracted to children; it is a term from abnormal psychology. A paederast is an adult who has sexual relations with children; classically, a man who has sexual relations with boys. Neither one means the same as child-molester or statutory rapist -- a person can be a paedophile and not do anything about it (just as a person can be heterosexual without having sex with anyone); a person can also commit statutory rape despite not being a clinical paedophile. --FOo 02:02 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Thank you. Mkmcconn 02:13 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

In the overview section, it says that some people think the media's widespread coverage of these cases representes an anti-Catholic bias. I would like this opinion attributed. Here's why. Here in Boston, MA, which is one of the most deeply-affected communities in the US, coverage has been everywhere in the media since the Boston Globe decided to cover it (the weekly Boston Phoenix had been publishing stories about it for years before the Globe picked it up). But the Catholic church is extremely important here in Boston. The emphasis of the story has not been the "pedophile priests", it has always been the bureaucratic response of the archdiocese. And the scandal caused enormous turnover in one of the most important institutions in Boston, ousting Cardinal Law, formerly one of the most important figures in all of Boston (O'Malley seems to be no less important so far). If they didn't give it the kind of coverage they did, I'd frankly call that anti-Catholic bias. But I don't know what coverage was like in the rest of the country or world.

But there are other undercurrents that we should make sure to include. The lay organizations like Voice of the Faithful quickly became some of the most important and powerful lay Catholic organizations this city has ever seen. Enormous amounts of donations were given to the Catholic church through VotF, donations which the archdiocese has rejected (last I heard), forcing the shutdown of many catholic institutions, including schools. The relationship between VotF and the archdiocese is very uneasy as the archdiocese thinks they are liberal reformers who want to do everything from end celibacy to bring women into the priesthood. And they may yet be right; VotF has not really come out and defined itself completely. This may not be "part" of the allegations, but it's definitely an important part of the story. (Of course, everything I said is analysis and needs to be attributed to somebody, not me.)

DanKeshet

Here's the text:

Others suggest that the Roman Catholic Church is being unfairly singled out by a secular media which they say fails to highlight similar sexual scandals in other religious faiths, such as the Anglican Communion, various Protestant churches, the Jewish community, the media focus on Catholic scandals reflecting an anti-catholic agenda. In particular they focus on the term Paedophile priests widely used in the media and note that the term implies a distinctly higher rate of paedophilia within the Roman Catholic priesthood than in reality actually exists, its 1.5 to 2% being no higher than any other segment of society and lower than some. And they ask when, in the interests of balance, the media will write about paedophile teachers, paedophile police or paedophile politicians.

I don't recommend putting it back in until it can be attributed and verified. Also, until it's more specific (which media? where?). Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words and all that. DanKeshet

It is a summary of opinion expressed in verious catholic newspapers, notably the Catholic Standard, the Irish Catholic, the Irish Family and by Catholic columnists, notably Breda O'Brien in The Irish Times. It is regularly expressed in conservative catholic letter writers into newspapers. It is a simply a summary of widely expressed opinions. As such I am reinstating the paragraph. FearEIREANN 18:33, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Title

I don't like the current page title. It sounds as if the Roman Catholics were making allegations. How about "Catholic church sex abuse scandals"? While I am well aware that other forms of catholicism exist, conventionally it is understood that with the lack of a qualifier we refer to the Roman Catholic Church; besides, I highly doubt that such scandals are limited to that particular denomination.—Eloquence 03:00, Aug 9, 2003 (UTC)

High Church Anglicans take high offence when Catholic is used exclusively to refer to Roman Catholics, as do some other denominations. They also take offence when people talk about 'catholic sex abuse' because they stress it is the Roman Catholic branch of catholicism. As the name of the church is Roman Catholic and the article not about anyone else who considers themselves, it makes logical sense to use the most accurate title that avoids causing offence to others who also call themselves catholic, and who are called catholic by millions of their followers, but whom the article is not about.

My understanding is that the term "Roman Catholic" as we use it today was an invention of the Anglican Church during the Protestant Reformation. The Anglican Church used the terms "Anglo-Catholic" or "Anglican Catholic" along with "Roman Catholic" to imply an equivalency in apostolic sucession and legitmacy of the sacerdotal orders. I propose that we use the term which the church calls herself: the Catholic Church. Accordingly, the term "Anglican Catholic" should be used because this is what the Church of England might call itself. The term "Roman Catholic" is seen used by Rome in one instance, that is in the phrase "Cardinal(s) of the Roman Catholic Church." When used in this context, "Roman" refers to the particular church,that is the archdiocese, of Rome--historically, the cardinalate was chosen only from among the clergy of Rome proper. The true term for what Americans and British normally call "Roman Catholic" would be the "Latin Rite" or the "Roman Rite" of the Catholic Church. The term "RCC" is very commmon among even catholics in the US, but it is a result of the split between England and Rome; and it was used historically exclusively bu the Church of England and other British persons.

I'm afraid your understanding of the etymology of Roman Catholic is mistaken, although completely understandable. The term Roman Catholic was in reality an invention of the Roman Catholic Church in England for two major reasons: the Anglican Church considered itself to be the "continuing" catholic albeit reformed church in England, and the term "Roman" differentiated the two. The term came into being at least one hundred years after the reformation, if I recall correctly, during restoration or the Jacobite years. The second reason is that the term "Roman" was far better than the contemporary historical pejorative (and offensive) "Papist". So while it may be easy to think that the modern term "Roman Catholic" is pejorative the historical usage was not: it was a self indentifying term that correctly identified a proud and steadfast minority in the face of apalling persecution. As an Anglo-catholic nothing would please me more than the reunification of these two churches - it's some centuries overdue.Adamm 20:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Just a comment which may be of interest; I don't have the expertise to enter a debate. In Spanish (and presumably in other languages) we have the Iglesia Catolica Romana (literally Roman Catholic Church), so the usage would not appear to be related to England? Rito latino (Latin rite) is sometimes appended. [1] Pol098 23:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Forced priests

I'm not really sure how to put this properly, but I remember being given a lecture while at school about the way things were in Ireland up to around the late 1960s, which was offerred by way of explaining the peculiarly high amount of abuse cases in Ireland (mainly in reference to physical abuse); that in many families the youngest son became a priest, with no choice in the matter.

Does anyone know anything more concrete about this? -- Jim Regan 03:11, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

In the post famine period, land restructing (which meant only one son, that them all, inherited land) and the emergence of a new catholic middle class led to career paths, one of which was the Church. One son usually headed (often against his will) for the priesthood or into a religious order, while often one became a nun). Sometimes the least intelligent who could not get church career, having no other alternative. On occasion who became the priest was decided by plunking at straws, which is where the term Straw priest comes from. FearEIREANN 18:33, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd never heard that phrase before, but it makes sense. Come to think of it, I think there's still some of it left; I remember in college, a lesbian friend took us to a gay bar for her birthday, where I heard that one of the guys was a trainee priest simply because it was easier than explaining to his parents why he never brought girls home. -- Jim Regan 03:06, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

"Statistical evidence"

Moved:

"While statistical evidence suggests that Catholic clergymen are no more likely to commit sexual crimes against children than any other segment of society, "

What is this evidence? Later it states that a comparison has been made with priests of other denominations, though we do not learn how high abuse incidence was within these groups. We learn nothing about a comparison with the general population.—Eloquence 03:30, Aug 9, 2003 (UTC)

A year and a half later and these problems are still there. The artcile claims that the sexual abuse rate of priest is comprable to clergy in other faiths and data on Catholic priests is given, but know numbers to compare them to are given and no other source for the claim is offered. Also no attempt to compare the rates to the population as a whole is made. I'm deleting the section. If some has complete information they should restore the section and make the neccessary corrections.

I haven't the figures here right now (they are buried in a bundle of notes) somewhere it my files, but Catholic priests do not actually fit the sex abuser profile issued by Bureau of Justice Statistics, except in terms of race and marital status (white and unmarried). They are far more educated than the average abuser, have a fundamentally different career type, and among other characteristics engage in sex abuse when in a different age range to other sex abusers. In fact few Catholic priests convicted of sex offences are paedophiles, but sex abusers, with a regressed sexuality. FearEIREANN


I have removed the opening paragraph add-in. It is poorly written, poorly located and contradicts the structure of the article. A controversial article on a high sensitive issue needs careful structure. Plonking judgments and conclusions at the opening is one sure way in sensitive articles of driving the reader away. If they agree, you have just re-enforced their opinion without reading further, if they disagree they just think "this is POV" and dismiss the article. The article is constructed to explore the issues in detail, not to begin with a glib opinion which some readers may see as POV. On a controversial topic you should let the reader decide on the context and evidence, not glib opinions at the start. Professionally written articles on controversial topics in encyclopaedias don't do that, not least on topics whose ultimate longterm impact remains a matter of speculation and cannot be definitively assessed. Reaching snap decisions on longterm issues in the opening paragraph is not a good idea. FearEIREANN 19:04, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Jtdirl is right that the disputed sentences inserted in the intro are poorly written and sensational (I totally concur with his above statement), but they do make two points. One is that many allegations have been substantiated; the other is that the Church's image has suffered.

So, how about this paragraph as a compromise:

In the late twentieth century, Roman Catholicism was hit by a series of sexual allegations, many of which have since been substantiated, concerning the behaviour of priests, nuns and people employed by the Church towards under-age children. Well-publicized charges that that Church has covered up such charges instead of reforming its structures have arguably tainted the image of the Church.

BTW, keep in mind how enduring the Roman Catholic Church is! Keep in mind how it survived far greater crises in the past! Some of the more sensational commentators on this subject lack historical context. 172 20:14, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Good rewrite. I'll add in plus one minor change. As to the length of existence of the RC Church, its endurance is something often forgotten, with people presuming that some major crisis is the one to destroy it. Personally I suspect the current crisis will do significant damage but there is no way of being sure, not for years, possibly for decades, until the whole longterm impact is assessed. The earlier reference to a 'public relations' disaster is a classic example of glib analysis. Anyone who has ever worked in the media or on PR knows that that term can only be accurately used in cases where you are talking about an institution, person, etc whose survival depends on short term atttudes. But it is worthless in assessing anything in other than short term periods. For example, in 1994 the Prince of Wales was the most unpopular person in the UK. In 1998 he was more popular than Tony Blair in polls, even though Blair was at the height of his popularity. Blair six months ago was invincible, the Tories' Iain Duncan Smith on the brink of being sunk, Labour way ahead in the polls. Now the Tories are beating Labour in the polls, IDS seems safe and Blair's popularity is at rock bottom. And Ireland's taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, who was universally popular in August 2002, in August 2004 is reviled. In 2001, the Roman Catholic Church in the diocese of Ferns was at rock bottom, accused of covering up child abuse, with its once widely popular bishop discredited as a drunken incompetent. Now it is undergoing a major revival under an Apostolic Administrator who has thrown every file open, made unqualified apologies and won the praise of the Church's own victims.

So there is no way of knowing how the longterm impact of the crisis on RCism will be. New bishops if they handle the crisis well could turn around the crisis; the new Archbishop of Boston has made a good and much praised start. So in twenty years time, the crisis may well be judged by historians to be one of three things; a disaster that seriously weakened RCism, a crisis that did medium-term damage but which is being overcome, or a shortterm crisis that was handled effectively by new leaders in the early 2000s, undoing much of the damage to the Church's reputation, whatever about the damage done to individual victims of clerical sexual abuse. We simply have no way of knowing and guessing at the likely longterm impact in a manner that simply states the impact as fact is simply POV. After all, no-one could have predicted in 1903 the longterm damage caused by Pius X's anti-modernist campaign. And people from the 1920s would be flabbergasted that the seemingly crucial policy acts of Pius XI would not be forgotten and judged a minor blip, he himself being forgotten also. FearEIREANN 20:53, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

You just have to love it when people claim that a paragraph is "poorly written" (without elaborating) or judgmental (without providing evidence) and then replace it with something like "Well-publicized charges that that Church has covered up such charges". Unacceptable, absolutely unacceptable.—Eloquence 21:08, Aug 9, 2003 (UTC)


well done. You have screwed up links, lost part of a reading list, spelling corrections and now screwed up the location of the talk page. Just because you want to put a semi-literate POV in doesn't mean it is going in. The fact that you don't understand the difference between underage children and children shows just how little you know about the topic. Underage children are children beneath the legal age of consent. Children remain children after the age of consent in most jurisdictions, which is the reason for the distinction, which if you had the slightest understanding of the topic you would know. FearEIREANN 22:03, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

More unsubstantiated claims. Which "links have I screwed up"? Which "part of a reading list" have I lost? If you revert my edits without explanation, don't expect me to keep track of any other additions you make to the article in the same edit. That's why an effort should be made to debate such changes, preferably without resorting to primitive attacks like "semi-literate". POV? Which POV? That the sex abuse scandal was a public relations problem for the Church? Don't be ridiculous. As for the underage distinction, this may be applicable in the jurisdiction where you live, but in mine, it is merely a tautology -- a "child" is legally any person below the age of consent (14 years in Germany). I will rephrase this paragraph to state "children below the age of consent", which is less problematic and also adds a useful link.—Eloquence 22:17, Aug 9, 2003 (UTC)

I didn't. I had made major changes all through the text, then found there was an edit conflict. Because of the sheer number of changes I had no choice but to do a cut and paste save. I then tried to go into the text you had added to transfer over all NPOV changes you had made but had to wait ages as usual for wiki to get through to the page, by which time you had reverted all the changes, including a new reading list and more international links.

As to the name of the article, what you keep trying to do is blatently POV. Yes I believe it is a scandal, so do many people, but scandal is a POV judgmental term best avoided. Allegations allows us to discuss everything, cases that have not yet come to court but which in many jurisdictions would be legally prejudiced if presumed guilty in an article, cases that because of time delays cannot be judged, cases that could never come to court because the perpetrator has died and cases thown out of court. And to introduce public relations into the opening lines of an article on the rape of children is replusive. If it is mentioned at all, it should be further down, not in the opening paragraph. The article that was here until yesterday was probably the worst article on wiki; a semi-literate, POV rant that made the serious issue of clerical sexual abuse a joke and I'm not going to allow this article be tabloidised to suit the POV of anyone with an agenda. FearEIREANN 22:29, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Edit conflicts - they suck and inevitably often lead to lost information. Sorry if I contributed to that, but the next time you make major edits, maybe save the part of which you know that it will be controversial for a separate edit.
Arguments on name - see below. I do not see scandal as a POV term, and nor did the dozens of contributors who use that term in other contexts on wiki. As for the "public relations" link, how is that any more "repulsive" than saying that "rape of children" (sexual abuse is not equivalent to rape) "arguably tainted the image of the Church"? The latter seems much more apologetic and problematic given the severity of the crimes.—Eloquence 22:38, Aug 9, 2003 (UTC)

tainted is a factual word. Public relations is a business', (one I work at part time ,so I'm not running it down. I am currently on retainer to two victims of clerical abuse) and so should not appear on the opening because it tivialises the issue. FearEIREANN 02:03, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)