Talk:Catholic Church/Archive 50

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 45

←

Archive 48

→

Proposed text regarding sexual abuse scandal

Here's a revised version of the summary that I proposed much earlier. It is based on the EB Online text provided by Harmakheru and thus needs further rewriting and paraphrasing to avoid plagiarism:

"Starting in the 1980s, the issue of sexual abuse of minors by Catholic clergy became the focus of media attention and public debate in countries such as Canada, the United States, , the United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand. In the United States alone, over 6,000 cases of molestation were authenticated, though victims’ groups asserted that additional cases went unreported because the victims were ashamed to come forward. Many of the charges alleged abuse dating as far back as the 1950s. It was further alleged that bishops had deliberately and systematically mishandled reports of abuse by shielding priests and transferring them to other pastoral assignments. A number of bishops resigned as a result of the controversy over their handling of the sexual abuse incidents. By 2004 the Catholic church worldwide had paid out more than $1 billion (U.S.) in jury awards, settlements, and legal fees, leading some dioceses to seek protection under bankruptcy law. In response to the scandal, the Church established formal procedures to prevent abuse, to encourage reporting of any abuse that did occur and to handle such reports promptly and effectively. In the recent years, however, similar scandals have emerged in countries such as the Philippines, Mexico, Spain, Poland, Austria, Germany, France, Argentina, and Hong Kong."

Comments:

The data of "over 6,000 cases" comes from the John Jay report which focuses only on the U.S. How do we communicate the global scale of the scandal? I haven't seen any comprehensive tabulation of cases across multiple countries.

I'd leave out the second, third, and fourth sentences. I think that the fifth sentence "A number of bishops resigned ..." covers what is in the fourth without going into specific allegations. The second sentence will likely be hard to make have a worldwide focus, as I don't think there is a good source for that information at this time. The third sentence (back to the 1950s) could be removed or incorporated into one of the other sentences. I don't want to go into too much detail here, as this article is supposed to be a summary. To me, this is too much detail. Karanacs (talk) 19:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's a somewhat abbreviated version of my proposed text.

Starting in the 1980s, the issue of sexual abuse of minors by Catholic clergy became the focus of media attention and public debate in countries such as Canada, the United States, , the United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand. Many of the alleged abuses dated as far back as the 1950s. Some bishops were severely criticized for their handling of reported abuse by shielding accused priests and transferring them to other pastoral assignments where they continued to commit sexual offenses. As a result of the controversy, a number of bishops resigned, schools and parish churches were closed and some dioceses sought bankruptcy protection. In response to the scandal, the Church established formal procedures to prevent abuse, to encourage reporting of any abuse that did occur and to handle such reports promptly and effectively. In the recent years, however, similar scandals have emerged in countries such as the Philippines, Mexico, Spain, Poland, Austria, Germany, France, Argentina, and Hong Kong."

--Richard S (talk) 21:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Richard. Not bad, but perhaps still a bit wordy, though it can be knocked down. Do you have sources? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any sources at the tips of my fingers but the assertions are all so widely reported that it's just a matter of grunt work to dig up a handful of sources. I'd rather get agreement on what we want to say before I run around digging up sources for each assertion. For example, are we going to provide a separate source for every country mentioned or is there a single source that mentions all of them? --Richard S (talk) 22:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It would nice to find a single source that covers many countries rather than splitting each out with separate sources, if possible. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Several objections, similar to the original version supplied by Richard. 1. There is no mention of the fact of psychological treatment and opinion in guiding the bishops actions regarding treatment and reassignment as appeared in the original paragraph. I know some people don't want the article to contain anything other than "the evil Catholics promote abuse", but the facts must stand. 2. Closure of schools and parish churches has not been linked to the cases by the Church. 3. The "similar scandals" sentence is unsustainable. The list of countries mentioned have not had "similar scandals" In most there have been a relatively small number of individual allegations. 4. Criticism of media coverage and the singling out of the Catholic Church for unique condemnation on this issue also needs to be covered. Xandar 23:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Caution--Xandar offers absolutely no reliable sources to support his four points or to show this is not WP:OR. Skywriter (talk) 13:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: psychological treatment - a month ago, I would have been more sympathetic to the complaint about not mentioning psychological treatment. I have spent some significant effort on the articles about the Servants of the Paraclete and Father Gerald Fitzgerald (priest) so I know at least a little about this topic. However, it has been asserted (by Doyle) that only about 40% of accused priests received treatment which complicates the explanation here. I think it is better not to mention the psychological treatment issue here in this summary-level article. If it could be argued that the vast majority of bishops sent just about all accused priests to treatment, then there would be more of a case for discussing it. However, since mostly the multiple offenders were sent to treatment, the issue here seems to be a question of why "first offenders" were allowed to retain their pastoral duties. I recognize that it is a difficult judgment call of deciding whether the first offense was a momentary failing of the flesh that could be addressed by penance and a resolution to sin no more. However, that opens the door to a long discussion which has no place in this article and is better treated in a subsidiary article.

Re: closure of schools and parish churches not being linked to the cases by the Church. Gee, that's a new one on me. I thought it was pretty clear that there was a linkage. Seems like I've read it multiple times. Are you arguing that, if the Church didn't officially make the linkage, then the existence of such a linkage is suspect? Would you accept statements from the diocese? I'm not sure but I think we could dig up such statements if you really insist that it's necessary for you to believe that there was a linkage.

Re: similar scandals - Yeh... it's a question of apples and oranges. The problem is when is it a different kind of apple (e.g. Delicious vs. Fuji vs. Granny Smith) and when is it an orange? It's clear that the scandal in Canada was more limited in geographical scope compared to that of the U.S. and that the scandal in Ireland had a different flavor to it. I have been perplexed by this question for the last couple of years. The problem is that there are a few countries (e.g. U.S., Australia, Ireland, Philippines) where there are a substantial number of victims. Most of the other countries mentioned in Roman Catholic sex abuse cases by country have only a few individual cases and do not mention large numbers of victims abused by multiple clerics. I'm not sure if this is due to the difficulty of finding English-language sources covering topics in non-English-speaking countries. In any event, it is difficult to argue that scandals in other countries are of the same scale as in the U.S., Ireland and Australia.

--Richard S (talk) 05:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

And Germany, and Belgium and Mexico where Marcial Maciel's role as papal confidante as well as the church's single largest fundraiser finally collapsed into massive, multi-tiered scandal after brewing for years. Skywriter (talk) 13:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

1. The psychological aspect is more than just the number of priests sent for treatment. There is pretty clear evidence that psychological opinion until fairly recently was that predeliction to molest children was treatable and curable with discussion/therapy. I'm not sure what the details of this 40% figure are, but based on cases I have looked at, the more clear cases were usually sent for psychiatric treatment/therapy. Remember that a lot of these "cases" were often just isolated suspicions, claims, or notifications that the priest had been behaving in what some considered a suspect manner. Referal for treatment on that basis is not indicated, so simply amassing over-all numbers is not that useful an excercise. In any event the principle operated by bishops (and other institutions) was that these were treatable psychological conditions rather than - as considered now - as untreatable criminal tendencies. The psychological factors are a considerable and significant part of the reasoning behind the approach of bishops, and so need to be included if the article contains mention or criticism, of their returning priests to service.

2. Dioceses like Boston and LA have specifically denied that Church/School closures are related to abuse payouts, so I think it would need very strong contrary evidence to state otherwise. Closures of schools ansd parishes among all denominations have proceeded in the absence of such pay-outs.

3. Outside the US, Australia, Ireland and perhaps Canada, abuse cases have been isolated. The US has had by far the largest number of cases and allegations, probably a good deal more than the rest of the world combined to this date. (This may have a lot to do with the large sums of money involved, low standards of proof (all claims against the long dead paid out), and aggressive lawyers touting for clients.) There have been signs from Germany and Belgium that there may be numbers of cases to emerge there, but at the moment this is mostly supposition. I'm not sure where the idea comes from that there have been a lot of allegations in the Philippines or New Zealand. The main point is that the US case and most others are not comparable, and therefore there is no justification for adding long lists of countries with isolated allegations as if they were. Xandar 09:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Xandar, if you were to present a draft text, then it would easier to attempt a merge with Richard's. Everything else aside, all that's important are the few sentences we choose to put in the article, and the sources we choose to use. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) What sources are you choosing, Truthkeeper88? Got WP:RS?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Skywriter (talk • contribs)

Skywriter, fwiw I'm currently unable to edit, or really to read much. As far as this article is concerned, I've gotten as far as the Reformation. Before you cast aspersions have a look at the sandbox on my page devoted to this article and decide for yourself whether I'm using reliable sources. Let's please focus on the edits and not the editors. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Taking Richard's proposed text and amending it to reflect my 3 main objections gives us:

Starting in the 1980s, the issue of sexual abuse of minors by Catholic clergy became the focus of media attention and public debate in the United States, Ireland, Australia and several other countries. Many of the alleged abuses dated back to the 1950s. Some bishops were severely criticized for their handling of reported abuse by shielding accused priests and transferring them to other pastoral assignments where a number continued to commit sexual offenses. However, some bishops and psychiatrists contended that the prevailing psychology of the times suggested that people could be cured of such behavior through counseling of the type provided.^[1] ^[2] As a result of the controversy, a number of bishops resigned and some dioceses sought bankruptcy protection. In response to the scandal, the Church established formal procedures to prevent abuse, to encourage reporting of any abuse that did occur and to handle such reports promptly and effectively. Xandar 00:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have my reservations about the "psychological treatment" text but I can live with it. Can we agree to insert Xandar's text without "inscribing it in stone"? I want to leave open the possibility that further discussions may modify the text and I don't want there to be a claim that this text has been "blessed by consensus". However, I think this text is superior to what we have now so let's just put it in there and we can continue to discuss improvements if there is a desire to do so. --Richard S (talk) 05:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I think this sentence: However, some bishops and psychiatrists contended that the prevailing psychology of the times suggested that people could be cured of such behavior through counseling of the type provided. ruins the flow of what otherwise is a nice summary. Ideally the sentence can be removed; otherwise needs tweak. I like the rest. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 11:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the wording is fine, but it will probably need a lot more references since right now it only has two. Definitly the line that says "Many of the abuses date back to the 50's" is going to need referenced. Also some of the "somes" are probably going to get "who" tags associated with them. Marauder40 (talk) 13:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Reason for flags

There are real differences of opinion here and several of us have done our best to provide reliably sourced citations and those scholarly citations have been ignored or disparaged. The loudest critics have offered absolutely no citations to reliable sources to defend their position that this article should change minimally or not at all. I have stated my criticisms of the rewrite of the summary of the Britannica article and have proposed alternately sourced material, apparently to no avail.

Over the last few weeks, there have been serious efforts to introduce pertinent material and it has been thwarted at every turn in what looks very much like the censoring of well-documented facts that affects thousands of people. While some have given lip service to accepting some change, there is more energy devoted to censorship of this issue in this article. And because there is one vague mention of the topic, there is no motivation to fix the issues that have been raised at length. Therefore, I am flagging this article as not neutral due to systemic problems. The flag will remain until this is cleared up. The systemic bias is directed against the thousands of people who were abused by Catholic clergy as children and whose viewpoint is absent from this article. Indeed, scholars who have spoken up on their behalf have been called "fringe" by some editors and even when it has been proven that there is nothing fringe about them, the biased conduct continues. Skywriter (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with tagging the entire article over the possible addition of a couple sentenances and/or paragraphs. If you want to take the "modern" section of the article and others agree I don't see a problem, but tagging the entire article over this isn't warrented. Marauder40 (talk) 20:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Tagging the entire article over the addition of a few sentences is counterproductive. Haven't been able to keep up with this discussion but the issues for tagging don't point to the entire 2000 year history; if tags are necessary, then tag a section only. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The entire article is tainted by leaving out pertinent facts familiar to most of the world. I also disagree that we are talking about "a few sentences." We have argued in good faith over several weeks about the seriousness of this issue and have made no attempts to engage in edit warring. If you would like to take this to arbitration, feel free. Skywriter (talk) 20:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The article has already been subject to an RfC and covers 2000 years of history. Karanacs and I have made an attempt to begin the clean-up of the article, but I've had real-life issues intervene. Hopefully in a month so will have the opportunity to continue the work started. The most recent argument appears to be about a the addition of small amount of text to a specific section. In my view, it would be helpful to have the editors arguing present drafts of text and work from there. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Against tagging. The existing text has been consensus approved twice. Once when the sentence and link on this issue went in, and again at the RfC. If Skywriter and Harmakheru have issues, they need to discuss them calmly and constructively here to develop a change to the consensus text. Xandar 23:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with Xandar about the existing text having been approved by consensus. First of all, consensus can change. Second, consensus approval of a particular revision does not make each and every sentence "blessed by consensus". We have been around that block before. Third, the understanding was that the history section required significant rework after the IAR reduced it radically. The RFC only indicated which version we were going to use as a starting point and never asked us to bless the text in the revision that we !voted for.

That said, I don't like tagging of either the whole article or sections unless the text is egregiously POV. The text in question is not that egregiously POV. It's just terse. Finally, tagging is an extremely impoverished means of communication and a lousy substitute for open-minded, good faith discussions. Also, if you are sure you are in the right, then form a supermajority consensus that shows that those resisting are clearly an outnumbered minority. If you can't do that, then tagging is just sour grapes.

--Richard S (talk) 05:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Heart of the current dispute

Xandar refers to this RfC for which the Conclusions[1] are as follows.

Conclusions

The RfC showed a clear consensus in favour of working from the "short" version; various reasons were cited by twenty-seven editors, including that its length was more appropriate, its references had been checked, it was easier to add than remove material, and the "long" version had been disputed for years (see views by Sarek of Vulcan, Septentrionalis, and Stephen B Streater).

A majority identified Nancy and Xandar's behaviour as problematic and responsible for the content dispute, or described Nancy's editing as too favourable toward the church; see above and views by Hesperian, by Harmakheru, by SandyGeorgia, and by History 2007. Fifteen agreed that Nancy should take a voluntary one-month break from the article and talk page, or that a three-month topic ban should be imposed; see view by SandyGeorgia. Several said that the RfC was harmful or pointless. Ten agreed or partly agreed that, regardless of the specific content issues, the way the "short" version of the article had been inserted was uncollaborative, or that an article such as this could not be written using Wikipedia's bottom-up model; see views by History 2007 and by Ling.Nut. Eight agreed that the "short" version was inadequate, inaccurate, or a travesty; see views by NancyHeise and by Xandar.

Nancy announced just before the RfC closed that she had decided to take a break. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Xandar's disruptive behavior continues as described in the RfC summary. On her user page Nancy Heise explains, "I am a convert to the Catholic Church, following a religious experience." The RfC in the springtime was brought at Nancy's request. While it is admirable that she states her bias, it is a real bias. Reliance on Nancy's bias to guide the writing of this article can not lead to a neutral or unbiased article.

The differences that have been described recently are quite different from the three narrow choices proffered by Nancy in that RfC. Since then, many more sources have been cited as WP:RS and yet, those resources have been rejected, out of hand, and without citing any sources, by some editors despite the showing that the new resources are scholarly books and articles that have been subjected to peer review.

The central dispute is over whether scholars of the sexual abuse crisis within the Catholic Church will be excluded from this article; some editors here contend that they must be excluded. A recent article In Abuse Crisis, a Church Is Pitted Against Society and Itself in the NYT pinpoints the differences that are at play throughout the church on this issue. I think that article also pinpoints the larger area of dispute among the editors here.

The specifics of the current dispute are as follows. Certain Wikipedia editors reject the use of key topical experts. For example, law professor Timothy B. Lytton has written, Holding Bishops Accountable: How Lawsuits Helped the Catholic Church Confront Clergy Sexual Abuse (304 page; Harvard University Press (May 30, 2008) ISBN 978-0674028104). Summary: "The sexual abuse of children by Catholic clergy is arguably the most acute crisis Catholicism has faced since the Reformation. The prevalence of clergy sexual abuse and its shocking cover-up by church officials have obscured the largely untold story of the tort system's remarkable success in bringing the scandal to light, focusing attention on the need for institutional reform, and spurring church leaders and public officials into action."

Lytton's own book was reviewed by Michael R. Merz, Chair, National Review Board of the Catholic Bishops Conference. Merz wrote: "Timothy Lytton makes a persuasive, even compelling, argument that tort litigation set the agenda for policymakers dealing with sexual abuse of minors in the American Catholic Church. His learned interdisciplinary approach blends institutional analysis with acute observation of how the victims' counsel used the media to make the issue salient to the public and the discovery process to keep the issue interesting to the media. His book should be read, indeed studied carefully, by anyone who wants to understand the crisis as a whole."

In the Journal of Law and Religion, Lytton, a subject matter expert, reviewed Vol. XXII 2006-2007 No. 2 pp. 615-18 Sex, Priests, And Secret Codes: The Catholic Church’S 2,000-Year Paper Trail Of Sexual Abuse by Thomas P. Doyle, A.W. Richard Sipe and Patrick J. Wall 2006. pp. 388. ISBN: 1-566- 25265-2.

Some editors here, notably Xandar but there are others too, insist that Doyle, Sipe et al. be excluded as resources. This is the heart of this dispute and the systemic bias that skews neutrality. The pope himself has said that the clergy sex abuse crisis is "terrifying" and the pope's own assessment is not even reflected. Pope: Sex abuse scandal'terrifying'

Should the personal opinion of individual editors prevail over topical experts? Or should the section on sex abuse by clergy be tightly written, several paragraphs long to fairly reflect the facts as well as the different sides of this issue about which a number of books and a great number of article have been written over the last 25 years? Why is the topic worth several paragraphs? Because a subject matter expert has said the clergy sex abuse crisis is the most acute crisis Catholicism has faced since the Reformation. Skywriter (talk) 12:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I may be mistaken but I have yet to see any proposed wording from you (or Harmakheru.) It's one thing to keep bringing up facts, tagging the article, putting in inflamatory things that can't be used since they are just synthesis or opinion like the last sentence comparing the abuse to the reformation. How about making a proposal that follows WP polices related to reliable sources, undue weight, etc. that people can actually put their teeth around. Until that happens this talk page continues to just be a soapbox. Marauder40 (talk) 13:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have formed unusually strong opinions of these books. Have you read either one? Skywriter (talk) 09:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to make two points:

First of all, not everything an author writes is of equal credibility. Doyle and Sipe write many things which I am willing to accept as factual. However, they also write hyperbolic rhetoric which are opinion, not fact. So does Lytton. For example, in Skywriter's comment above, he cites Merz as saying ""Timothy Lytton makes a persuasive, even compelling, argument that tort litigation set the agenda ...". OK, great. I can accept the central thesis (i.e. "that tort litigation set the agenda...". But take a look at what Lytton wrote "The sexual abuse of children by Catholic clergy is arguably the most acute crisis Catholicism has faced since the Reformation." That's an assessment that is more one of subjective judgment. Maybe it is and maybe it isn't. Different people can differ reasonably on that assertion. We should not accept such assertions uncritically any more than we would accept similar assertions from the other side. We must be careful to separate fact from opinion and assert only facts as facts, making careful to present opinions as opinions citing them to the person holding that opinion.

Secondly, there's lots of stuff that I would be willing to accept, even eager to insert into the article on Catholic sex abuse cases. I have invested much time into that article and its related subarticles. However, even that article has had problems with being too long and much of the detail has been moved into yet another level of subsidiary articles. My concern here is that we not get into details here and that we avoid getting into anything that is controversial because of the limited amount of space that we have. We do not have space in this article to provide "equal time" for all the rebuttals that will surely follow. That's why we need to keep the treatment terse and summary in nature here and provide the details in subsidiary articles that we link to.

--Richard S (talk) 15:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Here, here. Thanks, Richard, for eloquently stating this. Karanacs (talk) 16:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

The pope said the clergy sex abuse crisis is "terrifying." That too is strong language. Whether you accept or don't accept particular concepts is beside the point. Both the Lytton book and the Doyle book offer useful histories of the clergy sex abuse scandal and both are heavily footnoted. Both also are fair in that adequate space is given to opposing arguments. My point in referencing the Lytton book is not to blow the horn of lawyers but rather to show that the subject has been explored extensively, that there is an extensive body of work that contains the objective record of facts, and that this is a serious issue that merits serious attention, something that does not exist in this article. For most of the several weeks I have been contributing to this talk page, I have seen the emphasis on rejecting the work of scholars because editors here have personal biases and not because any reliable source has declared their work to be problematic or fringe but due to the personal biases of the individual editors who offer no sources for their opinions. I can not evaluate the paragraph you have offered above for the reasons given earlier: You said you didn't know how much of it was plagiarism of another encyclopedia. I went to extensive effort to find reliable sources and I presented them on this page as did another editor. Until there is agreement on what sources are acceptable, I do not know how to proceed.

There have been claims that any language beyond the one sentence now present is WP:Undue weight. I offered an assessment by a topical scholar who put the matter into some perspective and I offered the pope's own assessment. You chose to ignore the pope's comment and proceeded to personally disagree with the subject matter expert.

Now it is your personal opinion (and not the assessment of any WP:RS such as the reviewer from the National Review Board of the Catholic Bishops Conference who praised Lytton's book) that The sexual abuse of children by Catholic clergy is or is not the most acute crisis Catholicism has faced since the Reformation. We are not supposed to be injecting personal opinion into these articles and yet personal opinion dominates what goes into and is being excluded from this article. Is it possible to take one's personal opinion out of the article when the motivation is to protect the church from any negative comments? No. I don't think so. I also don't see how it is possible to operate within Wikipedia guidelines and not come up with a reliable source to challenge an assertion. Personal opinion lacks the same weight as a reliable source. Will the summary of Lytton's book be kept out of this article because of the personal opinions of editors here? Or because a reliable source has commented? And then when someone finds a reliable source to say no, the clergy sexual abuse crisis is the worst thing since sliced white, and not the Reformation, will both comments be excluded because they are unpleasant and editors here prefer their own personal opinions to secondary sources. I give a large number of people inside the Catholic Church credit for trying to address this. In the olden days, these crimes were covered up and the crimes flourished under cover. Skywriter (talk) 17:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Please, Skywriter, let's use some common sense. If you can't see that calling the sexual abuse crisis "the greatest crisis the Church has faced since the Reformation" is opinion and hyperbolic opinion at that, we may as well call it quits and stop talking. You can't leave such a judgment to any one person and it is way too early to make such a judgment. Only history can make such a determination. Let's get back together in 50 or 100 years and then we can reassess the situation. I certainly agree that some people see it that way and I can understand why they feel that way. They have a right to their opinion but we must see it as opinion, not indisputable fact.

Now, as for the Pope calling the scandal "terrifying", I suspect that if you look at his actual words in context, he was not saying the same thing as Lytton. So please, let's be careful not to perform unwarranted synthesis.

I also want to clarify one thing: You have asserted on at least two occasions that I "said you didn't know how much of it was plagiarism of another encyclopedia." You misunderstood me. I was clearly acknowledging that my proposed text was plagiarism of the Encyclopedia Britannica Online text that Harmakheru provided and I was clearly cognizant that such plagiarism would be unacceptable in Wikipedia. However, my approach was to say "Let's start with understanding what points the EB Online makes and then write a paragraph that covers the same points but with original writing." If we can come to an agreement as to what points we want to have in this article, we can rewrite and wordsmith afterwards to avoid plagiarism or even "close paraphrasing".

NB: I am NOT saying that we should use the EB Online as our sole authoritative source. I do understand that encyclopedias are not considered reliable sources in Wikipedia. I am saying that we should look at multiple encyclopedias and books that cover the history of the Church and use those sources to determine which points are worth mentioning in this article and which should be relegated to subsidiary detail articles. Once we have come to an agreement as to which points to mention in the text, we can go off and find sources for those points. Presumably if a point is mentioned in an encyclopedia or a general history of the Church, it can be sourced without too much trouble. As Karanacs pointed out, it is difficult to start with a book focused on a specific topic and determine how NPOV that particular author is and which points should be mentioned in a summary. It is much better to start with an NPOV treatment of the topic and then find sources to support the points in it.

--Richard S (talk) 18:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Richard S wrote: It is much better to start with an NPOV treatment of the topic and then find sources to support the points in it.

One person's NPOV is another person's bias. It is more useful to begin with what the secondary sources have said and build from there. So long as the sources are shown, the biases are known. Building an article absent the secondary sources equals an article based on personal opinion.

I also think you are making this much more difficult than it is. "meet you in 100 years" is not an option. If you were correct, we could take the 100-year approach with every article and none would be written.

Is the comparison to the Reformation that far-fetched? I don't share your personal opinion but will not argue the point because this is not the place to do so. At the moment, what we have is an editor who disagrees with a subject matter expert arguing that the subject matter expert's assessment should be excluded because the editor disagrees with the point. It is of course blather to declare that unless I agree with you on the subject of the comparison to the reformation, there's no point in talking further.

There's a plethora of articles in the newspapers and magazines that cover this issue in plenty of depth and many of them could be used as sources. Bishop Gregory makes the useful point that the requirement that sex abuse by clergy now be reported to civil authorities is a major turning point. [2] I submit that sourced statement for inclusion. Does anyone disagree?

You chose to ignore one of the articles I mentioned in favor of highlighting your disagreements with the subject matter expert. So I'll repeat the point and maybe you will consider it.

A recent article In Abuse Crisis, a Church Is Pitted Against Society and Itself in the NYT pinpoints the differences that are at play throughout the church on this issue. I think that article also pinpoints the larger area of dispute among the editors here.

PS: A nuance you are ignoring in terms of the papal statement is that the current pope gets a lot more credit than his predecessor for facing up to and trying to resolve the scandal. Skywriter (talk) 18:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

IMO the NYT article is a good starting place and much can be mined from it. No one is denying that the abuse should be covered - from my perspective the issue is how to cram it all into a sentence or two. How about presenting a draft based on that article and we take it from there? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but even the NYT article is clearly biased. (NB: I'm not saying I disagree with it. I'm just saying that it says there are two POVs but sides with one of them.) I think the article can be used in the detailed article Catholic sex abuse cases (Hint: We could use the help of Skywriter and Harmakheru on that and related articles.) It might also be useful to take the key point (that there is an internal conflict within the Church about how to handle the crisis) and mention it in this article. See my comment below titled "Due weight and the value of consulting tertiary sources".

Based on his response to Karanacs below, it does seem that Skywriter has finally gotten the point that the reason we are trying to keep the text on this topic concise is that this is a summary-level article which is at least two levels of summary away from the detail article. As such, I think 5-6 sentences is an absolute maximum though bordering on undue weight and 3-4 sentences is probably preferable. The general consensus (with a few dissenters) seems to be that 1-2 sentences would be too terse.

--Richard S (talk) 15:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Skywriter, I think you need to take a deep breath. The vast majority of us agree with your personal POV that the scandal is heartbreaking, unacceptable, and may well be the greatest crisis the Church has seen since the reformation. But, as you say, that's our opinion, and our opinions don't matter. We could write pages about this topic, using many of the scholarly sources presented on this talk page, but this article is not the place for that. This particular article is a summary of a vast institution with a lengthy history, and we have to be very careful to touch on the issues without going into too much detail, instead pointing readers to the more specialized articles that can go into a great deal of depth. It's important to keep in mind that the history section of this article is supposed to be a summary of History of the Catholic Church, which would then summarize our articles on the sex abuses. That means we should be two levels removed from the details. We can argue about how much this article should say and which facts to cover ad nauseum, but without going back to more general sources to see how they cover the topic, we're not getting anywhere. Neither Truthkeeper nor I are able at the moment to go through the sources for the more recent information. Xandar has MacCulloch's Christianity - perhaps he can look there to see how the scandals are covered. Could you perhaps also look at the library for other recently published broad overviews to see how much weight is given to the scandal? Karanacs (talk) 20:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Karanacs, why are you putting words in my mouth? None of the opinions you attribute to me are mine, nor or any of the words you attribute. I reported the opinion of scholarly secondary sources to question why their views are summarily rejected here.

I now grasp your point that this is supposed to be a summary of other articles. Thank you for stating that. I have been wondering why there are two such articles and you have answered that.Skywriter (talk) 09:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Due weight and the value of consulting tertiary sources

Wikipedia discourages the use of primary sources because doing so often requires editors to interpret the meaning and importance of such sources. This kind of analysis can result in original research and so the use of secondary sources is much preferred. However, one point that is often missed is that many secondary sources can be biased and so it is often necessary to qualify the assertion with phrases such as "Some historians such as X, Y and Z believe..." or "According to X, ....". This is especially true when using books focused on a single subject such as the sexual abuse scandal. It is natural for the author to assert that the subject is important. After all, if it were not, why would he write a book and why would you read it? However, one has to take such assertions with a grain of salt and look to other sources to evaluate the relative importance of the subject. That is when tertiary sources such as encyclopedias and books providing broad overviews of the general subject come in handy. That said, it may be useful to add a sentence indicating how important some people think the crisis is. We run the risk of the text becoming too long but such a sentence would read something like "Some observers view the sexual abuse scandal as one of the most serious to confront the Church in centuries." (or "since the Reformation" if you insist)

The critical point here is, if we choose to say anything at all, it is overreaching to assert "The sexual abuse scandal is one of the most serious to confront the Church in centuries." That fails to strike an NPOV stance.

--Richard S (talk) 14:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. And I'm sorry to see, on one of my periodic check-ups, that the article seems to be making no progress at all, but just finding new ways for discussion to get bogged down. One begins to wonder if the current "B" rating can be justified. Johnbod (talk) 14:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Truthkeeper and I have both had personal issues that have prevented us from devoting as much time to the article this summer, and no one else is reading the big history books :( Hopefully we'll get back on track this fall. Karanacs (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do hope to back on track here. Just had a look at the article - the lead seems to be gone. A lot of work to be done - and help very much welcome. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

There are substantial differences in how serious some people consider the abuse scandals to be. There is nothing to be gained from saying, "its not that serious," "its incredibly serious" "its quite serious" etc. It just wastes space on opinionising. Let the reader decide how serious they think it is. Xandar 20:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think you've hit the nail on the head. The sentence "There are substantial differences in how serious some people consider the abuse scandals to be." should be in Wikipedia although not necessarily in this article but most certainly in the article Catholic sex abuse cases. It is an important feature of the scandal that there are those who think this is "the greatest challenge to the Church since the Reformation" and others who view it as a serious problem that needs to be dealt with but just one among many issues that the Church has to deal with. I don't have time to do this right now but I will work on incorporating this point into Catholic sex abuse cases. --Richard S (talk) 17:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Church and the Spanish Civil War

One of the subjects of heated discussion on this Talk Page has been the role of the Catholic Church in the Spanish Civil War. I have cobbled together an article on this topic titled Catholic Church and the Spanish Civil War using text copied from other Wikipedia articles. Please take a look at this article and help improve it. Thanks. --Richard S (talk) 17:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Corruption

The Abuse crisis is nothing like the Reformation, which was a deep theological, political and institutional assault on Catholicism at every level. McCulloch gives the scandals two paragraphs, approximately one page (p.999) in his 1,200 page book. Xandar 00:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Xandar, I would not expect McCulloch to delve into sexual abuse of children by the clergy. Why would he? His is a magisterial history, from an Anglican perspective, of all of the different religions in Christianity with one section on the Roman church. Way too far afield to shed light on this topic.

The clergy sex abuse scandal and the Reformation have [|corruption] in the church hierarchy in common. The single major reform in this current (50-year-old) crisis is that the Vatican has now agreedMay 18, 2010 to turn over priests who commit crimes to civil authorities for criminal prosecution. This has never happened before with the result that pedophiles with a collar have been treated quite differently than pedophiles who don't wear the priestly collar. The combination of sunshine in the news media, civil litigation, and criminal prosecutions helped to bring about these changes. Skywriter (talk) 09:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we're getting back into arguing about the topic rather than talking about the article. However I would disagree strongly with your allegation that there has been "corruption in the Church heirarchy, and with the unsubstantiated contention that priests have been treated differently to others accused of abuse of minors. In fact some priests have been convicted and given lengthy sentences in controversial circumstances involving so-called "recovered memory syndrome" and other irregularities. The reporting of allegations to the authorities as standard practice is new to all religious groups and most major secular institutions in the US, UK and elsewhere. Xandar 20:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Really, Xandar? Got sources? It is rare see such a muscular defense of convicted pedophiles coupled with the "everybody does it defense," all without providing one solitary secondary source to support the assertions. Making the case for corruption, these are secondary source links to the other sides to this story. (Usually when people use the word scandal, corruption is present.) These links are mostly from the usual suspect sources, straight news stories from The New York Times, The Times of London, CBS, NPR, the Los Angeles Times, the BBC, a book, and so on though a few editorials are included.Timeline: US Church sex scandal [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] Archdiocese for Years Kept Claims of Abuse From Police, Church also let accused priests flee, say documents, interviews. But Mahony has been relatively aggressive in dismissing clergy. Catholic Church Asking Court to Void California's 2003 Abuse Law [16] [17] A long but prophetic article from 1993. [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]5 [27]4 [28] [29] Catholic abuse scandal edges closer to pope. The problem is no longer an American aberration, and Catholics want to know what Pope Benedict knew when he was archbishop of Munich. Lawler, Philip F. The Faithful Departed: The Collapse of Boston's Catholic Culture Encounter Books (August 3, 2010) ISBN 978-1594033742 Vatican officials defend pope in German abuse scandal. They deny that Benedict, as archbishop of Munich, had a role in an accused child abuser's reinstatement to priestly duties. Future pope had concerns about defrocking California priest accused of molestation, letter shows Unless the condemnation of sexual abuse by priests is accompanied by punishment, the Roman Catholic Church's reputation will continue to suffer. A pope with a problem. By lashing out at the coverage of the sexual abuse scandal, the Roman Catholic Church shows it has learned little from the squalid affair. [30] Belgian Church Leader Urged Victim to Be Silent [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] Is the Church Engaged In Organized Crime? ] March 26, 2010 Pope accused of ignoring pleas to stop priest who molested 200 deaf boys [37] From The Times of London. March 24, 2010. Call the police: what the Pope should have said [38] [39] [40] [41] Orange Diocese Gives Details on Sex Abuse. Documents show how officials covered for, transferred and even promoted pedophiles. Cardinal Mahony under federal fraud probe over abusive priests. The U.S. attorney in Los Angeles is pursuing the theory that the prelate deprived parishioners of 'the right of honest services' by failing to protect their children from predatory clerics. [42] Skywriter (talk) 03:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

<inserted>Most of the stuff above is the epitome of the slanted, purple-prose-style coverage from a subset of New York Times journalists and others of similar pursuasion that has been condemned for inaccuracy bias and dishonesty by so many sources, including the failed attempts to smear Pope Benedict. I am not going into the details of individually refuting any of the obsessively gathered collection above, because that is not the purpose of this page. Nor is it the purpose of this page to collect the most slanted junk available on the web. It is to produce a factual balanced article. And no part of the Church has been charged, let alone convicted of any corruption or crime, because such charges have not been justified by the facts, however much anti-Catholic journalists might rant. Xandar 22:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a useless dispute hinging on the definition of the word "corruption". It's obvious that mistakes were made and that evil triumphed over good. Now, whether this triumph was due to "corruption", misdirected good intentions or simply a failure to act positively to counter evil is a debate that can go on forever. Let's go back to Xandar's point... perhaps the reason that the sexual abuse crisis does not begin to match the Reformation in scale is that, during the Reformation, the Church refused to accept the precepts of the reformers and the reformers decided that the only home for them was outside the Church. Whether you think the Church has adequately addressed the problem of sexual abuse or not, it has certainly taken some steps in that direction and there are few reformers who are arguing that the only home for them is outside the Church. Like the original reformers of the Reformation, many of them would prefer to remain within the Church than without and those who would find it impossible to remain within the Church are generally not starting new churches but joining existing ones or abandoning religion altogether. --Richard S (talk) 04:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Skywriter, you definitely have an agenda against this particular religious group (the Catholic Church). You need to check that at the door to maintain NPOV. Xandar's statements are correct and easily verifiable.Resolver-Aphelion (talk) 03:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Which resources of Xandar's do you refer to, Aphelion? Central to this dispute is that Xandar offers absolutely no links to reliable sources to support his viewpoint. I have linked to more than one hundred. Your guidance is misplaced and, yes, your non-neutral viewpoint is showing. Skywriter (talk) 01:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not convinced that Skywriter has to "check his POV at the door". All that's needed is that he recognize that his POV is just that, a "point of view" of which there are others. To be NPOV, we need to present all significant POVs without giving any of them undue weight. It's clear that Skywriter's POV is a significant POV (for example, it is more or less what SNAP would argue). If we were discussing the Catholic sex abuse cases article, I would certainly want to have this POV well-represented. The question we have to answer is whether this POV is adequately presented in this article given the limited amount of space that we have. --Richard S (talk) 04:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Richardshusr, I don't know what SNAP is and have never visited their website if they have one. I am a careful reader of mainstream media and I edit a wide variety of articles on Wikipedia. All of the resources I have provided here are links to articles in the mainstream media concerning sex abuse of children by Catholic clergy. Those articles are far from comprehensive though they do demonstrate the seriousness with which the mainstream media treats this issue. Now mainstream media is good enough for most Wikipedia articles and yet seems not to be good enough for this one. I wonder why not. For many years, the Catholic hierarchy denied and covered up these crimes and the cover-up got them into deep trouble with the public. Now various people here have argued that these cases are not so important to deserve more than a vague sentence. You argue there is a "space" issue. I don't think so. I think these are excuses for not coming to terms with a topic that most people not editing this article long ago decided is important enough to treat with dignity and honesty. Now the stridency of the opposition to change in this article has apparently driven many editors away and I have taken it off my watch list because I choose not to involve myself in a pissing match. That does not mean I will not visit occasionally to encourage you and other editors to embrace this topic forthrightly and address it with honesty. Certainly, other editors including myself have provided you with more than sufficient resources. Therefore, lack of research is not the issue. It is a question of willingness to come to terms with a difficult issue. Skywriter (talk) 03:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Skywriter, I don't dispute that this is an important issue. That position belongs to other editors such as User:Xandar. My objection is the use of the word "corruption" which is subject to multiple definitions and carries a harshly critical POV. It is a prominent POV but it is not the only one and an NPOV treatment would require presentation of all significant POVs. If you earnestly want to resolve the impasse, you might consider availing yourself of one of the Wikipedia mechanisms for dispute resolution. I will gladly join with you as far as I can for I myself am frustrated by the intransigence of some of the other editors of this article. --Richard S (talk) 04:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Whether the word corruption is used in the article, I don't care. My sole viewpoint is that the topic is not covered except for a vague sentence written in the passive voice, which seems to place nearly no weight at all to a subject deserving of more weight. I plan to add the pope's own comments on this topic that are all over the media today. If someone decides to remove that, then yes, some form of dispute resolution is in order. Skywriter (talk) 23:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually Skywriter, the mere fact that you posted an inordinate and unnecessary amount of sources which supposedly back your position gives your non-NPOV away. Truthfully, many, including Philip Jenkins (a non-Catholic, by the way) and others, who have studied the sex abuse crisis in depth and have presented a straightforward and verifiable account of the facts behind the scandal support Xandar's contentions (and mine). I suggest you read the studies, like the John Jay Report, the Murphy Report, and Philip Jenkin's book, The Myth of the Pedophile Priest— instead of relying on weak and biased "opinion" sources and citing only ones that support your own agenda. The statistical number of abusers in the Catholic Church was less than half of the statistical number found in other public service sectors. For example, Catholic abuse cases in 1980 (the peak of the abuse crisis) were 2-5% of ordained priests. the statistical number of paedophiles in the United States public school systems is 10% or more. "Sex Abuse in Public Schools Worse than in the Church" http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/4/5/01552.shtml I have no need to post an excessive and unnecessary amount of dither, just some references and a link. At the same time, both views must be assimilated into the article for representation's sake and to balance and maintain NPOV. Resolver-Aphelion (talk) 03:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

22 Eastern Churches

I'm sure that there is not only a good reason why the 22 autonomous Eastern Churches are not mentioned by quantity and why there is no place to do so either. I'm not really interested in recalling the probably lengthy discussion. Just surprising to not find it here... or any place for it. Student7 (talk) 22:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

There probably wasn't a discussion, since much of the article was abruptly changed six months ago. Can you give some idea of what you would like the article to say on this, and we can discuss. Xandar 20:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

There's also one autonomous "Western" Catholic church as per Particular churches. I do think that there should be a link to that article. There is currently a link to Eastern Catholic Churches in the first sentence of the article, but a more direct reference in "Hierarchy, personnel and institutions," if nowhere else, might be in order. John Carter (talk) 20:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Haldraper I see, keeps on taking reference to the 22 Eastern Churches out of the Lead, without any discussion. Why? Xandar 21:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Style. Haldraper (talk) 08:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I can appreciate a stylistic reason for the lead. A bit distracting considering the numbers. Seems like it should be somewhere in the article though. Just a thought. Maybe the "Eastern Catholic churches" link takes care of it? Student7 (talk) 23:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I think so, anyone wanting more info on them will click on the link. Haldraper (talk) 08:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Child sex abuse

It seems to me extraordinary that as far as I can see the child sex abuse scandal, one of the most important issues, if not the most important, affecting the church in recent decades, occupies just one sentence of this article - about one-tenth of the space allocated to a single pope (John Paul II). Not even a paragraph, let alone a sub-heading. It really couldn't have a smaller mention. Ben Finn (talk) 12:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Ben, if you look through the archive of the talk page you'll see this issue has been a battleground between those who wanted to criticise and those wanted to excuse the Church's actions. The current, minimal version is a result of that and at least meets WP:NPOV which many of its predecessors were very far from. Haldraper (talk) 12:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Yup, I see that, but a single sentence is clearly not adequate coverage of the topic! Ben Finn (talk) 15:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Queen EII Highlights Important points of Catholic Church

This article is Queen Elizabeth's speech today welcoming Pope Benedict XVI to her country. [43]. She highlights the Church's accomplishments in the world. I think the Wikipedia article should include some sort of overview of what the Church actually does. 65.97.135.45 (talk) 00:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Episcopal conferences

In the hierarchy and organization section, some mention of episcopal conferences should be made. They are rather important in the current governance of the church. While we're at it, the role of the apostolic nuncio should also be briefly introduced. Gentgeen (talk) 06:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Gentgeen, episcopal conferences are organizational in nature; they are neither doctrinal or spiritually authoritative bodies within the Church. Their documents only have weight inasmuch as individual bishops promulgate them in their own dioceses. Resolver-Aphelion (talk) 04:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph

The opening paragraph is being continually reverted. Let's settle on a sufficient, concise, and most importantly, unambiguous version. The "contested" clauses are as follows: "According to Catholic dogma, the Church's bishops are successors of Christ's Apostles and the Pope is the successor of St. Peter; accordingly by guidance of the Holy Spirit the Pope or general councils of the Church can infallibly define dogma concerning faith and morals."

The mentioning of General Councils was necessary, as that is actually the more common mode of definition of dogmata; it is also a part of the Catholic concept of the Church's dogmatic infallibility.

"The Catholic Church maintains to be the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Christ."

This, of course, follows closely with the previously mentioned doctrines (apostolic succession, infallibility, and indefectibility) and is a central dogma of the Catholic religion. because of that, it naturally should be mentioned here.

"The central act of Catholic worship is the Mass, in which the Eucharist is offered to God and consumed by the faithful."

This is far better than the previously ambiguous statement, because it gives the context of the Eucharist; it's also bizarre, from a Catholic point-of-view, to refer to the Eucharist as a "component". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Resolver-Aphelion (talk • contribs) 05:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick comment - the second contested sentence is poor grammar. The third is jargon - a non-Catholic is not necessarily going to understand that at all. Karanacs (talk) 15:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I have two problems with the new additions: that they make the lead less concise without adding essential information and also give it a less encyclopaedic, more 'insider', tone.

The issue of church councils being capable of making infallible definitions of dogma belongs in the body of the article, not the lead.

"The Catholic Church maintains to be the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Christ." What does this add to the preceding statement about the apostolic succession? It seems to me to just repeat it in another form.

"The central act of Catholic worship is the Mass, in which the Eucharist is offered to God and consumed by the faithful." is indeed written "from a Catholic point-of-view" as Resolver-Aphelion admits. Can s/he provide reliable sources for the contention that "the Eucharist is offered to God" or that it is "consumed by the faithful"? Haldraper (talk) 15:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

In the second sentence, it is not a grammatical problem, although it is worded awkwardly, and should be worded better. Nonetheless, it is a very notable characteristic of Catholic religion (like the Eastern Orthodox, or, say, the Jacobites). And, how does Papal infalliblity merit being in the lead, but not General Councils? If anything, the General Councils should be mentioned first, because the amount of defined dogmata have been overwhelmingly defined by General Councils, not by a given Pope.

The third is not jargon. "Mass" is less "jargon-y" than Eucharist even. It clarifies and gives context to the mentioning of the Eucharist.

I also think you're wrong on all three accounts, no offence. They do not make it overly lengthy, they do add essential information, and I fail to see how they give it an "insider" tone. The previous rendering of the paragraph makes the writer sound unfamiliar with what the article is dealing with, as it glosses over central and related facts.

You asked, what does the sentence "The Catholic Church maintains to be the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Christ," add to the paragraph and stated that it is a mere rephrasing of what is said about apostolic succession. For instance, the Anglican Communion does not believe that it alone constitutes the "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church"— But the Roman Catholic Church does, which distinguishes it as not only claiming to have apostolic succession, but also claiming to be the "one true Church" (the concept of which is conveniently linked).

And, yes, I can provide links that state the Eucharist is "offered to God" and "consumed by the faithful": http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10006a.htm

From the article: "The Divine institution of the sacrifice of the altar is proved by showing:

that the 'shedding of blood' spoken of in the text took place there and then and not for the first time on the cross;
that it was a true and real sacrifice;
that it was considered a permanent institution in the Church." Resolver-Aphelion (talk) 03:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolver, I didn't ask you for a link showing what the Church itself believes but a reliable source for the bald statement you want to insert that the Eucharist is offered to God and consumed by the faithful.

This statement presupposes several things, not least the existence of God and the mental state of communicants, which are surely beyond academic enquiry. Haldraper (talk) 09:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Whether God exists or not is irrelevant; the Eucharist is offered to Him/It, regardless of whether He's there or not. It's right in the text of the Mass. And one only need go to a Catholic Church on Sunday to see "the Faithful" consuming the Eucharist. It's part of the Rite of the Mass. Your objections seem a bit bewildering and odd to me.

At any rate, let's work on a compromise text for the paragraph, one that we can both agree one, and which contains the additional necessary information. Resolver-Aphelion (talk) 04:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed text regarding sexual abuse scandal (retrieved from Talk Page archive)

Here's a revised version of the summary that I proposed much earlier. It is based on the EB Online text provided by Harmakheru and thus needs further rewriting and paraphrasing to avoid plagiarism:

"Starting in the 1980s, the issue of sexual abuse of minors by Catholic clergy became the focus of media attention and public debate in countries such as Canada, the United States, , the United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand. In the United States alone, over 6,000 cases of molestation were authenticated, though victims’ groups asserted that additional cases went unreported because the victims were ashamed to come forward. Many of the charges alleged abuse dating as far back as the 1950s. It was further alleged that bishops had deliberately and systematically mishandled reports of abuse by shielding priests and transferring them to other pastoral assignments. A number of bishops resigned as a result of the controversy over their handling of the sexual abuse incidents. By 2004 the Catholic church worldwide had paid out more than $1 billion (U.S.) in jury awards, settlements, and legal fees, leading some dioceses to seek protection under bankruptcy law. In response to the scandal, the Church established formal procedures to prevent abuse, to encourage reporting of any abuse that did occur and to handle such reports promptly and effectively. In the recent years, however, similar scandals have emerged in countries such as the Philippines, Mexico, Spain, Poland, Austria, Germany, France, Argentina, and Hong Kong."

Comments:

The data of "over 6,000 cases" comes from the John Jay report which focuses only on the U.S. How do we communicate the global scale of the scandal? I haven't seen any comprehensive tabulation of cases across multiple countries.