Talk:Catholic Church sexual abuse cases/Archive 17

Merger proposal
This article and Catholic Church abuse cases seem to cover the same material. Is there any reason not to merge these into one article? Cl ea n Co py talk 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 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)

Not a move discussion
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. –Zfish118⋉talk 02:30, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 31 January 2019

 * 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 cases → Sexual 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. 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.

Pope's comments to journalists Feb 2019
I have added a short verbatim quote, demonstrating the candour of the current Pontiff. Cpsoper (talk) 21:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Vatican investigation and Report That Never came
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)

‎Sexual abuse of nuns by priests and bishops material
Per Talk:Catholic Church sexual abuse cases/Archive 15 and the and  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 on these grounds. Please try to address these two questions: For now per suggestion I have added some of the deleted material to the alternative page. Cpsoper (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * Comment: Editors might want to refer to the Talk:Catholic Church sexual abuse cases/Archive 15, and  discussions. And also keep in mind that this RfC is not an official move discussion. If the article were moved, the current title would still redirect to this article unless the Catholic Church abuse cases article took on the "Catholic Church sexual abuse cases" title. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * RFC 1- no change to title, this ‘sexual abuse’ actually seems more the COMMONNAME. #2 - could be no change for now, or See Also might do.  Eventually I would think the sexual abuse section there points here as the Main article for subsection(s) on sexual abuse, and that this article’s lead would mention the wider topic and wikilink there.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:40, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Catholic Child abuse only, the topic is the common topic for the page, is what readers expect to find here, and appropriately defines a historically important stand-alone topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I think that if the title remains "Catholic Church sexual abuse cases" then it should include discussion of exploitation of nuns and maybe seminary students as well. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 10:20, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Theodore Edgar McCarrick RfC
There is an RfC taking place at Talk:Theodore Edgar McCarrick regarding the possible restoration of three removed paragraphs if anyone is interested in participating. Display name 99 (talk) 19:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Croatia
Why is Croatia missing among countries? It had at least three cases and some currently listed only one or general accusation. --5.43.99.155 (talk) 06:01, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add it! Thanks! Elizium23 (talk) 06:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅. --5.43.99.155 (talk) 14:59, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Sullins
I don't think this belongs:


 * In a new report, Dr. Paul Sullins examined measures of the share of homosexual Catholic priests and the incidence and victim gender of minor sex abuse victims by Catholic priests from 1950 to 2001 in the United States. The statistical analysis shows that more homosexual men in the priesthood was strongly correlated with more overall abuse and more boys abused compared to girls.

This is, as it says, a new publication. Sullins is a Catholic priest. It's stated to be in a "peer reviewed journal" per the revert of my removal, but it was published in The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, whihc is again a Catholic journal. The incentive for bias is very obvious. Google Scholar indicates that it has never been cited. There are a load of red flags here, and we certainly should not be presenting this striking finding unless there is compelling evidence of significance in the form of discussion in the non-religious peer-reviewed literature. Guy (help!) 20:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not at all how WP works. This is a peer-reviewed article authored by a professional sociologist in his field of competence published in a reliable source and already discussed in many reliable and secular sources (for example, The Wall Street Journal). You cannot refuse to mention a research published in a reliable source because the author is Catholic or atheist. This would simply be double standard.
 * Moreover, if you think that because you are Catholic priest, you are biased in favor of this hypothesis, this is a very naive view of catholicism, to say the least. Thucyd (talk) 09:28, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You say that, but it's reviewed by peers in a Catholic journal, and it's written by a Catholic. That's a massive red flag. The onus is firmly on you to demonstrate that this is appropriate to include. Validity of an academic source is established by citations by other academic sources. Here, I find none. So we're making a claim that lives squarely in the scientific realm based on your assessment that this catholic author's paper in a Catholic journal that has not been cited by anyone else in the scientific field in which it purportedly rests, is worth mentioning here. I disagree: I see it as special pleading of a rather obvious kind. Guy (help!) 21:30, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Does this article have a strongly anti-Catholic position?
So, reading this article as a Roman Catholic, the article sounds to have a severely anti-Catholic tone. As a Roman Catholic, I recognize I may have biases and I abstain from making edits, so as to not let my devotion to the One true faith influence my editing here. But I just want someone to take a look on whether this article is anti-Catholic in nature. Reading this, sometimes feels like a rabid, undomesticated, abortion loving atheist screaming "how can you still be Catholic" to my face, rather than an informative article. Again, it could be my biases. I am abstaining from touching this article. I just want someone to reassure me that this is not a place where atheists get to badmouth Roman Catholic believers and endorse gay marriage, but a neutral article from a purely informative point of view. Atheists have slaughtered enough Catholics, I hope this isn't an article that is supposed to fuel their genocidal fantasies.

Thanks all --GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 10:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , I would say it has a neutral position on Catholicism but follows the global consensus that sexual abuse is wrong, covering it up is wrong, and lobbying to protect the reputation of an organisation associated with abuse and thus against the victims o that abuse is also wrong. That seems uncontroversial to me. Guy (help!) 10:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I will just assume that you are coming from a more neutral position. basically, does this article "condemn" the Catholic Church and its members? Does it stay neutral in that? thanks GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 11:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , as far as I can see the article doesn't express any particular opinion, it just reflects the sources. Guy (help!) 13:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

First sentence
The lead of this article suffers from the awkwardness of trying to force the article title into the first sentence. The governing principle here is MOS:LEADSENTENCE, especially bullet 1, and the MOS:AVOIDBOLD "Mississippi" example. The first sentence at Catholic Church sex abuse cases in the United States has the same problem. There is currently a discussion going on about the first sentence of that article here; your feedback would be welcome.

In the case of this article, I would propose the following as the new first sentence:"Accusations of child sexual abuse by Catholic priests, nuns and members of religious orders began to receive public attention during the late 1980s." This is a mashup of portions of the first sentence and the fifth sentence of the lead paragraph in the current version. Mathglot (talk) 01:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The cover-ups are important. So I would change it to "Accusations of child sexual abuse and cover-ups by Catholic priests, nuns and members of religious orders began to receive public attention during the late 1980s." Then eliminate the fifth sentence. Sundayclose (talk) 02:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , your suggestion is even better, thanks. Let's await further comment. Mathglot (talk) 02:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

"Clerical abuse" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Clerical abuse. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 29 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm (talk) 21:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Long messy article needs cleanup
I just finished cleanup. Since article has organically growup hapazardly, I organised alphabetised headings by grouping the sections. Calling for your help, this unmaintained article still needs the following cleanup:
 * 1) Major case section: Remove the text from this article related to "Major cases" listed by country and merge with the main article on Catholic Church sex abuse cases by country. Add a 1 to 3 para summary in "International extent of abuse" section. Since "Catholic Church sex abuse cases by country" article is growing unmanageably, it requires forking into other countries with large number of catholics e.g. Philippines, India, Mexico, South America, etc.
 * 2) Church responses section: Move the text to a new article Catholic Church response to sex abuse cases, and retain a condensed 2 to 3 para summary here.
 * 3) Governmental and legal responses section: Condense to 2 to 4 paras, and move this text to the piped articles Catholic Church sexual abuse cases in Ireland, Catholic Church sex abuse cases in English Benedictine Congregation UK, and Catholic Church sex abuse cases in the United States.
 * 4) causes of abuse section: Condese the text within eahc section. A piped long article on the topic already exists.

No COI self disclosure: I am not a former, present or wannabe catholoic/christian. I am also not a victim or lawyer. I am not related in anyway. I randomly arrived here and found a messy article, ended up doing some clean up. Now it needs your help too. Please go ahead and make the changes. Thanks. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 17:24, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As with any Wikipedia article, a lot of headings make it look longer than it is from the table of contents and more difficult to navigate through. Like I stated in the edit history (followup note here), Template:TOC limit is supposed to help with that, not make it worse. I changed Template:TOC limit back to 3, away from you changing it to 5. As for the actual size of the article, we should base that on WP:SIZE. And in that case, the readable prose is the focus. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

"Clergy sex abuse scandal" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Clergy sex abuse scandal. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 5 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm Bacon 22:40, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

"Sexual abuse by priests" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Sexual abuse by priests. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 5 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm Bacon 22:41, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

"Pedophile pope" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Pedophile pope. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 31 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Bangalamania (talk) 00:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Merge discussion: Catholic Church abuse cases
Should the article Catholic Church abuse cases be merged into this article (Catholic Church sexual abuse cases)?
 * It is time to reopen discussion in order to achieve consensus to merge these two articles covering one singular topic. But first I would like to address an elephant in the room. There are far too many Catholic sex abuse articles to manage right now. There is a ton of overlap, just peruse Category:Catholic Church sexual abuse scandals and try to visualize the proliferation of articles that all cover topics in a large, crowded, Venn diagram. Here's what happens. There are several IPs who are quite reliable and diligent at adding information to articles like this. When they add a case, it goes in 2-3 disparate articles, identical text. Then someone else like me comes in to edit it. Why should I be forced to edit 3 articles which contain identical information? We invented transclusion for a specific reason. These articles need to be overhauled so that (a) the topics do not overlap so much and (b) duplicated prose is maintained in one and only one central location.
 * Now, back to the merge. There is no reason to retain the moribund article Catholic Church abuse cases. Let's take what's useful and bring it to the aforementioned central location, and then toss the rest overboard. What say you? (Would it be appropriate to start an RFC for wider participation?) Elizium23 (talk) 05:49, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Why have you done this as an RfC when WP:RFCNOT directs you to WP:MERGE? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 20:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , because the last merge failed only due to lack of participation, and I felt disinclined to repeat the failure, and WP:MERGE has nothing to say about not using RFC, and I was likewise disinclined to engage in canvassing to widen the discussion. What would you suggest? Elizium23 (talk) 20:32, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * For a start, use Talk:Catholic Church sexual abuse cases#Merge discussion: Catholic Church abuse cases so that people are directed right here instead of to the top of the page.
 * WP:RFCBEFORE shows that RfC is a late-resort process to be used when other methods are exhausted, and I see no evidence of that, until you now mention "the last merge failed only due to lack of participation" - so where was this? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 09:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , Talk:Catholic Church sexual abuse cases/Archive 17
 * Elizium23 (talk) 18:10, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You could have linked that when starting this RfC, we shouldn't have to guess. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)


 * It looks like Catholic Church abuse cases is basically only about sexual abuse cases, so I would support this merge. – Anne drew  15:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Favorable to merge the articles -- Clementeste (Talk) 20:46, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The logic of not needing to maintain parallel list articles is sound. There may be non-sexual abuse cases (such as the Magdalen Houses in Ireland), so there should be some discussion about whether "Catholic Church abuse cases" might be the better final title of a merged article. I haven't investigated this in detail, so I am not offering an opinion about which article title is best. –Zfish118⋉talk 04:27, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Zfish118, the vast majority of these cases are about sexual abuse. The title of this article should not be changed to be about abuse in general just to mention a few non-sexual abuse cases. Non-sexual abuse material should simply go in the Child abuse article if WP:Due. Otherwise, if enough material exists, "Catholic Church abuse cases" should be expanded to include non-sexual abuse material and remain its own article. Please don't ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I am not offering an opinion about which article title remains post-merge. Please address comments about the title to those that do. –Zfish118⋉talk 00:31, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think sexual abuse should stay in articles about sexual abuse, and other types of abuse can be merged into appropriate articles, or if notable, given an article of their own. I am not sure that, after merging the contents of Catholic Church abuse cases the editors can find enough content to save it from deletion. Elizium23 (talk) 01:04, 25 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Without commenting on whether or not we should merge the sub-articles into this one, I think it's clear that Catholic Church abuse cases is an accidental duplicate article. I don't know how we could best direct readers looking for the Magdalene Laundries or other non-sexual abuse cases to where they want to go, but I don't see the logic in maintaining a duplicate article at a separate address while waiting for someone to write the content. If someone is ready now to précis the sex abuse article, the Magdalene Laundries article etc. for a general overview of abuse controversies, sure, but if not, it should probably be redirected until then. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:19, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Catholic church abuse cases seems to only cover sexual abuse; Merge.DMT biscuit (talk) 21:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Merged I found no sourced content regarding non-sexual abuse in the Church. In future, content of this type may be added to Criticism of the Catholic Church. Elizium23 (talk) 12:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Lede is conversationalist
I feel like the lede starting with

"There are many cases..."

Reads sophomoric at best, and amateurish essay paragraph at worst.

Proper lede writing should cover the who, what, why, when and where within one or two sentences. The first paragraph should be much tighter and compact. Maybe a more experienced editor could take a look at it. 2600:4040:74F8:1700:E5E1:46B3:D84:DE97 (talk) 00:41, 1 November 2022 (UTC)