Talk:Catholic Church sexual abuse cases/Archive 3

Removal from article-Celibacy & etc
Dear Anne Heneghan- I address you thus because I do not recall personally addressing you before. I am not noted for my lovey attitude here on WP, so I won't beat about the bush.

You have removed very large and several small important sections and facts from this article. In the case of the large, Celibacy, you may note that my qualifications were added in attempt to balance that which was  biased and insulting to the totality of the abused, and which served to defuse the issue through disgustingly twisted argument. I have no idea how that came to be and do not suggest it had anything to do with you. In fact it was, previous to my attempt at balancing , deserving of heavy removal. However you have not solved the problem by this out-knife-and-cut approach.

To your other edits- I am shocked and appalled at your cavalier removals. Do you wish before I say more to review these removals, which are IMO indefensible. You know perfectly well to which I refer. Please return them to the article, where they rightfully belong. EffK 08:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Institutional Abuse
For perspective for other previous varying   Ireland   "Abuse", and taken from  :[]

Institutions to be investigated where abuse is alleged to have occurred

An Grianán Training Centre, Grace Park Road, Dublin 9 Artane Industrial School for Senior Boys, Dublin 5 Baltimore Fishery School for Senior Boys, Baltimore, Co. Cork Benada Abbey Industrial School for Girls, Ballymote, Co. Sligo Carriglea Park Industrial School for Senior Boys, Dun Laoghaire, Co. Dublin Cottage Home, Tivoli Road, Dun Laoghaire, Co. Dublin Don Bosco House, Gardiner Street, Dublin 1 Family Group Home, Geevagh, Co. Sligo Family Group Home, Letterkenny, Co. Donegal Family Group Home, Wexford Kirwan House, Ranelagh, Dublin 6 Madonna House, Blackrock, Co. Dublin Madonna House, Merrion Road, Dublin 4 Martanna House Hostel, Grace Park Road, Dublin 9 Miss Carr's Children's Home, 5 Northbrook Road, Dublin 6 Mount Carmel Industrial School for Girls, Moate, Co. Westmeath Nazareth House, Sligo Orphanage Schools, Convent of Mercy, Kells, Co. Meath Our Boy's Home, 95 Monkstown Road, Dun Laoghaire, Co. Dublin Our Lady of Mercy Industrial School for Girls, Kinsale, Co. Cork Our Lady of Succour Industrial School, Newtownforbes, Co.Longford Our Lady's Industrial School for Girls, Ennis, Co. Clare Pembrook Alms (Nazareth House) Industrial School for Girls, Tralee, Co. Kerry CPI Marino Special School, Bray, Co. Wicklow Cork University Hospital School, Harcourt Street Hospital, Dublin 2 Holy Family School for Moderate Learning Disability, Charleville, Co. Cork Our Lady of Good Counsel, Lota, Glanmire, Co. Cork Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital, Dun Laoghaire, Co. Dublin Our Lady's Hospital for Sick Children, Crumlin, Dublin 12 Sacred Heart Home, Drumcondra, Dublin 9 School of the Divine Child, Lavanagh, Ballintemple, Cork School of the Holy Spirit, Seville Lodge, Kilkenny, Co. Kilkenny Scoil Ard Mhuire, Lusk, Co Dublin Scoil Eanna, School of the Angels, Montenotte, Cork Scoil Triest, Lota, Glanmire, Co. Cork St. Martin's Orphanage, Waterford St. Clare's Orphanage, Harold's Cross, Dublin 6 St. David's, Lota, Glanmire, Co. Cork St. Gabriel's School, Curraheen Road, Cork St. Joseph's Orphanage, Tivoli Road, Dun Laoghaire, Co. Dublin St. Joseph's Orphanage, Bundoran, Co. Donegal St. Joseph's Orthapaedic Hospital for Children, Coole, Co.Westmeath St. Joseph's School for the Visually Impaired, Drumcondra, Dublin 9 St. Kevin's Reformatory, Glencree, Co. Wicklow St. Martha's Industrial School, Monaghan St. Martha's Industrial School, Merrion, Dublin 4 St. Mary's Orthopaedic Hospital, Baldoyle, Dublin 13 St. Mary's Orthopaedic Hospital, Cappagh, Dublin 11 St. Mary's School for Visually Impaired Girls, Merrion, Dublin St. Vincent's Centre for Persons with Intellectual Disability, Lisnagry,Limerick St. Vincent's Orphanage, North William St, Dublin 9 St. Aidan's Industrial School for Girls, Newross, Co. Wexford St. Aloysius' Industrial School for Girls, Clonakilty, Co. Cork St. Ann's Industrial School for Girls and Junior Boys, Renmore, Lenaboy,Co. Galway St. Anne's Industrial School for Girls, Booterstown, Co. Dublin St. Anne's Reformatory School for Girls, Kilmacud, Co. Dublin St. Anne's, Sean Ross Abbey, Roscrea, Co. Tipperary St. Augustine's Industrial School for Girls, Templemore, Co.Tipperary St. Augustine's, Obelisk Park, Carysfort Avenue, Blackrock, Co. Dublin St. Bernadette's, Bonnington, Montenotte, Cork St. Bernard's Industrial School for Girls, Fethard, Dundrum, Co.Tipperary St. Bridgid's Industrial School for Girls, Loughrea, Co. Galway St. Cecilia's, Cregg House, Sligo St. Clare's Orphanage, Harold's Cross, Dublin 6 St. Coleman's Industrial School for Girls, Cobh/Rushbrook, Co. Cork St. Columba's Industrial School for Girls, Westport, Co. Mayo St. Conleth's Reformatory School for Boys, Daingean, Co. Offaly St. Dominick's Industrial School for Girls, Waterford St. Finbarr's Industrial School for Girls, Sundays Well, Marymount,Cork St. Francis Xavier's Industrial School for Girls and Junior Boys, Ballaghadereen, Co Roscommon St. Francis' & St Mary of the Angels, Beaufort, Killarney, Co. Kerry St. Francis' Industrial School for Girls, Cashel, Co. Tipperary St. George's Industrial School for Girls, Limerick St. John's Industrial School for Girls, Birr, Co. Offaly St. Joseph's Industrial School for Boys, Passage West, Co. Cork St. Joseph's Industrial School for Boys, Tralee, Co. Kerry St. Joseph's Industrial School for Girls and Junior Boys, Ballinasloe, Co. Galway St. Joseph's Industrial School for Girls and Junior Boys, Clifden, Co.Galway St. Joseph's Industrial School for Girls and Junior Boys, Liosomoine, Killarney, Co. Kerry St. Joseph's Industrial School for Girls, Cavan St. Joseph's Industrial School for Girls, Dundalk, Co. Louth St. Joseph's Industrial School for Girls, Kilkenny St. Joseph's Industrial School for Girls, Mallow, Co. Cork St. Joseph's Industrial School for Girls, Summerhill, Athlone, Co. Westmeath St. Joseph's Industrial School for Girls, Whitehall, Drumcondra,Dublin 9 St. Joseph's Industrial School for Senior Boys, Ferryhouse, Clonmel, Co. Tipperary St. Joseph's Industrial School for Senior Boys, Glin, Co. Limerick St. Joseph's Industrial School for Senior Boys, Greenmount, Cork St. Joseph's Industrial School for Senior Boys, Letterfrack, Co. Galway St. Joseph's Industrial School for Senior Boys, Salthill, Co. Galway St. Joseph's Orphanage, Tivoli Road, Dun Laoghaire, Co. Dublin St. Joseph's Reformatory School for Girls, Limerick St. Joseph's School for Hearing Impaired Boys, Cabra, Dublin 7 St. Joseph's School for the Visually Handicapped, Drumcondra, Dublin 9 St. Kyran's Industrial School for Junior Boys, Rathdrum, Co. Wicklow St. Laurence's Industrial School for Girls, Sligo St. Laurence's Industrial School, Finglas, Dublin 11 St. Martha's Industrial School for Girls, Bundoran, Co. Donegal St. Mary's Industrial School, Lakelands, Sandymount, Dublin 4 St. Mary's Orthopaedic Hospital, Baldoyle, Dublin 13 St. Mary's Orthopaedic Hospital, Cappagh, Finglas, Dublin 11 St. Mary's School for Hearing Impaired Girls, Cabra, Dublin 7 St. Mary's, Delvin, Co. Westmeath St. Mary's, Drumcar, Dunleer, Co. Louth St. Mary's, Rochestown, Cork St. Michael's Industrial School for Girls, Wexford St. Michael's Industrial School for Junior boys, Cappoquin, Co.Waterford St. Michael's, Glenmaroon, Chapelizod, Dublin 20 St. Mura's Orphanage, Fahan, Co. Donegal St. Patrick's Industrial School for Boys, Upton, Cork St. Patrick's Industrial School for Junior Boys, Kilkenny St. Paul's Hospital, Beaumont, Dublin 9 St. Paul's, Montenotte, Cork St. Saviour's Orphanage, Lr. Dominick Street, Dublin 1 St. Vincent's (House of Charity) Industrial School for Junior Boys,Drogheda, Co. Louth St. Vincent's Industrial School for Girls, Limerick St. Vincent's Industrial School, Goldenbridge, Inchicore, Dublin 8 St. Vincent's Orphanage, Glasnevin, Dublin 9 St. Vincent's, Navan Road, Dublin 7 Stewart's Hospital, Palmerstown, Dublin 20 Tabor House, Dublin Temple Street Hospital, Dublin 1 The Bird's Nest Home, 19 York Road, Dun Laoghaire, Co. Dublin The Los Angeles Homes, Dublin The O'Brien Institute, Malahide Road, Dublin Trudder House, Newtownmountkennedy, Co. Wicklow Warrenstown House, Corduff Road, Blanchardstown, Dublin 15

Source: Residential Institutions Act 2002 (May be slow to load). Please be patient.

You will need Adobe Acrobat Reader to view the above document.

EffK 23:39, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Demo reveals feeling re: Excommunication good Priests, California lawsuit
Broadcast: a demo by hundred, at least one, in front of the chief Bishops palace against the  policy (see Elision  thereof in Ist para Abuse etc at Pope Benedict XVI) which Policy requires your rapid exegesis. The policy is that of excommunication, automatic or there-up-to ) for disclosure by Priests of allegations known to the episcopate , unto third parties. Presumably un-authorised disclosure. perhaps you are in the right spot Str, cos this needs exegesis bad.

Broadcast : California court suit against the episcopacy  for knowingly sending and keeping and returning and maintaining the seminary Priestly products, to California. All depositions going straight to DVD so even if you die, your word will be deposition. Since all is first hand and not hearsay, they gonna  keep going.

What of sovereignty? I mean once that cracks - how continue this Archive position( and no theyre not open). ? Dear OH dear, this is not good.

Article is obscene, more for the lack of morality in the so called vocation  than in the poor mites so abused. They are human, which at this level is so much worth more, is more, than all the episcopacy put together. Bishops are fine, and are to be listened to, but they have to attend to the law themselves prior to  lecturing  on street riots or such  or anything. The question of the Law Str.

Please revert to Effk (ish)EffK 18:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Document War
An expression used by the drivers of the california "Irish Seminarian Rapist" Investigators. Refers to church denial of sources. Broadcast.

Repeat of question re:Removal from article
Editor Anne heneghan :I take these removals as demonstration of poor  faith, editor. You do not justify them and mischaracterised them. You do not deny them, but you censored them. What is your aim ?How justify this action ?EffK 09:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Musical Linguist removes facts from Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal
For at least the 3rd time, I ask you, editor, to justify your removal of facts from this article, allegedly for being in error or POV. I believe you would not wish to have to justify expunging reported  fact and that therefore it is for you to reverse your own removals of these. I note that you have not replied to this at all, and offer you this chance to do so , again. EffK 00:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Mr EffK, I am extremely busy at the moment, and am trying to limit my Wikipedia time to some of the less time-consuming matters such as reverting vandalism. Out of courtesy, I shall try to answer you now, but I am unable to engage in debates until the end of next week, and have little inclination to do so even then.


 * Every time you edit on Wikipedia, you should see the words "If you don't want your writing to be edited and redistributed by others, do not submit it" underneath the edit box. I'm sorry if you're upset by my changes, but that is part of life in Wikipedia. I'd like to make it clear, also, that I did not revert your edits. I did a full-page edit, which included changes that had nothing to do with you. I went through the page, bit by bit, correcting spelling, trying to make the wording more elegant, removing anything that I found to be POV or irrelevant, and also removing anything that was so unclear as to make it impossible for me to edit it.


 * I'm sorry to have to say this, and I don't wish to hurt you, but since you have demanded several times that I justify my changes, I have to point out that your language is exceptionally difficult to understand. If it were just a question of your habit of klemping and plenking (which I wish you would try to correct), it would be possible just to edit your posts, assuming that I found no inaccuracies or POV problems in them. I personally write in Standard British English, and am absolutely comfortable reading (and, if necessary, writing) in Standard American English. However, when part of an article is written in a standard variety, and other parts are written in a variety that deviates to the extent that yours does from those main varieties, the whole article becomes unprofessional and unencyclopaedic, not because one variety is superior or inferior to another (linguists are divided on that point), but because the registers are inconsistent.


 * In some cases, therefore, I had to make changes because of the language. In other cases, I found what I considered to be clear violations of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. I do not claim infallibility in my editing. I was just trying to do the best job I could to deal with a version I found which had various errors in spelling and punctuation, some information that was irrelevant, some information that may have been true but was not verifiable, and some personal opinions. As I say, I did a full page edit rather than a revert, so some of the changes were not in any way connected to your edits. However, I do (and did) realize that some of them were, and I'm sorry if you feel frustrated as a result.


 * Please note that I will not be able to continue this discussion for the next week. In any case, I hope that my explanation satisfies you, and that there will be no need to continue it. Regards, AnnH (talk) 16:26, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Musical Liguist fails to address the issue. Please address the issue which was removal of facts, not spelling .I do not mind this repetition of accusation made about my writing at all. I mind that you blanked some important facts. Please justify these, later when you have time. If you cannot , you should not have so cavalierly and misrepresentingly  removed these facts. Actually . I should not have to remind you of the seriousness of these issues , nor have needed to haul you up . You are the one in need of counsel and attention , in this action of yours. You could choose , there is no hurry , to replace that which you  wrongly removed . I will suspend my comms with you too, but note that the section head and the several demands refer to removal of fact for which you have at considerable length provided no whit of justification . As you are an administrator, you have responsibility , and doubtless you will understand your position conflicts with this editing behaviour . Yes I'll try and learn typing.EffK 00:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


 * EffK does not state clearly what he thinks that Musical Linguist has done incorrectly. I will state that EffK has never followed standard English rules of punctuation, and so has long been assumed to be a non-native user of English.  However, he says that he is a native user of English.  It is tedious to clean up text that is as badly punctuated as anything that is written by EffK, and Musical Linguist had reasons to revert the posts instead.  Please state exactly what the sourced facts are that have been removed.  If he cannot learn to use proper English punctuation, he should expect to have his edits reverted.  Robert McClenon 03:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


 * McClenon is writing pure nonsense . Musical Linguist knows very well which facts, as they were stated as proof of her editing capacity upon the  vote for administrator for her previous name . I could drag it up here, but she knows very well .This is cabal apologia in process . You are unnecessary here McC . I am not pressuring the editor as she says she is busy .EffK 08:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I'm sorry for the delay in responding. I have already stated on EffK's talk page that I would try to answer his concerns more fully, and also that he shouldn't hope that when I got round to replying I would agree that his edits should be reinstated.

The article said that the case of Fr. Brendan Smyth "is causing immense damage to the credibility of the Catholic church in Ireland". I changed "is causing" to "caused". The publicity about Fr Smyth was in 1994. Fresh allegations of abuse, and particularly of cover up damage the credibility of the Church, but I don't think the Smyth case, by itself, is causing immense damage at the moment.

With regard to the famous letter from Cardinal Ratzinger, allegedly threatening excommunication on victims who reported abuse, I wanted to make it quite clear that the letter did no such thing. The compulsory secrecy related exclusively to what was said at the internal Church investigation, assuming that there was one. In many cases of child abuse, there was no Church trial. But any time that there was a secret hearing, the victim was still perfectly free to go to the police, the lawyers, the media, etc., and say, "Fr X molested me." He was not free to say, "During the secret Church investigation, Fr. X admitted [or denied] that he had molested me." Even in secular courts, juries are bound by oath not to divulge certain things after the trial in some countries. The media (in some cases because of hostility towards Catholicism, and in some cases through honest error) have greatly contributed towards this false belief that Pope Benedict tried to silence victims. I did not want Wikipedia to take part in such a twisting of facts, so I clarified the issue, and linked to the letter, which of course is in Latin, so might not be very useful.

Immediately after that, I removed Abuse of the pontifical secret may lead to formal (automatic) excommunication but such counsel is contrary to all nations' concepts of civil law (see below ). After my clarification about what the letter did and didn't say, I hoped it was sufficiently clear that Cardinal Ratzinger's letter was not part of the (admittedly disgraceful) cover up that the bishops engaged in. His letter dealt with other crimes besides child sexual abuse, and the percentage of clerical child abuse cases that actually end up in a Church court (as opposed to a secular court) must be tiny. Therefore, I didn't see that it was very relevant. I don't have any strong objection to the statement that abuse of the pontifical secret may lead to formal excommunication being in the article, as long as it's made absolutely clear that reporting abuse to the police is not abuse of the pontifical secret, and that the Vatican did not try to claim that it was.

As for "such counsel is contrary to all nations' concepts of civil law (see below )", I took it out because I was taking out the first half of that sentence. But in any case, I'm not sure exactly what it meant, and would probably not be happy with that bit being replaced, even if the first half of the sentence goes back in.

EffK, I will try to clarify more later. Thanks for your patience. AnnH (talk) 22:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I will add a little more now. There was a sentence which I removed entirely, along with the sentence immediately after. It began
 * In Ireland the faithful are left reeling from moral shock at continued complacency, denial and self-exculpation by the hierarchy. . . 

I don't find that such language conforms to the NPOV policy. (It also sounds a little bit like original research.) For one thing, it's too sensational. For another, it's too general to say that "the faithful" are left reeling. Different people will have different reactions. Some are upset; some are angry; some are disgusted. It's even possible that some are fairly indifferent. Also, the sentence is worded in such as way as to assert that there was "continued complacency, denial and self-exculpation by the hierarchy". For the record, I believe that there was. But that is a POV, and therefore does not belong in the article. Others might think that the bishops were blameless, because they were following professional advice, and were told that a certain priest was "cured." I have no objection to the statement about some priests refusing to read out letters from the bishop, as long as the statement is true and there is a source for it. I don't quite like the assertion that the letters "appeared not to show true understanding or contrition". That may well be true – indeed, it probably is – but such a judgment is a very subjective one, there could be people who think that the letters did show true understanding or contrition. So we can't side with either view.

That's all for the moment. I'm going to bed now, but will get back to this page again in the next few days. Cheers. AnnH (talk) 01:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Continuing from where I left off &mdash; I have the diff open in front of me, so that I can compare the version before my changes with the version after. So, we come to the section on "Celibacy and the scandal". It said
 * Critics have suggested, and investigation in Ireland confirms, that celibacy among the Catholic priesthood offers a means by which priests with sexual urges that are aimed towards children rather than adults can hide those tendencies, their lack of sexual feelings towards adults being unnoticeable in a completely unmarried clergy.

I removed "and investigation in Ireland confirms". There was no source given, and it is purely a personal opinion, which does not, of course, mean that it's wrong, just that it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Actaully, "Critics have suggested" is a violation of WP:WEASEL, but I didn't interfere with that.

I removed
 * However the age at which children free themselves from the extra-ordinarily damaging shackles of this abuseive priestly rape, may suggest that only greater physical and mental strength in the victims sets the bar upon such rape . Inter-clerical homosexual abuse would raise this bar in the case of seminaries . There seems to be no confinement towards specifically homosexual priestly paedophile crime , because of evidence of general bi-sexual abuse .

I didn't fully understand what was being said, but in any case, did not consider it particularly relevant to the article. It also seemed to be a violation of WP:NOR, as did another section I removed:
 * This generational repetition of abusive behaviour (abused parents who abuse their children) may have caused the church to absorb more than its share of such societal paedophilia . Celibate status may ,thus, not be a direct cause of priestly abuse of children but a symptom of this malformed sexual desire for children, not adults.

The final section which I removed, I am now placing here on this talk page:


 * More certain evidence in Ireland, however, shows that the institutional character of seminary training and Catholic controlled schools substituted ,within the clergy itself ,such generational malfunction , whereby the priest-teachers would represent the parents and their scholastic victims represented the children . Such contrasts with literary recall of homosexual character-building inherent to many largely protestant british public schools , the difference being that ,in these ,the homosexuality was more strictly confined between the scholars of different ages, rather than allowed and enforced by the professional teaching staff .


 * The report in Ireland re-inforces concerns as to the health of celibacy through showing its complete transgression, and the great multiplicity of child rape abuse in Irish Dioceses shows the degree of personality repair amongst those who have in fact escaped from the priestly generational repetitivity evidenced . Whether the original Church intake of already paedophiliac personalities can account for the proportionately much greater problem in the clergy than in the civil population or not , the activities within the clergy served to initiate ,foster, protect and forgive without censure these violent actions so particularly at odds with the celibacy clause . In an age when homosexuality itself is decriminalised , priestly celibacy represents the total sexual " self-criminalisation" of all instinctive carnal desire .

I found those sections to be in some cases unsourced (e.g. "More certain evidence in Ireland . . . shows that . . ."), in some cases original research, in some cases not completely relevant. Also, I was not always entirely sure what was being said.

EffK, I stand over my edits completely, but I do apologize if I caused you any frustration by not explaining them properely. I think I have now accounted for everything except minor changes in wording. Sometimes something can be okay, but still doesn't belong in an article. I remember some time ago, somebody kept adding a sentence to the Pope Benedict XVI article, saying that some previous pope was arguably the most significant pope of his period, and was demanding that it should go in the article unless we could prove that he wasn't the most significant pope of his period. It doesn't work that way. I have sometimes been almost heartbroken cutting out long sections from my own college assignments before submission, because an assignment was too long or too unfocused. I will keep an eye on this talk page, and hope to respond if you have any other queries. Regards. AnnH (talk) 12:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

These things I am not prepared to source. Source can be traced on Radio news,TV news and in newspapers and the whole of Ireland would have heard the presentation as given, about the 26 priests, which were actually 31 , out of was it 105 in the area concerned ...Of the Cork parishes where the Bishop's letter was not read. OK I should have separated Smyth back to the previous  era but now, I suppose you went back to 1 priest, and that you feel it is un-sourced to comment on the minor rebellion. As to the rest, the line being taken here was esentially to shift blame away from the celibacy problem. This is why I wrote as I did to try and balance the article. I will not argue,or re-write anything but withal I shall leave you in the public position you take as to the whole matter and the changes made. OK ? EffK 22:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Re-Categorisation
I've moved this page from Category:Roman Catholic Church to Category:Roman Catholicism in the world, which is a subsidiary page. --JASpencer 13:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * And now I have recategorised. --JASpencer 13:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Link Breakage: Cardinal Law statement on sex abuse
The link for "Cardinal Law's statement on child sex abuse in the Church" no longer reaches the right content, I wasn't able to find another copy of his statement but have not removed the link (yet) in hopes that someone else can find another copy.

altar boys
One section of the article claims that people have made suggestions that the catholic church has been unfairly singled out. Should it not be mentioned that the catholic church is the only one where Altar Boys are commonly seen and as such there might be more... opportunities for predatory pedophiles to act? WookMuff 07:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)