Talk:Homosexual clergy in the Catholic Church/Archive 1

Abuse and Homosexuality
"Nonetheless, the church has been rocked by several child abuse scandals and this has led to an impression amongst the general public that a many Catholic priests are in fact homosexual."

I find this quote strange. What does child abuse have to do with homosexuality?--StenBH 07:48, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


 * You are correct that pedophilia is a particular condition not necessarily associated with normal homosexuality (or heterosexuality). However the sentence concerns the common impression. The fact that many of the abuse victims were male (albeit often sexually immature) has led to a perception that many priest's inclinations are towards men, even if the reality is that their preference is for boys. As worded, I think the sentence is probably correct, although it is always dangersous to write about what "many people think" unless there has been an opinion poll. Thanks for speaking up. Cheers, -Willmcw 08:15, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

I find it offensive to equate paedophilia with either homosexuality or heterosexuality. Your sentence tacitly supports an ignorant view that paedophilia is an inevitable consequence of repressed homosexuality. It is also offensive to the vast majority of Roman Catholic priests who are dedicated to the welfare of their parishoners and who regard the sexual abuse of minors with absolute horror. (I am not a Roman Catholic.) Adamm 16:20 May 22, 2005


 * I've edited it. It is the fact that the abused have mostly been boys and the abusers priests, all of whom are male, that has created this impression. Michael Hardy 23:54, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Catholic church condems homosexuality?
"due to the Catholic Church's condemnation of homosexuality." is in the article

that's not catholic teaching, catholic teaching is respect to homosexuals, but chastity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fantrl (talk • contribs) 16:19, 17 June 2005  (UTC)


 * Yes the Catholic Church condemns homosexuality. You cannot "respect" a person as a theoretical entity and reject the person that they actually are. It's just an absurd oxymoron. Don't feed into Magisterial bs. Carolynparrishfan 13:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh that's ridiculous. Even if you think it's wrong they(as I'm not in the hierarchy) feel it's a disorder, right? Well they feel alcoholism is a disorder too I presume. So if they said "we love alcoholics, but we believe they should totally abstain from alcohol". Or they could believe "we love schizophrenics, but we believe their delusions are unreal and should be treated." Now considering homosexuality a disorder can be offensive, but ultimately there's nothing inconsistent in saying "we love someone with X disorder as long as they don't act on it." Added to that this article is extremely biased. At times I think Catholicism and Scientology get roughly equal treatment here.--T. Anthony 08:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Nonetheless, it is misleading to say that condemnation of homosexuality is not a Catholic teaching. First, the practice of the Church normally does not reflect the theoretical "compassion" that is mandated in various Vatican documents. Also, the documents themselves can be fuzzy on this. Regarding "fag bashing", the CDF says that "the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered. When such a claim is made and when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase" (Homosexualitatis problema, s.10).


 * Besides all of which, when I hear that "Church X doesn't teach condemnation of homosexuality" as a semantic issue that sounds like it is a gay-positive or at least -tolerant church, which the RC is decidedly not. It is not that it is an untruthful statement, but it is very open to misinterpretation.Carolynparrishfan 12:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't say Catholicism is tolerant of homosexual behavior and certainly not that it's gay-positive. I just don't think it's as bad as you or many others present. Many other Christian denominations specifically say homosexuals are diseased people who should be cured or imprisoned. (Coptics, many Southern Baptists, etc) Plus Wikipedia is intensely biased on almost any issue referring to this faith.--T. Anthony 03:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * All minorities claim at some point in time that they are persecuted or discriminated against. Roman Catholics have been both persecuted and persecutors.  I fail to see any point in adding up past scores, or who's been more sinned against than sinning: it's our future kindness to one another that counts, whether or not you believe in God.  It astounds me that with children nay, anyone, starving to death in the world we have so many people worrying about what gays get up to in the privacy of their own homes.adamm 07:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I've put on a link to this section of Light of the World - but I cant remember to do references Anthony Miller http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2010/dec/03/religion-catholicism-benedict-gay-priests --AnthonyEMiller (talk) 17:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup Needs
Hi everyone-- this article needs some major cleanup. It's full of POVs, unsourced claims, and possibly some original research. I think we should create some new headings and start finding some reputable sources of statistics. Wikipedia standards define factual information as that about which there is no dispute. Unfortunately, just about everything here is very gravely disputed. Let's try to improve the article. Pianoman123 05:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Solid facts are difficult to come by I'd gather. Latin-rite priests tend not to discuss their own sexuality in any respect as it's rarely relevant. I'd favor just eliminating this myself unless we do Homosexuality in the Buddhist monastery, Homosexuality in the Anglican priesthood, etc. I think it'd be better to have an article titled say Catholic views of homosexuality, in the tradition of Quaker views of homosexuality or Anglican views of homosexuality, than merge this into that.--T. Anthony 10:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It may help for all to know a new novel that has just been published on this very subject. Find it in GoogleBooks.com THE HILLS OG TRIUMPF by luigi bresciani. It is more than a study and statistics. It is a true to life story.

Rewrite
I've tried to deal with these concerns, creating a Lead section that acknoweldges the controversial nature of the subject within its context. I've also removed unsourced or non-NPOV material to streamline the article and remove Weasel Words. The article still needs some work to give it clarity as well as being in line with WP:V. This is a highly controversial article that needs sources: page numbers included. Jpe|ob 06:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Study results
Many more statistics on the prevalence of homosexuality in the RC priesthood can be found at ; there are good references for this page which should be easy enough to chase down. -- Beland 18:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It has good qualities, but that site has been questioned as a source on other articles and should be used with caution. For some debate on using it as source see Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org and Talk:Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. I won't say my own opinion as I think this article is basically nonsense or at least discussing something no one can really know much about.--T. Anthony 11:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic groups
It would be interesting if the article could look into allegations that certain ethnic groups in developed countries such as the Irish or the Québécois are more likely to have homosexual priests than ethnicities living in third world countries countries such as Nigeria or Paraguay. There is a interesting satire story from The Spoof that pokes fun at this alleged situation. ADM (talk) 03:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Homosexuality and Roman Catholic bishops
There have been fairly serious accusations of homosexuality made against several American and European bishops, who allegedly concealed their sexual orientation in public while simultaneously enabling a gay culture within the Church. At the same time, they politely accepted anti-gay doctrinal directives from Rome, which were never really applied in their dioceses. For instance, author Richard Sipe has asserted that for several decades, bishop Theodore McCarrick established a homosexual coterie of young seminarians and priests that he encouraged to call him "Uncle Ted". ADM (talk) 15:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sex scandals also had Roman Catholic bishop Juan Carlos Maccarone in Argentina in 2005 and Roman Catholic bishop Francisco Domingo Barbosa Da Silveira in Uruguay in 2009. Both bishops should be part of the article. GLGermann (talk) 22:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Heterosexual affairs
There should also be similar material about heterosexual affairs within the clergy, such as the scandal created by Father Alberto Cutié when he violated his vow of chastity. ADM (talk) 11:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, there have been significant scandals that involved heterosexual relationships as well. Heterosexuality and Roman Catholic priests?   Will Beback    talk    11:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Jesuit priests
The article should maybe examine the situation of various religious orders such as the Jesuits, who have reportedly given support to gay organizations. In general, religious orders seem to have been especially affected by the contemporary social acceptance of homosexuality. Certain groups of nuns are also alleged to have some unusual levels of female homosexuality. ADM (talk) 19:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Heterosexual Christian homophobia as reaction to gay clergy
The article should maybe try to examine the idea that much of the so-called homophobia within Christianity is actually a sociological reaction to the high-levels of alleged homosexuality within the clergy. There may in fact be large numbers of sincere heterosexuals or asexuals among the clergy and the laity, who while having no specific interest in LGBT issues, might feel culturally and sexually alienated by the apparent influence of homosexual persons within the ordained ministry. This isn't really the same thing as homophobia, since it involves the phenomenon of alienation, as opposed to an outright fear or hatred of homosexuals. ADM (talk) 23:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Not sure I agree with this approach or conclusion. As a Catholic it's been my experience that generally other Catholics are not very homophobic at all. I think instead there is a degree of 'politicking' in this - elements within the Church opposed to Vatican II have long alleged that the liberal reforms permitted the emergence of a homosexual elite that "eroded" the traditions of the Church and created the atmosphere in which priests were able to carry out sexual abuse. Hence suggestions that Paul VI was gay, seminaries are run like gay social clubs etc and then deliberately linking homosexuality with paedophilia (even though the two are not related). This smacks to me of scape-goating a minority for ideological ends. Thus using suspicion and misundertanding of homosexuality as a tool to rally support against Vatican II.


 * I have no objection to raising this issue in the article, but I would be highly suspicious of claims of parish alienation (not without some robust and balanced sources). Nor would I be particularly convinced by assertions that the numbers of homosexual men joining the priesthood have risen in recent years - numbers quoted never exceed 10-20% (hardly enough to justify the control of an elite). Homosexual men have always historically found a home in the Catholic church - where the message of compassion and no pressure to marry has provided a safe 'haven'. But as society has become more tolerant then there is less need to resort to such ends. I've read, however, that the influence of such men might have been seen to grow because Papal intransigence on clerical celibacy led to the haemorraging of heterosexual priests in the 70s and 80s who had a desire to marry. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Transgendered priests
The article should maybe look into the idea that many priests have a transgendered sexual orientation, as opposed to a homosexual one, which is what author Lucien Gregoire suggests in a 2007 book that cites documents from bishop Albino Luciani (aka John Paul I). Luciani had evoked the possibility of liturgical vestments attracting people who have this unusual type of orientation.  ADM (talk) 16:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Not totally convinced - but I don't doubt that a lot of gay men are attracted to the 'theatre' of it all. If you can find some sensible sources then no objection to adding a line or two. My feeling is that 'transgender' is really only something that applies to men that want to be women and vice versa. This will only ever explain relatively small numbers - while there is undoubtedly a stronger tradition of effeminate behaviour amongst some (but be no means all) homosexual men - which might conceivably have more of an influence. But I still feel the likeliest reasons higher numbers of gay men are allegedly found in the church is (i) highly-developed levels of personal spiritualism and compassionate behaviour as a result of self-reflection (there are studies to back this up); and (ii) the Church as a "safe harbour" where there is no pressure to marry or have children, and a veil of mystery separates the priest from his flock. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

From the depths of the crypt at Saint Giles Came a scream that resounded for miles: The vicar said "Gracious! Has Father Ignatius Forgotten the bishop has piles?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.46.247 (talk) 00:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

New Book of German gay author David Berger (theologian) in November 2010
In November 2010, German theologian David Berger published his book "Heiliger Schein", in which he wrote, that 20 to 40 percentage of German clergy are homosexual. 92.252.82.80 (talk) 21:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Frankfurter Rundschau: "Ich darf nicht länger schweigen" (german)
 * Spiegel:"Großer Teil der katholischen Kleriker ist homosexuell" (german) 92.252.82.80 (talk) 21:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Memorandum Church 2011
In 2011, 311 catholic theologians, who work at universitys, signed memorandum Church 2011. They call for reforms in catholic church and one point of that memorandum is, that they want more catholic theologian respect for homosexual people, who live in civil unions. 188.118.130.52 (talk) 12:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Scandal around John Favalora
In 2010/2011, bishop John Favalora in Florida was mentioned in a sex scandal in Flordia. 188.118.174.122 (talk) 10:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Renewamercia:The case against Archbishop John Favalora of Miami: why he must resign
 * MiamiNewTimes:Archbishop Favalora Accused of Turning Miami Archdiocese Into "Corrupt Homosexual Superculture"

Recent additions
There were some excellent additions made, but in scanning the changes I found a some copyright concerns, some issues with sourcing, and problems with claims not necessarily being in keeping with the sources. I'd like to see the content included, but I've removed it for now with the intent of working through and re-adding the work as the issues are addressed. I understand that the alternative approach would be to keep the content in the article and fix it, but the copyright concerns mean that I'd be more comfortable working in the other direction. - Bilby (talk) 07:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Please explain the copyright concerns asap, those should definitely be addressed. Insomesia (talk) 00:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It isn't just copyright concerns, as in some cases I think that there are very string claims being referenced to sources which probably aren't quite strong enough to support them. But in regard to copyright concerns, as a couple of examples, the first line read:
 * Studies find it difficult to quantify specific percentages of Roman Catholic priests who identify as gay priests although the New York Times noted that gay priests (in the U.S.) entered seminaries “in noticeable numbers” from the late 1970s through the 1980s.
 * It is, I think, worth mentioning that the NYT didn't note that claim - instead it was noted by the John Jay report. So it should be sourced to the John Jay Report rather than the NYT. However, the line in the NYT reads:
 * ... The report notes that homosexual men began entering the seminaries “in noticeable numbers” from the late 1970s through the 1980s.
 * Unfortunately, that text seems to have been copied almost directly into the article. There are some changes, but it is a bit too close. A bit further on in the first paragraph:
 * Dean Hoge, a Catholic University of America sociologist who studies the priesthood, says that "an outright ban is not possible. There is no way of enforcing it."
 * The source, however, reads:
 * Professor Dean Hoge, a Catholic University of America sociologist who studies the priesthood, says that ... "an outright ban is not possible. There is no way of enforcing it."
 * Similarly, later in the additions it read:
 * A 2000 study by Father Donald Cozzens for his book The Changing Face of Priesthood estimated that as many as 60 percent of all American Catholic priests were gay, but varied depending on geographical location. "At issue at the beginning of the 21st century is the growing perception that the priesthood is, or is becoming, a gay profession,” he states. “Heterosexual seminarians are made uncomfortable by the number of gays around them.”
 * Which is very close to the original source:
 * A study conducted in 2000 by Father Donald Cozzens for his book The Changing Face of Priesthood suggests that as many as 60 percent of all American Catholic priests were gay, but those numbers varied greatly depending on geographical location. “At issue at the beginning of the 21st century is the growing perception that the priesthood is, or is becoming, a gay profession,” Cozzens wrote in his book. “Heterosexual seminarians are made uncomfortable by the number of gays around them.”
 * Unfortunately, there were a number of other examples of close paraphrasing in the new text. When coupled with some concerns about sourcing, I think we need to look at rewriting the text a bit more before including it. - Bilby (talk) 04:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

It's good to see this article being cleaned up, though to put things politely, there are still many issues. The biggest is that the article glosses over very important differences between (1) being homosexual, (2) being involved with "gay culture" in some affirmative way, and (3) engaging in (any form of) homosexual sexual activity or breaking vows of chastity. This difference should be made clear in the introduction, and the rest of the article should be divided into sections addressing these individually. There are many other issues: These are pretty serious issues. Obviously I'd like to correct them, but since I was immediately reverted when I made comparatively minor changes, I'm giving notice here first. Are there any objections to my points above? If not, I'll be changing the article. Openverse (talk) 08:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * In "The Catholic Church condemns as sinful active gay lifestyles", "gay lifestyle" isn't defined, and links to "LGBT culture". CCC2357 is talking primarily about homosexual acts (3), not involvement in gay culture (2?), except where such involvement constitutes approval of such acts. The appropriate section would be 2284. The current phrasing implies that the Church is saying something vague - it isn't. The paragraph then goes on to say "However, ...gay men who are closeted and chaste... will be allowed to become priests" - in other words, this particular official is saying that homosexuals (1) who are not promoting (2) or engaging in (3) homosexual acts may become priests. Why is the official's statement being presented as if it were at odds ("however") with Church teaching as described? It isn't.
 * The LA Times poll asked about homosexuality, not about involvement in or support of homosexual culture or acts. This should be made clear.
 * The citations are a mess. It's like someone did a search for 'news gay priests' and dropped in everything they found. Wikipedia is not a random catalogue of news stories.
 * The Church is about 2000 years old. There are currently about half a million priests. And the introduction of this article spends two paragraphs on a news story ("good nights out") by what looks like a rag involving 3 priests, and the blog of Bryan Cones (who?) giving a random snippet of opinion. Are you kidding me?
 * Is some random intentionally offensive advertisement by Antonio Federici truly important to the issue of homosexuality among priests? The answer is no.
 * I'm not sure why Saint Anselm is being dragged into this. Is the idea that he was tolerant of homosexuality? "Anselm, the Archbishop of Canterbury, sought, however, to limit the effects of the condemnation, because many would not have known that sodomy was a grave crime." That's what the cite says. Where, exactly, does it read that he "demanded" that the punishment should be moderate? And by what stretch of the imagination does Anselm's comment have anything to do with homosexuality among priests?
 * "Studies by Wolf and Sipe from the early 1990s suggest that...". Description of Wolf 1989 from google books: "Surveys one hundred gay Roman Catholic clergyman and presents..." - 100 priests? Sorry, this study does not seem to be statistically significant.
 * Few of the citations point to the true source. Many link through blogspam. Sometimes they are off by several steps - they said that they said that they said that whatever. It's like a game of telephone!
 * When a book states something, we don't link to a news article as proof. We link to the book itself. This is so that other editors can check the book, rather than repeated paraphrasing. If you don't have the book, then you put a (CN) so that editors know that we in fact do not presently have a citation for this claim. I'll be deleting such citations, the Cozzens citation in particular.
 * The Vatican website itself should probably be cited for the CCC, not the website of a parish.
 * "Stuart...claimed, 'It has been estimated that at least 33 percent of all priests in the RC Church in the United States are homosexual.'" The citation [15] for this quotes Saunders quoting Stuard. The Saunders/Stanford book seems to make no mention of Stuard. And who is Stuart citing in the first place? Who has estimated that 1/3 of the US Church is homosexual? It actually doesn't matter who estimated - provide a proper study.
 * The "homosexuality to be a disorder" line cites Edge, which is simply repeating an NYT article. (Note that the wording "a few years earlier...described it" changes to "in years before the church had regarded it", which is very different.) The NYT article itself fails to cite where, exactly, the Church described it as morally neutral. Incidentally, being homosexual can be both a disorder and morally neutral - the Church doesn't condemn homosexuals in the sense of (1), it condemns homosexual acts (3) and the promotion of homosexual acts. You don't go to the NYT for this info, you cite the two relevant paragraphs in the CCC.
 * I object strongly. We have to avoid wp:original research is part of the short answer, and we are not here to advocate any position including the Catholic Church's. We quote what news sources cite as newsworthy rather than cherry-picked statements from the Church. I'm sure changes supported by wp:reliable sources are welcome. Insomesia (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * When you make a negative claim, try to be specific, or it ends up sounding like a baseless accusation. Those aren't nice to read, and make it difficult for others to AGF. Which part would be OR? Which part would violate NPOV? None of it. Do you really think that we should be citing a gay tabloid for a quote from the NYT? Do you really think we should be quoting the NYT about the Church's position, when the CCC clearly states its position, that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered"? If so, please explain why you take a gay tabloid to be more authoritative than the CCC regarding the position of the Church. Anyway - pick some particular point that you are opposed to. I'm sure you'll find that we want the same things for this article. Openverse (talk) 03:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Homosexuality and Roman Catholic priests. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080607104701/http://www.renewamerica.us:80/columns/abbott/060412 to http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/abbott/060412

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:45, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Notable gay Catholic bishops, cardinals and popes
--178.11.3.161 (talk) 12:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Pope John XII
 * Pope Benedict IX
 * Pope Boniface VIII
 * Pope John XXII
 * Pope Paul II
 * Pope Sixtus IV
 * Pope Alexander VI
 * Pope Julius II
 * Pope Leo X
 * Pope Julius III
 * Cardinal Carlo Carafa
 * Cardinal Henry Benedict Stuart
 * Cardinal Francis Spellman
 * Pope John XXIII
 * Pope Paul VI
 * Bishop Rembert Weakland
 * Juan Carlos Maccarone
 * Keith O'Brien
 * Look NatGertler you can leave this in if you want but it's not really helping much. I know all those cases listed above as I'm the one that mostly provided the material. They are adequately dealt with either in their own articles or in gay bishops. I don't see the point of repeating lots of material here as well. What is the value?Contaldo80 (talk) 08:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You are certainly welcome to voice your opinion about whether this material should be included. However, deleting the material from the Talk page so that no one else can voice an opinion on it is not appropriate. And your reasoning for why they should not be included here is weak; there is plenty of information that is shown in different ways in different articles on Wikipedia. We do not assume that everyone is reading the entire thing. If the information is relevant here, then here would be a good place for readers to find it. Now, it is a question whether the section Notable gay Catholic priests should be expanded from those who are noted for their homosexuality to include clergy who are noted and were homosexual, which would seem to be the goal of these additions... but that seems a fair question to at least ask. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:36, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you missed my point. An unregistered user dumped a list of names here without saying anything more about how/ whether we should incorporate them. That isn't really an appropriate use of the talk page - it's designed for editors to interact and discuss how to improve an article. If we all dump random material then it will end up very messy. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Homosexual clergy in the Catholic Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120320162135/http://www.insidethevatican.com/newsflash/2005/newsflash-dec20-05.htm to http://www.insidethevatican.com/newsflash/2005/newsflash-dec20-05.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120320162135/http://www.insidethevatican.com/newsflash/2005/newsflash-dec20-05.htm to http://www.insidethevatican.com/newsflash/2005/newsflash-dec20-05.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090325154015/http://www.nacdlgm.org/pr112905.pdf to http://www.nacdlgm.org/pr112905.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120320162135/http://www.insidethevatican.com/newsflash/2005/newsflash-dec20-05.htm to http://www.insidethevatican.com/newsflash/2005/newsflash-dec20-05.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

"Predatory gay sex" section
The newly added "Predatory gay sex" section, while possibly containing some pertinent material, is an appalling example of undue prominence, placing a large sensationally-titled section regarding the views of one individual from the perspective of one part of the world in the present moment, right at the start of the main section of an article which deals with the broad topic throughout history. Neither is it written in neutral terms, talking, for instance, about revelations rather than allegations and stating some matters in terms of fact, when, from the citations, they are also allegations by Despard. Whatever the merits of Despard's allegations, this is not the way to cover them in this article. I will remove the section. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It's worth having something on the topic. I literally came here to find information on the frequency of abuse. The statistical correlation cannot be denied. (Edit: A large segment of my message had to be redacted as an automated filter is running on this article that deems the words in the title of this subsection to be 'unconstructive' and bans posting. Something else worthy of review.) 121.210.33.50 (talk) 09:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Abuse is covered in other articles; go to Catholic Church abuse cases and follow links from there. --Nat Gertler (talk) 11:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

March 2018: 40 priests outed in Italy
In 2018, 40 italian catholic priests were outed by italian callboy Francesco Mangiacapra. --178.11.3.18 (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Stern.de: Sex im Vatikan: Callboy outet 40 katholische Priester (german)
 * Queer.de: "Kreuzzug gegen die Heuchelei" (german)
 * Blu.fm: Schwuler Escort sorgt mit Enthüllungs-Dossier für Kirchenskandal in Italien (german), March 1, 2018
 * Merkur.de: Brisante Enthüllungen: Callboy bringt Bamberger Pfarrer zu Fall (german)

Today's edits reverted
the priests named in the edit were not named in the article. It is a highly toxic WP:BLP violation to place someone's name to a contentious and unsourced assertion, and it can be removed on sight per WP:BLPREMOVE, and is not subject to the three-revert rule. Do not edit war over this, do not support the IP's edits, they are wrong. Elizium23 (talk) 00:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding Can you clarify on talk first as to where to think the violation occured no - the presumption for WP:BLPREMOVE and WP:ONUS is to remove material first and discuss how it might be restored. Policy is very clear. The onus and liability is on you for restoring the material, and you'll need to make your case here, convincing me that it can be kept. Not the other way around. Elizium23 (talk) 01:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If that's the case then fine. But I asked you to clarify. Take the time to do that properly. You may think you are addressing an urgent fix but without explaining what you are doing it looks arbitrary. Constructive engagement is the way forward. Can you also change your tone please: "You'll need to make your case here, convincing me that it can be kept". You have no authority - wikipedia is a collective project - we're all part of the decision-making process. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 02:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I have authority to produce consensus: when it's only you and I in a dispute, either I agree to your proposed change or I don't. That's consensus. So if we involve more editors, I respect their opinions and we form consensus collectively.
 * I explained why three times. I explained in the edit summary and I explained above, here on the talk page. I don't know what's not clear about my explanation? Elizium23 (talk) 03:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Calm down. No you don't - you just referred generally to WP:BLP. You only responded on talk when I challenged you. You don't have any authority - this is shared decision-making. Assume good faith and respond courteously or I will have no choice but to register a complaint. Contaldo80 (talk) 03:16, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Contaldo, if you are unfamiliar with WP:BLP, I recommend that you review it. You will find in its opening paragraphs "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Also, "The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material." Those go to the core of WP:BLP, and Elizium23's deletions were entirely appropriate in that context, and your reinsertion inappropriate. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * As you'll see Nat I didn't disagree that Elizium's removal of the text was wrong. I did, however, ask for clarity as to what aspect of the text violated WP:BLP. This is a reasonable request. He did not provide that clarity until asked. The priests cited in the removed material may not have been cited in that article (as we have now established) but it is in the public domain that they are gay and plenty of sources to support that - and so the concern about defamation is not a valid one. The issue was whether they decided to come out in response to the word's of Pope Francis - this is something the cited source did not establish. I was calling for courtesy and constructive engagement Nat - not a huffy and aggressive response about who and who doesn't have "authority". Contaldo80 (talk) 03:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Contaldo, I don't think you see how you're coming across here. No, you didn't just "ask for clarity", you reinserted the text. It should not have been hard to ascertain the BLP problems with unsourced information about living persons. The concerns about defamation were extremely valid, as we did not have a supporting source in the article - that's what BLP calls for, citations of information in the article, not just claims of common knowledge. You questioned where he has the authority, where BLP not only grants him the authority to guard against such problematic material, it actually calls on him to do so (which also rules out your "arbitrary" complaint.) You threatened him, and you attacked his tone when you are coming across as far worse than he. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No Nat - that's not what happened. If someone just says WP:BLP without saying what the issue is then how on earth are we as other editors meant to make a judgement. Elizium did not clarify that his concern was about a number of gay priests cited by name. That came only after I asked - politely and not threatening. If you read the stream above, he cited his "authority" to decide what could and could not go into the article. I think you're trying to be helpful Nat but let's not try to generate a drama where there does not need to be one. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 00:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Notable gay priests section
Not all gay priests are notable, not even all the ones who have been mentioned in the press. It is common to limit such lists to people with Wikipedia articles - "blue links" - which means that they can be tested for notability. A large batch of red links have recently been added, and I'm removing them due to the notability issue. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:05, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

All that gay priests are notable. They got alle attention in national or international newspapers in their countries. All persons have sources, where you can find, that these persons outed themselves as gay priests. --188.96.230.225 (talk) 13:46, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Bernd Mönkebüscher, Roman-Catholic priest in Germany, wrote more than five books as author

--188.96.230.225 (talk) 13:52, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Pierre Valkering, Roman-Catholic priest in Amsterdam, Netherlands
 * Holger Allmenroeder, Roman-Catholic priest in Mainz, Germany
 * Pierre Stutz, former Roman-Catholic priest in Switzerland
 * Anselm Bilgri, former Roman-Catholic priest in Bavaria and prior of Andechs Abbey
 * Roberto Francisco Daniel, former Roman-Catholic priest in Brazil
 * Gregory Greiten, Roman-Catholic priest and professor at Fordham University
 * Bob Bussen, Roman-Catholic priest in Salt Lake City
 * Bryan Massingale, Roman-Catholic priest and professor at Fordham University
 * Norbert Reicherts and Christoph Schmidt, both former Roman-Catholic priests and now married, Germany
 * Hans-Ludwig Leininger, Roman Catholic priest in Saarland, Germany]
 * Jeffrey Burrill, Roman-Catholic priest in USA


 * Merely having a mention that you are a gay priest does not reach Wikipedia's notability guidelines for people. If you feel that one of these people is notable beyond that, you can create an article about that priest. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:11, 16 July 2021 (UTC)