text:
Battle of Jena–Auerstedt

The twin battles of Jena and Auerstedt (older spelling: Auerstädt) were fought on 14 October 1806 on the plateau west of the river Saale in today's Germany, between the forces of Napoleon I of France and Frederick William III of Prussia. The defeat suffered by the Prussian Army subjugated the Kingdom of Prussia to the French Empire until the Sixth Coalition was formed in 1813.

Several figures who were later integral to the reformation of the Prussian Army participated at Jena–Auerstedt, including Gebhard von Blücher, Carl von Clausewitz, August Neidhardt von Gneisenau, Gerhard von Scharnhorst, and Hermann von Boyen.

Background
Following the Prussian declaration of war, Napoleon initiated his campaign against the Fourth Coalition by thrusting a 180,000-strong force through the Franconian Forest. The Prussian army, meanwhile, awaited Napoleon's advance with a force composed of about 130,000 Prussians and 20,000 Saxons.

The Prussians were not organized well enough and lacked the speed as well as the efficient information flow of the French army.

Overview
The battles began when elements of Napoleon's main force encountered Hohenlohe's troops near Jena. Initially 48,000 strong, the Emperor took advantage of his carefully planned and flexible dispositions to rapidly achieve local superiority, with a force reaching 96,000 men. However, less than half fought the Prussians as only 40,000 men were sent and actually took part in the battle. The Prussians, meanwhile, were slow to grasp the situation, and slower still to react. Before Ruchel's 15,000 men could arrive from Weimar, Hohenlohe's force was routed, with 10,000 killed or wounded and 15,000 captured. Ruchel did eventually bring his troops to the battlefield. Soon after it was committed to battle and Hohenlohe rode up to take personal command of the corps, they were ridden over and sent fleeing to the rear in irretrievable rout, with Ruchel being wounded. Nevertheless, Jena was a fierce battle, with 5,000 French killed, wounded or captured; and Napoleon mistakenly believed that he had faced the main body of the Prussian army.

Further north at Auerstedt, both Davout and Bernadotte received orders to come to Napoleon's aid. Davout attempted to comply via Eckartsberga, Bernadotte via Dornburg. Davout's route south, however, was blocked by the Prussian main force of 64,000 men, including the Prussian King, the Duke of Brunswick and Field Marshals von Möllendorf and von Kalckreuth. A savage battle ensued. Although outnumbered more than two to one, Davout's superbly trained and disciplined III Corps endured repeated attacks before it eventually took the offensive and put the Prussians to flight. Though within earshot of both battles, Marshal Bernadotte controversially took no steps to come to Davout's aid, refusing to take the initiative and instead adhering to the last written set of Napoleon's orders.

Plan
The Prussian army was divided into three armies drawn from across Prussia. Prussia's main weakness in 1806 was its senior command structure, which included command positions being held by multiple officers. One such example is the position of chief of staff, held by three different officers: General Phull, Colonel Gerhard von Scharnhorst and Colonel Rudolf Massenbach. The confusing system led to delays and complexities that resulted in over a month's delay before the final order of battle was prepared. Another obstacle facing the Prussians was the creation of a unified plan of battle. Five main plans emerged for discussion; however, protracted planning and deliberating shifted the initiative to the French. Thus, the Prussian plans became mere reactions to Napoleon's movements.

Although Prussia had begun its mobilization almost a month before France, Napoleon had kept a high state of readiness after the Russian refusal to accept defeat after the War of the Third Coalition. Napoleon conceived a plan to force Prussia into a decisive battle, like Austerlitz, and pre-empt the Prussian offensive. Napoleon had a major portion of his Grande Armée in position in present-day Baden-Württemberg in southwest Germany and thus decided on a northeast advance into Saxony and on to Berlin.

Battle of Jena
The battle commenced on the morning of 14 October 1806, on the grassy fields near Jena. The first movements of the French Army were attacks on either flank of the Prussian lines. That gave the supporting armies (making up the central attack) time to get into position. The skirmishes had little decisive success, save for a breakthrough by the French General Saint-Hilaire, who attacked and isolated the Prussian left flank.

At that time, Marshal Michel Ney had completed his maneuvers and had taken up position as ordered by Napoleon. However, once in position, Ney decided to attack the Prussian line despite having no orders to do so, a move that proved to be almost disastrous. Ney's initial assault was a success, but he found himself overextended and under heavy fire from Prussian artillery. Recognizing the distressed salient, the Prussian general ordered a counterattack and enveloped Ney's forces; Ney formed them into a square to protect all their flanks. Napoleon recognized Ney's situation and ordered Marshal Jean Lannes to shift from the centre of attack to help Ney.

That action left the French centre weak. However, Napoleon deployed the Imperial Guard to hold the French center until Ney could be rescued. That adaptability was one of Napoleon's greatest strengths. He kept the Imperial Guard under his direct command and could order them to take positions depending on the situation that the battle presented him. The rescue worked, and Ney's units were able to retreat from the battle. Although the French were then in a troubling situation, the Prussian commanders did not take the initiative to push at the French weaknesses. That was later considered to have been their undoing. The inactivity of the Prussian infantry left them open to artillery and light infantry fire. One Prussian general later wrote that "the area around the entrance of the village was the scene of the most terrible blood-letting and slaughter".

It was at that time, around 1 p.m., that Napoleon decided to make the decisive move. He ordered his flanks to push hard and try to break through the Prussian flanks and encircle the main center army while the French center attempted to crush the Prussian centre. The attacks on the flanks proved to be a success. With its flanks broken, the Prussian army was forced to withdraw and Napoleon had won another battle. In total the Prussian army lost 10,000 men killed or wounded, had 15,000 prisoners of war taken as well as 150 guns.

Battle of Auerstedt
General Étienne Gudin's Division were on the move from Naumburg before 6:30 a.m. By 7 a.m. the 1st Chasseurs were stopped cold in their tracks outside of Poppel by Prussian cavalry and artillery. There was a heavy fog, which had lifted just as they approached the village. Once Davout became aware of the Prussian force, he ordered Gudin to deploy his force at Hassenhausen.

The Prussian commander on the field was Friedrich Wilhelm Carl von Schmettau. His division was actually under orders to proceed down the very road that Davout was on, to block his advance in the Kösen Pass. While Schmettau's troops were deploying to attack Hassenhausen, Blücher arrived with his cavalry and deployed on his left. Together, they attacked Gudin's troops and pushed them back to the village.

Wartensleben arrived at 8:30 a.m. with the Duke of Brunswick, who ordered his infantry to the left flank and his cavalry to the right. The rest of the French cavalry arrived at 9 a.m. and was placed on Gudin's left. General Louis Friant's Division and the 12-pound artillery arrived at 9:30 a.m. and moved in squares on Gudin's right. The advance of the French squares forced Blücher's cavalry back. Seeing no other option available he ordered his cavalry to attack. At that very moment, two of Wartensleben's regiments attacked Hassenhausen.

Everything failed: three Prussian cavalry regiments were routed and the infantry fell back. At this critical point, the Duke needed to take drastic action. Shortly before 10 a.m., he ordered a full assault on Hassenhausen. By 10 a.m., the Duke of Brunswick was carried from the field mortally wounded along with Schmettau who was also badly wounded. With the loss of both commanders, the Prussian command broke down. The Prussian army was in danger of collapse.

Oswald's infantry and the Prince of Orange, the later William I of the Netherlands, arrived about 10:30 a.m., and the King made his only decision of the day: to split Orange's command in two, half to each flank. On the French side, Morand's Division arrived and was sent to secure Gudin's left. Davout could now see that the Prussians were wavering and so at 11 a.m. he ordered his infantry to counter-attack. By noon Schmettau's center was broken and forced back over the Lissbach Stream, Blücher's cavalry was blown, and Wartensleben was trying to reposition his troops. The Prussians realized all was now lost and the King ordered a withdrawal.

Davout's corps had lost 7,052 officers and men killed or wounded, while Prussian casualties were 13,000.

Aftermath

Napoleon initially did not believe that Davout's single Corps had defeated the Prussian main body unaided and responded to the first report by saying "Your Marshal must be seeing double!", a reference to Davout's poor eyesight. As matters became clearer, however, the Emperor was unstinting in his praise. Davout was made Duke of Auerstedt. Lannes, the hero of Jena, was not so honored.

Bernadotte's lack of action was controversial within a week of the twin battles. Bernadotte had last received positive written orders on the day before the battle in which his I Corps, along with Davout's III Corps, were to lie astride the Prussians' projected line of retreat. He was the only Marshal not to receive updated, written orders on the night of 13 October. In the early hours of 14 October, Davout received a courier from Berthier in which he wrote: "If the Prince of Ponte Corvo [Bernadotte] is with you, you may both march together, but the Emperor hopes that he will be in the position which had been indicated at Dornburg." Davout thence relayed this order to Bernadotte when the next met at 0400 the same morning. Bernadotte later cited the poorly written, equivocal nature of the verbal order, as discretionary and complied with Napoleon's wish to be at Dornburg instead of accompanying Davout. Moreover, when told of Davout's difficulties, Bernadotte did not believe that the Prussian main force was before III Corps as Napoleon had claimed the main body was at Jena. As a consequence, he failed to aid Davout and instead fulfilled the Emperor's orders to position I Corps in the Prussian rear on the Heights of Apolda, which, incidentally, did have the effect intended as the Prussians at Jena withdrew once they saw French troops occupying their line of retreat.

Davout and Bernadotte later became bitter enemies as the result of Bernadotte's perceived indifference at the fate of a fellow Marshal. For his part, Napoleon later stated on St. Helena that Bernadotte's behavior (though he was complying with Napoleon's orders) was disgraceful and that but for his attachment to Bernadotte's wife, Napoleon's own former fiancée, Désirée Clary, he would have had Bernadotte shot. However, contemporary evidence indicates that far from scenes of recriminations and insults alleged by Davout and his aides-de-Camp against Bernadotte the night of the battles, Napoleon was unaware anything was amiss, insofar as I Corps had played the part assigned to it by the Emperor, until days later.

A later search of the orders and dispatches from the Imperial Headquarters never yielded any order for Bernadotte to march with Davout. They did, however, confirm Berthier's order of 14 October, sending Bernadotte to Dornberg. The lack of documentation supporting Napoleon's accusation against Bernadotte calls into question whether Napoleon had intended I Corps to march with Davout, and the order was incorrectly transmitted to Bernadotte on the morning of 14 October, or if Napoleon was using the opportunity to shift blame for Davout having to fight a battle on his own as suggested by Colonel Ernst Marsh Lloyd. Napoleon later sent a severely worded reprimand to Bernadotte but took no further action.

On the Prussian side, Brunswick was mortally wounded at Auerstedt, and over the next few days, the remaining forces were unable to mount any serious resistance to Murat's ruthless cavalry pursuit. In the Capitulation of Erfurt on 16 October, a large body of Prussian troops became prisoners with hardly a shot being fired. Bernadotte crushed Eugene Frederick Henry, Duke of Württemberg's Prussian Reserve Army on the 17th in the Battle of Halle, partially redeeming himself in Napoleon's eyes. In recognition of his glorious victory at Auerstadt, Napoleon gave Davout the honor of entering Berlin first. Davout led his exhausted III Corps into Berlin in triumph on 25 October. Hohenlohe's force surrendered on 28 October after the Battle of Prenzlau, followed soon after by the Capitulation of Pasewalk. The French ran down and captured several small Prussian columns at Boldekow on 30 October, Anklam on 1 November, Wolgast on 3 November, and Wismar on 5 November.

21,000 Prussian field troops remained at large west of the Oder as November began under the command of Gebhard Blücher. French advances prevented his corps from crossing the Oder, or moving toward Stettin to seek waterborne transport to East Prussia. Bernadotte began a relentless pursuit of Blücher, with the two forces engaging in several holding actions, and was later joined by Murat and Soult in "The Pursuit of the Three Marshals." Blücher then moved west to cross into neutral Denmark but the Danes placed their army on the border with the intent of attacking any force that tried to cross it. The Prussians then violated the neutrality of the Hanseatic City of Lübeck and fortified it with the intent of joining forces with an allied Swedish contingent there on its way home, and commandeering ships in the hopes of reaching a safe harbor. However, Blücher and Winning's corps was surrounded and destroyed in what became the Battle of Lübeck on 6 and 7 November after Bernadotte's I Corps, still smarting from the Emperor's censure, stormed the fortified city gates, poured into the streets and squares breaking hasty attempts at resistance and captured Blücher's command post (and his Chief of Staff Gerhard von Scharnhorst) as Soult's troops blocked all escape routes. The Prussians lost 3000 killed and wounded. On the morning of 7 November, with all hope of escape extinguished, Blücher surrendered personally to Bernadotte and went into captivity with 9,000 other Prussian prisoners of war. The Siege of Magdeburg ended on 11 November with Ney's capture of the fortress. Isolated Prussian resistance remained, but Napoleon's primary foe was now Russia, and the Battle of Eylau and the Battle of Friedland awaited.

Martin van Creveld has stated about the effects on command:

"Thus Napoleon at Jena had known nothing about the main action that took place on that day; had forgotten all about two of his corps; did not issue orders to a third, and possibly a fourth; was taken by surprise by the action of a fifth; and, to cap it all, had one of his principal subordinates display the kind of disobedience that would have brought a lesser mortal before a firing squad. Despite all these faults in command, Napoleon won what was probably the great single triumph in his career."

Influence
The battle proved most influential in demonstrating the need for reforms in what was a very much feudal Prussian state and army. Important Prussian reformers like Scharnhorst, Gneisenau and Clausewitz served at the battle. Their reforms, together with civilian reforms instituted over the following years, began Prussia's transformation into a modern state, which took the forefront in expelling France from Germany and eventually assumed a leading role on the continent. The reduction of Prussia to a French vassal, and the subsequent revolt that restored national honor, formed a key component of German nationalism.

Napoleon built a bridge in Paris which he named after the battle. When he was defeated, the Prussian contingent of the allied forces of occupation was so incensed by its name that they wished to destroy the bridge. Talleyrand temporarily renamed the bridge after the French Grand Army, which dissuaded them from doing so. The station of the Paris Metro at the bridge has the same name. Near Jena, several hiking trails are named after Napoleon and some of his marshals. In the villages of Cospeda is a museum about the battle. To mark the 200th anniversary the battle was re-enacted on 14 October 2006 with 1,800 participants on a 600 m by 800 meters enclosed area near the village of Cospeda. Annually in October, close to the historical date, commemorative events are organized by the association "Jena 1806 e. V.". This takes place on a grander scale every five years. The award winning short film "Into the Battle" by David Cebulla was produced during the 210th reenactment of the battle.

title: Battle of Jena–Auerstedt


text:
Talk:Crimen sollicitationis

Orphan
This is a requested page--it's also an orphan. I'm going to link back from Roman Catholic Church sex abuse allegations just to deorphan it, but there may be better parents available.Vicki Rosenzweig

Animals in the confessional?
On page 23, par. 73, in the English translation, the document states: "To have the worst crime, for the penal effects, one must do the equivalent of the following: any obscene, external act, gravely sinful, perpetrated in any way by a cleric or attempted by him with youths of either sex or with brute animals (bestiality)." In par. 71 it is noted that, "Those things that have been stated concerning the crime of solicitation up to this point are also valid (...) for the worst crime (...)."

This is a bit too Catholic for me to fully understand, but it appears that the document deals with more than just crimes of solicitation, or are "brute animals" admitted to the confessional? My interpretation is that the same rules of secrecy govern child molestation and sodomy.—Eloquence 00:52, Aug 13, 2003 (UTC)

It appears under a subheading about solicitation in the confessional so it needs to be understood in that context. And while "brute animals" don't go into the confessional, their owners do; it is talking about the solicitation of owners of animals to allow their animals to be used. And it doesn't talk about sodomy but sex with youths of either sex, which is different. FearÉIREANN

Secrecy
Can anyone clarify this paragraph?
 * The document calls for such cases to be handled in secret, and extends that secrecy to the document itself. The document imposes secrecy even upon victims of sexual abuse. Extreme penalties for violations of secrecy, including excommunication that can only be dismissed by the Pope himself, are imposed.

It seems to suggest that victims may be excommunicated (which can only be dismissed by the pope) if they don't keep what has happened to them and/or the actions that have been taken against the perpetrators secret. I assume this is not the case but who knows given the way the Catholic church handled things. Nil Einne 16:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

 "11. Because, however, what is treated in these cases has to have a greater degree of care and observance so that those same matters be pursued in a most secretive way, and, after they have been defined and given over to execution, they are to be restrained by a perpetual silence (Instruction of the Holy Office, February 20, 1867, n. 14), each and everyone pertaining to the tribunal in any way or admitted to knowledge of the matters because of their office, is to observe the strictest secret, which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy Office, in all matters and with all persons, under the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae, ipso facto and without any declaration having been incurred and reserved to the sole person of the Supreme Pontiff, even to the exclusion of the Sacred Penitentiary, are bound to observe inviolably. Indeed by this law the Ordinaries are bound ipso jure or by the force of their own proper duty. The other helpers from the power of their oath which they they must always take before they undertake their duties. And these, then, are delegated, are interpolated, and are informed in their absence by means of the precept in the letters of delegation, interpellation, information, imposing upon them with express mention of the secret of the Holy Office and of the aforementioned censure. - Alison✍ 17:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's the appropriate excerpt;

secrecy
Art.11 deals with secrecy of judges and has nothing to do with victims. See the new "Scope" paragraph for the real document content. Pinea 23:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Translation errors
Most of the above discussions are because the English translation posted by cbsnews is full of errors. Does anyone have a valid translation to be appended? Pinea 23:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Link to Roman Catholic Church / Churches
Given that Crimen sollicitations is an 'updated' version of an even older Vatican document 'Sacramentum Poenitentiae', perhaps this article should have a link to the Roman Catholic Church page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.27.54.3 (talk) 03:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Where are the links/references?
It says:

"The document thus imposed absolute secrecy on the subject matter of the trial, even after the trial had ended and its verdict, favourable or unfavourable, had been put into effect. An oath of secrecy was to be taken not only by the members of the tribunal but also by the person or persons denouncing the priest, by the witnesses, and by the accused priest himself, who was free to discuss the matter only with his defence counsel (13)."

But where is the reference (#13)? I can't find it anywhere on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.160.104.89 (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

"Reliable"
Can a translation be called reliable when, in the very first paragraph, it gives "by writing whether then or after [the note has been read]" as the equivalent of "per scripturam aut tunc aut post legendam", which means simply "by a note to be read either then or later"? In fact, the translation is somewhat lacking in both accuracy and clarity. Lima (talk) 18:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Severe translation errors
The English translation arbitrarily translates the latin word "causa" (=trial) as "subject matter of the trial". The difference is substantial as according to a proper translation secrecy concerns trial only (including anything that happened during the trial, such as a confession by the accused priest or by possible false accusers). NO SECRECY ABOUT THE CRIME IS IMPOSED. Moreover the translation of the words "propter eorum officium" is omitted, thereby falsely implying that the secrecy (as well as the possible excommunication) is applicable to everybody. These are just two of the many errors of the translation appended to this article, and here reworded but not adequately corrected (by the way the translation was provided by the lawyers of one side; it's a POV English Translation, not a Private English Translation as stated in the External Links).

I recommend the following, maybe pedestrian but more faithful translation (so everybody can easily check word by word):

As, truly, what must be mainly taken care of and complied with in handling these trials, it is that they be managed with maximum confidentiality and after the verdict is declared and put into effect never be mentioned again (20 February 1867 Instruction of the Holy Office, 14), each and every person, who in any way belongs to the tribunal or is given knowledge of the matter because of its office, is obliged to keep inviolate the strictest secrecy (what is commonly called "the secrecy of the Holy Office") in all things and with all persons, under pain of automatic ("latae sententiae") excommunication, incurred ipso facto without need of any declaration other than the present one, and reserved to the Supreme Pontiff in person alone, excluding even the Apostolic Penitentiary

For better clarity I repeat the initial most controversial sentence, adding to the English words the corresponding Latin ones:

As, truly,(Quoniam vero) what must be mainly taken care of and complied with (quod maiorem in modum curari et observari debet)in handling these trials (in hisce causis tractandis), it is that (illud est ut) they be managed with maximum confidentiality (eaedem secretissime peragantur) and after the verdict is declared and put into effect (et, postquam fuerint definitae et executioni iam tradite) never be mentioned again (perpetuo silentio premantur)...

Incidentally there are also two misprints in copying the Latin text. Pinea (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Pinea, but think a few retouches are necessary:

 * vero is not vere; it can have an adversative meaning, as understood by the previous translator, or a confirmative one. Perhaps here the neutral in fact or assuredly is best.
 * For trials, it, read trials: the subject of the verb is is what must be mainly ... (in Latin, illud quod in hisce causis ...)
 * For because of its office, read because of their office (Latin, eorum)
 * I have taken the liberty of inserting Pinea's text, with these adjustments, into the article, also correcting the two Latin mistypings.
 * Pinea's good and accurate translation shows up how inexact and obscure was the translation that the journalistic fuss was about:
 * Pinea's (adjusted):
 * As, assuredly, what must be mainly taken care of and complied with in handling these trials is that they be managed with maximum confidentiality and after the verdict is declared and put into effect never be mentioned again (20 February 1867 Instruction of the Holy Office, 14), each and every person, who in any way belongs to the tribunal or is given knowledge of the matter because of their office, is obliged to keep inviolate the strictest secrecy (what is commonly called "the secrecy of the Holy Office") in all things and with all persons, under pain of automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication, incurred ipso facto'' without need of any declaration other than the present one, and reserved to the Supreme Pontiff in person alone, excluding even the Apostolic Penitentiary.
 * The other translation:
 * Because, however, what is treated in these cases has to have a greater degree of care and observance so that those same matters be pursued in a most secretive way, and, after they have been defined and given over to execution, they are to be restrained by a perpetual silence (Instruction of the Holy Office, February 20, 1867, n. 14), each and everyone pertaining to the tribunal in any way or admitted to knowledge of the matter because of their office, is to observe the strictest secret, which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy Office, in all matters and with all persons, under the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae, ipso facto and without any declaration [of such a penalty] having been incurred and reserved to the sole person of the Supreme Pontiff, even to the exclusion of the Sacred Penitentiary, are bound to observe [this secrecy] inviolably. Lima (talk) 19:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Further error
The comment on sectio 72 is also wrong, as again it was based on an error of the English translation appended (in which the word "excepted" has been transformed into "accepted", thereby reversing the meaning). Crimen sollicitationis doesn't change Canon Law (how could?). This error didn't exist in the text I wrote in May 2007, but was deleted on September 4, 2007. I quote it because it also includes some useful explanations:

''The last section of Crimen sollicitationis (art. 71-74) deals with the application of the same procedure to other offenses. As such application is very controversial, it is now discussed in detail. Note that the text is very very short: any understanding may imply some judgemental interpretation. ''1. At first any “very sinful obscene external deed perpetrated or attempted by a cleric with a person of the same sex” is conventionally defined as “worst crime” (art. 71), apparently in order to be easily but precisely mentioned in the following articles 72 and 73. The choice of the conventional name needs some explanation, as there are worse sins according to church laws. It is probably an (inaccurate) quote of St. Thomas Summa Theologica, where different sexual behaviours are simply ranked according to their distance from standard heterosexual coupling. Note, also, that in 1962, when the Vatican document was issued, homosexual sexual conduct between adults was still a criminal activity in many countries, such as UK, Germany, Spain and Australia. In the USA decriminalisation had just started in 1961 in Illinois. See LGBT rights by country.'' ''2. Then whatever has been established for the “crime of sollicitation” is extended to the “worst crime”, but with the necessary adjustments (“mutatis tantum pro rei necessario mutandis”) (art. 72). Among the issues to be modified in order to adapt to the different nature of the offense, only one is explicitly mentioned: victims/partners and other informed persons are no more morally obliged to denounce (see item 5 above). This is because sacrilege is not involved and the church has no more the right of twisting the arm of the victims for the common good ( by the menace of excommunication).''

The text involved is: Quae de crimine sollicitationis hucusque statuta sunt, valeant quoque, mutatis tantum pro rei natura necessario mutandis, pro crimine pessimo...excepta obligatione denunciationis ex lege Ecclesiae positiva, nisi forte ipsum fuerit etiam cum crimine sollicitationis in confessione sacramentali coniunctum.

The above sentence explains that the moral obligation of denouncing guilty priests based on natural law (lege Ecclesiae positiva) recalled in section 15 of Crimen sollicitationis doesn't apply to homosexuality, unless the sacrament of Penance is involved.

Pinea (talk) 23:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Regretfully I have difficulty this time in understanding Pinea's remark. The article comments on section 72:
 * Canon law imposed no legal obligation - though a moral one might exist - on anyone to denounce priests guilty of what the document Crimen sollicitationis called "crimen pessimum" ("the most evil crime"), unless these acts were linked with the sacrament of Penance. Nevertheless, the 1962 document said that the same procedure was to be used against any cleric who happened to be accused of such acts.
 * To me, this seems exact. Canon 904 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law imposed (or rather confirmed) a legal obligation to denounce within one month any priest who solicited sex in connection with confession. On the contrary, there was no obligation imposed by a positive law (ex lege Ecclesiae positiva – stressed in the original) to denounce a priest for homosexual acts or for solicitation, unconnected with confession, to homosexual acts, though – the text suggests – there might well be a moral obligation under natural law to denounce him. This canon 904 is quoted in section 16 and is the positive law  referred to in section 15 as imposing the obligation to denounce the priest. Section 72 said that, if a priest were denounced in this way, the procedure to follow was the same as that for cases of accusations of solicitation in confession.
 * I see in the comment on section 72 no suggestion that Crimen sollicitationis changed canon law.
 * I do not understand Pinea's last paragraph above, which seems to understand as "a moral obligation based on natural law"the legal obligation arising from a positive ecclesiastical law ("obligatione denunciationis ex lege Ecclesiae positiva) – namely, the positive law in canon 904 and in Benedict XIV's document.
 * Doubtless the comment on section 72 could be phrased more clearly. I would do my best to edit it in line with remarks on its faults, but I would need first to understand the remarks. Lima (talk) 07:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The last sentence of the paragraph on § 71-72 in the article is ambiguous and we simply understand it differently. It starts with the adversative Nevertheless, indicating that there is a change, therefore the confused sentence can be interpreted as if, at variance with Canon Law, the same procedure applied to sexual solicitation during Penance (and in particular the obligation of denouncing) had to be applied to worst crimes, even though unrelated to any sacrament. I understand we both agree that this is not true. Moreover "worst crime" or "most evil crime" is here a technical (almost slang) expression and should not be used or be used with adequate explanation, as it raises other issues, such as homophobia. The whole paragraph could read about: ''Finally Crimen sollicitationis requests that the previous cautious procedure should be followed for other important and socially controversial moral faults, such as homosexuality. In cases, however, not related to Penance §72 points out that the obligation of denouncing offending priests in order to avoid “inestimable detriment to souls” (as per §15 of Crimen sollicitationis) is not applicable (as previously established by Canon law).'' For what concerns last sentence of my previous comment, I read much time ago the 1741 constitution (which obviously is positive law, as you said) and I think the pope stated that his decision was based on natural law; the whole issue (natural/positive) however in somehow marginal, and not worth further discussion; I should not have raised this point.

Pinea (talk) 22:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The "nevertheless" meant only that, although charges of homosexual conduct were not covered by the same law that dealt with charges of solicitation in Confession, the regulations governing trials on charges of solicitation in Confession were to be applied also to trials on charges of homosexual conduct. "The previous cautious procedure" might mean some unspecified procedure followed before Crimen sollicitationis came into force: so we must indicate that the procedure in question is that laid down in Crimen sollicitationis, which, as its subtitle indicates, deals "de modo procedendi in causis sollicitationis".  Crimen sollicitationis does more than "request" that this procedure be followed: it requires it to be applied.  I fully agree that there is no need to use the technical term "crimen pessimum", which had been used for centuries with a precise meaning that Crimen sollicitationis spells out.  For the rest, I think we should keep to what Crimen sollicitationis actually says.  In particular, we should not replace the precise indications of the document (homosexuality, gravely sinful external sexual acts with prepubescent children, bestiality) with so vague a phrase as "important and socially controversial moral faults".  Lima (talk) 08:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The new version is good! Maybe I would use the word article rather than section, as section looks to me as a longer text than an article. Think over and do as you like. Best regards Pinea (talk) 22:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we can avoid both "section" and "article". I have made the attempt.  Lima (talk) 03:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Major rewrite/reorganisation needed?
I note that this document is a controversial one, with some claiming it essentially constitutes a criminal conspiracy to cover up the sexual abuse of children while others claim its a document that affords the accused cleric natural justice/procedural fairness and is not intended to cover up anything. If you type "Crimen sollicitationis" into Google you will see how incredibly controversial this thing is. It's therefore extra important that all claims be linked to verifiable sources as per the WP:BURDEN policy: All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.

It seems that the article has been authored/edited by people with a good understanding of Catholic canon law and Latin but they appear to be relying upon their own expertise only. Even if someone is the best Catholic canon lawyer in the world and the best Latin speaker, they can't edit the article and have others rely solely upon their expertise and not put in any references. It would be better for them to author an article and have it published on some respectable third party website, clearly identifying their qualifications, and then have someone else come back here and reference their article in this Wikipedia entry.

I think that each assertion needs to be referenced by pointing to the evidence that backs it up. I'd like to suggest an outline of how I believe the article should be structured.

Introduction: The name of the document and its origin and status should be made clear. I can quote a large number of articles, referencing experts in canon law and published in quality publications such as the New York Times. I think that if a non-expert like me can find that much information, others should have no problem.

The purpose of Crimen sollicitationis: This is the main part of the article. Given that the document is complex, and in a foreign language, it's essential than no one attempt to do a full analysis of the document relying upon their own personal reading of the text (which is what the article looks like at the moment). We need to give the views of experts in canon law. There are a number of experts that have spoken on the document, as well as non-experts.

We could write about the allegations of the lawyer Daniel Shea, who was the one that started making all the "smoking gun" allegations. Maybe quote him and any others who made claims about it.

Next we can quote the views of all experts. John Beal, Francis Morrisey, Ladislas Orsy and Thomas Doyle have all been quoted on the document.

Then perhaps mention the Sex Crimes and the Vatican documentary. In it Doyle appears to support the "smoking gun" theory but he later said he was misrepresented and now unequivocally disputes the idea it was designed to cover up abuse.

Finally we can talk of its sociological significance. Some have argued that although it is not an explicit policy to cover up abuse, it does show a tendency to keep everything as secret as possible and that may have had harmful consequences in terms of accountability etc.

I have a large number of reputable sources that I can use to back up these claims, but I wanted to get the feedback of others before I put in effort to make the changes.

The large number of quotes from the document itself are unnecessary for two reasons. The first is that the English translations will always be in dispute. The only English copies that are circulating are of unknown accuracy (the Church didn't produce them) and if someone is going to translate it they need to provide proof that it's accurate. The second reason we need not include all these quotes is that the important thing is is what the experts think not what us amateurs think. It would be like people editing the article on the US Constitution and rather than referring to expert's and the court's views of it, just referring to whatever that particular editor thinks it means.

Anyway, I'll finish there and wait until I get some feedback before progressing.

GuyIncognito (talk) 11:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The document was issued only in Latin. For its contents, nothing else can compare with the document itself as "a reliable, (by now) published source".  Just as no Chinese (for instance) translations of the US Constitution can compare with the original document itself.
 * The one complete English translation to which the article provides a link is obviously both obscure and inaccurate, as anyone who knows Latin can see on examining it, so it is necessary for the article to provide better translations of important extracts. The English translations of these important extracts have been and probably will continue to be repeatedly improved in style and accuracy by Wikipedia editors who know Latin, and will undoubtedly, by that collaborative effort, increasingly surpass the inaccurate effort given in the link.
 * By all means make a section on what various people have written or said around the document, but keep the account of what is actually in the document separate and exact. Much of what has been said is largely based on an inaccurate translation or on what others have said about the document.
 * Or have you found something inexact in the article's account of the document's contents? Then please draw attention to the supposed inaccuracy, so that it can be remedied.  Lima (talk) 13:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

 * My view is the following:
 * Crimen sollicitationis and the Controversies about Crimen Sollicitationis are two separate issues, which would probably be better dealt with by two separate wikipedia articles. Personally I don't care about controversies and wiki articles about them.
 * As far as the document is concerned, the facts are:
 * a) There is only one primary source, which is the Latin text.
 * b) There is, to my knowledge, only one secondary source which is the draft English translation prepared by Thomas Doyle. I call it a draft because there are many sentences that seems to have no meaning at all and there are many question marks, where the translator was unsure how to interpret the text. These are facts that everybody can check and I think that it would be more correct to state explicitly in the article that it is only a draft, but I would like somebody else to write it after forming his own independent opinion. Please do it.
 * c) There are plenty of tertiary sources, which seems, however, all be based on the secondary source only.

 * Personally I had eight years of school aimed at reading Latin classics. Even though this was the first time I read a church document I found it much easier than, say. reading Cicero. The only reason why I read it, was because I was unable to figure out the meaning of the English translation. When reading (about one year ago), I was very antagonized because I felt that the draft translation is very deceptive in many crucial points. Hence I provided my own summary of the content of the document. There are many English speaking persons who have studied Latin and none questioned the content of my summary on the basis of the actual content of the primary source. After three months (end of May-September, 4th, 2007) somebody simply replaced it with the index extracted from the secondary source. I think this was unfair because it was not based on questioning the actual content of my summary, but simply on the basis that the person was unable to check and was too lazy to ask the independent opinion of anybody able to read Latin. I read somewhere on the WEB somebody stating that he was no further contributing to Wikipedia as any valuable text is later degraded to a level of common ignorance. I think this was another example and I reacted the same way for one year because I am not involved in the controversies and I don't care about polemics not based on facts.

 * I understand the situation is a bit peculiar from the viewpoint of wikipolicy but I have noticed that IT-WIKI handled it in a way similar to the way now followed in the English article, namely by publishing side by side some excerpts of the Latin text and its translation prepared with the contribution of several wikipedians. I don't see any other serious way of managing the issue. When I noticed that the article was again based on facts (namely the Latin text) and not only on drafts, polemics and gossips, I decided to contribute by providing a word by word translation, so that anybody can easily point out where he feels I have made any mistake, if any.

 * In conclusion I recommend:
 * a) to split the article in two different articles or at least clearly separated sections dealing, as said above, with the document and with the controversy.
 * b) to increase the number of quotations of the Latin text, providing side by side a translation (I volunteer to contribute; I would prefer somebody else to do the first draft so that from the very beginning the translation is the product of at least two, and possibly more, independent Latin reading Wikipedians).
 * c) to move the Canon law quotations to the notes, as a confirmation of the content of a quote from Crimen Sollicitationis (for instance to show which was the general policy of the Catholic Church), not as a replacement to reading and quoting the original document.
 * If anybody agrees and does a), I will contribute to b) and c).

Pinea (talk) 21:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I am quite willing to help. It seems that it was I who, as was requested, rewrote the article in early September, drawing inspiration from the Italian Wikipedia article, which presents the contents of the document in a way that Pinea seems to approve. This comparison shows that the article has remained substantially unchanged since my revision of 4 September, by which I ensured that "the article was again based on facts (namely the Latin text) and not only on drafts, polemics and gossips".  Would Pinea agree that, if an expansion of the account of the contents is thought necessary, we should do it one section at a time, whatever section of the document is felt to most need fuller presentation?  For my part, I don't think we should expand it very much, if at all: else we'll end up with a Wikipedia translation of the whole document, minus perhaps the formulas that take up much more than half of the document and which in any case were not obligatory ("pro opportunitate adhibendae"). What does GuyIncognito say?   I hope he too agrees that the article should be "based on facts (namely the Latin text) and not only on drafts, polemics and gossips".  Lima (talk) 05:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

 * I think we are all in agreement that this document has been misrepresented by a lot of people. I just think that the article could do with some serious revision because a lot of the article doesn't include any sources.    The problem with Wikipedians doing the translation is twofold.  The first is that the Latin original has never been officially authenticated.  Roman Catholic authorities have acknowledged the existence of Crimen sollicitationis but they haven't officially said "here is an accurate copy".  We have to rely upon Thomas Doyle who released it, and although it's not likely that he altered it he is someone that has shown himself to be biased against the Roman Catholic hierarchy (he works with the lawyers suing the Church).  We can't assume that any document calling itself Crimen sollicitationis is therefore the real one.  So it still rests upon a person claiming that it's a true authentic copy to prove their claim.  The second issue is, how do people know whether the English translation is accurate if it is done by Wikipedians?  Do we have to just accept their say so or will they write their qualifications somewhere?  This document is a legal one and I know from studying law that often words have unique meanings in a legal context and that's why I don't think it is a simple straight forward matter of translation.

 * The way it stands is that all experts in canon law are saying that it's just a procedural document that gives fairness to an accused cleric. I'll give you an example of a potential dispute:
 * Someone quotes a paragraph of Crimen and then translates it. Someone else comes along and says "how do we know that this is a part of the original document, maybe someone made it up or added it to the document?"  How do we respond to them if we have to no website to refer them to to prove the claim?  And what if another says "the translation is wrong".  How do we prove it's correct?  If we had some expert on a website translate it then it might be ok but at the moment no one is citing such an expert.  So how do we prove the translation is accurate so that sceptical readers can know that is it?  Then a third person might say that the passage means A or B whereas the entry in Wikipedia says it means C.  If we don't have an expert on some website in or some book to refer to, how do we prove that the the Wikipedia entry is drawing the right inference?  Canon law is complex so it might use words or expressions in unusual ways that can only be properly understood when read in accordance with the norms of Catholic canon law.  It might seem obvious what a given paragraph means but it's still an interpretation.

 * Anyway, I don't want to go ahead and make any changes unless you guys agree. Also, it would take many hours of research to back up the claims in this article and I don't have that time at the moment.  I will try and work with you both because you both sound knowledgeable on the topic.

GuyIncognito (talk) 12:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Let us not worry about merely potential disputes. Is anything actually disputed?  Lima (talk) 12:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

 * If any modification has to be done (nobody is really requiring), priority should be given to the Contents section. GuyIncognito is right in stating that references are missing and Lima is right in stating that the only meaningful reference is to the Latin text. Ideally we could add to each sentence (or period) a note, where Latin text and translation of crucial issues is given. In this way the main text will remain simple.

 * I do not share the concerns about "proving" that the translation is correct. The reliability of any information in WIKI is based on the fact that nobody has been able to motivate a modification. References are not a proof of truth, because the wikipedian author may have misused them. They are simply a hint on how to get deeper knowledge. Moreover, the reliability of websites is judgemental. For instance, after they have endorsed the Doyle translation of Crimen Sollicitationis I have no more trust on the BBC site, no matter how authoritative it might be considered by others. Pinea (talk) 20:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

edits by 12.5.207.254
"The document broadens the range and to before and after Confession on first page." As this stands, it is meaningless. Please be specific. Broadens the range of what? In what way? The edit seems to betray a confusion between the rules for trials, the only part of canon law that the document did alter (making the rules more specific, not broader), with a non-existent broadening of the delineation of the offence of solicitation ("to before and after Confession"), a matter that the document did not in fact touch.

"(Preliminaries: 11) of the document ... restrains the injured party by perpetual silence under penalty of excommunication from the Roman Catholic Church as outlined in (Title 1:18.)" This is simply false. Article 18 restated the already existing penalty of excommunication for the injured party if she/he did not denounce solicitation within one month of the occurrence! And article 11 said nothing about the injured party: it imposed silence only on the members of the tribunal. Who would approve a member of the tribunal telling it abroad that such-and-such a person (whether ugly or handsome) claims that she/he was the object of desire of some priest?!

The crime in question is solicitation during or immediately before or after Confession. 12.5.207.254 removed the important word "immediately", making it appear that the term covered any solicitation even twenty or more years before or after the Confession. Lima (talk) 08:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

A 39 page Directive on how to keep sexual abuse in house? "And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea." (Mark 9:42). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.5.207.254 (talk) 16:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Read it. Lima (talk) 16:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Preliminaries – 13 (accuser must be silenced) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.5.207.254 (talk) 18:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Article 13 did not say that the accuser must be silent about the accusation: like article 12, it only spoke about the trial itself, and explicitly said that ordinarily no penalty whatever was imposed on an accuser who chose not to be silent even about that. And don't forget that article 18 imposed an obligation not to be silent about the offence, but to denounce it within at most one month, and inflicted a heavy penalty on anyone who did not denounce but chose instead to be silent! It was on the accused, not the accuser, that article 13 imposed a serious obligation of silence, backed up by the penalty of suspension from his priestly functions.  Lima (talk) 19:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Preliminaries 13:

"The oath of keeping the secret must be given in these cases also by the accusers of those denouncing {the Priest} and the witnesses." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.5.207.254 (talk • contribs)
 * Yes. What secret?  Lima (talk) 03:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

All matters pertaining to the case. “is to observe the strictest secret, which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy Office, in all maters and with all persons, under the penalty of excommunication”

The victim would be clearly excommunicated if he/she went outside the Church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.5.207.254 (talk) 13:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Yes: all matters pertaining to the ecclesiastical court case. (The Latin for court case is "causa".)  It is ridiculous to suggest that article 13 imposed on the accuser silence "with all persons" about the accusation.  Unless the accusation were revealed to at least one person, there would have been no case.  On the contrary, keeping the matter secret for over a month was punished by excommunication.
 * The document made it obligatory to denounce the priest to the bishop or the Holy See, and indicated what steps should follow. The document nowhere forbade making the accusation to the civil authorities.  In that case it would be dealt with by a civil tribunal, not an ecclesiastical one; the penalty, if the accusation was upheld, would be a material one, not a spiritual one such as excommunication or suspension; and it would not be a matter for a Church document.
 * By the way, article 13, and the document as a whole, did not speak of excommunication or any penalty whatever for a failure by the accuser to observe silence about the case.  Lima (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Essentially, it is would be more ridiculous to suggest that the meticulous language "in all maters and with all persons, under the penalty of excommunication" is abstract, allegorical, figurative, metaphorical or symbolic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.5.207.254 (talk • contribs)
 * Nobody says that the words "in all matters and with all persons, under the penalty of excommunication", which, as already stated, were about the the tribunal officials, not the accuser, are abstract, allegorical, figurative, metaphorical or symbolic. Lima (talk) 15:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The Directive clearly states: “each and everyone pertaining to the tribunal in any way”, the accuser is part of the tribunal. In “any way” covers any form of association to the process.

The Process – Chapter 3 – 52 "In every way the judge is to remember that it is never right for him to bind the accused by an oath to tell the truth." But notice that in Preliminaries – 13 it’s mandatory to bind the victim. “The oath of keeping the secret must be given in these cases also by the accusers or those denouncing {the priest} and the witnesses”.

The Directive victimizes the victims while protecting the molesters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.5.207.254 (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfounded arbitrary affirmations again. The accuser was obviously not one of the functionaries of the judging tribunal, who were to take the Formula A oath and who would be excommunicated if they broke it (article 11).  Neither was the accused.  Nor were the witnesses.  Accuser, witnesses and accused were dealt with separately in a different article, with no threat of excommunication (13).  Read it.  Lima (talk) 17:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Your other statements were so ridiculous that I missed what you said about article 52, which you misunderstood. Canon 1744, quoted in that article, said: "In criminal cases the judge cannot oblige the accused to take an oath to tell the truth ..."  In, I suppose, nearly all forms of civil law the same rule holds: someone accused of a criminal offence is not obliged to take the witness stand.  Lima (talk) 17:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

My statements aren't what's rediculous, its the quotes from the Directive: “each and everyone pertaining to the tribunal in any way”, the accuser is part of the tribunal. In “any way” covers any form of association to the process.

When omeone accused of a criminal offence takes the stand, he/she takes the oath to tell the truth like anyone else. The Process – Chapter 3 – 52 "In every way the judge is to remember that it is never right for him to bind the accused by an oath to tell the truth." But notice that in Preliminaries – 13 it’s mandatory to bind the victim. “The oath of keeping the secret must be given in these cases also by the accusers or those denouncing {the priest} and the witnesses”.

"Read it" is good advice, to recognize and see through the clever damage control, endeavoring to minimize the Directive’s role and significance, devised with the cunning ability of Michael Jackson’s defense team attorneys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.5.207.254 (talk) 21:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I regret having to say this, but it is ridiculous to confuse an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, which the accused person was not obliged to take (as was and still is the regular practice also in civil courts - they are not obliged to take the stand), with an oath of confidentiality, which both the accused and the accuser were asked to take (with a penalty, in case of violation, for the accused but not for the accuser). Lima (talk) 04:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Interaction with secular law?
Is there any merit in including a section on how the provisions of canon law interfaced with civil law? I believe that in Ireland at least the confidentiality of these proceedings were respected by the secular courts (under the influence of Mr Justice Gavan Duffy). -- Shoneen (talk) 19:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Missing PDF
Under section: Purpose of the secrecy, the PDF study seems to be missing. It links to:

http://www.richardsipe.com/Doyle/Commentary_on_Crimen_Sollicitationis_11-1-06.pdf

Perhaps it is my internet provide. Please check it out.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anna Frodesiak (talk • contribs) 15:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I independently already repaired this link, thanks Hansmuller (talk) 18:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Wrong date of De delictis gravioribus
In the last paragraph of the general part of the main article, we read:"The 24 January 2001 document De delictis gravioribus updated Crimen sollicitationis in line with the 1983 Code of Canon Law, which had replaced the 1917 Code that was in force in 1962."But, in the main article, De delictis gravioribus, as well as in the original (Latin text) of De delictis gravioribus (@ vatican.va) the date is 18 May 2001.

All this being premised, before I correct the date in this article, I would like to know if the date that appears at present, 24 January 2001, has any relevance at all. For instance, is it perhaps the date of a preliminary draft? Miguel de Servet (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You are right. Well noticed. The given date is clearly mistaken.  Esoglou (talk) 19:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Wrong date of document
I have corrected the glaring error that the document was issued in 1962. it in fact dates from 1922, and was only re-issued to bishops in 1962, as referenced from the Murphy Report.  Xan  dar  22:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The document normally meant when Crimen sollicitationis is spoken of is the 1962 document approved by John XXIII and signed by Ottaviani, not the almost identical 1922 document approved by Pius XI and signed by Merry del Val. The Doyle study, which mentions both, begins: "The document known as Crimen sollicitationis was issued by the Congregation of the Holy Office on March 16, 1962". The document De delictis gravioribus specifies the 1962 document as what was in force until 2001. Esoglou (talk) 09:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Post 2001
Here is some content which ended up in the wrong place. There could be a section or link describing the situation after 2001 though?

 * "These matters are confidential only to the procedures within the Church, but do not preclude in any way for these matters to be brought to civil authorities for proper legal adjudication. The Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People, revised June 2005, approved by the Vatican, requires that credible allegations of sexual abuse of children be reported to legal authorities."

Richiez (talk) 21:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It is difficult to see the relevance to Crimen sollicitationis of information about the canonical situation after 2001, when Crimen sollicitationis was no longer in force. And the post-2001 situation is perhaps too vast for an appendix.  Certainly the post-2001 rules that are in force only in a single country are not suitable for insertion here.  Esoglou (talk) 22:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Crimen sollicitationis. 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 http://www.webcitation.org/624dQBKwd?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vatican.va%2Fresources%2Fresources_guide-CDF-procedures_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/resources/resources_guide-CDF-procedures_en.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100813085221/http://www.vatican.va:80/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_20020110_sacramentorum-sanctitatis-tutela_lt.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_20020110_sacramentorum-sanctitatis-tutela_lt.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Crimen sollicitationis. 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/20101010195518/http://www.sarabite.info/crimen.pdf to http://www.sarabite.info/crimen.pdf

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) 12:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Crimen sollicitationis


text:
Talk:History of the People's Socialist Republic of Albania

The section 'Post-communist Albania' sounds more like democracy report, not history. Not as much the events are reported but Albania's development towards democracy is evaluated. Andres 23:43, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * It is a product of the US government. I guess this is what to expect. Please change as needed. --Jiang

Yes, I am going to change it. Andres 00:00, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Pyramid Schemes
I don't think it is correct to say that it was due to Albanian inexperience with capitalism that led to the proliferation and collapse of the pyramid schemes. Those schemes are/were operated even in the United States, but they are illegal in most countries I believe. Most Albanians knew they would collapse, but they were hoping to make some money before they did (and some did profit). Also, the government was involved (i.e. probably bribed), which is why they were not made illegal. I would say the poverty, lazyness, and corruptness more than inexperience brought on those events. --Dori 14:03, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Mercedes Benz
Although it is true that Albania has highest percentage of Mercedes Benz automobilies of any European nation, the article fails to mention that most of these aren't in any sort of working condition and are dumped on the side of the road in various places in Albania. This probably should be pointed out, as at the moment it reads as if there are thousands and thousands of Albanians cruising round in Mercedes Benz.....

Massive POV
I had barely read the first paragraph of this article before I was struck by the anti-communist POV oozing from every sentence. Some major editing work is required. I'll start on it myself, but I won't have the time to complete it in the near future. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 12:51, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Hoxha engineered an elaborate cult of personality that elevated his persona to an almost godlike status. When he died in 1985, he was genuinely mourned by the whole nation"

 * Good job with the NPOV. I'm sure the thousands of political prisoners and victims, and the hundreds of thousands of their relatives "genuinely mourned" him as well. Dori | Talk 21:37, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

 * The original text said "few Albanian eyes were without tears" when he died. I removed the unnecessary metaphor and rephrased the sentence without changing its original meaning. Take up your complaints with the original author, not me.
 * Also, while I sympathise with your POV, the fact remains that it's still POV, and this is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 21:55, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Actually I think the original, while bad as well (since it didn't mean what I am saying) was better, because you can have tears and not "mourn geuinely", especially if they're tears of joy. Dori | Talk 21:58, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, then the original sentence was simply very confusing - thus being completely unencyclopedic. At any rate, I'll go do a bit of light editing to remove the "genuinely mourned" part. Since you're Albanian, you could help with NPOVing the rest of the article... Unless you were the one who wrote it in the first place, of course, which might lead to a bit of a problem. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 22:11, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Done. The end of the first paragraph now reads:

"Throughout all this, Hoxha engineered an elaborate cult of personality that elevated his persona to an almost godlike status. When he died in 1985, grandiose nation-wide mourning ceremonies were organized."

 * -- 22:20, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Much better, although I find the godlike bit a tad weird considering that he outlawed the practice of religion and declared Albania an atheist nation. I didn't write it, and I've mostly stayed away because I don't think I could do a good NPOV copyedit on it. Dori | Talk 22:34, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't like the adjective "godlike" myself, but it's a leftover from the original version of the paragraph - I couldn't think of any other word to use. Do you have any suggestions? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 23:01, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't know, infallible maybe? Dori | Talk 23:10, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

 * Ok, how about "Throughout all this, Hoxha engineered an elaborate cult of personality that elevated him to the status of an infallible leader"? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 23:27, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Also is worth mentioning that most of these cars are old models and made before 1994

On the benz mercedes issue
Dear Sir madam

The article is well crafted but there are some misssing points.From 1992 to 1996 most economic reforms in Albania were driven from the FMN and the piramidal schemes burned out only the Albanias who belived in them. Even today from the international bodies that assisted Albania with the precious advices and plenty of knowledge not a word on the Pyramidal schemes not apologise or explanation of what really happened not a single word. In the piramidal schemes were involved a lot of regional actors as well from the grecce to Serbia or ex- yougoslavia. There was a amount of at least 4.5 billion USD not to speculate for a bigger amount because only the international bodies and others nows the real amount of mmoney involved in this piramidal schemes.

For the benz mercedes story is a well known fact that the taxes on the cars utility in Albania are not as high as in other countries and the Benz -mercedes is the only car that can give security and is very strong to resist to the roads in the bad shape in Albania.

For the drugs issue yoy better check with the International Europian Mafia. Some points are that drugs are passing through Albania. But the byers and the distributors are in the west.Italy, Germany, France etc. The heroin passes from Afganistan in 10 or more countries before to arrive in Albania so the gentelmen who writes on the Albanian factor in the drug trade or is ignorant or is mean in its intentions. The only drug that is produced in Albania is the hashash. The ashash has been in use in this refions from the past before that the laws to consider it illegal existed. The comunnist regime in Albania was a hibrid of Greek Orthodoxy mixed with Slavic Makbeth thurst of Blood. Most of the governs of the past in Albania were formed from the non-albanians. See the names and statistics on it. Many sfortunes to the albanians came from deatachment from the chatolich branch and the weekness of the Roman Chatolich in Front of atavism orthodoxy of the last period of the history. If the Chatolichs and Protestants would have been strong in the Balkan Area the Albania would have prospered more and for better.

Copyright
Most of the article appears to have been copied from the Library of Congress Country Studies.

 * Official works of the U.S. government are free from copyright in most cases... AnonMoos 16:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

This is good and referenced

 * The years of the Socialist People's Republic of Albania

From 1944 to 1991, Albania became a Communist country, suffering a Stalinist totalitarian regime classified as one of the most repressive. A one party-state political system was adopted, and Enver Hoxha promoted himself 1 st Secretary of the Albanian Communist Party, Head of the State and Commander in Chief of the Armed Foces. In 1961, he broke with Albania’s closest ally, the Soviet Union, accusing Nikita Khrushchev of abandoning Stalinism. Subsequently, Albania’s closest ally became the People’s Republic of China. However, the Chinese established diplomatic relations with US in 1978, Hoxha denounced even the new friendship and decided to pursue a policy of self-reliance. The result was an extreme isolation that led to misery, further financial, psychological and material ruin for the Albanian citizens.Even imaginary Illyrian names were added to the populace .All minorities were suppressed   and their ethnic charakter altered. Huge funds were spent between 1974 and 1986 to build approximately 700,000 concrete bunkers (pill-boxes) to defend the country against a hypothetic multi-front attack. Upon Hoxha’s death in 1985, Ramiz Alia succeeded him as State and communist party leader. Alia was Hoxha’s protégé, but was less repressive than the former leader and tolerated minor insignificant reforms. The process was accelerated due to following changes in other communist countries of Central and Eastern Europe.Megistias (talk) 17:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


text:
CONCACAF

The Confederation of North, Central America and Caribbean Association Football, abbreviated as CONCACAF (typeset for branding purposes since 2018 as Concacaf), is one of FIFA's six continental governing bodies for association football. Its 41 member associations represent countries and territories mainly in North America, including the Caribbean and Central America, and, for geopolitical reasons, three nations from the Guianas subregion of South America—Guyana, Suriname, and French Guiana (an overseas region of France). The CONCACAF's primary functions are to organize competitions for national teams and clubs, and to conduct the World Cup and Women's World Cup qualifying tournaments.

The CONCACAF was founded in its current form on 18 September 1961 in Mexico City, Mexico, with the merger of the NAFC and the CCCF, which made it one of the then five, now six, continental confederations affiliated with FIFA. Canada, Costa Rica, Cuba, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Netherlands Antilles (Curaçao, Aruba), Nicaragua, Panama, Suriname and the United States were founding members.

The CONCACAF is the third-most successful FIFA confederation in the men's game. Mexico dominated CONCACAF men's competition early on and has won the most Gold Cups since the beginning of the tournament in its current format. The Mexico national football team is the only men's CONCACAF team to win an official FIFA tournament by winning the 1999 FIFA Confederations Cup. Mexico and the U.S. have won all but one of the editions of the CONCACAF Gold Cup. In recent years Costa Rica and Panama have become powers in the region; in 2014, Costa Rica became the 4th CONCACAF country after the United States, Cuba, and Mexico to make the World Cup quarterfinals, while Panama became the eleventh country from the confederation to participate in the World Cup in 2018. The CONCACAF Nations League was established in 2018, with the United States winning all three editions.

The United States has been the most successful team in the world in the women's game, being the only CONCACAF member to win all three major worldwide competitions in women's football—the World Cup (4), the Olympics (4), and the Algarve Cup (10). Canada is the only other member to win at least two of the major competitions, winning the 2016 Algarve Cup and the 2020 Olympics.

According to the Coaches Across Continents (CAC) annual report for 2021, CONCACAF is a partner of CAC. CAC is a worldwide partnership of over 100 organizations that seeks to create active citizens and achieve social impact through sport.

Governance
The CONCACAF is led by a general secretary, executive committee, congress, and several standing committees. The executive committee is composed of eight members — one president, three vice-presidents, three members, and one female member. Each of the three geographic zones in CONCACAF is represented by one vice-president and one member. The executive committee carries out the various statutes, regulations, and resolutions.

Leadership

The first leader of CONCACAF was Costa Rican Ramón Coll Jaumet; he had overseen the merger between the North American Football Confederation (NAFC) and the Confederación Centroamericana y del Caribe de Fútbol (CCCF). In 1969, he was succeeded in the role by Mexican Joaquín Soria Terrazas, who served as president for 21 years.

His successor Jack Warner was the CONCACAF president from 1990 to 2011, also for 21 years. Warner was suspended as president on 30 May 2011 due to his temporary suspension from football-related activity by FIFA following corruption allegations. Chuck Blazer was the general secretary during the same period.

On 20 June 2011, Jack Warner resigned from the presidency of CONCACAF, and removed himself from all participation in football, in the wake of the corruption investigation resulting from 10 May 2011 meeting of the Caribbean Football Union. The vice-president of CONCACAF, Alfredo Hawit, acted as president until May 2012.

In May 2012, Cayman Islands banker Jeffrey Webb was installed as president of CONCACAF. On 27 May 2015, Webb was arrested in Zurich, Switzerland on corruption charges in the U.S.

Victor Montagliani, leader of the Canadian Soccer Association, was elected as president of CONCACAF in May 2016.

Corporate structure
CONCACAF is a non-profit company registered in Nassau, Bahamas.

The headquarters of the CONCACAF are located in Miami, United States. Previously it had been the Admiral Financial Center, George Town, Cayman Islands—the home city of former CONCACAF president Jeffrey Webb and prior to that, they were based in Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago under the presidency of Jack Warner. The administration office of CONCACAF was previously located in Trump Tower, New York, when Chuck Blazer was the general secretary.

In February 2017, a satellite office was opened in Kingston, Jamaica. In July 2017, a second satellite office was opened in Guatemala City, which is shared with UNCAF, and most recently another satellite office for the FIFA Caribbean Development Office was opened in Bridgetown, Barbados' suburb of Welches.

Members
CONCACAF has 41 member associations:

M = Men's National Team. W = Women's National Team

Bonaire were promoted from an association member to a full member at the XXIX Ordinary CONCACAF Congress in São Paulo on 10 June 2014.

Teams not affiliated to the IOC are not eligible to participate in the Summer Olympics football tournament, as a result, they do not participate in the CONCACAF Men's Pre-Olympic Tournament or the CONCACAF Women's Pre-Olympic Tournament.

Prospective members

 * 🇬🇱 greenland — The Football Association of Greenland announced in May 2022 that they had officially begun the process of becoming a member of CONCACAF and were expected to attend the body's next congress with observer status. Greenland was not officially able to apply to join UEFA, even with political links with Denmark, due to UEFA applicants being required to apply as sovereign states. It was anticipated that the association would submit its formal application by 2024 or 2025, Kenneth Kleist was elected new president of the KAK in October 2023. At that time, he announced the association's intentions to apply for full CONCACAF membership in 2024. The plan was to hopefully submit the application on 21 June, Greenland National Day. At that time, he also stated that the association had been informed that it was "quite close to admission" in the confederation. On 28 May 2024, Greenland officially applied for full CONCACAF membership.

Aspiring future members

 * 🇧🇱 saint barthélemy, announced in 2019 that the Comité Territorial de Football de Saint-Barthélemy began the process of joining the Caribbean Football Union and CONCACAF for the first time.
 * 🇵🇲 saint pierre and miquelon, announced in September 2019 that The Football Association of Saint Pierre and Miquelon is expected to build a suitable venue with the goal of becoming a member of CONCACAF in a near future.
 * 🇯🇪 jersey were rumored by Greenland Manager Morten Rutjkær, to be interested in joining CONCACAF. This follows a failed bid to join the European confederation UEFA in 2020. Jersey would geographically be closest to the North American Football Union were they to join, although located over 2,200 miles from Canada.

Other non-members

 * , announced in May 2014 that they were working to become a member of CONCACAF and play against other national teams. The team is not a member of FIFA, but were a member of Confederation of Independent Football Associations (ConIFA). In May 2014, the team withdrew from the ConIFA World Championship after associating with the Québec Soccer Federation. The team and association decided to take part in only "federated" soccer in hopes of one day being recognized as a CONCACAF member. There has not been any further conversation and players from this Canadian province qualify for, as well as the province being formally represented by, the Canadian national soccer team.

Some territories in the North, Central American and Caribbean region have national teams with no affiliation. All play infrequently and/or are in the early stages of being founded.

Although one of the three special municipalities of the Netherlands in the region is a member of CONCACAF, the other two are not.

Membership relation
Elections at the CONCACAF Congress are mandated with a one-member, one-vote rule. The North American Football Union is the smallest association union in the region with only three members, but its nations have strong commercial and marketing support from sponsors and they are the most populous nations in the region.

The Caribbean Football Union has the ability to outvote NAFU and UNCAF with less than half of its membership. Consequently, there is a fractious relationship between members of CFU, UNCAF and NAFU. This provoked former Acting-President Alfredo Hawit to lobby for the CONCACAF Presidency to be rotated between the three unions in CONCACAF in 2011.

Trinidad's Jack Warner presided over CONCACAF for 21 years, and there was little that non-Caribbean nations could do to elect an alternative. Under Warner, the CFU members voted together as a unit with Warner acting as a party whip. It happened with such regularity that sports political commentators referred to the CFU votes as the "Caribbean bloc" vote. Warner rejected the idea in 1993 of merging several smaller nations' national teams into a Pan-Caribbean team. His reasoning was that the nations were more powerful politically when separate than when together. He commented that "being small is never a liability in this sport".

CONCACAF active competitions
National teams:
 * CONCACAF Gold Cup
 * CONCACAF Nations League
 * CONCACAF Under-20 Championship
 * CONCACAF Under-17 Championship
 * CONCACAF Boys' Under-15 Championship
 * CONCACAF W Gold Cup
 * CONCACAF W Championship
 * CONCACAF Women's U-20 Championship
 * CONCACAF Women's U-17 Championship
 * CONCACAF Girls' Under-15 Championship
 * CONCACAF Futsal Championship
 * CONCACAF W Futsal Championship
 * CONCACAF Beach Soccer Championship

Clubs:
 * CONCACAF Champions Cup
 * Leagues Cup
 * CONCACAF Central American Cup
 * CONCACAF Caribbean Cup
 * CFU Club Shield (in conjunction with the CFU)
 * CONCACAF Under-13 Champions League
 * CONCACAF W Champions Cup
 * CONCACAF Futsal Cup

CONCACAF defunct competitions
National teams: Clubs:
 * CFU Championship (1978–1988)
 * NAFC Championship (1947, 1949)
 * CCCF Championship (1941–1961)
 * CONCACAF Championship (1963–1989)
 * North American Nations Cup (1990, 1991)
 * CONCACAF Cup (2015)
 * CONCACAF Men's Olympic Qualifying Championship (1964–2020)
 * CONCACAF Women's Olympic Qualifying Tournament (2004–2020)
 * CONCACAF Cup Winners Cup (1991–1998)
 * CONCACAF Giants Cup (2001)
 * CONCACAF Caribbean Club Championship (1997–2022)
 * CONCACAF Caribbean Shield (2023)
 * CONCACAF League (2017–2022)
 * North American SuperLiga – North America regional championship (2007–2010)
 * Copa Interclubes UNCAF – Central America regional championship (1971–2007)
 * Interamerican Cup – intercontinental with CONMEBOL region (1969–1998)

CONCACAF Gold Cup
The CONCACAF Gold Cup, held since 1991, is the main association football competition of the men's national football teams governed by CONCACAF. The Gold Cup is CONCACAF's flagship competition, and generates a significant part of CONCACAF's revenue.

The Gold Cup determines the regional champion of North America, Central America, and the Caribbean, and is held every two years. Starting with the 2019 edition, 16 teams compete for the Gold Cup (up from 12).

CONCACAF Nations League
All men's national teams of member associations take part in the CONCACAF Nations League, a competition created in 2017. National teams are placed into tiers and play matches against teams in the same tier. At the end of each season, teams can be promoted to the tier above or relegated to the tier below depending upon their results.

CONCACAF Champions Cup
The CONCACAF Champions Cup, originally known as the CONCACAF Champions' Cup and later the CONCACAF Champions League, is an annual continental club association football competition organized by CONCACAF since 1962 for the top football clubs in the region. It is the most prestigious international club competition in North American football. The winner of the Champions Cup qualifies for the FIFA Club World Cup. The knockout tournament spans February through April.

From 2024, 27 teams compete in each Champions Cup; 18 from North America, 6 from Central America and 3 from the Caribbean. North American teams qualify via either their domestic leagues and cups or the Leagues Cup competition between American and Mexican clubs, while Central American and Caribbean clubs qualify via the CONCACAF Central American Cup and CONCACAF Caribbean Cup respectively

The title has been won by 28 clubs, 13 of which have won the title more than once. Mexican clubs have accumulated the highest number of victories, with 36 titles. The second most successful league has been Costa Rica's Primera División with six titles in total. The most successful club is Club América from Mexico, with seven titles; fellow Mexico side Cruz Azul is just behind with six.

CONMEBOL tournaments
The following CONMEBOL tournaments have had CONCACAF competitors:

National teams

 * Copa América

Clubs

 * Copa Libertadores – (1998–2017)
 * Copa Sudamericana – (2005–2008)
 * Copa Merconorte – (2000–2001) (defunct)

By club
Club América is the most titled club in the continent with a record of 7 CONCACAF Champions League titles, a continental record of 2 Copa Interamericana titles and a record of 1 CONCACAF Giants Cup title, 10 titles overall.

 * Key:

By country
The following table lists all the countries whose clubs have won at least one CONCACAF competition. Mexican clubs are the most successful, with a total of 45 titles. Mexican clubs hold a record number of wins in the CONCACAF Champions' Cup/CONCACAF Champions League (38), the CONCACAF Cup Winners' Cup/CONCACAF Giants Cup (4) and Copa Interamericana (3). In second place Costa Rican clubs have 9 titles and they have the most victories in the CONCACAF League (3). In third place overall, Selvadoradian and American clubs have secured 4 titles each.

 * Key:

By region

 * Key:

Regional
The CONCACAF has also organized many regional-based competitions, which are mostly ran as qualifiers to the continental level competitions. There are three main regions that operates under the CONCACAF banner, the NAFU (North America), the UNCAF (Central America) and the CFU (Caribbeans). Each of which runs their own competitions.

North America

 * Key:

Central America

 * Key:

Caribbeans

 * Key:

Historical leaders

 * Men's

 * Women's

Men's CONCACAF Ranking Index
The Ranking Index is calculated by CONCACAF.

Last updated 30 June 2024

Women's CONCACAF Ranking Index
The Ranking Index is calculated by CONCACAF.

Last updated 11 March 2024

CONCACAF club rankings
On 16 May 2023, CONCACAF launched a club ranking index which will be used to seed teams in future club competitions. A league ranking index was also launched the same day.

Beach soccer national teams
Rankings are calculated by CONCACAF.
 * Men's CONCACAF Ranking Index

Top ten, last updated 15 May 2023.

Rankings are calculated by Beach Soccer Worldwide (BSWW).
 * Men's BSWW rankings

Top ten, last updated 8 May 2023.

Rankings are calculated by Beach Soccer Worldwide (BSWW).
 * Women's BSWW rankings

Last updated 8 May 2023.

Corruption
At the CONCACAF Congress in May 2012 in Budapest, Hungary, legal counsel John P. Collins informed the members of CONCACAF of several financial irregularities. Collins revealed that Jack Warner, the former CONCACAF President, had registered the $22 million 'Dr. João Havelange Centre of Excellence' development in Port-of-Spain under the name of two companies that Warner owned. In addition, Warner had secured a mortgage against the asset in 2007 which the CONCACAF members were also unaware of; the mortgage was co-signed by Lisle Austin, a former vice-president of CONCACAF. The loan defaulted.

Collins also revealed that CONCACAF, despite most of its income coming from the United States, had not paid any tax to the Internal Revenue Service since at least 2007 and had never filed a return in the United States. Although CONCACAF is a registered non-profit organization in the Bahamas and headquartered in Port-of-Spain, Trinidad, they have an administration office in New York, and BDO and CONCACAF invited the IRS to investigate potential liabilities. It is thought that CONCACAF may have to pay up to $2 million plus penalties.

Chuck Blazer stated that a full financial audit into CONCACAF by New-York based consultancy BDO was delayed due to the actions of Jack Warner and his personal accountant, and the accounts could not be "signed off" as a consequence.

In addition, Blazer is to sue CONCACAF for unpaid commission of sponsorship and marketing deals which he had made in 2010 during his time as general secretary. Blazer received a 10% commission on any deal that he made on behalf of CONCACAF.

The Bermuda FA asked members of CONCACAF to lobby FIFA to remove Blazer from his position on the FIFA Executive Committee. Blazer suggested that it was less to do with financial irregularities and more for his role in the removal of Jack Warner in the Caribbean Football Union corruption scandal: "I spent 21 years building the confederation and its competitions and its revenues and I'm the one responsible for its good levels of income . . . I think this is a reflection of those who were angry at me having caused the action against Warner. This is also a reaction by people who have their own agenda."

Jack Warner presided over CONCACAF for 21 years. Warner was one of the most controversial figures in world football. Warner was suspended as president on 30 May 2011 due to his temporary suspension from football-related activity by FIFA following corruption allegations. A power struggle developed at CONCACAF following the allegations against Warner. The allegations against Warner were reported to the FIFA Ethics Committee by Chuck Blazer, the secretary general of CONCACAF. The acting president of CONCACAF, Lisle Austin, sent Blazer a letter saying he was "terminated as general secretary with immediate effect". Austin described Blazer's actions as "inexcusable and a gross misconduct of duty and judgement" and said the American was no longer fit to hold the post. The executive committee of CONCACAF later issued a statement saying that Austin did not have the authority to fire Blazer, and the decision was unauthorized. On 20 June 2011, Jack Warner resigned from the presidency of CONCACAF, all posts with FIFA, and removed himself from all participation in football, in the wake of the corruption investigation resulting from 10 May 2011 meeting of the Caribbean Football Union. The vice-president of CONCACAF, Alfredo Hawit, acted as president until May 2012.

Indicted CONCACAF individuals
Several CONCACAF officials have been indicted.

Hall of fame

 * Hubert Tromp
 * Gerard Bean
 * Matthew Hogan
 * 🇧🇷 João Havelange
 * 🇨🇦 Jim Fleming
 * 🇨🇦 Rudy Gittens
 * Hiram Sosa López
 * Isaac Sasso
 * Julio Moya
 * Ramón Coll Jaumet
 * 🇨🇼 Andres Avelino Constansia
 * 🇩🇲 Patrick John
 * 🇬🇧 Mavis Derflinger
 * 🇬🇧 Clive Toye
 * Guillermo Cañedo
 * Oscar Thamar
 * Carlos Carrera
 * 🇬🇵 Jacques Rugard
 * Federico Fortín
 * Rafael L. Callejas Romero
 * 🇯🇲 Anthony James
 * 🇯🇲 George Abrahams
 * 🇯🇲 Ricardo Gardener
 * 🇯🇲 Lincoln "Happy" Sutherland
 * 🇲🇽 Aaron Padilla Gutiérrez
 * 🇲🇽 Arturo Yamasaki
 * 🇲🇽 Javier Arriaga
 * 🇲🇽 Jesús Martínez
 * 🇲🇽 Joaquín Soria Terrazas
 * 🇲🇶 Joseph Ursulet
 * 🇳🇮 Júlio Rocha
 * Mordy Maduro
 * 🇵🇦 Ariel Alvarado
 * Sepp Blatter
 * 🇸🇷 André Kamperveen
 * 🇺🇸 Gene Edwards
 * 🇺🇸 Kurt Lamm
 * 🇺🇸 Werner Fricker

Source:

Team of the Century
The CONCACAF Team of the Century was announced as part of the festivities associated with the 1998 FIFA World Cup in France.

 * 1) GK — Antonio Carbajal (Mexico)
 * 2) DF — Marcelo Balboa (United States)
 * 3) DF — Gilberto Yearwood (Honduras)
 * 4) DF — Bruce Wilson (Canada)
 * 5) DF — Gustavo Peña (Mexico)
 * 6) MF — Ramón Ramírez (Mexico)
 * 7) MF — Mágico González (El Salvador)
 * 8) MF — Tab Ramos (United States)
 * 9) FW — Julio César Dely Valdés (Panama)
 * 10) FW — Hugo Sánchez (Mexico)
 * 11) FW — Hernán Medford (Costa Rica)

President's award

 * 2013
 * Carlos Ruiz for speaking out against match-fixing in Guatemala
 * 🇧🇿 Ian Gaynair for reporting an offer of a bribe

 * 2015

 * for winning the 2012 Summer Olympics Women's football tournament
 * for winning the 2012 Summer Olympics Men's football tournament

Major tournament records

 * Legend
 *  – Champions
 *  – Runners-up
 *  – Third place
 *  – Fourth place
 * QF – Quarter-finals (1934–1938, 1954–1970, and 1986–present: knockout round of 8)
 * R2 – Round 2 (1974–1978, second group stage, top 8; 1982: second group stage, top 12; 1986–2022: knockout round of 16)
 * R1 – Round 1 (1930, 1950–1970 and 1986–present: group stage; 1934–1938: knockout round of 16; 1974–1982: first group stage)
 * — Did not qualify
 * — Did not enter / withdrew / banned
 * — Hosts

For each tournament, the flag of the host country and the number of teams in each finals tournament (in brackets) are shown.

FIFA World Cup
Only eleven CONCACAF members have ever reached the FIFA World Cup since its inception in 1930, six of them accomplishing the feat only once. No team from the region has ever reached the final at the World Cup, but the United States reached the semi-finals in the inaugural edition, for which they were awarded third place. CONCACAF members have reached the quarter-finals five times: Cuba in 1938, Mexico as hosts in 1970 and 1986, the United States in 2002, and most recently, Costa Rica in 2014. Jamaica is the smallest country to ever win a World Cup match, by virtue of their 2–1 victory over Japan in 1998.

The following table shows the CONCACAF representatives at each edition of the World Cup, sorted by number of appearances:

FIFA World Cup hosting
CONCACAF nations have hosted the FIFA World Cup three times.

The 1970 FIFA World Cup took place in Mexico, the first World Cup tournament to be staged in North America, and the first held outside Europe and South America. Mexico was chosen as the host nation in 1964 by FIFA's congress ahead of the only other submitted bid from Argentina. The tournament was won by Brazil. The victorious team led by Carlos Alberto, and featuring players such as Pelé, Gérson, Jairzinho, Rivellino, and Tostão, is often cited as the greatest-ever World Cup team. They achieved a perfect record of wins in all six games in the finals. Despite the issues of altitude and high temperature, the finals produced attacking football which created an average goals per game record not since bettered by any subsequent World Cup Finals. The 1970 Finals attracted a new record television audience for the FIFA World Cup and, for the first time, in color.

In 1986, Mexico became the first country to host the FIFA World Cup twice when it stepped in to stage the 1986 FIFA World Cup after the original host selection, Colombia, suffered financial problems. Colombia was originally chosen as hosts by FIFA in June 1974. However, the Colombian authorities eventually declared in November 1982 that they could not afford to host the World Cup because of economic concerns. Mexico was selected on 20 May 1983 as the replacement hosts, beating the bids of Canada and the United States, and thereby became the first nation to host two World Cups. This second World Cup in Mexico came 16 years after the first one in 1970.

The United States won the right to host the 1994 FIFA World Cup, defeating bids from Brazil and Morocco. The vote was held in Zurich on 4 July 1988, and only took one round with the United States bid receiving a little over half of the votes by the Exco members. FIFA hoped that by staging the world's most prestigious football tournament there, it would lead to a growth of interest in the sport; one condition FIFA imposed was the creation of a professional football league, Major League Soccer, starting in 1996. The U.S. staged a hugely successful tournament, with average attendance of nearly 69,000 breaking a record that surpassed the 1966 FIFA World Cup average attendance of 51,000 thanks to the large seating capacities the American stadiums provided for the spectators in comparison to the smaller venues of Europe and Latin America. To this day, the total attendance for the final tournament of nearly 3.6 million remains the highest in World Cup history, despite the expansion of the competition to 32 teams at the 1998 World Cup.

Canada, Mexico, and the United States have won the bidding to host the 2026 FIFA World Cup, competing against a Moroccan bid.

Copa América
Mexico have finished runners-up twice and third place three times at the Copa América, making El Tri the most successful non-CONMEBOL nation. The United States have reached the semi-final stage in the South American tournament twice, followed by Canada and Honduras, who have each reached it once. Costa Rica has reached the quarter-finals twice, while Panama has done so once.

FIFA U-17 World Cup

 * Note 1: Original hosts Peru were stripped of the right to host the 2019 event in February 2019.

CONCACAF

 * CONCACAF Awards—In November 2013, CONCACAF announced that they would create annual awards for the best players, coaches, and referees.
 * List of CONCACAF competitions—current schedule for finals
 * List of presidents of CONCACAF

Related links

 * International Federation of Association Football (FIFA)
 * Asian Football Confederation (AFC)
 * Oceania Football Confederation (OFC)
 * Confederation of African Football (CAF)
 * Confederation of South American Football (CONMEBOL)
 * Union of European Football Associations (UEFA)
 * Timeline of association football
 * List of association football sub-confederations
 * Confederación Centroamericana y del Caribe de Fútbol
 * North American Football Confederation
 * Soccer in Canada
 * Soccer in the United States
 * Football in Mexico

title: CONCACAF