|
I.e., the act essentially testified to its own existence. The other wasn't broadcast on tv, often involving he-said/he-said. (On multiple victims, see a bit below).
One was a media spectacle. The other was dealt with in negotiations with lawyers and non-disclosure clauses, usually wanted by both sides (few guys want it to get out that their priest bonked them after some settlement's been reached).
One hit the fan within days, and was no less relevant when the tape was aired than it was the act was committed days before. The other often involved charges years or decades old ... and people *can* change, or at least the church has to think so.
One has the risk of the church's losing tax exempt status if no action is taken, with quick action needed to forestall the possibility. The other would involve all but admitting liability if the priest involved was suspended on a single person's say so--and since each set of parents only had a single person's say so; admitting liability would equate to "paying out lots of money".
Note that in one crucial respect, the church is consistent: It calls for repentance, and it tries to let the matter blow over. Both sexual predators and divisive speakers are put on temporary administrative leave, the church is loath to seriously punish either.
Given how different the two things are, it's a wonder the church didn't find additional ways of making the response different.
|