Fr. Pfleger and the Catholic Church

[Goblinmonger]

OK, I know I am going to be accused of Catholic bashing here, and maybe it's true, I don't know.

Doesn't anyone else find it amazing that Pfleger gets disciplined by the Catholic church for what he says at Trinity, but the same church promoted Cardinal Law to the Vatican. What the hell? So playing a shell game with pedophiles is not as bad as possibly threatening their tax-free status? And yet people still give the church their money.

[Gato Moteado]

1. i left that crappy organization right after i graduated from catholic grammar school....

...i dislike all organized religions. they're all just big businesses.

i like pfleger....he's a rebel within the church.

yeah, it's ridiculous that they punish him but sweep the pedophilia under the carpet.

[Saturday]

2. Both should be punished. nt

[funflower]

3. Pfleger endangered the church; Law protected it. That's the difference.

It has nothing to do with what actually harms human beings.

[Silent3]

4. If they lose their tax free status...

...that would put a big crimp in their ability to pay off all of the law suits against them. :)

[Evoman]

5. Totally agree.

I'm guessing a big percentage of Catholics don't even hear about this crap.

[Dorian Gray]

6. I think both things are wrong....

Cardinal Law's actions were criminal and immoral. I don't actually believe that Pfleger's were either, though they were irresponsible. I don't like what he did, but it in no way compares to what Law did.

I don't think what you are saying is bashing. It's very valid. The church has made mistakes. I spoke up in another thread about Pfleger, and I said if I were in a mass, and he said what he did, I'd walk out. I stand by that. I don't think that type of politics has any place in a Mass. I would never go to a Mass where Law was officiating, so there is that, as well. Pfleger's actions are minimal compared to Law's sins. I don't think we can deny that. But, I also don't like using the pulpit for any political discourse. Religion and politics are horrible bedfellows.

[Igel]

7. One was recorded on video and broadcast on network tv.

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.

[JerseygirlCT]

8. I don't think it's Catholic bashing to point out a pretty glaring

inconsistency.

Pfleger was pretty rash and stupid. He shouldn't have done it. But the harm caused, other than hurt feelings, seems to have been pretty limited. OTOH, how many kids have been horribly harmed by the same Cardinals and Archbishops who so blithely moved child abusers around to protect them instead of protecting the kids?