Lack of Vatican communications strategy on scandal baffles pope's U.S. defenders

[didymus]

Washington Post:

Lack of Vatican communications strategy on scandal baffles pope’s U.S. defenders

Lack of Vatican communications strategy on scandal baffles pope’s U.S. defenders By Michelle Boorstein
Sunday, April 11, 2010; A04

The Vatican spokesman doesn’t regularly discuss the clergy sex-abuse scandal with the pope. Its communications council’s next meeting is in February (on the agenda: “the Internet”). For American defenders of Pope Benedict XVI, it has been frustrating to watch an apparent lack of a communications strategy for dealing with the scandal.
“My best answer would be a primal scream,” Russell Shaw, who was the U.S. bishops’ spokesman in the 1970s and '80s, said when asked about the Vatican’s recent dealings with the public. “It reflects a totally inadequate understanding and mind-set as to the whole subject of communications.”

Facing a torrent of cases in Europe and a new effort by survivors’ advocates to highlight unresolved cases around the world, members of the pope’s inner circle have said things that have only drawn more criticism, like the priest who on Good Friday compared criticism of the Church’s handling of the abuse crisis to violent anti-Semitism.

Most American organizations facing such a barrage of negative news would long ago have pulled together a crisis management team and made top officials available for interviews to explain their point of view. But the Vatican said such an approach is too commercial for the Church to adopt. “We are not a multinational enterprise, this is clear,” the Rev. Federico Lombardi, a Vatican spokesman, said in a telephone interview. “The normal situation of the Church and the Vatican is to help the people to understand the teachings of the Church and the documents of the pope and not to sell particular products.”

Even considering the malice behind a lot of the coverage if the Vatican, they have not been helping themselves. It often takes days for Fr Lombardi to respond to a story & some of those statements sound almost Nixonian.

I know the Church is not a corporation but the Vatican definitely needs to move into the 21st century as far as dealing with the media.

 

[OriginalJS]

The Church is a multinational enterprise doing business in a corporate form. It clams to be universal, has branches in most countries of the world, is governed by a central authority, solicits money, engages in political action to promote its goals and beliefs, and has a massive bureaucracy. It is disingenuous to claim otherwise. It is the second largest religious entity in the world and has by far the largest governance headed by a single individual. As such, it is eventually going to have to act accordingly.

 

[unafraid]

Sounds as if you’ve summed it all up and are giving the Vatican a directive. Let’s see if they acquiesce to your demands.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

I would say that the abuse scandal from beginning to end (end?) has been marked by poor communication by the church hierarchy. Let’s face it – bishops are not used to being responsive to pointed questions.

 

[Dale_M]

“We are not a multinational enterprise, this is clear,” the Rev. Federico Lombardi, a Vatican spokesman, said in a telephone interview. “The normal situation of the Church and the Vatican is to help the people to understand the teachings of the Church and the documents of the pope and not to sell particular products.”

I find that statement astounding. Didn’t Jesus tell us to spread the Good News? Didn’t the Church recently announce an intention to make a greater effort to evangelize?

Wow, if the Vatican spokesman doesn’t think getting the word out is important, there are some very serious problems which need to be addressed. The sex abuse crisis is a threat to the Church’s ability to attract new Christians and to hold Christians already in the fold. And that very much concerns evangelizing.

 

[Non_Serviam]

I’ve been graced to be part of an organization that received help from one of the individuals mentioned in this article, Barry McLoughlin, and the church could do a lot worse than to get some help from him or someone similar. Public opinion is turning against the Church almost as much because of the way it communicates (or doesn’t) as the actual failings of priests and the hierarchy.

For those who think public opinion doesn’t matter, keep in mind that public opinion will have an impact on things like future legislation regarding religious liberty, judicial decisions related to the church and even something as simple as whether the Pope can leave the Vatican without worrying about whether someone will try to haul him before the ICC. Politicians also won’t stand up for a church and a Pope that they perceive to be a liability to their being elected. It’s unfortunate that things are so base, but it is true.

 

[jdnation]

There is a division begun by the Archdiocease of Toronto specifically to handle the media for the Church and to direct priests and others on how to talk and approach them and even release press releases. I’ve talked with their director who did a presentation for a group of young men discerning the priesthood and he thoroughly described the Church’s problems and how they as trained media people address it. If the media approaches any priests wanting a story on some event or some kind of comment on current events, priests are directed to send them to the Public Relations office. They even visit parishes and help instruct the priests about how to handle the press and make arrangments for them to film any events going on (ex: death of a child by accident) and also to properly inform them about where it is appropriate for them to film and not disturb the mass and providing reporters with the information they need and not to miscommunicate ot provide anything that any dishonest reporters are looking for to have some story. It’s a great start and initiative by the Toronto Archidiocease.

archtoronto.org/arch_offices/pr_communications.html

 

[Non_Serviam]

There is a division begun by the Archdiocease of Toronto specifically to handle the media for the Church and to direct priests and others on how to talk and approach them and even release press releases. I’ve talked with their director who did a presentation for a group of young men discerning the priesthood and he thoroughly described the Church’s problems and how they as trained media people address it. If the media approaches any priests wanting a story on some event or some kind of comment on current events, priests are directed to send them to the Public Relations office. They even visit parishes and help instruct the priests about how to handle the press and make arrangments for them to film any events going on (ex: death of a child by accident) and also to properly inform them about where it is appropriate for them to film and not disturb the mass and providing reporters with the information they need and not to miscommunicate ot provide anything that any dishonest reporters are looking for to have some story. It’s a great start and initiative by the Toronto Archidiocease.

archtoronto.org/arch_offices/pr_communications.html

That does look very well done. They might wish to reference their communications policies on this page such as you’ve mentioned so that the media know they will be directed to this office, and also who is the promary contact for crisis communications.

Other things could also be included like the process for requesting an interview with church officials, etc. Most members of the media will work with processes if they know what they are and they feel they are getting a fair shake.

 

[unafraid]

The fact that Archbishops cannot even get their editorial responses into print speaks to the fact that Roman Catholic communication is thrawted by its feeble representation at the very top of mass media. The Roman Catholic perspective is given scant opportunity to be voiced because it lacks the control, and therefore it lacks power. Film, television, radio and print media are immensely valuable entities to possess on the new monopoly board.

This new reality of a mass media which is a subjectively activist appendage of a powerful propaganda machine, means that those outside of this narrow sphere of influence are vulnerable to attack. The power to influence the collective consciousness of the masses has proven too powerful an opiate to resist for those who control the media . Not everyone is endowed with a good filter. Most people are vulnerable to the power of suggestion, especially when the mantra is repeated often enough. It is frightening.

And yet, there we sit, we Catholics, watching EWTN, with its poor graphics…and rich message. Seems to me as if we are seriously outgunned in this battle sometimes. These are Orwellian times we live in, relative to this media ascedancy. I often wonder where it is all headed.

 

[Non_Serviam]

The fact that Archbishops cannot even get their editorial responses into print speaks to the fact that Roman Catholic communication is thrawted by its feeble representation at the very top of mass media. The Roman Catholic perspective is given scant opportunity to be voiced because it lacks the control, and therefore it lacks power. Film, television, radio and print media are immensely valuable entities to possess on the new monopoly board.

This new reality of a mass media which is a subjectively activist appendage of a powerful propaganda machine, means that those outside of this narrow sphere of influence are vulnerable to attack. The power to influence the collective consciousness of the masses has proven too powerful an opiate to resist for those who control the media . Not everyone is endowed with a good filter. Most people are vulnerable to the power of suggestion, especially when the mantra is repeated often enough. It is frightening.

And yet, there we sit, we Catholics, watching EWTN, with its poor graphics…and rich message. Seems to me as if we are seriously outgunned in this battle sometimes. These are Orwellian times we live in, relative to this media ascedancy. I often wonder where it is all headed.

So you’re saying if the Pope scheduled a press conference on this issue none of the media would attend?

 

[Beachcomber]

The Church does have a ‘product’ in a way: it is the Gospel and the love of God. The Vatican really should get a handle on the 21st century and develop a better plan to deal with public relations. How things are going right now is not very good.

 

[unafraid]

You use the phrase,“this issue”, as if the Pope were some sort of political candidate. A press conference would be absolutely the worst thing he could do. That would be allowing pressure to dictate your response, and in that case, you lose autonomy. The Roman Catholic Church will not cede autonomy. Anyone interested in learning the Pope’s position on ,“the issues”, can find them clearly defined in Vatican sources.

But, to answer your query, no, I did not mean to suggest such a thing.

 

[mskejj]

One thing I have noticed is that articles that write about the Pope and his “part” in these scandals always lands on the front page of Yahoo, Fox, CNN etc but the responses to these articles I have to locate here on this website which directs you to Catholic News, Vatican News etc. Why don’t the major networks and newspapers print any of those articles that answer the accusation. If they do print part of it, they always conclude with opposite sides responding to their answer. It would have been nice to see the Pope’s letter to Ireland posted or some of the Vatican responses in the local media (and not buried in the back when they do print their response). Who makes that decision…I would guess the media?..And not the Vatican?..For example, the Vatican’s decison to post the rules and regulation to report abuse online was listed in the back of our newspaper…but the article titled “Future Pope Stalled Pedophile Case in the 80’s” was front page and center. I have yet to see an article though stated “Future Pope Stalled Homesexual Case in the 80’s” The media definitely has areas they will write about and others they don’t touch.

 

[Ocarm]

This thread, and many others here on CAF, keeps reverting to the thesis that the secular media are engaged in a conspiracy to make the church look bad. The intent of the OP was, I think, to point out that a competent communications dicastery at the Vatican could at the very least respond to media output in a stronger fashion, and might even be able to start to dictate some aspects of the story as it is being reported.

I am not personally ready to accept that this putative conspiracy is so effective that we do not have the opportunity to speak clearly to the world. The current policy of generally refusing to engage with the ‘petty gossip’ of the media is not working. Surely we must believe that we are capable of making a better case for the Church of Jesus Christ than nervous or self-righteous silence?

If there is a conspiracy against us, it seems to be succeeding. We are acting as though we are guilty on all counts, or at best as though we have nothing useful to say. It may make some people feel better to think that the charges against the church are sufficiently weak that they do not require complex answers, but given the gravity of the very real scandals that have occurred, I don’t find this to be an adequate response.

 

[anode]

The Church is a multinational enterprise doing business in a corporate form. It clams to be universal, has branches in most countries of the world, is governed by a central authority, solicits money, engages in political action to promote its goals and beliefs, and has a massive bureaucracy. It is disingenuous to claim otherwise. It is the second largest religious entity in the world and has by far the largest governance headed by a single individual. As such, it is eventually going to have to act accordingly.

I recall the response of Johnson & Johnson, another large company, when its brand Tylenol was found to be tampered with and laced with ?cyanide?–something lethal. Several people died. J&J responded* immediately* with a huge recall, a gigantic investigation (which, unfortunately, never uncovered the criminals)–and a big media campaign.

In the end, no one blamed J&J for the tragedy, and I don’t think that their sales suffered.

The Vatican could learn for this example.

 

[tweetymom]

The Vatican’s lack of action and speaking up is what is hurting the Church. Take blame where blame is due and clean house. Like Jesus when He took on the money changers in the Temple.

 

[unafraid]

So you believe that in Christ’s actions against the moneychangers on the Temple steps we find an example of an effective way of responding to detractors? I do not. I prefer to find a greater example in Jesus Christ’s strategic use of silence in response to those who sought to ensnare him. No one ever spoke so eloquently by uttering not a word. Words are like snares in the hands of the masters of deception. I am sure Judas had hoped that Our Lord would have given some sort of press conference to explain himself to the masses. He didn’t.

Why are we so eager for the Pope to engage in a conventional response that conforms to the standards of popular culture? Should he respond with prepared statements everytime someone accuses him of being the antichrist, or the Church of being the Whore of Babylon? Absurd. And to those who scoff at the possibility of a conspiracy existing against the Holy Father, I merely point out that our last pontif was nearly felled by wounds which resulted from a plot to facilitate his demise. The world is a dark place.

 

[Non_Serviam]

So you believe that in Christ’s actions against the moneychangers on the Temple steps we find an example of an effective way of responding to detractors? I do not. I prefer to find a greater example in Jesus Christ’s strategic use of silence in response to those who sought to ensnare him. No one ever spoke so eloquently by uttering not a word. Words are like snares in the hands of the masters of deception. I am sure Judas had hoped that Our Lord would have given some sort of press conference to explain himself to the masses. He didn’t.

Why are we so eager for the Pope to engage in a conventional response that conforms to the standards of popular culture? Should he respond with prepared statements everytime someone accuses him of being the antichrist, or the Church of being the Whore of Babylon? Absurd. And to those who scoff at the possibility of a conspiracy existing against the Holy Father, I merely point out that our last pontif was nearly felled by wounds which resulted from a plot to facilitate his demise. The world is a dark place.

2 thoughts:

1. Keep in mind that the communication strategy mentioned in the Gospels ultimately led to Jesus being dragged to a trial and declared guilty. Obviously He had an eternal plan for that outcome, but it might be wise to pause and consider whether the Vatican should adopt the same course in the current situation. And let’s not forget that Jesus did put communication at the top of His agenda for the Apostles after His Resurrection.
2. If you take the time to research the archdiocese of St. John’s in Newfoundland, Canada, you’ll see that it was decimated a little over 20 years ago as a result of systematic abuse that had been ongoing for years at the local orphanage run by religious. It took years to re-establish any credibility for the church in that area.

This past year, as a result of an investigation into a bishop in another diocese, the archdiocese and former archbishop were implicated in a possible cover-up of information. The community began to comment on the story and negative sentiment began to develop. The former archbishop refused to respond and this fuelled the fire.

The current archbishop had all relevant materials located in the archdiocese’s files and even went so far as to track down a priest who had moved to the US many years prior and get his statement on the event in question. This happened within 48 hours of the initial mention of the incident.

The result? The current investigation proceeded without problem, those who had begun to criticize the archdiocese were silenced and the archbishop was able to keep on with his plans for the archdiocese and build additional credibility and goodwill to be called upon in the future.

That’s why you want effective communication with the public and the media-because if you are truly in the right, you will have a much better chance of demonstrating it.

 

[Joegrane]

That was a good example of the value of readily available information.

Catholics today need to have the information they need to explain the situation to family, coworkers, friends, etc.

For example the recent criticism of the pope regarding the priest in Oakland in the 1980s was totally bogus when you know the facts! Fr. J. Fessio does a nice job explaining that case. catholicworldreport.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=168:lets-get-the-story-straight&catid=37:exclusive&Itemid=54

Bill Donahue at the Catholic League is also a good source of information, including statistics.

The clergy seems timid on this probably because they are embarrassed and also because their comments can look like a cover up attempt. The Catholic laity has to step forward on this but we need to be provided with the factual information.

 

[anode]

Good show, Non.

I am beginning to think that the pope and the curia just don’t get it. They regard the press, with very well-searched articles, as spreading “pretty gossip”, and are trying to ignore or play down the many cases in Ireland, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, France, Italy, Canada (Newfoundland and Ottawa, for example) and the US. But the biggest troublemakers are in the US–that’s where the New York Times, Boston Globe, LA Times and the National Catholic Reporter are, after all. It’s *always *the US–apparently Benedict said once, that US population is 5% of the world’s Catholics, and that he spends 90% of his time on them. What troublemakers.

It is not until the Vatican takes full ownership of the scandals is it going to be possible to achieve reconciliation and move on.