In a world of sound bites, the first thing that bites the dust is sound thinking

The little flap in the Catholic media and blogosphere about the way the Vatican released the norms for dealing with sexual abuse, women's ordination, etc., is an interesting one for many reasons. Rather than simply recite them, I'll take a look at a post (an editorial?) on The Catholic Herald blog, titled, "Public relations blunders leave the faithful confused."

My intent here is not to fisk (as I don't fisk friends), but to systematically make a few comments about statements in the post and to point out why I find this line of thinking quite unsatisfactory:

The Catholic Church was back in the headlines last week and, as is so often the case these days, the headlines made depressing reading. Put briefly, the Vatican issued updates to Canon Law that strengthened the penalties against sex abuser priests and those who take part in the attempted ordination of women. The secular media eagerly seized this opportunity...

If the secular media were, as we are often told, interested in objective facts and "just reporting the news," would they see this as an "opportunity"? Put another way, The Catholic Herald admits rather openly that the secular media is looking for ways to present the Church in bad light, or worse. And since that is the case, why or how would having separate releases matter much at all? Those looking to bash the Church for its stance against women's ordination (as well as against homosexual acts, other sexual sins, abortion, contraception, euthanasia, etc.) will find the ammo they need, even if they have to scour a wee bit. After all, most secular journalists work from the assumptions that the Church's stance on those issues is either curiously out of date or, increasingly, wrongheaded and even dangerous.

... to suggest that, in the eyes of the Church, the abuse of children and the ordination of women were equally serious crimes.

Well, many journalists and pundits and Maureen Dowds did more than "suggest"—they asserted it was a fact. But such assertions weren't really part of any objective reporting, but were part of the larger narrative the media usually works over repeatedly: the Church is backwards, the Church dislikes women, the Church is out of touch with the modern world, the Church is male-dominated sewer of bigotry, etc.

The Vatican denied this, but it was too late: the simultaneous announcement of the new canonical penalties – which would have attracted little attention a few years ago – positively invited the Church’s enemies to do their worst.

Let's go deeper and say it like it is: the Church's teachings "invites" the Church's enemies to do their worst. After all, they are enemies of the Church for a reason, and it's not because the penalties for two different acts were the same and were released in the same document. You don't have to "invite" the Church's enemies to do their worst; that is part and parcel of being an enemy of the Church. The assumption here seems to be that if only the Vatican would have presented Church canon law and teaching differently, her enemies would be pacified, even won over. Call me cynical or pessimistic, but that seems like incredibly wishful thinking.

This sort of public relations disaster is more dangerous than Rome seems to realise. Malicious or ignorant reports in the media do not only damage the reputation of ordinary Catholics; they also cause ordinary Catholics to lose confidence in their pastors.

Let's put two and two together: the enemies of the Church within the media are going to write and print and spread malicious and ignorant reports regardless of how the Vatican or any other Catholic presents this, that, or the other thing. It is quite strange to me when folks admit that many in the media are out to hurt and demean the Church as best they can but then insist the right PR approach can change matters. The Church's enemies cannot be won over by good PR. And I'm not too convinced that decent journalists will do too much better with it, although I want to give them the benefit of the doubt. I've read far too many "news pieces" that completely botch or misrepresent fairly basic points of Catholic doctrine, most of them written with a decidedly editorial, even preaching, tone. Yes, there are exceptions. Absolutely. But I think they are  becoming fewer and fewer, even as the attacks on the Church become more and more blatant and ill-disguised.

It is easy to forget that members of the Church cannot always discriminate between true and misleading stories in the press.

Well, that's something of another issue, I think, but it does beg a couple of questions: if Catholics cannot "discriminate" rightly between Church teaching and press reports, what does it say about the state of catechesis? And if Catholics, like so many other folks, aren't able to read and think critically, what does it say about education and society in general? (Yes, those are mostly rhetorical questions.)

On this occasion, faithful Mass-goers were among those left confused and angry by stories implying – incorrectly but plausibly – that something was wrong with the Church’s moral compass.

I don't know many thoughtful, serious Catholics who take the secular media at its word and who don't subject news of any sort to scrutiny and critical analysis. If Catholics are thoughtlessly accepting what the secular media puts out there, we might well wonder why Catholics are thinking with the mind of the world instead of with the mind of the Church. It goes back, again, to catechesis and related matters, especially getting people to ask essential questions: Why am I a Catholic? What does it mean to be a Catholic? And so forth.

At no time in recent years has the Vicar of Christ faced so many devious opponents; yet the truth is that anti-Catholic polemicists were handed this latest piece of propaganda on a plate. It must not happen again.

But, again, it is only propaganda when it is spun in such a way to distort what actually happened and what the Church actually teaches. This sort of propaganda is just another variation on how papal teachings and quotes from other Church documents are presented as being homophobic, anti-woman, prudish, narrow-minded, intolerant, close-minded, fundamentalist, etc.—simply because they go contrary to the accepted beliefs of most journalists and editors.

Damien Thompson wrote of "the Church’s enemies"; the Anchoress wrote of "people who do not move beyond headlines and soundbites." It seems to me that we Catholics need to take a long hard look at who the enemies are, how they operate, and how they prey upon those who don't go beyond headlines and sound bites. And we also need to ask, "Is it really possible to win the PR battle with the Church's enemies within the secular media? Is that the sort of battle we are primarily focused on? And, do we want a Church that settles for the lowest-common denominator and fights for the right headlines and sound bites?" In a world of sound bites, the first thing that bites the dust is sound thinking and teaching, because the mind and soul cannot live on sound bites alone.

• "The Vatican’s insistence on male prerogative is misogynistic poppycock" (On Maureen Dowd, the Vatican, and women's ordination; July 18, 2010).
• The National Secular Society sort of gets it. The priestettes are clueless. (July 16, 2010)

Comments

[Mark Brumley]

Probably, the Vatican should have included a couple of lines to the effect that these items are being addressed together because they are pertinent changes in law, not because they are of equal significance, etc.

That said, it is probably the case that the headlines would have remained largely what they were. We would have read stories that said, "Although the Vatican explicit denied the issues were of equal importance, it is nevertheless telling that the changes in law were all issued at the same time ..."

Of course the changes could have been issued at different times. The argument against that is that you take your media whipping all at once, rather than multiple times as the changes are introduced.

But spreading things out is no sure guarantee the media won't link the issues; it only makes it less likely, not unthinkable. "The Vatican has issued a new law today ... other recent changes include .... Taken together the recent changes suggest that the Vatican puts legislation regarding child sexual abuse and women's ordination on the same level ..." "The Vatican's recent series of changes indicates excluding women from the priesthood is as important as ending child sexual abuse by the clergy ...".

If you want to make a fallacious argument based upon a fallacious interpretation of the facts, you can and will. Many in the media are so prejudiced or incompetent or both that they can and will make such arguments. Perhaps--and I say only perhaps--handling things as some critics suggest would have slightly diminished the malicious reporting of the changes. More likely, it would only have resulted in a different kind of maliciousness. "Bowing to pressure to get its house in order, the Vatican today ..." "After decades of deception, the Vatican today issued new policies to address the scandle that threatens to overwhelm the Catholic Church ...." And so on.

I'm all for being as wise as serpents, but let's not suppose those with whom we deal in the media are as innocent as doves and need only the correct formulation of the message by the Church to get the headlines right. They are in the news business, which, in fact, means they sell stories for a living. They tell stories in order to sell stories. And if the truth is deemed likely to sell less well than a story filled with untruths and half-truths, then so much the worse for the truth.

[Robert Miller]

Very well said, Carl.

As I said in an earlier post, I think Benedict purposely twinned the evils: After all, isn't attempted abuse of a sacrament, especially a sacrament that confers alter Christus status (Person status) on a person, abuse of a Person -- in the case in question, sexual abuse of a Person?

[Mark Greaves]

What a thoughtful post.

Just to let you know, the Catholic Herald has started an online debate about whether the Vatican should devote more energy to public relations. You can join it here:

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2010/07/22/debate-should-the-vatican-put-more-energy-into-public-relations/

[Titus]

The document is the promulgation of a legislative act. We long ago gave up expecting our civil legislators to promulgate laws one at a time in discrete, thematic packages. Why, in the name of everything holy, should the Holy See be excoriated for making omnibus legislative pronouncements? Pure balderdash.

[Steve Cianca]

Spot on, Carl. I couldn't have said it better myself.

[Manuel G. Daugherty Razetto]

I believe that Carl did very well by insisting that it is the secular Media's intention to damage the image of our Church, at all cost. It is their modus operandi and , almost, their modus vivendi.

It is very painful to realize that many do not understand the true intention behind the ever present attack gainst Christianity, by the Media.

As I read the statement : "They are in the News business, which, in fact, means they sell stories", I'd suggest that selling papers is not their priority when they seek every opportunity to repeat the same stories that injure the Church.

[Mundabor]

Excellent observations.

I think the criticism comes largely from journalists themselves, that is: from people who tend to have a vastly exaggerated idea of their own importance.
The world out there doesn't give a penny about the PR strategies of the Vatican and those who want to shoot at the Church will do it anyway.