It’s an old problem, but it bears repeating: when it comes to public relations, the Catholic Church is a disaster.

The debacle over SSPX and Bishop Williamson is only the latest case in point. (And it’s not just the Vatican. Local dioceses, understaffed and overwhelmed, are often ill-equipped to confront the realities of the 21st century media.) Now, Amy Welborn adds her two cents — and I think they’re worth a lot more than that:

Things are not as bad as they could be, nor as bad as they used to be. But the folks in the Vatican, despite their website, radio, television and YouTube channel, are still not grasping the RAPIDITY of communications in the modern world and how intense and deep the dispersal of information is and what power the means of communications beyond traditional venues like wire agencies and such have in pushing stories and determining storylines.

We’ve talked about this before in relation to other issues – other documents and decisions. The Vatican releases it, maybe has a press conference with a few experts, Father Lombardi is available…and that’s it.

The first thing that needs to happen is to involve people who can anticipate reactions. Any of us reading this blog are qualified for that job. It should be blindingly clear, with Williamson doing his thing recently, as well as his history, that that was going to be the story. It would be the story, not just because of Williamson, but because Benedict is a German and already bears the burden of the caricature of being a hard-nosed hater of all that is modern.

The second thing to do is have a more intense PR presence totally available in Rome.

The third is to bring in the national churches. This is tricky because quite often those national churches and their episcopal conferences are not thrilled about what the Vatican is doing, or at the very least have no interest in it. Too bad. At this point, I don’t understand why there is not (at least why there doesn’t appear to be) an organized network in which heads of communications in the various local Churches are informed ahead of time what is coming down, given talking points and guidance, and told to make themselves available. This story is huge right now, whether it deserves to be or not, and if things were working correctly, the communications people from episcopal conferences would contact media outlets themselves, and said…doing a story? Contact us. We’re ready to explain and discuss.

Amy then links to an insight from Ross Douthat at the Atlantic:

The problem, of course, is that by create this opening for those SSPX-ers who should be in full communion with the Catholic Church, the Vatican is temporarily empowering Bishop Richard Williamson, Holocaust denier and all-around charmer, who gives every evidence that he shouldn’t be – and probably doesn’t want to be – back in the fold, but who’s instantly become the poster boy for the Pope’s decision, and for the Traditionalist community more generally. This is a price worth paying, hopefully, for the sake of closing unnecessary divisions, but the price wouldn’t be nearly so steep if the Vatican had a better sense of how to do public relations in a controversial case like this. The average reporter or commentator isn’t going to understand the nuances of canon law, the history and background of the SSPX, the context of the excommunications, the status of these bishops post-excommunication, and so forth. What the average journalist does understand, though, is how to write this headline: “Pope Rehabilitates Holocaust-Denying Bishop.” And while the potential for bad publicity shouldn’t prevent the Vatican from showing mercy to excommunicants when appropriate, it should incentivize wrapping any such mercy in a forceful, detailed, “Catholicism and canon law for dummies” explanation of what such an action doesn’t mean: In this case, an endorsement of poisonous anti-semitism and conspiracy theorizing.

And this is exactly what hasn’t been forthcoming. Oh, the Papal spokesman said that Williamson’s Holocaust-denying remarks were “completely indefensible,” and L’Osservatore Romano had an editorial (not yet translated into English, of course) stating that the decision “should not be sullied with unacceptable revisionist opinions and attitudes with regard to the Jews.” But in the contemporary media environment, that’s not good enough. If the Pope de-excommunicates a Holocaust denier, the Vatican press office should be working around the clock, with press releases flying, to provide context and do damage control. What’s more, if the Pope de-excommunicates a Holocaust denier, the Pope himself needs to say something about it, and not just obliquely nod to the decision in his latest homily. Yes, the Church’s primary business is saving souls, not public relations – but in this day and age, public relations is part of the business of saving souls. And nobody in Rome, from Benedict on down, seems to have figured that out.

Amen.

UPDATE: John Allen seems to have had some of the same thoughts on this subject, and writes at his blog:

The way this decision was communicated was a colossal blunder, and one that’s frankly difficult to either understand or excuse.

To be clear, my point has nothing to do with whether the excommunications should have been lifted in the first place. There’s legitimate debate on that front, and not just due to its implications for Catholic/Jewish relations. There’s also intra-Catholic discussion about what it means for the interpretation of Vatican II, and for the broader direction of the church. Instead, my argument is that even granting that the aim of restoring unity in the church justifies this step, its presentation was stunningly inept.

Check his link for the full context and analysis.