Another voice has weighed in with criticism of how the Vatican gets out its message — or, more often, doesn’t.

Noted Catholic editor Philip Lawler offered his thoughts in an Op-Ed piece for this morning’s USA TODAY:

“We didn’t control the communications,” lamented Rev. Federico Lombardi, the Jesuit priest who heads the Vatican press office.

That was putting it mildly.

By now the whole world knows — or thinks it knows — the story behind Father Lombardi’s lament. On Jan. 24, Pope Benedict XVI lifted the excommunications of four bishops from a traditionalist group known as the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX). Within hours of that announcement it emerged that one of those prelates, Bishop Richard Williamson, had questioned the severity of the Holocaust during a recent television interview. Jewish leaders and editorial writers erupted in understandable outrage, and what began as an effort to heal a rift within the church became an ugly public dispute.

Even today, more than a month after the original announcement, many people have not heard the Vatican’s side of the story. How can this be?

In an age of instant global access, when every blogger has a vehicle for his own opinions, no institution — from the White House to the Vatican — can “control the communications” entirely. The challenge of conveying a positive message is especially acute for the Catholic Church, though, as it must cope with a media culture that often is hostile to traditional expressions of religious belief. Even so, there is no reason why the Vatican cannot learn from this while employing the elementary techniques of public-relations management.

In its dealings with the news media, the Vatican is severely handicapped by an institutional bias toward secrecy and a “need to know” approach to the release of news stories. Every reporter dealing with church soon learns the truth of the axiom: “Those who know don’t talk, and those who talk don’t know.” Just like White House reporters, Vatican specialists compete to be the first to break important stories. But whereas reporters in Washington receive regular briefings, those in Rome must simply rely on officials of the Roman Curia who are willing to drop hints or pass along in-house speculation. The result is a hyperactive rumor mill. Clerics and Vatican-watchers exchange gossip and innuendo, hoping to cobble together a better understanding of what is happening behind the Bronze Door of the apostolic palace.

When reporters are dealing in partial truths and murky suggestions, their coverage can not only become inaccurate, but also prone to manipulation. The loyal soldiers of the papacy honor their pledges of confidentiality; those who break those pledges and whisper to reporters are likely to have their own agenda, possibly quite different from that of the pope.

Twenty years ago, when I was editing an archdiocesan newspaper, I complained to my publisher (a cardinal-archbishop) that major Vatican announcements always caught me by surprise. There was something wrong with the system, I argued, when the editor of an official Catholic publication heard the news first from the secular media. Why did the pope’s critics always seem to have an advance copy, while his defenders waited for the official release?

Today most documents are promptly posted on the Vatican Internet site, but otherwise things have not changed. The documents still typically appear without warning (other than rumors, of course) or accompanying explanations, and the translations are still often tardy. Which brings us back to the dust-up over Bishop Williamson.

Even among today’s critics who have lashed out at the pope, some remain unaware that Benedict XVI had not known about Williamson’s appalling views, and when he was informed, the pope quickly issued a public statement to disassociate himself from Holocaust deniers. Others do not realize that Benedict XVI had not restored Williamson and the other SSPX bishops to regular status. Those four bishops are still suspended from public ministry; the lifting of their excommunications was only one step in a process of reconciliation. But the media message that carried the day: Williamson, an anti-Semite, was back in business.

Yet the story has even more depth and context that the Vatican failed effectively to correct: Neither Williamson’s original excommunication in 1988 nor the pope’s decision to revoke it were related in any way to his extreme political views. Under the canon law that governs church affairs, excommunication is a rare disciplinary action, used only for certain specific offenses (such as, in this case, ordaining a bishop without approval from the Holy See). The church does not formally excommunicate members for their political views, even when those views are repugnant to Catholic teachings — as, for example, in the case of Catholic politicians who favor unrestricted legal abortion.

Bishop Williamson poses a special case, of course, because a bishop is a public leader, a teacher of the faithful. But again, Williamson is still suspended; he is not functioning as a bishop with the authorization of the church.

All these points of clarification could and should have been made on Jan. 24, along with the original announcement of the pope’s decision to end the excommunications.

Instead, the Vatican let 12 agonizing days pass before the Secretariat of State released an unsigned statement in a tardy effort to clear up misunderstandings. The pope’s move “has not changed the legal situation” of the SSPX bishops, the statement observed; they are still suspended and will remain so until they demonstrate their “total adherence to the doctrine and discipline of the church.” Williamson in particular will be obliged to “absolutely, unambiguously, and publicly distance himself from this position on the Holocaust.”

Unfortunately, the international outcry was already far advanced.

Visit the link for more. And there’s more on the SSPX PR mess right here and here.