`Cardinal rules’ of crisis management
A smart public-relations strategy could never solve a problem as serious as the cover-up of clergy sexual abuse in the Catholic Church, but it would at least make Catholics and the public at large a little more confident in the management ability and good intentions of the present church leadership.
Public-relations consultant Richard Weiner notes on Huffington Post that he tried to explain the “cardinal rules” of crisis management to representatives of the U.S. bishops when the scandal emerged in 2002:
Two members of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops met with me and David Finn of the Ruder Finn public relation firm. We recommended the three cardinal rules of crisis management: tell the truth, get out all information, and do not attack the media. At our meeting, a bishop speculated that the issue may only be confined to a few dioceses and was not a problem in other countries. We recommended that they not trivialize or deny.
It’s the advice that any public-relations professional would have given, and it is still obviously being ignored. The many prelates who’ve indulged in attacking the news media, some in very exaggerated terms, are defeating themselves.
Pope Benedict is pleased that the College of Cardinals is standing with him, but the cardinals aren’t helping him in this crisis if they trample the “cardinal rules” of crisis management: “tell the truth, get out all information, and do not attack the media.”
If just one cardinal or bishop followed this good advice, it would be watched closely, and if it were perceived to work, others might get on board.
My sense is that a lot of bishops trust their legal counsel more than their public relations advisers.
Another firm scripted the Dallas conference, and recommended the creation of the National Review Board, etc.
As for R&F, their recommendations to tell the truth, and get out all information are things the bishops would never, ever do. They still fight against both by dissembling, denying, and even lying. Above all, do whatever is necessary to keep the secrets in the documents hidden. Get the information out? Not a chance.
Bishops choose not to tell the plain, simple truth, and adamantly refuse to admit their culpability. They have been stunningly successful in staying on a false script: we did nothing legally or morally wrong (while failing to report under the law, criminally endangering children, obstructing justice, lying to survivors), and we depended on therapists (while withholding vital information from treatment centers and ignoring their recommendations).
There are mounds of backup to all of the above on http://www.BishopAccountability.org. Or Leon Podles’ detailed book “Sacrilege” cures any romantic view of hierarchy.
Pity the Gospel does not suffice and risk management is the guiding principle. It’s so much easier and self-satisfying to whine about anti-Catholic bias (Dolan especially). Rome of course blames everything and everyone: the gays, Jews, media, porn, secularism.
Clerical arrogance, corrosive secrecy, a sense of exemption and privilege, appalling indifference to abuse, and cya measures abound. No corrupt corporate chieftain has anything on a bishop.
Look how Benedict avoids personal responsibility and shifts blame to bishops. The pattern begins at the top. Penance needs to start with “We bishops” not “We Christians.” The pointed refusal of Benedict and JPII to fire complicit bishops, and clean house of Sodano and his ilk, Law and his confreres, speaks more loudly than all the apologies, and expressions of horror.
If the courts, legislatures, government commissions, and media are necessary to drag the bishops kicking and screaming into the truth, so be it. They richly earn any consequences. We have authority instead of leadership.
Three friends wrote me this evening about leaving the Church, so disgusted are they with fighting episcopal deceit. No wonder.
Paul,
Thanks for sharing. The shear simplicity of the three rules stands in sharp contrast to what we are watching unfold. It boggles the mind.
There is only one word for it and that is incompetence.
From Carolyn Disco: “Pity the Gospel does not suffice and risk management is the guiding principle. It’s so much easier and self-satisfying to whine about anti-Catholic bias (Dolan especially). Rome of course blames everything and everyone: the gays, Jews, media, porn, secularism.”
Just another example of the church’s leadership on the one hand pretending to condemn “secularism,” while on the other hand selling out to secular values.
Very good rules, indeed. I wonder if the bishops conferences and/or any single bishop was ever able to “get the truth out” in the sense of knowing what it was? I am always amazed at how decentralized the U.S. church, and probably others, really are. Peter doesn’t know what Paul is doing and vice versa. Yes, gossip abounds, but verifiable facts, not so much. Perhaps the only bishop who could have told the truth about the Cardinal Law Administration was Bishop D’Arcy who had been exiled to South Bend. I wonder what he knew and what means he had to tell the rest of us?
My two cents:
-if the US Bishops want to be believable, they ned to stop fighting SOL legislation, right now, in Connecticut, Fl;orida, Wisconsin and, yes, New York.
Otherwise, the message is the institution matters more than the victims.
-Stop promoting folks seen as anti-victim : the latest is Paprocki in Springfield (with great encomiums from Cardinal George -and it’s true he’s done some good work for the poor) who said sex abuse suits were the work of the devil.
We’ve noted the continued selection of bishops is ties to their loyaklty up the line and up the line has frequently not dealt with victims properly.
I’m not sure about “gossip”/facts and notions of secrecy and how one perceives that. But responsibility means being truthful about what’s happened and not damage control in our Church.
Footnote: on handling crisis management, EJ Dionne has some useful remarks at NPR Morning Edition today that seems to say more is and should be expected of the Church.
“-if the US Bishops want to be believable, they ned to stop fighting SOL legislation, right now, in Connecticut, Fl;orida, Wisconsin and, yes, New York.”
This is nonsense. SOL legislation has nothing to do with the credibility of bishops, and is itself a manifest injustice.
A brief comment, as I’m trying to catch up after just returning from Rome, i.e., the Panic Room.
One must always take into a account different culture, in this case the Italian (Roman) versus Anglo-Saxon/American culture. The Romans tend to shrug at such scandals; hey, if Andreotti could survive and flourish as long as he did, anyone can. Even the pope. So applying American p.r. to a Romanist mentality won’t easily translate.
Plus: One can never overestimate the insularity of the papal court, especially under B16. Even is you discount at least 90 percent of the conspiracies that every Italian Vaticanista or monsignore tries to sell you, there are maneuverings among top cardinals, like Sodano and Ruini and Bertone, that are far more important to them than the advice of outsiders. It is important to gauge many of their silly statements in terms of what their rival (and the pope) will hear, as much as by what the wider church or public will hear. The latter, larger audience is not nearly as vital to their survival as the former.
So what we have is a divine-right, absolute monarchy administered by an Italian bureaucracy. Is it any wonder we’re all going in circles???
“My sense is that a lot of bishops trust their legal counsel more than their public relations advisers.”
And their consciences — where do they come into play?
Another recommended read: “Archbishop” by Thomas Reese, SJ.
David Gibson is correct and should be thanked in explaining once again the Roman culture. That’s why we have had almost all our bishops being required to drink their dose of this toxic Roman ‘culture’ before assuming their positions in the good ole USA. This is the good reason that the reform that will eventually happen will be a huge downsizing of papacy/vatican centralization. Did we not have two lungs in the Church in 1100AD??? What’s the name of the Patriarch of Constaninople now? I hear Whatshisname has a deacon or two as his assistants That’s how the Bishop of Rome, the first among equals will function in 2099 [when the assembled bishops process into Mass .. he/she goes last.. ] . May the Holy Spirit so direct the Church.. .
Ed, the bishops of Rome also at one time administered only with the assistance of deacons; the Seven Deacons of Rome. IMHO this would be an excellent antidote to the careerism rampant in the Curia, because nowadays deacons cannot be “promoted” along the ridiculous Roman cursus honorum with the goal of being named titular bishop of a mythical place.
Cultures “work” because they are “successful”.
And the meaning of “successful”?
And who defines “successful”?
For an institution as old as the Church of Rome, it would be necessary, I think, for the entire upper leadership to be removed (or remove itself) in order to have any chance at ecclesial transparency and accountability.
Thanks Carolyn, Bob, John. Yes, Mr. Gibson is correct but this insularity, centralization vs. Vatican II, gospel values, etc. only reinforces the basic issue – clericalism; denial; etc.
This reminds me of 1986 – Diocese of Dallas. I had already been involved with a number of seminarian/priest sexual abuse situations. Attended a diocesan wide priest meeing in which Doyle/Mouton/Peterson presented. At the end of their presentation, the old monsignors basically said: “thanks” but we don’t have that problem here. I was sitting only 5 chairs away from Rudy Kos and the gossip was already going around the room…..thus, in 1994, the Kos case hits the paper and the courts and two teenagers take their lives.
It is a repeat – Doyle et alii made these reports available to every US diocese – they presented to some. The USCCB did nothing.
2002 – Dallas Charter – again, barely listened to what was needed. Skewed canon law so that a line could be drawn in the sand against abusing priests – never addressed bishops or their accountability. Even that line in the sand was and is still being ignored case by case and bishop by bishop.
Now we have a PR firm that provided the church information about how to manage a crisis – again, denial, thanks but no thanks, doesn’t get to every bishop, etc.
This whole crisis is frustrating – Rome centralizes when it wants to; but decentralizes when it shouldn’t. And when it does centralize, it provides no management, oversight, or accountability if their centralization is ignored.
Eric. I nominate you as the first of Seven
And who believes this? The expected spin from Gruber via Munich’s PR filter? The comments so far support O’Leary’s conclusion: “It was always obvious that the Vicar General of Munich was falling on his sword to take the Pope out of the line of fire; an erudite church observer denounced it to me as a clumsy and dishonest ploy, but par for the course.”
“Role of Pope’s Ex-Deputy in Priest Case Questioned” in today’s WSJournal.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704448304575196482519443598.html?mod=WSJ_WSJ_US_World
“Father Gruber said that although his friend Mr. Romahn “meant well” by writing the letters, he had partly misunderstood him. Father Gruber said he had described how on March 12, the day he was asked to approve and make any changes to a draft of the archdiocese press release on the Hullermann incident, he was under “time pressure”—but not pressured to sign off on something he didn’t agree with.
An archdiocese spokesman said Father Gruber wasn’t requested or urged to take responsibility for the reassignment, only that he was asked whether he would state so publicly.”
Bill,
Your experience is extraordinary and thanks for sharing it. It’s the kind of unparalleled detail so many never get to hear. Kos a few feet away? So, Tom D presented in your diocese! He went to Collegeville in 1985 expecting to present to the USCCB and was shunned. Their former attorney Mark Chopko had a nasty habit of spinning his client’s negligence by attacking the report’s authors.
Tom wrote a devastating 14-page brief for victims in the Kos case (in my hand right now), and in a coup for bishop-accountability.org, the victims’ lawyer Sylvia Demarest gave all her files to them.
How is it possible to communicate to bishops’ apologists the facts, the denial inherent in all the documents, to be able to read between the lines of episcopal code words and see supposedly holy men for who they really are in these cases? Of course they do good things besides, but how does that weigh in here?
BTW, it was Law who gave Tom a $1,000 check to help with the mailing costs to bishops for the Doyle/Mouton/Peterson report – before Law found how inexpedient it was for one’s career to be associated with the abuse issue.
“My sense is that a lot of bishops trust their legal counsel more than their public relations advisers.”
That’s my sense, too, Jim.
I also wonder how many dioceses are handing over communications positions to people who aren’t really professionals at PR but will take the more aggressive stance the bishop favors. In any case, there are still a lot of knowledgeable PR people working in the church but their advice seems to get passed over.
David, thanks for your interesting observations on the Roman culture, which seems to have rubbed off on some bishops close to home.
Of course SOL legislation is critical to the issue of management of sex abuse by bishops and keeping the lid on and hence there credibility.
We’ve discussed this before, Jim. Calling these attempts to broaden the window a “mainfest injustice” is gratuitous and nonsense on your part!
Per David Gibson’s recent comments and articles, I am starting to think that I should not expect much to come from the Vatican nor from Pope Benedict nor from most bishops –
1. recognizing their personal responsibility,
2. understanding how the church hierarchy got to be so lacking in moral integrity that cover-ups of child abusers was common,
3. embarking on reforms to address that lack.
This lack of moral integrity (rooted, in the perspective of many here, in clericalism) is what I see as a structural problem that will require structural reforms, not simply regulations preventing cover-up of child abuse cases and better PR management of crisis.
I have not yet completely given up; but if, for a moment, I accept that statement of defeat, then where do we go from here?
Written and published by Richard Sipe in 1992 – read the 14 points and see how many ring true today:
http://reform-network.net/?p=4257
Highlights:
“2. The phenomenon of the sexual abuse of minors is a worldwide problem among Roman Catholic clergy. It is every bit as prevalent in Baltimore and Washington, D.C. and in Boston as it is in Chicago. Europe and England are ten years behind the United States in bringing the problem to public attention.
3. When the whole story of sexual abuse by presumed celibate clergy is told, it will lead to the highest corridors of Vatican City.”
Finally:
“14. Child abuse by clergy, the tip of the iceberg so painfully visible today, does not stand on its own. Removing it from view will not solve the crisis. Difficult as it is to accept, we are certain that the hierarchical and power structures beneath the surface are part of a secret world that supports abuse. These hidden forces are far more dangerous to the sexual health and welfare of Christ’s Church than those that we can already see.”
I wonder what it takes to break into the Vatican bubble. There must be something, but I really don’t know what it is. I used to think arrests of bishops would do it. Maybe a few cardinals behind bars would shake them up enough to make a difference. Now, I’m not so sure. Seeing what the response has been over the past few weeks, it looks impregnable. The wagons in the circle would merely draw together more tightly. The same nostrums would be repeated about how the “world” is against “the church.” The same people would give standing ovations to the same defensive speeches and excuses.
I’d really be interested to know what people think could make a dent in this. Conscience does not seem to be active at all. Shame isn’t a factor. Loss of money doesn’t worry them. People leaving the church does not matter to them in the slightest. What DOES matter, then?
I agree, by the way, with the original post. Public relations advice, had it been followed, would have made a terrible situation at least a little better. The weakness in the case for listening to public relations advice is that public relations doesn’t matter to the people who are in charge of the church. They don’t answer to the public. They don’t answer to their own constituents. They answer to Rome. That’s it. I hate to be so cynical, but that’s how it appears to me.
“Eric. I nominate you as the first of Seven.”
I agree, but there should be 14, not 7.
That simply means that Eric would have to decide whether he is one of the 7 Wise or 7 Foolish. :< )
Rita,
When we were struggling with our canon case against Bps McCormack and Christian (a quixotic move I admit, but it’s on the record), a priest told us that it can take untold effort to make a dent, but that each little chip is important. It’s the cumulative effect until one day it only takes one more small dent to collapse the whole facade.
Now for the cynical part: hit them in the pocketbook. The large increase in Germans and Austrians leaving the church, thereby reducing tax revenue; the media exposure, the threatened loss of power, these hurt. German bishops are all of a sudden meeting with the Justice Minister.
Why is the Vatican only now adding that one sentence to its guidelines about reporting to civil authorities? Because of the pressure as a result of the media. See Tom Doyle in NCR today on the subject – revisionist history, courtesy of Rome.
http://ncronline.org/blogs/examining-crisis/revising-history-vatican-style?nocache=1#comment-109007
Outside pressure alone caused that last-minute maneuver on Friday. They can still breathe somewhat easily because Ireland, for example, does not have mandatory reporting laws. But it sets the stage for more, and bishops in Ireland have been asking the Vatican to approve their Framework document that specifies reporting. Maybe now they will approve what they’ve been holding up.
Anyone think we would know anything about the scandal without survivors filing lawsuits and getting documents released? The point is not to wait for the Vatican or bishops to respond to *our* efforts, but to leverage pressure by working through outside institutions that have the power to *force* the Vatican/church to respond: namely, governments, legislatures, courts, media.
Meeting with your local bishop has invariably proven a bloody waste of time. Work through independent agencies you can influence, who in turn have the power to extract compliance from the church. We worked supporting our attorney general’s office, and they got McCormack to sit up straight by threatening court action. It’s miraculous to watch. Poof.
Leverage your power, and grow a thick skin.
Carolyn, what you’re describing takes a lot of time, effort, and energy. What about us ordinary Catholics who sit in the pews on Sundays, what can we do that’s easy yet effective?
My donations have gone to BishopAccountability.org, SNAP and VOTF. Those organizations need support to do the heavy lifting.
An occasional letter to the editor supporting bishop accountability and reform legislation, call to a legislator in support, email a reporter/editor for doing research and a good article, stay informed to respond to those around you with false information; talk with friends about your position and hopes/frustrations.
Speak up in whatever ways present themselves to you – to a pastor who doesn’t get it, to a pastor who does.
Read Leon Podles’ book, Sacrilege. Watch a documentary like Vows of Silence (www.vowsofsilencefilm.com).
Pray for survivors and all our reform efforts. Continue to post here, Claire. The only non-option is silence.
God bless you for asking.
Want to see change? Cardinal Hoyos was cancelled/chased out of saying the Latin Mass in the Wash DC Basillica this coming Saturday. Not sick, not ash in the air engines, just plain chased away. No subsitute so far either, Would not have happened a week ago..KFCC
http://ncr.org
“Rome, of course blames everything and everyone.” I have seen no evidence to support that statement. In fact, it seems to be common practice on this blog to play the blame game, round up all the usual suspects,”the bishops”, in order that it appears that all the Bishops are suspects. There is the cardinal rule about telling the truth.When telling the truth, tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
YUK!
if PR and crisis management are the orders of the day in Rome, talking about the truth and whole truth is just more PR.
I applaud the Bishop of Aberdeen telling his fellow Bishops to speak up (as in teh case of Bertone) and say stop that, it’s stupid.
Bob ==
Did a bishop actually criticize another bishop by name publicly? This could be very significant. I think I mentioned before that I met a writer who had been in Prague at the time of the dissolution of Communism. He said that it started with just a trickle of public criticisms by offials who had realized a long time before that Communism wasn’t working, but they had been afraid to speak out even among friends. As more and more did speak out more and more of them reallized that they were not alone, and the thing snow-balled. The writer said that it was as if they all had lost their religion and had been afraid to say so.
Let’s pray that there are many bishops who have lost their faith in the clerical culture and will have the courage to criticize their brothers publicly. They could begin a second Reformation.
Yes,indeed.
Bishop Moran of Aberdeen Scotland did just that in an interview on April 26 with EU Observer.
I’m also reminded that in the US, after the Pope’s chaplain made the holocaust analogy, Bishop O”Brien of Baltimore n strong words corrected the impression he left.
But in many places, ther eis still just adulation or silence.
Nancy,
I don’t have the energy or patience to spend a lot of time today gathering quotes from Rome, but I stand by what I said. I don’t make a file out of every statement I come across, though there are thousands on my computer about the scandal.
From memory: Cantalamessa, de Magistris and another bishop (forget name) blamed the Jews, Bertone blamed the gays, Benedict blamed secularism and the lack of faith, Levada blamed the press – round and round but somehow genuine episcopal culpability – and not for the bleached PR about “errors of judgment” or “mistakes” – is nowhere to be found.
Levada needs to examine his own record of lies in San Francisco:
http://www.sanfranmag.com/story/man-who-keeps-secrets
“The Archdiocese instructed [Conley] to report the incident to civil authorities, and strongly supports the reporting of all incidents of suspected child abuse or neglect. It was the priest’s behavior subsequent to the reporting which was unacceptable.”
(Fr.) Conley was stung on reading that the archdiocese had instructed him to report his concerns; he had acted entirely on his own, without help from church leaders.” (and was removed from his position for reporting to police; sued Levada for defamation and infliction of emotional distress and won on appeal) Now Levada heads the CDF.
“When telling the truth, tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.” Yes, and I’m still waiting. Please take time to read the whole article, and get a sense of what really goes on in chanceries.
Another foot note about Fr Conley and A/B Levada. After Mass on Sunday, presider Fr John Conley told me the jury would be seated Monday morning. 15 minutes before jury was seated for questions, voir dire, , the Archdiocese called for settlement. Conley received a nice settlement for the defamation including a citation of good standing. About his request for an apology, all he could get was’ Fr Conley did the right thing in reporting the abuse’ He was and is shunned by SOME of his fellow diocesan priests. Say hello to the ‘brotherhood’..
Ann asked: “Did a bishop actually criticize another bishop by name publicly?”
Here’s the article link: http://euobserver.com/851/29886
Thanks, Ed. Of all the cases I have heard about, chanceries have never (repeat never) acted without being up against the wall.
Levada could come out a genuine apology apparently. Considering Levada’s arrogance in this exchange, I am not surprised:
“Noticing that Monsignor Wester was taking notes, Conley pulled out a tape recorder, fearing he was being set up as a scapegoat. Levada was surprised, asking, “You don’t trust me?” Conley said he just wanted an accurate record of the conversation. But Levada ordered Conley to turn off the tape recorder or court suspension from the priesthood.
“This meeting is over,” said Levada. “I’m placing you on administrative leave.” At the door, Levada told him, “Think about obedience.”
I quote things like this in hopes people realize what the reality is in chanceries. So often it takes the particular example to penetrate deference.
Sorry, correction: Levada could *not* come out with a genuine apology. Sad. Sort of puts his big speech last week attacking the press in perspective.
Loose cannons only shoot the innocent. Then they are reloaded and put back in the firing line for the next salvo. We may, if things work out, graduate to a circular firing squad. What is very worrisome is the degree of previously covered up and undiscovered, unpublicized misdeeds all over the world, especially Africa, Latin America, the Phillipines, and Asia. So far frank admissions have only originated from English speaking countries with a few exceptions in Western Europe.
Carolyn, I stand by my statement, you have no evidence that “the bishops” are all guilty by association. You did play the blame game several times on this blog:
@12:27 a.m.
“the bishops”
“Bishops”
“Benedict avoids personal responsibility and shifts blame to bishops.”
“no corrupt corporation chief has anything on a bishop.”
“drag the bishops”
Why not provide evidence rather than break the cardinal rule? I simply find it hard to believe that you believe all “the bishops” are suspect.
Nancy –
There is a difference between a general statement and a universal one. “ALL circles are round” is about every single circle. “NO squares are round” is about every single one. They are called “universal” statements because there are not exceptions. But “Shoes are flexible” is only a general statement — it is about a lot of shoes but we don’t know just how many. What it means is that shoes are generally flexible, but there could be excptions. Indeed, some shoes are made of wood. Another general statement: “Catholic bishops have covered up crimes.” That is a general, not a universal statement.
In fact, context can turn “all”, universal statements into genera, indeterminatel ones. For instance if a teacher said to a class of 20 kids, “Every child is going to have to close his or her book when the bell rings” we would know from the context that she was not talking about every single child in the world, but only certain ones. The same goes with “the bishops”, and “a bishop”.
There is a lot more ambiguity to language than you seem to realize. You really need to study logic and how language can lead to fallacies..
Ann, regarding the context of Carolyn’s statement, if it were true that Carolyn was simply implying that there exists a group of Catholic bishops that have covered up crimes, and that this group of bishops does not include every bishop and thus she does not consider every bishop to be suspects in this crime, she certainly would not have stated that “no corrupt corporation chief has anything on a bishop, she would have stated that no corrupt corporation chief has anything on a corrupt bishop.
“The irony is that Benedict XVI wanted to preside over a resurgence of religion in Europe and instead, he is presiding over a self-inflicted suicide of the Catholic Church. Combined with his unpopular reactionary theology, it is a toxic mix.” http://michael-in-norfolk.blogspot.com/2010/04/growing-catholic-church-defections-in.html
Ann asked: “Did a bishop actually criticize another bishop by name publicly?”
There have been unprecedented public denunciations of individual bishops by each other in Ireland lately. As one priest wryly remarked, “Did we ever think we’d see the day?”
“she certainly would not have stated that “no corrupt corporation chief has anything on a bishop, she would have stated that no corrupt corporation chief has anything on a corrupt bishop.”
Nancy –
The use of “a something-or-other” or “an X” can be indefinite as well as universal, and sometimes it is not clear which is meant. Yes, if you added “corrupt” to bishop that would limit it to one class of bishops, but as it stands, “a bishop” can be indefinite.
Look and see: “Diamonds are a girl’s best friend”. Does the singer mean *all* girls or “most’ or “some” girls? It could be any of those. It’s ambiguous.
[...] dotCommonweal » Blog Archive » `Cardinal rules’ οf crisis management [...]