Archdiocese of Anchorage changes speaker vetting process...again?

In an odd move, the Archdiocese has once again changed its policy for vetting speakers and guest clergy. For those that have followed this situation, the Archdiocese had an unofficial policy in place for most of 2009 and the start of this year, until finally unveiling the official policy in May. I explored that situation in a post: [Archdiocese of Anchorage's Speaker Vetting Policy]. That post examined the report in the Anchor (The AoA's official paper, published by the Archbishop) and critically discussed various aspects of the policy.

The major crux of my contention with the policy was not that it wasn't constructed in a manner that seemed to be consistent with the role that the Archbishop should have, but instead on how it was actually implemented. At the time, much of what I discussed was conjecture or speculation. Now, there again is a change, and so I think it is important to re-examine this issue.

Before we being I think it is approrpriate to explain my original reservations with the situation. I had two original issues with the policy, and the way that it was presented.

First:

There have been a lot of problems in the diocese in the past regarding the restrictions on lay apostolates. Myself and others have talked about this policy in the past, and we have all wondered if this will end up pushing apostolates from the parishes and forcing them to become "independent." I know that this type of speculation seems very anti-institutional from the outside ... I worry that this policy will be more of hindrance to the faith, than a protection. I know firsthand how at my parish, the "Theology and Brew" apostolate essentially had to fold, because of this policy and the way in which it was "used." Hopefully, there will be clarity in regards to this issue in the future. 

My second issue was:

The reason it is contentious is because of how difficult it makes it for groups and parishes to bring speakers in. It also has some procedural flaws. On top of that, many wonder why the Archdiocese has felt the need to publish this when, the Bishop has the power to say who can and can't come to their diocese at any time. In other words, why make such a rule or process... when there was something already in place to do the same thing?

Now, without rehashing these same objections, I would simply like to say that there were specific instances that I have personal knowledge of that tell me that I wasn't off base at all. In fact, this was true not only for lay speakers but clergy as well, and on more than one instance. But, it seemed that if nothing else, people understood the policy and were learning to live with it. That was until recently when the policy was changed... again.

The new policy, as stated in the Anchor is such:

Anchorage Archbishop Schwietz announces change in speaker vetting process

Archbishop Roger Schwietz

CatholicAnchor.org

Archbishop Roger Schwietz has announced a change in the operation of the archdiocesan vetting process.

The vetting policy requires the archdiocese’s parishes, organizations, schools, ministries and agencies to obtain clearance from the archbishop’s office before any person not affiliated with the Anchorage Archdiocese may “speak or serve in any capacity” within the archdiocese.

Until now, all requests were made to the office of the vicar general.

As of Oct. 15, requests for temporary faculties for visiting clerics (deacons or priests), are to go to the office of the archdiocesan vice chancellor, Eileen Kramer (ekramer@caa-ak.org).

Requests for approval of laity or non-clerical religious for ministry or speaking engagements should go to office of the archdiocese’s Tribunal. The contacts there are Jenny Michaelson (jmichaelson@caa-ak.org) and Father Thomas Brundage (tbrundage@caa-ak.org).

According to the archbishop’s Oct. 15 memo about the responsibility changes, neither visiting clerics nor lay presenters should apply directly to the archdiocesan offices for vetting approval. The hosting parish or organization is solely responsible for liaising with the archdiocese.

Now, it seems that this actually makes the policy more "user friendly" but we will have to wait and see if that is the case. There seem to be a lot more people involved, and therefore more levels of vetting that actually occur (read: chance for personal opinions to be injected into the process). It should also be noted that the past policy was rather cumbersome and lengthy, so hopefully this is part of why the policy has changed. 

I want to give the Archdiocese the benefit of the doubt in this situation. I know that we have been critical of some of the things it has done in the past, but I can say that it has been quite "responsive" to the questions and situations we have raised on this blog. I think that the confusion has come from major problem, that I have raised before: the Archdiocese is in major need of a communications professional. 

As someone that has edited & published a newspaper, done the same for three blogs, and has served in a communications/press capacity for major public figures, I know the importance of Public Relations. Doing press and communications is difficult, and conveying a clear and succinct message is critical for any public person or group. 

Too many Catholic organizations and Dioceses attempt to do their own "press." They issue press releases, memos, and publish newspapers without any oversight from someone whose sole job it is to ensure that the proper message is disseminated. (Luckily the AoA has the Anchor which has been doing an excellent job over the last little while {since Joel Davidson took the reins}). Yet, the paper is one thing, what comes from the chancery is another. The need for someone to critically look at what is coming out of the chancery does more than just keep things clear. It also helps the faithful have an easier time taking directive from the Archbishop, which ultimately helps them walk in-step with Christ.