The Public Relations of the Archdiocese of Anchorage & The Catholic Anchor Situation- Part II

As I began thinking about this situation, what I simply can't get my heart and mind around is the various facets of this situation. The fact that the Chancery seems so out of touch with the faithful in the Archdiocese, the fact that someone or some people are poorly advising the Archbishop, the fact that the Archdiocese has an abysmal public relations operation [or maybe no operation?], and the fact that a very good editor was let go for presumably printing stories that uphold the tenants of the faith.

I suddenly rememberd that the Catholic Anchor had an 'Editor problem' in the past, but one that was quite different than this one. It was in fact a situation where someone that shouldn't have been the editor was actually in that role. What is striking isn't the qualifications of the people, but the way that the Archdiocese handled the situations.

···•°···

A few years back a young woman was hired to be the editor of the Anchor. What happened is that once people started investigating her, they found out some things she had said a year prior to her hiring about Pope John Paul II. Several people found a blog that she kept and read her posts about the Pope, the Papacy, and various other thoughts she had on the Church's attitude towards women. She allegedly made these posts a year prior to her hiring. My point is not the merit of her comments, but the fact that she made rather inflammatory and controversial statements that are contrary to the teachings of the Faith. When the faithful found out about them, they rightfully brought them to the attention of the Chancery and the Archbishop.

How did the Archdiocese handle it? Well this is how the Assistant to the Bishop handled it:

Mary Gore, assistant to Archbishop Roger Schwietz of Anchorage, told LifeSiteNews.com that Nolan made the comments when she was in college and editor of the campus newspaper.

Gore admitted the archdiocese had received complaints about Nolan’s comments but she was not sure what the archbishop was going to do.

“Bottom line is that it's an internal policy decision,” Gore was quoted as saying. “Right now, Archbishop Schwietz is sticking by his editor.”

Now, this isn't really a good public statement, but it is in the very least a statement. It is better than the silence that we receive when we contact the Archdiocese. But it appears that even back then the Chancery's PR approach wasn't much better than it is today. I found several stories that stated that they failed to respond to requests for comment prior to posting. In terms of any statement that came up in a search, this is the extent of a public statement that I was able to find.

So, what is the big deal? Is the Church supposed to be a well oiled PR machine? No, it isn't. But it should understand the needs of the faithful. They should understand that once one or two people find out about something as important as this, they will begin to talk. Sometimes that talk will devolve into gossip, and I am not trying to blame the failings of man on the faults of the Chancery, but when no information can be ascertained, the talk and gossip are exacerbated.

···°•···

Someone messaged me and asked why I am "raking the Archdiocese over the coals" in this situation when "you [I] don't have all the facts." That isn't my goal. I in fact do have quite a few pieces of information, that I would consider facts, but that I cannot confirm until someone from the Archdiocese Chancery gets back to me. When you have emailed 4 people and have gotten silence for almost 24 hours, there isn't a whole lot more that I can post about aside from my perception of the situation. In fact, I have already seen a bunch of emails regarding Davidson, and folks support for him. People are flocking to the blog in Alaska obviously interested in this situation. So my objective here isn't to "rake anyone over the coals." In fact, I held back on posting until I gave the Chancery a chance to respond to my questions and provide comment. 

The role that my blog has taken on is not one that I relish or sought out. In fact, all of the stories that I have ever published concerning the Archdiocese have come at the behest and request of others. This blog was never intended to be, nor was it fashioned to be a news site. It has become that over time because the faithful saw a need for this. They yearn for information, and ultimately the truth. 

···•°···

So why does the Archdiocese and the Chancery have such a public relations problem? I can't answer that precisely, but I can offer some guesses:

I would imagine that many of the folks in the Chancery don't understand exactly how fast, prevalent, and important the internet is. Take one look at the website for the Archdiocese and one can gather how low on the priority list communications, and especially digital communications are on the over all priority list. I just dont think the Chancery understands communications. 

Let's say that the number of people that read the blogs is 500. Doesn't seem like a ton, but then those 500 people tell their family members, and 2 friends who do the same. Then that number goes from 500 to about 3000 in a matter of minutes. Add to that facebook, twtitter, text messages, and email and the number of faithful that hear about any given thing might match or surpass the daily visitor total of the Archdiocese of Anchorage website, or the circulation of the Catholic Anchor. 

···°•···

We are going on 24 hours since I emailed various folks in the Chancery. We are going on 48 hours since the editor of the Archdiocesan newspaper and blog was informed that he would be let go. 

The official stance of the Archdiocese of Anchorage is: "The Archdiocese has not responded to our requests for comment."