Deal Hudson, in his weekly e-letter, gets some clarification from the official spokesman of the Archdiocese of Boston regarding news reports on the meeting Archbishop O’Malley had with Voice of the Faithful leaders last week.
According to Hudson, Fr. Christopher Coyne says he was misquoted by the reporters.
“I was asked a question to characterize the meeting of Voice of the Faithful with the archbishop,” Coyne told me, “and I responded by saying that they [the members of VOTF] told the archbishop that they were not dissidents. In making the statement, I did not in any way express the position of the Church or the archdiocese in Boston regarding Voice of the Faithful” (where the bans against them are still in effect).
Now that’s a big difference. According to Coyne, he wasn’t giving his own opinion, let alone the Church’s position. He was merely telling the reporter what VOTF told the archbishop. But that brings up another point: Why would he simply repeat back to newspaper reporters what VOTF had told him about their organization? Coyne made a classic media gaffe in allowing VOTF to define itself through his own mouth. Because Coyne said it in a major media organ, his credibility will now be used to give VOTF legitimacy.
Deal then goes on to pass on information from his sources about whether the ban will actually be lifted.
And what about Archbishop O’Malley? Does he support VOTF? Highly-placed sources close to this issue (who can’t be named at this time) have told me that it’s highly unlikely O’Malley will be lifting the ban—at this point he’s merely listening to their concerns. He’s going to look more closely at the group before he makes a decision, but from what I’ve been told, I’m betting those bans will stay firmly in place.
That’s good news, if true. I guess we’ll just have to continue to wait and see.
It also confirms what I’ve been saying. The Church relies too much on the secular media, which often shows itself hostile, or at best apathetic, to her, to get her message out. Bishops and diocesan spokesmen must learn how to deal with the media and must go to the people directly when necessary to convey the truth. Why did it take Deal Hudson calling and asking for Fr. Coyne to get the word out that he had been misquoted? Why didn’t the diocese put up a statement on its web site the day of the event? Why didn’t a demand for a correction go to the Boston Globe and Associated Press immediately, along with the demand going on the web site and in the diocesan newspaper? We can’t leave it to the secular media to frame the story and to (inaccurately) convey the message.
“Why did it take Deal Hudson calling and asking for Fr. Coyne to get the word out that he had been misquoted?”
Because maybe he wasn’t misquoted? Look, Crisis might be a fine magazine and even have a respectable circulation, but trust me on this one: Mr. & Mrs. A of D don’t read it. And they don’t get the e-letter, either. They read the Globe, the Herald, and the AP. They may read the Pilot. Maybe.
“Why didn’t the diocese put up a statement on its web site the day of the event? Why didn’t a demand for a correction go to the Boston Globe and Associated Press immediately, along with the demand going on the web site and in the diocesan newspaper?”
Because there was nothing to correct?
Sorry, but the Deal Hudson e-letter did a lot to promote the Crisis piece on dealing with the secular media, but that’s about it.
And as long as we’re asking questions, WHY does VOTF still claim it’ll be working with Tony Rizzuto to “Implement Child Safety Programs”?
I’m still waiting for either a denial or confirmation on this.
The RCAB web-site has a nice section called “For the Record.” Unfortunately, the last entry is dated 11/7/03 and was directed at the editor of the Salem Daily News.
As an aside, I don’t think O’Malley will lift the VOTF ban either. That’s not the point. Apparently the group DOES think this will happen. They are, or are trying to give the impression of being, optimistic. Nobody seems to be correcting them.
I don’t like it.
Erin writes:
“Reading Hudson’s email – it didn’t appear to me like it passed his smell test either. I think it was written in a way that cleverly shows Coyne’s trying to find a way around “the smell”. “
D’ye think so, Erin? Interesting. I didn’t read it that way at all. I read the e-letter as exonorating Father Coyne but tut-tutting him for not being “media savvy”—as in “had Father Coyne ONLY read our Crisis Magazine article on Just This Topic (as you, boys and girls, should too!)—etc.
In other words, I read it as an ad for Crisis Magazine. No more, no less. Sorta like that Boston Magazine article that got everybody so outraged…great PR for Crisis.
I could be called cynical, but I’m with PMC. Father Coyne isn’t exactly new at this media stuff.
And while I’m on the subject, I’m not comfortable with the whole notion of “media savvy” as a priority trait to be cultivated.
VOTF and the Priests’ Forum named this qualification as something to be desired in their “poll” distributed before O’Malley was chosen as archbishop.
“Holiness” was not mentioned, it should be noted.
Final thought (in this post, anyway <g>). I tend to agree with Erin about Donna.
Kelly,
I think they should be holy and media savvy. The Church’s mission is to spread the Gospel message and the way that most people receive information is through the media. Unfortunately, most other lines of communication—such as through priests in parishes, bulletins, The Pilot—don’t work too well in getting the message to the people.
Pope John Paul has shown a knack for personal holiness combined with media savvy and it wouldn’t be bad to have a bishop with the same qualities.