A Suggestion For Bp Lopes

I've been made aware that certain quarters are unhappy with recent posts here concerning the St Alban's Rochester group. The concern appears to be that the speculation could in fact be a hindrance to the group's progress. I have several observations to make.

• I have passed on information that appears, wisely or not, to have been released on a fairly wide basis. An item of concern, the most recent e-mail from Mr Smith at the Rochester group, was also posted on the Ordinariate News site. As best I can see, there was no breach of confidence in publishing this e-mail. A quick search brings up 23 posts mentioning the St Alban’s group on my blog over a period of years, nearly all based on public releases from the group's lay leadership, with no previous objection.
• The speculation on my blog has been clearly identified as speculation. It has been based on previously published information in the public record, including Fr Catania's sudden departure from Rochester last April, Msgr Steenson's 2015 replacement as Ordinary, and Bp Matano's arrival as Bishop of Rochester in 2014, as well as his characterization as a centrist bishop. I can see no calumny in publishing this speculation. My assumption is that both Bp Lopes and Bp Matano are sincerely doing their best.
• On that basis, although a request was made that I delete the recent posts on the Rochester group, I've got to say that I can't see a reason to do this, especially considering that the same information, often with speculation in the comments, has consistently been published at Ordinariate News over the years.

I'm told that the same request was made of Mr Murphy to delete the announcement from Mr Smith on his blog that was made of me. So far, Mr Murphy hasn't done this. But this indicates the problem is bigger than this blog, or Mr Murphy's blog.

My knowledgeable regular correspondent has often suggested that Houston's press relations function needs work. If Bp Lopes is concerned that bloggers are putting the wrong spin on public information, it would probably be a positive step to find someone who can put the Ordinariate's press relations on a more professional basis. It's worth pointing out that each of the OCSP's parishes and groups puts out individual e-mails and announcements, apparently without central coordination in Houston.

Normally this would be fine -- my diocesan parish bulletins carry lots of announcements covering landscaping projects, school events, and fundraisers that give rise to little speculation. The problem is that events as they apply to Rochester do give rise to speculation. If Houston doesn't like that, it needs to take control of publicity from all parishes and groups, and indeed to take this issue seriously.

I have every good wish for Bp Lopes and the OCSP, but I'm entitled to express my opinion that a good many things still need fixing. My regular correspondent adds,

I suppose if there were obstacles in the past and Fr Perkins is using his skills to remove them he and his Ordinary would not want attention to be drawn to his efforts, lest Bp Matano be reminded of something that would be counterproductive to the OCSP's plan. [We have no reason to think this is the case, except that the concern here may feed such speculation.] But as you say, your role is not to augment the Ordinariate's PR staff. The latter, like that of many other dioceses, exaggerates its ability to control the message, despite the abundant evidence in recent years that this is neither possible nor desirable. It is particularly absurd in the case of the OCSP, whose Communication and Strategic Planning Director's time seems entirely taken up by fund-raising campaigns and attempts to get the membership list, contact information, and other basic matters into some kind of order. The idea that they are trying to get out some kind of coherent message which you are sabotaging is clearly nonsense.

My blogger profile in the sidebar used to include a warning that e-mails are subject to publication here unless there is a specific request to keep the information confidential. (I dropped this when I began two other blogs using the same profile, and I saw no need to adopt this sort of stance there.) Most of my correspondents have understood this precaution, but I want to stress it again here: I definitely keep information confidential when requested, or indeed, without a request if it's clear it shouldn't be public.

However, this particular situation, involving an essentially public announcement, appears to be a policy issue that needed to be better clarified in Houston, and I don't feel a need to correct a problem that should have been addressed there.