Pope’s Silence Isn’t So Golden

Another article depicting Pope Francis’ silence regarding the alleged cover-upĀ of sexual abuse within the church has hit the New York Times yet again. It is clear to see that negative coverage of Pope Francis and the Catholic church is increasing as the days pass without any word from the Pope.

According to the article, Francis spoke Monday at the Vatican stating, “With people who don’t have good will, who seek only scandal, who want only division, who seek only destruction – including within the family: silence, prayer.”

This response has only angered the public even more. Regardless of whether or not the Pope is correct in trying to ignore what he claims is a false scandal, this decision is obviously doing him more harm than good.

Not only is this situation causing negative news coverage, it is also damaging the relationship he has with his supporters. Those who have been affected both directly and indirectly by sexual abuse are extremely offended by how the Pope has chosen to handle this situation. Additionally, when the leader of the Catholic church is acting in such a way, this gives a bad image to Catholics in general who are simply looking to their leader for some sort of response.

From both a public relations perspective and a moral standpoint, it would be very beneficial, if not totally necessary, for Pope Francis to publicly address this situation as soon as possible. It would be best for him to speak directly to the public in front of the Vatican. This would allow the press to attend and for the event to be televised and reach his audience as quickly and directly as possible.

One thought on “Pope’s Silence Isn’t So Golden

  1. Totally agree with your assessment here. If I’ve learned just one thing from my PR classes at Penn State, it’s that “no comment” IS a comment, and responding to media coverage (especially negative media coverage) with silence will just prompt the media to seek answers elsewhere. “Tell the truth, tell it quickly, tell it yourself,” as I just heard Steve Manuel say in COMM373 this morning. This scenario has parallels to PSU’s Sandusky scandal – Penn State opted for the “no comment” approach, and I have yet to learn about a case where the “no comment” response proved successful.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *