A Blog for Dallas Area Catholics

Diocesan speaker policies raise many questions, concerns June 24, 2013

I have received, through various means I need not go into, a rather illuminating document.  It is the Speaker’s Policy for the Diocese of Scranton, PA, for the year of our Lord 2013.  I have had such policies described to me verbally by various diocesan officials in the past, but I’ve never had a formal copy of a diocesan policy, until now. Given that the USCCB tends to require standardization in these kinds of things, it is likely that the policy for Scranton is the same in dioceses across the nation.  I can state that my experience of these policies lines up precisely with the content in the document linked below:

Speaker_Policy_2013

Now, you may be asking, why is this important?  I can tell you it is very important, because these speakers policies are frequently used and abused in various ways to control the content of presentations on the Faith in dioceses across the country, and, in spite of the verbiage in the document, frequently in ways that are not conducive to the right practice of the Faith.  As a matter of fact, these policies – and I have personal experience of this, such is the very reason for the foundation of this blog – are frequently abused in a way to permit and even encourage very unorthodox, potentially very damaging presentations on the Faith to be made year after year in diocese after diocese around the country. That is to say, these policies are often used in a manner which permits very problematic, heterodox speakers to speak on parish grounds with the cache’ of being an “approved speaker,” and, one would think, fully orthodox, while at the same time, the very same policies are frequently used to prevent completely orthodox speakers, who might say uncomfortable things, from speaking at all!

Such is certainly the case with Michael Voris, but he is hardly alone. I can think of a number of other names, including my own, which do not have this cherished brand of episcopal approbation.  This policy is in fact a major vehicle used by the bishops of this country to keep Catholic media in line, to prevent them from raising uncomfortable or awkward questions.

To get into some specifics, the policy outlines the following requirements for any who would speak, give a presentation, host a conference, etc., on Church property.  The requirements include:

• Speaker’s name and topic, which “should attest to the speaker’s fidelity to the Magisterium and the conformity of the topic to the pastoral direction of the Diocese.” That last bit is important, as I’ll explain later.
• In case of a lay person, a Letter of Support from the speaker’s Bishop establishing that he/she is a Catholic in good standing
• In the case of a cleric or religious from outside the Diocese, a “Letter of Good Standing” from the speaker’s Ordinary (bishop) or religious superior.
• Proof that a criminal background check has been performed and that the speaker has been through “safe environment” training.

That’s it.  Seems straightforward, right?  Well, right off the bat, there is a discrepancy, because one part of the document says religious must have letters of support from both their local bishop AND their religious superior, while the portion quoted above states that religious only require support from their superior.

That is highly significant, because many religious orders are so lost, and the heresy is often worse at the top than at the bottom in these orders, that a “letter of support” from a religious superior is not only not a statement affirming doctrinal orthodoxy, it could often be taken as a guarantor of heresy!  I have first hand, practical knowledge, that speakers are routinely approved who either reject Catholic Dogma on numerous grounds, or espouse practices antithetical to the Faith (esp. new age), or both. Such has occurred in this Diocese of Dallas, and such occurs around the country all the time.  I must note, however, that these same problematic speakers often have no trouble getting that statement of support from their local ordinary, either. That’s simply the state the Church is in, at present.

Another significant point is mentioned above.  The first “requirement” for speakers states that these letters of support must attest to both their fidelity to the Magisterium (and yet Richard Rohr and Thomas Keating have both spoken in Dallas Diocese!) and the conformity of the topic to the pastoral direction of the Diocese.  This last bit is a caveat that is also frequently used and abused to bar orthodox speakers, and permit heterodox ones.  See, Michael Voris, for instance, could be blocked because his content or manner is somehow – and noone ever says how!! – counter to the “pastoral direction of the diocese,” which is such a ludicrously vague statement it could mean anything. But even worse, that same “pastoral consideration” can be used as justification to bring in someone who is heterodox, but who magically shares the diocese’s pastoral direction!  You see, Sr. Groovy Starchild may preach nothing but soul-devouring new age claptrap, but she’s soooo pastorally sensitive.  And we in Diocese of Scrantimoradelphia looove that! So, she’s in!

Look, the Church certainly has the right and duty to carefully scrutinize who is allowed to speak on Catholic property – which by itself gives a signal of “Catholic approval.” But at the same time, it must be noted that the current process that has been instituted is regularly gamed in ways that actually permit damaging presentations to spread, while orthodox ones are often denied admittance.

And that is certainly part of the reason why Catholic catachesis is in such a shambles.