Adubato: 'Communication Game' Can Be Dangerous
By Steve Adubato
Sometimes people play games with words. I call it “the communication game.” Often the game doesn’t matter very much, but sometimes the stakes can be very high. Do you remember when former President Bill Clinton argued the definition of the word “is” and boldly said on camera, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky”? Corporate executives often play the communication game when trying to avoid responsibility. Often our children play communication games with words. If you don’t ask exactly the right question, even if they know the intent behind the question, they will parse your words and give you an answer that gets them out of a jam or shades the truth. Now consider the case involving the Rev. Michael Fugee who, according to an April 28 Star-Ledger editorial, was convicted, “after he confessed to fondling a 14-year-old boy ...” Fugee’s conviction was later overturned on a technicality, and prosecutors decided they would not try the priest again, but rather allow him to evade going to jail by entering a program for first-time offenders. According to The Star-Ledger editorial, part of the deal was an agreement that Fugee signed along with the Archdiocese of Newark, in which all parties committed to keeping Fugee away from minors. Specifically, “he would have no affiliation with youth groups. He would not attend youth retreats. He would not hear the confessions of minors.” From a communications point of view, the intent of such an agreement signed by all parties was obvious. Fugee, who clearly admitted that he had a compulsion involving young boys, was to be kept away from all children. However, a variety of photos and other media reports showed Fugee not only in the presence of children in different settings, but also made it clear that he had heard the confessions of children. All of this apparently was given the okay by the Newark Archdiocese. What is so perplexing about this from a communication and leadership point of view is that while the terms of this binding agreement seem crystal clear to any reasonable and decent leader, certain leaders in the Catholic Church are taking a very different view. The Newark Archdiocese is choosing to interpret the language of this agreement in a fashion that, from a leadership and communication perspective, is alarming. Even though Newark Archbishop John Myers has said nothing publicly about the Fugee case, the official statement from spokesperson Jim Goodness is that the Archdiocese was not in violation of the agreement because Fugee was somehow supervised by other adult religious leaders when with children. This logic is confounding. As media and public pressure intensified on Archbishop Myers to resign, Goodness clarified his initial communication; “He (Fugee) engaged in activities that the archdiocese was not aware of and that were not approved by us, and we would never have approved them because they are all in conflict with the memorandum of understanding.” In crisis communication, this is too little, way too late. The business of the church is to communicate in a clear and unambiguous fashion. In this case, it has done anything but that. Instead, the official position of the Archdiocese is to parse language and play communication games. Real leadership is not about playing games. It is about taking responsibility and accountability for the actions of those in your flock or on your team. That’s what we expect from leaders in business and clearly from leaders in the church. Either the intent is to protect children or it isn’t, and the fact that the Archbishop of Newark chooses not to communicate is disappointing and sends all the wrong messages. As I said, communication games can be benign, but not in this case. My sense is the leaders of the church know that very well. One can only pray that they quickly acknowledge it. Contact: sadubato@aol.com
|
.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.