During my time as the Curia's public relations officer, which came to an end last April, there was a particular occasion when I realised that someone was scheming behind my back a plan of action vis-a-vis the media which in my view amounted to dangerous spin doctor tactics. Someone planned following-up the publication of the official results of a particular survey by leaking an unofficial, piloted interpretation of certain additional data to a particular journalist who was ready to oblige and publish.

I remember feeling very concerned when I came to know about this ugly circumstance. I felt that if my office were to be suspected of being in any way involved in the use of such tactics, this could jeopardise our credibility - the office is also considered to be the Church's mouthpiece - and consequently that of the Curia authorities. I believed that such a situation would be totally self-defeating.

When I shared my concerns with a foreign Catholic friend who has a lot of experience of the Church and the media, a number of considerations cropped up.

Leaking to one particular journalist is a common practice among operators of political propaganda machines in various countries. It's a way of rewarding journalists who are in a party's or a particular politician's favour, as well as of using them for political purposes. It's also a way of discriminating against other journalists who may be trying to do an honest job by genuinely trying to be objective and non-partisan, or at least are determined not to be bought off by political strategists.

The practice of leaking exclusively to one journalist (or a few) can become a form of punishment for the more honest journalists, who resist efforts to make them conform to a particular creed or party line and refuse to be infected by this use of power.

Because it is so often perceived by the public as a tainted means which political propaganda uses to gain an advantage, my friend and I agreed that one had to be extremely cautious when considering advancing the cause of the Church, or Church-related organisations, through such methods. This is more so because it could almost have a hint of sleaze.

I always strongly believed that any use of leaking would certainly be to the Church's disadvantage. It's a form of selective dealing with the media which can, and probably will, backfire: other media people are bound to discover it and use it gleefully to embarrass the Church. There is more than a whiff of discrimination about this technique of trying to get good media coverage. In any case, it would not take much for it to blow up in the Church's face. Straightforward, honest presentation of the facts and opinion is the simplest and, I believe, best way to deal with the media.

There could be one very exceptional case when exclusive revelation to one or a few journalists might be felt warranted. One can envisage a situation where the mainstream media might be hostile to the Church and its active engagement in social issues, and regularly report the Church in a biased or negative manner, while the Church has little means of redress.

In such a case, one might consider it justified to release material to one or a few journalists who are likely to present the Church viewpoint or position honestly and without bias, and one could 'forget' about those who regularly abuse their journalistic position at the expense of the Church.

As leading Catholic journalist Clifford Longley once wrote: "The Catholic Church earns itself far more respect by standing up for the right than by climbing on the spin-doctor control-freak bandwagon... It is part of the Church's mission to give that witness.

If it has to do so at the cost of inconvenient facts or disputed interpretations occasionally spilling into the public arena, that makes it all the more credible." (The Tablet, January 16, 1999).

I once happened to be at the Holy See press office in Rome, and took the opportunity to find out whether it had ever adopted or tried the practice of occasionally releasing material only to one or a few journalists.

The answer was "definitely not".