Who speaks for the Pope?

The visit of John Paul II to Britain in 1982 seems, from the perspective of his successor's trip, to have been gloriously uncomplicated.

He came as a conquering hero, the man who was challenging Communism in Eastern Europe and who had survived a would-be assassin's bullet the year before. His sermons and speeches dealt in themes such as peace and spiritual renewal and, apart from some ultra-Protestants, there was almost no sign of opposition to his visit.

How different it seems this time. Secularism and sex abuse scandals have combined to undermine the authority of the Catholic Church and to dent the prestige of its leader. 

With the weakening of the papal writ, other voices have been raised to fill the gap. Where John Paul acted as a unifying figure, Pope Benedict seems to divide even Catholic opinion and there are now several groups claiming to speak for the religion. 

One in particular has given journalists pause for thought. It's Catholic Voices, which was set up at the expense of Catholic organisations and individuals to train spokespeople to present the Church's case in the media. 

Catholic Voices came about as a result of dismay among some in the Church about the poor showing it seemed to put up against Dan Brown's book TheDa Vinci Code. These people winced when they saw the media turn repeatedly to a narrow range of Church loyalists whom they judged to be unattractive in a media age. 

The coordinators of Catholic Voices - who include the former Communications Director for former Archbishop of Westminster Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor - wanted to avoid a similar fiasco when Pope Benedict arrived in Britain. The result is a team of 21 media-friendly "ordinary" Catholics, all of whom are under 40, and many of whom are women, currently being fielded as defenders of the faith, and the Pope.

The obvious question to ask about Catholic Voices is by what right do they claim to speak for the Church? Are they claiming an authority that's not rightly theirs? How are they "typical" Catholics?

The Catholic Voices team have been operational for several weeks. Broadcasters have treated them not so much as a kind of 'professional vox pops' as a body with a well-articulated, mildly conservative opinion on almost all the central issues under discussion during the papal trip. So is that justified?

I think it is - so long as journalists take responsibility for understanding enough of the arguments being made to be sure that Catholic Voices are, as they claim to be, speaking for Catholicism.

Were we to vox-pop members of a congregation emerging from Mass, viewers would know that they spoke only for themselves. Were we to interview an official from the Catholic Church, the Church would likewise take responsibility for what he or she said. If we interviewed Catholic Voices on the same subject and their views fell well outside what we knew to be Catholic orthodoxy (meaning the settled teaching of the Roman Catholic Church), it would be up to us to take appropriate action.

Of course there are different views about what line "ordinary Catholics" take on the issues preoccupying the Church, and one group of progressives has formed Catholic Voices for Reform to challenge much of what their namesake says.

When John Paul II visited Britain, the dividing lines tended to be theological - between Catholic and Protestant, for example. Now, after decades of secularisation and the weakening hold of orthodoxy, the divisions tend to be between conservatives and progressives, and over a plethora of individual issues - whether celibacy, women priests, homosexuality or stem cell research. 

Catholic Voices are not alone: there is now a range of unofficial groups pushing their own point of view in religion and in other areas of public life. Many of the groups featured in broadcast packages and as guests come with fancy, grand-sounding names, but in reality are more lobby groups than anything else, with appearing in the media being their main job. Journalists have to decide how legitimate these organisations are, and pass that on to their audience.

Other correspondents tell me that proxy groups abound in areas such as education. They present themselves as charities, research groups, trusts or campaigners, but may have been set up by other organisations which unite to fight a particular issue. Groups of charities might set up umbrella bodies which then campaign as if they were autonomous. Colleagues say they see in this proliferation of proxies the professionalisation of news - where 'news' becomes the exchange of lines sold by this breed of professional spokesmen and women.

The line taken by Catholic Voices tends to mirror very closely that taken by the official Church. In fact, at a BBC lunch a week or so ago, the Archbishop of Westminster, Vincent Nichols, tried to take credit for helping to set up the group. He has certainly given it his approval and support, but, unless or until the Church takes ownership of the organisation entirely, we cannot afford to drop our guard.

Robert Pigott is the BBC's Religious Affairs Correspondent.