The Globe did a very fair and balanced article on the efforts to index what's going down in Boston and the Machiavellian response of diocesan luminaries.
Of note, is the duplicity in what Terry Donilon claims is their excuse for banning the blog. In one breath, he says bloggers were 'spamming' employees with unwanted links to posts. In the next breath, he indicates that so many employees were glued to the blogs, it was a "distraction".
You can't have it both ways. Either employees were not interested and didnt want the links, or they wew clicking on the links and reading.
I'm putting up the link to the Globe story posted at Boston Catholic Insider.
An Open Letter to the Cardinal is also posted on the link.
The Open Letter is a culmination of several concerns brought forward from Catholics (including volunteers, priests, employees of the diocese. Serious concerns (including a decent whistleblower policy) that have been obfuscated and dismissed in internal forums in the Catholic Church.
There are several people who are limiting their intellect to whether or not the archdiocese should block a website indexing conflicts of interest and cronyism. Yet the response of banning and blocking is appalling because they're doing it instead of taking corrective action.
The diocese would like to keep the focus on whether or not an employer should ban a website so there will be no focus on what they are NOT doing - creating a forum where corruption can be reported without having the administration retaliate.
Catholic laity want a forum where corruption can be reported to people of good will and have that corruption acted upon without fear they will be retaliated against. In Cardinal O'Malley's absence/abandonment there is thuggery when wrongdoings are reported.
How do you think that works in a post sexual abuse scandal caused by not having a forum where corruption can be reported to people of good faith who would act upon it?
This problem should resonate with everyone. Every Catholic on any side of anything should be deeply concerned. When one of their employees is hurting somebody else or Christ's Church, nobody should 'agree' that it is righteous to resort to banning bloggers who exhausted every effort internally to correct the problem.
The fact they are banning the website of people who have tried to hold them accountable to create the forum internally and have been rebuffed, is a distraction. They are avoiding the recognition that the flaw which enabled pedophiles is still in full swing. There is no forum to complain about an employee who is hurting somebody else. Instead, the Chancery in Boston goes into attack mode.