Privacy issue?

Share Button

Well, thanks to vigilant reader I received copies of two other media articles regarding Bishop John Knight’s “allegations”  of “sexual improprieties.”  I have added a link to the articles on the Bishop John Knight page.

This truly is a puzzle.  Does one soul out there know the outcome of this “investigation”?  We know without doubt that it was unfavourable – why else the very premature resignation?   But what was it all about?  Do Catholics not have a right to know?  If someone was sexually abused, might there be other victims out there? 

Note that the diocesan spokesman of the day was Msgr. Edward Boehler.   Boehler was also involved when word got out about Father Paul McCarthy.  I have posted a short article from The Orator related to Msgr. Boehler’s dealing of that particular matter.

Note: 

At the time, Judicial Vicar, Monsignor Ed Boehler, insisted that the charges against McCarthy did not involve sexual assault on children and that there was no requirement to call police or Children’s Aid.

And note at the bottom of the article”

When contacted by The Orator, Monsignor Boehler ( still Judicial Vicar) adamantly refused to divulge the outcome of the investigation, very curtly advising that “we” do not discuss personnel matters. When pressed, he cooly stated that this is “a privacy issue” and referred the enquirer to canon 220. Appeals to the interests of the faithful were of no avail. Monsignor did, however, momentarily concur that the issue involves children, but instantly reiterated that this is a privacy issue and referred again to canon 220 (“No one may unlawfully harm the good reputation which a person enjoys, or violate the right of every person to protect his or her privacy.”).

So, is what former Bishop Knight did a “privacy issue”?  Is episcopal transparency on all things related to clerical sexual abuse governed by canon 220?

One other question.  Bishop Knight is or was a consultant for the CCCB?  Does anyone know what kind of consulting Knight could offer?

Final thought.  I see too that Knight was with ICE, Institute for Catholic Eduction.  That’s the group that gave Ontario Catholics the AIDS ed program which caused such an uproar it had to go back to the drawing board.

****

I managed to do something I have been wanting to get done but just couldn’t accomplish for ages.  There is now opportunity to post comments on articles which I post.  As with posting comments on a a blog, a name (real or chosen) and email address are required.  The email address will not show on the screen – a valid email is required only because that is the only way to keep spammers out, and believe me there are a lot of spammers out there.

I am going to try to improve the Search feature too.  I have already refined it a little, but it is not the greatest in the world.  And, if you haven’t noticed, it searches only Sylvia’s Site – it will not give hits from theinquiry.ca.  Since there is an awful lot of information on the webiste I suggest that those looking for informationgo to theinquiry.ca and use the Google search.  It searches both the webite AND Sylvia’s Site.It misses the odd thing but it really is quite good. Meanwhile, I am hoping to somehow get the google search I have on the website onto Sylvia’s Site.

A late late supper tonight, must get it together now

Enough for now,

Sylvia

(cornwall@theinquiry.ca)

try your searh on

This entry was posted in Bishops, Canada, CCCB, Circling the wagons, Clerical sexual predators, sex ed and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *