Abuse settlement from 2005 with Cardinal Wuerl’s name raises questions - Washington Post

[Cathoholic]

The Washington Post now reports that a McCarrick abuse settlement from 2005 had Cardinal Wuerl’s name on it.

The Washington Post reports that a McCarrick abuse settlement from 2005 had Cardinal Wuerl’s name mentioned in a settlement document (which suggests it is almost impossible that Cardinal Wuerl was ignorant of McCarrick’s history).

Abuse settlement from 2005 with Cardinal Wuerl’s name raises questions​

By Michelle Boorstein and Julie Zauzmer September 29, 2018 Washington Post

Cardinal Donald Wuerl, who has said repeatedly that he didn’t know about years of sexual misconduct complaints involving his predecessor in the District, Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, was named in a 2005 settlement agreement that included allegations against McCarrick, according to the accuser in the case and documents obtained by The Washington Post. . . .

. . . . . Robert Ciolek, who left the priesthood and later became an attorney, spoke for the first time publicly this summer about the $80,000 settlement he reached in June 2005 with three New Jersey dioceses over his allegations against McCarrick . . .

. . . . In an interview with The Post this month, Ciolek said for the first time publicly that the settlement included allegations against a third person, a Pittsburgh priest Ciolek says made unwanted sexual contact with him in seminary, where the priest was a professor. The first page of the settlement agreement lists the Diocese of Pittsburgh and Wuerl, who supervised the priest as bishop of Pittsburgh at the time . . . .

. . . . Ciolek shared a copy of the settlement with The Post.

The presence of Wuerl’s name on Ciolek’s settlement agreement raises questions about the cardinal’s assertion that he did not know about any allegations against McCarrick before they became a topic of public discussion this summer.

Wuerl’s D.C. spokesman, Ed McFadden, said this week that Wuerl had been unaware of the legal agreement. . . .

. . . Ciolek said he finds it “inconceivable” that none of the three dioceses in New Jersey would have mentioned to Wuerl that they’d just reached an $80,000 settlement involving both McCarrick and Wuerl’s own priest.

The release of Ciolek’s settlement follows other news that has led many Catholics to question whether Wuerl has been fully transparent about what he knew and when he knew it. . . . .

https://www.washingtonpost.com/reli...estions/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.da08d3e78326

 

[Cathoholic]

Concerning the above Washington Post story I have included a couple of background stories for context.

Back in July of this year, Cardinal Wuerl and his Chancellor (Vicar General), Charles Antonicelli, had reassured the public (and their own priests!) that Wuerl knew nothing of (then) Cardinal McCarrick allegations of sexual deviancy (including homosexual child abuse and committing homosexual atrocities against his own seminarians and his attacking and molesting some of our Catholic priests).

.

Cardinal Wuerl did not know about McCarrick settlements, letter says​

Catholic Herald Staff Reporter Monday, 30 Jul 2018

McCarrick’s successor in Washington . . . Cardinal Donald Wuerl did not know until recently about settlements made by two dioceses in response to misconduct allegations against former cardinal Theodore McCarrick, according to the Archdiocese of Washington.

Mgr Charles Antonicelli, Vicar General of Washington, wrote to priests in the archdiocese, saying: “Neither the Archdiocese of Washington nor Cardinal Wuerl knew about these confidential settlements until this most recent credible and substantiated allegation against Cardinal McCarrick was made public.”

“For clarity, the Archdiocese of Washington did not participate in, make any contributions to, nor was involved in any way with these settlement agreements,” he added. . . . .

. . . . Mgr Antonicelli said that neither settlement was reported to Cardinal Wuerl after he succeeded McCarrick as Archbishop of Washington. He added: “Our offices are aware only of the same information regarding these allegations that you are seeing in media reports.” . . . .

(Bold mine)

http://catholicherald.co.uk/news/20...know-about-mccarrick-settlements-letter-says/

.

Archbishop Vigano (from Vigano’s first Testimony from late August concerning Cardinal Wuerl and Mgr Charles Antonicelli) said Wuerl (and Antonicelli) WERE AWARE of these McCarrick atrocities despite the denials above. . . .

. . . . In any case, I myself brought up the subject with Cardinal Wuerl on several occasions . . . I had to draw his attention to it, because I realized that in an archdiocesan publication, on the back cover in color, there was an announcement inviting young men who thought they had a vocation to the priesthood to a meeting with Cardinal McCarrick. I immediately phoned Cardinal Wuerl, who expressed his surprise to me, telling me that he knew nothing about that announcement and that he would cancel it. If, as he now continues to state, he knew nothing of the abuses committed by McCarrick and the measures taken by Pope Benedict, how can his answer be explained?

His recent statements that he knew nothing about it, even though at first he cunningly referred to compensation for the two victims, are absolutely laughable. The Cardinal lies shamelessly and prevails upon his Chancellor, Monsignor Antonicelli, to lie as well.

Pope Francis covered up McCarrick abuse, former US nuncio testifies (OFFICIAL TEXT) - LifeSite

.

 

[Weserthy]

I saw this story the other day, looks like he probably knew more than he was letting on. Plus he removed McCarrick from a seminary after he retired and cancelled events with him that involved seminarians. Where there’s smoke, there’s fire. I’m not believing his protestations to the contrary that he knew nothing.

There was a story that Cardinal Wuerl had traveled to Rome recently (after a previous trip earlier last month) to ask Pope Francis to accept his resignation, but I guess either nothing came of that or it’s still up in the air. I wouldn’t be surprised if Pope Francis insists that he stays on despite all of his controversy. He kept Bishop Barros on in Chile for years despite all of the evidence against him.

 

[MapleLeaf1]

Maybe he did know, but the press should at least give more context as to how exactly he was mentioned.

Lifesite makes a big deal of his name appearing 200 times in the grand jury report as if it proves he’s complicit in hundreds of cases, whereas in reality he is only facing scrutiny for one or two of about 20 cases he was involved in, some of which he acted better than average for his day. I’m not saying he is in the clear for everything, but your name showing up somewhere in a document is not proof of wrongdoing. Rather we need to know what exactly these documents say about him, then we can judge for ourselves.

 

[Cathoholic]

MapleLeaf1 . . .

Lifesite makes a big deal of his name appearing 200 times in the grand jury report as if it proves he’s complicit in hundreds of cases . . .

But I did not cite LifeSite for anything here except Archbishop Vigano’s actual text of his testimony.

I also did not cite the Pennsylvania Grand Jury report.

Did you not read the Washington Post story?

Cardinal Wuerl said “he did not know about any allegations against McCarrick before they became a topic of public discussion”. (June of this year - 2018)

Yet Wuerl’s name was on a settlement document pertaining to the homosexual acting out of (then) Cardinal McCarrick’s intrinsicly disordered behavior way back in 2005.

This was an eighty THOUSAND dollar payout from his Diocese!

Do you think (then) Archbishop Donald Wuerl was UNAWARE of that payout??

If he was “unaware” . . . . this suggests extreme incompetence with payouts like that going out, but Wuerl doesn’t know WHY . . . and also Wuerl is not going to bother to ASK ANYBODY?

(But he is going to ask us for more money at his “Annual Diocesan Appeal(s)” and reassure us that he KNOWS these monies are going to “good causes”? Really?)

OR . . .

It suggests Wuerl KNEW and lied to the public, lied to his priests (in writing), and had his Vicar General Antonicelli lie too!

Mgr Charles Antonicelli, Vicar General of Washington, wrote to priests in the archdiocese , saying: “Neither the Archdiocese of Washington nor Cardinal Wuerl knew about these confidential settlements until this most recent credible and substantiated allegation . . .

In which case Archbishop Vigano would be correct (at least concerning THAT PART of his Testimony).

“The Cardinal (Wuerl) lies shamelessly

Parenthetical addition mine for context.

SOMEBODY KNEW about McCarrick’s romping around sodomizing priests, seminarians and children.

SOMEBODY. (Likely MANY in positions of power KNEW. Then the question will be WHY did they not intervene? Were THEY themselves involved? What held them back?)

And somebody in positions of great power.

That is undeniable from the events in question.

The question here is did Cardinal Wuerl know?

And if he DID or if he DIDN’T . . . he’s got some “splaining” to do.

And he hasn’t explained anything.

And now (according to the Washington Post) it APPEARS as if he has been lying with impunity to us and has been having Antonicelli do this as well. . . . Or as Archbishop Vigano has said . . .

“The Cardinal lies shamelessly and prevails upon his Chancellor, Monsignor Antonicelli, to lie as well”.

From the WaPo . . .

The presence of Wuerl’s name on Ciolek’s settlement agreement raises questions about the cardinal’s assertion that he did not know about any allegations against McCarrick before they became a topic of public discussion this summer.

This stuff sooner or later WILL come out.

 

[MapleLeaf1]

After reading it: It was not a payout from his diocese. It involved McCarick and another priest from Pittsburgh, which is why Wuerl was mentioned. Pittsburgh did not actually pay anything. However, as he seems to be mentioned in the context of the victim agreeing not to sue (or something like that), and as I assume that the archdiocese would have an interest in knowing what their agreements are, it would be strange if they didn’t know who else was on there (especially as it involves McCarrick’s other dioceses), although McCarrick apparently is not explicitly named.

Not a smoking gun, but very close. Especially given Vigano’s letter.

 

[Cathoholic]

MapleLeaf1 . . .

It was not a payout from his diocese.

You are correct MapleLeaf1.

Wuerl was the Bishop for the abused priest Fr. Ciolek (who was a seminarian at the time. Ciolek has since left the priesthood.). (Wuerl had his own payout issues in his diocese.)

There are a lot of differing charges and settlements involved, I picked out this one (because it was a recent story), and I read a mountain of other information since I posted the original story, and my post of response to you. My mistake there.

I should have gone back and re-read the story before responding given the complex web of crimes that have been committed against our seminarians, priests, and children.

.

Never the less, as you said, it raises essentially the same questions.

How could these New Jersey dioceses pay out these sums, yet not mention it to Ciolek’s Bishop (Wuerl)?

In light of the Vigano letter and in common sense, they almost would have HAD TO.

Someone on the “inside” is involved, or flagrantly incompetent. (It looks like MANY)

Someone from New Jersey AND almost certainly Pittsburgh.

And some open, honest, transparency is due to the people from some of our Bishops.

Transparency that other Bishops themselves have called for.

Transparency that Pope Francis has even called for (in principle).

Transparency and open honesty that we are still not yet getting.

.

We need an independent transparent full financial aduit of our diocese complex in America.

 

[twf]

Even if Archbishop Vigano is wrong about the Holy Father… I’m heavily leaning towards him being right on the money about certain other prelates. These sorts of stories seem to back-up his claims.