Despite denials, D.C. Cardinal Donald Wuerl knew of sexual misconduct allegations against Theodore McCarrick and reported them to Vatican

  • Thread starter Thread starter Wampa
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

Wampa

Guest
This Wuerl/McCarrick news was buried in another thread in a different sub-forum. IMO, this is a significant development and deserves a thread in Catholic News.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...42cbba-1513-11e9-803c-4ef28312c8b9_story.html

"Robert Ciolek, a former priest who reached a settlement with the church in 2005 after accusing clerics including McCarrick, told The Post he recently learned that the Pittsburgh Diocese has a file that shows that Wuerl was aware of his allegations against McCarrick. The file includes documentation that Wuerl, who was bishop of Pittsburgh at the time, shared the information with then-Vatican ambassador Gabriel Montalvo.

The content of the document, which Ciolek told The Post he saw in December, clashes sharply with Wuerl’s public statements about McCarrick since the older cleric was suspended in June due to a complaint that he groped an altar boy decades ago."
 
Here is the CNA write up on the story:


I’ll reiterate what I said in the other thread. It does still seem to me that Wuerl’s previous statements were technically correct, even if they were misleading. He said he did not have any knowledge of allegations of abuse against minors nor were any allegations made in the Archdiocese of Washington D.C. This story does not contradict that.
 
Last edited:
Wampa . . .
This Wuerl/McCarrick news was buried in another thread in a different sub-forum. IMO, this is a significant development and deserves a thread in Catholic News.
Click to expand...
Very significant development.

If the Washington Post is correct on its reporting here (thanks Joe_5859 for confirming that this is probably not fake news by WaPo), it vindicates another aspect of what archbishop Vigano was warning the world of.

It also implicates Cardinal Wuerl as someone who is willing to lie publicly.

(I am NOT saying Wuerl IS a liar. This information just makes it LOOK like he is. Wuerl needs to publicly address this for his credibility, for the Church, for the victims, etc.)

Thank you Wampa, for bringing this to my attention.

God bless.

Cathoholic
 
Last edited:
He has been kept on as Administrator of DC despite officially having “resigned” as archbishop. If there is any truth to this story, I wonder if the Holy Father will change his mind about keeping His Eminence on.

I will not presume that Archbishop Vigano is right to implicate the Holy Father in all this…but doesn’t this lend support to another part of his testimony? Namely that Cardinal Wuerl was in the know…
 
Last edited:
The main thing that this certainly confirms is that people at the Vatican were well aware of McCarrick’s pattern of abuse many years ago (there was already confirmation before this that people in the Vatican knew as early as 2000, before McCarrick became a Cardinal, I believe). The real question is who knew what, and when. Did the paper trail filter all the way up to Pope John Paul II at the time, or was it not until Pope Benedict XVI. Or did some bureaucrats in the Vatican bury this when it came to them. Or did everyone know, and they did nothing. Either way, this sad episode reveals a lack of moral fortitude at the Vatican to make the difficult decision to take action against a man who was abusing his authority and position.

The fact that Cardinal Wuerl knew about McCarrick’s history of abuse a long time ago is certainly not surprising; pretty much everyone who has been paying attention knew that his routine of being “shocked” at the recent allegations that have come to light was just an act. I guess he at least did inform the Vatican, but he and others that knew could have done more.
 
Joe_5859 said:
I’ll reiterate what I said in the other thread. It does still seem to me that Wuerl’s previous statements were technically correct, even if they were misleading.
Click to expand...
This interview would actually suggest he lied. The question was if he knew about any misconduct with other priests. He said, ‘no’. That isn’t true. I guess he could make a mental reservation argument. I hope, for the sake of the Church, that he doesn’t.

twf said:
I will not presume that Archbishop Vigano is right to implicate the Holy Father in all this…but doesn’t this lend support to another part of his testimony? Namely that Cardinal Wuerl was in the know…
Click to expand...
Vigano sure seems to write truth.
Weserthy said:
The fact that Cardinal Wuerl knew about McCarrick’s history of abuse a long time ago is certainly not surprising; pretty much everyone who has been paying attention knew that his routine of being “shocked” at the recent allegations that have come to light was just an act.
Click to expand...
Every further lie at this point greatly diminishes the status of the Catholic Church in the eyes of men, both Catholics and non Catholics. The amount of damage this does is unbelievable.
 
twf . . . .
doesn’t this (Washington Post story citing that Cardinal Wuerl DID know about the McCarrick predation since at least 2004) lend support to another part of his (archbishop Vigano’s) testimony? Namely that Cardinal Wuerl was in the know…
Click to expand...
(Parenthetical addition mine for context)

Yes. The Washington Post revelations certainly DO lend support and credibility to the Vigano Testimony.

Excellent point twf.
 
Last edited:
I still think Vigano was wrong to call for The Holy Father’s resignation, but none of his key allegations are false.
 
It seems like there are two questions. Can someone call for the Pope to resign? And what would warrant doing so?

I don’t know why it should be categorically wrong for someone to call for the resignation. That in and off itself isn’t disobedient. That isn’t to say it should be something common or for any man to do.

The next question would be whether what Vigano laid out was sufficient to justify calling for a resignation. One thought experiment would be if it would be right to do so if the case was for any other bishop.
 
Not categorically wrong, I agree. But seems like it would be a very rare thing. I do think it’s obvious by now the Holly Father’s reactions to the various abuse allegations has damaged his credibility. But I do not want to see another papal resignation.

Overall I believe Vigano did the Church a great service, despite the mistaken call for the Pope’s resignation.
 
Last edited:
I definitely think a resignation would be a huge problem. Having two men living who were pope would not be good. It would also help establish resignation as common.
 
If the Church is now comfortable with the novelty of bishops resigning at 75, why not the bishop of Rome? He’s role is unique, but he’s still a bishop. All bishops are called to a unique service.
 
Some of us are not that comfortable with the bishops resigning at 75.
 
The Cardinal Who Knew — and Said Nothing

There is also some vindication here for Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, the former Vatican ambassador to the US whose explosive testimony accused Wuerl, among others, of knowing and hiding the truth about McCarrick. “Cardinal Wuerl,” Viganò wrote, was “well aware of the continuous abuses committed by Cardinal McCarrick.
Click to expand...
And let’s pray Wuerl’s seat in Washington doesn’t end up going to the reported top contender, Newark’s Joseph Cardinal Tobin, another prince of the Church who admits he heard the McCarrick rumors — but did nothing.
Click to expand...
 
Fair enough. My point is that while the Pope is special, his vocation is not fundamentally distinct from that of other bishops. If bishops should retire, maybe popes should too. If bishops should reign for life, then popes definitely should.
 
You are correct:

When I read Canon Law about voicing opinion, the first few words really stand out to me:
According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.
Click to expand...
So… even though Vigano asked the pope to resign in his first letter, arguably – it’s worth asking if everyone is in a place to do that. I’d say no. I think there’s a time to speak up and a time to know one’s place, but that’s on an individual case by case basis. I suppose that’s what he believed was right at the time but I’d say his position is unique to others in that he was in a high position in the Vatican and knew the Holy Father personally. And he’s backed off from asking this of the Holy Father, probably because at this point he knows that a resignation is not going to happen.

He may have saw it fit at the time given his knowledge and situation at the time – but arguably that’s not the situation for everyone. Certainly an average layperson like me doesn’t feel comfortable asking the Pope to resign.
 
Last edited:
tafan2 said:
I still think Vigano was wrong to call for The Holy Father’s resignation,
Click to expand...
I think it’s important to state that he didn’t specifically call for the Pope’s resignation but described the conditions where he should consider resigning. He didn’t say that the Pope must go, he said that if all of the facts are true (that the Pope has failed in his leadership of the Church), then he should resign.
 
Depending on the continued revelations coming from seemingly every corner of the Church, There may be many resignations in the offing. IMHO, a cleansing of the Church might be due. We are certainly in interesting times. St. Peter Damian Oro Pro Nobis!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top