Pope Francis accepts resignation of Cardinal Donald Wuerl, appoints him interim DC leader

[gam197]

You are stripping a man of his life so what did he do to deserve this?

I;ve read a lot of the Pennsylvania report and these were very old cases from 50’s, 60’s 70’s and some 80’s.
According to Wikipedia,there were three priests involved that Cardinal Wuerrl did not enforce these cases quickly although he was the voice for zero tolerance and dealt with at least 32 priests.

One of the three was Ernest Panone and Cardinal Wuerl was asked about him. He had not been a priest in diocese for 30 years
Two other were slowly gone.

Only other thing I have heard is that Archbishop Vigano said Wuerl knew about Cardinal McCarrick. Carninal Wuerl said he did not know. This same Archvishop Vigano is calling for the resignation of Pope Francis. I am not cray about some of the things that the Pope has done but to ask for him to step down, on what grounds.

This is all I have heard so please inform me of anything else.

 

[Dr_Meinheimer]

He also keeps his privileges and retirement. So this is supposed to be noteworthy that he resigned?

Would that any scandals I appear to be complicit un could be wiped away he simply retiring. The Church, starting with the Holy Father, still doesnt take this seriously.

 

[gam197]

I would not want my family name dragged though mud especially on sexual abuse cases where information is only given in soundbites

 

[Crusader13]

You are stripping a man of his life so what did he do to deserve this?

This is all I have heard so please inform me of anything else.

I think with regards to Wuerl, his façade of having zero tolerance for predatory priests was proven to be anything but. I believe several instances of his being slow to act have come out and it appears that those priests that he did help to remove were already going down anyway and beyond any help he could provide.

I believe one of the biggest failures of Wuerls leadership came in the handling of George Ziwas. Who, as we know now, fled to Cuba when several abuse allegations were leveled against him. While in Cuba, he continued to live an active and sexually promiscuous homosexual lifestyle. Ziwas contacted Wuerl and informed him that he knew of more sexual predator priests in Wuerl’s diocese, but stated that he would write a letter informing law enforcement that he (Ziwas) knew of no other priests guilty of sexual abuse, in exchange for a financial increase or payout. Wuerl then gave him the bonus or payout once Ziwa’s letter was received.

Ziwas was later murdered by a prostitute while still living in Cuba and Wuerl officiated at his funeral, praising Ziwas and even reinstating him to full clerical investiture.

To me Wuerl came across as on opportunist and knew how to navigate his way through the waters, while never getting wet. He seemingly downplayed this crisis within in the Church and tried to hide behind the same smoke and mirrors that others have used, by saying He knew nothing of McCarrick’s behavior. Men like Wuerl and Cupich are the reason why the laity are tired of the same old talking points and condescending attitude of so many in the clergy, who think we are stupid and will continue to drink from the well of lies and deceit.

And then to read Pope Francis’ latter praising Wuerl for his actions and decisions is outrageous. This speaks to the exact heart of the problem within the Church. You have others actually praising men like Wuerl, who have sold out the victims of abuse, simply to save face!

You have sufficient elements to “justify” your actions and distinguish between what it means to cover up crimes or not deal with problems, and to commit some mistakes. However, your nobility has lead you to choose this way of defense. Of this I am proud and thank you.

 

[gam197]

Where is the evident he was not zero tolerant?

There were three cases that Cardinal Wuerl was slow to act upon. the one being Ziwas and I read your response and similar on Wikipedia— Grand Jury Report. which hopefully everyone reads. Is there a letter in print corroborating what Ziwas says about payout?

Another was the case of William O’Malley and Ernest Panone(who had not been in diocese for 30 years and was in California)

Even if these were slow moving cases, (we do not know the reasons) he had 32 priests that were dealt with according to reports.

This is a whole of a life. Whether he knew or did not know about McCarrick is still a question… He is an older priest and who knows what gets to their ears

For this he is stripped of his vocation and send away like McCarrick(who was a predator).

 

[Crusader13]

I believe its page 233 of the PA grand jury report. I don’t believe it was as easy as saying “he was slow to act, so lets run him out”. His actions and decisions were far more serious than merely saying he used poor judgement. I can also see that by his own statements of trying to downplay the crisis and dismiss the seriousness of the crimes, that he is merely trying to shift the blame. He never once apologized for any of HIS actions or choices, but the words he uses are those such as the Church, as in “I apologize for the Church’s…” It’s not just about the Church as a whole, but rather men, certain specific men, who are to be held accountable for their part.

I don’t for one second believe that this is a which hunt, full of trumped up accusations, merely to go after a handful of cardinals and bishops. McCarrick didn’t rise to his level of power and influence on his own. There was a system in place, full of other friends and accomplices, who helped to cover up his abuse and at minimum ignore much of it, simply to further their own interests.

I think this is what many are starting to discover. It’s not just about sexual predators, but about a power structure and a corrupt group of men, who all worked together to keep themselves in power and were allowed to engage in whatever vice that they choose. For many it was the homosexual predation of others, such as what McCarrick did. For others, like Wuerl, it was about maintaining his status and influence and using them for whatever opportunities would further his own career. In this case I personally believe he wanted to be perceived as champion for ecumenism and orthodoxy, while also showing himself to be a protector of the people from these predators. Yet, you don’t make the choices he made, especially in reference to George Ziwas, and get to keep your clean, holy image.

 

[gam197]

Ziwas is one case. We are not in a position to know what cases he has dealt with and we hear very little about this from anyone. Once in awhile we hear this bishop/priest is gone but really as a general rule the laity hear very little about what goes on internally in the church.

(Predators don’t tell what they do and deny it as rumor or vicious payback and that makes it very difficult.)

We have little information on what Cardinal Wuerl role was in all this. Was he complicit, don’t know.

You are right about a power structure within the church pushing forth people who were corrupt like McCarrick. We want to take down the bad bishops but knowing who they are is really, really difficult.

McCarrick was a liberal for years possibly that was a sign. Wuerl was known to be a moderate, a peacemaker.

 

[gam197]

Gran Jury Report -Page 221 Wuerl writes Vatican

"On June 30, 1989, Bishop Donald Wuerl sent a letter to the Vatican with respect to several
diocesan priests who had recently been accused of sexually abusing children and whose cases had generated significant publicity. In the letter, Wuerl documented his diocesan policies for sexual abuse and stated his responsibility as Bishop was to determine the course of action in these cases. Wuerl wrote that Catholic parishioners had a right to know whether a priest accused of such crimes had been reassigned to their parish. Further, Wuerl advised that due to the scandal caused by these priests, he initiated a review of any previous cases of diocesan priests who had been accused of“pedophilic activities” with minors.

They are made aware of sexual abuse complaints and that priests who deny the “crime” of
pedophilic activity with minors is “common in pedophiles” and that pedophilia is “incurable.”

Wuerl noted his exclusive role and stated that the “unassignability” of a priest must rest solelywith the bishop due to the potential victims’ parents “who have a moral right to expect chaste conduct from the priest” and the parishioners who “would be gravely unsettled and scandalized in the knowledge that a priest pedophile has been assigned in their midst."

Is Cardinal Wuerl just grandstanding when he writes this?

 

[AlNg]

Not that I am in favor of them receiving communiion but it has been policy.

It was mentioned that it was public knowledge that the lady was a Buddhist and in a lesbian relationship. Do you say that it has been policy for Roman Catholic priests to give Holy Communion to those who are publicly known to be Buddhists and in SS relationships? I don’t think that this would be true in the Russian Orthodox Church. When was this Catholic policy put into effect?

 

[gam197]

I am certainly not in favor of them receiving communion and American Life League has been in the forefront complaining for 20+ years with no one responding except saying over and over again - “charity”

There was no policy. (policy seem to be "Charity

My take is this change may have started when Candidate John F Kennedy went to Texas to address protestant pastors looking for their vote. His speech was about separation of church and state.

(“Whatever issue may come before me as president — on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject — I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates.”)

The book “What happened to Notre Dame by Charles E. Rice” explains some.

In March 1984 a major shift took place. when prochoice Geraldine Ferraro ran for the vice-presidency and stated her views were in accordance with church and archbishop of New York John O’Connor corrected her and said, no, they were not. In June 1984 Father Hessburg and Father McBrien of the theology department at Notre Dame invited catholic Prochoice New York Governor Cuomo to address the students. He spoke that in the pluralistic world, we are not required to insist that all our religious values be the law of the land. This was in reference to abortion. This was opposite of what archbishop O’Connor had said.

Things got very, very muddy.

Many years later archbishop Ratzinger tried to correct some of this thought it in 1999 with “Crises of Law” but few heard.

 

[gam197]

I am on the fence on Cardinal Wuerl and to destroy a life is serious.

I am just saying “be careful” and know the facts. During crisis, things get very emotional.

There are bad priests/bishops and those are the ones that should be gone. I know the frustration but if you take out the wrong priest/bishop, how does that help. You lose credibility.

 

[gam197]

Read pages on Zigwas

Zigwas file was about three incidents where he groped genitals. He was placed on leave of absence and threatened to sue the diocese for false rumors. Put back and shortly a 4th incident involving groping and oral sex and he was gone.

 

[poche]

This priest was a native of Columbia yet incardinated in the the archdiocese of Moscow. What was that priest doing in Washington DC. There is very likely more to this than this one incident.

 

[exnihilo]

Only other thing I have heard is that Archbishop Vigano said Wuerl knew about Cardinal McCarrick. Carninal Wuerl said he did not know. This same Archvishop Vigano is calling for the resignation of Pope Francis. I am not cray about some of the things that the Pope has done but to ask for him to step down, on what grounds.

This to me is the more serious charge. I haven’t read the reports from PA but I doubt Wuerl did anything different from other bishops. But McCarrick is a recent problem. The diocese of Newark made settlements and McCarrick’s behavior was well known by everyone.

 

[gam197]

He was a Pennsyvania priest and you can’t speculate on incidents.

Here is the Grand Jury report as previously posted by Crusader 13. Read page 214+. It is a short read and all 4 cases are there. Pennsylvania Attorney General - Grand Jury Report
The case of George Zirwas starts on page 230. On page 233 it gets into the increase payment but this is confusing because it says

“In response to this request, Wuerl instructed him to document in writing the names of the
priests involved, or, state that he had no knowledge of what he had previously claimed.”

Was Wuerl looking for information on other priests?

Look at history and dates.

Two cases of groping by Zirwas took place in 1987 and 1988 before Wuerl became bishop. In 1988, the diocese sent him for psychiatric evaluation as was the procedure back then, same month Wuerl became bishop.
A third incident of groping in 1991 took place. Zirwas threatened to sue the diocese for defamation/slander.(false rumors) In 1995 another incident involving groping but with oral sex and he was gone.

And for news articles on how Zirwas was involved in a predator ring, no charges were filled against him as were other priests who went on trial in 1984.

Grand Jury report is there for all to read.

 

[gam197]

McCarrick’s may have been well known in New Jersey but In New England, there were no rumors. I knew many of his policies were liberal as a Cardinal, that is all.

Did Wuerl really know.? He says he did not.

 

[exnihilo]

Yeah he says that. I just have a hard time believing it. As a bishop and cardinal I think he probably hears a lot about other bishops and cardinals. Of all the sins that take place by clergy we are supposed to believe gossip is non existent.

 

[gam197]

Maybe they do hear gossip, could be Hollywood -lite. As laity, I heard few rumors.Was it his own ambition that blinded him as he took over for McCarrick. I am not sure we have this answers.

We have one arch-bishop Vigano who says he knew. Nothing in writing. I understand archbishop Vigano’s frustration too, angered by lack of response to these serious matters and constantly attacked by his peers -priests for speaking out.

 

[exnihilo]

And to be clear it isn’t even gossip. McCarrick was a well known sexual abuser of seminarians. His diocese paid out money because of his sexual abuse. That no one claims he knew about this strains credulity. And if true then clergy should be removed for incompetence.

 

[gam197]

How many cases and again to what level? Why did the laity never hear about this until this year? Phil Lawler wrote a book about the seminaries many years ago which I bought but thought they had been cleaned up.

McCarrick raised money, John Paul II(supposedly did not know) made him Cardinal, other popes handled it by censure and according to archbishop Vigano, Pope Francis knew about abuses and reinstated him.

Competence, how about if all these popes are in collusion to keep this secret? They can justify it by their view on keeping the church going forth but really this is doing great harm.