Should Cardinal Donald Wuerl be the celebrant of the huge March for Life Mass?

[Ostiarius]

Should Cardinal Donald Wuerl be the celebrant of the huge March for Life Mass which will be celebrated at the Capital One Arena in Washington, DC?

Despite his administrative position within the Archdiocese of WDC, I will stunned that he celebrated the Christmas Morning Mass at the National Shrine. Having him celebrate the March for Life Mass would seem to be even more incongruent to me.

 

[Walk-worthy]

Wuerl’s the second cardinal implicated in the ever-expanding homosexual predator clergy coverup, so my answer is positively not! Wuerl is part of the problem and needs to resign. Don’t forget Wuerl knew about McKarrick and said nothing.

 

[theCardinalbird]

Should Cardinal Donald Wuerl be the celebrant of the huge March for Life Mass which will be celebrated at the Capital One Arena in Washington, DC?

Probably not the best idea to have this controversial Cardinal be the celebrant for the March for Life

 

[EXdrinker]

No he should not. Cardinal Wuerl should not appear in public in any official capacity ever again.

 

[pnewton]

The question asked in this manner seems legit. I do not know whether all here will stay with in the rules, though I know you did not mean to bait anyone. It should be noted that at this time Cardinal Wuerl has had any sort of hearing, clerical or civil, so accusations stated as fact, at this time, by their very nature, are lacking any sense of fairness. Whew! That was hard to hedge.

I think the decision should be made locally. The accusations made by a Pennsylvania politician have not exactly been fair and balanced. Yet they have put the Cardinal in a situation where doing what is best for the Church is more important than fairness.

 

[otjm]

I am reposting my comment on a similar thread, slightly modified.

My source is Bill Donohue, of Catalyst, and you can decide for yourself what it is worth.

In the September 2018 issue, he defends Cardinal Wuerl with some interesting points.

“It is being said that Cardinal Wuerl must have known all about what McCarrick allegedly did and chose to do nothing about it. Aside from rumors, which are a staple in every workplace, Wuerl was in no position to know anything bout McCarrick’s alleged sexual behavior with seminarians, and he certainly was in no position to know anything about more recent allegations involving minors.”

He then goes on to detail that McCarrick was in the 1980’s on the Jersey Shore.

McCarrick was installed as Bishop of Metuchen New Jersey in 1982 when Wuerl was in Burlington, Vermont. In 1986 when McCarrick was Archbishop of Newark, Wuerl was Auxiliary Bishop in Seattle. In 1988 he became Bishop of Pittsburgh, and in 2006 Archbishop of Washington. Further, Wuerl had noting to do with the financial settlements of Metuchen (2005) and Newark (2007).

I have no dog in this one. INor do I follow the McCarrick matter other than when it may pop up on its own.

What has appeared to happen is that there is something approaching mass hysteria, and at least part of that is due to public news media, a source notorious for its biases. It appears that a complete s&^t storm has taken over, and we are practicing “Ready! Fire! Aim!” with abandon.

I am not a fan of Donohue, as he comes across as a junkyard dog; but his iteration of where Wuerl was re; McCarrick would leave me with “show me factual evidence that Wuerl knew” rather than booting to the “he must have known”.

When it seems as of everybody - right, left and center - are foaming at the mouth, facts tend to be in extremely short supply, if any there be at all.

I am not by any stretch of the imagination naive as to sexual abuse in the Church nor have I crawled out from under some rock recently. Nor have I been abused. But constant discussion of the matters will not do anything more than titillate, as most of us have no viable (name removed by moderator)ut into the matters, and most of it ends up either as gossip, or something so close to gossip it can’t be distinguished. I firmly believe the Holy Spirit protects the Church, is spite of the best efforts of some of its members and the work of the devil. Should anyone be concerned about these matters or these individuals, I would recommend spending an hour in adoration, turning it over to Christ, and then going about one’s business of growing closer to Him.

As to Wuerl, there are allegations flying all over the place, many if not most of which seem driven by third hand hearsay and a desire to find someone to hang. The issues about Wuerl are more than just McCarrick; but Donohue addresses them in the article cited; there simply is not room enough to add it all.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I think it would be prudent if he were to step aside, but if he instead serves as celebrant for whatever reason, I’m not going to lose any sleep over it. There’s more than one Mass going on in DC that morning; anybody who doesn’t want to go to a Wuerl Mass can simply vote with their feet and attend another one. Also, whatever mistakes Wuerl did or didn’t make in his past do not affect his ability to conduct Mass.

 

[CTBcin]

I think it would be prudent if he were to step aside, but if he instead serves as celebrant for whatever reason, I’m not going to lose any sleep over it. There’s more than one Mass going on in DC that morning; anybody who doesn’t want to go to a Wuerl Mass can simply vote with their feet and attend another one. Also, whatever mistakes Wuerl did or didn’t make in his past do not affect his ability to conduct Mass.

This is how I feel too. I’ll be at the Mass on Friday, and if he’s the celebrant, I won’t get in a tizzy. That said, considering everything that’s transpired, and with how major and highly publicized this Mass will be, I do think it would be prudent for him to step aside.

(EDIT: Which I now realize you said the exact same thing in the post I quoted.)

 

[TomH1]

It seems to me as a society we have gone too far away from presumed innocent until proven guilty. I know people have always thought there is no smoke without fire. However, these days people seem to be tried, convicted and sentenced in the media, in all its forms, before due process has taken place. Cardinal Wuerl has been accused by a grand jury but not convicted of an offence. He is the pope-appointed Apostolic Administrator of the Archdiocese of Washington and a member of the College of Cardinals; he remains in good standing with the Church. Until such time as the allegations against are investigated and the outcome is known he should continue to be treated as an innocent man. Therefore, I see no reason why he should not be the principal concelebrant at such a major event in the See of Washington.

 

[pnewton]

Cardinal Wuerl downplayed the crisis in the Church by saying it “is not a massive massive crisis” in comments this past summer. He completely appears to be trying to whitewash his image and downplaying scandal of silence and coverup he was overseeing in Pittsburgh from 1988-2006.

First, I do not see how that comment “downplayed” the crisis. There is nothing wrong with not buying into everything that politicians and the press say and do. Your post makes the very point to which you have respond. It will always be rash judgment when we reach conclusions based on no personal knowledge, and before any sort of hearing or balance investigation can be held. By balanced, I mean where the victim of the accusation has equal right to defense.

As to his resignation, he resigned at age 77. Unless you know more than is public, what you said was slanderous, something used to be forbidden here.

 

[EXdrinker]

First, I do not see how that comment “downplayed” the crisis. There is nothing wrong with not buying into everything that politicians and the press say and do. Your post makes the very point to which you have respond. It will always be rash judgment when we reach conclusions based on no personal knowledge, and before any sort of hearing or balance investigation can be held. By balanced, I mean where the victim of the accusation has equal right to defense.

As to his resignation, he resigned at age 77. Unless you know more than is public, what you said was slanderous, something used to be forbidden here.

Hello,

I shall try to explain myself more fully. I certainly do not think I made a slanderous comment (a malicious, false, and defamatory comment). I will explain my post and I would appreciate it if you would point out, specifically, which part you believe that I am being slanderous. I certainly do not intend to be.

Cardinal Wuerl is accused of covering up and being silent about moving predatory priests around his diocese. There is evidence of this in the grand jury report. In a video interview that I saw Cardinal Wuerl evaded the question as to whether he moved known abusers to other parishes by stating, “that, that wasn’t our process.” In my view the correct answer for a bishop not being secretive and covering up would have been, “no, I did not” or “yes I did and here are the reasons I made that decision at the time”. This is a big part of how I come to the conclusion that he has scandals of silence and cover up in his time at Pittsburgh.

As to his resignation it was reported that he traveled to Rome to ask the Pope to accept his earlier resignation letter. Cardinal Wuerl was clear in a couple of different letters that he wrote that he felt a change in leadership was what was best for the archdicocese.

Please let me know what you think I said was slanderous. I will gladly edit to remove it if it is not something that I believe is fully discernable from the public record.

https://www.osv.com/OSVNewsweekly/N...pe-accepts-resignation-of-Cardinal-Wuerl.aspx

 

[pnewton]

His priests essentially revolted and he was forced to plead to the Pope to accept his resignation because he is unable to function as the arch bishop in Washington DC.

I found this problematic I have heard of no revolution in the Catholic Church. Surely there was no vote taken. “His priests” can have two meanings. It could be two priests that revolted. It could also have a universal meaning of all his priests. In either case “revolted” seems argumentative. But the one thing that is factually wrong, and most problematic, is the word “because.” It assumes a causation that seems contrary to Pope Francis’s praise of Cardinal Wuerl upon accepting that resigntaion.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/12/world/europe/cardinal-wuerl-resigns.html

Still, the Archdiocese of Washington on Friday released a letter from Francis, saying that Cardinal Wuerl had sufficient evidence to “justify” his actions as a bishop and to “distinguish between what it means to cover up crimes or not to deal with problems, and to commit some mistakes.”

“However,” Francis’s letter added, “your nobility has led you not to choose this way of defense. Of this, I am proud and thank you.”

Also, the Pope did keep Cardinal Wuerl on as the archdioces’ caretaker instead of appointing an interim. That is inconsistent with the causation you stated.

 

[EXdrinker]

His priests essentially revolted and he was forced to plead to the Pope to accept his resignation because he is unable to function as the arch bishop in Washington DC.

The article below states that small gatherings of priests met several times before Cardinal Wuerl met with them. When he did meet with them it states that " A priest who attended said the meeting was mostly split between those who felt the public damage to Wuerl may be irreversible and “that we’re past the point of no return” and others who felt Wuerl’s stature and experience were reasons he should stick it out to help move the church into a new phase."

Assuming “split” meant about 1/2 believe “that we’re past the point of no return”, it seems to me that “essentially revolted” may be a little strongly worded but is a fair assessment of the situation. The “because” is strongly worded as well but based on my assessment that he would be unable to function well as an archbishop with 1/2 of his priests believing that the public damage to the cardinal may be irreversible.

I ammend my statement for the record to the following…
His priests are reported to be split with seemingly a good number of them believing that the cardinal’s credibility is publicly damaged enough to be irrepairable. This meeting of priests was recommended by Pope Francis and it appears that Cardinal Wuerl believed that he would not be the best person to head the archdiocese going forward based on the results of discussions had at this meeting.

I will be more careful in the future. I may have delved into this more than the average person on the forums and assumed much of what I have read is common knowledge. I conclude the same thing but will be more mindful of this going forward. Thank you for pointing out your concerns.

https://www-washingtonpost-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2018/09/04/pope-francis-hosts-embattled-cardinal-donald-wuerl-in-rome-tells-him-talk-with-your-priests/?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQECAFYAQ%3D%3D#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%1%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fnews%2Facts-of-faith%2Fwp%2F2018%2F09%2F04%2Fpope-francis-hosts-embattled-cardinal-donald-wuerl-in-rome-tells-him-talk-with-your-priests%2F

 

[bobperk]

Unfortunately, for many very high up in the Church it’s just business as usual. “Nothing to see here, folks!”

 

[theCardinalbird]

Until such time as the allegations against are investigated and the outcome is known he should continue to be treated as an innocent man.

I agree with your points, though im sure the media will have something to say (and it usually does) about his appearence

 

[pnewton]

Unfortunately, for many very high up in the Church it’s just business as usual.

The “business of the Church” will not be shut down by any attack. It will continue from the rising of the sun to its setting and the Catholic Church will continue addressing its number one job as an instrument of grace and salvation to the world.

 

[phil19034]

Cardinal Wuerl should not be the celebrant because there have been a number of outbursts at random Masses since the whole McCarrick situation. During a homily Cardinal Wuerl was giving one day, someone stood up in the pews and shouted “shame on you.”

Cardinal Wuerl should step aside to insure he doesn’t become part of the story, and doesn’t detract from the day.

So the prudent thing from him to do is to stay on the side lines. But if he doesn’t, it’s not the end of the world and hopefully, people won’t make it into an issue.

God bless

 

[poche]

I think that Cardinal Wuerl has largely been treated unfairly by the major media. If you don’t like the celebrant then I think you should focus on who it is that you are going to receive in Holy Communion at mass.

 

[TomH1]

and shouted “shame on you.

Shame on them!

I live in the UK and am not as aware as what may be happening as people in the USA.

Has a criminal court convicted the cardinal? Has a civil court said he probably did what he is accused of? Has a Church tribunal or investigation found him to be guilty? If any of these are affirmative I withdraw all my previous comments.

If the answer to my above questions are negative then he should not be treated in this way. The law of the Church says he has the right to his good reputation until it is shown he does not have one. In the secular law he has the right to a good character and the presumption of innocence. If the answers to my questions are negative he is being unfairly tried by the media and public hysteria.

If the answers to my questions are negative we should not pre-judge him. Where is our Christian charity? Let due process take its course.

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

and shouted “shame on you.

Shame on them!

I live in the UK and am not as aware as what may be happening as people in the USA.

Has a criminal court convicted the cardinal? Has a civil court said he probably did what he is accused of? Has a Church tribunal or investigation found him to be guilty? If any of these are affirmative I withdraw all my previous comments.

If the answer to my above questions are negative then he should not be treated in this way. The law of the Church says he has the right to his good reputation until it is shown he does not have one. In the secular law he has the right to a good character and the presumption of innocence. If the answers to my questions are negative he is being unfairly tried by the media and public hysteria.

If the answers to my questions are negative we should not pre-judge him. Where is our Christian charity? Let due process take its course.

Please don’t attack me… I’m just reporting what has transpired in DC.

I simply think he shouldn’t officially participate out of prudence