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

[Tis_Bearself]

The issue with him participating is that it will take the focus off the pro-life theme and instead give the media and others a reason to make it all about old cases of clergy sex abuse. But like I said, it’s his own judgment and if he decides to say the Mass, I don’t care. He’s a big boy and can likely deal with it if he gets some flak. Most people attending will be more interested in the March than in protesting Wuerl.

 

[Gorgias]

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.

No. There are accusations of this in the report. The report gives us the attorney general’s narrative, along with eyewitness statements and the AG’s spin on them. Have you read the response by the Diocese of Pittsburgh? It does a good job of chipping away at the AG’s spin. You might want to give it a read.

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.

OK, so let me make sure I’ve got this: Wuerl answers “no”, but not in the way that you would have answered, and therefore, you’ve concluded that his answer really means “yes”. Umm… ok.

Despite his administrative position within the Archdiocese of WDC, I will stunned that he celebrated the Christmas Morning Mass at the National Shrine.

He doesn’t have an “administrative position” – rather, he is the Administrator of the archdiocese. That means that he’s at the helm. How is it that he should not celebrate Mass on Christmas at the Shrine? (BTW… you realize that the shrine isn’t the episcopal seat (i.e., the ‘cathedral’) of the archdiocese, right?)

Having him celebrate the March for Life Mass would seem to be even more incongruent to me.

Why would it be incongruous for him to celebrate a Mass as the nation continues to pray for an end to abortion?

Don’t forget Wuerl knew about McKarrick and said nothing.

You’re not really keeping up with the news, are you?

The latest headline was that an adult came to Wuerl and mentioned that Carrick had made advances to him while he was an (adult) seminarian, and Wuerl followed up on these and met with the Nuncio personally. That’s a far cry from “he said nothing”, wouldn’t you say?

Cardinal Wuerl should not appear in public in any official capacity ever again.

Give it another year or so.

 

[giuseppe96]

Absolutely not. After his confession of his involvement in the McCarrick cover-up, he shouldn’t be making anymore public appearances.

 

[Gorgias]

After his confession of his involvement in the McCarrick cover-up

Umm… what kind of ‘confession’ are you talking about? Just curious…

 

[giuseppe96]

Sorry, let me change that. I thought he had made a public confession. I was wrong. All of that aside, it could be harmful to the message of the event concerning the unresolved allegations against him.

 

[EXdrinker]

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.

I am not sure how you get “no” out of “that wasn’t, that wasn’t our, our process”.

You do get “no, no” when asked if he heard about rumors of McCarrick having relationships with other priests. Of course, she did not specifically say seminarians so he may not have been techinically lying…

 

[Margaret_Ann]

NO. Ne. Nein. Nyet. Oxi. いいえ (and in the rest of the languages of the world too).

 

[Gorgias]

I am not sure how you get “no” out of “that wasn’t, that wasn’t our, our process”.

“Did you ever move priests, to…?”

“That wasn’t our process.”

It wasn’t the process of the diocese to move offenders around. How are you getting a ‘yes’ out of that? It’s worded carefully, I’ll grant you… but it’s a carefully worded negative response.

 

[Weserthy]

It looks like he has bowed to the pressure. It has been confirmed that Cardinal Wuerl won’t be the celebrant after all:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1085586793318232064

 

[Tis_Bearself]

It was a wise thing to do. Cardinal Wuerl will be in my prayers this Friday along with all the unborn and the March participants.

 

[EXdrinker]

"Did you ever move priests, to…?”

“That wasn’t our process.”

It wasn’t the process of the diocese to move offenders around. How are you getting a ‘yes’ out of that? It’s worded carefully, I’ll grant you… but it’s a carefully worded negative response.

Why does it need to be worded carefully? It isn’t because the answer is “no”. He could have said (assuming that something like this was truthful), “that wasn’t our process but there was a couple of occasions that the preponderance of the evidence, including advice of psychiatric professionals, seemed to indicate that the priest was now safe. In those few exceptions we did move priests.” He could have added, “in hindsight those judgements were in error, we focused too much on how to handle and forgive the sinner and did not take into account the damage to the credibility of the Church and her leadership as a whole.”

This cardinal did put in place many good things but should have chosen to be a leader rather than continue the same path of silence and cover up. It tarnishes even those good things that he did.

 

[esieffe]

I followed all of this stuff for a while, and all it got me was depressed. Nothing I can do about the US government and all of it’s branches, nothing I can do about what is going on in the Vatican, except for including all of these in my prayer intentions. I have much bigger fish to fry, namely worrying about me, the sinner.

 

[Shasta-Rose]

I’ve always liked Cardinal Wuerl. I don’t see any proof against him and I think we should have that before criticizing him.

 

[Gorgias]

Why does it need to be worded carefully?

Because, if you’re familiar with the way that the man speaks, you know that he always speaks in that manner.

If you’re unaccustomed to him, then it may strike you as odd. Otherwise, you know that this is just characteristic of his speaking style.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Why does it need to be worded carefully? It isn’t because the answer is “no”. He could have said (assuming that something like this was truthful), “that wasn’t our process but there was a couple of occasions that the preponderance of the evidence, including advice of psychiatric professionals, seemed to indicate that the priest was now safe. In those few exceptions we did move priests.” He could have added, “in hindsight those judgements were in error, we focused too much on how to handle and forgive the sinner and did not take into account the damage to the credibility of the Church and her leadership as a whole.”

With all due respect, no leader commenting on a sensitive legal issue is going to say that much when confronted with a loaded question. I’m sure the attorneys advising Wuerl told him to say as little as possible and probably coached him on what exactly to say.

Furthermore, I see nothing to be gained by him popping off with the long response you suggest. It would simply lead to 20 more questions, would be unlikely to satisfy anyone who already has shown bias against him (such as many of the people posting in this thread), and on top of that Wuerl has already resigned and is probably concerned, and rightly so, about facing some kind of legal action himself as well as not wanting to create legal problems for whoever his successor in DC is going to be.

For you to say “Why does it need to be worded carefully” seems a bit disingenuous given the current legal climate. It’s quite obvious to me why he needs to choose his words carefully for the reasons I said above. If people aren’t satisfied with his responses, then at this point, that’s pretty much their problem given that he has already resigned (so his critics got their wish that he step down) and has not been charged with anything (so his words are not persuading a judge or jury to convict him or not). And in a climate where a large group of people are never going to be satisfied no matter what he says, it seems very prudent to me for him to say just as little as he possibly can.

 

[Gorgias]

I’m sure the attorneys advising Wuerl told him to say as little as possible and probably coached him on what exactly to say.

Good point. Down the road, if there’s a trial, attorneys for the prosecution could use a flat ‘no’ response to claim “he lied!!!”

On the other hand, “that was not our process” allows the defense to say “it really wasn’t how the diocese operated, but that doesn’t mean that there wasn’t the possibility that a mistake could be made in a particular situation.”

The latter is a much more prudent response than the former.

 

[esieffe]

Good point. Down the road, if there’s a trial, attorneys for the prosecution could use a flat ‘no’ response to claim “he lied!!!”

On the other hand, “that was not our process” allows the defense to say “it really wasn’t how the diocese operated, but that doesn’t mean that there wasn’t the possibility that a mistake could be made in a particular situation.”

The latter is a much more prudent response than the former.

…and we live in the most litigious nation in the world.