Wuerl denies prior denials denied knowledge of McCarrick seminarian abuse

[Cathoholic]

Wuerl denies prior denials denied knowledge of McCarrick seminarian abuse.

This seems like a lot of verbiage from Cardinal Wuerl here.

It gives a little more insight into the situation than . . .

How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

. . . but not much.

.

Wuerl denies prior denials denied knowledge of McCarrick seminarian abuse​

Cardinal Donald Wuerl. Credit: Archdiocese of Boston vial Flickr CC BY NC 2.0

by JD Flynn

Washington D.C., Jan 14, 2019 / 10:45 am (CNA).- Cardinal Donald Wuerl told Washington, DC priests Saturday that he appropriately handled a 2004 allegation of misconduct against Archbishop Theodore McCarrick. The cardinal also said that his recent denials of knowledge concerning McCarrick’s alleged misdeeds pertained only to the sexual abuse of minors. . . .

. . . Wuerl wrote in a June 21 letter to his diocese that he was “shocked and saddened” by allegations made against McCarrick, his predecessor as Archbishop of Washington.

In the same letter, Wuerl affirmed that “no claim – credible or otherwise – has been made against Cardinal McCarrick during his time here in Washington.”

In July, Wuerl told WTOP that he had never heard rumors of sexual misconduct regarding McCarrick. . . .

. . . Wuerl’s letter did not offer detail on the specific allegations Ciolek made against McCarrick, but Archdiocese of Washington spokesman Ed McFadden told CNA last week they concerned behavior by McCarrick at his New Jersey beach house, where the archbishop is alleged to have shared beds with seminarians, and exchanged backrubs with them. . . .

In letter to DC priests, Wuerl says he never meant to deny knowledge of McCarrick seminarian abuse | Catholic News Agency

We now know more than same-bed “backrubs” were part of the McCarrick acting out against some of our U.S. Catholic seminarians that McCarrick had power over.

It seems Cardinal Wuerl needs to address WHY his silence against McCarrick homosexually molesting our seminarians now that he ADMITS to knowing about THIS.

This is all-over the place in the news. The New York Times, The Washington Post, a multitude of Catholic media outlets, etc.

Cardinal Wuerl needs to speak more frankly about the other “issues” that he has been in the news for over the past few months as well.

Openly, honestly, and as Pope Francis has called for, TRANSPARENTLY.

The Vatican (in next months’ Vatican sexual abuse meeting) needs to deal with homosexual bishops acting out against minors AND ADULTS (hetero. and bisexual bishops acting out too of course). They need to deal with this is the priesthood as a whole of course too.

 

[greenrangerx]

It seems Cardinal Wuerl needs to address WHY his silence against McCarrick homosexually molesting our seminarians now that he ADMITS to knowing about THIS.

But he wasn’t silent on the matter. From the article: “The entire report was also immediately turned over to the Apostolic Nuncio – the Papal Representative in the U.S." He reported what he knew to a higher authority (assuming the Apostolic Nuncio forwarded the information on to the Holy See), who also had authority over McCarrick. It sounds like he followed the proper procedures.

 

[Cathoholic]

greenrangerx . . .

But he wasn’t silent on the matter.

OK. So this supports the Vigano Testimony at least in part. (That the Vatican KNEW about McCarrick’s homosexual predation.)

Wuerl . . .

“I stated publicly that I was never aware of any such rumors. This assertion was in the context of the charges of sexual abuse against minors, which at the time was the focus of discussion and media attention.”

.

Now do you also think Cardinal Wuerl was transparent and honest too?

In July, Wuerl told WTOP that he had never heard rumors of sexual misconduct regarding McCarrick

.

Media (CBS) to Cardinal Wuerl (from just a few months ago-August 2018!)

“Were you aware of the rumor that McCarrick was having relationships with other PRIESTS?”

(Remember. Priests are not “minors”.)

Wuerl . . .

No! No.

Cdl. Wuerl asks for ‘understanding’ after evidence shows he lied about McCarrick - LifeSite

 

[Ardent_Fire]

If a Wuerl denies a denial in the woods, does the strict mental reservation make a sound?

 

[Crusader13]

These men are truly masters at their craft. When questioning them, you need to be precise and exact, down to the smallest minute detail.

The entire Church is facing a massive crisis and dishonesty, corruption and complacency are at the forefront. And these men want to start splitting hairs about what they knew and didn’t know, because it didn’t fit into what they perceived was the proper context of the accusations?!?!

I guess it all comes down to what your “meaning of ‘IT’ is”.

 

[Cathoholic]

From The Washinton Post (on this subject) . . .

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e434c893ecf7

 

[pnewton]

From what I have read, he is right, despite the rather cynical tone of this post. There is a profound lack of understanding of English among Americans.

OK. So this supports the Vigano Testimony at least in part. (That the Vatican KNEW about McCarrick’s homosexual predation.)

This is what I mean. You do know, I would think, there is no person known as “The Vatican”? The papal nuncio is an ambassador from The Vatican. The Vatican is a building, or an organization, or a state. There is no brain that can “know”. Use of the term this way is the type of imprecision that leads to rash judgment on the part of those reading, who will equate the term with the Pope.

 

[Cathoholic]

pnewton . . .

From what I have read, he is right,

Who is “right”. (Vigano? Wuerl? Somebody else?)

And “right” about “what”?

Sorry pnewton. I just am not sure what you mean here.

 

[Cathoholic]

pnewton . . .

You do know, I would think, there is no person known as “The Vatican”?

I use that term here because otherwise I have to implicate a “person” and I don’t want to do that.

SOMEBODY in the Vatican KNEW about McCarrick. Probably MANY people.

SOMEBODY knew. That much is a given.

As soon as somebody like me says a “name”, then something COULD come out the next week proving the innocence if THAT person, by indicting an “aide” who may have “hid” facts or something from someone else, etc. clearing that person who I named (so I am not going to name them on a platform like this).

So unless the stories name names and do so conclusively, I am going to stick with more nebulous terms such as “the Vatican”.

 

[pnewton]

Cardinal Wuerl is right, though in a nuanced way, that his prior statements did not deny knowledge of McCarrick’s action.

So unless the stories name names and do so conclusively, I am going to stick with more nebulous terms such as “the Vatican”.

Well, you are not responsible for those that assumes that means the Pope, that’s for sure.

 

[Cathoholic]

pnewton . . .

Well, you are not responsible for those that assumes that means the Pope, that’s for sure.

That is for sure since Wuerl was notified back in 2004 or 2005, and allegedly passed this on to the Vatican at THAT time and Pope Francis was not Pope at the time.

So perhaps Pope Francis knew about it recently from reviewing the records. (He has refused to say so far.)

Or perhaps Pope Francis did NOT know about it (because a dishonest underling was keeping Pope Francis in the dark).

So yes. I am “not responsible for those that assumes that means the Pope, that’s for sure.”

Which is EXACTLY WHY I used the non-descript “Vatican” instead of a name(s) here.

 

[Cathoholic]

pnewton . . .

Cardinal Wuerl is right, though in a nuanced way, that his prior statements did not deny knowledge of McCarrick’s action.

Did you read the thread?

Did you watch Cardinal Wuerl DENY he knew about McCarrick having relations with priests on CBS last August?

This from a man (Wuerl) who now admits he DID KNOW about McCarrick back in 2004!

Do you think that is “truth”? Even “in a nuanced way”??

Because if it is, WHAT is lying then? (I am not accusing Wuerl of “lying” here by the way. Perhaps Wuerl had some secret ankle surgery and was on pain meds and Wuerl was confused at the time of the 2018 interview. But this is NOT “truth” or “right” at least that I can see.)

 

[Cathoholic]

There is more . . . .

From LifeSiteNews (with minor formatting change mine)

Wuerl, McCarrick’s successor in Washington, made a statement June 21, the day following the initial allegation of abuse of a minor by McCarrick, the wording of which can be interpreted as pertaining only to his time in the Washington archdiocese and not any time prior – when he’d been made aware of abuse allegations against McCarrick.

“I can report that no claim – credible or otherwise – has been made against Cardinal McCarrick during his time here in Washington,” he said.

The cardinal had also said, “I think we were all shocked and saddened” by the charges of abuse leveled at McCarrick.

I suppose this is the “nuanced” portion . . . .

“I can report that no claim – credible or otherwise – has been made against Cardinal McCarrick during his time here in Washington,” he said.

(Wuerl thinking in his mind that this ONLY concerned “adults” or “ONLY minors” or perhaps something else? But I have no idea how Cardinal Wuerl “thinks” in these situations.)

There are other things that are perplexing too. Many other things.

Donald Wuerl expressed ‘great confidence’ in abuser priest’s salvation at 2001 funeral mass - LifeSite

December 3, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – In a 2001 homily at the funeral of a sex abuser priest, then-Bishop Donald Wuerl assured the faithful that they could have “confidence” in the predator’s salvation.

Originally uncovered by Townhall ’s Lauretta Brown in September, a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article on Father George Zirwas’s death notes that even though the priest was “banned from ministry for undisclosed reasons in 1996,” now-Cardinal Wuerl “never had any hesitation” about offering Zirwas’s funeral Mass.

This summer’s Pennsylvania grand jury report revealed that the Diocese of Pittsburgh, formerly headed by Wuerl, received complaints Zirwas had molested underage boys. Some of the complaints were filed when Wuerl was the bishop of that diocese.

“The Grand Jury learned that the Diocese was aware of complaints against Zirwas for sexually abusing children as early as 1987,” the report says. “Additional complaints were received between 1987 and 1995. However, Zirwas continued to function as a priest during this period and was reassigned to several parishes.”

(Bold mine)

.

Also from LifeSite . . .

Wuerl was bishop of Pittsburgh from 1988 to 2006.

 

[pnewton]

This from a man (Wuerl) who now admits he DID KNOW about McCarrick back in 2004!

??? You are basing your judgement on an 18 second edited interview, cut off literally mid sentence? Remember this next time you criticize the mainstream media for being unfair to President Trump. What I think is happening is a deliberate transposing of child sexual abuse and the seminarian abuse. The CBS reporter, in the interview, (I went past the clippy bite of 1P5) was asking about child sexual abuse, then asked the part out of the blue in the clip, and then cut the Cardinal off immediately giving him no change to expound. The were talking about sexual abuse relationships. That is the context. The report switched one word to “relationships,” got the answer she wanted, then shut the conversation down.

There is so much switching of topics to muddy the waters that justice will not be found in this trial by media. Catholics need to also be concerned about their own sins of rash judgement and slander.

 

[Cathoholic]

pnewton

. . . ??? You are basing your judgement on an 18 second edited interview, cut off literally mid sentence?

There is MORE pnewton than an 18 second clip from ABC news.

I want to make sure you are even reading this.

You tell ME, why you think other people see “MORE” than just that ONE example I gave in one sentence.

(I want to make sure you can articulate my position so I can address you accurately. I’m not convinced you understand what I am saying).

Let’s talk about it.

But I want to make sure you know what I have posted here. Then I will also add in what I posted elsewhere.

But you accusing me of “basing” my decisions on merely ONE clip is innaccurate.

So go ahead and show me the reasons that the media has put forth, and I have put forth.

Regarding the “clip”, Cardinal Wuerl has had a lot of time to attempt to refute YOUR claim since it occurred. Yet he has not. He still can. I am open to that by the way.

.

pnewton . . . .

What I think is happening is a deliberate transposing of child sexual abuse and the seminarian abuse.

So what?

Hopefully pnewton, you find BOTH types of abuse reprehensible and intolerable. I know I do.

Do you think Cardinal Wuerl knew about ANY abuse in ANY diocese at ANY time?

Do you think THAT is what he communicated earlier last year (last June through August)?

Do you think these Cardinal Wuerl responses (ABC was not the only one) represents the “transparency” that Pope Francis has repeatedly called for?

.

pnewton . . .

Catholics need to also be concerned about their own sins of rash judgement and slander.

Like saying I am drawing my conclusions based upon one thing, then IGNORING many other aspects that I already presented?

Or does THAT not count?

 

[Crusader13]

pnewton, it’s not my attempt to ridicule you or make accusations against where you stand on these issues. However, from several of your posts it seems, at least to me, that you have a tendency to dismiss or deflect any accusations against members of the hierarchy who are being implicated in this crisis, because you deem such accusations as uncharitable and more of an agenda driven ploy by the media to discredit the Church.

You’ve made some references to those who chose to defend Pres Trump against the media, but won’t come to the aid of Wuerl or McCarrick. I don’t think the two are apples to apples comparisons.

In Wuerl’s case he was being asked about “sexual abuse” by McCarrick. To paraphrase and explain his response now, he’s basically saying “I didn’t know about his sexual abuse of ‘minors’ but only his sexual abuse of seminarians.”

You can split hairs about this situation, but the Church is dealing with massive amounts of corruption, complacency and secrecy, much of it tied into sexual abuse and Wuerl thinks this kind of response and reasoning is justified?! His response now, directly highlights the exact mentality of those in the hierarchy and why the laity no longer trust them.

 

[yankeesouth]

Wuerl apologizes for denying prior denials of denied knowledge of McCarrick seminarian abuse…something like that anyway.

Cardinal Wuerl Apologizes to Priests, McCarrick Victim, Says He Forgot He Knew About Harassment Allegations

https://www.washingtonpost.com/reli...gations/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.39bd149ad442

Perhaps an apology to Archbishop Vigano is in order also.

 

[exnihilo]

Are allegations of sexual abuse of seminarians by bishops and cardinals so common one can forget about them? Apparently so. Well, Vigano and others are proven right again. There is a deep rot that must be removed. Denial of that is ridiculous at this point.

 

[Weserthy]

Are allegations of sexual abuse of seminarians by bishops and cardinals so common one can forget about them? Apparently so. Well, Vigano and others are proven right again. There is a deep rot that must be removed. Denial of that is ridiculous at this point.

A couple of bishops (one I recall specifically was Cardinal O’Malley) have floated the possibility of expanding the definition of “vulnerable adult” in canon law to include those in a disproportionate position of power being abused by a member of the clergy with authority over them, which would cover seminarians being abused by those in positions of power. This would allow the CDF to prosecute these cases against clergy as they do abuses against children. Currently, the definition of “vulnerable adult” only includes adults that have some kind of mental disability or handicap, that kind of thing. One of the arguments that was made against this change by some prelates was the CDF would crack under the strain of all of the additional cases that it would have to take on if this change was made. I don’t think the people making this argument were trying to make this point, however, but were merely trying to stifle such a change. But they inadvertently make a point of how bad the problem really is when they make such arguments.

 

[pnewton]

You’ve made some references to those who chose to defend Pres Trump against the media, but won’t come to the aid of Wuerl or McCarrick. I don’t think the two are apples to apples comparisons.

How is this not a comparison? If one is discerning when hearing reporting on Trump, that same discernment should not be suspended when it comes to a Cardinal. What I see is some of the same conservative Catholics, dismissing the mainstream media reports as fake news that cast serious accusations against the president, then believing them as fair and balanced when it comes to a cardinal they see as liberal. I see this. Am I mistaken in this fact, or just the conclusion?

Earlier this week I also posted an opinion on what I saw as unfair reporting against President Trump from The Atlantic, by the way.

So what?

The problem with switching topics is not that one is to be tolerated and the other is not. The problem is that when the answer to one question is switched with another, a truth becomes a lie. Also, when the topic is switched during an interview, it can take a second to even realize that a different topic has been broached. But yes, Cardinal Wuerl knew about some abuse, as he stated. I have no personal knowledge as to what he communicated to who. And the interview I saw was CBS, not ABC.

I do see two things that have happened though. I see a trial by media, because so many hard opinions have been formed without any hearing or chance for the accused to present a defense. I see a correlation between political leanings an willingness to assume guilt on the part of Cardinal Wuerl. These two things concern me.

I am open to hearing what you have for evidence.

I do not know how there could be evidence of a negative. He was saying Mass at a time? This is why justice requires evidence of guilt be sufficient (for whatever burden of proof is set). It may be that my standard of burden of proof is higher than most. But like I said, a correlation with political alignment troubles me.