Wuerl denies prior denials denied knowledge of McCarrick seminarian abuse

[pnewton]

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.

That would seem to be a great idea. If the concern is an influx of cases, simply do not make it ex post facto.

 

[Cathoholic]

This just in from three hours ago (the same info. as yankeesouth had posted) . . . .

Report: Cardinal Wuerl Issues Apology, Says He 'Forgot He Knew' About McCarrick Allegations

Cardinal Donald Wuerl is apologizing for what he knew about sex allegations made against ex-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick.

pittsburgh.cbslocal.com

Follow KDKA-TV : Facebook | Twitter

(CNN/KDKA) — Last summer, Cardinal Donald Wuerl of Washington twice denied hearing any accusations about sexual misconduct by his predecessor, ex-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick.

We learned last week that both denials were misleading at best. Wuerl’s denials also demonstrate why so many American Catholics, according to a recent Gallup survey, have lost faith in their church and clergy.

Now, according to The Washington Post, Wuerl has issued a letter of apology to priests in the Archdiocese of Washington.

In the letter, Wuerl says he “forgot he knew about the allegations” against McCarrick. Wuerl himself alerted The Vatican of an abuse claim against McCarrick in 2004.

The Washington Post reports the letter of apology reads in part: “Nonetheless, it is important for me to accept personal responsibility and apologize for this lapse of memory. There was never the intention to provide false information.”

It goes on to say: “I wanted to apologize for any additional grief my failure might have also brought the survivor.”

Robert Ciolek, a former priest in New Jersey, said he has seen evidence that Wuerl himself had forwarded Ciolek’s accusation against McCarrick to the Pope’s representative in the United States in 2004.

As Ciolek came forward last week, the Diocese of Pittsburgh, which Wuerl led from 1988-2006, and the Archdiocese of Washington, which he has led since then, issued statements admitting that Wuerl, in fact, did know about “inappropriate activity involving … Archbishop Theodore McCarrick.”

Ciolek has accused McCarrick of misconduct while Ciolek was an adult seminarian and priest in New Jersey during the 1980s. Ciolek told CNN that he came forward last week because he wants to meet with Wuerl and urge him to rebuild trust in the church by coming clean . . . .

 

[Cathoholic]

pnewton . . .

The problem with switching topics is not that one is to be tolerated and the other is not.

This was NOT the only occurrance of this situation with Cardinal Wuerl.

Look at the letter he wrote to his own priests and deacons. More of the same!

Look at his radio interview quote too. The same type of “issues”.

Look at what the former papal nuncio archbishop Vigano has publicly said about Cardinal Wuerl’s claims.

Then review the 18 second video and at that point, you will have to draw your own conclusions.

 

[twf]

Are allegations of sexual abuse of seminarians by bishops and cardinals so common one can forget about them? Apparently so

I could understand forgetting about some random priest who was accused…but we are talking about Cardinal Wuerl’s own predecessor…I find it difficult to understand how one would forget something like that.

“So TWF, just so you know ,the last guy who sat in your new management chair routinely abused young men under his charge…but don’t worry, we took care of it.”
And I forget all about it a decade later?