Wednesday, September 25, 2013

Cardinal Wuerl: Started out in the Mode of Cardinal Bernard Law

The notorious Fr. John S. Hoehl giving me my diploma many moons ago.

Donald Wuerl did reassign him to ministry (hospital chaplaincy work), after

former Pittsburgh bishop, Anthony Bevilacqua, put him on the sidelines. I heard

the rumors about Hoehl, and in looking back, there were a few indications thereof.

There was a time when Cardinal Wuerl operated in a mode of conduct that

would become synonymous with the way of Boston's Cardinal Bernad Law.

In fact, the original handling of lone wolf molester, John Hoehl, proved this

to be true.The 1992 to 1994 saga involvingFr. Edward Huff,also proved

this to be true.

Wuerl's original way of handling sex abuse cases was to position a molester

priest toward non-parish ministry, if and only if a psychiatric facility would

give that priest a favorable prognosis.In as much, Richard Zula wasn't be-

ing positioned back into any form of ministry, on account of his sadistic acts.

The same could not be said for Wolk, Pucci, the Edward Huff whom Wuerl

placed in chaplaincy minister, and the John Hoehl to whom Wuerl did the

same ... even though Anthony Bevilacqua, Wuerl's predecessor, suspended

Hoehl and had him go on administrative leave.

Assigning a priest to non-parish duties places such a priest one step away

from parish ministry.Whether Wuerl would have eventually placing back

into ministry priests who abused minors will be unknown only because he

was shut down before the opportunity to do so presented itself.The simul-

taneous indictments of Wolk, Zula, and Pucci shut down's Wuerl's way of

handling sex abuse cases, at least for a short while.They prompted him to

immediately oust from ministry the John S. Hoehl whom he reassigned four

months prior.However, priests who did wrong to youths over the age of

eighteen have been kept in ministry by Wuerl.

Then came the Father Edward Huff case, where a third complaint against

the priest finally put Wuerl on the spot, thereby shutting down his opportun-

ity to do anything more than take Huff out of ministry and shuttle him back

to a St Louis psychiatric facility from whence he came.By all indications,

Wuerl was on his way to becoming a bishop in the image and likeness of

Bernard Cardinal Law.In fact, the Huff cover-up shows that Wuerl was

still toying with law enforcement authorities even after having been in law

enforcement's spotlight four years prior.

One thing is certain.Wuerl has proven his willingness to reassign to parish

ministry the type of priest who commits physically invasive homosexual ha-

rassment and then engages in retaliatory conduct upon being reported for the

conduct.As was previously mentioned, such a priest was a personal secre-

tary of Donald Wuerl.What was not yet mentioned is that Wuerl assigned

that priest to the pastor's post of St Basil's Parish, in Carrick, Pennsylvania.

The assignment was effective January 1, 2004.

Add to this the credible allegations against one Father Donald Sotak who

was accused of attacking a youth over the age of 18, to the point of alleged-

ly knocking the young man unconscious, while the youth allegedly resisted

Sotak's alleged advances.

The Diocese Denied Any Wrongdoing,

as History Was Revised Years Later

Concerning his triple cover-up, Wuerl publicly denied that his diocese stone-

walled the investigation of the Pittsburgh diocese's molestation clique.How-

ever, he didn't deny that he materially concealed a trio of abusive priests from

law enforcement authorities.He simply denied that those actions constituted

cover-ups. For example, it was after Fr. Robbert Wolk was charged by Alle-

gheny County authorities, Wuerl made the following statement:"We can't

condemn him and throw him out and away." Wuerl also stated, "It is not

covering up to embrace a man who is suffering, just as we will not walk

away from the family."

Wuerl claimed that it is not covering-up to hide a priest in either a psychia-

tric facility or at a relative's home, all the while telling no one how danger-

ous he is.It's not covering up, according to Wuerl, to treat the criminal as

the suffering victim.

Incidentally, when it came time to process the indictment of Richard Zula,

his whereabouts were unknown.Wuerl's diocese was NOT keeping track

of him.The official diocesan spokesman, as well as the Allegheny County

DA, claimed that the Diocese of Pittsburgh had no obligation to notify Child

Youth Services about any molester priests, as was prescribed in the Child

Protective Services Act.

In direct contrast was James A. Esler, the head of the human service section

of Allegheny County's Law Department.He stated that there was no question

in his mind that the Diocese of Pittsburgh had the obligation to report priests

who molest youths.Today, it's understood that anyone who learned of a mo-

lester has the obligation to report him, for the sake of those who would other-

wise become future sex abuse casualties.


Wuerl completed a four page letter addressed to every Pittsburgh diocesan

member, two weeks after Robert Wolk's October 11 indictment.While tak-

ing zero blame for the cover-up, Wuerl tried to persuade each reader to ig-

nore the indictment and to place the attention one other things.Then, seven-

teen days after the release date of Wuerl's change-the-subject letter, Wolk,

Zula, and Pucci were indicted in Washington County.The following link

reported on the letter:



A number of the 2002, 2003, 2004+ news articles which mentioned Wuerl's

triple cover-up explained it so poorly that it constituted fiction.At times, the

cover-up was explained with slight of hand deception, while at other times it

was explained with blatant falsehood.Some of the articles went as far as to

claim that Wuerl was a stern yet discrete hero in handling of the three molest-

er priests.In fact, of all the news outlets who alluded to Wuerl's triple cover-

up in revisionist terms, CBS was the one who lied the most.The Pittsburgh

Post Gazette came in second place.

CBS made it look as ifWuerl suspended those three priests immediately af-

ter having learned of their perversity and then went swiftly to thehome of the

molested altar boys, as a gesture of compassionate concern.He didn't.Other

21st Century articles made it look as if Wuerl quickly went to the home of the

molested altar boys, as if to be on a fact finding mission, only to gain the reali-

zation that he had to oust the three priests immediately thereafter.This, too,

was a lie.Other articles stated that Wuerl discretely suspended three priests,

as if he had reviewed a filing cabinet of diocesan priest dossiers and then de-

cided to cut three unrelated players from a team roster.Needless to say, this

didn't happen, either.In fact, Wuerl was not the one who suspended those


Moreover, in 1988, Wuerl deceived the public by stating that he visited the

victimized family after he "became bishop in February."The wording of

Wuerl's claim made a reasonably minded person assume that he diligently

visited the family in the month of February, the first month of his tenure in

Pittsburgh.No such visitation by Wuerl or any other Pittsburgh diocesan

member occurred that February, that March, that April, May, June, July, or

even August.The following is what actually happened:

Bevilacqua suspended the priests during the Autumn of 1987.Wuerl then re-

placed Bevilacqua in February 1988.He kept his distance from the family

of the two sex abuse casualties and did no more than see to it that the two

molested youths would continue to have their psychiatric sessions free of

charge.The criminal priests would stay on sick leave, spending some time

in a psychiatric facility, while living under the radar of law enforcement.

From the view of the logical mind, the venues of the abusive priests were

likened to resorts and hideouts.It were as if they would get away with what

they did and be able to snag other sexual prey down the road.This triggered

within the family of the sex abuse casualties the resolve to go to the police and

sue the diocese.This resolve occurred in the vicinity of September.In fact,

the October 13, 1988 edition of the Pittsburgh Post Gazette explained it in the

following manner:


In the October 21st edition of the same Post Gazette, at the City/Area Section,

on Page A-4, it was reported that the family decided to go to the law enforce-

ment authorities when they discovered that at least one member of the molester

trio "were not in an institution on a daily basis."

The pastor of the family's parish, John Arnott, informed Wuerl what the fam-

ily decided to do.In response, Wuerl asked Arnott to see if a meeting with

the family could be arranged.It was then and only then when Wuerl closed

the distance and went to the victimized family's home.The reasonable per-

son would deduce this to be the actof a self-seeking Wuerl, attempting to

persuade a family into changing its mind about reporting criminal priests to

the police.This would be consistent with a bishop wanting to perpetuate an

ongoing cover-up.

Now, Wuerl's visit to the home of sex abuse casualties was in September.

The family filed its notice of intent to sue at the end of that month, in Alle-

gheny County Common Pleas Court.For those unfamiliar, Allegheny is the

county were Pittsburgh is located.
Full Post

No comments:

Post a Comment