Deception through Sleight of Hand Semantics . . .

. . .AND ABUSING HIS EASY ACCESS TO THE PRESS:

THE WAY OF DONALD WUERL.




Observe how Cardinal Wuerl started his habit of deception through sleight

of hand semantics.It began in Year 1 of his tenure in Pittsburgh.Shortly

after Wolk was indicted, Donald Wuerl publicly stated:"I know now, and

have said to priests, that they cannot be reassigned."



Now, a morning commuter on a Pittsburgh metro line would have construed

the newspaper quotation as Wuerl telling the three molester priests that they

couldn't be reassigned to ministry.This is wrong.Look closer.The opera-

tive word here is "now," while the operative phrase is "said to priests."He

didn't speak the sentence to Wolk, Zula, and Pucci.He spoke it to other

priests, deceiving the public into thinking that he had no intention to put

back into ministry any of the three priests.Wuerl's quote made him look

like a zero tolerance bishop.However, his quote was only a semantic trick.

After all, he already put John Hoehl back into chaplaincy ministry, despite

the fact that Anthony Bevilacqua removed him shortly before Bevilacqua

became archbishop of Philadelphia.



Wuerl didn't disclose the time when he said to unnamed priests that Wolk,

Zula, and Pucci couldn't be reassigned.It could have been spoken the day

after Wolk was indicted.In fact, the evidence shows this to be the case.

To start, Wuerl assigned the notorious John Hoehl to the Shadyside Hospi-

tal chaplaincy three months before Wolk was first indicted.Thus, Hoehl's

reassignment went into effect four months before three Washington County

indictments were issued.This shows that Donald Wuerl was very open to

the idea of reassigning molester priests even in the autumn of 1988.There-

fore, Wuerl didn't tell any priests that Wolk, Zula, and Pucci couldn't be re-

assigned until after the indictment of Wolk ........ except for Zula, of course.

Zula was a reputed sadist.Wuerl drew the line with that type of behavior

at the time.None the less, observe:



(1) John Hoehl was assigned to Shadyside Hospital in July.(2) The first

indictment of Wuerl's molester trio was in October.(3) On the day Wolk

was indicted, Hoehl was stationed at Shadyside Hospital.(4) Despite the

Allegheny County indictment of Wolk, John Hoehl remained assigned to

the Shadyside hospital post.(5) Approximately one month later came the

Washington County indictments.For those unfamiliar, Washington County

is the one located below Allegheny County.None the less, when Wolk, Zu-

la, and Pucci were simultaneously indicted, John Hoehl was still stationed

at Shadyside Hospital.This means that Wuerl was engaged in molester re-

assignments even the day before his public statement.That statement was a

deception.Logic shows that it was spoken after the October 11 Allegheny

County indictment of Wolk.



Incidentally, Shadyside Hospital is located near Carnegie Mellon University

and the University of Pittsburgh.Such universities are frequented by numer-

ous male youth, not unlike the ones John Hoehl was multiply accused of hav-

ing molested during his long tenure at Quigley High School, in Baden, PA.



According to courtroom testimony, the sadist Richard Zula was told that he

was not going to return to ministry, on April 4, 1988.No such thing was ev-

er known to have been said to Wolk and Pucci.Therefore, Donald Wuerl's

original way of handling molester priests is evident.If an accused priest

were to receive a favorable prognosis from a psychiatric facility, then he

would be good to go into non-parish ministry.If not, then the priest would

be ousted.In light of this pattern, one can assume that any priest who used

whips and chains on an altar boy or two, as did Richard Zula, wouldn't get

a favorable prognosis from any psychiatric clinic.Such a priest would not

have the sheet of paper which would serve the function of excuse for Wuerl;

as an excuse for reassigning a molester priest.



Wuerl's own Speech Gave Him Away



Observe this comment of Wuerl, spoken shortly after Wolk was indicted:



"That was his whole life.Everything he was trained and called to

do.To say he will not be reassigned is a devastating thing to do."



This sounds like an excuse for not notifying a molester priest that he will

not be returning to ministry.In as much, if a bishop would have said the

previous statement during 2002, he would have been soundly condemned

as a cover-up artist.The link posted at the end of this section shows the

news report on this.



The Other Diocesan Excuse and the Contradiction in it



The official Pittsburgh diocesan spokesman made the following statement

shortly after Robert Wolk's October indictment:



"We followed the lead of the alleged victims and the family.

We had no desire to cause undue pain or anxiety to them,

if they are not disposed to take public action themselves."



This sounds like a very caringthat of Father Edward Huff.In that case, Wuerl reassigned Fr. Huff to

ministry the same year Wuerl received accusations against him.He did so,

after Huff had a stay in a St. Louis psychiatric facility.



The Specifics of the Huff Case



In February 1992, two families, days apart, reported Huff.Donald Wuerl

responded by doing the type of thing that Bernard Cardinal Law repeatedly

did in Boston.Wuerl sent Huff to a psychiatric facility; to one in St Louis,

named Saint Michael's.The prognosis was that Huff had sufficient residu-

al functional capacity to perform some type of ministry.So, in November

1992, Wuerl assigned Huff to a chaplaincy post and provided him with liv-

ing quarters in downtown Pittsburgh.



In December 1992, additional parishioners from Huff's parish sent Wuerl

a letter that accused Huff of molestation.This was the third time Edward

Huff was reported, and this was when Wuerl realized that the cat was out

of the bag.There were enough people who knew of Huff's transgressions

that at least one of them would inform the police should Wuerl's diocese

decline to do so.Thus, this was when Wuerl's Get Out of Jail Free Card

expired.



Wuerl did not immediately report Huff to law enforcement authorities, de-

spite the fact that a third set of parishioners sent a complaint against him.

Rather, Huff was sent back to Saint Michael's, despite the positive bill of

health that was already given to him by the St. Louis facility.This shows

that sending Huff back to Saint Louis was a strategic move, and not a med-

ical necessity.



It wasn't until March 1993 when the Pittsburgh diocese finally reported Fr.

Edward Huff to law enforcement authorities.This means that he was not

reported until thirteen months after Wuerl learned of his misconduct.By

that time, Edward Huff had already submitted his resignation.



As a subtotal, Fr. Edward Huff wasn't arrested until fifteen months after he

was reported by the Diocese of Pittsburgh to the required law enforcement

entities.Take note that Edward Huff was not arrested until 28 months after

Wuerl learned of his predatory acts.In addition, March 1993 had addition-

al significance to it.It was the month when the Vatican's version of the U.S.

Supreme Court ruled on the Cipolla case for the first time.March 1993 was

when Donald Wuerl appealed to the Vatican Signatura, asking it to vacate its

judgment of the Cipolla case and to review the case anew.In light of this,

Huff was too much of a hot potato for Wuerl to keep concealing.



The time delay in the Fr. Edward Huff case provided a smoke screen to the

fact that Wuerl found himself cornered and checkmated during yet another

botched cover-up attempt.So, take note on how Wuerl sought to manipulate

time lines, in order to look diligent and trust-worthy --- in order to distance

his tracks from his original handling of the Fr. Huff case.In addition, keep

in mind that Wuerl and company had already been accused of stonewalling

(foot dragging) in a previous case.This means that giving Wuerl credit for

having reported Edward Huff was equivalent to giving a bank robber credit

for stopping a bank robbery the moment he finds himself surrounded by a

circle of police cars and then drops the sacks of money he was holding.



A Revisionist Article which Even Changed the Time Lines



In 2005, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review provided a very false statement, in

saying that Wolk and Zula were convicted in 1987.This made it look as if

Wuerl had nothing to do with the cover-up of them, being that he didn't start

his Pittsburgh tenure until 1988.Therefore, that article made it look as if he

had a crystal clean sex abuse record.Perhaps the author of the misleading

article was deceived into thinking that Wuerl couldn't have possibly been

part of any cover-up, so the author assumed that the convictions occurred

before Wuerl's arrival.Or maybe he was an intentional liar.



One thing about Wuerl is certain.He wasn't the lionhearted protector of the

Southwestern Pennsylvania's most vulnerable.Nor was he motivated by a

visit to the family of two molested altar boys.This is evidenced by the fact

that he reassigned Fr. Edward Huff to ministry years after the visit and later

made Fr. Torquato a parish pastor long after the evening Wuerl spent with

the two altar boys molested by Wolk, Zula, and Pucci.Wuerl was motivat-

ed by nothing other than law enforcement authorities and bad press, if not

by insurance premiums, being that molester priests can be very expensive

to have around.This brings us to the reason why Donald Wuerl pursued

the Anthony Cipolla case so vehemently.



The Reason Why Wuerl Pursued the Cipolla Case to the End



Wuerl originally declared the accusations of Tim Bendig to be not credible.

This was because Bendig accused more priests than Cipolla of sexual per-

versity.Then, Bendig's attorney, Douglas Yauger, presented to Wuerl doc-

umentation concerning a 1978 arrest of Cipolla.Cipolla was accused of

molesting a nine year boy under the guise of a medical exam.



The 1978 criminal case ended when the mother of the young man dropped

the charges.She would later claim that she only dropped the charges out

of a sense of duress, dropping them within a month after having filed them.

Diane Thompson (the mother) alleged that she kept receiving direct pres-

sure from former Pittsburgh bishop, Vincent Leonard.This means that she

alleged that the Diocese of Pittsburgh committed witness tampering.Yet,

she filed no criminal complaint against former Bishop Leonard, as far as

is known.



Concerning the Thompson case, Anthony Cipolla stated the following:



"1. There was no BOY'S ROOM where a thermometer was found.

That was a lie."

"2. There was no medical equipment found in my room and office

as reported.That was a lie."

"3. The police found nothing in my room.Instead I gave them a

BLOOD PRESSURE DEVICE THAT WAS GIVEN TO ME BY DOCTOR LAWRENCE

DUNNIGAN (NOW DECEASED).AT THE TIME, I WAS COLLECTING MEDICAL

SUPPLIES FOR THE MISSIONS."



In review, Diane Thompson stated that she dropped the 1978 charges out of

a sense of duress.Then, a second source conjectured that she dropped the

charges, in order to prevent something incriminating about her from surfac-

ing during the trial.In addition, anidentifying herself as Diane Thompson

on an online comment board alleged that her son continues to suffer from the

lingering effects of emotional trauma, allegedly on account of Cipolla.This

means that, both individuals apparently stand by their pleadings/averments.

Cipolla does.He still pleads his innocence and Dianne Thompson never

exhonerated him.



Bendig Did Not File Until After Wolk, Zula, and Pucci Were Indicted



November 1988 was when Tim Bendig filed his notice of intent to sue in the

Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas.It was only at that point in time

when Wuerl removed Anthony Cipolla from ministry.In fact, Wuerl didn't

deep-six John Hoehl until the same month.Very simply, if Wolk, Zula, and

Pucci were not indicted in the Autumn of 1988, Donald Wuerl wouldn't have

removed Hoehl in November of that same year.Plus, if Bendig hadn't made

his second move, in filing a civil action, then Cipolla would have stayed in

ministry.Keep in mind that Bendig was not believed in his original allega-

tions against Cipolla and several other priests



The important point to make at this point is that the Bendig/Cipolla case was

NEVER tried in any court of law on Earth.The Vatican case only sought to

discern if Wuerl had grounds to remove Cipolla, based on Psychic Defect.

St. Michael's Institute in NYC gave Cipolla an entirely clean bill of mental

health, while Saint Luke's Clinic in Maryland marked Cipolla as being De-

pressed and Suicidal.He was NEITHER evaluated as being psychopathic, NOR

sexually perverted, NOR a pathological liar.



Wuerl refused to accept the assessment of St. Michael's Institute, calling it

scantily.The Vatican Signatura rejected the St. Luke's evaluation as entire-

ly invalid.Thus came the assessment of the John Vianney's Center, Philadel-

phia.Incidentally, it's pronounced Vee-awe-nay, with no syllable accented.



Wuerl's Actual Motivation



Concerning the Cipolla case, the 21st Century media made it sound as if

Wuerl were a dedicated and caring bishop who got into action for the sake

of the youth of the Pittsburgh area.Of course, nothing could be further from

the truth.This was Wuerl's actual motivation:



TO STAVE OFF THE SAME TYPE OF GRAND JURY INQUEST WHICH VISITED

THE ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA, AND WHICH RESULTED IN CARDINAL

ANTHONY BEVILACQUA DYING IN DISGRACE.



Donald Wuerl had been caught performing a triple cover-up during late 1988.

It was a time when he was called uncooperative by a prosecuting district at-

torney.Furthermore, the same district attorney stated that the case involving

Wolk, Zula, and Pucci was probably not an isolated incident.Therefore, the

law enforcement radar was still directed toward the Diocese of Pittsburgh.

This means that a grand jury inquest was within reach.



When Wuerl made his 1993 appeal to the Vatican's highest court, (concern-

ing the Cipolla case) the Fr. Edward Huff affair was still in progress.Add

to that the fact that Anthony Cipolla was a priest attached to publicly known

molestation accusations.In as much, if Wuerl would have reinstated a priest

attached to publicly known molestation accusations, then either investigators,

subpoenas, or warrants would have rained down upon the Pittsburgh diocese,

especially in light of the fact that the thrice accused Edward Huff was in the

diocesan background.Thus, there was a real possibility that a grand jury in-

quest could have been triggered, if Anthony Cipolla were to be reassigned to

diocesan ministry.Everything that Wuerl had been keeping secret up to that

time would have been uncovered.



There were at least two more things to consider.If Cipolla were reinstat-

ed, the Diocese of Pittsburgh would have become vulnerable to those false

accusations which lead to lawsuits.There was also the matter of insurance

premium rates to consider.



To say that the safety of Pittsburgh's youth was dependent upon Wuerl, con-

cerning Anthony Cipolla, was a propagandist's lie.The public already knew

of the accusations against Cipolla.Therefore, if he were reinstated, children

would have been told to avoid him, whether he were guilty or not, simply as

a precaution.Diocesan students would have been taken out of schools, pray-

er groups, field trips, summer camps, choirs, etc.Therefore, priests accused

of molestation are bad for business.



In addition, Cipolla knew that he was in a gigantic spotlight and couldn't do

anything ill without it being amplified.In fact, if Donald Wuerl did nothing

about Cipolla, then law enforcement authorities would have placed investi-

gators in close contact with the diocese.A grand jury inquest was a logical

possibility at the time, if and only if Wuerl outraged anyone in authority.In

light of the aforementioned, it is easy to understand that Wuerl was doing no-

thing more than looking out for himself, in pursuing the Cipolla/Bendig case

to its conclusion.At this point, keep in mind that Bendig's accusations were

never tried in any court of law on earth.Cipolla was removed from priest-

hood duties on account of "psychic defect," and the paperwork I obtained on-

ly stated that the defect was "depression" and "suicidal tendencies."If there

is paperwork on the topic I haven't obtained, let me know about it, if and only

if you've the evidence to support your claim.More on this topic is found at:
Full Post