Introduction
2002 was the year when the media gave print space and
air time to those who suffered at the hands of predatory
priests. It quickly became the year when Donald Wuerl
succeeded in stealing the spotlight from those preyed-
upon individuals, as if their pangs were inconsequential.
Someone succeeded in getting certain media entities to
focus on Wuerl in adulation, regarding him as one of the
"one of the good guys."
However ...
News articles which praised Wuerl, such as those published
in the LA Times and New York Times, failed to mention that
he was the bishop caught performing a triple cover-up involv-
ing molester priests who even performed sadistic acts upon
two under-aged males.
Incidentally, if Donald Wuerl's Triple Cover-up is news to
you, as it may be, you can learn of it by clicking on the link
posted directly below here:
Link to Donald Wuerl's Triple Cover-up
In addition, articles and news reports that praised Wuerl as
the absolute answer to churchmen in America also failed to
mention the subsequent arrest of a fourth priest whom Wuerl
sent to Saint Louis, then kept in Pittsburgh diocesan living
quarters, and sent back to Saint Louis, all the while knowing
of the allegations against that priest.
In the Year 2002, while Wuerl was being praised as a great
bishop, a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari was filed at the
United States Supreme Court against Wuerl's diocese, con-
cerning of one of Wuerl's former personal secretaries, as
well as Wuerl himself.
In addition, there were "several priests" who were long since
accused of abuse, but were none the less kept in active min-
istry by Wuerl, until after the start of the media explosion
that detailed hierarchical cover ups. That is to say, when the
Year 2002 came into being, neither Wuerl, nor his diocesan
spokesman, nor his many attorneys could truthfully claim
that there was no priest in active ministry in the Diocese of
Pittsburgh who had been accused of molestation.
Wuerl was installed as the Roman Catholic archbishop of
Washington, D.C. on June 22, 2006. Prior to that date, he
spent 18 years as the bishop of Pittsburgh. The following
subject matter, therefore, concerns Wuerl's days as the
bishop of Pittsburgh.
The Names of the Ill-treated are Withheld
The names of persons ill-treated by the diocese that the
blatantly narcissistic and evidently ruthless Donald Wuerl
ruled for 18 years do not appear on either one of the two
church corruption pages.
_____________________________________________
The Preliminary Notes Section
(This section was designed to read like Cliff Notes)
Credibility
The credibility of the following subject matter is anchored to
numerous pieces of evidentiary support. The evidence in-
cludes the tape recording of a harassment entirely provoked
by Wuerl's personnel, if not Wuerl himself, in an act of eco-
nomic retaliation. Such a recording is permissible under the
federal statute found in USC 18, Ch. 119, Sec. 2511(2)(d).
The evidentiary support also includes numerous pieces of per-
sonal mail, along with a number of postmarked envelopes. In
fact, a couple of the envelopes carry the return address label
of the official residence that Donald Wuerl possessed from
1988 to 2006.
An additional piece of evidence is the witness account found
on a police department's Citizen's Report Form. It was hand-
written by an unaffiliated third party. There are other pieces
of evidence, as well.
Some of the visual evidence can be viewed by clicking on
the link provided directly below:
Link to Photocopy Evidence Related
to Wuerl's Cover-up of his Secretary
Timeline
The actions of Donald Wuerl's former secretary occurred from
1990 to the middle of 1997. Some of the priest's homosexual
antics took place in Wuerl's own residence.
The predatory conduct actually didn't end until one final ploy
was committed during the 1997-1998 Christmas season. And
as far as concerns the retaliatory conduct, it occurred in 1998
and 1999.
In 1998, when the homosexual priest was reported, he was
the president of one of the Pittsburgh diocesan high schools.
He was appointed to that school by Donald Wuerl in 1996.
The Priest Approached his Prey First
Concerning the young man targeted by Wuerl's former secre-
tary, he was first approached by the homosexual priest on the
steps of a church, when the young man was still a teenager.
The priest presented himself as an undefined type of sociology
researcher. He told the teenager whom he approached that he
was seeking to learn what draws young people to church. The
bottom line is that the young man did not approach the priest
first.
An Outline of the Priest's Conduct
The priest's conduct consisted in a physical form of sexual
harassment, accompanied by a misrepresentation as fraudu-
lent as a wolf in sheperd's clothing. It consisted in the priest
preying on a situation that will not be detailed herein, and it
involved the modus operandi reported by the 2002 media as
the one commonly used by predatory priests.
A Diplomatic Way of Describing it
There are forms of sexual harassment that consist in episodes
of prolonged one-way contact that repeatedly result in the ha-
rassed person either diplomatically pushing away the harasser
or moving away from him. Sexual harassment is not limited
to verbal aggression. That is to say, there are forms of sexual
harassment where a priest does not keep his hands to himself.
Predatory cases are sometimes accompanied by the pretense
of spiritual direction, where the aggression is disguised be-
hind authoritarian voice patterns. Those cases do not involve
gullible prey. Rather, they involve a priest's badgering of his
intended target, for the purpose of acheiving physical contact.
They involve a priest abusing his power and influence, in cre-
ating the illusion that he is speaking in the name of God and
the Church, when he is doing nothing more than orchestrat-
ing an intrusion. The authoritarian pretense is only the first
stage of the ploy.
That which Constitutes Predatory
Conduct and Abusive Acts
It is not required for a cleric to be a serial rapist, in order for
him to constitute a predatory priest. He simply has to engage
in the conduct that consists in him targeting a selected individ-
dual and then manipulating ways to physically intrude on the
the targeted prey in as severe a degree as he can, in his quest
to consummate his lusts. It consists in a priest using another
person as "an object of sexual gratification."
Donald Wuerl's Sought-for Definition of Sexual Abuse
The Pittsburgh Post Gazette reported on October 27, 2002
that Wuerl "fought for the broad meaning of sexual
abuse." The same thing was reported in slightly more detail,
on May 29, 2003. In as much, pursuant to Wuerl's sought-for
definition, the acts of his former personal secretary constituted
sexual abuse.
Predatorship Includes Taking Advantage of
Persons who Underwent Nightmaric Tragedy
A predatory priest can easily prey upon a traumatized person,
by presenting himself as an intervening lifesaver, when in fact,
he is nothing more than a disingenuous wolf. This constitutes
the abuse of an impaired person, being that a traumatized
state is a state of impairment.
If the priest is told about a volatile home environment, he can
one day use knowledge of it against his victim, in manipulat-
ing the more violent persons in that environment to attack his
prey for him. It consists in the priest using knowledge that
was confidentially entrusted to him by his victim, in order to
bring additional harm to that same victim. That is to say, it
consists in the betrayal of trust.
The Personal Mail is the Tale of the Tape
Several pieces of the previously mentioned mail sufficiently
constitute the tale of the tape. They erase any doubt as to the
motives, mindset, emotionality, and psychosexual orientation
of Wuerl's former personal secretary. They also prove that
the former secretary was well aware that his targeted prey
was suffering greatly in his personal life.
The Former Personal Secretary's Whereabouts
At the time of this writing, Donald Wuerl's former personal
secretary is in active ministry. He is the pastor of a parish in
Carrick, Pennsylvania, despite the fact that his retaliatory con-
duct, alone, proved him to be a danger to others. And Donald
Wuerl, in having let the retaliations cause jeopardy & achieve
damaging effects, proved himself to be a far greater danger to
others. It was equivalent to having reported a fire to the fire
marshal, only to see shortly thereafter, the arrival of dutiful
personnel armed with flame throwers.
The Office of Priestly Formation, formerly called
the Office of the Training for the Priesthood
Donald Wuerl has been a major figure in a department called
"the Office of Priestly Formation." In other lands and at oth-
er times it has been known as the Office of the Training for
the Priesthood.
The title, "priestly formation," is an embarassingly gay sound-
ing title which gives the impression that seminarians are
being fitted into a stylish, cosmetized, and elitist motiff. That
is to say, the title, "priestly formation" does not inspire images
of naturally inclined men training for positions of service to
God and mankind.
It is furthermore acknowledged that the Church in America
was plagued with unnaturally inclined seminarians and priests,
as well as active sodomites, during the years when Wuerl was
a major contributor to the office of "priestly formation."
Now, Wuerl was installed at the Pittsburgh diocese on Febru-
ary 12, 1988, and his former personal secretary was ordained
on July 1, 1989. This means that the predator-to-be was or-
dained under Donald Wuerl's watch. The predatory priest,
therefore, is a sample of Wuerl's version of "priestly forming."
Rewarded with a National Executive Position
in the Office of "Priestly Formation"
The priest in charge of investigating Wuerl's former secretary
(in 1998) became the Executive Director of the Secretariat for
Vocations & Priestly Formation, at the headquarters of the
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, in 1999. He is
a Pittsburgh diocesan priest who was named a Chaplain to
Pope Benedict XVI, on June 29, 2006. In 2009, he was ap-
pointed to be the Bishop of Anchorage Alaska. Whenever we
sent communiqués to either his office or to Wuerl's office, a
new harassment or an ensuing retaliation would immediately
follow.
The Tally Sheet, Stated for the Record
The scorecard goes as follows: One person was the target
of the priest's homosexual aggression. A second person saw
to it that the priest would be reported. And three persons got
caught in the middle of the first wave of retaliatory conduct.
Two persons then got caught in the second wave. In the pro-
cess, a big bad wolf of collective resources eventually blew
down three houses.
Of the three persons caught in the retaliations, one now lives
in the deep south of the United States, one moved to an
American state west of the one where the retaliatory dio-
cese is located, and the other person is located elsewhere.
Lower & Upper Respiratory Disease Is Involved
One of the three individuals caught in the diocese's retal-
iation suffers from asthma, central sleep apnea (where all
breathing ceases during sleep), and an upper-respiratory
disease. The objective medical findings entered into his
medical records have included:
1] increased AP diameter
(This is the barrel chest common in
advanced cases of emphysema and
in cases of chronic asthma.)
2] turbinate swelling
3] bilateral wheezing
4] prolonged expiratory phase
5] upper respiratory erythema (redness)
6] exorbitant provocation test results,
7] objective skin whealing
(during placebo-controlled skin testing,
while testing negative for the placebo.)
Additional evidentiary support includes the signed & nota-
rized lay witness testimony of persons who witnessed him
ill. The word, "choking" was used in more than one wit-
ness account that was accepted as evidence in his disability
case. He was adjudicated as having a full & severe physical
disability.
The disability has included numerous occasions of profuse
dry heaving that even resulted in cringing chest and bicep
pain. There have also been numerous occasions of head-
aches so severe that the temples and cheekbones would feel
bruised even the day after a headache subsided.
The pertinence in mentioning this is that the following ac-
count illustrates the ruthless indifference of Donald Wuerl
and his personnel toward the physically impaired.
A Civil Action
Legal action was taken, and the events related to the following
account were made known to three levels of the United States
judiciary. This included the level of the U.S. Supreme Court,
in a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari and three supplemental
briefs. The Supreme Court documents were filed in forma
pauperis by a clerk of court there in 2002. The lawsuit was
filed Pro Se in district court during the Year 2000.
Filing Pro Se means to file without an attorney. Being ad-
mitted to a court in forma pauperis means that you were too
poor to pay the filing fee.
Ever-so-coincidentally, as soon as the lawsuit was filed, all
harassments and retaliatory conduct ceased. However, the
diversionary press release tactics resumed, along with their
slight-of-hand deceptions. Needless to say, the coverup
remained on course.
The Supreme Court docket number was 01-10392.
The Citation number is 537 U.S. 843, dated October 7, 2002.
To whom it might one day come to concern, it is requested
that you omit the name of the primary petitioner, being that
he has already suffered more than enough in life, already.
He is the one whose name appears first on the docket sheets.
The Pointless Venue of Last Recourse
The civil court system was the venue of last recourse, being
that church officials would neither respond in writing nor
respond by verbal communication to a single item sent to
them after March 1998. This included correspondence sent
to officials in Washington, DC and in Vatican City. Yet, it
was promised to me during March 1998, directly to my face,
that someone would get back to me. However, there is a
huge difference between getting back to someone and get-
ting back at someone.
The Cardinal Refused to Help
Even when communications were sent to church authorities
by third parties, there would still be no response, except in
one instance. In that instance, a cardinal responded to a
New Jersey woman who wrote to him about Wuerl and his
former personal secretary. The only message that she sent
me, concerning the cardinal, was that, "He said that he will
not help you." She also stated that he was a "very promi-
nent cardinal at the Vatican."
The woman's first name, by the way, was Monica. Her motive,
in reporting Wuerl, was to make sure that he would not be
appointed archbishop of New York. She really couldn't care
any less than she already did, about the victims of the 1998
and 1999 Pittsburgh Diocesan retaliations.
The Papal Nuncio Played "Pass the Buck"
During the first wave of retaliatory conduct (in 1998), a phone
call was placed to the Papal Nuncio in Washington. He simply
said that he would contact the Bishop of Pittsburgh about the
matter, assuring me that the bishop, alone, would take care
things. Wuerl did nothing but let the course of events stay on
course.
The Federal Court Case's Added Feature
The case also included the issue of clerics committing the sin
of cowardice when confronted with the moral obligation to
speak out against certain institutionalized sins, in fear of loos-
ing tax exempt status and/or taxpayer-funded income, as well
as other government benefits and the government's favor in
general. This involves those sins to which Catholics give their
cooperation at the workplace & in the marketplace.
That feature of the lawsuit concerned Donald Wuerl refusing
to grant either an aposolate or "a church-approved initiative"
dedicated to ending the Catholic Faithful's cooperation with
social sin, with the assistance of the vastly resourced Catholic
Church. Getting no assistance from one's bishop, in matters
of salvation, is a violation of one's religious rights.
My allegation was that, in Donald Wuerl's fear of loosing tax-
exempt status and/or government funding, he blocked my right
to observe my religious duties. Therefore, under to the Federal
doctrine of "Compulsion," Wuerl blocked my rights under the
color of law. Part 2 covers this matter.
And stated for the record, in recent days past, an "apostolate"
was known as a Catholic Action Guild.
LBJ'S Legacy was Partly Involved
The aforementioned feature of the lawsuit concerned, in part,
a law that LBJ got passed, when he was a senator. That law
concerns the way in which a religion can loose its tax exempt
status.
LBJ, incidentally, stands for Lyndon Baines Johnson, the Viet-
nam War president who did not run for re-election. And the
aforementioned law was a ploy of LBJ, in his effort to beat
his political opponent, Dudley Dougherty, in the 1954 Texas
Senatorial election. You see, Mr. Dougherty was receiving
pivotal & open support from certain religious entities until the
law that LBJ introduced on the senate floor was enacted. LBJ
then won the 1954 election.
Proof that it was a Determinant in
Wuerl's Decision Making Process
There is evidence that the fear of loosing tax-exempt status
and taxpayer-funded program participation has been a factor
in Donald Wuerl's decision making process. It is found in a
public statement that he once issued. Wuerl once stated that
he will not deny holy communion to any influential politician
committed to the proliferation of a certain mortal sin, because,
according to Wuerl, denying holy communion to such a politi-
cian could have "national ramifications." And of course, this
apparently refers to the Catholic Church's tax-exempt status,
as well as to its taxpayer-funded operations.
Religions and taxpayer-funded Income
Religions in America can acquire ample amounts of taxpayer
dollars via government-contracted social services, government-
sponsored medical plans, government-funded tuition financing,
and the such. A religion can even receive free food from a
state's Cooperative Extension Society. Therefore, that which
Donald Wuerl's personnel called "Charities" were actually tax-
payer-funded programs which gained for Catholic institutions
income. Getting payed for activities called charities negates
the meaning of charity, especially when it is funded by tax-
payers who get no credit for their contributions.
Wuerl's Cooperation, Concerning
a Specific Crime Against Humanity
The lawsuit also involved Donald Wuerl's cooperation in a
crime against humanity which involves Sweatshop Labor
Profiteering and other types of Slave Labor Profiteering.
This additionally involves those types of labor that have
been imposed upon foreign child workers in recent years.
This complicity, therefore, envelops Donald Wuerl like an
aura of razor wire.
As a reminder, when imported slave labor merchandise reaches
your home, your place of work, and your person, then you are
involved. You are involved much the same way as is a person
who receives stolen property. But, in this case, it is more than
a matter of stolen property. It is a matter of stolen lives, wasted
away in the burden of going through life without a livable wage.
You are also involved in this crime if you work for an employer
engaged in this practice. You are even involved if you invest
in a corporation that profits from this practice.
This Cooperation is Attached to a Blatant Contradiction
The great contradiction about Donald Wuerl is that he is her-
alded as a protector of children, yet he has been indifferent
toward a corporate crime that victimizes children much more
frequently than does the predatorship of priests who should
never have been ordained in the first place.
This Cooperation Started to Backfire
on Wuerl, in a Congressional Near-Hit
This is addressed in the following page. In addition, there
is yet another social sin about which Wuerl has been en-
tirely silent. It, too, is covered on the following webpage.
EWTN on the Topic of Donald Wuerl
A letter signed by the president of the EWTN Global Catholic
Network, dated January 28, 1999 and appearing on stationery
marked with the EWTN logo, stated the following about Don-
ald Wuerl:
"EWTN is reasonably familiar with the information
that you sent." ...
"I am not in a position to make further statements
regarding the material you sent except to say that
all of it has been duly noted." ...
"We do pray day and night that all bishops will be
in union with the Holy Father. We realize that
there are those who, by both work and action,
do not seem to be in union with the Holy Father."
Malachi Martin on the Topic of Donald Wuerl
Best-selling author, Malachi Martin, called Donald Wuerl
a fool who will one day "have to answer to God for all the
sins he has allowed." Father Malachi also said, "He is not
Catholic. He is just not Catholic." In fact, during a radio
talk show Malachi said, "I'll have you know that the Dio-
cese of Pittsburgh is one of the most pathetic dioceses
in the United States." Therefore, if you ever hear Donald
Wuerl's propaganda machine assassinate the character
of the late Malachi Martin, then you will know why.
Concerning the late Malachi Martin's ability to assess situa-
tions, he correctly prognosticated that Albino Luciano would
succeed Pope Paul VI to the Chair of Saint Peter. This was
published in a German newspaper shortly before the 1978
papal election. Father Malachi had a circuitry of insider
information for years.
Blatant Narcissism and/or Vanity
Wuerl's true height is mentioned somewhere in these texts,
because of his apparent obsession with having to look tall
in photographs and on film. That is to say, his vanity is
deafening. In as much, if you have read that Donald Wuerl
was/is an aesthetic 5'10" or 5'11", know that he has long
since been a non-athletic 5'3", 5'4", 5'5" or so - throughout
the plurality of decades. He resembled neither a Thomas
Merton, nor a Louis of Montfort, nor a Bruce Lee. Wuerl
has not been an imposing figure in his life, yet the press
made him look like a knight. That type of propaganda is
guaranteed is to backfire, however. For example ...
After a certain diocesan lecteur saw Wuerl for the first time,
he drove to my place of work (at the time) and told me that
he was initially shocked to find that Wuerl was nothing more
than "scrawny." The bottom line is that the media has been
Wuerl's puppet entourage, used to cast an illusion upon the
people. This is pertinent in that, if you spread deceptions
about yourself, then you will spread lies about other things,
including the topic of faith and morals.
Economic Results
The individual who saw to it that Wuerl's former secretary
would be reported had an R1 credit rating (the highest) at
the start of December 1997. And his credit card debt was
only $300. Yet, shortly after the diocesan retaliations of
1998, his credit card debt had risen to $8,900. Things
turned more tragic, and as time progressed, he was
forced into bankruptcy court.
The End of Events
This series of events finally ended in a 3 degree Celsius
night of snowfall, as the individual who saw to the re-
porting of Wuerl's former secretary was left to sleep in
a borrowed pick-up that had to be returned the follow-
ing day. Within two weeks, he was given a means of
transportation to the deep south, along with lodging
when he would get there.
Donald Wuerl would then go on to be praised on Pitts-
burgh television as a "holy, holy, man." He would be
painted as a hero in the LA Times & New York Times.
In fact, Wuerl was made the master of ceremony of a
Pittsburgh parade, having been lauded as a hero. Then,
former Pittsburgh Steeler, L.C. Greenwood, would play
the role of dupe, in publicly encouraging Wuerl to be
patient for the day when he will be appointed cardinal
of the Catholic Church and made an automatic candi-
date for the papacy.
L.C. Greenwood was recruited for the propaganda task,
unknowingly so, because he has yet to be elected into
the NFL Hall of Fame, despite his four Super Bowl rings
and his success as a defensive end. That is to say, Wuerl
was making himself an equal to L.C., in inferring that he
deserves to be a cardinal as much as L.C. deserves to be
in the Hall of Fame.
The account begins at either the following paragraph or
at the following blog post, depending on which website
or html cache you find yourself.
January 15, 2009
The Destruction of One's Faith in Divine Providence
Whatever you let happen to one person, you are willing to let
happen to all others in the same social strata. That which
Donald Wuerl let fall upon me and two other individuals
(after I assisted a young adult male in reporting a preda-
tory priest) is that which he will let happen to you, if you
are a part of the common citizenry.
This includes the harassment, the economic terrorism, and
the actual economic loss. This includes the telephoned threat,
the physical pursuit, and the diversionary press release tactics.
This also includes the abandonment and the failed attempt to
frame the priest's victim for a theft that never occurred in the
first place.
This additionally includes the incitements that did result in a
nighttime confrontation and which could have resulted in a full
scale neighborhood brawl. Therefore, do not be deceived into
assuming that Donald Wuerl would ever let you or anyone else
be spared of that which we were not, unless of course, he can
use you for either advancement in status or financial gain.
For the Record, it was an Act of Conscience
Know that the reporting of the homosexual priest was an
act of conscience. After all, there is such a thing as a sin of
negligence for which you will have to answer to God and to
any irate parent who might one day ask you why you kept
silent about a priest whom you knew to be a predator. In
light of this, know that the efforts I made for the sake of the
young adult male are the same efforts I would have made for
your sake. Actually, they were made for your sake.
The Local Media Contributed to the Deception
The other reason why I assisted in having the offending priest
reported was because of the press releases which assured the
public that Donald Wuerl could be trusted.
When the Priest First Approached the Young
Adult Male, He Was Approaching a Teenager
who Was Minding His Own Business
As was previously mentioned, the priest approached the young
adult male first, while the young man was still a teenager. And
as was also previously mentioned, the guise under which the
priest approached the young man was that of an undefined
type of sociology researcher. The priest's claim was that he
was seeking to learn what draws young people to church.
The young man was sitting on the steps of a church, watching
people come out of Mass, when the priest first approached
him. The priest then invited him to brunch. And without get-
ting into details, the priest eventually said that there was "a lot
of work to be done" for the young man's spiritual well being.
The Retaliation Against a Third Party Whom I
Didn't Even Know Existed at the Start of All This
We did not tell any member of the young man's family about
the predatory priest. And we certainly did not tell any family
member that we reported the priest to Donald Wuerl. Some-
one else brought the young man's family into this matter, and
it was a violation of privacy to have done so. After all, the
young man was the age of majority and no one was his legal
guardian. Nonetheless, the invasion of privacy would result
surrogate harassment within a short period of time. This is
because someone in the Diocese of Pittsburgh decided to
become a puppeteer.
You see, an uncle of the young man had business accounts
with Wuerl's diocese. And according to an intercepted com-
munication, the income that the uncle received from those
accounts was significant enough to cause a brutal impact if
they were to be suddenly terminated. Now, Wuerl's former
secretary never mentioned to his prey that he gave business
to one of the young man's uncles. Nonethless, those busi-
ness accounts would soon be used as a vehicle for retaliation.
Those accounts would come to be terminated in 1998.
The Timeline
The complaint against Wuerl's former personal secretary was
mailed in early January 1998. Then, a piece of mail, dated
January 29, was sent to the victim. It was forwarded to the
address that he was using during a sabbatical, and that piece
of mail was simply a card.
There was no signature on the card and no return address on
the envelope. It simply stated, "{First Name of the Victim},
call xxx-xxx-xxxx. Urgent." It said nothing else.
An Invasion of Privacy
The invasive feature of that card consisted in the fact that,
in his initial correspondence to Donald Wuerl, the victim of
Wuerl's former secretary asked not to be contacted until the
end of February, in his initial correspondence. He was on
an eight week sabbatical at the time, and had already experi-
enced viciousness from the Diocese of Pittsburgh, regarding
another matter. So, he wanted to be spared of any futher
distress while on his sabbatical.
The victim eventually telephoned the number that appeared on
the January 29th card, and it turned out to be his uncle. At this
point in the narration, it is pertinent to note that the victim only
spoke with his uncle during Holiday get-togethers. That is to
say, the young man's uncle was not in the young man's daily
life, and his uncle was not his confidant. Yet, his uncle would
be brought into a very personal matter. And concerning the
phone call, the uncle was vague and evasive.
When mid-February came, an investigating priest sent the vic-
tim a letter, acknowledging the receipt of his complaint. Then,
on March 3, 1998, the primary diocesan investigator sent the
victim a letter, asking him to schedule an appointment, so that
they could "discuss the matter further." Ever so coincidentally,
the victim never got the letter. So, a follow-up letter was sent
to him, certified.
No Acknowledgement of a Demand Letter's Sending.
A Harassment Instead.
During that same week, a notarized demand letter from the
victim was mailed to Donald Wuerl. In it, the victim asserted
his right to financial reparation for sexual harassment, fraudu-
lent misrepresentation, and breach of a spiritual director's
fiduciary duties. However, Donald Wuerl made no acknowl-
edgement of the demand letter's arrival
Now, it is assumed that the demand letter arrived within 48
hours of its sending. Nonetheless, within 60 hours of its
sending the victim's uncle physically appeared on the scene.
That evening, the uncle insisted on seeing the young man im-
mediately. So, the two of them met at a family restaurant.
While at the restaurant, the uncle did mention the name of
the predatory/harassing priest, and he revealed that he had
business accounts with the diocese. He also said, "Right
now, you are in a huge spotlight."
No Written Acknowledgement of its Second Delivery.
A Retaliation, Instead.
Being that no one responded to the demand letter, it was hand
delivered to the diocesan building on March 18. This was its
second sending, and it was accompanied by a package of
photocopied evidence. In fact, the letter accompanying the
evidence read, "Test it for cracks."
The Result of the Second Delivery
Concerning the demand letter and the accompanying evidence,
one of the three following things happened the same day when
it was hand-delivered to the Pittsburgh diocesan building:
[1] Either the predatory priest immediately terminated the
uncle's business accounts,
[2] or another member of the diocese terminated them,
[3] or the uncle was given an ultimatum by which he was to
get his nephew to fade away, under penalty of loosing
his business accounts in the very near future.
Tape Recorded Evidence
That night, an additional piece of evidence came into exist-
ence. It was the tape recording of a harassment made upon
the young man. And in it is the mention of the business ac-
counts, along with their economic pertinence to the victim's
uncle. The recording ends with the sound of things crashing
to the floor and a screen door lache breaking, as the young
man literally had to take flight on foot. There was the at-
tempt to take the young man's tape recording away from
him.
That night, the victim called me from a pay phone, asking me
to go there. When I arrived, the first thing I noticed was that
his jeans were wet up to the knees. (He had taken flight
through the woods at night) I gave him shelter at my apart-
ment, and it became the next destination in the pursuit of him.
Incidentally, according to United States federal law, it is legal
to record your own conversation, even if no other party to
the conversation knows that you are recording it. 18 USC,
Chapter 119, Section 2511(2)(d).
The Pursuit
Shortly after that incident, unfriendly forces came inside the
apartment building where I had been living for years. Now,
it was the typical kind of building where you needed either
a key to get into it or a person to open the door for you.
The only other option was that of breaking into the building.
A witness account is that two men were banging on my apart-
ment door with a wooden object, while chanting "{My first
name} is going to Hell." Then came silence. So, a female
neighbor went out into the hallway, assuming that the men
had exited the building. She was then grabbed at the arm,
and asked where priest's victim was. It was asked in a tone
of desperation. You see, there were people who were afraid
that Wuerl's diocese would inflict more retaliation on the vic-
tim's family members than it had thus far done.
During that time we were elsewhere, keeping one step ahead
of the pursuit, unaware of what was happening at the apart-
ment. The tape recording and the postmarked mail of months
and years prior went with me.
Prior to That
There were previous phone calls made to my living quarters
from a relatively distant place . And the theme of those phone
calls was: "Back off." Those calls were eventually followed
by a midnight phone call from a complete stranger, traced to
a very nearby phone, via * 69. That call was not for me, how-
ever. Yet, the caller didn't dial the wrong number. That was
when, in the middle of the night, the predatory priest's victim
was taken to a prearranged place, along with the tape record-
ing and the other evidence.
Wuerl Could Have Stopped it with One Phone Call
Wuerl could have stopped the pursuit by means of one phone
call, in assuring the pursuers that no retaliation would be im-
posed upon any member of the victim's family. Wuerl did
not pick up the phone and make the needed call.
In not returning the uncle's business accounts to him, and in
not picking up the phone in order to stop the pursuit, Donald
Wuerl made a de facto ratification of his diocese's conduct.
And in not paying restitution for the economic loss that resulted
from the retaliation, Wuerl also ratified diocesan conduct.
One of the Pursuers Later Admitted to me that . . .
One of the pursuers confided to me, over the phone (when
the pursuit phase was nearing its end), the following:
"I would have gone through you to get to {victim's first name}."
Understand this to mean "physically through," and keep in
mind that this was stated to an asthmatic who no longer had
the health to play John Wayne-styled games.
The Second Wave of Retaliatory Conduct
During the summer of 1999, the victim of Wuerl's former se-
cretary had hair down to his shoulders. And his job required
him to work every Saturday, in security clearance work that
required detailed accounts of his daily work activites. During
that same summer, Wuerl's former secretary was stationed in
a part of Pittsburgh different than the one where he had been
stationed from 1996 to 1998.
Well, during the summer of 1999, the young man and I went
to a magistrate's office, in order to see if some type of crimi-
nal or civil complaint could be filed against Wuerl's former
secretary, if not Wuerl himself. Within a few days, a rental
shop operator called the police and accused the long-haired
young man of having stolen rental shop property on a Satur-
day, while allegedly having hair slightly longer than that of
a crew cut.
This accusation would have been just an annoying vexation,
except for the fact that the police contacted the young man's
mother, instead of the young man himself. The inclusion of
the young man's family made the police's telephone call more
than an annoyance. So, once again, the young man's family
was brought into a matter that should have been directed
solely to the young man who, incidentally, lived 15 miles from
his mom.
The victim of Donald Wuerl's former personal secretary was
never told the price of the property that he was accused of
having stolen. Therefore, he did not know if the accusation
constituted a felony, a summary offense, or a tort offense.
The Shop was Ever so Coincidentally Located near
the Recent Home of the Homosexual Predator Priest
The rental shop in question was ever so coincidentally located
near the diocesan high school where Wuerl's former secretary
was stationed between 1996 and 1998. And the park where
the shop was located was a place reputed as a meeting place
for homosexuals. In addition, the accuser who called the po-
lice had a flamingly homosexual voice. So, needless to say,
this caused us to reasonably suspect that the rental shop oper-
ator had a personal connection with the homosexual element
of the Diocese of Pittsburgh.
The timing of the accusation was far too coincidental for us
to suspect anything other than an orchestrated diocesan ploy,
done in retaliation for the young man's visit to a magistrate's
office, days prior. It served the function of diversionary tactic
that robbed the young man of time that could have been spent
in preparing to present evidence to law enforcement authorities.
A Photo License First Discovered Missing Shortly after
the Priest Made a Visit to the Young Man's Apartment
The accusing rental shop operator and the police claimed that
the evidence proving the commission of the alleged theft was
the victim's photo license. It was allegedly left by the victim
at the rental shop on the Saturday when he was documented
as having been at work. Well, at one time, the victim did have
a driver's license with a photo of him in a crew cut, but he dis-
covered it missing shortly after Wuerl's former secretary visited
him, at the apartment where he once lived. And the rental
shop operater did say that the young man's hair was slightly
longer than the hair of his crew cut photo, even though the
young man had hair down to his shoulders that same Saturday.
After the victim's "crew cut photo license" was discovered
missing, he obtained a replacement, never suspecting that
the homosexual priest might have possibly stolen his previous
one. Yet, there was a point during the priest's visit when he
had ready access to the wallet that contained the photo li-
cense that would soon thereafter be discovered missing.
They Refused to Produce the Alleged
Evidence and then Dropped the Case
When we demanded to see the driver's license that the rental
shop operator was supposed to have obtained, the police
refused to show it to us. In fact, we didn't even know if the
police or the accuser had a photo license to show us.
After our appearance at the police station, and after our de-
mand to see the alleged evidence, nobody bothered us about
the accusation again. No further action of any kind was taken.
Now, I did call the accuser, but he screamed at me in his flam-
ingly homosexual voice and then hung up on me. So, to this
day, I don't know if the rental shop operator lied about hav-
ing the victim's photo license or if he really did have the one
that was discovered missing after the predatory priest's visit.
In addition, if there were a rental agreement shown to the
police, what did the signature on it look like? Did it look
like a clever forgery of the young man's handwriting, or was
it blatantly forged? No one showed us a rental agreement.
The Predator/Harasser/Intruder was
Rewarded with a Free Trip to Rome
As was previously mentioned, we eventually filed a federal
lawsuit against the Diocese of Pittsburgh. And while the
court case was on a district court's docket, Donald Wuerl's
former personal secretary was ever so coincidently sent out-
side of United States jurisdiction, to Rome, in order to "work
on his doctorate."
A Note about Canon Law
Canon Law mandates that, whenever a cleric abuses his
power, he is to be "punished doubly." Was there a punish-
ment imposed upon any abusive cleric in this matter? And
if so, then there is the restitution they owe us?
The Priest had His Victim's Family Fooled
Throughout the predatory years, Wuerl's former secretary
would even call the young man's home. And whenever the
young man's mother would answer, she would get her son
to the phone pronto, simply because it was a priest who was
calling.
In addition, this priest was called "a fine young man" by the
targeted prey's own grandmother, causing even greater con-
fusion in the young man's mind. Furthermore, the high school
to where the priest was stationed was one located near the
young man's grand parents. In fact, when he was president
of the high school, the priest was ever so coincidentally re-
siding at the parish to which the young man's grandparents
belonged. Did the priest request that assignment?
The Priest Hid the Fact that He Knew the Young Man
(the young man's family members being the exception)
The victim and Wuerl's former secretary unexpectedly ended
up at the same social function, once. And throughout that en-
tire night, the predatory priest declined to acknowledge the
young man's existence. That is to say, the priest acted as if he
never met the young man. Yet, they were both seated at the
same dinner/banquet table.
In addition, when the young man came to Donald Wuerl's
own residence, the former personal secretary who invited
him kept insisting that the young man park his car in a place
that ever so coincidentally hid the car from plain sight.
Plus, a lady friend of the victim once approached the priest
and introduced herself as the victim's friend. The priest was
not as responsive as one would have expected him to be.
And he did not ask her what draws young people to church,
even though she was a young person. All in all, the priest
repeatedly elected to not advertise that fact that he knew the
young man. That is what makes the numerous pieces of mail
invaluable.
After the Priest Returned from Rome, . . .
If memory serves me correctly, after the priest returned from
Rome, he was eventually given the assignment of co-director
of religious education for one of the diocese's deaneries. In
due time Donald Wuerl would appoint him as the pastor of
a Pittsburgh diocesan parish.
happen to all others in the same social strata. That which
Donald Wuerl let fall upon me and two other individuals
(after I assisted a young adult male in reporting a preda-
tory priest) is that which he will let happen to you, if you
are a part of the common citizenry.
This includes the harassment, the economic terrorism, and
the actual economic loss. This includes the telephoned threat,
the physical pursuit, and the diversionary press release tactics.
This also includes the abandonment and the failed attempt to
frame the priest's victim for a theft that never occurred in the
first place.
This additionally includes the incitements that did result in a
nighttime confrontation and which could have resulted in a full
scale neighborhood brawl. Therefore, do not be deceived into
assuming that Donald Wuerl would ever let you or anyone else
be spared of that which we were not, unless of course, he can
use you for either advancement in status or financial gain.
For the Record, it was an Act of Conscience
Know that the reporting of the homosexual priest was an
act of conscience. After all, there is such a thing as a sin of
negligence for which you will have to answer to God and to
any irate parent who might one day ask you why you kept
silent about a priest whom you knew to be a predator. In
light of this, know that the efforts I made for the sake of the
young adult male are the same efforts I would have made for
your sake. Actually, they were made for your sake.
The Local Media Contributed to the Deception
The other reason why I assisted in having the offending priest
reported was because of the press releases which assured the
public that Donald Wuerl could be trusted.
When the Priest First Approached the Young
Adult Male, He Was Approaching a Teenager
who Was Minding His Own Business
As was previously mentioned, the priest approached the young
adult male first, while the young man was still a teenager. And
as was also previously mentioned, the guise under which the
priest approached the young man was that of an undefined
type of sociology researcher. The priest's claim was that he
was seeking to learn what draws young people to church.
The young man was sitting on the steps of a church, watching
people come out of Mass, when the priest first approached
him. The priest then invited him to brunch. And without get-
ting into details, the priest eventually said that there was "a lot
of work to be done" for the young man's spiritual well being.
The Retaliation Against a Third Party Whom I
Didn't Even Know Existed at the Start of All This
We did not tell any member of the young man's family about
the predatory priest. And we certainly did not tell any family
member that we reported the priest to Donald Wuerl. Some-
one else brought the young man's family into this matter, and
it was a violation of privacy to have done so. After all, the
young man was the age of majority and no one was his legal
guardian. Nonetheless, the invasion of privacy would result
surrogate harassment within a short period of time. This is
because someone in the Diocese of Pittsburgh decided to
become a puppeteer.
You see, an uncle of the young man had business accounts
with Wuerl's diocese. And according to an intercepted com-
munication, the income that the uncle received from those
accounts was significant enough to cause a brutal impact if
they were to be suddenly terminated. Now, Wuerl's former
secretary never mentioned to his prey that he gave business
to one of the young man's uncles. Nonethless, those busi-
ness accounts would soon be used as a vehicle for retaliation.
Those accounts would come to be terminated in 1998.
The Timeline
The complaint against Wuerl's former personal secretary was
mailed in early January 1998. Then, a piece of mail, dated
January 29, was sent to the victim. It was forwarded to the
address that he was using during a sabbatical, and that piece
of mail was simply a card.
There was no signature on the card and no return address on
the envelope. It simply stated, "{First Name of the Victim},
call xxx-xxx-xxxx. Urgent." It said nothing else.
An Invasion of Privacy
The invasive feature of that card consisted in the fact that,
in his initial correspondence to Donald Wuerl, the victim of
Wuerl's former secretary asked not to be contacted until the
end of February, in his initial correspondence. He was on
an eight week sabbatical at the time, and had already experi-
enced viciousness from the Diocese of Pittsburgh, regarding
another matter. So, he wanted to be spared of any futher
distress while on his sabbatical.
The victim eventually telephoned the number that appeared on
the January 29th card, and it turned out to be his uncle. At this
point in the narration, it is pertinent to note that the victim only
spoke with his uncle during Holiday get-togethers. That is to
say, the young man's uncle was not in the young man's daily
life, and his uncle was not his confidant. Yet, his uncle would
be brought into a very personal matter. And concerning the
phone call, the uncle was vague and evasive.
When mid-February came, an investigating priest sent the vic-
tim a letter, acknowledging the receipt of his complaint. Then,
on March 3, 1998, the primary diocesan investigator sent the
victim a letter, asking him to schedule an appointment, so that
they could "discuss the matter further." Ever so coincidentally,
the victim never got the letter. So, a follow-up letter was sent
to him, certified.
No Acknowledgement of a Demand Letter's Sending.
A Harassment Instead.
During that same week, a notarized demand letter from the
victim was mailed to Donald Wuerl. In it, the victim asserted
his right to financial reparation for sexual harassment, fraudu-
lent misrepresentation, and breach of a spiritual director's
fiduciary duties. However, Donald Wuerl made no acknowl-
edgement of the demand letter's arrival
Now, it is assumed that the demand letter arrived within 48
hours of its sending. Nonetheless, within 60 hours of its
sending the victim's uncle physically appeared on the scene.
That evening, the uncle insisted on seeing the young man im-
mediately. So, the two of them met at a family restaurant.
While at the restaurant, the uncle did mention the name of
the predatory/harassing priest, and he revealed that he had
business accounts with the diocese. He also said, "Right
now, you are in a huge spotlight."
No Written Acknowledgement of its Second Delivery.
A Retaliation, Instead.
Being that no one responded to the demand letter, it was hand
delivered to the diocesan building on March 18. This was its
second sending, and it was accompanied by a package of
photocopied evidence. In fact, the letter accompanying the
evidence read, "Test it for cracks."
The Result of the Second Delivery
Concerning the demand letter and the accompanying evidence,
one of the three following things happened the same day when
it was hand-delivered to the Pittsburgh diocesan building:
[1] Either the predatory priest immediately terminated the
uncle's business accounts,
[2] or another member of the diocese terminated them,
[3] or the uncle was given an ultimatum by which he was to
get his nephew to fade away, under penalty of loosing
his business accounts in the very near future.
Tape Recorded Evidence
That night, an additional piece of evidence came into exist-
ence. It was the tape recording of a harassment made upon
the young man. And in it is the mention of the business ac-
counts, along with their economic pertinence to the victim's
uncle. The recording ends with the sound of things crashing
to the floor and a screen door lache breaking, as the young
man literally had to take flight on foot. There was the at-
tempt to take the young man's tape recording away from
him.
That night, the victim called me from a pay phone, asking me
to go there. When I arrived, the first thing I noticed was that
his jeans were wet up to the knees. (He had taken flight
through the woods at night) I gave him shelter at my apart-
ment, and it became the next destination in the pursuit of him.
Incidentally, according to United States federal law, it is legal
to record your own conversation, even if no other party to
the conversation knows that you are recording it. 18 USC,
Chapter 119, Section 2511(2)(d).
The Pursuit
Shortly after that incident, unfriendly forces came inside the
apartment building where I had been living for years. Now,
it was the typical kind of building where you needed either
a key to get into it or a person to open the door for you.
The only other option was that of breaking into the building.
A witness account is that two men were banging on my apart-
ment door with a wooden object, while chanting "{My first
name} is going to Hell." Then came silence. So, a female
neighbor went out into the hallway, assuming that the men
had exited the building. She was then grabbed at the arm,
and asked where priest's victim was. It was asked in a tone
of desperation. You see, there were people who were afraid
that Wuerl's diocese would inflict more retaliation on the vic-
tim's family members than it had thus far done.
During that time we were elsewhere, keeping one step ahead
of the pursuit, unaware of what was happening at the apart-
ment. The tape recording and the postmarked mail of months
and years prior went with me.
Prior to That
There were previous phone calls made to my living quarters
from a relatively distant place . And the theme of those phone
calls was: "Back off." Those calls were eventually followed
by a midnight phone call from a complete stranger, traced to
a very nearby phone, via * 69. That call was not for me, how-
ever. Yet, the caller didn't dial the wrong number. That was
when, in the middle of the night, the predatory priest's victim
was taken to a prearranged place, along with the tape record-
ing and the other evidence.
Wuerl Could Have Stopped it with One Phone Call
Wuerl could have stopped the pursuit by means of one phone
call, in assuring the pursuers that no retaliation would be im-
posed upon any member of the victim's family. Wuerl did
not pick up the phone and make the needed call.
In not returning the uncle's business accounts to him, and in
not picking up the phone in order to stop the pursuit, Donald
Wuerl made a de facto ratification of his diocese's conduct.
And in not paying restitution for the economic loss that resulted
from the retaliation, Wuerl also ratified diocesan conduct.
One of the Pursuers Later Admitted to me that . . .
One of the pursuers confided to me, over the phone (when
the pursuit phase was nearing its end), the following:
"I would have gone through you to get to {victim's first name}."
Understand this to mean "physically through," and keep in
mind that this was stated to an asthmatic who no longer had
the health to play John Wayne-styled games.
The Second Wave of Retaliatory Conduct
During the summer of 1999, the victim of Wuerl's former se-
cretary had hair down to his shoulders. And his job required
him to work every Saturday, in security clearance work that
required detailed accounts of his daily work activites. During
that same summer, Wuerl's former secretary was stationed in
a part of Pittsburgh different than the one where he had been
stationed from 1996 to 1998.
Well, during the summer of 1999, the young man and I went
to a magistrate's office, in order to see if some type of crimi-
nal or civil complaint could be filed against Wuerl's former
secretary, if not Wuerl himself. Within a few days, a rental
shop operator called the police and accused the long-haired
young man of having stolen rental shop property on a Satur-
day, while allegedly having hair slightly longer than that of
a crew cut.
This accusation would have been just an annoying vexation,
except for the fact that the police contacted the young man's
mother, instead of the young man himself. The inclusion of
the young man's family made the police's telephone call more
than an annoyance. So, once again, the young man's family
was brought into a matter that should have been directed
solely to the young man who, incidentally, lived 15 miles from
his mom.
The victim of Donald Wuerl's former personal secretary was
never told the price of the property that he was accused of
having stolen. Therefore, he did not know if the accusation
constituted a felony, a summary offense, or a tort offense.
The Shop was Ever so Coincidentally Located near
the Recent Home of the Homosexual Predator Priest
The rental shop in question was ever so coincidentally located
near the diocesan high school where Wuerl's former secretary
was stationed between 1996 and 1998. And the park where
the shop was located was a place reputed as a meeting place
for homosexuals. In addition, the accuser who called the po-
lice had a flamingly homosexual voice. So, needless to say,
this caused us to reasonably suspect that the rental shop oper-
ator had a personal connection with the homosexual element
of the Diocese of Pittsburgh.
The timing of the accusation was far too coincidental for us
to suspect anything other than an orchestrated diocesan ploy,
done in retaliation for the young man's visit to a magistrate's
office, days prior. It served the function of diversionary tactic
that robbed the young man of time that could have been spent
in preparing to present evidence to law enforcement authorities.
A Photo License First Discovered Missing Shortly after
the Priest Made a Visit to the Young Man's Apartment
The accusing rental shop operator and the police claimed that
the evidence proving the commission of the alleged theft was
the victim's photo license. It was allegedly left by the victim
at the rental shop on the Saturday when he was documented
as having been at work. Well, at one time, the victim did have
a driver's license with a photo of him in a crew cut, but he dis-
covered it missing shortly after Wuerl's former secretary visited
him, at the apartment where he once lived. And the rental
shop operater did say that the young man's hair was slightly
longer than the hair of his crew cut photo, even though the
young man had hair down to his shoulders that same Saturday.
After the victim's "crew cut photo license" was discovered
missing, he obtained a replacement, never suspecting that
the homosexual priest might have possibly stolen his previous
one. Yet, there was a point during the priest's visit when he
had ready access to the wallet that contained the photo li-
cense that would soon thereafter be discovered missing.
They Refused to Produce the Alleged
Evidence and then Dropped the Case
When we demanded to see the driver's license that the rental
shop operator was supposed to have obtained, the police
refused to show it to us. In fact, we didn't even know if the
police or the accuser had a photo license to show us.
After our appearance at the police station, and after our de-
mand to see the alleged evidence, nobody bothered us about
the accusation again. No further action of any kind was taken.
Now, I did call the accuser, but he screamed at me in his flam-
ingly homosexual voice and then hung up on me. So, to this
day, I don't know if the rental shop operator lied about hav-
ing the victim's photo license or if he really did have the one
that was discovered missing after the predatory priest's visit.
In addition, if there were a rental agreement shown to the
police, what did the signature on it look like? Did it look
like a clever forgery of the young man's handwriting, or was
it blatantly forged? No one showed us a rental agreement.
The Predator/Harasser/Intruder was
Rewarded with a Free Trip to Rome
As was previously mentioned, we eventually filed a federal
lawsuit against the Diocese of Pittsburgh. And while the
court case was on a district court's docket, Donald Wuerl's
former personal secretary was ever so coincidently sent out-
side of United States jurisdiction, to Rome, in order to "work
on his doctorate."
A Note about Canon Law
Canon Law mandates that, whenever a cleric abuses his
power, he is to be "punished doubly." Was there a punish-
ment imposed upon any abusive cleric in this matter? And
if so, then there is the restitution they owe us?
The Priest had His Victim's Family Fooled
Throughout the predatory years, Wuerl's former secretary
would even call the young man's home. And whenever the
young man's mother would answer, she would get her son
to the phone pronto, simply because it was a priest who was
calling.
In addition, this priest was called "a fine young man" by the
targeted prey's own grandmother, causing even greater con-
fusion in the young man's mind. Furthermore, the high school
to where the priest was stationed was one located near the
young man's grand parents. In fact, when he was president
of the high school, the priest was ever so coincidentally re-
siding at the parish to which the young man's grandparents
belonged. Did the priest request that assignment?
The Priest Hid the Fact that He Knew the Young Man
(the young man's family members being the exception)
The victim and Wuerl's former secretary unexpectedly ended
up at the same social function, once. And throughout that en-
tire night, the predatory priest declined to acknowledge the
young man's existence. That is to say, the priest acted as if he
never met the young man. Yet, they were both seated at the
same dinner/banquet table.
In addition, when the young man came to Donald Wuerl's
own residence, the former personal secretary who invited
him kept insisting that the young man park his car in a place
that ever so coincidentally hid the car from plain sight.
Plus, a lady friend of the victim once approached the priest
and introduced herself as the victim's friend. The priest was
not as responsive as one would have expected him to be.
And he did not ask her what draws young people to church,
even though she was a young person. All in all, the priest
repeatedly elected to not advertise that fact that he knew the
young man. That is what makes the numerous pieces of mail
invaluable.
After the Priest Returned from Rome, . . .
If memory serves me correctly, after the priest returned from
Rome, he was eventually given the assignment of co-director
of religious education for one of the diocese's deaneries. In
due time Donald Wuerl would appoint him as the pastor of
a Pittsburgh diocesan parish.
The Major Slight of Hand Deception about Donald Wuerl
The media praise given to Donald Wuerl is nothing more than
a slight-of-hand deception in light of the contradicting fact that
he has been centrally involved in the national office of priestly
formation for years. This is pertinent to note in light of the fact
that, throughout those years, seminaries were being made into
scaled versions of Sodom and Gomorrah, while parish after
parish had been made the venue for the devouring of the youth.
One seminary (where "priestly formation" takes place) earned
the nickname "the Pink Palace," while another one earned the
nickname, "Notre Flame," as in 'flaming homosexual.' Mean-
while, another seminary has been nicknamed, the "Theological
Closet," as in 'coming out' thereof. Needless to say, someone in
power and influence is to be held accountable for that state of
the post-Vatican II church in America.
Incidentally, the Theological Closet is located in the Washing-
ton DC where Donald Wuerl is presently stationed.
Seminary Visitation, Otherwise Known
as the Papal Seminary Study
Donald Wuerl once held a national chairman post in the Office
of Priestly Formation during the 1990s. In addition, he was a
participant in the Visitations of American Seminaries during
the same 1990s. Now, the visitations were conducted for the
purpose of assessing the American seminaries' state of moral
and spiritual health, as well as their progress in renewing them-
selves in the image and likeness of Vatican II. Wuerl claimed
that American seminaries were healthy, solid, and proper. This
claim would come to be entirely contradicted by the accounts
published in the Michael Rose book, Goodbye, Good Men.
Wuerl's claim was also contradicted by a federal appeals case
that transpired in the Year 2002. Someone lied.
Wuerl was also involved in the seminary visitations of the
1980s, while he was still a monsignor.
The Slight of Hand Deception about Donald Wuerl
The slight-of-hand deception about Wuerl consists in the fact
that his public relations personnel only stated that there are no
active priests in the Pittsburgh diocese who have been accused
of abusing "minors." Even at that, this claim was not able to
have been made until the Year 2002, when Wuerl removed
"several priests" all at once. Therefore, even in the Year 2001,
Wuerl's official spokesman could not make that claim. Yet,
the media made it sound as if Donald Wuerl were an ironclad
disciplinarian from the beginning. In fact, during his first year
as the bishop of Pittsburgh, Wuerl got caught failing to report
three criminal priests to law enforcement authorities. (More
about this later.)
And What about those Adults with the Minds of
Adolescents, as well as Adults who are Impaired?
There are adults who are in social predicaments, academic sit-
uations, business arrangements, and medical states where they
can not easily defend themselves. This includes the disabled.
In addition, there are adults who have the minds of children.
Thus, while Donald Wuerl was being hailed as an accomplish-
ed protector, this claim of protectorship:
[1] did not include persons over the age of 18 who have
the minds of 8, 10, or 12 year old minors.
[2] did not include traumatized adults in impaired states.
[3] did not include medically vulnerable adults who can not
easily endure any retaliation that ends in either a physical
pursuit or a consuming economic loss.
[4] did not include economically blackmailed adults who
stand to loose job posts, promotions, seminary enroll-
ment, economic opportunities, or even shelter.
[5] did not include adults who get their reputations attacked
as a diversionary tactic, shortly after they repel the ad-
vances of a predatory priest.
[6] did not include adults intoxicated by alcohol, such as an
"under-aged" adult college football player, still in his teen-
age years, who was given alcohol by a priest on the
property of a diocesan parish, only to fall to his death in
the parish church. (And please take note of the con-
tradiction in the phrase, "under-aged adult, still in
his teenage years.")
A Class of Vulnerable People Left Out by the Bishops,
during the Highly Publicized Dallas Conference
Stated for the record, there was a floor motion at the highly
publicized bishop's conference that sought to include as pro-
tected persons those adults who have the minds of 12 year
olds. It was voted down.
Wuerl Got Caught Red Handed During
His First Year as the Bishop of Pittsburgh
Even before Wuerl arrived at the diocese that he acquired in
1988, it had been confronted with allegations of sexual crimes
against minors. And among the allegations were those which
involved three priests and two repeatedly abused altar boys.
In fact, the criminal conduct of one of the three priests included
sado-masochistic acts.
The priests are Robert Wolk, Richard Zula, and Francis Pucci.
One of those three priests was even an assistant chancellor of
the diocese. In addition, it was Bishop Anthony Bevilacqua
(and not Donald Wuerl) who removed the three priests from
public ministry -- for an indefinite period of time.
Wuerl Kept them on Sick Leave, Remaining Silent.
Then a Lawyer for the Victims Notified the
District Attorney of the Crimes
When Wuerl came into power, he kept those priests in the
proverbial bull pen, electing not to report them to law enforce-
ment authorities. Wuerl simply kept the priests on Sick Leave.
Someone else reported them -- the attorney of the victims'
family. Therefore, Wuerl wasn't given the chance to reassign
those priests, even if he wanted to. Someone made sure that
Wuerl wouldn't be given the opportunity to do so.
The two victims, incidentally, were brothers
News of these Events Made the New York Times, the
Cleveland Plain Dealer, the Pittsburgh Post Gazette,
and even the San Antonio Express
In October and November 1988, arrests were finally made.
The New York Times, the San Antonio Express, the Pitts-
burgh Post Gazette, and the Cleveland Plain Dealer covered
the story.
A couple newspaper articles quoted the district attorney as
having said, "It was not the spirit of cooperation we would
like to see," as he called the diocese's compliance with the
investigation "minimal at best." The D.A. accused Wuerl's
people of "foot-dragging," and Wuerl called his coverup of
three criminal priests the act of "keeping confidentiality."
Because of these three arrests, the new bishop of Pittsburgh
made a bad first impression in front of Western Pennsylvania
residents, Eastern Ohio residents, San Antonio residents, and
persons who read the New York Times. And of course,
Wuerl made a number of excuses for his silence, but it was
insufficient to undo the damage Wuerl caused to his public
image. So, in the years to come, he would have to trowel
over his first year's track record.
Concerning the excuses, an exact quote from the October 12,
1988 edition of the Pittsburgh Post Gazette goes as follows:
"Lengwin said he did not believe that the diocese
was obligated to report incidents of child sexual
abuse to the youth services agency." (Lengwin
is the official diocesan spokesman who has had
a radio talk show on KDKA Radio for years.)
Photocopies of a few of the original news articles can
be accessed by clicking on the following weblink:
http://www.donaldwuerlsupplement.blogspot.com
Concerning Father Francis Pucci, he was spared of conviction
on account of the fact that the statute of limitations expired on
his case. By any chance, did Wuerl's silence provide enough
time for the statute of limitations to run out on Pucci's case?
Wuerl's Botched Cover-up of Father Edward Huff
In February 1992, two families, days apart, reported Edward
Huff to Donald Wuerl. Wuerl responded by doing the exact
thing that Cardinal Law repeatedly did in Boston. Huff was
sent to a psychiatric facility (St. Michael's, in St. Louis.)
The prognosis was that Huff had enough 'residual function-
al capacity' to perform some type of ministry. So, Wuerl
assigned him to a chaplaincy post, giving him living quarters
in downtown Pittsburgh. This occurred in November 1992.
In December 1992, parishioners from Huff's parish sent a
letter to Wuerl, informing him that Huff was a molester.
This was the third time Huff was reported. At this point,
Wuerl knew 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 declined to do so. This is when Wuerl's Get Out
of Jail Free Card expired.
Wuerl did NOT immediately report Edward Huff. He sent
Huff back to St. Louis, despite the positive bill of health
that was given to Huff. It was not until March 18, 1993,
when the Diocese of Pittsburgh reported Huff to law enforce-
ment authorities. By that time, Huff had already offered
his resignation.
Take note on how Wuerl sought to manipulate time lines, in
order to look diligent and trustworthy --- in order to cover
the fact that he failed at yet another cover-up attempt.
Reinstating Cipolla Would Have Meant Subpoenas & Warrants
If Wuerl were to have reinstated a priest such as Cipolla who
had sexual abuse allegations publicly attached to him, then
warrants and subpoenas would have rained down on Wuerl's
diocese. This would have resulted in the unveiling of every
secret that Wuerl and his diocese had been keeping.
Wuerl's standing for validly appealing to the Signatura was
the emergence of newly acquired evidence involving the 1978
allegation of sexual abuse, made against Cipolla. That alle-
gation involved a nine year old boy, and it included a police
report. In brevity, the allegation was that Cipolla committed
molestation under the guise of a medical exam. The police
report did mention that a stethoscope, blood pressure gauge,
and thermometer was found in the nine year old boy's room.
Donald Wuerl originally declared the Tim Bendig allegations
to be NOT credible. In addition, Bendig accused far more
people of misconduct than Anthony Cipolla. Bendig was in the
Pittsburgh seminary for a while. He did not excel in his studies.
He did not graduate.
Conclusion
All in all, Wuerl's motivating force, from that point onward,
would be the criminal & civil court system, along with public
relations damage control and concerns for money. He was in
need to trowel over his first year's track record. In addition,
Wuerl's concern for money, even to the point of miserliness
or avarice, is shown in the 118 parishes that he closed.
Not Only is Wuerl's Past History Contrary to the
Present Praise of Him, His Recent History is, also
Wuerl was given widespread media praise in 2002. And then,
in 2003, he was called the poster bishop for zero tolerance.
Now, this was a de facto claim that his diocese was free of
danger, at the hands of unruly priests. Yet, before June 2003
would come to a close, one of Wuerl's good-standing priests
would be arrested and charged with involuntary manslaughter,
wreckless endangerment, and furnishing alcohol to persons
under the age of majority. And this was a priest who had
been previously reported to Wuerl for disturbingly wrongful
conduct.
And then there is the matter of Wuerl's former secretary.
There was no zero tolerance concerning that priest.
Wuerl Has Proven that He Will Let Remain Covered Up
Whatever He Can Get Away with Covering Up
In the case of his former personal secretary, and in the case
of the three priests who were arrested during his first year as
the bishop of Pittsburgh, Wuerl has shown that he will let hap-
pen whatever he can get away with letting happen, covering
up whatever he can get away with covering up.
a slight-of-hand deception in light of the contradicting fact that
he has been centrally involved in the national office of priestly
formation for years. This is pertinent to note in light of the fact
that, throughout those years, seminaries were being made into
scaled versions of Sodom and Gomorrah, while parish after
parish had been made the venue for the devouring of the youth.
One seminary (where "priestly formation" takes place) earned
the nickname "the Pink Palace," while another one earned the
nickname, "Notre Flame," as in 'flaming homosexual.' Mean-
while, another seminary has been nicknamed, the "Theological
Closet," as in 'coming out' thereof. Needless to say, someone in
power and influence is to be held accountable for that state of
the post-Vatican II church in America.
Incidentally, the Theological Closet is located in the Washing-
ton DC where Donald Wuerl is presently stationed.
Seminary Visitation, Otherwise Known
as the Papal Seminary Study
Donald Wuerl once held a national chairman post in the Office
of Priestly Formation during the 1990s. In addition, he was a
participant in the Visitations of American Seminaries during
the same 1990s. Now, the visitations were conducted for the
purpose of assessing the American seminaries' state of moral
and spiritual health, as well as their progress in renewing them-
selves in the image and likeness of Vatican II. Wuerl claimed
that American seminaries were healthy, solid, and proper. This
claim would come to be entirely contradicted by the accounts
published in the Michael Rose book, Goodbye, Good Men.
Wuerl's claim was also contradicted by a federal appeals case
that transpired in the Year 2002. Someone lied.
Wuerl was also involved in the seminary visitations of the
1980s, while he was still a monsignor.
The Slight of Hand Deception about Donald Wuerl
The slight-of-hand deception about Wuerl consists in the fact
that his public relations personnel only stated that there are no
active priests in the Pittsburgh diocese who have been accused
of abusing "minors." Even at that, this claim was not able to
have been made until the Year 2002, when Wuerl removed
"several priests" all at once. Therefore, even in the Year 2001,
Wuerl's official spokesman could not make that claim. Yet,
the media made it sound as if Donald Wuerl were an ironclad
disciplinarian from the beginning. In fact, during his first year
as the bishop of Pittsburgh, Wuerl got caught failing to report
three criminal priests to law enforcement authorities. (More
about this later.)
And What about those Adults with the Minds of
Adolescents, as well as Adults who are Impaired?
There are adults who are in social predicaments, academic sit-
uations, business arrangements, and medical states where they
can not easily defend themselves. This includes the disabled.
In addition, there are adults who have the minds of children.
Thus, while Donald Wuerl was being hailed as an accomplish-
ed protector, this claim of protectorship:
[1] did not include persons over the age of 18 who have
the minds of 8, 10, or 12 year old minors.
[2] did not include traumatized adults in impaired states.
[3] did not include medically vulnerable adults who can not
easily endure any retaliation that ends in either a physical
pursuit or a consuming economic loss.
[4] did not include economically blackmailed adults who
stand to loose job posts, promotions, seminary enroll-
ment, economic opportunities, or even shelter.
[5] did not include adults who get their reputations attacked
as a diversionary tactic, shortly after they repel the ad-
vances of a predatory priest.
[6] did not include adults intoxicated by alcohol, such as an
"under-aged" adult college football player, still in his teen-
age years, who was given alcohol by a priest on the
property of a diocesan parish, only to fall to his death in
the parish church. (And please take note of the con-
tradiction in the phrase, "under-aged adult, still in
his teenage years.")
A Class of Vulnerable People Left Out by the Bishops,
during the Highly Publicized Dallas Conference
Stated for the record, there was a floor motion at the highly
publicized bishop's conference that sought to include as pro-
tected persons those adults who have the minds of 12 year
olds. It was voted down.
Wuerl Got Caught Red Handed During
His First Year as the Bishop of Pittsburgh
Even before Wuerl arrived at the diocese that he acquired in
1988, it had been confronted with allegations of sexual crimes
against minors. And among the allegations were those which
involved three priests and two repeatedly abused altar boys.
In fact, the criminal conduct of one of the three priests included
sado-masochistic acts.
The priests are Robert Wolk, Richard Zula, and Francis Pucci.
One of those three priests was even an assistant chancellor of
the diocese. In addition, it was Bishop Anthony Bevilacqua
(and not Donald Wuerl) who removed the three priests from
public ministry -- for an indefinite period of time.
Wuerl Kept them on Sick Leave, Remaining Silent.
Then a Lawyer for the Victims Notified the
District Attorney of the Crimes
When Wuerl came into power, he kept those priests in the
proverbial bull pen, electing not to report them to law enforce-
ment authorities. Wuerl simply kept the priests on Sick Leave.
Someone else reported them -- the attorney of the victims'
family. Therefore, Wuerl wasn't given the chance to reassign
those priests, even if he wanted to. Someone made sure that
Wuerl wouldn't be given the opportunity to do so.
The two victims, incidentally, were brothers
News of these Events Made the New York Times, the
Cleveland Plain Dealer, the Pittsburgh Post Gazette,
and even the San Antonio Express
In October and November 1988, arrests were finally made.
The New York Times, the San Antonio Express, the Pitts-
burgh Post Gazette, and the Cleveland Plain Dealer covered
the story.
A couple newspaper articles quoted the district attorney as
having said, "It was not the spirit of cooperation we would
like to see," as he called the diocese's compliance with the
investigation "minimal at best." The D.A. accused Wuerl's
people of "foot-dragging," and Wuerl called his coverup of
three criminal priests the act of "keeping confidentiality."
Because of these three arrests, the new bishop of Pittsburgh
made a bad first impression in front of Western Pennsylvania
residents, Eastern Ohio residents, San Antonio residents, and
persons who read the New York Times. And of course,
Wuerl made a number of excuses for his silence, but it was
insufficient to undo the damage Wuerl caused to his public
image. So, in the years to come, he would have to trowel
over his first year's track record.
Concerning the excuses, an exact quote from the October 12,
1988 edition of the Pittsburgh Post Gazette goes as follows:
"Lengwin said he did not believe that the diocese
was obligated to report incidents of child sexual
abuse to the youth services agency." (Lengwin
is the official diocesan spokesman who has had
a radio talk show on KDKA Radio for years.)
Photocopies of a few of the original news articles can
be accessed by clicking on the following weblink:
http://www.donaldwuerlsupplement.blogspot.com
Concerning Father Francis Pucci, he was spared of conviction
on account of the fact that the statute of limitations expired on
his case. By any chance, did Wuerl's silence provide enough
time for the statute of limitations to run out on Pucci's case?
Wuerl's Botched Cover-up of Father Edward Huff
In February 1992, two families, days apart, reported Edward
Huff to Donald Wuerl. Wuerl responded by doing the exact
thing that Cardinal Law repeatedly did in Boston. Huff was
sent to a psychiatric facility (St. Michael's, in St. Louis.)
The prognosis was that Huff had enough 'residual function-
al capacity' to perform some type of ministry. So, Wuerl
assigned him to a chaplaincy post, giving him living quarters
in downtown Pittsburgh. This occurred in November 1992.
In December 1992, parishioners from Huff's parish sent a
letter to Wuerl, informing him that Huff was a molester.
This was the third time Huff was reported. At this point,
Wuerl knew 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 declined to do so. This is when Wuerl's Get Out
of Jail Free Card expired.
Wuerl did NOT immediately report Edward Huff. He sent
Huff back to St. Louis, despite the positive bill of health
that was given to Huff. It was not until March 18, 1993,
when the Diocese of Pittsburgh reported Huff to law enforce-
ment authorities. By that time, Huff had already offered
his resignation.
Take note on how Wuerl sought to manipulate time lines, in
order to look diligent and trustworthy --- in order to cover
the fact that he failed at yet another cover-up attempt.
Reinstating Cipolla Would Have Meant Subpoenas & Warrants
If Wuerl were to have reinstated a priest such as Cipolla who
had sexual abuse allegations publicly attached to him, then
warrants and subpoenas would have rained down on Wuerl's
diocese. This would have resulted in the unveiling of every
secret that Wuerl and his diocese had been keeping.
Wuerl's standing for validly appealing to the Signatura was
the emergence of newly acquired evidence involving the 1978
allegation of sexual abuse, made against Cipolla. That alle-
gation involved a nine year old boy, and it included a police
report. In brevity, the allegation was that Cipolla committed
molestation under the guise of a medical exam. The police
report did mention that a stethoscope, blood pressure gauge,
and thermometer was found in the nine year old boy's room.
Donald Wuerl originally declared the Tim Bendig allegations
to be NOT credible. In addition, Bendig accused far more
people of misconduct than Anthony Cipolla. Bendig was in the
Pittsburgh seminary for a while. He did not excel in his studies.
He did not graduate.
Conclusion
All in all, Wuerl's motivating force, from that point onward,
would be the criminal & civil court system, along with public
relations damage control and concerns for money. He was in
need to trowel over his first year's track record. In addition,
Wuerl's concern for money, even to the point of miserliness
or avarice, is shown in the 118 parishes that he closed.
Not Only is Wuerl's Past History Contrary to the
Present Praise of Him, His Recent History is, also
Wuerl was given widespread media praise in 2002. And then,
in 2003, he was called the poster bishop for zero tolerance.
Now, this was a de facto claim that his diocese was free of
danger, at the hands of unruly priests. Yet, before June 2003
would come to a close, one of Wuerl's good-standing priests
would be arrested and charged with involuntary manslaughter,
wreckless endangerment, and furnishing alcohol to persons
under the age of majority. And this was a priest who had
been previously reported to Wuerl for disturbingly wrongful
conduct.
And then there is the matter of Wuerl's former secretary.
There was no zero tolerance concerning that priest.
Wuerl Has Proven that He Will Let Remain Covered Up
Whatever He Can Get Away with Covering Up
In the case of his former personal secretary, and in the case
of the three priests who were arrested during his first year as
the bishop of Pittsburgh, Wuerl has shown that he will let hap-
pen whatever he can get away with letting happen, covering
up whatever he can get away with covering up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
