December 22, 2014

A postmarked lavender envelope from Wuerl's former Warwick Terrace residence, mailed by Fr Torquato to his eventual accuser.

While federal district court papers had Donald Wuerl's name throughout them,
Father James Torquato was ever-so-conveniently stationed in Rome, in order to
further his education.  Wuerl eventually appointed Fr. Torquato pastor of a Pitts-
burgh parish, in hypocritical contradiction to Wuerl's fabricated & undeserved
reputation of zero tolerance.  Torquato was given a lot of tolerance by Wuerl.
The narration on this matter is located at:

http://www.donaldwuerl.com/2013/08/wuerl-ratified-retaliations.html

The last name of Torquato's accuser and his former street address
was erased from the Jpeg, for the sake of his family's privacy.

December 21, 2014

Wuerl: A Dirty Sex Abuse Handling Record from Year 1.

Donald Wuerl was installed bishop of Pittsburgh on February 12, 1988.  It only
took eight months thereafter for the Diocese of Pittsburgh to become one of the  
first dioceses in America to be 'scathed' in what was to become a nationwide 
Watergate of perversity.  Wuerl was caught performing a triple cover-up, and
the practice of sadomasochism was one of the acts which transpired within a
trio of clergy members whom Wuerl unsuccessfully concealed from law en-
forcement authorities.  

A member of the criminal trio was an assistant chancellor of Wuerl's diocese, as 
well as a canon lawyer.  This factor alone showed motive for proceeding with an 
intentional cover-up.  In light of this, when does a bishop ever proceed with an
accidental one?

The Sex Abuse Casualties


The casualties were two altar boys of the same family.  They were brothers. The 
years of molestation occurred from 1981 to 1987.  In addition to the three indict-
ed priests, there was a fourth alleged assailant reported to one of the three prose-
cuting district attorneys.  He was a layman.  Furthermore, there was a fourth dio-
cesan priest implicated, but only in his capacity as a probable accomplice; as a 
silent person who reported nothing to anyone.

Concerning this priest, he either allowed criminal conduct to transpire in a ski 

lodge suite where he was staying or else he was clueless to what was transpir-
ing there.  Nothing was established other than he was at the scene of the crime, 
going into his room, while a criminal priest was taking his altar boy into anoth-
er one.  

This fourth Pittsburgh diocesan priest, incidentally, was strangled to  death in 
Havana Cuba in 2001, after having been on administrative leave since 1996.  
A source informed me that Wuerl, himself, officiated as his funeral ... so stat-
ed the source.

While in Cuba, this priest was openly homosexual and was said to have "helped 

his visiting friends find sexual partners while they stayed in Havana."  He was 
the tragic Fr. George Zirwas, and at this point in the narration you should be at
the first stage in realizing that Lord Byron was more correct than he was mistak-
en when he stated that the truth is always strange; stranger than fiction.

Wuerl's unholy trinity


The indicted priests were Robert Wolk, Francis Pucci, and Richard "Sade" Zula.   

Wolk was the assistant chancellor and Zula was nicknamed after the Marquis de 
Sade.  All three priests were charged and arraigned in Washington County, PA.  
It's a county which touches the southwestern border of the Allegheny County 
where within sits Pittsburgh.  

Furthermore, Richard Zula was also arraigned east of Pittsburgh, in Somerset 
County.  Robert Wolk was indicted in Allegheny County, as well as in Wash-
ington County.   In fact, he was the first one to surrender himself to the police.  
Incidentally, the Diocese of Pittsburgh comprises the six most Southwestern 
counties of Pennsylvania.  Pennsylvania, at last count, has sixty-seven counties.

The front page of the Pittsburgh Post Gazette's November 11 edition of that

year gives light on how involved the criminal investigation was:  

        "Moreover, authorities said their investigation had uncovered
          evidence of similar offenses involving one of the priests that
          occurred elsewhere in southwestern Pennsylvania and Florida,
         Ohio, Virginia, and Canada.  Authorities in the jurisdictions
         have been contacted."


This shows that the matter was not taken lightly by law enforcement officials. 
 
In fact, the district attorney of Washington County prophetically stated,  "We  
would be sticking our heads in the sand to believe these are the only three 
cases."

Zula had 138 criminal counts filed against him in Washington Coun
ty, alone. 
However, a plea bargain reduced the counts to only two.   In sequence, Zula 
also plead guilty in Somerset County.  Now, as far as went Wolk, he plead 
guilty in Allegheny and Washington counties. 

Pucci's case, on the other hand, was dismissed due to the two year statute
of
limitations expiring on two types of criminal charges.   It expired approximate-
ly four months prior to his indictment.   He was indicted under the assumption 
that the time-keeping for the two year limit had frozen during the time Pucci 
was outside of Pennsylvania, in a Maryland psychiatric facility.  None the less,
conspiracy charges remained open for Pucci, and that particular crime had a 
five year limitation.   Despite this, Pucci's case was eventually dismissed.

Take note that, during the nationwide sex abuse scandal, priest after abusive

priest was sent to a psychiatric facility, as if each one were an unaccountable
victim of mental illness.  Now, there is a difference between mental illness
and sin.   If a person is insane, then he is without malice in a materially harm-
ful act, even though each member of society has the right to be made safe from
such a harmful person.   However, deception and manipulation, as much as
scheming and concealing, were committed by priest after abusive priest, and

such acts are elements of malice; not mental illness. 

In addition, these priests were described as having "compulsions" that required 
psychiatric treatment.  In the Catholic vernacular, such compulsions are known 
as temptations.

Wuerl and His Personnel:  Uncooperative During the 1988 Investigation

The Washington County district attorney announced that Wuerl's diocese en-

gaged in "foot dragging" throughout the criminal investigation.   The DA was
either irked or incensed by the Pittsburgh diocese's lack of cooperation, call-
ing it "minimal at best."   His quote on the topic goes as follows: "It was not
the spirit of cooperation we would like to see."  Of course,  "foot dragging"
is a polite way of saying "stonewalling" which, in turn, is a polite way of say-

ing "a step away from obstruction of justice charges."

Wuerl had pushed his luck to the limit.  Being that he was caught performing

a triple cover-up, and being that he was accused of having impeded a crimi-
nal investigation via stonewalling, he had no other choice than to strike the
pose of a strict disciplinarian.  This shows that Wuerl was not not not the
caring and concerned bishop that he was made out to be by the 21st Century
media.  Rather, he was a chameleon, looking out for himself.  He changed
colors according to the changes in the political climate.  In fact, he original-
ly presented himself as a "liberal."  He was then paraded around as a "con-
servative."  Wuerl has shown himself to be out for himself.  The following
mainstream media newspaper links provide the evidence:

Photocopy of Cleveland Plain Dealer Article which mentions the existence 
of a fourth predator in the same Pittsburgh diocesan molestation ring:
Wuerl's Cover-up with Mention of Fourth Assailant

The New York Times Report on the Triple Cover-up:

 http://www.nytimes.com/1988/11/13/us/3-pennsylvania-priests-accused-of-molesting.html

Photocopy of the San Antonio Express-News Report:

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4118/1032/1600/Wuerl%20San%20Antonio%20Express.jpg

Photocopy of the Report found in the Lewiston Daily Sun:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=9eYpAAAAIBAJ&sjid=7WQFAAAAIBAJ&pg=4475,2371591&dq=zula+barn+parked +car+pettit+resort&hl=en


Photocopy of the Nashua Telegraph's Report on the Cover-up:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=GvglAAAAIBAJ&sjid=E_wFAAAAIBAJ&pg=
5495,3148582&hl=en


The Associated Press News Report on Wuerl's Triple Cover-up: 
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news/1988_11_11_AP_ThreePriests_Francis_Pucci_etc_2.htm

Photocopy of the Bryan Times Report, with D.A.'s Additional Statement:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=tQYLAAAAIBAJ&sjid=
jlEDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5427,4088961&dq=wolk+arrested+
pittsburgh+zula+pucci


Donald Wuerl: A Coast to Coast Disgrace

News of Wuerl's triple cover-up made its way from coast to coast, via:

- the New York Times,          - the Saint Petersburg Times,
- the Philadelphia Inquirer,     - the Philadelphia Daily News,
- the Cleveland Plain Dealer,   - the Pittsburgh Post Gazette,
- Maine's Lewiston Daily Sun,    - the San Jose Mercury News,     
- Pennsylvania's Reading Eagle,   -  the San Antonio Express-News,
- California's Lodi News-Sentinel,   - the now defunct Pittsburgh Press,   
- Northwestern Ohio's Bryan Times,    - Oregon's Eugene Register-Guard,
- New Hampshire's Nashua Telegraph,  - South Carolina's Rock Hill Herald.

From as far west as California's San Andreas Fault line, to as far east as the
New York metro area, Donald William Wuerl became an early chapter in the
Vatican II church's sex abuse history.  From as far south as the Florida Gulf
Coast, to as far north as Maine, Wuerl's diocese had already proven itself to
be what best selling author Malachi Martin would later say it was"... one
of the most pathetic dioceses in the United States."

http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news3/1988_10_11_Mullan_EditorsNote_Robert_Wolk_1.htm

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=mYMcAAAAIBAJ&sjid=
b2MEAAAAIBAJ&pg=2329,10275422&hl=en


http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news3/1989_05_23_UnitedPressInternational_Richard_Zula_3.htm

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=4ARlAAAAIBAJ&sjid=2XcNAAAAIBAJ&pg=4517,3545671&dq=zula+diocese+wuerl&hl=en

Concerning George Zirwas:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=FFAxAAAAIBAJ&sjid=d3ADAAAAIBAJ&pg=5379,202749&dq=george+zirwas+pittsburgh+cuba&hl=en

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=FNBIAAAAIBAJ&sjid=XYIMAAAAIBAJ&pg=1312,127061&hl=en

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=77AaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=fjAEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5477,1539593&hl=en

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=bc00AAAAIBAJ&sjid=KSEGAAAAIBAJ&pg=3062,4367236&hl=en
-  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -

December 20, 2014

Wuerl's violation of the Child Protective Services Act

The pertinence of this revelation is that Ann Rodgers and other less than
conscionable members of the media made Wuerl out to be the all so car-
ing, loving, and concerned protector of youth.  He was headlined as the
bishop who fought the Vatican to remove "a molester priest," when the
fact was that he only attempted to have the priest removed for what was
later called a misdiagnosis of Depression and Suicidal Tendencies.  The
priest was never arrested, yet Wuerl let the papers claim that the priest
was.

This also shows Wuerl's motive in letting Anthony Cipolla be the public
scapegoat whose reputation was completely annihilated, despite the evi-
dence indicating Cipolla to be opposite of the media smear campaign.
The district attorney mentioned in the article below was the one Wuerl
feared, become the DA contacted a number of other DA's in a number
of other states.  So, Wuerl needed a smokescreen, to deceive the public
into thinking that he was a holy holy and all so caring saint.  Wuerl did
nothing more than masquerade himself as an angel of light, at the expense 
of others.

The newspaper jpegs above prove that the slightly built Donald Wuerl
thrived on a propaganda machine filled with sleight of hand deceptions
and direct falsehoods.

In addition, don't forget that he rode the coattails of John Cardinal Wright,
and without allegedly homosexual John Wright, the Donald Wuerl who
accommodated banned Dignity Masses for eight consecutive years would
have been  nothing more than a person sitting in the middle row of the typ-
ical Dignity Mass, if and only if the allegations conveyed to me between
1999 and 2002, as well as between 2009 and 2012 (concerning Wuerl) are
true.  If those allegations are not true, then Wuerl would have been nothing
more than commoner frequenting other venues.

It was the court system that prompted Wuerl to strike the pose of a strict
disciplinarian who would come to the rescue of the victims of predatory
priests ... but not as it applied to any victim over the age of 18.  None the
less, Wuerl's artificial pose did not occur until three simultaneous indict-
ments of three Pittsburgh priests occured under Wuerl's watch, coupled
with a DA John Pettit's public accusation that Wuerl's diocese performed
foot dragging.  Even in the Torquato Retaliations, we see Wuerl's willing-
ness to let justice be obstructed.

Keep in mind that there was no criminal investigation of Wolk, Zula,
and Pucci until the family of the two former altar servers reported the
matter to the police.  They did not do so until after Wuerl visited them.

In addition, Wuerl only went to the home of the traumatized family af-
ter their parish pastor was told by them that they were going to report
the three molester priests to law enforcement authorities.  Wuerl did
NOT report the molester trio.  He let them go about their ways.  Even
though Fr. Zula was sure to never return to ministry, on account of his
masochistic actions, Wolk and Pucci were in a position to eventually
ease back into ministry, in the spirit of John Hoehl and Edward Huff.

Do not be deceived.  Ann Rodgers made it sound as if Wuerl were a
strict disciplinarian who ousted Hoehl, as soon as he learned of him.
No, Wuerl placed Hoehl in chaplaincy ministry, as he did with Huff.

Now, Pgh Post Gazette reporter Ann Rodgers claimed that Wuerl had
an epiphany while visiting the traumatized family and then became the
"model of zero tolerance" thereafter.  This claim is easily proven false
by the fact that District Attorney John Pettit publicly announced that
Wuerl's then Diocese of Pittsburgh did NOT provide the cooperation
that the district attorney sought during the criminal investigation.  It
was a criminal investigation which didn't commence until someone
other than Wuerl notified the police.

If Donald Wuerl were the model of zero tolerance, he would have been
the one who reported Wolk, Zula, and Pucci.  Plus, Wuerl would NOT
have allowed the 'foot dragging' that a Western Pennsylvanian DA said
was being committed by Wuerl's diocese.

December 19, 2014

Sleight of Hand Deception: The Way of Cardinal Wuerl

         . . .  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 caring & compassionate excuse for keeping silent

in the matter of the Wolk, Zula, and Pucci abuses.   However, there is very
something wrong with this picture.  It would have caused undue pain and
anxiety for the family of the sex abuse casualties to have kept silent and re-
main acquiescent to Wuerl's will.   The presence of frustration, along with
the accompanying absence of peace would have built up inside each one of
them, like a malfunctioning nuclear reactor.

The family would also have spent the rest of their lives enduring the gnaw-

ing guilt of having let predators go camouflaged, ever able to snag further
prey in the future.  They would have also spent a lifetime feeling bullied
by the notably tiny Wuerl, in their keeping silent.  In fact, they would have
accumulated the fear of breaking silence, as time would go on.  All in all,
fear and resentment would have been theirs to carry for a lifetime, except
for the existence of the check and balance system deeply recessed in the
human soul by which a person can only take so much and then he has to
speak.

In addition, as soon as the two former altar boys became parties to a law-

suit, it instantaneously became illegal for anyone to harass them or attempt
to commit any type of undue influence upon them, in any capacity.  Such pro-
tection diminishes pain and anxiety considerably.  The two gentlemen were
presented to the public as John Does, and anonymity also relieves anxiety. 
Plus, a civil action results in monetary compensation, and the reasonable
expectation of a handsome income takes away annihilating stress, especial-
ly when co-defendants end up pleading guilty in criminal court, after having
negociated plea bargains.

In light of the aforementioned, do you really think that the diocesan spokes-

man was telling the truth when he said that the diocese continued with the
cover-up out of compassionate concern for the sex abuse casualties?  Well,
the diocesan spokesman contradicted Wuerl, because Wuerl said that he re-
mained silent for the sake priests whom he regarded as sick and suffering
patients. 

Very simply, remaining silent about criminals who remain able to acquire
new sex abuse prey is what causes anxiety and undue pain.   When pain ac-
cumulates to the point of there being no more room to harbor it, the pain gets
so intense that it starts singing.  The Washington County sex abuse casualties
would have spoken up later in life, if they hadn't done so when they did.  This
is evidenced by the many sex abuse casualties who broke their silence years
after the fact.

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4118/1032/1600/Wuerl1halved.0.jpg 

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.  This is
also evidenced by the fact that Wuerl made Fr. Torquato a parish pastor.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

December 18, 2014

The Father Edward Huff case: Shows that Donald Wuerl did NOT reform, even after the indictments of Fathers Wolk, Zula, & Pucci.

Wuerl was protecting Fr. Huff in a cover-up, while defying the Vatican's
mandate to reinstate Anthony Cipolla back into the priesthood ministry.
Yet, he had the audacity to let Ann Rodgers call him a zero tolerance bishop.

                            Introduction to the Edward Huff Case

Toward the end of his first year as bishop of Pittsburgh, Wuerl made
a state-
ment that would lead reasonable persons to assume that he was resolved to
never reassign a molester priest to ministry.  Wuerl was apparently employ-
ing the sleight of hand semantics, being that he embarked on another cover-
up; that of Father Edward Huff.   In that case, Wuerl reassigned Fr. Huff to
ministry the same year Wuerl received accusations against Huff.  He did so, 
after Huff had a stay in a St. Louis psychiatric facility.

I used to call the Huff Case Wuerl's musical chairs cover-up.  Well, it was
actually Wuerl's Game of Pong ... Wuerl's Ping Pong Cover-up, where Huff
was like a ping pong ball, going from St. Louis to Pgh to St. Louis to Pgh.
Pgh stands for Pittsburgh ... for those unaware.

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.

December 17, 2014

Wuerl neither had a change of heart nor an inspired sense of resolve, after having dinner with the family molested by Wolk, Zula, & Pucci

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, where Wuerl's web of corruption was spun,
with the help of the pathetic California native, Ann Rodgers, the proven liar.
Quick reminder:  The only reason why Wuerl and his former Diocese of
Pittsburgh had one of the first no tolerance sex abuse policies in Ameri-
ca was because:

Wuerl was one of the very first bishops in the United States who got 
caught concealing criminal priests from law enforcement authorities.
So, he had to strike the disciplinarian pose while the law enforcement
spotlight was on him.  Wuerl was caught being uncooperative with
DA John C. Pettit.  So, Wuerl fabricated a new image of himself.
It included him announcing a zero tolerance sex abuse policy.
HOWEVER ...

 The sex abuse policy did NOT apply to 1} the case of Fr. Edward Huff
who would eventually be criminally indicted, 2} the credible seminarian
Wuerl prevented from being ordained, 3} the  case of Fr. James Torquato,
4} the case of Fr. John Wellinger,  Plus, the policy was NOT implement-
ed until after Wuerl put the notorious Jhn S. Hoehl back into ministry.

_____________________________________________________________

For those unfamiliar, Ann Rodgers was a writer for the Pittsburgh Post Gazette.
Even though she was never any type of Catholic, she was assigned to be head
of the Communications Dept of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh.
On multiple fact-checking occasions, Ann Rodgers was caught lying in print.

Now, the propaganda is that the family of a molested altar boy and his broth-
er invited Wuerl to their home, upon which Wuerl became enlightened in an
"awe inspiring" godlike fashion so divine that Wuerl deserves to be pope ...
... heck ... the New Divinity to whom all must bow, in worshipful reverence,
according to the super hero comic book hype of an exceptionally gauche
Ann Rodgers.  However, the reality of the 5'4" Donald Wuerl is the polar
opposite of Ann Rodgers fairy tales about him.

To start, Wuerl had a Father Arnott go to the violated family, to see if they
would be willing to meet with Wuerl.  The Donald Wuerl who was sued many
times by Pittsburgh area residents sought to get his foot into the door.  Wuerl
invited himself.  Do NOT be deceived into thinking that Wuerl was a revered
presence in Pittsburgh.  The number of lawsuits filed against him proves other-
wise.

Secondly, if Wuerl were all so enlightened, then why did District Attorney
John C Pettit accuse Wuerl's administration of uncooperativeness and foot
dragging during the investigation which resulted in three indictments?

Why did Wuerl not observe the Pennsylvania Child Protective Services Act
and report the priests?  In fact, when it came time to process the indictment
of Richard Zula, no one at the diocesan building knew where Zula was. 

If Wuerl's meeting with the family were similar to other people's encounters
with Wuerl, then I can assure you that he left the family feeling violated and
outraged.  I can assure you that he triggered a sense of insult so intense that
they went forth and gave the greenlight to Attorney F. Peter Dixon who end-
ed up reporting the three priests to law enforcement officials.

Keep in mind that the lying propaganda is that Wuerl's meeting with the vio-
lated family instantly affected Wuerl into changing his policy.  If so, then why
did the notorious John S. Hoehl remain in ministry until Robert Wolk was in-
dicted?  Why did Wuerl and his staff perform foot dragging that aggravated
DA Pettit to the point of announcing his frustration to the public?

As soon as the indictment was filed, Wuerl got rid of Hoehl like a sand bag in
a hot air balloon losing altitude.  But, not until then.  This is extremely interest-
ing, in that it indicates that Wuerl seemingly assumed that the violated family
would not report the three molester priests to the police.  If Wuerl anticipated
the reporting thereof, he would have gotten rid of John Hoehl immediately.
Wuerl let Hoehl remain in ministry, as if Wuerl arrogantly assumed that he
controlled the violated family on a set of puppet strings.

Wuerl keeping Fr. John Hoehl in ministry after the meeting with
the family of two molested altar boys proves that  Wuerl had no
change of heart or policy that resulted from the meeting/dinner.
The claim that the meeting changed Wuerl is lying propaganda.

During the journalists' 2013 papal conjecture phrase, shortly before Francis I
ascended to the Chair of Saint Peter, the Daily Beast's Paris bureau chief con-
jectured that Cardinal Wuerl was America's candidate for pope, in light of the
newspaper articles that glorified Wuerl, especially in the heavily misrepresent-
ed Anthony Cipolla case that starred a seminary flunk-out who was described
as a perpetual and pathological liar by multiple persons who knew him.  In fact,
the Cipolla case starred an individual who was even declared NOT credible by
Donald Wuerl, at one time.

The Paris bureau chief then stated that Wuerl apparently became too tired to
fight the good fight that the media described Wuerl as having fought.  Dickey
then referred to one of Ann Rodgers' Pgh Post Gazette articles, stating:

     But a few weeks after that decision Wuerl met with the devout, deeply
     disillusioned, and increasingly litigious family of one victim.  They in-
     vited Wuerl to dinner and, according to a lengthy and laudatory report
     in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in 2003, when Wuerl left that table his
     views of the issue had changed.  Before, his actions had been closely
     aligned church policies, which were basically a CYA masquerading
     as piety.

     Now Wuerl told his staff it had to get its priorities straight: the first
    concern was the injured party, the second was for the person’s family,
    the third—and only the third—was the potential harm to the church
    and its reputation.   He’s on the record declaring zero tolerance for
    priests accused of sexual abuse 14 years before that became official
   policy.
__________________________________________________________
The decision to which Dickey referred was Wuerl's decision to put back
into ministry the notorious John S. Hoehl, former headmaster of Quigley
H.S., in Baden Pennsylvania.  I attended that school for four years.  And
yes, I heard the rumors while in school.
__________________________________________________________

Anyone familiar with Wuerl's Triple Cover-up and the late district attorney
John C. Pettit, as well as the writings of Chicago journalist Mike Volpe, im-
mediately knows that the aforesaid statement doesn't contain any truth in it.
Dickey trusted that Ann Rodgers was telling the truth.  Therefore, the false-
hoods of Ann Rodgers, as they apply to the 2013 Dickey article, need to be
line-itemized here:

1}  Firstly, the family did NOT invite Wuerl to dinner.  Wuerl had the local
      pastor, John Arnott, go to the family, to see if they would be willing to
      speak with Wuerl in some kind of meeting.  This is because the family
      went to Arnott and told him that it was going to report Frs Wolk, Zula,
      and Pucci to the police.  So, Arnott informed Wuerl of this, as if to be
      nothing more than Wuerl's spy.  Wuerl only sought to meet with the
      family when mention of the police came into play.  Wuerl was NOT
      invited.  He stuck his foot in the door and invited himself.

2}  The indictment of Wolk, Zula, and Pucci, along with District Attorney
      John Pettit's bitter public statement about Wuerl's diocese stonewalling
      Pettit's own criminal investigation, proves that Wuerl did NOT have a
      change of heart or a change of policy after having had dinner with the
      family victimized by Wolk, Zula, and Pucci.  Therefore, Wuerl did NOT
      gauge his actions according to the "Injured Party First" policy..

      Even 10 yrs after the dinner, Wuerl proved that the "injured party first"
      precept was not the official policy.  This is because ten years after the
      dinner came the Torquato Retaliations that Wuerl could have ordered
      halted.  Wuerl let them continue.  Let's do a quick timeline:

- Early Summer of Wuerl's first year as bishop of Pittsburgh John Arnott
  let him know that the family of the two altar boys sodomized by Fr. Wolk,
  Zula, and Pucci were going to report the matter to the police.  Specifically,
  an attorney friend of the family was prepared to do so.

-Wuerl was given his meeting with the family.

-The family's attorney friend reported the sex crimes, and an investigation
  began.  If Wuerl had the change of heart that he was claimed to have had,
  he would have reported the crimes, himself.  He did NOT do so.   Thus, he
  was NOT abiding by an "injured party first" policy.  His quote in the news-
  paper at the time showed this to be case, with Wuerl being Orwellian in his
  statement.  Wuerl said that it "is not covering up to embrace a man who is
  suffering.  Thus, Wuerl made Robert Wolk out to be a victim of Wolk's own
  crimes.

 -Furthermore, Wuerl would have cooperated with John C. Pettit, instead of
  having been a typical brat who thinks that he can do what he wants, when he
  wants, as he wants, if he had a change of heart after the immortalized dinner
  the Ann Rodgers falsely narrated.  Wuerl did the OPPOSITE of enacting an
  "injured party first" policy.

One more time, for emphasis


-The John S. Hoehl whom Wuerl returned to ministry remained in ministry
  up and until the time when Wolk was indicted.  If Wuerl had the change of
  heart Ann Rodgers and Christopher Dickey said he had, then Wuerl would
  have removed Hoehl shortly after the dinner which was falsely claimed to
  have changed Wuerl's heart and change diocesan policy.  Thus, the Christo-
  pher Dickey article is absolutely worthless, especially due to the fact that
  Dickey called the act of sending a very aged man home the act of covering
  up; as was mentioned in the utterly worthless article.

  Should Wuerl have put the aging priest to death?  Lock him in the basement
  of a cathedral?  Law enforcement didn't indict the guy at the time, so what
  was Wuerl to do?  ANS: Send him home, due to the frailty which comes
  with advancing years ... aka aging.

3} The other scandal which proved that Wuerl had no change of heart and
     no change of policy was the Fr. Edward Huff case, a few years later.  He
     played musical chairs with Huff, batting him between St. Louis and Pitts-
     burgh, as if Huff were a badminton birdie.  You see, Huff was reported to
     Wuerl by three different sets of concerned parishioners on three different
     occasions.  Upon receiving the third reporting, Wuerl sent Huff back to
     St. Louis.

     Wuerl didn't change after the dinner described by the Ann Rodgers who
     was repeatedly caught lying in print.  The same 5'4" Donald Wuerl didn't
     change his ways during the years when Sotak's credible accuser was being
     bullied by Wuerl's administrative surrogates.  The Donald Wuerl who was
     falsely described by Ann Rodgers as 5'11" didn't even change during the
     second Torquato Retaliation.  Tiny Donald Wuerl's ruthlessness remained
     in tact and in force, as the law of the land, in a place called Wuerlopolis.




The source of this letter is self-evident.