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
This also shows Wuerl's motive in letting Anthony Cipolla be the public
scapegoat whose reputation was completely annihilating, 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
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.