Doctor of the Church, Saint Francis de Sales, stated the following:
It is an act of charity to cry out against the wolf
when he is among the sheep, wherever he is.
(Introduction to the Devout Life, III, 29)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To expose a bishop who rose to prominence amidst the incessant
drone of a propaganda machine is to extend charity toward those
who would otherwise remain deceived and bullied by that bishop
To remain silent amidst his corruption is to commit a sin of acces-
ory. Donald William Wuerl allowed himself to be heralded as the
untold hero of zero tolerance throughout the media circuits of the
western world. This was a contradiction in that he had sex abuse
cover-ups dating back to the first year of his tenure in Pittsburgh.
Even as recently as Friday, April 2, 2010, he performed a con-
trived act of grand standing that reinforced the lie he had created.
In having let the myth about himself perpetuate, Wuerl did nothing
more than gain power and influence by deception. Due to this un-
conscionable ploy, the disclosure of his cover-ups became a moral
obligation. So too came the obligation to warn others that the same
Donald Wuerl allowed harm to be inflicted upon members of the la-
ity during retaliations that he should never have allowed to continue.
The need to cry out also ensues from Wuerl's abridgment of faith
and morals. It were as if he had chiseled off four of the ten com-
mandments from the stone tablets upon which they were engraved.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Contents of this page include:
(1) Brief introduction to Donald Wuerl's cover-up of a former personal secretary.
(2) Wuerl's cover-up of Robert Wolk, Richard Zula, and Francis Pucci, in detail.
(3) His aborted cover-up of former Quigley High School headmaster John Hoehl.
(4) His musical chairs cover-up involving the thrice reported Father Edward Huff.
(5) His self seeking motive in having pursued the Anthony Cipolla case to the end.
(6) Elements of Vatican procedural law as it applied to the Anthony Cipolla case.
(7) Highly publicized accuser Tim Bendig admitting under oath that he voluntarily
committed sodomy at the Pittsburgh seminary before becoming a seminarian.
(8) Bendig's failed attempt to have criminal charges filed against Anthony Cipolla.
(9) Bendig's second filing of his lawsuit, in 1992, in another Pennsylvania county.
(10) Bendig's alleged failure to produce any evidence, concerning an accusation.
(11) Brief mention of the 2003 arrest and arraignment of Father Henry Krawczyk.
(12) Two brief statements made by author and expert witness A.W. Richard Sipe.
Added as of December 2011: The alleged Sotak Cover-up. This involves a deacon
who, while he was still a layman-civilian-parishioner (discerning if he had a calling to the
priesthood), alleges that he was violently assaulted by a Donald Sotak, resulting in him
going unconscious during the struggle to defend himself from the priest. This ultimately
resulted in the accuser being bullied in a loaded dice game so badly that he left diocesan
ministry.
Also added as of December 2011: The alleged Fr. John Wellinger Cover-up, involv-
ing the alleged drugging of a teenager's drink during the general time span when Donald
Wuerl first rook rein of the Latin Rite Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh, resulting in the ag-
grieved young man going to the ER and later being ignored and even pushed away by
the Donald Wuerl's Diocese of Pittsburgh.
The American media began the Year 2002 inside a Cambridge, Massachusetts courtroom.
It then proceeded to untent a nationwide sex abuse circus. Interviews were conducted with
a some of those who had been violated under the big tops. This enabled the public to hear
individuals who had suffered anguish and dread at the hands of a predatory priest and the
network who protected him. This enabled the common citizen to gaze upon the aftermath
of the preyed-upon individuals whose faith flat lined from the noxious mixture of disillusion-
ment, distrust, and alienation.
Early in the Year 2002, those who had been made faceless and voiceless by unconscion-
able bishops were finally given air time and print space. Predictably enough, one member
of the Catholic hierarchy would quickly make a play for the newspaper pages and snatch
attention away from the American church's most haunted and tormented members. Next
would come the acquisition of television cameras by the same person. Donald Wuerl was
the one performing the hostile takeover, doing so through the surrogate services of those
who handled the media's control panels. At the time, Wuerl was the bishop of Pittsburgh.
A Hero's Status Gained by Fraudulent Misrepresentation
On acccount of the heavily publicized yet poorly explained Anthony Cipolla case, Wuerl
was tagged "the model of zero tolerance" in news print. He was also listed amongst the
church's 'good guys' online. During this same time span, he was called 'a holy holy man'
on local TV. Wuerl had allowed the public believe that he had an uncommonly clean sex
abuse record. In fact, he let the public believe that he were a leader among leaders.
Donald Wuerl had made the grade. He had achieved hero status. As a result, he was se-
lected to be the grand marshal of a Saint Patrick's Day parade. It were as if he had been
the victorious commander of an allied invasion force who overcame insurmountable odds. However, after all the public praise was published, it would come to be a repeatedly doc-
umented fact that the hero status given to the tiny statured Donald Wuerl was a huge hoax.
Wuerl had his share of sex abuse cover-ups too, dating back tothe first year of his tenure
in Pittsburgh. It's to be wondered if anyone in Pittsburgh had the wisdom to suspect that
maybe ... just maybe ... the woman outside the Pittsburgh cathedral calling Wuerl a "holy
holy man" happened to be an employee of the Pittsburgh diocese, getting her paychecks
signed via Wuerl's rubber stamp. Just maybe.
Even in his final year at Pittsburgh, Wuerl had a cover-up kept entirely in tact, with the as-
sistance of at least two local newspaper reporters and one KDKA radio talk show host,
each of whom declined to report on it. This involved the cover-up of a former secretary
whom Wuerl personally ordained and who performed his acts of sexual aggression in the
Pennsylvania regions of Bellevue and the North Hills of Pittsburgh, as well as in Wuerl's
own Warwick Terrace residence. The KDKA talk show host was personally hand deliv-
ered copy of the entire dossier on Wuerl's former secretary by the principal of Ambridge
High School, during the Year 2002. It was to no avail. The cowardly talk show host's
name is Mike Pintek. This was ironic, being that he acted like Mr. Tough Guy so many
times on air, previously.
Wuerl's Cover-up of a Destructive Former Secretary
This particular cover-up involved a former secretary of Wuerl who spent years not keeping
his hands to himself. The priest's antics began in 1990, shortly after the priest was ordained.
He was reported to Wuerl in 1998, nine years after Donald Wuerl was caught performing a
triple cover-up. Wuerl's turn-of-the-century cover-up comprised a priest who spent years
not keeping his hands to himself. Physically intrusive scam spiritual direction sessions oc-
curred between the Years 1990 and 1997. They ranged from forty-eight to sixty-three in
number.
The abusive priest was ordained by Donald Wuerl in 1989. Therefore, he was a reflection
of Wuerl's judgment of character. Now, Donald Wuerl was heavily involved in what used
to be called the Training for the Priesthood. It's now called Priestly Formation. This meant
that the former secretary is a sample of Donald Wuerl's version of priestly forming. In light
of this, there was motive for Wuerl to have intentionally proceeded with the cover-up of a
personal secretary who conducted one or more of his scam spiritual direction sessions in
Wuerl's Warwick Terrace residence. The priest's name was/is James Torquato.
The harassment and subsequent retaliations that ensued after the priest was reported rocket-
ed past the sound barriers of decency, into the sound waves of obscenity. That is to say, the
retaliatory conduct literally went to the point of endangering others. In addition, there was a
harassment made upon Torquato's accuser which was tape recorded. It was legally record-
ed, being that federal law permits a person to secretly record a conversation to which he is
an audible party, even should the conversation be incriminating to a third person.
The retaliation ratified by Wuerl eventually resulted in the filing of a Petition for a Writ of
Certiorari and three supplemental briefs, at the U.S. Supreme Court's Clerk of Court's Of-
fice, in the Year 2002. The subject matter addressed in the case involved more issues than
the retaliatory conduct that transpired shortly after Wuerl's former secretary was reported.
Copies of the filed documents can be obtained from the Library of Congress. The petition's
case number is 01-10392.
Twenty-four jpegs of photocopy evidence concerning Wuerl's abusive secretary are post-
ed at the website linked directly below, in multiple stand-alone webpages ... at least at the
time of this writing. All of the links have been configured to open in a new window. This
was done for each reader's convenience:
The narration of Wuerl's abusive secretary has been posted on the second page of this
website. Links to the narration are located at the top right hand corner and very bottom
of this page.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A Dirty Sex Abuse Record from Year 1
Donald Wuerl was installed bishop of Pittsburgh on February 12, 1988. It took only eight
months thereafter for the Diocese of Pittsburgh to become one of the first to be 'scathed' in
what was to become a nationwide Watergate of perversity. Wuerl was caught performing
a triple cover-up, and sadomasochism was one of the acts which transpired within the trio
of clergymen whom he unsuccessfully concealed from law enforcement authorities. A mem-
ber of the criminal trio had been an assistant chancellor of Wuerl's diocese, as well as a can-
on lawyer, and that factor alone showed motive for proceeding with an intentional cover-up.
In light of this, when does a bishop ever proceed with an accidental cover-up?
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 indicted priests, there
was a fourth alleged assailant reported to one of the three prosecuting district attorneys.
However, he was a layman. None the less, there actually was a fourth diocesan priest
implicated, but only in his capacity as a probable accomplice; as a silent one who report-
ed nothing to anyone.
Concerning this priest, he either allowed criminal conduct in a ski lodge suite where he was
staying or else he was clueless to what was transpiring 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 sex abuse prey into another one. This fourth diocesan priest, incidentally, was strangled
to death in Havana Cuba in 2001, after having been placed on administrative leave in 1996.
A source informed me that Wuerl, himself, officiated as his funeral ... so stated the source.
While in Cuba, this priest was openly homosexual and was said to have "helped his visit-
ing friends find sexual partners while they stayed in Havana." He 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 mistaken 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 touches the southwestern border of the Allegheny County where within sits Pittsburgh. Furthermore,
Zula was also arraigned east of Pittsburgh, in Somerset County. Wolk was indicted in Al-
legheny County, as well as in Washington County. He was the first one to surrender to
police. For the record, 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. Within that front page is stated the
following:
"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 said, "We would be sticking our
heads in the sand to believe these are the only three cases."
Richard Zula had 138 criminal counts filed against him in Washington County, alone. How-
ever, a plea bargain reduced the counts to only two. Zula also pleaded guilty in Somerset
County. Now, as far as went Robert Wolk, he pleaded guilty in Allegheny and Washing-
ton counties.
Pucci's case, on the other hand, was dismissed due to the two year statute of limitations that
expired on two types of criminal charges. It expired approximately four months prior to his
indictment. Pucci was indicted under the premise that the time keeping for the two year lim-
it had frozen during the length of time Pucci was out side of state, in a Maryland psychiatric
facility. Yet, conspiracy charges remained open for Pucci, and that crime had a five year im-
itation. 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 harmful act, even though each member of society has the right to be
made safe from such a harmful person. However, deception and manipulation, as well as
scheming and concealing, were committed by priest after abusive priest. Such acts are ele-
ments of malice, and not mental illness. In addition, these priests were described as having
"compulsions" that required psychiatric reatment. In the Catholic vernacular, such compul-
sions are readily known as temptations.
Wuerl and His Personnel: Uncooperative During the 1988 Investigation
The Washington County district attorney announced that Wuerl's diocese engaged in "foot
dragging" throughout the criminal investigation. He was either irked or incensed by the
diocese's lack of cooperation, calling it "minimal at best." He was quoted as having said,
"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 saying "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 criminal investigation via stonewall-
ing, he had no other choice than to strike the pose of a strict disciplinarian. This shows that
Donald 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. After all, he originally pre-
sented himself as a "liberal." He was then paraded around as a "conservative." Wuerl has
shown himself to be out for himself. Refer to the following links and take note that each one
was configured to open in a new window, for the convenience of each reader:
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 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 Malachi Martin would later say it was: "... one of the most pathetic dioceses in the United States."
Take note that links to five other original articles related to Wuerl's triple cover-up are
posted at the bottom of this web page, along with five articles about the tragic Father
George Zirwas. They appear in the Corroborative Reading Section.
A Mode of Conduct Equivalent to that of Boston's Bernard Francis Law
This was a time when Wuerl operated in a mode of conduct which would one day become
synonymous with Bernard Law and the Archdiocese of Boston. The original handling of
lone wolf molester, John Hoehl, proved this to be true. The 1992 to 1994 saga involving
Fr. Edward Huff, also proved this to be true. Wuerl's original way of handling sex abuse
cases was that of positioning a molester priest back into non-parish ministry, if and only if
a psychiatric facility would give that priest a favorable prognosis.
Assigning a priest to non-parish duties places such a priest one step away from parish mini-
stry. Whether Wuerl would have eventually placed molester priests back into parishes will
be unknown only because he was shut down before the opportunity to do so presented it-
self. The simultaneous indictments of Wolk, Zula, and Pucci shut down's Wuerl's way of
handling sex abuse cases, at least for a while. They prompted Wuerl to immediately oust
from ministry the John S. Hoehl whom he reassigned four months prior.
Then came the Father Edward Huff case, where a third complaint against the priest finally
put Wuerl on the spot, thereby shutting down his opportunity to do anything more than take
Huff out of ministry and shuttle him back to a Saint Louis psychiatric facility from whence
he came. By all indications, Wuerl was on his way to becoming a bishop in the image and
likeness of Bernard Cardinal Law. In fact, the Huff cover-up shows that Wuerl was still
toying with law enforcement authorities even after having been in law enforcement's spotl-
ight four years prior.
One thing is certain. Wuerl has proven his willingness to reassign to parish ministry the type
of priest who commits physically invasive homosexual harassment and then engages in retal-iatory conduct upon being reported. As was previously mentioned, such a priest was a per-
sonal secretary of Donald Wuerl. What was not yet mentioned is that Wuerl assigned that
priest to the pastor's post of Saint Basil's Parish, in Carrick, Pennsylvania. The assignment
was effective January 1, 2004.
The Diocese Denied Any Wrongdoing and History Was Revised Years Later
Concerning his triple cover-up, Wuerl publicly denied that his diocese stonewalled the in-
vestigation of the Pittsburgh diocese's molestation clique. However, he didn't deny that he
materially concealed a trio of abusive priests from law enforcement authorities. He simply
denied that those actions constituted cover-ups. For instance, after Robbert Wolk was
charged by Allegheny County authorities, Wuerl made the following statement: "We can't
condemn him and throw him out and away." Wuerl also stated, "It is not covering up
to embrace a man who is suffering, just as we will not walk away from the family."
Wuerl claimed that it is not covering-up to hide a priest in either a psychiatric facility or at
a relative's home, all the while telling no one how dangerous he is. It's not covering up, ac-
cording to Wuerl, to treat the criminal as the suffering victim. Incidentally, when it came
time to process the indictment of Richard Zula, his whereabouts were unknown. Donald
Wuerl was not keeping track of him.
The official diocesan spokesman, as well as the Allegheny County DA, claimed that the
Diocese of Pittsburgh had no obligation to notify Child Youth Services about the priests,
as was prescribed in the Child Protective Services Act. In direct contrast was James A.
Esler, the head of the human service section of Allegheny County's Law Department. He
stated that there was no question in his mind that the Diocese of Pittsburgh had the obliga-
tion to report those priests. Today, it's understood that anyone who learned of a molester
has the obligation to report him, for the sake of those who would otherwise become future
sex abuse casualties.
Wuerl Sought to Change the Subject and Have Catholics Ignore It
Wuerl completed a four page letter addressed to every Pittsburgh diocesan members, two
weeks after Robert Wolk's October 11 indictment. While taking zero blame for the cover-
up, Wuerl tried to persuade each reader to ignore the indictment and to place's one's atten-
tion one other things. Then, seventeen days after the release date of Wuerl's change-the-
subject letter, Wolk, Zula, and Pucci were indicted in Washington County. The following
link reported on the letter:
Newspaper Article that Reported on Wuerl's Change-the-subject Letter
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4118/1032/1600/wuerl3.0.jpg
Revisionist History Made Wuerl Look Like a Hero in his Own Triple Cover-up
A number of the 2002, 2003, 2004+ news articles which mentioned Donald Wuerl's triple cover-up explained it so poorly that it constituted fiction. At times, the cover-up was exp-
lained with slight of hand deception, while at other times it was explained with blatant false-
hood. Some of the articles went as far as claiming that Wuerl was a stern yet discrete hero
in the handling of the three molester priests. In fact, of all the news outlets who alluded to
Wuerl's triple cover-up in revisionist terms, CBS was the one who lied the most. The Pitts-
burgh Post Gazette came in second place.
CBS made it look as if Donald Wuerl suspended those three priests immediately after hav-
ing learned of their perversity and then went swiftly to the home of the molested altar boys,
as a gesture of compassionate concern. He didn't. Other 21st Century articles made it
look as if Wuerl quickly went to the home of the molested altar boys, as if to be on a fact
finding mission, only to gain the realization that he had to oust the three priests immediately
thereafter. This, too, was a lie. Other articles stated that Donald Wuerl discretely sus-
pended three priests, as if he had reviewed a filing cabinet of diocesan priest dossiers and
then cut three unrelated players from a team roster. Needless to say, this didn't happen,
either. In fact, Donald Wuerl was not the one who suspended those priests.
Moreover, in 1988, Wuerl deceived the public by stating that he visited the victimized fam-
ily after he "became bishop in February." The wording of Wuerl's claim made a reason-
ably minded person assume that he diligently visited the family in February, the first month
of his tenure in Pittsburgh. No such visitation by Wuerl or any other Pittsburgh diocesan
member occurred that February, that March, that April, May, June, July, or even August.
The following is what actually happened:
Bevilacqua suspended the priests during the Autumn of 1987. Wuerl then replaced Bevi-
lacqua in February 1988. He kept his distance from the family of the two sex abuse ca-
sualties and did no more than see to it that the two boys would continue to have their psy-
chiatric sessions free of charge. The criminal priests would stay on sick leave, spending
some time in a psychiatric facility, all the while living under the radar of law enforcement.
From the view of the logical mind, the venues of the abusive priests were likened to resorts
and hideouts. It were as if they would get away with what they did and be able to snag oth-
er sexual prey down the road. This triggered within the family of the sexabuse casualties the resolve to go to the police and sue the diocese. This resolve occurred in the vicinity of Sep-
tember. In fact, the October 13, 1988 edition of the Pittsburgh Post Gazette explained it in
the following manner:
"...they were worried that the priests might try to molest someone else."
In the October 21st edition of the same Post Gazette, at the City/Area Section, on Page
A-4, it was reported that the family decided to go to the law enforcement authorities when
they discovered that at least one member of the molester trio "were not in an institution
on a daily basis."
The pastor of the family's parish, John Arnott, informed Wuerl what the family decided to
do. Wuerl then asked Arnott to see if a meeting with the family could be arranged. It was
then and only then when Wuerl closed the distance and went to the victimized family's home.
The logical mind would deduce this to be the act of a self seeking Wuerl, attempting to per-
suade a family into changing its mind about reporting priests to the police. This would be
consistent with a bishop wanting to perpetuate an ongoing cover-up. Now, Wuerl's visit
to the home of sex abuse casualties was in September. The family filed its notice of intent
to sue at the end of that month.
The Way of Donald Wuerl: Deception through Sleight of Hand Semantics
Observe how Donald Wuerl started his habit of deception through slight of hand semantics
during 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 that newspap-
er quote as Wuerl telling the three molester priests that they could not be reassigned to min-
istry. This is wrong. Look closer. The operative word here is "now," while the operative
phrase is "said to priests." Donald Wuerl didn't speak this quoted phrase to Wolk, Zula,
and Pucci. He spoke it to other priests. That quote made Wuerl look like a zero tolerance
bishop. However, that quote was nothing more than a semantic trick.
Donald Wuerl didn't disclose the time when he said to the unnamed priests that Wolk, Zula,
and Pucci could not be reassigned. It could have been spoken the day after Wolk,was in-
dicted. Well, it is important to note that Wuerl assigned the notorious John S. Hoehl to the
Shadyside Hospital chaplaincy post three months before Wolk was first indicted. Thus,
Hoehl's reassignment went into effect four months before the three Washington County in-
dictments were issued. This shows that Donald Wuerl was very open to the idea of reas-
signing molester priests even in the autumn of 1988. Observe:
(1) Hoehl was assigned to Shadyside Hospital in July. (2) The first indictment of Donald
Wuerl's molester trio was in October. (3) On the day Wolk was indicted, Hoehl was sta-
tioned at Shadyside Hospital. (4) Despite the Allegheny County indictment of Bob Wolk,
John Hoehl remained assigned to Shadyside. (5) Approximately one month later came the
Washington County indictments were executed. When Wolk, Zula, and Pucci were simul-
taneously indicted, John Hoehl was stationed at Shadyside Hospital. Thus, Wuerl was ac-
commodating molester reassignments even the day before his public statement was made.
That statement was a deception. Logic shows that it was spoken by after the October 11
indictment of Wolk was executed in Allegheny County.
Incidentally, Shadyside Hospital is located near Carnegie Mellon University and the Univer-
sity of Pittsburgh. Such universities are frequented by numerous male youth, not unlike the
ones John Hoehl was multiply accused of having molested during his long tenure at Quigley
High School, in Baden, Pennsylvania.
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 is 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 was 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, would not 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. 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 and compassionate excuse for keeping silent in the matter of
the Wolk, Zula, and Pucci abuses. However, there is very something wrong with this pic-
ture. It would have caused undue pain and anxiety for the family of the sex abuse casualties
to have kept silent and acquiescent to Wuerl's will perpetually. The presence of frustration
and 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 gnawing 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 Donald 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 exis-
tence 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 lawsuit, it instantane-
ously became illegal for anyone to harass them or attempt to commit any type of undue in-
fluence upon them. Such protection diminishes pain and anxiety considerably. The two
gentlemen were presented to the public as John Does, and anonymity also relieves anxiety.
Plus, taking public action results in monetary compensation, and the reasonable expectation
of a handsome income takes away annihilating stress, especially 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 spokesman 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 spokesman contradicted Wuerl, because
Wuerl said that he remained silent for the 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 accumulates to the point of
there being no more room to harbor it, the pain gets so intense that it starts singing. The two
sex abuse casualties would have spoken up later in life anyway, if they hadn't done so when
they did. This is evidenced by all the sex abuse casualties who broke their silence years af-
ter the fact.
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4118/1032/1600/Wuerl1halved.0.jpg
Introduction to the Edward Huff Case
Toward the end of his first year as bishop of Pittsburgh, Wuerl made a statement that easi-
ly would lead a reasonable person assume that he was resolved be never reassign a moles-
ter priest to ministry. However, Wuerl was apparently employing slight of hand semantics,
because he embarked on another cover-up; that of Fr Edward Huff. In that case, Wuerl reassigned Huff to ministry the same year Wuerl received accusations against him. He did
so, after Huff had a stay in a Saint Louis psychiatric facility.
The Specifics of the Huff Case
In February 1992, two families, days apart, reported Huff. Wuerl responded by doing the
exact type of thing that Cardinal Law repeatedly did in Boston. He sent Huff to a psychia-
tric facility; to one in Saint Louis, named Saint Michael's. The prognosis was that Huff had
sufficient residual functional capacity to perform some type of ministry. So, in November
1992, Wuerl assigned Huff to a chaplaincy post and provided him with living quarters in
downtown Pittsburgh.
In December 1992, other parishioners from Huff's parish sent Wuerl a letter that accused
Huff of molestation. This was the third time when Father 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, despite the fact that
a third set of parishioners made a formal complaint against him. Rather, Huff was sent back
to St. Michael's, despite the positive bill of health that was already given to him by that Saint
Louis facility. Thus, sending Huff back to Saint Louis was a strategic move, and not a medi-
cal necessity.
It wasn't until March 1993 when the Pittsburgh diocese would finally report Huff to law en-
forcement authorities. This means that Fr. Huff was not reported until thirteen months after
Wuerl learned of his misconduct. By that time, Faher Huff had already submitted his resig
nation.
As a subtotal tally, Edward Huff wasn't arrested until fifteen months after he was reported
by the Diocese of Pittsburgh to the required law enforcement entities. Therefore, Huff was
not arrested until 28 months after Wuerl learned of his predatory acts. In addition, March
1993 had additional significance to it. It was the month when the Vatican's version of the
Supreme Court ruled on the Cipolla case for the first time. March 1993 was when 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. Therefore, giving Wuerl credit for having reported Huff
was equivalent to giving a bank robber credit for stopping a bank robbery as soon as he
finds himself surrounded by police cars and then drops the sacks of money he was holding.
A Revisionist Article which Even Changed the Time Lines
In 2005, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review provided a very false statement, in saying that Wolk
and Zula were convicted in 1987. This made it look as if Wuerl had nothing to do with the
cover-up of them, being that he didn't start his Pittsburgh tenure until 1988. Therefore, that
article made it look as if he had a crystal clean sex abuse record. Perhaps the author of the
misleading article was deceived into thinking that Wuerl couldn't have possibly been part of
any cover-up, so the author assumed that the convictions occurred before Wuerl's arrival.
Or maybe he was an intentional liar.
One thing about Wuerl is certain. He wasn't the lionhearted protector of the Southwestern Pennsylvania's most vulnerable. Nor was he motivated by a visit to the family of two molest-
ed altar boys. This is evidenced by the fact that he reassigned Fr. Edward Huff to ministry years after the visit and later made Fr. Torquato a parish pastor long after the evening with
the two altar boys. Wuerl was motivated by nothing other than law enforcement authorities
and bad press, if not by insurance premiums, being that molester priests can be very expen-
sive to have around. This brings us to the reason why Wuerl pursued the Anthony Cipolla
case so vehemently.
The Reason Why Wuerl Pursued the Cipolla Case to the End
Keep in mind that Wuerl originally declared the accusations of Tim Bendig to be not credi-
ble. This was because Bendig accused more priests than Anthony Cipolla of sexual perver-
sity. Then, Bendig's attorney, Douglas Yauger, presented documentation to Wuerl concern-
ing a 1978 arrest of Cipolla. Anthony Cipolla was accused of molesting a nine year boy un-
der the guise of a medical exam.
The 1978 criminal case ended when the mother involved in the case dropped the charges.
She would later claim that she only dropped the charges out of a sense of duress, dropping
them within a month after having filed them. Diane Thompson (the mother) alleged that she
received direct pressure from former Pittsburgh bishop, Vincent Leonard. She therefore al-
leged that the Diocese of Pittsburgh committed witness tampering. Yet, she filed no crimi-
nal complaint against former Bishop Leonard, as far as is known.
Concerning the Thompson case, Anthony Cipolla stated the following:
"1. There was no BOY'S ROOM where a thermometer was found. That was a lie."
"2. There was no medical equipment found in my room and office as reported.
That was a lie."
"3. The police found nothing in my room. Instead I gave them a blood pressure
device that was given to me by Doctor Lawrence Dunnigan (now deceased).
At the time, I was collecting medical supplies for the missions."
In review, Diane Thompson stated that she dropped the 1978 charges out of a sense of
duress. Then, a second source conjectured that she dropped the charges, in order to pre-
vent something incriminating about her from surfacing during the trial. In addition, an indi-
vidual identifying herself as Diane Thompson on an online comment board alleged that her
son still suffers from the lingering effects of emotional trauma, on account of Cipolla. This
means that, both individuals apparently stand by their original pleadings/stories/averments. Cipolla does, at the least. He still pleads his innocence and Dianne Thompson never ex-
honerated him.
Bendig Did Not File Until After Wolk, Zula, and Pucci Were Indicted
November 1988 was when Bendig filed his notice of intent to sue in the Allegheny County
Court of Common Pleas. It was only at that point in time when Wuerl removed Anthony
Cipolla from ministry. In fact, didn't deep-sixed John Hoehl until the same month. Very
simply, if Wolk, Zula, and Pucci were not indicted in the Autumn of 1988, Wuerl wouldn't
have removed Hoehl in November of that same year. Plus, if Tim Bendig hadn't made his
move, then Cipolla would have stayed in ministry.
The important point to make at this point is that the Bendig/Cipolla case was NEVER tried
in any court of law on Earth. The Vatican case only sought to discern if Wuerl had grounds
to remove Cipolla, based on Psychic Defect. St. Michael's Institute in NYC gave Cipolla
an entirely clean bill of mental health, while St. Luke's Clinic in Maryland marked Cipolla
as being Depressed and Suicidal. He was neither evaluated as being psychopathic, nor sexually perverted, nor a pathological liar.
Wuerl refused to accept the assessment of St. Michael's Institute, calling it "scantily." The
Vatican Signatura rejected the St. Luke's evaluation as entirely invalid. Thus came the as-
sessment of the John Vianney's Center, in Downingtown, Pennsylvania. Incidentally, it's
pronounced Vee-awe-nay, with no syllable accented.
Wuerl's Actual Motivation
Concerning the Cipolla case, the 21st Century media made it sound as if Wuerl were a ded-
icated and caring bishop who got into action for the sake of the youth of the Pittsburgh area.
Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. This was Wuerl's actual motivation: To Stave off the same type of Grand Jury Inquest which visited the Archdiocese
of Philadelphia, and resulted in Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua dying in disgrace.
Wuerl had been caught performing a triple cover-up during late 1988, and he was already
called uncooperative by a prosecuting district attorney. Furthermore, the same district at-
torney stated that the Wolk-Zula-Pucci case was probably not an isolated incident. There-
fore, the law enforcement radar was still leaning toward the Diocese of Pittsburgh. This
means that a grand jury inquest was within reach.
When Donald Wuerl made his 1993 appeal to the Vatican's highest court, (in the Cipolla
case) the Father Edward Huff affair was still in progress. Add to that the fact that Anthony
Cipolla was a priest attached to publicly known molestation accusations. In as much, if
Wuerl would have reinstated a priest attached to publicly known molestation accusations,
then either investigators, subpoenas, or warrants would have rained down upon Wuerl's diocese, especially in light of the fact that the thrice accused Edward Huff was in the dio-
cesan background. Thus, there was a very real possibility that a grand jury inquest could
have been triggered, if Cipolla were to be reassigned to diocesan ministry. Everything that
Wuerl had been keeping secret up to that time would have been uncovered.
There were at least two more things to consider. If Cipolla were reinstated, the Diocese of
Pittsburgh would have become vulnerable to those false accusations which lead to lawsuits.
There was also the matter of insurance premium rates to consider.
To say that the safety of Pittsburgh's youth was dependent upon Wuerl, regarding Anthony
Cipolla, was a propagandist's lie. The public already knew of the accusations against Ci-
polla. If he were reinstated, children would have been told to avoid him, whether he were
guilty or not, simply as a precaution. Students would have been taken out of schools, pray-
er groups, choirs, field trips, etc. Therefore, priests accused of molestation are bad for bus-
iness. In addition, Cipolla knew that he was in a gigantic spotlight and couldn't do anything
ill without it being amplified. In fact, if Wuerl did nothing about Anthony Cipolla, then law
enforcement authorities would have placed investigators in close contact with the diocese.
A grand jury inquest was a logical possibility at the time, if Donald Wuerl outraged anyone
in authority. In light of the aforementioned, it is easy to understand that Wuerl was doing
nothing more than looking out for himself, in pursuing the Cipolla case to its conclusion.
Revisionist History of the Cipolla Case, Concerning Vatican Proceedings:
Exaggerated News Reports Constituting Fraudulent Misrepresentation
The following section does not judge if whether Anthony Cipolla is guilty or innocent of the
accusations leveled against him. It is meant to show the falsehoods and unconscionable ex-
aggerations that were employed by the 21st Century media, in it's reporting of the Cipolla
proceedings. The following is to show that the Cipolla case was used by Wuerl's propa-
ganda machine, as a power play in the same 21st Century, while it was used as a diversion-
ary tactic by Wuerl, in the late 20th Century, in order to prevent summons and subpoenas
from raining down upon the Diocese of Pittsburgh.
Wuerl's Use of the Cipolla Case for Political Advertising
After he was caught performing a triple cover-up, Wuerl was faced with the task of having
to trowel over his track record. This was done by having the Anthony Cipolla case made
known from coast to coast. The 21st Century narration of the case was over dramatized,
making it look like a Dan Brown novel, where Wuerl was the novel's hero engaged in a fight
against an "irrational Vatican." Yet, no Vatican doors were barricaded. No secret socie-
ty member burned Wuerl's court papers, and no albino monk chased Wuerl around Rome
with a dagger.
The only things unique about the case was that there were two appeals made to the same
one Signatura, concerning the same one case, and the Signatura had to obtain from the Pon-
tifical Counsel for the Interpretation of Legal Texts the definition of the phrase, Psychic De-
fect. Cipolla appealed first, after Wuerl won at the initial Vatican court level. Wuerl then
appealed to the Vatican's highest court second and only after Cipolla received a favorable
ruling from the Signatura. Yet, the revisionist newspaper articles made the Vatican look sin-
ister, oppresive, unenlightened, and stubbornly harmful. The same reports made Wuerl look
greater than the Vatican, as if we are to now reject the canonical authority of the Vatican
and declare the tiny and less than masculine Wuerl as the voice of the church in America.
It is important to note that the Vatican did not employ the adversial system of plaintiff test-
imony vs defendant testimony, as well as appellant briefs vs appelle briefs, and petitioner
vs respondant. This means that Wuerl was not present during the first Signatura hearing.
In fact, he didn't even know that Cipolla's appeal was transpiring. In like fashion, Cipolla
and his canon law team were entirely absent from the rehearing. Only Wuerl's team was
present for that one. After the rehearing was held, Cipolla got a letter in the mail, notifying
him that the Signatura sided with Cipolla's bishop. Thus, there was no point/counterpoint.
There was no cross-examination. There was opportunity of one side to impeach the testi-
mony of the other one, and there were no canon lawyers present to say, "Your honors, I
object." The entire procedure was poorly explained by the Pittsburgh media, concerning
the rehearing.
The Actual Transpiration of the Cipolla Case
To start, Donald Wuerl did not have a Herculean battle with the Vatican. Everything was
a matter of procedure. The initial Vatican court who reviewed Cipolla's case was the Con-
gregation for the Clergy. That court ruled in favor of Wuerl. In response, Cipolla appealed
to the Signatura. But, he did not file against Wuerl. His case was now against the Congre-
gation for the Clergy.
Wuerl's appeal to the Signatura was based on the claim that its original review of the case
was based on "major factual inaccuracies." He claimed that there was more evidence for
the Vatican to review. Firstly, Wuerl claimed that there still existed the police report relat-
ed to the 1978 arrest of Cipolla. Wuerl then claimed that there still existed the deposition
of the mother involved in the 1978 criminal case ... Diane Thompson. Finally, Wuerl stat-
ed that the Bendig v. Cipolla lawsuit was still pending, and therefore, more evidence was to
come from that civil lawsuit. However, no additional evidence came from the Bendig case.
Wuerl settled the Bendig lawsuit two days before jury selection, despite the fact that there
were 70+ witnesses for Cipolla and ZERO for Bendig. In fact, Bendig's attorney received
a sin month extension, in order to "depose more witnesses." Bendig could not find one per-
son on Earth to corroborate his testimony. In fact, there were witnesses ready to testify
against Bendig and impeach his testimony. That is to say, the 70+ witnesses did not sole-
ly consist in people ready to testify in favor of Cipolla's character. There were witnesses
ready to testify against Bendig's credibility ... a credibility that Wuerl originally adjudged to
be non-existent. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_n29_v29/ai_13797244/
In addition, no one after Bendig ever accused Cipolla of molestation. If he were the mon-
ster that Wuerl made him out to be, there would have been more accusers to come forth,
throughout the years. No one anywhere after Bendig made any accusations, and it is won-
dered if Bendig simply plagiarized the accusations in the 1978 case. However, Bendigs'
accusation lack plausibility. The details thereof are mentioned here: http://www.awuerlofhurt.com/2012/01/bendig.html
At the Initial Level of the Vatican Court,
Concerning Cipolla's Petition to be Reinstated into Ministry
At the Vatican court's initial level, the only decisive piece of evidence presented against
Anthony Cipolla was the psychiatric opinion of St. Luke's Institute, in Maryland, accord-
ing to media writers favorable to Wuerl. According to Anthony Cipolla, the Vatican al-
ready knew of the evidence which the press claimed was not yet in Vatican hands until
the trial. The Signatura's initial judgment of the Cipolla case was based on the evidence
that Wuerl submitted to the Congregation for the Clergy. This meant that the Signatura's judgment had to be based solely on the opinion of Saint Luke's Institute, if and only if it is
true that the Vatican didn't have any of the other information on Cipolla pertinent to the
case. The bottom line is that the Vatican judged if Wuerl had cause to remove Cipolla,
based solely on Psychic Defect. Again, keep in mind that there was no trial anywhere on
Earth which sought to discern if whether Cipolla molested Bendig or not.
Whether the Wuerl people were correct or not in their allegations that evidence was miss-
ing, the opinion of Saint Luke's Institute resulted in the Signatura declaring that Cipolla was
"denied a fair judgment" from an institute operated by an out-of-the-closet homosexual
whose judgment "was based on a mixed doctrine of Freudian pan-sexualism and be-
haviorism." The Signatura specifically stated that St. Luke's was "surely not a suitable institution to judge rightly about the beliefs and lifestyle of a Catholic priest."
Incidentally, from the ordinary teaching authority of the church came the condemnation of
"behavioral modification by means of psychotropic drugs." Therefore, when a church
document mentions behaviorism, it's referring to something recognized as Orwellian, if not
Draconian.
Because of Wuerl's alleged failure to submit the pertinent evidence at the initial Vatican pro-
ceedings, the Holy See had no other choice than to vacate its prior judgment of the Cipol-
la case and to review it anew. There was no "amazing" and "almost unheard of reversal."
Instead of having made the tiny Donald Wuerl look Herculean, the 21st Century media
should have painted him as a miscalculating sophomore. The media should have pointed
out that Wuerl was presumptive and short sighted, even to the point of legal bumbling, if it
is true that not all of the Cipolla evidence had been submitted to Vatican authorities. If so,
then the second round of hearings at the Vatican Signatura level was due to nothing more
than the incompetency of Donald Wuerl and his legal team.
Concerning Wuerl's claim that the Bendig civil suit was pending, Wuerl settled the civil law-
suit out of court within six months of having filed his appeal to the Signatura appeal. Wuerl
did this despite his claim that additional evidence in the Bendig case might possibly emerge.
Now, Wuerl's appeal to the Vatican was in March of 1993. The Tim Bendig lawsuit was
settled in October of 1993. The Signatura's second review of the Cipolla case would not
be completed until October of 1995. This would make the reasonably minded person sus-
pect that Wuerl had every intention to settle the Bendig case as soon as he could, deriving
no further evidence from the case. Thus, Wuerl used the Bendig case as an excuse to get
the Vatican to reopen the Cipolla case. This is evidenced by the fact that Wuerl ever so
coincidentally settled the lawsuit two days before the start of jury selection.
Cipolla's attorney, John Alan Conte, was not paid by the Pittsburgh diocese. Cipolla paid
his attorney with the $25,000 inheritance gotten after his mother's death. Cipolla paid all
that money and was never given his day in court. In fact, Attorney Conte was not consult-
ed about the settlement. Wuerl entirely ignored him.
In addition, an October 15, 1993 article published in the National Catholic Reporter, writ-
ten by Rebekah Schreffler, states that the Pittsburgh diocese promised that it would "inform
Anthony Cipolla's prospective employers of the allegations filed against him." Take note of
the hypocrisy of Donald Wuerl in this instance, being that he did not do the same thing in the
case of the notorious John Hoehl, formerly of Quigley High School, in Baden, PA. In fact,
Francis Pucci, after his indictment and prosecution, was permitted to perform the Catholic
Mass for an order of Pittsburgh area nuns. Of course, Pucci's case was dismissed on ac-
count of the statute of limitations. Thus, he actually wasn't a convicted molester.
As was previously stated, Anthony Cipolla had approximately seventy character witnesses
lined up to testify on his behalf at the civil trial. This included former altar boys who were
alone with Cipolla and in several types of settings. Plus, Bendig unsuccessfully sought to file
criminal charges against Cipolla in the Beaver County which sits at the northwestern border
of Pittsburgh's Allegheny County.
It is not likely that Bendig would have won his lawsuit, and news of Bendig's courtroom loss
would have carried weight at the Vatican's Signatura. Therefore, Wuerl was suspected of having used the pending status of the Bendig case as an excuse to get the Vatican to reopen
the Cipolla case, while intending to settle the case before a trial was to begin, lest he hurt his
case at the Vatican and make himself subjected to a possible grand jury inquest in Pennsyl-
vania.
Cipolla's Psychiatric Diagnosis
It is essential to mention what psychiatric diagnosis was given to Cipolla. This is because
news reports made one assume that Cipolla's psychic defect was something entirely mani-
acal, perverted, distorted, and uncontrolled; even that of a pathological liar. Well, available
documentation stated that Cipolla was diagnosed as having Clinical Depression. That was
all that the author of this text found in the paperwork. Now, suicidal tendencies were also
mentioned. Yet, something more was alleged by one source, but the paperwork to prove
that added diagnosis was never produced. However, that which was alleged was NOT
stated in the evaluations of St. Michael's Institute and St. Luke's Clinic.
Addendum on Tim Bendig
In addition to being the publicized accuser of Cipolla, Bendig was a short-term seminarian
at the Pittsburgh diocesan seminary. The months was his duration. One week after Wolk,
Zula, and Pucci were indicted, he filed a notice of intent to sue Cipolla, Wuerl, two previous
Pittsburgh bishops, one nun, and three priests, as well as the Diocese of Pittsburgh by name.
The filing date was November 18, 1988. Four days later, a female resident of Philadelphia
filed a notice of intent to sue a Pittsburgh diocesan priest named Father James E. Somma.
The point to mentioning the additional filing is to show the amount of weight that was bear-
ing down on Donald Wuerl during November of 1988.
Statements that Bendig gave to the media were published the day before Thanksgiving. Yet,
his name was withheld from the report. In fact, the news article was published exactly two
days after Francis Pucci was arraigned in a nearby county. Bendig said:
(1) that "the sexual activities" (vaguely stated) drove him away from the Pittsburgh diocesan
seminary "in disgust." (2) that he was molested by Cipolla, from the Year 1981 to the Year 1987. (3) that he was writing a book on the subject which was so good because it was so
true. (4) that he filed a precursory court summons, in his intent to sue the diocese for its re-
fusal to pay for any further psychiatric sessions after his third one. (5) that the Diocese of
Pittsburgh was the worst diocese.
The things which Bendig declined to tell the media was:
(1) that Donald Wuerl originally declared his accusations to be non-credible, on account of
the fact that Bendig accused more priests of sexual perversity than Cipolla. (2) that the Dio-
cese of Pittsburgh was lead to understand that, after the third psychiatric session, no further
ones would be needed by Bendig. (3) that Tim Bendig would soon admit, during a depo-
sition, that he voluntarily committed sodomy at the Pittsburgh seminary, even before he be-
came a seminarian there, thereby showing that Bendig didn't have a digust for homosexual
activity there; at least initially. (4) that Bendig was an unsuccessful student, academically
speaking, even at the Pittsburgh seminary. In addition, if Bendig ever wrote a book, it is
a well kept secret.
After the notice of intent to sue came the lawsuit. Yet, Bendig did not stop there. He also
went to the Beaver County D.A.'s office, in order to file criminal charges against the same Cipolla, only to have the D.A. report that no evidence to corrobate Tim Bendig's story was
found to exist. Now, when a civilian seeks to file criminal charges, his allegations are first in-
vestigated. The following findings were made by the D.A.'s office, concerning Tim Bendig's
allegations:
From: Beaver County District Attorney's Office:
On December 16, 1988, Tim Bendig was interviewed by
Assistant District Attorney William Hare and Detective
Andrew Gaul. Bendig accused Father Anthony Cipolla
of Indecent Assault at the McGuire Home in Daugherty
Township.
The Detective Bureau conducted an investigation which
included interviews with:
Tom Hamilton
Sister Mary Alice
Monsignor Shultz
Anthony Cipolla
The investigation showed no basis for criminal prosecution
essentially for the following reasons:
1) Bendig was over 18 at the time of the alleged offense.
2) No corroborating evidence was found.
The letter was dated March 17, 1989. It was a strike against Bendig's credibility.
The letter is online at: http://www.awuerlofhurt.com/2012/01/bendig.html
Tim Bendig's Admission of Having Committed Sodomy at the
Pittsburgh Seminary, Even Before Becoming a Seminarian there
It was during a deposition when Tim Bendig testified that he committed sodomy at the Pitts-
burgh seminary, even before becoming a seminarian there. He testified to having commit-
ted sodomy with individuals associated with the Pittsburgh seminary, none of whom were
priests at the time. The occasions of willfull sodomy occurred during a Discernment Week-
end and during a couple of follow up visits. Discernment Weekend, predictably enough, is
one where prospective candidates to the priesthood visit seminary grounds and discern if
whether or not the priesthood is their calling.
The admissions of willful sodomy are mentioned in the vicinity of pages 346 to 347 and 357
of Bendig's deposition, if not elsewhere. Not much of the deposition was made available at
the time of this writing. In fact, in the Winter of 2011-2012, it was found that Bendig's dep-
osition was missing from the Allegheny County Prothonotary's Office. However, the full
deposition was located. The purpose why it was recently sought will be kept in confidence,
at least for now. Two pages of the Bendig deposition are found at the web address posted
directly above. The same link which takes you to the DA's Report takes you to the two
pages of the Bendig deposition in the civil suit.
Concerning Tim Bendig's allegations against a number of Pittsburgh priests, it was during the
same deposition when he testified, one priest at a time, that his accusations came from rumor
mill gossip and not from personal experience. However, the entirety of the deposition was
not available, in order to confirm if Bendig answered the same in the case of every priest he
accused of sexual perversity.
Bendig Filed His Lawsuit a Second Time in Another Jurisdiction
On Tuesday March 10, 1992, three and a half years after having emerged into public sight,
Bendig filed the same lawsuit in Beaver County, Pennsylvania. Nine of the lawsuit's ten de-
fendants were sued under the doctrine of Respondeat Superior; the doctrine which states
that the superior must answer for the wrongs of his/her employees, agents, representatives,
underlings, etc. More specifically, the defendants in Bendig's twice filed lawsuit were:
(1) Anthony Cipolla, (2) Donald Wuerl, (3) Archbishop Anthony Bevilacqua,
(4) Bishop Vincent Leonard, (5) Monsignor Joseph Findlan, (8) Fr. William
Housen, (7) Fr. Theodore Rutkowski, (9) Sister Mary Alice Sobieraj,
(9) the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, (10) the Diocese of Pittsburgh.
The Alleged Matter of Bendig Abruptly Leaving the Deposition Room
The word "alleged" will repeatedly fill this block of text, so as to protect the identity of its
three sources. No hint of the sources shall be given. Period. Let us proceed:
A plaintiff's claims are known as Averments of Fact. Amongst Bendig's averments of fact
is allegedly one in which he claimed to have been abused by his biological father so much
so that the abuse literally left scars on his body. Well, during Bendig's deposition, Attorney John Alan Conte, former neighbor of this text's author, allegedly instructed Tim Bendig to lift/remove his shirt, in order to prove the existence of physical scars. Bendig allegedly be-
came panicked, asking Mr.Conte why he had to show the scars he claimed to have on his
body. Conte, allegedly stated that it was necessary to be done, because Bendig was ask-
ing for a lot of money from the Diocese of Pittsburgh and therefore needed to show cause
for receiving such money. Bendig allegedly left the room in a panicked state of emotion.
Interestingly enough, Tim Bendig's attorney, years later, allegedly claimed that Bendig left
the room for another reason. In fact, the alleged description of events, allegedly told by Bendig's lawyer, were outlandishly theatrical. The story allegedly told by Bendig's attorn-
ey was that Tim Bendig became so distraught over the memory of his sexual abuse that he
tried to commit suicide on the spot by trying to jump out of a very secured window, during
the deposition.
No one else witnesses such an event that day. In fact, it was revealed in 2010 that a sex
abuse victim's greatest torment is that of seeing his/her assailant go free, without ever seeing
that assailant held to accountability. An authentic sex abuse victim seeks justice and he/she
will not find peace until such justice is obtained. Suicide is not on the mind of a plaintiff.
The logical questions to be asked on this matter go as follows: If Bendig were distraught
over alleged sexual abuse as a teen, why did he admit to having willingly committed sodomy
at the Diocese of Pittsburgh seminary, even before becoming seminarian there? Would not
the unnatural activity have been too traumatic for Bendig to have endured? Plus, why would
a sex abuse casualty try to cover alleged trauma by letting himself die entirely exposed on a
sidewalk below him? Keep in mind how rape victims are known to repeatedly shower after
an attack. Also keep in mind how a sex abuse casualty has the instinct to cover and cloak
himself. In addition, the expected response of a sex abuse casualty, during his deposition,
is to get so angry at having to relive the abuse via testimony that the abuse casualty literally
gets the urge to punch out the defense attorney. Such a person is more likely to do violence
to the interrogating attorney than to himself, during a deposition.
It was alleged to me that Bendig has only one scar. It was then alleged to me that it was dis-
covered during the deposition that Bendig has a scar on his chest.
What Bendig Did with the Settlement Money
After having received his undisclosed settlement, Bendig gave a statement to the press that
was published in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette's October 1, 1993 edition. It was in Section B,
on Page 1, where Bendig alluded to how the settlement money would be spent. He stated:
"It's a satisfactory settlement that will enable me
to continue with better therapy and treatment."
Apparently, the better therapy included the renting of a bar and grill from the Levitsky Bros
of the South Hills of Pittsburgh, called the Two Step. Formerly known as the South Park
Inn, it is presently called Doridio's and is located at 6408 Brownsville Road, South Park, Pennsylania. The Two Step had a country-western theme and it closed its doors in 1998.
At least some of the settlement money from the Cipolla case went to the operation of the
now defunct establishment.
The Father Henry Krawczyk Case
After Wuerl was unofficially deemed the model of zero tolerance, there was the 2003 arrest
and arraignment of a Fr. Henry Krawczyk who was previously reported to Pittsburgh dioce-
san authorities for unbecoming conduct. Donald Wuerl knew of the prior allegations against
Fr. Krawczyck before that priest set the scenario for the sudden death of former Pitt football
player, Billy Gaines. If Wuerl were not negligent in that matter, chances are that Billy Gaines
would not have died an alcohol related death inside a Pittsburgh diocesan church. Concern-
ing this, refer to the following links:
Concerning the realization that Donald Wuerl was not motivated by conscience, but by law enforcement authorities, take note of the following statement made by author and expert wit-
ness, Richard Sipe. It was published in the March 11, 2002 edition of USA Today:
"It is only the court system and the media that have forced the Church to
take more reasonable action. There is a very significant lack of moral
leadership within the Church to face up to this problem, because they're
afraid of what it will uncover of higher-ups in the Church."
It was the court system which compelled Wuerl to pursue the Cipolla case. The 2002 me-
dia then forced Wuerl to remove several priests attached to credible sex abuse accusa-
tions whom Donald Wuerl had been keeping in ministry. At the start of 2002, Wuerl was
incapable of claiming that his diocese was free of priests accused of molesting youth. Only
after the media exploded with report after report of sex abuse cover-ups did Wuerl finally
remove those priests. He removed them out of political pressure.
Wuerl's zero tolerance image was nothing more than unconscionable propaganda, especially
in light of the fact that court briefs were filed against his diocese in 2002, at the US Supreme
Court's Clerk of Court's Office. Furthermore, Wuerl's former secretary was still in ministry
during that year, showing Wuerl to not be the model of zero tolerance that he was made out
to be. In fact, he would soon assign his former secretary to a parish pastor's post, effective
New Year's Day 2004.
The 21st Century praise given to Donald Wuerl by the media was an act of cowardice, as
if telling the truth about a corrupt bishop would have resulted in the ultimate destruction of
all mankind. This era of mankind has been one in which the media deceived the public in a
number of topics. Concerning the topics, Donald Wuerl is merely one of many. Concern-
ing corrupt bishops, Wuerl is merely one of many.
A courtesy email that Richard Sipe sent me in 2009 surprised me, because he described the
Donald Wuerl power play in the following way:
"It's the reformation all over again."
_____________________________
Corroborative Reading
Below are links to newspaper articles published at the time when Wuerl's Triple Cover-up
was uncovered. No revisionist history articles are posted herein. In addition, not all of the
original articles related to Wolk, Zula, and/or Pucci are posted below, being that over two
dozen of them were discovered. All links in this section were configured to open in a new
window.
Sincerely,