outright lie or a very underhanded sleight of
hand deception. He was heralded as the author
of a book he never wrote. He is praised as the
bishop of zero tolerance, despite being among
the first ones caught covering-up criminal
priests. He is then hailed as John Wright's
protege, as if such a thing is a good thing.
Step 1: Look at the Title Page of the original edition of the Teachings of Christ catechism book, and look at the names of the authors. The plurality of authors is a good tip-off that Wuerl did NOT write that Catechism book single-handedly. He was one of the book's three editors. Yet, he presented that book in front of cameras as if he wrote it solo.
****************************************************
During college, I used three catechism books for my introductory Catholicism course, three years before I entered the Thomistic Philosophy level of study.
One catechism book that I used was John Hardon's Catholic Catechism. It was published in the vicinity of 1975. Another one was the Teachings of Christ, and the third one was a book that was later declared heretical, where the author was "invited" by the Holy See to amend the contents within it.
On a metal-frame desk purchased with S&H Green Stamps, as I first looked at the the authorship page of the Teachings of Christ, the name "Donald Wuerl" did NOT register in my mind. This shows how much of a minor contributor to the book he was.
None the less, after college I would read the cultic Ann Rodgers and a few other people state that Donald Wuerl single-handedly wrote the Teachings of Christ.
It was a surprise to me to have read this. I wondered how I could have been so unobservant that I didn't notice that which Ann Rodgers and a few others claimed to be true. If Wuerl were the sole author that book, then what were those other names doing in the authorship page, aka Title Page?
Well, after I looked into the authorship of the book, I saw that the Library of Congress NEVER declared Wuerl the author or co-author of the book. Ann Rodgers once again lied, and it was affirmed to me that I wasn't losing my mind, after all.
Furthermore, Wuerl had a photo session of himself, where he was seated in front of the camera while holding a copy of the Teachings of Christ. This created the illusion that he was the sole author of the book he never wrote. Civilized protocol is that you never have a photo taken of yourself while holding a book that you never wrote. Wuerl was deliberately creating the illusion.
I never had the audacity to be photographed while holding the anthologies which carried my writings, being that there were more authors involved in those publications than me. Who else would do such a thing other than a narcissist or manipulator, in the quest to make himself look elite?
 |
| Ann Rodgers, under the name, Ann Rodgers-Melnick, was Wuerl's embedded propagandist here. She was never Catholic and she doesn't even observe the Church's moral code as it applies to the indissolubility of marriage. A non-Catholic living an anti-Catholic life is the best Wuerl could do. |
The most notable feature about the compilation and true editing of the Teachings of Christ was this:
There were so many writers involved in the writing of the book's manuscript that there was a notable difference in writing styles among the book's co-authors. Therefore, the prime objective in editing that book was to achieve COHESION in that catechism's writing style.
Now, the Library of Congress and a source of mine acknowledged that there were THREE editors of the book, with Wuerl being only one of them. The task of the day, concerning the Teachings of Christ, was to blend the many authors' writing styles into one cohesive syntactical style.
The bottom line is that Wuerl takes much more credit than what he deserves in a lot of things, and he never admits wrongdoing in the outrages which he orchestrated and/or ratified. Such is the way of any peacock throne bishop. Such a person always has to have the spotlight shining on him, and he always has to be the center of attention.
The Ann Rodgers articles which make Wuerl sound like a divine god are nothing more than very impish and gauche pieces of propaganda written by one who thinks that you are stupid and gullible. Feel free to break out of Ann Rodgers' hypnotic trance, as she describes Wuerl as Beowulf, Version 2.0.
 |
| Communications equipment was not created to spread lies, and a person doesn't have the right to shout, "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Whereas "buyer beware" was an American policy long ago, the policy now-a-days is "Reader Beware & Listener Beware." |
The Actual Game
Now, the game being played is this: Wuerl was being made out to be the ultimate teacher of Catholicism who cannot be questioned by anyone anywhere. Comment boards and Rodgers used phrases to describe Wuerl such as, "magnificent obsession," "great teacher," etc.
So, the game plan has been to make it look as if anything that Wuerl says has to be instantaneously believed as the Truth of God by every Catholic everywhere. Then, after this goal gets accomplished, you'll suddenly hear Wuerl (or someone in the name of Wuerl) state that the Sin of Sodom and Sodomite attraction is a good and holy thing ... even to the point of being regarded as the Eighth Sacrament of the Church.. Very predictable.
The Sodomites will shove this down your throat, saying, "Yeah! Yeah! See? See? Wuerl said it. So, you gotta believe it. He's the ultimate teacher. You have to let all the homos smear Vaseline all over church furniture ... because Wuerl said it was holy."
In other words, Cardinal Donald Wuerl was seen as the gatekeeper by the homosexual world who waits for him to use his influence and then declare homosexuality acceptable ... in the wait for him to accommodate the Sin of Sodom in the Catholic Church.
Q: And why Wuerl? ANS: Because he promoted Dignity Masses for eight consecutive years, in complete defiance toward the Vatican who banned that type of Mass.
For years, Wuerl, by his actions, was saying, "Up yours," to the Vatican in a blatant display of contempt toward the Chair of St. Peter.
He then has people go about acting as if he is as infallible as St. Peter.
Wuerl follows suit in changing doctrine as his convenience, even to
the point of calling someone as doctrinally basic as Cardinal Raymond Burke the dissenter.
Of course, Wuerl does NOT possess papal infallibility. He is NOT a one-man Magisterium, and he has been cited speaking heresy. He makes up doctrine in the image and likeness of himself. Yet, he doesn't go out and start his own religion, presumably because he won't get much of a following ... and because he will no longer be able to live in the Marie Antoinette type of comfort.
Being that there is a push (by one faction) to have Wuerl regarded as the ultimate teacher of all Catholicism, you need to accentuate the fact that Wuerl did NOT write the Teachings of Christ whenever someone says he did. Counter the deifying of tiny Donald Wuerl, the Elevator Shoes Kid.
All in all, anyone can write a catechism book. In fact, no one ever writes a catechism book. A person simply passes on the teachings of the Apostles which were handed down to him/her.
The writing of Catholic catechism had long since been done. No one has the power or the right to change Catholic doctrine as much as no one has the right to change the books which comprise that Old and New Testaments, as the admittedly constipated and flatulent-afflicted Martin Luther did.
To think, Luther was supposed to be the new enlightenment. Yet, he was clueless about the existence of fiber, probiotics, ketogenics, displacing uric acid, adaptogens, isolates, autophagy, and senescent cell recycling. Well, anyway . . .
When you finally break out of the Ann Rodgers hypnotic trance that makes a person assume that Wuerl is the greatest thing since sliced bread, you'll notice the wolves prowling among the sheep, all the while noticing that each of them are either masquerading as angels of light or pretending that they have a new discovery about Catholicism that requires the 2,000 year old doctrine to be changed.
Such males who do so are simply not man enough to live Catholicism. So, they try to make it easier. As a result, they end up making Catholicism look like a buffoonish joke.
 | |
| There's a construction supply building across the street from here where I regularly used to go. The Church Brew Works is regarded as One Big Joke. When I was photographing this place, you should have seen the look on people's faces who were coming here for lunch or drinks or whatever. Coming here was a novelty to them. It was a disrespectful joke to them. |
