Wuerl's 1993 to 2006 Cover-up of Fr. William P. O'Malley

Wuerl greenlighted William P. O'Malley into an open lane of sexual aggression

The Great Outrage throughout the late 1980s was that Ann Rodgers-Melnick kept defining Wuerl as the Bishop of Zero Tolerance, when he as sure as Hell was not.

~ ~ ~

Enter One Father William O'Malley.  1991:  O'Malley was reported in an alert sent to the diocese.  It stated that William P. O'Malley was bestowing under-aged youth with gifts and that he was having them do sleep-overs at the rectory.   A little too Chummy.

1993:  A 22 year old young adult accused O'Malley of having committed sexual assault on him, in a parish rectory.  No action was taken against O'Malley, except for "a warning."       

Note:  Wuerl would not protect any victim over the age of 17.

1997:  Another male accused O'Malley of having sexually assaulted him to a certain degree when he was the age of 12, while the 12 year old was drunk.

At the same time, according to the same accusation, William O'Malley photographed three other boys in their undergarments.  O'Malley did NOT deny the accusations.  However, he did not volunteer any play-by-play details, either.

Only at that point in time did Wuerl order O'Malley into psychiatric assessment and prognosis.  O'Malley was diagnosed as having an unnatural attraction toward high school aged males.

1998:  Instead of practicing Zero Tolerance, Wuerl reinstated O'Malley into ministry and violated the Child Protection Services Act, by refraining from reporting O'Malley to the police.  Wuerl gave O'Malley a post in the diocesan administrative dept.  According to the 2018 Pennsylvania Grand Jury Report:

2002:  More male accusers against O'Malley continued to come forth. It was ALLEGEDLY six in all.  The accusations went into the Year 2006, when Wuerl packed his bags for Washington, DC, all the while being regarded as the ultimate bishop of Zero Tolerance.

Of the additional youth who came forth, the most recent alleged act of sexual aggression was done by O'Malley in 1999.

2003:  O'Malley finally tendered his resignation from Pittsburgh diocesan ministry.

2006:  It was not until the year when Wuerl was to transfer to Washington did Wuerl report O'Malley to the police.

2008:  O'Malley died

On occasion, Wuerl would have an accused priest ride-out the statute of limitations before Wuerl would report the priest.  At other times, Wuerl waited until the priest was soon to approach death, before Wuerl would report the priest.  Wuerl did NOT report O'Malley until two years before O'Malley's death.

The Krawczyk Case: 7 years probation in death; the death of another.

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 diocesan authorities for unbecoming conduct.  Donald Wuerl knew of the prior allegations against Father Krawczyk 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 the young Billy Gaines would not have died an alcohol-related death, twenty hours after having fallen from a Pittsburgh diocesan catwalk onto one of its church pews.  Plus, the parish wouldn't have been receiving the Playboy Station, during that time.

In addition, the August 2018 PA Grand Jury Report attributed a suicide to the same Fr. Krawczyk.  It involved the youngest brother of a family who, according to a memorandum, would indulge in alcohol with Krawczyk and whatever it was that got them high.  

The same youth was woke up after an alcohol binge and found Krawczyk performing an unnatural act upon him.  Of course, in my ancestors' Renaissance Italy, such priests literally got the death penalty for such conduct.  None the less, the suicide occurred in 2006, after Krawczyk was put into the criminal court system, only to receive probation.  None the less, being a molester priest can be quite deadly.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=jO8NAAAAIBAJ&sjid=hnADAAAAIBAJ&pg=6128,3246225&dq=henry+krawczyk+minors+diocese+knew&hl=en

http://www.leagle.com/decision/2004927354FSupp2d573_1872

http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news3/2003_10_02_AP_WitnessPriest_Henry_Krawczyk_7.htm

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2519&dat=20050223&id=ik9aAAAAIBAJ&sjid=-CgMAAAAIBAJ&pg=423,17714232&hl=en

The thesis statement is this:

Wuerl was made out to be a deeply caring bishop who would risk his life for humanity.  Meanwhile, Wuerl was living in Marie-Antoinette-Luxury and had gotten away with the Torquato Retaliations that he de facto ratified.

Wuerl was made out to be deeply caring, but he completely ignored the plight of hundreds of million sweatshop workers throughout the world whose products flooded the American market and typical American home.

Wuerl's cover-up of Wolk, Zula, and Pucci was given a rewrite, where he was made out to be the wise overseer, instead of an aggravation to law enforcement personnel and the family stung by three Pittsburgh diocesan priests.

The Wellinger case was a persona non-grata of its own, and Wuerl's reinstatement of former high school headmaster John Hoehl was denied so much so that writer Ann Rodgers made it look as if Wuerl immediately read Hoehl the Riot Act and ran him out of town.

Curiously enough, however, the Huff indictment and conviction was mentioned in the papers during 2002, when the Wuerl-for-God campaign was working overtime.

If Wuerl really cared, he would have been sure that human life would not have been in jeopardy, as was the case in the first wave of the Torquato Retaliations.  Wuerl proved his unsuitability to rule,  when he would look the other way and perform dereliction of duty.

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 witness, 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 announce a zero tolerance policy.  It took the indictment of the Father Robert Wolk.  The 2002 media then forced Wuerl to remove several priests attached to credible sex abuse accusations 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 the priests 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.  Concerning 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."

 _______________________________

For further reading on other topics, see:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?section=nfl&id=2287982

http://www.post-gazette.com/local/south/2005/02/23/Priest-pleads-guilty-in-death-of-Pitt-football-player/stories/200502230301

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

Concerning the Late Father 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

http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2003-04-17/news/murdered-in-havana/
  
-  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -

Fr. John Wellinger: Either the Pittsburgh diocesan spokesman lied about him or the secretary of Wellinger's former parish did.

Below is the transcript of the alleged recorded interview of a former secretary of Fr. John Wellinger's former parish.  The secretary alleged that she informed Pittsburgh diocesan spokesman, Fr. Ron Lengwin, about Wellinger in the late 1980s.  

In contrast, Lengwin publicly stated that Wellinger was not reported to the diocese until 1995.  This means that someone is lying about a Father John Wellinger who walked away from ministry on his own accord; either Lengwin or the secretary of the late John Wellinger.

Now, the red flag about the Wellinger case is that he left ministry via "personal leave."  There was no strong disciplinarian enforcing administrative leave on him.  In addition, since 1999, I have never heard anything honorable about the very tall Ron Lengwin, by any of my sources.  He was repeatedly alleged to be Donald Wuerl's attacking pit bull.  A bully ... allegedly.

And yes, I surprised to see how tall he was, as we passed by each other in a diocesan building hallway, during the Torquato Retaliations.   Incidentally, when he did say hello to me, he did so with slightly gritted teeth and an ornery facial expression.  I kept walking.

The transcript is preceded by an introduction, written the Mike Ference who is no stranger to diocesan intimidation tactics ... allegedly.

In the Ference case, the Ferences had the right to know the motivating force behind Bobby Butler pulling the trigger of a lethal weapon twice on a school bus of unarmed teenagers.  Add to the Serra Catholic equation, the previously accused Kenneth Ghastin who was stationed there when the shooting occurred.

Include the accused Fr Michael LeDoux who would be assigned to 

Serra after the Adam Ference shooting.  There is something of substance in the Ference case, in as far as goes the motivating force in sweeping the entire matter under a carpet.

Incidentally, all that is posted herein is presented to you as 'alleged,'

 concerning the contents.  Now for guest writer Mike Ference:

____________________________________________________

This is part of a taped interview with Marta P******* which I had gotten transcribed.  It's her describing her attempts to inform the Pittsburgh diocese of possible sexual abuse, along with drug and alcohol abuse, directed toward Pittsburgh-area youths by late Catholic priest, Father John Wellinger.   For a description of Father John Wellinger’s alleged crimes visit either

www.bishopaccountability.org or www.post-gazette.com.

At least one alleged victim of John Wellinger credits my (Mike Ference's) years of investigation as helping to force the Pittsburgh Diocese to settle out of court with 31 other alleged victims of clergy abuse.   He's Chris Mathews, and if you would like to contact Chris, let me know and I'll pass your phone number or email address to him.

The Diocese of Pittsburgh could have prevented some tragedy, perhaps.

If the Pittsburgh Diocese had done the prudent thing, instead of adopting the policy of disregarding people, Chris Mathews wouldn't have been sexually abused by John Wellinger, as was alleged.   Bobby Butler, Jr. may not have attempted to murder my son.  

As importantly, Bobby may still be alive today also, depending if he too were molested by Wellinger.  However, the Pittsburgh diocese didn't seem to care.

Editor's Note:  Keep in mind that, during the deposition of a Clairton law enforcement man, the Ference attorney asked him if he new anything about John Wellinger molesting youth in the Clairton area.  The diocesan attorney then banged on the table and starting employing intimidating speech which under oath.  This makes the Diocese of Pittsburgh (under Donald Wuerl at the time) look extremely suspicious.   Back to guest writer, Mike Ference: 

Had the Diocese of Pittsburgh done the prudent thing, then John Wellinger’s alleged lover, laicized Catholic priest, Richard Dorsch, may have been halted before he began to sexually abuse youth.  Even Archbishop Bevilacqua may have been prevented from causing so much pain and agony in the Philadelphia Archdiocese, as was described in the scathing report of the grand jury investigation that transpired through the Philadelphia District Attorney’s office.   

Respectfully, Mike Ference

____________________________________________________

Beginning of interview

Mike: And I’m talking to Marta P******* (Mike then spelled her full name), is that correct?

Marta: Right.

Mike: Your telephone number is 412-***-****.   What is your mother’s maiden name, if I may ask?

Marta:  And you need this?

Mike:  I just wanted to identify, again if some one says “How do we know we're talking to Marta?”  You know what I mean, if that’s okay with you?   If not, that’s okay.  You do not have to give that.

Marta: No, I don’t.   No.

Mike: You’d rather not give that?

Marta: No.

Mike: Ok, that’s fine.  That’s fine.

Marta: I mean, I am in the church year book, if you were to need anything else.

Mike: Okay.

Mike: You are a resident of West Mifflin, is that correct?

Marta: Right.

Mike: You have been a member of the Holy Spirit Church for some time now, for a number of years, since at least 1980 or 81?

Marta: Since 1968.

Mike: 1968! Oh my goodness.  Okay.

Mike: At the time a Priest by the name of (John Wellinger) came there, you had a position with the church if I am not mistaken.  What position was this?

Marta: I was the Parish secretary.

Mike: Was this a fulltime or part-time position?

Marta: It was part-time.

Mike: If I am not mistaken, you became suspicious of John Wellinger based upon a couple of things that were occurring.  Is that correct?

Marta: Well, yeah.  I had a feeling that there was something not right. 

Mike: You were also told about a possible assault on a young boy by the name of (*********).  Is that correct?

Marta: I wouldn’t say assault. 

Mike: Okay

Marta: What was told to me was that, he had given, I guess, liquor and drugs to this young man, and was taken to the hospital.  

Mike: Right, okay.  And that Hospital was Shadyside Hospital, if I am not mistaken.  Is that correct?

Marta: I am not sure. 

Mike: Okay.  And this would have happened? Do you think this happened sometime in 1987?

Marta: Yeah, I guess so. 

Mike: Okay, so this happened in 1987.  You are also aware of the alleged abuse that took place with a young boy by the name of (Chris Mathews) sometime in 1989.  Is that correct?

Marta: Only that, I knew about it when it was in the paper.

Mike: When it was publicized.  Okay, it was publicized in 2003, or some thing like that.

Mike: The (*********) boy, I believe his first name is (****)?

Marta: Right. 

Mike: Okay.  At the time, he would have been about sixteen (16) years of age, do you think?

Marta: Yeah, maybe fifteen (15) or sixteen (16).

Mike: Okay.

Mike: You can be relatively sure that he was under the age of eighteen (18)?

Marta: Yeah.

Mike: (**** *********’s) mother would have been (**** *********,) correct?

Marta: Yes.  

Mike: She also worked for the church, or (John Wellinger) at that time, is that correct?

Marta: Yes.  She was the CCD coordinator.

Mike: So, she was often around the church, and often either with John Wellinger or performing church duties.  Things like that.  Is that correct?

Marta: Yeah. 

Mike: Am I permitted to ask you who told you about (****’s) incident?  I believe initially you may have said so.  Did you say it was (******) who told you this happened? 

Marta: No.

Mike: Okay, I am sorry. 

Marta: It wasn’t her.  You know, I can’t remember who told me.

Mike: Okay.

Marta: I kinda think it may have been (Michelle ********). 

Mike: She was the organist?

Marta: Right.

Mike: Okay.

Marta: But, I am not sure.

Mike: Okay.

Mike: Put it this way.  There were several people who were well aware of this.

Marta: Yeah.

Mike: Okay, Okay.

Mike: So, again, we are proceeding with the assumption that John Wellinger may have given drugs and alcohol to a boy by the name of (**** *********) sometime in the year of 1987.  The boy was certainly under the age of eighteen (18), and was a minor to the best of your recollection.

Marta: Right.

Mike: Okay.  Now, you also told me during the conversation we had,

           I believe back in August, that you had gone to the Pittsburgh 

           Catholic Diocese to talk about some of your concerns about 

           John Wellinger.  Is that correct?

Marta: That is correct. 

Mike: Would you say that you did that some time in the year 1988.

Marta: Yeah, I think so.  Although, this was before I resigned.

Mike: So this was before you resigned.  Do you know when you re-

           signed your duties from the church?

Marta: No.  I would have to look at my records. 

Mike: Do you have any idea when it might have been?

Marta: Um, It was probably in 1988 or 1989.

Mike: If it were 1989, do you have any idea about what month or any thing like that?

Marta: That I resigned?

Mike: Yeah.

Marta: It may have been like late summer.

Mike: Late Summer of 1988 or 1989. Okay.

Mike: Is there any way you could double check this to see?

Marta: Yeah, If I am thinking if I still have my pay records or not.  Then I could look that up. 

Mike: Okay, very good. 

Mike: So, you proceeded to go to the Pittsburgh Catholic Diocese.  Any idea who you might have met with at the diocese?

Marta: I don’t remember.  I am thinking it was (Ron Lengwin) but I am not sure.

Mike: You are not one hundred (100) percent sure?

Marta: No.

Mike: Okay.  Well let me ask you this.  To get a time frame on this, was Bishop Bevilacqua that bishop at the time?

Marta: Yes, he was.

Mike: So, this was before Donald Wuerl?

Marta: Yes.

Mike: How do you know Bishop Bevilacqua was the bishop?  Is there anything that you can say for sure other than “you know what, I knew that when I went down there Bishop Bevilacqua was the bishop, simply because he was the bishop”.  Maybe that is sufficient. 

Marta: Umm, Yeah. 

Mike: Okay.  We could probably re-establish these dates, if we wanted to.

Mike: So, you met with a gentleman who you think may have been Fr Ron Lengwin.  Do you recall some of the things you told him. 

Marta: Umm, Yeah. 

Mike: And, what were they?

Mike: I think, if I am not mistaken, you mentioned that there was a young boy living at the rectory at the time?

Marta: Right.

Mike:  Did you tell that to Father Lengwin?

Marta: Yes.

Mike:  Do you recall what else you told to Father (Lengwin)?

Marta: Oh. Probably that a young couple spent the night at the rectory.  They were trying to sneak out the next morning, and I just happen to come by the stairs when they were trying to get out.

Mike: When you say young couple, do you mean young boy and girl?

Marta: I would say in their early twenties. They were friends of his.

Mike:  Do you know who they were?

Marta: No.

Mike:  Was that the type of behavior you might have experienced or at least heard about on a regular basis, or was this something new?

Marta: As far as the young couple, this only happened the one time that I am aware of.

Mike:  Okay

Marta: I did tell Father (Wellinger) that I saw them there, and He said it was only a few friends of his that stayed there.

Mike:  Okay.   You felt there was much more to it than just people staying overnight.

Marta: Well, I don’t know. I did not think it was proper for them to stay all night at the rectory, and then try to sneak out.

 Mike:  Okay.

 Marta: If they had been proper guests there, then why would they be

             hiding? Why wouldn't they just come out in the open?

Mike:  What makes you think they were actually sneaking out?

Marta: Because, there were people in the dining room.  That is where

            we would meet to have our staff meetings, and I came to my

            office through the living room to the dining room.  In that hall

            between the rooms is the stairs . As I came around the bend,               the two were coming down the steps. They were trying to be                real quiet.

Mike:  Do they know that you saw them?

Marta: Yeah.

Mike:  You were startled, and they were probably startled, I guess.  They were also kind of embarrassed, too?  I am guessing.   And then they just kind of …

Marta: ... left

Mike:  They shuffled out without saying hello, goodbye, or anything?

Marta: Yeah.

Mike:  Now, what did Father (Lengwin) say about this?

Marta: You know, I really do not recall.  I think he was just trying to write things down, not really making any comments about it.

Mike:  And you also told him about the young fellow that was living there for a time.   Do you have any idea on about who he was, or how old he was?

Marta: I do not know who he was.  I would say he could have been around seventeen or eighteen.

Mike:  Okay.

Marta: The only reason I knew, because I did not realize there was anybody up there, was the telephone bill came in, and I questioned Father (Wellinger) about it.   It was a big, long list.  I called the telephone company about this one number, but I am not sure what number it was.

Mike:  Was it like a 900 number, or something similar?

Marta: Yeah.

Mike:  Okay.

Marta: This is the only way I knew, and he said “Oh, that’s ( ).”  I am not certain of what name he gave.  He then said “he has been staying up there, and that would be him.  In fact, I think (Maria C******) happened to pick up the phone, and heard him on the phone.”  Although, nothing was apparently ever said or done, because we got the telephone bill listing all those calls.

Mike:  So you told Father (Lengwin) about the boy living up there.   Was there any reaction from Father (Lengwin)?

Marta: Not that I can recall.

Mike:  After, was there anything else that you may have told Father (Lengwin)?

Marta: Umm, I am trying to think. 

Mike:  Did you tell him about the (W********) boy?

Marta: I don’t think I knew that at the time.

Mike: To make along story short, or to paraphrase it, you went to Father (Lengwin) with concerns about John (Wellinger) because of inappropriate behavior.  Did you think at the time that it could have been some type of sexual behavior that may not have been acceptable for a priest?

Marta: No, not at that time.

Mike:  No,  OK.  Not at that time.   Basically, you were reporting behavior that in your mind was suspicious.

Marta: Right.

Mike:  OK

Mike:  Now, so you left the diocese.   How did the diocese react to your concerns?

Marta: Well, they ... um ... Let’s see:  I know that I had put another call in to them, or they called me.  I can’t remember.

Mike:  That’s OK

Marta: They said it sounds like people inform you of things, and they made me feel like I was a busybody or something.

Mike:  Like you were sticking your nose into somebody else’s business where it did not belong, maybe?

Marta: Because people would tell me things.   I was they’re secretary, and people would tell me things.  I don’t know.  They would express concerns or thoughts.

Mike:  So, people would come to you because they had confidence in you.  Probably also because of the fact that maybe you had been privy to something, and maybe they felt like they were helping in some way by putting some of the pieces together by giving you additional information?

Marta: Or they were curious and wanted to know.

Mike:  They may have come to you and said, what do you think?  And people were coming to you about his behavior, showing concern.  As a result of this, you went to whom we think is Father (Lengwin) and, said, "Hey, I’m not sure if anything is going on, but here is what we have so far."

Marta: Right.

Mike:  Father (Lengwin) or whomever you spoke with, said “quit being such a busybody, and mind your own business.”  Now, did they send you any type of a letter or anything at all?

Marta: Oh, yes.   They sent me a letter, and asked me if they questioned (Wellinger) about anything that I said, would I want my name mentioned?

Mike:  Okay.

Marta: I said no, because I think at that time I was still working.

Mike:  Okay, you were still working.

Marta: Right.

Mike:  Did they state anything else in that letter that you can recall?

            By the way, do you still have that letter?

Marta: I don’t know. I would have to look.

Mike:  Okay, you would have to look.  Do you recall anything else in that letter that may have been stated, or who the letter may have come from?

Marta: I know it came from the diocese.

Mike:  Okay.  Have you ever told anybody else about this, such as law enforcement officials or anybody else that may have been able to help in this situation?  I think you did as much as you could with as much information as you had.  Is that a reasonable assumption on my part? 

I mean, you don’t have the authority to arrest anybody.    For you to question (Wellinger), that really doesn’t do any good, although you may have questioned him, or put him on the spot at times. 

Marta: Right.

Mike:  That doesn’t mean he’s going to tell you the truth or anything like that.

Marta: Yeah, I know.

Mike:  Did you ever talk to anybody else about this that may have been in a position to get some things done?

Marta: I’m not sure.   At one time, I think I did talk to one of the parish council members.

Mike:  And who would that have been?

Marta: That would have been (Rick M**********), but it would not have been about this.  It would have been more about how the money was being used.

Mike:  I see.

Marta: This would have involved with the parish share money.

Mike:  Okay.   Now when you are talking about money, are you talking about inappropriate expenditures in any way, or question about where some of the money was?  Was it something like that?

Marta: Well, yeah.  The parish share money wasn’t necessarily going to that.  I didn’t know where it was going, you know.

Mike:  Okay.   Did anybody ever look into that?

Marta: I don’t think so.

Mike:  Okay.

Marta: You know. Nothing ever came back to me.

Mike:   Okay.  And what was that gentleman’s name again that was on the parish council?

Marta: That was (Rick Manischevic).

Mike:   Is he still a member of the parish council?

Marta: No.

Mike:   Okay.  Is he still involved in the church in any way?

Marta:  Yes. I believe he trains the ultra service.

Mike:  Were there any people who may have covered for John (Wellinger) if he did anything wrong that the church?

Marta: Oh, sure.

Mike:  Who do you think some of those people might have been?

Marta: Well, (Marie Capana), would have been one.

Mike:  Okay.

Marta: (Marina C*******) I think too, and there may be one more,

            although I’m not sure.

Mike:  Okay. Mike: Do you mean (Marina Cataro)?

Marta: Yes.

Mike:  I tried talking to her, and she wouldn’t talk to me.

Marta: No, she wouldn’t.

Mike:  Do you think she may know something?

Marta: I am sure, yes, she would know something. I am sure somebody would have said something to her.

Mike:   Okay. Did you ever discuss anything like this with (Gretchen

            W*****)?

Marta: Yes.

Mike:   She is the sister of mercy, I believe?

Marta: Right. Mike: I think (Gretchen W*****) had some suspicions concerning (Wellinger)?

Marta: Oh Yeah.

Mike:  Do you know if she ever went to someone at the diocese to say, "Hey, something is amiss here?"

Marta: I don’t know that.  I kind of think not, but I don’t know.

Mike:  Okay.  Any idea what she may have known?

Marta: Umm, Well...

Mike:  Did she know about the (W********) boy?

Marta: I believe she did.

Mike:  Okay.

Marta: All I remember her telling him was that she was not going to fight his demons.  That’s all I can remember.

Mike:  I see.  I’m trying to think if there’s anything else.  Somewhere around 1988 or 1989, you resigned as the parish secretary, but you still stayed on as a member.  No one was going to keep you out of a church you belong to and helped build, and all that kind of stuff.  Somewhere around 1991 is when (Wellinger) left, is that correct?

Marta: I believe so.

Mike:  Do you remember anything surrounding when he left?  Usually when a priest leaves, there is some type of formal announcement like in a month I’ll be leaving.   Do you recall anything like this with ... (Wellinger)?

Marta: No, I don’t recall that.  All I recall at that time is that Bishop (Boal) came to our church or some type of function, maybe for confirmation, although I am not sure, and within like two weeks (Wellinger) was gone.   I just thought, well, somebody with some type of clout may have sent the bishop here.

Mike:  Okay, but you’re not completely sure.

Marta: No.

Mike:  You do, however, know where he stayed when he left Holy Spirit Church.

Marta: Right. Mike: Where did he stay?  I think he first went to Allentown.

Mike:  But you said ...

Marta: I think he did stay with … but then he went to Allentown as a priest.

Mike:  Okay.

Marta: After that, I think he went to St. Francis with Father (Dorsch).

Mike:  When you say he went to Allentown, he left Holy Spirit Church abruptly?

Marta: Yes.

Mike:  And, was immediately assigned to a church in Allentown?

           Was that the way it went?

Marta: Yes.

Mike:  If I’m not mistaken, Allentown may be a separate borough,

            but it is also part of Pittsburgh, near Carrick and that area.

Marta: Right.

Mike:  And then from there, he may have stayed just for a short time.

           Now, how do you know?  Did he just go down to St. Francis              on his own, or was he like an assistant pastor there?   Do you               have any idea?

Marta: I don’t’ know.  I think he was just staying there.  I got a copy of a letter that he wrote, although I’m not sure where I got to copy from or who I got the copy from, to some friends.   In his letter he was just complaining about what he had been through over the past year or so.  It was written on stationery from St. Francis.

Mike:  Okay.  The reason why you are familiar with St. Francis, which is the Church in the McKees Rocks area, you were a parishioner there at one time?

Marta: Right.

Mike:  So you’re very familiar.  You are assuming that, if you received a letter or saw a letter from St Francis, he had some connection there?  That’s where he was staying there as a result, or did he mention in the letter that he was staying there?

Marta: I believe he did mention it

Mike:  Okay. He wouldn’t have sent a copy of that letter to you right?

Marta: Oh no.

Mike:  Any idea who he sent that letter to?

Marta: I’m not sure. It might’ve been Marina or it could have been ... I really don’t know.

Mike:  Okay

Marta: All I know is that it was a copy.  Somebody had made a copy of the letter.

Mike:  Okay.  So we are assuming that, from this letter, he stayed with Father (Dorsch) at St. Francis in McKees Rocks.  Father (Dorsch) was the head pastor there for some time.

Marta: Right.

Mike:  This would’ve been around 1991 maybe 1992 correct?

 Marta: I think so.

Mike:  Are you aware that Father (Dorsch) was eventually convicted of sexual abuse?

Marta: I am aware now yes. I was unaware of it then.

Mike:  Do you know who made you aware of that?

Marta: I believe you did. Mike: Okay.

Mike:  Do you know if Father (Dorsch) was a regular visitor from time to time with John (Wellinger)?

Marta: Yeah, I think he did visit sometimes.

Mike:  Okay.  Did he ever mention where he met Father (Dorsch)?

Marta: No.

Mike:  No, okay.  At this point, is there anything you would like to add to our conversation that you can think of?

Marta: I don’t know.   I just know that I did not have a good feeling from the time he came there, and when he was instilled as pastor, I remember him mentioning that I think he came from Clairton to Holy Spirit.

Mike:  Right

Marta: He also mentioned that his friends gave him different gifts, and some more drugs.

Mike:  He indicated that his friends had given him drugs as a kind of

           going away gift?

Marta: Yeah

Mike:  He didn’t mention that those friends were?

Marta: No, Just that they were friends from Clairton.

Mike:  Do you think he was serious?

Marta: Well yeah.

Mike:  In other words he talked about this in such a fashion, that if I were to say to you even though I don’t know you that well,  “Oh. I just left my old job, and those folks were kind enough, they gave me a bottle of wine, they gave me watch,” it was that carefree?

Marta: Yeah

Mike:  And the way I describe it to you, it’s even believable, so that even though he is … ?  For someone of our age, for someone to say, "Oh they gave me drugs, …"

Marta: I don’t think he said drugs, I think he said goodies from my runner.

Mike:  So he even describe it is marijuana?

Marta: Yes

Mike:  So he didn’t leave it as drugs, he said marijuana?

Marta: Right

Mike:  Do you think he abused drugs on a regular basis, or some type of basis?

Marta: Alcohol, as far as I know.

Mike:  What do you think his relationship was with Maria (C******)?

Marta: Well, I don’t know. I guess I always thought they were a twosome. I mean, she practically lived there.

Mike: Okay

Marta: I believe there was another woman, although I cant’ remember her name.

Mike: Was it Virginia (Voytech)?

Marta: Yes, She always hung around there too.  She was a nurse.  She would come to the rectory, and stay there all day.

Mike: Okay

Marta:She was also there sometimes after I left.

Mike:  Just a few more things.  You knew (Marinell), which was (Wellinger’s) sister?

Marta: Yeah.

 Mike:  And that’s where complete name Marinell?

Marta: M-A-R-I-N-E-L-L, that’s it.

Mike:  Do you recall an outburst, or know anything about a public outburst, in the church after or during Mass by I believe it was Bob (W********)?

Marta: That wasn’t in the church, it was in the parking lot.

Mike: Okay.  Who was this outburst aimed at, (Wellinger) himself?

Marta: Oh yeah.

Mike: Okay. Were there people around, who could’ve heard this?

Marta: Oh yes, we were having a staff meeting that morning.

Mike: Okay.

Marta: And his wife, Ann, was of course at the staff meeting.

Mike: Okay

Marta: And he was yelling.  As a matter of fact, he came into the

            rectory, grabbed her, and pulled her out.  He had been drink-

            ing.  I think he may have had a gun, or someone mentioned

            that he had a gun.

Mike:  Okay

Marta: I think it was Maria or someone who took (Wellinger) out the

            back door.

Mike:  Okay

Marta: And then they said that we should leave too.

Mike:  Okay, did Bob (W********) explain to anybody what was going on?  Why he was angry, why he had a gun, or why he wanted to talk to (Wellinger)?

Marta: No, except I guess that Ann was kind of taken with him. I don’t know.

Mike: Okay.

Marta: I guess they would like to have lunch together, or do things together.

Mike:  Was this before or after his son ended up in Shadyside hospital?

Marta: I think it was after.

Mike:  So, if it was after, he was also angry because of what happened to his son, and angry because his wife was still involved with (Wellinger).

Marta: Right.

Mike:  It seems to me that one of the things that (Wellinger) used was

           women to help disguise his other bad habits.

Marta: Right.

Mike:  I would go so far as to say that, if I were a betting man and                 I’m not sure which way I would bet if someone were to say to             me.

Mike: Do you think John (Wellinger) and Ann (*********) had an

           affair?  I would not know which way to bet, but even if you

           flipped a coin, you could win. Is that a fair way of analyzing

           that situation?

Marta: Well for some reason, I just never thought of it that way.

             I thought it was more on her part than on his.

Mike:  Okay.  So she was truly infatuated with him much like Virginia (V*****)?

Marta: No.  It was more like Maria.

Mike:  So these women were infatuated with him, and John (Wellinger) knew how to use that?

Marta: Yeah.

Mike:  This included selecting **** ********* as a victim, given he

knew he had an edge.  This may have helped him in some way.

Marta: I don’t know.

Mike:  I, myself, can’t think like a pedophile.  But, I’m guessing that

           this may have played a role.

Mike: Is there anything else you would like to add?

Marta: No, not that I can think of.

Mike: When Bob ********* had this outburst, was Marinell there?

Marta: Oh.   No, I was still working there.

Mike: So, Marinell replaced you?

Marta: Yes.

Mike: Okay very good.   When Bob ********* had this outburst, even though he didn’t say anything about his son being hospitalized, you’re saying that everyone knew, at that point, what was going on?

Marta: Yeah, it had kind of gone around, you know.

Mike:  Is it fair to say that it may be? ... Let’s say there are a thousand people who are members of the Holy Spirit Church.   It would be real easy to say that for 50 of those parishioners, the (Wellinger) gossip and scandal may have been common knowledge.

Marta: Right.

Mike:  And the reason I asked that question is because I talked to Frank, the former police chief, who told me that his neighbor said this was all common knowledge.

Marta: Yeah.

Mike:  That he was sex idiot?

Marta: There could have been.  Like I said, I don’t think I heard anything else other than what I told you.

Mike:  Right

Marta: If Frank knew, I’m not sure where he lived.  Jim Matthews also knew of this stuff at the time.

Mike:  He was also a police officer.

Marta: Right.

Mike:  Frank (Defazio)? Frank (DeFazio) was the chief of police at the time, but he tells me he didn’t know anything.

Marta: Okay

Mike:  I can tell you this much, or do you think he is not necessarily

            telling the truth?

Marta: I don’t know.  Do the policemen have to report to them if anybody would call or anything?

Mike:  Yeah, that’s right, were the policemen summoned to any of these things?

Marta: Yes.   They did call the police when Bob ********* came to the rectory, but also the police came to my house one night because they were trying to get the money to (Wellinger) to get it put away for the night, and they could not locate him.  So they came here to ask me for the keys for the rectory.   I guess when Jim came back, he gave me the keys to the rectory and told me that (Wellinger) was passed out.

Mike:  Okay.

Marta: I guess that was sort of hush-hush.

Mike:  Do you think any police knew about the outburst that Bob (*******) had at the rectory?  Were any police called for that, and would any West Mifflin police at least be aware of something like that?

Marta: I would think they would be aware of it, because I’m almost sure we called the police.

Mike:  Okay, you did call police. Who would’ve been the one to call the police?

Marta: It wasn’t me.  I’m not sure.   It could have been Maria or Virginia.

Mike:  It sounds like people were legitimately scared, also because Bob had a gun.

Marta: Well yeah.

Mike:  Or least people thought he had a gun, or that he might’ve had a gun.

Marta: Right

Mike:  Do you know if any of this was reported diocese?

Marta: Well it must have been because, who else could have restricted him from coming on church property?

Mike:  In other words, you are aware of the fact that Bob ********* received a letter from the lawyer for the diocese to stay away from the church?

Marta: Well all I know is that, I was told that he was not allowed to be on church grounds.  That is all I know.

Mike:  Okay, you don’t know.  Who told you this?  Was it (Wellinger)?

Marta: No wasn’t him. I guess it was just a rumor or common knowledge.

Mike:  Okay.   Sr Gretchen would have probably known about all this stuff?

Marta: Oh yeah.

Mike:  Did she live there at the time?

Marta: No.

Mike:  No? Okay.  She would have known about it certainly ...

Marta: If not from others, then at least from me.

Mike:  Okay.

Marta: I think she might’ve been there that day, as I think she was already on staff.

Mike:  Okay.  That’s right.  She would have been there for the staff meeting.

I want to thank you again Marta. I’m not exactly sure what’s going to happen.  But again, I applaud you for your willingness to help because this has truly been a tragedy, and I don’t like stuff like this going on, and I don’t like stuff like this being covered up.  We will see what happens.

Again, Michelle ****  would be willing to help me?  I have already talked to her.   There are some things now that I just want to get squared away.  Anyway, I reserve the right to give you a call back.  Thank you again.   Bye-bye.

___________________________________________________

Ten indicators that the Diocese of Pittsburgh knew of the allegations against Fr John Wellinger, yet did nothing about them.

Below are the definitive indicators that

evaporate the credibility of the Diocese

of Pittsburgh, in the matter of Fr John

Wellinger.  The official Pgh diocesan

spokesman claimed that the diocese did

not receive complaints against Wellinger

until 1995.  Try again.  Mike Ference

sets us straight, on this matter, allegedly.

Background:  Years after Wellington was reported and reported again for

wrongdoing, and even years after his name was attached to a class action

lawsuit, the Diocese of Pittsburgh finally mailed out a notice to those who

attended where Wellington was stationed.  It was obviously an act of grand

standing, being that the diocese far too late to be of any help.  And that is an

element of religious hypocrisy, ladies and gentlemen.

Red Flag 1.  Allegedly, in the first quarter of 1987 Fr. John Wellinger, priest

of the Pittsburgh diocese and pastor of Holy Spirit Parish in West Mifflin, PA,

drugged a Univ of Pittsburgh student in an apartment that the victim shared

with his older brother, also a Pitt student.

According to the victim, he was knocked out for hours.  When he awoke, he

intuitively called 911.  After rushing downstairs, against the wishes of John

Wellinger, the teenage victim would allegedly meet the ambulance and the

attending EMTs in the street.

The allegation of the rest of the event goes as follows:

The ambulance whisked away to Presbyterian University Hospital (now

Univ  of Pittsburgh Medical Center; UPMC).  Fr. Wellinger allegedly

followed the young victim to the hospital.  Upon finding him in the

emergency room, the victim requested to Wellinger that he find his

nurse.  The victim would explain to the nurse that Wellinger was the

man who had drugged him.

Wellinger was ushered out by the nurse.  To the best of my knowledge

police were not notified; not even a security guard from the hospital.

The victim was not examined by a doctor.  In other words, the entire

event was covered-up.

The parents of the victim came to the hospital and took their son home.

Furthermore, I was told by then Clairton Public Safety Director William

Scully, in January of 1990, that a hospital worker, possibly a social work-

er, warned the parents to not take on the Pittsburgh diocese, because they

are too powerful and wealthy.

Red Flag 2. Allegedly, a few days after the Red Flag #1 event, the victim’s

father searched out Wellinger at the parish house.  At the time, Wellinger

was holding a parish council meeting.  So, there were plenty of witnesses

present, including the victim’s mother.  The victim’s father was angry, be-

cause Wellinger had allegedly drugged his son and possibly sodomized him.

The man was also angry over an outing that lasted all night long between

Wellinger and his wife, allegedly.

Concerned for the safety of Fr. Wellinger, parish council members ushered the

priest out the back door and called the West Mifflin Police.  Parish councils

were logically concerned, because the victim’s father may have been intoxi-

cated and carrying a weapon.

There was no evidence of any police report, but the father would receive no-

tification from the attorneys for the Diocese of Pittsburgh to stay away from

Father John Wellinger and to stay off Holy Spirit property in West Mifflin, PA.

Red Flag 3. An allegation was brought to my attention within the past year or

two, by a Catholic priest who stated to me via telephone that a person by the

last name of Volmer went to Father Charles Bober in 1987 and warned Bober

about Fr Wellinger’s deviant behavior.  To the best of my knowledge, nothing

was done.

It should be noted that Bober is now a monsignor at Saint Killian’s Parish in

Mars, Pennsylvania.  A gem of a parish that’s raising millions and millions of

dollars for a high school named after Cardinal Donald Wuerl.  My guess is

that Bober was rewarded with this plum position for being a team player.

Covering-up for the crimes of Fr. John Wellinger would constitute being a

team player in the Pittsburgh diocese, it would logically seem.

Red  Flag 4. Sometime in 1988, the personal secretary of Father Wellinger

went to the Pittsburgh diocese and spoke to Father Ronald Lengwin about

Wellinger’s deviant behavior.  She also reported that a teenage boy used the

rectory as his home for the longest time and enjoyed making 900 calls to porn

sites, while costing the parish hundreds, if not thousands of dollars.

Sadly, the women whom I interviewed would be labeled as a rumor-monger,

and once again, Bishop Bevilacqua and his cast of merry men would err on

the side of dysfunctional sex freak, Fr John Wellinger, rather than erring on

the side of caution.

Red Flag 5.   A suicide occurred in Father John Wellinger’s parish in 1989.

According to then Clairton Public Safety Director William Scully, the suicide

was linked to Wellinger.  Scully said that he just didn’t have the needed proof.

The boy was a 16 year old who took a gun to his head and pulled the trigger.

According to Scully, the boy had an interest in the occult and Satanism.  Well-

inger would hold a seminar on occult practic and Satanism months later.  Was

the seminar a real concern of Wellinger’s or just another ruse to make it look

like he cared?

Sadly, there’s not much concern for PA children.  When children turn up dead,

there’s no quick response – when compared to emergencies involving  law en-

forcement personnel – when the call comes in on the police radio that an offi-

cer is down.

Red Flag 6.  Coincidentally, in 1989, another teenage boy who was befriend-

ed by Father John Wellinger would also commit suicide with a gunshot blast to

his head.  This boy served as an altar boy for Wellinger when he was a student

at St. Clare Elementary School (also known as Clairton Central Catholic.)

Wellinger was an assistant parish priest.

This young man would also try and kill a fellow student, my son.   Similarly to

the 16 year old mentioned in Red Flag 5, this second suicide victim had a very

strong interest in the occult and Satanism.  He and his friends carried the Satan-

ic Bible back and forth to classes at Serra Catholic High School, in McKees-

port, PA.

According to a Pennsylvania state trooper who was an expert in the occult and

Satanism, the young boy had an advanced knowledge on the topic.  This con-

clusion was based on his findings when brought in, to investigate the case.

Red Flag 7.  The attempted murder of my son, Adam on Serra Catholic High

School school ground, in McKeesport, PA, on December 5, 1989:   At least

one investigating officer (then Clairton Public Safety Director William Scully)

would allege that the shooter (who committed suicide after he tried to kill my

son) was sexually abused by Father John Wellinger.

According to the former McKeesport Police Chief Tom Brletic, he stated

to me in a telephone conversation that Father Ronald Lenguin refused to al-

low investigating officers on Serra High School property for over 24 hours.

Obviously, the diocese needed to prepare their version of the crime and to

prevent police from doing a proper investigation.  Clairton Public Safety Di-

rector William Scully would claim the entire investigation had been quashed.

Scully even provided details of Father John Wellinger drugging the teenager

mentioned in Red Flag 1.

More on the corruption of the city of McKeesport was in a copy of Scully’s

original notes.  I was told that the paper can be tested and dated, as well be-

ing able to determinecwhen the message was written.   If Scully knew about

Wellinger drugging a teenager, then who else knew?  Why was nothing done?

Red Flag 8.  Following the attempted murder of my son I spoke to a Sister

Dorothy Dolac, principal of St. Clare School in Clairton ,who lived on the

school premises when Father John Wellinger was an assistant priest in the

adjoining parish.  She alleged that she notified Bishop Donald Wuerl about

my concerns of Fr. John Wellinger, as well as her own concerns.  The boy

who tried to kill my son on the Serra Catholic High School bus was an al-

tar boy for Fr John Wellinger and also a student of Saint Clare Elementary

School.   At the time, the school may have been called Clairton Central

Catholic.

When I talked to Sr. Dorothy about Fr, John Wellinger, I asked her if he

were capable of giving drugs and alcohol to underage teenagers.  She an-

swered yes.  When I asked if Wellinger were capable of sexually abusing

young boys, she answered yes.  When I asked if she were aware of any of

Wellinger’s victims, she answered she couldn’t say.  But, it did't seem that

she wasn’t aware of any victims.  It seemed as if she had promised to keep

the information a secret.

Red Flag 9.  In our family’s lawsuit against the Pittsburgh diocese, my attor-

ney’s first question,  when deposing former Clairton Public Safety Director

William Scully, was what he knew about Fr John Wellinger sexually abusing

any students at Serra Catholic High School.  The attorney immediately stood

up, pounded his fist on the table, and stated that, if this type of questioning did

not cease, the diocese would file the appropriate legal maneuvers.

My attorney’s question startled me, and the attorney for the Pittsburgh diocese

scared the hell out of me.  In looking back, it might have been rehearsed and the-

atrical collusion between the diocese, my attorney, Brian Knowles, and the law

firm for whom he worked; Behrend and Ernesberger.   I dropped the case,

then and there.

Instead of my attorney trying to calm me down and stating he would just rephrase

the question ... or at least take a break and explain to me that I had nothing to wor-

ry about ... he allowed me to walk out on what should have been a multimillion dol-

lar settlement.  Lawyers, just like PA judges, are bought and sold, like stolen mer-

chandise on sale at an outdoor flea market.

Local and national television producers, editors, writers and investigative re-

porters have sought my advice on the cover-ups in the Pittsburgh Diocese and

beyond for years.  The same can be said for victims of clergy sex abuse, victims

of PA corruption, and their family members having recourse to me, for advice.

And how does the Pittsburgh Diocese respond?  Well, according to a source,

the powers that be in the diocese allegedly allegedly allegedly did something

somewhat equivalent to posting a Mike Ference, Wanted, Dead or Alive

poster.  This is proverbially speaking, of course.  But, not absolutely proverb-

ial.  It's something that a reasonable would find hard to believe, if what was

alleged to me is true.

Red Flag 10.  In the Spring of 1991, I scheduled an appointment with Penn-

sylvania state trooper, Corporal Robert Griffin.  I met Griffin at his training fa-

cility in the old St Joseph Seminary on Route 30 in Greensburg.  I shared with

Griffin all of the information I had assembled, concerning the quashed investiga-

tion of the attempted murder of my son and all the information I had gathered

on John Wellinger.

Griffin applauded me for my efforts and then shared additional information about

the case.  He counseled me on letting go, much like a friend would do.  He also

arranged for me to meet with an Allegheny County detective who he knew had

investigated clergy sex abuse crimes, promising to contact West Mifflin police.

He wanted the West Mifflin Police to at least question Father John Wellinger

about some of my concerns.

In other words, a seasoned PA State Trooper with expertise in the occult and

Satanism took me seriously and even commended me for my investigative and

research skills.  Now, only two people knew I were visiting with Griffin and

William Scully.  Within a week, Father Wellinger would abruptly leave Holy

Spirit Parish in West Mifflin, PA.   I have confirmation of this from Wellinger’s

former personal secretary.

Wellinger would leave on his own, only to be replaced by Father Valentine,

the alleged fixer, as expert witness and author Richard Sipe likes to call them.

For what it’s worth, Fr Valentine is in hiding somewhere.   A story for another

day.

According to Scully and Wellinger’s former personal secretary, Fr. Wellinger

would spend some of his new-found  free time in a McKees Rock Parish with

Father Richard Dorsch, according to several sources alleged to be Wellinger’s

lover from their days in the seminary.

Summary

According to Pittsburgh diocesan bishops Anthony Bevilacqua, Donald “The

Lavender One” Wuerl and diocesan spokesman Ron Lengwin, the first time

they ever caught wind of Father John Wellinger’s inappropriate behavior was

1995.  Parents of Chris Mathews spoke directly to David Zubik, years before

he was a bishop, and complained about Wellinger sexually molesting their 11

year old son in 1989.

Whom do you believe, Mike Ference or a person with Bishop or Cardinal

before his name?