North Catholic HS sign vandalized amid pressure to remove Cardinal Wuerl's name

CRANBERRY TOWNSHIP, Pa. - As pressure grows to have Cardinal Donald Wuerl’s name removed from North Catholic High School, the school’s sign was vandalized.

On Monday morning, it was discovered that someone sprayed red spray paint over “Cardinal Wuerl” on the sign.

The school’s principal, Luke Crawford, said the vandalism happened sometime between 8 p.m. Sunday and 6 a.m. Monday. Cranberry Township police are investigating.

Monday marked the first day of school for students, who have the option of wearing the normal Cardinal Wuerl North Catholic uniform or opting for a plain white or red polo shirt or white oxford, Crawford said. About a dozen students chose not to wear the uniforms with the school’s name.

Myth: Cardinal Donald Wuerl is so guilty that he needs to resign.

Fact: This accusation, made by a CBS reporter, as well as others, is based on pure ignorance, if not malice. Shapiro played the same game when he lamented how “Bishop Wuerl” became “Cardinal Wuerl” after he allegedly “mishandl[ed] abuse claims.” This is a scurrilous statement.

No bishop or cardinal in the nation has had a more consistent and courageous record than Donald Wuerl in addressing priestly sexual abuse. Moreover, the grand jury report—even in areas that are incomplete and unflattering—does nothing to dispute this observation.

Why do I call Wuerl “consistent and courageous”? Because of Wuerl’s refusal to back down to the Vatican when it ordered him to reinstate a priest he had removed from ministry; this occurred in the early1990s when Wuerl was the Bishop of Pittsburgh. The Vatican reconsidered and agreed with his assessment.

Who, in or out of the Catholic Church, has ever defied his superiors, risking his position within the company or institution, over such matters? Wuerl did. Who in Hollywood or in the media has?

The people now attacking Wuerl are doing so for one reason: as the Archbishop of Washington, he is the biggest fish the critics have to fry.

Here’s one more nugget. Shapiro proved how dishonest he is when he refused to excise a baseless charge against Wuerl. There is a handwritten note in the report attributed to Wuerl about his alleged “circle of secrecy” involving a priest who was returned to ministry. But it is not Wuerl’s handwriting. More important, Wuerl’s legal counsel informed Shapiro that “the handwriting does not belong to then-Bishop Wuerl,” but nothing was done to correct the record. So they intentionally misled the public. https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/bill-donohue/catholic-leagues-bill-donohue-debunks-pennsylvania-report-clergy-sex-abuse

While it is always easier to say “yes sir, no sir, three bags full sir” when dealing with superiors, Wuerl is by no means the first or only person to exercise a higher option. While the spat with Rome might have escalated, I doubt very much that Wuerl perceived himself as being on the verge of losing his diocese, or was in fact on the verge of this.

The handwriting thing is interesting.

The main reason why Wuerl is the obvious target is that he followed McCarrick, and ought to have known something about his predecessor.. That Wuerl has had at least one good moment, and may have had something false attributed to him, doesn’t negate that fact.

WE NO LONGER BELIEVE THEIR DENIALS
THE TIME TO TRUST HAS PASSED
IT’S TIME TO VERIFY

WTOP reported that Wuerl said he had “never been approached with allegations of abuse by McCarrick and was unaware of the rumors that have been associated with his predecessor.”

“What? Seriously? I can’t believe any reporter let him get away with that statement,” Duin continued. “This mess has been going on for more than a month and Cardinal Wuerl has yet to give a press conference about it. History’s being made here and Wuerl’s now camera shy?”

“I can possibly buy the first part of that sentence in that the dioceses that were approached were Metuchen and Newark. McCarrick hopefully ceased his sexual activity after becoming archbishop of Washington in 2000,” Duin allowed. “But the second part? That he didn’t know what the rumors were? He didn’t know about any financial settlements? And ‘abuse of a minor’? How about the reports about the abuse of seminarians?”

She expressed doubt that Wuerl had never heard any rumors of McCarrick assaulting or harassing seminarians:

Reporters must not give Wuerl a pass on this. I can understand how maybe, just maybe in 2006, when he was made archbishop of Washington, he might not have known the specifics on McCarrick. But not knowing the rumors after 12 years? This is a man who’s known as a power player in the Vatican. You think the folks over there just forgot to tell him about McCarrick?

One also wonders whether when Wuerl took office, any of the New Jersey bishops who had to shell out money to McCarrick’s victims warned Wuerl of the liability his predecessor posed.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.