Talk:Donald Wuerl

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 15:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject class rating

message: The passage that begins with "The mansion that housed Wuerl" seems unrelated to this biographical entry. It appears to have been sold off by Wuerl's successor, but we learn dimensions and pricing and how many predecessors lived there. Was Wuerl criticized for living there while merging parishes etc.? That would be worth including, with a rewrite of what we have now. Otherwise I'd suggest this passage doesn't belong here. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The mansion that housed Wuerl  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Donald Wuerl. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060614043713/http://www.diopitt.org/news_051606.php to http://www.diopitt.org/news_051606.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130901171332/http://demossnews.com/manhattandeclaration/press_kit/manhattan_declaration_signers to http://demossnews.com/manhattandeclaration/press_kit/manhattan_declaration_signers
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101025155319/http://adw.org/family/marriage_ssm.asp to http://www.adw.org/family/marriage_ssm.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100111094013/http://www.adw.org:80/news/news.asp?ID=714&Year=2009 to http://www.adw.org/news/news.asp?ID=714&Year=2009
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Donald Wuerl. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091231014722/http://www.diopitt.org/wel_former_bishops.php to http://www.diopitt.org/wel_former_bishops.php
*Added  tag to http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0703915.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091231014722/http://www.diopitt.org/wel_former_bishops.php to http://www.diopitt.org/wel_former_bishops.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Donald Wuerl. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605193422/http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/dissertations/2003-0206-111237/inhoud.htm to http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/dissertations/2003-0206-111237/inhoud.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: === Pennsylvania’s new Grand Jury report Aug 14, 2018 ===
I suggest to add a paragraph about the recent significant event about the Pennsylvania’s new Grand Jury report. How about the draft paragraph below? I tried to include both point of views (POV), with their respective sources.
::According to the Pennsylvania’s Attorney General new Grand Jury report, Cardinal Donald Weurl aided a mass and concentrated effort to cover-up sex abuses within six Pennsylvania dioceses. Involving more than 1,000 children. Weurl disputed the allegations. Stating “While I understand this report may be critical of some of my actions, I believe the report confirms that I acted with diligence, with concern for the victims and to prevent future acts of abuse,”
Francewhoa (talk) 05:06, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I added two annotations where I thought they were applicable. Feel free to contribute. Dmarquard (talk) 05:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi  Thanks for your reply and contributions :) I like the location you choose in the Wikipedia article. Because according to the report the alleged cover-up of pedophile activities were during Wuerl's episcopal career. I merged the duplicate content. Kept all sources. For neutral point of view (NPOV), I added both views. Francewhoa (talk) 05:35, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alleged Cover-Up of Pedophile Activity 

message: I suggest to add a paragraph about the recent significant event about the Pennsylvania’s new Grand Jury report. How about the draft paragraph below? I tried to include both point of views (POV), with their respective sources.
::According to the Pennsylvania’s Attorney General new Grand Jury report, Cardinal Donald Weurl aided a mass and concentrated effort to cover-up sex abuses within six Pennsylvania dioceses. Involving more than 1,000 children. Weurl disputed the allegations. Stating “While I understand this report may be critical of some of my actions, I believe the report confirms that I acted with diligence, with concern for the victims and to prevent future acts of abuse,”
Francewhoa (talk) 05:06, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I added two annotations where I thought they were applicable. Feel free to contribute. Dmarquard (talk) 05:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi  Thanks for your reply and contributions :) I like the location you choose in the Wikipedia article. Because according to the report the alleged cover-up of pedophile activities were during Wuerl's episcopal career. I merged the duplicate content. Kept all sources. For neutral point of view (NPOV), I added both views. Francewhoa (talk) 05:35, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pennsylvania’s new Grand Jury report Aug 14, 2018 

message: It's best they are included in the article.2601:447:4101:41F9:C40D:F5DB:D0DB:CE8A (talk) 16:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Wuerl's ties To O'Malley are very interesting

message: The following was recently added:
<Blockquote>Peculiar also is Wuerl's dealing with the George Zirwas-case.Cleansing the Catholic Church of Its Sins, Daily Intelligencer, August 17, 20018. This priest had a long history of being related to child sexual abuse and child porn production. He finally was killed in Cuba. When Wuerl presided over Zirwas’ 2001 funeral, the former bishop according to the report said: “A priest is a priest. Once he is ordained, he is a priest forever.”Priests with ties to Alle-Kiski Valley used 'whips, violence and sadism,' report says Trib Live, August 14, 2018..</Blockquote>
As far as I (not an expert) know, the statement that a priest is a priest forever is standard Catholic doctrine: some sort of irrevocable theological process has taken place that can't be changed. A priest can be disciplined, or even forbidden to do anything priestly (defrocked), but remains technically a priest correct me if wrong). So this statement has no particular significance. I'd also criticise the opinoniated (POV) wording "Peculiar also is Wuerl's dealing" I think the passage is quite redundant, and should be dropped (but I haven't sleeted it without discussion). It's like stating "Wuerl affirmed that the Pope is a Catholic", or that once a person is baptised as a Catholic, they are forever Catholic in the eyes of the Church.
Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 11:06, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You are completely correct.  I would lean toward removing the Wuerl quote.  The material itself is surely true (in other words, Wuerl really did utter these words at Zirwas' funeral).  But I think that, in context, the quote suggests to those not familiar with Catholic theology that Wuerl was defending Zirwas by these words.  What if we reduced it to simply indicate that Wuerl presided over Zirwas' funeral, without including this quote?  Readers can decide for themselves whether this fact is significant. — Lawrence King (talk) 19:35, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I'd drop the whole block, officiating at a funeral is a normal duty, why add bulk to the article? But I don't have any strong opinion. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 21:05, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with removing all reference to the funeral. The Catholic Church is in the forgiveness business for one. Second, it is normal for Bishop's to preside over the funeral's of their priests. The fact that Wuerl conducted this funeral doesn't say anything about him one way or another, other than that he was a Catholic Bishop doing a routine part of his job. 112.119.86.163 (talk) 08:49, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "A priest is still a priest" 

message: The first paragraph of this section is quite heavyweight; the article is not about Viganò, nor McCarrick. Could it be compressed a bit? I was thinking:
In June 2018, Cardinal McCarrick, Wuerl's predecessor as Archbishop of Washington, was removed from public ministry by the Holy See after a review board of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York found an allegation "credible and substantiated" that he had sexually abused a 16-year-old altar boy while a priest in New York. In August 2018, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, former apostolic nuncio to the United States, released an 11-page letter describing a series of warnings to the Vatican regarding sexual misconduct by McCarrick. These warnings had been sent to the Vatican by three nuncios to the United States; Montalvo in 2000, Pietro Sambi, and Viganò himself in 2006 and 2008.
This gets us to Wuerl's alleged failings without going into the relationship between the Pope and McCarrick, which does not seem pertinent here. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:20, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this has only been exacerbated with the addition of the paragraph about Lopes. The article is not about these people. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:31, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. 112.119.86.163 (talk) 13:53, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Viganò allegations 

message: The Washington Post has an excellent, lengthy article examining Wuerl's career, his early work against child abuse by priests, (Wuerl had been seen as a pioneer in the church on this topic — advocating in the 1980s for victims' rights and for transparency and concluding that pedophilia was not curable.) and his recent problems. Well worth reading in full. I have added some of the content in my last edit in the resignation section. 
Note especially that Wuerl apologized.
   ... wrote to members of the archdiocese and said, "I am sorry and ask for healing for all of those who were so deeply wounded at the hands of the Church’s ministers. I also beg forgiveness on behalf of Church leadership from the victims who were again wounded when they saw these priests and bishops both moved and promoted". https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2018/10/12/pope-francis-accepts-retirement-dcs-archbishop-cardinal-wuerl-amid-criticism-wuerls-handling-abuse-claims/?utm_term=.c5a429615dbb|title=Pope Francis accepts resignation of D.C. archbishop Wuerl, amid criticism of the cardinal’s handling of abuse claims|publisher=Washington Post 
I have not included the following information, but perhaps it should also be included elsewhere in the article:
    Aug. 25, a former Vatican ambassador published a largely unverified letter on conservative Catholic sites accusing Wuerl — along with popes Benedict and Francis — of knowing McCarrick was dangerous but still allowing him to function as one of the church’s highest clerics. https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2018/10/12/pope-francis-accepts-retirement-dcs-archbishop-cardinal-wuerl-amid-criticism-wuerls-handling-abuse-claims/?utm_term=.c5a429615dbb
Peter K Burian (talk) 13:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for your edits!  The Wikipedia article should -- and does -- cover all aspects of Wuerl's story, including the apology.  The letter you mention in your last paragraph has an entire section in this article already:  see Donald Wuerl#Viganò letter. — Lawrence King (talk) 20:07, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  He has apologized 

message: Two points with the current version of the section "Knowledge about McCarrick":  First, the contents of the alleged file in the Pittsburgh Diocese have been relayed to us only by Robert Ciolek, so any allegations about what those files contain need to be attributed to Ciolek and cannot be stated in Wikipedia's voice.  Second, the final paragraph overstates the information presented in the Crux article. The correspondence does not show that Pope Benedict XVI imposed travel restrictions on McCarrick, "as Vigano claimed." That is editorializing and interjecting the Wikipedia editor's interpretation of the information into the article.  The only facts in the Crux piece that are relevant to this article are that (1) McCarrick wrote a letter claiming that he had discussed his travel restrictions with Wuerl, and (2) Wuerl has denied that he was aware of the allegations.  A short, encyclopedic description of those facts is all that is warranted in this article. --PluniaZ (talk) 20:58, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , please check the edit that I made. I restored some of the information which I believe you unnecessarily removed but left out some of the supposedly inflammatory wording. Display name 99 (talk) 01:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should remove the quote from McCarrick's letter about Wuerl's "help and understanding."  I don't see how that is a material quotation in what is supposed to be an encyclopedic article.  The paragraph already states that McCarrick's letter states that he discussed the restrictions with Wuerl. I don't see how the quote adds anything. --PluniaZ (talk) 02:02, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It shows that McCarrick saw Wuerl as someone who gave him comfort and was supportive of him. It tells us what Wuerl's attitude was like, at least in the way that McCarrick saw it or chose to represent it. I understand that the quote is embarrassing for Wuerl, but that is not a valid reason for leaving it out. Not that you said it was, but I'd still like to point that out. Display name 99 (talk) 02:14, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:NPOV and WP:BLP issues in "Knowledge about McCarrick" 

message: Should the article include these paragraphs concerning Donald Wuerl's purported knowledge of sexual misconduct by Theodore McCarrick, former cardinal and Wuerl's predecessor as Archbishop of Washington? Display name 99 (talk) 22:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to you, hardly any of it is in the McCarrick article. Most of it can't be found in the Vigano article either. Wuerl's knowledge of allegations against McCarrick in 2004 is mentioned only very briefly Vigano article. It is included in much more detail here because it has much more to do with Wuerl than it does with Vigano. Display name 99 (talk) 12:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

text: , , , and , WP:RFCEND says that an RfC can be closed if consensus is obvious to participants. I think that the consensus here is fairly clear: that we keep the bulk of the material but cut some of it down a little bit, particularly Ciolek. I think that my proposal conforms to that, so if there are no objections, I will add it soon and close the RfC. Display name 99 (talk) 01:19, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added it. Display name 99 (talk) 15:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC on paragraphs related to McCarrick case 

message: , , , and , here a diff of a version of the disputed content to add into the article. In accordance with what you have said, I kept the bulk of the content but cut things down a little bit. The first sentence has been removed and there's a little less on Ciolek. Mainly, his refusal to accept Wuerl's apology, though mentioned, is not quoted. I think that this reflects the views that most of you have expressed well and I hope it meets your approval. Display name 99 (talk) 14:10, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , , , and , WP:RFCEND says that an RfC can be closed if consensus is obvious to participants. I think that the consensus here is fairly clear: that we keep the bulk of the material but cut some of it down a little bit, particularly Ciolek. I think that my proposal conforms to that, so if there are no objections, I will add it soon and close the RfC. Display name 99 (talk) 01:19, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added it. Display name 99 (talk) 15:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Resolution

message: Per the article Expatriate, I would say that Wuerl does not meet this defintion, as he studied for the priesthood for a while in Rome and then returned to his life in these USA. An expat usually has some impetus to stay abroad for a purpose, and for an extended or indefinite time. Elizium23 (talk) 19:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expatriate in Italy