Moving On

Bishop Wuerl says good-bye to Pittsburgh today, and Ann Rogers pens a farewell article:

Those are the same words others use to describe much of his ministry. Most attention focused on his most dramatic efforts: The reorganization that closed 39 churches, or the bold stand he took in 1993 to keep a child molester out of ministry after the Vatican's highest court ordered him to reinstate the priest. Yet much of his ministry was accomplished with little fanfare.

He personally led converts into the church, among them Reid Carpenter, for decades an evangelical Protestant leader. Five years ago, Mr. Carpenter was drawn to Catholicism, and asked the bishop what to do.

The bishop invited him to his home for seven dinners over seven months.

"He said, 'At the end of the seven dinners, if you decide not to become a Catholic, that will be fine. We will still be great friends. If you decide to do it, I'll be there to welcome you,' " Mr. Carpenter recalled.

"He was a teacher who ... gave me a great deal of love and dignity and respect," said Mr. Carpenter, who is now Catholic.

(His installation as Archbishop of Washington, D.C. is June 22)

Comments

[Marion (Mael Muire)]

More on Bishop Wuerl and the Vatican court from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (May 17 of this year):

"But some say Bishop Wuerl's largest legacy might be the thing that did not happen. When other dioceses around the nation were mired in an ugly abuse scandal involving priests who preyed on younger church members, Pittsburgh was unscathed.

On his arrival, Bishop Wuerl quietly suspended priests accused of sexual misconduct. In 1993, that policy put him in a rare confrontation with the Vatican after the church's supreme court ordered him to reinstate Anthony Cipolla, a priest accused in a civil lawsuit of molesting a teenager.

Bishop Wuerl defied an order by the Signatura to reinstate Mr. Cipolla, instead maneuvering an appeal through the Vatican courts. Two years later, the Vatican court reversed itself."

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06137/690756-85.stm

[restoration]

The fact that the liberal, pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette penned a farewell "love letter" to Bishop Wuerl is hardly an endorsement any authentically Catholic leader would appreciate. As someone who lived in Pittsburgh during the Wuerl years, allow me to give you the highlights of his real legacy. A moribund diocesan seminary that is nearly empty with a dearth of vocations. Although Bishop Wuerl impressed the Jews and Lutherans cited in the article above, he inspired virtually no Catholic men to become priests in his 18 years as bishop! That is a sad and telling fact. Bishop Wuerl saw some of the most beautiful and historic churches in his diocese converted to night clubs, restaurants, theatres and even a microbrewery! He had nothing to say about John Kerry when he visited to receive Holy Communion despite Kerry's public and enthusiastic support for the MURDER of unborn children. What a coward! He won't risk bad publicity in defense of the Faith, so how he would ever swear to shed blood for the Church as a Cardinal is beyond me! As for those in D.C., you are getting a carbon copy of the last notorious bishop -- the same one who just announced his support for same-sex unions on CNN! Our Lady of Loretto, Pray for Us!

[Kevin Miller]

I'm really fed up with this kind of slanderous nonsense about bishops like McCarrick and Wuerl.

Regarding McC, the "announced his support for same-sex unions" claim is, it turns out, incredibly hasty and in fact misleading. Here's the real story. Here's more on McC's record on key issues of faith and morals.

As for Wuerl on the intrinsic evil of abortion and other offenses against preborn human persons - and on the importance of political protection for these human persons - see his comments from 2003 and 2005.

I don't agree with McC and Wuerl regarding communion for obstinately pro-abortion pols. But the idea that they don't care about abortion is simply false.

As for vocations, as I live near but not in the Pittsburgh diocese, I don't know the details of the situation there. The fact that there have been parish closings doesn't necessariiy speak to the vocations situation - parishes may close not because there aren't priests for them but because they aren't drawing parishioners (sometimes because of population shifts). But I know there have been some fine young priests ordained in Pittsburgh in recent years. One was profiled in a series of PG articles a few years ago, as he did his first parish work and then went to study at NAC. Here's the final installment. Note, by the way, the mention of his attendance at the ordination of six new diocesan priests the year after his own ordination - I don't know whether that's spectacular, but it's hardly awful. (And by the way, it's my understanding that DC has had a fairly large number of vocations under McC - so those who'd criticize Wuerl for not generating enough should, as a matter of basic consistency, praise McC for his record in that regard.)

[Badly Drawn Catholic]

Restoration,

Bishop Wuerl ordained 75 men to the priesthood during his 18 years in the Burgh. That's an average of 4 per year. A lot of dioceses would love those numbers.

The problem with Pittsburgh is the general diaspora over the past 35 years, completely unrelated to the Catholic Church. The area has lost almost half of its population. Parishes will have to be closed with those numbers. Also, the people who have moved away tend to be younger and smarter. Potential vocations moved out of the area before they experience the call.

The Steelers play before friendly fans in away games because major urban areas in the country have had a huge influx of the Pittsburgh diaspora. In fact, Wuerl's new home may have more Pittsburghers than Pittsburgh!

[Patrick Rothwell]

Thank you, Kevin, for that defense of Cardinal McCarrick. It's highly likely that McCarrick's views on civil unions of a sort are similar to that of Cardinal Levada. I don't think, given his current job description, the orthodoxy of Levada's proposal can be seriously gainsaid. (As an aside, I have long supported Levada's proposal as The Model for civil unions even though almost no one else does. Needless to say, I was shocked and pleasantly surprised by Focus on the Family's endorsement of a similar proposal in Colorado).

As to the Communion issue, my head sides with McCarrick for practical reasons though my heart, I suppose, is with Archbishop Burke. I think, though, it's important to point out to critics of McCarrick that the Archdiocese of Washington excludes rainbow sashers from receiving communion. I conclude - not that pro-aborts are privileged over gays - but that by wearing the sash in the assembly at mass, the Rainbow Sashers present the disagreement or dissent in an immediate way that the pro-abort politicians do not. In other words, McCarrick is not opposed to denying people Communion, but draws the line at a different and closer stage than Burke and some other bishops.

[Fortiterinre]

Good bishops will disagree among themselves all the time on points of policy, and that's all these issues are, points of policy. Those who consider points of policy to be essentials of the faith will never be satisfied.

[dymphnaii]

I got a letter from my pastor telling all of us in the parish to give an enthusiastic welcome to Archbishop Wuerl. The letter went on to say what a great guy he is and how we'll all be delighted with him. And yet, I've been told repeatedly from other sources that Wuerl and McCarrick are friends and think alike so the odds are that nothing in the DC diocese will change. Maybe that's not so bad; Heaven knows the diocese could always get worse but I was really hoping for a better bishop this time... We'll just have to see.

[Marion (Mael Muire)]

There are some wonderful, holy priests here in the archdiocese of Washington, including twelve who were ordained just a couple of weeks ago. I know one of the twelve and his family - they are truly, solidly Catholic and blessed with every virtue.

Also, in getting to know our new pastor, it is evident that he is a man deeply in love with God and with the Church - a real blessing.

I am looking forward to welcoming my new spiritual father. I will be praying for him and for the departing Cardinal McCarrick. I will welcome Bishop Wuerl with gratitude and hope and pray for the best from him and for him.

[ambrose]

Well, as someone whose last meal in Pittsburgh was at the Church Brew, I really can't criticize Wuerl's closing and selling off properties.
Pittsburgh in general has suffered a great population drain. The public school system is about to experience such a controversial overhaul that scores of schools will be closed or consolidated.
In addition to the continued decline of the region's population, I wonder how much, too, the diocesean seminary population is affected by all the other choices in the region, like the Holy Ghost Fathers and the Benedictines in Latrobe.
And if the PG's coverage isn't of your liking, Mr. Scaife's had their own farewell, which addressed the really important question--which football team will he root for?
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/search/s_457450.html

[Restoration]

For all the apologists for Wuerl and McCarrick who claimed my comments were "nonsense" and "slanderous", allow me to provide evidence of my criticisms.

Vocations - Pittsburgh is a city of over 800,000 and has 28 seminarians. Lincoln, Nebraska, with only 89,000 Catholics has 38 seminarians. Am I the only one who think that a city 9 times larger than a tiny diocese in the midwest should have 9 times the vocations? It is unacceptable and we must, as laymen, expect and demand more from our shepherds. As bishop, Wuerl must accept responsibility for this failure to lead and inspire men to the priesthood. If he won't take responsibility for this, what exactly is he responsible for? In the interests of fairness, one of the few things McCarrick has done well is to generate vocations, so Wuerl is coming to an area with a large pool of seminarians.

Church closings - Did Pittsburgh lose population and churches have to be closed? Yes. Did Wuerl have to make tough calls about which ones to close. Yes. Did they have to be sold to become bars and restaurants? No. Did he have to close some beautiful historic churches while leaving modernist cinder block structures from the 1960s and 70s open? No. I think reasonable pople can at least question the wisdom of some of the closings and the sales for secular purposes.

Abortion - Yes, Wuerl and McCarrick care about abortion and I never said they didn't. However, they only "care" enough to issue pastoral letters (which virtually no one reads) and deliver a few pro-life homilies. When rubber met the road and both men had a chance to take action against John Kerry, a notorious and vocal Catholic supporter of partial-birth abortion, they ran for cover. The moral courage of a man is seen less in his point papers, and more in the tough moments when the time comes to stand-up and be counted. Their failure to ban Kerry from Holy Communion until he publically repudiated his support and votes for the MURDER of unborn children, was reprehensible and cowardly. True, Kerry doesn't wear a rainbow sash, but he votes to keep abortion legal. I think the latter is far worse. McCarrick might take a stand on the sash, but not on the votes for daily murders? The innocent children who have been brutally massacred by the most horrific means imaginable deserve bishops who will defend them with action--especially when it counts (i.e. in an election year). John Kerry's votes in Congress kept abortion legal while not one of the bishops where he resides or does his dirty business challenged Kerry's claims that he was a Catholic in good-standing. This scandalized and confused the faithful. Both Wuerl and McCarrick had a responsibility to expose John Kerry as an excommunicated Catholic who fights to allow children to be butchered in the womb at their mothers' convenience. This is not a "point of policy" and to dismiss it as such is to fail to understand the on-going holocaust in our nation and the reality that is execution for so many of our children.

Finally, as for McCarrick's support for civil unions, I disagree that I was "misleading" or "hasty". I was watching CNN and heard the man say it during an interview. Here's a link to the entire passage.

http://www.seattlecatholic.com/m060609.html

I'll let the readers draw their own conclusions.

[Boko Fittleworth]

It really seems like McC LIED to his brother bishops about the contents of Ratzinger's (was it?) letter to them re: Communion for pro-abort pols. As I recall, the USCCB was debating what to do, a subcommittee headed by McC asked Rome, Rome replied, and McC said that Rome said that they could give Communion to pro-abort pols. Then the actual letter was leaked and it said pretty much the opposite.

There are two positions our bishops have publicly taken: deny Communion or not. Most say "not", but a few brave bishops have said "deny". So then Wuerl says that, because these decisions affect the Church all over the country, individual bishops should not make such a decision until he runs it by his brother bishops. So Wuerl was not satisfied with giving Communion to pro-baby slaughtering pols, with assisting them both in re-election efforts and in the eating and drinking of the Body and Blood of our Lord to their own condemnation (now that's good pastoral practice!-let the guy go to Hell rather than risk embarrassing him), no, it wasn't enough that Wuerl could do what he wanted, he also tried to kneecap the efforts of those brave few on our hapless bench of bishops who were willing to take a stand against scandal, the profanation of the Sacrament, and the potential damnation of souls.

Two of a kind.

[Boethius]

Kevin Miller stated: "Regarding McC, the 'announced his support for same-sex unions' claim is, it turns out, incredibly hasty and in fact misleading."

With all due respect to Kevin Miller (a former
professor of mine), he could not be more wrong regarding McCarrick.

For a complete take of McCarrick's interview on CNN and his "clarification" that followed, see these two posts of mine at Fumare. See http://fumare.blogspot.com/2006/06/reason-12645-why-i-have-no-faith-in.html
and see http://fumare.blogspot.com/2006/06/cardinal-confusion-mccarricks.html.

To summarize the posts, McCarrick was asked point blank whether he supported civil unions. He answered "yes" and attempted to elaborate his position, but any fair interpreter of his comments could only conclude that McCarrick supported civil unions for homosexuals. Two days later, after he had been called on his comments by a number of commentators, McCarrick offered a "clarification." Nowhere in the clarification, however, does McCarrick unambiguously explain that he opposes civil unions for homosexuals. So much for the clarification.

To point this out is not being unfair to McCarrick. The moment he clearly explains that he opposes civil unions for homosexuals, I'll back off in my criticism of him.

[Boko Fittleworth]

Hey, Boethius! Fancy seeing you here!