This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Donald Wuerl article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Actually, the Diocese of Pittsburgh is overseen by a bishop, not an archbishop. John Cardinal Wright was not the archbishop of Pittsburgh.
Historically, the Archbishop of Washington, D.C. was elevated to the status of Cardinal. It is not something that has to be done. However, given that D.C. is the capital of our country, there is a good chance that Wuerl may be elevated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.165.119.242 ( talk • contribs) 13:13, 7 December 2006
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)
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0703915.htmWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
I tagged it NPOV as the section claiming Wuerl has a "zero tolerance" policy for priests who sexually abuse children is at odds with recent reports. The Washington Post is reporting that the recent Grand Jury report says "... Wuerl’s actions in Pittsburgh as mixed, at times stopping abusive priests from continuing in their ministries in the diocese and at other times guiding them right back into parishes." A US News headline says " The Latest: Priest Abuse Report Faults Cardinal Donald Wuerl" and the sub-headline continues: " A Pennsylvania grand jury report on clergy sexual abuse faults Cardinal Donald Wuerl, the former longtime bishop of Pittsburgh, over his handling of abusive priests." So the article is clearly not accurate in its depiction of his actions. 96.127.243.251 ( talk) 01:59, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
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.
[1] 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,”
[2]
Sources
|
---|
|
Francewhoa ( talk) 05:06, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
It's best they are included in the article. 2601:447:4101:41F9:C40D:F5DB:D0DB:CE8A ( talk) 16:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
The following was recently added:
Peculiar also is Wuerl's dealing with the George Zirwas-case. [1] 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.” [2].
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)
I am quite dubious about some of the assertions in the article, to be honest. In view of more recent developments they do seem to amount to whitewashing. If the revert-prone IP would care to talk about them, perhaps some of them should be removed. Pinkbeast ( talk) 01:48, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
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. [1] 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. [2]
References
{{
cite news}}
: Check |archive-url=
value (
help); Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
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)
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%7Ctitle=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)
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)
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)
PluniaZ, TSP, PraiseVivec, and Manannan67, 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)
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Donald Wuerl article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Actually, the Diocese of Pittsburgh is overseen by a bishop, not an archbishop. John Cardinal Wright was not the archbishop of Pittsburgh.
Historically, the Archbishop of Washington, D.C. was elevated to the status of Cardinal. It is not something that has to be done. However, given that D.C. is the capital of our country, there is a good chance that Wuerl may be elevated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.165.119.242 ( talk • contribs) 13:13, 7 December 2006
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)
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0703915.htmWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
I tagged it NPOV as the section claiming Wuerl has a "zero tolerance" policy for priests who sexually abuse children is at odds with recent reports. The Washington Post is reporting that the recent Grand Jury report says "... Wuerl’s actions in Pittsburgh as mixed, at times stopping abusive priests from continuing in their ministries in the diocese and at other times guiding them right back into parishes." A US News headline says " The Latest: Priest Abuse Report Faults Cardinal Donald Wuerl" and the sub-headline continues: " A Pennsylvania grand jury report on clergy sexual abuse faults Cardinal Donald Wuerl, the former longtime bishop of Pittsburgh, over his handling of abusive priests." So the article is clearly not accurate in its depiction of his actions. 96.127.243.251 ( talk) 01:59, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
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.
[1] 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,”
[2]
Sources
|
---|
|
Francewhoa ( talk) 05:06, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
It's best they are included in the article. 2601:447:4101:41F9:C40D:F5DB:D0DB:CE8A ( talk) 16:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
The following was recently added:
Peculiar also is Wuerl's dealing with the George Zirwas-case. [1] 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.” [2].
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)
I am quite dubious about some of the assertions in the article, to be honest. In view of more recent developments they do seem to amount to whitewashing. If the revert-prone IP would care to talk about them, perhaps some of them should be removed. Pinkbeast ( talk) 01:48, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
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. [1] 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. [2]
References
{{
cite news}}
: Check |archive-url=
value (
help); Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
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)
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%7Ctitle=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)
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)
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)
PluniaZ, TSP, PraiseVivec, and Manannan67, 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)
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)