Monday, December 10, 2018

Cardinal Levada DUI

I mentioned Cardinal William Levada in a recent post as a member of Roger Mahony's "Gang O'Four" from St John's Seminary in Camarillo, CA, the seminary of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. A visitor sent me a link to a 2015 story on Levada's arrest for DUI at age 79 while on vacation with other priests in Hawaii. Levada, let's recall, was Joseph Ratzinger's choice to succeed him as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith when Ratzinger became pope in 2005.

All I can say is that these old guys must be hard partiers. Levada's colleague Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio is reported to have presided over the cocaine-fueled orgy at which other arrests were made in the CDF building in 2017; the report is that Coccopalmerio was advised to leave by the police before they began making the arrests. My only question about Levada is what BAC he blew when the Hawaii police pulled him over; as someone who partied at the Animal House myself in my younger days, I'd love to know how the old guy did! (A visitor helped out: he blew a .168.) Of course, drunkenness is a mortal sin, and somewhere in early middle age I resolved not to consume any alcohol if there was a chance I'd be driving.

Levada had an extensive record before this, however. Ms Engel gives a summary of his career in The Rite of Sodomy:

Bishop William J. Levada, like Roger Cardinal Mahony and Bishop G. Patrick Ziemann, was an alumnus of Our Lady Queen of Angels Junior Seminary. After graduation from St. John’s Seminary, Levada was put on the ecclesiastical fast track. He was sent to Rome for advanced theological studies at the “Greg” and was ordained a priest of the Los Angeles Archdiocese in St.Peter’s Basilica in December 1961.

After a brief return to Los Angeles during which time he served as assistant pastor, Levada went back to Rome, completed his Doctorate in Sacred Theology, and then came back to St. John’s Seminary where he taught for six years.

In 1976, Levada was called back to the Vatican and assigned to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. In 1982, Cardinal Timothy Manning asked that Levada be released to fill the post of Executive Director of the California Catholic Conference in Sacramento. One year later, Manning ordained Levada an Auxiliary Bishop.

In the fall of 1986, only 14 months after Archbishop Mahony took possession of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, Levada was appointed Archbishop of Portland, Ore. When the Archdiocese of San Francisco opened up in December 1995 with the resignation of Archbishop John R. Quinn, Cardinal Mahony obtained the coveted post for his former classmate. Not surprisingly, Archbishop Levada’s motto is Fratres in Unum, or Brothers at one, taken from the first verse of the 133rd Psalm. (pp 803-4)

This leaves out the whole sorry saga of Levada's protégé Bishop of Santa Rosa, CA G.Patrick Ziemann, who abruptly resigned in 1999 after a former Ukiah priest filed a lawsuit accusing him of sexual assault. A series of lawsuits followed, based on accusations of abuse dating back to 1968. Levada, at the time Archbishop of San Francisco, continued to cover for Ziemann even after his resignation. Engel in an update to The Rite of Socomy continues Levada's story:
At the Vatican, Pope Benedict XVI has appointed “gay friendly” Archbishop William Levada, former Archbishop of San Francisco to head the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and has awarded him the red hat. Levada in turn, with the help of “gay friendly” Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles, has secured his former archdiocese [San Francisco] for his boyhood buddy “gay friendly” Archbishop George “Brokeback” Niederauer. Levada and Niederauer were classmates at St. John’s Seminary and pederasty training camp in Camarillo, Calif., and they co-own a retirement condo in Long Beach. Niederauer insists there is no link between pederasty and homosexuality and is a proponent of ordaining “gays” as long as they are “celibate.” (p 1171)
Following his retirement, Levada lives at St. Patrick’s Seminary in Menlo Park, CA, which Engel describes as "another 'Pink Palace.'" (p 810) It's worth pointing out that another Levada protégé, now-Bp Steven Lopes, is a graduate of St Patrick's Menlo Park. According to Wikipedia, Lopes was ordained a priest on June 23, 2001, for the Archdiocese of San Francisco by William Levada. He was a personal aide to Cardinal Levada while Levada was Prefect of the CDF from 2005 to 2012. This is a career path similar to Donald Wuerl.

In fact, when Lopes was made Bishop of the Ordinariate of the Chair of St Peter in 2016, his consecrators were Gerhard Müller, Donald Wuerl, and Levada himself. Thus it goes with a certain type of aristocracy in the Vatican. Jeffrey Steenson was unavailable for comment.

UPDATE: My regular correspondent adds,

Regarding Bp Lopes, this might explain why Fr Catania, who had a very rough time of it during the Steenson regime, was given a plum posting by Bp Lopes. As I have mentioned, while waiting for Fr Scheiblhofer to pack up at St Barnabas, Omaha (he is now ministering at a local diocesan parish) Fr Catania was living in the rectory at Holy Trinity, Omaha and supplying while the Pastor went on vacation with---Bp Lopes.

Sunday, December 9, 2018

A Catholic Looks At The George HW Bush Funeral

A visitor referred me to a post at the Traditio Fathers site (scroll down to the entry for December 9) on the George HW Bush (George XLI?) funeral. While a bit over the top, it makes some worthwhile points.
On the occasion of the funeral of former U.S. President George H.W. Bush on December 6, 2018, the world was graphically shown the difference between the true Catholic faith and the heretical Protestant knockoffs, including the New Order (Novus Ordo) sect. In fact, this was not really a religious funeral, but a secular government meeting that happened to be held in a church building.

The funeral services were conducted by an heretical Protestant sect, the Episcopalians. Although some conservative Episcopalian sects have more "smells and bells" -- that is the derisive term by which the more Puritanical describe the Catholic liturgy --, the sect to which George H.W. Bush belonged seems to have been on the decidedly "liberal" side: a Neo-Protestant, Evangelical sect, which has no real funeral liturgy, just some readings from a Modernist version of the Bible and an incessant number of eulogies.

The words of Scripture read were taken from an ugly, Modernist vulgar-tongued version of the Bible. The Episcopalians, even on this highly formal occasion, did not use their venerable King James Version, let alone the Catholic Church's sublime, stately, incomparable Latin.

Indeed, the eulogies were endless. Now we see firsthand why the Catholic Church does not permit eulogies at a funeral. There were no eulogies at President John Kennedy's funeral in 1963, for example. What presumption! The Episcopalians apparently regard man as the judge, not God. The carillon at the cathedral was pealing in joy at a "saint" bound for Heaven, not tolling in mourning and humility at a soul bound for God's judgment.

The Apostles Creed teaches: Inde venturus est iudicare vivos et mortuos [Thence he shall come to judge the living and the dead]. Catholic dogma, coming directly from Scripture, accordingly teaches that God judges each soul at death (the Particular Judgment). The Bush funeral was, for the presumptuous Episcopalians, a "done deal." Man, not God, was the judge, and Bush passed in the eyes of man.

Thus, the funeral was a virtual apotheosis into Heaven. This is the Protestant and Newchurch heresy of "Universal Salvation." The color was the white of a pre-judged saint, not the black of humility before the judgment of God. What does the Lord say: "Nor do I judge according to the look of man; for man seeth those things that appear; but the Lord beholdeth the heart" (1 Kings 16:7/DRV). The Episcopalians have no idea what occult sins Bush may have had, what the actual state of his soul was at death, and what penance may have remained. That is why God, Who sees the heart, is the final judge, not man, who should refrain from judgment.

This brought to mind Hilaire Belloc's remarks on William Laud in Characters of the Reformation:
But at the same time Laud is a still more striking example of the way in which the Reformation had made the Protestant attitude of mind unescapable for those who had broken away from Catholic unity. In other words, the interest of his career lies in this —that in spite of certain sympathies with Catholic tradition and in spite of their recovering certain sides of the general European culture, the Protestants throughout Europe and even in England (where Catholicism was still so strong), were condemned to be the victims of the original violent rebellion which had taken place in their lathers' time.

In the case of Laud, and of England in general, this was particularly striking because the force which made against their returning to Catholic unity was the force of nationalism; that is, the claim of lay society and its Prince (or King) to independence from the general moral unity of Christendom and the West. All of this is summed up of course in the refusal to accept Papal Supremacy. (p 173)

I think the post at Traditio Fathers is completely correct in saying that the Bush funeral was a manifestation of a state religion, hitchhiking on certain Protestant forms. However, there is a great deal of scriptural authority for the view that the appropriate response to a state religion can be martyrdom. It's worth noting the mainstream media consensus that the one public figure who seemed uncomfortable at the solemnities for George XLI was Donald Trump.

Trump, at least at Christmas and Easter, does attend an Episcopalian parish in Palm Beach, FL. I would guess that he must George XLI's strain of Episcopalianism less seriously than the Bush family -- indeed, at the Christmas Eve 2016 midnight mass, the Palm Beach Episcopalians gave Trump a standing ovation when he came in. A different crowd, it would seem.

Saturday, December 8, 2018

Raymond Arroyo Interview With Bill Donohue

On December 6, Raymond Arroyo interviewed Bill Donohue of the Catholic League on his World Over show:
Donohue has been criticized as something of a squish on the matter of "priestly abuse", but I think what he does in this interview is perhaps unintentionally cast a light on the breadth and complexity of the Second Crisis, whose focus is only partly on the "priestly abuse" that was the nominal issue in the First Crisis. I think he makes several worthwhile points:
  • Traditional media hasn't been transparent in accusing Catholic bishops of "inadequate response" to accusations of abuse. At about 3:30, he outlines a number of problems: media tend to favor "victims' groups" that often have an anti-Catholic agenda or simply serve as fronts for class action lawyers, while failing to cite the sources of the statistics they quote or define more specifically what an "adequate" response from bishops would be.
  • At about 7:00, he brings up the inability of individual priests accused of abuse to rebut charges against them in grand jury reports -- which do not constitute legal determinations of guilt or innocence, but do in fact serve to destroy reputations nevertheless.
  • At about 10:15, he makes the important point that the campaigns by state attorneys general are often selective, doing things like removing statutes of limitations only for Catholic institutions, but not treating public schools -- where abuse is statistically more prevalent than in Catholic institutions -- equally. He refers to Pennsylvania, but the same thing has happened in California and elsewhere.
  • At about 13:30, he acknowledges that the Second Crisis is not about pedophilia, it's about homosexuality, something the media will not acknowledge.
I think Donohue is perceptive in recognizing that the media will continue to push the Second Crisis as simoly a replay of the First, that it's about "priestly abuse" of pre-pubescent children, when Donohue makes it plan that he understands as well as other Catholic laymen that it's about a subculture particularly in seminaries and chanceries, as well as cliques of gay prelates who promote their own. It seems to me that the appropriate response is to insist that media coverage be precise in its reporting, just as much as we insist that the bishops be responsive in addressing the full scope of the problem.

Nevertheless, it's also worth noting that in creating these related scandals, the bishops have given ammunition to the very real anti-Catholic strain in modern culture. The laity have just as much interest in protecting the faith from people with an anti-Catholic agenda, and I can't disagree with Donohue over this.

Friday, December 7, 2018

Hilaire Belloc's Characters Of The Reformation

Fr Longenecker began a series of podcasts reading from Hilaire Belloc's Characters of the Reformation. I'm not sure if he's continuing with the series or what, because he's now been putting up true fairy tales or something like that. But the readings he had were so intriguing that I went looking for the text online anyhow -- why wait to get it in dribs and drabs? Although it's apparently in print from Ignatius Press, you can get it for free download in various formats here.

For the past several months, Fr Longenecker has made various presentations on prior crises in the history of the Church, which I've found encouraging -- his point is that the Church has always faced them, it's been led by highly imperfect people throughout its history, but it's always prevailed. Here's some worthwhile analysis from Belloc on the course of the Protestant Reformation:

But meanwhile the Catholic forces in Europe had tardily woken up, and there had been started what is generally called the " Counter Reformation."

But neither the Counter Reformation nor the active fighting which succeeded in preserving a part of Christendom intact, would have been necessary but for difficult success of the Protestant movement in England.

This is the most important point to seize in all the story of the great religious revolution, and it is the point least often insisted on. (p 5)

This points to a conclusion I've come to after watching the course of Anglicanorum coetibus: Law and Ratzinger seem to have thought they could undertake some project of fixing the Reformation (and then, apparently, Benedict was going to go on and fix the Great Schism). And Jeffrey Steenson was going to general this thing, huh? This was about as well thought out as the Children's Crusade. We're going to need more serious popes.

A little later, Belloc says,

It was coincidentally with the beginning of the turn over in England, with the second half of the sixteenth century, that there began that effort against shipwreck which, I have said, is generally called "The Counter Reformation."

Vigorous Popes undertook, unfortunately too late, the reform of abuses; the Franciscans took on a new missionary activity for the recovery of districts lost to the Faith; a General Council (which the Popes before the Reformation had especially avoided because only a little while before General Councils had proved so dangerous to unity), was summoned and is known to history as "The Council of Trent." The most important single factor in the whole of this reaction was the militant and highly disciplined body proceeding from the genius of St. Ignatius Loyola. It came to be known by the name which was first a nick-name, but later generally adopted, of "the Jesuits." These, by their discipline, singleness ofaim and heroism, were the spearhead of the counter-attack. They were very nearly successful in England, they had very great effect in South Germany, and later in Poland. All these forces, combined, made for a general restoration of Catholicism. (p 8)

I agree with other conclusions here, too:
By the middle of the seventeenth century the struggle between Catholicism and the now enthusiastic spirit which had challenged Catholicism had definitely accepted a drawn battie. The Treaties of Westphalia in 1648 established the principle that subjects should follow the religion of their Government, and within the next ten years all Europe settled down into two camps—the Catholic culture on the one side and the Protestant culture on the other. The Catholic culture was, therefore, partially saved ; but it had failed to recover Europe as a whole, and within the Church arose new movements which the Reformation had started. (p 11)
We're going to need a bigger paradigm shift than what we've had so far.

Thursday, December 6, 2018

The Anglicans Indeed

A visitor raises a very worthwhile question:
Ok I’m confused. I thought a big motivation in Episcopalian-ish parishes converting en masse to Catholicism was the tolerant stance Episcopal Churches took on homosexuality as well as ordination of women. Are you saying Anglican-Catholics are Lesbian-Gay friendly? If not, why would gay-friendly priests sign onto the project?
I think the visitor is referring to the support Law and Wuerl in particular, as well as DiNardo and Stetson, seemed to be giving to the whole Anglicanorum coetibus project, when their target audience would have been disaffected Episcopalians and "continuing" Anglicans who would generally be more conservative. On the other hand, Anglo-Catholicism has, since the days of William Laud, been a haven for those with homosexual leanings, and priestly celibacy has always been a beard for them.

For starters, my view here has always been that Law never seems to have understood Anglicanism very well, and there was always something inchoate about the whole Anglican outreach project. The first group of disaffected Episcopalian priests, Barker, Brown, and Tea, that Law recruited at the time of the 1977 Congress of St Louis were all "celibate" gays, as far as anyone can determine, and this could hardly have been lost on Law. The assumption seems to have been that the parishes who went with them would take this in stride, and at least in the case of St Mary of the Angels, it was at the time a typical gay-friendly upscale urban parish -- but Barker's decision to leave TEC definitely broke the parish into factions.

I ran this by my regular correspondent, who is always insightful over this.

I think it is relevant that the "continuing" Anglican movement (and the UK version--C of E but under "flying bishops" who did not ordain women) kicked off in response to the ordination of women. Same sex marriage no doubt drove some people to reconsider their membership in TEC/the ACC but nothing resembling the numbers in 1976. One could argue that there were no conservatives left by that point, but my take is that misogyny has always been a more powerful force in Anglo-Catholicism than opposition to SSA. The popular view---"gin, lace, and back-biting"---has certainly been that Anglo-Catholicism attracted gays in disproportionate numbers. Having said that, there were/are plenty of women actively opposed to the ordination of women. No doubt the same is true, mutatis mutandis, regarding policies on same sex relationships. The fact that [Frs Bengry and Beahen] apparently left the ACC over its vote to allow the performance of same sex weddings never ceases to amaze me, and I gather I am not alone.

My take on the current crop of OCSP clergy is that all the unmarried former TEC/ACC clergy are stereotypical gay men. A few of the married ones also fall into that category. The celibate OCSP seminarians probably include the same percentage of gay men as any current group of diocesan seminarians. The general tone about the Second Crisis in the Ordinariate blogosphere is either to repost articles like the one by Ross Douthat I forwarded previously, things along the line of "Regrets, I've had a few, but then again, too few to mention," or to blame everything on liberals and depict the Ordinariate as a gated community protected from the problems of the larger Church. Neither is an effective basis for evangelism, of course; the latter posture may be attractive to "disaffected Catholics" but I think it is telling that we have seen no former Anglican cleric entering the Church with his former congregation since March 2015. Of course would-be ordinands are gathering a few random seekers for Evening Prayer, but I do not foresee any existing Anglican community coming to the conclusion that the Catholic Church has the answer to institutional dysfunction.

If Law, and by extension Ratzinger, didn't understand Anglicanism very well (or perhaps Law and Stetson understood it a bit too well), there was certainly commentary in the Catholic blogosphere that at the time Jeffrey Steenson resigned as an Episcopalian bishop to become Catholic, he didn't understand Catholicism very well, either. I suppose we'll never get an insightful public reflection from that man.

I agree that the migration of full Anglican parishes to the OCSP has stopped, but the migration happened, such as it did, in the lull between the First Crisis about 2002 and the Second Crisis of 2018. Certainly when becoming Catholic became a real option for me, I looked carefully at the respectable opinion during that period -- the John Jay report blaming it on the 1960s, the view that these were largely old cases at the time, some of it me-too opportunism, that the Virtus program would prevent any recurrence.

The Second Crisis swept all this away, pointing out that the problem is of widespread gay infiltration of the priesthood and the bishops dating at least from the early 20th century. The idea that the victims were six-year-olds and toddlers, that the problem was only a dated therapeutic approach, is now seen as a deliberate misdirection coming from those same gay priests and bishops -- and the problem more and more, I think correctly, is seen as the greatest crisis for the Church since the Protestant Reformation.

My regular correspondent points out that even among the tiny gated community of the Anglican ordinariates, the problem exists. Fr Bengry in fact offered to help me with my own homophobia (he didn't specify how this might be done), and it appears that Fr Perkins thought that was perfectly fine. For that matter, as Michael Voris points out, just because a bishop says the right words now and then doesn't mean he's on the side of the angels, and this applies to Steven Lopes. Lopes is a protégé of William Levada, a member of Engel's Mahony-led "Gang O'Four" that placed gay prelates throughout the West Coast and beyond.

The Anglicans have a lot to think about.

Wednesday, December 5, 2018

DiNardo And The Anglicans

Anglicanorum coetibus has been less and less on my mind, so it's useful that my regular correspondent sent me another context to our look at Cardinal DiNardo:
Cardinal DiNardo has of course been closely connected with the North American ordinariate (OCSP) since before its official erection, as we read here. No doubt he worked with the Davises [see below] to have them fund Steenson's "visiting professorship" at St Mary's Seminary Houston ahead of his appointment as Ordinary, and the school at which DiNardo's brother-in-law, the husband of his twin sister, was president to create a chaplain's job for Fr Steve Sellers. Fr Sellers is now the President of St John XXIII Prep; his successors as chaplain have both been OCSP clergy otherwise unemployed. The school cafetorium is also the location of the St Margaret's, Katy OCSP community led by Fr Sellers.
Carl and Lois Davis first appeared here in a 2016 post. Major philanthropists, they are former Episcopalians who became Catholic, and since 2001, they've been members of the Our Lady of Walsingham parish, which before the erection of the OCSP in 2012 was Anglican Use, which meant it was part of the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston, whose ordinary has been now-Cardinal DiNardo since 2004.

As I noted in the 2016 post, the Davises are behind a non-profit called the Walsingham Foundation that has apparently received multimillion-dollar grants from the Carl and Lois Davis Foundation. As I understand these things, the Catholic Church works something like the Mafia in one important respect, in that the Operation gets its cut from all such donations. DiNardo would have been in a position to pass on a portion of his cut to Rome as well, as far as I can see.

It's notable that DNardo seems to have been much more willing to give up the Our Lady of Walsingham parish in 2012 than Abp Garcia-Siller of San Antonio was to give up Our Lady of the Atonement in 2017, which suggests to me that some equitable arrangement must have been worked out among Steenson, DiNardo, and the Davises before the OCSP was erected. The Davises, as far as I can see, continue to donate to Catholic, and presumably archdiocesan, causes outside Our Lady of Walsingham.

That plum positions for otherwise not-as-employable OCSP clergy continue to be available in Galveston-Houston archdiocesan jobs also gives DiNardo a measure of influence over Bp Lopes. But beyond that, there'a another question: where does Bp Lopes live? I can't imagine that the tithe from the dozen or so productive parishes in the OCSP can maintain anyone in the style to which bishops are accustomed. This makes me wonder if Lopes is accommodated in an archdiocesan facility. Can anyone answer this?

But DiNardo's role in Anglicanorum coetibus is a reminder of where he stands in the order of things. The constitution was a project of Bernard Law, which he presumably was able to supervise much more actively when he went to Rome in 2003. Donald Wuerl became the delegate for implementing it in 2010-11. Our Lady of Walsingham was the principal Anglican Use parish and the location from which William Stetson, the secretary to the delegate, worked. There must have been considerable interaction between Wuerl and DiNardo in the runup.

DiNardo in any case, especially in light of my update to yesterday's post, had been a protégé of Wuerl at least from the days he served as spiritual director to the seminarians in the gay-friendly St Paul's seminary in Pittsburgh while Wuerl was rector. I suspect that nothing happened in the runup to the erection of the OCSP that was not to the explicit wishes of Wuerl and Law. DiNardo was with the program.

Is it any wonder that the two most public Catholics who are former Anglican priests are Fr Longenecker and Dr Marshall? Both operate completely outside either Anglican Use or the OCSP. Given DiNardo's less than reassuring background, I strongly suspect no action will be undertaken by the US bishops over homosexuality in the priesthood that rocks any boats.

Tuesday, December 4, 2018

George Neumayr On The DiNardo Chain Of Paternity

In a recent column, George Neumayr, who pursued Donald Wuerl with some prescience, asks a legitimate question: so, who made Daniel DiNardo, the current president of the USCCB and a leader of the presumptive moderate faction of bishops? The answer is neither very clear nor especially reassuring.
Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, whose Galveston-Houston chancery was raided this week by prosecutors in search of abuse-related files, always struck me as a pretty haunted and compromised figure. DiNardo came out of Pittsburgh and the corrupt milieu of Cardinal John Wright, who was an accused pederast and a mentor to such slimy prelates as Donald Wuerl. Google DiNardo and Cardinal Wright and a creepy picture comes up of a young DiNardo sitting next to Wright in a white tuxedo. Wright liked to dress his seminarians up in such attire, just as Wuerl would later delight in having his young priests wear waiters’ uniforms and serve appetizers at parties held at his Pittsburgh mansion.
For whatever reason, the Spectator didn't run the picture, but it's on Google, so here it is. DiNardo is seated to the left of Wright. The photo is noted as from the Bishop's Latin School, which DiNardo attended from 1964 to 1967 while Wright was Bishop of Pittsburgh. Neumayr calls Wright "one of the godfathers of a high-living, dilettantish Gay Mafia within the Church", although I think even a godfather had a daddy, and who that might be still isn't clear.

UPDATE: William M. Ogrodowski, standing to the right of DiNardo in the photo, was rector of St Paul's seminary in Pittsburgh from 1986 to 1990. DiNardo was a part-time professor and spiritual director of the seminarians there in the early 1980s. Donald Wuerl was rector of the seminary during the same period, 1980--85. An anonymous comment on a Washington Catholic blog, for what it's worth, says, "The saying was at St. Paul's Seminary in Pittsburgh that you couldn't make it unless you had a twrill [twirl?] with Wuerl." Engel says in The Rite of Sodomy, "The seminary had a reputation for rampant homosexuality going back to the days of Bishop Wright." (p 712) In fact, Wright founded it in its current form in 1965.

Randy Engel doesn't mention DiNardo at all in The Rite of Sodomy, although she mentions Wuerl as a gay-friendly Bishop of Pittsburgh, and she's fairly detailed on Wright's career. DiNardo, 69, isn't that much younger than Wuerl, 78, and his earlier career was centered in Pittsburgh and the Vatican bureaucracy. According to Wikipedia,

DiNardo was ordained to the priesthood by Bishop Vincent Leonard on July 16, 1977. He then served as parochial vicar at St. Pius X Church in Brookline until 1980. In 1981, he was named Assistant Chancellor of the Diocese of Pittsburgh and part-time professor at St. Paul Seminary. While at St. Paul, he served as spiritual director to the seminarians.

From 1984 to 1990, DiNardo worked in Rome as a staff member of the Congregation for Bishops in the Roman Curia. During this time, he also served as the director of Villa Stritch (1986–1989), the house for American clergy working for the Holy See, and an adjunct professor at the Pontifical North American College.

Upon his return to the United States in 1991, he was named Assistant Secretary for Education for the Pittsburgh diocese and concurrently served as co-pastor with Paul J. Bradley of Madonna del Castello Church in Swissvale. He became the founding pastor of Saints John & Paul Parish in Franklin Park in 1994.

John Wright, who was Bishop of Pittsburgh from 1959 to 1969, served as Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy from 1969 until his death in 1979. Wuerl became Wright's secretary as Bishop of Pittsburgh in 1967 and moved with him to Rome, continuing as his secretary as prefect. As Bishop of Pittsburgh from 1988 to 2006, Wuerl probably had some role in bringing DiNardo back to Pittsburgh from Rome and also served as a co-consecrator at DiNardo's 1998 consecration as Bishop of Sioux City.

Neumayr's article quotes a great deal mostly about Wright from other sources, which I've already quoted here, and in fact he's skimpy on other details of chronology, which I've had to fill in from Wikipedia. I think it's also significant that The Rite of Sodomy is sufficiently out of date that it doesn't mention DiNardo at all, even though he's now a key figure in AmChurch who owes his rise pretty clearly to Wuerl.

And this completely leaves out the role of mentors in Rome who must also have had a good deal of influence on DiNardo's advancement. There's a great deal more we need to learn.