At about 1:30, de Souza says that although the Pennsylvania grand jury report was critical of Wuerl's handling of abuse cases in Pittsburgh, these were 30 years old, and Wuerl's "record throughout the Church is widely acknowledged as very good on sexual abuse". He goes on to say that this would not have been a factor for the Holy Father, which is perhaps credible, but then he says the real reason was that Wuerl claimed never to have heard about Cardinal McCarrick's conduct, and this was why both the priests of the Archdiocese of Washington and Francis felt he had to go.
This is peculiar. Politicians and executives tell convenient public lies all the time. It's not a terminable offense. But let's go to another take, Msgr Charles Pope's blog post from Friday:
On this significant day for the Archdiocese of Washington and the universal Church, I want you to know that I receive the news of the Holy Father’s acceptance of Cardinal Donald Wuerl’s resignation with mixed feelings.His concerns actually appear to be quite mild, but he also agreed with the other priests of the archdiocese that it was time for him to go. Why? I don't know. But two priests familiar with the question seem to be unintentionally suggesting that public explanations fall short.I hope you will understand that he has been a spiritual Father to me since 2006 when he came to Washington as our Archbishop. I have flourished under his leadership. He appointed me in 2007 as pastor to my current parish, which I love so much. I have served him and the Archdiocese on the Priest Council, the College of Consultors, the Priest Personnel Board, and as a Dean. I have also been the coordinator for the Traditional Latin Mass and worked closely with the Communications Office for many years.
. . . . In all these ways and more I found him to be a top-notch administrator, careful, just, cautious and measured; even if, at times to a fault. Sometimes I wanted him to be passionate and fiery about this or that issue! Though some in recent news cycles have called him arrogant and extravagant, I have found him to be often shy and very aware that a bishop does not have unlimited powers. His lifestyle, from my limited vantage point was not extravagant but simple, even austere.
I have some thoughts based on the picture I'm trying to sketch for myself on what's happening in the Church. I first became aware of Wuerl when he was the delegate for implementing Anglicanorum coetibus in 2011. My first impression was good, he was an attractive and well-spoken figure. On the other hand, he was of course operating through then-Fr Hurd and Msgr Stetson, and over the following months, I got to see from a center-court seat how badly the job was botched in the case of St Mary of the Angels Hollywood. This was a prosperous parish that should have been a well-publicized early success for the OCSP. Instead, along with the denial of votum to David Moyer and the non-entry of Our Lady of the Atonement, it set a tone of disappointment.
One would think that someone like Wuerl, charged with the objective to make the project a success, a "top-notch administrator", would have been fully aware of deficiencies in Hurd, Stetson, and Steenson and could have insightfully worked through them for better results. Apparently not. By their fruits you shall know them.
Then, in February 2012, while I was still intensely focused on Wuerl, came the Father Guarnizo case, in which an avowed lesbian set a priest up to deny her communion so that she could make a public issue of it. At best, this was poorly handled by the archdiocese, and it was on Wuerl's watch. Consider that any Catholic institution in the 21st century must be aware that the gay lobby will take any opportunity to create public conflicts over the Church's teaching.
Consider that good managers make contingency plans of various sorts. The circumstances of the Guarnizo case provided the archdiocese with advance notice that should have let the priest and his superiors have a sense of what might occur: the woman made a point of introducing herself as a lesbian to him before mass, entering the sacristy and introducing another woman as her “lover.” A good policy would have been in place to let all priests of the archdiocese know that when anything like that happens, the priest should contact a designated officer in the chancery immediately and not take any potentially controversial action before that. Indeed, if nobody in the chancery is available on weekends, the policy should cover this as well.
This was simply another situation that Wuerl let go out of control. Msgr Pope says he never saw any indication that Wuerl's lifestyle was extravagant, but all indications are that in both Pittsburgh and Washington, Wuerl lived in highly luxurious accommodations, but that the Archdiocese of Washington in particular was extremely secretive about them. This suggests that Msgr Pope, who would have no reason to be excessively curious about such things, was among those kept in the dark.
I would guess that the little details I noticed about Wuerl from the start are probably just small wisps of smoke that emanated from much greater corruption that, so far, hasn't come to light. So commentators wonder why, if what Wuerl is publicly accused of doesn't seem that great -- 30-year-old sex abuse cases covered up, nothing new, an "I knew nothing" about McCarrick -- the guy should suddenly have to go. I would say that in the context of other corrupt cardinals in recent decades, Wuerl was adept at letting those around him make of him what they wanted to see. But my sixth sense tells me there's much more we haven't learned, and we never may. Again, though, we shouldn't need J Edgar to suss it out; it's probably all an open secret.
