Doctor of the Church, Saint Francis de Sales, stated the following:
It's an act of charity to cry out against the wolf
when he is among the sheep, wherever he is.
(Introduction to the Devout Life, III, 29)
____________________________________
To expose a cardinal who rose to prominence amidst the incessant drone of a propaganda
machine is to extend charity toward those who would otherwise remain deceived & bullied
by that bishop. To remain silent in the midst of the same cardinal's corruption is to commit
a sin of accesory.
Donald William Wuerl allowed himself to be heralded as the untold hero of zero tolerance
throughout the media circuits of the western world. This was a contradiction in that he had
sex abuse cover-ups dating back to the first year of his tenure as bishop of Pittsburgh.
In having let the myth about him perpetuate, Donald Wuerl gained power and influence by
deception. Due to his unconscionable ploy, the disclosure of his cover-ups became a moral
obligation. So too came the obligation to warn others that the same Wuerl allowed harm to
be inflicted upon members of the laity during retaliations against whistle blowers that Wuerl
should never have allowed to continue. The need to cry out also ensues from Donald Wuerl's
abridgment of faith and morals. It were as if he had chiseled off three or four of the ten com-
mandments from the stone tablets upon which they were engraved. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Contents of this page include:
(1) Brief introduction to Donald Wuerl's cover-up of a former personal secretary.
(2) Wuerl's cover-up of Robert Wolk, Richard Zula, and Francis Pucci, in detail.
(3) His aborted cover-up of former Quigley High School headmaster John Hoehl.
(4) His musical chairs cover-up involving the thrice reported Father Edward Huff.
(5) His self seeking motive in having pursued the Anthony Cipolla case to the end.
(6) Elements of Vatican procedural law as it applied to the Anthony Cipolla case.
(7) Highly publicized accuser Tim Bendig admitting under oath that he voluntarily
committed sodomy at the Pittsburgh seminary before becoming a seminarian.
(8) Bendig's failed attempt to have criminal charges filed against Anthony Cipolla.
(9) Bendig's second filing of his lawsuit, in 1992, in another Pennsylvania county.
(10) Bendig's alleged failure to produce any evidence, concerning an accusation.
(11) Brief mention of the 2003 arrest and arraignment of Father Henry Krawczyk.
(12) Two brief statements made by author and expert witness A.W. Richard Sipe.
Added as of December 2011: The alleged Sotak Cover-up. This involves a deacon who, while
he was young layman/parishioner (discerning if he had a calling to the priesthood), alleges that he
was violently assaulted by a Donald Sotak, resulting in him going unconscious during the struggle
to defend himself from the priest. This ultimately resulted in the accuser being bullied in a loaded
dice game so badly that he left diocesan ministry, according to Sotak's accuser. I find the accuser
to be credible. http://www.awuerlofhurt.com/2011/12/sotak.html
Also added as of December 2011: The alleged Fr. John Wellinger Cover-up, involving the
alleged drugging of a teenager's drink during the general time span when Wuerl first took hold
of the reins of the Latin Rite Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh, resulting in the aggrieved young
man going to the ER and later being ignored and even pushed away by the Wuerl's Diocese of
Pittsburgh, according to the same person's allegations.
The American media began the Year 2002 inside a Cambridge, Massachusetts courtroom. It then proceeded
to untent a nationwide sex abuse circus. Interviews were conducted with a some of those who had been vio-
lated under the big tops. This enabled the public to hear individuals who had suffered anguish and dread at the
hands of a predatory priest and the network who protected him. This enabled the common citizen to gaze upon
the aftermath of the preyed-upon individuals whose faith flat lined from the noxious mixture of disillusionment,
distrust, and alienation.
Early in the Year 2002, those who had been made faceless and voiceless by unconscionable bishops were final-
ly given air time and print space. Predictably enough, one member of the Catholic hierarchy would quickly make
a play for the newspaper pages and snatch attention away from the post-Vatican II church's most haunted members.
Next would come the acquisition of television cameras by the same person. Donald William Wuerl was the one
performing the hostile takeover, doing so through the surrogate services of those who handled the media's control
panels. At the time, Wuerl was the bishop of Pittsburgh.
A Hero's Status Gained by Fraudulent Misrepresentation
On acccount of the heavily publicized yet poorly explained Anthony Cipolla case, Wuerl was tagged by a writ-
er named Ann Rodgers-Melnick as "the model of zero tolerance" in news print. He was also listed amongst the
church's 'good guys' online. During this same time span, he was called 'a holy holy man' on local TV. Wuerl
allowed the public to believe that he had an uncommonly clean sex abuse record. In fact, he let the public be-
lieve that he had bee a leader among leaders. However, after all of the public praise was published, it would
come to be a repeatedly documented fact that the 2002 articles about the physically tiny Donald Wuerl was one
huge hoax. He had his share of sex abuse cover-ups too, dating back to the first year of his tenure in Pittsburgh.
Even in his final year at Pittsburgh, Wuerl had a cover-up kept entirely in tact, with the assistance of at least a
couple local newspaper reporters and one KDKA radio talk show host, each of whom declined to report on it.
This involved the cover-up of a former secretary whom Wuerl personally ordained and who performed his acts
of sexual aggression in the Pennsylvania regions of Bellevue and the North Hills of Pittsburgh, as well as in Don-
ald Wuerl's own Warwick Terrace residence. The KDKA talk show host was personally hand delivered copy
of the entire dossier on Wuerl's former secretary by the principal of Ambridge High School, in the Year 2002.
It was to no avail. The cowardly talk show host's name is Mike Pintek. This was ironic, being that he acted
like a disrespectful Mr. Tough Guy so many times on air, previously.
Wuerl's Cover-up of a Destructive Former Secretary
This particular cover-up involved a former secretary of Donald Wuerl who spent years not keeping his hands to
himself. The priest's antics began in 1990, shortly after the priest was ordained. He was reported to Wuerl in
1998, nine years after Donald Wuerl was caught performing a triple cover-up. This one would be Wuerl's turn-
of-the-century cover-up. It involved a priest who spent years not keeping his hands to himself. The modu oper-
andi, according to his accuser was physically intrusive scam spiritual direction sessions occurred between the
Years 1990 and 1997. They ranged from forty-eight to sixty-three in number, allegedly.
The abusive priest was ordained by Donald Wuerl in 1989. Therefore, he was a reflection of Wuerl's judgment
of character. Now, Donald Wuerl was heavily involved in what used to be called the Training for the Priesthood.
It's now called Priestly Formation. This meant that the former secretary is a sample of Wuerl's version of priestly
forming. In light of this, there was motive for Wuerl to have intentionally proceeded with the cover-up of a per-
sonal secretary who, according to his accuser, conducted one or more of his scam spiritual direction sessions in
Wuerl's Warwick Terrace residence. The priest's name was/is James Torquato.
The harassment and subsequent retaliations that ensued after the priest was reported rocketed past the sound
barriers of decency, into the sound waves of obscenity. That is to say, the retaliatory conduct literally went to
the point of endangering others. In addition, there was a harassment made upon Torquato's accuser which was
tape recorded. It was legally recorded, being that federal law permits a person to secretly record a conversa-
tion to which he is an audible party, even should the conversation be incriminating to a third person.
The retaliation ratified by Wuerl eventually resulted in the filing of a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari and three
supplemental briefs, at the U.S. Supreme Court's Clerk of Court's Office, in the Year 2002. The subject matter
of the case involved more issues than the retaliatory conduct that transpired shortly after Wuerl's former secre-
tary was reported. Copies of the filed documents can be obtained from the Library of Congress. The petition's
case number was 01-10392.
Twenty-four jpegs of photocopy evidence concerning Wuerl's former personal secretary are posted at the web-
site linked directly below, in multiple stand-alone webpages ... at least at the time of this writing. All of the
links have been configured to open in a new window. This was done for each reader's convenience:
http://www.awuerlofhurt.com/2013_02_01_archive.html
The narration of Wuerl's abusive secretary has been posted on the second page of this website. Links to the nar-
ration are located at the top right hand corner and very bottom of this page.
Donald Wuerl was installed bishop of Pittsburgh on February 12, 1988. It took only eight months thereafter for
the Diocese of Pittsburgh to become one of the first to be 'scathed' in what was to become a nationwide Water-
gate of perversity. Wuerl was caught performing a triple cover-up, and sadomasochism was one of the acts that
transpired within the trio of clergymen whom he unsuccessfully concealed from law enforcement authorities. A
member of the criminal trio had been an assistant chancellor of Wuerl's diocese, as well as a canon lawyer, and
that factor alone showed motive for proceeding with an intentional cover-up. In light of this, when does a bish-
op ever proceed with an accidental cover-up? The Sex Abuse Casualties
The casualties were two altar boys of the same family. They were brothers. The years of molestation occurred
from 1981 to 1987. In addition to the three indicted priests, there was a fourth alleged assailant reported to one
of the three prosecuting district attorneys. However, he was a layman. None the less, there actually was a fourth
diocesan priest implicated, but only in his capacity as a probable accomplice; as a silent one who reported no-
thing to anyone.
Concerning this priest, he either allowed criminal conduct in a ski lodge suite where he was staying or else he
was clueless to what was transpiring there. Nothing was established other than he was at the scene of the crime,
going into his room, while a criminal priest was taking his sex abuse prey into another one. This fourth diocesan
priest was strangled to death in Havana Cuba in 2001, after having been placed on administrative leave in 1996.
A source informed me that Wuerl, himself, officiated as his funeral ... so stated the source.
While in Cuba, this priest was openly homosexual and was said to have "helped his visiting friends find sexual
partners while they stayed in Havana." He is Father George Zirwas, and at this point in the narration you should
be at the first stage in realizing that Lord Byron was more correct than he was mistaken when he stated that the
truth is always strange; stranger than fiction.
Wuerl's Unholy Trinity
The indicted priests were Robert Wolk, Francis Pucci, and Richard "Sade" Zula. Wolk was the assistant chan-
cellor and Zula was nicknamed after the Marquis de Sade. All three priests were indicted in Washington Coun-
ty, PA. It's a county touches the southwestern border of the Allegheny County where within sits Pittsburgh. Fur-
thermore, Zula was also arraigned east of Pittsburgh, in Somerset County. Wolk was indicted in Allegheny Coun-
ty, as well as in Washington County. He was the first one to surrender to police. For the record, the Diocese of
Pittsburgh comprises the six most Southwestern counties of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania, at last count, has sixty-
seven counties.
The front page of the Pittsburgh Post Gazette's November 11 edition of that year gives light on how involved the
criminal investigation was. Within that front page is stated the following: "Moreover, authorities said their investigation had uncovered evidence of similar offenses
involving one of the priests that occurred elsewhere in southwestern Pennsylvania and
Florida, Ohio, Virginia, and Canada. Authorities in the jurisdictions have been contacted."
This shows that the matter was not taken lightly by law enforcement officials. In fact, the Washington County
district attorney prophetically said, "We would be sticking our heads in the sand to believe these are the only
three cases."
Richard Zula had 138 criminal counts filed against him in Washington County, alone. A plea bargain reduced
the counts to only two. Zula also pleaded guilty in Somerset County. As far as went Robert Wolk, he plead-
ed guilty in Allegheny and Washington counties.
Pucci's case, on the other hand, was dismissed on account of the two year statute of limitations that expired on
two types of criminal charges. It expired approximately four months prior to his indictment. Pucci was indict-
ed under the premise that the time keeping for the two year limit had frozen during the length of time Pucci was
out side of state, in a Maryland psychiatric facility. Yet, conspiracy charges remained open for Pucci, and that
crime had a five year limitation statute attached to it. Despite this, Pucci's case was eventually dismissed.
Take note that, during the nationwide sex abuse scandal, priest after abusive priest was sent to a psychiatric fa-
cility, as if each one were an unaccountable victim of mental illness. Now, there is a difference between men-
tal illness and sin. If a person is insane, then he is without malice in a materially harmful act, even though each
member of society has the right to be made safe from such a harmful person. However, deception and manipu-
lation, as well as scheming and concealing, were committed by priest after abusive priest. Such acts are ele-
ments of malice, and not mental illness. In addition, these priests were described as having "compulsions" that
required psychiatric reatment. In Catholic vernacular, such compulsions are readily known as temptations.
Wuerl and His Personnel: Uncooperative During the 1988 Investigation
The Washington County district attorney announced that Wuerl's diocese engaged in "foot dragging" throughout
the criminal investigation. He was either irked or incensed by the Pittsburgh diocese's lack of cooperation, call-
ing it "minimal at best." He was quoted as having said, "It was not the spirit of cooperation we would like to
see." Of course, "foot dragging" is a polite way of saying "stonewalling" which, in turn, is a polite way of say-
ing "one step away from obstruction of justice charges."
Wuerl had pushed his luck to the limit. Being that he was caught performing a triple cover-up, and being that he
was accused of having impeded a criminal investigation via stonewalling, he had no other choice than to strike
the pose of a strict disciplinarian. This shows that Wuerl was not not not the caring and concerned bishop that
he was made out to be by the 21st Century media. Rather, he was a chameleon, looking out for himself, changing
colors according to the changes in the political climate. After all, he originally presented himself as a "liberal."
He then paraded himself around as a "conservative." Wuerl has shown himself to be out for himself. Refer to the
following links and take note that each one was configured to open in a new window, for the convenience of each
reader:
News of Wuerl's triple cover-up made its way from coast to coast, via:
- the New York Times, - the Saint Petersburg Times, - the Philadelphia Inquirer, - the Philadelphia Daily News, - the Cleveland Plain Dealer, - the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, - Maine's Lewiston Daily Sun, - the San Jose Mercury News, - Pennsylvania's Reading Eagle, - the San Antonio Express-News, - California's Lodi News-Sentinel, - the now defunct Pittsburgh Press, - Northwestern Ohio's Bryan Times, - Oregon's Eugene Register-Guard, - New Hampshire's Nashua Telegraph, - South Carolina's Rock Hill Herald.
From as far west as California's San Andreas Faultline, to as far east as the New York metro area, Donald Wuerl
became an early chapter in the Vatican II church's sex abuse history. From as far south as the Florida Gulf Coast,
to as far north as Maine, Wuerl's diocese had already proven itself to be what Malachi Martin would later say it
was:"...one of the most pathetic dioceses in the United States."
Take note that links to five other original articles related to Wuerl's triple cover-up are posted at the bottom of
this web page, along with five articles about the tragic Father George Zirwas. They appear in the Corroborative
Reading Section.
A Mode of Conduct Equivalent to that of Boston's Bernard Francis Law
This was a time when Wuerl operated in a mode of conduct which would one day become synonymous with
Bernard Law and the Archdiocese of Boston. The original handling of lone wolf molester, John Hoehl, proved
this to be true. The 1992 to 1994 saga involving Fr. Edward Huff, also proved this to be true. Donald Wuerl's
original way of handling sex abuse cases was that of positioning a molester priest back into non-parish ministry,
if and only if a psychiatric facility would give that priest a favorable prognosis.
Assigning a priest to non-parish duties places such a priest one step away from parish ministry. Whether Don-
ald Wuerl would have eventually placed molester priests back into parishes will be unknown only because he
was shut down before the opportunity to do so presented itself. The simultaneous indictments of Wolk, Zula,
and Pucci shut down's Wuerl's way of handling sex abuse cases, at least for a while. They prompted Wuerl to
immediately oust from ministry the John S. Hoehl whom he reassigned four months prior.
Then came the Fr. Edward Huff case, where a third complaint against the priest finally put Wuerl on the spot,
thereby shutting down his opportunity to do anything more than take Huff out of ministry and shuttle him back
to a St. Louis psychiatric facility from whence he came. By all indications, Wuerl was on his way to becom-
ing a bishop in the image and likeness of Bernard Cardinal Law. In fact, the Huff cover-up shows that Wuerl
was still toying with law enforcement authorities even after having been directly in law enforcement's spotlight
four years prior.
One thing is certain. Wuerl has already proven his willingness to reassign to parish ministry the type of priest
who commits physically invasive homosexual harassment and then engages in retaliatory conduct upon being re-
ported. As was previously mentioned, such a priest was a personal secretary of Donald Wuerl. What was not
yet mentioned is that Wuerl assigned that priest to the pastor's post of Saint Basil's Parish, in Carrick, Pennsyl-
vania. The assignment was effective January 1, 2004.
The Diocese Denied Any Wrongdoing and History Was Revised Years Later
Concerning his triple cover-up, Wuerl publicly denied that his diocese stonewalled the investigation of the Pitts-
burgh diocese's molestation clique. However, he didn't deny that he materially concealed a trio of abusive priests
from law enforcement authorities. He simply denied that those actions constituted cover-ups. For instance, after
Robert Wolk was charged by Allegheny County authorities, Wuerl made the following statement: "We can't con-
demn him and throw him out and away." Wuerl also stated, "It is not covering up to embrace a man who is
suffering, just as we will not walk away from the family."
Wuerl claimed that it's not covering-up to hide a priest in either a psychiatric facility or at a relative's home, all
the while telling no one how dangerous he is. It's not covering up, according to Wuerl, to treat the criminal as the
suffering victim. Incidentally, when it came time to indict Richard Zula, his whereabouts were unknown. Wuerl
was not keeping track of him.
The official diocesan spokesman, as well as the Allegheny County DA at the time, claimed that the Diocese of
Pittsburgh had no obligation to notify Child Youth Services about the priests, as was prescribed in the Child
Protective Services Act. In direct contrast was James A. Esler, head of the human service section of Alleghe-
ny County's Law Department. He stated that there was no question in his mind that the Pittsburgh diocese had
the obligation to report those priests. Today, it's understood that anyone who learned of a molester has the ob-
ligation to report him, for the sake of those who would otherwise become future sex abuse casualties.
Wuerl Sought to Change the Subject and Have Catholics Ignore It
Donald Wuerl completed a four page letter addressed to every Pittsburgh diocesan members, two weeks after
Robert Wolk's October 11 indictment. While taking zero blame for the cover-up, Wuerl tried to persuade each
reader to ignore the indictment and to place's one's attention one other things. Then, seventeen days after the re-
lease date of Wuerl's change-the-subject letter, Wolk, Zula, and Pucci were indicted in Washington County. The
following link reported on the letter:
Newspaper Article that Reported on Wuerl's Change-the-subject Letter
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4118/1032/1600/wuerl3.0.jpg
Revisionist History Made Wuerl Look Like a Hero in his Own Triple Cover-up
A number of the 2002, 2003, 2004+ news articles which mentioned Donald Wuerl's triple cover-up explained it
so poorly that it constituted fiction. At times, the cover-up was explained with slight of hand deception, while at
other times it was explained with blatant falsehood. Some of the articles went as far as claiming that Wuerl was
a stern yet discrete hero in the handling of the three molester priests. In fact, of all the news outlets who alluded
to Wuerl's triple cover-up in revisionist terms, CBS was the one who lied the most. The Pittsburgh Post Gazette
came in second place.
CBS made it look as if Donald Wuerl suspended those three priests immediately after having learned of their per-
versity and then went swiftly to the home of the molested altar boys, as a gesture of compassionate concern. He
didn't. Other 21st Century articles made it look as if Wuerl quickly went to the home of the molested altar boys,
as if to be on a fact finding mission, only to gain the realization that he had to oust the three priests immediately
thereafter. This, too, was a lie. Other articles stated that Wuerl discretely suspended three priests, as if he re-
viewed a filing cabinet of diocesan priest dossiers and then cut three unrelated players from a team roster. This
didn't happen, either. In fact, Donald Wuerl was not the one who suspended those priests.
Moreover, in 1988, Wuerl deceived the public by stating that he visited the victimized family after he "became
bishop in February." The wording of Wuerl's claim made a reasonably minded person assume that he diligent-
ly visited the family in February, the first month of his tenure in Pittsburgh. No such visitation by Wuerl or any
other Pittsburgh diocesan member occurred that February, that March, that April, May, June, July, or even August.
The following is what actually happened:
Bevilacqua suspended the priests during the Autumn of 1987. Wuerl then replaced Bevilacqua in February 1988.
He kept his distance from the family of the two sex abuse casualties and did no more than see to it that the youths
would continue to have their psychiatric sessions free of charge. The criminal priests would stay on sick leave,
spending some time in a psychiatric facility, all the while living under the radar of law enforcement.
From the view of the logical mind, the venues of the abusive priests were likened to resorts and hideouts. It were
as if they would get away with what they did and be able to snag other sexual prey down the road. This triggered
within the family of the sexabuse casualties the resolve to go to the police and sue the diocese. This resolve oc-
curred in the vicinity of September. In fact, the October 13, 1988 edition of the Pittsburgh Post Gazette explained
it in the following manner:
"...they were worried that the priests might try to molest someone else."
In the October 21st edition of the same Post Gazette, at the City/Area Section, on Page A-4, it was reported that
the family decided to go to the law enforcement authorities when they discovered that at least one member of the
molester trio "were not in an institution on a daily basis."
The pastor of the family's parish, John Arnott, informed Wuerl what the family decided to do. Wuerl then asked
Arnott to see if a meeting with the family could be arranged. It was then and only then when Wuerl closed the
distance and went to the victimized family's home. The logical mind would deduce this visit to have been the
ploy of a self-seeking Wuerl, attempting to persuade a family into changing its mind about reporting priests to
the police. This would be consistent with a bishop wanting to perpetuate an ongoing cover-up. Now, Wuerl's
visit to the home of sex abuse casualties was in September. The family filed its notice of intent to sue at the end
of that month.
The Way of Donald Wuerl: Deception through Sleight of Hand Semantics
Observe how Donald Wuerl started his habit of deception through slight of hand semantics during Year 1 of his
tenure in Pittsburgh. Shortly after Wolk was indicted, Wuerl publicly stated: "I know now, and have said to
priests, that they cannot be reassigned." Now, a morning commuter on a Pittsburgh metro line would have con-
strued that newspaper quote as Wuerl telling the three molester priests that they could not be reassigned to min-
istry. This is wrong. Look closer. The operative word here is "now," while the operative phrase is "said to
priests." Donald Wuerl didn't speak this quoted phrase to Wolk, Zula, and Pucci. He spoke it to other priests.
That quote made Donald Wuerl look like a zero tolerance bishop. However, that quote was nothing more than
a semantic trick.
Donald Wuerl didn't disclose the time when he said to the unnamed priests that Wolk, Zula, and Pucci could not
be reassigned. It could have been spoken the day after Wolk was indicted. Now, it's important to note that Wuerl
assigned the notorious John S. Hoehl to the Shadyside Hospital chaplaincy three months before Wolk was first in-
dicted. Thus, Hoehl's reassignment went into effect four months before the three Washington County indictments
were issued. This shows that Donald Wuerl was very open to the idea of reassigning molester priests even in the
autumn of 1988. Observe:
(1) Hoehl was assigned to Shadyside Hospital in July. (2) The first indictment of Wuerl's molester trio was in
October. (3) On the day Wolk was indicted, John Hoehl was stationed at Shadyside Hospital. (4) Despite the
Allegheny County indictment of Wolk, Hoehl remained assigned to Shadyside. (5) Approximately one month
later came the Washington County indictments were executed. When Wolk, Zula, and Pucci were simultaneous-
ly indicted, Hoehl was stationed at Shadyside Hospital. This means that Wuerl was accommodating molester
reassignments even the day before his public statement was made. Wuerl's statement was a deception. Logic
shows that it was spoken by after the October 11 indictment of Wolk was executed in Allegheny County.
Incidentally, Shadyside Hospital is located near Carnegie Mellon University and the University of Pittsburgh.
Such universities are frequented by numerous male youth, not unlike the ones John Hoehl was multiply accused
of having molested during his long tenure at Quigley High School, in Baden, Pennsylvania.
According to courtroom testimony, the sadist Richard Zula was told that he was not going to return to ministry,
on April 4, 1988. No such thing is known to have been said to Wolk and Pucci. Therefore, Wuerl's original
way of handling molester priests is evident. If an accused priest were to receive a favorable prognosis from
a psychiatric facility, then he would be good to go into non-parish ministry. If not, then the priest was ousted.
In light of this pattern, one can assume that any priest who used whips and chains on an altar boy or two, as did
Richard Zula, would not get a favorable prognosis from any psychiatric clinic. Such a priest would not have the
sheet of paper which would serve the function of excuse; as an excuse for reassigning a molester priest.
Wuerl's own Speech Gave Him Away
Observe this comment of Wuerl, spoken shortly after Wolk was indicted:
"That was his whole life. Everything he was trained and called to
do. To say he will not be reassigned is a devastating thing to do."
This sounds like an excuse for not notifying a molester priest that he will not be returning to ministry. If a bish-
op would have said the previous statement in 2002, he would have been soundly condemned as a cover-up artist.
The link posted at the end of this section shows the news report on this.
The Other Diocesan Excuse and the Contradiction in it
The official Pittsburgh diocesan spokesman made the following statement shortly after Robert Wolk's indictment:
"We followed the lead of the alleged victims and the family.
We had no desire to cause undue pain or anxiety to them,
if they are not disposed to take public action themselves."
This sounds like a very caring and compassionate excuse for keeping silent in the matter of the Wolk, Zula, and
Pucci abuses. However, there is very something wrong with this picture. It would have caused undue pain and
anxiety for the family of the sex abuse casualties to have kept silent and acquiescent to Wuerl's will perpetually.
The presence of frustration and the accompanying absence of peace would have built up inside each one of them,
like a malfunctioning nuclear reactor.
The family would also have spent the rest of their lives enduring the gnawing guilt of having let three predators
be perpetually camouflaged, ever able to snag further prey in the future. They would have also spent a lifetime
feeling bullied by the notably tiny Donald Wuerl, in their keeping silent. In fact, they would have accumulated
the fear of breaking silence, as time would go on. All in all, fear and resentment would have been theirs to car-
ry for a lifetime, except for the existence of the check and balance system deeply recessed in the human soul by
which a person can only take so much and then he has to speak.
In addition, as soon as the two former altar boys became parties to a lawsuit, it instantaneously became illegal
for anyone to harass them or attempt to commit any type of undue influence upon them. This type of protection
diminishes pain and anxiety considerably. The two gentlemen were presented to the public as John Does, and
anonymity also relieves anxiety. Plus, taking public action results in monetary compensation. In as much, the
reasonable expectation of a handsome income takes away annihilating stress, especially when co-defendants
end up pleading guilty in criminal court after having negociated plea bargains.
In light of the aforementioned, do you really think that the diocesan spokesman was telling the truth when he
said that the diocese continued with the cover-up out of compassionate concern for the sex abuse casualties?
Well, the spokesman contradicted Wuerl, because Wuerl said that he remained silent for the priests whom he
regarded as sick and suffering patients. Very simply, to remain silent about criminals who remain able to ac-
quire new sex abuse prey is what causes anxiety and undue pain. When pain accumulates to the point of there
being no more room to harbor it, the pain gets so intense that it starts singing. The two sex abuse casualties
would have spoken up later in life anyway, if they hadn't done so when they did. This is evidenced by all
the sex abuse casualties who broke their silence years after the fact.
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4118/1032/1600/Wuerl1halved.0.jpg
Introduction to the Edward Huff Case
Toward the end of his first year as bishop of Pittsburgh, Wuerl made a statement that easily would lead a reason-
able person assume that he was resolved be never reassign a molester priest to ministry. However, Wuerl was
apparently employing slight of hand semantics, because he embarked on another cover-up; that of Edward Huff.
In that case, Wuerl reassigned Huff to ministry the same year Wuerl received accusations against him. He did
so, after Huff had a stay in a Saint Louis psychiatric facility.
The Specifics of the Huff Case
In February 1992, two families, days apart, reported Huff. Wuerl responded by doing the exact type of thing that
Cardinal Law repeatedly did in Boston. He sent Huff to a psychiatric facility; to one in Saint Louis, named Saint
Michael's. The prognosis was that Huff had sufficient residual functional capacity to engage in ministry. So, in
November 1992, Wuerl assigned Huff to a chaplaincy post and provided him with living quarters in downtown
Pittsburgh.
In December 1992, other parishioners from Huff's parish sent Wuerl a letter that accused Huff of molestation.
This was the third time when Father Edward Huff was reported, and his was when Wuerl realized that the cat
was out of the bag. There were enough people ho knew of Huff's transgressions that at least one of them would
inform the police should uerl's diocese decline to do so. This was when Wuerl's Get Out of Jail Free Card had
red.
Wuerl did not immediately report Huff to law enforcement authorities, despite the fact that third set of parishion-
ers made a formal complaint against him. Rather, Huff was sent back to St. Michael's, despite the positive bill
of health that was already given to him by the St. Louis facility. Therefore, sending Huff back to Saint Louis was
a strategic move, and not a medical necessity.
It wasn't until March 1993 when the Pittsburgh diocese would finally report Huff to law enforcement authorities.
This means that Fr. Huff was not reported until thirteen months after Wuerl learned of his misconduct. By that
time, Huff had already submitted his resignation.
As a subtotal tally, Huff wasn't arrested until fifteen months after he was reported by the Diocese of Pittsburgh
to the required law enforcement entities. Therefore, Huff was not arrested until 28 months after Wuerl learned
of the predatory allegations against him. In addition, March 1993 had additional significance to it. It was the
month when the Vatican's version of the Supreme Court ruled on the Cipolla case for the first time. March 1993
was when Wuerl appealed to the Vatican Signatura, asking it to vacate its judgment of the Cipolla case and to re-
view the case anew. In light of this, Huff was too much of a hot potato for Wuerl to keep concealing.
The time delay in the Fr. Edward Huff case provided a smoke screen to the fact that Wuerl once again found
himself cornered and checkmated during yet another botched cover-up attempt. So, take note on how Wuerl
sought to manipulate time lines, in order to look diligent and trustworthy - - - in order to distance his tracks
from his original handling of the Fr. Huff case. In addition, keep in mind that Wuerl & Company had already
been accused of stonewalling (foot dragging) in a previous case. Therefore, giving Wuerl credit for having
reported Huff was equivalent to giving a bank robber credit for stopping a bank robbery as soon as he finds
himself surrounded by police cars and then drops the sacks of money he was holding.
A Revisionist Article which Even Changed the Time Lines
In 2005, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review provided a very false statement, in saying that Wolk and Zula were con-
victed in 1987. This made it look as if Wuerl had nothing to do with the cover-up of them, being that he didn't
start his Pittsburgh tenure until 1988. Therefore, that article made it look as if he had a crystal clean sex abuse
record. Perhaps the author of the misleading article was deceived into thinking that Wuerl couldn't have possi-
bly been part of any cover-up, so the author assumed that the convictions occurred before Wuerl's arrival. Or
maybe he was an intentional liar.
One thing about Wuerl is certain. He wasn't the lionhearted protector of the Southwestern Pennsylvania's most
vulnerable. Nor was he motivated by a visit to the family of two molested altar boys. This is evidenced by the
fact that he reassigned Edward Huff to ministry years after the visit and later made Fr. Torquato a parish pastor
long after the evening with the two altar boys. Wuerl was motivated by nothing other than law enforcement and
bad press, if not by insurance premiums, being that molester priests can be very expensive to habor. This brings
us to the reason why Wuerl pursued the Anthony Cipolla case so vehemently.
The Reason Why Wuerl Pursued the Cipolla Case to the End
Keep in mind that Wuerl originally declared the accusations of Bendig to be not credible. This was because
Bendig accused more priests than Cipolla of sexual perversity. Then, Bendig's lawyer, Douglas Yauger, pre-
sented to Wuerl information about a 1978 charge against of Cipolla, filed by an accusing mom. Cipolla was
accused of molesting a nine year boy under the guise of a medical exam. HOWEVER, Cipolla was never
arrested. This means that he was never incarcerated, never arraigned, never placed before a bond hearing,
etc. Proof that he was not arrested consisted in the fact that it was the accusing mother who dropped the
charges. If Cipolla were arrested and arraigned, it would have required the DA office or the preliminary
hearing judge to dismiss the charges which the mother ended up dismissing.
Now, the mother involved would later claim that she only dropped the charges out of a sense of duress, in
having dismissed them within a month after having filed them. Diane Thompson (the mother) alleged that
she received direct pressure from the Pittsburgh bishop at the time, Vincent Leonard. She therefore alleged
that the Diocese of Pittsburgh committed witness tampering. Yet, she filed no criminal complaint against
former Bishop Leonard, as far as is known.
Concerning the Thompson case, Anthony Cipolla stated the following:
"1. There was no BOY'S ROOM where a thermometer was found. That was a lie."
"2. There was no medical equipment found in my room and office as reported.
That was a lie."
"3. The police found nothing in my room. Instead I gave them a blood pressure
device that was given to me by Doctor Lawrence Dunnigan (now deceased).
At the time, I was collecting medical supplies for the missions."
In review, Diane Thompson stated that she dropped the 1978 charges out of a sense of duress. Then, a second
source conjectured that she dropped the charges, in order to prevent something incriminating about her from sur-
facing during the trial. My conjecture was that she perhaps feared being required to pay the legal fees, if she did
not prevail. In addition, an individual identifying herself as Diane Thompson on an online comment board alleg-
ed that her son still suffers from the lingering effects of emotional trauma, on account of Cipolla. Then, in 2012
a woman also identifying herself as Diane Thompson claimed that Cipolla injured both of her sons. This means
that both individuals apparently stand by their original pleadings. Cipolla still pleads his innocence and he accus-
ing mother never exonerated him. However, wouldn't there be male bodily fluid found on any child's possession?
In fact, wouldn't there be blood on undergarments? What actually did the police report state? Was there a police
report? The DA had the legal power to indict Cipolla, but he needed some type of evidence for doing so. Being
that he didn't indict Cipolla, it would indicate that needed stains of evidence weren't present. What remained was
the youth's testimony.
Bendig Did Not File Until After Wolk, Zula, and Pucci Were Indicted
November 1988 was when Tim Bendig filed his notice of intent to sue in the Allegheny County Court of Common
Pleas. It was only at that point in time when Wuerl removed Anthony Cipolla from ministry. In fact, Wuerl didn't
deep-six John Hoehl until the same month. Very simply, if Wolk, Zula, and Pucci were not indicted in the Autumn
of 1988, Wuerl wouldn't have removed Hoehl in November of that same year. Plus, if Tim Bendig hadn't made his
move, then Cipolla would have stayed in ministry.
The important point to make at this point is that the Bendig/Cipolla case was NEVER tried in any court of law on
Earth. The Vatican case only sought to discern if Wuerl had grounds to remove Cipolla, based on Psychic Defect.
St. Michael's Institute in NYC gave Cipolla an entirely clean bill of mental health, while St. Luke's Clinic in Mary-
land marked Cipolla as being Depressed and Suicidal. He was neither evaluated as being psychopathic, nor sex-
ually perverted, nor a pathological liar ... concerning the documentation I read.
Wuerl refused to accept the assessment of St. Michael's Institute (of New York,) calling it "scantily." The Vati-
can Signatura rejected the St. Luke's evaluation as entirely invalid. This resulted in the assessment of the John
Vianney Center, in downtown Philadelphia, as being Wuerl's only evidence in the entire Cipolla case, at the Vat-
ican rehearing. Incidentally, it's pronounced Vee-awe-nay, with no syllable accented. John Vianney was the on-
ly parish priest ever canonized. He was the confessional priest, much like Padre Pio.
Wuerl's Actual Motivation
Concerning the Cipolla case, the 21st Century media made it sound as if Wuerl were a dedicated and caring bish-
op who got into action for the sake of the youth of the Pittsburgh area. Of course, nothing could be further from
the truth. This was Wuerl's actual motivation: To Stave off the same type of Grand Jury Inquest which visited the Archdiocese
of Philadelphia, and resulted in Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua dying in disgrace.
Wuerl had been caught performing a triple cover-up during late 1988, and he was already called uncooperative
by a prosecuting district attorney. Furthermore, the same district attorney stated that the Wolk-Zula-Pucci case
was probably not an isolated incident. Therefore, the law enforcement radar was still leaning toward the Dio-
cese of Pittsburgh. This means that a grand jury inquest was within reach.
When Donald Wuerl made his 1993 appeal to the Vatican's highest court, (in the Cipolla case), the Fr. Edward
Huff affair was still in progress. Add the fact that Cipolla was a priest attached to publicly known molestation
accusations. In as much, if Wuerl would have reinstated a priest attached to publicly known molestation accu-
sations, then either investigators, subpoenas, or warrants would have rained down upon the Pittsburgh diocese,
especially in light of the fact that the thrice accused Edward Huff was in the diocesan background. Thus, there
was a very real possibility that a grand jury inquest could have been triggered, if Cipolla were to be reassigned
to diocesan ministry. Everything that Wuerl had been keeping secret up to that time would have been uncovered.
There were at least two more things to consider. If Cipolla were reinstated, the Diocese of Pittsburgh would have
become vulnerable to those false accusations which lead to lawsuits. There was the matter of insurance rates to
consider.
To say that the safety of Pittsburgh's youth was dependent upon Wuerl, regarding Cipolla, was a propagandist's
lie. The public already knew of the accusations leveled against Cipolla. If he were reinstated, children would
have been told to avoid him, whether he were guilty or not, simply as a precaution. Students would have been
taken out of schools, prayer groups, choirs, field trips, etc. Therefore, priests accused of molestation are bad
for business. In addition, Cipolla knew that he was in a gigantic spotlight and couldn't do anything ill without
it being amplified. In fact, if Wuerl did nothing about Anthony Cipolla, then law enforcement authorities would
have placed investigators in close contact with the diocese. A grand jury inquest was a logical possibility at the
time, if Wuerl outraged anyone in authority. In light of the aforementioned, it is easy to understand that Wuerl
was doing nothing more than looking out for himself, in pursuing the Cipolla case to its conclusion.
Revisionist History of the Cipolla Case, Concerning Vatican Proceedings:
Exaggerated News Reports Constituting Fraudulent Misrepresentation
The following section does not judge if whether Anthony Cipolla is guilty or innocent of the accusations leveled
against him. It is meant to show the falsehoods and unconscionable exaggerations that were employed by the
21st Century media, in it's reporting of the Cipolla proceedings which transpired in the 1990s. The following
is to illustrate that the Cipolla case was used by Wuerl's propaganda machine, as a power play in the same 21st
Century. It was also used as a diversionary tactic by Wuerl, in the late 20th Century, in order to prevent a series
of summons and subpoenas from raining down upon the Diocese of Pittsburgh.
Wuerl's Use of the Cipolla Case for Political Advertising
After he was caught performing a triple cover-up, Donald Wuerl was faced with the task of having to trowel over
his track record. This was done by having the Anthony Cipolla case made known from coast to coast. The 21st
Century narration of the case was over dramatized, making it look like a Dan Brown novel, where Wuerl was the
novel's hero engaged in a fight against an "irrational Vatican." Yet, no Vatican doors were barricaded. No se-
cret society member burned Wuerl's court papers, and no albino monk chased Wuerl around Rome with a dagger.
The only things unique about the case was that there were two appeals made to the same one Signatura, concern-
ing the same one case, and the Signatura had to obtain from the Pontifical Counsel for the Interpretation of Legal
Texts the definition of the phrase, Psychic Defect. Cipolla appealed first, after Wuerl won at the initial Vatican
court level. Wuerl then appealed to the Vatican's highest court second, doing so after Anthony Cipolla received
a favorable ruling from it. Yet, the revisionist newspaper articles made the Vatican look oppressive, backward,
unenlightened, and stubbornly harmful. The same reports made Wuerl look greater than the Vatican, as if Ameri-
cans are to now reject the canonical authority of the Vatican and declare the tiny and less than masculine Wuerl
as the voice of the church in America.
It is important to note that the Vatican did not employ the adversial system of plaintiff testimony vs defendant tes-
timony, as well as appellant briefs vs appelle briefs, and petitioner vs respondant. This means that Wuerl was
not present during the first Signatura hearing. In fact, he didn't even know that Cipolla's appeal was transpiring.
In like fashion, Cipolla and his canon law team were absent from the rehearing. Only Wuerl's team was present.
After the rehearing, Anthony Cipolla received a letter in the mail, notifying him that the Signatura sided with Ci-
polla's bishop. Thus, there was no point/counterpoint. There was no cross-examination. There was opportun-
ity of one side to impeach the testimony of the other one, and there were no canon lawyers present to say, "Your
honors, I object." The entire procedure was poorly explained by the Pittsburgh media, concerning the rehearing.
The Actual Transpiration of the Cipolla Case
To start, Donald Wuerl did not have a Herculean battle with the Vatican. Everything was a matter of procedure.
The initial Vatican court who reviewed Cipolla's case was the Congregation for the Clergy. That court ruled in
favor of Wuerl. In response, Cipolla appealed to the Signatura. But, he did not file against Wuerl. His case was
now against the Congregation for the Clergy.
Donald Wuerl's appeal to the Signatura was based on the claim that its original review of the case was based on
"major factual inaccuracies." He claimed that there was more evidence for the Vatican to review. Firstly, Wuerl
claimed that there still existed the police report related to a 1978 arrest of Cipolla. Wuerl then claimed that there
still existed the deposition of the mother involved in the 1978 criminal case ... Diane Thompson. Finally, Wuerl
stated that the Bendig v. Cipolla lawsuit was still pending, and therefore, more evidence was to come from the
lawsuit. However, no additional evidence came from the Bendig case.
Wuerl settled the Bendig lawsuit two days before jury selection, despite the fact that there were 70+ witnesses for
Cipolla and ZERO for Bendig. In fact, Bendig's attorney received a sin month extension, in order to "depose more
witnesses." Bendig could not find one person on Earth to corroborate his testimony. In fact, there were witnesses
ready to testify against Bendig and impeach his testimony. That is to say, the 70+ witnesses did not solely consist
in people ready to testify in favor of Cipolla's character. There were witnesses ready to testify against Bendig's
credibility ... a credibility that Wuerl originally adjudged to be non-existent.
In addition, no one after Bendig ever accused Cipolla of molestation. If he were the monster that Wuerl made
him out to be, there would have been more accusers to come forth, throughout the years. No one anywhere af-
ter Bendig made any accusations, and it is wondered if Bendig simply plagiarized the accusations in the 1978
case. However, Bendigs' accusation lack plausibility.
At the Initial Level of the Vatican Court,
Concerning Cipolla's Petition to be Reinstated into Ministry
At the Vatican court's initial level, the only decisive piece of evidence presented against Anthony Cipolla was the
psychiatric opinion of St. Luke's Institute, in Maryland, according to media writers favorable to Wuerl. Accord-
ing to Anthony Cipolla, the Vatican already knew of the evidence which the press claimed was not yet in Vatican
hands until the trial. The Signatura's initial judgment of the Cipolla case was based on evidence that Wuerl sub-
mitted to the Congregation for the Clergy. This meant that the Signatura's judgment had to be based solely on the
opinion of Saint Luke's Institute, if and only if it is true that the Vatican didn't have any of the other information
on Cipolla pertinent to the case. The bottom line is that the Vatican judged if whether or not Wuerl had cause to
remove Cipolla, based solely on Psychic Defect. Again, keep in mind that there was no trial anywhere on Earth
which sought to discern if Cipolla molested Bendig.
The opinion of Saint Luke's Institute resulted in the Signatura declaring that Cipolla was "denied a fair judgment"
from an institute operated by an out-of-the-closet homosexual whose judgment "was based on a mixed doctrine
of Freudian pan-sexualism and behaviorism." The Signatura specifically stated that St. Luke's was "surely not
a suitable institution to judge rightly about the beliefs and lifestyle of a Catholic priest."
Incidentally, from the ordinary teaching authority of the church came the condemnation of "behavioral modifica-
tion by means of psychotropic drugs." Therefore, when a church document mentions behaviorism, it's referring
to something recognized as Orwellian, if not Draconian.
Because of Wuerl's alleged failure to submit the pertinent evidence at the initial Vatican proceedings, the Holy See
had no other choice than to vacate its prior judgment of the Cipolla case and to review it anew. In as much, there
was no "amazing" and "almost unheard of reversal." Instead of having made the tiny statured Donald Wuerl look
Herculean, the 21st Century media should have painted him as a miscalculating sophomore. The media of 2002
should have pointed out that Wuerl was presumptive and short sighted, even to the point of legal bumbling, if it is
true that not all of the Cipolla evidence had been submitted to Vatican authorities. If so, then the second round of
hearings at the Vatican's Signatura was due to nothing more than the presumptive incompetency of Donald Wuerl
and his legal team.
Concerning Wuerl's claim that the Bendig civil suit was pending, Wuerl settled the civil lawsuit out of court with-
in six months of having filed his appeal to the Signatura appeal. Wuerl did this despite his claim that additional
evidence in the Bendig case might possibly emerge. Now, Wuerl's appeal to the Vatican was in March of 1993.
The Bendig lawsuit was settled in October of 1993. The Signatura's second review of the Cipolla case wouldn't
be completed until October of 1995. This would make the reasonably minded person suspect that Wuerl's intent
was to settle the Bendig case as soon as he could, deriving no further evidence from the case. Ths Wuerl used the
Bendig case as an excuse to get the Vatican to reopen the Cipolla case. This is evidenced by the fact that Wuerl
ever so coincidentally settled the lawsuit two days before the start of jury selection.
Anthony Cipolla's attorney, John Alan Conte, was not paid by the Pittsburgh diocese. Cipolla paid his attorney
with the $25,000 inheritance gotten after his mother's death. Cipolla paid all that money and was never given his
day in court. In fact, Attorney Conte was not consulted about the settlement. Wuerl entirely ignored him.
In addition, an October 15, 1993 article in the National Catholic Reporter, written by Rebekah Schreffler, states
that the Pittsburgh diocese promised that it would "inform Anthony Cipolla's prospective employers of the alle-
gations filed against him." Take note of the hypocrisy of Donald Wuerl in this instance, being that he didn't do
the same thing in the case of the notorious John S. Hoehl, formerly of Quigley High School, in Baden, PA. In
fact, Fr Francis Pucci, after his indictment and prosecution, was permitted to perform the Catholic Mass for an
order of Pittsburgh-area nuns. Of course, Pucci's case was dismissed on account of the statute of limitations.
Therefore, he actually wasn't a convicted molester.
As was previously stated, Anthony Cipolla had approximately seventy character witnesses lined up to testify on
his behalf ... and some against Bendig's credibility and honesty ... at the civil trial. This included former altar
boys who were alone with Cipolla, in several types of settings. Plus, Tim Bendig unsuccessfully sought to file
criminal charges against Anthony Cipolla in the Beaver County which sits at the northwestern border of Pitts-
burgh's Allegheny County.
It is not likely that Bendig would have won his lawsuit, and news of Bendig's courtroom loss would have carried
weight at the Vatican's Signatura. Therefore, Wuerl would have ruined his chances to remove Cipolla if the Ben-
dig case went to trial, being that 70+ people were going to speak either well of Cipolla or ill of Bendig or both.
Then, upon being ordered to reinstate Cipolla, Wuerl would be triggeringo a possible grand jury inquest in Penn-
sylvania. The late John Pettit, former district attorney of one of the Southwestern Pennsylvania counties already
complained about Wuerl and his diocese on the record.
Cipolla's Psychiatric Diagnosis
It is essential to mention what psychiatric diagnosis was given to Cipolla. This is because news reports makes
one assume that Cipolla's psychic defect was something entirely maniacal, perverted, and uncontrolled; even
that of a pathological liar. Well, available documentation stated that Cipolla was diagnosed as having Clinical
Depression and Suicidal Tendencies. That was all that the author of this text found in the paperwork. The pa-
perwork available did not state anything of a scandalous nature, unless of course, the writer of this article was
deprived of the paperwork which stated so.
Keep in mind that St. Michael's Institute in New York gave Cipolla a clean bill of health. Additionally keep
in mind that Cipolla the media made a huge deal of Cipolla being spotted on the EWTN television network, at
the altar during a Mass. The Pittsburgh diocesan spokesman stated that "they" never saw anything like this, in
a priest continuing to function as a priest, despite his being suspended by his bishop. Well, Wuerl financially
cut off Cipolla completely. Yet, Richard Dorsch and Francis Pucci were given stipends, despite the certitude
of the allegations against them. In as much, Wuerl provoked Cipolla, in that Cipolla literally was trying to stay
alive. Perhaps Wuerl expected him to work at McDonalds for the rest of his life and make a livable wage in
the process. Cipolla was cut off, without ever being given his right to a trial, so that he could impeach the ac-
cusations of Tim Bendig, as well as the 1978 case. In review, the diocese never saw anything like Cipolla's
conduct after he was ousted from ministry, because no one was treated like him. Even the publicly notorious
Zirwas was given back the title, Father, despite his openly homosexual lifestyle in Cuba, throughout the days
before his murder.
Addendum on Tim Bendig
In addition to being the publicized accuser of Cipolla, Bendig was a short-term seminarian at the Pittsburgh
diocesan seminary. The months was his duration. One week after Wolk, Zula, and Pucci were indicted, he
filed the notice of intent to sue Cipolla, Wuerl, two previous Pittsburgh bishops, one nun, and three priests, as
well as the Pittsburgh Diocese, by name. The filing date was November 18, 1988. Four days later, a female
resident of Philadelphia filed a notice of intent to sue a Pittsburgh diocesan priest named Fr. James E. Somma.
The point to mentioning the additional filing is to show the amount of weight that was bearing down on Wuerl
during November of 1988. He removed Hoehl and Cipolla like sand bags from a falling balloon. At that time,
the Diocese of Pittsburgh was in utter chaos, and the 21st Century media didn't inform you of it.
Statements that Bendig gave to the media were published the day before Thanksgiving. However, his name
was withheld from the report. In fact, the news article was published exactly two days after Francis Pucci
was arraigned in a nearby county. Bendig said:
(1) that "the sexual activities" (vaguely stated) drove him away from the Pittsburgh diocesan seminary
"in disgust."
(2) that he was molested by Cipolla, from the Year 1981 to the Year 1987. (3) that he was writing a
book on the subject which was so good because it was so true. (4) that he filed a precursory court
summons, in his intent to sue the diocese for its refusal to pay for any further psychiatric sessions
after his third one. (5) that the Diocese of Pittsburgh was the worst diocese.
The things which Bendig declined to tell the media was:
(1) that Donald Wuerl originally declared his accusations to be non-credible, on account of the fact that Ben-
dig accused more priests of sexual perversity than Cipolla. (2) that the Diocese of Pittsburgh was lead to un-
derstand that, after the third psychiatric session, no further ones would be needed by Bendig. (3) that Bendig
would soon admit, during a deposition, that he voluntarily committed sodomy at the Pittsburgh seminary, even
before he became a seminarian there, thereby showing that Bendig didn't have a digust for homosexual activity
there; at least initially. (4) that Bendig was an unsuccessful student, academically speaking, even at the Pitts-
burgh seminary.
In addition, if Bendig ever wrote a book, it is a well kept secret. Plus, he signed a settlement. Usually a settle-
ment includes a confidentiality agreement, in this type of case. The confidentiality agreement would preclude
Bendig from writing a book.
After the notice of intent to sue came the actual filing of the lawsuit. Yet, Bendig did not stop there. He went
to the Beaver County D.A.'s office, in order to file criminal charges against the same Anthony Cipolla, only to
have the D.A. report that no evidence to corrobate Bendig's story was found to exist. Now, when a civilian
seeks to file criminal charges, his allegations are first investigated, in a screening process. The following
findings were made by the D.A.'s office, concerning Bendig's allegations:
From: Beaver County District Attorney's Office:
On December 16, 1988, Tim Bendig was interviewed by
Assistant District Attorney William Hare and Detective
Andrew Gaul. Bendig accused Father Anthony Cipolla
of Indecent Assault at the McGuire Home in Daugherty
Township.
The Detective Bureau conducted an investigation which
included interviews with:
Tom Hamilton
Sister Mary Alice
Monsignor Shultz
Anthony Cipolla
The investigation showed no basis for criminal prosecution essentially for the following reasons:
1) Bendig was over 18 at the time of the alleged offense.
2) No corroborating evidence was found.
The letter was dated March 17, 1989. It was a strike against Bendig's credibility.
Tim Bendig's Admission of Having Committed Sodomy at the
Pittsburgh Seminary, Even Before Becoming a Seminarian there
It was during a deposition when Tim Bendig testified that he committed sodomy at the Pittsburgh seminary, even
before becoming a seminarian there. He testified to having committed sodomy with individuals associated with
the Pittsburgh seminary, none of whom were priests at the time. The occasions of willfull sodomy occurred dur-
ing a Discernment Weekend and during a couple of follow up visits. Discernment Weekend, predictably enough,
is one where prospective candidates to the priesthood visit seminary grounds and discern if whether or not the
priesthood is their calling.
The admissions of willful sodomy are mentioned in the vicinity of pages 346 to 347 and 357 of Bendig's de-
position, if not elsewhere. Not much of the deposition was made available at the time of this writing. In fact,
in the Winter of 2011-2012, it was found that Tim Bendig's deposition was missing from the Allegheny County
Prothonotary's Office. However, the full deposition was later located. The purpose why it was recently sought
will be kept in confidence, at least for now. Incidentally, two pages of the Tim Bendig deposition are found at
the web address posted directly below. The same link which takes you to the Beaver County DA's Report takes
you to the two pages of the Bendig deposition in the civil suit.
Concerning Bendig's allegations against a number of Pittsburgh priests, it was during the same deposition when
he testified, one priest at a time, that his accusations came from rumor mill gossip and not from personal experi-
ence. However, the entirety of the deposition wasn't available, in order to confirm if Tim Bendig answered the
same in the case of every priest he accused of sexual perversity, in addition to Cipolla. None the less, in a let-
ter to me, Bendig described Cipolla as having done the sexual perversities to Bendig only. This is inconsistant
with other molesters, being that they leave a trail of casualties in their wake. In as much, a courtroom trial was
absolutely needed in this case.
Bendig Filed His Lawsuit a Second Time in Another Jurisdiction
On Tuesday March 10, 1992, three and a half years after having emerged into public sight, Tim Bendig filed
the same lawsuit in Beaver County, Pennsylvania. Nine of the lawsuit's ten defendants were sued under the
doctrine of Repondeat Superior. It's the doctrine which states that the superior must answer for the wrongs
of his/her employees, agents, representatives, underlings, etc. More specifically, the defendants in Bendig's
twice filed lawsuit were:
(1) Anthony Cipolla, (2) Donald Wuerl, (3) Archbishop Anthony Bevilacqua, (4) Bishop Vincent Leonard,
(5) Monsignor Joseph Findlan, (8) Fr. William Housen, (7) Fr. Theodore Rutkowski, (9) Sister Mary Alice
Sobieraj, (9) the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, (10) the Diocese of Pittsburgh.
What Bendig Did with the Settlement Money
After having received his undisclosed settlement, Bendig gave a statement to the press that was published in
the Pittsburgh Post Gazette's October 1, 1993 edition. It was in Section B, on Page 1, where Bendig alluded
to how the settlement money would be spent. He stated:
"It's a satisfactory settlement that will enable me
to continue with better therapy and treatment."
Apparently, the better therapy included the renting of a bar and grill from the Levitsky Bros of the South Hills
of Pittsburgh, called the Two Step. Formerly known as the South Park Inn, it is presently called Doridio's and
is located at 6408 Brownsville Road, South Park, Pennsylania. The Two Step had a country-western theme. It
closed its doors in 1998. At least some of the settlement money from the Cipolla case went to the operation of
the now defunct establishment.
The Father Henry Krawczyk Case
After Wuerl was unofficially deemed the model of zero tolerance, there was the 2003 arrest and arraignment
of a Fr. Henry Krawczyk who was previously reported to Pittsburgh diocesan authorities for unbecoming con-
duct. Wuerl knew of the prior allegations against Fr. Krawczyck before that priest set the scenario for the sud-
den death of Pitt football player, Billy Gaines. If Wuerl were not negligent in that matter, the chances are that
Billy Gaines would not have died an alcohol-related death inside a Pittsburgh diocesan church. Concerning
this case, refer to the following links:
Concerning the realization that Wuerl was not motivated by conscience, but by law enforcement authorities,
take note of the following statement made by author and expert witness, Richard Sipe. It was published in
the March 11, 2002 edition of USA Today:
"It is only the court system and the media that have forced the Church to
take more reasonable action. There is a very significant lack of moral
leadership within the Church to face up to this problem, because they're
afraid of what it will uncover of higher-ups in the Church."
It was the court system which compelled Wuerl to pursue the Cipolla case. The 2002 media then forced Wuerl
to remove several priests attached to credible sex abuse accusations whom Wuerl had been keeping in ministry.
At the start of 2002, Wuerl was incapable of claiming that his diocese was free of priests accused of molesting
youth. Only after the media exploded with report after report of sex abuse cover-ups did Wuerl finally remove
those priests. He removed them out of political pressure.
Wuerl's zero tolerance image was nothing more than unconscionable propaganda, especially in light of the fact
that court briefs were filed against his diocese in 2002, at the United States Supreme Court's Clerk of Court's
Office. Furthermore, Wuerl's former secretary was still in ministry during that year, showing Wuerl to not be
the model of zero tolerance that he was made out to be. In fact, he would soon assign his former secretary to a
parish pastor's post, effective New Year's Day 2004.
The 21st Century praise given to Wuerl by the media was an act of cowardice, as if telling the truth about a cor-
rupt bishop would have resulted in the ultimate destruction of all mankind. This era of mankind has been one in
which the media deceived the public in a number of topics. Concerning the topics, Wuerl is merely one of many.
Concerning corrupt bishops, Wuerl is merely one of many.
A courtesy email that Richard Sipe sent me in 2009 surprised me, because he described the
Donald Wuerl power play in the following way:
"It's the reformation all over again."
_____________________________
Corroborative Reading
Below are links to newspaper articles published at the time when Wuerl's Triple Cover-up was uncovered.
No revisionist history articles are posted herein. In addition, not all of the original articles related to Wolk,
Zula, and/or Pucci are posted below, being that over two dozen of them were discovered. All links in this
section were configured to open in a new window.
Sincerely,
Patrick Anthony Pontillo, youngest son of an authentic Liberator of France