Posted on 05/16/2006 3:44:36 AM PDT by prisoner6
(KDKA) PITTSBURGH Pope Benedict XVI has appointed Bishop Donald W. Wuerl to succeed Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick as archbishop of Washington D.C.
Archbishop Pietro Sambi, apostolic nuncio to the United States, made the announcement Tuesday morning.
Pope Benedict accepted the retirement of Cardinal McCarrick who had served in Washington since his appointment on Nov. 21, 2000.
Archbishop-designate Wuerl will continue to serve as bishop of the Diocese of Pittsburgh until his installation as archbishop of Washington on June 22.
"The decision of our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, to transfer me to the Archdiocese of Washington," Archbishop-designate Wuerl said, "is one I embrace in the context of faith in Gods providential care. Although I am greatly aware of my own limitations, I find strength in the Pope’s trust in me and also in the prayerful support I have always found from the Catholic faithful I have attempted to serve here in the Diocese of Pittsburgh."
Cardinal McCarrick described Archbishop-designate Wuerl as a "wonderful friend to me over so many years and I have watched with delight and deep respect — and sometimes with more than a little envy — the great things that the Church of Pittsburgh has accomplished under his leadership. I truly cannot think of a better choice for Washington than Bishop Wuerl."
Archbishop-designate Wuerl has been bishop of the Diocese of Pittsburgh for 18 years and will celebrate the 40th anniversary of his ordination as a priest later this year.
McCarrick just turned 75. Interesting to see the Holy Father accepted his retirement. I am really liking this Holy Father.
Dear mware,
Cardinal McCarrick actually turned 75 last July.
However, to accept a cardinal's resignation ten months after it's proffered does seem a little quick.
sitetest
That sounds a lot like the Diocese of Charlotte :-).
bye, bye teddy
Sitetest has got this one right, livius. McCarrick is a media hound. One of my minor irritations with him when I lived in Metuchen was that he would knock down little old ladies to get photographed with my son, who has Downs, as his altar boy, although he cared little for my son personally. If the papers were going to be there, you could bet my sons would be serving at a Mass McCarrick was celebrating.
With an approach like that, McCarrick must have gone to the Roger Mahony School of Bishopry. Sort of like Hogwarts but not as pretty.
Weurl's a humble man, media savvy but not starstruck. He had an evening call-in show about faith on KDKA-AM for many many years. I don't find him to be wildly liberal, and he's certainly not conservative.
He's the archetype of the USCCB.
10) He always celebrated Holy Thursday Mass at a local men's prison. Part of the reason for this was that he allegedly did not want to wash women's feet as part of the cermony, it being against the rubrics, though he was unwilling to enforce the rules on his Priests as Bishop.
Perhaps Weurl is being the servant he was commanded to be by washing the feet of the outcasts and the forgotten in prison.
I'd be surprised if concern about washing women's feet even enters into his consideration.
All in all, based on what you say. He is a good candidate for the job. Not perfect, but good. I don't have a problem with his party membership, I think we focus too much on party when neither is perfect (one is just worse than the other). As for his orientation, if he has rejected his "urges" and lived a celibate life and teaches what the Church teaches I see no problem there.
Thank you for this comprehensive report!
Dear Lord Washbourne,
Thanks for the information. A lot to think about.
You think that Bishop Wuerl is "highly Orthodox," yet he took after a priest whom you also consider very orthodox. That's interesting. Combined with some of your other comments, it seems that Bishop Wuerl is a rather autocratic person. He'll have a good Stalinist machine in working order here in Washington to continue, should he so wish to use it.
Regarding your #4, that would be very disappointing, if true. I guess since the scandals of recent years, I've come to the conclusion that there is no place in the priesthood, and especially the episcopacy, for any person who has a homosexual orientation. Do you know what stand Bishop Wuerl takes toward celibate homosexuals who wish to become priests?
Cardinal Hickey had a strict rule, at least in later years, against any homosexuals being ordained. Cardinal McCarrick relaxed the rule slightly, but only to the extent of saying that a homosexual orientation would not absolutely automatically disqualify. His focus was on the ability to lead a completely celibate life.
I would prefer a bishop who would not tolerate any homosexuals whatsoever in the priesthood, at all. It's just a matter of learning from the late scandals.
Regarding Catholic schools, * sigh *, he'll fit right in here in Washington, where the trend has been onward and upward. Especially upward.
It's also disappointing that he seems to have engaged in the practice of perhaps wrongly taking the assets of parishes.
All-in-all, I'm cautiously pessimistic.
You seem to have known Bishop Wuerl personally, at least at some point. If you have other personal insights to share (publicly or privately), I'd appreciate them.
Thanks,
sitetest
Because it took over 50 years for the Horror to be brought to light, and in the rarified club of the Clergy most of them all knew for years and did nothing.
The victims were abused for years and are still being abused by the likes of cardinal Phoney Mahoney.
Cardinal Ratzinger would have received all the reports of abuse from all the bishops around the world and he let the children continue and left the Criminal Priests in place to do more damage.
He allowed, the Leader of the Legionaries of Christ, Father Dogollado to avoid being challenged even though there was 9 men with credible sexual abuse allegations filed against him by lawyers in the Vatican.
Does anybody know if McCarrick wanted to stay? I doubt that he (and John Paul II) intended for him to be archbishop for barely over five years.
Please , Please, Please, All they had to do is get out the word, they chose to stay quiet both Ratzinger and Pope John Paul II, They chose poorly!
Nothing is more important than the spiritual life of little Children, Christ himself said so, remember the millstone story.
See what happened to Ftr. Thomas Doyle for speaking out he was ostracised within the Catholic Hierarchy, as opposed to card Law who was rewarded, for allowing the abuse of children by over 200 Priests, to be kept quiet.
Sadly it took the Boston Globe and The Herald to bring out the Horror.
Dear Revenge of Sith,
That's a very interesting question. I'm not sure anyone can say definitively.
However, shortly after the death of Pope John Paul II, the cardinal did start to talk publicly about retiring. He told the local press that he would be submitting his letter of resignation, as required by Canon Law, on his 75th birthday (July 7, 2005), and that he was looking forward to retiring and going fishing.
This leads me to speculate that he knew that Pope Benedict wouldn't be keeping him on for any significant period of time after his 75th birthday, and it would look like he was leaving of his own accord, rather than being pushed. At least as compared to how Pope John Paul II did things, Pope Benedict did not leave Cardinal McCarrick around very long after his resignation. I'd personally predicted a year to 18 months, to give Cardinal McCarrick enough time to save face. But here we are ten months later, and he's out.
sitetest
"There are none so blind as those that will not see nor deaf as those that will not hear".
Every bishop would be required to alert the Vatican about the abuses.
Oh Sure , I'm The SINNER, PHHHHHHAAAZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.
I know many , many reports landed on Ratzinger's desk and I know he personally knew about the alleged abuse by Fr. Dogollado of the legionaries of Christ and Ratzinger started the investigation a few times including when he wanted to influence cardinals to vote for him for pope.
He dropped it immediately when he became Pope.
All these so called "Holy Men" take vows of Secrecy even when the Spiritual lives of Children were being destroyed, and if Ratzinger didn't know he doesn't deserve to be pope.
Ratzinger (Benedict) is a European, and it doesn't appear (from the latest sexual abuse charges levelled against 25 Italian priests) that these charges are taken quite as seriously in Europe as they are in the States.
In fact, Ratzinger's first comment on the subject, in 2002, was to rebuke the press for making such a big deal of the accusations, when they involved so few priests!
John Paul II basically ignored the charges because 1) he had no idea how to handle them and 2) to accuse someone of homosexuality in Poland was the way communists discredited them. So he had a knee-jerk reaction against those making the accusations.
Cardinal Ratzinger preferred to let the American bishops handle them. Unfortunately, Catholic dioceses will be bled dry economically because bishops didn't remove abusive priests until they did a great deal of damage.
It's a painful lesson for the hierarchy and those in Rome to have to learn. Hopefully, they will learn it, but it does appear the Italian bishops are insistent on learning all about it through experience.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.