Cardinal Wuerl Denies He Was Informed of Restrictions on McCarrick


Wuerl acknowledges that Vigano had a conversations with him to not have seminarians meet with McCarrick and that it was cancelled. He also acknowledges that McCarrick was removed from his seminary living arrangement. And yet he wants us to believe that he had no idea why and never asked? This helps prove that Vigano is speaking the truth about all this.


Why do you believe one bishop, but not the other?


Because, in the light of all the evidence that I have seen so far, one is believable and the other not.


It sounds like Archbishop Vigano has an axe to grind with Pope Francis. So, to me, that puts a grain of salt on his statements.

Just from what I read in the article, I got the impression that the two bishops are disagreeing on the issue because of semantics. I don’t think there is much to see here.


Wuerl was already denying a lot of things ven before Vigano came out with the 11 page letter. Of course, some people continue to defend Wuerl.

If both sides are indeed dirty, then let them sling mudshots at each other, let the truth come out, no matter how ugly it is up to the very top of the Church.


I don’t know anyone who is defending Wuerl — before or after this.


It appears that Bishop Strickland of Tyler dinds the allegations credible, however he is still calling for an investigation. Saw this being shared on Twitter.


Please cite the information you have concerning this allegation. Doubtful you have any. Then again, if true, the fact that he was never investigated & disciplined would be another case of coverup. In the mean time, he gets my prayers and gratitude for bringing this rot to light.


I assume you are kidding. All kinds of people are defending him, lay and bishops alike. Bill Donohue of the $500k salary from Catholic League is a notable lay supporter. I am fine with anyone who supports him and open to the reasons but the support needs to have citations behind the reasons. Opinions and feelings are no longer persuasive to me.


Best do some investigating before being so desperate…

Francis removed Archbishop Viganò from his job as nuncio to the United States in 2016, in part for nearly ruining the pope’s trip the United States by giving papal face time to Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk whose refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Soon after his departure, a criminal investigation into a bishop in Minneapolis-St. Paul revealed a memo that Archbishop Viganò had written in 2014 in an effort to suppress a church investigation into alleged homosexual activity by the Minnesota bishop.

Since his return to Rome, Archbishop Viganò has run with a crowd of traditionalist Catholics deeply critical of Pope Francis and recently attended a raucous meeting of anti-Francis prelates and faithful in the basement of a Rome hotel, where he could be seen talking to the Lifesite news reporter who translated the letter into English.


Did the Minneapolis-St. Paul memo happen or didn’t it?


Anyone who wants further proof is an obsessive defender of the pope? :face_with_raised_eyebrow:


Oh yeah, lots here on Caf.


According to Fr Z, +Viganò is completely reliable. That will settle it for half the population here at CAF.


I’m waiting for sources that haven’t been virulently anti-Francis (or pro-Francis) for years.


Your definition of anti francis is someone who just turns a blind eye o the questionable things he said or did.

I guess nc register is not balanced enough for you.


A a lot of Cafers have their heads in the sand.


No, it’s not. That you think it is speaks volumes.


Actually, I’m just not salivating.

I’d like some non-Catholic, objective sources.


II agree. Just saying. I think this could go either way. The Bishop of Tyler has just deemed them credible allegations for what it’s worth.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit