Father Donald Sotak: An Alleged Cover-up till Death.

  Preliminary Statement for those not familiar with the Wuerlgate Series

  If anyone asks if whether Cardinal Donald Wuerl is either the divine model of
  godlike zero tolerance or a lying cover-up artist, the definitive answer is: 

  1} Robert "I-was-ordained-with-Wuerl" Wolk,
       2} Francis "Statute-of-Limitations" Pucci,
           3} Richard "the-Marquis-de-Sade-is-my-role-model" Zula,
               4} John S. Hoehl, until Wuerl played hot potato with him
                    and instantly ousted him from the ministry as soon as
                    Wolk was indicted.
                    5} Huff, in a STL to PGH musical chairs game
                         that resulted in Huff's indictment,
                          6} allegedly the John Wellinger whose name did
                               appear in a class action lawsuit, but who was a
                               person of interest even in the 1980s
                               7} allegedly Fr. Donald "Knockout Punch" Sotak,
                                    8} Fr.  James "North Park" Torquato, in the
                                        most evidence-supported of the accusations.   

In the negligence department add ... 9} Krawczyk.

     For those not familiar:  Greetings, for starts.

     For those new to this site, know that it contains jpegs of hard copy ev-
     idence and jpegs mainstream newspaper articles, along with links to
     yet more newspaper articles which prove that Cardinal Donald Wuerl
     is NOT the model of zero tolerance that he was made out to be by the
     pathologically bland ittsburgh Post Gazette writer, Ann Rodgers.  In
     addition, the statistical information within this site shows that both
     Wuerl and the archbishop of New York City are deceivers. 

The accused priest: 

Donald J. Sotak.  His assignments included headmaster posts at South
Side Catholic and Canevin High Schools, as well as the pastor posts of
Saint Francis Xavier in the North Side of Pittsburgh and Saint Joseph's
Parish in Natrona Heights.  This also included an assistant pastor post in
Mckeesport.

Sotak died in 2004.  During the celebration of the 40th anniversary of
his ordination, in 2002, the parish church that was to hold the celebra-
tion was ever so coincidentally vandalized.  Were the vandals, by any
chance, making a deliberate statement in the vandalizing?

Accusation:  Full blown physical assault, to the tune of either attempted
invasive contact or successful invasive contact.  The accuser alleged that
he was knocked unconscious during the conflagration which, according
to him, was an intense altercation.  He wasn't sure what actually happened
while he was unconscious. 

The alleged circumstance surrounding alleged assault:  Donald Sotak's
accuser alleges that the assault took place after a dinner outing.  The pur-
pose of the dinner was to talk about the young man chances of achieving
a vocation to the priesthood.  The alleged assault took place after Fr. Sotak
allegedly asked the gentleman very personal preference questions.

In review:

The accuser originally asked Sotak for vocational guidance, in the hope
to receive assistance in entering a seminary, should he finally decide to
pursue a vocation to the priesthood.  They went to dinner, to discuss
the matter.  After dinner came the alleged altercation.

Age of Accuser at the time of the alleged assault:  19, 20, or so.
____________________________________________________

The following is alleged by Fr. Donald Sotak's credible accuser:

- The alleged assault took place during the tenure of Pittsburgh dioce-
   san bishop, Vincent Leonard, in the mid 1970s.

- Sotak was immediately reported to Pittsburgh diocesan personnel,
   and the response was to quickly move Sotak to a new domicile.

- The accuser joined the Pittsburgh seminary in the 1980s, eventually
   being ordained a deacon.  Donald Wuerl was the rector of the dioce-
   san seminary at the time.  Then Wuerl was ordained a bishop.  In the
   beginning of 1988 Wuerl was assigned to Pittsburgh.

- Sotak's accuser made his way to the diaconate, one step away from
   the priesthood.  Yet, he was instructed by a vocation director that
   he was to tell people that he voluntarily delayed his ordination.
  Sotak's accuser stated that the vocation director told him that he
  was to either sign that he voluntarily delayed his ordination or
  else "they" would dig-up some excuse to have his ordination
  delayed.  Thus is described typical whistle blower retaliation.

- The accuser had a window view to the parking garage, where he
  would allegedly see Wuerl and a certain young man here and a
  certain young man there leave alone with Wuerl and later come
   back ... mostly after classes which were held at the nearby Cath-
   olic University.  That university is called Duquesne.

- A note of fact:  Donald Wuerl became an auxiliary bishop in 1986
   and was eventually sent to Seattle Washington, concerning the Hunt-
   hausen controversy.  He was next assigned to the Pittsburgh diocese
   in 1988.

- It was under Wuerl when Sotak's accuser was allegedly sent to a Phila-
  delphia clinic for a psychological assessment.  The alleged diagnosis
  was that the deacon was credible and suffering from Post Traumatic
  Stress Disorder.   Being diagnosed with PTSD augmented an accuser's
  credibility.

- The Pittsburgh diocesan personnel refused to accept the final assessment
   of the Philadelphia clinic.  They were apparently in search of an official
   sheet of paper which would state something differently about Sotak's ac-
   cuser.  So, they demanded that Sotak's accuser go for yet another psycho-
   logical assessment in St. Louis or Maryland.

- Sotak's accuser assumed that Wuerl was controlling his personnel on pup-
   pet strings and was the person who ultimately wanted an official sheet of
   paper stating something other than what was stated by the Philly clinic.
  This would mean that Wuerl was allegedly looking to play a game with
  loaded dice and a stacked deck of cards.

- It was at that point in time when Fr. Sotak's accuser departed from dio-
  cesan ministry.  Things had gotten far too Orwellian for him.  He stated
  that he literally feared that he was going to be drugged into a catatonic
  state.  He remembers his time of exit being 1994.  This was during the
  musical chairs cover-up of a Fr Edward Huff.  This was also the time
  when the Cipolla case was underway at the highest court of the Vatican.
  This was also shortly before James Torquato became Wuerl's personal
  secretary.  Incidentally, Sotak's accuser remembers Torquato at the sem-
  inary.  According to him, Torquato cow-towed to authority, as if to be
  seeking promotion points.  The actual expression used to describe Tor-
  quato was "brown noser."

- The Sotak case, being that it was allegedly covered-up from the middle
  1970's to the end of 2011, would easily qualify as Cardinal Wuerl's sixth
   simultaneous cover-up during the same year; the year being 1988.  Now,
   this was an inherited cover-up, but it can be filed with the Wolk, Zula,
   Pucci, Hoehl, and Wellinger cases.  The cases involving those priests,
   except for the Fr. Wellinger case, are outlined at:

   http://www.donaldwuerl.com.

  The Wellinger case is outlined at:
   http://www.awuerlofhurt.com/2011/11/evidence-of-5th-cover-up.html 

  As a brief review,  The Wolk, Zula, and Pucci cases were the Triple
  Cover-up.  The Hoehl case was the Hot Potato Cover-up, where he
  was placed in chaplaincy ministry in July of 1988, but was dismissed
  by Wuerl shortly after Frs. Wolk, Zula, and Pucci were indicted.  The
  Huff case is the Musical Chairs Cover-up involving the priest who was
  reported three times to Wuerl, by more than one person.  The Wellinger
  case was the one originally ignored, allegedly.

  The Torquato case was the Retaliation and Endangerment Cover-up,
  where someone could have gotten seriously injured during the initial
  phase of retaliations.  You see, Torquato terminated all the business
  accounts of his accuser's uncle, after someone enlisted that uncle to
  play role of surrogate harasser.  This means that family members of
  James Torquato's accuser feared further retaliations upon the family.
  Therefore, someone was determined to get Torquato's accuser to re-
  tract his allegations.  Torquato's accuser never retracted any allega-
  tion.  The U.S. Supreme Court documents pertaining to the Torquato
  Retaliations, among other things were docketed in Case #01-10392
  and were filed in DC in 2002.

  The appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court in the Year 2002 was another
  motive for Wuerl and Post Gazette writer Ann Rodgers to toot Wuerl's
  horn throughout the same year.  The contrived bumper sticker slogan
  that Rodgers fabricated, along with all the other horn-tooting tactics,
  was a diversionary tactic.  People who had no personnel encounters
  with Wuerl and his Pittsburgh diocese fell for the con game.  This in-
  cluded a few writers who produced zero documentation or first hand
  witnesses to support their claims of greatness in the tiny cover-up art-
  ist.  They merely mimicked Rodgers, as if to be mindless myna birds.

  The Wuerl/Rodgers con game was like the Weapons of Indiscriminate
  Destruction con game that George Bush II played in 2002 and 2003. 
  Ironically, the hoax about Wuerl being this model of zero tolerance,
  despite District Attorney John Pettit's bitter complaint about Wuerl,

  occurred at the same time.  In Bush's con game, the majority of Amer-
  icans assumed that Bush had evidence from high tech photo recons.
  In Ann Rodger's con game about Wuerl, Americans assumed that
  she had incontrovertible evidence, in terms of legal records.  How-
  ever, she allegedly knew about the Torquato retaliations years prior
  and kept it secret.  This means that she was part of the cover-up.

Additionally alleged by the accuser was that:

 - The diocese's Fr. Charles Bober, STD, sent a letter to Sotak's accus-
    er, notifying him that he would get no stipend from the diocese.  The
    accuser then had recourse to a Fr. Bob Guay, and according to him, he
    has been getting his $700 monthly stipend, even into the Year 2012.
    He stated that he didn't get a check for January 2013.  S.uch checks
    read, "For services rendered," incidentally

- The accuser also stated that the letter from the previously mentioned
  former vocation director of the Diocese of Pittsburgh sounded almost
  like a damning excommunication letter.  There was no Peace of Christ
  within it, to say the least  . . .  at least according to Sotak's accuser.

- During a meeting, diocesan personnel bragged to Sotak's accuser that 
  they had an excellent policy for handling clergy abuse victims.  Yet, they 
  said that the policy did NOT apply to Sotak's accuser, because he was a 
  deacon.  HOWEVER, the alleged assault took place when Fr. Sotak's 
  accuser was a layman - civilian - parishioner.

- Even in 2002, when Wuerl finally suspended several priests who had
   long since been attached to credible sex abuse allegations, he permit-
   ted Sotak to stay at his post.

- Years later, Sotak's accuser was interviewed by Randy Engel.  The subject
   matter was to be kept from the public, out of fear of retaliation against the
   accuser.  This is important to note, because it shows that the accusations
   against Sotak is not something recently conjured.  The accusation has been
   longstanding.  I knew of the fact that there was a Father Sotak accused of
   having assaulted a certain person, by name, for years.  Thus, these accusa-
   tions are NOT new inventions. 

- In fact, while Sotak's accuser was at another seminary, he was allegedly
  told by one of the faculty priests that Sotak alleged had other complaints
  against him.  Then, suddenly, the complaints of other young men was no
  longer in the record ... allegedly.

   We continue with the recent time line which resulted
   in the interview with Sotak's accuser, written in the 
   third person singular, as if to be a scorecard:

- Autumn 2011:  The Sandusky Scandal makes headline news.  This gives
  confidence to alleged victims and/or accusers in Pennsylvania who previ-
  ously elected to stay in the shadows, out of fear of retaliation.

- December 2011:  A communication from a Chicago individual is initiated
   with me, simply because I'm the host of the two Wuerlgate sites.

  The Chicago gentleman originally intended to report the matter to the Arch-
  bishop of Chicago, but concluded that he would probably be ignored.  He
  expressly stated, "but after reading your website I realized Wuerl has got-
  ten away with too much for anyone to listen in the Catholic church hier-
  archy."  That is to say, the hierarchy fell on deaf ears when Cardinal Wuerl
  was reported in the past.  So, the Chicago gentleman figured thatanything he
  would say would fall on deaf ears.

- December 2011 continued:  The same Chicago liaison arranges for me to
  make contact with Father Sotak's accuser.  Sotak's accuser spoke in a matter
  of fact, easy going, and fluid tone.  He volunteered observations.  At no time
  did Sotak's accuser hesitate by interjecting an "Uhmmm."  However, there was
  one point he had an elongated moment of silent, followed by saying , "I don't 
  know.  I was unconscious."   The question that triggered the moment of silence
  was, "Were you raped?"

- December 2011 continued further:  I was granted permission to make the
  account of Sotak's accuser known, provided that the name of the accuser is
  kept in confidence.  Of course, the Pittsburgh diocesan personnel know who
  he is.

- Autumn 2012:  A follow-up conversation, from the Atlantic coastline.

- January 2013: I contacted Sotak's accuser, asking him to confirm certain
   allegations make about Wuerl by others.  His accusations about Sotak did
   not vary in the least.

In addition:

- The Chicago liaison stated the following about Fr. Sotak's accuser:
  "I have always said and continue to believe that of the hundred 
   guys in seminary with me at the time, that {Sotak's accuser} 
   should of been a priest above all others."

- I concur.  Sotak's accuser would be the quintessential confessional priest.
____________________________________________________________ 

Sotak's accuser furthermore alleged/averred the following:

It seemed to him that Donald Wuerl had a new teacher's pet every se-
mester, while he was the rector of the Pittsburgh diocesan seminary.
However, none of Wuerl's pets were ever ordained, according to the
even tempered gentleman.  Sotak's accuser even saw one of Wuerl's
seminary pets leave in anger, never to return.

Now, Randy Engel did establish Wuerl's nexus with Pittsburgh's homo-
sexual world, and according to other sources, Wuerl really was called
Donna Wuerl while in the Pittsburgh area.  It is alleged that Donna is
what seminarians called him ... alleged to me.  Now, Wuerl carrying an
effeminate demeanor off camera, with stereotypical effeminate manner-
isms, was alleged by more than one person. 

Now, there were other things about Wuerl alleged to me between 1999
and 2012.  I have not made the allegations publicly known, as of yet.

While bishop of Pittsburgh, Wuerl would hold a soireé at his Warwick
Terrace manor house twice a year, where he would play host to the in-
fluential and wealthy.  Seminarians and deacons would dress in blazers,
park the cars of the influential guests and serve them hors d'oeuvres.
This means that Wuerl had men dedicated to the service of God play
the role of secular valets and waiters.  It was very worldly, to say the
least.  None the less, Wuerl would meet the influential people at the
 door, according to one of my two sources in this matter.

The bi-annual Warwick Terrace event was surmised/presumed as hav-
ing been Wuerl's way of getting the rich and powerful to protect him in
every aspect of life.  I personally witnessed how protected Wuerl was
when Fr. Torquato's accuser and I attempted to file Summary Offense
charges against Wuerl and Torquato.  Shortly after, we found ourselves
caught in the midst of the second wave of the Torquato Retaliations.
See:  http://www.donaldwuerl.com/JamesTorquato.html

According to Sotak's accuser, Wuerl would give inordinate attention to
the rich and powerful, while treating the common citizen with dismissive
elitist contempt.  That is to say, Donald Wuerl cow-towed to the powerful
in society.  I personally witnessed this Haughty Elitist Contempt Syndrome.
While it was occurring, Wuerl resembled a certain theater major at a college
I attended who was found to have been engaged in an affair with a certain
lieutenant governor's son ... NOT ofthe State of Pennsylvania, though.

Only moments prior did Wuerl remind me of a 14 year old adolescent with
jet gray hair.  In a matter of seconds, he went into the Mr. Hyde mode, in a
stone cold huffy elitist fashion, thereof.  At the time, I was trying to get him
to approve an apostolate designed to counter sweatshop labor profiteering.
Others tried the same.  Wuerl ignored us all.

David Zubik (present bishop of Pittsburgh) was involved in the Sotak
case, and Sotak's accuser alleged that Zubik expressly told him that he
regarded both "the assailed victim and the {predatory} priest as victims."

Father Sotak's accuser mentioned that a John Sweeney told him that he
"better not tell anyone" about his accusations against Sotak or the dio-
cese in general.  Now, a Master of Divinity recipient named Fr. John
Sweeney is stationed at the same parish where James Torquato was
stationed when he was reported to Wuerl in 1998.  The same Sweeney
was also stationed at Aliquippa Pennsylvania, hometown of NFL greats
Mike Ditka and Tony Dorsett.  Sotak's accuser simply stated the name
John Sweeney, and it was assumed by me that he was referring to the
Aliquippa Sweeney.  I failed to ask him to confirm if this was the same
Sweeney.

The Sandusky revelations seems to have given a number of abuse vic-
tims a sense of freedom in the State of Pennsylvania.  The sense of in-
timidation imposed upon Pennsylvania victims/accusers departed like
wheat chaff in a wind storm, as soon as the Penn State Scandal came
to the fore.

Keep in mind that the allegations about Sotak do NOT involve seduc-
tion.  Nor do they involve a closet affair.  They involve a physical at-
tack upon someone who decided to resist physically, resulting in the
attacked person going unconscious for a while.

Fr. Sotak's accuser stated that Wuerl megaphoned the Anthony Cipolla
case throughout the Western World, to conceal the various Pittsburgh
diocesan cover-ups.  He assessed that the publicity given to the Cipolla
case was Wuerl's diversionary tactic.  Sotak's accuser did NOT mention
if whether he thought that Cipolla were guilty or innocent.  He only con-
cluded that the Cipolla Case was Wuerl's publicity stunt & simultaneous
diversionary tactic.

Thus is the testimony of Father Donald Sotak's accuser.
________________________________________________________

The Diocese of Pittsburgh prevented the ordination of Sotak's credible accuser, while not allowing him to be ordained elsewhere.

 

               When Wuerl became Bishop of Pittsburgh, replacing Bishop Anthony 

              Bevilacqua, who become Archbishop of Philadelphia, he permitted 
              Dignity/Pittsburgh homosexual "Masses" to continue for eight more 
              years in not one but two parishes — St. Elizabeth in the Strip District 
             and St. Pamphilus in Beechview. According to Ann Rodgers-Melnick, 
             a besotted reporter for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, "Banning Dignity 
              was a sad moment for Wuerl."

           Under Wuerl's watch, the Pittsburgh Diocese became a stomping ground 

           for nationally-known doctrinal and moral miscreants, including Matthew 
         Fox, Raymond Brown, and howling feminists Rosemary Radford Ruether 
         and Monica Hellwig. --- Randy Engel

                http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/engel/110401#ref3

In addition, if you are unfamiliar with the accusation against the late Fr. Donald
Sotak which was formally made 25 to 28 years before his dead, the following
link will make you current: 

http://www.awuerlofhurt.com/2011/12/sotak.html

Sotak's credible accuser: Axed by Diocese of Pittsburgh via deception & bullying.

 The reason why Sotak's accuser isn't a priest is because he never obtained
the excardination procedure from the Diocese of Pittsburgh.  He did attend
a seminary in the Chicago area, incidentally.  However, he is canonically
trapped in the Diocese of Pittsburgh as an ordained deacon, and the powers-
that-be there won't give him his freedom to go to another diocese ... or to a
religious order and be ordained.

A very vicious trick was played on him during the tenure of Donald Wuerl,
illustrating another instance of pain being inflicted upon Catholics of good-
will in Pittsburgh.  He was ordained a deacon and then given a push out the
door, so that he wouldn't become a priest.  Within months of his ordination,
he was told that he was to tell everyone he encountered that he voluntarily
chose to delay his ordination.  Meanwhile, he was required to go get yet
another psychological assessment, despite the alleged fact that he already
passed one such assessment.

In light of the various allegations and even documentation, it appears that
Wuerl's policy was to keep sending someone to as many facilities as it took
for Wuerl to get on an official sheet of paper the diagnosis Wuerl was look-
ing to read.  Add to this, Wuerl's allegedly infamous temper and his repeat-
ed sleight of hand deceptions, and he is the opposite of the "holy, holy, holy
man that a woman who looked frighteningly familiar said in front of a local
news camera.   This doesn't even include the allegations involving any ele-
ment of Wuerl's private life ... even the circumstantial evidence part of it.

The protocol for excardination is described in the web page linked below:

http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/vocations/diaconate/protocol-for-the-incardination-excardination-of-deacons.cfm

The individual who arranged for me to interview Sotak's accuser stated
that, of all the seminarians he encountered in his life, Sotak's accuser was
the one most suitable for the priesthood.  I quickly learned why.

Sotak's accuser had a specific type of peaceful temperament that one
rarely encounters today.  He was even-keeled in an exceptional way.
He did not flare-off in anger, despite the evils he had to endure at the
hands of Pittsburgh diocesan authorities.  Nor did he flare-off in any
type of theatrics during the interview.

In fact, Sotak's accuser was the opposite of the annoying charismatic
priests who would say, "Praise God" after every sentence you would
speak.  He would allow that extra moment of silence before volunteer-
ing more information, followed by him letting you absorb what he said.
His personality made for the ultimate confessional priest.  There was
a sense of spacious peacefulness coming from him.  The church needs
this type of person in the priesthood.  Donald Wuerl prevented this
from happening, reminiscent of Michael Rose's book, Goodbye to
Good Men.

There was no doubt that Sotak's accuser belonged in the priesthood.
Wuerl, in refusing to let Sotak's accuser go through the ordination pro-
cess without traumatic game playing did the church a great disservice.

To think, Torquato the homosexual and vicious retaliator got ordained
by Wuerl.  Sotak's accuser did not.  The church suffered a great loss
when Sotak's accuser was stonewalled into leaving the diaconate.
Therefore, someone with a conscience should see to it that Sotak's
accuser returns to a seminary and finally gets ordained, despite his
age which isn't paramount in any topic of consideration.  The church
needs a man like him more now than ever.

Always remember this:  Wuerl choose Torquato over Sotak's accuser.
That was one sick joke.  Also remember that Wuerl allegedly sought
to deprive Sotak's accuser of his stipend money.
================================================

Corroboration found in the testimony of Sotak's Accuser.

I stated over a year ago that the accuser of Fr. Donald 'Knock Out Punch'
Sotak was credible.  A corroborative witness recently confirmed my assess-
ment.  This applies to the allegation that Donald Wuerl seemed to have had
a new pet every semester at the Pittsburgh/Crafton seminary (while he was
rector there.)  Each of whom would only last one semester at the seminary.
Well, the name and whereabouts of one Donald Wuerl's one-semester pets  
was located.  He turned out to be an honorable guy who left because he
could NOT stand Wuerl.

Of course, his name will be kept in confidence, as will his whereabouts.
What is important is that this individual was described as having been a
very talented individual, endowed with a storehouse of potential.  This
individual did pursue the priesthood and was ordained elsewhere.

This small piece of info sheds added light on the Donald Wuerl who made
his way to the higher ranks of the church, only because of cronyism.  It al-
so shows that Sotak's accuser was quite accurate in the things he confided
to me.  He ... the credible accuser ... should finally be ordained a priest, but
the Diocese of Pittsburgh won't excardinate him ... put him on waivers and
make him a free man.  That which Donald Wuerl and Wuerl's hench crew
did to Sotak's accuser was unconscionable.

Now, there are a number of things about Wuerl not yet made public.  Be
patient.  Things have to first transpire, in order for those things to be made
publicly known.  None the less, there are bits of pieces of info about Wuerl
which haven't been made publicly known and which haven't been placed in
the proverbial file of confidentiality.

All things kept in confidence for now are done so out of a polite gentleman's
agreement/pledge.  Of course, the identity of those to whom the gentlemanly
agreement was pledged is also confidential.  None the less, you don't throw
out names arbitrarily.  Sometimes, you have to keep the names involved in a
serious matter protected.  Sometimes, you have to save your musical notes.

For the purpose of this article, this brief note simply adds to the credibility of
Sotak's accuser.  Refusing to excardinate him to a religious order or another di-
ocses is a disservice to the church.  The church needs men like him to be priests.
It needed people like Wuerl to have never been ordained, in the first place.  If
the flamingly effeminate Donald Wuerl were never ordained, a lot of  individu-
als would have been spared a lot of trauma and even a rupturing of their faith,
caused by their trusting of the Scorpion Sting Cardinal, Donald 'Dignity Mass'
Wuerl ... otherwise known as Wuerl the Girl.

The only thing that Wuerl was ever proficent at doing was causing pain.  He is
certainly no Shakespeare, no Francis de Sales, no Thomas Merton, no Thomas
Aquinas, and no Dr. Tom Dooley.  He really is quite a sophomoric writer.

The aforemention was stated by someone (me) who  1} was published along
side a number of laureates,  2} had writings placed on display in a humble sized
British museum,  3} was requested to freely give his copyright privileges more
than once,  4} was taught by a member of JFK's economic advisory committee,
5}was inducted into what used to be called the National Languages Honors So-
ciety,  6} and who even scored a 100% on a national standardized accounting
exam issued by an Ivy League School.  In as much, the person with the afore-
mentioned credentials finds Wuerl's writing capability, as best, sophomoric
banality.  There is no vision conveyed therein.  Wuerl's writings are one-way
tickets on the  Dullsville Express, to say the least.

You would do better reading Communion with God, by Mary Immaculata Tur-
ley, or Seeds of Contemplation, by Thomas Merton, or texts by Saint Louis of
Montfort.  There is also Saint Ambrose, the Little Flower, or a number of other
writers who outshine the flamingly effeminate Donald Wuerl, squared & cubed.
Then there is Basil Pennington's writings.  I met him by accident.  He carried the
Trappist spirit with him. 

Incidentally, no great theologian of intense spiritual epicness writes, "This is a giv-
en,"as Wuerl once did.  The only given in theology and epic spirituality is Being
and Not Being.  That's it.  Explaining the rest requires a Catherine of Siena, an
Alphonsus Liguori, an Ignatius of Antioch, a Pius IX, a Pius X, a Teresa of Avila,
etc.  Such a task has not been not done by a Donald 'Dignity Mass' Wuerl.

In conclusion, the credibility level of Sotak's accuser went upward a few notches.
________________________________________________________________

The McCandless Twp Police Presence in the Suppressed Vincentian Revelations and the Torquato Retaliations

Another allegation surfaced last winter (2011/12), concerning the Diocese
of Pittsburgh when under Donald Wuerls' watch.  It involves an employee
of the Diocese of Pittsburgh accused of sexual misconduct.  This allegation
involved a Catholic school teacher and Vincentian High School, along with
the same McCandless Township Police Dept which was involved in the se-
cond wave of the Torquato Retaliations.  Deja vu, boys and gargoyles.

Concerning the second phase of Torquato's retaliations, the McCandless
Twp Police were either dupes of or willing accomplices to the Diocese of
Pittsburgh.  However, concerning the accusation made publicly known in
the Winter of 2011-12, the same police department allegedly obstructed
justice, even though such obstruction constituted a summary offense, as
opposed to a misdemeanor or felony.  However, it also constituted a civil
rights violation, none the less, against the young lady.

The alleged molestations took place for a five month period, in 1994.
Then, after the graduation of the accuser, she gathered the courage to
report the teacher to the police.  Her reporting fell on deaf ears.  The
accuser recently told a news reporter that the McCandless Township
Police Department responded by calling her grandmother and saying,
“We really don't believe that it would be a good idea to proceed 
forward with this.  You have to understand that this would have 
devastating consequences for your granddaughter.”

Not withstanding the fact that this statement sounded like either a father-
ly warning or a surrogate threat, the inactivity of the McCandless Police
Department constituted a violation of the Child Protective Services Act
which required all "mandated reporters" to report all sexual abuse accu-
sations to Child Youth Services.  Regarding this law, if the police are
not mandated reporters, then no one is.  See:

 http://www.wpxi.com/news/29909042/detail.html 

The Credibility Factor of the Newly Emerged Accusations

The Vincentian High School allegations are entirely consistent with the
Pittsburgh diocese's track record, especially in that the McCandless
Twp police were mentioned.  I'm a witness to the McCandless Police
mode of operation, and they stonewalled me, when I asked them who
the individual was who accused Torquato's accuser of a State Park
rental that never occurred, being that Torquato's accuser was at work
at the time in question.  The same police stonewalled the both of us
when we demanded to see this driver's license that the police claimed
was given to the rental shop employee/owner.   Someone lied to the
police, yet he was never prosecuted.  No one investigated the abuse
of process, in accusing a priest's accuser of a theft that was physiolo-
gically impossible to have occurred.  Plus, the police never produced 
the driver's license.  It there were the existence of such a license, it
should have been given back to its proper owner.

Being that the local Pittsburgh media cosmetized Wuerl's image into that
of a dragon-fighting Beowulf, anyone with wisdom could see that some-
thing was wrong with the picture being presented to the public during the
time it was being presented.  The presentation was during the very year
when the sex abuse crisis went from coast to coast in a number of con-
tinents.  Someone should have realized that Wuerl was hiding something
incriminating about himself, in the diversionary tactic.  The Beowulf tales
of Wuerl merely prevented his evils from going center stage.  SNAP
made note of Wuerl's deceptive image years after the fact.

The cover-up list attributed to the Diocese of Pittsburgh during Wuerl's
despotic tenure include the names Wolk, Zula, Pucci, Hoehl, Huff, and
Torquato, as well as an unnamed Vincentian teacher in allegations there-
of, allegedly Donald Sotak, and allegedly the John Wellinger whose name
did appear on a class action lawsuit, on account of a second accuser.

The Fr. Krawczyk who was arrested on account of the sudden death of a
Pitt football player in a Pittsburgh diocesan church was previously reported
to diocesan authorities for conduct unbecoming a priest.  This means that
Donald Wuerl was not clueless about him.  Incidentally, Krawczyk plead-
ed guilty to Involuntary Manslaughter and did not spend any time in prison.

Wuerl spent too much time promoting himself, all the while neglecting the
flock of Christ who, as you can see, has long-since scattered about, some-
times in bitterness, at other times in residual shock, and yet at other times in
a disheveled chagrin.  The church is in urgent need of bishops who can feel
other people's pain, instead of those, such as the tiny statured Donald Wuerl
and the ruthless Angelo Sodano, who cause others pain that requires one to
have the spiritual status of sainthood to endure. 
____________________________________________________________

Either the Pittsburgh diocesan spokesman lied or Wellinger's secretary lied.

Below is the entire transcript of the tape-recorded interview of a former
secretary of John Wellinger's former parish.  She went out of her way to 
alert the Diocese of Pittsburgh about the suspicious conduct of the late 
diocesan priest.  The pivotal factor of this interview is that the secretary 
alleged that she informed the official Pittsburgh diocesan spokesman, 
Ron Lengwin, about Father Wellinger in the late 1980s.  Lengwin pub-
licly stated that Wellinger was not reported to the diocese until 1995.  
This means that someone is lying about Wellinger; either the secretary 
or Lengwin.   

For the record, since 1999, I have never heard anything honorable about 
the very tall Ron Lengwin, by any of my sources.  He was repeatedly al-
leged to be Donald Wuerl's attacking pit bull.  A bully ... allegedly.

The transcript is preceded by an introduction, written the Mike Ference 
who is no stranger to diocesan intimidation tactics ... allegedly.  In the
Ference case, the Ferences had the right to know the motivating force
behind Bobby Butler pulling the trigger of a lethal weapon twice on a 
school bus of unarmed teenagers.  Add to the Serra Catholic equation, 
previously accused Kenneth Ghastin who was assigned there during
the shooting and the accused Michael LeDoux who would be assigned 
to Serra after the Adam Ference shooting.  There is something of sub-
stance in the Ference case, in as far as goes the motivating force in
sweeping the entire matter under a carpet.

Incidentally, all that is posted herein is presented to you as 'alleged'  as 
to the contents.  Now for guest writer Mike Ference and his intro:

________________________________________________________

This is part of a taped interview with Marta P******* which I had got-
ten transcribed.  It's her describing her attempts to inform the Pittsburgh 
diocese of possible sexual abuse, along with drug and alcohol abuse, di-
rected toward Pittsburgh-area youths by late Catholic priest, Father John 
Wellinger.   For a description of Father John Wellinger’s alleged crimes 
visit either www.bishopaccountability.org or www.post-gazette.com.

At least one alleged victim of John Wellinger credits my (Mike Ference's) 

years of investigation as helping to force the Pittsburgh Diocese to settle 
out of court with 31 other alleged victims of clergy abuse.   He's Chris 
Mathews, and if you would like to contact Chris, let me know and I'll 
pass your phone number or email address to him.

The Diocese of Pittsburgh could have prevented some tragedy, perhaps.

If the Pittsburgh Diocese had done the prudent thing, instead of adopting the
policy of disregarding people, Chris Mathews wouldn't have been sexually 
abused by John Wellinger, as was alleged.   Bobby Butler, Jr. may not have 
attempted to murder my son.  As importantly, Bobby may still be alive to-
today also, depending if he too were molested by Wellinger.  However, the
Pittsburgh diocese didn't seem to care.

Editor's Note:  Keep in mind that, during the deposition of a Clairton law
enforcement man, the Ference attorney asked him if he new anything about
John Wellinger molesting youth in the Clairton area.  The diocesan attorney
then banged on the table and starting employing intimidating speech which
under oath.  This makes the Diocese of Pittsburgh (under Donald Wuerl at

the time) look extremely suspicious.   Back to guest writer, Mike Ference: 

Had the Diocese of Pittsburgh done the prudent thing, then John Wellinger’s

alleged lover, laicized Catholic priest, Richard Dorsch, may have been halt-
ed before he began to sexually abuse youth.  Even Archbishop Bevilacqua 
may have been prevented from causing so much pain and agony in the Phil-
adelphia Archdiocese, as was described in the scathing report of the grand
jury investigation that transpired through the Philadelphia District Attorney’s 
office.   

Respectfully, Mike Ference

______________________________________________________________

Beginning of interview

Mike: And I’m talking to Marta P******* (Mike then spelled her full name), 
           is that correct?

Marta: Right.

Mike: Your telephone number is 412-***-****.   What is your mother’s maid-
           en name, if I may ask?

Marta:  And you need this?

Mike:  I just wanted to identify, again if some one says “How do we know 
            we’re talking to Marta?”  You know what I mean, if that’s okay with 
            you?   If not, that’s okay.  You do not have to give that.

Marta: No, I don’t.   No.

Mike: You’d rather not give that?

Marta: No.

Mike: Ok, that’s fine.  That’s fine.

Marta: I mean, I am in the church year book, if you were to need anything 
            else.

Mike: Okay.

Mike: You are a resident of West Mifflin, is that correct?

Marta: Right.

Mike: You have been a member of the Holy Spirit Church for some time now, 
           for a number of years, since at least 1980 or 81?

Marta: Since 1968.

Mike: 1968! Oh my goodness.  Okay.

Mike: At the time a Priest by the name of (John Wellinger) came there, you 
          had a position with the church if I am not mistaken.  What position was 
          this?

Marta: I was the Parish secretary.

Mike: Was this a fulltime or part-time position?

Marta: It was part-time.

Mike: If I am not mistaken, you became suspicious of John Wellinger based 
           upon a couple of things that were occurring.  Is that correct?

Marta: Well, yeah.  I had a feeling that there was something not right. 

Mike: You were also told about a possible assault on a young boy by the 
           name of (*********).  Is that correct?

Marta: I wouldn’t say assault. 

Mike: Okay

Marta: What was told to me was that, he had given, I guess, liquor and 
            drugs to this young man, and was taken to the hospital. 

Mike: Right, okay.  And that Hospital was Shadyside Hospital, if I am 
           not mistaken.  Is that correct?

Marta: I am not sure. 

Mike: Okay.  And this would have happened? Do you think this happened 
           sometime in 1987?

Marta: Yeah, I guess so. 

Mike: Okay, so this happened in 1987.  You are also aware of the alleg-
           ed abuse that took place with a young boy by the name of (Chris 
           Mathews) sometime in 1989.  Is that correct?

Marta: Only that, I knew about it when it was in the paper.

Mike: When it was publicized.  Okay, it was publicized in 2003, or some-
           thing like that. 

Mike: The (*********) boy, I believe his first name is (****)?

Marta: Right. 

Mike: Okay.  At the time, he would have been about sixteen (16) years of 
           age, do you think?

Marta: Yeah, maybe fifteen (15) or sixteen (16).

Mike: Okay.

Mike: You can be relatively sure that he was under the age of eighteen (18)?

Marta: Yeah.

Mike: (**** *********’s) mother would have been (**** *********), 
            correct?

Marta: Yes.  

Mike: She also worked for the church, or (John Wellinger) at that time, is 
           that correct?

Marta: Yes.  She was the CCD coordinator.

Mike: So, she was often around the church, and often either with John 
          Wellinger or performing church duties.  Things like that.  Is that 
           correct?

Marta: Yeah. 

Mike: Am I permitted to ask you who told you about (****’s) incident?  
           I believe initially you may have said so.  Did you say it was (****
           *********) who told you this happened? 

Marta: No.

Mike: Okay, I am sorry. 

Marta: It wasn’t her.  You know, I can’t remember who told me.

Mike: Okay.

Marta: I kinda think it may have been (Michelle ********). 

Mike: She was the organist?

Marta: Right.

Mike: Okay.

Marta: But, I am not sure.

Mike: Okay.

Mike: Put it this way.  There were several people who were well aware 
           of this.

Marta: Yeah.

Mike: Okay, Okay.

Mike: So, again, we are proceeding with the assumption that John Well-
           inger may have given drugs and alcohol to a boy by the name of 
          (**** *********) sometime in the year of 1987.  The boy was 
          certainly under the age of eighteen (18), and was a minor to the 
          best of your recollection.

Marta: Right.

Mike: Okay.  Now, you also told me during the conversation we had,
           I believe back in August, that you had gone to the Pittsburgh 
           Catholic Diocese to talk about some of your concerns about 
           John Wellinger.  Is that correct?

Marta: That is correct. 

Mike: Would you say that you did that some time in the year 1988.

Marta: Yeah, I think so.  Although, this was before I resigned.

Mike: So this was before you resigned.  Do you know when you re-
           signed your duties from the church?

Marta: No.  I would have to look at my records. 

Mike: Do you have any idea when it might have been?

Marta: Um, It was probably in 1988 or 1989.

Mike: If it were 1989, do you have any idea about what month or any-
           thing like that?

Marta: That I resigned?

Mike: Yeah.

Marta: It may have been like late summer.

Mike: Late Summer of 1988 or 1989. Okay.

Mike: Is there any way you could double check this to see?

Marta: Yeah, If I am thinking if I still have my pay records or not.  Then 
            I could look that up. 

Mike: Okay, very good. 

Mike: So, you proceeded to go to the Pittsburgh Catholic Diocese.  Any 
           idea who you might have met with at the diocese?

Marta: I don’t remember.  I am thinking it was (Ron Lengwin) but I am 
            not sure.

Mike: You are not one hundred (100) percent sure?

Marta: No.

Mike: Okay.  Well let me ask you this.  To get a time frame on this, was 
           Bishop Bevilacqua that bishop at the time?

Marta: Yes, he was.

Mike: So, this was before Donald Wuerl?

Marta: Yes.

Mike: How do you know Bishop Bevilacqua was the bishop?  Is there 
           anything that you can say for sure other than “you know what, 
           I knew that when I went down there Bishop Bevilacqua was the 
           bishop, simply because he was the bishop”.  Maybe that is suf-
           ficient. 

Marta: Umm, Yeah. 

Mike: Okay.  We could probably re-establish these dates, if we wanted to.

Mike: So, you met with a gentleman who you think may have been Fr Ron 
           Lengwin).  Do you recall some of the things you told him. 

Marta: Umm, Yeah. 

Mike: And, what were they?

Mike: I think, if I am not mistaken, you mentioned that there was a young 
           boy living at the rectory at the time?

Marta: Right.
Mike:  Did you tell that to Father Lengwin?

Marta: Yes.
Mike:  Do you recall what else you told to Father (Lengwin)?
Marta: Oh. Probably that a young couple spent the night at the rectory.
           They were trying to sneak out the next morning, and I just hap-
           pen to come by the stairs when they were trying to get out.
Mike: When you say young couple, do you mean young boy and girl?
Marta: I would say in their early twenties. They were friends of his.
Mike:  Do you know who they were?
Marta: No.
Mike:  Was that the type of behavior you might have experienced or at
            least heard about on a regular basis, or was this something new?
Marta: As far as the young couple, this only happened the one time that
           I am aware of.
Mike:  Okay
Marta: I did tell Father (Wellinger) that I saw them there, and He said it
            was only a few friends of his that stayed there.
Mike:  Okay.   You felt there was much more to it than just people staying
            overnight.
Marta: Well, I don’t know. I did not think it was proper for them to stay all
            night at the rectory, and then try to sneak out.
 Mike:  Okay.
 Marta: If they had been proper guests there, then why would they be
             hiding? Why wouldn't they just come out in the open?
Mike:  What makes you think they were actually sneaking out?
Marta: Because, there were people in the dining room.  That is where
            we would meet to have our staff meetings, and I came to my
            office through the living room to the dining room.  In that hall
            between the rooms is the stairs . As I came around the bend, the
            two were coming down the steps. They were trying to be real quiet.
Mike:  Do they know that you saw them?
Marta: Yeah.
Mike:  You were startled, and they were probably startled, I guess.  They
           were also kind of embarrassed, too?  I am guessing.   And then they
           just kind of …
Marta: ... left
Mike:  They shuffled out without saying hello, goodbye, or anything?
Marta: Yeah.
Mike:  Now, what did Father (Lengwin) say about this?
Marta: You know, I really do not recall.  I think he was just trying to write
            things down, not really making any comments about it.
Mike:  And you also told him about the young fellow that was living there
           for a time.   Do you have any idea on about who he was, or how old
           he was?
Marta: I do not know who he was.  I would say he could have been around
            seventeen or eighteen.
Mike:  Okay.
Marta: The only reason I knew, because I did not realize there was anybody
            up there, was the telephone bill came in, and I questioned Father
          (Wellinger) about it.   It was a big, long list.  I called the telephone
            company about this one number, but I am not sure what number it
            was.
Mike:  Was it like a 900 number, or something similar?
Marta: Yeah.
Mike:  Okay.
Marta: This is the only way I knew, and he said “Oh, that’s ( ).”  I am not
            certain of what name he gave.  He then said “he has been staying up
            there, and that would be him.  In fact, I think (Maria C******) hap-
            pened to pick up the phone, and heard him on the phone.”  Although,
            nothing was apparently ever said or done, because we got the tele-
            phone bill listing all those calls.
Mike:  So you told Father (Lengwin) about the boy living up there.   Was
            there any reaction from Father (Lengwin)?
Marta: Not that I can recall.
Mike:  After, was there anything else that you may have told Father (Lengwin)?
Marta: Umm, I am trying to think. 
Mike:  Did you tell him about the (W********) boy?
Marta: I don’t think I knew that at the time.
Mike: To make along story short, or to paraphrase it, you went to Father
          (Lengwin) with concerns about John (Wellinger) because of inap-
           propriate behavior.  Did you think at the time that it could have
           been some type of sexual behavior that may not have been accep-
           table for a Priest?
Marta: No, not at that time.
Mike:  No,  OK.  Not at that time.   Basically, you were reporting behavior
            that in your mind was suspicious.
Marta: Right.
Mike:  OK
Mike:  Now, so you left the diocese.   How did the diocese react to your
            concerns?
Marta: Well, they ... um ... Let’s see:  I know that I had put another call in
            to them, or they called me.  I can’t remember.
Mike:  That’s OK
Marta: They said it sounds like people inform you of things, and they made
            me feel like I was a busybody or something.
Mike:  Like you were sticking your nose into somebody else’s business
           where it did not belong, maybe?
Marta: Because people would tell me things.   I was they’re secretary, and
            people would tell me things.  I don’t know.  They would express
            concerns or thoughts.
Mike:  So, people would come to you because they had confidence in you.
            Probably also because of the fact that maybe you had been privy to
            something, and maybe they felt like they were helping in some way
            by putting some of the pieces together by giving you additional in-
            formation?
Marta: Or they were curious and wanted to know.
Mike:  They may have come to you and said, what do you think?  And
            people were coming to you about his behavior, showing concern.
           As a result of this, you went to whom we think is Father (Lengwin)
           and, said, "Hey, I’m not sure if anything is going on, but here is what
           we have so far.
Marta: Right.
Mike:  Father (Lengwin) or whomever you spoke with, said “quit being such
           a busybody, and mind your own business.”  Now, did they send you
           any type of a letter or anything at all?
Marta: Oh, yes.   They sent me a letter, and asked me if they questioned
          (Wellinger) about anything that I said, would I want my name
            mentioned?
Mike:  Okay.
Marta: I said no, because I think at that time I was still working.
Mike:  Okay, you were still working.
Marta: Right.
Mike:  Did they state anything else in that letter that you can recall?
            By the way, do you still have that letter?
Marta: I don’t know. I would have to look.
Mike:  Okay, you would have to look.  Do you recall anything else in that
            letter that may have been stated, or who the letter may have come
            from?
Marta: I know it came from the diocese.
Mike:  Okay.  Have you ever told anybody else about this, such as law en-
            forcement officials or anybody else that may have been able to help
            in this situation?  I think you did as much as you could with as much
            information as you had.  Is that a reasonable assumption on my part?
            I mean, you don’t have the authority to arrest anybody.    For you to
            question (Wellinger), that really doesn’t do any good, although you
            may have questioned him, or put him on the spot at times. 
Marta: Right.
Mike:  That doesn’t mean he’s going to tell you the truth or anything like that.
Marta: Yeah, I know.
Mike:  Did you ever talk to anybody else about this that may have been in a
           position to get some things done?
Marta: I’m not sure.   At one time, I think I did talk to one of the parish
            council members.
Mike:  And who would that have been?
Marta: That would have been (Rick M**********), but it would not have
            been about this.  It would have been more about how the money was
            being used.
Mike:  I see.
Marta: This would have involved with the parish share money.
Mike:  Okay.   Now when you are talking about money, are you talking about
            inappropriate expenditures in any way, or question about where some
            of the money was?  Was it something like that?
Marta: Well, yeah.  The parish share money wasn’t necessarily going to that.
             I didn’t know where it was going, you know.
Mike:  Okay.   Did anybody ever look into that?
Marta: I don’t think so.
Mike:  Okay.
Marta: You know. Nothing ever came back to me.
Mike:   Okay.  And what was that gentleman’s name again that was on the
             parish council?
Marta: That was (Rick Manischevic).
Mike:   Is he still a member of the parish council?
Marta: No.
Mike:   Okay.  Is he still involved in the church in any way?
Marta: yes. I believe he trains the ultra service.
Mike:  Were there any people who may have covered for John (Wellinger)
            if he did anything wrong that the church?
Marta: Oh, sure.
Mike:  Who do you think some of those people might have been?
Marta: Well, (Marie Capana), would have been one.
Mike:  Okay.
Marta: (Marina C*******) I think too, and there may be one more,
            although I’m not sure.
Mike:  Okay. Mike: Do you mean (Marina Cataro)?
Marta: Yes.
Mike:  I tried talking to her, and she wouldn’t talk to me.
Marta: No, she wouldn’t.
Mike:  Do you think she may know something?
Marta: I am sure, yes, she would know something.   I am sure somebody
            would have said something to her.
Mike:   Okay. Did you ever discuss anything like this with (Gretchen
            W*****)?
Marta: Yes.
Mike:   She is the sister of mercy, I believe?
Marta: Right. Mike: I think (Gretchen W*****) had some suspicions con-
            cerning (Wellinger)?
Marta: Oh Yeah.
Mike:  Do you know if she ever went someone at the diocese to say, "Hey,
           something is amiss here?"
Marta: I don’t know that.  I kind of think not, but I don’t know.
Mike:  Okay.  Any idea what she may have known?
Marta: Umm, Well...
Mike:  Did she know about the (W********) boy?
Marta: I believe she did.
Mike:  Okay.
Marta: All I remember her telling him was that she was not going to fight
            his demons.  That’s all I can remember.
Mike:  I see.  I’m trying to think if there’s anything else.  Somewhere around
           1988 or 1989, you resigned as the parish secretary, but you still stayed
           on as a member.  No one was going to keep you out of a church you be-
           long to and helped build, and all that kind of stuff.  Somewhere around
           1991 is when (Wellinger) left, is that correct?
Marta: I believe so.
Mike:  Do you remember anything surrounding when he left?  Usually when
            a priest leaves, there is some type of formal announcement like in a
            month I’ll be leaving.   Do you recall anything like this with ...
          (Wellinger)?
Marta: No, I don’t recall that.  All I recall at that time is that Bishop (Boal)
            came to our church or some type of function, maybe for confirmation,
            although I am not sure, and within like two weeks (Wellinger) was
            gone.   I just thought, well, somebody with some type of clout may
            have sent the bishop here.
Mike:  Okay, but you’re not completely sure.
Marta: No.
Mike:  You do, however, know where he stayed when he left Holy Spirit
           Church.
Marta: Right. Mike: Where did he stay?  I think he first went to Allentown.
Mike:  But you said ...
Marta: I think he did stay with … but then he went to Allentown as a priest.
Mike:  Okay.
Marta: After that, I think he went to St. Francis with Father (Dorsch).
Mike:  When you say he went to Allentown, he left Holy Spirit Church
            abruptly?
Marta: Yes.
Mike:  And, was immediately assigned to a church in Allentown?
           Was that the way it went?
Marta: Yes.
Mike:  If I’m not mistaken, Allentown may be a separate borough,
            but it is also part of Pittsburgh, near Carrick and that area.
Marta: Right.
Mike:  And then from there, he may have stayed just for a short time.
           Now, how do you know?  Did he just go down to St. Francis on
           his own, or was he like an assistant pastor there?   Do you have
           any idea?
Marta: I don’t’ know.  I think he was just staying there.  I got a copy of
            a letter that he wrote, although I’m not sure where I got to copy
            from or who I got the copy from, to some friends.   In his letter
            he was just complaining about what he had been through over the
            past year or so.  It was written on stationery from St. Francis.
Mike:  Okay.  The reason why you are familiar with St. Francis, which is
            the Church in the McKees Rocks area, you were a parishioner there
            at one time?
Marta: Right.
Mike:  So you’re very familiar.  You are assuming that, if you received a
            letter or saw a letter from St Francis, he had some connection there?
            That’s where he was staying there as a result, or did he mention in
            the letter that he was staying there?
Marta: I believe he did mention it
Mike:  Okay. He wouldn’t have sent a copy of that letter to you right?
Marta: Oh no.
Mike:  Any idea who he sent that letter to?
Marta: I’m not sure. It might’ve been Marina or it could have been ... I really
           don’t know.
Mike:  Okay
Marta: All I know is that it was a copy.  Somebody had made a copy of
           the letter.
Mike:  Okay.  So we are assuming that, from this letter, he stayed with
            Father (Dorsch) at St. Francis in McKees Rocks.  Father (Dorsch)
            was the head pastor there for some time.
Marta: Right.
Mike:  This would’ve been around 1991 maybe 1992 correct?
 Marta: I think so
Mike:  Are you aware that Father (Dorsch) was eventually convicted of
           sexual abuse?
Marta: I am aware now yes. I was unaware of it then.
Mike:  Do you know who made you aware of that?
Marta: I believe you did. Mike: Okay.
Mike:  Do you know if Father (Dorsch) was a regular visitor from time to
            time with John (Wellinger)?
Marta: Yeah, I think he did visit sometimes.
Mike:  Okay.  Did he ever mention where he met Father (Dorsch)?
Marta: No.
Mike:  No, okay.  At this point, is there anything you would like to add 
            to our conversation that you can think of?
Marta: I don’t know.   I just know that I did not have a good feeling from
            the time he came there, and when he was instilled as pastor, I re-
            member him mentioning that I think he came from Clairton to
            Holy Spirit.
Mike:  Right
Marta: He also mentioned that his friends gave him different gifts, and
            some more drugs.
Mike:  He indicated that his friends had given him drugs as a kind of
           going away gift?
Marta: Yeah
Mike:  He didn’t mention that those friends were?
Marta: No, Just that they were friends from Clairton.
Mike:  Do you think he was serious?
Marta: Well yeah.
Mike:  In other words he talked about this in such a fashion, that if I were
            to say to you even though I don’t know you that well,  “Oh. I just
            left my old job, and those folks were kind enough, they gave me a
            bottle of wine, they gave me watch,” it was that carefree?
Marta: Yeah
Mike:  And the way I describe it to you, it’s even believable, so that even
           though he is … ?  For someone of our age, for someone to say, "Oh
           they gave me drugs, …"
Marta: I don’t think he said drugs, I think he said goodies from my runner.
Mike:  So he even describe it is marijuana?
Marta: Yes
Mike:  So he didn’t leave it as drugs, he said marijuana?
Marta: Right
Mike:  Do you think he abused drugs on a regular basis, or some type of
            basis?
Marta: Alcohol, as far as I know.
Mike:  What do you think his relationship was with Maria (C******)?
Marta: Well, I don’t know. I guess I always thought they were a twosome.
             I mean, she practically lived there.
Mike: Okay
Marta: I believe there was another woman, although I cant’ remember her
            name.
Mike: Was it Virginia (Voytech)?
Marta: Yes, She always hung around there too.  She was a nurse.  She would
            come to the rectory, and stay there all day.
Mike: Okay
Marta:She was also there sometimes after I left.
Mike:  Just a few more things.  You knew (Marinell), which was
          (Wellinger’s) sister?
Marta: Yeah.
 Mike:  And that’s where complete name Marinell?
Marta: M-A-R-I-N-E-L-L, that’s it.
Mike:  Do you recall an outburst, or know anything about a public out-
            burst, in the church after or during Mass by I believe it was Bob
          (W********)?
Marta: That wasn’t in the church, it was in the parking lot.
Mike: Okay Who was this outburst aimed at, (Wellinger) himself?
Marta: Oh yeah.
Mike: Okay. Were there people around, who could’ve heard this?
Marta: Oh yes, we were having a staff meeting that morning.
Mike: Okay.
Marta: And his wife, Ann, was of course at the staff meeting.
Mike: Okay
Marta: And he was yelling.  As a matter of fact, he came into the
            rectory, grabbed her, and pulled her out.  He had been drink-
            ing.  I think he may have had a gun, or someone mentioned
            that he had a gun.
Mike:  Okay
Marta: I think it was Maria or someone who took (Wellinger) out the
            back door.
Mike:  Okay
Marta: And then they said that we should leave too.
Mike:  Okay, did Bob (W********) explain to anybody what was going
            on?  Why he was angry, why he had a gun, or why he wanted to
            talk to (Wellinger)?
Marta: No, except I guess that Ann was kind of taken with him. I don’t
           know.
Mike: Okay.
Marta: I guess they would like to have lunch together, or do things
            together.
Mike:  Was this before or after his son ended up in Shadyside hospital?
Marta: I think it was after.
Mike:  So, if it was after, he was also angry because of what happened
            to his son, and angry because his wife was still involved with
          (Wellinger).
Marta: Right.
Mike:  It seems to me that one of the things that (Wellinger) used was
           women to help disguise his other bad habits.
Marta: Right.
Mike:  I would go so far as to say that, if I were a betting man and I’m
           not sure which way I would bet if someone were to say to me.
           Do you think John (Wellinger) and Ann (*********) had an
           affair?  I would not know which way to bet, but even if you
           flipped a coin, you could win. Is that a fair way of analyzing
           that situation?
Marta: Well for some reason, I just never thought of it that way.
             I thought it was more on her part than on his.
Mike:  Okay.  So she was truly infatuated with him much like Virginia
          (V*****)?
Marta: No.  It was more like Maria.
Mike:  So these women were infatuated with him, and John (Wellinger)
           knew how to use that?
Marta: Yeah.
Mike:  This included selecting **** ********* as a victim, given he
            knew he had an edge.  This may have helped him in some way.
Marta: I don’t know.
Mike:  I, myself, can’t think like a pedophile.  But, I’m guessing that
           this may have played a role.
Mike: Is there anything else you would like to add?
Marta: No not that I can think of.
Mike: When Bob ********* had this outburst, was Marinell there?
Marta: Oh.   No, I was still working there.
Mike: So, Marinell replaced you?
Marta: Yes.
Mike: Okay very good.   When Bob ********* had this outburst, even
           though he didn’t say anything about his son being hospitalized,
           you’re saying that everyone knew, at that point, what was going
           on?
Marta: Yeah, it had kind of gone around, you know.
Mike:  Is it fair to say that it may be? ... Let’s say there are a thousand
            people who are members of the Holy Spirit Church.   It would
            be real easy to say that for 50 of those parishioners, the (Wellin-
            ger) gossip and scandal may have been common knowledge.
Marta: Right.
Mike:  And the reason I asked that question is because I talked to Frank,
            the former police chief, who told me that his neighbor said this
            was all common knowledge.
Marta: Yeah.
Mike:  That he was sex idiot?
Marta: There could have been.  Like I said, I don’t think I heard anything
            else other than what I told you.
Mike:  Right
Marta: If Frank knew, I’m not sure where he lived.  Jim Matthews also
            knew of this stuff at the time.
Mike:  He was also a police officer.
Marta: Right.
Mike:  Frank (Defazio)? Frank (DeFazio) was the chief of police at the
            time, but he tells me he didn’t know anything.
Marta: Okay
Mike:  I can tell you this much, or do you think he is not necessarily
            telling the truth?
Marta: I don’t know.  Do the policemen have to report to them if anybody
           would call or anything?
Mike:  Yeah, that’s right, were the policemen summoned to any of these
            things?
Marta: Yes.   They did call the police when Bob ********* came to the
            rectory, but also the police came to my house one night because
            they were trying to get the money to (Wellinger) to get it put away
            for the night, and they could not locate him.  So they came here to
            ask me for the keys for the rectory.   I guess when Jim came back,
            he gave me the keys to the rectory and told me that (Wellinger) was
            passed out.
Mike:  Okay.
Marta: I guess that was sort of hush-hush.
Mike:  Do you think any police knew about the outburst that Bob *******
            had at the rectory?  Were any police called for that, and would any
            West Mifflin police at least be aware of something like that?
Marta: I would think they would be aware of it, because I’m almost sure
           we called the police.
Mike:  Okay, you did call police. Who would’ve been the one to call the
            police?
Marta: It wasn’t me.  I’m not sure.   It could have been Maria or Virginia.
Mike:  It sounds like people were legitimately scared, also because Bob
           had gun.
Marta: Well yeah.
Mike:  Or least people thought he had a gun, or that he might’ve had a gun.
Marta: Right
Mike:  Do you know if any of this was reported diocese?
Marta: Well it must have been because, who else could have restricted him
            from coming on church property?
Mike:  In other words, you are aware of the fact that Bob ********* re-
            ceived a letter from the lawyer for the diocese to stay away from
            the church?
Marta: Well all I know is that, I was told that he was not allowed to be on
            church grounds.  That is all I know.
Mike:  Okay, you don’t know.  Who told you this?  Was it (Wellinger)?
Marta: No wasn’t him. I guess it was just a rumor or common knowledge.
Mike:  Okay.   Sr Gretchen would have probably known about all this stuff?
Marta: Oh yeah.
Mike:  Did she live there at the time?
Marta: No.
Mike:  No? Okay.  She would have known about it certainly ...
Marta: If not from others, then at least from me.
Mike:  Okay.
Marta: I think she might’ve been there that day, as I think she was already
           on staff.
Mike:  Okay.  That’s right.  She would have been there for the staff meeting.

I want to thank you again Marta. I’m not exactly sure what’s going to happen.
But again, I applaud you for your willingness to help because this has truly
been a tragedy, and I don’t like stuff like this going on, and I don’t like stuff
like this being covered up.  We will see what happens.  Again, Michelle ****
would be willing to help me?  I have already talked to her.   There are some
things now that I just want to get squared away.  Anyway, I reserve the right
to give you a call back.  Thank you again.   Bye-bye.
_____________________________________________________________