ShareThis Page
Allegheny

Pittsburgh Bishop Zubik apologizes for abuse in diocese, denies cover-up

Megan Guza
| Tuesday, Aug. 14, 2018, 7:15 p.m.
Bishop David Zubik speaks during a press conference at the Diocese of Pittsburgh, Downtown on Aug. 14, 2018.
Nate Smallwood | Tribune-Review
Bishop David Zubik speaks during a press conference at the Diocese of Pittsburgh, Downtown on Aug. 14, 2018.
Bishop David Zubik speaks during a press conference at the Diocese of Pittsburgh, Downtown on Aug. 14, 2018.
Nate Smallwood | Tribune-Review
Bishop David Zubik speaks during a press conference at the Diocese of Pittsburgh, Downtown on Aug. 14, 2018.
Bishop David Zubik speaks during a press conference at the Diocese of Pittsburgh, Downtown on Aug. 14, 2018.
Nate Smallwood | Tribune-Review
Bishop David Zubik speaks during a press conference at the Diocese of Pittsburgh, Downtown on Aug. 14, 2018.
Bishop David Zubik speaks during a press conference at the Diocese of Pittsburgh, Downtown on Aug. 14, 2018.
Nate Smallwood | Tribune-Review
Bishop David Zubik speaks during a press conference at the Diocese of Pittsburgh, Downtown on Aug. 14, 2018.

Diocese of Pittsburgh Bishop David Zubik said neither he nor his predecessor, now-Cardinal Donald Wuerl, tried to cover up decades of child sexual abuse by clergymen detailed in a scathing grand jury report released Tuesday.

The grand jury identified 90 alleged offenders in the Pittsburgh diocese, which includes parishes in Allegheny, Beaver, Butler, Greene, Lawrence and Washington counties. Eight of their names were redacted and an additional nine priests were identified only by a number.

The grand jury’s report highlighted three examples of what it called institutional failure involving three priests: Ernest Paone, George Zirwas and Richard Zula.

The examples “provide a window into the conduct of past Pennsylvania bishops and the crimes they permitted to occur on their watch,” the report said.

“There was no cover up going on,” Zubik said at a news conference following the report’s release.

Zubik, however, apologized for the years of abuse and inaction by the Catholic Church.

“In the name of the Church of Pittsburgh, and in my own name, and in the name of my predecessors, we are sorry,” he said. “I am sorry.”

Zubik said details in the report disgusted him.

“No one who has read it can be unaffected,” he said. “Some are affected because they are victims of child sexual abuse, and the release of this report either will help them to heal or will reopen wounds they have worked hard to heal.”

Zubik said others who figure to be affected include parents who can empathize with the pain of the victims’ parents and those who feel betrayed by the church.

“I do, too,” he said.

Among allegations regarding the Pittsburgh diocese, the report said Zirwas and Zula were part of a “ring of predatory priests … who shared intelligence or information regarding victims as well as exchanging the victims amongst themselves (and) also manufactured child pornography on diocesan property.”

“This group of priests used whips, violence and sadism in raping their victims,” the report said.

In one case, the report said Zirwas, Zula and two other priests took a boy identified as George to the rectory of a Munhall parish and asked the him to stand on a bed and remove his clothes as they discussed the image of Christ on the cross. Then they took Polaroid pictures of the boy. The alleged victim reported that the Polaroids were added to a collection of similar photos of other teenage boys.



The alleged victim said the ring of predatory priests gave gifts to boys including gold cross necklaces.

“They were a visible designation that these children were victims of sexual abuse. They were a signal to other predators that the children had been desensitized to sexual abuse and were optimal targets for further victimization,” the grand jury wrote.

Zubik said that he and his predecessors did what they thought was right at the time with the information they had.



The report refers to confidential memos between Zubik and Wuerl in the wake of past allegations.

“The grand jury noted that this process showed no concern for public safety or the victims of child sexual abuse,” according to the report.

Zubik said the diocese previously relied on advice from treatment centers on whether accused clergy members were fit to continue serving.

He offered to personally meet with any victims of abuse and apologize in person and on behalf of the church. He said an apology is an important step, but “is not enough.”

“Ever since I first met victims of clergy child sexual abuse in 1988,” Zubik said, “I have seen the immense pain that this crime causes to its victims, to their loved ones and to the heart of Jesus.”

Data released by the diocese shows 11 alleged incidents of abuse occurred since 2000, down from 16 in the 1990s, 82 in the 1980s, 62 in the 1970s, 60 in the 1960s, 37 in the 1950s and four in the 1940s.

“The Diocese of Pittsburgh today is not the church that is described in the grand jury report,” Zubik said, noting that he wants to show that “we have learned from the past.”

Megan Guza is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Megan at 412-380-8519, mguza@tribweb.com or via Twitter @meganguzaTrib.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me