It All Boils Down to Charity

In the SAG (St. Albert the Great) Church bulletin of Sunday, August 21, 2011, Fr. Markus Ramolla (SAG’s pastor) announced the opening of a new seminary (St. Athanasius) to affiliated with SAG.  In explaining to his parishioners his reasons for opening it, Fr. Ramolla mentioned that he was approached a few months earlier by a young man from Oklahoma who wanted to become a priest.  This led to rumors of a seminary being started, which prompted yet another young man to apply to him – a young man who, as he put it, “had left his current house of formation in Omaha, Nebraska.”

He went on to say, “When word reached the authorities there, they acted very quickly to anticipate any other potential defections by dismissing two other seminarians.”  These two were, of course, Messrs. Florent Grassigli and Julian Voth, who, he went on to explain, were “now back home in Europe” after their summer break.  Now Fr. Ramolla could have added that these two young men were back in Europe because, as pointed out in this website’s last article, they had been treacherously betrayed by Bp. Pivarunas (having their visas revoked while at the same time reassuring them that they had not been); but he did not.

He saw no reason to mention anything about this act of duplicity, because he did not want to publicly expose Bp. Pivarunas in a negative way.  Indeed, he did not mention Bp. Pivarunas at all -- nor Mater Dei Seminary, merely referring to it as a “house of formation in Omaha, Nebraska.”  True, astute readers could figure out that he was referring then to MDS; and, true, SAG’s website, being a website, technically makes it “public” information.  But it is not for the public-at-large, most of whom didn’t know to whom or what Fr. Ramolla was referring in that bulletin announcement.  His words were intended for SAG’s parishioners only; and those words might have passed unnoticed, had no one responded to them.

But someone did – and in a conspicuously public way.  Bp. Pivarunas could have let things pass – which would have not drawn any attention to himself; but he chose to attack Fr. Ramolla by name, openly and publicly.  Not only that, but he attacked Bps. Slupski and Petko as well – men who had never done him any harm or wrong.  Fr. Ramolla, of course, necessarily responded to Bp. Pivarunas, answering the latter’s mendacious allegations, effectively refuting them one by one.  Dr. Droleskey also responded with a piece articulating proper Church teaching on a number of things, including its position on NFP (Natural Family Planning) and on “brain death” (and its erroneous use in justifying “organ donation”).  Lastly, an article on this website noted, among other things, Bp. Pivarunas’s aforementioned betrayal of the two seminarians – with written proof provided by none other than the bishop and his CMRI colleagues themselves.

The fact that the bishop’s assistants “blew his cover” (by exposing the fact that the bishop betrayed the two seminarians and then lied about it) illustrates how sloppily the whole thing was handled.  It also illustrates the hypocrisy of the bishop in wrongfully accusing Fr. Ramolla of deceitfulness and lying, when he in fact was engaging in just that – and more.  Even after the bishop’s attack in his initial “open letter” to Fr. Ramolla, the latter graciously and mercifully spared the bishop by not revealing his singular act of treachery.  However, Lay Pulpit could not let this pass: to repeat what should be obvious to anyone with any common sense, being a cleric does not exempt one from having his public allegations against another publicly rebutted – especially when they are false, and done preemptively.  To expect that Bp. Pivarunas’s higher clerical “rank” entitles him to any more credibility than a “simple priest” (or a “simple seminarian,” for that matter) is a false and uncharitable piece of illogic – especially considering how the bishop wronged those two seminarians in such a duplicitous way.

One might think that the recent responses to Bp. Pivarunas would have silenced him – but they did not.  As previouslt noted, he chose to respond again, not only continuing his slandering of Bps. Slupski and Petko (even questioning the latter’s legitimacy and credentials), but of Fr. Ramolla and several seminarians as well.  He then misinterpreted an e-mail from Fr. Hall and then claimed it as “evidence” for one of his false conclusions, stating the following: “Even Fr. Bernard Hall had concerns about Bishop Slupski’s illicit behavior [my Italics]. In his email to me, he wrote:  ‘The fact that Bishop Slupski had done so was brought to my attention literally minutes before my ordination to the diaconate by Bishop Petko... Upon reflection later, I perhaps naively thought that by distancing myself from Bishop Slupski’s position, I would protect my own reputation as a priest.’”  The problem here is that Fr. Hall was not referring to “illicit behavior” but to the fact that some people – especially his fellow parishioners -- might give credence to the rumors being spread about Bp. Slupski, thereby lessening Fr. Hall’s legitimacy in their eyes.  He (Fr. Hall) never had (nor has) the belief that Bp. Slupski ever engaged in any “illicit behavior.”  

Bp. Pivaruas then attempted to discredit what Dr. Droleskey had to say recently regarding NFP et al, noting at one point the doctor’s “lack of experience as a priest.”  Apparently, Bp. Pivarunas feels that non-clerics are ill qualified to comment on moral theological issues.  One needs to remind Bp. Pivarunas that Dr. Droleskey (in addition to a host of other “non-clerics”) knows MUCH MORE about moral theology than the bishop could ever hope to know.  This becomes painfully evident when one reads what Bp. Pivarunas had to say on what constitutes “brain death” and its fraudulent use in justifying organ transplants.  Bp. Pivarunas’s intellectually shallow and embarrassingly erroneous positions in both areas (reminiscent of Anthony Cekada’s hastily and sloppily crafted travesty on Schiavo) are thoroughly and exhaustively refuted by Dr. Dorleskey in his article.  Rather than add any words to the discussion, the writer defers to Dr. Droleskey’s in-depth assessment, which more than suffices.

As it turns out, Bp. Pivarunas takes NO real definitive position at all, one way or the other, on “brain death’ or organ transplantation.  What he does, instead, is to defer to medical “experts” for their definitions of death based on “brain death” – this to justify the harvesting of organs for transplanting.  In doing so, he conveniently dodges the issue himself.  For a “simplex” priest, such a “non-stance” might be overlooked; but for one who claims to be head of a Traditional Catholic Seminary that bills itself as a facility that gives young men a first-rate education in Catholic principles, this is not passable.

It is rather ironic that -- by the definition of “brain death” on which Bp. defers to his “experts” (including his brother, an osteopath who is by no means an expert on such a thing) -- a nine-year-old boy named Peter, who just died recently, would have been considered “brain dead” these past nine years.  In the bishop’s latest response, what he implies in citing these “experts” is not clear.  In his discussion, he seems to “bridge over” from real death (which is what Popoe Pius XII was addressing) to “brain death” (which is what Dr. Coomaraswamy was postulating on).  Whatever the bishop implied or whatever point he was trying to make, the truth is, Dr. Coomaraswamy was WOEFULLY WRONG: there is no such thing as “brain death”; and, indeed, it is impossible for anyone to say with certainty the exact moment that the soul and the body are separated and death occurs.  Moreover, there have been scores of instances where people who have been declared “brain dead’ have recovered, including one such case just recently in the news (see article, which includes related links).

Bp. Pivarunas, while he was on the subject of “brain death,” cited Pope Pius XII’s address to the International Congress of Anesthesiologists on November 24, 1957, where he implied that the pope was deferring to doctors to determine when death actually occurs.  Of course, what the pope was referring to had nothing to do with the concept of “brain death,” which was not even talked about at the time (nor were organ transplants, also an unknown back then).  Bp. Pivarunas then continued by saying that Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy eventually was consulted, and that his position was that “brain death was true death and that the transplanting of organs was moral.”

Toward the end of his discussion on “brain death,” the bishop went on to add:  “Medical technology has advanced considerably since the time of Pope Pius XII. This technology was unknown to doctors 54 years ago. The concept of brain death (the entire brain, including the brain stem) was not taken into consideration by Pope Pius XII.”  Yes, Pope Pius XII was NOT addressing the “concept of brain death” at the time; and medical technology HAS advanced since the fifties. But Bp. Pivarunas uses this to imply that nowadays the concept of “brain death” is “legitimate” – a “done deal,” so to speak.  Of course (as noted before), he conveniently takes no position (pro or con) anyway – so all of this amounts to moot speculation.  But how can one who is the head of a seminary not take a position on such a thing, especially when the overwhelming evidence now is that “brain death” is NOT death, and that organs are harvested in every case from LIVING, BREATHING people??

This “non-position” notwithstanding, it is ironic that Bp. Pivarunas comments on the inadequacy of medical technology back in 1957 regarding “brain death” et al: ironic, because he cites the inadequacy of 1950’s technology here, but does NOT question at all Anthony Cekada’s dependence on that same inadequate technology for his pathetically wrong “feeding by extraordinary means” argument used on Schiavo.  Why so vocal on the former and so strangely silent on the latter?  It is especially ironic, considering that advances in medical technology have long since shown the concept of “brain death” (as synonymous with real death) to be patently FALSE, and considering that tube-feeding has for decades NOT been considered prolonging life by “extraordinary means.”  Bp. Pivarunas has taken the vocal and supportive position on the side of wrong, and the silent position on the side of right.

It is also ironic that Bp. Pivarunas, in his most recent letter to Fr. Ramolla, states that “the accusations [as he calls them] against Mater Dei Seminary are objectively sins of calumny” – this just after having THOROUGHLY CALUMNIATED Bps. Slupski and Petko (who – I repeat – have never at any time said or done anything harmful against Bp. Pivarunas).  The bishop needs to take, among other things, a course in logic, so that he doesn’t put himself in such an embarrassingly vulnerable position again.  He also needs to heed that old adage, “Oh what a tangled web we weave…”  

The bishop concludes, after his slandering and his erroneous and adolescent (and ultimately non-committal) postulating on moral theology, to head off any further discussion by stating: “In conclusion, I do not intend to waste precious time in an endless debate. There are more important things to do, such as saving souls.”  Really, “your Excellency,” did you think that calling for an end to further debate was going to silence your critics?  We are thinking adults, “your Excellency.”  You cannot silence us or intimidate us as if we were schoolboys – or seminarians in a “captive” setting.  And if you are really interested in “saving souls,” why have you engaged in attacking the reputations of Bps. Slupski and Petko (yet have kept stone silence not only on Anthony Cekada’s handling of Schiavo -- and his equally shabby slandering of Abbot Giardina -- but on the countless abuses that occurred at SGG, of which you were kept fully aware)?  This does not sound like “saving souls” to me; it sounds more like saving face, and saving political alliances -- especially with SGG.  Yes, saving souls is important; but saying it is one thing, and doing it is another.

Bp. Pivarunas must realize that Fr. Ramolla is not out to “destroy” him or the CMRI; he only wants to start a seminary – which he has done.  And the reason for starting that seminary is that Mater Dei Seminary’s knowledge base and scholarship are simply too “lightweight,” as evidenced by its rector’s own comments.  That is not to say that the rector and staff there are bad men, or that they have not done any good.  Training priests to go forth and bring the sacraments to the faithful is certainly a good thing, and they have done this at MDS -- BUT, there is more to being a priest than simply being a purveyor of sacraments.  A priest must be more than that.  He must be well-steeped in not only dogmatic theology but in a host of other disciplines as well, as a companion article so lucidly and correctly points out. Bp. Pivarunas’s comments regarding “brain death” are just one of several examples that point up MDS’s academic inadequacy – an inadequacy that is real and plain to see.

This kind of inadequacy cannot be camouflaged (or substituted for) by a fancy campus or by impressive buildings.  The substance of a seminary is not its bricks and mortar but its curriculum.  St. Athanasius Seminary, the seminary affiliated with SAG (St. Albert the Great), will fill that gap.  And “that gap” is the real reason why several seminarians have left MDS – NOT because of any “association” with Bp. Slupski or Bp. Petko.

Bp. Petko, by the way, has been unduly and unjustly slandered not only by Bp. Pivarunas, but by others as well (including a pair of clergy whose home base is in West Chester, Ohio).  Because of this, an unwarranted pall of suspicion over him has in the past caused some to question the credentials and legitimacy of this good and guileless man.  The people of SAG should not emulate such pharisaical and mendacious mean-spiritedness.  They owe Bp. Petko a debt of gratitude for all that he has selflessly and unhesitatingly done for them – not the least of which includes the ordination of Fr. Hall.  Bp. Petko deserves our loyalty – not our fault-finding based on “doubts” generated from groundless and false hearsay – by people who are sulking and looking for someone to blame because their comfortable but illusory perception of a “perfect” Bp. Pivarunas has been shattered by unexpected, unwelcome reality.

The staff at SAG (including its new seminary) will go forward to provide a solidly Catholic life and atmosphere for its parishioners and future priests. Bp. Pivarunas should actually be happy that there is another traditional Catholic seminary coming into being.  He ought to welcome it, not fight it.  We would welcome any collaboration (or even “neutrality”) on his and the CMRI’s part – but we will not tolerate from that corner any unjust hostility toward our priest or any of our people.  The ball is now in Bp. Pivarunas’s court; and this is an opportunity for him to do the right thing.  In doing so, he will have much good will to gain, and little to lose.  One thing that he sorely needs to realize is that a temporary political alliance with the reptiles of Rialto Road is just that, a temporary alliance, and that these men have a proven track record of duplicity.

Bp. Pivarunas also sorely needs to realize that making enemies of Fr. Ramolla and the people of SAG cannot help him, but only hurt him.  He has instituted an action that has elicited and occasioned a necessary response from Fr. Ramolla and his supporters.  But we are not vindictive; we will put all that behind us, provided the bishop chooses to do so as well.  However, if he chooses the path that the SGG clergy have taken and allies himself with them (and co-commits misdeeds in concert with them), he will not find solace or refuge in their company; they, who have vilified him in the past, will turn on him again, once they no longer have need of him.  We who have been victimized by these same scoundrels know this only too well.

The bottom line right here and now is that Bp. Pivarunas has, by his recent actions, veered in the direction of wrongdoing.  People may fantasize all they want to that he has not; but the reality is that he has.  It’s there in black and white.  The perception that Bp. Pivarunas has not done anything overtly ”bad” in the past does not change the reality that he has done so in the present.  Fr. Ramolla did not attack Bp. Pivarunas; it was the latter who first “opened the bottle” and accused Fr. Ramolla of being “disingenuous” and “deceitful.”  It was also he who lied to his former seminarians about their legal status and simultaneously betrayed them; the e-mail evidence came from his own lips and that of his colleagues at MDS – not ours.  It is fact, not fabrication.

The ball – to state it one last time – is in Bp. Pivarunas’s court.  Let us hope that he doesn’t “drop” it.  He needs to stop criticizing those who have done him (or anyone else) no wrong, and start realizing where real wrong has been done – such as Cekada’s embarrassingly erroneous and scandalous position on Schiavo, and his disgraceful attack on Abbot Giardina.  He also needs to take real and Catholic positions on things: not just on Schiavo, but on “brain death,” organ transplants – whatever. The Catholic position on all of these things is clear.  He can’t have it “both ways”: he cannot continue to avoid taking positions on things where the Catholic position is both clear and known, and still claim himself as an “authority” on Catholic teaching and morality – especially when being the head of an institution that purports to be expert in such things.

Whatever Bp. Pivarunas chooses to do (or say) from here on, St. Athanasius Seminary will go on, no matter what; and it will flourish, be it in an atmosphere of cooperation or of confrontation -- hopefully the former, because we agree with what Bp. Pivarunas says: “There are more important things to do, such as saving souls.”  To put meaning into those words, though, one must realize that this is not accomplished by slamming people like Bps. Slupski and Petko, or by accusing a fellow priest of deceit.  More importantly, such posturing will not make St. Athanasius Seminary go away; it is here to stay, and its goal WILL be to save souls.  But it will be more than that: its mission will be to teach and give the true Catholic position on moral theology et al, with no ambiguities, no “waffling” or “issue dodging,” and definitely no false teachings.  It is not our intent to say that Bp. Pivarunas is “a bad man” or that MDS is “bad” – just inadequate -- and that is what the new seminary will address.

We invite the cooperation, not the confrontation, of Bp. Pivarunas (and others); but to achieve the one, the other must cease.  Before cooperation can take place and be real, honesty and respect are prerequisites – and, of course, they must be done in a spirit of charity.  Without charity, both words and actions become as “sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.”  Here again, as in everything else, it all boils down to charity.