There
are two “commandments” which are very much in vogue these days, especially in
traddieland: the “eleventh” and
the “twelfth.” The eleventh, of
course, is the one that most everyone recognizes and utters: “Thou shalt not get caught.” But there is another “commandment” that
is perhaps not so oft-repeated but is fast catching on – let’s call it the twelfth commandment: “Thou shalt not admit that thou art
wrong.” This twelfth one is
closely related to the other, and in fact is usually triggered by the other; and when one is caught breaking the eleventh, he usually invokes the twelfth. And in doing so, the commandment-breaking culprit usually
starts rationalizing, giving reasons why he really hasn’t broken No. 11, thus creating two more complications: “foot-in-mouth” disease, and “tangled
web-weaving” syndrome. Left
untreated, AIDS (Acquired Inevitable Dummkopf
Syndrome) can set in, often culminating in a terminal condition known as Stonewallus Intransigentis, aka Cornerus Paintus Intuibus, from which
the victim cannot extricate himself – a condition all too prevalent nowadays.
This
sort of thing is prevalent throughout humanity, but I think it is especially
flourishing in “traddieland,” because traditional Catholicism likes to look
upon itself as the self-righteous “keeper of the Holy Grail” -- and can
therefore do no wrong. And when it
is
caught doing wrong, it cannot and will not admit it, often with
unforeseen (and usually embarrassing)
results -- case in point: a recent e-mail exchange, to be illustrated
forthwith.
A
woman (I won’t give her real name, but let’s label her “Pamela”), well-known
and respected in traditional Catholic circles, recently sent out an e-mail to a
list of people, the e-mail stating that she did not want to receive any more
from them. She claimed that she
received too many e-mails as it was, and that she didn’t have time to read them
all. Now this would have been a
reasonable request, except that most of the people on that list never sent her
any e-mails anyway. Most of them
were receivers, not senders, of e-mails; and hence there was
no real reason for her to warn any of them.
Now
it turns out that this “Pamela” is a staunch supporter of one Markus Ramolla, the
cabbage-patch-gardener-turned-bishop, newly minted by Bp. Slupski. (Ramolla – or perhaps one of his
“supporters” – at first spread the rumor that he was consecrated by a Bishop
“Dymek”; the problem here is that the last Bp. Dymek who ever existed died in
the 1950’s!). Anyway, it turns out
that none
of the people on the distribution of “Pamela’s” e-mail were what one would call
“Ramolla supporters.” In fact,
most were people who had been victimized
by him. Conspicuously absent from the “list” were people who
were pro-Ramolla (such as Dr. Thomas
Droleskey and others who helped in smearing Ramolla’s enemies).
Now
this, perhaps, may have just been a coincidence (and perhaps hell just might be
in danger of freezing over) -- but both are highly improbable. One of the recipients of “Pamela’s”
e-mail pointed out this “coincidence” to her, suggesting other ulterior motives
for her missive, at which point she responded with the aforementioned
“explanation.” She then went on to
accuse the aforesaid recipient (let’s label him “Ted”) of “arrogance and
absurdity” (for his having presumed to know what she believed or thought), then
spring-boarded from there to accuse him of pandering “non-facts and opinions,” then
went on to label him and others as “masters of destructive criticism” – perhaps
for insinuating that the seminarian who authored a certain letter and poem was
a homosexual. Then, as traddies
are often wont to do, she finished her e-mail with the Droleskeyesque “With
prayers, in Christ” (which, as all hypocrites well know, is tantamount to a quasi-plenary
indulgence, absolving one from the guilt of having slung any mud prior to that
point).
“Ted”
replied to her e-mail, reminding her first that her reasons (for wanting that
aforementioned list of people to no longer send her e-mails) were illogical and
hypocritical. Next, he challenged
her claim that “you do not know what I believe or think” by reminding her that
she had believed Ramolla’s claims against Bp. Paul Petko, even though she had
no proof whatsoever to back up those claims. “Ted” then went on to point out that the before-mentioned
seminarian’s letter (written to Bp. Petko) and poem (written to the
seminarian’s one-time roommate) were examined by independent experts (and even
by homosexuals themselves), all of whom concluded that the letter and poem were
that of a homosexual.
I
should point out here that “Ted’s” reason for mentioning the letter and poem
was not so much to claim or insinuate that the seminarian was a homosexual
(although they are almost incontrovertible evidence that he is), but more because
of what it says about the seminarian’s (lack of) credibility: Dr. Thomas Droleskey, in his long,
accusatory diatribe against Bp. Petko, claimed that this seminarian wrote these
things because he was “groomed” by Petko to do so (Droleskey obviously believed
the letter to be damning to the seminarian’s credibility; that is why he tried
to “explain it away” by attributing it to “grooming”). The problem with this “theory” is that
when the letter was written, Petko and the seminarian had not been acquainted
long enough for such “grooming” to have developed; and when the poem was written, that was months before either the seminarian (or his
poem’s object) even knew of Petko’s
existence.
By
the way, Droleskey’s assumption that the letter would be “damning” was correct;
but (unfortunately for him), when he expounded his bogus “theory,” he didn’t
know about the poem at the time. Thus it was the poem that was the decisive “Achilles heel” that blew both his and
the seminarian’s credibility. Now
it might be argued that the letter and the poem are not the equivalent of a “signed confession” or of a “cam-cording of
an act of sodomy in front of dozens of witnesses”; but they are certainly more
evidence than the zero proof that the
seminarian has against Petko. And
in any court of law, they would be
adequate proof – and would destroy
the seminarian’s credibility.
Now
“Pamela” was aware of all of this, yet still believed in Bp. Petko’s “guilt”
and the seminarian’s “innocence.”
She even likened the seminarian’s letter and poem to “Saint Paul and
Saint John’s” writings. After
chiding “Pamela” for making such an idiotic comparison, “Ted” reminded “Pamela”
of other proof of both Droleskey’s and Ramolla’s duplicity, including a bogus
charge by Bp. Slupski (obviously based on misinformation given him by Ramolla)
that Fr. Bernard Hall was being paid $350 for “saying one Mass a week” when he
was in fact not being paid at all (and
for doing a hell of a lot more than “saying one Mass a week”). "Ted" reminded her that he had plenty of
evidence to back up his claims – both written and recorded, plus the testimony
of dozens of witnesses; and he challenged “Pamela” to produce what evidence she had either against Bp. Petko or in
support of Ramolla’s or the seminarian’s claims.
“Ted” then ended his e-mail response by chiding “Pamela” for ending her response with a sanctimonious closing (“With prayers, in
Christ”) after having showered him with “lies and derogatory innuendos.” As one might expect, “Ted’s” e-mail
response elicited yet another response from “Pamela” – a short one simply
stating that she and he were “speaking a different language and therefore it
[was] impossible to communicate rationally” – but she still felt compelled to
add, “I’ll continue to pray for you” after that [more sanctimony!].
“Ted”
countered this response with a repeated plea that “Pamela” produce proof of her beliefs and contentions,
and reminded her that asking for that proof was a reasonable request and did
not constitute “speaking a different language and therefore it is impossible to
communicate rationally.” He bade
her to either respond to that simply put request for proof, or not to respond
at all.
“Pamela,”
of course, responded, yet not with
any proof, but with a claim that she had “never attributed any guilt to Bp.
Petko” and that her “messages referred to allegations
made by others” [her
italics]. She then chided “Ted”
for erroneously claiming that she attributed any guilt to Petko; and she then
suggested that “Ted” take “some courses in logic and reading
comprehension.” Whereupon, “Ted”
countered by sending her an excerpt of her e-mail (dated Nov. 21, 2011) where
she did
in fact “attribute guilt” to Bp. Petko: in part of the excerpt, her exact words
were, “I have been personally well acquainted, prior to
the current troubles, with two of the young men who were victimized by Petko”
[her italics].
Now at this point, things really get
interesting, because this is where “Pamela” starts getting into her
back-peddling, “twelfth commandment” mode: she claims that in the last sentence of the above paragraph,
when she wrote “who were victimized by Petko,” she actually meant to say “who were alleged to
be victimized by Petko” [Folks, are you familiar with the term “re-writing
history”?]. “Ted,” a little
confused, re-asked the question, and was given the same answer, except that
this time, “Pamela” – who thought that the adding of the word “alleged” somehow
“proved” that she herself hadn’t attributed any guilt to Bp. Petko, entreated
him to “stop harping” on this, adding that she owed no one any “proofs of
anything.”
At this point, “Ted” re-sent her the excerpt from that Nov.
21, 2011 e-mail – except this time, more
of it – which included several more instances of her – not “others” -- accusing
Bp. Petko, including the following:
“The situation is nuanced and complex? A bishop abuses young
men. They report him. The pastor and rector of the seminary dismisses the
bishop. What's nuanced and complex about that?” And then there’s this one: “Delicate and sensitive? You said it! The
delicate and sensitive souls of young men have been crushed by a perverted old
man.” “Ted” then asked “Pamela”
how she was going to “explain away” these additional allegations by her –
allegations that she professed never to have made. “Ted” then entreated her to “stop lying, and stop being a hypocrite.”
Well, folks, this is where “Pamela”
went into her final “shutdown” mode, Stonewallus Intransigentis, aka Cornerus Paintus
Intuibus, from which she will inevitably not be able to extricate
herself. Her final reply was
simply, “I don’t have time for fruitless discussion.” (Right on, sister!
As they say, “She who lies and runs away, lives to lie another day!”). At this point, “Ted” – realizing that any
further at reasoning with “Pamela” would
be fruitless, stopped things there.
Besides, he also realized that “Pamela” suffers (in addition to her
other maladies) from Lastworditis, a
condition common to traddies of her ilk.
This
article, by the way, is not written to publicly embarrass “Pamela” (she’s done
a good enough job of that all by herself). That is why, for discretion’s sake, both his and her names
have been changed. The intent of
this article is rather to illustrate some (all too) typical “traddie” behavior,
for there are (all too) many “Pamelas” out there. Of course, many readers can probably guess who “Ted” is (and
perhaps who “Pamela” is as well).
But the important thing is not who
these two people are, but what was
said in their exchange.
“Pamela,”
by the way, was once a close friend of “Ted,” the latter being a board member
of SAG (St. Albert the Great Church) at the time. “Pamela’s” e-mail of Nov. 21, 2011 has to do with the
controversy going on there (at SAG) at the time. Prior to that, “Pamela” wanted to know from “Ted” and two
others “what the heck is going on,” as she put it, at SAG (the two others, also
her friends, being another SAG board member and a board member of SAG’s
satellite chapel in Columbus, Ohio).
Being all board members, they were duty-bound not to discuss board
business outside of that sphere -- to “air SAG’s dirty laundry,” so to
speak. It was only after Ramolla et al did air that dirty
laundry that they responded to her, telling her “what the heck was going on.”
[Editor’s
note: Prior to that point (as just
explained), those board members could not speak; so, when queried by “Pamela,”
they simply told her that they would explain later. With what was going on at the time – Ramolla, Droleskey, and
the seminarians colluding to frame Bp. Petko for their own ulterior motives
(see Oh
What a Tangled Web It Was, and other articles) – things were too
involved and difficult to explain.
One of the board members conveyed this in a response to “Pamela” by
saying that the “situation is nuanced and complex” and “delicate and sensitive”
– which is why those phrases reappeared (mockingly and in bold-face type) in “Pamela’s e-mail mentioned a few paragraphs
ago.]
So,
while those board members were keeping discreetly quiet (for the sake of both
the pastor and his parish), the pastor, his “seminarians,’” and Droleskey all
preemptively (and collusively) leaked out their “explanation” of what had taken
place. “Pamela” chose to believe them. The board members then gave their proof; yet when it was
given (including that found in several Lay
Pulpit articles, all of which she has seen), she rejected it out of
hand – even though she had absolutely no proof of her own to offer. She had already made up her mind, thank
you, and nothing further was necessary.
I suppose that she thinks, for proof of the “love letter” seminarian’s
guilt, a “cam-corded act of sodomy in front of witnesses” is necessary; and
anything short of it won’t do – yet she had no trouble in thinking the worst of
Bp. Petko, based on no evidence at all.
But
this thinking, as intimated before, is all too typical in traddieland: a
disbelieving “person A” (“Pamela” in this case), far away and far removed from
what is going on, asks for proof from “person B” (“Ted”), who not only is there but is an integral part of it
(and who consequently does know
what’s going on); then when it is given, person A not only rejects it as
inadequate, but also accuses person B of “destructive criticism” for giving it – just as speaking out against
Dolan and Cekada’s abuses was dubbed “calumny and detraction” when it was given. And then when person B reciprocates by
asking person A for her proof, person
A claims that she doesn’t have to give it (or dismisses it by claiming that she
hasn’t the time for “further fruitless discussion”), then walks away in a
huff. How does one deal with that?
Yet
“that” is the all-too-typical mindset in traddieland these days. The people at SGG, for instance, don’t
consider expensive junkets to the Bishop’s
Lodge to be “out of the ordinary,” even though it is a notorious cesspool
of sodomy (and even if it wasn’t, what business do two clerics have in
vacationing at a place that costs four hundred bucks a night, at the expense of
their scrimping and scraping parishioners?). But as long as Dolan and Cekada “put on a good show” for
them and give them all the externals
of Catholicism – impressive rites and rubrics – it seems to matter little to
SGG’s parishioners that these two are leading souls astray – especially those
young souls who are seeing through filth and the hypocrisy (and who are leaving
– and, unfortunately, often losing their faith -- in the process).
The
same goes for Ramolla: there are those who have witnessed his duplicity firsthand,
but who look past it -- and remain acquiescently quiet about it. Many are aware of his past womanizing;
many who were there at SAG the night Bp. Slupski conferred confirmations are
aware of the “salary” misinformation he gave about Fr. Hall; many who at first
sided with Ramolla (against those of us who correctly saw his duplicity),
eventually (and inevitably) got double-crossed by him themselves; and many are
now aware of how he depleted SAG’s “building fund” for his own expenses
(including buying himself a $900 miter plus other Episcopal attire). Yet, in spite of all this, they either
do nothing about it (or, in “Pamela’s” case, actually condone it).
And
what about the rest of traddieland – those priests who are good men and who are
doing God’s work, yet many of whom sit idly by, watching rotten apples like
Dolan, Cekada, and Ramolla spoil the barrel, while they do little to nothing
about it. They often condone (or
at least do not speak out against) what these men do (yet they look askance at
some of those very people who have been victimized by these moral lepers: Bp. Petko, for instance, is now treated
as a sort of pariah -- or at least as “damaged goods”). To these priests (and to other high-minded but weak-kneed
people), I say, “Do something!”
Acquiescence and non-action in the face of known injustice are
tantamount to being an accomplice in
that injustice. Hopefully, people
will start to wake up, speak up, and
take action (and let’s hope that “Pamela” opens up her eyes as well). They
must; otherwise, “traddieland” is headed for oblivion.
Lastly,
in writing these words, the writer fully realizes that they will make probably
little to no “dent” in the thinking of people at SGG (nor perhaps those at
SAG). But these words are written
not just for them, but also for those folks who may become future prospective
victims of people like Dolan, Cekada, and Ramolla. One last “housekeeping” item: for any “skeptics” in the
crowd who require “documentation” that the e-mail discourse between “Pamela”
and “Ted” actually took place (and that what was said here actually reflects
what was in those e-mails), the following “Appendix 1” recreates – starting with
most recent, and going on from there -- the entire e-mail discourse between
“Pamela” and “Ted,” with their names given as such, and with some of the other
peoples’ names “x’d out” as well (and, for the sake of both “Pamela’s” and
“Ted’s” privacy, some brief omissions – duly noted – have been made).
APPENDIX 1 (re-print of recent e-mail):
[Final
reply from “Pamela” to “Ted”]:
Sorry, “Ted” - I don't have time for fruitless discussion.
“Pamela”
On Jun 7, 2012, at 6:08 PM, “Ted” wrote:
“Pamela”,
You just don't get it, do you! Read your
e-mail completely through; it repeatedly accuses Bp. Petko
of several things. For your convenience, I have excerpted it here:
I have spoken by phone with both of the young men since the
dismissal of Petko. They are understandably mortified by having allowed
their trust in a bishop to lower their guard and permit him to engage
repeatedly in extended tight embraces and kisses on the neck. They now
have the courage and grace from God to do all they can to prevent Petko from
abusing others.
The situation is nuanced and complex? A bishop
abuses young men. They report him. The pastor and rector of the seminary
dismisses the bishop. What's nuanced and complex about that?
Delicate and sensitive? You said it! The
delicate and sensitive souls of young men have been crushed by a perverted old
man.
Sticky and controversial? Here
I can only guess - power politics? Father Ramolla acted immediately and
correctly but committed the unforgivable crime of failing to obtain Board
approval before dismissing Petko?
Or maybe it's the bishop issue? I learned from another
clergyman who is not connected to SAG or the seminary that Petko claimed that
Fr. Ramolla was jealous of him and wanted to get rid of him and become a bishop
himself. So Petko is not only a predator but a paranoid?
Confidentiality! Does anyone think that the
young men involved have any obligation to protect Petko's reputation? For
"the good of the Church" maybe? Isn't it precisely for the good
of the Church and souls that Petko should be exposed and banished, as well as
suffer a little humiliation for the sake of his own soul? In addition, do
the young men not have a right to confide in their family and friends for some
relief of their mental anguish?
What is it that you folks want? You
say you want to save St. Albert's, yet you seem to be doing everything possible
to create chaos after the Petko problem was correctly dealt with.
It's over. Why not stop your strange maneuvering and just
allow God to calm the stormy waters among all who are suffering? Or do
you want to play God? ;-)
“Pamela,” how are you going to explain all of
the foregoing away? “Pamela,” the words speak for themselves. You
tell me to stop "harping," yet you do the self-same thing.
“Pamela,” you've been caught "with your hand in the cookie
jar," and now you're trying to get out of it by accusing me of "harping"
and by saying that you "don't have time for further talk."
“Pamela,” I am not "harping," as you put it; I'm only trying to
show you in black and white that you have lied -- several times. You're
playing a losing hand, “Pamela.” So, stop lying, and stop
being a hypocrite.
“Ted”
From: “Pamela”
To: “Ted”
Cc: xxxx, and xxxx
Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2012 6:02 PM
Subject: Re: xxxxxxxxxx
Yes, “Ted,” I agree that my email of Nov. 21 said
"...were victimized..." and as I said below, that should have
been "...were alleged to be victimized..."
Nonetheless, I do not think the young men are liars. Nor do I need
to offer anybody proofs of anything. I was not present to witness
anything with my own eyes, and neither were you. You
believe what you choose - and you can't prove that what you believe
is true. So stop harping on this, because the discussion is over - I
don't have time for further talk.
“Pamela”
On Jun 7, 2012, at 1:24 PM, “Ted” wrote:
“Pamela”, your first sentence in
your last response was, "I have never attributed guilt to Bp. Petko"
[your emphasis and italics]. Please compare that statement with what you
said in your Nov. 21, 2011 e-mail.
“Ted”
From: “Pamela”
To: “Ted”
Cc: : xxxx, and xxxx
Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2012 11:55 AM
Subject: Re: xxxxxxxxxx
Hey, “Ted” my mistake - I meant: "...who
were alleged to be victimized by Petko..."
“Pamela”
On Jun 7, 2012, at 10:16 AM, “Ted” wrote:
“Pamela,” the following is
excerpted from what you wrote in your e-mail of November 21,
2011:
I have been personally well acquainted, prior to the
current troubles, with two of the young men who were victimized by Petko -
not just by telephone or email.
Earlier this year, one of the young men spent five days in the
Milwaukee area, visiting my home each day, as well as talking many hours while
driving to churches and places of interest, having lunch, etc. I am
totally convinced of this man's absolute truthfulness, integrity and dedication
to God. He would never lie or do anything to harm another person.
Regarding the second young man, I've known his entire family
more than two years. On two separate occasions the family spent several
days in the Milwaukee area, and the women of the family stayed overnight at my
house, with all the others coming to visit several times. The second
young man's brother and sister are part of our little St. Martin of Tours
Mission. Here again, I am totally convinced of the absolute
truthfulness, integrity and dedication to God of every member
of this family.
I have spoken by phone with both of the young men since the
dismissal of Petko. They are understandably mortified by having allowed
their trust in a bishop to lower their guard and permit him to engage
repeatedly in extended tight embraces and kisses on the neck. They now
have the courage and grace from God to do all they can to prevent Petko from
abusing others.
“Pamela,” if you do not consider
that to be attributing guilt to Bp. Petko, then YOU are the one who needs
courses in logic and reading comprehension (as well as Rational Thinking).
“Ted”
From: “Pamela”
To: “Ted”
Cc: xxxx and xxxx
Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2012 10:48 AM
Subject: xxxxxxxxxx
Dear “Ted,”
I have never attributed guilt to Bp. Petko. My
messages referred to allegations made by others, but I never said I
agreed with them. Again, you assume that you know what I think.
Since I never attributed guilt to Bp. Petko, why are you asking me
for proof of other people's allegations of his guilt?
Please do not continue harping on your erroneous
assumptions of what I think and believe. It might help if you would study
some courses in logic and reading comprehension ;-) Perhaps xxxx can be
of assistance?
As for praying, you can be sure that I do pray for
Bp. Ramolla, as well as for Fr. Cekada, Fr. Ratzinger, Fr. Hans Küng, etc.
A blessed Feast of Corpus Christi.
“Pamela”
On Jun 7, 2012, at 7:39 AM, “Ted” wrote:
Dear “Pamela,”
Your response was what I expected it to be: a non-response.
I asked you for proof, and you have given none – because you have
none. Again I ask, where is it? Where is your proof, for instance,
of Bp. Petko’s guilt? – proof, “Pamela,” not assertions.
Where is it, “Pamela”? I think that this is a simple enough (and
reasonable enough) question to ask – or does that constitute “speaking a
different language and therefore it is impossible to communicate
rationally”?
So, “Pamela,” if you cannot respond with a rational
answer to that simply put question, then – please -- do not respond at
all. Also, when you pray, don’t forget to pray for Markus Ramolla; he
needs all the prayers he can get.
“Ted”
From: “Pamela”
To: “Ted”
Cc: xxxx and xxxx
Sent: Wednesday, June 6, 2012 2:11 PM
Subject: Re: xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dear “Ted,”
It's obvious that you and I are speaking a
different language and therefore it is impossible to communicate rationally.
There is nothing more to be said, but I will
continue to pray for you.
“Pamela”
On Jun 6, 2012, at 12:37 PM, “Ted” wrote:
“Pamela,”
I was actually debating whether I should dignify
your response to me with yet another response, as it seemed to me to be a waste
of time; but I decided to give it one more try.
First off, your “explanation” of why you wanted to
be deleted from only the list of names that you mentioned is as illogical as it
is hypocritical. Most of those people on that list (including myself) are
ones who received e-mails, not sent them. To want to
eliminate people just because they receive unsolicited mail makes about
as much sense as condemning Christ for having been approached by lepers and
sinners. “Pamela,” your explanation is so transparently ridiculous (and
hypocritical) that it defies rationalization. And let me repeat, I myself
have NEVER sent you anything (other than these in the past few days) since
November 2011, and that was only in response to your original “What the heck is
going on” e-mail of Nov. 18, 2011 and your follow-up e-mail on Nov. 21.
So, let me repeat again: your explanation is bogus; it is false.
Next, your bold-faced statement, “Ted,”you do not know what I believe or think, is
also incorrect: in your e-mail of Nov. 21, you clearly told us
what you believed and thought, especially your total belief in Bp. Petko’s
guilt (based on mere assertions, with NO PROOF at all) and your belief
in the seminarians’ total innocence (based again on assertion, with no proof
whatsoever).
You claim that you don’t think that xxxx’s
“love poem” (or his letter to Bp. Petko) are proof of homosexuality.
Well, “Pamela,” you’re in a very small minority, because both were shown to
legal experts, professional personality profilers from the NYC police
department (and no, not xxxx’s husband, but to independent experts), and to
homosexuals themselves, ALL of whom concluded that these things were written by
a homosexual. What do you need for proof, “Pamela”? A videotaped
act of sodomy on You Tube?!! And what proof do you
have of the seminarians’ innocence, other than their BASELESS
allegations? Furthermore, HOW DARE YOU try to equate what Saint Paul and
Saint John wrote with that disgusting crap that xxxx wrote??!! Are you
insane??!!
Next, you speak of my “non-facts and
opinions…” Again, HOW DARE YOU?! What I say or write is always the
truth, backed up with PROOF. You call xxxx and me (and even xxxx)
“masters of destructive criticism.” Again, HOW DARE YOU?! Because
we have dared to stand up for simple justice and to defend an innocent man
against a thieving, lying monster, you call that “destructive criticism”?
“Pamela,” you were
not there at St. Albert’s when everything was going on. WE WERE.
We lived through it. We were there when Ramolla tried to lie about
Fr. Hall’s immigration status. We were there when he claimed that
Fr. Hall was getting a salary when he wasn’t (and we have the parish
financial records to prove it). And dozens of people were there
the night of the SAG confirmations when Bp. Slupski accused Fr. Hall of
receiving a salary for “saying one Mass a week” when he was in fact doing much
more than that (including unpaid mission work and writing the parish
bulletin every week), yet getting no salary at all. “Pamela,” we have
both written and recorded proof that both Ramolla and Droleskey
lied, along with anecdotal evidence from DOZENS of witnesses – proof that will stand
up in a court of law (and which we have not yet ruled out using).
What do you have? – the unsubstantiated assertions of seminarians who have been
kicked out of several seminaries, plus known lies from both Ramolla and
Droleskey
You accuse xxxx and me of being
arrogant (and of getting on our “high horse,” as you put it) and proclaiming
our “opinions and conclusions as if they were the Gospel truth.” Well,
that’s because what we say IS the truth. And you accuse us
of “destructive criticism,” yet you yourself had no qualms about leveling
destructive criticism against Bp. Petko – again, when you had absolutely NO
PROOF of guilt against him. “Pamela,” it is time for YOU to
“get off your high horse” – or rather your phony moral high ground – and
have the humility to admit that you are – and have been – wrong. You
call me “arrogant”? “Pamela,” it is you who are arrogant – that
is your problem. Or, more simply put, it’s the sin of pride: like many
traddies, you are too proud to admit that you are wrong.
“Pamela,” if you have any proof at
all that what I say is “non-facts and opinions,” then please bring it
forth; I’m all ears and eyes: let’s hear it; let’s see it. But you can’t,
can you – because you don’t have it. But we DO have it – and, if
things end up in a court of law, we’ll use it. Ramolla could possibly go
to prison for what he has done; the only thing holding us back in prosecuting
him is the cost of the legal process (and the strong possibility that he
wouldn't be here to face charges anyway). [Two sentences removed here for
“privacy”].
Lastly, “Pamela,” spare me the
sanctimonious comments with which you ended your e-mail. After showering
me with lies and derogatory innuendos, don’t try to invoke Our Lord’s name to
white-wash and sugar-coat it all; like Droleskey’s mini-litanies at the end of
his articles, that reeks of hypocrisy. I myself never close
my e-mails (or my articles) with that sort of thing, because I believe that it
reduces the words to the status of meaningless clichés like “have a nice
day.” Besides, one should not have to invoke Christ’s name to bear
witness to (or to legitimize) what he has to say. Therefore, I’ll simply
close by entreating you simply to ponder what you have said, before
embarrassing yourself again.
“Pamela,” to save you further
embarrassment, I will not copy all the people that were on your original
e-mail’s distribution. However, I have copied xxxx and xxxx,
because I think that they have a right to know -- especially xxxx, who
has always been polite and kind to you (as well as to everyone else). Your
including her in your charge of “masters of destructive criticism” was uncalled
for and grossly uncharitable. This, too, I hope that you will reflect on
and ponder.
“Ted”
From: “Pamela”
To: “Ted”
Sent: Tuesday, June 5, 2012 5:54 PM
Subject: Re: xxxxxxxxxx
Dear “Ted,”
You and others received my email for the simple
reason that you were all included in the group messages that have
recently circulated - Obama, Children of Darkness, Advertisement by the Church,
etc. The others you mentioned were not included in those emails, so I did
not include them in my request for removal from that group list.
Whenever I find that family or
friends have included me in group emails, whether it be about politics,
religion, the economy, gardening, or whatever - I ALWAYS ask them to remove me
from their group discussion. It's my choice to spend my time as I deem
best.
Regarding your statements: "You
believe..." "You cannot see the truth..." "You
have closed your mind..." "You fell for his
lies..." - “Ted,”you do not know what I believe or
think, and it's the height of arrogance and absurdity to assume
that you do.
Yes, I have read what you and others have
published, including the seminarian's "love poem" and letter.
You conclude that he is a "flaming homosexual". You
could just as readily conclude that Saint Paul and Saint John were flaming
homosexuals, based on some of their writings!
Your non-facts and opinions are no more convincing
to me than Droleskey's. Indeed, you and he have quite a bit in common -
you both get on your high horse and proclaim your opinions and conclusions as
if they were Gospel truth. And you both, along with xxxx and xxxx, are
masters of destructive criticism.
I try to get as much information as I can on
subjects of importance, and then I make my own judgments.
You would be surprised to learn some of them are contrary to what you assume.
All of us have been hurt and deceived by others.
All of us have seen injustices being done to the innocent by unthinking
or downright heartless people. We can react by lashing out in hysterical
fury at those we consider wrong - which achieves no good and is
damaging to our mental and spiritual health. Or we can try, with prayer
and God's help, to correct errors and convert the wayward. You make your
choice and I'll make mine ;-)
With prayers, in Christ,
“Pamela”
On Jun 4, 2012, at 8:36 PM, “Ted” wrote:
“Pamela,”
Who are you trying to kid? You have sent your
e-mail to people with whom you do not want to associate, NOT because you’re too
busy, etc. Why did you not copy Markus Ramolla, Thomas Droleskey, Florent
Grassigli, Marcellus Moylan, et al on your e-mail? Droleskey in
particular is a droning pedant, whom I would avoid at all cost if I were too
busy to correspond. Your not mentioning him and the others belies the
hypocrisy behind your words. And why did you send your e-mail to me?
I haven’t e-mailed you in MONTHS -- and when I did, it was only in reply to an
e-mail that you sent. Come on, “Pamela”!
And you know full well that xxxx, xxxx, and I have
sent you NO “discussion group” e-mails or anything “inflammatory” at all.
I remember when you sent all of us e-mails asking what was going on with Bp.
Petko et al. At the time, he was being (wrongly) accused of misbehavior
by Ramolla and Droleskey. xxxx and I, as board members at SAG, could not
comment at the time; but Ramolla, being the two-faced liar that he is, threw
discretion and propriety to the wind, and “sang like a canary,” selectively
leaking out lies to make himself look like a “victim” – and you fell for his
lies, like an egg from a tall chicken.
You believed Ramolla’s lies about Bp. Petko, even
though there was not ONE SHRED of proof to back up his (or Droleskey’s)
allegations. Have you seen or read the letter that xxxx wrote to Bp.
Petko, o the “love poem” that xxxx wrote to xxxx? Anyone in their right
mind would conclude that both (letter and poem) are that of a flaming
homosexual; and remember, the “poem” was written MONTHS before xxxx (or xxxx)
ever met Bp. Petko – yet I’m sure that you firmly believe Bp. Petko is in the
wrong and xxxx is “innocent.” You believe unsubstantiated lies, yet
cannot see truth when it is staring you in the face.
“Pamela,” when you
asked us “what the heck is going on” late last year, we told you that we would
inform you when we could; but now that we are willing and able to tell you, you
have closed your mind like a steel trap, and refuse to listen. There were
many at SAG who sided with Ramolla against xxxx and me, but who have since themselves
been double-crossed by Ramolla. They now know him for what he is: a liar
and a thief (he also tried his hand at womanizing: he had an affair with a
former SAG parishioner – and dozens of people, including Bp. xxxxxxxxx and Fr. xxxxxxx
of IC – know about it. Ramolla, not Bp. Petko, is a sexual
predator). You too will be double-crossed by him some day. “Pamela,” wake up before it happens to you too.
From: “Pamela”
To: xxxx
Cc: [A long list of people]
Sent: Monday, June 4, 2012 8:24 AM
Subject: xxxxxxxxxx
Happy Feast of the Queenship of Our Lady!
I would greatly appreciate it if everyone would
remove me from your discussion list and address book. I just don't have
time to read these messages and participate in the discussions.
Many thanks.
In Christ,
“Pamela”
