Logic vs. Emotion

One unfortunate trait of humanity is that, all too often, people can be easily swayed – especially when someone plays on their emotions.  People who follow their emotions will often act irrationally, and do things that they would otherwise never do; in their moment of hysteria, they will throw logic to the wind, and do things that they’ll later regret.  Cleverly worded emotional appeals by demagogues can turn otherwise rational people into mobs – often with bloody results; the French and Bolshevik revolutions are two prime (and tragic) examples of this.  The majority of people are, unfortunately, sheep, easily led by emotional appeals and “sloganeering”; plus, they tend to believe something if it is repeated often enough.  Repetition equals reinforcement; and, conversely, what is not repeated equals “ignored and forgotten”: “out of sight, out of mind.” 

Politicians know this.  That is why political ads are repeated so often, and with short, catchy phrases instead of longer (but more factual) arguments.  That’s how Obama got elected: he talked about “change” without really explaining what “change” was.  Now, many people (the thinking ones, at least) regret that they ever voted for him, because “change” turned out to be support for “gay marriage,” abortion, and having one’s constitutional rights trampled on.  The sad thing is that Obama will probably get re-elected, because the media – which he has firmly in his hip pocket – will, through repetition, gradually get people used to the idea that homosexuality is just an “alternate” -- and therefore legitimate -- lifestyle (actually, the process of “legitimizing” has been going on for some time now).  The truth about Obama -- because the mass media will never report it -- will be forgotten and ignored; and he will (barring a miracle) get re-elected.

And this mentality is not confined to the general public.  It is also a “alive and well in traddie-land.”  In fact, it is prevalent even more so here, because it has the extra ingredients of Catholic “obedience” and “respect” added to the mix: Catholics have been ingrained since birth with the ideas of obedience and respect for clerical authority – a good thing, if that authority is legitimate.  But what if it is not?  In traditional Catholicism, respect often takes on the aura of awe – the “Alter Christus syndrome” – with the notion that “our priest can do no wrong” – which can be a dangerous thing; it can overshadow and blind one’s reason. Those who have been conditioned to “believe in their priest” will sometimes back him no matter what he does -- against anyone -- even against other clergy.

Such is the case with those who supported Markus Ramolla -- and what he (and Droleskey) said about Bp. Paul Petko.  Take the “fanny-squeezing” charge that was so oft repeated in Droleskey’s diatribe against Bp. Petko.  The thought of an older man doing that to a younger man conjures up images of pedophilia, homosexuality – you name it; and it immediately fills one with utter disgust and contempt for the accused – which is exactly what Droleskey wanted it to do.  But for those who fell for this lie, it never occurred to them that anyone victimized in such a way ordinarily would thereafter never have anything to do with the perpetrator of such an act – but the supposed “victim” did: he not only continued to see Bp. Petko after his supposed “encounter,” but had actually planned to spend his Thanksgiving holiday with him and the Ritter family.

And then, why did he wait until Droleskey came on the scene to “report the incident”?  Why was it then and only then that he decided to bring it up?  It’s just not logical.  But when emotion takes hold of people, logic takes a holiday, and blind rage takes over.  They lose sight of the fact that, in addition to the aforementioned logical inconsistencies, the other fact that escapes them is that there was absolutely NO PROOF to back up the “victim’s” allegations.  One wonders if the allegations were even those of the “victim” – or if they were simply manufactured by Droleskey himself.  Whatever the case, there is no proof, no evidence – just unsubstantiated assertion.

Then there’s Droleskey’s charge that Bp. Petko “groomed” a young seminarian, duping him into writing a “love letter”; that’s another one that emotionally-manipulated people fall for: there’s nothing like a “seedy old prelate victimizing an innocent young seminarian and leading him astray” to get the blood up – except that, here again, it is totally unsubstantiated.  Bp. Petko, as stated in an earlier article, had precious little time to “groom” the seminarian in question; and – as the article also pointed out -- this same seminarian wrote a similar “love sonnet” to a fellow seminarian long before he even met (or knew of) Bp. Petko – as the seminarian’s own words have proven.  It is obvious that Droleskey, the seminarian, or both are lying  -- yet how many will still cling to their false accusations, and ignore the hard evidence that completely blows their credibility out of the water?

It is interesting to note that some of the people who believed this tripe are the same ones who, the night of the SAG confirmations, probably KNEW that Bp. Slupski’s remarks about Fr. Hall getting paid an “undue” salary were not true (one, in fact – the SAG treasurer -- knew for sure) – yet this did not disgust or enrage them (or him).  One must give Bp. Slupski the benefit of the doubt, and assume that he was the receiver of misinformation by Ramolla (Fr. Hall was, in fact, receiving no salary at all).  But the truth – which can be substantiated -- is out now, and the “doubt” is over.  Whether Bp. Slupski is aware of this or not (or if he still has the mental faculty to discern what was said) is unsure; but the relevant fact is that many SAG parishioners are aware, but choose not to let it alter their mindset.

It is also interesting to note what kind of “Alter Christus” Ramolla is -- whom so many held in revere (and whom some still do).  What Alter Christus do you know that exclaims “Faggot! Faggot! Faggot!” and “I will kill him, and go to hell for it”? (and, yes, he did say those things; we have the “I.M.’s” – Instant Messages – to prove it).  Is this the kind of man who should be the leader of a parish (or a seminary)?  What kind of Alter Christus would withhold a fellow priest’s salary, and then tell a visiting bishop that this fellow priest was being undeservedly paid that salary?  And what kind of Alter Christus would make accusations against a bishop, and then repeatedly deny him the opportunity to address those accusations?  What kind of Alter Christus would deny a man his basic American (and God-given) right of being presumed innocent until proven guilty?  What kind of Alter Christus would attempt to turn a parish board meeting into a trial, and bring in “witnesses” to testify against a man who was barred (in writing) from being there to defend himself?  What kind of Alter Christus would then convene a general parish meeting and turn it into a kangaroo court, where dissenting parishioners were shouted down and told to leave (and, yes, there is a recording as proof of that)?    What kind? – not any Alter Christus that I’ve been taught to revere!

But some folks were ready and willing to overlook all these flaws, and to think the best about their pastor – and the worst about Bp. Petko.  The “Alter Christus” embargo on “attacking a man of the cloth” did not apply in his case, because Bp. Petko was not their Alter Christus.  SAG’s parishioners – once the “lynch mob” mentality set in – were ready to believe anything and everything bad about Bp. Petko, even though there was not one shred of real evidence against him.  One parishioner, when informed of the accusations that Droleskey laid against Bp. Petko, replied, “And what does that say about Bp. Petko?”  The answer to that question is, “Not a damn thing, Sonny!”  Apparently (for this young man), being accused of wrongdoing and being guilty of that wrongdoing are one and the same.  How’s that for logical thinking?!

The young man in question has since found out that his pastor was not a man of good will; in fact, Ramolla turned on him (and on many of his former supporters); and this young man now sees Ramolla for what he is: a liar and a scoundrel.  But has this (and the truth that has now emerged about the false accusations against Bp. Petko) changed the young man’s opinion of Petko?  Probably not – at least to the point where he’ll admit it.  But that’s what usually happens with people who are wrong – especially when they have acted on their emotions instead of their brains: pride takes over.  The same pride that kept Ramolla’s former supporters from admitting any wrongdoing on his part now keeps them from admitting of innocence on Bp. Petko’s part.  They keep today’s favorite “commandment”:  “Thou shalt not admit that thou art wrong.”

That wouldn’t be so bad, except for the potentially irreparable damage that’s been done to an innocent man’s reputation.  As an earlier article pointed out, there is now a pall of suspicion that remains over Bp. Petko’s head.  At best, fellow clerics see him as “damaged goods”; and, by extension, they see anyone connected with him as also being in some way “tarnished” – Fr. Hall, for instance, who was ordained by him.  To paraphrase what was said two paragraphs ago, apparently for some people, a man’s “connections” and his guilt are one and the same.  This notion also points up traddie-land’s preoccupation with appearances:  just the fact that someone has accused Bp. Petko of wrongdoing is enough “evidence” to ostracize him (and anyone connected with him) as a pariah.

What kind of “Catholic thinking” is this?!  What kind of Catholic justice is this?  What kind of Catholic charity is this?  Those who preach so eloquently against “rash judgment”: where is their judgment now?  Instead of wallowing in sanctimonious inertia, it is time for traditional clergy (and laity) to cast “appearances” and their “inertia” aside, and to actively seek out the truth – and make restitution where it is warranted.  This is not a time for half-hearted measures or for Pontius-Pilate, “it’s not-my-battle” hand-washing.  It's time for acting.  The sign on this door reads, “Wimps need not apply.” 

And, for those hypocrites who actually demand evidence (yet who label it as “calumny and detraction” when it is presented to them), and for those who contend that what has been said here is “not enough” evidence, one wonders what will ever be enough.  I am sure that one of their charges will be, “You’ve said this all before; you’ve added nothing to what’s already been said!”  Yes, that’s true; but, remember what was said earlier about political ads: repetition is necessary to get the message to sink in – especially in today’s “dumbed down” world.  And as for the “not enough evidence” crowd, how much does one need to produce – home videos and a signed confession in front of a dozen witnesses?  I might also counter, “Where is your evidence?”  If you have it, produce it.  Otherwise, leave your baseless accusations and your “guilt-trip” admonitions about “calumny and detraction” at the door.  They’re not needed here.

Lastly, to repeat (and reinforce), what is also not needed here are the half-hearted: those who are too timid to take a stand, or those who are too "inertial" to expend the energy to seek the truth – and act on it.  Remember that Our Lord drew a line in the sand, and that it was a line, not an intermediate “gray area” or some sort of “DMZ” for the undecided (and self-righteous hypocrites) to hide and take shelter.  Nor was it a fence for them to sit on or straddle.  It was a line.  One needs to choose on which side of that line he wants to be.

The Point is THIS, Folks: He Never Got a CHANCE!

Many people – especially in the “traditional” world – are (unfortunately) familiar with what has been said and circulated about one Bishop Paul Petko.  I say “unfortunate” because most of that which has been disseminated is misinformation.  But the greatest misfortune is this: Bp. Petko, the victim of all that was said against him, was never given a chance to defend himself against it.  That is the tragedy; that is the injustice.  He could be guilty or innocent: that is immaterial.  The point is – especially for those of us who believe that he is innocent -- that he was never given the chance to speak for himself.  For those who have been the recipients of this misinformation – and for those of you who are unfamiliar with any of it – a bit of explanation is in order.

Bp. Petko, who resides near Indianapolis, Indiana, became associated with one Fr. Markus Ramolla, pastor of “SAG” (St. Albert the Great Church in Fairfield, Ohio), in early 2011.  The circumstance was this: a bishop was needed to ordain (the then) Rev. Mr. Bernard Hall -- attached to SAG at the time -- to the priesthood; and Fr. Ramolla got Bp. Petko to perform the ordination.  Bp. Petko was recommended to Fr. Ramolla by Dr. Thomas Droleskey, who knew Bp. Petko (and who actually lived near him at the time).  So it was done.  And, as was explained in this website’s previous article, Oh What a Tangled Web it Was – and Is, the plan at the time was to have Bp. Petko stay on as “SAG’s bishop.”

Well, as that article also pointed out, this did not sit well with Fr. Ramolla, who had his own (not-so-secret) aspirations of becoming a bishop – so, as the article put it, “Petko had to go.”  And how was this to be accomplished, and what were the “dynamics” involved in doing so?  It was accomplished, simply, by “shutting him out”: Bp. Petko was never given a chance to speak up – to defend himself.  To those who might ask the question, “Why didn’t Bp. Petko speak up and refute these charges?” the answer is, he tried to – but was silenced.  Not only that, but Ramolla actually banned him from the SAG property (and backed it up with threats of legal action) – the same tactic that Dolan and Cekada used to ban their dissidents from SGG’s (St. Gertrude the Great’s) property.  Ramolla learned well from his former mentors!

From the very beginning, Bp. Petko offered to talk to Fr. Ramolla (which the latter adamantly refused to do).  Bp. Petko then requested the opportunity to (at least) talk to SAG’s board, without Ramolla’s presence.  At a special board meeting called by two board members who supported Bp. Petko’s right to be heard, the board agreed to do this; but (probably after being “advised” by Ramolla), two of the board members – the board’s treasurer and secretary -- reneged on this promise; and it was never carried out.

The reason that the treasurer and secretary gave for not honoring their pledge was that SAG’s lawyer advised against it.  When the other two board members pressed them for the lawyer’s name, it was not given.  Then, a few days later, these two board members received letters of dismissal (from the board) by certified mail.  The letters were written by the board’s secretary (presumably at the behest of Ramolla).  Subsequent legal action taken by one of the dismissed board members succeeded in getting them reinstated – however, nothing was ever done to let Bp. Petko “have his day in court.”  I guess this is Ramolla’s notion of “Catholic justice.”  If so, I pity its prospective recipients!!

In the interim, while all this was going on, Droleskey published his 50+ page diatribe, Retracting Support for Paul Petko (on November 23, 2011).  An article on this website – “Retracting Support for Paul Petko” Revisited -- refuted it point by point (making for an even longer article!).  For those who haven’t the stamina to wade through such a tome, here are some of the more salient points (though by all means not a complete list):

1.     In his article, Droleskey made several accusations against Bp. Petko, using “testimony” from one of the seminarians and from a former seminarian, that was in most cases taken almost verbatim from a “fact sheet” (none of which was factual) compiled by him, and none of which can be substantiated.

2.     One of the more “inflammatory” accusations (the one about squeezing the “fanny” of an ex-seminarian) was repeated several times for dramatic effect – much the same as when photos showing bruises, etc. of an assault or rape victim are shown to a jury for “effect.”  The photos are not proof at all that the defendant “did it,” but their “emotional” appeal easily sways juries – especially ones predisposed to believing the prosecution.  The ex-seminarian whose “fanny” was allegedly squeezed, by the way, had contact with Bp. Petko several times after the alleged incident (he even planned to spend Thanksgiving with Bp. Petko in Indiana, cancelling his plans only because he couldn’t get the time off from his grocery-store job that day).  One would think that he’d avoid Bp. Petko after such an encounter – but he didn’t.  And, more importantly, the accusation surfaced only after Droleskey arrived on the scene.

3.     Droleskey cited all sorts of “experts” on pedophilia, homosexuality, and “inappropriate behavior” in his article, then tried to insinuate that they applied to Bp. Petko.  They did not.  They were simply “space fillers” to swell the volume of his article, repeated over and over again to “wear down” the reader with sheer volume of information (as if “quantity equals quality”).

4.     Droleskey alleged that the one seminarian’s writing of a love letter to Bp. Petko was due to his being “groomed” by Bp. Petko to do so.  Bp. Petko knew this seminarian for less than six months; and in those six months, he only had contact with him a total of fourteen hours or so (in seminary class instruction).  In anyone’s estimation, that is not near enough time to be “groomed.”  And this same seminarian, as an earlier article pointed out, wrote a love poem (to that same ex-seminarian who accused Bp. Petko of “squeezing his fanny”) several months before he even met (or knew of) Bp. Petko.  Unless Bp. Petko is capable of mental telepathy, there is no way that “grooming” was possible here!

5.     Droleskey at times insinuated (and at times actually alleged) that “improprieties” were committed between Bp. Petko and certain members of a family in whose house he boards.  All of those members vehemently denied his allegations and insinuations (one of which was leveled against them by the aforementioned ex-seminarian -- and, again, only after Droleskey came on the scene).  They challenged him several times to refute his allegations, but he has refused to respond to them.

6.     Droleskey stated that the Archdiocese of Indianapolis claimed that Bp. Petko was guilty of “sexual misconduct,” etc.  The archdiocese was contacted, and an official spokesman for them emphatically declared that there was absolutely NO evidence of any inappropriate behavior on Bp. Petko’s part.  Droleskey’s allegations were simply fabrications.

7.     Droleskey tried to use Bp. Petko’s one-time association with a “Ryan Scott” (who turned out to be a “con-man” and who is now facing trial for fraud) to suggest some sort of “connection” between the two.  Actually, when Bp. Petko found out who and what Ryan Scott was, he quickly and emphatically disassociated himself from him.  As was pointed out once before, Droleskey’s blaming Bp. Petko for having once associated with Ryan Scott is like blaming Churchill and FDR for having once associated with Stalin.  How’s that for logic?!

8.      Droleskey even tried to accuse Fr. Hall of several things, including “violating his [Droleskey’s] confidence” by giving Bp. Petko “confidential” information (when in fact he didn’t).  And, when he couldn’t accuse him of anything, he tried to put a “negative spin” on Fr. Hall’s words and actions whenever he could.  One wonders why Droleskey didn’t also do to Fr. Hall what he did to Bp. Petko, i.e., accuse him of “inappropriate behavior” with the seminarians.  The answer to that is that he knew that he couldn’t get away with it; even the most gullible of SAG’s parishioners wouldn’t fall for that.  But Bp. Petko, being an unknown quantity to them, was an easier target – so Droleskey picked only on him.  However, this did not keep him and Ramolla from slandering Fr. Hall in other ways (as, for instance, the lie – pointed out in an earlier article -- about Fr. Hall getting paid $350 for “saying one Mass a week”).

The foregoing, though an incomplete accounting, ought to suffice to convince the average person – and even for the incredulous, it ought to at least pique their curiosity.  Let’s hope so. 

But, putting this digression aside, it’s time to get back to the chronology of events: while this and everything else was going on, Bp. Petko had no choice but to bear the slander.  If he spoke out, he would be accused of “blowing his own horn.”  And, with the “lynch mob” mentality that had set in at SAG – fanned by Ramolla’s carefully-leaked lies about him and those who supported him – there was little he could do to gain their credibility.  Yet at the same time, his silence was taken for guilt, just as Our Lord’s was at His trial before His crucifixion.  And, of course, when this writer and others finally were able to break our silence and speak up, all of Ramolla’s stooges came out of the woodwork to condemn us for “attacking an Alter Christus.” (The whole “Alter Christus” argument, by the way, is phony: no one – especially a priest – is above the law; and the whole notion that priests are “immune” and “above the law” not only defies common sense but is actually against official Church teaching.  Quite purely and simply, it is against God’s law.

The “lynch mob mentality” reached its zenith (actually, nadir is a better word) at a December 14 (2011) SAG “parish meeting,” requested by Ramolla, but led by his newly appointed (and illegal) board. At the meeting – which was actually a kangaroo court, where Bp. Petko and his supporters were tried, convicted, and condemned – several parishioners innocently and honestly tried to question the accusations against Bp. Petko; as one of them pointed out, it was the right of every American to be given a chance to be heard.  The result was that these people were shouted down and told that they could leave – which they did.  The conduct of the principals at that meeting was beyond shameless; one of them kept repeating the “fanny squeezing” rant as if it were “evidence,” while his cohorts were busy screaming at anyone who dissented with their position.  A recording of the meeting (which is available upon request) will show just how “insane” things really got.

Of course, the folks who condemned those of us who spoke out against Ramolla never once condemned Droleskey for his unsubstantiated attacks on Bp. Petko (who is not only an Alter Christus but a “prince of the Church” as well), or for his attacks on another Alter Christus -- Fr. Hall – no matter how heinous or vindictive Droleskey got.  But that is what hypocrites do: their “respect” is always selective; and, when the spotlight of truth is beamed on their favorite scoundrel, they angrily lash out and play the “calumny and detraction” card (because they have no other cards to play) -- yet they themselves blindly ignore lies perpetrated against innocent men (or, forgetting even their own phony “notion of respect,” they actually lash out against those innocent men).

Of late, this “lashing out” has become particularly vehement – especially on Cathinfo.com, a once respectable website that has now become a cyber circus, where one of its “threads” has been turned into a cyber freak show – with all the freaks (make that serpents) coming out of the woodwork to spew their venom.  And “reading between the lines,” it is evident that some of the posts “being spewed out” are by Ramolla and/or his pocket seminarians (one of the posts, an e-mail with French titles, gives at least one of the seminarians away).  But regardless who the “authors” are, it is what it says about them that is important: these bickering old washwomen are making complete fools out of themselves and embarrassing themselves -- and only reinforcing the fact that they are people who have no truth – no real evidence -- to put forth, but only cheap, baseless name-calling to offer. 

They are also proving that they have absolutely no charity in their hearts.  What person of charity (or of sound mind, for that matter) would wish death (from MS) on Janet Gaye?  And what person would be so vindictive as to wish that Fr. Hall would die of a heart attack?  A homosexual – that’s who: and the over-the-top vituperation of the aforesaid remarks about Janet and Fr. Hall bears the homosexual’s telltale trademark.  I will let the reader speculate on who is/are the origin(s) of those remarks.  Another post that exposed the idiocy of its author was the one accusing Fr. Hall of “hacking” into a website to discover that Ramolla had bought himself a miter.  All that proved was what we wanted to prove: that Ramolla actually did buy a miter!  It would be well for “Matthew,” who runs this website, to shut down this thread, so that these lunatics do not continue to embarrass themselves on it.

Most of those same people who at first supported Ramolla no longer do so, for they have now found out who and what he really is (and lately, in fact, have been on the receiving end of his duplicity); and Ramolla has since resigned as pastor of SAG.  And Droleskey, now that he has helped Ramolla destroy SAG as a parish, has moved on, never to be seen there again.  So, they have both been “found out”; but that’s not the end of things, because -- what about Bp. Petko?  What about the slander leveled against him?  What has been done to right that wrong?  Are people now coming to realize that he is innocent, or do they still harbor beliefs or suspicions about his guilt?  Probably the latter: that is the tragedy of this whole wretched business -- there is still a pall of suspicion hanging over Bp. Petko’s head.

Will this man ever be exonerated?  Will all the feathers blown away from that opened pillow ever be replaced?  Will those who heretofore vilified him take the time and energy to now seek the actual truth: that Droleskey’s accusations against him were totally false?  Will they work with the same zeal to repair the damage done to him that they inflicted on him?  Certainly, those bootlickers who hang on every word uttered by the Winnebago Windbag® will never seek the truth.  But what about everyone else?  Will they do their Christian duty – a duty, let me remind you, that is shared equally by lay and clergy alike?

Yes, the clergy – especially – have that duty.  They cannot idly sit by and let this pall of suspicion hang indefinitely over this man’s head.  They cannot play “Pontius Pilate” and wash their hands of him; they must actively and publicly do something.  But will they?  When Cekada made his monstrous claims about Schiavo, only a handful (such as Fr. Jenkins) spoke up against him.  Will anyone do right by Bp. Petko and speak out against his detractors, or will stone silence prevail again?  We shall see.

You know, I’ve always been perplexed by the fact that people habitually believe gossip and hearsay but reject truth – but one shouldn’t be.  As someone recently reminded me, this attitude is as old (and as typical) as humanity itself: was it not in the Garden of Eden that Adam and Eve rejected God’s truth and accepted the serpent’s lies?  That’s our nature – our fallen nature – so we must expect it.  And, indeed, the Garden’s scenario repeats itself every day.  Rumor and Gossip always seem to be legion, while truth is an orphan.  But, at the same time, that “cry in the desert” must be heard; we cannot give up.  Our Lord, although He was crucified for it, did not give up – nor should we.

But will anyone listen?  Probably not.  For the most part, no one will do anything – especially those who were originally wrong about Petko.  Inertia and pride will prevent them -- it’s hard to get people to do anything, especially when their pride is in the way.  They invariably invoke the twelfth commandment: “Thou shalt not admit that thou art wrong” (the eleventh, of course, being “Thou shalt not get caught”).  A few souls may have the humility to admit their error; but the majority will take the “silent treatment” route.  Some will even have the hubris, like the Pharisee in Christ’s parable, to take the moral high ground, and look down their self-righteous noses at us “publicans.”  And, of course, the “cyber talk-show” loonies on Cathinfo’s “Anonymous” thread will again come out of the woodwork to resume their name-calling, truth-twisting, and outrageous fabrications, because they’re not interested in the truth, but only in finding out “who the messenger is” – so they can shoot him.

  Another of its threads – a “pro-SGG” (Dolan and Cekada), “I told you so” kind of thread, chides everyone at SAG for having been against SGG.  It paints Ramolla as the “bad guy,” and Dolan and Cekada as the “good guys.”  I have news for these folks: they’re all “bad guys”: to make the SGG clergy look good at the expense of Ramolla is like making Stalin look good at the expense of Hitler.  The fact that Ramolla is a scoundrel does nothing to whitewash the dastardly duo at SGG: they’re still the same old arch-scoundrels they always were.  All it shows is that Ramolla learned well from his former mentors.  Besides being, like them, a liar and a thief, he is also – as one SSPV priest put it – a “sexual predator” (a not-so-well kept secret, known by traditional priests and laity alike).  And, if his tastes take a turn his seminarians’ direction, he may one day meet up with Dolan and Cekada at the Bishop’s Lodge -- at its ShåNah Spa.

The hope that Bp. Petko’s former detractors will turn over a new leaf is probably a vain one.  The crucifixion of Bp. Petko (and all those who support him) will probably continue; and the same old hard-core morons who follow Droleskey’s rag sheet will lap up his sanctimonious swill (as if the mini-litany that he puts at the end of each of his long-winded diatribes cleanses it of any of its “impurities”).  However, this article is written not so much for that crowd, but for others: those good-hearted (but vulnerable) folks not yet acquainted (or exposed to) Ramolla, Droleskey, Dolan, and Cekada, but who all too often get exploited and swindled by men like them.  This is written to warn those folks. Let us hope that they heed that warning.

I hope that Ramolla and Droleskey stop to reflect on just what they have done: utterly destroying an innocent man’s reputation -- and for what?  A little red hat: all for a little red hat.  A miter.  That’s what.  What kind of sick mind would do such a thing?  They would – and they did.  Greed, lust for power – whatever these warped minds were seeking to gain at the time – they did it.  It is actually hard to grasp the enormity of their evil -- and how little they got in return for it.  What did it get them?  Nothing.  Ramolla lost his parish, and he’ll probably never get his miter (and if he does, it will be useless – at least on this side of the Atlantic; he has burned every imaginable bridge with every conceivable traditional clergy).  And Droleskey?  Largely because of his vindictive tirade against Bp. Petko, much of his clientele has vanished.  His readership has shrunk to three hundred or less.  Of course, both he and Ramolla blame everybody else for their woes, except the ones that they should blame: the people they see in the mirror every day.

What these men have done – purely and simply -- is evil – and it cries out for justice. Where is their compassion? Where is their conscience?  Let us hope that, in time, they will come to realize what they have done, and that what they had hoped to gain by it is temporal -- while its consequences are eternal.