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.
No comments:
Post a Comment